Why Linux Sucks

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
A little more on Linux

Linux is, of course, a Unix variant. Unix was originally developed by Bell Labs in 1969, so the core OS is over forty years old and pre-dates the microcomputer era. In the same year the price of RAM: Random Access memory, was a million dollars per megabyte, so approximately $1.00 per byte for “core” memory. By 1976 the cost of memory had dropped amazingly to $40,000 per megabyte. You could get 4 kilobytes of memory for $159.00. When I bought my first Apple ][ in 1977 it was down to $120.00 per 16 K. Nowadays you can get a gigabyte thumb drive basically for the cost of shipping, or a party favor. That would have cost you $1 million 1969 dollars in 1969. Now, it’s free.

Why is this important? Because you can see it in Unix. A byte was precious and every byte saved was a dollar earned, literally. The code of Unix has always been highly efficient. You see it in the commands. “Remove” is simply “rm” “Copy” is “cp” Why not spell out the word? Because it was too expensive. By the time CP/M came around in 1973-74 for use in 8086 machines memory wasn’t quite so expensive so commands took on a more natural feel: “Copy” and “Delete” CP/M was the first microcomputer based and “universal” OS in the sense that it ran across many different computers, especially those that used the S-100 bus, though I ran CP/M in my Apple as well to run programs like Wordstar and dBase II.

In 1979 Tim Patterson cloned CP/M and called it Seattle DOS. Microsoft bought Seattle DOS without realizing what a close connection there was to CP/M and renamed it IBM-DOS and PC-DOS. This became known as MS-DOS and went through several versions before Windows essentially took over, though there are still some shadows of MS-DOS in Windows even today via COMMAND or CMD.

Meanwhile Microsoft was busy ripping off the Mac interface, itself ripped off from Xerox, to make Windows. The first versions never really caught on and were experimental, but by the time Windows 3.1 came out it was getting serious. Windows 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups) was the “network” version that I had installed on dozens of early PCs in my shop. The key to the whole thing is that you first have to install MS-DOS. After that, you load up “network drivers.” We were using Novell 3.1 (I’m a CNE, not that it matters today), and only THEN did you load up Windows 3.11. You did this by using config.sys and autoexec.bat, which allowed scripting very much like Linux’s “bash” shell. It was at this point I developed and published the “Schuyler Crash Index” which is a kind of Murphy’s law. “The tendency of a computer to crash doubles every time you load a program onto it.” So MS-DOS has a Crash Index of 1. Windows 3.11 with no programs running at all has a Crash Index of 16. Load up Word and you’re up to 32. Those were the days when the “Blue Screen of Death” was common. My Windows 7 machine has never crashed, ever. Things HAVE improved.

Things changed with Windows 95. I actually went to the opening in Redmond, Washington, and met the luminaries: Bill Gates, his father, Steve Ballmer. Even Jay Leno was there. This was the first time Windows booted directly, with no MS-DOS in front of or beneath it. But at that same bash a small plane flew over with a banner that said “Windows 95 brought to you by Windows NT.” The “New Technology” was the “enterprise” or business version of Windows that was getting short shrift. It took many years and iterations of Windows before that was all settled out. We’ve been through Windows 98, NT, ME, 2000, XP, Vista (shudder) and now 7.

When we speak of the Linux desktop today being “equal” and as good as or better or whatever, we’re talking about an OS that works exactly like the MS-DOS, driver, Windows 3.11 OS from those many years ago. You start up Linux, the ancient character-based OS not much different than it was in 1969, then you load all manner of drivers, then you load whatever fancy GUI shell you want to, then you go find some “free” programs to make it all useful. Windows has long moved past the MS-DOS/3.11 model, but Linux is chained to it. It’s old 20th century technology.

It’s all on you, though. You’ll be hard pressed to find someone to help you, really. And you can screw up very fast. When I first started using Solaris on a Sun Workstation I managed to erase the /lib subdirectory. THAT was a mistake. “rm *” takes a second to type, but unlike Windows, there is no “Are you sure you want to do this” dialog to slow you down. So, yeah, you have a tremendous amount of freedom in Linux. It will let you jump off a cliff any time you want. That’s why just plain old Linux, all by itself, is unsuitable for your average end user.




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
SOMEBODY is going to have to set it up for you. Somebody is going to have to load the drivers, FIND the drivers for your particular set up, find the programs, choose the fancy GUI, and make it all work, and that somebody, sooner or later, is going to want to be paid. But Linux and open source products are “free,” kind of, so this is a conundrum. How do you create a market for free stuff? With Linux the answer is that it needs an advocate.

There are plenty of Linux advocates, people who love Linux so much that they would go to bed with it if they could, but these people, by and large, have no idea how to market Linux to the world. The ONLY time Linux gets distributed in large numbers is when it is forced down employees’ throats by advocates in IT who have managed to convince management in the wisdom of their choice. This is often based on simplistic cost model. Not surprisingly, most of this is in government, which is not under quite the same constraints as private industry.

A good example of this is Munich, Germany, which has successfully migrated 9,000 workstation to “LiMux,” their variant. Why did this happen? Because the Mayor of Munich took a political stand. His compatriots in the German Foreign Office did the same thing, then came crawling back to Windows a short time after. This effort in Muich took almost ten years to implement. Here was the situation:


"No common directory, no common user, system or hardware management. Different tools for software distribution and system management. More than 300 apps, many of them redundant, e.g. using Dreamweaver, Frontpage, Fusion etc. for HTML-editing. 21 different Windows clients, different patch levels, different security concepts. This was Munich’s IT situation when LiMux started."


Source: www.linuxjournal.com...

In other words, Munich’s IT department was totally out of control. That’s not the fault of Windows. It’s not the fault of Dreamweaver. It’s the fault of a fragmented management structure that apparently didn’t even try to maintain a sense of order throughout the city. I applaud them for what they did: They centralized control, brought out a standard-issue machine with standard programs. They didn’t have a Windows issue; they had a management issue. And it took an advocate, the Mayor in power, to enforce the switch. It would never have happened without the Mayor telling the employees what they would use. In other words, in a switch like this, we’re not talking the marketplace.

In a similar fashion Apple has done the same thing. OSX is a ‘nix,’ and Apple follows the philosophy of “We will tell you what you need because you don’t know.” Apple doesn’t use focus groups designed to get user input on design elements. It TELLS the consumer what he wants and what he will be allowed to buy. Of course, you’ve got hardware in the mix here, plus excellent marketing. You’ll also never see an rm or a cp because Apple has “tightly integrated” the system so you never have that choice.

I faced some of the same challenges and at times, particularly in the early years, my shop looked like Munich. People would buy and install programs with no centralization. If I bought dBase, someone else would by R:Base just to be different. If I bought Visicalc, they’d buy Supercalc. I finally “won” by swapping out machines with a standard issue Dell with standard programs with a configuration that more or less forced users to save to the network drives. I also forced them to use Pine as an email client (running on a Linux server). We never had more than two types of OS, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, for example, and upgraded the OS with the machine. In large organizations you need someone who has the power to enforce standardization. When Linux is seen system-wide, rare as that may be, that what has happened. Users would never have chosen that route themselves.

The real point of all this is that whatever is chosen as an enterprise solution MUST HAVE SUPPORT. Munich is working because the IT Department supports its users. The IT Department researches the issues and pre-installs the solutions, furnishing the end user with a completely functioning black box that works. The user need not know about DHCP, Ipv6, or how he is connected to a laser printer. It just works and if something doesn’t, a quick call to the IT Department will send someone running to provide good customer service. Otherwise he will complain and the IT Department gets into trouble. Believe me, it often feels like IT is a slave to its users, who are very demanding.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
And that is exactly what you do not have with regards to your average home user because no one has successfully found a way to market Linux and Open Source solutions in an integrated package that works out of the box merely by plugging it in and also make a profit. So people complain about the “Windows tax” (I wonder if people realize how deliciously ironic that phrase is, right out of Jane Austen.) and then come up with schemes to charge a monthly or yearly “support fee,” which no one wants to pay, hence the viscous circle. But Linux is free, of course.

Perhaps someone will be able to do this in a major way. What with all the pundits gleefully predicting that the “PC era is over” Linux may simply miss the boat. Not that it will go away, but it might be relegated to running embedded systems that people will never see.

I am not one who believes Linux sucks. I never said it did. But as you can see from some of the replies here, Linux fanatics brook no opposition. It's like meeting a Christian who insists if you don't accept Jesus as you Savior you will be going to Hell. Linux fanatics are the same way. They don't understand the limitations of their own operating system and as a result, they will never understand why it continues to be a niche product without any particular consumer demand.
edit on 1/19/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



I never asked you what they meant. I was telling you most people don’t know. That’s the issue.

People don't need to know, but you brought it up.


I never did that. Windows users, by and large, have no idea what NTFS is either. They don’t have to. It’s all provided for them straight out of the box. I said the average user doesn’t write code. Not X.org modules, I meant code as in C++, Java, even xBase for cryin’ out loud! Give ME a break!

If people don't need to know what NTFS is then they have no reason to know what TWM or Xtrem stands for do they. This makes your point invalid. What are you reffering to provided out of the box? Last time i checked any hardware which supports windows comes with a driver-cd as windows usually does not have built in support for drivers. I rarely have to install a driver to use a piece of hardware on Linux... and what did i say about people having to write code? That is untrue.


I never said it sucks. You’re reacting to what you think I said, emotionally, instead of what I actually said. The average user is NOT going to read the manual. The average user is NOT going to want to “learn French” to be able to do mundane computing tasks. They want to hit the “on” button, click on their app, and go. That’s it.

You assume the average user doesn't want to read the manual. Ignorance at it's finest, if true (for the people you are talking for). If the average user encountered Linux before ever touching windows they would have no harder or easier time at learning it. It's just "you" that wants to click the on button and play with your fart apps.



Sure, a character-based desktop. The GUIs, such as they are, are an afterthought.

Source? UNIX-like desktops were running GUI's ontop of the kernel before Linux even existed... as Linux is a clone of the UNIX kernel that idea had been in mind from the beggining. You are confusing software distributions with the kernel itself. Things such as GNOME or KDE are not part of the Linux development tree.


Sure I can, based on decades of experience helping users in all kinds of environments, people with no computer training at all who need to learn the enterprise software running on the system, not the system itself. And I state, categorically and for the record, that your average user has no desire whatsoever to learn the OS. I’ve been helping and teaching people how to use computers since before you were born, since the days of punched cards, since before the Apple ][ was new and innovative through the entire CP/M and the MS-DOS lifecycle, and on into every version of Windows that ever was. And I’ve used Linux, too. I am not some sysadmin who dwells in the computer room and never sticks head out except to sneer at his constituency. I’ll put my record up against anybody’s.

First off you have no clue as to how old i am, and you are turning this into an ego fest of personal experience and technical knowledge. Why?


Good for you. “Draconian DRM” That’s your issue? I gotta tell you that is not a problem for most people. Now you’re stating what YOU want, which is really irrelevant to the discussion.

My computer is mine. I want to be able to do what i want. Not what a company wants me to do. It may not be a problem to most people. But we are human beings we do not all think the same? Stop assuming the whole of the human race is ignorant and dumbed-down.


That’s because nothing has really changed. Linux is not on the desktop. Nobody buys it for the desktop. Nobody expects to go to Dell and get a Linux-based PC. There’s no consumer market for it.

Linux is on my desktop. Might not be on yours, but who cares? GNU/Linux is open source, of course nobody buys it otherwise they would have been conned. Jeez. No consumer market in your eyes, yet you say people just want to click "run" and play with their apps... i don't understand why an uneducated person who wanted to run a few apps would fork out £120 or more to simply be able to do that with windows, when there is something FREE as in FREEDOM! which does the same thing. In fact Dell do offer/sell desktops/netbooks/laptops with GNU/Linux installed on them at request.

continued....



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



You say it’s all desperation, but it is you who are desperate. The fact is, despite all your efforts, despite all your proselytizing about the so-called superiority of Linux, the market share of Linux is zilch. Nada. Near zero. After all these years you’ve accomplished nothing substantial. The software situation with Linux is chaotic. The driver situation is in a tatters. The “distros” are laughable. “Hey, Mom! What flavor of distro do you want for your next Linux build?” Un-freaking-believable.

I have a nice desktop and i can do what i want with it with no restrictions. How am i desperate? What efforts? I am not trying to persuade anyone to use Linux. I am meerely stating the facts against your anti-linux agenda.

You do not understand the slightest.... again, Linux is open source, there never will be market share because it is FREE! As in Freedom!. Unless you go the enterprise route, such as RedHat/Novell/Oracle... but that is simply a minority of the whole picture and you cannot use their marketshare for the whole of the Linux world... there is no licesnes to count up to get an approximate user base.

Your opinion of software on Linux is chaotic. I am starting to think you have spent about 5minutes playing with a LiveCD and then turned away after that. I'm sorry but i have rarely ever needed to install a driver to get my hardware running on Linux... pretty much everything i need is already compiled into my distribution of choices kernel.

You say the distro situation with Linux is laughable. There is ONE distribution of each windows release, and it contains nothing useful out of the box for what the average user wants. They have to download various software from hundreds of different sites.



Sure it is, but your Mom isn’t using it, is she? She doesn’t know what a dvb-t card is, or KDE, or arch, or Kubuntu. She doesn’t need an “installer” because she will never ever use an installer. Windows comes installed, and it does its own updates.

No but my father does. He didn't want to waste money on windows, as all he wanted to do was browse the web and check emails or write the odd letter and play music. He runs a bog standard LTS of ubuntu.

Windows does not do it's own updates. I t only updates the windows userland tools and the kernel itself. Tell me when you install hundreds of applications from all over the web, when has windows update ever checked and installed the most recent version of EVERYTHING at once?

As for the installer, OME's rarely these days even provide the installation CD for recovering windows (which you payed for with the computer) which is the laughable part here. Paying a software license for physical media you are not even allowed to own.


You are unable to take yourself out of the equation, plus you’re religious about it. To you it's political. It’s not all about you. The fact is that Linux is not on the desktop. Yours, of course, but nobody else. And until the Linux community, which is an oxymoron, can find a way to distribute and SUPPORT Linux it’s not going to be on the desktop in any substantial numbers.

Well, for a start YOU put me in the equation. I am not religious about what i do on my computer, i am simply glad i have a choice that i can do what i want with my computer. You do not know me so don't sart troll-flaming me with low accusations of my personality.

Ever heard of the internet? It is not hard to download a disc image. Again.... with windows you do not even get your physical media with the OEM computer that you rightfully payed for.... so that is a contradiction in itself yet you are claiming Linux has no distribution methods.

My operating system is updated hourly, and i recieve the latest versions of everything pre-compiled for my architecture within 12hours of the official release. How is Linux not supported? I may be running a bleeding-edge distro... but when was the last time windows update patched every single thing on your computer?

Again, Linux is on my desktop, and my servers. It is on my friends desktops. Some may be dual booting it. Others running it alone. You assume that there are no substantial numbers? Several million as a very rough estimate is a substantial amount. It might be in the hundreds of millions even. There is no way to know. This is what you simply do not understand from the way you are making your argument.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I see no good reason to waste my time to go over your stuff point by point again. None of your last two posts change, even slightly, my major thesis. You are simply a biased Linux user so in love with your operating system of choice who really has no idea how the marketplace, or even your own OS, works. You have shown no insight into those issues at all and there is no evidence you're expertise in these matters extends beyond merely using Linux as an end user. I see no good reason to take your rants seriously. You are just like any religious extremist who believes wholeheartedly in your own creepy version of heaven. I've seen the same kind of sick devotion from Mac users. You'd all go to bed with your machines if you could. You guys display your penguins everywhere. It's like a patriot waving his national flag. Rah rah for the home team! Nobody is paying you much attention, and THAT reeks of desperation.

Linux works on a Windows 3.11 model that was developed in the last century. It's archaic in the extreme, based on an OS released in 1969. The fact is, it is not, repeat, NOT the preferred operating system of most users for precisely the reasons I have stated. It's had plenty of time to do so, and it still hasn't. Linux has no significant market share outside the enterprise environment. If you don't count Apple (and I don't because it's an entirely closed environment) the marketshare of ALL Unix and Unix-like systems is about 2%, which includes enterprise servers. It's a Windows wannabe that shows no real signs of breaking out of its niche environment. I suspect it's real future is in embedded systems like e-books where the OS is completely hidden and irrelevant to the end user.

I really don't think Linux sucks and I've said so repeatedly. Linux doesn't suck, but some of its users do.
edit on 1/20/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
I see no good reason to waste my time to go over your stuff point by point again.

Please stop speaking for me.


Originally posted by schuyler
None of your last two posts change, even slightly, my major thesis. You are simply a biased Linux user so in love with your operating system of choice who really has no idea how the marketplace, or even your own OS, works.

Who are you to judge, it is in fact you who is posting rubbish based on nothing but opinion. There has been no change in any of your post's of this thread since you lashed out about how Linux sucks.

Please stop contradicting yourself, you repeatedly mention Linux has no marketplace or marketshare
open-source software which is FREE will never have a marketshare on the fact that there is no shares or any way to count every box running a Linux based operating system that is in use. It is you who is not in the know, and it is apparent by the comments you make which proves this.

I use Linux because it does what i want it to do. Why are you so forceful in apparently telling me i cannot run Linux on the desktop and that windows is somewhat superior? If you don't love your operating system then it obviously isn't the right one for you. Of course i'm going to love something i enjoy using, stop telling me what i should do or think.

Telling me i don't know how my OS works aswell? please inform me of when you met me and discussed my personal life? I do not recall it. Isn't the reason you dislike Linux is that you apparently need to "know how to use it" in order to use it? Seriously... you are saying that, and yet trying to make windows somewhat glorified on the desktop. You also need to know how to use windows, just as anything else.... no one is born with instructions written into their brains.

And again, you do not need to be a darn kernel developer or write code to click buttons. Your argument is a pity.


Originally posted by schuyler
You have shown no insight into those issues at all and there is no evidence you're expertise in these matters extends beyond merely using Linux as an end user. You are just like any religious extremist who believes wholeheartedly in your own creepy version of heaven. I've seen the same kind of sick devotion from Mac users. You'd all go to bed with your machines if you could. You guys display your penguins everywhere. It's like a patriot waving his national flag. Nobody is paying you much attention, and THAT reeks of desperation.

Rubbish, read my post's before flaming. I am not here to discuss my "expertise" in some ego matching competition as you seem to be doing. Why should i sit by when someone types rubbish about how something is "utter crap" - in a sense, when the fact is "it is not".

As for the rest of that comment, give up it is clear you are now drifting from the original thread topic and flaming beyond your ego.


Originally posted by schuyler
Linux works on a Windows 3.11 model that was developed in the last century. It's archaic in the extreme, based on an OS released in 1969. The fact is, it is not, repeat, NOT the preferred operating system of most users for precisely the reasons I have stated. It's had plenty of time to do so, and it still hasn't. Linux has no significant market share outside the enterprise environment. If you don't count Apple (and I don't because it's an entirely closed environment) the marketshare of ALL Unix and Unix-like systems is about 2%, which includes enterprise servers. It's a Windows wannabe that shows no real signs of breaking out of its niche environment. I suspect it's real future is in embedded systems like e-books where the OS is completely hidden and irrelevant to the end user.

Now you are either trolling or being completely ignorant. That is the most hilarious thing i have heard all week.


Originally posted by schuyler
I really don't think Linux sucks and I've said so repeatedly. Linux doesn't suck, but some of its users do.


I highly beg to differ after reading the rubbish statements you have made which are completely unfactual and fantasised.

Why are you so persistant in claiming that Linux is garbage? If you do not give a flying kipper, or don't want to know then why are you bothered? Clearly you are bothered by something, you have now even started name-claling and judging people you don't even have the slightest clue about.

I suggest you keep your ego and your flaming to yourself, for the least i do not wish to know about it.
As you rightfully said "for me" in the first quote here, I see no good reaosn to continue to straighten your "opinion based facts".

You can have the last word, i am completely wasting my time here as you are one that refuses to be corrected.
edit on 20/1/2012 by InsideYourMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 


Very well said, InsideYourMind. I really liked what you said about "My Computer is Mine!" I hear that loud and very clear. My macine is custom made, by me. Azus top of the line MB, plenty of RAM, 250Gb Sata, DVD-RW, CD-RW, custom black case with neon lights and built in digital temp gauge....all built for less that $400.

I must have something to say about this little quote....
reply to post by schuyler


Nobody buys it for the desktop. Nobody expects to go to Dell and get a Linux-based PC. There’s no consumer market for it.


For one thing, I didn't "buy" my Fedora 15 KDE 86_64, I downloaded it for FREE from here: fedoraproject.org...
Fedora KDE makes a beautiful desktop, I have plenty of tools, and everything I need for everyday use, including Office. So don't go there.

Not only that, I work on a lot of computers, got one erasing the drive sitting here right now. I have actually seen people in Best Buy asking for Linux based computers. And another thing, Dell is so driver specific, doing a fresh install of Windows is a virtual nightmare. I have a Dell Official Drivers CD, but the process is very long winded, and a hassle to run after each restart, and if you are familiar with Computers, restarts are a part of Windows, and Linux, that cannot be avoided. However, I can, and have loaded PCLinuxOS on a Dell Dimension, and another model of desktop, I can't remember. The install is fast, less than 10 minutes total, and when you boot up, everything works. Fast Internet is already configured, Wireless is ready, just input your pass-phrase, Nvidia drivers are installs by default. Fedora installs easy too, but the Nvidia driver have to be installed manually, which is nothing more that a copy and paste from a website, to a Command Terminal, and pressing "Enter." It's not rocket science, my own wife, only a Windows users for three years, took her a week to learn PCL. She uses messenger, Thunderbird Email, Firefox Browser, which everyone knows it better than IE. She has the Synaptic Package Manager for easy package management and updates, a nice Editor called Kwrite, she has Streamtuner 2 internet radio with XMMS, a nice little, theme-able radio with EQ and other toys. Her laptop boots in 18 seconds, shuts down in 14 seconds. ITables Firewall, Security out the window on Network, System, and so on, MSEC on startup. Try for the same results with Microsoft Windows sometime.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
yes, your average person is a happy little slave.

its depressing to dwell on, but we get it.

a good example ive come across in one of these popular gaming devices is the Nintendo Wii. the thing is equipped internally to do much more than it does out of the box. for example, it has a nice DVD drive that it utilizes to play its proprietary games, however... does not support playback of DVD movies.

why is this? by all means the thing is certainly capable of playing DVD movies, but for one reason or another Nintendo has blocked out the feature.

should you be barred from watching dvd movies because nintendo would rather you pay money to stream them over netflix?

you paid for the console device, should you not have control over all of its main+peripheral features? such as bluetooth? USB? DVD? WiFi? there are 2 microprocessors in there and a modest amount of ram. should you after forking over (x) amount of dollars be subject to using the machine only in a manner pleasing to the manufacturer?

would you like it if BMW or Toyota tryed to fix their cars to only allow you to drive to CERTAIN coffee shops that they have contract deals with? even though the car should be capable of driving to ANY coffee shop of your choosing???

catching the drift?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
i read somewhere that linux is free and if you have paid for it then you have been conned - thats not strictly true,

the version of linux i use, mandriva, has a paid version called powerpack and i'm sure its not the only one,

my daughter uses pclinuxos at home on her dell laptop and windows at school,
she doesn't have a problem with either system and prefers pclinuxos,
she also finds openoffice better than microsoft office for her homework,

games came into the thread as well - thats easy - we have a xbox360, which doubles as a renderer for my linux media server,

when i started with linux, over six years ago, i was amazed how easy it actually was - with the added bonus that its mine,
i didn't have to pay for a licence to use a system that i didn't own,

i admit that its not perfect, i cannot video call wlm users through amsn - but this is due to microsoft restrictions not linux,
and my system tray clock has a size issue - but hey, it could be worse

www.focus.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
one thing I love abour the "new" feature of linux is the live CD, I can take my CD anywhere and load up PCLINUXOS or one of the other flavors, and even if the machine is unbootable in windows, I can boot it up in a few minutes, and sound works, video works, the net works, and I have nothing to install at all, it even setups printers, NO input other then US keyboard, and that's just a mouse click no command line. then I can used clamAV or F-prot or bit-defender and clean out the crap windows collected then restart the windows machine.


YOU can use a live CD and use Linux and what ever desktop you like WITHOUT installing it, I like KDE myself

windows has no live CD and if it does get messed up you have to have a "system disk" already to get it to boot back up.

I ran my own PC repair shop for 8 years and wished the linux live CD had been around back then, I would have made twice the money.

I work and a retirement center currently (not in IT) and setup old PC's with PCLINUXOS and have folks love it and use it daily ( and they are in their 70's and 80's ) they even have video chat abilities they didn't have 2 years ago

there is WINE and play on linux and virtual box to run windows games, yes it takes a bit of setup, but the IIRC channels are quite helpful and free ( there are other "lusers" that will help you setup stuff and answer questions)
even if you are "n00b" they will step you through it step by step, and are quite nice in almost all cases (each "flavor" of linux I have used the IIRC channels default to the room you need on start up)

I have not used a commend line to setup linux in 2 years, so really give it a try pick a flavor, burn a CD or DVD or thumbdrive and give it a try, you may be quite shocked



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Here's another link to a very good analysis of Linux and why it will never overtake Windows. It also analyzes the delusional fantasies of Linux and Open Source advocates. The article (in four parts) was written in 2001 and shows that, after a decade, nothing has changed.
edit on 1/22/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
or you could look at a more up to date reason

www.whylinuxisbetter.net...

or a 2006 one called linux is not windows

linux.oneandoneis2.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Because nothing has really changed:



Like I said. The future of Linux is embedded systems, not some funky desktop done by people in their spare time "for the good of humanity."



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by solvectra
i read somewhere that linux is free and if you have paid for it then you have been conned - thats not strictly true,

the version of linux i use, mandriva, has a paid version called powerpack and i'm sure its not the only one,



I remember writing that in one of my posts here, reffering to Linux itself (the kernel), not as a complete OS.

I have to quote this:

Originally posted by schuyler
Here's another link to a very good analysis of Linux and why it will never overtake Windows. It also analyzes the delusional fantasies of Linux and Open Source advocates. The article (in four parts) was written in 2001 and shows that, after a decade, nothing has changed.
edit on 1/22/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


Speaking of fantasy. Who ever stated that Linux had the intention of replacing windows? It's a choice.
No-one is forcing anyone to use it.

You my friend are delusional. That is the most pathetic article i have ever seen.

I would have thought that choosing to BUY a piece of software which is inferior to something which is freely available would be delusional. Give us ALL a break.

If you want to use windows and you think windows is "the best thing ever" then by all means, go and use it for crying it out.
edit on 23/1/2012 by InsideYourMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PharohGnosis
Why Linux Isn't As Good As Everyone Makes It Out To Be

Ha


Well, gee, if Windows was that good, guess I would install it on my machine. After all, I look down into my CD case, and I have XP, XP Black Edition, Vista all flavors, Vista Black Edition, 32 and 64, and Windows 7. But I would much rather use my Fedora 16 86_64 KDE, it is lots faster, more stable, boots faster, and is lots more secure. I can go HERE with a Windows computer, and it knows everything about me, IP, Geo Location, everything. I go there with my Fedora computer, it cannot read my IP, and places me over 1000 miles from my actual physical location.

So, given the choice, and I do have the choice, I would much rather run Linux.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PharohGnosis
 


the average computer user is a nitwit, we have already established this.

linux is beyond nitwits.. this too is established!

which would you rather have as your doctor? the blunt, skilled, and capable one? or the one thats easy to get along with but hides things from you?

how about mechanic?

employer? ...employee?

...babysitter?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LongbottomLeaf
reply to post by LurkerLegacy
 


Sure there are plenty of vulnerabilities but stay off porn sites and your golden. I've never had a pc crash or break or anything with windows. As long as you can read your windows program will be fine. I've never even had a problem with Vista I dont know whats wrong with people. Dell PC + Windows OS never had a problem ever.


But think about it.....isn't being able to fearlessly surf dangerous websites with impunity? This is in every way better than being afraid to go there. And truthfully, it isn't porn sites that load malware on your computer, they want your business, after all. There are some sites I never visit. Google.com is one, another is Altavista, and MSN.com is off limits too. As is Facebook.
Malware Domain Site List (Loads Slow)





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join