Two tin cans are better than an iphone
There are users who do care. The fact that the software installs in several places can be an issue to some users.Why? I honestly couldn't care less where the system installs program files to as long as it works. /bin, /usr/bin, /opt, who cares? All the interesting bits (the config and data) go in /home. Simple.
Never said Windows was perfect but it is better. But please don't tell me that /bin is more intuitive than Program Files.I don't find the Windows file system structure at all intuitive. There probably are better ways to structure a filesystem than what LSB lays down, but it sure isn't the Windows way.
Sure, but the structure should still be changed to be more intuitive.Keep in mind that Linux was designed as a multi-user operating system, so programs have to be installed, where all users have access to them.
I known several companies who couldn't implement Linux because it would be too complicated to train their dealers on using it.Try talking to the average person about file systems and their various designs, and see how long it takes them to eagerly get away from you, or change the subject to something more interesting like football or music or movies.
Windows requires that you do know the full path to the file to execute it, on Linux you don't. So the actual location of the executable is unimportant. The system can take care of stuff like that without the user needing to fossick around in the innards of the file system. I find the Linux way much more user-friendly.
Having one place where the applications install and calling it something like "Program Files" is a lot better than /bin. Windows handles multi-users pretty well.
The mission of Linux (including Ubuntu) is exactly the same as Windows' mission: to use the effect if air flow over an airfoil to lift heavier-than-air machines into the air to do useful work.
Fixed-wing aircraft do it in one way. Rotary winged-aircraft in another.
They each have control interfaces that are unique to them. They each use hardware and mechanical systems that are unique to them.
An airplane pilot who had never flown a helicopter would find both the control interface and the mechanical system difficult to understand. The same if the roles were reversed.
An airplane pilot will understandably be more familiar and comfortable with an airplane. A helicopter pilot with a helicopter. That does not mean that one is more or less logical than the other. Nor is either "better" or "worse" than the other. They are different.
Some of us are comfortable flying both.
Why is "Program files" better than "/bin"? Is "glasses" better than "die Brille"? Depending on who I am talking to, I'm going to use one word or the other to describe the same thing.
Last edited by QIII; October 8th, 2012 at 03:26 AM.
Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder:"Who dreams up this stuff!?"
And then, just when you are used to doing certain things that new,special,irritating way, they totally change it to be even more irritating!
Last edited by Linuxratty; October 8th, 2012 at 03:45 AM.
A friendly & helpful Linux community who has started a large cursor theme project. If you are sick of tiny cursors, go here and get one.
I still use Windows, except for surfing.
If the purpose of Ubuntu is to bring as many people in as possible then why would you use more obscure language to describe something?Why is "Program files" better than "/bin"? Is "glasses" better than "die Brille"? Depending on who I am talking to, I'm going to use one word or the other to describe the same thing.
Ah. So to "bring people in" one must have a product that uses the same terms and structures as Windows? Don't we already have Windows to fulfill the role of Windows?
Perhaps Universities should draw more people in to Foreign Language programs by having those languages be more like English?
Oh, wait. They aren't English. Their words are "obscure". Why don't Germans just say "glasses" instead of "die Brille"? Silly Germans. They'll never get anyone to switch.
Linux is not Windows. Should it be more like Windows to attract Windows users? Why have an alternative that is indistinguishable from the other product? If an alternative is so like the other option, why would anyone bother to change? Is Ubuntu meant to depart from the rest of the Linux ecosystem to the extent that it ceases to be Linux and becomes Windows just to attract Windows users?
Last edited by QIII; October 8th, 2012 at 07:16 AM.
Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.
Please do not PM me about Registration issues without having been asked to. I will tell you to post here