sinewav wrote:That's actually one of the great things about Linux; the massive amount of choice you have.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it. What I see are a bunch of similar distros differentiated by relatively minor variations and tweaks—much of which one could accomplish by customizing any given distro. With some it's little more than the application bundle included. There may be some other, more significant technical geekery under the hood that differentiates them (e.g., KDE vs. GTK), but as far as the actual day to day user experience goes there's not a lot of meaningful difference that I see. I mean, for crying out loud, I watch and read these reviews
from hardcore Linux geeks about different distros and they're talking about the dictionary or wallpapers that come with it as being major features. The
wallpapers!
And then they downplay any kind of bugs or workarounds or other geekery they had to deal with, because for them it's standard order, it's no big deal. But it is a big deal.
I've also noticed a lot of Linux fans like to include and tout the customization and modularity of Linux as figuring into the "freedom" aspect of it. But, it's really more like the kind of "freedom of choice" that most consumerists fall for. It's the soda isle in the grocery store. Or the Fortress thing, where someone makes some minor variation, like hole size, and everyone is like "OMG! New game mode!" Well, if I lock a bunch of people in a box for a year with 500 pictures of Joe Biden smiling, by the end of the year they would all swear there were massive differences between each and every smile. (Metaphor ripped from
here. Did I get that off this forum? Was it you, Jonathan, was it? Had to be you or Tank.)
And besides that, I don't think most people, including myself, are the kind of people who like to spend a lot of time tweaking and tinkering with the computer and OS itself just to get to a point of useability, especially all the technical crap. For such people the computer is not an end, it's a means. Most people want a home so they can live there, do things in it. They don't want a home so they can, or need to, constantly be working on the plumbing and electrical, renovating the structure, and working on their appliances and so forth. They want—and should get, real world aside for the purpose of this loose metaphor—a home that's constructed right the first time (also putting aside just how poorly homes were constructed during the housing bubble) so they can move in, furnish it, and get on with living their lives. Sure, there's basic maintenance and simple home repair one can and arguably should know enough about to attend to; likewise for one's garden, car engine (well, older ones, anyway) or bicycle, for example. But anything more significant most people would rather, and would be best advised to, leave to a reputable professional. Better yet, again, it should be made right in the first place to minimize the need for that kind of crap. (This works as an argument against Windows, too.)
Of course there are people who enjoy doing home improvement on a "fixer-upper" (that never actually gets completely fixed up), tinkering, grease monkeying, modding their guitars, etc. And if you're someone who enjoys playing with the computer and OS itself, that's great for you; folks like Lucifer talk about it like it's a toy. OK, I'm sure Linux is a blast in that regard—for youse. But, as I've mentioned before, a lot of the advocacy for Linux seems to be coming from people who are like that and also assume most other people either are or should be like that too. And maybe it seems like I'm committing the fallacy of which I've accused others, of conflating the operating system with the users. But with Linux, the users and their culture of attitudes drive the design of the operating system, right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing (not really arguing anything at all, just observation) that Linux is bad, necessarily. There are obviously a number of people who love it, for one reason or another. I think it's pretty good, and I'd take/recommend it over Windows any day (though largely for some other reasons not covered here). However, for one, from what I've seen and experienced, I still don't think any current distros are ready for the general public yet. And as we know, a lot of Linux users don't want it to evolve in that direction, even a single distro. They want all of Linux to remain by geeks, for geeks, noses upturned referring to everyone else—no matter those people's actual intellect or sophistication—as "mouth breathers" (their words). But when you refer to "join[ing] the growing 5%," I take it you're expressing the competing view that Linux really could be for anyone. Great, I'm all for it, in theory. But, I really think that's going to take a distro(s) that takes it to another level not yet achieved by any presently in existence. So, for two, it would be nice to see some developers really get their act together and make a few distros that are actually unique, interesting, and useable—really put together, like Jonathan said. I guess Canonical and Elementary OS are kind of attempting to do that, but we'll see...eventually.
I'm not coming down on you. You just provided an opportunity for me to spill out some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head during my Linux experience thus far, heh.
I guess a lot of the distros look like Windows because that's what most people want, as crazy as it seems?
Maybe. Or maybe they're guilty of the exact same accusation with which they like to smear Windows and OSX users, especially. That the only reason they use that OS is because they're afraid of change, only want to use what has been most familiar to them, and/or have even been "brainwashed" (their word) into thinking that way is the best way. Just a hunch.
And remember, when I refer to it being Windows-like, it's not just the look. It's behavior. It's not having a global menu bar (Unity does, though the disappear/reappear behavior is...why?). It's automatically quitting an application when a window is closed. Not being able to "hide" an application (unless I'm missing something). It's having a "Start" menu. It's minimizing windows into rectangles in a task bar (granted, some distros use launchers/docks—the one thing I like about Windows 7, too). The keyboards and their key combos. The file browsing. Just to name a few Windows-like things that annoy me.
I barely use the GUI anyway. I just key everything.
What do you mean?
I used Macs daily since OS 5.5.
Doesn't count; Miller columns weren't introduced until OSX.
The first time I saw Miller columns I was like "oh neat!" but later I was like "oh, not good for everything, but still Ok."
Like what? What am I missing?
The Nautilus file browser....
It's still clunky for navigating file hierarchies. I think so, anyway. I feel like I'm back in OS 8/9 using that thing. And even then, as I mentioned before, my workaround was to put aliases to commonly accessed folders, even the whole HD, into the Apple menu, so I could browse in a menu hierarchy manner.
Doubt it. This is still feeling like a temporary thing so far. I'm just borrowing someone's modded LP copy while my ASAT Classic is broken.
) Anyway, as I've mentioned previously, it's not the looks but the functionality of the interface that I prefer about OSX, so I'm curious to see how much of each these emulate—is it more superficial or substantive. I'm sure both will still have some Windows-like elements. For instance, the inexplicable and obnoxious Windows/Linux behavior of quitting a program when you close a window. And they'll very likely be using Windows/Linux-oriented keyboards and shortcuts, of course.
That's great you finally got you OS installed!
