I find that a bit of an odd thing to say; I used Linux in/since the mid-90s too, and unless I'm remembering wrong, there were some rather attractive window managers already, e.g. afterstep, which was certainly more attractive than Windows 95 was.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
Free For All
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
True that.The thing is most of the people who pass absurd comments about Linux , aren't users.I've read some ridiculous comments on this thread that can only mean the person has no clue as to what "The Linux Experience" is.Usually the comments aren't backed by facts and they fast become an OS flame war type.
Sorry mate, in my opinion Vista has nothing on KDE 3.5. Infact, theres even an arb Vista lookalike theme that looks better than the screenshot you show.
Here a couple of my screenshots.
http://www.newz.co.za/kde/loony.jpg is transparent fun
http://www.newz.co.za/kde/matrix.jpg Cube effect (for your multiple desktops), mixed in with getting the Matrix OpenGL screensaver to make my matrix background animated. You can embed any screen saver into your desktop. The ascii fish one is amusing.
http://www.newz.co.za/kde/pulling_window_to_the_side.jpg With XGL, if you click on a corner of a window, you can bend the corner up to peak whats underneath
http://www.newz.co.za/kde/screeny.jpg Dual monitor cube
If you click to drag your menu, and shake it.. it wobbles: http://www.newz.co.za/kde/wobbly_windows.jpg
You really might wanna try out XGL, its got hundreds of other features, such as water effects, shades, etc etc.
Roman4604
Executive Member
I dont ... I use Vista, but have installed a few versions of *nix in my time. My main point of comparison are to co-workers who use various distros intensely (RedHat, Fedora, FreeBSD).
Sorry I have yet to see even a single desktop app in OSS that equals or betters the Windows equivalent that would make we want to switch for.
From my point of view how good is your Fedora at at continually suspending & hibrenating whilst hot docking between a multitude of differing peripeherals, multiple monitors and dynamically switching between various ethernet, wireless & HSDPA network connections ... all seamlessly?
Roman4604
Executive Member
Well sorry, for me all your examples still look cartoonish. Never mind the translucent effects, just looking at the difference in icon & font design, shadowing, colour palatte choice & shading ... it apperent to me one interface was done by a team of professional graphic artists & one was done by someone in their spare time?
Suppose each will have their own taste?
Darkling
Active Member
Ubuntu all the way here, I do have a Windows partition, but I only use it since I cant get CSS to look as nice in Linux as in Windows.
As far as those screenies go, yet, I would have to agree, based on those screenshots, I would have to go with Vista. Luckilly, those screenies are rubbish compared to what is possible.
I will post some screenshots later, but to be honest a screenshot doesn't convey a tenth of what XGL and compiz are capable of. Just do a search at video.google.com for XGL and Compiz to see what I mean. Moreover, XGL isn't just eye candy, it has increased my productivity and made my desktop really feel like home. And for the record, XGL was developed by Novel, NOT a bunch of amateurs, tho it is a community project now.
As far as Linux being easy to use, my gran is 82, she runs Fedora Core, and her uptime is in the region of 90 days. I'm trying to get her to go Ubuntu, but she doesn't like change...
RoosTa
Expert Member
Sorry, but Grandma's and Grandpa's that use only one or two programs wouldn't really count as average users. Windows is on par with that anyways.
What I'm talking about is installing apps, installing drivers, installing codecs, setting up, doing more complex tasks like development, web services, graphics, 3D, running games etc - I'm talking about actually using the OS, not just checking mail and browsing the web.
MacOS and Windows are still better in usability, though some Linux distro's are catching up, but still have a long way to go.
What I'm talking about is installing apps, installing drivers, installing codecs, setting up, doing more complex tasks like development, web services, graphics, 3D, running games etc - I'm talking about actually using the OS, not just checking mail and browsing the web.
MacOS and Windows are still better in usability, though some Linux distro's are catching up, but still have a long way to go.
Please , what does "average user" mean ?You consider "faxing , e-mail , typing docs , using an accounts program, doing market research" ...as using one or two programs.Isn't that what an average user does?Sorry , but Grandma and Grandpa are indeed doing just that on an FC5 machine. Most people who use PCs (i.e the average user)dont use them for hardcore techie stuff such as development , hosting, etc.
Aaah...you're contradicting yourself.You said average user , then you're talking about development work in the same line of thought.Average users are not people who want to setup Eclipse on their machines or run JEE appserver , let alone do Ruby on Rails , etc.Research has shown that over 80% of Windows don't know what a "driver" is and neither to they know how to install drivers.Just out of interest , when last did you try to install software on a Linux machine?Rather, what Linux distro are you running?Have you seen how easy it is to install codecs on a Ubuntu machine?
Please state facts.Making genarilized statements just doesn't cut.What exactly do you mean by usability?WADR , I admit , MacOS X is certainly in a different league , but placing is in the same line as that crap from Redmont...says a lot about your experience with MacOS X.
RoosTa
Expert Member
PC's have become part of our daily lives and today there are more under 30's using PC than over (Though SA is quite a bit behind the rest of the world). Your grandparent are deffinately in the minority and they could just as easily work in Windows than a pre-configured Linux. Many of my friends/family who are not tech savvy, have computers and use them to install apps, watch movies, play games and work without the need of calling some techy.
Windows: If you want to install this app, pop this CD in or double click setup.exe and click next next next and if you want to play this game, to install the driver double click this setup.exe, next next next.
Linux: If you want to install this app, first you need to download the right package for your distro and kernel, then you need to go to your console type in dpkg -i package.deb follow the instructions. Now your app might not be in the menu, so you'll need to either link it to your desktop or run it from the console. Now if you want 3D accelleration well thats almost an manual on it's own.
Even synaptic is more difficult than double click
They all want an OS that is easy to install and use, and unfortunately Linux is NOT that OS (yet?).
Linux is difficult to setup, it's difficult to install things it is more difficult to use than Windows or "MacOS X" straight of the box.
For usability out of the box, "MacOS X" beats everything hands down, next in line is Window and third place was ubuntu - those are FACTs from survey's I've read in magazines, the web and research that I do almost daily. I am a User Experience Designer, it's my JOB to know that and I deal with users and UI's on daily basis for multiplatform POS systems. It's also the reason why I run Windows XP, Vista and Linux on my PC. I am not for or against a certain OS, as they all have their strong point and weakpoints. Linux's weak point is unfortunately it's usability.
Windows: If you want to install this app, pop this CD in or double click setup.exe and click next next next and if you want to play this game, to install the driver double click this setup.exe, next next next.
Linux: If you want to install this app, first you need to download the right package for your distro and kernel, then you need to go to your console type in dpkg -i package.deb follow the instructions. Now your app might not be in the menu, so you'll need to either link it to your desktop or run it from the console. Now if you want 3D accelleration well thats almost an manual on it's own.
Even synaptic is more difficult than double click
They all want an OS that is easy to install and use, and unfortunately Linux is NOT that OS (yet?).
Linux is difficult to setup, it's difficult to install things it is more difficult to use than Windows or "MacOS X" straight of the box.
For usability out of the box, "MacOS X" beats everything hands down, next in line is Window and third place was ubuntu - those are FACTs from survey's I've read in magazines, the web and research that I do almost daily. I am a User Experience Designer, it's my JOB to know that and I deal with users and UI's on daily basis for multiplatform POS systems. It's also the reason why I run Windows XP, Vista and Linux on my PC. I am not for or against a certain OS, as they all have their strong point and weakpoints. Linux's weak point is unfortunately it's usability.
RoosTa
Expert Member
Loaded Ubuntu 6.06 Desktop the other day on a separate partition (after running it in Virtual PC 2004) and was surprised at the ease of installation. Sound card works, video works but how to get the TV card to work. Even picked up the network without any hassels and was surfing with FF in Ubuntu in no time.
But yes, WindowZ still rules.
But yes, WindowZ still rules.
And you can't even quote one?I can tell you as a matter of fact that almost all german town councils use SUSE for daily usage(i.e desktop work).You're telling me all german employees are tech savy?
What is usability?And according to what standards?With the example I gave you of the old couple , I can happily claim that Linux is highly usable for an average user.
You missing the point.It's not the calling of the techie that matters.The only difference is that the "techies" as Redmont do the setup for the users before shipping the OS(hence restricting you from many of the things you could want to do differently) , where's with Linux the setting up is done well after that.
As for "dpkg -i package.deb" , its not necessary to do that ,as there are GUI tools for that.Any user who can be taught to insert a CD and navigate to where "install.exe" is located , can also be taught how to lauch the GUI for "apt-get" or "yum"
Darkling
Active Member
You can just as easily say that they can work in Linux as easily as in Windows.
Im afraid you are rather behind the times there. In Linux, IF your drivers are not installed automatically, installing them is as simple as clicking a checkbox in Synaptic. Im afraid you will have to prove that Synaptic is harder. In order to install a windows app, I need to go and find the program, then buy it, then download it or put the cd in. I then have to run the install (while worrying about spyware and viruses), and manually configure any strange settings I may find.
In Ubuntu, I locate the app in Synaptic, click the checkbox, and click apply. I dont have to worry about viruses or spyware, because every single piece of software is vetted by the Distro developers (Ubuntu in my case). If you could, please explain how this is harder than installing a windows application.
I dont believe you have used Linux. These statements are completely and patently false.
Installing Ubuntu takes 15 minutes, and asks fewer questions than Windows XP. There are also no hassles if you are installing Ubuntu on a SATA hdd (Something which kills XP every time).
Once this 15 minute install is finished, you have a working Firefox, eMail client, and Office Suite, all installed already. 90% of people dont need much more than that, and if they do, Synaptic is only a click away.
I have an equal number of surveys that prove WinXP is better than MacOS X, and more that prove Gnome is better than both. Surveys are useless in this argument, and the only thing that makes a difference is how the people like like it.
There is no way anyone can prove that my Gnome setup is less usable than windows. In fact, most of the people I have installed Linux for are impressed with how much easier life is in Ubuntu with Gnome.
As far as installing hardcore developer apps, I ran a test the other day with a Windows user. The mission was to install apache, PHP5 MediaWiki and MySQL.
Both of us started with the packages downloaded, I used Synaptic, and he did it the windows way.
My time: 3 minutes.
His time: Almost an hour.
By the end of the exercise, we both had MediaWiki up and running. It is provably easier, and I can reproduce those results for you anytime. This is all because Linux has a standard configuration, packages can be set up and configured automatically. In this case, Im afraid, Linux is dramatically easier!
Moreover, when I run a Linux update, its not just my Kernel that is updated. Every single piece of software that is installed is updated from a central place, with a single click. Can windows claim that?
Before I go, I must clarify, I know I have come across as a bit of a zealot, I'm not. I will be first in line when Windows Vista comes out. I also don't believe what I have said above applies to all Linuxes. I DONT believe all Linuxes are ready for the desktop.
If you play lots of games, Linux is NOT for you.
If you have lots of Software that only runs in windows, Linux is NOT for you.
If you are an AVERAGE user, Linux can work very well for you.
P.S Everything I have said here applies to Ubuntu 6.06 and 6.10 (alpha release). I would never tell someone to install SuSE or Fedora Core, they are harder to use, and should be used by more experienced Linux users, even though they have absolutely no power advantage of Ubuntu.
LaRoosTa, if you have the time and inclination, download the Ubuntu install CD. It is a Live CD, so you can run it to see what you would get if you did choose to install. At least you would know more about the subject.
Last edited:
We won't agree on many of these issues
.But anyway, what do you think of what this guy says :http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth
A bit long but interesting.I would like to hear your thoughts on this
Captain Beer
Executive Member
Have used Ubuntu, Fedora Core 5 and Mandrake 10.
Mandrake 10 was ace and it came with SuperTux!, then someone nicked my discs
Mandrake 10 was ace and it came with SuperTux!, then someone nicked my discs
Try installing TVtime or Kdetv. (Both of them work for me.) Also, make sure you have the v4l (video4linux) driver installed. Otherwise, you could also try MythTV, which is a whole media center program.
RoosTa
Expert Member
I believe that you can't judge something that you haven't experienced yourself:
http://www.prophecy.co.za/forums/showthread.php?t=27740 NOTE: This thread is not half the story, the rest can be found scattered among the ubuntu, compiz and linuxquestion forums.
As I've already mentioned in other threads, I am still using ubuntu with ATI fglrx, XGL/Compiz even got Doom3 and Warcraft 3 (wine) running. However, this took me weeks (researching and trawling through forums) to get it to work and getting to this point would be a lot easier in Windows than Linux.
I do agree though that as a pre-configured OS, Linux can be very usable, but equally so can Windows. That does not make an OS user friendly.
Spoken like a true "zealot"
(I'm just kidding). LiveCD alone took 5mins to boot and that was after I had to sort out the APIC problems. After sorting out the problems the actually installation very was easy. It then took 45mins just to copy (on an AMD64 X2 2Gb RAM 16xDVD Drive and SATA HDD); Windows XP, which I installed before ubuntu, took 20mins from inserting the CD. And I would say they did have equal amount of steps, though Windows did annoy with the 'finalising setup' part.After rebooting it went straight to Windows, no grub. I did this twice, only to find that SATA was the problem, luckily it was an easy fix by making my PATA the first boot drive.
Anyone who has used a Mac, will tell you that it is easier than Windows. I for one have found that it is a lot easier moving from Windows to Mac, than it is to Linux. However, I'm still leaning towards Windows, not because of usability, but practicality, even though my ubuntu skill are slowly growing.
WRT installing apps: At first default Synaptic packages are very limited (especially if you have a bad internet connection), until you discover sources.list file. The first time I entered a couple of sources through synaptic's settings, it completely broke it. Could not get into Synaptic at all, so I canned that idea. The fix was simple though, I just had to remove the invalid sources from the sources.list file. But the crunch is; you are still restricted to whatever is on the server. With Windows, you can download any exe (yes, even a virus) (driver or app) and install it by double clicking.
So no use arguing with you thenAdam Savage said:
Surprisingly the only grudge I have against linux/ubuntu, is the usability. So far it is a solid OS, otherwise it wouldn't (still) be on my PC. However, if you want to start with an unconfigured Linux, you need to be PC savvy. Who knows, maybe with the next ubuntu release, things will be even easier.
Yes, and that’s why its called an opinion
I will print it out and read it later - thanks.
Last edited:
Ubuntu all the way
I have been running Linux , as a dual boot for 3-4 years now, only reason i dual boot , is because i work in Flash, else i would never boot up Windows.
One thing that has to be said is that I use Ubuntu not because its free , but certainly because its a BETTER OS,
one example is when i connected my HP printer. I booted Ubuntu and everything just works, no driver installation, no fussing about rebooting -- just works out the box. I also installed all the software for the windows side-- provided with the printer, this also works as expected but have crashed on me at times!!
I will love to see what Vista has to offer, just so that I can say:"Linux had that ages ago !!!!"
Theres no ways windows will continue to dominate the OS market from here on , its a turning point as Linux is only getting stronger and won't lose interest soon!!
I have been running Linux , as a dual boot for 3-4 years now, only reason i dual boot , is because i work in Flash, else i would never boot up Windows.
One thing that has to be said is that I use Ubuntu not because its free , but certainly because its a BETTER OS,
one example is when i connected my HP printer. I booted Ubuntu and everything just works, no driver installation, no fussing about rebooting -- just works out the box. I also installed all the software for the windows side-- provided with the printer, this also works as expected but have crashed on me at times!!
I will love to see what Vista has to offer, just so that I can say:"Linux had that ages ago !!!!"
Theres no ways windows will continue to dominate the OS market from here on , its a turning point as Linux is only getting stronger and won't lose interest soon!!
kilps
Expert Member
every heard of a .deb file? or if or else fails ...
Code:
./configure
make
make install
- compile from sourceDarkling
Active Member
Well, I cant argue with most of what you said, but I will point out that I am a beta tester for Ubuntu Edgy Eft, the new 6.10 release due out next month. And what I can say so far, is that the boot has been sped up dramatically, but the 15 minutes I am referring to is the time it takes after you click on the Install Ubuntu icon. I usually cant even finish a game of Mahjongg (Usually takes me about 7 minutes to finish a game) before the installer is prompting me to reboot. (Athlon 64 3800, 2 Gigs RAM, 2x74Gig Raptors in Raid0).
I would also like to point out that the new default repositories for Ubuntu Edgy include 99% of the software that you normally have to install for a working OS. This includes things like Opera, Google Earth, DivX codecs, MP3 codecs, DVD codecs, the MS core fonts, and a whole bunch of stuff I wont list here.
Installation is NOT always simple in Linux. For instance, I have an X800 graphics card which, for some reason, is not compatible with the default ATI drive the x server provides. Thus I have to edit my xorg configurations before I can boot into Gnome for the first time. Something which would probably kill the spirit of most average users.
A point I will make is that if it comes down to a cost versus effort comparison, ignoring the "usability" issues, then Linux is the better option for anyone who knows what a partition is and can RTFM.
Linux isn't ready for everyone yet. Though if you can get someone who knows their stuff to install it for you, you may find its a fantastic alternative to windows.
One last thing, If you have a computer which cant manage Windows XP, (sub 1GHz machine), Xubuntu (Ubuntu with XFCE instead of Gnome) will provide a modern operating system which makes Windows 98 look glacial. If you want to hang on to an old computer, Xubuntu can extend its life by a few years. This is a fantastic prospect if you want your kids to have a computer they can play on with absolutely no risk of permanent damage. All flavours of Ubuntu also allow the installation of a huge range of Educational games, programs and toys for children, all available from the default repositories.
Lastly, the only Distribution I would ever advocate a new Linux user to install is Ubuntu or (at a stretch) MEPIS. But I must also mention the ubuntuguide and UbuntuForums. The latter has in excess of 168,000 registered users, over 120,000 of them are active. 99% of questions are answered in under 10 minutes.
All in all, I don't care what people use, Im just glad we have a choice