Why Linux is so far behind...

[wildworld_ammsa]

This is what i keep asking mysef:

Why do these people install linux if they don't have any problem with windows?

If they like to try somthing new why complain about different things?

if they do have a problem with windows why do they want linux to be like windows?

i just don't get it! :blink:

[Miuku.]

Why do these people install linux if they don't have any problem with windows?

Because they're hypocrit whiners? :whistle:

[Mouldy Punk]

The main reason why I installed linux in the first place was to learn. I jumped straight in with slackware before even reading an online guide about linux, that is a good way to learn the ins and out of linux quickly. The reason I wanted to learn is because I plan on getting a job involving computing or system adminstration or something along those lines. Having *nix experience on a CV boosts you ahead of the pure-windows crowd a tad.

Another reason why I use linux is to try something different. I've been using MS OSs since the DOS days and to be honest, I'm quite bored. I wanted something completely different, which is also why I prefer fluxbox over KDE or gnome because it's that little bit more different.

One very good reason to stick with windows is though; everything works. All my hardware, all my software, all my games. All of it works and it works striaght away, no extra config needed. That is a pretty rare thing in linux, especially if you want the latest version of something - you usually have to compile and set it up yourself. But if everything in linux just worked out-of-the-box, my learning experience with linux would be somewhat stunted.

[Rob2687]

I think you can stay pretty up to date if you unmask certain things with Emerge in Gentoo.

[markwolfe Veteran]

All my hardware doesn't work in Windows. My trusty old Canon IX-4015 scanner works without need to tweak anything other than owner so I could use it as me, instead of needing to be root.

Not supported in Windows since Me/Win2k.

Hardware compatibility is generally better in Windows, as long as the vendor chooses to write new drivers. In Linux, the Open Source drivers will either continue to work, or can be recompiled if there is a change that requires it. Hardware longevity is better in Linux, and for me, that made the difference in buying a new scanner to replace one that still functions or continue to use it without problems in Linux.

[johndoh]

I'm a UNIX admin by trade, currently sitting at work waiting for one of the primary mail systems to finish patching so I can install the SAN.

That said, even though I have an Ultra60 at home, it's mostly a door stop, as I use XP for most stuff. If it's not one thing it's another, first it was because poser wouldn't run on anything else, now it's because of games.

I do Like Linux, built the wife a Linux box from an old PC when she asked, (gentoo) but it's still an OS for the hardcore geek by and large.

I think most geeks would like Linux to conquer all, but I doubt it will ever happen, mostly because it's just not user friendly enough. Nor is it an OS for idiots. Underneath the shiny interface and helpful popups, it's still an industrial power tool. It can and will rip your arm to shreds if you put your fingers in places you shouldn't.

Most people who install Linux, like the fact that it's not easy. The people who bitch about it being hard *should* go back to XP. Linux is not an OS for morons or for those with no desire to learn. It is a masochists OS. It's for geeks who enjoy it best when things break because then they get to fix them. It's an Os for people who like getting thier hands dirty, putting them where they dont belong, yet with enough sense to know when to take thier hand out again.

I think that by and large Linux is now ready for the enterprise, it's just not really ready for the desktop. Why? Becuase the people who write it, have different ideas, often even amongst core teams, as to what constitues the right way to do any given thing.

Applications are not focus group tested, they do not care about HIG. To quote from the manifesto:

"We believe in rough consensus and running code."

Which is why the apps always look so unfinished, because they work well enough. Your average "scruffy hacker" is not going to spend hours producing a pretty interface, or bells and whistles, when they could be busy writing code that does something useful, something interesting.

Few people write documentation. There are reasons for this, namely that it's boring, but also that it's fun finding out how it works on your own. When was the last time any of you read the manual and not just the quick install guide? I'm sure Microsoft have many people who write that stuff. I actually used to work with one of them, girl called Sue, but I digress...

Linux is like it is because people like it that way. You don't like it, jump in start changing things. Or simply stick to XP, it works for most things, and it's mostly a piece of **** getting anything to work. Like I said, XP works, unless you have an application in mind, or "live free or die" is your motto, why change?

Linux isn't far behind, it's simply not running the same race.

[llbbl]

Linux isn't behind Windows. Actually windows could learn a lot from Linux, and they (MS) probably do steal a lot since it is all open source. Just your average "where's the any key" user has a hard time with it because they don't have the patience to learn something new.

Ubuntu and Fedora Core are two the easiest distros out there to become familar with. I think the applications that are available for Linux is on par with Windows. I do not think the performance is worse than windows, and in many areas it is signifantly better.

You can customize Linux a hell of a lot more than Windows.

So basically opposite of everthing you said. I think you missed the ball and hit urself in the head with the bat.

[matt74441]

I'm a UNIX admin by trade, currently sitting at work waiting for one of the primary mail systems to finish patching so I can install the SAN.

That said, even though I have an Ultra60 at home, it's mostly a door stop, as I use XP for most stuff. If it's not one thing it's another, first it was because poser wouldn't run on anything else, now it's because of games.

I do Like Linux, built the wife a Linux box from an old PC when she asked, (gentoo) but it's still an OS for the hardcore geek by and large.

I think most geeks would like Linux to conquer all, but I doubt it will ever happen, mostly because it's just not user friendly enough. Nor is it an OS for idiots. Underneath the shiny interface and helpful popups, it's still an industrial power tool. It can and will rip your arm to shreds if you put your fingers in places you shouldn't.

Most people who install Linux, like the fact that it's not easy. The people who bitch about it being hard *should* go back to XP. Linux is not an OS for morons or for those with no desire to learn. It is a masochists OS. It's for geeks who enjoy it best when things break because then they get to fix them. It's an Os for people who like getting thier hands dirty, putting them where they dont belong, yet with enough sense to know when to take thier hand out again.

I think that by and large Linux is now ready for the enterprise, it's just not really ready for the desktop. Why? Becuase the people who write it, have different ideas, often even amongst core teams, as to what constitues the right way to do any given thing.

Applications are not focus group tested, they do not care about HIG. To quote from the manifesto:

"We believe in rough consensus and running code."

Which is why the apps always look so unfinished, because they work well enough. Your average "scruffy hacker" is not going to spend hours producing a pretty interface, or bells and whistles, when they could be busy writing code that does something useful, something interesting.

Few people write documentation. There are reasons for this, namely that it's boring, but also that it's fun finding out how it works on your own. When was the last time any of you read the manual and not just the quick install guide? I'm sure Microsoft have many people who write that stuff. I actually used to work with one of them, girl called Sue, but I digress...

Linux is like it is because people like it that way. You don't like it, jump in start changing things. Or simply stick to XP, it works for most things, and it's mostly a piece of **** getting anything to work. Like I said, XP works, unless you have an application in mind, or "live free or die" is your motto, why change?

Linux isn't far behind, it's simply not running the same race.

:yes:

[Barney T. Administrators]

I'm a UNIX admin by trade, currently sitting at work waiting for one of the primary mail systems to finish patching so I can install the SAN.

That said, even though I have an Ultra60 at home, it's mostly a door stop, as I use XP for most stuff. If it's not one thing it's another, first it was because poser wouldn't run on anything else, now it's because of games.

I do Like Linux, built the wife a Linux box from an old PC when she asked, (gentoo) but it's still an OS for the hardcore geek by and large.

I think most geeks would like Linux to conquer all, but I doubt it will ever happen, mostly because it's just not user friendly enough. Nor is it an OS for idiots. Underneath the shiny interface and helpful popups, it's still an industrial power tool. It can and will rip your arm to shreds if you put your fingers in places you shouldn't.

Most people who install Linux, like the fact that it's not easy. The people who bitch about it being hard *should* go back to XP. Linux is not an OS for morons or for those with no desire to learn. It is a masochists OS. It's for geeks who enjoy it best when things break because then they get to fix them. It's an Os for people who like getting thier hands dirty, putting them where they dont belong, yet with enough sense to know when to take thier hand out again.

I think that by and large Linux is now ready for the enterprise, it's just not really ready for the desktop. Why? Becuase the people who write it, have different ideas, often even amongst core teams, as to what constitues the right way to do any given thing.

Applications are not focus group tested, they do not care about HIG. To quote from the manifesto:

"We believe in rough consensus and running code."

Which is why the apps always look so unfinished, because they work well enough. Your average "scruffy hacker" is not going to spend hours producing a pretty interface, or bells and whistles, when they could be busy writing code that does something useful, something interesting.

Few people write documentation. There are reasons for this, namely that it's boring, but also that it's fun finding out how it works on your own. When was the last time any of you read the manual and not just the quick install guide? I'm sure Microsoft have many people who write that stuff. I actually used to work with one of them, girl called Sue, but I digress...

Linux is like it is because people like it that way. You don't like it, jump in start changing things. Or simply stick to XP, it works for most things, and it's mostly a piece of **** getting anything to work. Like I said, XP works, unless you have an application in mind, or "live free or die" is your motto, why change?

Linux isn't far behind, it's simply not running the same race.

That is the best response yet! Thanks for that thoughtful reply! ;)

Barney

[dwntwn]

No offense,

People looking to other people for reasons why to switch to linux shouldn't worry about switching. Instead, they should go buy a real copy of Windows so they can get the updates they need.

If you do have a real copy of windows and you find that the look and feel of Linux isn't exactly waht you are looking for, please feel free and do some reading. Most graphic card manufacturers have parameters you can pass to the driver or a utility to tweak them with.

As for the whole complicated aspect of things, yes there is a learning curve. If you don't want to spend the time stick to Windows.

[Phixion]

I have to say I kinda agree with the first post... Linux is very sluggish compared to Windows. I've tried a few distro's and have to say my favorite was Ubuntu. Why? Cos its so Windows-Like. Why did I switch? Because I wanted to try something new.

Not everyone switches because they have a personal vendetta against Microsoft... Imagine where we'd be if Windows had never been invented... Stuck in the stoneage.

I will be the first to admit that I'm no Linux guru, but I'd probably use it if I could get games working... I like to chat on Ventrilo with friends and play the odd new game/demo, all of which I wouldn't be able to do if I was on Linux.

Just my thoughts...

[madd_matt]

If you want windows, don't go to linux, it wouldn't be what you want.

And i don't know where people get the idea of sluggish performance, windows xp is a slow beast on all my systems, everything is generally snappier in linux for me. Although I'm not running the beasts that are gnome or kde, xfce forever.

I use linux for the learning, and the customizability.

I know its bad that i get excited over a shiny new machine to install linux on, but it happens.

[Phixion]

If you want windows, don't go to linux, it wouldn't be what you want.

And i don't know where people get the idea of sluggish performance, windows xp is a slow beast on all my systems, everything is generally snappier in linux for me. Although I'm not running the beasts that are gnome or kde, xfce forever.

I use linux for the learning, and the customizability.

I know its bad that i get excited over a shiny new machine to install linux on, but it happens.

By sluggish I mean, I can load nearly every program I use considerably quicker on Windows than Linux... and my PC is pretty decent...

BTW are there any games that work 100% on Linux? ATM I play BF2 and WoW.

Cheers

[mitch00]

WoW works perfectly in Linux, not sure about BF2 though

[CaKeY]

Imagine where we'd be if Windows had never been invented... Stuck in the stoneage.

You do realize windows hasnt really changed much if at all in FIVE YEARS. They change when its convienient for them.

Now imagine if software could match hardware advances... guess what... Linux and OSS in general can.

[wildworld_ammsa]

Why did I switch? Because I wanted to try something new.

what is your definition of new?

I think Windows Vista is your definition of new. it's all Windows but it's "new".

Linux however is new as in somthing different. So next time you want to try somthing new ask yourself what do you mean by it?

And by "you", i mean everyone with the same experience.

[Leddy]

You do realize windows hasnt really changed much if at all in FIVE YEARS. They change when its convienient for them.

Now imagine if software could match hardware advances... guess what... Linux and OSS in general can.

Not for the mainstream consumers. Can I play a game that I actually want to play in 2006 on Linux? Maybe even Mac OS X?

Probably not.

The area in which Linux can shine is in server applications, clustering, supercomputer applications, etc.

Not in the home. That's where Windows shines.

[mr_demilord]

Not for the mainstream consumers. Can I play a game that I actually want to play in 2006 on Linux? Maybe even Mac OS X?

Probably not.

The area in which Linux can shine is in server applications, clustering, supercomputer applications, etc.

Not in the home. That's where Windows shines.

A mainstream consumer has a xbox or ps2 etc..for playing games , the use a computer for brwsing the web watching and linstening streams, email, they even can play games on linux, there are tons of games that run fine on linux, unreal, quake, the sims and tons of others..

[markwolfe Veteran]

Not everyone switches because they have a personal vendetta against Microsoft... Imagine where we'd be if Windows had never been invented... Stuck in the stoneage.

I disagree with that. Microsoft isn't the ONLY company in the universe who could possibly EVER advance computing back in the 1980's. And their history during the '90s to now shows a pattern of an abusive market dominator - buying up (and often killing) new and/or competing technologies to maintain their lead.

And i don't know where people get the idea of sluggish performance, windows xp is a slow beast on all my systems, everything is generally snappier in linux for me. Although I'm not running the beasts that are gnome or kde, xfce forever.

They get that idea from many of the default installs of SUSE, Fedora, Mandrake, Ubuntu and others. KDE and Gnome are pretty heavy, and when you add all the "noob user" polish onto the top of it, you get a lot of resources being used because users like auto-mounted drives to show up on the desktop, etc.

Desktop Linux can be slower or faster than Desktop Windows. Yet many here generalize so much that they tend to claim that one OS over the other "is faster" while glossing over the myraid of details that make the real difference.

By sluggish I mean, I can load nearly every program I use considerably quicker on Windows than Linux... and my PC is pretty decent...

See above. ;)

BTW are there any games that work 100% on Linux? ATM I play BF2 and WoW.

I am not a gamer, but I bought UT2004 from the store. It is pretty fun, and includes a native Linux installer on the CDs. So I supported them by purchasing the game. My kids like it, too. There are a few other 'native' games, like Doom. I believe that the Cedega program can run many other Windows games through emulation, but I would personally not rely on that if I were a "gamer".

Not for the mainstream consumers. Can I play a game that I actually want to play in 2006 on Linux? Maybe even Mac OS X?

Probably not.

The area in which Linux can shine is in server applications, clustering, supercomputer applications, etc.

Not in the home. That's where Windows shines.

I think you confuse "mainstream consumer" with a teenage gamer. Sometimes these teenage gamers can be in their 20's. But most moms * dads, grandmas & grandpas don't rush to the store on the release days of games to get their hands on a copy of the latest Utlimate Extreme Shoot-Em-Up 6000.

If one enjoys Linux computing, one can also set up their PC to dual-boot. That way they can use Windows much like they would an XBox or PS2 - to play the occasional game.

[Phixion]

Well I've been using Windows pretty much from the get-go when I got a PC in 1995... When I say new I mean something "different".

Thats exactly whats wrong with Linux, you say that a default "noob" installed with everything polished can be sluggish - why? It looks no better than Windows... It's alot more than GUI lag imo, more like the way it accesses files etc.

A mainstream consumer has a xbox or ps2 etc..for playing games , the use a computer for brwsing the web watching and linstening streams, email, they even can play games on linux, there are tons of games that run fine on linux, unreal, quake, the sims and tons of others..

PLEASE! Don't try and compare it like that, you've listed 3 games there. There's no way Linux can play as many games as Windows with ease... If you're going to make it Windows vs Linux and try compare which is better then in this case its Windows hands down. Sure you might be able to play Quake, but can I play Battlefield 2? Can I chat to friend on Ventrilo (no cos they are slow as hell in releasing a linux client). No!

Until I can use all of my games with ease on Linux I don't see how its better for me, sure if you want to browse website and stare at IRC all day Linux is great, but not for the average user.

If anything the Linux distro's need to do something to sort out ease of use in regards to games, I believe Ubuntu has done so for the desktop aspect of Linux but gaming still remains its main issue and the reason alot of people still won't switch.

[mitch00]

Well I've been using Windows pretty much from the get-go when I got a PC in 1995... When I say new I mean something "different".

Thats exactly whats wrong with Linux, you say that a default "noob" installed with everything polished can be sluggish - why? It looks no better than Windows... It's alot more than GUI lag imo, more like the way it accesses files etc.

PLEASE! Don't try and compare it like that, you've listed 3 games there. There's no way Linux can play as many games as Windows with ease... If you're going to make it Windows vs Linux and try compare which is better then in this case its Windows hands down. Sure you might be able to play Quake, but can I play Battlefield 2? Can I chat to friend on Ventrilo (no cos they are slow as hell in releasing a linux client). No!

Until I can use all of my games with ease on Linux I don't see how its better for me, sure if you want to browse website and stare at IRC all day Linux is great, but not for the average user.

If anything the Linux distro's need to do something to sort out ease of use in regards to games, I believe Ubuntu has done so for the desktop aspect of Linux but gaming still remains its main issue and the reason alot of people still won't switch.

Grr... How is it Linux's fault that most game makers don't make a port of their Windows games for Linux? Does windows suck because it can't play Halo 2? I mean that game is only available on Xbox. So by your argument, it would be reasonable for me to say that Windows sucks right? It's obviously Windows' and Microsft's fault that you can't put that game into your comptuer and just *play*... an Xbox is a PC, hell Microsoft makes both products, why doesn't it work??

Because an Xbox game wasn't designed to work on Windows, nor vice-versa, same deal with Linux.

Oh yeah, I believe you just got pwned :laugh:

[markwolfe Veteran]

Grr... How is it Linux's fault that most game makers don't make a port of their Windows games for Linux? Does windows suck because it can't play Halo 2? I mean that game is only available on Xbox. So by your argument, it would be reasonable for me to say that Windows sucks right? It's obviously Windows' and Microsft's fault that you can't put that game into your comptuer and just *play*... an Xbox is a PC, hell Microsoft makes both products, why doesn't it work??

Because an Xbox game wasn't designed to work on Windows, nor vice-versa, same deal with Linux.

Oh yeah, I believe you just got pwned :laugh:

The person you are quoting never said Linux "sucked". :ermm:

Not sure why the need to "pwn" any other members here seems to exist on occasion... :unsure:

[mitch00]

Not sure why the need to "pwn" any other members here seems to exist on occasion... :unsure:

Hence the laughing ( :laugh: ) smiley.. I was kidding :pinch: you know.. gamers say you got pwned when they beat someone else ... hehe I guess it didnt come accross like that so sorry

[matt74441]

Well we're having a good discussion so lets not ruin it by saying bad things ;)

[Phixion]

Grr... How is it Linux's fault that most game makers don't make a port of their Windows games for Linux? Does windows suck because it can't play Halo 2? I mean that game is only available on Xbox. So by your argument, it would be reasonable for me to say that Windows sucks right? It's obviously Windows' and Microsft's fault that you can't put that game into your comptuer and just *play*... an Xbox is a PC, hell Microsoft makes both products, why doesn't it work??

Because an Xbox game wasn't designed to work on Windows, nor vice-versa, same deal with Linux.

Oh yeah, I believe you just got pwned

I think you and me both know what I'm saying here :p e.g. you don't walk into a games shop and see an entire selection of games with "Linux only" written on the box. Whether its the developers fault or Linux I don't know... But my point still remains that IF I could use all the programs/games I use atm on Linux I'd switch in a heartbeat.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Linux but for a gamer it just isn't viable.

Anyway, whats Arch Linux like? I've noticed alot of people using it, I myself have only used Ubuntu/Fedora/SuSe/Mandrake.