Is Linux nearing XP usability?

[msg43]

Linux has made great stride but still has a few more years to go before becoming comparable to XP or OSX. Full NTFS support. Better package manager. More intuitivity and media handling (as well as the hardware) would put Linux in a good fighter spot. But it still needs real software support.

I mean regardless of what anyone says The Gimp has nothing on Photoshop. A few real base applications for linux and it would def have a great shot.

586270238[/snapback]

NTFS support!!!!!!!!!!! Are you on crack?

Dude if anything microsoft should have ext3 and/or reiserfs read / write support

Microsoft has not released much on ntfs so it is extermely hard for devleopers to allow write to ntfs.

I don't think mac os is able to write to ntfs.

[Mike Douglas]

usability?,very very far away my friend

adding t this,the linux community will have to double effort to even get to the toes of Windows vista,in terms of technology and compatibility

just my 2 cents

586269508[/snapback]

Compatibility:

When was that last time Windows read from an EXT3 or ReiserFS disk? Or how about opening a OASIS (Openoffice, Abiword, KOffice) document?

Technology:

Nothing comes to mind here, can you give an example?

edit: msg43 got there first ;)

[markwolfe Veteran]

• Full NTFS support. - Already covered. Microsoft keeps this secret, so the support in there is really quite impresseive for a reverse-engineering job. Also, for users who don't dual-boot, this is a non-issue. Only when Linux and Windows are dual boot does this become relevant at all.
  
• Better package manager. - :blink: synaptic. Unrivaled by anything Microsoft offers. 'nuff said.
  
• More intuitivity and media handling - if by "intuitive" you mean "works like Windows", then there are distros that do this (Linspire, for example). Other than that, Linux was made to work like Unix (as a Minix clone, originally). So, their target for "works like..." was not Windows 3.1 (which was the Microsoft OS of the time). Once a little bit of learning is done, it really isn't difficult.
  
• [better handling of] the hardware - this is the biggest sticking problem when manufacturers don't release technical data, nor write drivers for Linux. It isn't a "Linux" problem, per se, but it is a challenge for Open Source in general.
  
• But it still needs real software support. - and here is where I agree with you the most! Unfortunately, this is a chicken-and-the-egg thing. Companies are reluctant to port a lot of software until they see a market, and it is tough for a market to pop up where there isn't a lot of supported apps. :wacko:
  

I mean regardless of what anyone says The Gimp has nothing on Photoshop.

586270238[/snapback]

Gimp is a very capable piece of software. Is it professional-grade? No. Does it more than meet the needs of a typical home user? Most certainly.

[Knight']

Yep, Photoshop is the one Windows app I need, thankfully this can run under Linux though :)

[SoNiCfReAk]

You NEED Photoshop? The Gimp wont do? Why not?

[markwolfe Veteran]

He could be a professional Graphics Designer.

[Lexxan]

How can you even ask that? Until every hardware manufacturer makes drivers for linux on every piece of hardware they make it'll never even be close. There's a million things it sucks at supporting. IE. Lets say a newbie installs ubuntu with wireless.. oh no WPA.. that's great. Oh it doesn't support certain soundmax digital audo cards.. or infrared home receivers for remote control. It's also really handy that you have to edit xorg.conf files to make all of your mouse buttons work (thumb buttons). I could list 1000 things at least..

Linux is garbage for the average power user. Maybe it works for any retard who needs to check their email and browse the web because you can leave two icons on the desktop. Then you have the group of people who are willing to spend 30 minutes setting up their mouse.. and don't mind.

[markwolfe Veteran]

586274310[/snapback]

Please keep the anger to a minimum. This is a discussion, not an "argument" (big difference) where we try to insult other people and start a flame war. :crazy:

[ichi]

Until every hardware manufacturer makes drivers for linux on every piece of hardware they make it'll never even be close.

586274310[/snapback]

If that ever happens then linux wont be close but far far ahead. Even Windows lacks that kind of support from HW developers.

[Lexxan]

and how would it be far ahead? In the last 10 years I still haven't seen one way it's ahead.. Most of the open source programs I've used are garbage and bugged to the max.

[kblacy]

I've used Ubuntu for over 10 months now and other than some minor networking problems have found it to be just as good as XP in almost every way. The only real issue between the capabilities of linux and windows that i've seen are if someone is willing to spend the time to learn to use it.

[ichi]

In the last 10 years I still haven't seen one way it's ahead..

Well, some examples:

-Do you remember a thread some time ago with some people drooling over the idea of setting up small clusters with their home computers on windows? That's already doable on linux (and has been for a long while).

-Updating your whole system with a single click.

-Automated check of known bugs in every installed programs and auto-applying patches.

-Clean method for installing/uninstalling software. No garbage left clogging your system.

-No need to use AV or anti-adware/spyware programs (don't bother arguing why this happens or trying to foresee how this might change in the future: right now it's a fact).

-Files are identified by their mime type by reading their headers rather than just relying on their extension.

-All the users' data and config files are stored in their respective home directories. Each user can configure programs the way they like without getting in other users' way, and the system directories remain clean of user related stuff.

-No reboots needed unless you're replacing the kernel.

-You can keep using programs while updating them.

-Shared code. X instances of a single program don't take up X times the memory needed to run a single instance.

-Modular libraries. Patching a bug in a library doesn't require updating every single program that uses that library.

-Better resource management, eg. better memory management means less paging to HD and therefore better overall performance.

Just to name a few.

Most of the open source programs I've used are garbage and bugged to the max.

586274370[/snapback]

Are we talking about linux or about weird stuff you can find browsing sourceforge?

[Lexxan]

heh Well whatever I have nothing against linux but until someone actually proves that it's even comparable to windows.. I'm never using it for desktop again. FreeBSD all the way for my server.

ps. Are they ever going to come out with decent audio/video support for gaim or any msn client? All the clients suck.

[markwolfe Veteran]

and how would it be far ahead? In the last 10 years I still haven't seen one way it's ahead.. Most of the open source programs I've used are garbage and bugged to the max.

586274370[/snapback]

You should use different apps, as the apps that are packaged with leading Linux distros are very well-written.

http://secunia.com/product/5251/

http://secunia.com/product/4933/

http://secunia.com/product/5036/

http://secunia.com/product/4368/

http://secunia.com/product/73/

http://secunia.com/product/4227/

http://secunia.com/product/404/

Microsoft, on the other hand, doesn't seem to fare quite as well to these Open Source "garbage and bugged to the max" category.

http://secunia.com/product/22/

http://secunia.com/product/11/

http://secunia.com/product/3292/

http://secunia.com/product/1438/

http://secunia.com/product/2275/

I have nothing against linux but until someone actually proves that it's even comparable to windows.. I'm never using it for desktop again.

586274538[/snapback]

I don't think that any of us are terribly concerned what OS you use as your desktop. Use what suits you best. If it is Windows, I doubt you are going to get "boo"ed out of the *nix forums...

[ichi]

ps. Are they ever going to come out with decent audio/video support for gaim or any msn client? All the clients suck.

586274538[/snapback]

The CVS version of aMSN supports webcam. It will eventually be released as a stable version.

[Kreuger]

Yeah amsn is good. It's not fully functional yet but it supports recording which is cool. I think it's supposed to become stable around August

[dotRoot]

Why is it that Windows users bash Linux, while Linux users say "use what's best for you". Again this whole Linux vs. Windows thing is a personal question.

As for the usability. It depends on what you mean. For the average user? There are things in Linux that is easier than in Windows. Such as installing an app, which is ironic, since that's a huge argument by people against Linux, because people argue about what they hear, even if it is 5 years ago.

The biggest problem with the whole argument is that people come at it from the Windows user's standpoint and not an objective one. Which brings up another valid point. If you come to Linux as a Windows user, then you will be disadvantaged compared to someone who has just first started using a computer. Why? Because the Windows user expects Linux to work like Windows and the completely new user just learned how to work it.

And for the GUI vs. the CLI? Hah. The CLI's usability is almost always higher than the GUI on any OS (not including restrictive emulation). Now some of you are getting usability confused with Windows user friendliness. For that look to my comments above this one.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Why is it that Windows users bash Linux, while Linux users say "use what's best for you".

586275756[/snapback]

meh... There are a few (unfortunately) very vocal people who tout Linux as a god-send, and bash Windows. I imagine most of these to be new people just starting with Linux. They are a bit misguided and immature, and post drivel that no one on either side of the OS question want to read.

There are bad apples (no OSX pun intended) in each OS camp. :no:

[CaKeY]

There are bad apples (no OSX pun intended)

:laugh:

[nicedreams]

For anyone that has used OSX, it's the UNIX core and kernel. There is even a hidden command line.

Linux has been up to par with XP for awhile now. Novel SUSE 10 is awsome and 9 is really nice. Ubuntu (debian) Linux is very much like using XP as far as usability and flexability.

The only disadvantage Linux has is that most popular commercial software is not being developed for Linux like it is for Windows. It's like the same for a MAC except MAC has better commerical software support.

Most people think of Linux like it's the early 90's or something. Linux today is just as and more powerful for a desktop platform.

I personally like Linux distros more because it is more flexable than Windows. I don't have to buy or download software to do something I want. Teching is even easier. I use Knoppix all the time to fix Windows issues since it is easier since they have better utilities.

I hope Windows Vista has better flexability and from what I have read, it seems like they are going to copy the linux command line from what it sounds like to me.

[ProgramGeek]

Linux should be as easy as WinXP but Linux offers so much, it can overwhelm a new comer. It did that to me. I didn't know I could use up to 4 decktop environments, have 3 browsers, or 2 office suites for free.

Now, that may keep some people from Linux at home. They could make a flavor that is easy on options, plenty of programs but not too many of one type, and drivers for more hardware. I always had a problem with integrated devices and Linux.

Article

EDIT:  I fixed the URL

585379667[/snapback]

Heh, No.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a zealot either way when it comes to linux, but what does linux honestly have when it comes to windows? The fact Microsoft has a huge percentile of the desktop market share isn't the reason Linux won't pull through on the desktop market - it's simply nailing linux in the coffin. The Open Source model is being grossly missused when it comes to linux. People just grab the kernel, add software, and make their own "distrobution". Then some modify and add upon other "distrobutions". So what do we get? Developers split between which libraries to program with, which ideals to stick to, corporations, etc.

The open source development model isn't contributing to linux on the desktop - it's satisfying the what certain people want personally. So many distrobutions out there, all the developers you could ever dream of, but the oppurtunity is so wasted.

Microsoft's software developer's don't **** and moan because their being payed. When you get a guy programming open source applications, he is going to do whatever the hell he wants, he doesn't give a damn about the unified process of creating a desktop OS. Honestly, linux is sweet to try out, but it's hopeless - it's like a spider web of software made by different people with completely different goals...

Firstly. Imagine the Kernel.

Now, imagine hundreds of distrobutions, just imagine that as the potential power of linux breaking into a thousand pieces.

Majority of these distrobutions should be forks off redhat, debian, and slackware, keep their package system, make all your own packages.

Next, let's split some developers from each distrobution to work on QT or GTK apps - They won't change, they'll keep their bullheaded opinion until death.

Now make 100 window managers.

Now make 5 different web browsers, 10 different text editors, 4 image editors, 40 terminals, etc.

Great -- Now if your apart of the linux PR department, tell your users your giving them "choices". Yes, linux, all about choices. Now time to hit the irony.

Your programming in open source. You could collaborate together and all get what you would like, but you all wish to go on your own paths. Great. Linux should of been more democratic from the start. We shouldn't have KDE and GNOME, we should have one modular desktop environment based off the same window toolkit. You wonder why flame wars come about of KDE and GNOME. People are damn zealots -- gnome and kde users are just as stuck up as the developers in the way they make their software. Both KDE and GNOME are huge pieces of software - but both are trash when compared to explorer because explorer doesn't have to fit to 1000 damn distrobutions, kernel compilation configurations, etc.

WHY compile a kernel? Why not give the user the option to change his setting from within the OS? Windows runs perfectly fine for me, and I'm not compiling it with all these tweaks and compilations. What linux really could use is an open standard people could start accepting. Linux should regroup - It's talk is due to the fact it has potential, but isn't moving anywhere

[ichi]

WHY compile a kernel?  Why not give the user the option to change his setting from within the OS?  Windows runs perfectly fine for me, and I'm not compiling it with all these tweaks and compilations.

You can change your settings from within the OS same as you can change your settings on Windows, but you can also tweak a lot more stuff if you recompile your kernel. Stuff you just cannot touch on Windows. If you feel like tweaking the kernel, you can, as simple as that.

Regarding all the rest (regrouping and stuff) that just wont happen. Not that way at least. If I feel like coding a new WM myself at home, who are you (or anyone else) to tell me to stop the development and join another project?

Things will evolve through natural selection, not imposition, and still there'll always be lots of apps for the same task. Else GNU/linux would become another Windows... if I wanted that I wouldn't be using linux in hope that it becomes the way I want it to be, but would rather be using Windows already.

[ujjwal]

People just grab the kernel, add software, and make their own "distrobution". Then some modify and add upon other "distrobutions". So what do we get? Developers split between which libraries to program with, which ideals to stick to, corporations, etc.

Whats the point? Do you really think that all that talent is going waste? Sure, in an open source model, different people concentrate on different things, and develope that which interests them, but do you think it is so disorganised that things are redone again and again? Just take the example of KDE & Gnome. Lets say a KDE developer gets a brilliant idea, and incorporates it as a feature in KDE. Now, if the Gnome team wanted to provide the same to their users, they would not have to take time to build a whole new way to implement it, but they could look at the KDE source and see how it was done. Maybe they would implement it in a better way, and this would soon be reflected in KDE. Like that, things can get better and better.

Compare that with a set of closed source software. Obviously, companies cannot share their code with every other company, they keep their secrets to themselves. If they innovate, they improve their software. Some one else wanting to implement that would be starting from scratch, or trying some reverse engineering. As you can see, things have to be redone again and again.

(Note that I am not against commercial apps, I use many good ones daily, like Opera and Applixware)

It was really interesting to see you brush aside the factor of "choice". In the end, users are different, they want different things. You may prefer a fluxbox like interface, and I may like IceWM more. There is no "one size fits all" software. By having different developers concentrating on different tastes, and sharing all things that are common, you get to satisfy a larger userbase.

The way I see it, an open source software is a result of someone's interest or hobby. It isn't made under any deadline or pressure, but the developer gets to shape it exactly as he likes. If it gets mass approval, it would have a large userbase, attract more developers, and become a large product. Software which appeals to a smaller fraction still has its dedicated user group, and fills the niche it was made for. That which is poorly made tends to die off with lack of interest.

I will agree that the so much choice here may overwhelm new users, and could make things difficult at first. But personally I feel that the advantages of having different software's for the same purpose far outweigh the disadvantages. Now if there were just a single linux distribution, a single desktop environment, and a single software for each purpose, I would most probably not be using linux at all. I like being able to mix and match software to meet my needs, if you don't want this, you can use a pre fitted distribution, and use the provided software. If you don't even want to be able to mix and match, don't use linux :)

[dotRoot]

Microsoft's software developer's don't **** and moan because their being payed.  When you get a guy programming open source applications, he is going to do whatever the hell he wants,

The GPL, LGPL and most others make it so people have to contribute their source back to the original's tree if they use the code for any reason. This makes it so Open Source is being bought with code instead of money.

Microsoft used 4.4 BSD's TCP Kernel, but unfortunately the BSD license doesn't make you give source code back. You just simply have to state where it came from in some documentation somewhere. I don't think it even states where or how to display it. MS misused the open source model sort of there. BSD users don't mind though, because their license pretty much states their model as "We want devs to use something better than they have if that is why they are using their source, without worrying about anything. We also don't want devs to constantly 'reinvent the wheel'.

The Open Source model works, however, people just don't understand it. Also some people DO in fact get paid money for their open source works. Either by the consumer buying the app or by just simply selling support for it.

Firstly. Imagine the Kernel.

Now, imagine hundreds of distrobutions, just imagine that as the potential power of linux breaking into a thousand pieces.

Majority of these distrobutions should be forks off redhat, debian, and slackware, keep their package system, make all your own packages.

Next, let's split some developers from each distrobution to work on QT or GTK apps - They won't change, they'll keep their bullheaded opinion until death.

Now make 100 window managers.

...

Linux, when just a kernel was always about choice. Before an OS was even created for it. That's why the kernel was created under the GPL. I understand what you are thinking. You want developement centralized. However, nothing would be developed nearly as fast as it is being done under today, if all the projects were centralized.

People have their own ideas of how things should look, run, and do stuff. Which is fine. Linux was not created to take any market share. It was simply to give the users that wanted it a choice. Simple as that.

WHY compile a kernel?  Why not give the user the option to change his setting from within the OS? 

586279627[/snapback]

I would just like to add with ichi's statement that users don't even have to compile the kernel themselves if they don't want to anymore. That's another thing some package managers will do for you as well. Apt-get and yum being some.

Linux may be getting easier for everyone. In fact a lot of the basic stuff the average person does in Windows is easier. Maybe not familiar though, which is the disadvantage.

[Shadrack]

Quote from first page:

you have to do things the way apple/ms wants you to do things, and if you want to do something they haven't thought of already, you have to trick it to make it think your doing something else.

i dunno, hard to explain.

Like creating two folders that point to the exact same spot in the file system but can be interfaced the same through other programs seamlessly. In Linux this is cake, just make a symlink. Make 20 symlinks! Windows, not so easy and requires additional 3rd party software. Its a shame too, because it is such a useful feature.