Linux is not a windows-Linux general technology-Linux technology and application information. The following is a detailed description. In the following articles, when I mention the GNU/Linux operating system and various FOSS (TRANSLATOR: Free and Open Source Software) projects, I will replace them with a uniform name Linux, this looks better.
[Url = "http://www.ubuntu.org.cn/include/tux.png"] [url = "http://www.ubuntu.org.cn/include/tux.png"] [/url] [/url] [url = "http://www.linuxeden.com/forum/attachment.php? Attachmentid = 1924 & stc = 1 "] http://www.linuxeden.com/forum/attachment.php? Attachmentid = 1924 & stc = 1 [/url]! = [Url = "http://www.ubuntu.org.cn/include/windows.png"] [url = "http://www.ubuntu.org.cn/include/windows.png"] [/url] [url = "http://www.linuxeden.com/forum/attachment.php? Attachmentid = 1923 & stc = 1 "] http://www.linuxeden.com/forum/attachment.php? Attachmentid = 1923 & stc = 1 [/url] [/url]
(Linux is not Windows)
If you spend some time on Linux forums like me, you will be angry with me because there are too many such posts:
"Hi! I have been using Linux for a few days, and the overall situation is okay. But so-and-so functions cannot be as bad as Windows. Why can't developers rewrite it to make it more like Windows? I believe that there will be more users in Linux! "
You may have tried to respond to these questions. As a result, the new Linux user is very confused with you. Based on his experience in Linux on another operating system and partition several hours, he came to the conclusion that his idea is extremely wise, and you don't agree with him because you are a Linux User from an antique School and think that GUI is the product of the devil, everyone should be forced to use CLI ).
The purpose of this article is to explain to new users why their points of view are controversial rather than popular.
First of all, this is the most widely mentioned argument: "If Linux can do this, more people will be transferred from Windows! "
In this case, let me explain the basic knowledge required to understand Linux: the Linux community will not try to provide an alternative operating system for general Windows users. Linux does not target "Linux is installed on every machine ".
Sure, no. Indeed, they are all operating systems. Indeed, they can all do the same thing, but this makes Linux a choice, not a substitute. This may seem like a little different, but it is actually the most important.
Linux <=> Windows is like a motorcycle <=> Car: it is a car. You can use the road to deliver it from the ground a to the ground B, however, they have different shapes, sizes, and operating devices, and their basic working methods are also different. They cannot be exchanged at will. They have different purposes, strengths, and weaknesses. You need to choose one that suits you, rather than simply replacing the other.
When a car driver encounters a traffic jam, he may envy the motorcycle's ability to freely move around in the heap. If the driver goes on to say, "I know cars well, so I must know motorcycles too !", Then he is wrong.
If the driver buys a motorcycle and finds it difficult to use his hands to rotate his grip to control the acceleration, rather than the pedal, he may complain that the motorcycle should also be equipped with the accelerator pedal.
If the driver has a wife and two children, he may think that a motorcycle can only carry one passenger. He would suggest re-designing a motorcycle so that he could sit side by side with four people.
If the driver wants to ride a motorcycle but finds that he cannot control the balance and always falls down, he may suggest putting the motorcycle on four wheels.
If the driver finds that he is always leaning when he turns, he would suggest installing a stabilizer on the motorcycle to keep him upright when turning.
If the driver is afraid of a motorcycle being stolen, he may complain that the motorcycle has no door, making it easy for thieves to win.
If the driver thinks the helmet is in the way, he may suggest installing an airbag in his hand to replace the annoying helmet.
In these cases, he was wrong because he wanted to replace cars with motorcycles. He wanted motorcycles to do what all cars could do. He thought that motorcycles work in the same way as cars, you only need to graft the functions that are missing from the car.
Similarly, some well-intentioned new Linux users also suggest turning Linux into what they are familiar with, and the results are not obtained for the same reason. Maybe both Linux and Windows can be used to accomplish the same task, but so can cars and motorcycles. This does not mean that you can directly switch from one to another, nor that their features can be replaced with each other.
Too many people think that the transfer from Windows to Linux is just like the change from BMW to Mercedes-Benz. They think that their control methods should be the same and their experience can be used directly, all the differences between the two are only superficial. They thought, "I need a car when I drive on a road, and I need an operating system when I use a computer. Cars work in the same way, so the operating system should work in the same way ." But this is not accurate. "I need a car when I drive on the road, and I need an operating system when I use a computer. I know how to drive a car, but I don't know how to drive a motorcycle. I know how to use Windows, but I don't know Linux ." ---- This is accurate.
A Windows user must realize that he is only an experienced Windows user, not an experienced computer user, just like a car driver is just a car driver, not a driver of all types of vehicles. Windows users must realize that when he tries Linux, he becomes a newbie, just like a car driver trying to drive a motorcycle. Windows must be willing to learn the different means required to complete the same task, just as a car driver must adapt to the handwheel instead of the steering wheel and the helmet he never wore. And they need to be prepared: These "differences" do not mean "inferior ".
This simple fact causes more trouble for basic Windows users. They came to Linux with deep-rooted Windows operating habits and an attitude: "Thank you, I know how to use your computer !" The problem is that they don't know. They only know how to use Windows. When faced with another operating system, these advanced users may encounter the worst problem: they have too much experience to forget.
When a newbie says "I don't know" and then explores and asks questions on the Forum, a Windows Advanced user may say, "I know how to do it, that's what I do. Then ...... No! Stupid system !" Then they said, "if I have any questions, I don't want to worry about it. Linux is 108,000 miles away from desktop applications !" I'm afraid they didn't realize that their knowledge helped them to solve more problems than experienced users. They mistakenly thought that Linux is a software that can do the same thing with Windows. In fact, it is a different software than Windows, and it does different things. It is not difficult for Linux to perform the same tasks as Windows, but it completes an alternative task. To understand this, you must first understand FOSS. It is not surprising that many new Linux users cannot understand it very well. They are new users, they are still used to thinking from the perspective of private software. So let me explain:
The typical FOSS software author often thinks of writing one by himself because of dissatisfaction with the existing software. He is also a good guy. After making the software source code public, he said to everyone, "Let's do it yourself !". He can do this, because there is no cost to copy the software, so it will not spend more money to contribute the software to the world than to keep it for himself. He will not feel the pain of giving away software.
However, it is important to remember that he will not make a profit by sending the software. Whether it is for one person or 0.1 billion people, there is no difference for developers. Oh, of course, he will be happy to see that his product is popular: the number of users is a good topic to boast about and can create records. But this will not bring him any money: Because this is FOSS.
If the software is successful, others will be interested and willing to help improve it. This is the biggest advantage of the FOSS: Every user may be a potential developer, and everyone can participate in making the software work better, with more functions and fewer bugs. It would be great if a software could attract a large number of developers. But this is only for the software itself, it will make the software better, and developers will not get rich, but will only let them invest more time for this.
FOSS is the opposite of private software such as Windows: FOSS focuses entirely on the software and does not care about the number of end users. The software runs well, but the users are few. This is a failure from the commercial software standards, but it is successful from the FOSS standards.
FOSS focuses on writing high-quality software that truly works. If you want to use it, you need to spend time learning how to use it. The FOSS software is free for you. It has invested a lot of time for many people to write it, regardless of their personal interests. Therefore, if you complain that it cannot work like a corresponding software in Windows, you should invest at least a little time, which is a kind of respect for the contribution of the software author.
"Haha, now I have caught your flaws," said a novice. "Some Linux projects aim to replace Windows, not just to provide a choice ."
It is not difficult to see where this idea came from. For example, KDE and Gnome provide a desktop environment different from the traditional Windows Manager and CLI in Linux, which is more similar to Windows. Linspire is another way to make Linux the same as the Linux release version of Windows.
However, these arguments are more supportive of my opinion than those of the novice.
Why? Because these are standard FOSS projects, they all aim to make the software better. The only difference is that the quality definition in these projects is "How To Make Windows users more convenient to use ?"
Once you take this into consideration, you have to agree that the goals of these projects are to improve the software itself. They are all typical Linux software of 100%. These projects are written by more selfless developers: they do not meet their own needs because they are too familiar with Linux. Instead, they aim to make it easier for others to transition from Windows to Linux.
These developers knew that some Windows users wanted to switch to the Linux camp, so they made great efforts to build a Linux environment that made Windows users feel comfortable and familiar. They do not intend to replace Windows. Although the final result leaves the impression, their ultimate goal is different: not to create a replacement for Windows, it helps Windows users transition to Linux.
It is not uncommon for the community to speak against such projects. Some people have a reasonable reason ("KDE is too resource-consuming or Fluxbox-friendly "), some people are holding a irrational attitude of "not good software like Windows. In fact, this is not an anti-Microsoft or anti-Windows attitude, but an unreasonable hate for what you don't know.
A typical Linux user is a computer enthusiast: he uses computers for fun, programming, and hacking, which is very difficult to translate and cannot be replaced by a simple word, it is also fun to modify the software to meet your own needs. Linux is a favorite of hacking enthusiasts. It can break down Linux into the most basic parts and then assemble it as needed.
However, most new Linux users are not computer-related or hacker (TRANSLATOR: modify the software to meet your needs ). They only require computers to work, just like Windows. They are not interested in taking the time to set up Linux, and they can use it if they wish.
This is good, but in a typical Linux User's opinion, it is like someone wants a Lego toy car that has been assembled and pasted with glue. This is really hard for them to imagine: "How can someone ask for this ?"
This is indeed hard to understand. If you want a good car model, buy a toy car. If you want a car that can be assembled by yourself, buy Lego. How can someone want a Lego car that can only be used as a toy car? Lego's pleasure lies in self-assembly!
A typical Linux user will answer the question "Why cannot it work ?" "If you only want to make the computer work, use Windows. If you want to modify it by yourself, use Linux. If you are not interested in the benefits of open-source software, what do you need to switch to Linux ?"
The answer is that they do not really want to use Linux at all. They just want to stay away from Windows: they want to stay away from viruses and malware, and they want to release paid software from restrictions. u. l. a. bound. They are not trying to get started with Linux. They just want to get rid of Windows. Linux is just the most widely known option.
I will discuss it further later...
You may think: "Well, this can explain why developers do not try their best to make their software more like Windows, however, Linux software can also have a GUI that is as friendly as Windows without violating the FOSS principles."
There are some reasons to explain why this is not the case.
First of all: Do you really think that the software writer will deliberately make a bad user interface?
When a person spends a lot of time writing software, he will always try to make the software UI as good as possible. UI is too important for software: If a function cannot be accessed through the UI, it is meaningless. You may not know, but the reason why the UI becomes the best UI that software creators can make is that it is not unreasonable.
If you still stick to a Windows-like UI to make the software better, do not forget the fact that the authors of these software do not agree with you. They must have a much deeper understanding of the software than you do. Maybe they are wrong, but they are unlikely.
Second, there are already many beautiful GUI front-ends that are easy to accept by Windows users. I don't know what features can be controlled through the GUI, no matter how advanced. You can compile the kernel (make xconfig), set the firewall (fwbuilder), hard disk partition (qtparted )...... These can be done by nice-looking, interactive, intuitive, and user-friendly programs.
However, the release cycle of Linux is different from that of Windows. It is impossible to have a sophisticated GUI from the very beginning. The GUI only increases the complexity of the software and does not improve functions. The developer's intention is not to create a fancy but useless GUI. They create the software they need.
The first thing a software can do is to use it in CLI mode. It may contain a variety of call options and long configuration files. Because this is the most basic thing required to implement software functions, and the rest can be improved slowly. Even if there is a beautiful GUI in the future, we should still see: generally, it can still be controlled by using CLI and configuration files.
This is because CLI has many advantages: CLI is common; CLI is available in every Linux system; all programs can be executed from CLI; remote access to CLI is also very convenient. But the GUI is not: Some Linux machines do not have the X11 window system installed; some software cannot be accessed through the GUI menu; it is usually not easy to remotely use the GUI tool.
Finally, there may be different GUI front-ends that can do the same thing, and others cannot know which one you have installed.
So remember, when you ask "How do I get it ......?" In most cases, others will tell you how to solve the problem through CLI. This does not mean that the problem can only be solved from CLI, but reflects the importance of CLI over GUI during software development.
Windows is completely GUI-centered. It is a GUI-based operating system, and its CLI is bad (but it will soon be improved ). There are almost no Windows software and no GUI. This also makes people think that GUI is an essential element of software. But for Linux, the software can be released once it can work. It is necessary to add a GUI only when it is stable enough, has no bugs, and features are rich.
Try to understand a software without a good GUI as an internal beta version, rather than a completed product. FOSS is far from being completed, and it is still being improved. As long as the time is ripe, it can be completely user-friendly. But in most cases, it is much more important to make it work better than to make it look better. You should be glad that today you will have the opportunity to use the functions of future software, and those who only like beautiful guis will not enjoy it. FOSS didn't reach the end of its journey. It was just on its way.
Finally, you need to remember that the GUI of the software is often provided separately, and may even be developed independently by completely different developers. So if you want a GUI, it is not surprising that you must install it separately, rather than one-time installation.
To obtain a Windows GUI, separate installation does add additional steps, but this does not affect the fact that: now you can do almost everything through a GUI like Windows. Do not forget that the GUI is usually the last step. Linux will never only show its appearance but not emphasize its meaning.
Third: Linux is specially designed for experienced users who have rich knowledge, rather than novice users who are ignorant. There are two reasons:
Ignorance is inherent, but it is short-lived and knowledge is permanent. It may take several days, weeks, or months for you to become a "Medium Linux User" from a "new Linux User ". But once you reach this level, you can continue using it.
To make the software easier for new users, putting a lot of code is like welding all the bicycles with a permanent balance wheel. Maybe this will make it easier to get started, but what about later? I believe that you will not want to buy a car with a balance wheel. It's not because you are a tough guy opposed to user friendliness, but because it's useless for you to balance the wheel. It's out of the way if you're not new to anyone.
No matter how good the software is, users must be able to use it well. Even if you have the safest door in the world, thieves will be as unobstructed if you don't close the window, lock the door, or forget to pull the key. Even if you have the best engine in the world, if you add wrong fuel, cannot run. Linux puts all its capabilities into the hands of users, which also damages its capabilities. Of course, no one wants to do this. To keep Linux operating normally, it is the only way to learn more and let yourself know what you are doing. If the user can easily operate functions that he does not know at all, it may also cause damage.
Fourth: in the above text, Do you think FOSS may benefit from attracting typical Windows users?
Don't worry. You can read it again. I'm waiting.
The guiding principles of Linux and FOSS are "good software" rather than "a replacement for Windows ". A group of typical Windows users complain about Linux's only contribution. What do they complain about? "It does not work as it does on Windows ."
No, it is not like. If Linux works the same way as Windows, it will be too bad. It will be a poor product that no one wants. Linux is so popular because it is not like Windows, it will not do everything for you, it will not assume that you will always be an ignorant newbie, it does not hide all internal work.
Windows is the driver running around you; Linux gives you the key and lets you sit in the driver's seat. If you don't drive, it's your problem and your own fault. As long as you are willing to ask, many people will help you. If you give advice similar to a constant-speed cruise system, you must understand that the car is still in your own hands, but it can save a lot of effort. But if you try to persuade others that Linux really needs a driver, you should confess.
"But this will make Linux more mainstream !", Call it by a newbie.
Maybe so. But What benefits do developers get from Linux becoming the mainstream? Linux is free of charge. Even if Linux receives a larger user base, there will be no more Linux creators ***, and users on Linux forums will not make profits. Linux's goal is not to "gain a larger user base"-it is the goal of private software.
The objective of Linux is to create a truly useful operating system. Developers have been busy adding features, reducing bugs, and improving existing code. They have no time to hold a billboard to demonstrate how good they are. You can easily find out what is the most important thing in their eyes.
Interestingly, this mode keeps the user base of Linux growing. Linux started to be very small, but later it was very huge. What makes Linux so widely recognized? The reason is that it always regards quality as the focus. Users are attracted by Linux freedom and quality, which can only be provided by FOSS. Linux is growing because it doesn't care how big it is. Developers only focus on how to make it work better, so they attract users who want an operating system that can work better.
If we suddenly discard all of this, rather let Linux focus on how to replace Windows, it is equivalent to killing the elements of Linux's success. Some companies have seen the growth potential of Linux and hope to discover its treasures. But GPL becomes a barrier for them, and they cannot buy Microsoft price for Linux. "If Linux still sticks to open source, it will certainly not last long," they said. "Because nobody can do this ."
They did not realize that turning Linux into private software is a short-sighted act of killing chickens. Because Linux is a FOSS, and no one wants to use it to replace Windows, Linux can grow to today's scale. The reason for Linux's prosperity lies in its choice of a line that Microsoft will never confront in its competition with Windows: openness and quality.
For most Windows, Linux is just an inferior copy of Windows. It seems to be not rich enough, and its integration is quite complex. Linux is a poor operating system for these users. Indeed: Linux does not meet their needs. What they need is a simple and easy-to-use operating system that can be used without any learning.
Windows is designed for non-technical personnel, and they generally feel that Linux is difficult to use. Although this is not the case, this misunderstanding is understandable.
In fact, Linux is very easy to use and is really very easy to use. Why are they not reading this? Because the meaning of the word "Easy to use" is severely distorted, "Easy to use" is now understood as "Easy to use without prior learning ". But it does not mean "Easy to use", but "easy to understand ". The difference is as follows:
A safe deposit box has a note on it: "If you need to enable this safe box, first play the play disk to 32, then to 64, then to 18, and then to 9, finally, twist the key and lift the handle up."
And
A car can open the door by pressing the "unlock" button on the controller.
Driving locks is much easier, right? As long as you are near the car, a button can be done, unlike the safe box, you have to rotate the play disk exactly back and forth. However, it is easier for people who cannot open either of the two locks to open the vault lock than to open the car lock: there is a clear way to open the safe, and the buttons on the door are not even installed in the car.
The meeting is not difficult. This is also true for Linux. It is easy to use, but it is hard to learn. You can only find out why it is simple when you are willing to spend time learning Linux. Inevitably, the more you break down a task into simple steps, the more steps you need to complete the task.
Let me give you a simple example: Move the Five Elements (segments) in the text from the middle to the end.
If you use Microsoft's Word, WordPad, notepad, and other "user-friendly" Windows text editors, the fastest way is:
-Ctrl-Shift-Down
-Ctrl-Shift-Down
-Ctrl-Shift-Down
-Ctrl-Shift-Down
-Ctrl-Shift-Down
-Ctrl-X
-Ctrl-End
-Ctrl-V
[Center] (assume that you use a keyboard. Otherwise, you will need several mouse drag operations and reliable automatic screen scrolling .) [/Center]
In vi, you only need:
-D5d
-Shift-g
-P
With regard to the "user-friendly" Nature, vi requires many differences, but it requires fewer keys to complete the same operation than Microsoft's software. Why? Because Vi focuses on functions, while Microsoft focuses more on "user friendly ". Microsoft splits everything into simple steps, so it takes much more to complete the same task.
This makes all text editing tasks more efficient and easy to use than vi once you learn to use them. If you do not know that "d5d" means "buffer the five lines of text and then delete it from the document", you may feel very painful to use vi. But if you already know it, you can use it as you like.
Therefore, when a newbie sees that experienced vi users can do things so quickly and conveniently, he will naturally come to the conclusion that editing text is better than Word. Then he tries to run vi and see the full screen ~ S, typing, and no response.
Later, he understood the text input and command modes, and then he wanted to use vi to do things. However, the limited knowledge of vi still makes him difficult. There are too many things to learn before he can really grasp vi. Then he began to complain: "If vi can be as easy to use as Word ."
But the actual problem is: "I don't know how to use vi. It is too difficult to learn ." This is his own problem. He is accusing him of the problem rather than the software. There are thousands of people who are willing to use vi. They have never complained that it is too difficult to use and must be changed!
This is like buying Da Vinci's paint brush and complaining that you still can't paint. Painter's skills are the key to success. The paint brush itself cannot create Mona Lisa. It is just a tool that relies on user skills. This kind of skill can be obtained only through practice.
The same is true for vi, and is true for many Linux software. Some new users complain that these text editors, package managers, or command lines are too complex and not intuitive.
Before you insist that some Linux things must be modified, please ask yourself the question: "Do the veterans have the same opinions ?"
If the answer is "no", it is on your own side. If other people can use it well, why can't you? Do you have to spend time learning? Or do you want to try it out?
"User friendly" and "underlying functionality" are often in conflict. Small buttons and drop-down menus can make the software easy to use, but they may be troublesome for experienced users. This is just like taking A map and A compass from A to B. It is the same as watching A road sign: Everyone will follow the road sign, however, this would be twice the distance between people who know how to go directly.
(TRANSLATOR: blue line: "simple" path; red line: direct path)
If you want to paste the formula value in Excel, you can only choose Edit> select Paste> paste value from the menu. I don't want to select these "friendly" menus, sub-menus, and dialog boxes. I just want to do this directly. To be honest, if you reset the shortcut key and record some macros, I can use the keyboard to direct Excel and Word to do most of the work.
But this is not user-friendly, right? It still requires users to invest a lot of time to study the software. Linux requires you to spend time learning how to use existing functions, while "user-friendly" software requires you to spend time creating functions on your own.
If you like this, it's okay. You should do it. You should only see that the problem lies in your own knowledge level, not the software itself. Once you know how to use it, all Linux software is super easy to use. But if you don't know, it will be difficult to make it. This is not a software error.
Now, you may feel that Linux has a bad attitude. It does not want users. It does not want to make users feel convenient ...... It is only used for the pretentious l33t h4xx0r5! (TRANSLATOR: l33t h4xx0r5 can also write leet haxxors, which is a hacker who is not restricted by computer system permissions and has confidence in his/her computer skills)
This is totally different from the facts. Linux certainly wants users, but it certainly does not want to make things difficult. On the contrary: according to the definition of Linux, the hard-to-use software is spam software.
But you need to know that its definition may be different from yours, and it is also different from the definition of "traditional" Private software.
Linux wants users who really need Linux. This is not only about the need for a name, but about everything: free, open-source software; the ability to fix software on your own; the feeling of sitting in the driver's seat, everything is under control.
This is Linux, which is the focus of Linux. It is understandable that people hate viruses, blue screens, and spyware to switch to Linux. But these people don't need Linux. They only want a Windows system with few issues. They don't want Linux. Why do Linux need them?
But if they try Linux for viruses and spyware, then they gradually accept the concept of Linux and start to be attracted by the characteristics of Linux, and then want to use it, at this time, Linux also wants them.
Before you decide to switch to Linux, ask yourself, "Why should I switch ?"
If the answer is "I want an operating system that gives users all the power, I understand that it requires users to learn to use it ." : Select Linux. Maybe you have to spend a lot of time and effort to reach the level you want, but eventually you can get a computer that works exactly as you want.
But...
If the answer is "I want a Windows with no faults": Install a set of clean Windows XP SP2, set up a firewall, set up anti-virus software, never use IE to browse the Web page; update frequently; restart the software every time it is installed. Learn more about security. I have used 95, 98, NT, and XP from Windows 3.1, and have never been infected with viruses or spyware. Windows can be safe and stable, but you only need to maintain it.
If the answer is "I want a replacement for Windows": Buy an Apple Mac. I have heard that the Tiger version of OS X is great, and the appearance of Apple machines is also beautiful. You may have to pay for a new machine, but you can get what you want.
In both cases, do not try Linux. You will be disappointed with Linux software and the community. Linux is not Windows.
The content source of this page is from Internet, which doesn't represent Alibaba Cloud's opinion;
products and services mentioned on that page don't have any relationship with Alibaba Cloud. If the
content of the page makes you feel confusing, please write us an email, we will handle the problem
within 5 days after receiving your email.
If you find any instances of plagiarism from the community, please send an email to:
info-contact@alibabacloud.com
and provide relevant evidence. A staff member will contact you within 5 working days.
