Apple, Microsoft, or Linux?

[Treznor]

You have to understand his mindset, here. For him, there is only one proper tool for everyone to use, and that's the one he's using. Anyone using any other tool is a 'fanboy' who is either too stupid to realize they should be using the tool he is, being duped, tricked, or suckling at the teat of whoever is the figurehead of that tool. Clearly. No one can have different needs, abilities, willingness to invest time and money into something, comfort levels, etc. No no, if they're using something he's deemed 'inferior' it is a plot of either intellect or corporate conspiracy.

Since you people are obviously too dense to understand what I was getting at, the point was that telling a person to use console commands to change away from using a console based text editor as a default doesn't fix the inherent problem of CONSOLES NOT BEING FRIENDLY TO CASUAL USERS.

Then CASUAL USERS SHOULD NOT GO TO THE CONSOLE. If it's really that important to them, they can either swallow their revulsion and learn to use it, or try an alternative GUI solution that are increasingly the norm in Linux systems. My mother is technophobic, so I set her up with a computer that never requires her to do anything but turn it on and launch a browser to do what she wants. She hasn't needed to enter the console or fix the machine in the past eighteen months, so I call it an unqualified success.

Now, this might be confusing, because he so often applies the moniker, "Fanboy." And you might think, "Wouldn't a fanboy be someone who tirelessly flaps on about their chosen preference and lashes out at other's choices to irrational degrees...doesn't that sound more like..." Well, yes, it does. But sometimes when people are in the eye of their own personal hurricane, they cannot see their own storm.

I have YET to see anyone point out what I am a fanboy of yet they keep accusing me of it, even after asking them to. Repeatedly.
So what exactly am I a fanboy of? User friendly program? If only everyone was!

You seem to be insisting that the Microsoft Way is the Best Way, at least for casual users. Which then brings me back to my earlier point.

[Cannot think of a name]

-snip-

To be fair, he is nothing compared to many linux users. I'm amazed at some of the vitriol that comes out of their mouth, they treat anyone who buys microsoft products as sheep/tools who just 'do what the corporations tell them', they have this silly little bit of romanticism, as if they were fighting a battle against 'the man' by using linux (or even sometimes macs). My guess is that TPH is just reacting to this with his own vitriol, as if to give a taste of their own medicine.

The thing is, I see more 'backlash' than I ever do what is supposed to have caused it. It tends to resemble someone using a flamethrower because they saw an ant once.

In all, it seems like a conversation that one should have with the ant, and not everyone using a brand different than your own. Using a phantom to justify hysteria doesn't ever make the person look less hysterical.

[Tekania]

Server 2k8 isn't a consumer OS, not really a valid comparison.

It is when someone is claiming "console input" as primary is a step "backwards"...

But in a normal Linux workstation setup with a mainstream popular distro, all the stuff one would be installing/configuring on a normal basis is done through GUI windows. Package Management (Software install/uninstall) is done graphical now, network client configuration is done graphically, printer configuration is done graphically, Samba sharing done graphically, network is browsed graphically, display settings are configured graphically, scanners are handled graphically, removable drives are mounted and unmounted graphically, NFS server has graphical configuration now too...

Why would you need to go to a console? let me see, here's the most frequent reasons I go to the console:
1. Compiling and installing specialized Kernel, Kernel Module or program
2. Configuration of DNS and/or DHCP server(s)
3. Doing updates (it's just quicker to type "sudo yum update" in a console than to use the graphical PackageKit(Fedora) [which is still quicker than WindowsUpdate...])

[UNIverseVERSE]

It's not.

Bull. Shit.

Try it. Type it out. Four keystrokes. If you have any typing ability whatsoever, that will be faster than taking your hand off the keyboard, moving it to the mouse, moving the mouse pointer to the scrollbar, clicking, taking your hand off the mouse again, moving your hand back to the keyboard, and resuming typing.

If your hands are already on the keyboard, keyboard shortcuts are faster. Inevitably.

Since you people are obviously too dense to understand what I was getting at, the point was that telling a person to use console commands to change away from using a console based text editor as a default doesn't fix the inherent problem of CONSOLES NOT BEING FRIENDLY TO CASUAL USERS.

Bull. Shit.

It's not hard to do. Indeed, it's incredibly precise, and incredibly easy. The way it works is this.

New user asks a question, something like "This isn't working, what's the fix?"
Experienced user replies, says "open the terminal program, copy this line in, hit enter. Then do this"

It's simple, it's clear, and it's impossible to fuck up. You don't have to worry about different screen sizes rearranging how the program is laid out, or about different themes changing the look of the icons, or about different menu settings putting applications in different places. One line, copy and paste it in, press enter. It is a vastly superior solution to giving vague and fuzzy descriptions of how to navigate the GUI.

Why would you need to go to a console? let me see, here's the most frequent reasons I go to the console:
1. Compiling and installing specialized Kernel, Kernel Module or program
2. Configuration of DNS and/or DHCP server(s)
3. Doing updates (it's just quicker to type "sudo yum update" in a console than to use the graphical PackageKit(Fedora) [which is still quicker than WindowsUpdate...])

4. Following fix instructions for something above one's head. Fortunately, the use of a CLI is superior for this -- see above.

[Tekania]

What do you mean "wrongo"?? Are you actually suggesting computers should be hard to fix?

There's no reason a computer can't be reliable AND easy to fix.

I'm suggesting that they shouldn't need to be repaired often. Why is there a network repair wizard on Windows now? Because Windows network implementation is prone to corruption... They have a nice wizard that takes 20 times longer to execute a "ipconfig /release" / "ipconfig /renew" than it would to simply type those in on the command console... Even then the wizard cannot actually FIX the winsock or TCP/IP stacks , at which point you know where you'll be? That's right you'll be performing net-shell commands at a prompt...

For someone who knows what they are going, a console to fix anything is all there is needed. The average car-driver is not going to attempt to perform a realignment in their driveway, and they shouldn't be fixing their computer just because it breaks down without knowing what they are doing either.

[The_pantless_hero]

You seem to be insisting that the Microsoft Way is the Best Way, at least for casual users. Which then brings me back to my earlier point.

Really? Microsoft is the only GUI based OS? I thought Apple was pretty popular. Tool.

There are several reasons Linux is at the bottom of the market share bucket, this thread illustrates a major one.

[The_pantless_hero]

Try it. Type it out. Four keystrokes. If you have any typing ability whatsoever, that will be faster than taking your hand off the keyboard, moving it to the mouse, moving the mouse pointer to the scrollbar, clicking, taking your hand off the mouse again, moving your hand back to the keyboard, and resuming typing.

If I want to blindly move around a page, I hold the PageDown or PageUp keys. Pulling the scrollbar allows more exact movements to specific but inexact areas of a page.

If your hands are already on the keyboard, keyboard shortcuts are faster. Inevitably.

It's not hard to do. Indeed, it's incredibly precise, and incredibly easy. The way it works is this.

New user asks a question, something like "This isn't working, what's the fix?"
Experienced user replies, says "open the terminal program, copy this line in, hit enter. Then do this"

Brick. Wall.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

What do you mean "wrongo"?? Are you actually suggesting computers should be hard to fix?

There's no reason a computer can't be reliable AND easy to fix.

I'm suggesting that they shouldn't need to be repaired often. Why is there a network repair wizard on Windows now? Because Windows network implementation is prone to corruption... They have a nice wizard that takes 20 times longer to execute a "ipconfig /release" / "ipconfig /renew" than it would to simply type those in on the command console... Even then the wizard cannot actually FIX the winsock or TCP/IP stacks , at which point you know where you'll be? That's right you'll be performing net-shell commands at a prompt...

For someone who knows what they are going, a console to fix anything is all there is needed. The average car-driver is not going to attempt to perform a realignment in their driveway, and they shouldn't be fixing their computer just because it breaks down without knowing what they are doing either.

I will admit, the network repair wizard in windows does absolutely nothing. Yet when something goes wrong, I always try it first. It's like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.

[UNIverseVERSE]

If I want to blindly move around a page, I hold the PageDown or PageUp keys. Pulling the scrollbar allows more exact movements to specific but inexact areas of a page.

So enlighten me again about why keyboard movement commands are unsuitable solutions? Bearing in mind that any text editor worthy of the name has a (often quite large) set of commands dedicated to moving the cursor around the document.

If your hands are already on the keyboard, keyboard shortcuts are faster. Inevitably.

One would think that if one is in a text editor and needing to navigate, one's hands are very likely to be on the keyboard from the typing one has just been doing.

Brick. Wall.

Why? I've seen it work. I've been the clueless user and had it work. It just works. Quick, easy, nigh-on-impossible to fuck up. What's the problem with that as a solution?

[Tekania]

There's an old phrase in many industries that applies here: "quick, easy or cheap. Pick two." Making a computer reliable an user-friendly requires a great deal of careful programming and automation. This usually comes at the cost of complexity, which is why a lot of non-techs seem to regard computers and programming as some sort of arcane wizardry. The more complex a system is, the harder it is to fix. So your best bet is to focus on reliability. Reliable computers that are similarly easy to fix are rarely user-friendly, which has been the focus of operating systems for the past fifteen years or so.

Yep, there are three types of jobs: but you can only have a combination of any two of them, they are "good", "fast" and "cheap"...
1. You can get a cheap job fast, but it won't be good.
2. You can get a good job cheap, but it won't be fast.
3. You can get a good job fast, but it won't be cheap.


Similarly you have a disparity between complexity and ease-of-repair... As complexity increases, ease of repair decreases, similarly, by implementing wizards and tons of graphically driven tools, system complexity increases further, requiring even more in-depth knowledge to fix the system when it breaks... If the system isn't all that reliable at its base, you'll just end up with a massively complex monstrosity which takes really knowledgeable technicians to keep/get running... As the tools have increased, as well the number of on-call technical staff has increased; this isn't because of an increase in knowledge, this is because the "bar" for technicians gets lower and lower... As such, many times people are calling in one on-call tech company behind the other to fix the problems cause by the first, because the first only knew these wizard fixes and the "basic" stuff enough to merely compound the problem further.

[Tekania]

If I want to blindly move around a page, I hold the PageDown or PageUp keys. Pulling the scrollbar allows more exact movements to specific but inexact areas of a page.

So enlighten me again about why keyboard movement commands are unsuitable solutions? Bearing in mind that any text editor worthy of the name has a (often quite large) set of commands dedicated to moving the cursor around the document.

If your hands are already on the keyboard, keyboard shortcuts are faster. Inevitably.

One would think that if one is in a text editor and needing to navigate, one's hands are very likely to be on the keyboard from the typing one has just been doing.

Brick. Wall.

Why? I've seen it work. I've been the clueless user and had it work. It just works. Quick, easy, nigh-on-impossible to fuck up. What's the problem with that as a solution?

even when I'm on a graphical editor I use the keyboard navigation commands instead of the mouse, it's quicker.

I could move around a Windows desktop (menus, dropdowns, executing items, minimizing, maximizing, etc) without even touching the mouse... And move around even quicker using a combination of keyboard selections and mouse... It's a lost art I tell ya! LOL

[Disposablepuppetland]

What do you mean "wrongo"?? Are you actually suggesting computers should be hard to fix?

There's no reason a computer can't be reliable AND easy to fix.

I'm suggesting that they shouldn't need to be repaired often. Why is there a network repair wizard on Windows now? Because Windows network implementation is prone to corruption... They have a nice wizard that takes 20 times longer to execute a "ipconfig /release" / "ipconfig /renew" than it would to simply type those in on the command console... Even then the wizard cannot actually FIX the winsock or TCP/IP stacks , at which point you know where you'll be? That's right you'll be performing net-shell commands at a prompt...

For someone who knows what they are going, a console to fix anything is all there is needed. The average car-driver is not going to attempt to perform a realignment in their driveway, and they shouldn't be fixing their computer just because it breaks down without knowing what they are doing either.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make now. Obviously computers shouldn't need to be repaired often. However, when they do need repairing or reconfiguring, it doesn't need to be that difficult if the software has a clear logical design, and decent straightforward tools.

In my experience the Windows networking has been very reliable since Windows 2000. The networking config also has a much better GUI than either OSX or any Linux distro I've used. I've never used the wizard though, so I can't comment on that.

[Treznor]

What do you mean "wrongo"?? Are you actually suggesting computers should be hard to fix?

There's no reason a computer can't be reliable AND easy to fix.

I'm suggesting that they shouldn't need to be repaired often. Why is there a network repair wizard on Windows now? Because Windows network implementation is prone to corruption... They have a nice wizard that takes 20 times longer to execute a "ipconfig /release" / "ipconfig /renew" than it would to simply type those in on the command console... Even then the wizard cannot actually FIX the winsock or TCP/IP stacks , at which point you know where you'll be? That's right you'll be performing net-shell commands at a prompt...

For someone who knows what they are going, a console to fix anything is all there is needed. The average car-driver is not going to attempt to perform a realignment in their driveway, and they shouldn't be fixing their computer just because it breaks down without knowing what they are doing either.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make now. Obviously computers shouldn't need to be repaired often. However, when they do need repairing or reconfiguring, it doesn't need to be that difficult if the software has a clear logical design, and decent straightforward tools.

In my experience the Windows networking has been very reliable since Windows 2000. The networking config also has a much better GUI than either OSX or any Linux distro I've used. I've never used the wizard though, so I can't comment on that.

In my experience the Windows networking has been passable since Windows 2000. Once they started using the Windows Registry (way back in Windows 95) to track everything from login count to hardware addresses, they created a single point of failure that can be responsible for any number of mysterious problems to plague workstations and laptops. Networking in particular can be a huge hassle, since there are several different points of failure from the network to the network card to the networking software. But once I learned how Windows handles networking through the registry, I was amazed at how many networking problems are resolved by running a program called WINSOCKFIX.EXE. When you work desktop support, it comes up a lot.

Believe me, there's nothing simple about repairing computers, just a lot of experience and a knack for troubleshooting. It's as much art as science. To make them easier to repair, you're going to have to sacrifice something else like usability or functionality. It's not so easy as you seem to think.

[Disposablepuppetland]

In my experience the Windows networking has been passable since Windows 2000. Once they started using the Windows Registry (way back in Windows 95) to track everything from login count to hardware addresses, they created a single point of failure that can be responsible for any number of mysterious problems to plague workstations and laptops. Networking in particular can be a huge hassle, since there are several different points of failure from the network to the network card to the networking software. But once I learned how Windows handles networking through the registry, I was amazed at how many networking problems are resolved by running a program called WINSOCKFIX.EXE. When you work desktop support, it comes up a lot.

Believe me, there's nothing simple about repairing computers, just a lot of experience and a knack for troubleshooting. It's as much art as science. To make them easier to repair, you're going to have to sacrifice something else like usability or functionality. It's not so easy as you seem to think.

I used to work in desktop support. It was a while ago though, mostly Win 95, 98, NT, and 2000. Win 95 & 98 always had networking problems, but NT and 2000 were pretty much rock solid. Ipconfig /renew & /release was often needed, and I occasionally had to manually remove an interface from the registry, that was about it. The good thing about troubleshooting network problems on the NT based OS's (and also on Linux) is that there's plenty of tools built in to help diagnose the problem. Unlike, say, performance issues, which can be very hard to diagnose.

Repairing computers is often simple. Not always, but often. Good clean design can make a big difference.

Often of course, it's legacy compatibility that's making a design awkward and over-complex.

[Cannot think of a name]

You seem to be insisting that the Microsoft Way is the Best Way, at least for casual users. Which then brings me back to my earlier point.

Really? Microsoft is the only GUI based OS? I thought Apple was pretty popular. Tool.

And you're such a big advocate of Apple, too...

[The_pantless_hero]

You seem to be insisting that the Microsoft Way is the Best Way, at least for casual users. Which then brings me back to my earlier point.

Really? Microsoft is the only GUI based OS? I thought Apple was pretty popular. Tool.

And you're such a big advocate of Apple, too...

I oppose Apple business model.

[Neu California]

You seem to be insisting that the Microsoft Way is the Best Way, at least for casual users. Which then brings me back to my earlier point.

You seem to have missed this post on the last page:

To be fair, he is nothing compared to many linux users. I'm amazed at some of the vitriol that comes out of their mouth, they treat anyone who buys microsoft products as sheep/tools who just 'do what the corporations tell them', they have this silly little bit of romanticism, as if they were fighting a battle against 'the man' by using linux (or even sometimes macs). My guess is that TPH is just reacting to this with his own vitriol, as if to give a taste of their own medicine.

[Treznor]

You seem to be insisting that the Microsoft Way is the Best Way, at least for casual users. Which then brings me back to my earlier point.

You seem to have missed this post on the last page:

To be fair, he is nothing compared to many linux users. I'm amazed at some of the vitriol that comes out of their mouth, they treat anyone who buys microsoft products as sheep/tools who just 'do what the corporations tell them', they have this silly little bit of romanticism, as if they were fighting a battle against 'the man' by using linux (or even sometimes macs). My guess is that TPH is just reacting to this with his own vitriol, as if to give a taste of their own medicine.

No, I didn't miss it. But he keeps insisting that the command line is a sign of backwardness as though the GUI is somehow superior to it. It's very much a Microsoft mindset, given the way Microsoft did its best to kill the command line (and ultimately failed). Even if he's not a Microsoft (or Apple) fanboy, he's using all their favorite arguments.

Perhaps it's to give the Linux fanboys a taste of their own medicine. That's fine; I really don't care. But I'm not going to sit quietly and allow Microsoft's FUD to be propagated unchallenged.

[Tekania]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make now. Obviously computers shouldn't need to be repaired often. However, when they do need repairing or reconfiguring, it doesn't need to be that difficult if the software has a clear logical design, and decent straightforward tools.

In my experience the Windows networking has been very reliable since Windows 2000. The networking config also has a much better GUI than either OSX or any Linux distro I've used. I've never used the wizard though, so I can't comment on that.

This is too hard?



Seems no less intuitive than Windows GUI networking, to be honest.

Oh no, I have to share a folder so a windows machine can see it...

[Tekania]

In my experience the Windows networking has been passable since Windows 2000. Once they started using the Windows Registry (way back in Windows 95) to track everything from login count to hardware addresses, they created a single point of failure that can be responsible for any number of mysterious problems to plague workstations and laptops. Networking in particular can be a huge hassle, since there are several different points of failure from the network to the network card to the networking software. But once I learned how Windows handles networking through the registry, I was amazed at how many networking problems are resolved by running a program called WINSOCKFIX.EXE. When you work desktop support, it comes up a lot.

Believe me, there's nothing simple about repairing computers, just a lot of experience and a knack for troubleshooting. It's as much art as science. To make them easier to repair, you're going to have to sacrifice something else like usability or functionality. It's not so easy as you seem to think.

Or for commandline junkies... netsh int winsock reset catalog...

Win2k also had the advantage of being able to uninstall/reinstall tcp/ip, but for XP and Vista: netsh int ip reset resetlog.txt (though the *.txt is optional in Vista and 7)

Not to mention about 90% of computer errors occur at the chair-keyboard interface... And no matter how man updates the OS vendor rolls out... There is never going to be a patch for "stupid"... Won't be in the Debian/Ubuntu Fedora/RedHat repositories, won't be on Apple Software Update, and you won't see it roll down Microsoft/Windows Update LOL

[Disposablepuppetland]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make now. Obviously computers shouldn't need to be repaired often. However, when they do need repairing or reconfiguring, it doesn't need to be that difficult if the software has a clear logical design, and decent straightforward tools.

In my experience the Windows networking has been very reliable since Windows 2000. The networking config also has a much better GUI than either OSX or any Linux distro I've used. I've never used the wizard though, so I can't comment on that.

This is too hard?



Seems no less intuitive than Windows GUI networking, to be honest.

I didn't say it was hard in Linux, just that Windows has a better GUI. For each interface it shows which protocols and services are bound to it. It also has further options for the firewall and for wifi connections.

[Tekania]

I didn't say it was hard in Linux, just that Windows has a better GUI. For each interface it shows which protocols and services are bound to it. It also has further options for the firewall and for wifi connections.

The protocol interface is a hold-over (it's obsolete), from back when you may be using NetBIOS or IPX/SPX... Linux just uses TCP/IP (same with windows), and the TCP/IP module in linux can handle BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 (unlike Windows, which uses a different module for each)... So there is no need to have a "protocols" setting. Services are handled elsewhere, the entire "Client for" and "File/Printer Sharing" stuff is handled by Samba... Wifi in Linux is transparent, it's much more like wireless on a Mac, All network interfaces can be manipulated via a dropdown on the desktop:

*BTW the "Auto CDMA.." there is an auto-detected Mobile Broadband, unlike Windows, Linux does not need special software or connection utilities to use cellular broadband service [unlike Windows] Fedora has been good about that.

And it of course auto-reconnects to the last used wifi connection when it's in range.

Linux firewall is kernel based, and managed via IPTABLES; to manage this,[sarcasm] you have to go to the extremely non-intuitive place in Gnome of, "System"->"Administration"->"Firewall". If only they would make it easier to find...[/sarcasm"] I can get to either the network config, or the firewall config (from the desktop) in three clicks, and I don't have to open 1-2 different windows to get there in-between (cough-Vista-cough)...

I run Fedora on my laptop, because it is quicker to handle networking under Linux in differing client environments than Windows is... Less time to find/connect to wireless, quicker to reconfigure networking components, etc...

[The Alma Mater]

I can get to either the network config, or the firewall config (from the desktop) in three clicks, and I don't have to open 1-2 different windows to get there in-between (cough-Vista-cough)...

You can get to the firewall settings through clicks in windows ?
I usually just typed firewall (or firewall.cpl) in the run window... consoles are so much more efficient and require less searching around the whole system for a menu option for a casual user as myself...

EDIT: and yes, I am serious. I really do NOT wish to plough through menus to find an option.

[Pure Metal]

I can get to either the network config, or the firewall config (from the desktop) in three clicks, and I don't have to open 1-2 different windows to get there in-between (cough-Vista-cough)...

You can get to the firewall settings through clicks in windows ?
I usually just typed firewall (or firewall.cpl) in the run window... consoles are so much more efficient and require less searching around the whole system for a menu option for a casual user as myself...

EDIT: and yes, I am serious. I really do NOT wish to plough through menus to find an option.

ah but you have to know what that option/command is in order to use it.
to me, this kinda sums up the last couple of pages of arguments on this thread - while there's nothing wrong with users learning about how to use their systems (fixing things, doing maintenance through the command line, etc), this is still seen as scary to a lot of average users, and will turn them off. most don't want to have to invest time in learning how to use their OS.

Since you people are obviously too dense to understand what I was getting at, the point was that telling a person to use console commands to change away from using a console based text editor as a default doesn't fix the inherent problem of CONSOLES NOT BEING FRIENDLY TO CASUAL USERS.

Bull. Shit.

It's not hard to do. Indeed, it's incredibly precise, and incredibly easy. The way it works is this.

New user asks a question, something like "This isn't working, what's the fix?"
Experienced user replies, says "open the terminal program, copy this line in, hit enter. Then do this"

It's simple, it's clear, and it's impossible to fuck up. You don't have to worry about different screen sizes rearranging how the program is laid out, or about different themes changing the look of the icons, or about different menu settings putting applications in different places. One line, copy and paste it in, press enter. It is a vastly superior solution to giving vague and fuzzy descriptions of how to navigate the GUI.

well, speaking as a relative nix noob (using Ubuntu for about 2 years), when i was learning there was a lot of confusion. much as getting clear instructions on a help site is fine, finding that help would often be very irritating, especially when there are so many different distros and differences between them. even getting help for one version of a distro might not apply to the version you're running. to a casual user, that's massively confusing and makes learning a lot harder.

i think what pantless's point has been is that this (working through the command line, having to learn about the system) just isn't very intuitive, especially to users who are used to Windows.

that friendlier GUIs and the like are now readily available on many nix distros somewhat dispels that issue. but the fact remains that when something goes wrong on your linux box and you want to try and fix it, or you want to make any changes not covered by a GUI, then suddenly you're into the command line, with all the added confusion i mentioned above. and, right or wrong, this will put off an awful lot of average/casual users.

like i said in my other post, modern distros are largely as familiar and friendly and easy-to-use in their GUIs as Windows (or Mac, i guess). but stray outside that and the learning curve jumps up hugely. not a problem for people who don't mind learning about this stuff, and when one does learn it can be fun and more efficient to use the CL, but for users who want their computer to 'just work', the learning curve is just too steep. which is why i said earlier that nix will probably not become fully mainstream or widely accepted until you can use it without EVER having to go to the command line (but of course you can if you want to), simply because average/casual users are scared of it, too lazy to learn, too stupid, or not bothered enough to learn.

*BTW the "Auto CDMA.." there is an auto-detected Mobile Broadband, unlike Windows, Linux does not need special software or connection utilities to use cellular broadband service [unlike Windows] Fedora has been good about that.

And it of course auto-reconnects to the last used wifi connection when it's in range.

my Vista does both of those...

[Hairless Kitten II]

Shortcut commands on a keyboard are not designed for everyone.

If you use a specific piece of software once a year then it will be hard to remember the shortcut.

Shortcuts are nice for experienced users of a tool that use it often.

Are they faster then a move to the mouse + click?

Depends about the level of the typist. If he's good at the keyboard then he'll be faster. But many people hunt and peck for a key...

A part of the reason why Linux sucks at usability is the lack of usability engineers working in that OS.