Linux is Not Windows

[killer de bug]

Using the terminal to check something is often easier and more practical than starting a GUI.

[Lemongrass38]

I agree with you! Those who don't use the command line are missing out quite a few things.

I've just had a situation where I had to search in file names... it's easier via bash/zsh (I use the latter).

[Jaydemir]

Yeah I also enjoy using the Terminal and I've only been using Linux for two years. You'll come to find out, especially on lower end hardware, using Terminals is far more resource efficient than most GUI applications, and when you get into a groove with the commands you can pretty much breeze through your OS.

[Mintmag]

I don't enjoy using the terminal at all but it's the only way to have any control over the programs you wish to install.

[Moem]

I don't care for using the terminal but luckily I hardly ever need to. It's not more efficient if you haven't even the vaguest idea of what to do.

I'll probably always be a GUI kind of Linux user and I'm fine with that; if someone gives me commands that I need to copypaste in order to accomplish something I want done, then that's fine too, but I don't feel the need to learn those commands myself.

I don't feel that I'm missing out on anything. My computer works just fine, exactly the way I want it to. To each their own!

[MintyO]

I would like to know my way around all the command line ins and outs, and try to think of ways of motivating myself to learn more, but the reality is that as it is not needed, I don't learn much new stuff. For me regular computer use is pretty much limited to pressing an icon to launch a program and then using that program. It's nice to know it's there when needed though, and I use delayed shutdown from terminal almost daily.

[Mintmag]

When creating me own repositories or writing my own program installers I had to learn bash. There was simply no way around it. Linux doesn't have a .exe and if you want one you'll need to make one.

[ilikereading]

Is there a chance that linux will be better than windows?

[Schultz]

me_1 wrote:
Is there a chance that linux will be better than windows?

It already is. But just what exactly do you mean?

[MintyO]

Is there a chance that linux will be better than windows?

They're different. So take your pick of measuring "better" and one will be it.

[BG405]

Is there a chance that linux will be better than windows?

I've regarded it as better in every respect since I made the switch. Fast, stable, secure and with practically everything you're likely to need in the repositories. No nag screens, no re-source hogging antivirus programs or likelihood of ransomware.

No messing about re-registering software after a reinstall. Especially when such re-registration is no longer possible because the keys have been lost or company has ceased supporting it; both have happened to me in the past.

Granted there are issues with some hardware & software configurations which need to be dealt with, but this is also the case in Windows. For example, try finding* the Win7 WiFi drivers for the Toshiba NB520. A netbook isn't a lot of use without WiFi and no recovery disks supplied. Worked out of the box with Linux Mint!

* Don't bother, this machine will never be used with Windows again

[ilikereading]

me_1 wrote:
Is there a chance that linux will be better than windows?

It already is. But just what exactly do you mean?

For example, on linux battery only lasts for about one hour, whereas in windows it lasts much longer.
Is there a way to change auto start programs?

[ilikereading]

Is there a chance that linux will be better than windows?

* Don't bother, this machine will never be used with Windows again

Neither mine.

[borg101]

Is there a chance that linux will be better than windows?

They're different. So take your pick of measuring "better" and one will be it.

Unfortunately, this article was written so that Linux fanboys could justify opinion to Windows fanboys. Just a few points. First, anyone that regularly says "Windows" or "Windows" sounds like a 10 year old. There's almost no reason to insult anything or anyone. If people can't refer to things by their proper names just because a person doesn't like or disagrees with them, there's a flaw in their character and personal philosophy, not the product.

While I do agree with your "measuring 'better'" statement, I believe the article misses a fundamental flaw, which I believe me_1 was alluding to. "Better than Windows" means able to replace Windows for everyone. iOS and Android have certain featuresets that are unique to their respective OSs but my father in-law could move to my Android from his iPhone and do basically the same stuff with minimal input from me. If I put even the most popular distro of Linux on his box, I'd be getting inquiries and phone calls at least several times a week. He's a smart guy, but like most people, they learned x_amount of computer skill and stayed there. There are a few issues that need to be addressed before Linux is "better"....i.e. could replace anyone's OS. I found the author's analogy of "training wheels" to be apt. Most Windows users never take their "training wheels" off.

In my personal opinion, I don't think Linux will be ready to take over the Windows market until package management can be universal. It's one of the reasons I'm envious of iOS. One OS, with a small handful of versions to develop and ship packages for. You can stay out of the terminal for almost everything. For most users, that is the biggest hurdle to making Linux "better". If my father in-law could go to any site and download a .deb package and double click to install as easy as an executable, that would eliminate 99.5% of issues he would have.

People saying Linux "isn't windows" are right. But if they want more mainstream support from developers, they should listen and carefully consider features people want.

[Schultz]

borg101 wrote:
In my personal opinion, I don't think Linux will be ready to take over the Windows market . . .

And that's the thing that just blows my mind away . . . that people are willing to stick with Windows and just don't care about MS's (and Google's) violation of their privacy. Just give them their Facebook and Netflix and who cares about anything else. ("Bah, Baaah" say the sheepies.)

[borg101]

borg101 wrote:
In my personal opinion, I don't think Linux will be ready to take over the Windows market . . .

And that's the thing that just blows my mind away . . . that people are willing to stick with Windows and just don't care about MS's (and Google's) violation of their privacy. Just give them their Facebook and Netflix and who cares about anything else. ("Bah, Baaah" say the sheepies.)

Someone once talked about people's fear of a robotic or AI uprising. I can't remember the man's name but he said for all the fear mongering, no one stops to ask "why?". People make out MS, Google, FB, Apple, etc to be demons for compiling metadata and other tidbits of information to make a "smarter" device. What's worse is people make Linux out to be absolved of this fact. Almost every distro I've ever run has had some sort of "phone home" software to report metrics. What's the agenda? Is making money and offering better products and services so nefarious? That's not even the obvious question to me. Why, if an individual is so concerned about their privacy, do they engage in anything at all? If you're on the internet....at all...., no matter how many VPN's, IP blockers, script blockers, etc, etc, etc you have....no matter how "black" you think your devices are, you're leaking some amount of data. The irony of privacy advocate hackers is they use the same pseudonym across multiple channels and can eventually be tracked. And that's just the internet. My grandmother once let it leak to her friend that a relative had cancer. I had a friend tell another friend his particular fetish and it got blabbed amongst our whole circle of friends. Information travels. If you don't want it to, your only recourse is to be a farmer in some remote corner of the world and literally never talk to anyone. What kind of life is that?

[Schultz]

I get your point, borg101, but at the same time, is it right for some entity, like Google, to track you wherever you go on the Internet? If someone did that in "real life," that's what you call a stalker. If it's wrong in real life why is it okay on the Internet?

[borg101]

I get your point, borg101, but at the same time, is it right for some entity, like Google, to track you wherever you go on the Internet? If someone did that in "real life," that's what you call a stalker. If it's wrong in real life why is it okay on the Internet?

Honestly, I'm not sure. It depends on how and why. I really have no beef with Google about their practices because they are, seemingly, open and transparent about how and why they collect. I do appreciate some of the data pulls they do such as auto adding flight information (I fly often), calendar dates, etc. Again, the question "why" pops up. They aren't, as of yet, doing any track requests that cannot easily be blocked, using sneaky practices to try and obtain my data, etc. Now, I could obstain from giving them any of my data....in fact, Google gives you the ability to delete any and all data with a few clicks. But why would I obstain? To protect myself from ads? Hypothetically, lets say Google will collect information down the road for nefarius means. Sure, I'd get offline in a heartbeat. Well, probably not. I won't ever live in a box, so to speak. I'm not going to live in fear of something that may or may not happen. But that's me. I totally respect the right of others to do so.

[Spearmint2]

Net Nanny here, LOL.

Now, I could obstain from giving them any of my data....in fact, Google gives you the ability to delete any and all data with a few clicks. But why would I obstain?

Obstain

To attempt to hook up with a girl, only to have her turn you down and sleep on your couch. A denial of advances. A refusal to accept a sexual invitation.

Abstain

verb (used without object)
1.
to hold oneself back voluntarily, especially from something regarded as improper or unhealthy (usually followed by from):
to abstain from eating meat.
2.
to refrain from casting one's vote:
a referendum in which two delegates abstained.

I commend you on your chastity.

[InkKnife]

I don't mind a site using the info I enter into that site but I absolutely reject the idea that visiting Google or Facebook gives them the right to track me other places. I will turn off my ad blockers on sites I like and trust, like this one, but my tracking cookie killer gets turned off for no one, ever, full stop.
Tracking is a fundamentally hostile act, see stalking laws for cultural context. If someone in real life tryed to track me they would end up being confronted by me in a very hostile way. No one has the right to stalk no matter if it is Google or that pervert living in the flat across the street.