Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Explanation for why Linux fails
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 05:42:19 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <vk303r$3a4kl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <xRZ8P.8819$vfee.124@fx45.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:42:20 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7a1de35a0347d18502ac70e1d25fc2f";
	logging-data="3478165"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qJ1mDFTddR6DPjOqQ5M7V"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:duuErdKZDKsPPOaUqlxEkQ0OiDQ=
Bytes: 5510

On 2024-12-19, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Credit to Newyana2 in the windows-11 newsgroup:
>
>      I tried Mint once. I didn't get past the kiddie folder icons.
> I actually like Suse. It's very polished compared to most versions.
> It also has a good software selection. Though the firewall I finally
> got working, opensnitch, was only available through less direct
> channels. The Suse packages are really just the basics.

I tried Suse a couple times. Even bought the retail box at one point. Always 
seemed something wasn't quite right in it.

>     I think the "distro" wars misses the point. There's no magical
> version that solves the Linux problem. They're all moving
> targets, under construction, not well designed for Desktop.
> People always say, "Oh, well, you must not have tried AceAndAcme
> Linux. It's the cat's pajamas." No. None of them are the cat's pajamas.

Linux Mint has worked great on the Desktop for me — for about 17 years.

>     In more recent times, the half-baked geek versions have been
> joined by solid versions "your gandmother could use". But that's
> also not a solution. It's just two extremes. It's based on the typical
> Linux devotee thinking that people are divided into hardcore geeks
> and grandmothers. (Possibly those are the only people that these
> geeks know.) The niche that Windows fills is the giant area in between --
> a system with tremendous software options, great backward
> compatibility, and supported levels of expertise, so that a non-geek
> office worker or a "power user" can both get Windows to do what
> they want. And what they want can be a great variety of things.

This guy makes a lot of idiot assumptions about why people use Linux. If you 
want to know why people use Linux... ask people who use Linux — not some 
Windows fanboi's with his half-baked and idiotic assumptions.

>    Linux lacks the software. It lacks the power user level or even
> the business level. It lacks
> backward compatibility. I'm still writing software in VB6, which
> came out 25 years ago, and my software runs on every Windows
> computer. Macs typically support 2 years back. Linux... forget it.
> It's far too complicated to even update a program except through
> a package manager. The old version needed abc.dll v. 1.5.6.3243.17
> and the new version refuses to run without v. 1.5.6.3243.18. Typically
> there are 20 cases like that. Zero backward compatibility. There's
> no need. Because no one is actually using this software for anything
> except to upgrade the last version. It's all just a geek conversation.

Linux does NOT lack the software (unless you're married to MicroCrap Office 
or like to play Windows' video games). Then, by all means, stick with the 
inferior OS from MicroCrap. (Check your privacy in at the door.)

>    Anyone actually using Linux, who's not a computer scientist, is
> probably just using Firefox and Libre Office. And Grandma doesn't
> even need Libre Office. The whole paradigm is a mess.

Like this moron has a clue. 

>    My favorite current example of this travesty is when I installed
> Xubuntu on my new computer, as part of a wide ranging experiment
> last winter. It set up OK, though it was barebones and ugly. But there
> was one detail: I couldn't set the clock and the displayed time was
> wrong. I looked all over. There were options for display style and
> such, but no option to just set the time. I searched online and finally
> found a discussion with the man who had written the clock code. He
> didn't include an option to set the time in the settings UI because he
> prefers command line! These people say these things proudly, with
> no awareness of how bratty and dysfunctional they sound. "You
> wanted a floor in your new addition? Personally I prefer unfinished
> plywood subfloor, so that's what I did. Just don't walk around barefoot.
> Splinters. Oh, and the subfloor on the east side of the room is not
> nailed down. That's handy to be able to reach the plumbing underneath
> since I didn't insulate and pipes could freeze. Enjoy. :)"

He might have tried the Date & Time application. That's how I set on my 
computer's clock (actually just set it to network time when I install it. 
But this guy is brain-dead Windows fanboi and fudster, so we've got to cut 
the idiot some slack for his stupidity.

And this guy impresses you?

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien