Linux vs Windows

[sanctified Veteran]

Don't get me wrong, I am not Anti-FOSS. I just don't think it is magically better than paid software with resources

 

Proprietary software is also not magically better just because it has resources. I removed your bit about proper development tools and testing because, honestly, you cant compare both dynamics. There are amazing open dev tools and the community testing is unparalleled.

 

I concede that nothing tops Office, the same with some tools like Photoshop. Does not mean every FOSS alternative is crap. In fact some are heavily used and favored in professional environments, like Hollywood (Lightworks is massively used). In other fields, like science, GNU/Linux is almost the exclusive platform, specifically LaTex. Many print houses are favoring Scribus and Inkscape over InDesign and Illustrator, mainly because of the former's programmaticable options and their adherence to standards.

 

You cant dismiss FOSS as an alternative. You have the choice to ignore it, and I respect that, but don't say it's useless. In all honesty, it's the only ethical centered software movement today. Ethics matter.

[Yogurtmaster]

Proprietary software is also not magically better just because it has resources. I removed your bit about proper development tools and testing because, honestly, you cant compare both dynamics. There are amazing open dev tools and the community testing is unparalleled.

 

I concede that nothing tops Office, the same with some tools like Photoshop. Does not mean every FOSS alternative is crap. In fact some are heavily used and favored in professional environments, like Hollywood (Lightworks is massively used). In other fields, like science, GNU/Linux is almost the exclusive platform, specifically LaTex. Many print houses are favoring Scribus and Inkscape over InDesign and Illustrator, mainly because of the former's programmaticable options and their adherence to standards.

 

You cant dismiss FOSS as an alternative. You have the choice to ignore it, and I respect that, but don't say it's useless. In all honesty, it's the only ethical centered software movement today. Ethics matter.

Most of the software that I have tried in Linux is rather poor. I am just going to be honest here. You have some bright spots like Asterisk/FreePBX and also PHP/Apache/MySQL and I love VirtualBox and MAME/DosBox. That stuff is great and GIMP/Inkscape is good too, but most of it is not great.

Most of it is either already on Windows already or it is very low quality compared to non FOSS alternatives. I am being honest. A lot of people on the Internet think FOSS is some magic bullet and that freedom of compiling source code is so great, but a lot if not most Linux guys have no idea how to code and add quality stuff to existing code.

Just because you have the freedom to modify code, doesn't mean that you have skills to improve that code.

Too many people think that FOSS is magic and it makes things more secure and better and that is just not true. That is a myth and a fantasy.

The reason why Linux is secure is because it has it's roots in a Unix Clone which by itself is more secure and also secure by obscurity.

FOSS to me is like saying isn't it great that you can build a car with car parts and give you the basic ability to create the most basic car by using the car parts, but it requires skill to put them together and make something meaningful.

[ViperAFK]

Most of the software that I have tried in Linux is rather poor. I am just going to be honest here. You have some bright spots like Asterisk/FreePBX and also PHP/Apache/MySQL and I love VirtualBox and MAME/DosBox. That stuff is great and GIMP/Inkscape is good too, but most of it is not great.

Most of it is either already on Windows already or it is very low quality compared to non FOSS alternatives. I am being honest. A lot of people on the Internet think FOSS is some magic bullet and that freedom of compiling source code is so great, but a lot if not most Linux guys have no idea how to code and add quality stuff to existing code.

Just because you have the freedom to modify code, doesn't mean that you have skills to improve that code.

Too many people think that FOSS is magic and it makes things more secure and better and that is just not true. That is a myth and a fantasy.

The reason why Linux is secure is because it has it's roots in a Unix Clone which by itself is more secure and also secure by obscurity.

FOSS to me is like saying isn't it great that you can build a car with car parts and give you the basic ability to create the most basic car by using the car parts, but it requires skill to put them together and make something meaningful.

There are plenty of high quality FOSS programs and tons of very skilled FOSS developers., this idea that FOSS software is "generally low quality" and FOSS developers "Don't know how to code" is pure FUD.

 

You are correct that open source is not some "magic bullet", but the rest of the FUD you keep trying to peddle about open-source is just ridiculous stereotyping.

[ViperAFK]

 

 

If I could run Lightroom without any issues on Linux I'd make the switch. It's the only piece of software that isn't available (or has alternatives) for Linux and it's something I really, really need.

 

 

Have you tried darktable as an alternative to lightroom? http://www.darktable.org/

 

I've heard good things about it.

[Yogurtmaster]

There are plenty of high quality FOSS programs and tons of very skilled FOSS developers., this idea that FOSS software is "generally low quality" and FOSS developers "Don't know how to code" is pure FUD.

 

You are correct that open source is not some "magic bullet", but the rest of the FUD you keep trying to peddle about open-source is just ridiculous stereotyping.

You act like I have never run any software on Linux. It's my opinion and I am telling things from my view point. I just don't see a lot of high quality software on Linux and most of it that is quality has a Windows version.

I like Linux because I can set up a server and experiment with things, but it's not a replacement for other OSes such as Mac or Windows for software.

[sanctified Veteran]

Have you tried darktable as an alternative to lightroom? http://www.darktable.org/

 

I've heard good things about it.

 

The problem is that right now no RAW solution support new cameras that get rid of low pass filters and new RGB sensors.

 

Right now there's no linux raw manager that supports my Fujifilm x100s

[fobban]

Yes, but AFAIK, you can only run Linux Steam on Ubuntu or Debian. Good luck trying to get that on Arch.

Steam works great on Arch. It's in the official repositories and the games I've tried works great (World of Goo, Killing Floor, Dota 2, CS:S and L4D2). L4D2 has some annoying bugs though. I'm having most problems with AMD's catalyst drivers.

[Ambroos]

Have you tried darktable as an alternative to lightroom? http://www.darktable.org/

 

I've heard good things about it.

Yeah, I tried it. My camera is perfectly supported in RAW and the rendering looks fine, but the interface just feels very limited and without things like the adjustment brush (to make localized edits) it's just not worth it for me. Lightroom is incredibly well-made and functional, I think it'll be very hard for FOSS software to come close to it. It's pretty much a Photoshop + Camera RAW front-end.

[Som]

Wrong.

 

IBM brought computers to the main stream. Apple and Commodore made them easy to use. Unix made them robust.

 

Billy stole DOS and and ran away with it.

 

not what I meant, what I meant was that windows brought computers to the average person.  We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasn't for it.  Most people will start with windows and move on from there...

[Mindovermaster Moderator]

not what I meant, what I meant was that windows brought computers to the average person.  We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasn't for it.  Most people will start with windows and move on from there...

 

Not true. I know some people who never used a computer, and are using Ubuntu right now.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Not true. I know some people who never used a computer, and are using Ubuntu right now.

They really need a tablet though.

[sanctified Veteran]

not what I meant, what I meant was that windows brought computers to the average person.  We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it wasn't for it.  Most people will start with windows and move on from there...

 

So, you're saying that before Windows the average person did not have a computer? This is what you're saying?

[adrynalyne]

So, you're saying that before Windows the average person did not have a computer? This is what you're saying?

Do you deny that?

 

Remember, "average" user.

Not true. I know some people who never used a computer, and are using Ubuntu right now.

The average person isn't using Ubuntu.

 

The average user is using Windows,  by sheer market share numbers alone.

[ViperAFK]

Do you deny that?

 

Remember, "average" user.

The average person isn't using Ubuntu.

 

The average user is using Windows,  by sheer market share numbers alone.

Yes, but that is because the average user just uses what their computer comes with, it does not mean that ubuntu is not user-friendly enough for an average user to use. 

[adrynalyne]

Yes, but that is because the average user just uses what their computer comes with, it does not mean that ubuntu is not user-friendly enough for an average user to use. 

I am just saying by sheer numbers alone, the statement the poster made was true.

 

As to whether it was the cause for it, of course not.  Falling prices and greater availability is what brought the PC to the average user.

[Mindovermaster Moderator]

I've even known some elderly people that hates Windows, asks their kids/grankids to put Ubuntu on. So, it is possible that average users like Ubuntu.

[adrynalyne]

I've even known some elderly people that hates Windows, asks their kids/grankids to put Ubuntu on. So, it is possible that average users like Ubuntu.

 

 If the average user used Ubuntu, then Windows wouldn't be on most desktop computers.

[COKid]

. Linux needs something that only they have that they can offer that's a compelling reason to switch besides ideological or FUD reasons.

 

Ideology means a great deal to some of us, but if you'd rather continue filling the coffers of the wealthy elite, suit yourself. In the words of Robert Frost, I have gone down the path less traveled, and it has made all the difference. I would much rather donate money, which I do, to an individual or small group of people working on an open-source project than to multi-billion dollar corporations whose main priority is their shareholders.

 

Honestly, before Windows 8, I had rarely considered switching to Linux. But now that I have made the leap, oh my god, I feel great! I'm running Debian Wheezy with the Xfce desktop. And sure, everyone has different needs when it comes to programs, but I have had no problem finding what I need that allows me to get things done.

 

I didn't make the move to Linux because of the cost. As I said, I donate freely to developers. No, for me, it just felt "right". The right time, the right way, and for the right reasons. I wish I would have opened my mind and tried Linux years earlier, instead of being simply a dollar sign to Microsoft, Adobe, etc.

 

Computing is fun again. :)

[ViperAFK]

 If the average user used Ubuntu, then Windows wouldn't be on most desktop computers.

You keep posting this same logical fallacy over and over again.

 

Yes, most users run windows, therefore the "average user" is a windows user. No one is debating this.

 

However we are talking about someone with an "average" amount of computer literacy, equal to that of your average windows user, and saying that ubuntu/linux can certainly be user friendly enough for an "average" user to use, and that there are indeed "average users" out there that do in fact use linux.

 

Trying to say that "windows is on most computers, therefore if another OS was as user friendly as windows then it would be the one on most computers" is just silly. Windows is on most computers because microsoft had a monopoly in this area for many years, and it just became the "de-facto" standard. It is very hard to dethrone a platform that is so encumbered as the "de-facto" standard. I've got nothing against windows and I do think it is a user-friendly OS, and do still use it on one of my computers.

 

Mac OSX also has far less users than windows, and I don't think anyone would argue that an average user cannot use or that they don't use OSX.

[Mindovermaster Moderator]

Thanks, Viper. What he said.

[soldier1st]

The thing is in a few days linux will screw up and something will become corrupt and take you ages to sort. Windows however will keep on chugging away :)

Do you have any proof of that? i've installed Linux Mint 13 on 2 ibm thinkpad T43's in april of this year and they are still runnin fine, i know some1 who has been running Ubuntu 10.04 forever and it still runs great from what i've seen.

[adrynalyne]

You keep posting this same logical fallacy over and over again.

 

Yes, most users run windows, therefore the "average user" is a windows user. No one is debating this.

 

However we are talking about someone with an "average" amount of computer literacy, equal to that of your average windows user, and saying that ubuntu/linux can certainly be user friendly enough for an "average" user to use, and that there are indeed "average users" out there that do in fact use linux.

 

Trying to say that "windows is on most computers, therefore if another OS was as user friendly as windows then it would be the one on most computers" is just silly. Windows is on most computers because microsoft had a monopoly in this area for many years, and it just became the "de-facto" standard. It is very hard to dethrone a platform that is so encumbered as the "de-facto" standard. I've got nothing against windows and I do think it is a user-friendly OS, and do still use it on one of my computers.

 

Mac OSX also has far less users than windows, and I don't think anyone would argue that an average user cannot use or that they don't use OSX.

Apparently you misunderstood me.

 

I never stated anything about the ease of use or user friendliness of Ubuntu.

 

What I did say is that if the average user was using Ubuntu, then Windows wouldn't be as popular today.  Instead, Ubuntu would be.

 

User friendliness was not part of my discussion.

 

It can accurately be said that:

The average user does not use GNU/Linux.

The average user does not use OS X.

The average user does not build their own PC.

 

 

In this particular conversation, average can be replaced with the word typical.  Typical is going to be what the norm is.  The norm is windows-based PCs.  That is because of a near monopoly, true.  However, I was never discussing the cause of it.  I certainly never mentioned user friendliness anywhere.

[Max Norris]

Ideology means a great deal to some of us, but if you'd rather continue filling the coffers of the wealthy elite, suit yourself.

For me it has absolutely nothing to do with "filling coffers" or as I mentioned (and you plainly demonstrated) ideologies. I go with what works for what I need it to do. If it's free. Great. If I find a closed source solution that's even better, whatever, so much the better. If the company that makes it has to sacrifice kittens in a demonic ritual to build it and the end result is better than the FOSS alternatives, sucks to be a kitten then. Snarky aside, in the real world people like to get paid for their work. I have absolutely no problems paying for a quality product, and I get the same in return for my work. A smug sense of self satisfaction doesn't pay the bills, and frankly I have better things to do than perpetually tinker around to get a desktop going, I'll take "it just works" 100% of the time.

Hey, if that's your motivation, by all means knock yourself out. Just don't expect everybody to fall in line with you... I tell the door to door bible thumpers the same thing. Do whatever, just don't shove it down peoples throats.

And besides, I thought I mentioned it a few pages back, but you don't need to throw the sales pitch at me. I've been using Unix long before Linus got some neat ideas from Minix and Stallman started "the movement", and have been using Linux on a daily basis for well over a decade... but thanks. Feel free to travel your roads, some of us have to work in the real world.

[ViperAFK]

Apparently you misunderstood me.

 

I never stated anything about the ease of use or user friendliness of Ubuntu.

 

What I did say is that if the average user was using Ubuntu, then Windows wouldn't be as popular today.  Instead, Ubuntu would be.

 

User friendliness was not part of my discussion.

 

It can accurately be said that:

The average user does not use GNU/Linux.

The average user does not use OS X.

The average user does not build their own PC.

 

 

In this particular conversation, average can be replaced with the word typical.  Typical is going to be what the norm is.  The norm is windows-based PCs.  That is because of a near monopoly, true.  However, I was never discussing the cause of it.  I certainly never mentioned user friendliness anywhere.

No one in this thread thinks that the majority of users use ubuntu or linux. When someone says that an "average" user can (and some do) use ubuntu, what they are obviously referring to is user-friendliness, not that most users use ubuntu...

 

You were stating the obvious and being pedantic, which is why people misunderstood you.

[sanctified Veteran]

Do you deny that?

 

Remember, "average" user.

 

Yes, I deny that.

 

MILLIONS of very average users were already using Commodore 64 -to this date the best selling computer of all time-.