Apple, Microsoft, or Linux?

[Beachchairs]

Fools, Plan 9 is the surperior os!

You win an internet (well, the part of it you can reach from your Plan 9 installation).

I'm just kidding.

I've never touched Plan 9.

[Beachchairs]

Why would we download, install and tweak Linux and spend weeks of our time to make it work, just to see...porn!

I don't get that.

If you just want to look at porn, all you need to do is download, then reboot. Don't even install.

That way, an malware you get goes away when you reboot again!

[Tekania]

a) 'root@hobytla# apt-get install foo' (or graphical installer of choice)

b) 'user@hobytla$ foo' (or graphical menu of choice)

For c), I have programs open now that have been running for over three months. Without reliability issues.

Edit: Yes, my system is called hobytla -- it's a very diminutive computer, so I thought naming it with a word for 'hobbit' was appropriate. It's running Debian -- your distro of choice may have a different package manager, and so the first command would be changed as appropriate.

Let's also not forget that Ubuntu/Debian and RedHat/Fedora package managers can be plugged into different repositories... Which means updates come down for EVERY piece of software (including Java, Mozilla and Adobe products)... As opposed to MS Windows Update which only updates stuff from, well, Microsoft...

[SD_Film Artists]

I'm reading this increasingly large thead and I'm still none-the-wiser on why a Mac has more going for it than just Final Cut Pro and skilled PR guys.

Depending what you do, there technically are a lot of potentially useful applications. I know people who make a lot of use out of GarageBand and iPhoto (there's some face recognition software that picks out individuals in the photos) for instance. I like it because it's unix based so when I do things on the command line it's the same as linux (and a lot of things are easier to do on the command line) and I can also ssh more reliably to my work computer. MacTeX is also very handy for writing LaTeX documents and there's a program called Papers that's apparently very good for organizing academic articles stored on one's computer (I haven't got around to trying it, but a number of my friends swear by it).

Thanks

Aye there are alot of good Mac-specific creative programs out there. Though there are a few things that would deter me from actually buying one for myself as aposed to using one at work, editing.

Macs can't run games (well they can, but not half as many as PCs), they have compatability issues, they're harder to upgrade and they're very overpriced. Oh and while they do seem more stable, especially when running them for long periods of time, they certainly don't "Just Work". XD The almost cult-like fanboys/girls are also a turn-off. Not that Windows doesn't have its own fanboys, just that even if you are a fanboy, buying a PC is still just buying a PC- not being 'part of the PC community' or treating Bill Gates as a deity.

That theory about Apple's security being better is interesting though. I used to think that Macs didn't get viruses 'because not many people use them'- "no one would rob a homeless person". But it's not like Macs are as rare as Linux systems.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

a) 'root@hobytla# apt-get install foo' (or graphical installer of choice)

b) 'user@hobytla$ foo' (or graphical menu of choice)

For c), I have programs open now that have been running for over three months. Without reliability issues.

Edit: Yes, my system is called hobytla -- it's a very diminutive computer, so I thought naming it with a word for 'hobbit' was appropriate. It's running Debian -- your distro of choice may have a different package manager, and so the first command would be changed as appropriate.

Let's also not forget that Ubuntu/Debian and RedHat/Fedora package managers can be plugged into different repositories... Which means updates come down for EVERY piece of software (including Java, Mozilla and Adobe products)... As opposed to MS Windows Update which only updates stuff from, well, Microsoft...

Windows update will also update your drivers.

[Tekania]

a) 'root@hobytla# apt-get install foo' (or graphical installer of choice)

b) 'user@hobytla$ foo' (or graphical menu of choice)

For c), I have programs open now that have been running for over three months. Without reliability issues.

Edit: Yes, my system is called hobytla -- it's a very diminutive computer, so I thought naming it with a word for 'hobbit' was appropriate. It's running Debian -- your distro of choice may have a different package manager, and so the first command would be changed as appropriate.

Let's also not forget that Ubuntu/Debian and RedHat/Fedora package managers can be plugged into different repositories... Which means updates come down for EVERY piece of software (including Java, Mozilla and Adobe products)... As opposed to MS Windows Update which only updates stuff from, well, Microsoft...

Windows update will also update your drivers.

Oh yeah, and if you're really lucky, your computer may even boot without a blue-screen after that.

Drivers on Windows Update are drivers written by MS for hardware they don't even own...

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

a) 'root@hobytla# apt-get install foo' (or graphical installer of choice)

b) 'user@hobytla$ foo' (or graphical menu of choice)

For c), I have programs open now that have been running for over three months. Without reliability issues.

Edit: Yes, my system is called hobytla -- it's a very diminutive computer, so I thought naming it with a word for 'hobbit' was appropriate. It's running Debian -- your distro of choice may have a different package manager, and so the first command would be changed as appropriate.

Let's also not forget that Ubuntu/Debian and RedHat/Fedora package managers can be plugged into different repositories... Which means updates come down for EVERY piece of software (including Java, Mozilla and Adobe products)... As opposed to MS Windows Update which only updates stuff from, well, Microsoft...

Windows update will also update your drivers.

Oh yeah, and if you're really lucky, your computer may even boot without a blue-screen after that.

Drivers on Windows Update are drivers written by MS for hardware they don't even own...

Not really.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/d ... WinUp.mspx

[Treznor]

[
Windows update will also update your drivers.

Oh yeah, and if you're really lucky, your computer may even boot without a blue-screen after that.

Drivers on Windows Update are drivers written by MS for hardware they don't even own...

Not really.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/d ... WinUp.mspx

If I download VLC on my Windows box, I have to reinstall it every time there's an update. Fortunately VLC will tell me whenever updates are available, but most software won't do that. Even then, I still have to go through the install wizard every time so it uninstalls and reinstalls.

However, if I install VLC from the repository on my Ubuntu box, it updates itself from the repository whenever there's an update. I don't even have to be aware of the upgrade process if I don't want to.

Tell me again which one is more user-friendly?

[Tekania]

[
Windows update will also update your drivers.

Oh yeah, and if you're really lucky, your computer may even boot without a blue-screen after that.

Drivers on Windows Update are drivers written by MS for hardware they don't even own...

Not really.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/d ... WinUp.mspx

If I download VLC on my Windows box, I have to reinstall it every time there's an update. Fortunately VLC will tell me whenever updates are available, but most software won't do that. Even then, I still have to go through the install wizard every time so it uninstalls and reinstalls.

However, if I install VLC from the repository on my Ubuntu box, it updates itself from the repository whenever there's an update. I don't even have to be aware of the upgrade process if I don't want to.

Tell me again which one is more user-friendly?

Not to mention the the default repositories + any added repositories are completely browse-able via the gui... Can have countless programs merely a search and checkmark away from installing... Unlike Add/Remove Programs (Programs and Features), Linux shows you what you have installed and what's available to install.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

If I download VLC on my Windows box, I have to reinstall it every time there's an update. Fortunately VLC will tell me whenever updates are available, but most software won't do that. Even then, I still have to go through the install wizard every time so it uninstalls and reinstalls.

However, if I install VLC from the repository on my Ubuntu box, it updates itself from the repository whenever there's an update. I don't even have to be aware of the upgrade process if I don't want to.

Tell me again which one is more user-friendly?

Why are you quoting me? I never claimed that Windows was more user friendly than Linux.

[Pure Metal]

You mean you don't have to go through an install wizard for most programs on windows? This is news to me.

What's with the aversion to install wizards? I just mash the next button until it finishes itself.

What's easier? Trying to figure out what the install wizard or asking you, or just telling the computer to install the software you want? You'd be amazed how many calls are fielded by Help Desks asking for clarification on installation wizards. Average users expect computers to blow up on them if they push the wrong button, and that's largely due to Microsoft's architecture. The Blue Screen of Death isn't just a pretty phrase.

When was the last time anyone got a BSOD from normal computer use? 1999? Maybe help desks should tell people to update their computers from Windows 98.
Oh no, what is the install Wizard asking me here: "Would you like to put a shortcut on the desktop?"
Yeah, that's a way harder option than "something_or_other-1.8.0.1" - wtf does that do? Hell if I know.

i don't know... my parents (only in their 50's) would probably freak out and ask me if they wanted a shortcut on their desktop.

but yeah, linux software can be really confusing. so many randomly named libraries and dependencies on little bits of software... it seems to me pretty impossible (at least impractical) to keep tabs on everything that's being installed, or needs to be installed, or upgraded, etc. which is why you use a package manager to do it for you. instead of controlling exactly what software goes on your computer, you tell it that you want X (say, GIMP) and it'll figure out what you need, what you have, what needs to be upgraded, and will get the files and do it all for you. when its done, you just find the new program in the menu (or call it from the terminal if you want/need).
you don't have to know any of the confusing details, unless you run into a problem. you don't need to know if you're using (or need) something_or_other-1.8.0.1 or something_or_other-1.8.0.3, for example. you kinda have to release control - which is exactly what you're told never to do on a Windows box, of course. it took me a long time to get used to that, and you just largely trust that stuff on those repositories is safe.

when you run into problems on nix, that's when things get really un- user-friendly, however. but then fixing problems on Windows isn't often very user-friendly either, especially when you're into editing the registry and stuff. most users don't want to touch any of that stuff with a 10-foot barge pole, and if people consider most distros of linux to be as non-friendly as that, then they're never going to try it.
now, i'm not sure about most people's experiences, but Ubuntu, for me, has been very mixed - installing and using for basic tasks, fine. installing basic software, fine. but stray outside of something that's not covered by a pretty GUI or nice help file, and it immediatley jumps back into stereotypical "scary linux" mode. personally, i've enjoyed going back to the command line since using nix, but most users are scared of this, and its one of the reasons i'm not convinced nix (or, at least, Ubuntu) is totally ready for the mainstream - if you use your PC for basic tasks (web browsing, photos, music, etc), then its fine. but with anything else, Windows does hold your hand a bit more. and maybe OS X holds your hand even more again (i don't know). of course there's an arguement that computer users should know more about some of the techy aspects of their computers, but that doesn't stop most users wanting it to 'just work' here and now (no wonder Apple has been pretty successful with that slogan...)

but it does seem that nix is getting better. i used an old (3 to 5 years old?) version of Debian the other day and was tearing my hair out, and eventually gave up on what i wanted to do. Ubuntu has been a lot smoother, both in the office, at home, and as a server... though not without the occasional problem that would cause the average computer (Windows?) user to run a mile

/rant (not sure what my point was, tbh...)

That's the biggest reason I run a variant of Ubuntu. The standard repositories have software I never even imagined existed, and for additional third party stuff it's a simple matter of adding another one. Pretty much every open source repository has a .deb build for Debian/Ubuntu installation. The last time I got stuck in "dependency hell" was when I was using Fedora 4. I last dealt with DLL hell in Windows a couple of years ago.

They're both getting better, but Windows insistence on bundling Microsoft software straight to the kernel is still a massive security risk.

dependency hell was what caused me to give up with my old Debian install, mostly.

(for non-linux users) when installing software with apt-get (package manager in some distros) tells you that there are unmet dependencies, it means that you need some other bits of software to make what you want to install work. usually you just say 'yes' to installing whatever is required and it goes and does it all for you. but when something goes wrong, like it did for me on this old Debian box, apt-get install -f (fix broken) did nothing, clearing cache and updating did nothing, search for help on the net, then dpkg decided to complain, i relented to install dependencies manually, but now dpkg was broken, tried to do a dist-upgrade cos i thought that might help, but some repositories couldn't be found for other dependencies.... and i gave up.

^ this is why linux may not catch on with the mainstream of people who want a computer to just work. this is probably a pretty silly/obvious problem to many of the more nix-savvy people on here, but it threw me completely (i could have continued, probably, but had had enough by then), and i'm quite happy learning about my computer and putting in time to do so, and fairly technical (though still a linux noob). if this made me pissed off and quite glad to go back to Windows (or a more up-to-date version of Ubuntu), then the average user is going to like it a whole lot less than me. a couple more years and maybe nix (Ubuntu in particular?) will be ready.

PuTTY is indeed rather great.

yay for PuTTY

[
Windows update will also update your drivers.

Oh yeah, and if you're really lucky, your computer may even boot without a blue-screen after that.

Drivers on Windows Update are drivers written by MS for hardware they don't even own...

Not really.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/d ... WinUp.mspx

If I download VLC on my Windows box, I have to reinstall it every time there's an update. Fortunately VLC will tell me whenever updates are available, but most software won't do that. Even then, I still have to go through the install wizard every time so it uninstalls and reinstalls.

However, if I install VLC from the repository on my Ubuntu box, it updates itself from the repository whenever there's an update. I don't even have to be aware of the upgrade process if I don't want to.

Tell me again which one is more user-friendly?

to be fair, some Windows software does do it better, like Avast antivirus. it notifies me when there's a new version of the software, i click a button to install now, it downloads itself and installs itself. all that's required is a reboot (usually). its not bad at all.
firefox is pretty good as well, thinking about it. it tells me there's a new version and updates itself accordingly (i have it set to automatic). if only more Windows software worked like these two.

[Intangelon]

My problem now is that you are obviously some sort of fanboy tool.

this is also my problem with Macs.

Otherwise, it would just another type of pc, just one not as universal as windows, but like linux server or playstation console.


But Nooooo, mac users have to go and worship their computers...
... if i think about it then the problem is same as with any religion. they are fine, until the moment when they try to persuade that their way is better than others

Yeah, , every one of us is a Mac moonie. Come on.

[Disposablepuppetland]

when you run into problems on nix, that's when things get really un- user-friendly, however. but then fixing problems on Windows isn't often very user-friendly either, especially when you're into editing the registry and stuff. most users don't want to touch any of that stuff with a 10-foot barge pole, and if people consider most distros of linux to be as non-friendly as that, then they're never going to try it.
now, i'm not sure about most people's experiences, but Ubuntu, for me, has been very mixed - installing and using for basic tasks, fine. installing basic software, fine. but stray outside of something that's not covered by a pretty GUI or nice help file, and it immediatley jumps back into stereotypical "scary linux" mode. personally, i've enjoyed going back to the command line since using nix, but most users are scared of this, and its one of the reasons i'm not convinced nix (or, at least, Ubuntu) is totally ready for the mainstream - if you use your PC for basic tasks (web browsing, photos, music, etc), then its fine. but with anything else, Windows does hold your hand a bit more. and maybe OS X holds your hand even more again (i don't know). of course there's an arguement that computer users should know more about some of the techy aspects of their computers, but that doesn't stop most users wanting it to 'just work' here and now (no wonder Apple has been pretty successful with that slogan...)
/rant (not sure what my point was, tbh...)

I think you've made a very good point there. For an average user, fixing Linux is likely to be impossible. (this may or may not apply to OSX as well, but most Mac users I know just send it back to the shop for repair and won't try to fix it themselves anyway)

On Windows, most problems can be fixed with a simple list of instructions from a web site. Even using regedit is not that bad for a basic user, provided the instructions are clear.

On Linux that simply isn't the case, because you're going to need to edit some text files, and most help on the web will tell you to use Vi, because they can pretty much guarantee Vi will be on your system.
If you've never come across it before, you cannot just start using Vi without a manual. You can't even quit out of Vi without a manual. For a basic user Vi is an unassailable cliff of a learning curve.

Now there are plenty of other text editors for Linux and some of them are no harder to use than Notepad, but unfortunately Vi seems to be the assumed default. That's a major problem for basic users and people trying to learn Linux.

[Beachchairs]

a) 'root@hobytla# apt-get install foo' (or graphical installer of choice)

b) 'user@hobytla$ foo' (or graphical menu of choice)

For c), I have programs open now that have been running for over three months. Without reliability issues.

Edit: Yes, my system is called hobytla -- it's a very diminutive computer, so I thought naming it with a word for 'hobbit' was appropriate. It's running Debian -- your distro of choice may have a different package manager, and so the first command would be changed as appropriate.

Let's also not forget that Ubuntu/Debian and RedHat/Fedora package managers can be plugged into different repositories... Which means updates come down for EVERY piece of software (including Java, Mozilla and Adobe products)... As opposed to MS Windows Update which only updates stuff from, well, Microsoft...

Windows update will also update your drivers.

Oh yeah, and if you're really lucky, your computer may even boot without a blue-screen after that.

Drivers on Windows Update are drivers written by MS for hardware they don't even own...

Yet, they are still better than any driver ATI* ever wrote.

Actually on Windows 7, the MS driver can be updated with Windows Update without a reboot. The screen will flicker twice.

*That is ATI the individual company, not ATI the division of AMD.

[Barringtonia]

That theory about Apple's security being better is interesting though. I used to think that Macs didn't get viruses 'because not many people use them'- "no one would rob a homeless person". But it's not like Macs are as rare as Linux systems.

I would venture to guess that part of it is that Mac users, or those good enough to code malware for the OSX simply wouldn't bother, since there is admittedly some brand affinity, and the OS is tied to the computer, it's a different relationship to, say, one's Dell, or Windows itself. I don't think people feel any real urge to code viruses that exploit Macs.

I think you've made a very good point there. For an average user, fixing Linux is likely to be impossible. (this may or may not apply to OSX as well, but most Mac users I know just send it back to the shop for repair and won't try to fix it themselves anyway)

On Windows, most problems can be fixed with a simple list of instructions from a web site. Even using regedit is not that bad for a basic user, provided the instructions are clear.

...which leads into this, fixing anything on a Mac is generally quite easy because all the solutions tend to be in one place, and since the software is tied in with the hardware it's all, generally, available - again, since Mac users are vested in Macs, they're incredibly helpful as a community.

Compared to PC, where it might be a problem with any number of software or hardware compatibility issues, I find that fixing my Dell can be more of an issue for me, if just finding the correct patch for the correct brand/model/OS.

Ultimately, of course, Macs are just expensive PCs with different operating systems, some advantages, probably a lot of disadvantages.

I use both, but I certainly use Mac for Keynote presentations, Powerpoint doesn't even come close. Then again, whatever Mac likes to say, I do have various compatibility issues on networks that make it more efficient to use a PC.

[Treznor]

when you run into problems on nix, that's when things get really un- user-friendly, however. but then fixing problems on Windows isn't often very user-friendly either, especially when you're into editing the registry and stuff. most users don't want to touch any of that stuff with a 10-foot barge pole, and if people consider most distros of linux to be as non-friendly as that, then they're never going to try it.
now, i'm not sure about most people's experiences, but Ubuntu, for me, has been very mixed - installing and using for basic tasks, fine. installing basic software, fine. but stray outside of something that's not covered by a pretty GUI or nice help file, and it immediatley jumps back into stereotypical "scary linux" mode. personally, i've enjoyed going back to the command line since using nix, but most users are scared of this, and its one of the reasons i'm not convinced nix (or, at least, Ubuntu) is totally ready for the mainstream - if you use your PC for basic tasks (web browsing, photos, music, etc), then its fine. but with anything else, Windows does hold your hand a bit more. and maybe OS X holds your hand even more again (i don't know). of course there's an arguement that computer users should know more about some of the techy aspects of their computers, but that doesn't stop most users wanting it to 'just work' here and now (no wonder Apple has been pretty successful with that slogan...)
/rant (not sure what my point was, tbh...)

I think you've made a very good point there. For an average user, fixing Linux is likely to be impossible. (this may or may not apply to OSX as well, but most Mac users I know just send it back to the shop for repair and won't try to fix it themselves anyway)

On Windows, most problems can be fixed with a simple list of instructions from a web site. Even using regedit is not that bad for a basic user, provided the instructions are clear.

On Linux that simply isn't the case, because you're going to need to edit some text files, and most help on the web will tell you to use Vi, because they can pretty much guarantee Vi will be on your system.
If you've never come across it before, you cannot just start using Vi without a manual. You can't even quit out of Vi without a manual. For a basic user Vi is an unassailable cliff of a learning curve.

Now there are plenty of other text editors for Linux and some of them are no harder to use than Notepad, but unfortunately Vi seems to be the assumed default. That's a major problem for basic users and people trying to learn Linux.

Since you were kind enough to reply to the section I most wanted to reply to, I'll reply to this instead.

"Average" users don't fix their own computers. "Average" users scream for their local computer guru when they think they have a problem, whether or not they're on Windows, Mac, Linux or an abacus. Looking up solutions for problems on Linux is about the same as looking them up for Windows -- except I'm less likely to hit a "subscribe with your credit card for this solution" site for Linux problems.

As for "vi," while many techs will use "vi" and recommend it, many also point out the availability of GUI-based solutions (like vim). Someone who is actually taking the plunge to fix their own computer instead of screaming for the guru will eventually figure this out if they're serious about it.

I've set up Windows systems for people, and invariably I'm called in to deal with some problem a few months later because somebody installed something stupid or deleted something they shouldn't have. I've set up Linux for a few people and I never hear from them except socially. "How's that box working for you?" "Pretty good. Kinda weird, at first, but I got used to it." "No problems? Doing everything you need?" "It is SO weird not running anti-virus. I keep thinking I need to check for updates."

[Tekania]

[
I think you've made a very good point there. For an average user, fixing Linux is likely to be impossible. (this may or may not apply to OSX as well, but most Mac users I know just send it back to the shop for repair and won't try to fix it themselves anyway)

On Windows, most problems can be fixed with a simple list of instructions from a web site. Even using regedit is not that bad for a basic user, provided the instructions are clear.

On Linux that simply isn't the case, because you're going to need to edit some text files, and most help on the web will tell you to use Vi, because they can pretty much guarantee Vi will be on your system.
If you've never come across it before, you cannot just start using Vi without a manual. You can't even quit out of Vi without a manual. For a basic user Vi is an unassailable cliff of a learning curve.

Now there are plenty of other text editors for Linux and some of them are no harder to use than Notepad, but unfortunately Vi seems to be the assumed default. That's a major problem for basic users and people trying to learn Linux.

I really hate to have to say this, but if you don't know there are other text editors, you probably shouldn't be trying to fix the problem yourself. And if vi is an "unassailable cliff of a learning curve" with such complex commands as ":save" and ":q" the person in question is probably too stupid to do anything past playing Solitaire (Assuming their can figure out how to open it without drooling on themselves first)... It's the same type of crowd who opened up Word 2k7 and went ape-shit... They move stuff, and suddenly it's an unassailable cliff. Not because its hard to figure out; just the people aren't capable of independent thought...

[Hairless Kitten II]

when you run into problems on nix, that's when things get really un- user-friendly, however. but then fixing problems on Windows isn't often very user-friendly either, especially when you're into editing the registry and stuff. most users don't want to touch any of that stuff with a 10-foot barge pole, and if people consider most distros of linux to be as non-friendly as that, then they're never going to try it.
now, i'm not sure about most people's experiences, but Ubuntu, for me, has been very mixed - installing and using for basic tasks, fine. installing basic software, fine. but stray outside of something that's not covered by a pretty GUI or nice help file, and it immediatley jumps back into stereotypical "scary linux" mode. personally, i've enjoyed going back to the command line since using nix, but most users are scared of this, and its one of the reasons i'm not convinced nix (or, at least, Ubuntu) is totally ready for the mainstream - if you use your PC for basic tasks (web browsing, photos, music, etc), then its fine. but with anything else, Windows does hold your hand a bit more. and maybe OS X holds your hand even more again (i don't know). of course there's an arguement that computer users should know more about some of the techy aspects of their computers, but that doesn't stop most users wanting it to 'just work' here and now (no wonder Apple has been pretty successful with that slogan...)
/rant (not sure what my point was, tbh...)

I think you've made a very good point there. For an average user, fixing Linux is likely to be impossible. (this may or may not apply to OSX as well, but most Mac users I know just send it back to the shop for repair and won't try to fix it themselves anyway)

On Windows, most problems can be fixed with a simple list of instructions from a web site. Even using regedit is not that bad for a basic user, provided the instructions are clear.

On Linux that simply isn't the case, because you're going to need to edit some text files, and most help on the web will tell you to use Vi, because they can pretty much guarantee Vi will be on your system.
If you've never come across it before, you cannot just start using Vi without a manual. You can't even quit out of Vi without a manual. For a basic user Vi is an unassailable cliff of a learning curve.

Now there are plenty of other text editors for Linux and some of them are no harder to use than Notepad, but unfortunately Vi seems to be the assumed default. That's a major problem for basic users and people trying to learn Linux.

Since you were kind enough to reply to the section I most wanted to reply to, I'll reply to this instead.

"Average" users don't fix their own computers. "Average" users scream for their local computer guru when they think they have a problem, whether or not they're on Windows, Mac, Linux or an abacus. Looking up solutions for problems on Linux is about the same as looking them up for Windows -- except I'm less likely to hit a "subscribe with your credit card for this solution" site for Linux problems.

As for "vi," while many techs will use "vi" and recommend it, many also point out the availability of GUI-based solutions (like vim). Someone who is actually taking the plunge to fix their own computer instead of screaming for the guru will eventually figure this out if they're serious about it.

I've set up Windows systems for people, and invariably I'm called in to deal with some problem a few months later because somebody installed something stupid or deleted something they shouldn't have. I've set up Linux for a few people and I never hear from them except socially. "How's that box working for you?" "Pretty good. Kinda weird, at first, but I got used to it." "No problems? Doing everything you need?" "It is SO weird not running anti-virus. I keep thinking I need to check for updates."

If a Windows luser his computer would fail, he will find an 'expert' easily.
If a Linux luser his computer would fail then he will have to search about 100 times harder to find an 'expert'.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operati ... px?qprid=8

[Tekania]

If a Windows luser his computer would fail, he will find an 'expert' easily.
If a Linux luser his computer would fail then he will have to search about 100 times harder to find an 'expert'.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operati ... px?qprid=8

Yep, *nix and multi-platform/mixed-environment experts are not as easy to find as Windows "experts"..

In my region there are about 20 companies that do on-site (SBO/Residential) IT/Computer Support; 1 does Apple/Macintosh only, 2 [mine is one] do mixed-environment[Apple/Mac,Windows,and *nix], the rest only do only MS Windows... And if you were smart, you'd either call my corp, or the other mixed-environment corp... Comparing a mixed-environment type to a Windows "tech" is like comparing a SpecOps unit to a Boy Scout troop.

[Treznor]

If a Windows luser his computer would fail, he will find an 'expert' easily.
If a Linux luser his computer would fail then he will have to search about 100 times harder to find an 'expert'.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operati ... px?qprid=8

The average luser isn't going to go searching for their own solutions, so I'm really not worried about it. Most of the tech gurus I know have their strengths and weaknesses. Very few of the truly competent ones are conversant in only one OS, and even they're capable of finding solutions on the web for unfamiliar problems.

When I started seriously delving into Linux, I found no lack of help for Linux issues on the web. Wrapping my head around that help was a different story, but the kernel and desktop managers had matured to the point where enough "just worked" to the degree that I could still use the system while I figured out how to tweak things. Now that I've improved my competency to the point where I don't need to boot into a Windows box any longer, theses systems have matured further that there's even less need to tweak stuff -- but it's still available if I want to.

[Disposablepuppetland]

I think you've made a very good point there. For an average user, fixing Linux is likely to be impossible. (this may or may not apply to OSX as well, but most Mac users I know just send it back to the shop for repair and won't try to fix it themselves anyway)

On Windows, most problems can be fixed with a simple list of instructions from a web site. Even using regedit is not that bad for a basic user, provided the instructions are clear.

On Linux that simply isn't the case, because you're going to need to edit some text files, and most help on the web will tell you to use Vi, because they can pretty much guarantee Vi will be on your system.
If you've never come across it before, you cannot just start using Vi without a manual. You can't even quit out of Vi without a manual. For a basic user Vi is an unassailable cliff of a learning curve.

Now there are plenty of other text editors for Linux and some of them are no harder to use than Notepad, but unfortunately Vi seems to be the assumed default. That's a major problem for basic users and people trying to learn Linux.

I really hate to have to say this, but if you don't know there are other text editors, you probably shouldn't be trying to fix the problem yourself. And if vi is an "unassailable cliff of a learning curve" with such complex commands as ":save" and ":q" the person in question is probably too stupid to do anything past playing Solitaire (Assuming their can figure out how to open it without drooling on themselves first)... It's the same type of crowd who opened up Word 2k7 and went ape-shit... They move stuff, and suddenly it's an unassailable cliff. Not because its hard to figure out; just the people aren't capable of independent thought...

And this highlights another problem that tends to be more prevalent with Linux than any other platform. The attitude among many of the more knowledgeable users that they are geniuses and everyone else is so stupid they shouldn't be allowed to even switch on a computer, let alone use one.
Computers should be easy to fix. Most configuration problems are fairly straightforward to resolve if the software is designed in a clear and logical manner, and you have appropriate tools to make the changes. Unfortunately Linux doesn't do well in either of these areas. (and by 'appropriate' I mean 'suitably easy to use', not just whether it can do the job or not)

Now I'm not suggesting that Windows' design is completely clear and logical, but the typical tools used to diagnose and solve a problem (notepad, regedit, event viewer, msconfig, etc.) are.

[Treznor]

I think you've made a very good point there. For an average user, fixing Linux is likely to be impossible. (this may or may not apply to OSX as well, but most Mac users I know just send it back to the shop for repair and won't try to fix it themselves anyway)

On Windows, most problems can be fixed with a simple list of instructions from a web site. Even using regedit is not that bad for a basic user, provided the instructions are clear.

On Linux that simply isn't the case, because you're going to need to edit some text files, and most help on the web will tell you to use Vi, because they can pretty much guarantee Vi will be on your system.
If you've never come across it before, you cannot just start using Vi without a manual. You can't even quit out of Vi without a manual. For a basic user Vi is an unassailable cliff of a learning curve.

Now there are plenty of other text editors for Linux and some of them are no harder to use than Notepad, but unfortunately Vi seems to be the assumed default. That's a major problem for basic users and people trying to learn Linux.

I really hate to have to say this, but if you don't know there are other text editors, you probably shouldn't be trying to fix the problem yourself. And if vi is an "unassailable cliff of a learning curve" with such complex commands as ":save" and ":q" the person in question is probably too stupid to do anything past playing Solitaire (Assuming their can figure out how to open it without drooling on themselves first)... It's the same type of crowd who opened up Word 2k7 and went ape-shit... They move stuff, and suddenly it's an unassailable cliff. Not because its hard to figure out; just the people aren't capable of independent thought...

And this highlights another problem that tends to be more prevalent with Linux than any other platform. The attitude among many of the more knowledgeable users that they are geniuses and everyone else is so stupid they shouldn't be allowed to even switch on a computer, let alone use one.
Computers should be easy to fix. Most configuration problems are fairly straightforward to resolve if the software is designed in a clear and logical manner, and you have appropriate tools to make the changes. Unfortunately Linux doesn't do well in either of these areas. (and by 'appropriate' I mean 'suitably easy to use', not just whether it can do the job or not)

Now I'm not suggesting that Windows' design is completely clear and logical, but the typical tools used to diagnose and solve a problem (notepad, regedit, event viewer, msconfig, etc.) are.

Aaand here we have a common fallacy promoted by Microsoft. The Linux tools to resolve problems are just as straightforward as Windows tools. If you think digging through /etc is any more confusing than digging through regedit, you are sadly mistaken. The difference is that people have been trained to think of Windows as user-friendly, and Linux as not. Current Linux tools are, if anything, more user-friendly than Windows but people believe it isn't because they never actually try it for themselves. Some, when they do, give up because it simply isn't Windows.

Well, of course not. It's Linux system. You wouldn't expect a Chevy engine to be built the same way as a Toyota, would you? An expert in Chevy engines might be better at figuring out a Toyota engine than someone not familiar with any engines, but you're still going to have to adjust to the different environment. Why should troubleshooting Linux be the same as troubleshooting Windows? It's a matter of learning the differences, not giving up because it doesn't conform to your expectations.

[Disposablepuppetland]

And this highlights another problem that tends to be more prevalent with Linux than any other platform. The attitude among many of the more knowledgeable users that they are geniuses and everyone else is so stupid they shouldn't be allowed to even switch on a computer, let alone use one.
Computers should be easy to fix. Most configuration problems are fairly straightforward to resolve if the software is designed in a clear and logical manner, and you have appropriate tools to make the changes. Unfortunately Linux doesn't do well in either of these areas. (and by 'appropriate' I mean 'suitably easy to use', not just whether it can do the job or not)

Now I'm not suggesting that Windows' design is completely clear and logical, but the typical tools used to diagnose and solve a problem (notepad, regedit, event viewer, msconfig, etc.) are.

Aaand here we have a common fallacy promoted by Microsoft. The Linux tools to resolve problems are just as straightforward as Windows tools. If you think digging through /etc is any more confusing than digging through regedit, you are sadly mistaken. The difference is that people have been trained to think of Windows as user-friendly, and Linux as not. Current Linux tools are, if anything, more user-friendly than Windows but people believe it isn't because they never actually try it for themselves. Some, when they do, give up because it simply isn't Windows.

Well, of course not. It's Linux system. You wouldn't expect a Chevy engine to be built the same way as a Toyota, would you? An expert in Chevy engines might be better at figuring out a Toyota engine than someone not familiar with any engines, but you're still going to have to adjust to the different environment. Why should troubleshooting Linux be the same as troubleshooting Windows? It's a matter of learning the differences, not giving up because it doesn't conform to your expectations.

You're confusing the tool with the underlying design. I didn't suggest the the registry itself was straightforward. I said the tool 'regedit' was straightforward.

I actually think storing the config as text files is a better design than the registry (although /etc could really do with more consistency), but the tools - notepad and regedit, are much more straightforward than vi.

[The_pantless_hero]

If I download VLC on my Windows box, I have to reinstall it every time there's an update. Fortunately VLC will tell me whenever updates are available, but most software won't do that. Even then, I still have to go through the install wizard every time so it uninstalls and reinstalls.

However, if I install VLC from the repository on my Ubuntu box, it updates itself from the repository whenever there's an update. I don't even have to be aware of the upgrade process if I don't want to.

Tell me again which one is more user-friendly?

Was VLC another program designed for Linux primarily? I find Foxit and Mozilla software, among other programs, update themselves without going through the entire install and uninstall thing unless there is backend change.

[Treznor]

Aaand here we have a common fallacy promoted by Microsoft. The Linux tools to resolve problems are just as straightforward as Windows tools. If you think digging through /etc is any more confusing than digging through regedit, you are sadly mistaken. The difference is that people have been trained to think of Windows as user-friendly, and Linux as not. Current Linux tools are, if anything, more user-friendly than Windows but people believe it isn't because they never actually try it for themselves. Some, when they do, give up because it simply isn't Windows.

Well, of course not. It's Linux system. You wouldn't expect a Chevy engine to be built the same way as a Toyota, would you? An expert in Chevy engines might be better at figuring out a Toyota engine than someone not familiar with any engines, but you're still going to have to adjust to the different environment. Why should troubleshooting Linux be the same as troubleshooting Windows? It's a matter of learning the differences, not giving up because it doesn't conform to your expectations.

You're confusing the tool with the underlying design. I didn't suggest the the registry itself was straightforward. I said the tool 'regedit' was straightforward.

I actually think storing the config as text files is a better design than the registry (although /etc could really do with more consistency), but the tools - notepad and regedit, are much more straightforward than vi.

So you never tried mousepad, Kate or vim? They're just as straightforward. I use Kate all the time when I'm not on the command line.