Are other operating systems ever going to catch up with Linux?

How would a standard GUI improve things? Reiterating one of my points, the fact that Windows has only one GUI and cannot on the fly switch between it and CLI is one of it's major deficits. On Linux if you dislike the GUI or any particular thing about it you can either change it yourself or simply switch to another, how does the lack of this make Windows superior? For me KDE is annoying and Gnome 3 is irritating so I go for Cinnammon and frankly the only thing that annoys me about that is the horrid file transfer mechanism but that is part of the file manager which also can be switched out for a different one if I absolutely have to.

Yes M$ provides full CLI BUT you have to reboot to change into it where on Linux you simply press a few buttons to switch between multiple independent CLI's that all run at the same time.
 
21021.strip.gif

Beards are awesome and suspenders don't permanently soft-choke you... some people are just a little masochistic I guess.
 
Doesn't have to be. OS X has an excellent gui. Solaris Desktop is also pretty good.
Which one GUI is the Linux GUI, that is the same no matter which variant of Linux someone installs? The OS X GUI is for practical purposes a part of the operating system package.
 
How would a standard GUI improve things? Reiterating one of my points, the fact that Windows has only one GUI and cannot on the fly switch between it and CLI is one of it's major deficits. On Linux if you dislike the GUI or any particular thing about it you can either change it yourself or simply switch to another, how does the lack of this make Windows superior?
Why is it so hard to understand that the average user doesn't want that. If I start telling them about their GUI choices the first thing they'll ask is why isn't there just one. They want to just use it, not spend hours taking it apart and trying to finding something that works. This is why Linux is and will remain inferior for the general computer user.

Yes M$ provides full CLI BUT you have to reboot to change into it where on Linux you simply press a few buttons to switch between multiple independent CLI's that all run at the same time.
Why would you reboot Windows to get the command line interface?
 
Why is it so hard to understand that the average user doesn't want that. If I start telling them about their GUI choices the first thing they'll ask is why isn't there just one. They want to just use it, not spend hours taking it apart and trying to finding something that works. This is why Linux is and will remain inferior for the general computer user.


Why would you reboot Windows to get the command line interface?

I rather doubt a lot of choices will scare anyone off but the most computer illiterate, that said though all distro's have their standard GUI's. Most people will just ask the nearest geek which distro to get and then use it's default GUI, I fail to see the rocket science. Everything that is easy to do in Windows is easy to do in Linux, you just need to think a bit differently here and there is all. As for Mac... it's only recently discovered two-button mice so I don't even count it TBH, it's actually only a proprietary Linux if you think about it anyway.

I think you confuse inferior/superior with "for people that know what they are doing"/idiot-proof... can't STAND idiot-proof systems, everything Nokia has ever done for instance usually makes me want to bash the device against something.

Running the cmd command in windows does not bring up the CLI, it brings up the terminal to it, completely different.
 
Last edited:
I rather doubt a lot of choices will scare anyone off but the most computer illiterate, that said though all distro's have their standard GUI's. Most people will just ask the nearest geek which distro to get and then use it's default GUI, I fail to see the rocket science. Everything that is easy to do in Windows is easy to do in Linux, you just need to think a bit differently here and there is all. As for Mac... it's only recently discovered two-button mice so I don't even count it TBH, it's actually only a proprietary Linux if you think about it anyway.

I think you confuse inferior/superior with "for people that know what they are doing"/idiot-proof... can't STAND idiot-proof systems, everything Nokia has ever done for instance usually makes me want to bash the device against something.

Running the cmd command in windows does not bring up the CLI, it brings up the terminal to it, completely different.

lol. OS X is a proprietary Linux ??? oh dear..... The Unix and Linux kernels are very different. OS X is a proprietary Unix. cmd windows not CLI........


http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2021922
 
Last edited:
Anyone thinking that Linux and OS X are the same thing, is really not well informed. Linux does not even contain a single line of source code from Unix, according to Linus Torvalds himself. Mac OS X is developed in Darwin on a Free BSD kernel while Linux has its own. I am not a qualified IT specialist but I do read a bit and recently read a fair bit about Linus Torvals and Linux.

Perhaps this read will clarify matters. I have also yet to read it.
 
Linux also have things like ksplice which allows for live kernel patching say for applying a security patch to the kernel without having to reboot the system in order for the patch to be applied. So in theory you would never have to take a box down which is ideal for a production environment.
 
This is why Linux is and will remain inferior for the general computer user.
Android says what?

Linux is power, it has many different uses and many different applications. From being the most popular OS for super computers to being the most popular OS for smartphones. Its on your routers, its in your switches you can even find it in fridges and TV`s. Its everywhere.... and used daily by general computer users. Whether they know it or not.
 
Android says what?

Linux is power, it has many different uses and many different applications. From being the most popular OS for super computers to being the most popular OS for smartphones. Its on your routers, its in your switches you can even find it in fridges and TV`s. Its everywhere.... and used daily by general computer users. Whether they know it or not.

Ghoti's head is screwed on right.

Windows is not more popular because it is better. It is only widely used because it had no alternatives. First it was DOS, then Windows and now Linux. 70% of ICT hiring nowadays is headhunting Linux professionals. Just a decade ago, Linux was the reserve of the geeks farming with servers. Things are changing fast. Anyone smart enough wanting to secure a career path for his kids should consider exposing them to Linux from an early age, foster their expertise and send them on to become Linux certified. It is just so that the world is changing fast and, like Nokia and Blackberry, Microsoft had made themselves irrelevant within a short space of time.

Few people in developing countries are BUYING anything Microsoft. They'd rather pirate than buy, as nobody who has respect for hard-earned currency will willingly go buy it unless it comes installed. How many people have you seen flocking to computer stores to BUY Windows? I haven't seen any but I have seen countless pirate installations.

Linux is being taken up in developing countries at an increasing speed.and Ubuntu shipped on 30 million PC's over the past two years, pre-installed. For every CD download, many copy (legally) and install. I have been sending DVD's to people who have no broadband for quite a while, covering only my direct cost. Every receiver then went and did multiple installations in his dorpie and district. This is how Linux is growing and it is only the myopic that will not see what is happening.

Even the Mac had its 41 viruses so it became a Linux box. Linux is not safer because of a small global footprint, but rather because of how it works. One has to be particularly talented and industrious to manage getting your Linux computer infected by a virus. Like Android, it is hyper secure and the USER is the real threat. I doubt even the existence of a pure Android "virus."

Android devices only get compromised by malware hidden in especially free apps. Only ONE anti-malware sniff these out and that is AVL PRO, a mostly unknown app. Eset, Avast, AVG, Avira, Bitdefender, Norton, Kaspersky & the rest all let riskware slip through, The Admob-type is in almost ALL free Android apps as it is used to earn revenues for developers BUT it can install and execute third party apps without your knowledge or consent.

If one is a bit savvy and apply your mind, Android is as safe as Linux which is as safe as houses. The recent Shellshock or Bash Bug as it is also called, was more scaremongering than reality. Even before it was uncovered, my own Linux box passed every Bash test as it was updated frequently.

Linux is safe and secure, it is stable, reliable, extremely simple to install and use and then also more hardware compliant nowadays than Windows or OS X. Gone are the days when hardware did not work or one had to hack into source code to change a basic setting. It has matured into a graceful and extremely powerful OS.

Of course, the uninformed and passive, reactionary people out there will follow the herd. Instead, I create my own and move along with smarter folks who can see beyond the horizons of tomorrow.

The general computer user will remain inferior to Linux.
 
Of course, the uninformed and passive, reactionary people out there will follow the herd. Instead, I create my own and move along with smarter folks who can see beyond the horizons of tomorrow.

Can I play AAA games on Linux like Battlefield 4 or is playing games a sign of inferiority?
 
Can I play AAA games on Linux like Battlefield 4 or is playing games a sign of inferiority?

The average computer user can play most games on Steam, afaik. An OS does not rise or fall just by its capability to handle a game or not. Gamers in general do not see the bigger picture, I suppose. There are some productive uses for computers outside of gaming. Perhaps less enticing yet very much needed. After all, geeks and nerds are the ones designing the powerhouses that games get played upon. :D

Games? Why play these when there are hills and mountains to climb, real life out there waiting for you to share in its abundance. If someone wants to punish me, lock me into a room with a computer. At least, since I have started using Linux, my verbalising in F-major is something long forgotten.
 
Games? Why play these when there are hills and mountains to climb, real life out there waiting for you to share in its abundance. If someone wants to punish me, lock me into a room with a computer. At least, since I have started using Linux, my verbalising in F-major is something long forgotten.
Maybe for the same reason some people post about their obsession with their server software on a forum. Because it's there.
 
The average computer user can play most games on Steam, afaik. An OS does not rise or fall just by its capability to handle a game or not. Gamers in general do not see the bigger picture, I suppose. There are some productive uses for computers outside of gaming. Perhaps less enticing yet very much needed. After all, geeks and nerds are the ones designing the powerhouses that games get played upon. :D

Games? Why play these when there are hills and mountains to climb, real life out there waiting for you to share in its abundance. If someone wants to punish me, lock me into a room with a computer. At least, since I have started using Linux, my verbalising in F-major is something long forgotten.

You've obviously never played a game worth playing before.

Not gonna move to Linux if I can't play 100% of the games I have. You don't have to like it, because you're old, but games are a big deal. ;)
 
The average computer user can play most games on Steam, afaik. An OS does not rise or fall just by its capability to handle a game or not. Gamers in general do not see the bigger picture, I suppose. There are some productive uses for computers outside of gaming. Perhaps less enticing yet very much needed. After all, geeks and nerds are the ones designing the powerhouses that games get played upon. :D

Games? Why play these when there are hills and mountains to climb, real life out there waiting for you to share in its abundance. If someone wants to punish me, lock me into a room with a computer. At least, since I have started using Linux, my verbalising in F-major is something long forgotten.

Can I play AAA games on Linux like Battlefield 4? Let me answer it for you: No. The average gamer is 30+ years old with a steady job, so you'll be missing out on a huge target market.

If my company with 15 000 employees switches to Linux, how can we ensure our clients that someone will be held accountable for our OS and the support thereof? Big companies need accountability. They need a finger to point if something does go wrong. Linux does not offer that, certainly none of the free options do anyway.

Linux has its shortcomings. Why is Android so popular? Because it does not handle like Linux to the average user.

I like Linux, but it's not where it needs to be. If I need to run a server I'll gladly run Linux, but there's still a big gap for Windows that Linux has yet to close.
 
Can I play AAA games on Linux like Battlefield 4? Let me answer it for you: No. The average gamer is 30+ years old with a steady job, so you'll be missing out on a huge target market.

If my company with 15 000 employees switches to Linux, how can we ensure our clients that someone will be held accountable for our OS and the support thereof? Big companies need accountability. They need a finger to point if something does go wrong. Linux does not offer that, certainly none of the free options do anyway.

Linux has its shortcomings. Why is Android so popular? Because it does not handle like Linux to the average user.

I like Linux, but it's not where it needs to be. If I need to run a server I'll gladly run Linux, but there's still a big gap for Windows that Linux has yet to close.
You can pay for support from the big companies behind the major distros. I understand why people use Windows, I personally use both Windows and Linux and both have their place. However to argue that you need to use Windows because you have the accountability of a big company standing behind it while you can't get that with Linux is simply not true.
 
Anyone thinking that Linux and OS X are the same thing, is really not well informed. Linux does not even contain a single line of source code from Unix, according to Linus Torvalds himself. Mac OS X is developed in Darwin on a Free BSD kernel while Linux has its own. I am not a qualified IT specialist but I do read a bit and recently read a fair bit about Linus Torvals and Linux.

Perhaps this read will clarify matters. I have also yet to read it.
Not sure what you're on about here, but just about every single linux utility is based on a unix equivalent, right down to using the same name. Whether you like it or not (or linus for that matter), linux is a derivative of unix.

Kernighan and Ritchie were clever okes!
 
You can pay for support from the big companies behind the major distros. I understand why people use Windows, I personally use both Windows and Linux and both have their place. However to argue that you need to use Windows because you have the accountability of a big company standing behind it while you can't get that with Linux is simply not true.

My point is you won't get it for free.
 
My point is you won't get it for free.
You don't get it for free on Microsoft platforms either. Fact remains it is available on both platforms for a fee. One can't therefore reasonably expect to use that as a reason for going with one platform over the other.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X