5 ms·

Not really. You reboot your computer, and press a key to pick which one you want.

emodendroket 9y ago
That, in itself, can be kind of annoying (interrupt all your downloads or whatever you are doing), and it doesn't get at the other issues -- having to run updates for both, having two incompatible filesystems where it's annoying to fetch a document from one and use it on the other, doubling the amount of setup and configuration you have to do, and so on. Every time I've set up a dual-boot system I've ended up just never using one of the options.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > That, in itself, can be kind of annoying Of course, but is it more annoying than using Windows all the time? OP leads me to belive a growing number of windows users might think otherwise. It's also worth noting that rebooting is an order of magnitude faster than it was 10 years ago. > having to run updates for both Updates are a pain in Windows, but they are not in any serious GNU/Linux distro I have ever used. This is one of the main reasons that users are frustrated with Windows in the first place. > having two incompatible filesystems where it's annoying to fetch a document from one and use it on the other This is a real problem when you are using Windows, but not when you are using Linux. The idea here is to only use Windows when you need it anyway. It's an inconvenience, sure, but is it more of an inconvenience than using Windows all the time? That's up to the user. Personally, the answer is no. > doubling the amount of setup and configuration you have to do Not so much, if you seriously use GNU/Linux for everything you don't need Windows for. Besides, configuration isn't a big issue unless you are like me, and want everything exactly your way; although, GNU/Linux is the only way I can get that. > Every time I've set up a dual-boot system I've ended up just never using one of the options. That's you, and that's fine. The best setup for you is almost definitely not the best setup for most other people. That is the entire reason to use and promote free software: liberty. Windows has made dual-booting difficult on purpose, because proprietary software begets proprietary software and control. Thankfully, there has been plenty of work in the other direction for those of us who want to control our computers, as opposed to the inverse.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    > Of course, but is it more annoying than using Windows all the time? In a word: yes. I have at different points used Windows, Linux, and OS X as primary desktop operating systems, so I am not operating from a sense of total ignorance of what other systems are like. My experience with Linux was that I needed to do far more configuration because lots of hardware wouldn't work right out of the box and needed a lot of tweaking and digging through Linux forums for someone with the same problem. I'm really not interested in doing that kind of thing on my personal computer anymore.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      When is the last time you used a major Linux distro? From my experience, installing and using Linux has been the most straightforward, especially compared to windows. And that's the point: we all have different experiences, so I think it's a bad idea to tell someone they are going to have your bad experiences of they try something new, because better software ends up getting a bad rap.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        You don't seem to have any qualms about sharing negative Windows experiences. Is the claim here that I should never share my opinion of software I have used?
        thomastjeffery 9y ago
        Negative experiences with windows are shared, because windows is proprietary, and therefore consistent. This entire thread is about one of them. I haven't had any negative experience with CUPS, and if I had, that wouldn't define my experience with GNU/Linux. I don't have an issue with you sharing experiences. I do get frustrated when those experiences are used to define GNU/Linux to those who haven't experienced it at all. There are too many people who hear that GNU/Linux is not for them, when it is really a fantastic alternative to windows. There's an attitude that free software will always fail people (which is not true), and I find that attitude not simply unfortunate, but malicious. The way that things improve is for manufacturers to see demand; and that won't happen if people don't see free software as the viable alternative that it is.
- juliangoldsmith 9y ago
  I agree with most of what the sibling post said, but the incompatible filesystems isn't much of an issue anymore. In my experience, NTFS on Linux works very well. Certainly well enough for any average user.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Oh, the last time I tried it it came with a bunch of disclaimers to never mount an NTFS filesystem as read/write on a hard drive whose contents you weren't OK with losing, but it's good to hear things have gotten better.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Everything that deals with filesystems or partitions has that kind of disclaimer. There fact is that you should always backup data you care about. It's the same as saying they aren't responsible for your computer suddenly catching fire. Is that likely to happen? No.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        Not that kind of disclaimer but a serious one that corruption was very likely
psyc 9y ago
Now explain to a not-super-technical user how to configure GRUB to boot Windows by default, or how to remove GRUB when they give up on Linux.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  A not-super-technical user can learn to do these things. Is the liberty a free OS provides worth the effort to that user? That's entirely up to them. It's easy to disregard change as too difficult to approach, especially when coming from such a controling and abusive environment (Windows/OS X). In reality, GNU/Linux is so much easier to use than Windows; most people have simply learned the latter first.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    > In reality, GNU/Linux is so much easier to use than Windows; most people have simply learned the latter first. That just isn't true. But don't take it from me; here's esr: http://web.archive.org/web/20180109063613/www.catb.org/esr/writings/cups-horror.html http://web.archive.org/web/20180109063613/www.catb.org/esr/w...
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Just because one piece of software was unnecessarily difficult for someone does not mean the entire ecosystem is broken. The problem we have is that a similar problem in Windows is instantly forgiven, because there is nothing you can do about it; whereas in Linux people expect a higher standard (which is often met) because that arbitrary limitation no longer exists. Sure windows has gotten a lot better since XP, but it has a long way to go to catch up to circa 2006 Ubuntu.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        The article says that the point isn't about CUPS in particular, but generally poor UX in Linux GUIs, and how Windows and Mac in this regard wipe the floor with Linux software in this respect, and I think it's completely right. There just isn't really a culture of providing a consistent UI experience or making the UI a first-class citizen in Linux-land.

That, in itself, can be kind of annoying (interrupt all your downloads or whatever you are doing), and it doesn't get at the other issues -- having to run updates for both, having two incompatible filesystems where it's annoying to fetch a document from one and use it on the other, doubling the amount of setup and configuration you have to do, and so on. Every time I've set up a dual-boot system I've ended up just never using one of the options.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
> That, in itself, can be kind of annoying Of course, but is it more annoying than using Windows all the time? OP leads me to belive a growing number of windows users might think otherwise. It's also worth noting that rebooting is an order of magnitude faster than it was 10 years ago. > having to run updates for both Updates are a pain in Windows, but they are not in any serious GNU/Linux distro I have ever used. This is one of the main reasons that users are frustrated with Windows in the first place. > having two incompatible filesystems where it's annoying to fetch a document from one and use it on the other This is a real problem when you are using Windows, but not when you are using Linux. The idea here is to only use Windows when you need it anyway. It's an inconvenience, sure, but is it more of an inconvenience than using Windows all the time? That's up to the user. Personally, the answer is no. > doubling the amount of setup and configuration you have to do Not so much, if you seriously use GNU/Linux for everything you don't need Windows for. Besides, configuration isn't a big issue unless you are like me, and want everything exactly your way; although, GNU/Linux is the only way I can get that. > Every time I've set up a dual-boot system I've ended up just never using one of the options. That's you, and that's fine. The best setup for you is almost definitely not the best setup for most other people. That is the entire reason to use and promote free software: liberty. Windows has made dual-booting difficult on purpose, because proprietary software begets proprietary software and control. Thankfully, there has been plenty of work in the other direction for those of us who want to control our computers, as opposed to the inverse.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  > Of course, but is it more annoying than using Windows all the time? In a word: yes. I have at different points used Windows, Linux, and OS X as primary desktop operating systems, so I am not operating from a sense of total ignorance of what other systems are like. My experience with Linux was that I needed to do far more configuration because lots of hardware wouldn't work right out of the box and needed a lot of tweaking and digging through Linux forums for someone with the same problem. I'm really not interested in doing that kind of thing on my personal computer anymore.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    When is the last time you used a major Linux distro? From my experience, installing and using Linux has been the most straightforward, especially compared to windows. And that's the point: we all have different experiences, so I think it's a bad idea to tell someone they are going to have your bad experiences of they try something new, because better software ends up getting a bad rap.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      You don't seem to have any qualms about sharing negative Windows experiences. Is the claim here that I should never share my opinion of software I have used?
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        Negative experiences with windows are shared, because windows is proprietary, and therefore consistent. This entire thread is about one of them. I haven't had any negative experience with CUPS, and if I had, that wouldn't define my experience with GNU/Linux. I don't have an issue with you sharing experiences. I do get frustrated when those experiences are used to define GNU/Linux to those who haven't experienced it at all. There are too many people who hear that GNU/Linux is not for them, when it is really a fantastic alternative to windows. There's an attitude that free software will always fail people (which is not true), and I find that attitude not simply unfortunate, but malicious. The way that things improve is for manufacturers to see demand; and that won't happen if people don't see free software as the viable alternative that it is.
juliangoldsmith 9y ago
I agree with most of what the sibling post said, but the incompatible filesystems isn't much of an issue anymore. In my experience, NTFS on Linux works very well. Certainly well enough for any average user.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Oh, the last time I tried it it came with a bunch of disclaimers to never mount an NTFS filesystem as read/write on a hard drive whose contents you weren't OK with losing, but it's good to hear things have gotten better.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Everything that deals with filesystems or partitions has that kind of disclaimer. There fact is that you should always backup data you care about. It's the same as saying they aren't responsible for your computer suddenly catching fire. Is that likely to happen? No.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Not that kind of disclaimer but a serious one that corruption was very likely

psyc 9y ago

Now explain to a not-super-technical user how to configure GRUB to boot Windows by default, or how to remove GRUB when they give up on Linux.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
A not-super-technical user can learn to do these things. Is the liberty a free OS provides worth the effort to that user? That's entirely up to them. It's easy to disregard change as too difficult to approach, especially when coming from such a controling and abusive environment (Windows/OS X). In reality, GNU/Linux is so much easier to use than Windows; most people have simply learned the latter first.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  > In reality, GNU/Linux is so much easier to use than Windows; most people have simply learned the latter first. That just isn't true. But don't take it from me; here's esr: http://web.archive.org/web/20180109063613/www.catb.org/esr/writings/cups-horror.html http://web.archive.org/web/20180109063613/www.catb.org/esr/w...
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Just because one piece of software was unnecessarily difficult for someone does not mean the entire ecosystem is broken. The problem we have is that a similar problem in Windows is instantly forgiven, because there is nothing you can do about it; whereas in Linux people expect a higher standard (which is often met) because that arbitrary limitation no longer exists. Sure windows has gotten a lot better since XP, but it has a long way to go to catch up to circa 2006 Ubuntu.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      The article says that the point isn't about CUPS in particular, but generally poor UX in Linux GUIs, and how Windows and Mac in this regard wipe the floor with Linux software in this respect, and I think it's completely right. There just isn't really a culture of providing a consistent UI experience or making the UI a first-class citizen in Linux-land.