| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 124673 | 2012-05-12 03:02:00 | Why I still don't like Linux | Tony (4941) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1274940 | 2012-06-08 15:30:00 | It's good to see a well-reasoned and extensive commentary on my post, even if maybe "he doth protest too much". Frankly I wouldn't have bothered if you had just said "I don't like Ubuntu". The problem was that firstly you posted the statement for no possible reason that I could see other than putting Linux down. Only two reasons to do that: one; a cry for help or two; as a means of shifting blame for lack of success. And you stated that you couldn't do "real work" with it, I wanted to point out that you can do more real work with it than you can with Win7 with really does nothing more than email and internet. I felt it needed comprehensive response because you were recycling FUD which was patently untrue and tarring all linux distros with the same brush, "Methinks, twas you who protested too much" I was simply replying to that protest Most of what is said there I can't disagree with, and if I was 15 years younger (crikey, I'm sounding like a real old fogey!) I'm old enough to join Senior Net but I don't feel fogeyish ;) and had the current incarnations of Linux I'd be much more willing and indeed likely to change to Linux as my main OS. It's probably that long ago when I first tried a Linux distro - what a nightmare! to make any changes one had to probably edit a configuration file of some sort, the feedback from apps was totally obscure, CLI was king, etc. etc. That is what I am meaning when I say that things have greatly improved in the Linux world since then. However even back then I was wanting something I could do real work with rather than having to spend huge amounts of time tinkering in order to get anywhere, although I was much more prepared to do that then. The comparison between Win7 and OpenSUSE is a good one when thinking about the "Real Work" criteria. Install SUSE and pretty much out of the box you can produce any content you want. By comparison Win7 or Win8 can do emails, internet, basic photo editing and produce docs in Wordpad, you still have to add all your productivity applications so that you do real work. All I'm saying is that all the ways that count OpenSUSE is a better deal than Win7. At no time in this thread have I said that Linux is not a good OS, and properly tailored (Android) and in the right environment (Apache) it is a great OS. All I am saying is that these days, I am not prepared to invest the time required to get to the same level of familiarity with Linux that I have with Windows. It would be probably the same with any other OS that I was confronted with - I've never used a Mac for instance. I titled this thread "Why I still don't like Linux" after I'd tried the latest Ubuntu distro and found it wanting (for me). As a result of feedback I tried PCLinuxOS, and find it to be very good - the easiest Linux to install and use that I've come across. Unfortunately we can't re-title threads, otherwise I would have probably changed it to "Why I won't be changing to Linux - but it was a near thing!" :) The misapprehension that I want to dispel here is that Ubuntu is the only iteration of Linux, in fact Ubuntu has great marketing and has great brand awareness at the consumer end of the market but is certainly not the only linux and thus a bad experience with does not immediately make "Linux" unsatisfactory, a fact which you have now proved obviously. |
Yorick (8120) | ||
| 1274941 | 2012-06-08 22:59:00 | I'm an OOo guy so I'm now with the ApacheOO team, the LO guys have done a brilliant job but I'm confident that AOO (As OOo is known these days) will be back to it's full strength very soon. There's been a lot of work going on, still is, but we've had one release, we're starting to look at the Symphony UI integration and the community under Apache is growing. We live in interesting times. Good to hear that it is back in action properly. I will have to see if they will co-exist so I can keep an eye on both. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1274942 | 2012-06-09 00:35:00 | I tried downloading the latest the other day, both mirrors I tried failed in the last 10 mb. Was so bloody irritating. | 8ftmetalhaed (14526) | ||
| 1274943 | 2012-06-09 01:02:00 | Good to hear that it is back in action properly . I will have to see if they will co-exist so I can keep an eye on both . My gut feeling at the moment is that they will coexist . The basic dividing line is to do with the licenses . LO is released under a LGPL/MPL mixed license setup which was pretty much the way the old OOo project was structured . Apache is released under AL2, the Apache license which is a much more liberal license . Basically it says "Take this and do what you like with it . No limitations involved except to do with trademarks . " That's the simple version, it's a little more complex than that but it boils down to that . The LGPL only has one real limitation in that if you release a version of the software, it must be under the same license and you must make the source code available . Neither of these apply to the Apache License . This all means that code released under the Apache license can be used in LO, but not the other way round unless the copyright owner changes the license, which is what Oracle did when they granted the OOo source and trademarks to Apache . LO has been supported by most of Linux Distros, but that hasn't really changed, most of the distros used the Go-OOo version in any case which Novell gifted to the TDF . Novell, Redhat and Canonical are the main corporate sponsors of LO, IBM is the main corporate sponsor of AOO and have granted the IBM Symphony (IBM's OOo fork) code to the project and brought that under AL2 . There has been a little tension on the lists as people get to grips with the new dynamic but that's to be expected, but a release has been put out so things are looking good . The 3 . 4 release only has a few small code tweaks, the main thing has been getting the licensing stuff sorted . I'm not so sure that it's 100% ready yet, we're still in incubating at Apache, so not a fully fledged TLP (Top Level Project) but that should be coming soon . |
Yorick (8120) | ||
| 1274944 | 2012-06-09 01:04:00 | I tried downloading the latest the other day, both mirrors I tried failed in the last 10 mb . Was so bloody irritating . Was that via sourceforge? You could try direct ftp from ftp://mirror . aarnet . edu . au/pub/apache/incubator/ooo |
Yorick (8120) | ||
| 1274945 | 2012-06-09 02:15:00 | My gut feeling at the moment is that they will coexist. The basic dividing line is to do with the licenses. LO is released under a LGPL/MPL mixed license setup which was pretty much the way the old OOo project was structured. Apache is released under AL2, the Apache license which is a much more liberal license. Basically it says "Take this and do what you like with it. No limitations involved except to do with trademarks." That's the simple version, it's a little more complex than that but it boils down to that. The LGPL only has one real limitation in that if you release a version of the software, it must be under the same license and you must make the source code available. Neither of these apply to the Apache License. This all means that code released under the Apache license can be used in LO, but not the other way round unless the copyright owner changes the license, which is what Oracle did when they granted the OOo source and trademarks to Apache. LO has been supported by most of Linux Distros, but that hasn't really changed, most of the distros used the Go-OOo version in any case which Novell gifted to the TDF. Novell, Redhat and Canonical are the main corporate sponsors of LO, IBM is the main corporate sponsor of AOO and have granted the IBM Symphony (IBM's OOo fork) code to the project and brought that under AL2. There has been a little tension on the lists as people get to grips with the new dynamic but that's to be expected, but a release has been put out so things are looking good. The 3.4 release only has a few small code tweaks, the main thing has been getting the licensing stuff sorted. I'm not so sure that it's 100% ready yet, we're still in incubating at Apache, so not a fully fledged TLP (Top Level Project) but that should be coming soon.I think you are just confirming all my reservations about Linux and its components/supported apps! :) |
Tony (4941) | ||
| 1274946 | 2012-06-09 02:32:00 | I think you are just confirming all my reservations about Linux and its components/supported apps! :) The freedom of choice, or the freedom to take existing code and use / build on / improve it for your needs? Seems like a preferable situation to "Oh no, that version that does what you want is not available anymore, and you can't use it because we shut down the activation servers. Just pay us again for new shiny verion 2.0 :)" |
fred_fish (15241) | ||
| 1274947 | 2012-06-09 02:34:00 | How is that much different to Ubuntu... "Your release isn't supported for updates any more, you must install the new version and go through the hassle of installing it, then we force Unity on you" |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1274948 | 2012-06-09 02:38:00 | Simple, don't use Ubuntu. Or use the old version and backport security patches yourself. edit: That is probably a case in point, as per the MATE and Cinnamon desktop forks ... |
fred_fish (15241) | ||
| 1274949 | 2012-06-09 02:39:00 | The freedom of choice, or the freedom to take existing code and use / build on / improve it for your needs?That's the good side. The bad side is that for someone looking from the outside and not in the know it is bewildering. | Tony (4941) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | |||||