Friends I was reading an Italian website...I really liked this article so I'm posting it here.It's long but worth reading!
Sentence starts with Italian and English translation is next to it...Removed the Italian part manually...
It's long...very long, If you are in middle of something don't read it now. Take your own time. Just like Linux users you got to have patience, you got to have the zeal to read and learn...If you reach till the end of the topic I'm sure you are not a windows user at first, even If you are you are the right candidate to migrate!!!
I hope you guys gonna like this
(Linux is not Windows)
If, as I do, you dedicate time to a few forums on Linux, finirete inevitably to mount on all furie, as has happened to me, because of the amount of messages with this tone:
"Hello! I've been using Linux for some days, and is most exciting. However, it is a pity that (this or that) does not work the way Windows. Why do not the developers to completely rewrite it as a result Windows? Are so sure that Linux would achieve many more people! "
You may even be efforts to respond to these demands, only to be harshly counter from a Linux newbie who assumes that his idea, based on years of experience with a different operating system over a few hours on Linux, is brilliant revolutionary, and you do not like because you are a Linux user of the old school "that considers the visual work of Beelzebub and that all would be forced to nail the command line.
This article aims to explain those Novellini precisely because their ideas tend to be rather that flamme accepted.
First of all, the most popular topic: "If Linux did, many more people will convert from the Windows!"
So, let me explain something that is essential to understand Linux: The Linux community is not trying to provide you with an average Windows operating system replacement.
The purpose of Linux is not "Linux on every desktop."
Really.
Honestly, it is not. Of course, they are both operating systems.
Sure, they can be used both for the same things.
But that makes Linux an 'alternative, not a replacement. It may seem a trivial distinction, but in fact is of vital importance.
Linux <=> Windows is like Motorcycle <=> Auto: both are vehicles that take you from A to B through the streets.
But have different shapes, different sizes, different controls and work in fundamentally different ways. They are not freely interchangeable.
They have different uses and different strengths & weakness, and you should choose the most appropriate, choose one and not expect everything to do what the other.
A motorist could happen to be bottled in traffic and see a motorcycle parade alongside undisturbed.
He might envy the ability of the motorcyclist to ignore what easily for a car is a boring issue.
If quell'automobilista buy a motorcycle and then discovered that the accelerator is a knob instead of a pedal, you may complain that the motion should be equipped with a gas pedal to give.
If quell'automobilista had a wife and two children, could be considered a flaw the ability of motion to host a single passenger.
Egli potrebbe suggerire che le moto siano riprogettate per trasportare quattro persone, in doppia fila.
He could suggest that the motion be redesigned to carry four people, in double row.
If quell'automobilista try to leave, then notice to be dropped because it is not accustomed to remain in balance, it might suggest that the motion should be redesigned to four wheels.
If you notice that the motorist fold in turn, could suggest that the motion should be equipped with stabilizers to keep straight face when curves.
If the motorist wanted to avoid them being stolen motorcycle, could complain that there are no doors to keep out potential thieves, making his motion more at risk of theft than a car.
If the motorist found that the helmet to the ground, might suggest that you should put an airbag in the handlebars of bikes as an alternative to annoying helmet.
And in any case, he wrong. Why think that a motorcycle replacing a car that can and must do everything that a car can do. It can work like a car, and that the "missing" of a car can be directly above stick.
Likewise, the Linux Novice solerti suggest that Linux should resemble more a result of which they are accustomed. It hangs, for the same reasons. Linux and Windows could be used for the same purpose, neither more nor less than a car and a motorcycle. That does not mean that we can pass directly from one to another, nor the characteristics that can or should share directly from one to another.
Too many people think that migrate from Windows to Linux is like jumping from a BMW to a Mercedes [would be more appropriate vice versa, languages ;-)].
They think that controls should be the same, their experience should move free, and all differences should be largely cosmetic.
They think that "I need a car to use the road, I need an operating system to use the computer. Cars all work the same way, so the operating system should work all the same." But this is incorrect. "Mi need a vehicle to use the road, I need an operating system to use the computer. I know how to drive the car, but they are ignorant of motion. I know how to use Windows, but they are ignorant of Linux. "- this is correct.
A Windows user has to understand that he is only an advanced user of Windows, not an advanced user of computers, just as a motorist is only a driver's car, not a driver of multipurpose vehicles.
A Windows user to Linux has to understand is that just returned to novice, just as a motorist on a motorcycle. A Windows user has to accept that there are different ways to achieve the same result as a motorist must get used to the handlebars instead of steering wheel and the needs of the helmet that had never before. It must be prepared to accept that "different" does not mean "bottom".
Linux come with a consolidated many behaviors and attitudes of 'I know exactly how to use a computer, thanks a lot. "The problem is that ...
do not know! They know only how to use Windows.
When captain on a different operating system, these "power users" [users sophisticated languages] are those with the worst problems: they have much more to unlearn.
Where a Novellino said "I do not know 'and starts to explore or ask on the forums, the Windows User Power says" I know how you do, do so, so, what, and then ... did not work! Stupid operating system! " And then "If I have experienced that fails to do this walk, a Novellino is hopeless! Linux is not in any way ready for desktop use." Aware that not all their knowledge against the rows, causing more problems that a less experienced users.
They made the mistake of thinking that Linux is a different software that does the same for Windows, but is actually different software that makes things different.
Is not doing a bad job on the same operations, is doing a good job on alternative operations.
Linux is an alternative to Windows, but not a replacement.
It will never be a replacement, because it has incompatible goals.
The goal of Microsoft is to place its software on PCs as possible, given that its priority is profits.
Linux does not have this, because Linux is free [the English word "free" equivocal happily with the meaning of "free" languages].
It has a different priority.
Understanding this is to understand the FOSS [ "a source free software / open" languages]. E 'perfectly understandable that Novellini Linux does not yet understand - are new to the concept. They are used to thinking in terms of proprietary software.
So let me explain:
The typical FOSS software is created by someone who looks around, does not find any pre-existing software like that, and so it writes its own. Then, because he is such a good boy, discloses the source code and tells the world "and now you". He can do because it cost nothing to duplicate software, and it does not cost more to give to the world rather than keep. Do not sell it to suffer.
However, the important thing to remember is: he does not draw benefit from even sell its software. That is used by a person, or a billion, it makes no difference to the developer.
Oh, sure, take the satisfaction of knowing that a product was popular: the number of people using it can be a useful spur individual; a way, if you want to keep the score. But he is not a Baiocco is FOSS.
If the software is successful, other people will be interested, and will help to improve it.
This is the main advantage of FOSS: Each user has a potential developer.
Everyone can enter and do its part to make the software better, with more features and less defective.
E 'wonderful when a piece attracts a software developer community.
But it is wonderful for the software.
Makes the software better. It does not make the developer richer. The only takes most of his time.
The FOSS is the exact opposite of proprietary software to Windows: the goal in FOSS is software, not the number of end users. The software that works well but has only a handful of users is considered a failure according to standard commercial software, but a success under the standard FOSS.
FOSS means to make good quality software, software that knows how to do things. If you want to use, is expected to invest time to learn how to use it. It 'been created and provided to you free of charge, from people who have invested a lot of their time on it without personal gain. The least you can do to repay their contribution is to invest some 'of your time before you complain that it does not work the way the equivalent Windows software.
"Aha, now you frieze," says the pleased Novellino. "There are Linux projects that aim to replace Windows, not just be an alternative."
It 'easy to see where this is. KDE and Gnome, for example, provide a desktop environment that is much like a typical Windows managers windows and Linux command line.
Linspire is a distribution based almost entirely on the idea of making Linux like Windows.
However, paradoxically, these prove my assertion better than the Novellino.
Why? Why these projects are normal FOSS projects, gravitanti entirely around the principle of improving the software. The only difference is that one of the definitions of quality in these projects is "How easily can use a Windows user?"
Not only internalize, you can not help but agree that these projects are typically 100% Linux, with the sole purpose of improving the software.
These projects are made by Linux developers even more altruistic than usual: Do not make software for their own use, because they know Linux very well.
Instead, make software entirely for the benefit of others: software that makes the transition from Windows to Linux easier.
These developers, aware that there are Windows users wishing to migrate to Linux, have put a lot of effort to create a Linux environment that Windows users can find comfortably familiar. But have not done this for groped to replace Windows, although the final result might give this impression. It 'the ultimate objective to make a difference: the goal is not to make a replacement for Windows, the objective is to facilitate the transition to a Windows user to Linux.
It is not unusual to observe hostility toward these projects.
Sometimes, for reasons rational, understandable ( "KDE is an avid resources, use Fluxbox"), sometimes for irrational attitudes, hostile ( "software like Windows is bad").
This is not, actually, an anti-Microsoft or anti-Windows.
Instead, it is much easier to dislike what they do not understand.
The "typical" user is a Linux enthusiast: use computers because computers are fun, programming is fun, sfrucugliare / hacking / gun is fun. And Linux is an operating system much better for the enthusiast Hacker can unmount until more fundamental level, and re-think exactly how.
However, the current flow of new Linux users is largely made up of non-lovers non-Hacker. They want only that the computer functions, a computer that works like Windows. I do not mind having to spend time setting Linux to run as it pleases them, they want it now functions well, bell'e ready.
And it is perfectly right, but from the perspective of a typical Linux user, this is like the claim of those who want a car Lego already pre-pasted and all so that they can not break.E 'alien to their understanding. The only way you can react with a bewildered "Why should anyone want that?" E 'disconcerting. If you would like un'automodello ready, buy a car toy. If you want a car that you can build and decompose, buy Lego. Why someone wants a car to use it as a Lego toy car? The fundamental point of Lego fun is that you assemble yourself!
Here's how a typical Linux user reacts to the brigade of "Why not just run?": "If you want only that works, use Windows. If you want to hacking, use Linux. Why do you want to switch to Linux if you do not have any interest in taking advantage by its nature open source [ "Open Source", languages]? "
The answer, usually, is that they will not actually switch to Linux.
They want only to escape from Windows viruses are fleeing, are putting rescued from malware, trying to get rid of restrictions on the use of their software fee, are trying to Shell from the clutches dell'EULA [ "license agreement end user" , Languages].
They are not trying to get into Linux, are trying to quit Windows.
Linux is simply the best known alternative.
Something more soon ...
You may think 'OK, this explains why developers do not make a deliberate effort to run their software like Windows. But certainly the Linux software could provide a graphical [ "Graphical User Interface (GUI), languages] that is friendly Windows such as this without interfering with the principles FOSS? "
There are several reasons why this is not the case.
First: Think about that really creates a piece software to give a deliberately 'user interface miserable?
When someone gives a large portion of their time to create a piece of software, he will make the user interface [ "User Interface (UI) languages] best possible.
The UI is very important part of the software is useless if you do not have features can be accessed through the UI.
You may not know what, but there is always a reason why the UI works the way it works.
Why? Why is the best UI that the author could create.
Before you insist that a standard Windows UI would make the software better, keep in mind this fact: The author of this software, an encoder that, by definition, knows much more than you this piece software, does not agree with you. Maybe that is wrong, but it is often the opposite.
Secondly, are already available and nice graphical interfaces like Windows.
I can not remember a function that can not be checked through a GUI, no matter how high level.
You can compile your kernel (make xconfig), set your firewall (fwbuilder), partition your hard drive (QtParted) ... it's all there, beautiful, interactive, intuitive and friendly.
But the "release cycle" of Linux is not Windows.
There issuing a finished, lucidissimo GUI package dagl'inizi sin.
The GUI functionality without adding complexity to the software.
One developer does not sit to design a beautiful GUI that makes nothing, he sits down and creates a piece software that does what they need.
The first thing that a piece software does is to be usable from the command line [ "Command Line Interface (CLI), languages].
Will probably have all sorts of options for prayer, and perhaps a lengthy configuration files.
This is like starting, because the functionality is what is required.
Everything else comes later.
And even when the software has a nice GUI, it is important to remember that usually it can still be controlled completely by CLI and configuration files.
This is because the CLI has many advantages: the CLI is universal. Each system has a Linux CLI.
Each executable can be launched from CLI.
It 'easy to control the software remotely through the CLI.
None of this is true for the GUI: Some Linux machines do not have the system installed X11 windows, some software has not GUI, some software is not available from the menu GUI often is not easy or convenient to use a GUI tool remotely
Finally, there may be multiple GUI to perform the same task, and no one can predict what is installed.
So remember, if you ask "How can I ...?", there will probably be told how to do it through CLI.
This does not mean that can only be done by CLI.
Just reflects the relative importance that the GUI has compared the CLI in the development of a software project.
Windows is totally focused on the GUI. It 'an operating system-based GUI with a miserable (but in the course of improvement) CLI. There is virtually no Windows GUI software.
This tends to make people believe that the GUI is vital and integral part of the software.
But in Linux, the software is released when it is functional.
Only after it became stable, reasonably clean up the bug, and rich in features, it becomes convenient add a GUI.
Try to think of the software without a useful GUI as a 'stealth preview "rather than a finished product.
The FOSS is very rarely "finished", is in continuous improvement.
When the time comes, will be amicable.
But first, it is more important to make it work better than to get it to look better. Be happy that you have had the very first feature of all Windows applications that need a good GUI, instead of asking the software today for tomorrow.
Il FOSS è più un viaggio che una destinazione.
The FOSS is a journey that a destination.
The last thing you need to set them in the head: the GUI for the software will often be a separate piece software.
It may well be that has been developed in a way completely independent of the original software, from completely different developers. If you want a GUI, it is unlikely that this is a separate, rather than one piece.
This undoubtedly means a step further to get that elusive GUI behavior, "the Windows", but the fact remains that so you can do just what you want through a nice GUI, "just like Windows."
You have only to remember: a GUI is usually the last step, not the first.
Linux does not privilege the form to the substance.
Thirdly, Linux is deliberately designed for the user informed and aware, rather than the beginner ignorant. For two reasons:
Ignorance is also blessed, but is short. Knowledge is eternal. It may require days, weeks or months to bring your level of knowledge from "Novellino Linux" to "average user of Linux, but once there, have been used for years Linux in front of you.
Put code in quantities to make the software easier for newcomers would be like placing a permanent wheel balancing on all bicycles.
Could make it easier to start, but then ...?
There compreresti a bicycle with the wheel now, I am sure.
And not because you are the freakettoni against all'amichevolezza.
No, because I would be useless to you and useless to anyone other than beginners, and all that it would pack.
Does not matter how good the software itself, it is good as its user. The door safest in the world is not an obstacle to thieves if you leave the window wide open, the door is not closed, or the keys in the patch.
The petrol engine more efficient in the world should not be very far if the riempiste diesel instead of gasoline.
Linux has delivered all the power in the hands of the user.
This includes the power to break.
The only way to maintain well-functioning Linux is that so much to learn enough to know that what you're doing. Facilitate to the paciugamento of features you do not understand will only make him more likely to break something by accident.
Fourth: Where, as before, you scorto a way that actually benefit the FOSS dall'attrarre caterva typical users of Windows?
Take time.
Rileggetelo, if you like.
Wait.
The guiding principle of Linux and FOSS is "do good software." You do not do software replacement for Windows. "
The only thing with which un'orda typical users of Windows to Linux will have the complaints. What you complain? "Did not work here as on Windows."
No, do not.
If you work like Windows, Linux s'attaccherebbe the tram.
It would be a bruttacopia that nobody would use.
The reason why people are so passionately devoted to Linux is that it does not work like Windows. It does everything for you, do not assume that you are eternal pivelli ignorant, there hides all the internal mechanisms.
Windows scarrozza around you; Linux gives you the keys and you fix the driving seat.
If you do not drive, the problem is yours.
It is your fault.
A flood of people will help you learn if you ask.
But you will not succeed if you try to convince someone that what we need Linux is a chauffeur.
"But this would make Linux so much more popular!", The infant Strep.
It may well be.
But how many Linux developers would benefit from a popular Linux?
Linux is free, as may be the beer scrocco.
None of those who create Linux profits from the acquisition of a wider user base.
None of those in the forum of Linux profits from the acquisition of a wider user base.
The purpose of Linux is not scan to a wider user base "- that is the purpose of proprietary software.
The goal is to make Linux an operating system really valuable.
The developers are working to add features, remove bugs and improve the existing implementations.
Are not committed to plant signs that what has praised their good stuff.
That should tell you something about where their priorities are.
And look at what this has led to the base of Linux users: the increase has done.
Child is linux party, and was magnified.
The reason has attracted such broad support?
Why has always focused on quality.
Users are attracted to Linux users who want freedom and quality that only FOSS can give them.
Linux has become great because you're never concerned what had become great.
The developers have focused exclusively on it to work, they work well, and so have attracted users who wanted an operating system that worked, well and good.
Suddenly throw away everything and focus instead on making the Linux replacement of Windows would kill the one thing that made Linux what it is.
There are companies out there who have seen the growth of Linux, and we want the money over. I am frustrated by the GPL [General Public License, GNU license free software, languages], which makes it very difficult for them to sell Linux to Microsoft prices. "Linux will die if remain open, say," because nobody can make us over money. "
Do not realize that making Linux owner would kill the gold donkey.
Linux has grown because it's FOSS, and nobody wanted them as a substitute for Windows.
Linux thrives because Windows fights on a front where Microsoft can never defeat: openness and quality.
For many Windows users, Linux is a bruttacopia of Windows.
He apparently less functionality, less integration, and much more complexity.
From that type of users, Linux is seen as a bad operating system.
It also correctly: it does not meet their needs.
Their needs are an operating system that is simple to use and does everything without having to learn anything.
Windows is made for non-technical users.
The perception among those users is that Linux is difficult to use.
Not so, but injury is understandable.
Linux is blessed indeed easy to use.
Truly.
It 'really easy.
The reason is not perceived in this way?
Because the term "usability" has been shamefully distorted.
Commonly, "user friendly" now means "easy to do something without knowing it first as" [I am reminded the innocent candor with which a newborn perform his bodily needs - but we grew up, guys: You time to ask themselves something more than mush-cacca-nanna! languages].
But that is absolutely not "user friendly" or not?
What is "easy to guess." E 'as the difference between:
A safe with an annotation on it that reads "Unlock the safe turning the wheel to 32 then 64 then 18 then 9, then turn the key and lift the handle"
e
and
a car that can be opened by pressing the "open" on the remote.
It 'a lot easier to open the car, right?
ifici.
A button from anywhere near the car, objected to several rounds of very specific ring. However, for someone who does not know how to open is both easier to open the safe that the car was safe clear instructions available on the spot while the car has just want the keys that are applied to self.
Linux is the same.
It 'easy to use if you know how to use it.
It 'easy to use, but is not always easy to learn. Only if you have the willingness to invest time to learn Linux to be found easily.
Inevitably, the more it breaks an operation in its simple steps, more steps should be taken to perform the operation.
How very simple example, take this exercise arbitrary: you want to move five lines (points) from the center of a text document at the end.
In MS Word, MS WordPad, or MS Notepad, all text editor "friendly" of Windows, the fastest way to do this is:
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift- Down
- Ctrl-Shift- Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift- Down
- Ctrl- X
- Ctrl- End
- Ctrl- V
(Assuming you're using the keyboard. Otherwise, you will need some specialized click-and-drag with the mouse and un'autoscorrimento reliable).
In there [pronounced "you-ai", languages], however, is:
- d5d
- Shift-g
- p
(or, if you know you really well, just "$ 1.5m" works equally well!)
Vi, who is "inamichevole" almost as effective, beat Microsoft offers a hands low.
Why?
Because there was designed for functionality, while Microsoft plans for the 'friendliness. "
Microsoft breaks everything in small steps, and so are many more steps needed to achieve the same thing.
This makes you much more quickly and easily to virtually any text editing operations.
Just because you know how to use it.
If you do not know that "D5d" means "Piazza five lines of text in the buffer, and delete the document" will struggle to get there.
Ma se lo SAPETE, allora volerete con esso.
But if you know him, then volerete with it.
So when some Novellino note how quickly and easily to an experienced user you can do things immediately agrees that there is more to Word for editing text.
Then try to use it himself: he does leave and is facing a screen full of "~"; and try to type something, but the screen is not anything.
Discovers ways to integration and control, and start trying to use you with a wealth of limited knowledge of its functions.
Fatigue, because there are so many things to learn to be able to operate there as it should be. Then complains "there would be much better if it were so easy to use as Word!"
But the real problem is "I do not use so you and I do not care to learn anything." But that would mean that the problem was his, but he blames the problems of its own software.
No matter where thousands of workers use problems happily without you is too difficult to use, must be changed!
And believe me, if you manage to do a text editor that is "friendly" as functional as Word and you will be greeted with nothing but applause.
In fact, is likely to be awarded the Nobel Prize for genius, because nobody else has ever been able to do so earlier.
Ma belare ai quattro venti che vi è difficile da usare sarà accolto da derisione, perché il problema non è vi, il problema è lui.
But bleat from the rooftops that it is difficult to use will be welcomed by derision, because the problem is not there, the problem is him.
If you want to paste the value of a formula in Excel, I have to do it through the Edit menu-> Paste Special-> Paste Values. I do not want to navigate through all those painful "friendly" menus, submenus and dialog boxes. I just want it done. And to be honest, if riprogrammo function keys and register some macros, can I do in Excel and Word many things to one press of a button.
But this is not really friendly, 'something real? Still requires you to invest a lot of time in software. Linux requires you to devote time to learning the existing functionality. The software "friendly" requires you to devote the time to create functionality.
If this is the way you like, OK, continue as you think. But do not ever lose sight of the fact that this is the fault of your ignorance and not the software. All software Linux is supremely easy to use, once you know how to use it. If you do not learn, will not be easy, not because the software is guilty.
Now, you might begin to think that Linux has a character problem. He does not want users, does not intend to make life easier for its users ... Hacker is only for snob!
Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly that Linux users want! It certainly does not want to make things difficult. On the software difficult to use is, by definition, bad software.
But you have to understand, its definitions may be different from yours and different from the "traditional" mentality of the proprietary software.
Linux users who want to Linux. And what this means: free software and open source, the ability to experiment with your software, and the position of those in the driving seat, in full control.
This is what Linux is all that concerns him. People migrate to Linux because it is tired of viruses, BSOD, spyware. E 'understandable. But those people do not want Linux. He wants only Windows without its faults. Not really want Linux. So why Linux should want them?
But if trying to escape a Linux virus and spyware, and then decide to support the idea of an operating system under their full control ... this is how you want Linux for what it is. And that is how they want Linux.
Before you decide to switch to Linux, ask yourself "Why I want to change?"
If the answer is "I want an operating system that gives all the power in the hands of the user and expects that he knows how to use it": choose Linux. You will have to invest a substantial amount of time and effort before they let him do what you think, but in the end will be rewarded by a computer that does exactly what you want.
BUT ...
If the answer is "I want Windows without its problems": make a clean installation of Windows XP SP2, set a good firewall, install a good anti-virus; not ever use IE to browse the web; Update regularly, after each restart installation software, and read good security practices. For my part I used Windows from 3.1 up to 95, 98, NT and XP, and I have never had a virus, suffered from spyware, or Cracco. Windows can be an operating system stable and secure, but it's up to you to keep it that way.
If your answer is' I want a replacement of Windows without its problems: buy an Apple Mac. I've heard wonderful things about Leopard release of OS X, and provide hardware and pleasant aspect. There will cost a new computer [with OS X for Intel 86 and some adjustment of compatibility could also recycle your PC, languages], but you get what you want.
In both cases, do not go to Linux. Be disappointed by both the software community. Linux is not Windows.
Sentence starts with Italian and English translation is next to it...Removed the Italian part manually...
It's long...very long, If you are in middle of something don't read it now. Take your own time. Just like Linux users you got to have patience, you got to have the zeal to read and learn...If you reach till the end of the topic I'm sure you are not a windows user at first, even If you are you are the right candidate to migrate!!!
I hope you guys gonna like this
(Linux is not Windows)
If, as I do, you dedicate time to a few forums on Linux, finirete inevitably to mount on all furie, as has happened to me, because of the amount of messages with this tone:
"Hello! I've been using Linux for some days, and is most exciting. However, it is a pity that (this or that) does not work the way Windows. Why do not the developers to completely rewrite it as a result Windows? Are so sure that Linux would achieve many more people! "
You may even be efforts to respond to these demands, only to be harshly counter from a Linux newbie who assumes that his idea, based on years of experience with a different operating system over a few hours on Linux, is brilliant revolutionary, and you do not like because you are a Linux user of the old school "that considers the visual work of Beelzebub and that all would be forced to nail the command line.
This article aims to explain those Novellini precisely because their ideas tend to be rather that flamme accepted.
First of all, the most popular topic: "If Linux did, many more people will convert from the Windows!"
So, let me explain something that is essential to understand Linux: The Linux community is not trying to provide you with an average Windows operating system replacement.
The purpose of Linux is not "Linux on every desktop."
Really.
Honestly, it is not. Of course, they are both operating systems.
Sure, they can be used both for the same things.
But that makes Linux an 'alternative, not a replacement. It may seem a trivial distinction, but in fact is of vital importance.
Linux <=> Windows is like Motorcycle <=> Auto: both are vehicles that take you from A to B through the streets.
But have different shapes, different sizes, different controls and work in fundamentally different ways. They are not freely interchangeable.
They have different uses and different strengths & weakness, and you should choose the most appropriate, choose one and not expect everything to do what the other.
A motorist could happen to be bottled in traffic and see a motorcycle parade alongside undisturbed.
He might envy the ability of the motorcyclist to ignore what easily for a car is a boring issue.
If quell'automobilista buy a motorcycle and then discovered that the accelerator is a knob instead of a pedal, you may complain that the motion should be equipped with a gas pedal to give.
If quell'automobilista had a wife and two children, could be considered a flaw the ability of motion to host a single passenger.
Egli potrebbe suggerire che le moto siano riprogettate per trasportare quattro persone, in doppia fila.
He could suggest that the motion be redesigned to carry four people, in double row.
If quell'automobilista try to leave, then notice to be dropped because it is not accustomed to remain in balance, it might suggest that the motion should be redesigned to four wheels.
If you notice that the motorist fold in turn, could suggest that the motion should be equipped with stabilizers to keep straight face when curves.
If the motorist wanted to avoid them being stolen motorcycle, could complain that there are no doors to keep out potential thieves, making his motion more at risk of theft than a car.
If the motorist found that the helmet to the ground, might suggest that you should put an airbag in the handlebars of bikes as an alternative to annoying helmet.
And in any case, he wrong. Why think that a motorcycle replacing a car that can and must do everything that a car can do. It can work like a car, and that the "missing" of a car can be directly above stick.
Likewise, the Linux Novice solerti suggest that Linux should resemble more a result of which they are accustomed. It hangs, for the same reasons. Linux and Windows could be used for the same purpose, neither more nor less than a car and a motorcycle. That does not mean that we can pass directly from one to another, nor the characteristics that can or should share directly from one to another.
Too many people think that migrate from Windows to Linux is like jumping from a BMW to a Mercedes [would be more appropriate vice versa, languages ;-)].
They think that controls should be the same, their experience should move free, and all differences should be largely cosmetic.
They think that "I need a car to use the road, I need an operating system to use the computer. Cars all work the same way, so the operating system should work all the same." But this is incorrect. "Mi need a vehicle to use the road, I need an operating system to use the computer. I know how to drive the car, but they are ignorant of motion. I know how to use Windows, but they are ignorant of Linux. "- this is correct.
A Windows user has to understand that he is only an advanced user of Windows, not an advanced user of computers, just as a motorist is only a driver's car, not a driver of multipurpose vehicles.
A Windows user to Linux has to understand is that just returned to novice, just as a motorist on a motorcycle. A Windows user has to accept that there are different ways to achieve the same result as a motorist must get used to the handlebars instead of steering wheel and the needs of the helmet that had never before. It must be prepared to accept that "different" does not mean "bottom".
Linux come with a consolidated many behaviors and attitudes of 'I know exactly how to use a computer, thanks a lot. "The problem is that ...
do not know! They know only how to use Windows.
When captain on a different operating system, these "power users" [users sophisticated languages] are those with the worst problems: they have much more to unlearn.
Where a Novellino said "I do not know 'and starts to explore or ask on the forums, the Windows User Power says" I know how you do, do so, so, what, and then ... did not work! Stupid operating system! " And then "If I have experienced that fails to do this walk, a Novellino is hopeless! Linux is not in any way ready for desktop use." Aware that not all their knowledge against the rows, causing more problems that a less experienced users.
They made the mistake of thinking that Linux is a different software that does the same for Windows, but is actually different software that makes things different.
Is not doing a bad job on the same operations, is doing a good job on alternative operations.
Linux is an alternative to Windows, but not a replacement.
It will never be a replacement, because it has incompatible goals.
The goal of Microsoft is to place its software on PCs as possible, given that its priority is profits.
Linux does not have this, because Linux is free [the English word "free" equivocal happily with the meaning of "free" languages].
It has a different priority.
Understanding this is to understand the FOSS [ "a source free software / open" languages]. E 'perfectly understandable that Novellini Linux does not yet understand - are new to the concept. They are used to thinking in terms of proprietary software.
So let me explain:
The typical FOSS software is created by someone who looks around, does not find any pre-existing software like that, and so it writes its own. Then, because he is such a good boy, discloses the source code and tells the world "and now you". He can do because it cost nothing to duplicate software, and it does not cost more to give to the world rather than keep. Do not sell it to suffer.
However, the important thing to remember is: he does not draw benefit from even sell its software. That is used by a person, or a billion, it makes no difference to the developer.
Oh, sure, take the satisfaction of knowing that a product was popular: the number of people using it can be a useful spur individual; a way, if you want to keep the score. But he is not a Baiocco is FOSS.
If the software is successful, other people will be interested, and will help to improve it.
This is the main advantage of FOSS: Each user has a potential developer.
Everyone can enter and do its part to make the software better, with more features and less defective.
E 'wonderful when a piece attracts a software developer community.
But it is wonderful for the software.
Makes the software better. It does not make the developer richer. The only takes most of his time.
The FOSS is the exact opposite of proprietary software to Windows: the goal in FOSS is software, not the number of end users. The software that works well but has only a handful of users is considered a failure according to standard commercial software, but a success under the standard FOSS.
FOSS means to make good quality software, software that knows how to do things. If you want to use, is expected to invest time to learn how to use it. It 'been created and provided to you free of charge, from people who have invested a lot of their time on it without personal gain. The least you can do to repay their contribution is to invest some 'of your time before you complain that it does not work the way the equivalent Windows software.
"Aha, now you frieze," says the pleased Novellino. "There are Linux projects that aim to replace Windows, not just be an alternative."
It 'easy to see where this is. KDE and Gnome, for example, provide a desktop environment that is much like a typical Windows managers windows and Linux command line.
Linspire is a distribution based almost entirely on the idea of making Linux like Windows.
However, paradoxically, these prove my assertion better than the Novellino.
Why? Why these projects are normal FOSS projects, gravitanti entirely around the principle of improving the software. The only difference is that one of the definitions of quality in these projects is "How easily can use a Windows user?"
Not only internalize, you can not help but agree that these projects are typically 100% Linux, with the sole purpose of improving the software.
These projects are made by Linux developers even more altruistic than usual: Do not make software for their own use, because they know Linux very well.
Instead, make software entirely for the benefit of others: software that makes the transition from Windows to Linux easier.
These developers, aware that there are Windows users wishing to migrate to Linux, have put a lot of effort to create a Linux environment that Windows users can find comfortably familiar. But have not done this for groped to replace Windows, although the final result might give this impression. It 'the ultimate objective to make a difference: the goal is not to make a replacement for Windows, the objective is to facilitate the transition to a Windows user to Linux.
It is not unusual to observe hostility toward these projects.
Sometimes, for reasons rational, understandable ( "KDE is an avid resources, use Fluxbox"), sometimes for irrational attitudes, hostile ( "software like Windows is bad").
This is not, actually, an anti-Microsoft or anti-Windows.
Instead, it is much easier to dislike what they do not understand.
The "typical" user is a Linux enthusiast: use computers because computers are fun, programming is fun, sfrucugliare / hacking / gun is fun. And Linux is an operating system much better for the enthusiast Hacker can unmount until more fundamental level, and re-think exactly how.
However, the current flow of new Linux users is largely made up of non-lovers non-Hacker. They want only that the computer functions, a computer that works like Windows. I do not mind having to spend time setting Linux to run as it pleases them, they want it now functions well, bell'e ready.
And it is perfectly right, but from the perspective of a typical Linux user, this is like the claim of those who want a car Lego already pre-pasted and all so that they can not break.E 'alien to their understanding. The only way you can react with a bewildered "Why should anyone want that?" E 'disconcerting. If you would like un'automodello ready, buy a car toy. If you want a car that you can build and decompose, buy Lego. Why someone wants a car to use it as a Lego toy car? The fundamental point of Lego fun is that you assemble yourself!
Here's how a typical Linux user reacts to the brigade of "Why not just run?": "If you want only that works, use Windows. If you want to hacking, use Linux. Why do you want to switch to Linux if you do not have any interest in taking advantage by its nature open source [ "Open Source", languages]? "
The answer, usually, is that they will not actually switch to Linux.
They want only to escape from Windows viruses are fleeing, are putting rescued from malware, trying to get rid of restrictions on the use of their software fee, are trying to Shell from the clutches dell'EULA [ "license agreement end user" , Languages].
They are not trying to get into Linux, are trying to quit Windows.
Linux is simply the best known alternative.
Something more soon ...
You may think 'OK, this explains why developers do not make a deliberate effort to run their software like Windows. But certainly the Linux software could provide a graphical [ "Graphical User Interface (GUI), languages] that is friendly Windows such as this without interfering with the principles FOSS? "
There are several reasons why this is not the case.
First: Think about that really creates a piece software to give a deliberately 'user interface miserable?
When someone gives a large portion of their time to create a piece of software, he will make the user interface [ "User Interface (UI) languages] best possible.
The UI is very important part of the software is useless if you do not have features can be accessed through the UI.
You may not know what, but there is always a reason why the UI works the way it works.
Why? Why is the best UI that the author could create.
Before you insist that a standard Windows UI would make the software better, keep in mind this fact: The author of this software, an encoder that, by definition, knows much more than you this piece software, does not agree with you. Maybe that is wrong, but it is often the opposite.
Secondly, are already available and nice graphical interfaces like Windows.
I can not remember a function that can not be checked through a GUI, no matter how high level.
You can compile your kernel (make xconfig), set your firewall (fwbuilder), partition your hard drive (QtParted) ... it's all there, beautiful, interactive, intuitive and friendly.
But the "release cycle" of Linux is not Windows.
There issuing a finished, lucidissimo GUI package dagl'inizi sin.
The GUI functionality without adding complexity to the software.
One developer does not sit to design a beautiful GUI that makes nothing, he sits down and creates a piece software that does what they need.
The first thing that a piece software does is to be usable from the command line [ "Command Line Interface (CLI), languages].
Will probably have all sorts of options for prayer, and perhaps a lengthy configuration files.
This is like starting, because the functionality is what is required.
Everything else comes later.
And even when the software has a nice GUI, it is important to remember that usually it can still be controlled completely by CLI and configuration files.
This is because the CLI has many advantages: the CLI is universal. Each system has a Linux CLI.
Each executable can be launched from CLI.
It 'easy to control the software remotely through the CLI.
None of this is true for the GUI: Some Linux machines do not have the system installed X11 windows, some software has not GUI, some software is not available from the menu GUI often is not easy or convenient to use a GUI tool remotely
Finally, there may be multiple GUI to perform the same task, and no one can predict what is installed.
So remember, if you ask "How can I ...?", there will probably be told how to do it through CLI.
This does not mean that can only be done by CLI.
Just reflects the relative importance that the GUI has compared the CLI in the development of a software project.
Windows is totally focused on the GUI. It 'an operating system-based GUI with a miserable (but in the course of improvement) CLI. There is virtually no Windows GUI software.
This tends to make people believe that the GUI is vital and integral part of the software.
But in Linux, the software is released when it is functional.
Only after it became stable, reasonably clean up the bug, and rich in features, it becomes convenient add a GUI.
Try to think of the software without a useful GUI as a 'stealth preview "rather than a finished product.
The FOSS is very rarely "finished", is in continuous improvement.
When the time comes, will be amicable.
But first, it is more important to make it work better than to get it to look better. Be happy that you have had the very first feature of all Windows applications that need a good GUI, instead of asking the software today for tomorrow.
Il FOSS è più un viaggio che una destinazione.
The FOSS is a journey that a destination.
The last thing you need to set them in the head: the GUI for the software will often be a separate piece software.
It may well be that has been developed in a way completely independent of the original software, from completely different developers. If you want a GUI, it is unlikely that this is a separate, rather than one piece.
This undoubtedly means a step further to get that elusive GUI behavior, "the Windows", but the fact remains that so you can do just what you want through a nice GUI, "just like Windows."
You have only to remember: a GUI is usually the last step, not the first.
Linux does not privilege the form to the substance.
Thirdly, Linux is deliberately designed for the user informed and aware, rather than the beginner ignorant. For two reasons:
Ignorance is also blessed, but is short. Knowledge is eternal. It may require days, weeks or months to bring your level of knowledge from "Novellino Linux" to "average user of Linux, but once there, have been used for years Linux in front of you.
Put code in quantities to make the software easier for newcomers would be like placing a permanent wheel balancing on all bicycles.
Could make it easier to start, but then ...?
There compreresti a bicycle with the wheel now, I am sure.
And not because you are the freakettoni against all'amichevolezza.
No, because I would be useless to you and useless to anyone other than beginners, and all that it would pack.
Does not matter how good the software itself, it is good as its user. The door safest in the world is not an obstacle to thieves if you leave the window wide open, the door is not closed, or the keys in the patch.
The petrol engine more efficient in the world should not be very far if the riempiste diesel instead of gasoline.
Linux has delivered all the power in the hands of the user.
This includes the power to break.
The only way to maintain well-functioning Linux is that so much to learn enough to know that what you're doing. Facilitate to the paciugamento of features you do not understand will only make him more likely to break something by accident.
Fourth: Where, as before, you scorto a way that actually benefit the FOSS dall'attrarre caterva typical users of Windows?
Take time.
Rileggetelo, if you like.
Wait.
The guiding principle of Linux and FOSS is "do good software." You do not do software replacement for Windows. "
The only thing with which un'orda typical users of Windows to Linux will have the complaints. What you complain? "Did not work here as on Windows."
No, do not.
If you work like Windows, Linux s'attaccherebbe the tram.
It would be a bruttacopia that nobody would use.
The reason why people are so passionately devoted to Linux is that it does not work like Windows. It does everything for you, do not assume that you are eternal pivelli ignorant, there hides all the internal mechanisms.
Windows scarrozza around you; Linux gives you the keys and you fix the driving seat.
If you do not drive, the problem is yours.
It is your fault.
A flood of people will help you learn if you ask.
But you will not succeed if you try to convince someone that what we need Linux is a chauffeur.
"But this would make Linux so much more popular!", The infant Strep.
It may well be.
But how many Linux developers would benefit from a popular Linux?
Linux is free, as may be the beer scrocco.
None of those who create Linux profits from the acquisition of a wider user base.
None of those in the forum of Linux profits from the acquisition of a wider user base.
The purpose of Linux is not scan to a wider user base "- that is the purpose of proprietary software.
The goal is to make Linux an operating system really valuable.
The developers are working to add features, remove bugs and improve the existing implementations.
Are not committed to plant signs that what has praised their good stuff.
That should tell you something about where their priorities are.
And look at what this has led to the base of Linux users: the increase has done.
Child is linux party, and was magnified.
The reason has attracted such broad support?
Why has always focused on quality.
Users are attracted to Linux users who want freedom and quality that only FOSS can give them.
Linux has become great because you're never concerned what had become great.
The developers have focused exclusively on it to work, they work well, and so have attracted users who wanted an operating system that worked, well and good.
Suddenly throw away everything and focus instead on making the Linux replacement of Windows would kill the one thing that made Linux what it is.
There are companies out there who have seen the growth of Linux, and we want the money over. I am frustrated by the GPL [General Public License, GNU license free software, languages], which makes it very difficult for them to sell Linux to Microsoft prices. "Linux will die if remain open, say," because nobody can make us over money. "
Do not realize that making Linux owner would kill the gold donkey.
Linux has grown because it's FOSS, and nobody wanted them as a substitute for Windows.
Linux thrives because Windows fights on a front where Microsoft can never defeat: openness and quality.
For many Windows users, Linux is a bruttacopia of Windows.
He apparently less functionality, less integration, and much more complexity.
From that type of users, Linux is seen as a bad operating system.
It also correctly: it does not meet their needs.
Their needs are an operating system that is simple to use and does everything without having to learn anything.
Windows is made for non-technical users.
The perception among those users is that Linux is difficult to use.
Not so, but injury is understandable.
Linux is blessed indeed easy to use.
Truly.
It 'really easy.
The reason is not perceived in this way?
Because the term "usability" has been shamefully distorted.
Commonly, "user friendly" now means "easy to do something without knowing it first as" [I am reminded the innocent candor with which a newborn perform his bodily needs - but we grew up, guys: You time to ask themselves something more than mush-cacca-nanna! languages].
But that is absolutely not "user friendly" or not?
What is "easy to guess." E 'as the difference between:
A safe with an annotation on it that reads "Unlock the safe turning the wheel to 32 then 64 then 18 then 9, then turn the key and lift the handle"
e
and
a car that can be opened by pressing the "open" on the remote.
It 'a lot easier to open the car, right?
ifici.
A button from anywhere near the car, objected to several rounds of very specific ring. However, for someone who does not know how to open is both easier to open the safe that the car was safe clear instructions available on the spot while the car has just want the keys that are applied to self.
Linux is the same.
It 'easy to use if you know how to use it.
It 'easy to use, but is not always easy to learn. Only if you have the willingness to invest time to learn Linux to be found easily.
Inevitably, the more it breaks an operation in its simple steps, more steps should be taken to perform the operation.
How very simple example, take this exercise arbitrary: you want to move five lines (points) from the center of a text document at the end.
In MS Word, MS WordPad, or MS Notepad, all text editor "friendly" of Windows, the fastest way to do this is:
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift- Down
- Ctrl-Shift- Down
- Ctrl-Shift-Down
- Ctrl-Shift- Down
- Ctrl- X
- Ctrl- End
- Ctrl- V
(Assuming you're using the keyboard. Otherwise, you will need some specialized click-and-drag with the mouse and un'autoscorrimento reliable).
In there [pronounced "you-ai", languages], however, is:
- d5d
- Shift-g
- p
(or, if you know you really well, just "$ 1.5m" works equally well!)
Vi, who is "inamichevole" almost as effective, beat Microsoft offers a hands low.
Why?
Because there was designed for functionality, while Microsoft plans for the 'friendliness. "
Microsoft breaks everything in small steps, and so are many more steps needed to achieve the same thing.
This makes you much more quickly and easily to virtually any text editing operations.
Just because you know how to use it.
If you do not know that "D5d" means "Piazza five lines of text in the buffer, and delete the document" will struggle to get there.
Ma se lo SAPETE, allora volerete con esso.
But if you know him, then volerete with it.
So when some Novellino note how quickly and easily to an experienced user you can do things immediately agrees that there is more to Word for editing text.
Then try to use it himself: he does leave and is facing a screen full of "~"; and try to type something, but the screen is not anything.
Discovers ways to integration and control, and start trying to use you with a wealth of limited knowledge of its functions.
Fatigue, because there are so many things to learn to be able to operate there as it should be. Then complains "there would be much better if it were so easy to use as Word!"
But the real problem is "I do not use so you and I do not care to learn anything." But that would mean that the problem was his, but he blames the problems of its own software.
No matter where thousands of workers use problems happily without you is too difficult to use, must be changed!
And believe me, if you manage to do a text editor that is "friendly" as functional as Word and you will be greeted with nothing but applause.
In fact, is likely to be awarded the Nobel Prize for genius, because nobody else has ever been able to do so earlier.
Ma belare ai quattro venti che vi è difficile da usare sarà accolto da derisione, perché il problema non è vi, il problema è lui.
But bleat from the rooftops that it is difficult to use will be welcomed by derision, because the problem is not there, the problem is him.
If you want to paste the value of a formula in Excel, I have to do it through the Edit menu-> Paste Special-> Paste Values. I do not want to navigate through all those painful "friendly" menus, submenus and dialog boxes. I just want it done. And to be honest, if riprogrammo function keys and register some macros, can I do in Excel and Word many things to one press of a button.
But this is not really friendly, 'something real? Still requires you to invest a lot of time in software. Linux requires you to devote time to learning the existing functionality. The software "friendly" requires you to devote the time to create functionality.
If this is the way you like, OK, continue as you think. But do not ever lose sight of the fact that this is the fault of your ignorance and not the software. All software Linux is supremely easy to use, once you know how to use it. If you do not learn, will not be easy, not because the software is guilty.
Now, you might begin to think that Linux has a character problem. He does not want users, does not intend to make life easier for its users ... Hacker is only for snob!
Nothing could be further from the truth. Certainly that Linux users want! It certainly does not want to make things difficult. On the software difficult to use is, by definition, bad software.
But you have to understand, its definitions may be different from yours and different from the "traditional" mentality of the proprietary software.
Linux users who want to Linux. And what this means: free software and open source, the ability to experiment with your software, and the position of those in the driving seat, in full control.
This is what Linux is all that concerns him. People migrate to Linux because it is tired of viruses, BSOD, spyware. E 'understandable. But those people do not want Linux. He wants only Windows without its faults. Not really want Linux. So why Linux should want them?
But if trying to escape a Linux virus and spyware, and then decide to support the idea of an operating system under their full control ... this is how you want Linux for what it is. And that is how they want Linux.
Before you decide to switch to Linux, ask yourself "Why I want to change?"
If the answer is "I want an operating system that gives all the power in the hands of the user and expects that he knows how to use it": choose Linux. You will have to invest a substantial amount of time and effort before they let him do what you think, but in the end will be rewarded by a computer that does exactly what you want.
BUT ...
If the answer is "I want Windows without its problems": make a clean installation of Windows XP SP2, set a good firewall, install a good anti-virus; not ever use IE to browse the web; Update regularly, after each restart installation software, and read good security practices. For my part I used Windows from 3.1 up to 95, 98, NT and XP, and I have never had a virus, suffered from spyware, or Cracco. Windows can be an operating system stable and secure, but it's up to you to keep it that way.
If your answer is' I want a replacement of Windows without its problems: buy an Apple Mac. I've heard wonderful things about Leopard release of OS X, and provide hardware and pleasant aspect. There will cost a new computer [with OS X for Intel 86 and some adjustment of compatibility could also recycle your PC, languages], but you get what you want.
In both cases, do not go to Linux. Be disappointed by both the software community. Linux is not Windows.
