Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish
-
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@DustinB3403 said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@scottalanmiller said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
Windows on the other hand is meant for the masses, and those tools would be unused by 95% or more.
Have you ever used Windows? Every day we make our money helping people use Windows because it isn't simple or obvious. Everything about it is hard, unnecessarily hard. You just forget because you have memorized how to do things.
The masses are exactly who Windows isn't for at all. ChromeOS, that's for the masses.
OH no - I completely agree with you Scott - It is hard, way harder than it needs to be.
don't take my comment as a bash on Linux distros... only on the specific comment that I was replying to, and why the lack of the mentioned tools don't matter.So you're saying a system shouldn't have functionality because said functionality isn't heavily used? How many people using Windows 10 Pro are using the any of the bloatware that we are regularly using unfuckafy scripts to clean up windows?
yeah pretty much!
As for the bloatware - come on - I didn't create the program, but I'm sure you know why that shit is there. If there is any Admin type bloatware included, please feel free to inform me of such.
Administrative software and bloatware are not the same thing. XBox on Windows 10 Pro or enterprise makes 0 sense. I can't off hand think of anything that would be administrative and bloatware-esk, I'm sure there is something somewhere but that wasn't the point I was making.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@DustinB3403 said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@scottalanmiller said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
Windows on the other hand is meant for the masses, and those tools would be unused by 95% or more.
Have you ever used Windows? Every day we make our money helping people use Windows because it isn't simple or obvious. Everything about it is hard, unnecessarily hard. You just forget because you have memorized how to do things.
The masses are exactly who Windows isn't for at all. ChromeOS, that's for the masses.
OH no - I completely agree with you Scott - It is hard, way harder than it needs to be.
don't take my comment as a bash on Linux distros... only on the specific comment that I was replying to, and why the lack of the mentioned tools don't matter.So you're saying a system shouldn't have functionality because said functionality isn't heavily used? How many people using Windows 10 Pro are using the any of the bloatware that we are regularly using unfuckafy scripts to clean up windows?
yeah pretty much!
As for the bloatware - come on - I didn't create the program, but I'm sure you know why that shit is there. If there is any Admin type bloatware included, please feel free to inform me of such.
Administrative software and bloatware are not the same thing. XBox on Windows 10 Pro or enterprise makes 0 sense. I can't off hand think of anything that would be administrative and bloatware-esk, I'm sure there is something somewhere but that wasn't the point I was making.
You make it sound like I was defending something - pretty sure I wasn't - at least I am pretty sure I wasn't defending MS putting junkware on Windows 10... I was only talking about that post where the guy was happy to have tools native in a distro that windows does have... nothing more.
-
@stacksofplates said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@black3dynamite said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
From a Linux Desktop, you can browse multiple protocols without additional applications. I personally use FileZilla Client but I've also use WinSCP too.
From a Nautilus File Manager:
I don't consider this quite a fair comparison. Linux distros are mostly made by and for techies. There need/desire for these tools to be included seems obvious. Windows on the other hand is meant for the masses, and those tools would be unused by 95% or more.
So sure - it's cool they are there, but that's about all.I'd argue it's mostly because windows doesn't natively support other protocols. You can browse SMB shares from explorer because it's natively supported. I'd be willing to bet if windows supported NFS or SSHFS or SFTP or any other protocols you would be able to do it in explorer.
Windows server supports NFS shares... I honestly haven't looked into using explorer to browse NFS but this is adding some weak-sauce to the argument....
This post stopped being constructive a while back so I don't feel too bad for adding fuel to the fire.I'll hitch my wagon to the "Linux is better" camp because the only time that I've seen any advantage to windows is if you've got to administer an MS environment (much of my day job), have to use windows only software (such as our ERP's client software), or are otherwise stuck in a MS ecosystem (users / processes heavily entrenched in the world of windows-only software and systems).
-
@notverypunny said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@stacksofplates said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@black3dynamite said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
From a Linux Desktop, you can browse multiple protocols without additional applications. I personally use FileZilla Client but I've also use WinSCP too.
From a Nautilus File Manager:
I don't consider this quite a fair comparison. Linux distros are mostly made by and for techies. There need/desire for these tools to be included seems obvious. Windows on the other hand is meant for the masses, and those tools would be unused by 95% or more.
So sure - it's cool they are there, but that's about all.I'd argue it's mostly because windows doesn't natively support other protocols. You can browse SMB shares from explorer because it's natively supported. I'd be willing to bet if windows supported NFS or SSHFS or SFTP or any other protocols you would be able to do it in explorer.
Windows server supports NFS shares... I honestly haven't looked into using explorer to browse NFS but this is adding some weak-sauce to the argument....
This post stopped being constructive a while back so I don't feel too bad for adding fuel to the fire.I'll hitch my wagon to the "Linux is better" camp because the only time that I've seen any advantage to windows is if you've got to administer an MS environment (much of my day job), have to use windows only software (such as our ERP's client software), or are otherwise stuck in a MS ecosystem (users / processes heavily entrenched in the world of windows-only software and systems).
I thought you had to use things like Maestro to get NFS on Windows. I never heard of being able to use it before. My bad.
-
However if it let's you view the stuff in explorer then my point still stands. I don't think that browsing a file share is "made for techies".
-
@stacksofplates said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@notverypunny said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@stacksofplates said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@black3dynamite said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
From a Linux Desktop, you can browse multiple protocols without additional applications. I personally use FileZilla Client but I've also use WinSCP too.
From a Nautilus File Manager:
I don't consider this quite a fair comparison. Linux distros are mostly made by and for techies. There need/desire for these tools to be included seems obvious. Windows on the other hand is meant for the masses, and those tools would be unused by 95% or more.
So sure - it's cool they are there, but that's about all.I'd argue it's mostly because windows doesn't natively support other protocols. You can browse SMB shares from explorer because it's natively supported. I'd be willing to bet if windows supported NFS or SSHFS or SFTP or any other protocols you would be able to do it in explorer.
Windows server supports NFS shares... I honestly haven't looked into using explorer to browse NFS but this is adding some weak-sauce to the argument....
This post stopped being constructive a while back so I don't feel too bad for adding fuel to the fire.I'll hitch my wagon to the "Linux is better" camp because the only time that I've seen any advantage to windows is if you've got to administer an MS environment (much of my day job), have to use windows only software (such as our ERP's client software), or are otherwise stuck in a MS ecosystem (users / processes heavily entrenched in the world of windows-only software and systems).
I thought you had to use things like Maestro to get NFS on Windows. I never heard of being able to use it before. My bad.
Not sure about Windows 10 Home but you can install the client for NFS on Windows 10 Pro via Windows Features.
-
@stacksofplates said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@notverypunny said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@stacksofplates said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@black3dynamite said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
From a Linux Desktop, you can browse multiple protocols without additional applications. I personally use FileZilla Client but I've also use WinSCP too.
From a Nautilus File Manager:
I don't consider this quite a fair comparison. Linux distros are mostly made by and for techies. There need/desire for these tools to be included seems obvious. Windows on the other hand is meant for the masses, and those tools would be unused by 95% or more.
So sure - it's cool they are there, but that's about all.I'd argue it's mostly because windows doesn't natively support other protocols. You can browse SMB shares from explorer because it's natively supported. I'd be willing to bet if windows supported NFS or SSHFS or SFTP or any other protocols you would be able to do it in explorer.
Windows server supports NFS shares... I honestly haven't looked into using explorer to browse NFS but this is adding some weak-sauce to the argument....
This post stopped being constructive a while back so I don't feel too bad for adding fuel to the fire.I'll hitch my wagon to the "Linux is better" camp because the only time that I've seen any advantage to windows is if you've got to administer an MS environment (much of my day job), have to use windows only software (such as our ERP's client software), or are otherwise stuck in a MS ecosystem (users / processes heavily entrenched in the world of windows-only software and systems).
I thought you had to use things like Maestro to get NFS on Windows. I never heard of being able to use it before. My bad.
Used to be called the UNIX subsystem for Windows. It was ported from Xenix. Used to be popular back when Windows was new. Then Windows got big and no one cared anymore.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@stacksofplates said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@notverypunny said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@stacksofplates said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@Dashrender said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
@black3dynamite said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
From a Linux Desktop, you can browse multiple protocols without additional applications. I personally use FileZilla Client but I've also use WinSCP too.
From a Nautilus File Manager:
I don't consider this quite a fair comparison. Linux distros are mostly made by and for techies. There need/desire for these tools to be included seems obvious. Windows on the other hand is meant for the masses, and those tools would be unused by 95% or more.
So sure - it's cool they are there, but that's about all.I'd argue it's mostly because windows doesn't natively support other protocols. You can browse SMB shares from explorer because it's natively supported. I'd be willing to bet if windows supported NFS or SSHFS or SFTP or any other protocols you would be able to do it in explorer.
Windows server supports NFS shares... I honestly haven't looked into using explorer to browse NFS but this is adding some weak-sauce to the argument....
This post stopped being constructive a while back so I don't feel too bad for adding fuel to the fire.I'll hitch my wagon to the "Linux is better" camp because the only time that I've seen any advantage to windows is if you've got to administer an MS environment (much of my day job), have to use windows only software (such as our ERP's client software), or are otherwise stuck in a MS ecosystem (users / processes heavily entrenched in the world of windows-only software and systems).
I thought you had to use things like Maestro to get NFS on Windows. I never heard of being able to use it before. My bad.
Used to be called the UNIX subsystem for Windows. It was ported from Xenix. Used to be popular back when Windows was new. Then Windows got big and no one cared anymore.
It wasn't available when Windows was new. It came later. Reason being that in order for Microsoft to sell to the US government it had to be posix-compliant because that is what was specified in FIPS something.
-
@Pete-S said in Using GNU\Linux on your workstation is rubbish:
It wasn't available when Windows was new. It came later.
New-ish
We got WSU (Windows Services for UNIX) in 1999 when Windows (aka Windows NT) was just six years old. Not brand new, but new compared to today. It came out for NT 4 which was the fourth release of Windows. At the time is seemed not very new (especially as NT 4 was in its last year) but given that it was only six years in to a twenty six year run, feels like it was the "early years". -
@Pete-S However, it was only Microsoft's branding of WSU that was from 1999. It was actually a rebranding and upgrade of Interix, which released for Windows NT in 1996. Much closer to being "new". So it had been around quite a bit longer, but from a third party.
-
Of interesting note: In Windows NT4 and Windows 2000, Interix / WSU were "add on" components for Windows. But starting with 2003 R2 and going through 2008 R2, it was built in. Then it was discontinued. Then revived with the totally different system that we have today.
Interix became integrated as a component of the regular Windows OS distribution as a component of Windows Server 2003 R2 in December, 2005 at release 5.2 and was a component of the Windows Vista release as release 6.0 (RTM November, 2006). Windows Server 2008 had release 6.0. Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 included SUA 6.1. - wikipedia
