5 reasons NOT to use linux :)

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(The Old Bloke)]

Who cares.


"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html
>
> --
> -
> Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
> -

[Ext User(Wayne)]

The Old Bloke scribed the following on Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:34 pm:

> Who cares.
>

Agreed. It is nothing more than a display of idiocy.

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

The Old Bloke wrote something like:

> Who cares.

Who cares if you care :)

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(The Old Bloke)]

You posted, not me
"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:p86k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
> The Old Bloke wrote something like:
>
>> Who cares.
>
> Who cares if you care :)
>
> --
> -
> Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
> -

[Ext User(Sandgroper)]

"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html


Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1) You are too stupid to operate a computer

2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer

3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system

4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system

5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.


:P

--
------------------------------------
True Multitasking is having three computers and a chair with wheels.


Sandgroper
------------------------------------
Remove KNICKERS to Email
steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au

[Ext User(GDS)]

> Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 1) You are too stupid to operate a computer

Untrue

> 2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer

Untrue. But I do prefer it that way.

> 3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system

True.

> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system

Untrue. I have read and still own both a 'dummies guide' and 'someother'
'nix books.

> 5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.

Untrue

G.

[Ext User(Phred)]

In article <43c78ba6$0$24739$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, "Sandgroper" <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>
>> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html
>
> Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>1) You are too stupid to operate a computer

Can't be true -- I'm here.

>2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer

I use DOS a lot for file management.

>3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system

Why bother? I just want to get things done. Stuff learning another
system when the one I've got works perfectly. (Perhaps not quite
"perfectly", but it does the job. :)

>4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system

See above.

>5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.

If she's good looking, I'll go along with that.

On a more serious note, the blokes I know trying to use Linux in a
business environment complain mostly about the "dependencies" of the
system. That problem wastes a *lot* of their time.

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID

[Ext User(Ernest)]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:17:21 +0800, "Sandgroper"
<steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote:

>
>"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>
>> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html
>
>
> Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>
Add the word properly to the end of that and you have about
90% of the dedicated MS Windows client base. Now you can
get Linux systems that perfectly fit such clients, and some that
fit even better than the latest MS Windows offerings.

>2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer
>
There are Linux systems that work exactly that way.

>3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system
>
So, you do not need to learn a thing to use Fedora Core 4.

>4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>
Irrelevant, don't need to.

>5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.
>
Yes please, preferably female, human, young and friendly.
>
>:P

Regards,

Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)

[Ext User(Dand)]

"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html

Reason 3 is mute since all that software is on windows anyway.

Real reasons not to use linux?
No mainstream PC games run under it.
No software I buy for work (electronics,mathematics,design related) is ever
for linux.
Every linux i have ever tried looks worse than windows 95. Oh wait, some
user will make a good looking skin, and patch the kernal to make it right,
and code the programs so you can actually get work done and etc. etc. etc.

[Ext User(Uncle Bully)]

"Sandgroper" <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:43c78ba6$0$24739$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
> news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>
>> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html
>
>
> Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 1) You are too stupid to operate a computer

Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.

>
> 2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer

Which is what most people want

>
> 3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system

A 'real' operating system. The catchcry of the desperate. Get a real
Operating system. How do you define real and pretend?
If it supports all the hardware and applications you need, that's real
enough.

>
> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system

Why would you want to?

>
> 5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.

Or you want to be able to figure it out reasonably easily without having to
read a manual.

The main point is, why should you have to. If you like tinkering then good
for you. A lot of people want a computer like a toaster. turn it on, push
the button, it works. Sure windows isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot
closer to the mark than Linux will ever get.


> :P

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

Uncle Bully wrote something like:

>
> "Sandgroper" <steveray@KNICKERSiinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:43c78ba6$0$24739$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> "amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
>> news:sj4k93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
>>>
>>> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html
>>
>>
>> Five Reasons Not To Use Linux
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> 1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>
> Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
> intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.

Even my wife can use linux. It's a common misconception that it is hard.
Once installed on a PC (just as the normal user gets windows pre-installed)
anyone can sit at the keyboard and use it. Just put any 8 year old on a
linux box and watch.

>> 2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer
>
> Which is what most people want

All you need do on a linux, mac or windows box. They are all just point and
click these days. My wife wouldn't know what a command line was.

>> 3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system
>
> A 'real' operating system. The catchcry of the desperate. Get a real
> Operating system. How do you define real and pretend?
> If it supports all the hardware and applications you need, that's real
> enough.

Nothing to learn anyway. Just sit and point and click. People that have
trouble with linux are usually tinkerers that are used to tinkering with
windows and then move to linux and then find it is different. An ordinary
person can just sit in front of a linux box these days and use it the same
as a windows box or a mac. Same thing, just different.

>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>
> Why would you want to?

My wife has never read an instruction in her life. She just sits at the
linux pc and clicks. If it breaks (rarely), she calls the tech guy (me).
Same as any housewife windows user...

>> 5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.
>
> Or you want to be able to figure it out reasonably easily without having
> to read a manual.
>
> The main point is, why should you have to. If you like tinkering then good
> for you. A lot of people want a computer like a toaster. turn it on, push
> the button, it works. Sure windows isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot
> closer to the mark than Linux will ever get.

My wife demanded linux on her PC. She was sick of the crashing and the
malware (this was back in 9x days). I put it on for her and added (win4lin
then) crossover to run the couple of win apps she uses. People can use
whatever OS they like. Linux is as good an option as any and has the bonus
of being free and relatively malware safe and stable.

My wife uses it like the toaster, although it's switched on 27/7. She just
sits and clicks. Mail, browsing, openoffice, breedmate database, frozen
bubble, etc.

Use it or not. It's an option and a good one at that. There are pros and
cons. The malware situation favours linux. Application and hardware vendor
support favours windows.

Dual boot. Or run multiple machines. Windows has the edge on games numbers
so the kids keep a win box running here, tho a large nuber of games also
run on linux - I think I have (major size games) wolfenstien, UT, UT2004,
Doom3, quake 1 & 2 & 3, CS:condition zero, Jedi knight 1 & 2 & academy, HL
1 & 2 (plus many smaller) on this box at the moment... Only so much disk
space...

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(Uncle Bully)]

>>> 1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>>
>> Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
>> intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>
> Even my wife can use linux.

How would she fare if she wasn't married to a Linux guy?

> It's a common misconception that it is hard.

It's harder than Windows. Even Linux people admit that

> Once installed on a PC (just as the normal user gets windows
> pre-installed)
> anyone can sit at the keyboard and use it. Just put any 8 year old on a
> linux box and watch.
>
>>> 2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer
>>
>> Which is what most people want
>
> All you need do on a linux, mac or windows box. They are all just point
> and
> click these days. My wife wouldn't know what a command line was.
>
>>> 3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system
>>
>> A 'real' operating system. The catchcry of the desperate. Get a real
>> Operating system. How do you define real and pretend?
>> If it supports all the hardware and applications you need, that's real
>> enough.
>
> Nothing to learn anyway. Just sit and point and click. People that have
> trouble with linux are usually tinkerers that are used to tinkering with
> windows and then move to linux and then find it is different. An ordinary
> person can just sit in front of a linux box these days and use it the same
> as a windows box or a mac. Same thing, just different.
>

Not just different, it's not as easy. It may do similar things, but it
doesn't do them nearly as easily.
Every Linux/Unix guy I've met or worked with admit this. They love the
flexibility of Linux/Unix for production systems, but when you just want
your desktop to work, they all pick Windows everytime.



>>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>
>> Why would you want to?
>
> My wife has never read an instruction in her life. She just sits at the
> linux pc and clicks. If it breaks (rarely), she calls the tech guy (me).
> Same as any housewife windows user...

Our cases are not typical. Your average Joe family wants what is easy and
works (and what most of everyone else has).

>
>>> 5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.
>>
>> Or you want to be able to figure it out reasonably easily without having
>> to read a manual.
>>
>> The main point is, why should you have to. If you like tinkering then
>> good
>> for you. A lot of people want a computer like a toaster. turn it on, push
>> the button, it works. Sure windows isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot
>> closer to the mark than Linux will ever get.
>
> My wife demanded linux on her PC. She was sick of the crashing and the
> malware (this was back in 9x days). I put it on for her and added (win4lin
> then) crossover to run the couple of win apps she uses. People can use
> whatever OS they like. Linux is as good an option as any and has the bonus
> of being free and relatively malware safe and stable.
>
> My wife uses it like the toaster, although it's switched on 27/7. She just
> sits and clicks. Mail, browsing, openoffice, breedmate database, frozen
> bubble, etc.
>
> Use it or not. It's an option and a good one at that.

It is an option, but you can't honestly say Linux is a better overall
desktop OS than WinXP.
Good for some people who can live with the quirkyness and 'cool' factor of
not being so mainstream. Window's uniformity is one of it's strengths. Linux
will never have this.


> There are pros and
> cons. The malware situation favours linux. Application and hardware vendor
> support favours windows.

Malware is a misleading topic always raised by Linux people. Malware isn't
that big a problem. I've been through all the big ones and I've still spent
less time on them than I have figuring out how to get simple things to work
in Linux.
In my experience it is better to have root access and greater exposure to
Malware (but know how to avoid it), than to be locked down and always
struggle when you need to modify or reconfigure your system.

>
> Dual boot. Or run multiple machines. Windows has the edge on games numbers
> so the kids keep a win box running here, tho a large nuber of games also
> run on linux - I think I have (major size games) wolfenstien, UT, UT2004,
> Doom3, quake 1 & 2 & 3, CS:condition zero, Jedi knight 1 & 2 & academy, HL
> 1 & 2 (plus many smaller) on this box at the moment... Only so much disk
> space...

I imagine every OS released it the last 5 years is better than Win95. XP is
a whole other kettle of fish.
I used Ubuntu 5.1 which was voted best Linux desktop distro last year. It is
better than Windows95, but it blows incomparison to XP. After touting
Windows-like usabilty it didn't come with an MP3 player as default, and even
though Evolution is touted as Exchange compatible, it still wasn't working
at the end of the day. Even after perusing the Google cache for solutions
all I got was that lots of other people who couldn't get it to work either,
and there was no common solution.

This type of thing doesn't happen in Windows world.
I may just be Linux illiterate, but I've given it a fair go over the years
(started with Linux in 94).
And when Linux guys still prefer Windows, that tells me Linux isn't quite at
the same level yet.

[Ext User(Dogfart)]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, at 19:17:21 [GMT +0800] (22:17:21 Friday, 13 January
2006 where I live) "Sandgroper" wrote:

> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system

How about:

"You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"

[Ext User(Ernest)]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:26:58 +1100, Dogfart
<flatulantdingo@deadspam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, at 19:17:21 [GMT +0800] (22:17:21 Friday, 13 January
>2006 where I live) "Sandgroper" wrote:
>
>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>
>How about:
>
>"You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
>around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"

Then you best buy either Linux or Win 98 SE, oops
sorry no longer available or supported.


Regards,

Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)

[Ext User(Gary R. Schmidt)]

Dogfart wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, at 19:17:21 [GMT +0800] (22:17:21 Friday, 13 January
> 2006 where I live) "Sandgroper" wrote:
>
>
>>4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>
>
> How about:
>
> "You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
> around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"
>
So, you ring up Sun and you order an Ultra 20 running Solaris 10.

Works like a dream.

Or, for that matter, you go and buy a barebones PC at the corner
computer shop, download Solaris 10 (or order a media kit from Sun) and
install it.

Yes, I am posting from a box running XP, it's a laptop, and I haven't
been able to find a Conexant modem driver for Solaris. The wifi,
however, works fine under Solaris 10, and it's just that I'm away from
home at the moment and dialled in that means I'm using it.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

Uncle Bully wrote something like:

>
>
>>>> 1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>>>
>>> Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
>>> intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>>
>> Even my wife can use linux.
>
> How would she fare if she wasn't married to a Linux guy?

The same as any housewife. She would have to call in a tech if it broke. Up
until last year I did that as a job, going to fix PC's belonging to
housewives. They were running windows. They called when it didn't go any
more and the majority of calls involved very trivial things. Modem setups,
software installs. Mostly malware problems.

>> It's a common misconception that it is hard.
>
> It's harder than Windows. Even Linux people admit that

It is not harder to use. A KDE interface is simple point and click. I've put
complete computer novices behind both windows and linux boxes and there is
no difference in there use of the PC. The points where linux can be seem to
be harder is the install and particular hardware - not an issue on a
preinstall system. Also perhaps the setting up of some services, like samba
perhaps in a mixed network. Not an issue for the ordinary person. The
difficulties do arrise when trying to use windows software and games with
linux, but crossover and cedega have made these easier. Installation of
software is seen as difficult, but smart online package management has made
this far easier - and more secure. Linux doesn't have the double click
install any exe type install yet. I hope it never does as that's a security
issue with windows that causes more trouble than it's worth.

>> Once installed on a PC (just as the normal user gets windows
>> pre-installed)
>> anyone can sit at the keyboard and use it. Just put any 8 year old on a
>> linux box and watch.
>>
>>>> 2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer
>>>
>>> Which is what most people want
>>
>> All you need do on a linux, mac or windows box. They are all just point
>> and
>> click these days. My wife wouldn't know what a command line was.
>>
>>>> 3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system
>>>
>>> A 'real' operating system. The catchcry of the desperate. Get a real
>>> Operating system. How do you define real and pretend?
>>> If it supports all the hardware and applications you need, that's real
>>> enough.
>>
>> Nothing to learn anyway. Just sit and point and click. People that have
>> trouble with linux are usually tinkerers that are used to tinkering with
>> windows and then move to linux and then find it is different. An ordinary
>> person can just sit in front of a linux box these days and use it the
>> same as a windows box or a mac. Same thing, just different.
>>
>
> Not just different, it's not as easy. It may do similar things, but it
> doesn't do them nearly as easily.

Such as? Sure there are some things that you can do easier in windows.
That's because certain software, say video editing, comes in windows
format... But that is changing and there is more software available. There
are some things that are easier to do with linux as well. They are just
different.

> Every Linux/Unix guy I've met or worked with admit this. They love the
> flexibility of Linux/Unix for production systems, but when you just want
> your desktop to work, they all pick Windows everytime.

I use a linux desktop exclusively and have done for many years. I have the
opposite point of view. I like it because it does 'just work'. I can leave
the PC up 24/7 and know it won't have any problems, doesn't need virus
scans or defrags and won't crash unexpectedly. Windows XP has now come
close to this sort of stability for the normal desktop user, but I get the
same with linux for free.

People don't really pick windows so much as it's what always came with the
PC and most think that it's a bit like a Mac. A PC just runs windows.

>>>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>>
>>> Why would you want to?
>>
>> My wife has never read an instruction in her life. She just sits at the
>> linux pc and clicks. If it breaks (rarely), she calls the tech guy (me).
>> Same as any housewife windows user...
>
> Our cases are not typical. Your average Joe family wants what is easy and
> works (and what most of everyone else has).

The average person would do best with an appliance PC. And we will see these
more and more in the future. The funny thing is that a lot of appliances
are likely to run linux or some other non-windows OS. It will be
transparent and people won't know or care what OS it runs. The idea of a
brand name OS is really kind of strange when you think of it.

>>>> 5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.
>>>
>>> Or you want to be able to figure it out reasonably easily without having
>>> to read a manual.
>>>
>>> The main point is, why should you have to. If you like tinkering then
>>> good
>>> for you. A lot of people want a computer like a toaster. turn it on,
>>> push the button, it works. Sure windows isn't perfect, but it's a whole
>>> lot closer to the mark than Linux will ever get.
>>
>> My wife demanded linux on her PC. She was sick of the crashing and the
>> malware (this was back in 9x days). I put it on for her and added
>> (win4lin then) crossover to run the couple of win apps she uses. People
>> can use whatever OS they like. Linux is as good an option as any and has
>> the bonus of being free and relatively malware safe and stable.
>>
>> My wife uses it like the toaster, although it's switched on 27/7. She
>> just sits and clicks. Mail, browsing, openoffice, breedmate database,
>> frozen bubble, etc.
>>
>> Use it or not. It's an option and a good one at that.
>
> It is an option, but you can't honestly say Linux is a better overall
> desktop OS than WinXP.

Well, yes I do. I find windows difficult and really quite a pain to use...
And they still use the same old ancient filesystem structures...

> Good for some people who can live with the quirkyness and 'cool' factor of
> not being so mainstream. Window's uniformity is one of it's strengths.
> Linux will never have this.

Of course the uniformity is also it's weakness. It's a monoculture, which is
led to the malware problem. And MS has trained users to use their PC as
administrator rather than user, so they are even more open to malware
attack. Heck of a social engineering problem ahead.

It's certainly not the coolness or quirkiness for me. It's just a reliable
tool that allows me to get on the net, do email, usenet, web, blog, tax,
whatever.

Mainstream? Who cares. Linux doesn't need a market share and it's users
don't care what market share it has. More market share does help a little
in hardware and commercial software support, but the last 15 years have
shown that linux can thrive without that.

>> There are pros and
>> cons. The malware situation favours linux. Application and hardware
>> vendor support favours windows.
>
> Malware is a misleading topic always raised by Linux people. Malware isn't
> that big a problem. I've been through all the big ones and I've still
> spent less time on them than I have figuring out how to get simple things
> to work in Linux.

As I say, up until last year I spent many hours with client PC's riddled
with malware. I quit as I was sick of it. I used to like PC repair, but it
can to a point where it was the same old trogan week in and week out. So I
know the malware problem out in Joe Sixpack land.

> In my experience it is better to have root access and greater exposure to
> Malware (but know how to avoid it), than to be locked down and always
> struggle when you need to modify or reconfigure your system.

That is the windows attitude that MS created. I use this PC as a user. This
is not a struggle. All it means is that I type in a password when I use a
config tool. But 99% of the time I am on here as a normal user and it I use
the PC without any issue and couldn't tell the difference for a root user.

Even if you use XP you are better off as a limitted user. Any security tech
will advise this.

>> Dual boot. Or run multiple machines. Windows has the edge on games
>> numbers so the kids keep a win box running here, tho a large nuber of
>> games also run on linux - I think I have (major size games) wolfenstien,
>> UT, UT2004, Doom3, quake 1 & 2 & 3, CS:condition zero, Jedi knight 1 & 2
>> & academy, HL 1 & 2 (plus many smaller) on this box at the moment... Only
>> so much disk space...
>
> I imagine every OS released it the last 5 years is better than Win95. XP
> is a whole other kettle of fish.

XP is better than the 9x series. It's not quite 2000, but it's okay. I still
prefer linux, esp a mandriva distro. With a good linux distro I install
pretty much all the software I will use off the one dvd. Finished.

> I used Ubuntu 5.1 which was voted best Linux desktop distro last year. It
> is better than Windows95, but it blows incomparison to XP.

That's an opinion. You tend to prefer what you are used to. I have used
linux a long time and prefer it.

> After touting
> Windows-like usabilty it didn't come with an MP3 player as default, and

There are legal problems with mp3 and dvd software. Most distros will not
carry them these days, but they are easy to get.

> even though Evolution is touted as Exchange compatible, it still wasn't
> working at the end of the day. Even after perusing the Google cache for
> solutions all I got was that lots of other people who couldn't get it to
> work either, and there was no common solution.
>
> This type of thing doesn't happen in Windows world.

Sure it does. I can just as easily say that windows is no good. I tried
windows and MS office the other day. Windows couldn't open my kmail folder
and MS office couldn't open my openoffice docs. What rubbish this windows
is. It's not even openoffice or kmail compatible.

> I may just be Linux illiterate, but I've given it a fair go over the years
> (started with Linux in 94).

So did I (tho used OS/2 tho the period as well). I stuck with it :)

> And when Linux guys still prefer Windows, that tells me Linux isn't quite
> at the same level yet.

I don't know any 'linux guys' that prefer windows - and I know a LOT of
linux guys :)

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

Dogfart wrote something like:

> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, at 19:17:21 [GMT +0800] (22:17:21 Friday, 13 January
> 2006 where I live) "Sandgroper" wrote:
>
>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>
> How about:
>
> "You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
> around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"

I just installed mandriva 2006 the other day and it just worked. Complete
with 3d acceleration... Out of the box.

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(amosf (Tim Fairchild))]

Gary R. Schmidt wrote something like:

> Dogfart wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, at 19:17:21 [GMT +0800] (22:17:21 Friday, 13 January
>> 2006 where I live) "Sandgroper" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> "You want an operating system that works out of the box, without frigging
>> around and wasting time trying to get things to work?"
>>
> So, you ring up Sun and you order an Ultra 20 running Solaris 10.
>
> Works like a dream.
>
> Or, for that matter, you go and buy a barebones PC at the corner
> computer shop, download Solaris 10 (or order a media kit from Sun) and
> install it.
>
> Yes, I am posting from a box running XP, it's a laptop, and I haven't
> been able to find a Conexant modem driver for Solaris. The wifi,
> however, works fine under Solaris 10, and it's just that I'm away from
> home at the moment and dialled in that means I'm using it.

Solaris 10 is indeed nice. I had that on the box here recently. I must put
it back on one of the machines here...

--
-
Leafnode. Making usenet a better place.
-

[Ext User(Uncle Bully)]

"amosf (Tim Fairchild)" <usenet@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:t4en93-v47.ln1@shiva.home...
> Uncle Bully wrote something like:
>
>>
>>
>>>>> 1) You are too stupid to operate a computer
>>>>
>>>> Close to half of the population, by definition, are of below average
>>>> intelligence. These people are allowed computers too.
>>>
>>> Even my wife can use linux.
>>
>> How would she fare if she wasn't married to a Linux guy?
>
> The same as any housewife. She would have to call in a tech if it broke.
> Up
> until last year I did that as a job, going to fix PC's belonging to
> housewives. They were running windows. They called when it didn't go any
> more and the majority of calls involved very trivial things. Modem setups,
> software installs. Mostly malware problems.
>
>>> It's a common misconception that it is hard.
>>
>> It's harder than Windows. Even Linux people admit that
>
> It is not harder to use. A KDE interface is simple point and click. I've
> put
> complete computer novices behind both windows and linux boxes and there is
> no difference in there use of the PC.

True to certain extent, but when the user eventually gathers the confidence
to expand their system, the Windows road is strewn with far less obstacles.


> The points where linux can be seem to
> be harder is the install and particular hardware - not an issue on a
> preinstall system. Also perhaps the setting up of some services, like
> samba
> perhaps in a mixed network. Not an issue for the ordinary person. The
> difficulties do arrise when trying to use windows software and games with
> linux, but crossover and cedega have made these easier. Installation of
> software is seen as difficult, but smart online package management has
> made
> this far easier - and more secure. Linux doesn't have the double click
> install any exe type install yet. I hope it never does as that's a
> security
> issue with windows that causes more trouble than it's worth.

This is a phlosphical difference. There will always be a trade off between
usability and security. I prefer (and I think most other people do to) the
Windows usability bias the Linux's security.

>
>>> Once installed on a PC (just as the normal user gets windows
>>> pre-installed)
>>> anyone can sit at the keyboard and use it. Just put any 8 year old on a
>>> linux box and watch.
>>>
>>>>> 2) You can only point and click a mouse to use a computer
>>>>
>>>> Which is what most people want
>>>
>>> All you need do on a linux, mac or windows box. They are all just point
>>> and
>>> click these days. My wife wouldn't know what a command line was.
>>>
>>>>> 3) You are too lazy to learn a real operating system
>>>>
>>>> A 'real' operating system. The catchcry of the desperate. Get a real
>>>> Operating system. How do you define real and pretend?
>>>> If it supports all the hardware and applications you need, that's real
>>>> enough.
>>>
>>> Nothing to learn anyway. Just sit and point and click. People that have
>>> trouble with linux are usually tinkerers that are used to tinkering with
>>> windows and then move to linux and then find it is different. An
>>> ordinary
>>> person can just sit in front of a linux box these days and use it the
>>> same as a windows box or a mac. Same thing, just different.
>>>
>>
>> Not just different, it's not as easy. It may do similar things, but it
>> doesn't do them nearly as easily.
>
> Such as? Sure there are some things that you can do easier in windows.
> That's because certain software, say video editing, comes in windows
> format... But that is changing and there is more software available. There
> are some things that are easier to do with linux as well. They are just
> different.

The whole multimedia/entertainment thing (DVD, MP3, HT, gaming etc) is the
biggest struggle from my point of view.

>
>> Every Linux/Unix guy I've met or worked with admit this. They love the
>> flexibility of Linux/Unix for production systems, but when you just want
>> your desktop to work, they all pick Windows everytime.
>
> I use a linux desktop exclusively and have done for many years. I have the
> opposite point of view. I like it because it does 'just work'. I can leave
> the PC up 24/7 and know it won't have any problems, doesn't need virus
> scans or defrags and won't crash unexpectedly. Windows XP has now come
> close to this sort of stability for the normal desktop user, but I get the
> same with linux for free.
>
> People don't really pick windows so much as it's what always came with the
> PC and most think that it's a bit like a Mac. A PC just runs windows.

A good analogy is cars. Even if a Hyundai is as good as a Toyota, People
will always choose Toyota more often.

>
>>>>> 4) You are too lazy to read anything on the Linux operating system
>>>>
>>>> Why would you want to?
>>>
>>> My wife has never read an instruction in her life. She just sits at the
>>> linux pc and clicks. If it breaks (rarely), she calls the tech guy (me).
>>> Same as any housewife windows user...
>>
>> Our cases are not typical. Your average Joe family wants what is easy and
>> works (and what most of everyone else has).
>
> The average person would do best with an appliance PC. And we will see
> these
> more and more in the future. The funny thing is that a lot of appliances
> are likely to run linux or some other non-windows OS. It will be
> transparent and people won't know or care what OS it runs. The idea of a
> brand name OS is really kind of strange when you think of it.

I think that Windows Media Centre is heading in the right direction. I'm
sure there are/will be Linux equivalents. Branding is all part of marketing,
and marketing is how companies make lots of money (unfortunate but true).
Linux already has a nerd/geek/hard to use image which even if this isn't
reality, will be almost impossible to shake off without some massive
centralised marketing effort (which won't happen due to the nature of open
source)

>
>>>>> 5) You want somebody to hold your hand every time you use a computer.
>>>>
>>>> Or you want to be able to figure it out reasonably easily without
>>>> having
>>>> to read a manual.
>>>>
>>>> The main point is, why should you have to. If you like tinkering then
>>>> good
>>>> for you. A lot of people want a computer like a toaster. turn it on,
>>>> push the button, it works. Sure windows isn't perfect, but it's a whole
>>>> lot closer to the mark than Linux will ever get.
>>>
>>> My wife demanded linux on her PC. She was sick of the crashing and the
>>> malware (this was back in 9x days). I put it on for her and added
>>> (win4lin then) crossover to run the couple of win apps she uses. People
>>> can use whatever OS they like. Linux is as good an option as any and has
>>> the bonus of being free and relatively malware safe and stable.
>>>
>>> My wife uses it like the toaster, although it's switched on 27/7. She
>>> just sits and clicks. Mail, browsing, openoffice, breedmate database,
>>> frozen bubble, etc.
>>>
>>> Use it or not. It's an option and a good one at that.
>>
>> It is an option, but you can't honestly say Linux is a better overall
>> desktop OS than WinXP.
>
> Well, yes I do. I find windows difficult and really quite a pain to use...
> And they still use the same old ancient filesystem structures..
>
>> Good for some people who can live with the quirkyness and 'cool' factor
>> of
>> not being so mainstream. Window's uniformity is one of it's strengths.
>> Linux will never have this.
>
> Of course the uniformity is also it's weakness. It's a monoculture, which
> is
> led to the malware problem. And MS has trained users to use their PC as
> administrator rather than user, so they are even more open to malware
> attack. Heck of a social engineering problem ahead.

User's will adapt.. I learnt more about security from the various Windows
outbreaks than any text book :)
'Monoculture' is not all bad. It has it's weaknesses, but so does variation.
There's a long discussion that could start just over this topic.

>
> It's certainly not the coolness or quirkiness for me. It's just a reliable
> tool that allows me to get on the net, do email, usenet, web, blog, tax,
> whatever.
>
> Mainstream? Who cares.

Shouldn't matter, but we all know it does.

> Linux doesn't need a market share and it's users
> don't care what market share it has. More market share does help a little
> in hardware and commercial software support, but the last 15 years have
> shown that linux can thrive without that.

And that model will only ever have limited success. Depends on how
'successful' Linux wants to be I guess.


>
>>> There are pros and
>>> cons. The malware situation favours linux. Application and hardware
>>> vendor support favours windows.
>>
>> Malware is a misleading topic always raised by Linux people. Malware
>> isn't
>> that big a problem. I've been through all the big ones and I've still
>> spent less time on them than I have figuring out how to get simple things
>> to work in Linux.
>
> As I say, up until last year I spent many hours with client PC's riddled
> with malware. I quit as I was sick of it. I used to like PC repair, but it
> can to a point where it was the same old trogan week in and week out. So I
> know the malware problem out in Joe Sixpack land.
>
>> In my experience it is better to have root access and greater exposure to
>> Malware (but know how to avoid it), than to be locked down and always
>> struggle when you need to modify or reconfigure your system.
>
> That is the windows attitude that MS created. I use this PC as a user.
> This
> is not a struggle. All it means is that I type in a password when I use a
> config tool. But 99% of the time I am on here as a normal user and it I
> use
> the PC without any issue and couldn't tell the difference for a root user.
>
> Even if you use XP you are better off as a limitted user. Any security
> tech
> will advise this.

Security advice is not always good advice.

>
>>> Dual boot. Or run multiple machines. Windows has the edge on games
>>> numbers so the kids keep a win box running here, tho a large nuber of
>>> games also run on linux - I think I have (major size games) wolfenstien,
>>> UT, UT2004, Doom3, quake 1 & 2 & 3, CS:condition zero, Jedi knight 1 & 2
>>> & academy, HL 1 & 2 (plus many smaller) on this box at the moment...
>>> Only
>>> so much disk space...
>>
>> I imagine every OS released it the last 5 years is better than Win95. XP
>> is a whole other kettle of fish.
>
> XP is better than the 9x series. It's not quite 2000, but it's okay. I
> still
> prefer linux, esp a mandriva distro. With a good linux distro I install
> pretty much all the software I will use off the one dvd. Finished.
>
>> I used Ubuntu 5.1 which was voted best Linux desktop distro last year. It
>> is better than Windows95, but it blows incomparison to XP.
>
> That's an opinion. You tend to prefer what you are used to. I have used
> linux a long time and prefer it.
>
>> After touting
>> Windows-like usabilty it didn't come with an MP3 player as default, and
>
> There are legal problems with mp3 and dvd software. Most distros will not
> carry them these days, but they are easy to get.
>
>> even though Evolution is touted as Exchange compatible, it still wasn't
>> working at the end of the day. Even after perusing the Google cache for
>> solutions all I got was that lots of other people who couldn't get it to
>> work either, and there was no common solution.
>>
>> This type of thing doesn't happen in Windows world.
>
> Sure it does. I can just as easily say that windows is no good. I tried
> windows and MS office the other day. Windows couldn't open my kmail folder
> and MS office couldn't open my openoffice docs. What rubbish this windows
> is. It's not even openoffice or kmail compatible.

But I've never seen a Windows ad that says it is. Linux is selling as
alternative to Windows, but i doesn't live it up to expectation. Evolution
advertsies easy Echange compatibility, but it's not easy. (Easy to me means
you dick about for a bit and you should be able to figure it out. Even if
you can't figure it out the answer should found in a manual or google in
less than 15 minutes or so)

>
>> I may just be Linux illiterate, but I've given it a fair go over the
>> years
>> (started with Linux in 94).
>
> So did I (tho used OS/2 tho the period as well). I stuck with it :)
>
>> And when Linux guys still prefer Windows, that tells me Linux isn't quite
>> at the same level yet.
>
> I don't know any 'linux guys' that prefer windows - and I know a LOT of
> linux guys :)

It's a philosophy thing I guess. I prefer convenience over security. I think
21st century society is heading the same way, as much the Bush cartel would
like us to think otherwise :)