Turning Away From Linux And Back To The Dark Side? 21
Slowping asks: "A friend of mine posed me a good question that I think would be best asked on Slashdot: Of all the people who have used Linux or any Unix variant, how many have gone back to Microsoft Windows? I'm not talking about newbies that install it and never run it. I'm talking about people who actually learn the new OS, and can use it competently, but for some reason decide to go back to Windows. If you are one of these people, why did you switch back?" I've always thought that Unix can be configured into an OS for everyone (especially FreeBSD and Linux who are coming out of the server closets in big ways). However, we Aren't Quite There Yet. Where do Unix variants need to improve before they can serve as general desktop machines?
Why I don't use it as a primary platform... (Score:1)
2. I cannot tweak it and tune it like I want EASILY. Nothing like a Control Panel where you can fine-tune everything. Linux-Conf crashes way too many times and is not comprehensive...
3. Usual reasons: Lack of applications, etc.
I still use it once every month...
Mutltiple answers... (Score:3)
1) Games. Most still aren't available for linux at all.
2) Apps. Please, let's not talk about StarOffice here. Maybe when 5.2 is released, it'll be stable enough, but it's still too slow to use comfortably.
3) Config. I have too many things that I want to
'eventually' set up under Linux, but until I do, I can't make the complete switch.
4) Maintenance. Like it or don't, Win95/98 neither requires nor allows the same level of maintenance and customisation that Unix in general does. Linux with its thousand different competing desktops is too damned confusing in that respect.
5) Time out! I'm a Unix admin during the day, and I can _ignore_ my OS at home when I'm running '98. Can't do that if I've got Linux. (come to think of it, this might be the same point as 3 and 4
Re:Multiple answers... (Score:1)
3) Linux is much more configurable than Windows, hands down. For most good distros, it's configured, and you only have to customize/configure it more if you want to.
4) Just because there are more options with Linux doesn't mean that someone would even have to choose out of those options. They could just use the default.
5) You can ignore the OS easily with Linux. Just because it's fun to do things with doesn't make it bad.
Chris Hagar
Re: Turning from Linux back to Windows (Score:1)
Linux is great for server stuffs, but the desktop still needs work, its better than it was, but its still not quite there. I have never been able to get sound to work on a Linux box yet. *sigh*
I installed Linux and went back...to MacOS (Score:1)
I put LinuxPPC on my aging PowerMac clone but ended up reinstalling MacOS because I needed a few of the features I couldn't get (easily) under Linux:
That said, I still spend about 80% of my time on the Linux box rather than the Mac. The Linux box is what I put all my effort and money into and the Mac is purely second string these days. I still enjoy the Mac, but Linux suits many of my needs (programming and general web surfing/email/news) better.
All-in-all, I wouldn't say I've so much "returned to the Dark Side" as "kept the Dark Side around as an amusing and occasionally usefull pet."
Re:I installed Linux and went back...to MacOS (Score:1)
CD burners under Linux seem to get really mixed reviews. I've seen lots of people say they've had problems with them and/or CD burning under Linux is "impossibly hard" or something like that, but OTOH I've never had a problem with it on either of my CD-R drives, and I know plenty of people who use them all the time and have never mentioned having problems.
Might just be the drives themselves (buggy drivers or something). I got a CD-R drive for Xmax (having never used one before), read the CD-Writing HOWTO, and was off burning CDs in no time.
Personally, not a chance... (Score:2)
Personally, for apps, I have what I want. LaTeX (replaces Office and PageMaker), Gimp (replaces every graphics program every created for Windows), XMMS (replaces WinAmp), GCC and/or KAI C++ (replaces Borland C++ & Visual C++). I have a Win98 partion that I keep around for the occasional time when I want to play games [mostly Freespace2], and that's about it.
Ignore the OS?. (Score:1)
I'm a programmer. I absolutely abhor the programming under Windows. Why? Because debugging multi-threaded network apps is hard enough without the additional hassles of Windows:
1) My app crashing brought down the OS (Hey MS--ever heard of memory protection?)
2) Small, non-virtual desktop (plus I like x-mouse behavior--yes, I know there's a "powertool" to fix this on Windows)
3) "Hey my program doesn't work. Is it a bug or do I need to reboot?"
--
Re:Why I _hate_ Linux (Score:1)
Gnome didn't work and neither did apps (Score:1)
3 reasons: Apps & Money & Time (Score:1)
I get paid to work with computers. There are a lot more people who will pay me to work on a Windows platform. (Plus they need me to work on their computers more often, which makes me more money.)
While I do use Linux for some tasks, by and large the apps I need to use and support are Windows based. People pay me to get stuff done and get it done now. Could I eventually get as competant with Linux? Sure. But right now it isn't worth the enormous amount of effort it would take.
Some of the problems I have with Linux are being dealt with: Common interface (KDE, GNOME), automated installs (RPM).
But the larger problem that the OSS culture doesn't seem capable/willing to address is highlighted by lack of common configuration guidelines (config file locations, standard file formats).
I do think there is room for a growing Linux presence, but I don't think it's quite there yet.
Erisian
Re:Why I _hate_ Linux (Score:1)
Re:Why I _hate_ Linux (Score:1)
Re:Why I _hate_ Linux (Score:1)
Re:Why I _hate_ Linux (Score:1)
As for real multitasking, i.e., at the kernel level, there are some nice things about the Windows model, including native threads and such, but (a) a common use of Windows threads is to wait on file and socket input at the same time, which Unix allows you to do without forking, and (b) what could be simpler than fork(); exec();? Sure it makes some things harder, but it's less for the programmer to think about, less doubting what to pass to a certain function (although the Windows thread-management functions aren't as hard as other Windows functions as far as arguments), and less stuff (thread IDs, etc.) for the parent process to keep track of. Basically the fork() splits off a separate entity that initially has some ties to its sibling, but can break these ties and in many cases split off completely on its own. Thus sort of flexibility can be achieved with threads, but it's a pinch. And besides, the Windows process scheduler needs to remove that favoring of the top window (NT: don't enable a screensaver... why? it gets priority over server processes!).
Linux still isn't there yet (Score:2)
Other than that, I use Linux. I prefer the user interface for reading email, Usenet news, and developing programs.
If Quicktime and other browser plugins worked properly under Linux, I'd use the Windows partition even less.
On a somewhat related rant, I fervently wish somebody would develop a web browser that emphasizes performance and stability.
Mozilla had a great opportunity to get rid of the bloat and crap that have made Netscape almost unusable over the years, but instead they concentrated on mind candy like "skins". If Netscape 6 Preview 1 and M14 are any indication, stability and performance are even worse than Netscape 4.72, and that's saying something!
--
A "freaking free-loading Canadian" stealing jobs from good honest hard working Americans since 1997.
Admin/IT support reasons (Score:1)
Re:Why I _hate_ Linux (Score:1)
Hello. My name is GoRK and I am an addict. (Score:2)
No matter how many daemon's are running on top of X to facilitate matters, I cannot always copy and paste between applications. When I can, it's impossible to tell whether it's Ctrl-V or Alt-V or Shift-Ins (If your keys even work). It takes hours to fix all this crap. I dont have the time for that anymore. Sure, say fix it once it's done; yeah until the new
I only wish sometimes that the OSS movement had as many proponents concerned with the SOFTWARE ITSELF rather than the OPERATING SYSTEM it runs on. Let's see some adherence to established functionality standards rather than a lot of this "I know how to make my menu widget better" garbage.
Don't get me wrong. I have a ton of web abd mail servers running Linux. I just designed an entire embedded system around Linux. It's small. It's robust. It's stable, and it burns rubber. But the systems aren't designed to be used interactively by ANYONE. Honestly; if cut and paste between programs barely works, then I'm going to lose hope for Linux on the home desktop.
~GoRK
Re:Hello. My name is GoRK and I am an addict. (Score:2)
How about highlighting the text you want to copy, middle clicking where you'd like to paste?
This works 100% of the time, to the best of my knowledge. I do get annoyed when I accidently highlight the text I want to replace, therefore unhighlighting what I wanted to copy
------
Following line: Good example of Fair Use.
Re:Hello. My name is GoRK and I am an addict. (Score:1)
The only point is that there are still some major obstacles to cut/paste in linux. I agree about middle-click working most of the time. Then there's still going to be people like me who try to do everything with the keyboard because it's often faster. There should be standard methods set up to handle copy/paste with the keyboard just like there is in all other major OS's. (Windows, MacOS, Be, NeXTstep [OpenSTEP]) -- hell, the Apple ][gs had standardized copy/paste and so did the amiga in its GUI.
~GoRK