Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Linux, as a Whole

334 posts in this topic

Posted

Is there any Linux software you use that's not available on Windows or that doesn't have an equivalent or better Windows alternative?

Applications, probably not, although I find a lot of decent Linux tools are crippled in one way or another on Windows (and vice-versa obviously). I mainly miss XFCE when I'm on Windows, since I can't quite copy my panel arrangement in Windows. A decent SSH daemon is valuable too, Cygwin SSH doesn't cut it on Windows.

For me though it's not the applications I miss, it's the various underlying and philosophical differences. I much prefer the Unix file system structure to Windows, it's not as obvious as Windows/Program Files/Users, but it make a lot of sense once you get your head round it. Being able to mount my home directory on a different drive is convenient (the various Windows hacks to do the same thing don't achieve the same effect) and configuration data is much more sanely organized in Linux (/etc/*.conf for global application settings and services, ~/.config/* for user-specific application settings, no screwing around with the registry, etc). I also miss centralized package management in Windows (although the Windows Store should hopefully fix this in time). 'yaourt --noconfirm -Syyua' is much easier than per-application self-updaters and regular trips to filehippo.com or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The majority of people that pedal that BS about Linux and the year of the desktop are the haters. Most actual Linux users really don't care if Linux becomes the favoured desktop OS. Whether it's #1 or not, we're happy with our PCs running our OS of choice.

I have little allegiance either way. Linux works well for me, but if there ever comes a point that it doesn't, then I'll jump to OSX or Windows or whatever. I use whatever gives me the best experience at the time.

I see. You are happy with your PC running Linux. Good for you. I guess you wouldn't be much happier with a much larger software library of professional-grade software. Or UI that is actually designed, not thrown together by developers who think they know design. Or play video games. Or have first-grade graphic drivers, etc. Guess what, until Linux becomes relevant, or "favoured", it would be stuck in this horrible state of bad UI and ugly ugly software.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Linux is already capable of everything that Windows can do, it's just lack of software support in the few cases where it falls behind.

For most people, 'capable' isn't enough. As an analogy: yes, many Android handsets are capable of having a full, clean install of the latest releases of Android, but the process is absolutely unacceptable from a UX pov. 'Capability' is a poor gauge of viability.

A head-on example is file management. For better or worse, Windows--following DOS tradition--has an extremely simplistic approach to arranging files across various drives. Each partition of each drive is assigned a top-level label that's been easy to find for over 25 years. Linux, and Unix-style OSes in general, have a much harsher learning curve to navigating storage. The root (/) doesn't fall into an easily visualized, human-friendly structure. The tree is inexplicably literal and virtual and relational in no apparent pattern to the newcomer. Desktops have gone to great lengths to hide everything behind a combination of libraries and--as if an admission of what the top level SHOULD be--drives and their partitions.

Recorded history shows a time when there was a movement to evolve *nix file management to something that could truly compete with DOS's simplicity, just to have the effort shunned and shelved. Whatever reasons were behind the rejection, the effect has undeniably been years of frustration and annoyance at an OS that seems obsessed with unnecessary complexity and apocryphal design.

File management doesn't irritate anyone on Android thanks to the fact that, out of the box, file management is from a simple directory structure within each mount point, no different from Windows, never exposing a user to the nightmare lurking at /.

The majority of people that pedal that BS about Linux and the year of the desktop are the haters. Most actual Linux users really don't care if Linux becomes the favoured desktop OS. Whether it's #1 or not, we're happy with our PCs running our OS of choice.

It's not so much that Linux users "don't care" if Linux dominates the desktop. Linux users believe it *already* dominates exactly what it needs to. The desktop is a triviality to them--a commodity for consumers. Toys for people who don't do "real" work. This perspective allows them to believe that, simply by using Linux, they are a member of an elite few who "get it".

Sure, none of that might actually be true, but if you're okay with speaking for a whole group of people, I might as well play along, yeah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am using my linux right now its my full time work machine :D JAVA, PHP, kind of C# D: ect linux is the way forward sadly I have to keep a back up windows machine for any heavy windows limited programs wine just wont do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I use linux as my main os and i do not have windows on there at all

the only time i use windows is at work and thats because they wont run anything else

I have been using linux 100% since March this year

Maybe if you need to use different forums to do the simplest of tasks on Linux then maybe you should be asking yourself "why the hell am i using this at all"

My dad is not very computer literate he used Windows at work for years and years and even he manages to use Ubuntu to do the stuff he wants so it cant be that hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I see. You are happy with your PC running Linux. Good for you. I guess you wouldn't be much happier with a much larger software library of professional-grade software. Or UI that is actually designed, not thrown together by developers who think they know design. Or play video games. Or have first-grade graphic drivers, etc. Guess what, until Linux becomes relevant, or "favoured", it would be stuck in this horrible state of bad UI and ugly ugly software.

Do yourself and everyone on Neowin a favour a delete your account please, I cannot for the love of god figure why you'd make such idiotic comments other than trying to look as if you know something. As for Linux, use it if you want to for what you want, just don't harp on and on and b*tch continuously, you aren't entitled to sqat..... jesus the level of ignorance on Neowin is starting to irritate me :crazy:

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Tried to switch to linux many times and played with a lot of live cds and never managed to switch. Mainly because a simple reason that I'm just too good with Windows and to achieve something that's not possible on Windows, you need to put time into learning dozens of commands; something that I have no time for. And when I think about it, there's nothing that I need from Linux that I can't achieve on Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I see. You are happy with your PC running Linux. Good for you. I guess you wouldn't be much happier with a much larger software library of professional-grade software. Or UI that is actually designed, not thrown together by developers who think they know design. Or play video games. Or have first-grade graphic drivers, etc. Guess what, until Linux becomes relevant, or "favoured", it would be stuck in this horrible state of bad UI and ugly ugly software.

Okay, fair point. However, this fact is also true of any operating system. Macs were, for a long time (still?) the go to desktop for creative designers for their good media editing software. Adobe favoured Mac OS over Windows for many years, and this shows in the UI designs in the likes of Photoshop. I'm a professional software developer, and most of my home/work projects can be done on either Windows or Linux. This might not be the case for many people, but it is for me, which is why I use Linux.

FWIW, I think you're concept of "bad UI and ugly ugly software" in Linux is outdated. Check out the Linux desktops threads and the likes of new Ubuntu or Elementary OS for a better picture of modern Linux. Things are much more pleasing to the eye these days.

I think I was a little hyperbolic with this statement. What I should have said was:

"Many of the people that I know who use Linux on a regular basis find it to be a perfectly viable operating system, and they do not really seek it to be the #1 operating system. The fact that it works for them is enough. The majority of people I hear/read making statements like "2013 will be the year of Linux on the desktop" are the clueless fanatics, or the haters whose only argument against Linux is that it has a minor market share".

For most people, 'capable' isn't enough. As an analogy: yes, many Android handsets are capable of having a full, clean install of the latest releases of Android, but the process is absolutely unacceptable from a UX pov. 'Capability' is a poor gauge of viability.

A head-on example is file management. For better or worse, Windows--following DOS tradition--has an extremely simplistic approach to arranging files across various drives. Each partition of each drive is assigned a top-level label that's been easy to find for over 25 years. Linux, and Unix-style OSes in general, have a much harsher learning curve to navigating storage. The root (/) doesn't fall into an easily visualized, human-friendly structure. The tree is inexplicably literal and virtual and relational in no apparent pattern to the newcomer. Desktops have gone to great lengths to hide everything behind a combination of libraries and--as if an admission of what the top level SHOULD be--drives and their partitions.

Recorded history shows a time when there was a movement to evolve *nix file management to something that could truly compete with DOS's simplicity, just to have the effort shunned and shelved. Whatever reasons were behind the rejection, the effect has undeniably been years of frustration and annoyance at an OS that seems obsessed with unnecessary complexity and apocryphal design.

File management doesn't irritate anyone on Android thanks to the fact that, out of the box, file management is from a simple directory structure within each mount point, no different from Windows, never exposing a user to the nightmare lurking at /.

To carry with your example, as I replied to Dr_Asik, the Unix file system is a philosophical choice. Personally, I mostly prefer it to a Windows file system. The way a Unix system mounts drives allows me to have an entire directory as a separate partition. So this means that I can (and do) have my /home directory (Unix equivalent to C:\Users) on a different drive. This means that I can reinstall my entire OS, and at the end simply remount the /home partition and get all my files and settings back. There are rough hacks to do similar things in Windows, but the results are uncomparable to simply mounting a drive inside a folder.

The Unix directory structure stems from the idea that very little can be assumed about the state of the system. It's a file system that scales from single user machines right to thin clients and dumb terminals. This is a disadvantage on the desktop because, as you rightly said, it complicates things, and it results in having to search different directories for files that should be kept together. I find the likes of /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin to be an annoyance, why are there four directories for binaries? But then at the same time, how is Windows any better? We already have two directories for Program Files, and to make things worse, it's possible to install a 64-bit application into Program Files (x86) (and vice versa) without issue!

Peripheral media does pose a problem for the Unix-style abstract file system, although most distros have this solved. Most (all?) Linux equivalents to Explorer can see external storage just fine as devices that are mounted in the /media directory (or in the case for Arch /run/media/Majesticmerc), this still isn't as easy to use as the Windows C/D/E/etc, but it's largely a solved problem these days.

If we're getting into a discussion on the specific flaws of file system structure though, what about the cluster**** that is Windows application settings? First you have to determine if settings are kept in the registry or a file. If it's in the registry, where abouts? HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE? HKEY_CURRENT_USER? What about if it's a file. It could be in: C:\ProgramData, C:\Users\Me\AppData\Local, C:\Users\Me\AppData\LocalLow, C:\Users\Me\AppData\Roaming, C:\Program Files\ApplicationName\, etc, etc. Conversely, in Linux, config files are either kept in /home/me, home/me/.config, or home/me/.ApplicationName; that's it. Oh, and /etc for system-wide configuration.

It's funny that you should mention Android, as the Android File system is a complete mess as it stands. It's one of my biggest criticisms against the platform. It's a completely arbitrary mess. I can very rarely find something in there without using a search tool. My phone keeps it's photos in ~/mnt/DCIM/MEDIA100, and my ~/mnt/DCIM/Camera folder remains empty. Incidentally, the only reason the Android filesystem can work the way it does is because of the way that Unix filesystems can be mounted arbitrarily. Android users are locked out of the system root directory (/), and everything actually happens in the pre-installed user's home directory. External SD cards are actually mounted as directories inside your home folder. This is why all the great Android mods require rooting, in order to gain access to the system root partition and overwrite system files.

All that said though, the way people choose to perceive a file system is very much a matter of taste. the Unix filesystem carries a lot of legacy crud as baggage, but at the same time much of the filesystem makes a lot of sense once you realise what directories files are kept in, and more importantly, it's consistent.

That is of course only my opinion, and you are free to disagree :).

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I run Linux on my netbook. But I can't play Skyrim on it (Linux, not the netbook) and since we don't have TV we stream Netflix and amazon, and I cannot do that on Linux either. Otherwise I would definitely use it as a primary OS... since everything else I need to do I CAN do on Linux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I see. You are happy with your PC running Linux. Good for you. I guess you wouldn't be much happier with a much larger software library of professional-grade software.

I use Monodevelop, and QTCreator.. they feel professional grade to me. Thunderbird is an awesome mail client that I can skin to match my theme. Everything I want I can find.

Or UI that is actually designed, not thrown together by developers who think they know design.

Hmm.. my Arch linux install looks 1000x better than the **** that "the actual designers" made Windows 8 look like.

Or play video games. Or have first-grade graphic drivers, etc. Guess what, until Linux becomes relevant, or "favoured", it would be stuck in this horrible state of bad UI and ugly ugly software.

Right, Linux = NO VIDEO GAMES.. Steam doesn't run on it, Nvidia and ATI Didn't make any drivers, No one has ever written their own drivers, no video games will run at all like.. not even pong. /s

Get over yourself.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Really, guys, if you want to bitch about Windows being better than Linux, get the **** out of here. This was not a comparison between the two. It is my two cents.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Linux = NO VIDEO GAMES.. Steam doesn't run on it

Why the hell do all Linux users now think that Steam means that all interessting games will run on Linux?

Guess what: I don't use Steam, I don't even consider to buy games that depend on Steam!

So if you take Steam out of the equation what's the story on professional games for Linux again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Really, guys, if you want to bitch about Windows being better than Linux, get the **** out of here. This was not a comparison between the two. It is my two cents.

Umm, you started it

Quote from OP

------

Hey guys, it's very odd to me. I've been 100% on Ubuntu (12.10 x64) for 2 months straight and never looked back to Windows 7. Well, except to help my Mom on her computer.

Everything just... works. While I had a few problems along the way, I broke through them. Help is there, all you need to do is look for it.

Oddly enough, my Dad was intrigued by it as well. I put it on his laptop a few months ago, and he loves it. He wants it on his desktop, too.

Yeah, you get the people who say, "Why switch?", "Linux isn't compatible", "It looks ugly". With a little know how, you can do anything in Linux, in some cases more, than you can do in Windows.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Do yourself and everyone on Neowin a favour a delete your account please, I cannot for the love of god figure why you'd make such idiotic comments other than trying to look as if you know something. As for Linux, use it if you want to for what you want, just don't harp on and on and b*tch continuously, you aren't entitled to sqat..... jesus the level of ignorance on Neowin is starting to irritate me :crazy:

Since you are intolerable of opinions that might not fit your world view, how about you disconnect you network cable? The internet seems to be full of such opinions. While you are at it, recompile your kernel.

I use Monodevelop, and QTCreator.. they feel professional grade to me. Thunderbird is an awesome mail client that I can skin to match my theme. Everything I want I can find.

Hmm.. my Arch linux install looks 1000x better than the **** that "the actual designers" made Windows 8 look like.

Right, Linux = NO VIDEO GAMES.. Steam doesn't run on it, Nvidia and ATI Didn't make any drivers, No one has ever written their own drivers, no video games will run at all like.. not even pong. /s

Get over yourself.

Typical zealot response. And I am sure GIMP is a perfectly functional replacement for Photoshop. And OpenOffice is as powerful as Microsoft Office. :laugh:

Oh right, Steam on Linux hahaha. How many games are there for Linux on that? (Or on Mac, for that matter.)

Linux AMD and nVidia drivers are abysmal. Horrible. Have to fallback to the opensource crap, which is even worse.

Windows 8 is atrocious. I agree. But that has 1% marketshare (more than Linux). On the other hand, Windows 7 has a vast library of top quality software, much more consistent and visually pleasing than most Linux software. Who cares how Metro looks. It is dead in the water. Windows 3.11 is more pleasing than Windows 8 Metro.

Do yourself a favor, open your eyes. You like Linux and that is fine. There is plenty to like. But criticism is criticism, and accepting it can only improve the situation, not worsen it.

Okay, fair point. However, this fact is also true of any operating system. Macs were, for a long time (still?) the go to desktop for creative designers for their good media editing software. Adobe favoured Mac OS over Windows for many years, and this shows in the UI designs in the likes of Photoshop. I'm a professional software developer, and most of my home/work projects can be done on either Windows or Linux. This might not be the case for many people, but it is for me, which is why I use Linux.

FWIW, I think you're concept of "bad UI and ugly ugly software" in Linux is outdated. Check out the Linux desktops threads and the likes of new Ubuntu or Elementary OS for a better picture of modern Linux. Things are much more pleasing to the eye these days.

I think I was a little hyperbolic with this statement. What I should have said was:

"Many of the people that I know who use Linux on a regular basis find it to be a perfectly viable operating system, and they do not really seek it to be the #1 operating system. The fact that it works for them is enough. The majority of people I hear/read making statements like "2013 will be the year of Linux on the desktop" are the clueless fanatics, or the haters whose only argument against Linux is that it has a minor market share".

I install every Ubuntu release in a VM. I don't bother with others, as Ubuntu is the most visually consistent of the major distributions. I have been doing so since 2009. I agree that there is a huge improvement, but on the large scale, when compared to Windows or especially OS X, there is still a long long way to go. I also dislike the "touch-friendly" direction that Ubuntu is taking, but that is for another discussion. Generally, I agree that an Ubuntu install out of the box looks well.

But the problem isn't how the desktop looks 1 min after install. The problem is the software. For example, take a look at the Elementary OS "Discover" page: http://elementaryos..../when-its-ready

Starts well, very OS X like (too much, if I might add). Now scroll down. Notice the screenshot of "Files". Notice how inconsistent it is. Here lies the problem. There is no consistency in the software. Everything looks completely different. There are no accepted human interface guidelines, and each piece of software adheres to different rules, different visual cues, different visual art. Often, it is the developers that decide how the software should look, and they do a ****-poor job at it. I am a developer, I know. :laugh:

I will analogue this to the Windows world. Have you ever run a Java app on Windows? Know how different it feels, because it isn't using native widgets, doesn't follow HIG (it has to please cross-platform users). That's how Linux software feels to me. But it's not just one app, it's almost every.

Now, add to that the lack of basic missing features, such as ****-poor font selection, lack of advanced typography (for example, ligature support was added only recently to the office suites, and is still very unstable), etc. make the overall package very unattractive. And these are important aspects. I know, you are a developer (I am too), your first instinct is to roll your eyes at things such as fonts, colors, consistency. But if you stop for a few moments and think about it, you will see this is at the utmost importance. More so than what kernel is underneath, what GNOME/xfce build number is installed, etc.

Really, I do not see why people fear criticism so much, and why zealots pop blood vessels every time someone posts a criticism of Linux. My pointing out of shortcomings are not with the intention to mock, but of wanting things to improve.

Cheers.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Umm, you started it

...

There's one teenie tiny letter in there...

I

It is how I never looked back. Not how you perceive it. If you hate Linux because it can't do this or that, I'm happy for you.

I thought that "You can do anything in Linux, in some cases more, than you can do in Windows." was like common knowledge. I should have said most anything. Yes, some software can only be run in Windows. It's not a hidden fact. Try doing SSH in Windows. Yes, it can be done, but not natively. Can you install 20 applications with one click? Try running EX4 in Windows, out of the box.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There's one teenie tiny letter in there...

I

It is how I never looked back. Not how you perceive it. If you hate Linux because it can't do this or that, I'm happy for you.

I thought that "You can do anything in Linux, in some cases more, than you can do in Windows." was like common knowledge. I should have said most anything. Yes, some software can only be run in Windows. It's not a hidden fact. Try doing SSH in Windows. Yes, it can be done, but not natively. Can you install 20 applications with one click? Try running EX4 in Windows, out of the box.

You should already know, if you say anything even vaguely comparing two OSs, especially Linux and Windows, your thread is going to turn into an OS flame war

I thought that was common knowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I install every Ubuntu release in a VM. I don't bother with others, as Ubuntu is the most visually consistent of the major distributions. I have been doing so since 2009. I agree that there is a huge improvement, but on the large scale, when compared to Windows or especially OS X, there is still a long long way to go. I also dislike the "touch-friendly" direction that Ubuntu is taking, but that is for another discussion. Generally, I agree that an Ubuntu install out of the box looks well.

But the problem isn't how the desktop looks 1 min after install. The problem is the software. For example, take a look at the Elementary OS "Discover" page: http://elementaryos..../when-its-ready

Starts well, very OS X like (too much, if I might add). Now scroll down. Notice the screenshot of "Files". Notice how inconsistent it is. Here lies the problem. There is no consistency in the software. Everything looks completely different. There are no accepted human interface guidelines, and each piece of software adheres to different rules, different visual cues, different visual art. Often, it is the developers that decide how the software should look, and they do a ****-poor job at it. I am a developer, I know. :laugh:

I will analogue this to the Windows world. Have you ever run a Java app on Windows? Know how different it feels, because it isn't using native widgets, doesn't follow HIG (it has to please cross-platform users). That's how Linux software feels to me. But it's not just one app, it's almost every.

Now, add to that the lack of basic missing features, such as ****-poor font selection, lack of advanced typography (for example, ligature support was added only recently to the office suites, and is still very unstable), etc. make the overall package very unattractive. And these are important aspects. I know, you are a developer (I am too), your first instinct is to roll your eyes at things such as fonts, colors, consistency. But if you stop for a few moments and think about it, you will see this is at the utmost importance. More so than what kernel is underneath, what GNOME/xfce build number is installed, etc.

Really, I do not see why people fear criticism so much, and why zealots pop blood vessels every time someone posts a criticism of Linux. My pointing out of shortcomings are not with the intention to mock, but of wanting things to improve.

Cheers.

Fair point again, I don't really think it's fair to say that Linux GUIs are all mega ugly though. Maybe it's just the software I've got installed, but I wouldn't call any of them hideously bad except Netbeans, which, funnily enough, is a Java application. I do tend towards GTK applications over anything else though, so I guess it all just comes okay. Linux's problem with GUIs is the fact that the Gnome and KDE teams both decided to back different GUI Toolkits. Gnome went with GTK, and KDE went with Qt. The end result is that we end up with a mash of differently styled GUIs. Add in the likes of TK, JavaFX, Mono, etc and it all goes downhill from there The beauty of choice in this case is also a disadvantage.

Then again, I guess maybe I just don't notice this stuff so much?

I think Linux font selection is getting better, you just have to know what to look for because the defaults for most distros are cack. Droid sans looks good on XFCE, and the new Adobe Source Sans does too, but mostly I'll just install the Windows 7 fonts when I get chance :laugh:.

I also agree that developers can't design worth a damn. Every time I try, I get stressed out because I can't translate what's in my head onto the screen, and then when I can, it's because I want to "try something new", which just ****es a bunch of people off :p

There's one teenie tiny letter in there...

I

It is how I never looked back. Not how you perceive it. If you hate Linux because it can't do this or that, I'm happy for you.

I thought that "You can do anything in Linux, in some cases more, than you can do in Windows." was like common knowledge. I should have said most anything. Yes, some software can only be run in Windows. It's not a hidden fact. Try doing SSH in Windows. Yes, it can be done, but not natively. Can you install 20 applications with one click? Try running EX4 in Windows, out of the box.

Sure it's detracted past your original post, but it's a civil discussion on why other people chose Linux (or didn't), I don't see any OS trolling here per se. Be proud that you created a decent and thought provoking topic :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would like to see many areas of Linux modernized when it comes to multimedia.

I know a lot of people are going to hate me for this..

1) Get rid of X windows completely (do a complete rewrite) yes I saw Wayland, but it needs more effort behind it.

2) Get rid of the horrible sound drivers and put something in that is low latency to begin with.

3) Unify code bases, and UI (don't have the programmers create the UI either, get people that are UI experts in the field)

When I use Linux, very little of it feels really that innovative. I know Unity is trying to build out the type interface like Ubuntu, but what about other aspects without typing.

I think when security is as good as Unix that is fine, but when the OS is too much like Unix, that isn't fine. Innovate and bring something new or go home. This is how I feel.

I don't mean 12 different versions of UI, that is not working together towards a common goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Since you are intolerable of opinions that might not fit your world view, how about you disconnect you network cable? The internet seems to be full of such opinions. While you are at it, recompile your kernel.

Typical zealot response. And I am sure GIMP is a perfectly functional replacement for Photoshop. And OpenOffice is as powerful as Microsoft Office. :laugh:

Oh right, Steam on Linux hahaha. How many games are there for Linux on that? (Or on Mac, for that matter.)

Linux AMD and nVidia drivers are abysmal. Horrible. Have to fallback to the opensource crap, which is even worse.

Windows 8 is atrocious. I agree. But that has 1% marketshare (more than Linux). On the other hand, Windows 7 has a vast library of top quality software, much more consistent and visually pleasing than most Linux software. Who cares how Metro looks. It is dead in the water. Windows 3.11 is more pleasing than Windows 8 Metro.

Do yourself a favor, open your eyes. You like Linux and that is fine. There is plenty to like. But criticism is criticism, and accepting it can only improve the situation, not worsen it.

I install every Ubuntu release in a VM. I don't bother with others, as Ubuntu is the most visually consistent of the major distributions. I have been doing so since 2009. I agree that there is a huge improvement, but on the large scale, when compared to Windows or especially OS X, there is still a long long way to go. I also dislike the "touch-friendly" direction that Ubuntu is taking, but that is for another discussion. Generally, I agree that an Ubuntu install out of the box looks well.

But the problem isn't how the desktop looks 1 min after install. The problem is the software. For example, take a look at the Elementary OS "Discover" page: http://elementaryos..../when-its-ready

Starts well, very OS X like (too much, if I might add). Now scroll down. Notice the screenshot of "Files". Notice how inconsistent it is. Here lies the problem. There is no consistency in the software. Everything looks completely different. There are no accepted human interface guidelines, and each piece of software adheres to different rules, different visual cues, different visual art. Often, it is the developers that decide how the software should look, and they do a ****-poor job at it. I am a developer, I know. :laugh:

I will analogue this to the Windows world. Have you ever run a Java app on Windows? Know how different it feels, because it isn't using native widgets, doesn't follow HIG (it has to please cross-platform users). That's how Linux software feels to me. But it's not just one app, it's almost every.

Now, add to that the lack of basic missing features, such as ****-poor font selection, lack of advanced typography (for example, ligature support was added only recently to the office suites, and is still very unstable), etc. make the overall package very unattractive. And these are important aspects. I know, you are a developer (I am too), your first instinct is to roll your eyes at things such as fonts, colors, consistency. But if you stop for a few moments and think about it, you will see this is at the utmost importance. More so than what kernel is underneath, what GNOME/xfce build number is installed, etc.

Really, I do not see why people fear criticism so much, and why zealots pop blood vessels every time someone posts a criticism of Linux. My pointing out of shortcomings are not with the intention to mock, but of wanting things to improve.

Cheers.

Not going to pick your posts apart too much--

Gaming on LInux --

http://en.wikipedia....OpenGL_programs

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Linux_gaming

Now you talk about the font rendering- Now your problem may be that you are running it in a VM which can't use a propitiatory driver. I would suggest installing Linux through Wubi to have a compressed image install where you will then be able to install Propitiatory Drivers.

The reason I suggest using Wubi is so that after a month you can easily remove it leaving your Windows Untouched through the Programs and Features.

I personally use Linux more than Windows because I can create my own themes when I choose too and am not STUCK with Windows ones or have to pay some things like stardock to have a replacement.

With a few clicks and I can change from KDE to Gnome - Cinnamon or LXDE just to name a few.

I run Ubuntu and if you look at my screenshot it is not the "Touch Friendly" as you describe.

I have no issues you describe about the scroll for me it is smooth both on my Old laptop and My newer desktop.

Actually to me Elementary looks horrid.

But then again I have not made the 100% switch either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not going to pick your posts apart too much--

Gaming on LInux --

http://en.wikipedia....OpenGL_programs

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Linux_gaming

Now you talk about the font rendering- Now your problem may be that you are running it in a VM which can't use a propitiatory driver. I would suggest installing Linux through Wubi to have a compressed image install where you will then be able to install Propitiatory Drivers.

The reason I suggest using Wubi is so that after a month you can easily remove it leaving your Windows Untouched through the Programs and Features.

I personally use Linux more than Windows because I can create my own themes when I choose too and am not STUCK with Windows ones or have to pay some things like stardock to have a replacement.

With a few clicks and I can change from KDE to Gnome - Cinnamon or LXDE just to name a few.

I run Ubuntu and if you look at my screenshot it is not the "Touch Friendly" as you describe.

I have no issues you describe about the scroll for me it is smooth both on my Old laptop and My newer desktop.

Actually to me Elementary looks horrid.

But then again I have not made the 100% switch either.

I did not mean font smoothing. That works and looks fine. I mean actual "advanced" font rendering, such as font kerning, contextual ligatures, glyph variants, etc. This has nothing to do with drivers, but the actual font renderer.

Regarding Linux gaming, you do not need to convince me that it is possible to game. I know. But native Linux games are very few and far between. The reason for this is very small market share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wow relax guys! I use many many many operating systems, UNIX based, Linux based, Windows and OSX (couple of low level micro controller ones as well :p). You cannot argue that Linux operating systems are better than Windows, you just can't. I'm a great fan of linux and have everything from Backtrack 5R3 to Ubuntu 12.10 but to do anything, you have to be pretty savvy. I have to hit up the CLI-every time, editing configs-all the time, getting kernel panics from corrupt drivers/dodgy memory writes- all the time. Windows made the PC popular because it was easy to use and everything worked- hardware and software. If you are on;y going on Facebook and that is all you do, then yeah you can use Linux. Want to manage databases, write up documents/spreadsheets/presentations/schematics/technical diagrams then you're stuck with Windows. Want to edit videos/music or anything else then windows( or maybe OSX)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There's one teenie tiny letter in there...

I

It is how I never looked back. Not how you perceive it. If you hate Linux because it can't do this or that, I'm happy for you.

I thought that "You can do anything in Linux, in some cases more, than you can do in Windows." was like common knowledge. I should have said most anything. Yes, some software can only be run in Windows. It's not a hidden fact. Try doing SSH in Windows. Yes, it can be done, but not natively. Can you install 20 applications with one click? Try running EX4 in Windows, out of the box.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "natively". or you don't understand how linux actually works. either way...

as for steam and gaming and open GL.

1: steam coming to linux does not mean games will be coming to linux, and for those saying games used to be both DX and OGL. well sorry to burst your bubbles, but just because a game is OGL doesn't make it easy to port to Linux. you still have all the actual hard work to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1: steam coming to linux does not mean games will be coming to linux, and for those saying games used to be both DX and OGL. well sorry to burst your bubbles, but just because a game is OGL doesn't make it easy to port to Linux. you still have all the actual hard work to do.

And even if a game is OGL and easy to port, does not mean that publishers would actually port games and support them. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wow relax guys! I use many many many operating systems, UNIX based, Linux based, Windows and OSX (couple of low level micro controller ones as well :p). You cannot argue that Linux operating systems are better than Windows, you just can't. I'm a great fan of linux and have everything from Backtrack 5R3 to Ubuntu 12.10 but to do anything, you have to be pretty savvy. I have to hit up the CLI-every time, editing configs-all the time, getting kernel panics from corrupt drivers/dodgy memory writes- all the time. Windows made the PC popular because it was easy to use and everything worked- hardware and software. If you are on;y going on Facebook and that is all you do, then yeah you can use Linux. Want to manage databases, write up documents/spreadsheets/presentations/schematics/technical diagrams then you're stuck with Windows. Want to edit videos/music or anything else then windows( or maybe OSX)

I love Linux and it took me a long time to finally admit that there is a lot of great software that is available for Windows that you can't get for Linux. And basically without apps you are sunk.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "natively". or you don't understand how linux actually works. either way...

na

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.