The "let's bash Windows" thread

[Zell's Fists of Fury]

Okay.

I'll start by flat-out saying I don't know [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img] 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

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.

[qq=Loony BoB]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.[/qq]

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

[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.