The "let's bash Windows" thread

[Dr Unne]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1945808,00.asp

I'm posting this for all those times I said "reinstall Windows" to people in the help forum and people thought I was being rude or sarcastic. I was, but I was also offering sound advice. Microsoft agrees.

So that this thread has a topic, please discuss other ways in which Windows sucks.

(If you subtly trash Internet Explorer too, you get bonus points. You lose automatically if you use the "I use Windows and nothing ever bad happened to me" argument or the "If something other than Windows was popular it'd be just as bad too" argument.)

[Cz]

I use Windows because I don't care enough to use anything else. Will that do?

However, I will concede that 100% of my OS-related problems have occured whilst using Windows. So yeah, it sucks (almost as much as IE sucks, in fact).

[Yamaneko]

Reinstall Gentoo.

[eestlinc]

paying taxes and going to work suck too, but I still do them.

[Yamaneko]

Death and Windows.

[Markus. D]

I use internet explorer AND windows.

top that?

[Xaven]

Nothing bad happens to me on Windows. :( Well, not on my computer at least. Back when I was sharing the family computer (an old Windows XP), it was riddled with bugs and viruses and spyware and other not-nicities. I blame Windows users, not the OS, for all the bad stuff happenening because they don't have a clue what the heck they're doing half/most/all the time.

My computer hasn't had one problem since I got it in November. *lose* I've never reinstalled my OS, either, though it would probably do wonders for the crap family computer.

[RSL]

I haven't done a format/windows reinstall for probably over a year now. I'm probably on borrowed time...

[ShunNakamura]

I haven't done a format/windows reinstall for probably over a year now. I'm probably on borrowed time...

for truth.


Actually though, with enough effort windows is fairly safe as an end user. But that is because nobody usually hits the single end user as hard as they do the big corporations.

I still say best windows is Win98SE, but meh(that is just cause it is the one I have seen go down the least, becoming a pain to get hardware and/or software to work with it though). As an added plus win98 wastes far less resources then XP does. For example, we at the college configured my WinXP to use as little power/resources possible so that my laptop would run faster and longer(I got a bad battery). With win98SE on it I can watch movies for about 1/2 to 1 hour before it dies. However, with WinXP I can use notepad for 5-10 mins before it dies.

Also to be fair if another OS was as mainstream as windows, you would likely suddenly find some new issues with them. The good part is(at least with linux) you can fix the issues yourself rather then wait for a microsoft to release a patch. And since it would be your own special way of fixing the OS it would be harder for that particular fix to be targeted

[Ouch!]

I use Windows because I don't care enough to use anything else. Will that do?
Ditto.

[bipper]

I use internet explorer AND windows.

top that?
BANN HIM!

Micro$oft successfully beat linux in speed... that's nice. WHEN YOU THROW ALL YOUR INFORMATION INTO THE FIRST MEM ADDR YOU CAN FIND AND FRAG THE @!#@r$ OUTTA RAM THE SYSTEM CANT RUN WITH /xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif. AHAHHAHAH DAMN YOU BILL GATES AND GEORGE W. BOO WINDOWS AND THIER DIRECT X LIBS - SUCKA!

Windows Stability, lol.

I use XP.

Bipper

[rubah]

I went nearly three years on one install of windows xp.

I have had firefox as my browser for nearly two years.

One of these days I'll pick up another harddrive and make it use linux. I ran a live cd of ubuntu 4something, but it was hard to do more than oggle xD

[Samuraid]

While I have very little against Microsoft Window XP Pro (which has been running stably on my systems for a few years now), Linux is truly a great OS for many different uses.

Windows has its place, but Linux dominates in many areas. For example, I would never personally run a web/database server on Windows even if you paid me.

[Madame Adequate]

I haven't done a format/windows reinstall for probably over a year now. I'm probably on borrowed time...

I've not done that in the three and a half years I've owned this computed. No problems have occurred. I run defrag and virus checks on a regular basis, and I'm not retarded about what I download and stuff.

So whilst I'm not going to say Windows rox (It doesn't), I am going to say that I've not had an experience which caused me to want to change from Windows.

[fire_of_avalon]

I have used Windows for a long time and I have never reinstalled. But that is probably because I am lazy. Also, I don't have the time to play with other stuff, but Linux looks pretty on my friend's computer.

[Necronopticous]

I play video games so I'll deal with Windows, thanks.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I don't know enough about Linux to use it, and I used to play (and sometimes still do play) computer games. Which pretty much requires a PC for.

[Shoeberto]

I went nearly three years on one install of windows xp.

I have had firefox as my browser for nearly two years.

One of these days I'll pick up another harddrive and make it use linux. I ran a live cd of ubuntu 4something, but it was hard to do more than oggle xD
;)~~~~~

Um, I've done a good bit of playing around (and breaking) of Linux systems. The breaking, of course, was of my own inexperience in trying to do relatively high-end things, but eh. I had a very stable Ubuntu install running for a while (that is, until I inevitably broke it) and I loved it.

Linux does run better, aside from the windowing environment responses - it didn't seem to like reponding immediately after clicking, be it in Gnome or KDE, which was a minor annoyance. Performance, overall, is better and more stable, more extensible, and fun to tinker with.

Three things keep me from wanting to reinstall and run Linux fulltime:
1) NTFS RW support is still poor, and I'd like to utilize my storage drive like I do on Windows without having to partition or reformat.
2) I like games, and my computer doesn't have the performance to run recent games under Cedega. Older games run aight, but I'd like to play Half-life 2. . . which would just not run worth a hoot for me, where it runs pretty well under Windows.
3) I'm kind of a whore and have certain programs I like to use. Like mIRC. Xchat may be open-source, have a better scripting engine, run cross-platform, be more extensible with plugins, etc. etc., but I hate its interface. The mIRC page says that it can be run reliably under Wine, but I've never been able to get anything to run under Wine. I'd be willing to give it a try, though, of course.

[theundeadhero]

   :smash:
windows

[Dr Unne]

Not enough Windows bashing going on here. At work I've seen at least 4 Windows XP Pro boxes (maintained by "XP Pro guys" whose job is to do nothing but maintain XP Pro computers) go down in flames in 6 months through regular usage. Two become so unresponsive they were unusable, for no reason I can determine other than probably some kind of Registry corruption or God only knows what. Running company-wide antivirus, company-approved software, sitting behind a firewall, 3 GHz, 512MB RAM, and I could click the start menu and watch it draw onto the screen one line of pixels at a time. One had adware and spyware to the point where you could do nothing but watch it run. One was a brand new computer, fresh from the factory as of a few months ago, and it takes about two minutes to open Outlook or Word. I sometimes talk to the guy who comes down regularly, unplugs someone's computer, hauls it up the hill, and brings it back a couple days later wiped clean and ready to be slowly driven into the dirt again. I see the pain in his eyes, a pain I know all too well any time I get a phone call from a family member looking for me to "fix their computer".

Here's a trick for everyone who has XP to try. Make a new folder in c:\, name it anything. Click on it once in Explorer to highlight it. Now, click the filename again like you want to rename it. As quickly as you can after you click, type an R (as though the first letter of the new filename begins with R). See what happens. It's neat.

To everyone who used the "I have no problems with Windows" argument (even KNOWING that you'd lose the thread, which I might add you most certainly HAVE) I offer a quote from the article:


"Detection is difficult, and remediation is often impossible," Danseglio declared. "If it doesn't crash your system or cause your system to freeze, how do you know it's there? The answer is you just don't know. Lots of times, you never see the infection occur in real time, and you don't see the malware lingering or running in the background."

This is why we have thousands or millions of zombie computers acting as spam relays and God knows what else. People happily ignorant of the silently running viruses. So your computer is either fine or quietly evil. Good chance of either.

So far as only "retarded" people getting viruses, or it being the end-user's fault, what about the viruses that auto-download and install themselves without having to do anything at all? Blaster for example. That was fun.


1) NTFS RW support is still poor, and I'd like to utilize my storage drive like I do on Windows without having to partition or reformat.

There's always FAT32. Hard drives are cheap. Or better, run a dedicated file server and use Samba. OS X and Linux can both run samba (client or server) just fine. If Windows supported anything other than its own partition types (like every other OS does) or opened the specs to NTFS so other people could write free drivers (which they haven't) you wouldn't have this problem, of course.

Yes, X responsiveness is not good. I can deal with the sub-second lag though, it's worth it for the benefits. It also depends on which window manager you use. Openbox for example is going to be much more responsive than KDE or Gnome.

I keep a 4GB partition where I run Windows for games. I keep it far away from anything important. And it still sucks, but it plays games. It takes one minute to reboot, it's not that big a hassle. Less time than it takes me to find a CD to stick in the drive.

There's always OS X too.

[Xaven]

Here's a trick for everyone who has XP to try. Make a new folder in c:\, name it anything. Click on it once in Explorer to highlight it. Now, click the filename again like you want to rename it. As quickly as you can after you click, type an R (as though the first letter of the new filename begins with R). See what happens. It's neat.
Nothing happened. :(

[o_O]

I use Ubuntu. I like it much more than Windows.
The only problem I have with it (and it's not really even Linux's fault), is that for most ACPI functions of hardware, the developers use sloppy standards to comply with Microsoft's sloppy APIs. As a result of sloppy development and Linux's tight standards, I need to hack my kernel to pieces to get Ubuntu to recognise my laptop battery/temperature/voltage/etc.

I keep a Windows partition for games like Oblivion, but that doesn't mean I want to. :p

[Peegee]

Linux has firefox, open office, games, and runs well.

Why do I use windows?

I play video games and I don't like to reboot to do that. It is my belief that if you know what you are doing you can't 'break' windows. Meaning I don't think windows is designed to slowly deteriorate just because.

But watch:

Windows uptime > 100 hours? Problems will happen.

*sigh*

I support windows 2000 and windows XP environments. For some reason I come across many calls where users tell me the core memory is dumping, stop: inaccessible boot device errors, and all sorts of nonsense which I have NEVER seen on my machines that I have at home ever since windows 98.

And it's not as if these people are using the machine to hell as well. What are they doing to break Windows? It really has to be user error. I cannot explain it any other way.

[Raistlin]

Here's a trick for everyone who has XP to try. Make a new folder in c:\, name it anything. Click on it once in Explorer to highlight it. Now, click the filename again like you want to rename it. As quickly as you can after you click, type an R (as though the first letter of the new filename begins with R). See what happens. It's neat.
Nothing happened. :(
Don't use R unless you have an file/folder in C:\ which starts with R. Use another letter instead. I just did it, and yeah, that could be annoying.

[Dr Unne]

I've seen at least two different computers running XP Pro get blue-screen STOP 0x0d0000000 IRQ_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL kinds of hard-lock errors. You'll never be able to tell what they are, because the error message is meaningless, and not a soul on this planet knows how Windows works under the hood. Even if Linux crashes like that at the kernel level, there are logs spit out all over the place. And there are so many things in Linux that can crash without taking down the kernel, where those same things crashing in Windows cause massive destruction. But this is completely obvious to everyone who's ever used both, I'm stating it only to bash.


Don't use R unless you have an file/folder in C:\ which starts with R. Use another letter instead. I just did it, and yeah, that could be annoying.

Annoying, yeah. Given all the moronic and pointless error messages ("Are you SUUUUUUURRRRREEEEEE you want to delete this file?") you'd think it would warn you about renaming your Recycled folder. But not only does it not warn you, it silently and buggily causes you to do it unexpectedly because apparently a human being can type faster than Windows can think.

[Peegee]

What exactly is supposed to happen? What happened for me is that another file got rename attempted (is that a sentence?) which started with the letter 'r'.

I assume that if you don't have 'r' folders it will rename your recycled folder? wow.

[Xaven]

When you press a letter key on your keyboard, explorer goes to the first object in your location starting with that letter (or character?).
because apparently a human being can type faster than Windows can think.Yeah, while Windows processes the uber complex command of "MUST_CHANGE_THE_NAME_OF_THE_HIGHLIGHTED_FOLDER" command, Explorer fasterly thinks "HIGHLIGHT_FIRST_OBJECT_ALPHABETICALLY_STARTING_WITH_THE_LETTER_THAT_GUY_JUST_TYPED" and does so. Windows doesn't know what's going on so goes to change the name of the folder Explorer just highlighted, not the one you clicked on. Silly Windows.

Fasterly is now a word.

[Erdrick Holmes]

Unne, post the convo you had with Bleys about the guy who needed help with a virus and looked for one in a P2P client.

[Samuraid]

A friend of mine runs World of Warcraft on his Linux partition with Wine. I've tried it out a bit and it works surprisingly well for emulating Windows executables.

As for Unne's post. I don't doubt Windows is to blame for much of the computer troubles in the cases described, but of the hundreds of Windows XP computers I've seen or used, not one of them has run so badly as you described. (even computers so laden with spyware as to be noticably degraded in performance, in which a single run of adaware detects over 1000 spyware articles) I've seen some catastrophic failures under windows, but after careful observation, we found the problems due exclusively to faulty hardware.

I also can't seem to get the "R" thing to produce anything besides shifting the renaming box to other items, which is simply harmless.


There's always FAT32.
There is, but that filesystem does have significant limitations compared to NTFS. I do keep a FAT32 parition around for shifting files between Linux and Windows, but I could not run my system now nor use all the software with FAT32 (due to filesize limitations). It's also slower (on volumes of any decent size), less secure, and less reliable than NTFS.

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

I downloaded Firefox yesterday. I already like it better than IE. So there.

[Vyk]

How odd. There is no Recycle Bin in C:\ even though I have view hidden folders and files selected. Dunno where my Recycle Bin is on this computer. But I guess that makes that trick pretty harmless

[Cid]

I hate to piss Unne off, but Windows runs perfectly fine for me cause I'm not an idiot. I don't open attachments and junk in Thunderbird. Plus, I use Firefox.

Anyway, yeah, Windows if full of vulnerabilities. They have been exposed because it runs on 90% of machines in the world (or something like that). Thus, if someone is gonna make a virus, they probably want to target it at 90% of the world instead of 10%. Perhaps is Linux or OS 10 was on 90% of machines we'd see more vulnerabilities.

[Reine]

The PC im using here is for some reason, eating up hard drive space and im not even doing anything. XP sucks, ive always hated it, which is why my own PC has 98SE on it

[Dreddz]

Pround Mac user right here. Mac generally dosent have these problems, I use my Windows Laptop most of the time though as I can go on the internet anywhere I like.
Window crashes and buggers up more than my Mac, Mac is a safer machine to use, so what if it cant play PC games, there dead anyway :rolleyes2

[Avathar]

I work now with a mac laptop:D and no problems at all! (still gotta find a way to get windows media player, though....and msn is pretty limited:rolleyes2 :love:) still: best graphic programs EVER!:p

[Captain Maxx Power]

Well, as I post this through Firefox I can say without hyperboley that Windows is the worst piece of software ever created. Even Enter The Matrix is technically more adapt, and a whole lot more fun.

[bipper]

I've seen at least two different computers running XP Pro get blue-screen STOP 0x0d0000000 IRQ_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL kinds of hard-lock errors.

Linux could not tell you what the problem was either, speaking standard set-up that is. This problem often is attributed to heating, power, etc. that really throws no flaq. The IRQ result is there for 0 - which is less than a standard nomenclature, thus the flag.

Windows can run ok, and some of the examples pointed out (ie blaster) have close linux cousins which can emulate like behavior. Linux just gives the power user more controll, as they should have it, and fixing a virus on linux is usually a sinch. If 'idiots' used linux, I could only imagine the pain. Linux requires some knowlage to effectivly run it, no matter what Mandrake/ubuntu try to say ;)

My BIGGEST beef with windows is Micro$oft. They are illegal, and clearly have been in violation of anti trust and they are a flat out economical virus that is imbedded so hard into our global economy we would need a resinstall to fix the problem. They freaking own both bord walk and parkplace with hotels and charge those rates for every square on the @#$#in board.

Windows also has infinate problems when dealing with hardware (especially legacy) and its priciple upon which it forces users to update technologies actually retards the IT industry on the same principle as making the poor rich with welfare.

Personally, my games both past projects and future, all run on linux, and kick back better performance than thier windows conterparts. While boot speed my be an issue, the stability and ability to succesfully treat errors on the fly is so much worth it in itself.

So what does windows do when they begin legitimatly loosing footing in an area (IE DX vs (insert GFX lib))? Pump everything they can in directX technology, and make it a less suitible but more widley used technology. This is a dirty attempt to use thier MONOPOLY to snub other operating systems, and is a horridly discusting way to run a buisness - Then any business run for 100% profit looses all my respect, and seems to apply itself as a virus vs. a productive enviroment.

As for lack of NTFS, all I can do is cry and suggest a good read through on the many FS that linux has to offer. So - much - more. oh - and just give it time ;)

Ubuntu seems ok, as I installed it for my wife to learn with, but I don't think it lives up to my old slackware <3

In short, if you like Communism, you will like windows. Chose linux, and choose freedom.
[/propeganda]

WINDOWS SERVER? LOL!

Bipper

[Loony BoB]

I don't know what everyone is complaining about. I mean I've used windows all my life. Most of the time windows open up without problem - although I do admit that one of my windows won't stay open, it just keeps shutting. They're pretty dodgy, just ask Dan. I have to use a wooden spoon to keep one of them open. They can get a bit dirty but hey, that's what windows do. In fact I hear there's some kind of self cleaning windows coming out now... dunno how they work, but it sounds pretty nifty. I never clean my windows these days.

I don't know about bashing windows (http://www.soundslikeblue.com/gallery/albums/photohunting/broken_window.jpg), though. It's not really something I'd encourage people to do.

[Shaun]

Heh, this whole Windows-bashing thing is retarded. If you're going to whine about it, get a Mac. If you already have a Mac, good for you! *pat-pat*

[bipper]

Don't get me started on ye olde Mac'n'trash.

Windows is on X side of the Sux, Mac on the Y. They are polar, but they are so far off center, they both suck equally.

<pre>
Windows Linux Mac
| | |
x------------------------normal------------------------Y
Greed$ Rebelious Hippy Suck
EGO Conformity EGO
</pre>
Ther furth away you get from normalsy, the more suck it is. Its logically and Scientifically proven. Hands down.

Apple paid thier first emplyee's with POT. that is true.
Bipper

[Loony BoB]

Conformity is Windows, ego is Linux. You got those two mixed up.

EDIT: I compare people who go around stating how much cooler they are because they use Linux to people who go around saying how much cooler they are because they follow [insert religion here]. Same thing. Just because it might be an improvement doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to have it shoved in their face all the time. I'm perfectly comfortable with keeping my religion largely to myself, but Linux users seem to be (predominantly)

The main reason Windows leads the way is because Windows is the only system which has a company that can operate 90% of the company-specific software systems out there. I couldn't use my company's systems on Linux... at least I don't think so, anyway. Until Linux is designed to run that 90% of company-specific software, it will always play second fiddle to Windows. Likewise for running games.

[bipper]

Conformity is Windows, ego is Linux. You got those two mixed up.

Per user, you have a point. I was talking about the corperations though. Linux being the pivot of normal was more of a joke.



The main reason Windows leads the way is because Windows is the only system which has a company that can operate 90% of the company-specific software systems out there. I couldn't use my company's systems on Linux... at least I don't think so, anyway. Until Linux is designed to run that 90% of company-specific software, it will always play second fiddle to Windows. Likewise for running games.

I disagree. The main reason windows leads is because they are a cheap, ankle biting corperate mafia of a company. For those of you who claim they are smart buisness, read up on business law. The political underdogging and buy outs are amazingly shadey.

I can run nearly any windows app on a llinux box (some require some work, but we are talking non native code), and/or find software that can do the same.

Buisnesses look at tech support, and the ease of implimentation, as well as a few other collectivly insignigicant features when ever they select anything from computers to health insurance companies. Windows happens to have the best packaging, and a hint of speed at the cost of stability and redundancy. It could be worse, it could be solaris.

bipper

[Loony BoB]

I disagree. The main reason windows leads is because they are a cheap, ankle biting corperate mafia of a company. For those of you who claim they are smart buisness, read up on business law. The political underdogging and buy outs are amazingly shadey.
It is true that they are shadey and there is political underdogging, I'll give you that. But I stand by what I said as I work in the business of providing support to other large businesses and what I stated is pretty well known around here.

I can run nearly any windows app on a llinux box (some require some work, but we are talking non native code), and/or find software that can do the same.
I'm not talking about Adobe Acrobat or even random stuff you can download from the internet. I'm talking about company-specific software. That is, software that is built and designed for a company. For example, you wouldn't really know what SAX/CCSRV01 or SANDB601 is because these are programs that are designed for use within Computacenter. Likewise when at Royal Bank of Scotland they had their own systems and so do many other companies, particularly the large and/or wealthy ones (banks, lawyer firms, oil companies, governments). People aren't aware of the programs they use unless they work for those companies. The thing about such programs is that companies are incredibly unwilling to write new programs from scratch and many only do operate with Windows. Does Microsoft care about making an operating system that is compatible with the Royal Bank or Computacenter's systems? Yes, considering the worth of these companies in the industry. Of course they do. Royal Bank is the 7th largest bank in the world and Computacenter is a leader in European IT with massive influence on many other large and/or wealthy companies as mentioned before. Microsoft has been successful in assuring companies that they can continue to upgrade their MS Windows operating systems without having to rewrite their programs - something they would have to do if they were to move to Linux.

Buisnesses look at tech support, and the ease of implimentation, as well as a few other collectivly insignigicant features when ever they select anything from computers to health insurance companies. Windows happens to have the best packaging, and a hint of speed at the cost of stability and redundancy.
That is also a large impact, the tech support etc, yes. But even if Linux had an easy to implement system with a large tech support (which they would have to pay for, regardless of using Linux, I'm sure we're all aware of this), the other companies for the most part would still need to rewrite their company-specific programs and that kind of thing takes years to perfect. Trust me - I've been waiting for an upgraded version of the company-specific software they use over here for some time. The programs I regularly use - SAX & 601 - are incredibly dated. They started working on something to replace them at least two years ago. Probably longer. But then again, the scale of the program which will replace them is supposedly going to be incredible so I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

EDIT: Having said all that, unless you use your home PC for said company specific software, I do think that if you know how to use Linux and you don't use programs and/or video games that require Windows in order to run then you should probably use Linux at home. But having said that, I'm not currently eager to install or learn how to use Linux until I have a completely seperate box. I've only ever had to reinstall Windows once - when my hard drive failed.

[faster skating penguin]

um windowz sux lol?

[Raistlin]

Anyway, yeah, Windows if full of vulnerabilities. They have been exposed because it runs on 90% of machines in the world (or something like that). Thus, if someone is gonna make a virus, they probably want to target it at 90% of the world instead of 10%. Perhaps is Linux or OS 10 was on 90% of machines we'd see more vulnerabilities.
Not necessarily, from what little I know. If you have 10 people using Windows XP, the same Windows XP virus will probably work on all of them. If you have 10 people using Linux, will the same virus work on all of them? I don't know exactly how it works, but I do know that Linux is not as standardized as Windows.

Also, Daniel: I think the main reason big businesses use Microsoft is because Microsoft has the economic power to force it to. If businesses want to use X software made by Y company which is paid off by Microsoft to design software so that it's only useable on Windows, then the businesses need to use Windows.

[Loony BoB]

Anyway, yeah, Windows if full of vulnerabilities. They have been exposed because it runs on 90% of machines in the world (or something like that). Thus, if someone is gonna make a virus, they probably want to target it at 90% of the world instead of 10%. Perhaps is Linux or OS 10 was on 90% of machines we'd see more vulnerabilities.
Not necessarily, from what little I know. If you have 10 people using Windows XP, the same Windows XP virus will probably work on all of them. If you have 10 people using Linux, will the same virus work on all of them? I don't know exactly how it works, but I do know that Linux is not as standardized as Windows.
Yeah, that's true. But businesses are pretty much always the targets, and I can't ever see there being more than a few types of Linux that are used by the vast majority of businesses even if Linux were what the chose to use. So it'd just be another challenge for those who make viruses - I'd be confident that flaws would be found to target whatever business a hacker wants to target.

Also, Daniel: I think the main reason big businesses use Microsoft is because Microsoft has the economic power to force it to. If businesses want to use X software made by Y company which is paid off by Microsoft to design software so that it's only useable on Windows, then the businesses need to use Windows.
They more often than not designed it themselves (or employed consultants) to design the software in the mid-90's so that it worked with Windows 95. The stuff I have could probably work on 3.11, too, but I'm not sure. Either way, businesses being reluctant to rewrite their software is still one of the massive reasons that they are unwilling to change (along with the tech support and the fact that if they didn't pay for something then they wouldn't have any kind of place to fall back on). There's also the fact that any Joe Average can train to be a customer engineer, but you try finding enough techies on low wages that are willing to actively support a 10,000+ employee company with Linux. It'll never happen.

Economic power is great and all, but the fact remains that there is more to it than that. There is the greater tech support, the more solid/stable contract (Linux is free and therefore has no contract, as far as I know), the greater number of engineers qualified to operate on it, the greater number of users who are familiar with it, the greater number of company-specific programs designed around it, etc. The cost of moving away from Microsoft, with regards to training users, designing/rewriting software, lack of familiarity, so many other things... it's just not worth it at the moment. Not because Microsoft has money, but because large businesses simply aren't able to get it done. It would be like asking Americans to learn the metric system. Just because it makes sense doesn't mean everyone understands it.

[bipper]

It is true that they are shadey and there is political underdogging, I'll give you that. But I stand by what I said as I work in the business of providing support to other large businesses and what I stated is pretty well known around here.

I will not dispute what you say, I was mearly pointing out that they did no get to the top cleanly. Why do they support 90% of desktops <i>with more ease</i> than other common place OS? Because they enforce their monopoly which was hardly earned, outside of suffering from right place at the right time syndrome.



I'm not talking about Adobe Acrobat or even random stuff you can download from the internet. I'm talking about company-specific software. That is, software that is built and designed for a company. For example, you wouldn't really know what SAX/CCSRV01 or SANDB601 is because these are programs that are designed for use within Computacenter.

I deal with this all the time. Companies do not like the way that microsoft changes standards and phases out legecy so quickly. I am a software engineer, whom does a bit of linux to windows and window to linux consignment. Company specific software should be portable, if the company wishes to express any flexability. common sense.

Most all coding I do will be cross platform, as when external standards are obeyed, the [my] world becomes that much easier.


Likewise when at Royal Bank of Scotland they had their own systems and so do many other companies, particularly the large and/or wealthy ones (banks, lawyer firms, oil companies, governments). People aren't aware of the programs they use unless they work for those companies. The thing about such programs is that companies are incredibly unwilling to write new programs from scratch and many only do operate with Windows. Does Microsoft care about making an operating system that is compatible with the Royal Bank or Computacenter's systems? Yes, considering the worth of these companies in the industry. Of course they do. Royal Bank is the 7th largest bank in the world and Computacenter is a leader in European IT with massive influence on many other large and/or wealthy companies as mentioned before. Microsoft has been successful in assuring companies that they can continue to upgrade their MS Windows operating systems without having to rewrite their programs - something they would have to do if they were to move to Linux.

Smart buisness, and fairly clean. I am sure it goes deeper, and banking on another third party company exposes puts the contractee under the third party's arm. If windows were to dissapear - screwed. Not saying that would happen, but it is an extremley superficial representation of why it is simply smarter for people to make portible code. I fault the banks for going through a one dimensional contractor if this is the case.

Comapnies NEED to maintain flexability to be able to move as their industry/company shifts.



That is also a large impact, the tech support etc, yes. But even if Linux had an easy to implement system with a large tech support (which they would have to pay for, regardless of using Linux, I'm sure we're all aware of this), the other companies for the most part would still need to rewrite their company-specific programs and that kind of thing takes years to perfect. Trust me - I've been waiting for an upgraded version of the company-specific software they use over here for some time. The programs I regularly use - SAX & 601 - are incredibly dated. They started working on something to replace them at least two years ago. Probably longer. But then again, the scale of the program which will replace them is supposedly going to be incredible so I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Linux tech support would be interesting, as it would not centralise around a single corp. I realise it would not be free, and would prolly cost more up front, the cost would deminish over time. I would also say that the licensing costs (etc) would be a big save in the end.

The custom programs that these companies bought, are crap. As I said up top, portable code that obeys externally driven standards. Windows using its age and power to enforce its own trademarked standards should actually be a turn off for these companies. They are litterally being hearded. I see the same with Visa and several other antti-trust companies. It is a pathetic state of buisness affairs.


EDIT: Having said all that, unless you use your home PC for said company specific software, I do think that if you know how to use Linux and you don't use programs and/or video games that require Windows in order to run then you should probably use Linux at home. But having said that, I'm not currently eager to install or learn how to use Linux until I have a completely seperate box. I've only ever had to reinstall Windows once - when my hard drive failed.

Linux is still betta :cool:


It would be like asking Americans to learn the metric system. Just because it makes sense doesn't mean everyone understands it. <3 I wish we would use the metric system, and I wish other people would drive on the right (read : correct - read: left) side of their vehicles. Compramise! :) This one saying makes your entire stance stand out crystal clear! I do agree with what you say, but it has no bearing on windows being a good/bad operating system. It still remains evil.

Bipper

[Loony BoB]

Like I said, a lot of these companies designed their programs in '95. Linux wasn't exactly a proven performer at that point. Reluctance to change their program is the main thing holding all companies back - along with the time it takes to change. Maybe this new software that my company is coming up with to replace the old stuff I use right now will be multiplatform, but even then there are all those other things I mentioned in my post replying to Raistlin. It's not Microsoft paying these customers to buy their stuff. They just buy it because they don't want something else. If they had the time and money to invest in something else, they probably are already doing so... but right now I've just not seen Linux prove itself at the big business level. I wonder what the largest company to use Linux as it's primary OS is? Would be interesting to find out, particularly if they are an old business that actually had the guts to migrate rather than a new business that started up when Linux was a known possibility (although I'd be surprised if any business has started up in that short time and made it that big... maybe Google).

[Shaun]

Talk about Clash of the Titans...

[VorpalCyberWolf]

I have Windows XP Pro... but thats just cause I don't care to change my comp, its pretty old. Soon Im gonna run Blackbox instead of Explorer though, just because Explorer is the truly worthless system that Windows runs.

Besides, I used to have Windows ME on my comp. And nothing can ever be worse than that.

As for Browsers, I use a mix between Firefox and Avant. Avant is run off of the same system as IE, but much safer. It's basically Firefox for people who are still too used to IE.

I'd like to buy 2 new comps eventually though, one being a Mac and one being another Windows, but thouroughly modified.

[bipper]

Like I said, a lot of these companies designed their programs in '95. Linux wasn't exactly a proven performer at that point. UNIX was, and other standards were out as well. Windows had the song and dance, and the trap to capture the buisness world in thier scheme.


Reluctance to change their program is the main thing holding all companies back - along with the time it takes to change. Maybe this new software that my company is coming up with to replace the old stuff I use right now will be multiplatform, but even then there are all those other things I mentioned in my post replying to Raistlin. It's not Microsoft paying these customers to buy their stuff. They just buy it because they don't want something else. If they had the time and money to invest in something else, they probably are already doing so... but right now I've just not seen Linux prove itself at the big business level. I wonder what the largest company to use Linux as it's primary OS is?

Actually a lot(or a handful in the grand scheme of things) of companies have migrated a long while ago. Fingerhut, Godaddy, I think amazon. I think many of the old, larger buisness use mainframes such as AS/400 (etc) Linux's superior architecture makes this single OS a valid canidate for replacing many, many mainframe styles.

Funny thing is, some of these companies started to migrate to OS/2 a number of years back. Everything was swell, untill microsoft started to stomp and kick. They stepped back, and anted up with thier dirty Joe Peche baseball bat and started swinging away, all with the grand old endorcement of our(us) government. (Damn the judicial branch) Microsoft's weapon against OS/2 was starving it for software by threatening developers with denial of information essential to get around Windows bugs and "features". This was extremely effective, eliminating all major software developers, but will have little effect on Linux. There just aren't any major Windows software developers left, and most Linux developers simply aren't interested in Windows.


Bipper

[Erdrick Holmes]

I got a CD for Linux Ubuntu right here. I'm just not sure if I wanna switch this for Windows since Windows can handle games and Linux can't without certain shells and emulators. I'd GLADY switch over to Linux if it saves my computer from hari-kari and can let me play games like PSO and Guild Wars without alot of effort.

[Jess]

I've always used Windows and I've never had a problem with it. I use XP now. Only thing I don't like is that I can't make it pretty how I'd like to - like changing the taskbar and other minute stuff that only I would care about. :(

I use Firefox though because I always get errors on Internet Explorer. Firefox doesn't show some types of layouts though, which is irritating because then I have to open up Internet Explorer just to view the site properly. :grinpink:

[Old Manus]

What Windows is Linux?

[bipper]

I've always used Windows and I've never had a problem with it. I used XP now. Only thing I don't like is that I can't make it pretty how I'd like to - like changing the taskbar and other minute stuff that only I would care about. :(

I use Firefox though because I always get errors on Internet Explorer. Firefox doesn't show some types of layouts though, which is irritating because then I have to open up Internet Explorer just to view the site properly. :grinpink:

THis is because people suck at webpages. Firefox follows w3c standards which is the most respected web standards. This basically sets up rules to follow when designing HTML/XHTML/DHTML/XML(etc) pages. Microsoft, being the asshat that it is, refuses to follow said standards, until late. They have gotten a bit better, but they clumsily follow the standard, not really caring or putting forth a lot of effort.

This is actually very synominous with how big dumb treats the rest of the IT market.

bipper

[agrudis]

Oh, here I was thinking we'd be smashing glass. :(Oh well.

[Shoeberto]

Nothing pleases me more than debates of operating system superiority.

[Obsidian]

My next computer's going to be a Mac. I swear. The same way I swore before I bought my last two computers. :mad:

As for Firefox, the larger incentive behind people downloading it seems to be more of a "F u Bill Gaets :mad2: " statement than anything else. In spite of all the Windows suckitude, I'll stick with Internet Explorer.

[bipper]

Lol, IE sucks. Its in secure, and a heap. Firefox has gone down hill, but its got a few miles of slow rolling to do before it passes up IE. Besides, have faith in OpenSource - we always pull through.

Bipper

[ShunNakamura]

To Bob:

My college I am attending as well as the IT teacher there has been using Linux servers since the 80's. Though the college also uses Novell on top of it.

now why linux is better:

With open source you have the power to do as you wish. You have a problem with it? Well you don't have to wait for microsoft to decide that it is a problem. You simply pull out the source, recompile it how you need and *viola* instantly fixed. A centralized tech support would be interesting to see, afterall each and every system would be different in how it was built; so centralized tech may have issues.

The real reason why virus/hacks would have a tough time targeting linux is, at least if everyone follows my teacher's advice, everyone would compile thier own kernel to work just for thier company. That means each company would have it's own unique operating system with different vulnerbilities. Plus even though vulnerbilities would still be exposed you can fix them alot faster with linux. You just recompile in such a way that it is immune to the vulnerbility. Or write a program to block the vulnerbility if you would rather do it that way.

[Old Manus]

The only reason people say Firefox is going downhill is because more people are using it, therfore internet nonconformity must move on and find a new obscure browser

[Shoden]

It sucks and I have some fun images for it!

It's casued me a great deal of problems for a long time now, if only I knew how to use Linux I'd use it, plus their mascot rocks! *plays Super Tux*

[Dr Unne]

Like I said, a lot of these companies designed their programs in '95. Linux wasn't exactly a proven performer at that point. Reluctance to change their program is the main thing holding all companies back - along with the time it takes to change. Maybe this new software that my company is coming up with to replace the old stuff I use right now will be multiplatform, but even then there are all those other things I mentioned in my post replying to Raistlin. It's not Microsoft paying these customers to buy their stuff. They just buy it because they don't want something else. If they had the time and money to invest in something else, they probably are already doing so... but right now I've just not seen Linux prove itself at the big business level. I wonder what the largest company to use Linux as it's primary OS is? Would be interesting to find out, particularly if they are an old business that actually had the guts to migrate rather than a new business that started up when Linux was a known possibility (although I'd be surprised if any business has started up in that short time and made it that big... maybe Google).

Your argument is "People are stuck using Windows now"; add the condition "even though it sucks" and I'll agree. Also note that companies are stuck because MS makes sure people stay stuck.

Unless the next version of Windows makes a boxing glove shoot out of your DVD drive and punch you in the groin every 10 minutes, most people will keep using whatever comes installed on their computers when they buy it. Which will always be Windows, again because MS makes sure of it. And not always by legal means. At least according to the US and EU legal systems.

Yes, Google runs Linux. Quoth Amazon: "Linux saved us millions" ( http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,5098989,00.html ) Gamespy (my FF1 site's host) switched recently to Linux from Windows for their servers, perhaps because it kept getting hacked last year. But I don't care how anything works in a corporate setting, or how many people use it, or how much money it costs. People are often stupid when it comes to consumer decisions. The fact that everyone uses Windows or not does not affect the fact that Windows sucks.

The "If everyone used a non-Windows OS it'd have just as many vulnerabilities" argument isn't even worth addressing. Also if any of you think IE is good, I hope you are reincarnated in your next life as a web designer.

My work here is done.

[Cid]

<i>The "If everyone used a non-Windows OS it'd have just as many vulnerabilities" argument isn't even worth addressing.</i>

That's an easy way to get out of making an valid point, eh?

By the way, everyone see how Apple is now officially "supporting" Windows on the mac? Wow.

[Shoeberto]

The only reason people say Firefox is going downhill is because more people are using it, therfore internet nonconformity must move on and find a new obscure browser
For the most part, yeah.

There are some memory bloat issues, I hear, but I don't seem to hear any legitimate complaints otherwise.

[Peegee]

Anybody who has done tech support KNOWS that people are not smart enough to use linux.

I refuse to do tech support for linux, just like BoB said. I personally believe you need a minimal or nominal amount of intelligence to use a linux platform, even if you just need to boot it up and run your openoffice software.

From the calls I get, I don't believe that >95% of the population has that ability.

Reminds me of when Apple II was being replaced by windows 3.1.

[ScottNUMBERS]

Windows don't come cheap now-a-days, shame on you.

[bipper]

The only reason people say Firefox is going downhill is because more people are using it, therfore internet nonconformity must move on and find a new obscure browser

No, the last few releases are rushed. You are in part right, as the user base of the browser grows, its capabilities must grow. The way many of these features require small patches and cause inflation on browser versions, and cause various features (IE the flash problems, UI problems, etc Bugs) from appearing. OpenSource has one flaw, it is often not tested as much as it should be during patches and updates. Firfox seems to suffer this concequence as well.

The "If everyone used a non-Windows OS it'd have just as many vulnerabilities" argument isn't even worth addressing.

I feel it is. People will always hack, crack, and steal. Our technology is actually very insecure, despite what the 'latest' marketing suggests. Bluetooth, LEAP, and any wireless interface opens countless intrusions, all extremly hackable. Even the cycles inside a processor can be manipulated and read with out any wired connection :confused: , so I have heard. Bottom line is, your never safe... dont sleep. Any software intended for one image for countless of different set ups may provide ease of use, but this set will also introduce ease of hack, crack, kill, mame, pillage, and destruction for others.

Windows is basically a window for hackers into your computer. The insecure software is, in turn, a big old welcome mat. It is the simplisity that kills.


Bipper
Bipper

[Yamaneko]

By the way, everyone see how Apple is now officially "supporting" Windows on the mac? Wow.
Yeah, I saw that Boot Camp software. Looks promising. There are still a few missing drivers that need to be written, though.

[bipper]

*shug* They wanted video games.

[Dr Unne]

That's an easy way to get out of making an valid point, eh?

OK. Windows for a long time gave everyone administrator priviledges by default, and many/most programs for Windows require admin rights to do anything useful, which equates to the same thing (forcing everyone to run as admin). How many people here don't run as Admin on a regular basis in Windows? You can argue that these people are idiots, or you can argue that the nature of Windows demands it; I would argue the latter. Any operating system (for example OS X, Linux) which does not give everyone admin rights by default would be inherently more secure than one that does. Vista is changing its security model not to give everyone admin rights, from what I read, so even Microsoft (finally) realizes this. Doesn't change the fact that up to and including Windows XP, any user has the ability to delete nearly any system file.

Installing a program in Windows invariably requires admin rights because system-wide folders are accessed and the Registry is edited. In other operating systems (OS X, Linux) users can install programs on a per-user basis without touching the rest of the system. I would argue that an operating system where most programs make system-wide changes of this sort is inherently less secure than the opposite.

Windows has a single point of failure (the Registry) which nearly any program has rights to edit. If this wasn't true, spyware and adware and viruses would have a much harder time of things. Other operating systems (OS X, Linux) do no have such a wide-open, freely-editable single point of failure. Windows allows things like Sony music CDs to install programs without user interaction which fundamentally change or break the operating system at its lowest levels. Other operating systems do not (OS X, Linux).

Windows has tons of crap directly tied into the kernel. No web browser should he inexorably tied to the operating system in such a way that a browser crash = a system crash. Other systems do not have such things (Linux, OS X to a lesser extent). I would argue that a system whose kernel is more neatly separated from large, complex programs like web browsers is inherently more secure.

Windows XP before SP2 (possibly before SP1?) came with many services running by default, accessible to remote connection. Other operating systems do not (OS X, various flavors of Linux). I would argue that an OS that is listening on ports which are easily exploitable (and have been exploited in large numbers, e.g. Blaster), by default, from the moment you install, without the user doing anything, without informing the user that it's even happening, is less secure than one which does not. I would also argue that not knowing to check your OS for running background services does not make a person an idiot. Do we expect grandma to portscan her computer to make sure her OS vendor isn't incompetent? It's like shipping a car with 4 lug nuts loose on each tire and calling people idiots when their tires fall off.

Windows determines whether something is an executable file by its file extension, and also hides file extensions by default from users. Other operation systems do not (OS X, Linux). This allows someone to do nice crap like send you a wallpaper.gif.exe file and then you have a 50/50 chance of knowing what kind of file it really is. And Windows will happily and blindly execute it. Linux executes a file only if the executable flag is set, and then on a per-user basis. I would argue that Windows is far too lenient in what it considers an executable.

Windows is overly complex and bloated. Opening a file in Notepad requires something like 12 or 16 system calls, I remember reading in one of my programming textbooks. (A system call is when a program makes a request of the kernel.) This is a bit ridiculous. The simpler an OS, the less opportunity for security holes. The more things running in user space, the better. I would argue that Linux at least, and possibly OS X, are simpler and have much more running in user space rather than kernel space, and are therefore less likely to have holes which have the ability to affect the system as a whole.

I could go on, but that's enough. Unless you know of specific ways that Linux and OS X are FAR LESS secure than Windows, which make up for all the things I've mentioned above, you must admit that Windows is inherently less secure.

You may as well make the argument that a house with no doors or windows is not more secure than a bank vault because given enough time and enough people trying, they could get into the bank vault too. Or that the ONLY reason normal houses are robbed more often than bank vaults is because more people have normal houses than bank vaults.

All operating systems are insecure, yes. All programs have bugs, yes. But some have far more problems than others.

[Yamaneko]

Gnome has gconf which is similar to the Windows registry, but not as extensible as the Windows registry. The great thing about Linux is that you can only really break the system one feature at a time through xml file editing and the like. The Windows registry is like one big .txt file that you hope does not get corrupted.

[Dr Unne]

Gnome has gconf which is similar to the Windows registry, but not as extensible as the Windows registry. The great thing about Linux is that you can only really break the system one feature at a time through xml file editing and the like. The Windows registry is like one big .txt file that you hope does not get corrupted.

Heck, I'd be happy if it was plaintext. No, it's a nice mangled binary mess of crap you can only view via regedit. It's like this just in case you had some kind of misguided notion of recovering from a system crash that renders the GUI unusable.

Gnome's gconf also sucks, but at least it's just a gui on top of XML and at least it doesn't control your whole system. And if/when the thing becomes corrupt you rm -rf ~/.gconf* and Gnome makes you a new default one next time you start it. Far far cry from the Windows Registry.

[ceros]

So what does windows do when they begin legitimatly loosing footing in an area (IE DX vs (insert GFX lib))? Pump everything they can in directX technology, and make it a less suitible but more widley used technology. This is a dirty attempt to use thier MONOPOLY to snub other operating systems, and is a horridly discusting way to run a buisness - Then any business run for 100% profit looses all my respect, and seems to apply itself as a virus vs. a productive enviroment.

As for lack of NTFS, all I can do is cry and suggest a good read through on the many FS that linux has to offer. So - much - more. oh - and just give it time

Well bipper, hopefully the directx issue doesn't become an issue anymore. There's been some great progress for directx apps under wine. As for NTFS, it seems the kernel developers are working on the issue with NTFS as well. There's an option to compile the kernel with not only read capabilities, but also some limited write capabilities as well. It's still expiremental though as of now.

[bipper]

Either way, DirectX is a shotty system. Puting it upon linux to degrade itself to run this ish of a lib is like putting a perfectly acute child in special ed.

OpenGL and Lingo are so far ahead of directX, it is not funny.

Bip

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

Okay.

I'll start by flat-out saying I don't know /xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif/xxx.gif about computers. Okay.

I've skimmed over <a href=http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthread.php?t=74471>this</a>. I don't understand any of that. Why on God's name would I use linux when its as retardedly complicated as that? More secure or not, I don't care enough to try and learn any of that. And most people don't have time. 4 relz

Or maybe I'm just an idiot. Which is probably the case.

[Miriel]

I tried reading this thread, but it felt like trying to read one of Del's sports related LJ entries. I just can't do it.

Windows + Firefox and everything works fine for me so I'm happy. :)

[bipper]

Spcaeman Siff and his shoes: Linux can be VERY easy to run. Ubuntu is a great distro aiming for ease of use. Linux can be turned into a power house capable of taking over the world as well, if that is your intent. The point is simple, linux can and will do whatever you need it to (Power user wise) at the OS level. Even then, the methods for pimpin the OS are NOT that complicated.

It is whatever you make of it.

Bipper

[Loony BoB]

Spcaeman Siff and his shoes: Linux can be VERY easy to run. Ubuntu is a great distro aiming for ease of use. Linux can be turned into a power house capable of taking over the world as well, if that is your intent. The point is simple, linux can and will do whatever you need it to (Power user wise) at the OS level. Even then, the methods for pimpin the OS are NOT that complicated.

It is whatever you make of it.

Bipper
I think his point of Linux not being as user-friendly as Windows is was the main point, and I don't think you can honestly argue that fact without greatly overestimating the abilities of a lot of computer users in the world.

[bipper]

I think his point of Linux not being as user-friendly as Windows is was the main point, and I don't think you can honestly argue that fact without greatly overestimating the abilities of a lot of computer users in the world.

Even so, I think running Linux is becoming very much easier than before. We owe a lot of thanks to freedesktop.org for this as well as other teams that are well worth mentioning, the KDE and Gnome team.

I quoted him to bring his point into the convo, I think he messed up, and made a new thread :p

I can't agree with this. Linux can be just as easy as windows to run. You can stay in the gui, and install packages, etc. I don't really see how it would take advanced useres to run it...

I have installed it on several machines for new level user's who cannot afford or do not wish to buy windows. These people picked it up, and with only a few lessons from me, they are on the net and gaining skills and experence as we speak.

Out of 6 people I have done this for, only 1 has disliked it, and she never really told me why.

By looking at the link, he seemed to be refering to the complexity of the thread in which he linked - thus my reply. You really don't NEED to get into a highly technical mode to run linux at all. Modding it , is a different story.

Bipper

[ceros]

I can't agree with this. Linux can be just as easy as windows to run. You can stay in the gui, and install packages, etc. I don't really see how it would take advanced users to run it...

I think it's more of an issue on knowing how to work with Linux than being an advanced user. I know Linux can be easy to use, but it's when you have to do modifications that it becomes "advanced." Some things are still as easy as clicking on a file to install something. Others require that you install software from sources. Still there's some other things that I won't discuss in this post since some people may not understand, don't care, or it may intimidate them.

[Dr Unne]

I assume that since no one has replied to my large blurb about Windows security, that I'm correct about all that. OK, moving on.

For everyone who says "Windows works just fine for me!", I'd say that you have a much different definition of "works" than I do. I don't think that the absolute necessity of blowing $50 on anti-virus software (and then paying yearly subscription for it for the rest of your life) counts as "works". I think if Windows "works" there wouldn't be an entire industry of anti-adware/spyware/malware companies built upon the fact that Windows is garbage. I think that people who have never used anything else have no idea what they're missing.

The amount of wasted time and effort people put into removing adware and dealing with Windows stupidity is more than enough to learn to use something different and better. Short-term expenditure of effort for long-term gains seems to be beyond most people. Can't really say I'm any different, when it comes to certain things, but there you go.


I've skimmed over <a href=http://forums.eyesonff.com/showthread.php?t=74471>this</a>. I don't understand any of that. Why on God's name would I use linux when its as retardedly complicated as that? More secure or not, I don't care enough to try and learn any of that. And most people don't have time. 4 relz

The reason I posted my bit in that thread is to point out that just because you have the power to get down to a low level like that, doesn't mean you should, because it IS too hard for most people. Most people should NOT need to know all that crap.

In Ubuntu, to install something, you click an icon called "Add Applications", pick a program's name from a big list of programs, and press an "install" button. It's EASIER than Windows. It downloads the installer file for you, unpacks / unzips it, and installs it all automatically.

Note that there's no "YOU MUST RESTART NOW!", no "CLOSE ALL PROGRAMS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH INSTALL!", no 15-screen wizard to blindly click "OK" through. Note that it tells you EXACTLY what it's doing as it installs files; not just a little flying paper animation hitting a magical folder. You are 100% free to ignore all that output, but it's there when you need it.

Upgrading the system (patching) in Ubuntu: A little icon runs in your taskbar. When a patch is available, it pops up a little speech bubble saying something like "There are updates to install". You click the bubble, pick the ones you care about, and press a button and it does its thing by itself. But not only does it patch your operating system, it takes care of patching and upgrading EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM you have ever installed.

I don't know how it could possibly be any more user-friendly. Look at some screenshots if you want: http://www.ubuntu.com/screenshots Linux is never going to be 100% exactly the same as or easy as Windows. But it is already comparable in difficulty.

One of the real strengths of Linux, however, is that if you DO want that low-level amount of control, you have it. Linux can be friendly for people who want friendliness, and powerful for people who want power. All the crap that's posted in that Linux thread goes on in the Windows world too. Windows and Windows programmers hide the complexity from you. That's good for when it works, but when it doesn't work, you're screwed beyond reckoning.

I think his point of Linux not being as user-friendly as Windows is was the main point, and I don't think you can honestly argue that fact without greatly overestimating the abilities of a lot of computer users in the world.

The average user can't handle Windows either. Not a valid argument. At least when my parents screw up Linux I won't have to reinstall the whole OS. I already do have to reinstall Windows every 3-6 months. Linux protects itself against incompetent users. And protects users against other incompetent users on the same machine.

When people say user-friendly, they usually mean that everyone already knows how to use it. Anything becomes user-friendly if you pour enough time into using it. I try to imagine if everyone who rode horses refused to get a car because hey, a horse works just fine, and I already know how to use a horse! Why bother learning something new?

In any case, if you want user-friendly, then you should be using a Mac.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

Using Ubuntu makes me want to vomit.

[fantasyjunkie]

I use Mozilla Firefox and love it. Gotta have windows though if you are a hardcore gamer like me.

[Yamaneko]

An installation of Ubuntu Linux is comparable to an installation of Windows. Most people, though, never install Windows because they have Dell's that keep a 5GB restore partition. They wouldn't know what to do if that partition were to be erased.

[bipper]

They usually don't know what to do if the partition is not erased :monster:

[Dr Unne]

So I bought a new printer recently: a Canon PIXMA iP1600. I have a computer running dual-boot Windows XP and Gentoo, and a Mac Mini. Clearly the most logical setup is to put the printer on the Mac, and have my other computer share the printer; I just have to set up Gentoo and XP both to look for the Mac printer. Then I can print from all three operating systems.

In case you haven’t guessed at this point, no, this is not going to be pretty.

Of course, sharing a printer from OS X is so simple a brain damaged dog with no legs could set it up. System Preferences, Sharing, click Printer Sharing. The end.

Of course, getting XP to recognize that printer is never that simple. Start Menu, Control Panel, Printers and Faxes, “Add a printer”, Next, “A network printer, or a printer attached to another computer”, Next, “Browse for a printer”, Next, and then to my amazement, the printer was actually listed there! So I picked it and clicked Next, hoping for a miracle.

Yeah right. I got some ridiculous message about “The server does not have the correct driver installed” and then I got a list of about a billion printers I had to pick from. My printer was not listed, so I clicked “Have Disk…” which is really an intuitive name for a button, isn’t it? (sarcasm)

For whatever reason, this defaults to looking at the A: drive. There is no A drive on my computer. I don’t have a floppy drive. Good to know that Windows XP is still stuck in 1989. So I fished out the DVD that came with the printer, had to go into the “Win2000″ folder (I know that Win2k drivers are likely to work on WinXP; how many other people would be likely to know this?), searched through 6 levels of subfolders until I found ip1600.inf. I know what a .inf file does; how many other people do? Blindly, I double-clicked it. Windows then apparently did some voodoo and the driver appeared by itself in a separate window. I selected it and clicked Next a bunch of times until I got a Finish, and then a new printer appeared in the Control Panel. Excellent!

So I opened up Notepad, and tried to print something. It went through just fine, and XP reported no errors. OK, great. But nothing printed. Then I noticed the printer was off. PEBKAC, or in this case I guess PEBPAC (though, why no error message?). So I turned it on and printed again. Again, no errors. My printer made a slight noise (I think the roller inside was turning) but nothing printed.

So I checked OS X. I looked in the print queue, which again, is exactly where you’d expect (System Preferences, Print & Fax, Print Queue). There are two big tabs, Active or Completed. Active said “No job printing”. Completed showed two jobs finished. Both were called crap like “smbprn.00000003″, which I assume means my printer is being shared via Samba. OK. It said State is Finished, and the correct time. But nothing had printed.

So I googled. Reading <a href="http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20040208122655345">macosxhints</a> I saw a bunch of stuff. I skipped down to where someone writes about how to use CUPS.

So, I looked at http://127.0.0.1:631 in Firefox on my Mac, and I saw the printer I already added. It was simple enough to add a new one, selecting “raw” as the type. After adding all that, I went back to XP and went through the long list of Next’s until I got to a part where I could put in a printer address on the network. Typing in http://mini:631/printers/CUPS (CUPS is what I called the “new printer” I added in OS X) I kept on Next’ing until I got to the end. Success, a new printer.

So I tried one more time in Notepad to print something. And lo and behold, it printed.

Now, my worry is whether or not the printer is going to work in XP next time I reboot. You see, every time I reboot, XP forgets the Samba password for my Mac. So when I try to play some music in XP that resides on my Mac’s hard drive, it gives all kinds of stupid errors. If I go into My Computer and double-click the drive I have mapped to the Mini, it asks for a password. If I then try to play music, it magically works.

Of course, in Linux I add the the mini's info to /etc/fstab and every time I boot, the drive is mounted automatically, and it looks like the Mini's files magically appear in a folder on the local drive. And it doesn't bother me about a password every day.

This is the kind of crap that makes me want to break my Windows XP install CD in half and flush it down the toilet. Perhaps it's partly my fault for believing that Windows brand file/printer sharing would actually WORK. Samba is the tool of the devil, but Windows doesn't support things like NFS; why would it? (KDE in Linux lets you browse another computer in a file manager if it's running SSHD, regardless of what kind of filesystem it has, without even needing to mount the remote drive. Why can't Windows do THAT?)

The most ironic thing here is that a freaking LINUX program (CUPS) saved the day. I’m laughing on the outside. Even if I’m crying on the inside.

Why did I even need a printer to work for XP to begin with? Because I want to do my taxes, and the web sites I've found to do them only support Internet Explorer. By the way, this makes me want to fish the broken XP CD out of the toilet and start murdering people with it.

[Madame Adequate]

In related news:
http://www.spreadinternetexplorer.com/

I wholeheartedly support their campaign.

[ceros]

Why did I even need a printer to work for XP to begin with? Because I want to do my taxes, and the web sites I've found to do them only support Internet Explorer. By the way, this makes me want to fish the broken XP CD out of the toilet and start murdering people with it.

Have you tried QEMU? I use it for simple things such as the problem you just ran into.

[Mirage]

I rarely have problems with Windows XP. I guess that's because I know how to maintain it. I've seen a lot of bad scenarios on other computers. I would never tough Internet Explorer though.