Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: Canadian Lover on 5 October 2003, 07:50
-
http://www.vbrad.com/pf.asp?p=articles/art_linux_sucks.htm (http://www.vbrad.com/pf.asp?p=articles/art_linux_sucks.htm)
-
Linux is a bit for geeks. Usually people who don't have the money don't have the brains.
Except for nerdy teenagers.
-
Yeah sure dude, we're nerdy teenagers and you're the one posting pictures of some guys dick? No offense dude but I probably get out a fuckload more than you do. ;)
-
I can't believe that this is the same fuck ass excuse people use against linux.
It fucking works if you have any fucking brains at all. I can mount my fucking digital camera and it is no big deal, my biggest damn worry when I do that is that the batteries are going to drain!
Whine whine whine! windoes does this, windows does that.....
For $250.00 it better! plus $40.00 for virus software, plus $300.00 for your office, plus $500.00 for Adobe PS, and all the other fucking bullshit you can't live without!
Fine! if you ain't got the brains or the time or the patience... then blow your wad on window$
Just quit fucking with the people who do!
-
quote:
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
Linux is a bit for geeks. Usually people who don't have the money don't have the brains.
Except for nerdy teenagers.
People without all that money learn how to use their brains.
GNU/Linux is the most advanced PC system.
And it certainly doesn't suck.
Don't wast your time on those silly articles.
Their obvious insane. ;)
-
LOONEX IS TEH SUX0R
-
no. people DON'T need to shut up about it.
if Linux were the most advanced system for PCs, then it would be easier to configure than Windows, it wouldn't have so much ole timey shit, and people would use it. it might be really good, but it's not "the most advanced". Seeing as how it's "just another UNIX clone" using a monolithic kernel. I'd say Darwin is more advanced. It uses MACH.
I love the double-standard. you want Linux to be successful, and take over on the desktop... but if it means losing some of that UNIX ole timeyness, and someone actuall MAKES IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO USE... you'd rather it fail on the desktop.
UNIX is real nice, but it sucks when you have to interact with it. people shouldn't HAVE to know what cron does, or what all that bullshit in /etc is. all that they need to worry about is that their stuff is gonna work when they plug it in.
guess what? with Windows it does. it just fucking works.
and for a lot of people of the same level of knowledge and skill that it would take to do all that with Linux, they keep a windows box running trouble free if you've got 2000 or XP Pro.
it takes less work.
no, sorry guys. that article is right. Linux sucks as a desktop OS. it's great for workstations and servers, but no... it's no good for consumer desktop use.
1) Installing software. People have to deal with multiple different methods to install software. Not all software comes packaged the same way. Some software STILL doesn't come as binaries. Every other consumer OS has an installation system, or doesn't need one. Be and OS X don't.
2) System management. Be and OS X don't have this concept. Stuff just does work. Windows makes it fairly simple. Linux? Because of that ole timey goodness of unshielded UNIX, unless you know all the commands... fuhgedaboutit.
3) User interface. Yeah, people care about it. I'm not talking about how nice it looks, but how well every single app conforms to a univeral set of UI design rules. <whine>But Jimmy, that allows for less originality!</whine> GOOD! When I ran Linux, I hated how ever little fucking app seemed to try to reinvent the wheel just to pull of some mundane UI function, like menus.
4) Device support. Linux has great support for hardware... except consumer hardware. MP3 players, digicams, all that, yeah... support sucks ass. And it all stems from OLE TIMEY UNIX. It tries to treat the stuff as regular volumes, and there's no way to differentiate as to what they are. Not to mention the fact that many cams use non-standard methods for storage and communications.
5) The infamous ole timeyness. You guys must hate that phrase now. Guess what... IT'S TRUE. Linux suffers from "ole times" syndrome. Nobody will do jack because they're worried that it'll make it "not like UNIX". I don't understand it. The issue that holds Linux back on the desktop is the one thing that nobody will let go of... ole fashioned, bad ole days UNIX.
6) X11. X11 sucks ass. It doesn't support any advanced rendering effects, it's finnicky, it has poor support for hardware features, it's hard to configure because it relies on ole times methods of doing things. X11 is just shit. Even Windows GDI is better. God... QuickDraw on the classic Mac OS? BETTER. Everything is better than ancient old X11.
I hope maybe this is enough of a slap in the face to get you guys to realize that LINUX SUCKS ASS FOR CONSUMERS. You can't expect it to take off if it's "just as stable" as Windows. That's not good enough! For many people, XP is perfect. It doesn't crash. I've had more crashes running Linux than I have with Windows 2000 and XP.
When Linux can surpass Windows as far as features and ease of use goes. Not match... SURPASS, then come tell me that it's ready. That's what it's going to take.
Rememeber, home users don't give a flying fuck about source code, or compiling kernels or some shit like that. They want to DO THINGS. They want to enjoy their computer, not have to read up on archaic UNIX.
[ October 05, 2003: Message edited by: Agent Jimmy James Smith ]
-
Jimmy,
encore encore
-
quote:
Originally posted by Agent Jimmy James Smith:
no. people DON'T need to shut up about it.
if Linux were the most advanced system for PCs, then it would be easier to configure than Windows, it wouldn't have so much ole timey shit, and people would use it. it might be really good, but it's not "the most advanced". Seeing as how it's "just another UNIX clone" using a monolithic kernel. I'd say Darwin is more advanced. It uses MACH.
Try kernel 2.6.
It's far more avanced than any other.
Configuration has nothing to do with that.
The Linux kernel is just more powerfull.
quote:
I love the double-standard. you want Linux to be successful, and take over on the desktop... but if it means losing some of that UNIX ole timeyness, and someone actuall MAKES IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO USE... you'd rather it fail on the desktop.
I don't want all that.
I only want it to become even better.
quote:
UNIX is real nice, but it sucks when you have to interact with it. people shouldn't HAVE to know what cron does, or what all that bullshit in /etc is. all that they need to worry about is that their stuff is gonna work when they plug it in.
I really don't mind this.
Some people like the 'puzzling'.
quote:
guess what? with Windows it does. it just fucking works.
No it doesn't! THAT IS why windows is so unstable.
quote:
and for a lot of people of the same level of knowledge and skill that it would take to do all that with Linux, they keep a windows box running trouble free if you've got 2000 or XP Pro.
it takes less work.
lol
quote:
no, sorry guys. that article is right. Linux sucks as a desktop OS. it's great for workstations and servers, but no... it's no good for consumer desktop use.
quote:
1) Installing software. People have to deal with multiple different methods to install software. Not all software comes packaged the same way. Some software STILL doesn't come as binaries. Every other consumer OS has an installation system, or doesn't need one. Be and OS X don't.
2) System management. Be and OS X don't have this concept. Stuff just does work. Windows makes it fairly simple. Linux? Because of that ole timey goodness of unshielded UNIX, unless you know all the commands... fuhgedaboutit.
3) User interface. Yeah, people care about it. I'm not talking about how nice it looks, but how well every single app conforms to a univeral set of UI design rules. <whine>But Jimmy, that allows for less originality!</whine> GOOD! When I ran Linux, I hated how ever little fucking app seemed to try to reinvent the wheel just to pull of some mundane UI function, like menus.
4) Device support. Linux has great support for hardware... except consumer hardware. MP3 players, digicams, all that, yeah... support sucks ass. And it all stems from OLE TIMEY UNIX. It tries to treat the stuff as regular volumes, and there's no way to differentiate as to what they are. Not to mention the fact that many cams use non-standard methods for storage and communications.
5) The infamous ole timeyness. You guys must hate that phrase now. Guess what... IT'S TRUE. Linux suffers from "ole times" syndrome. Nobody will do jack because they're worried that it'll make it "not like UNIX". I don't understand it. The issue that holds Linux back on the desktop is the one thing that nobody will let go of... ole fashioned, bad ole days UNIX.
6) X11. X11 sucks ass. It doesn't support any advanced rendering effects, it's finnicky, it has poor support for hardware features, it's hard to configure because it relies on ole times methods of doing things. X11 is just shit. Even Windows GDI is better. God... QuickDraw on the classic Mac OS? BETTER. Everything is better than ancient old X11.
I don't agree with any of those points.
quote:
I hope maybe this is enough of a slap in the face to get you guys to realize that LINUX SUCKS ASS FOR CONSUMERS.
Linux is about development
quote:
You can't expect it to take off if it's "just as stable" as Windows. That's not good enough!
quote:
For many people, XP is perfect.
No problem with that.
quote:
It doesn't crash. I've had more crashes running Linux than I have with Windows 2000 and XP.
Oh please...
quote:
When Linux can surpass Windows as far as features and ease of use goes. Not match... SURPASS, then come tell me that it's ready. That's what it's going to take.
Rememeber, home users don't give a flying fuck about source code, or compiling kernels or some shit like that. They want to DO THINGS. They want to enjoy their computer, not have to read up on archaic UNIX.
Linux is not just UNIX, it's better and more powerfull. Some home users do care about kernel compiling, ...
[/QB][/QUOTE]
[ October 05, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
it just fucking works.
Oh, I get it. You were being ironic. LMAO
:D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Agent Jimmy James Smith:
no. people DON'T need to shut up about it.
if Linux were the most advanced system for PCs, then it would be easier to configure than Windows, it wouldn't have so much ole timey shit, and people would use it.
What does that have to do with how advanced it is?
quote:
it might be really good, but it's not "the most advanced". Seeing as how it's "just another UNIX clone" using a monolithic kernel. I'd say Darwin is more advanced. It uses MACH.
Well, I don't claim Linux is the most advanced OS out there, but it's more advanced than Windows, based on my uses of it.
quote:
I love the double-standard. you want Linux to be successful, and take over on the desktop... but if it means losing some of that UNIX ole timeyness, and someone actuall MAKES IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO USE... you'd rather it fail on the desktop.
I don't see where anyone ever said that.
quote:
UNIX is real nice, but it sucks when you have to interact with it. people shouldn't HAVE to know what cron does, or what all that bullshit in /etc is. all that they need to worry about is that their stuff is gonna work when they plug it in.
That's all they have to worry about when they use the latest version of any Linux distro.
quote:
guess what? with Windows it does. it just fucking works.
It does???? That's news to me. It's never worked for me, or least not without a huge amount of tweaking to make sure it doesn't crash on me while clicking on a link in an internet browser. With Mandrake Linux, it just works. I don't have to worry about it crashing for doing nothing more than typing a few letters in a word processor.
quote:
and for a lot of people of the same level of knowledge and skill that it would take to do all that with Linux, they keep a windows box running trouble free if you've got 2000 or XP Pro.
Windows is anything but trouble-free. At my old job, where we had a mostly Windows network, not a day went by when something went wrong on it.
Granted, Linux may be difficult at first because one has been using Windows for years before that. But once you start using it, in lots of cases its actually easier than Windows.
quote:
it takes less work.
Sure, if you don't mind it crashing regularly, hardware randomly failing to work.......
quote:
no, sorry guys. that article is right. Linux sucks as a desktop OS. it's great for workstations and servers, but no... it's no good for consumer desktop use.
I'm not a computer geek, I'm just your average consumer. And I use Mandrake Linux as my desktop OS. It definitely does not suck.
quote:
1) Installing software. People have to deal with multiple different methods to install software. Not all software comes packaged the same way. Some software STILL doesn't come as binaries. Every other consumer OS has an installation system, or doesn't need one. Be and OS X don't.
This is one area that needs improvement. However, it's really not as hard as people make it out to be. It's a matter of just reading the directions. (seriously, how hard is it to type "./configure", "make" and "make install"?)
quote:
2) System management. Be and OS X don't have this concept. Stuff just does work. Windows makes it fairly simple. Linux? Because of that ole timey goodness of unshielded UNIX, unless you know all the commands... fuhgedaboutit.
This was probably the case a few years ago, but it's definitely not the case now. Mandrake has numerous graphical walkthroughs to help you manage the system, and from what I've read, Red Hat, Suse, Lindows, Lycoris, and Xandros all also have graphical interfaces to manage your system, just like Windows and Mac. You don't have to use the command line if you don't want to.
quote:
3) User interface. Yeah, people care about it. I'm not talking about how nice it looks, but how well every single app conforms to a univeral set of UI design rules. <whine>But Jimmy, that allows for less originality!</whine> GOOD! When I ran Linux, I hated how ever little fucking app seemed to try to reinvent the wheel just to pull of some mundane UI function, like menus.
I really don't know what you're referring to here.
quote:
4) Device support. Linux has great support for hardware... except consumer hardware. MP3 players, digicams, all that, yeah... support sucks ass. And it all stems from OLE TIMEY UNIX. It tries to treat the stuff as regular volumes, and there's no way to differentiate as to what they are. Not to mention the fact that many cams use non-standard methods for storage and communications.
This is flat-out untrue. Device support is excellent for the majority of common hardware. Some digital cameras will be read as storage devices, but so what? You can still download the pictures. (for the record, with my digital camera, it also only reads itself as a storage device under Windows)
quote:
5) The infamous ole timeyness. You guys must hate that phrase now. Guess what... IT'S TRUE. Linux suffers from "ole times" syndrome. Nobody will do jack because they're worried that it'll make it "not like UNIX". I don't understand it. The issue that holds Linux back on the desktop is the one thing that nobody will let go of... ole fashioned, bad ole days UNIX.
I fail to understand where you got this opinion.
quote:
6) X11. X11 sucks ass. It doesn't support any advanced rendering effects, it's finnicky, it has poor support for hardware features, it's hard to configure because it relies on ole times methods of doing things. X11 is just shit. Even Windows GDI is better. God... QuickDraw on the classic Mac OS? BETTER. Everything is better than ancient old X11.
Five years ago, this might have been true, but it's not true now.
quote:
I hope maybe this is enough of a slap in the face to get you guys to realize that LINUX SUCKS ASS FOR CONSUMERS.
No, it does not. Have you ever even used a Linux distro in the last three months?
quote:
You can't expect it to take off if it's "just as stable" as Windows. That's not good enough! For many people, XP is perfect. It doesn't crash. I've had more crashes running Linux than I have with Windows 2000 and XP.
Really? Everybody I know who uses XP has nothing but problems with their computer.
quote:
When Linux can surpass Windows as far as features and ease of use goes. Not match... SURPASS, then come tell me that it's ready. That's what it's going to take.
It already has surpassed Windows. There's still plenty of room for improvement, but anybody than can use Windows can use Linux.
quote:
Rememeber, home users don't give a flying fuck about source code, or compiling kernels or some shit like that. They want to DO THINGS. They want to enjoy their computer, not have to read up on archaic UNIX.
Which they don't have to do with any current version of any major Linux distro.
-
Linux belongs on a computer that is used soley for server purposes. A computer that is left running in a basement or closet so nobody has to see it.
Myself, I think I'd rather use Unix, BSD or Windows Server 2003 over Linux on my server(s).
[ October 05, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Viper:
Linux belongs on a computer that is used soley for server purposes. A computer that is left running in a basement or closet so nobody has to see it.
Myself, I think I'd rather use Unix, BSD or Windows Server 2003 over Linux on my server(s).
[ October 05, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
Don't be ridiculous. I and millions of other people use GNU/Linux on my desktop and find using Windows an absolute pain in the arse, mainly because its usability (the one thing it's supposed to actually have) is so awful. You'd obviously like to condemn us all to a nightmarish world of Windows, making us point and click to do everything, and then asking us 'if we're really sure' we want to do it.
-
boo hoo hoo.
sorry. we're gonna build our OS and show you what the Linux kernel can really do. fuck X11 and all the archaic UNIX crap.
as for Linux being the most advanced... nope! The kernel's very nature makes it more "old hat" than Mach. A monolithic kernel versus a microkernel? It's not bad, it's just not as high-tech.
CthulOS is probably going to use the Linux kernel, but good luck finding X11 anywhere on the system. We'll build the OS that the Linux kernel deserves, and not some half-ass UNIX clone with TIRED old X11 and other shitty UNIXness. No, look for a nice, clean NeXT-inspired OS.
There's REASON it's called NeXTStep.
-
Aha yeah jesus open source / free nix kernels are so fucking crap!!! Ha ha theres no way an Apple system would... oh. wait. God what the fuck is it with you people? Why the fuck does it piss you off so much that me and other people might actually like using this system? Yes I've used BSD, I've used GNU/Linux, I've used Windows and I've used OS X. Guess what? I PREFER GNU/LINUX. ME. NOT YOU. Wanna know something else? I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you like it. You bitch about how difficult it is for you to use, constant bitching, well maybe some people dont mind spending a minute configuring something if it gives them more control over the system. Instead of having some sytstem that tells me what I should be doing, and how I should be thinking. I dont want my computer to tell me how I use it. Jesus christ all thats even vaguely original in a Mac now is the GUI. Thats ALL that they made. Oh PPC chips? They rule hey? Well thats funny there made by IBM, but us Apple users will just claim it was us who did this huh? And lets face it any speed increases are still very much in contention, even ignoring the price. Ha ha Apple hardware kicks arse! Yeah sure, lets just claim we made all this crap in this computer and that no one else has it. Jesus there isnt ANYTHING in a Mac box you cant get in another computer and better. Noone has wifi right! Noone else has firewire or usb! For "innovators" Apple sure doesnt seem to have much that the competition doesn't, and please dear god dont try and claim that Apple was the company that made all that hardware originally. Yeah Apple had a great kernel! Now of course they cant afford yto make their own so they just use the NetBSD kernel and rename it so they look like they "innovated" again. Ooh dont you just love the Apple buzzwords? No, noone else copied you, Apple just went with everyone else. Then of course you start talking about how everything is doomed to market failure because it's not user friendly enough... Ha only Apple will win on the desktop because Apple is user friendly! Oh jesus yeah Apple has done so remarkably damn well on the desktop hasn't it? Face it Apple is the company that should have had the computer market in 1984. They had more of the home market than everyone else. Now they are on a pitiful what, 3%. For a company aimed squarely at the mass market thats fucking pathetic. Where did you fuck up apple? And dont talk about Microsoft "buying" people out, Apple had the largest market share for gods sake. They had the money to do the same and they tried. THEY USED MICROSOFT TACTICS AND FAILED AT IT. THEY STILL LOST. You always bitch about Microsofts closed formats well what about .mov? Oh boo hoo hoo MS sucks cos they dont let Macs use their formats, lets just make our own format here! And then of course remember Apple trying to sue over the GUI? NO!!! THATS OURS!!! DONT TAKE IT!!! According to Apple no one else should even have a GUI. Are you aware that Apple has put a patent on THEMING??? That according to Jobs no one but Apple should be able to theme their UI?
Apple - just like Microsoft. (except we failed at becoming a monopoly.) Oh and dont just start calling me a geek, as I remember it was a Mac user who posted a photo of themselves here ages ago dressed as a Klingon. :rolleyes:
-
quote:
What brought this article on is availability of cheap PCs, sub $300 PCs from mass merchandisers like Walmart. These PCs are loaded with various Linux distros like Mandrake, for instance. The assumption is that these PCs are being bought by first time users (or maybe as a second PC) who are not computer experts or light Windows users. I've recently witnessed three instances of where these PCs were purchased, then the hard drive was reformatted and a copy of Windows was installed. I am sure there is more of that going on. The obvious conclusion here is that Linux for whatever reason did not pass the grade. Here are some reasons, in my opinion.
Anecdotal at best.
quote:
It has been written about to death. KDE & GNOME have released their respective excellent wares, but still, Linux is not making inroads at the desktop level.
Neither is apple you will note. And with the popularity of each months new Backstreet Boys I dont think we can take popularity as a measure of value.
quote:
And chances are that it will never make them, unless some radical changes are undertaken by respective leaders of key Linux projects (kernel, X, desktop). Actually latest KDE & GNOME are rivaling Windows at this point, but it doesn't matter.
Note "rivalling Windows." Apple had a chance to do this. They failed. It wasn't a threatened mass installation of OS X in Munich that had Ballmer so worried.
quote:
The problem is the modularization and clear separation of kernel, X and the desktop environments from each other. This division has caused Linux to be poorly integrated. Actually, the problem has several faces.
quote:
Problem #1. The integration of device (and otherwise) drivers into the system. Case and point. RedHat 8 and 9 provide no ability to access WinXP NTFS volumes. They claim is that they can't provide this functionality because of its unsettled legal nature. Now a nice man (woman?) at linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net provides this ability. But how was this done? He took the original RedHat kernel, compiled the module that provides NTFS access and added the module to the kernel. Users can download the RPM that takes care of all the complexity. A couple more simple steps and voila - you can access your XP share. There are more examples like this where the user can add new functionality to the system by recompiling the kernel. In this case, because so many people need it, someone has taken initiative and provided a ready-made replacement kernel. Most of the cases are not like that. And herein lies the problem. Users don't want to recompile kernel or its modules - they want ready made solutions. Even power users don't want to recompile kernel. Period.
I have *NEVER* HAD to recompile a kernel. And as a "power user" I have actually wanted to.
quote:
Keep in mind, I am NOT complaining that RH doesn't include NTFS support. I am bringing up an objection to manner in which users add functionality to their system.
quote:
Consider how support for other file systems is implemented in Windows. No one needs to recompile anything. Instead you simply run an installation that installs a dynamic device driver (.vxd) to handle foreign file i/o. For examples, see www.sysinternals.com (http://www.sysinternals.com.)
Or mount automatticaly detects the FS type and insmods the right driver.
quote:
Problem #2. Video drivers & X. Somehow it came to be that the Xfree is the one and final arbiter when it comes to displays, video drivers and functionality. They release their wares on a fairly slow schedule. So, if you got a brand spanking new video card, you are pretty much stuck waiting for the next release. This is the case mostly when you just bought a new PC (which will most likely be loaded with windows). You install Linux on the second partition, but alas the install reverts to a generic video driver. Sucks for you.
Yeah I certainly had to get a new version of X when I got a new graphics card. :rolleyes: No, I just ran the driver installer from Nvidia.
quote:
I understand if they release new functionality for X on a slow schedule - that's fine. But drivers should be released separately as soon as they are available.
quote:
Problem #3. Plug & Play. Unfortunately for Linux, its constituent parts are not tightly integrated. As a result, when I plug my USB digital camera (or mouse, printer, etc) into the PC, absolutely nothing happens. In Windows, you get the 'Add New Hardware' wizard (or something similar). In WinXP, it is even better: if the system can find a signed driver for the device on its own, it simply installs it without any user intervention and you can use it immediately. That's what I call true Plug & Play. In fact, the first time I encountered this feature, it took me for a loop. Years of dealing with PCs have conditioned me to a familiar routine: connect hardware, install the drivers and pray that it works. So after installing WinXP for the first time, I connected an Epson USB printer and sat patiently waiting for the 'New Hardware Found' box. Instead, all I got (and missed the first time around) was a little icon in the system tray and a popup tooltip informing me that new hardware has been detected and software for it installed. I hope we see more of this in the future.
DEAR GOD NO!!! HE HAS TO CLICK A BUTTON AND / OR THINK!!! NOOO!!! Jeez get a game console buddy. Or maybe he would prefer a Macintoy?
quote:
Why can't the same happen in KDE or GNOME? Simply because they are not integrated with Linux kernel in a tight manner. I put word Linux in bold and that's key. KDE and GNOME (or GTK and QT, if you wish) are not written for Linux - they are written to be cross-platform. In fact, between the two DEs, they support Linux, Unix, *BSD, Solaris, Mac and partly Windows (I use GTK based WinGimp all the time - in fact the website logo was made with it, though I have zero graphics experience). So due to this, kernel may send messages that my camera is now connected, but no one is listening. And I haven't seen any significant effort to address this issue.
He wants to integrate a desktop environment with the kernel? Apple doesnt do this either and with good reason - because its fucking stupid. If its tightly integrated you have to change one when the other changes. So you have a consistent set of ways to interreact with the kernel and leave that as a "point of contact." Maybe he wants the WM to run IN the kernel as well? Hey why not put in a more few apps while youre there. How about tetris
:-P
quote:
There is Linux USB site that can help you with the USB devices. It can help you manually mount the camera and retrieve the images, but it doesn't matter at all - no user knows or should know the command to mount a drive. The worst that user should encounter when installing or connecting hardware is having to enter a CD with drivers and follow a couple prompts.
Both processes are equivalent in terms of work. I have installed things on Windows, it's insert CD install dirvers, follow annoying promnpts, restart, let Windows set it all up properly, restart ok now we set the desktop res back to normal and try out this new graphics card.
quote:
Problem #4. There isn't an distro that does everything I need out of the box. It usually takes several hours of hunting for software to make the system usable if at all. In fact, I have yet to see a distro, that even after endlessly playing with it, was able to eventually become a truly usable and productive system. RedHat 9, arguably the current usability champ, came offly close to it. Out of the box, just about everything worked. I only needed to download & install mp3 support, xine for video, ms core web fonts for sane web browsing, nvidia accelerated driver for geforce4 (not for performance, but because the generic driver doesn't display the screen right on my flat screen), ntfs support and phoenix. So supposedly a working system, right? Wrong. There are too many small things that desktop users would need and Linux (or distros) doesn't provide them out of the box. For instance, I already mentioned the lack of support for my digital camera. Another nuisance is that after setting up the printer in GNOME, Mozilla (the default browser) doesn't see it but Konqueror (in GNOME, mind you) does. When I tell WinXP to shutdown my PC, I can just walk away, because it will shutdown the entire machine. In RH9, I have to wait for all the processes to end and then manually turn off the machine. Annoying stuff like that. I am sure that there is a solution to every one of the problems - I (and home users as well) just don't want to waisting my time chasing them.
First off all Mandrake when I first got it did that (power off after shutdown.) Without me needing to do anything. And of course I never have a problem with not having a specific program, it's just apt-get install blah blah and I've got it. Boom. Done. Red Hat 9 supports apt get and 10 will support it natively. Get over it. :rolleyes: I'd like to see a Mac support NTFS out of the box by the way. Or of course half of those free programs that Apple users end up bragging abnout "how cool it is to have these one a platfrom! it runs everything! Out Of The Box!"
quote:
Bottom line. Most of these problems can be traced to lack of integration between components in Linux. Until there is some integration Linux is unlikely to gain a foothold in the desktop market.
He wants integration, were everything DEPENDS utterly on something else so cant be removed? Then he should get a game console. For people who want control, get GNU/Linux.
[ October 07, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
I try Linux so many time and i didn't want to give up on it , but geez such pain in the ass just to configure a device, every time i use this OS, i feel like i am a moron, and i have to be hunting for information just to start something or configure a device.. on slackware 9.0 when it boots up throws my ass into console i try to load KDE had to do major search just to find out had to type "startx" .. the linux console command is pain in the ass when i first got my hand on my first 486 system and had dos on it , i understood dos without no problem, i bought a book and i was set. but linux i had to go searching for a great book on linux, there are so many of them and most them explain stuff differently and leaves me wondering even more.. i have to agree with person the wrote the website " why linux sucks", i am advance user in PC world i build system to make extra dollars and i am C programmer , i hate Microsoft with a passion.. PLEASE WOULD SOMEONE BUILD A STABLE OS WITHOUT SO MUCH HEADACHES and stop the war which OS is better. i wont use APPLE because i don't like how mac os is looks gay and i just don't like it please understand. i like certain feature linux has is open source and i agree the linux is the best with networking, but suck for desktop. like i always said linux should have been for companies and i think the person the create linux problably want linux for business but i can't say this true. Windows has alot great feature but is unstable,full of hole,flaw,virus, an asshole company so on..
i am replying to this post because this how feel about linux, i am not replying to go against linux user. i did give a try to linux alot freakin time but i give up man..
i hope yah understand..
[ October 07, 2003: Message edited by: mc0282 ]
-
quote:
sorry. we're gonna build our OS and show you what the Linux kernel can really do. fuck X11 and all the archaic UNIX crap
Any idee how many people already tried this?
quote:
as for Linux being the most advanced... nope! The kernel's very nature makes it more "old hat" than Mach. A monolithic kernel versus a microkernel? It's not bad, it's just not as high-tech.
Mach failed. It only made more problems.Apple even tried(...and failed) to hire Torvalds for fixing this (Linus still doesn't like the Mach kernel...).
Linux uses a monolithic kernel but still permits modules (like micro-kernel architectures)
That is even more 'high-tech'.
quote:
CthulOS is probably going to use the Linux kernel, but good luck finding X11 anywhere on the system. We'll build the OS that the Linux kernel deserves, and not some half-ass UNIX clone with TIRED old X11 and other shitty UNIXness. No, look for a nice, clean NeXT-inspired OS.
WHY???
I don't see any reason for eliminating X11.
Where will you find your apps and support?
X11 is platform independant. You'll lose all this without it.
X11 makes it also possible to run havyweight apps on old computers.
If you think eliminating X11 will make things faster, it doesn't.
I don't even like a GUI being buid directly into the kernel(bloat, makes the code ugly).
...
So what's the point of eliminating X11?
quote:
There's REASON it's called NeXTStep.
Following these logics, you should call your system: "PerfectOS"(if things whould only be that simple...).
[ October 07, 2003: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this board about Linux, or computers or stuff of that nature. But I like Linux way better than windows. I can't stand the sight of windows anymore. It's chaotic file system. I mean what the fuck was Billy thinking when he made that up. Linux file system just makes sense...programs go in /usr/bin/. My stuff goes in /home/unforgiven/. and other stuff goes in /. I mean...how simple can you get. I mean windows...C:/horseshit/morebullshit/bgisspyingonyou/suck mydick/file. Jesus christ! Linux may be more work, but its more fun also (to me computer work is fun) It doesn't hold you by the dick and lead you around, and then force you to do 10 things you don't want to just to do the one thing you want. It doesn't hide files and send them to Microsoft. It doesn't crash so often. If you want childish simplicity, use windows. If you want a good OS, use Linux. I don't know if this is another of those troll posts...if it is, just disregard this.
and if Linux is so bad...why does Microsoft use a Linux server for their firewall? Bet they didn't want that nugget of info out.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Unforgiven1:
I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this board about Linux, or computers or stuff of that nature. But I like Linux way better than windows. I can't stand the sight of windows anymore. It's chaotic file system. I mean what the fuck was Billy thinking when he made that up. Linux file system just makes sense...programs go in /usr/bin/. My stuff goes in /home/unforgiven/. and other stuff goes in /. I mean...how simple can you get. I mean windows...C:/horseshit/morebullshit/bgisspyingonyou/suck mydick/file. Jesus christ! Linux may be more work, but its more fun also (to me computer work is fun) It doesn't hold you by the dick and lead you around, and then force you to do 10 things you don't want to just to do the one thing you want. It doesn't hide files and send them to Microsoft. It doesn't crash so often. If you want childish simplicity, use windows. If you want a good OS, use Linux. I don't know if this is another of those troll posts...if it is, just disregard this.
and if Linux is so bad...why does Microsoft use a Linux server for their firewall? Bet they didn't want that nugget of info out.
Its the same here! Linux just point blank works, if anything the only change I see is windows people constantly whinning ALL the time!
quote:
mc0282
I try Linux so many time and i didn't want to give up on it , but geez such pain in the ass just to configure a device, every time i use this OS, i feel like i am a moron, and i have to be hunting for information just to start something or configure a device.. on slackware 9.0 when it boots up throws my ass into console i try to load KDE had to do major search just to find out had to type "startx" .. the linux console command is pain in the ass when i first got my hand on my first 486 system and had dos on it , i understood dos without no problem, i bought a book and i was set. but linux i had to go searching for a great book on linux, there are so many of them and most them explain stuff differently and leaves me wondering even more.. i have to agree with person the wrote the website " why linux sucks", i am advance user in PC world i build system to make extra dollars and i am C programmer , i hate Microsoft with a passion.. PLEASE WOULD SOMEONE BUILD A STABLE OS WITHOUT SO MUCH HEADACHES and stop the war which OS is better. i wont use APPLE because i don't like how mac os is looks gay and i just don't like it please understand. i like certain feature linux has is open source and i agree the linux is the best with networking, but suck for desktop. like i always said linux should have been for companies and i think the person the create linux problably want linux for business but i can't say this true. Windows has alot great feature but is unstable,full of hole,flaw,virus, an asshole company so on..
i am replying to this post because this how feel about linux, i am not replying to go against linux user. i did give a try to linux alot freakin time but i give up man..
i hope yah understand..
I see your first problem, slackware is a hard distro to use compared to other distros, I found RedHat and Lycros a absolute dream to use!
You may want to try those instead. over at
linuxiso.org (http://linuxiso.org)
Personaly I hated DOS, but found myself very comfortable at the concole. I also used OpenBSD. So if I started out on OpenBSD then I would think that all BSD's are really hard when thats not true at all. In fact after a while I actualy liked OpenBSD. So basicaly try other distros, see what fits you
and at least you tried! Which is a VERY good thing! :D