What is Linux missing that you would require to complete get off Windows?

[BFG10K]

Linux is missing that fact that it's not Windows.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Sunner
A bunch of games.
WINE was a complete PITA last time I had a go at it, might try it again some day.

For work though, I use Linux almost exclusively(I need to keep a Windows box around for Outlook and the admin GUI for FW-1).

ugh, three of the worst POSes of all time.

As for nVidia's drivers, I've never had a problem with them, and as long as they work, I dont mind them being in binary form.
They perform just as well as their Windows counterparts, which is more than can be said about most manufacturers, which to me maked them the best Linux drivers available for consumer cards.
The whole "tainted kernel, no GPL" thing isn't an issue for me as Im not very religious about the whole GPL thing, Im a technician, not a politician.

Matrox releases specs for their cards (atleast the G line). Im not a huge GPL fan, but I an a fan of open source/free software (gpl and other gplish licenses/bsd and bsdish licenses). I dislike something I cant fiddle with.

Well, I agree it would be nice if they released it under some sensible open source license, but I respect their decision not to, it's their software as well as their hardware, and they may do as they like, and like I said, as long as it works in the end, Im a happy camper.

And the FW-1 GUI isn't that bad, just a "tad" slow

Its bad, and I think NG's is worse. But I dislike fw1 so Im not going to like the gui for it anyhow

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Codewiz

X does not require it. nVidia doesnt play nice, so they dont get the good stuff. Complain to nVidia to stop being dicks about it and open up the drivers under the GPL.

That sure isn't going to happen. They do not want other video card competitors to see how they do their drivers. People for the most part have always respected the quality of nvidia drivers so that means that nvidia doesn't want anyone to know their approach to drivers.

I am not saying that is the best approach but I understand why they do that.

I understand their way of doing things too, but it doesnt mean I have to like it
I show that dislike by not purchasing their products.

If they opened the specs a bit, a linux guy could write the drivers, which would be totally different than nVidia's. The only thing competitors could steal then were the specs given out to the developer.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I would trade off network transparency for speed.

I don't see the lack of speed in X, so I can't say the same.

OS X Jaguar looks a lot snappier than the previous versions. It's even offloading a lot of the GUI stuff to the GPU now using OpenGL.

It does sound good, but I'll hold off reviews until I get to use it (a friend has a 1Ghz G4 tower and I'm sure he'll get Jaguar for it), and of course it's another paid upgrade.

My OS X comments in that one thread I started at waiting for Jaguar. Possibly today, probably tomorrow is when I get it

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Linux is missing that fact that it's not Windows.

You mean it doesnt suck enough for you? Or that the company that doesnt exist that owns it doesnt rip you off every two years or sooner? Or the fact that there is a choice as to which OS you can use?

Back your tolling, crap talking comments up with something, stay in GH where there are people that will actually listen to your sorry ass, or STFU. Please.

 

[Nothinman]

Linux is missing that fact that it's not Windows.

That's one of it's best features.

 

[trmiv]

Mainly games. One big reason I haven't made the switch completely away from Windows is, there are a lot of games that I just have to play that aren't on Linux.

Also, web browsers that display the same as they do in Windows. Even after installing the windows fonts, I am never happy with the way Mozilla, Konqueror or Opera look in Linux, even if I set them to the same fonts as in Windows, there is just something that doesn't look right to me. I suppose it's a config issue, but I'd like it to just work correctly without hours of fiddling around.

Finally, a GOOD solution to use my iPod in Linux. I have a Mac iPod (not the Windows compatible one), that I use in Windows with Ephpod, and it works great. That same kind of support in Linux would be a must for me.

 

[geoff2k]

Games, mostly.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: trmiv
Mainly games. One big reason I haven't made the switch completely away from Windows is, there are a lot of games that I just have to play that aren't on Linux.

Also, web browsers that display the same as they do in Windows. Even after installing the windows fonts, I am never happy with the way Mozilla, Konqueror or Opera look in Linux, even if I set them to the same fonts as in Windows, there is just something that doesn't look right to me. I suppose it's a config issue, but I'd like it to just work correctly without hours of fiddling around.

Finally, a GOOD solution to use my iPod in Linux. I have a Mac iPod (not the Windows compatible one), that I use in Windows with Ephpod, and it works great. That same kind of support in Linux would be a must for me.

I think that is because X is still client/server and most of the time they do server-side font rendering. I've read a bit about client-side font rendering that's supposed to look very much like Windows, but I haven't been playing with Linux much these past few weeks so I haven't done much research. Perhaps our local Linux guru can give us some insight...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Linux is missing that fact that it's not Windows.

I agree, kinda sorta in a way.

My short answer to the thread title: Linux is missing ease of use.

Programs should install from a simple doubleclick on a standard setup/install file. Drivers for new hardware should setup in the same way without requiring the user to know anything. Compatibility with games would also be sweet.

I'm an older guy who grew up using DOS 3.2 and I knew my way around DOS. When Win3.11 and even Win95 came out I hated them. After many years though, something has become clear to me: What's so great about an OS(Operating System a la DOS/Linux) that requires you to learn more about it than you need to know about the apps you'll be using 99+% of the time? Shouldn't the perfect OS be the one that for all intents is invisible to the user? Shouldn't the user be able to use a computer totally unaware of what hardware he/she has or even how it works, but know that it will just work when an app is run on it?

I know that certain people who do certain things(server admins etc) may find Linux to be great for it's customizability and what not. To ask most users to use Linux though, is akin to asking engineers and scientists to perform all mathematical calculations by hand and not use calculators/computers.

Certainly Windows isn't even that user friendly yet, but it's years ahead of Linux.

 

[Nothinman]

Shouldn't the perfect OS be the one that for all intents is invisible to the user?

Yes, but

A) We're nowhere near that with any OS and with hardware and software so widely varying we won't be for a long time, OS X is the closest thing so far
B) It should be extremely verbose when things go wrong so it can actually be diagnosed, unlike Windows or OS X
C) It should be infinitely customizable for those who care to figure it out, sure defaults are good but not everyone wants to use them.

To ask most users to use Linux though, is akin to asking engineers and scientists to perform all mathematical calculations by hand and not use calculators/computers.

Not really, a lot of scientists and engineers use Linux and unix because it does what they need so well.

 

[CTho9305]

games and an equivalent of kazaa (gnutella is NOT good enough)

n0c - X sucks. You accept this. But also accept that for 99% of users, that is effectively a flaw in linux, since most people won't buy a different X server.

Linux as a kernel seems fine to me... its the rest of the OS that is lacking. And it doesn't "just work" yet as well as, say, XP IMHO

 

[CubicZirconia]

Games and the fact that its still a lot more complicated to use than windows.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Linux is missing that fact that it's not Windows.

That's one of it's best features.

Definately.

 

[sathyan]

better hardware support (esp. SANE)
express installations option (a GUI install)
better video playback performance

(I haven't looked comprehensively or recently so some may be available (prefer native support to WINE)

DreamWeaver*
Flash!*
PaintShop Pro* or PhotoShop or Fireworks - I prefer PSP and PS interfaces to GIMP
Eudora* - have yet to find a decent POP3/IMAP mail client
a simple database prog like MS Access* (that I can get my MDB files into)
Quicken or MS Money* (something that can import MNY files)
would like WordPerfect* (but OpenOffice is OK)
Acrobat*
ShowShifter*
Premiere or MSP or even VirtualDub
Tmpgenc
Nero* - I know Linux has a burning prog but I like this one
Exact Audio Copy
IrfanView
cam2pc
streaming media support - Real, Quicktime, WMP
OCR - Presto or OmniPage* or TextBridge
SmartDraw*
SPSS*

*= I've actually purchased these in Windows so Linux versions could be commercial

 

[Gaunt]

A reply to Nothinman's post, as best I can format it in a short amount of time.

You mean 'apt-get install program_name'. If you're compiling from source that's your choice, 99.9% of the Linux programs out there don't require you to compile from source any more, at the very least they usually have an RPM for those type of distros.

I could be wrong, but isn't apt-get limited to whatever applications are provided by the service it connects to? Maybe that service has everything you want to install, not sure, haven't used it. Wouldn't it be handier just to have a windows style setup? Heck, even a console based one would work, I'm not that picky. There ARE ways to make installation easy, I know that, but the user has to look for them, the developer doesn't really provide it. So, if an inexperienced user wanted to use linux, they get their distro installed, then they want to install an application, are they going to have a clue what to do? I would guess no... Meanwhile, windows user goes to website, download's "NewSoftwareSetup.exe", and they're off and running. Not a limitation of linux, just something it could have to make things easier.

Originally I had a bunch of quotes and some long complicated answers. Basically, what it comes down to is this. I won't switch to linux, or put in the time to learn it completely (which requires a LOT of time it seems) until they (the distro creators and the people in control) figure out what they want to do with it. I've tried RedHat, Slackware, and Mandrake. I haven't a clue what the difference is between them, and that's part of the problem. Sure free software, and plenty of it is fine, unfortunately 80% of the software I tried was complete crap. This is probably just my own experience though. when considering an OS for a server, I think linux. For work and games, I think windows. This is only because I can completely configure a windows machine to my liking in a very short amount of time, and get to work quicker. More experience with linux might change this, but the learning curve seems too high.

In trying to be as usable and configurable as possible, linux sacrifices simplicity.
Windows limits your options for the sake of being easier to use.

That is all. I don't think they will ever be truly comparable solutions. Each has it's place that the other doesn't occupy.

 

[Nothinman]

I could be wrong, but isn't apt-get limited to whatever applications are provided by the service it connects to? Maybe that service has everything you want to install, not sure, haven't used it.

Yes it is, it's limited to what's packaged on Debian's mirrors. But currently there's ~10,000 packages in Debian sid x86 and I can think of 1 thing I've had to compile because the package's licensing didn't allow redistribution, I believe it's GPL now so it'll probably be added.

Wouldn't it be handier just to have a windows style setup?

You mean where you run a program with admin privs and it does whatever it feels like?

There ARE ways to make installation easy, I know that, but the user has to look for them

Most distros that I know of allow you to install an RPM by double-clicking on it, all it asks you for is the root password.

So, if an inexperienced user wanted to use linux, they get their distro installed, then they want to install an application, are they going to have a clue what to do?

If an inexperienced user wants to install a Windows application and they've never done it before how do they know what to do? Hell how did they get the OS installed? I've seen people put in a floppy with setup.exe on it and watch them stare blankly as no auto-run appears. Those users shouldn't be installing software, they should have someone more experienced do it for them.

I won't switch to linux, or put in the time to learn it completely (which requires a LOT of time it seems) until they (the distro creators and the people in control) figure out what they want to do with it.

We know what we want to use Linux for, it seems you're the one that doesn't.

Sure free software, and plenty of it is fine, unfortunately 80% of the software I tried was complete crap. This is probably just my own experience though.

Very much so, after using the majority of Free software I prefer it to closed source ones any day. It just generally works better.

More experience with linux might change this, but the learning curve seems too high.

You're inability or unwillingness to learn isn't a fault of the system.

Maybe you should get a Mac, OS X is way ahead of Windows and you get the unix command line for when you feel the urge to learn something.

 

[Gaunt]

Alright, you win, I'm a moron who is unable to learn. Your points are valid, I concede that. I don't want to get into some childish flame war about something so stupid.

People prefer what they prefer, obviously you like linux. I do not. This is fine, everyone's lives will go on.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Gaunt
Alright, you win, I'm a moron who is unable to learn. Your points are valid, I concede that. I don't want to get into some childish flame war about something so stupid.

People prefer what they prefer, obviously you like linux. I do not. This is fine, everyone's lives will go on.

If it makes you feel better, you are in the majority. Market shares reflect that.

apt_get has come a long way to making stuff easier to install. Native application support and font rendering is what it is missing now IMO.

 

[vash]

I think this thread turned into a "Nothinman vs. the rest of the non-unix world". Nothinman has the points of what linux can and cannot do for most people, but remember, this background is definitely unix and the mentality of unix person is definitely different than one of a Win32 user (in terms of how a computer "should" run). Don't get me wrong, "Windows" has been battle tested, against millions of people for ease of use, etc. Linux is more "home grown" and has been built for people that WANT these pieces of functionality.

The difference between how a *nix user wants a computer to be "used" vs a non-unix user is astounding. I've sat in the middle, know the merits of both OSes and it basically boils down to "pride" (IHMO). *nix users seem to have the strongest pride and see any attempt to circumvent large amounts of security as a BAD THING. Win32 users want to see a useable desktop (by default), with little or no restrictions when installing, configuring, all with a consistant user interface (well, as consistant as Win32 is).

Win32 users can adopt to new applications, that's easy. The difference is in how we treat our OS. *nix users want complete customization, configuration, etc. Win32 users need much less configuration and expect something to work immediately out of the box. If that application doesn't work, its uninstalled and a new one is installed. From what I've seen, *nix users are far more patient in getting a specific application to work than Win32.

Again, that all boils down to pride.

vash

<puts the flame suit on of a root user>

 

[Gaunt]

Nicely summed up vash.

That is basically what I was trying to get at.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
X sucks.

I still don't see where you get this. IMO, X rocks.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: vash
I think this thread turned into a "Nothinman vs. the rest of the non-unix world". Nothinman has the points of what linux can and cannot do for most people, but remember, this background is definitely unix and the mentality of unix person is definitely different than one of a Win32 user (in terms of how a computer "should" run). Don't get me wrong, "Windows" has been battle tested, against millions of people for ease of use, etc. Linux is more "home grown" and has been built for people that WANT these pieces of functionality.

The difference between how a *nix user wants a computer to be "used" vs a non-unix user is astounding. I've sat in the middle, know the merits of both OSes and it basically boils down to "pride" (IHMO). *nix users seem to have the strongest pride and see any attempt to circumvent large amounts of security as a BAD THING. Win32 users want to see a useable desktop (by default), with little or no restrictions when installing, configuring, all with a consistant user interface (well, as consistant as Win32 is).

Win32 users can adopt to new applications, that's easy. The difference is in how we treat our OS. *nix users want complete customization, configuration, etc. Win32 users need much less configuration and expect something to work immediately out of the box. If that application doesn't work, its uninstalled and a new one is installed. From what I've seen, *nix users are far more patient in getting a specific application to work than Win32.

Again, that all boils down to pride.

vash

<puts the flame suit on of a root user>

I have few problems with what you said, except for the part I bolded. The intelligent Win32 users I know want security also and hate the fact Windows comes so open by default.

 

[Nothinman]

this background is definitely unix and the mentality of unix person is definitely different than one of a Win32 user (in terms of how a computer "should" run).

I started out a Windows user and was one for a very long time. But since I've gotten used to the way unix works I wish Windows worked like it, sometimes things require a little more work but it usually results in a much better working system.

I pretty much agree with the rest of vash's post though.

People prefer what they prefer, obviously you like linux. I do not. This is fine, everyone's lives will go on.

The thing is everyone who's used to Windows thinks Linux is hard for no good reason, but once you get used to how things work it makes more sense and is usually less work than Windows.

 

[vash]

I have few problems with what you said, except for the part I bolded. The intelligent Win32 users I know want security also and hate the fact Windows comes so open by default.

Well, all intelligent Win32 users know of the security holes and plug 'em right away. We know where to find and plug problems and we do it quick, so its no bother to us. All "power" Win32 users know and understand the power of all *nix variants, but don't use them one reason or another (for day to day use). If a VAC supported Half-Life client came out for Linux, I'd be one of the first people to ditch my Win32 partition.

vash