harder to install - update? it's atleast 10000000000x times easier
red hat - beginners distro has their up2date system which means you automaticly get notified of any updates available, then you just select from a list which ones you want, and it'll download and install them
and the red hat package manager is so simple it's almost scary, click the file and poof, it's installed and good to go
"If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably make marriage unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial nature of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment to the commercial growth of prostitution."
-- Linus Torvalds, December 5th 2003.
(Darl McBride is CEO of The SCO Group)
this place sucks but don't tell anyone, it's our little secret, ok?
Red Hat is going to be removing support for home users, and that includes the update service. I am not sure if any other Linux versions have an update service. Windows XP has an updater, which allows you to update your whole system, including drivers, with a single click. What happens if you want to install and use a video driver on Linux? Here is the readme from Nvidia:
In Windows you double click the file. Yeesh, there is nothing to argue. Linux is harder to use, and thats a fact. Microsoft has focused on ease of use ever since Windows 3.1, but Linux has not. Linux is more focused on stability and being customizable. This has hurt it in the long run, since the average user wants something that is easy to use. Linux is doing very well in the business market, since it is free, and business's like to save money.
99 percent chance that the above post is 100 percent correct.
yeah you can follow that readme, or just run XFreeConfig and choose it from a list.. doh
also, i know red hat is cutting support but by then Gentoo Linux will have taken over
lets end this pointless arguing here and now, the average user is stupid. period.
"If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably make marriage unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial nature of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment to the commercial growth of prostitution."
-- Linus Torvalds, December 5th 2003.
(Darl McBride is CEO of The SCO Group)
this place sucks but don't tell anyone, it's our little secret, ok?
> I mean its much harder to install programs, get updates, etc, using Linux. Linux is just more "hardcore".
Get updates? No. Nearly all distros come with their own auto-updaters these days, ones which are also less intrusive than the Windows update.
Install programs? Yeah, I have to agree, but this is something that I am working on as we speak. My third year project is to create a visual installer that works on a number of platforms (currently Windows and Linux, but if I get it going I'll add support for more as well). This is designed to work as transparently and effectivly as a standard Windows installer, cutting out the need for the command prompt. Thus, like in a Windows installer, the person doing the hard work is the developer, not the end user!
If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0
The reason why we all use Windows is because it was most supported. God knows why, in actual fact it's a terrible operating system, (and think of all the backdoors and security stuff they have in it,) but it was easy to use. Sure, there were other OSes with graphical user interfaces, but since Windows 3.1 supported DOS applications (which existing computer users would've had a few of) it was going to be popular. Now that wasn't so bad, but Windows '95 was the start of all our problems. It was now so easy to use that everyone loved it! Even though it runs super slowly on a 486 (you just try getting Windows XP to work with that!) whereas Linux, Mac, Amiga etc. would run well on a similar processor, it was the best option because it had backwards compatibility. And with the market already there, Microsoft was free to create a monopoly full of bloated software, vapourware, constant stealing of technologies and mergers etc. Even though the Windows source code is 20x more bloated than necessary, nobody can stop them now.
If other OSes/computer systems had a full complement of decent, compatible software for business and home use, we might be using something else today. But they all failed, and unless subsequent OSes are Windows-compatible they will die off from the chicken-and-egg syndrome that killed those that came before it.
Visit www.microsuck.com and learn why everyone hates Microsoft like they do.
lets be a little fair the main reason windows has never had any real competition is because people like to live easy lives. Think about it if there where 15 odd OS's for you to choose from for your computer it would be a nightmare trying to get compatible software.
Mind you im no big fan of microsoft (£200 for mac windows XP? why dont I just get a pirate copy oh wait I know they'll sue my ass into the next century) they really are the very definition of greedy corporate scumbags and there leader is none other than mr muscles evil twin.
As for Mac's I personally love them Ive never had to restart my mac by hammering down half the keys on my keyboard or had all my work deleted for no apparent reason. I love using Itunes I love the fact that I plug any USB piece of equipment into my mac and it will just work without any lengthy installing and most of all I love the fact that photoshop and all my graphics programs work 5 times better on my mac than on my PC
Oh and not to sound like apples bitch but I love the fact that I can use my Ipod a walkman sized er walkman to store 7000 songs make my old mini disc feel a bit sorry for its self.
"Get updates? No. Nearly all distros come with their own auto-updaters these days, ones which are also less intrusive than the Windows update.
Install programs? Yeah, I have to agree, but this is something that I am working on as we speak. My third year project is to create a visual installer that works on a number of platforms (currently Windows and Linux, but if I get it going I'll add support for more as well). This is designed to work as transparently and effectivly as a standard Windows installer, cutting out the need for the command prompt. Thus, like in a Windows installer, the person doing the hard work is the developer, not the end user!"
I used the Red Hat updater about 2 years ago and it had problems, and was not very user friendly at all. Maybe the other ones are better. But it is hard to beat MS's auto updater, which allows you to update everything, including drivers, with just a few clicks. A grandma could use the Windows update.
Your making an installer for Linux? Fine, tell me when it's done, but as of now, its not. Glad to see that some people realise that Linux needs to be easier to use before it goes mainstream though.
Linux has two problems that prevent it from being a true competetor to Windows in the home market:
1. To hard to use.
2. Not enough application and game support.
I can live with number 1 but not number 2, so until that problem is solved, I will stay with Windows. I choose my applications and games, then the OS that can run them, not the other way around.
99 percent chance that the above post is 100 percent correct.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Yeesh, there is nothing to argue. Linux is harder to use, and thats a fact. Microsoft has focused on ease of use ever since Windows 3.1, but Linux has not. Linux is more focused on stability and being customizable. This has hurt it in the long run, since the average user wants something that is easy to use. Linux is doing very well in the business market, since it is free, and business's like to save money.
