Results 1 to 4 of 4
Linux….? As much as I would like to use Linux for all the obvious reasons developers give me no choice but to unfortunately stick with Windows. Now I’m not a ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 04-10-2003 #1
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
To Linux or not to Linux?
As much as I would like to use Linux for all the obvious reasons developers give me no choice but to unfortunately stick with Windows. Now I’m not a guru when it comes to Linux, however, I do know enough about operating systems and their functionality to say this about it. The GUI makes very little sense….ok….maybe it makes a little sense. In any case, we live in a world of production that demands speed of use and Linux developers cannot or have not provided a GUI that can give the user complete control over Linux’s environment without having to use the command line. There are a serious lack of tools missing in order to give some of the most basic functions a user would need just to simply configure a desktop…?!?
Another thing…What’s the deal with the obsessive amount of programs needed to carry out the same function? Why do I need 7 media players to function as one tool? Is it really that difficult for developers to create a single media player known to the world as the premier Linux media player? Microsoft has Windows Media Player and Mac’s have QuickTime, plus, in both cases they port over to one another’s OS. I’m particularly fond of Redhat and can’t help but be disappointed that I have to settle with Windows because of the lack of tools needed for me to stay away from the command line and being overhauled with hundreds of packages to carry out some of the simplest functions.
Also, the naming protocols of these files and programs have to be one of the most confusing approaches I’ve ever seen when it comes to communicating to the user. A default installation of Redhat had me looking at a deluge of packages that I just couldn’t make sense of. The impression I get is….grab a CD and prepare to wade through every developer that had 5 minutes to put a file together for the Linux movement. Most of these packages shouldn’t even be considered a program. I’ve seen media players that look anemic and are starving for the rest of the code. The sad thing is that you will find 5 CD’s of this nonsense.
Someone really needs to get a hold of Linux developers and tell them to build an OS…not a command line with pretty colors. This may sound harsh but the truth is I want Linux as an OS. They just haven’t made anything remotely close to an OS that can be used outside of serving a purpose as a server. There are other things I could address….but why? When developers can not or will not provide a complete OS, plus, have difficulties with small objectives such as these….what’s the need to go on for?
- 04-10-2003 #2
Someone really needs to get a hold of Linux developers and tell them to build an OS…not a command line with pretty colors.
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
What you see is the the various sides of open source free software. Your also seeing that Linux came from a totally cmd line interface of Unix. Most users until recently have been programmers that got involved when the cmd line was the only practical option which kept the rest of us non-programmers out. The cmd line is no biggie to a programmer and they tend to enjoy the challenge.
Since I'm still new, I enjoy trying to do things my linux boss desn't know how to. Personal thrill over the boss thing.
I may have missed some of your points but I think you get where I'm coming from. Linux is not the one solution for all needs but does very well in some. Same is true for MS, Netware etc.... One key difference is MS XP/win2k, 9x's never included any developement software. Linux does.Dan
\"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer\" from The Art of War by Sun Tzu\"
- 04-10-2003 #3
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
The reason your confronted with so many applcations that do the same thing is because YOU chose to install them.
I don't see windows giving you any choice at all. its not "would you like this one? or perhaps this one?" its just "here's windows media player, live with it."
as for the GUI. Which GUI are you refering to? There are many available. And they will control you system perfectly well if you configure them to. Thats what its all about. making things the way you want, instead of the way MS wants them to be.
I do agree that the directory structure can be confusing, however. But thats only because we have used DOS/Windows first. If we learnt to use computers first with linux, then we would most likley think that drive letters are a bloody stupid idea. why seperate everything when you can have almost seamless integration of your hardware?
So Linux needs configuring and doesn't run the way you want it out of the box. It put me off at first (I have had many distros installed and uninstalled as ive tryed to convert) but I have actualy found it enjoyable setting it up and configureing it the way I want it. Not only that, but once its done, even if it was a good few days work, its a dream to use, because everything is wehere you want it to be, and everything works the way you expect it to.
hehe, sorry bout that. rant over
- 04-11-2003 #4
What’s the deal with the obsessive amount of programs needed to carry out the same function? Why do I need 7 media players to function as one tool?
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Australia & England
CNET > Downloads > Windows > Audio > Players
Players 1-25 of 264 | Next 25 >