Why I like Linux but an not really satisfied

On Friday 21 October 2005 20:54, Mark Healey stood up and spoke the following words to the mbuttes incomp.os.linux.advocacy...:

For the record, running to GNU-Linux as the consequence of running away from Windows is the wrong kind of atbreastude. There are Free & Open Source Software initiatives to create a Windows-like operating system.

what it is, not as a replacement for Windows. This said, let's read on... ;-)

I'm afraid spyware and spam are just as much part of the overindustrialized business models as Microsoft itself is.

Allow me to disagree. I too have used OS-2 - for five years, even. So far, I think KDE is definitely one of the best GUI's I have ever seen. It's also highly tunable. You can download themes or even create themes yourself. Even the default KDE already has lots of options.

In other words, your judgment here is based upon personal favor, and as they used to say in Latin: "De coloribus et de gustibus non disputandum" - "one does not discuss colors and tastes (because there is no point in that)."

As for BeOS, I have seen it and even checked out BeOS 5.0 Personal Edition out of curiosity on an old Pentium MMX. I don't really like the GUI of BeOS much myself. It has small window breastlebars and uses old Mac OS-style buttons. The main menu is in the top right corner of the screen in a pull-down style.

Here's a screenshot I've found...:

Anyway, you can find screenshots through Google. There are even some FOSS and proprietary initiatives to resuscitate BeOS, albeit that they suffer from much of the same problems of the original BeOS: the lack of hardware support.

Environments like KDE can easily be made to resemble the OS-2 WorkPlace Shell. Perhaps not identically, but would that really be necessary? Besides, you're free to write up a desktop environment that looks like the OS-2 WPS. ;-)

I always set up my own custom keybindings. That way, it's consistent.

There are predefined keybindings in X.Org already - e.g. the *Ctrl+Alt*Backspace* combo that kills the X server - but considering that everyone is free to use the GUI of his choice, one cannot put a finer point on it at the X.Org level, and so most is left up to the window manager and applications.

Additionally, you may prefer the *Alt+F4* key combination to close a window - who doesn't, in these MS-indoctrinated days? :-- but I myself actually prefer to use *Alt+Escape* for that.

The more you predefine in this area, the less choices you leave to the user.

This is totally untrue. The plain text configuration files are human-readable, and there are often other means to configure your system.

webminis included with most distributions as a web-based interface to the system's configuration at...

https:--127.0.0.1:10000

CUPShas a web-based interface at...

Distributions like RedHat, SuSE and Mandriva offer wizards and graphical configuration utilities, and I'm sure (K)Ubuntu and the likes offers a similar approach to configuration.

Gentoo - which is not exactly the newbie-kind of distribution - actually has very good step-by-step and up-to-date instructions on their website, here...

Other distributions often lack this kind of approach, I agree, but a lot can already be found in the distribution-specific manuals. Enough to help you on your way, anyway.

And then there is always Google... ;-)

However, nothing is stopping you from writing aHowToor start a documentation project yourself. FOSS is a community, and those of use who can give something in return for what the community has given them are invited and encouraged to do so.

That sort of comes with the territory. GNU-Linux *is* a specialized kind of operating system and requires some skill and-or willingness to understand from the user.

You can't expect a driver's license to qualify you for the pilot's seat on the Space Shuttle. Power requires skill, and skill requires knowledge. And knowledge is there for everyone now, thanks to the Internet. ;-)

I also disagree with the too radical view that there isn't anything for "the man in the middle". The Linux Documentation Project has very useful resources at...

Also please bear in mind that I have managed to install GNU-Linux all by myself and without any configuration or hardware support problems now about six years ago, while I didn't even have an Internet connection at home yet.

There was no such thing as Usenet or the WWW for me, and yet I managed. And no, I do not have a Professor's degree in Computer Sciences hanging from my wall. All it took was an interest, a motivation and common sense... I simply started by reading the documentation, in the form of Edition box.

It is therefore a good recommendation to first-timers that they would buy a boxed distribution such as Mandriva, RedHat or SuSE, rather than to go for the el-cheapo "I can download it for free from the 'net anyway"-approach.

The only problem with programming is getting to know the language and the interfaces you wish to program for. Libraries are full of books on those subjects. GNU-Linux - and this goes for most other UNIX systems as well - provides you with all the tools you need.

Or you can simply opt to build your own computer - or have someone do that for you - with components of which you know that they work. This is what I have done, and this machine here is not even a typical PC - it's a deskside server-workstation, built upon server-grade hardware.

The biggest hardware support problem with GNU-Linux lies simply in the fact that most people purchase hardware for another platform, notably one from somewhere in Redmond, Washington.

It is true that said platform supplies most of the supported hardware, because the hardware vendors choose to support said platform by default - mainly because they know what Microsoft would do to their reseller agreements if they were focussing on GNU-Linux.

There is however a growing tendency with hardware vendors now to stand up to Microsoft and start supporting GNU-Linux more, especially since a few of the bigger names have sided up with the FOSS community, such as IBM, HP, SGI, Sun Microsystems, Novell, Adaptec, and even Intel and AMD as microchip producers.

Despite the claims from Microsoft and its advocates, there is no such thing as a standard operating system for the IA32-IA32-64-IA64 architectures.

Market share does not necessarily equal quality - which Microsoft is the clear evidence of - and Microsoft has always gone to great lengths to bend or pervert existing standards in such ways that they could push their own technology - which was often "borrowed" from other, existing technology - onto the public.

Microsoft's HTML and XML "standards" are only just small examples of that.

In fact, the interface is there. Filesystems such asreiser4fsandXFSsupport metadata. I'm not sure ofext3in that respect - perhaps others can shed a light on this.

It's just like you said: not too many developers are making use of it yet, but again this is not to be generalized either. The system supports it and to some extent it is already being used.

-- With kind regards,

*Aragorn* (Registered GNU-Linux user #223157)