Noobs, and a misunderstanding of GNU/Linux

[Kodfish]

In my humble opinion, Ubuntu should not compete with Windows. It angers and sickens me to see people saying that Linux requires XYZ to fight with Windows. It's an alternative, but it is not Windows. It's different. It's by geeks for geeks. I like how lots of people can use Ubuntu, but I do not like how people think Ubuntu is trying to be Windows. Linux was not intended as a desktop OS, and I think many newbies do not understand that what they see when they boot up Ubuntu for the first time. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but Ubuntu is a way to transition yourself over to Linux, not a way to change Linux into Windows.

Please tell me at least one person agrees with me in some way. Please, this has been gnawing at me for months.

[BoyOfDestiny]

In my humble opinion, Ubuntu should not compete with Windows. It angers and sickens me to see people saying that Linux requires XYZ to fight with Windows. It's an alternative, but it is not Windows. It's different. It's by geeks for geeks. I like how lots of people can use Ubuntu, but I do not like how people think Ubuntu is trying to be Windows. Linux was not intended as a desktop OS, and I think many newbies do not understand that what they see when they boot up Ubuntu for the first time. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but Ubuntu is a way to transition yourself over to Linux, not a way to change Linux into Windows.

Please tell me at least one person agrees with me in some way. Please, this has been gnawing at me for months.

Linux began life on Linus Torvalds' 386 PC with 4mb RAM. Linux (licensed under GPL by Linus) and the GNU tools gives you software that you can use, modify, share, and build on. It's meant to be flexible. Linus picked the GPL as he sees it as "tit for tat". You can't just take the code and run off with it. You distribute it, you share the changes.

If you think Linux was imagined from the get go to run on only servers and super computers, I'd disagree.

Linux can be anything. Whether it be desktop, server, super computer, appliance, embedded etc. It can compete with Windows. It shouldn't be a Windows clone in my opinion, but begging for Linux to not be friendly, or adopt some of Windows features, just doesn't make sense.

I like plug and play (which Windows does reasonably well, at least XP, although you often had to pop in a driver disc), package management, I like out of the box hardware support. I've never had to use a "driver" disc for my machines. For me it's already easier than Windows (especially with maintenance.) Easy doesn't have to mean limited or dumbed down.

[bated_breath]

In my humble opinion, Ubuntu should not compete with Windows. It angers and sickens me to see people saying that Linux requires XYZ to fight with Windows. It's an alternative, but it is not Windows. It's different. It's by geeks for geeks. I like how lots of people can use Ubuntu, but I do not like how people think Ubuntu is trying to be Windows. Linux was not intended as a desktop OS, and I think many newbies do not understand that what they see when they boot up Ubuntu for the first time. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but Ubuntu is a way to transition yourself over to Linux, not a way to change Linux into Windows.

Please tell me at least one person agrees with me in some way. Please, this has been gnawing at me for months.

Every operating system has its good and bad features - all too often linux people slate windows for not being more like linux. Linux may not have been intended to be a desktop OS, but ubuntu certainly is.

One of the meaning of the word "ubuntu" is community. In order to have a really strong community you have to make Ubuntu accessible and if this means implementing familiar windows features for those that want it then I cant see the harm in that?

[garba]

Please tell me at least one person agrees with me in some way. Please, this has been gnawing at me for months.

count me in :)

[Chilli Bob]

The reality is that GNU/Linux does have to "compete" with Windows if wants a greater share of the world's desktops. I think your issue is why does Linux want a larger share. I can't answer that, but it's the same reason that so many developers and programmers work to produce the OS and applications that we use. It could be personal achievement, a sense of altruism, or just plain fun. Either way, I'm sure that most of these guys and girls would love to have more GNU/Linux users out there, using their programs. That means by definition that they have to steal some Win/Mac users away from their existing OS. (I assume the majority of people reading this migrated from Win/Mac). So no, Linux doesn't have to be Windows, but it does have to have much of the same functionality, because, basically it's the same people doing the same things with their computer.

Or, if you want to sit in your Mum's basement, compiling your own kernels for the sake of it, than you can do that too. Linux is great that way.

[frup]

I kind of agree with you, but if you feel so strongly about it why do you use Ubuntu? Why not use Debian or keep using Gentoo? Otherwise it seems you are saying that it annoys you that Ubuntu is turning into something you like.

What annoys me is people who use GPL software but complain about the GPL. If you don't like the GPL and how it works, use BSD or stick with your proprietary nonsense.

This is an example of why BSD isn't a good Idea
http://www.skyos.org/
It's proprietary.

[23meg]

Bug #1 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1) implies that Ubuntu may not be the distro for you.

[prizrak]

While Ubuntu and Linux in general does not have to compete with Windows* or even take Windows features, there are things that Windows does very well and there is no reason not to include good ideas. For instance the Control Panel in Windows is a very good way of organizing administration tasks. Another good thing (that I wish would get implemented) is a little icon next to the clock that lets you eject removeable hardware.

*Majority of worl population is not using computers at all and this is where the opportunity is. MS has announced selling Windows for $2 to developing countries just to get them to use their OS.

[karellen]

speaking about market share....I think it's essential for ubuntu (and for linux) in the long run. let's face it: market share means better driver support, means top-notch closed-source programs ported to linux (and not just the classic example photoshop/dreamweaver, but things like autocad or professional video/audio editing tools), means global awareness - with all the benefits from that. means instead of saying" wireless doesn't work in linux unless you do this or use that" saying "it's simple, insert the cd with the drivers from the manufacturer and here you go, you have wireless". modern hardware support from the actual makers of that particular hardware is of extreme importance in my opinion...

[ThinkBuntu]

In my humble opinion, Ubuntu should not compete with Windows. It angers and sickens me to see people saying that Linux requires XYZ to fight with Windows. It's an alternative, but it is not Windows. It's different. It's by geeks for geeks. I like how lots of people can use Ubuntu, but I do not like how people think Ubuntu is trying to be Windows. Linux was not intended as a desktop OS, and I think many newbies do not understand that what they see when they boot up Ubuntu for the first time. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but Ubuntu is a way to transition yourself over to Linux, not a way to change Linux into Windows.

Please tell me at least one person agrees with me in some way. Please, this has been gnawing at me for months.
First, very few, if any, Linux distributions strive to be like Windows. They may have a few similar features, but the only one I can think of that blatantly rips off Windows at every turn is PCLinuxOS (which is still a pretty nice OS). As long as Ubuntu and Windows are both trying to be a desktop OS, both will draw comparisons and compete. If you want Linux by geeks/for geeks, I suggest you try Gentoo, Slackware, or even Arch. These will require you to get your hands dirty (although Arch takes care of itself pretty well once it's set up).

[samjh]

In my humble opinion, Ubuntu should not compete with Windows. It angers and sickens me to see people saying that Linux requires XYZ to fight with Windows. It's an alternative, but it is not Windows. It's different. It's by geeks for geeks. I like how lots of people can use Ubuntu, but I do not like how people think Ubuntu is trying to be Windows. Linux was not intended as a desktop OS, and I think many newbies do not understand that what they see when they boot up Ubuntu for the first time. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but Ubuntu is a way to transition yourself over to Linux, not a way to change Linux into Windows.

Please tell me at least one person agrees with me in some way. Please, this has been gnawing at me for months.

Linux was born as an experimental hobby project. But it doesn't mean Linux should stay that way. In fact, Linux has not remained just another experiment or a hobby project, but evolved into a powerful OS of its own right.

People, and that includes makers of distros, can use Linux for whatever they want. For Ubuntu, it is meant as a competitor to Windows. So unless you are willing to accept that, then perhaps you should move to a distro with design ethos more closely aligned with your views.

I use Ubuntu because it is one of the very few Linux distros that actually have a chance to become a credible mainstream OS alternative to Windows, and the most accessible one among them.

I don't believe Ubuntu should become a Windows clone. But for Ubuntu to become a mainstream OS, it is inevitable that usability should be a significant design objective.

[koenn]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=442270

yes, it's been bugging me too :)

[blah blah blah]

First, very few, if any, Linux distributions strive to be like Windows.

Redflag,Linspire,alinux,Mandriva, and maybe 1-2 more distros do.
Edit: and puppy so probably 1 more

[blah blah blah]

It's by geeks for geeks

No it isn't; that would be a stupid design goal.

[Adamant1988]

Every operating system has its good and bad features - all too often linux people slate windows for not being more like linux. Linux may not have been intended to be a desktop OS, but ubuntu certainly is.

One of the meaning of the word "ubuntu" is community. In order to have a really strong community you have to make Ubuntu accessible and if this means implementing familiar windows features for those that want it then I cant see the harm in that?

Actually, Linux was intended to be a kernel if I remember correctly... I have no sources to cite for this though, it's just my opinion.

[koenn]

Redflag,Linspire,alinux,Mandriva, and maybe 1-2 more distros do.
Edit: and puppy so probably 1 more
maybe so, i.e. they kinda aim for a windows look-and-feel to accomodate certain users. Underneath, they use linux filesystems, filesystem hierarchy, they deal with administrator and user accounts in a unix kinda way, they use typical linux software management, and so on (with a few exceptions here and there). Still, I've seen users complain about the fact that linux does not let you install software by clicking on a .exe file, or about the fact that only root (or users with sudo) can do system administration.

[koenn]

No it isn't; that would be a stupid design goal.
Actually, it was 'by programmers, for programmers" and why would that (or even "for geeks") be a stupid design goal ?. It's a product designed for a specific target audience. What's stupid about that ?

[jrusso2]

Linux is that, linux is this, linux is what you make it. Linux belongs to all of us. If you don't like this or that the code is open and you can change it do what ever you want, you just need to remember the four freedoms.

So if it really bothers you that it won't do this or that, then it up to you to try to change it to do what you want.

If not then you have to accept what people give you.

[blah blah blah]

Actually, it was 'by programmers, for programmers" and why would that (or even "for geeks") be a stupid design goal ?. It's a product designed for a specific target audience. What's stupid about that ?

Why would someone design the low level part of the OS to avoid certain users.

[dasunst3r]

I mostly agree with you. Indeed, I do not talk about Linux wanting to compete -- I present it as an alternative. Additionally, I have a sit-down with the potential convert to ensure that Linux is right for them before making the switch. The point that I do not agree with is that it is built by geeks for geeks. We want to welcome everybody.

[koenn]

not "to avoid certain users".
to accomodate the needs of a specific group of users.
I think the original specifications were something like
- run on a 386 processor
- unix-like
- written in C
- source code availble for review and improvement by fellow programmers

[blah blah blah]

not "to avoid certain users".
to accomodate the needs of a specific group of users.
I think the original specifications were something like
- run on a 386 processor
- unix-like
- written in C
- source code availble for review and improvement by fellow programmers

So its not just for them.

[Nikron]

Also, for the most part agree with the original poster, so don't feel left out in the cold =P

[arvevans]

I went to Linux because i wanted to do some things (mostly desktop interfaced applications) that I couldn't do with MS-OS (multi-user, remote user, secure applications, remote desktop, etc.).

The original **IX OS was designed by engineers at Bell Labs and it's first real application was for desktop note taking and printing. See <http://www.princeton.edu/~mike/expotape.htm>
So, the origins and first use of the system was definitely desktop, but way back in the dark ages of 1969.

Linus came along later and pretty much followed the UNIX oriented POSIX specification for command interfaces, but designed and built his own kernel to run these commands. Linux as we know it today is the kernel from Linus and a myriad of commands (some very UNIX-like) that run on top of that kernel. In the "in-between years" the strength of UNIX and it's many variants became well known to academia as a friendly computing platform for scientific experimentation, but there have always been some level of attempts to make it a mainstream desktop system (Sun - Star Office on Solaris, etc.). With Ubuntu it seems to have made a major step toward working as a desktop system for non-technical users, but there will probably always be those who proclaim it to be an impostor.
_._

[saulgoode]

So its not just for them.

Correct, but it is designed for them.

[koenn]

So its not just for them.
never said it was. I was just correcting the "by geeks, for geeks" statement.
In the 15 years since L.T. first started writing Linux because he wanted a unix-like OS to run on his brand new 386 PC, a lot of water has pased under the bridge, and today Linux is not just for programmers. Howerver, lots of features, properties and qualities of the OS carry that inheritance. Complaining that it doesn't resemble Windows enough is, in that context, plain nonsense.

[blah blah blah]

Correct, but it is designed for them.

no, it's not. It was designed people who want a free i386 unix-like kernel which aren't necessarily programmers.

[saulgoode]

no, it's not it was designed people who want a free i386 unix-like kernel which aren't necessarily programmers.

Read the topic title of this thread. The discussion is about GNU/Linux, not the kernel.

[blah blah blah]

Read the topic title of this thread. The discussion is about GNU/Linux, not the kernel.

opps, even still I don't think the community (or project rather) has ever had a specific goal to make an OS for programmers; I think they only wanted a free OS.

[koenn]

no, it's not it was designed people who want a free i386 unix-like kernel which aren't necessarily programmers.
And who, in 1991, would be interested in a unix-like system that could be used on a PC (in stead of at a terminal) and was capable of taking advantage of the 32 bit adres bus and the extended features of the 386 processor, such as paging and virtual memory ?

[blah blah blah]

And who, in 1991, would be interested in a unix-like system that could be used on a PC (in stead of at a terminal) and was capable of taking advantage of the 32 bit adres bus and the extended features of the 386 processor, such as paging and virtual memory ?

That's not what were are talking about. We are talking about its purpose.

[koenn]

opps, even still I don't think the community (or project rather) has ever had a specific goal to make an OS for programmers; I think they only wanted a free OS.

The Free Software Foundation wanted a free OS.
Linus just wanted an operating system for his computer.
The combination of the two is what lead to the Linux we have today.

[koenn]

That's not what were are talking about. We are talking about its purpose.
I thought we were talking about who Torvals had in mind when he set about making Linux : himself and people like him. Programmers.

[blah blah blah]

The Free Software Foundation wanted a free OS.
Linus just wanted an operating system for his computer.
The combination of the two is what lead to the Linux we have today.

I know that. Can we continue what we were talking about?

[raul_]

Bug #1 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1) implies that Ubuntu may not be the distro for you.


Bug #1, first reported on 2004-08-20 by Mark Shuttleworth
Microsoft has a majority market share



Bug description [edit]

Microsoft has a majority market share in the new desktop PC marketplace. This is a bug, which Ubuntu is designed to fix.

Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world's population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry.
Steps to repeat:
1. Visit a local PC store.
What happens:
2. Observe that a majority of PCs for sale have non-free software pre-installed.
3. Observe very few PCs with Ubuntu and free software pre-installed.
What should happen:
1. A majority of the PCs for sale should include only free software like Ubuntu.
2. Ubuntu should be marketed in a way such that its amazing features and benefits would be apparent and known by all.
3. The system shall become more and more user friendly as time passes.


+1

[blah blah blah]

I thought we were talking about who Torvals had in mind when he set about making Linux : himself and people like him. Programmers.

It was never designed specifically for programmers just for people who wanted a free OS.

[koenn]

release notes for linux 0.01 http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01
read it and tell me it's NOT oriented towards programmers.

Again, I'm not saying linux today is or should be for programmers only. However, lots of features, properties and qualities of the OS carry that inheritance. Complaining that it doesn't resemble Windows enough is, in that context, plain nonsense.
And that's what we were talking about.

[JAPrufrock]

The Free Software Foundation wanted a free OS.
Linus just wanted an operating system for his computer.
The combination of the two is what lead to the Linux we have today.

Yes, and that is EXACTLY the point. Torvalds' GNU/Linux is for geeks. Stallman's GNU/Linux is for the rest of the world, and to be successful, from Stallman's point of view, GNU/Linux has to compete against MS and win. Stallman, with the help of open source GNU/Linux, is trying to help make the world we live in a better place. Let's not negate the importance of that by saying GNU/Linux should be just for geeks.

[prizrak]

OK a little history lesson.
GNU's purpose was to design free (as in freedom) tools that would mimic (or surpass) functionality of the same tools on a UNIX system. Eventually they set out to create a free version of UNIX. Hence GNU's Not UNIX. They had everything but the kernel.

In 1991 Torvalds came along and discovered Minix. At the time he wanted to know more about how an OS works. While playing around with Minix he found many things he didn't like so eventually wrote his own kernel to POSIX specifications. He also made sure that it could run GNU tools. This is what became known as a GNU/Linux or simply Linux.

It was NOT meant for the programmers by the programmers. It was not meant to be anything really. FSF wanted a free (libre) version of UNIX (an OS for businesses/academia rather than just programmers) and Torvalds wanted to play around (in fact his book is called "Just for fun").

So there you have it, the OS was made "for fun" not anything else. It has evolved since into much more. Now it is an OS for desktops, PDA's, cellphones, servers, mainframes, super computers, embedded systems and more...

It is not unreasonable for people to expect a distribution that is geared for the desktop to be easy to use and set up. It may be unreasonable to ask it be nothing more than a Windows clone but that's a different story alltogether. Though as I have said before there are many things Windows does correctly and a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from. If someone has a better idea it should be implemented but you shouldn't outright reject everything just because "Windows does it". Taken to the extreme it would mean we would have to get rid of monitors, mice and keyboards.

[blah blah blah]

release notes for linux 0.01 http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01
read it and tell me it's NOT oriented towards programmers.

Again, I'm not saying linux today is or should be for programmers only. However, lots of features, properties and qualities of the OS carry that inheritance. Complaining that it doesn't resemble Windows enough is, in that context, plain nonsense.
And that's what we were talking about.

it's not oriented towards programmers

[vexorian]

In my humble opinion, Ubuntu should not compete with Windows. It angers and sickens me to see people saying that Linux requires XYZ to fight with Windows. It's an alternative, but it is not Windows. It's different. It's by geeks for geeks. I like how lots of people can use Ubuntu, but I do not like how people think Ubuntu is trying to be Windows. Linux was not intended as a desktop OS, and I think many newbies do not understand that what they see when they boot up Ubuntu for the first time. Sure, there is always room for improvement, but Ubuntu is a way to transition yourself over to Linux, not a way to change Linux into Windows.

Please tell me at least one person agrees with me in some way. Please, this has been gnawing at me for months.
Must disagree.

Ubuntu is no "transition from windows to Linux", it is a Desktop OS, which uses the Linux kernel and plenty of OS resources and apps. And it is meant to be a desktop OS used by "humans" .

Something that I don't like is when people think Ubuntu should be a windows/MacOSX clone, no Ubuntu should be a complete and unique Desktop, not a clone that's supposed to do everything exactly as windows/mac.osx (god forbid)

[steven8]

5 Pages and the OP hasn't posted but the once. We keep trying to catch the hook, but that trolling boat is moving too quickly.

[Tundro Walker]

"Can't we all just get along?"

No. No, we can't. There's a finite amount of market-share, and while the goals of some Linux distro's and MS Windows may be the same (IE: to control some of that market share), the means are different. You should choose an OS that uses "means" you agree with. A lot of folks here don't agree with MS' "means" of badgering legit users, over-charging them, handing out buggy software and neglecting customer support, etc.

Granted, this isn't a war, exactly. You don't have to "choose sides". A lot of folks dual-boot with Ubuntu & XP/Vista. But, I view this more as a moral support issue. Even if I had to pay $50 a year to use Ubuntu, I'd do so, because I support a low-cost OS, that provides open freedom for development and growth; something that helps, not hinders human development on a personal level into the future. Human development and ingenuity shouldn't be some exclusive thing that big business have a strangle hold on. We shouldn't have to just accept whatever comes out from behind the curtain from their shop. Ubuntu allows us to mold the OS and software the way we like, and is ultimately better for "the little guy" as well as large companies. And there's a whole lot of "little guys" out there. It's just they either haven't reached a frustration point to want to do something about MS, or they just don't know they have other options.

[awakatanka]

sudo -s
apt-get remove kde gnome anywindowsmanager

and you got youre geek system back.

Kde gnome and the others have a different goal. Distro builders have a different goal. If you don't like that move along get another that meets youre needs.

A thread made to troll and not to discusse else the OP had posted more.

[jusmurph]

I don't think it has anything to do with being like windows.

I think it is about having the options and productivity that windows has. With a larger user base, comes a larger software base etc etc etc...

[penncon]

5 Pages and the OP hasn't posted but the once. We keep trying to catch the hook, but that trolling boat is moving too quickly.

Amen

:popcorn:

[karellen]

"Can't we all just get along?"

No. No, we can't. There's a finite amount of market-share, and while the goals of some Linux distro's and MS Windows may be the same (IE: to control some of that market share), the means are different. You should choose an OS that uses "means" you agree with. A lot of folks here don't agree with MS' "means" of badgering legit users, over-charging them, handing out buggy software and neglecting customer support, etc.

Granted, this isn't a war, exactly. You don't have to "choose sides". A lot of folks dual-boot with Ubuntu & XP/Vista. But, I view this more as a moral support issue. Even if I had to pay $50 a year to use Ubuntu, I'd do so, because I support a low-cost OS, that provides open freedom for development and growth; something that helps, not hinders human development on a personal level into the future. Human development and ingenuity shouldn't be some exclusive thing that big business have a strangle hold on. We shouldn't have to just accept whatever comes out from behind the curtain from their shop. Ubuntu allows us to mold the OS and software the way we like, and is ultimately better for "the little guy" as well as large companies. And there's a whole lot of "little guys" out there. It's just they either haven't reached a frustration point to want to do something about MS, or they just don't know they have other options.

what's better or best for you doesn't mean it's better or best for someone else.
and it's a little hazarduos linking huma development with computers, don't you think?...:)
respect others' choices and opinions and they shall respect yours
;)

[23meg]

I don't see anything wrong with the "for geeks, by geeks" attitude. It's perfectly legitimate, and doesn't go against Ubuntu's goals, and the desire of many people to enlarge the user base of Free software; if anything, it contributes to it. It's not as if the software and other goods developed by the "for geeks, by geeks" crowd won't make it into Ubuntu and help it achieve its goals (GPL, remember?), and there's ultimately nothing wrong with wanting to have your own little corner where you hang out with people of your own mindset, developing and using software that fits the needs of that crowd, as long as you're not discriminative and your practices don't obscure things for others.

Ubuntu has a clearly stated goal of dethroning Microsoft from its de facto / majority position, so if one wants a "for geeks, by geeks" thing, Ubuntu isn't the best place to be. But that doesn't mean that every "for geeks, by geeks" position is necessarily against Ubuntu, obscures things Ubuntu, or even that one can't make an Ubuntu derivative "for geeks, by geeks".