A rant about Linux haters

Post Reply New Topic

Source? Your definition of "infrastructures" might be useful here also.

I've used both Windows and *nix, programmed on both, and like them both for what they are. I agree with the earlier poster that OpenOffice doesn't cut it. It'll do for about 90% of the stuff you want to work on - but I found it was incompatible and unable to work on some spreadsheets I had to work on recently (sheets created by the Federal Government - not my organization). I'll gladly pay MS whatever they want for Excel if it gives me a chance to compete for the millions of dollars the government will pay out to people who use the right application forms.

NASA's website runs on Linux:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=nasa.gov

So does Yahoo!:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.yahoo.com

And Amazon:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.amazon.com

And Wikipedia:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=wikipedia.org

And Google:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.google.com

And, as a matter of fact, so does Wrong Planet:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?sit ... planet.net

Want me to go on?

one of the most advanced robots the pr2 runs linux!
http://www.willowgarage.com

ISP's, Telecommunication, Government servers, Banks etc.

I use Linux because of the superior morals. Then I actually liked it, and wouldn't go back. Linux has everything I will ever need, plus more. Windows has almost everything I don't need, plus about a third the things I do. Linux is for Me. It's a personal choice, and although I would like to see the Shermon Anti-Trust Act used on microsoft, I acknowledge that some people actually do prefer it. As for the losers who spam youtube feeds, they are probably living in their parents basement, or don't have a secure job history. If they have the time and the need to do those stupid things, then they are the losers.

Also, about 89% of the world's 500 fastest supercomputers run on Linux.

No offense intended but thats a pretty ambitious statement to make.

I must be the exception then since I use Linux on the desktop and i dont work for a high tech company

I use a Linux desktop and also BSD.


I'm not sure why but it seems like Aspie's have a higher usage of Linux and other operating systems than NT's.

The fastest supercomputers run on Linux.

There are 3 simple reasons why the simple user doesn't want to run Linux.

1. Lack of Knowledge of Linux e.g Thinking there are only 2 types of computers Microsoft Windows and Apple.

2. Thinking it takes mad computer knowledge to run it. I installed Ubuntu in 20 minutes.

3. "Professional Applications" Applications people think they NEED in their computer such as MS Applications like word.

4. Ignorance e.g. thinking in Linux you need a command line to do every little task.

The department libraries in my uni have a majority of Linux as an OS

- Aspies tend to be computer enthusiasts. Linux has generally been regarded as a computer enthusiast OS.

- If I had a supercomputer I would probably run Linux on it too. If Plan 9 were a mature OS with a strong software base, I would probably choose that instead. Linux is clearly more efficient than Windows in supercomputing applications, and it is subjectively more efficient than Windows in a variety of server applications as well.

- The world is aware of Linux. Don't think for a second people don't know it exists. The Ubuntu website makes it relatively easy to get it, too. Partitioning your hard drive, etc (regardless of how automatically)... now that might be seen as an entry barrier, 10.04 helps address this. I suppose there's also the issue that people want to try "Linux", they don't know what an Ubuntu is. This is an inherent weakness of the model.

- It doesn't take mad computer knowledge to install Ubuntu. However no Linux is very cohesive by modern standards, and performing a variety of system maintenance type tasks can still be extremely frustrating to the average user. They frequently cause me to suffer Tourettes and I'm an excellent software engineer. It's 10 times better than it used to be, and it's still less than half of where it needs to be. This is only in part because the average user is "used to" Windows. People are not as closed minded as you think.

- Those "professional applications" people think they need... they think they need them because they DO NEED THEM. If Linux is going to survive the onslaught of Windows 7 and whatever has yet to come down the pike, they need to Get Fricking Wine Stable.

- Even though most tasks can be performed in a GUI these days, the interface is still not cohesive enough. I discussed this eariler.

Really? Everyone knows about Linux? Whenever I talk to friends and family and I mention Unix to them, they almost invariably ask "What's Unix?" If that many people have never even heard of Unix, how many of them do you think know about Linux?

He said which is quite a different thing. Even so, I'm not sure awareness is as widespread as all that, especially not amongst basic users, who probably make up a lot of the wider public.

Maybe there should be targeted advertising to people running IE 6.0

More than half my mates haven't heard of Linux before nor have they heard of UNIX before. I will tell you why they use Linux on servers, it because not only is it more efficient than Windows but its also secure unlike Windows. What standards are you talking about, oh let me guess ones that Microsoft laid out well buddy Microsoft wouldn't know standards if it they hit all the Microsoft developers on the head. Plus another thing most people are a lot more closed minded than you think.

True enough, but this is just because most people will use whatever their computer came with and not worry beyond that. I mean, for the typical home user (non-gamer), I think we can safely say that basically any modern operating system is more than adequate. Whether Windows 7, Snow Leopard, Ubuntu, PC-BSD, or even OpenSolaris, they all have the basic functionality that is enough for most people. Most people will just stick with whatever is given to them and works well enough—the typical desktop user does not benefit enough from Linux to justify the time they would spend picking out a distro and reformatting their hard drive. It comes down to what's pre-installed.


Not really. I won't deny that OOo is significantly worse than Office 2007, but even so it is more than sufficient for most people's needs, and a hell of a lot cheaper to boot. But yeah, WINE needs a lot of work.


I guess this largely comes down to a matter of taste, and we already know that we have differing opinions on this, but even something as simple as better default themes in the major desktop environments (and distros) would go a long way towards improving Linux's image. You'd be astounded how much a desktop background can influence someone's opinion of an operating system.

As far as cohesion of the interface, I think I can make one point there: I use mostly Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Ubuntu Karmic (I boot into Win7 occasionally for games). I find myself going to the command line much more frequently in OS X than in Ubuntu, because some functions just are not accessible from the GUI at all in OS X. Either because Apple assumed their idiot users wouldn't need that function, or because they're trying to protect their idiot users from accidentally doing stupid, but it's annoying when it is impossible to, for instance, open a file manager as superuser.

Actually a lot of people were extremely frustrated with Windows Vista, so I don't think it's as simple as "anything modern is good enough for most people" - at least insofar as 2006's OS is modern. I actually think OSX pisses a lot of people off who are not Mac enthusiasts. Apple had an opportunity to give a world-class (as of a decade ago) UI to a world-class kernel and I feel they dropped the ball.



That is true to a degree (and not just the background but every widget of the GUI being sleek and streamlined), and while I'm at it there is no reason someone can't do a proper theme for Ubuntu that's significantly better than Windows 7 Aero. I could probably accomplish such a thing myself, given six months to work on it. Once you've got that though, there's still the whole cohesion thing. Apple is cohesive for the functions its typical users want, well over 90% of the time. They still dropped the ball in my opinion. Windows 7 is probably running 99% to Apple's 90. Linux isn't in the same ballpark, in my subjective opinion. But then I'm not a typical user.

An earlier poster brought up an important point about OpenOffice/Office 2007. If you're trying to make money, because you're in business (esp. getting govt contracts) you don't have time to get screwed up with incompatible document formats. You just don't, it's not an acceptable scenario to ever happen. Case closed.

People don't know about UNIX, and people don't know about Ubuntu. I think Linux is a fairly strong brand, not as strong as it could be, but they are murdering themselves with a god damn axe by not having a unified brand. I think Linus should declare Ubuntu the "reference Linux" and they should change the name to Linux. I know every other distribution will s**t a brick, but this is more important than anybody realizes.