Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Gee, let's take a crack at this -

OK, installing vlc...

1. apt-get install vlc - works fine, anything else to install?

2. yep, those viruses will have a hard time pwning a linux system because they can't type that password.

3. har har - which method takes YOU all weekend? Running an apt-get command, or clicking on the package in the software manager?

4. You're confusing using linux with the process of building a linux system from scratch... my little 7 year old girl has no trouble using linux - but I'd never expect her to build the box from scratch...

Bah, I don't beleive you ever had any love for linux - your comments indicate that you have absolutely no clue about linux, and are just babbling cluelessly...

(1) Installing programs is easy with windows because there is a standard. Try installing VLC and you'll see what I mean.

emerge vlc. Works fine.

(2) Anytime you try to install or change something on your own computer you have to type a password. And god forbid you run the program in root, then you get every warning that exists.

Oh yes, it's so much better to allow everyone to install anything and everything on your computer.

(3) Installing anything good in Linux requires an entire weekend ending up in learning how to reinvent the wheel.

See 1. No it doesn't.

(4) To truly use any Linux distribution your going to have to either take classes in how Linux works or spend time reading a lot of books and forums.

And that somehow isn't true of windows?

Well which one is better is a matter of choice. As Mr. T bone feels windows is better go for it, no prob to GNU/Linux users but trust me it took Windows around 15 yrs to reach where it is today as far as ease is considered. GNU/Linux is new comparably as fas as GUI for end users is concerned. If Mr T Bone has prob try Gnome 2.14 ot try enlightenment17 which is my best choice for a end user desktop followed by gnome for a close second.
Though Win has a nice installer, it sucks because of irs inherent weakness in its design.Sometime ease comes at a higher price than we realise.
And sooner or later those who ignore this will realise it. :-)

Sometimes linux does make me FLAMING MAD. Installing new sw from a source-tarball can be such a nice experience. For that matter, so can figuring out why old established sw will not work. Digging through tons of manuals is a real pleasant way to spend weekends.

Still, linux -- with all it's warts and blemishes -- remains my OS of choise.

The beauty of linux, and free software in general, is that if you have a gripe about it, you can do something about it. With windows, you're stuck. Perhaps your efforts would be best spent improving the usability of linux distros.

The solution to all the flamebaiter's problems is to use the .deb package format with apt. That usually means using Debian or Ubuntu - it's such a good clean packaging solution, and last I looked Debian was the largest free operating system in terms of the number of prepackaged binaries. It's all good.

FTR I usually recommend Ubuntu for first-timers.

like saying a screwdriver is better than a wrench -- hogwash. While I have (can't say own) an implementation of XP at home-- the reason is selfish -- it's for my wife and she uses it *for a desktop* with ease and few calls to me (I travel 100% implementing linux in the datacenter) as to why this or that doesn't work. XP frustrates the @#@(&! out of me. Try killing a 'non-responding' program -- XP takes that as a *hint*.
In the datacenter (for edge services, db, javaserver) I wouldn't even consider recommending it.

Security, stability, preemptive services would preclude that.

Also I once did some benchmarking of ntfs vs ext3 (also ocfs, but another tale of woe)...guess what.. ntfs is optimized for files of the size commonly handled by desktop users! Big surprise there.

To me the idea of Windoz Server is ox·y·mo·ron·ic

Hmm, you know.. I still like linux more then Windows.. but I also want to have Windows Vista next year, that's for sure! But hating linux? no way!

Lets start by windows.
1. Windows does not have an DNLC cache. Linux has it
Try pressing f5 for a huge directory in explorer and see the processor go from 10% to 100% :D.

2. Windows probably got the device namespace bad. Linux has it correct derived from UNIX variants "everything is a file".
Windows cannot create a file named com.

Now linux.
1. Took years to understand and solve problems like
a. preemptiblity, Big Kernel lock-scalability, thread was different than a process.
b. Asynchronous IO.
c. Object manager. (It came to know rather late that it needs something like kobjects)
d. IO lock, me thinks this should have been fixed a lot earlier.

2. No filter driver framework.
This is really sad.

3. No queue based spinlocks.
I dont know whether Linux does not need it. or its due to architecture support they opt not to use it.

4. Disk based cache.
I feel that a stream based cache will help. This is my presonal view.

But guess what Linux allows you to change things, YOU DONT LIKE IT CHANGE IT !!!

FFS people stop feeding the troll..

And that is why ubuntu exists.

>>(1) Installing programs is easy with windows because there is a standard. Try installing VLC and you'll see what I mean.
I just type "sudo apt-get install vlc" and press enter. Thats it. All the files were automaticely downloaded. Installing it on Windows is NOT standardised (There are so much different install wizards for windows)

>>(2) Anytime you try to install or change something on your own computer you have to type a password.
It`s the same on windows, if you set it up safely. Using windows with a root account is just idiotic irresponsible.

>>(3) Installing anything good in Linux requires an entire weekend ending up in learning how to reinvent the wheel.
That's simply a lie. Most (and I really mean most) programs are in the repository, and I can install them with an "apt-get install PROGRAMNAME". The other programs also doesn`t take more than 5 minutes maximal.

>>(4) To truly use any Linux distribution your going to have to either take classes in how Linux works or spend time reading a lot of books and forums.
That's also a lie. I know people using Linux without having very much background knowledge.
And if you want to use windows TRULY, you also have to learn. Don't imagine that you are an experienced windows user. You are not!

>>My love for linux has turned to hate.
That's cause you`re a morron.

To truly use any Linux distribution your going to have to either take classes in how Linux works or spend time reading a lot of books and forums.
Knowledge is freedom

I am a Linux Newbie and I must admit, the level of technical expertise it demands for simple tasks is a barrier to productivity. I do intend to stick with it, but it is already obvious that to understand the system, the learning experience is tough and as far as Internet websites carrying helpful information are concerned, there is no such thing as a Linux beginner.

(1) Installing programs is easy with windows because there is a standard. Try installing VLC and you'll see what I mean.

No way man. The windows installer are forgetiing a lot of dlls and a lot of registry keys ona Uninstall. In my opinion Windows dosent have a Package Management. Look at Debian package management... you can Upgrade / Downgrade a packages in minutes with all conf modifications.
You can upgrade the whole system very very very easy. You can Upgrade your system from a Release version to other without any dificulties...
Even RPM is more better than windows installation and uninstallation.

(2) Anytime you try to install or change something on your own computer you have to type a password. And god forbid you run the program in root, then you get every warning that exists.

Very true and this is the reason why Linux and Unixes are more used on servers like windows.
This is the reason why on linux are 30 viruses and on Windows are several thousands ore more ...
This is the reason why Linux is better than windows

(3) Installing anything good in Linux requires an entire weekend ending up in learning how to reinvent the wheel.

Or if you are reading all messages you can install the Linux in minutes ... No comment ...

(4) To truly use any Linux distribution your going to have to either take classes in how Linux works or spend time reading a lot of books and forums.

And truly use windows you need expand money on support or programs or whatever ...

My 2 cents.

Best Regards
Sacx
myDomainTracker
Webmaster's Talks

Most Linux distributions have a package manager of some sort. Red Hat and Fedora have Up2Date and yum, Debian has apt-get, etc. My distro, Arch Linux, has its own package manager, called pacman. It is one of the nicest package managers I have found, since it has an enormous repository of packages, has fantastic dependency checking, and the packages are bleeding edge. In fact, using pacman, I find that it's simpler to install software on my system than on a Windows machine. One command and I'm done, ready to go in moments.

Brohism

Sigh...
Don't make it too difficult people:
- Lazy people use windows
- Smart people who like to learn new stuff use linux, and sometimes windows if they're lazy
- dumb people will only use windows.

My guess is T-bone isn't the dumbest guy around, neihter the smartest, but he certainly is lazy as hell.

I like linux. More precisly i like programing in linux environment because everything is so clear and you have got source code from kernel that's good for developing of drivers. (When you want to develop driver for windows you MUST buy DDK). BUT! I think for user is windows OS really many times easir to install, use and maintain. If you have got new hardware on linux you have to download new kernel, you have to configure plenty files. For example wifi with using of ndiswrapper. I have tried that on slackware 10.2. I've tried plenty version, from latest one to the 1.10 which was able to be compiled and used on my system... Than followed configuring, wi-fi is still suddenly disconnecting so i have had to write script for checking that. Windows user just press "wi-fi" button. And next one is kernel. I like linux kernel, because is open, you can modify anything. But some parts ale still piece of shit. For example task manager, try to extract same files on some computer in linux and windows. For example i recommend archive with latest version of linux kernel. On windows you can continue in work when you are extracting simultaneously that's not true on today's linux (except you have got some GBs of RAM). Yeah! I am sure. Windows task manager is old, but still better. And in windows has not been found bug leading to escalation from ring3 to ring0 for plenty years (from NT 4.51 ages). Can we said that about linux?

heh.. I wonder, why does everyone strive so hard to support the optimum of his choises and convince others of it? Be it the use of an OS, support to a political party, or belief to a religion.. I mean he already knows he is not going to change anyone's mind, just like he is not going to be convinced by anyone. These decisions are not taken in public forums, everyone here believes he knows what's best so that's a pointless discussion.

Anyway, having said that, let me support *my* views :p

First of all "Easy" should really be left outside. It carries no specific meaning.

- To unix fanatics: as much as it is difficult to imagine, yes in fact there are people out there that DO NOT LIKE computers! Just like some people don't like pets or pepperoni pizza. In fact these people represent the growing majority of computer users. Their No1 priority on their choises are to minimize the time spent on the computer AND the percentage of brain-space computer stuff capture on their minds. These people don't want to know about logical constructs (hierarchies, permissions, policies, protocols), procedures, terms, etc. They are not fascinated and feel nausea when forced to deal with them, period. Their anxiety for the *unavoidable* problems caused not by windows, but their ignorance (that windows allowed and encouraged), might push them to try anything for a bit, however a well structured, flexible and advanced OS like GNU will never be easy for them, no matter through what distribution, because it demands that they learn things that can not be learned without genuine interest. No "training classes", no scheduled - forced study can help. If you belong to these guys, "Linux" (and a great deal of things that form the very core of the IT) are not for you. Simple as that.

- To windows fanatics: feel free to base your choise on the above, no one can argue this! However first understand it yourself, windows are a better OS *for you*, *only* for that reason. Even for you, windows have disadvantages that you can not doubt (and chances are you know them better than non-windows users). You should understand that not everyone is like you (and I don't mean that in a bad way), there are people that love computers, they like to have a deep understanding of how they work and are intrigued in developing things they know that people like you will not appreciate. Again, that doesn't mean they are the smart guys that make you look stupid, in the end they might be the stupid guys (like someone said life isn't all about computers..). Just respect their views and the fact they have different priorities, move on with whatever you like better (which *obviously* is not computers) and stop arguing for what you have no clue.

- To the original poster: You obviously are a user with specific demands that wants to keep his relationship with computers in a minimum. Consequently, it is very likely that windows *are* a better OS for you than Linux. Just keep in mind what I said in the above paragraph (which are *not* directed to you, only to windows fanatics that try to support their choise using technical arguments).

>Here is why Windows is better than Linux. (1) Installing programs is >easy with windows because there is a standard. Try installing VLC and >you'll see what I mean.

How about installing the binaries that were included with your distrobution; and using the package management tools that also came with your distro. I haven't had a problem doing it that way (for years).

>(2) Anytime you try to install or change something on your own >computer you have to type a password. And god forbid you run the >program in root, then you get every warning that exists.

Not running as root or admin; is a given; for any OS. It is a good security practice. How do you think the drive by software occurs under windows. Enjoy the malware. Well, you might upgrade to Vista and find out that even microsoft will be doing Least Privilege access. That means you will have to type out your password for Admin tasks. Yes, vista will be taking a page from the *nix users out there. Here are some articles for your reading (educational) pleasure.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/security/
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/luawinxp....
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Windows-Vista-Principle-Least-Pri...

Perhaps you can ask microsoft to change their mind; I am sure they will listen. PS: the admin account will be disabled; aka you wont be able to log in as admin any more. I guess you are not going to upgrade; and if you do; I am sure you will be preaching about all the innovation that microsoft does for their products.

>(3) Installing anything good in Linux requires an entire weekend >ending up in learning how to reinvent the wheel.

A weekend? I can have a fully functional system in a couple of hours; that includes the install.

>(4) To truly use any Linux distribution your going to have to either >take classes in how Linux works or spend time reading a lot of books >and forums.

And this doesn't happen in windows? Have a look online for books on the Registry or Active Directory. Try removing some nasty piece of ghostware; aka malware with a root kit. Let see how much reading you will have to do to try to get ride of that program. Actually; when it comes to root kits; you are better off re-installing (nuke it). There is a nice quote from MS about nuking your system.

http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020415,39237277-1,00.htm

>My love for linux has turned to hate.

O'well; if you have to waste your energy on hate; then so be it. I don't care for windows myself; so I spend as little time on it as possible. Perhaps; instead of spending your time on hate; reading a few books on windows and security might be in order.

Hugs and kiss;
*nix user

My wife feels like that about LINUX as well, so I maintain *gasp* XP for her -- I heartliy reccomend XP to anyone who:
-- prefers to point and click
-- not have to think about configuration too hard
-- doesn't particularily care about security
-- doesn't mind waiting when XP prefers its own management algorithms
over the users preferences (just *try* and kill a non-responsive
app and see who wins)
-- likes to spend their time on computer games
-- feels a need to support Mr. Gates and his causes
-- oh yes... doesn't mind not actually owning the operating system
on their own computer.

just a troll...but i'll bite :)

Try installing BizTalk 2006, it's a complete nightmare. If you call that consistent...it takes 30-40 minutes to install....and when it breaks, you have to wipe the whole machine and start all over...there's no point in trying to uninstall.

it takes 90 minutes to do a full install of Visual Studio 2005...

it takes 30-60 minutes to install Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition.

granted, SQL Server 2005 takes about 20-25 minutes to install, but mysql, postgres with gui/web admin interfaces take mere minutes.

please...you could reformulate the topic:
why windows's design is better and *not* why windows is better

Windows design choices always comes with a cost that is very high
the "easy of use" that requires no password comes with the cost of security and it is just inaceptable

inside windows beeing root i can do whatever i want including RUNNING CODE IN KERNEL MODE

linux's aproach isn't great but it's better becuase you don't have securities issues
There are others aproach such as microkernel ones that try to have security and easy of use,the cost to pay is some performance loss(an example of implementation is hurd,mabe others system have similar implementations but i am not aware of them)

Others things are already fixed in linux:
(1)installation(there are similar things to .exe that you can run in linux but again you must autorise them to run)
(3)false
(4)false

i wonder wich distribution you use,mabe you use gentoo or similar distribution and it is clearly inadapted to you,there others ditributions that fit more your needs

By the way if you truly love window's implementation there is a project named ReactOS wich goal is to have a gpl windows,but it's not usable yet

Mabe others OS could suit your need such as the BeOS(there is also a free software clone) but linux(and similar unixes) are a viable alternative because they have a huge number of apps and driver

I dont need to think of applications and filenames. Windows takes care of everything! And no more menus!

Person drives down to $LOCAL_ELECTRONICS_STORE and buys a computer. You don't have to even know what Windows or a computer are. If you don't know, the local reps will be able to educate on the complicated things such as "Where are my programs inside of the start button?" or "The computer has to be plugged in order for you to do stuff with it".

After a grueling hour of lecturing from your wise teacher of computers, You go home, follow the colorful installation instructions included in the box. You now have a working computer. You sure are smart!

If you want to get some software, or peripheral, such as a printer or scanner, go back to the store and buy it. There is no need to hunt or worry around for compatibility, because EVERYTHING works with windows. When you get back home, plug the device into the computer. If the computer asks for you to put in the CD that came with the device, just put it in. Boom! You now have a working scanner/printer/etc and you STILL don't know anything about computers. Congragulations! Aren't you glad you used Windows?

Now if your ISP didn't give you a router w/ firewall to plug your computer into, you're screwed, but that's your ISP's fault. They should have known better!

I just recently bought a used IBM Thinkpad T30 and I am hassling
with it for weeks now as every so often the Wireless NIC decides
not to work any more; not detecting other networks in the area.
And of course, I am talking Win XP pro here.

I even exchanged the NIC for an old Toshiba 802.11b but with the
very same effect.

Playing with IRQ settings in the BIOS setup, I got Win XP to
lock up at boot time for a couple of times and generally did
not have any luck.
I later found a knowledge base article pointing out that many
WiFi Mini-PCI cards would have a PCMCIA bridge and behind that
would ask for an ISA interrupt that would be shared with a PCI
interrupt of the same number; the outcome could be interrupt
storms, lock-ups and the like. They did tell how to modify a
*.INF file but did so sluggishly that I still do not know if
I modified the right line as I would otherwise have to learn
about the *.INF file format and MS driver packaging in general.
This line would tell Windows not to share the ISA IRQ with
PCI, aha. For a couple of days it now works, but it did so
before as well, so I am not convinced.

All the time, the same non-working NIC worked flawlessly when
I booted the machine up under Windows.
All the time. Of course, I had the idea of intermittent hardware
problems. But no, it's bad Windows drivers.

The bottom line?

When Windows breaks, people get new hardware as they think
the hardware's broken. Windows always appears to be good.
And we're talking original IBM and Microsoft WLHQ licensed,
signed drivers --- that no real engineer is allowed to have
a look into to fix the interrupt sharing code.

The truth, however, is not always what you feel. And if there is
a problem in Windows, it's generally such a harsh one that you'll
have to buy new hardware. At the same time, people are reluctant
to buy hardware they know is Linux-compatible to complain later
that there's no Linux driver? That's not fair.