Linux for an association I work for.

[Yotam Rubin]

Hi,

"
That's funny. So all 8 million Ubuntu users are linux experts? I guess if I
visit the Ubuntu forums all I'll see is questions about remote RAID
installation and not 'how to' on installing printers. Right?"

I will be more specific. To be able to use Linux effectively, productively
and to minimize time spent on simple maintenance operations, then yes, you
have to be a proficient Linux user. It is quite possible for someone who's
not a proficient user to use Linux, but he is likely to require considerable
support, and he is likely to spend a lot of time making things behave the
way he wants them to. Please note that the same problem exists with Windows
as well, to a worse degree. To summarize, the average human being in the
western world is hampered and hindered by Windows and by Linux, to a lesser
degree.


"How does this make linux viable for "experts"? If it's slow and buggy, it's
that way for everyone, right? Or is there a reason why "experts" especially
like slow, buggy, unusable software?"

You are correct. There is no direct correlation between my initial statement
and the reasons that followed. I will be clearer. Linux can only be used by
experts due to the massive amount of details one must be initimately
acquainted with in order to properly maintain one's system. The amount of
configuration files, different syntaxes, various commands, OS primitives and
petty details a user is required to know, is unrealistic for someone who
does not study Linux either professionally or in the capacity of a serious
hobby. This problem also affects Windows, to a far worse degree.

" What you're saying is "linux sucks". Then you go on to say "Mac rules" "
Don't get me wrong, OS X also sucks, only to a lesser extent.

Borrowing your plabeic style, I am basically saying this:
 1. Windows sucks like a throng of brazillian adult-industry workers
 2. Linux sucks like a relatively large tribe of nomadic pipe-blowers
 3. OS X sucks like a pack of hungry anteaters

Unfortunately, all modern operating systems are seriously flawed.

Regards,
  Yotam Rubin

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Aviram Jenik <aviram at jenik.com> wrote:

> On Saturday 28 February 2009 07:45:11 Yotam Rubin wrote:
> >  I now believe that Linux is not a
> > viable choice for anyone who's not an advanced user.
>
> That's funny. So all 8 million Ubuntu users are linux experts? I guess if I
> visit the Ubuntu forums all I'll see is questions about remote RAID
> installation and not 'how to' on installing printers. Right?
>
>
> > My reasons follow:
> >  1. Mainstream desktop environments (KDE, GNOME) have gotten slower and
> > buggier over the years. As I bought faster hardware, KDE and GNOME seemed
> > slower and crashed more often.
> >  2. Linux distributions don't work. Even Ubuntu and other mainstream
> > distributions simply do not work. Package testing is poor, and various
> > programs do not integrate with one another. I often find myself having to
> > fix things manually, usually by digging deep into various
> > scripts/configuration files. Additionally, at least with Ubuntu, upgrades
> > tend to break horribly, requiring a clean reinstallation.
> >  3. Usability as a whole is becoming less viable. Applications (at least
> > with my recent Ubuntu distrubutions) tend to crash often, work more
> slowly
> > and have less features.
>
> How does this make linux viable for "experts"? If it's slow and buggy, it's
> that way for everyone, right? Or is there a reason why "experts" especially
> like slow, buggy, unusable software?
>
> What you're saying is "linux sucks". Then you go on to say "Mac rules".
>
> >
> > Windows suffers from the same problems, only it's not as slow as Linux.
>
> Ok, now that is *really* funny.
>
> - Aviram
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/pipermail/linux-il/attachments/20090228/a9b8532a/attachment.html>