Linux is Not Windows

[MistressNomad]

Yup, and in Vista's case, not even then.

Just trying to get USBMint to work on Vista is a nightmare... and for once it's not Linux causing the problems. God, my friend must be insane for dealing with this voluntarily...

[Plastic Paddy]

I see the point made here and for me, I was Ubuntu user, and still run an Ubuntu box on my home computer. Mint has done a lot and it took me some time to get Ubuntu working, but I have installed Windows more times that I can count. Nothing works out of the box unless it's OEM and then God help you if your warranty is up, need to reinstall, or have a hard drive go bad. I have resurrected two computers that I love that were mere paperweights and that is where Linux works for me.

My father tried Linux but in the end found it easier to just buy a new computer with... you guessed it... XP with the promise of a Windows & upgrade. But soon this computer will grind to a halt without some registry toolkit/scanner. In windows, the registry fix em up programs are like cocaine, you use them once and you're hooked. I went cold turkey to Mint and have not looked back. I think older computers do better with Linux because the geeks have worked out all the bugs, but for the new computer user, there are still things to figure out because Linux geeks are not consulted or told about the whiz bang stuff, they look at it, figure it out and then tell the rest of us.

For the computer companies, Microsoft and local support businesses, Windows is great. But for a half-geek want-to-be who is still using the Gateway Laptop I bought in 2002, that was sluggish at the best of times, Mint has done it for me.

[MistressNomad]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not arguing the case for Windows. Windows blows, if my struggles to format USBMint on Vista are any indication.

If I had tried Redhat, I certainly wouldn't complain that it's not user friendly. It's not meant to be. If I don't have the technical know-how or patience to make it work, that's my problem, not theirs. The only reason I'm complaining with Ubuntu is because the whole point of it is that it's supposed to be the layman's Linux, and it's not. That was the frustrating part.

I haven't yet gotten Mint properly up and running (just trying to salvage my stuff of my computer that XP ate... once again, I'm certainly not arguing in favor of Windows - XP has made my perfectly good computer run like a dog), but so far, it's gone much smoother than my affair with Ubuntu did. I have high hopes.

And yes, you're right about older computers. My computer is only about 3 years old, but it's one of the predessors to the webbook, so it's specs are... rather underpowered, to put it lightly. I'm hoping Mint can give me a little of the power back that XP sucked out of it. Mint in its entirety took up about 1.7GB on my USB drive... XP took over 6GB.

Ubuntu was not far off the mark. It had a couple of major failings, but if those were fixed, it would be perfect. I'm hoping that's what Mint has done. Because I am REALLY tired of dealing with Windows.

We shall see...

[DrHu]

Ubuntu was not far off the mark. It had a couple of major failings, but if those were fixed, it would be perfect. I'm hoping that's what Mint has done. Because I am REALLY tired of dealing with Windows. We shall see...

I notice that a lot of people seem to want to maintain the windows experience; I think that was even their logo/advertisement for XP (Xperience): the flying desk across the desert.

Doing that only forces Linux to ape either windows OS looks or MAC OS looks, that is, the eye candy.The fact that a command line operation is supported doesn't prevent any/most gui operations from also working

And I would offer this, the default windows OS experience is a double-click of the mouse; I prefer the single-click So I don't fall into the windows experience needed to feel comfortable. In the same way, I don't care if Ms Office 2007 or next version is different from office 2003 or OpenOffice. I use OpenOffice, don't need Ms Office, and don't miss it.

Now if I really have a problem with the Linux OS, and the hardware is supported in any way, even using a windows driver under a wrapper program, like ndiswrapper, to allow it to function; I don't mind, if it works..

If I have a device or a notebook, that is so propriety that no-one has developed a work-around (that includes Dell, which at one time claimed to support Linux, but really was just a ploy against Microsoft), I'll either live without it (that notebook) or suck it up and use windows (if I have no other choice)

I didn't like Ubuntu, because of Gnome; I must prefer Mint's Suse menu style vs the standard Places/System/Applications that Ubuntu and most Gnome based distributions use, as well as not liking the desktop look of Ubuntu..
--also I don't like the idea of changing a package manager to something that is your brand, but really is only a reworking of standard tools, like apt.

[MistressNomad]

I think the fashionable look of Mint will certain help win it converts, but personally it doesn't make a huge difference to me. Do I appreciate it? Sure. I like eye candy as much as the next person. But I didn't mind the brown-ness of Ubuntu that a lot of people don't like. I wouldn't have cared if it was no more graphically interesting than Windows 95, as long as it worked.

Let's be honest: All OS's that are usable for the Common Man look more or less the same in how they are laid out and organized. Mac, Windows, the desktop versions of Linux, doesn't matter.

The reason for that is the same reason that every street car is laid out the same way, no matter who is making it. It works well. It's intuitive. It is the most direct way from A to B.

There's no reason to make it look and work drastically differently, and doing so would actually make it less functional.

Sure, there are Formula 1 cars and dragsters and cars for people with various handicaps, but for your every day average Joe on the street, all cars work the same, because that is the best way to do it.

Mint seems to be perfectly capable of handling customizations. Sure, it's not as readily obvious as it is in other Linux OS's, but that's the sacrifce you get for usability and general appeal. The point is that you CAN if you want to without too much of a fuss. And if the point of Mint is to be user friendly, that's as it should be.

I still haven't gotten Mint on my hard drive (my computer is in a sorry state at the moment), but when I ran it from the USB, Open Office was as easy to find as the partition manager. Good luck finding the latter at all on Vista without tearing your hair out in frustration.

And I think that's a rather good balance. I'm somewhat taken with Mint so far. I think it may have finally accomplished what Ubuntu failed to.

I get that a lot of die-hard, long-time Linux fan don't like the more friendly versions of Linux that are coming out, but keep in mind, open source should be for everyone - not just geeks. Isn't that the point?

[deleted]

and the more n00b friendly

That's interesting... I was just completely baffled why, after installing Norton Endpoint on my XP box, I could no longer connect to it with RDesktop (from Mint). I'm still trying to remove it from XP.

I forgot... which OS was for the more geeky?

-H

[ibm450]

I forgot... which OS was for the more geeky?

-H

definitely linux - not MS - known fact

[rhY]

Definitely MINT. Mint is the easiest OS I've ever seen/used. Also has the most productivity built in. My only gripe is that it isn't THAT fast on old machines, but then again, I have a tendency to turn on all the bells and whistles (Compiz, AWN, Virtualbox). At any rate, Windows is harder to setup and operate than a default Mint setup at this time. It's only the MS hegemony that makes it otherwise.

[MistressNomad]

Yeah, I've had a very easy time with Mint so far. If it weren't for Windows screwing up my computer, I imagine it would have been even easier. But Mint's not to blame for that.

Surprisingly enough, I think Mint is actually more logically laid out than Windows 2000, or XP (which are, in my opinion, the most logical Windows OS's that I've been around for, at least in terms of where stuff is as relates to how it's used).

And I definitely think there's a case to be made that Windows is more geeky... if you want to do anything besides use MS Office or IE. They make it impossibly hard, particularly in XP and Vista, to actually do anything that they don't specifically want you to do. Which I think is a move towards Mac that I haven't liked in the least...

rhY - I suspect that's yet another sacrifice made for the sake of usability. While Mint is still tiny in comparison to Windows OS's, it is bigger than Ubuntu, and as far as I'm aware, most other Linux OS's as well. Even so, for me, Mint runs faster from a USB drive than XP did on the hard drive.

[tinca]

MistressNomad

is it possible for you to amend the swear word in your post, remembering that this is a family forum. If you are unable to amend the post then can a mod do it.

Best regards Keith

[MistressNomad]

Woops. Me and my sailor mouth. It's a problem.

Done.

[Memoox]

I think Windows is not for "geeky" people, because most, not all, but most software you use you don't have to compile it, have their proper dependecies, have the right libraries, etc. This was an issue i think when i wanted to switch from windows, is a matter of "beind used to" some things.

Linuxmint is not bigger than Ubuntu, i can't really say how they do it with all the things that linuxmint has, haha, but for example, UBUNTU JJ is almost the same size than LINUXMINT 7 GNOME versions, i can't tell for the kde version cause i haven't tried kubuntu.

And of course, for newbies like us, is going to be very difficul to find some type of files in linux cause it has a different structure, like media and mnt folders, haha.

Linuxmint is a great distro, has what most users will use in one installer, that is just great.

[rich_roast]

I think Windows is not for "geeky" people, because most, not all, but most software you use you don't have to compile it, have their proper dependecies, have the right libraries, etc. This was an issue i think when i wanted to switch from windows, is a matter of "beind used to" some things.

[...]

And of course, for newbies like us, is going to be very difficul to find some type of files in linux cause it has a different structure, like media and mnt folders, haha.

The Linux Filesystem Hierarchy is quite well defined and has been for some time, now - it does look different from the various Windows methods of organizing configs, data, libraries and binaries but in my experience, at least, is followed strictly by developers and this lends itself to some sort of harmony on the user's computer. At worst, some applications and the things they need might end up being installed in /opt, sort of separately from the usual tree.

Mostly users should be able to rely on package managers to take care for their dependencies for them, of course. If something needs to be compiled from sources, more often than not the config script will make it pretty clear what dependencies it's missing if it can't find them: All that said, it's certainly rare for a Windows user to have to compile software from sources, not that the simple act of compiling a piece of software that's already been written is particularly "geeky", unless for some reason the user has to start modifying the source code to make it work... I mean, running ./configure, make and sudo make install could be seen as hardly worse than having to agree to an EULA, or clicking on a GUI button three times in a row.

[gcampton]

I will agree with you and say mint does feel more finished, but it's nothing more than a feeling, the term finished doesn't exist in Linux (much like windows try to open a pdf or use your graphics card after installing windows...you can't). why? because most of what is written for linux is written for free by open source devs(free as in not getting payed not freedom software), who do it as part of a learning experience before moving onto something bigger badder and better. I can name some examples ALREADY and I've only been using linux for 1 year, examples that are frequently used and added to very popular operating systems yet they are buggy and no longer maintained. On the occasion they work perfectly fine which is why they are kept/used but 20% of the time cause you to go into a fit of rage and smash your keyboard over your sisters head when she asks you if you want a cup of coffee.

Mint really is just a pretty Ubuntu so while it may feel nice, keep in mind that you will need to learn how to configure text files instead of tweaking a GUI(graphical user interface), you will need to learn how to understand those incredibly cryptic and dam annoying manual pages( $ man man ) rather than reading an idiots guide to FAQ(linux has these as well), and you will need to understand that for the most part linux is written by the world, as a whole, only in part, before it moves on, because the individual at the time isn't being payed and needs to eat.

[Iron Dutchess]

But why can't Linux be Linux under the hood, but be what Windows users are used to on the surface? That way everyone gets what they want. Linux geeks/gurus can have their OS set to be as Linux comes and the others can Install it to work in a way they are familiar with. Most people have a PC and an OS so they can run the programs of their choice and get on with their work. Mostly after installing Linux you can do this. But then comes the dreaded updates, some are quite automatic, but others like Mozilla's offerings require a fair amount of messing around to complete an update. Why is this necessary? why can't they be installable by just a double click on an installation file. Also why do drivers have to be locked into the kernel, you update to the latest one and one of the new drivers fails to work properly but all the rest are fine, your only simple choice is to go back to the old kernel just because one driver fails to perform on your machine. I know Linux isn't the same as Windows and isn't supposed to be, but at least it should be as simple to use and administer. Most users coming over to Linux can already ride a bike and have been for years, why make them learn to fly before they can get on with their job, why not just give them a bike, albeit a better made one?

Chris
Head down waiting for the onslaught

[Fred]

Iron Dutchess wrote:

But why can't Linux be Linux under the hood, but be what Windows users are used to on the surface?...

We don't want it to be like Windows on the surface, assuming it is even possible or practical. Why on earth would we want to duplicate all the warts, inconsistencies and flaws of Windows, in Linux. Example: Press the start button to turn the system off!? That is just silly. And there are hundreds more, equally illogical and more dangerous.

Most people have a PC and an OS so they can run the programs of their choice and get on with their work.

I can do this now with Linux and Linux programs. Of course if you are addicted to Windows programs, you really need to be using Windows. Just as I need to be using Linux to run Linux programs. There are work-a-rounds in Linux to run some Windows programs, but native programs run better, regardless of the OS.

... but others like Mozilla's offerings require a fair amount of messing around to complete an update. Why is this necessary? why can't they be installable by just a double click on an installation file.

Mozilla is a perfect example here. Unlike Windows, DLL hell anyone?, Linux has a package management system to manage dependencies and compatibility. The packages in the repos, contrary to popular belief, are vetted to some level to work on your distro. If there are a lot of problems with Mozilla's release, which there was with the 3.5 series, then it takes a while before the bugs are worked out and it goes into the mainstream repos. If you insist on installing untested downloads, you should expect to have problems. New users should try to stick to the programs offered through the mainstream repos if they want a stable trouble free system, even though they may not have the very latest of every program installed.

I know Linux isn't the same as Windows and isn't supposed to be, but at least it should be as simple to use and administer.

It already is more simple to use and administer than Windows. A knowledgeable Windows user has to jump through many more hoops in Windows than a knowledgeable Linux user does in Linux. As far as administration, a knowledgeable Linux admin can look after 3 times as many Linux boxes as a knowledgeable Windows admin can Windows boxes. This has been shown many many times over.

Most users coming over to Linux can already ride a bike and have been for years, why make them learn to fly before they can get on with their job, why not just give them a bike, albeit a better made one?

How many years did it take you to get to the competence level you now have in Windows? Why is it asking too much that you put in a little study and effort to learn a new, and in my opinion, more capable OS?

Instead of flying, I think a better analogy would be driving a motorized vehicle. Given the advantages of a car over a bicycle, a little learning curve is not out of order.

It sounds as if what you want is a better Windows, not Linux. There is no such thing and never will be. By definition, any deviation from Windows would make it different from Windows, therefore it would no longer meet the Windows standard you are comparing it to.

Below is a link to a little story that I wrote in another thread a good while back. It might be entertaining, if not enlightening.

http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... er#p104340

Enjoy life. It is too short to do otherwise.

Fred

[exploder]

Very nice Fred!

[Iron Dutchess]

I enjoyed the piece about the baker. . . . But,

If you haven't got the backing or funding to do slick marketing and you want to sell your cakes to the majority, then you have to make cakes that the majority like, which doesn't necessarily mean they are the best cakes in the opinion of the baker, but who is he baking them for, himself or the majority?

If you are at your car dealer and there are two cars outside, they both look quite similar, the salesman by one car is offering you the keys, the salesman by the other car is offering you the keys and a toolbox. If like the majority you aren't a mechanic and don't want to be, which car are the majority going to drive away in?

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux and prefer Mint, but I have set several people up with a dual boot system so they can try Linux, and they all report (more or less) the same thing, "it's OK but there is too much to do to get to a state where I can just work with the app's I find that I like, I don't have the time to mess about like that." (It seems that most can't find what they want in the repos' and still have to go looking on the net) then of course being Windows users (point and click) they find that they have to go back to school to learn how to install what they have downloaded. Instead they just go back to Windows and get on with their work.

[Kaye]

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux and prefer Mint, but I have set several people up with a dual boot system so they can try Linux, and they all report (more or less) the same thing, "it's OK but there is too much to do to get to a state where I can just work with the app's I find that I like, I don't have the time to mess about like that." (It seems that most can't find what they want in the repos' and still have to go looking on the net) then of course being Windows users (point and click) they find that they have to go back to school to learn how to install what they have downloaded. Instead they just go back to Windows and get on with their work.

I find this pretty hard to believe. I've set around 10 people up with dual boots (a few of them older than 50), given them a 20 minute crash course and sent them on their way. I've heard nothing but good news from each and every one. Sure sometimes they have to go back to Windows for proprietary programs, but for their average computing day they'd much rather boot into Linux than Windows. Either a) the people you're outfitting with Linux really shouldn't be using it (people who really don't care about their computing experience) or b) you're not helping them out enough from the beginning. In keeping with the analogies, you'd be giving them a car without teaching them how to drive it, then wondering why they decide to keep riding their bike.

[Fred]

Iron Dutchess,

First, you are being a good sport. I just want you to know that for me this is just an academic discussion, not a personal attack of any kind. You are certainly welcome here and I don't want to offend you with my commentary.

Chris wrote:

... you want to sell your cakes to the majority ... you have to make cakes that the majority like ... who is he baking them for, himself or the majority?

Here is the cultural disconnect. Linux is not a commercial product. It was built by developers/users for themselves and their peers. It was never developed or intended to compete with Microsoft for the masses. From the beginning, the people that actually developed the kernel and the GNU tools/utilities and their predecessors have had no incentive to build a system to compete with Microsoft for the mass market. Example: There are still no fixed APIs that would allow backwards compatibility from release to release. That in itself is enough to discourage proprietary software companies from embracing Linux. Too much work to keep-up.

The fact is that the vast majority of the Linux community just doesn't care if the mass market stays with Windows. Yes, we like to see people learn, what we think is, a better way of doing things. We encourage new users. We spend our time without remuneration for our own altruistic reasons. And yes, as the Linux base increases the hardware vendors take more notice and that translates to better hardware support. But that certainly isn't the reason for us being here or programers continuing to write better software.

Linux is and always has been a work-in-progress. It is only in competition with itself. Meaning that the next release is better than the last. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with Microsoft. That is why Microsoft has such a hard time fighting Linux. They are swinging at a very large puff of smoke, and we just don't care.

Having said that, there are commercial, for profit, shareholder owned companies that take Linux and use it in competition with Microsoft and many others. That is fine. They are certainly entitled to do so. But that doesn't change what Linux is. Many individuals and companies of all kinds contribute to Linux for their own reasons. It all just makes Linux better. And that is what Linux is about, being better than it was, in the minds of the people that matter.

Linux is often called democratic in nature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Linux is a meritocracy. People rise to the top based on their contributions of time, talent, and treasure. Treasure having the least value of the three. Almost anyone can rise to a position of respect and trust based on their non-monetary contributions. They can not based on their treasure alone. The people climbing the ladder of the meritocracy are the people that matter that I referred to in the paragraph above. What mainstream Windows users think or want is irrelevant and not even on the radar. That is the reality, for better or worse.

EDIT: I thought of a possibly better, shorter way of expressing this. Red Hat, Novell, IBM, etc. have customers. Linux has user contributors, but no customers.

Fred