|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 6, 2014 9:13:10 GMT
BOGUS!.
Its a Myth, ok?... I know this may not get "Product tested" on the show, but, the myth is important for us to bust here, before it creates problems....
Only if you are adverse to learning something new. Otherwise, what difference is there between clicking a button on one screen than another.
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Oct 7, 2014 9:38:14 GMT
Linux issues are not so much usability of an individual distro, mostly:
-the huge amount of not exactly compatible distros and kernals. -lack of support of hard and software vendors.(also due to point 1) -even within a single distro, they make the same mistake windows does, by changing the ui on the drop of a hat.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 25, 2014 15:45:07 GMT
the key is the definition of "use"
any idiot can get on windows and start mashing "buttons" and making things happen. Linux requires some intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 26, 2014 8:03:56 GMT
So we need to draw a line under you need to have some intelligence to use a computer.
If computers are for fools, then windows wins... and let them have the prize.....
But if its intelligence based, we need to set some intelligent targets for intelligent people to make intelligent decisions....
So, if it needs testing, lets set a target easily reachable by intelligent people.
So, how about open a Photo editor and edit a photograph to alter the over saturation of blue in a sample file.
In Linux this is almost exactly the same as Windows, mainly because there is a program that works on both o/s's... I wont name it as thats product placement.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 26, 2014 14:06:27 GMT
So we need to draw a line under you need to have some intelligence to use a computer. If computers are for fools, then windows wins... and let them have the prize..... But if its intelligence based, we need to set some intelligent targets for intelligent people to make intelligent decisions.... So, if it needs testing, lets set a target easily reachable by intelligent people. So, how about open a Photo editor and edit a photograph to alter the over saturation of blue in a sample file. In Linux this is almost exactly the same as Windows, mainly because there is a program that works on both o/s's... I wont name it as thats product placement. let's look for a moment at the definition of "easier" my definition of "easier" is that you can have a lower level of smarts and still be able to make it do things you want it to do. and under that definition Windows wins, hands down. now if your definition of "easier" is that you don't have to be as elite a hacker to make the computer operate at the pinnacle of its abilities - the linux machine will win. consider the installation of the program you mention. in a windows computer, you insert the disc in the machine, and the machine says, "click here if you are an idiot and want to watch reality TV while I install this program for you" (well, it phrases it slightly different) what does Linux do when you put a new program disc in it?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 26, 2014 15:11:41 GMT
The myth is that Windows is "Easier" to use right out of the box..... Which I call bull.. If you put a new program disk in a Linux running machine, it wont do anything... until you tell it to... However... I have disabled the auto-run on my Windows, so my Windows does exactly not the same because it doesnt do anything?.... Saying that, you could, if you were that simple, get someone to write an auto detect for Linux to auto-run any disk you shove in.... However, no one in their right mind would do that, because its considered normal to fist check the disk for Bugs before you try to run it in Linux, and then you may want to find out if the disk is multi-use, Win/Linux/Mac, and find the right file to run for Linux.....
Most Linux users are past the need to auto-run every disk in the first place, so, by popular demand, if you put a new disk in Linux, it will do nothing, because thats what you want it to do... Nothing.
So excuse me whilst I put my Red Hat on a moment ans have a slight rant on why Windows is such a hog.... Windows and Linux are very different animals.
Now Red hat off, back to civilisation... I wont put on Black hat, not today.....
Above is a small dissertation I have used before in perhaps different words into why Linux and Windows should not be "Compared"... They are different tools. Its like driving a Prius is good for tree huggers and driving a lowered pickup truck with 500bhp for petrol heads, with "All the toys" a true fanatic would want, brakes suspension tailored to choice and better rubber as well.... Sure they both go the same places, its just how they go there that matters. After that, there isnt a comparison.... but which is "Easier"?...
For me, my Windows Distro is as stripped back as it can, it occupies less than half the space of a average windows installation, because what I removed is not needed... After all, who is manually going to UN-Install the service pack two?... You did know you have a file on your disk just ready and waiting to uninstall service pack two didnt you?.... PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO RUN IT, screwing around with that may seriously damage your ability to communicate with the outside world...
(But your kids may learn a few new words..........)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 26, 2014 15:33:31 GMT
so what you are saying is that a manual transmission is easier to drive than an automatic transmission assuming that you remove the transmission controller and replace it with a series of handscrew valves to actuate the various functions of the transmission; while replacing the torque converter with a manual clutch.
Windows is specifically made to be easy for button-mashers to operate - yes that is done at the expense of efficiency. but you didn't ask which is more efficient. you asked which is more easy. whether you like it or not - easy is usually defined as able to be operated by stupid people. if you want to define it as how much effort it takes to make it operate in a manner it was not intended to operate in, I challenge you - try to make linux operate in a manner it was not intended to work, and tell me how easy that is.
if you are defining easy as how much alteration it takes to make it be linux, I am calling fallacy on you.
bottom line: windows is designed by idiots for idiots. Linux is designed by computer users for computer users. my contention is that every person who can use linux can use windows. not every person who can use windows can use linux. therefore, whether it is better or not - windows is still easier.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 26, 2014 15:45:40 GMT
Yes.
[/size]
What?.. there's more?.. there doesnt need to be. Manual control is a lot easier to drive than Automatic when you learn to drive the right way... As in learn manual.
Which is why in the UK we have more manual than automatic.... Think on it this way. Why is that?.. Is it that we are just "Not lazy", or is it that we do find manual easier than automatic?...
Thing is, we prefer Manual because it is easier to us.... Which is why we drive a car with a manual gear box rather than a retrofit to an automatic hashup that you describe (and I only just understand... why would anyone do that anyway?..)
Windows is easy for button mashers... maybe. Nut. Those button mashers that are Kids are running away to Android faster than windows can complain... Why?... Because kids know more than windows would rather admit (To its shareholders...) Get to the complicated stuff, and windows becomes just as awkward as any other O/S... And the kids these days are delighted in complicated.
So it doesnt need to be that easy... Or that hard.
Take the training wheels off and let the user decide. You may be amazed with what they can do. Windows is not easier, because its frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 26, 2014 16:06:12 GMT
[/size] What?.. there's more?.. there doesnt need to be. Manual control is a lot easier to drive than Automatic when you learn to drive the right way... As in learn manual. Which is why in the UK we have more manual than automatic.... Think on it this way. Why is that?.. Is it that we are just "Not lazy", or is it that we do find manual easier than automatic?... Thing is, we prefer Manual because it is easier to us.... Which is why we drive a car with a manual gear box rather than a retrofit to an automatic hashup that you describe (and I only just understand... why would anyone do that anyway?..) Windows is easy for button mashers... maybe. Nut. Those button mashers that are Kids are running away to Android faster than windows can complain... Why?... Because kids know more than windows would rather admit (To its shareholders...) Get to the complicated stuff, and windows becomes just as awkward as any other O/S... And the kids these days are delighted in complicated. So it doesnt need to be that easy... Or that hard. Take the training wheels off and let the user decide. You may be amazed with what they can do. Windows is not easier, because its frustrating. [/quote] once again - it depends on your definition of easy. if something is only easier if you know how to do it, it isn't easier, is it? I could drive tender 23 with its unsynchronized 6X2 transmission as easily as I can drive the newer tender 21 with its pushbutton allison transmission. however, I"m only one of 3 or 4 people in the department who can drive a truck like that. now if you want to debate which is better - that's not so simple.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 27, 2014 10:59:17 GMT
Which is the exact debate over Linux or wind-bags.
Its not "Its easier", its someone deciding its easier for them to just use the pre-installed follofwoes rather than try Linux....
I am still learning Linux. Every time I try I learn something new... and see how micro$oft has stolen the idea.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 27, 2014 14:38:25 GMT
Which is the exact debate over Linux or wind-bags. Its not "Its easier", its someone deciding its easier for them to just use the pre-installed follofwoes rather than try Linux.... I am still learning Linux. Every time I try I learn something new... and see how micro$oft has stolen the idea. we already know that OS manufacturers have no qualms about lifting ideas from other manufacturers. did you know someone else had a GUI and a trash can long before Apple? at the time, Macintosh was the simple computer for idiots. Microsoft worked hard to dethrone them from that. This led Linux to become the computer (software) for people who wanted to do serious work - dethroning Microsoft from THAT position. And now Macintosh is the computer for people who want to manipulate digital media.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 28, 2014 8:58:02 GMT
The Mac is all that and more, because they have better software that side of the fence, as of the time of writing.
However...
Along came "Open source", Linux, and then Android, which is a flavour of Linux anyway, .... Ahhh... people didnt know that?... yes, Googles Android is a flavour of Linux, which is a HUGE shot in the foot for windows being "Easier", because Android is now the biggest "seller" in that market....
And Android based apps are getting better and better....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 28, 2014 13:40:43 GMT
The Mac is all that and more, because they have better software that side of the fence, as of the time of writing. However... Along came "Open source", Linux, and then Android, which is a flavour of Linux anyway, .... Ahhh... people didnt know that?... yes, Googles Android is a flavour of Linux, which is a HUGE shot in the foot for windows being "Easier", because Android is now the biggest "seller" in that market.... And Android based apps are getting better and better.... and yet, I don't see many android computers on the market...
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 28, 2014 15:21:17 GMT
The Mac is all that and more, because they have better software that side of the fence, as of the time of writing. However... Along came "Open source", Linux, and then Android, which is a flavour of Linux anyway, .... Ahhh... people didnt know that?... yes, Googles Android is a flavour of Linux, which is a HUGE shot in the foot for windows being "Easier", because Android is now the biggest "seller" in that market.... And Android based apps are getting better and better.... and yet, I don't see many android computers on the market... Right. Android is only a big "seller" on smart phones. Google has Chrome for computers but most people (in their right mind) avoid it because of its built in spyware. As far as Linux being easier than Windows, that would depend on which Windows version and on what kind of system. Linux is definitely easier to use on a desktop than Windows 8. But the problem is, as it always has been, most PC applications software that is written for PCs is written for Windows. While there is some comparable software for Linux, there certainly isn't as much and it's not as universally accepted. A lot of that is changing. There is a lot more really good everyday application software now available for Linux. This is especially true in the server field. Most large server users have dumped Microsoft and now run Linux. And if Microsoft doesn't come up with a business solution to Win 8 (Win 10 maybe?), a lot of businesses will start to switch to Linux for everyday use on their computers. Microsoft really shot themselves in the foot with Win 8 and they need to correct that pretty soon.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 28, 2014 15:31:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 28, 2014 15:38:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 28, 2014 15:46:25 GMT
somebody in this thread keeps moving the goalposts around. (not you)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 29, 2014 10:36:49 GMT
Thats the point TLW, The goalposts are continually moving, I cant see a caveat cover all one for all solution being that one is "Easier" than the other, especially when its not.
Linux is more than just a desktop operating system.
The "Easier" statement is like trying to say getting in the door of a Dodge is "easier" than getting in the door of a Ford.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 29, 2014 14:09:15 GMT
Thats the point TLW, The goalposts are continually moving, I cant see a caveat cover all one for all solution being that one is "Easier" than the other, especially when its not. Linux is more than just a desktop operating system. The "Easier" statement is like trying to say getting in the door of a Dodge is "easier" than getting in the door of a Ford. That is most commonly known as starting with the conclusion and tailoring the experiment to match. none of us have ever said that you can't use Linux if you want to. however, the fact of the matter is that Linux users do not choose it because they want an easier operating system to use. they choose it because they want an operating system that trades ease of use for efficiency. or to put it in different terms. "Windows is just too hard" said no Linux user, ever.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 29, 2014 14:29:31 GMT
Linux is like an adjustable Crescent wrench. A little harder to use but one size fits all. Windows is like a set of open-end wrenches. Only with a few missing. Easy to use and works great as long as you don't need the missing one. Apple's OS comes with a complete set of special wrenches, but they only fit Apple's bolts. Best of all, but only if have Apple bolts.
|
|