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

John E
February 2nd, 2007, 11:05 AM
You're on..! But if my experience of Linux is anything to go by, a "simple driver installation" usually means that you can measure the installation time in days, rather than weeks!! :)

darrenm
February 2nd, 2007, 11:10 AM
By working, we are talking about just getting sound aren't we?

John E
February 2nd, 2007, 11:17 AM
Well it does do other things such as MIDI but I'm not really interested in that. You sound like you've got some experience with this card. Is it one that you use yourself?

darrenm
February 2nd, 2007, 11:26 AM
Nah, no experience at all. I just think it would be very unusual to get a card that uses a chipset that ALSA wouldn't support out the box these days. Advanced functions obviously need a driver.

shining
February 2nd, 2007, 02:11 PM
Well it does do other things such as MIDI but I'm not really interested in that. You sound like you've got some experience with this card. Is it one that you use yourself?

That looks like a professional card, but you bought it for a basic usage?
Or maybe there are several version, how much did you pay yours?

John E
February 2nd, 2007, 08:12 PM
shining - I bought it because I'm writing some software for high end audio applications. In the UK it costs around 380 pounds but I got it on Ebay for 275.

Adamant1988
February 2nd, 2007, 08:39 PM
Ready for desktop means?

Personally, I think Linux is ready for anyone's desktop who would be willing to switch to a mac. Macs suffer from *some* of the same issues, a lot of the problem is hardware and pre-installation. If there were more actual Linux vendors out there who hand picked hardware that worked, you would see less of this "Linux doesn't work on my system" stuff.

Being ready for the desktop means that it should be less fragmented, and installation of programs from disk and so forth should be a point and click affair. The end user shouldn't HAVE to see the command line, but that tool should always be available, it's priceless. We're seeing that people understand that fragmentation is a problem (hence the forming of the Linux Foundation) and there is more concern with the LSB. Standards inside of the Linux community to make everything inter operable will be a huge step forward, as long as they're agreed upon.

I fully expect to start seeing logos on boxed Hardware in the future (probably HP stuff first) saying "Certified for LSB compliant Linux" or something similar.

hk_2999
February 3rd, 2007, 08:15 AM
It would be really ready for the desktop when most hardware manufacturers support it. (as in put a works with ubuntu logo on their product)

John E
February 3rd, 2007, 10:10 AM
In some ways I agree with those two previous statements. A lot of Linux drivers seem to be written by enthusiasts, rather than by the vendors and it would be much better if the vendors would write them - or at leats co-operate, so that their hardware could be certified as "Linux compliant". However, it's still important to realise that compliant hardware isn't a solution in itself - it's simply a means to an end.

As I've stated before (and I'm sorry to keep repeating this point - but it is important) - Linux needs to define some sort of unified standard for driver installation; be it apt-get, Synaptic, double-clicking on a Setup file or whatever. Having drivers written by uncle Tom Cobley et al has produce a myriad of different (and often confusing) installation methods which needs to be comprehensively scrapped. There needs to be one standard method of installing drivers. It needs to be as uncomplicated as possible, both for the sake of users but also so that driver installations can be easily tested. If driver installations were certified using a similar standard, this would go a long way to building confidence.

Here's just one example from my personal experience. It's one of many I could give you... I've just spent 7 days trying to install drivers for my broadband modem. It was working fine under Dapper but stopped working when I upgraded to Edgy. The list of setup instructions runs to 6 pages of A4 paper but nowhere did it tell me about the most crucial point of all..... 2 types of driver are available - user mode & kernel mode. My Dapper installation was running user mode drivers. When I upgraded to Edgy, it installed a kernel mode driver - but it didn't uninstall the old driver. So for 7 days, I've had 2 lots of drivers both fighting for the same hardware. It's this kind of problem that lets Linux down, again and again. Frankly, drivers are a mess under Linux.

Get your act together with drivers and I think you'll have a winning OS on your hands - but as long as you keep ignoring the driver issues (of which there are far too many) the world will keep ignoring Linux. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.

runningwithscissors
February 3rd, 2007, 10:38 AM
In some ways I agree with those two previous statements. A lot of Linux drivers seem to be written by enthusiasts, rather than by the vendors and it would be much better if the vendors would write them - or at leats co-operate, so that their hardware could be certified as "Linux compliant".
Even if the vendors write them, the drivers have to be open sourced. So that if the vendor stops maintaining them, is slower on a crucial update, etc. the community can pick up the slack.


As I've stated before (and I'm sorry to keep repeating this point - but it is important) - Linux needs to define some sort of unified standard for driver installation; be it apt-get, Synaptic, double-clicking on a Setup file or whatever. Having drivers written by uncle Tom Cobley et al has produce a myriad of different (and often confusing) installation methods which needs to be comprehensively scrapped. There needs to be one standard method of installing drivers. It needs to be as uncomplicated as possible, both for the sake of users but also so that driver installations can be easily tested. If driver installations were certified using a similar standard, this would go a long way to building confidence.
Er, there is a standard. You can either compile your own driver modules/build them into the kernel, or have your package manager do it for you (which most package managers do, I think)


Here's just one example from my personal experience. It's one of many I could give you... I've just spent 7 days trying to install drivers for my broadband modem. It was working fine under Dapper but stopped working when I upgraded to Edgy. The list of setup instructions runs to 6 pages of A4 paper but nowhere did it tell me about the most crucial point of all..... 2 types of driver are available - user mode & kernel mode. My Dapper installation was running user mode drivers. When I upgraded to Edgy, it installed a kernel mode driver - but it didn't uninstall the old driver. So for 7 days, I've had 2 lots of drivers both fighting for the same hardware. It's this kind of problem that lets Linux down, again and again. Frankly, drivers are a mess under Linux.
That is a ****-up on the distribution's part. If they are supplying a driver built into the kernel, they ought to uninstall the user mode ones.


Get your act together with drivers and I think you'll have a winning OS on your hands - but as long as you keep ignoring the driver issues (of which there are far too many) the world will keep ignoring Linux. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.
The only driver issue I consider seriously is the unavailability of some. And we need the vendors to co-operate on that one.

John E
February 3rd, 2007, 12:15 PM
Er, there is a standard. You can either compile your own driver modules/build them into the kernel, or have your package manager do it for you
In the words of a famous song... "there is none so blind as he who will not see."

I don't know how many people have joined this thread and made that same comment but it simply isn't true. A few pages back, I described nearly a dozen different installation procedures that I've had to grapple with personally. In fact, when it comes to installing drivers (as disinct from applications) there are almost as many different procedures as there are different types of hardware.

I can only repeat the conclusion from my last post.... as long as the Linux community keeps turning away and ignoring the driver issue, the "average user" will keep turning away and ignoring Linux.

The power to fix this is in your own hands.

darrenm
February 3rd, 2007, 01:45 PM
In some ways I agree with those two previous statements. A lot of Linux drivers seem to be written by enthusiasts, rather than by the vendors and it would be much better if the vendors would write them - or at leats co-operate, so that their hardware could be certified as "Linux compliant".

Theres nothing really that can be certified as Linux compliant. That would mean it works with every distro, every version of the distro etc. If one distro gets massively bigger than the others (like Ubuntu is starting to) then I can see that it would be fairly trivial for vendors to put a Ubuntu-certified logo on their hardware. A bit like Microsoft does with the designed for Windows XP logos on hardware. For this the vendors have to pay Microsoft a lot of money and their drivers have to pass the HCT tests. There are vendors that are Linux sympathetic and are starting to realise its a big chunk they are missing if they ignore it completely. Ubuntu would do well to have a Ubuntu-certified program where if vendors provide drivers they can be community tested or officially tested on as much hardware as possible. Be it open-source or binary blobs. (Binary blobs are here to stay, like it or not).


However, it's still important to realise that compliant hardware isn't a solution in itself - it's simply a means to an end.

As I've stated before (and I'm sorry to keep repeating this point - but it is important) - Linux needs to define some sort of unified standard for driver installation; be it apt-get, Synaptic, double-clicking on a Setup file or whatever. Having drivers written by uncle Tom Cobley et al has produce a myriad of different (and often confusing) installation methods which needs to be comprehensively scrapped.

Yeah previously this was the case. Anything that works is now pretty much built into the distro or uses a mainstream way of installing.


There needs to be one standard method of installing drivers. It needs to be as uncomplicated as possible, both for the sake of users but also so that driver installations can be easily tested. If driver installations were certified using a similar standard, this would go a long way to building confidence.

Again one distro leading the pack will help with this. This is why I continue to support Ubuntu as its the best horse (among other reasons)


Here's just one example from my personal experience. It's one of many I could give you... I've just spent 7 days trying to install drivers for my broadband modem. It was working fine under Dapper but stopped working when I upgraded to Edgy. The list of setup instructions runs to 6 pages of A4 paper but nowhere did it tell me about the most crucial point of all..... 2 types of driver are available - user mode & kernel mode. My Dapper installation was running user mode drivers. When I upgraded to Edgy, it installed a kernel mode driver - but it didn't uninstall the old driver. So for 7 days, I've had 2 lots of drivers both fighting for the same hardware. It's this kind of problem that lets Linux down, again and again. Frankly, drivers are a mess under Linux.

I've not heard of that particular problem before but it is a fault of the OS and should be reported as a bug. If there are drivers available that are open-source then they should be built-in and work. If they are binary then from Feisty they should be shipped and just work. Otherwise if its fairly common hardware it shouldn't be all that difficult to install


Get your act together with drivers and I think you'll have a winning OS on your hands - but as long as you keep ignoring the driver issues (of which there are far too many) the world will keep ignoring Linux. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.

Who are you aiming this at? If you want to be part of the community then you can't talk from a 3rd person perspective. If you don't want to be part of the community then that's no problem. I don't mean that at all aggressive or sarcastic but there does seem to be a mindset where people think that the Linux community wants everyone to jump on board because its a Utopia of fantastic-ness then when it doesn't meet their needs its like they have to tell as many people that will listen that they should stop preaching about it because its not all we make it to be. It's certainly true that all us happy Ubuntu/Linux users over-preach and probably try to sell it too much and stretch the truth a little too much. If we told it how it actually was then lots of people who tried it and found other reasons to like it would never have done so. You should however realise that there is no-one to serve you that will address complaints, if you use Linux you are by default part of the community and if something doesn't work you are requested to help make it better for everyone. It probably is Communism at the end of the day but at least its good Communism.

argie
February 3rd, 2007, 02:36 PM
Also, I think it was particularly recommended to do a full install of the new version of Ubuntu instead of dist-upgrading. Since I had trouble moving from Breezy to Dapper, I've moved my /home to a different partition. It is, as I understand, good practice.

And telling the community that vendors should write drivers is useless. Help us by sending a letter to them complaining that your hardware does not work in Linux.

John E
February 3rd, 2007, 04:58 PM
I've moved my /home to a different partition. It is, as I understand, good practice.
I realise I'm digressing now but how would that help? I guess that I could (and probably should) put all my precious documents into my home folder - and if that folder is on (say) a removeable volume then they're inherently protected if do a full reinstall onto my main volume. But documents aren't the only things that are important to me. What about all the applications that I've spent so much time having to install & configure?

I'm pretty new to Ubuntu but in my admittedly limited experience, it's very rare for an application to give me any choice about where it's going to install its files. Installing Edgy afreash, instead of upgrading from Dapper might be 'clean' but I'm going to lose an awful lot of stuff that I really need. If I could direct all my apps to install onto a separate volume, that would be preferable.

I'm reminded of the early days of Apple Mac - where, every time you upgraded your OS, you had to spend weeks re-installing all your favourite applications. Macs had lots of drawbacks similar to this - but poor hardware support & endless reinstalling were probably the single biggest reasons why they failed to gain widespread popularity.

There's a lesson to be learned there, methinks....

Brunellus
February 3rd, 2007, 05:39 PM
I realise I'm digressing now but how would that help? I guess that I could (and probably should) put all my precious documents into my home folder - and if that folder is on (say) a removeable volume then they're inherently protected if do a full reinstall onto my main volume. But documents aren't the only things that are important to me. What about all the applications that I've spent so much time having to install & configure?

I'm pretty new to Ubuntu but in my admittedly limited experience, it's very rare for an application to give me any choice about where it's going to install its files. Installing Edgy afreash, instead of upgrading from Dapper might be 'clean' but I'm going to lose an awful lot of stuff that I really need. If I could direct all my apps to install onto a separate volume, that would be preferable.

I'm reminded of the early days of Apple Mac - where, every time you upgraded your OS, you had to spend weeks re-installing all your favourite applications. Macs had lots of drawbacks similar to this - but poor hardware support & endless reinstalling were probably the single biggest reasons why they failed to gain widespread popularity.

There's a lesson to be learned there, methinks....
your config files are all kept in ~/. so that's not an issue. all you'd have to do is re-install the apps, and the applications will read the dotfiles in your home directory just fine.

And I'll counter your "poor hardware support" gripe about the mac. The mac had *excellent* hardware support for Apple hardware. That Apple only supported their own hardware for their own software & pc shouldn't be surprising at all.

The mac lost because in real terms it was at least 50% more expensive than its competition. No matter how blingy its UI was (and it was pretty spiffy in '84!), corporate procurement types took one look at the sticker price and started phoning their IBM sales reps.

I've said it a million times on this thread, and I'll repeat it until Doomsday: pretty interfaces and user-friendliness do NOT determine the popularity of an operating system. If that were so, Apple and Commodore would have destroyed all before them. What won was cheap, ugly, and good-enough. Not great for home users, but corporate users managed to use their enormous economies of scale to get these newfangled electronic computer-thingies on almost every desk in corporate America, and in short order. Training was absorbed by the large organizations. That kicked off an adoption loop, as people brought work home on floppy diskettes to use on computers that already worked with their pre-existing office setups.

Again, kids: look at a Commodore Amiga before you start dissing Linux. You will see that the Amiga was more ready for the desktop in '86 than (arguably) Linux is today--and yet it failed utterly.

Frak
February 3rd, 2007, 06:15 PM
Again, kids: look at a Commodore Amiga before you start dissing Linux. You will see that the Amiga was more ready for the desktop in '86 than (arguably) Linux is today--and yet it failed utterly.

Well me must then learn from their mistakes and prepare for the future, they failed and we will prevail from their accomplishments, unlike the Amiga, we have a community that will exist indefinitely and continue to prosper until there is nothing more to be accomplished.

A little bit of foreshadow to Microsoft

Resistance is futile, Linux is Risen! :guitar:

John E
February 3rd, 2007, 06:54 PM
The mac lost because in real terms it was at least 50% more expensive than its competition. No matter how blingy its UI was (and it was pretty spiffy in '84!), corporate procurement types took one look at the sticker price and started phoning their IBM sales reps.
Well there's undoubtedly some truth in that but the Mac lost out for another important reason.... it couldn't multi-task.

Back in the eighties there was already a PC compatible GUI called GEM. It was way ahead of Windows and in fact, it looked almost identical to the 'Mac Classic' GUI of the time. Both GUI's look ancient by today's standards but in their time, they were state-of-the-art. Similarly however (and crucially) GEM couldn't multitask. Nor could DOS. Windows probably won out because it was the first affordable GUI with at least some semblance of multitasking (albeit rather bad multitasking). Unix (which had developed good multi-tasking by that time) made the mistake of positioning itself in the educational and R&D sectors, ignoring the business sector completely.

And the rest, as they say, is history..!

TheWizzard
February 3rd, 2007, 07:43 PM
I'm pretty new to Ubuntu but in my admittedly limited experience, it's very rare for an application to give me any choice about where it's going to install its files. Installing Edgy afreash, instead of upgrading from Dapper might be 'clean' but I'm going to lose an awful lot of stuff that I really need. If I could direct all my apps to install onto a separate volume, that would be preferable.

I'm reminded of the early days of Apple Mac - where, every time you upgraded your OS, you had to spend weeks re-installing all your favourite applications. Macs had lots of drawbacks similar to this - but poor hardware support & endless reinstalling were probably the single biggest reasons why they failed to gain widespread popularity.

There's a lesson to be learned there, methinks....

why did you upgrade? edgy is meant for more advanced users.

reinstalling ALL software is a piece of cake in linux. in your old system, make a list of all your programs like this:

dpkg --get-selections | grep -v deinstall > ~/backup/installed-software.log

after a clean install of your new system, install everything from your list like this:

sudo dpkg --set-selections < ~/backup/installed-software.log

John E
February 3rd, 2007, 07:55 PM
Paradoxically, I upgraded because I couldn't upgrade!! I know that sounds stupid but let me explain...

When I first installed Dapper, some kind of 'Upgrade Wizard' kept telling me that there were 206 upgrades available. About 7 of those were upgrades to the kernel. Some of the other upgrades (in fact most, as far as I could tell) seemed to begin by installing those 7 or so kernel upgrades. Unfortunately though, whenever I installed the kernel upgrades my system would subsequently refuse to boot into Ubuntu. Nobody had either an answer or an explanation for this so, in desperation, I upgraded to Edgy, just to see whether or not it would cure the problem.

I've only just upgraded a couple of weeks ago so I don't know yet whether or not my problem has been cured. I hope it has - because I've invested a lot of effort into Ubuntu!!

m.musashi
February 3rd, 2007, 08:27 PM
reinstalling ALL software is a piece of cake in linux. in your old system, make a list of all your programs like this:

dpkg --get-selections | grep -v deinstall > ~/backup/installed-software.log

after a clean install of your new system, install everything from your list like this:

sudo dpkg --set-selections < ~/backup/installed-software.log

Reading this thread has finally paid off. That is one useful bit of info. Thanks.

On a separate note, I switched to Linux (and Ubuntu in particular) because windows is such a pain in the *** to use. Case in point. I am trying to back up all my digital photos to DVD. These are still sitting on a windows partition (which I mount in Ubuntu) but I decided to boot windows and just back them up. Guess what? Windows doesn't support burning files to a DVD. WTF? It tells me to insert a recordable CD when there is already a DVD in the drive. I thought this was supposed to be "ready for the desktop". How can Windows not even support something as simple as burning a DVD? I had to do it in Ubuntu - which was surprisingly easy. And people complain about Linux?

aysiu
February 3rd, 2007, 08:43 PM
I thought this was supposed to be "ready for the desktop". How can Windows not even support something as simple as burning a DVD? I had to do it in Ubuntu - which was surprisingly easy. And people complain about Linux? Well, what I've learned from a lot of reading on both sides is that some things are easier on Windows than on Ubuntu. Other things are easier on Ubuntu than on Windows.

Frak
February 3rd, 2007, 08:48 PM
Well, what I've learned from a lot of reading on both sides is that some things are easier on Windows than on Ubuntu. Other things are easier on Ubuntu than on Windows.
Guess it just depends on the user?...

m.musashi
February 3rd, 2007, 08:53 PM
Well, what I've learned from a lot of reading on both sides is that some things are easier on Windows than on Ubuntu. Other things are easier on Ubuntu than on Windows.

Yeah, I know. I keep windows around for that exact reason. I just wanted to point out a simple example of a windows issue because I am tired of reading about how Linux isn't usable or that new users have to be experts. I think it's pretty funny that someone can buy a brand new windows box, take it home, and not be able to burn a dvd without buying or downloading additional software. Vista might address this, I don't know. My principal was trying to copy a cd to cd yesterday and apparently windows can't do that either without adding additional software. someone may point out that Ubuntu also needs software to do this but it is all installed by default so I don't think that counts.

chickengirl
February 3rd, 2007, 10:26 PM
Paradoxically, I upgraded because I couldn't upgrade!! I know that sounds stupid but let me explain...

When I first installed Dapper, some kind of 'Upgrade Wizard' kept telling me that there were 206 upgrades available. About 7 of those were upgrades to the kernel. Some of the other upgrades (in fact most, as far as I could tell) seemed to begin by installing those 7 or so kernel upgrades. Unfortunately though, whenever I installed the kernel upgrades my system would subsequently refuse to boot into Ubuntu. Nobody had either an answer or an explanation for this so, in desperation, I upgraded to Edgy, just to see whether or not it would cure the problem.

I've only just upgraded a couple of weeks ago so I don't know yet whether or not my problem has been cured. I hope it has - because I've invested a lot of effort into Ubuntu!!

When I was using Dapper, every time I got a kernel upgrade, grub would remake its bootloader list for me (as it's supposed to do) but it would be set to look for the linux drive in the wrong place. It would then try to boot, but would fail to find the root filesystem. (The first time it happened was when I dist-upgraded from Breezy to Dapper. I was freaking out until I noticed that where it was looking for the filesystem wasn't where I knew the filesystem was. I fixed it, and everything worked again, but every time I got a kernel upgrade, the same thing happened again.) It hasn't happened since I upgraded to Edgy, but I don't remember whether I've had a kernel upgrade or not.

Does that sound like what was happening to you?

Brunellus
February 3rd, 2007, 10:33 PM
Well there's undoubtedly some truth in that but the Mac lost out for another important reason.... it couldn't multi-task.

Back in the eighties there was already a PC compatible GUI called GEM. It was way ahead of Windows and in fact, it looked almost identical to the 'Mac Classic' GUI of the time. Both GUI's look ancient by today's standards but in their time, they were state-of-the-art. Similarly however (and crucially) GEM couldn't multitask. Nor could DOS. Windows probably won out because it was the first affordable GUI with at least some semblance of multitasking (albeit rather bad multitasking). Unix (which had developed good multi-tasking by that time) made the mistake of positioning itself in the educational and R&D sectors, ignoring the business sector completely.

And the rest, as they say, is history..!
say that again? Windows was essentially the GUI on top of DOS for many many years. Multi-tasking wasn't even considered all that *efficient* for most users until fairly recently.

The only computers that had to multi-task, back in the day, were in education and R&D, where there was a high concentration of computer-users and limited amounts of computer time. Multi-tasking arose out of time-sharing and scheduling problems--NOT any great desire for Joe Bloggs to have pretty widgets on his screen.

IBM's personal computer was designed as a single-operator, single-task computer. This fit well with the hardware they were trying to use as well as the intended target market. The computer was "reprogrammable" by the end-user to the extent that new program disks could be inserted and used for each new task.

For industry, this was fantastic: they had a bunch of "reprogrammable" computers that they could purchase in bulk at a reasonable price. Lotus 123--a spreadsheet!--put the IBM PC on the desks of corporate america. there was no thought given to multitasking or the desirability of the same.

By the time that Microsoft was developing Windows 95--which is really what it seems most people have in mind when they think of "windows," by the way, since Windows 1.0-3.1 were just graphical shells on top of DOS--they already dominated the operating system market, having benefitted from being *compatible* with the IBM PC and also the *cheapest* OS available. (CP/M was more expensive).

The victory was won in 1981-82. The consequences are being felt today. Desktop "readiness" wasn't even in the picture.

FLPCGuy
February 4th, 2007, 01:41 AM
say that again? Windows was essentially the GUI on top of DOS for many many years. Multi-tasking wasn't even considered all that *efficient* for most users until fairly recently.

The only computers that had to multi-task, back in the day, were in education and R&D, where there was a high concentration of computer-users and limited amounts of computer time. Multi-tasking arose out of time-sharing and scheduling problems--NOT any great desire for Joe Bloggs to have pretty widgets on his screen.

IBM's personal computer was designed as a single-operator, single-task computer. This fit well with the hardware they were trying to use as well as the intended target market. The computer was "reprogrammable" by the end-user to the extent that new program disks could be inserted and used for each new task.

For industry, this was fantastic: they had a bunch of "reprogrammable" computers that they could purchase in bulk at a reasonable price. Lotus 123--a spreadsheet!--put the IBM PC on the desks of corporate america. there was no thought given to multitasking or the desirability of the same.

By the time that Microsoft was developing Windows 95--which is really what it seems most people have in mind when they think of "windows," by the way, since Windows 1.0-3.1 were just graphical shells on top of DOS--they already dominated the operating system market, having benefitted from being *compatible* with the IBM PC and also the *cheapest* OS available. (CP/M was more expensive).

The victory was won in 1981-82. The consequences are being felt today. Desktop "readiness" wasn't even in the picture.
True. But why didn't the Desktop Ready Commodore's survive the IBM PC? Could it be Expandabilitiy and Open Architecture?

BuffaloX
February 4th, 2007, 03:09 AM
say that again? Windows was essentially the GUI on top of DOS for many many years. Multi-tasking wasn't even considered all that *efficient* for most users until fairly recently.


Erh what about CCPM, concurrent DOS, Amiga, Atari ST, QL, top view. UNIX.
All these had multitasking in the early and mid 80s.
In the beginning windows was used mostly justfor multitasking DOS apps...
Before that we had task switching in DOS, which was cool, but not nearly as efficient as multitasking. Even if it was only based on simple timeslice.

The need and desire for multitasking was there.
Both PC and MAC were very late with this.
The PC probably because 80x86 was a pain to program, and still is.
The MAC maybe because 68000 didn't have memory protection, and 68010-20 and 30 had compatibility issues.

The Amiga was light years ahead of both the PC and MAC, Even the lousy (IMO) Atari ST was better. (which makes PCs and MACs of the 80s really really lousy computers)
Well the Macs got much better in the early 90s, but at hefty prices 10000$ for a good MAC, and then another 10000$ for a monitor with graphics adaptor. The Amiga died, and we were all left in the stoneage for a while. At least us that couldn't or wouldn't pay 20.000$ for a proper MAC system.
Notuntil 95 did Microsoft reach about the same level of technology the Amiga OS had. 10 years earlier. At that time Apple still didn't have multitasking right, but by bying more RAM, you could work around it. Pro Apple users spend fortunes on RAM like you wouldn't believe. The average MAC having about 4 times more RAM than the average PC. (for the same job). Just to be able to multitask properly.
This was late 80s and early 90s But if you by fairly recently mean 15-20 years ago...
Then you are right.

I guess that by 95 it was obvious to all, how efficient multitasking is. Today it's expected, and probably most users here, have never tried a system that couldn't do multitasking, and never gives it a second thought.

John E
February 4th, 2007, 10:07 AM
IBM's personal computer was designed as a single-operator, single-task computer.Perhaps the very first ones were - but that's purely because neither Intel nor Motorola had a multitasking processor available. However, from the humble 80386 onwards, Intel had a major advantage over Motorola. The Intel advantage was called "protected mode" (known by Windows as "enhanced mode"). Protected mode was the mechanism by which applications could run in their own address space - which ultimately led to the "Virtual Machine" philosophy that we all take for granted today. Motorola never managed to achieve any equivalent to protected mode and this competely hamstrung Apple in the corporate market. Windows, as you rightly observed, couldn't do multitasking very well - but at least it could do it. PLUS it could run the old DOS applications. These were primarily the reasons for Windows' success.

In fact it wasn't until the arrival of the G3 processor (developed by a splinter group of former Motorola designers) that Apple finally achieved multitasking. this arrived in OS8, sometime around 1997 - at least 7-8 years too late!! However, OS8 still had to cope with the old 68030 and 68040 processors from Motorola so it was quite a half-baked attempt. It could multitask sometimes, but not all the time. It wasn't until Apple ditched Motorola and released OS9 that the Mac finally caught up with Windows and was truly able to run multiple apps simultaneously. Believe it or not, OS9 didn't arrive on the scene until 1999, almost 10 years after Microsoft released its first attempt at a multitasking OS (Windows 3.0). The multitasking capabilities might have been poor - but they were a revelation at the time.

saulgoode
February 4th, 2007, 10:38 AM
Perhaps the very first ones were - but that's purely because neither Intel nor Motorola had a multitasking processor available. However, from the humble 80386 onwards, Intel had a major advantage over Motorola. The Intel advantage was called "protected mode" (known by Windows as "enhanced mode"). Protected mode was the mechanism by which applications could run in their own address space - which ultimately led to the "Virtual Machine" philosophy that we all take for granted today. Motorola never managed to achieve any equivalent to protected mode and this competely hamstrung Apple in the corporate market.

The Motorola 68000, introduced in 1980 (six years before the Intel 80386), offered a "privileged system mode" which permitted multitasking. The Motorola 68010 (1982) added support for virtual memory. The Intel chips offered no advantage other than backwards compatibility with its (non-multitasking) predecessors.

Early MacIntoshes (much like the later Windows machines) offered cooperative multitasking whereby programs might allow another task to take over but pre-emptive multitasking was first made available (1985) in the Commodore Amiga (using the MC68000 processor and a very Unix-like OS); only later was pre-emptive multitasking availabe in Apples (1999 - Mac OS X) and MS (1993 - Windows NT) offerings (Radio Shack's CoCo3 had it in 1986). The decision not to have pre-emptive multitasking was not based on processor architecture.

John E
February 4th, 2007, 10:47 AM
When I was using Dapper, every time I got a kernel upgrade, grub would remake its bootloader list for me (as it's supposed to do) but it would be set to look for the linux drive in the wrong place. It would then try to boot, but would fail to find the root filesystem.

[...]

Does that sound like what was happening to you?
Possibly.... in my case, it seemed to pass the stage of mounting the root file system but then it gets to the stage of "checking the root file system". And at that point it would just hang there and go no further. If I tried to boot up in Recovery mode, the same thing happened.

I must admit, I had loads of problems with Dapper when it came to mounting and checking partitions - especially Windows partitions. I learned that it was safer not to mount any Windows partitons at all - not even FAT32 which was supposedly stable. Now, I only mount Linux partitions and things do seem to have become more reliable.

John E
February 4th, 2007, 12:40 PM
The Motorola 68000, introduced in 1980 (six years before the Intel 80386), offered a "privileged system mode" which permitted multitasking.

[...]

[Apple's] decision not to have pre-emptive multitasking was not based on processor architecture.
Well I'm happy to be corrected on that although my understanding of privileged system mode is that it was a mode under which the processor would allow unrestricted access to the system's resources (as distinct from Intel's 'protected mode' which allowed multiple processes to run concurrently). Nevertheless, the Commodore Amiga did offer pre-emptive multitasking, as did Next's Cube, so you must be right.

Back in the late 80's I worked in R&D for a digital audio manufacturer. I remember that we evaluated both the 68030 and 80386 for a new product range. The 68030 supported multiple processor designs in which it was superb at multitasking but we concluded that individual processors didn't really cut the mustard and eventually, we went with the Intel chip. I can't remember what exactly were the Motorola's drawbacks though.

Processor issues aside, Apple still made a lot of mistakes in its early OS's. The fact of having to re-install all your applications each time you upgraded your OS was never going to win it any friends in the corporate sector. IMHO, Apple never quite lives up to its own hype.

BuffaloX
February 4th, 2007, 02:30 PM
The decision not to have pre-emptive multitasking was not based on processor architecture.

The Amiga did very nice multitasking, and you are 99% right, except 68000 didn't have memory protection, which made multitasking a bit risky, because the OS couldn't protect programs from each other. One bad pointer in a program crashed the entire system.
68010 and later were not completely compatible with 68000. So programs written for 68000 often crashed on 68010 and later.

mshea
February 4th, 2007, 05:28 PM
I wasn't really sure where best to post this so I thought I'd post it here for talk and discussion:

For the past two weeks I've used Ubuntu to do nearly all of my computer-related tasks. Aside from three major applications: World of Warcraft, Everquest, and iTunes; it does everything I want it to do. It does it so well that I find myself seeking MORE things for it to do, which is, of course, a self-defeating principle. If I don't know what I want it to do, I don't need it to do it. I should move on and spend more time having fun, improving myself, or improving the world around me.

Ubuntu isn't perfect, however. It is difficult to set up and get running. You can't yet give it to your parents and expect to see them using it on their own machines after you've gone. Today I'll take a look at the major improvements Ubuntu needs to include in order to be a true competing operating system.

1. Improve Video Detection.

On installation with three different machines, Ubuntu 6.06, 6.10 and the alpha of Feisty Fawn didn't properly recognize my Dell 2405 widescreen monitor. It took countless google searches and trial-and-error editing of my /etc/X11/xorg.conf file to get my monitor at the right resolution.

Ubuntu also does not include native Nvidia device drivers for newer cards. The default nvidia driver is part of the problem with proper monitor detection. It is well known to the ubuntu community that Ubuntu includes no binary non-GPL device drivers but it won't be clear to new users.

Ubuntu should include better tutorials for the installation of proper device drivers.

2. Include better wireless LAN hardware detection.

I still can't get my TrendNET TEW-423PI card working and I don't think I ever will. Even venerable Linksys 54GWRT wireless cards don't seem to work perfectly every time. The Ubuntu community should work very hard to get wireless cards working in both desktop and laptop computers. They should also have a good list of recommended cards or even a certification body that determines what cards work well.

Again, I recognize the difficult in this situation. Card manufacturers write binary device drivers to support Windows XP because thats 99% of their market. They won't bother to release opensource drivers and the opensource community can't always reverse engineer cards to get them working in Ubuntu.

Still, if they want to make Ubuntu a viable platform, they need better support for out-of-the-box wireless support.

3. Improve the installation of critical binaries.

Any critical binaries that new users expect should be easy to get. People don't know that MP3 isn't a standard and, like it or not, the opensource community isn't going to convince anyone, even me, to convert their music collection to OGG.

Ubuntu should include a tighter integration with applications like Automatix and Easy Ubuntu to make it easier for new users to install the binary applications they need to get their system running as they expect it.

4. Automount NTFS disks for read and write.

Any user that wants to try Ubuntu likely will try it on an existing Windows machine. They want to read their data off of their windows drive. After hours of tweaking I can finally mount a NTFS disk for read only but I still can't get it to read and write. Worse, I had to reformat three external USB disks into FAT32 so that I could read them both natively in Ubuntu and Windows XP. That's too hard.

Ubuntu should include all of the necessary software to automount NTFS disks natively in read/write. I know its blasphemy and may be totally against the free nature of Ubuntu to directly support a Windows propriatary format, but giving users what they expect is the only way to shatter the shell of Microsoft.

5. Include better built-in help for device installation, binary software installation, and disk formatting information.

All of the above problems need to be better explained to new users. A new user tutorial should explain the difficulties with the support for closed-source software, device drivers, and disk formats. This tutorial should also make it easy to get that software, disks, and devices working.

6. Include better iPod support in Rythembox.

Apple controls the personal media player market. Rythembox has nearly all of what it needs for good iPod support except for a few things. First, it should have better support for iPod playlists. While it can read existing play lists, it can't seem to create new playlists or add new tracks to those playlists.

There is also no existing Linux application for easily adding video to one of the new video iPods. A drag-and-drop application that converts DVDs, xvid, divx, and other video formats into the propriatary video format for an iPod and then copies it TO the ipod would give a lot better support.

Until then, it looks like I might get a native xvid portable video player like the Creative Zen Vision M.

7. Include a better bit torrent client.

The built-in bittorrent client in Ubuntu is a lot slower at downloading files than something like Ktorrent. The inclusion of KTorrent as a default application would help a lot of folks get into the world of bittorrents.

8. Cut down the default task bars to one.

The default Ubuntu UI could be further simplified. Offer one taskbar instead of two and put all of the essential commands onto the task bar. Also add more default icons for the things users are most likely to use. For example, have icons on the task bar for Shell, Gedit, Openoffice Writer, Rythembox, Firefox, GAIM, a default media player (mine is VLC), and a folder for the users's home directory.

I love Ubuntu but it has a long way to go before a novice user can install it and get it working on the hardware we have today. Given the current state of closed-source hardware and software, it will be an up-hill struggle for the Ubuntu development group to turn Ubuntu into a true out-of-the-box replacement operating system.

moore.bryan
February 4th, 2007, 05:34 PM
the only one i disagree with is ipod support... it's better just to dump the apple firmware and use rockbox; that way, any fm can be used to move the music...
;-)

glabouni
February 4th, 2007, 05:39 PM
would have been wise to provide a link to rockbox (http://www.rockbox.org/)

M_the_C
February 4th, 2007, 05:46 PM
First of all great list. Only if we say what we don't like will it get fixed. I will try and answer some of your problems.


3. Improve the installation of critical binaries.

Any critical binaries that new users expect should be easy to get. People don't know that MP3 isn't a standard and, like it or not, the opensource community isn't going to convince anyone, even me, to convert their music collection to OGG.

Ubuntu should include a tighter integration with applications like Automatix and Easy Ubuntu to make it easier for new users to install the binary applications they need to get their system running as they expect it.
That is one of the major problems with Ubuntu, I don't mean a problem in that it is wrong but an obstacle to overcome.

Every distro has a main philosophy and Ubuntu's is only having open-source at the start. I don't think that proprietary packages should be installed as default but there should be a better explanation (maybe a file on the desktop) as to why these things aren't installed and how you go about installing them. You don't need automatix for that just give people a line the copy and paste into a command-line.


4. Automount NTFS disks for read and write.

Any user that wants to try Ubuntu likely will try it on an existing Windows machine. They want to read their data off of their windows drive. After hours of tweaking I can finally mount a NTFS disk for read only but I still can't get it to read and write. Worse, I had to reformat three external USB disks into FAT32 so that I could read them both natively in Ubuntu and Windows XP. That's too hard.

Ubuntu should include all of the necessary software to automount NTFS disks natively in read/write. I know its blasphemy and may be totally against the free nature of Ubuntu to directly support a Windows propriatary format, but giving users what they expect is the only way to shatter the shell of Microsoft.
NTFS mounting is still in beta as far as I know and adding beta software to an initial install would be very wrong. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be added when it has a fully stable release though, I mean we do have access to FAT32.


5. Include better built-in help for device installation, binary software installation, and disk formatting information.

All of the above problems need to be better explained to new users. A new user tutorial should explain the difficulties with the support for closed-source software, device drivers, and disk formats. This tutorial should also make it easy to get that software, disks, and devices working.
Help documentation is an area that still needs a lot of work. We need a team setting up that could read through peoples ideas for help documentation and integrate it into the installer and give easy access after installation.


6. Include better iPod support in Rythembox.

7. Include a better bit torrent client.

8. Cut down the default task bars to one.
These are not down to Ubuntu but down to the programmers of the software, I do agree that they need more work done but that is not a job for Ubuntu, it is a Linux wide problem.

As for the taskbars I disagree however, as I have said this is down to the individual projects, in this case Gnome, if you only want one taskbar try KDE or Xfce. I personally like the two taskbars and I think this is just down to personal preference.

meng
February 4th, 2007, 05:46 PM
I think these are reasonable suggestions, but to play devil's advocate:

A) Inclusion of closed-source/proprietary/restricted drivers/binaries/codecs is a vexed moral/legal issue. Ditto a seamless bind with Automatix/EasyUbuntu. Obviously there is a demand for such things, hence the rise of Linux Mint and PCLinuxOS and others. One question is, are we better off having Ubuntu and Linux Mint, or 2 Linux Mints?

B) I fear that if NTFS read-write access is the default, then more users will be exposed to the risk of losing their data. I could be wrong here, but my understanding is that NTFS read-write support has to be reverse-engineered, and hence the potential for a catastrophic event is higher. Hence the label "experimental". Personally I'm very comfortable with NTFS read-only access, as the risk of a disaster should be much lower.

Sammi
February 4th, 2007, 08:20 PM
1.
Video detection will get an overhaul, when version 7.3 of Xorg lands, as everything will be detected automatically and the old config file xorg.conf will be defunct. If all goes well then it should be included in feisty +1.
See here for more details:
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/11/13/2112259

4.
NTFS is a proprietary format that Microsoft owns. It has to be reversed engineered to be included in a Linux distribution. This has been a slow moving process, and for years only the read part has been stable and functional. Recently though, there have been big improvement to the write feature and it's currently in beta testing. Maybe it will be considered stable by the end of this year, maybe sooner, maybe later, who know.
See here for more details:
http://www.ntfs-3g.org/
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=217009

7.
I believe Ktorrent is the default bittorrent client on Kubuntu. As for regular Ubuntu: Ktorrent relies on the KDE libraries, which are too many MB's to be included on the standard Ubuntu install CD, so it's just not possible. There is another client that relies on the GTK+ libraries currently in development called Deluge. It's not even in beta testing yet though, so well have to wait a while for this one too.
See here for more details:
http://deluge-torrent.org/
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=308618

Brainfart
February 4th, 2007, 08:28 PM
1. Improve Video Detection.
...
Ubuntu also does not include native Nvidia device drivers for newer cards. The default nvidia driver is part of the problem with proper monitor detection. It is well known to the ubuntu community that Ubuntu includes no binary non-GPL device drivers but it won't be clear to new users.

This is a difficult problem to handle atm. Once the Free nvidia drivers are out though, it should be easier. Nonetheless, there's still people with ATI cards and I don't think that all ATI cards have Free driver support. Better up front documentation would be good, but it's hard to give that to someone who's just launched the installer and doesn't understand what drivers are. Hopefully we'll just get some good open drivers soon and it won't be a problem.


2. Include better wireless LAN hardware detection.

...

Still, if they want to make Ubuntu a viable platform, they need better support for out-of-the-box wireless support.Most of my hardware is pretty mainstream, so I've not had to do the driver hunting for anything. You might look to see if there's any way to use a Windows driver. I've not tried any desktop wireless cards, but I know the most common laptop chipsets are getting better and better support.


3. Improve the installation of critical binaries.

Any critical binaries that new users expect should be easy to get. People don't know that MP3 isn't a standard and, like it or not, the opensource community isn't going to convince anyone, even me, to convert their music collection to OGG.IIRC, most distros do not include MP3 support by default do to licensing issues. The patents for MP3 don't expire till 2010, and simply distributing them may have legal repercussions in some places. Ditto with libdvdcss.


4. Automount NTFS disks for read and write.

Any user that wants to try Ubuntu likely will try it on an existing Windows machine. They want to read their data off of their windows drive. After hours of tweaking I can finally mount a NTFS disk for read only but I still can't get it to read and write. Worse, I had to reformat three external USB disks into FAT32 so that I could read them both natively in Ubuntu and Windows XP. That's too hard.Have you tried using ntfs-3g? It's been beta for a few months now, but no guarantees (I haven't needed it anyways). Anyways, since NTFS is a closed format (no white paper/documentation), figuring out how it works has largely been trial-and-error. That's why you don't have full support for that; everything's still beta and probably will be for some time.


5. Include better built-in help for device installation, binary software installation, and disk formatting information.

All of the above problems need to be better explained to new users. A new user tutorial should explain the difficulties with the support for closed-source software, device drivers, and disk formats. This tutorial should also make it easy to get that software, disks, and devices working.Agreed on the first two, wondering how to do the third. Sure, an explanation of compatibility would be good. But what about the user who wants to install Ubuntu on their Windows box, but they don't have a free partition? Obviously, it would be great to just resize their old one and put Ubuntu next to it, but that's easier said than done. Unfortunately, most people don't know enough to perform that sort of administration to their own systems, and the data loss thing just isn't cool.


6. Include better iPod support in Rythembox.

Apple controls the personal media player market. Rythembox has nearly all of what it needs for good iPod support except for a few things. First, it should have better support for iPod playlists. While it can read existing play lists, it can't seem to create new playlists or add new tracks to those playlists.

...

Until then, it looks like I might get a native xvid portable video player like the Creative Zen Vision M.
I'm not sure on this, but I believe iPod support is similarly a guess-and-check engineering process. Getting everything to work is slow, but it's coming. 'Course, I could pose this question to you: why you bother supporting a company that releases closed source products and then complain about it? Oh, and using proprietary formats can be problematic (see MP3, libdvdcss).


7. Include a better bit torrent client.

The built-in bittorrent client in Ubuntu is a lot slower at downloading files than something like Ktorrent. The inclusion of KTorrent as a default application would help a lot of folks get into the world of bittorrents.Haven't compared bittorrent apps in Linux, but I do know that installing KTorrent on everything would make for additional bloat. Since it's a KDE app, it likely requires a large portion of the KDE libraries. For anyone not running KDE, that's extra overhead on disk, and definitely noticeable to load all those libraries into memory for a single app. (Noticeable being relative to how much you monitor disk and memory usage; most people probably don't.) Kubuntu ftw.


8. Cut down the default task bars to one.

The default Ubuntu UI could be further simplified. Offer one taskbar instead of two and put all of the essential commands onto the task bar. Also add more default icons for the things users are most likely to use. For example, have icons on the task bar for Shell, Gedit, Openoffice Writer, Rythembox, Firefox, GAIM, a default media player (mine is VLC), and a folder for the users's home directory.The two-taskbar setup is standard for XFCE and Gnome (I think... I haven't used Gnome for a long time...). KDE uses a single bar, making it quite similar to the appearance of a WIndows environment. Again, I don't remember how Gnome sets thigns up, but KDE has a quck-launch bar containing "important places" (home folder, attached media, and a couple others), a default web browser (Konqueror), and email client (Kontact). It's also very easy to add new ones.


I love Ubuntu but it has a long way to go before a novice user can install it and get it working on the hardware we have today. Given the current state of closed-source hardware and software, it will be an up-hill struggle for the Ubuntu development group to turn Ubuntu into a true out-of-the-box replacement operating system.Ubuntu is very easy to install. Aside from graphics drivers (which you did raise a valid point for), my system has worked perfect since I installed 6.10 (5.04 I had severe issues with and dropped it immediately). It even picked up my second network card, which most distro's haven't. There's a little ways to go before it automagically supports everything, but that progress is definitely happenting. Most distros are making the same progress.

I think the biggest problem I have with your post is a perceived lack of understanding towards Linux in particular. You said Ubuntu needs to do these things, but most of them are outside the scope of what Ubuntu specifically does. Driver support often comes from manufacturer or third parties; some drivers get packaged with the kernel. Filesystem support usually comes with the kernel, though the FUSE packages are also used (especially for ntfs-3g, and there's one other (ZFS maybe?) but I can't recall what it is). I don't what Ubuntu applies in terms of any patches to the kernel, but they certainly don't write their own from scratch. As to other software, it's mostly again from other sources. Gnome, KDE, Xfce all have their own teams working on them, as does almost any other software you have installed. Having Ubuntu specifically improve support for them would require a large amount of modifying of the others, and that would have to happen each time a new release came out. Rather, you should find which projects your requests are aimed at, and go to the upstream source directly. Besides, that'll help all the other distros as well. ;)

smnbrrtt
February 4th, 2007, 08:45 PM
I'm very disappointed. I was looking forward to finally dumping Windows but after one day of failing to set up an internet connection (thread: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=2105822#post2105822) i have to throw in the towel.

This is a straight forward set up in XP Pro, but after 9 posts i don't seem to be any closer to solving this one; and it makes me think, am i going to have the same trouble with all the other connections and drivers.

Thanks everyone who took their time to help me.

raul_
February 4th, 2007, 08:54 PM
Don't forget to ask for a refund. I'm curious though...did your connection work with the Live CD? If it did, then you messed up in the installation almost certainly.. Good Luck with XP though :)

Catsworth
February 4th, 2007, 08:55 PM
I had exactly the same feelings about a year ago.

Installed Ubuntu, and had nothing but trouble getting things to work.

About a month or so ago I finally realised that MS was nothing but a big mill-stone around my neck, and decided that I wasn't going to give any more money to Mr Gates.

I installed Ubuntu again, and I haven't looked back since.

Ok, so things haven't been easy and I've needed quite a bit of help to start to get things the way that I want them, and there are still some things that I can't get to work quite right, but it has all been worth it. To be honest I'm more than happy with Ubuntu, despite the hassle, and I know that things are going to get better still with each day that passes.

That said, I respect your decision - all I would ask is that you keep Ubuntu in your mind, and the next time you're fed up with Windows just give it another whirls - you never know, the second time it could all come together nicely :)

reiki
February 4th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Speedstream 4100 is, I believe, an "always on" DSL connection and if it's like the 5200 that I have then it may also have a built in router. Probably using PPPoA as opposed to PPPoE. If the Speedstream is configured as a dhcp server then Ubuntu only needs to know it will get it's IP information automatically.

teet
February 4th, 2007, 08:58 PM
8. Cut down the default task bars to one.

The default Ubuntu UI could be further simplified. Offer one taskbar instead of two and put all of the essential commands onto the task bar. Also add more default icons for the things users are most likely to use. For example, have icons on the task bar for Shell, Gedit, Openoffice Writer, Rythembox, Firefox, GAIM, a default media player (mine is VLC), and a folder for the users's home directory.

I prefer the two taskbars. It took a bit of getting used to I must admit. I really don't WANT everything crammed into 1 taskbar. I run 1024x768 resolution on all my machines so 1 taskbar is pretty tight.

Right now, my bottom bar is in the default configuration and my upper bar has the application menu, CPU usage, RAM usage, Network usage, date & time, weather, and 4 or 5 shortcuts to my most commonly used programs. There isn't a ton of space left on my top taskbar, and I actually like being able to see all of those things (e.g. weather and CPU usage) at any time without having to minimize a window.

-teet

IYY
February 4th, 2007, 09:07 PM
1. Improve Video Detection.

Video detection is already better than Windows, which usually gives you a 640 resolution with very few colours by default. It's also better than other Linux distribution. But of course, you're right; the more autodetection the better.


Ubuntu also does not include native Nvidia device drivers for newer cards. The default nvidia driver is part of the problem with proper monitor detection. It is well known to the ubuntu community that Ubuntu includes no binary non-GPL device drivers but it won't be clear to new users.

Ubuntu will include the Nvidia drivers in the next release, in a few months. There is a bit of a debate about this, because these drivers are closed-source and reside very close to the kernel. This can be dangerous, because carelessness by the Nvidia guys can cause major security issue. But like I said, it will be included in the next release.


2. Include better wireless LAN hardware detection.

Once again, wireless detection is much better than Windows. I don't think Windows autodetects any wireless hardware at all (at least none of the common wireless devices I own). Your proposal is a very difficult one; if a driver exists, it's already autodetected in Ubuntu. The hardware that is not autodetected is hardware for which the company did not write a driver, and did not release the specs. Reverse engineering is required for such devices.


They should also have a good list of recommended cards or even a certification body that determines what cards work well.

Many such lists exist, and if you buy a card that's listed on them, it will work. I have tested this many times.


3. Improve the installation of critical binaries.

This is illegal in some countries. Getting MP3 support is already as easy as copy/pasting a single line into the terminal.


4. Automount NTFS disks for read and write.

Write support is still not perfectly stable, and we don't want users complaining that Ubuntu has destroyed their Windows partition. However, I agree that NTFS disks should be automounted for reading. Once write support is perfected, it should also be automounted. I don't quite understand how it took you hours to get NTFS read/write to work... Just use the simple command in ubuntuguide.org and it works in seconds.


5. Include better built-in help for device installation, binary software installation, and disk formatting information.

More help is always good.


6. Include better iPod support in Rythembox.

It's getting better.


7. Include a better bit torrent client.

OS X and Windows don't include any Bittorrent client, and I've never had any problems with the default client as such. Certainly, there are better ones, but for novices who just want to download one or two files, this is not a problem.


8. Cut down the default task bars to one.

It's a matter of taste. I also prefer one taskbar, other users prefer two. More icons in the taskbars is not a good thing by default; it confuses the user, and doesn't look elegant. It's very easy to drag and drop the applications you use often into the taskbar.


I love Ubuntu but it has a long way to go before a novice user can install it and get it working on the hardware we have today.

That's also true about Windows, and any other Microsoft OS at any given time. It was never meant for novice users to install and configure. If it has been installed for them by an experienced users, even young children and the elderly can use Ubuntu.

smnbrrtt
February 4th, 2007, 09:13 PM
I had exactly the same feelings about a year ago.

Installed Ubuntu, and had nothing but trouble getting things to work.

About a month or so ago I finally realised that MS was nothing but a big mill-stone around my neck, and decided that I wasn't going to give any more money to Mr Gates.

I installed Ubuntu again, and I haven't looked back since.



I don't need convincing of the fact that Ubuntu would be better than MS, and i didn't expect it all to be plain sailing (does such an installation exist?), but my minimum requirement for such an adventure is a net connection; without it i've no way of getting help with the rest of the stuff.
Unfortunately, i can't afford the time it looks like taking to fix this.

Brainfart
February 4th, 2007, 09:14 PM
It's also better than other Linux distribution.
Actually, I've had better post-install results with a couple other distros, but they're all pretty close. And yes, they're all much better than Windows in that regard.

jimrz
February 4th, 2007, 09:14 PM
I prefer the two taskbars. It took a bit of getting used to I must admit. I really don't WANT everything crammed into 1 taskbar.


+1 I, too, prefer the 2 bar arangement of Gnome (and Xfce) and REALLY do not want a lot of default icons cluttering up my panel. Additionally, the deskbar applet can and does serve quite nicely to provide easy access to any frequently used function. Most of those you mentioned are in my Deskbar, so I guess that I would not object to it being loaded on the panel, with an assortment of common functions already in it, during the default Gnome intallation.

smnbrrtt
February 4th, 2007, 09:15 PM
Speedstream 4100 is, I believe, an "always on" DSL connection and if it's like the 5200 that I have then it may also have a built in router. Probably using PPPoA as opposed to PPPoE. If the Speedstream is configured as a dhcp server then Ubuntu only needs to know it will get it's IP information automatically.

Tried that with no result. I also tried configuring the Network settings with IP address etc. No result there either.

K.Mandla
February 4th, 2007, 09:19 PM
I'm very disappointed. I was looking forward to finally dumping Windows but after one day of failing to set up an internet connection (thread: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=2105822#post2105822) i have to throw in the towel.

This is a straight forward set up in XP Pro, but after 9 posts i don't seem to be any closer to solving this one; and it makes me think, am i going to have the same trouble with all the other connections and drivers.

Thanks everyone who took their time to help me.
Only a day? You mustn't give up so easily! Take a look at this poor fellow (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=125334), who spent a two weeks trying to get his wireless card going!

smnbrrtt
February 4th, 2007, 09:21 PM
Don't forget to ask for a refund. I'm curious though...did your connection work with the Live CD? :)

No, i was trying it with the LiveCD

smnbrrtt
February 4th, 2007, 09:26 PM
Only a day? You mustn't give up so easily! Take a look at this poor fellow (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=125334), who spent a two weeks trying to get his wireless card going!

Yeah, maybe i'll set aside my summer holiday to get the connection going and if that works i can complete installation at xmas.

mshea
February 4th, 2007, 09:39 PM
Thank you all for the wonderful replies. I'm new to the whole Ubuntu world so I'm very happy to see the constructive comments on my thoughts. Here are a few more thoughts i had based on the comments:

I think Ubuntu has two major challenges to face. First, it has to be a good usable operating system in a very complicated world. Most mainstream users, as one other poster mentions, doesn't even know what device drivers are. They just expect it to work. Building an OS that properly supports so much hardware is really hard to do.

Then you mix that with the idea that Ubuntu can't contain any proprietary software at all and it gets even more complicated.

As an interesting side note, I took an old machine of mine and a copy of Ubuntu 6.10 on CD. I got Ubuntu installed and running at the right resolution, playing music, videos, surfing the internet, and doing everything I expect a good OS to do in about an hour. All I had to install was Ubuntu and a few things from Automatix.

With the Nvidia driver installed, my monitor responded better but I still had to add "1920x1200" to the xorg.conf file. I am glad to hear there is a whole new Xorg coming out that should add better support.

I was also interested to hear about other flavors of Linux that include proprietary binaries. I agree, I don't think that all Linux distros need to be the same and having a truly free OS is an admirable goal.

But who exactly is it for? How many people install Ubuntu and DON'T install any of the proprietary drivers or codecs? What good is my PC if it can't play music, videos, flash movies, hook up wirelessly, or properly display on my monitor?

I also agree about the iPod. I plan on getting a more Linux friendly portable media player but there are very few. Even the Creative Zen Vision:M, the one I think I may get next, is still proprietary and requires Gnomad to work correctly. Only the Cowon A2 seems to be truly Linux friendly and its expensive and unpopular compared to the iPod.

I guess what I want is a replacement to Windows that still allows me to work with proprietary codecs and hardware devices. Maybe Ubuntu isn't the answer to it, but if it isn't I don't really know what Ubuntu is an answer for.

Don't get me wrong. I still love Ubuntu. It's the best version of Linux I ever used and, aside from iTunes and a couple of games, it could get me totally off of Windows. I just can't see it being mainstream until it is able to fit in better with the perception most people have about their PCs.

It should just work.

Thanks again for the great replies.

Mike Shea

kevinlyfellow
February 4th, 2007, 09:51 PM
3. Improve the installation of critical binaries.

Any critical binaries that new users expect should be easy to get. People don't know that MP3 isn't a standard and, like it or not, the opensource community isn't going to convince anyone, even me, to convert their music collection to OGG.

Ubuntu should include a tighter integration with applications like Automatix and Easy Ubuntu to make it easier for new users to install the binary applications they need to get their system running as they expect it.

...

8. Cut down the default task bars to one.

The default Ubuntu UI could be further simplified. Offer one taskbar instead of two and put all of the essential commands onto the task bar. Also add more default icons for the things users are most likely to use. For example, have icons on the task bar for Shell, Gedit, Openoffice Writer, Rythembox, Firefox, GAIM, a default media player (mine is VLC), and a folder for the users's home directory.


3. I've been convinced to use ogg. Why? because it has superior quality plain and simple. I never realized how poor quality mp3 was until I used ogg consistently. And then there are also patent issues...

8. I disagree that the taskbars should only be one. This is one thing that makes gnome unique and provides more room for the user to work. Your taskbar would simply be too overcrowded (kinda like an os with only one desktop). I can understand your argument if you were concerned about realestate, but you seem to be concerned about simplification, and no one I have known has been too confused over the layout (of course everyone first looks in the bottom left hand corner first, but one can easily find the applications menu). A big thing with gnome is that everything is always accessible, so you do sacrifice some realestate but I think for the better. Placing icons shortcuts on the taskbar is not very efficient until the novice learns what the icons mean, which is done perfectly fine in the applications menu...

well that was my 2 cents

Brainfart
February 4th, 2007, 10:54 PM
3. I've been convinced to use ogg. Why? because it has superior quality plain and simple. I never realized how poor quality mp3 was until I used ogg consistently. And then there are also patent issues...

Yeah, the quality thing is pretty nice from what I hear. I haven't done any comparisons myself, and I don't have enough incentive to convert all my current collection (not like the quality will go up, and then I'd have to change my windows player), but I do try to get new music in lossless formats.

Shay Stephens
February 4th, 2007, 11:02 PM
I don't need convincing of the fact that Ubuntu would be better than MS, and i didn't expect it all to be plain sailing (does such an installation exist?), but my minimum requirement for such an adventure is a net connection; without it i've no way of getting help with the rest of the stuff.
Unfortunately, i can't afford the time it looks like taking to fix this.

You can save all that time and trouble by just picking up a compatible network card. As soon as I did that, I have never had a lick of trouble with network/web again.

smnbrrtt
February 4th, 2007, 11:12 PM
You can save all that time and trouble by just picking up a compatible network card. As soon as I did that, I have never had a lick of trouble with network/web again.

So you're saying that my network card isn't compatible? It came fitted, i assume it's just a standard card. It seems silly to suggest i should start changing my hardware to be compatible. What next - graphics card, printer?

Trebuchet
February 4th, 2007, 11:23 PM
Ready for desktop means?

Personally, I think Linux is ready for anyone's desktop who would be willing to switch to a mac. Macs suffer from *some* of the same issues, a lot of the problem is hardware and pre-installation. If there were more actual Linux vendors out there who hand picked hardware that worked, you would see less of this "Linux doesn't work on my system" stuff.

Being ready for the desktop means that it should be less fragmented, and installation of programs from disk and so forth should be a point and click affair. The end user shouldn't HAVE to see the command line, but that tool should always be available, it's priceless. We're seeing that people understand that fragmentation is a problem (hence the forming of the Linux Foundation) and there is more concern with the LSB. Standards inside of the Linux community to make everything inter operable will be a huge step forward, as long as they're agreed upon.

I fully expect to start seeing logos on boxed Hardware in the future (probably HP stuff first) saying "Certified for LSB compliant Linux" or something similar.Although I have no plans to switch to Linux (although I do intend to use it) I too would like to see Linux-capable systems from the big makers. Most of the pre-built Linux systems such as those from Koobox or MadTux lack modern components such as dual-core processors and recent-generation video cards; in fact they're downright wimpy. If we can't convince dedicated Linux system builders to produce muscular Linux boxes with Core 2 Duo or Athlon 64 X2 CPUs, how can we expect Dell, Lenovo, or HP to do so?

koenn
February 4th, 2007, 11:23 PM
I was also interested to hear about other flavors of Linux that include proprietary binaries. I agree, I don't think that all Linux distros need to be the same and having a truly free OS is an admirable goal.

But who exactly is it for? How many people install Ubuntu and DON'T install any of the proprietary drivers or codecs? What good is my PC if it can't play music, videos, flash movies, hook up wirelessly, or properly display on my monitor?


some posters have already refered to it: proprietary software is 'owned' by someone/some company, and they decide how it can be used, distributed, and so on. If you, as a home user, install them afterwards, it's your problem in the (unlikely) event that the owner wants compensation for you using his software/drivers/... For a Linux distribution to include proprietary drivers, it would meen they need an agreement with / a licence from the owner to redistribute it. And if the owner is willing and able to give give that agreement/license (not all are willing, or may be prohibited by contracts with other operating system vendors), they may want compansation for it. That means money.

So it just mee depend on how deep Canonical's pockets are, or how many users are willing to give up their free beer.

insane_alien
February 4th, 2007, 11:51 PM
i liked the 2 taskbar arrangement of gnome but it quickly got crammed full of icons and was a mess, now i have 3 taskbars. its getting a bit crazy. i really should learn to be more organized.

Trebuchet
February 5th, 2007, 12:05 AM
i liked the 2 taskbar arrangement of gnome but it quickly got crammed full of icons and was a mess, now i have 3 taskbars. its getting a bit crazy. i really should learn to be more organized.With widescreen monitors becoming more common, what I'd like to see is toolbars on the sides rather than the top and/or bottom. I know you can move some to the sides, but they're really not optimized for that.

doobit
February 5th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Although I have no plans to switch to Linux (although I do intend to use it) I too would like to see Linux-capable systems from the big makers. Most of the pre-built Linux systems such as those from Koobox or MadTux lack modern components such as dual-core processors and recent-generation video cards; in fact they're downright wimpy. If we can't convince dedicated Linux system builders to produce muscular Linux boxes with Core 2 Duo or Athlon 64 X2 CPUs, how can we expect Dell, Lenovo, or HP to do so?

Actually, they already have them. I saw a link here somewhere...

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Sammi
February 5th, 2007, 12:27 AM
Why is the amount of panels even a topic of discussion, when it's so terribly easy to adjust?

And i really have to agree that one panel is just too little. Even is KDE, where there is only one panel, that panel is twice as thick as the one in Windows. I do think that MS has it wrong in this respect. Two panels are just more functional and productive.

Shay Stephens
February 5th, 2007, 12:35 AM
So you're saying that my network card isn't compatible?

It's possible.


It came fitted, i assume it's just a standard card.
Standard, maybe, but chances are if you are having trouble with it in linux it's not really standard, but more like a windows only type card that relies too heavily on windows to function properly. Buying a more standard network card may indeed solve your problems. It helped me.


It seems silly to suggest i should start changing my hardware to be compatible. What next - graphics card, printer?
Why does that sound silly? Would you expect all Ford car parts to work in a Nissan? Some standard stuff might, like certain light bulbs and such. Some won't work as well because they are not standard but tailored to one vendor. Would you buy Mac computer parts and expect them to work in Windows without problem? So it may be possible that if you had problems with your printer in linux, you might need to get a printer that is known to work in linux. I have a Samsung laser printer that I bought for windows, and it works just fine for linux. But my Dad baught a Dell A920 printer for windows a while back, and there was no way to get it to work in linux. He wound up buying an HP OfficeJet 6210 and it is working flawlessly now.

Most times when people have trouble with linux not working, it's because of hardware, not because linux sucks. Simply changing your hardware can work wonders and it saves a lot of grief and hassle in the long run.

mshea
February 5th, 2007, 12:53 AM
Yeah, the taskbar thing was probably not a good one to have on the list. It's taking attention away from the more important topics being discussed here.

I understand the concept that proprietary stuff needs to be kept out, although I now hear that the next version of Ubuntu will include those device drivers if not the mp3 and video codecs.

I just tried out Linux Mint and I like it a lot. Perhaps that is the sort of distribution that could help people get "into" Linux as a replacement OS.

I think the Ubuntu developers would do well to make it as easy and painless as possible to install video drivers and codecs for the most common media types (MP3, DVD). That way, as you say, the blame lies on the user although I don't know if that would hold up in a court if someone with deep pockets wants to be a real pain in the *** about it.

I also understand the NTFS thing, but a stable non-beta driver is really needed for at least Read access.

So I would reduce my "Eight Things to Improve" down to the following:

- Improve detection of proper video resolutions, hardware, and monitors.

- Add better wireless device detection and support.

- Make it very easy to install expected device drivers and media type codecs.

- Explain better why Ubuntu doesn't include these expected device drivers and media codecs.

- Automount NTFS disks for "Read" access.

- Include better iPod support.

Adamant1988
February 5th, 2007, 12:59 AM
Well me must then learn from their mistakes and prepare for the future, they failed and we will prevail from their accomplishments, unlike the Amiga, we have a community that will exist indefinitely and continue to prosper until there is nothing more to be accomplished.

A little bit of foreshadow to Microsoft

Resistance is futile, Linux is Risen! :guitar:

Yeah, because a few million developers/users arguing with each other, getting in stupid fights about the ideology of open source, and generally in-fighting as much as possible are a massive threat to an organized empirical company. Sure.

The day that linux distributions start working together is the day that Linux (as a collective) becomes a threat to Microsoft. Otherwise the biggest threat to Microsoft from Linux will continue to be individual Linux distributions that gain significant traction. In my Opinion RedHat Linux had the momentum to grow into a real threat, but they killed the desktop version of that. I think Novell is next in line.

FuturePilot
February 5th, 2007, 01:21 AM
If you want better iPod support use Amarok.

unbuntu
February 5th, 2007, 01:26 AM
I like the idea of having Linux certified hardware. Wouldn't it be totally cool to have a sticker on your rig saying "Designed for Linux"? :D But we all know, the truth of the matter is that won't happen any time soon.

MetalMusicAddict
February 5th, 2007, 01:33 AM
*sigh* Yet again, someone who doesnt fully understand how things work here.

meng
February 5th, 2007, 03:36 AM
Automount NTFS disks for "Read" access.
My NTFS partition WAS automounted for read access. I can't explain why it didn't happen for you.

mshea
February 5th, 2007, 04:03 AM
I have three SATA disks in my Ubuntu PC: an 80gb Ubuntu disk, a 320gb XP disk, and a 400gb data disk for both systems. When I boot Ubuntu, the 320gb XP disk is not automounted although, with a little fiddling, I can do it.

These past few weeks I've come to the conclusion that...

Ubuntu just works...after you fiddle with it for a couple of hours.

SunnyRabbiera
February 5th, 2007, 04:22 AM
You must understand that ubuntu is NOT a replacement for windows, NO OS can fully do what MS does as MS conned and crapped itself all over the software and hardware industry.
Most of your complaints are very silly or uneducated on the fundimental differences between MS and Ubuntu/ Linux.


1. Improve Video Detection.

On installation with three different machines, Ubuntu 6.06, 6.10 and the alpha of Feisty Fawn didn't properly recognize my Dell 2405 widescreen monitor. It took countless google searches and trial-and-error editing of my /etc/X11/xorg.conf file to get my monitor at the right resolution.

Ubuntu also does not include native Nvidia device drivers for newer cards. The default nvidia driver is part of the problem with proper monitor detection. It is well known to the ubuntu community that Ubuntu includes no binary non-GPL device drivers but it won't be clear to new users.

Ubuntu should include better tutorials for the installation of proper device drivers.
Most Dell monitor support is shaky at best, you must understand for the longest time dell has not been fair on its delivery of sources to linux.
This is not a flaw in Ubuntu, it is a flaw in dell
then there is the Nvidia issue, nvidia again is not the fault of Linux.
Now yes in the future more linux distros will support Nvidia, but thats gonna take some time.
THIS IS NOT A FLAW IN UBUNTU!


2. Include better wireless LAN hardware detection.

I still can't get my TrendNET TEW-423PI card working and I don't think I ever will. Even venerable Linksys 54GWRT wireless cards don't seem to work perfectly every time. The Ubuntu community should work very hard to get wireless cards working in both desktop and laptop computers. They should also have a good list of recommended cards or even a certification body that determines what cards work well.

Again, I recognize the difficult in this situation. Card manufacturers write binary device drivers to support Windows XP because thats 99% of their market. They won't bother to release opensource drivers and the opensource community can't always reverse engineer cards to get them working in Ubuntu.

Still, if they want to make Ubuntu a viable platform, they need better support for out-of-the-box wireless support.
If you know the situation why complain to us?
complain to Trendnet, complain to linksys not to us!
Like you said this is not our fault its not so easy to backhack and reverse engineer things but obviously you dont get that part...


Any critical binaries that new users expect should be easy to get. People don't know that MP3 isn't a standard and, like it or not, the opensource community isn't going to convince anyone, even me, to convert their music collection to OGG.

Ubuntu should include a tighter integration with applications like Automatix and Easy Ubuntu to make it easier for new users to install the binary applications they need to get their system running as they expect it.
This is mainly do to legal rights, a lot of companies own the rights to your favorite formats like MP3, Wav and other stuff.
Once again you IGNORE thre fact that Linux andf windows have different philosophies.


4. Automount NTFS disks for read and write.

Any user that wants to try Ubuntu likely will try it on an existing Windows machine. They want to read their data off of their windows drive. After hours of tweaking I can finally mount a NTFS disk for read only but I still can't get it to read and write. Worse, I had to reformat three external USB disks into FAT32 so that I could read them both natively in Ubuntu and Windows XP. That's too hard.

Ubuntu should include all of the necessary software to automount NTFS disks natively in read/write. I know its blasphemy and may be totally against the free nature of Ubuntu to directly support a Windows propriatary format, but giving users what they expect is the only way to shatter the shell of Microsoft.
We have been working on that, once again you ignore the fact that MS and linux are two digfferent OS's and have totally different ways of doing things.


5. Include better built-in help for device installation, binary software installation, and disk formatting information.

All of the above problems need to be better explained to new users. A new user tutorial should explain the difficulties with the support for closed-source software, device drivers, and disk formats. This tutorial should also make it easy to get that software, disks, and devices working.
Well this is why we have the forums and the IRC channels, the help doccumentation is no better on windows you know.
You learn more on your own then you can learn from some help file.


6. Include better iPod support in Rythembox.

Apple controls the personal media player market. Rythembox has nearly all of what it needs for good iPod support except for a few things. First, it should have better support for iPod playlists. While it can read existing play lists, it can't seem to create new playlists or add new tracks to those playlists.

There is also no existing Linux application for easily adding video to one of the new video iPods. A drag-and-drop application that converts DVDs, xvid, divx, and other video formats into the propriatary video format for an iPod and then copies it TO the ipod would give a lot better support.
Yet again you are ignorant of thre situation.


7. Include a better bit torrent client.

The built-in bittorrent client in Ubuntu is a lot slower at downloading files than something like Ktorrent. The inclusion of KTorrent as a default application would help a lot of folks get into the world of bittorrents.
there are millions of BT clients other then the default one included in the distro, installing a new one is brainlessly easy.


8. Cut down the default task bars to one.

The default Ubuntu UI could be further simplified. Offer one taskbar instead of two and put all of the essential commands onto the task bar. Also add more default icons for the things users are most likely to use. For example, have icons on the task bar for Shell, Gedit, Openoffice Writer, Rythembox, Firefox, GAIM, a default media player (mine is VLC), and a folder for the users's home directory.
This is a matter of personal preference, but the thing is it is easy to cut the taskbars down to one.
This one has to be the silliest one you have posted.

I honestly think you are a spambot, you repeated the same crap later on even after getting our explainations and with a name like mshea its no wonder...
MShea
M$hea
ring any bells folks?

meng
February 5th, 2007, 04:29 AM
Hey sunny, calm down! I think the point here is not that any of those 8 suggestions are inherently unreasonable, but that Ubuntu already fills a sizeable niche in the Linux market, and that it's not clear that changing certain aspects of the installation would be satisfactory for more users. And it's certainly not clear to me that Ubuntu needs to replicate what has been achieved by another distro (even another distro based on Ubuntu itself). But that's just my opinion.

mshea
February 5th, 2007, 04:41 AM
Yikes!

No, I'm not a spambot, I'm a new Ubuntu user who, for the most part, loves this OS (I'm running it on three machines now).

However, I look at computers as tools - devices that can do things to improve my life or entertain me.

"Most of your complaints are very silly or uneducated on the fundimental differences between MS and Ubuntu/ Linux."

I'm not trying to nitpick about the differences between XP and Ubuntu, I'm just trying to figure out how Ubuntu can take a pile of hardware and turn it into a machine that performs the functions people expect a PC to be able to perform including listening to music, watching movies or videos, surfing the web, writing documents, and emailing one another. Most of this works great in Ubuntu "out of the box".

You're right about complaining to an Ubuntu group instead of the hardware and software manufacturers who refuse to support Linux when 99% of their business is Microsoft.

However, my original post wasn't meant as a complaint but as a perspective on the state of Ubuntu for a novice user who just wants to get their machine to "just work" at doing the things we expect them to do. It wasn't an attack on Ubuntu - I love Ubuntu.

"Yet again you are ignorant of thre situation."

I agree completely and I think that's an important perspective for Ubuntu developers to hear. Exactly who is this OS built for and how can it best support them? Is it for hard-core hobbiests who like to spend a lot of time tweaking a system or is it truly "Linux for Human Beings"?

I'm not trying to get into a flame war here. I honestly love this OS and I want to try to do what I can to help. I am not a programmer, I am not a hardware designer, but I am a user. Perhaps as a user I can help look at the whole thing as a tool and help tweak it into shape.

Thanks for all the feedback, though - it has changed my perspective on the way things should be.

Just to prove I'm not a spambot, here's who I am:

http://mikeshea.net/About_Mike_Shea.html

SunnyRabbiera
February 5th, 2007, 04:43 AM
I am sorry but this just sounds too FUD.
there are plenty of other distros though, if he really wanted to give linux a shot he could easily try another distro out...
Mepis, PClinux, Sabayon, heck even Kubuntu are good (free) alternitives.
Note I did not put suse here because of its deal with the devil.

mshea
February 5th, 2007, 04:47 AM
Actually, one of the other threads pointed out Linux Mint which I just tried out. I like how it has mp3 and video codecs built in but it still doesn't contain built-in Nvidia or ATI drivers.

Did I hear correctly that Ubuntu 7.x will include these drivers in the distro?

SunnyRabbiera
February 5th, 2007, 04:50 AM
probably, linux mint is a good option for you.
but for Nvidia you are certainly not going to have a lot of luck.
one distro I can driect you to for nvidia is Mepis linux:
http://www.mepis.org/
Mepis has been a good distro for me in the past, it might just work for you nvidia issues.

meng
February 5th, 2007, 05:11 AM
Sabayon has an installer for proprietary video drivers.

SunnyRabbiera
February 5th, 2007, 05:23 AM
yeh sabayon is pretty good too, though it is gentoo based and that means a lot of time in the console... not recommended for beginners.

mysticmarks
February 5th, 2007, 06:10 AM
Everyone is here to see that the other os's are inferior to the combined desires of one gnu/linux community. I've used the other os and mastered the meyhem. Im here now. just like you. the suggestions only make sense from a windows view point. this is not the same thing. it is a way of mimicing form and function. this is not a DOS based os. it does not have paid rights to certain formats. If you're happy with those formats, fine keep buying. If not, pick up a programming book for dummies and get started! I'm in to my second C++ and my 3rd linux. GNU/Linux has been slow as it has taken a long time for the old programmers to get the support they have needed to get the work done. GNU/Linux is going to be infectious within 5 years. Do your part. Push for other os users to explore other options. be there to provide help for setup. document anything you do that no one else has done. read up on things you see havent come far, find out what you need to learn to help and help! start by asking when looking for pc hardware, "Will this be linux compatible?" Watch them twitch, throw a pitch(linux of course), then get the darn answer. support companies who support linux and open source in general. if they dont sell the hardware, they WILL change the software. if ubuntu isnt for you, heck. learn how its done and build a distro! I feel your pain with the torrent issue. thats very new too. for driver issues i would advise a little bit of research ahead of time, a usb mem stick, and some downloading. it will make the whole thing easier if your not having luck with the out of the box setup. my wireless wouldnt auto detect, i just picked to enable with a generic driver and set my key number and wep setup manually. worked fine. for the average user ubuntu...heck linux in general is a miracle. its the product of free minds freely working colaboratively. Really think about that when your using your very cool completely free operating system. Let's open the Windows, have some Apple pie, and enjoy something GNU!

PS- check this out and forget the ipod
us.tavi.com

tagginannie
February 5th, 2007, 09:26 AM
One thing would make it easy for new users of Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Eubuntu/Xubuntu
is Synaptic. Some will not understand "now open the terminal and enter, sudo
apt-get install package"

Suzy:KS

John E
February 5th, 2007, 12:36 PM
Yeah, because a few million developers/users arguing with each other, getting in stupid fights about the ideology of open source, and generally in-fighting as much as possible are a massive threat to an organized empirical company. Sure.

The day that linux distributions start working together is the day that Linux (as a collective) becomes a threat to Microsoft.
Absolutely spot on...! "Divide and Conquer" has been the maxim of many a great emperor.... and the maxim of many a great uprising is just as appropriate - "United we stand. Divided we fall." !!

saulgoode
February 5th, 2007, 12:56 PM
Absolutely spot on...! "Divide and Conquer" has been the maxim of many a great emperor.... and the maxim of many a great uprising is just as appropriate - "United we stand. Divided we fall." !!

I prefer Terry Pratchett's

"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions."

Frak
February 5th, 2007, 01:29 PM
I prefer Terry Pratchett's

"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions."
Haa!... Haa!... Exactly my sentiments!

(No offense to anybody, but) America is becoming more like this by the hour. We have officials neglecting what the "Free Man" has to say because [the officials] have their opinion and way more power!

John E
February 5th, 2007, 01:45 PM
Free men pull in all kinds of directions."
Yeah.... and get nowhere!! :)

Adamant1988
February 5th, 2007, 02:53 PM
Haa!... Haa!... Exactly my sentiments!

(No offense to anybody, but) America is becoming more like this by the hour. We have officials neglecting what the "Free Man" has to say because [the officials] have their opinion and way more power!

I've long thought that the American government (I'm an American citizen for the record) was in need of an overhaul. It's becoming increasingly clear that the people we put into office only have the lobbyists' interests at heart.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the Corporate States of America. And to the Republicans for which it stands, one nation, easily divisible, with liberty and justice for oil"

Back on topic though, a large organization with no focus is going to quickly divide into smaller ones that have it. The greatest amongst those smaller factions is either going to be crushed, or start gaining traction, possibly even absorbing the others. I've never heard of any movement being great by running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. No, the organizations behind any great movements were focused, knew what they wanted, and how to get it. The people who are behind Linux seem to lack that vision.

saulgoode
February 5th, 2007, 04:11 PM
Back on topic though, a large organization with no focus is going to quickly divide into smaller ones that have it. The greatest amongst those smaller factions is either going to be crushed, or start gaining traction, possibly even absorbing the others. I've never heard of any movement being great by running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. No, the organizations behind any great movements were focused, knew what they wanted, and how to get it. The people who are behind Linux seem to lack that vision.

What is your criteria for "great"?

Brunellus
February 5th, 2007, 04:15 PM
I don't need convincing of the fact that Ubuntu would be better than MS, and i didn't expect it all to be plain sailing (does such an installation exist?), but my minimum requirement for such an adventure is a net connection; without it i've no way of getting help with the rest of the stuff.
Unfortunately, i can't afford the time it looks like taking to fix this.
then move to the operating system that enables you to be productive.

There's no-one holding a gun to your head insisting that you use Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution; if things don't work for you now, check back in a year or two and we'll see what w can do for you.

I might have abandoned Linux early for pretty much the same reason, but I had no other choice--it was Linux or no OS at all, and I was desperately trying to get my only comptuer up and running again.

Adamant1988
February 5th, 2007, 04:15 PM
"Great movement" in my opinion, would be a movement that introduced a change in society, etc. successfully.

Brunellus
February 5th, 2007, 04:17 PM
"Great movement" in my opinion, would be a movement that introduced a change in society, etc. successfully.
What's your definition of success?

Remember, Chou En-lai was asked sometime in the '50s or '60s about whether the French Revolution had been successful. His response:

"Too soon to tell."

Adamant1988
February 5th, 2007, 04:21 PM
Successful as in "introducing the desired changes", or accomplishing your goals. Let's say for instance that I was working towards people being able to actually have a choice of OS in the PC market. Success would then be if the largest of distributors (the ones that account for the majority of sales) were to start offering an alternative OS

saulgoode
February 5th, 2007, 04:25 PM
"Great movement" in my opinion, would be a movement that introduced a change in society, etc. successfully.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree then. I tend to place "greater" store in the worthiness of a goal than its potential for being successfully attained.

Adamant1988
February 5th, 2007, 04:29 PM
Well, you don't have to agree with great movements. Many people didn't agree with the "black liberation" thing, but that was for the common good as well. They accomplished a lot of what they set out to do in my opinion.

koenn
February 5th, 2007, 07:32 PM
mysticmarks, do you write your C++ the same way you write that post. Man !
Try some indentation/puntcuation, and a bit of whitespace here and there. It helps to make your code / text readable :)

drfalkor
February 5th, 2007, 07:34 PM
I agree with all of your points, but not the ipod thingy- And, it would be great to have better printer, scanner and wireless support :)

JAPrufrock
February 5th, 2007, 08:05 PM
In my opinion, if we want new users to adopt Ubuntu as their OS (to me this has the highest priority), the top ways to improve Ubuntu would be the following:
1) Monitor recognition and video driver support - if the screen goes black (or gray), that's about it for a new user.
2) Fast and easy modem installation- if you can't get on-line, more or less from the beginning, staying with Ubuntu is pretty difficult. For instance, where I live, for a long time the best connection was via ISDN. The ISDN modem and computer I used supported a serial com port, so I was able to install the modem. However, if I had had only a USB port (like most laptops), I would have had to reconfigure the kernal to get it working.
3) Printer driver support- hard to do when vendors keep driver information proprietary. Even so, a new user usually comes on board with whatever printer he/she happened to be using with Windows. If it's a Lexmark (and others), it may be difficult getting the printer to work. Even with supportive companies like HP and Epson, printer drivers may not work as well with Ubunu as with Windows.

Quillz
February 5th, 2007, 08:15 PM
the only one i disagree with is ipod support... it's better just to dump the apple firmware and use rockbox; that way, any fm can be used to move the music...
;-)

The only problem I have with that is that if your iPod messes up, you're out of warranty.

FyreBrand
February 5th, 2007, 08:31 PM
Successful as in "introducing the desired changes", or accomplishing your goals. Let's say for instance that I was working towards people being able to actually have a choice of OS in the PC market. Success would then be if the largest of distributors (the ones that account for the majority of sales) were to start offering an alternative OSIf I already have a viable choice and I made it. If I waited for Dell or other corporate suppliers to decide [for me] what is ready or not then I would still be sitting at boring unproductive WinXP.

If I waited my whole life for success to be defined for me I would never accomplish anything at all. Not only is Linux ready for my home desktop it also does more for me at work.

There are "unsuccessful and not ready" voices, but there are also "it's working better than I ever thought it would" voices too. That is where I begin to measure success.

prizrak
February 5th, 2007, 08:54 PM
I only agree with #7 better BT client. I'm not saying we need a full uTorrent port (that would be nice) but a client that can manage multiple DL's in one window and a global UL limit (not just per torrent) would be great.

As for the rest, it's all been chewed over and digested and pooped out so many times it's not even funny anymore. I think the staff should feel free to merge it into the "linux win" megathread.

Hendrixski
February 5th, 2007, 09:04 PM
Welcome to the open source community. The software you are using is not someone elses, it is YOURS. If you don't like it you are free to change it however you see fit. If others like your changes then they accept it into the final version. Kind of like Wikipedia.

That is why it's called FREE software. Free as in Freedom, NOT as in free beer (although that's a good benefit of much of Linux is that it's also free as in Free Beer). I encourage you to download the source-code and make the changes you proposed and then turn your visions of a better operating system into a reality!!!

Brainfart
February 5th, 2007, 09:17 PM
Welcome to the open source community. The software you are using is not someone elses, it is YOURS. If you don't like it you are free to change it however you see fit. If others like your changes then they accept it into the final version. Kind of like Wikipedia.
QFT
Come on people, if you don't want it to be like Windows, don't act like it's Windows. There's a whole different culture here. Traditionally it's been a lot more hand-on, and less n00b-friendly. People contribute to the projects they find interesting, making those better. If you want a certain something to improve, contribute to it yourself, don't sit around whining about it.

If you do just want everything served on a silver platter....

And please people, stop repeating the things that have been discussed and shelved already in this thread. If you don't read through it, you won't be able to contribute properly...

koenn
February 5th, 2007, 10:19 PM
Welcome to the open source community. The software you are using is not someone elses, it is YOURS. If you don't like it you are free to change it however you see fit. If others like your changes then they accept it into the final version.
...
I encourage you to download the source-code and make the changes you proposed and then turn your visions of a better operating system into a reality!!!

Come on, that's way too easy. How many Ubuntu users do you think actually know anything about programming ? Among those, how many know it well enough to understand something complex as source for a kernel, or something as elaborate as an office suite ? And then, how many of those few are actually capable of modifying that code without braking it, let alone improve it.
Yet you seem to be saying : if you're not capable of doing exactly that, you have absolutely no right to say anything against this wonderful operating system.

Hendrixski
February 5th, 2007, 10:41 PM
Come on, that's way too easy. How many Ubuntu users do you think actually know anything about programming ? Among those, how many know it well enough to understand something complex as source for a kernel, or something as elaborate as an office suite ? And then, how many of those few are actually capable of modifying that code without braking it, let alone improve it.
Yet you seem to be saying : if you're not capable of doing exactly that, you have absolutely no right to say anything against this wonderful operating system.

Everyone actually. The hardest part of programming is being creative. Once you have that then learning to implement your creative vision is just a matter of working in a group to put together the syntax, the convention, and the design to make it look and act and feel the way you wanted it to. It's like art.

What's the difference between writing software and posting a video on YouTube, or editing an article on Wikipedia? The only difference is the tool with which you do it.

I am in no way saying that if you can't program then you have no right to... whatever. I am saying that users like the one who started this thread have a few valid points and they have the freedom to put these changes into effect. That freedom is granted to them because they are using open source software.

koenn
February 5th, 2007, 10:50 PM
It's like art.
Yes, it is. Or it can be.
Ever learned a second language ? To the point you can have a fluent conversation in it ? To the point you can write a novel in it ? A good one ? That's about how difficult programming can be.

Ever read a book ? Had an opinion about it ? Wanted to voice that opinion ? And what if someone then tells you : you're not entitled to that opinion, and certainly not entitled to voice it. Write your own novel (in a language that you still have to learn first).

Hendrixski
February 5th, 2007, 10:54 PM
QFT
People contribute to the projects they find interesting, making those better. If you want a certain something to improve, contribute to it yourself, don't sit around whining about it.

If you do just want everything served on a silver platter....


I agree. The user who started this thread sounded interested in making some of these projects better. I certainly hope that they pursue their interests and contribute. :)

Hendrixski
February 5th, 2007, 11:01 PM
Yes, it is. Or it can be.
Ever learned a second language ? To the point you can have a fluent conversation in it ? To the point you can write a novel in it ? A good one ? That's about how difficult programming can be.

Ever read a book ? Had an opinion about it ? Wanted to voice that opinion ? And what if someone then tells you : you're not entitled to that opinion, and certainly not entitled to voice it. Write your own novel (in a language that you still have to learn first).

Three languages actually. To the point where I conduct business in them regularly.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said they're not entitled to their opinion, nor that they shouldn't express it. I said that they are welcome to make the changes they see fit with a little effort. That they are reading a book which, if they don't like a part of it, they are able to make the changes to that book. Just like if they don't like how something is presented in Wikipedia they can change it.

koenn
February 5th, 2007, 11:11 PM
Seriously, do you think modifying a page in a wiki ican be compared with learning a programming language and then quickly change a couple of things in the source of an application ?
And that those who can not accomplish something 'that simple' should just stop whining ?
(not putting words in your mound, just giving feedback on how that post of yours sounded to me)

Adamant1988
February 5th, 2007, 11:43 PM
If I already have a viable choice and I made it. If I waited for Dell or other corporate suppliers to decide [for me] what is ready or not then I would still be sitting at boring unproductive WinXP.

If I waited my whole life for success to be defined for me I would never accomplish anything at all. Not only is Linux ready for my home desktop it also does more for me at work.

There are "unsuccessful and not ready" voices, but there are also "it's working better than I ever thought it would" voices too. That is where I begin to measure success.

Unfortunately, pre-loaded sales are probably going to decide when you can get any kind of real commercial software for Linux.

FyreBrand
February 6th, 2007, 12:10 AM
Unfortunately, pre-loaded sales are probably going to decide when you can get any kind of real commercial software for Linux.Commercial software is for businesses. There is already a lot of enterprise software written for Linux and Unix.

The personal software is already there. There really isn't anything I need for development that isn't in the repositories. I have a complete development environment at my fingertips including compilers, editors/ide's, versioning tools, and the ability to edit and make changes live over a network or ssh/ftp connection. I have a solid web development server on my home system that is free and easy to install.

There is always room for improvement in the OS and the applications. But then again that's true of almost every piece of software out there. The term "in beta" is vastly underused and applied in both the enterprise, "commercial", and personal sectors.

RichPicker
February 6th, 2007, 01:30 AM
Geeze. I have to say this. I've use most every Mac OS, most every Windows OS, OS/2, OS/2 Merlin, and others I can't remember. This is the most problematic of them all. This is extremely frustrating. I get one thing fixed, and another thing has a problem. Is there ever REALLY an end to the set-up and maintenance of this operating system?

I have replied to the "enter at least one tag" instruction. Yet, it won't post. I've tried at least eight times. I've never had this much trouble. I truly regret installing this.

maxamillion
February 6th, 2007, 01:37 AM
Then uninstall it and use something you like. Linux isn't about forcing you to use something you regret, its about freedom of choice.

I would be willing to bet your issues are rare or off the wall, I have been running linux for 7 years on an array of hardware in many different configurations without a single problem (well, there was this one wifi card ... but it isn't linux's fault broadcom won't release a driver).

STREETURCHINE
February 6th, 2007, 01:37 AM
why dont you post a list of your problems and we may be able to help,

maxamillion
February 6th, 2007, 01:39 AM
why dont you post a list of your problems and we may be able to help,

I was just about to edit my post and add something along those lines with an "or" statement added to the front of it :)

ardchoille42
February 6th, 2007, 01:40 AM
Posted on wrong thread, sorry about that.

kevinlyfellow
February 6th, 2007, 01:43 AM
deleted

aysiu
February 6th, 2007, 01:43 AM
why dont you post a list of your problems and we may be able to help,
Yes, if you have a specific support question, post one, and people will be glad to help you get things working.

In the meantime, I'm keeping the rants about Linux's readiness in this thread.

Trebuchet
February 6th, 2007, 01:58 AM
Why is the amount of panels even a topic of discussion, when it's so terribly easy to adjust?

And i really have to agree that one panel is just too little. Even is KDE, where there is only one panel, that panel is twice as thick as the one in Windows. I do think that MS has it wrong in this respect. Two panels are just more functional and productive.To be fair, the taskbar in Windows can be easily increased in size simply by dragging the top edge up or dragging it to the left or right sides of the monitor. Since I prefer an uncluttered desktop, I keep it narrow and place as few icons on the desktop as possible. (I keep only 13 icons along the bottom edge just above the taskbar.)

mshea
February 6th, 2007, 03:22 AM
I just thought I'd send a quick update. I tried a bunch of different distros and the one that impressed me the most was Kubuntu. It let me set my resolution without downloading and installing a different video driver. It has a very streamlined interface for downloading support for mp3s and other video files. Amarok includes excellent ipod and podcast support and comes default in Kubuntu.

In short, Kubuntu meets a lot of the needs I mentioned. Still no wireless support though.

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 03:30 AM
I just thought I'd send a quick update. I tried a bunch of different distros and the one that impressed me the most was Kubuntu. It let me set my resolution without downloading and installing a different video driver. It has a very streamlined interface for downloading support for mp3s and other video files. Amarok includes excellent ipod and podcast support and comes default in Kubuntu.

In short, Kubuntu meets a lot of the needs I mentioned. Still no wireless support though.
I've also been pleasantly surprised by Kubuntu. I installed it out of boredom the other day, but it was so easy to set everything up I'll probably use it as my main OS on this computer for a while (i.e. till I get bored again).

euler_fan
February 6th, 2007, 03:45 AM
Much of what is on this list, unfortunately, is the cost of going open-source. Fortunately, there seems to be decent alternatives the longer and harder one looks. Then again, with new monitors, wireless cards, media formats, etc. coming out all the time we will likely never be rid of the issues until Linux us the standard instead of windows.

Mr Nick
February 6th, 2007, 06:37 AM
I was converting mp3 music files to OGG, in windows before I installed Ubuntu. And yesterday...I began to transfer them over to Ubuntu via email. And yes the music is notably better from the OGG files.

aysiu
February 6th, 2007, 07:14 AM
probably, linux mint is a good option for you.
but for Nvidia you are certainly not going to have a lot of luck.
one distro I can driect you to for nvidia is Mepis linux:
http://www.mepis.org/
Mepis has been a good distro for me in the past, it might just work for you nvidia issues.
In fact, one could easily retitle this thread: "I want to use Mepis and not Ubuntu, after all!"

Brainfart
February 6th, 2007, 08:00 AM
Or we could suggest peoply give LFS a try... :twisted: :twisted:

Oh, you meant they wanted it easy...

Adamant1988
February 6th, 2007, 04:27 PM
Commercial software is for businesses. There is already a lot of enterprise software written for Linux and Unix.

The personal software is already there. There really isn't anything I need for development that isn't in the repositories. I have a complete development environment at my fingertips including compilers, editors/ide's, versioning tools, and the ability to edit and make changes live over a network or ssh/ftp connection. I have a solid web development server on my home system that is free and easy to install.

There is always room for improvement in the OS and the applications. But then again that's true of almost every piece of software out there. The term "in beta" is vastly underused and applied in both the enterprise, "commercial", and personal sectors.

I should have been more clear. "Commercial software" as in produced by a company for consumers to buy or use. Games, in my opinion, apply under this. Stupid IM clients that actually work with webcams (not GAIM) apply undert this as well, in my opinion. Things of that nature.

FLPCGuy
February 6th, 2007, 07:27 PM
Commercial software is for businesses. There is already a lot of enterprise software written for Linux and Unix.

The personal software is already there. There really isn't anything I need for development that isn't in the repositories. I have a complete development environment at my fingertips including compilers, editors/ide's, versioning tools, and the ability to edit and make changes live over a network or ssh/ftp connection. I have a solid web development server on my home system that is free and easy to install.....
Yes, this is one of the best things about Linux. The only way to squash Linux would be to deny it hardware. That's exactly what Vista's digitally signed hardware & DRM program is designed to do. Ostensibly it is to protect the digital copyrights of the recording and motion picture industries but M$ took the extraordinary approach of making hardware vendor agreements the will preclude the release of design specs thereby denying Linux driver support.

Since Linux is already sorely lacking in driver support, this new arrangement could be the end for Linux as a desktop ready alternative in the high definition digital era we are entering.

chashock
February 6th, 2007, 11:37 PM
As a user who is in the process of switching from Windows to Linux on the desktop (I've used RH for years on several of my servers), I think that if Ubuntu (or any desktop Linux) is going to give Vista a serious run for the money, these things need to be considered and worked into the development cycle:

Navigation

Be honest with ourselves. The vast majority of the user base knows how to use Windows and is comfortable with it. Can they hack the registry? No. But they know where their programs are installed, and they don't have to type 8 command line switches to make sure they get installed in the "right" place. They don't have to worry about fonts being there when they're needed. They know that if they pull up the control panel, they can change the way the buttons work on the fancy new keyboard and mouse their grandkids just got them, and they don't have to go hunting for 12 variants of 6 different libstd++cgcc++--2.2.c.5 and worry about how to sudo gedit areyoukiddingmethisisreallyhardtounderstand.conf.

For Desktop Linux to be highly successful in the marketplace, it must first be simple to use. Simple in every aspect, not just installation (most users won't install their own OS anyway).

Application Support

If we want to undo the Windows world, we have to allow simple users to migrate easily. For some of us, WINE is easy (I'm not one of them, and I know my way around vi and emacs). If you want me to load Ubuntu on the 20 or so family desktops I support, you better be able to easily install and run TaxCut Deluxe and Quicken, without requiring the user to understand the complex inner workings of an OS. That's why people like Windows. Insert CD. CD plays. Click I agree Next Next Next Next Next and I'm doing my taxes. WINE is a terrific concept and for some things it works flawlessly, but instead of working on the core OS, perhaps working on compatibility and App Support should be the next order of the day.

Eye Candy

I don't think this is as important as many people do. Most people that aren't IT oriented don't really play around with their look and feel. At most, they might make a picture of the wife and kids their background. How many desktops have you seen of the average user that change the window border color? I agree with the comments about making it easier to change the desktop background, but as for the rest of it, I don't think the average user cares.

Flexibility

Flexibility is why I am in the process of switching away from Windows. However, flexibility is also killing me right now. I don't know all of the packages that can do all of the things I might want to do. In other words, I don't know what I don't know. Simplify the flexibility by masking it with default parameters. Allow me to get beneath the covers (which MS has never really allowed us to do) and use KDE over GNOME if I want, but all the variants for the X environment and 3 different ways to get advanced mouse control and 8 different video drivers noen of which actually give me full video card control KILLS this as a suitable environment for 90% of the desktop computing world. Things have to be easy and intuitive for users to widely adopt this as their new computing environment. I've been using Vista for some time, and that is one key area where it falls short. MS has changed so many things that there is going to be a huge learning curve for most people to undergo, and many will be frustrated by these changes.

aysiu
February 6th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Since you didn't have any technically specific suggestions, I've moved your post here.

It doesn't make sense to say people like Windows because it runs Quicken. Windows doesn't run Quicken. Quicken runs on Windows. Microsoft didn't create Quicken or most of the programs it runs. Microsoft creates Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, and a few other applications.

You also exaggerate the problem of applications and installing. Synaptic takes care of most program installation needs, requires no command-line use, and also requires no knowledge of where program files go.

Adamant1988
February 6th, 2007, 11:52 PM
CNR is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. With CNR becoming readily available for Ubuntu, OpenSuse (My personal choice for a linux distro), Fedora and so on, installing applications is going to get so easy it'll be rediculous. Frankly, I intend to hold an account as long as the CNR service is shown to NOT hose the install it's put on. I don't want to destroy my sytem.

Ubuntu's gnome installation program is simple and easy, and I like it. But you can get more information from CNR, along with more features. Ubuntu's Gnome-app-install comes in right behind that in terms of ease of use. I, personally, can use Synaptic, and all of those programs with no problem, however; people anymore are more interested in seeing the picture and a paragraph format that you would typically get on a shareware site like download.com and so forth. It just LOOKS more friendly.

Personally, I think the whole "Application" point is going to become worthless in the very near future. Zoho's office suite is shaping up very nicely, I love it. Really the only things your going to need to be productive on your computer in the future will be a browser that works for your sites, and that will be about it. Operating system choice will mean a LOT less when everything is done inside your browser. I'm sure it will open up all kinds of new problems, but it'll solve a lot of the current ones.

clothrh
February 7th, 2007, 02:18 AM
I've been using Ubuntu for almost three months now, exclusively on one PC and in a dual-boot setup with XP on my newer PC (I've only used the XP a couple times since then to update my Zune mp3 player) and I find it very easy to use. I'm an above-average computer user, but other than a stupid Fortran 90 class I had to take I don't have any coding experience.

I have been aware of Linux since the mid-90s, but I never tried it because I didn't know anyone who used it. A friend of mine has been using various distros (he's currently raving about Fedora Core 6) running media-servers and the occasional desktop, so I started asking him questions about it. His response was "Read, read, read." I believe this typical response scares many from trying linux. In actuality, I didn't really have to read too much until I started to try stuff like beryl. I finally just went ahead and installed dapper from the live CD, and I haven't looked back.

I'm going to go out on a limb here (a very short one I believe) and say that most PC users, even most of those that use PCs all day in their work, would not have the patience for a linux install, and getting everything ready to use. The install from the live CD was extremely easy, but incomplete. For instance, having to manually install codecs to play my old windows files, video drivers for 3d acceleration (and to get the right screen resolution), and having to use alsamixer to get the sound working was way to much trouble.

At the same time as I make these complaints, I have been encouraging my friends to use Ubuntu for their desktop. The average user doesn't want to know how to configure xorg.conf for instance, but does want to be able to watch and listen to streaming video. Once Ubuntu is installed and setup, its beautiful.

Ubuntu is ready for the desktop!

Just like most windows users buy a PC with windows already on it, and take their box to the store or a friend to upgrade windows, this is the way to get linux in the mainstream.

Suggestions:
Streamlining the install of Ubuntu is definitely a major step forward. Automate driver installation. Get the graphical partitioner on the Live CD to work properly (it was a pain in the *** to partition my drive for the dual-boot). Get the Live CDs in stores!!! (sell it cheap too, like $5 to cover costs) Try distributing through University bookstores, as there are innumerable computer geeks in college.

Just a few ideas, I love Ubuntu.

PS I have to admit I was a little apprehensive about having to use the terminal (kinda like having to learn DOS all over again) but I kinda get exited when I get to use it now.

John E
February 7th, 2007, 12:08 PM
I'll take 10/1 that it will take 0 seconds to install the Linux drivers.
Sorry Darren, you lost the bet. The Windows driver exceeded my estimate, taking just 15 seconds to install plus a re-boot. New sound card has worked perfectly ever since.

Linux driver...? Well, so far, I've spent the entire morning following the instructions in the Comprehensive Sound Problem Solutions Guide (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=205449). Not only have they failed to produce a working sound card - they also conveniently uninstalled my twin-monitor, dual-head graphics driver, putting me back to a single monitor display. On top of that, my CD ROM drive is no longer being recognised.

I don't need to say this again guys - but I'll say it anyway.... driver installation under Linux is a complete and utter mess!!

darrenm
February 7th, 2007, 12:38 PM
So you plugged it in and got no sound?

Can you do an

lspci -v and post the output? Not to make this a support thread, I'm just interested.

John E
February 7th, 2007, 12:52 PM
Don't worry about the support stuff. I've already started a thread over on Multimedia & Video. However, here's the output I got from that command:-

00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8377 [KT400/KT600 AGP] Host Bridge
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. A7V8X motherboard
Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 0
Memory at fc000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=32M]
Capabilities: [80] AGP version 3.5
Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2

00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8235 PCI Bridge (prog-if 00 [Normal decode])
Flags: bus master, 66MHz, medium devsel, latency 0
Bus: primary=00, secondary=01, subordinate=01, sec-latency=0
Memory behind bridge: f8800000-f9efffff
Prefetchable memory behind bridge: f9f00000-fbffffff
Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

00:0b.0 SCSI storage controller: Adaptec AHA-7850 (rev 03)
Subsystem: Adaptec AHA-2904/Integrated AIC-7850
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 169
I/O ports at d800 [disabled] [size=256]
Memory at f8000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
Capabilities: [dc] Power Management version 1

00:0d.0 Communication controller: Conexant HCF V90 56k Data/Fax/Voice/Spkp PCI Modem (rev 08)
Subsystem: Conexant HCF V90 56k Data/Fax/Voice/Spkp PCI Modem
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 255
Memory at f7800000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=64K]
I/O ports at d400 [disabled] [size=8]
Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 2

00:10.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 80) (prog-if 00 [UHCI])
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. A7V8X-X motherboard
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 177
I/O ports at d000 [size=32]
Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

00:10.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 80) (prog-if 00 [UHCI])
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. A7V8X-X motherboard
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 177
I/O ports at b800 [size=32]
Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

00:10.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 80) (prog-if 00 [UHCI])
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. A7V8X-X motherboard
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 177
I/O ports at b400 [size=32]
Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

00:10.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 (rev 82) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. A7V8X-X motherboard rev 1.01
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 177
Memory at f7000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2

00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8235 ISA Bridge
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. A7V8X-X motherboard
Flags: bus master, stepping, medium devsel, latency 0
Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2

00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06) (prog-if 8a [Master SecP PriP])
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. A7V8X-X motherboard rev. 1.01
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 255
I/O ports at b000 [size=16]
Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2

00:12.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT6102 [Rhine-II] (rev 74)
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. A7V8X-X Motherboard
Flags: bus master, stepping, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 185
I/O ports at a800 [size=256]
Memory at f6800000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 2

00:13.0 Multimedia audio controller: Xilinx Corporation RME Hammerfall DSP (rev 98)
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 255, IRQ 193
Memory at f6000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=64K]

01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Matrox Graphics, Inc. G400/G450 (rev 03) (prog-if 00 [VGA])
Subsystem: Matrox Graphics, Inc. Millennium G400 MAX/Dual Head 32Mb
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 64, IRQ 11
Memory at fa000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=32M]
Memory at f9000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
Memory at f8800000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=8M]
Expansion ROM at f9ff0000 [disabled] [size=64K]
Capabilities: [dc] Power Management version 2
Capabilities: [f0] AGP version 2.0
As you can see, the sound card gets recognised okay - but there's no sound. Fortunately, I was sensible enough to back up Ubuntu just before the installation. So I've now got my twin monitors working again, along with my CD drive.

Any help will be greatly appreciated - but on this thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=2117775#post2117775) please.... :(

MichaelWm
February 8th, 2007, 02:39 AM
I have a college education and years of experience with computers, beginning with a Commodore 64. Nonetheless, Ubuntu/Linux has beaten me, and I will re-install my old OS immediately after posting this message.

For the record, it took me 3 hours just to figure out how to edit a read-only text file. Many other hours spent searching "Support" and these forums were a complete waste of time; simple file-sharing on my home network was frustrating and, in the end, impossible. Many other tasks that are easy on PCs and Macs were way more complex (for me) on Linux. Worst of all, it's slower than WinXP on the same machine!

For ease of use, buy a Mac; for raw power and gaming, PCs are the way to go IMO.

Adios...

rj686
February 8th, 2007, 02:44 AM
I have a college education and years of experience with computers, beginning with a Commodore 64. Nonetheless, Ubuntu/Linux has beaten me, and I will re-install my old OS immediately after posting this message.

For the record, it took me 3 hours just to figure out how to edit a read-only text file. Many other hours spent searching "Support" and these forums were a complete waste of time; simple file-sharing on my home network was frustrating and, in the end, impossible. Many other tasks that are easy on PCs and Macs were way more complex (for me) on Linux. Worst of all, it's slower than WinXP on the same machine!

For ease of use, buy a Mac; for raw power and gaming, PCs are the way to go IMO.

Adios...

Sorry things didn't work out for you, but that was a completely useless post. Did you follow the many guides around here, or did you bother to check the wiki? That wiki has yet to fail me with any piece of hardware I own. It took you 3 hours to figure out how to edit a read-only flie? you do realize that you can do the same thing you do in windows, right click it, hit properties and change permissions?

Maybe linux isn't for you....

saris
February 8th, 2007, 03:11 AM
I have a college education and years of experience with computers, beginning with a Commodore 64.




it took me 3 hours just to figure out how to edit a read-only text file. Many other hours spent searching "Support" and these forums were a complete waste of time


It's really not that difficult. Sure Linux takes a little longer to fine tune, but with these support forums I was able to get _everything_ working on my new install. You're missing out :P

aysiu
February 8th, 2007, 05:09 AM
This is a perfect place for you to discuss how you think Ubuntu is a waste of time.

Frak
February 8th, 2007, 05:10 AM
This is a perfect place for you to discuss how you think Ubuntu is a waste of time.
So we can tell you how its not a complete waste of time, sorta...

m.musashi
February 8th, 2007, 05:27 AM
I have a college education and years of experience with computers, beginning with a Commodore 64. Nonetheless, Ubuntu/Linux has beaten me, and I will re-install my old OS immediately after posting this message.

For the record, it took me 3 hours just to figure out how to edit a read-only text file. Many other hours spent searching "Support" and these forums were a complete waste of time; simple file-sharing on my home network was frustrating and, in the end, impossible. Many other tasks that are easy on PCs and Macs were way more complex (for me) on Linux. Worst of all, it's slower than WinXP on the same machine!

For ease of use, buy a Mac; for raw power and gaming, PCs are the way to go IMO.

Adios...

Maybe you just need a few more degrees. I have 3 (soon to be 4) and it's only taken me just over a year to learn Linux. Actually, I'm still learning. Hmmm, maybe the amount of college is inversely proportional to ones ability to learn when to give up. *goes off to change dissertation topic*

aysiu
February 8th, 2007, 05:30 AM
I have only two degrees--neither of which is in computer science, math, or anything technically related--and it took me only two months to learn Linux (to the point where I was comfortable giving advice to other new users). You may be right about that inverse thing...

m.musashi
February 8th, 2007, 05:49 AM
See. I really need to talk to my advisor.

Mine are all education related (except the one in English) so that may have something to do with it too :). Actually, in all honesty I've been using Ubuntu since Oct of 2005 and it would be unfair to say I just finished learning it. However, the first several months were a pretty steep climb and even today there is WAY more that I don't know than I know. Of course. at least I know what it is I don't know and that's also a kind of learning.

aysiu
February 8th, 2007, 06:10 AM
Mine are all education related (except the one in English) so that may have something to do with it too :). What a coincidence. I earned my bachelor's in English and my master's in education.

FyreBrand
February 8th, 2007, 06:21 AM
I am close to earning an AAS in CompSci-Programming. I know that a two year degree isn't valued for squat by many, but it was that study that sparked my Linux interest a couple years ago. It took me between 6 months and a year to get comfortable.

I think the learning curve might have a lot to do with how much a person enjoys the Linux way of doing things and how open minded they are to learning new things.

In retrospect I've had about 20 years of Windows familiarity. I always try and keep that in perspective when making comparisons to how easy it is for me to understand something new in Ubuntu.

m.musashi
February 8th, 2007, 06:31 AM
What a coincidence. I earned my bachelor's in English and my master's in education.

Yup, same here. I kind of just kept going though. My wife thinks it's an addiction and want's me to seek counseling. I may just have to do that - debt counseling that is.

I always kind of figured you were a teacher or similar.

darrenm
February 8th, 2007, 10:50 AM
Perhaps thats it. The people who think they are much smarter than everyone else come up against a problem they can't solve quickly and get very frustrated, throw a tantrum and make an exit post here. People who don't feel like they are the bees-knees and are willing to learn and accept they don't know everything already do fine with Ubuntu.

aysiu
February 8th, 2007, 09:44 PM
I've moved the posts about user ratings to this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=16051), as the discussion has veered way off Linux desktop readiness, and this is more of a forum feedback issue.

miceagol
February 10th, 2007, 12:54 AM
The following article (http://forbruker.no/digital/nyheter/data/article1633730.ece) actually showed up on the front page of the Internet edition of the second largest and most serious newspaper in Norway (Aftenposten) (http://www.aftenposten.no/). That's no other thing than very positive. Unfortunately, the author must have been the most unlucky Linux newcomer ever. :shock: And, unfortunately for us, this is the impression "everybody" will get of Linux.

I did my best at translating the article for you. I've also started a thread about it on a Norwegian Linux discussion board (http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?showtopic=713759&st=40), where the author, believe it or not, actually replied and promised to make follow-up to the article. He specifically made it clear that he was on "our team". If the interest is big enough, I'll translate it too. :)

http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00511/_llinuxbilde_jpg_511832g.jpg
We tried Linux, but it wasn't as user friendly as we expected. As long as there wasn't any error that needed correction, it worked quite well.

We tried Linux
Linux is a free alternative to Windows. We tried it.

Lucas H. Weldeghebriel (mailto:lucas@aftenposten.no)
First published: 09.02.07 | Updated: 09.02.07 11:36

This is the story about trying to install Linux (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://www.linux.org/) on a regular laptop PC.

Linux is an operating system on level with Windows, but it's free and is developed by voluntary programmers all over the world.

This is the PC we used. (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://forbruker.no/digital/tester/data/article1481025.ece)

After receiving lots of angry reader's letters that urged us to use Linux, we decided to try it.

The first Linux variant
We first tried to install OpenSUSE 10.2 (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://en.opensuse.org/Welcome_to_openSUSE.org).

Ok, I had to download six files here, and put them on six CD's. And start the installation.

After a thorough installation process, I had to admit my defeat. I see now that this is slightly on top of my head, one that has no previous experience with Linux.

Linux for human beings
I check discussion boards (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-51,GGLG:en&q=linux+forum), and find out that Ubuntu (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://www.ubuntu.com/) is a Linux version which is popular amongst many. "Linux for Human Beings", the website advertises.

It wasn't exactly Linux for Human Beings...

First it hangs on "finding hardware drivers" (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=345752).

I reboot, then it hangs on "configuring network interfaces" (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://ubuntu.wordpress.com/2006/01/31/configuring-network-interfaces/).

I never get to the desktop.

I check various discussion boards, try different procedures, but I never get to the desktop.

What do I do now?

Lets also test a third Linux variant:

SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://www.novell.com/linux/), which is sold over the Internet for about 350 kroners a year. Included is an Office package, image editing software and everything else I need for having an ok PC life.

The installation is painless, it's user friendly and I understand what's happening at all times. An installation takes about 45 minutes. Better than Windows.

Back to Linux
The desktop of the computer appears, and it looks exactly like Windows. The resolution is bad, though, since it doesn't find the graphics card.

That was easier said than done.

After lots of back and forth, I found an instruction manual on the web (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/17174.html). After 12 steps, it looked like the drivers were installed. I reboot the computer, and get the following message:

A blue screen with many strange characters and the following text: Failed to start the X-server (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/linux-laptops/53611-failed-start-x-server-error.html).

http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00511/_IMG_9536_jpg_511540g.jpg
Oops, what do I do now?

"Do you want to see what the problem is?" I press [YES], and get a new blue screen: Failed to load the NVIDIA kernel module....:

http://cache.aftenposten.no/multimedia/archive/00511/_IMG_9538_jpg_511544g.jpg
I look around on a discussion board after answers, and end up at something I understand:

Reinstall the OS.

I think I'm giving up
Since that quickly takes three quarters, I'm uninterested.

And is it so that I have to reinstall the system every time I do a mistake?

Ok, let's start over.

The OS installed, I find another NVIDIA driver to get the graphics card to function optimally. The same thing happens. Exactly like before.

I reinstall, and this time, when I'm logging in, the computer types three letters when I'm typing one. So my name becomes: llluuucccaaasss.

What should I do?

I think I'm giving up.

No, we'll install SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 once more.

This time we'll follow another recipe on the Internet. We download the NVIDIA driver from NVIDIA, and try to install it via "the DOS".

The first time fails, the other time goes better, because we find out we've got to install four small programs before we can install the driver.

Bothersome? Yes, a bit.

Ok, we don't get the driver to work properly, so we can get cool graphics, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XsSXsnIaZY).

Another user manual on Novells webpages give us hope, but then the keyboard suddenly doesn't work when we're suppose to write a search string in the control panel. It is also not possible to move or close the windows in the control panel.

What's happening?

Anyway, we manage to increase the resolution from 600 x 800 to 1200 x 800, but not get the 3D effects going.

Good included programs

The Open Office package (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://www.openoffice.org/) is good, and it is free. It lets you do more or less the same as with Microsoft Office (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://www.openoffice.org/), just that it's free.

Gimp is a program that looks a lot like Photoshop (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://www.gimp.org/). It's almost as good, at least for the semi professional user.


Nevertheless, these are programs you can download for free to your Windows PC, and is not unique to Linux.


Writer is a good text editor which lets you do almost anything Word does.

There's an included CD/DVD maker, and the music player Banshee (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://banshee-project.org/Main_Page). Though without volume control, and neither will the volume control on the desktop adjust the sound.


I inserted a couple of headphones, but the sound wouldn't stop coming form the PC's speakers. So then one had to sit there with sound from both the PC speakers and the headphones at the same time. Sweet.

Reboot, reboot and reboot

So lets try some of the other included programs.

F-spot Photo Album (http://lp.aftenposten.no/ego/Hovedfelt_art_1/http://f-spot.org/Main_Page), an image editor.

We start, it crashes.

Reboot the PC.

We start F-spot once more. It works? I connect a card reader with a photo card.

The computer recognizes a photo card, but then it stops. Everything freezes, and everything locks itself up. Good grief, is it possible? The mouse is the only thing one can move.

Ok, a reboot, then we try again.

At last it works. F-spot works great for easy organizing and editing of images.

But Linux doesn't work painless for the man in the street. Linux remains an operating system for people with above average computer skills, or that have direct access to the expertise.

Not for the man in the street
There still exist too many driver problems for common people to use Linux easily. You can not necesseraly buy a new graphics card for example, and be sure it will work with Linux.

For easy text editing and Internet surfing, Linux works very well, but are you going to do more, as for example play powerful computer games, you should either choose PC or Mac, if you don't want to use time to carefully read discussion boards for recipes on how to proceed.

The problem with Linux is also its strength. It is open. That is, anyone can edit the source code.

On the long run, this can lead to an operating system which is easy to customize to your own needs. Take a look at Wikipedia, which is based on the same on principal, and which on certain areas is completely superior to all other reference books.

But it's a long way to get there.

Do try, but at own risk
Nevertheless.

For all you sceptics, I recommend trying Linux (at own risk). You can download a Live DVD, and run Linux directly from the DVD, or you can partition your hard drive (split it), and put Linux on one of the partitions without touching your other operating system.

In any case, have a Windows or OS X installation disk ready if everything doesn't go as it should.

I, for my part, prefer Windows or OS X. At least for a while ahead.

Somenoob
February 10th, 2007, 01:50 AM
Judging from his description of his experience he appears to be a classical beginner that made the usual errors.

beast2k
February 10th, 2007, 02:16 AM
Linux can be (I think it is) the best OS in the world but if hardware has no drivers or drivers that work with linux, the os is in effect useless. This is where Microsoft has us beat and Microsoft knows, no hardware suport = useless operating system. The common pc user does not know how to fix these things, this is why they must have very average hardware, not new but not old either for linux to work properly. Remember were talking about mom and pop average users here not people like us. Also if people need instructions to install linux we have already lost that user. The install interface should explain itself and EVERYTHING must work on first boot or they will give up. Why read manuals and howtos to get something working when windows has everything working properly and already comes installed on the pc when they buy it.

Bragador
February 10th, 2007, 02:37 AM
I think this is a very important article since it shows how a linux installation can be perceived from an non experienced user.

I'm new to linux too, in a way. I used it for a couple of months this summer, used windows for my last semester and now that I'm a university graduate I'm returning to linux... permanently.

So we know other OS come pre installed but most of us will have to install Linux ourselves. If the newcomer isn't a hobbyist, it will definitely be a disaster.

I'm not sure if something can be done about that.

seijuro
February 10th, 2007, 02:41 AM
Indeed I do think he was just really unlucky with his hardware. I've used about a dozen different distros spread out over about 16 different computers over a period of about 7ish years and never had as much trouble as he describes even when I was a total newbie.

beast2k
February 10th, 2007, 02:52 AM
Over the last 3 or 4 years I have tried to "convert" many different ms windows users and the one thing that makes the new users go back to windows is they buy some new device and install it and linux doesn't see it or know what to do with it. Personaly when I am about to buy a new hardware device I make sure it works with linux and if not I don't buy it.

FuturePilot
February 10th, 2007, 03:04 AM
That sounds like he had a bad computer with bad hardware.

picpak
February 10th, 2007, 03:10 AM
It'd be nice if he'd link to the guides he used in question.

Linux moves at a steady pace, which is both good and bad. Guides get easily obsoleted.

Hex_Mandos
February 10th, 2007, 03:34 AM
The writer's first big mistake is trying to learn Linux with OpenSuse. It's not a bad distro, but it's missing a user friendly installer. Debian Etch was easier to get running for me. Also, I've had hardware recognition with OpenSuse, trying to install it in a friend's old 10 gb drive (K/Ubuntu, Vector Linux and DSL worked perfectly). So, I wouldn't recommend OpenSuse to beginners.

I'm thinking the writer should've read a bit more before installing: I researched for around a month before settling on Ubuntu for my first distro (not too long ago... I installed Edgy last December). After getting my main computer running on Ubuntu, I got an old box to try distros on and keep learning. So far, I've tried all the ones I mentioned, and I've had no problems besides the HD issue. Maybe I'm extremely lucky, but I'm not a *nix expert or a programmer (I study law...).

SuperMike
February 10th, 2007, 05:34 AM
Some things I've learned from newbies on Linux that I think should be fixed:

* gtkpod sux. It sort of works. It's not gtkpod's fault, though. It's Apple's fault. They keep changing the protocol and sticking with something proprietary. Every other MP3 player on the planet works just by sticking the thing on USB and watching it appear as a hard drive on the computer. Like duh.


* Kids want to download MP3s, and they don't want to get busted for it. Most of the MP3 download sites, however, are geared for Macs and Windows. And paying 88 or 99 cents for every song, even songs you might only want to listen to when you're in the mood but is ancient (like Barry White) -- these still cost 88 or 99 cents??


* MP3 playback is necessary, but the codecs are illegal in the USA. Sorry, but not enough music is coming out on Ogg these days.


* Internet radio should just be ready to go with an icon on the menus, not 3-4 components you have to hunt for and install.


/// sidebar: all and all, music is what's selling computers these days -- how about that? ///


* Linux seems to want to opt for highest color depth first, then highest resolution, rather than vice-versa. So then you end up with an 800x600 or 1024x768 screen on a 19" flatpanel monitor but 32 bit color. Most people I know would prefer the greater resolution and could make do with 24 bit color. I have to go to command line and fix this and it scares people.


* The name Linux scares people. So does Ubuntu. Sorry. I get a lot of strange looks when I use words like that. Think about it. I live in the USA and we say words like Ford, Chevy, etc. It's not that the Linux and Ubuntu words are bad, but they're going to have to be pushed harder into the public's mindset with TV ads, stuff on YouTube, and so on. This is why a name like Buick, Clorox, or Volkswagon doesn't scare people.


* Dual head video cards and dual video cards -- Xinerama mode, essentially -- needs to be tested a heck of a lot more than it is and should just be a snap to hook it up. You can do this on a Mac extremely easily.


* People like to mod their desktops a lot. Practically every coloring and styling in the Gnome desktop needs to be easily changed with a control panel, not text files. Want to make your Main Menu semi-transparent but your Gnome Panel as black with white lettering? No problem. It should be that easy.


* I get a lot of strange looks when people have to wait forever for OpenOffice to open up. So I go and install Abiword and Gnumeric and they're happy. Oh, but wait -- where's the powerpoint knockoff? There isn't one. You have to go back to OpenOffice for that.


* Some people may want Ubuntu for a small business. However, small businesses run on a package called QuickBooks for Small Business. They do all their work in that and then, quarterly, turn this over to their accountant. Sure, they may use Peachtree, Great Plains, or something else, but there needs to be an equivalent on Linux. Unfortunately, GnuCash and Grisbi are a big step in that direction, but not good enough.


* My ten year old son said Ubuntu's default games suck. So I went and installed zsnes and downloaded some smc files. That worked for about 4 months, but then he found he liked going on the web to run the Flash-based games on certain sites. He would really prefer to have some 3D games, even if a bit choppy, but we can't find anything stable.


* My daughter said that the fonts suck. There's all these crazy named fonts that look almost about the same, and nothing really that interesting. Some fonts also are funky and when you type it's like crazy squares come out, or they're grainy, or they have huge spaces between them. Mac and Windows have this setup properly -- why can't Ubuntu? So then you go and find some TrueType fonts for free on the web, but then you're left scratching your head on how to install them.


So, I'm a big huge fan of Ubuntu and Linux, but I do have to work on the persuasion bit and hope for the better someday.

Happy_Man
February 10th, 2007, 05:54 AM
* My daughter said that the fonts suck. There's all these crazy named fonts that look almost about the same, and nothing really that interesting. Some fonts also are funky and when you type it's like crazy squares come out, or they're grainy, or they have huge spaces between them. Mac and Windows have this setup properly -- why can't Ubuntu? So then you go and find some TrueType fonts for free on the web, but then you're left scratching your head on how to install them.


To install truetype fonts, you just drag and drop into your fonts folder, same as Windows.

miceagol
February 10th, 2007, 10:50 AM
The problem is that "regular people" shouldn't be installing an OS at all, it's not what they want to do. They want to go into a store and buy a PC ready to use. The article never gets to what it really should be describing, namely how it is to use Linux.

Yesterday thousands or tens of thousands of Norwegian got exactly the impression the article gives you of Linux: "I'm happy I don't have to use that. Thank god for Windows". It's not fair, since the chances for what happened to the author is really, really low. Linux almost got itself some very good free ads, but it failed. This is really crucial for Linux. Even Microsoft with its huge financial capabilities get enormous amounts of free commercials everywhere, and when it's finally Linux's turn, this happens. :(

But on the other hand. If people are going to use Linux today, they have no other option than to install it, either by themselves or with the help of expertise (family, friends, colleagues, etc). This means that the Linux population won't grow until people easily can buy a preinstalled Linux PC in stores.

beast2k
February 10th, 2007, 10:59 AM
Some things I've learned from newbies on Linux that I think should be fixed:...............

You are so right on all counts, until these things change I don't think microsoft will have any wories about loss of market share to ANY linux distro. This is why linux as a server does so well no newbies and no gui.

floke
February 10th, 2007, 11:48 AM
Absolutely.
I remember when I wanted to install Lx (which was only a few months ago) - I didn;t even know what an ISO was, or a partition, or whether I needed i386 or 64 etc. or whatever. Couldn't find anywhere to tell me about this stuff (or, to be more accurate, didn't really know where to look I suppose). I reaaaaaallly wanted to install Lx so read up on it for weeks beforehand, practiced partitioning hard drives on an old PC, got everything prepared very systematically, and then? Ubuntu practically installed itself! It was so easy.

I am currently writing a set of installing instructions for a complete and utter beginner (to hand out to friends with the LiveCD), so something like this definitely needs to be available. Dead easy, completely simple, with absolutely everything explained (not just how to install, but how to troubleshoot things and also explain why things might not work - i.e. proprietary drivers etc.). It also needs to be very easy to find - e.g. a clear link on the Ubuntu main page or something.

Until then, stories like this will keep damaging us.

aysiu
February 10th, 2007, 12:12 PM
* People like to mod their desktops a lot. Practically every coloring and styling in the Gnome desktop needs to be easily changed with a control panel, not text files. Want to make your Main Menu semi-transparent but your Gnome Panel as black with white lettering? No problem. It should be that easy. This makes no sense.

One of the main reasons I switched to Linux is the ability to easily mod my desktop. You can make the toolbar smaller, bigger, transparent, etc. with a few clicks in Gnome or KDE. I don't know how to move the Windows Start menu over or to remove window list from the taskbar. My wife couldn't figure out how to make the OS X dock appear at the top of the screen--guess what we had to do... edit a text file!

Your other observations are spot-on, but Linux desktops are made to be modded, unlike Windows one. In Gnome, I can just go to Gnome-look.org, download a .tar.gz, and drag it to the Theme Manager window. Not so easy to theme in Windows or Mac.

kragen
February 10th, 2007, 02:04 PM
I've gotta say - that sounds like a fairly accurate write up of linux if you ask me. Rather than complaining about the write up, and trying to "cover it up", pretending that these problems dont exist, try looking at this article objectively and work on improving linux and eliminating problems like these.

newbie2
February 10th, 2007, 03:12 PM
Some things I've learned from newbies on Linux that I think should be fixed:

* gtkpod sux. It sort of works. It's not gtkpod's fault, though. It's Apple's fault. They keep changing the protocol and sticking with something proprietary. Every other MP3 player on the planet works just by sticking the thing on USB and watching it appear as a hard drive on the computer. Like duh.


* Kids want to download MP3s, and they don't want to get busted for it. Most of the MP3 download sites, however, are geared for Macs and Windows. And paying 88 or 99 cents for every song, even songs you might only want to listen to when you're in the mood but is ancient (like Barry White) -- these still cost 88 or 99 cents??


* MP3 playback is necessary, but the codecs are illegal in the USA. Sorry, but not enough music is coming out on Ogg these days.


* Internet radio should just be ready to go with an icon on the menus, not 3-4 components you have to hunt for and install.


/// sidebar: all and all, music is what's selling computers these days -- how about that? ///


* Linux seems to want to opt for highest color depth first, then highest resolution, rather than vice-versa. So then you end up with an 800x600 or 1024x768 screen on a 19" flatpanel monitor but 32 bit color. Most people I know would prefer the greater resolution and could make do with 24 bit color. I have to go to command line and fix this and it scares people.


* The name Linux scares people. So does Ubuntu. Sorry. I get a lot of strange looks when I use words like that. Think about it. I live in the USA and we say words like Ford, Chevy, etc. It's not that the Linux and Ubuntu words are bad, but they're going to have to be pushed harder into the public's mindset with TV ads, stuff on YouTube, and so on. This is why a name like Buick, Clorox, or Volkswagon doesn't scare people.


* Dual head video cards and dual video cards -- Xinerama mode, essentially -- needs to be tested a heck of a lot more than it is and should just be a snap to hook it up. You can do this on a Mac extremely easily.


* People like to mod their desktops a lot. Practically every coloring and styling in the Gnome desktop needs to be easily changed with a control panel, not text files. Want to make your Main Menu semi-transparent but your Gnome Panel as black with white lettering? No problem. It should be that easy.


* I get a lot of strange looks when people have to wait forever for OpenOffice to open up. So I go and install Abiword and Gnumeric and they're happy. Oh, but wait -- where's the powerpoint knockoff? There isn't one. You have to go back to OpenOffice for that.


* Some people may want Ubuntu for a small business. However, small businesses run on a package called QuickBooks for Small Business. They do all their work in that and then, quarterly, turn this over to their accountant. Sure, they may use Peachtree, Great Plains, or something else, but there needs to be an equivalent on Linux. Unfortunately, GnuCash and Grisbi are a big step in that direction, but not good enough.


* My ten year old son said Ubuntu's default games suck. So I went and installed zsnes and downloaded some smc files. That worked for about 4 months, but then he found he liked going on the web to run the Flash-based games on certain sites. He would really prefer to have some 3D games, even if a bit choppy, but we can't find anything stable.


* My daughter said that the fonts suck. There's all these crazy named fonts that look almost about the same, and nothing really that interesting. Some fonts also are funky and when you type it's like crazy squares come out, or they're grainy, or they have huge spaces between them. Mac and Windows have this setup properly -- why can't Ubuntu? So then you go and find some TrueType fonts for free on the web, but then you're left scratching your head on how to install them.


So, I'm a big huge fan of Ubuntu and Linux, but I do have to work on the persuasion bit and hope for the better someday.

isn't it possible to make a some kind of 'windows-exe-program' that sums up all the necessary (=for some newbies unknown kind of things , like :Hostname /IP/DHCP vended hostname/Proxy Server/ftp/http proxy/Boot Image/ISO/Hardware clock set to UTC?/keyboard/all hardware properties/etc...etc...)things to then fill in in some kind of program like instalinux (http://www.instalinux.com/) , where you also have some kind of choice which pakkets (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu) you want to burn/install (for example : i like to have openoffice, but i do not want koffice or postfix or some simple games which only take necessary space...i then can allways choose for later download via synaptic if i want some more pakkets) ?..... in short : some kind of pre-list/program where everything a 'newbie' from winblows can read from what his/her hardware-specific specs are and then fill in those specs in a 'pre-burn/install' program ?

Steveire
February 10th, 2007, 03:28 PM
I remember when I wanted to install Lx (which was only a few months ago) - I didn;t even know what an ISO was, or a partition, or whether I needed i386 or 64 etc. or whatever. Couldn't find anywhere to tell me about this stuff (or, to be more accurate, didn't really know where to look I suppose). I reaaaaaallly wanted to install Lx so read up on it for weeks beforehand, practiced partitioning hard drives on an old PC, got everything prepared very systematically, and then? Ubuntu practically installed itself! It was so easy.

You sound exactly like me. And with the same name...

I think it's easier than aisiu mentions to get themes on kde. Just click the button that says "Get hot new stuff!" and a summary of everything available appear from kde-look.org including ratings/downloads. It nice. I like.

RCC2k7
February 10th, 2007, 05:37 PM
Just like the guy from that Norwegian newspaper, I've tried both Ubuntu Dapper and Edgy, and OpenSuSE 10.2 both on the same computer at different times. Installation and basic system configuration in OpenSuSE is light years ahead of Ubuntu, not in speed but in leaving me with a somewhat usable system. However, even though Ubuntu has been a pain to install and configure, after "sweating blood" I've been able to squeeze more usability (get more things working) in Ubuntu.

Still, the way things are right now, the OS I recommend to my best friends: Windows XP Professional or Media Center.

Brunellus
February 10th, 2007, 06:27 PM
I agree. Linux is not for the man in the street--it is for his more technically-competent and patient good friend to configure for him.

The article once again did not attempt to install Windows from the bare XP cd. He'd have run into many of the same problems, and many many more reboots...as well as Microsoft's definition of "openness" and "transparency" in the form of their innumerable unfixed security holes.

FLPCGuy
February 10th, 2007, 08:31 PM
I have a college education and years of experience with computers, beginning with a Commodore 64. Nonetheless, Ubuntu/Linux has beaten me, and I will re-install my old OS immediately after posting this message.

For the record, it took me 3 hours just to figure out how to edit a read-only text file. Many other hours spent searching "Support" and these forums were a complete waste of time; simple file-sharing on my home network was frustrating and, in the end, impossible. Many other tasks that are easy on PCs and Macs were way more complex (for me) on Linux. Worst of all, it's slower than WinXP on the same machine!

For ease of use, buy a Mac; for raw power and gaming, PCs are the way to go IMO.

Adios...

It is unfortunate that MicahelWM didn't begin with the basics.
http://linuxcommand.org/learning_the_shell.php While Linux may look like Windows these days, the basics are different even from DOS, the syntax still supported by the Windows command line interface.

I was fortunate to have spent years programming in DOS before Windows came along so I could always 'fall back' to the command line to get under the GUI of Windows to change permissions, move things around or run a command line utility just as experienced Linux users do. This put me in a small minority of users who actually understood and controlled Windows beyond the GUI menu level. As a support tech, I used to change the attributes of control files to keep network users' Win 3.1 desktops organized and consistent. Today, most corporate desktops are 'managed' by Group Policies that seriously limit what end users may or may not do.. If a user can't copy data to her pen drive, it may be the result of a policy, not inexperience or a default feature of Windows.

As Windows evolved, I studied the added complexity (MCSE in NT & Win2k). Today, the underlying features (file permissions, group policies, etc.) of Windows are far more complex and difficult to learn than those of Linux. NT has over 16 different file permissions for unlimited different groups. Many basic features of Windows still mystify most users. For example, dragging a file moves it unless you drag it to a different volume, then it copies it.

I submit to you that to switch to Linux satisfactorily one must learn certain basic information about the OS, but it is far easier and less complex than learning that same information about how Windows works. Perhaps improved documentation and a standardized method of driver installation will help. But Linux is actually less complex and difficult to master than Windows.

Moreover, starting with Vista, users will find they have far less control of their own Windows PC than they could have with Linux, provided they invest some time learning the basics. No matter how much you learn about Vista, your ability to control it and associated hardware is limited.

I have a long way to go before I understand Linux the way I know Windows, but I am certain that I must make the transition in order to be able to control my own computer in the future. Perhaps in a few years MichaelWM will be back when he realizes how much others limit his user experience in Windows.

hellmet
February 10th, 2007, 10:01 PM
Judging from his description of his experience he appears to be a classical beginner that made the usual errors.
Well, I didn't make even quarter the amount of mistakes he did when I was a beginner...

HavarN
February 11th, 2007, 01:27 AM
So we know other OS come pre installed but most of us will have to install Linux ourselves. If the newcomer isn't a hobbyist, it will definitely be a disaster.

I'm not sure if something can be done about that.(This post got so long I decided to add headings).

The lucky newcomer
Ubuntu (and openSuSE) installs quite easily on some computers. It all depends on the hardware. If Lucas (the journalist) was unlucky with his choice in hardware, some "none-hobbyist" could easily get lucky enough to get a simple clean straight forward standard install of Ubuntu working in a very small amount of time, choosing just default settings, having the right hardware. - That's given he/she is not "stupid" enough to try some advanced setup like dual-booting with Windows or trying setup his/her own partition table without having access to the technical expertise.

I guess this article serves as a reminder to those of us who've only purchased compatible hardware for years, and thus have near to no trouble installing Ubuntu, that other people still struggle installing the most easily installable GNU/Linux operating system around.

How to improve compatibility
Lucases and every other beginners installation issues are all about the debate and issues of free source device drivers and proprietary device drivers. - Any improvement in compatibility or stability in all of these device drivers would help greatly.

Gtk Installation
The GUI installation program of Ubuntu is actually very clean and simple. - Though, it may be a bit too clean and simple. Maybe we should learn something from the way proprietary programs and games install on Windows, giving you a choice between a simple "Quick install" or an "Expert install" mode. Where the expert mode would provide additional information about which devices needs extra modules or woun't work out of the box.

And I think the Ubuntu Gtk installation program also have poor event or error-handling. My little brother tried to install Ubuntu on his computer around Christmas. He isn't of the patient kind... So, if something doesn't react immediately, he will be clicking ten or twenty times on the same button... This always manage to hang the installation for him. - If I patiently try to install Ubuntu on his computer I succeed.

X.org Xserver
The X.org xserver is also a source of frustration for many newcomers...

Why doesn't the X.org xserver simply load the vesa driver automatically if any other drivers fail to load... Instead it just refuses to start and throws you into a shell. - To the beginner, this experience could be devastating. He wouldn't know what to do and he have to manually edit his xorg.conf file to be able to get back into a graphical interface to get to his web-browser. This is totally unnecessary, because it could be fixed by a failsafe loading the vesa driver automatically. Then the user could fix his xorg.conf either via gui or a terminal. - And he could use Firefox to search the web for a solution.

Every other guy
Though, I still believe that Ubuntu is very user friendly once installed properly. If it is for every other guy is up to everyone to decide for themselves. - But there are so many faulty negative associations to the words Linux, Free Software and maybe Ubuntu that before someone is able to make an objective choice, those associations needs to be corrected.

To make people want to learn more
If you want to help people want to learn more before they try Ubuntu, talk positively about this operating system to your friends, coworkers and associates. - But tell the objective truth and not your feelings towards Ubuntu. This will help them make up their own mind based on the truth and not rumors.

Discovering something you thought you knew is actually incorrect, normally generates curiosity about what else could prove to be wrong.

Think about this: You tell you coworker: "Oh, I love this genius operating system, Ubuntu! It's so much better than Microsoft Windows!"

I think this is the way many people tell other people about the things that affect them. What impression do you think this statement would leave with your coworker?

Try to think about the statement before you read the next line.

1. He will wonder about how can an operating system can be a genious? - An decide it's not and you're nuts.
2. He gets the impression that you think it is a lot better than Windows. But his own associations with Linux is very negative, so he will think of you as much of a dork for saying something so stupid. - Even if he's never seen or tried Linux himself.
3. You want to marry an operating system.

That's why, if you want people to get more affectionate about GNU/Linux you need to tell them the objective truth about it. Both negative and positive sides and what to watch out for. No-one cares about your feelings. Well, hopefully your wife or husband does...

When gaining enough knowledge, most people will want to try Ubuntu to experience it for themselves.

rocknrolf77
February 11th, 2007, 04:14 PM
Why doesn't the X.org xserver simply load the vesa driver automatically if any other drivers fail to load... Instead it just refuses to start and throws you into a shell. - To the beginner, this experience could be devastating. He wouldn't know what to do and he have to manually edit his xorg.conf file to be able to get back into a graphical interface to get to his web-browser. This is totally unnecessary, because it could be fixed by a failsafe loading the vesa driver automatically. Then the user could fix his xorg.conf either via gui or a terminal. - And he could use Firefox to search the web for a solution.

It should have been here allready I think, but it's on it's way. Bulletproof X (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BulletProofX?highlight=%28x%29%7C%28bulletproof%29 ) I can understand why people freak out when they break X. Mandriva has a semi-graphical tool for recounfiguring X. When you don't know about
sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg you are pretty much desperate with just the command line. Things are improving pretty fast these days though :)

RCC2k7
February 11th, 2007, 04:14 PM
X.org Xserver
The X.org xserver is also a source of frustration for many newcomers...

Why doesn't the X.org xserver simply load the vesa driver automatically if any other drivers fail to load... Instead it just refuses to start and throws you into a shell. - To the beginner, this experience could be devastating. He wouldn't know what to do and he have to manually edit his xorg.conf file to be able to get back into a graphical interface to get to his web-browser. This is totally unnecessary, because it could be fixed by a failsafe loading the vesa driver automatically. Then the user could fix his xorg.conf either via gui or a terminal. - And he could use Firefox to search the web for a solution.
Wait, you forgot the most irritating part! Say you did manage to get X.org working with the VESA driver and you finally found the driver you need for your video card... just install it and you're done?... Noooo! You have to reconfigure X.org and answer a bunch of idiotically unnecessary questions. Why on earth do I have to answer stuff about my keyboard's make/language and mouse stuff when all I want is to change the darn video driver?!?!? And how many people really know the difference between horizontal and vertical refresh rates for the Monitor, or what the values are for that matter? ](*,)

rocknrolf77
February 11th, 2007, 06:27 PM
You don't have to reconfigure the keyboard and other stuff if you use
sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg

Then it's just the video and driver part. It's just about knowing the right commands. :)

RCC2k7
February 11th, 2007, 07:11 PM
You don't have to reconfigure the keyboard and other stuff if you use
sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg

Then it's just the video and driver part. It's just about knowing the right commands. :)

Thanks. I'll add another command to my "essentials" list.

RAV TUX
February 11th, 2007, 07:37 PM
I agree. Linux is not for the man in the street--it is for his more technically-competent and patient good friend to configure for him.

The article once again did not attempt to install Windows from the bare XP cd. He'd have run into many of the same problems, and many many more reboots...as well as Microsoft's definition of "openness" and "transparency" in the form of their innumerable unfixed security holes.

Key point here...

Also after reading the article I found it one to be pretty accurate overall

With some exceptions....including my experience....my first try of Linux was a Dream come true experience...

I started with Ubuntu and was fortunate to have a overwhelming positive experience...

The article does bring to mind why Micro$oft does have a market share, primarily because they have an effective business model...

An effective business plan is what Linux needs,...we have a lot of bright people involved in Linux...but what we need is an effective strategy, that will incorporate proven business success...

To overcome bug #1 we need to be effective business men backed up by effective Lawyers

RCC2k7
February 11th, 2007, 08:37 PM
The article once again did not attempt to install Windows from the bare XP cd. He'd have run into many of the same problems, and many many more reboots.
Not necessarily. I've installed myself every version of Windows I've used: Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and 98SE, Millennium, 2000 and XP. All of them are easier to install and configure than Linux as long as you know what hardware you have.

First, if Windows can't detect your video card or install an appropriate driver, it falls to a generic SVGA driver or in worst cases a plain VGA driver. Sure, the desktop looks ugly but still more functional to help the user find the appropriate video driver than leaving them in the cold with a distorted text-based screen ala Linux X server's blue screen of death "no screens founds".

Second, once you do find the drivers for Windows, most of them come in .exe files. You just run the .exe, press Next, Next, Next and reboot. Presto. You don't have to edit configuration files or the registry to get standard functionality - the installer does all that for you. Windows driver packages with just an .INF file are harder to install (and maybe more suitable for experienced users than for newbies) but those are rare these days.

Hex_Mandos
February 11th, 2007, 09:02 PM
I disagree. I first installed Edgy two months ago (it's my first experience with Linux) and it was easier to install than XP. Nowadays, most Linuxes are relatively easy to install for someone with some technical knowledge (I've tried Debian Etch, openSUSE, Vector, DSL), but Ubuntu is probably the easisest to configure so far. OpenSUSE has a more powerful installer, but it was more complicated and slooooooow...

houstonbofh
February 11th, 2007, 09:28 PM
Some people forget that they have spent years learning Windows as it evolved, and only weeks learning Linux. Yet they say, "I know computers..." To that I say "call -151" :)

Phrawm48
February 12th, 2007, 12:32 AM
I've been working with computers since 1981, wrote assembly language code (8080, DEC PDP, M68000) in the days when debugging often involved a hexadecimal keypad on the front of a machine, specialized in integrating microprocessor hardware and software (so I understand device drivers and interrupts), began working with networked computers in 1984 (so I understand communications), and today use computers as a daily part of my work as a consulting technical writer.

And, oh, one other thing -- Linux drives me crazy!

Let me begin by congratulating anyone and everyone at Ubuntu who has finally made a version of Linux that I haven't peremptorily abandoned as I have competing distributions. My pleasure at Ubuntu Linux's significantly improved ease of use is illustrated in one small way by the fact that I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.1 under Ubuntu to type this post.

A close corollary to the above congratulations is a hearty thank you(!) to the Ubuntu forums for making it possible for a newbie to get useful help and answers about Ubuntu without being flamed for his or her troubles. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

BUT -- even Ubuntu obliged me to begin my Linux user experience by understanding disk partitioning and dual-booting, spelunking my modem's capabilities, figuring out how to acquire and install the proper driver for my NVidia graphics adaptor, and connecting to the Ubuntu forums to learn how best to interoperate with my USB drives, inter alia. (I still haven't figured out how to edit the configuration file that will enable me to use all of my mouse's buttons and features...)

Consequently, I still believe that installing and configuring Linux remains more than a bit too challenging for the average computer user, even a user explicitly seeking an alternative to Windows. Stated another way, as a more or less happy Ubuntu Linux user I remain obliged to admit that Linux imposes a significant "barrier to entry" that prevents many new users of moderate technical ability or motivation from getting to a point where they can incrementally, iteratively, begin learning more about all the "cool stuff" Linux offers.

In a very real sense, Microsoft succeeds by offering users too few options. The new or technically disinclined user is thus relieved of the need to confront a series of daunting, often incomprehensible choices (desktop manager? modem capabilities? video card configuration? fstab? xorg.conf?) in order to begin using his or her desktop computer. To users who lack either the wherewithal or desire for these sorts of technical decisions, Linux's extreme customizability is not only not an asset, it's an insurmountable obstacle!

I analogize it thusly: Windows is a luxuriously appointed prison cell; Linux (even Ubuntu Linux) is an unassembled log cabin kit.

Subjectively speaking, it's absolutely true that Ubuntu has been one of the easiest log cabin kits I've ever assembled (although some additional assembly still needs to be performed). But for Linux to attract and retain those for whom a desktop computer is by necessity a tool of work rather than an experimental test bed or recreational research project -- in other words, for Linux to be "ready for the desktop" -- Linux needs to become even easier for "virgin newbies" to install and use.

Finally, I offer my opinion in the spirit of looking for ways to counteract the too-common phenomenon where users come explicitly looking for an alternative to Windows, make the non-trivial effort required to acquire and install Linux, and then abandon it in frustration.

Cheers & hope this helps (and thanks again to the Ubuntu community for getting me this far!),
Ric
SFO

simonn
February 12th, 2007, 04:02 AM
...I still believe that installing and configuring Linux remains more than a bit too challenging for the average computer user, even a user explicitly seeking an alternative to Windows...

...In a very real sense, Microsoft succeeds by offering users too few options...

...Linux needs to become even easier for "virgin newbies" to install and use...


Slap a {,k,x}ubuntu install cd into a cdrom drive and install using the defaults. No worries.

However, most people want to keep their existing windows partition intact. How would this be possible to do without knowing what a partition is?

Slap a windows install cd and unless you are careful it will happily blow away anything it does not like or simply refuse to install.

The last time I tried to install windows (2K) on a physical drive with an existing linux installation, it failed. No error message. Just would not install. I had to tar up my linux partition, repartition and format as fat - windows did not like even an empty reiserfs parition and no, the reiserfs partiton was not hda1 where I was installing windows. Install windows. Reformat linux partition, untar the linux partition (try doing that with windows!) and reinstall grub.

Why does linux as opposed to windows get painted badly for this?

Also, installation is a red herring. Most non-IT people/geeks I know would not be able to install windows OR linux (or anything else for that matter). They call me :(.

The real issues are:

1) New PCs come pre-installed with windows.

2) "Power Users" (IOW tinkerers) have a problem actually having to learn something new and linux deflates their pumped up egos by making them realise that they don't know as much as they thought after all. Knowing registry hacks does not a hacker make. Most of this is IMO/E due to having security forced upon them with linux (IME 90% of problems with linux end up related to permissions). When Vista becomes more common I expect potential linux adoptees to have less problems as they will be more comfortable in with regards to this.

3) Games

FWIW both my mum (who is almost 60) when staying with us and my girlfriend happily move to and from windows, linux and OSX without any problem. Neither of them are technical (well, my GF does know html) and would be able to install an OS. To quote my mum when I asked her about the differences "It's all the same really".

At the end of the day, I do not care if someone gives up. Personally, I think the open source community is better off with people who are going to persist and contribute.

cephlon
February 12th, 2007, 09:33 AM
"You can't yet give it to your parents and expect to see them using it on their own machines after you've gone."

This comment is so wrong and I hear it all the time. Most people I deal with have no idea how to RE install windows, or what a driver is, or how to find it. At least linux comes with most drivers preinstalled. When I see my customers try to reinstall windows when they don't have the factory DELL disk, its a complete mess.

And if I set up Email, Browser and an Office suite, my parents wouldn't know the difference between what operating system they are using.

darrenm
February 12th, 2007, 10:00 AM
This is not meant discourtesly, I'm just wondering about a few things:


I've been working with computers since 1981, wrote assembly language code (8080, DEC PDP, M68000) in the days when debugging often involved a hexadecimal keypad on the front of a machine, specialized in integrating microprocessor hardware and software (so I understand device drivers and interrupts), began working with networked computers in 1984 (so I understand communications), and today use computers as a daily part of my work as a consulting technical writer.

And, oh, one other thing -- Linux drives me crazy!

Let me begin by congratulating anyone and everyone at Ubuntu who has finally made a version of Linux that I haven't peremptorily abandoned as I have competing distributions. My pleasure at Ubuntu Linux's significantly improved ease of use is illustrated in one small way by the fact that I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.1 under Ubuntu to type this post.

A close corollary to the above congratulations is a hearty thank you(!) to the Ubuntu forums for making it possible for a newbie to get useful help and answers about Ubuntu without being flamed for his or her troubles. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

BUT -- even Ubuntu obliged me to begin my Linux user experience by understanding disk partitioning and dual-booting,

How did it oblige you to understand disk partitioning? You didn't HAVE to partition your disk, the installer would have given you the choice to wipe the entire disk automatically, resize your existing partitions or use the free space. The underlying fact is that if you want to run different partitions on your HDD, then you have to understand partitioning. Nothing to do with what OS(s) you have on there.


figuring out how to acquire and install the proper driver for my NVidia graphics adaptor,

Surely this is pretty easy and has to one of the most documented things to do with a Linux distribution. Things will get a whole lot easier in that respect in April when to install the Nvidia driver you have to do... nothing.


and connecting to the Ubuntu forums to learn how best to interoperate with my USB drives, inter alia.

Put it in and click the icon on the desktop?


(I still haven't figured out how to edit the configuration file that will enable me to use all of my mouse's buttons and features...)

Consequently, I still believe that installing and configuring Linux remains more than a bit too challenging for the average computer user, even a user explicitly seeking an alternative to Windows. Stated another way, as a more or less happy Ubuntu Linux user I remain obliged to admit that Linux imposes a significant "barrier to entry" that prevents many new users of moderate technical ability or motivation from getting to a point where they can incrementally, iteratively, begin learning more about all the "cool stuff" Linux offers.

In a very real sense, Microsoft succeeds by offering users too few options. The new or technically disinclined user is thus relieved of the need to confront a series of daunting, often incomprehensible choices (desktop manager? modem capabilities? video card configuration? fstab? xorg.conf?) in order to begin using his or her desktop computer. To users who lack either the wherewithal or desire for these sorts of technical decisions, Linux's extreme customizability is not only not an asset, it's an insurmountable obstacle!

I analogize it thusly: Windows is a luxuriously appointed prison cell; Linux (even Ubuntu Linux) is an unassembled log cabin kit.

I prefer to think of it as, Windows XP is an Audi A2 with a big cover over the engine that gives you a dipstick to check the oil and nothing else. Ubuntu is a Westfield kit car, with the engine in full view and even the opportunity to change the engine for another one if you prefer or rebuild it yourself. Much, much quicker and better on the road but requires a bit more effort to get your cycle carrier fitted.


Subjectively speaking, it's absolutely true that Ubuntu has been one of the easiest log cabin kits I've ever assembled (although some additional assembly still needs to be performed). But for Linux to attract and retain those for whom a desktop computer is by necessity a tool of work rather than an experimental test bed or recreational research project -- in other words, for Linux to be "ready for the desktop" -- Linux needs to become even easier for "virgin newbies" to install and use.

Finally, I offer my opinion in the spirit of looking for ways to counteract the too-common phenomenon where users come explicitly looking for an alternative to Windows, make the non-trivial effort required to acquire and install Linux, and then abandon it in frustration.

Cheers & hope this helps (and thanks again to the Ubuntu community for getting me this far!),
Ric
SFO

xoo
February 12th, 2007, 03:54 PM
Everybody knows, maybe even Microsoft :), that Linux is better than Windows as an operating system.

So why is Linux struggling at fewer than 2% of the desktop market?

There are obvious responses to that question. Building an operating system is a monumental task. Iíve read somewhere that building Linux would take about 8000 years of man work and would cost a company to develop it over 2 billion dollars.

I think the most obvious of all the answers is that the majority of computer users donít need an operating system. They need a desktop platform. Of course you might say that Linux is already a desktop platform and maybe it is. But still!

There is a good lesson to learn from MacOS. The Apple people did an outstanding job in my opinion. There is only one problem: you need a mac! If Linux stands for something is the freedom of choice. If I love Linux itís just because of that. So Mac is not an alternative to Windows. I donít care that itís the best desktop platform. You donít replace a bad thing with another.

An operating system is just as vital as letís say water. We just donít need one or two companies controlling the worldís water resources.

So what makes Mac and Windows great as a desktop platform? The obvious answer is the vast number of applications and the EASE OF USE. Cross-platform and open-source software is on the rise.

So what about ease of use? In my opinion this is the most important section where Linux has to work on. To many programmers things like icons, skins, counting the number of clicks to do a job may seem like unimportant details. To end-users however these DETAILS MEAN EVERYTHING. Letís take Windows Vista. Even if in all the benchmarks Windows XP is faster than Vista, I promise you that Vista will have a huge success just because it looks great and is even more easy to use. Look at Office 2007! It kicks ***!

Itís so simple! The design of car is just as, if not even more, important than engine performance and fuel consumption.

Of course I see that there are efforts done in this direction. Iím just saying that more is needed. Linux has to look and feel even better than Vista and MacOS if it is to come out of the shadow. That is if it wants to.

mykalreborn
February 12th, 2007, 04:04 PM
you're doing this on purpose right? just wait for the zelots :rolleyes: :popcorn: :p

doobit
February 12th, 2007, 04:06 PM
I think a moderator will probably merge this with one of the other thousands of similar threads.

matt_risi
February 12th, 2007, 04:09 PM
I actually agree with the guy. Alot of good cues can be taken from Mac OSX, but Ubuntu has alot of "little thing", ease of use features. A good example is burning an ISO. Right click on the damn thing and hit write to disk! In Mac OS, you have to open disk utility (..why?) and mount it, then burn it. Then again, the average PC user doesn't burn too many ISO's in his day.

But the discussion of ease of use of ubuntu has been going on for way longer than I've been on the scene.

Brunellus
February 12th, 2007, 04:12 PM
Everybody knows, maybe even Microsoft :), that Linux is better than Windows as an operating system.

So why is Linux struggling at fewer than 2% of the desktop market?

There are obvious responses to that question. Building an operating system is a monumental task. I’ve read somewhere that building Linux would take about 8000 years of man work and would cost a company to develop it over 2 billion dollars.

I think the most obvious of all the answers is that the majority of computer users don’t need an operating system. They need a desktop platform. Of course you might say that Linux is already a desktop platform and maybe it is. But still!

There is a good lesson to learn from MacOS. The Apple people did an outstanding job in my opinion. There is only one problem: you need a mac! If Linux stands for something is the freedom of choice. If I love Linux it’s just because of that. So Mac is not an alternative to Windows. I don’t care that it’s the best desktop platform. You don’t replace a bad thing with another.

An operating system is just as vital as let’s say water. We just don’t need one or two companies controlling the world’s water resources.

So what makes Mac and Windows great as a desktop platform? The obvious answer is the vast number of applications and the EASE OF USE. Cross-platform and open-source software is on the rise.

So what about ease of use? In my opinion this is the most important section where Linux has to work on. To many programmers things like icons, skins, counting the number of clicks to do a job may seem like unimportant details. To end-users however these DETAILS MEAN EVERYTHING. Let’s take Windows Vista. Even if in all the benchmarks Windows XP is faster than Vista, I promise you that Vista will have a huge success just because it looks great and is even more easy to use. Look at Office 2007! It kicks ***!

It’s so simple! The design of car is just as, if not even more, important than engine performance and fuel consumption.

Of course I see that there are efforts done in this direction. I’m just saying that more is needed. Linux has to look and feel even better than Vista and MacOS if it is to come out of the shadow. That is if it wants to.
You've just been merged with the relevant thread on the topic. Read this thread, and you'll find your own post in other peoples' words, all the responses to it, the responses to the responses, the counter-responses, and the general state of consensus.

OSes are easy because

1) They're pre-installed and pre-configured for users.

and

2) Users are already familiar with them.

Both are manifestations of Ubuntu Bug #1.

Say it with me: the conversion of atomized individual users do NOT make for a significant change in desktop market share. Apple is supposed to be the king of usability--so why do they only account for somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of all running desktops?

OSes don't have to be easy for individual users. OSes have to be easy for the people who administer those computers, and who procure large orders for computers and operating systems. The IBM Model 5120 Personal Computer was certainly NOT user-friendly under any circumstnaces, but it was cheap, effective, and did the job industry needed it to do. We are living with the consequences of those early large purchase orders.

fuscia
February 12th, 2007, 04:13 PM
unusual 'beans=0' thread.

i'll take water over an operating system anyday, though.

most people don't use what's best, or even what's best for them. they use what everybody else uses. humans are a herd species.

edit: doh! how'd i end up in this thread?

doobit
February 12th, 2007, 04:14 PM
It continues to go on. It's not a bad discussion, and there has been progress, and will continue to be progress as people make specific suggestions, and the developers pick them up and try them. However, it takes time. Macintosh and Microsoft have been around longer than Linux and a lot longer than any Desktop for Linux, so they have evolved farther. Desktop for Linux has evolved much faster than either, however, so we won't need to wait long.
Look, Compiz and Beryl, and Enlightenment have already been functional before Vista was released. Just be patient and offer good, specific suggestions on developement forums.

picpak
February 12th, 2007, 04:15 PM
I actually agree with the guy. Alot of good cues can be taken from Mac OSX, but Ubuntu has alot of "little thing", ease of use features. A good example is burning an ISO. Right click on the damn thing and hit write to disk! In Mac OS, you have to open disk utility (..why?) and mount it, then burn it. Then again, the average PC user doesn't burn too many ISO's in his day.

But the discussion of ease of use of ubuntu has been going on for way longer than I've been on the scene.

Yeah, but then if it doesn't work you have to go to Applications -> System Tools -> Configuration Editor, go to / -> apps -> nautilus-cd-burner and check burnproof and overburn (..why?)

Brunellus
February 12th, 2007, 04:16 PM
It continues to go on. It's not a bad discussion, and there has been progress, and will continue to be progress as people make specific suggestions, and the developers pick them up and try them. However, it takes time. Macintosh and Microsoft have been around longer than Linux and a lot longer than any Desktop for Linux, so they have evolved farther. Desktop for Linux has evolved much faster than either, however, so we won't need to wait long.
Look, Compiz and Beryl, and Enlightenment have already been functional before Vista was released. Just be patient and offer good, specific suggestions on developement forums.
point of order: Enlightenment (along with Duke Nukem Forever) is the only project that's been in development longer than Vista without an official release.

doobit
February 12th, 2007, 04:17 PM
point of order: Enlightenment (along with Duke Nukem Forever) is the only project that's been in development longer than Vista without an official release.

I didn't say it was released. I said it was functional.

highneko
February 12th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Wrong thread.

doobit
February 12th, 2007, 04:21 PM
Yeah, but then if it doesn't work you have to go to Applications -> System Tools -> Configuration Editor, go to / -> apps -> nautilus-cd-burner and check burnproof and overburn (..why?)

Nautilus CD burner works OK, in my opinion, but you can install K3B and then just click an ISO and it will burn as an image with overburn protection, and everything else.
K3B just works great.

picpak
February 12th, 2007, 04:23 PM
I could never get K3B working on Suse, had something to do with permission problems. I'm sure it's come a long way though.

darrenm
February 12th, 2007, 04:25 PM
Same here with Mandriva. It has come a long way :)

xoo
February 12th, 2007, 04:40 PM
OSes don't have to be easy for individual users.

omg lol. Is it just me or...

Brunellus
February 12th, 2007, 04:52 PM
omg lol. Is it just me or...
it is.

doobit
February 12th, 2007, 04:56 PM
omg lol. Is it just me or...

Linux is one of the few OSs that you can completely personalize. You can make it as easy as you want, just for you and as hard as you want for everyone else. But first, you have to know what you want.

Brunellus
February 12th, 2007, 05:01 PM
Linux is one of the few OSs that you can completely personalize. You can make it as easy as you want, just for you and as hard as you want for everyone else. But first, you have to know what you want.
It's also an OS that is (largely) user-installed, and is very easily user-installed at that. Mac OSX is not. Windows is mostly there, but there are enough hardware 'gotchas' to make it difficult.

Example: Have SATA drives and want to install Windows XP? I hope you have a floppy diskette drive. Yes, a REAL floppy--remember them?--because winXP doesn't have SATA drivers in by default.

xoo
February 12th, 2007, 05:02 PM
it is.

It is? I don't think so :)
See the numbers my friend. See the numbers!
Don't forget to chill ;)

Brunellus
February 12th, 2007, 05:10 PM
It is? I don't think so :)
See the numbers my friend. See the numbers!
Don't forget to chill ;)
Here, the relevant numbers are 5528 (the number of posts in this thread) and 0 (the number of non-community chat posts on your record).

We've been here a million times. Other users have discussed this with much more grace and good humor than I am presently capable of summoning up:

http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth

Is aysiu's excellent essay on the topic.

My point stands. "The Numbers" you're talking about are pre-installed users. They dont' install OSes themselves. Sysadmins do that for them--either at their hardware manufacturer or at the corporate level.

"ease of use" often has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with actual ease of use, and is really more about training and habituation to a certain set of routines. Attempting to move a user away from inefficient routines to a more efficient one that is simply DIFFERENT is almost impossible. As I sit in my cubicle, I can hear the rattle of my co-worker's ancient IBM Selectric typewriter. She cannot be taught, no matter how hard I try, to type labels and envelopes any other way. So it is with most users.

xoo
February 12th, 2007, 05:37 PM
OMG. Don't make it sound like that.

I used Linux from day 1. I remember the times when I was browsing for porn :)) with lynx writing emails with pine and searching with altavista. Linux has come a long way, I know. But still...

I'm in the same camp here. Do you think I like defragmenting harddisks and hunting for rootkits in the registry? I don't have a choice!
Don't take it so personally. I know you are sick and tired of countless people entering the forum and bitching about linux. You know what? I used to think the same way as you. But I realized that they are right.

99% of the job is done. Why is it so hard to do the remaining 1%?
Flaming critics? Debian "Fuc|< Ubuntu" T-shirts? Come one!

I'm starting to think it's a classic case of "divide et impera" :(

darrenm
February 12th, 2007, 05:51 PM
I'm predicting that Feisty will have the biggest impact for desktop Linux since Linux began. It's already got some great touches in that I was hoping for Edgy but was slightly disappointed about. Like it or not, the firmware and closed drivers thing can only help adoption. Even though everything about Lindows/spire makes my skin crawl (I think its those green crystal cirles) I think CNR will also be a massive help. Now if Canonical could just secure a decent OEM pre-install deal at the same time as all the stuff about Feisty hits, with the weak point of Vista being so utterly terrible on all fronts, it could be a great year for Ubuntu.

Adamant1988
February 12th, 2007, 08:32 PM
I'm predicting that Feisty will have the biggest impact for desktop Linux since Linux began. It's already got some great touches in that I was hoping for Edgy but was slightly disappointed about. Like it or not, the firmware and closed drivers thing can only help adoption. Even though everything about Lindows/spire makes my skin crawl (I think its those green crystal cirles) I think CNR will also be a massive help. Now if Canonical could just secure a decent OEM pre-install deal at the same time as all the stuff about Feisty hits, with the weak point of Vista being so utterly terrible on all fronts, it could be a great year for Ubuntu.

Based on what evidence do you believe Fiesty is going to make any kind of a difference? For as long as any Linux distribution is not a pre-installation option it will not be able to gain significant traction. You can put all of the codecs and illegal proprietary bits you want in Ubuntu, if it requires the user to install it themselves they're not going to do it.

The people who are currently buying PCs are just too scared to mess with the formula. They don't all understand the computers the way you and I do, they just want it to work.
My friend who is 18 (so knows more about the computer than her parents do) is absolutely terrified to try Linux. It took me over 2 hours to convince her that a Live CD was a safe way to try it first, and she's not dumb by any means. The major concern is "What if it breaks", or "What if I don't know how to use it", changing an operating system is a huge deal for these people and it's scary to them. Give them Linux on a PC to start, and I guarantee they would rather learn their way around the new OS than try to install windows themselves.

Phrawm48
February 12th, 2007, 09:15 PM
The people who are currently buying PCs are just too scared to mess with the formula. They don't all understand the computers the way you and I do, they just want it to work.

Good one!

My observation is that "they" (of which I am one) require their computer to do some sort of useful work, and so require a high margin of real or perceived comfort that the computer is ready, willing, and able to do that work. Conversely, and whatever the real or notional benfits of using Linux, "they" are generally not those with both the desire and the technical knowledge necessary to install, configure, and -- and, please, let's be honest about the need for this last one -- troubleshoot their computer's operating system before beginning to do useful work.

Moreover, "their" needs in this regard do NOT make them an "enemy" of Linux. No, indeed. "They" are merely uninterested in running Linux simply for the love of doing so.

Note that I say this as one who would very much prefer to run Linux all the time. BUT my goal is not in fact to "run Linux." My goal is instead to put my computer to work as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Sometimes Linux helps me do that; sometimes it doesn't.

The key point is that after I've used my computer to do the work I am required to do, I will happily spend, indeed have happily spent, some free time incrementally, iteratively learning more about Linux. But not a moment sooner...

Cheers & hope this helps,
Ric
SFO

darrenm
February 12th, 2007, 09:19 PM
Based on what evidence do you believe Fiesty is going to make any kind of a difference? For as long as any Linux distribution is not a pre-installation option it will not be able to gain significant traction. You can put all of the codecs and illegal proprietary bits you want in Ubuntu, if it requires the user to install it themselves they're not going to do it.

The people who are currently buying PCs are just too scared to mess with the formula. They don't all understand the computers the way you and I do, they just want it to work.
My friend who is 18 (so knows more about the computer than her parents do) is absolutely terrified to try Linux. It took me over 2 hours to convince her that a Live CD was a safe way to try it first, and she's not dumb by any means. The major concern is "What if it breaks", or "What if I don't know how to use it", changing an operating system is a huge deal for these people and it's scary to them. Give them Linux on a PC to start, and I guarantee they would rather learn their way around the new OS than try to install windows themselves.

Well just lots of little things happening like the way it is being pitched. But I completely agree, I've said all along in this thread that the major thing that has to happen is a large OEM/SI shipping Linux. Right now Vista will have a very slow uptake and someone like Dell or HP/Compaq would be foolish not to ship pre-installed Linux and they would be foolish to go with anything but Ubuntu.

doobit
February 12th, 2007, 09:21 PM
Good one!

My observation is that "they" (of which I am one) require their computer to do some sort of useful work, and so require a high margin of real or perceived comfort that the computer is ready, willing, and able to do that work. Conversely, and whatever the real or notional benfits of using Linux, "they" are generally not those with both the desire and the technical knowledge necessary to install, configure, and -- and, please, let's be honest about the need for this last one -- troubleshoot their computer's operating system before beginning to do useful work.


SFO

This sounds exactly like the argument that Apple used to use to get people to buy Macintosh instead of Windows. Linux will never reach that point until, as has already been stated many times, someone else installs and configures it for you.

Adamant1988
February 12th, 2007, 09:26 PM
Well just lots of little things happening like the way it is being pitched. But I completely agree, I've said all along in this thread that the major thing that has to happen is a large OEM/SI shipping Linux. Right now Vista will have a very slow uptake and someone like Dell or HP/Compaq would be foolish not to ship pre-installed Linux and they would be foolish to go with anything but Ubuntu.

It needs to be accepted that no large OEM is going to fight with Microsoft on this one. DELL and HP have made it blatantly obvious that they are not willing to push Microsoft to the point that Microsoft shuts them down (and yes, they can do it). Tier 2 OEMs with a good name, good marketing, and good reputations will do a lot more for Linux than DELL or HP are ever going to be willing to.

Also in terms of Distribution choices, I don't mean any offense, but for the end user I would put Linspire on computers before anything at all, my next choice in line would be OpenSuse 10.2, followed by Ubuntu. The reason I put them like that is I'm putting usability before e-religion, I don't want my computer telling me what moral and ethical standards I should be upholding (in relation to software) anymore than I want record companies and the RIAA telling me what I can listen to.

Brunellus
February 12th, 2007, 09:28 PM
It needs to be accepted that no large OEM is going to fight with Microsoft on this one. DELL and HP have made it blatantly obvious that they are not willing to push Microsoft to the point that Microsoft shuts them down (and yes, they can do it). Tier 2 OEMs with a good name, good marketing, and good reputations will do a lot more for Linux than DELL or HP are ever going to be willing to.

Also in terms of Distribution choices, I don't mean any offense, but for the end user I would put Linspire on computers before anything at all, my next choice in line would be OpenSuse 10.2, followed by Ubuntu. The reason I put them like that is I'm putting usability before e-religion, I don't want my computer telling me what moral and ethical standards I should be upholding (in relation to software) anymore than I want record companies and the RIAA telling me what I can listen to.
Ubuntu walks a pretty fine line between Live Free or Die (the core value of Debian) and Pay Up Or Else (which is sometimes the vibe I get from Linspire)

Adamant1988
February 12th, 2007, 09:31 PM
Ubuntu walks a pretty fine line between Live Free or Die (the core value of Debian) and Pay Up Or Else (which is sometimes the vibe I get from Linspire)

It does. But frankly I don't like being harassed when I install non-free codecs and drivers.

Brunellus
February 12th, 2007, 09:35 PM
It does. But frankly I don't like being harassed when I install non-free codecs and drivers.
Those are Bug #1 workarounds. If you don't want it. . . well there are other distros.

Adamant1988
February 12th, 2007, 09:38 PM
Those are Bug #1 workarounds. If you don't want it. . . well there are other distros.

Which is exactly why I said I would put Linspire and OpenSuse on OEM machines before I put Ubuntu on them. :)

darrenm
February 12th, 2007, 11:01 PM
Your choice of course but personally I've never got on with OpenSuse or Linspire.

Frak
February 13th, 2007, 12:25 AM
Your choice of course but personally I've never got on with OpenSuse or Linspire.
When with me, I'm on board with Xandros, Linspire, OpenSuSe (as well as regular SuSe), and Red Hat (which was really horrible), and I'm very happy with my choices. Of course Ubuntu is installed, at the lease alongside other OS's, on all my computers. But I do like how I have legally licensed codecs, and flash and whatnot preinstalled, as why I have Xandros and Linspire.

lptr
February 13th, 2007, 09:11 AM
Good one!
Note that I say this as one who would very much prefer to run Linux all the time. BUT my goal is not in fact to "run Linux." My goal is instead to put my computer to work as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Sometimes Linux helps me do that; sometimes it doesn't.

1981 right? I started using using computers some years later - some I say ;-) (I remeber exactly on my first 'handheld PC' - Sharp PC1500 - some will knowing. Used it during study - wrote diploma work on a Sperry PC with 20 MByte HDD & had enormous 1 MB RAM). Other systems in this pre era: Northstar (CPM), C64, Apple, IBM PC, MS-DOS. Enormous jumps have been made since that time. Many of us followed that darned Windows 'syndrom' (me too, yes). But lots of things has been easend to use computers. No serious. If Windows would not have been created and that successfull, Linux wouldn't be in that position it is today.

Why lot of people are changing fronts? In my case I got sick of that horrible changes in directions (as developer) under Windows environment. MS started to go into one direction. Some years later the dropped the complete thing - creating something completely different. The ugly point in this game: They did not fullfill the need to drastically changing things into bigger stability nor higher performance.

I admit, that I still using XP here and at customer installations. In todays world it is a NEED to have it. Reasons? Well - an simple example: Recently I tried to get my scanner Canon LiDE 70 later LiDE 600F to work under Ubuntu. In short: No way. Missing drivers. Not because Linux guys are lazy folks. No because missing support of manufacturers. The same experience with webcams (having some Logitechs hanging around here). Anyways as Linux user one has to decide for available drivers instead of anything else. Until this does not change... But well. By now, having best of both worlds is sufficient I think. And maybe anytimes I will hopefully run more things on Linux desktop as today.

Since 2001 I am using KDE on my primary desktop. Why? Viruses, Trojans, Worms. Well yes not to forget rootkits. Linux is targeted, too. But! and that is the important fact. You as user administrator / power user whatever you call him/her sitting in front of the machine will never fiddle around at the machine that much, as one would do in Windows world (except the user is not allowed to do so). You will agree in the fact, that half-life period of a Windows system is mainly dependend in the fact that usually lots of changes are made to it.

MS tries to harden their OSs more and more. The peak is reached, now with Vista as it has been told (BTW: I expect that because of this fact Vista will not get that acceptance they hope). Millions of people all the time ran (& still running) with admin rights. Guess why?

Linux is going the opposite way. But the community is watching about the fact to make things easier to use but not for the price of increasing instability. In my case I having my third desktop Linux machine running now (note: I need change hardware every three years and then it makes sense to install new). I am far away to be perfect with Linux. I admit that when I have to change things I sometimes need many hours to get things working. But when it works, usually this works for a very looong time. This was my decision for Linux on my desktop.

Yes and as long Windows must be used side by side there is a strong need for easy integration. One of the things I would like to see very much, is a project that targets to integrate LDAP/Samba. So an average Windows administrator would be able to set up a domain without much hassles. No need to fiddle around for days or weeks to finally give up demotivated.

So - what I do want from Linux (sorry more specifically - Ubuntu) further? The same stability. A rock solid package management (not that kind of things we saw last weekend when kernel package things went NIL). Godfather like sponsors :popcorn: (like Shuttleworth) who maybe could significantly influence manufacturers to giving out more informations from their hardware giving developers the chance to help themselves. Well - yes and an important fact: Leaving their childs independend as far as possible. This is a major issue.

rob*

goofeyfoot
February 19th, 2007, 03:04 AM
Ok:

I am a newbie to Linux. That is my apology and it is the only one I am going to make.

I have downloaded three, count 'em three, versions of the program.

I have made about six or seven cds to run the program. It will not run. It locks up every time. This is an AMD 64 bit machine that otherwise runs fine. I'm a little ticked right now, so excuse the rant.

You may think that because I am a newcomer, my opinion doesn't count. And I can understand why. Dumb new guy doesn't get it. So he can pound sand. The rest of us savvy people get it. We can work Linux, ergo Linux is a great system.

Let me rebut with the following.

When considering operating system options, you only get two choices. Bill Gates, and open source. That is all that is on the menu at the moment. Most people, like myself, don't want to go back to school to make a computer run. Sorry, we dummies will always take the path of least resistance to make a machine work.

Sure, Linux sounds like a great deal. Hey, it's free. Would I like to get away from Windows? Would I like a simpler operating system? Would I like to bust Gate's monopoly? Would I like more flexibility and less eye-candy? Absolutely.

But as a dumb new guy, I do not want to spend an entire day downloading software, trying to get it to run and posting help messages on boards.

So Bill Gates is going to continue to make a lot of money. His way of making dough really has nothing at all to do with high tech. It's a much simpler way of thinking. Gates' logic simply asks, "Where is the dumb new guy going to go?" Is he going to dump a lousy couple hundred bucks into an operating system that works as soon as you put in in a hard drive, or is he going to spend endless days playing with lengthy commands completely devoid of vowels so that he can say he got something free?" Result? Instant billionaire.

Maybe I am being hard on Linux. But it is high time somebody was. I have read nothing but glowing opinions online about this system for years. Linux is not a new technology. The operating system has been talked up for decades as the be-all end all. Sorry, but after all the hype, one would expect that the system would be hassle free. It ain't - and far from it.

Let me speak for myself and the other dumb users who have made Gates a rich man. Linux and open source, get back to us when we can just click "Next" and actually run your operating system. Until then, it's Windows all the way.

Michael

ieee488
February 19th, 2007, 03:08 AM
When considering operating system options, you only get two choices. Bill Gates, and open source.

Untrue.

The other major OS is Mac OS X found on all the new Macs.

MetalMusicAddict
February 19th, 2007, 03:10 AM
Too bad sir. Maybe next time. Have you installed windows from scratch? For me, more works out of the box in linux than windows on my AMD AM2 box. Maybe try a PC with Ubuntu preinstalled?

undertakingyou
February 19th, 2007, 03:11 AM
Goofeyfoot,

I'm a newbie (NOOB) as well and may I just say that I understand totally where you are coming from. My experience has probably been different from yours, not in that problems weren't encountered, just in how I felt mine were resolved. I am what some would call a windows power user, and I don't like it. I like Linux a lot and particularly the ubuntu distribution.

Maybe there is another distribution that would be better for your system. Maybe there is a problem that even I could help with. If not, its to bad to see someone leaving the community, we can use all the "New Guys" we can get. I left out dumb on purpose. Nobody is dumb, they just have a different level of experience.

Bachstelze
February 19th, 2007, 03:12 AM
What you need to understand is that Linux - and other open source OSes - do not aim to be "the best os for everyone" or to "just work (TM)". The guys who created it made is firstly for themselves. Then, if people like it, they can use it too, if they don't like it, then they don't use it. As simple as that. But it's the former category that makes the OS, not the latter.

If you feel Windows suits your needs better, use WIndows.

koshari
February 19th, 2007, 03:13 AM
i must have missed your posts where you described what the actual problem of booting any of the live discs was?

STREETURCHINE
February 19th, 2007, 03:16 AM
a real gogetter ,makes 1 post and that is to moan about linux.
maybe you should just post and tell people what iso you downloaded and what problems you were having

Sef
February 19th, 2007, 03:18 AM
I have made about six or seven cds to run the program.

1) Did you md5sum the downloads?

2) Did you burn the iso at 4x or less?

3) Did you check the cd to make sure it is good.


This is an AMD 64 bit machine that otherwise runs fine.

What operating system did you use? 32 or 64-bit?


When considering operating system options, you only get two choices. Bill Gates, and open source. That is all that is on the menu at the moment. Most people, like myself, don't want to go back to school to make a computer run. Sorry, we dummies will always take the path of least resistance to make a machine work.


So buy a computer with Linux preinstalled (http://system76.com).


But as a dumb new guy, I do not want to spend an entire day downloading software, trying to get it to run and posting help messages on boards.

What hardware do you have? What have your problems been? Not all hardware works with Windows either.


Linux and open source, get back to us when we can just click "Next" and actually run your operating system. Until then, it's Windows all the way.

Open Source is about choice. If you decide to use Windows that is your choice, and there is nothing wrong with that.

smartalecks
February 19th, 2007, 03:20 AM
If it "freezes up" then I would guess that there is a problem with the way you wrote the CDs (did you md5sum check them?) (too fast can cause corruption). But it depends. Try ordering some CDs or writing them at a slower speed.

Could you elaborate on the problem you are having?

adza
February 19th, 2007, 03:26 AM
Well goofeyfoot, all i can say is... sorry to see you go.. i, like many other newcomers to the OS, have had a different experience to you (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=364781) and feel a little sorry that you feel this way. However, that being said, linux is not for everyone and if that 'next' button is mission critical to you, then perhaps windows is a smarter option.. i can say though, that dapper AMD 64bit edition, makes my AMD 64 bit machine smoke much better than winblows....

Wight_Rhino
February 19th, 2007, 03:26 AM
All of us so called "Savvy Users" were once where you are,....uhhh,...Were:)

(Some of us are not far removed from there!) I guess we just handled the problems differently.

Anyway, Good Luck with Windows. I sincerely hope it all works out good for you.

tonyr1988
February 19th, 2007, 03:27 AM
I'd definately second the "burning slower" solution to your CD problems (assuming you have no problems with the download, which an md5sum will check). Burning slower isn't something a lot of people think of - after all, music CDs really don't seem to matter what speed you burn them, so why would Ubuntu? It makes a huge difference, and almost anytime I've heard of someone burning at a max speed (or close to it) has had problems.

You can also order the CDs (free, no shipping even!) from Ubuntu's ShipIt program - they should definitely work for you.

The big thing is this: if you encounter problems, post before you get too caught up in them, especially if you don't care about learning new things and just want to "get going." I guarantee you someone here can help you out, just make sure you ask early and include as many details as possible.

Sorry you started off (and possibly ended) with Linux on a bad foot. I hope that you'll consider trying again, either now or sometime in the future. It can be a pain to set up sometimes, but in the end it'll make life so much easier. :)

STREETURCHINE
February 19th, 2007, 03:40 AM
this is a bit of topic but there is a lot of talk about how fast you burn the iso,i have burnt all the ubuntu distro's at 8x and have not had a problem with the installs,

i have even tried edgy at 12x and it installed no problem

so i dont think the focus should be on the speed ,i dont recomend a flat out burn but everyone's comp is differant you just have to find what suits you'rs,,,

aysiu
February 19th, 2007, 03:43 AM
Merged with the Desktop Readiness thread.

By the way, these days 8x is considered slow. A lot of people burn at 48x or 96x...

goofeyfoot
February 19th, 2007, 10:01 AM
Well, thanks for the comments. But with all due respect, I do not believe that Linux will run on my machine. Yes I have burned slow. Yes, I have checked the hash. Yes I have verified the iso burn. And yes I have pulled down 6.03 and 6.10. I have tried the 386 iso. I have tried the amd64 iso. Basically I have tried everything, and I did all of that before I posted anything on this website forum.

Just so people understand, this is apparently a common problem with my chipset. Check out this fellow's comments posted elsewhere:

"AM2 and MythTV war stories, a continuing saga
By Nicholas Petreley on Sun, 2006-08-06 16:57.

Warning to Linux users who want to upgrade to socket AM2 motherboards: You will almost definitely run into problems with Linux. I have an ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard. I upgraded the BIOS to the latest version, and that broke IO-APIC on all versions of the Linux kernel I've tried, including 2.6.17.7. I couldn't boot Linux without the "noapic" boot parameter. I solved this problem by restoring an older BIOS, and I lost a fancy NVidia acceleration feature in the process. That's no big deal for me because the feature primarily benefits Windows games and I don't play Windows games often enough to care.

I'd still like to see this problem solved, and I don't see a solution coming anytime soon. Based on what I've read in the Linux kernel developer mailing list, few people have AM2-based boards and little if any work is being done to deal with them. Thanks to a spinal problem, I'm in too much pain to mess with BIOS versions and debugging APIC problems, so the kernel developers can't get help from me. In fact, typing this is an exercise in masochism. But I'm hoping someone out there will get an ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard and help out. "

So, you see Linux will apparently not work on my machine no matter what. Too, the gentleman's quote is dated back in August 2006. And yet I see no reference to this known problem on the Ubunto site.

Thanks for reading.

Michael

Jimmy_r
February 19th, 2007, 10:11 AM
Then I am glad I did not buy AM2 last time I upgraded. I was considering it...

darrenm
February 19th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Just to add a bit about burning CD's:

When burning CD's you should always use a type of media recommended by the manufacturer. In each CD-RW drive's firmware there is a list of all known blank media. When a blank CD is inserted the drive looks at the CDs ATIP (absolute time-in pre-groove) and then matches it against the list in the firmware. Generally cheaper, poorer quality media won't have been tested with the drive and won't be listed in the firmware so the drive will have to do a power calibration which is mostly successful and sometimes not. You can help this by burning at a slower speed but sometimes certain media is simply not compatible with certain drives.

detyabozhye
February 20th, 2007, 04:18 AM
Well, thanks for the comments. But with all due respect, I do not believe that Linux will run on my machine. Yes I have burned slow. Yes, I have checked the hash. Yes I have verified the iso burn. And yes I have pulled down 6.03 and 6.10. I have tried the 386 iso. I have tried the amd64 iso. Basically I have tried everything, and I did all of that before I posted anything on this website forum.

Just so people understand, this is apparently a common problem with my chipset. Check out this fellow's comments posted elsewhere:

"AM2 and MythTV war stories, a continuing saga
By Nicholas Petreley on Sun, 2006-08-06 16:57.

Warning to Linux users who want to upgrade to socket AM2 motherboards: You will almost definitely run into problems with Linux. I have an ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard. I upgraded the BIOS to the latest version, and that broke IO-APIC on all versions of the Linux kernel I've tried, including 2.6.17.7. I couldn't boot Linux without the "noapic" boot parameter. I solved this problem by restoring an older BIOS, and I lost a fancy NVidia acceleration feature in the process. That's no big deal for me because the feature primarily benefits Windows games and I don't play Windows games often enough to care.

I'd still like to see this problem solved, and I don't see a solution coming anytime soon. Based on what I've read in the Linux kernel developer mailing list, few people have AM2-based boards and little if any work is being done to deal with them. Thanks to a spinal problem, I'm in too much pain to mess with BIOS versions and debugging APIC problems, so the kernel developers can't get help from me. In fact, typing this is an exercise in masochism. But I'm hoping someone out there will get an ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard and help out. "

So, you see Linux will apparently not work on my machine no matter what. Too, the gentleman's quote is dated back in August 2006. And yet I see no reference to this known problem on the Ubunto site.

Thanks for reading.

Michael

I'd like to note that it's not Linux's fault here. Often hardware manufacturers will only make sure their hardware works with Windows and just wish the little guys the best of luck. Although that's not the biggest problem itself though; they will often decline to release the specs for the hardware so that the little guys can make it function by themselves as well. Solution: make Linux more popular so that the hardware manufacturers will pay more attention to it.

frog3764
February 20th, 2007, 06:32 AM
This current Ubuntu 6.1 is my third distro, and I like it the best. It comes recommended from two different sources. The other distros were PC Linux?, and Linux XP Freespire. I like them all and Ubuntu the best, but all LINUX distros seem to have a major problem. They are not USER-FRIENDLY! So. how can anyone learn the system if you can't find your way around or understand the names and the documents? I would like to dump Windows and go to Linux but I can't work my way around the system. For example, several days ago I had to ask your forum for help in using floppys which I needed to put some files on. The docs were absolutely not complete or clear to understand, so they were of no help at all. Thanks to your forum, I got some help and partially solved that problem. Now, since my son took my DSL modem to his room, I will use dial-up for my short internet browsing. The DSL worked fine from day one of the install, but I can't get the dial up to work. Again, your docs are absolutely no help at all. I know how to do this in XP, but your Linux falls way short in being usable for anyone but the astute. I finally found the internet setup, but it requires information that I don't know. So, why don't Linux people work on making the system USER FRIENDLY so a "Linux want to be" from Windows can easily make the switch? How about a list of Linux names compared to the Windows counterpart so a newbie might be able to start making the conversion, ie. Network Connections vs. Linux (name of the folder), and some help on that screen so you know where to get any missing information that Windows already has. A newbie might be able to stumble around and get his problem resolved much easier. I have always heard that Linux is hard to use, and that is the absolute truth. So, how about some of you Linux pros taking the inititive to simplify or making your distro easier for the newbie? This is my two cents worth and thanks for your time. I guess I will explore a few other distros because I don't want to give up yet.

Jim

skyhopper88
February 20th, 2007, 06:47 AM
It's no harder than Windows to be honest, just different. A majority of the problems occur when people are used to the windows way. The same would happen if you through a windows only user on a Mac. It also depends on the distro as well, like you said. I used Freespire (basically Linspire minus the fees) for about a week. It felt alot like windows and they try to hold your hand alot, which actually put me off a bit. I never could get sound to work though so I moved elsewhere. I've heard good things about openSUSE, but I haven tried it as I'd have hardware conflicts with it according to their site. I also have heard good things about Fedora and Mandriva. I suggest if you have some spare cds lying around, try out several live cds. Linux does have a learning curve, I'm 18 and have use Windows since '95 exclusively until last year, but I feel right at home. Ubuntu I like, and the terminal is actually easy to learn especially with the guys on this forum. I feel I've learned more in the past year than I ever did with Windows.

aysiu
February 20th, 2007, 06:49 AM
I've merged you with the desktop readiness thread.


So, why don't Linux people work on making the system USER FRIENDLY They are working on it:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/feisty

What gives you the impression Linux developers are sitting around twiddling their thumbs or playing online poker? Their contributions make Linux more user-friendly. Your rant doesn't. Sorry.

If you feel you want to blow off some steam, consider it blown off.

If you actually want to do something productive, take some advice from here:
What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741)

Frak
February 20th, 2007, 01:41 PM
What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741)

I'm adding that to my sig.
Thanks aysiu :guitar:

braveerudite
February 20th, 2007, 04:21 PM
I love this (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37742) article I read today. Is the way I have felt for a long time but always the blind Linux fan boys flame me for it.

Article goes like this:

From: The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37742)

By: Andrew Thomas (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?page=24&authorID=4)

"FREE ADVICE IS WORTH EVERY PENNY as someone once famously said. For years, I have been guilty of replacing the word 'advice' with the word 'software' as every attempt I made to get Linux to work properly ended, if not in tears, at least in immoderate language and the dog fleeing the room in terror to avoid low-flying Mandrake CDs.

But time marches on. Products evolve and mature. Sometimes they even get better. So when I installed Vista, I thought it would only be fair if I also downloaded the latest version of Ubuntu, burned it onto CD and installed it on another machine. The ease with which the PC booted from the CD was impressive. Installation to the hard disk was a piece of cake. It was relatively simple, if not quite automatic, to get it talking over the LAN to the router and out to the InterWeb.

Quite an impressive start for a piece of free software, I think you'll agree. But (and you just knew there was a 'but' coming, didn't you?) then the wheels started to come off. Despite it being the latest ISO image I could find, the first thing the system did when it saw the Web was to download 104 updates – roughly 60 per cent more than a new install of Windows XP SP2 asks for.

The update process, though surprising in its quantity, was handled quickly enough at the 8Mb/second of my ADSL connection, although those with slower technology will obviously find it a less rewarding experience.

Had I been installing Ubuntu on a free-standing notebook, I must admit it would have been quite an auspicious start to my experience with Linux – an operating system I had always derided as being too clunky, too impenetrable, too difficult and too cheap to be worthy of serious attention.

But I wasn't installing it on a notebook, it's on a desktop machine sharing a LAN with two XP and one Vista boxes. Vista and XP play happily together, doing all the file and printer sharing I need with absolutely no bother. The Ubuntu PC is a different matter entirely. I was advised, by friends who swear by Linux and at Microsoft, that I needed to install Samba, which I duly did. I am assured that Samba's sole purpose in life is to enable Linux and Windows machines to co-exist and cooperate on the same LAN.

Well, I've only been playing with computers since 1972 and I couldn't make it work. Linux can see the Windows boxes and vice versa, but any attempt to access files is met with a login dialogue box that refuses any username and password I enter. Now my learned friends tell me I should be using something called Wine. I've been a heavy user of wine for many years and it certainly helped relax me but did absolutely nothing for my connectivity dilemma.

So I've done what any normal person would do in the circumstances – give up. If the awfully-clever people who write bits of open source code can't make it work automatically, I stand absolutely no chance of fixing it. It looks very much to me as if people clever enough to write an entire operating system can't make a simple bit of networking work, it has to be a deliberate marketing decision rather than a lack of ability.

The Ubuntu box now awaits rebirth as another Windows XP machine. I have neither the time nor the inclination to persevere with its perversity. Maybe I'll try Linux again in another ten years. Maybe by then it will have grown up. Ķ
"

Bou
February 20th, 2007, 04:34 PM
Linux can see the Windows boxes and vice versa, but any attempt to access files is met with a login dialogue box that refuses any username and password I enter.

He's quite right there, a graphical solution for Samba accounts has been badly in need since years ago.

Resurrection
February 20th, 2007, 04:38 PM
I would respond this way, as a linux intermediate user (not a beginner, but far from an expert):

1) Anyone who complains about the 104 package updates vs Microsoft not updating clearly doesn't understand the purpose of the updates. Common sense would dictate that software which constantly does security updates is better than software which only does occasional updates. I'm not saying that these people are idiots, I think they just are use to the "windows" way of security, and should learn more about Linux security before complaining about it.

2) The only other major complaint is that networking wasn't point and click to set up or automatically done for the author? It doesn't take a fanboy to realize that Microsoft doesn't like open source. So it should be no surprise that OSS won't be able to connect to Vista easily in its first month of release. I think the author is wrong about Ubuntu and XP. I had no trouble setting up the machines to talk to one another.

I'm no cultist fanboy. But I don't have to be to see through the plain bias of the author's article. Really, just because of Ubuntu not connecting automatically to Vista, this guy says that "he will maybe try Linux again in 10 years when its grown up". Are you kidding me?

I believe he had no intent of trying Linux for real in the first place. I don't think Linux will ever be right for SOME people, no matter how easy you make it for them. They are too used to Windows and incapable of learning anything else, and worse, they don't even want to try to learn.

Bah, I would give the author some credit if he had actually given Ubuntu a serious try, but he did not.

And this is probably the wrong section of the forum for this. Maybe it should be moved to the Cafe?

OffHand
February 20th, 2007, 04:44 PM
I've been a heavy whiner for many years and it certainly helped relax me but did absolutely nothing for my connectivity dilemma.
Fixed

:lolflag:

teaker1s
February 20th, 2007, 04:45 PM
another I tried it and it wasn't windows-so I chose windows.

I think all this market share is a waste when comparing linux to windows. I'm more interested in distro popularity

Rui Pais
February 20th, 2007, 04:46 PM
The Ubuntu box now awaits rebirth as another Windows XP machine. I have neither the time nor the inclination to persevere with its perversity. Maybe I'll try Linux again in another ten years. Maybe by then it will have grown up

This final phrase say it all...
That's obviously a person who uses Windows, are used to it and seems refuse to learn or read anything (a friend, a single one, tell him to install this and that... he do it... uahau. How clever. Hope he make his own decisions on other subjects.)

He simple don't have time or interest in the subject thats all. He works with computers since 1972 and it seems he gives linux a day or two to learn it... ok.

Jussi Kukkonen
February 20th, 2007, 04:47 PM
Maybe I'll try Linux again in another ten years. Maybe by then I will have grown up.

There you go Andrew, fixed that typo for ya!

:)

incubus
February 20th, 2007, 04:52 PM
Looks like HE has the closed mind there.

incubus

bjornolai
February 20th, 2007, 04:52 PM
So as I see it windows has a compatibility problem.. Or?? Well well.

Even though on this forum we're supposedly amongst friends I would say a word of caution about reprinting this whole article here. There might be copyright issues. Have you cleared those? Maybe linking to it is safer, albeit not as effective

lapsey
February 20th, 2007, 04:54 PM
Nice flamebait title. Perhaps you can elaborate on that since it has little to do with ONE issue - crappy samba in gnome - that proved too much for a windows power user.

PriceChild
February 20th, 2007, 05:03 PM
*sends the author an email*

Boreras
February 20th, 2007, 05:15 PM
the number of packages; so what?
Really, this packages are mostly compared to Windows non-critical. Really, the windows packages are to fill the many holes that never will be filled, whereas the linux problem are far less important. You can't actually run a default windows XP computer safe, with or without the updates. Constantly major flaws are being found, whereas the world goes mad when an unfriendly hacker is able to even see any file on the linux desktop.
Besides, the windows never give me my full speed, where as the ubuntu repos does. And the installs themselves are WAY faster.
And compare; I installed Ubuntu, fresh, in about 1 hour (including Drivers, updates, etc.). Whereas on the same PC, I used one and a half hour to get the thing in approximately the same condition as the Ubuntu was within that hour. And I had done 2 Ubuntu installs before this attempt, and approximately 10 XP installs at that time.

You've been working with computers for how many years? Really, than maybe you should consider a different business, or maybe the whole thing is just past you, you're not able to adapt.. Someone I know have done the same successfully (he's 16, using linux for 1.5 years, and he's not that much of a linux user, beginner to intermediate), 2 XP and 1 ubuntu computer (but I will admit there could be some improvements) Besides; who is to blame? It's the windows guys keeping everything closed, blocking our development.

Maybe in ten years Microsoft actually gives out a system worth the effort. Make it worth to run all that stupid spyware scanning, virus scanning. Or just finally learn / copy (just as they've done with Vista, though not enough) from the greatness of linux.

Here is my free advice: wait ten years, and maybe you will have grown up.

braveerudite
February 20th, 2007, 05:38 PM
There might be copyright issues. Have you cleared those?

Yes, as long as you provide a link to the original article and credit the author.



Maybe linking to it is safer, albeit not as effective

For that reason I decided to paste it, so people don't have to hop to another site and the discussion can take place here. (I still provided the link to the original article source.)

nsleiman
February 20th, 2007, 05:56 PM
The Ubuntu box now awaits rebirth as another Windows XP machine. I have neither the time nor the inclination to persevere with its perversity. Maybe I'll try Linux again in another ten years. Maybe by then it will have grown up. Ķ
"

Great Mind, but obviously limited to microsoft's products :).
P.S. how can a person say this about linux where Windows still cant handle the Ctrl-Alt-Del !!!