Winnow wrote:Aardor wrote: Winnow wants every thing you can do on Windows to work on Linux, despite the fact that many of the programs he uses in Windows cost money and are separate from the actual operating system, whereas Linux, for the most part, only has open source software that is too complicated for him to install. I guess one of the reasons he doesn't see this is because he has been stealing all his software for 20+ years.
That's not true. Ever hear of portable apps? All free all do as good a job as Linux on windows:
http://portableapps.com/
I had not, but i don't see your point. Yes windows has free software that works, and the majority of apps that program includes have linux versions that work great.
I can do all the cheap things on windows that you can do on linux, but a whole hell of a lot easier so it comes down to the cost of the OS itself which is pretty cheap if you go for the basic install that would support these free apps.
I look at Linux, not from a power user's point of view but as a person wondering why you'd ever choose it over windows or OSX if you make minimum wage or higher. I'm not talking about starving Africans with their $99 computers.
Quite a few things here:
Yes, Windows has become more cheap in recent years. However, your assumption that anyone who makes minimum wage can afford it is wrong. This doesn't surprise me however, since you come from a privileged background, and you willfully choose to ignore what a person who makes that much money lives like. $99 for an operating system for your computer vs. paying your bills on time this month just seems like a type of decision that doesn't even cross your mind as being real. Also, use Dell as an example. Their computers that use Ubuntu instead of Vista are significantly cheaper, making it easier for a low income family to be able to afford a computer.
You're right, If Linux advertised itself in this manner, it would get trounced by Windows and OSX in reviews/sales. However, it is not advertised that way, it is being advertised as a free alternative, which is becoming easier to use and beginning to catch up in user functionality. So the fact that you look at the situation from that point seems pretty pointless.
Besides being used as servers, the only benefit I see for Linux is as an emergency Live CD/USB bootable OS. Everything about Linux is a bitch compared to Windows/OSX. Installing new apps, etc...even with the more friendly Ubuntu type distributions still is not nearly as simple.
Amarok sucks compared to Media Monkey which is free for windows. I just don't see the benefit of Linux and the support for hardware is horrific compared to windows/OSX so you're constantly battling that factor as well if you decide to upgrade anything or during initial installation.
There is one of your problems, you have no idea what Linux can be used for besides a webserver, a windows clone, or a bootable OS.
Everything about Linux is a bitch? As explained multiple times, it's not a bitch just because it doesn't mirror the way windows does it. Try installing an IIS server on a Windows vs apache in Ubuntu. I have done both, and all I have to do for apache is type "apt-get install apache," but it is more complicated for IIS. What other apps? I can install the apps I use on a computer in minutes on linux with apt-get, but it takes much longer with windows (neither of which is very difficult).
Again, the reason you don't see the benefit of Linux is because you want it to be a better than windows Windows clone. Yes hardware support sucks (it really isn't that bad, though. I have had 0 problems with my hardware on laptops and desktops for a number of installs), but that is the fault of the manufacturer, and not Linux itself. When you say upgrade, i'm not sure if you meant software or hardware, but software is super amazingly easy (yes, easier than windows). Hardware, I have changed with Linux install and it has picked up the new hardware without any problems, in a similar manner when Windows does it.
Linux works for novice users that don't know any better and don't understand that they are using crappy apps compared to Windows /OSX, as long as it comes preinstalled or someone sets it up for them.
Yeah...because OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc work so much better in Windows than they do in Linux. What apps are you talking about?
As Fash mentioned, I like to play around with other OS's. I don't just preach Vista, I spent a shitload of hours working on Hackentosh OSX86 to see what it was like. Nice, but I like Windows better due to many more applications and of course games. I did try my best to find applications on the Mac that I liked including image viewers, file managers, etc and I found some that would work but none better than what I use on Windows. I do see how OXS would work well for some users though but not Linux.
Again, all of this is because Linux is not the type of operating system you are trying to evaluate it as.
noel wrote:It's not that Linux sucks or that Winnow sucks. It's more Linux is not, and will never be what he wants it to be. OS X is the closest thing to it, but he won't pony up the cash for a real Mac so that's not an option either.
Yes, you're right, Linux does not suck, nor does Winnow. I still hold that Winnow is not computer savvy enough to make Linux do what he wants, and so when he has trouble installing a beta open source application, it's Linux's fault and not his own lack of knowledge.
.
