Windows Longhorn

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by shn@8 November 2003 - 14:58
something shitty like lindows.

personally i think OSX is a good example of what a Linux desktop edition should be like. Linux is great for servers and programming, and for people who just like to tinker and spend time configuring options, but a desktop OS should be noob-friendly and not present the user with that many things to configure-- it should just install itself off the CD and be ready to use.

i can't comment on Lindows though. never tried it.

[shn]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+8 November 2003 - 17:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 8 November 2003 - 17:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-shn@8 November 2003 - 14:58
something shitty like lindows.

personally i think OSX is a good example of what a Linux desktop edition should be like. Linux is great for servers and programming, and for people who just like to tinker and spend time configuring options, but a desktop OS should be noob-friendly and not present the user with that many things to configure-- it should just install itself off the CD and be ready to use.

i can&#39;t comment on Lindows though. never tried it. [/b][/quote]
Quite an interesting bunch.

Who died and made you guys "king of o.s. standards"?

A good desktop o.s. for me is one that I can use according to what I like and dont like. If I dont need user friendliness then obviously Im not going to require it as a number 1 standard for what a good o.s. should be.

Dont make up the rules as you go just because you have a handicapp. Thats right, a handicapp. Some people obviously have a problem with reading simple documentation and using common sense.

You actually want people to make everything easy for you so you wont have to do anything yourself. What you fail to understand is the more we try to develop o.s., desktop or whatever, the more elementary and rediculous it gets..

Its like having the mentality of an adult, but yet forced to live the life of a child.

Ok, maybe a bad analogy...........but I really dont know how "SIMPLE" I can make it for you.

Ok here&#39;s simple:

If its too hard to use then dont use it. How&#39;s that?

[DarkReality]

Shn - You&#39;re proving my point, and you still have never answered my statement about why Lindows is important. You just come off with the elitist hacker Linux user. Don&#39;t make me break your glasses. That&#39;s not a threat. Or a promise. It&#39;s a wiseass remark. I had to say that, because I didn&#39;t type it in assembly language, so I figured you wouldn&#39;t get it.

That&#39;s fine, you like your command-line based OS which doesn&#39;t support half the hardware out there made for Intel/AMD based PCs and has shitty software support. I&#39;m very adept with Windows, but Linux is a whole other animal. I&#39;m sure you know this. Nothing is the same. It&#39;s all different. The fact that they&#39;re both windowing GUIs is very trivial. So I need an easy to use Linux distro, one that will basically hold my hand as I learn it, because being good with Windows (I won&#39;t say guru, cuz I&#39;m not) I just want to jump right into a new OS and try everything.

So who died and made you king of OS standards, as you put it? Linux has given every competent coder the opportunity to configure the OS the way they want it, and Lindows has chosen the path of user friendliness. I guess you use Slackware from your Signature? I&#39;ve heard some things about Slackware. That it&#39;s a very user unfriendly system. That it&#39;s geared to power users. And that&#39;s fine. For you. Because you know Linux. I don&#39;t. So I went with Red Hat. It was supposed to be the best. But it didn&#39;t support my sound card. So I tried Mandrake. People said it was easy to learn. But all it was, was a command prompt and I don&#39;t know Unix. Lindows came along and I had a chance to use it at no expense to me and I got a 6 month Click n Run membership. So I tried that too.

Actually, you can bash me harder because I don&#39;t run Lindows anymore. Just XP Pro. Lindows had a few things I didn&#39;t like. Text wasn&#39;t showing up right, I couldn&#39;t find full screen video in six media players... there was a number of reasons.

I hope that Lindows forces or at least encourages (and I&#39;d prefer the latter) other Linux makers to make Linux easier to use. Linux can still be a power OS, and be simple enough for people to actually use.

[globalterminator]

im running a beta version of it, along with windows xp. longhorn is far to buggy at the moment.

[DL.]

Originally posted by [email protected]@9 November 2003 - 14:02
im running a beta version of it, along with windows xp. longhorn is far to buggy at the moment.

No you&#39;re not


It probably won&#39;t reach beta for another year.

And if you aren&#39;t using advanced partition hiding, that would explain why it&#39;s so buggy for you, never mind the alpha bugs, two XP&#39;s (longhorn and whistler)will conflict and crosslink.

[shn]

Originally posted by DarkReality@9 November 2003 - 05:47
Shn - You&#39;re proving my point, and you still have never answered my statement about why Lindows is important.&nbsp; You just come off with the elitist hacker Linux user.&nbsp; Don&#39;t make me break your glasses.&nbsp; That&#39;s not a threat.&nbsp; Or a promise.&nbsp; It&#39;s a wiseass remark.&nbsp; I had to say that, because I didn&#39;t type it in assembly language, so I figured you wouldn&#39;t get it.

That&#39;s fine, you like your command-line based OS which doesn&#39;t support half the hardware out there made for Intel/AMD based PCs and has shitty software support.&nbsp; I&#39;m very adept with Windows, but Linux is a whole other animal.&nbsp; I&#39;m sure you know this.&nbsp; Nothing is the same.&nbsp; It&#39;s all different.&nbsp; The fact that they&#39;re both windowing GUIs is very trivial.&nbsp; So I need an easy to use Linux distro, one that will basically hold my hand as I learn it, because being good with Windows (I won&#39;t say guru, cuz I&#39;m not) I just want to jump right into a new OS and try everything.

So who died and made you king of OS standards, as you put it?&nbsp; Linux has given every competent coder the opportunity to configure the OS the way they want it, and Lindows has chosen the path of user friendliness.&nbsp; I guess you use Slackware from your Signature?&nbsp; I&#39;ve heard some things about Slackware.&nbsp; That it&#39;s a very user unfriendly system.&nbsp; That it&#39;s geared to power users.&nbsp; And that&#39;s fine.&nbsp; For you.&nbsp; Because you know Linux.&nbsp; I don&#39;t.&nbsp; So I went with Red Hat.&nbsp; It was supposed to be the best.&nbsp; But it didn&#39;t support my sound card.&nbsp; So I tried Mandrake.&nbsp; People said it was easy to learn.&nbsp; But all it was, was a command prompt and I don&#39;t know Unix.&nbsp; Lindows came along and I had a chance to use it at no expense to me and I got a 6 month Click n Run membership.&nbsp; So I tried that too.

Actually, you can bash me harder because I don&#39;t run Lindows anymore.&nbsp; Just XP Pro.&nbsp; Lindows had a few things I didn&#39;t like.&nbsp; Text wasn&#39;t showing up right, I couldn&#39;t find full screen video in six media players... there was a number of reasons.

I hope that Lindows forces or at least encourages (and I&#39;d prefer the latter) other Linux makers to make Linux easier to use.&nbsp; Linux can still be a power OS, and be simple enough for people to actually use.

Linux will run on just about anything. You have to have the initiative to get the system up and running accordingly.

If it doesnt support something on your pc, then you have the power to make it support by loading the drivers for it at boot up or passing a simple set of options to the kernel, or if all else fails, recompile your own custom kernel designed specifically for your pc. Try calling microsoft up and ask them if they will make a version of windows specifically for your model computer right down to every peice of hardware you have in it.

I dont understand people sometime. Youll do a boatload of searching for that cracked app or movie or other pirated peice of material but you cant take 10 minutes and a little searching on google to find a driver for for whatever peice of hardware you say that linux wont support. Btw, I have nothing against cracked apps or movies

Take this in mind. Once you have fully configured any linux system. Its well worth the time and effort. Your system will be configured properly and unless you reinstall linux again, for whatever unnecessary reason that my be, then you wont have to configure it again for the most part.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by shn@8 November 2003 - 15:35
Who died and made you guys "king of o.s. standards"?

A good desktop o.s. for me is one that I can use according to what I like and dont like. If I dont need user friendliness then obviously Im not going to require it as a number 1 standard for what a good o.s. should be.

Dont make up the rules as you go just because you have a handicapp. Thats right, a handicapp. Some people obviously have a problem with reading simple documentation and using common sense.

nobody died and made me king of O.S. standards. user-friendliness made MS and Apple the kings of desktop O.S. standards.

as for a handicap-- you&#39;re assuming that mastery of the command line and a penchant for configuration up the wazoo is necessarily a desirable thing for every single person. i wouldn&#39;t say that people are handicapped for not taking the time to learn calculus, either. most people don&#39;t need it, and it would be arcane knowledge serving no purpose other than for bragging rights.

you can rail against the handicapped all you want, but the dominance of MS and Apple in the desktop arena proves again and again that being ready to go out-of-the-box with little to no configuration is what succeeds. i&#39;m not saying that Linux should be forced into user-friendliness mode like MS and Apple, but if it is going to reach that level of acceptance as a desktop O.S. that&#39;s what it will eventually do. otherwise, it will remain a niche system indefinitely.

[shn]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+9 November 2003 - 11:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 9 November 2003 - 11:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-shn@8 November 2003 - 15:35
Who died and made you guys "king of o.s. standards"?

A good desktop o.s. for me is one that I can use according to what I like and dont like.&nbsp; If I dont need user friendliness then obviously Im not going to require it as a number 1 standard for what a good o.s. should be.

Dont make up the rules as you go just because you have a handicapp.&nbsp; Thats right, a handicapp.&nbsp; Some people obviously have a problem with reading simple documentation and using common sense.

nobody died and made me king of O.S. standards. user-friendliness made MS and Apple the kings of desktop O.S. standards.

as for a handicap-- you&#39;re assuming that mastery of the command line and a penchant for configuration up the wazoo is necessarily a desirable thing for every single person. i wouldn&#39;t say that people are handicapped for not taking the time to learn calculus, either. most people don&#39;t need it, and it would be arcane knowledge serving no purpose other than for bragging rights.

you can rail against the handicapped all you want, but the dominance of MS and Apple in the desktop arena proves again and again that being ready to go out-of-the-box with little to no configuration is what succeeds. i&#39;m not saying that Linux should be forced into user-friendliness mode like MS and Apple, but if it is going to reach that level of acceptance as a desktop O.S. that&#39;s what it will eventually do. otherwise, it will remain a niche system indefinitely. [/b][/quote]

Your sort of contradicting yourself.

Im sure you know that when you use macs or apples or whatever the hell you want to call em, that your using UNIX, which is what linux was based on in the first place and their almost the same thing.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by shn@9 November 2003 - 09:25
Your sort of contradicting yourself.

Im sure you know that when you use macs or apples or whatever the hell you want to call em, that your using UNIX, which is what linux was based on in the first place and their almost the same thing.

sigh... you&#39;re grasping at straws. i&#39;m not questioning the value of a Unix-based kernel. if you didn&#39;t catch the drift of my earlier post, it was that OSX is a good example of a fully formed & configured, user-friendly, Unix-based desktop O.S.

and the kernel alone does not make a system.

[shn]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+10 November 2003 - 09:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 10 November 2003 - 09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-shn@9 November 2003 - 09:25
Your sort of contradicting yourself.

Im sure you know that when you use macs or apples or whatever the hell you want to call em, that your using UNIX, which is what linux was based on in the first place and their almost the same thing.

sigh... you&#39;re grasping at straws. i&#39;m not questioning the value of a Unix-based kernel. if you didn&#39;t catch the drift of my earlier post, it was that OSX is a good example of a fully formed & configured, user-friendly, Unix-based desktop O.S.

and the kernel alone does not make a system. [/b][/quote]
The kernel alone is the "core" of the o.s. Without a kernel the o.s. would cease to function all together. I would say that makes up a system.