|
Re: My PCLinuxOS experience
de J.O. Aho 01/18/2007 02:15
Yrrah wrote:
> Ivan Tisljar <_system_hlloyge@yahoo.co.uk>:
>
>> There is a problem here, and it is not Linux. It's you and your
>> unwillingness to learn something new and totally different. For people
>> like you, there is Microsoft.
>
> That's the typical reply of a sectarian who refuses to acknowledge
> there are weaknesses in his belief.
>
> Contrary to what some sectarian weirdos think I am an experienced PC
> user, hell I've even worked with DOS for 9 years and have done
> countles custom installations of Window$ (in all its variants), and
> was willing to change form Window$ to Linux. But the Linux situation
> is too chaotic. Linux something for hobbyists who love playing with an
> OS.
Over 30% of the web servers you encounter on the net are running GNU/Linux, to
be a hobbyist OS, there are quite many hobbyists around.
When it comes to file placements in GNU/Linux, there are a hierarchy how files
are to be stored for system to work, in the same way as microsoft has decided
where all dll files should be and the main files in their OS.
If you don't like the default placements of files, you are free to tell the
package manager to store them somewhere else, but then it's up to you to
ensure that it will be added to the search path and tell other programs that
depends on that moved program where to find the libraries.
For you, who ain't used to operating systems made by others than microsoft, it
may look chaotic, but it's really more structure to the whole than you get in
microsoft. There aren't any difference in this point between GNU/Linux or any
certified Unix that you can set your hands on. You will also see this in OSX
(including OSx86).
As long as the Linux sectarians refuse to understand that, Linux
> will remain what it is now: an OS for sectarian hobbyists. If a
> developer comes up with someting as good as Apple's OS (Unix based
> iiaic) I may have a second look at Linux.
If you like OSx86, so why don't you use it then? Or what about QNX, which has
a longer history behind it than OSX has. Keep in mind that Apple only supports
hardware they have set together in their machines, while for x86 there are no
limit on multitude of hardware to pick from, which causes problems even for
microsoft and some hardware needs extra software to work properly with
microsoft (this software not included in the standard microsoft).
> It comes with a lot of unwanted sofware which is installed
> automatically and has to be removed, but that applies to all
> disctributions afaik.
In all distributions I have installed (quite many so far), I have had the
option to select exactly which packages to install, this you can't do in
microsoft (the microsoft custom install is a joke). Of course if you select to
install KDE, Xorg will automatically be installed as it's one of KDE's
dependencies.
People here won't take you seriously as we see these outburst from time to
time, a microsoft user makes up a post in a weired attempt to scare away
people thinking of trying out GNU/Linux, telling more in detail about the
problems you got and give all relevant information, then people would take you
seriously and you would get help to fix it (if there would be some trouble in
the default installer).
Keep in mind that not all hardware manufacturers provide drivers for Linux,
those has to be made by third party persons, sometimes it may take some time
before there is a working driver, but in the end, todays Linux does support
more hardware than microsoft-windows-xp. I'm glad I use, as there aren't any
microsoft driver for my graphics card, but there is one for Linux.
If you don't want to use chaotic operating systems like OSx86, QNX, GNU/Linux,
Hurd, BeOS, HaikuOS, BSD, Darwin, OSX, OpenSolaris, SunOS, HPUX, AIX and so
on, then it's your decision, I won't blame you or curse you for that, and you
won't see me post on a microsoft newsgroup and trash it for I don't like it's
chaotic and random functionality.
--
//Aho