Guys, just wanted to share this - absolutely thrilling article!
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
yep, Linux != Windows because MPT doesn't run natively on Linux.
well....people arent even expecting to be equal in the first place :D, that why 2 different approach to operating system.
win is designed to be user friendly out of the box, it is suited for general needs, its for people who dont want to mess with geeky stuff in their life, but use comp for work, and use the (third party) programs to create stuffs or have simple fun.
linux is more geeky, you have pretty much every control that you can imagine, but needs to setup a tons of stuffs, and gather a fair amount of info before you should even start. Who likes to mess with OS and hardware all the time, set and customize every inch of the system, its the ideal choice.
from article:
QuoteThe myth of "user-friendly", and Inefficiency and friendliness, etc
its no a "myth", that IS user friendly approach. They forgot to mention that in almost every important software you have the options to change gui elements and set shortcut keys to whatever the user likes to.
also, they picked MSWord and asked how many professional coders use it for programing example? O for gods sake =) its a word processor specially designed for office work, for secretaries to print out documents, to organize document proportions for easy printing, insert clip arts, graphs, and do similar =).
Programmers are picking a tool that will suit their needs, just like musicians or graphic artists example. Nobody is expecting them to use an office program for their work.
Actually, it's not like that. You can take a completely not tech-savvy person, install Ubuntu on their pc that they only use for checking emails and doing some online shopping, tell them "i changed the look of it a bit, but it's still windows" and they won't notice anything. Modern linux desktop managers are on par with Windows and OSX, I'd say.
i know, even you dont have to install anything, but use a Knoppix edition or something. Its a lot easier if you have everything ready, that is 4 sure =). But we're talking about not tech-savvy persons who dont have preinstalled anything and need to start from somewhere. If we decides to install win, it can be a "sit back and relax" procedure, and afterward he have a fully functional system. With linux, he might dont even know where to start to look for the modular parts, no to speak about the softwares for every day work. He need to start nerdy stuff, roll the forums, manuals and instructions.
That really depends on the linux distrubtion you use. Those different kinds of "linux flavours" exist for a reason. Of course, Arch Linux might not be a good choice for beginners. :P But something like Ubuntu or Linux Mint is just like Windows for those not so tech-savvy people IMHO.
At least people should be told that they have a choice.
I dunno how it's elsewhere, but here no retailer will ask a customer who wants to buy a PC :
"What OS do you have in mind ?", or "Windoze of Linux ?"
Quote...i dunno how it's elsewhere...
usually no OS at all. Or something very basic like FreeDos or similar. You can get win with install and drivers for extra cash. If you want linux, you're at your own. Nobody seems to like to do extra work for no profit.
people just think
Mac or PC
practically speaking though - using the browser and the "cloud" the difference will diminish between them two for most people. It will be come style like smart phones - get a certain level of smartphone and all brands do more or less the same thing.
Jojo: Ubuntu seems non-tech-user-friendly if all you do is browse. Anything else you would want to start doing you might run into things that require tampering with the system.
For instance, if you want to seriously do music, you would have to install a linux real time kernel and then configure it for your system.
For those non-techy's, you can install msdos, tell them its linux and they'll believe it too...
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Jojo: Ubuntu seems non-tech-user-friendly if all you do is browse.
Yeah, and what else do completely non-tech-savvy persons do? :P
There's office software, image manipulation, media players and other things coming with Ubuntu. That is really enough for your average "i am not a power user" person. I am not talking about people wanting to make music. You're going wayyyyy too specific here.
And btw, some computer shops here also offer commercial linux installations (most notably SuSE).
Yeah, but this is not true, man - in order to play videos you have to install codecs first. By default Ubuntu does not allow you to play much. And this is not super easy - you have to know what package to install and that requires some googling already.
Next - chances are your network might not work because the modem manufacturer made a driver only for Windows. So you'll have to compile some drivers or find a package or whatever.
Seriously, that completely depends on your computer. I never had to compile anything to get linux working. Under ubuntu, I just had to confirm that I want propriertary codecs and voilà, music and video worked! Linux Mint is a nice media-centered Ubuntu derivate which already comes with codecs and stuff installed. It's sure worth a look.
When I bought my laptop (first PC I ever had), I read a linux magazine and installed mandrake 9 (then 10) in dual boot with XP. All was explained in a few pages in french and was very user friendly (with video codecs, usb modem suported). A very good experience, lots of very good apps, but in the same time I also used XP a lot (offline but with an access to my linux home partition). XP runs very smoothly and so does linux, I love them both for what they have to offer. Windows has modplug, linux has the best window managers, why switch or choose ?
QuoteIt's not just about "Why should I want Linux?". It's also about "Why should Linux want me?"
::)
I think it's worth pointing out that with most modern Linux distros (Fedora & Ubuntu, for example), you get all of your 'basic' software out-of-the-box. OpenOffice, Firefox, F-Spot, Amarok/Rhythmbox, and so on. With Windows, you have to separately purchase and/or install these basic utilities.
At the same time, I use Windows for music production -- my home computer runs 7. At work, though, I run Ubuntu. Initially we were using Windows -- it took me about a day to get Windows set up for development just the way I wanted it. When we moved to Linux (at my instigation :P), it took about two hours, including installation.
I think that the article is correct in suggesting that 'normal' people find the transition easiest. Those who are intimately familiar with how Windows works and how one gets things done using it find the transition much harder -- I have seen this with one of my colleagues at work. At the same time, my mother made the transition seamlessly. Granted she's not completely incompetent (probably slightly more complement than most), but her Linux transition was much smoother than my work colleague's.
The article also points out that Linux is not in direct competition with Windows. It's your choice what you use, and that choice should be influenced by your specific requirements and preferences. Even if Linux gained no more market share, its very existence would be beneficial to the computer world in general, as it helps to spur innovation. Look at Opera and Firefox, and latterly Chrome and Safari. Together, these browsers have a small market share, but they are pushing the market leader (IE) to become a better product.
QuoteI think that the article is correct in suggesting that 'normal' people find the transition easiest. Those who are intimately familiar with how Windows works and how one gets things done using it find the transition much harder
This is very true. I'd already be using Linux if there weren't the best programs ever that are only available for Windows (namely OpenMPT and XMPlay :P). And no, don't tell me they work in Wine. I wanna keep my 1ms latency, kthx.
My view on the entire Linux vs Windows thing.
As for the base system Linux is open and there is a lot of people taking great pride in writing a kernel who is smarted and faster than windows mainly for the pure pleasure of making Windows something to laugh at!
In many ways Linux would not have been what it is without Windows.
As for Linux I have found myself migrating all the stuff I need to rely on to Debian GNU/Linux. Simply because I want to be sure that my stuff is safe.
Also a system upgrade + upgrading all your software to the latest version is as simple as a few keystrokes + download time ;)
As for my experience Linux (Unix for that matter) is simply designed in a much smarter way than for example Windows. I am much more free to choose how I want things to work and how I want to set up my system.
Windows do have some nice features about it as well but often you are limited one way or another. Windows XP is in fact quite stable but if you are having problems with a driver who gives you bluescreens now and then you are in fact relying on the manufacturer to fix this issue. If you manufacturer has discontinued the product you are often forced to purchase something new and then you *might* have the driver problem again ;)
As for the operating system kernels I would say that Windows XP are good but limited and that Linux are very good and not limited at all ;)
I would recommend everyone who is at least a bit interested in computers to have a look at Debian GNU/Linux and spend some time to learn how to use it! You won't regret it.
For people that are just happy with something that works (sort of) and are not willing to be shown that the grass is greener on the other side I would say - stick with Windows but you really miss out ;)
I have both Windows and Ubuntu Linux here, but i mainly use Windows.
Ubuntu is very nice and stable, and i think the GNOME desktop is far superior in terms of customizability. However, many games and some of my favourite apps (like modplug tracker and player) simply can't run on Linux. And Wine is a very ugly/slow way to make them work.
Another thing i don't like about Linux is the filesystem. The root folder tree is a random mess of system files and applications, and you have to mount harddrives every time (unless you have an automount script, but i doubt a new user will know how to make one). Call it nostalgia, but i always prefer a clean "C:\" to start with, and also the DOS keywords for the command prompt.
I also don't like how apps that are not portable tend to spread their tentacles in the filesystem. That is true for Windows too, but at least you have a consistent "Program Files" folder and a registry to take care of all the dependencies.
For anybody interested in opensource operating systems, i suggest you check out React OS. (http://www.reactos.org) It is an opensource clone of Windows, which is what most people tend to look for in Linux. Although it's still in alpha stage, it can run a good amount of Windows software.
Quote from: "Pesho_Zmiata"
Another thing i don't like about Linux is the filesystem. The root folder tree is a random mess of system files and applications, and you have to mount harddrives every time (unless you have an automount script, but i doubt a new user will know how to make one). Call it nostalgia, but i always prefer a clean "C:\" to start with, and also the DOS keywords for the command prompt.
What?! ever heard of fstab????? You don't have to manually mount a harddrive for every boot.
Quote from: "Pesho_Zmiata"
I also don't like how apps that are not portable tend to spread their tentacles in the filesystem. That is true for Windows too, but at least you have a consistent "Program Files" folder and a registry to take care of all the dependencies.
Eh? ... are you kidding!? Program Files is not always called program files depending on your language. Using another language than english tend to make two "Program files" directories. One called Programm files and another called Programmfiler (in case of a Norwegian windows).
How can a program files folder take care of DEPENDENCIES?! and the windows registry was a huge mistake and is without doubt a serious mess on most systems. Much more a mess than the / in unix systems who in my opinion is not that bad!
Besides if your registry file get corrupted your have a hell of a job getting things running again and you for sure loose a lot of data!
Quote from: "Pesho_Zmiata"
For anybody interested in opensource operating systems, i suggest you check out React OS. (http://www.reactos.org) It is an opensource clone of Windows, which is what most people tend to look for in Linux. Although it's still in alpha stage, it can run a good amount of Windows software.
Now this I agree with... sry if my reply seem a bit harsh dude ;)
Quoteand the windows registry was a huge mistake and is without doubt a serious mess on most systems
that's because the registry is an enforcing mechanism done for the developers and not for the users.
relevant to this discussion
and backs my POV that the computer is becoming an appliance and general purpose computing for the general consumer is on its way out. In this case "super phones" are the future. I agree. Smart phones and smart TV's are the consumerist future - and operating system will mean less and less when everything is browser based.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8421491.stm
QuoteWhat?! ever heard of fstab????? You don't have to manually mount a harddrive for every boot.
Relax, i know of it and i never said it was my problem, read my post again and you'll see that what i mean. It's that i had to do quite a bit of research into how this is done before i was able to even do anything about it. This, and lots of little hidden things like that are not very nice, especially for someone who doesn't know what they're doing. You're not supposed to do any of that after you install Windows. Which is also why i didn't like Firefox and prefer to stick with Maxthon as main browser - to do something like move tabs at the bottom you have to dig deep into the configuration file and know what the syntax and keywords are in order to configure it. Same goes for the desktop themes etc. - until they make a proper theme editor that writes the file for you, people are going to be in a world of hurt, and i sure haven't seen one after two years.
QuoteEh? ... are you kidding!? Program Files is not always called program files depending on your language. Using another language than english tend to make two "Program files" directories. One called Programm files and another called Programmfiler (in case of a Norwegian windows).
It doesn't matter what it's named, the simple fact of there being one folder for programs is the concept i'm talking about. Any program that doesn't bother to check system variables like the program files folder will need to have it defined in any case (unless you like to keep pressing "Next" without looking). To be honest i haven't seen many installation packages on linux that actually ask you where you want them, they just go right ahead, good luck hunting them down afterwards. And the fact remains that installing a program on linux causes it to spread everywhere - /bin, /etc/, /share, /lib, what have you.
Also don't be quick to jump to conclusions, i've never said that the folder takes care of dependencies, the registry does that. And although it may be more of a mess on the inside, it's still nicely out of your face and leaves programs neatly packed into a single folder. Oh yeah, here's nother thing i don't like about not really Linux, but the programs - a majority of the software is distributed as just the source. Look, i am very greatful at the developers being gracious enough to provide the source for public use, but no user who just wants to try it out will want to mess around with compiling it. Not everybody is a programming genuis to even know what compiling is - they will either have to pass it by or search for someone kind enough to have uploaded a binary somewhere.
When ralking about how programs are installed in Linux, you have to bear in mind that historically, Windows and Linux programmers have approached problems quite differently. In Windows, the tendency has been towards megalithic pieces of software that operate independently; by contrast, Linux software is generally made up of lots of small apps that a developer then brings together to achieve a goal. Contrast Amarok & WMP, for example.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the package-based software installation and management paradigm is, in my opinion at least, far superior to Windows' willy-nilly installation style. Files are installed to consistent locations, and dependency resolution means that on uninstallation, your system is kept clean. Take a look inyour Windows "System" folders — you'll probably find they're full of muck leftover from old installations.
Incidentally, you can query packages to find out where they've put their files. :)
Quite right about the System folders. It's not only clumsy installation, it's also about uninstalling things.
Look at the mess progs leave behind..
To keep a Windoze set smoothly running, it's heavily depending on regular cleaning apps, to get rid of the muck.
Not only unremoved files or maps, but also in the horrible registry.
If, during a session, one moves a file from one dir to another, the old link is saved in two lines of the registry. Useless.
I just want to shoot in the fact that most of us who have run Windows will experience strange things from time to time. After installing a application other totally unrelated things like wordpad might stop working. Some apps upgrade system files and/or replace them with OLDER versions without checking first.
Problem is that a company won't fix stuff that are broken if not *enough* people complain. A good example is microsoft themself. I once read a bug report about a quite serious issue but the response was not enough people had complained about this issue to make it noteable!
In the open source world you can almost bet that if 10-20 people find a thing annoying it will be fixed sooner or later. The idea is that at least there is a chance that things will be fixed. For companies the simple answer is that there is not enough profit gained by fixing bugs that the majority of people don't care about or are not smart enough to understand that is is a issue at all.
@Louigi Verona:
At least we agree that the registry is a mess ;)
The concept is basically a good idea but it is to error prone in many ways
@Pesho_Zmiata: Ok dude I missunderstood you a little. Sorry for that - I should have read more carefully.
@uncloned: In the future everything will most likely be SaS (software as a service). All you need in your home is a display, a keyboard and a jackplug for your speakers. You will probably need to pay for applications, performance of your applications, storage etc...
I think the problem with Windows is its' closed-source nature. Often times developers would have to make hacks and workarounds for their software because something doesn't work as it should. Also many companies don't care how ugly or bloated their software is as long as people are buying it. That's not how it is with opensource software - it's often slow to develop, and the UI can be awkward, but it always inredibly reliable and works just about anywhere. It's actually why the best type of software ive used are those cross-platform linux applications on Windows. They are very neat and portable, all into one folder (even if it has /bin and /etc , they are subfolders) and always work without installation or after a crash, as long as you have the GTK working. That whole "shitting on the registry" is mostly the software's fault, but yeah, i have special software (its called "Your Uninstaller") here for that which keeps track of all files/registry added so it can be truly removed later. A shame its a paid product in itself, and not a part of the OS to begin with...
My favourite Windows has to be Windows2000, because everything was nice, fast, slim and reliable there. Right now i'm standing at a crossroads really - there will never be a windows better than NT5.x. Vista and 7 suck, i'd much rather use Ubuntu in their place. For the future, ReactOS definately ranks up as my favourite candidate, although Microsoft's approaching failiure might cause a shift towards linux apps.
QuoteIn the future everything will most likely be SaS (software as a service). All you need in your home is a display, a keyboard and a jackplug for your speakers. You will probably need to pay for applications, performance of your applications, storage etc...
That's not a future i'm very comfortable with... An underpowered computer, all your valuable data drifting away in the cloud instead of being able to hold it in your hand? Overpriced applications demanding you to pay for even the simplest things? No thank you. Open source is where it's at - software by the people, for the people, that's what i say.
Quote from: "Sam"
If, during a session, one moves a file from one dir to another, the old link is saved in two lines of the registry. Useless.
I have no clue what you're talking about here (because Windows sure tries to not "spam" its own heart :D), but the only thing I could imagine is the "undo" feature of Windows Explorer, which can f.e. be used to undo renaming, copying or deleting files.
Also, your view on programs "leaving a mess behind" either focuses on
very large applications or
very old ones, as the normal "freebies" you can download from the web these days use decent installers normally, which wipe everything away the program has created. Yes, some of them may leave data in %APPDATA% (the new OpenMPT installer will do that, too), since it's personal data created by the user, and I know that some would not be very happy if their custom settings are suddenly gone, just because the wanted to uninstall a program and install it to another directory again. That said, %APPDATA% is a very fine thing, because one can easily keep an eye on all program settings and can backup them easily, or delete them if one wishes to do so.
Quote from: "Jojo"I have no clue what you're talking about here
Well, check this
EasyCleaner (http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/download/EClea1_7.7z), then you'll know what I'm talking about.
This is not about undo, these are dead links. Each link twice.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"Quote from: "Jojo"I have no clue what you're talking about here
Well, check this EasyCleaner (http://www.louigiverona.com/webarchive/samzen/download/EClea1_7.7z), then you'll know what I'm talking about.
This is not about undo, these are dead links. Each link twice.
So what some applications do to the registry is what you're now doing to the Internet. You're not linking to the latest version, you're linking to an old version.
I know, because it's still a free version.
Sam, be aware that many of those registry cleaners are scareware in some sense, because most of them make the registry more cluttered than it actually is. I certainly won't run that program, but I can imagine that those "dead links" (which are no links at all) may for example result from the "most recent files" list that you find in programs' "file" menus (like in OpenMPT's), where you have opened those specific files and then deleted them afterwards. THis is not harmful at all - as I say, it's just scaring the user. Windows itself doesn't do such a stupid thing!
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"I know, because it's still a free version.
As is the latest version.
I'm getting a bit fed up with arguing all the time, so I rest my case.
You shouldn't let Internet people annoy you, they're the stupidest kind there is. On the other hand, I think it's important with an open mind and an open discussion. It's perfectly fine to be wrong sometimes.
QuoteYou shouldn't let Internet people annoy you, they're the stupidest kind there is.
thats...not a really nice thing to say. =) Jojo does have a lot of good points imho.
Quote from: "psishock"QuoteYou shouldn't let Internet people annoy you, they're the stupidest kind there is.
thats...not a really nice thing to say. =) Jojo does have a lot of good points imho.
I meant me... ;)
i know ^_^, putting the blame to Jojo was the joke part. =D
Yeah, I agree with Sam. I wanted to share this article with you guys, have no intention of arguing. Any goal of arguing is to change the opponents position into thinking you are right. I do not want that, in fact - there was no statement over which to argue put forth. Any technical arguments on what is better organized - Windows or Linux - to me seems out of scope of one forum thread on a non-programming related site anyway.
I chose Linux and it is fun to me - I am not a Windows basher. And apart from philosophical reasons, I also left Windows because I personally needed Linux's abilities to work with sound which allow you to route audio from one app to another easily. Mac OS also has some of those possibilities, but not all of them and macbooks are also to expensive for me.
Quotehave no intention of arguing
Then you should maybe stay away from the internet?
backing my points
here be the future....
http://armdevices.net/2010/01/09/199-chrome-os-tablet-reference-design-based-on-freescale-i-mx515-processor/
the real race in CPUs now is cheap and ultra low power.