Thanks Thanks:  0
Mi piace Mi piace:  3
Non mi piace Non mi piace:  1
Pagina 2 di 2 PrimaPrima 12
Risultati da 11 a 14 di 14

Discussione: tapatalk e enjoint

  1. #11
    Data Registrazione
    Dec 2013
    Località
    Nei pressi di fatti i cazzi tuoi
    Messaggi
    93
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Linux sarà anche un sistema più protetto e "personalizzabile" di windows o mac.
    Sul fattore stabilità in se e per sé del sistema ormai sono tutte e 3 paragonabili, però purtroppo su linux ancora non girano per esempio tutti i programmi che io utilizzo.

    E sono programmi pesanti quindi virtualizzazioni o simili non le posso utilizzare in quanto si impallano o mi danno problemi con device esterni indispensabili. Quando linux diventerà più user friendly anche per i programmi fatti per altri sistemi, penso che comincerò a sponsorizzarlo di più in giro, per il momento mi limito ad utilizzarlo io.

    Prima di dire è meglio questo sistema o è meglio questo, dipende sempre da quello che ci devi fare e soprattutto se devi nascondere qualcosa altrimenti, tutto il discorso fatto è praticamente inutile

  2. #12
    Data Registrazione
    Jan 2014
    Località
    Планета Ка-Пэкс
    Messaggi
    1,200
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Prima di dire è meglio questo sistema o è meglio questo, dipende sempre da quello che ci devi fare e soprattutto se devi nascondere qualcosa altrimenti, tutto il discorso fatto è praticamente inutile"
    è proprio per questo che ho parlato di liveCD/liveUSB: perchè uno può usarli per postare immagini in modo pulito e una volta spento il pc quei dati spariscono.

    però purtroppo su linux ancora non girano per esempio tutti i programmi che io utilizzo.
    ovvio, sono OS diversi

    Quando linux diventerà più user friendly anche per i programmi fatti per altri sistemi, penso che comincerò a sponsorizzarlo di più in giro, per il momento mi limito ad utilizzarlo io.
    si ma se linux diventasse "più simile a windows" sparirebbero i vantaggi.

    ---------------------
    comunque in definitiva, continuo a ritener dannoso consigliare windows 8 o comunque un tablet di M$.
    tinyurl.com/lErbaProibita <--Hidden Content
    Guerrilla Gardening: salviamo la canapa: pastie.org/8660638
    ---
    [articolo]Hidden Content
    ---
    "Canone+Schedatura"M5S/Uruguay/Colorado? vade retro! Perchè invece non iniziamo a seguire la Hidden Content ?!? tinyurl.com/fuoriluogocz
    5 piante, senza schedatura tassa: L'unica legge sensata! (dopo quella nordcoreana) Hidden Content
    ... c'è pure la Hidden Content che, modestamente, non è affatto male Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

  3. #13
    Data Registrazione
    Jan 2014
    Località
    Планета Ка-Пэкс
    Messaggi
    1,200
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Riguardo all'user friendly: è relativo.
    Ogni volta che mi tocca usare windows lo trovo molto "user unfriendly".

    Qui trovi molte risposte alla faccenda "user friendly" ecc ecc...

    http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
    linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

    (Linux is Not Windows)

    If you've been pointed at this page, then the chances are you're a relatively new Linux user who's having some problems making the switch from Windows to Linux. This causes many problems for many people, hence this article was written. Many individual issues arise from this single problem, so the page is broken down into multiple problem areas.
    Problem #1: Linux isn't exactly the same as Windows.

    You'd be amazed how many people make this complaint. They come to Linux, expecting to find essentially a free, open-source version of Windows. Quite often, this is what they've been told to expect by over-zealous Linux users. However, it's a paradoxical hope.

    The specific reasons why people try Linux vary wildly, but the overall reason boils down to one thing: They hope Linux will be better than Windows. Common yardsticks for measuring success are cost, choice, performance, and security. There are many others. But every Windows user who tries Linux, does so because they hope it will be better than what they've got.

    Therein lies the problem.

    It is logically impossible for any thing to be better than any other thing whilst remaining completely identical to it. A perfect copy may be equal, but it can never surpass. So when you gave Linux a try in hopes that it would be better, you were inescapably hoping that it would be different. Too many people ignore this fact, and hold up every difference between the two OSes as a Linux failure.

    As a simple example, consider driver upgrades: one typically upgrades a hardware driver on Windows by going to the manufacturer's website and downloading the new driver; whereas in Linux you upgrade the kernel.

    This means that a single Linux download & upgrade will give you the newest drivers available for your machine, whereas in Windows you would have to surf to multiple sites and download all the upgrades individually. It's a very different process, but it's certainly not a bad one. But many people complain because it's not what they're used to.

    Or, as an example you're more likely to relate to, consider Firefox: One of the biggest open-source success stories. A web browser that took the world by storm. Did it achieve this success by being a perfect imitation of IE, the then-most-popular browser?

    No. It was successful because it was better than IE, and it was better because it was different. It had tabbed browsing, live bookmarks, built-in searchbar, PNG support, adblock extensions, and other wonderful things. The "Find" functionality appeared in a toolbar at the bottom and looked for matches as you typed, turning red when you had no match. IE had no tabs, no RSS functionality, searchbars only via third-party extensions, and a find dialogue that required a click on "OK" to start looking and a click on "OK" to clear the "Not found" error message. A clear and inarguable demonstration of an open-source application achieving success by being better, and being better by being different. Had FF been an IE clone, it would have vanished into obscurity. And had Linux been a Windows clone, the same would have happened.

    So the solution to problem #1: Remember that where Linux is familiar and the same as what you're used to, it isn't new & improved. Welcome the places where things are different, because only here does it have a chance to shine.

    Problem #2: Linux is too different from Windows

    The next issue arises when people do expect Linux to be different, but find that some differences are just too radical for their liking. Probably the biggest example of this is the sheer amount of choice available to Linux users. Whereas an out-of-the-box-Windows user has the Classic or XP desktop with Wordpad, Internet Explorer, and Outlook Express installed, an out-of-the-box-Linux user has hundreds of distros to choose from, then Gnome or KDE or Fluxbox or whatever, with vi or emacs or kate, Konqueror or Opera or Firefox or Mozilla, and so on and so forth.

    A Windows user isn't used to making so many choices just to get up & running. Exasperated "Does there have to be so much choice?" posts are very common.

    Does Linux really have to be so different from Windows? After all, they're both operating systems. They both do the same job: Power your computer & give you something to run applications on. Surely they should be more or less identical?

    Look at it this way: Step outside and take a look at all the different vehicles driving along the road. These are all vehicles designed with more or less the same purpose: To get you from A to B via the roads. Note the variety in designs.

    But, you may be thinking, car differences are really quite minor: they all have a steering wheel, foot-pedal controls, a gear stick, a handbrake, windows & doors, a petrol tank. . . If you can drive one car, you can drive any car!

    Quite true. But did you not see that some people weren't driving cars, but were riding motorbikes instead. . ?

    Switching from one version of Windows to another is like switching from one car to another. Win95 to Win98, I honestly couldn't tell the difference. Win98 to WinXP, it was a bigger change but really nothing major.

    But switching from Windows to Linux is like switching from a car to a motorbike. They may both be OSes/road vehicles. They may both use the same hardware/roads. They may both provide an environment for you to run applications/transport you from A to B. But they use fundamentally different approaches to do so.

    Windows/cars are not safe from viruses/theft unless you install an antivirus/lock the doors. Linux/motorbikes don't have viruses/doors, so are perfectly safe without you having to install an antivirus/lock any doors.

    Or look at it the other way round:

    Linux/cars were designed from the ground up for multiple users/passengers. Windows/motorbikes were designed for one user/passenger. Every Windows user/motorbike driver is used to being in full control of his computer/vehicle at all times. A Linux user/car passenger is used to only being in control of his computer/vehicle when logged in as root/sitting in the driver's seat.

    Two different approaches to fulfilling the same goal. They differ in fundamental ways. They have different strengths and weaknesses: A car is the clear winner at transporting a family & a lot of cargo from A to B: More seats & more storage space. A motorbike is the clear winner at getting one person from A to B: Less affected by congestion and uses less fuel.

    There are many things that don't change when you switch between cars and motorbikes: You still have to put petrol in the tank, you still have to drive on the same roads, you still have to obey the traffic lights and Stop signs, you still have to indicate before turning, you still have to obey the same speed limits.

    But there are also many things that do change: Car drivers don't have to wear crash helmets, motorbike drivers don't have to put on a seatbelt. Car drivers have to turn the steering wheel to get around a corner, motorbike drivers have to lean over. Car drivers accelerate by pushing a foot-pedal, motorbike drivers accelerate by twisting a hand control.

    A motorbike driver who tries to corner a car by leaning over is going to run into problems very quickly. And Windows users who try to use their existing skills and habits generally also find themselves having many issues. In fact, Windows "Power Users" frequently have more problems with Linux than people with little or no computer experience, for this very reason. Typically, the most vehement "Linux is not ready for the desktop yet" arguments come from ingrained Windows users who reason that if they couldn't make the switch, a less-experienced user has no chance. But this is the exact opposite of the truth.

    So, to avoid problem #2: Don't assume that being a knowledgeable Windows user means you're a knowledgeable Linux user: When you first start with Linux, you are a novice.

    ...


    Problem #3: Culture shock
    Subproblem #3a: There is a culture

    Windows users are more or less in a customer-supplier relationship: They pay for software, for warranties, for support, and so on. They expect software to have a certain level of usability. They are therefore used to having rights with their software: They have paid for technical support and have every right to demand that they receive it. They are also used to dealing with entities rather than people: Their contracts are with a company, not with a person.

    Linux users are in more of a community. They don't have to buy the software, they don't have to pay for technical support. They download software for free & use Instant Messaging and web-based forums to get help. They deal with people, not corporations.

    A Windows user will not endear himself by bringing his habitual attitudes over to Linux, to put it mildly.

    The biggest cause of friction tends to be in the online interactions: A "3a" user new to Linux asks for help with a problem he's having. When he doesn't get that help at what he considers an acceptable rate, he starts complaining and demanding more help. Because that's what he's used to doing with paid-for tech support. The problem is that this isn't paid-for support. This is a bunch of volunteers who are willing to help people with problems out of the goodness of their hearts. The new user has no right to demand anything from them, any more than somebody collecting for charity can demand larger donations from contributors.

    In much the same way, a Windows user is used to using commercial software. Companies don't release software until it's reliable, functional, and user-friendly enough. So this is what a Windows user tends to expect from software: It starts at version 1.0. Linux software, however, tends to get released almost as soon as it's written: It starts at version 0.1. This way, people who really need the functionality can get it ASAP; interested developers can get involved in helping improve the code; and the community as a whole stays aware of what's going on.

    If a "3a" user runs into trouble with Linux, he'll complain: The software hasn't met his standards, and he thinks he has a right to expect that standard. His mood won't be improved when he gets sarcastic replies like "I'd demand a refund if I were you"

    So, to avoid problem #3a: Simply remember that you haven't paid the developer who wrote the software or the people online who provide the tech support. They don't owe you anything.

    Subproblem #3b: New vs. Old

    ...

    Problem #4: Designed for the designer

    ...

    Problem #5: The myth of "user-friendly"

    This is a big one. It's a very big term in the computing world, "user-friendly". It's even the name of a particularly good webcomic. But it's a bad term.

    The basic concept is good: That software be designed with the needs of the user in mind. But it's always addressed as a single concept, which it isn't.
    If you spend your entire life processing text files, your ideal software will be fast and powerful, enabling you to do the maximum amount of work for the minimum amount of effort. Simple keyboard shortcuts and mouseless operation will be of vital importance.

    But if you very rarely edit text files, and you just want to write an occasional letter, the last thing you want is to struggle with learning keyboard shortcuts. Well-organized menus and clear icons in toolbars will be your ideal.

    Clearly, software designed around the needs of the first user will not be suitable for the second, and vice versa. So how can any software be called "user-friendly", if we all have different needs?

    The simple answer: User-friendly is a misnomer, and one that makes a complex situation seem simple.

    What does "user-friendly" really mean? Well, in the context in which it is used, "user friendly" software means "Software that can be used to a reasonable level of competence by a user with no previous experience of the software." This has the unfortunate effect of making lousy-but-familiar interfaces fall into the category of "user-friendly".

    Subproblem #5a: Familiar is friendly

    So it is that in most "user-friendly" text editors & word processors, you Cut and Paste by using Ctrl-X and Ctrl-V. Totally unintuitive, but everybody's used to these combinations, so they count as a "friendly" combination.

    So when somebody comes to vi and finds that it's "d" to cut, and "p" to paste, it's not considered friendly: It's not what anybody is used to.

    Is it superior? Well, actually, yes.

    With the Ctrl-X approach, how do you cut a word from the document you're currently in? (No using the mouse!)
    From the start of the word, Ctrl-Shift-Right to select the word.
    Then Ctrl-X to cut it.

    The vi approach? dw deletes the word.

    How about cutting five words with a Ctrl-X application?
    From the start of the words, Ctrl-Shift-Right
    Ctrl-Shift-Right
    Ctrl-Shift-Right
    Ctrl-Shift-Right
    Ctrl-Shift-Right
    Ctrl-X

    And with vi?

    d5w

    The vi approach is far more versatile and actually more intuitive: "X" and "V" are not obvious or memorable "Cut" and "Paste" commands, whereas "dw" to delete a word, and "p" to put it back is perfectly straightforward. But "X" and "V" are what we all know, so whilst vi is clearly superior, it's unfamiliar. Ergo, it is considered unfriendly. On no other basis, pure familiarity makes a Windows-like interface seem friendly. And as we learned in problem #1, Linux is necessarily different to Windows. Inescapably, Linux always appears less "user-friendly" than Windows.

    To avoid #5a problems, all you can really do is try and remember that "user-friendly" doesn't mean "What I'm used to": Try doing things your usual way, and if it doesn't work, try and work out what a total novice would do.

    Subproblem #5b: Inefficient is friendly

    ...

    Problem #6: Imitation vs. Convergence

    ....

    Problem #7: That FOSS thing.

    ....
    quote incompleto, perchè c'è il limite di 15k caratteri per commento...


    l'articolo completo:
    http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
    linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm



    Il punto 5 è particolarmente utile ...
    il 5b spiega perchè in realtà windows non è "user friendly" :Whistling:
    tinyurl.com/lErbaProibita <--Hidden Content
    Guerrilla Gardening: salviamo la canapa: pastie.org/8660638
    ---
    [articolo]Hidden Content
    ---
    "Canone+Schedatura"M5S/Uruguay/Colorado? vade retro! Perchè invece non iniziamo a seguire la Hidden Content ?!? tinyurl.com/fuoriluogocz
    5 piante, senza schedatura tassa: L'unica legge sensata! (dopo quella nordcoreana) Hidden Content
    ... c'è pure la Hidden Content che, modestamente, non è affatto male Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

  4. #14
    Data Registrazione
    Dec 2013
    Località
    Nei pressi di fatti i cazzi tuoi
    Messaggi
    93
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Siamo due persone convinte di quello che stiamo dicendo,nessuno convincerà l'altro, quindi, chiudo con la mia opinione, se vogliamo fare un discorso di: cosa è meglio utilizzare se lo sai utilizzare e ci sono tutti i programmi che tu utilizzi? Linux, è quello che farei io se ci fossero tutti i programmi che mi servono.
    L'unico concetto che vorrei che fosse chiaro è che linux se non si apre come compatibilità ad i programmi che esistono anche per windows o mac rimarrà, quello che è. Un ottimo sistema non utilizzabile per lavoro.Certo se lo devi usare dentro casa per fare due cazzate lo puoi fare, lo uso anche io spesso per girare online.

    Detto questo non credo che windows sia quel grande demone che tutti pensano, SE LO SAI UTILIZZARE, stessa cosa vale per mac.

    Utilizzo lavorativo con programmi specifici:windows/mac

    Sicurezza sui propri dati:linux

    Per me questa è la differenza che ho trovato negli anni utilizzando tutti e tre i sistemi in contemporanea, poi tutti possono essere d'accordo o meno ma io guardo l'utilizzo lavorativo di un sistema e non solo a livello di "quanto mi potrebbero guardare".

    Poi secondo me la vera sicurezza di un computer avviene quando stacchi ethernet e wifi, altrimenti se arriva uno bravo un buco lo troverà sempre e inculato rimani.

    Spero di essere stato chiaro e che possiamo chiudere qua il discorso

Pagina 2 di 2 PrimaPrima 12

Chi Ha Letto Questa Discussione: 0

Attualmente non ci sono utenti da elencare.

Tag per Questa Discussione

Permessi di Scrittura

  • Tu non puoi inviare nuove discussioni
  • Tu non puoi inviare risposte
  • Tu non puoi inviare allegati
  • Tu non puoi modificare i tuoi messaggi
  •  

Questo sito utilizza cookies di analytics su dati esclusivamente aggregati e cookies di terze parti per migliorare l'esperienza dell'utente tramite plugin sociali e video.
Cliccando su oppure continuando la navigazione sul sito accetti i cookies. Per l'informativa completa clicca qui.