Of course it is. I don't know Linux as well as others. I never claimed it was fact, either.Originally Posted by CornedBee
Though I tried OpenSUSE on vmware, I can't seem to get anything to install and the filesystem confuses me.
Of course it is. I don't know Linux as well as others. I never claimed it was fact, either.
Though I tried OpenSUSE on vmware, I can't seem to get anything to install and the filesystem confuses me.
I try a new distro every couple months, the fact is if linux was all that great I'd be using it. Some people like it, I don't. From a programmers perspective, it would just cost too much to retarget my applications to linux. From a user view, I really don't feel like learning a new GUI that is different for the sake of being different. It takes just as long to set up linux as it does windows, only then I have to spend hours trying to <profane synonym for fix> the default settings in the distro. Ive even had distros that wouldnt even allow you to browse the hard drive when you where logged into the superuser account. I mean its great that its free and all, but I really see no reason for the average user to jump on the linux bandwagon, and without droves of average users, there is no motivation for developers to put serious effort into coding for linux.
If there is no clear reason to switch operating systems... one shouldn't change operating systems. It seems obvious, at least to me, that without proper necessity or without being urged by curiosity to learn something new, trying a new operating system will never be a good experience. Things that are different will only feel complicated or confusing.
However, with proper motivation (again either by necessity or simply curiosity), Linux starts to show itself as a rather intuitive, simple, easy to use, and powerful operating system. This has been my experience for the past 5 days.
Ironically this same principle can be applied to Vista. And probably it will. The problem however is that I don't pay for Linux; Linux has been the "same" pretty much for the past 15 years and I'm confident in the knowledge it will remain pretty much the same for probably another 15; and in Windows "powerful" becomes a misnomer for every of the end user operating systems.
---
I will not leave windows for good though. Not just yet as I'm still addicted to it on it a few things. After all it has been 22 years of Microsoft culture on me. But I know for a fact that Vista is the last drop. This is simply an operating system I don't want to use. There is no way around that.
In the past I felt like moving a couple of times. My profession as a software developer always forced me in. Even more so on my country where only recently Linux and Mac did start to become something companies wanted to look for their business solutions. But that is no longer the case. I'm free to move on. That is my motivation. And why I find Linux so easy.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
If an operating system or GUI has stayed "the same" for 15 years that would be terrible. Things evolve. It is more than 5 years between Microsoft's OSs today, which is more than it should be. Things change and I don't mind spending an hour learning a new GUI once every 5 years, actually. If you're using an OS that you believe will remain the same for 15 more years, then switch now.
Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling
I think you are not looking at the context: obviously Linux has evolved over the past 15 years. Yet some things have remained consistent since the start, or even earlier, considering it is a Unix-like operating system. The same can be said of Windows.If an operating system or GUI has stayed "the same" for 15 years that would be terrible. Things evolve.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
The POSIX standard, for instance, is modelled after concepts which have existed in various operating systems for at least 20 years.
That was my point yes. However let me beg to differ on the last phrase.
Vista altered the perception of the underlying operating system. It may have remained the same (and it did, since much of what was promised for Vista never happened), but the Vista interface changed the way you have been working with a Windows operating system since 95. And Microsoft operating systems have been consistently removing, hampering, or altering our ability to reach the core OS and the hardware, since that time too.
That is my main gripe. GUI as an acronym seems to have been misused in Windows (as Macs). Can we really call something a GUI when the Interface part of it is no longer an abstraction layer, but an essential component of the OS for it to work? It's not a GUI anymore. It is a de facto operating system. This is, in my opinion the biggest disadvantage of the NT kernel.
One of the most wonderful things created for Linux, in my yet newbie opinion, is the X display protocol and its implementation, the X Window System. This allows the creation of what I consider true GUIs; graphical user interfaces that are nothing more than an abstraction of the kernel. The fact Linux offers many different GUI (many of which highly configurable) and yet still provides low level access to its innards and to the hardware itself is unparalleled in the computing world I currently know of.
Does this create chaos? Is support more complicated because of this? Would users become confused with all this? No. The reason being.. well they simply aren't. At its core the operating system is simple and intuitive. The GUI has no room for complicating the life of anyone, unless its developer wished to do so.
With minimal training, my ex-wife can use Linux with Gnome at her home and come to mine and use KDE without tying her head in a knot. Unfortunately all it takes is a new version of a Microsoft Operating System for that to not be true in the windows world.
I cannot blame Microsoft entirely over this though. As a Company it is forced to answer to things Linux, as a Community, doesn't. It's the elephant walk in which Microsoft is forced to walk at the pace of the slowest of their customers. And that is what it has been doing quite successfully over the years, as the constant gains prove. But this has the side effect of slowly eroding the user base at the other end.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
The point is, the GUI doesnt change all that much, or at least it didnt until vista. Yes the kernel and drivers need to change much more often than every 5 years, but they do. Im all about open source operating systems, but you want people to want to use your product, not just have to. People want to use XP, they dont have to. Microsoft is more or less forcing vista down everyones throat and many people that are in position to make critical decisions just don't want anything to do with it. People don't want extra features in their operating systems, thats what applications are for. People want an operating system that is easy to use, stable and fast.
Btw, there was an article about how Microsoft made sudden last changes to the driver interface just before releasing Vista, thus killing all working drivers at that time. What exactly it was, I don't know.
This may be an answer to the poor driver support in Vista.
