6 posts • joined Thursday 25th November 2010 15:32 GMT
It's a feature
@Mark: "Ubuntu's bizarro notifications system (you know, the one that 4 releases later still doesn't allow you to click on a notification)"
It's different than Windows, but not a bug as you imply.
One thing that always bothers me with Windows is that, as I'm typing and working away, notifications pop up and grab focus. This results in two problems - the first Enter I hit clears the notification (which I may not have even seen), and focus then returns to the system rather than the app I was using. Since I touch type, I can lose quite a lot of text before realizing that Windows has removed focus from the app of interest due to a notification.
Ubuntu's system solves my problem, and so I prefer it's approach.
YMMV, but you shouldn't assume that Windows == Right, or that one approach is best for all users. Use cases in the real world just aren't that tidy and distinct among a large user base.
You typed too much and betrayed yourself
You mentioned using Ubuntu 10.10 on a netbook for 2 days, then mentioned Canonical persisting with "orange" (presumably the wallpaper, which you don't know how to change)? The problem is that 10.10 has a distinct purple theme by default - not orange. "A valiant effort" indeed.
The Vice President of the US isn't "any office, high or otherwise"? It may not be worth a warm bucket of spit (to coin a phrase), but I'm afraid she was most definitely a candidate for the office that is one heartbeat away from the president at the time of the offense.
But this comment is as ludicrous as most others here - hate-filled rhetoric complaining that Ms. Palin is using hate-filled rhetoric. Check the mirror, bubs.
Did you read what I actually wrote?
@registerfail: "...you're wrong to suggest it stores all application settings in the home directory as, usually configs are in /etc, what it does store in the users home director is user specific settings..."
I actually wrote, "Linux always stores application settings ***for users*** under the user's personal home directory,.." (emphasis added), which would be "user specific settings". You're agreeing with me here. Please re-read.
@registerfail: "whilst you're also right that Windows maintains a lot of legacy concepts, very little original code is still there".
Which is exactly what I said - "Windows also maintains the "legacy" (in a bad sense) ***feature*** of labeled drives". I said nothing of "original code"; we were discussing the user interface. Again, please re-read.
"whilst you're right that Linux holds a far larger share, it's also still got a far smaller share than Symbian, which, ironically, it also a very well designed microkernel based OS"
OK. The discussion was Linux vs. Windows, not Symbian, but let's look at Symbian. Linux' share grew almost 600% last year, whilst Symbian's dropped by a third or so, and Nokia is working with Intel to migrate from Symbian to Linux starting with their most expensive (and highest profit margin) smartphones. This doesn't actually support your "Windows and Symbian have better architecture than Linux" argument either way (as market share != architecture quality), but it certainly doesn't instill much confidence in microkernels having a marketing advantage! (Disclaimer: I'm a huge MeeGo fan thus far, but I like Android as well. ;-)
" there are too many times the user has to end up at the CLI"
OK, please name them. Whilst using the CLI is sometimes more convenient (and Microsoft underscores its importance by emphasizing their PowerShell product for power users), I know many Linux users who have no idea what a CLI is. To be specific, I assert that there is no task a *normal* user would be expected to perform on Ubuntu that would require a CLI. Please name one that I've missed.
"people are jumping on the attack against any Linux criticism without seeming to actually have any valid points I thought I'd throw in my 2 pence- denying there are problems with something"
Well, first, an attack against an attack is usually called "a defense". :-D
Second, I seem to have had some valid points ***since you repeated several of them almost word for word*** in your post!
Third, I didn't "jump on the attack against any Linux criticism", but rather against *invalid* criticisms. One of yours, for example - "The driver issue" - is one that *I* stated in my post - "vendor support for games and ***certain peripherals***". So I find it roundly unfair of you to claim that I'm "denying there are problems with something" when I listed two in my *defense* of Linux! Geesh!
All in all, I think you need to re-read what I actually wrote and respond to that. Your post seems to have been written after a cursory skimming of my words, and doesn't address (or in many cases simply repeats) the points I actually raised. But I do appreciate the response, even if you do imply that I lied in stating that I am a senior systems analyst who works with Linux and Windows on a daily basis. ;-)
I assume you're new to Linux?
Click Places -> Home, and tell me what you see on the left column of the file browser. On my Ubuntu 10.04 desktop I see Home, Desktop, File System, Network, Mannheim Steamroller (that's what's in my CD drive), Trash, Documents, Music, Pictures, Video and Downloads.
Not cryptic a'tall.
So let's talk architecture (I happen to be a senior system architect, and work daily with both environments). Windows stores its application settings for users in many places - a central binary repository called the "registry", configuration files in privileged areas of the Windows folder, and under Documents and Settings on a per-user basis. If you want to ding Linux on "friendliness" for the internals, try teaching a newbie to use the Registry Editor and *then* we'll talk. :-D Linux always stores application settings for users under the user's personal home directory, and always in a consistently formatted text file. This is a "legacy" (in a good sense) feature, because Linux has always been multi-user, and has never been hobbled with a binary registry.
Windows also maintains the "legacy" (in a bad sense) feature of labeled drives. To access a network drive, I must "map" the drive to a letter (say "N:") and call it that going forward. This makes sharing network-oriented scripts problematic, among other problems. I can also use a "UNC" path (friendly name, that), but that doesn't work in some use cases - hence the necessity of "reserved" drive letters in corporate settings. Linux simply places all file systems not on the primary drive in a standard folder - on Ubuntu it's the /media folder - and the /media folder is always listed with user-friendly names (as I show above) under Places in the file browser, in the file dialogs, and in the main Places menu on the desktop.
Need I go on? The Windows OS architecture has some significant baggage left from its DOS days, as well as some poor (IMHO) design choices influenced by Mr. Cutler's legacy Vax OS, that make it less flexible, scalable, and friendly than Linux - which is one reason why (for example) Microsoft had to write a new OS for WinP7 phones, but Linux works just fine from Android phones on the low end to supercomputers on the high end. In fact, Linux controls 27% of the smartphone market (vs. WinMo / WinP7's 3%) and 92% of the supercomputer market (vs. Windows' 1%), and is first or second in every market in between except desktops.
It is this remarkable success in every other computing field that best defends Linux against your claim that it has some technical usability problem hurting its desktop acceptance. Actually, Linux' struggles on the desktop have more to do with vendor support for games and certain peripherals caused by Microsoft's longstanding DOS / Windows desktop monopoly, and lack of commonly available pre-installs due to Microsoft's well-documented exclusionary business practices - not technical shortcomings.
Please understand that I don't say this to trash Windows - it's certainly usable enough - but to defend Linux against your misinformed attack.
Now if you could explain to me why Mr. Cutler didn't bring intrinsic file versioning to Windows from the Vax when he had the chance - THAT would be an interesting discussion! :-D
Not even close
Linux' desktop share was about 5% in 2008 according to Microsoft - but I'm sure you'd never trust *those* guys! ;-)
You can measure server share in three ways - revenue, units shipped, and installed base.
In revenue, Microsoft gathers about 50% of the money, with Linux and Unix splitting 40% and leaving 10% for others. (You might think this makes Microsoft very expensive, given the stats below. Well... yes. ;-)
Linux is pre-installed on about 60% of units shipped, compared to about 30% Windows and 10% others (including Unix).
Linux' installed base (in any market) is typically somewhat higher than pre-installed units, as its free nature allows it to be added to hardware actually sold and shipped with Windows or another proprietary OS, or even bare. This is a big player in desktops, but fairly small in servers, since servers with Linux are the norm. In any event, it's not objectively measurable (many servers are not on the open Internet), so we'll call it 60%-30% to be kind to Microsoft.
So... No, Linux is either well ahead of or just a bit behind and growing relative to Windows in the server market, depending on your favorite definition. In fact, Linux is either first or second in virtually every computing market (having recently jumped to second in smartphones, behind only Symbian).
You'd almost think free software was the wave of the future. I do. :-D