Pookster Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Check out the link below and tell me what you guys think. :woot: Why Linux Sucks as a Desktop OS By the way, this article is not my opinion. I just wanted to know if anyone felt the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph B Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 ...Your beating a bee hive with a stick right now buddy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureEdit Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 I could write the same thing about windows.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cork1958 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Ooh! Yes, he is, but I have to agree with the article myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt74441 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 ...Your beating a bee hive with a stick right now buddy... I was thinking the exact same thing. And after reading that article, that guy doesn't know what the hell hes talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 ...Your beating a bee hive with a stick right now buddy... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
area91 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 He is right though. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjordan2001 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 My rebutles to this article: On his problems: 1. I don't see Windows supporting ext3 or reiserfs or that many others besides fat32 and ntfs without 3rd party software. 2. This is more a problem with hardware manufacturers not supporting Linux. Most drivers are the product of reverse engineering. 3. Hotplug anyone? 4. I argue that you need to install stuff to make Windows usable too. And yet he brings up ntfs support again, they are still trying to reverse engineer it (for writing at least). I can't say I support Windows or Linux more than one or the other, but this article is biased. Linux and Windows both have their strong points, but his arguments really apply to Windows and Linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STV Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 I could write the same thing about windows.... actually, i dont think you cant. i can see why the author wrote this, as well as his "proof," but like always, linux still needs a lot of work before it can rival Windows on the Desktop/PC. STV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG-Cloud Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 ...Your beating a bee hive with a stick right now buddy... Priceless :)Seriously though, consider the bias. It's a VB site! :D Here's my rebuttal which I'll try to keep as objective as possible. Problem #1 (integration of drivers into system): His complaint about RH is quite distro specific. NTFS support in Linux *out of the box* is far better than Windows' support for filesystems other than FAT32/NTFS out of the box. While admittedly recompiling the kernel is not the most intuitive way to install drivers, you often can download binary modules in the form of rpms, or other package formats. Not too difficult, and about the same as scouring the net for a Win32 driver for a Linux filesystem and installing it. More (embedded, in the DE) documentation of this process could go a long way to helping Linux's usability #2: So, if you got a brand spanking new video card, you are pretty much stuck waiting for the next release. This is the case mostly when you just bought a new PC (which will most likely be loaded with windows). You install Linux on the second partition, but alas the install reverts to a generic video driver. Sucks for you. The author is obviously not familiar with the ATI and nVidia officially supported video card drivers (seperate from X, btw) #3: Excellent point, and it's being addressed. Case in point - robert love's work on gnome volume manager and its underlying counterparts with udev, etc. #4: Problem is again distro-specific. I don't see the complaint here, seeing as Windows comes with nothing but a barebones system and one has to spend a few hours post-install to download, install, and configure the programs. Conversely, many of the binary Linux distros (Mandrake, Redhat, etc etc) come with OpenOffice, IM, Gimp, web browser, file manager, etc etc with the default install. Digicam doesn't work? Download and install a driver, just like in windows. Many (but admittedly not all) digicams are supported in linux. I realize i didn't do a good job keeping this objective, although i did try :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
area91 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 they are still trying to reverse engineer it (for writing at least). Thats not illegal is it. I hope they do, so Microsoft can go after them big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STV Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 My rebutles to this article:On his problems: 1. I don't see Windows supporting ext3 or reiserfs or that many others besides fat32 and ntfs without 3rd party software. 2. This is more a problem with hardware manufacturers not supporting Linux. Most drivers are the product of reverse engineering. 3. Hotplug anyone? 4. I argue that you need to install stuff to make Windows usable too. And yet he brings up ntfs support again, they are still trying to reverse engineer it (for writing at least). I can't say I support Windows or Linux more than one or the other, but this article is biased. Linux and Windows both have their strong points, but his arguments really apply to Windows and Linux. 1) it doesnt really HAVE to at this point. 2) i agree. 4) that is why microsoft wants to bundle their apps. so it can be usable right out of the box. i have to strongly agree with your last paragraph. the guy is biased, and you can tell, just by reading the title. i do agree with some points, but in some place he looks like he is just "reaching" too much. STV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 2. This is more a problem with hardware manufacturers not supporting Linux. Most drivers are the product of reverse engineering. yea well thats the problem, because Linux has no chance to compete untill it has good drivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjordan2001 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 1) it doesnt really HAVE to at this point.2) i agree. 4) that is why microsoft wants to bundle their apps. so it can be usable right out of the box. i have to strongly agree with your last paragraph. the guy is biased, and you can tell, just by reading the title. i do agree with some points, but in some place he looks like he is just "reaching" too much. STV 1) Just like Linux doesn't really have to support NTFS, but they're trying to. 4) Linux distros are trying to do this too. I'm surprised he didn't go after that Linux can't run Windows executable files natively :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG-Cloud Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Thats not illegal is it. I hope they do, so Microsoft can go after them big time. That's not a very becoming point of view... it's like saying "I hope Micr0$h4ft gets another antitrust case so that they lose more $$$$ OMGOGMGMOGMWTFROTFLMAO!" or "I hope Windows has another critical security flaw so that every n00b running wind0z3 can get pwn3d!!!" Either way, it's taking delight in the misfortune of others. Not cool - linux is criticized for its zealots, but the windows ones seem to be just as bad. ;/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dessimat0r Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 . The obvious conclusion here is that Linux for whatever reason did not pass the grade. I have witnessed at least as many situations where a user buys/builds a rather expensive computer to run Windows only to have it formatted to serve as a Linux desktop. Strangely I don't draw the conclusion that Windows sucks as a desktop OS but rather that I know some people who would prefer to use Linux for reasons that I can only speculate at.RedHat 8 and 9 provide no ability to access WinXP NTFS volumes. Windows cannot read RieserFS, HFS+, UFS, XFS, BFS, etc. volumes - does that mean it sucks as a desktop OS? The only way a "new computer user or light Windows user" would have to access files on an NTFS volume would be if they were to pull apart two computer, slap the hard disk from one into the other then reboot - make sure it's connected properly (and troubleshoot problems any problems). Now a nice man (woman?) at linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net provides this ability. You can get MP3 encoders and DVD decoders for free too but they aren't paying the royalties to their patent holders so it isn't all-legit. Just because you _can_ do something doesn't mean that it's entirely legal, just because they aren't kicking down your door doesn't mean it is either. I'm sure most major Linux distributions have lawyers checking into things like this and that they know what they're doing. A couple more simple steps and voila - you can access your XP share. You don't need to be able to read/write NTFS drives to access an smbfs share. I don't know why someone who is actually qualified to write about the shortcomings of an OS would think that..unless they really aren't qualified after all. Users don't want to recompile kernel or its modules - they want ready made solutions. Even power users don't want to recompile kernel. Period. I'm reasonably sure that the distributions included on these $300 machines have all the modules required to support just about anything the people they're marketed to will want to do. If they decide they want to install a new scheduler later then they can, but it's not a skill these users will need. Consider how support for other file systems is implemented in Windows. No one needs to recompile anything. Instead you simply run an installation that installs a dynamic device driver (.vxd) to handle foreign file i/o. Which is exactly the sort of thing new computer users and light windows users will be doing 10 minutes after figuring out how to make the 'cup holder' go back inside. Somehow it came to be that the Xfree is the one and final arbiter when it comes to displays, video drivers and functionality. No they're not. But thanks for proving you know absolutely nothing about they way Linux works. . So, if you got a brand spanking new video card, you are pretty much stuck waiting for the next release. The computer he was talking about at the beginning of the article will have the drivers pre-installed when it ships, just like an HP, Dell, or Gateway. As we already know NVidia and ATI have Linux drivers for their cards readily available. You install Linux on the second partition, but alas the install reverts to a generic video driver. Sucks for you. Wow, it's like he called my grandma the day she got her first computer and asked her for her #1 complaint because the the first thing she said to me was "Yeah, I just got this new compu-net thingy and I'm trying to install Linux on a second partition so I can dual boot with Windows but I'm stuck using the generic video drivers." Q to anybody has a Windows machine still sitting about: does Windows XP ship with drivers for the GeForce FX or ATI 9600 line of cards already installed? But drivers should be released separately as soon as they are available. They are. Linux, its constituent parts are not tightly integrated. As a result, when I plug my USB digital camera (or mouse, printer, etc) into the PC, absolutely nothing happens. In Windows, you get the 'Add New Hardware' wizard (or something similar). In WinXP, it is even better: if the system can find a signed driver for the device on its own, it simply installs it without any user intervention and you can use it immediately. My experience is that on both systems things like mice, keyboard, and most well-understood hardware will work, but anything 'out of the ordinary' will require you to install some sort of driver. If you want to experience 'true plug and play' buy a Macintosh and any 'designed for OS X' badged hardware. Then prepare to be amazed as plugging in your digital camera launches iPhoto and imports your new pictures into your library without bugging you with "add new hardware wizards" and the like. In fact, the first time I encountered this feature, it took me for a loop. Dang! I wonder what's going to happen when he wakes up and realizes he's full of horse-shot. rant rant rant windows is different rant rant rant whatever. Maybe you could team up with Windows favorite fanboy: Paul Thurrot and tag team Linux and OS X into submission or at least he can help you work on your site. Maybe he can explain to you that animated GIFs and liberal use of the drop shadow filter are so 1999. I'm actually surprised you didn't know that already as anyone who hand codes their HTML but also feels the need to brag about the fact in their source: <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Notepad"> would have been ridiculed out of that sort of behavior years ago. Sure it's a bit of a personal attack there - but he really didn't leave me anything else to talk about. His conclusion might be correct but his premises do not support support it. I'm also not sure why he starts by setting this up as a "new users hate linux" rant, and then changes over to an "advanced things work different" rant. I can't weight for his next essay "why bicycles are crumby forms of transportation" where he'll support his thesis by explaining why the VW Golf doesn't have a jet-turbine engine and then conclude that the sky is made of pudding. Either way, I guess I don't agree with him at all (whoever it is: the authors name isn't listed on the article). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureEdit Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 actually, i dont think you cant.i can see why the author wrote this, as well as his "proof," but like always, linux still needs a lot of work before it can rival Windows on the Desktop/PC. STV Well I could, but I dont want to be banned for starting a flame war about Linux vs Linux. And things would get even more interesting and troll like if I started talking about OS X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daem0hn Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 I was thinking the exact same thing.And after reading that article, that guy doesn't know what the hell hes talking about. so true its so easy to write an anti-<insert operating system here> article, with very little knowledge about the Operating system if he had done research he would know that linux is about choice (imo) and having different distros for different uses (who wants to use a distro for gaming with very little security and gaming patches compiled into teh kernel for a server???) this is where microsoft falls down. jack at all trades, master at none microsoft boxes can be used for server, gaming, programming, network routers, chat, web browsing, etc,etc,etc are they good at all of thses? no!!! some of them yes, but only because the games are BUILT for windows, rather than windows being built for games i get higher fps on multiplatform games in linux than i do in windows (ut2004, ET for example) HOTPLUG, i often hotplug devices, sometimes if i unplug my kb or mouse it requires an X restart XFree isnt the only solution, i personally use XOrg!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icecaveman Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Your reactions reflect to us one of the biggest problems of the Linux community today. Deny everything that's what you do. No matter how many people complain about these things in Linux, no one fixes them and you won't listen to people with other needs than yourselves, no wonder Linux is not dominating the desktop market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pookster Posted June 7, 2004 Author Share Posted June 7, 2004 I prefer these bees over the ones that have been posted! :woot: My Favorite Bees!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Amen.http://www.beehiveillustration.co.uk/bhi_i...gomery/wasp.jpg That?s more of a yellow jacket than a bee.:p:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emon Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Notepad"> I didn't laugh so hard for a long long time !! :woot: :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted June 7, 2004 Veteran Share Posted June 7, 2004 Thats not illegal is it. I hope they do, so Microsoft can go after them big time. Umm. Actually if you reverse engineer something by following the "rules" then Microsoft cannot go after you. If you use current or former Micrososoft employees or anyone who has had access to Microsoft source code relating to NTFS then you would be breaking the reverse engineering "rules" and subject to potential litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insanekiwi Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 i must admit linux aintthat hard, its just hard to set up and too keep it running/stable. i'm a pc users for somewhat like 14 years now. ive used everything from dos until xp now. i tried several distros of linux but uhm..well i'm a gaming guy and not a coding guy :D anyway, juzst use the OS that fits your needs. windows is enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts