PDA

View Full Version : Linux Desktop Readiness Thread



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

weatherman
December 15th, 2006, 12:53 AM
most free software coders do it for fun, so they really don't have to listen to any customers but just work on what they want. If there's a company employing them you should complain about the company.
Usually though if there's enough users requesting a certain feature someone with enough knowledge will start working on it (which as far as my understanding goes is how free software works).

ago
December 15th, 2006, 01:05 AM
I don't feel that there are enough coders in the Open Source community that acknowledge that their are certain aspects worth adding.

As explained that is not so much of an issue. If there are some aspects worth adding, someone will add them, if nobody will do so, it is probably because those aspects are not that worth.

In my mind there are 2 advantages that closed/commercial solutions have over FOSS ones.

1) It is easy to "standardize", on several levels. But how much that is beneficial in the long term is uncertain. In the FOSS world, when people diverge and go for different routes and then you need to make them converge (see the portland project for instance), the standardization process will create very interesting results, something you loose when you standardize since day 1. Moreover often commercial companies try to standardize on closed protocols/formats in order to lock-in the users. Not to mention the "choice is good" sermons. Never the less it is undeniable that "standardization" simplifies things quite a bit.

2) The other advantage, regards the chicken and egg problem; in some FOSS niches you need a certain critical mass without which few people cooperate, the product stagnates, few people cooperate, the product stagnates.... In a commercial setting you can focus lots of resources on a niche product and make it happen.

ZylGadis
December 15th, 2006, 01:20 AM
As a first constructive criticism, it is high time someone created an actually intelligent packaging system. Heck, it might even be me, if I find the time.

Imagine not having to install a new distribution every 6 months or whatever the release cycle is. Imagine updates to your installed programs just happening, because you have told them to, and you don't want to be bothered with all the details. Imagine obsolete software being automagically removed from your machine without damaging anything else. It should all be possible by now.

Each software project would supply something like a repository, where regular updates would happen, etc (and I mean something more than CVS - rather, something like a ready-to-install point version in the format required with all dependencies or pointers to repositories containing them). Then, if you are interested in that particular program, you just add the repository in your sources file, install the program once and forget about it and any updates.

There would even be no need for distributions as they exist. They would turn into large repositories adhering to such and so principles / personal choices of the creator.

This is not something that can happen in a proprietary world, of course. But we are free.

On a side note,

The idea that "quality" is somehow even remotely related to the mass adoption of software is misguided, and I have posted at length on it elsewhere.
Brunellus, can you please point me to that "elsewhere?" This is something I have often thought about, and I'd be glad to read another's opinion.

codypumper
December 15th, 2006, 02:26 AM
I'd say, to sum it up, go open source but keep open minded.

zcal
December 15th, 2006, 02:32 AM
This could lead to some major problems. If you think that Ubuntu is almost perfect, then why and would you want to improve it? If improvements slow down, than their is no way that Ubuntu will become a better operating system than it's competitors.

I'm not sure where you got this idea. If Ubuntu were perfect, I wouldn't be receiving software updates every day. Development ought never to slow down as long as there's something else to catch up to. Linux has been steadily playing catchup to Mac OS X for years now. It's WIndows that has been trailing behind. Microsoft's only just now adding certain features to its flagship with Vista that Mac OS X, and even Linux, have been supporting for nearly 5 years.

The only danger of Ubuntu, or any Linux distro for that matter, slowing down or stopping development because the OS is already "perfect" is Linux taking Windows' crown away. And let's be realistic...this certainly isn't happening any time soon.

Shay Stephens
December 15th, 2006, 02:51 AM
I think the problem here is in defining the words used. Much as people get confused when the word free is used and they latch on to the "free as in beer" meaning only. When people say that free software is better than proprietary, they are not necessarily talking about it being perfect, they are simple saying that free (as in freedom) software is "better" because of all the benefits it offers over non-free software.

People just coming on board may confuse the meaning of "better" to mean "perfect" or currently working with fewer bugs than the non-free version. But that is not the correct meaning of the word "better". What is meant is that over time, the free software will be more of a benefit for the users because it is more customizable, does not take freedoms away, does not deactivate itself, etc, etc. This is a longer term view of software than many are used to, so it is easy to see how many can be confused by the terminology.

Free software is better than non-free software, but in the short term, it may be buggier, not have as many features, and/or be uglier. But with each passing update, these things get better, while the freedom to use and alter the software remains the same. That can't always be said of non-free software (*cough* vista *cough*). Better does not mean perfect, but it's the freedom that makes it better.

aysiu
December 15th, 2006, 03:10 AM
It's nice to think Ubuntu is near flawless.... If you think that Ubuntu is almost perfect, then why and would you want to improve it? You're operating based on a faulty premise. No one thinks Ubuntu is near-flawless, least of all the developers. They are not resting on their laurels. They are working constantly to improve Ubuntu and have better versions every six months.

If you're being sincere (and not just posting flamebait), back it up. Show me at least two posts in the Ubuntu Forums or one post in the developers' mailing list where people say Ubuntu is perfect and cannot stand any improvement. Show me people saying we can stop development on Ubuntu. If you can't post any proof of this, you've created about the worst straw man I've ever seen.
This will likely end up in the "not ready for the desktop" thread. How right you are.

Brunellus
December 15th, 2006, 07:51 AM
I dealt with why software is adopted (from a rough economic perspective) in a post on my blog (http://ouij.livejournal.com/167664.html). The short form: the dominant OS is NOT the OS that is "most ready for the desktop" by any measure. A related point (and I'm not sure I develop it fully there) is that individual users don't actually choose their operating systems.

Another excellent essay on the subject is Aysiu's The Linux Desktop Myth (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth).

As far as "buried" and "proof of denial," let me repeat: if you want improved software, put up or shut up. File your reports and requests in the proper venues, express your support morally and monetarily, or go find software that suits your needs better (giving your time/money/attention) to the competition. Ubuntu is not perfect. The Linux kernel is not perfect. Free application software is not perfect. But you know what? It's improving. It's improving in a transparent, verifiable, way that can be tested against its own hype by any user wishing to do so.

I am actually very annoyed when I have to use windows. Why did I have to reboot a running system just to install a printer driver? Why can't I have forward slashes and not backslashes as directory separators in the shell? But I don't wade onto Windows support forums and trash their OS needlessly.

I leave that sort of misbehavior to Apple users.

aysiu
December 15th, 2006, 07:55 AM
if you want improved software, put up or shut up. File your reports and requests in the proper venues, express your support morally and monetarily, or go find software that suits your needs better (giving your time/money/attention) to the competition. In other words, What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741&highlight=whining+difference)

wiggleroom
December 15th, 2006, 10:11 AM
I don't feel that there are enough coders in the Open Source community that acknowledge that their are certain aspects worth adding.Any particular aspects you're thinking of?

wiggleroom
December 15th, 2006, 10:20 AM
The other advantage, regards the chicken and egg problem; in some FOSS niches you need a certain critical mass without which few people cooperate, the product stagnates, few people cooperate, the product stagnates.... In a commercial setting you can focus lots of resources on a niche product and make it happen.
That's an interesting thought. There's no doubt that a proprietory model can work well for niche products. But there are also niche FOSS projects as well. While it often helps to have a big developer community and lots of users, perhaps it's not always necessary? Commercial niche software will work only if there is a viable niche market. FOSS niche software *can* work if nobody but the developer him/herself is interested in the software they're writing.

mechanic
December 21st, 2006, 03:24 PM
There are lots of things wrong with U. 6.10 as it stands - the CD installs after the usual partitioning hassle BUT there seems so little useful software on there! Who gets to choose? Knoppix always seemed to cram so much more useful stuff in. Ubunto could even download the missing bits from the Net during post-install but they don't. As a result we're left with vim that doesn't do 'syntax' or have help files, locale that installs wrongly even after selection of your home town on the map during the install, missing newsreaders, no Opera, no decent mail application (Pine throws all sorts of problems up, and where is Mulberry?), Open Office with issues (see relevant posts) and I could go on. I can't even get the character set to default to iso 8859-1 or whatever Latin1 is called these days.

What are they going to get right next time? And why is MS-Windows so much better out of the box? Does user experience count for nothing at camp Ubuntu? Hard to explain the popularity given the problems.

Regds, m.;

leech
December 21st, 2006, 04:14 PM
I think I'll feed the troll for a moment.

1) Knoppix is now DVD based, Ubuntu and Kubuntu is CD based. So they really can't fit as much as Knoppix does.

2) It actually does download some 'missing bits' from the Internet. It downloads the language packs.

3) Anyone who uses Vim will know how to work around that. I use Nano myself, and it's a nice simple 'fix it' console-based text editor. Vim is not something a "new user" is going to want to use, and Ubuntu is exactly for new Linux users.

4) The location on the map of your 'home town' has nothing to do with locale. It is for setting your timezone. Completely different thing, though they should logically be tied to each other, they are not. Especially since there are some timezones that have several locales in them.

5) The Newsreader part I'll agree with. It shouldn't be too hard to include Pan. On the other hand, Opera is not open source and it could be debated heavily whether or not Firefox is a better browser. But Firefox DOES have a bigger market share and mind share than Opera does. Not to mention that Ubuntu uses Gnome, and Opera is QT. Kubuntu could have Opera included, except again it's not open source and KDE uses Konqueror for it's default browser.

6) As far as 'decent mail clients', Evolution is definitely a decent mail client. Add on the fact that it's one of the very few email clients that will work with an Exchange server (at least for the most part.) If you even know about Pine (never heard of Mulberry) then you obviously have been around Linux / Unix long enough to know that it is console based and that most people who are using Ubuntu want GUI, for good or bad.

7) Personally, never had much issue with OpenOffice.org. Granted I will admit that I don't use it for much except for Writer, and even then I personally prefer Abiword, simply because it fits in with Gnome better. Are you talking about the Character set within OpenOffice? I don't know if that is even specific to Ubuntu, since I see mentions of it all over the net for other distros.

8) Windows basically has nothing 'out of box' except for a crappy media player and a firewall that only blocks incoming connections, but not outgoing. Wordpad, Notepad and Solitaire. Honestly for Windows to be useful at all, you have to spend lots of money on Office, games, etc.

Obviously user experience does count for something here, otherwise you wouldn't have so many people that have ditched windows or other Linux distributions in favor of Ubuntu.

Leech

Kevin
December 21st, 2006, 04:34 PM
Well, for starters, Ubuntu chooses a default set of applications that most people use, then has the rest available for installation if you need it. Opera is not open source, so can't be included, not to mention the rest of the system currently requires Firefox to run. Vim isn't needed by most users, so a light version of vim is installed by default, and those who do use it should be able to install the full version of it from the repos.

Now if you're saying Windows is so much better out of the box than Ubuntu... Where's vim at all? Newsreader? Opera? decent mail app? (I'm sorry, but even with its quirks evolution is a heck of a lot better than outlook express) An office suite?

Yes, there are still some issues Ubuntu needs to work out in some of its apps, but saying Windows is better OOTB is well, just silly...

Mr Frosti
December 21st, 2006, 08:16 PM
Windows basically has nothing 'out of box' except for a crappy media player and a firewall that only blocks incoming connections, but not outgoing. Wordpad, Notepad and Solitaire. Honestly for Windows to be useful at all, you have to spend lots of money on Office, games, etc.

I hate to say this but lets think for a moment. It is true that Windows doesn't include hardly any applications OOTB, but it is an Operating System, not a complete solution. Additional software is required to make it work.

Lets talk about the things that Windows XP DOES do that Ubuntu does not:

1) Automatic system restore
2) Driver management with features including removing, installing, updating - all through a Management console
3) A driver installation wizard when a new device is detected
4) Suspend and resume (100% of the time)
5) Built in configuration of external displays
6) DirectX hardware abstraction for easy gaming
6) Configuration of many different peripherals (ex touchpad AND external mouse)
7) Easy regional / language changing
8) A unified installation framework for software (Installshield) - Synaptic is similar, but you depend on the software being in the repositories, otherwise you get the tarball file
9) Modem support (even at the login screen)
10) Domain support

In fact, the focus of Windows seems to be maintenance and productivity. The focus of Ubuntu seems to be getting everything to work correctly. Many people haven't gotten past this to explore the applications side of Linux, which is really lacking in areas.

mlind
December 21st, 2006, 08:40 PM
wrong forum.

aysiu
December 21st, 2006, 08:44 PM
At first I thought this was serious Feisty-related discussion, but it appears it's just going back to a Windows v. Linux discussion, so I've put it in the appropriate place.

Really, when you say stuff like
And why is MS-Windows so much better out of the box? Does user experience count for nothing at camp Ubuntu? Hard to explain the popularity given the problems. how can you expect any suggestions you make to be taken seriously? Windows doesn't even have an office suite out of the box.

The comparison to Knoppix makes sense, but Ubuntu has decided on one application per task. If you don't like that decision, install more applications, or install Knoppix. No one said Ubuntu is for everyone. It seems to suit a lot of people, though.

lerrup
December 22nd, 2006, 04:06 AM
Lets talk about the things that Windows XP DOES do that Ubuntu does not:


2) Driver management with features including removing, installing, updating - all through a Management console

3) A driver installation wizard when a new device is detected

5) Built in configuration of external displays

8) A unified installation framework for software (Installshield) - Synaptic is similar, but you depend on the software being in the repositories, otherwise you get the tarball file



In fact, the focus of Windows seems to be maintenance and productivity. The focus of Ubuntu seems to be getting everything to work correctly. Many people haven't gotten past this to explore the applications side of Linux, which is really lacking in areas.

2 - I can't say I've noticed

3 but what happens if you don't have the driver, the manufacturer wants you to do something else or windows doesn't feel like it? I used to have a printer that would work with debian but not windows and I had the driver.

5-Only if you have the right drivers (see above)

8 -If you believe this you should perhaps read a good introduction to debian or Ubuntu. The one thing that you cannot say is this - the reverse is true. Have you ever tried to remove anything from a windows machine? Also you can install .debs individually you know...

final paragraph: maintanence and productivity - do you mean you have to spend all your time maintaining it?

sloggerkhan
December 22nd, 2006, 04:57 AM
I hate to say this but lets think for a moment. It is true that Windows doesn't include hardly any applications OOTB, but it is an Operating System, not a complete solution. Additional software is required to make it work.

Lets talk about the things that Windows XP DOES do that Ubuntu does not:

1) Automatic system restore
2) Driver management with features including removing, installing, updating - all through a Management console
3) A driver installation wizard when a new device is detected
4) Suspend and resume (100% of the time)
5) Built in configuration of external displays
6) DirectX hardware abstraction for easy gaming
6) Configuration of many different peripherals (ex touchpad AND external mouse)
7) Easy regional / language changing
8) A unified installation framework for software (Installshield) - Synaptic is similar, but you depend on the software being in the repositories, otherwise you get the tarball file
9) Modem support (even at the login screen)
10) Domain support

In fact, the focus of Windows seems to be maintenance and productivity. The focus of Ubuntu seems to be getting everything to work correctly. Many people haven't gotten past this to explore the applications side of Linux, which is really lacking in areas.

1) My experiences with windows system restore are BAD! Take up whole hard drives and very slow. On Ubuntu, I can put my /home on its own partition and backup the documents I need to without worry because I can do a complete reinstall in less than an hour, maybe 2 hours if there's an issue.
2)On linux, the drivers are built in. I think it's a lot easier.
3) Um, when a new device is detected, it already knows what it is and HAS the driver... so it just starts working....
4)Windows hibernate makes computers lag like HELL half the time. Had now problems with the features on Ubuntu.
5) Agreed that realtime multi-monitor/video out setup needs to be added.
6)Screw direct X. I bet pretty soon they start reserving part of the direct X APIs for MS developers only or some other BS. I guess I'm not a gamer, but I suppose direct X is important if you are a gamer.
7)It seems pretty easy to change that on Ubuntu. I have no idea how to do it on windows.
8)When I have downloaded 3rd party software, usually it has no problem installing. It detects it as an installable package and I hit the install button.
9) Know nothing about this. Don't use a modem.
10)Meaning? Mine detects the domain I'm using to access my network. Not sure what more you're asking for.

Pretty much most of your comments were baseless.

Here's what I see as needed to finish things up for the average user:

1. Consistant windows network compatability. (My experiences with windows shares have been... unstable.)

2. GUI/Autodection Configuration of monitor setup/video out. Using my S-Video out is a PAIN on Ubuntu. I got to work once only to find that it repicated the center 800x600 pixels or so and wouldn't display video overlays. (At least without a lot more work.)

3. A lot of the video players need some better V-Sync. Not sure why this is.

4. Idea: I've noticed a lot of windows people are sorta of confused because there aren't pre-existing folders in your directory for music and video and stuff. (I guess because of My Documents.) The reason I bring this up is that it seems like these user could on accident create duplicate directories for their music and photos. (By trying out 2 photomanagement apps or something.)

5. Once Edgy gets graphics cards working off install, 90% of the distance left will have been closed.

6. Repeated often: wireless interface/support improvements.



Just my thoughts. I pretty much think Ubuntu is already better than windows and mac.
So maybe I am a little off base. Who knows.

m.musashi
December 22nd, 2006, 06:13 AM
You know, I've used windows since 3.1 and before that macs and apples (I had one of the early apple II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apple-II.jpg) computers) back in the early 80s. I've been using Ubuntu now for about a year. I'm no computer science geek, but I have a moderately good understanding so I'd say I'm more skilled and knowledgeable than the "average" user but certainly not as knowledgeable as most people on this forum. Anyway, based on my 25 years of computing experience, I'd have to say that Ubuntu (and realize this is only a 2 year old or so distro) is one of the easiest, powerful, and fun operating systems (scratch that - call it a complete user system) I've used. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but neither are OSX or Windows. Both OSX and Windows are really nice OSs. They work well and the newer versions are really hard to muck up (actually I don't know too much about OSX). Sure you can end up with a bunch of garbage on your system and annoying apps that like to load silently but Windows just chugs along getting slower and slower until the owner decides that it's time to get a new computer. You know, this almost sounds like an MS conspiracy - build an OS that lasts 3 years so consumers have to keep buying a new computer and new OS.

Over the years, I've installed windows a good 20 times and I've installed Ubuntu about as many (because you have to install it and I've put it on a lot of computers). Ubuntu is much easier to install. I don't have to dig out a bunch of driver CDs or download them (I recently tried to reinstall win98 on some old laptops and it was not possible to find all the drivers - I even had an IT tech at work try and he gave up. Those laptops now have various linux distros and run just fine). It takes longer for windows to format my drive than the whole Ubuntu install. After I'm done installing, Ubuntu is ready to go. I can actually do things. Sure, I end up adding a bunch of stuff, but I don't have to (except maybe automatix but I think the whole open source philosophy of Ubuntu is cool and think it should stay that way). With Windows at least, I have to add quite a bit before I can do much - not the least of which are virus software (another conspiracy) and a firewall. Vista, I guess, I supposed to address that but Ubuntu and other distros have had that for years. Assuming you don't use hacked software or FOSS -which the average user doesn't even know about - you will be out a few hundred dollars or more before your windows box is up to snuff ($200 for just office).

I think I'm rambling a bit but it's important to remember that most people on this forum are not average users. Average users don't even know what it means to defrag their drive or that they even need to. As such, anything but a pre-installed and fine tuned OS will be beyond them. Likewise, if you give them a pre-installed and fine tuned Ubuntu box they will still be screwed because the certain click-click-click sequence that they have memorized to do a certain task will now be different and they will freak out (trust me, I've done this).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, if you know enough to know you have a choice then make it, but don't try and tell others who have also made their own choice that it is somehow wrong.

I'm not saying windows is bad but be realistic. It is not the most popular because it's such a great OS. It just benefited from some very good marketing.

steven8
December 22nd, 2006, 06:38 AM
It just benefited from some very good marketing.

That, and it was one of the first kids on the block before the new developments went in. It got a toehold and there was no one there to stand in the way. That is truly how it got where it is today.

Mr. Musashi, I think that has to be one of the best posts I've ever read. Well spoken!!

m.musashi
December 22nd, 2006, 06:56 AM
That, and it was one of the first kids on the block before the new developments went in. It got a toehold and there was no one there to stand in the way. That is truly how it got where it is today.

Mr. Musashi, I think that has to be one of the best posts I've ever read. Well spoken!!

Thanks. I kind of thought I wasn't saying what I wanted to very well. However, I doubt this will be the end of the "ubuntu sucks windows is so great" threads, but I'm sure aysiu will keep dumping them here.

mechanic
December 22nd, 2006, 11:31 AM
At first I thought this was serious Feisty-related discussion, but it appears it's just going back to a Windows v. Linux discussion, so I've put it in the appropriate place.


Thanks for that, I was wondering which forum to post it in, there didn't seem to be one for discussing the contents of new releases.

Of course the point I was raising was not to bash U. in favour of MS-Windows, but to try to discover who decides what goes into releases (I mean features, packages) and to point out that the user experience of the out-of-the-box system is worse than that of Windows. Obviously Windows doesn't contain a lot of applications, it's an operating system. And, yes, you can spend real money by the time you've purchased Windows and various applications, games etc.

The Ubuntu aim seems to be to supply a set of toy (sorry but they are) programs to get people onto the Net and carrying out basic tasks as soon as possible. Contrast this with the Debian install that puts up a tick list of functions (various servers etc.) part way through the install so it's customised to the user's needs. Automatix recognises this and provides a way of users installing what they really need after the basic system installs. Why is this function not included in the U. system as a post-install feature? It seems so obvious.

I suspect Windows is now (maybe hasn't always been) the leader in hardware recognition and setup during install. My display wasn't recognised by U. at all when I tried to use the U. disk as a Live-CD, I had to trundle through dpkg-reconfigure options in the text mode, and make a few guesses, before I had a usable system, and this LCD display is hardly unusual. Power management doesn't work at all either. How is this a good experience for the new, unskilled user out-of the-box? As I said earlier, Knoppix (even when it came on a CD!) provided a richer, friendlier experience to new users.

I rather doubt issues like this are raised by beta testers, possibly that's not their job; in commercial companies product definition is usually a marketing responsiblility. So we're paying one of the hidden costs of going with open-source software!

Regds, m.

BLTicklemonster
December 22nd, 2006, 02:28 PM
Is linux ready for the desktop?

Well, for single cell organisms, no, not yet, though it can be used quite competently by said organisms with no ill effects.


But if you got two (or more) brain cells, and they like to sit there elbowing each other saying, "BLOODY HELL, DID YOU SEE THAT?", then linux is more than ready!

argie
December 22nd, 2006, 03:51 PM
Someone there wanted Linux to support a modem, even at the login screen. I have a Motorola VoiceSurfr (old stuff I guess) and once I'd entered the stuff necessary (number, username, password) I could connect by opening 'network-admin' and clicking activate. Now the problem, till some time ago, was that everytime Ubuntu started it would 'activate network interfaces'. This meant it would automatically connect every time the computer was on.

Now here's something to chew on. As long as there is power supplied to the computer, and if the modem had power and was connected, the computer would switch on every time there was a call. (I have no idea how) The default boot was Ubuntu Dapper and what I described in paragraph one would happen. One day it connected in the middle of the night and the only reason I found out was because someone wanted to call me (they got me on the mobile phone). When I reached the computer, it was connected, but I was at the graphical login screen.

Now to use the standard logic of those who complain in threads like this:
I assume that since this is my experience it is completely representative of everyone's experience of linux. Hence I conclude that modems work.

scrooge_74
December 22nd, 2006, 03:57 PM
Someone there wanted Linux to support a modem, even at the login screen. I have a Motorola VoiceSurfr (old stuff I guess) and once I'd entered the stuff necessary (number, username, password) I could connect by opening 'network-admin' and clicking activate. Now the problem, till some time ago, was that everytime Ubuntu started it would 'activate network interfaces'. This meant it would automatically connect every time the computer was on.

Usually the activade network interfaces (if I am correct) indicates that your lan card is working, it doesnt refer to your modem

Now here's something to chew on. As long as there is power supplied to the computer, and if the modem had power and was connected, the computer would switch on every time there was a call. (I have no idea how) The default boot was Ubuntu Dapper and what I described in paragraph one would happen. One day it connected in the middle of the night and the only reason I found out was because someone wanted to call me (they got me on the mobile phone). When I reached the computer, it was connected, but I was at the graphical login screen.

But do you want the PC to boot up on any incoming call? You can change that probably in the BIOS if you don't want

Now to use the standard logic of those who complain in threads like this:
I assume that since this is my experience it is completely representative of everyone's experience of linux. Hence I conclude that modems work.

Should this post be in this thread anyway?

m.musashi
December 22nd, 2006, 05:36 PM
I suspect Windows is now (maybe hasn't always been) the leader in hardware recognition and setup during install.

Regds, m.

I hope your basis for this claim is because you have done numerous windows installs. I know I have and I can say that windows does not recognize hardware all that well. I had no internet, no sound, a 640x480 screen. Yes, CD worked, SATA worked and I did have some video, but Ubuntu did better. Breezy didn't but both Dapper and Edgy gave me intertet, sound, and full resolution screen plus CD, SATA - in fact, everything worked. I didn't have to install a single driver (although I did install the nvidia driver to do beryl but that a bit beyond a normal install - although sabayon does this it at instal). With XP I had to install the all the drivers for my motherboard before I had sound or network or was able to up my resolution beyond 800x600.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that windows is the leader in hardware recognition. Even after install, I don't have any trouble mounting USB drives (have two), MP3 players (have two), external hard drives (have three) or digital cameras (have three). I don't use a printer so I can't speak to that particular issue.

I've installed Ubuntu on 5 different models of laptops (all dell) and two desktops (one dell and one custom build) and I have yet to have any trouble with hardware recognition. Maybe dells are well suited to Ubuntu but a fresh install of windows on any of these is a royal pain. My custom build was the most difficult - probably because I didn't know I needed to buy linux compatible hardware when I built it. I had a lot of trouble with breezy and windows but once dapper came out I was in heaven.

I know some people have not had as good of luck but is that Ubuntu's fault? Exactly how many different bits of hardware is it supposed to be able to recognize? It will never be able to do every single combination in existence. However, based on my experience it does a better job than windows (unless you buy one pre-installed and the pc maker made it run).

Nic Martens
December 22nd, 2006, 05:39 PM
I decided recently to have a look at two versions of Linux, (Fedora & Ubuntu) and generally, I am wondering why anyone would spend hard earned cash on Microsoft or other equivalents, (both for business and personal computing).
I am impressed, however, I don't think I am a computer dummy, but installing some applications is an absolute pain in the butt, and I doubt whether the average user is able to do it.
This is where I wonder at the arrogance of the developers of these two OS's, (probably Linux in general).
Windows and Apple have got this right, simply click on the setup.exe or install and the installer does the rest.
Why, when Windows and Apple have set the standard, have Linux developers not done the equivalent?

Until such time as this is simplified for all applications, the geeks will continue to feel proud, and the users will stay away, which is a pity.
](*,)
Can anyone from the Linux development fraternity give a meaningful answer?

Azakus
December 22nd, 2006, 05:42 PM
It's not really arrogance that some things are hard to install, it's that Linux started out as an operatings system for and by geeks. It is sometimes assumed that you know all of this, not in an elitist fashion but more in the sense that all car mechanics should know how to replace an engine part.

taurus
December 22nd, 2006, 05:44 PM
Have you ever heard of a thing called synaptic???

unarmedninja
December 22nd, 2006, 05:44 PM
While windows installers might be simpler to use, I prefer to use synaptic package manager or apt-get. These check for dependancies before installing anything on your computer. its also much better to have all your apps in one reposatory than to search the internet for them.

synaptic is very easy to use just give it a chance.

Get_Ya_Wicked_On
December 22nd, 2006, 05:48 PM
Follow Windows and Apple's standards? Ha!

And if you must not use apt-get, synaptic as said before.

One of the most logical and useful application databases.

What more could you ask for?

Nic Martens
December 22nd, 2006, 05:53 PM
I take the points.

What concerns me is that having being involved in TV most of my life, I learned (very early) the phrase s##t-click.
If a new user can't install an app they will leave the OS and go back to what they know, and I find this a waste.
What I have seen of Ubuntu I think is absolutely brilliant, and would really like to see it become the OS of choice through out the world. But there is this 'However.

I don't know what synaptic means, but I will look it up.

Medieval_Creations
December 22nd, 2006, 05:56 PM
I prefer the Linux way, because aside from the great apps like Synaptic & Apt, you can just download the source and change the way the program is configured, turn on/of features before loading them, so it's completely customized for you.

The way I look at it is if you don't want to know how things work use windows, but if you like digging in & learning why & how things work Linux is the way to go.

Frak
December 22nd, 2006, 05:58 PM
Windows and Apple have got this right, simply click on the setup.exe or install and the installer does the rest.

Yeah we have that, its called a .deb
And Fedora has that, its called an .rpm
Your probably unaccustomed to this, BUT LINUX IS DIFFERENT THAN WINDOWS OR OSX!, Windows has a double click install, called an executeable, Ubuntu also does, its called a .deb, and OSX has a drag install (NO DOUBLE CLICK INSTALL!), so does Ubuntu, its called KliK, found here (http://klik.atekon.de/), but Ubuntu has something they both don't have, called repositories, just open Synaptics, (or Adept in Kubuntu), and put something you want in the search box, or choose a catagorie for the program you want, it downloads and installs all the dependencies, then installs the program, free of charge, with no EULA! So you keep your rights.

Hex_Mandos
December 22nd, 2006, 06:02 PM
I've had no problems with hardware recognition, for the most part. I'm just learning my way around Ubuntu (and Linux in general, I must say), as I've just been using it for about two weeks, but most of my hardware worked perfectly out of the box. My only problems were configuring my nVidia card (it took several tries, including one which killed X) and getting a screen resolution higher than 1024x768 (which I haven't tried yet, mostly because I'm not too bothered by it). Windows, on the other hand, needs far more work. I haven't yet gotten to address all the issues problems in my Windows partition, since I hardly use it anyway.

As a sidenote, I had to call my ISP's tech support a few days ago. Apparently, lightning killed my network card. The tech support people made my router work through USB on Windows, using a driver from a CD. Ubuntu recognized the device perfectly without ANY additional work.

Mechanic: Why do you say "toy programs"? OOo is perfectly useable. So are Mozilla Firefox (the piece of software I use ALL the time on both Windows and Linux), k3b (I like it better than commercial apps), The GIMP (I'm not a graphics designer, so it works perfectly for me), Kopete (FAR, FAR better than, say, Trillian)... I really like and use the software included with Ubuntu, and often prefer it over commercial apps (which I could get for free too, but I'd have to get a working ISO, keygens, cracks, and tons of malware to make them work).

PriceChild
December 22nd, 2006, 06:22 PM
Double click a downloaded deb in Ubuntu and "gdebi" will start up and install it for you.

'nuff said.

SteveJ
December 22nd, 2006, 06:30 PM
Ubuntu just doesn’t work!

I can’t even imagine how many negative responses I will get to this email (primarily because the truth hurts). I gave Ubuntu its fair shake and it has caused me to turn and run. Why am I posting this? I am posting this because I think it is a healthy thing for you folks to see things from the perspective of an unbiased newcomer who doesn’t wear rose colored Linux glasses.

I am not new to computers. I do some programming, and design equipment controls systems. I switched over from a junior in an electrical engineering program, and am now studying software engineering. I have well over a 3.9gpa in both. I would say that I am at least more capable than the average beginner.

I have tried installing Ubuntu on multiple computers, using multiple configurations, using different types of installs. I have had nothing but headaches with them all. They have messed up my Windows boot record, I can’t get a wireless card to work, I can’t get my network hard drive to work, I can’t get my print server to work, I have to set some IP6 bit in Firebox to get it to work, I can’t get to my hotmail account, and on one computer, load up takes about 5 minutes and I get some GNOME error message.

Each time that I have reinstalled windows to fix what Ubuntu has screwed up, I am up and running again in about 45 minutes – and everything works perfectly! All of my devices work as they should each time and every time.

I recognize that I could probably get things going if I read through the pages and pages of encrypted documentation on how to tweak this and overcome that. For a beginner, though, I have no idea what ‘sudo somestrangename someletter’ to use

I recognize that Ubuntu is free. I have a job, a family, and a life; however, so my time has value. It is well worth the $150 for me to go buy a copy of Windows and be done with it. It runs every application that I can imagine needing, it does it plenty fast, and I, frankly, have never had XP crash.

I will say, the Ubuntu folks seem friendly enough and they try to be helpful. Of the six or so posts I have made to the Ubuntu forum, however, I have had only one issue resolved.

I’ll probably be back for the next release, to see if things have improved. In the mean time, I’m finding myself returning to my nice community of “Windows and Gates”.

SteveJ

robenroute
December 22nd, 2006, 06:32 PM
I take the points.

What concerns me is that having being involved in TV most of my life, I learned (very early) the phrase s##t-click.
If a new user can't install an app they will leave the OS and go back to what they know, and I find this a waste.
What I have seen of Ubuntu I think is absolutely brilliant, and would really like to see it become the OS of choice through out the world. But there is this 'However.

I don't know what synaptic means, but I will look it up.

Well, synaptic is the name of the "Synaptic Package Manager" (found in the "System --> Administration" menu (Gnome)). It's easy to use and difficult to trick, in general. It has reasonably advanced features and for people used to it, it works like a charm.

However, I think I do understand your point. Looking at a standard synaptic window can be a little daunting. It is all text-based (I mean, no application icons or graphically oriented/enhanced ways of browsing all the applications) and because of the plethora of options, applications, libraries, etc., it looks (and arbitrarily is) much more complicated than making use of the rather straightforward "Add/Remove" menu option under "Applications".

I think it would be advisable for first-time users to stick to simple interfaces offered by the aforementioned "Add/Remove" from the "Applications" menu or the Automatix offerings (which would be a kind of a Catch-22 thing, I must admit).

Like many things in life, starting something new is often difficult at first: starting a new job, moving to a new town, starting a new relationship, picking up a new sport, etc. Linux is indeed different from other OSes (Windows, OSX, etc.). Moving onto something new does require an initial investment in time and effort. I made the move a few years ago (starting with Mandrake) and although I occasionally still use Windows 98/XP/2000, I have no regrets about having wiped XP off my laptop.

Approach things with an open mind and be willing to put a little effort into understanding it and using it. How knows, it might be the start of something truly worth your while....

meng
December 22nd, 2006, 06:34 PM
Yes, you're right. Linux is not for everyone. Windows is not for everyone. Mac is not for everyone. So part of me wants to applaud you for having the courage to state your experiences in a mature and considered way. And yet, to be honest, your post is not novel in any sense of the word. Linux/Ubuntu is not for you, at least not right now, and there's no shame in that. Best of luck to you.

Nic Martens
December 22nd, 2006, 06:37 PM
I had help to find the problem, and it would appear that C++ complier was not installed. This should not have happened.
It's all very well to enjoy the innards of the OS, but when this is installed as a business or personal tool, these glitches should not happen.
When I said that the developers were arrogant and proud, the comments merely confirmed this, and you are missing the most important point.....
Don't you want everyone on the planet to be using UBUNTU. If this is the objective, then emulate what Windows does, JUST DO IT BETTER.
In this regard UBUNTU is failing.

454redhawk
December 22nd, 2006, 06:40 PM
Ubuntu just doesn’t work!

I can’t even imagine how many negative responses I will get to this email (primarily because the truth hurts). I gave Ubuntu its fair shake and it has caused me to turn and run. Why am I posting this? I am posting this because I think it is a healthy thing for you folks to see things from the perspective of an unbiased newcomer who doesn’t wear rose colored Linux glasses.

I am not new to computers. I do some programming, and design equipment controls systems. I switched over from a junior in an electrical engineering program, and am now studying software engineering. I have well over a 3.9gpa in both. I would say that I am at least more capable than the average beginner.

I have tried installing Ubuntu on multiple computers, using multiple configurations, using different types of installs. I have had nothing but headaches with them all. They have messed up my Windows boot record, I can’t get a wireless card to work, I can’t get my network hard drive to work, I can’t get my print server to work, I have to set some IP6 bit in Firebox to get it to work, I can’t get to my hotmail account, and on one computer, load up takes about 5 minutes and I get some GNOME error message.

Each time that I have reinstalled windows to fix what Ubuntu has screwed up, I am up and running again in about 45 minutes – and everything works perfectly! All of my devices work as they should each time and every time.

I recognize that I could probably get things going if I read through the pages and pages of encrypted documentation on how to tweak this and overcome that. For a beginner, though, I have no idea what ‘sudo somestrangename someletter’ to use

I recognize that Ubuntu is free. I have a job, a family, and a life; however, so my time has value. It is well worth the $150 for me to go buy a copy of Windows and be done with it. It runs every application that I can imagine needing, it does it plenty fast, and I, frankly, have never had XP crash.

I will say, the Ubuntu folks seem friendly enough and they try to be helpful. Of the six or so posts I have made to the Ubuntu forum, however, I have had only one issue resolved.

I’ll probably be back for the next release, to see if things have improved. In the mean time, I’m finding myself returning to my nice community of “Windows and Gates”.

SteveJ

Sounds to me as if you FLAT OUT REFUSE to take a small amount of time to learn it. Quit expecting it to be like windows. Its SIMPLY something different that REQUIRES a bit of time to adjust to. Imagine your 80 year old grandmother lookng at windows the first time and saying "What the hell is this I cant get it to do anything". Thats where you are at the moment. No matter if you "think" you are quite the computer guru. Guru means nothing if you dont take the time to inspect and learn.

taurus
December 22nd, 2006, 06:41 PM
Okay, I don't see any more good coming out from this discussion since you already have made up your mind either you want others to help you or not! Therefore, this thread is locked before the flamewar erupted!

meng
December 22nd, 2006, 06:44 PM
Each time that I have reinstalled windows to fix what Ubuntu has screwed up, I am up and running again in about 45 minutes – and everything works perfectly! All of my devices work as they should each time and every time.
You're so lucky, it takes me several HOURS to reinstall Windows - that includes the initial install, installing the extra drivers to recognize standard hardware (modem & ATI graphics card, Dell-sold) and then waiting for Windows updates. So whose impression of Windows is the 'correct' one, yours or mine? The answer is, of course, both.

On the other hand, when I install Ubuntu, I'm done in less than an hour, including updates, and every bit of hardware works out of the box. Whose impression of Linux is correct, yours or mine? Both.

SteveJ
December 22nd, 2006, 06:49 PM
You might find it valuable to spend some time as well to consider what a mature response looks like - that of Mengs. I think that will will find that I did not claim to be a guru, only more than an above average beginner. Additionally, I don't recall stating how much time that I spent with Ubuntu. Were you mature enough to have asked, I would have told you that it was somewhere around 40 hours.

Wisdom sees critisizm and say "How can I use this information to make myself better".

This is the last post I will make on the subject, so fire away.

SteveJ

CroEragon
December 22nd, 2006, 06:50 PM
It is your right to say whatever you want, this is INTERNET, it is whole point of it!
Even so you said what you think to bunch of (K)Ubuntu/Linux lovers and some of things are true.
But same as you, when installed Ubuntu i said what piece of crap. Nothing works out of box. That's major drawback in using (K)Ubuntu. When i first booted Dapper liveCD i was welcomed with resolution 800X600 on my 19inch LCD. Can you imagine how that looked. And after that realizing that this is MAXIMUM resolution. And then starting to use GNOME and went like: How somebody even dare to call this piece of software OS. Then command "sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop" showed me another side of Ubuntu (now Kubuntu). I resolved problem with resolution, my Brother MFC 215C and many other things and im perfectly happy with my installation now.

Just give yourself time of two weeks to tweak your installation, learn basics and then return to Windows. In no time (that means first virus or first "End process" button) you will be back in Ubuntu (Kubuntu if you do not like GNOME) and you will stay on it and never return.

ardvark71
December 22nd, 2006, 07:03 PM
Hi Steve...

I'm sorry you've had the experience described in your post and unfortunately, this happens a lot with folks coming over from Windows and although my experience has been mostly positive so far and in some ways prefer Linux over Windows, I don't blame you for going back. In several areas, Linux remains "unpolished" and underdeveloped and I don't mince words about it but in fairness, the developers don't have the same access or means to obtain information concerning a variety of chipsets.

To the Linux developers: Make a copy of Steve's post, put a frame around it and hang it on the wall where you work. It's experiences like this that turn people off to Linux and the "Oh, well, don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out" doesn't help either. If we, as Linux users, want this operating system, to seriously compete with and scare Microsoft, then the elitest, smug, "screw you" attitude has got to go, and a end user friendly approach embracing completely computer illiterate Windows users adopted.

That doesn't mean Linux has to be EXACTLY like Windows but just as easy to use (that includes software and driver installs) as Windows.

Best Regards...

dbbolton
December 22nd, 2006, 07:03 PM
meng was right. windows is not for me because i personally hate dedicating half my memory to anti-whatever programs. i also hated all the crap i went through to get my networking configured properly on ubuntu. for me, ubuntu does take more work, but it's worth it.

Pauliniho
December 22nd, 2006, 07:06 PM
I can completely identify with this guys frustration. I installed Dapper a few days ago (this is the first contact I've had with Linux, so I've got no idea what I'm doing) and so far I've managed to make hardly anything work. However, i'm having a lot of fun trying to figure this stuff out.

I'm determined to make it work, so i'll stick with it for a while. These forums have been very helpful.

meng
December 22nd, 2006, 07:08 PM
ardvark:

Remember there's a difference between developers and users. It's not necessarily the devs telling folks like Steve to get lost. In fact, I doubt they have that much time to answer such posts, or even browse these forums.

Secondly, don't assume the Linux community wants to compete with Microsoft. It's a diverse community with a broad range of views. Some would like to see Linux taking marketshare from Windows; others (like me) are just happy to have an alternative to Windows for their own use (and are willing to invest a small amount of time in it).

I agree it would be nice if Linux was almost as easy to use as Windows seems to be for many end-users (and still as secure as it is now). But you know, once you eliminate the installation (which for Windows is not a trivial exercise), most computer users do some email, simple wordprocessing and web-browsing, and many Linux distros provide all the tools they need in a way that is very easy to use!

ardvark71
December 22nd, 2006, 07:08 PM
Sounds to me as if you FLAT OUT REFUSE to take a small amount of time to learn it. Quit expecting it to be like windows. Its SIMPLY something different that REQUIRES a bit of time to adjust to. Imagine your 80 year old grandmother lookng at windows the first time and saying "What the hell is this I cant get it to do anything". Thats where you are at the moment. No matter if you "think" you are quite the computer guru. Guru means nothing if you dont take the time to inspect and learn.

Sounds like to me he took a LOT of time to learn it, including asking us questions in a few posts, a lot more time then I would have given it, if I were in his shoes and that was my initial experience. :roll:

dbbolton
December 22nd, 2006, 07:13 PM
i've thought about it, and i think that the title of this thread and the first line of your post are unfair.

the truth is that ubuntu does work for thousands of people. it didn't for you, which is understandable, but i don't think it warrants such a generalised statement.

SteveJ
December 22nd, 2006, 07:15 PM
You're so lucky, it takes me several HOURS to reinstall Windows - that includes the initial install, installing the extra drivers to recognize standard hardware (modem & ATI graphics card, Dell-sold) and then waiting for Windows updates. So whose impression of Windows is the 'correct' one, yours or mine? The answer is, of course, both.

On the other hand, when I install Ubuntu, I'm done in less than an hour, including updates, and every bit of hardware works out of the box. Whose impression of Linux is correct, yours or mine? Both.


Meng;

OK, I was wrong, I will make an additional reply - mainly because you seem a fellow that I may actually learn something from. You may even secceed in changing my mind. I will concede that your point is valid. For you, the Ubuntu install does seem easier.

Unfortunatly, it seems that it doesn't stop at the install. I read that if I want to run many of the business aps that I need, I have to find one work around after the other. I may have to install Wine, or parallels, or something else, and hope that it will work. I was reading the procedure for using photoshop with Wine, and it seems nasty. In Windows I just install and run it. I have spoken with some very proficient users of Linux, and they admit that they have to run a dual boot system.

My follow up question is why? Why go to so much trouble just to not use Windows? I haven't found that Ubuntu is faster, easier to use, and it may even have more bugs. I read that it is more secure - but to some extent it is a matter of time until it is large enough to be a target, isn't it? At any rate, I view security like I view STDs. Don't put it where it doesn't belong and you will usually be OK.

SteveJ

meng
December 22nd, 2006, 07:15 PM
I can completely identify with this guys frustration. I installed Dapper a few days ago (this is the first contact I've had with Linux, so I've got no idea what I'm doing) and so far I've managed to make hardly anything work. However, i'm having a lot of fun trying to figure this stuff out.

I'm determined to make it work, so i'll stick with it for a while. These forums have been very helpful.
Sometimes I wonder how important timing is. For example, how many would-be users are dabbling with Ubuntu at the same time that they're giving up cigarettes, or just about to go on vacation, or have an important work/school project due (that needs the computer to be working)? Folks, these are probably not the right times to be trying something new! Not when a minor frustration will quickly snowball into psychological meltdown.

Furthermore, would-be users speak of spending several hours continuously in front of the screen trying to solve problems, often aided by caffeine. You need to have the luxury and discipline of stepping away, sleeping on it, approaching the problem the next day refreshed and with new ideas.

There's more to frustration and time-wasting than the intrinsic characteristics of the OS.

atarileaf
December 22nd, 2006, 07:19 PM
I'm getting to the frustrating point of packing it in too. I've tried posting about certain problems I've recieved and have had NO replies. Either my problems are so vastly unique as to baffle the smartest Linux user out there or there is something about me personally that makes people run when they see me post.

Either way, I've never had the problems with Windows that I've had with my week old experience with Linux. Most of the time I can't even get into the system let along figure out how to use it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way a MS supporter. If I was, I wouldn't even TRY Ubuntu but I'd heard so many good things I wanted to try it and HOPEFULLY replace windows altogether.

The biggest problem that I can see is usability for the average computer user. We use computers for everyday tasks and don't question HOW they work. Need a driver? Click, install. Done. I don't have to open a command line and type dozens of lines of code or read pages and pages of tutorials to do the exact same thing.

Again don't get me wrong, I don't mind learning these things but they are so cryptic and the help is so cryptic that it makes us new users feel like this: ](*,)

I notice many times in the beginner forums that the answers still seem to assume some basic knowhow of Linux commands. For instance, when I first started I remember an answer to something I posted that said I first had to open the terminal.

Excuse me? Whats a terminal and where do I find it?
Stuff like that.

Anyway, I hope to keep Ubuntu and use it but for now I can't even boot into the darn thing without a bunch of gibberish error messages that I can't seem to get any help with so I'll just GRUB myself into XP (where I am right now since I can't get into Ubuntu) until this very promising OS gets a lot more polished for the average new windows convert.

ardvark71
December 22nd, 2006, 07:19 PM
ardvark:

Remember there's a difference between developers and users. It's not necessarily the devs telling folks like Steve to get lost. In fact, I doubt they have that much time to answer such posts, or even browse these forums.

Secondly, don't assume the Linux community wants to compete with Microsoft. It's a diverse community with a broad range of views. Some would like to see Linux taking marketshare from Windows; others (like me) are just happy to have an alternative to Windows for their own use (and are willing to invest a small amount of time in it).

I agree it would be nice if Linux was almost as easy to use as Windows seems to be for many end-users (and still as secure as it is now). But you know, once you eliminate the installation (which for Windows is not a trivial exercise), most computer users do some email, simple wordprocessing and web-browsing, and many Linux distros provide all the tools they need in a way that is very easy to use!

Hi Meng...

You're right on the devs not having the time to visit user forums too often, my mistake on that, but I think it would help them gain a better perspective if they did.

Yes, most users simply want to be able to e-mail, word process and web browse but there are quite a few who want to do other things and demand that flexibility in an operating system. This will require a system of windows-like software and driver installation, bypassing even the need to perform command line work (like "make," "make install," etc.)

Best Regards...

454redhawk
December 22nd, 2006, 07:23 PM
Sounds like to me he took a LOT of time to learn it, including asking us questions in a few posts, a lot more time then I would have given it, if I were in his shoes and that was my initial experience. :roll:


Not to slam anyone.

He claimed to have a much better understanding of computers than the average user. Yet many thousands of beginners seem to poke along with minimumal problems that are rectified with some reading and a little effort.

I think he comes off giving the impression of giving up far too quickly.

These forums are great but in his defence alot of posts go unanswered or forgotton.
An alternate source for information might be needed for his problems. Also, his problems dont seem to be localized to Ubuntu but linux in general.
Wireless for example.

meng
December 22nd, 2006, 07:24 PM
My follow up question is why? Why go to so much trouble just to not use Windows? I haven't found that Ubuntu is faster, easier to use, and it may even have more bugs. I read that it is more secure - but to some extent it is a matter of time until it is large enough to be a target, isn't it? At any rate, I view security like I view STDs. Don't put it where it doesn't belong and you will usually be OK.
That's a great question. My theory is that a successful transition from Windows to Linux is generally motivated by several reasons, not just one. In my case, I was motivated by security/malware concerns AND the coolness/geekiness factor AND free-as-in-beer AND free-as-in-speech AND the sense of community AND because I like experimenting with computers AND because I don't much care for Windows/Microsoft. But if I had only been driven by one of those motivations, I doubt I would have succeeded. My reasons for wanting to change may not be identical to your reasons, it's for each person to decide on their own.

(Also see my earlier comments regarding timing, I think it's important to have the right circumstances for tinkering. Furthermore I built my system myself from components, with Linux in mind.)

So if you don't have security or performance issues in Windows, and you're comfortable with the applications you use in Windows, then your reasons for switching to Linux may not be sufficient now. Computer experience is not equivalent to Linux experience. Don't beat yourself up over it. Stick with Windows, consider a dual-boot if you're not short on disk space and still want to play with Linux occasionally.

Finally, an analogy I often use: switching to Linux is like quitting smoking. You usually don't succeed the first time.

meng
December 22nd, 2006, 07:27 PM
Yes, most users simply want to be able to e-mail, word process and web browse but there are quite a few who want to do other things and demand that flexibility in an operating system. This will require a system of windows-like software and driver installation, bypassing even the need to perform command line work (like "make," "make install," etc.)
I think we agree on at least a few things. Personally, I'd like to be able to have more flexibility in Windows: e.g., customize the right-click menu to run scripts directly from the GUI, leave a window permanently "On Top", have more than one desktop. I realize many Windows users don't miss these features (well it's hard to miss what you've never had) but I'm just stating my preference. Those issues I mentioned don't even require command line work.

Pauliniho
December 22nd, 2006, 07:28 PM
Stick with Windows, consider a dual-boot if you're not short on disk space and still want to play with Linux occasionally.

This is exactly what I'm doing at the moment. I still use windows for everything at the moment, and when I have a spare few hours to kill, I have a tinker with Ubuntu. Currently for me it's just a bit of fun, and a lot more worthwhile/educational than wasting my time on Football Manager 2007 :rolleyes:

MrKlean
December 22nd, 2006, 07:35 PM
Well, I gotta add my 2 cents. I used Windows since 3.0... before that was DOS. Ubuntu..IMHO.. is FAR better than anything Gates will come up with. XP is about 5 yrs old and there are still patches. If I stayed with Windows Vista.. I would be buying a program that is already filled with problems because of all the bloat. Did I have problems with the big U.. yep... did I learn a whole lot..yep !! I switched to Ubuntu when I found I could run my small business with it. I got CAD, Web Desigenrs, and financial progs..all FREE..and the CAD and Web are as good as anything else out there..At the ripe old age of 58.. I can honestly say I've learned more about stuff with Ubuntu than I ever did in 14 yrs with Windows.. and that';s in less than a month ; ) Ohh.. I did learn one thing... there's a reason Gates is worth about 54 BILLION dollars...and why he's getting out now !!!

thanks for letting me ramble ; ):D

aysiu
December 22nd, 2006, 07:35 PM
Windows isn't the leader in hardware recognition at all, but you know what? It doesn't need to be.

Where Windows doesn't recognize hardware, the hardware manufacturers will be sure to include Windows drivers for their products.

ardvark71
December 22nd, 2006, 07:40 PM
I think we agree on at least a few things. Personally, I'd like to be able to have more flexibility in Windows: e.g., customize the right-click menu to run scripts directly from the GUI, leave a window permanently "On Top", have more than one desktop. I realize many Windows users don't miss these features (well it's hard to miss what you've never had) but I'm just stating my preference. Those issues I mentioned don't even require command line work.

Absolutely! Actually, it's things what you've just mentioned along with other issues I have with Microsoft (WGA was the last straw) that have led me to Ubuntu and ditch Windows permanently.

Best Regards...

juyanith
December 22nd, 2006, 07:41 PM
I decided to post a reply here mainly because my experience is so directly opposite of yours. I'm not trying to make any value judgments, I'm just trying to give another perspective. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

I downloaded a copy of Vista through MSDN at work and decided I'd try it out to see if it is worth buying. Since I have an AMD Opteron processor, I naturally thought I'd use the 64-bit version. I'll avoid all the details, but I was unable to even download the Acrobat reader and finally noticed that IE was running in 32 bit mode. After doing a little reading, I decided I should just use the 32 bit version of Vista. This was disappointing as I've had a 64 bit processor for well over a year and really wanted to use it fully.

Anyway, I went to the MSDN site and again could not download anything (from my 64 bit install). Something must be seriously wrong when I have issues with Microsoft's own site! I eventually downloaded it from another computer and ran through the install again. I could now download fine and Vista seemed o.k. until it started randomly crashing every 10-15 min while I was websurfing. And I mean really nasty BSOD-style crashes. Keep in mind, I had not yet installed anything other than what it came with.

I finally got so annoyed I went to the ubuntu site and downloaded the 64 bit Edgy. I put the CD in the drive and after a little while the OS was up and running. I then reformatted the old NTFS partition and finished the install.

Thinking that I must have a hardware problem because of the Vista crashes, I ran prime on each core (simultaneously) for 24 hours, yet strangely found no errors. I then ran memtest with the same result. In short, Ubuntu installed easily with the only "glitch" that I needed to find the nvidia drivers to get my lcd's proper resolution (1680x1050). It has also been stable and easy to use.

Do I think that Vista "just doesn't work"? Well, no. It didn't work for me, but after reading around for a bit I decided that I must have an issue of some sort -- maybe with a driver, I don't know. However, since I've now started playing with Ubuntu, I think I'll just stay for a while and see if others start to have the same kind of problem when Vista becomes publicly available.

And by the way, I'm typing this from my test machine at work where I just booted from the 32 bit Live CD. It's pretty nice to just put a CD in and have the OS run. I haven't seen that kind of ease-of-use from Windows! :mrgreen:

atarileaf
December 22nd, 2006, 07:58 PM
I agree with an above poster about Vista. I haven't heard great things from those who've tested it and this the next Windows OS? Bloatware indeed. So I heard of Ubuntu through a show on G4 - "Call for Help" and decided this might be the time to bail on Gates the way he's now bailing on his own company.

And if anyone can help me get through these weird boot error messages and freezes I'm having, I'll be glad to become a Ubuntu zealot for life. ;)

FLPCGuy
December 22nd, 2006, 08:25 PM
There are lots of things wrong with U. 6.10 as it stands - the CD installs after the usual partitioning hassle BUT there seems so little useful software on there! Who gets to choose? Knoppix always seemed to cram so much more useful stuff in. Ubunto could even download the missing bits from the Net during post-install but they don't. As a result we're left with vim that doesn't do 'syntax' or have help files, locale that installs wrongly even after selection of your home town on the map during the install, missing newsreaders, no Opera, no decent mail application (Pine throws all sorts of problems up, and where is Mulberry?), Open Office with issues (see relevant posts) and I could go on. I can't even get the character set to default to iso 8859-1 or whatever Latin1 is called these days.

What are they going to get right next time? And why is MS-Windows so much better out of the box? Does user experience count for nothing at camp Ubuntu? Hard to explain the popularity given the problems.

Regds, m.;
Your comparison leaves out the most obvious. Ubuntu 6.10 was one of the first distros to include Firefox 2 whose Thunderbird email is also the widely recognized choice for browser/email. Operas ads (if they still use them) violate the principle of open software which may have been an issue.

The latest OpenOfc was included, along with GIMP. These classic favorites follow the stated goal of only including a selection of the very best software. It takes only a few clicks to open up the repositories to over 22,000 other apps. Personally, I like the single CD when so many others require five or six to do a basic install.

As for language support, it is hard to beat Apple & Microsoft's early support and adoption of the unicode 16-bit character set (System7, Win95) which supports multiple languages at the most fundamental level. Microsoft has spent $Millions to extend Windows language support to customers around the globe who represent their OS division's main opportunity for continued revenue and growth. Given similar resources, I have no doubt Canonical could provide an equivalent solution. This effort is likely limited by finances and the number of qualified multi-language volunteers, but you make a good point. Ubuntu's language support could be a higher priority.

m.musashi
December 22nd, 2006, 08:40 PM
Ubuntu has multi-lingual support. I have a fully Japanese version set up. I don't know how many languages are offered but on install there seem to be an awful lot of choices.

jbutler12
December 22nd, 2006, 08:41 PM
Ive grown to really like Ubuntu because of three things:

1. How fast it is - XP would drag my computer to a slow halt just doing Word and playing mp3s. Made work difficult. Linux flies. It makes my 9-year old computer seem new.

2. Synaptic - 16,000 FREE programs a click away. Want to do X task, search google, and chances are you'll find something you can install from Synaptic. This is so much better than the windows buy it, hope it does what you want model.

3. The Free Sound Tools - in linux, are amazing. Hydrogen, Audacity, vkeybd, AmSynth, Guitar Effects... with about 7-8 hours of work downloading and syncing utilities, you can turn an old PC into a proaudio studio... FOR FREE. I just cant get over this, its so cool... a studio of corresponding quality (digital track recording, digital drum machine sequence and process, synth, midi controller, guitar effects, etc...) on windows would run about $1600 in software and need a really powerful PC. Linux? 5 clicks in Synaptic.


-John

Supra
December 22nd, 2006, 09:45 PM
I'm one of many here that recently joined the Linux scene. My experiences have been so far positive up to this point till running into the kernel update which did end up messing the video card drivers which like many here will overcome at some point. I've come to accept the fact that I am newbie again. We all once were when working from DOS and Windows but eventually we learned and our experience grew on how to work with the system. Linux has it's pros and cons as well. It's all in your attitude. I intend to stick to this problem till it is resolved for I see a lot more benefits working in Linux than in Windows in my case. But I hope you don't give up so soon because of a single hurdle.

Tomosaur
December 22nd, 2006, 09:59 PM
Hope the door doesn't hit you on the way out :)

Seriously though, get over yourself. You found out that your prowess in Windows is absolutely useless here, and you expect someone to sit up and say 'OH WOW HE'S RIGHT!'. This has all been said before. Yes, linux has problems. Yes, problems are frustrating. No, linux is not 'underdeveloped'. What you mean is 'Linux is not Windows'. This is absolutely correct. The hardware issues you have are as a result of nefarious Microsoft practices rather than a fault of linux. If the drivers are available, then your hardware will work, it's as simple as that. It's not that 'linux is broken', it's that there are things which are currently illegal or just plain annoying for the developers to implement. Most issues can be solved if you spend a little time learning stuff.

As for 'encyrpted documentation'...what?

RudolfMDLT
December 22nd, 2006, 10:13 PM
I've found Windows better for some things and Linux for others. I like Linux because I can do what I want with it and in time I've found it much more efficient at most things.

Please be back for the Feisty release. See if you can use it - it is free afterall, and if you don't have couple of hours a week to learn and tweak a linux system then maybe it doesn't suite your lifestyle. You've spent years on Windows and you still learn new things in windows every week - Linux is no diffrent, you have to give it time, it's not gonna be like windows.

Hope to see you back,

Cheers,

Rudolf

Rescue Penguin
December 22nd, 2006, 10:23 PM
This is my first posting, I run 2 versions of windows and 2 flavors of Linux. I feel that you need to decide what you want from Ubuntu first before you try it. As I write this I am using XP, I needed to use windows. I also have a Mandriva server, which has a specific set of tasks. I found that for these tasks Mandriva was easier for me to use. I do use Ubuntu for general tasks. I have never expected any OS to do everything, instead considered them a "tool in the tool box". I love the multiple desktops in linux. I have come to Ubuntu to be part of the project, and in 3 to 5 years I am going to ask the world for help in a big humanitarian project. Ubuntu is the ideal platform for this co operative effort. Steve I urge you to decide on your expectations first, then try it, and always keep an open mind. I still use Windows when needed.

Another Steve

WalmartSniperLX
December 22nd, 2006, 10:33 PM
Not all OS' are for everyone. Also Linux is VERY different that Windows. I mean DIFFERENT. You need to sacrifice time to learn it.

Everything you know about Windows already... throw it away. Its USELESS in linux

You must take the time to understand the differences.

Btw I have a .5 gpa but I still manage to learn everything I need to know about Linux, and Im very knowledgable about computers, parts, and how they work.. and by that i mean I know ALOT about how the arch. and chipsets operate, and how some are different, etc. I know what almost every term in hardware means. I learned alot about circuits. Ive built many computers before and ALL work FLAWLESSLY. I know what is best and drives quality. I guess you could call me an enthusiast. I was all into the high performance, overclocking, useless stuff. And, I learned all that by sacrificing time.

With linux I can do almost everything in windows MORE efficiently, and more.

Dont expect something different to just work because you are used to being a poweruser of something else. Take time. It will be rewarding

Good luck on whatever you choose. :cool:

Oh and remember the community will always be happy to help if you decide to stay
And by 'time' I dont mean Hours and hours. It took me less than 15 min to set up my Edgy system.

Sorry if my post is kinda outta nowhere. Just had to get my few cents out toward the original post ;)

EDIT: and to those jokesters out there... no my .5 gpa does not reflect my time spent on linux in ratio to school :P, Its because I dropped all my classes due to me switching to a better school :D

floke
December 22nd, 2006, 10:43 PM
Some of what's been said here does make sense - as much as I hate (now) to agree. When I first wanted to try Linux I was confronted with something like, 'simply'(!) download and burn the appropriate (i386 etc.) ISO file from one of the following mirrors...

To a complete newbie my first thoughts were:
"What the ****'s an 'ISO' + 'mirror' - and i386 etc. ?????

I remember there was absolutely NO explanation of this at all - simply an assumption that it was my job to know. Still, I fluked it, guessed the right i386, clicked the right mirror, and managed to suss it out. First hurdle cleared.

Then - how the **** to partition my hard drive. Having been sold on the idea of a free and open source distro - the vast majority of material I came across first said that in order to install this wonderful free software (great in part because it was free), I would (a) have to run the risk of damaging my hard drive (a great welcome for newbies that one!); and (b) that I should go and buy a proprietary partition manager for around £30!!!!

In the end I bought a book 'Linux for Dummies' (still not much help on partitioning); hauled an old fossil PC out of the attic, and spent a fortnight (I kid you not) learning about partitions and practising every evening on my fossil. The irony is - I eventually discovered that 'gparted' on the LiveCD will do all of this for me - but I had to find all this out for myself.

Anyway - not to be too critical here, since now I take all this for granted too. But two things. I wouldn't have given up after 'just' 40 hours (I've spent that long trying to get my sound card to work - which still doesn't, and it now looks like a jack sense bug); and the big-U community should perhaps have a section for 'really really' newbies who don't even know what an ISO is.

Still, I got here in the end. And I wouldn't have missed it for the world!

aysiu
December 22nd, 2006, 10:46 PM
I've merged "Ubuntu just doesn't work for me" into here.

zetsumei
December 22nd, 2006, 10:54 PM
Choosing to run Ubuntu/Linux over Windows is that person's choice and their choice alone. I admit that I didnt entirely give up on Windows because 1) im not that experienced yet to format my laptop's hdd and install linux and use Linux 24/7/365 and 2) i like to play games that linux just doesnt run very well in wine. But over time, I expect to be rid of my gaming habits and I hope to have enough knowledge to use Linux (any distro) 24/7/365. That said, if he wants to leave b/c ubuntu isnt working, its his choice.

aysiu
December 22nd, 2006, 10:59 PM
That said, if he wants to leave b/c ubuntu isnt working, its his choice. Well said.

There's nothing more honest than to say "Ubuntu doesn't work for me." Now, to say "Ubuntu doesn't work for anybody" or "Ubuntu doesn't work for the average user" is extrapolating a bit too much.

TheWizzard
December 22nd, 2006, 11:18 PM
Some of what's been said here does make sense - as much as I hate (now) to agree. When I first wanted to try Linux I was confronted with something like, 'simply'(!) download and burn the appropriate (i386 etc.) ISO file from one of the following mirrors...

To a complete newbie my first thoughts were:
"What the ****'s an 'ISO' + 'mirror' - and i386 etc. ?????

I remember there was absolutely NO explanation of this at all - simply an assumption that it was my job to know. Still, I fluked it, guessed the right i386, clicked the right mirror, and managed to suss it out. First hurdle cleared.

Then - how the **** to partition my hard drive. Having been sold on the idea of a free and open source distro - the vast majority of material I came across first said that in order to install this wonderful free software (great in part because it was free), I would (a) have to run the risk of damaging my hard drive (a great welcome for newbies that one!); and (b) that I should go and buy a proprietary partition manager for around £30!!!!

In the end I bought a book 'Linux for Dummies' (still not much help on partitioning); hauled an old fossil PC out of the attic, and spent a fortnight (I kid you not) learning about partitions and practising every evening on my fossil. The irony is - I eventually discovered that 'gparted' on the LiveCD will do all of this for me - but I had to find all this out for myself.

Anyway - not to be too critical here, since now I take all this for granted too. But two things. I wouldn't have given up after 'just' 40 hours (I've spent that long trying to get my sound card to work - which still doesn't, and it now looks like a jack sense bug); and the big-U community should perhaps have a section for 'really really' newbies who don't even know what an ISO is.

Still, I got here in the end. And I wouldn't have missed it for the world!

i agree the first step is the most difficult. a prominent basic how-to would indeed be a nice step foreward.

aysiu
December 22nd, 2006, 11:27 PM
i agree the first step is the most difficult. a prominent basic how-to would indeed be a nice step foreward.
This isn't exactly prominent, but I tried to make about as basic a HowTo as possible:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/iso

Short of standing behind someone and giving directions orally, I don't see how it can get simpler than that.

qamelian
December 23rd, 2006, 04:10 AM
My follow up question is why? Why go to so much trouble just to not use Windows? I haven't found that Ubuntu is faster, easier to use, and it may even have more bugs. I read that it is more secure - but to some extent it is a matter of time until it is large enough to be a target, isn't it? At any rate, I view security like I view STDs. Don't put it where it doesn't belong and you will usually be OK.

SteveJ

For some of us it's not "just to not use Windows". SOme folks like to to buy Fords; others like Pontiacs. I provide tech support to several hundred Windows users at work and I use Linux at home. I choose to use Linux not to avoid using Windows, but because I find it easier to use. I've been using Windows since version 3.0 and I've been using Linux since SuSE 5.2.

Personally, I prefer the way Linux works. I can setup my Linux install to to everything I want it to do in less time than it takes to do a default install of Windows XP on the same laptop.

The Windows install requires 5 CDs (including the Windows install CD, 2 driver CDs, and two application CD), and an internet connection for updates. Time to install including online updates (which doesn't include updates to non-Microsoft apps): almost 4 hours. Number of reboots from start to finish: 7.


The Ubuntu install requires 1 CD (which includes all of the apps I need to match the Windows install for my purposes) and an internet connection for updates. Time to install including online updates (which does include updates to all my apps as well as the OS): just over 45 minutes. Number of reboots: 1 (2 if there is a kernel update).

So from my perspective, why would I want to go to so much trouble to use Windows? :)

No ill will to you for preferring Windows; in the run of the week I use both WIndows (at work) and Linux (at home) and I find Linux easier to use in almost every sense. It's been my primary desktop OS for 8 years and I'm not masochist enough to do that just to avoid using Windows!

Hopefully, you give it a try again sometime and have a better experience. Personally, out of dozens of PCs I've installed Linux on over the years, I can only think of one that I simply could not get to work All the others worked fine with no more than minor trouble-shooting.

2cute4u
December 23rd, 2006, 07:51 AM
Personally, I never considered Windows (3,95,98,2000,XP, etc) ready for the desktop; you got viruses, security holes, close box on the wrong corner, etc. ](*,) I think, being ready for the desktop means, that any novice user, who has NOT used windows, can install it, from CD and everything just works. Then, figuring out how to use it, is as easy, as it is on Mac OS X (which is really easy to do, if your brain hasn't been rotted by windows) :mrgreen:

3rdalbum
December 23rd, 2006, 10:00 AM
I think, being ready for the desktop means, that any novice user, who has NOT used windows, can install it, from CD and everything just works. Then, figuring out how to use it, is as easy, as it is on Mac OS X (which is really easy to do, if your brain hasn't been rotted by windows) :mrgreen:

I'd only ever used Mac OS 9 (well, I'd used Windows and OS X, but only on other people's computers and only occasionally). Unlike most of these Windows users, I somehow already knew what an ISO was, how to correctly burn it, what a partition is, and that you sometimes need to install codecs to get stuff working. Oh, and I knew that not all hardware would work.

Okay, so Ubuntu wasn't as easy as OS 9 for me, but I made it difficult on myself :-) The Live CD didn't correctly detect my monitor settings, but the actual installer did (D-I in Breezy). I'd chosen the Expert mode, which asked me to create a root password... bad idea, I didn't know how to give myself sudo privileges again, so I reinstalled and this time didn't give a root password.

And everything I cared about worked. Even my USB Zip drive worked out-of-the-box, which surprised me quite a bit. Installation of codecs wasn't unexpected for me, since I'd installed codecs on Mac OS before.

And it still surprises me that many Windows users don't know the first thing about these basic concepts; is Windows really that bad? What shocks me is that a couple of OS X users seem to have forgotten these concepts too.

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 05:20 PM
Hi folks,
I'm back after quite a spell away and I'm sorry I have to have a moan, as I usually do, and about the same thing.

When ever I come to this forum to look for help, I use the absolute beginners group, but it doesn't help, I end up confused and wishing that I hadn't bothered.

Because in many cases, I still can't follow the advice given, because the posters talk at such a high level, using terminology that is strange to MS Windows users, and this is certainly not helpful to absolute beginners.

I just came back 'cos I wanted some clues as to how to install packages not included in the package manager's lists. Believe it or not, gparted wasn't even listed and I only found it by doing a Search. Next I downloaded the "tarball", but I'm not sure where to unpack the contents. Can I find the answer quickly and easily ? No !

I found another poster with a similar problem, but can I follow the instruction that are given to the poster ? No ! For the reasons given above. Answers like, "you can compile from source" are useless without a more detailed instruction.

Sorry, I'm not dim, just a bit grey. I have an "obviously" useless degree in Information Systems from a UK university, but I still ended up a Microshaft slave.

You should be feeling sorry for twits like me and could do a bit more to help us thicko's. I've been trying to transfer to Linux for several years, in between bringing up three kids and studying, and it's still not straight forward, or I wouldn't spend all my time using MS Windows while still pratting about with Linux, when I get the time.

Please, please, please, remember this is the absolute beginners forum, posters need to be aware that we do not natively speak Unix or any other terminal language you might be good at. It is very off putting, hence why I don't visit very often and I still prefer to use MS Windows in spite of my detestation of everything it stands for.

Another big problem for newbies, is the upgrade path. ie; the fact that applications like gparted didn't get installed with the version 6.06 LTS on CD. Otherwise this visit wouldn't have been necessary as the gparted or some such application was installed with version 5.04 on CD.

Also what about a flippin' firewall that's installed and turned on by default. This was once a strong criticism of MS Windows. In these days this oversight is a very real detriment to Ubuntu. Same goes for some antivirus application.

I even bought a book on Linux Commands, Editors and Shell programming. Apart from the installation directories and applications mentioned being not consistent with the Ubuntu setup, you must appreciate that MS Windows offers a much friendlier approach to handling new users.

Sorry for complaining folks, otherwise, keep up the good work - though there us still some way to go yet before Ubuntu's going to be easy for absolute beginners.

David Urmston ](*,)

jvc26
December 23rd, 2006, 05:26 PM
Hey there - dont worry about having a moan, but I'd have to say that to get used to the linux way of thinking and doing things does take time. To install things on ubuntu an excellent guide is here:

http://monkeyblog.org/ubuntu/installing/

The forum here is pretty helpful on the whole, sometimes responses are above peoples heads, but looking around helps - I'm pretty new to the linux scene but am picking things up with the help of google and the forums.

Ubuntu has a firewall I believe called IPtables. This is something that has been mentioned a bit - have a look here for more info:

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/security

Antivirus for linux is probably only necessary if you're transferring files to a windows machine: remember most viruses are windows only, you dont run as the root in linux so they are much less likely to do you damage unless you launch the virus as root, and even then it would probably have to be a linux coded virus to cause you problems - and there are very, very few of them. For the security worried you can get virus scanners - clamAV, avast, AVG free and others, but again (see above) they are not particularly necessary.

GParted - what are you using this for - it is available on boot into the live CD? you could just boot up in the live CD and use it from there.

I hope that helps :)
Il

Papa-san
December 23rd, 2006, 05:37 PM
This comes from someone in the same boat...

One of the most important things I keep reminding myself of is that this isn't windows.
Linux is quite different and because of that, the learning curve is so very steep. I can only offer the suggestion of 'keep searching'. I was pretty tenacious about this thing from the first time I tried it. I absolutely refused to give up! I purged windows from my laptop in April of this year, and said I wouldn't go back... I haven't yet!

I would get myself all worked up because I couldn't do any of the eight different things I needed to do. I actually think I posted something similar, and if you were able to read through some of my threads, you would see where I had people in these forums tell my that I was in over my head... I was...

The main thing is that I didn't give up! I would find threads or pages where things were made easy enough for me to understand. (A few of the people here understand that us nOObs need plainer language and post accordingly. Still, I have also seen threads that speak of compiling a kernal for this or another thing.) I still have no clue... ](*,)

I did find a thread or a wiki, or something titled" How to install anything in ubuntu."

I'll look for the link, but you should be able to find it if i can't.
Downloading things to your desktop makes it easier, because you don't run into the issues with trying to find stuff in an alien filestructure. Once it is there,then it gets extracted or moved to where it belongs, and this helps with learning more about navigating this structure...

It IS a process! Don't give up! Given enough time, you will know what you need to, and will eventually be able to help others. It is a good feeling the first time you are able to walk someone through a process, and have them thank you for solving their problem for them! ;)

raul_
December 23rd, 2006, 05:43 PM
If you don't understand the terminology used don't be afraid to ask or do a "man <whatever>" in the terminal :) You're not supposed to know how to do everything. Nobody here knows how to do everything, but we all know how to little things, and that's how we help each other, because we complement ourselves

PurplePenguin
December 23rd, 2006, 06:05 PM
you must appreciate that MS Windows offers a much friendlier approach to handling new users.

Wow, I don't know about this. For somebody who's never touched a computer before, Ubuntu should be much easier to pick up. If you want to install a program, you just click on Add/Remove and search for what you want (even with very general terms, such as music, cd player, graphics, etc). Another click or two and it's installed. With Windows, you've got to go to Download.com or some other software website (or sift through google search results), find something that doesn't have spyware in it, download it and hope that it doesn't shut itself off in 30 days, asking for money. :)

Don't confuse "new users" with "people who have been using Windows for years and are now new linux users"! :D

I doubt that there will ever be an OS that is perfectly intuitive to a first time user, but Ubuntu's as close as I've ever seen. The only thing that would confuse new users is the lack of multimedia (and other non-free software) out of the box.

bulldog
December 23rd, 2006, 06:07 PM
Hmmm,gparted should be in the repositories as far as I know,it certainly is in Edgy.
Just start synaptic package manager and click the search and enter gparted it should be there.

Another,and I think,an even better way to partition is the gparted live cd.

http://gparted.sourceforge.net/

I can understand you don't know anything about the terminal commands you get here.
But it's the easiest way to get things done,specially on a forum.
You just give the commands and only thing to do is copy and paste them to a terminal and give the outcome back to the forum.
It cost far to much time to explain everything,and the new ubuntu user have to sort out for him/her self what all this commands mean.

There are exellent howto's on the internet,about terminal commands and how things are done in ubuntu.
Just take the time to read some of them so you get the hang of the basics,the rest will come in time.

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 06:13 PM
Ok,
thanx for being so tollerent and helpful.
I'll read the threads posted and I'm sure I'll end up where I wanna be, sooner or later.

Yes the threads have been helpful in the past, but sometimes I just boggle at the psuedo code, often 'cos of simple differences in the use of characters like \ and /.

I just hope that it isn't another year before I can break my Windows CDs and start migrating all the folks I know who currently experience a **** 'ed up OS every other week, which I then have to fix, again.

Regards to all who posted

raul_
December 23rd, 2006, 06:17 PM
I just tell them that i don't know how to fix it because i don't use windows :mrgreen:

insane_alien
December 23rd, 2006, 06:20 PM
just remember that there is no shame in saying 'woah uhh what? i don't have a clue what your saying. small words please' i've done this many many a time on such varied subjects as getting wireless working to quantum chromodynamics.

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 06:25 PM
Hmmm,gparted should be in the repositories as far as I know,it certainly is in Edgy.
Just start synaptic package manager and click the search and enter gparted it should be there.

Another,and I think,an even better way to partition is the gparted live cd.

http://gparted.sourceforge.net/

I can understand you don't know anything about the terminal commands you get here.
But it's the easiest way to get things done,specially on a forum.
You just give the commands and only thing to do is copy and paste them to a terminal and give the outcome back to the forum.
It cost far to much time to explain everything,and the new ubuntu user have to sort out for him/her self what all this commands mean.

There are exellent howto's on the internet,about terminal commands and how things are done in ubuntu.
Just take the time to read some of them so you get the hang of the basics,the rest will come in time.

Yep, thankx.
gparted should have been visible in synaptic without doing a Search. Also when I did do the Search, there was just the word found with no other info about it and I had to search else where to get it in tarball.

Anyways, we Windows users aren't stupid, it's just that we haven't had to use a command line on a regular basis since 1995 and the skill has atrophied somewhat in those of us who have been around this long.

Why don't users offering help to noobies learn MS Windows speak so that they can be really helpful ? Rather, I get the impression that some posters enjoy being cryptic as it gives the appearance of being clever.

raul_
December 23rd, 2006, 06:27 PM
http://www.ubuntuforums.com/showthread.php?t=141084&highlight=do+you+dual-boot

Ta-daaaa! I guess you're not the only Windows user on these forums ;) Most people here understand windows speak

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 06:43 PM
Wow, I don't know about this. For somebody who's never touched a computer before, Ubuntu should be much easier to pick up. If you want to install a program, you just click on Add/Remove and search for what you want (even with very general terms, such as music, cd player, graphics, etc). Another click or two and it's installed. With Windows, you've got to go to Download.com or some other software website (or sift through google search results), find something that doesn't have spyware in it, download it and hope that it doesn't shut itself off in 30 days, asking for money. :)

Don't confuse "new users" with "people who have been using Windows for years and are now new linux users"! :D

I doubt that there will ever be an OS that is perfectly intuitive to a first time user, but Ubuntu's as close as I've ever seen. The only thing that would confuse new users is the lack of multimedia (and other non-free software) out of the box.

Ok,
where exactly is this Add/Remove you talk of ? It isn't immediately visible now, is it ?

See what I mean, it's not the users who are thick but the helper who is not "fully" able to help, but somehow feels the need, and has the spare time to write something that is half derogatory.](*,)

I don't mean to be rude but, cheers for clouding the pool ! I really wish I was a new user, it would be very much easier, but I'm not. I have been bludgeoned into working the Microsoft way for at least a decade and it is very hard to grasp beginning to do things, even slightly different. It doesn't help when someone who has probably never even owned a Windows PC starts giving it how Linux is a superior OS, when they blather rubbish like the above about not having to visit a web site to download a file.

Just how do you get your files, by magic fairies ?

Try to consider what you post as it can be unhelpful if you aren't actually prepared to go the whole hog with your information. Try posting to a higher level forum if you prefer talking elvish or whayever.:-|

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 06:46 PM
Hey there - dont worry about having a moan, but I'd have to say that to get used to the linux way of thinking and doing things does take time. To install things on ubuntu an excellent guide is here:

http://monkeyblog.org/ubuntu/installing/

The forum here is pretty helpful on the whole, sometimes responses are above peoples heads, but looking around helps - I'm pretty new to the linux scene but am picking things up with the help of google and the forums.

Ubuntu has a firewall I believe called IPtables. This is something that has been mentioned a bit - have a look here for more info:

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/security

Antivirus for linux is probably only necessary if you're transferring files to a windows machine: remember most viruses are windows only, you dont run as the root in linux so they are much less likely to do you damage unless you launch the virus as root, and even then it would probably have to be a linux coded virus to cause you problems - and there are very, very few of them. For the security worried you can get virus scanners - clamAV, avast, AVG free and others, but again (see above) they are not particularly necessary.

GParted - what are you using this for - it is available on boot into the live CD? you could just boot up in the live CD and use it from there.

I hope that helps :)
Il

Thanks for you help,
I need to set up a FAT32 partition so's I can get at the stuff on my Windows partition. I could use a USB stick, but thought I could do with the experience. HAH !

Thanks again.:p

mdsmedia
December 23rd, 2006, 06:52 PM
Yep, thankx.
gparted should have been visible in synaptic without doing a Search. Also when I did do the Search, there was just the word found with no other info about it and I had to search else where to get it in tarball.When you find any package in Synaptic, there is a description of what that package does. You just have to click on another button. Why should it be visible without a search? I don't understand that bit.


Anyways, we Windows users aren't stupid, it's just that we haven't had to use a command line on a regular basis since 1995 and the skill has atrophied somewhat in those of us who have been around this long.

Why don't users offering help to noobies learn MS Windows speak so that they can be really helpful ? Rather, I get the impression that some posters enjoy being cryptic as it gives the appearance of being clever.Why should people "learn MS Windows speak" when you're using Linux, NOT Windows? People offering help are probably not Windows users. Your statement about gparted and not having anything but the word "gparted" indicates that even a GUI doesn't work, because pressing a button to get a description is too difficult.

Rather than criticize people, how about asking people what they mean by what they say. Open your mind rather than expecting people to squeeze into your world.

Your biggest difficulty will be in realizing this is not Windows and getting used to doing things in Linux. I am a long time Windows user. I came to Linux in October last year. It's different. But I'm learning because I came with an open mind....not a Windows mind.

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 06:52 PM
I just tell them that i don't know how to fix it because i don't use windows :mrgreen:

Fortunately or unfortunately,
I just spent £13,000 doing a BSc in Information Systems and since the majority of it involved using MS Windows, I feel I have to tell folks, "Yes, I can fix your PC", so they can keep me and the kids in bread and butter.

Unfortunately, all the Linux users I come across, don't require a technician to fix their OS every couple of weeks.

Regards

zetsumei
December 23rd, 2006, 07:02 PM
Fortunately or unfortunately,
I just spent £13,000 doing a BSc in Information Systems and since the majority of it involved using MS Windows, I feel I have to tell folks, "Yes, I can fix your PC", so they can keep me and the kids in bread and butter.

Unfortunately, all the Linux users I come across, don't require a technician to fix their OS every couple of weeks.

Regards

Most Windows users I know dont require a technician to fix thier OS every other week. If you dont want to help just tell them I'm busy. Lie, or just flat say no I'm not helping you. Now, if they are paying you then help them all you can for their moneys worth...

steve.horsley
December 23rd, 2006, 07:05 PM
I just came back 'cos I wanted some clues as to how to install packages not included in the package manager's lists. Believe it or not, gparted wasn't even listed and I only found it by doing a Search. Next I downloaded the "tarball", but I'm not sure where to unpack the contents. Can I find the answer quickly and easily ? No !

I think you would be likely to have just as much trouble if you were to try and compile windows applications from source instead of installing the ready-made binaries. Don't you think that windows is too unfriendly and that it's too hard for windows newbies and their grannies to compile windows applications from source?

gparted is there in synaptic package manager. System->Applications->Synaptic Package Manager, then search for gparted, right-click and mark for installation and click apply. If that's too hard, use this command in a command prompt:
sudo apt-get install gparted

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 07:08 PM
When you find any package in Synaptic, there is a description of what that package does. You just have to click on another button. Why should it be visible without a search? I don't understand that bit.

Why should people "learn MS Windows speak" when you're using Linux, NOT Windows? People offering help are probably not Windows users. Your statement about gparted and not having anything but the word "gparted" indicates that even a GUI doesn't work, because pressing a button to get a description is too difficult.

Rather than criticize people, how about asking people what they mean by what they say. Open your mind rather than expecting people to squeeze into your world.

Your biggest difficulty will be in realizing this is not Windows and getting used to doing things in Linux. I am a long time Windows user. I came to Linux in October last year. It's different. But I'm learning because I came with an open mind....not a Windows mind.

More rhubarb, it must be the Christmas holidays.

Not criticising the folks who genuinely want to help, just poking sticks at clever clogs who can't use English properly.

FYI: In v6.06, I used synaptic to find the partition tool, as no menu item was available to manage my disc partitions, as there had been in the earlier 5.04 installation of ubuntu.

gparted was not in any of the lists of applications, so I had to use the Search tool. This found the word gparted. But, there was no information in the details panel. It would appear that the installation was corrupt, and I then had to go to the web site to get the tarball. If there had been an Add/Remove program option readily available I would have used it.

My biggest difficulty is not straddling the differences between the operating systems, it is however, similarly of having to communicate with stupid users and some arrogant geeks who play with computers - of any description, and lack proper communication skills.

xpod
December 23rd, 2006, 07:10 PM
Not for absolute beginners

Mabey not for an experienced(windows) person like yourself but it was for a complete computer novice like me im afraid to say..

And thats certainly an impressive amount of cash to spend just to end up not having any clue on how to find "add/remove".................on ANY os!!

Good luck regardless......"applications>add/remove"

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 07:20 PM
I think you would be likely to have just as much trouble if you were to try and compile windows applications from source instead of installing the ready-made binaries. Don't you think that windows is too unfriendly and that it's too hard for windows newbies and their grannies to compile windows applications from source?

gparted is there in synaptic package manager. System->Applications->Synaptic Package Manager, then search for gparted, right-click and mark for installation and click apply. If that's too hard, use this command in a command prompt:
sudo apt-get install gparted

I don't know how many times I have to say this .....

gparted was not available in synaptic. It was in version 5.04, but since I formatted the harddrive and installed version 5.06, it isn't there any more.

I'm not that much of a noobie, it genuinely isn't there.

No wonder there is so much confusion, when posters don't fully comprehend what has been written.

It's a common enough mistake when writting anything, we assume that other folks will understand completely, and it isn't always the case.

I have the problem 'cos the wonderful ubuntu 6.06 appears to have installed poorly and incompletely, but I don't want to assume this as some of you folks can't accept that as a possibility, it's easier to assume the user is an imbecile.:-k

regards

mdsmedia
December 23rd, 2006, 07:21 PM
More rhubarb, it must be the Christmas holidays.

Not criticising the folks who genuinely want to help, just poking sticks at clever clogs who can't use English properly.

FYI: In v6.06, I used synaptic to find the partition tool, as no menu item was available to manage my disc partitions, as there had been in the earlier 5.04 installation of ubuntu.

gparted was not in any of the lists of applications, so I had to use the Search tool. This found the word gparted. But, there was no information in the details panel. It would appear that the installation was corrupt, and I then had to go to the web site to get the tarball. If there had been an Add/Remove program option readily available I would have used it.

My biggest difficulty is not straddling the differences between the operating systems, it is however, similarly of having to communicate with stupid users and some arrogant geeks who play with computers - of any description, and lack proper communication skills.This is what I found in Synaptic....for gparted.....in 6.06....where it apparently didn't provide anything but the word "gparted"

partition editor for GNOME
It is a graphical editor which uses libparted to detect and manipulate
devices and partition tables while several (optional) filesystem tools
provide support for filesystems not included in libparted. These optional
packages will be detected at runtime.
It currently supports ext2, ext3, Reiser3, FAT, NTFS, XFS, JFS, HFS and
Linux swap.

Sorry that this wasn't as it was in 5.04, but things change in different releases of any OS, especially Windows.

You can expect more rhubarb when you approach help with such an aggressive attitude.

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 07:24 PM
Mabey not for an experienced(windows) person like yourself but it was for a complete computer novice like me im afraid to say..

And thats certainly an impressive amount of cash to spend just to end up not having any clue on how to find "add/remove".................on ANY os!!

Good luck regardless......"applications>add/remove"

See what I mean about clever clogs who only post derisory comments. Why don't you educate yourself big head.

That's how much it costs in this country, and you still get ripped off. So gloat all you like, I just hope you choke then you can't help anyone else.

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 07:32 PM
This is what I found in Synaptic....for gparted.....in 6.06....where it apparently didn't provide anything but the word "gparted"

partition editor for GNOME
It is a graphical editor which uses libparted to detect and manipulate
devices and partition tables while several (optional) filesystem tools
provide support for filesystems not included in libparted. These optional
packages will be detected at runtime.
It currently supports ext2, ext3, Reiser3, FAT, NTFS, XFS, JFS, HFS and
Linux swap.

Sorry that this wasn't as it was in 5.04, but things change in different releases of any OS, especially Windows.

You can expect more rhubarb when you approach help with such an aggressive attitude.

Thanks for your help, I know what the entry details should read, but the ignorant sneerers don't put me in a good mood, Christmas or no Christmas.

I have said often enough that in my installation of Ubuntu v.606, the entry for gparted is none existent.

It would appear that the installation is corrupt in some way, if you can accept that.

](*,)

mdsmedia
December 23rd, 2006, 07:33 PM
See what I mean about clever clogs who only post derisory comments. Why don't you educate yourself big head.

That's how much it costs in this country, and you still get ripped off. So gloat all you like, I just hope you choke then you can't help anyone else.I really have to hold myself back from responding to this, because you expect others to learn to read/write english, yet you, as an experienced, english speaking, BSc graduate, have trouble doing so yourself, yet you want anyone who is trying to help you to crawl into your little head and know exactly what you want without you having to express yourself clearly.

mdsmedia
December 23rd, 2006, 07:40 PM
Thanks for your help, I know what the entry details should read, but the ignorant sneerers don't put me in a good mood, Christmas or no Christmas.

I have said often enough that in my installation of Ubuntu v.606, the entry for gparted is none existent.

It would appear that the installation is corrupt in some way, if you can accept that.

](*,)I believe you said that once. But you also said earlier that you found gparted in Synaptic, but all it said was the word "gparted" with no description.

I can believe that your installation may have been corrupted, but that is in no way clear in any of your messages.

I'm happy to try to help you if that's what you want, but if all you want to do is complain, I can handle that too.

davidU
December 23rd, 2006, 07:55 PM
Hi,
sorry, I didn't mean to be rude to you.

It appears that my installation of Ubuntu 6.06 may be corrupt.

I base this assumption on my search for gparted in synaptic which didn't find anything (except the word synaptic, there was no information at all, none resembling the information you have posted, and what I would have expected to find - so my OS or part of it must be damaged).

I have located the tarball containing gparted and the file is on my desktop. I would like to install the gparted application but did not know how to proceed.

Thanks to some posters to the forum, I have some links that I can follow to see if I can rectify the problem I appear to have.

Thank you for your help.

mdsmedia
December 23rd, 2006, 08:08 PM
Hi,
sorry, I didn't mean to be rude to you.

It appears that my installation of Ubuntu 6.06 may be corrupt.

I base this assumption on my search for gparted in synaptic which didn't find anything (except the word synaptic, there was no information at all, none resembling the information you have posted, and what I would have expected to find - so my OS or part of it must be damaged).

I have located the tarball containing gparted and the file is on my desktop. I would like to install the gparted application but did not know how to proceed.

Thanks to some posters to the forum, I have some links that I can follow to see if I can rectify the problem I appear to have.

Thank you for your help.I can believe that your installation may be corrupt. This can occur for a number of reasons. It does seem strange, though, that everything seems to work but you can't find gparted in Synaptic.

Please understand that I'm not an experienced Ubuntu/Linux user either, so I can try to help but I'll usually point you in the direction of other sources.

If you can't find gparted in the repositories I'd say it's not the fault of a corrupted installation, because the repositories are not based in the installation. The OS uses the repositories once you have installed the OS. So I wouldn't think that not finding gparted in the repos (repositories) indicates a corrupt installation.

BTW (by the way) the psychocats website has a lot of what you need as an Ubuntu beginner.

xpod
December 23rd, 2006, 08:23 PM
See what I mean about clever clogs who only post derisory comments. Why don't you educate yourself big head.

That's how much it costs in this country, and you still get ripped off. So gloat all you like, I just hope you choke then you can't help anyone else.


LOL
Im sorry you feel that way.....honest:(
I dont mean to make "deriosry" comments but your asking for a whole lot worse than mine with some of your own comments me thinks:-k

Lets have it right ....just your "not for absolute beginners"statement itself is pretty outrageous as WHO else is it for if not for "absolute beginners???...Anybody who sits down at any os for the first time is an "absolute beginner" are they not??......

As far as my big head and my education is concerned.......well i aint the one who comes on a beginners forum ranting about how experienced i am & therefor how crap this whole thing must be cause i cant find add/remove etc.

Im the first one on this place to tell folks how little i know about computers and therefor how unlikely it is i`ll be able to help them......so i dont think they`ll miss me much here if i do choke but the wifes cooking is a bit dodgy so if you keep your fingers crossed on xmas day you never know your luck.....


Sorry it took a while to respond but my youngest was having a tantrum too so i had to deal with her complaints first....
Anyway .......it`s xmas time so no hard feeling ok,...good luck with the education

egoldtech
December 23rd, 2006, 08:50 PM
"I have the problem 'cos the wonderful ubuntu 6.06 appears to have installed poorly and incompletely, but I don't want to assume this as some of you folks can't accept that as a possibility, it's easier to assume the user is an imbecile ..."

after years working as help desk, computer repair guy, etc, I can tell : sometime the user is an imbecile ....

arpanaut
December 23rd, 2006, 09:28 PM
Here's a page that should get you most of the information needed for a good start using Ubuntu, http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=232059

Sections 3-9 hold a great deal of information and resources, that if willing to do the research and digging will get you acquainted with your OS and headed in the right direction for mastering it..... LOL, it make take years but..... the information is out there given time and effort.

I agree that at times the answers given on forums, etc. are often cryptic and remote for a new user, but I think most posters are well intentioned, just ask back for a simpler explanation, or just thank the poster for the information, move on or wait for a more useful help to come. Learn some basics, and the rest will come easier.

http://www.linuxcommand.org/learning_the_shell.php

http://www.tuxfiles.org/linuxhelp/cli.html

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UserDocumentation

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/TitleIndex

Some things do come free, but not necessarily easy; Stop ****'n & moaning, ask some pertinant questions. AND if those who gave you your degree didn't teach you how to research, think, ask relevant questions, then it's unfortunate that you did not get your money's worth. (Not a bash on you, but maybe a statement on the state of our educational institutions today.)

I can understand your frustrations, been there and at times still feel that way, I only came to Linux/Ububtu a year and a half ago and I am still lost much of the time; but through my own efforts and those around these forums I know a WHOLE heck of alot more than before. Just depends, as I said before, on the time and effort you are willing to invest.

Free OS = NO $$$$, you betcha
Free = NO Time and effort, NOT by a long shot!

How long did it take you to become proficient with Windows? Is it fair to expect the learning curve to be any less steep with another OS.

I've got a book "Windows XP Inside-Out" 1250 pages that I got 5 years ago when I first got MSWin-XP and I'll tell you there are some prety obscure and cryptic explanations of how to do things in there. But the information is there, I just had to absorb it and apply it to my own needs.

I'm not trying to bash anything or anyone, just trying to give some perspective, I wish you well with your efforts learning Linux! Although I find myself beating my head against the wall in ignorance and frustration, I am having a ball learning and feel great satisfaction with every step towards freeing myself from Uncle Bill & Co. I hope you find your way too.

Later......

jvc26
December 24th, 2006, 02:15 AM
Hi I thought I'd just pass in a rpely here to a few of the things which have been said.



where exactly is this Add/Remove you talk of ? It isn't immediately visible now, is it ?


Well to be fair, it doesnt take much looking to get to - <applications> <Add/remove> which is a fairly logical place for it to be. Its easier to find on here than the 'add remove programs' on windows. And you're only 2 clicks from finding it - if you start a new program or in this case OS don't you have a look round to see whats there and how things work? I'd have thought any degree of inquisitiveness would lead to that.



Just how do you get your files, by magic fairies ?


Come on mate, thats a stupid response really and I would be amazed if any new person to a new OS would ever think that was the reason - much more logical to assume the internet/the live cd - and a simple look on basically any of the newbie guide websites (Ubuntu guide being an excellent example) would answer that question.



Why don't users offering help to noobies learn MS Windows speak so that they can be really helpful ? Rather, I get the impression that some posters enjoy being cryptic as it gives the appearance of being clever.


May have already been said, but to be fair why use MS windows speak to explain a different OS they run in different modes of thought - you can't apply the same windows logic to linux - take for example the simplest thing of C:\, D:\ in windows - never seen in linux you cant use the same terminology. Admittedly you can simplify down what to do. Anyone though with a degree of interest can read the instructions given and puzzle them out, or if they arent clear enough you can say hey mate didnt really understand that one but could you explain it a bit more simply - or even you could google the answer once you had more of an idea of what you'd need to do. I dont think on the whole the answers are at all cryptic - they may be difficult to understand but thats not cyptic - if someone says the best answer may be to compile your kernel - that may be the best answer these guys arent just saying it for the hell of it, they may well know. If the answer is unclear - hence ask further questions - or even more simply once you have a cryptic answer maybe google bits? or search the forums? or the ubuntu wiki? or the wiki of whatever you want to do. There is a lot of information out there, dont just expect everything to be served on a silver platter - your brain needs to be able to think for this one.



Fortunately or unfortunately, I just spent £13,000 doing a BSc in Information Systems and since the majority of it involved using MS Windows, I feel I have to tell folks, "Yes, I can fix your PC", so they can keep me and the kids in bread and butter.


To be fair mate, we didnt need to know how much you've spent or how well qualified you are. I'm spending a lot on the degree I'm studying but thats that theres no need to bring it in here. You're fairly new to linux, as are a lot of us, and so hierarchy doesnt work, if people can help they will and if not then they may well point you in a direction where you can puzzle out an answer and in future tell others how to make things work - thats how the system works here from what I've gathered.



Unfortunately, all the Linux users I come across, don't require a technician to fix their OS every couple of weeks.


I'd have said that was a good thing - either Linux is more reliable or alternatively people can ask others for help or sort it out themselves by thinking it through. Ive never had to get anyone to fix my Windows when I had it - it never had a major breakdown (though crashes were not uncommon) and i fixed things myself. I think if you want to persevere with Linux it takes a certain type of person who's much more willing to sit and puzzle things rather than to expect things to work instantly.



I have the problem 'cos the wonderful ubuntu 6.06 appears to have installed poorly and incompletely, but I don't want to assume this as some of you folks can't accept that as a possibility, it's easier to assume the user is an imbecile.


The wonderful Ubuntu 6.06? I'd have said good, functional but not wonderful all the distros have faults and this is no exception. I had some problems with 6.06 I run 6.10 now and 99% of the problems are solved that I had - not 100% but they only need solving if theyre a pain in the backside. Yeah it could have installed incompletely, but then you'd expect if so then you'd have erased it and tried installing again to see if there was the same problem? Often there is either a problem by the user or if not, and the software is at fault - perhaps you could try downloading the 6.10 ISO and using that? Have you tried reinstalling? There are quite a few things you can have a go at before admitting defeat.



See what I mean about clever clogs who only post derisory comments. Why don't you educate yourself big head.


I'd have said there has been more than enough of unfortunately derisory comments here but I would say that guy is educating himself - you only have to see his posts across the forum, like a lot of people here who ask questions in the hope of getting help and educating themselves as to how this OS works, not people who start out with a string of accusations without having made sure that most of them stood.

Yeah linux isnt perfect I dont think anyone here would say it is, but I'd say from my brief experience its working better and suits me better than XP and windows, and for ease of asking questions and getting prompt answers theres none other. It isnt windows, and thankfully never will be - its a different way of thinking and a different way of doing things. If you want to come to linux you have to do it with an open mind, and challenge when you're confused... and hey one day you'll be able to help other people through the same things.

Il

3rdalbum
December 24th, 2006, 02:16 AM
Picnic. Linux is radically different to the other two major operating systems, so if the only thing you've ever properly used is Windows, you've got to expect that it will take a fair amount of time to figure it all out. I'd only ever properly used Mac OS, so when I bought my first Windows machine earlier this year I had a great deal of trouble.

A suggestion for your Gparted problem:


sudo apt-get update

(or hit Reload in Synaptic).

As for "Ubuntu is not for absolute beginners": In India, many people learn to use a computer on Linux. Not sure if they use Ubuntu or not.

As for firewall and anti-virus: By default, Ubuntu does not have any services "open to the world", so a configured firewall is not an immediate priority. While people critisised Windows for not having a firewall by default, they should have been critisising Windows for having ports open by default. That is the real security risk. Antivirus is not needed on any Linux distribution as long as all the software has all the security patches applied and the user does not do anything silly.

K.Mandla
December 24th, 2006, 02:49 AM
Moved to the omnipresent Linux Desktop Readiness thread.

Before posting a parting shot, all Ubuntu-departees should be required to read each post in this thread. Aloud. To an audience. Of Ubuntu-departees. :roll:

PurplePenguin
December 24th, 2006, 05:35 AM
Ok,
where exactly is this Add/Remove you talk of ? It isn't immediately visible now, is it ?

Just how do you get your files, by magic fairies ?

Try to consider what you post as it can be unhelpful if you aren't actually prepared to go the whole hog with your information. Try posting to a higher level forum if you prefer talking elvish or whayever.:-|

So where is the immediately visible Windows source of new software? More magic fairies?

I can't believe I'm replying to a blatant troll such as yourself, so I guess I'm asking for whatever I get.

If there's anything in my post that appears to be "elvish", all you need to do is ask for clarification. This forum is incredibly friendly and people are generally more than happy to go to lengths to explain complex ideas in simple terms. I tried making myself as clear as possible, but for some reason (not that it's your fault), it seemed "elvish" to you.

Just some advice, though: Even though people on this forum are very, very helpful, they all have limits on their patience and I wouldn't be surprised if they won't spend their time helping people who post only to offend/flame/complain about nothing in particular (I know I won't!).

steve.horsley
December 24th, 2006, 06:07 PM
If the entry for gparted is missing from synaptic there is something badly wrong. But it's not necessarily a corrupt install, because the full list in synaptic is taken from the servers. You could perhaps try the Reload button in synaptic, which will cause it to read the list from the servers again. If that doesn't work, I don't know what to do. Perhaps reinstall, as you don't know what else is scrambled? You really shouldn't be having to download and compile standard packages, for many reasons.

m.musashi
December 24th, 2006, 10:35 PM
Is gparted in the main repositories or do you have to enable others? I actually don't know, that's why I ask but it could be reason it not being found. According to this (http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_Partition_Editor_.28GPa rted.29) guide it looks like you might need add additional repositories first.

steve.horsley
December 26th, 2006, 04:39 PM
gparted is in the main repos, not the extra ones

PartisanEntity
December 27th, 2006, 09:26 PM
An interesting discussion has developed and perhaps I can make some input:

I was a long time Windows user, I have always wanted to try Linux, because I liked what it stood for and disliked what Microsoft represented, not that I disliked Windows, it works and has good and bad sides like all software.

For many years using Linux appeared to be a daunting task, for me at least. Until about 2 months ago when I found out about Ubuntu and tried out the Live CD for Dapper.

Now, two months on, I have fully migrated to Ubuntu, today I gave Windows the parting shot by replacing my 60GB notebook HDD (with windows and ubuntu partitions) to a 100GB HDD having only one partition, Dapper in this case.

I have done a lot of reading. Often I like to read through the threads in the Beginner Forum to learn as much as I can, of course I have created my share of threads asking questions, sometimes questions that have been asked before.

However what I did notice is that some users are not patient, they read instructions but only half-way. They approach Linux with an impatient attitude. They want a 'quick fix' instead of learning how things work and how they can be done manually.

I mention this because davidU has complained about the quality of some of the help here. That some members speaking in cryptic tongue. If someone like me, not a holder of any IT related degree (studying law), can manage to migrate fully within 2 months I believe anyone with patience can do it. Sorry, not to say you aren't patient, it is just the feeling I get from reading your threads.

They say Linux has a steep learning curve and it is true for us ex-Windows users. I was close to giving up during the first weeks when I couldn't get my wifi to work (which is my main method of connecting to the internet) and after having gone through countless threads and HOW To's.

As Dr. Dre says, "You can do it if you put your @$$ into it".

Regards.

Mateo
December 27th, 2006, 09:35 PM
I switched to Linux (first to Fedora, then to Ubuntu) because I got tired of my computer taking 2+ minutes to load up all of the background applications AFTER the OS was fully loaded (even after weeding out as many unnecessary applications as possible). And because I got tired of loading simple programs taking up a lot of CPU and time. And because I hate software that has a splash screen.

So as you can see, it's all about load time for me. I like that OpenOffice and Gimp are the only software I use any more that have splash screens. Or that once the taskbars appear in GNOME, the computer's finished loading.

I also like the simplicity of many programs (like VLC and Rhythmbox). I still have issues with how difficult it can be to install a lot of hardware and software, but it's usually worth the headache.

I don't have the ethical problems with Windows like a lot of people do. Nor do I particuarly care if a piece of software is open sourced or closed source. I still have a windows partition that i use for some things until i can figure out how to get them to work in ubuntu.

phatlip
December 29th, 2006, 02:30 AM
well, atleast when you installed you could actually bot. My experience has been worse - perhaps there is not enough testing with a variety of hardware? Not enough bug fixing and too much feature creep?

Not sure, don't know enough - but I'm really hoping when i try Dapper instead things are better for me..i really like the idea of using ubuntu - but i guess something like suse or fc would be more practical.

phatlip
December 29th, 2006, 05:22 AM
Oh please, post install config? Ubuntu is the 'Linux for real people' and it simply doesn't work for real people.

There must be some reason that things are difficult to get working, that shouldn't be (some things should - because that allows them to also be customisable). I just want to understand why i can't boot a fresh install with a perfectly working system (ie hardware) after installing two different ways, twice. Is it simply not tested? Or do they make _booting_ an 'easter egg' for linux nuts.

phatlip
December 29th, 2006, 05:46 AM
have 2 HDDs and 3 computers. SLES 10 on one, working perfectly as a server. windows working OK as a games machine. and a mac i use for most everything.

so i don't really need to take it slow, because i'm risking and losing nothing - and i'll most definately persist. however, i really want to put my attention to more intersting things and have some things 'just work'. for example, booting after i install.

atleast if things don't work once you have a working OS, you have logs and infomation. i have nothing but this forum and IRC - and i can't get help from either of them. it just really frustrating!

I know no one gets paid and etc. but it goes against the philosophy to just fob issues off with 'you need to do alot of post install config - now go RTFM'

Shay Stephens
December 29th, 2006, 06:18 AM
...'you need to do alot of post install config - now go RTFM'

Early on when you are still dealing with all the windows only hardware this is true. As you cycle out that hardware for more os neutral hardware, things get a lot easier. However, there are still a lot of things that need to be learned with linux. Not so much is hidden from the user, so a degree of getting your hand dirty is going to be required.

That is one reason I suggest taking it slow and patiently. It takes time to retrain and relearn new skills and ways of thinking. But in the end, the payoff is huge. I am actually getting back into programming, getting back into hardware and how the computer works again. After being lulled to sleep and incompetence with XP, this is rather exciting now. But it only happened once I passed the critical mass of learning and understanding.

So, yes, RTFM, it's good for you, it will help slow you down and learn something important. Once you have learned a few things, bam, things start getting fast again. Zoom zoom!

adriantry
December 29th, 2006, 07:36 AM
Oh please, post install config? Ubuntu is the 'Linux for real people' and it simply doesn't work for real people.

Oh, please! You are the sort of person who I recommended should start with an easier distro.

Freespire/Linspire and Xandros are the easiest I know. PCLinuxOS is also quite good, but Linspire and Xandros make lots of changes to the interface so that it is easier for people who are used to Windows.

Freespire's software is a little dated, but there should be a new version in January.

You may have to pay a bit of money for Linspire or Xandros, but they work pretty much out of the box, which is what you're looking for.

Personally, I spent my first Linux year with Xandros. I found it a great stepping stone to learning Linux.

Adrian

houstonbofh
December 29th, 2006, 08:50 AM
Heh... Sounds like me. It was not ethics, but a better tool for the job. I prefer to work in Ubuntu. Cleaner, easier (eventually) and faster. And no security issues. (By comparison)

Soarer
December 29th, 2006, 11:07 AM
I see this sort of nonsense a lot. It is simply not true to say Windows just works. People who say that have never installed it. I have, many times, and I NEVER had it 'just work' Almost always the wireless card needed drivers to be downloaded - not easy when you use wireless to connect to the Internet! Also video, sound, the list goes on.

And as has been stated, Sony did a lot of work to make the innovative Vaio hardware work -with Windows! They did not do it for Ubuntu. Blame Sony, if you want, but not Ubuntu. It's a bit like expecting a car built for petrol (gas) to run on Diesel (gasoil) and then blaming the oil companies when it breaks. Get real!

mahiyar
December 29th, 2006, 01:00 PM
What can I say, I spent a month dabbling in linux using knoppix, compared with 2/3 years ago I liked what I saw. Then I tried installing debian, stable version, Xwindows would not start, conflicting with Nvidia card. Then I used Ubuntu and I'am glad. Of course everything is far from OK. My videos are not working, I needed an hour installing my printer, getting flash work in firefox was another journey, and so many other things. But at the end of the day there is something achieved (better than spending hours playing games). As far as comparison between windows and linux is concerned there is a very fine article, I suggest everybody who wants to "move over" to linux should read it http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm.

Mateo
December 30th, 2006, 01:09 AM
I see this sort of nonsense a lot. It is simply not true to say Windows just works. People who say that have never installed it. I have, many times, and I NEVER had it 'just work' Almost always the wireless card needed drivers to be downloaded - not easy when you use wireless to connect to the Internet! Also video, sound, the list goes on.

But that's worst case scenario. You never have to fire up CMD and hunt down How-tos to get your hardware to working, having to configure a million different things along the way. Worst case scenario you have to find the proper drivers on the manufacturer's website and watch the install program do the work for you. I prefer linux as well, but windows really is infinitely easier for the common PC user. The typical PC user is simply not capable of using a command line program or edit config files, etc.

.t.
December 30th, 2006, 01:25 AM
Hmmm. I think you underestimate the vast majority of people.

Secondly, "ready for the desktop doesn't make any sense". What is "the desktop"?

TheWizzard
December 30th, 2006, 01:27 AM
But that's worst case scenario. You never have to fire up CMD and hunt down How-tos to get your hardware to working, having to configure a million different things along the way. Worst case scenario you have to find the proper drivers on the manufacturer's website and watch the install program do the work for you. I prefer linux as well, but windows really is infinitely easier for the common PC user. The typical PC user is simply not capable of using a command line program or edit config files, etc.

wrong.
1) depends on what you're used to. if you're used to windows, windows is easier to install. if you're used to ubuntu, ubuntu is easier to install.
2) installing windows may require lots of googeling.
3) installing all the applications you need is a breeze in ubuntu.
4) copy/paste commands is the easiest solution for a problem.
5) if you're used to both windows and ubuntu, the latter is far more easy to install.

m.musashi
December 30th, 2006, 06:37 AM
I don't know why I keep reading this thread - too many people complaining that Linux isn't right for them so it must not be right for anyone else. I'll make my own choices thank you very much.

Anyway, in response to the current discussion... I hosed my edgy install today. Actually, I hosed vmware and I'm not smart enough to know how to fix it so I decided to do a fresh install. No one ever does a fresh install of Windows to fix a simple problem because the install is never simple. I find it easy to reinstall Ubuntu. I keep /home on a separate partition and after about 20 minutes I was looking at my old desktop - theme, icons and all. Next a quick trip to get automatix, add a few lines to my sources and install my nvidia driver and beryl (copying and pasting commands from the how tos on this forum) and in easily half the time it takes for windows to just format my drive I'm sitting pretty on a clean install with everything the way I like it.

Now, I don't have a CS degree and I've only been using Ubuntu and Linux for about a year (compared with 10+ years with Windows) so exactly how is Ubuntu more difficult to install than Windows?

In all honesty I run into some minor problems from time to time but with patience I figure them out (and lots of help for the wonderful people on this forum). And, in all honesty, most of these "problems" are not the fault of Ubuntu or Linux but simply due to my own lack of knowledge, and I can't blame anyone for that but myself.

Personally, I love Ubuntu. I still have windows but I've gotten to the point that I can hardly stand to use it. It's ugly, slow, and not really much fun. Vista will likely address my complaints but I'm not willing to drop $300 just to get something more like Ubuntu.

houstonbofh
December 31st, 2006, 01:14 AM
Just to keep it in perspective, I spent 6 hours last night trying to remove smitfraud and related junk from my brothers Windows computer. Made him sit with me. He mainly uses the system for World of Warcraft. This FINALLY convinced him to try a dual boot. When you factor in the nasty malware that almost requires a reinstall, it tips the balance a lot.

FLPCGuy
December 31st, 2006, 01:22 AM
... No one ever does a fresh install of Windows to fix a simple problem because the install is never simple. ...
Personally, I love Ubuntu. I still have windows but I've gotten to the point that I can hardly stand to use it. It's ugly, slow, and not really much fun....

Not trying to flame you but actually one advantage of a repository-based OS is the ability to fix things by re-installing. I've fixed Windows 2000 & XP on various PC's many times by re-running the install CD. It reads the current registry, fixes the problem automatically if it is a mis-matched or corrupted system DLL (code library), and all the desktop preferences and software return without re-installing. I highly suggest trying this if you can't fix Windows by rolling back drivers, etc. with the tools included in 2000 and XP.

Scanreg /restore on ME and Win9x restores previous registry backups made by default whenever you change configuration. The downside is that once a registry is trashed by malware, it can't be fixed and you must wipe both the Windows and Program Files directories before re-installing.

Apple (pre-OS-X) was the first registry-based OS I ever saw and it was very slick. That's why Bill used one in Win95. Initially, I was ticked that I couldn't just edit the .ini files to fix stuff, but got over it eventually. I enjoy having editable config files again, in Linux.

I agree with you on the fun of learning and using Ubuntu and the pain it has become to try to run Windows safely on the net. Ubuntu is much faster on my 877MHz PC with 512MB RAM than 2000 or XP, ...about the same performance as ME but much safer.

BTW, Vista will be LESS like Ubuntu than XP because it adds even more code bloat, hidden rights management and other stuff you can't control and Vista will add much more than $300 to the system price for the top two versions. That's why I'm going simple instead with Linux. It won't be easy Linux is Not Windows (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm) but using Linux will be easier than trying to defeat the malware being built into Vista.

m.musashi
December 31st, 2006, 05:47 AM
Not trying to flame you but actually one advantage of a repository-based OS is the ability to fix things by re-installing. I've fixed Windows 2000 & XP on various PC's many times by re-running the install CD. It reads the current registry, fixes the problem automatically if it is a mis-matched or corrupted system DLL (code library), and all the desktop preferences and software return without re-installing. I highly suggest trying this if you can't fix Windows by rolling back drivers, etc. with the tools included in 2000 and XP.


No worries but I think you would still agree that a full reinstall of Ubuntu is easier than a full reinstall of Windows, no? Of course there are fixes for both if you know how to do them. I don't, so the reinstall option works for me (on ubuntu). In windows I usually manage to fix things but often I'm left with a less than optimized system. With Ubuntu, I just reinstall and all is good.


BTW, Vista will be LESS like Ubuntu than XP because it adds even more code bloat, hidden rights management and other stuff you can't control and Vista will add much more than $300 to the system price for the top two versions. That's why I'm going simple instead with Linux. It won't be easy Linux is Not Windows but using Linux will be easier than trying to defeat the malware being built into Vista.

As for vista being more like ubuntu, I was just trying to be ironic (you know, most people complain that linux is not like windows and such)

FLPCGuy
December 31st, 2006, 06:58 PM
No worries but I think you would still agree that a full reinstall of Ubuntu is easier than a full reinstall of Windows, no? Of course there are fixes for both if you know how to do them. I don't, so the reinstall option works for me (on ubuntu). In windows I usually manage to fix things but often I'm left with a less than optimized system. With Ubuntu, I just reinstall and all is good....

I'll agree installing Ubuntu from CD (about 25 min.) is faster than a CD ramdisk repair install of Windows (under 1 hr) and I must admit my Linux knowledge is also at the point where I have just re-installed rather than try to figure out how to fix it. That says more about me than Linux.

But I have been a Windows MCSE since NT4 and have installed Windows on PC's and servers over 2,000 times in more ways than I can enumerate (diskettes, CD, DVD, peer-peer crossover cable via XP's migration wizard, network share, slipstream, sysconfig/sysdiff, unattend.txt, Ghost, Active Dir Group Policy, etc.). Vista has an entirely re-written set of deployment tools.

There are almost as many ways to deploy Windoze as there are Linux distros and M$ has likely spent more on just deployment than most major Linux distros have invested in their entire development. That's why I stubbornly stick to my opinion that Windows is about as easy and painless to install on almost any hardware as it can be. For example, Microsoft includes over 25,000 of the most common printer drivers in it's distros just to make it easier to get the full performance out of your choice of hardware. Nobody else has or could even afford to do that. This makes Linux and others look worse than they really are.

M$ has worked very closely with chip makers, major sellers and motherboard mfr's for years to build standards for desktops (PC97...) and servers. We all benefit from significant PC industry standardization (except for HD DVD but still better than cell phones).

I think most Linux distros are amazingly easy to install but so is Windows, a much more complex OS with directory services, local and remote policies, and more ways to run code than any OS should have. When you consider the millions of combinations of hardware available to us, I'm impressed with both. Could it be better? Absolutely. I dread not finding wireless card drivers that works with Linux on my next PC or even an external USB full modem (or USB to serial converter with Linux drivers).

Linux has not taken off precisely because they don't have the resources to make Linux work with any hardware. I'm glad they haven't yet take the logical Apple approach and severely limited the hardware they will support. That's a recipe for failure that even Apple understands. I believe Linux must come up with a solution to make drivers easier to provide through a standard interface and or convince mfr's to publish enough specs. so volunteers can write drivers.

For the immediate future, I am looking forward to the day when i understand enough about what goes on under the hood in Linux that I will almost never need to re-install to fix or change anything I mess up.

darrenm
December 31st, 2006, 08:31 PM
I'll agree installing Ubuntu from CD (about 25 min.) is faster than a CD ramdisk repair install of Windows (under 1 hr) and I must admit my Linux knowledge is also at the point where I have just re-installed rather than try to figure out how to fix it. That says more about me than Linux.

But I have been a Windows MCSE since NT4 and have installed Windows on PC's and servers over 2,000 times in more ways than I can enumerate (diskettes, CD, DVD, peer-peer crossover cable via XP's migration wizard, network share, slipstream, sysconfig/sysdiff, unattend.txt, Ghost, Active Dir Group Policy, etc.). Vista has an entirely re-written set of deployment tools.

There are almost as many ways to deploy Windoze as there are Linux distros

Nowhere near. But that doesn't mean anything either way. Its just wrong information.


and M$ has likely spent more on just deployment than most major Linux distros have invested in their entire development.

I can't swallow that. You're saying the CD install wizards, the rubbish sysprep and group policy stuff cost more to develop than all of Red Hat Linux, Novell, Mandrake, Ubuntu etc entirely? I used to use XP SLP and sysprep. It really was poor. I think there are still bugs in it now that were reported at the beginning and never fixed. Like it stripping out non-signed drivers even though it shouldn't do.


That's why I stubbornly stick to my opinion that Windows is about as easy and painless to install on almost any hardware as it can be. For example, Microsoft includes over 25,000 of the most common printer drivers in it's distros just to make it easier to get the full performance out of your choice of hardware. Nobody else has or could even afford to do that. This makes Linux and others look worse than they really are.

Haven't got any figures to hand but I'm sure CUPS supports many more printers OOTB than any Windows does. Do you have a source for 25,000 drivers? Do you mean 25,000 separate drivers or 25,000 separate devices supported. I find it difficult to believe even Vista has that many separate print drivers included. Surely that would take Gigabytes of space for the print drivers alone?


M$ has worked very closely with chip makers, major sellers and motherboard mfr's for years to build standards for desktops (PC97...) and servers. We all benefit from significant PC industry standardization (except for HD DVD but still better than cell phones).

Nope. Microsoft have forced these companies to do things their way. They haven't worked with them at all. I have first hand experience of this. The only company big enough apart from MS to standardise anything is Intel. They gave us ATX, BTX etc. Microsoft will make a 2nd rate protocol or standard then force hardware manufacturers to follow them by using the OEM's. MS will give the OEM's (system builders) kickback money to only use WHQL'd hardware and drivers. The OEM's will then force the HW manufacturers to stay in line or not sell to OEM. (The retail market is tiny compared)


I think most Linux distros are amazingly easy to install but so is Windows, a much more complex OS with directory services, local and remote policies, and more ways to run code than any OS should have. When you consider the millions of combinations of hardware available to us, I'm impressed with both. Could it be better? Absolutely. I dread not finding wireless card drivers that works with Linux on my next PC or even an external USB full modem (or USB to serial converter with Linux drivers).

Linux has not taken off precisely because they don't have the resources to make Linux work with any hardware. I'm glad they haven't yet take the logical Apple approach and severely limited the hardware they will support. That's a recipe for failure that even Apple understands. I believe Linux must come up with a solution to make drivers easier to provide through a standard interface and or convince mfr's to publish enough specs. so volunteers can write drivers.

For the immediate future, I am looking forward to the day when i understand enough about what goes on under the hood in Linux that I will almost never need to re-install to fix or change anything I mess up.

Phosphoric
January 1st, 2007, 10:57 AM
It's just the plain and simple hardware support that bugs me.

I've installed many versions of windows on many different machines and I've NEVER had to change hardware to get windows up and running.

On two boxes, running XP happily , I've tried with Ubuntu. On my main box I've had to buy and install a different ethernet card, a different sound card, my ATI graphics card is such a nightmare that I'm thinking of changing that also to NVidea. My digital camera is not recognised. I can't install Ubuntu 6.10.

On my other box I can't even install 6.06.

This is not through lack of trying. I've been at it for over 3 months and won't give up but I do sometimes ask myself why? It's quite a relief to boot up in to Windows XP for a rest where everything works perfectly.

So for my summation it's hardware support. Software installs etc via Synaptic or whatever I can cope with, but having to replace half the components in my PC is getting silly.

Happy New Year Folks. :)

mdsmedia
January 1st, 2007, 12:10 PM
It's just the plain and simple hardware support that bugs me.

I've installed many versions of windows on many different machines and I've NEVER had to change hardware to get windows up and running.

On two boxes, running XP happily , I've tried with Ubuntu. On my main box I've had to buy and install a different ethernet card, a different sound card, my ATI graphics card is such a nightmare that I'm thinking of changing that also to NVidea. My digital camera is not recognised. I can't install Ubuntu 6.10.

On my other box I can't even install 6.06.

This is not through lack of trying. I've been at it for over 3 months and won't give up but I do sometimes ask myself why? It's quite a relief to boot up in to Windows XP for a rest where everything works perfectly.

So for my summation it's hardware support. Software installs etc via Synaptic or whatever I can cope with, but having to replace half the components in my PC is getting silly.

Happy New Year Folks. :)Happy New Year to you too :)

I have to disagree with you on hardware support. How much hardware support is provided "out of the box" by Windows? Do you not have to use the manufacturer's CD to get most things to work? In Ubuntu you don't have the manufacturer's CD to fall back on.

Is that the fault of the OS? I agree it IS a problem if your hardware doesn't work out of the box with Ubuntu. But it's the same problem trying to run it out of the box with Windows. A lot of hardware won't run "out of the box" in Windows. A lot more WILL run "out of the box" with Ubuntu.

Hardware support "out of the box" is surprisingly better with Linux than with Windows. The difference is that manufacturers provide drivers specific to their hardware for Windows. Linux is remarkable in its hardware support, given that manufacturers don't support Linux.

Phosphoric
January 2nd, 2007, 08:02 AM
@ mdsmedia,
I didn't mean support "out of the box" but hardware support, period. In Windows I can use the manufacturers disk to load a self executing driver - sorted. In my limited experience of Ubuntu, if it dosen't work out of the box you're in trouble.

Nobody was able to help me get my ethernet card to work or my sound card. The only solution was to replace them both. I have now got my ATI graphics card working, but it was a struggle..

I think it IS an OS problem. Both my sound card and ethernet card worked fine with the live CD but not the installed version and through all my postings, nobody would accept that anomaly.

However, I'm not bashing Ubuntu, I'm still struggling on. If I could only get Folding at Home to work properly, I'd be a happy bunny. ;)

Mr_J_
January 2nd, 2007, 12:23 PM
Linux is almost ready for the end-user.
Almost!

I think of it like a piece of wood that hasn't been polished yet.
Some corners need polish and other than that it's pretty much ready.

On the desktop programs I have a few that windows should just have.

1 - Apt-get - Whatever form it's called. Front-end or back-end, any end... It's great!
Windows should call it "My Happy Software" - those that just won't break. :D

2 - Gnomebaker - I love the simplicity of this program. Might be strange on a few things, but I don't care. It works fine for me. Used Nero for ages, and Gnomebaker kicks it's *** to the curve!

3 - Themes - Windows needs themes like there is no tomorrow.
Who thinks of those standart themes?! How did they even agree that was the best they could do?
Cairo might not be my bag of peanuts, but it beats the snot out of the standart blue and green windows xp theme.

4 - Screensavers as background (Compiz) - Last I checked it was Compiz. Don't know if Beryl does this... I've been away from linux for a while.
Lets just face up to it! Flying toasters over your wallpaper just get your moral up.
Your puppy might've just died, but you'll laught your *** off because of that flying toaster.

The last thing I have to say is that we need a minimalistic and borderless design for the desktop. People are going to get very tired of all those little squares and divisions pretty fast. Don't go fancy, just simple.
Certain Websites pull it off. We need linux to do that too.
Jump one step ahead of the others!:D

toasted
January 2nd, 2007, 03:22 PM
@ mdsmedia,

I have now got my ATI graphics card working, but it was a struggle..

I think it IS an OS problem. Both my sound card and ethernet card worked fine with the live CD but not the installed version and through all my postings, nobody would accept that anomaly.



Similar for me. I spent weeks getting my ATI X1600 working in Dapper. It refuses to work in Edgy though and nobody either has been able to help or there is no fix available. Its nonsense.... Video is Linux's biggest trouble at the moment IMHO and please spare me the excuses.... i've heard them all.

Talking about Windows... sure you have to install drivers and such but at least they work and they work the first time with no kernel compiling, terminal usage, or endless hours of searching and trying different how-to's.

saulgoode
January 2nd, 2007, 04:06 PM
The last thing I have to say is that we need a minimalistic and borderless design for the desktop. People are going to get very tired of all those little squares and divisions pretty fast. Don't go fancy, just simple.:D

You might enjoy the window manager that the UDE Project (http://udeproject.sourceforge.net/) offers. Windows have no title bar across the top and the border can be as thin or wide as you like.

Clicking on the border (with the left mouse button) brings up a hexagonal icon matrix which permits you to maximize, minimize, close, kill, or move to another desktop. You can move the window using the middle mouse button; resize it using the right. Clicking the mouse on the desktop (instead of the window) presents menus which provide access to your applications.

The main negatives include the need for a 3-button mouse (although, with a bit of reconfiguring, I have made UWM quite usable on my 2-button laptop), the fact that you have to edit a text file to modify the menus, and its lack of compliance with current FreeDesktop.org standards.

Jesiah76
January 3rd, 2007, 02:13 AM
Now I've got a serious problem because I've downloaded ubuntu onto my daughter's pc and it is now irreversible.
Can't get the wireless network working and all of the help I'm getting seems to be in hieroglyphics.
So I'm left with two choices: 1. go and buy linux for dummies for $29.95 and give it another crack orrrr 2. order the recovery cd's for $15.78 and get my piece of mind back.
I won't deny that linux is intriguing but I don't think it's worth the headache. now if y'all say that ubuntu and linux is so easy well....show me.

aysiu
January 3rd, 2007, 02:18 AM
Well, I checked out your support thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=329681), and you appear to be getting some good help.

I highly doubt Linux for Dummies is going to be any more help than the people on these forums. No one ever said installing and configuring Ubuntu was easy for people who've never done it before or made sure their computer parts are Ubuntu-compatible.

Using Ubuntu on a computer on which it is already installed and configured is easy, though. I can't believe you would imagine Ubuntu would automagically work on every single piece of computer hardware available.

Jesiah76
January 3rd, 2007, 03:34 AM
I can't believe you would imagine Ubuntu would automagically work on every single piece of computer hardware available.

No, I don't Imagine, Assume or anything else that's not real.
What I CAN'T believe is how most of you linux users who've been using it since birth conception would imagine that windows users like myself can figure all that gibberish in a couple of days. it might be easy for most of you but not for me. and maybe if I can get the right translation then I would get it too.

Now I'm diggin' linux don't get me wrong. I just need people to translate it so that I can understand it like you all do.

aysiu
January 3rd, 2007, 03:39 AM
Actually, you are assuming. I've been using Ubuntu since May 2005, not since birth/conception.

I've tried my best to give real instructions and not gibberish. In fact, I've devoted an entire part of my website to giving easy-to-understand instructions to new users:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu

Unfortunately, none of that will apply to your situation. I know very little about wireless.

Shay Stephens
January 3rd, 2007, 03:54 AM
What I CAN'T believe is how most of you linux users who've been using it since birth conception would imagine that windows users like myself can figure all that gibberish in a couple of days. it might be easy for most of you but not for me. and maybe if I can get the right translation then I would get it too.


I just made the switch and am no longer using Windows. But it took me a year of using, reading, and learning to do it. I don't know who you are getting your info from, but to be sure, you have some unrealistic viewpoints here.

The biggest problem I see and encounter is hardware. Much of the hardware I have had has been windows only type hardware. Very specific and dedicated to it. That stuff is trash and causes no end of headaches (thank you MS). So priority #1, start getting the right hardware installed. Stuff that is supported by linux. Then you have a much easier time of things. Installs are smoother, operation easier, and it all looks sounds and works better.

So if you are having trouble with internet, the culprit is likely the network card. Once I changed mine, I never had trouble with internet access in ubuntu.

Jesiah76
January 3rd, 2007, 03:57 AM
First of all, I didn't mean to offend if the thread came off that way. but on this same post, as a matter of fact the one person who started it made a couple of remarks about non-linux users and it bothered me a little.
you all want people to come to linux...and I want to come over to linux but people like that make it hard. if you go to the first page you'll see what I mean.

But back to the subject...pretty much I've jumped into the water without checking how deep it was and now my daughter's computer doesn't have internet and that's all she pretty much does on there.
ubuntu recognizes the wireless card but after that I'm stuck. I don't know where to go from there, I've went to the network part with no avail.
with windows any new hardware is almost instantly recognized and helps you configure it. now since I know this is ubuntu and it doesn't work that way...what do I need to do to make it work?
I've printed a post by a bionnaki which has a how to but the more I look at it the more confused I get!!! do you see where my problem lies? I am very linux ileterate and I'm trying to learn but everyting is practically backwards from windows.
I just need help.

Jesiah76
January 3rd, 2007, 04:03 AM
Ok Shay stephens....I get your point. I'm not trying to fight that fact. my only point is that those are things I don't know about. in other words the more I know the better. but where do I acquire all this info besides googling and all this other stuff? I can't sit in front of a computer all day. I got a family and work. and in two months I'll be leaving to Afghanistan for a whole year...where can I get something compiled into one source so that I can read at my leisure?

aysiu
January 3rd, 2007, 04:05 AM
Hey, I feel for you. A lot of us have been here:
I've jumped into the water without checking how deep it was I would say just keep posting in your original support thread any updates, and keep asking for help and doing Google searches.

I'll take a second look at your support thread and see if there's anything I can add. I doubt it, but it's worth a shot.

Jesiah76
January 3rd, 2007, 04:06 AM
do I need to be a computer genius? that's what I'm asking.

Jesiah76
January 3rd, 2007, 04:09 AM
well I do appreciate all of you, what you do, what you're trying to do, and what you've done and accomplish. I don't want you all to think that I don't it's just that this stuff is frustrating to me. and I'm trying to make it as painless as possible.
so I'll do that, I'll keep posting and checking and updating and all of that to try and figure out the in and outs of ubuntu. thanks very much.

malcolmb
January 3rd, 2007, 04:34 AM
Let's see if I can do this (comparing the criteria to windows that is):
a)"Any person can install it on any computer without any problems"
I'm sure people have gone through hell at least once trying to get windows to install and run properly. I know I have.

b)"Anyone can use it once it's already been installed and configured"
I can sit my mother in front of windows, and even after she's taken training on how to use it, if ever a message box pops up, a program crashes or something miscellaneous happens, I get called in... which is often.

c)"Every commercial application works on it"
At first you think windows got a point there, but then you realize, how often stuff crashes on windows. So no dice.

d)"Nothing--it's a nonsensical term"
pass

e)"It automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers"
Well, I know Linux runs on more hardware than windows does, especially of the older kind. There's gotta be more to it though.

f)"It comes pre-installed on computers so novice users don't have to install it"
Well, it comes pre-installed, then it tells you that your version isn't genuine and then starts locking down programs and doesn't let you download patches. And you get those damn annoying messages all the time telling you to get the genuine advantage....gaahh.

g)"It's suitable to the needs of most beginner users but not necessarily to most intermediate ones"
I'm pretty sure that linux is already, or is gaining so much momentum, that sometime in 2007, there will be no walls , and at least both windows and linux can be used for an unlimited number of tasks and solve any problems.

h)"Windows and nothing else... not even Mac OS X"
Not sure what to write here, so I'll just say that Out-of-the-box, Windows is the most behind.

i)"Works on my desktop"
Well beautiful thing is that no matter what your desktop (I'm just making this up) Ubuntu will run.

j)"Other (please explain)"
pass

aaaandd star-wipe...and scene.

aysiu
January 3rd, 2007, 05:52 AM
do I need to be a computer genius? that's what I'm asking.
No, you don't.

But, as you've already discovered (the hard way, unfortunately), you do need a lot of patience... and you need to take it slowly. I played around with a live CD for a couple of weeks before attempting a dual boot. And then I had a dual boot for quite some time before switching to Ubuntu exclusively.

Since you've already dived right in, the best you can do is learn to swim before you drown, though!

I know it seems I keep bumping your posts around, but I am trying to just keep everything in the correct place. Since Frak is kind enough to help you out, I've moved all the support posts to your original support thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1960635#post1960635).

Jesiah76
January 3rd, 2007, 06:05 AM
thank you LOL, I thought I was imagining things. for the second time.

one quick question though...the computer has a 100GB hard drive. before it became ubuntu it had a partiton of about 6 or 7GB for recovery. I mistakenly formated the hard drive but I've checked it under ubuntu in the device manager and it only reads 90GB. is it possible it left the recovery partition alone? everytime I restart I get the option to press F10 for recovery but it does not do it. I'd rather have it as a dual boot until I learn the OS.

aysiu
January 3rd, 2007, 06:07 AM
I'll answer you there.

Jesiah76
January 3rd, 2007, 06:11 AM
ok

tebibyte
January 5th, 2007, 01:01 AM
You're operating based on a faulty premise. No one thinks Ubuntu is near-flawless, least of all the developers. They are not resting on their laurels. They are working constantly to improve Ubuntu and have better versions every six months.

If you're being sincere (and not just posting flamebait), back it up. Show me at least two posts in the Ubuntu Forums or one post in the developers' mailing list where people say Ubuntu is perfect and cannot stand any improvement. Show me people saying we can stop development on Ubuntu. If you can't post any proof of this, you've created about the worst straw man I've ever seen. How right you are.

Aysiu, I would greatly appreciate it if all threads pertaining to post #4620 were reconstituted into their original thread. I've been feeling sort of upset that an issue I bought up has been dismissed simply as hate mail. :cry: I try to make a difference, but I can't if most of my suggestions are dismissed by bias. Denial and bias is completely separate from a product being unready. Do you agree? This was the exact thing I was trying to prevent with my thread (read post #4623), but I can see it is too late. I can't seem to do anything right...

](*,)

aysiu
January 5th, 2007, 02:05 AM
Well all you really said in the post in question (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1887480#post1887480) is that Ubuntu developers seem to think Ubuntu is perfect and that they don't want feedback.

That isn't true, and if you're going to make that kind of accusation, you should back it up.

More importantly, you should make actual suggestions and through the proper channels. I'm unconvinced that vague accusations with no evidence and no concrete suggestions need to have their own thread. It's not that you "can't seem to do anything right." I don't think you should take this personally. I think you should just focus on the practical.

If you want to make practical change, go through the proper channels. I've written a thread with some suggestions for practical steps you can take to improve Ubuntu and communicate directly with the developers (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741&highlight=making+difference+whining). When new releases are pending, there are usually suggestion threads that pop up, too. For example, here's the one that came out for Feisty (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=285910). There is also a forum ambassadors project (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=278375) for those who are intimidated about filing bug reports or communicating with the Ubuntu developers on the mailing lists--its goal is to improve the communication between regular forum members and developers.

Once again, I urge you not to take it personally. In fact, if anyone should be taking things personally, it would make sense for the developers to take your original post personally and offensively.

I know you think being merged in here is "denial," but I can assure you if I'd left your thread as is, it would have erupted a flame war and been closed by another moderator. I've given you some suggestions for how to make Ubuntu better. If you honestly believe saying, "You're in denial. You're in denial" makes for better change, then you'd better read some of the other thousands of posts in this thread. I can assure you I've never seen such posts lead to positive change.

Mateo
January 5th, 2007, 02:31 AM
A computer novice is going to get on ubuntu and not be able to play mp3s, and won't have a clue how to fix it. A computer novice can not edit sources.list, doesn't know what a codec is, doesn't know that there is a software problem causing the files to not play.

And most importantly, doesn't think that it's even possible to get it to work. they will assume that the computer simply doesn't work right.

aysiu
January 5th, 2007, 04:41 AM
A computer novice is going to get on ubuntu and not be able to play mp3s, and won't have a clue how to fix it. A computer novice can not edit sources.list, doesn't know what a codec is, doesn't know that there is a software problem causing the files to not play.

And most importantly, doesn't think that it's even possible to get it to work. they will assume that the computer simply doesn't work right.
Which is why I don't recommend Ubuntu to new users. When I first used Ubuntu, I gave up for those reasons and more. Mepis suited my needs better. After I was comfortable with Mepis for a month, I gave Ubuntu another shot and have been with it ever since.

For new users, I recommend Mepis, PCLinuxOS, Blag, or Linspire--all of which have proprietary codecs and such out of the box.

Mateo
January 5th, 2007, 04:58 AM
But most computer users are incapable of even knowing that it's possible to change distros. So until those fairly unpopular distros become the most popular distros, and get preinstalled on computers, linux won't be desktop ready.

aysiu
January 5th, 2007, 05:09 AM
But most computer users are incapable of even knowing that it's possible to change distros. So until those fairly unpopular distros become the most popular distros, and get preinstalled on computers, linux won't be desktop ready.
Well, Linspire is preinstalled on some desktop computers, but your main point is correct, of course--preinstallation is all that matters. Most computer users don't install operating systems. In fact, most computer users barely even know how to use the restore CDs from Dell to "reinstall" Windows.

Frak
January 5th, 2007, 05:17 AM
Well, Linspire is preinstalled on some desktop computers, but your main point is correct, of course--preinstallation is all that matters. Most computer users don't install operating systems. In fact, most computer users barely even know how to use the restore CDs from Dell to "reinstall" Windows.
What is this "reinstall" you speak of? What is this lunix you speak of?

steven8
January 5th, 2007, 05:17 AM
Ubuntu runs my desktop. It is ready for that. So, in my opinion, it is ready. Windows Media Player chokes on a codec every now and then, and I do not consider XP to not be ready.

It is in the pre-installation where our troubles lie.

aysiu
January 5th, 2007, 05:18 AM
What is this "reinstall" you speak of? What is this lunix you speak of?
Exactly.

houstonbofh
January 5th, 2007, 06:00 PM
I think there is a blurring of two questions here. One is "Can a properly configured Ubuntu system be a Windows replacement for most users?" As I have sold quite a few preconfigured Ubuntu systems to happy users, I think this is a resounding "Yes." The other is "Can a average user take a computer and a CD and have a desktop replacement?" This one is a "maybe, perhaps, and needs work."

However, it is getting there. With the new Synaptic in Edgy, adding repositories is CLI free. Try adding repositories to Windows Update...

Mateo
January 5th, 2007, 06:36 PM
Well, Linspire is preinstalled on some desktop computers, but your main point is correct, of course--preinstallation is all that matters. Most computer users don't install operating systems. In fact, most computer users barely even know how to use the restore CDs from Dell to "reinstall" Windows.

and that preinstalled linux cannot be Ubuntu.

macogw
January 5th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Do you really want to link Linux with an ideology that has been used to justify tyranny and mass murder?
That's not real communism. That's socialism. True communism lacks any government and is a completely economic thing. It's share and share-alike. The word gets used wrong all the time. Look at, for instance, the Native Americans or Bedouins. They were nomadic, owned no land, worked together to get their food and build shelter, and then shared those things.


A direct quotation from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer): "The initials 'PC' have become virtually synonymous with IBM PC compatible computers such that they are rarely used to refer to non-IBM PC compatible personal computers such as the Apple Macintosh."
But Apple PCs are now IBM-compatible since they use the Intel x86 architecture.

aysiu
January 5th, 2007, 06:57 PM
It doesn't matter. People still say "Mac vs. PC" and that's taken to mean PC = Windows PC.

Just look at the "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC" commercials. They don't necessarily say "I'm a Windows PC." That's understood by the general public.

macogw
January 5th, 2007, 07:10 PM
It doesn't matter. People still say "Mac vs. PC" and that's taken to mean PC = Windows PC.

Just look at the "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC" commercials. They don't necessarily say "I'm a Windows PC." That's understood by the general public.

Did you ever see the spoofs? They have BSD. "Hey Linux" "I'm not Linux! I'm BSD!" "Sorry, you look a lot alike" but then that's rather dumb too as Mac OS X is a BSD.

derby007
January 5th, 2007, 07:20 PM
This is coming from someone who is relativley new to Linux:
I think the slogan should be .... simply :
UBUNTU
yeah, thats it, just Ubuntu, like the add on TV, 'it does exactly what it says on the box',
there shouldn't be any reason/need to explain what its about

Frak
January 5th, 2007, 10:40 PM
and that preinstalled linux cannot be Ubuntu.

In where does it say Ubuntu can't?

Mateo
January 5th, 2007, 10:44 PM
see our previous exchange. it can't be Ubuntu because common users won't know how to install the non-"free" stuff that ubuntu excludes by default. will assume it just doesn't work.

Frak
January 5th, 2007, 10:48 PM
Well then its time for somebody to create some scripts, that will automatically install if I can get permission to use the "Customization" thread, and just make a simple CLI interface script, double click, follow instructions, done.

aysiu
January 6th, 2007, 05:05 AM
As Ubuntu is now, a preinstalled would probably have to be a Ubuntu-based OS (and not Ubuntu itself) to be useful to most users--Mepis, perhaps.

If Edgy's AmaroK is any indication of where Ubuntu's headed, it may work as a preinstalled OS in Feisty+1 or Feisty+2. Basically, codecs don't need to be installed (Windows' vanilla installation doesn't have a lot of codecs). The key is to allow easy installation when the codecs are missing: "You're trying to play an MP3 but you're missing the codec for that. Would you like to install it? OK Cancel" instead of "Error. Unrecognized format."

tuxcantfly
January 6th, 2007, 05:19 AM
Well, for the issue of hard installation for average users, a nice setup.exe wizard from windows will do the trick, that's what we're working on at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=305109 we even have a working beta being uploaded this very instant, I'll have the download link soon...

aysiu
January 6th, 2007, 05:31 AM
Well, for the issue of hard installation for average users, a nice setup.exe wizard from windows will do the trick, that's what we're working on at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=305109 we even have a working beta being uploaded this very instant, I'll have the download link soon...
We're actually discussing preinstallation, not easy installation.

I don't believe most people will ever install a non-native (or even native) OS themselves, no matter how "easy" it is.

tuxcantfly
January 6th, 2007, 05:43 AM
I don't believe most people will ever install a non-native (or even native) OS themselves, no matter how "easy" it is.

Quite true, it's that darn "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality; "windows works fine (until it crashes and gets infested with malware), so why install ubuntu?" is the reaction I get quite too often whenever I try to convert people

But then again, preinstallation will need the cooperation of big companies like HP and Dell. Given all the contracts and agreements they have with MS, it's quite unlikely they'll ever be shipping with ubuntu by default (and I don't mean servers or enterprise/custom offerings, but computers that the average joe can pick up at the local best buy)

For this reason, preinstallation would be the best solution, but since it's simply not possible at this point, we need to make as easy installation as possible, so that hopefully, ubuntu will gain enough support and market share that big computer manufacturers will consider shipping ubuntu by default

aysiu
January 6th, 2007, 05:48 AM
I'm not sure I share your assumptions.

While a lot of people wouldn't want to install a new operating system, most computer users I know don't even want to install Windows or even use the Windows restore disks. Those operations seem too much trouble. Why else would the Geek Squad exist?

I also don't agree that Ubuntu gains support and market share in the preinstallation market from a setup.exe that will install Ubuntu. Right now, Ubuntu's installation is about as easy as it gets. The difficulty comes not in the installation but in the configuration afterwards or in the idea of setting up a dual boot. If you want Ubuntu to take up the whole drive, and it detects all your hardware, it's quite easy. If you want to set up a dual boot (which involves defragmenting Windows, backing it up, resizing it, and then creating a new partition out of the free space) and then fix all the xorg.conf and wireless issues after the fact... there's nothing that a setup.exe will do that a regular Ubuntu installation couldn't.

tuxcantfly
January 6th, 2007, 06:12 AM
there's nothing that a setup.exe will do that a regular Ubuntu installation couldn't.

We could autodetect hardware based on the windows registry - like winmodems, wireless cards, nvidia/ati cards, and dowload and automatically set up the necessary drivers. That would certainly help with hardware configuration issues. We could import mail from outlook to evolution/thunderbird, and favorites from IE to firefox


I also don't agree that Ubuntu gains support and market share in the preinstallation market from a setup.exe that will install Ubuntu.

The thing is, practically everybody knows how to use setup.exe installation wizards. If we make the installation of ubuntu as easy as a double-click, next-next-next, reboot, we could make "installing ubuntu" the next "great computing thing you can do in your spare time"- you know, those articles they write in windows poweruser magazines like Smart Computing. I haven't seen a single article about ubuntu there, likely because it's just to hard and time-consuming to install

Currently, that "great computing thing you can do in your spare time" is firefox- and look at it! It's competing against the preinstalled Internet Explorer, and it's already gotten to 15% market share! Now that firefox is so widespread, due to easy installation, there's more sites that are officially "supporting" it; the same way, once ubuntu is more widespread, due to easy installation, there'll be more applications officially "supporting" it. Now, that so many sites are officially "supporting" firefox, some manufacturers are now shipping firefox by default. Similarly, once ubuntu has enough applications officially "supporting" it, due to all the people using it, due to the easy installation, hardware configuration, and migration provided by a nice setup.exe wizard, some manufacturers will decide that they can save some money, and will start shipping with ubuntu by default.

Now, I have to admit, migrating from windows to ubuntu is more difficult from IE to firefox, even with a nice fancy setup.exe that automatically sets up hardware and imports settings, but if we have even a fraction of the success of firefox, due to the same easy migration and installation, we'll be noticed and recognized, and will eventually come preinstalled once we have enough people recognizing and supporting ubuntu

So in this sense, yes, easy installation provided by a setup.exe program is the key to attaining support, recognition, and preinstallation for ubuntu


most computer users I know don't even want to install Windows or even use the Windows restore disks

Exactly, but the key is that some do, and those some are the key to attaining recognition and support for ubuntu, which will eventually translate into desktops shipping with ubuntu preinstalled, so that we can reach the non-poweruser masses. Think of it- most computer users don't bother to install firefox, and just keep using IE, but those few that do (15%) are enough to attain firefox recognition, support, and even preinstallation on some computers

steven8
January 6th, 2007, 06:13 AM
there's nothing that a setup.exe will do that a regular Ubuntu installation couldn't.

Nothing physically, but it is attempting, I believe to create a level of comfort for the user. The comfort to try something new

IYY
January 6th, 2007, 06:23 AM
Any person can install it on any computer without any problems

Installing an operating system is never an "easy" task, and so far there hasn't been any operating system that could be installed on any computer by any user.


Anyone can use it once it's already been installed and configured

This could be a good answer, but it applies to pretty much any operating system created after the invention of the keyboard.


Every commercial application works on it

Such a general statement will never be true about any operating system.


Nothing--it's a nonsensical term

Could be the right answer.


It automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers

This is, again, an installation issue. Also, no operating system other than Mac OS can do this (and Mac OS only does it because Apple designs all the hardware to be used on it).


It comes preinstalled on computers so novice users don't have to install it

That's not "ready for the desktop", it's "already on the desktop".


It's suitable to the needs of most beginner users but not necessarily to most intermediate ones

Do intermediate users not use desktop computers?


Windows and nothing else... not even Mac OS X

How can this be a definition for readiness? What does it have to do with anything?


Works on my desktop

That's "ready for my desktop", not "ready for the desktop".

tuxcantfly
January 6th, 2007, 06:24 AM
I believe to create a level of comfort for the user. The comfort to try something new

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Exactly how many windows users would have switched to firefox if you had to download a firefox iso, burn it to a cd, configure the BIOS to boot off of it, establish a dedicated partition for it, and install it like that? Certainly not many... And had they not migrated, firefox would not be in such a position of recognition and support it is in today.

steven8
January 6th, 2007, 06:45 AM
I do not believe that any honest initiative to bring new users to Ubuntu is a bad thing. To start with, though, we can not be calling computer users stupid, as was said in an earlier post. That is just the sort of thing that makes people think Linux users are a clique of snobs. Not what we want, as the users of Linux for Human Beings. It's doesn't say, Linux only for Smart Human Beings.

tuxcantfly
January 6th, 2007, 07:55 AM
well, about that ubuntu setup.exe

the beta's been released

download it at http://www.megashares.com/upostproc.php?fid=220428

report problems to http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=305109

toasted
January 6th, 2007, 02:59 PM
well, about that ubuntu setup.exe

the beta's been released

download it at http://www.megashares.com/upostproc.php?fid=220428

report problems to http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=305109



Unable to download due to file size. Says I have to purchase some sort of link card. LOL I need to pay money??? Don't think so.

It says I need 7-zip to open the file. If this is supposed to be an EASY install then a normal winzip should be required so I would suggest not to tar it but instead zip it.

m.musashi
January 6th, 2007, 07:05 PM
well, about that ubuntu setup.exe

the beta's been released

download it at http://www.megashares.com/upostproc.php?fid=220428

report problems to http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=305109
An interesting discussion and idea. I think it has merit but only time will tell if casual users give it a try. If the setup.exe ends up being very thorough and bug free I suspect there will be some who will give it a try that wouldn't have from an iso.

However, I have to agree that the proverbial "average computer user" probably isn't going to be too interested. Installing ubuntu is really only the beginning and I doubt most people are interested in learning a new way to do what they do now. Even with an easy install, I think you need to be a bit more than a casual or average user to use linux. Not because it's hard - I think a novice could use it without any problem - but because if you know one way of doing something with a computer, unless you have some special motivation, you probably aren't going to try to learn a new way. I'm a fairly competent computer user (in windows) and coming to linux was a pretty steep learning curve and I'm still learning every day. My motivation is a growing dislike of windows and playing around with linux appeals to my geeky side - much to my wife's dismay.

Still, I think it's a neat idea and I hope it is successful.


Unable to download due to file size. Says I have to purchase some sort of link card. LOL I need to pay money??? Don't think so.

It says I need 7-zip to open the file. If this is supposed to be an EASY install then a normal winzip should be required so I would suggest not to tar it but instead zip it.

I agree that it probably should be a regular winzip file. Anyone who would be likely to try this won't have a clue what a tar.bz2 file is. Granted 7-zip is easy enough to find and install but it's an added step. However, maybe that's a good thing. If someone can't at least take the time to find and install 7-zip they are probably doomed from the beginning (think of all those who do burn the iso and then come and complain about ubuntu being too hard to learn or not like windows or, ahem, not ready for the desktop).

tuxcantfly
January 6th, 2007, 08:11 PM
It says I need 7-zip to open the file. If this is supposed to be an EASY install then a normal winzip should be required so I would suggest not to tar it but instead zip it.

Well, the plan was that the setup.exe installer itself would automatically download and extract the file, but for now, it isn't exactly working properly, because we haven't found a good place to host the file... Also, we can't use zip, because it, for some reason, cannot handle files larger than 4 GB

You can find the installer itself here: http://omattos.co.uk/setup-ubuntu.exe
The source is here: http://omattos.co.uk/setup-ubuntu-source.zip

Much thanks to Hello1024 for creating the installer itself, now if only he would update it to work with the new version of the loopmounted disk image...


Unable to download due to file size. Says I have to purchase some sort of link card. LOL I need to pay money??? Don't think so.

I'm trying to find a good place to mirror it. It's 615 MB, so most places don't allow it. Any ideas? For now, the only way to download it is to use wget, then once the time runs out, you resume with wget -c. I was thinking of using BitTorrent, but how do I create the torrent file?

Frak
January 6th, 2007, 08:14 PM
I know a perfect person to host it, cutlersoftware, they are looking for Ubuntu projects like crazy, and I'm sure a ever that they would host it, may I ask, who is the administrator of this project, and I'll host it, and create everything for it, and scrounge for developers to help with it.

tuxcantfly
January 6th, 2007, 08:16 PM
I know a perfect person to host it, cutlersoftware, they are looking for Ubuntu projects like crazy, and I'm sure a ever that they would host it, may I ask, who is the administrator of this project, and I'll host it, and create everything for it, and scrounge for developers to help with it.

Oh sweet, that sounds great, now exactly where's the upload site?

Oh yes, and while you're at it, you might as well upload this too http://d01.megashares.com/?d01=11e3105 the modified initrd to boot from the ubuntu.img loopmounted file

By the way, note that it's called a "beta" - it has some major issues with hardware autodetection, I'm trying to fix them right now...

tuxcantfly
January 6th, 2007, 08:32 PM
may I ask, who is the administrator of this project

The project to create the ubuntu setup.exe wizard? We don't exactly have an official "administrator", but according to our launchpad page at https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/windows-installer it's me

tuxcantfly
January 7th, 2007, 08:44 PM
Ok, folks, since we've had so many complaints about megashares, we've switched to bittorrent

Download the installer here: http://omattos.co.uk/setup-ubuntu.exe

Download the torrent here: http://omattos.co.uk/ubuntu.torrent

Download the source for the installer here: http://omattos.co.uk/source.zip

Installation instructions available here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/install.exe/Prototype

Support available here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1981142

Note that this is still a prototype, you may find bugs

Tomosaur
January 7th, 2007, 09:13 PM
Also, we can't use zip, because it, for some reason, cannot handle files larger than 4 GB


Surely it's more economical to install the base Ubuntu install and then apt-get everything else from the ordinary Ubuntu repositories?

FLPCGuy
January 7th, 2007, 09:54 PM
If Windows has been ready for the desktop, why do so many people recognize the Blue Screen of Death?

Just to show some folks at Microsoft have a sense of humor...the BSOD screensaver (64k) for Windows (all versions).

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/Miscellaneous/BlueScreen.mspx

aysiu
January 7th, 2007, 10:50 PM
If Windows has been ready for the desktop, why do so many people recognize the Blue Screen of Death?

Just to show some folks at Microsoft have a sense of humor...the BSOD screensaver (64k) for Windows (all versions).

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/Miscellaneous/BlueScreen.mspx In all fairness, the blue screen of death appears rarely, if ever, on 2000 or XP. Most people alive today were also alive when Windows 98 was popular, and that had a lot more blue screens of death.

I agree with you, though, that Windows was not "ready for the desktop" for a long time, but that just goes to show how meaningless the term "ready for the desktop" is with regards to marketshare. If you force a lot of corporations and schools to use your operating system and become dependent on programs that work only on your operating system, they'll use your operating system regardless of how "ready" it is or not.

tuxcantfly
January 7th, 2007, 10:51 PM
Surely it's more economical to install the base Ubuntu install and then apt-get everything else from the ordinary Ubuntu repositories?

That's possible, but the main issue is that that would require porting apt-get to windows, and allowing windows to write to a loopmounted ext3 disk image

Also, we are no longer using bz2 as compression; instead, we are using a self-extracting LZMA archive via the NSIS installer, which saves more space, and no longer requires the usage of any external zip program.

More info at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/install.exe/Prototype

toasted
January 8th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Also, we can't use zip, because it, for some reason, cannot handle files larger than 4 GB



Why do you need so much capacity? The file size is under 1 gig isn't it?

houstonbofh
January 8th, 2007, 07:19 AM
That's possible, but the main issue is that that would require porting apt-get to windows, and allowing windows to write to a loopmounted ext3 disk image

Also, we are no longer using bz2 as compression; instead, we are using a self-extracting LZMA archive via the NSIS installer, which saves more space, and no longer requires the usage of any external zip program.

More info at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/install.exe/Prototype
Well keep in mind that any files over 2 gig will stop an install from Win98 like a brick wall. How about multiple 1.5 gig cab files? (Or zip) This will also mean faster downloads, as the torrents will be more spread out.

tebibyte
January 8th, 2007, 09:17 PM
Well all you really said in the post in question (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1887480#post1887480) is that Ubuntu developers seem to think Ubuntu is perfect and that they don't want feedback.

That isn't true, and if you're going to make that kind of accusation, you should back it up.

More importantly, you should make actual suggestions and through the proper channels. I'm unconvinced that vague accusations with no evidence and no concrete suggestions need to have their own thread. It's not that you "can't seem to do anything right." I don't think you should take this personally. I think you should just focus on the practical.

If you want to make practical change, go through the proper channels. I've written a thread with some suggestions for practical steps you can take to improve Ubuntu and communicate directly with the developers (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741&highlight=making+difference+whining). When new releases are pending, there are usually suggestion threads that pop up, too. For example, here's the one that came out for Feisty (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=285910). There is also a forum ambassadors project (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=278375) for those who are intimidated about filing bug reports or communicating with the Ubuntu developers on the mailing lists--its goal is to improve the communication between regular forum members and developers.

Once again, I urge you not to take it personally. In fact, if anyone should be taking things personally, it would make sense for the developers to take your original post personally and offensively.

I know you think being merged in here is "denial," but I can assure you if I'd left your thread as is, it would have erupted a flame war and been closed by another moderator. I've given you some suggestions for how to make Ubuntu better. If you honestly believe saying, "You're in denial. You're in denial" makes for better change, then you'd better read some of the other thousands of posts in this thread. I can assure you I've never seen such posts lead to positive change.

You're Absolutely right. I shouldn't have posted that thread. I apologize for any negative feelings that may have been caused by my posts or actions. I failed to empathize, step into others shoes, to see where they coming from. I will do my best from now on to change my additude towards others. I am truly sorry.

tuxcantfly
January 9th, 2007, 03:49 AM
Well keep in mind that any files over 2 gig will stop an install from Win98 like a brick wall

The FAT32 filesystem limitation per file is actually 4 GB. However, we're only supporting WinNT, Win2000, and WinXP, because they use NTFS. Few windows PCs in use these days (less than 5%, I believe) use anything other than NTFS, so it isn't worth the bother of supporting them.


How about multiple 1.5 gig cab files? (Or zip) This will also mean faster downloads, as the torrents will be more spread out.

We're settling for a ~600 MB self-extracting NSIS installer, using LZMA compression. Cab and zip aren't as efficient as LZMA, and because we're making it self-extracting, a third-party zip program will no longer be required.


Why do you need so much capacity? The file size is under 1 gig isn't it?

Compressed, the file size is ~600 MB, but when uncompressed, the disk image is 5 GB. That's because that has to hold the entire base ubuntu install, which is 3 GB, as well as any additional programs the user installs.

FLPCGuy
January 9th, 2007, 06:33 PM
The FAT32 filesystem limitation per file is actually 4 GB. However, we're only supporting WinNT, Win2000, and WinXP, because they use NTFS. Few windows PCs in use these days (less than 5%, I believe) use anything other than NTFS, so it isn't worth the bother of supporting them.

We're settling for a ~600 MB self-extracting NSIS installer, using LZMA compression. Cab and zip aren't as efficient as LZMA, and because we're making it self-extracting, a third-party zip program will no longer be required.

Compressed, the file size is ~600 MB, but when uncompressed, the disk image is 5 GB. That's because that has to hold the entire base ubuntu install, which is 3 GB, as well as any additional programs the user installs.

Actually I believe the Win9x market share is still about 10% but many of those machines may not receive much use. Still, it would be a huge mistake to overlook this group since they are Ubuntu's best chance to gain market share by bringing new life and usefulness to older hardware.

It would be well worth developing your project precisely for Win9x users because Ubuntu is a clear improvement over Win9x (with USB support, no need for A/V, adWare, firewall apps that are now hard to find for Win9x, nearly full software compatibility via WINE, and better driver support to name a few benefits). Converted Win9x users could more than triple the installed base for Ubuntu and many would even stay when they get new PCs.

The existing base of older hardware will always be greater than the number of new PC's (they'll come with Vista anyway) and must be the focus for Ubuntu to increase market share. The greatest years of PC's production were around Y2k and most still have pre-2000 Windows installed. This should be the primary target market since Ubuntu is most ready to improve those desktops.

Frak
January 9th, 2007, 10:28 PM
Actually I believe the Win9x market share is still about 10% but many of those machines may not receive much use. Still, it would be a huge mistake to overlook this group since they are Ubuntu's best chance to gain market share by bringing new life and usefulness to older hardware.

It would be well worth developing your project precisely for Win9x users because Ubuntu is a clear improvement over Win9x (with USB support, no need for A/V, adWare, firewall apps that are now hard to find for Win9x, nearly full software compatibility via WINE, and better driver support to name a few benefits). Converted Win9x users could more than triple the installed base for Ubuntu and many would even stay when they get new PCs.

The existing base of older hardware will always be greater than the number of new PC's (they'll come with Vista anyway) and must be the focus for Ubuntu to increase market share. The greatest years of PC's production were around Y2k and most still have pre-2000 Windows installed. This should be the primary target market since Ubuntu is most ready to improve those desktops.
Just as I was thinking.

Kernel Panic
January 10th, 2007, 01:50 AM
I am one of those voting "other" (as well more choices) and here is why.

Please note this is just my opinion. Keep in mind that it is just as (in)valid as your own. :mrgreen:

In order for Linux to be truly ready for the desktop there will need to be a centralized source of support that is

A) Is willing and able to educate the user base. Possibly without them realizing it.
B) Consistent and regulated.
C) Easy to access in all practical ways including financially, localization, and user experience level.


Without fast, accurate, cheap, and easy to access fixes and answers most people will not bother with Linux as long as there is another alternative.


Let me end with a rhetorical hypothetical: Would your parents bother going through everything you have just to learn how to use Linux?

aysiu
January 10th, 2007, 02:29 AM
Let me end with a rhetorical hypothetical: Would your parents bother going through everything you have just to learn how to use Linux? Well, my dad actually went through more. I think he read an entire Linux Bible (one of those old Red Hat things). In any case, let's assume both my parents were afraid of computers--they wouldn't have to go through everything I did just to learn how to use Linux, but they would if they wanted to learn how to install and configure Linux.

Considering most people don't install and configure Windows, you've got a little double standard there.

Of course, since Windows has certain other economic and social advantages in place, that double standard is a practical one. If a dual boot is difficult for the average user to set up, Windows isn't labeled "difficult"--Linux is. And people don't need to learn how to install and configure Windows if it already comes preinstalled and preconfigured.

What you're basically saying is that Linux should come preinstalled on more computers in order to be "ready," and with that I wholeheartedly agree.

tuxcantfly
January 10th, 2007, 04:49 AM
Actually I believe the Win9x market share is still about 10% but many of those machines may not receive much use. Still, it would be a huge mistake to overlook this group since they are Ubuntu's best chance to gain market share by bringing new life and usefulness to older hardware.

It would be well worth developing your project precisely for Win9x users because Ubuntu is a clear improvement over Win9x (with USB support, no need for A/V, adWare, firewall apps that are now hard to find for Win9x, nearly full software compatibility via WINE, and better driver support to name a few benefits). Converted Win9x users could more than triple the installed base for Ubuntu and many would even stay when they get new PCs.

The existing base of older hardware will always be greater than the number of new PC's (they'll come with Vista anyway) and must be the focus for Ubuntu to increase market share. The greatest years of PC's production were around Y2k and most still have pre-2000 Windows installed. This should be the primary target market since Ubuntu is most ready to improve those desktops.

Well, actually, supporting win9x would be rather easy once we have a properly set up disk image; all we'd have to do is modify the initrd to mount the filesystem as fat32, not ntfs. However, as I was saying, fat32 has a 4 GB file limit, which could be a problem, given that ubuntu itself takes up nearly 3 GB, and 4 GB would have to be enough to store ubuntu, extra applications the user installs, and the user's files in the home directory. Of course, we could probably just symlink /home off to the fat32 partition to save space, but then we'd have the issue of the lack of support for symlinks and filesystem permissions in fat32

Frak
January 10th, 2007, 05:00 AM
Isn't there a way to create a duplicate bridge file? So that two different files could just interconnect?

saulgoode
January 10th, 2007, 05:28 AM
Well, actually, supporting win9x would be rather easy...

If you are planning to target WIN98 hardware (I agree, a very good idea), you should note that many of those machines will only have 32 Meg of RAM installed -- some might have 64M but hardly any will have more than 100M (for all its bad points, WIN98 was quite memory efficient). You would probably have to provide a less resource-hungry window manager than GNOME or KDE.

XFCE might be squeezed into 64 meg (I don't think there is much hope for running it on 32M) but it wouldn't leave much left for the larger apps like Mozilla or the GIMP. XFCE4 is compliant with FreeDesktop.Org, so this would permit your maintainers to make use of the GNOME (or KDE) themes and menus.

IceWM might be a good choice as it can be themed to appear like Windows (98 or XP). But IceWM does not provide all of the functionality of the other desktops (IceWM is not a full-fledged desktop, just a WM) -- particularly, you would be losing drag-n-drop menu editing capabilities. Also, IceWM is not compliant with the FreeDesktop.org standards, so you can not share resources (menus, themes, backgrounds) with other window managers. IceWM might be the best choice, but it would require more work for the maintainers.

I am not trying to discourage anyone, nor do I wish to start a desktop flamewar. The above is just my opinion of something you might consider if you are targeting WIN98 hardware.

Regards.

tuxcantfly
January 10th, 2007, 07:19 AM
If you are planning to target WIN98 hardware (I agree, a very good idea), you should note that many of those machines will only have 32 Meg of RAM installed

Yes, performance was what I was worried about. Ubuntu is rather memory-hungry; even xubuntu performs noticeably worse than win98 when you have less than 128 MB of ram. But it's not really the window manager that worries me; it's openoffice. If you've ever run it on older hardware, you'll see why. On a pentium II 400 Mhz with 64 MB ram, that thing takes almost a minute to just start on twm. As for preloading, that would just increase boot times and hog precious memory. And we can't just say, oh well, they'll just have to do without openoffice, because quite likely, they want to use the machine for typing up documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and the like. Abiword could make a good replacement for the text editing, but for parts like openoffice impress, there's just no comparable equivalent. Also, this concept of using a loopmounted filesystem reduces hard drive performance a bit. With today's newer sata drives with ntfs partitions, this isn't even noticeable, but on older hard drives, especially those formatted as fat or fat32 (which are slower than ntfs, see http://www.ntfs-3g.org/performance.html for details), the hard drive performance may become worse than in standard ubuntu. So yes, theoretically, it's possible, and should be rather easy once the ntfs version is fully functioning, but whether this is practical has yet to be seen.


Isn't there a way to create a duplicate bridge file? So that two different files could just interconnect?

Sorry, I don't exactly understand what these two files and duplicate bridge you're writing about are. A bit of clarification, please?

kuja
January 10th, 2007, 08:04 AM
Yes, performance was what I was worried about. Ubuntu is rather memory-hungry; even xubuntu performs noticeably worse than win98 when you have less than 128 MB of ram. But it's not really the window manager that worries me; it's openoffice. If you've ever run it on older hardware, you'll see why. On a pentium II 400 Mhz with 64 MB ram, that thing takes almost a minute to just start on twm. As for preloading, that would just increase boot times and hog precious memory. And we can't just say, oh well, they'll just have to do without openoffice, because quite likely, they want to use the machine for typing up documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and the like. Abiword could make a good replacement for the text editing, but for parts like openoffice impress, there's just no comparable equivalent. Also, this concept of using a loopmounted filesystem reduces hard drive performance a bit. With today's newer sata drives with ntfs partitions, this isn't even noticeable, but on older hard drives, especially those formatted as fat or fat32 (which are slower than ntfs, see http://www.ntfs-3g.org/performance.html for details), the hard drive performance may become worse than in standard ubuntu. So yes, theoretically, it's possible, and should be rather easy once the ntfs version is fully functioning, but whether this is practical has yet to be seen.


Sorry, I don't exactly understand what these two files and duplicate bridge you're writing about are. A bit of clarification, please?

Both Koffice and Gnome-office walk all over openoffice in terms of speed and memory performance, I think Kword for me right now is using about 33mb/ram, it probably requires a bit less on a 32-bit system. I'll set up a 32-bit virtual machine and limit its RAM to 64MB and see how it performs with fluxbox/icewm + kword, and the same with abiword,and see if it performs acceptably. I'll report back soon.

kuja
January 10th, 2007, 08:55 AM
Hmm, looks bad. Was working on a text-only install and it stalled at 85%, I wouldn't be surprised if this failure was memory related.

Edit: I let it sit for 15 minutes or so,with no progress shown,and it eventually finished anyway, what a relief.

saulgoode
January 10th, 2007, 09:55 AM
Hmm, looks bad. Was working on a text-only install and it stalled at 85%, I wouldn't be surprised if this failure was memory related.

Edit: I let it sit for 15 minutes or so,with no progress shown,and it eventually finished anyway, what a relief.

It is possible that you ran out of memory and started working from swap. I haven't been following this thread closely but I got the impression that you were using LZMA to compress your files. LZMA is more memory hungry than GZIP or BZIP2 (there are some simple benchmarks on
the Tukaani website (http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks).

kuja
January 10th, 2007, 10:43 AM
It seems kword and abiword both performed quite acceptably in both fluxbox and kde-core. Granted, I have too much processor power (an fx-60) for this to be a fair comparison, even if I limitted the memory to a mere 64mb. Perhaps when I get some money together I'll rebuild my old k6-2 box.

tuxcantfly
January 11th, 2007, 04:28 AM
It seems kword and abiword both performed quite acceptably in both fluxbox and kde-core.

The main issue with gnome office and koffice have are ms office interoptability; they import and export ms formats horribly. And ms formats will be around for quite a while; don't think that odf is going to be taking over anytime soon. Also, featurewise, they're far inferior to openoffice

Kat of Zion
January 11th, 2007, 07:08 AM
Okay. Im new to linux here so bear with me...

The idea of switching to Linux scared me. Here I am having used Windows all my life and learned everything there. Linux would be unchartered territory and there would be a degree of things I would have to learn all over again since Linux implements them in a different way. There would be some programs that wont run on Linux, even with Wine. In other words, there is some getting used to it.

What finally put me in a position of changing to Linux?

Vista. That OS scares the snot out of me more than adjusting to a brand new way of computing. I dont know about you but I dont need anyone looking over my shoulder into everything I do. Also I am slowly realizing that Windows has alot of coding issues that were present way back and for whatever reason the newer OSs just build on that shoddy foundation instead of the tech guys eliminating problems and making a stronger foundation before creating a new version.

Still, Vista doesnt get all the credit. A fried external drive and a new christmas present also had something to do with it.

-Kat

foxmulder881
January 11th, 2007, 07:11 AM
It's the age old Windows versus Linux war that I can sometimes get sick of hearing. It follow s me around the internet, I swear.

Henry Rayker
January 11th, 2007, 07:20 AM
If the person has honestly given the Linux method a try and still comes to this conclusion, then fine. My HUGE issue with the situation is that the Windows supporters' claims tend to fall into the following unfair categories:
1) Windows is easier because Ubuntu (or Linux in general) is hard to install. (Comparing a preinstalled OS vs one you have to install yourself is not fair.
2) Windows is easier because I have to install a driver to get hardware X to work. (This is not fair because your device would work just fine if the manufacturer were to provide open drivers...or even just a .deb file could suffice...but they don't. Imagine getting that hardware to work in Windows if they refused to supply you a driver.)
3) Windows is easier because I have used it all my life and Linux is new. (This is unfair because you are comparing one OS which you have extensive knowledge of to one you have invested no [or at most, VERY little] time into learning; Imagine if someone were to say to you, "Climbing a sheer rock face is easier than driving...I've been climbing since I was old enough to walk, but I've never SEEN a car!"....not really fair.)

If the person wants to argue on fair grounds, that is fine...but I don't know if I've ever seen a fair or honest argument for Windows' dominance, aside from market penetration...If you had begun computing on a Linux system, Windows would be the hard one to grasp.

RAV TUX
January 11th, 2007, 07:25 AM
I'm just tired of it.

Seriously.

Am I the only one?

Sure, there are certain tasks that are easier to accomplish in Windows, but just to make a flatout statement that it's "easier" (usually without any sort of substantiating examples) than Linux just gets under my skin.

Venting over. Back to normal support and chatting.


I have never understood windows.









http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/9594/sabauserbaruserv2kk5db5.png
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/2989/beryluserbarra2.png

slimdog360
January 11th, 2007, 07:33 AM
I have never understood windows.
Whats to understand, they sit in the side of the wall so you can look out of them. Nothing to it.

Quillz
January 11th, 2007, 07:37 AM
Really? I kind of think of it as almost too complicated. Gnome I think of as simple... or, better yet, IceWM. Even the lightbulb in OpenOffice I find less annoying than Clippy the clipboard animated thing in Microsoft Office. I don't like the "do you want to reboot now?" dialogues that keep popping up after every Windows Update (when I've already clicked "reboot later").

I almost wish it did do the thinking for me instead of asking me so many questions over and over again. "You look like you're typing a letter? Do you want help with that?" Argh!
I'd have to disagree with you there. I find the light bulb pop-up to be just as annoying as Clippy, so the first thing I do after a fresh install of OOo is disable it from popping up.

I think the reason most people claim that Windows is easier to use than Linux is because a) Windows is almost always pre-installed and b) Windows is the OS that most people have been using for their lives. I remember when I was in second grade, I was a whiz with MS-DOS, and when I moved to Windows 95, I didn't like it at first. Sure, it was a heck of a lot easier to get things done, but it was different. That's how I felt this past week when moving to Ubuntu Linux. It felt strange that I had to rely on CLI again, just when I thought that Windows and Mac OS X had made it all but extinct. But as I was using it, I realized how much easier it be to get things done with than doing the same commands via GUI. I think openSUSE and Ubuntu are both great distros for people immediately migrating from Windows, since a lot of the functionality is the same, but if you dig just a bit deeper, you'll find just how much more powerful Linux can be.

Quillz
January 11th, 2007, 07:41 AM
If the person has honestly given the Linux method a try and still comes to this conclusion, then fine. My HUGE issue with the situation is that the Windows supporters' claims tend to fall into the following unfair categories:
1) Windows is easier because Ubuntu (or Linux in general) is hard to install. (Comparing a preinstalled OS vs one you have to install yourself is not fair.
2) Windows is easier because I have to install a driver to get hardware X to work. (This is not fair because your device would work just fine if the manufacturer were to provide open drivers...or even just a .deb file could suffice...but they don't. Imagine getting that hardware to work in Windows if they refused to supply you a driver.)
3) Windows is easier because I have used it all my life and Linux is new. (This is unfair because you are comparing one OS which you have extensive knowledge of to one you have invested no [or at most, VERY little] time into learning; Imagine if someone were to say to you, "Climbing a sheer rock face is easier than driving...I've been climbing since I was old enough to walk, but I've never SEEN a car!"....not really fair.)

If the person wants to argue on fair grounds, that is fine...but I don't know if I've ever seen a fair or honest argument for Windows' dominance, aside from market penetration...If you had begun computing on a Linux system, Windows would be the hard one to grasp.
Even though I've literally only been using Linux for about a week now, I'm already preferring it to Windows in every way. I completely agree with your points. But here's the thing - like most people here, I actually have dealt with Windows not pre-installed, and while it's just as simple to install as any Linux distro (partition your hard drive, configuring some hardware, etc.) the difference is time. I've done a fresh install of Ubuntu on my desktop and laptop now, and each time, it's taken no more than 15 minutes. With Windows XP, I recall it taking upwards of 45 minutes. Vista is a bit faster, at about 20-30 minutes, but I'm sure that bare bones distros like Slackware are probably mere minutes to compile and install.

purdy hate machine
January 11th, 2007, 08:49 AM
It’s all relative, it depends on the user and what he/she wants to get out of their computer. Linux has made my life a lot easier and I cant foresee ever going back to Windows but at the end of the day its just an o/s, does it really matter what some people think? We are all entitled to our opinions what ever they may be based on.

truthfatal
January 11th, 2007, 09:58 AM
Slackware are probably mere minutes to compile and install.
Slack is a Binary Distro ;), and yeah, it's fast to install.

To the poll, I guess I've been lucky. Outside the few Linux Forums I visit, I've rarely encountered the attitude that windows is somehow "easier" or "superior." Actually, there's only one time that I recall. It was a friend who thought Linux was an "Old, obsolete, OS that probably isn't even developed anymore." I laughed at him and explained that making claims without any actual knowledge kinda made him look foolish.

Other than that I usually hear "Oh, you use Linux? What's that like?"

So I guess I'm an "Option two" kinda guy in this thread :)

xyz
January 11th, 2007, 10:33 AM
I think people talk,want,stick to Windows because it's a monopoly...well almost!
The monopoly reassures them; everybody has it; therefore "I" must have it, too.

It's not Windows as an OS that makes it so "popular", "good, bad" or "easier"; it's the reassuring monopoly that makes it so widespread. Everybody uses it so most people think it must be easier! The "THEY can do it; therefore I can do it,too" thing!

Note that I voted that I'm tired of talking about it...either way. But we should keep on talking about it; not avoid it!

kuja
January 11th, 2007, 01:35 PM
The main issue with gnome office and koffice have are ms office interoptability; they import and export ms formats horribly. And ms formats will be around for quite a while; don't think that odf is going to be taking over anytime soon. Also, featurewise, they're far inferior to openoffice

Yes, however, these features you're talking about are the same reason it won't be running on old hardware anytime soon. The bigger and more bloated OOo gets, the slower it's going to run!

OrangeCrate
January 11th, 2007, 04:16 PM
My dislike of all things Microsoft goes way back to the orignal browser wars between Netscape and IE. So, one of my original reasons for adopting Linux, was to have the satsifaction of eventually deleting Windows, and all the other MS products.

However, I've changed my mind. I have discovered, that being dual booted works just fine, and though vitually all of my time is spent on Ubuntu, I do occassionally boot into windows, because I just find it easier to do some things there.

You can buy Linux only machines, but to shop the best price, most, if not all will come with a windows version installed. So be it. If dual booting goes as easy in the future as it did for me this time, I'll keep windows on the box.

As far as the zealots, either favoring or disliking one operating system over another, I'm slowly learning to just tune them out.

Lord Illidan
January 11th, 2007, 04:22 PM
There are cases where Windows is easier than Linux. For example, to install software like, say, Quake 4, one can just pop in the cd, and click setup.exe, and everything goes on quite easily, while with Linux, you have to unzip the .pk3 files and run commands from the terminal, etc. For me, it is a matter of routine now, but I wouldn't see a linux newbie doing it. When I was a newbie, I didn't know where the terminal was.

That said, when people give inappropriate examples, or else talk out of their behinds, then I just stop listening to them.

Mateo
January 11th, 2007, 04:51 PM
To go with what Lord Illidan is saying, uninstalling stuff in Linux is a nightmare.

In windows almost everything that installs via setup program (which is the vaste majority of software) gets put into add/remove. If it happens not to be there (rarely happens), then there is probably an uninstall program in the folder. Worst case scenario you just have to delete the containing folder and run a registry cleaner to get it out of there.

In linux there are many different ways to install stuff, and only 1 easy way to uninstall stuff. If you install via apt/synaptic it's pretty easy to remove, but only a small fraction of all linux software is there. If you install via source, it's not difficult per se, but it's tedious and annoying. You have to either save the source to your hard drive (waste of space) or download it later and reconfigure/make. If the software has since gone defunct, it can be difficult to find the exact version and everything. Then there are also other ways to install stuff, sometimes the developer has a self-installing script or executable of some kind that does all the work. If you install that way, you're screwed and have to hope you can find all of the files yourself. Because in windows almost all of the files get installed into 1 folder (sometimes a file or two is placed in the windows/system folder). In linux the files are spread out all over the place.

pichalsi
January 11th, 2007, 05:14 PM
yeah Mateo has a point... i dont want to uninstall anything but i always wondered how i will uninstall those programs installed with ./configure&&make&&make install... but as always with linux i think there is solution about which i dont know :)

EdThaSlayer
January 11th, 2007, 05:21 PM
People that say that Windows is easier either
1.Don't have a fast internet connection(meaning they wait ages for Ubuntu to download packages)
2.Don't have the guts to face the steep learning curve(after which EVERYTHING seems easier)
3.Are injected with serious M$ drugs that hypnotize them into-actually forget this reason
4.Don't have a very "compatible" computer...
5.Are a bit too used to the "closed" world that Windows has
6. These people could be M$ employees in disguise! O.o!!
7. They don't like problem solving(when something goes wrong and I fix it by either getting help from forums I become quite happy)
8. Don't have patience(it takes quite a bit of time to get used to a new OS)

Well I just tried to answer the best I can!

ffi
January 11th, 2007, 06:04 PM
I'm just tired of it.

Seriously.

Am I the only one?

Sure, there are certain tasks that are easier to accomplish in Windows, but just to make a flatout statement that it's "easier" (usually without any sort of substantiating examples) than Linux just gets under my skin.

Venting over. Back to normal support and chatting.

If your stuff works in Linux or is in the ropes, which is the case in about 90% of the case, it's definitively easier but if it doesn't work well....windows useally is a lot easier, just install the right driver from the manufacturer's site and your done.

ComplexNumber
January 11th, 2007, 06:11 PM
To go with what Lord Illidan is saying, uninstalling stuff in Linux is a nightmare.

In windows almost everything that installs via setup program (which is the vaste majority of software) gets put into add/remove. If it happens not to be there (rarely happens), then there is probably an uninstall program in the folder. Worst case scenario you just have to delete the containing folder and run a registry cleaner to get it out of there.

In linux there are many different ways to install stuff, and only 1 easy way to uninstall stuff. If you install via apt/synaptic it's pretty easy to remove, but only a small fraction of all linux software is there. If you install via source, it's not difficult per se, but it's tedious and annoying. You have to either save the source to your hard drive (waste of space) or download it later and reconfigure/make. If the software has since gone defunct, it can be difficult to find the exact version and everything. Then there are also other ways to install stuff, sometimes the developer has a self-installing script or executable of some kind that does all the work. If you install that way, you're screwed and have to hope you can find all of the files yourself. Because in windows almost all of the files get installed into 1 folder (sometimes a file or two is placed in the windows/system folder). In linux the files are spread out all over the place.i can't believe that you even think that. you could't be more wrong. try sorting out the mess after windows uninstall when you have god knows how much stuff still left in the registry, the uninstaller has just removed a shared library, and there is still lots of past junk floating around c:\windows directory.
i mean, why do you think windows slows down ast such a rapid pace, especially if the user installs and uninstalls a lot?
in linux, i use gpaco. this keeps track of what tarballs are installed and tells me exactly whats installed. i can throw away the sources and forget about them, yet uninstall with confidence at any time. no mess or anything.

ffi
January 11th, 2007, 06:12 PM
To go with what Lord Illidan is saying, uninstalling stuff in Linux is a nightmare.

In windows almost everything that installs via setup program (which is the vaste majority of software) gets put into add/remove. If it happens not to be there (rarely happens), then there is probably an uninstall program in the folder. Worst case scenario you just have to delete the containing folder and run a registry cleaner to get it out of there.

In linux there are many different ways to install stuff, and only 1 easy way to uninstall stuff. If you install via apt/synaptic it's pretty easy to remove, but only a small fraction of all linux software is there. If you install via source, it's not difficult per se, but it's tedious and annoying. You have to either save the source to your hard drive (waste of space) or download it later and reconfigure/make. If the software has since gone defunct, it can be difficult to find the exact version and everything. Then there are also other ways to install stuff, sometimes the developer has a self-installing script or executable of some kind that does all the work. If you install that way, you're screwed and have to hope you can find all of the files yourself. Because in windows almost all of the files get installed into 1 folder (sometimes a file or two is placed in the windows/system folder). In linux the files are spread out all over the place.

You need to get checkinstall it's in the repositories ;)

ComplexNumber
January 11th, 2007, 06:16 PM
You need to get checkinstall it's in the repositories ;)
no, gpaco. its the synaptic for tarballs. see screenshot.

Christmas
January 11th, 2007, 06:27 PM
Most people who only used Windows are used to that single way of getting things done, they think it's natural and the best possible way. I think "easy" doesn't necessarily mean working only with GUI for example. In my opinion, "easy" means how well you can do one task that you need to be done in any way that you know and as fast as you can, so you can be productive. And I won't take a Windows vs Linux example here, but one specific to Ubuntu/Kubuntu. For me it's easier and faster to edit the /etc/apt/sources.list file using nano in a shell then using Synaptic or Adept, just because I got used to doing it that way.

The one big mistake people do when trying Linux is that, being used only to Windows, they expect to find something which should act like Windows, but they find something completely new. They have to do things that just don't seem normal, because the only "normal" way they know is Windows. For example, when they create a new file with the name "xyz" and then want to create a new directory with the same "xyz" name, they'll see it's not possible. In Windows it is. So they reach very fast at the conclusion "Linux is crap". Why is it? Just because they encountered one thing that doesn't work the way they were used to.

I used Windows for about 5 years and Linux only for less than 1 year and I know I couldn't understand at first why doing things is so different, but at least I had patience understanding it, I didn't rushed into statements about how Linux should work. So, yes, I'm kind of tired not of Windows users, but of people who don't understand and don't try to put their brains at work before reaching a conclusion which is obviously false.

ffi
January 11th, 2007, 06:33 PM
no, gpaco. its the synaptic for tarballs. see screenshot.

I will give it a try if checkinstall doesn't work, which it doesn't always. Check install makes debs, rpms or tgz from the "make install" command, so you can uninstall via the normal package manager.

Where can I get gpaco?

Henry Rayker
January 11th, 2007, 06:42 PM
I don't see gpaco in the repos...any clue which exact repo it was in?

ComplexNumber
January 11th, 2007, 06:45 PM
I will give it a try if checkinstall doesn't work, which it doesn't always. Check install makes debs, rpms or tgz from the "make install" command, so you can uninstall via the normal package manager.

Where can I get gpaco?

I don't see gpaco in the repos...any clue which exact repo it was in?
i couldn't find it either. i built it from source. there is another way - as its source or rpm only, go to the website here (http://paco.sourceforge.net/downloads.html) and build a deb using alien. i seem to remember encountering a problem when doing so but you may have more luck.
don't use the source rpm.

Lord Illidan
January 11th, 2007, 06:53 PM
Most people who only used Windows are used to that single way of getting things done, they think it's natural and the best possible way. I think "easy" doesn't necessarily mean working only with GUI for example. In my opinion, "easy" means how well you can do one task that you need to be done in any way that you know and as fast as you can, so you can be productive. And I won't take a Windows vs Linux example here, but one specific to Ubuntu/Kubuntu. For me it's easier and faster to edit the /etc/apt/sources.list file using nano in a shell then using Synaptic or Adept, just because I got used to doing it that way.

I'm with you over here. I love the command line. But, please, how can you say that in the case of commercial software, installing is easier in Linux than in Windows?

In Linux you have to choose between installing a program by either:

Running a binary file (.sh)
Using .deb
Using synaptic
Using .rpm
Uncompressing a .tar.gz file and running the binary file inside
Uncompressing a .tar.gz file and compiling from source, using a mixture of Synaptic, Google and the internet to find dependencies.
Using .autopackageIn Windows, all you have to do is click an .exe file...

Henry Rayker
January 11th, 2007, 07:03 PM
^^ to me, all of those methods are the same difficulty as the .exe installation method...the only problem with installation comes with satisfying dependencies. Aside from that, I have no problems.

jordilin
January 11th, 2007, 07:08 PM
I find Linux easier in terms of administration and ease of use. What Linux lacks is driver support from companies. I can't use my printer and digital camera in different distros and this is a major drawback. It's not Linux fault, it's the fault of companies. In general terms Linux is much more powerful and easy. Windows has the advantage that it comes installed by default in many computers, and people don't care about installing another OS (many people are not technically savvy and installing an OS is like talking about strange things). Another point is that there are professional programs tailored to the windows operating system like photoshop (although we have gimp) and powerful tools like macromedia studio, visual studio, office (although we have openoffice). Sometimes, the equivalent in Linux is not so powerful. People must use the OS they feel more comfortable with, and that's all.

NyquistLimit
January 11th, 2007, 07:33 PM
I removed Windows XP and tried various linux distributions (Ubuntu dapper, edgy, kubuntu edgy and opensuse 10.2) over the course of about 3 months but eventually ended up going back to Windows (Vista). Initially I praised the community and operating system for it's achievements, I was enthusiastic about this adoption, however, over time I found far too many problems.

I honestly believe that doing the things that I do are much easier in Windows. There are some users who could potentially find Ubuntu easier but I believe that this encompasses only "beginners"; people who are happy to rely on the software (and versions of the software) within the repositories, do not care about 3d accelerated drivers or games, do not care much about Microsoft interoperability (samba, wine) and generally only use their computers for work, rather than leisure.

The primary reasons I switched back are because I found some of the aspects of the linux world completely impractical:

The dependency on distribution specific repositories for software distribution. Repositories are great, they make software installation much easier, even easier than Windows! However, installing software outside the confines of these repositories is a complete nightmare. Having to wait indefinitely for software to be updated within the repositories, hunting around the web looking for user-made deb packages, and finally having to compile so many applications because neither of the above exist.

Difficult graphics card driver installation (which has to be repeated after every kernel upgrade). Once again, unless you're happy with the drivers in the repositories you're required to either use envy (if you're running Ubuntu), or failing that: manually install kernel headers, build-essential type packages, kill gdm/kdm, build the drivers and edit xorg.conf. This is partly nvidias fault but then again this problem exists with all software distribution in the linux world. You goto the website of a software product and more than likely all you'll be given is a difficult to install tarball. The lack of a standard installation package amongst linux distributions is completely impractical, hence the reliance on distribution specific repositories.

Which leads to my next point; terrible graphics card / multimonitor support. The necessity of manually editing xorg.conf to enable multi monitor capability, resolutions and refresh rates. Dropping the user to a pure console if the xorg.conf syntax is incorrect. I'm sorry but all of this is just ridiculous!

The lack of integration between the application and the host desktop environment, especially Firefox and Thunderbird when run under KDE; Gnome save dialogs in KDE for example. And conversely Amarok, K3B under Gnome. The lack of consistency and reliance on running apps within their originally destined desktop environments is not a good experience.

Terrible usb drive support. Copying mp3s to my mp3 player resulted in nothing being copied at all because the buffer hadn't been flushed in time. Unmounting the drive resulted in the removal of the drive from the desktop, but even that failed to correctly flush the buffer, resulting in data corruption.

Various bugs and limitations in both Gnome and KDE. I'll cite a few examples to highlight the problems I faced; In Gnome: panel icon placements moving around, windows not remembering where they were placed, Gaim failing to go "away" when idle, Nautilus double click bug where things would open twice, Nautilus & File Roller drag and drop bug, resizing columns bug where clicking on the edge of a colmn would fail to focus it for resizing, lack of indication of activity because mouse cursor didn't change, console based license agreement window inside Synaptic that fails to correctly prompt the user for input.

In KDE (generally more usable and with fewer bugs than Gnome): Running skype prevented KDE from logging out, panel would intermittantly jump from the top of the screen to the bottom, konqueror inability to remember folder view settings for individual folders, convoluted kde theme installation procedure (compiling themes), Ark drag and drop bug, password wallet bugs, kopete inability to go "away" when idle, samba server would intermittantly stop working.

Some of these bugs are superficial or subjective to my personal preference but the overall experience was definitely not encouraging nor enjoyable.

There are fundamental issues surrounding the world of linux distributions, most significantly the atrocious state of software and driver distribution. Overall, the interfaces of Gnome and KDE are easy enough to use, but any user who wishes to go beyond the default installation is sure to be in for a hair pulling experience.

Pobega
January 11th, 2007, 07:41 PM
I've been trying to get my dad to install Ubuntu, but he is stuck on Windows. He claims that he's just used to it, and he doesn't want a computer that will take his time fixing.

I told him the minimal amount of time you spend fixing things is nothing compared to the time you'd lose from viruses and spyware.

But he still claims Windows is easier, I just don't get it.

Lord Illidan
January 11th, 2007, 07:52 PM
^^ to me, all of those methods are the same difficulty as the .exe installation method...the only problem with installation comes with satisfying dependencies. Aside from that, I have no problems.

For you, yes.

But I guarantee you that a newcomer to Linux would probably turn off and run, or else, take the challenge and try it out, especially when it comes to compiling software.

Henry Rayker
January 11th, 2007, 07:57 PM
I agree with you only on one point, NyquistLimit.

I use my computer for work, leisure and I'd say I'm a rather advanced user, but I still find Linux light years ahead in terms of usability. Not only that, but the customization allowed also enhances my appreciation. Admittedly, I don't bother with the newer video games (the only one I play requires IE, so I clearly have no choice but use windows).

tarballs are easy.

./configure
make
make install
Once you have build-essential (I know it's been discussed, but I STILL don't understand why this one package isn't installed by default...) the situation is much brighter...as long as you have the dependencies (usually, the user is informed of this at the download location for the app in question). You wouldn't try to install a winamp plugin without winamp, would you?

The 3d acceleration issue is not the OS's fault, it's the card manufacturers' faults. I will agree on only one point: Xorg is still a bit arcane...I've read about it getting improved, but we'll see how that goes.

The desktop to application integration: this is typically caused by the fact that one app was written with one desktop in mind and that's what you get...using a KDE app in GNOME is bound to look a tad off. Things like Firefox could be better, but I'm willing to live with it.

I've never had a single issue with a usb drive. Perhaps it was your specific player? Granted, I've only used little usb memory sticks...no mp3 players or anything. My girlfriend uses a Creative Zen Micro and has never had an issue transferring music, but she uses Gnomad2 for that.

For the GNOME issues (I can't speak for KDE, because I haven't used it): I've only noticed a File-Roller drag and drop bug...but I just got used to hitting the "extract" button...it's quicker for me because I open file-roller with the command line and I usually didn't have the destination open in a browser.

Maybe I've just been lucky or I'm just really easy-going.

EDIT: Lord Illidan:
I guess that's true, but I feel that if a person is completely unwilling to learn anything (such as
./configure
make
make install
they have unfair expectations from an alternate OS and have no business using anything new. I can understand how the issue is compounded by unsatisfied dependencies.

ffi
January 11th, 2007, 08:01 PM
Which leads to my next point; terrible graphics card / multimonitor support. The necessity of manually editing xorg.conf to enable multi monitor capability, resolutions and refresh rates. Dropping the user to a pure console if the xorg.conf syntax is incorrect. I'm sorry but all of this is just ridiculous!


I agree with many of the points but finally this point will be resolved with xorg 7.3, it won't rely on xorg.conf anymore and will be able to make changes on the fly. It's still at least 6 months away.

About your USB, how did you mount them, if you made an fstab entry, the option synchronous should be set. I believe KDE's media manager also uses the synchromous option...

Lord Illidan
January 11th, 2007, 08:02 PM
I agree with you only on one point, NyquistLimit.

I use my computer for work, leisure and I'd say I'm a rather advanced user, but I still find Linux light years ahead in terms of usability. Not only that, but the customization allowed also enhances my appreciation. Admittedly, I don't bother with the newer video games (the only one I play requires IE, so I clearly have no choice but use windows).

tarballs are easy.

./configure
make
make installOnce you have build-essential (I know it's been discussed, but I STILL don't understand why this one package isn't installed by default...) the situation is much brighter...as long as you have the dependencies (usually, the user is informed of this at the download location for the app in question). You wouldn't try to install a winamp plugin without winamp, would you?

The 3d acceleration issue is not the OS's fault, it's the card manufacturers' faults. I will agree on only one point: Xorg is still a bit arcane...I've read about it getting improved, but we'll see how that goes.

The desktop to application integration: this is typically caused by the fact that one app was written with one desktop in mind and that's what you get...using a KDE app in GNOME is bound to look a tad off. Things like Firefox could be better, but I'm willing to live with it.

I've never had a single issue with a usb drive. Perhaps it was your specific player? Granted, I've only used little usb memory sticks...no mp3 players or anything. My girlfriend uses a Creative Zen Micro and has never had an issue transferring music, but she uses Gnomad2 for that.

For the GNOME issues (I can't speak for KDE, because I haven't used it): I've only noticed a File-Roller drag and drop bug...but I just got used to hitting the "extract" button...it's quicker for me because I open file-roller with the command line and I usually didn't have the destination open in a browser.

Maybe I've just been lucky or I'm just really easy-going.

Tarballs are easy, for the user who knows how to use them. And even then, they require much more steps than an .exe in Windows does, but I am getting really bored of repeating myself.

ffi
January 11th, 2007, 08:10 PM
Tarballs are easy, for the user who knows how to use them. And even then, they require much more steps than an .exe in Windows does, but I am getting really bored of repeating myself.

I agree, a user should never ever need to see the commandline, nor have to edit xorg.conf or fstab.