Bill Gates fan leaks source code for a bunch of Microsoft OSes including Windows XP

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

You dont even need the terminal if you dont want to use it so pretty moot to argue about it....

Except every single guide for fixing anything (and with Linux you can be assured you'll be fixing something) involves terminal and 3 kilometers long noodles you copy and paste in it and you'll have absolutely no clue what it's even doing. You're just hoping whatever was posted won't break something else. Where with Windows it's click this, click that and you'll get there. And that will fix whatever. Sometimes there are command prompt commands which are often 2 or 3 words long and even these are in general a rare thing. Compared to Linux where you are assured to fiddle with terminal non stop. Pretending it's otherwise is just straight up dishonest. And every time you question it, people have the same excuse "terminal is just easier". If that crap was so much "easier" whole world would still be running on CMD. Yet everything is GUI driven. So spare me that crap. And no, Linux based servers run by IT professionals don't count as an example.

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Except every single guide for fixing anything (and with Linux you can be assured you'll be fixing something) involves terminal and 3 kilometers long noodles you copy and paste in it and you'll have absolutely no clue what it's even doing. You're just hoping whatever was posted won't break something else. Where with Windows it's click this, click that and you'll get there. And that will fix whatever. Sometimes there are command prompt commands which are often 2 or 3 words long and even these are in general a rare thing. Compared to Linux where you are assured to fiddle with terminal non stop. Pretending it's otherwise is just straight up dishonest. And every time you question it, people have the same excuse "terminal is just easier". If that crap was so much "easier" whole world would still be running on CMD. Yet everything is GUI driven. So spare me that crap. And no, Linux based servers run by IT professionals don't count as an example.

another great way of fixing stuff in windows is just to rename things and disable "services"

 

and the good thing is you can look up guides and they're all pretty similar, so you can be pretty sure it'll work , unlike linux where u never know if one of those keyboard warriors just made shit up lol... (yes I also looked up how to fix things in linux , even just setting a custom fan curve requires u to basically write an essay and it might not even work because "reasons" lmao)

 

Again, I get that linux has its use cases but not as a consumer OS, it's just never going to happen... so people should stop trying to make it happen at least not with the current mantra that making a functional GUI is "too hard" (because that's precisely why it's never going to work)

[pythonmegapixel]

Quote

Again, I get that linux has its use cases but not as a consumer OS, it's just never going to happen... so people should stop trying to make it happen at least not with the current mantra that making a functional GUI is "too hard" (because that's precisely why it's never going to work)

To be fair, modern Linux DEs are actually really usable, if a little buggy. KDE and MATE are good examples.

 

But the general premise of your post is correct. Linux simply isn't meant to be an OS for "the average joe". For servers and embedded systems it's the industry standard, and it's also useful for the "techy" people who dislike Microsoft's practices and don't mind spending some time to set it up exactly how they like it.

 

This isn't down to a fundemental flaw with Linux. Instead, it's because it's developed largely by the "techy" people who are going to use it, so it doesn't matter if they have to dig around a bit to find what they want. If you look at the cases where [*]nix has had a huge commerical company behind it, then it's become incredibly successful - MacOS, Chrome, iOS, Android, and the various embedded systems that are probably based on it. But without that "muscle" it remains a niche kind of thing.

 

I will conclude by saying I can't stand the people who encourage happy Windows users to switch to Linux... let me tell you know, if Windows does the job for you then Linux won't be a revelation for you. On the other hand, if you find yourself constantly frustrated with Windows and have some time to spare to set Linux up, then it's probably worth giving a go.

 

As for me - I've used both. On balance, I'd probably rather use Linux, but I don't have the time to get it working perfectly, so I'm sticking with Windows for the time being.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Except every single guide for fixing anything

Because it is easier than making a god knows how long video to fix things. Plus on windows in many cases its just quicker to reinstall rather than fixing the issue(personal experience). Huge advantage for linux is even if you have to reinstall  it you can pretty much retain all of your settings(all you have to do is wipe the system partition except the home folder).

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Compared to Linux where you are assured to fiddle with terminal non stop.

How many years ago did you used it the last time? I use it as a daily driver but i never had to use it for stuff that your average joe would do.

Edited September 26, 2020 by jagdtigger

[pythonmegapixel]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Because it is easier than making a god knows how long video to fix things.

Oh yes this is a major bugbear of mine.

 

Why is every tutorial these days in video form? I find it much easier to read some text at my own pace than keep playing and pausing a video.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Why is every tutorial these days in video form?

Because if you put it in text form the average user could get confused easily and click the wrong thing, at least thats my bet on it.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Because if you put it in text form the average user could get confused easily and click the wrong thing, at least thats my bet on it.

Might have to do with payment too.  Not sure how that works exactly.  Someone’s probably done a statistical analysis.

[RejZoR]

5 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Because it is easier than making a god knows how long video to fix things. Plus on windows in many cases its just quicker to reinstall rather than fixing the issue(personal experience). Huge advantage for linux is even if you have to reinstall  it you can pretty much retain all of your settings(all you have to do is wipe the system partition except the home folder).

 

How many years ago did you used it the last time? I use it as a daily driver but i never had to use it for stuff that your average joe would do.

Like 2 months ago. And it was trash. Just because I wanted to install some WLAN drivers I had to use some stupid long noodles in terminal and because driver wasn't compatible with the kernel I had to download some different kernel and then compile it and then some more long noodles to install it and in the end it was sort of working. Literally had no idea what I've done. In Windows, you just download driver and install it. Either by EXE or by manual install via Device Manager. Which is all GUI driven.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, RejZoR said:

And it was trash

So an OS is trash when a HW manufacturer refuses to provide a driver or failing that give the resources so someone could make one.....  Guess no point in arguing with you about this.

[pythonmegapixel]

4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Like 2 months ago. And it was trash. Just because I wanted to install some WLAN drivers I had to use some stupid long noodles in terminal and because driver wasn't compatible with the kernel I had to download some different kernel and then compile it and then some more long noodles to install it and in the end it was sort of working. Literally had no idea what I've done. In Windows, you just download driver and install it. Either by EXE or by manual install via Device Manager. Which is all GUI driven.

Most distros these days will auto-install WLAN drivers, but that's subject to the manufacturer providing them.

 

Installing WLAN drivers on Windows would be similarly complicated if manufacturers refused to support Windows.

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Most distros these days will auto-install WLAN drivers, but that's subject to the manufacturer providing them.

 

Installing WLAN drivers on Windows would be similarly complicated if manufacturers refused to support Windows.

No. Not even by far. Like, not even in the same universe "similar". When did you have to compile a frigging kernel to install a driver on Windows? At worst you set to force install a driver and hope for the best. Or if someone modified the INI so it was allowed to install or whatever it just warned it's not signed. But you could install anyway like any other installer or at worst, pointing on your own at the driver package. That's just a matter of downloading and unpacking the ZIP. No stupid command prompt commands or compiling freaking kernels... Installing Realtek WLAN drivers however meant inputting bunch of weird strings into terminal, downloading different kernel, compiling some shit for it I still don't fully understand and then it sort of worked. That was on Manjaro coz it's Arch and someone had the home brewed driver for it somehow. When I tried the same thing on Kubuntu, shit got even weirder. So, no, it's objectively not even remotely similar on any level.

[pythonmegapixel]

5 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

No. Not even by far. Like, not even in the same universe "similar". Wen did you have to compile a frigging kernel to install a driver on Windows?

Never, because hardware manufacturers have ready-to-use drivers for Windows...

 

Quote

Installing Realtek WLAN drivers

Well that's the issue isn't it. It's bloody Realtek.

Even on Windows, their drivers are buggy as hell. What did you expect?

 

Also I'm not saying that you have to use Linux, just for the record. I am saying that it is not Linux's fault that you installed it on an incompatible system.

When you have a wifi card which is supported - and there are plenty of them - then everything just works, arguably better than Windows.

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

So an OS is trash when a HW manufacturer refuses to provide a driver or failing that give the resources so someone could make one.....  Guess no point in arguing with you about this.

Yeah, the OS is trash when it makes it so absurdly difficult and complicated to install something as trivial as 3rd party driver. Not only entire install was through idiotic terminal, I also had to recompile a frigging kernel. Totally user friendly and the same as pointing to some folders in Device Manager on Windows. Yup. I was disappointed with Realtek that they don't provide WLAN drivers in the kernel, but I was even more disappointed by the absurdity of Linux when I did find the driver and I had to install it. I don't think I've seen anything more retarded than that in my life dealing with computers. And I've seen some properly dumb stuff. Yet none of that matches this experience.

 

Linux is literally "if it works, then it's great alternate OS, if it doesn't, just get rid of it". That's one sentence of describing the state of Linux. Now I'm back to reading all the countless articles how Linux is overtaking and replacing Windows. This year, for realzes this time.

[RejZoR]

Just now, pythonmegapixel said:

Never, because hardware manufacturers have ready-to-use drivers for Windows.

 

Well that's the issue isn't it. It's bloody Realtek.

Even on Windows, their drivers are buggy as hell. What did you expect?

 

Also I'm not saying that you have to use Linux, just for the record. I am saying that it is not Linux's fault that you installed it on an incompatible system.

When you have a wifi card which is supported - and there are plenty of them - then everything just works, arguably better than Windows.

You're a Linux fanboy aren't you? No. Of course not... I had a Lexmark printer that only had some ancient drivers and I had to get them working on Windows 8 or 10. Guess how many times I had to enter command prompt or recompile a frigging kernel? ZERO TIMES. Did I blame Lexmark for having crappy driver support. Sure. Did I blame Microsoft for making it obscenely difficult to install some alternate driver? No. Because that just wasn't the case. But sure, you all Linux fanboys will blame everyone and everything but your beloved Linux that's never wrong and never imperfect. And anyone who says it's trash is of course wrong. Heh.

[pythonmegapixel]

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

You're a Linux fanboy aren't you?

Not really. In fact, I own no machines running Linux and I rarely recommend it. Please read my previous post in this thread, where I talk about some of the various flaws with Linux as a desktop OS. I'm sure you'd rather bash out another angry false accusation rather than scroll up to find it, so I'll even provide you with a link:

 

Quote

 But sure, you all Linux fanboys will blame everyone and everything but your beloved Linux that's never wrong and never imperfect. And anyone who says it's trash is of course wrong. Heh.

What?

At what point did I say that Linux is never imperfect?

And why do you think that an entire OS is trash just because your particular hardware doesn't work on it?

[Mark Kaine]

4 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

snip

this is also why I usually say "linux"  the os doesn't really exist for me, there are just too many variations that all do about the same but are "different" anyways... except those few you mentioned that actually have some originality *and* a user interface that's not based on freaking DOS.

 

I would really love something like the PS3 Unix/ OS on my PC for example, just add a couple of things like a proper file system and that's all I need (want) but no one does this. Because it's actually hard to do and needs at least some funding* or huge dedication.

 

*mostly because the developers would need to make sure drivers for most common PC parts are available and actually work... (this is besides the typewriter UI the main reason average gamer Joe just won't mess with "linux"... )

 

 

(is really just an example, I could just as well say a Vista clone or something, that had a really nice UI too, but as a matter of fact , PS3 OS *is* the best OS style and functionality wise imo(it just needed a bit more RAM possibly )

[RejZoR]

14 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Not really. In fact, I own no machines running Linux and I rarely recommend it. Please read my previous post in this thread, where I talk about some of the various flaws with Linux as a desktop OS. I'm sure you'd rather bash out another angry false accusation rather than scroll up to find it, so I'll even provide you with a link:

 

What?

At what point did I say that Linux is never imperfect?

And why do you think that an entire OS is trash just because your particular hardware doesn't work on it?

No, I think it's trash because I've been giving it a chance for 20 years and it's the same pile of weird ass idiocies that it was 20 years ago. That's why. And users aren't making it any better by solving it all through weird ass terminal commands no one but them understands. It's like whole GUI thing in Linux is there just as an afterthought and not to make it a better and more friendly UX. It's literally just some GUI bolted on top of terminal and nothing else. And when anything is questioned, people blame everything and anything but Linux itself.

[SansVarnic]

-= Locked =-

Topic has turned into a OS vs OS. Thusly it has run its course.