|
Who the fuck thinks they're too good for Windows? The faggot who put a Ubuntu motherboard on my laptop, I guess. My brother has a lot of old laptops and was able to trade one in for this nice old Toshiba thing that's probably more powerful than my home PC. You would think that's a pretty sick deal, right? No, because it has this fucking joke of an operating system "Ubuntu" on it. You can't do anything with this Linux based piece of shit. Everything takes years to start up, the interface is clumsy, nothing is customizable, and you can't even make desktop icons. All you get is this bubbly interface that feels like a child's toy. It's inferior in every way to a real operating system.
This laptop originally came with Window XP, but apparently something happened to the motherboard and it had to be replaced. I want to know who the fuck gets off on putting a Ubuntu motherboard in when it would be just as easy to put a superior WinXP one in. I don't know much about computer hardware, but this just seems like a dick move.
I want fucking yellow text on black backgrounds, damn it. My PC lets me do that, and my PC also runs an array of useful file types. But try to run anything on this Ubuntu piece of shit and it tells you it's not compatible. You have to use it's specialized Ubuntu versions of the programs, and if there isn't a Ubuntu version you can try your luck with Wine, waste a few hours, and find out fuck all works anyway.
Is there any saving grace to this operating system, apart from possibly being cheaper? I don't know what I'm going to do with this thing, but I feel dirty just thinking about taking notes in university on it. Maybe I'll try to trade it to some dumbass who thinks he has to be different in every way.
+ Show Spoiler +PS: Yes, I have almost no experience on Linux based OPs, apart from possibly my iPod, and the last disaster of a laptop I returned within a week of finding out I hate Linux. Maybe if I were some crazy hacker I would find Linux remotely useful.
|
lol, prepare yourself for the replies.
But yea, linux is much more customizable than windows (because its open source anything can be customize actually), however if you aren't a programmer than thats not really true.
One reason I know they use it at work is because it has a real-time plugin. That allows your CPU to be used in deterministic, real-time applications (such as data acquisition and motor control), because they aren't relying on the OS scheduling tasks in an unknown way.
Also, knowing how to use linux is kind of an unwritten grad-school requirement.
But yea, I don't know how to use it either.
|
LOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
|
Install Windows 2000/XP on it then. You mentioned something about the motherboard. It won't let you install a different OS?
|
That's correct. If I could, I would. I asked my brother if it'd be possible to do some kind of dual boot, and he said the computer wasn't powerful enough to emulate it completely or whatever. He said that if I wanted XP on it, I'd have to replace the motherboard again, and that wouldn't be a good idea (according to him).
I hate when things are "free." Like a "free" lunch, but it will probably give you a disease.
|
I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to this "Ubuntu motherboard". Motherboards are pieces of hardware, and are typically not operating system specific. You have your computer, with whatever hardware of your choice, and then you can install whatever operating system of your choice on the hardware. I'm guessing what happened was your laptop fried, so they replaced the motherboard, and maybe your hard drive, and for some reason also decided to install Ubuntu instead of Windows on the new hard drive.
Whoever decided that you should have Ubuntu as your OS is probably a tool.
edit: Just in case, could you give me the name of your motherboard, so I can see if such a thing as an ubuntu motherboard exists?
|
Well the laptop is well used, but I agree, the person who actually liked it probably was a tool.
I really don't know. I just asked my brother if I could install XP on the machine instead, and he said no. I presume that means the motherboard is now committed to Ubuntu, in which case I call it a Ubuntu motherboard.
|
I'm pretty sure you can install Windows XP on your laptop, you may have to download the proper drivers so that the motherboard will work properly (maybe that's what your brother means by an "Ubuntu motherboard"), but that should be pretty easy.
Unless you have some really vague no-brand motherboard in which it would be hard to find somewhere to download the proper drivers.
As Slithe said, motherboards in general aren't exclusive to any specific OS.
|
In fact, it makes almost no sense to make a motherboard exclusive to Ubuntu, if it were even possible. The percent of the market that such a motherboard would be targeting is tiny.
Anyway, you can probably just put in your Windows XP cd, boot from the cd, reformat the hard drive, and install Windows XP. There might be some low chance that the cd won't be able to detect the hard drive because it's using a different file system, but that would be very strange.
|
Maybe your brother is confusing the boot manager with the motherboard. The boot manager is just a small program that the bios links to. There is a windows one, a linux one, and various third party ones.
btw, have you tried installing windows yet?
|
i heard that ubuntu is alot easier to use than windows but its so different from windows that using it is difficult for new users
never used it so i wouldnt know but it is open source and its pretty popular among new programmers it seems
|
Motherboards don't ... try installing Windows because I'm pretty sure you can if it was on there before. All someone did was install a different OS.
|
Yea just dual boot window's, give your computer specs 1st of all tho.
I think the minimum system requirments for running windows XP are...
-Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended) -At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended) -At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
and the Ubuntu system requirments for comparison..
-700 MHz or better processor -3GB of available disk space -256MB of memory (RAM)
Ubuntu actually need's a better computer to run.
|
try installing Windows because I'm pretty sure you can if it was on there before. It wasn't. The motherboard it was on is dead.
|
Ubuntu is really easy to use, you have a zillion programs to download (frmo synaptic for example), just enter the name and BAM, there you go D:
|
Take it as an oppourtunity to work countless hours and master Ubuntu
It could be your Everest.
|
United States22883 Posts
That's a load of crap. XP will run better on a terrible computer than Ubuntu.
|
to be fair, as much as I hate ubuntu (I was a user of it for quite a few months so I actually know my way around everything a typical user might need, and don't blindly rage at it.. but I can see its glaring glaring flaws), some of the stuff posted here is just silly
firstly
Everything takes years to start up, the interface is clumsy, nothing is customizable, and you can't even make desktop icons. All you get is this bubbly interface that feels like a child's toy. It's inferior in every way to a real operating system.
this actually sounds like something a ubuntu user would say about windows. i really don't understand how anything relates here to ubuntu at all. What ubuntu version are you using?
others have already covered the "ubuntu motherboard" part
and @ nAi.ProtoSS source me for those requirements? because i'm sorry to say they're wrong? not like it matters in this particular case but anyway. ubuntu definitely isn't as lightweight as like wattOS linux or something retarded like that, but it's definitely very similar to XP in that regard
... do remember i said i hate ubuntu in the beginning. i just hate it for different reasons
|
A motherboard doesn't have anything to do with what OS is installed or can be installed. Your brother apparently is no computer whiz - so grab someone you know that is and have them reinstall Windows for you.
Your issue is a nonissue.
|
My brother is a computer sciences graduate and his job is actually specifically related to programming and fixing computers, not to mention just a fetish he has with being a tech geek... I maybe misunderstood what he was telling me, but you guys are on and on about a motherboard telling me I'm wrong... Well you're talking to the wrong guy cause I can't clarify what the problem is. All I know is that my brother said he and the guy he bought it from tried to get XP on there, and it wasn't working.
My beef with Ubuntu, for those who got offended, is that since I'm not a computer type person.. programmer... whatever... I can only use the GUI that comes with the machine, which anyone should admit is a joke... If I could program my own interface... I still wouldn't want to, because I use a computer as a tool, not as something to pour hours of time into just to make it work. I do work with the computer, not work on the computer. I'll ask my brother about it, but he seemed pretty confident when he gave it to me that I'd "just have to do some reading on Ubuntu" and get used to it. Why should I learn to unicycle when I can ride a bike just fine?
The rant was intended to be hyperbolic... That's why I called it a rant, even though I am truly frustrated with the system, because I just wish I could use what I've been using for like 10 years, because I can make windows do anything I want and need it to, without any awkwardness. Going thru Linux is just scary for me Dunno who to trust, how to make the resolution normal, how to quick start files (one click is way better than bringing up a command line and typing in with no typos a program name...)... You guys are intent on calling me an idiot and saying my computer must be able to run XP... I don't know what you want me to say, you're wrong?
|
Everything about Linux is customizeable. Every single thing you see on the screen is replaceable by a ton of different options. Ubuntu is a distribution that wants to make it accessible by complete retards (which is the reason why it has become so popular (well along with commercially backed marketing power of course, so everyone knows about it)). But you can change everything. Just as an example, this is the KDE desktop: http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.1/ It goes without saying that it brings a completely different look+feel which you might even find great. Contrary to Windows or MacOS, there is not just one way of doing things. You don't like that one way? Then do it another. Many Linux users have started out with a distribution and software which they are NOT using anymore now. It's not surprising: if you have so much choice, you'll eventually find one which works perfectly for you. Sure it'll take some time but it'll pay off in the long run.
Then it should be noted that Linux is far more useable than Windows if you already know your way around (and use the powerful shell quite a bit). Whenever some Windows user sees me doing stuff on Linux, they're usually amazed at how fast I can do standard things and how many features are hidden below the surface. The Windows UI is extremely inefficient, but you only learn that after using an alternative long enough, which most people don't do.
And yes Ubuntu is fairly modern and needs 1 GB RAM at least, otherwise I wouldn't even touch it. Well I wouldn't touch anything with < 2 GB these days. But there are other Linux distributions which ship with lightweight programs or those who let you decide what to install from the bottom up, e.g. Arch Linux (which is my favorite distribution, it's also extremely fast. Needs at least an i686). There are also distributions for using something as old as an 486, which is powerful enough for a small home server or router (of course without a GUI).
Here's a good article for Windows users new to Linux, it's not very accurate at some points, but overall it's nice: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
|
The Windows UI is extremely inefficient, but you only learn that after using an alternative long enough, which most people don't do. I don't understand what could be more efficient than all the things I use on my computer being one click away from me on my quick launch. Internet, Limewire, Wordprocessor, MusicPlayer, Converter, StarCraft, and Torrent are all exactly one click away using my quick launch. With Linux I have to use this weird clone of a Start Menu/apple and find it in a list, and if it isn't there I have to hopelessly try to find it browsing the files, but they're not organized in anyway that I can understand, and have unfamiliar names...
Windows has skins too...
I don't know. I'm not willing to spend anytime learning a new operating system... Isn't there a clone skin of windows XP I can just put on Linux if it's so customizable? Or would that be illegal :/
|
I don't see how Gnome and KDE are much more efficient than Windows.
Linux is all about the powerful tools + CLI. Gnome and KDE are really just for looks and to hook newbs/posers to hop on board.
|
What makes you think that there is no quick launch? In Gnome (Ubuntu default desktop), Right-click on the panel ("taskbar"), select Add Application Launcher or so and then you have your quick launch icon (of which you can have as many as you want, at any position on the taskbar or even a 2nd or 3rd taskbar as you want. Ubuntu comes with 2 panels by default, I find this is a waste of screen space and always disable one).
The file system is organized, although not perfectly, it's just completely different than in Windows. When you install a program, all the files are split up usually. The executables are in /usr/bin, images/sounds and other stuff is in /usr/share, libraries (.so files, like .DLLs in Windows) are in /usr/lib, system-wide configuration files in /etc, and so on. You can check the contents of some installed packages to get a feel for it. There's also /{bin,lib,...} for important system files, and /usr/local/{bin,lib,...} for additionally installed stuff not controlled by the package manager.
What you should also know is that to install any software, you don't visit the homepage and download it from there (well you CAN do that, but it's not the most convenient way). Your distributor (in this case Ubuntu) offers tons of pre-compiled packages which are specifically built for and will Just Work with your system. For example to install Thunderbird, start up the Synaptic package manager, search for thunderbird, and click install - done. No stupid wizard to click through, it'll just be ready. Using the shell is even faster: sudo apt-get install thunderbird. (The "sudo" command means run the following command with administrative rights (In Ubuntu, the "root" user account is actually disabled for security reasons, but your normal user account is configured to be allowed to use sudo, you simply have to type in your own password. You can also get a root shell (if you need one) with "sudo -i"). You can also use "gksudo" for a graphical password prompt) Of course the shell supports tab completion so you don't actually have to type in every single character of each word (pressing TAB will complete it for you). You can also set up aliases like alias ai="sudo apt-get install", then you just have to type "ai firefox" to install stuff.
And yes Windows has skins, but that'll just change the appearance, not the way you use it. In Linux you can change both, and there are even radically different approaches to what you know from Windows. The terminal is one such thing, but you could also check out a window manager like AwesomeWM or DWM - they take a while to set up but they're tiling WMs which automatically position the windows for you (unless you tell them not to), which is great if you're working with fixed-size windows a lot and you don't want to position them in a grid or whatever for yourself.
Another thing which is possible with EVERY desktop or window manager on Linux is auto-starting applications with specific settings, e.g. automatically starting a maximized Firefox and Thunderbird on workspace 2, starting 4 terminals with a specific geometry on workspace 1, and starting your favorite music player on workspace 4. All automatically when logging in.
Oh well I could go on and on but yeah you get the point. Linux is much more powerful than what it might look like. If you don't want to spend time learning it, then forget it though. Because that's simply required for using Linux: a will to use it and a bit of free time to get used to it. Because it is very different from Windows, and Gnome/KDE only make it look like it's the same but under the surface everything's different. That's probably the reason why Linux is becoming more and more popular on business desktops where the user is NOT the administrator, but not at home where user == admin and 99% of all people are used to Windows and will dislike any other behavior.
|
:O I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm just not the tech type person to be interested in what Linux has to offer when I'm already so familiar with Windows :O I just wanted to talk about how pissed I was that I couldn't use my favourite operating system. Between school, work, and writing, I don't know where I'm going to find time to learn a new operating system. Linux isn't intuitive to me, and I know I'll find myself reading thru mountains of shit trying to find out how to do one thing. I was so happy to get a laptop finally, after a year of scritch scratching in university, and then I find out I don't know how to use it at all lol.
|
Yeah well that's fine, you don't have to use it. But please don't say it sucks or is not an alternative, just because you find it unintuitive. There are a lot of reasons why geeks or any persons using computers a lot often prefer it over Windows (on the desktop): because it's more efficient once you've learned enough about it. And let's also not forget the ideological advantage of free software.
|
Linux might not suck, but Ubuntu sure does (if I'm understanding that it's just one of a million different ways to use Linux...)
Apart from the op system, all the software on my computer is free too :O
lol... why is Linux telling me "invalid encoding" when I'm trying to open a .txt file... Just do it, damn it
|
Hehe yeah I don't particularly like Ubuntu too. But it's still the distribution I always recommend for people new to Linux, because they put in a lot of effort to make the standard things just work. For me, after installing Ubuntu the first thing I do is to change everything because I don't like most of the stuff that is pre-installed. That's why I prefer distributions like Arch Linux where you set up your system like you want to.
And "free software" is not just about prize, it's also about freedom to use/copy/modify it. No restrictions (well, except mentioning the original author and in the case of GPL that any derivative work must also be released under the GPL with available source code, so that Microsoft for example can't simply "steal" code to improve Windows without giving anything back - although there are quite a few commercial software developers which do steal GPLed code like that).
The availability of source code is also useful if you personally don't do anything with it: after 5-20 years, closed source programs enter a questionable state. The original developer does not support it at all anymore, and because of no code, no one else can do it either. It might not even run with a modern operating system anymore (you've probably had that problem with some old game). Now if that game/program would be open source, it would be pretty much guaranteed that someone (not the original developer) would simply make it work again. Or maybe port it to other systems. Or simply somehow improve it (just think of all the great Doom 1/2 ports which are available these days and run on all modern operating systems). All that is not possible with closed source games/apps. id Software is pretty much the only company which does things right: at first, to be profitable, they release it as closed source, but later on (~5 years later) they open source it, to ensure that their games will always live on. Sadly, I know of no one else who does that. Then there's also the security advantage. This isn't always guaranteed of course, because after all if you release something as open source and no one looks after security holes then they won't become known anyway. But the more popular your free program is, the more eyes will look at the source code and find errors and submit patches. Other people, not just the original developer, can help improve it. Furthermore, free software may even be the only way to make a program successful, especially today where Microsoft dominates so much of the market.. For example, if Netscape hadn't open sourced their Netscape Navigator (which is now being developed as the open source Firefox browser by Mozilla), the product Netscape would have died with the company back when Microsoft started dominating the web browser market. By simply pre-installing Internet Explorer with Windows, they gained like 90% market share because most users are lazy and won't go install another browser if there's one already there. If Linux had started as a commercial program, it would have suffered the same fate as BeOS or OS/2 (both were considered better than Windows at their time): dead/bankrupt, because of no chance of competing with the always pre-installed Windows. Open sourcing Linux was the only way. Linus also said that in an interview.
Free formats and protocols are also very important, so that it is guaranteed that even after years there will still be software available which can deal with them (and that you aren't dependant on one particular program/company).
And let's not forget the constant annoyances which the commercial software industry always forces upon its customers: copy protections which don't work anyway but annoy the hell out of you, DRM which no one likes but is there anyway, extremely restrictive licenses ("you aren't allowed to install this on more than 1 computer, even if you own several", "you aren't allowed to distribute this game on LAN because every single player needs to buy a copy before you all can play it together"), etc. etc... of course it's not surprising that many Windows users are cracking and pirating software and doing other illegal stuff all the goddamn time, because it's simply unuseable without. With Linux, you have the chance to use your computer 100% legally.
So yeah, that should give you some insight as to why free (as in speech) software is a great thing.
|
to be fair, windows isn't any more intuitive than ubuntu. in fact i find some aspects of ubuntu totally amazing compared to windows (getting/updating your programs, keeping up with updates for the OS is a total breeze in Ubuntu (literally just one click) while in XP it's a pain in the ass)
the only reason windows seems more intuitive is because you've used it longer, and things that actually don't make any damn sense are "fine" because you've grown used to them over the years.
anyway, here's a relevant ubuntu article about windows>ubuntu conversion (guy gives his non-techie girlfriend some tasks to do in ubuntu without any assistance, and see the results) Ubuntu isn't ready at all for the average user, but at least it's getting better. I'll probably switch over again as soon as ATI stops sucking.
|
Well the main issue is that A: my laptop isn't connected to the internet. B: I can't use any of my favourite programs cause they aren't compatible with Linux, and even if they were, I wouldn't know how to get them on there since everything is separated into a few main folders, instead of each program just having it's own folder (which whether you admit it or not, is logical). The problem may really be simply that my home computer isn't a Linux based machine, so things aren't really compatible with my laptop, which is a pain in the ass. I'd like to be able to just copy paste stuff from a portable harddrive, but obviously Linux is a system all it's own, that's really meant to be your primary tool if you get it.
I rarely update things anyway, but when I do it's like automatic updates (which I've recently opted away from since I don't like the new ToS). If I like my machine running the way it is, and an update isn't specifically a new feature, I don't bother... Usually it's just finding new ways to make it hard for you to use your computer anyway.
I don't know why not having an install wizard is an advantage... All a wizard does is ask you if you want icons in some typical places, and you tell it exactly what you want... takes like 3 seconds, hardly a pain in the ass where if it just did it automatically, you'd have to search thru every place it installed a stupid shortcut and delete it.
All the programs on my PC are either open source, or came with the computer... Their websites ask if you'd like to make a donation discreetly in the corner, but I'm sure that's no different from any Linux developer.
|
I was convinced to try out Ubuntu awhile back.
It really is a lot more customizable than windows, since you can make user interface do anything you want. I also think that it really runs stable and beautiful right out of the box more so than Windows (setting up my computer to get on the internet after an OS reinstall took about an hour with Windows and Ubuntu started the internet up right upon boot).
However, the user interface I want is Windows. Every program I use is native to Windows (except the GIMP , so if you prefer windows there is no reason you should use ubuntu instead (unless your dedication to open source is enough to warrant learning a whole new OS, which in my case, its really not).
I would be willing to give it another shot if somebody could recommend me a decent CAD program for linux
|
On September 01 2008 02:16 PsycHOTemplar wrote: B: I can't use any of my favourite programs cause they aren't compatible with Linux, and even if they were, I wouldn't know how to get them on there since everything is separated into a few main folders, instead of each program just having it's own folder (which whether you admit it or not, is logical). The problem may really be simply that my home computer isn't a Linux based machine, so things aren't really compatible with my laptop, which is a pain in the ass. I'd like to be able to just copy paste stuff from a portable harddrive, but obviously Linux is a system all it's own, that's really meant to be your primary tool if you get it.
What are your favorite programs, and what do you mean by "not compatible"? You mean you can't run them on Linux? Well yeah that's why you look for Linux programs (or cross-platform ones which run on any system). Maybe this link will help you: http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html ... but there are a ton of programs listed, many of which are also old or bad. If you tell us which programs you want an alternative for, we can give you some specific recommendations.
And what about using a portable harddrive to share stuff? Why shouldn't that be possible? I do that often. Even the filesystems are not much of a problem anymore - Linux can read/write NTFS with the ntfs-3g driver (installed by default on Ubuntu) and Windows can read/write ext3 (the most common Linux filesystem - you just have to install a driver from http://fs-driver.org/. FAT32 is supported out of the box by both, but it sucks anyway)
About the file separation thing: when you install a program you can choose not to separate the files. For example you can install any program in something like /opt/programname (which then contains the usual folders bin, lib, share and so on). One drawback to this is that you can't start the program by typing "programname" in the shell anymore until you add the new directory to the PATH environment variable. When you use the package manager, you don't get to choose. But you don't really have to. The package manager keeps track of your programs. If you want to know what files belong to which programs, you can open the package manager and see a list (in the shell via "dpkg -L packagename", you can pipe the output to grep in order to see a list of specific files, e.g. "dpkg -L firefox | grep bin" will show you the executables). If you want to use a Windows program (via Wine, it's not an emulator but something similar, it has almost no performance penalty, you can even play modern games with it), you can copy/install it where you like, everything in 1 folder only - what matters is that the program finds its files, which wouldn't be the case anymore if you spread them across your filesystem.
I rarely update things anyway, but when I do it's like automatic updates (which I've recently opted away from since I don't like the new ToS). If I like my machine running the way it is, and an update isn't specifically a new feature, I don't bother... Usually it's just finding new ways to make it hard for you to use your computer anyway.
You should bother, most upgrades are security updates, and these are harmless anyway since they don't introduce anything new to the program so it'll just run like before.
I don't know why not having an install wizard is an advantage... All a wizard does is ask you if you want icons in some typical places, and you tell it exactly what you want... takes like 3 seconds, hardly a pain in the ass where if it just did it automatically, you'd have to search thru every place it installed a stupid shortcut and delete it.
But you can install like 10 or more programs at once, all without having to click on anything. Clicking through 10 wizards takes a huge amount of time, in Linux it's just 1 command and then like 1 minute waiting for download and installation - no user interaction required.
|
I've never in my life felt the need to install 10 programs at once o.o Quality over quantity, right? Also, I'm used to the motto "a computer only does what you tell it to," so I'm slightly uncomfortable with just leaving it to do its own thing :X
What are your favorite programs, and what do you mean by "not compatible"? I mean I can't just copy paste the folder in my Program Files anywhere in Linux and it'll run...
There's really only one program I want to run on my laptop, since I'm not going to have internet on there anyway. It's called Microsoft Works Word Processor, and I want it to look like this:
Boop
Basically, even though the format .wps is mostly incompatible and unknown, I've grown used to it and enjoy it. I save my documents as .rtf or something when I really need to send them to someone. It'd also be nice if I could make the program go full screen, because Ubuntu's side bars are really gross.
The other program I might want to run, since I basically can't use my PC at all when it's on, is called MediaCoder. A catchall converter. All2Avi on rare occasions that I need to mix soft subs with a video.
You should bother, most upgrades are security updates, and these are harmless anyway since they don't introduce anything new to the program so it'll just run like before. I have bad experiences whenever I update things. Like when I updated FireFox last week... I thought it was an update for FireFox two, like a bon voyage before they give up on in entirely and focus on FireFox 3. No, it was FireFox three, and now none of my plugins or themes work. The closest thing I could find to the theme I used before still has these ugly fucking gay gradients that are supposed to make it look shiny, but really just make it look douche. It's pixels on my computer, not brushed steel... I'm always afraid the next Window update is gonna be something like "oh yeah, and we're gonna search your whole computer for files of questionable legality and sue you for 10 billion dollars."
|
It's hard to justify to the average user why they should use Linux, so I won't. It takes quite a bit of effort to switch but one of the best things about it is instant out of the box use, one of the worst is when it doesn't recognize your hardware out of the box, though that is improving.
I can't argue about your favorite programs or whatever but there are most likely Linux alternatives if you're willing to look. Like instead of your weird proprietary word thing, you could use Vi. If you're running to slowly you could always try a different window manager like flux/open/blackbox, though those are kind of hard to get used to but very, very slick.
On another note, I don't think that you or the people advising you have any idea what they are talking about. Ubuntu motherboard, the fuck? Can't dual boot because of emulation, the fuck? Just tell them they are idiots and format that fucker.
|
i've no idea what microsoft works is (i've heard of its existence but i've never actually met anyone that uses it) What's the difference between it and MSWord? judging by the screenshot it's basically like Word 03 ?
and as for
I mean I can't just copy paste the folder in my Program Files anywhere in Linux and it'll run...
... =( this doesn't work all the time when c&p from windows to windows either, unless you know how to mess around in the pile of garbage known as the registry
think of linux and windows as french and spanish. you can't really expect a french person to understand spanish but that doesn't mean he can't express the same thought in his own language (perhaps even in a better way )
|
i've no idea what microsoft works is (i've heard of its existence but i've never actually met anyone that uses it) Despite it being such a rare program, oddly enough the friends I send my writing to, and receive writing from, use it and its .wps format. I haven't used MSWord in a really long time, so I couldn't really tell you. The main issue is that all my files are in .wps, all the files I receive from friends are in .wps, and MSWord will not read a .wps file. My other issue is that I need the text and background to be non-standard colours, because as I writer, I utilize the different colours to help me switch from the perspective of a writer, to the perspective of a reader when I read it in black and white after it's been printed out or I changed the colours on the computer.
On another note, I don't think that you or the people advising you have any idea what they are talking about. Ubuntu motherboard, the fuck? Can't dual boot because of emulation, the fuck? Just tell them they are idiots and format that fucker. My brother is a genius and he specializes in computers... I trust his first hand inspection of the computer over the opinions of strangers based on my possibly inaccurate description of the problem. He never used the words "Ubuntu" and "motherboard" next to each other, that's just what I call it because he was telling the issue was with the motherboard. I haven't had a chance to talk to him again yet, but I'll definitely ask. It's possibly since he's a tech geek kinda guy, he just expected I'd be able to get used to Linux too, when really he and I are not very alike.
|
about wps files -- i guess that's a reasonable issue i don't really know why you would use it, i assume you have your reasons.. certainly as a windows user, i can't do shit with wps format either unless i shell out $200 for the msworks suite. i sincerely doubt ubuntu will have a solution if even windows doesn't have a good one, but i'll look...
from a bit of googling, apparently nothing else can directly open wps files (evidently even MSOffice conversion apps have issues.. neat isn't it)
gotta love stupid proprietary formats that nobody else can use =(
i found some possible solutions (zamzar converter, renaming to *.rtf & using Oo, wine -- although this doesn't seem like it will work very well.. i'm assuming you referred to it in your OP) but none of these are actually any good if you use wps on a daily basis
basically there's nothing that i could find with a quick google search. sorry. like i said in the beginning, if a windows user like me can do shit-all with wps format, i doubt ubuntu will have a solution. perhaps somebody else knows though
edit: apparently i was wrong. there's a library that lets you do this in Oo, libwps. hi5 to the open source community. ill go boot up my ubuntu and see if it works
|
That's why I'm so hard pressed by windows :O I know I could get everything to work if it were the same OS.
Thanks very much for trying though Very much appreciate your efforts. I actually got my Word Processor from a friend, because years ago when I had to reformat my computer due to accidentally deleting the sound driver (DOH!) I had no word processor apart from notepad when I finished reformatting. Since then I've been using this, and become accustomed to it.
|
Any PC that can handle ubuntu can handle XP
|
With open source anything you always run into the problem that there are a million different versions customized a million different ways and unless you know what you're doing it's going to be a bitch to figure out what's going on.
That said, a motherboard is just a piece of hardware. Get rid of that Ubuntu shit and put on Windows. If you look up Ubuntu online, you should be able to figure out how to do that much.
|
On August 31 2008 13:50 PsycHOTemplar wrote: My brother is a computer science graduate and his job is actually specifically related to programming and fixing computers, not to mention just a fetish he has with being a tech geek... All I know is that my brother said he and the guy he bought it from tried to get XP on there, and it wasn't working.
If he had a fetish, that computer would have been running XP a week ago. Hes either A) completely lost or B) too busy to actually install XP on the machine.
Now I'm going to take a wild guess that the kid who threw ubuntu on the labtop installed grub into the master boot record, XP doesn't like that. If you fix the MBR, XP should install.
|
by me, earlier: edit: apparently i was wrong. there's a library that lets you do this in Oo, libwps. hi5 to the open source community. ill go boot up my ubuntu and see if it works
i kinda forgot, but about 30min ago i remembered and.. in case anyone wondered, i couldn't find shit with respect to libwps except some garbage that didn't seem to be updated since 2007. apparently OO wanted to include wps support in their 3.0 version (i'm currently using 2.4) but that fell out the window.
this is why i fucking hate ubuntu, to get ANYTHING to work you have to google it. and yes it's probably possible to get to work, and sure that's better than not working at all which is the case with windows unless you have $ (or a bittorrent client), but it's not something i want to concern myself with anymore. back when I used ubuntu, it was fun for a while, i got a sense of accomplishment until i realized i had to go through this damn thing every time i wanted to get something to work. ugh
edit: although i do give ubuntu props for teaching me how to use google to search for specific filetypes, specific domains, excluding keywords, etc. google sure has some nice features.
|
not to be a troll but this sounds alot similar to what a person might say if they were playing an RTS, lets say SC.
You're used to playing all these 'modern RTS' outthere and you just learned about starcraft, so you pick up the game and the UI frustrates you, and despites everyone telling you that the game is better, you refuse to believe so since you want to play to have fun, and not really to 'compete' with the mass spammers. How can an easier UI make a game worse? All the other games already let you do whatever you want, and you cant see how this "e-sport" title can do it better, especially with such an outdated UI and game engine.
/end my rant
|
About .wps support: wps is a proprietary format. It's secret. That means it's a huge amount of work for open source programs like OOo to figure out how .wps works in detail. And that means that it'll take a while until it is supported. But .wps is also rare, so the chances of it ever being supported are slim. Basically, just stop using .wps and Works. Even Microsoft is moving to open formats (OOXML) with their newer software. And OOo can handle the much more common .doc relatively fine. Hell, it's even hard in Windows to display .wps files - I had one such file in the past and it took me like 30 minutes to find a program to display it (don't remember the name, sorry). Please, stop using .wps It's a format no one can deal with except if he has MS Works, which is rare because MS Office is so much better and even if people can't or don't want to afford it, they have it anyway (pirated). Rare proprietary formats like .wps are a complete pain in the ass. Use OpenOffice instead and save your stuff as .odf (Open Document Format). Yes, MS Office can display that (if not out of the box yet, there's an official plugin from Microsoft). MS Works probably can't, but who cares? MS Works is rarely used and like a bad version of Word anyway.
The other program I might want to run, since I basically can't use my PC at all when it's on, is called MediaCoder. A catchall converter. All2Avi on rare occasions that I need to mix soft subs with a video.
I've never heard of these. But there's for example mencoder or ffmpeg, with some frontends like kencoder or winff. For CD ripping you could use grip, for DVD ripping k9copy or dvd::rip There are many more though, and I rarely do things with them so I can't really make a recommendation; these are just some I've tried and they work for the basic stuff I did. Here's a list of mencoder frontends: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/projects.html
@JeeJee: that's normal... but at some point you won't have to resort to Google anymore for every small problem. The thing is that you have to get used to the whole Linux ecosystem to be able to deal with almost anything for yourself. For example you need to know about programs you can use, you need to understand the boot process and how to rescue your system, you have to learn the permission system, how the package management works, and stuff like that. Almost everyone grows up using Windows so Windows is automatically learned; switching to a completely different system is going to take effort and some pain, but it's rewarding in the end.
@XCetron: not really, because (some) Linux GUIs have far more features than Windows, and while it takes some time to learn how to use them, it'll make you work more efficiently. The best thing is learning to use the shell, which will boost your speed incredibly in some cases. It's not an outdated interface, it's still the fastest way to do some things. Point-and-click is nice and visual, but it's SLOW. So it's not like switching to SC1 which is hard because it has no features. Windows users are probably more like SC1 players: they're used to having almost no features, no control etc., and they even like it that way.
|
Point-and-click is nice and visual, but it's SLOW. That's why my mouse speed is set to max :D
It may be rare, but the people I send .wps files to actually do have it. It's rare that I can't just save it as .rtf for someone who doesn't.
I'm gonna try getting XP on it tomorrow and just hope my brother is wrong... If it blows up, I'll report back to tell everyone how sad I am.
|
Well I already gave an example earlier, installing new stuff in Ubuntu is much faster when using the commandline. There's no way you can be as fast using Synaptic or other graphical frontends. Another example: searching for text within all text files in a directory. Command line: grep 'text' *.txt That's why the commandline is not obsolete or ancient. It's an advanced tool to get stuff done faster in many cases. Geeks know that and use it extensively. Even Microsoft, who are always dumbing down interfaces in order not to confuse newbies, is starting to offer more commandline power, for example they've developed PowerShell, and Windows Server 2008 can be installed and administered using the command line only, which is a first for Microsoft. Not sure how good these efforts actually are but it's a move in the right direction.
|
On September 01 2008 15:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
@JeeJee: that's normal... but at some point you won't have to resort to Google anymore for every small problem. The thing is that you have to get used to the whole Linux ecosystem to be able to deal with almost anything for yourself. For example you need to know about programs you can use, you need to understand the boot process and how to rescue your system, you have to learn the permission system, how the package management works, and stuff like that. Almost everyone grows up using Windows so Windows is automatically learned; switching to a completely different system is going to take effort and some pain, but it's rewarding in the end.
obviously eventually i'll run out of things to google but, i've had to go through a lot of crap to get basic system functionality before, and it's not like its ingrained in my memory so ill have to look for it again if the issue comes up
some of the ones that i think of rightaway when using ubuntu were: grub errors. i hate grub. first error (it was 17, i remember xD) totally freaked me out, i thought i irreversibly messed up my pc. but sure, after googling, analyzing fdisk output, editing menu.lst and all that garbage, it's not that bad. it's still not something i want to go through again because i don't remember what i did
wireless ndiswrapper. need i say more?
ATI in general blows nuts. fglrx i hate you. xgl xserver sucks. aiglx is marginally better all the "eye candy" that the ubuntu fanboys touted as a great "selling point" took me like 2 days to get working
basic movie playing capability. first i had to figure out why the default crap (totem player? i think) that came with ubuntu wouldn't play anything. good thing VLC rules socks on ubuntu as well
partitioning. i almost managed to wipe my harddrive using the WMD known as GParted. not to mention the whole dual boot process took at least a day to figure out what with the mounting restrictions and /media/ (oh how i hate that /media/). i really don't need to know about /, about swap, the difference between ntfs and ext3, the backup process risks, etc. i do now, (or i did anyway, i forget most of it) of course
lets not get into the fun stuff that solaris+linux does together at night
basic settings. if i ever head the words "just edit xorg line ___" i will kill the person
seriously these are all totally basic things that at most need a driver download in windows rather than a day of googling to figure out why your particular video card decides to get a composite error. sure it makes me more knowledgeable about the OS (nevermind that i didn't ask for this), and you basically had to know what's stored where (like in here: http://www.mylinuxway.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/filesystem-hierarchy.jpg, or more detailed, here: http://rute.2038bug.com/node38.html.gz) if you wanted to get anywhere
windows is just a lot less hassle =/
|
@Grub Error: shouldn't happen, but if it does it's not so bad. I don't really see how this could be used as a negative point for Linux because a powerful boot loader is necessary if you want to boot multiple systems. The Windows boot loader can't do shit.
@Wireless/Ndiswrapper: That sucks if you have to use ndiswrapper. Are you certain that you had to that? Anyway, that is easily dealt with by buying Linux compatible hardware.
@ATI: yes, they did suck. However, they've made a big move recently by open sourcing their driver, so their driver quality will very soon improve a lot. Just like Intel's, which is great. NVidia unfortunately has no plans of open sourcing theirs, but their driver has always been good, so... no problem for the normal user.
@Movie playing: yes, I wish Linux distributions (particularly Ubuntu because it is currently the "standard" distribution newbies try out) would make that more clear what needs to be done to make all the codecs work, and why they don't work from the start. Almost everyone seems to be puzzled about this. You can read about the reasons here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats It's mostly to keep the distribution clean respectively truly free and stay out of potential legal trouble. At least Ubuntu makes it really easy to install that functionality as you can see (just install that one metapackage and then all the standard media players can play everything). VLC comes with a ton of codecs, it doesn't rely on other ones.
@Partitioning: yeah well that's just something you have to learn, some things just can't be made intuitive... that's something you have to deal with if you use multiple OSses.
@Editing xorg.conf: Hehe. I don't see what's hard about that. But it's true, it shouldn't be necessary anymore except maybe for some advanced tweaking. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a good graphical tool for managing all those settings. Anyway, it was MUCH worse in the past. These days, editing the xorg.conf is usually just an exception. In Ubuntu 8.04, much is configured automatically, the default xorg.conf is very minimal too. Also, X now has a failsafe mode which was long overdue. In the past, if you had an error in your xorg.conf your X didn't start anymore and that was probably painful for a lot of newbies. With current Ubuntu versions you always have a graphical interface available, like in Windows. Well, unless you delete/uninstall X. :p
Windows can be less hassle, yes, but it really depends a lot on the user and the PC too. I've seen normal people with near zero PC experience switch from Windows to Ubuntu without any problems. Of course that doesn't mean that it'll Just Work out of the box for everyone, or that everything is perfect like it is, it just means that if you have compatible hardware and aren't dependant on specific Windows programs or aren't used to a specific way of doing things then it's much easier to switch.
|
Woe... It is the motherboard. The harddrive controller (or whatever it's called) on it is messed up or something, cause when I boot from CD with my XP stuff, it looks all promising for awhile, and then it tells me my harddrive doesn't exist... Which doesn't make any sense, because it obvious does if I can save stuff onto it in Ubuntu. I think the problem is the motherboard is "close enough" to work on the laptop, but not actually the same one that came with the laptop... My dad and I have been working thru this laptop for the past hour or so, and there's been no luck.
|
what youre saying doesn't make any sense to any of us I dont think, I am so lost right now.
|
On September 02 2008 04:24 PsycHOTemplar wrote: Woe... It is the motherboard. The harddrive controller (or whatever it's called) on it is messed up or something, cause when I boot from CD with my XP stuff, it looks all promising for awhile, and then it tells me my harddrive doesn't exist... Which doesn't make any sense, because it obvious does if I can save stuff onto it in Ubuntu. I think the problem is the motherboard is "close enough" to work on the laptop, but not actually the same one that came with the laptop... My dad and I have been working thru this laptop for the past hour or so, and there's been no luck. I had this problem before, but it was with a Pentium MMX $20 yard sale Dell. I'm not sure if laptop hdds use different connections but you could just take it and format via desktop.
Just so we're clear, the problem I had was that the mobo would only boot into one IDE device, so it was either CD to format without a hdd or hdd to use without the password. Yep. Then again ask the guy who put Ubuntu on there for you because obviously he had to get it on there somehow.
|
|
On August 31 2008 13:50 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Then it should be noted that Linux is far more useable than Windows if you already know your way around (and use the powerful shell quite a bit). Whenever some Windows user sees me doing stuff on Linux, they're usually amazed at how fast I can do standard things and how many features are hidden below the surface. The Windows UI is extremely inefficient, but you only learn that after using an alternative long enough, which most people don't do.
I call bullshit. Ubuntu has a slow ass GUI interface which sucks even compared to XP, modern my ass, are they trying to outdo Vista on useless graphical functions? If you want usability and quickness, why would you ever go for such a heavy OS and not just use the shell prompt? I had it on my last computer with 256 RAM for a few months, and it was a PAIN. Not to mention everything you clicked on took 10 seconds to load, some things were pretty difficult to configure and download even though Ubuntu boasts with usability for even the Windows retards. Simple things like flash, codecs, media player-streaming, games to run with wine etcetera became very painful with the OS change. Another thing that is also frustrating me is that Linux users are generally super paranoid and on most OSes including Ubuntu it is very difficult to gain full administration rights and even then you still can't do everything.
|
To the ignorant posters Are you sure you really understand what Linux (Ubuntu in your case) is all about?
You see, that's the issue with you guys. You don't spend the time and effort to learn something but expect some one with a magic wand to solve the world's problem for you.
I spend a total of 3 years getting used to Linux. Now i love it. I don't have to use a particular software just because every other dumb fucking user is using it, I don't have to result to patching some thing that i don't truly understand. I don't have to rely on a system that is faulty by design and principle.
I can get legal and free software that does just about anything that i can think of.
If you are still confused about the bugs and go through the google phase. Then my suggestion is that don't install or patch all the new updates until you truly understand the different kernel modes and configuration settings.
|
On September 11 2008 12:04 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2008 13:50 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Then it should be noted that Linux is far more useable than Windows if you already know your way around (and use the powerful shell quite a bit). Whenever some Windows user sees me doing stuff on Linux, they're usually amazed at how fast I can do standard things and how many features are hidden below the surface. The Windows UI is extremely inefficient, but you only learn that after using an alternative long enough, which most people don't do.
I call bullshit. Ubuntu has a slow ass GUI interface which sucks even compared to XP, modern my ass, are they trying to outdo Vista on useless graphical functions? If you want usability and quickness, why would you ever go for such a heavy OS and not just use the shell prompt? I had it on my last computer with 256 RAM for a few months, and it was a PAIN. Not to mention everything you clicked on took 10 seconds to load, some things were pretty difficult to configure and download even though Ubuntu boasts with usability for even the Windows retards. Simple things like flash, codecs, media player-streaming, games to run with wine etcetera became very painful with the OS change. Another thing that is also frustrating me is that Linux users are generally super paranoid and on most OSes including Ubuntu it is very difficult to gain full administration rights and even then you still can't do everything.
Ubuntu is not light-weight, yes. 256 RAM is not enough. You better have 512 MB for basic usage. There are very light-weight distributions though (but they are not as user-friendly), for example Damn Small Linux. For almost every use case, you'll find one suitable distribution. Comparing a recent version of Ubuntu to XP isn't too smart, because XP is from 2001. Better use Vista for that (which has far higher system requirements).
And there's a reason why common codecs aren't included (but EASILY installable; in fact if you doubleclick an mp3 file in Nautilus for example, Ubuntu prompts you to download and install the codec, which takes like 2 clicks and then you have it). See the link above about restricted formats. You actually have to PAY license fees for some codecs to include in the distribution, so free distributions don't do that (Windows, MacOS and commercial Linux distributions do that of course), but they offer it for download. Also, there are different laws in different countries, so to stay out of trouble it makes sense for free Linux distributions to offer NON-free stuff only as a separate download. In a perfect world, everyone would use Ogg Vorbis (better than MP3 and WMA anyway), FLAC (for lossless compression / very high quality) and Ogg Theora for video (NOT the best codec unfortunately, but it's decent), but people just use what they know, and that's all proprietary formats with license and patent restrictions.
And Windows games - yes, you can't run Windows games. So? This will never change. Either the game developers create a Linux version or you can't run it (or try to use Wine, which of course might not work properly). Best to have a secondary Windows installation just for that. In any case, that's not Linux' fault; Linux is very capable of running games, but with like 2% market share it simply doesn't exist for 95% of the game developers, so they just don't care. It'll only get better when more people start using Linux.
|
I spend a total of 3 years getting used to Linux. Now i love it. In 3 years I'll have graduated University and won't really need a laptop, lol. In any case, my main issue was and is compatibility with my home PC. The rant was just blowing steam because in my opinion, if you plan to sell a laptop, it's only logical that it have an operating system most people are used to.
PS: Can it please be a bannable offence to bump an old blog with a comment that just tells a person to kill themselves? Seriously? I'm sick of idiots who think this board is a big joke.
|
On September 11 2008 21:28 haduken wrote: To the ignorant posters Are you sure you really understand what Linux (Ubuntu in your case) is all about?
You see, that's the issue with you guys. You don't spend the time and effort to learn something but expect some one with a magic wand to solve the world's problem for you.
I spend a total of 3 years getting used to Linux. Now i love it. I don't have to use a particular software just because every other dumb fucking user is using it, I don't have to result to patching some thing that i don't truly understand. I don't have to rely on a system that is faulty by design and principle.
I can get legal and free software that does just about anything that i can think of.
If you are still confused about the bugs and go through the google phase. Then my suggestion is that don't install or patch all the new updates until you truly understand the different kernel modes and configuration settings.
condescend much? linux isn't a good OS for the average user. the general perception of people that think linux is "too hard" is a correct one. the mere fact that you had to spend 3 years to get used to linux should set off alarm bells in anyone considering using that as a main OS
it's a toy. a toy that can't do a lot of things an average user wants it to do, period. not even if they magically became a linux guru.
go construct a cost/benefit analysis of your switch to linux and tell me if it was worth it. i sure as hell know my months wasted on it were interesting, but ultimately just that.. a waste of time.
|
The average user will be fine with Linux unless he needs specific Windows software/games to which there's no alternative. And the more Windows knowledge one has, the harder it'll be for one to switch to Linux. (And by "knowledge" I don't mean like programmer or system administrator knowledge, but simply the knowledge which programs you need and how to configure them so that you can do your stuff - because in Linux you'll most likely need completely different programs and that can already be a very tough situation for many long-time Windows users - especially when they don't even know which programs are all "good" (the big choice you have in the Linux world is a disadvantage in that situation -- it's only an advantage if you already know your way around)).
|
On September 12 2008 06:45 JeeJee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2008 21:28 haduken wrote: To the ignorant posters Are you sure you really understand what Linux (Ubuntu in your case) is all about?
You see, that's the issue with you guys. You don't spend the time and effort to learn something but expect some one with a magic wand to solve the world's problem for you.
I spend a total of 3 years getting used to Linux. Now i love it. I don't have to use a particular software just because every other dumb fucking user is using it, I don't have to result to patching some thing that i don't truly understand. I don't have to rely on a system that is faulty by design and principle.
I can get legal and free software that does just about anything that i can think of.
If you are still confused about the bugs and go through the google phase. Then my suggestion is that don't install or patch all the new updates until you truly understand the different kernel modes and configuration settings. condescend much? linux isn't a good OS for the average user. the general perception of people that think linux is "too hard" is a correct one. the mere fact that you had to spend 3 years to get used to linux should set off alarm bells in anyone considering using that as a main OS it's a toy. a toy that can't do a lot of things an average user wants it to do, period. not even if they magically became a linux guru. go construct a cost/benefit analysis of your switch to linux and tell me if it was worth it. i sure as hell know my months wasted on it were interesting, but ultimately just that.. a waste of time.
A toy? A toy maybe but it's a toy that is more flexible and powerful than any professional OS that M$ can come up with.
Your argument only make sense when you think that the average computer user = Windows. But so what? A new or beginner user is not going to care if it's Windows / Linux. They will just be confused.
I don't think i need to construct any analysis on the subject. Linux is definitely more useful and it's FREE and do you even understand the fact that Linux is used in professional environments and getting used to the system is a potential job skill?
|
On September 12 2008 08:45 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2008 06:45 JeeJee wrote:On September 11 2008 21:28 haduken wrote: To the ignorant posters Are you sure you really understand what Linux (Ubuntu in your case) is all about?
You see, that's the issue with you guys. You don't spend the time and effort to learn something but expect some one with a magic wand to solve the world's problem for you.
I spend a total of 3 years getting used to Linux. Now i love it. I don't have to use a particular software just because every other dumb fucking user is using it, I don't have to result to patching some thing that i don't truly understand. I don't have to rely on a system that is faulty by design and principle.
I can get legal and free software that does just about anything that i can think of.
If you are still confused about the bugs and go through the google phase. Then my suggestion is that don't install or patch all the new updates until you truly understand the different kernel modes and configuration settings. condescend much? linux isn't a good OS for the average user. the general perception of people that think linux is "too hard" is a correct one. the mere fact that you had to spend 3 years to get used to linux should set off alarm bells in anyone considering using that as a main OS it's a toy. a toy that can't do a lot of things an average user wants it to do, period. not even if they magically became a linux guru. go construct a cost/benefit analysis of your switch to linux and tell me if it was worth it. i sure as hell know my months wasted on it were interesting, but ultimately just that.. a waste of time. A toy? A toy maybe but it's a toy that is more flexible and powerful than any professional OS that M$ can come up with. this isn't true.Your argument only make sense when you think that the average computer user = Windows. which is trueBut so what? A new or beginner user is not going to care if it's Windows / Linux. They will just be confused. they will care once their friends go "whoa man check out this game" and they can't play it. or <insert any other of windows-specific things that linux can't do ever. or without hours of googling if you're lucky>I don't think i need to construct any analysis on the subject. Linux is definitely more useful and it's FREE and do you even understand the fact that Linux is used in professional environments and getting used to the system is a potential job skill? and windows isn't? lol? did you seriously just say that linux is more useful? for who? certainly not the majority. if you don't know windows, you're useless. if you don't know linux, it's a feature you don't have, but not one that many people care about
as for the whole 'free' thing. so what? i'm going to quote AL on the subject because it's quite humorous
AL wrote: I don't understand successful people doing things for free. If someone offers you a free pair of shoes, you wouldn't take it. You would think something's wrong with the shoes, that if they were any good they would cost money, that someone's trying to pull a fast one on you. It's the same way with people's time. Someone offers me something for free, I have no choice but to assume it has no value. Someone says they'll help me for free, they must not be very good at what they're offering to help me do. I wouldn't send a child to a free school, I wouldn't rely on the free police to protect my family, and I certainly wouldn't want someone building a house for me if they weren't good enough at it that they could charge some money.
|
|
|
|