Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #3204

Re: OS wars in the mainstream

Followups directed to: comp.misc

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday 26 May 2014 12:28, BartC conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> "Hils" <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote in message
> news:llt87p$bhc$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> It has become automatic after so many hours spent (re-)installing,
>> (re-)authenticating and trying to get useful results from MS
>> software.
> 
> Other people's experiences can be different.
> 
> MS Windows usually came pre-installed and ready-to-go. Pretty much any
> add-ons were supported (USB, printers, networking, screens) because
> the manufacturers provided Windows drivers.

But you needed the latest Service Packs for those drivers to be able to 
work, and then some.  Good luck if you didn't have an Internet 
connection.  And dealing with Microsoft themselves was an abominable 
experience.

Also, the same drivers would prove incompatible between different 
Windows versions - I know this because I've done lots of on-site 
assistance for Windows users.

> There weren't a myriad different, slightly incompatible variations of
> the same OS [...

Yes, there were.  There were multiple versions of Windows 95, which were 
all incompatible with one another.  In addition to that, Windows NT 4.0 
- which what I was using - was released in 1997, two years after Windows 
95, and it did _not_ have FAT32 support.

> ...](ubuntu, red hat, fedora, debian, etc etc) (however I
> don't really understand what's different about them).

1. Version differences.  RedHat and (the official) Debian are the
   "stable" and "long term support" releases.  Fedora is RedHat's
   bleeding-edge testbed.  Ubuntu is based upon the bleeding-edge
   version of Debian.  Many distributions also share the same basis
   but carry subtle version differences between individual packages.

2. Package management.  RedHat invented the RPM (RedHat Package Manager)
   format, and many distributions stick to that.  Debian invented the
   other main package format, .deb, which is installed via the APT
   (Advanced Packaging Tool).  Both package managers have their pros and
   cons, and both have their fans and haters.

3. Configuration.  Some distributions favor one desktop environment over
   another, and although you can install multiple desktop environments
   side by side in the same distribution, Ubuntu started the practice of
   offering downloads for installable media with only one desktop
   environment, with other distributions following their example.  As a
   corollary, people didn't understand anymore that you can have
   multiple desktop environments installed side by side in the same
   operating system.

4. Purpose.  Some distributions are general purpose, others are more
   server-oriented, some are more multimedia-oriented, some are
   specifically tailored at educational use, others at scientific use,
   and so on.

There are more differences in vantage, but by combining only the above 
four vantages, you can understand why there are so many different 
distributions.

> You could also (more true some years ago), buy a Windows PC in any
> computer store; you were unlikely to find a Linux one. (If you were
> selling software, you developed for a platform that 99% of clients
> would already have or could easily obtain.)

Given that GNU/Linux is Free & Open Source Software, the culture within 
that community is usually also such that most GNU/Linux users will 
reject proprietary and/or commercial software either way.

> By contrast, all I remember of Linux  is delving into it from time to
> time (because everyone said it was so great), and wasting a huge
> amount of time tinkering to the most basic things working (such as a
> display screen! But with low-res, low-bit-depth, washed out colours,
> and poorly driven LCD display). I think it was 20 years before I had a
> Linux system where enough things worked for it to be useful (mouse,
> screen, USB drive, internet). But it's GUI still looked amateurish.

There are many different fully-fledged desktop environments to choose 
from, and some - like KDE - can be tailored to look like whatever you 
want, and behave in whatever way you like.  In fact, Microsoft looked 
quite heavily at GNU/Linux - and most notably at the Compiz window 
manager and at the KDE 4 desktop environment - as inspiration for the 
graphical effects in Windows Vista.  And then Vista still needed a 
machine with much heavier specs than GNU/Linux in order to offer the 
minimum of those effects and the same level of performance.

> In Windows most of these things just worked [...

If you were lucky.

> ...] (you could also type either dir or DIR at the console, and it
> would understand what you meant.

Because Windows is case-retentive but not case-sensitive.

> But type LS instead of ls, and Linux apparently wouldn't have a
> clue what you were trying to do. Which is more user-friendly?)

Case-sensitivity is important.  GNU/Linux isn't user-unfriendly.  It 
merely asks of its users that they'd be a little more computer-friendly.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

OS wars in the mainstream Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-25 09:38 +0100
  Re: OS wars in the mainstream mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2014-05-25 11:25 +0100
    Re: OS wars in the mainstream Kara M'bola <maxupixu@in.val.it> - 2014-05-25 11:19 +0000
      Re: OS wars in the mainstream Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-25 12:45 +0000
      Re: OS wars in the mainstream Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-25 18:11 +0100
        Re: OS wars in the mainstream Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-25 17:47 +0000
          Re: OS wars in the mainstream Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-26 07:00 +0000
            Re: OS wars in the mainstream Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2014-05-26 15:07 +0000
            Re: OS wars in the mainstream despen@verizon.net (Dan.Espen) - 2014-05-26 11:43 -0400
        Re: OS wars in the mainstream Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2014-05-26 02:42 +0000
        Re: OS wars in the mainstream mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2014-05-26 09:26 +0100
        Re: OS wars in the mainstream "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-05-26 11:28 +0100
          Re: OS wars in the mainstream Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-05-26 12:55 +0200
            Re: OS wars in the mainstream Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-26 12:48 +0100
    Re: OS wars in the mainstream Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-25 17:27 +0100

csiph-web