Why cant linux be user friendly?

Turiko said:
Running real live network servers (e-mail and web and SQL)
Running kernel-mode device drivers of home-made origin
Powerful shell-scripting
Kernel Recompilation
Compiling apps from source and then installing
Killing an errant task without making the whole system unstable
Uptime of years or more without a reboot
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Running a network server, compiling apps from source, device drivers? No offence, but you sound more like a fanboy than handing out valid criticism.
 
As much as linux is free and open source, lets face it, as long as it is so UNuser friendly as it is, whats the point? It is more of a waste of time and frustration than it is worth....Stick with windows or OSX and keep your blood pressure low. ;)
 
Grimspoon said:
As much as linux is free and open source, lets face it, as long as it is so UNuser friendly as it is, whats the point? It is more of a waste of time and frustration than it is worth....Stick with windows or OSX and keep your blood pressure low. ;)
Click to expand...

me/ clapping hands :D
 
good point there,and you forgot one thing if you wanna be linux you gonna need a internet connection cause without it its pretty useless or you will need lots of friends to burn you dvd's with what you will need to accomplish the impossible.
 
I'm not a total Linux noob, I've been playing with it for a number of years now, but only recently a little more in depth as I've learnt more.

The system is truly powerful, but to get that power, you need to know your stuff inside out. If you are in a rush and don't know much, your blood pressure will go through the roof trying to get stuff sorted out. That happened to me lately when trying to compile Dansguardian (a web content filter) from source. It worked fine under the older Mandriva I had as the server, but under the new SUSE it gave issues.

In the end I used an older RPM to do the job, but boy was it frustrating. Under Windows, I would have had a nice install wizard, along with one for any patches. A restart later (sometimes not even needed) and I'd be off and running. I'm not knocking Linux here, I'm just saying that there is still room for improvement.

As for games, that's a long complicated story. Windows just has too long a history for any real contender to knock it off its throne right now. Maybe one day, but not now.
 
Last edited:
Asha'man X said:
I'm not a total Linux noob, I've been playing with it for a number of years now, but only recently a little more in depth as I've learnt more.

The system is truly powerful, but to get that power, you need to know your stuff inside out. If you are in a rush and don't know much, your blood pressure will go through the roof trying to get stuff sorted out. That happened to me lately when trying to compile Dansguardian (a web content filter) from source. It worked fine under the older Mandriva I had as the server, but under the new SUSE it gave issues.

In the end I used an older RPM to do the job, but boy was it frustrating. Under Windows, I would have had a nice install wizard, along with one for any patches. A restart later (sometimes not even needed) and I'd be off and running. I'm not knocking Linux here, I'm just saying that there is still room for improvement.

As for games, that's a long complicated story. Windows just has too long a history for any real contender to knock it off its throne right now. Maybe one day, but not now.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Smooth Criminal said:
Are you serious? Running a network server, compiling apps from source, device drivers? No offence, but you sound more like a fanboy than handing out valid criticism.
Click to expand...

I don't really think it is fair to call someone a fanboy just because they have superior knowledge on a subject you don't understand.

Yes Linux is very difficult for your average users who have predominantly used Windows (myself included). But as others have mentioned if you had been using Linux for a similar time period you would feel everything was a walk in the park.

I have been using Ubuntu for a while dual booted with Windows and for some things you still need to use the command line. But as with any software there is a learning curve and if you are not prepared to put in the time you are unlikely to achieve the desired results.

Edit: What's up with wcoetzee post-whoring in this thread? :p
 
Last edited:
Why is Linux not user friendly?

Well first off that's an entirely subjective opinion. I have no problems getting Linux to do what I want it to do. When I used to use Windows (4 or 5 years ago now) I was never able to get it to do just what I wanted. Therefore from my subjective point of view Linux is user friendly and Windows is not. :p

Secondly Linux is open source - free software - written entirely by the community for the community - thus Linux is and does just what the Linux community wants it to do.
Commercial software is written by paid developers who are not developing the software for themselves - there is a crucial difference here.
Fact is, a feature will only appear in Linux if someone in the Linux community wants it and has the skills to develop it - or if they find/pay someone else to do it for them.

So if you don't like the way Linux works, stop talking about it and do something about it - there is nothing stopping you. ;)
If you do not have the needed skills to change what you do not like, and you cannot find someone who will do it for free, and you are not prepared to pay someone to do it, then I guess that's just too bad.. :p Use something else. :p

Bradbowlllama said:
Lol@ uptime of years... gotta see that one. Or are you referring to an unused machine?
Click to expand...
There are Linux systems out there reported to have years of uptime.. :cool:
Have a look here: http://counter.li.org/reports/uptimestats.php
counter.li.org said:
Max uptime currently running: 2443.5 days
Click to expand...
 
Honestly... if you only use linux friendly hardware and (for example in ubunu) use the official repositories linux is a very friendly OS, the problems only occur when you need to add hardware that's not supported and this is not the fault of linux but the hardware manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
Dobee said:
Honestly... if you only use linux friendly hardware and (for example in ubunu) use the official repositories linux is a very friendly OS to use, the problems only occur when you need to add hardware that's not supported to work and this is not the fault of linux but the hardware manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Completely second this; imagine a world where 95% of the hardware vendors shipped Linux OS (say Ubuntu flavor), almost all cutting edge hardware would have drivers and all it would mean is that everything just works out of the box; currently, only Windows enjoys this previlage (or market force).
But even then, Ubuntu in a short period of time has managed to come a long way wrt to hardware compatibility; to the extent they have a deal with Dell/Ubuntu--on these hardware I beleive all hardware just works perfectly. System76 is another hardware vendor, for example.

AMD/ATI have also come to the party lately where drivers for the ATI video cards are made available (albeit still closed..may be wrong, but last I checked this was true).

The FOSS movement is quickly catching fire, but will require a lot of work, I think.

My 2c,
S
 
Last edited:
Saule said:
I don't really think it is fair to call someone a fanboy just because they have superior knowledge on a subject you don't understand.
Click to expand...
So you look down on me because I have a lower number of posts than he does?

I've been using Linux long enough to know that he does have some valid points, but some flawed ones as well. And if I recall correctly, this discussion was about user friendliness, not user functionality.
 
Smooth Criminal said:
So you look down on me because I have a lower number of posts than he does?

I've been using Linux long enough to know that he does have some valid points, but some flawed ones as well. And if I recall correctly, this discussion was about user friendliness, not user functionality.
Click to expand...

I never judge anyone on post count but rather on quality of posts. Your earlier post I was commenting on didn't make any valid argument but resorted to name calling.
 
I don't find the need to defend one over the other. They each have their place in the market. I did highlight the three points which were fallacious, and yet you still made a judgement that he had "a superior knowledge on a subject I don't understand". How did you arrive at that conclusion? What does that say about your understanding (or lack thereof) of the subject?

And it wasn't name calling, how else does one refer to another person who defends something with false arguments?
 
Ubuntu desktop is easy, very easy. You just have to be an average user to get it up and running. If you cant. You are a below average user.
 
w1z4rd said:
Ubuntu desktop is easy, very easy. You just have to be an average user to get it up and running. If you cant. You are a below average user.
Click to expand...

Then you have to install some hardware drivers and mess with /etc/fonts (you probably know the correct path :p) and use the command line to install certain apps, or not even know which Opera install file to download.

Those were some of the problems I had in a day with Ubuntu, but the initial install was flawless, very well done.
 
Smooth Criminal said:
I don't find the need to defend one over the other. They each have their place in the market. I did highlight the three points which were fallacious, and yet you still made a judgement that he had "a superior knowledge on a subject I don't understand". How did you arrive at that conclusion? What does that say about your understanding (or lack thereof) of the subject?

And it wasn't name calling, how else does one refer to another person who defends something with false arguments?
Click to expand...

Apologies if you were offended by my comments, which wasn't my intention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X