It is OS related in some way... linux don't care of the extension of file, it first seek the meta tag from the file and only if these don't exist ( rare case ), it use the extension... by example, if i have a file abc.wmv ... i rename it abc.bmp ... clicking on it in linux will open the mediaplayer and not the paint programm...
In these case, windows is not more bad that linux... simply different way to see a file... nobody will rename his wmv file to bmp... and if a extension is missing, it is not windows who is responsible... by example, the numerous "readme" in place of "readme.txt"... for the first one, windows ask you to choice a application for open it... Linux will open it directly with Kate ( or any other text editor installed )... if people making software for windows was following the rules, the ".txt" extension will be added and the problem will not exist !
Actually windows is a huge lot worse than linux when it comes to the filesystem... NTFS is the worst filesystem available in any current OS. Just a stupid thing as a 256 character max on filenames *including* path is totally junk...
This is the major problem with all OS battles, people (including myself at times) just cant seem to bash on the right places...
No really... it was related to the VT-x from intel or AMD-V support... Basic version of windows don't support it, only more expensive one...
Windows is a OS... who mean a operating system... so, the minimum is that a OS support the function of actual processor... i don't care of the clock, calendar or post-it system, flying windows, transparent windows, etc... i need a OS, not a collection of gadget... a OS is the basic software that manages communication between the hardware and the other software of a computer...
Professional version of win are very go at it... but basic edition are more bad... several year ago, i have buy the XP pro x64 because the usual xp was without the 36 bits support ( all processor from the pentium pro allow the use of 16 gb ram )... it was added to the usual XP long time after, with the SP2...
About ram... some of you will be surprised to know the difference between all the servion of actual system of windows... 64 bits and huge amount of ram ! Forget it... in function of how much you have pay for the OS, it support less or more ram... Sorry but the primary function of a OS is to support the material... i have a intel 5000x chipset... but win find only 4 of my 6 drives, without speaking that a special mode AHCI need to be used else it find no one... my sound system is 7.1+2HD... windows fail to install the correct driver... OK, i install these of the motherboard... it is perfect... new mixer with all my 10 channel... once reboot, windows remove my good mixer and use again his buggy mixer... again a fail to be a good OS... In pro version, i have the tools who allow to stop these windows bad behaviour...
EXT2 from Linux is more bad... without journaling system... a crash and you can have all the sytem dead... of course, we have the EXT3 system who is good but a lot of default installation use the old EXT2...
And myself, i use ZFS from Sun... until now, it is the more secure... i have a lot TB of of data, collected in the last 20 years... if i loose them, it will be impossible to retrieve...
By the way, i have hear that Microsoft is working on a new filesystem... maybe you will be more happy once it is out...
The problem is the battle... both side have advantage and default... both side can learn from each other... and it happen... with the year, Microsoft have use some idea from Linux/Unix... and the reverse is true too... dx and opengl are amost identical now... only the way to implement it is different... in 3D, slowly, everybody begin use the collada format... so, with time, thing will become better... in the interest of the user...
Fact is, professional support for Linux is way more expensive than it is for windows. I can go to forums and get excellent support for both OSes for free.
True... Linux distro are business too... and it is one of the way they use for generate money... "free" in the meaning of "free of charge" is a illussion... some year ago, i have own a free site... lot of visitor each month using my site for free but i was generating money with publicity... of well by click or by % of the money that my visitor have spend on their site... if commercial site have never exist, my free site was only a dream...
The same is true for Linux... Google is free but generate money with publicity for commercial business, Google give money to some open source project, these project are integrated in Linux distro... so, indirectly, commercial business allow the open source to survive...
Now about forum support... it is great but not enough for business... for example, a big business with a central server and a lot of office with usual desktop computer... Central server go down... personel cannot continue to work in the office ( owner of business need to pay personel who is not more working )... in some extreme case, a shutdown from a few hours of a mainframe can mean hundred of thousand dollar loss... business have not time to seek the solution on forum, have no time to wait a forum reply... they phone to the OS helpdesk and ask a technician for come directly to the business... or resolve the problem from distance...
A red hat mainframe support, 24/24h , 7 day on 7, 1 hours responce is 18000$ year... for a usual workstation, 12 hours day, 5 day week, it is 339$ year... the cheaper is the basic support at 80$ year with no phone support, a two day delay for reply... So, it is easy to understand why windows support suck... they ask to much money for the system but not enough for support...
The "free" of Linux mean "Freedom", not "free of charge"... Linux distro are business like other... Guy who work there full time need money like everybody... Ubuntu/Kubuntu is not really different... take a look at http://shop.canonical.com/support.php ... Microsoft have good support too... but only for professional version and for a lot of money...
We, the million of usual Desktop user are not these who bring the big money... patch who correct bug are mainly for these people who pay a lot... in some way, we are the beta tester... Linux and windows are more identical that some think... the only difference exist on the desktop level... one limit the OS ( remove function ) and the other is without any real support...
About support, i think that it is not something that we can complain in the case of Stardock... they are enough actif on the forum, try to please customer, update enough fast... and all this for only a few $$$ pay one time...
Not a fact, but a lie. For example, if you buy an official OpenSuSE package, it includes 90 days professional support. My experience with it is really good, it is the same support department that handles the enterprise support, and that for about half the price of a not-supported-at-all OEM edition of Windows.
If that is not enough for you, SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop with 24x7 priority support costs EUR 207. Still a lot cheaper than a supported version of Windows.
I'm talking about on location support. You get 3 qualified windows techs for the price of one qualified Linux tech (Assuming pricedifferences hasn't changed radically the last 2 years).
But you do need to buy a host of other non-MS products
Like what? Pretty much all the "flagship" opensource software for Linux has fully functional windows versions.
I have a windows XP computer that's specifically for guest use. It has no commercial software on it at all, and it's still complete with av, firewall, office suite and everything else anyone might need. It also has a *fully* featured MSN messenger client, which is something no other OS has... And while I think it's a shame, matter of fact is that MSN is what most people use.´As far as I know, Windows Live Messenger do not run on wine at the moment. It is the most feature abundant IM system available though...
For someone who benefits so much from Free Software you seem to be very eager to put down the true Free Software flagship, GNU/Linux.The same way those products give you an alternative that you can use without paying which is often as good as the commercial ones for the normal user, so does GNU/Linux give you an alternative to Windows.
And no, many of the better programs available for GNU/Linux do not exist for Windows, unless you can somehow use K3b, Amarok, Evolution and others.
You can configure Windows for a single click as well; that's just how I have it set up.
Using Windows Explorer in Vista (Aero is a theme, not a shell)
Windows+E to open a new window (2)
go to temp folder (about 3)
"ninja.png" in the search field of the temp window (9) (yup, in Vista/Windows 7, every open folder has a search bar!)
open documents folder (1 to 3 keystrokes/clicks, depending on your desktop setup)
Drag file to documents (1)
About 17 keystrokes/mouse actions - about the same. More or less depending on what exactly you do - for example, if there's only a single file named ninja, you might not have to include the extention during the search. There are a few dozen ways of opening up the documents folder, and the way you choose can affect how many keystrokes or clicks it takes to get there.
Another example, typing:
grep -r Ninja *.txt
... is a lot faster than using the "Find files" function of the GUI.
Tap the Windows key, type "ninja *.txt" - In Vista and Windows 7, the search is right there in the Start menu and is the defaut selected field, so it's literally one button to start searching. Since they have indexed searching, it's nearly instant results as well. This is one area where the GUI is so ridiculously simple that doing it in the command line is inevitably slower!
But there's another point I'd like to make - not many users know about cp and grep, and few are willing to learn to use the command line. Worse, many people consider the command line to be outdated.
False. Every official reference I've seen so far for the raw file system itself says it's 255 characters for each path component, not for the entire path.
What you may be referring to could be API limitations, not limitations of the file system itself. After some research, I found this limitation referrs to paths using the system code pages, and that that you can have a path up to ~32767 bytes if you use Unicode - when using the standard Windows API.
The documentation warns:
The shell and the file system have different requirements. It is possible to create a path with the Windows API that the shell user interface cannot handle
In other words, results vary depending on how you're accessing the files. The API allows for 32k paths using Unicode.
The commandline is an unnecessary complication for the majority of users. There's really nothing else to say, you can give as many patternmatching examples you'd like. Fact remains, most people don't need it.
NTFS is an inferior filesystem no matter how you look at it.
There are alternatives to all of those programs, some for free, some at a cost.
If you want to go the free of cost route, you can in Windows.
If you don't mind paying, there are certainly high quality alternatives for all of the programs you've mentioned. Nero is an excellent burning suite, and Outlook 2007 has unparalleled personal information management, especially when used with Exchange.
How many Linux file systems offer all of these features:
Every way I look at it?
Now we're getting really really really of topic, but the correct answer is IBM GPFS. It's not free, but neither are server editions of Windows.
How many Windows FS don't need defragmentation? That's one point about her Ubuntu that my Girlfriend loves.
PS: I could list many other features that GNU/Linux FS have that windows cannot match but then the whole thing just becomes a feature fest and about who can find the most obscure things about their system of choice.
In all honesty, all of today's OSes are mature. They all perform all of the basic functionalty the user expects, and they all provide powerful APIs that the developer can use.
It's mostly a matter of the UI these days. Mac OS is the easiest (from what I've heard; I haven't really tried it). Windows will be getting easier with Windows 7. Linux - well, Linux is easier than it used to be, but that's not really saying much.
Linux is admitedly very flexible from a technical standpoint - there are a lot of tweaks and adjustments you can make, and if you really want you can dive into the source code to do it.
BUT - it's done a relatively poor job making that flexibility visible and easily accesible to the user. This is what Microsoft encountered with Microsoft Office. The feature set of Office exploded. You had to search all of the menus, doalog boxes, and options to find something. It was as cumbersome as Linux is today - and that had to be fixed, which they did in Office 2007.
As the Office UI blog observed, most people are not trained in Geology. People don't want their features hidden underneath a lot of "rocks." The interface shouldn't be a shell game or a puzzle. Linux customization is like that - you have to search for ways to modify the interface. They're not as simple as they should be.
You can't easily add an application icon to the desktop or a panel. You have to use "application launchers" which are like shortcuts, except far worse. They don't default to the application's own icon. You have to manually search for the application, which can be in one of many locations (bin, sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin /usr/games, /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/sbin, /usr/X11R6/bin, you get the idea . . .). You have to search for the application's icon, which is also in a non-trivial location and likely not even in the same location as the application itself.
From a technical standpoint, every OS is a modern, mature OS. No doubt about that: They are all capable operating systems that come with all of the features expected by most users. But from the UI standpoint, however, it seems like some OSes, such as Linux, really need a lot of work.
That's blatantly false, most application shortcuts in Gnome (which is basically what you seem to be talking about) are just three clicks away from the panel. What you're talking about is application that are not installed in the usual way but rather customly, but then this is about as simple as it is in windows, which is not very.
GNU/Linux has a far more intuitive interface on where to find your applications than windows which simply dumps everything in the start menu and/or under each developer's company's name
Yes, trying to do exactly the same customization you can do in Windows in Gnome might create problems as some things are not used often by most people, but the opposite is true for windows where easy customization I can do in GNU/Linux I can't do in windows (ie, multiple desktops)
Users also love how they can install, manage and update all software on their PC from the same application, how they can have multiple desktops, a full 3d GUI, Built-in security, low maintenance and most applications they will need out-of-the-box. Once windows reaches this level of simplicity we can talk about what needs a lot of work
I resist the idea that Windows is easier than Linux, it is simply isn't true. I've experience enough with both computer literate and illiterate users and the only argument you will not hear is that they find Linux is harder to use than Windows. Some people that migrate miss a few features they have been used to, but that's it.
Yeah. Microsoft did a remarkable job to promote OpenOffice, because the few Windows users we have in our company hated the MsOffice 2008 UI so much that they were suddenly remarkably happy use OpenOffice rather than MsOffice. Life is so much easier if everyone uses the OpenDocument file format!
However I agree with your point that not all power of Linux is accessible through the GUI.
I would agree that Windows would greatly benefit from categoriztion and centralized package management.
For being an OS that likes to center on customization, however, sometimes Linux does seem to be a bit on the complex side.
Take moving around the icons on the bars/panes/whatever: In Windows, you can unlock the bar, move stuff around, and re-lock it. In Linux, the locking is per-item, and you need to go through the right click menu every time you want to move anything. It seems like a lot of effort to move icons.
In addition, Linux seems to have quite an aversion to placing anything on the desktop. It's difficult to move the trash and other items there.
I would see that more as a feature rather than a customization. In addition, since it's another icon on Ubuntu's default desktop, it's more clutter - so you have to weigh the drawbacks of having another icon on the task pane over the benefits of multiple desktops.
In addition, a lot of the changes in Windows 7 seem to center around making things easier for the single desktop, reducing the need for multiple desktops. Grouped thumbnails and Aero Peek make it easier to switch between tasks with realtive ease. In addition, with widescreen and dual monitor setups becoming more common, the ability to put tasks side by side is becoming much less of a problem. And talking about side by side tasks, Windows 7 is even making it easy to put tasks side by side by allowing users to drag windows to the left/right, and the windows will fill the left/right half of the screen. A lot of new features - but without adding a lot of clutter.
The default configuration of Ubuntu is cluttered. Three text menu items at the top, the user name (which strangely enough appears even when set up for single use), not one but two bars, a "show desktop" icon, and the virtual desktop icon - in addition to the standard stuff that other OSes already have, like the date/time and networking icons.
The best features are those that work without adding more icons or text to the menus. Aero Peek didn't add any new icons - it just requires the mouse to hover over the icon representing the running application.
Ease of use is not about shoving as many features as you can on the lowest levels of the interface. It's about focusing on the current task, and working in a transparent manner without distracting the user with lots of icons, text, and messages. Two bars filled with stuff doesn't accomplish that.
Have you asked them if they think it's simple? Have you asked them why they think it's more simple and/or complex? Could you be more specific as to you you mean by "harder to use?" How do you use your computer? What types of usage patterns do you see in other people as they use their computers?
Businesses and people are often conservative by nature - they generally abhor change. Doesn't mean the interface of Office 2007 is any worse - just means it's different enough that the business didn't like the idea of spending a lot of time re-training its workers.
It seems you can only see what GNU/Linux proponets are talking about when you defend Microsoft. Let me amend you quote to display:
"Businesses and people are often conservative by nature - they generally abhor change. Doesn't mean the interface of GNU/Linux is any worse - just means it's different enough that the business didn't like the idea of spending a lot of time re-training its workers."
See?
Oh come the fuck on! Multiple desktops are not good because they clutter your taskbar? (something you can easily remove in two clicks). This is absolutely hypocritical. When GNU/Linux misses a Windows feature, it's bad design. When Windows misses a very useful feature of GNU/Linux (and far too many people find multiple desktops to be very beneficial), "it's a feature". This is ridiculous...
The default configuration of Windows is cluttered. No organization of your start menu, no way to switch between users easily, no way to add extra bars intuitively, a "show desktop" icon only (no virtual desktops) - in addition to the standard stuff that other OSes already have, like the date/time and networking icons. It also lacks most necessary programs a normal user needs like an Office SW, a decent browser, a decent CD burner, a software managing program, a decent notepad, an image manipulation program etc.
Subjective criticisms cut both ways...
I disagree. I find that it accomplishes that wonderfully. I always end up expanding the windows taskbar one level because it's never enough.
Yes have. No need to worry about security. No need to worry about defrags and scandisks and other weird stuff. No need to surf around the net and learn to user search pages while avoiding nasty sites, in order to find a program they need. No need to hunt around for programs. It just works.
Clutter = the number of items you see, especially when the desktop is loaded and you haven't clicked on anything yet.
I agree "All Programs" needs a lot of work. That is cluttered. I've been harping on Windows fanboys about this for as long as I can remember, and it drives me crazy that, just like Linux fanboys defending Gnome's default dual bars, they'll defend "All Programs" to no end.
Yes, both OSes have their issues. Me? I just want both OSes to improve.
Haven't had a virus in years. Vista and Windows 7 are far better than XP in this regard.
Defrag is, by default in Vista & Windows 7, something that is done automatically on a schedule during times the user is unlikely to be on. Most people won't even notice it.
Haven't seen scandisk in Windows in a long time.
Yup. Every icon is clutter. And when I talk about "clutter" I am talking about the default setup, not the setup after you've spent half your life making it look the way you want it to.
Agreed, Windows does need some package management.
One feature that does do something similar, and should more visible by default (perhaps just inside the top level menu, just like Linux package management), is Windows Marketplace/store.
In addition, I should probably plug Impulse here . I think some OEMs may be starting to include Impulse with new PCs.
. . . but after all the arguing, it seems that Microsoft is still #1. Even with the very visible mistakes with Vista, Linux doesn't seem to be a runaway success.
I'm just trying to figure it out - why, if Linux is so great, is it not succeeding? Several OEMs have tried installing Linux by default on some computers, but that didn't seem to work out - why not?
Because GNU/Linux is the total underdog. The fact that we can have such a discussion now and even argue the point says a lot on how far it's come. Nobody expects GNU/Linux to suddently take over MS in a few years, in a similar vein, Microsoft did not take over the IT industry in 3 decades of trying (and it's losing quite badly on the server after all this time). It only managed to get the desktop because it started out just as the PC was coming out and through good marketing and predatory practices overtook all the competitors.
The idea that GNU/Linux (and Apple, which owes its current comeback to free software) can even make a solid appearance and keep growing in market share in a total MS monopoly is noteworthy and impressive. GNU/Linux will keep growing slowly until it reaches a tipping point in popularity. Wether that is 5%, 10% or 20% I do not know, but when this happens, the price will undertake MS' products and the large influx of people will mean more developers which will translate to a better overall system due to the Bazaar. Microsoft can see this, and they're scared shitless.
You have to understand that just because you're a minimalist does not mean everyone is. And most people do not have a problem spending a few hours customizing their desktop for the first time, especially when they know they won't have to reformat quite so soon (or that even if they do, they profile setting will remain if their partitioning was proper).
And PS, please drop the emotional bullshit. Removing an icon you don't like from a gnoma panel (or a whole gnome panel) is a two-clicks business.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
