PDA

View Full Version : Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll



Pages : [1] 2

aysiu
August 18th, 2005, 08:07 PM
Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the penguin)

A troll will always be successful on a Linux forum, and I'm about to explain why. Despite numerous protests of "Don't feed the trolls" and "The best thing to do is ignore posts like these," people will continue to respond to trolls because trolls (like Linux distros) come in different flavors and varieties. One troll in particular seems particularly impassioned and genuine and so always gets responses:

The "If I can't use it, nobody can" troll

I actually believe this kind of troll is well-intentioned, and that's why people respond. This isn't someone who's trying to just stir up emotions or just laugh at how people respond negatively to her post. This person has genuine concerns, so people try to genuinely address those concerns.

Here's what happens:

Someone with a lot of Windows experience--an insane amount of Windows experience--who knows a lot about programming, web developing, administering servers, DOS commands, etc. hears about Linux from some friends at work. She figures, "Hey, I'll give this a shot. People keep talking about how great it is, and I think I even read an article in 2001 about how it's almost ready for the desktop market. Let's see if it is."

She takes what's touted as a "user-friendly" distro--say, Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn't recognize her screen resolution. She's used to being able to download a driver to fix that. She can't find the driver. She wants to install some software. So, she does what she usually does in Windows--finds a program on the web, downloads it, and tries to install it. Instead of a wizard, she gets a README file that tells her to type ./configure, make, and make install. Just about everything she tries to do she can't do because she tries to do it the Windows way. She also notes a lack of GUI for several things she's used to having (but that most regular users never need--say, finding the IP address of the computer). After a while, she throws up her hands in frustration. "I'm a programmer, for God's sakes. If I can't figure out Linux, how's an ordinary user ["Joe Sixpack," Grandma, etc.] supposed to figure this out? I'd better tell all these Linux people to stop telling people it's ready for the desktop."

So she signs up for a forum and does just that, not realizing this has been done many, many times before. She's well-intentioned. She wants to help people. What happens? Instead of "Wow! You're the first person to tell us that. We couldn't imagine a long-time Windows user having difficulty with Linux. Well, surely we must go into hiding and develop some more before we can release any Linux distribution to the general public," Linux users rightly get upset. "You're doing it the Windows way." This troll doesn't understand what Linux users are talking about. "The Windows way? The Windows way is the easy way. After all, I haven't had any trouble with it." What she doesn't realize is how long it's taken her to learn the Windows way and that now, like a second language, Linux seems hard not because it is hard but because it's different.

Her assumptions are also flawed. Her logic runs like this

IF var=computing experience, THEN I > the masses
IF var=Linux, THEN I have trouble
THUS, IF var=Linux, the masses have even more trouble

Using a new operating system, however, is a lot like learning a new language--the syntax is different, the vocabulary is different, even the culture is different. But a linguistic expert in English may have more trouble learning Chinese than the expert's four-year-old daughter (who clearly knows less about language than her mother does). Just ask children of immigrants how often they have to translate for their parents. Likewise, someone who is so ingrained with the Windows ways of doing things will have trouble with Linux. Most regular users (not programmers) won't have to ./configure, make, make install and find dependencies. They'll click a few things in Synaptic Package Manager, and all their programs will download and install along with their dependencies. "Regular" users, who know very little about computers, have less to unlearn. They may be accustomed to certain Windows ways of doing things, but ultimately, they're used to just seeing an icon and clicking on it.

Well-intentioned trolls also operate under the assumption that Linux is supposed to work for everyone. It's not. Nor is Windows. Nor is OS X. Contrary to what some companies would have you believe, no OS is for everyone. Now, for some Linux purists, that means not for the weak-hearted. These are the Read the F'in Manual people. They've been with Linux a long time and don't believe that Linux should cater to new users. If new users like Linux, fine. If they don't, they should bugger off. Others, like me, believe that at least some distros should cater to new users (and many do, actually), but that doesn't mean Linux is for everyone. It's for those with an open mind and certain computing habits. For example, if you use Windows-only software, are a big fan of every commercial computer game that comes out, and have a winmodem, Linux isn't for you. If, however, like the majority of computer users, you do what I call the "basic six," you'll be happy with Linux:

1. Check email/instant message
2. Surf the internet
3. Organize pictures
4. Listen to music
5. Word process
6. Play silly games (Solitaire, Tetris)

The last bad assumption these trolls have is that Linux distros are Linux. They try one distro and assume that all distros must be like that. Then, they start making "suggestions" for how Linux "must" improve in order to woo Windows users, not knowing that many of those "problems" have already been fixed. I've seen these trolls complain that there are too many programs installed for any given task (solution: Ubuntu--one program for each task) or that the boot-up is verbose instead of silent (solution: Mepis, Mandriva, just about any user-friendly distro) or that themes are difficult to install (solution: Gnome) or that there needs to be a Windows clone distro (solution: Linspire). The amazing thing about Linux is how much variety there is. You can choose a lightweight distro or heavyweight one. You can choose a do-it-yourself or an automatic. You can choose KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, IceWM, XFCE. You can't make judgments about "Linux needs to do this or Linux needs to do that" until you've tried several major distros. And by "try," I don't mean pop the CD in, tinker for a few minutes, and give up.

And we're tired of all the "it should be easy to install like Windows is" arguments. Windows isn't easy to install. And most users don't ever install Windows. Period. It doesn't matter how easy Linux gets to install and configure--people aren't going to adopt it en masse until companies start buying more Linux computers for their employees to use, schools start getting more Linux computers for their students, and companies like Dell start preloading computers with Linux.

Many regard Mac OS X as the most user-friendly operating system around. Well, for a long-time Windows user (me), it was quite difficult to use OS X at first. I had to get used to a whole new set of keyboard shortcuts (Cmd-tab instead of control-tab, Cmd-comma for preferences, etc.). I didn't know how to install software by dragging things from some white disk-looking thing to the Applications folder. I was used to wizards. I didn't know I needed third-party software to turn off the bootup noise. I didn't understand why clicking the + sign on a window didn't maximize it. I didn't understand why minimized Windows wouldn't maximize when I Cmd-tabbed to them. The list goes on and on. I was a frustrated user. I sucked it up, though, and now both my wife and I are proficient in daily Mac OS X tasks. Same for Linux. I sucked it up. Now, I've embraced Synaptic Package Manager, and I can't stand wizards any more. That's twenty years of Microsoft and four months of Linux talking.

By the way, I am not a programmer. I'm not a sys admin, a web admin. I'm not a graphic designer, a game designer, or any kind of engineer. I'm just an ex-English teacher who gave Linux an honest-to-goodness shot, and I'm a total convert now. I'm not anti-Microsoft. I'm not anti-Apple. I'm just pro-Linux and tired of hearing all the same "suggestions" over and over again.

The well-intentioned trolls should save themselves some typing. It's all been done before. And I hope the next time we get one of those trolls, that you just link them to this post. I know I will. I'm tired of typing these rebuttals over and over again.
If you really want to do some good, instead of whining on some Linux forums, do one of the following:

1. Put some of those programming skills to good use and help develop Linux
2. File a bug report at the appropriate distro/software website
3. Donate some money to help Linux developers

Other than that, no one's resting on her laurels. Linux distros are constantly being updated and improved, and new Linux users are popping up every day. Linux isn't for everybody's desktop, but it's ready for many people's desktops (read my sig for more info).

P.S. Here are some links, just to make this post as comprehensive as possible:

Linux equivalents for Windows Programs (http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html)
The Linux Distribution Chooser (http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/index.php)
Linux is not Windows (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)
The Ubuntu Guide (http://www.ubuntuguide.org)

Have a good day, everyone!

matthew
August 18th, 2005, 08:28 PM
aysiu, you are my hero! That was clear and very graciously written while giving a firm wake-up call to the lazy or the complaining. Thank you from all of us who are genuinely interested in being helpful to those in need.

krusbjorn
August 18th, 2005, 08:57 PM
That's one great post. Good job!

weasel fierce
August 18th, 2005, 09:10 PM
Amazing.

sophtpaw
August 18th, 2005, 09:20 PM
That's one great post. Good job!

English teacher putting English to good use. Well done!

..
sophtpaw

krusbjorn
August 18th, 2005, 09:21 PM
English teacher putting English to good use. Well done!

..
sophtpaw

? *boggle*

newbie2
August 18th, 2005, 09:28 PM
Linux equivalents for Windows Programs (http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/table.shtml)
Last update : 27.05.2005
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=50826
;-)

Kyral
August 18th, 2005, 10:13 PM
Bravo! A very good read! It is indeed like learning a second language! I had to fix something on my sister's XP laptop and the first thing I did was open the command prompt and try to use the bash commands before it hit me that this was XP :P

Back then I was used to Windows. Now I am used to Linux. People are used to OSX, that is what must be stressed when showing someone another OS. "You are going to have to learn how to do things differently, but it isn't hard"

xequence
August 18th, 2005, 10:41 PM
Awesome =D And very true.

1. Check email/instant message
2. Surf the internet
3. Organize pictures
4. Listen to music
5. Word process
6. Play silly games (Solitaire, Tetris)

I check my e-mail, surf the internet, I like pictures, I love music, I sometime word process, and I love tetris!(Gnometris on ubuntu :P) But not solitaire :P

And I am happy with Linux =D

Youre good o.O

KageKeeper
August 19th, 2005, 01:41 AM
This was a *great* post and read!

Very well worded and organized. :smile:

Awesome job!

benplaut
August 19th, 2005, 02:27 AM
that was a GREAT read...

no words will be saved by a troll not posting because of this, but the words have been put to good use here :grin:

somebody sticky this?

autocrosser
August 19th, 2005, 03:19 AM
The BEST treatment of the topic I've read in a long while---Two thumbs up & THIS should be a Sticky in a Very visible place!!!!!!!!:)

Kerberos
August 20th, 2005, 10:16 AM
I'm assuming your talking about me. You do realise 'troll' is a pejorative making this thread a vaguely disguised insult (I'm not a forum newbie, surprise, surprise).

The term 'trolling' is based on the dictionary definition 'To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat', yet I am willing to stand by and justify with personal experiance my reasoning for my comments. It seems anyone who a: Doesn't agree with you and b: Isn't willing to be swayed by the 'your wrong, deal with it' argument is a troll.

But at the end of the day I am still going to keep promoting Microsoft software over Linux to my clients as quite simply Windows gives me much less hassle in terms of maintainance and technical support. Coupled with the fact there is a moratorium on discussing improvements in Linux here ('Fix it yourself', 'report it on bugzilla') and Microsoft actually stand by their product ('If you dont like it fk off its free' simply does not cut it).

I have (as you have stated) an extensive IT background and I am not willing to use Linux in anything but a server (195 days uptime for the firewall/dhcp box here). Maybe there is an actual reason for it greater than 'Bill Gates is paying me' or 'I am a troll'.

And Linux's single digit market share tells you its not just me that thinks this way.

sapo
August 20th, 2005, 10:43 AM
At least an open-minded still exists in this world.. now i m sure :grin:

Knome_fan
August 20th, 2005, 10:56 AM
It seems anyone who a: Doesn't agree with you and b: Isn't willing to be swayed by the 'your wrong, deal with it' argument is a troll.

Does it really seem that way? Actually, I think the OP gave a pretty good overview about what he think is trolling, simply disagreeing with him wasn't one of the reasons.



But at the end of the day I am still going to keep promoting Microsoft software over Linux to my clients as quite simply Windows gives me much less hassle in terms of maintainance and technical support.

Fine.
I think everyone would agree that you should recomend the solution to your clients that you think is the best solution and that you are able to actually administer. After all, I suppose that's what they are paying for, isn't it?



Coupled with the fact there is a moratorium on discussing improvements in Linux here ('Fix it yourself', 'report it on bugzilla') and Microsoft actually stand by their product ('If you dont like it fk off its free' simply does not cut it).

Oh please, this is a freaking community forum. People's attitudes here neither reflect Linux as a whole, nor do they reflect how companies like canonical, redhat, novell, etc. treat improvements.
Seriously, how do you think people would and should react if I for example joined some windows support forum only to tell everyone around where windows is lacking, to put it mildly and then finally to complain that nothing is being done about it? Would be rather silly, wouldn't it?
Btw., reporting bugs is the best way to communicate with developers, so I don't really understand why you think people pointing this out to you is a problem.



I have (as you have stated) an extensive IT background and I am not willing to use Linux in anything but a server (195 days uptime for the firewall/dhcp box here).

Again, fine. What exactly is the problem here?



Maybe there is an actual reason for it greater than 'Bill Gates is paying me' or 'I am a troll'.

First off, I'm sure there are a host of reasons but you being a troll certainly isn't one of them.
However, I think we'd have a hard time agreeing on what these reasons are.



And Linux's single digit market share tells you its not just me that thinks this way.
Does it?
Couldn't MS having a monopoly have something to do with it also?
And you should define what market you are talking about. There are markets where Linux has a pretty significant market share and is the fastest growing OS out there.

Finally, I hope it is fine with you if I ask you some questions.
What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
From what I read you neither use Ubuntu, nor do you plan to use it.
While this in itself wouldn't necessarily be a reason not to hang around here, all I have seen from you (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is you engaging in Windows vs. Linux flamewars, stating how Linux sucks and how Windows doesn't have any flaws.
So again, what is the purpose of this kind of behaviour?

Kerberos
August 20th, 2005, 11:21 AM
Finally, I hope it is fine with you if I ask you some questions.
What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
From what I read you neither use Ubuntu, nor do you plan to use it.
While this in itself wouldn't necessarily be a reason not to hang around here, all I have seen from you (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is you engaging in Windows vs. Linux flamewars, stating how Linux sucks and how Windows doesn't have any flaws.
So again, what is the purpose of this kind of behaviour?
I've not said anywhere Windows doesn't have flaws, in fact I list them on a regular basis.

I pointed out that the network control tool doesn't tell you your DHCP allocated IP address. I was told that 'This isn't the Linux way' despite there being an empty box that say 'IP Address' right there. I even provided a screenshot. On commenting that a boot screen might be a good idea also (and I even posted that comment as an example to the sort of bad replys I get to suggestions) and was told to 'try another distro' and 'Stop trying to make Linux Windows'.

I appreciate that discussing problems does not fix them, but a discussion does air the problem, and generally gives rise to an interesting enough thread. If I say I feel something is a problem and then get told 'Try another distro', 'Its not Windows' or 'There is a learning curve' as a response then I read that as 'This problem isn't going away'. I dont consider it acceptable that the easiest way to view my IP address is with bash and by refusing to accept that Its a problem is equivelant to a refusal to address it, but by refusing to even concede on (what to me) is obvious room for improvement it removes my faith in Ubuntus ability to actually progress.

Knome_fan
August 20th, 2005, 11:50 AM
I've not said anywhere Windows doesn't have flaws, in fact I list them on a regular basis.
You did?
Could you please point me to where you did that?
Now I'm not following what you write here religiously, but from what I have seen you didn't react very friendly if people dared to point out flaws in windows. Now don't get me wrong, you are of course free to disagree with people's assessments of flaws, but honestly, I can't remember one instance where you agreed that something was indeed a windows problem.



I pointed out that the network control tool doesn't tell you your DHCP allocated IP address. I was told that 'This isn't the Linux way' despite there being an empty box that say 'IP Address' right there. I even provided a screenshot.

Well, I'm not really sure if the network control tool is the right place to give you this information. After all it serves as a tool to configure your connection, not to give you information about your connection. Probably the network panel applet would be a much better and easier to use place. Did you take a look if it works there?

The answer you cite here sure is stupid, but from what I remember of this discussion you used this "problem" to point out that linux isn't ready for the desktop and repeated this very point for several pages again and again. I think it's fair to assume that not you simply pointing out a missing feature caused the reactions you complain about, but your line of reasoning and repeating this point over and over again.

Btw., this would be a great thing to file a but report about.



On commenting that a boot screen might be a good idea also (and I even posted that comment as an example to the sort of bad replys I get to suggestions) and was told to 'try another distro' and 'Stop trying to make Linux Windows'.

Ah, I remember at least part of this discussion. You didn't simply state that a boot screen would be a good idea (which it would be as I and many others have also stated and which afaik is coming with breezy), but you used the lack of a boot screen in ubuntu in a totally unrelated discussion to again point out how linux isn't ready for the desktop. And while we are it, what's bad about people pointing out that almost every other distro out there has a bootscreen?



I appreciate that discussing problems does not fix them, but a discussion does air the problem, and generally gives rise to an interesting enough thread. If I say I feel something is a problem and then get told 'Try another distro', 'Its not Windows' or 'There is a learning curve' as a response then I read that as 'This problem isn't going away'.
Again, I doubt that simply stating what iyho could be improved in ubuntu accurately describes what you are doing.



I dont consider it acceptable that the easiest way to view my IP address is with bash and by refusing to accept that Its a problem is equivelant to a refusal to address it, but by refusing to even concede on (what to me) is obvious room for improvement it removes my faith in Ubuntus ability to actually progress.
First, see above.
Second, again, this is a community forum and you post in a section called community chat. How people react here is totally irrelevant to the progress of Ubuntu. As I already asked, how do you think people would react if I did the same thing you do here in a windows support forum?

Kvark
August 20th, 2005, 11:59 AM
I appreciate that discussing problems does not fix them, but a discussion does air the problem, and generally gives rise to an interesting enough thread. If I say I feel something is a problem and then get told 'Try another distro', 'Its not Windows' or 'There is a learning curve' as a response then I read that as 'This problem isn't going away'. I dont consider it acceptable that the easiest way to view my IP address is with bash and by refusing to accept that Its a problem is equivelant to a refusal to address it, but by refusing to even concede on (what to me) is obvious room for improvement it removes my faith in Ubuntus ability to actually progress.
Easiest way to view your IP address in Windows:
-> Type "ipconfig" in a command window.

Easiest way to view your IP address in Ubuntu:
-> Type "ip address" in a command window.

Pretty similar, only difference is that the linux command is more logical and easier to guess. Maybe the command line just happens to be a quick way to query for this kind of info.

OK, some hate the command line even when it is the fastest way... I'm sure you are aware of the GUI ways to find out your IP in Windows. In Ubuntu, one GUI way is to open the menu -> system tools -> network tools. Then select the interface you want to view the IP of from the drop down list there, even that is not hard at all.



BTW. You find that the way Ubuntu does things does not suit you at all. You would never use it or reccomend it to anyone. You think Ubuntu is inferior. And you don't have any faith in it's ability to progress. I really think you should go somewhere else and use another OS because Ubuntu clearly isn't for you and you are only wasting your time hanging out at an Ubuntu related forum.

Kerberos
August 20th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Easiest way to view your IP address in Windows:
-> Type "ipconfig" in a command window.

Easiest way to view your IP address in Ubuntu:
-> Type "ip address" in a command window.

Pretty similar, only difference is that the linux command is more logical and easier to guess. Maybe the command line just happens to be a quick way to query for this kind of info.

Neither of those options are guessable. They all require prerequisite knowlege - which is largely the 'point' of a GUI, to remove that requirement by providing people with choices as opposed to a flashing cursor. It presents the choices, you choose, rather than expecting the user to already know how.


OK, some hate the command line even when it is the fastest way... I'm sure you are aware of the GUI ways to find out your IP in Windows. In Ubuntu, one GUI way is to open the menu -> system tools -> network tools.
You mean this option? (http://www.newworldhorders.com/upload/ubuntu_ip.png) Tell me why it cant just display the DHCP assigned IP in the boxes provided (greyed out at least), and why its of possible benifit to _anyone_ to not have that information there?

BTW. You find that the way Ubuntu does things does not suit you at all. You would never use it or reccomend it to anyone. You think Ubuntu is inferior. And you don't have any faith in it's ability to progress. I really think you should go somewhere else and use another OS because Ubuntu clearly isn't for you and you are only wasting your time hanging out at an Ubuntu related forum.
I think you might be right. If an operating system doesn't provide obviously useful functionality and refuses to acknowlege that this is an issue then I dont want to use it.

xmastree
August 20th, 2005, 12:59 PM
Can I just add my 2c worth?

First, I think Aysiu's post was great, However, well-intentioned may not be the right word. I think it ought to be an accidental Linux troll.
The act of trolling is usually deliberate by its nature, and designed to incite arguments.
The accidental troll on the other hand, comes here, full of windows experience, to seek advice and finds it difficult to have an open enough mind to see that things here are different. Very different. They've been using Windows so long that to them it seems like it's the only way.

It ends up as an argument, but that was never the intention of the accidental troll. They just have the wrong attitude, and since they've been doing things a certain way, and very successfully, for years it's difficult to throw all that knowledge out and start again.

A bit like an English speaker abroad expecting everyone to speak English. It's difficult to forget what you know and start over.

Knome_fan
August 20th, 2005, 01:22 PM
You mean this option? (http://www.newworldhorders.com/upload/ubuntu_ip.png) Tell me why it cant just display the DHCP assigned IP in the boxes provided (greyed out at least), and why its of possible benifit to _anyone_ to not have that information there?

Again, though you seem to not be able to understand it. The purpose of this tool is to configure your network, not to give you information. So I can only ask you again, does it work with the network panel applet? Does it work with network tools?



I think you might be right. If an operating system doesn't provide obviously useful functionality and refuses to acknowlege that this is an issue then I dont want to use it.
Jesus, and you wonder why people call you a troll?

Kerberos
August 20th, 2005, 02:10 PM
Again, though you seem to not be able to understand it. The purpose of this tool is to configure your network, not to give you information.
Thats why I dont like Linux. Its not as easy as it can be and I'm lazy. I guess thats just me.

Knome_fan
August 20th, 2005, 02:19 PM
Thats why I dont like Linux. Its not as easy as it can be and I'm lazy. I guess thats just me.
Ehm, again, how about answering my questions?
So do the tools that should give you the information you are looking for give you the information, or don't they?
Looking forward to your answer.

Ah, and while we are at it, there are also several other questions you didn't answer yet. For example you still didn't show me where you listed the flaws of windows. Just thought I'd remind you.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer these questions.

Kvark
August 20th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Neither of those options are guessable. They all require prerequisite knowlege - which is largely the 'point' of a GUI, to remove that requirement by providing people with choices as opposed to a flashing cursor. It presents the choices, you choose, rather than expecting the user to already know how.
It was easy for me to guess that typing "ip address" would return my ip address, but yeah many commands requires the user to learn what they are called before using them. Just like all other non-GUI things. But that doesn't mean the command line is hard to use after you learn a bit about it.

Another example where non-GUI things are hard to guess and therefore have a learning curve is keyboard shortcuts. Many use GUI menues to cut, copy, paste, save, load and such because they can't guess what the keyboard shortcuts for those things are. But if you take time to learn what the keyboard shortcuts are and to get used to them then you will notice that, after a learning curve, they are faster & easier to use for some siutations.


You mean this option? (http://www.newworldhorders.com/upload/ubuntu_ip.png) Tell me why it cant just display the DHCP assigned IP in the boxes provided (greyed out at least), and why its of possible benifit to _anyone_ to not have that information there?
Yes I mean that option but this is how the network tools look for me (http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/files/7/8/4/7/network_tools_original.png), maybe you are using an old version or some other tool. The reason it doesn't display your IP in those input boxes is probably that it already displays your IP in the main window so you already see your IP before opening that option window. I think those input boxes should be hidden instead of just greyed out when DHCP is selected because it doesn't benefit anyone to have them there unless static IP is selected.


I think you might be right. If an operating system doesn't provide obviously useful functionality and refuses to acknowlege that this is an issue then I dont want to use it.
Neither would you want to waste time on a forum that is all about that OS.

Kerberos
August 20th, 2005, 05:37 PM
Ehm, again, how about answering my questions?
So do the tools that should give you the information you are looking for give you the information, or don't they?
Looking forward to your answer.

Ah, and while we are at it, there are also several other questions you didn't answer yet. For example you still didn't show me where you listed the flaws of windows. Just thought I'd remind you.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer these questions.
A post I have posted...


Not in any context at all, have a look at Linky! (http://www.developer.com/design/article.php/1545991). I do quite a lot of web design where usability and accessibility factor quite a lot, and its my general feeling that overall Linux is behind Windows (and they are both behind OSX) - albeit probably due to the fact that the open source community can't hire teams of experts. From my perspective and personal experiance thats just the way I think it is.

Not that Windows isn't fundamentally rotten to the core on a technical basis, its just that more attention has been to paid to the front end and user interaction, whereas Linux, due to its nature, is tailored in the other direction. But OSX proves that the two dont have to be mutually exclusive.

I cant think of anything extra to say that wont incite a flamewar, so there it is.
And that network suggestion you offered does work, but is non-obvious (see usability rules involving things accessible only through the RMB) and you need to actually know beforehand that there is network status monitor, and know how to turn it on.

Have a read of this (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html) URL. If it was me that posted that rant I'd probably get banned, but its from a Linux advocate and even the CUPS team agree with him.

Now its your turn to give me a decent reason why the IP address _shouldn't_ be displayed in the network config tool, as I think its the perfect place for it!

Knome_fan
August 20th, 2005, 05:55 PM
So just to get this straight.
You have now posted what, a dozen or more posts about this issue, that according to you showed that linux isn't ready for the desktop.
It now turns out that
a) Windows doesn't have the feature that according to you shows that linux isn't ready for the desktop.
b)Contrary to your claims Linux, or rather Gnome has the feature you were looking for both in a panel applet, that btw. is active by default on my laptop and in a seperate app found under system tools -> network tools.

So, did I get this right so far?

Now to your question:
The tool you for some strange reason seem to be obsessed about is and I repeat myself here, a configuration tool. It is not meant to show you information (as we have found out by now, there are other tools available for this purpose), its sole purpose is to let you configure your network. You now can configure it using a static IP address, in which case the area you are complaining about isn't greyed out, as it is needed to _enter_ information, or DHCP, where you don't have to enter anything.
On top of that, this app requires root privileges (remember, it's a config app) making it absolutely useless to all normal users who don't have the rights required to use it, which in turn would make it an absolutely disasterous choice as a tool to give users information.

kleeman
August 20th, 2005, 06:00 PM
In line with the sentiment of the original poster: Don't feed the troll!

Kvark
August 20th, 2005, 06:07 PM
Now its your turn to give me a decent reason why the IP address _shouldn't_ be displayed in the network config tool, as I think its the perfect place for it!
The network tools does display the IP address. But in the main window instead of the option window you are ranting about. This is a better place to display the IP address because it is possible for non-sudoers to open the netowork tools' main window.

Kyral
August 20th, 2005, 06:46 PM
I hate to sound angry, but would you stop arguing?! Kerberos is never gonna change his/her mind, and people here aren't gonna change their minds. So if you are gonna have at it, take it to email or AIM or someplace where I don't have to see it. I view these forums to learn and have fun, not to see a flamewar. If I want to see an arguement I'll just go downstairs and talk to my sister!

</rant>

Sorry for that O:)

poofyhairguy
August 20th, 2005, 07:50 PM
I'm assuming your talking about me.

You assume wrong. The main problem (in my opinion) with the species of troll refered to in this post is that they think they are special and original. Your complaints have been made on this forum by other people that aren't you. Your attitude is quite popular in some parts of the the internet. Your constant comparisons to Windows are as old as Linux, and as worn out as a catch phrase.

Let me just get this point across- in all honestly Linux makers don't care about appealing to these sorts of people. Well....some do (Xandros, Linspire). I know the Ubuntu developers don't. The Ubuntu developers would rather make a system to please ALL of those people that have never touched a computer (most of the world) rather than please a bunch of trolls that have tons of preconcieved notions and demands. There are enough people in the world that have no computer experiance that Ubuntu could grow to be a double digit OS without ever converting a single Windows user. So why worry about whiny, needy, unhappy Windows users? Let MS have them (you).

Also, if you think that MS "stands" behind their product more than we do you are sadly mistaken. To get any help from MS you must pay for their support....if you griped on an MS forum you would still get 0% input into their development process. The fact that you have such a misguided notion of what free software and closed software is tells us that you never want to be a Linux desktop user anyway....so why give you the time of day?

You are not special or original.

Heliode
August 22nd, 2005, 05:28 PM
I somehow feel like I have to add my 2c to all of this... maybe i'm just not capable of ignoring the troll, but here goes.

1. As someone here pointed out, it would be useful to have the ip address somewhere where regular users can see it. As has also been pointed out, the place where you configure your interfaces is not a good place for this. There is such a thing as a gnome panel applet for a network interface... place this on your panel, go to its properties.... et voila! There is your most illusive ip-address!

2. This (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm) might be an interesting read for you

3. Posting like you do in a Linux forum is bad enough, but also expecting people not to call you a troll is worse.

4. I should really stop troll-feeding.

doclivingston
August 23rd, 2005, 09:48 AM
Yes I mean that option but this is how the network tools look for me (http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/files/7/8/4/7/network_tools_original.png), maybe you are using an old version or some other tool. The reason it doesn't display your IP in those input boxes is probably that it already displays your IP in the main window so you already see your IP before opening that option window. I think those input boxes should be hidden instead of just greyed out when DHCP is selected because it doesn't benefit anyone to have them there unless static IP is selected.
The Gnome HIG actually says that applications should disable widgets rather than hide then. The reasoning behind that is it will let users know that the widgets are there (although not usable at the current time) - so that if they need the widgets at a later time they will know where to look.

Nequeo
August 25th, 2005, 03:36 AM
Sorry to flog a dead horse and all that, but I just find it a little amusing that the Windows equivalent of the Gnome dialogue in question looks like this:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/sger/windows.jpg

So, umm... What's my IP address then? There's a box there that says 'IP address', but it's empty!

benplaut
August 25th, 2005, 06:02 AM
...sticky...

GameManK
September 17th, 2005, 10:22 PM
great post!


people aren't going to adopt it en masse until ... companies like Dell start preloading computers with Linux.


voila! (http://news.com.com/2110-1044_3-5869094.html) :grin:

majikstreet
September 17th, 2005, 10:32 PM
...sticky...
yes, please sticky this thread!

aysiu
September 18th, 2005, 05:56 AM
voila! (http://news.com.com/2110-1044_3-5869094.html) :grin: Well, they're lucky in France:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1860031,00.asp

In the US, we're still stuck with only XP on Dell laptops.

ssck
September 18th, 2005, 06:44 AM
excellent.please sticky this as well !!

mstlyevil
September 19th, 2005, 01:31 AM
I assure you for the most part trolls are not well intentioned. Most of them like picking things apart to get people inflamed and lash out at them. They do it for the most part purely as entertainment because they have no life outside of the PC and they are too afraid to confront people in person. Those that ACT well intentioned, do so to get those that would normally not participate to jump in because they feel the need to answer those who appear sincere. I usually just try not to fall for unless I am just bored and feel like arguing myself. (Sometimes I feel like one of those who the PC is my life. LOL)

bob_c_b
September 19th, 2005, 01:13 PM
Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the penguin)

!

Sir, if I wore a hat, I would tip it in your direction. Great stuff!

poofyhairguy
September 20th, 2005, 01:22 AM
sticky because it deserves it.

geovino
September 21st, 2005, 02:54 PM
aysiu, you are my hero! That was clear and very graciously written while giving a firm wake-up call to the lazy or the complaining. Thank you from all of us who are genuinely interested in being helpful to those in need.
where's the Ubuntu Guide? The link is broken

aysiu
September 21st, 2005, 03:16 PM
where's the Ubuntu Guide? The link is broken There's a mirror of it here (http://www.frankandjacq.com/ubuntuguide/5.04/index.html). I don't know why it's down. There have been many threads in the past few days about it being down.

drizek
September 22nd, 2005, 09:15 AM
w00t, kde 3.5 on hoary

http://ubuntuforums.org/gallery/showimage.php?i=954&original=1&c=3

Edit: damn it, who stickied this over the desktops thread? :-)

dbott67
September 24th, 2005, 11:41 PM
I'm not anti-Microsoft. I'm not anti-Apple. I'm just pro-Linux

Well said!

Unit #134679
September 28th, 2005, 03:19 PM
Wonderful job! What a great read. I too am a experienced Windows user. I've used Windows for as long as I had my hands on a computer, and that was around Windows 3.1...and I was 6!). Now I love the peguin and use it oftenly, if not more than Windows. Of course I was no troll :P

pizzach
October 1st, 2005, 04:23 AM
Very good post. What a lot of people get is that different OS doesn't mean Windows cloan. You get a different way of doing things. Some are better, some are worse. In the end it is only DIFFERENT. Thank god starting with Mac OS X and Windows left me more open minded. That doesn't mean there there wasn't a learning curve. But I had expected it. And God knows that Mac OS 9 to X was almost like learning a new OS. Very good write.

Kerberos
October 10th, 2005, 03:42 PM
.

BinaryDigit
October 11th, 2005, 05:34 AM
Awesome thread :) Very well said. I too am not anti-anything, and pro-try-everything-at-least-once-kind of person :) I'm loving ubuntu...it's the friendliest distro I've come across so far.

regeya
October 12th, 2005, 01:59 AM
The "If I can't use it, nobody can" troll

*snip*

She takes what's touted as a "user-friendly" distro--say, Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn't recognize her screen resolution. She's used to being able to download a driver to fix that. She can't find the driver.

Naughty, naughty. I think you're talking about someone specific. ;-)

Great job, BTW. I think this ranks up there with "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way" by ESR.

aysiu
October 12th, 2005, 02:51 AM
Naughty, naughty. I think you're talking about someone specific. ;-) Actually, I wasn't, which is why I wrote the article in the first place. If it were just one person like this, it wouldn't be worth identifying. These well-intentioned trolls are quite prevalent. Thanks for the appreciation, though.

defkewl
October 13th, 2005, 05:48 PM
Do you have any other type of troll? It looks like you wanted to list lots of trolls

agger
October 14th, 2005, 10:20 AM
From time to time, we also see trolls which do not seem well-intentioned.

People looking to pick a fight, to put it in another way. Actually, this forum has seen quite a few variants.

dbott67
October 14th, 2005, 03:18 PM
From time to time, we also see trolls which do not seem well-intentioned.

People looking to pick a fight, to put it in another way. Actually, this forum has seen quite a few variants.

As an archaeologist, I've also noticed that non-well-intentioned trolls (mens mentis termino; literally translates to one who's mind is closed) also have really big heads (but oddly, very small brains) --- they are a branch of the cro-magnon that never fully developed their social skills. They eat with their hands and generally do not like to bathe.

-Dr. Indiana Jones

soonindallas
October 15th, 2005, 09:06 AM
i enjoyed reading this.

debian_n00b
October 26th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Greetings. Well, this thread is complex due to it's many levels. The routine I am seeing is so tight I would have to believe it was rehearsed. The thing is, how many posters in here have latched line and sinker! This thread is easily one of the best trolls I have ever seen. Wonder how many involved?

invalid
October 27th, 2005, 08:54 PM
You rock, aysiu, keep it up.

Cheers,
Cb

nrwilk
November 9th, 2005, 07:08 AM
I love this post. Great work!

Out of OS X, Windows and Linux, I find Linux the to be just a very small bit harder to learn than OS X. Windows is just completely illogical. That isn't anti-Microsoft, either. I just find the majority of Windows features and tasks to be unneccessarily complicated and irrational.

poptones
November 9th, 2005, 08:45 AM
They eat with their hands and generally do not like to bathe.

Would this be the american teens I see at Mcdonald's, or are you talking about Morroccans (http://www.darmaghrebrestaurant.com/client/darmaghreb/) and Ethiopians (http://www.abayrestaurant.com/) in general?

aysiu
November 18th, 2005, 07:30 PM
I'm totally flattered. Someone on the French Ubuntu Forums actually translated this thread into French. The Google translation back to English (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.ubuntu-fr.org%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fid%3D18755&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8) is quite amusing.

A couple highlights:
A person with enormously of experiment of Windows (a foolish amount of experiment of Windows) which knows each other there much in programming, development Web, administration of waiters, orders DOS, etc intends to speak about Linux by a friend with the job. She says herself, "H&#233;, I will throw an eye there. People do not stop by saying as it is well, and I think that I even read an article into 2001 which said how much it is almost ready for the market of the desktop. Let us see seeing whether it is the case.
The trick astounding with Linux it is its variety.

Maverick911
November 19th, 2005, 06:42 AM
First I'd like to say to the OP, two thumbs way up for a great post.=D>

I've been computing since my first Xerox PC running the CPM OS on a Z80 processor. (if anybody remembers that far back!) My first MS OS was DOS 2.0 on an 8088 processor and I've been with MS ever since....until....I tried Ubuntu 4 weeks ago. I'm not a programmer or sysadmin either.
Yes, It took me a while to get used to using a command line again after so many years away from DOS and, yes, I spent a lot of late nights trying to get my laptop wireless to work properly. It was frustrating and fun at the same time. It brought me back to my first days of computing when I'd lose track of time trying to figure out the right way to make things work.

I've still got a long way to go before I really know linux but....I'm in my lounge chair listening to 1 stream of music on the headphones while ripping 3 others, downloading 300+ photos from my digital camera, playing video from my windows partition, and writing this in firefox. All this, and system monitor says I'm using 246MB of 504MB available and 3.0% CPU usage!! I'm AMAZED! I can switch between music, photos, video and internet instantly. Windows would be using all my system resources and be bogging down or crashing by now. Linux may be hard, but it's hard in a fun way that makes you think and learn little bit more about how your computer works. A big plus is that I'm nowhere near as worried about spyware, viruses and adware. (If I should be, please let me know)

I really like linux and the community. I look forward to the future because it's only going to get better.

Signed,

Noob, but not for long.

bwog
November 27th, 2005, 12:51 AM
I have been scrolling through this post and was surprised to actually find a troll in it :) I second the users that remarked that the trollers wont be convinced by any argument. In other posts I saw whole paged being devoted to answer the arguments point by point by several persons, but nothing helped.

However well-intentioned some of these trolls may be, they can do damage. For instance after dist-upgrades when a lot of first-time upgraders are anxiuos about the proces of upgrading.

Rants and well-intentioned trolls should be moved to the chat section in my opinion. Not to hide them, but because they belong there.

DJ Wings
November 27th, 2005, 03:39 PM
Thanks for the great post. Yeah, if trolling would stop, forums would be way better. I promise not to flame these sorts of people.




I've still got a long way to go before I really know linux but....I'm in my lounge chair listening to 1 stream of music on the headphones while ripping 3 others, downloading 300+ photos from my digital camera, playing video from my windows partition, and writing this in firefox. All this, and system monitor says I'm using 246MB of 504MB available and 3.0% CPU usage!! I'm AMAZED! I can switch between music, photos, video and internet instantly. Windows would be using all my system resources and be bogging down or crashing by now. Linux may be hard, but it's hard in a fun way that makes you think and learn little bit more about how your computer works. A big plus is that I'm nowhere near as worried about spyware, viruses and adware. (If I should be, please let me know)
That's why I use Ubuntu. My ******* partition was getting lagged down, but Linux... FireFox works way faster, that was an obvious plus, but the main thing I noticed was that a game I had (ThinkTanks) that needed a 3D accelerator to run (which my laptop doesn't have) ran fine in Linux. Sure, it was lagged down to 1 FPS, but it wouldn't even run in Windows. And it feels so secure that I've dubbed my laptop "Fort Gnox". :D Thank you, Ubuntu!

mechanic
November 29th, 2005, 04:31 PM
Interesting that this thread is still rumbling on, after many months. There must be something in this idea that Linux and Ubuntu have things to learn from the Windows camp, at least as far as usability is concerned.

To take a couple of examples, how many Linux users, beguiled by the advice to "follow the Linux way!" have installed fetchmail/procmail/mutt|pine or some equally complicated MTA/MDA/MTA chainset? Get real, this kind of complexity may be useful for large clusters of networked users, but for the single user or small network things have moved on (even in the Linux world!) We have all-embracing programs like Thunderbird these days that can do the whole job in one go. Although Windows has more choice and better polished progs in this category, probably because they've been going at it longer.

The other thing that Linux users blindly refuse to admit as being behind the Windows "way" is in the matter of configuration of programs. How many users find themselves with four or more (yes count them) console windows open when starting to configure and use a program for the first time? One for the command line (and any error output); one with vim editing the rc file; one with 'tail' tracking the logfile; and one (at least!) scanning a man page. This is on top of the browser window scanning GoogleGroups (or the Ubuntu forums) for hints. Windows has better installers.

There should be a better way folks!

m.

jj26
November 30th, 2005, 02:25 AM
not to keep a dead argument alive but....

this (http://home.case.edu/~jsj9/ip.png) is actually the easiest gui way to see your ip on windows.

You double click on your connection and switch to support... it even makes sense... scary huh?

of course I still use dos prompt most of the time anyway... more details...

Anyway, I gotta say i'm really impressed with Ubuntu so far (I installed two days ago) and for the most part can't see why anyone would want to troll against it. Actually I can't see why anyone would want to troll...

That "for the most part" is because I already broke it by trying to do things the windows way... and then broke things even more attempting to fix it... silly me... expect a new thread soon if I can't find anything in the forums

JJ out

jj26
November 30th, 2005, 02:57 PM
beating a dead horse now... you can get your ip address the exact same way in Ubuntu, making them equally easy. go figure.

Danielle
December 2nd, 2005, 02:49 AM
hi, aysiu. i really like Ubuntu :) one of your links is broken - Linux equivalents for Windows Programs

i found a different link to it for you:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130092545/http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/table.shtml

aysiu
December 2nd, 2005, 02:55 AM
one of your links is broken - Linux equivalents for Windows Programs Thanks for pointing that out--it's fixed now.

Danielle
December 2nd, 2005, 03:50 AM
Thanks for pointing that out--it's fixed now.
no problem, aysiu.

Kelpie
December 4th, 2005, 01:56 AM
i havent even started to use Ubuntu and i agree completely, it doesnt matter what age people are or how much of an expert they are in something, heck im great with computers to a point and im 16 but i come to certain things like this with an open mind and if i have any problems or are confused i will probly end up asking questions, but firstly searching for the answer, because most likely some of my questions may have already been asked, and of course i will stay on "training wheels" until i become completely comfortable with Ubuntu

Some people can be pretty shallow minded and think those things you have stated, but it doesnt depend on those things, it depends on the open mindedness of a person, the will to learn, and the ability to understand what is said, and if you dont, ask for a simpler explanation, and if youre drunk wait till youre not drunk to ask questions :rolleyes:

With that I hope to become greatly used to Linux and leave any hesitation of screwing up behind because im sure theres a way to undo things youve done, i think people should go to computer software with the thought of exploring and figuring things out with the thought of it wont seriously harm your computer, you can argue on that too, because most things people -commonly- explore in dont usually harm your system, and if you do screw up badly say like delete a directory needed you can always reinstall and things such as that

chopin1810
December 4th, 2005, 10:32 PM
I can understand what this post is trying to say, but I must share my own opinion here. I have been flamed before for saying this. I do not know why, because in that case you are just being childish and immature. Either way, Linux has problems. You people seem to notice problems much more easily in Windows than you do in Linux. The truth is, regardless of political issues such as product activation, Windows is better than Linux at this point. It just is. Linux has many dependancy issues which need to be resolved. These dependency issues are what make the entire open source ideal unworkable. It works in theory but not in practice. I can understand if you want your distribution to be a sort of "second language." But there are open source Linux projects that make their goal to be the choice of professional computer users. A professional computer user does not have the time to deal with stupid libraries and kernel patches. What a professional computer user wants is ready made solutions. Then there are distributions that make their goal to be the choice of average home users. These fail as well because average computer users don't want to or even know how to perform a standard install process. It is a pain in the ass. I am not a lazy person, I do not procrastinate and I work hard to learn something that is worth learning. But there is something seriously wrong when I have to go through downloading the tar file, unzipping it OOPS gunzip isn't installed, installing gunzip OOPS apt-get is broken, insert new mirrors into apt/YUM config file OOPS vi isn't installed, install vi, unzip file, open readme file, make OOPS make isn't installed, install make, make install OOPS looks like I have to download a new kernel patch, download kernel patch, go through this entire process again to install kernel patch OOPS gcc isn't installed, install gcc, install kernel patch, go back to installing program, OOPS nvidia drivers aren't installed, download nvi drivers, go through entire process again, OOPS xserver is running, enter runlevel 3, reboot, install nvi drivers, edit more config files, reboot, continue installing program, edit more config files to insert program onto gui menus, and if you are lucky it may work for the next ten minutes. It shouldn't be this much work to install a single program. Like I said, it's okay if you want your distro to be a second language, but when a distro that has it's goal to be easy to use still has users reading these crazy readme files, it has failed. Linux makes a great geek toy, but when it comes to distributions customized to fit a particular operating environment, it is pathetic. People want real ready made solutions, which Windows provides and provides well. Linux will never get any decent market share because of this.

poptones
December 4th, 2005, 11:16 PM
I hate installing windows. I need multimedia capabilities and encryption engines so it's install windows 2000, install multimedia OOPS there's no way to unzip the archives because windows 200 doesn't support even the most basic archive formats so I install winzip then install multimedia OOPS this doesn't work without the latest service pack so I spend ten hours downloading the latest service pack - install multimedia install encryption OOPS the latest service pack breaks it now I have to download the latest version of the encryption software and isntall it OOPS THEY BROKE LEGACY ENCRYPTION SUPPORT and I have no way of fixing it because I can't patch the code myself (and because I have no compiler installed and it's a three hour job to set it up)... reinstall win2k to undo the service pack...

teaker1s
December 4th, 2005, 11:32 PM
I'm pro ubuntu, the forums are great and I think that the people who winge about linux fail to see an important point-the flexability and choice of options eg gnome or kde or xfce for example will and do cause bugs. The difference with windows is it will get past redemption and the chance of recovery is at best 60% with major errors. kill gnome and you still have more avenues of repair.

Basically if your looking for the flawless computer system it will never happen-hardware/os/applications all play a part.

that aside if people still feel that linux is aweful then don't use it pay microsoft apple or whoever you believe is best:KS

chopin1810
December 5th, 2005, 12:07 AM
I hate installing windows. I need multimedia capabilities and encryption engines so it's install windows 2000, install multimedia OOPS there's no way to unzip the archives because windows 200 doesn't support even the most basic archive formats so I install winzip then install multimedia OOPS this doesn't work without the latest service pack so I spend ten hours downloading the latest service pack - install multimedia install encryption OOPS the latest service pack breaks it now I have to download the latest version of the encryption software and isntall it OOPS THEY BROKE LEGACY ENCRYPTION SUPPORT and I have no way of fixing it because I can't patch the code myself (and because I have no compiler installed and it's a three hour job to set it up)... reinstall win2k to undo the service pack...
But you do realize how much more sense this makes fundamentally than it does in Linux. My point is that there is something fundamentally wrong. Windows might not support certain archive formats, but to get it to support them is much easier and makes much more sense. And I get the idea you are over-exaggerating your windows issues. You can't find any real problems with Windows so you have to make them up. Windows isn't perfect but the capitalist software development scheme allows for standardization, which actually lets the software make sense.
And with your problem itself, you do know that the service pack is a very important piece of software to Windows? And that your entire problem revolved around it?? Other than the service pack in your situation everything was working. Some stuff might have quit working, but it's easy and simple to get back working and isn't near as bad has having to guess as to wheather the new linux kernel patch will make your hardware go boom or not... I've updated the kernel just to find out that the development team thought my sound card was too old so they got rid of support for it. This is much worse than your little service pack problem. You have to guess on the kernels and patch them as much as you can, and this service pack is the only one that Microsoft has or ever will release.

I'm pro ubuntu, the forums are great and I think that the people who winge about linux fail to see an important point-the flexability and choice of options eg gnome or kde or xfce for example will and do cause bugs. The difference with windows is it will get past redemption and the chance of recovery is at best 60% with major errors. kill gnome and you still have more avenues of repair.
I want to use a real GUI with Linux that doesn't break all the time. I want to live in the 21st century. It is sad if the only way to get Linux to work is to make it behave like it did back in 1994... in which case it still doesn't support 80% of my common hardware.
You people are always comparing the Linux of today to some really old version of windows like Windows 98. Compare the Linux of today to the Windows of today, which is Windows XP, or compare Windows 98 to the Linux of 1998, which was terrible compared to its competitors. You won't do that, though, because although Linux of 2002 might be superior to Windows 98, it cannot compete with Windows XP.

matthewstory
December 5th, 2005, 02:45 PM
I'm sorry Chopin but i must say that you are completely wrong on all the accounts that you have listed here. First of all you say that Linux isn't designed for professional computer users because of all the kernal patches that need to be added and then say that home personal computer users are the professional users. Well that's just wrong, a professional computer is a server or a work station, which is running something that is mission critical. In that case Linux is designed exactly for that and Windows NT is probably the worst OS in the world for that. Linux has the net market share for servers and the overwhelming majority of web serving is done by the open source web server apache. Linux servers get more up time than any other OS on the market. It's true the average home user for microsoft XP doesn't have to install kernel patches, but they do if they don't want to have their computer suceptible to virus attacks. A study was done last summer that showed that computers running Windows XP out of the box (which need to do a net install of a service pack to fix vulnerabilities in windows) are corrupted by viruses in less than the average time it takes to download and install the patches. Now i don't know what you mean by Windows is just better, but for my money i'll run linux and not get hit by a virus or a trojan every week or so than run windows any day of the week. I am also curious as to wether you've ever actually installed windows, or if it's easier to install windows because your computer came with windows already installed, but i have just recently reinstalled windows XP on my computer and i must say that it was a lot worse than installing ubuntu. For example windows didn't recognize my screen resolution, ubuntu did, windows didn't recognize my wireless card, ubuntu did, ubuntu took about 3 hours from start to finish and only about 15 minutes of that was i actually configuring it, my windows install lasted 8 hours and had much more configuration time. Windows is usually already installed on the machine your running and optimized for your machine by the computer manufacturer, if dell started selling linux boxes that came with ubuntu already installed we'd be seeing alot of windows activists on a windows forum somewhere trying to help people get windows up and running on their local PC. The botom line in market share is this: people will use whatever is on their system, and they are going to buy the systems that they know regardless of what may actually be better.
I will agree that there is more software written for windows, but things are rapidly changing in the 21st century. Namely the operating system is losing more and more importance as things become web-based. I - in the 21st century - use gmail for e-mail, which works the same on all operating systems using firefox, the majority of stupid games i play are online, and work with any internet browser, soon there will be web-based office suites, which are already in development (open source by the way) and the platform free capability of Java is making everything a little bit different.
I also must take issue with your statement that the GUI for linux is in someway buggy or bad, i've had my Ubuntu box (gnome) on and running for 2 weeks now without any GUI issues, can't say i've ever had a windows box of mine running for 2 weeks without a GUI crash, or a memory leak that results in a full system crash. And if you believe that windows is any less buggy than linux or any more advanced than windows i recommend that you read the halloween documents on eric raymond's website:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
Because something looks slick (and i actually prefer both KDE and GNOME to the XP GUI and OS X aqua for that matter) doesn't mean that it is actually slick. Sure the GUI for a lot of open source software leaves something to be desired, but if you're willing to work at it it actually works much better. This is because the open source GUI model is different from microsoft's, that is they build a good program and then build a good GUI after the program already works. As opposed to microsoft which builds one big program that may or may not work well, but looks really nice wether it's working or not.
In any case i'll leave by saying that i've used windows from 3.1 onwards, (and a brief and unpleasant experience with microsoft BOB) and i only installed my first linux distro 2 years ago (SuSe). I don't bash windows on this forum usually, nor do i praise it, but if you want to praise windows and bash linux (and falsly by extension the entire open source community and developement model) i suggest you don't do it in a linux forum.

regards,
matt

lerrup
December 5th, 2005, 02:59 PM
After reading Chopin's post I feel left out.

Why haven't I ever had to install a kernal patch? Why has synaptic and apt-get always worked OK for me?

Think I'd better try to run Slackware 1.1 and get in on the action!

ps It's called SP2 for a reason - it is not the only one they have released...

23meg
December 5th, 2005, 03:13 PM
My point is that there is something fundamentally wrong. Windows might not support certain archive formats, but to get it to support them is much easier and makes much more sense. Typing format names followed by "freeware" or "shareware" in google, looking for a half-decent free non-adware archive manager (note: the two most common ones, winzip and winrar, aren't free), having to click through pages and pages of ad-supported download sites, downloading an executable file, executing it, clicking blindly through a setup procedure without reading usage terms you may or may not agree with makes more sense than typing
sudo apt-get install rar unrar-free and typing your password? Or at the worst case, doing a description search in Synaptic for "rar" or "archives"?

Think again.

chopin1810
December 5th, 2005, 11:07 PM
I'm sorry Chopin but i must say that you are completely wrong on all the accounts that you have listed here. First of all you say that Linux isn't designed for professional computer users because of all the kernal patches that need to be added and then say that home personal computer users are the professional users. Well that's just wrong, a professional computer is a server or a work station, which is running something that is mission critical. In that case Linux is designed exactly for that and Windows NT is probably the worst OS in the world for that. Linux has the net market share for servers and the overwhelming majority of web serving is done by the open source web server apache. Linux servers get more up time than any other OS on the market. It's true the average home user for microsoft XP doesn't have to install kernel patches, but they do if they don't want to have their computer suceptible to virus attacks. A study was done last summer that showed that computers running Windows XP out of the box (which need to do a net install of a service pack to fix vulnerabilities in windows) are corrupted by viruses in less than the average time it takes to download and install the patches. Now i don't know what you mean by Windows is just better, but for my money i'll run linux and not get hit by a virus or a trojan every week or so than run windows any day of the week. I am also curious as to wether you've ever actually installed windows, or if it's easier to install windows because your computer came with windows already installed, but i have just recently reinstalled windows XP on my computer and i must say that it was a lot worse than installing ubuntu. For example windows didn't recognize my screen resolution, ubuntu did, windows didn't recognize my wireless card, ubuntu did, ubuntu took about 3 hours from start to finish and only about 15 minutes of that was i actually configuring it, my windows install lasted 8 hours and had much more configuration time. Windows is usually already installed on the machine your running and optimized for your machine by the computer manufacturer, if dell started selling linux boxes that came with ubuntu already installed we'd be seeing alot of windows activists on a windows forum somewhere trying to help people get windows up and running on their local PC. The botom line in market share is this: people will use whatever is on their system, and they are going to buy the systems that they know regardless of what may actually be better.
I will agree that there is more software written for windows, but things are rapidly changing in the 21st century. Namely the operating system is losing more and more importance as things become web-based. I - in the 21st century - use gmail for e-mail, which works the same on all operating systems using firefox, the majority of stupid games i play are online, and work with any internet browser, soon there will be web-based office suites, which are already in development (open source by the way) and the platform free capability of Java is making everything a little bit different.
I also must take issue with your statement that the GUI for linux is in someway buggy or bad, i've had my Ubuntu box (gnome) on and running for 2 weeks now without any GUI issues, can't say i've ever had a windows box of mine running for 2 weeks without a GUI crash, or a memory leak that results in a full system crash. And if you believe that windows is any less buggy than linux or any more advanced than windows i recommend that you read the halloween documents on eric raymond's website:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
Because something looks slick (and i actually prefer both KDE and GNOME to the XP GUI and OS X aqua for that matter) doesn't mean that it is actually slick. Sure the GUI for a lot of open source software leaves something to be desired, but if you're willing to work at it it actually works much better. This is because the open source GUI model is different from microsoft's, that is they build a good program and then build a good GUI after the program already works. As opposed to microsoft which builds one big program that may or may not work well, but looks really nice wether it's working or not.
In any case i'll leave by saying that i've used windows from 3.1 onwards, (and a brief and unpleasant experience with microsoft BOB) and i only installed my first linux distro 2 years ago (SuSe). I don't bash windows on this forum usually, nor do i praise it, but if you want to praise windows and bash linux (and falsly by extension the entire open source community and developement model) i suggest you don't do it in a linux forum.

regards,
matt
I am a little insulted by your assumption that I have never installed Windows, in fact I just had to call Microsoft to get a new activation key because I used my old one too many times. I built my computer. I can't stand Dell as they use poor parts. Please don't assume.
Linux is a geek toy. Professional users don't have time to fool with things like kernel patches and the like. By the way, there you are, living in your time warp again: Microsoft BOB was trashed eleven years ago and nobody uses Windows NT anymore. I have never been attacked by a virus because I use a firewall which, by the way was automatically set up by Xp. Every piece of hardware I have used has automatically worked. And in your case, it isn't so much about what does work as it is about what doesn't work. Even if windows didn't automatically detect your network card, it is very simple to install the driver for it. There are no kernel issues with that. Imagine how much time a professional would waste trying to get a non-working piece of hardware to work in Linux. This professional would be downloading a driver and hoping it would install right, but he'd soon discover that there were 1279 dependencies to download first and that it doesn't work with his kernel. So he updates the kernel but now half of his hardware doesn't work right and he has to download new drivers for all of his hardware now. And he still has those 1279 dependencies to download along with all of the dependencies for the rest of his hardware. Do you know how much of a waste of time that is?? Do you know how much lost productivity that would mean?
If indeed your windows install took eight hours, I must ask you if you know how to count... I have installed xp for people and it has only taken roughly 20 minutes. It is not bloated at all. Even on my older computer it takes about an hour to completely install. It's about 45 minutes with Ubuntu on my machine, which proportionatly is not that much faster at all.
About the service pack. The service pack was released in mid 2002. That is four years ago. Therefore any new computers will not be dealing with pre-sp2 xp at all. In fact nobody will be dealing with sp2 at all because, well, it came out four years ago. They do not even sell pre-sp2 xp anymore. The service pack is the only major system update Microsoft has given for XP. It was to add functionality. In Linux there are dozens of patches to add functionality and some of them might not even work. Professional users don't have time to guess. They want real solutions. A professional will take the only 10 minutes required to install a windows firewall and anti viral program. That's it for them. Then they update maybe every three days. With a firewall all of your ridiculous exaggerations are disproved. And with the now preinstalled sp2 a firewall is already preinstalled to stop most of the hackers automatically. Imagine how often a professional will need to download patches to add funcionality and how much time they will waste just installing them. Windows downloads updates automatically. Some of you will argue with me by describing the pathetic package managers like apt-get or yum. How much time will a professional waste looking up real mirrors and writing them into their configuration files? How much time will a professional waste trying to get all of the tiny little kinks and inconveniences out of Linux?

23meg
December 5th, 2005, 11:30 PM
The service pack is the only major system update Microsoft has given for XP. It was to add functionality. In Linux there are dozens of patches to add functionality and some of them might not even work.100% wrong. A service pack is nothing but a collection of "dozens of" fixes and improvements already published via Windows Update.

Professional users don't have time to fool with things like kernel patches and the like.

How much time will a professional waste trying to get all of the tiny little kinks and inconveniences out of Linux?Just about as much time as they'd spend getting all the little kinks and inconveinences of Windows. It seems you have no idea about the professional uses of Linux and how many professionals prefer Linux to Windows, so best not speculate about the preferences of professionals, and speak for yourself, and base your statements on your own experiences without generalizing.
I have installed xp for people and it has only taken roughly 20 minutes.Be honest. Say 35, or 40. Even 40 will beat Ubuntu on average, but 20 doesn't make you look very serious.


Linux is a geek toy.
Here's you in your own time warp. Linux used to be a geek toy. It no longer is. We have tens of thousands of non-geeks on board who are enjoying the ride.

chopin1810
December 6th, 2005, 12:52 AM
100% wrong. A service pack is nothing but a collection of "dozens of" fixes and improvements already published via Windows Update.
So... how didn't I say that?? Is saying what I did ruling this out??


Just about as much time as they'd spend getting all the little kinks and inconveinences of Windows. It seems you have no idea about the professional uses of Linux and how many professionals prefer Linux to Windows, so best not speculate about the preferences of professionals, and speak for yourself, and base your statements on your own experiences without generalizing.Be honest. Say 35, or 40. Even 40 will beat Ubuntu on average, but 20 doesn't make you look very serious.
You realize you people are generalizing and basing your statements on your experiences with Windows, right?? I can't prove it to you... but I would say that on average 20 minutes is what I see.



Here's you in your own time warp. Linux used to be a geek toy. It no longer is. We have tens of thousands of non-geeks on board who are enjoying the ride.
Again, you people are stuck in a time warp... XP might have been slow 5 years ago, but with today's computers it's quite fast... and look at how bloated Linux is... you are still here complaining about xp's install speed and Microsoft BOB.

23meg
December 6th, 2005, 01:12 AM
So... how didn't I say that?? Is saying what I did ruling this out?? What I'm talking about is that Microsoft puts out small fixes to their OS just like Linux kernel and distro devs do; they're only slower in doing it, due to the way Windows is built.

You realize you people are generalizing and basing your statements on your experiences with Windows, right?? I can't prove it to you... but I would say that on average 20 minutes is what I see.I can generalize, because installation time depends just on your system specs, assuming the OS installed isn't customized. Let me give you my specs for an average 40 minute XP install: Pentium M 1.8ghz, 512 mb ddr2 ram, and a fast SATA drive. Now you state yours, just for the record. I'm very very reluctant to discuss this any further, because installation time is the aspect of any OS that I care the least about. I wouldn't mind if XP took five hours to install or if Ubuntu installed in 10 minutes; I'd still use both.

Again, you people are stuck in a time warp... XP might have been slow 5 years ago, but with today's computers it's quite fast... and look at how bloated Linux is... you are still here complaining about xp's install speed and Microsoft BOB.I didn't say that XP is slow, and I'm puzzled as to why you're bringing this up as an answer to my statement. I also didn't complain about XP's install speed. But I wonder what exactly you mean when you say that Linux is bloated. Please elaborate. And please show me who complained about Microsoft BOB, and with which statement.

chopin1810
December 6th, 2005, 01:26 AM
How is Microsoft any slower in releasing patches than Linux is?? The only reason Linux does it faster is because of the open source nature, so this is not due to how Windows is built, it is due to the differences between closed and open source. Open source has major problems and I do not believe that an open source project can really last for an infinite amount of time like a closed source software development firm can.
I was not accusing you on the install times, just the other person posting here (who I would be glad to debate with if they ever do come back).
This is why I say you are stuck in a time warp on this topic and many other points as well. Linux was fast in 1998 (although it really really sucked back then) and you keep remembering those days instead of the current day where a highly minimal Slackware install takes two minutes to boot on my machine when it's claimed that it's faster than XP which takes 20 seconds to boot on my machine, and that's at worst. That's bloated.

CPUFreak91
December 6th, 2005, 01:36 AM
Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the penguin)
So, she does what she usually does in Windows--finds a program on the web, downloads it, and tries to install it. Instead of a wizard, she gets a README file that tells her to type ./configure, make, and make install. Just about everything she tries to do she can't do because she tries to do it the Windows way.

LOL, I can't stand messed up windows installers. Before I switched from Slackware 10.0 to ubuntu I loved the configure, make and make install process.

23meg
December 6th, 2005, 01:56 AM
How is Microsoft any slower in releasing patches than Linux is?? The only reason Linux does it faster is because of the open source nature, so this is not due to how Windows is built, it is due to the differences between closed and open source. Not really. For example, since IE is "hardwired" into Windows, they have to test every IE security fix (and that makes up a major part of all Windows security fixes) against the whole OS, not just IE. These are OS architechture issues, not differences between open source and proprietary.

Open source has major problems and I do not believe that an open source project can really last for an infinite amount of time like a closed source software development firm can. You're entitled to your opinion. I tend to think otherwise, and can discuss this with you only if you state in clear terms your reasons for thinking so.

This is why I say you are stuck in a time warp on this topic and many other points as well. Linux was fast in 1998 (although it really really sucked back then) and you keep remembering those days instead of the current day where a highly minimal Slackware install takes two minutes to boot on my machine when it's claimed that it's faster than XP which takes 20 seconds to boot on my machine, and that's at worst. That's bloated.
First of all, note that boot time isn't necessarily connected with bloat, and can change wildy depending on configuration. I don't know about Slackware but my Ubuntu installation, today, takes 40 seconds to get to a workable state, whereas XP takes 30 up to login screen and 42 to 50 until all startup services are initialized. Since I've booted the very OS I'm typing these words on (Ubuntu 5.10) in 40 seconds, I'm unable to believe a general statement that "Linux is bloated and boots slow in 2005". You're free to keep believing it.

Consider the possibility that the problems and slowness you're having with any flavor of Linux can be due to issues with your specific configuration. Consider the possibility that a few simple tweaks may change that situation immensely. Consider the undisputable fact that tens of thousands of people are using a non-bloated, reasonably fast Linux this very day. Do not generalize based on your experiences.

poptones
December 6th, 2005, 02:28 AM
I do not believe that an open source project can really last for an infinite amount of time like a closed source software development firm can.

ROTFL. it appears logic is really not your strong suit here. any idea how many "closed source" software projects have died? How many businesses now exist only to support those poor slobs who need to recover, say, a spreadsheet that was created a decade ago using software that has fallen into complete obscurity?

If you have the source code to the software and that code is not "owned" by any entity it will exist essentially forever. Even "illegal" software like asfrecorder and decss is still out there. It cannot be "killed" and can be forked, revived or otherwise deployed any time it might be needed.

Nothing is "infinite" - especially in business. Open source isn't a business - it's a resource like water and sunshine.

You are so wrong it's like... you're trying to be an ignorant troll.

Do you know the sound of one troll plonking?

chopin1810
December 6th, 2005, 02:34 AM
You're entitled to your opinion. I tend to think otherwise, and can discuss this with you only if you state in clear terms your reasons for thinking so.
I have written essays on this topic and to get down to the ultimate answer would require me to get into advanced economics. I'm not really in the mood to explain all of this right now.

First of all, note that boot time isn't necessarily connected with bloat, and can change wildy depending on configuration. I don't know about Slackware but my Ubuntu installation, today, takes 40 seconds to get to a workable state, whereas XP takes 30 up to login screen and 42 to 50 until all startup services are initialized. Since I've booted the very OS I'm typing these words on (Ubuntu 5.10) in 40 seconds, I'm unable to believe a general statement that "Linux is bloated and boots slow in 2005". You're free to keep believing it.
XP boots faster on my old computer (450 mhz processor) than Ubuntu does on yours, which I'm assuming is much newer than mine (which I built in 1999). These tweaks you mention are not simple, I have tried to actually perform them and they're a big pain in the ass and cause stuff to stop working, which is a big problem for something like suse which is supposed to be easy to use, etc.

poptones
December 6th, 2005, 02:40 AM
I have written essays on this topic...

For eigthth grade English composition, no doubt...

23meg
December 6th, 2005, 02:50 AM
I have written essays on this topic and to get down to the ultimate answer would require me to get into advanced economics. I'm not really in the mood to explain all of this right now.That's ok, I'll only discuss if you want to. Maybe you'll want to link to some of your essays if any are online, or post them here; I'd be interested to read them.

These tweaks you mention are not simple, I have tried to actually perform them and they're a big pain in the ass and cause stuff to stop working, which is a big problem for something like suse which is supposed to be easy to use, etc.I didn't mention any specific tweaks. Actually, I haven't performed any tweaks to get a 40 second boot time to a workable state (read: 28 seconds till login). Neither have thousands of others who are happy with the speed of their distros "out of the box".

Anyway, for us to take your general statements about Linux seriously, you have to provide solid evidence and point to acceptable, valid facts. Otherwise they'll be taken as generalizations based on specific experiences and you'll be taken as misinformed.

chopin1810
December 6th, 2005, 03:11 AM
Poptones, I'm a 26 year old man thank you, and I didn't write an essay for eighth grade, please stop assuming you know me, you also said I bought a Dell and use a pre-loaded windows... You are getting insulting.
23meg, you are being a very mature debater, thank you very much. I appreciate that quality.
If you are going to call my points generalizations based on personal experience, I suppose that we are both wrong. Let's agree to disagree, since our use of Linux or Windows seems to be getting down to personal experience and personal preferences.
Although I'd be glad to debate with you about the science of open source through private messaging...

23meg
December 6th, 2005, 03:18 AM
23meg, you are being a very mature debater, thank you very much. I appreciate that quality.
If you are going to call my points generalizations based on personal experience, I suppose that we are both wrong. Let's agree to disagree, since our use of Linux or Windows seems to be getting down to personal experience and personal preferences.
Although I'd be glad to debate with you about the science of open source through private messaging...Thanks, and I hope you look deeper into your Linux problems and solve them eventually.

poptones
December 6th, 2005, 04:08 AM
you also said I bought a Dell and use a pre-loaded windows...

No, I didn't. That assertion is either misinformed or complete exaggeration... just like virtually everything else you have contributed to this thread.

KiwiNZ
December 6th, 2005, 04:23 AM
Lets play nice in here or I will find my box of locks

poptones
December 6th, 2005, 04:46 AM
Oh yes, god forbid someone do something "mean" like stating readily evidenced facts...

KiwiNZ
December 6th, 2005, 04:51 AM
*sigh*:rolleyes:

matthewstory
December 6th, 2005, 01:29 PM
By the way, there you are, living in your time warp again: Microsoft BOB was trashed eleven years ago and nobody uses Windows NT anymore.
Chopin, i didn't say that i havn't used windows since BOB, i said that i have used windows since 3.1 and that i had had also used BOB, which by the way is hands down the worst operating system (if you can even call it that) ever written. My point there was that i am not a windows hater, that i have been using windows for upwards of 12 years now and that i have only been running linux for 2 years. On top of that XP is based around the NT kernel and file system, they just changed the name for marketing purposes.


Every piece of hardware I have used has automatically worked.

This is not true for me, as i pointed out, my 802.11b wireless card doesn't work in windows without installing the proper wireless driver. On top of that when i lost the netgear utility disk i had no way of getting that software back, a luxury i have in the OS community. This is compounded by the fact that a system crash in windows caused me to lose my nvidia driver, and finding the right nvidia driver for a laptop running windows involves a whole lot of googling and reading up on stuff, whereas in ubuntu if that happens all i do is sudo apt-get nvidia ( a lot easier).


Imagine how much time a professional would waste trying to get a non-working piece of hardware to work in Linux.

Funny you should mention this, in SuSe 9.1 my wireless card didn't work and there was no driver so i wrote my own, in about 15 minutes using a help website i found through a simple google search. Again as i already addressed in my previous post, i don't know who these "professional users" are, but i think you're assuming that they are the average hobby computer user, which is not a professional user.

Now to address some of your later comments:


I have already directed you to the halloween documents, that address most of what you say here, but i'll now cite them directly. These documents by the way are confirmed microsoft memos that were leaked in 1998. (sorry about the time warp but they're talking about the linux of 98 v. the windows of 98 ).


How is Microsoft any slower in releasing patches than Linux is?? The only reason Linux does it faster is because of the open source nature, so this is not due to how Windows is built, it is due to the differences between closed and open source.

You're right about this, it is a differnce between OS strategy and microsoft strategy: From document 1:

"One of the key's to the OSS process is having many more iterations than commercial software (Linux was known to rev it's kernel more than once a day!). However, commercial customers tell us they want fewer revs, not more."


Open source has major problems and I do not believe that an open source project can really last for an infinite amount of time like a closed source software development firm can.

About this you're just wrong and both microsoft and the open source community believe that you're wrong. From the halloween document 1:


OSS systems are considered credible because the source code is available from potentially millions of places and individuals.

and also:


The likelihood that Apache will cease to exist is orders of magnitudes lower than the likelihood that WordPerfect, for example, will disappear. The disappearance of Apache is not tied to the disappearance of binaries (which are affected by purchasing shifts, etc.) but rather to the disappearance of source code and the knowledge base.



I have written essays on this topic and to get down to the ultimate answer would require me to get into advanced economics. I'm not really in the mood to explain all of this right now.

maybe you should send these essays to microsoft, because their economic threat analysists apparently aren't as intellegent as you are. It is never an argument to say, i know i'm right, i wrote about it once, but i'm not going into right now.

Read the rest of those documents and you'll find that microsoft's only hope is that linux developers don't try to get on the desktops, and also that their consumer base will stay stupid enough that they will need to use microsoft GUIs. If you lost the link here it is again:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/

regards,
matt

chopin1810
December 6th, 2005, 02:50 PM
Matthewstory, thank you for being a mature debater. I do appreciate this quality.
On Windows NT. When NT was first introduced it was a rather poor operating system. No better than Windows 95. My point here is that Windows loathers will criticize the 95 and 98 releases for being very crashy, so to speak, and yet at the same time that Windows 95 and 98 were out Linux was an absolute disaster. Therefore it may not be directly Microsoft's fault that the mentioned operating systems, 95 and 98, were poor in quality, as it will take a closed source project time to develop a very high quality operating system. The same is true and very obvious of Linux, where it has taken sixteen years so far and they are still not at the level of Windows 98 yet. This is hypocrisy. Note that I am not taking aim at you, just at the users who believe in these points.
On your wireless card. My point is that if you had the disk, and the netgear site was still holding the driver, that it would be very simple to install. No dependencies to download. No kernel version to worry about. You need to worry about those things in Linux, and if either one of them is giving you trouble then it may take days for you to finish troubleshooting. But with Windows you just open up the install file. That's it. It deals with the way that Windows is built. I don't like the idea of a central kernel because say, for example, that you need to install a driver like the one above. It doesn't work with your kernel. You upgrade your kernel but some hardware you had set up on the old version doesn't work anymore. You can't find up to date drivers for your hardware that stopped working. So you need to go back to your old kernel. And you still don't have the driver installed for your first piece of hardware. This is a bad idea.
I don't care about leaked memos or the like. The fact is that Microsoft is a commercial entity and cannot stand to lose customers. It's the truth. Why do you regard it as some sort of conspiracy when they use techniques to try to convince people of product superiority?
If I feel like it I may explain my thoughts on the inner workings of open source. I, like you, don't feel like explaining this right now (and I'm using my company's computers).

23meg
December 6th, 2005, 03:16 PM
I'll only respond to parts of your post where I can find a hint of coherent reasoning and sense.
The same is true and very obvious of Linux, where it has taken sixteen years so far and they are still not at the level of Windows 98 yet. In what terms? For what kind of use? Which flavor of Linux? If you don't state specifics, I see no reason anyone should take you seriously, because everyone here except you will acknowledge that there are areas where Linux based OSes are far superior to Windows 98 (actually any version of Windows) and other areas where Windows is superior to any Linux based OS.

Do not think in absolute terms; it's not all black and white, there are lots of shades of gray. Nothing has to be either absolutely good or absolutely bad. This is valid for Windows and Linux. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. If you say "Linux isn't as good as Windows 98 in 2005", noone but the blindest zealots will be willing to discuss anything with you.


On your wireless card. My point is that if you had the disk, and the netgear site was still holding the driver, that it would be very simple to install. No dependencies to download. No kernel version to worry about. You need to worry about those things in Linux, and if either one of them is giving you trouble then it may take days for you to finish troubleshooting. But with Windows you just open up the install file. That's it. It deals with the way that Windows is built. Indeed. But things such as modular, interchangable kernels and dynamic library linking that you count as "the disadvantages of Linux over Windows" are the advantages of Linux over Windows for lots of people, including many "professionals". This is why I'm saying you shouldn't generalize based on your preferences and experiences. This is the way Linux is built, and it is so for a reason, and it brings with it certain disadvantages, just as the way Windows is built brings with it certain disadvantages. If you don't like this operating system model, just don't use it. But don't make general misinformed statements about it either.

Also remember that lots of Linux drivers are reverse engineered third-party drivers, which means that they exist against the will of the hardware manufacturers who don't want to or don't bother to provide Linux drivers, whereas in Windows all drivers for your devices are shipped either by Microsoft or the manufacturer. And if Windows ships with the computer you buy, the drivers for your hardware come prebuilt into the driver cache, which naturally makes driver installation either unnecessary, or a matter of a few clicks. Had all manufacturers released Linux drivers or at least opened their specs, your comparison of ease of driver installation would have been fairer.

dbott67
December 6th, 2005, 07:10 PM
...In what terms? For what kind of use? Which flavor of Linux? If you don't state specifics, I see no reason anyone should take you seriously, because everyone here except you will acknowledge that there are areas where Linux based OSes are far superior to Windows 98 (actually any version of Windows) and other areas where Windows is superior to any Linux based OS.

Do not think in absolute terms; it's not all black and white, there are lots of shades of gray. Nothing has to be either absolutely good or absolutely bad. This is valid for Windows and Linux. They both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Exactly. While there certainly are a number of MS-haters among our community, I think the majority of users here realize that each OS has strengths and weaknesses.

As an IT professional, I have to deal with both platforms. With proper administration and configuration, both operating systems can be made very secure and reliable, however, failure to perform required tasks (i.e. updating the OS, running an AV, turning off unneeded services, etc.) can cause security and stability issues.

My default Ubuntu installation requires an occasional reboot, whereas my XP system typically runs for months between reboots. Do I blame the Ubuntu developers? No --- it's most likely due to the fact that I'm running some beta version of software that leaks resources. The same thing in Windows --- most BSODs I've experienced are due to failing hardware or buggy 3rd party drivers, not necessarily something the MS has any control over.

Linux may not be for some people. By the same token, MS may not be for others. As 23meg said: There is no right & wrong; no black & white.

-Dave

matthewstory
December 6th, 2005, 08:26 PM
I have to agree with the last two posts, but there is one more thing that bothers me aside from what you've mentioned. It's not just an indictment of linux at work here, it's the fact that chopin believes that because ubuntu doens't work for him that the open source method is somehow inherently flawed. That's just not true or logical. I can't say that because i've had problems with windows or even microsoft in general that the closed source method is somehow inherently flawed.
The fact of the matter is that there are several good closed source programs and several good open source programs, not to mention good closed source operating systems and bad closed source operating systems. I use linux, but i can't say that apples UI aqua isn't the most attractive UI i've ever seen. My prefered text editor is textwrangler which is free (as in price) but not open source. Opera is another example of a good closed source program that i use on my Nokia 770 (running Maemo linux). Sun solaris (now open source but previously closed) is one of the best operating systems ever developed. Back in the day my friend used to run BEOS (if anyone remembers this system it was good times for all) which was closed source and had a remarkable databasing file system. And the same goes for open source, i prefer open office, apache, firefox, openLDAP, postgresql, php regardless of what operating system i'm running on.
But that is exactly what open source software is all about, the freedom to make decisions, and I respect your freedom to run windows and you should respect mine to run Ubuntu. As hard as it may be to believe i have run linux because for me, on my computer linux just runs better, it allows me to do more with my hardware than windows does, i can tweak things that i can't tweak in windows, and in general linux is more intuitive for me than windows is.
My point is that ubuntu isn't all of open source, and neither is linux, and by the same measure microsoft isn't all of closed source.

regards,
matt

GeneralZod
December 6th, 2005, 08:28 PM
Good stuff

Amen :)

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 01:57 AM
I'll only respond to parts of your post where I can find a hint of coherent reasoning and sense. In what terms? For what kind of use? Which flavor of Linux? If you don't state specifics, I see no reason anyone should take you seriously, because everyone here except you will acknowledge that there are areas where Linux based OSes are far superior to Windows 98 (actually any version of Windows) and other areas where Windows is superior to any Linux based OS.

Do not think in absolute terms; it's not all black and white, there are lots of shades of gray. Nothing has to be either absolutely good or absolutely bad. This is valid for Windows and Linux. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. If you say "Linux isn't as good as Windows 98 in 2005", noone but the blindest zealots will be willing to discuss anything with you.
You make some very good points here. But I still stick with my original post. I don't really see any major weaknesses with Windows. Now, admitted, it's not the most customizable operating system in the world. But most Windows users don't want customizability. In fact, to make Windows as customizable
as Linux, parts would need to be made open source -- a big no no for capital based closed source firms. It would mean that competitors would be able to see internal product information and be able to figure out how to copy Window's style.
The reason I only believe that closed source operating systems with proprietary software are the only type that can ever succeed is the following. You say that open source software is actually more credible than closed source software because it comes from "potentially millions of programmers worldwide". I do not understand your reasoning on this. This would make the software much less credible because the overall quality of the software will be unpredictable: are the code contributors expert software engineers, or inexperienced programmers with only limited experience? There is no absolute way to know. But with a closed source project, you know everybody contributing. You know how experienced they are and that their programming will be good and reliable. These experienced programmers will employ themselves at capital based closed source firms because of a capital incentive. Therefore these experienced programmers belong to the closed source community, and not to the open source community. Because of this, closed source development is much faster and open source projects can never catch up to it. Also, because of this closed source nature, the software becomes standardized -- very important. Standardization makes the software easy to troubleshoot and easy to deal with. Look at Apple. A superb company with a superb operating system because they have integrated the software directly with the hardware -- aka standardized it -- something neither Linux nor Windows have achieved or ever will achieve. However, Windows is a step ahead in the standardization process. Just think about it. An operating system built with proprietary parts is easy to troubleshoot -- you just go to the source and get the answer because they know the operating system and the integrated software. Even with third party software: third party software for Windows is built around Windows. Only one architecture. This makes troubleshooting again, very simple and easy. But with Linux (or any other open source operating system for that matter) the software must be developed for different distributions or it may not work entirely correctly. Therefore this third party Linux software developer cannot focus down on one distribution and learn it's ins and outs and learn all of the best ways to program with those ins and outs. If you need to troubleshoot you need to go to the third party developer and ask them your question. But they may not know because they do not know all of the ins and outs of how your distribution works.

Indeed. But things such as modular, interchangable kernels and dynamic library linking that you count as "the disadvantages of Linux over Windows" are the advantages of Linux over Windows for lots of people, including many "professionals". This is why I'm saying you shouldn't generalize based on your preferences and experiences. This is the way Linux is built, and it is so for a reason, and it brings with it certain disadvantages, just as the way Windows is built brings with it certain disadvantages. If you don't like this operating system model, just don't use it. But don't make general misinformed statements about it either.
My statements are not misinformed. They are not generalized. And as you can see, I don't just state "stuff" based on non-evidenced "guesses". What I am saying here is, Linux may just happen to work perfectly out of the box, but past that it is a pain in the ass to expand on it unless you are a programmer or a geek who loves to do this stuff. Hence it is still a geek toy. You need to mess with makefiles. I have had to do this before. Apt-Get and the like may work for an software old version but it may not hold the newest version with some real features you are looking for. There may be tech illiterate users using Linux but they still end up coming to you people for help with dozens of questions regarding why their hardware couldn't be found and why there is a ridiculous amount of shell work required to install something even as trivial as a game of chess. Again, there may be pretty graphical environments but any real work comes down to writing shell scripts in vi. Even real system-wide work in Windows is simple and does not require knowledge of out of date shells. The shell is great and stable, but for the modern day you need to build around it and not require constant usage of it. Imagine still using DOS to install all of your programs in Windows. They dropped that twelve years ago. You are making up excuses.

23meg
December 7th, 2005, 02:51 AM
You say that open source software is actually more credible than closed source software because it comes from "potentially millions of programmers worldwide". I do not understand your reasoning on this. I don't remember saying this. Please quote me saying it.

I'm not going to discuss with you about whether distributed development or closed development is better. I believe in both the working methodology and the ethical side of open source distributed development. I believe in free and open source software and its social byproducts not just as a product but as a process, as a general way of doing things. And as far as centralization and standardization have gone, I prefer decentralization in development and a multitude of open standards. I prefer choices, not lock-ins. I'm not a fan of monopolies and their closed, conservative business practices.


What I am saying here is, Linux may just happen to work perfectly out of the box, but past that it is a pain in the ass to expand on it unless you are a programmer. You need to mess with makefiles. I have had to do this before. Apt-Get and the like may work for an software old version but it may not hold the newest version with some real features you are looking for. You are making up excuses.Making up excuses? How is it that I have the latest versions of just about everything in my Breezy installation without doing a single compilation and messing with a single makefile then? You're either badly misinformed, or not very open minded, because you seem unwilling to look into some very simple facts and accept them. Ubuntu has a short release cycle and official backports, thus it can deliver cutting edge packages without compromising much stability. I wonder if you ever used Ubuntu. If you did, you simply wouldn't be saying these unless you had a very very bad time with it and couldn't figure out how to perform some basic operations.

I invite you to try Ubuntu.

matthewstory
December 7th, 2005, 03:11 AM
You say that open source software is actually more credible than closed source software because it comes from "potentially millions of programmers worldwide". I do not understand your reasoning on this.


I actually said this, well not so much me as i quoted a microsoft economic threat analyst saying this in the leaked memo "the halloween document." The point i was making here is that microsoft aknowleges that Open source has a long term credibility because the source code will not die. That is because the source can be downloaded anywhere and from potentially millions of people.


But with a closed source project, you know everybody contributing.

How is this true? We know that microsoft makes windows, but we don't necessarily know who these coders are, nor do we know what the quality of the code is. If i want i can look at the linux source, and i do in fact know who is contributing to it because the contributers are clearly listed on most project websites. I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me at all.

regards,
matt

23meg
December 7th, 2005, 03:22 AM
How is this true? We know that microsoft makes windows, but we don't necessarily know who these coders are, nor do we know what the quality of the code is. If i want i can look at the linux source, and i do in fact know who is contributing to it because the contributers are clearly listed on most project websites. I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me at all.
And you can get in touch with them, get to know them, get them to help you with problems directly, hire them to modify the software they wrote for your specific uses, so on. Try that with a closed source app.

Mikeynewbie
December 7th, 2005, 03:24 AM
I don't know why I felt the need to respond to this but I was kind of offended. You see I am a computer idiot, frankly in my undergrad I managed to get to my senior year without ever using a computer. Then I had to start using one. So I am not a big computer geek, and yes I have been spoiled by windows click and install. However after numerous system crashes and failed attempts at windows restores, a defective operating system from the manufacturer and just plain being fed up with feeling like I was a slave to a coporation that I did not want to give anymore money to, I migrated to linux.

Here is the most important thing I think. Being a non-computer afficianado I have managed to add and customize my linux distro to my liking with minimal difficulty and headache. This actually made me feel great about myself, because I never thought I could do anything like this. Also I have friends who never used linux who now write migration guides and are extremely adept at multiple linux distrobutions.

So comments like "the average user doesn't want" are ludicrous. I am the average user. No one should assume what I or any other consumer would want this is a pompous attitude to have. And please don't assume that every person out there is incapable of learning how to use Linux. I am a perfect example of this. And frankly having synaptic at my disposal is far easier than searching the web and waiting forever to run an install wizard.

The support forums are superb, and there is always someone who can answer a question or to help with something. That is alot more than I can say for the people I talked to at you know where when my system crashed and sp2 gave the blue screen of death everytiime it tried to install.

I agree that alot of people are stuck in the windows way of thinking, I was when I began but being so fed up I stuck in there and am extremely happy with linux. All that is required is the right frame of mind and taking the time to do some basic research on the distrobutions that will work best for each individual.

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 03:54 AM
I actually said this, well not so much me as i quoted a microsoft economic threat analyst saying this in the leaked memo "the halloween document." The point i was making here is that microsoft aknowleges that Open source has a long term credibility because the source code will not die. That is because the source can be downloaded anywhere and from potentially millions of people.
All this means is that the source code can stay in existance for long periods of time, it does not mean that the source code is of a high quality.

How is this true? We know that microsoft makes windows, but we don't necessarily know who these coders are, nor do we know what the quality of the code is. If i want i can look at the linux source, and i do in fact know who is contributing to it because the contributers are clearly listed on most project websites. I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me at all.
I should have phrased it differently. Microsoft knows and organizes the programmers and engineers. Microsoft knows their experience and therefore the product quality is predictable.

I don't know why I felt the need to respond to this but I was kind of offended. You see I am a computer idiot, frankly in my undergrad I managed to get to my senior year without ever using a computer. Then I had to start using one. So I am not a big computer geek, and yes I have been spoiled by windows click and install. However after numerous system crashes and failed attempts at windows restores, a defective operating system from the manufacturer and just plain being fed up with feeling like I was a slave to a coporation that I did not want to give anymore money to, I migrated to linux.
I do not believe that Windows XP gave you this much trouble. On my older system it has "crashed" but you need to either induce the crash (put the refresh rate too high) and the non-induced crashes do not involve things like memory allocation errors (with the notorious illegal operation errors in Windows 9x). It usually crashes maybe two times a month, and that's at worst. I can also tell that you have never tried to install anything like a kernel manually.

The support forums are superb, and there is always someone who can answer a question or to help with something. That is alot more than I can say for the people I talked to at you know where when my system crashed and sp2 gave the blue screen of death everytiime it tried to install.
Blue screens do not exist on the NT format (what Windows XP uses). Therefore I can conclude that you are using an old version of Windows such as 98 or ME, in which case I strongly recommend that you try Windows XP. I honestly think that some of you people are not using XP and will not use it because it is superior to Linux and trying it would disprove your ridiculous myths about Linux superiority. You are also clearly referring to something like 95, where this may have happened, but even in 98 it would be exceedingly unlikely. I am telling you, quite honestly, that XP is the best operating system I have ever used. It has never crashed ridiculously like you claim here. Again, I believe that you are making this up or have never actually tried using XP. Therefore, are your points backed up by real, evidenced facts?

23meg
December 7th, 2005, 04:07 AM
Chopin: quick question to you, and I want a quick answer: please list all the distros you've used, along with the duration you've used them for and exact versions. If curious you can find a list of pretty much every OS I've used here (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=547386#post547386).

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 04:32 AM
Sure. I don't mind. I'll even try to make it chronological. Note that I used all of these for about two weeks to give them all a chance.
SUSE 9.3 Professional (Used off and on. Best Linux distro I've used. Didn't work with my modem though, and the driver wouldn't install without editing the makefile, which I have no idea how to do correctly. Also very bloated, tried installing IceWM which didn't work through YaST 2, and wouldn't compile because I couldn't figure out all the dependencies. Same tried with blackbox and openbox. A kernel upgrade rendered my sound card useless.)
SUSE 10.0 Open Source Edition (same as above, except really really bloated and would crash quite often.)
Fedora Core 3 (Horrendous. Wouldn't recognize modem nor sound card, kernel upgrade broke more stuff. Tried installing and configuring alsaconf, but it couldn't find my sound card. Same modem driver as above wouldn't install. Bought new modem. Still wouldn't work. YUM broken. Graphical package manager poorly designed and slow.)
Fedora Core 4 (Same as above, except more crashy.)
Ubuntu Hoary (Horrendous. Wouldn't recognize printer or sound card. Printer drivers wouldn't install with cups and again alsa wouldn't work. REALLY slow web connection, about 1 kb/s on dialup.)
Ubuntu Breezy (Okay. Wouldn't recognize printer but sound card worked automatically. Printer drivers still wouldn't install with cups. Still really slow web connection.)
CentOS 4.1 (Second best distro I've used. Very pretty but very bloated. Modem, printer and sound card all worked. Tried installing openbox, blackbox, and icewm and all failed, just like suse, no matter how much forum based troubleshooting I did nothing worked. YUM broken. Graphical package manager slowly designed and slow.)
CentOS 4.2 (Same as above.)
Slackware 10.0 (Too old fashioned. Too buggy. But maybe the development team wanted it to be.)
Debian Sarge (Very buggy. Sound card, printer, and apt-get all broken. Had to install synaptic from apt-get, but that didn't work because apt-get was broken. Sound card and printer wouldn't work because for the printer cups didn't work no matter how much troubleshooting and alsa still wouldn't install.)
FreeBSD 4.11 (Same as Slackware.)
FreeBSD 5.5 (Same as Slackware.)
PCBSD 0.71 (Basically same as Fedora Core 4.)
Vector Linux Standard Edition (Very, very, buggy. It would only even start about one fifth of the time, otherwise it would just give cryptic messages and reboot. Install would freeze at mouse detection screen and I'd have to restart from there. Sound card, printer, and modem all would not work. But it was lightweight.)
Vector Linux SOHO Edition (Same as above except very bloated and modem would work.)
SimplyMEPIS 3.3.1 (The worst I've ever tried. No working modem, VERY VERY BLOATED (even on hardware install), no working sound card, no working printer, and lots of little annoying bugs.)
Knoppix 4.1 (Same as MEPIS except even slower.)

poptones
December 7th, 2005, 04:41 AM
Blue screens do not exist on the NT format (what Windows XP uses)

Man, you can't even get the facts on Windows right!

Here's a little exercise for you:

install dscaler in windows 2000
install adobe photoshop
start dscaler
start photoshop

You will very quickly see that windows 2000 does, indeed, have a "bsod mode."

Last time I tried it this "test" also worked just dandy in XP.

Here's another example for you... ('http://support.gateway.com/s/issues/2-1945123951.shtml')

I notice in your examples pretty much every distro you tried had sound card, modem, and printer issues. Gee, do ya think maybe you should look into getting some hardware that is not "made for Windows?"

23meg
December 7th, 2005, 04:47 AM
Slow web connection with Breezy? I bet it's about disabling IPV6, which is the most basic of tweaks. Did you do a forum search or post a problem thread to solve your issues with Breezy? I see you only have 2 posts. There's a good chance that if you put the energy you put into this thread into writing well detailed posts describing your problems, you'd have everything working with Breezy.

But that's not what you want, is it? You just want to enjoy bashing Linux instead.

aysiu
December 7th, 2005, 04:52 AM
Chopin has a point.

Windows NT generally almost never has a "blue screen of death." I have used Windows XP for the past two years, and I've seen a blue screen of death on it once. I think sometimes Linux users tend to exaggerate the shortcomings of Windows. It is an excellent operating system--certainly the best Microsoft has ever churned out. Whether it's the best for you... well, that depends who "you" are. It's not the best for me--Ubuntu is. It's still quite excellent. However, as Poptones points out, the blue screen of death can exist on Windows NT--it's just not common.

On the other hand, despite having tried numerous distros, Chopin seems to be suffering from what we all tend to as human beings--generalizing from personal experience. If my experiences with all those Linux distros had been the same as Chopin's, I, too, would have thought, "What is with this Linux hype? It sucks." (I'm paraphrasing, of course.)

Generalizing from my own personal experience, I haven't found Linux to be hype at all. In fact, it's exceeded my expectations. Just about every distro I've tried has recognized my hardware out-of-the-box.

The truth is that Linux distros tend to either "just work" or "just not work." Checking hardware compatibility lists and trying live CDs is a good way to find out how frustrating your Linux experience will be.

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 04:53 AM
You are assuming again. Who said I bought hardware made for Windows? If my hardware was specifically made for Windows like I know some is then why would there be Linux drivers provided on the installation disk? Is my NVIDIA card made for Windows even though they have UNIX drivers for virtually every flavor? I bought my hardware so that it would be multi-level compatible. Stop assuming that I'm stupid. Your link is for specific Gateway systems only. If I need to tell you again, I built my system. Even if there is a blue screen, how often does it appear? Once in a blue moon? You only specified one example. It is only one scenario. It might be the only one for all I know and has likely been fixed at this point. If I still had Linux installed on my system I could find many scenarios similar to the one that you have described.
(aysiu, this is not directed towards you, only towards the poster before you.)

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 04:55 AM
Chopin has a point.

Windows NT generally almost never has a "blue screen of death." I have used Windows XP for the past two years, and I've seen a blue screen of death on it once. I think sometimes Linux users tend to exaggerate the shortcomings of Windows. It is an excellent operating system--certainly the best Microsoft has ever churned out. Whether it's the best for you... well, that depends who "you" are. It's not the best for me--Ubuntu is. It's still quite excellent. However, as Poptones points out, the blue screen of death can exist on Windows NT--it's just not common.

On the other hand, despite having tried numerous distros, Chopin seems to be suffering from what we all tend to as human beings--generalizing from personal experience. If my experiences with all those Linux distros had been the same as Chopin's, I, too, would have thought, "What is with this Linux hype? It sucks."

Generalizing from my own personal experience, I haven't found Linux to be hype at all. In fact, it's exceeded my expectations. Just about every distro I've tried has recognized my hardware out-of-the-box.

The truth is that Linux distros tend to either "just work" or "just not work." Checking hardware compatibility lists and trying live CDs is a good way to find out how frustrating your Linux experience will be.
Thank you, thank you, thank you...
Another point I have made, however, is that if Linux were better than Windows then you wouldn't have to waste lots of time reading up on compatibility lists. Windows just lets it work and if it doesn't work then it is easy to get it to work.

23meg
December 7th, 2005, 04:58 AM
Thank you, thank you, thank you...
Another point I have made, however, is that if Linux were better than Windows then you wouldn't have to waste lots of time reading up on compatibility lists. Admit it.
This shows you're still stuck with the "it's either good or bad" mindset and the same underinformed generalizations. It's impossible to discuss with you.

aysiu
December 7th, 2005, 04:59 AM
if Linux were better than Windows then you wouldn't have to waste lots of time reading up on compatibility lists. I guess it depends on what you mean by "better." If "better" for you means using whatever everybody else uses, and thus never having to worry about whether things are compatible or not, then, yes, it's better. The minority will never have it easy. Even when we bought a printer for my wife's Powerbook, we had to scour around to find Mac-compatible printers. My wife's been looking recently for a non-iPod MP3 player that's compatible with Mac OS X--slim pickings.

Yet, somehow, my wife and I are quite happy using Mac OS X and Ubuntu, respectively. I'm a firm believer in using what's best for you. Clearly, what's best for you is Windows XP, and I would never try to convince you out of it, but if people are happy with Ubuntu, leave them alone. Frankly, I don't know why you're here...

I've never had any of the hardware compatibility problems that you've experienced, so it's a non-issue for me.

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 05:00 AM
Slow web connection with Breezy? I bet it's about disabling IPV6, which is the most basic of tweaks. Did you do a forum search or post a problem thread to solve your issues with Breezy? I see you only have 2 posts. There's a good chance that if you put the energy you put into this thread into writing well detailed posts describing your problems, you'd have everything working with Breezy.

But that's not what you want, is it? You just want to enjoy bashing Linux instead.
No, I just told you, I spent two weeks on every distro to give it a fair shot. And I don't come here for troubleshooting, because I did much troubleshooting at linuxforums.org where I have 520 posts...:D

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 05:02 AM
I guess it depends on what you mean by "better." If "better" for you means using whatever everybody else uses, and thus never having to worry about whether things are compatible or not, then, yes, it's better. The minority will never have it easy. Even when we bought a printer for my wife's Powerbook, we had to scour around to find Mac-compatible printers. My wife's been looking recently for a non-iPod MP3 player that's compatible with Mac OS X--slim pickings.

Yet, somehow, my wife and I are quite happy using Mac OS X and Ubuntu, respectively. I'm a firm believer in using what's best for you. Clearly, what's best for you is Windows XP, and I would never try to convince you out of it, but if people are happy with Ubuntu, leave them alone. Frankly, I don't know why you're here...

I've never had any of the hardware compatibility problems that you've experienced, so it's a non-issue for me.
I regard "better" as being better than your set goal. For a distribution like Vector, SUSE or Mandriva, their goals are to have a user friendly OS that anybody can use. They have stated that. Because they do not meet up to that they have failed.

23meg
December 7th, 2005, 05:03 AM
No, I just told you, I spent two weeks on every distro to give it a fair shot. And I don't come here for troubleshooting, because I did much troubleshooting at linuxforums.org where I have 520 posts...:D
And why didn't you prefer this forum for troubleshooting?

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 05:04 AM
No, I just told you, I spent two weeks on every distro to give it a fair shot. And I don't come here for troubleshooting, because I did much troubleshooting at linuxforums.org where I have 520 posts...:D
23meg, look at my profile there... http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=39998

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 05:05 AM
And why didn't you prefer this forum for troubleshooting?
Because I like linuxforums.org better... what kind of a question is that??

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 05:06 AM
Alright you guys, I'm going to bed, I'm getting tired.
I may be back in the morning...

23meg
December 7th, 2005, 05:06 AM
what kind of a question is that??
A logical kind, since these are the official forums.

aysiu
December 7th, 2005, 05:15 AM
I regard "better" as being better than your set goal. For a distribution like Vector, SUSE or Mandriva, their goals are to have a user friendly OS that anybody can use. They have stated that. Because they do not meet up to that they have failed. Well, given that, Windows doesn't meet the standard either. I've installed 2000 from scratch and XP from scratch, and both times, the installation process was a nightmare.

Installing an operating system is only as "user friendly" as it is able to detect hardware. Finding out which drivers to get and where to get them was not an easy experience for me for Windows.

Once an OS is installed, I also believe there is none (not Windows, Mac, or any Linux flavor) that is so easy that anybody can use it without proper training. Hell, my co-workers ask me Windows questions every day without fail. Windows is not able to be used by anybody. Nor is Mac. Nor is Linux. People need to be trained on computers. Sometimes I've seen people not even know how to save or open a file... in Windows!

Recently, our office upgraded almost all the PCs to Windows XP (from 2000), and people were really confused. I had about four people ask me what happened to their quick launch toolbar (they didn't call it that, but from their mad gesturing, I gathered what they were talking about). Most people do not know how to use computers and can't figure stuff out themselves, regardless of operating system.

I also think that general Linux forums (Linux Forums / Linux Questions) are good for only two things:

1. Recommendations on which distro to use (people do ask that question here, but obviously we're mostly biased towards Ubuntu... well, except you, maybe).
2. Discussions about Linux in general.

Other than that, for support, you're almost always better off asking questions at the support forum specific to the distribution you're using. When I asked Ubuntu questions on other forums, I almost always got either no answer, a general answer ("Yeah, I don't know. This worked on Gentoo, but it may be different..."), or a wrong answer. The support forums here are excellent.

poptones
December 7th, 2005, 05:15 AM
You are assuming again. Who said I bought hardware made for Windows?

"Again?" I have assumed nothing here - the proof is in your own words. It is you who has done nothing but assume, extrapolate and exaggerate in this discussion. What's most sad is that you do not seem at all aware that, with each post, you shine new light on just how little you actually know. This is a clinical condition, BTW, so there is hope for you... but not here.

I know you got hardware that is "made for windows" because virtually every maker of hardware for the PC platform spends some amount of their development effort making sure their product pases at least some basic WinHec specs. This is why so many products are similar - they are based on the chipmaker's "standard platform design" - the OEMs simply buy the parts, the artwork to produce the boards and an SDK that allows them to "plug in" their own FCC ID and manufacturer ID code and crank out a standard driver.

You said you had problems with your soundcard, your modem and your printer in a variety of linux distros. Duuuuuh... did you ever consult an HCL?

That's a rhetorical question, BTW... in fact it is quite obvious you never did.

Stop assuming that I'm stupid.

there you go again, assuming you are not proving this as fact with your every post here...

Your link is for specific Gateway systems only.

See? There you go again....

matthewstory
December 7th, 2005, 09:00 AM
I have used Windows XP for the past two years, and I've seen a blue screen of death on it once. I think sometimes Linux users tend to exaggerate the shortcomings of Windows. It is an excellent operating system--certainly the best Microsoft has ever churned out.

XP is definitely not the best OS to come out of microsoft, Windows 2000 is by far the most stable and secure microsoft OS ever produced, that's why most windows servers are still running windows 2000 and not windows XP. I have to say that i enjoyed running windows 2000, it's actually a good operating system, whereas i really can't say the same about XP, which is by comparison a great leap backwards.

Now once again to Chopin . . . wow 2 whole weeks per distro . . . that's really taking your time to get to know each distrobution of linux. How many years have you spent tweaking and playing with every form of windows that you install? I personally have played with XP for the last 3 - 4 years of my life, and windows 2000 for the 1 - 2 years before that and 95 - 98 for the 4 - 5 years before that and 3.1 for the 2 - 3 years before that. And i'm guessing that your numbers on this are pretty similar. It's unreasonable to expect that you'll be able to tweak everything on any operating system that you aren't familiar with in 2 weeks, I knows that i didn't transition from 2000 to XP completely in 2 weeks. I'm still relatively unfamiliar with OS X and i've been using it at work and school for the last 3 years, and OS 9 for a year before that.

It sucks that your hardware isn't auto-detected in all these various distros, but i would venture a guess that your windows install didn't include all the third party drivers that you need to install windows and have it run perfectly out of the box. There are certain things you have to be willing to do to get windows running on your system, and these are the things you're used to. The same is true of linux except that the way to do these things are alien to you and require some learning. If you're willing to learn, i think you'll find that linux is just as easy as windows, and then it becomes a matter of what you prefer. (This is also true of BSD, which as you mentioned are backwards looking, which i didn't find at all, i ran a Apache server and a PostgreSQL server on a FreeBSD 4.0 system which ran without slowing down or crashing or needing restart for 200+ days on an old Intel P2 system from the windows 95 era, try that with even a windows 2000 server . . . it won't happen).

regards,
matt

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 02:51 PM
You are assuming again. Who said I bought hardware made for Windows?

"Again?" I have assumed nothing here - the proof is in your own words. It is you who has done nothing but assume, extrapolate and exaggerate in this discussion. What's most sad is that you do not seem at all aware that, with each post, you shine new light on just how little you actually know. This is a clinical condition, BTW, so there is hope for you... but not here.

I know you got hardware that is "made for windows" because virtually every maker of hardware for the PC platform spends some amount of their development effort making sure their product pases at least some basic WinHec specs. This is why so many products are similar - they are based on the chipmaker's "standard platform design" - the OEMs simply buy the parts, the artwork to produce the boards and an SDK that allows them to "plug in" their own FCC ID and manufacturer ID code and crank out a standard driver.

You said you had problems with your soundcard, your modem and your printer in a variety of linux distros. Duuuuuh... did you ever consult an HCL?

That's a rhetorical question, BTW... in fact it is quite obvious you never did.

Stop assuming that I'm stupid.

there you go again, assuming you are not proving this as fact with your every post here...

Your link is for specific Gateway systems only.

See? There you go again....
Grow up. You keep missing my point. I had hardware that worked some of the time, but not all of the time. When it did not work, I wanted it to work. So I went online and bought "linux friendly" hardware because I wanted the operating system to work. And yet it still didn't work. You are assuming that I am stupid. I never said that I didn't look at an HCL, but you assumed that I didn't. BTW, I did check here for my Ubuntu issues... and the only answer I got was to check ALSA and CUPS, which I already did. Again, if Linux were actually superior you wouldn't need to worry so much about hardware compatibility.
I want to know how this shows how little I know... because that just sounds like an excuse.

XP is definitely not the best OS to come out of microsoft, Windows 2000 is by far the most stable and secure microsoft OS ever produced, that's why most windows servers are still running windows 2000 and not windows XP. I have to say that i enjoyed running windows 2000, it's actually a good operating system, whereas i really can't say the same about XP, which is by comparison a great leap backwards.
I have to agree with that, although I view XP as Windows 2000 for home users.

Now once again to Chopin . . . wow 2 whole weeks per distro . . . that's really taking your time to get to know each distrobution of linux. How many years have you spent tweaking and playing with every form of windows that you install? I personally have played with XP for the last 3 - 4 years of my life, and windows 2000 for the 1 - 2 years before that and 95 - 98 for the 4 - 5 years before that and 3.1 for the 2 - 3 years before that. And i'm guessing that your numbers on this are pretty similar. It's unreasonable to expect that you'll be able to tweak everything on any operating system that you aren't familiar with in 2 weeks, I knows that i didn't transition from 2000 to XP completely in 2 weeks. I'm still relatively unfamiliar with OS X and i've been using it at work and school for the last 3 years, and OS 9 for a year before that.
That's great... but two weeks is probably more than enough. If it doesn't work and I've pulled all of the troubleshooting answers out of people that I can then there's no point. It's more trouble than it's worth.

It sucks that your hardware isn't auto-detected in all these various distros, but i would venture a guess that your windows install didn't include all the third party drivers that you need to install windows and have it run perfectly out of the box. There are certain things you have to be willing to do to get windows running on your system, and these are the things you're used to. The same is true of linux except that the way to do these things are alien to you and require some learning. If you're willing to learn, i think you'll find that linux is just as easy as windows, and then it becomes a matter of what you prefer.
On Windows the only third party driver I needed was the NVIDIA driver... and even before that my card worked okay with the generic driver. That's it. Everything else I just plugged in or pushed in to the port, booted the system, and it was automatically set up. I tried my ass off for long periods of time trying to get CUPS or ALSA to work... but just couldn't get them to. There is a difference between not being able to get it to work because you're not used to it and not being able to get it to work because there's something seriously wrong. But you are refusing to admit that anything could possibly be wrong, although you point out every single problem that Windows has ever encountered with ease.

23meg
December 7th, 2005, 05:08 PM
Chopin, may I ask what you're trying to accomplish by posting here, the Ubuntu forums, on "Why Windows is indisputably, absolutely, totally better than Linux"? Do you want to prove this? Because it's not really provable, it can't ever be a valid statement, and you're not making a good impression by blindly bashing Linux and resisting stubbornly to accept a single point about it made against your fixed ideas about it, especially when others are accepting some of your valid points about Windows.

It's clear that you've made your choice, that Windows is the best OS for you, and we all respect this fact; all that stirs a debate here are your generalizations about Linux (and actually about Windows as well). Now that you've decided Ubuntu isn't suited to your use, I suggest you to stop posting to this forum, forget about Ubuntu altogether and be happy using Windows.

aysiu
December 7th, 2005, 05:43 PM
I thought this thread was supposed to be about well-intentioned trolls.

Chopin, if you get your kicks hanging out at the Ubuntu forums and arguing with people that Windows XP is the best, well... that's your choice. I'll tell you a few things, though:

1. You will never convince people away from Ubuntu or Linux. If Ubuntu or Linux is right for them, they'll use it, no matter what you or I say. If Ubuntu or Linux is not right for them, they'll realize it by themselves, no matter what you or I say.

2. If Windows XP is best for you, no one's going to try to convince you to use Ubuntu or Linux. In fact, no one has been trying to.

3. I have never felt the need or desire to sign up for a Windows forum to argue that Ubuntu is better than XP, no matter how true I believe that to be for me.

4. You may be big into bungee jumping. I may like playing the guitar. You won't convince me that bungee jumping is more fun than playing the guitar, even if it's more fun for you. You may say, "Well, fun has nothing to do with it. We're talking about what computer is the best or helps you get the job done." Well, I'm telling you right now that Ubuntu has made computer use fun for me. Windows hasn't. I like Windows XP, and I expressed so in a previous post, but it has become boring for me. If Windows XP is exciting for you, good for you.

Okay. You may continue trolling.

matthewstory
December 7th, 2005, 09:49 PM
hahaha,

Chopin I looked at your profile and i see that you and i are both from chicago. Maybe you'd like to come over to the university of chicago (where i am a student and a web-developer) and give a speech to my boss about how we're flawed for running Mac and fedora servers and not Windows servers.

regards,
matt

chopin1810
December 7th, 2005, 11:22 PM
If you'll visit that "profile" he posted earlier you'll see "chopin" lists his primary hobby as masturbation.

I think that pretty much answers the question "why are you here?"
Yes, and is this a bad thing? It was supposed to be a joke, perhaps you could get a sense of humor. BTW, my very primary hobby is fiddling with computers, which was stated very clearly there as well...

Chopin, may I ask what you're trying to accomplish by posting here, the Ubuntu forums, on "Why Windows is indisputably, absolutely, totally better than Linux"? Do you want to prove this? Because it's not really provable, it can't ever be a valid statement, and you're not making a good impression by blindly bashing Linux and resisting stubbornly to accept a single point about it made against your fixed ideas about it, especially when others are accepting some of your valid points about Windows.
I believe that it is a valid statement to say that it is better than Linux. Basically, it's so destandardized it's intolerable. To install Joe's program, you need Bob's kernel hack, but for Bob's kernel hack, you've got to have Suzy's patches, but Suzy's patches only work with a year-old kernel, unless you get Mike's patches to Suzy's patches, but even then, those conflict with Jeff's drivers, which can be resolved only by installing Nancy's patches... and the open source model enforces this. Development is slow and low quality because of the fragmented and undirected development effort. I am then told one of the following:
1. The test wasn't "fair"
2. What about new kernel x.y.z?
3. You can't expect <reasonable expectation>
4. You must be mean/biased
5. You didn't tune properly
6. You didn't look at the latest release of distro x.y!
My goal here is not to convince you of that, it is to get you to rethink your logic stating that "because you don't use my favorite operating system you must be lazy and stupid." Now, perhaps you yourself was not stating this, but it was clearly the basis of the thread. That's obvious. And I therefore believe that Windows is better than Linux at this point. Even you people should admit this. Without constructive criticism nothing will happen. Look at Linux from an unbiased perspective and decide for yourself.

poptones
December 8th, 2005, 12:36 AM
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Last Visit: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:22 pm
Total posts: 520
[0.19% of total / 4.03 posts per day]
Find all posts by chopin1810
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Website:
Occupation: Systems Operator I
Interests: Fiddling With Computers, Masturbating
Distro: Microsoft Windows XP Professional


I'm getting really ****ing sick of the way objective statements of fact are censored around here and posts deleted without notice. It seems "ubuntu" must mean "the truth only as we want it."

You may now resume your parts in chopin's circle jerk...

Grow up.

The definition of irony coming from you...

You keep missing my point.

You mean the one atop your head?

You have done nothing here but express opinion as fact and, when challenged, you make **** up in a feeble and transparent attempt at validating it.

If you ever thought you had a point, you screwed yourself long ago out of any opportunity to have it taken seriously.

KiwiNZ
December 8th, 2005, 12:48 AM
Everyone calm down and play nice or I will lock this thread

23meg
December 8th, 2005, 12:50 AM
My goal here is not to convince you of that, it is to get you to rethink your logic stating that "because you don't use my favorite operating system you must be lazy and stupid." Now, perhaps you yourself was not stating this, but it was clearly the basis of the thread.It wasn't the basis of the thread at all. Read aysiu's first post again, more carefully. And you won't see that attitude in this community. We respect people's choice to use any OS they see fit.

I won't comment on the rest of your statements. It's the same old story told a different way, to which I've already responded.

teaker1s
December 8th, 2005, 12:54 AM
lock this thread there will always be self involved bunny boilers-just ignore them they soon disappear.
As for genuine help or chat I personally try to help, as many people have helped me

aysiu
December 8th, 2005, 12:58 AM
My goal here is not to convince you of that, it is to get you to rethink your logic stating that "because you don't use my favorite operating system you must be lazy and stupid." Now, perhaps you yourself was not stating this, but it was clearly the basis of the thread. That's obvious. No, it's not obvious. Please re-read the first post of the thread.

Or read it for the first time if you didn't bother before.

chopin1810
December 8th, 2005, 01:15 AM
I'm getting really ****ing sick of the way objective statements of fact are censored around here and posts deleted without notice. It seems "ubuntu" must mean "the truth only as we want it."

You may now resume your parts in chopin's circle jerk...

Grow up.

The definition of irony coming from you...

You keep missing my point.

You mean the one atop your head?

You have done nothing here but express opinion as fact and, when challenged, you make **** up in a feeble and transparent attempt at validating it.

If you ever thought you had a point, you screwed yourself long ago out of any opportunity to have it taken seriously.
You know what... you are the only poster on this thread who has been acting like this. Everybody else has been mature and you are the one who has resorted to immaturity and flaming. Nobody else here has flamed but you.
Give me an example where I have made something up. Soon.

No, it's not obvious. Please re-read the first post of the thread.

Or read it for the first time if you didn't bother before.
I believe it is obvious. You basically implied this by stating Linux may be more work, but pays off in the long run. So people can't use it because they don't want to do more work? I have had similar problems with Linux that some of you have had with Windows. So why don't I tell you to try harder to get Windows to work? You refuse to admit that there may be any problems with Linux, such as usability issues.
Constructive criticism is the only way to improve anything.

23meg
December 8th, 2005, 01:26 AM
You refuse to admit that there may be any problems with Linux, such as usability issues.
Constructive criticism is the only way to improve anything.We don't. I don't. aysiu doesn't. poptones doesn't. matthewstory doesn't. THE GREAT GREAT GREAT MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ON THESE FORUMS DON'T. Some narrow minded folks may. Zealots may. You're blaming the wrong people, and showing off your own narrow mindedness in the process, and besides your criticism of Linux isn't constructive at all.

aysiu
December 8th, 2005, 01:34 AM
Constructive criticism is the only way to improve anything. Trolling on this thread is "constructive criticism"? Insisting Windows XP is the best is "constructive criticism"? Don't kid yourself. Your posts here have done nothing to improve Ubuntu's or Linux's usability. For more info on how to be truly constructive, read this (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741).

prizrak
December 8th, 2005, 03:23 AM
I like constructive criticism however I have not seen much here. Linux (Ubuntu) has useability problems? As someone who used both Windows and Linux I don't see much difference, if anything I have been able to do more with Linux than Windows.
Professionals don't like Linux and are better suited with Windows? Professionals need platforms cusotmized to their purpose, Linux allows for that to happen Windows does not. Simple facts:
Most CG development is done in *nix, Irix on SGI, Linux based solutions by Pixar.
51% of servers do not run MS products, not all of them are *nix necesseraly but I'm willing to bet an absolute majority is.
IBM's professional solutions are all based on Linux.
Most "professional" uses of Windows are nothing but simple desktops, companies that do not do provide IT and related products and services may use Windows for their workers simply because it is easy to obtain and when it comes to office tasks MS Office is still the standard (as sad as it is).
The reason it is so easy to install drivers in Windows is not because it is a better OS it is because it is the one with the largest overall market share so hardware makers HAVE to make hardware compatible with it and create drivers for it. Interestingly enough if all hardware was designed to work with Linux you would never have to install any drivers as Linux is a monolithic kernel which includes all the drivers in it (which is why 3rd party drivers can be a pain) Windows NT (NT line includes 2000 and XP) is a microkernel that keeps the drivers outside of the kernel in modules and makes it easier to load them, but harder to program because of all the work involved in making them talk to each other. Which is why you tend to get alot of kernel panics from 3rd party drivers it's harder to make quality ones and debug them

chopin1810
December 8th, 2005, 04:00 AM
Linux clearly has some problems, as well as the software around it. For one, it's very bloated. There are also fundamental design problems, as I have described earlier.
How is Linux customized to people's purposes? I know that this is just an excuse Linux people use. It isn't really true and may be customizable if you have lots of time on your hands, which most people do not, and you happen to be a programmer, which most people are not either. Admit it, true customizability in UNIX requires vast computer and C programming structure knowledge, and in the case of drivers knowledge on how drivers are dealt with and how they are written. An IT professional may or may not be familiar with some of the above criteria specific to UNIX, and will not have time to mess with it anyhow.
I don't care about your list of statistics there, the fact is that just because IBM and Pixar use Linux doesn't make it better. Admitted, Pixar may use it for programming cutomizability, which UNIX does have a talent in, but beyond that it is a pain in the ass to customize if you don't have a lot of time on your hands, and even how you can customize it has no practical use in the IT/business world.
I don't know where you get the idea that Microsoft Office is a poor suite, it is well known that it is much more lightweight than OpenOffice and has more features than OpenOffice. But the main problem is that OpenOffice is exceedingly bloated. I challenge anybody here to tell me that it is even somewhat lightweight with a straight face; in fact, running Linux; let alone OpenOffice, will require users with older computers to upgrade their hardware, meaning loss of revenue for professional business users.
Again, I don't like the idea of a central, all powerful kernel. If the kernel goes down the entire thing goes down with it. You need to place the core in the hands of several parts so this does not occur. For example, a kernel upgrade may render some hardware drivers obsolete (thus rendering the hardware obsolete) and because some vendors don't release hardware drivers very quickly (X is a perfect example of this) you may end up waiting two months to get your hardware to work. If the kernel upgrade was to hopefully fix a non-working piece of hardware and it still doesn't work, then all hope is lost. This is a poor design principal.
I'm getting tired now, goin' to bed... goodnight.

23meg
December 8th, 2005, 04:37 AM
Linux clearly has some problems, as well as the software around it.How many times do we need to acknowledge this?
For one, it's very bloated. Depends on what you mean by bloated, and which distribution or which aspect of the kernel you're referring to. There is not one single, unified entity with the label LINUX over it, unlike in Windows or Mac OS so any general statement starting with "Linux is very [insert positive or negative adjective]" needs further clarification.

There are also fundamental design problems, as I have described earlier.And as I said earlier, what you count as problems are advantages to many others, including myself, and including professionals in certain areas. People don't use computers for one single purpose, everyone has different areas of use and thus it's natural that they'll find different operating systems suited to themselves. You should get down this very basic fact.

How is Linux customized to people's purposes? I know that this is just an excuse Linux people use. Because it's open source. If you need to modify a closed source software to suit your needs, you have only ONE company that can do it for you, which means an unchallanged monopoly, which in turn means poor support quality, high costs, and no freedom to choose. But with open source, even if you can't modify the software yourself, you can choose from a multitude of companies or individual developers that can do it for you.
It isn't really true and may be customizable if you have lots of time on your hands, which most people do not, and you happen to be a programmer, which most people are not either. And how's that for proprietary software, say, Windows? Any different?
Admit it, true customizability in UNIX requires vast computer and C programming structure knowledge,And in Windows it requires what? Again vast knowledge, plus the $$$ needed to open the source.
and in the case of drivers knowledge on how drivers are dealt with and how they are written. Since most of your Linux problems were driver problems, you're repeating the same line like a broken record. I don't know jack about how drivers are written, and all I do to install my display drivers is "sudo apt-get install nvidia-glx". Same goes for tens of thousands of users. Are there exceptions? Sure, sometimes you need to go to greater lengths. But the exceptions are getting less and less, and even if you absolutely have to compile a driver module for your device to work, for example, you still don't have to know how drivers work. You just need to know how to compile a goddamn program that's already out there and written for you by a volunteer. What you're referring to was true 20 years ago, when *nix was still university laboratory practice for the most part, and if you wanted your device working, you had to sit down and CODE drivers for it. Please update your facts for TODAY.
An IT professional may or may not be familiar with some of the above criteria specific to UNIX, and will not have time to mess with it anyhow. Right, they may or may not. If they're a Microsoft Certified Blah Blah, they won't. But not every IT professional is an MS software professional. There are *nix profession certificates, and lots and of non-certified but very very skilled people willing to help any professional who pays them full time. And this is for the professional area; for the end user area EVERYONE PROVIDES FREE TECH SUPPORT TO EVERYONE already. Just look at these forums. Just look at linuxforums.org where you have many posts. It's the very basis of the practice of free software. You help your neighbor, and they help you. No money, no will to acknowledgement or power, nothing.

I don't care about your list of statistics there, the fact is that just because IBM and Pixar use Linux doesn't make it better.Neither does the fact that more than half the websites you visit run on Linux servers. Noone here is saying that Linux is absolutely and indisputably and unchallangeably better than Windows or some other OS.
Admitted, Pixar may use it for programming cutomizability, which UNIX does have a talent in, but beyond that it is a pain in the ass to customize if you don't have a lot of time on your hands, and even how you can customize it has no practical use in the IT/business world.Pixar don't have to have lots of time in their hands; they can hire people to do it for them. They have money. The point is, professionals who need to have a very customized and fail-safe operating scheme can hire *nix experts to do it for them, whereas end users who need good features and above average stability can get support on the internet from users like themselves who are slightly more skilled in some areas.

I don't know where you get the idea that Microsoft Office is a poor suite, it is well known that it is much more lightweight than OpenOffice and has more features than OpenOffice. But the main problem is that OpenOffice is exceedingly bloated. I challenge anybody here to tell me that it is even somewhat lightweight with a straight face;True, OpenOffice is bloated, and works slow. See, I admitted the downside of an open source software for you.
in fact, running Linux; let alone OpenOffice, will require users with older computers to upgrade their hardware, meaning loss of revenue for professional business users.The opposite is true and well acknowledged everywhere; people put Linux on aging computers to get them working more efficiently because Linux has far better memory management than Windows and when configured properly it can get more done with less power.

Again, I don't like the idea of a central, all powerful kernel. That's the way to put it. Instead of saying "A central kernel is a bad design idea and that's why Linux is worse than Windows for everyone", you can say this. That way there's a chance that you'll be taken seriously.
If the kernel goes down the entire thing goes down with it.Again, how's that different for Windows, except that the kernel tends to "go down" much more often, since all apps have direct access to it?
You need to place the core in the hands of several parts so this does not occur. For example, a kernel upgrade may render some hardware drivers obsolete (thus rendering the hardware obsolete) and because some vendors don't release hardware drivers very quickly (X is a perfect example of this) you may end up waiting two months to get your hardware to work.Did you ever think of why there are kernel updates at all in the first place? Maybe you should. Just suggesting.
If the kernel upgrade was to hopefully fix a non-working piece of hardware and it still doesn't work, then all hope is lost. This is a poor design principal.For people who switch hardware combinations often, have conflicting hardware, or have hardware with poor Linux compatibility, yes. For people who buy and configure once, and then forget about the OS and get down to work, "professionals" for example, no.

Get your facts straight. Do more research.

chopin1810
December 8th, 2005, 02:49 PM
How many times do we need to acknowledge this?
Well, I need an introductory sentence...

Depends on what you mean by bloated, and which distribution or which aspect of the kernel you're referring to. There is not one single, unified entity with the label LINUX over it, unlike in Windows or Mac OS so any general statement starting with "Linux is very [insert positive or negative adjective]" needs further clarification.
The very wide majority of Linux distributions are heavily bloated. Their apps are bloated. The only way I can get a distribution to lost weight is by going to runlevel 3, which isn't very fully featured. Linux itself is not bloated, it is X and the apps that run on top of it, if you want me to get technical... but I want to use a real graphical environment, and not just run elinks and wvdial for everything. I have done this and I don't get much satisfaction. And even in runlevel 3 it still takes three minutes to get to the logon prompt.

And as I said earlier, what you count as problems are advantages to many others, including myself, and including professionals in certain areas. People don't use computers for one single purpose, everyone has different areas of use and thus it's natural that they'll find different operating systems suited to themselves. You should get down this very basic fact.
For very technical professionals who want every little nook and cranny customized? Yes. But other professionals in the business world who need to save money and gain productivity don't have time for this.

Because it's open source. If you need to modify a closed source software to suit your needs, you have only ONE company that can do it for you, which means an unchallanged monopoly, which in turn means poor support quality, high costs, and no freedom to choose. But with open source, even if you can't modify the software yourself, you can choose from a multitude of companies or individual developers that can do it for you.
This is a problem. There is no standard distribution, and therefore third party software developers have to spend time writing software for different distributions. They in turn don't have time to write it specifically for the distribution like they would in Windows. In Windows these developers only have one product to develop for, and therefore they know it much better and will give you better support. I don't know where you get your ideas.

And how's that for proprietary software, say, Windows? Any different?
Windows doesn't have as much of a need for this, and again, the customizability has no practical use for most people.

The opposite is true and well acknowledged everywhere; people put Linux on aging computers to get them working more efficiently because Linux has far better memory management than Windows and when configured properly it can get more done with less power.
...And how much time does it take to get it to this level? It's probably easier just to upgrade your hardware.

23meg
December 8th, 2005, 03:32 PM
The very wide majority of Linux distributions are heavily bloated. Their apps are bloated. The only way I can get a distribution to lost weight is by going to runlevel 3, which isn't very fully featured.FYI, runlevels are configured per distro and aren't set in stone, which means runlevel 3 can mean something different in every distro.
Linux itself is not bloated, it is X and the apps that run on top of it, if you want me to get technical... I've been wanting you to get technical instead of hypothetical ever since you started posting, and it seems you're not very well informed technically either.
but I want to use a real graphical environment, and not just run elinks and wvdial for everything. I have done this and I don't get much satisfaction. And even in runlevel 3 it still takes three minutes to get to the logon prompt.
I use a fully graphical desktop environment , namely Gnome 2.12, in December 2005 just to clarify the date for the record again, and it takes me 40 seconds to get to a fully operable graphical interface. There must be something horribly wrong with your hardware or your configuration if you're not exaggerating on purpose, about which you can still get help if you ask for help in the appropriate manner instead of whining constantly.


For very technical professionals who want every little nook and cranny customized? Yes. But other professionals in the business world who need to save money and gain productivity don't have time for this.Repeating: professionals in the business world have IT professionals of their own, or Linux support companies at their service. They don't need to take the time and effort to configure things themselves like you, a personal user, have to. So don't generalize for them based on your own experience.


This is a problem. There is no standard distribution, and therefore third party software developers have to spend time writing software for different distributions. They in turn don't have time to write it specifically for the distribution like they would in Windows. In Windows these developers only have one product to develop for, and therefore they know it much better and will give you better support. I don't know where you get your ideas.I get my ideas from the development model and the ethical basis that the free software and open source movements have taken years to build, which are out there for all those with an open mind to investigate; I'm not making anything up. You don't have to write a custom app from scratch, that's the whole point of the GPL and the ability to pass on software: you only take what's already been written, and add on top of it or modify it for your own use. If you can't do it yourself, you ask for help, or hire someone to do it for you. I suggest you do some research on the GNU project and the history of FOSS.

Your statement that Linux developers have to write programs specificially for distros is also plain wrong and misinformed. It seems you don't know a thing about open source standards. Seriously, go and do some research and get to know what you're talking about.


Windows doesn't have as much of a need for this, and again, the customizability has no practical use for most people."Most people", including "professionals"? If you need down-to-code customizability, you need the source opened, period. This is the case for any software. To open the source of any part of Windows for your own limited use, you need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to Microsoft. If you don't have any use for customizability, well, then why whine? Go use Windows, or any easy to use Linux/BSD distro the way it comes.


...And how much time does it take to get it to this level? It's probably easier just to upgrade your hardware.The point is, the people who need to do this in most cases can't "just upgrade their hardware" and that's the very reason they put Linux on their computers, to get their dated hardware to do more with less power, because they can't afford to upgrade. And where they can't do it themselves, there's always volunteer help available for such causes. Public institutions, schools, government agencies do this, as well as individuals who can't or don't want to pay for software let alone extra hardware. There are parts of the world where lots of underpowered computers await better utilization, and resources and computer parts are scarce.

In short, you need to get your facts right by doing some reading on FOSS, and stop whining if you're not going to use or contribute to FOSS.

matthewstory
December 8th, 2005, 04:05 PM
I'm done with you Chopin as i've recently discovered that you don't care about debating either. I'd recommend to everyone that you actually check out his linux forums profile and click the link to all posts by chopin1810, the 150 or so i skimmed through are almost all linux bashing threads or posts, and i couldn't find a single instance where he was actually asking for help. Though i did find one where he said tha linux was "ready for the future."

The last half of this thread should be renamed anatomy an ill-intentioned linux troll. So go ahead poptones . . . flame on!

regards,
matt

prizrak
December 8th, 2005, 04:53 PM
To open the source or any part of Windows for your own limited use, you need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to Microsoft.
Actually the Shared Source Initiative by MS allows you to only view the code, so even with the money you don't get to change anything.

I'm done with you Chopin as i've recently discovered that you don't care about debating either. I'd recommend to everyone that you actually check out his linux forums profile and click the link to all posts by chopin1810, the 150 or so i skimmed through are almost all linux bashing threads or posts, and i couldn't find a single instance where he was actually asking for help. Though i did find one where he said tha linux was "ready for the future."

The last half of this thread should be renamed anatomy an ill-intentioned linux troll. So go ahead poptones . . . flame on!

regards,
matt
Signed.

prizrak
December 8th, 2005, 07:09 PM
Actually I will bite the bullet one last time and ask Mr. Chopin a few things. As well as point something out.
You say Linux is bloated, and while some of the distributions could appear that way there are other ones. There is Linux From Scratch, Gentoo, Debian, Slackware you can install either of those and have it only install what you want. If you want a GUI but think that Gnome/KDE run too slow, there is XFCE, Flux/open/blackbox, there is englightenment and fvwm. Now if you like Gnome and think it's too slow you can replace the default window manager Metacity with openbox or enlightenment (and those are just the popular choices there are many many more) and have it run much faster. I actually run openbox+gnome and it is noticeably faster than XP runs on the same machine (well till I wiped it's partition).
Throughout the thread you claim that Windows is a better OS, however the question is WHAT is it better for? What you seem to be forgetting is that an OS is means to an end. Which is OS is better very much depends on your end. In my case Ubuntu does everything I want it to, which is web/e-mail, silly online games, programming (NetBeans), music and video. All I had to do to set it up was install Ubuntu (40 mins or so) download Easy Ubuntu from the forums and run it (2-3 minutes), go to the NetBeans site doewnload the bundle that comes with JSE in a .bin form and then run the included installer (5-6 mins). Then I spent about 10 more minutes importing my bookmarks and address book into Firefox/Thunderbird and voila I had a running system in less than 2 hours. Now this includes wireless working and hibernation support for my laptop. I also get the additional luxury of not having to defrag my drive ever few weeks, having to run an A/V monitor continuosly and running the Registry and Spyware cleaners every week. Not to mention I can reinstall it as many times as I want/need and add any hardware I want/need w/o having to call MS and asking them nicely to activate my XP for me. So in my case Ubuntu is a better OS, it does everything I want, it is at the very least as easy to use as XP was and it is more secure and stable. If you are talking games of course than Windows is your OS of choice. All I/we as the community ask you is that you remember that there is no one size fits all solution. This means that you cannot possibly claim that Windows is a better OS it has it's strengths and weaknesses, so does Linux, so does OS X for that matter.
And apparently the European and Asian governments feel like Linux fits their needs. A huge number of Fortune 500 companies see benefits of Linux and use it as their OS of choice for mission critical applications.

chopin1810
December 8th, 2005, 08:29 PM
I'm getting tired of this... this thread isn't going anywhere on this debate, and it's a waste of time because nobody is convincing anybody of anything.
I could say more, but I won't.

Naglfari
December 8th, 2005, 08:39 PM
Ok guys and gals....I'm new here, and might get my chops busted for asking this....

but if you don't like Ubuntu, or can't make it work, why not just run wipedrive or something, re-install windows or whatever, and go your own way and be happy? Why hang out on an Ubuntu forum griping about it?

23meg
December 8th, 2005, 08:58 PM
if you don't like Ubuntu, or can't make it work, why not just run wipedrive or something, re-install windows or whatever, and go your own way and be happy? Why hang out on an Ubuntu forum griping about it?
That's the whole point. You won't change anything by whining and ranting about how bad Linux is on a Linux forum just because it's been bad to you. Just be happy with Windows, and don't spread FUD about Linux , that's enough.

egon spengler
December 9th, 2005, 02:36 AM
I realise the joke's on me for responding to someone as blatantly intelectually dishonest as old chopin here (I wonder if in his own mind he thinks he is makig excellent points or is it just that being antagonistic is it's own reward?) but I just want to respond to this


The reason I only believe that closed source operating systems with proprietary software are the only type that can ever succeed is the following. You say that open source software is actually more credible than closed source software because it comes from "potentially millions of programmers worldwide". I do not understand your reasoning on this. This would make the software much less credible because the overall quality of the software will be unpredictable: are the code contributors expert software engineers, or inexperienced programmers with only limited experience? There is no absolute way to know. But with a closed source project, you know everybody contributing. You know how experienced they are and that their programming will be good and reliable. These experienced programmers will employ themselves at capital based closed source firms because of a capital incentive. Therefore these experienced programmers belong to the closed source community, and not to the open source community. Because of this, closed source development is much faster and open source projects can never catch up to it. Also, because of this closed source nature, the software becomes standardized -- very important.

There are many companies that produce open source software in an environment identical to the one you describe for closed source (my previous employer is but one example). Logically we can only conclude from this that in these examples open source is the equal of closed source right?

So in essence closed source is not inherently better than open source right?

prizrak
December 9th, 2005, 04:54 AM
Interestingly enough, MS's own memos on the subject of open source software say that FOSS has unlimited credibility and the ability to harness the skills of millions of developers, they admit that they cannot replicate this as well as the fact that FOSS software is at least on par if not better than proprietary software. This is the source (http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/)
Also on the subject of customizing the system. I use NFS for my filesharing between the Green Monster(desktop) and the POS (laptop), laptop runs on 802.11b EXCLUSIVELY the other day I went into my /etc/export to see if I could tweak some settings as file transfers were too slow as well streaming video would stutter. All I did was add the word "async" after the allowed IP. My speed benchmarks (large file transfers with Midningt Commander) came up with speeds of 800KB/s - 1MB/s as opposed to Windows top speed of 600KB/s (and that was 1 foot from the router). Note that I didn't have to know any programming I googled for a guide on setting up NFS and opened one text file with a text editor and added one word. It was easy and took me all of 10-15 minutes (including Googling time) and I got increased productivity on my network.

matthewstory
December 9th, 2005, 11:46 AM
I see you've referenced the halloween document, i put up that link a couple days ago, and then quoted it verbatum to answer several of chopin's questions. ESR is the man though, maybe we should have a thread about how cool he is, or how it's a great injustice that they kicked him out of the OSI.

regards,
matt

prizrak
December 9th, 2005, 11:51 AM
I see you've referenced the halloween document, i put up that link a couple days ago, and then quoted it verbatum to answer several of chopin's questions. ESR is the man though, maybe we should have a thread about how cool he is, or how it's a great injustice that they kicked him out of the OSI.

regards,
matt
Yes your link actually where I learned about the Halloween documents (thanks for it btw) and I spent a good amount of time reading them all. He is definetly a great man and a very well thought out Linux advocate as opposed to a zealot.

chopin1810
December 9th, 2005, 02:38 PM
I realise the joke's on me for responding to someone as blatantly intelectually dishonest as old chopin here (I wonder if in his own mind he thinks he is makig excellent points or is it just that being antagonistic is it's own reward?) but I just want to respond to this



There are many companies that produce open source software in an environment identical to the one you describe for closed source (my previous employer is but one example). Logically we can only conclude from this that in these examples open source is the equal of closed source right?

So in essence closed source is not inherently better than open source right?
I get what you're saying, but this still does not work. Any open source software will create a destandardized state, which only lowers the quality. I explained that earlier. This is even worse for a developer who is capital based, because it means that competitors will be able to copy the product.

egon spengler
December 9th, 2005, 03:06 PM
I get what you're saying, but this still does not work. Any open source software will create a destandardized state, which only lowers the quality. I explained that earlier.

Completely untrue, you seem to have the most tenuous grasp of how open source works. If i create an open source project I am under no obligation to accept contributions from anyone outside of the project. (of course anyone unhappy with the direction is free to fork ala ubuntu or bmp) Do you really think that people were free to come to our offices and rewrite sections of our code adding whatever they like? The notion is rediculous. Of course a project can accept any offered code if they deem it up to scratch, there is no obligation to though and so open source projects maintain as much control over the code as closed source


This is even worse for a developer who is capital based, because it means that competitors will be able to copy the product.

Whether or not competitors are able to copy the code has no bearing on the quality of the project which was your original point. It seems that many, if not all, commercial open source projects make revenue off of support rather than selling the product, do you think that competitors will be able to copy high levels of costumer support and technical expertise as easily?

matthewstory
December 9th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Ah to be sucked back in again.

A destandardized state???? Open Source Software's track record speaks for itself on this point sir. Let's take web standards for example: if closed source software results in more standardized programs, perhaps you can explain to me why firefox is closer to the internationally recognized web standards than IE is. Why it is that as a web-developer i can write an application that will work equally well in opera, firefox, camino and safari, that is completely XHTML 1.0, CSS 2, XML 1.0 and JavaScript compliant, and yet i can't get it to display properly in IE 6.0 without writing special scripts to handle display for IE 6.0?

I guess also it's not enough that OSS is written in generic, universally recognized languages like C, C++ etc. that can be compiled with any generic c or c++ or other compiler (as ships on all operating systems) and that everytime one of these languages comes out microsoft then comes up with a proprietary version of this language that can only be read by windows and microsoft tools (C# is the most recent example of these monstrosities). The same is true of microsoft's attempt to hijack Sun's Java platform which is designed to allow a java program to be run on any system running a java virtual system, by switching it to a completely incompatable MS Java and then shipping that one with all of their operating systems (they lost 2 billion dollars for this and are now forced to either ship with sun java or with no java at all, guess what they chose . . . that's right no java at all on any MS systems that ship.) In their recent history all they have done is attempt to gain more of a market share by closing up universally recognized standards, and then forcing people to code based on these new standards because they have the market share. This doesn't result in any kind of win for consumers or in fact for anyone but microsoft.

And on top of all that disrespect for the computer using/coding community there are millions of users around the world who just think that this is the way things are done and then go on to actually defend the way microsoft does business. I'll let you in on a little secret Chopin, a little history lesson if you will. Computer code started off as being open source, it started off as being all in the public domain and being passed around from user to user as they needed it, because software was considered a means to using your hardware for something usefull, and not a product. Products were considered hardware or hardware support, then the source was closed up by people like IBM and Microsoft (at the time it was called MITS) and now everyone believes that this is the history of coding and that open source is some kind of rebellion. It's not, it's the way things were initially done, and the way things should be done. The rebellion was people closing the source and closing the freedoms of the users off, and turning software users into dollar signs who can't use a a computer to save their lives instead of educating them and allowing them to learn and contribute as well.

Open source is a long-awaited return home for the computing world, and i for one am enjoying the ride.

good day,
matt

prizrak
December 9th, 2005, 05:34 PM
matthewstory:
I have to correct you on something, MS was never MITS, MITS were the makers of the Altair 8080 MS (well then Gates and Allen) just supplied the Basic interpreter (which was basically the OS).
Chopin:
FYI, Linux is fully compliant with the POSIX standard (UNIX standard of doing things) which makes it completely compliant with any other POSIX compliant UNIX derivative (which is just about every single *nix out there). Another thing is that FOSS software is actually driven by internationally recognized open standards, not to mention that software doesn't just randomly exist in its own universe disconected from everything else. Said software is developed for certain OS's be it Linux, Windows or OS X that means that they have to comply with the API standards of the OS. In case you didn't know I can take an .rpm package and install it in Ubuntu with alien command, I highly suspect that I can install the .deb packages on .rpm based distros. You can also compile any Linux software on all versions of Linux on any platform provided you meet the dependancies. Also FYI you have to meet dependancies requirenments with Windows as well except that Windows programs tend to ship with the libraries needed to make them work or they depend on the hundreds of megabytes of .dlls that are included with Windows (and you say Linux is bloated.........).

rocketdog
December 11th, 2005, 01:05 PM
This should be required reading for all new Linux users:!: I'm very new and of course there’s a lot about Ubuntu that I can't even comprehend understanding (yet), but as you stated "its like learning a different language". One just needs to put their head down and keep making their way forward. I'm learning something new every time I logon to my laptop (which is running Breezy). Once again this was a great read.

prizrak
December 11th, 2005, 03:08 PM
This should be required reading for all new Linux users:!: I'm very new and of course there’s a lot about Ubuntu that I can't even comprehend understanding (yet), but as you stated "its like learning a different language". One just needs to put their head down and keep making their way forward. I'm learning something new every time I logon to my laptop (which is running Breezy). Once again this was a great read.
Glad it's working out for you, don't be afraid to ask questions there are many knowledgeable people here :)

Gustav
December 17th, 2005, 03:39 PM
ESR is the man though...
Look at this great comic http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them-the-code

ninotob
December 17th, 2005, 07:58 PM
So, she does what she usually does in Windows ... Just about everything she tries to do she can't do because she tries to do it the Windows way. ...
Many regard Mac OS X as the most user-friendly operating system around. Well, for a long-time Windows user (me), it was quite difficult to use OS X at first.

I got a powerbook about a year ago. One of the first things I did was try to remove items from the dock -- right click didn't give an option (Panther, Tiger does now), I tried the preferences panel. I looked and looked and couldn't find it. Grrr ... this was supposed to be easy! I thought "scr** this", and whipped out the terminal and started poking around. I found a likely file related to the dock, backed it up, and started deleting things to see how it worked. Sure enough, using terminal and pico I was able to remove items from the dock very easily.

Then at some point I slipped with the mouse and accidentally dragged an icon off the dock. It went poof and I suddenly realized how to do it.

In other words, I was applying my linux knowledge to OSX. I would say that no OS is inherently easy. And switching between them is inherently difficult.

aysiu
December 17th, 2005, 08:24 PM
In other words, I was applying my linux knowledge to OSX. I would say that no OS is inherently easy. And switching between them is inherently difficult. Fully agree. It's all about what you're used to.

Kerberos
December 19th, 2005, 07:58 PM
Fully agree. It's all about what you're used to.
I dont want to start a flamewar (again) but its not _entirely_ about what your used to. Although it might have changed (Latest Ubuntu refuses to boot on my laptop) if the system requires commands like mount /dev/hda1 /media/windows/ -t ntfs -o nls=utf8,umask=0222, including the fact that mount /dev/hda1 /media/windows/ -t ntfs doesn't work requires a lot more effort on behalf of the user than a simple drive mounting GUI would require. You need a lot more prerequisite knowlege and its impossible to figure it out just by clicking (which is where the inherent advantage in a GUI lies - discoverability). A CLI interface is a lot more powerful and flexible but it isn't anywhere near as easy.

As with ninotob's example of the OSX dock, you can explain to someone 'just drag items off to get rid of them' and they'd be set. Telling them 'just edit the file with nano in the shell' wouldn't be any use, and educating them to the point that they are able to do it that way would probably take hours.

Dons flameproof jacket

prizrak
December 19th, 2005, 08:33 PM
I dont want to start a flamewar (again) but its not _entirely_ about what your used to. Although it might have changed (Latest Ubuntu refuses to boot on my laptop) if the system requires commands like mount /dev/hda1 /media/windows/ -t ntfs -o nls=utf8,umask=0222, including the fact that mount /dev/hda1 /media/windows/ -t ntfs doesn't work requires a lot more effort on behalf of the user than a simple drive mounting GUI would require. You need a lot more prerequisite knowlege and its impossible to figure it out just by clicking (which is where the inherent advantage in a GUI lies - discoverability). A CLI interface is a lot more powerful and flexible but it isn't anywhere near as easy.
I dunno why Ubuntu don't boot for ya, however Breezy automounted my Windows partitions last time I did a dual boot (when I was testing Breezy on the desktop) of course they were on the same physical drive I dunno how that would work with multidrives tho. We did tell you before that MEPIS does GUI based drive mounting (an unmounted drive is shown on the desktop even tho it's not mounted). Also what you have to realize when it comes to differences between OS's. In Windows you never have to mount a non-native file system, it plain won't support it (there is a third party app to make it EXT3 aware, but again 3rd party). The CLI interface is not discovearable that is very true, but not all Linux requires CLI. MEPIS is one example of a fully point-and-click system, Ubuntu is an example of one that *might* require you going into the CLI. Honestly though, out of the box (if your hardware is supported, which is always a gamble) there is very little that will require CLI modification with even Ubuntu. Before anyone says "But what about extra repositories?", there is actually a GUI way of enabling them with check boxes not to mention Easy Ubuntu enables them automagically (please don't hit me I know there is controversy this is just an example). I am by no means trying to flame you, its just that while there are some things in all Linux distributions that are difficult. So far though, all your examples had to do with Ubuntu itself and other distros would not have those "problems". Hardware support is definetly lacking though (even though both my machines ran out of the box I know some people are not so lucky) and it could be a pain if you need some very specific piece of software. Truth of the matter is that if you had Ubuntu come with your laptop and configured by the OEM and you were more or less an average user (web, e-mail, multimedia, silly little games) you would not even know there is such a thing as a CLI, and never have to change a thing. If you are a power user you will of course want to tweak things, but a TRUE power user will take his/her time to do full customization and learn the way it is done whether it is a CLI or a GUI (those can be a pain in the butt as well). The only real problem I see in Linux (all of them) is hardware support, if it works its beautiful if it does not it's like qualifying for the Olympic gymnastics team, damn near impossible but pays off if you succeed ;)

Kerberos
December 19th, 2005, 08:42 PM
Last time I used Mepis it was so bloated the start bar had to scroll left and right as it didn't all fit on the screen at once (800x600 iirc). Not only that it had a weather indicator (set for Morgantown) on it. Removing it just left a bit gap in the middle of the bar, with my running apps still with only an inch in width to display in. Trying to get everything to fit nicely was a job and a half and I just gave up in the end. I find Ubuntu much easier (as I have a technical background already) but using Mepis felt like using Windows after you installed everything and clicked 'yes' to the 'create an iconfest' buttons.

prizrak
December 19th, 2005, 09:18 PM
Last time I used Mepis it was so bloated the start bar had to scroll left and right as it didn't all fit on the screen at once (800x600 iirc). Not only that it had a weather indicator (set for Morgantown) on it. Removing it just left a bit gap in the middle of the bar, with my running apps still with only an inch in width to display in. Trying to get everything to fit nicely was a job and a half and I just gave up in the end. I find Ubuntu much easier (as I have a technical background already) but using Mepis felt like using Windows after you installed everything and clicked 'yes' to the 'create an iconfest' buttons.
Hehe MEPIS is quite a bit like Windows :) which is why alot of non techie converts like it :) Ubuntu does require some techincal knowledge to set up I agree, which is why a common newbie advice is to get a knowledgeable person to set it up if they just want to use the OS rather than learn it.

aysiu
December 19th, 2005, 09:51 PM
You can't complain on behalf of "ordinary" users that using the command-line in Ubuntu is difficult and then complain on behalf of yourself that Mepis (which doesn't need the command-line) is too bloated.

If people want point-and-click everything, they should use Mepis. New users who need point-and-click (i.e., me, eight months ago) don't mind the bloat!

If people think bloat is such a big deal, they usually don't mind a little command-line action. I can't believe that a user as advanced as Kerberos would not know how to get rid of the KWeather applet cleanly. And there's plenty of "bloat" in a vanilla Windows install that has annoying stuff ordinary users can't be bothered to turn off (a lot of "helper" animated things that are far more irksome than the KWeather applet).

By the way, I think your earlier examples actually serve to reinforce the notion that it's all about what you're used to. If you're used to typing commands into a terminal, typing commands in is not a big deal. You just get used to a new set of commands. If you're used to dragging things off of other things to remove them, dragging them off isn't a big deal.

Discoverability is also highly overrated, especially since most tasks people use computers for are the same task repeated daily or weekly. They don't need to discover new ways to do things. My mom has her own computer ritual--log in; check email; visit X, Y, and Z websites; and open up Word to type a document. She doesn't "discover" things, even on Windows. She doesn't tweak settings.

And remember that back in the day, everyone typed commands in. That's what you did. That's what you had to do. It's not as if most people are incapable of placing fingers on keyboard keys. I was around in the early eighties. It was all keyboard back then. And in countries that aren't the US, it's all stick-shift driving (not automatic).

Would it make sense for Ubuntu to adopt a Mepis approach to mounting partitions? Sure. Is this something that severely hampers Ubuntu's day-to-day usability? Hardly. I set up my Windows partition to automount... once. Now it automounts at every boot, and I don't need to touch my /etc/fstab file any more.

Mikeynewbie
December 20th, 2005, 04:27 AM
In regards to your responses to my post.

First and foremost I am not an idiot. I know what windows operating system I have been using and I know when the screen turns blue and nothing happens that there was a huge problem.

It appears that you simply want to be a cheerleader for windows which is fine but you are preaching to the wrong people.

I also sense some animosity because a person who had no computer experience could get this distro working and you with all your vast windows knowledge could not.

I think it is funny that you simply do not understand as I can tell from the rest of the posts what you are talking about. It seems that everyone has a response that contradicts what you say.

Furthermore, you sound like a spoiled child. I can't get it to work wahhhhhh daddie bill fix it fix it.

And who ever you are you need to learn some basic social skills. Buy this I mean show some respect for people. I do not appreciate being responded to like I am a complete idiot. I may not know computers but I certainly have mastered other academic interests and have the degrees to prove it.

Get a life, and stop whining about being too lazy to figure out how to make linux work. If a computer lamen like I can make it work than surely you can, or you just may not be as smart as you think you are.

Kerberos
December 20th, 2005, 11:15 PM
** snipped personal attack rant **

I can't actually find the post you are so upset about.

At the end of the day I don't want to be using Linux because of politics, I want to use it because its clearly better than the alternatives. I run a net cafe and would love to evade the Microsoft tax, but it seems that you cant actually provide reasons why you'll continue to use windows over linux without being called the antichrist (and Microsoft zealot (which I dont think exist *at all* unless paid directly by MS)).

I just tried to get people talking about the usability problems in Linux (which exist just read [this link] (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html)) - which if I had written I would have been flamed and probably banned for, but it comes from a respected Linux advocate, and the problems he described must have been ignored for quite a long time - I'm sure he's not the first one to have problems there.

If nobody is allowed to point out problems then how do they get fixed?*

* I know developers dont read these forums, nor even stumble on them in their spare time.

I will post on this thread no longer as it's probably wwaayyy off-topic now.

aysiu
December 20th, 2005, 11:33 PM
It seems that you cant actually provide reasons why you'll continue to use windows over linux without being called the antichrist (and Microsoft zealot (which I dont think exist *at all* unless paid directly by MS)). It may seem that way to you, but I've seen evidence to the contrary on these forums many times (the what's preventing you from deleting your Windows partition thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=71976), for one).

There are many programs that are Windows-only programs (or certainly not Linux programs), and Crossover Office and Cedega don't handle everything.

My workplace uses a database that runs natively in Windows and has a web interface (for Mac and Linux), but the web interface is much slower (obviously). It also directly interfaces with Microsoft Office using macros, and it will not work with OpenOffice.

My church uses a program called MediaShout, and it does not have a Mac or Linux counterpart.

I think most Ubuntu users/forum members will admit there are some very good reasons to use Windows, depending on your needs. You obviously disagree with me on this, but I just don't think the case you're making for Linux's "lack of usability" really holds water, especially when you dismiss Mepis' functionality because it's too "bloated."

prizrak
December 20th, 2005, 11:42 PM
I can't actually find the post you are so upset about.

At the end of the day I don't want to be using Linux because of politics, I want to use it because its clearly better than the alternatives. I run a net cafe and would love to evade the Microsoft tax, but it seems that you cant actually provide reasons why you'll continue to use windows over linux without being called the antichrist (and Microsoft zealot (which I dont think exist *at all* unless paid directly by MS)).

I just tried to get people talking about the usability problems in Linux (which exist just read [this link] (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cups-horror.html)) - which if I had written I would have been flamed and probably banned for, but it comes from a respected Linux advocate, and the problems he described must have been ignored for quite a long time - I'm sure he's not the first one to have problems there.

If nobody is allowed to point out problems then how do they get fixed?*

* I know developers dont read these forums, nor even stumble on them in their spare time.

I will post on this thread no longer as it's probably wwaayyy off-topic now.

CUPS is a pain in the butt and I will be the first one to say that. That said it wasn't that difficult to follow a how-to to get it working. However I will agree newbies would have issues with that.
No one has flamed you on this thread yet, however you have not provided any actual cases of usability issues. The one problem I remember you having (not even in this thread) is not being able to graphically view your IP (which is fixed in Breezy). All the issues you have listed are either preference, easily resolved, or are taken care with other distributions.
You are more than welcome to mention problems however if we say we don't see them as problems that's our preferences speaking for developer access you have launchpad this way they know you have a problem that stems from the way the system works rather than just a user specific issue.
You say you run a net cafe, there are many types and if you are running one that allows for gaming then yes Linux in general is not for you, that is not a Linux issue it is a problem with game developers we can't help it. If it is one that only provides internet access to people then I am really at a loss what kind of functionality you require that is not provided by Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular as I use it as my only OS and have not had any issues relating to www performance.

prizrak
December 27th, 2005, 10:13 AM
Found an interesting article that has to do with someting that could be called 'trolling' http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg01529.html

cjm5229
December 28th, 2005, 11:13 AM
Hi,
Just want to say that I, Personally, have found Ubuntu quite easy to use. I am dual booted with XP, which I use when I have to, but really enjoy using Ubuntu a lot more. I am a 53 year old truck driver, married, with 3 boys at home, ages 10, 15, 18. My wife and I homeschool our sons so computers became a requirement in our home. We now have a total of 4, 3 of which are running WinXP. I am using Ubuntu for several reasons, first, I wanted to be able to teach my boys how to do something on their computers besides play games and surf the net. Second, even though we connect to the internet through a router, have SP2 with a firewall installed, use AV, Antispy ware, and anti adware. I make everyone houseclean their systems regularly. I still spend a lot of time trying to get rid of virii, trojans, hijackers, adware, and spyware. Third, It's just plain fun. I have tried several other distros including Linspire, Xandros, Mepis, Suse, and Mandrake. It's not hard, just download them and burn a disk. Ubuntu has definetly worked the best, I did have screen resolution problems at first, but that was easily solved by following instructions I found in Ubuntu Forums, (Friendliest and most helpful bunch of people on the Internet today IMHO.) I was even triple booted for a while, trying out various OS's. Now, if I, An uneducated truck driver (going on 40yrs now) can learn Ubuntu, find it easier than XP to install programs, and use as a teaching tool for my children, Then I really don't understand what the fuss is all about. I really didn't even know what a Troll was till I started reading this thread, I grew up in the shadow of Michigans UP. I thought a troll was someone from the lower peninsula, you know, short, ugly, and they live under the bridge. I will probably always have Windows on my computer, because somethings just work better on windows. but mostly I will use Ubuntu, because, well, I just like it better. Carl

truthfatal
December 29th, 2005, 09:45 PM
I like Ubuntu -- and most GNU/Linux distros in general, therefore, I'll use them.
I like that if I have a problem I can search this forum, or another, or google/linux, and there is a very good chance that I will find a solution -- either that or I'll find a good place to ask for one.
I like that my computer is fairly secure, and relatively safe from virii, worms, trojans, malware, spyware, and adware.

I don't like the sketchy hardware support -- I blame the hardware vendor, not Linux.

That was a very well written original post , aysiu.

~tf

DevilsAdvocate
December 30th, 2005, 01:47 AM
I think we should all thank the trolls out there. You must admit, the most interesting and fun threads are often started by trolls. Not the corporate troll who throws up one obnoxious post and is never heard from again. I mean the sincere troll (who shouldn't be called a troll I suppose) who posts his "Linux isn't ready for this" or "This is my horrible experience and why I'm switching" and sticks around for some give and take.

Yeah, I like helping out where I can, but the threads I check up on a zillion times a day are usually the troll threads.

majikstreet
December 30th, 2005, 01:53 AM
http://www.linuxquestions.org gets a lot of trolls.

fuscia
December 30th, 2005, 02:27 AM
+1 for devil's dipshit! (just trying to help you out, buddy.)

DevilsAdvocate
December 30th, 2005, 02:38 AM
+1 for devil's dipshit! (just trying to help you out, buddy.)

I'd rather laugh w/ the devil's dipshit's then cry w/ the saintly serious.

Just +1...and I try so hard.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 03:10 AM
I think we should all thank the trolls out there. You must admit, the most interesting and fun threads are often started by trolls. Not the corporate troll who throws up one obnoxious post and is never heard from again. I mean the sincere troll (who shouldn't be called a troll I suppose) who posts his "Linux isn't ready for this" or "This is my horrible experience and why I'm switching" and sticks around for some give and take.

Yeah, I like helping out where I can, but the threads I check up on a zillion times a day are usually the troll threads.

Look at the one thread you have posted besides this one, it was flamebait and basically, so is this.

As i understand it this is a forum for discussing Ubuntu and things regarding Ubuntu, if i were to post an abortion discussion thread it would be swiftly removed.

Of course, the mods don't really know what to do here since the multitude of off topic posts (if you go by discussing Ubuntu alone) is enormous so they just move threads they percieve into the backyard instead.

Anywayz, i thought you were ok until you posted this one labeling others trolls when they posted about Ubuntu's competition while you post completely off topic flamebait.

Stay on topic or off topic, you're confusing me.

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 03:17 AM
if i were to post an abortion discussion thread it would be swiftly removed.
It wouldn't be removed but moved to the backyard, due to its controversial nature, not because it's off topic.

Of course, the mods don't really know what to do here since the multitude of off topic posts (if you go by discussing Ubuntu alone) is enormous so they just move threads they percieve into the backyard instead.
Non-technical threads are typically moved to community chat if they're posted to the support forums, not the backyard.

mstlyevil
December 30th, 2005, 03:24 AM
As i understand it this is a forum for discussing Ubuntu and things regarding Ubuntu, if i were to post an abortion discussion thread it would be swiftly removed.

Of course, the mods don't really know what to do here since the multitude of off topic posts (if you go by discussing Ubuntu alone) is enormous so they just move threads they percieve into the backyard instead.


This is community chat. That means it is the open topic forum. You can post what you want as long as they do not violate the forum rules. The backyard is reserved for political and religious disscussions or threads that are getting heated. I was online the day they decided to create it because people were upset about a political thread that was closed because the Mods thought it was too contriversial.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 03:31 AM
It wouldn't be removed but moved to the backyard, due to its controversial nature, not because it's off topic.Non-technical threads are typically moved to community chat if they're posted to the support forums, not the backyard.

Controversy will arise on ANY topic at ANY given time, and it has happened in other forums without it being moved so this is basically a case where the mods will do as they please.

Non technical? Ummm? You mean that only subject that are not referring to Ubuntu but not to any controversial subject are fit for the community forums? How about the multitude of anti MS threads where the trolls come out in full color claiming things they do not know shite about, are they non-controversial?

I like Ubuntu, i like Windows but for different reasons, and i hate both for the same reason, if i were to start a thead regarding the secutity mishaps on Ubuntu and why OpenBSD is a much better choice, would that be controversial, according to your guidelines it may or may not be, according to the rules it isn't as long as nobody flames me.

IF i were to make such a thread then it would be swiftly moved into the backyard because the only thing allowed here is regarding people loving Ubuntu (flaming them to hell for not doing so is allowed).

'tis our forum, our rules, deal with it, eh? dagnabit!

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 03:33 AM
This is community chat. That means it is the open topic forum. You can post what you want as long as they do not violate the forum rules. The backyard is reserved for political and religious disscussions or threads that are getting heated. I was online the day they decided to create it because people were upset about a political thread that was closed because the Mods thought it was too contriversial.

LOL, ok, open topic forum unless you post something controversial that has nothing to do with hating MS, if you post something hating MS then it is ok.

It's a double standard that is being applied.

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 03:45 AM
Controversy will arise on ANY topic at ANY given time,Not here; elsewhere it may. What I meant by controversy was controversy over political, religious etc. issues where opposing views are more likely to offend people; maybe I should have been clearer. If you have issues with this policy, take it to the forums discussion forum or directly to the admins.

Non technical? Ummm? You mean that only subject that are not referring to Ubuntu but not to any controversial subject are fit for the community forums?Sure, exactly.

How about the multitude of anti MS threads where the trolls come out in full color claiming things they do not know shite about, are they non-controversial?As long as personal attacks don't take place and turn into flamefests, they're non-controversial by the definition above.


I like Ubuntu, i like Windows but for different reasons, and i hate both for the same reason, if i were to start a thead regarding the secutity mishaps on Ubuntu and why OpenBSD is a much better choice, would that be controversial, according to your guidelines it may or may not be, according to the rules it isn't as long as nobody flames me.Why don't you start that thread, since it's on your mind, and see what happens as long as you don't offend anyone in person?


IF i were to make such a thread then it would be swiftly moved into the backyard because the only thing allowed here is regarding people loving Ubuntu (flaming them to hell for not doing so is allowed).So whenever someone opens a thread that declares dislike against Ubuntu it gets moved to the backyard for that reason alone, huh? Care to show us one example? It seems you've got things way wrong; I've been on the forums for long enough to be sure of that.

poofyhairguy
December 30th, 2005, 03:53 AM
Controversy will arise on ANY topic at ANY given time, and it has happened in other forums without it being moved so this is basically a case where the mods will do as they please.

Before the backyard we would just close those threads. Is that prefered?



Non technical? Ummm? You mean that only subject that are not referring to Ubuntu but not to any controversial subject are fit for the community forums? How about the multitude of anti MS threads where the trolls come out in full color claiming things they do not know shite about, are they non-controversial?

Nope, many are because those inside them resort to personal insults. There are MANY of those threads in the backyard. In fact, every time I see a new one about MS I think "I wonder how long till thats in the backyard?"



I like Ubuntu, i like Windows but for different reasons, and i hate both for the same reason, if i were to start a thead regarding the secutity mishaps on Ubuntu and why OpenBSD is a much better choice, would that be controversial, according to your guidelines it may or may not be, according to the rules it isn't as long as nobody flames me.

Yep. As long as no person insult anyone here, it will stay in Community Chat.

We are not the honesty police. This is not a "no spin zone." We make no apologies about being pro-Ubuntu.



IF i were to make such a thread then it would be swiftly moved into the backyard because the only thing allowed here is regarding people loving Ubuntu (flaming them to hell for not doing so is allowed).

Try it. The only way we wil move it is if you start it in a REALLY bad tone and it soon brings personal insults. Thats what gets stuff moved there- personal attacks and other rude behavior. Being wrong or criticizing on non-Ubuntu forum participants (aka companies that do wrong) is not in itself wrong unless you take it WAY too far (aka cussing).


LOL, ok, open topic forum unless you post something controversial that has nothing to do with hating MS, if you post something hating MS then it is ok.

As long as the insults that are really nasty do not come along then its fine. Problem is they always come, so most of those threads get moved.



It's a double standard that is being applied.

Against MS? You are on a Linux forum. It would be impossible to police all the anti-MS sentiments. We would have to shut the forum down. Who knows how many people are here purely as a reaction to MS.

The rule is as long as is not too nasty and does not include direct character attacks on forum members criticism is allowed- even of Ubuntu. We have had a "what the worst thing about Ubuntu" thread alive in community chat for a LONG time.

DevilsAdvocate
December 30th, 2005, 04:24 AM
Look at the one thread you have posted besides this one, it was flamebait and basically, so is this..

Well, I've posted to several threads, probably a 1/3 of which are technical and 2/3 to the Community areas. I've started one other thread, and yes it was flamebait. I do not see how this thread is inflammatory. It was a personal reflection, that controversial threads are more stimulating, an attempt to see if others in the community had a similar experience, and and attempt to start an interesting line of thought and discussion.


As i understand it this is a forum for discussing Ubuntu and things regarding Ubuntu, if i were to post an abortion discussion thread it would be swiftly removed.

Not necessarilly. It would depend on how you posted a discussion on abortion.


Of course, the mods don't really know what to do here since the multitude of off topic posts (if you go by discussing Ubuntu alone) is enormous so they just move threads they percieve into the backyard instead.

Ubuntu and FOSS is a culture and a philosophy. THAT is what separates it from proprietary software...the code is redundant. Discussing the greater implications to society, for myself, is important. It is where I could give and take to the FOSS community. I believe these notions should be discussed by the community, allowing many of us who are here for those reasons to participate where we have no skill's in the technical aspects.


Anywayz, i thought you were ok until you posted this one labeling others trolls when they posted about Ubuntu's competition while you post completely off topic flamebait.

You missed my point completely. I wasn't posting about any specific "troll" or "troll issue such as 'Ubuntu's competition'." I was posting about how these types of threads are interesting, stimulate debate, and make us think. All good endeavors in my book. LinuxSwede, you're okay because you made this thread interesting, thanks.


Stay on topic or off topic, you're confusing me.

I started the thread, how can I be off topic? I had one other reply to Fuscia who, if you hadn't noticed by her other topics, has a poetic sense of dry humor -- I was attempting to reply in kind (but not as well).

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 05:16 AM
Why don't you start that thread, since it's on your mind, and see what happens as long as you don't offend anyone in person?

I'll tell you why, because EVERY thread i have seen in here (or in developers forums) that i have seen in here has developed into a flamefest.

A thread that would preach the virtues of a secure system and why Ubuntu is is bound to get locked before it reaches one page.

To be entirely honest i think you let the anti windows ones slide because people are having fun abusing MS, little do you know that most of them are dual booting and will end up using ONLY windows within a year or so.

I am FOR the FOSS agenda but against the GNU agenda, i don't like communityism any more than i like Nazism or Stalinism (i have forefathers suffering under both) free speech and free mind is SUPPOSED to be the goal of this, and quite honestly i find having moderators AT ALL defeats the purpose of something that should be open to all without restrictions.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 05:26 AM
Before the backyard we would just close those threads. Is that prefered?

What do you want me to answer to that? Yes Massa poofhairyguy?



Nope, many are because those inside them resort to personal insults. There are MANY of those threads in the backyard. In fact, every time I see a new one about MS I think "I wonder how long till thats in the backyard?"

*sigh* there are MANY that resort to personal insults in here too, i suppose mods resorting to personal insults is ok though, right? or should i just say Yes Massa her too?




Yep. As long as no person insult anyone here, it will stay in Community Chat.

We are not the honesty police. This is not a "no spin zone." We make no apologies about being pro-Ubuntu.

No, you are the "we remove as we please, both posts and other things", you are doing suck different things from case to case that no one NO ONE really knows what gives, it's ok to flame MS to death and make that into a politicial issue but bring up abortion and whoa...


Community chat, that isn't a worthwhile subject?



Try it. The only way we wil move it is if you start it in a REALLY bad tone and it soon brings personal insults. Thats what gets stuff moved there- personal attacks and other rude behavior. Being wrong or criticizing on non-Ubuntu forum participants (aka companies that do wrong) is not in itself wrong unless you take it WAY too far (aka cussing).



As long as the insults that are really nasty do not come along then its fine. Problem is they always come, so most of those threads get moved.



Against MS? You are on a Linux forum. It would be impossible to police all the anti-MS sentiments. We would have to shut the forum down. Who knows how many people are here purely as a reaction to MS.

The rule is as long as is not too nasty and does not include direct character attacks on forum members criticism is allowed- even of Ubuntu. We have had a "what the worst thing about Ubuntu" thread alive in community chat for a LONG time.

I think you are wrong on most things you have said in this reply, otoh i like most of your posts so... heh, well ok...

I'll tell you what, i'll post the thread, now since i know you have the authority to ban me from this ONE forum but not from others i'd suggest you do so if i get out of line, same for others but keep the thread going... For some reason i have a feeling that it won't be that bad, except if some MS jerk wanders in there...

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 05:57 AM
I'll tell you why, because EVERY thread i have seen in here (or in developers forums) that i have seen in here has developed into a flamefest.

A thread that would preach the virtues of a secure system and why Ubuntu is is bound to get locked before it reaches one page.If people can't keep it civil and mature, threads will be locked and moved to the backyard; this is pretty much a standard in every forum. If you don't know how to criticize people without cussing, if you don't know how to discuss without resorting to personal attacks and STFU, you're bound to being locked and moved to backyards and ignored. This isn't specific to the Ubuntu forums. Maybe you just aren't very familiar with forum policies in general.


i find having moderators AT ALL defeats the purpose of something that should be open to all without restrictions.Then do your discussion in the unmoderated mailing lists. Forums being forums, they'll always be moderated.

LinuxSwede
December 30th, 2005, 07:35 AM
The thread was moved before even ONE harsh words was said.

I proved my point right there poofy, but i can post a thread about how i hate microsoft and it will grow to ten pages without being moved even though the word "hate" is in the title and there would be much controversy.

Mostly because i don't hate MS...

Anywayz, poofyhairyguy, i know you are not alone to be mod and it wasn't you who moved it so i can't blame you for anything...

Christ it's getting early and it is time to go to sleep, tomorrow i'm leaving for Paris to go on my honeymoon. :D

prizrak
December 30th, 2005, 07:58 AM
The thread was moved before even ONE harsh words was said.

I proved my point right there poofy, but i can post a thread about how i hate microsoft and it will grow to ten pages without being moved even though the word "hate" is in the title and there would be much controversy.

Mostly because i don't hate MS...

Anywayz, poofyhairyguy, i know you are not alone to be mod and it wasn't you who moved it so i can't blame you for anything...

Christ it's getting early and it is time to go to sleep, tomorrow i'm leaving for Paris to go on my honeymoon. :D
To be fair it was stated that such controversial topics that people feel strongly about will be moved to the backyard right away. You should do what you said you would before create a thread that talks about security practices and how Ubuntu meets certain criteria and fails others.
In any case have a good honeymoon, hope it works out you got a 50/50 chance after all ;)

Kerberos
December 30th, 2005, 05:39 PM
Personally I find the term 'troll' insulting (as it automatically implies that your views have no worth). The OP is also implying that anyone that holds a view contrary to the norm is also automatically a troll. Its a good opinion to hold as anyone who has a view contrary is a 'troll' and isn't worth listening to thus you can't ever be proved wrong.

Due to the distributed nature of Linux you get some amazing things, but since there is such a large base of developers the overall quality of the end product is very variable, and things such as setup, config & install can either be a breeze or a nightmare. Its not even restricted to Linux - I'd be very, very suprised if someone could get Apache, PHP + MySQL running properly on Windows in less than an hour* if they hadn't done it before and weren't familiar with the process. It doesn't automatically make Linux crap, or invalidate all the good work and the impressive results of other projects, but it represents a barrier that most people would just give up on (unless they can get someone else to do it for them).

Unfortunatly pointing these things out tends to lead to flamewars as people try to repeatedly justify things (for example there was no 'back' or 'up' buttons on the old Ubuntu file browser) rather than agreeing 'yes, its a bit crap'. Getting told that things you think are sub par (and with very good reasons) are 'fine thats just the Linux way' does not inspire confidence.

http://ihatelinux.co.uk/images/explorer.png

You shouldn't blindly defend everything as maybe the 'trolls' have a point on occasion.

prizrak
December 30th, 2005, 09:00 PM
as people try to repeatedly justify things (for example there was no 'back' or 'up' buttons on the old Ubuntu file browser) rather than agreeing 'yes, its a bit crap
Yes it's stupid, I hate Nautilus default setup you need to change a few settings to make it more or less useable. (though I think breezy default install has it set to work as a browser, still no location box by default). Thing is thoug, those are conscious decisions and quite possibly there was a reason for the said default. I guess people defend certain things because they are nothing but defaults that you can change. But yeah some of the defaults do suck but then again it's a preference thing.

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
December 30th, 2005, 09:35 PM
Unfortunatly pointing these things out tends to lead to flamewars as people try to repeatedly justify things (for example there was no 'back' or 'up' buttons on the old Ubuntu file browser) rather than agreeing 'yes, its a bit crap'.

And what a great example it is!!!
Oh, wait, you'll probably find 10 000s posts on mailing lists, forums, usenet discussing the merits of spatial nautilus (because that's what you are talking about). What a great example for claiming that discussions aren't possible.

And while we are at it, nautilus always had back and up buttons in browser mode, which was also always available, but not the default, so you are also factually incorrect.
Spatial nautilus didn't have these buttons, because love it or hate it, that's not the was spatial is supposed to work.

People will be called trolls if they take something like you nautilus example, that they don't even understand, just like you and base broad sweeping claims on it, like "Linux isn't ready for the desktop". And guess what, people who do such things simply are trolls, so calling them trolls is only accurate.

poofyhairguy
December 30th, 2005, 09:55 PM
To be fair it was stated that such controversial topics that people feel strongly about will be moved to the backyard right away. You should do what you said you would before create a thread that talks about security practices and how Ubuntu meets certain criteria and fails others.


...

prizrak
December 30th, 2005, 10:20 PM
...
Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? Or are confused about what I said?

poofyhairguy
December 30th, 2005, 10:24 PM
Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? Or are confused about what I said?

Lets put it this way: I want to highlight that concept.

Kerberos
December 31st, 2005, 03:21 PM
And what a great example it is!!!
Oh, wait, you'll probably find 10 000s posts on mailing lists, forums, usenet discussing the merits of spatial nautilus (because that's what you are talking about). What a great example for claiming that discussions aren't possible.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

There are 2 browser modes as I see it, Spatial and Browser. At some point Ubuntu moved from Spatial to Browser, yet they didn't update the navigator controls to reflect this change and include the essential navigation buttons that were previously unnecessary. As a result simple navigation tasks are much more laborious than they really need to be since the only (intuitive) way of going back to the previous directory was to click the button in the bottom left and select the previous folder from the drop down list.


And while we are at it, nautilus always had back and up buttons in browser mode, which was also always available, but not the default, so you are also factually incorrect.
Spatial nautilus didn't have these buttons, because love it or hate it, that's not the was spatial is supposed to work.

Its not running in spatial mode though. Its running in browser mode with the spatial controls (which is my problem). And I'm sure you can change it but given how many VCR's & Microwaves read 12:00 It seems dumb to have such an unintuitive default - especially since the setting is probably buried in a .conf somewhere.


People will be called trolls if they take something like you nautilus example, that they don't even understand, just like you and base broad sweeping claims on it, like "Linux isn't ready for the desktop". And guess what, people who do such things simply are trolls, so calling them trolls is only accurate.
Or you could just stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'la la la troll' to everyone who tries to discuss problems without actually thinking about what I am actually saying.

In fact its even been fixed in Hoary now, yet your still calling me a troll for something that the Ubuntu devs even must have seen as a problem?

piedamaro
December 31st, 2005, 03:58 PM
I used to have a Bruce Pernes' quote in my sig: "Well, let's just say, if your VCR is still blinking 12:00, you don't want Linux."
That said I'm tired of setting my microwave everytime the light goes down, so it's blinking 12 :)

Kerberos
December 31st, 2005, 04:08 PM
I used to have a Bruce Pernes' quote in my sig: "Well, let's just say, if your VCR is still blinking 12:00, you don't want Linux."
I thought it was meant to be 'Ready for the Desktop'?

* runs and hides *

;)

UNME
January 5th, 2006, 09:34 AM
thanks for making me realise how easy it is just to make complains
and jow tough it is to get out of them

I have a prob to start Internet with linux and dsl-502t router but now it seems solution is not far I how mined down till earth but may be my aproach
was wrong...........I am ready to give one more try

Prob with me is I am not able to find good books friends teachers and luck
but then a bit more work I know I Will get a solution

DO give me a suggestion I started a thread "I am new to ubuntu comunity and linux" in community chat

UNme--you and me in this beautiful world

wrtpeeps
February 7th, 2006, 11:28 PM
makes a difference from the RTFM that you find many users of various linux' giving out. RTFM entices trolls to troll more..

gabhla
February 12th, 2006, 05:41 PM
There are trolls, for sure. But, there's also "lurkers", some come and go, some stick around forever, etc. Count me as a lurker, because I have nothing to contribute. But I read, apply and learn.

Like cjm5229, the 53 year old truck driver - I'm a 58 year old grandpa, nearing retirement with an altogether different calling in life that isn't grounded in computer science - I'm not a geek or guru or anything approaching it. I'm just a plain end-user enjoying the heck out of learning Linux and applying things I've learned from these forums. Hence I have a great Linux system (Ubuntu) running on two computers and haven't booted into Windows in months. The net cost : NOTHING, just time and some frustrating moments.

So, I'm a lurker. I've benefited from this forum community and have contributed nothing back. Maybe someday. And, I suspect, representive of many many other lurkers which benefit from these forums and from which we'll never see a post.

DiscoKiller
March 16th, 2006, 10:06 PM
just flicking through the posts and came across the french translation....hehe that made me chuckle....just so we`re clear, the frech translation is pretty sound (the bits i`ve read anyway) and you have google translations to blame for the hilarious version i guffawed my way through....takes me back to my gcse french and spanish days where u would have lesser clued up classmates writing about a disastrous weekend during which they got stuck in a traffic marmalade, you cant write that kind of thing...


Peace

DK

SkimWear
March 27th, 2006, 11:42 PM
prob an old post but a great one indeed. As a new convert I say Linux is wonderful, I regret not starting earlier.

sophtpaw
March 31st, 2006, 10:39 AM
Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the penguin)

A troll will always be successful on a Linux forum, and I'm about to explain why. Despite numerous protests of "Don't feed the trolls" and "The best thing to do is ignore posts like these," people will continue to respond to trolls because trolls (like Linux distros) come in different flavors and varieties. One troll in particular seems particularly impassioned and genuine and so always gets responses:

The "If I can't use it, nobody can" troll

I actually believe this kind of troll is well-intentioned, and that's why people respond. This isn't someone who's trying to just stir up emotions or just laugh at how people respond negatively to her post. This person has genuine concerns, so people try to genuinely address those concerns.

Here's what happens:

Someone with a lot of Windows experience--an insane amount of Windows experience--who knows a lot about programming, web developing, administering servers, DOS commands, etc. hears about Linux from some friends at work. She figures, "Hey, I'll give this a shot. People keep talking about how great it is, and I think I even read an article in 2001 about how it's almost ready for the desktop market. Let's see if it is."

She takes what's touted as a "user-friendly" distro--say, Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn't recognize her screen resolution. She's used to being able to download a driver to fix that. She can't find the driver. She wants to install some software. So, she does what she usually does in Windows--finds a program on the web, downloads it, and tries to install it. Instead of a wizard, she gets a README file that tells her to type ./configure, make, and make install. Just about everything she tries to do she can't do because she tries to do it the Windows way. She also notes a lack of GUI for several things she's used to having (but that most regular users never need--say, finding the IP address of the computer). After a while, she throws up her hands in frustration. "I'm a programmer, for God's sakes. If I can't figure out Linux, how's an ordinary user ["Joe Sixpack," Grandma, etc.] supposed to figure this out? I'd better tell all these Linux people to stop telling people it's ready for the desktop."

So she signs up for a forum and does just that, not realizing this has been done many, many times before. She's well-intentioned. She wants to help people. What happens? Instead of "Wow! You're the first person to tell us that. We couldn't imagine a long-time Windows user having difficulty with Linux. Well, surely we must go into hiding and develop some more before we can release any Linux distribution to the general public," Linux users rightly get upset. "You're doing it the Windows way." This troll doesn't understand what Linux users are talking about. "The Windows way? The Windows way is the easy way. After all, I haven't had any trouble with it." What she doesn't realize is how long it's taken her to learn the Windows way and that now, like a second language, Linux seems hard not because it is hard but because it's different.

Her assumptions are also flawed. Her logic runs like this

IF var=computing experience, THEN I > the masses
IF var=Linux, THEN I have trouble
THUS, IF var=Linux, the masses have even more trouble

Using a new operating system, however, is a lot like learning a new language--the syntax is different, the vocabulary is different, even the culture is different. But a linguistic expert in English may have more trouble learning Chinese than the expert's four-year-old daughter (who clearly knows less about language than her mother does). Just ask children of immigrants how often they have to translate for their parents. Likewise, someone who is so ingrained with the Windows ways of doing things will have trouble with Linux. Most regular users (not programmers) won't have to ./configure, make, make install and find dependencies. They'll click a few things in Synaptic Package Manager, and all their programs will download and install along with their dependencies. "Regular" users, who know very little about computers, have less to unlearn. They may be accustomed to certain Windows ways of doing things, but ultimately, they're used to just seeing an icon and clicking on it.

Well-intentioned trolls also operate under the assumption that Linux is supposed to work for everyone. It's not. Nor is Windows. Nor is OS X. Contrary to what some companies would have you believe, no OS is for everyone. Now, for some Linux purists, that means not for the weak-hearted. These are the Read the F'in Manual people. They've been with Linux a long time and don't believe that Linux should cater to new users. If new users like Linux, fine. If they don't, they should bugger off. Others, like me, believe that at least some distros should cater to new users (and many do, actually), but that doesn't mean Linux is for everyone. It's for those with an open mind and certain computing habits. For example, if you use Windows-only software, are a big fan of every commercial computer game that comes out, and have a winmodem, Linux isn't for you. If, however, like the majority of computer users, you do what I call the "basic six," you'll be happy with Linux:

1. Check email/instant message
2. Surf the internet
3. Organize pictures
4. Listen to music
5. Word process
6. Play silly games (Solitaire, Tetris)

The last bad assumption these trolls have is that Linux distros are Linux. They try one distro and assume that all distros must be like that. Then, they start making "suggestions" for how Linux "must" improve in order to woo Windows users, not knowing that many of those "problems" have already been fixed. I've seen these trolls complain that there are too many programs installed for any given task (solution: Ubuntu--one program for each task) or that the boot-up is verbose instead of silent (solution: Mepis, Mandriva, just about any user-friendly distro) or that themes are difficult to install (solution: Gnome) or that there needs to be a Windows clone distro (solution: Linspire). The amazing thing about Linux is how much variety there is. You can choose a lightweight distro or heavyweight one. You can choose a do-it-yourself or an automatic. You can choose KDE, Gnome, Fluxbox, IceWM, XFCE. You can't make judgments about "Linux needs to do this or Linux needs to do that" until you've tried several major distros. And by "try," I don't mean pop the CD in, tinker for a few minutes, and give up.

And we're tired of all the "it should be easy to install like Windows is" arguments. Windows isn't easy to install. And most users don't ever install Windows. Period. It doesn't matter how easy Linux gets to install and configure--people aren't going to adopt it en masse until companies start buying more Linux computers for their employees to use, schools start getting more Linux computers for their students, and companies like Dell start preloading computers with Linux.

Many regard Mac OS X as the most user-friendly operating system around. Well, for a long-time Windows user (me), it was quite difficult to use OS X at first. I had to get used to a whole new set of keyboard shortcuts (Cmd-tab instead of control-tab, Cmd-comma for preferences, etc.). I didn't know how to install software by dragging things from some white disk-looking thing to the Applications folder. I was used to wizards. I didn't know I needed third-party software to turn off the bootup noise. I didn't understand why clicking the + sign on a window didn't maximize it. I didn't understand why minimized Windows wouldn't maximize when I Cmd-tabbed to them. The list goes on and on. I was a frustrated user. I sucked it up, though, and now both my wife and I are proficient in daily Mac OS X tasks. Same for Linux. I sucked it up. Now, I've embraced Synaptic Package Manager, and I can't stand wizards any more. That's twenty years of Microsoft and four months of Linux talking.

By the way, I am not a programmer. I'm not a sys admin, a web admin. I'm not a graphic designer, a game designer, or any kind of engineer. I'm just an ex-English teacher who gave Linux an honest-to-goodness shot, and I'm a total convert now. I'm not anti-Microsoft. I'm not anti-Apple. I'm just pro-Linux and tired of hearing all the same "suggestions" over and over again.

The well-intentioned trolls should save themselves some typing. It's all been done before. And I hope the next time we get one of those trolls, that you just link them to this post. I know I will. I'm tired of typing these rebuttals over and over again.
If you really want to do some good, instead of whining on some Linux forums, do one of the following:

1. Put some of those programming skills to good use and help develop Linux
2. File a bug report at the appropriate distro/software website
3. Donate some money to help Linux developers

Other than that, no one's resting on her laurels. Linux distros are constantly being updated and improved, and new Linux users are popping up every day. Linux isn't for everybody's desktop, but it's ready for many people's desktops (read my sig for more info).

P.S. Here are some links, just to make this post as comprehensive as possible:

Linux equivalents for Windows Programs (http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html)
The Linux Distribution Chooser (http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/index.php)
Linux is not Windows (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)
The Ubuntu Guide (http://www.ubuntuguide.org)

Have a good day, everyone!

Don't forget the physiology - the PHYSIOLOGY!


-
sophtpaw

NoWhereMan
April 9th, 2006, 06:32 PM
if you can read Italian: http://ilpettegolo.altervista.org/why-linux-HOWNOTTO.html (not mine)

mailophobic
April 11th, 2006, 11:32 AM
I think some of the lack of acceptance from the average user is due to the hole attitude u don't have the same point of view than me that Linux is great you are a troll. the point to all this, the open source, is not I'm superior i use Linux, I'm great, look at me.
I use Linux and windows, and some times i get annoyed if i cant just push a button and puff my game is playing but i also get extremely annoyed with other windows crap. Both systems aren't perfect and just calling a troll to everyone that prefers one and not the other is I'm afraid stupid and childish behavior. Just live and let live i say.
Just put it in your heads that a lot of great programmers/developers/etc work with windows and all the Linux trolls out there aren't any better than them just because they work with Linux. Its not a requirement for being good to use Linux, anyone that is willing to take the time can become a Linux user, so everyone out there stop feeling special and unique you are just one more sheep in the pack.

You can flame me all you want i wont answer i have been a forum peeping tom long enough to know that sometimes is better to ignore some ppl.

prizrak
April 11th, 2006, 05:23 PM
mail,
There is no question as that either system got issues, hell nothing is perfect not even OS/2. The point, which you might have missed, is that alot of people don't accept that Linux and Windows are different and while they man well they just want one to be more like the other. The problem there of course is that they are separate systems with their own strengths and weaknesses. There is also a problem that people will tell us that we need better support for lets say ATI cards, no one is arguing that we do but it is extremely difficult to reverse engineer GPU's as advanced as ATI and nVidia produces so we have to rely on the supplied drivers and if they suck, there is little that can be done about it. There is also the fact that this is a community forum and telling us that something sux does very little (nothing) because we do not develop the software (although I hope to find the time and will to review C++ and contribute something). There are venues for submitting bugs and feature requests and if those things are important enough and doable they will be taken care off. Developer time is limited so it's not like they can take care of every single issue.
We call these people trolls not because they mean to start a flamewar but because they tend to say something that has been beaten to death, which in turn starts a flamewar between the "troll" and the "seasoned" users.

kriding
May 21st, 2006, 10:42 AM
well, I'm new to linux, switching from windows for my own reasons. i could go on a long rant about what I dislike about windows but that's just going to get boring, and I don't know enough about linux to make an educated comparison, however, first impressions count and Ubuntu has made good one on me.

I couldn't agree more with alot of the comments made in the initial post, yes, it is exactly like learning a new language (or anything new for that matter) and more then once I have felt the need to go back to windows and surround myself with that feeling of familiarity, but with a little reading, asking the odd question here in the forums, I'm pretty confident I'll become more conversent with the OS and as a result will start discovering more uses, and quirks (no doubt, several things that will annoy the hell outta me :p )

Anyway, good write up, I found it very informative:)

Darvos Omcon
May 23rd, 2006, 02:57 AM
Well, cruising through all 19 pages of this thread, I found some highly-biased people. Mainly preaching the wonders of Windows for "professional users". Most "professionals" can decide for themselves and don't need some random person saying what they need and what they don't need on a support forum for a Linux distro. That being said, I do appreciate the mature attitudes and knowledgeability of the Ubuntu forum members. I look forward to being among the ranks, and having you guys as a crutch when I need help. I have the Ubuntu live CD and, was thinking about switching one of my computers to Linux, and Ubuntu was the distro that my friend and I thought looked the best. I will still try others, but Ubuntu has made a distinct impression on me. Mainly from the forums. And, seeing how there is mainly a "see if you are doing anything wrong first" kind of attitude, Im going to cruise the forums for simliar problems to mine, and not just complain that Linux is bad. :-D

facefur
May 24th, 2006, 08:10 PM
As a not-really-a-programmer person, but one with long computer use, I have had the opportunity to use and evaluate several operating systems, ranging from the old MS-DOS through Solaris, the old MAC OS's (not OS-X), Windows flavors, and three Linux distros. Every one of them served some purpose; some well, others not so well. I understand the basic structure of OS's and recognize the tremendous effort that has gone into Linux development and support. As a friend would say, "This is good stuff!"

Here's my take on the OS war.

Having tried Linux starting with RH 6.2, I would personally say that Ubunutu (I'm on Breezy now) has proved to be the easiest to install and use. The Gnome desktop is very intuitive, has effective tools, and can be, with practice, adapted to each user's preferences. With system tools like Automatix, upgrades and enhancements are a piece of cake...well, almost :o)

But, that said, I'm also a Windows person, if for no other reason than I'm required to use it at work - I have no choice (That said, I secretly installed Linux on my machine to dual-boot.) Because most of my past experience was Windows-based, that experience has colored my expectations for computer software. With the significant improvements in Win XP (Windows had nowhere to go but up), it's harder to convince anyone that switching to Linux is a step up. There is a reason that both the U.S. and Europe have gone after Microsoft as an abusive monopoly.

There are two factors that affect someone's perceptions and acceptance of Linux. First, moving to Linux is a switch for the unwashed masses of computer users, as opposed to developers who recognize the value of this type of environment. The steeper the learning curve to adapt, the fewer people will make the climb. Most users, who will ultimately drive the developers' market through sales potential, know and love the "point-and-click" method, and if one makes changes, however small, in that method, discomfort results, and the user complains. I've notices that my printers do not operate as well under Linux drivers as with the manufacturer furnished Windows files. I realize that these problems happen even across Windows OS and Mac OS varieties, but people will avoid discomfort. Dual-booting is no big deal for me, but for many, it's an unacceptable inconvenience. The switch has to be worth it, either monetarily or operationally. This is a marketing issue, not a technical one.

Second and foremost, a vast proportion of computer users (who are the majority of computer owners) neither understand nor care about the invisible software on their machines. For them, it's not the OS, it's the applications. While Linux has the general office automation capabilities everyone uses through Open Office, Firefox and Thunderbird (or your favorite browser and email flavor), there are a number of very nice applications that have no equal in the Linux world, at least none that I have found - Quicken, Print Shop, VersaCheck, Noteworthy Composer, Turbo-CAD are my problem children. They were written to work with and are tied to Windows. Even some web applications are often crippled by browsers other than IE. I would happily pay a reasonable price for Linux versions, but I doubt there is enough market potential to cover the developers' costs.

I'm patient, and I expect that application and peripheral support will improve as time goes by. We might speed things up a bit by pinging manufacturers to include Linux support for hardware products, or for Linux ports of good applications.

My $.02

Josh04
June 2nd, 2006, 02:14 PM
I downloaded Ubunutu recently to use on my server, as I hadn't tried Linux before but I could see that running a server on XP was going to be a travesty. I think what most people don't see is that 99% of the time the problem is the user. I was configuring Linux for the first time, with no prior experience, but I got everything set up without making a single post. If I encountered a problem, I assumed that someone else would have had the same problem and that there would be a simple fix, and there always was. The only thing I couldn't get working was WPA on my RT2500, but it wasn't essential and it seemed Hit-And-Miss even when set up.

Anyway, I'm loving Ubuntu. I was running Dapper Drake for hardware compatability, and it only crashed on me once (Kernel Panic on one of the new kernels, took the oppertunity to move to the 686 kernel anyway).

darkside6966
June 10th, 2006, 12:55 AM
Im on day two of linux, and i agree with you completely, and damn i sucked up on the learning curve big time on day one, day 2 is getting better. and just think in a year i might be qualified to answer forum questions. for now i will be the one asking them.

aysiu
June 10th, 2006, 04:38 AM
Im on day two of linux, and i agree with you completely, and damn i sucked up on the learning curve big time on day one, day 2 is getting better. and just think in a year i might be qualified to answer forum questions. for now i will be the one asking them.
I've been using Ubuntu only a year and two weeks. I'd say the sooner you get in there helping people, the faster you learn.

helpdeskdan
June 12th, 2006, 04:26 AM
Permit me to tell the following story and thanks in advance to those who actually read it. It will explain why a better operating system will never win and, indirectly, support what those blasted trolls say.

Many years ago, I used to work as a lab monitor in a Macintosh lab at major university. (I am neither pro nor anti Macintosh) The PC lab would be packed, but the Macintosh lab would rarely be 1/3 full and those who came used it strictly for graphics. Once in a while, somebody would walk by the mac lab, see a lab full of computers, and come in and sit down.

Then, they would wake the computer and, I kid you not, sit there and stare with a perplexed look for five minutes at the computer screen. After five minutes, I would take pity on them and walk over and say, “Do you need some help?” They would respond, “I can't find the start menu.” “Um... This is a Macintosh.” “Oh!! OK, I'll go to the PC lab.” “Really, it's OK, if you click this icon here, you can get to Netscape. It has all the programs; It's just like a PC.” “OK. I'll go to the PC lab.” “(Sigh)”

I saw this over and over. In the PC lab, which was open 7 days a week, they elected to put one Macintosh. This was great for me; no matter how many people were in the lab, I always knew I could work at that Macintosh. Even if people were WAITING to use the computer, that mac would be open.

Most people don't care about performance, ease of install, or even cost. What do most people want in a computer? A start menu. #-o

aysiu
June 12th, 2006, 04:45 AM
I don't see how that supports what the trolls say at all.

I think it goes hand in hand with my original point--we use Windows because it's what we're used to, just as a lot of us use English because it's what we're used to.

Linux and Ubuntu are new languages to Windows users. If you want to take the time to learn a new language, realize that it will take some time and energy.

Your anecdote fits right in with that. Thanks for sharing.

xenomorph99
June 15th, 2006, 10:43 PM
Most people don't care about performance, ease of install, or even cost. What do most people want in a computer? A start menu. #-o

Exactamundo. Even people who like messing around computers want that. I've been using computers since 1982 (Sinclair Spectrum, Amiga, PC) and I'm a firmware engineer that uses a computer for 8 hours a day (at least) and I just want something that boots fast, works reliably, isn't a liability in terms of security and shuts down when I leave it doing something overnight (rather than hanging).

I really don't want to be imparting my knowledge on others. Some people may like that but I can't be bothered most of the time. I'd just like for something to work out of the box without any aggro but without paying for it. Perhaps I should try Utopia instead of Ubuntu.

poofyhairguy
June 16th, 2006, 12:07 AM
This was great for me; no matter how many people were in the lab, I always knew I could work at that Macintosh. Even if people were WAITING to use the computer, that mac would be open.

I loved the Macs at my college for that reason- always open!

KiwiNZ
June 16th, 2006, 10:13 PM
As this thread has more about a general discussion I have moved to the general cafe

aysiu
June 16th, 2006, 10:20 PM
As this thread has more about a general discussion I have moved to the general cafe
Where was it before?

prizrak
June 17th, 2006, 12:13 AM
It used to be stickied, but not anymore.

aysiu
June 17th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Ah, I get it. Thanks for the clarification, prizrak.

prizrak
June 17th, 2006, 01:51 AM
No problemo (C) Terminator 2

dewclaw82
June 19th, 2006, 01:28 AM
[QUOTE=chopin1810]However, Windows is a step ahead in the standardization process. Just think about it. An operating system built with proprietary parts is easy to troubleshoot -- you just go to the source and get the answer because they know the operating system and the integrated software.

:confused:

I find this statement very strange; one of my main motivations for switching to Linux is that I could never find the answer to any Windows question from "the source." Searching through the Microsoft "Knowledge Base" is right up there with the proverbial "needle in a haystack" search. The only useful help I found was in the few Windows forums which were, just like this forum, users helping users. One of the best things about Linux is the community spirit of the users. :-)

PingunZ
July 10th, 2006, 11:05 AM
Aysiu, Your the only teacher I like till now :p

Edit :: I suggest Every one puts this in his sig :)

Grtz PingunZ

riverman
August 23rd, 2006, 02:11 PM
I've just read the very begining of this thread. As I'm sure many other people have done before me, I just wanted to say thanks to aysiu for posting. I've not had time to read the rest of the thread but, as a newbie, I found the initial post very useful. Cheers!

aysiu
August 24th, 2006, 03:29 AM
You're welcome.

Dinerty
August 30th, 2006, 12:19 AM
I enjoyed reading the post, had some very true comments about Trolls

/me gives another box of cookies out

John Murphy
August 31st, 2006, 04:25 AM
I'm assuming your talking about me. You do realise 'troll' is a pejorative making this thread a vaguely disguised insult (I'm not a forum newbie, surprise, surprise).

The term 'trolling' is based on the dictionary definition 'To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat', yet I am willing to stand by and justify with personal experiance my reasoning for my comments. It seems anyone who a: Doesn't agree with you and b: Isn't willing to be swayed by the 'your wrong, deal with it' argument is a troll.

But at the end of the day I am still going to keep promoting Microsoft software over Linux to my clients as quite simply Windows gives me much less hassle in terms of maintainance and technical support. Coupled with the fact there is a moratorium on discussing improvements in Linux here ('Fix it yourself', 'report it on bugzilla') and Microsoft actually stand by their product ('If you dont like it fk off its free' simply does not cut it).

I have (as you have stated) an extensive IT background and I am not willing to use Linux in anything but a server (195 days uptime for the firewall/dhcp box here). Maybe there is an actual reason for it greater than 'Bill Gates is paying me' or 'I am a troll'.

And Linux's single digit market share tells you its not just me that thinks this way.

Couldn't have put it better myself........ Linux great if you want basic. Then most people these days get all that on their cell phones or iPods!

As for Windows 'Hasta La Vista' - The only virus I have on my box right now is XP Pro SP2 and it runs like a snail with practically zero internet connectivity (even with just the OS and Office installed) plus the service packs!

Mac's up next for me and after that time to go fishing!!! ;)

caravel
October 30th, 2006, 01:50 PM
Interesting thread. He seemed to overlook the point that the dhcp assigned IP address is not viewable in Windows network configuration either unless you do ipconfig, or enable the tray icon and right click and look there. So his argument was redundant. ;)

Charles Hand
October 30th, 2006, 10:40 PM
See, here's the problem. If the people you are bashing were inclined to read this post, then your post could be construed as helpful and constructive.

But since the very thing you're complaining about is that people *don't* read before posting, your posts are merely an exercise in bigotry. It is not constructive for camp A to congregate together and go over and over how evil the people in camp B are. The only time anything constructive can happen is when the camps talk together. That means, when a noob's behavior annoys you, talk to that noob. Don't whine with your friends about it.


Noobs suck!

Right on!

Way to go!

You said it!

Amen, brother!


This is turning ugly.

raqball
October 30th, 2006, 10:52 PM
******* XP $199
Micro$oft Office $199
Anti Virus $50 (yearly)
Anti Spyware $ 30 (yearly)
Defragment Utility $40
Firewall $40

Using Ubuntu and never having to give Bill another cent, PRICELESS :)

bruce89
October 30th, 2006, 11:40 PM
That's one heck of a thread bump - August 31st, 2006

prizrak
October 31st, 2006, 12:03 AM
******* XP $199
Micro$oft Office $199
Anti Virus $50 (yearly)
Anti Spyware $ 30 (yearly)
Defragment Utility $40
Firewall $40

Using Ubuntu and never having to give Bill another cent, PRICELESS :)

FUD....

Preloaded XP laptops tend to be cheaper than naked ones not sure about the desktops. However in desktops an OEM XP is $80 not $200.
Open Office works just fine on Windows.
ClamWin is free as is AOL's antivirus/antispyware/firewall package. Most ISP's offer all of those at no extra cost to customers as well.
Defrag (while crappy) is included in Windows, not that NTFS performance really suffers from fragmentation, no more than say Ext3.

I love Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular but what you are saying is complete and utter FUD.

aysiu
November 19th, 2006, 07:01 PM
My article just showed up on Linux Today (http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_management/2006111800326OPCY), and some people there have commented that it's not best to ignore a troll but to correct the misinformation a troll gives.

I'm of two minds about this. Yes, on the one hand, we should disseminate correct information to new users, but on the other hand, new users are less likely to see the misinformation in the first place if it's ignored. High-post threads that keep getting bumped up get a lot of attention. No-post (or zero-reply) threads get lost into oblivion for the most part.

I say it's best to give correct information in different places (say, in an essay or a separate thread). The community has also developed a Wiki about this:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

mthakur2006
November 23rd, 2006, 03:06 PM
Well Done Mate!
I absolutely agree with your brilliant post that actually solves the quintessential problem...(check that for english, eh! ;))
Amazing.

themerchant
November 27th, 2006, 03:41 AM
I've been using and messing around with ubuntu (and some other distributions) for a month or two and I gotta say, I love ubuntu. I really prefer it and only use my windows partition for games.

lotacus
January 15th, 2007, 11:37 AM
I think there needs to be more proactive forum moderators. The origional post was great and reply's should have been turned off.

mykalreborn
February 10th, 2007, 09:12 PM
phew!
three hours now! i've actually managed to read the entire thread and have in mind to read all these threads (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=219243) - sometimes this year ;) hehe.
i get such a kick out of seeing people rant on these forums. ok, at the end it got pretty boring, but it still is such an entertaining post. i especially liked the time when the moderators stepped in and chilled everyone. :D what can i say... i just have a big smile on my face.
oh, and aysiu, you're the man. although i must admit i actually like these trolls as they are the ones who keep things interesting :p. also, i really like your avatar - it's pretty cool.
cheers!

joesnow
February 24th, 2007, 04:19 AM
Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the penguin)

etc etc



I don't think there's any better way to say it. This is truly a Linux user's point of view.
I've run into this issue more times than I can remember, and I've found more times than not, that linux migration is easier for pure windows users when they're extremely open-minded.

I (back when i switched) personally just realized that my career is all about computers, and if there's millions of computers that I can sit down in front of and be completely incapable of operating....there's something wrong.

:lolflag:

linfidel
May 28th, 2007, 01:01 AM
I just wanted to say, your post is still relevant after all this time.

Well said!:KS

Sceptical
May 31st, 2007, 09:46 AM
A really excellent article, Aysiu - a very succinct and readable summation of points you've made elsewhere.

Your post is relevent to my situation. I started with MS Dos in the late '80s since when I've used virtually every version of Windows (2, 3.11, most flavours of 9xx, NT4, W2K, XP). So your observation below struck a real chord:


What she doesn't realize is how long it's taken her to learn the Windows way...

It's taken me fifteen-odd years to learn what I know - fifteen years of tweaking, fiddling, reading articles and forums, fixing other people's machines, and doing up to eight hours routine work (in the sense of paid employment) on Windows machines. Knowledge has crept in almost by osmosis: I cannot conciously recall, for example, exactly when and how I learned each little tweak or registry hack.


Windows isn't easy to install.

Amen to that!


And most users don't ever install Windows.

And that!

I've installed Windows many times and learned to put up with the time it takes. I've got used to nursemaiding the install then subsequently finding and installing the drivers and loading up all the apps I use.

So imagine my surprise - delighted surprise - when I installed Ubuntu in half the time and found that all the hardware was recognised and configured, virtually everything worked first time, that many of the apps I need were there waiting to be used including...


... what I call the "basic six," ...
1. Check email/instant message
2. Surf the internet
3. Organize pictures
4. Listen to music
5. Word process
6. Play silly games (Solitaire, Tetris)

All of which I was able to do straight away. Other plusses for me were OO's Excel-compatible spreadsheet and the Gimp (to serve in place of PhotoShop).

So, in summary, I agree that 'expertise' with Windows can be more of a barrier than a bonus when migrating to Linux - but, given a bit of patience, an open mind, and a fair bit of reading that disadvantage can be overcome.

Viva Ubuntu! (and Viva Aysiu)

ageilers
June 3rd, 2007, 06:17 PM
I guess you can say Linux is ready for the desktop now (has been for a long time)!


"companies like Dell start preloading computers with Linux."

Did you know something we did not know last year? Strange how that should come to fruition.

juxtaposed
June 3rd, 2007, 08:11 PM
Wow, this thread has been around forever... And it's been linked to for years :)

DJ Wings
June 3rd, 2007, 08:15 PM
You say "THE Linux Distribution Chooser" like it's the only chooser. (http://distrogue.awardspace.com)

aysiu
June 3rd, 2007, 10:40 PM
You say "THE Linux Distribution Chooser" like it's the only chooser. (http://distrogue.awardspace.com)
It was the only one I knew about. Thanks for the link.

Tundro Walker
June 4th, 2007, 02:29 AM
Anatomy of a well-intentioned [Chinese] Troll (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the penguin)...

...The "If I can't [speak] it, nobody can" troll

...Here's what happens:

Someone with a lot of [English-speaking] experience--an insane amount of [English-speaking] experience--who knows a lot about [proper grammar], [public speaking], [conjugating verbs], [diagramming sentences], etc. hears about [Chinese] from some friends at work. She figures, "Hey, I'll give this a shot. People keep talking about how great it is, and I think I even read an article in 2001 about how it's almost ready for the [business community]. Let's see if it is."

I love Aysiu's articles...

gothelin
June 30th, 2007, 01:01 PM
This is a brilliant rebuttal, even years after the original post. :) Linux is not Windows. If someone migrates from Windows to a Mac, they do not expect the same functionality, and so don't whine so much when they find something different or new. I'm still unsure why people expect that their migration from Windows to Linux will be seamless.

Yes, there will be things that work differently.

Yes, there are going to be things you don't understand right away.

That doesn't mean that those things are bad. Strange to think, but many of you have now been indoctrinated by Microsoft from birth - it is going to take some adjustment to look at a new system objectively. However, it is well worth the effort to try to adjust. :)

Depressed Man
July 23rd, 2007, 02:28 AM
Yep, I've heard (and used this advice myself). When you start using Linux (or OSX) stop thinking like a Windows user.

Or a better way to put it. Imagine what country you live in now. Let's say the USA. You don't expect to go to Europe and have everything be instantly familar to you do you? Even if your speaking the same language, you still do things differently.

For example, I was told by my friend in one of the countries in Europe they don't wait in lines (in most areas). But there is still a line system (every person knows the person who's suppose to go before them). So they can all sit down or stand around whereever, and not in a straight line like most things in America (MVA, most government things, schools, etc..)