Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
if you like things dummified down and easy to use because it's easy to learn, that's one thing, I call that a user (in my opinion, an individual who has no real interests in computers). They generally don't care to learn more then they have to. However, calling yourself a enthusiast contradicts your attitude towards computers.
your definition of enthusiast is very linear.
why cant an enthusiast enjoy the easy way of doing things and still learn beyond that
i've enjoyed that learning since my first 1985 tandy through today's complexities yet still enjoy the simplicity of flipping a switch and clicking an icon.
for instance, if i play a game, i like the simplicity of the installer and just click an icon, yet i still learn how to make the game play and look beyond its default wether it be tweaking an .ini file or altering memorypaths.
i learned registry and other things that enable me to change my os to do whatever i want and after thats done...i enjoy the simple click and go
most enthusiasts are like that, some still prefer command lines but most will make everything how they want as well as easy and quick to get access too, thats not contradictory, what is would be to learn as much as you can just to make it harder or slower on yourself
Originally posted by: Doom Machine
Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
if you like things dummified down and easy to use because it's easy to learn, that's one thing, I call that a user (in my opinion, an individual who has no real interests in computers). They generally don't care to learn more then they have to. However, calling yourself a enthusiast contradicts your attitude towards computers.
your definition of enthusiast is very linear.
why cant an enthusiast enjoy the easy way of doing things and still learn beyond that
i've enjoyed that learning since my first 1985 tandy through today's complexities yet still enjoy the simplicity of flipping a switch and clicking an icon.
for instance, if i play a game, i like the simplicity of the installer and just click an icon, yet i still learn how to make the game play and look beyond its default wether it be tweaking an .ini file or altering memorypaths.
i learned registry and other things that enable me to change my os to do whatever i want and after thats done...i enjoy the simple click and go
most enthusiasts are like that, some still prefer command lines but most will make everything how they want as well as easy and quick to get access too, thats not contradictory, what is would be to learn as much as you can just to make it harder or slower on yourself
you don't learn half as much sh!t that way as you could other ways.
I'm getting the feeling most enthusiasts that I know are old school. And you and the others you refer to are new school. bleh.
Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
Did you have to mention Ubuntu? Don' t like that distro myself. I prefer Fedora Core for my stuff. See, choice? Something which is unheard of in the Microsoft world. (I like full control and power over what I do).
And here's a sad fact. Folks say they don't need to change to a different operating system, yet they don't mind the bullsh!t that comes along with the Windows Operating Systems (viruses, security vulnerabilties which take forever to get fixed, and IE *cringe*).
Another Microsoft lock-in. Games. When I mention Linux as a possible solution, they are all excited when they hear about all it can do for them. Then the subject of games comes up. They cannot live without their games. "I'd just to linux in a heartbeat but I'd miss my games". Hell, some folks thinks that Linux is not desktop ready till games will be fully support in linux. Can you believe that some blame linux for not being enough compadible to windows to run their beloved games?
The Ms OFFICE argument is pretty stale by now. I know most folks use MS Office but hey, you can use MS Office in Linux now. No big deal. Really? Yes, really. Oh cool. I'll have to check it out. (some time later, oh...sorry, didn't have time to check it out, too busy (or lack of interest?)).
I actually had a conversation with my dad the other day. He usually just uses IE for his web surfing. Why? Because it came with the laptop. I told him that I despised IE because it's not, in my opinion, a real web browser. Until it is w3c compliant it can go to hell. Will he switch? No. Why not? Too much effort. Too used to IE. Downloading firefox is too much trouble for him. A 2 minute operation is too much of his time wasted?
We live in a sad sad world.
Originally posted by: NamelessMC
You know what the sad thing is?
This thread has actually fed and peaked my interest for learning and using Linux. Hearing about using Apt-get, Wine and being able to customize your GUI on the fly only makes me want to use Linux even more.
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
Did you have to mention Ubuntu? Don' t like that distro myself. I prefer Fedora Core for my stuff. See, choice? Something which is unheard of in the Microsoft world. (I like full control and power over what I do).
And here's a sad fact. Folks say they don't need to change to a different operating system, yet they don't mind the bullsh!t that comes along with the Windows Operating Systems (viruses, security vulnerabilties which take forever to get fixed, and IE *cringe*).
Another Microsoft lock-in. Games. When I mention Linux as a possible solution, they are all excited when they hear about all it can do for them. Then the subject of games comes up. They cannot live without their games. "I'd just to linux in a heartbeat but I'd miss my games". Hell, some folks thinks that Linux is not desktop ready till games will be fully support in linux. Can you believe that some blame linux for not being enough compadible to windows to run their beloved games?
The Ms OFFICE argument is pretty stale by now. I know most folks use MS Office but hey, you can use MS Office in Linux now. No big deal. Really? Yes, really. Oh cool. I'll have to check it out. (some time later, oh...sorry, didn't have time to check it out, too busy (or lack of interest?)).
I actually had a conversation with my dad the other day. He usually just uses IE for his web surfing. Why? Because it came with the laptop. I told him that I despised IE because it's not, in my opinion, a real web browser. Until it is w3c compliant it can go to hell. Will he switch? No. Why not? Too much effort. Too used to IE. Downloading firefox is too much trouble for him. A 2 minute operation is too much of his time wasted?
We live in a sad sad world.
Why should people change when what they have works for them? Does your dad really need strict W3C compliance? I mean, really, why should he switch? IE renders most pages correctly, especially pages that weren't written by people who just want to show off how unreadable their page is in IE. People want to play games on their computers. It's not Linux's fault that no one writes games for it, but that doesn't change the fact that people want to play games. Linux doesn't give them that choice (except for a handful of token games that the Linux fans keep screaming about). Yes, Quake 3 should be good enough for anyone. Right...
What kills Linux on the desktop (somewhere that it has no real place in my opinion) is that Windows is good enough. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Until the FOSS people come together and start making a true operating system and stop making a kernel with programs that happen to run on it, they have no chance of making Linux relevant on the desktop.
I haven't had any issues using IE7 yet, but I haven't visited that many sites. I will say that IE caught an error in my start page at work. Firefox renders it just fine, but IE broke because I had an extra space in my doc-type definition.Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
What if they just don't know any better? Ignorance is bliss, I swear. IE only renders most pages correctly if the web developers are thoughtful enough to test out the web pages they develop on as many browsers that they can.
I agree that it should comply to W3C, ideally, but how much demand is there for it by end-users? I mean, what is it that would get Microsoft to pay for its coders to go back and make sure that IE is always W3C compliant? Which browser do you use?If IE actually complied to W3C standards, I wouldn't have to worry about IE compliance issues when I do web development. The people who feel the pain the most are actually web developers.
I'm talking more about culture. I've tried a few different distros and the only one that felt cohesive was Debian. Maybe it's a perception thing. On the desktop, however, I've yet to find a cohesive environment. Anyone can write a program and can make it look however they want. That's fine, but it's not a good thing for Grandma or Joe Bob down the street. Windows, for all of it's faults, puts out a more user-friendly interface. I've never tried MacOS X, so I can't comment on it.Linux IS a true operating system. Wait a sec, are you actually calling a Windows a TRUE operating system?
Why, because I don't think that Linux is really ready for the desktop?Obviously you are in Window's target market. Enjoy.
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I haven't had any issues using IE7 yet, but I haven't visited that many sites. I will say that IE caught an error in my start page at work. Firefox renders it just fine, but IE broke because I had an extra space in my doc-type definition.Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
What if they just don't know any better? Ignorance is bliss, I swear. IE only renders most pages correctly if the web developers are thoughtful enough to test out the web pages they develop on as many browsers that they can.
I agree that it should comply to W3C, ideally, but how much demand is there for it by end-users? I mean, what is it that would get Microsoft to pay for its coders to go back and make sure that IE is always W3C compliant? Which browser do you use?If IE actually complied to W3C standards, I wouldn't have to worry about IE compliance issues when I do web development. The people who feel the pain the most are actually web developers.
I'm talking more about culture. I've tried a few different distros and the only one that felt cohesive was Debian. Maybe it's a perception thing. On the desktop, however, I've yet to find a cohesive environment. Anyone can write a program and can make it look however they want. That's fine, but it's not a good thing for Grandma or Joe Bob down the street. Windows, for all of it's faults, puts out a more user-friendly interface. I've never tried MacOS X, so I can't comment on it.Linux IS a true operating system. Wait a sec, are you actually calling a Windows a TRUE operating system?
Why, because I don't think that Linux is really ready for the desktop?Obviously you are in Window's target market. Enjoy.
I'm a standards person. I like for things to be consistent. I'd love to see IE and Firefox pass the Acid2 test and anything thrown at them, but I don't think that will happen. In my mind it comes down to diminishing returns on the time invested. Each browser has to strike a balance based on what is acceptable to the developers/companies.Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
Don't feel like doing all the quoting crap.
Sadly enough, most IE users just don't give a flying fvck about standards. At least the ones I've spoken to. And I tend to do my surfing in firefox. But I use all browsers for work related matters.
Now, you call Windows a more user-friendly interface. Again, that's perception. What I would honestly love to see is someone who has never touched a computer before in their life and tell us honestly which user interface they like better. Most in the world have been trained on Windows. Henceforth, they got comfortable with it. I personally find the KDE user interface the most friendly of them all. I also hate gnome And in case you were wondering, I did spend 5 years in Windows before even touching Linux.
Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
While everyone is here and arguing about all things Linux-y...
My spare PC is a Dell 700m laptop, and while I'd like to install Linux on it, I'm slightly concerned about issues like overheating and fan control? Should I have any worries, or is some of this handled at the sub-os level now? (and the rest like processor-throttling handled acceptably by Linux).
Being able to confidently run Linux on the laptop would bring me into the fold... I really don't like having to use cygwin for projects.
While I'm at it, this is sort-of one of my major peevs about Linux--you can find directions for things but they're on some hax0r k1dz website... he can't spell and yet you're trusting him with advice on how to configure your computer. Some of the IBM DeveloperWorks articles are pretty good, but in general, it would be nice to have a slightly more authoritative source on some questions--particularly when it seems like there might be some chance of frying your hardware (like older xorg.conf file settings).
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
My only gripe with Linux is that there is no standard. Someone needs to set a standard so people can grow. I don't want to have to compile a program to run it. Why can't they follow the trends that Windows and OS X offer. You double click a App and it helps you install something. I don't want to run the terminal type it a bunch of crap only to see I forgot a part and it didn't install.
Why can't they unite Linux to a select few distros and create a universal package style installation or at least make them all use a universal package system.
I agree that it should comply to W3C, ideally, but how much demand is there for it by end-users? I mean, what is it that would get Microsoft to pay for its coders to go back and make sure that IE is always W3C compliant? Which browser do you use?
On the desktop, however, I've yet to find a cohesive environment. Anyone can write a program and can make it look however they want. That's fine, but it's not a good thing for Grandma or Joe Bob down the street. Windows, for all of it's faults, puts out a more user-friendly interface. I've never tried MacOS X, so I can't comment on it.
They are actually working on that. Ever since the two large Linux companies merge, they've been talking about standardizing Linux like nothing ever heard of before.
That's pretty ironic considering that if you take a look at XP, WMP11, MSOffice and Visual Studio you'll notice that not a single one of them looks like the others and that's just stuff from MS. Some of them even use custom open/save dialogs for no apparent reason. It's been my opinion for a few years now that Gnome or KDE are a lot more consistent than anything on Windows.
The desktop entry specification describes desktop entries: files describing information about an application such as the name, icon, and description. These files are used for application launchers and for creating menus of applications that can be launched.
The entry format described in this document is similar to that traditionally used by KDE and GNOME. Both KDE and GNOME implement version 1.0 of the specification.
Originally posted by: Nothinman
You're retarded, X is many magnitudes better than Win95 or even WinXP. X hasn't been considered slow since ~1995 and with Vista the GUI large chunks of the drivers have been moved to userspace so the difference is even less than before.
Maybe because they implemented some sort of GUI defrag program that makes it seem faster to you?
Seriously tho, you wanna sit there and say that the 2D and 3D capabilities of Linux in GUI mode stack up to XP? I really don't have to respond to that...but what hell, we're like best friends here.
It's not just a matter of the OS, it's also a matter of driver quality...and guess what, none of the major manufacturers are going to funnel a lot of man-hours into their Linux drivers when Windows is the dominant OS.
2) Yeah I can't disagree with you here. Linux is secure when properly configured, but the increased security isn't deployed quite as gracefully as possible. It can make for some tedious trouble-shooting when you are trying to figure out why something isn't working due to security permissions being too high for one program or too low for another.
You're complaining about Linux being too secure and not secure enough at the same time, please?
Where do you see me complaining there? Are you disagreeing with something I said...which would mean that you are suggesting that a fresh Linux install is "bullet proof" and hardened to a reasonable point? Read what is written, and respond to what is written. Do not imagine words. Linux can be a b1tch, and don't act like you never had a WTF problem due to permissions.
Once again I say you're retarded, I've been using Linux on my desktop for years and it's been plenty stable.
I bet you also have CRT monitor and a mouse with a rubber ball in it...because they're both "stable". Did you just upgrade to the latest 2400 baud modem? Solid.
Actually it's based on NeXT, the userspace is based on FreeBSD but the real core is based on Mach from NexT.
Yeah that's worth pointing out...did you dig that up on "web crawler"?
Seriously tho, you wanna sit there and say that the 2D and 3D capabilities of Linux in GUI mode stack up to XP?
It's not just a matter of the OS, it's also a matter of driver quality...and guess what, none of the major manufacturers are going to funnel a lot of man-hours into their Linux drivers when Windows is the dominant OS.
Linux can be a b1tch, and don't act like you never had a WTF problem due to permissions.
I bet you also have CRT monitor and a mouse with a rubber ball in it...because they're both "stable". Did you just upgrade to the latest 2400 baud modem? Solid.
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Of course they do, can you name some capability that X doesn't have that Windows does?
At least in the case of nVidia the drivers are almost all the same code, they have a shim that interfaces with the kernel but the core of the drivers are the same on all the OSes that they support. ATI may not be smart enough to do the same thing but that also might explain why their drivers suck so bad.
Of course not, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have "gracefully deployed increased security" and not expect it to get in your way a little bit when you're debugging something. But the fact remains that it's many orders of magnitude easier to troubleshoot permissions problems on Linux than it is on Windows.
I just replaced my CRT a few months ago because my new machine doesn't have VGA out on it, so currently I'm using a LCD connected via DVI and it works fine, just like my my mouse although it may be old enough that the rubber on it's wearing off but it's got no balls and it's even USB. And I haven't used an analog modem in probably 10 years, but I have had the same cable connection through all of that time even though the cable itself has changed owners 3 or 4 times. And FIOS should be in my area soon so I'll be looking at that this year.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
I've never had permissions problems on any Windows system. Windows is pretty good at delegating services' security settings. Linux requires quite a bit of manual intervention, and if you mess up your box can fall apart pretty quick.
Not just that, but running programs on Linux can be quite tedious since the game will most likely want access to resources that it doesn't have high enough "clearance" to access. No such problems on a Windows system.
Originally posted by: AtlantaBob
While everyone is here and arguing about all things Linux-y...
My spare PC is a Dell 700m laptop, and while I'd like to install Linux on it, I'm slightly concerned about issues like overheating and fan control? Should I have any worries, or is some of this handled at the sub-os level now? (and the rest like processor-throttling handled acceptably by Linux).
Being able to confidently run Linux on the laptop would bring me into the fold... I really don't like having to use cygwin for projects.
While I'm at it, this is sort-of one of my major peevs about Linux--you can find directions for things but they're on some hax0r k1dz website... he can't spell and yet you're trusting him with advice on how to configure your computer. Some of the IBM DeveloperWorks articles are pretty good, but in general, it would be nice to have a slightly more authoritative source on some questions--particularly when it seems like there might be some chance of frying your hardware (like older xorg.conf file settings).
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
My only gripe with Linux is that there is no standard. Someone needs to set a standard so people can grow. I don't want to have to compile a program to run it. Why can't they follow the trends that Windows and OS X offer. You double click a App and it helps you install something. I don't want to run the terminal type it a bunch of crap only to see I forgot a part and it didn't install.
Why can't they unite Linux to a select few distros and create a universal package style installation or at least make them all use a universal package system.
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
My only gripe with Linux is that there is no standard. Someone needs to set a standard so people can grow. I don't want to have to compile a program to run it. Why can't they follow the trends that Windows and OS X offer. You double click a App and it helps you install something. I don't want to run the terminal type it a bunch of crap only to see I forgot a part and it didn't install.
Why can't they unite Linux to a select few distros and create a universal package style installation or at least make them all use a universal package system.