This is obviously a *nix vs Windows troll, but hey what the hell I''ll chuck my 2 cents in.

The simple answer is personal preference. People often like things just because they do, and a large number of users are like this. Also another major factor here is familiarity. Most Windows users are ''used'' to Windows. So it is very contentious for a Windows user (whom has been using Windows since 3.11) to say Linux Mandrake is too hard to use on their first try out. Its different, and they are familiar with another product, which for them makes the Linux experience difficult. As a side note, I have seen the opposite happen. A unix admin friend of mine refuses to move away from unix shells because he doesnt like Windows Gui - hes been an admin since 1983, and he likes shells.. alot.. So here lies an example of familiarity and personal preference.

Usage is another serious consideration between Windows and *nix. I worked 10 years in a car manufacturing plant as a technician and most installations that were production critical were *nix based or RTOS based. A couple of years ago we installed a Windows system, and to no-ones surprise we started losing a large amount of downtime due to Windows failures - these were NT based machines also (supposedly most stable, said our suppliers at the time). The Windows computers were off-lined (made non-production critical). With many critical systems, it would be a very brave software engineer to use Windows. *nix has been a solid performer in this area for many years, and will likely be for years to come - ask the QNX dudes, their RTOS is kiking goals everywhere. Also there is a massive portion of the worlds internet servers running on *nix based system not Windows. The business sector is not as Windows driven as the desktop sector.

Now based on a desktop experience, I would rate Windows and *nix based OS''s to be almost on par, and becoming so much so, its quite exciting. If you had asked me 3 years ago I would have said most Linux distros were clumsy and annoying at best. Now there are some very good, and extremely solid distros. Turbo Linux is for instance one of the tidiest and simplest installs around. In fact Corel Linux was even better than any Windows install I have seen.

Getting back to familiarity, alot of people write off their experience under Linux as bad, and that its not like Windows. Well thats just the thing, its not like Windows. If Linux had been the system you were brought up with, you''d probably say the same about Windows. This is why its great to see a great deal of schools implementing Linux desktops to replace their Windows machines. It shows (certainly to me) that Linux has the necessary functionality and suitability to be a fine replacement for Windows.

Finally a bit about the OS''s. We hate things that dont work properly. Windows has a history of being a little flakey. Whether its drivers, or patches, or security holes and so on. There are still many things about Windows that make it difficult for people to warrant paying for something that isnt utterly stable. Linux also has its nuances, with also flakey drivers, compatibility problems and various other issues. But there are some points about Linux that make it stand aside Windows as a serious competitor. Linux can be indestructable. The security of Linux is excellent, and should you have a process fall over - kill actually works, unlike EndProcess on Windows, which can be very non-compliant. Also, in the last 3 years the applications available on Linux are almost as complete as applications on Windows. With a high majority of these applications being completely free of charge. And thats the bottom line with most Linux users - its free, or very close to. And in the long run, shouldnt you have an OS on your PC that works without having to pay for it anyway? I didnt have to pay extra for the software that drives my car.....

quote:Original post by Kylotan


With Linux (in my experience) there seems to be a lot more dynamic libraries that get used, and they almost never come with the program you''re trying to download. Instead you have to rely on your rpm tools being set up properly and automatically downloading an unspecified number of libraries of unspecified size. Several times I''ve had to cancel installation of a package because, unknown to me, it decided it needed to download a newer library than the one I already have, which was going to be a 40m download or whatever. Linux needs to have better rpm tools that will tell you the file size of the stuff you need to install and where it''s going to get it from (disk/install cd/ftp).

Use Debian.

.zfod

quote:Original post by Grover
This is obviously a *nix vs Windows troll, but hey what the hell I''ll chuck my 2 cents in.

This is not a troll post. I was curious why people thought linux isn''t becomming popular with the common computer user. I think it''s still too user-unfriendly. Just wondered what people thought about that. Just because unix and windows are mentioned in the same post doesn''t mean it''s a troll post.

quote:Original post by Oluseyi

quote:Original post by Interim
I know at my job in Manhatten...

You''re in NY? Ever go to an NYLUG meeting?

I''m living in Sunny S. Florida now. Not far from Miami. Otherwise I would come to a NYLUG =)

Int.

quote:Original post by -vic-
Boy, these Windows-Linux discussions are starting to get boring...

Because nothing has changed. Talk, talk, talk, no action.

quote:Well, it might just happen that the Linux developers community is *not* interested in making this "better desktop" for the common user.

It''s not a "might", it''s a fact. Linux development is driven by individual need and curiosity; few are the useful tools written in response to perceived consumer use. The rationale for development under Linux is "scratch your own itch": code gets written because the author wants it, needs it, or thinks it''d be cool.

Unfortunately, software developers don''t make good test cases for "the common user" so the "intuitive usability" of the system suffers. Yes, it''s the same old argument, but it''s also the same old situation.

Frankly, I think you just trolled. If the "Linux developer community" (also a semi-oxymoron; "community" isn''t a word I''d tie to strongly to a rough, anarchic amalgamation of individualistic geeks) isn''t ready to or interested in making a user-oriented desktop, then shouldn''t the focus on the desktop die once and for all? (Good riddance, Mandrake, etc?) Since it obviously hasn''t, I''d posit that your point is non-existent.

@Interim:
There was a meeting yesterday, but I forgot about it. Next month, perhaps. In any case, holla any time you''re in the city!

I have few answers.. short ones:

1) Linux un-consistency: at any level you put it, linux is a hell in term of user usability. When you design a system to be used by final users, a-ka desktop users, you have to keep it consistent. That''s way Mac OS is a more friendly OS to people than Windows.
Yes, you have a lot of freedom on the development side, but when you are a user a system without general guidelines, designed with completly freedom, tends to become chaotic.

2) Obscure file system: the first thing that makes a linux novice scrath his head is stuff like "where the fuck is x file". The unix-like filesystem, and the poorly named commands are a big barrier.

3) Manufacturer support: a lot of stuff is beign said about for example the performance of X Window system... but have you ever think that with drivers proffesionally developed by the guys who make the hardware -and not by some clever reverse-engeeniering-hack - X could match gamming performance of Windows? There is no doubt that there is a superb hardware compatibility on current linux systems, but compatibility, sometimes aren''t enough.

that''s all i cant think now IMHO,

whocares

PD: pardon my poor english, it is not my native language.

quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster
I have few answers.. short ones:


2) Obscure file system: the first thing that makes a linux novice scrath his head is stuff like "where the fuck is x file".

It''s funny, because given a ''cmd'' window I feel the exact same way about Windows.. nevermind the absolute horror it is to traverse the average Windows filesystem from ''cmd''. Better to install cygwin and scratch your head over the complexity of the *nix tools.

As far as filesystems are concerned, *nix filesystems have been lightyears ahead of Windows filesystems for years. Obscurity is a poor replacement term for just being willfully ignorant.

Use Linux or *nix because of whatever reason you want. No distribution of Linux or any other *nix OS is obligated to make a desktop that is just like Windows so the average idiot can migrate to it.

Also, please don''t confuse the entire Linux community with one single distribution of Linux. Use whatever you want, or start your own ( scratch your own itch ) distribution and do the work you''re pissing and moaning about. Much in the way that you would develop your own game because you aren''t entirely pleased with released titles, or you think you could do a better job.

''Linux has got to change'', ''this has to change'', ''blah bluh blah blah''. I think things will continue to develop, regardless of these statements. You might positively influence the process by actually doing something, otherwise just sit back and watch the show.


.zfod