>>2
Oh yes, a package manager fixes all your problems...
...as long as all you want to run is whatever the idiot doing the packaging thought was good, and only as long as it meets the freedom requirements of the distro.
I can run nightly builds of whatever software in whatever version of my OS I want without having to install dozens of megabytes of shit and without compiling anything. Let's see you do that, though guy.
Still stuck running an ancient MPlayer rc2 build after having to add some extra repository? How many versions is that shitty Firefox fork Iceweasel/IceCat/whatever lagging behind right now for your "stable" distro?
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-12 18:42
>>17 ...as long as all you want to run is whatever the idiot doing the packaging thought was good, and only as long as it meets the freedom requirements of the distro.
Since the discussion here is Linux vs Windows, what about run whatever microsoft thought was good and without any freedom?
>>18 You can still run whatever you want on Windows, nobody forces you to install anything you don't want, and if you have some x86 reverse engineering skills, you can pretty much change anything you want from proprietary products, as long as you don't care about the legalities of doing so. Most free software that matters also works or can be built or ported to Windows without too much effort.
I have no idea why people are having such problems with apt. But I really don't care, I'm not going to advocate it, it works for me, go use whatever works for you.
>>21
I've "mastered" Loonix just fine, any kind of retarded monkey can copy-paste commands, read long-as-fuck man pages and google shit.
It's just that it gets really old really fast.
Hint: Compiling stuff and goofing around with config files and such is not being clever or anything. It's just doing idiotic grunt work that is not necessary in the first place, as every successful software piece has proven again and again.
People like you are the reason Linux and friends have lost-in-noise market shares.
>>22
The only reason why things are "easy" in Windows is because somebody took the effort to make things easy. You can have the same thing done in Linux by finding someone to do the hard work for you.
>>22
You've never used Linux seriously. You don't have to compile anything more often than you do on Windows. You don't have to read man pages more often than you do on Windows. You don't have to touch config files more often than you do on Windows (and actually considerably less often, if you consider the Windows registry).
>>24
Have you ever even used Windows? These idiots claiming Windows is user-friendly are sheltered morons who've never seen a single alternative.
For the average user, something like Ubanto is a considerably better choice than any version of Windows. For more advanced users, it's ridiculous to even have the conversation.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-12 21:50
>>25
When people say user friendly, what they really mean is familiar. When people say intuitive, what they really mean is familiar. People that say Windows is user friendly really and Linux isn't really mean: I am familiar with Windows and not Linux and I cannot/will not find anyone to help me with Linux.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-12 21:59
>>26
This is exactly right, and also the reason most of the people arguing in favor of Windows are in that zone between complete beginners (who would favor something like OS X or Ubuntu) and moderately competent computer users (who'd be edging on their way towards Linux). It's always the ignorant who make the most noise.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-12 22:17
>>27
I'd like to add, when people say there are no programs on Linux, they really mean either of two things: I am ignorant of the political and technical aspects of computer software; I recognize the fact that I am choosing to be helpless to help myself instead, I am ready to give up my freedom to anybody that will write software that covers my requirements.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-12 23:36
Setup.exe are more work than ⌘Tab to the Finder, ⇧⌘A, then drag-and-drop the app bundle.
>>25 You've never used Linux seriously. You don't have to compile anything more often than you do on Windows. You don't have to read man pages more often than you do on Windows. You don't have to touch config files more often than you do on Windows (and actually considerably less often, if you consider the Windows registry).
Have you ever used Windows? Ever? I've never had to compile a single program on windows in my life. I've had to compile dozens on linux and it sucks ass. There are NO MAN PAGES YOU GNU FANBOY, nor config files. As for the Windows registry, you don't have to touch it at all.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 11:29
>I've never had to compile a single program on windows in my life.
Even when you write programs?
>As for the Windows registry, you don't have to touch it at all.
If fact you will have to patch it of you need to change settings not exposed by Control Panel(which is 95% of settings).
Plain and simple: Windows is for people that can't or don't want to understand the technology. It may as well be a Mac for all the differences in the UI.
Most Windows uses wouldn't know the difference if they had thin client running a Terminal Server/Citrix session. Simply because all most people do is run an app or two, get email, browse the web, and print.
People like them and >>32 just need a set top box and need to stay the fuck away from a real machine.
Better still use of a computer should require a license based on a rigorous competency exam.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 11:36
>>34
Why would I want to dick around in terminal if I want to check my email?
>>32,35
This is what Windows users actually believe.
Name:
Delicious Copypasta2009-08-13 11:45
Back three years ago I was sure I'd never leave. Now, I was no kernel dev, but I found out what it was like to try. In the meantime I grew up, and realised there's two sides to Linux.
* The 'user' side, where you put up with limited, buggy and badly designed software, finding yourself grateful it even exists, and
* The 'dev' side, where your success is proportional to the thickness of your skin. Your willingness to sit there and listen to argue with some other twit whose age you guess at 13 over something you know isn't furthering your project one bit. Oh, and telling people who post "I'm leaving" threads on the forum how wrong they are about everything, and how little their contribution was really worth anyway.
Go and have a look at forums.gentoo.org, where you'll see both at work. I gave up too. For a long time I thought, through contributions and advocacy, I'd help Linux make some real headway in the Server and desktop market. Eventually I came to believe that it would never be big, it'd just mean more communities and more infighting and little real progress.
So I'm sorry, Alan. I'm really sorry, but you've made the right move. Thanks for everything.
>>39 you funny guy.
I haven't booted my Windows machine in over a year. It makes a nice doorstop. The wife and kids all use linux now, and have no issues with it.
Your Windows fanboyism is a failure. Go suck Steve Ballmer's cocks some more.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 12:25
Ubanto is better for the average web-email-music-photos user than Windows if they are too poor to afford macs
I tried to use Linux as my desktop. Really. But I can't.
It doesn't have a nice replacement for ACDSee for doujin browsing, doesn't have a program able to make m3u8 playlists, iceweasel fucks up the images, etc.
>>44
>It doesn't have a nice replacement for ACDSee for doujin browsing
What's wrong with any of the many image viewing programs there are on Linux? Gwenview (KDE 4) works great for me.
>doesn't have a program able to make m3u8 playlists
I seriously doubt this, although I don't know for sure. Why not just use Amarok/Rhythmbox? I prefer Rhythmbox myself.
>>50
I have an OS 9 install on an ancient G3. Using it makes me feel exactly as crippled as being forced to use Windows does, but at least it's more responsive than Vista.
>>51
There's only one moron arguing for Windows. That's significantly better than the equivalent thread on /g/ would be.
But yeah, the discussion isn't very interesting.
>>45
Sure is great having to spend countless weeks finding a distribution that works for him when no distribution works for the average person.
You prattle on about freedom and owning your machine, but that's bullshit when you spend countless hours trying to get it to do anything. That's when the machine truly owns you, and you have lost freedom to your machine.
>>59
Sure thing. I've used Fedora Core and later Fedora, I've been used by Mandrake and later Mandriva. I've tried Gentoo and a couple other crackerfuck distributions like Arch. I haven't tried Ubanto yet, Ubanto scares me. I'd rather go with Debian.
>>57,60
For all of OS X's faults, at least it has a CLI. Seems kind of a waste to develop an entire OS and then not let users use most of it, but that's exactly what OS 9 did.
That's when the machine truly owns you, and you have lost freedom to your machine. CRAWWWLING IIIIIIIN MY SKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN
THESE WOUUUUUUUUUNDS THEY WIIIIIIILL NOT HEEEEAAAAAAAAAL
>>63
Oh great, the "Macs run Unix" myth again. Just because you can telnet out to a real machine doesn't mean Macs are any more Unix-like than Windows. Stop listening to Apphole's completely made-up marketing hype, and just use an OS that isn't fundamentally crippled from the ground up and laden with 40 pounds of DRM everywhere you look.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 16:34
>>65
There's more to the world than average users. Aiming for mediocrity gets you the attention of the mediocre.
Remember the Apple I? Those were good days.
>>70
Any part the developers didn't explicitly waste time writing a GUI for.
That's without even getting into the fact that GUIs are a suboptimal interface for most things you'd want to use a computer for. But of course, dipshits like you don't understand there's more to a box of blinkenlights than a checkbox and an OK/Apply/Cancel button set.
>>71
CLI shit isn't a natural part of an OS, it's a sign of developer laziness. You can do far more with comprehensive GUIs and inter-application scripting than by reciting nonsense to whatever loose code fragments someone left cluttering up your /bin. The only reason so many UNIX programs are CLI-native is because there was never a good portable GUI standard.
>>72
protip: it's faster to type than to mouse clicky. always has been, always will be, hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 17:15
>>72
In a sense it's good to know you're a troll, but I actually have to deal with people who really believe that IRL. I'm still waiting for one of them to write a GUI for grep.
It's like arguing about the utility of sight with a blind man. Or not even a blind man, just someone who insists on keeping his eyes closed at all times.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 17:19
>>74-san. Yes the blind man can understand why sight is important. The True Believer who was told to close his eyes only knows what his Leader allows him to see.
>>72
CLI tools are still very useful, and I'm not talking about UNIX in particular. There's also GUIs which integrate their own scripting languages, and allow executing user-written commands within them. A GUI should be used to considerably accelerate a user's task, not to just dumb it down for some computer illiterate folk to find easy to use.
>>76 There's also GUIs which integrate their own scripting languages, and allow executing user-written commands within them.
…like OS9.
A GUI should be used to considerably accelerate a user's task, not to just dumb it down for some computer illiterate folk to find easy to use.
Also like OS9.
>>79
I know that old versions of Mac OS had no scripting language.
I've used Macs before. The interface in old versions was a picture of a manila folder, and every application on the computer was a button that made a retarded clicking noise when you opened the program. There was no room in that interface for a scripting language. I checked.
OS X introduced an actual desktop and a taskbar based on what Windows had at the time, and all the Apple users shat themselves because the interface was way too complex for them to understand.
The AppleScript project was an outgrowth of the HyperCard project. HyperCard had an English language-based scripting language called HyperTalk, which could be used for embedding logic and behavior into a HyperCard stack. Apple engineers recognized that a similar scripting language could be designed to be used with any application, and the AppleScript project was born as part of System 7.
AppleScript was released in October 1993 as part of System 7.1.1 (System 7 Pro, the first major upgrade to System 7). QuarkXPress (ver. 3.2) was one of the first major software applications that supported AppleScript. This in turn led to AppleScript being widely adopted within the publishing and prepress world, often tying together entire complex workflows. This was a key factor in retaining the Macintosh's dominant position in publishing and prepress, even after QuarkXpress and other publishing applications were ported to Microsoft Windows.
>>45
Then which distribution do you recommend? The most "user friendly" is said to be Ubuntu, and as far as I know it's just a bloated version of Debian.
>>46,47,48
I'm just too used to ACDSee. I want a file browser where I can hit enter and view the images in that folder. Tried countless replacements but none worked so I installed an ancient version of ACDSee with wine. Maybe it's X that sucks because scrolling an image is too slow.
Windows has spoiled me and I'm uncomfortable using anything else. Like using Super+D to minimize everything and using Super alone to bring up the menu, something that I couldn't manage to configure in xfce.
>>88
You can configure xmonad to do that if you know Haskell
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 21:08
>>88
To be fair, nothing will ever be as convenient for EXPERT JAPANESE CARTOON PORN COLLECTORS as what 90's ACDsee would be today had it not become an useless bloated piece of shit.
(Xee.app would be pretty decent if you didn't have the choice between a years-old version with shitty jaggy upscale and unofficial builds crashing every 200 pictures)
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 22:04
>>88-90
Not >>88 here, but I feel his pain. It's amazing how hard it is to find an image viewer that has both a decent navigation sidebar AND the very trivial option of zooming images to width on fullscreen.
>>88 I want a file browser where I can hit enter and view the images in that folder.
Both eog and gthumb do that. As do most others. If you want to whine about missing features, pick features that are actually missing.
Like using Super+D to minimize everything and using Super alone to bring up the menu, something that I couldn't manage to configure in xfce
This is why total beginners use GNOME. It's much easier to configure than it is under Windows.
>>92 This is why total beginners use GNOME. It's much easier to configure than it is under Windows.
Not just beginners, some of us actually like GNOME No, I'm serious
>>88,91
This software is free software. This means it is your responsibility to find skilled people that can fix up software to meet your requirements.
>>97 your responsibility to find skilled people that can fix up software to meet your requirements
This means you find a programmer and pay him money. This is no different for hiring a gardener for your garden or hiring a band for your party.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-14 11:38
>>97
Look at how the iPhone was always intended to be controlled completely by Apple. Apple locked the iPhone to stop unblessed iPhone software from entering it. To unlock the iPhone, users only needed to take it to their local iPhone unlocker. Users didn't need any technical knowledge to perform this feat.
The point is that users can do something similar with free software: if it doesn't work how you want it to work, you go to your local software programmer and pay him to fix it.