Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (
More info?)
Michel DETEST wrote:
>> What do you think about the difference beetween Windows XP and Linux
>> GUI ?
Windows is flexible, useable, skinable, colourful and generally good to work
with. Whether the computer is in the workshop or on the road it's a good
tool to work with and sensibly designed for to navigate. If you don't like
things too fancy, you can change the look and feel back to Classic if you
want .. you can even change how it functions back to Classic. I find the big
Start menu really convenient. And I find the flexibility good.
The GUIs available for Linux are excuses for GUIs. They are poorly thought
out, badly arranged, and ugly, not is a utilitarian way, but in a
disappointing way. They are also binky. And they fail - KDE and Gnome both
crash, and crash often. They simply cannot be depended on. Drag-and-drop
support is completely disappointing and unreliable. The colour schemes etc.
are second-rate. And despite claims otherwise, the GUI if you really look at
it, is very inflexible.
Worse, a lot of the code is written by hackers so there's the inherent
security risk of spy code being inserted into any distro. Furthermore Grub,
the bootloader, oversteps its bounds and infests the harddrive to the point
where even re-partitioning, let alone reformatting, won't get rid of it. The
whole attitude of Linux is wrong. It is a disappoint of an "operating
system" if you can call a big pile of dogsh*t an operating system.
Windows, on the other hand, runs on an open platform, is free from
self-appointed guru snob gods who look down on everyone, is understood by
millions. It's useful, functional and has open programming APIs that make
for "run everywhere" programming.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram