Linux is not hard, it's ignored - Column

It's not that it's hard, it's the question why use linux when Windows does it all, and free? no, but which PC does not come with Windows when bought from the shops, unless you don't have a windows key or need linux for a specific purpose, Windows still does everything you need, faster and easier.
 
calvincoetzee said:
It's not that it's hard, it's the question why use linux when Windows does it all, and free? no, but which PC does not come with Windows when bought from the shops, unless you don't have a windows key or need linux for a specific purpose, Windows still does everything you need, faster and easier.
Click to expand...

Faster? Really?

I imagine you have some figures to back that up?

"Easier" is also quite subjective so I try not to use that word. To me they are just different and once you get used to Linux or Windows both can become "easy". Unless you need something specific to Windows of course, in which case you better stick with Windows because Linux definitely has some shortcomings when it comes to support from certain companies (Apple I am looking at you). Not that that is the fault of Linux mind you.
 
Last edited:
calvincoetzee said:
It's not that it's hard, it's the question why use linux when Windows does it all, and free? no, but which PC does not come with Windows when bought from the shops, unless you don't have a windows key or need linux for a specific purpose, Windows still does everything you need, faster and easier.
Click to expand...

EXCUSE ME?? Windows is free?! Since when?
 
K3NS31 said:
EXCUSE ME?? Windows is free?! Since when?
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell calvincoetzee isn't saying "free" as in you don't pay for it. He is saying it comes with pretty much every machine out there and unless you are prepared to fight tooth-and-nail to get your rebate when you don't agree to the EULA you essentially have a copy of Windows "free" with your computer in the same way that a cellphone is "free" with a contract.

Besides with the whole MS per CPU licensing story technically we all pay for a copy of Windows in some small way whether or not it actually comes with the machine.
 
the tide is slowly changing. thanks to shuttleworth and mobile precessing demand.
i'd like to think that the kids who are currently going through school want choice and collaboration. hopefully they realise that proprietary without standards restricts their freedom.
linux has slowly been getting a wider support base, helped my mac and mobile dev. with google as a large user of *nix and open souce technologies, i think the future is a good one.
ubuntu has done a lot to help, but i agree that the ante needs to be upped in the marketing sphere.
linux users are assumed to be tech savvy and that's not how you're going to reach the average consumer who's after conspicuous consumption and pretty pictures.
 
But that's not the fault of Linux. It's the fault of product makers who can't be bothered to make drivers available for Linux when they issue new releases.
Click to expand...

Catch 22 here, why would a product maker spend $1000's dollars to relase a linux driver of some sort for a small minority of users. I think its a matter of economics. If a product maker could suddenly make serious profits from creating a linux version of a product there is no doubt they will do it - why wouldnt they. Question is, how do you then get enough users to use a product so that it becomes worth while for product makers spend the money? On the desktop front there is no incentive to go to linux other than to satisfy ones curiosity on what it is.
 
porchrat said:
As far as I can tell calvincoetzee isn't saying "free" as in you don't pay for it. He is saying it comes with pretty much every machine out there and unless you are prepared to fight tooth-and-nail to get your rebate when you don't agree to the EULA you essentially have a copy of Windows "free" with your computer in the same way that a cellphone is "free" with a contract.

Besides with the whole MS per CPU licensing story technically we all pay for a copy of Windows in some small way whether or not it actually comes with the machine.
Click to expand...

That is what he SHOULD have said, but it's not what he did say. He seemed to me to be implying that the cost of Windows was negligible. BTW, if you're prepared to look (hard) you can still find new PC's without Windows pre-installed.
 
Bernie said:
Catch 22 here, why would a product maker spend $1000's dollars to relase a linux driver of some sort for a small minority of users. I think its a matter of economics. If a product maker could suddenly make serious profits from creating a linux version of a product there is no doubt they will do it - why wouldnt they. Question is, how do you then get enough users to use a product so that it becomes worth while for product makers spend the money? On the desktop front there is no incentive to go to linux other than to satisfy ones curiosity on what it is.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. This is unfortunately the reality. However as I said this is not Linux's fault and people often misinterpret this issue as a problem with Linux and it's functionality. I imagine this will change with Chrome OS, because while the Linux community are retarded when it comes to marketing Google owes it's entire existence to great marketing.

The comments you frequently see are along the lines of "Linux doesn't do gaming". This is rubbish as Linux is perfectly capable of gaming it is merely a case of very few games being produced for the Linux platform.

K3NS31 said:
That is what he SHOULD have said, but it's not what he did say. He seemed to me to be implying that the cost of Windows was negligible. BTW, if you're prepared to look (hard) you can still find new PC's without Windows pre-installed.
Click to expand...

I imagine that it could be interpreted that way, but I got the gist of what he was saying. There are quite a few netbooks still out there with Ubuntu (UNR I think). It can mean up to R1000 off sometimes depending on the model if I recall correctly.
 
Last edited:
It's still hard

It's still hard.

I've recently spent the better part of a day trying to get a standard "linux compatible" NIC to work. I've eventually handed it over to my linux pro friend, which also spent a good 2 hours.

It seems every time I start to use it I quickly hit a wall once I get past the glossy front and start to do real work.

It's just just takes longer to make everything work.

In my opinion, there are too many "linuxes" out there. We only need 1 distro for desktops & laptops, another for netbooks and another for servers. Each distro is almost like a completely different OS once you get down to the nitty gritty. This is self destructive.

At the moment, the few Rand I save installing Linux and not Windows, is quickly blown by the hours spent to make it work propertly with my hardware. The same counts for servers - linux support is notoriously expensive, R500 per hour is not uncommon, and then the guy uses your money to expand his knowledge by spending the day surfing forums looking for a solution.
 
calvincoetzee said:
It's not that it's hard, it's the question why use linux when Windows does it all, and free? no, but which PC does not come with Windows when bought from the shops, unless you don't have a windows key or need linux for a specific purpose, Windows still does everything you need, faster and easier.
Click to expand...

Linux is far more secure than windows- so take into account the fact that you dont an antivirus running in the background and then tell me windows is faster
its free
upgraded versions every 6 months in ubuntu
has better memory management
the ubuntu software center is awesome

direct x games work better in windows obviously
and linux doesn't support a lot of windows only programs-
unless there is a program you cannot run in linux and there isn't a opensource equivalent , linux is a far better choice.

Bernie said:
Catch 22 here, why would a product maker spend $1000's dollars to relase a linux driver of some sort for a small minority of users. I think its a matter of economics. If a product maker could suddenly make serious profits from creating a linux version of a product there is no doubt they will do it - why wouldnt they. Question is, how do you then get enough users to use a product so that it becomes worth while for product makers spend the money? On the desktop front there is no incentive to go to linux other than to satisfy ones curiosity on what it is.
Click to expand...

thats changing- a lot of government institutions are moving to opensource, as this continues, hardware creators will be forced to provide driver support

that said, when I installed ubuntu 9.10 I didnt have to install a single driver- it even picked up my canon printer which is amazing seeing as how canon dont supply linux drivers
 
I haven't hadn't issues with NICs in Linux, as matter of fact, on one PC the onboard-NIC stopped working in XP, so had to install another NIC to get network access working. I have inadvertantly used what I thought was the dud NIC, in Linux more than once. Haven't quite figured that one out yet.

When buying hardware for Linux, do a bit of research to find what works best in Linux. I did that when I bought a printer, and eventually got an HP that worked out the box. I am glad to see that a Canon printer worked out the box, as they usually don't work at all, or required a workaround that most people aren't willing to perform.

My Windows Mobile phone actually works better in Linux than XP, in terms of connectivity and data transfer. I find that hysterical to this day.

B
 
porchrat said:
Faster? Really?

I imagine you have some figures to back that up?
Click to expand...

Faster, as in faster to do what you want to do, example, install a game on windows and play it, 10 mins, linux 1 hour... that's what i mean.

Yes easier, and yes if you're the general JOE, then you get windows for free with your pc you bought from incredible connection or what ever noob-outlet you got your pc at.
 
It's not impossible for someone with time. It's not hard for someone who has worked on it for many years.

It will never be easy for anyone who has been familiar with one unified OS most of their lives (OSX, Windoze). I mean 'Linux' as it's generally called looks different from flavour to flavour. Someone who wants a gui and doesn't want to fight with differing shell environments, etc. will have to deal with YAST in OpenSUSE, RPM in Red Hat, Synaptic in Ubuntu, APT in debian etc just to install additional software... and thats just for stuff that doesn't need to be compiled. I know that's a generalization, but that's just one example.

For Windoze? It's just double click an exe to install and 90% of installs are scripted from start to finish... for uninstall, it's control panel, add/remove programs etc.

Then there's the fact that you cannot get by without the terminal in linux and getting familiar with sudo if you want to do any advanced stuff and then let's not talk about file associations and text editors...
 
K3NS31 said:
That is what he SHOULD have said, but it's not what he did say. He seemed to me to be implying that the cost of Windows was negligible. BTW, if you're prepared to look (hard) you can still find new PC's without Windows pre-installed.
Click to expand...

Another reason Linux is not commonplace.
 
MS Windows on a PC "free"
Decent anti virus R750
Still having your game account which you spend hours upon hours hacked . . . . Priceless
 
ave said:
Linux is far more secure than windows- so take into account the fact that you dont an antivirus running in the background and then tell me windows is faster
Click to expand...

I prefer the term 'less exploited'
Why would you write a virus to take out a fraction of the computers out there when you can get the majority.
 
redarrow said:
On what do you base this example?
Why would software installation be any faster on Windows than Linux?
Click to expand...

The majority of software in windows is scripted. If it's in your package manager in Linux, great, if it's not, it can take ages, so many unscripted installs out there with readmes and more readmes.

Of course to a seasoned pro, the majority of Linux software is easy and quick to install... for the rest, it's first about deciding on where to install /usr/local... uh.. /sbin... etc...
Then if you have just installed, you may find your new flash drive / external harddrive is not automounting, so it's back to the net to read up on /etc/fstab blah blah blah

This is not about linux being bad.. it's about why the non to average computer literate people won't take it on because it's too much hassle...
Windows is EASIER.

Not everyone has time to FIDDLE with their computer, most folks want to email, excel, word and browse.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X