How can Linux beat Windows?

[Fillado]

For Linux to succeed, it must become less fragmented, though that goes entirely against the open source ethos. Catch 22...

That's what i've always thought, KDE vs Gnome etc. etc. You're wasting developers on two projects that accomplish the same thing. Plus if you stuck someone who is used to Gnome in front of KDE, they'd just look at you funny

That's the biggest thing Linux needs to do. Force out either KDE or Gnome and have a standard look for Linux. As you said though that goes against Open Source entirely.

 

[PermaBanned]

I completely disagree, to force out all but one would be to create a uniform, identical look for all the distrobutions. This is not the point of linux. The point of linux is freedom to choose. Besides, XFCE is still in mainstream use, along with many others. They're used for each distribution depending on what it wants to achieve and who is achieving it.

 

[Hairybudda]

Having competing window managers is a great thing, instead of getting stale you have multiple groups competing to get you to use their window manager, competition sparks innovation.

 

[Fillado]

I completely disagree, to force out all but one would be to create a uniform, identical look for all the distrobutions. This is not the point of linux. The point of linux is freedom to choose. Besides, XFCE is still in mainstream use, along with many others. They're used for each distribution depending on what it wants to achieve and who is achieving it.

Oh I do agree with you. Linux and Open Source is all about the freedom to do what you like. Heck Gnome exists because KDE decided to use Qt (when it wasn't open sourced) so some people decided to create a truly open desktop environment that used GTK+.

The problem is Linux simply can't gain anything vaguely serious in desktop use because the mass of computer users (general public) wouldn't take well to their computer looking different to their previous one. Same goes from switching from Windows in the first place.

"Linux" will never do anything on the desktop. A distro yes perhaps. But nobody will care or distinguish that it's Linux. They'll say they're using "Ubuntu". Anyone using say Kubuntu will appear to be using an entirely different operating system. This is why Google Chrome OS stands a chance - it's one consistent GUI and will be know as "Google Chrome OS" not as a flavour of Linux. Equally Mac OS X has a standard GUI.

 

[Lightnix]

Having competing window managers is a great thing, instead of getting stale you have multiple groups competing to get you to use their window manager, competition sparks innovation.

They have competition, though - Mac OS X and Windows desktop systems. And it's bloody big competition which in the public eye are currently trashing Gnome and KDE. They should band together and take on the bigger targets rather than squabbling amonst themselves.

 

[NickK]

I think the true, fundamental problem with Linux systems is the now very aggressive open source ideology. I think a lot of commercial developers are reluctant to develop for a platform where a large quantity of the user base seems to expect developers to give their product away and make money around it as a support service rather than a retail product (just as an example).

Also, I'm of the opinion that Linux does make some features extensively hard to use, such as certain networking options like crossover network bridging (brctl is not fun, kids.) but I think that is only a minor patch on the main problem which is the surrounding ideology.

This is exactly the reason - if I'm going to sink my time into a project then it's of value.

Now, to make anything you need to be as good as the open source and then add your uniqueness on top. Given a few months an you'll find your uniqueness then copied (usually butchered) and added to the open source. So the only way to protect your value is through patents.. additional cost and additional effort to enforce.

So open source is killing the backroom developers that historically made the basis of innovative companies.

Now the open source is used by the likes of Google etc as a weapon to significantly increase the cost of attempting to break into the market. So unless you're a reasonable sized company, Google and other open source companies are killing software development.

Additionally a lot of companies are now treating support contracts as insurance. This means they will not purchase support contracts but risk selling their products to their clients without an supported operating system.

Got distracted from my line of thought in this - so here's the above!

 

[spudbynight]

Linux has too much command line use for 99% of users. Users should be able to use it without ever having to open a terminal session.

 

[Spyhop]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_PowerShell

Barely anyone knows what PowerShell is, never mind uses it. It doesn't play the same role as the shell in a typical Linux distro.

 

[Hairybudda]

Barely anyone knows what PowerShell is, never mind uses it. It doesn't play the same role as the shell in a typical Linux distro.

Take my dad again as an example, he doesn't even know what a shell is let alone how to use it and he gets by. I bet most casual os-x users don't use the shell (I don't know much about os-x though so forgive the naivety).

Horses for courses.

 

[Spyhop]

Yeah - I'm sure people get by fine on every platform.

My point was that PowerShell is so marginal. Somewhere like OcUK is full of people who'd consider themselves Windows "Power Users" and I'd bet at only a tiny fraction ever having used it.

 

[dangerstat]

Ha hahahahaha can't believe anyone brought up power shell! It's utter ****

 

[slylittlefox]

Seriously though, for a free OS and for how well it works it's brilliant. I'm just really really not familiar enough with it to be able to use it or troubleshoot it well.

This holds the most truth.

For every person that has commented on how xyz doesn't work out the box, it simply comes down to lack of knowledge.

Yes, Windows makes everything easy, and the user hardly ever gets to see any of the backend trickery that goes on - but where is the fun in that?

I have learnt more about computing, and just how things work as they do through using Linux than I would have done using Windows for the rest of my life.

Even so called 'complicated' aspects of Windows administration, i.e. setting up Exchange, AD, DNS and DHCP servers, it is just a series of button clicks and the occasional string stored in my memory. Setting up the equivalent systems in Linux has given me a vast knowledge of how computers and the underlying components actually interact. I know how mail routes through the internet, how a webserver generates dynamic content, how Kerberos authentication actually takes place etc.

Instead of a series of button clicks and strings committed to memory, I have knowledge I can call on when the unexpected happens and know how to begin debugging the problem.

Yes, Windows is generally stable, and works well in most situations. But it is making us an army of drones that forget just how complex these machines are that make up such a huge part of our daily lives.

If you don't care about that, and I certainly don't at times, then use Windows or Ubuntu. If you actually have a thirst for knowledge - dive in, snoop about, configure, break things and then gradually build up a knowledge of why it's broken, and learn how to fix it.

Freefaller also touches on an important point - Linux is free, and is a product of other peoples thirst for knowledge. The next time you care to curse Linux because xyz package doesn't work - remember that someone has coded that of their own free will, with no renumeration involved. If a friend coded an app for you to manage your company, or read your e-mails, and did it as a favour, and it broke unexpectedly - would you call your friend and have a go at him? Or would you kindly ask if there's anything he could do to fix it if he's got some time?

Also, when was the last time you blamed Windows and labelled it as a waste of time because a faulty application crashed?

To hopefully emphasise my impartiality, I have a Windows desktop machine, a Linux desktop machine, a Windows SBS 2008 and Ubuntu Server, Mac OSX and Windows on my MBP, Debian on three aging laptops, and oversee/administer a variety of 75+ Linux and Windows servers for my job. I am in no way a Linux fanboy, but rather just have a considered opinion on which is better

There's room for all - each has it's different use.

Ha hahahahaha can't believe anyone brought up power shell! It's utter ****

That's not fair - it's a vast improvement over the standard CLI, and gives a powerful alternative to VBscript et al.

 

[BigglesPiP]

Apple OS (ok its based on Unix)

Mac OSX is Unix based

BSD.

That's what i've always thought, KDE vs Gnome etc. etc. You're wasting developers on two projects that accomplish the same thing. Plus if you stuck someone who is used to Gnome in front of KDE, they'd just look at you funny

That's the biggest thing Linux needs to do. Force out either KDE or Gnome and have a standard look for Linux. As you said though that goes against Open Source entirely.

Do it then, start your own distro.

Linux is not an OS, its really just the kernel that most distros use.

 

[pingwing]

BSD.

Sorry to be horrendously anal but BSD is a unix deteriorative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution

But anyway the history of osx isnt really that important (as its basically a unix of sorts)

Anyway did anyone ever read the unix haters handbook (its free on the web), pretty much the most angry developers pet hate list of why unix (and subsequently unix like should not be trusted) and probably why user friendly innovation like in windows probably shouldnt be knocked so badly

 

[NickK]

The next time you care to curse Linux because xyz package doesn't work - remember that someone has coded that of their own free will, with no renumeration involved..

That's irrelevant. I use the computer to resolve my problem. If the computer then acts as a problem itself then my problem is doubled. That is exactly the reason why I moved away from Linux.

Yes it's free, however the direction and the quality of it's applications often aren't close to that of commercial competitors because it doesn't have to survive based on the value people place on it.

I've used RedHat AS at work too for many years however the application was sat in a Java VM so the use of linux really is minimal other than it's support for threading, 64bit and other requirements for fiber attachment etc.

Often application developers (companies) like to have one company driving the operating system forward. It adds stability.

I still maintain that the human interface for linux is amateur.

GNU GCC is another example. It's old technology, the compiler is very simple and any techniques that would make real improvements aren't in it because they're of value and covered by IPR/patents.

 

[PermaBanned]

The applications are the same ones you would use with a windows pc. The quality of the OS itself should be better because of this, because the people are doing it of their own free will. Meaning they want to do it. Meaning they aren't getting paid. Basically, they're doing something they want to do, rather than something they need to do. I for one think the world would be a better place if everybody did this.

The problem is that they don't do it for money though (most of them), and so they can't use the new developments that MS have most likely bought, like they did the NT Kernel. They have to make do with what is available to them, and i for one think they're doing a bloody good job of it.

The human interface differs for each distro. While i agree in not liking the standard Gnome desktop you can easily change it to something you do like, or change distro (Linux Mint or Crunchbang) to something better looking.

The fact is that there are people doing it, some get it right and some get it wrong. But it has to be there. I can't imagine living in a world with ONLY microsoft software. That would be stupid, and scary.

 

[Martins]

To everybody that's saying "Where's the fun in having a computer that just works" I think you're missing the point of having a computer for most people.

For most people the point of having a computer is to allow them to perform certain tasks, eg; Web, Email, Videos, Photo Editing, Website Design, Spreadsheets, etc, etc, etc.When you're doing these things, you don't even want to be aware that the OS exists, much less have to dive into the command line.If they try and switch to Linux then in performing any of their normal tasks Linux causes even a relatively minor issue that they wouldn't have encountered in their normal OS, they'll give it up as too much effort.

And that's right of them!
Why 'upgrade' from something that works for you, to something that causes more problems?

Ubuntu's come a long way in terms of 'staying out of the way' and in a few years it may even get it right, but as it stands, it's suitable only for basic use, servers or enthusiasts.

 

[Outcast]

I'm curious as what printer he was having problems installing ?

Ubuntu picks up most printers these days although you do need to pay attention to the wording for the drivers..

ie:

Say you have a canon printer and it's picked it up.. The wording opposite states recommended driver.

That almost certainly IS NOT the right driver.. You haven't paid attention to the model No. that was highlighted.

Try scrolling down and select your model No. THEN click recommended driver.

 

[PermaBanned]

Nothing forces you to use the command line for said basic tasks though, and even if you do what you need to do is just a google away.

 

[slylittlefox]

That's irrelevant. I use the computer to resolve my problem. If the computer then acts as a problem itself then my problem is doubled. That is exactly the reason why I moved away from Linux.

I'm afraid it's not irrelevant. You have a valid point, if you have a job to do and the computer only furthers your work load, you are of course right in moving away from Linux.

However, if your career/job/hobby/interest is computing, and understanding the components that make up your system is important to you, then Linux can provide a much greater learning experience.

I am in no way trying to argue that Linux is perfect for everybody, and should replace Windows on every desktop machine.

Yes it's free, however the direction and the quality of it's applications often aren't close to that of commercial competitors because it doesn't have to survive based on the value people place on it.

You can either help to improve the experience by developing the app, or find something else. Nobody has the right to complain. It's unfair to gloss over the fact that Linux is free - hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and tens of thousands of hours of people's lives have been spent figuring out how to make Linux what it is today, for free.

This concept alone makes Linux ten times the operating system Windows is. Microsoft have had billions upon billions of pounds and tens of thousands of full-time highly trained developers to develop Windows into what it is today, and the opensource community, with a part time staff of thousands, all being paid only in praise, has made an operating system that rivals it and in a lot of way betters it.

Often application developers (companies) like to have one company driving the operating system forward. It adds stability.

I'd disagree - I'd say it added predictability.

I still maintain that the human interface for linux is amateur.

In what way?

GNU GCC is another example. It's old technology, the compiler is very simple and any techniques that would make real improvements aren't in it because they're of value and covered by IPR/patents.

Who's fault is that? The opensource developers? You should be complaining that the techniques are protected by unfair IPR/patents - not complaining about GCC for not using them!!