mission of ubuntu

[alexfish]

I have been using Ubuntu since 6.10 I know it and I myself have no problems with it but the fact it hasn't been changed but Ubuntu is trying to get more users over to Linux makes no sense to me.

Gimp sucks compared to Photoshop and so forth.

Have to agree with Gimp - hard to handle " sucks " spit you dummy out.

as none windows user what is photoshop , do they sell cameras or do they specialise in
printing photo's , I have never seen a Photoshop shop where I live.

[num]

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.

There are users who do care. The fact that the software installs in several places can be an issue to some users.

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.

Never said Windows was perfect but it is better. But please don't tell me that /bin is more intuitive than Program Files.

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.

Sure, but the structure should still be changed to be more intuitive.

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.

I known several companies who couldn't implement Linux because it would be too complicated to train their dealers on using it.

[Paqman]

But please don't tell me that /bin is more intuitive than Program Files.

I don't think either of them are "intuitive". Honestly, I can't remember the last time I had any reason to be rummaging around in a location like /bin? Why would you need to?

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.

[num]

I don't think either of them are "intuitive". Honestly, I can't remember the last time I had any reason to be rummaging around in a location like /bin? Why would you need to?

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.

yes if you know CLI. Some users do need to. I can only speak regarding my work that a number of times would you need to change certain files around.

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.

[QIII]

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.

[Linuxratty]

Have to agree with Gimp - hard to handle " sucks " spit you dummy out.

Yup,there are stupid ways of doing things that just boggle my mind in the Gimp.

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!

[leclerc65]

I still use Windows, except for surfing.

[num]

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.

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?

[QIII]

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?

[Elfy]

Thread moved to Recurring Discussions.