Windows XP was released on October, 2001. It's now close to 2012 and I've yet to see a single distribution of Linux that's half as pretty or easy to use. To the end user this is all that matters yet programmers seem to only care about abstract bull shit and optimizing routines no one will use.
Don't do this.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 3:39
Using Linux is like Tech Support in reverse.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 3:41
Genera was released in 1982. It's now close to 2012 and I've yet to see a single distribution of Unix/Linux/Windows that's half as pretty or easy to use. To the end user this is all that matters yet programmers seem to only care about abstract bull shit and optimizing routines no one will use.
Microsoft Bob was released in March, 1995. It's now close to 2012 and I've yet to see a single distribution of Plan 9 that's half as pretty or easy to use. To the end user this is all that matters yet programmers seem to only care about anii hax and optimizing barnsley's ferns no one will use.
Don't do this.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 4:16
If it ain't Lisp, it's crap.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 4:23
implying Linux is easy to use
How does one make a kernel that's easy to use for a user?
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 4:31
>>1
How is xp easier to use than say ubuntu?
The only reason so many people use windows is because it is preinstalled on the pcs they buy (and they most likely don't even know what an os is. To them a computer is a machine that runs windows)
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 4:41
>>8
They are both buggy crap, but Linux is worse, cause of it's installation mentality and separation of program files into usr/bin/lib/include crap. And Registry is supperior, because it provides uniform format to store settings.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 4:43
Even Amiga's workbench was better than Linux. Amiga also had no retarded file extensions.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 4:49
>>9
I don't like the scattered installation thing either but but the package manager takes care of all those details so the end user doesn't have to even know about it. Also most settings an end user will ever have to change are managed with dot-files in the home directory which is rather easy too.
Name:
F r o z e n V o i d !!mJCwdV5J0Xy2A212011-12-07 4:58
Linux suffers from "Kernel Superiority Syndrome"
The system is built for the running the kernel, apps are secondary.
In real world, OSes are built to run real apps, and only toy kernels for compsci projects focus on the kernel itself.
>>11
Linux package manager is an overengeneered bloate piece of shit, like the rest of Linux. The only thing really needed to install package is just putting it somewhere on FS.
I remember, there was an amazing utility of Windows, that allowed programs to run from inside a ZIP archives. It saved space and speeded-up startup time (no fragmentation and less disk access).
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 5:44
>>14
This should be the first commandment of OS design: if ZIP package is on user's system, it's ready to be used. No "intallation" or "install.exe" crap - just single ZIP file.
A nice blog for all of you to read, linux-retards.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 6:19
>>19
Let me get this right:
1. Load up the archive decompression program
2. Load up the archive into the decompression program and decompress the files
3. Load up the decompressed files and execute the binary
4. ???
5. Faster!
You know what, I can already feel the VTEC kicking in just by thinking about it.
Name:
F r o z e n V o i d !!mJCwdV5J0Xy2A212011-12-07 6:26
I don't think the benefit of loading compressed programs even exists:
1.the decompression must be faster than loading uncompressed data from disk
2.thus, you have to use very high compression, fractal or some range search.
3.any change in loaded data, means the file has to be reencoded.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 6:38
>>21 Load up the archive decompression program
It's always in memory.
Load up the archive into the decompression program and decompress the files
Done just in time and result is cached.
Load up the decompressed files and execute the binary
Wut?
I'd rather have an OS with a shitty GUI than one with a cockful of security vulnerabilities, of which the largest is that the source code is not available.
Know the joke about “Windows has detected a mouse movement – press OK to restart”? Well, at least Windows doesn’t go “Your Linux has detected a computer – press [Enter] to recompile the fucking kernel, but not before you edited some obscure config files, and certainly not before you recompiled this one module for which you’ll never get all the dependencies working, hahahaha”.
This is pure madness. It’s not the OS’s fault entirely either. It’s because application designers for Linux think that a huge part of the OS’s purpose is to drain away the user’s time in hopeless quests for a rudimentarily working system and perhaps some cosmic GPL karma. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, why almost any process could not be done in user land instead of the kernel. Except maybe that some 133t haxx0rs think it’s cool.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-07 10:26
And I’ve had it with this dependencies crap. Those millions of fat libraries that are ridiculously incompatible with each other, and also with other versions of themselves. And hell, since we got the source code to everything, let’s just compile everything right into the executables – so much better than shared object libraries! What happened to the Unix philosophy of having little specialized tools that share common interface formats? Nowadays, even stupid device drivers (which of course are all gigantic kernel modules) are grotesquely stuffed with capabilities, but you’re seriously fucked if you expect them to really interoperate with something.