bob wrote: CThinker wrote: krazyken wrote: Spock wrote:
OK, Linux or the MAC is for you then
And then, half your chess programs won't run at all.
That many really? I haven't found one that won't run on my Mac yet.
You have to hack around Fritz and 64-bit Rybka to get it to run on Wine. Who has time for that?
Its not politically correct to criticize Linux, but the reality is, its a total crap for the average user. Of the more than 500 distros, a tiny few is usable at all, by geeks.
The average user who has bought a Linux pre-installed on a netbook, returns it and exchanges for a Windows one. The consumer rejects Linux, totally. When netbooks first came out, they were "all" sold with Linux, but very few bought them. Now, almost all that are sold come with Windows. Windows pushed Linux out of the market in the only market that Linux is supposed to be good at - free OS on a cheap hardware.
If all one would do is browse the web, Ubuntu 'might' be usable. Now try installing Flash to watch youtube. Goodluck. "sudo aptget" what? Netflix? Edit raw photos with GIMP - not even doable, even if you could forgive the awful interface and crashing. Play Crysis anyone?
What is Linux good at then? If you can program, then its for you. It runs gcc well. It will surely run a chess engine that has a source code.
So you want an "easy to install" windows, that comes with lots of "easy to install" viruses? Lots of "easy to crash" system applications?
I've installed windows XP on multiple machines. Fedora 10 installs easier and faster. And (gasp) stays up for years unless you choose to take it down for a hardware upgrade or whatever...
Windows is horribly designed to allow the nonsense it allows.
It is not me who wants the easy-to-use and just-works environment. Its the world. That is a fact. Linux has less than 1% desktop use. Given that Linux is free and Windows cost a lot, something is definitely terribly wrong with Linux.
Someone gives you free food, and instead you opt to pay for another (expensive) food, simply says that it must be a terrible food.
Ive been a Linux user since 1993! Back then, X was not yet ported to Linux. Everything fit in 6 floppy disk. You multitask with virtual consoles (alt-1, alt-2,...). I have Ubuntu now, and it still sucks, as much as it did in 1993.
I'm sure you love your Linux. You know how to program right? Of course.
Let me give you another fact on Unix/Linux rejection by the non-programming IT world.
Before the year 2000, the server world is totally dominated by Unix. Windows server had zero market share. When Windows 2000 came out, together with Active Directory, the IT community celebrated. Finally, a server for the non-geeks.
In 2008, Windows Server had 70% market share. That's from 0% - 70% market share in 8 years.
Desktop World: Linux, 0% to <1% in 20 years. What a total flop!
Server World: Linux/Unix: 100% to 30% in 8 years, and still dropping.
How do you configure Linux Servers? "Edit config files". Try enabling PXE on a Linux server. You have to edit at least six config files. What exactly should you put on those text files? Good luck. On Windows Server - one check box. Yes, one check box.
How do you manage Linux/Unix servers? MIBs? That archaic MIBs? That sums up the problem with Linux - zero innovation, zero invention. The Linux kernel itself is a re-implementation of Unix.
Linus Torvalds re-implemented Unix, while Dave Cutler designed and built a totally new OS. I can easily tell you which one is smarter (and way, way richer). I have implemented an OS (Itron) and its a piece of cake. I have not invented one. That is the hard part. Even Apple has abandoned the OS that they invented. They now use BSD Unix, and charging people for it.
The Linux interfaces (confusing, multiple, non-complementing interfaces) is a re-implementation of the Windows interface. And a very bad copy at that. Nothing new, and missing a lot.