[
f0dder]:
Linux is not great code. Kernel and other parts might be OK, but when you start digging into the other components that make up a distribution....
Ah, but there's the rub. You're confusing Linux per se with any
distribution. Two very different animals.
I don't want to go through a zillion hoops just to do simple things.... there's always been too much bloody work involved.
I don't doubt you had problems. I haven't had very many at all, and the ones I have had, I've been able to easily google my way out of in minutes.
No filesystem hierarchy standard that everybody agrees on. And even when there's a somewhat similar layout, subtle (or not so subtle!) things are handled differently. A zillion different package managers, not to mention that Perl, Python and Ruby have their own systems.
This confuses me. By "filesystem hierarchy standard" do you mean a particular one, such as Ext3, RFS, ZFS, Ext4? FAT, NTFS, or the traditional filesystem structure:
- /usr
- /etc
- /var
- /bin
- /proc
- /boot
- /home
- /root
- /sbin
- /dev
- /lib
- /tmp
The mere choice of file system is great to me, and for my old data. Microsoft never got around to implementing a new FS for Vista, if you recall. Linux lets you spread the file system over as many different hard drives and partitions as you want but still appear like a seamless whole. The
/home directory is always
/home no matter if it is moved to a separate disk. I've only come across two package managers, rpm and deb, and LSB4 has conflated their SDKs as we speak. I don't know enough to ask about perl,python,ruby having their own.
But for desktops? Too much bloody work, I'd have to spend time hunting for replacement software (some of it beta and/or pretty inferior to what I have - show me a competitor to Visual Studio that isn't half-baked), and to what benefit? Sure, "freedom" - whatever that means.
Which software are you trying to replace? Isn't Visual Studio a Microsoft coding product for its OSes only? If it does C, then it should work, right? (I really don't know; I'm dropdead ignorant about programming.) For myself, freedom works in my favor:
- No DRM or interference with fair use content on your own system;
- no proprietary formats if I choose; open standards guarantee data portability;
- no licensing costs, i.e., no more paying for my OS. When you subsist in the lower middle class, this helps.
- freedom
from Microsoft or Apple and its EULAs have been nice;
- free to read bug reports and their fixes;
- no data/email lock-in;
- freedom to choose which distro suits my needs (Windows/Mac give you one choice, theirs);
- freedom
from blue screens, most all viruses, and best of all, from Microsoft's latest fiat;
- freedom
from having to purchase new hardware to run every successive release;
- freedom
from activation; product keys; validation; pay-per-incident support, and even a registry;
- freedom to install Linux on as many computers as I want, and have as many users on any one system, each with their own unique access, desktop setups, internet privileges (for the littlest ones) and software.
Sorry for the rant, but I get frustrated when I see people claiming it's easy and full of joy to 'switch over'. Sure, it can work for some people.... But for me it's just too much frustration to be worth it.
I can understand that. At least you're honest with yourself. As for me, it's not nearly as difficult as I was told and frankly, I haven't had this much fun on a computer since the early 90s. Use what you love; love what you use. Either way, as long as
you're happy.
Recent Posts
(It'd be worth the wait.)