Does Linux have an Amiga feel?

[Kremlar]

If I write a new virus today tell me how your anti-virus will protect you against it.

Nowadays, most decent AV packages have firewall and proactive features that not only look for particular viruses, but virus-like activity as well.  So, it's very possible that an existing AV package will catch a previously unknown virus before infection.
 
Of course some of the better viruses are written and tested to ensure they circumvent most major AV packages, so sometimes your particular AV will not help.

[commodorejohn]

Don't feel bad..
Computers are confusing..  But keep at it...  You'll get it...  ;-)  :roflmao:

And this attitude would be Why People Do Not Like the Linux User Culture.

Jackass.

I find that most of the people I work with who can't stand a particular system had a bad experience with that system early on, and then they just "shut down" for that system.
No amount of tweaks or fixes or improvements will matter..  They've decided, and that's OK.  There are plenty of options...

I spent about eight years making multiple attempts to get into Linux. I've tried at least half a dozen distros, in multiple versions. I took a course on it when I was in college. And ultimately, I realized that I was putting more work into trying to force myself to acclimate to a badly-designed system for the sake of ideology than I'd spent learning every other OS I've used put together, and concluded that it just wasn't worth the pain.

But no, you go ahead and keep insisting that I just haven't tried.

On reading some of the posts in this thread I'm  reminded of the old clichés "A good workman never blames his tools"

Which is an awfully convenient loophole for crappy toolmakers.

[nicholas]

And this attitude would be Why People Do Not Like the Linux User Culture.

Jackass.


I spent about eight years making multiple attempts to get into Linux. I've tried at least half a dozen distros, in multiple versions. I took a course on it when I was in college. And ultimately, I realized that I was putting more work into trying to force myself to acclimate to a badly-designed system for the sake of ideology than I'd spent learning every other OS I've used put together, and concluded that it just wasn't worth the pain.

But no, you go ahead and keep insisting that I just haven't tried.


Which is an awfully convenient loophole for crappy toolmakers.

See sig.

[spirantho]

But they are all pretty similar, even if they don't admit it...  ;-)

I think, from a user's point of view, that's kind of true - at least of the last 10-20 years or so. Back in the 90's it was less clear (as Windows 3.1 was way behind most of the competition).

Believe me, though, from a developer's point of view, different OSes are completely different. You've got different kernels, different multitasking paradigms, different methods of UI, all sorts of things. Programming AmigaOS is a pleasure - it's all nice and simple, logical and well thought out. Programming Linux depends on which toolkit you use, and to be fair I've not looked very hard at it (but the X system is awful)  - and then there's the monstrosity that is Windows. The words "WM_PAINT" still strike fear into my heart now, as do the initials "MFC".

When you get under the hood, you realise that the different OSes can be very different... it's just hidden from the average user to make them all look the same.

[commodorejohn]

See sig.

Does anyone have the context for this quote? I'd be interested to know exactly what he meant by it, because there's several ways to read it, some of which agree with you, and some of which agree with me.

In any case, while I respect Mr. Ritchie greatly, A. the standards for OS design in 1970 were very different from the standards of OS design in 1985 or the standards of OS design today, and B. Unix cruft is only one of the reasons that Linux is a terrible user experience.

[slaapliedje]

I think, from a user's point of view, that's kind of true - at least of the last 10-20 years or so. Back in the 90's it was less clear (as Windows 3.1 was way behind most of the competition).

Believe me, though, from a developer's point of view, different OSes are completely different. You've got different kernels, different multitasking paradigms, different methods of UI, all sorts of things. Programming AmigaOS is a pleasure - it's all nice and simple, logical and well thought out. Programming Linux depends on which toolkit you use, and to be fair I've not looked very hard at it (but the X system is awful)  - and then there's the monstrosity that is Windows. The words "WM_PAINT" still strike fear into my heart now, as do the initials "MFC".

When you get under the hood, you realise that the different OSes can be very different... it's just hidden from the average user to make them all look the same.

That's why some people are programmers and other people are users  I really need to start programming, but yeah even trying to choose toolkits / language, etc can be a pain.  I think i've decided on either Qt with Python, or Qt with C++.  But I want to be able to port applications to the Amiga easily, and Python is out of date, C++ will work, but Qt hasn't been ported to it, and I'd rather use something more native anyhow.

slaapliedje

[desiv]

And this attitude would be Why People Do Not Like the Linux User Culture.

Jackass.

How in the world did you miss the smiley and the ROTFL animation?

How?  Really???
In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, I said "I've been using computers for quite a while also..." stating that I realize you have experience..  
Perhaps you need to switch to decaf?    ( <----- That's a joke btw!!!)

I spent about eight years making multiple attempts to get into Linux. .....
But no, you go ahead and keep insisting that I just haven't tried.

I said "most people". (and I never said I thought you hadn't tried)  That doesn't necessarily mean you...  As I was obviously (I thought) joking in the part above, I was just making a comment about some general experiences I have had...

Perhaps you are getting too invested in this thread..
As I said, there are lots of choices for people, which is a good thing, as some people don't like some tools...  That should be fine..

I'm not a Linux zealot.  I like things about Linux and have used it for a long time.
But I can say the same thing about Microsoft, Mac, various Unix releases, OS/400, Cisco IOS, etc...

I have no problems seeing issues with Linux.  It has problems.  As do all OSes.

Have a good one...

desiv

[desiv]

Believe me, though, from a developer's point of view, different OSes are completely different. You've got different kernels, different multitasking paradigms, different methods of UI, all sorts of things..

Oh, come on now!!!

We ALL know that Java fixed all that...

..

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

desiv

[commodorejohn]

How in the world did you miss the smiley and the ROTFL animation?

My apologies. Unfortunately, sarcasm can be difficult to convey/detect over the 'net, and I missed it. (Doesn't help that plenty of actual zealots use "ha ha, just kidding! (You idiot!)" fake-geniality as a twee affectation.) But if that's not what you intended and I misread, I'm sorry.

[desiv]

(Doesn't help that plenty of actual zealots use "ha ha, just kidding! (You idiot!)" fake-geniality as a twee affectation.)

Oh man, I hate that...  You're right about that..

Yep, not my intention...

While I might not agree with some specifics, there's respect for your perspective...

desiv

[trekiej]

Red Hat Linux before Fedora Core was an Amiga like OS to me.
Maybe it was Anaconda Installer that made it feel that way.

[Blinx123]

Kinda off-topic, but I just tried AEROS (AROS on i386 Linux host).

Didn't feel as good as it could have. Having to deal with two filesystems (the standard Linux one as well as the virtual AROS one) is plain irritating. Wish they had spent the additional time needed to abstract the Linux filesystem away.

[Blinx123]

I spent about eight years making multiple attempts to get into Linux. I've tried at least half a dozen distros, in multiple versions. I took a course on it when I was in college. And ultimately, I realized that I was putting more work into trying to force myself to acclimate to a badly-designed system for the sake of ideology than I'd spent learning every other OS I've used put together, and concluded that it just wasn't worth the pain.

But no, you go ahead and keep insisting that I just haven't tried.

Who the what now? GNU/Linux is an extremely well designed OS, actually.
If you call that a "badly-designed system" then where the heck does Windows end up in that equation?

There are some major bulletin-points for Linux (or any other POSIX compliant Unix clone, for that matter) and against Windows.

1. Performance

2. Ease of use (once you've figured everything out, it's easier to fix basically everything. Including situations in which Windows would just throw nonsensical walls of text at you).

3. An independent set of tools (no need to install or update stuff you'll never even use. Windows is still plain silly, in comparison. Just today, I was required to update Internet Explorer because someone thought it was smart to base his online client on calls specific to this monstrosity).

4. Customizability of both, the user interface and the kernel.

5. A helpful community of people who know exactly what they're doing.

6. A very compatible toolchain for software developers.

7. Non-proprietary APIs like OpenGL/OpenGL ES (most Windows software developers use Direct3D nowadays, which make it unnecessarily harder to port applications to other platforms).

[Blinx123]

Who the what now? GNU/Linux is an extremely well designed OS, actually.
If you call that a "badly-designed system" then where the heck does Windows end up in that equation?

There are some major bulletin-points for Linux (or any other POSIX compliant Unix clone, for that matter) and against Windows.

1. Performance

2. Ease of use (once you've figured everything out, it's easier to fix basically everything. Including situations in which Windows would just throw nonsensical walls of text at you).

3. An independent set of tools (no need to install or update stuff you'll never even use. Windows is still plain silly, in comparison. Just today, I was required to update Internet Explorer because someone thought it was smart to base his online client on calls specific to this monstrosity).

4. Customizability of both, the user interface and the kernel.

5. A helpful community of people who know exactly what they're doing.

6. A very compatible toolchain for software developers.

7. Non-proprietary APIs like OpenGL/OpenGL ES (most Windows software developers use Direct3D nowadays, which make it unnecessarily harder to port applications to other platforms).

EDIT: I set up a nice XFCE desktop for my mom today and she got most of the intricacies within the hour. This just goes to show that GNU/Linux needn't necessarily be complicated. It's not like they force you to make do with twm and two to three terminal windows.


EDIT2: Darn. I'm overworked. Accidently hit quote when I wanted to hit edit.

[commodorejohn]

If you call that a "badly-designed system" then where the heck does Windows end up in that equation?

Honestly? People who are still flogging the "LOL WinBlow$ BSOD LOL Micro$shaft!" mantra haven't done any serious reevaluation since the days of 95 or Me. 2000 and XP are perfectly reasonable, stable systems with a coherent, modern design that's carefully relegated legacy DOS scariness to emulated support. Vista had plenty of problems, but 7 is even more generally well-regarded than XP (though I prefer XP myself.)

Whereas Linux piles framework after framework after framework onto the system in an attempt to build a modern desktop OS out of an architecture designed to drive VT-100s from PDP-11s...

There are some major bulletin-points for Linux (or any other POSIX compliant Unix clone, for that matter) and against Windows.

1. Performance

Every system I've used Linux on has been either only as fast as or noticeably slower than an appropriately-configured Windows/OSX install. Of course, zealots will bleat about this being the fault of proprietary drivers and how it's your problem for not using open hardware and conveniently ignore how they told you that Linux will make sweet wizardly love to all of your hardware no matter how old or obscure...

2. Ease of use (once you've figured everything out, it's easier to fix basically everything. Including situations in which Windows would just throw nonsensical walls of text at you).

This is true if, by "once you've figured everything out," we mean "once you've memorized The Design and Implementation of the 4.4    BSD Operating System" or something equivalent. In any other case: Bull. Shıt. Fixing Linux involves anything from posting on forums asking for help from the much-lauded and oh-so-helpful Linux user community (standard answers: "works for me," "you don't need this broken feature," "this bug was already logged in 1996, please add relevant details to the ticket and wait for a fix," or the ever-popular "you have the source, fix it yourself!") to chasing includes from one /etc shell script to the next looking for any string even vaguely related to the error.

3. An independent set of tools (no need to install or update stuff you'll never even use. Windows is still plain silly, in comparison. Just today, I was required to update Internet Explorer because someone thought it was smart to base his online client on calls specific to this monstrosity).

No need to install or update stuff you'll never even use! You know, like DBus, or PulseAudio, or grandomcryptonerdwanklibrary-effthensa or any of the zillion other packages that are required to install basically any Linux software, from text editors to web browsers, that's been around long enough to attract a dozen developers who each pile on every feature they think the software should have, no matter how esoteric.

4. Customizability of both, the user interface and the kernel.

Yes, because what I really want to do on a computer I just want to be able to do stuff on is rebuild the damn kernel.

UI customization, on the other hand, would be great - if it were in any way consistent across any set of programs outside of the megalithic KDE-type desktop application suites (and those, of course, are the absolute worse offenders on point #3.)

5. A helpful community of people who know exactly what they're doing.

A community of people who can't be assed to post meaningful information, suggest you "RTFM" no matter what your problem is, and make fun of you for not having memorized the source code. Yes, very very helpful folks.

6. A very compatible toolchain for software developers.

A very compatible toolchain, unless of course you want to do something crazy like run a GCC 2-built binary on an OS that expects binaries built with GCC 4. That's just crazy talk, man!

[Iggy]

@ commodorejohn

I've had some brutal BSOD experiences under  Win XP.
So no, the NT kernel didn't solve that.
While I am not a big Apple fan, I don't think I've ever seen OSX crash.