"Now I feel that people using Windoze are backward..." Be fair. The latest Windows incarnations are decent computing platforms - they support lots of new things and many of them well. Any system that requires someone to use a C compiler (at any time) is bound to fail in many minds. And shouldn't it? There will always be a group of individuals who simply want their machine to work without their effort to that effect.

0

,,,,,There will always be a group of individuals who simply want their machine to work without their effort to that effect.,,,,,,," That group makes up 90% of the computer users in the world. They just want it to work without having to know how to compile the kernel just to install a program or a driver. Until this hurdle is over come, windows will always have the edge for those 90%. Doesn't matter if linux/GPU is better or not, people will not accept it until it at least looks as user simple as windows, (so they can get their stuff done).

0

Yeah? People have trouble executing "./configure && make && make install"? "Be fair. The latest Windows incarnations are decent computing platforms - they support lots of new things and many of them well." Ya well, decent you call it... A system with no C compiler...ha.

0

"A system with no C compiler...ha." As of Solaris 2.4, the OS does not come with a C compiler. No one really knows why. It is a Unix convention to bundle an OS with a C compiler. Free derivatives and clones have almost always followed this practice. This dates back to the rewriting of Unix in C in 1973. This was in fact somewhat an experimental move at the time. Assembly was well entrenched and to write a kernel (around 11,000 lines of code) in a high level language was a big (and skeptically considered "educational") project. Performance did suffer - and those elements were rewritten. But not before Unix was ported with the C language to other platforms. C also allowed the OS to be developed much more efficiently - changes were easier to make and could be ported.

0

I guess it's true most users don't want to think about their computers inner workings. I guess it's also true that only very few people have some philosophical ideas about what should operate his/her computer. A lot of distributors are trying to make our OS easier to use, sometimes at a cost: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/33226.html I'm not fond of microsoft-like computing, but if people do want to use windows, in my opinion they have a free choice to do so. Personally I do think that GNU-Linux is doing the microsoft customers a tremendous favour by providing an alternative and thus forcing microsoft to be less arrogant than they otherwise can be. I'm not complaining about microsoft having a marketshare of 90% or more, as long as our free alternative can statisfy our needs, why worry? As far as compiling is concerned, with a popular distribution fully installed; it shouldn't be a problem? I mean, unpack a compressed file; move to the directory;type $ ./configure $ make # make install Where is the difficulty? I don't understand. It's easier then typing in a 20 digit license code without errors from a windows manual. Or trying to get proper support from Microsoft about how to remove a virus (never tried it though).

0

Anything worth having is worth working for.

0

"Where is the difficulty?" It's not difficulty - it's perceived accessibility. A C compiler is not accessible to the average computer user - they don't understand it so it is foreign. A shell (Unix or not) is not accessible. That's why modern computers moved to GUI's so fast - people could learn to relate to GUI's (for a lot of reasons, many of them behavioral, not just visual). Concepts like system libraries, binaries, source files, compilers, pipes, shells, and even open source are not accessible. So far, most accessible options are made by companies - they handle the details, make a GUI wizard to get basic information, prepackage things, and smooth the process. The average user only has so much contextual understanding about their computer to be able to perform technical operations with it. A GUI helps create a context in which things about the computer make simplistic sense. But that context is easily broken, especially with Linux. You soon may learn your GUI is a server, but actually a window manager for a window system. Suddenly you have a much deeper, more realistic context - and your previous easily understood context doesn't quite fit. It is the same way when you have to compile anything and see the steps involved - even if you are just punching in commands. "unpack a compressed file; move to the directory;type $ ./configure $ make # make install" These are steps that have no intrinsic context for the average computer user. Sure some of the words are familiar. But where is the wizard asking you questions? Where is the OK button? And you have to type these things in so you have to find (actually read) and follow (i.e. read and comprehend) instructions. These things are barriers. They make somethings seem to be inaccessible. They do this by not fitting into an individual's general contexts. They are "outside the box" and most people have a very small box.

0

So Windows doesn't come with a C compiler out of the box (programmer-unfriendly, although you can get one for nothing at cygwin.com) but it's user-friendly because most software can be installed by just double clicking on an icon and hitting the "next" button through the install prompts. Linux used to be the opposite - came with a C compiler and many more programmer-friendly tools but some software installs are user-unfriendly because they require knowledge of the commandline (even if it is three simple commands). Although Linux is getting more user friendly. There's an interesting article over at joelonsoftware.com about the differences in the Windows and UNIX cultures. What's interesting is Apple is combining both user-friendlyness and a GUI-oriented mindset with a UNIX back end when you need it... gcc, perl, etc - they are all there installed by default on Mac OS X. What does this all mean? I don't know... do you like your apples or your oranges? Do you just want to use a computer or also learn a little about how a computer uses you?

0

As far as I'm concerned, I don't find it difficult at all to understand such "concepts". I've compiled each and every package on my system myself, everything in /etc is "mine", I even wrote my own BSD-style bootscripts. I have, I can say "developed" new ways to manage my system. I wrote a simple "ports" package manager in Bash for GNU style source packages (./configure, make, make install). I use the kernel from the latest BK tree to test it and report bugs, or fix some small things and spelling mistakes. Basically, I learn. For people using Linux based systems for work, they should probably use Redhat Enterprise or Fedora Core, and use rpm for installing packages, just like in windows. Back to the orignal post, Andrew3 was having a problem compiling the source, and I assume he wanted to learn. The C compiler is not only ment for the programmer. You obviously need it to compile source packages. Its not that difficult. Btw, I hate Apple for taking stuff from the BSDs and not giving anything back. I hate the BSDs for having such a stupid license. I like redhat for what it has done for development of the Linux kernel, and many other Free projects. And I wouldn't even like to mention Micros_S_H_I_T.

0

This post does give me something to think about. Basically saying people are stupid and want to stay stupid. Not meaning it in a very negative way, but just as not wanting to learn (as far as computing is concerned, and hey nobody can know anything that's out there to know either computing or other aspects which can be encountered in live). With windows I sometimes got the feeling the computer was telling me what to do or not to do. And windows archieved mass market adoption. A lot of people who are not interested in the basics of computing seem to consider a change to linux so it's just waiting for the next frustrated or disillusioned person. People want to run, without learning to walk first? But market principles will take over and if a computer telling us what to do is crucial for mass market adoption, well then their will come "linux" distro's which tells us what to do, when to do it and how. Somehow I don't have a very good feeling about this. But as long as their will remain people with affection for free software principles, their is still nothing to worry. As far as OS X is concerned, I also don't like her licensing scheme; I don't know the OS; but it appearantly does show a way of "decent computing for dummies" based on an OS which shouldn't be very much different from gnu-linux OSes

0

I mean, unpack a compressed file; move to the directory;type $ ./configure $ make # make install Where is the difficulty? Where is the necessity? How is that better than next, agree, next, next? For most people its not. Harder does not always mean better LOL. Simple fact, if people wouldn't install every piece of crap shareware on their Windows pc it would run a lot better. When it comes to OS's, you should use what you like and like what you use. Myself, I run WinS2k3, Mandrake 9.1, and FreeBSD 5.1 on my box but Windows is still by far my favorite. Why? Because WinS2k3 if fast, efficient, stable, and security is getting better. As far as security goes, it's just as much my job keeping my pc safe as it is Microsoft's. I've been online for 6-7 years now and I have yet to be hacked or infected by a virus. "People want to run, without learning to walk first?" No they just want to be able to drive the car without having to know how to rebuild the transmission. But of course the guy that can rebuild his transmission is at a much greater advantage. Sandman

0

"I mean, unpack a compressed file; move to the directory;type $ ./configure $ make # make install Where is the difficulty? Where is the necessity? How is that better than next, agree, next, next? For most people its not. Harder does not always mean better LOL." Most of the time it isn't necessary, there are a lot of precompiled packages available, which can be installed with the distributions package management system. A little similar with windows. But compiling from source can be better, because source code is independent of a specific processor architecture. So with the same source code you can build binairies with a different processor specific instruction set. (Or even for the same processor with different options, depending on wanting stability or "bleeding edge" operation). There is one Linux distribution with, in my opinion a really excellent package management system. Gentoo Linux. By giving 1 command it will start downloading a package (by example openoffice) and all her dependencies, compile from source itself (with pre-configured options given during installation of the distro) untill it's fully installed. "Simple fact, if people wouldn't install every piece of crap shareware on their Windows pc it would run a lot better." With all respect, but HOW can I tell the difference between freeware Crap; Shareware Crap or Proprietary Crap, expensive or not. How can we tell it if something is good or not, until it's too late and know it was bad? I've never installed free- or shareware on my computer when I still did use windows; still it knew how to crash. (Oke, windows '98 was pretty famous for that and times change). I've run away from windows, because of windows crap. I am willing to believe it isn't crap anymore. But even if windows proves to be better than linux (which I am not believing) I will not go back to microsoft as long as GPL'ed distributions can statisfy my computing needs. Reasons for that have nothing to do with money, I want to pay for my own beer, but like to speak freely. "As far as security goes.." Yep, being responsible is a good thing, for some background information: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/56/33226.html "People want to run, without learning to walk first?" Guess you are somehow correct, only newbies sometimes encounter problems which they haven't thought of before because it wasn't necessary. There are several factors why GNU-Linux requires different handling, for people unfamiliar with the background it seems as lack of quality. Originally I meant that people want to have their GNU-Linux system up and running at the best possible performance, being able to do everything they have ever done before without thinking how it can be archieved. Sometimes it's necessary and get under the hood to tune your transmission if you want every possible bit out of your gears.

0

"With all respect, but HOW can I tell the difference between freeware Crap; Shareware Crap or Proprietary Crap, expensive or not." Musical blinking X-mas lights on your screen is crapware LOL. Anything out there like that for *nix? God I hope not. Really though, Trail and error is the only way to find this out. Install an app, use it (does it crash a lot, use too much memory...), then decide if you should keep it or not. You can't leave crapware on a system but uninstalling too many apps over time can (and probably will) pick a Windows install apart. So initially this results in extra windows reinstalls (I remember reinstalling *nix a few times too), But after awhile you'll have weeded out the crapware. At this point stability increases and reinstalls rarely need to take place. This is probably steepest of Windows learning curves. A much shallower curve than *nix's. For those who haven't used Windows since the Win9x days (which I agree were crap), give the free WinS2k3 trial a shot. Sandman

0

Forgot to thank you for the links Guido, Good reads. Here is one you may find interesting. Coming Soon to Windows: The Microsoft Shell (MSH) I can't wait to see what they can do with this and .Net/xml. Sandman

0

"Musical blinking X-mas lights ...Anything out there like that for *nix? God I hope not." - Sandman I guess you don't want to know about Xsnow ?

0

LMAO no doubt it’s coded much better than the windows counterpart. Free too! Happy Holidays, To all on the board P.S. I have nothing against Christmas lights :)

0

The Microsoft Shell link was definately worth reading. It's a development I had not heard of before. So at GNU-Linux side people are complaining about not having enough graphical tools and at the windows side people want more scripting ability. They will could come together at some point as far as userinterfaces is concerned. Blinking X-mas lights, yeah we've a lot of free "crap" as well. But the crap only affects sytem performance when the crap is executed, I've never experienced a crap application which resulted in a crapped GNU-Linux OS. And I've tried a lot of crap while searching for useful applications. Reinstalling Linux, have done it plenty of times. During the "learning curve" after doing things I know I shouldn't do, but still wanting to try. If you don't know the system you are working with, a reinstall is the easiest way to get her back in working order. After that reinstalls only takes place when I want to try out a different flavour of GNU-linux. So at times I can choose myself. I am willing to believe that system performance and reliablity of microsoft latest OSes are good. But even if it's state of the art or the best, I don't have the intention of switching over. And from that perspective trying out winS 2003 is a waste of time. I am not saying that technically speaking, linux is better than windows or the other way around. But I do know that a well optimized GNU-Linux is a very high quality Operating System. People should use the OS which they think is best for them. Happy Christmas!

0

I'm yet to come across a problem with my system from which I cannot recover. Even in the worst cercumstances, theres always a backup waiting to be re-stored. I even have daily backups of my complete filesystem, stored on an extra hard-disk (its cheaper than other solutions these days...) Restoring from such a backup is slightly different from a re-install - You only correct the problem, your system is still "your system", Also, theres little loss of data (in one day). But this is only if the worst happens (only happened once till now, the filesystem was very badly currupted while being used with a beta kernel.) "The Microsoft Shell link was definately worth reading. It's a development I had not heard of before." Now isn't this re-inventing the wheel?

0

"Now isn't this re-inventing the wheel?" Re-implementing at least. Differences in development models and cycles? If a GNU project takes a different approach which doens't have much added value, it doesn't get adopted and slowly dies away. If the microsoft development team decides it's time to kill a command line interface, then microsoft users just have to swallow and live by that decision.

0

"If the microsoft development team decides it's time to kill a command line interface, then microsoft users just have to swallow and live by that decision." No they slowly start using other alternatives, like many of us on this forum. And also give people like me who never really used microsoft products _absolutely_ no reason to even consider using them. And then microsoft becomes bankrupt :-0) And slowly dies away :)))) And Red Hat Enterprise and Workstation become the new standard... And all non-free software companies slowly fade away. And the number of open source "hackers" is greatly increased. And some really really cool software development takes place... No harm just imagining...

0

Only on Computing.net could you have a discussion like this :) On any other site this page would likely be covered with blatant arrogance and hatred. Nothing but good folks here. Guido, I have no intention of making you switch back to Windows. Once you go Linux you never go back :) In capable hands either OS can do some amazing things. For those that haven't used Windows since the 9x days, you’re in for quite a surprise. Xp is a nice OS but WinS2k3 outshines it in every way. I have not had a single crash since installing it (two days after it was released LOL). "Microsoft has stated that they made it a priority to try to make every single configuration available from both the command prompt and the GUI, from Windows 2003." That’s a pretty big promise. I hope they pull it off though. I love the idea of a highly scriptable Windows environment, it taunts me LOL. "If the microsoft development team decides it's time to kill a command line interface..." Cmd.exe won't be going anywhere soon. Microsoft will leave it for backwards compatibility. Good day all, Sandman

0

It would be nice, it's best for every user if there are some good OSes available. The trial out of WinS2003? I'm starting to get a little curious, but as the OS will get adopted I'll see it deployed, just a question of time. And no need to try it myself. But I'll give it a look. Then next part for Microsoft is security, but they've stated several times they are working on it. And have acquired a Virusfighting company a few months ago. Security and windows does seem a totally different world. As far as linux is concerned I just have a few golden rules; no easy passwords; insert a good firewall script after installing; no unencrypted passwords over the internet (telnet/non-anonymous ftp); keeping your system up to date and don't run as root when unnecessary. There's allmost nobody complaining about linux security. I even don't know where to get a virusscanner for linux virusses... And yes, I do know that their are troyans for Linux and linux servers get hacked also. Somebody using linux is totally dependent on internet, even our OS is downloaded from it. You know what's crazy, I downloaded gentoo linux in the period it's servers just got hacked and didn't give insecurity a second thought. Compare it to the windows world and I have the impression one of us is coming from venus and the other from mars... Sometimes I take a look at the security forum at computing.net It really is a different world. People have their windows firewall, another firewall (most of the time Zone-alarm), virusscanners; strange things like spy ware and ad aware; and still cannot trust their own computer. Yesterday somebody was complaining his computer was hacked and at boottime the cd rom got ejected. Everbody seem to think it's perfectly normal to get hacked, but the cd rom was a very difficult and serious archievement... Well only thing I know is that it's easy to eject a cd rom, just give the command: eject cdrom But it should be very difficult to own a computer which isn't yours. Another difference, which tells me how crazy the world has become. I guess if people run at least 4 or 5 different security programs they are trying to keep their system secured, and maybe they download some crap once in a while, but most of the time they are just surfing the web I assume. And for Linux, who are a little more dependent on the internet, well they just don't give it a thought, security seems a non-issue. Except for mailboxes overloading when other OSes got infected with a virus. And also from this point of vieuw I hope WinS2003 is an improvement, both are competing OSes; so both should keep an eye on eachother, from the results both users can profit.

0

"Sometimes I take a look at the security forum at computing.net It really is a different world." I wouldn't consider that forum a good sample. "And for Linux, who are a little more dependent on the internet, well they just don't give it a thought, security seems a non-issue." Linux developement is critically dependent on the Internet. Security is taken very seriously (by those who know what they are doing). Local and remote security. Hashes for binary packages, PGP keys, and security warnings/advice are standard fare. There are a lot of new comers, so this trend may not end up as tradition. Hard to say.

0

You're absolutely right about this and I think you also know more about this subject than simple end users like me. By just reading that servers are being taken offline for further examination just a few hours after being breached, then you must realize there is a good security policy. Linux developers being security minded results in end users like me, who can trust it's products. A trust which is not yet broken, and hopefully never will. Seeing md5 sum comparison while installing gentoo, did give me the feeling of trust not to abort it's installation while it's servers were breached. It's not 100% proof, but you have to mess around with more than one thing to insert "evil" code. I agree the computing.net forum isn't a good sample for professional security. But it does reflect end users struggling with their privacy and "trust relationship" with their OS. Sometimes I don't know if it's sad or funny. This reply is funny in a sense: "it ejects your CD drives??? that's nifty. not sure i've seen that behavoir before. does it kick your pets, eat your food, and use your toothbrush too? I'm not making light of your situation, sorry if it sounds like that. that's definately an odd side-effect. i'm not sure if its related to your hijack. if it is, someone was being a real smart *** when they designed it. now you've made me really curious...i want to know what's causing that." Personally, if you consider it very professional or not if something is being able to eject a CD. I don't think it's very wise also to state to a nervous person that he/she probably is hacked by somebody very professional.

0

Just to put in my 2p worth: When I worked in a computer shop selling PCs, I found that people bought a computer (99% with the OS included) and expected it to work like a toaster (bear me out and it will make sense!) Basically they just wanted to be able to plug it in, turn it on and it will just work. What they actually wanted to do with the computer is a different matter (a lot of [l]users only knew that they WANTED a computer and not WHAT FOR). I found that for people like that, an Apple Mac would probably be the best choice as they do seem to just work out of the box and there aren't as many compatibilty issues with hardware as there are with IBM PC based systems (even though I personally hate macs, but have been impressed with what I've seen of MacOS X). Obviously there is a price penalty to pay as Apple spends mega-bucks on R&D into user interfaces (and besides, having more than just one mouse button confuses people!=o) If someone isn't prepared to pay the premium for a Mac, then get a PC with windoze. I wont go into the pros and cons of M$ here, I'm sure most the people on this linux forum are well aware - else they wouldn't be here! Then there is the free way (eg GNU/Linux), but obviously certain penalties come with that. It is a little like buying a toaster without a fuse in the plug, or batteries in a calculator....some things you are expected to do yourself as it cuts down on costs for the reseller. In my experience, the more a company tries to make things simple for the end user (eg create a DVD with one click of the mouse) the more likely it is to go wrong or not turn out as expected....frustrating the user even more. My only good experience of windoze (that I can think of) was photoshop, gimp sort of makes up but I still miss it. I only ever managed to get it to crash once (and I have been using it religiously since v4)...but hang on a sec, wasn't it originally designed for macs....?!?

0