|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 203 responses total. |
vivekm1234
|
|
response 61 of 203:
| 
Feb 1 08:03 UTC 2007 |
Ideally what the Linux guys ought to do is just clone the Windows Desktop look
and feel.It's a Linux but the user shouldn't be able to tell the difference
in terms of the GUI..not sure though since MS might have patented their look..
or copyright infringement? Can it be done?
The next thing would be a MS Office clone. I think the main problem here is
user inertia. People have spent time and energy learning to use MS-stuff and
they don't want to sit around and learn something new when there is not
much of a added advantage to it..
It's a little like Grex in a way :) great ideals but who wants to figure
out the syntax when gardenweb.com requires no additional brain work. I agree
with what Mynx has to say.
I think Linux's advantages will show up as it ages..the fact that MS's Vista
is a bunch of security patches and eye-candy is very indicative, though
Linux has a lot of bloat in the GUI (KDE/Gnome) and OpenOffice sucks..
Ideally Linux/MS should come out with something like 2K+MS-Office+Nero+WinRar
+Dict+FF+Thunderbird+Putty+MPlayer(Linux port)+WinAmp+RASPPPoE before
adding any more idiotic eye-candy.
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 62 of 203:
|
Feb 1 08:09 UTC 2007 |
Ooo check this out
http://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=173462&ssid=39022
And if you use Wine with MSWord <heaven :)>
|
twenex
|
|
response 63 of 203:
|
Feb 1 09:22 UTC 2007 |
Re: #61. Boy, are you out of touch.
"Linux has a lot of bloat and OpenOffice sucks"- you DO know that Vista
requires FIFTEEN gigabytes of hard-drive space and that the newest version
of Microsoft Office has a *completely* different interface, right? And how
exactly does OpenOffice suck?
|
twenex
|
|
response 64 of 203:
|
Feb 1 09:23 UTC 2007 |
It's a little like Grex in a way :) great ideals but who wants to figure
out the syntax when gardenweb.com requires no additional brain work. I agree
with what Mynx has to say.
Remind me to use hand signals exclusively next time we meet and let's see how
far we get communicating.
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 65 of 203:
|
Feb 1 10:41 UTC 2007 |
Re #61: Don't redit what i type when you quote me! I DID NOT say "Linux has
a lot of bloat and OpenOffice sucks"!
Re #64: Actually hand signals wouldn't make any sense either :) given that
i still need to know what your gestures mean :). A perfect interface would be
one which required no learning about the interface by the user but still
managed to convey the information/meaning :) - at least that's how i see it.
I like Linux well enough to use it, but i'm not completely blind to it's
defects..as i see it - there's not much sense in trying to get the world
to fit Linux. It's better for Linux to try to adapt to the world. Given
that we live in a MS dominated world, from a user perspective it makes
sense for any UI to simulate MS and gradually wean users away to something
better.
|
twenex
|
|
response 66 of 203:
|
Feb 1 12:13 UTC 2007 |
OK, so you said KDE has a lot of bloat - nevertheless, since most people will
be using KDE (or GNOME, and GNOME is comparable in size) - FUD like that is
effective.
Re #64: Actually hand signals wouldn't make any sense either :) given that
i still need to know what your gestures mean :). A perfect interface would
be
one which required no learning about the interface by the user but still
managed to convey the information/meaning :) - at least that's how i see it.
The point I was trying to make is that I have no problem with GUI's, it's just
that they are in no way suitable for doing a gazillion things you can and
should be able to do with a computer. With the imminent arrival of Windows
PowerShower, I am afraid those of us who say that have won this argument.
I like Linux well enough to use it, but i'm not completely blind to it's
defects..as i see it - there's not much sense in trying to get the world
to fit Linux. It's better for Linux to try to adapt to the world. Given
that we live in a MS dominated world, from a user perspective it makes
sense for any UI to simulate MS and gradually wean users away to something
better.
I'm not totally blind to Linux's faults, either. That doesn't mean I'm willing
to excuse MS's illegal business practices, or that I don't judge that, on
balance, Linux is worth a lot more money and effort than Windows.
|
twenex
|
|
response 67 of 203:
|
Feb 1 12:14 UTC 2007 |
Free Software Magazine has an (as ever) erudite take on why, given the Windows
way or the Highway, one should DEFINITELY take the highway:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/why_johnny_can_code
|
fudge
|
|
response 68 of 203:
|
Feb 1 13:17 UTC 2007 |
re#61 why would anyone want Linux to become a Windows clone??? Windows is bad
for many more reasons than merely being a M$ product.
I think the real point of Microsoft's predominance is that they're the only
ones that have aggressively marketed the OS. This started with 95 and the
influence of marketing decisions taken since then is the cause of most of the
technically poor decision made, such as the crippling of the NT design to fit
IE and the 95 desktop.
I think that if others had made a bigger effort in marketing their product,
more people would have switched ages ago.
Look at Mac: once the preserve of graphic studios to which it was marketed
directly, has seen a huge uptake by home and non-business users since their
"switch" campaign and a greater presence in the media, also thanks to the
iPod/iTune success.
Still their marketing scope is a lot smaller than that of MS, with their
unrelenting push for dominance in all their product areas: mass marketing and
focused proselytisation in the business and professional sectors with
certification schemes, seminars and training paths forced down the throat of
everyone in the business.
Now when's the last time you've seen a TV advert for RedHat or SuSe or
Mandr[iva|ake] just to name a few with large user base and solid business
behind them.
A Linux desktop has been more than useable for quite some time and recent
distros are a piece of cake to install. Someone should tell Joe Blogg.
|
twenex
|
|
response 69 of 203:
|
Feb 1 13:19 UTC 2007 |
A Linux desktop has been more than useable for quite some time and recent
distros are a piece of cake to install. Someone should tell Joe Blogg.
Amein.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 70 of 203:
|
Feb 1 13:39 UTC 2007 |
Twenesx - too many people have slipped - so I'm not going to answer anything
- (and anyways I have to go deal with immigration issues now) but Jeff you're
missing hte point - you pointed out that DEC or something or the other
imploded - could happen again. How many users did DEC have and how ubiquitous
was computers when that happened? What's the state now?
Market penetration - Windows has it.
|
twenex
|
|
response 71 of 203:
|
Feb 1 13:43 UTC 2007 |
When DEC were healthy, almost everyone had a DEC. Didn't stop them moving to
Unix and/or Windows when the time arrived.
And I stand by my contention that if it weren't impossible to get Windows off
a machine /before you buy it/, Windows would be as much of a laughing stock
from a market penetration perspective as it is from a technical one.
But it really doesn't bother me if everyone else wants to run Windows. What
bothers me is that people think "being forced to use/buy Windows" - "wanting
it."
|
vivekm1234
|
|
response 72 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:19 UTC 2007 |
Re #68: I totally agree that Windows is a piece of shit from a programmers
or computer scientist/engineers point of view..
Re #71: Correction, everyone did not have a DEC. A very small percentage of
the total worlds population did have a DEC. That's not quite the case with
Windows. Most people today that can afford a computer have Windows on it.
The DEC period wasn't known for home computing - imho (at least in India/
Asia).
One is forced to use Windows through market inertia. Openoffice does not
format Word documents reliably, i'll have problems opening .ppt's. If i
go to an architect's office, he isn't going to have Linux or OpenOffice
or StarOffice. Same thing applies in my computer lab wrt Matlab. If i
had to make a presentation in college it's more likely that they'd have a
Windows box ready and waiting. Then there are my P2P apps, one or two
of them don't work on Win2K without wine and major headache. My Dad
knows and is familiar with Excel - he doesn't want to sit around learning
and familiarising himself with StarOffice. Then there are the various
distro's. I don't want to spend time hunting around wondering where to click
when i got to make a class or transfer files - some colleges may go with
KDE other's with Gnome and some others with something-else.
Unless there are compelling reasons to move away from Win2K i won't move
and that's my point. There are no compelling reasons and it would be
impossible given the current state of development Linux is in given the
market penetrance that Windows has.
Nothing better illustrates this philosophy better than gardenweb. The interface
is lousy when you compare it with NNTP/Grex, but to a horticulturist it's a
familiar easy to use interface that requires little or no extra effort.
Lecturing him about the wonders of Grex/NNTP isn't going to bring him here.
What he would want are concrete reasons why he should (freedom of speech is one
that i can think off) but gardenweb may curtail your freedom occasionally
or trample on a user occasionally and that to most ppl is acceptable.
JFTR i love Linux and when i'm not P2Ping that's what i mostly use.
|
twenex
|
|
response 73 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:30 UTC 2007 |
Re #68: I totally agree that Windows is a piece of shit from a programmers
or computer scientist/engineers point of view..
I would argue that makes it a POS from everyone's point of view, because
people who program a POS are going to make it inflexible and full of holes,
etc.
Re #71: Correction, everyone did not have a DEC. A very small percentage of
the total worlds population did have a DEC. That's not quite the case with
Windows. Most people today that can afford a computer have Windows on it.
The DEC period wasn't known for home computing - imho (at least in India/
Asia).
OK, yeah I should have said that most people /who worked on computers/, used
DEC's.
But note that history is repeating itself - Unix grew in use on DEC's /despite
the fact/ that DEC hated it, wouldn't supply it, and wouldn't support it.
One is forced to use Windows through market inertia. Openoffice does not
format Word documents reliably, i'll have problems opening .ppt's. If i
go to an architect's office, he isn't going to have Linux or OpenOffice
or StarOffice. Same thing applies in my computer lab wrt Matlab. If i
had to make a presentation in college it's more likely that they'd have a
Windows box ready and waiting. Then there are my P2P apps, one or two
of them don't work on Win2K without wine and major headache. My Dad
knows and is familiar with Excel - he doesn't want to sit around learning
and familiarising himself with StarOffice. Then there are the various
distro's. I don't want to spend time hunting around wondering where to click
when i got to make a class or transfer files - some colleges may go with
KDE other's with Gnome and some others with something-else.
Word doesn't format Word documents reliably either. I haven't had any problems
reading presentations in OO.org, which was writtern to be familiar to Office
users - unlike recent versions of Office!
Unless there are compelling reasons to move away from Win2K i won't move
and that's my point. There are no compelling reasons and it would be
impossible given the current state of development Linux is in given the
market penetrance that Windows has.
That's exactly the problem. Let's assume that your W2K box dies tomorrow (I
most CERTAINLY hope it doesn't). If you get a new computer you will have no
alternative but to get Vista on it. Even if you have kept your W2K cd's, there
is no guarantee that it will work on new hardware.
Nothing better illustrates this philosophy better than gardenweb. The
interface
is lousy when you compare it with NNTP/Grex, but to a horticulturist it's
a
familiar easy to use interface that requires little or no extra effort.
Lecturing him about the wonders of Grex/NNTP isn't going to bring him here.
What he would want are concrete reasons why he should (freedom of speech is
one
that i can think off) but gardenweb may curtail your freedom occasionally
or trample on a user occasionally and that to most ppl is acceptable.
That STILL doesn't address my main point, since although neither Grex nor
Gardenweb is forced on people, Windows most certainly is.
|
easlern
|
|
response 74 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:32 UTC 2007 |
I think it's silly to get so upset over the Windows monopoly. If you're a
consumer looking for a home computer, even if you're aware of all the
different choices, you don't have much choice. Apple is proprietary,
expensive, and has limited upgrade options. Linux flavors have no support at
all (unless you count mailing lists/forums and that kind of stuff I guess),
until you start paying for them. Then there's MS's offerings, which are almost
guaranteed to work from day one until the day they're obsolete years later,
on such a wide array of hardware from servers to handheld devices that it
makes the choice a no-brainer. If you have to blame something, blame the
market. If these were car brands, you wouldn't blame consumers for buying a
crappy Ford before they picked up a BMW or ordered a kit car.
|
jep
|
|
response 75 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:36 UTC 2007 |
It's amusing to watch Linux/Unix snobs arguing the evils of Microsoft.
I understand what you guys mean, but no one could who isn't familiar
with Unix already. You're assuming everyone agrees that Windows stinks,
whereas not everyone agrees with that at all. You're also overlooking
the fact that most people with computers are using Windows and doing
quite nicely with their computers. Without Windows they wouldn't *have*
computers.
|
twenex
|
|
response 76 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:45 UTC 2007 |
Then there's MS's offerings, which are almost
guaranteed to work from day one until the day they're obsolete years later,
Um, no they aren't.
on such a wide array of hardware from servers to handheld devices that it
makes the choice a no-brainer.
Linux runs on a far greater range of devices.
If you have to blame something, blame the
market. If these were car brands, you wouldn't blame consumers for buying
a
crappy Ford before they picked up a BMW or ordered a kit car.
If these were car brands, you wouldn't be forced into buying a Ford even if
you wanted a Chevy.
It's amusing to watch Linux/Unix snobs arguing the evils of Microsoft.
I understand what you guys mean, but no one could who isn't familiar
with Unix already.
I disagree. Linux is no harder to use than Windows, these days, and despite
that STILL doesn't get viruses or spyware. Some people put that down to the
fact that "almost no-one uses it", but it has 25% of the server market, it's
marketshare can't be counted because people don't have to buy it, it runs most
of the internet and most of the top supercomputers, and if you express
marketshare in terms of raw numbers, then the 5% or so of people who are
*assumed* to be running Linux translates to 15 mil, which is hardly "no-one".
You're assuming everyone agrees that Windows stinks,
whereas not everyone agrees with that at all.
I don't know anyone who's familiar with the recent state of Windows and Linux,
and actually thinks Windows is a better choice (except for running
Windows-only applications).
|
jep
|
|
response 77 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:49 UTC 2007 |
Windows-only applications are critically important to a lot of people.
|
twenex
|
|
response 78 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:55 UTC 2007 |
I didn't say they weren't. That's different from saying the OSes they run on
are good. If DOS runs more applications than Windows, does that mean Windows
is crappier than DOS?
(I've no doubt that DOS runs more apps than Windows, since in the days
following DOS's heyday, Microsoft have killed off most of the competition in
all the important application areas, too.)
|
easlern
|
|
response 79 of 203:
|
Feb 1 15:56 UTC 2007 |
I don't think there's any reasoning with twenex anymore. :(
|
twenex
|
|
response 80 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:04 UTC 2007 |
I don't think there's any reasoning with twenex anymore. :(
Why not? I mean, do mind explaining where you get the idea that Windows runs
perfectly for years on end, and (by implication) everything else doesn't, an
experience (and this is where I have difficulty with the idea) contrary to
all the known accounts?
Or is it just because I don't shrink from shooting down arguments that don't
stand up?
|
jep
|
|
response 81 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:09 UTC 2007 |
I work in tech support for a product which can run either on Windows or
Linux or any of various Unix versions. I tell people all the time that,
for Windows, they should reboot their server at least once per week.
"It just helps, we all know it helps" I tell them, and they always agree
with that.
If they ask about Unix versions, I tell them that Unix admins usually
reboot once per year, though it's not really necessary. There's a
different level of expectations for Unix versus Windows.
So anyway, I get it. I understand that Linux is better than Windows in
many ways.
But people persist in running Windows. It's not because they are
bullied into it by Bill Gates and his bespectacled geek thugs. It's
because it works for them. They can take a Windows server machine, slam
some extra RAM into it, and run our very demanding and bulky product.
Or they can take the same server, slam some memory and Linux in it and
be better off in some ways. But then they'll have to learn something
about Linux.
Some people even go from Linux versions to Windows versions. It
happens, usually at the initiative of a system admin who knows Windows
better than Linux, I expect. No one consults me on these issues, they
just tell me what they're going to do, and then I help them to do it.
|
easlern
|
|
response 82 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:17 UTC 2007 |
I don't know of anyone who has bought hardware that does not run a version
of Windows. I know of a lot of people, myself included, who have installed
a Linux and found it has limited functionality for their hardware. If the
trend is opposite for you, I'd be interested in knowing what you guys do
differently across the pond!
|
jadecat
|
|
response 83 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:18 UTC 2007 |
resp:80 Windows may not run *perfectly* for years, but as a user of
Windows machines, who knows very little about computers really, Windows
works just fine for what I need. I have no idea how to use Linux, and I
don't see that is has much of a precense anywhere outside of computer
groupies.
The average consumer knows little about how computers really work. They
want to bring it home, plug it in and have it work. They like the bells
and whistles- even if they don't use them- because then they can brag
that their computers CAN do those things.
People are lazy, and they want things to be easy- for minimal usage
requirements- Windows fits the bill. Sure, some things don't work right-
at which point people either work around it, scrap the idea, or consider
getting help. The user doesn't WANT to fiddle with settings, or
recompile kernels- they want to plug and play. They also manage to
forget about all the time spent actually making Windows work the way
they (mostly) want it to. Similar to the memory deletion of the time it
takes to search for that special key stroke command.
Are these last two pargraphs indications of wisdom? Nope, not even
close. But it's the kind of thinking that Windows has capitalized on-
and the other groups missed the boat on.
|
twenex
|
|
response 84 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:24 UTC 2007 |
I don't know of anyone who has bought hardware that does not run a version
of Windows. I know of a lot of people, myself included, who have installed
a Linux and found it has limited functionality for their hardware. If the
trend is opposite for you, I'd be interested in knowing what you guys do
differently across the pond!
I buy hardware specifically known to work with Linux, and I'm probably better
off in that it's almost by definition the low-margin vendors making
bog-standard rubbish who only support Windows (Linksys routers, for instance).
Anyway, I may have misinterpreted you. My reading of what you said above was
that once Windows is installed, it runs trouble free for years, and other
OS'es get "hiccupy". Most people's experience, otoh, and certainly mine, is
that Windows is the hicccupy one - in fact that's what brought me to Linux.
Jep seems to agree on the point.
As I think I have already repeated, however, I just don't understand this
attitude that if you go into a store, and buy pc hardware, most times you
/don't get/ to choose the OS software.
|
twenex
|
|
response 85 of 203:
|
Feb 1 16:30 UTC 2007 |
Re: #82. There's also the point that when you release binary drivers, as most
people who write drivers for Windows do, then your old hardware might not be
supported when you upgrade to a new version. With source, the OS distributor
can just recompile.
resp:80 Windows may not run *perfectly* for years, but as a user of
Windows machines, who knows very little about computers really, Windows
works just fine for what I need. I have no idea how to use Linux, and I
don't see that is has much of a precense anywhere outside of computer
groupies.
Linux can be used in almost exactly the same way as Windows - and to forestall
the argument that "almost exactly"is not good enough, different versions of
Windows are used in different ways. Mostly gratuitously, too.
The average consumer knows little about how computers really work. They
want to bring it home, plug it in and have it work. They like the bells
and whistles- even if they don't use them- because then they can brag
that their computers CAN do those things.
"The average consumer"knows little about cars "really work" too. But knowing
how to *drive* a car is a *legal requirement*.
|
