Happy birthday Linux

[JRManx]

zapshe wrote:

Windows updates take about 2 minutes on average for me. Some have been as quick as 30 seconds (reboot included).

Damn. Ok, the Dells we use at work are about 2 years old, and the internet there is not super-great (although better than my Century-Clunk). But, like you said, Dells aren't the best. What do you use? I definitely want to recommend it for my supervisors, although it probably has a rather prohibitive price tag.

I like the fact that I don't have to update virus protection software every few months when the hackers figure out a way to get past it. The only time a virus almost got onto my Mac was when I foolishly clicked on a link and got redirected to a seedy-looking site that tried to download something to my computer. Fortunately, Safari stopped it and asked me if I wanted to download anything from the site, and I said "No way!" Google Chrome has never asked me if I want to download anything or not.

I also like many of the applications Apple has, including Pages, Numbers, iPhoto, Grapher, Automator, Mail, Terminal, and Safari. I have not found a browser that matches Safari's secureness and reliability. Ok, some websites don't work on it, but that's only because I don't want to take up my computer's space with useless cookies, and those websites are ususally the kind I'd rather avoid anyway.

I haven't seen Apple making their apps compatible with Windows, while conversely, Windows is constantly making their apps available in versions for Mac. Why is that, I wonder...

Oh, and before I forget,

helios wrote:

* vi is better than emacs.
* Goku would (eventually) beat Superman in a fight.
* C++ is the best language, except for its next version.

Definitely agree with all of your comment except (sort of) these three.

I just want to point out that Vim is better than vi, Goku would never beat Superman unless he used a kryptonite sword, and Python is better than C++, according to my friend Dan, who uses nothing else. I can neither confirm nor deny, having never used Python.

[The Grey Wolf]

agent max wrote:

I haven't seen Apple making their apps compatible with Windows, while conversely, Windows is constantly making their apps available in versions for Mac. Why is that, I wonder...

Because Microsoft is a software company and it would be stupid of them not to sell products on that platform. The other question that could be asked is, if Apple office apps are so great, why is there a market for Microsoft Office on macOS?

It's all horses for courses, stop being so defensive and acting like Apple stuff is special, it's not, it's just different.

[zapshe]

What do you use?

I use Lenovo. Though the most prohibitive thing to having fast Windows updates is HDD vs SSD. Since they're work computers, I can't imagine they went through the extra cash to put SSDs into those computers.

However, Apple has been selling their computers with ONLY SSDs, so they don't give people an option to cheap out. It's their way of keeping their product feeling premium.

I like the fact that I don't have to update virus protection software every few months when the hackers figure out a way to get past it

Whenever I download something shady (well, shady to the computer, I know what it is!), Microsoft Edge (Chrome as well) asks me if I'm sure I want to download it because it looks harmful. Then, if you try to run it, Windows Defender will probably block it.

Of course, its not perfect and doesn't know all the viruses in the world. The best anti-virus is yourself! I don't think I've had a Virus in over 5 years now.

I also like many of the applications Apple has, including Pages, Numbers, iPhoto, Grapher, Automator, Mail, Terminal, and Safari.

These all have a wide array of alternatives in Windows - much better ones I'd argue.

I have not found a browser that matches Safari's secureness and reliability.

I'm not sure I follow with Secureness and Reliability aspects. MacOS/iOS simply don't have a lot of malware written for them, makes it hard to test how "secure" safari is when compared to other browsers.

Also reliability? I've never had ANY browser fail to work as often as safari. Certain codex that don't work, files it can't open, etc.. I mean, that browser is just something else. Fine for general browsing, but could never be my main browser. Even on my iPhone, I mainly use safari, but I have Chrome installed because safari has occasionally failed me.

I haven't seen Apple making their apps compatible with Windows, while conversely, Windows is constantly making their apps available in versions for Mac. Why is that, I wonder...

?? It seems to me that they'd only do that if Apple users want to use Microsoft products on Mac, instead of the software that MacOS has! Apple has its own eco-system, which is why anyone would ever use their products. They'd have no market trying to sell their software, like Pages, to Windows users who have much better alternatives.

Goku would never beat Superman

This one is difficult. In order for it to be a fair question, we have to make it a test of raw power, no intelligence can be a part of it. Then the question becomes whether or not Superman is truly limitless in power, or if Goku can reach limitless power. Superman is weak against Magic, and if Goku got the power of a Destroyer, he could probably just make his existence void.

[jonnin]

macs have their following. My issue is not one of the above... they cost more across the board, from hardware to software, and assuming you are not running unix or windows software on them, just what was designed to run on a mac, your choices are seriously limited. Worse yet, to develop on them, you have to pay for the right, unless that has changed.

my (silly) 2 cents on the whole mess..

linux/unix is for people who want to tamper with the OS all the time to force things to work. Once it works, you don't use the software, you move on to forcing something else to work.
windows is for people who want to play games mostly.
mac is for people who want a console like experience... limited choices that just work, designed to work with a simplified controller (the one button mouse!).

[malibor]

linux/unix is for people who want to tamper with the OS all the time to force things to work. Once it works, you don't use the software, you move on to forcing something else to work.

ahahahah :D
literally, yes.

[deleted account xyzzy]

Damn, but this is turning out to be more than a bit of a bust and tame OS Flame War going in here. No Anathematizing or Fatwa throwing.

*Sulks*

[malibor]

Internet is full of OS flame wars, but to tell you the truth I like linux, debian to be precise, it's just it was more than 5yrs since I last time needed to use it, mostly for R&D.

[TheIdeasMan]

There was an article I read somewhere, written by a guy who had experience as an engineer in both UNIX/ Linux and Windows. Basically what he was saying was that one installs stuff on UNIX, it works, it ain't broke, don't try to fix it - it will run for years without any intervention. On the other hand, with Windows he was always having to do stuff - updates, reboots etc.

The UNIX way of doing things basically means having human readable/editable config files.

The Windows way of doing things is to have binary files to store config data, then provide a GUI app to enable a user to do configuration. Despite this there are still some things that must be done via the shell. For example, I recently wanted to remove the windows installation that came with my new laptop, so I could run it in a VM. I needed to get the product key, and I eventually discovered a way to do it using a wmic command in the shell, but then discovered that wmic had been deprecated, so I had to use a power-shell cmdlet instead.

@zapshe

I wonder if your opinions are colored by your (seemingly) lack of experience with Linux? It sounds like you had a go with Ubuntu in order to do some assignments, and weren't happy having to use the shell to do some things, because you are used to the windows way of doing things?

[zapshe]

my (silly) 2 cents on the whole mess..

I agree with you mostly. But that's also why Windows seems like such a good choice. It's a nice middle ground - where you don't have to mess with things for them to work like Linux, but you're not forced into a simple life of obedience like Mac.

*Sulks*

Lmao!

[TheIdeasMan]

zapshe wrote:

... where you don't have to mess with things for them to work like Linux ....

Can you give examples of the things you need to mess with?

For a normal user Linux is just the same as Windows, one doesn't really have to do anything, IMO.

I have been using Linux since 1991 (and UNIX for 3 years before that), the biggest thing I have ever need to do was build g++ or clang++ from scratch, only if I wanted the absolute latest version. Even with that, Fedora has for awhile included gcc and clang as part of it's distribution, so they get updated along with everything else.

[malibor]

What I hate most about linux is visuals and non intuitive UI..
Some buttons are so small it feels like aiming for a head shot in counter strike.

For example OK\Cancel buttons are usually right to left, while in fact it should be left to right.
The "X" button is on the left instead of on the right, the UI is all messed up.

If you want to install up to date driver you have to first see if linux driver guru team was able to hack it and then you must compile it, there is no user friendly installer and even if it is the UI experience is overall horrible.

Everything is so different and counter intuitive...

I can't play games, no problem I don't play games, but sometimes even a grandpa wants to play games and what do you do then? switch back to windows to take a break of linux ofc.

[TheIdeasMan]

malibor wrote:

For example OK\Cancel buttons are usually right to left, while in fact it should be left to right.
The "X" button is on the left instead of on the right, the UI is all messed up.

Sounds like gnome. I am not really a fan of that either, I like KDE - because it seems "normal" to me. Meaning they haven't messed with the classic "way that a GUI is meant to be". I am not sure what the motivation is to try and reinvent the GUI - just to make it look different & "new" ?

Gnome 40 didn't have the normal min, max, close buttons by default. I had to change them in the settings. But there are settings to have them left or right side of the window, and the order of them. Not sure about OK/ Cancel buttons - I wonder if that is a desktop standard.

I only have gnome at the moment because I am using SilverBlue34 - an immutable OS. The next version 35 is going to have KDE and all the other spins due in October.

[zapshe]

Basically what he was saying was that one installs stuff on UNIX, it works, it ain't broke, don't try to fix it

I'm sure plenty of things work on installation in Linux, but compared to Windows, more things just.. work.

The UNIX way of doing things basically means having human readable/editable config files.

I've gone through many config files and altered them on Windows. Haven't really on Linux, so I can't tell you if its a better experience, but it never gave me issues on Windows.

For example, I recently wanted to remove the windows installation that came with my new laptop, so I could run it in a VM. I needed to get the product key, and I eventually discovered a way to do it using a wmic command in the shell, but then discovered that wmic had been deprecated, so I had to use a power-shell cmdlet instead.

I'm not 100% sure on what you were trying to accomplish, but I don't think you needed a shell for it.

I've used CMD/Powershell a lot, but I've rarely found that its the only. The one example I had where it was the only way to accomplish something was when I accidently screwed up my Microsoft Store! And the only way to get it back was some command line stuff.

But you can see how these are things that only happen because we tend to be niche users. And I'm not against using the command line or whatever, but Linux is command line dependent!

I wonder if your opinions are colored by your (seemingly) lack of experience with Linux?

Well.. it could be. When I was an early teen, I was influenced into getting Ubuntu. I got it and wasn't very impressed I suppose.

Many things you can just do on Windows require command line in Linux and can go wrong. For example... When I was programming my Raspberry Pi Pico with a bluetooth module, I used Windows after attempting to do it on Linux first...

Windows Microsoft Store had a simple app for testing bluetooth connections, seeing if data is coming through, etc.. Linux had two options, command line or an application. I of course went with the application.

Tried for hours, nothing could get that application to work and detect anything. Move over to Windows, not a single issue, data going through no problem.



I didn't even get to try the command line because it was NOT a nice process to setup.


So, I programmed the pico, tested the bluetooth module, etc.. all on Windows (Thonny was amazingly simple!), easier than Linux.

Windows is just a more reliable OS in terms of applications and a trusty OS.

weren't happy having to use the shell to do some things, because you are used to the windows way of doing things?

Some things just shouldn't require the shell, either because they should be simple GUI applications or the shell way is too long and complicated.

Can you give examples of the things you need to mess with?

For a normal user Linux is just the same as Windows, one doesn't really have to do anything, IMO.

What's a "normal user"? Someone who doesn't program? Someone who only uses Microsoft Word and browses the internet? Why would they go to Linux anyway when the more supported OS is Windows?

I'd argue no matter who you are, you'll end up using the terminal at some point if you're on Linux, you simply won't be able to avoid it sometimes.

On Windows, you might never even know that Powershell/CMD even existed.

[TheIdeasMan]

I'm sure plenty of things work on installation in Linux, but compared to Windows, more things just.. work.

Windows is just a more reliable OS in terms of applications and a trusty OS.

I am not sure you are qualified to make those comments, if you have a lack of experience with Linux.

I guess Windows these days is better than it was, but my reason for using Linux is because it is way more reliable than windows.

but Linux is command line dependent!

That's a generalisation. There are some 20,000 apps available for Linux, one can install and use them without having to do anything in the shell.

What's a "normal user"?

Yes, someone who does most things in a browser, and uses GUI applications - that accounts for probably at least 95% of users. These people could potentially use Linux for years without going anywhere near the shell.

As far as writing code goes, one can do that without a shell, although some prefer to use a shell.

Some things just shouldn't require the shell, either because they should be simple GUI applications or the shell way is too long and complicated.

Well I have an opposite view: why should I install a simple GUI app, when I can do something simple in the shell?

It's true there are complex processes to go through to do some specific things, but these are usually outside the purview of the "normal user", that is they are more likely to be an admin task.

Another thing about the shell is that it is possible to do just about anything, whereas software usually has limitations of one kind or another. Just the same as we can write C++ to do almost anything versus an app that has a finite list of features.


With your BlueTooth module, I guess it is possible to find things that are difficult/ impossible to configure in both OSes. Possible in one and not in the other and vice versa.

I'd argue no matter who you are, you'll end up using the terminal at some point if you're on Linux, you simply won't be able to avoid it sometimes.

That's right, but it doesn't mean that it has to be really difficult all the time.

On Windows, you might never even know that Powershell/CMD even existed.

One could say the same for a normal user on Linux.

[zapshe]

I am not sure you are qualified to make those comments, if you have a lack of experience with Linux.

That's an interesting comment. Because I've used Linux "enough" and I've come to find that just trying to do things usually requires some shell experience, or the ability to google shell commands. I mean, just look at one of the first solutions that comes up when I wonder how to create a new file in Ubuntu:

https://vitux.com/add-new-document-back-to-the-right-click-menu-in-ubuntu-18-04/

I noticed when I was running Ubuntu VM for university that I had no idea how to create a new file in Ubuntu without Copy/Pasting an old file and changing it or using the Terminal. Right click menu provides no way to do this after some 16th version of Ubuntu. It doesn't even make sense to me that they did that.

You boil it down and Linux just cannot be recommended to "normal" computer users who expect things to work with minimal hiccups. You can argue that you just have to get the right "flavor" of Linux, but then why go to Linux at all if you need to do research to know you're not going to screw yourself as a regular user?

I guess Windows these days is better than it was, but my reason for using Linux is because it is way more reliable than windows.

You "guess"? Are you qualified to make the claim that Linux is more reliable?

That's a generalisation. There are some 20,000 apps available for Linux, one can install and use them without having to do anything in the shell.

Not really. The *idea* is that a user can just install apps as they wish and never have to touch the shell. But how often is that actually true?

If an app doesn't work, troubleshooting 80% of the time goes straight to the shell.

Well I have an opposite view: why should I install a simple GUI app, when I can do something simple in the shell?

That's fair enough, but we can go back to the new file issue. Sure, its a simple shell command, but there's no reason to prefer the shell to do this simple thing as opposed to Right Click -> New File.

Just the same as we can write C++ to do almost anything versus an app that has a finite list of features.

Right, and its available to us in Linux just the same as Windows. People say you can "automatize" Linux through scripts and such.. But you can so easily do the same on Windows. What's the difference other than Windows is more polished and tends to be more user-friendly?

That's right, but it doesn't mean that it has to be really difficult all the time.

Perhaps not *all* the time, but you'll rarely run into a need to use the terminal on Windows ever.

One could say the same for a normal user on Linux.

What?? I find that impossible. Especially given our agreement that a Linux user would eventually find themselves face to face with the shell.

[TheIdeasMan]

Here is the first item on a search on adding a new file in Win10 ....

You can add a new file type to the New item section of the Windows 10 Context Menu, but you will have to edit the Windows Registry. Here is how you do it.

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-add-a-new-file-type-to-the-microsoft-windows-10-context-menu/

So it seems easier in Ubuntu :+)

I always open the application I want to use, create a New file there. I have always done that for Windows & Linux.

You boil it down and Linux just cannot be recommended to "normal" computer users who expect things to work with minimal hiccups.

I have done exactly that recently, the person is happy, and can do all the things he used to on windows without any problems.

You "guess"? Are you qualified to make the claim that Linux is more reliable?

I have been using UNIX/Linux and DOS/Windows in equal amounts since 1988, I have NEVER had a Linux OS crash in that time. Windows would crash on a daily basis early on, progressively less up until about Windows 7 era. Since then Windows has been more reliable. I shouldn't have used the word guess.

Not really. The *idea* is that a user can just install apps as they wish and never have to touch the shell. But how often is that actually true?

99.999% of the time. It's only for a particularly esoteric combination of things that I have had a problem. The rest of the time no problems at all, in my experience.

What?? I find that impossible. Especially given our agreement that a Linux user would eventually find themselves face to face with the shell.

The agreement was for a "normal user". I have not had to do anything to any of the apps on my current machine.

So you have used PowerShell a lot, I don't see the difference between that and a Linux shell on a conceptual basis, they are both very capable.

It sounds to me that you have established that you like Windows, that's fine. I have replied because your opinions related to your personal preference don't ring true to me. We could go around in circles for days, nothing I say is going to convince you, so I am going to leave off. I hope all goes well for you at your end :+)

[zapshe]

So it seems easier in Ubuntu :+)

Adding a new item to the context menu is slightly easier in Ubuntu.. Got it. You literally just navigate to the correct directory in the Registry then add the directory of the thing you want to open. This is a far cry from difficult, and certainly pushing the lines of "average" user - especially compared to simply trying to create a new file..

I have done exactly that recently, the person is happy, and can do all the things he used to on windows without any problems.

I could simply say I have to, and they weren't happy.

Windows would crash on a daily basis early on

I'm probably considerably younger than you, Windows over the years has rarely crashed for me. If it does crash, usually the reason is obvious, I was messing with something and screwed up!

If you've never had Linux crash on you, you haven't used Linux.

So you have used PowerShell a lot, I don't see the difference between that and a Linux shell on a conceptual basis, they are both very capable.

I've used Powershell to do some Git commands and for scripting. This is a far cry from "needing" to use it. And for the vast majority of my Windows usage, I rarely touched the command line. Its only as what I was doing went deeper into the abyss that I got more familiar with it.

I have replied because your opinions related to your personal preference don't ring true to me

I would not have thought Linux being a less reliable OS in terms of plug-in-play was controversial..

It becomes even more true when you're not the average user and certain things require more work, command line usage, and troubleshooting.


I'm obviously bias towards Windows as you're bias towards Linux, but I can't even imagine some of the stuff you're saying.

[keskiverto]

Furry Guy wrote:

Damn, but this is turning out to be more than a bit of a bust and tame OS Flame War going in here.

How did people shift from "N years from X" celebration into arguing which hue of lingerie looks good on them?

[JRManx]

Grey Wolf wrote:

Stop being so defensive and acting like Apple stuff is special, it's not, it's just different.

Ok. I mean, being different can be special, though, right? ;)

zapshe wrote:

These [apps] all have a wide array of alternatives in Windows - much better ones I'd argue.

Well, it's all a matter of preference really. I've used Pages for years, and I like it much better than the new Word. The old Word was fine, but the new one is so convoluted you practically need a degree in MS to understand it. Same with Excel and Outlook. Not to mention Teams, which is so terrible and awful that I would rather miss a job meeting than use it (fortunately my boss likes Zoom).

jonnin wrote:

linux/unix is for people who want to tamper with the OS all the time to force things to work. Once it works, you don't use the software, you move on to forcing something else to work.
windows is for people who want to play games mostly.
mac is for people who want a console like experience... limited choices that just work, designed to work with a simplified controller (the one button mouse!).

I think that's pretty much it in a nutshell. Although I'd argue that Apple is more for people who just want kind of a streamlined, easy-to-use experience, and want something that also looks good (think iPhone, Mac Pro, etc). And, MS can also be for people who want a cheaper alternative to Apple, like the management at work.

You do have to admit, Apple computers/phones just look really good. Generally. There might be one or two exceptions, like the Power Mac G4 Cube, which was a major design blunder.

[zapshe]

Well, it's all a matter of preference really.

Your bias preferences aside, there's nothing tying you down to these apps. I've never even touched teams.

As for Word.. it only looks complicated because of the options. But before I knew it I was just using it like I was born with it.

You do have to admit, Apple computers/phones just look really good.

They look good in general. But there are plenty of Windows computers and other phones that like just as nice if not nicer.