Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: piratePenguin on 9 January 2006, 19:25
-
http://madpenguin.org/cms/html/47/5937.html Great read.
-
I grew up on a Unix command-line. BSD, I believe.
wow.... is that even possible.
-
NEWSFLASH: American student 'etement' finds a living specimen predating the GUI! Critics dispute the discovery.
-
I bet if less boxes came pre-installed with Winblow$ and people actually had to install their OS maybe they would realize that linux is the way to go ... not Winblow$
-
Finally had the chance to read this article all the way through, and I thought it was kinda funny. But dead-on balls accurate. People who complain about Linux usually complain because it is not like Windows. Windows is most people's frame of reference for the personal computer. When Linux is your frame of reference, Windows is obviously the devil. No configure files, cryptic error messages, barely supported 3rd party software, strong & constrictive branding, etc. Those of us who come from a Windows childhood have to deal with Linux strangeness for awhile, but after that, stuff like apt, xfce, stderr, logs, and configs become normal and infinitely more useful. At that point, we look back and notice how Windows sucks. This article's benefit, then, is that it is written in the unique point of view of someone looking forward on Windows, and seeing very clearly how it can cripple the aware user's experience.
-
yep Linux always gets the basics right first.
-
Finally had the chance to read this article all the way through, and I thought it was kinda funny. But dead-on balls accurate. People who complain about Linux usually complain because it is not like Windows. Windows is most people's frame of reference for the personal computer. When Linux is your frame of reference, Windows is obviously the devil. No configure files, cryptic error messages, barely supported 3rd party software, strong & constrictive branding, etc. Those of us who come from a Windows childhood have to deal with Linux strangeness for awhile, but after that, stuff like apt, xfce, stderr, logs, and configs become normal and infinitely more useful. At that point, we look back and notice how Windows sucks. This article's benefit, then, is that it is written in the unique point of view of someone looking forward on Windows, and seeing very clearly how it can cripple the aware user's experience.
Hmm, I feel really weird knowing that I have NEVER had a problem with Windows, (well, up until XP).
But at the same time, I feel good about not being brought up on Windows, Mac OS System 7.5 for me :p
-
Hmm, I feel really weird knowing that I have NEVER had a problem with Windows, (well, up until XP).
Are you sure ? How can that be ... I know that Window$ Me was horrible ... it predictably crashed within 3 hours of booting it up ... 98 and 95 seemed to have less problems as I remember it ... but they still crashed at least once a day ... And XP, although it crashed less it was way too adware ridden ... this may also have been due to the DMR :D
-
Haha, never used ME, apart from on friends machines, same with XP, and I don't like either. ;)
95/98 were fine though, apart from the occasional BSOD lol
-
Windows 98 didn't treat me all that bad during the few months I had it running on the abandoned 233mhz and something like 300mb RAM machine almost 2 years ago. Unfortunetly for Microsoft, Mandrake was better in every conceivable way.
-
People who complain about Linux usually complain because it is not like Windows. Windows is most people's frame of reference for the personal computer.
if people are let down that linux does not behave like windows (ie: unpredictably and incorrectly) then surely they should be happy about it?
-
if people are let down that linux does not behave like windows (ie: unpredictably and incorrectly) then surely they should be happy about it?
I think it's because there are too many naive people out there.
-
You give people too much credit if you actually care about the average PC user going to linux. Even the easiest flavor of linux is hard as hell to install software to when you never touched one before and there's nobody there to help you. If you don't think this is true, you have lost touch with the outside world in that linux PC room of yours. On windows it's pretty much just "click here to install" for everything. And most PC users aren't going to bother with anything harder unless they have to. Pages and pages of bad manuals just to install an obscure driver that you need? Unless people are aspiring programers, they're never going to do that when windows is there. And one would hope that linux promoters are aware of the fact that not every PC user out there wants to be a programmer, a network guy, or anything of the sort. With that said, windows SUCKS, and as nice as linux is, I doubt will ever gain substantial ground over it. And I'm only directing this to users who imply that linux should replace windows, not the linux users who just use it and think it's better.
-
Even the easiest flavor of linux is hard as hell to install software to when you never touched one before and there's nobody there to help you.
The easiest Linux's now are Ubuntu and Linspire, and this is how you install software on them:
Ubuntu
(http://www.illhostit.com/files/5169945729508824/PicSynapticPackageManager.png)
Linspire
(http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/bsgfx/linux/lindows/lindows45-scr-15.png)
And if the program you are looking for is somehow not on the list, it's common that they made a deb or rpm package, which is really easy to install.
It's safe to say that installing software on Linux is now easier then on Windows.
-
Installing Software: A GNU/Linux VS. MS Windows Comparison (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10165)
I had to install Firefox on a Windows machine in school today, and now I might appreciate apt-get and friends some more.
I wonder what's the average amount of times Windows users spend clicking 'Next' to accept the default installation directory every time they want to install something...
-
The main difference between Windows and Linux is under Linux, the installed program works after installation.
-
I've heard some shitty things about linspire, but refalm's screenshot makes it look kinda inviting. What desktop and/or window manager does it use?
-
I've heard some shitty things about linspire, but refalm's screenshot makes it look kinda inviting. What desktop and/or window manager does it use?
KDE, and that theme is the reason I used to hate KDE...
-
KDE, and that theme is the reason I used to hate KDE...
Name of the theme, please.
What would you prefer? Let's see a screenshot!
-
Name of the theme, please.
I don't remember, and I couldn't find it on kde-look.org, but I think it was one of the alternative themes Mandrake provided. I think it's kinda popular.
What would you prefer? Let's see a screenshot!
No problem (http://illhostit.com/files/7743530944309308/emacs.png).
-
Here's mine. (http://illhostit.com/files/8920905474806358/Screenshot.png)
-
And the Fedora Core installer (http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/fedora-install-guide-en/fc4/figs/package-selection.png) ... it's quite understandable I think ...
(http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/fedora-install-guide-en/fc4/figs/package-selection.png)
-
The easiest Linux's now are Ubuntu and Linspire, and this is how you install software on them:
Ubuntu
(http://www.illhostit.com/files/5169945729508824/PicSynapticPackageManager.png)
Linspire
(http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/bsgfx/linux/lindows/lindows45-scr-15.png)
And if the program you are looking for is somehow not on the list, it's common that they made a deb or rpm package, which is really easy to install.
It's safe to say that installing software on Linux is now easier then on Windows.
3rd party software that is on a central repository? sure it's easier, considering windows doesn't have anything like that natively. I guess I should have looked harder than weeks for my stylus driver package because I had a hell of a boring time reading dumb, assumption-ridden manuals just to compile the driver from the source which I should shut up and be thankful was available.
The package handler is a great thing though, but nowhere near as easy. a couple of pictures don't prove it's easier either, that's just your opinion(s). As a user, I'm TELLING you it was not for me. And neither was it for the people who I have offered to install ubuntu for, and refused, which was all of them. And these people, which are like the majority of PC users, would never even bother to complain about linux like this. they will never use it.
-
... is it really necessary to quote images ... the loading time kinda doubles ...
-
3rd party software that is on a central repository? sure it's easier, considering windows doesn't have anything like that natively. I guess I should have looked harder than weeks for my stylus driver package because I had a hell of a boring time reading dumb, assumption-ridden manuals just to compile the driver from the source which I should shut up and be thankful was available.
The package handler is a great thing though, but nowhere near as easy. a couple of pictures don't prove it's easier either, that's just your opinion(s). As a user, I'm TELLING you it was not for me. And neither was it for the people who I have offered to install ubuntu for, and refused, which was all of them. And these people, which are like the majority of PC users, would never even bother to complain about linux like this. they will never use it.
You're totally missing the point. It is DIFFERENT. If you had never used a computer before, and needed to install some software, which would be easier? Downloading and running an installation program, with options, licenses, and confirmation screens? Or selecting a program from a list and clicking a button? I think that from an arch-newb point of view, Apt-based package managers are clearly easier than Windows software installation. After years of downloading and clicking and accepting licenses and deciding where in the start menu to put your new program, it seems easier, yes. But that doesn't mean it is at its core easier. Ya dig?
Windows experience is a filter which makes Windows easy.
Linux experience is a filter which makes Windows hard.
-
... is it really necessary to quote images ... the loading time kinda doubles ...
I don't think it does/should...
-
The loading time is the same as the first picture end up in the cache.
-
it actually takes some time and processing power to load the image even if it is cached ... just rendering it takes about 1 or 2 sec ... ok well it's not such a big difference 2 sec versus 4 sec ...
-
...and then there's the minority of people that prefer current information and, thus, have image caching turned off (not me, but I can certainly see the issue).
-
Name of the theme, please.
Wow, it just came to me from no where... Keramik. Search for it on kde-look.org if you don't already have it (supposed to be standard with KDE, I think. And there's loads of different versions of it on kde-look.org :/ ).
-
i just want a nice and easy to use
98 with the xp's task management and an open source...
that is it no need to go further ... but ...noooooooooo
you just can't win!
-
You *DO* realise that 2k is open-source, right? ;)
-
You *DO* realise that 2k is open-source, right? ;)
No wonder it kicks the balls of Windows XP :p
-
Hmm, I wonder if some of the Windows 2000 source code has found its way into WINE.
-
I doubt it. The coding styles are so much different that it would look odd (and probably act that way, too). Good luck actually finding something that would really fit into WINE properly.
Same goes for Samba.
-
You *DO* realise that 2k is open-source, right? ;)
Wait a minute ... if Window$ 2k is open-source ... why isn't it free ?
-
He's kidding. He's referring the source code leak that happened a while back. I don't think the leaked tree will even compile.
-
Oh yeah that ... well then it would be 'leaked-source" not really open-source.
-
Man, I've been using windows less and less in the last year and I'm finding it harder and harder to find how to change all the stupid little settings hidden all over the place.
Linux is by no means harder to use than windows. If you want to change a setting it'll be in /etc /home/user/.* /usr/share/ or /opt/
-
Since when were there settings in /usr/share or /opt?
-
There are settings in /usr/share, but nothing I would ever want to mess with. For example, you can reconfigure the behavior of gedit by editing the xml file that controls its operations. That's beyond reasonable customization, if you ask me. Also, a lot of programs store their icons and system images there. If you want to redesign Opera's logo, and replace it across the board (as opposed to just changing the icon), there seems to be a way to do that in /usr/share too.
No /opt in my FC4, so can't comment on that one. Probably similar stuff though - opt is used for non-system programs, which I tend to store in /usr/local. So /opt will have share folders as well.
-
/opt would have etc or */etc subdirs which would store settings.
Menu information is stored in /usr/share/applications on GNOME and KDE in .desktop files. There's also sample configuration files stored in /usr/share for certain packages.
-
that's not how i would use /opt - i would have anything which installs into a normal directory structure (with lib, usr, bin and so on) into /usr/local (if not installing from rpm) but i would put anything with its own directory (like opera, openoffice.org and dillo - all of which can be had as rpms or some other different packaged thing) into /opt. so i would have a path like /opt/OpenOffice.org1.0/Program/ooffice but i would still put symlinks into /usr/local/bin to avoid all the $PATH related agony i would have to go through regarding the executables.
-
I have read about people who complain that putting everything in /usr/local is too BSD-ish, and prefer /opt. Of course, in reality, the filesystem heirarchy is your toy to play with - as it should be.
-
I have /usr/local symlinked to '.' (i.e. /usr). Genius idea IMO. Debian GNU/Hurd symlinks /usr to '.' (i.e. '/'), that's where I got it from. I don't usually put anything in /opt (everything in /usr), except older GCC versions which I sometimes need and don't want to fuck with my proper GCC.
-
I put everything in /usr ... just cuz that's the directory I visit most often