Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason tostick with Windows) - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason tostick with Windows) - Linux ; Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things outlined by Kelsey below? It took ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 108

Thread: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason tostick with Windows)

  1. Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason tostick with Windows)

    Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    outlined by Kelsey below? It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    courses in rocket science--between 1 to 10 years to become really
    proficient in Windows (the upper bound is for stuff like
    programming). If I was to switch to Linux it would take me another 10
    years, if not more, to become proficient in Linux.

    Another reason--of many--to stick with Windows--the steep learning
    curve associated with Linux.

    RL

    On Dec 19, 12:06*pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:37:54 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:
    > > Who uses Linux here, seriously? *For serious work. *I'm serious. *Not
    > > talking about Apache.

    >
    > Ah, I see. *Providing web hosting and web mail to several thousand people
    > doesn't qualify as "serious". *Yes, well, very good.
    >
    > > But serious business word processing,
    > > spreadsheets, databases, programming, that sort of stuff.

    >
    > Every single day. *
    >
    > > Real work.

    >
    > Every single day.
    >
    > > Not hobbyware. *Not casual surfing of the net. *Leaving aside Apache..

    >
    > Ah, I see. *Providing web hosting and web mail to several thousand people
    > doesn't count.
    >
    > > Yes I know Apache is a great Linux program. *But let's leave that
    > > aside, otherwise you're conceeding that the only serious application
    > > in Linux is Apache.

    >
    > Say what? *Are you retarded? *It's but one of many things. *Postfix and
    > Exim, to name a couple more. *Postgres and MySQL. *bind and any of a
    > hatful of other DNS options. *dcc. *amavis. *The list goes on (and on and
    > on and on) and that's just a tiny fraction, server-side.
    >
    > Then there's anything from OOo to kmail, quanta to kdevelop, monodevelop,
    > firefox, konq, gimp, gwenview and on and on and on for the desktop.
    >
    > And let's not forget items such as egroupware and other enterprise
    > information services.
    >
    > Or konsole, which allows me to connect to and control umpteen servers at
    > once - issue the command on one, it gets replicated to the rest. *Very
    > handy, and all done from a nicely tabbed interface - I'm sure Vista's
    > caught up on this front, right?
    >
    > > Seriously, who uses Linux for *serious* work?

    >
    > I do, every single day.


  2. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    "raylopez99" wrote in message
    news:1a0a758c-b5cb-41f8-a0e4-d1ff8331688c@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
    Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    outlined by Kelsey below?

    No longer than it would using Windows.
    Linux is the OPERATING SYSTEM, NOT the Applications.



  3. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    "Gordon" writes:

    > "raylopez99" wrote in message
    > news:1a0a758c-b5cb-41f8-a0e4-d1ff8331688c@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
    > Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    > wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    > it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    > outlined by Kelsey below?
    >
    > No longer than it would using Windows.
    > Linux is the OPERATING SYSTEM, NOT the Applications.


    He was talking about the wonderful capabilities so clearly he is talking
    about the Linux KERNEL (Linux is not an OS) AND the operating
    system. The OS and supporting utilities provide the wonderful
    capabilities. And they do take a lot of mindshift and learning to
    appreciate. From the concept of X, to the bash shell to the concept of
    run levels, to the concept of ........... .

    There are few desktop apps which do not have an as good or better
    equivalent on Windows too. Most of the best OSS apps also run on Windows
    for a start.

    Linux/Gnus is superior in every way because it is a Free system where
    you can configure it to your hearts content WHEN you know what you are
    doing. This configuration facility comes at a cost - often new users are
    blinded by the possibilities and return to Windows where they are
    cosier. The great majority of user dont give a flying f*ck what the OS
    is. They just want to run the apps they need to do their day to day
    business.



  4. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    >Worthless troll wrote:
    >>
    >>My followup question: how long does
    >>it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    >>outlined by Kelsey below?


    For a normal person, or for a moron like you?


  5. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reasonto stick with Windows)

    Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
    >> Worthless troll wrote:
    >>> My followup question: how long does
    >>> it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    >>> outlined by Kelsey below?

    >
    > For a normal person, or for a moron like you?


    Given that he can't even spell the word "learn", I'd say "never".

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._. :*~*:.
    .. .
    .. "Remember, if Christmas isn't found in your heart, .
    .. you won't find it under a tree." ~ C. Carpenter .
    .. .
    .. Merry Christmas & A Happy New Year .
    .. .
    ..:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._. :*~*:.


    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    17:58:08 up 15:33, 1 user, load average: 1.07, 0.44, 0.16

  6. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    "[H]omer" writes:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
    >>> Worthless troll wrote:
    >>>> My followup question: how long does
    >>>> it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    >>>> outlined by Kelsey below?

    >>
    >> For a normal person, or for a moron like you?

    >
    > Given that he can't even spell the word "learn", I'd say "never".


    Too subtle for me at this time of the day.

  7. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reasontostick with Windows)

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:35:35 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    > wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    > it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    > outlined by Kelsey below? It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    > courses in rocket science--


    Were those the course that tech how to crash probes into mMars?

    > between 1 to 10 years to become really
    > proficient in Windows (the upper bound is for stuff like
    > programming). If I was to switch to Linux it would take me another 10
    > years, if not more, to become proficient in Linux.


    SO, you are a slow learner.


    > Another reason--of many--to stick with Windows--the steep learning
    > curve associated with Linux.


    The learning curve is not that steep, and you know it. There is a lot of
    knowledge that is directly transferable from Windows to Linux based
    systems.

    --
    Rick

  8. Re: Windopws takes many years, if not decades, to unlearn (another reason to stick with Linux)

    Micoshaft Asstroturfer raylopez99 wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:

    > L


    Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    it take to unlearn windummy OS in order to do all the wonderful things
    outlined by Kelsey below? It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    courses in rocket science--between 1 to 10 years to become really
    proficient in using notepad for Windows (the upper bound is for
    retard stuff like using clippy). If I was to switch to Linux it would take
    me another 10 minutes, if not less, to become proficient in Linux.

    Another reason--of many--to stick it into Windows--the steep windummy
    unlearning curve and stay associated with Linux so you can
    compare how the other half live.

    > RL


    http://www.livecdlist.com
    http://www.distrowatch.com

    Some of those livecds are being manufactured by 16 year old kids.
    Shows how far Linux scripting has advanced to stage where
    16 year old kids are turning out their own LiveCDs.



  9. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reasonto stick with Windows)

    On Dec 21, 8:51*am, Hadron wrote:
    > > No longer than it would using Windows.
    > > Linux is the OPERATING SYSTEM, NOT the Applications.


    > Linux/Gnus is superior in every way because it is a Free system where
    > you can configure it to your hearts content WHEN you know what you are
    > doing. This configuration facility comes at a cost - often new users are
    > blinded by the possibilities and return to Windows where they are
    > cosier. The great majority of user dont give a flying f*ck what the OS
    > is. They just want to run the apps they need to do their day to day
    > business.


    Right you are Hadron.

    I liken learning Linux versus lerning Windows to coding databases
    using C# or C++ or Oracle's programming language or the like versus
    using simplistic but powerful Microsoft Access. The former is/are
    more complicated but in the end for most users achieves the same as
    the later. For example, using Access 2003, and without touching a
    single line of code (just copying and pasting stuff I found off the
    net--again the analogy with having a large market share like Windows,
    Microsoft Access code is freely available nearly everywhere for every
    purpose), I just spent a few hours today setting up a decent looking
    database with "forms" and "subforms", and linked in such a way that
    entering data in one form will lead to the next subform, and clicking
    on a button will popup a window or form (all built into Access
    programming interface, and again, no need to write a single line of
    code, it's done behind the scenes), and even (copying somebody else's
    code, freely available off the net) I set up a simple password
    protection scheme so each user of the database can enter a password to
    access their data and nobody elses (not a robust password scheme, but
    good enough for casual users).

    All in a few hours! Since I've also learned database programming in
    C#, using SQL Server Express, I can assure you that doing the same
    thing in C# would have taken a week--if I could even find a solution
    for the password protection (probably not, I'd have to buy it from a
    third party or develop it from scratch).

    Now given the above--which language: SQL Server 2005 via C#/C++,
    Microsoft Access, Oracle SQL Developer, MySQL via your favorite OOP
    language, etc,--would a professional use? Any of the others but not
    Visual Basic-based Access, that's for sure. No argument there--but
    for the 99% of the programming population that simply wants to quickly
    do a rapid coding project --and keep in mind Access has a somewhat
    decent to decent data binding engine with "Jet"-- then Access is
    clearly superior for the casual programmer, just like Windows is
    clearly superior to Linux.

    Regarding Linux, sure I miss not having "virtual" folders as in Unix/
    Linux and the ability to automatically keep a file in two different
    places without having to sync the files (I recall this feature from
    RedHat 10 year ago, and it was very cool). Or to redirect file output
    using < or > and "pipes", etc. Yada yada yada. I'm sure you
    experienced users know a lot more tricks.

    But do I give up the ease, standardization and comfort of Windows for
    gaining these schoolboy tricks? Methinks not.

    RL

  10. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:35:35 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    > wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    > it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    > outlined by Kelsey below? It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    > courses in rocket science--between 1 to 10 years to become really
    > proficient in Windows (the upper bound is for stuff like
    > programming). If I was to switch to Linux it would take me another 10
    > years, if not more, to become proficient in Linux.
    >
    > Another reason--of many--to stick with Windows--the steep learning
    > curve associated with Linux.
    >


    Geez - I did not realize I was so intelligent. It took me only a matter of
    a few weeks. You must really be a dolt.



  11. Re: Windopws takes many years, if not decades, to unlearn (another reason to stick with Linux)

    7 wrote:

    > Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    > wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    > it take to unlearn windummy OS in order to do all the wonderful things
    > outlined by Kelsey below? It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    > courses in rocket science--between 1 to 10 years to become really
    > proficient in using notepad for Windows (the upper bound is for
    > retard stuff like using clippy). If I was to switch to Linux it
    > would take me another 10 minutes, if not less, to become proficient
    > in Linux.
    >
    > Another reason--of many--to stick it into Windows--the steep windummy
    > unlearning curve and stay associated with Linux so you can
    > compare how the other half live.


    What's wrong with you, 7? Did you suffer some kind of head injury a long
    time ago? I'm dead serious.




    >> RL

    >
    > http://www.livecdlist.com
    > http://www.distrowatch.com
    >
    > Some of those livecds are being manufactured by 16 year old kids.


    And it shows.





  12. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    > wonderful capabilities of Linux. *My followup question: *how long does
    > it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    > outlined by Kelsey below? *It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    > courses in rocket science--between 1 to 10 years to become really
    > proficient in Windows (the upper bound is for stuff like
    > programming). *If I was to switch to Linux it would take me another 10
    > years, if not more, to become proficient in Linux.


    Programming is the same on any platform, so you won't have to learn that.
    Therefore you would probably be proficient after one year.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  13. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > Regarding Linux, sure I miss not having "virtual" folders as in Unix/
    > Linux and the ability to automatically keep a file in two different
    > places without having to sync the files (I recall this feature from
    > RedHat 10 year ago, and it was very cool). *Or to redirect file output
    > using < or > and "pipes", etc. Yada yada yada. *I'm sure you
    > experienced users know a lot more tricks.


    Redirection of application input/output was available under MSDOS.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  14. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    > wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    > it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    > outlined by Kelsey below? It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    > courses in rocket science--


    Ahh.. a real space cadet, should have known.

    > between 1 to 10 years to become really
    > proficient in Windows (the upper bound is for stuff like
    > programming).


    What a retard. You really have nothing to brag about.

    > If I was to switch to Linux it would take me another 10
    > years, if not more, to become proficient in Linux.
    >


    So don't. You many now leave COLA for good.

    > Another reason--of many--to stick with Windows--the steep learning
    > curve associated with Linux.
    >


    Actually it was really easy to learn for me.

    > RL
    >
    > On Dec 19, 12:06*pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:37:54 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:
    >> > Who uses Linux here, seriously? *For serious work. *I'm serious. *Not
    >> > talking about Apache.

    >>
    >> Ah, I see. *Providing web hosting and web mail to several thousand people
    >> doesn't qualify as "serious". *Yes, well, very good.
    >>
    >> > But serious business word processing,
    >> > spreadsheets, databases, programming, that sort of stuff.

    >>
    >> Every single day.
    >>
    >> > Real work.

    >>
    >> Every single day.
    >>
    >> > Not hobbyware. *Not casual surfing of the net. *Leaving aside Apache.

    >>
    >> Ah, I see. *Providing web hosting and web mail to several thousand people
    >> doesn't count.
    >>
    >> > Yes I know Apache is a great Linux program. *But let's leave that
    >> > aside, otherwise you're conceeding that the only serious application
    >> > in Linux is Apache.

    >>
    >> Say what? *Are you retarded? *It's but one of many things. *Postfix and
    >> Exim, to name a couple more. *Postgres and MySQL. *bind and any of a
    >> hatful of other DNS options. *dcc. *amavis. *The list goes on (and on and
    >> on and on) and that's just a tiny fraction, server-side.
    >>
    >> Then there's anything from OOo to kmail, quanta to kdevelop, monodevelop,
    >> firefox, konq, gimp, gwenview and on and on and on for the desktop.
    >>
    >> And let's not forget items such as egroupware and other enterprise
    >> information services.
    >>
    >> Or konsole, which allows me to connect to and control umpteen servers at
    >> once - issue the command on one, it gets replicated to the rest. *Very
    >> handy, and all done from a nicely tabbed interface - I'm sure Vista's
    >> caught up on this front, right?
    >>
    >> > Seriously, who uses Linux for *serious* work?

    >>
    >> I do, every single day.


    --
    .....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

  15. Re: Windopws takes many years, if not decades, to unlearn (another reason to stick with Linux)

    DFS did eloquently scribble:
    > What's wrong with you, 7? Did you suffer some kind of head injury a long
    > time ago? I'm dead serious.


    It's pointless considering...
    I personally think his nickname is such because that's also his age...
    Or was when he first started posting, so he's still a pre-teen.
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  16. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    On 2007-12-22, Gregory Shearman claimed:

    > Programming is the same on any platform, so you won't have to learn that.
    > Therefore you would probably be proficient after one year.


    Gosh you're optimistic! Maybe you're right about the average person.
    But raydopez??

    --
    Free people have the option of being armed. Slaves have no option.

  17. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    On Saturday 22 Dec 2007 2:18 am, ray wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:35:35 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    >> wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    >> it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    >> outlined by Kelsey below? It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    >> courses in rocket science--between 1 to 10 years to become really
    >> proficient in Windows (the upper bound is for stuff like
    >> programming). If I was to switch to Linux it would take me another 10
    >> years, if not more, to become proficient in Linux.
    >>
    >> Another reason--of many--to stick with Windows--the steep learning
    >> curve associated with Linux.
    >>

    >
    > Geez - I did not realize I was so intelligent. It took me only a matter of
    > a few weeks. You must really be a dolt.


    As well as being totally incompetent.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  18. Re: Windopws takes many years, if not decades, to unlearn (another reason to stick with Linux)

    Micoshaft Asstroturfer DFS wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:

    > 7 wrote:
    >
    >> Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    >> wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    >> it take to unlearn windummy OS in order to do all the wonderful things
    >> outlined by Kelsey below? It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    >> courses in rocket science--between 1 to 10 years to become really
    >> proficient in using notepad for Windows (the upper bound is for
    >> retard stuff like using clippy). If I was to switch to Linux it
    >> would take me another 10 minutes, if not less, to become proficient
    >> in Linux.
    >>
    >> Another reason--of many--to stick it into Windows--the steep windummy
    >> unlearning curve and stay associated with Linux so you can
    >> compare how the other half live.

    >
    > What's wrong with you, 7? Did you suffer some kind of head injury a long
    > time ago? I'm dead serious.



    How can you be dead and be serious?
    I find that strange. Some people claim they laugh and their head falls off.
    If they beheaded themselves just by laughing, then when did they
    resurrect themselves and post the article?!


    >>> RL

    >>
    >> http://www.livecdlist.com
    >> http://www.distrowatch.com
    >>
    >> Some of those livecds are being manufactured by 16 year old kids.

    >
    > And it shows.


    But you can't show it.
    I can.


  19. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    Au79 writes:

    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> Let's assume that the poster Kelsey Bjarnason is correct about the
    >> wonderful capabilities of Linux. My followup question: how long does
    >> it take to learn Linux in order to do all the wonderful things
    >> outlined by Kelsey below? It took me--and keep in mind I've taken
    >> courses in rocket science--

    >
    > Ahh.. a real space cadet, should have known.
    >
    >> between 1 to 10 years to become really
    >> proficient in Windows (the upper bound is for stuff like
    >> programming).

    >
    > What a retard. You really have nothing to brag about.
    >
    >> If I was to switch to Linux it would take me another 10
    >> years, if not more, to become proficient in Linux.
    >>

    >
    > So don't. You many now leave COLA for good.


    I always love it when some wannabe like you calls people "retarded" and
    then types something like the above.

    >
    >> Another reason--of many--to stick with Windows--the steep learning
    >> curve associated with Linux.
    >>

    >
    > Actually it was really easy to learn for me.


    What was really easy? Or are your needs turning it on, using open
    office and turning it off?


  20. Re: Linux takes many years, if not decades, to lern (another reason to stick with Windows)

    Sinister Midget writes:

    > On 2007-12-22, Gregory Shearman claimed:
    >
    >> Programming is the same on any platform, so you won't have to learn that.
    >> Therefore you would probably be proficient after one year.

    >
    > Gosh you're optimistic! Maybe you're right about the average person.
    > But raydopez??


    "programming" is not "the same" on every platform. It is true that good
    programmer will adapt relatively quickly. It is vastly different in many
    cases. Tools are different, the IDEs you must use (corporate policy) can
    be different and unless you are familiar with a cross platform API and
    are allowed to use it then APIs are different too.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast