Linux is Not Windows

[california_dan]

..... some stuff (omitted) .....

..... more stuff (mostly omitted) ....

You hate big multinational corporations, so you want to use the only viable alternative operating system (that fits this ideology of yours) for your PC, which happens to be Linux (there's also *BSD, Haiku, Syllable, etc., but these would be too "geeky" for you).

Hi Vincent,

I just want to make one remark here, and i have no intention of putting words in either your or Nick's mouth.

That is that the BSDs surely look just as geeky as any linux distro, but Haiku and Syllable are emphatically intended to be intuitive to use (whether or not they have made much progress in meeting their goals).

I think what makes people feel that linux is geeky has nothing to do with the linux kernel or the gnu utilities that run in the shell, but the fact that whatever gui they have to deal with is built on top of x windows. Presumably these guis are either gnome or kde, which are both pretty amazing in how well they cope with x.

But nevertheless, building something on top of x windows means that some of x's idiosyncrasies (copy/paste, non-double-buffered windows, etc) will periodically show through somehow or other. And x's problems will have a way of occasionally tripping up a user.

As far as i know, there is no linux distro which does not have an x layer. (And of course likewise for BSD: there will be no free BSD system with a non-x gui, i believe. The only BSD of any sort i'm aware of without a mandatory x layer is the mac. It does have an x application, but it is not mandatory, and is used for tasks like letting your linux x-program display on your mac.)

But i'd sure be delighted to be proven wrong here! (So if there is a free non-x gui for linux, or even the BSDs, somebody please let me know.)

dan

[randomizer]

I believe that is the point of Wayland: to rid us of the 20-year-old quirks of X.

[tatsujin79]

oh yes, ive read that about 6 times now, when im bored i'll read over this and the halloween documents

[Nick_Djinn]

..... some stuff (omitted) .....

..... more stuff (mostly omitted) ....

You hate big multinational corporations, so you want to use the only viable alternative operating system (that fits this ideology of yours) for your PC, which happens to be Linux (there's also *BSD, Haiku, Syllable, etc., but these would be too "geeky" for you).

Hi Vincent,

I just want to make one remark here, and i have no intention of putting words in either your or Nick's mouth.

That is that the BSDs surely look just as geeky as any linux distro, but Haiku and Syllable are emphatically intended to be intuitive to use (whether or not they have made much progress in meeting their goals).

I think what makes people feel that linux is geeky has nothing to do with the linux kernel or the gnu utilities that run in the shell, but the fact that whatever gui they have to deal with is built on top of x windows. Presumably these guis are either gnome or kde, which are both pretty amazing in how well they cope with x.

But nevertheless, building something on top of x windows means that some of x's idiosyncrasies (copy/paste, non-double-buffered windows, etc) will periodically show through somehow or other. And x's problems will have a way of occasionally tripping up a user.

As far as i know, there is no linux distro which does not have an x layer. (And of course likewise for BSD: there will be no free BSD system with a non-x gui, i believe. The only BSD of any sort i'm aware of without a mandatory x layer is the mac. It does have an x application, but it is not mandatory, and is used for tasks like letting your linux x-program display on your mac.)

But i'd sure be delighted to be proven wrong here! (So if there is a free non-x gui for linux, or even the BSDs, somebody please let me know.)

dan

A while ago, when I was more of a noob, I was asking about some alternatives to X....sounded interesting, but half of it was over my head. I guess there are a few, but they are not ready for mainstream linux yet.

[cannae]

Linux should remain different to Windows. Isn't that the whole point? Its only when you switch that you realize what you've been missing instead of following mindlessly along with everyone else. There is no choice or flexibility to Windows. At least with Apple you know that choice and flexibility were murdered a long time ago. The freedom - in all senses - makes the switch alone worthwhile.

[donec]

There is no choice or flexibility to Windows.

I have to disagree there is flexibility and choice with Windows, it's just that you have to pay to be able to customize Windows or use the myriad of software available for Windows, but you do even have different versions to choose from. In fact most any aspect of Windows can be altered and yes if altered it is still Windows but this is true in Linux also.

[cannae]

There is no choice or flexibility to Windows.

I have to disagree there is flexibility and choice with Windows, it's just that you have to pay to be able to customize Windows or use the myriad of software available for Windows, but you do even have different versions to choose from. In fact most any aspect of Windows can be altered and yes if altered it is still Windows but this is true in Linux also.

By flexibility I meant using a command line tool or using different desktop environments, and by choice I was thinking along the lines of source code and digging into the heart of the OS.

[donec]

There is no choice or flexibility to Windows.

I have to disagree there is flexibility and choice with Windows, it's just that you have to pay to be able to customize Windows or use the myriad of software available for Windows, but you do even have different versions to choose from. In fact most any aspect of Windows can be altered and yes if altered it is still Windows but this is true in Linux also.

By flexibility I meant using a command line tool or using different desktop environments, and by choice I was thinking along the lines of source code and digging into the heart of the OS.

It is true that the command line of Windows is crippled by Linux standards but it is still there and as I have been told many times that things are different in Linux well things are different in Windows. You can dig into the Windows operating system and take quite a bit of control over it, if you are willing to learn the way Windows does things and do it that way. A lot can be accomplish with the registry but just like the command line in Linux it is dangerous to mess around with it if you aren't familiar with it and take the proper precautions.

There third party programs that allow a lot of variation in the way the desktop is viewed and used. In fact you can make it look and feel like Linux, Apple or something totally different.

Now the Windows source code is proprietary but to all but a few users that is of no concern, unless the user want to take advantage of the access of the source code to create a similar product. Windows spends a fortune to keep their source code private and I believe when they started they had good reason but now they can not stop as they have too much money tied into a source code that is behind the times. So to say that Windows is inflexible in their source code I agree.

[cannae]

I'd agree with that. WIndows was never designed to be recompiled in your spare time.

[Rukiri]

I've used both windows and linux for years, and I've come to love the command line mainly because I've been using mac os since the 90s. Linux can be made to work like windows and wine is getting better every release, it can now run photoshop cs5 perfectly at least on my system anyway. I don't like gimp and it feels crippled compared to photoshop or even industry applications(what you though photoshop was #1?) Linux is used more widely in production environments than windows users might like to think. Take Hollywood for example, any major film is either being edited on Linux or Mac OSX exclusively. Windows is horrible for video editing and the industry agrees. Some of the best video editing software is on linux and mac os x, but linux does seem to have the best however.. it's not free and most might think that linux has only free apps and that's just not true.

I can run all my software on linux perfectly thanks to wine, heck I even got MS Visual studio 10 working perfectly under linux and guess what? It runs 100X better.
Now if only there was a mac emulator for linux..

[Elisa]

+Rukiri, but don't forget photoshop costs "heavy money" than Gimp which is free...
Anyway I like Gimp, also have some experiences with photosh. too but if I'd need to pay for it - thanks, no way...

Now if only there was a mac emulator for linux..

OMG, rather not!

[bbogdan]

good afternoon.
I address to you on very important for me and not only me to a question
Is much windows programs of very narrow direction for example the medical
hopes that will linux versions is unreal therefore single an exit the emulator
wine already basically not bad but has one weakness it windows the driver and connection of external devices
You linux mint well processed and me very much is pleasant
Can try to you and wine to improve to such degree that the usual person could establish easy the different equipment despite that whence it
Yours faithfully Bogdan

[Elisa]

+Bogdan,
if you ask for wine improvement you have to upload your experiences with your concrete app in 'wine web site', not here.
Then 'wine crew' could improve something on wine, not 'Mint crew'.
Or try to write here on this forum, more details about your possible problems with an application in wine so someone might help you to manage it

[Nick_Djinn]

I think GIMP is better than photoshop elements, and elements is still an expensive program. Its not as polished as Photoshop pro, but its just fine for editing photos and bringing the colors out and making fliers and posters and banners.

[tek_heretik]

not necessarily in that order. Windows was an expensive (over and above the initial cost of 'renting' it) headache, the last straw was not being able to play a legal store-bought DVD movie on my legal copy of XP, click the link...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtQU-Cd0mEQ

Edit: LinuxFanboy is me =)

[trefall]

This is an old post but having just updated my new computer to Mint 12, I discovered the truth in something mentioned in other posts. I installed Lisa and found I didn't like Gnome 3. It just wasn't the 'way' I was used to. So, within 10 minutes of searching the forum I found Cinnamon, problem solved. Had I been using the Windows 7 the computer came with, and didn't like something...tough sh*t is generally the Windows response. That in a nutshell is Linux for me. If you don't like something...there's at least one more option or patch (or soon will be). my2cnts

[RussKev]

I am glad that Linux is not Windows. And Mint 12 does almost everything that I need it to do. But I can't run games, even with Wine/Wine Tricks. That means that I have to keep a stinking copy of XP on my PC. Automatic is the name of the game for Linux Users who are trying to completely leave windows behind.
I will be searching for yet another version of linux that will play my games AUTOMATICLY. No Muss, no Fuss. I saw a Gamers Linux, I thoughtit was kinda lame, but I will give it a 2nd look.
Russell

[AlbertP]

You can use Playonlinux for many games: http://www.playonlinux.com/repository/?cat=1

Just install Playonlinux, and run it from the menu to install a game.

[Sammaul]

Wine works for Star Trek Online, as it is now free. Personally don't play many PC games, as I dont have the system or cash for it...though i think I'll try Playonlinux for my old copy of Sins...it doesn't like wine for some reason, and I miss my geeky space strategy/opera game lol

[3fRI]

Linux is not Windows, nor should it be.

That said, I never had a problem with Windows when I ran it at home (98 SE) on a Compaq or at work (2000 and XP). I removed software I didn't want or need, I updated patches and anti-spam and virus software, and maintained the system regularly. I didn't and still don't game--but I'm an old fart--nor did I care what the desktop looked like. I was happy as long as the PC worked. Most people I know use either Windows PCs or Macs because they don't want to spend a lot of time configuring and tweaking so that things work they way they want them to.They just want it to work out of the box and not all Linux distros work 100% out of the box, but that is changing. Linux distros are improving all the time and even old farts like I can install them on whatever PC and get things to work quickly, if not right out of the box.

The advantage over Windows and OS X is that Linux (name your favorite distro) is free and that forums such as this one do a fine job--even a better job than corporate customer service reps.