inea

The Use Of Free Operating Programs Windows, Apple and Linux.

Free programs need to become more user friendly  

8 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Windows seems to be the operating program that is installed in a lot of computers. And Apple seems to have got a small portion of the market. And Linux seems to have eaven a smallier part. This can be considered a kind of strange. Since Linux is free. And Windows costs a lot more. There are probably many reasons to find why Windows is used more compared to the operating programs of Apple and Linux. Maybe the efforts to get Linux working are too big compare to the price people are willing to pay for their operating program. And Apple costs maybe too much for a lot of people.Other options people take in consideration are maybe the service provided by software service companies, the availibity of other programs that run on the operating program and the easiness of Windows. Maybe the advertisement and promotion actions of Microsoft are of importancy too.It seems nevertheless strange that 1 company can earn big profits by products while other companies don't copy the approach and make their own product to sell on the market that seems to offer big revenues.

Edited by inea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To you young whipper snappers that grew up using a mouse for a teething ring, you need to understand for us old foggies, it's all about easy. Windows got the jump on everybody, and since it is what most people use it's the easiest for us computer illerates to get somebody to help us when we get stuck. Heck, I don't even know what linux is. I have heard some strange stories about how there are other operating systems for surfing besides internet explorer, but I would be scared to even try them. Fox fire as far as I'm concerned is a series of books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To you young whipper snappers that grew up using a mouse for a teething ring, you need to understand for us old foggies, it's all about easy. Windows got the jump on everybody, and since it is what most people use it's the easiest for us computer illerates to get somebody to help us when we get stuck. Heck, I don't even know what linux is. I have heard some strange stories about how there are other operating systems for surfing besides internet explorer, but I would be scared to even try them. Fox fire as far as I'm concerned is a series of books.


This. No other operating system is as easy to use and user-friendly as Windows. Plus their resources in terms of pure cash are large enough for them to pay off other companies to support them and only them (which is one of the reasons most game companies only support Windows, via DirectX, instead of using OpenGL which is basically the same but is cross-platform).

Due to those reasons alone it really doen't matter how much better any other OS gets; it will never be able to compete with Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. No other operating system is as easy to use and user-friendly as Windows. Plus their resources in terms of pure cash are large enough for them to pay off other companies to support them and only them (which is one of the reasons most game companies only support Windows, via DirectX, instead of using OpenGL which is basically the same but is cross-platform).
Due to those reasons alone it really doen't matter how much better any other OS gets; it will never be able to compete with Windows.


Well there was Windows ME and of course Windows Vista in which they were not user friendly and created more problems then there should have been. However, other factors came into play as to why Microsoft has dominated the Operating system business and that includes both hard and software support and the biggest one PC customization. User interface and user friendliness are big factor as well, but if Apple were to open up its OS like Microsoft has then it would be different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there was Windows ME and of course Windows Vista in which they were not user friendly and created more problems then there should have been. However, other factors came into play as to why Microsoft has dominated the Operating system business and that includes both hard and software support and the biggest one PC customization. User interface and user friendliness are big factor as well, but if Apple were to open up its OS like Microsoft has then it would be different story.


To most people, ME and Vista were very user friendly as well. For the average user all they need access to is the "Start" menu, their browser, and a couple other programs. There are still a lot of people who prefer Vista over XP/7 for the reason that they are afraid of change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there was Windows ME and of course Windows Vista in which they were not user friendly and created more problems then there should have been.

I beg to differ. Other than crashing and bugs, windows ME was just like windows 98 in use. Windows Vista was improvement over XP and it was still user friendly. People had no trouble using that.

Speaking of user friendliness-

"/usr/accountname/directory1/ directory 2" is easy to remember and organize than ' C:/" or "d" or "e:" drives ?

requiring internet connection for most of known software from repository is user friendly ? or getting those softwares via dvd or disc is still user friendly ?

and list goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are probably many reasons to find why Windows is used more compared to the operating programs of Apple and Linux. Maybe the efforts to get Linux working are too big compare to the price people are willing to pay for their operating program. And Apple costs maybe too much for a lot of people.

Consider how the average computer user buys their computer. They walk into a shop (or an online retailer) and buy a PC. It is usually loaded with Microsoft Windows by default. To get Apple's operating system you have to specifically go to Apple's shop and buy an Apple device. To get a Linux operating system you have to install it yourself. Most people simply stick with what they're given. Simple as that.

 

To you young whipper snappers that grew up using a mouse for a teething ring, you need to understand for us old foggies, it's all about easy. Windows got the jump on everybody, and since it is what most people use it's the easiest for us computer illerates to get somebody to help us when we get stuck. Heck, I don't even know what linux is. I have heard some strange stories about how there are other operating systems for surfing besides internet explorer, but I would be scared to even try them. Fox fire as far as I'm concerned is a series of books.

 


Two days ago I was in a small village on the coast, in the village shop. There were two computers in the corner, for people to pay for internet access and computer use for a few minutes. I was pleasantly surprised, when someone used one of the computers, to see the familiar colours of Ubuntu. I went for a closer look, and that confirmed my suspicions - Ubuntu on these public-access PCs. The woman using the PC was not in the first flush of youth, but said the PC was very easy to use and understand. It is a matter of people not liking change. People who use Linux can find Windows and Apple a pain in the backside. People who use Macs can find Windows and Linux a pain in the backside. People who use Windows can find Macs and Linux a pain, but always find Windows to be unusable :P

 

Speaking of user friendliness-

 

"/usr/accountname/directory1/ directory 2" is easy to remember and organize than ' C:/" or "d" or "e:" drives ?

 

requiring internet connection for most of known software from repository is user friendly ? or getting those softwares via dvd or disc is still user friendly ?

 


/home/rob is a bit easier to remember and type than C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\My Documents

 

Downloading software from online repositories free and in the background to be installed automatically is much easier than spending 6 months and ~Ł500 getting a driving licence, buying a car, driving to a shop, buying software on a CD, driving it back, installing it, fighting with the anti-virus software, having a go at installing it again, then leaving the CD on the shelf for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/home/rob is a bit easier to remember and type than C:\Documents and Settings\Rob\My Documents

When all the files are saved in /root/rob then tell me how easy it is organize and remember or type. You are forced to use command line where windows doesn't force you at all. You are forced to use sudo and CLI in 60-70% of managing OS. Besides you can move my documents to e:/my documents or d: my documents in case of windows. is there anything easy to remember path in linux ? NO.
Let's face it, linux still force us to use CLI. Linux has huge dependency issue with libraries and multiple distribution makes offline software installation and distribution difficult.

Downloading software from online repositories free and in the background to be installed automatically is much easier than spending 6 months and ~Ł500 getting a driving licence, buying a car, driving to a shop, buying software on a CD, driving it back, installing it, fighting with the anti-virus software, having a go at installing it again, then leaving the CD on the shelf for years.

Assuming that there is fast or moderate speed internet your case is applicable. But internet censorship is on rise and from unlimited plans ISP are shifting to limited data plans. Dialup users still exist so CD and DVD even if remains on shelf for years are worth to keep. Especially when software is commercial people prefer to get CD or DVD for network installation. Many firms keep data safe by not connecting their home network to internet for such type of consumers DVD/CD is important. Sofware repository based OS don't solve those problems and in fact make it harder. Commercial value from those free repository is already seen during recession and people are moving back to profitable platforms.

Linux doesn't have script kiddies ? viruses ? browser spywares ? software doesn't fail or get corrupt while installing ? there is no dependency hell? I didn't expected you to raise this point. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When all the files are saved in /root/rob then tell me how easy it is organize and remember or type. You are forced to use command line where windows doesn't force you at all. You are forced to use sudo and CLI in 60-70% of managing OS. Besides you can move my documents to e:/my documents or d: my documents in case of windows. is there anything easy to remember path in linux ? NO.

 


Well, files are organised in the same way as any other operating system. So, for example, I have folders such as /home/rob/Photographs and /home/rob/University Work each containing sub folders to organise them further. If I then want to organise the files further (such as separating RAW camera images from JPEGs) I can sort by file type in the file browser. I can also apply other filters and searches.

 

You are never forced to use the command line for anything. In fact, I mainly use it for running whois queries simply because it's quicker than waiting for a website to load :P When people use the command line they use it because they find it quicker and easier.

 

With respect to the "easy to remember" paths on Windows - there is no need for that sort of thing on Linux. I have my home directory on a separate partition. Linux handles that behind the scenes so that the standard path of /home/username always works. I could move the home directory to a completely separate disk and it would still be handled invisibly. There's no need to remember a random drive letter. However, if /home/rob is still a bit hard to remember, you can always create a symlink (shortcut) to it so you can use something like /rob instead.

 

 

Let's face it, linux still force us to use CLI. Linux has huge dependency issue with libraries and multiple distribution makes offline software installation and distribution difficult.

No. No. And no. You're not forced to use the command line at any stage. Software dependencies (which exist in Windows too) are handled automatically by the package management software. Offline software installation is possible and quite popular - see the DVDs that distributions ship out containing their distribution and all available software packages for those with limited/no Internet access.

 

Assuming that there is fast or moderate speed internet your case is applicable. But internet censorship is on rise and from unlimited plans ISP are shifting to limited data plans. Dialup users still exist so CD and DVD even if remains on shelf for years are worth to keep. Especially when software is commercial people prefer to get CD or DVD for network installation. Many firms keep data safe by not connecting their home network to internet for such type of consumers DVD/CD is important. Sofware repository based OS don't solve those problems and in fact make it harder. Commercial value from those free repository is already seen during recession and people are moving back to profitable platforms.

 

Linux doesn't have script kiddies ? viruses ? browser spywares ? software doesn't fail or get corrupt while installing ? there is no dependency hell? I didn't expected you to raise this point. :D

 


See above comments about shipped DVDs to answer the first paragraph. Viruses are very rare on Linux systems, and the few that do exist can do very little damage due to the way the OS is designed. Browser problems are just that - problems with the browser, so they exist on any version of that browser - Linux, Apple and Windows. If software, for whatever reason, fails to install then the OS seamlessly rolls back to before the installation started. It is, however, very rare for software installation to fail. And dependency hell pretty much disappeared when package management systems came in - they manage the dependencies for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you are really, really, REALLY LAZY (like mahesh2k :P), you can always type "~". (mahesh i thought you liked linux). Besides, you can create a folder in ROOT, configure it to be owned and read-write -accessed by user. That should solve your problemo. You can change those things, you know, and all you need to do is to "sudo nautilus" once.The points of both of you contain generally the same content. That is, it depends on the situation. I don't get why you're fighting over the home folder path. People's memory works in a funny way. After some time it wouldn't matter if it's the standard Windows path or the usual Linux path. Just like after some time you don't read every letter in the word, but just determine which word it is by the overall shape of it. This is actually proven by neurologists, so don't dare to disagree. :DAnd yes, you can make local repositories, and unlike in windows, there is a neat way of doing that, too. You can configure which software you want pre-installed as you install the OS itself. I view customized standard live-cd/usb easier than installing the OS and installing the other stuff afterwards. Also, you can use simple deb-packages on a dvd or usb, too. That won't take care of the dependencies tho. You also have to face the fact that most of the applications being installed right now by normal users for non-commercial uses are downloaded from the internet.As for user-friendliness, no, Linux is not user-friendly. I know what most are going to say but no. There are several problems that make it not so friendly to the people between the average granny and the computer nerd. The average granny isn't going to find out those problems and the nerd will know how to solve them, but the people in between... they're screwed. Like me :DAnyway, in my opinion if you don't want to learn to be able to use something better, you don't deserve better. Just like those people whining about how it's impossible to determine what kind of TV they should buy. If you have no interest in studying the products you're going to buy, don't, but don't whine about it to other people. If windows sucks for you and you're still using it knowing there is something better, you deserve the crashes and the viruses. It's give and take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, files are organised in the same way as any other operating system. So, for example, I have folders such as /home/rob/Photographs and /home/rob/University Work each containing sub folders to organise them further. If I then want to organise the files further (such as separating RAW camera images from JPEGs) I can sort by file type in the file browser. I can also apply other filters and searches.With respect to the "easy to remember" paths on Windows - there is no need for that sort of thing on Linux. I have my home directory on a separate partition. Linux handles that behind the scenes so that the standard path of /home/username always works. I could move the home directory to a completely separate disk and it would still be handled invisibly. There's no need to remember a random drive letter. However, if /home/rob is still a bit hard to remember, you can always create a symlink (shortcut) to it so you can use something like /rob instead.

Point still remains the same. All the eggs in same basket. "root/directory1" and similar organization about files and folder proves that. You don't get multiple drives in it. File organization is pain when you want to get stuff done. People shouldn't waste time to use hard way of doing things when you can do it easily.

You are never forced to use the command line for anything. In fact, I mainly use it for running whois queries simply because it's quicker than waiting for a website to load :P When people use the command line they use it because they find it quicker and easier.No. No. And no. You're not forced to use the command line at any stage. Software dependencies (which exist in Windows too) are handled automatically by the package management software. Offline software installation is possible and quite popular - see the DVDs that distributions ship out containing their distribution and all available software packages for those with limited/no Internet access.


Software installation, network connection and many other admin tasks require sudo privillages in ubuntu and kubuntu. Many other distros restrict users with CLI prompt and force them to use sudo or for manually installing packages.

See above comments about shipped DVDs to answer the first paragraph. Viruses are very rare on Linux systems, and the few that do exist can do very little damage due to the way the OS is designed. Browser problems are just that - problems with the browser, so they exist on any version of that browser - Linux, Apple and Windows. If software, for whatever reason, fails to install then the OS seamlessly rolls back to before the installation started. It is, however, very rare for software installation to fail. And dependency hell pretty much disappeared when package management systems came in - they manage the dependencies for you.

Windows has only two dependencies that is .NET framework and Directx. You don't need to update them for 1-2 years if your software supports it. This is not the case with linux each update requires new libraries of g++, gcc and other stuff. People are constantly under pain of dependency hell when two different distros clash- for example ubuntu and mandriva linux both are from different branch of linux management.

Which software company has linux based software sold in DVD and boxes ? Plus linux script kiddies on network are rising more as anti-virus companies are seeing profit in this platform.

Well, if you are really, really, REALLY LAZY (like mahesh2k :P), you can always type "~". (mahesh i thought you liked linux).

Well i like linux, OSX, BSD, Windows and every other OS. I'm not hating linux at all. My point is that when it comes to getting things done, linux offers steep learning curve. It is not at all user friendly. That was my point bani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why you're fighting over the home folder path.

Because this topic is discussing the use and user-friendliness of free operating systems. It seems that some people see the subtle differences in Windows and Linux folder architecture as a major usability issue.

 

Point still remains the same. All the eggs in same basket. "root/directory1" and similar organization about files and folder proves that. You don't get multiple drives in it. File organization is pain when you want to get stuff done. People shouldn't waste time to use hard way of doing things when you can do it easily.

Which is why people use Linux :P Why should it matter to me which physical hard drive or logical partition my data is held on when I am saving my documents? File organisation is identical on Windows and Linux systems - a tree of folders.

 

Software installation, network connection and many other admin tasks require sudo privillages in ubuntu and kubuntu. Many other distros restrict users with CLI prompt and force them to use sudo or for manually installing packages.

When you try to install software on Linux, and root privileges are required, the following graphical dialogue appears:

 

post-7593-099388900 1286218330_thumb.png

 

You type your password and carry on. Any Linux distribution aimed at the average home user uses a similar system. One which was copied by Microsoft for Windows:

 

Posted Image

 

Windows has only two dependencies that is .NET framework and Directx. You don't need to update them for 1-2 years if your software supports it. This is not the case with linux each update requires new libraries of g++, gcc and other stuff. People are constantly under pain of dependency hell when two different distros clash- for example ubuntu and mandriva linux both are from different branch of linux management.

I think you'll find .NET and DirectX are both updated far more frequently than that as part of Windows Update. Each update on Linux does not require new versions of g++ and gcc. Two distributions would never clash - you can't install two distributions like that. Furthermore that is not the definition of dependency hell.

 

Which software company has linux based software sold in DVD and boxes ? Plus linux script kiddies on network are rising more as anti-virus companies are seeing profit in this platform.

https://blog.canonical.com/2011/04/05/shipit-comes-to-an-end/ among others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@rval -- you brought up a very good point about installations on *nix. It's all one-step.It's annoying to get a program on Windows and then download, go through all the installation dialog, and then have it say "Oh.. You need this too. Please go to (website) and download it and then restart this installer." And then after that you find another, and another. With *nix it's one click and it downloads anything it needs by itself.That is MUCH more user friendly than Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why people use Linux :P Why should it matter to me which physical hard drive or logical partition my data is held on when I am saving my documents? File organisation is identical on Windows and Linux systems - a tree of folders.

One cabinet with multiple folders is what linux offers.
Multiple cabinet with multiple folders is what lwindows offers.
trying to put all the files in one cabinet and sorting stuff in multiple, from here you can guess the organization of files. How user friendly are things in these two os.

When you try to install software on Linux, and root privileges are required, the following graphical dialogue appears:

This dialogue nags user irrespective of their privileges and it appears everywhere. Some programs in ubuntu require sudo to run, adept/synaptic is just one example.

With windows, you don't see this screen if you are power user or admin. It only comes during network connection and add/remove programs.

I think you'll find .NET and DirectX are both updated far more frequently than that as part of Windows Update. Each update on Linux does not require new versions of g++ and gcc. Two distributions would never clash - you can't install two distributions like that. Furthermore that is not the definition of dependency hell.

.NET and DirectX doesn't require constant up-gradation like linux packages. You can go without upgrading them for years. I managed to keep .NET and directx updates for 2 years. G++, gcc requires update every time you update your ubuntu or say whatever your distribution is and that cycle is 4-6 month and twice a year.

Two distribution definitely clash when it comes to package management. Try getting .deb working on mandriva or redhat and you will see package management issues. You will be forced to use alien for that.

I know what dependency issue is, you are mixing it with package management clash.

I'm talking about commercial softwares like adobe flash and not OS. Cannonical is not shipping any commercial software in DVD box. It's not there because there is less or no profit for commercial softwares.

you brought up a very good point about installations on *nix. It's all one-step.

Why linux/open source softwares have one-step installation ? This is because they are made within community. Try getting commercial software and you will face the same wizard based installation- the one you see in other OS like OSX, windows. Reason is that some software require user input for settings and with commercial license they don't want user to blindly accept what that software offers. In case of free/open source software installation there is no issue with users accepting TOS/settings etc. as whole platform is free from license and spyware/adware or other system specific issues. Edited by mahesh2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why linux/open source softwares have one-step installation ? This is because they are made within community. Try getting commercial software and you will face the same wizard based installation- the one you see in other OS like OSX, windows. Reason is that some software require user input for settings and with commercial license they don't want user to blindly accept what that software offers. In case of free/open source software installation there is no issue with users accepting TOS/settings etc. as whole platform is free from license and spyware/adware or other system specific issues.


This is a good point but it neglects the fact that many programs on Windows require you to download others before they can be run, whereas on *nix if you are missing a dependent program it is automatically installed. That has nothing to do with commercial vs. free. It has to do with usability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now