[lawyerfish]

OmarAbuzaid, on 12 April 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

How does linux not meet the average users needs? what software does mac or windows offer that linux cannot meet the standards?

Genuine MS Office is the big one, but there are plenty of others. As has been argued here ad-nauseum in the past, Linux word processors are still incapable of import certain documents, specifically legal pleadings, without breaking complex formatting.

I'm an amateur photographer, so I use Apple Aperture 3 for batch photo processing and workflow. I would be equally comfortable in Windows or OS X using Adobe Lightroom 4, but of course there is no Aperture or Lightroom for Linux. I use DxO Optics for RAW conversion and correction of lens distortion. DxO is only available for OS X and Windows, and fully integrates with Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop. No DxO for Linux, and even if there was, it does not integrate with any of the Linux photo editing programs. There are no professional level RAW converters with optical distortion correction for Linux.

Oh, and games. Mass Effect 3 for Linux? I don't think so.

[benny007er]

Is there an operating system that is foolproof against all virus and trojans and worms and zero day exploits? There is none in my opinion! Can Linux be worse than Mac OS X and Windows? In my opinion, it's not! How come? Latest Ubuntu is one example! It's beautiful to look at, easy to use without the need for command lines, flexible in regarding to how it's now able to recognize most drivers, and it's true that Linux is designed to be more secure than Windows for average users! How come? Windows doesn't insist and drive users to apply extensive permissions to every file and directory, but Linux users are too well verse in this idea. This is why even if there is any danger for Linux to be infected with exploits, there is less likely that Linux users will get infections easily -- they are security conscious people in the first place , get it? I'm using Mac more than Linux, but in reality the world uses Linux more than Mac! Just take a look at the website you are read an article on, it probably uses Linux to host the website! If not Linux, it might be Unix! Certain parts that form the core of Mac OS X are built on top of Unix (e.g., FreeBSD, NetBSD) and Unix is similar to Linux somewhat, therefore I don't think it's appropriate for people who use Mac to say Mac is superior than Unix or Linux. My point is that, each operating system has its own advantages and disadvantages. The only thing which makes me support Linux more than any other operating system is that it's FREE and secure enough and easy enough (it's true for now) and challenging enough (if one wants to use it for advance purpose) and it's flexible enough (big companies use Linux to host web services) and very stable (since Linux's file system requires no defrag for hard drives and relatively fast and has very little crash) -- you get the point! Basically, little men can use Linux to play with big boys! That's huge! Still, everyone should use all tools that are available, therefore all operating systems should be use for what each can do best! Don't shy or shame an operating system, because it's just a tool that build for its intended purpose. Lastly, good operating system or not, it's still the user who has what Einstein called human stupidity as infinite. (Einstein quote: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.) This means if a user isn't too keen on keeping a system secure, no matter if a system is secure or not a user can be social engineered to give up important credentials (i.e., account information or passwords).

[Kuiske]

benny007er, on 12 April 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Is there an operating system that is foolproof against all virus and trojans and worms and zero day exploits? There is none in my opinion! Can Linux be worse than Mac OS X and Windows? In my opinion, it's not! How come? Latest Ubuntu is one example! It's beautiful to look at, easy to use without the need for command lines, flexible in regarding to how it's now able to recognize most drivers, and it's true that Linux is designed to be more secure than Windows for average users! How come? Windows doesn't insist and drive users to apply extensive permissions to every file and directory, but Linux users are too well verse in this idea. This is why even if there is any danger for Linux to be infected with exploits, there is less likely that Linux users will get infections easily -- they are security conscious people in the first place , get it? I'm using Mac more than Linux, but in reality the world uses Linux more than Mac! Just take a look at the website you are read an article on, it probably uses Linux to host the website! If not Linux, it might be Unix! Certain parts that form the core of Mac OS X are built on top of Unix (e.g., FreeBSD, NetBSD) and Unix is similar to Linux somewhat, therefore I don't think it's appropriate for people who use Mac to say Mac is superior than Unix or Linux. My point is that, each operating system has its own advantages and disadvantages. The only thing which makes me support Linux more than any other operating system is that it's FREE and secure enough and easy enough (it's true for now) and challenging enough (if one wants to use it for advance purpose) and it's flexible enough (big companies use Linux to host web services) and very stable (since Linux's file system requires no defrag for hard drives and relatively fast and has very little crash) -- you get the point! Basically, little men can use Linux to play with big boys! That's huge! Still, everyone should use all tools that are available, therefore all operating systems should be use for what each can do best! Don't shy or shame an operating system, because it's just a tool that build for its intended purpose. Lastly, good operating system or not, it's still the user who has what Einstein called human stupidity as infinite. (Einstein quote: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.) This means if a user isn't too keen on keeping a system secure, no matter if a system is secure or not a user can be social engineered to give up important credentials (i.e., account information or passwords).

Again this fool notion that Linux is more secure than OS X or windows is ridiculous. The only thing that is really protecting Linux users from a flood gate of viruses and malware is its market share. Its just not sensible to attack a platform that has roughly only 1% market share, especially when there is a platform that has 90% of the market share. I guarantee you that if Linux possessed a market share higher than 5% we would see it face the same problems that OS X faces now. If Linux users want to stay virus free they better hope that people don't switch to Linux, otherwise the platform will be just as bug ridden as windows is now.

[linuxrants7xpg]

lawyerfish, on 12 April 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

OmarAbuzaid, on 12 April 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

How does linux not meet the average users needs? what software does mac or windows offer that linux cannot meet the standards?

Genuine MS Office is the big one, but there are plenty of others. As has been argued here ad-nauseum in the past, Linux word processors are still incapable of import certain documents, specifically legal pleadings, without breaking complex formatting.

I'm an amateur photographer, so I use Apple Aperture 3 for batch photo processing and workflow. I would be equally comfortable in Windows or OS X using Adobe Lightroom 4, but of course there is no Aperture or Lightroom for Linux. I use DxO Optics for RAW conversion and correction of lens distortion. DxO is only available for OS X and Windows, and fully integrates with Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop. No DxO for Linux, and even if there was, it does not integrate with any of the Linux photo editing programs. There are no professional level RAW converters with optical distortion correction for Linux.

Oh, and games. Mass Effect 3 for Linux? I don't think so.

Yea, it's a rough world to live in....

http://linuxrants.co...0x900_scrot.png

[linuxrants7xpg]

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Again this fool notion that Linux is more secure than OS X or windows is ridiculous. The only thing that is really protecting Linux users from a flood gate of viruses and malware is its market share.

Fortunately, that's not true. There are quite a lot of security precautions in place as the Linux OS is extremely prevalent in virtually every other market other than the desktop. One such precaution is the simple fact that it's impossible to download an executable file. Whether a file is executable is decided by the user. It's an impossibility to download a file and have it execute without the end users knowledge. Just can't happen.

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Its just not sensible to attack a platform that has roughly only 1% market share, especially when there is a platform that has 90% of the market share. I guarantee you that if Linux possessed a market share higher than 5% we would see it face the same problems that OS X faces now.

You guarantee it? Sounds like an easy statement to make when there's no way to back up your claims.

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

If Linux users want to stay virus free they better hope that people don't switch to Linux, otherwise the platform will be just as bug ridden as windows is now.

The number of users a platform has in no way impacts the number of bugs in that system.

[JohnShepherd]

nonseq, on 12 April 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Ridiculous. Give up a cohesive unified system with powerful and secure applications for the hodgepodge of distros and not quite ready for prime time programs?

Linux is great in the back office and on servers. One the desktop it's fragmented and hobbyist friendly without meeting average users needs.

Let the condescension and flaming begin!

You do understand you've haven't presented any testable evidence in this post, just unsupported assertions, right? Calling things "not quite ready for prime time" and claiming it isn't "meeting average users' needs" (without even defining average user or what those needs are) gives this post a signal to noise ratio of zero.

[JohnShepherd]

melgross, on 12 April 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Excuse me, but Linux has has plenty of its own problems over the years. And having to give up almost everything that Windows or Mac users have, isn't worth it.

As I sadly already had to state, making an unjustified assertion isn't the same as a fact. Could you please elaborate what this "almost everything" is that users would need to give up - and also state your experience with Linux, please, so that this notion can be discussed properly?

[artzy65]

linuxrants7xpg, on 12 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Wow, that really brought the trolls screaming out from under the bridge. Linux is a great solution for a desktop user that just wants to get work done. Those that think that's not the case probably haven't used Linux, and probably wouldn't even if it came with a free wad of $100 bills. Trolls will troll, and life goes on.

Let's see you run QuarkXPress, Photoshop, etc on Linux hahaha

[linuxrants7xpg]

artzy65, on 12 April 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 12 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Wow, that really brought the trolls screaming out from under the bridge. Linux is a great solution for a desktop user that just wants to get work done. Those that think that's not the case probably haven't used Linux, and probably wouldn't even if it came with a free wad of $100 bills. Trolls will troll, and life goes on.

Let's see you run QuarkXPress, Photoshop, etc on Linux hahaha

Why would I want to run any of that?

[nonseq]

JohnShepherd, on 12 April 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

nonseq, on 12 April 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Ridiculous. Give up a cohesive unified system with powerful and secure applications for the hodgepodge of distros and not quite ready for prime time programs?

Linux is great in the back office and on servers. One the desktop it's fragmented and hobbyist friendly without meeting average users needs.

Let the condescension and flaming begin!

You do understand you've haven't presented any testable evidence in this post, just unsupported assertions, right? Calling things "not quite ready for prime time" and claiming it isn't "meeting average users' needs" (without even defining average user or what those needs are) gives this post a signal to noise ratio of zero.

Good grief. I offered an opinion supported by personal experience and countless articles. I did not submit for peer review and do not stipulate that your version of rhetoric or logic is correct. I have disclaimed frequently and my opinion and experience as the assertions offered by the pro Linux factions- which from my observation of the anecdotal evidence and opinion offered here.

I'm not trying to change the minds of the Linux faithful I am however noting that, in my opinion, Ms Noyes has failed to make a solid argument for her ridiculous premise and that in my opinion Linux on the desktop is not ready for prime time and that the programs are not, again in my opinion, adequate equivalents to those offered on Windows and OSX.

You are welcome to your opinion, as is each and every forum member. We are not bound, however, by your notion of how debate should be limited. Thanks for your input.

[Evildave]

Patched away. (Yawn.)
http://securitywatch...al-tool-at-last

[linuxrants7xpg]

Evildave, on 12 April 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Patched away. (Yawn.)
http://securitywatch...al-tool-at-last

Gratz! And it only took Apple how many months? Do you think the public ridicule influenced their timeline?

[nonseq]

linuxrants7xpg, on 12 April 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

artzy65, on 12 April 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 12 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Wow, that really brought the trolls screaming out from under the bridge. Linux is a great solution for a desktop user that just wants to get work done. Those that think that's not the case probably haven't used Linux, and probably wouldn't even if it came with a free wad of $100 bills. Trolls will troll, and life goes on.

Let's see you run QuarkXPress, Photoshop, etc on Linux hahaha

Why would I want to run any of that?

Because you have limited need for professional and creative programs you probably won't You are, in my opinion, atypical and not representative of average non-technical users.

To each his/her own.

[Kuiske]

linuxrants7xpg, on 12 April 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Again this fool notion that Linux is more secure than OS X or windows is ridiculous. The only thing that is really protecting Linux users from a flood gate of viruses and malware is its market share.

Fortunately, that's not true. There are quite a lot of security precautions in place as the Linux OS is extremely prevalent in virtually every other market other than the desktop. One such precaution is the simple fact that it's impossible to download an executable file. Whether a file is executable is decided by the user. It's an impossibility to download a file and have it execute without the end users knowledge. Just can't happen.

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Its just not sensible to attack a platform that has roughly only 1% market share, especially when there is a platform that has 90% of the market share. I guarantee you that if Linux possessed a market share higher than 5% we would see it face the same problems that OS X faces now.

You guarantee it? Sounds like an easy statement to make when there's no way to back up your claims.

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

If Linux users want to stay virus free they better hope that people don't switch to Linux, otherwise the platform will be just as bug ridden as windows is now.

The number of users a platform has in no way impacts the number of bugs in that system.

While Linux does implement some nice security features, like the one you mentioned, so does windows. Like user account control, which warns the user when a program tries to make changes to the computer. So its not like all the other OSes is lacking in the security department either. Not to mention that if the Linux market share grew to a point where there are a significant amount more users than there would be an insensitive for hackers to attack that platform. As of right now there simply isn't enough of a user base for most of them to even bother considering it. But when it happens (if it happens) it will be an exact repeat of what happening now with OSX (and despite all the fancy security feature hackers will find an exploit its just a matter of when). As for my "bug" comment I was using a play on words. Most medical viruses are refereed to as bugs, so I figured I call computer viruses bugs. Seeing as how you didn't catch on thats my bad. Apparently it was a poor joke. My over all point though is that Linux is just as vulnerable as windows, OSX, or any other OS. To say otherwise is just stupid.

[linuxrants7xpg]

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

While Linux does implement some nice security features, like the one you mentioned, so does windows. Like user account control, which warns the user when a program tries to make changes to the computer.

A nice feature to be sure. Linux has it too.

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Not to mention that if the Linux market share grew to a point where there are a significant amount more users than there would be an insensitive for hackers to attack that platform. As of right now there simply isn't enough of a user base for most of them to even bother considering it. But when it happens (if it happens) it will be an exact repeat of what happening now with OSX (and despite all the fancy security feature hackers will find an exploit its just a matter of when).

Yes, I've heard that argument before, and it really doesn't play out very well. While an increase in userbase for OSX exposed it to greater exposure, the same isn't the case for Linux. If Linux were to reach wide adoption on the desktop, it would just be one more market that they would be prevalent in. They're already well represented in virtually every other market they are a member of, such as the server market and the mobile market. Both of which there is incentive for hackers to attack. Despite that, Linux is still virtually untouched.

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

As for my "bug" comment I was using a play on words. Most medical viruses are refereed to as bugs, so I figured I call computer viruses bugs. Seeing as how you didn't catch on thats my bad. Apparently it was a poor joke.

I apologize for missing the joke. My wife is a doctor, and they don't call viruses "bugs" either.

Kuiske, on 12 April 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

My over all point though is that Linux is just as vulnerable as windows, OSX, or any other OS. To say otherwise is just stupid.

Fortunately that's not true. I won't claim that Linux is invulnerable, but it is not as vulnerable. There's just no factual basis for that claim.

[cm0n3y34]

nonseq, on 12 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

RickDobbelmannqbtt, on 12 April 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

nonseq, on 12 April 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Ridiculous. Give up a cohesive unified system with powerful and secure applications for the hodgepodge of distros and not quite ready for prime time programs?

Linux is great in the back office and on servers. One the desktop it's fragmented and hobbyist friendly without meeting average users needs.

Let the condescension and flaming begin!

Wow You continue to amaze me with your stupidness.

Your beloved MAC OSX is just a simple closed source GUI and a set of apps stacked on top of a 100% free GNU/BSD/*nix operating system called Darwin.

Your beloved closed source security through obscurity is the only reason OSX was infected.

Hmm. Thanks for your ever so persuasive personal attack. Yep you've changed my mind by your eloquence. But wait, you really have no real understanding of the antecedents of OSX. But thanks for the ad hominem.

Thanks also for your negative ratings. What a peach

Wow, someone's been using his dictionary. Haha no one is impressed by your knowledge of the English language (or knowledge of synonym.com). Its worth noting most if not all the arguments I have read of yours are worthless and outdated. Assuming you are using a computer built within the last 3 years that's NOT a crapple, you can run just about any game wither through Wine/Play on Linux, or natively, as some indie developers have been releasing Linux sources and binaries.

I have used windows, multiple flavors of Linux, and Mac osX. And by far, Mac is the most useless. It doesn't work with a lot of common file formats natively (Linux and to a lesser extent Windows does however, and certain flavors of Linux also recommend installing a certain package to open file types it cant open yet, then offers to install it now for you) Mac seems to go out of its way to be different in stupid little ways, that make it hard for people who are either new or have to switch between operating systems (lets face it, there are a lot of things that only Windows and/or Linux can handle) Games is not an argument you want to use either, as Linux has been able to run games at full speed using Wine for years, wasn't it only a couple years ago Steam was available on Mac? Linux could run those years before they were available on Mac.

And Mac is not very customizable, and does nothing for the person who likes their computer to work for them, and not the other way around. Hell, iOS (which is built on the same kernel as osX, and is the inspiration for the next "update"'s changes to its already inconsistent UI) didn't support wallpapers until a couple years ago (unless you jailbroke, but that's another discussion entirely)

As for the whole "normal people" argument, my parents and siblings use my old laptop, with Ubuntu (Linux) installed on it. It has wine on it and set up, so almost all their windows-only programs work on it, though they don't need most of them, with Linux versions a click away from being installed for free. Sharing between computers and streaming media worked out of the box as well, and my family (once they got used to the Unity UI) liked using it more than the more powerful (hardware wise) windows computer. Ad they don't like the Mac's UI at all, finding it more difficult, with unnecessary extra steps to do anything. Oh, and they REALLY don't like how if it breaks, your SOL unless you have a warantee or $$$$$$ for new parts.

Aside from the software side of things, Apple overcharges (sometimes by as much as 1000%) for parts that you can buy on Newegg WITHOUT the apple logo etched on them and are functionally identical. And on top of that, all the cases look the same as each other. White and brushed metal. Very plain, boring look.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, security, the closed source nature of osX, along with apple's slow response time, makes it the LEAST secure operating system. Windows is closed source, but if something is found, there is usually a patch pushed to windows machines BEFORE malware can take advantage of it. And on Linux, the damage is usually limited (unless you go out of your way to run a virus as Root or something), and most of the time, the vulnerability is patched by the community and an update available inside 48 hours.

That should cover any fanboyesque retorts you can come up with (though it weakens your argument when you obviously went out of your way to add "long words" to make your post a bit longer, since you had nothing to back any of your pro-apple crap up. Really, "eloquence", "antecedents", "ad hominem", grasping at straws are we, I don't think Ive heard ANYONE use words like that outside of an English classroom XD. Also, you may have misused "antecedents"...)

At any rate, I will never purchase another Apple product as long as I live, Windows and Linux are all I need for anything.

[artzy65]

linuxrants7xpg, on 12 April 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

artzy65, on 12 April 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 12 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Wow, that really brought the trolls screaming out from under the bridge. Linux is a great solution for a desktop user that just wants to get work done. Those that think that's not the case probably haven't used Linux, and probably wouldn't even if it came with a free wad of $100 bills. Trolls will troll, and life goes on.

Let's see you run QuarkXPress, Photoshop, etc on Linux hahaha

Why would I want to run any of that?

You've missed my point: You earlier said that Linux is a great solution for a desktop user that 'just wants to get work done'.

Well, I'm a long-time graphic artist and I just want to get work done.

This post has been edited by artzy65: 12 April 2012 - 04:07 PM

[BrianKantowpwl]

[/quote]

Because you have limited need for professional and creative programs you probably won't You are, in my opinion, atypical and not representative of average non-technical users.

To each his/her own.
[/quote]

to nonseq
I have to say, that what many here are calling the typical user is far off base. Most typical users, live in their browser. That is the way of the future as well. I am the default tech guy for family and friends, be it windows or Linux. Most surf the internet, shop and pay their bills. They also view photos ( which runs well on both windows and Linux). So, I have no idea where nonseq is coming from!! For them Linux is a win win. Show them how to open a browser, (not IE of coarse) and I am not back to get rid of a virus. So nonseq, the average user is not using professional or creative programs ( which almost makes sense--see "professional" in the dictionary). There are things I go into Windows to do, because it does them well or has the better software. That is slowly decreasing with time. Do I care if anyone switches, not at all!! Will I help someone switch sure, but only if they want to.

This post has been edited by BrianKantowpwl: 12 April 2012 - 04:08 PM

[linuxrants7xpg]

artzy65, on 12 April 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 12 April 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

artzy65, on 12 April 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 12 April 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Wow, that really brought the trolls screaming out from under the bridge. Linux is a great solution for a desktop user that just wants to get work done. Those that think that's not the case probably haven't used Linux, and probably wouldn't even if it came with a free wad of $100 bills. Trolls will troll, and life goes on.

Let's see you run QuarkXPress, Photoshop, etc on Linux hahaha

Why would I want to run any of that?

You've missed my point: You earlier said that Linux is a great solution for a desktop user that 'just wants to get work done'.

Well, I'm a long-time graphic artist and I just want to get work done.

No, you missed mine. You said, "Let's see you run QuarkXPress, Photoshop, etc on Linux". All of that may very well be possible, but I have no desire to do any of that. Why is it my responsibility to go research to find out if what you want to run works? Stick with what you have if you'd like. It doesn't change the truth of my statement.

[BrianKantowpwl]

[/quote]

"Because you have limited need for professional and creative programs you probably won't You are, in my opinion, atypical and not representative of average non-technical users.

To each his/her own."" nonseq
[/quote]


I have to say that what many here are calling the typical user is far off base. Most typical users live in their browser. That is the way of the future as well. I am the default tech guy for family and friends, be it windows or Linux. Most surf the internet, shop and pay their bills. They also view photos ( which runs well on both windows and Linux). So, I have no idea where nonseq is coming from!! For them Linux is a win win. Show them how to open a browser, (not IE of coarse) and I am not back to get rid of a virus. So nonseq, the average user is not using professional or creative programs ( which almost makes sense--see "professional" in the dictionary). There are things I go into Windows to do, because it does them well or has the better software. That is slowly decreasing with time. Do I care if anyone switches, not at all!! Will I help someone switch sure, but only if they want to.