I get all that. However, there are many of us wanting to cross-over or use something else. Keeping the back-end in the back-end is a sure fire way to reduce it's value.
I'm looking for the best of both worlds, the arrogance of both sides leaves me with neither.
I'm looking for the best of both worlds
Linux server in a VM or a home server and Windows on the desktop.
For advanced computer users, it's the opposite thing
Don't speak for all advanced computer users. You will more IT professionals using Windows or OS X on their primary machines than linux.
Dissentient Don't speak for all advanced computer users. You will more IT professionals using Windows or OS X on their primary machines than linux.
professional user, does not automatically imply advanced user
professional just means making money
I have yet to find that mythical advanced IT professional that uses Windows or Macos in a demanding setting. Proprietary software is just not flexible enough to mold it into something secure, efficient, lean & above all reliable.
As for a tech enthusiast wanting to have a Linux that just works out of the box: go buy a computer from a vendor like System76 or Tuxedo that sells systems that are preloaded & configured with Linux.
I usually buy Laptops from Linux vendors because they are cheaper (no windows license fee) And select desktop components that are know to work flawlessly with Linux.
In my experience using Linux saves allot of time after the initial investment of learning & above all excepting that Linux works differently. Hint the terminal isn't going to eat your soul, it allows you to tell your computer what to do. It's so much faster then hutting for Buttons or multiple choice check-boxes in one of the numerous configuration, settings, options - menus, panels, tabs, icons & active corners that Microsoft has sprinkled in seemingly random places.
Microsoft & Apple have spent billions of dollars getting everything "to just work" for the casual desktop user. If Linux had that kind of investment in it would "just work" too. The money and time that has poured in has primarily focused on the back end, because of its unix heritage and being widely adopted to replace the places unix used to be. Yes the desktop experince is (for many) is not as good and may never be as polished as some would like, until Somone ponys up the resources it may never be, maybe Steam will change that.
Yeah everybody keeps repeating Windows & Mac just works, and it's just not true.
Every operating system that I used needed fiddling. I admit that Linux often needs tweaks to get every piece of hardware to work. But Windows wastes even more of my time by forcing me to neutralize unnecessary BS because Microsoft had a another Brainfart. Oh and Apple's obsession with controlling users $§#%&!
Linux's Problem isn't being too difficult, or not yet being ready, it's Users that think they want something different & then realizing that all their windows-strategies don't work anymore. Confronted with the reality that they might need to learn something new they quickly conclude [pick any of the usual Linux stereotypes]
I know that Linux isn't hard to use, because i managed to quickly learn how stuff works and I'm not that bright.
Windows does not work even a little bit out of the box. It supports most ethernet cards, and is otherwise entirely helpless until you track down all the drivers you need from all over the internet. The exception is if they come packaged with the OS by the OEM, but that has nothing to do with Windows.
It's more than that. An earlier post said something like "yeah, flash doesn't work to well on linux..."
I guess it's too much to ask for what most people consider common functionality in a number of areas.
I disagree, it's not ready, but I would have thought that after many, many, many years it would be better. I'll try steam os, and they go back to my every other year attempt...
Yes it does. I rarely (if ever) have to ever hunt down a driver in windows unless it is legacy hardware. It has everything to do with windows, it's called support.
No, it's called commercial licensing. Only the hardware manufacturers that pay Microsoft have their drivers automatically searched for "in Windows update". It has to with the keys, with the license, etc... and it's not called support, it's called commercialization. Dial Microsoft's support number and it costs you just the same as dialling another "hotline", and you can also be sure that you'll at least have to wait in line or listen to ads for 8 minutes, because that's according to internal Microsoft guidelines the minimum amount every customer that dials support should pay (paid per minute), if that customer doesn't have a "support subscription".
Linux ships with open source drivers for everything, right in the kernel. Distros can also opt to include "firmware", which is open source driver code, but with a proprietary license, meaning that the code cannot be changed, cannot be shipped without permission, and the use is subject to the user accepting the license agreement. (That is why distros like Debian and Fedora, which are very strict about open source and safety, are not considered "free" distros, because they do include firmwares in their repos, even though the user has the option to "yum remove *-firmware" for a completely license free experience.) Some drivers are not open source, in particular some graphics drivers. Everything will still work though, and you won't need to call paid support or wait for an online update service to mess with the security keys of your machine and data mine your system, even without proprietary drivers that can't be supplied out of the box because manufacturers don't allow it, everything will still work perfectly fine out of the box, without exception.
It is more difficult to drive a race car than to take the subway, and it's more difficult to learn everything there is to know about GNU/Linux than to use a Windows software console. There is no need in explaining the evident, everybody knows this and why that is. It's also a fact that not everybody needs a race car or even a driver's license, and it's perfectly OK to have a driver's license but have normal driving skills and not be a race car driver, just as it's a fact that not everybody needs to master GNU/Linux or even use it, and it's perfectly OK to use GNU/Linux and have moderate skills that make sure you can use it as a software console without the spyware and built-in human and civil rights infringements.
The higher the liberty, the greater the responsibility, as it is with everything. Everybody knows what the situation is, windows users know about the frustrating waits for windows to recognize the same USB stick for the millionth time, thereby always having to contact "microsoft update" over the internet, and everybody knows that this "phone home" function when you plug in a USB stick isn't doing what it's saying it's doing. Everybody knows where the problems of closed source software lie, and what one has to give up and accept by using closed source software. But it's the same as with eating fast food: fast food contains a lot of sugar and fat, so that it causes a euphoric feeling, and you don't have to learn how to cook or actually allocate the time and resources to cook, you can just continue to spend money on other than gastronomic commercial entertainment, for instance on audiovisual commercial entertainment, like watching a movie on netflix or playing a game.
Real food require you to learn how to discern fresh and ripe fruit and vegetables from others, require you to know how to cut meat, how to filet fish, it requires a lot of skills that are hard to learn for people that are used to being served their food for years, and it requires you to take decisions on ingredients, cooking times, it requires hygiene, it implies taking the responsibility to prepare healthy food so that people that eat it aren't poisoned, and most importantly, it exposes the cook to criticism from others, cooking a meal for people is like stepping onto a stage with a guitar and singing a song, and cooking food without using a recipe is like stepping onto a stage with a guitar a singing a song that you've written yourself.
A user doesn't have to use the command line to use linux, but most linux users use the command line, because it's fast, and above all precise, whereas GUI is more "ballpark" control.
There is a solution for everyone, and not everyone has the same needs. I'm OK with that. However, what I'm not OK with, is with people going to a car show, sitting themselves behind the wheel of a Ferrari without actually driving it, and then giving criticism like "doesn't even have an automatic gearbox, the rear viewing angle is too small to be safe, it's really uncomfortable, it has no rear seats, it has a small trunk, it doesn't even have a spare tyre, etc... yup, another one of those "car enthusiasts" that doesn't know what they're talking about because they've never even driven a Ferrari or another supercar, or have never even learned how to really drive a car, and yet they criticize, and that's just dumb, because those that do know why a Ferrari is a supercar, aren't even going to react to that dumb criticism, because it's too dumb for words.
I have the same opinion on people that have not really made any effort to learn GNU/Linux, but dismiss and criticize GNU/Linux from a Windows user point-of-view that has never used a free operating system as main and as only operating system. Criticizing GNU/Linux as a Windows user is barbershop or nail salon gossip, it's just stupid by nature, and void in advance. Saying that "linux is not ready yet" if you're using a windows software console on your systems, is an invalid argument, instead you should be saying "I'm not ready for a free operating system yet" because I like my fast food too much and that would be honest.
Nobody will think any less of a person that uses another operating system or hardware or whatever, the thing that causes all of the controversy is the fact that everybody is on this huge communication channel called the Internet at the same time, and they're all having 99% virtual experiences and 1% real experiences, and everybody knows that there is something wrong about that, and that makes them nervous and intolerant and edgy and rude. How many people on the Internet are bitching about AMD but have never used an AMD CPU or GPU? How many people on the Internet know for sure that Intel CPUs and nVidia GPUs are much better, but don't even know the difference between an AMD and Intel or AMD and nVidia chip? How many people swear before God and everything that's holy and/or unholy, that linux sucks, is difficult, and makes no sense because you can't game with it and it doesn't run netflix... just like people just know for sure that no more than 2 % of all PC users use linux, and most of those still use windows as main operating system, and those that don't are hippies and neckbeards... that's why at any given moment in time, there are millions of people online on linux-native-open-source-software-only gaming servers and fora, that's why more than 10% of all new PC's are sold with Ubuntu preinstalled (and that's not even the most used linux distro in the world), that's why the share price of RedHat is higher than the share price of Microsoft, that's why Microsoft and Google spend billions on cuttroath methods to hold back linux functionality, etc... the evidence is there, it's all pretty clear, you just have to want to see it.... the real question is, do you evolve or stay back, aka do you care or stay comfortably numb, and everyone knows that that is the real question.
huh? Flash works perfectly fine on linux, ok adobe isn't updating it anymore & it's slower, but who cares it's about to become obsolete anyway...HTML5
Flash needs to die a horrible and painful death. But it does work, no idea why it wouldn't, has worked for as long as linux has been on my laptop, and I never had issues with Flash in the periods I used linux on my desktop. (All in all about 3 years total I'd guess)
professional user, does not automatically imply advanced user
I would say that in a lot of cases it does.
Proprietary software is just not flexible enough to mold it into something secure, efficient, lean & above all reliable.
There are uses for both proprietary and free technologies. Implying that one is inherently superior to another is what very stupid people do.
In my experience using Linux saves allot of time after the initial investment of learning & above all excepting that Linux works differently.
When I tried desktop linux, I couldn't find a single reason to switch from windows to it. Everything about it just made me reject it. It is all a matter of personal preference, really.
Hint the terminal isn't going to eat your soul, it allows you to tell your computer what to do. It's so much faster then hutting for Buttons or multiple choice check-boxes in one of the numerous configuration, settings, options - menus, panels, tabs, icons & active corners that Microsoft has sprinkled in seemingly random places.
The only thing that I consider CLI to be acceptable for is occasional maintenance like boot tracing and other things that are not worth making a GUI for. I don't mind working with CLI while being paid for it, but the idea of using it alongside GUI on my home desktop makes me cringe because there should be no need for it on a proper desktop OS.
but the idea of using it alongside GUI on my home desktop makes me cringe because there should be no need for it on a proper desktop OS.
If it is faster to use and more powerful than a GUI-based alternative for the same operation, then it has a very important place in modern OSs. Why waste your time? Compute faster, and smarter - it's what Linux is all about.
CLI is not "more powerful" than GUI, CLI is usually a solution where GUI is not required. Each has it's own uses.
Also, if something is actually done faster with CLI, one can just borrow this part from CLI and implement it as a part of a GUI.
There are things that are more convenient to do with hotkeys. There are thinks that are more convenient to do by typing. There are also things that require pointing.
Claiming that one kind of UI is better than other is stupid.
Umm, just my idea, have you tried zoren? I like it, and it's great for coming over from windows.
You mean Zorin OS ?
I haven't tried it yet but here's what their website says:
The Look Changer lets you change your desktop to look and act like either Windows 7, XP, Vista, Ubuntu Unity, Mac OS X or GNOME 2 for ultimate ease of use.
0.o This reminds me that I have to cook more.
yeah. Using the google search engine and throwing "teksyndicate" together with the search term would be appropriate....
I really think you've missed the point. If I buy a lamborgini, I expect a rough fast ride. However, I still expect it to have a radio for the times I'm not going 150 mph. It's been about a decade that the promise of a gui heavy usable distro has been out there. I want to drop MS because I'm sick of it, and every so often I get my druthers and decide to try the newest greatest hyped up linux version. NO with MS's quirkiness and annoyances, as a daily driver there is no where near the amount of maintenance time I'm finding with mint.
I hate whenever I use an example on a forum that people assume that's the only problem. I think some people don't know what the word example means. In this case I mentioned flash. Guess what, there are a billion flash applications that are not going to be converted to html5, is it too much to ask that they work?
The lack of foresight and arrogance of linux-gui developers has become a self fulfilling prophesy. Make it harder to use and implement and you get fewer users, fewer users = less oem support = fewer users, etc...
And this constant argument that most of the world uses linux doesn't make it better, it means that it's free and they are willing to live with a sub-par experience.
And fast food? Laziness? I would much rather play the game or cook a nice dinner than constantly babysit my machine. It's a means to an end, not my pet.
No distro is dependent on a DE (or GUI), a DE or WM is just an application that works on any linux distro.
At least in linux, there is a real technological evolution in DE's, in Windows there hasn't been any in the last 20 years, except more clicks, more eye movements, more waste of energy and resources...
Linux will always be in motion, it will always evolve, some applications can't keep up, both in open source and closed source. That's the open source way, the best solution prevails, those that can't keep up, drop off. That's why open source software quality and feature support is exponentially better.
Even the "GUI" as you call it, meaning the Desktop Environment, is better in Linux, Gnome or KDE are much more evolved and modern than Windows, and much more efficient. XFCE is still one of the most beloved DE's with experienced linux users because it's customizable and stays out of the user's way, less clicks, less eye movements, more speed, more efficiency, more precision.
The lack of foresight and arrogance of linux-gui developers has become a self fulfilling prophesy. Make it harder to use and implement and you get fewer users, fewer users = less oem support = fewer users, etc...
That is just so wrong in so many ways. Linux only has fewer users on the US desktop market. Worldwide, that's including the US, more than 10 % of all new PC's are delivered with Ubuntu preinstalled, and that's not even the most popular linux distro and not even one of the major linux distros. But all those people buy a PC without Windows and buy a copy of Windows afterwards right?... wrong... more than half of Microsoft's profit is made in the US according to MSFT's own SEC filings (I have already referenced the link to these in the past), which is a market of 300 million consumers versus the rest of the world, which is a market of about 6.5 billion consumers. Even if every consumer in the US would have a PC, and even if Microsoft would have a 100 % market penetration on PC's in the US (which is doesn't, but let's assume for the benefit of the argument), than Windows would be on 300 million PC's. If that's more than half of the profits of Microsoft, that means that there are maximum 300 million Windows PC's outside of the US also (in fact, outside of the US, windows licenses are more expensive, so the profit margin is higher, so if there is less profit outside the US, that actually means that there are a lot less licenses sold outside of the US). That means that in the reasoning of the anti-linux/pro-windows crowd, there would maximum be 300 million PC's outside of the US in the entire world... yeah right... whatever. In fact, in 2010, there were approximatively 296 million PC's in active use in the US, and 1.425 billion PC's in active use worldwide, so - in the hypothesis that all PC's in the US run on Windows - more than 1.1 billion PC's outside of the US, do not run on Windows....
And what does that mean for your "linux in-crowd" argument: that's also easy to refute: obviously, a lot of people in Germany and Russia, which are huge windows gaming countries, also use windows for gaming, often windows copies running in a linux jail because it's an easy way to circumvent the microsoft DRM. That means that the huge non-windows user base - even if they don't actively contribute with linux development, but just passively use linux - contributes to linux development by at least testing linux, whereas they don't contribute at all to windows. So in fact, there are much more "ordinary pc users" involved in linux than in windows, except in the US.
Fact: this year, AMD has closed it's Dresden office, where the operating system development center for linux was housed, and all linux operating system developers were fired. The reason for this is that AMD is delegating ever more to Globalfoundries, which is owned by ATIC, which is in turn owned by the state of Dubai and a couple of European investors. AMD right now only has linux graphics drivers developers, and as soon as the open source drivers are full-featured, those will be let off too. Reason: there are plenty of open source developers that can do the software development better than a handful of employees. AMD is not as much a US company at its core than it was before. Globalfoundries is taking over much of the core business from AMD, and for the US, local Windows development can be done with a handful of people there. There is no way to deny the evolution. I can understand that it's hard for a US consumer to imagine a PC without windows, just like it's hard to for a US consumer to see that McDonalds hasn't been making real profit in most countries outside of the US since the beginning of the 70's, and that genetically modified food is illegal even for animals in Europe, and that a standard cable-TV connection in Europe maybe offers 25 stations tops, and that in many countries, it's against the law for a TV channel to interrupt a TV program with advertisements, and that university and college are freely accessible and students do not need a student loan, and that fuel and food prices are three times more expensive than in the US, and doctors have to prescribe generic medicine because it's cheaper because there is no patent licensing on them and it's illegal for pharma industry to offer incentives to doctors to favour certain products over others, that every visit to a doctor costs the same amount (mostly between 5 and 10 bucks), whatever the procedure required, and the rest is paid from mandatory tax-subsidized medical insurance, etc... I'm just saying, look at the entire picture, not just at the US picture. Ever less technology is pioneered in the US, ever more technology is owned by non-US companies, and is developed for other-than-US markets. The US standards do not apply to the majority of the world.