Printable View
Is there anybody out there? No, well I guess that's the problem with this OS; it simply can't compete.
------------------
From Blade Runner: Holden> The tortise lies on its back, its belly baking in the sun - thrashing its legs, trying to turn itself over but it can't; not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that Leon?
I have over 20 Linux CD's and I use Win2k.
any questions?
By CDs do you mean different distros? (and versions therefore) or softwareQuote:
Originally posted by Xenon:
I have over 20 Linux CD's and I use Win2k.
any questions?
------------------
Never knock on Death's door. Ring the bell and run away. Death really hates that.
And that's why so many servers running Linux and Apache are out there, serving up webpages to you every day. Get a brain, you lamer.Quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
Is there anybody out there? No, well I guess that's the problem with this OS; it simply can't compete.
BTW...I use Win 98SE for the most part, because it has the games that I play most often. But I would never ever try to imply that Linux is unable to compete.
------------------
No Matter Where You Go, There You Are.
Yeah. Linux, which runs on everything from palm-tops to supercomputers (both Beowulf clusters and S/390) can't compete.Quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
Is there anybody out there? No, well I guess that's the problem with this OS; it simply can't compete.
Linux, which booted right off the bat on Merced, when Win64 couldn't, can't compete.
Linux, whose TCO absoloutely embarasses Microsoft, can't compete.
Linux, which it phenomenally configurable while Windows has only a few options (Each more expensive than the last), can't compete.
Linux, a free OS with uptimes and stability that NT and WinDOS admins only dream about, can't compete.
Lay off the wacky weed. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
------------------
"It's amazing that I can manage to put both feet in mouth...What with my head shoved so far up my rectum."
Linux simply cannot compete because the majority of computer users nowadays are not tech heads, and as much as you Linux fanatics like to say otherwise, Linux is nowheres near user friendly. Unless somebody does something about this soon, Linux will never be more than relegated to running servers and the toy of tech heads. Its simply far too complex for the average computer user. I speak from experience. It took me several days to get just a modem working under Linux because it did not use the standard irq for com4.
------------------
------
Pat D.
Visit a music site I write for:
http://members.xoom.com/Awake600
Simply put, TRS 80 still rocks
------------------
mkbean
This is, in essence, what I meant. I was also making a statement about the monopolistic nature of the PC OS market. I like LINUX, especially since Bill can't buy it. My observation was and is that when you go to your local software store to get a new game (sorry, most people will never buy a web server), you will see a zillion Windows games and a scant few of those have a LINUX version sitting next to it. Excuse me while I get my fire extinguisher...Quote:
Originally posted by blppt:
Linux simply cannot compete because the majority of computer users nowadays are not tech heads, and as much as you Linux fanatics like to say otherwise, Linux is nowheres near user friendly. Unless somebody does something about this soon, Linux will never be more than relegated to running servers and the toy of tech heads. Its simply far too complex for the average computer user. I speak from experience. It took me several days to get just a modem working under Linux because it did not use the standard irq for com4.
It depends on what business you're trying to compete for. If you mean the idiot desktop market? Probably. This is a GOOD THING. The point about Linux is that MS need not be the default.Quote:
Originally posted by blppt:
Linux simply cannot compete because the majority of computer users nowadays are not tech heads, and as much as you Linux fanatics like to say otherwise, Linux is nowheres near user friendly. Unless somebody does something about this soon, Linux will never be more than relegated to running servers and the toy of tech heads. Its simply far too complex for the average computer user. I speak from experience. It took me several days to get just a modem working under Linux because it did not use the standard irq for com4.
Linux isn't written for the majority of computer users. It's primarily written for people with extensive experience with their computers looking for a more malleable soloution than MS is.
"Us Linux fanatics" try to include ease of use and functionality because we understand that not everyone wants to have to use vi or emacs, and shell commands. But they don't let ease of use stand in the way of the functionality of the system.
Linux is QUITE user friendly. It's just particular about it's friends. Is it for everyone? No. Never will be.
Also, contrary to popular belief, the Linux community doesn't want Linux to be "the best" at just one or two things. They want Linux to be able to do a little bit of everything, and be customizable to a point where it can do specific things very well.
Linux will NEVER be relegated to "just running servers". There is too much expansion in areas that have NOTHING to do with "servers" for that to ever happen.
Is Linux too complex for the average Joe? Yeah. Is WindowsNT too complex for the average Joe? Sure. Is in-depth Win9* or MacOS too complex for the average Joe? Yeah? Most "users" want to be simply that. A user. They don't want to mess around with the innards of the OS. Much of Linux's functionality comes because you can mess around with the innards. But there are situations where you can install simple, user-oriented Linux setups (Corel, Caldera, Mandrake, EasyLinux, etc).
Several days? To root through four COM ports and 15 or so IRQ's?
Merely because you dislike Linux in comparison to Windows, don't mistake your perceived problems as universal.
I use linux or other versions of unix daily. It is such a far superior 0/s. The company I work for has Solaris servers that have been up for over 3 years w/o reboot and still function as if they just booted.
Ever use www.google.com? That popular search engine is powered by a cluster of 400 Linux boxes.
Get the point?
Wait, you say that "Linux isnt made for the majority of computer users"? Then how can you possibly expect it to compete against Windows, which IS made for the majority of computer users? Thats why Linux is used mostly for servers and the like. You never see Mr and Mrs Yuppie with two kids and a dog using Linux on their Compaq.
And no, it didnt take me any time to root through irqs. I knew which irq my modem was set on and what com port, but linux in its incredible hardware friendliness refused to let me use them. Even using the setserial command (which i am now VERY familiar with considering the 800 or so times i typed it in) it would not get the damn thing working. I forget the exact thing i had to do, but it took me a few days talking to calderasystems via tech support. And then what do i find? After the modem finally worked, web pages look crappier than Netpositive on BeOS (which i have also used, and found much more hardware friendly than Linux) even with Netscape 4.72,which i though was a standard for internet browsing. So, off to 3dfxgamers.com to get the latest Linux drivers for my Voodoo 3. Package errors all over the place after multiple downloads. At that point i just gave up, since i have no desire to run a server, and anything i could possibly have done in linux otherwise i could do far easier in win2k, and then some. Stability means jack when you have nothing to use with it.
Sorry about the rant Linux users, but you cannot imagine how pissed i was at this OS after 2 days of messing with it. It is simply not ready for the mainstream computer market, and quite simply, its scary how far it is from being that way. Hardware comfiguration was easier under win3.1 for pete's sake. Argh. :-(
your right - its not ready (but i first installed linux in 95 (using fdisk and num. codes for partition types etc... (slackware 2.0) that was a total joke! took two weeks of reading/then installing then no x-windows for millinium! no support for zip/printer!!) ya pretty useless! BUT two years ago i installed a newer dist. and it had a simple installation and saw 3/4 if my hardware and x-windows and KDE 1.0 - this is three years later than the fdisk nonsence!. Now we will soon have KDE 2.0 (this looks better than anything if ever seen! (yes i acktually like a standardized GUI and like the unified Linux look, and yes many linux people don't, but this is the only way it will ever compete with Windows - and it is happening NOW - Gnome will dissappear hopfully - KDE is where its at (plus KOffice looks good - equal to Moffice and free - not done yet tho). So SOON Linux will be ready for prime time - i'd say in about 2-years Linux will have equalled windows in ease of use and reasonable num/quality of apps. Definately only a matter fo time - i have no doubt.
The linux/windows debate is one of those things that will be debated forever. I am a slackware user, I have been one for a long time and probably will continue to be one for many years. I realize I am not the average computer user, I am willing to sacrific some easy of use for pure functional power. As others on here have stated, linux has come a long way very quickly. Everyday new hardware is supported and new and improved programs are released. Will Linux ever reach the point where it is easier to use then Windows or more widely used then Windows? I have no idea and I don't really care. In fact, if it means taking away functionality, and the ability to mess with just about anything I would rather it not. I am not against new people trying linux, I have help many get it up and running on there machines. Some of them got sick of it and went back to windows, others were converted linux users forever. I am a computer engineer, I want control that windows doesn't provide, that is why I chose linux. In my mind linux doesn't even compete with windows because windows can't touch it. Hell, there isn't even built in developers tools in windows. What is up with an os that doesn't come with built in support for the user to make new software for it?!?
Is there anybody out there? Hell ya, there is a huge linux community out there...
[This message has been edited by jtshaw (edited October 05, 2000).]
I dual boot between Win2k and Linux. Each is good at its own thing. I use Windows mostly for games, and Linux mostly for everything else. I web browse in which ever I happen to have loaded at the time.Quote:
Originally posted by Wintermute:
Is there anybody out there? No, well I guess that's the problem with this OS; it simply can't compete.
------------------
Nothing can match the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
Just wait for all the users that don't like linux get a cell phone. That can browse the web ohh and guesss what its going to have a OS. Which by the way will be linux. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
And that is supposed to be impressive?Quote:
Originally posted by slick:
Just wait for all the users that don't like linux get a cell phone. That can browse the web ohh and guesss what its going to have a OS. Which by the way will be linux. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
I am a Linux backer, most defintitely. But do you think 99.9% of people who are going to get a Web-enabled cell phone are going to care if it runs Linux?
Your right, they aren't going to care. But I think he was trying to make a point saying everything from PDA's, to TIVO's, to DVD Players, to cell phones run linux so it is obviously a major os in the scheme of things.
Quote:
Originally posted by mpitts:
And that is supposed to be impressive?
I am a Linux backer, most defintitely. But do you think 99.9% of people who are going to get a Web-enabled cell phone are going to care if it runs Linux?
Yeah, I see that.. but that means jack-squat on the PC side.Quote:
Originally posted by jtshaw:
Your right, they aren't going to care. But I think he was trying to make a point saying everything from PDA's, to TIVO's, to DVD Players, to cell phones run linux so it is obviously a major os in the scheme of things.
https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
Right, but the original post implies that hardly anyone out there uses linux and that it "can't compete". Hell, if you are just looking at computers then you have to take in account the fact that linux runs on over a dozen different types of systems. Windows runs on x86, IA-64 (supposively), Alpha, and PowerPC (not sure if it does anymore but NT4.0 did). Linux has been compiled to run on all of those sytems plus probably a dozen or so more. Everything from a Sparc, to a MIPS, to a StrongARM, to a dragonball processor and many more.
Quote:
Originally posted by mpitts:
Yeah, I see that.. but that means jack-squat on the PC side.
https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
hehe naaa not trying to inpress you. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
Just trying to let everyone know that there is a market out there for it and it can compete. Here is a question of thought Can mircrosoft compete out side of the pc world? like linux can https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
Linux is becoming more and more user friendly with each new distribution. Yes, it is more complicated than, say, Microsoft stuff, but it has its own pluses.
------------------
"I don't think so", said Rene Descart. Just then, he disappeared.
Well, what I meant by competition in this case is for the mass PC OS market that MS monopolistically dominates. I would like to see linux smear Windows into a little greasy spot, but I don't think it's going to happen. Honestly, I had no idea that linux was so widely used across so many platforms; although, I'll admit that I've never heard of a StrongARM or a dragonball processor. Sorry if I stepped on any toes...Quote:
Originally posted by jtshaw:
Right, but the original post implies that hardly anyone out there uses linux and that it "can't compete". Hell, if you are just looking at computers then you have to take in account the fact that linux runs on over a dozen different types of systems. Windows runs on x86, IA-64 (supposively), Alpha, and PowerPC (not sure if it does anymore but NT4.0 did). Linux has been compiled to run on all of those sytems plus probably a dozen or so more. Everything from a Sparc, to a MIPS, to a StrongARM, to a dragonball processor and many more.
People on here probably already know I am a big linux fan from reading my previous posts but I am going to try and be as non-biased as possible here.
Microsoft does have WinCE, which is aimed at running devices like PDA's. Where MS lacks ability to compete in the area of small electronics is, ironically, compatibility, the one thing people say like to say linux lacks. Linux can run on so many platforms that Windows can't. It is also so easily ported to new platforms. It was the first IA-64 os, the first StrongARM (Intels PDA processor that I heard they have running at 1Ghz now....) OS. It runs on dragonball (Palm Pilot) processors, it runs on the small i386 and i486 they use in a lot of things. The fact is, to run linux you need 386 power and a meg of ram...nothing less, nothing more. Everything from handheld mp3 to supercomputers meets these requirements. There is not a platform anywhere that Windows can run on that Linux or some flavor of Unix cannot, the reverse is not true. One of my coworkers even has a small linux webserver the size of a 32 pin SIMM. The SIMM contains a dragonball processor, 4 megs of ram, and some flash for storage. It sits into a simm socket on a very small board that has a tiny power supply, and eithernet jack and driver, and a RS232 port. They intentionally made the board with a large empty space so you can add things to it. We have added a 1/4 VGA color LCD panel (which the computer already had the ability to drive) and a PCMCIA interface where we put a IBM microdrive. We use this little box as a router and it works great. Our only worry is lossing the thing because it is so damn small. I just don't see another os in the world that is as flexible as linux is.
WinCE requires a crap load of interfacing that is a real pain to do. On top of that, a company came to us asking us to get a mini computer running for them, we contemplated WinCE and they almost got up and left. They didn't want anything with the name Microsoft on it because of there notorious support practices. They aren't the only ones that share this complaint. That box has linux running on it now and they are very happy with the outcome.
Quote:
Originally posted by slick:
hehe naaa not trying to inpress you. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
Just trying to let everyone know that there is a market out there for it and it can compete. Here is a question of thought Can mircrosoft compete out side of the pc world? like linux can https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif