SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mary Jo Foley reports at ZDNet that according to sources who've had good track records on Windows information, Microsoft won't be delivering a new Start Menu for Windows 8 with its coming Windows 8.1 Update 2, after all. "Up until recently, Microsoft was hoping to make a new "Mini" Start Menu part of a second update to Windows 8.1," says Foley. "Windows 8.1 Update 2 was and still is, last I heard slated to arrive in August of this year." Microsoft's operating systems group has decided to hold off on delivering a Microsoft-developed Start Menu until Threshold, the next "major" release of Windows. Threshold, which may or may not ultimately be called Windows 9, is expected to be released in April 2015.
The original Windows 8 interface lacked the Start Menu, a familiar component of previous versions of the operating system, replacing it with the live tile-driven Start screen. Many users didn't like the change, and some PC manufacturers and developers offered ways to bring back versions of the old Start Menu. Microsoft appeared to relent at Build when it unveiled the revised Start Menu, enhanced with Windows Modern UI improvements.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday June 04 2014, @12:31PM
I never fail to be amazed at how the same brains that hold the idea "linux isn't ready for the desktop because the hue of blue in the copy of the UI is slighly pale" can be held in the same brain as "oh well windows got rid of the start menu and its all ribbons now so we'll just all have to retrain ourselves on our own time no problem"
This isn't a recent thing BTW. The difference between windows versions has historically always been much larger than the difference between contemporary linux and windows desktops, which has been comical for like 20 years now.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday June 04 2014, @01:28PM
Maybe if you've stuck with Gnome 2. If you look at Ubuntu's change from Gnome to Unity, or whatever the hell the KDE developers did to me back a few years ago (was it version 3? Whatever -- the one without icons or menus or help or documentation) you might reconsider that statement. Migrating from Windows to Gnome 2 is a small step, sure. Migrating from Windows to Unity is WTF?
Both Windows and Linux developers have a bad habit of fixing UIs that aren't broken for unexplained reasons. The difference is that Windows users are yet not so beaten down by years of abuse that they have given up resistance.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday June 04 2014, @02:18PM
Wait, What?
How does that make any sense?
Do you know what happens when someone does something to a Linux distro that most of their users don't like? They fork it and start a new distro.
Like Ubuntu up to where Unity was forced? Switch to any number of desktop environments Gnome, KED, XFCE. Or change OS altogether Fedora, Gentoo, SUSE, Linux Mint, then decide if you'd prefer it with MATE or Cinnamon. Or fork it yourself and get what you want all of these options are *free*.
Like Windows up to where they completely screwed the pooch with Vista, then keep using XP till they don't support it and get forced to *pay* to upgrade to Windows 7 or Windows 8. Going to windows 7 only delays the inevitable of having to pay ***again*** to upgrade to another version that still forces you into something you don't want. We hear a lot of whining from Windows users, but none of them actually do anything about it, those that do actually do something about it are the ones that move to Linux.
If anyone is "beaten down" by bad decisions it's windows users because they have the attitude of, "Waaa I don't like it!!", but then use it anyway. Where as Linux users have the, "Waaa I don't like it!!" change to something else that does what they want or start their own fork.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday June 04 2014, @05:59PM
You're right; you've made me re-assess the difference. I now realize that the difference between Windows users and Linux users is that when the Windows user gets screwed over by the developer changing a usable UI into an unusable one, other Windows users don't try to tell him he has no right to complain.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday June 04 2014, @06:47PM
I can agree with that statement.
Window users are much more of a "There, there my fellow windower. I feel your pain, and know there's nothing we can do to fill the aching whole in our hearts. I shall suffer loudly with you my brother!! We shall be unavenged!"
Where as Linux users are more like "STFU and fix it yourself or get a new distor!"
Both OSes have their ups and downs, but the cultures are very different. Windows is made up of more common uses that just generally accept what is being done is in their best interest and MS being a faceless corp. has no interest in them. Sure windows users will put up a stink for awhile, but eventually we (I use windows at work) just accept there's nothing we can do about it and just use what MS says we will use.
Linux on the other hand offers a huge variety of choice, but the constant bickering over what is *the best* distro or DE or WM can get under ones skin. They're all good, it's just a matter of what you want to do with them. And you do always have the option to switch to some other distro, DE or WM if you don't like what the devs are doing, or fork it yourself and do what you want. Not to say we (I use Ubuntu and Linux Mint at home) don't complain, but there really isn't a reason *to* complain. If Shuttleworth is forcing Unity on Ubuntu users, all they have to do is sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop, restart and select KED as the desktop, or just download and install Linux Mint. It's free you just have to invest a couple hours (if you don't know what you're doing) to install it.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday June 04 2014, @04:49PM
The reasons are very easy to explain:
1. Change for change's sake creates an "Ooh, shiny!" effect on people who don't have to actually use the damn thing. Seriously, I've seen changes like "The website used to be a blue color scheme, now we flipped the CSS to be green" or vice versa make management types gush and throw 5-figure sums at the vendor who did it.
2. UI designers gain reputation and career by changing things, whether or not that change was warranted. Think about it, which would look better on a resume: "- Designed new Windows tab-based UI" or "- Successfully tweaked the Start menu to be slightly easier to use"?
None of this has to do with the benefits to the users, but who cares about them?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday June 04 2014, @02:26PM
I've been using MS since '81, and have never tried Linux. I have an AMD 8 core 4GHz that I'm considering adding another hdd to for a Linux boot; what flavor should I choose?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday June 04 2014, @03:14PM
Depends on what you want it for and you're user level.
I'd recommend either Ubuntu or Linux Mint to anyone that's never used Linux before and just wants something to get started with. They're the easiest, IMHO, to get up and running and both have nice "app stores" or "software centers" where you can quickly find and install most of the application/games you might want without using the command line.
If you're a more advance user, like the command line and want something for actual work Xbuntu might be more of what you want, or even straight up Debian or Arch Linux.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday June 06 2014, @12:46AM
Just want to note -- if he wants to try Arch, he should probably start with Antergos.
Standard Arch not only has no GUI when you first boot up...it doesn't even have an installer anymore. The "installer" disk is just a command-line live CD and the only kind of "installer" provided is a shell script to create the initial filesystem. Which is great when you want to REALLY know all the details of your system...but a pain in the ass otherwise. Antergos is basically JUST a nice installer for Arch. It'll get you up to speed immediately with sane defaults, a GUI, the absolute latest packages, but once it's installed it's really just standard Arch.
I'm a die-hard Arch user myself...but even I ended up going with Antergos on my latest install. The reason being that I like keeping my hard drives encrypted, and I had a somewhat more complicated setup with two drives, one being an SSD, and Arch revised their wiki pretty heavily on how to set that up. So I'm sitting there digging through the wiki to figure out what tweaks I'll need with this new setup, and the full page on encrypted disks is *huge*...I forget exactly what problem I was having, but as some point I realized that it was all pretty fuckin' moronic and had the full install done in about thirty minutes once I decided to go download Antergos.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Friday June 06 2014, @10:40AM
Good to know, I've never installed Arch. I used it briefly on someone else's machine so I wasn't aware of the installer requirements. It seemed like a great OS for doing a lot of heavy computational work. He was using it for data crunching for ocean models.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Wednesday June 04 2014, @03:33PM
I agree with Vanderhoth and stress the Linux Mint Distro. You have a choice of "looks" from Gnome, KDE, XFCE and it comes out of the box pretty easy with later ability to tweak. Kind of like a tiptronic shift where you can do nothing, tap, or go full monty. I use to use Ubuntu till Unity came out. Fora while I tried various Distros (Fedora, SuSe), but settled on Mint for its easy. I've been a solid MS consumer (I develop on Windows VS) for ages so I know where you are coming from in taking a look.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1) by hendrikboom on Saturday June 07 2014, @04:41PM
The more things stay the same, the more they look different.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday June 04 2014, @04:31PM
"and have never tried Linux"
I'd call shenanigans its 2014, and hasn't been 1994 for a long time.
None the less the most striking observation is windows and OS tightly marry the GUI/desktop environment and the OS. The idea that you would be "permitted" on "your" computer to have an experience that looks like XP with osx under the hood is utterly unthinkable in fact its a thought crime with those people.
Given that background, there are two linux groups, one which tries to push the same outlook on life in linux, where "their little OS" will only and forever exclusively support Gnome (or kde) for no apparent reason other than they hate our freedom. The other group, Debian and a bunch of others, "permits" you to run whatever GUI/WM/DE you want on top of your OS. How nice of them.
So you're better off installing Debian, which from a technical standpoint is surely the most superior OS of them all, and then experiment with any or all of the GUI/WM/DE until you find the best personal fit.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday June 06 2014, @12:48AM
When did Debian switch to rolling release? ;)
(Score: 1) by hendrikboom on Saturday June 07 2014, @04:46PM
If I understand the term correctly, Debian testing and sid have always been rolling releases. New stuff appears as soon as it is ready. I update my Debian system at least weekly.
Debain stable is another matter.
-- hendrik
(Score: 3, Informative) by ancientt on Wednesday June 04 2014, @06:31PM
There are many, many opinions on that. There are hundreds of options and every one of them has someone who is passionate about it. I've personally tried to use about a dozen or so for extended periods and what I would recommend today is different than what I recommended five years ago. I set my girlfriend up with Ubuntu when we started dating and she liked it and later I set up Mint as a replacement and she liked it as well. She married me last year so I think Mint is at least not bad enough to end relationships. It is what I'm currently using and so I'd recommend it first.
If you just want to stick your toe in to test the waters, there are lots of CDs you can run off of without needing to do an actual install. I like Slax best for a nothing much but pretty snappy option. I created custom Slax installs for some kiosks and it is easy enough to use that the office is generally happy using it.
Other people will recommend Fedora, OpenSuse, Ubuntu and Debian for novices, or branch into BSDs and suggest PCBSD or FreeBSD. There are some others that are better for people, even novices, with a particular niche of preferred usage, like Scientific Linux for people who work in math and science. The good news is that no matter what you choose, there is probably a way to get any distro to do something you like from a different one, with varying degrees of required effort.
You asked using the word "flavor" which I more commonly associate with people comfortable with Unix. I like Unix a lot and have used Xenix, OpenSuse, Solaris, AIX and (shudder) SCO. You might be interested in Oracle Solaris or illumos if you want real Unix or consider one of the BSDs if you just want something that works like Unix. Typically Unix and very Unix-ish distributions aren't as friendly to novices, but some of the documentation on Unix beats everything I've seen in Linux.
This post brought to you by Database Barbie
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:39PM
I'd postulate that the overwhelming number of options and opinions is a large detriment to the adoption rate of Linux by Windows users. That said, these comments have been informative, and I've decided to try Mint on VirtualBox. Thanks!
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by codermotor on Wednesday June 04 2014, @07:28PM
I smell ambush.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday June 06 2014, @04:24PM
Indeed, there are roaming packs of greybeards and neckbeards in sight, this could get ugly fast (someone even started talking Unix! And do not mention the e-word), better grip your computer tight and be prepared to run :D
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Friday June 06 2014, @04:10PM
Try any, if you don't like it try another one. People like different things and all that. Better to have a second small computer & monitor or to use a virtual machine (you have plenty of cores so that should be no issue) than to do dual booting. I think VirtualBox [virtualbox.org] for a Windows host should do well for installing for example Linux Mint as a virtual client but since I don't really have any Windows I haven't tried it (but it really ought to work, it's precisely the kind of thing it's made for). It will also work the other way around (having Linux as the host and Windows as the virtual client) if you have real Windows installation media, but check closely before you do that and maybe get specific advice in relevant forums etc..
If you want a separate machine I'd choose a cheap laptop (possibly a 2nd hand one these days since I'm not at all interested in touchscreens) and Linux Mint. I would try to find information on the net about the laptop and any Linux experiences people have had before buying anything but if the laptop is a few years old (maybe as much as 4) then pretty much any issue ought to be resolved. One can splurge on all kinds of "certified" Linux-ready machines if one has the money but there's little need to.
If you can test the machine before buying then a USB thumbdrive is your friend (instructions [linuxmint.com] old page but still the valid one in this example). That's also an easy way to install. It will function as a LiveCD and won't install anything unless you tell it to but it also won't keep any changes, it's just a test run unless you install it or do other stuff. If everything works fine you're ready to buy and install straight away. Possible issues might be things such as the sound, WiFi, or card readers but these are examples of old issues and even newer issues like with some Intel on-board graphic chips have been solved for a while now. If there are any new issues (I don't currently know of any but I haven't bought a new machine recently) I'd say they are likely to be solved within a year at most (but there's no need to buy anything like that).
There might be people you know who use Linux or who don't mind you testing a USB thumbdrive on their machines as long as you don't install anything, you might even be able to try it at work or school or simply random shops. You might live in a place that has a Linux User Group (LUG) (use your favourite search engine for '"linux user group" + placename') or similar.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:35PM
This is useful. Just grabbed Virtualbox. Thanks!
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek