Quote:
|
I screwed up trying to install Firefox 3.5
|
I went to firefox's page it had a huge "Linux 9MB" link, I downloaded the tar.bz2 file, since it had the classical compressed file icon I did right click to uncompress. A folder firefox3.5 was created, I then double clicked the filey that said 'firefox'. It was so hard.
Everyone can find absurd, extremely unlikely and most probably heavily microsoft dependent (words like FAT and NTFS hint that) examples of ubuntu not being able to do an extremely bizare task that nobody else needs to ever do and call it a magnificent example of how it will "never replace windows" . Of course, windows does have its own amount of bizare situations that it cannot support at all.
Windows took over the world in a state that was several times much less friendlier than even the current archlinux version. You needed tons of command line and DOS tricks just to
start windows. People like to believe that "ease of use" and "usability" are more than just some myths and they love to believe they actually chose windows. The thing is, they didn't. Their PC company chose windows, their computer lessons took windows, and their software makers chose windows. What's worse is that all those third parties chose windows either because "everybody" runs windows or because of awful deals with Microsoft.
Users that think that familiarity is the law and that they are not ever supposed to learn again are part of the problem.
Good news is that the situation is improving. I don't really care how many windows zealots are so convinced that their way is the only way because it is TRADITION! to use windows and the task bar must be in the bottom of the screen not at the top or whatever. Ubuntu has been getting so easy to use lately, and it is a very useful tool, it costed me nothing. It of course causes me trouble every once in a while, but it is not like Windows XP was any better with all its damn problems that made me unable to use my computer for whole afternoons because of having to clean them.
Trivializing open source as just something few people care about is a bad sign. It is very important to have some responsibility and consciousness, even when running software. Proprietary software truly is an irresponsible choice, it sets you to an ethernal lock-in, it has tons of hidden costs and it even threatens the environment thanks to planned obsoloscence. It is easy to be lazy and decide you should never learn anything again and get conformed with the garbage that is thrown to you. But some of us just won't just accept that.
If no 'normal' users use it, I don't care, at least I do. And honestly, I 've been running it for 3 years in this computer, it feels great that I don't have to replace this 6 years old computer yet and can actually run Jaunty Jackalope and all of its NEWEST software versions without issues, what's more amazing is that ubuntu actually became faster, not slower after my most recent upgrade to the newest version. I can actually customize it and all. I fear no lock-ins. I am paying no expensive licenses neither am I breaking the law. I am not feeding monopolies that are harmful to people or the environment.
I still run windows XP sometimes. I happen to consider it one of the best Linux applications. As a compatibility bridge. Though I think the only reason I use it lately is for development and testing, if I wasn't such an advanced user I wouldn't need it and could use ubuntu just fine.
Quote:
|
. (I have old language instruction software that will not run on any Windows OS newer than 98, nor will it run in Linux under WINE.)
|
Virtual Machines were invented a long time ago... I mean really, that's the sort of thing you have to learn to use Virtual Box for, even if you were on Windows XP and not Linux. To keep a whole computer dedicated to windows 98 is an enormous waste of time, if you need all of these things, use virtual box, install windows 98 on it.
I do not think Linux can take over the world soon. I think it could get a 5% marketshare. I also wish for it to be able to take 30% eventually. Like firefox in the web. I don't think more than that is needed. Companies wouldn't be able to make things windows only, and we would have a revolution.
It is like firefox, things like Opera and chrome wouldn't survive if it wasn't for all the barriers firefox had to broke. Thanks to firefox sites can't just disregard standards and make websites that run only in IE, now we got web standards and web developers have to be mildly serious about it.
I think that 30% dream is far away, but I disagree with people thinking that it is Linux's fault. It is due to the whole lack of standards and interoperability in anything, and it is due to Microsoft' s and other company's own incompetence (let's say it was not just plain malice). That you need specific drivers and software for each cellphone brand and number to ever communicate to a computer is a sample of the real problem behind it. As of now you can't just decide and make a good OS that could compete with windows, even if it wasn't voluntary based and you actually had enough money to invest in it and pay usability and ease of use experts of a great quality over Microsoft's. You just would have tons of trouble getting devices of all different brands to work.
Not to mention the HEAVY platform dependency of software nowadays. It is 2009 and we still are used to software that only works correctly in a single OS - architecture combo. It is so lame...