Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user - Linux

This is a discussion on Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user - Linux ; http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...perienced-user The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the hackers who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather schizophrenic view of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play, develop, which is fine, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 126

Thread: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

  1. Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...perienced-user
    The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the hackers
    who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather schizophrenic view
    of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play, develop, which is fine,
    but also want Linux to become dominant, or at least far more prevalent. Most
    computer users do NOT want a 'developers OS', they want an OS which does
    what THEY want.
    1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.
    2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.
    3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.
    4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.
    5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users.

  2. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-08, Hans wrote:
    > 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.


    Ah, where's the time the opposite was stated :-p

    --
    Maurice, potteke pis, potteke kak, almanak.
    ~ Urbanus

  3. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    TomB wrote:
    > On 2008-08-08, Hans wrote:
    >> 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.

    >
    > Ah, where's the time the opposite was stated :-p
    >

    All the time, probably because linux DOES really run on old hardware.

    --
    | spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

  4. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Aug 9, 12:44*am, "Hans" wrote:

    > 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.


    Okay I'd better install Vista on my 256Mb PII. Does that make you feel
    better?




  5. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:

    > http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...ucceed-a-view-

    experienced-user
    > The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the
    > hackers who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather
    > schizophrenic view of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play,
    > develop, which is fine, but also want Linux to become dominant, or at
    > least far more prevalent. Most computer users do NOT want a 'developers
    > OS', they want an OS which does what THEY want.
    > 1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want. 2)
    > There are too many software projects which duplicate effort. 3)
    > Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities. 4) Linux doesn't really run on
    > old hardware. 5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from
    > users.

  6. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-08, Hans wrote:
    > http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...perienced-user
    > The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the hackers
    > who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather schizophrenic view
    > of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play, develop, which is fine,
    > but also want Linux to become dominant, or at least far more prevalent. Most
    > computer users do NOT want a 'developers OS', they want an OS which does
    > what THEY want.
    > 1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.


    Which is what exactly?

    To not be scared by the thought of not being able to download
    some random browser plugin from some random website?

    > 2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.


    ....as if this was ever a problem.

    This makes it sound like that only Linux has this "problem". If
    you bother to look, you will find that Windows has this "problem"
    even WORSE than Linux does.

    Seeking out those "superior windows alternatives" can be a real
    eye opener.

    > 3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.
    > 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.


    Like what? Why isn't this a problem for Windows?

    I have an old laptop that's literally being kept alive by Linux.
    If it were running it's original copy of XP it would have been
    burnt out by now. This is a 6+ old year laptop.

    How much older does the hardware have to be?

    > 5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users.
    >

  7. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Rick schreef:
    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...ucceed-a-view-

    > experienced-user
    >> The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the
    >> hackers who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather
    >> schizophrenic view of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play,
    >> develop, which is fine, but also want Linux to become dominant, or at
    >> least far more prevalent. Most computer users do NOT want a 'developers
    >> OS', they want an OS which does what THEY want.
    >> 1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want. 2)
    >> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort. 3)
    >> Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities. 4) Linux doesn't really run on
    >> old hardware. 5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from
    >> users.

  8. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ ml2mst on Friday 08 August 2008 14:16 : \____

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Rick schreef:
    >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...ucceed-a-view-

    >> experienced-user
    >>> The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the
    >>> hackers who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather
    >>> schizophrenic view of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play,
    >>> develop, which is fine, but also want Linux to become dominant, or at
    >>> least far more prevalent. Most computer users do NOT want a 'developers
    >>> OS', they want an OS which does what THEY want.
    >>> 1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want. 2)
    >>> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort. 3)
    >>> Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities. 4) Linux doesn't really run on
    >>> old hardware. 5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from
    >>> users.

  9. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Roy Schestowitz schreef:
    > ____/ ml2mst on Friday 08 August 2008 14:16 : \____
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1

    >
    >> Rick schreef:
    >>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0200, Hans wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...ucceed-a-view-
    >>> experienced-user
    >>>> The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the
    >>>> hackers who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather
    >>>> schizophrenic view of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play,
    >>>> develop, which is fine, but also want Linux to become dominant, or at
    >>>> least far more prevalent. Most computer users do NOT want a 'developers
    >>>> OS', they want an OS which does what THEY want.
    >>>> 1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want. 2)
    >>>> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort. 3)
    >>>> Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities. 4) Linux doesn't really run on
    >>>> old hardware. 5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from
    >>>> users.

  10. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Aug 8, 5:58*am, Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
    > On Aug 9, 12:44*am, "Hans" wrote:
    >
    > > 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.

    >
    > Okay I'd better install Vista on my 256Mb PII. Does that make you feel
    > better?


    Fact is that what somebody does with antique hardware doesn't really
    matter.

  11. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-08, Greenhorn wrote:
    > On Aug 8, 5:58*am, Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
    >> On Aug 9, 12:44*am, "Hans" wrote:
    >>
    >> > 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.

    >>
    >> Okay I'd better install Vista on my 256Mb PII. Does that make you feel
    >> better?

    >
    > Fact is that what somebody does with antique hardware doesn't really
    > matter.


    Ok, then you disagree with point 4 from the original article as irrelevant.

    IOW, it doesn't count as a "Linux problem" either.

    --

    Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
    who has pirated their music / | \


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  12. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    > TomB wrote:
    >> On 2008-08-08, Hans wrote:
    >>> 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.

    >> Ah, where's the time the opposite was stated :-p
    >>

    > All the time, probably because linux DOES really run on old hardware.
    >


    Amazing how I hear all this **** about Linux not working.

    I have it working on old and new hardware, perfectly. This either means
    I'm lucky OR everyone who fails to run Linux is some sort of retard.

  13. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    ml2mst wrote:

    >> Microsoft needs Windows Home Server test dummies
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | Microsoft is looking for Windows Home Server guinea pigs to test a public
    >> | beta of a patch to a major corruption bug that has blighted the product since
    >> | late last year.
    >> |
    >> | The bug, which corrupts data on a number of well-known Microsoft and
    >> | third-party apps when the programs are used to edit or transfer files in the
    >> | firms latest server operating system for the low-end, home user market,
    >> | first reared its ugly head in December.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...r_public_beta/
    >>
    >> No buddy ever gets fried for buying Microsoft. The data, on the other hand...

    >
    > He he, Windows Home Server, the Bermuda triangle for your data...


    I thought Home Server was based on Server 2003 or 2008. So if it
    affects Home Server, doesn't it affect them too?

    Of course, Home Server does have "add-ons" that the other server
    products don't.

    Stupid Microsoft.

  14. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:58:10 -0700 (PDT), Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
    >On Aug 9, 12:44*am, "Hans" wrote:


    >> 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.


    >Okay I'd better install Vista on my 256Mb PII. Does that make you feel
    >better?


    That was a hilarious statement considering how much hardware won't work for
    vista, how much hardware from the win9x days won't work for win2K/XP, and how
    much hardware from the dos/win31 days won't work with win95 while all that
    hardware all works perfectly with linux, hardware going back twenty years!


  15. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-08, JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > I have an old laptop that's literally being kept alive by Linux.
    > If it were running it's original copy of XP it would have been
    > burnt out by now. This is a 6+ old year laptop.
    >
    > How much older does the hardware have to be?


    I have Debian running on a freaking PENTIUM frrom the late nineties.
    Beat that :-p

    It's the only way I still can make use of the thing...

    --
    This job would be great if it wasn't for the ****ing customers.
    ~ Randal Graves

  16. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    * TomB peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-08-08, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >
    >> I have an old laptop that's literally being kept alive by Linux.
    >> If it were running it's original copy of XP it would have been
    >> burnt out by now. This is a 6+ old year laptop.
    >>
    >> How much older does the hardware have to be?

    >
    > I have Debian running on a freaking PENTIUM frrom the late nineties.
    > Beat that :-p
    >
    > It's the only way I still can make use of the thing...


    I gave away an old Pentium with Linux. Once the guy could obtain a
    newer computer, he sold it for a pittance to someone else who was
    interested in toying with Linux.

    I had another Pentium system, but cannibalized it and tossed the mobo.

    --
    Better hope the life-inspector doesn't come around while you have your
    life in such a mess.

  17. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > Andrew Halliwell wrote:
    >> TomB wrote:
    >>> On 2008-08-08, Hans wrote:
    >>>> 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.
    >>> Ah, where's the time the opposite was stated :-p
    >>>

    >> All the time, probably because linux DOES really run on old hardware.
    >>

    >
    > Amazing how I hear all this **** about Linux not working.
    >
    > I have it working on old and new hardware, perfectly. This either means
    > I'm lucky OR everyone who fails to run Linux is some sort of retard.


    You forgot the third option.
    They DECIDED they were going to fail before they started and did everything
    within their power to ensure that failure.

    Lot of effort to go to just to complain, really.
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

  18. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    Hans wrote:

    > 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.


    Yeah, it does. You may not use the same distribution of Linux, or the same
    desktop, on all platforms, but you don't have to. That's the advantage of
    having a choice.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  19. Re: Why Vista won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    "Richard Rasker" schreef in bericht
    news:g7i5cp$sfu$1@saturn.z74.net...
    > Hans wrote:
    >
    >> The fundamental issue with Vista seems to be the developers and their
    >> bosses who are responsible for the OS. Quite simply, they hold a rather
    >> schizophrenic view of Vista. They paddle Vista as an "advanced, more
    >> secure OS", but know that it's nothing more than an overbloated piece of
    >> crapware which performs miserable even in comparison with XP, and forces
    >> users to all sorts of costly "upgrades" in both hardware and software.
    >> In fact, most computer users do NOT want Vista. They want an OS which
    >> does
    >> what THEY want.
    >> 1) Vista makers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want, but
    >> instead created a resource-guzzling monstrosity with all kinds of
    >> user-policing mechanisms, artificial limitations and other highly
    >> undesirable treats. In their eyes, all computer users are pirates and
    >> criminals who need to be restricted in what they can do with their
    >> machines.


    Why all this nonsense about "Vista"? The article is about Linux. COLA has
    become group with Windows bashers only, you just proved that.
    Why do you Linux zealots always feel the urge to compare linux with another
    OS?











  20. Re: Why Vista won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-08, Hans wrote:
    > "Richard Rasker" schreef in bericht
    > news:g7i5cp$sfu$1@saturn.z74.net...
    >> Hans wrote:
    >>
    >>> The fundamental issue with Vista seems to be the developers and their
    >>> bosses who are responsible for the OS. Quite simply, they hold a rather
    >>> schizophrenic view of Vista. They paddle Vista as an "advanced, more
    >>> secure OS", but know that it's nothing more than an overbloated piece of
    >>> crapware which performs miserable even in comparison with XP, and forces
    >>> users to all sorts of costly "upgrades" in both hardware and software.
    >>> In fact, most computer users do NOT want Vista. They want an OS which
    >>> does
    >>> what THEY want.
    >>> 1) Vista makers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want, but
    >>> instead created a resource-guzzling monstrosity with all kinds of
    >>> user-policing mechanisms, artificial limitations and other highly
    >>> undesirable treats. In their eyes, all computer users are pirates and
    >>> criminals who need to be restricted in what they can do with their
    >>> machines.

    >
    > Why all this nonsense about "Vista"? The article is about Linux. COLA has
    > become group with Windows bashers only, you just proved that.
    > Why do you Linux zealots always feel the urge to compare linux with another
    > OS?


    You go and buy a car. What do you base your judgement on?

    What is your frame of reference?

    The market leader? The established luxury brand.

    You are trying to make claims about things. If those claims
    are flatly contradicted by every other example taken from
    the rest of the industry, then it makes a lot of sense to
    draw those comparisons.

    Office2007 is an excellent such example.

    What works for others and what fails for others is VERY
    relevant to any sort of advocacy or enthusiast group.

    If you are going to come up with bull**** criticisms,
    it would help if you can actually point to real world
    examples where "following your advice" has led to
    genuine sucesses.

    --

    Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
    who has pirated their music / | \


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast