OT: Is Linux too hard?

[markwolfe Veteran]

So you want to update Firefox in windows ... www.firefox.com, download the .exe, run and install the .exe.

586284064[/snapback]

Not exactly the way *I* would update Firefox in Windows. :ermm:

Just click on the red 'update' icon that appears near the throbber. Much easier. :whistle:

[h3xis]

Not exactly the way *I* would update Firefox in Windows. :ermm:

Just click on the red 'update' icon that appears near the throbber.  Much easier. :whistle:

586285284[/snapback]

lol, that thing's called a throbber?

[markwolfe Veteran]

lol, that thing's called a throbber?

586286405[/snapback]

LOL Yeah. Go to about.config and type "throbber". You will see a URL that gets called up when you click it. You can also change it to any other URL (or "about:config" to get to the environment variables quickly) that you wish.

[MulletRobZ]

2. I keep personal files encrypted on a USB stick so that I can access them at work or at home (I've only access to Windows at work).

6. I cannot figure out what packages I really need and which can be removed.

terface with my Pocket PC?

586107525[/snapback]

2. USB sticks are automatically detected in Linux. At least in Fedora.

6. It's just a matter of finding out for yourself, as you probably have different needs than I do.

[markwolfe Veteran]

2. USB sticks are automatically detected in Linux.  At least in Fedora.

586286606[/snapback]

But, that person said he used encrypted data. Probably some Windows-specific app.

[+Biscuits Brown MVC]

Apart from gaming, name one thing I cannot do in Linux that you can do in Windows?

586107476[/snapback]

For me the only thing I can't do is create Windows applications utilizing Visual Studio .NET and SQL Server. And before anyone tells me I can use MONO and the .NET Framework, MONO is not an answer to producing mission critical Windows application from a *nix workspace. It's still only capable of a limited subset of the total framework.

I can't make a living doing what I do with any distro of Linux at this time.

[Miuku.]

For me the only thing I can't do is create Windows applications utilizing Visual Studio .NET and SQL Server.

586286899[/snapback]

True, you cannot use Visual Studio, but you can achieve exactly the same results by using Java and various different SQL servers that are available for Linux.

Hence the point in a general sense is moot. You can do it with Linux - you just have to do it differently - which doesn't mean it is somehow lacking or worse.

[Mike Douglas]

For me the only thing I can't do is create Windows applications utilizing Visual Studio .NET and SQL Server.  And before anyone tells me I can use MONO and the .NET Framework, MONO is not an answer to producing mission critical Windows application from a *nix workspace.  It's still only capable of a limited subset of the total framework.

I can't make a living doing what I do with any distro of Linux at this time.

586286899[/snapback]

The only reason Windows needs Visual Studio is because its such a horrible programming operating system. With Linux, the operating system is your IDE, and a fair more flexible one at that. You decide which programs you want to develop with, be it Emacs or Vim, Automake or Scons, GCC or ICC. Not to mention the greater amount of languages, especially dynamic ones, like Python, Ruby, LISP or Perl, or static languages like C, C++, Java, C#. There is a reason a lot of Microsoft's own developers don't use Visual Studio; even the leaked Windows code from a while back came with GNU Makefiles.

[trance]

The only reason Windows needs Visual Studio is because its such a horrible programming operating system. With Linux, the operating system is your IDE, and a fair more flexible one at that. You decide which programs you want to develop with, be it Emacs or Vim, Automake or Scons, GCC or ICC. Not to mention the greater amount of languages, especially dynamic ones, like Python, Ruby, LISP or Perl, or static languages like C, C++, Java, C#. There is a reason a lot of Microsoft's own developers don't use Visual Studio; even the leaked Windows code from a while back came with GNU Makefiles.

586287958[/snapback]

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. VS is only an IDE. You can code c++, C#, whatever, in notepad if you want, same way as in an *nix. All of the langs you listed are on windows as well.

The reason why MS uses makefiles is because the build process for windows is all command-line based for batch processing that has no need for a GUI interface. Even VS uses the same command line compiler as what is in the PSDK.

[Vlad]

The only reason Windows needs Visual Studio is because its such a horrible programming operating system. With Linux, the operating system is your IDE, and a fair more flexible one at that. You decide which programs you want to develop with, be it Emacs or Vim, Automake or Scons, GCC or ICC. Not to mention the greater amount of languages, especially dynamic ones, like Python, Ruby, LISP or Perl, or static languages like C, C++, Java, C#. There is a reason a lot of Microsoft's own developers don't use Visual Studio; even the leaked Windows code from a while back came with GNU Makefiles.

586287958[/snapback]

I'd have to totally disagree, and I'd say the abundancy of windows software supports me. Programming for Windows is incredibly easy. Infact, it's probably the single thing Microsoft has done right across most of the versions of their Windows line: they've maintained a single API. Windows support for RAD is light-years ahead of Linux (can you say VB, VS, Borland Delphi/Builder). Only in the last year or so has linux had a viable RAD IDE (KDevelop). (Borlands delphi for linux was a joke.)

Writing end-user applications for linux is a bitch. Unlike Windows, where you write a program once and its operateability across multiple versions of Windows is almost guaranteed, creating applications targeting a Linux audience is a NIGHTMARE. First you have to choose between GTK{1,2} and QT (leaving out the more unpopular GUIs like motif), then you have to consider system capabilities, which vary greatly between distribution. That part usually leaves you writing an application targeting a specific distribution (which is usually RedHat). I'd hardly call that a friendly programming operating system to anyone who wants to release a product. Maximizing your target audience is almost impossible and extremely expensive with Linux.

I'll definitely grant you that linux is far more friendly when it comes to scriptable languages, despite the fact that python and perl both run fine in Win32. But saying it has a greater number of language support is almost laughable, since they community that actively develops using such languages (ruby, lisp, others) ls laughably small compared to that developing in the others. Adding C, C++, Java, and C# to your list (you do realize C# was developed by MS, don't you?) seems a little silly.

I wont even go into the differences between developing for different kernels, because that's another huge issue to consider. If Microsoft more or less broke kernel dependant software every few years, it would suck to develop for, too.

[+Biscuits Brown MVC]

True, you cannot use Visual Studio, but you can achieve exactly the same results by using Java and various different SQL servers that are available for Linux.

Hence the point in a general sense is moot. You can do it with Linux - you just have to do it differently - which doesn't mean it is somehow lacking or worse.

586287272[/snapback]

Sorry pal, the company I work for uses Visual Studio .NET and MS SQL Server because thats what our clients use therefore I can't possibly achieve the same results by moving to other products. I could produce similar products for somebody elses clients perhaps but not mine thus I have to stand by my original statement that I can not do what I NEED to do with ANY version of linux - period. Doing something similar isn't going to get me a paycheck right now.

[Crimson Behelit]

Sorry pal, the company I work for uses Visual Studio .NET and MS SQL Server because thats what our clients use therefore I can't possibly achieve the same results. I could produce similar products for somebody elses clients perhaps but not mine thus I have to stand by my original statement that  I can not do what I NEED to do with ANY version of linux - period.  Doing something similar isn't going to get me a paycheck right now.

586289445[/snapback]

Can you do the same thing in OSX? If not, would that mean OSX is too hard to use, too?

[markwolfe Veteran]

Can you do the same thing in OSX?  If not, would that mean OSX is too hard to use, too?

586289456[/snapback]

It would mean that OSX would not be the right OS for the job, though.

This thread has gone off-off-topic. :ermm: :p

[+Biscuits Brown MVC]

Can you do the same thing in OSX?  If not, would that mean OSX is too hard to use, too?

586289456[/snapback]

Im not talking about how hard something is but rather how impossible it is. Linux, OSX you name it. If I can't create native .NET code accessing MS SQL Server (and IIS for that matter) then the OS is of no value to me. Thats not to say any of the alternatives are bad (in fact they are much better that Windows in many areas) but the question was aside from gaming there was nothing else you couldn't do on a *nix system and I simply pointed out what I can't do in linux.

[LaNcom]

Vlad,

sorry, I'd disagree with most of your last post: There's a nice VB equivalent for Linux, called Gambas. Borland Kylix is/ was almost identical to Delphi, and Python is considered one of the best RAD languages on the planet, available on most Linux distros out of the box (unlike with Windows, where you'd need to bundle Python with your application). The WinAPI is a real horror compared to Qt, BTW, and C#, regardless of who developed it, is quite useless. Next thing is, most application vendors just ship a copy of libqt-mt.so with their closed source apps (in case they use Qt), it only adds a few MBs (quite common for Windows applications, anyway - shipping additional libraries 'just in case'). Those included libs provide a fallback in case you don't have the library installed. There's nothing else to consider most of the time, applications written and packaged in a sane way usually just work, regardles of the distro. It's the vendors fault for not packaging applications for distro-independent deployment. See Pixel32 for example, or most Linux games, or even Softimage|XSI - that stuff just works on any distro (they either use an installer or plain tgz archives, not some RPM or DEB crap). And almost nobody writes for RedHat these days, at least not exclusively.

BTW, you don't need to develop for a specific kernel if you don't intend to write closed-source device drivers. And writing such drivers is not allowed under the terms of the GPL, anyway. Yep, you got that right, even the ATI and Nvidia drivers are violating the GPL - but Linus made a exception for drivers _ported_ from other operating systems, and only if most of the driver source is unchanged code from the original driver. That's not really a written exception, he just accepts it for now, and he stated more than once that he'll do nothing to ensure future compatibility of closed source drivers...

PS, regarding the Windows source leak: The Windows source was leaked from a Mainsoft FTP. Mainsoft ported large parts of the Windows sourcecode to UNIX and Linux, think of it as a commercial, application-specific package similar to Wine, but based on real MS sourcecode. Applications like Softimage|XSI or PTC Pro/E Wildfire use Mainsoft's Mainwin for their UNIX and Linux ports. The Linux version of Mainwin is compiled using a GNU toolchain, including gcc, and therefore comes with GNU Makefiles.

[Porsche Design]

in windows, the screen resolutions actually works for me perfectly.

in (k)ubuntu, the screen is always messed up no matter how i try.

i post at neowin for help and these nice people tell me to post my script but i can't even get to it and even if i do, there are no built-in wireless internet connection drivers for my wireless networking card so i can't copy and paste it onto neowin and have people help me.

heck i wouldn't even be able to get to firsfox under the really bad resolution and seeing only part of the screen situation.

also, linux gets less support. there are many intel drivers for some redhat distro but it's not supported that well. if i just buy some random hardware, most of the time, the driver will not be able to work under linux so the device is not optimized to the full extend.

i don't hate linux, i think its the best idea ever, if only i can get it to work, i will actuallt be able to appreciate all the hard work people put into it to make it free.

[Crimson Behelit]

It would mean that OSX would not be the right OS for the job, though.

This thread has gone off-off-topic.  :ermm: :p

586289469[/snapback]

The only reason I asked the question was because of the thread's title and Tempus' response... Surely he meant Linux isn't the right OS too, and not necessarily too hard... I never meant to veer the discussion off-track :blush:

[turkishdelight]

There needs to be something similar to an .exe for the linux desktop to TRUELY be accessible for the masses.

:yes: Until Linux distros all support a common GUI interface for updating and installing applications, I'm afraid that your average computer-illiterate Windows-weaned user won't be able to do much in Linux save stare at the wallpaper and wonder what those strange buttons on the screen do. Or, if you didn't even install a GUI, they'd probably just stare at the "little blinky thing" all day.

On a related note, what package manager does Ubuntu come with? It's not mentioned in big, bold letters anywhere...also, I agree that there needs to be a book or documentation somewhere that clearly states what Linux distros can do that's the equivalent of, say, Windows XP.

Things that Windows can do that Linux can't:

1. Autodetect my wireless USB LAN adapter (though the included drivers are Windows-only)

2. Transfer stuff to/from and manage my Zen Micro's playlists and such

3. Configure mouse speed, not "sensitivity"

4. Install apps without using the command line

5. Not need to mount drives manually and to obscure locations (i.e. auto-mount drives)

6. Detect my Logitech QuickCam (AFAIK, haven't really tested it yet)

7. Have a GUI task manager (though I'm sure a few brilliant - no, that's not sarcastic - developers somewhere have developed one)

8. Get updates. Fast. Without using the command line. At all.

9. Support Photoshop CS2

10. Support Notepad2

* I know the last two were basically the authors' fault and I know that the GIMP is (almost) a close match to PSCS2 and that there's vi(m) and emacs and such, but I'd like automatic syntax highlighting and line numbering (and...), thank you very much *

Nevertheless, Linux has its merits, though it's still (somehow) geared more towards the config-file-happy and the venerable hackers. I just wish it could do what Windows could, how Windows does it, and looks like Windows. Until then, I'm stuck with a default Ubuntu install without half a clue as to what half the packages (or less) do, a Windows XP install where I actually know what the programs do because the READMEs are in plain English without overprofessionalism, another Windows XP install which I keep around for no reason, a Windows 2000 install, and another Windows XP install on another computer :(

[Malbojia]

Boy is linux too hard. Thats kinda of hard, picture this I know someone who hasnt touched a MS product since dos. Too him windows is freaking hard because he's set in his own ways. So it's vice versa to the windows folk trying to learn the os.

Just yesterday needed to go to my device manager did not know the way all he knew was click the start goto control panel, then he got lost.

Speaking of witch he refuses to use a G.U.I. just like the only thing he plays with us while on the indulgence of drugs is D&D Edition 2 rules set.

[markwolfe Veteran]

mzaho, you have some points, but you obiously haven't spent much (if any) time in Linux. Most statements you make are clearly wrong.

Synaptic comes with Ubuntu. It is far eaasier to install/update Linux apps than Windows ones. You seem to mention this a few times in your list.

Gnome has a GUI task manager, gnome-system-monitor. KDE probably does, too. I don't use either of them, but I can use gnome's in any GUI environmnet.

Notepad2 can almost surely run with wine, if you require that specific app.

KDE I know auto-mounts your drives (CD, USB, whatnot).

gnome-mouse-properties can be used to set up speed, acceleration and so forth for your moust. Again, KDE probably has one too.

You also mention other things that Linux "can't do", but then also state you haven't tried. :rolleyes:

[betasp]

Im not talking about how hard something is but rather how impossible it is. Linux, OSX you name it. If I can't create native .NET code accessing MS SQL Server (and IIS for that matter) then the OS is of no value to me.

Wow, you seem to be really limiting your job prospects. If those packages hit my desk in a resume, I would think that you would not be able to do anything that does not require hand-holding and pretty GUI based interfaces. I think they are a great place to start, but most businesses are atleast exploring other options and are looking to reduce overhead and not increase it by continueing to use expensive technologies.

Apache is more powerful than IIS and properly configured, it is more secure. It is also free. The same could be said with MSSQL and MYSQL. I can't think os one company that I have been in, worked at or interviewed at with over 100 employees that does not have at least one system that runs something other than Microsoft software.

[turkishdelight]

I know, I'm not exactly even a moderate-level Linux user, so sorry for my ignorance :(

I've seen a screenie of Synaptic in this thread, it looks very nice; thanks for the enlightenment :D

Notepad2 can almost surely run with wine, if you require that specific app.

Yes, it probably can, but I see it as not worth the hassle.

KDE I know auto-mounts your drives (CD, USB, whatnot).

Ah, but Gnome doesn't? Ubuntu comes with Gnome.

You also mention other things that Linux "can't do", but then also state you haven't tried.

Well, I most certainly have tried at least a little, but not enough to really be called an effort, from a Linux power user's point of view.

This thread is one of the most professional debates I've ever seen on a forum like Neowin :laugh:

[CaKeY]

KDE I know auto-mounts your drives (CD, USB, whatnot).

Ah, but Gnome doesn't? Ubuntu comes with Gnome.

Oh yes it does. And its ****ing me off lol. Ive been using Ubuntu64 for the last few days, not only does it auto-mount, it automatically pops up the file brower to the proper directory and also creates a short-cut on the desktop. Does it with the cd/dvd drives, my external usb hard drive, Olympus D-580 camera and my old 256 meg mp3 player.

[LaNcom]

mzhao,

answering your questions/ correcting your assumptions:

1.) Linux _does_ detect any WLAN adapter - but it lacks native drivers for some. That doesn't mean they won't work, most of them do, in fact (using LinuxAnt or ndiswrapper). But whose mistake was it to buy an unsupported piece of hardware instead of, for example, a Prism or RT2500 based card from the start?

2.) Works. Simple as that. It might even get amaroK integration soon, but for now, there are projects like those (KDE, don't know about Gnome - Kubuntu comes with KDE, BTW):

http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=22769

http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=23355

3.) Don't know what you mean? I can control speed, resolution, accelleration and USB polling for my mouse...

4.) No problem (but most users will use the command line anyway after a few weeks, it's just faster). There's Synptic, Kynaptic, Kuroo (gentoo), and most applications and games come with their very own installer, usually Loki (graphical installer from Loki games).

5.) Well, recent distros automount media. On the other hand, why do you think /media/cdrom is more obscure than any random letter (eg "E:\")?

6.) Should be supported, AFAIK. But I can't tell you for sure... Those drivers should work:

http://qce-ga.sourceforge.net/

7.) On KDE: Hit CTRL+ESC

8.) Synaptic, Kynaptic, Kuroo (gentoo), Gentoo Watcher (gentoo).

9.) You got me. OTOH, nobody really needs CS2, and Photoshop 7 works just fine with cxoffice (and if it works good enough for Disney, it should work good enough for you):

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210083,00.asp

10.) Might work using Wine or cxoffice, but believe me: It's not needed. There are many really powerful text editors for Linux, anyway - even KDE's integrated advanced text editor, Kate, features highlighting, line numbers, folding, bookmarks, spell checking, plugins, symbol list... For web development (XHTML, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, PHP...), there's also Quanta (KDE app):

http://quanta.kdewebdev.org/

[Mike Douglas]

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. VS is only an IDE. You can code c++, C#, whatever

Correct me if I'm wrong, but VS.NET only support C++, C#, ASP.NET and VB.NET. Thats not a whole lot of languages and becomes basically useless if you wanted to use it for any other language.

All of the langs you listed are on windows as well.

But developing for them sucks. Unless you want to include the libraries and runtime of the program, you can't expect that the end-user has python or perl. This is completely different in Linux, you'll see distros ship with a wide support for many languages.

I'd have to totally disagree, and I'd say the abundancy of windows software supports me. Programming for Windows is incredibly easy. Infact, it's probably the single thing Microsoft has done right across most of the versions of their Windows line: they've maintained a single API. Windows support for RAD is light-years ahead of Linux (can you say VB, VS, Borland Delphi/Builder). Only in the last year or so has linux had a viable RAD IDE (KDevelop). (Borlands delphi for linux was a joke.)

Writing a GTK/QT application in a high-level language like Python or Ruby is RAD, the API is extremely well thought out and even tools to create GUIs graphically are there (Glade and QTDesigner).

Writing end-user applications for linux is a bitch. Unlike Windows, where you write a program once and its operateability across multiple versions of Windows is almost guaranteed, creating applications targeting a Linux audience is a NIGHTMARE. First you have to choose between GTK{1,2} and QT (leaving out the more unpopular GUIs like motif), then you have to consider system capabilities, which vary greatly between distribution. That part usually leaves you writing an application targeting a specific distribution (which is usually RedHat). I'd hardly call that a friendly programming operating system to anyone who wants to release a product. Maximizing your target audience is almost impossible and extremely expensive with Linux.

Write to comply with the Linux Standard Base and let the distributions package for you (or if the product is closed source, autopackage works well on 99% of Linux installations).

I wont even go into the differences between developing for different kernels, because that's another huge issue to consider. If Microsoft more or less broke kernel dependant software every few years, it would suck to develop for, too.

The only major change in the last few years has been the 2.4 to 2.6 upgrade. If you are talking about module ABI then that is done intentionally and to promote open drivers.