On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:15:37 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> On 09/10/2011 01:57 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:44:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>>> Plus, installing Windows isn't a 4GB download.
>>>>
>>>> Installing Windows + applications is a lot more than 4 GB.  With the
>>>> caching done on my Win7 VM, it sure seems to have downloaded 4+ GB of
>>>> updates since installed, too.
>>>
>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>> The Windows XP CD holds less than 650 MB of data. (It's a CD.) Service
>>> Pack 3 is only a few hundred MB, last I checked. Most individual
>>> updates are a few KB to maybe a dozen MB. I would be /greatly/
>>> surprised if you need to download more than 1 GB.
>>
>> Oh, so you want to compare a modern Linux distribution against Windows
>> from 10-ish years ago?  *Really*?
> 
> I'm comparing Linux against the Windows release that most people are
> currently using.

A more appropriate comparison is latest against latest.

You want to compare distribution size for modern against what Microsoft 
shipped 10 years ago, you're comparing apples and radioactive asteroids 
orbiting with Charon.

Linux from 10 years ago, features compared against Windows from 10 years 
ago?  No comparison, Linux was in its infancy.  Stuff *was* actually 
difficult to do, and you did have to have expertise.

>>> Applications? Well, yeah, that could be arbitrarily large, depending
>>> on what applications you want...
>>
>> Precisely.  That 4 GB DVD has loads of applications on it.
> 
> Linux comes with a hell of a lot more applications than Windows does.
> This is a good thing.

Yes, it is.

> It's still frustrating that I have to download multiple GB of data for
> libraries that I'm not actually going to use, just because the package
> dependency system isn't a little more fine-grained.

You don't know that you're not going to use them.

If you want something more specialized, you can do a custom roll-your-own 
with SUSE Studio.  No need to download anything you don't want, because 
you build the distribution on a remote system using a web browser, test 
it, and then download it.

>>>> You have a Windows machine, do you not?
>>>
>>> Not in the same building, no.
>>
>> Those who want to will find a way.  Those who want to just complain
>> will give up without even trying.
> 
> Yes. Because spending a week trying to fix something it *totally* the
> same as just giving up and complaining about it. Oh, wait...

You spent a week trying to fix something that had you asked a question in 
an online forum, you probably could've gotten an answer for in a day or 
two.

And then you complained that you couldn't figure it out.

Yeah, ultimately, you gave up without asking for help.  If you'd asked 
for help, someone probably would've been able to help you.

>>> You make it sound like I used Linux for five minutes, couldn't work
>>> it, and gave up. That's not what happened at all!
>>
>> Did you ask any questions?  Or did you never, ever get to a Windows
>> machine where you could ask questions?
>>
>> If you want to *learn*, you ask questions.  You know this, because
>> you're moderately inquisitive about lots of different topics.  But
>> somehow it's absolutely impossible for you to ask for a little help
>> sorting out a Linux issue.  Far easier to just say "Linux suxxors the
>> biggest donkey balls" than to go to a Linux forum and ask for a little
>> assistance!
> 
> Again, I didn't say Linux sucks. I said one specific aspect of it sucks.

An aspect you didn't ask any questions about, but beat your head against 
the desk for a week without asking for help.

>>>> Software isn't perfect.  No matter which platform it is, it isn't
>>>> going to be perfect.
>>>
>>> Funny, I could have sworn Mac OS was perfect...
>>
>> Only those who haven't used it say that.  Oh, wait, you haven't used it
>> (by your own admission).
> 
> Sarcasm doesn't work via text, apparently...

Apparently not. ;)

>>> I can work Linux. I can usually make it do what I want it to do. I
>>> pointed out one specific issue: installing stuff tends to be a
>>> dependency nightmare. Which is true. I don't see how that makes me an
>>> idiot.
>>
>> It doesn't.  Not asking for help when you need it?  Yeah, *that's* not
>> too bright.  Then using that experience to say "this sucks" - really
>> not that useful.
> 
> Now, to me, if the only way to make a system work is to find a
> super-expert to explain it, then it's not a very good system. If only
> the distribution developers themselves have enough insider knowledge to
> figure out how to work the package manager, then it's not a terribly
> good system. Just, you know, my opinion. Feel free to disagree...

You don't need a super expert to explain it.  You need someone with more 
knowledge than you have to explain it.  Plenty of normal everyday non-
technical end users manage to use it without problems.

And those who don't understand it who ask questions quickly learn tips 
and tricks that actually, you know, make it usable.  Just like learning 
how to drive a stick shift - it can be learned, but it's easier to learn 
(and is less likely to cost you a new transmission) if you have someone 
who knows how to properly engage the clutch teach you.

I sure as hell am not a package developer or someone with "insider 
knowledge" (how does that even apply in an open source model?) about the 
supposed special incantations.

Again, if you want Windows, use Windows.  You know Linux isn't the same 
as Windows.

Jim

Post a reply to this message