Why Linux Sucks? and Windows is better!!!

[fenT1]

OK, we've all heard it: Linux is too hard, Linux sucks, Windows is easier than Linux, yadda, yadda.
People who have such feelings need to ask themselves a simple question:
Why am I using Linux?
Because at this point at least, maybe they shouldn't be.
Really, I think most of these folks should be asking themselves "Why am I using Windows", but we'll pretend that they actually really tried Linux. I can't understand how anyone can USE Windows for any period of time and not hate it, but these people claim to. And they claim to have tried Linux.
And of course they ran into problems. Problems which they couldn't solve by searching Google. And, to be fair, that's not completely unreasonable: it's very rare that something you find will DIRECTLY apply to your problem. You need to apply the knowledge you find to the current situation. However, that can be very frustrating when you first start out because there's so much you need to know that none of it makes sense. It can make you feel very dumb. We've all been there.
But we get people saying silly things, where it is obvious that they haven't even read applicable HOWTO's, because if they had, they wouldn't have the problem they say they have.
However, not everyone has the "dig in and fix it" mentality. They want to use their computer, not hack with it. And that's perfectly legitimate.
Years ago I used to do my own auto stuff- tuneups, oil changes, even more. Backyard mechanic concept. With the new computerized everything, and the tight engine compartments, and the specialized tools you need nowadays, I don't. My car is just something that gets me from point A to point B and I know not and care not how to fix it if it doesn't. Fortunately, cars today are pretty darn reliable, and you don't need to know much- you chances of needing to adjust your points (not that they have 'em anymore, of course) while out on a trip are nil.
Windows is a lot like that. Prepackaged, protective, mostly works- it crashes pretty regularly, but everybody thinks that's normal so nobody cares.
And honestly - it doesn't crash as much as it used to. The old blue screen of death is pretty infrequent now, so that's no reason to run Linux. Windows is a pretty good OS now, if you don't mind doing things their way.
Maybe that's what you want? All you do is browse the web and read email. Maybe Windows is fine for your needs. That's OK.
But it's very difficult when you want to do something unusual, like find all the files that end with ".txt" or ".dat" AND contain "foo" somewhere in the third line, and then ftp whatever you find to xyz.com and delete them. Amazing as it might sound to a Windows user, that's pretty easy do do in Linux/Unix and is what I mean by USING the computer. I don't mean just browsing the web and doing email.
In Windows, it's childishly easy to do simple things. However, it's horribly complex or completely impossible to do any more than that. There are so many things I can do in an instant at the command line that you either cannot do at all in Windows or can do only with great difficulty. I don't understand how anyone who really uses a computer can ever stand to run Windows- it's so pathetically weak.
The difference is learning to drive a car vs. taking public transportation. The subways and buses take you where they go, but only to those places, and only under certain conditions: you can't tow a trailer with public transportation, you have to travel on their time schedule, etc. Your involvement is minimal; you need barely be smart enough to read the most simple signs, and you need remember almost nothing. Learning to drive, however, takes effort, requires more involvement and intelligence, and will probably require much more memorization: "How do I get to Pittsfield from Boston?" etc.
If the subway takes you everywhere you need to go, use the subway. It's cheaper and far easier.
Linux doesn't suck. Linux is not an appliance OS. If you want a brainless, "I'm just going to use it, I don't want to know anything about it" OS, you should be running Windows.
That's not a put-down of Windows or anyone who uses it. It's like taking the train to work vs. driving a Harley. The train gets you to work, rain or shine, same time (or at least in theory- and Windows is very much like a badly run transit system!). The Harley will get you there too, but you didn't buy it because you wanted to get to work. You *do* buy a train ticket just because you want to get somewhere.
Another way to look at it is /Opinion/gdunix.html
Windows users sometimes get really upset about things like having to "mount" a disk. Why get upset? If you do decide you want to stick with it, learning WHY Linux mounts a CD or floppy might help you appreciate it more: /Unixart/newtounix.html explains some of these things.
Linux doesn't suck. It's a Heath kit. It doesn't suck, it's just more work than some want to do. Nothing wrong with that. However, if you *did* want to make the effort, you can do a LOT more with a Linux (or any Unix) machine than you'll ever do with Windows and have more fun doing it- if adjusting your points and setting your timing is your idea of fun.
It's like going out and killing something for dinner. The thrill of the hunt, the skill of tracking, subduing the beast, and enjoying the meal :-)
Some people get rabid about Linux's GUI. Gosh, that's so silly: find a GUI you like and use THAT instead. Try THAT with Windows! But, again, until that newbie knows a bit about this and that, replacing the GUI is like replacing spark plugs: easy if you know how and have the tools, frustratingly difficult if you do not.
Panners and virtual screens are a particular irritant for Windows users - they are apt to find those very confusing. I used to dislike GUI's period. Even today, I still spend a lot of time in character mode. But GUI's are now fast enough to be useful, and while command line is and always will be where the power (and the fun!) is, there are things better done with GUI's. Once you realize and accept that, then virtual GUI screens and panners just make it even better. That stuff *is* confusing at first, but if you give it a chance..
And then there are the language complaints for those who do want to dig into the source. A lot of source is C and a lot of people hate it. Well, I used to write assembler. That was a long, long time ago though and today, I mostly use Perl because for me, it has the right balance of giving me the power I need while still making it easy for me to get done with what I need quickly. Your needs will, of course, be different. But neither C nor C++ nor Perl nor assembler are awful, crappy, ****** or whatever- if the tool meets your needs you use it, if not you use something else. But if you want to work with most source, you need to grok C. Get over it - at least you HAVE source.
And then we complain about the millions of switches for Linux commands. Well, they just don't get it. This is a control issue: people who like to control their machines like Unix/Linux, people who just want to use the damn things don't- and there's nothing wrong with that. My stereo has almost a dozen knobs and gizmos that I have absolutely no interest in- I want to just push the "on" button and have it work. Fortunately it does, but Linux doesn't quite, at least not yet- it still requires a fair bit of tuning and fiddling.
If you hate switches,you really ought to seriously think about WHY you think you want Linux. Is it because all the cool dudes run it and you want to be a cool dude? OK, but cool dudes (at least cool Linux dudes) fiddle with switches and knobs. Or maybe you are just fed up with Microsoft's crap? Good reason, but there is a cost involved in getting away from it, and that cost is the switches and knobs and learning how to control the damn thing. At least if you want to USE it.
Then there are the complaints about docs. Always, it's "they don't tell you enough". OK, they don't. Now and then somebody will bring up the "good old days" (the late 60's, usually), when "documentation was COMPLETE!". Well, I'm old enough to have had experience with those docs. Somewhere I have a 401 (402?) accounting machine manual- the things you programmed by plugging jumper wires from hole to hole? Those were simple, simple machines- of course the docs were good. Even my VCR is 100 times more complex than that tabulator- there's just no comparison and naturally it's more difficult to write the docs. More importantly, the docs HAVE to assume prior knowledge, or that you'll go elsewhere to figure out what you don't immediately grok. If they didn't do that, your VCR manual would be a 400 page book and any given Linux HOWTO would be similar, and some of them would have to be encyclopedias!
And then they complaIn about unstated assumptions and flat-assed errors in man pages and HOW-TO's, I can't disagree. But it ain't easy, bub. I write a lot of that kind of stuff, and it's hard, hard work. You have to find a balance between being too sparse and writing that encyclopedia, and what seems perfect for me is not going to be perfect for you because our backgrounds differ. I do agree that a lot of Linux docs are written by people with horribly poor communication skills, but that's still better than what you usually get in the Microsoft world- a beautifully written piece of uninformative fluff that tells you just about nothing. That's the trade off we usually have to make: tech people usually can't write, and people who can write are usually technical *****. But it isn't ALL crap- there are useful HOWTO's, even well-written ones, and you certainly can't complain that there are no Linux books you can turn to- there is shelf after shelf of everything from beginner level to true hacker books.
Maybe Linux is not for you? That's OK, isn't it? Nobody says you have to invest the time and effort necessary. It has gotten easier, and no doubt that trend will continue- maybe you should give it a rest for a year or two and then try it again. I first looked at Linux way back when , but it was more work than *I* wanted to give it then, so it was only a few years ago that I started into it seriously. And it is still an effort, more effort than Windows, but -for me- it's reached the point where it's fun. If it's not fun for you, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Source (http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/873.html)

[billgoldberg]

A white line every few lines would improve the readability a lot.

I'm not even going to begin reading that now.

[LaRoza]

A white line every few lines would improve the readability a lot.

I'm not even going to begin reading that now.

I read the first line, didn't get far.

@OP This is the internet. Short well formatted paragraphs are the best way to get people to read.

[fenT1]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... i guess. Then again you may be right :^)

[god0fgod]

My eyes are too lazy for that. Sorry. The general view is to make it easier to read.

[cardinals_fan]

Was there any real point to writing that, or did it just pop out?

[x-g]

These windows vs linux arguments are really quite useless. Just use what you want.

[init1]

OK, we've all heard it: Linux is too hard, Linux sucks, Windows is easier than Linux, yadda, yadda.
People who have such feelings need to ask themselves a simple question:
Why am I using Linux?
Because at this point at least, maybe they shouldn't be.
Really, I think most of these folks should be asking themselves "Why am I using Windows", but we'll pretend that they actually really tried Linux. I can't understand how anyone can USE Windows for any period of time and not hate it, but these people claim to. And they claim to have tried Linux.
And of course they ran into problems. Problems which they couldn't solve by searching Google. And, to be fair, that's not completely unreasonable: it's very rare that something you find will DIRECTLY apply to your problem. You need to apply the knowledge you find to the current situation. However, that can be very frustrating when you first start out because there's so much you need to know that none of it makes sense. It can make you feel very dumb. We've all been there.
But we get people saying silly things, where it is obvious that they haven't even read applicable HOWTO's, because if they had, they wouldn't have the problem they say they have.
However, not everyone has the "dig in and fix it" mentality. They want to use their computer, not hack with it. And that's perfectly legitimate.
Years ago I used to do my own auto stuff- tuneups, oil changes, even more. Backyard mechanic concept. With the new computerized everything, and the tight engine compartments, and the specialized tools you need nowadays, I don't. My car is just something that gets me from point A to point B and I know not and care not how to fix it if it doesn't. Fortunately, cars today are pretty darn reliable, and you don't need to know much- you chances of needing to adjust your points (not that they have 'em anymore, of course) while out on a trip are nil.
Windows is a lot like that. Prepackaged, protective, mostly works- it crashes pretty regularly, but everybody thinks that's normal so nobody cares.
And honestly - it doesn't crash as much as it used to. The old blue screen of death is pretty infrequent now, so that's no reason to run Linux. Windows is a pretty good OS now, if you don't mind doing things their way.
Maybe that's what you want? All you do is browse the web and read email. Maybe Windows is fine for your needs. That's OK.


But it's very difficult when you want to do something unusual, like find all the files that end with ".txt" or ".dat" AND contain "foo" somewhere in the third line, and then ftp whatever you find to xyz.com and delete them.

Agreed, wild cards are extremely useful

Amazing as it might sound to a Windows user, that's pretty easy do do in Linux/Unix and is what I mean by USING the computer. I don't mean just browsing the web and doing email.
In Windows, it's childishly easy to do simple things. However, it's horribly complex or completely impossible to do any more than that. There are so many things I can do in an instant at the command line that you either cannot do at all in Windows or can do only with great difficulty. I don't understand how anyone who really uses a computer can ever stand to run Windows- it's so pathetically weak.

I absolutely agree with this. For example, I tried to make a partition on my USB drive active in Windows. It's not possible without external software. Most people will never need to do this, but it's very annoying for those who do.

The difference is learning to drive a car vs. taking public transportation. The subways and buses take you where they go, but only to those places, and only under certain conditions: you can't tow a trailer with public transportation, you have to travel on their time schedule, etc. Your involvement is minimal; you need barely be smart enough to read the most simple signs, and you need remember almost nothing. Learning to drive, however, takes effort, requires more involvement and intelligence, and will probably require much more memorization: "How do I get to Pittsfield from Boston?" etc.
If the subway takes you everywhere you need to go, use the subway. It's cheaper and far easier.
Linux doesn't suck. Linux is not an appliance OS. If you want a brainless, "I'm just going to use it, I don't want to know anything about it" OS, you should be running Windows.
That's not a put-down of Windows or anyone who uses it. It's like taking the train to work vs. driving a Harley. The train gets you to work, rain or shine, same time (or at least in theory- and Windows is very much like a badly run transit system!). The Harley will get you there too, but you didn't buy it because you wanted to get to work. You *do* buy a train ticket just because you want to get somewhere.
Another way to look at it is /Opinion/gdunix.html
Windows users sometimes get really upset about things like having to "mount" a disk. Why get upset? If you do decide you want to stick with it, learning WHY Linux mounts a CD or floppy might help you appreciate it more: /Unixart/newtounix.html explains some of these things.
Linux doesn't suck. It's a Heath kit. It doesn't suck, it's just more work than some want to do. Nothing wrong with that. However, if you *did* want to make the effort, you can do a LOT more with a Linux (or any Unix) machine than you'll ever do with Windows and have more fun doing it- if adjusting your points and setting your timing is your idea of fun.
It's like going out and killing something for dinner. The thrill of the hunt, the skill of tracking, subduing the beast, and enjoying the meal :-)
Some people get rabid about Linux's GUI. Gosh, that's so silly: find a GUI you like and use THAT instead. Try THAT with Windows! But, again, until that newbie knows a bit about this and that, replacing the GUI is like replacing spark plugs: easy if you know how and have the tools, frustratingly difficult if you do not.
Panners and virtual screens are a particular irritant for Windows users - they are apt to find those very confusing. I used to dislike GUI's period. Even today, I still spend a lot of time in character mode. But GUI's are now fast enough to be useful, and while command line is and always will be where the power (and the fun!) is, there are things better done with GUI's. Once you realize and accept that, then virtual GUI screens and panners just make it even better. That stuff *is* confusing at first, but if you give it a chance..
And then there are the language complaints for those who do want to dig into the source. A lot of source is C and a lot of people hate it. Well, I used to write assembler. That was a long, long time ago though and today, I mostly use Perl because for me, it has the right balance of giving me the power I need while still making it easy for me to get done with what I need quickly. Your needs will, of course, be different. But neither C nor C++ nor Perl nor assembler are awful, crappy, ****** or whatever- if the tool meets your needs you use it, if not you use something else. But if you want to work with most source, you need to grok C. Get over it - at least you HAVE source.
And then we complain about the millions of switches for Linux commands. Well, they just don't get it. This is a control issue: people who like to control their machines like Unix/Linux, people who just want to use the damn things don't- and there's nothing wrong with that. My stereo has almost a dozen knobs and gizmos that I have absolutely no interest in- I want to just push the "on" button and have it work. Fortunately it does, but Linux doesn't quite, at least not yet- it still requires a fair bit of tuning and fiddling.
If you hate switches,you really ought to seriously think about WHY you think you want Linux. Is it because all the cool dudes run it and you want to be a cool dude? OK, but cool dudes (at least cool Linux dudes) fiddle with switches and knobs. Or maybe you are just fed up with Microsoft's crap? Good reason, but there is a cost involved in getting away from it, and that cost is the switches and knobs and learning how to control the damn thing. At least if you want to USE it.
Then there are the complaints about docs. Always, it's "they don't tell you enough". OK, they don't. Now and then somebody will bring up the "good old days" (the late 60's, usually), when "documentation was COMPLETE!". Well, I'm old enough to have had experience with those docs. Somewhere I have a 401 (402?) accounting machine manual- the things you programmed by plugging jumper wires from hole to hole? Those were simple, simple machines- of course the docs were good. Even my VCR is 100 times more complex than that tabulator- there's just no comparison and naturally it's more difficult to write the docs. More importantly, the docs HAVE to assume prior knowledge, or that you'll go elsewhere to figure out what you don't immediately grok. If they didn't do that, your VCR manual would be a 400 page book and any given Linux HOWTO would be similar, and some of them would have to be encyclopedias!
And then they complaIn about unstated assumptions and flat-assed errors in man pages and HOW-TO's, I can't disagree. But it ain't easy, bub. I write a lot of that kind of stuff, and it's hard, hard work. You have to find a balance between being too sparse and writing that encyclopedia, and what seems perfect for me is not going to be perfect for you because our backgrounds differ. I do agree that a lot of Linux docs are written by people with horribly poor communication skills, but that's still better than what you usually get in the Microsoft world- a beautifully written piece of uninformative fluff that tells you just about nothing. That's the trade off we usually have to make: tech people usually can't write, and people who can write are usually technical *****. But it isn't ALL crap- there are useful HOWTO's, even well-written ones, and you certainly can't complain that there are no Linux books you can turn to- there is shelf after shelf of everything from beginner level to true hacker books.
Maybe Linux is not for you? That's OK, isn't it? Nobody says you have to invest the time and effort necessary. It has gotten easier, and no doubt that trend will continue- maybe you should give it a rest for a year or two and then try it again. I first looked at Linux way back when , but it was more work than *I* wanted to give it then, so it was only a few years ago that I started into it seriously. And it is still an effort, more effort than Windows, but -for me- it's reached the point where it's fun. If it's not fun for you, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Source (http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/873.html)
It does seem to lack some necessary carriage returns, but I agree with most of it.

[Stefanie]

I read your whole post and it's very interesting, but still I want to second billgoldberg. The lay-out makes it very hard to read, I'm used to reading long articles but I doubt a lot of people here will read everything.

I understand how you feel about die-hard Windows users. It's difficult to understand how someone can feel comfortable using Windows. Yet my boyfriend, who is quite computer-minded, is very happy with his Windows XP. He uses a lot of apps to tweak settings and to add functionalities, and his computer seems to do everything he wants. I'm trying to convince him to use Linux, but it isn't easy. He can't see why he should bother partitioning his hard drive and learning an entirely new OS. And if he'd use Linux, I'm afraid he would get upset about those "obvious" things which need tweaking (or don't work as well as under windows), like wireless drivers, screen resolution, adobe flash, pulseaudio/alse, hibernation, ...

[Zyphrexi]

my eyes hurt

[zmjjmz]

Is there a tl;dr version of this?

[karellen]

I don't understand how anyone who really uses a computer can ever stand to run Windows- it's so pathetically weak.

you lost me here. you can do pretty complex stuff - like programming, graphic design, 3d modeling, audio & video - in Windows too, you know....
having control of the OS is one thing and doing something with that OS is another ;)

[LaRoza]

you lost me here. you can do pretty complex stuff - like programming, graphic design, 3d modeling, audio & video - with Windows too, you know....

But that isn't Windows. Windows by itself comes with a pretty pathetic terminal.

[regomodo]

#

[karellen]

But that isn't Windows. Windows by itself comes with a pretty pathetic terminal.

I don't understand how anyone who really uses a computer can ever stand to run Windows- it's so pathetically weak.

well I understand but nobody just uses an OS without actually doing something else with it, be it browsing, listening to music, playing or programming. we use an OS in order to achieve a goal, not for the sake of running commands in the terminal. thus how much freedom of looking into its intricacies the OS gives you it's rather a marginal problem (at least that's what I think)

[clanky]

It's not too late to edit your post and add a few paragraphs!

Having struggled through the entire thing I agree with most of what you say about the good points of Linux, but very little of the "windows is rubbish" stuff.

Basically what you seem to be saying is that Linux is only for people who want to do more than just use their computer to run applications, browse the interweb and e-mail people. Apart from being completely at odds with the title of the thread and almost half of your post this is in some ways quite a valid argument although not one which seems to have many proponents on these forums.

About 95% of computer users just want something which they can switch on, look at po.... I mean browse the internet, send e-mails, write letters, print them and possibly play games or use other applications and while most of these things (except games and some of the applications) can be done just as well in Linux there is no advantage for the average computer user which makes the learning process required worthwhile.

For me the learning process itself is what makes me use Linux, I use Linux computers at work,I got into Linux to learn more about them and found that I actually enjoy the whole learning curve.

[fenT1]

well I understand but nobody just uses an OS without actually doing something else with it, be it browsing, listening to music, playing or programming. we use an OS in order to achieve a goal, not for the sake of running commands in the terminal. thus how much freedom of looking into its intricacies the OS gives you it's rather a marginal problem (at least that's what I think)

Isn't that why you use Linux?

Pardon me if i misunderstood your comment...

[LaRoza]

well I understand but nobody just uses an OS without actually doing something else with it, be it browsing, listening to music, playing or programming. we use an OS in order to achieve a goal, not for the sake of running commands in the terminal. thus how much freedom of looking into its intricacies the OS gives you it's rather a marginal problem (at least that's what I think)

Take a Windows install disk, and an Ubuntu install disk.

Which one is more useful by itself?

[clanky]

Take a Windows install disk, and an Ubuntu install disk.

Which one is more useful by itself?

By itself isn't the issue though, as an engineer I need a decent CAD package, there isn't one in Linux, there is in Windows. I know that this is not through any fault of Linux, but it still means that for me windows is the only solution, I could do everything I need to do in Windows, I can't say the same about Linux.

[karellen]

Isn't that why you use Linux?

Pardon me if i misunderstood your comment...

I dual boot because I like to keep my options open

[karellen]

Take a Windows install disk, and an Ubuntu install disk.

Which one is more useful by itself?

this is not the point. the OP brought the usefulness/power of the OS itself in discussion, not the default install apps and features. you can hardly argue that Windows has a nice software ecosystem

[pcybill]

My eyes my eyes!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgk_qTc_7AI)

[mike1234]

I prefer Linux. I agree with others who say MS vs. Linux is waste of time to argue about. I think it depends on what your personal preferences are. Some people aren't interested in learning the technical aspects of computing. And if you dumb down an OS too much, and make it too "user friendly", they complain about that too. I know a few people that have trouble with the simplest tasks even in Windows. So there is no way I'm going to try and convince them to use Linux. I think some of us just outgrow Windows. There is only so much you need to learn in order to use it.

M.

[oldsoundguy]

my eyes hurt

+1

Most trolls that complain about any form of linux are either very lazy, very stupid, or in the employ of MS and paid to stir up trouble and make people reply in a stupid manner.

Even tho the tirades were positive .. the size of same alone is enough to turn off any instant gratification Windows user searching for information and an excuse to drop that POS system (except for games .. what it deserves to be relegated to.)

[gjoellee]

A white line every few lines would improve the readability a lot.

I'm not even going to begin reading that now.

yes indeed

[clanky]

+1

Most trolls that complain about any form of linux are either very lazy, very stupid, or in the employ of MS and paid to stir up trouble and make people reply in a stupid manner.


So if people have a problem with Linux they should just pretend that it is fantastic? This sort of attitude does nothing for the credibility of the Ubuntu community and ultimately will do nothing for the development of Ubuntu. If this sort of nonsense is allowed to persist then all that will be heard are stupid fanboys screaming about how great and perfect Ubuntu is and people with issues will be so afraid to speak up that they will have to go around pretending that Ubuntu is perfect for them too.

When this happens the developers will have no idea what needs to be improved and development will slow down.

I can understand people getting annoyed at "Linux bashing" but.... "trolls that complain about any form of Linux"?

[gjoellee]

OK, we've all heard it: Linux is too hard, Linux sucks, Windows is easier than Linux, yadda, yadda.
People who have such feelings need to ask themselves a simple question:
Why am I using Linux?
Because at this point at least, maybe they shouldn't be.
Really, I think most of these folks should be asking themselves "Why am I using Windows", but we'll pretend that they actually really tried Linux. I can't understand how anyone can USE Windows for any period of time and not hate it, but these people claim to. And they claim to have tried Linux.
And of course they ran into problems. Problems which they couldn't solve by searching Google. And, to be fair, that's not completely unreasonable: it's very rare that something you find will DIRECTLY apply to your problem. You need to apply the knowledge you find to the current situation. However, that can be very frustrating when you first start out because there's so much you need to know that none of it makes sense. It can make you feel very dumb. We've all been there.
But we get people saying silly things, where it is obvious that they haven't even read applicable HOWTO's, because if they had, they wouldn't have the problem they say they have.
However, not everyone has the "dig in and fix it" mentality. They want to use their computer, not hack with it. And that's perfectly legitimate.
Years ago I used to do my own auto stuff- tuneups, oil changes, even more. Backyard mechanic concept. With the new computerized everything, and the tight engine compartments, and the specialized tools you need nowadays, I don't. My car is just something that gets me from point A to point B and I know not and care not how to fix it if it doesn't. Fortunately, cars today are pretty darn reliable, and you don't need to know much- you chances of needing to adjust your points (not that they have 'em anymore, of course) while out on a trip are nil.
Windows is a lot like that. Prepackaged, protective, mostly works- it crashes pretty regularly, but everybody thinks that's normal so nobody cares.
And honestly - it doesn't crash as much as it used to. The old blue screen of death is pretty infrequent now, so that's no reason to run Linux. Windows is a pretty good OS now, if you don't mind doing things their way.
Maybe that's what you want? All you do is browse the web and read email. Maybe Windows is fine for your needs. That's OK.
But it's very difficult when you want to do something unusual, like find all the files that end with ".txt" or ".dat" AND contain "foo" somewhere in the third line, and then ftp whatever you find to xyz.com and delete them. Amazing as it might sound to a Windows user, that's pretty easy do do in Linux/Unix and is what I mean by USING the computer. I don't mean just browsing the web and doing email.
In Windows, it's childishly easy to do simple things. However, it's horribly complex or completely impossible to do any more than that. There are so many things I can do in an instant at the command line that you either cannot do at all in Windows or can do only with great difficulty. I don't understand how anyone who really uses a computer can ever stand to run Windows- it's so pathetically weak.
The difference is learning to drive a car vs. taking public transportation. The subways and buses take you where they go, but only to those places, and only under certain conditions: you can't tow a trailer with public transportation, you have to travel on their time schedule, etc. Your involvement is minimal; you need barely be smart enough to read the most simple signs, and you need remember almost nothing. Learning to drive, however, takes effort, requires more involvement and intelligence, and will probably require much more memorization: "How do I get to Pittsfield from Boston?" etc.
If the subway takes you everywhere you need to go, use the subway. It's cheaper and far easier.
Linux doesn't suck. Linux is not an appliance OS. If you want a brainless, "I'm just going to use it, I don't want to know anything about it" OS, you should be running Windows.
That's not a put-down of Windows or anyone who uses it. It's like taking the train to work vs. driving a Harley. The train gets you to work, rain or shine, same time (or at least in theory- and Windows is very much like a badly run transit system!). The Harley will get you there too, but you didn't buy it because you wanted to get to work. You *do* buy a train ticket just because you want to get somewhere.
Another way to look at it is /Opinion/gdunix.html
Windows users sometimes get really upset about things like having to "mount" a disk. Why get upset? If you do decide you want to stick with it, learning WHY Linux mounts a CD or floppy might help you appreciate it more: /Unixart/newtounix.html explains some of these things.
Linux doesn't suck. It's a Heath kit. It doesn't suck, it's just more work than some want to do. Nothing wrong with that. However, if you *did* want to make the effort, you can do a LOT more with a Linux (or any Unix) machine than you'll ever do with Windows and have more fun doing it- if adjusting your points and setting your timing is your idea of fun.
It's like going out and killing something for dinner. The thrill of the hunt, the skill of tracking, subduing the beast, and enjoying the meal :-)
Some people get rabid about Linux's GUI. Gosh, that's so silly: find a GUI you like and use THAT instead. Try THAT with Windows! But, again, until that newbie knows a bit about this and that, replacing the GUI is like replacing spark plugs: easy if you know how and have the tools, frustratingly difficult if you do not.
Panners and virtual screens are a particular irritant for Windows users - they are apt to find those very confusing. I used to dislike GUI's period. Even today, I still spend a lot of time in character mode. But GUI's are now fast enough to be useful, and while command line is and always will be where the power (and the fun!) is, there are things better done with GUI's. Once you realize and accept that, then virtual GUI screens and panners just make it even better. That stuff *is* confusing at first, but if you give it a chance..
And then there are the language complaints for those who do want to dig into the source. A lot of source is C and a lot of people hate it. Well, I used to write assembler. That was a long, long time ago though and today, I mostly use Perl because for me, it has the right balance of giving me the power I need while still making it easy for me to get done with what I need quickly. Your needs will, of course, be different. But neither C nor C++ nor Perl nor assembler are awful, crappy, ****** or whatever- if the tool meets your needs you use it, if not you use something else. But if you want to work with most source, you need to grok C. Get over it - at least you HAVE source.
And then we complain about the millions of switches for Linux commands. Well, they just don't get it. This is a control issue: people who like to control their machines like Unix/Linux, people who just want to use the damn things don't- and there's nothing wrong with that. My stereo has almost a dozen knobs and gizmos that I have absolutely no interest in- I want to just push the "on" button and have it work. Fortunately it does, but Linux doesn't quite, at least not yet- it still requires a fair bit of tuning and fiddling.
If you hate switches,you really ought to seriously think about WHY you think you want Linux. Is it because all the cool dudes run it and you want to be a cool dude? OK, but cool dudes (at least cool Linux dudes) fiddle with switches and knobs. Or maybe you are just fed up with Microsoft's crap? Good reason, but there is a cost involved in getting away from it, and that cost is the switches and knobs and learning how to control the damn thing. At least if you want to USE it.
Then there are the complaints about docs. Always, it's "they don't tell you enough". OK, they don't. Now and then somebody will bring up the "good old days" (the late 60's, usually), when "documentation was COMPLETE!". Well, I'm old enough to have had experience with those docs. Somewhere I have a 401 (402?) accounting machine manual- the things you programmed by plugging jumper wires from hole to hole? Those were simple, simple machines- of course the docs were good. Even my VCR is 100 times more complex than that tabulator- there's just no comparison and naturally it's more difficult to write the docs. More importantly, the docs HAVE to assume prior knowledge, or that you'll go elsewhere to figure out what you don't immediately grok. If they didn't do that, your VCR manual would be a 400 page book and any given Linux HOWTO would be similar, and some of them would have to be encyclopedias!
And then they complaIn about unstated assumptions and flat-assed errors in man pages and HOW-TO's, I can't disagree. But it ain't easy, bub. I write a lot of that kind of stuff, and it's hard, hard work. You have to find a balance between being too sparse and writing that encyclopedia, and what seems perfect for me is not going to be perfect for you because our backgrounds differ. I do agree that a lot of Linux docs are written by people with horribly poor communication skills, but that's still better than what you usually get in the Microsoft world- a beautifully written piece of uninformative fluff that tells you just about nothing. That's the trade off we usually have to make: tech people usually can't write, and people who can write are usually technical *****. But it isn't ALL crap- there are useful HOWTO's, even well-written ones, and you certainly can't complain that there are no Linux books you can turn to- there is shelf after shelf of everything from beginner level to true hacker books.
Maybe Linux is not for you? That's OK, isn't it? Nobody says you have to invest the time and effort necessary. It has gotten easier, and no doubt that trend will continue- maybe you should give it a rest for a year or two and then try it again. I first looked at Linux way back when , but it was more work than *I* wanted to give it then, so it was only a few years ago that I started into it seriously. And it is still an effort, more effort than Windows, but -for me- it's reached the point where it's fun. If it's not fun for you, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Source (http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/873.html)


i have actually just seen a few words here, but it seams like YOU are having problems and NOT LINUX. Sorry man but this is more or less your fault as I see it

[earthpigg]

A white line every few lines would improve the readability a lot.

I'm not even going to begin reading that now.

that.

plz edit your post so it is readable, and i will read :)

[Victormd]

I think most people are just looking at the title...

I have to say that I agree with the OPs opinion (if I understood correctly). Yes, linux is a great OS, but requires some knowlede or at least, the will to learn, and I think most of us who use linux for everything BUT gaming, agrees with that. It's pretty much like a SLR camera, you can tweak every single variable/setting to get the perfect photo.

The other point is that windows is straight forward, basically like a point and shoot camera, that's all you can do, point, shoot, take the picture, and that's fine for some.

[oldsoundguy]

So if people have a problem with Linux they should just pretend that it is fantastic? This sort of attitude does nothing for the credibility of the Ubuntu community and ultimately will do nothing for the development of Ubuntu. If this sort of nonsense is allowed to persist then all that will be heard are stupid fanboys screaming about how great and perfect Ubuntu is and people with issues will be so afraid to speak up that they will have to go around pretending that Ubuntu is perfect for them too.

When this happens the developers will have no idea what needs to be improved and development will slow down.

I can understand people getting annoyed at "Linux bashing" but.... "trolls that complain about any form of Linux"?

Coming into the forums with a well worded and thought out in advance question will gain far more POSITIVE responses than a tirade against Linux and the various builds. (the "Linux sux because my such and such does not work and it works in Windows is not the way to get the problem fixed.) The system is NOT perfect .. but I have found for almost all of my regular activities, it is more than sufficient. And, with asking questions judiciously and following the forums, I was able to get some of the more esoteric hardware to function. But I still have to have a Windows box for the items that "just work better" in Windows right now and no Linux program is available to replace them properly just yet (particularly Adobe programs). So what?

That is why it is called "development". and just why there are UPDATES.

Generic complaining does not solve the problem you may be experiencing. It only irritates some and brings on the "ignore button" on some others.

If Linux is not for you, fine. Go back to Windows. Nobody is forcing you to use the system, especially if you do not want to take some time to learn the basic ins and outs of the system.

I will stick with Linux for my day to day use, thank you. I like the fact I don't have to spend hours each week maintaining the system and removing all of the garbage that gets picked up .. no matter what .. when you are on line with Windows. And I really like the security of the system.

[Oldsoldier2003]

A white line every few lines would improve the readability a lot.

I'm not even going to begin reading that now.

Wall of text = NEXT!

[lukjad007]

My first suggestion is that you put this article that you quoted in the tags so that people realize that you are quoting the work of another.

My second suggestion would be for you to put the link to the article at the top of your post, not at the bottom.

My third suggestion is that you put in the spacing needed to replace the lost HTML formatting that was lost when the text was copied over.

My fourth suggestion is that you cut down the quote to the part that are directly relevant to what you want to say. If you wish to point out the article, at simple link with a sentence or to to tell us what it is about would suffice.

[fmartinez]

my glasses just and inch thicker... THANKS.

[tbroderick]

My first suggestion is that you put this article that you quoted in the tags so that people realize that you are quoting the work of another.

Seriously, it's unclear to me if the OP is the same person who originally wrote this or just a random find. Anyway, it's not proper "netiquette" to copy & paste an entire link.

[clanky]

Coming into the forums with a well worded and thought out in advance question will gain far more POSITIVE responses than a tirade against Linux and the various builds. (the "Linux sux because my such and such does not work and it works in Windows is not the way to get the problem fixed.) The system is NOT perfect .. but I have found for almost all of my regular activities, it is more than sufficient. And, with asking questions judiciously and following the forums, I was able to get some of the more esoteric hardware to function. But I still have to have a Windows box for the items that "just work better" in Windows right now and no Linux program is available to replace them properly just yet (particularly Adobe programs). So what?

That is why it is called "development". and just why there are UPDATES.

Generic complaining does not solve the problem you may be experiencing. It only irritates some and brings on the "ignore button" on some others.

If Linux is not for you, fine. Go back to Windows. Nobody is forcing you to use the system, especially if you do not want to take some time to learn the basic ins and outs of the system.

I will stick with Linux for my day to day use, thank you. I like the fact I don't have to spend hours each week maintaining the system and removing all of the garbage that gets picked up .. no matter what .. when you are on line with Windows. And I really like the security of the system.

Much as I agree with your sentiments about well worded and thought out posts, would you describe the following as such?

+1

Most trolls that complain about any form of linux are either very lazy, very stupid, or in the employ of MS and paid to stir up trouble and make people reply in a stupid manner.

Even tho the tirades were positive .. the size of same alone is enough to turn off any instant gratification Windows user searching for information and an excuse to drop that POS system (except for games .. what it deserves to be relegated to.)

Maybe if people were able to comment on the fact that certain areas of the OS are not perfect without being labelled as lazy or stupid (which I believe is against the CoC?) or being told to go back to windows then more would be done about fixing the issues.

I am not sure if the story of the kings new clothes is an international one, but there does seem to be a lot of this attitude around, as soon as people speak up to say that there are problems with ubuntu everyone jumps up and down trying to prove them wrong and treating them as if they are trolls.

And just for the record I like Linux, I use it because I like it, I am not posting this stuff to try and upset people, I am not being paid by microsoft, I am neither stupid, nor lazy, but to me this is an OS not a religion.

[lukjad007]

Seriously, it's unclear to me if the OP is the same person who originally wrote this or just a random find. Anyway, it's not proper "netiquette" to copy & paste an entire link.
See my fourth point. I wasn't sure either so I let him make his choice.

[oldsoundguy]

Maybe if people were able to comment on the fact that certain areas of the OS are not perfect without being labelled as lazy or stupid (which I believe is against the CoC?) or being told to go back to windows then more would be done about fixing the issues.

I am not sure if the story of the kings new clothes is an international one, but there does seem to be a lot of this attitude around, as soon as people speak up to say that there are problems with ubuntu everyone jumps up and down trying to prove them wrong and treating them as if they are trolls.

And just for the record I like Linux, I use it because I like it, I am not posting this stuff to try and upset people, I am not being paid by microsoft, I am neither stupid, nor lazy, but to me this is an OS not a religion.

There ARE problems with Linux just as there are problems with Windows.

The big difference is ONE, the forums! The best source for help and the Ubuntu forums standing head and shoulders above the rest.
Two, the ability to file a BUG REPORT as that is how the developers will find out. They do NOT (usually) cruise the forums looking for issues. So, IF there is a problem, notifying through the bug report will let them know, and IF you can add some detail to the report, it makes it that much better. Much better than the "report this problem" button in Windows
that goes to a dead letter box most of the time. (usual response is that the third party program is at fault.)
As noted, I still have a Windows box, and IF I can't get it to work on Linux, it is not replaced until I find the solution or find that such will not be the case for a while.

[kool_kat_os]

uhh...I cant read a novel in 5 mins....

[clanky]

There ARE problems with Linux just as there are problems with Windows.

The big difference is ONE, the forums! The best source for help and the Ubuntu forums standing head and shoulders above the rest.
Two, the ability to file a BUG REPORT as that is how the developers will find out. They do NOT (usually) cruise the forums looking for issues. So, IF there is a problem, notifying through the bug report will let them know, and IF you can add some detail to the report, it makes it that much better. Much better than the "report this problem" button in Windows
that goes to a dead letter box most of the time. (usual response is that the third party program is at fault.)
As noted, I still have a Windows box, and IF I can't get it to work on Linux, it is not replaced until I find the solution or find that such will not be the case for a while.

The problem with that is that many of the things which people find difficult to deal with in Ubuntu / Linux are not faults as such and do not really fit into the bug report category.

The point that I am trying to make is that when people come here and say that they are not having a good time with Ubuntu many get treated like Ubuntu bashing trolls, there was nothing in this thread to warrant the post above, no-one was linux bashing and yet you were slinging insults around.

These forums are a fantastic resource for Ubuntu users and a fantastic place to chat about all kinds of random stuff as well, but stuff like this is not good for the forums and not good for Ubuntu. People need to take a step back from the idea that people are insulting Linux by suggesting that it has weaknesses.

[Giant Speck]

I read the first line, didn't get far.

@OP This is the internet. Short well formatted paragraphs are the best way to get people to read.

Wait. Wait. Stop. You just said that the internet is for well-formated presentation of the English language?

That seems to be contrary to the more common argument "this is the internet" that defends people that spell incorrectly and use rampant grammatical mistakes.

[steveneddy]

Please put this in paragraphs that are easy to read.

[RedPandaFox]

Yeah, if your not going to put it in paragraphs please at least put a concise version? :)

I already have a massive headache after a weekend with no sleep.

[Giant Speck]

OK, we've all heard it: Linux is too hard, Linux sucks, Windows is easier than Linux, yadda, yadda.

People who have such feelings need to ask themselves a simple question:
Why am I using Linux?

Because at this point at least, maybe they shouldn't be.

Really, I think most of these folks should be asking themselves "Why am I using Windows", but we'll pretend that they actually really tried Linux. I can't understand how anyone can USE Windows for any period of time and not hate it, but these people claim to. And they claim to have tried Linux.

And of course they ran into problems. Problems which they couldn't solve by searching Google. And, to be fair, that's not completely unreasonable: it's very rare that something you find will DIRECTLY apply to your problem. You need to apply the knowledge you find to the current situation. However, that can be very frustrating when you first start out because there's so much you need to know that none of it makes sense. It can make you feel very dumb. We've all been there.

But we get people saying silly things, where it is obvious that they haven't even read applicable HOWTO's, because if they had, they wouldn't have the problem they say they have.

However, not everyone has the "dig in and fix it" mentality. They want to use their computer, not hack with it. And that's perfectly legitimate.
Years ago I used to do my own auto stuff- tuneups, oil changes, even more. Backyard mechanic concept. With the new computerized everything, and the tight engine compartments, and the specialized tools you need nowadays, I don't. My car is just something that gets me from point A to point B and I know not and care not how to fix it if it doesn't.

Fortunately, cars today are pretty darn reliable, and you don't need to know much- you chances of needing to adjust your points (not that they have 'em anymore, of course) while out on a trip are nil.
Windows is a lot like that. Prepackaged, protective, mostly works- it crashes pretty regularly, but everybody thinks that's normal so nobody cares.

And honestly - it doesn't crash as much as it used to. The old blue screen of death is pretty infrequent now, so that's no reason to run Linux. Windows is a pretty good OS now, if you don't mind doing things their way.

Maybe that's what you want? All you do is browse the web and read email. Maybe Windows is fine for your needs. That's OK.

But it's very difficult when you want to do something unusual, like find all the files that end with ".txt" or ".dat" AND contain "foo" somewhere in the third line, and then ftp whatever you find to xyz.com and delete them. Amazing as it might sound to a Windows user, that's pretty easy do do in Linux/Unix and is what I mean by USING the computer. I don't mean just browsing the web and doing email.

In Windows, it's childishly easy to do simple things. However, it's horribly complex or completely impossible to do any more than that. There are so many things I can do in an instant at the command line that you either cannot do at all in Windows or can do only with great difficulty. I don't understand how anyone who really uses a computer can ever stand to run Windows- it's so pathetically weak.

The difference is learning to drive a car vs. taking public transportation. The subways and buses take you where they go, but only to those places, and only under certain conditions: you can't tow a trailer with public transportation, you have to travel on their time schedule, etc. Your involvement is minimal; you need barely be smart enough to read the most simple signs, and you need remember almost nothing. Learning to drive, however, takes effort, requires more involvement and intelligence, and will probably require much more memorization: "How do I get to Pittsfield from Boston?" etc.

If the subway takes you everywhere you need to go, use the subway. It's cheaper and far easier.

Linux doesn't suck. Linux is not an appliance OS. If you want a brainless, "I'm just going to use it, I don't want to know anything about it" OS, you should be running Windows.

That's not a put-down of Windows or anyone who uses it. It's like taking the train to work vs. driving a Harley. The train gets you to work, rain or shine, same time (or at least in theory- and Windows is very much like a badly run transit system!). The Harley will get you there too, but you didn't buy it because you wanted to get to work. You *do* buy a train ticket just because you want to get somewhere.

Another way to look at it is /Opinion/gdunix.html

Windows users sometimes get really upset about things like having to "mount" a disk. Why get upset? If you do decide you want to stick with it, learning WHY Linux mounts a CD or floppy might help you appreciate it more: /Unixart/newtounix.html explains some of these things.

Linux doesn't suck. It's a Heath kit. It doesn't suck, it's just more work than some want to do. Nothing wrong with that. However, if you *did* want to make the effort, you can do a LOT more with a Linux (or any Unix) machine than you'll ever do with Windows and have more fun doing it- if adjusting your points and setting your timing is your idea of fun.

It's like going out and killing something for dinner. The thrill of the hunt, the skill of tracking, subduing the beast, and enjoying the meal :-)
Some people get rabid about Linux's GUI. Gosh, that's so silly: find a GUI you like and use THAT instead. Try THAT with Windows! But, again, until that newbie knows a bit about this and that, replacing the GUI is like replacing spark plugs: easy if you know how and have the tools, frustratingly difficult if you do not.

Panners and virtual screens are a particular irritant for Windows users - they are apt to find those very confusing. I used to dislike GUI's period. Even today, I still spend a lot of time in character mode. But GUI's are now fast enough to be useful, and while command line is and always will be where the power (and the fun!) is, there are things better done with GUI's. Once you realize and accept that, then virtual GUI screens and panners just make it even better. That stuff *is* confusing at first, but if you give it a chance.

And then there are the language complaints for those who do want to dig into the source. A lot of source is C and a lot of people hate it. Well, I used to write assembler. That was a long, long time ago though and today, I mostly use Perl because for me, it has the right balance of giving me the power I need while still making it easy for me to get done with what I need quickly. Your needs will, of course, be different. But neither C nor C++ nor Perl nor assembler are awful, crappy, ****** or whatever- if the tool meets your needs you use it, if not you use something else. But if you want to work with most source, you need to grok C. Get over it - at least you HAVE source.

And then we complain about the millions of switches for Linux commands. Well, they just don't get it. This is a control issue: people who like to control their machines like Unix/Linux, people who just want to use the damn things don't- and there's nothing wrong with that. My stereo has almost a dozen knobs and gizmos that I have absolutely no interest in- I want to just push the "on" button and have it work. Fortunately it does, but Linux doesn't quite, at least not yet- it still requires a fair bit of tuning and fiddling.

If you hate switches,you really ought to seriously think about WHY you think you want Linux. Is it because all the cool dudes run it and you want to be a cool dude? OK, but cool dudes (at least cool Linux dudes) fiddle with switches and knobs. Or maybe you are just fed up with Microsoft's crap? Good reason, but there is a cost involved in getting away from it, and that cost is the switches and knobs and learning how to control the damn thing. At least if you want to USE it.

Then there are the complaints about docs. Always, it's "they don't tell you enough". OK, they don't. Now and then somebody will bring up the "good old days" (the late 60's, usually), when "documentation was COMPLETE!". Well, I'm old enough to have had experience with those docs. Somewhere I have a 401 (402?) accounting machine manual- the things you programmed by plugging jumper wires from hole to hole? Those were simple, simple machines- of course the docs were good. Even my VCR is 100 times more complex than that tabulator- there's just no comparison and naturally it's more difficult to write the docs. More importantly, the docs HAVE to assume prior knowledge, or that you'll go elsewhere to figure out what you don't immediately grok. If they didn't do that, your VCR manual would be a 400 page book and any given Linux HOWTO would be similar, and some of them would have to be encyclopedias!

And then they complaIn about unstated assumptions and flat-assed errors in man pages and HOW-TO's, I can't disagree. But it ain't easy, bub. I write a lot of that kind of stuff, and it's hard, hard work. You have to find a balance between being too sparse and writing that encyclopedia, and what seems perfect for me is not going to be perfect for you because our backgrounds differ. I do agree that a lot of Linux docs are written by people with horribly poor communication skills, but that's still better than what you usually get in the Microsoft world- a beautifully written piece of uninformative fluff that tells you just about nothing. That's the trade off we usually have to make: tech people usually can't write, and people who can write are usually technical *****. But it isn't ALL crap- there are useful HOWTO's, even well-written ones, and you certainly can't complain that there are no Linux books you can turn to- there is shelf after shelf of everything from beginner level to true hacker books.

Maybe Linux is not for you? That's OK, isn't it? Nobody says you have to invest the time and effort necessary. It has gotten easier, and no doubt that trend will continue- maybe you should give it a rest for a year or two and then try it again. I first looked at Linux way back when , but it was more work than *I* wanted to give it then, so it was only a few years ago that I started into it seriously. And it is still an effort, more effort than Windows, but -for me- it's reached the point where it's fun. If it's not fun for you, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Source (http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/873.html)

Fixed for those who are too damn lazy to fix it themselves.

[IusedTObeSOMEONEelse]

Yikes!!! Not another thread ranting again
yadda yadda yadda [-X

[Oldsoldier2003]

Fixed for those who are too damn lazy to fix it themselves.

The point is, why should they have had to fix it? It is incumbent on the OP to make his post readable if he want's replies.

[Giant Speck]

The point is, why should they have had to fix it? It is incumbent on the OP to make his post readable if he want's replies.

Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps I was also referring to the OP?

[Canis familiaris]

The point is, why should they have had to fix it? It is incumbent on the OP to make his post readable if he want's replies.
Can't you fix it now? Since Giant Speck has done so already could you please can cut, copy, paste his quote into the Original Post

[fenT1]

ok..ok.. so i guess that the title of the thread offended some

people...is linux your girlfriend? the point of it was "does

linux sucks? or is just windows really better because is

easier!!!(Why i got my drivers license) wouldn't stir so much

hatred, my point was not to steal somebody's hard work (i posted

the source didint I?), or bash Linux (i've been working on it

for quite some time and I've contributed to the hard workin

programmers more than many of you ever will) i just came across

the link and thought that many linux users would feel the same

way i do, true i could have made it a bit more readable. Thanks

to all that provided constructive criticism .

PS. I really like this forum and hope to make it up to the good community that ubuntu is.

[fenT1]

Can't you fix it now? Since Giant Speck has done so already could you please can cut, copy, paste his quote into the Original Post

ouchies!

[lukjad007]

That's a no?

[uberdonkey5]

People say linux sucks cos we rave about it incessantly and nepostistically, and when they try to use it, it messes up. Computers are there to do a job. Windows does the same job as linux with less start up problems. but much more cost and much less flexibility. FRUSTRATION is the main cause of these comments because people WANT to use linux (and it does have kudoes for being cool) but it is often difficult to install and set up. Linux will always be considered second rate by many people whilst:

1. pre-installation is not an option on most computers
2. installation and driver problems persist

[Lizard_King]

OK, we've all heard it: Linux is too hard, Linux sucks,

Windows is easier than Linux, yadda, yadda.

People who have such feelings need to ask themselves a simple

question:

Why am I using Linux?

Because at this point at least, maybe they shouldn't be.

Really, I think most of these folks should be asking

themselves "Why am I using Windows",

but we'll pretend that they actually really tried Linux. I can't

understand how anyone can USE

Windows for any period of time and not hate it, but these people claim to. And they claim to

have tried Linux.

And of course they ran into problems. Problems which they couldn't solve by searching

Google. And, to be fair, that's not completely unreasonable: it's very rare that something you

find will DIRECTLY apply to your problem. You need to apply the knowledge you find to the

current situation. However, that can be very frustrating when you first start out because

there's so much you need to know that none of it makes sense. It can make you feel very

dumb. We've all been there.

But we get people saying silly things, where it is obvious that they haven't even read

applicable HOWTO's, because if they had, they wouldn't have the problem they say they have.

However, not everyone has the "dig in and fix it" mentality. They want to use their computer,

not hack with it. And that's perfectly legitimate.

Years ago I used to do my own auto stuff- tuneups, oil changes, even more. Backyard

mechanic concept. With the new computerized everything, and the tight engine

compartments, and the specialized tools you need nowadays, I don't. My car is just something

that gets me from point A to point B and I know not and care not how to fix it if it doesn't.

Fortunately, cars today are pretty darn reliable, and you don't need to know much- you

chances of needing to adjust your points (not that they have 'em anymore, of course) while

out on a trip are nil.

Windows is a lot like that. Prepackaged, protective, mostly works- it crashes pretty regularly,

but everybody thinks that's normal so nobody cares.

And honestly - it doesn't crash as much as it used to. The old blue screen of death is pretty

infrequent now, so that's no reason to run Linux. Windows is a pretty good OS now, if you

don't mind doing things their way.

Maybe that's what you want? All you do is browse the web and read email. Maybe Windows is

fine for your needs. That's OK.

But it's very difficult when you want to do something unusual, like find all the files that end

with ".txt" or ".dat" AND contain "foo" somewhere in the third line, and then ftp whatever you

find to xyz.com and delete them. Amazing as it might sound to a Windows user, that's pretty

easy do do in Linux/Unix and is what I mean by USING the computer. I don't mean just

browsing the web and doing email.

In Windows, it's childishly easy to do simple things. However, it's horribly complex or

completely impossible to do any more than that. There are so many things I can do in an

instant at the command line that you either cannot do at all in Windows or can do only with

great difficulty. I don't understand how anyone who really uses a computer can ever stand to

run Windows- it's so pathetically weak.

The difference is learning to drive a car vs. taking public transportation. The subways and

buses take you where they go, but only to those places, and only under certain conditions:

you can't tow a trailer with public transportation, you have to travel on their time schedule,

etc. Your involvement is minimal; you need barely be smart enough to read the most simple

signs, and you need remember almost nothing. Learning to drive, however, takes effort,

requires more involvement and intelligence, and will probably require much more

memorization: "How do I get to Pittsfield from Boston?" etc.

If the subway takes you everywhere you need to go, use the subway. It's cheaper and far

easier.

Linux doesn't suck. Linux is not an appliance OS. If you want a brainless, "I'm just going to

use it, I don't want to know anything about it" OS, you should be running Windows.

That's not a put-down of Windows or anyone who uses it. It's like taking the train to work vs.

driving a Harley. The train gets you to work, rain or shine, same time (or at least in theory-

and Windows is very much like a badly run transit system!). The Harley will get you there too,

but you didn't buy it because you wanted to get to work. You *do* buy a train ticket just

because you want to get somewhere.

Another way to look at it is /Opinion/gdunix.html

Windows users sometimes get really upset about things like having to "mount" a disk. Why

get upset? If you do decide you want to stick with it, learning WHY Linux mounts a CD or

floppy might help you appreciate it more: /Unixart/newtounix.html explains some of these

things.

Linux doesn't suck. It's a Heath kit. It doesn't suck, it's just more work than some want to do.

Nothing wrong with that. However, if you *did* want to make the effort, you can do a LOT

more with a Linux (or any Unix) machine than you'll ever do with Windows and have more fun

doing it- if adjusting your points and setting your timing is your idea of fun.

It's like going out and killing something for dinner. The thrill of the hunt, the skill of tracking,

subduing the beast, and enjoying the meal

Some people get rabid about Linux's GUI. Gosh, that's so silly: find a GUI you like and use

THAT instead. Try THAT with Windows! But, again, until that newbie knows a bit about this

and that, replacing the GUI is like replacing spark plugs: easy if you know how and have the

tools, frustratingly difficult if you do not.

Panners and virtual screens are a particular irritant for Windows users - they are apt to find

those very confusing. I used to dislike GUI's period. Even today, I still spend a lot of time in

character mode. But GUI's are now fast enough to be useful, and while command line is and

always will be where the power (and the fun!) is, there are things better done with GUI's.

Once you realize and accept that, then virtual GUI screens and panners just make it even

better. That stuff *is* confusing at first, but if you give it a chance..

And then there are the language complaints for those who do want to dig into the source. A lot

of source is C and a lot of people hate it. Well, I used to write assembler. That was a long,

long time ago though and today, I mostly use Perl because for me, it has the right balance of

giving me the power I need while still making it easy for me to get done with what I need

quickly. Your needs will, of course, be different. But neither C nor C++ nor Perl nor assembler

are awful, crappy, ****** or whatever- if the tool meets your needs you use it, if not you use

something else. But if you want to work with most source, you need to grok C. Get over it - at

least you HAVE source.

And then we complain about the millions of switches for Linux commands. Well, they just don't
get it. This is a control issue: people who like to control their machines like Unix/Linux, people

who just want to use the damn things don't- and there's nothing wrong with that. My stereo

has almost a dozen knobs and gizmos that I have absolutely no interest in- I want to just push

the "on" button and have it work. Fortunately it does, but Linux doesn't quite, at least not yet-

it still requires a fair bit of tuning and fiddling.

If you hate switches,you really ought to seriously think about WHY you think you want Linux.

Is it because all the cool dudes run it and you want to be a cool dude? OK, but cool dudes (at

least cool Linux dudes) fiddle with switches and knobs. Or maybe you are just fed up with

Microsoft's crap? Good reason, but there is a cost involved in getting away from it, and that

cost is the switches and knobs and learning how to control the damn thing. At least if you

want to USE it.

Then there are the complaints about docs. Always, it's "they don't tell you enough". OK, they

don't. Now and then somebody will bring up the "good old days" (the late 60's, usually), when

"documentation was COMPLETE!". Well, I'm old enough to have had experience with those

docs. Somewhere I have a 401 (402?) accounting machine manual- the things you

programmed by plugging jumper wires from hole to hole? Those were simple, simple

machines- of course the docs were good. Even my VCR is 100 times more complex than that

tabulator- there's just no comparison and naturally it's more difficult to write the docs. More

importantly, the docs HAVE to assume prior knowledge, or that you'll go elsewhere to figure

out what you don't immediately grok. If they didn't do that, your VCR manual would be a 400

page book and any given Linux HOWTO would be similar, and some of them would have to be

encyclopedias!

And then they complaIn about unstated assumptions and flat-assed errors in man pages and

HOW-TO's, I can't disagree. But it ain't easy, bub. I write a lot of that kind of stuff, and it's

hard, hard work. You have to find a balance between being too sparse and writing that

encyclopedia, and what seems perfect for me is not going to be perfect for you because our

backgrounds differ. I do agree that a lot of Linux docs are written by people with horribly poor

communication skills, but that's still better than what you usually get in the Microsoft world- a

beautifully written piece of uninformative fluff that tells you just about nothing. That's the

trade off we usually have to make: tech people usually can't write, and people who can write
are usually technical *****. But it isn't ALL crap- there are useful HOWTO's, even well-written

ones, and you certainly can't complain that there are no Linux books you can turn to- there is

shelf after shelf of everything from beginner level to true hacker books.

Maybe Linux is not for you? That's OK, isn't it? Nobody says you have to invest the time and

effort necessary. It has gotten easier, and no doubt that trend will continue- maybe you

should give it a rest for a year or two and then try it again. I first looked at Linux way back

when , but it was more work than *I* wanted to give it then, so it was only a few years ago

that I started into it seriously. And it is still an effort, more effort than Windows, but -for me-

it's reached the point where it's fun. If it's not fun for you, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Much more readable.

[collinp]

I think my eyes are bleeding.

[EnGorDiaz]

OK, we've all heard it: Linux is too hard, Linux sucks, Windows is easier than Linux, yadda, yadda.
People who have such feelings need to ask themselves a simple question:
Why am I using Linux?
Because at this point at least, maybe they shouldn't be.
Really, I think most of these folks should be asking themselves "Why am I using Windows", but we'll pretend that they actually really tried Linux. I can't understand how anyone can USE Windows for any period of time and not hate it, but these people claim to. And they claim to have tried Linux.
And of course they ran into problems. Problems which they couldn't solve by searching Google. And, to be fair, that's not completely unreasonable: it's very rare that something you find will DIRECTLY apply to your problem. You need to apply the knowledge you find to the current situation. However, that can be very frustrating when you first start out because there's so much you need to know that none of it makes sense. It can make you feel very dumb. We've all been there.
But we get people saying silly things, where it is obvious that they haven't even read applicable HOWTO's, because if they had, they wouldn't have the problem they say they have.
However, not everyone has the "dig in and fix it" mentality. They want to use their computer, not hack with it. And that's perfectly legitimate.
Years ago I used to do my own auto stuff- tuneups, oil changes, even more. Backyard mechanic concept. With the new computerized everything, and the tight engine compartments, and the specialized tools you need nowadays, I don't. My car is just something that gets me from point A to point B and I know not and care not how to fix it if it doesn't. Fortunately, cars today are pretty darn reliable, and you don't need to know much- you chances of needing to adjust your points (not that they have 'em anymore, of course) while out on a trip are nil.
Windows is a lot like that. Prepackaged, protective, mostly works- it crashes pretty regularly, but everybody thinks that's normal so nobody cares.
And honestly - it doesn't crash as much as it used to. The old blue screen of death is pretty infrequent now, so that's no reason to run Linux. Windows is a pretty good OS now, if you don't mind doing things their way.
Maybe that's what you want? All you do is browse the web and read email. Maybe Windows is fine for your needs. That's OK.
But it's very difficult when you want to do something unusual, like find all the files that end with ".txt" or ".dat" AND contain "foo" somewhere in the third line, and then ftp whatever you find to xyz.com and delete them. Amazing as it might sound to a Windows user, that's pretty easy do do in Linux/Unix and is what I mean by USING the computer. I don't mean just browsing the web and doing email.
In Windows, it's childishly easy to do simple things. However, it's horribly complex or completely impossible to do any more than that. There are so many things I can do in an instant at the command line that you either cannot do at all in Windows or can do only with great difficulty. I don't understand how anyone who really uses a computer can ever stand to run Windows- it's so pathetically weak.
The difference is learning to drive a car vs. taking public transportation. The subways and buses take you where they go, but only to those places, and only under certain conditions: you can't tow a trailer with public transportation, you have to travel on their time schedule, etc. Your involvement is minimal; you need barely be smart enough to read the most simple signs, and you need remember almost nothing. Learning to drive, however, takes effort, requires more involvement and intelligence, and will probably require much more memorization: "How do I get to Pittsfield from Boston?" etc.
If the subway takes you everywhere you need to go, use the subway. It's cheaper and far easier.
Linux doesn't suck. Linux is not an appliance OS. If you want a brainless, "I'm just going to use it, I don't want to know anything about it" OS, you should be running Windows.
That's not a put-down of Windows or anyone who uses it. It's like taking the train to work vs. driving a Harley. The train gets you to work, rain or shine, same time (or at least in theory- and Windows is very much like a badly run transit system!). The Harley will get you there too, but you didn't buy it because you wanted to get to work. You *do* buy a train ticket just because you want to get somewhere.
Another way to look at it is /Opinion/gdunix.html
Windows users sometimes get really upset about things like having to "mount" a disk. Why get upset? If you do decide you want to stick with it, learning WHY Linux mounts a CD or floppy might help you appreciate it more: /Unixart/newtounix.html explains some of these things.
Linux doesn't suck. It's a Heath kit. It doesn't suck, it's just more work than some want to do. Nothing wrong with that. However, if you *did* want to make the effort, you can do a LOT more with a Linux (or any Unix) machine than you'll ever do with Windows and have more fun doing it- if adjusting your points and setting your timing is your idea of fun.
It's like going out and killing something for dinner. The thrill of the hunt, the skill of tracking, subduing the beast, and enjoying the meal :-)
Some people get rabid about Linux's GUI. Gosh, that's so silly: find a GUI you like and use THAT instead. Try THAT with Windows! But, again, until that newbie knows a bit about this and that, replacing the GUI is like replacing spark plugs: easy if you know how and have the tools, frustratingly difficult if you do not.
Panners and virtual screens are a particular irritant for Windows users - they are apt to find those very confusing. I used to dislike GUI's period. Even today, I still spend a lot of time in character mode. But GUI's are now fast enough to be useful, and while command line is and always will be where the power (and the fun!) is, there are things better done with GUI's. Once you realize and accept that, then virtual GUI screens and panners just make it even better. That stuff *is* confusing at first, but if you give it a chance..
And then there are the language complaints for those who do want to dig into the source. A lot of source is C and a lot of people hate it. Well, I used to write assembler. That was a long, long time ago though and today, I mostly use Perl because for me, it has the right balance of giving me the power I need while still making it easy for me to get done with what I need quickly. Your needs will, of course, be different. But neither C nor C++ nor Perl nor assembler are awful, crappy, ****** or whatever- if the tool meets your needs you use it, if not you use something else. But if you want to work with most source, you need to grok C. Get over it - at least you HAVE source.
And then we complain about the millions of switches for Linux commands. Well, they just don't get it. This is a control issue: people who like to control their machines like Unix/Linux, people who just want to use the damn things don't- and there's nothing wrong with that. My stereo has almost a dozen knobs and gizmos that I have absolutely no interest in- I want to just push the "on" button and have it work. Fortunately it does, but Linux doesn't quite, at least not yet- it still requires a fair bit of tuning and fiddling.
If you hate switches,you really ought to seriously think about WHY you think you want Linux. Is it because all the cool dudes run it and you want to be a cool dude? OK, but cool dudes (at least cool Linux dudes) fiddle with switches and knobs. Or maybe you are just fed up with Microsoft's crap? Good reason, but there is a cost involved in getting away from it, and that cost is the switches and knobs and learning how to control the damn thing. At least if you want to USE it.
Then there are the complaints about docs. Always, it's "they don't tell you enough". OK, they don't. Now and then somebody will bring up the "good old days" (the late 60's, usually), when "documentation was COMPLETE!". Well, I'm old enough to have had experience with those docs. Somewhere I have a 401 (402?) accounting machine manual- the things you programmed by plugging jumper wires from hole to hole? Those were simple, simple machines- of course the docs were good. Even my VCR is 100 times more complex than that tabulator- there's just no comparison and naturally it's more difficult to write the docs. More importantly, the docs HAVE to assume prior knowledge, or that you'll go elsewhere to figure out what you don't immediately grok. If they didn't do that, your VCR manual would be a 400 page book and any given Linux HOWTO would be similar, and some of them would have to be encyclopedias!
And then they complaIn about unstated assumptions and flat-assed errors in man pages and HOW-TO's, I can't disagree. But it ain't easy, bub. I write a lot of that kind of stuff, and it's hard, hard work. You have to find a balance between being too sparse and writing that encyclopedia, and what seems perfect for me is not going to be perfect for you because our backgrounds differ. I do agree that a lot of Linux docs are written by people with horribly poor communication skills, but that's still better than what you usually get in the Microsoft world- a beautifully written piece of uninformative fluff that tells you just about nothing. That's the trade off we usually have to make: tech people usually can't write, and people who can write are usually technical *****. But it isn't ALL crap- there are useful HOWTO's, even well-written ones, and you certainly can't complain that there are no Linux books you can turn to- there is shelf after shelf of everything from beginner level to true hacker books.
Maybe Linux is not for you? That's OK, isn't it? Nobody says you have to invest the time and effort necessary. It has gotten easier, and no doubt that trend will continue- maybe you should give it a rest for a year or two and then try it again. I first looked at Linux way back when , but it was more work than *I* wanted to give it then, so it was only a few years ago that I started into it seriously. And it is still an effort, more effort than Windows, but -for me- it's reached the point where it's fun. If it's not fun for you, don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Source (http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/873.html)

when i write long posts i make sure i use grammar but im lazy when it comes to these types of posts

if i read a long post though i want to read it with paragrahps and grammar

[lukjad007]

Does anyone know if it was written by the OP or just quoted?

[fiddledd]

Does anyone know if it was written by the OP or just quoted?

This (http://aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/873.html) might answer your question. It's got paragraphs too (copied as plain text before pasting her I suspect).

EDIT: I've just noticed the OP provided the link also.

[lukjad007]

I know. I was wondering if the link was written by him or he just c/p'd it.

[Canis familiaris]

I know. I was wondering if the link was written by him or he just c/p'd it.

That's a Good Question.

I think not.

[lukjad007]

Hmmm... this post seems to have been mis posted. Ignore please.

[fenT1]

i recieved a check by windows for "coverting some of you" thanks for your time...

[john3347]

Linux does not "suck", nor does windows. Linux is very frustrating to use and so is windows. I am an old fart that has been using computers for more than 20 years. My perspective is that of a user, not a developer or IT professional. I used to use computers FOR a project and not AS a project. Windows lends itself MUCH better to that use than Linux does. After retirement, I have begun using my computer more AS a project and less FOR a project. Linux lends itself better to this use than Windows does. These conditions make each one more suitable than the other for certain uses. Neither being "bad" and the other "good".

Lizard King used an example in this thread that I often use to describe Linux. It is not necessary for an IT professional to know and understand all the inner workings of an automobile to properly utilize it. Likewise, it shouldn't be necessary for an automobile mechanic to know and understand all the inner workings of a computer to fully utilize it. If an IT professional decides to "learn all about their automobile" and do most of their own work on it, that is fine. Likewise, if a retired truck mechanic (myself) decides to "learn all he can about his computer" and play with Linux while doing so, I hope that is fine, too.

Now the point of this comparison: When the Linux developers realize that the vast majority of computer users are in the category that use their computers FOR projects and start writing programs and operating systems with this use in mind, Microsoft will, almost overnight, become just another software company. In the meantime, Windows is designed for one class of user and Linux is designed for another. Kinda like discussing whether a sedan or pick-up truck is a better vehicle, isn't it?

[d_skillz]

A white line every few lines would improve the readability a lot.

I'm not even going to begin reading that now.

Seriously a bit heavy on the reading but I see your point. IN closing, I think Ubuntu is the only distribution that is on it's way to making Linux more user-friendly for most new users and that is a significant step in the right direction, I think they are on their way there.

[cardinals_fan]

Seriously a bit heavy on the reading but I see your point. IN closing, I think Ubuntu is the only distribution that is on it's way to making Linux more user-friendly for most new users and that is a significant step in the right direction, I think they are on their way there.
The "only" one? Ubuntu may do the most, but let's be fair ;)