»

[persia]

Windows is the property of Microsoft, they draw the borders, they set the limits and you live within them, it's always been that way. If you don't like limited closed operating systems use Linux or BSD, but calling Windows open doesn't make it so.

[psxphill]

Originally Posted by runequester

As one example: On my linux box, I've swapped out the entire GUI multiple times: From Gnome to Unity to KDE to Openbox. Can't do that on a windows box.

Having multiple GUI's is one of the reasons that Linux will never win any desktop share. If they could actually come up with one good one, then it might stand a chance.

You might think it's really neat that you can do that, but the fact that you even have that choice is an extra burned on the majority who would live with what they are given.

[persia]

Here's a cheat sheet for Microsoft Windows.

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...it_ct_20121025

[TheBilgeRat]

Originally Posted by psxphill

Having multiple GUI's is one of the reasons that Linux will never win any desktop share. If they could actually come up with one good one, then it might stand a chance.

You might think it's really neat that you can do that, but the fact that you even have that choice is an extra burned on the majority who would live with what they are given.

Err... That is what Unity is. Ask most muppets what linux is and they will tell you its Ubuntu. The Steam Client for Linux is being specifically optimized and released for Ubuntu to start. People in the know will still use distro x, y or z with desktop environment x, y or z, but Ubuntu (whether you like it or not) is becoming the de-facto standard for third party targets. Which, in turn, means that Unity is becoming the standard desktop environment.

In Arch land where I reside, there are already murmurings with the newbs why Unity isn't in the main repos.

[psxphill]

Originally Posted by TheBilgeRat

Err... That is what Unity is. Ask most muppets what linux is and they will tell you its Ubuntu. The Steam Client for Linux is being specifically optimized and released for Ubuntu to start. People in the know will still use distro x, y or z with desktop environment x, y or z, but Ubuntu (whether you like it or not) is becoming the de-facto standard for third party targets. Which, in turn, means that Unity is becoming the standard desktop environment.

In Arch land where I reside, there are already murmurings with the newbs why Unity isn't in the main repos.

Unity is only the shell, it uses gnome underneath as the desktop environment. It's also the name of a Linux distribution that uses openbox to cause ultimate confusion.

Ubuntu has been touted as the next big thing for years, if steam goes well then it could become a viable desktop operating system that is free as in beer, if not free as in spirit. It will only succeed if people spend money on games though.

Ubuntu make their money by also providing Amazon search results when you're searching for local content. Amazon is very toxic in the UK, because like Starbucks they avoid paying any corporation tax at all. Not exactly the kind of company you really want to be involved with. http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-business...s-tax-payments

I think I'd rather use Microsoft products :-)

[runequester]

Originally Posted by psxphill

Having multiple GUI's is one of the reasons that Linux will never win any desktop share. If they could actually come up with one good one, then it might stand a chance.

You might think it's really neat that you can do that, but the fact that you even have that choice is an extra burned on the majority who would live with what they are given.

"They" ? Who are they?
The Ubuntu people? IBM? Intel?

There's no monolithic entity pushing linux. That's what's so beautifull about it. That's why you can use linux in a wrist watch, and a wireless router, and a tablet, and a desktop computer and a supercomputer cluster.


And if we're at "I'd rather have other people choose for me" as a culture, then it's over. The big men in suits won.

[psxphill]

Originally Posted by runequester

"They" ? Who are they?
The Ubuntu people? IBM? Intel?

There's no monolithic entity pushing linux. That's what's so beautifull about it. That's why you can use linux in a wrist watch, and a wireless router, and a tablet, and a desktop computer and a supercomputer cluster.


And if we're at "I'd rather have other people choose for me" as a culture, then it's over. The big men in suits won.

They are Ubuntu, they are the ones making money out of pushing Linux. They wouldn't be doing it if there were no money in it.

Software is a tool, it's not a religion. I put companies that promote Linux alongside Television Evangelists.

I run android on my phone because it came with it. I chose the phone on other factors. The software was chosen for me.
I'm in a room with 5 things that are running Linux & none of them are easy to install something else on either, including newer distributions let alone another OS
We're already there as a culture & Linux is just as big a part of it as Microsoft or Apple.

[TheBilgeRat]

Originally Posted by psxphill

Unity is only the shell, it uses gnome underneath as the desktop environment. It's also the name of a Linux distribution that uses openbox to cause ultimate confusion.

No. Unity has nothing to do with Gnome or the Gnome project. It owes its existence because of Shuttleworth and Gnome being at odds. You could call it a "plugin" to Compiz, which would be technically accurate, but you are completely missing the point. Unity is a complete DE, not a window manager. In fact, the roadmap is to drop Unity 2D entirely (which is written in QT, not GTK) and optimize a low end hardware solution from unity 3d. Not only that, they are optimizing Unity to run on weyland. You can't just slap Unity on top of GTK (or QT) and X and run it.

You want to act like the desktop linux world is some wild west morass of window managers, X windowing systems, file managers etc that have no cohesiveness except what is brought by some bright linux hacker, which simply isn't true. Installing all of the mainstream distros is brainless at best, and they work 99% out of the box. The ONLY thing they struggle with are apps which are so completely sandboxed (DirectX, Silverlight, .Net...notice a pattern here?) that there is no real solution for. People don't use linux because of games or because some craptastic shovelware program doesn't run natively on it that they just CAN'T live without. And because most people can't follow simple instructions on web forums. For those people seriously TDO, there is always OSX and MS. That bar is getting way down there now.

Unity is also a 3d game engine, recently ported to OpenGL and linux. It really isn't causing any confusion.

Ubuntu has been touted as the next big thing for years, if steam goes well then it could become a viable desktop operating system that is free as in beer, if not free as in spirit. It will only succeed if people spend money on games though.

You are missing the issue here as well. Its not as much that Steam now runs on linux natively, its that Source runs on linux natively . Its that Unity runs on linux natively. Which means that these engines run on OpenGL. Which means they do not run on DirectX. Which means that MS is well and truly screwed in the game arena. EDIT: That's probably poetic license. What it really means is that games will be optimized for both, which is a very good thing. A boy can dream, right?

Go to the Humble Indie Bundle site and see how much money linux gamers spend on old has-been PC games. The market is there.

Ubuntu make their money by also providing Amazon search results when you're searching for local content. Amazon is very toxic in the UK, because like Starbucks they avoid paying any corporation tax at all. Not exactly the kind of company you really want to be involved with. http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-business...s-tax-payments

I think I'd rather use Microsoft products :-)

Nope: http://www.zdnet.com/canonical-perfo...10-7000004950/

Even if your argument made sense, there are hundreds of other distributions with equally well integrated DEs. Fedora, Debian, CentOS, Mandriva, Suse come to mind. I even left Mint off since its close to Ubuntu.

The instant I don't have to program in C# and .net or the day I can play Fallout 4 in my linux steam client at 80+fps at 1920x1080 is the day I never have another MS partition on my home computer. Its that simple.

Disclaimer: I do run Arch and I do like mucking about with all of those underpinings, but even with Arch it could be just a matter of installing Gnome, KDE, cinnamon, mate, following a couple of clearly defined instructions on the Arch wiki for those DEs and I would have a turnkey solution that would (after that) not need to go near a terminal for anything. And thats with a distro that eats noobs for breakfast (supposedly).

[runequester]

Originally Posted by psxphill

Software is a tool, it's not a religion. I put companies that promote Linux alongside Television Evangelists.

IBM and Google are television evangelists? I think we can end this conversation here. We don't have any frames of reference that are in the same realm of sanity.

[partycentralpartygirl]

Originally Posted by runequester

IBM and Google are television evangelists? I think we can end this conversation here. We don't have any frames of reference that are in the same realm of sanity.

I always think that Linux desktop domination is ALWAYS 10 years away. Though ChromeOS netbooks for $250 is pretty interesting. I wonder if you can take that horrid POS off and install some Linux Distro on it. If so it'd be useful.

[runequester]

Originally Posted by partycentralpartygirl

I always think that Linux desktop domination is ALWAYS 10 years away. Though ChromeOS netbooks for $250 is pretty interesting. I wonder if you can take that horrid POS off and install some Linux Distro on it. If so it'd be useful.

It's as far away as Mac domination, and always will be. But the desktop is only one part of computing nowadays.

[partycentralpartygirl]

Originally Posted by runequester

It's as far away as Mac domination, and always will be. But the desktop is only one part of computing nowadays.

Yes, Linux currently is winning the mobile race. But Android performance is horrid. Sad when Apple (IOS) AND MS (WinRT, WinPhone8) software is more efficient than the competition. I blame Java. There is a reason Android phones are all Quad Core and Apple and MS can get away with dual core, half the ram and have similar performance.

[psxphill]

Originally Posted by runequester

IBM and Google are television evangelists? I think we can end this conversation here. We don't have any frames of reference that are in the same realm of sanity.

You can't even read English, so we may as well end the conversation here.

I didn't say they were TV evangelists, I said that I put them alongside.

They are saying the things that you eat up, but they are just trying to find a way to screw money out of you. Google have nailed it.

[psxphill]

Originally Posted by TheBilgeRat

People don't use linux because of games or because some craptastic shovelware program doesn't run natively on it that they just CAN'T live without.

A lot of people don't use Linux because of the lack of hardware and software support. I've only used laptops for the last 12 years and Linux driver support has always been poor when I've tried it. I was surprised when a real hardcore Linux geek I know bought a sony vaio & he's now happily running Windows on it as it actually has drivers for all the built in hardware.

They don't want to learn anything new, if you can't get them to upgrade from XP to 7 because it's different, then switching to Linux is never going to happen.

You'll never be able to convince your broadband supplier that the reason the internet is not working right has nothing to do with you running Linux.

Commercial software that people rely on hasn't been ported.

Hardly anybody knows how to use it. Not helped by the differences between distros.

Steam are the first business to have any real faith that Linux on the desktop can succeed. Maybe it will pay off for you eventually, maybe it won't.

Just because there is software that nobody can be bothered to write for Linux, doesn't make it craptastic shovelware. Maybe they just want to reach the widest audience. Especially for commercial software, where you're trying to sell software making it not only not free as in beer, it's definitely not going to be free as in spirit.

[TheBilgeRat]

Originally Posted by psxphill

You can't even read English, so we may as well end the conversation here.

I didn't say they were TV evangelists, I said that I put them alongside.

They are saying the things that you eat up, but they are just trying to find a way to screw money out of you. Google have nailed it.

So, Google invented Linux and is the be all/end all? Runey called you on not making sense - this post does not help your case.