So I have been using Linux for a few days now and I love it, so much so that I am planning a full conversion off all my systems to Ubuntu when I get the time. A few things bother me though.
Linux, I have always thought, was home to the gifted, this was the place where people would teach you about creating little virtual machines, compilers and emulators in C. Customisation was king and nobody had the exact same installation.
What I have found so far though is a bunch of immature dolts who I equate to the equivalent of bullies who have so much hate for companies like Microsoft its not even funny. And to top it all of there is some guy named Richard Stallman who feels the best way to change how software is developed is to scare the crap out of anyone naive enough to listen.
Case in point is the hate towards mono. Now I moved to Linux to learn C, Python and maybe C++ if I get time since there aint much coming my way on the job front but I recognise the achievement the mono team have done and maybe hope to explore it in the future. This seems to be overlooked on Linux though, in fact there are many people who feel that mono is a great threat to Linux. In a land of choice I feel that some choices are not allowed but others are not. I sometimes feel like Linux software is analogues to Animal Farm some software is equal but some is more equal than others.
I'm not about to give up on Linux because of two reasons. The first is I feel it is a pretty neat operating system. It offers a nice mix of usability, customisation and exploration that I feel is needed for the average geek. The second is that the silent majority on Linux are actually extremely helpful and are more than willing to help you advance you knowledge of development (my chief interest).
It is an awful shame that the majority are silent. This has stopped me moving my GF and family to Linux. I feel that this is something that the community are eventually going to have to confront otherwise Linux may never reach the critical mass it is looking for.
First of all, I'm glad you love Linux! I'm glad to see someone who is really open to trying new things, even if it means in the end you wind up back to Windows/Mac/whatever.
Secondly, yes, unfortunately the fact there are Linux users who are spiteful against Windows is a problem - but it's a problem that even exists in Apple land (Apple dolts will always love to find Microsoft in a negative outcome, and they couldn't care less for Linux since it isn't shiny enough), and dare I say Windows land (Windows fanboys generally despise Macs for being expensive and Linux for being too hard).
I can understand your problem with people hating on Mono, but the reason why I think (note, this isn't straight from the gospel, but my own suspicions) some Linux users hate Mono is because it is an open-source compiler based on proprietary software framework. Now you may say that this shouldn't be a problem, but there is a worry that since Microsoft owns many software patents over some of the technologies of Mono, Microsoft could easily jeopardise the project by not offering their software patents or something equally as ruthless - and lest not forget Microsoft have no real reason to keep the Linux community, a competitor of their own OS, happy with granting the Mono project access to some software patents. That is, at least how I think the Mono project plays out, but like I said, I'm not entirely sure. This is why you'll often see Linux and opensource enthusiasts get red in the face over it.
A classic example of how proprietary software can cripple the open-source community is drivers - on my desktop computer, I have an NVidia graphics card. Because the drivers are proprietary, I'll have to wait around for updated drivers if I have an issue with my graphics card on Linux (e.g. screen resolution not displaying correctly, X Window System keeps crashing, etc). Now, if there was NVidia open source drivers released by NVidia, then the community could crack on restless on solving this problem very quickly. However, an example is that NVidia keeps the code proprietary to keep competitors at bay (lets just say it does, even though it sounds like a pretty stupid idea), and suddenly releasing an open source out in the open Linux world wouldn't be in their favour.
This is why you probably hear Richard Stallman talking about how people must be more aware of open source software and be persuaded to use it, as if open source is some kind of force not to be reckoned with. This may scare the crap out of you, but personally, I think the guy has some valid points, even if I don't 100% agree with them all the time. The guy is a complete loon, and I love him all the more for it - he is the real deal - the one guy who would wear a tin foil hat in order to prevent aliens from probing his mind (he doesn't keep a mobile phone so he doesn't get tracked - I kid you not)
Regardless of all this, I've always felt that Linux shouldn't be about being 1000% open source or 1000% anti-Microsoft or whatever. I've felt that Linux should be your own thing, and nothing else. The analogy I often give to newbie techies who want to know about Linux in terms of Windows and Macs is this:
If OSes were a food item you'd get from the supermarket (lets say frozen oven chips), Windows would be the supermarket brand - plain, simple, and pretty cheap, no frills chips. They don't do anything more but try to cash in on the big branded food manufacturers by replicating their products once they come out. They may try change their product by a little bit, but since quite a lot of customers buy their products, they'd rather not ruin their product and brand by radically changing the product every now and then.
Apple would be the premium product from the premium brand - they are the ones that the customer would pay that extra tax just to get that extra in return. The premium brands are more likely to try something new (e.g. chips with coating or spices sprinkled and ready to cook in the oven) since they aren't afraid of trying something new in return for more customer attention.
Linux would simply be you going around the supermarket and choosing what you want - either you go around and buy the ingredients fresh, or you buy the frozen chips and the spices (or maybe not, just plain chips), or you may want to go over-the-top and crazy, so youh ave home made fish and chips with fresh fish and frozen chips/freshly cut potato chips. The food may or may not go down well with friends and family, but that isn't the point - the point is does it go down with you? Linux is all about having that unique experience either by customising Linux through scripts, installing software, or just simply changing the wallpaper. Or you could get that unique experience by just trying any random Linux distro out for the first time, since there are loads.
So I really wouldn't worry about what people say DeanMc, and just try to enjoy Linux the way you wish.
P.S. For all those confused, when I say chips, I mean french fries, just in case you were wondering
P.P.S I hope that long winded analogy made sense :S
Oh, and I just wanted to add, I used to get into a serious *****-fest with a person I know at university over desktop managers (i.e. GNOME and KDE). Thinking back on it now just makes me want to slap myself across the face with a wet trout. Again, it's all about how your experiences are with Linux, not anybody elses.
I also wanted to write a blog post about this video of this stupid Ubuntu fanboy I found on Linux while looking for my laptop. Maybe tomorrow, I'm too tired. And angry.
Thanks for the input kregg, I guess Linux is what you make it. As for you comment shaggy, I dont play PC games so this is not something I can comment on. Due to fat finger syndrome and lack of MADSKILZZS I have had to give into xbox360ism
So I have been using Linux for a few days now and I love it, so much so that I am planning a full conversion off all my systems to Ubuntu when I get the time.
I thought you hated free software. You poo-poohed my suggestions of developing for Linux.
I hate the free software foundation, and still do as I feel they are out of sync with how the world works. But after speaking with you at length I felt it necessary to try Linux as you spoke so highly off it. I have not abandoned audiophile just merely taken a detour. So In essences this is pretty much all your fault Pena!
It is an awful shame that the majority are silent. This has stopped me moving my GF and family to Linux. I feel that this is something that the community are eventually going to have to confront otherwise Linux may never reach the critical mass it is looking for.
I don't think many in the OSS community particularly want Linux to reach critical mass.
You will find that any paradigm or platform has its evangelists and zealots. This is especially the case in the OSS community because it is driven by philosophical rather than capitalist goals. The goal of the Linux project is not to achieve a majority market share but simply to maintain a decent, modern, free operating system. The minority of whom you speak are perceived to be especially vocal because the project is maintained by a community rather than a corporation. You will notice that these people often take criticism of open-source projects personally — as if they wrote the entire thing themselves. Ignore them.
For more insight on the Mono issue... Google for "Microsoft Novell deal" or something similar. As I understand it Novell(which is the main company behind Mono's development, and also SuSE Linux), made a deal with Microsoft to develop Mono. Also their dealings are said to supports notions that software patents MS owns cover parts of GNU/Linux. Like Microsoft is saying, "we ownyour technology(code), and now we'll make you license the use of it". Would that make you angry?
I guess from my signature people can work out that my experience with Ubuntu was not so good. It was terrible so of course I went to the forums for advice. What I found was that it was very big and busy and filled with these types of zealots. They liked to go around ridiculing noobs for asking quite reasonable questions while not actually answering anything because they obviously did not have a clue themselves. Not once did I get a reply because the wording of my questions showed that I knew a lot more than they did. There were of course those that really knew their stuff but they obviosly could not be expected to get around and answer every question so I and many others who had the exact same problem got no help at all. I just switched to Puppy and it has worked perfectly on the same PC ever since. They are Linuxtards.
Slower than a crippled Vista
More buggy than a fresh XP install
Look! Down the road, some 50 miles behind the drunken snail.
It's Ubuntu!
I have seen that but have not experienced it myself. Granted I have not had to many questions that can't be answered by people I know a little better. As for the Novell thing. You should know that in an OS as big as Windows & Linux both sides are stepping on peoples patents. The issue is not with patents per se, its to do with what should and should not be patentable. If a guy came to my house and said he might sue me over patents that may hold in court I'd need a hell of a lot more convincing.
The thing about mono is, its based on (ECMA) standards. If MS where to rattle the patent chain at them they would simply remove the offending parts. Mono is a framework not a monolithic application and from what I have read is compatible by design not implementation (I.E both frameworks work off the same base standard) there are parts of both frameworks that differ wildly though and I think the assumption that mono IS the .net framework is flawed.
Personally I think they should have said they made a new framework based off standards that works similar to .net. That may have stopped some of the negativity.
People new to linux never expect the "culture shock" when moving from a windows environment to a Linux one. Especially when they were very experienced Windows users. I was the same. In my case I was too proud of my Windows skills (such as they were) that I baulked at the realisation that I really knew basically NOTHING about computing once I ventured into Linux. My first few posts on VBF after I took up Linux full-time were mainly derogatory ones, ranting about how hard Linux was to use and how everything is impossible to do.
It's all culture shock, and nothing more. I've been there, I've had the frustration and I came out the other side enlightened. Linux isn't harder, it's just different. The forums are filled with exactly the same kind of people (good and bad) that you get on windows forums. 99% of the time, if you're resorting to forums at all, then you're going about it all wrong.
Read the "man pages", especially where they have sections about where to get more info - those places are goldmines. In doing so you'll soon find that you frequent a few valuable sites that give you more information than you can shake a shebang line at.
For instance http://www.gnu.org/manual/manual.html is a damn good place to start. I spent much of today (at work) there looking at the "Gawk" documentation because I've never used gawk before and now I've got a weekend to become fully conversant with it before monday, when a new project requires it. Ther is easily enough info there to basically become an expert at Gawk in a few days. That's power that is.
Last edited by wossname; Aug 13th, 2010 at 01:26 PM.
That's not the issue though. As an is I like Linux, I don't think it's any harder than any other new technology I have tried. I enjoy the challenge. I just wasn't prepared for how much people want to shove their uninformed opinions down my throat. I don't like the fsf so I don't comment on it, I also don't think it's wrong, it's simply a difference.
Again I want to stress that I'm aware it's a minority and won't stop me from using Linux but each distro should come with a sticker saying "warning, some users bite"
Everytime I would install a copy of linux, if it was redhat, or suse, or ubuntu, i would get it working and then ask myself why I did it, what was the point, and then go back to windows so I could write software that runs on 90 some percent of the worlds computers
Wow, Kregg makes some good points, even though he is clearly too drunk to type coherently.
The one question I have had about Linux is this: How many game titles?
I... I don't drink...
Oh and in answer to your last question, not a lot to be honest (without using WINE), but the ones that are available are free to use. With WINE, the compatibillity of Windows games is ever increasing, but honestly, I've never got the same performance out of WINE than I have out of a game running running Windows.
Originally Posted by kleinma
Everytime I would install a copy of linux, if it was redhat, or suse, or ubuntu, i would get it working and then ask myself why I did it, what was the point, and then go back to windows so I could write software that runs on 90 some percent of the worlds computers
-The point of using Linux-
-klienma's head-
Not only that, but that is quite a flawed argument in itself. One could actually write software that can run on Windows on Linux - it entirely depends on the tools you use (e.g. Mono, Java, etc). It's not impossible.
Everytime I would install a copy of linux, if it was redhat, or suse, or ubuntu, i would get it working and then ask myself why I did it, what was the point, and then go back to windows so I could write software that runs on 90 some percent of the worlds computers
See that was exactly what I said to penagate (he'll tell ya!) but I have slowly realised something. I make software for me not the 90% of the world. If they want to use it or play with the source code great otherwise the only install base that matters is mine, and its all on Linux.
... I purposely avoided the php/linux server argument
One could actually write software that can run on Windows on Linux - it entirely depends on the tools you use (e.g. Mono, Java, etc). It's not impossible.
Not only that, you can run Windows in a VM (VirtualBox) for development. I do development in a VM anyways (Windows on Windows though) so that would be acceptable for me.
That is kind of how I think of all Linux users really (though I know not everyone is the same) - to me they are just a bunch of people that use Linux because they want to feel superior to everyone else who is using Windows, in the same way that a lot of Mac users like to think their OS is better but couldn't tell you a single real reason why without resorting to marketing style phrases that dont actually mean anything.
I have nothing against Linux itself (though from my experience it sucks in a business network) but I just think a lot of people use it because they want to feel l33t. One thing I'm not keen on is the amount of command line stuff you seem to have to do - now I'm no stranger to command lines, as supporting a Windows network you still have to do the odd bit of command line work, but it seems a little over the top in Linux. There is nothing good or cool about command lines... they are just what people had to use before GUIs were any good. Again it seems to me that this makes Linux users feel more technical and knowledgeable but in reality it just means its more work to do something that would have taken a couple of clicks if it had a GUI option. In a modern OS I think you should rarely have to edit a config file or write a command line - you should just be able to click a button.
Oh and then there is the lack of drivers - which isn't really Linux's fault, its the manufacturers of devices not caring enough about Linux users to bother making drivers for it... but that doesn't change the fact that there is a lack of drivers. We had a linux server at work a while ago and foolishly went out and bought a standard HP network printer and expected it to work. In the end we had to get a refund for the printer and buy one that we found a Linux driver for on the web that was written by some random guy (as HP didnt seem to provide any Linux drivers at all at the time)
chris128, I pretty much agree with your post (I haven't seen Linux being used in a business network) - which is quite funny considering I just slagged off klienma above (sorry), but I wouldn't go as far as to say that there is nothing good about the command line interface - I'd say, for example, when one needs textual input, it seems like a waste to go and build a GUI interface just for a text box, a command button, and a label to describe what you need to enter, when you could've spent that time making it simple with a command line interface program. But lots of programs nowadays are far more sophisticated, so it does seem like a good GUI could help.
Personally, it depends on the task required - if I were to update software in Ubuntu for example, then I'd rather use the command line than the really slow Synaptic Package Manager that is provided with default. But that's all I have to add - I agree otherwise with the post.
Like everything in life, it depends on persons needs. If you for example need a classic office computer for internet browsing, audio/video playback, word processing etc linux would do just fine. For me personally it could do every task I have, except Windows development, so I don't see why it would be a bad choice.
it seems like a waste to go and build a GUI interface just for a text box, a command button, and a label to describe what you need to enter, when you could've spent that time making it simple with a command line interface program.
You are looking at it from the developer of the application/OS perspective though, I am talking about from a user of the OS perspective. If I got handed some software to use and it was all command line based just because that was easier and quicker for the developer then I would not be very happy... I know that is an extreme example but I'm just saying it doesnt bother me if it is more work for the developer, as a user of that product I expect to have a nice GUI to enter some text into rather than typing stuff into a command line console.
I do accept that in some situations using command line stuff is quicker, in Windows XP for example if I want to know my IP address I just type ipconfig into command prompt rather than going to Network Connections, locating the adapter I want to know the IP of and double clicking it and then selecting the Support tab (something like that anyway). I just think that stuff like that is fine, but Linux goes a bit overboard with it and forces you to use command line stuff or scripts where it would be perfectly reasonable to expect a GUI option to do the same thing.
It may just be that I have not used Linux enough to find the relevant GUI options for things that I was having to do via the command line on it but every time I hear or see anything to do with Linux it seems to involve editing a config file by hand or using some command line.
You are looking at it from the developer of the application/OS perspective though, I am talking about from a user of the OS perspective. If I got handed some software to use and it was all command line based just because that was easier and quicker for the developer then I would not be very happy... I know that is an extreme example but I'm just saying it doesnt bother me if it is more work for the developer, as a user of that product I expect to have a nice GUI to enter some text into rather than typing stuff into a command line console.
I was actually thinking from a users point of view, but maybe I forgot to put it across in my post (seriously, I tend to say so much on things, I think it would be better if I went away for 3 months to write a dissertation on a topic which could be summed up in one word, like "good" or "crap"). And I agree in the majority of cases, quite a lot of software that relies on you just tinkering around with bash scripts or some unforsaken command line interface can be attributed to laziness on developers behalf and not enough focus on the user.
I would say though that you probably haven't met the appropriate GUI for whatever software in command line you're trying to work on. If it is setting up or updating software, I pretty much doubt you'll find a GUI for the setup unless the installer/updater came with a GUI (one example springs to mind is the Adobe AIR installer) or the setup basically gives the user appropriate GUI popups according to the command line interface messages (I know Ubuntu does something like this when you update GRUB - it often asks me if I wanted to update GRUB and I have a set of choices, rather than entering text).
But there are some cases where, due to the wide range of hardware Linux gets installed on, there maybe missing drivers or ill-configured setups that aren't really anticipated by the developer, so the user will have to drill down into these scripts and have a little tweak. It's a problem that end users will face, but this seems to be not a big deal amongst the community since Linux is primarily used by hobbyists and enthusiasts who see something greater in Linux to let these flaws overshadow their enjoyment. I can't see my dad trying to modify the xorg.conf file to change the screen resolution to its correct size - he's only quite recently discovered Google and Google maps.
Everytime I would install a copy of linux, if it was redhat, or suse, or ubuntu, i would get it working and then ask myself why I did it, what was the point, and then go back to windows so I could write software that runs on 90 some percent of the worlds computers
You forgot about the part where it's only used by one six billionth of the world.
I just think that stuff like that is fine, but Linux goes a bit overboard with it and forces you to use command line stuff or scripts where it would be perfectly reasonable to expect a GUI option to do the same thing.
It may just be that I have not used Linux enough to find the relevant GUI options for things that I was having to do via the command line on it but every time I hear or see anything to do with Linux it seems to involve editing a config file by hand or using some command line.
About that...
When was the last time you actually used linux?
The GUI bit has been there already for years and actually Linux servers in business perspective offer less limitations than Windows servers.
It's pretty much what you're used to.
Also driver issues date back ages. As long as your system isn't too old and doesn't have a crappy chipset, you're fine.
Last time I used it was about a year ago, it was Suse Linux 10 or something like that. I'm not sure how you can say that drivers are not an issue if you have a decent chipset because I'm talking about drivers for printers etc not drivers for the actual server running Linux itself.
Also, I didnt say anything about limitations - perhaps Linux does have more configurable options and possibly more 'power' than Windows but thats not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about having to use command lines or edit config files to get stuff done.
Regarding the commandline interface topic above, I think Chris has missed the point, somewhat.
One of the most versatile and powerful aspects of an OS that has such a strong support for commandline work (and more specifically pipelining) is that basically the idea is that you have many small tools that do simple, precisely defined things, instead of having a smaller number of large monolithic applications that do many general things.
Case in point: if I want to move a bunch of files from one place to another then it's almost always easier and faster to do it on the command line, because otherwise you have to lots of time spend time opening a file manager GUI and doing all the tedious mouse clickery to get the job done. That's the simplest example I can think of.
A more complex example would be taking a data flat file, changing the order of the columns, filtering out lines that meet certain criteria, saving them to a file and then inserting the resultant data into a database table. That kind of processing is an extremely common thing in the real world and can be achieved from scratch in less than a minute via the commandline (for a person of average skill). The ability to chain the output of one program into the input of another gives you a gigantic amount of flexibility without any need to write or otherwise obtain new software.
Doing all that without commandline tools would be a pain in the behind.
Probably the most useful thing about the commandline (any commandline - even DOS) that it is, by definition, scriptable. If you can do it once, then you can do it a thousand times for no extra cost in man hours. That's a very big deal indeed.
The remarks about Linux not being suitable for business made my day, though. Thanks for the laugh.
By the way, my perspective on Linux is both as a user and a developer. I use the commandline for pretty much everything except web browsing (but only because lynx doesn't do ajax .
The remarks about Linux not being suitable for business made my day, though. Thanks for the laugh.
lol I didnt say it wasnt suitable for business - I know it is used in a lot of businesses. What I said was in my experience it sucks in a business network. I'm sure its great for hosting web pages etc but when one of our clients used it for their main file and print server it was nothing but a massive pain in the ass, so much so that they eventually paid thousands to have it all removed and replaced with Windows servers.
Oh and no I'm not missing the point of command lines at all - I do think there should be a command line alternative for lots of things, like being able to move some files like you said in your example. What I dont like is that in Linux it seemed to me (and again this is just from my experience) that for a lot of things there was no GUI option, you HAD to use the command line. That is what I have a problem with. I love things being scriptable but I dont want to always have to type things out and remember the syntax for loads of commands when I could just click a button.
We have Linux, Windows, and Macs on our business network. I think whoever has a problem with a particular platform simply lacks the required skills to use it properly.
We have Linux, Windows, and Macs on our business network. I think whoever has a problem with a particular platform simply lacks the required skills to use it properly.
Yeah but you could say that about any software, of course with enough time and effort you could learn how to use even the worst and most unfriendly operating system in the world but that doesn't mean its good or that its your fault for not knowing how to use it originally. A modern OS should be intuitive and easy to use so that you don't need to spend months learning how to use it.
Why, all I'm saying is that as well as the command line stuff just have a GUI option for the times when I dont want to script or automate something... I just want to be able to do something I've never done before but not have to look up the command and syntax for it, I want an intuitive UI that makes it obvious what to do. I dont think that is asking too much really and its possible that some flavours of Linux already provide much more GUI support than the version of Linux I used about a year ago but like I said I'm just going on my experience
Everytime I would install a copy of linux, if it was redhat, or suse, or ubuntu, i would get it working and then ask myself why I did it, what was the point, and then go back to windows so I could write software that runs on 90 some percent of the worlds computers
+1
-Max
The name's "Peck" .... "Max Peck"
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." - Red Adair
I installed Ubuntu on a 2nd computer I have at my house and it came with Firefox 3.0, which was alright but I wanted to install FireFox 3.5 (at the time) so I downloaded the package from their website and Ubuntu was able to open & extract the packages, so I went to install it and after a quick google check I was able to figure out that you can't just double click what looked like the main installer to install the app, but instead you have to use the package manager (which is stupid, imo) so I opened the package manager and clicked the install package button, navigated to the package file (I guess I didn't need to extract it in the first place, but oh well) and the package manager gave an error stating that it couldn't read the contents. Ok, so Ubuntu can read the file but the all mighty package manager can't, that's why I use Windows. Since then I haven't had the time to try another distro, I plan to eventually though just to try it out.
Edit: I do like using GUI's for things, I'm not much into scripting unless it's something like a login/logout script that does sync stuff. I hated Red Hat v6.x (a college class) because the GUI only had really, really basic things in it, it was all scripts and commandlines for basically everything, very annoying.
Currently using VS 2015 Enterprise on Win10 Enterprise x64.
Why, all I'm saying is that as well as the command line stuff just have a GUI option for the times when I dont want to script or automate something... I just want to be able to do something I've never done before but not have to look up the command and syntax for it, I want an intuitive UI that makes it obvious what to do. I dont think that is asking too much really and its possible that some flavours of Linux already provide much more GUI support than the version of Linux I used about a year ago but like I said I'm just going on my experience
It's too much to ask, just learn the commands damn you then you can look awesome in front of your windows chums, and at the end of the day that's all Linux is for anyway.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by DeanMc
).
I am further enlightened.
+1
