I've been using Linux for a few years now, but the one thing I still hate about it is I can never find my programs. I hate to say it but from an end user point of view Microsofts method of naming hard drives A,C,D,E etc and installing all programs in the program folder is far superior to wherever Linux puts them.
This basically says "i know the file system layout of windows, i dont know file system layout of linux and my ignorance is linux's fault".
This has nothing to do with superiority and everything to do with familiarity.
So, you have a system with drive letters, A,B,C,D and a clueless computer noob is asked to find firefox executable, where would he go look for it? A clueless new computer user will be just as lost in both systems.
This vent is of no merit.
I disagree (obviously). I don't think its a matter of familiarity, its a matter of labeling. If your looking for a program you can't find in Windows, you don't have to be familiar with the Windows file system to realize that it will likely be located under 'Programs'.
I can understand your frustration when you needed to find Okular and didn't know where to look. But that was a bit of a special case: the default program Firefox offered you wasn't what you needed. And that, of course, was the real problem.
(How often do you have to "find your programs"? Wouldn't you normally just start them from a menu or by clicking an icon on your desktop? Or possibly even by typing the name of the executable in a terminal?)
Its pretty self explanatory that programs will likely be installed in the Programs folder. Granted, as pointed out, there may be some programs installed elsewhere.
And that is the point. In Windows many programs are installed in strange places. In Linux there is at least some logic behind where they could be installed.
But for someone just browsing the filesystem looking for a program its the obvious place to look. Looking two tiers down in /user/bin/ is not as obvious as 'Programs' for someone that does not know where to look.
That, of course, is true. What /usr/bin stands for is not immediately obvious to a new user.
The reasons behind the traditional directory names are historical. And "/usr/bin" requires less typing than "/user/programs". (For "usr" is shorter than "user", and "bin" is shorter than either "binary" or "programs". That was once important.)
And the benefits of the Linux filesystem hierarchy (in terms of logic and consistency) usually outweigh the fact that a few directory names are a bit cryptic.
But again, these days you seldom have to know where an application is installed if you just want to run it. And if you need that information it's easy to get -- in several ways.
I also find it easier to find storage drives if I know they will be labeled by an upper case letter.
So you find labels like "C:", "D:" and "E:" intuitive?
Its easy to look through a file system for an upper case letter and then look inside to see if its the one you need than to find something labeled sda, sdb, fda, fdb, hda, hdb or whatever else Linux uses to designate storage devices.
On a modern system you'll mainly find sd
x. But that's beside the point. The important thing is that you don't have to bother about what the device nodes are called to just plug in a device and start using it. That's something you only need to know when you are tweaking your system (in a way that would be very difficult in Windows). Normally you just have to know where the partitions on your devices are mounted.
I understand that the letter designations are probably useful in indicating what 'type' of storage device it is. But from a strictly end user perspective, I don't care that the OS relays back to me the 'type' of device. I know the USB I just plugged in is a USB. I just want to be able to find it easy. Now granted, Dolphin does a great job of mounting storage devices and labeling them when you plug in a USB device for instance.
It isn't Dolphin that mounts them or labels them, even if they are mounted with a click in Dolphin. If a partition on a removable device has a label it will be mounted as /media/<label>, if it doesn't have one it will be mounted as something like /media/disk or /media/disk-1.
Many USB devices have labels when you buy them. If they don't, or if you want to change the label, it's easy to give them a new one. (You could even label them "C", "D" and "E" if you really don't want something more descriptive. Or with some tweaking you could mount them as /C, /D and /E.)
So Dolphin is leaps ahead of Konqurer in my opinion,
Well, Konqueror has the same "Places" side panel as Dolphin, even if it isn't open by default.
but I still find simple drive letters easier to spot when looking for a storage device.
Then label your storage devices.
Anyway, thanks for all the help and the interesting discussion. As noted, the thread was solved in the 2nd or 3rd post. And don't take my comments as being a MS fanboy and hating on Linux. The only thing I hate is when Linux (or any OS) fanboys get all defensive and are unwilling to recognize that other OSs may do some things that are easier and more intuitive than theirs.
It's just that "easier" and "more intuitive" mean different things depending on what you are accustomed to.
I'm not saying that is anyone in this tread since everyone gave examples as to why the held their opinion. I can appreciate that. I'm just saying that MS has done some thing right and it does make it easier for a new user.
I doubt it. But I'm not very new.
And if some of these things can be implement in future versions of any Linux distro they should be considered.
