What we agree on something? Well that just weird but no he’s tips aren't useful really. He just talks infront of a camera and doesn’t show anything. Hint, hint it’s cause it’s got nothing to show.

If you use Windows the way Microsoft recommends you’re going to end up with a pretty rubbish computer. The same can be said for the Linux community as well.

No Windows is designed to run programs. System32, syswow64 and Side by Side contain huge cashes of ddl files for programs built into it. The best thing about Windows is the way it handles libraries. Linux on the other hand is designed to just run. It’s malleable and modular but not really designed to have things consistently going in out of it. Linux keeps it’s libraries in a repository while Windows stores them locally. This is why Windows is versatile with software, while Linux is more versatile with native function.

I’m going to stop you right there. Once you starting saying “everyone is stupid but us” you’ve already lost. Only furthering the stereotype that Linux users are... well… Linux users.


Most people don’t want Linux on their desktop by choice and you’re just gonna have to accept that.

The Linux community has done nothing to entice people to want to use it. Innovation is not what people want from their PC’s. They just want stuff to work with as little effort from their part as possible and how can anyone blame them.

This just sounds like the same vague nonsense that communists say when they start bitching about the capitalist system of which they can’t compete.

The way Linux uses repositories makes me think otherwise.

I would love nothing more then a DRM free operating system, why do you think I use LTSB?

Either Linux is bad or the community has failed to make anything good from it. When it takes you hours to achieve in Linux what can be done in Windows with only two clicks of a mouse button that’s not really a good sign.

Dismissing feedback as trolling is also not really helping your cause. You might want to look into that. Also if you’re that convinced I’m a troll you could just ignore me.

What we agree on something? Well that just weird but no he’s tips aren't useful really. He just talks infront of a camera and doesn’t show anything. Hint, hint it’s cause it’s got nothing to show.

If you use Windows the way Microsoft recommends you’re going to end up with a pretty rubbish computer. The same can be said for the Linux community as well.

No Windows is designed to run programs. System32, syswow64 and Side by Side contain huge cashes of ddl files for programs built into it. The best thing about Windows is the way it handles libraries. Linux on the other hand is designed to just run. It’s malleable and modular but not really designed to have things consistently going in out of it. Linux keeps it’s libraries in a repository while Windows stores them locally. This is why Windows is versatile with software, while Linux is more versatile with native function.

I’m going to stop you right there. Once you starting saying “everyone is stupid but us” you’ve already lost. Only furthering the stereotype that Linux users are... well… Linux users.

Most people don’t want Linux on their desktop by choice and you’re just gonna have to accept that.

The Linux community has done nothing to entice people to want to use it. Innovation is not what people want from their PC’s. They just want stuff to work with as little effort from their part as possible and how can anyone blame them.

This just sounds like the same vague nonsense that communists say when they start bitching about the capitalist system of which they can’t compete.

The way Linux uses repositories makes me think otherwise.

I would love nothing more then a DRM free operating system, why do you think I use LTSB?

Either Linux is bad or the community has failed to make anything good from it. When it takes you hours to achieve in Linux what can be done in Windows with only two clicks of a mouse button that’s not really a good sign.

Dismissing feedback as trolling is also not really helping your cause. You might want to look into that. Also if you’re that convinced I’m a troll you could just ignore me.

So you want a DRM-free operating system and you use Windows... ehr... yyyeeeah..?

Anyway, I use GNU/Linux because:
-Freedom of choice: I can choose a distro, an environment (or more than one, or even none!), how stable or how bleeding edge my setup should be, themes... No "I know what's good for you and you're gonna like it" (I'm looking at you, Gnome, though). the shape of the system is up to me.
-Transparent: what it does it does it in front of you. No hidden services. Also it doesn't need to hide its configurations or to be obscure in any way. It allows you to edit your preferences without feeling like cracking it, or without need to change its .dlls or things like that.
-No need to have the latest, powerful PC in order to work decently: my four years old, €350.00 notebook does all I need.
-No with ads, trial or premium editions of programs: I haven't seen a single free as in freedom software limiting its functionalities (even the most basic ones) in order to provide a premium version. No obtrusive pop-ups or parts of the interface dedicated to a "Get the Special Champion Magic Delta Turbo Edition and obtain the 'Save as...' function for free!" or "Remove ads for $0.99". Nothing. No less than their best is there for the taking.
-DRM-free: no need to pirate or crack their software > no silly needs to DRM it either.
--It's easier to keep clean: its programs don't hide parts of them all across the system, don't leave tracks in the register, to restore everything to the default behaviour is enough to delete (or rename if you prefer having a backup) its configuration folder in your home directory.
-No surprises if you use a stable distro. If it works, it won't brake out of the blue.

Mostly I find it easy and much more pleasant than the rest. I like the idea of freedom as stated by the Free Software Foundation, and apart from games I try to have a free system. Too bad I need at least the wi-fi proprietary driver. Otherwise I likely wouldn't even enable the contrib and non-free repos (my distro of choice is Debian Stable Xfce).

Well yeah I have to use what works. Linux never really left Alpha.

Fair enough but you loose freedom when it comes to choice of software. It’s like getting a modular table that can’t hold much wait. You’re probably thinking that software companies just need to support Linux more. But I suspect it’s modularity contributes to this.

except it doesn't. It’s open source but unless you’re a programmer that doesn’t mean much. A lot of Linux settings are hidden in configuration files that you will not only need to un-hide. For example manually changing the sources file or the package manger settings. A lot of other settings require the use of command line. If there’s no gui for it then it’s not indented for the end user.

Except play decent games.
Vista hasn’t been a thing in years. I still find I can get more functionality out oh old computers with older versions of Windows then I can with Linux. They were made to run it after all.

Two things.

1. What the hell is wrong with premium and trial software? I don’t like it when it’s per-installed but when I’m not sure about something trail software is great. One example of this was when I was looking at running virtual machines. So I downloaded virtual box and vmware workstation trail. I used both for a few weeks before deciding to go with a full licence for workstation. Know why I did that? Because it was better. I have a job and money I don’t need to be a cheapskate and I want what’s good not what’s free. Free is only a bonus is it’s good to begin with.

2. When it comes to intrusive they’re pretty easy to turn off in Windows. They’re much worse in Android. This is important to note because if Linux ever became mainstream on the desktop. It wouldn’t resemble Ubuntu or Mint. It would be like Android. Industry needs to make money. Only platforms that a profitable have a future. So it has to be able to make money in one form or another.

I’d argue that it’s easier to get pirated software working then it is to get Linux to do what you want. So the lack of DRM is kind of redundant since you’ll be constantly fighting your system or simply missing out to use it. Furthermore program do in fact leave parts of themselves. They often leave parts in the index (That’s what Linux uses to figure what dependencies it needs from the repository)

When installing outside of the repository programs can put files all over the place and when installing from the repository, it won’t even let you chose what directory you want the program to be installed.

Not the experience I have but to each their own.

What about the freedom to use closed source software. What about the freedom to make money. Making money from open source software is possible but far from ideal. Your first statement contradicts your second. Most games are closed source to a default. Even Witcher 3 which was released day 1 DRM free is closed source. Not only that but Red Engine 3 isn't even available for public download. In short it’s one of the most private game ever published. proprietary means private as in private propriety. People should have the right to own things. Linux is hostile towards private software which means it’s hostile towards games. Which is why being a “Linux gamer” is an oxymoron

What the hell? In a thread full of asinine statements, this might be the most asinine.

I have no idea what you're even trying to claim here. Linux stores libraries locally. Windows stores libraries locally. Care to elaborate?

Just read 1 and 2 of Jaidev Ramakrishna's response in this article. On second thought, read the whole thing.

https://www.quora.com/Why-don%E2%80%99t-people-like-Linux-If-you-tried-Linux-but-you-didnt-like-it-and-stopped-using-it-why

because of security and its open source

What's with this obsession of it being open-source. That doesn't mean it's going to be good it just means the source code is public domain.

No, open source != public domain. There is still a license you must follow (in the case of the Linux kernel, version 2 of the GPL) if you are going to redistribute the code, whether in source or compiled form.

(Also, public domain != bad; many consider the works of Shakespeare, which are public domain, to be great. I could also say the same thing about classical music.)

I read it. I don't see anything that attempts to make sense of your assertion that Windows stores it's libraries locally, while Linux stores them in a repository. The statement is flat-out wrong. Linux stores libraries locally, just like Windows does.

Point 1 is still valid. Fragmentation is both a strength and a weakness. It's a strength because of the options it brings. It's a weakness, because it can be overwhelming, and many of the options are very, very similar. Personally, I'll take options any day. I'm a minimalist - I choose applications with few dependencies that are often far from the mainstream options. If the fragmentation didn't exist, most of the applications I prefer to use wouldn't exist.

Points 2 & 3 are pretty valid descriptions of the problems with Linux, circa 2006. Today, there are very few reasons to be regularly compiling packages from source. If you use the package manager of your distribution properly, there are very few dependency issues.

Fragmentation is also bad for development. All the choices in the world don't mean much if nothing works. When you have one system and one environment to work with it makes things work a whole lot better.

The point I was making with libraries is that when you install a program from the repository with Linux it downloads dependencies which contain libraries. Windows doesn't do this. This is a very bad way of doing things.

Why not? Would I be starting with Linux, these would've been useful.

Yeah, you basically agreed. And no, Linux has no "policy" of what is right for you, its for you to decide what you run and how.

No, no, this is not relevant. Relevant is that Windows is a solution to the problem that has been created artificially. I hope you are capable to check history - check at what prices first versions of MSDOS were selling compared to CP/M. They knew what they did, - and they did the same trick with Nokia in "burning platforms":
Mission - Gain sufficient market percentage, and then screw the ecosystem the way they want it. Programs that typically Windows runs - CANT run without Windows and are designed for it upfront. But programs that typically runs on Linux, can be compiled/ported to any different OS.

About dependencies, you are incorrect as well (but its not relevant):
WinSxS, granted much better than just throwing everything into one pile as since Windows 3.0, is causing majority of security breaches due to outdated libraries and huge disk space requirement - but is just the best thing they come over with, because its how proprietary software works.
- In proprietary, the developer typically compiles the software with specific libraries and versions - and since sourcecode is not available if the dev abandons the project or its EOL or considers porting unprofitable, its huge PITA to make the software work with newer libraries, often FIXED libraries, so this is where WinSxS comes into play - its just stores the outdated junk so the junk can plug into Kernel ABI, which is mostly stable.
- In FLOSS, project can be forked, so developer attention is not really needed so long there is interest from other people. The software gets updated to newest versions and can be compiled into exact version on the exact system. Or you can specify library path with LD_PATH, which would make same WinSxS system and which is how very old native Linux proprietary software still works. Linux Kernel ABI is pretty solid.

Newer Linux systems like NixOS went ever further by containerizing each package by its hash fingerprint, making every software to specify exactly the version, allowing automatic flexible parallel installs.

I said there are exceptions. Maybe you like BDSM - when you are forced to endure without rationale behind -- , but hey - you ditched it with corporate version, breaking that they intend you to use.

You are mistakenly oversimplifying. To "want stuff to work as little effort" falls exactly into "consumer" schema, where consumer surrenders rights to architect, who makes sure stuff works. Clearly, by ditching that path, you disagreed with architect and instead agreed on "YOU make it to work", which places you somewhere in Linux (hacker, prosumer) mindset. Or you could use other "consumer" system with different decisions. You could, if MS wouldn't be so monopolizing, somewhere, in parallel universe.

Haha, every corporate system is purely communist to the bones and capitalism state is driven by corporations. You surrender your time and work result to the corporation, you accept their standards and their decisions, you execute their policy, you keep silent or will be prosecuted.

Beside that, "capitalism vs communism" is a tale for the kids. Those are just methods to address the same problem, and every government on this planet can show up to its citizen and strip/jail him/her of his/her rights/properties at any time, so long its a system run by HUMANs driven by the sins documented since OLD TESTAMENT.

This is because you don't know Linux well. Linux doesn't touch any repo, repo's are part of package management - which can be very different. Linux only cares that library chain for the binary is visible to it. How your OS manages to put the libraries into that chain, doesn't concern Linux.

Because LTSB is NOT DRM free. Because Linux community doesn't own anything to you, because its not a corporation. Because your example of hours to achieve is invalid: you set up a script that can be run with one push of the button, where on Windows you'll be clicking (unless you craft your own unattended packages or scripts, which is absolutely similar to your script). Because you should really know the system before posting feedback, but you don't. If you are comfortable with Windows - then use it. Each is own can of worms.

Assuming the license is permissive, it means anybody can take it and adapt it to their needs without asking for permission.

This is why Linux has many different distributions (some of those being more specialized and some of those being backed by sizable companies like Red Hat and Canonical), why Android got derived from it, why its dominant in supercomputers (which tend to require kernel fine-tuning), why so many manufacturers of smart devices use it and why a 45$ open device with a sophisticated OS can even exist (ie, the Raspberry Pi).

Really, when you think about it, if one piece of software above all should be open, it is the OS. It is the building block for everything else.

Too much can be a bad thing, but the right amount can drive innovation.

The Windows and traditional closed-source big enterprise software ecosystem have been very stiffling.

Linux and the open-source movement have been a breath of fresh air and extremely empowering for developers. The quality of tools that a small group of developers with modest resources can use nowadays is very impressive and it is driving innovation in a big way.

Might not run as smoothly as Windows for a GUI on your desktop, but when it comes time to deploy something that matters at scale, it is quite polished I assure you.

And you have major distributions with well curated repositories that function very well.

Nowadays, you also have containers and virtual machines (but mostly containers) that manage dependencies extremely well (beyond the wildest expectations that someone would have had in the 90s).

Downloading libraries directly on a production machine is for smucks. People who are keeping up are actually pushing pre-built images in prod. It's a very elegant way to do it.

I'm still waiting for it to takeoff on the desktop (I do it on mine, but it is still somewhat of a geek thing at the current time). It makes a lot of sense to run things this way.

Why do you consider this a very bad way of doing things? The "WIndows way" seems worse. On Windows, there is enough version variety that many installers bundle the libraries within the installer. So on a Windows system, I waste bandwidth re-downloading the same file over and over, and I waste hard drive space storing the same file over and over.

The Linux way of handling this seems far more efficient. That's not to say that libraries don't get bundled in the binary package, but it happens less on Linux (In my experience, at least).

EDIT: Just for example, I looked at my Windows 10 laptop I use at work. There are 498 .dll files with 'MSVC' in the filename scattered across the system. If I remove duplicates, there only 41 unique filenames. Do I really need 500 files to serve the purpose of 41?

Heh, sorry, but Windows is fragmented-AF on API level and it breaks so much, Wine had to adopt bug-per-bug compatibility depending on target Windows version it tries to support.

That is pretty funny. Windows is fragmented as shit built on old ass code that MS programmers can't even keep straight where you are only one forced update away from a possible BSOD.
Ever head of Snap or Flatpak? Google. Yep but it's really not needed. People make Linux out to be harder than what it is, especially if using Mint or Ubuntu. My biggest reasons are complete control and because I am concerned about where MS is taking Windows 10 in regards to Windows 10 S and what impact that may have on the PC market. Frankly we need Linux to succeed. It needs to be a viable option in addition to Windows, and with what Valve is doing with Proton, etc it's more interesting from the gaming side of things.

I actually blew away my Windows partition this week just to experience Linux fully for a while and I'm not sure if or when I will re-add it. Really I haven't felt like I needed it.