Linux is Not Windows

Chat about Linux in general
ALF13
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:02 pm
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by ALF13 »

killer de bug wrote:
BigEasy wrote:Because I'm tech I never feel Windows is crap.
I'm an engineer, and I think it's a poorly designed system.
BigEasy wrote:For example if I know that Windows updates takes a long time then I plan my work accordingly.
This is applicable on your personal computer. Not one from a company. If there are updates available, the system starts to show pop-up to reboot on a regular basis. If you try to forget about them, because you are working and it's no time to reboot, your processor will end up over heating. You will have to reboot in a matter of hours anyway. How is this possible? The system forces you to reboot.

Last week, I had to reboot 4 times in a row to install all the updates. In the middle of my working day... As if I have time for this childish game.

I have even seen an upgrade pushed by the IT in order to install a new version of IE. It closed my current session of IE without asking me to install the new version... :shock:
Dude, I know your pain! Do you remember vista updates?

And then you mentioned IE! Oh, *!%@$%!%@. Someone tried web development for IE ? :shock: :cry: :|
And what about every standard (especially for the WEB) that M$ just do not want to agree with ? Why? Because they have to feed themselves with money, which is fine - everybody fights for money, but M$ fights dirty, which for the rest of us is not good! :!:
BigEasy
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1284
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:17 am
Location: Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by BigEasy »

It's all about bad IT works and planning tasks. Not about bad Windows. If company works requires Windows written tasks then IT works must knew Windows.
Is anywhere englishmen complains about their weather? No, they joked about it and living with it.
Windows assumes I'm stupid but Linux demands proof of it
ALF13
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:02 pm
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by ALF13 »

BigEasy wrote:It's all about bad IT works and planning tasks. Not about bad Windows. If company works requires Windows written tasks then IT works must knew Windows.
Is anywhere englishmen complains about their weather? No, they joked about it and living with it.
OSs are not like weather. It's like which car brand you choose to buy/use.
User avatar
killer de bug
Level 14
Level 14
Posts: 5399
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Leuven, Belgium

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by killer de bug »

ALF13 wrote:Dude, I know your pain! Do you remember vista updates?
I remember them so well. They made me install Linux. :wink:
I was going out and when I was back, my computer had rebooted on its own. Crazy :lol:
ALF13 wrote:And then you mentioned IE! Oh, *!%@$%!%@. Someone tried web development for IE ?
Some old tools in my company are only working under IE. For example the tool to review the production and the test results...
BigEasy wrote:It's all about bad IT works and planning tasks. Not about bad Windows.
No it's about bad design. When Clem pushes some updates, they are here in a corner waiting for me to install them. They do not constantly pop-up. They don't go in my way. My CPU is not overheating when there are pending updates.
When the IT pushes some updates, if Windows was properly designed, they would install at the next reboot or shutdown. No need for pop-up. No need for a 'msiInstaller' taking 25% of your CPU after you clicked on 'delay for 4h'.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
User avatar
Crewp
Level 9
Level 9
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Connecticut,USA

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by Crewp »

I agree with KDB, and not only are they intrusive, but they are so darn slow.
Image
User avatar
Pepi
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 998
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:47 pm

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by Pepi »

I've been in the IT field for 30 years. Went from UNIX HP and HP3000 to the wonderful product of Microsoft :roll: I'm currently 62 years old and I put in for retirement. I just can't do support on Microsoft's products no more :oops: I look forward to come home to my Linux network :wink:
ALF13
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:02 pm
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by ALF13 »

killer de bug wrote: Some old tools in my company are only working under IE. For example the tool to review the production and the test results...
Yeah, because they were written for IE back in the days, when IE had 98% market share.
But until recently it was hardcore building web apps supporting all modern browsers and IE on the other hand. :)
BigEasy
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1284
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:17 am
Location: Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by BigEasy »

ALF13 wrote:OSs are not like weather. It's like which car brand you choose to buy/use.
Come to your company where you are employee and tell it to boss. He will listen carefully, I promise you.
Windows assumes I'm stupid but Linux demands proof of it
ALF13
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:02 pm
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by ALF13 »

BigEasy wrote:
ALF13 wrote:OSs are not like weather. It's like which car brand you choose to buy/use.
Come to your company where you are employee and tell it to boss. He will listen carefully, I promise you.
You can go to your boss and tell him how much money yearly he will save from licenses for windows, office packet, antivirus, and other software and who knows what other taxes.
The transition in the short term will probably be hard but in the long term worth it.

Edit: I know it sounds hippie but who wouldn't agree that cheaper and more reliable stuff are better for the good of all?
User avatar
Goz
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:48 am

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by Goz »

Crewp wrote:I agree with KDB, and not only are they intrusive, but they are so darn slow.
As do I..I forget when they started doing that nonsense. Wasn’t it XP?
By comparison,Linux is so polite. It's quite content to wait all day if need be to update..And most of the time no reboot is needed,which is a bonus.
Think of Windows 10 as Hotel California for computers.
User avatar
samriggs
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:09 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by samriggs »

Just some samples I go through and went through.
Starting up windows and loading artwork into illustrator at work in the past, after a coffee and a couple of smokes later it might of loaded, if there was no updates and if it didn't crash halfway through the artwork it was a good day.
There was a lot of times (especially with one artist who didn't know about ctl + s) who use to loose hours of artwork through crashes, until I couldn't take it any longer and showed him.
The job I am at work now uses windows, the program they use uses IE built into the framework for one software, constant freezing crashes etc...
At least the IT does all updating before hand.
I got tired of the same thing in freelance at home, switched to linux, all open source for artwork and never looked back.
The companies I worked for in the past loose so much money over wasted days and hours you figured they switch but they are all hooked on adobe and windows :roll:
Someone surfs get maleware or viruses its panic city, fun times 8) fond memories of days of windows :lol:
which is why it is not allowed in my home.
I have the whole family on linux including my mother in her late 70's.
"Windows: the worst system for the most money, Linux: the best system for free"
Registered Linux User #545430
Manjaro XFCE / Mint Cinnamon
asus X751LX and an acer and a toshiba and another asus
Royal-Mint
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:57 am

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by Royal-Mint »

Where is Linux is not Mac sticky thread? :lol:
User avatar
Moem
Level 20
Level 20
Posts: 11603
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:14 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by Moem »

Royal-Mint wrote:Where is Linux is not Mac sticky thread? :lol:
For some odd reason no one ever seems to need to be told that... :wink:
Image

If your issue is solved, kindly indicate that by editing the first post in the topic, and adding [SOLVED] to the title. Thanks!
BigEasy
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1284
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:17 am
Location: Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by BigEasy »

Apple forums probably stick "MAK is not Linux!" 8)
Windows assumes I'm stupid but Linux demands proof of it
User avatar
flygrounder
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:44 pm

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by flygrounder »

I can't understand for what do people need to explain why Linux is not Windows? You just need to use both to understand them. If you use only one it doesn't important if second is different or not.
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
User avatar
Chiefahol
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by Chiefahol »

flygrounder wrote:I can't understand for what do people need to explain why Linux is not Windows?
We all begin somewhere, a lot of beginners expect it to be very similar.
Donate to your favourite distros!
deleted

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by deleted »

Moem wrote:
Royal-Mint wrote:Where is Linux is not Mac sticky thread? :lol:
For some odd reason no one ever seems to need to be told that... :wink:
It's camouflaged as "Linux is not BSD" ;)
-H
drydenp

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by drydenp »

In general articles like these are just excuses for the poor quality of Linux software as compared to something else, and that something else is then always conveniently Microsoft Windows, because most people are coming from there and it is easy to bash it, in contrast with the Mac OS, which is rather hard to bash for mere design principles.

After all if Mac OS has a Unixy kernel, you can't bash it for it kernel. You also cannot bash it for the fact that it indeed allows all kinds of things such as running X (I believe) or X applications.

And if you want (or by default?) it has a Bash shell too.

The truth of this article

All of that article is garbage (I scanned every paragraph). Nobody actually wants Linux to be the same. Nobody minds that Linux is different. But what people want for it is to work well, and it often doesn't. And if working well means adhering to a certain user experience, then it needs to adhere to a certain user experience.

And if it then excuses itself by not adhering to that certain user experience, but still claiming to be usable to some high degree, then it is contradicting itself. You can't have a user interface that people can't use, while still claiming that people can use your software and get work done.

Mint is not necessarily the same because I see good efforts and the amount of integration (and reduction of scope) I see in Mint Cinnamon 18 is on par with that of Mac OS albeit somewhat more fragile and you could still say: in its infancy. But the general approach of it seems excellent and I have not witnessed that from Linux software before.

So before you accuse me of dissing Mint, I am not ;-).

Not in that way at least, but it has no control over the rest.

How he presents choices as either/or when they are both/and

Take the paragraph on user friendliness:
If you spend your entire life processing text files, your ideal software will be fast and powerful, enabling you to do the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of effort. Simple keyboard shortcuts and mouseless operation will be of vital importance.
But if you very rarely edit text files, and you just want to write an occasional letter, the last thing you want is to struggle with learning keyboard shortcuts. Well-organized menus and clear icons in toolbars will be your ideal.

Clearly, software designed around the needs of the first user will not be suitable for the second, and vice versa. So how can any software be called "user-friendly", if we all have different needs?

The simple answer: User-friendly is a misnomer, and one that makes a complex situation seem simple.

What does "user-friendly" really mean? Well, in the context in which it is used, "user friendly" software means "Software that can be used to a reasonable level of competence by a user with no previous experience of the software." This has the unfortunate effect of making lousy-but-familiar interfaces fall into the category of "user-friendly".
There are several logical "misnomers" in this piece. The argumentation is so flawed it falls to pieces without the duck tape that binds it.
If you spend your entire life processing text files, your ideal software will be fast and powerful, enabling you to do the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of effort. Simple keyboard shortcuts and mouseless operation will be of vital importance.
This does not follow. Everyone's ideal software is fast and powerful, not just those of text-processor-users. Everyone wants to do the minimal amount of work for the maximum amount of yield. And most workflows require keyboard shortcuts to be optimized. This has been so from the days of MS-DOS and has never been different for MS Windows either. This by its own does not indicate "mouseless operation" because the two are not mutually exclusive.

And this article presents it as if they are and that chasm, that mutually created schizm, that designed imperative, forms the basis of this whole argument. That you must choose one or the other and it isn't so.
But if you very rarely edit text files, and you just want to write an occasional letter, the last thing you want is to struggle with learning keyboard shortcuts. Well-organized menus and clear icons in toolbars will be your ideal.
So as said:
  1. These are not polar opposites and you can include them in your application as compliments.
  2. The argument only follows if this was impossible or somehow out of the ordinary exceedingly hard, which is not so, unless you believe that it is so, but you make your own reality.
  3. The choice to design either one or the other is moot, since you can design both at the same time.
In the Windows world, there have always been easy shortcuts and convenient menus and icons at the same time.

This is evidenced by many great real-world applications such as Photoshop.
Clearly, software designed around the needs of the first user will not be suitable for the second, and vice versa. So how can any software be called "user-friendly", if we all have different needs?
Clearly doesn't follow. You can design for both at the same time and You don't have to make a Choice here. In fact you must choose to include both for your application to be user-friendly.

This article presents it as either/or, that you have to make a choice out of both, but not either, not both at the same time. That's not true, you can perfectly choose to do both: it is both/and, not either/or.

I wrote before:
Absolutely doesn't follow. In the Windows space, software has always been designed around the needs of both users, and has catered to both users equally. Photoshop must be an excellent example. It is both easy to learn and extremely powerful. I got started with it back in '96 with no issue at all. Professionals all over the world use it and I have never heard anyone complain that it was difficult to master or hard to get started with. No one. Ever.
Linux laziness of developers who'd rather not fix your problems
The simple answer: User-friendly is a misnomer, and one that makes a complex situation seem simple.
It's not complex. It's really simple. You just need to get off your ass and start working. Start designing that feature that is needed. Start creating that interface.

This is just an excuse for not getting to work. Oh it is so hard! We are so pitiful! We are so poor! What mean thing are you asking of us? Oh, we know, we will say that it is actually impossible to do that thing, so we have an excuse for not doing it, and can get back to our lazy attitudes of not improving anything.

All of this is just an excuse to avoid work.

You have to drag Linux people by their feet (by their hair, really) to consider doing anything. Even if you file a bug report, they are going to try to avoid having to do any work for it, and come up with a thousand excuses as to why it's not a problem.

Linux people are just one big EXCUSE for not having to do any work. And this article is just one big excuse, one big apologetic essay, for explaining as to why Linux people are not improving anything.

"It's too hard for us" they say.

Well no wonder if you work together in that way being bullied by distributions and open source imperatives. That makes pretty much everything impossible.

And no wonder if you are not allowed projects of your own because you have to contribute everything to the GPL.

Most people are not doing their own projects and as such are doing stuff other people ask them to do, instead of doing their own thing that they themselves want to do. Most people consider themselves "contributors" but you can't be a contributor to your own project.

The whole concept implies that you are doing something for someone else.

Same with "volunteer". You can't volunteer to do your own garden.

The reason for the laziness

So you are always and eternally at the behest of the opinions of other people as to what design choices you want to make, which renders designing pretty much impossible, since it is a creative endaevour that requires independence and freedom. People call this "design by committee" and it makes designing impossible. You can't design anything good this way.

And the frustration and tiredness and depletion and stress and ineffectiveness and inefficiency and downright drain of good resources this had led to, has led to articles such as these and also the lazy attitudes and mindsets that govern it.

It is all the result of having to work in a very badly oiled machinery. This depletes your energy and eventually you don't want to do anything anymore and you will drag your feet in getting to have to do anything (for someone else).

And this is why those attitudes of "blame the user" have arisen. If you can blame the user for the faulty operation of the machine, and hence can conclude that the machine is not faulty, you also do not have to fix the machine. Please, easy, no work to be done :D.

As long as the user is at fault, we don't have to fix anything. No work for us! :D.

It's all laziness this and results from depletion.

People are doing *ANYTHING* in order to have to avoid work. People go to great great lengths to avoid any work being done. To avoid having to do work. To avoid work having to be done.

If there is anything that characterizes the Linux world, then it is unwilling, uncooperative people who throw objections in the way of any suggestion you make and any idea that needs to be implemented, anything that can result in work for those people who have made themselves responsible for the project but really detest it because it is taking so much time and they don't really want to spend it on that, they'd rather be doing other, rejuvenating things.

What programming should be more of.... (and normally is, if you work on your own)

Depletion vs. Rejuvenation, that is what it comes down to. People would rather be doing something fun but they have tasks to perform but the tasks they have chosen to perform are not fun, they are chores.

And they're dragging their feet. What else can I make of it?
What does "user-friendly" really mean? Well, in the context in which it is used, "user friendly" software means "Software that can be used to a reasonable level of competence by a user with no previous experience of the software." This has the unfortunate effect of making lousy-but-familiar interfaces fall into the category of "user-friendly".
Now he is turning it around. You can be dead sure it is a he, by the way. No woman really talks like that.

It is also pitiful and petulant, this piece of writing. We will educate that people that know nothing. The way we would speak to children. They are now also patronizing those Windows people that are supposedly the target of that writing.

And he contradicts himself again. A familiar interface that is at the same time lousy could never result in competent use of any new software, or any software at all. The whole idea of a lousy interface is that you can't do much good with it. This applies to Linux software, not Windows software (on average) that has to be commercially viable. There are generally no distinctions between the GUIs of Windows apps and the GUIs of Linux apps.

Not in terms of their basic models. You cannot call MS Office lousy while not also calling LibreOffice lousy. You cannot call iTunes lousy while not also calling Amarok lousy, or something to that effect. I would hold that familiarity with some Linux interface (such as VIM) that is itself rather lousy, makes for a reasonable level of competence in using it. But only because it is familiar.

Linux user interfaces (the old ones) simply require rote memorisation

There are many products in Linux that you can ONLY use because of familiarity. And it is often a steep hill, a steep cliff to climb, to get to that level of familiarity in the first place. And then, when you have become that familiar you can say "It is good software". But only because you have already learned to deal with all of its traps, its hideaways, its formenting chaos, and you have learned the ropes of it.

Not because it ever had a good interface.

And I hope Linux Mint is changing some of that and I think it is on a good path with what that goes.

But in general user interfaces of Windows production apps are not lousy. I can't see why you would ever call that lousy. So I have no clue what the author is talking about, because he doesn't specify any. And most stuff that is familiar in Windows is familiar in Linux too, except that Linux has a lot of stuff that is not familiar. So what are those "lousy but familiar" interfaces then? I think this applies to Linux only (unless you want to care about the Mac here).

Pretty much every interface in Windows is present in Linux too.

So apparently this person is calling those interfaces lousy too, and only wants to speak of text-mode interfaces when he references that. Such as Vi, Emacs, whatever.

Misrepresentation of the common GUI interface vs. Vi

Which is also what he references before:
From the start of the words, Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-X
And with vi?

d5w
No, slightly after. This is a complete misrepresentation. For starters:
ctrl-shift-right, right, right, right right
ctrl-x
Is the reality of it. Don't lie, person, no one presses ctrl and shift multiple times here.

Moreover, Vim now supports it as well and I use it frequently. Well, it is a bit more difficult; ctrl-right works, but ctrl-shift-right doesn't. And it is equivalent to the W and B actions, I think, which is not that convenient.

To use "d5w" you first have to look ahead in the text and think. Then you have to calculate the number of words and then concoct a command that does what you want, and hope it doesn't do anything else. For example, if you use W you might not know exactly where it will place the word boundary, neither with w.

The amount of time it takes you to calculate in your mind the number of words, you would already have selected that piece of text, since you require no mental effort whatsoever to do so. Moreover you can make choices while selecting it and do something else after all. You know exactly what it will do before you do it. There is no benefit to d5w at all unless you are a machine, and I never use it even though I use Vim frequently. I do this:

(my own experience with Vi)
dw, dw, dw, dw, dw
which is not actually a cut of 5 words. So instead I have to do:

Code: Select all

v
w, w, w, w, w
d
Which is the exact equivalent of what I would do in Windows or any GUI application in Linux.

It just takes longer.

The only time when I use a counter is when I am deleting or copying multiple lines because it is not so bad to have to count the number of lines in advance.

Code: Select all

5dd
Still not my preferred way of doing things and if you don't use it (but use visual instead) you get in trouble with weird first characters being deleted because it also deleted (and selects) the character under the very cursor. So visually selecting lines is not possible unless you go to the end of line explicitly (using $) which is terribly annoying. And by "not preferred" I mean: not pleasurable, I don't like it very much. I still have to guess that my command is going to be correct in advance. It may not. It happens.

Give good advice, person

And then, "d5w" is not the most intuitive way to do it. This person is even giving bad advice. "5dw" does the exact equivalent and is easier to type.

I only use this when the amount of words is small and I can be sure of what it will select. So "3dw" I might do. When it gets more than 3, or 4, I will start using visual selection to be sure of what it'll do.

Which is then much slower to begin with than a GUI application. Less intuitive for me.

How to twist truth
The vi approach is far more versatile and actually more intuitive: "X" and "V" are not obvious or memorable "Cut" and "Paste" commands, whereas "dw" to delete a word, and "p" to put it back is perfectly straightforward. But "X" and "V" are what we all know, so whilst vi is clearly superior, it's unfamiliar. Ergo, it is considered unfriendly. On no other basis, pure familiarity makes a Windows-like interface seem friendly. And as we learned in problem #1, Linux is necessarily different to Windows. Inescapably, Linux always appears less "user-friendly" than Windows.
What? Ever heard of muscle memory? Really twisting things here now. The foundation of these commands came from IBM, and were ctrl-ins (to insert it into the buffer) and shift-ins (to insert it into the page) which was most convenient and the fastest I have ever used. Ctrl-X, Ctrl-C and so on is harder, granted. But my keyboards don't have the old block anymore, to my detriment.

Not all do. Shift-del would cut the text. Unintuitive? Using ins and del unintuitive? :D.

Having a visual selection unintuitive?

I mean I want to see some Vi user compete with some IBM standard user in raw text editing capability. The IBM user never has to think, always knows exactly what is going to happen, and has a speed that rivals anything you could do mentally. This is where it all came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access.
so whilst vi is clearly superior, it's unfamiliar
There is nothing superior about having to use a key in the middle of your keyboard somewhere off to the side that is hard to reach unless you type with 10 fingers, AND have the hands on the keyboard at that very moment. On a regular IBM keyboard, shift-ins is extremely fast and never misses. The motion from going from typing to ctrl (with left hand) and ins (with right hand) is automatic and fast and almost (and in fact) rhythmical. Ctrl-C often requires a bit of effort.

Because you're doing it with one hand and you often have to look at your keyboard.

The IBM standard is older than Windows

That was not the case for the IBM standard.

(I have to use different keyboards because there are no full-size keyboards with a soft touch and my hands start hurting if I don't use them).

I mean if you are going to compare something, compare the best of what existed.

I have never worked faster than with a regular IBM keyboard and mouse and it dwarfs my speed with Vim by a factor 5 easily, and I have been using Vim since 1997. I have been on the freaking Vim mailing list. I have tried to read Vim books several times.

I have even modified and improved the PHP syntax file for Vim (although never submitted perhaps, I don't know). So come up with your personal attacks now.
Inescapably, Linux always appears less "user-friendly" than Windows.
And Linux GUI applications use it too

No my friend, the IBM standard predated Windows and was influenced by Apple. It was an effort by IBM to bring many diverse user intefaces under a single banner, and succeeded greatly. It came after the basic Unix interfaces and their advent. However the Unix interfaces are not united at all and the only application that does Vi, is Vi (apart from some, like Kate, who have incorporated it). The fragmented nature of Unix is one of the great causes of its difficulty, and that fact that it is not very familiar to anyone.

A Vi user, for example, cannot use Ed.

Apart from that, although XCV is learned, the "x" as a way of cutting is not weird at all (my Logitech keyboard uses "x" as a way of indicating the closing of a window) and "x-s" usually close windows. The x is, or may be, a pretty much universal symbol of closing or deleting something, at least in our western world.

We put x-es through stuff we want to forget about. Two diagonal lines. How concoctful must you become and how deceitful to suggest that the x is not intuitive for deleting something.

Moreover, "d" is only intuitive for the English language and "p" likewise. "Delete" translates to "Verwijderen" in Dutch and "Put" can be "Neerzetten" or "Plaatsen" which happens to be the same. Not everyone is as skilled in English and I can tell you that XCV is going to be a lot more universal than d, y and p. "Yank?" Yank? That's not even Copy. "c" does "change" which I couldn't even remember, it's muscle memory too.

I for the life of me couldn't remember what the "c" key would do, even though I use it daily. There goes intuitive.

I had to try it before I knew. Oh ja.

Using Vi has nothing to do with how meaningful the names of the words, or the characters are.

Just as "jkhl" is something that you just need to learn by rote memory, by muscle memory.

Now I'm sure that person will suggest that jkhl is more intuitive than using the arrow keys. For real.

This article is just meant to manipulate readers into thinking a certain thing

So everything that has been written there is just a lie, it does not even agree with how Vi is actually getting used. It has been written to send a certain message, but not because it is based in reality, it's not based in reality. It is just selectively picking good points about Linux and bad points about Windows and then misrepresenting those bad points just to make a certain message so that people will believe a certain thing and will end up with a certain conception of what they want people to think. Not what is so, but what they want people to think.

I mean how can I say this? It's just manipulation. Presenting the truth in certain way such that people get a very skewed perception of it that is in your favour. It is just deceitful. Not only does he (or she, I guess I should account for that possibility) misrepresent how Linux is getting used in FACT, he also misrepresents to very well Windows users how they themselves will be using Windows!. It's a double lie!.

Nobody cares about Vi commands being intuitive, they are not, you have to learn them. You have to commit them to muscle memory and then they become intuitive, it has nothing to do with being intuitive from the start, nothing whatsoever.

It is no more intuitive then finding your way in a strange city where you don't know the streets. After you've learned them, fine, but before, no?.

This guy is just evidently and demonstrably manipulating readers to think a certain thing when it does not comply with or agree with reality.

It's just demonstrably untrue or presented in a certain way so as to make you think a certain thing, if you don't know better

Just this piece:
From the start of the words, Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Ctrl-Shift-Right
Is SO manipulative. Repeating those words so many times when the user only presses them once (and keeps them depressed).

And if you want to select more words than that, you only have to press each of them once and keep them depressed until you have found and selected the right number of words.

Yes, selecting 20 words is actually one keypress for each of those keys.

Here is Windows and Linux GUI:
ctrl-shift-right
(wait)
(release)
Here is Vi:
(scan ahead)
(count the number of words)
(hope you're not wrong)
20dw
That's closer to this is getting really used. Of course Vi was not meant for multi-line spanning sentences.

TL;DR:
  1. The author misrepresents issues on purpose in order to shed a certain light that is not warranted
  2. The author doesn't give an accurate description of how real people use Vi
  3. The author presents user interface design choices as either keyboard shortcuts, or usable visuals, when it has never been that case for Windows applications, that have always been both
  4. The author gives all of the familiar excuses as to why Linux software is not better, and that it is either the user's fault (you just haven't learned it yet) or an impossibility in software development (we cannot cater to every user, everyone wants someting else, all software contains bugs).

    (Intuitive software is impossible. Intuitiveness is an empty word. User friendly is an empty word. Nothing good can come out of software development in any case but Linux is doing better than expected. Real good software is impossible. You have to choose whom to cater to and only choose a specific niche, and Linux excels at that).
  5. All of the excuses result from a development model (sorry for mentioning it here) that reduces the efficacy of its developers and causes a huge amount of time being wasted, drains resources, drains mindsets and impetus, drains fun, drains energy, drains the willingness to still exert effort, and causes people to seek excuses so as not to have to do any work.
  6. No individual developer is to blame at all because no one can be expected to work under difficult conditions and often with a lot of peer pressure, and still keep up the initial drive that they started with
  7. It is just important to find something you love doing and don't do what other people want ;-)
  8. Ensure that you can rejuvenate yourself using the work you do.
  9. And don't accept work that costs you energy instead of bringing you some.
  10. Then if you do something you like you will be effective at it, get a lot of work done, improve the software you work on with great zeal, listen to your users, don't mind hearing negatives, incorporate criticism and new views, and overall produce something you don' t need to lie about such as this author is doing in this article referenced in the starting post ;-).
Apologies

I'm sorry for writing such a long article, that was not my intent really. I blame the heat. And other factors you can't know about. You still gotta love what you produce right. There is nothing else to love because you don't have any other.

Which may explain why I am still using Linux to begin with, but that aside.

But I overall will just say that I find the regular arguments you hear that defend the bad quality of Linux or explain the difficulty people have with it "away" as we say in Dutch, to be very dishonest, insincere, seriously just disingenuous, don't comply or agree with actual reality, and misrepresent the issues just to give people a certain idea that is not really true to begin with.

And this is in overall defense of the lack of quality output from open source teams and open source realms that have REAL ISSUES in their functioning as cooperative teams and the effectiveness with which they produce quality software. There is no reason to believe that on average the open source model fosters and takes care of some kind of need to have a certain kind of guarantee that actually qualitative software will be produced.

On the contrary the open source model (and the GPL model it is combined with) seems a guarantee that disagreement among peers will frustrate much of what they are trying to do.

People problems are usually more difficult to solve than technical problems and there is usually no shortage of people problems in the linux realm. Everyone wants something else and there is no guarantee that anyone will ever agree on anything. As a result of this infighting, the ones with money (Red Hat) can take the lead because they CAN direct the course of what they do with some effectiveness and some efficacy. So you basically get a herd being led by a few people in power because the herd is without direction and the people in power are not.

I am intending to say that useful harmonic cooperation towards a common goal that is in line with truth and verity, in line with actual user needs, and in line with the feedback that they are actually receiving from disgruntled users and other users alike, is a rare thing in Linux indeed.

The model does not much work, but I was not intending to say that here.

It is rare that Linux teams do what the user wants. They usually have a better idea of what the user should want (but in actuality doesn't).

Maybe I should scrap all those pieces from this text. I will do so if requested (if I can).
deleted

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by deleted »

https://www.techwell.com/techwell-insig ... d-act-dumb

I'll remember all those Linux shortcomings the next time I plug my netbook up to my hd tv and use it to stream movies. ;)
I cannot believe what all comes with Linux and how most everything works out of the box. It's refreshing to know that 90% of the time I can find the app I'm looking for in synaptic (or even a ppa). On Windows, if I found an app to work (on CNet/Downloads.com), I'd install it, then spend the next 45 minutes removing all the cr@pware that came with it.
-H
drydenp

Re: Linux is Not Windows

Post by drydenp »

Being able to plug your netbook to your HD TV and use it to stream movies is nothing special you know :-/.

You don't set yourself apart from the rest of the world who are using Windows or a Mac, this way.
Post Reply

Return to “Chat about Linux”