What kind'a person don't use Linux?epsy wrote:Or just yaourt -S armagetronad-svn! Oh wait, you might not be using ArchLinux, or even Linux at all!Light wrote:Otherwise just ./configure then make && make install like normal.
Yes, that's quite outdated ಠ_ಠ
Bad persons we don't want anything to to with, that's who!Light wrote:What kind'a person don't use Linux?
Actually, in Ubuntu (and I'm sure many other distros) you don't have to use the terminal for basically anything. There are GUIs for just about, if not everything. Users just tend to lean towards the terminal for everything because think about it ... type "sudo apt-get install game" or go into the list of packages, search for that game, then install it. It's just simple and much more efficient. There's better examples too that would show more time saving, but that's just the first to pop off my head. If you gave it a real shot, you would find out that typing commands is much nicer than GUI many times.Phytotron wrote:People who don't have any interest in running a computer via command lines and a terminal or have use for all that other technical stuff, and don't have the kind of attitude you expressed. Develop a distro (if that's the word) of Linux that's completely GUI-based, doesn't require any command-line stuff unless you want to (like Mac), and I'll use it. Sadly, seems like most Linux people have an attitude that disparages such a thing (like, "you don't deserve to use a computer if you won't learn this stuff") or it doesn't even occur to them to make such a thing ("Why would anyone want that? What's the point?"). ::shrug::
I also can't stand going on Windows where you gotta go online to find every program you want, then they always try to install extra crap like toolbars, and the Windows Updates, and the speed difference is really noticable, along with install speeds. Before Linux, I felt Windows was good, but after I gave Linux a real shot, I couldn't go back.Arguing from ignorance. You're so 2008, I say two thousand and late.Phytotron wrote:People who don't have any interest in running a computer via command lines and a terminal or have use for all that other technical stuff, and don't have the kind of attitude you expressed. Develop a distro (if that's the word) of Linux that's completely GUI-based, doesn't require any command-line stuff unless you want to (like Mac), and I'll use it. Sadly, seems like most Linux people have an attitude that disparages such a thing (like, "you don't deserve to use a computer if you won't learn this stuff") or it doesn't even occur to them to make such a thing ("Why would anyone want that? What's the point?"). ::shrug::[/size]
They did develop it: Ubuntu. The GUI (Gnome) is heavily inspired by OSX (a slight mod and it can look exactly like it). The quest to make Linux simpler and more user friendly strangely drew criticism from Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel. In a widely quoted email he says "This 'users are idiots, and are confused by functionality' mentality of Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do."Phytotron wrote:Develop a distro (if that's the word) of Linux that's completely GUI-based, doesn't require any command-line stuff unless you want to (like Mac), and I'll use it.
Gnome is still included alongside Unity. But you're right about all the modern distros, they are much more n00b friendly. I use Mint on a second computer. Personally, I'm likely to start using Fedora soon because I haven't heard enough good stuff about Unity. Seems like Unity is Ubuntu's "Vista."milan wrote:Actually Ubuntu doesn't use gnome for a while now.
syllabear wrote:
For more amusing pictures, just search for images relating to "windows mac linux comparison"
So true.A bit. It's certainly a bit unfinished. I wouldn't use it on my machines in its current form, but it's about perfect for my wife's netbook. There's a button to run Firefox and one for Thunderbirdsinewav wrote:Seems like Unity is Ubuntu's "Vista."
I'm hoping it'll get to an universally usable state in the next LTS.
I absolutely agree, and have made the same point on this forum to people who post all that stupid pro-Linux, and especially the anti-Mac stuff. Like this, for instance. Considering what OS one uses to be part of his "identity" is absurd, at best. Linux users are every bit as guilty as some of the flakey Apple fans. And, like I said, I think that attitude has shaped a lot of the Linux, and more broadly the open-source, "community." "What, you're not as geek and tech-savvy as us? F'ck you, then. Go away."sinewav wrote:Unfortunately you're right when it comes to the holier-than-thou attitude Linux users have. Then again, I've met a lot of MAC that do the same thing. So, you know, who cares? A computer is a tool, not a lifestyle.
). Unless, can it run on an eMac? And then I'd have to figure out how to transfer all the files over and sheeit.Pretty much. But that's also a reason NOT to switch. If Linux is just as good as a Mac, then just use the Mac, right? If you can afford it and don't mind proprietary systems, why not?Phytotron wrote:No command-line necessary, ever, for an average user? I mean, even this "compiling from source" stuff. I don't wanna do it. Plug and play? Internet setup?
You can experience a basic feeling for it on http://www.ubuntu.com/tour/Phytotron wrote:Well then, maybe I'll have to look into this Ubuntu thang sometime. No command-line necessary, ever, for an average user? I mean, even this "compiling from source" stuff. I don't wanna do it. Plug and play? Internet setup?
