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

kittyhawk63
February 20th, 2007, 06:01 PM
I'm a newbie to Linux and therefore to Ubuntu. I have been a Windows user almost since I first started using computers. As a Windows user, I go back to Windows 3.0. I never got more frustrated than trying to make Win 3.0 stop crashing. It was just a little better in Win 3.1. I quickly moved from Win 95 to Win ME which as I understand it, is just more eye candy to Win 98. Back to having more instability in Win ME. I can't remember the number of times that I had to start all over with a fresh install with all those "GREAT" Windows products. I then moved to Win XP. I found it more stable to all the others. That is how it should be. Right? You get better with every new version? Is it not the same with Linux?

We were told that Win XP was a brand new OS. But it wasn't. It was still built on DOS. They just hid it from the consumer deep into the OS files. We were told that they had worked on it for 13 years to make sure it was secure from hackers. It was hacked in less than 24 hours. They didn't tell us it had hidden programs that kept records of every site you visited on the Internet. That to me is intrusion of privacy. I don't even like this when the government does it.

Now Gates has the audacity to bring out its worse package yet. Vista. I read up on it and saw how controlling it will be to the consumer of this product. It is this control that made me look for another OS.

I have heard about Linux for a number of years and decided to give it a try. One week ago, I came aboard. I am in my early 60s. I don't learn as quickly as I did back when I earned my doctorate. But, I would give it a try. I had heard and read how difficult it can be to get Linux up and running. Well, that may have been true in the past, but I have not found it to be so with Ubuntu. It installed without a hitch. The only time that I have experienced having some trouble is getting around in a new world with a new language. But, I was ready to become bi-lingual. It has not been that difficult. Once I started getting advice on what I was trying to accomplish, my problems were quickly resolved by eager respondents. I've even learned to do some things in Ubuntu that I never took time to learn in Windows.

I am ready to give Edgy a go when it is stable. I must say, it feels so good to be unleased from a monolithic system. I like this open source thing. I now have access to some great apps because I get to benefit from those who know how to program. The limit to good programs is only limited to the imagination of those programmers. I was stuck with MS's programmers which after using them for a number of years I felt were the less of the best out there. From what I have seen in this short week, I personally think Linux programmers are some of the best in the world. There is also that constant improvement in Linux. With Windows, you have to wait for the next version when Gates feels he needs more money and more power and is ready to get up from off his throne. I have only one thing to tell Bill, "When you leave my house, make sure you lock all the "gates" behind you."

Breathe deep. I think I finally smell some freah air. Hello World! ):P

aamukahvi
February 20th, 2007, 06:02 PM
Windows still cant handle the Ctrl-Alt-Del !!!
What do you mean?

nsleiman
February 20th, 2007, 06:08 PM
i always wonder why does it take so long to show me the processes! and when the window is shown i only can kill few processes in no time, whereas on linux i adore the xkill :) (im on windows at work and edgy home/uni)

knn
February 20th, 2007, 06:17 PM
It's not Ubuntu's fault that he couldn't access his files. It's Microsoft's fault, since their operating system is closed. However, users don't care about politics. They want things to work, therefore if Ubuntu can't access files from a networked Windows machine, they'll think Ubuntu sucks and go back to Windows.

Updating cds wouldn't be a bad idea though. Not all people have 8mb/sec connections, and redownloading half of the os after installing it isn't a pleasant first impression.

behemot
February 20th, 2007, 06:20 PM
Yesterday I installed Windows XP Home, Antivirus, Office 2003 and Acrobat Reader on P3 1GHz PC.
This took over 6 hrs. I had to reboot at least 7 times before all the updates were installed. All the hardware was detected and properly installed by default, so I didn't have to hunt for drivers. I didn't have to call MS to activate software. It was a simple installation.

Fast Pentium 4 newer installs in less then 2.5 hrs.

I could setup Edgy on the same P3 PC from mini.iso in about 30 minutes.

The author is clearly confused...

kittyhawk63
February 20th, 2007, 06:26 PM
Takes me at least three hours to install everything I need to get WinXp running safe and with the features I need. It took me less than an hour doing the same thing with Ubuntu.

aysiu
February 20th, 2007, 06:27 PM
I don't see what this has to do with Feisty.

I'm merging it with the Desktop Readines thread. That seems a more appropriate place.

Brunellus
February 20th, 2007, 06:43 PM
I don't see what this has to do with Feisty.

I'm merging it with the Desktop Readines thread. That seems a more appropriate place.
Feisty's a development release and by definition "not ready." Stupid beta fever.

Catsworth
February 20th, 2007, 06:51 PM
[...]Updating cds wouldn't be a bad idea though. Not all people have 8mb/sec connections, and redownloading half of the os after installing it isn't a pleasant first impression.

Agreed, it would be nice to not have to download all those updates - but.....

Last time I re-installed Windows it took longer to download the Windows 'updates' that it did the Ubuntu ones when I made the switch away from Microsoft.

knn
February 20th, 2007, 07:04 PM
I was going to tell how long it takes me to install Win XP. But that was dealt with by another user of XP. Suffice to say, it is no short task. On my 900 MHZ machine it took several* hours to do all of Windows XP updates. I was up and running Ubuntu in less than an hour with the install feature.

dict.
couple is two
several is three or more

Yes, ubuntu installation is much better than xp, installing additional software is easier (assuming there's a repo or at least a .deb), and centralized update is way better than having every stupid application trying to update itself every time I start it (even worse is that some applications like skype and zonealarm think automatic update == tell the user there's a new version and direct him/her to the download page).

But only because we're the best doesn't mean we can't be better. I'm not saying the CD's should be updated every time a new package is updated, only after a lot of updates have accumulated. Like 6.06.1, only more frequently.

FyreBrand
February 20th, 2007, 08:19 PM
Feisty's a development release and by definition "not ready." Stupid beta fever.Which often translates from "I installed <insert latest beta release> on my only production machine with 10 years of irreplaceable data and now I've lost everything. All I wanted was a cube. I'm going back to Windows!!"
hehehe.

FLPCGuy
February 20th, 2007, 08:34 PM
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....
Michael

I've just built a 64-bit AMD X2 machine and I tried Kubuntu and MEPIS (Dapper 6.06 32-bit) for ease of use. I had problems with both because of the APIC (interrupt handler) feature of ACPI. When Linux crashed it gave me the hint to try the noapic param. Sure enough, that was all it took.

I'm still trying to get XP to install and run correctly on this machine (buyer insists) but there is no help in the Knowledge Base for it's crash error 0x0000006F. I've turned off every BIOS feature I can to get it installed.

I swapped CD drives and got setup to run and install on the SATA HD. But later, XP won't read or run even original CD's. Even with all my Windows tech experience I have to admit, installing XP on this jacked up dual core PC (1000 MHz FSB, dual channel DDR2 PC4800 memory, Cool N' Quiet CPU pwr. control, etc.) is actually HARDER than installing Linux.

m.musashi
February 20th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Even with all my Windows tech experience I have to admit, installing XP on this jacked up dual core PC (1000 MHz FSB, dual channel DDR2 PC4800 memory, Cool N' Quiet CPU pwr. control, etc.) is actually HARDER than installing Linux.
With my limited 14 months of Linux experience and 14 YEARS of windows experience I can say that Ubuntu at least is easier than ANY windows install (that may not have been true in the past but I don't have that experience). Fortunatley (or perhaps unfortunately) for most people they don't have to worry about it - it just comes that way. Hmmm, isn't that, in essence, the definition of bug #1?

cowlip
February 20th, 2007, 10:39 PM
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. µ
"

IIRC, Ubuntu weirdly requires you to make a new username/password with samba using the command line: smbpassword -a username . Why this isn't done when you install samba with a GUI tool, why it's hidden in a wiki like that, or why you just can't let guest accounts use your shared folders w/out loggin in like Windows I don't know. In regards to Vista compatibility, there were a few problems but they're now fixed (thanks in part to Xbox Media Center developers_

darrenm
February 20th, 2007, 11:04 PM
IIRC, Ubuntu weirdly requires you to make a new username/password with samba using the command line: smbpassword -a username . Why this isn't done when you install samba with a GUI tool, why it's hidden in a wiki like that, or why you just can't let guest accounts use your shared folders w/out loggin in like Windows I don't know. In regards to Vista compatibility, there were a few problems but they're now fixed (thanks in part to Xbox Media Center developers_

Nope. The version of Samba which is installed on Ubuntu is just like Samba on any other Linux distro. When you install Samba-server you need to encrypt the passwords for anyone connecting from a Windows 95OSR2 + box. This is the smbpasswd -a username bit. To connect to a Windows share from Gnome then it will always pop up a box asking for credentials. You are at liberty to leave any of those blank if you aren't going to be needing them. Sometimes just putting Guest in the username box will work. This is all down to Microsoft security settings. You don't need to install Samba or Samba-server to connect to an SMB host in Ubuntu.

cowlip
February 20th, 2007, 11:47 PM
darren, you're right, when I said "ubuntu weirdly requires you to..." I should have said samba in place (except the Xandros distrib). The big thing (for me) is connecting to a share on ubuntu requires the smbpassword -a thing, which I really think should be a GUI because it's so necessary yet not discoverable.

darrenm
February 21st, 2007, 12:07 AM
Ah ok. There is SWAT and Webmin, a GUI would be very easy to do, a simple PyGTK script would do.

edit: of course it all depends on your share defs. If you put guest ok = yes in smb.conf you can connect without a username and password, you just need to change security = user to security = share

m.musashi
February 21st, 2007, 12:27 AM
darrenm and cowlip: you two are talking way over my head here but if you take windows out of the picture then the problem is solved:). I share files seamlessly between my laptop and desktop because both run Ubuntu. My wife does the same thing becasue her laptop also runs Ubuntu. Of course, I haven't tried to do this from outside my LAN but I suppose the same issues would exist there for windows too.

I know that's not exactly the point but it is an option. The guy complaining in the article should be happy that Linux and windows CAN talk even if it's not always perfect. We have a Linux lab at work that talks to our windows share without too much problem.

cowlip
February 21st, 2007, 12:55 AM
Ah ok. There is SWAT and Webmin, a GUI would be very easy to do, a simple PyGTK script would do.

edit: of course it all depends on your share defs. If you put guest ok = yes in smb.conf you can connect without a username and password, you just need to change security = user to security = share

Just found a bug for this in Launchpad. Personally I think it could be a bit more than a wishlist since it made this guy stop using Ubuntu (although I'm sure he would have found some other reason, if this had worked, to go back to Windows ;)) . I believe openSUSE or SLED gets around this as well by using that other Nautilus-share like plugin that automatically sets permissions. I remember trying to compile it on Ubuntu Dapper or Breezy a while back and couldn't get it to work. Anyways....

Weirdly enough this was a duplicate of one of my very old bugs from when I first started using Ubuntu too :)

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/32067/

m.mumashi, I'm just interested, what kind of laptops do you and your wife have? Do suspend and wireless (what manufacturer?) work well on them?

m.musashi
February 21st, 2007, 01:11 AM
m.mumashi, I'm just interested, what kind of laptops do you and your wife have? Do suspend and wireless (what manufacturer?) work well on them?

Both are Dell and both worked with wireless out of the box. I'm not sure what card they have but I think it's broadcom (or something like that). I did have to set up NetworkManager to use WPA encryption but on an open network both worked out of the box. Although switching from home to school to work was a bit of pain but NM fixed that. I've been using Ubuntu since breezy on one laptop and dapper on the other and I've NEVER had a single problem with wireless (other than encryption). Although once I had the switch turned off and it took me longer than it should have to figure out why I didn't have a wireless option - d'oh!

Suspend also works but only if I click the option in the logout/shutdown window. I haven't been able to get them to sleep after a certain amount of time but then I haven't really tried. However, it isn't automatic. I don't use hibernate so I don't know if that works or not.

DerHesse
February 21st, 2007, 01:27 AM
darrenm and cowlip: you two are talking way over my head here but if you take windows out of the picture then the problem is solved:). I share files seamlessly between my laptop and desktop because both run Ubuntu. My wife does the same thing becasue her laptop also runs Ubuntu. Of course, I haven't tried to do this from outside my LAN but I suppose the same issues would exist there for windows too.

I know that's not exactly the point but it is an option. The guy complaining in the article should be happy that Linux and windows CAN talk even if it's not always perfect. We have a Linux lab at work that talks to our windows share without too much problem.
so try nfs if you do not need Windows conectivity. NFS is way faster :)

m.musashi
February 21st, 2007, 02:37 AM
so try nfs if you do not need Windows conectivity. NFS is way faster :)

I don't really know what nfs is, but after a bit of google searching I'm not sure how I would use it to do any more than I already am. In order to connect to my desktop (which functions as a kind of network file server) I just use ssh and nautilus. I did an informal test. I copied a 376MB folder from the desktop to a laptop. It took about 4 minutes. I calculated that it was about 1.5MB (bytes, not bits) per second. I don't think that is approaching the theoretical limit of my connection but it seems pretty darn fast - especially for normal everyday use.

Although I'm curious what is the limiting factor. Wireless is 54Mbps and Ethernet is 100Mbps (right? I never have fully understood the bit-byte and speed issues in very real terms). I do know that the same transfer from one internal drive to another took about 10 seconds so I don't think it has anything to do with drive speed.

billdotson
February 21st, 2007, 08:06 PM
Apart from the obvious 3rd-party support where is Linux lacking??

From my experiences Ubuntu is lacking in the area of multimedia. Not to complain as I know that the software is free but there are various bugs I have encountered. I cannot record sound using my mic, after the first time I tried it I deleted the file and then it just won't work anymore, and won't let me create a new file because "my capture settings are wrong"

Also I have tried converting non-commercial vob files into another format but the audio is always out os sync with the video.

I cannot use my videocamera to upload and edit my videos because it uses a USB cable for streaming and Linux editors as far as I know only support firewire. Also I have yet to find a video editor that can do more than one format. Kino only does raw DV and I have heard Cinelerra is too complicated for normal consumer use.

I have had some other bugs like Beryl crashed often and some programs don't work completely right but overall I have had a good experience aside from multimedia.

DerHesse
February 21st, 2007, 08:22 PM
I don't really know what nfs is, but after a bit of google searching I'm not sure how I would use it to do any more than I already am....

Samba was "reenginered" to connect Linux to Windows. NFS is native for Linux.
You can do the same things you do with samba. ... but faster! I have achieved a 20% faster connection.

Added to fstab you can use remote files just like local ones.

Speed issues:
http://linux.rockriver.net/presentations/TransferSpeed/speed.pdf

How to set up:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/NFSv4Howto
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpNFSHowTo

lyceum
February 21st, 2007, 09:03 PM
Art, multimedia, "prettiness" or marketing. I think multimedia is getting better and better, and art is slowly getting there. Prettiness/marketing may be the farthest out at this point. Things like compiz and beryl help, as do web sites that make sense (well organized) and look really good. The best part about FOSS though would be that when something is lacking, it gets noticed and someone picks it up. :)

Oh, and Linux is the kernel, it is fine. (sorry, couldn't help it) :D

n8ek
February 21st, 2007, 09:36 PM
Not sure if this is the right place to post this but it makes a good read http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8382062536.html

Sqwishy
February 21st, 2007, 09:38 PM
From my experiences Ubuntu is lacking in the area of multimedia. Not to complain as I know that the software is free but there are various bugs I have encountered. I cannot record sound using my mic, after the first time I tried it I deleted the file and then it just won't work anymore, and won't let me create a new file because "my capture settings are wrong" My voice recording stuff was perfect! One of the problems is the little holes in hardware support. For example, like 2 years ago with my 6200tc, i coudn't get xgl/compiz working at all! But it works with an integrated 6100/6150!


I have had some other bugs like Beryl crashed often and some programs don't work completely right but overall I have had a good experience aside from multimedia. Beryl is beta... so if it crashes for you, you don't need to complain! Also theyre making a thing of ubuntu specificly for multimedia, i can't remember what's it called though :( It's comming out in june or something.

@ Lyceum
Yes Linux is the kernel... would you rather like us to go around saying gnu/linux? Or do you think you can handle the fact that it's implied :P (jk! admins don't hurt me for 'being mean'!)

prizrak
February 21st, 2007, 09:49 PM
Yes Linux is the kernel... would you rather like us to go around saying gnu/linux? Or do you think you can handle the fact that it's implied :P (jk! admins don't hurt me for 'being mean'!)
I would rather people who are talking about Ubuntu call it Ubuntu Linux. Linux IS just a kernel for instance on Dapper Flash didn't work right (sound had issues) but on Gentoo it had no such issue. There are many other examples.

tigerpants
February 21st, 2007, 10:02 PM
A really decent database. I mean, a proper one. Out of the box works and is uber-powerful.

What I'm trying to say is, Filemaker. :)

That would make me so happy, I could kiss a rhino butt.

mostwanted
February 21st, 2007, 10:08 PM
Wireless networking support!!!

aysiu
February 21st, 2007, 10:12 PM
Wireless networking support!!!
That's at the top of the list for Feisty specs:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/network-roaming

prizrak
February 21st, 2007, 10:33 PM
Wireless networking support!!!

Never had an issue.

mostwanted
February 21st, 2007, 10:53 PM
Never had an issue.

That's because your particular (home-?) network is supported. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that! Wireless is not works-does not work, it's more akin to works in XX.XX% of situations.

Some factors are protocol type, access type, encryption type, permissions and the general issues with fitting into a world of proprietary Windows-based networks. Many of these things are not supported and MANY OF THEM are absolutely vital if you ever want to move your laptop from your simple password-based WEP home network and use it on your deeply proprietary, certificate-based Work/School network.

aretei
February 21st, 2007, 10:59 PM
I often encounter GNU/Linux users who value 'choice' and 'freedom' in creating/developing floss software but this is only productive if we found them on some platform, ie unity and standardization. And I think floss community lacks the uniformity in its vision and development such that there are too much labor being lost on unnecessary tasks. I must say to "standardize" something does not imply in any way some sort of "proprietariness" therefore, I say that linux lacks the standard on which to develop its system.

MystaMax
February 21st, 2007, 11:15 PM
Beryl is beta... so if it crashes for you, you don't need to complain! Also theyre making a thing of ubuntu specificly for multimedia, i can't remember what's it called though :( It's comming out in june or something.


Are you referring to Ubuntu Studio (http://ubuntustudio.org/)? I'm excited for this project.

My wireless experience has been a good one, only b/c I've been lucky to only need it on laptops with Intel cards. Its good to see fiesty headed in the right direction to resolve others problems w/ wireless as aysiu mention.

lyceum
February 22nd, 2007, 12:37 AM
@ Lyceum
Yes Linux is the kernel... would you rather like us to go around saying gnu/linux? Or do you think you can handle the fact that it's implied :P (jk! admins don't hurt me for 'being mean'!)

I hate the term "GNU/Linux" as it implies that EVERYTHING not Linux is GNU, and it is not. I like FOSS - Free/Open Source Software. I do think credit should be given where due, and FOSS seems to cover everyone. Any you really weren't that mean :)


Are you referring to Ubuntu Studio (http://ubuntustudio.org/)? I'm excited for this project.

Me too!!! :D

Daveski
February 22nd, 2007, 12:58 AM
A really decent database. I mean, a proper one. Out of the box works and is uber-powerful.

Isn't MySQL one of the best databases?

Mystere
February 22nd, 2007, 02:03 AM
Holy crap I like your avatar Lyceum. I would say linux is lacking in helpful hotlines with friendly people to explain all of the beginning user's problems away but just about every OS lacks that.

madhouse
February 22nd, 2007, 02:09 AM
why is it that ubuntu is made so hard to work with for the regular pc user??? I would have thought that if ubuntu wants to challenge windows they should make it user friendly.... not user hostile... as for all those snooty remarks in these forums, kindly don't answer this post if you don't have any positive remarks.........:lolflag:

Bachstelze
February 22nd, 2007, 02:11 AM
Kindly don't post here if you don't have something interesting to say. This is a support forum, not a complaints desk.

aktiwers
February 22nd, 2007, 02:12 AM
I think its a matter of logic really. If you are used to the Windows logic, learning the Linux logic gets a little harder.

Really, I don't think my system isn't user friendly, but it was a hard time learning it. Specially the beginning. But it was well worth it! :)

meng
February 22nd, 2007, 02:14 AM
Hmm, OP has nothing positive to say, yet demands only positive responses.

drsimonz
February 22nd, 2007, 02:16 AM
I've been using windows/dos since I was 2, but have always despised its inefficiency. So I decide to try out Linux....not too difficult to pick a distribution, installation worked well enough. But what is with this? It seems like every single task you want to do requires some unfathomable random system command. I can't even install graphics drivers so I can get the correct screen resolution, without knowing what an X-server is, what restricted module to get, knowing to type "init 3" which didn't even do anything, and access menu items that aren't displayed (even though the check boxes on the menu layout screen...don't actually check when you click them). It seems like almost everything requires special privileges. This OS claims to be "human friendly", but since when is "Linux specialist/developer" part of the average human's qualifications? No doubt the community, forums, etc all tell you exactly what to do...but they rely heavily on massive background knowledge of Linux. So to make this more than a simple rant, may I suggest the following:

- Create a reliable, intuitive interface (ie, if you see a check box, you can either check it, or there's an explanation why you cant), where an action that works in one place, like ctrl-C or Escape, works in all similar situations.

- Automate all these random scripts and commands...this is the 21st century, what kind of office user is going to go into some restricted Xconfig file and add in keys and startup scripts? That's worse than asking a Windows user to go in and modify the registry. There is a reason why DOS commands are necessary only very, very rarely in Windows: everyday humans don't always have time to learn millions of commands, or cd 50 times to get to the file they see right in front of them.

- Make it easier to use on modern computers. The "file system" title makes it sound like this is some kind of vacuum tube computer. Where are the hard disks? (I have 2, but the second one sure didn't show up). Where is my graphics card in the device manager?

- Let people undo mistakes. Within a few hours of installing Ubuntu, I tried to move my home directory to "the root", so I could change actual settings beyond the color of my desktop. Only this resulted in me not being able to log in, and the 'root' user also not logging in since the password had somehow been chosen without my knowledge, so I had to reinstall the OS. While its great not having to press 'OK' once and a while, why are there almost no Cancel buttons on settings, and no confirmations? Some people are not perfect, supreme beings who click only exactly what they meant to, and press the delete key only after quadruple checking what they have selected?

- I must say, the initial feel of this OS was very positive, friendly, etc. So long as you use exactly what software is already installed, and don't mind a resolution half the size of your monitor. The complexity level seems to rise exponentially as soon as you want to make any one-time changes or do anything less common than daily computer activities. Once again, you claim that this is a "human" operating system. But why the heck do you need to run "gconf-editor" to get the trash bin on your desktop?

r4ik
February 22nd, 2007, 02:19 AM
Try to read this,

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy

Might be an eye opener.

madhouse
February 22nd, 2007, 02:23 AM
Kindly don't post here if you don't have something interesting to say. This is a support forum, not a complaints desk.
thanks for the positivly snooty remark. I could see why people would shy away from seeking help from you

igknighted
February 22nd, 2007, 02:24 AM
Good advice above... the fact of the matter is Ubuntu isn't the most GUI enabled linux, no. However, most advice you get on the forum will be terminal advice because its much much easier for us to help you by putting copy/paste commands up there than saying click, then there, etc. If you want a GUI for everything, go try Suse Linux. I think in the end you will find Ubuntu a more enjoyable system, but I love Suse Linux too, so its not bad.

All of this said, be aware that you are learning a totally new system. You cannot rationally expect that things that seemed logical to do one way in Windows (because thats how you did them, not because it was more logical) will be done the same way. Linux works in very different ways. Embrace it, learn to love it, or go back to windows, because you will never like linux.

Henry Rayker
February 22nd, 2007, 02:24 AM
I'm incredibly tired of the insinuations of linux being only for "programmers". Either you people have absolutely NO idea what a programmer actually does, or you have no idea how the OS actually works...I've never had to resort to my programming skills to get Ubuntu up and running, so the programming abilities are not a necessity.

That being said, you DO have to have the ability to read and comprehend step-by-step instructions...

pay
February 22nd, 2007, 02:27 AM
The desktop Linux myth (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/index.php)

Kateikyoushi
February 22nd, 2007, 02:29 AM
It is being worked on, the Desktops are constantly upgraded to be more useable and user friendly, X might autoconfigure itself in feisty+1, even easy driver installation might be implemented depending on how things go with the hardware vendors.

It is certainly not a free windows so try not to look at it that way.

42Wired
February 22nd, 2007, 02:30 AM
why is it that ubuntu is made so hard to work with for the regular pc user??? I would have thought that if ubuntu wants to challenge windows they should make it user friendly.... not user hostile... as for all those snooty remarks in these forums, kindly don't answer this post if you don't have any positive remarks.........:lolflag:

Most things in life that come easy are not worth having.

dpar
February 22nd, 2007, 02:33 AM
I found the the learning curve on Linux is not as steep if you take all that windows knowledge and flush it before you start.:lolflag:

Maestro23
February 22nd, 2007, 02:38 AM
I found the the learning curve on Linux is not as steep if you take all that windows knowledge and flush it before you start.:lolflag:

Window users: Unlearn what you learned.:popcorn:

codejunkie
February 22nd, 2007, 02:38 AM
why is it that ubuntu is made so hard to work with for the regular pc user??? I would have thought that if ubuntu wants to challenge windows they should make it user friendly.... not user hostile... as for all those snooty remarks in these forums, kindly don't answer this post if you don't have any positive remarks.........:lolflag:

in reality it's not that hard, you say the regular pc user well the fact is that the regular pc user can't even install windows that's why they take the computer to there local repair shop and pay them to do it, or they buy a computer from dell, hp etc, that has all the drivers for there hardware preinstalled and when they have a problem they provide support for there product.

it takes just under 2 hours and a dozen steps to install all drivers and fully update windows xp on my machine, however on that same machine i can install dapper in just 8 minutes and have it fully updated in just 30 thats a clean install fully up to date in about 38 minutes compared to the 2 hour windows install which one do you think is easier? but the fact is everyone's hardware is different and installs may vary, if ubuntu doesn't work for you try a different distro there are tons out there, try opensuse or linspire or knoppix or mepis they all have great hardware support and they may install and work better for you than ubuntu.

but you have to remember ubuntu is still a fairly new distro with only 5 releases and some things are still not implemented like some gui configuration tools and some hardware support however with more seasoned distros like opensuse mepis or linspire you should never have to edit a configuration file by hand like you might have to with ubuntu there is gui configuration tools for almost everything like there is in windows and these other distros may have better hardware support for your computer.

louieb
February 22nd, 2007, 02:41 AM
why is it that ubuntu is made so hard to work with for the regular pc user??? ...... if you don't have any positive remarks.........
Sorry if i offend anybody but I smell troll.

punx45
February 22nd, 2007, 02:44 AM
Sorry if i offend anybody but I smell troll.

yep. that post was totally flamebait!

igknighted
February 22nd, 2007, 02:46 AM
I think in some ways, while your intentions are good, you are looking at it from the wrong way. First, it seems you have an NVIDIA driver. In windows, you would go to nvidia.com and download a driver from this third party website, install it, reboot, and be done. This is not the linux way. Downloading software from a 3rd party website is inherently insecure (even if you know the website, you are at risk of phishing attacks). Ubuntu has a specially packaged version of the nvidia drivers already available via the repositories. Just open synaptic, search for nvidia, and install a package called nvidia-glx. It will install other packages along with it that may need a restart, but most installs like this do not require a restart.

As for the interface, you can customize it to whatever you want. Whatever you want escape to do you can set it yourself. I don't mess with this much, but do some research, it should be fairly easy to find.

Linux is community support based. There are, in most cases, GUI tools to configure these things. However, as a support forum its hard to say click here, there, etc. Add to that that linux has many GUI's you can use, it becomes difficult. Terminal commands are the same and will always work. It just makes for easier support. In fact, the terminal is a more powerful tool than a GUI, so most experienced users prefer it. No one is expected to know every command, thats why the support community exists. If you didn't know how to solve a problem in windows you would spend several hours on the phone with tech services, while in linux you can be proactive and do a 5 second forums search, a little copy paste to the terminal and be done. Or, you put a post on the forum and a little while later check back and you werent tied up that whole time.

As for the major mistake you made, that was certainly undoable, although it was a major mistake. You would have needed to boot the live CD (or another OS on your computer), mounted the drive, and change back what you had changed. Linux does not let you run as administrator (root) for good reason... it isnt safe! This is the main reason windows is so insecure, you are always Admin and you are open to attack. In linux use "sudo" before any command to change a restricted file and use your user password to gain access. It is much more secure.

Overall, you are very ingrained with windows habits. This makes Ubuntu seem weird and hard. It really isn't, you just need to look at it as something totally different. Any expectations from windows need to be thrown out, because in no way shape or form is it windows.

jerrynewt
February 22nd, 2007, 02:47 AM
A M E N B R O T H E R ! ! ! ! ! !

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 02:55 AM
why is it that ubuntu is made so hard to work with for the regular pc user??? I would have thought that if ubuntu wants to challenge windows they should make it user friendly.... not user hostile... as for all those snooty remarks in these forums, kindly don't answer this post if you don't have any positive remarks.........:lolflag:
I think you'd be surprised at how few Ubuntu users are programmers at all, let alone programming gurus.

I'm not a programmer. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. Best of luck with whatever you end up using.

By the way, I've merged a couple of threads in here.

gerryk1949
February 22nd, 2007, 03:07 AM
At first reading of the message, I was in complete agreement with the writer. However upon reading the replies, I tuned in to the fact that even though I haven't been using windows since I was 2 years old, after only 2 days of struggling with the Ubuntu, I'm still ahead of when I was learning windows. The install of 6.06 LTS went smoothly accept for the ability to log onto the internet. Haven't figured that out yet. The OS found everything including my agp video display driver as well as the modem. I tried downloading the netzero software for Linspire onto a CD and copied it to the desktop. It installed but no icon appeared. Anyway, bah frustration, I'm a 2 day newbie and I like it alot better than the windows os I have been using since way back windows 3.1. Hey if you didn't no how to type in a DOS mode you were out of luck. Anyway, You people who have been using LINUX for some time now, thank you for not being the snobs that the windows techs can be and for making me feel welcome. I'm not a newcomer to computers just a linux based OS.
gerryk1949

lyceum
February 22nd, 2007, 02:34 PM
Holy crap I like your avatar Lyceum.

Thanks! Yours is cool too! :)

I made it with GIMP. I also have it in bule, green and grey (Kubuntu, Fluxbuntu, and Xubuntu) I am planing on a red one for Edubuntu as well.

cantormath
February 22nd, 2007, 02:37 PM
LINUX lacks HERE (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=365630)

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 02:46 PM
I think linux in general is made for people who keep their computers on all the time. I frequently reboot, shutdown, etc. and I've seen more boot problems in the few months i've used linux than with windows 95, me, xp combined.

tigerpants
February 22nd, 2007, 02:58 PM
Isn't MySQL one of the best databases?

yes it is, but its not a straightforward thing to build and configure. An out of the box solution like filemaker would ideal for people like me who don't have the time and IT resources to build an SQL database. The other free alternatives in linux don't cut it.

cantormath
February 22nd, 2007, 03:52 PM
I think linux in general is made for people who keep their computers on all the time. I frequently reboot, shutdown, etc. and I've seen more boot problems in the few months i've used linux than with windows 95, me, xp combined.

that is because you do not know how to use linux. When you know how, no offense, the things you mention are not a problem.

akajonesy
February 22nd, 2007, 04:11 PM
I think linux in general is made for people who keep their computers on all the time. I frequently reboot, shutdown, etc. and I've seen more boot problems in the few months i've used linux than with windows 95, me, xp combined.

I boot my computer every day (usually several times a day) since I don't like leaving it on if not in use. I am NOT experienced w/linux computers.
Absolutely no problems booting either laptop or desktop. Using Edgy by the way.

What ubuntu (and possibly other distros) needs is a hardware compatibility checker. Something like what xp uses to see if it will run w/your hardware.
I think a LOT of the problems new users have is because they try to use what they have installed, but don't check to see if its compatible "out of the box" or if you need to do something special to make it work.
You'd get a lot less aggression from new users if they had some way of knowing from the get go that they will have to configure this or that piece of hardware, rather than installing then spending hours trying to figure why the sound doesn't work.
(Yes, I know you can check "hardware compatibility lists" but most people don't).

EdThaSlayer
February 22nd, 2007, 04:18 PM
I can't record video via my webcam :(. If that worked Linux would be *perfect*.
It also lacks good games. Probably because the game companies target the most popular operating system.

kuja
February 22nd, 2007, 04:26 PM
Also I have tried converting non-commercial vob files into another format but the audio is always out os sync with the video.

Why not try something like this?


nice -19 transcode -i movie.vob -a 0 -A -D 0 -N 0x2000 -w 2000,250,100 -M 2 -R 1 -x vob -y xvid4,null
nice -19 transcode -i movie.vob -a 0 -A -D 0 -N 0x2000 -w 2000,250,100 -M 2 -R 2 -x vob -y xvid4 -o movie.avi

prizrak
February 22nd, 2007, 06:39 PM
That's because your particular (home-?) network is supported. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that! Wireless is not works-does not work, it's more akin to works in XX.XX% of situations.

Some factors are protocol type, access type, encryption type, permissions and the general issues with fitting into a world of proprietary Windows-based networks. Many of these things are not supported and MANY OF THEM are absolutely vital if you ever want to move your laptop from your simple password-based WEP home network and use it on your deeply proprietary, certificate-based Work/School network.

I tend to roam on many networks and see no problem WPA 1and2 are supported. Never encountered some crazy proprietary network with certificates and algorythms that would require 3rd party stuff. Though this completely ties in into 3rd party support so it's not exactly the problem Ubuntu (or other Linux distros can tackle by themselves)

mostwanted
February 22nd, 2007, 07:09 PM
I tend to roam on many networks and see no problem WPA 1and2 are supported. Never encountered some crazy proprietary network with certificates and algorythms that would require 3rd party stuff. Though this completely ties in into 3rd party support so it's not exactly the problem Ubuntu (or other Linux distros can tackle by themselves)

The question was where is Linux Lacking... :|

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 08:49 PM
that is because you do not know how to use linux. When you know how, no offense, the things you mention are not a problem.

That's a huge insult, you have no idea what my problems are, yet you have the chutzpah to insult me by saying I don't know how to use linux? :mad:

Apparently no one on ubuntu-forums knows how to use linux either, because at least 1 problem I've had is unanswered in several threads on this board.

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 08:56 PM
Apparently no one on ubuntu-forums knows how to use linux either, because at least 1 problem I've had is unanswered in several threads on this board. Posts are usually unanswered when the problem is too obscure, not too common. You've got it backwards there.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 09:04 PM
Posts are usually unanswered when the problem is too obscure, not too common. You've got it backwards there.

Yeah I know that, but the problem in question wasn't unanswered. I never made a topic about it myself, there were already several existent posts that were several pages long. People talked about it, no one had a clear answer. Reinstalling ubuntu was the only guaranteed fix.

More important than fixing a problem is making sure it doesn't happen in the first place. That's one of the things I think linux is lacking, with regard to rebooting.

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 09:05 PM
there were already several existent posts that were several pages long. I've seen a lot of support threads here, and I can't say it's that common. Are you the only one experiencing the problem? Of course not. But Ubuntu developers cannot foresee every single hardware combination in existence. They can fix problems only once they know about them.

If you think it's a real problem, file a bug report.
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs


More important than fixing a problem is making sure it doesn't happen in the first place. That's one of the things I think linux is lacking, with regard to rebooting. Hardware manufacturers don't put the onus on Microsoft to make sure Windows works with their hardware. The manufacturers would be idiots if they released hardware that caused problems with Windows, since that's the dominant platform. They're under no such obligation to test their products with any Linux distribution. Hardware issues and compatibility are mostly worked out through users encountering problems and filing bug reports, and then developers trying to fix those bugs.

angkor
February 22nd, 2007, 09:06 PM
That's a huge insult,

No it's not. It is a fact when you yourself state you're only using Linux for a few months.

It's nothing to be ashamed about, I'm using Linux for a few years and I'm still learning every day.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 09:10 PM
No it's not. It is a fact when you yourself state you're only using it for a few months.

It's nothing to be ashamed about, I'm using Linux for a few years and I'm still learning every day.

No, it's a huge insult to say "you don't know how to use linux" purely because someone has had errors with it.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 09:12 PM
I've seen a lot of support threads here, and I can't say it's that common. Are you the only one experiencing the problem? Of course not. But Ubuntu developers cannot foresee every single hardware combination in existence. They can fix problems only once they know about them.

I never said it was a hardware issue. As far as I know, it wasn't.

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 09:19 PM
I never said it was a hardware issue. As far as I know, it wasn't.
It may not be a hardware issue in the sense of the physical machinery malfunctioning, but it could be a hardware issue in terms of how the hardware interacts with the kernel and vice versa.

For example, if Ubuntu doesn't recognize your sound card, that's a hardware issue. It doesn't mean your hardware is broken. It means your hardware isn't compatible with Ubuntu right now. Likewise, if you're having shutdown and bootup issues, it doesn't mean your computer is physically unable to shut down and boot up properly. It means there might be some compatibility issues, though.

When it comes to interaction with hardware, there are really only three possible sources of problems (or any combination of the three):
1. User error
2. Software-hardware incompatibility
3. Hardware physical failure or malfunction

All I'm saying is that it's #2, not necessarily #3.

angkor
February 22nd, 2007, 09:21 PM
No, it's a huge insult to say "you don't know how to use linux" purely because someone has had errors with it.

. Then we have different opinions on huge insults.

Do you have a link to the thread describing your problem btw?

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 09:24 PM
Here's the specific problem I was talking about:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=292533

There are a few solutions that work for some people, but no universal solution (as there doesn't seem to be a universal cause). None of them worked for me at the time that I had the problem. There are other threads out there with some other causes/solutions too.

But what I stressed from the beginning is that these issues shouldn't happen, period. It wasn't a hardware issue, it was purely software. Just because something is fixable doesn't excuse the fact that the problem sometimes occurs. It's a waste of time for the person trying to fix the problem. What if I had an important paper to write and didn't own another computer; unable to login into the computer I would be out of luck.

--------------------------------------

Another unrelated problem is that grub doesn't automatically detect where your partitions are. For example, every time I update the kernel it changes my partition from hd0,2 to hd0,0, and it also changes sda3 to hda1. Both are wrong. Both have to be manually fixed. It also erases my windows partition from the menu and I have to manually reinsert it. This should all be automatic.

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 09:24 PM
By the way, this thread is really focused on negativity (What is Linux lacking?), so I've just merged it with the Linux Desktop Readiness Thread for further discussion and ranting.

If you have any genuine interest in making positive change, you may want to check out these two threads:
What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741)
Suggestions for Feisty Fawn (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=285910)

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 09:25 PM
It may not be a hardware issue in the sense of the physical machinery malfunctioning, but it could be a hardware issue in terms of how the hardware interacts with the kernel and vice versa.

For example, if Ubuntu doesn't recognize your sound card, that's a hardware issue. It doesn't mean your hardware is broken. It means your hardware isn't compatible with Ubuntu right now. Likewise, if you're having shutdown and bootup issues, it doesn't mean your computer is physically unable to shut down and boot up properly. It means there might be some compatibility issues, though.

When it comes to interaction with hardware, there are really only three possible sources of problems (or any combination of the three):
1. User error
2. Software-hardware incompatibility
3. Hardware physical failure or malfunction

All I'm saying is that it's #2, not necessarily #3.

No, it was completely unrelated to hardware. I still use ubuntu on the same computer with the same hardware!

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 09:26 PM
It wasn't a hardware issue, it was purely software. And what you're not getting is that hardware and software interact with each other. Go back and read my other post.

If you believe it to be a genuine problem, file a bug report on it!

Old Pink
February 22nd, 2007, 09:31 PM
In my view, Ubuntu 6.06 Dapper Drake was ready for the desktop. Every release onwards will continue to be.

I have no experience with earlier releases and am not implying that "readiness" started in June 2006.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 09:31 PM
And what you're not getting is that hardware and software interact with each other. Go back and read my other post.

If you believe it to be a genuine problem, file a bug report on it!

Go read the actual thread I posted and see if anyone brings up hardware. As I said, I'm using ubuntu on the same exact computer with the same exact hardware right now. It's not breaking.

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 09:58 PM
So it's not hardware-related.

Good thing some people saw fit to file bug reports on it:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+bug/21759
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.17/+bug/59792

Both bugs are confirmed, and one's been assigned high priority already.

If you believe being unable to boot-up is a Linux-only issue, I suggest you check out this Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=windows+can%27t+boot+into&btnG=Google+Search).

No software is perfect. All developers can do is test it on their own machines and fix bugs that users report on their machines. The bug has been reported and is being worked on.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 10:03 PM
So it's not hardware-related.

So, did we learn that we shouldn't be presumptuous and insist we know why an error occurred before we even learn what the error is?

--------

I also brought up that grub rewrites your menu.lst every time you update the kernel, and at least in my case, gets multiple things wrong.

So that's 2 boot issues in 2 months of linux. Maybe 1 or 2 in 15+ years of Windows 3.1/95/Me/XP (don't know the exact number because I can't remember the last time windows failed to boot.

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 10:06 PM
So that's 2 boot issues in 2 months of linux. Maybe 1 or 2 in 15+ years of Windows 3.1/95/Me/XP (don't know the exact number because I can't remember the last time windows failed to boot. Believe whatever you want. Apparently only your experience matters.

lyceum
February 22nd, 2007, 10:11 PM
So that's 2 boot issues in 2 months of linux. Maybe 1 or 2 in 15+ years of Windows 3.1/95/Me/XP (don't know the exact number because I can't remember the last time windows failed to boot.

I have only had a failed boot after I messed things up with Ubuntu. I have had Window's fail many times for many reasons over the years an a number of PC's. You are very lucky in Windows!

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 10:14 PM
Typical Windows idealization.

Windows "just works." Linux doesn't.

Yeah, right.

That's why we have this:
http://www.geeksquad.com/

That's why just about every day (sometimes every other day, but at least three times a week), my co-workers ask me (a non-techie) or the actual Help Desk for help with some Windows problem.

Hell, my wife has even had some problems with her Mac Powerbook (yes, an Apple computer, the supposed king of "just works").

Computers are machines. They malfunction sometimes. Programmers are human. They err sometimes.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 10:16 PM
Believe whatever you want. Apparently only your experience matters.

Your computer might boot 100% of the time without a problem. That doesn't help me one iota though, does it? Does your experiences prevent the previously stated bug from occurring to me?

The thread was titled "what is linux lacking" as I recall, and you're angry that I posted something linux is lacking!

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 10:19 PM
The thread was titled "what is linux lacking" as I recall, and you're angry that I posted something linux is lacking! It's not something Linux is lacking. It's a bug that's going to be worked out. You live in an imaginary world where Windows never has bugs (because you've never experienced them... or only once in 15 years) and Linux has bugs all the time (because you've experienced them twice in two months).

I acknowledge the bug exists, even though I haven't experienced it, and I see there is a bug report already filed on it with Ubuntu developers working on fixing it. I also acknowledge there are bugs in Windows.

You make it sound as if booting problems are unique to Linux. They are not.

What is Linux lacking in this case? The ability to be flawless all the time. But, guess what--every OS is lacking that ability.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 10:21 PM
The thread wasn't titled "what is linux lacking that is never lacking (to anyone) on any other operating system".

If you don't like the premise of the thread, you don't have to participate in it.

aysiu
February 22nd, 2007, 10:24 PM
The thread wasn't titled "what is linux lacking that is never lacking (to anyone) on any other operating system".

If you don't like the premise of the thread, you don't have to participate in it.
Except that you have actually made insinuations on numerous occasions that Windows does not share these problems.

lyceum
February 22nd, 2007, 10:25 PM
:popcorn:

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 10:29 PM
Except that you have actually made insinuations on numerous occasions that Windows does not share these problems.

It doesn't, for me. When Windows has boot issues on a monthly basis, I guess I'll learn to live with monthly boot issues as a way of life. Until then, I will continue to see constant boot issues as unacceptable.

When I go 1+ year without any linux boot issues, that includes grub's menu.lst getting overwritten incorrectly, or fsck having to reboot the computer because it didn't complete correctly, I'll rebuke this as something linux is lacking.

Brunellus
February 22nd, 2007, 10:37 PM
It doesn't, for me. When Windows has boot issues on a monthly basis, I guess I'll learn to live with monthly boot issues as a way of life. Until then, I will continue to see constant boot issues as unacceptable.

When I go 1+ year without any linux boot issues, that includes grub's menu.lst getting overwritten incorrectly, or fsck having to reboot the computer because it didn't complete correctly, I'll rebuke this as something linux is lacking.
This conversation has no benefit.

If Windows works, and Ubuntu does not (for reasons great and small), by all means run windows. We are not going to force you to run anything--Windows, Ubuntu, GNU/HURD, CP/M, whatever.

You don't have to accept the unacceptable; nor should we have to deal with any further squabbling. If you have a personal issue, take it off-thread.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 10:39 PM
Why is that directed at me? This conversation involved 2 people.

And specifically what rules were broken here? The conversation was on topic.

Brunellus
February 22nd, 2007, 10:49 PM
Why is that directed at me? This conversation involved 2 people.

And specifically what rules were broken here? The conversation was on topic.
that's directed at all combatants in the nature of a friendly reminder.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 10:52 PM
Ok, but I don't understand what you mean. Are you telling us (even though your reply was specific to things I had said) that we can't talk about the issue further? I just want to know if we are supposed to drop the topic for now or what. no one was saying any personal stuff as far as I could tell.

jerrylamos
February 22nd, 2007, 10:53 PM
Well I run Dapper, Edgy (usually Xmas 2006), Feisty daily current, rarely Knoppix and Puppy, and when ubuntu can't do something like ABC News videos, XP.

Dapper is pretty solid. Edgy has some problems with my local lan. Feisty, some days some things work, some days other things work, just like you'd expect from the Alpha release it is.

I've got 5 pc's I run on our home network. "Desktop ready" varies; on my Celeron, Feisty Network Manager doesn't like my network card so I do a sudo dhclient see Official Ubuntu Chapter 6.

On my IBM NetVista Pentium 4, all the ubuntu's have problems with the very common Intel video chip since they can't detect the video memory size - Knoppix runs 1280x1024 fine "out of the box" so it is possible for linux to do that, and of course ubuntu dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg gets my 1280x1024 screen, but I'd hardly expect most users to go to that extent.

My wireless card on the Thinkpad R31 laptop works with ndiswrapper, again a bit of a hassle since the manufacturer doesn't supply a linux driver. Of course, Network Manager doesn't like that either.

I gave an intro class and handed out Dapper without qualms, and one enthusiast has fun with Edgy Xmas. Ultimate didn't get the internet for him and I haven't looked at why.

So desktop ready ubuntu runs on a lot of laptop/desktop/towers, with the biggest hassle being support of Intel motherboard video chips. I'm not enough of a programmer to see why XP and Knoppix work O.K. Ubuntu safe video mode gets 1280x1024 but I can watch the screen ripple flow down....Cheers, Jerry

Frak
February 22nd, 2007, 11:00 PM
It doesn't, for me. When Windows has boot issues on a monthly basis, I guess I'll learn to live with monthly boot issues as a way of life. Until then, I will continue to see constant boot issues as unacceptable.

When I go 1+ year without any linux boot issues, that includes grub's menu.lst getting overwritten incorrectly, or fsck having to reboot the computer because it didn't complete correctly, I'll rebuke this as something linux is lacking.

NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO USE UBUNTU, USE FREESPIRE OR XANDROS IF YOU REALLY WANT CLOSE TO TOTAL COMPATABILITY, OR WINDOWS FOR TOTAL COMPATABILITY!!!!!

Or... Go to the Ubuntu developers and ask for your money back...

Back on topic, the only thing Linux is lacking is good codec support in my opinion, for those off-the-wall codecs I might need, rare, but hey, rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

angkor
February 22nd, 2007, 11:15 PM
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=292533

That problem seems to be related to dist-upgrading the entire OS to a next release. I always expect breakage when I do that. If you want to have a rock solid setup don't upgrade unless you really really have to, and if you do, have backups in place.


But what I stressed from the beginning is that these issues shouldn't happen, period.

It probably won't if you stick with Dapper. As I've said upgrading an OS (or even a kernel for that matter) is very tricky.


What if I had an important paper to write and didn't own another computer; unable to login into the computer I would be out of luck.

You can finish your paper with a liveCD. ;)

Seriously. Don't dist-upgrade (or upgrade kernels) on a mission critical machine unless you absolutely have to. I never do. If I have to for some reason (security or features) I make sure I have a back up and a separate home partition ready so I can re-install within an hour if something goes wrong I'm unable to fix.

I understand some problems are difficult to tackle and can be very annoying, but many things can be avoided by running a stable version and refrain from upgrading all the time.

Mateo
February 22nd, 2007, 11:25 PM
That problem seems to be related to dist-upgrading the entire OS to a next release. I always expect breakage when I do that. If you want to have a rock solid setup don't upgrade unless you really really have to, and if you do, have backups in place.

That problem had various causes. Personally mine wasn't in a dist upgrade. I don't know what it was, but I hadn't just upgrade the distribution at the time it occurred.

I also don't think running outdated software is an acceptable alternative. SVN is supposed to be unstable, not final releases. (and again, as far as I know, that had nothing to do with me getting that particular problem).

rw86347
February 23rd, 2007, 12:39 AM
Open letter to the Linux community...

For years I have been developing drivers for Linux and Solaris. As such, I have used Linux on a daily bases. For the first time in years I have decided to move from Windows to Linux on my personal laptop. For the first time I see Linux as a viable alternative to Windows with *one* exception. Installing new software is a disaster!

I *HATE* RPMs! I hate compiling every program! This will prevent Linux from being effective in the mainstream. The whole paradigm needs to be simplified.

- No one's grandmother will ever understand dependency trees.
- No one's grandmother will understand ".configure; make; make install"
- No one wants to try a million different RPMs to find a working one.
- Grandma doesn't understand dynamic libraries.

A program should be a semi-portable unit, a statically compiled binary that can be run from a thumb drive without downloading dynamic libraries. If people could freely pass around a single binary, popularity would follow. Linux needs statically compiled programs and binary compatibility. People don't want to understand any of the reasons why it isn't so.

I really want to see Linux or Solaris successfully confront Windows. But, this will require anti-geeking the OS. Something only Apple has been able to do.

Being successful won't be done with excuses, or complexity, it will be done with simplicity.

Rodger Wilson

PurplePenguin
February 23rd, 2007, 01:20 AM
It's pretty easy to select Applications -> Add/Remove in order to install new software. Maybe you should send your grandma an Ubuntu disc.

hvymtlsteve
February 23rd, 2007, 01:32 AM
I'd have trouble getting any of my friends to switch to Linux, since they all like to play games and do other things that Windows pretty much has monopolized.
I would have switched long ago but I have a couple pieces of hardware that, as far as I know, have zero support for anything other than Windows.

If you can get more companies to provide Linux drivers and software for their peripherals, games, or whatever else people like to do with their computers, we could all say "No" to Windows. I don't think that will happen any time soon.

nightfyre
February 23rd, 2007, 01:35 AM
your issues with linux are valid, but linux is geared towards those who can enter and run these commands. if grandma is not part of the target market, she is not a priority until the target market is saturated, at which point you may want to expand the target market (though not necessarily in her direction). and correct me if i'm wrong, but you cant buy a desktop with linux installed at, say, your local best buy. that is partly because of the number of distros, though, not just its niche nature. imho, there are those who just want a functional computer and will install whatever it takes so long as it doesn't crash and they dont have to dig into the guts of the system. voila, we have windows. then we have mac for another group, and then we have linux. i personally run a carefully maintained, freeware-loaded, highly streamlined windows on my desktop pc (mostly used for gaming), and i'm in the process of installing ubuntu on my laptop (school, general internet, etc.). i enjoy tinkering with my computer, which you would know right off the bat from my pc. i almost tossed my old pc and bought a mac before a friend let me try out their pc, which runs ubuntu. linux suits me better than windows suits me. and since its freeware, is it really such a tragedy that it has low market penetration? other than getting linux to those poor souls who can't/won't to try a mac and have never heard of linux but would be quite happy with either one, nothing is really lost. though an intelligently-handled windows box, even a basic pc, can be decent if you know what you're doing...
which an unfortunate number of people dont. that's not a windows hate, that's something i can tell you from watching people wallow in despair trying to perform a relatively simple action in, say, word or powerpoint.

NotPhil
February 23rd, 2007, 02:05 AM
For the first time I see Linux as a viable alternative to Windows with *one* exception. Installing new software is a disaster!

I *HATE* RPMs! I hate compiling every program! This will prevent Linux from being effective in the mainstream. The whole paradigm needs to be simplified.I'm fairly new to Linux, but I think Ubuntu's package-management system works fairly well. (Except, of course, for all the problems we've been having with the new kernel update.) The reason I came here instead of sticking with Fedora, which I already had installed on another computer, was because Red-Hat's package-management was a serious problem. Incompatible repositories. No GUI. Dependency problems. You probably know the routine.

A program should be a semi-portable unit, a statically compiled binary that can be run from a thumb drive without downloading dynamic libraries. If people could freely pass around a single binary, popularity would follow. Linux needs statically compiled programs and binary compatibility. People don't want to understand any of the reasons why it isn't so.I'll let the techies argue about static vs. dynamic libraries, but you're right, there should be an easier way to install programs that aren't in your distribution's repositories. Perhaps a system that could satisfy dependencies from a lone package file would work.

Certainly, asking non-techies to build from source isn't very reasonable. If sorting out dependency problems is a hassle with a package file, it's a nightmare with source code.

FLPCGuy
February 23rd, 2007, 02:15 AM
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.
I've heard this before but can't verify it. I just installed XP on a new PC with only a SATA HD and IDE CD-RW. It was a brand new XP CD with SP2 included (from Newegg 01/07) so maybe they slipped some new code in there too.

Perhaps having the latest Nvidia chipset MB helped since it supports both IDE and dual SATA at the hardware level, there is no separate F6 installed SCSI controller driver (it found no matching controller). There was no floppy driver included with the MB and I didn't run the MB driver CD until after the initial setup. That XP CD also had newer NVidia drivers for some items than my MB CD which was just 4 months old.

Obviously, M$ is aware of this SATA issue and may have implemented some changes in the final XP production image. Or it could just depend on the MB.

steven8
February 23rd, 2007, 06:54 AM
I did the upgrade from WinME to WinXP. About 3 days later my computer started doing goofy things and then locked up totally. I had to wipe my drive and install from scratch. It was then I found an article saying that it was not a good idea to do the upgrade from ME to XP. It's unstable. Oh really. :) It doesn't 'just happen with linux distros'. It happens to the big boys too.

ramjet_1953
February 23rd, 2007, 08:09 AM
Have you tried Synaptic Package Manager?
Have you tried AutoMatix2?

Ubuntu doesn't use rpm's

Regards.
Roger :cool:

angkor
February 23rd, 2007, 08:17 AM
I also don't think running outdated software is an acceptable alternative.

Not upgrading does not mean running outdated software.

aysiu
February 23rd, 2007, 08:22 AM
I *HATE* RPMs! I hate compiling every program! This will prevent Linux from being effective in the mainstream. The whole paradigm needs to be simplified.

- No one's grandmother will ever understand dependency trees.
- No one's grandmother will understand ".configure; make; make install"
- No one wants to try a million different RPMs to find a working one.
- Grandma doesn't understand dynamic libraries. You seem to have misunderstood--Ubuntu uses a package management system that doesn't require compiling from source, knowing what an RPM is (or even a DEB, for that matter), or understanding dependency trees.

Synaptic Package Manager, Add/Remove Programs, and (pretty soon) CNR offer point-and-click solutions to software installation that's easier for "grandma" than browsing around download.com or some other fishy (or phishy) website full of spyware, looking for setup.exe files.

This critique presents a much better understanding of the issues at hand:
The Future of Packaging Software in Linux (http://polishlinux.org/linux/the-future-of-packaging-software-in-linux/)

On a personal note, and maybe my needs are too simple for some of you, all of my software needs are met (beyond met, actually) by what's available in the Ubuntu repositories. I can't imagine "grandma" needs more software than I do.

I put "grandma" in quotation marks because I think your phrasing is a bit extreme (no one's grandmother...). Have you consider it's possible that Frances Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_E._Allen) might be someone's grandmother or that Grace Hopper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper) might be someone's grandmother?

I've merged this into the Linux Desktop Readiness thread.

NotPhil
February 23rd, 2007, 10:43 AM
Synaptic Package Manager, Add/Remove Programs, and (pretty soon) CNR offer point-and-click solutions to software installation that's easier for "grandma" than browsing around download.com or some other fishy (or phishy) website full of spyware, looking for setup.exe files.I don't know what CNR is, but yes, Synaptic is pretty strait-forward.

On a personal note, and maybe my needs are too simple for some of you, all of my software needs are met (beyond met, actually) by what's available in the Ubuntu repositories. I can't imagine "grandma" needs more software than I do.I don't think I have more software needs than anyone else, but I can vouch for that fact that not everything that someone may want will be available in any distribution's repositories. For instance, I wanted an Othello/Reversi program and a Chess program that played a decent, but not difficult, game and had a pleasant interface. Nothing of the sort was available in the repositories. But Sirius, a stable, well-designed, Othello game, was available on the Web. I had to build it from source. None of the Chess programs in the repositories used the GNOME interface, and none of them played less than an expert game. I had to install PyChess from the code at it's site for that.

You may say, well, he's a board-game geek, but I also wanted a music player that didn't reorganize my music files according to the programmer's wishes, and would respect the way I had organized them. I also thought it would be nice if it could play Internet radio. Nothing in the repositories could do that either. (Despite what Banshee said.) I had to install Exaile from the .deb file available at it's site to do that. And I had to solve dependency problems to do it.

But, there's more. I also wanted a photo manager that wouldn't rearrange my photos and would allow me to add comments to the image file instead of an app-specific database. Again, nothing in the repositories could do that. Again, I had to install from somewhere else.

Ubuntu does better than most distributions with installation, but it's never going to be able to meet the general public's needs all by itself. Once it recognizes that, and tries to create a system that will allow people to install software that Ubuntu didn't foresee the need for, without causing users headaches, it will be ready for the general public.

I put "grandma" in quotation marks because I think your phrasing is a bit extreme (no one's grandmother...). Have you consider it's possible that Frances Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_E._Allen) might be someone's grandmother or that Grace Hopper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper) might be someone's grandmother?I understand that you may not be aware of this, but the phrase "what your grandmother would know" is often used in academia to mean "common knowledge." It's not meant to be taken literally. Yes, your grandma might be Ada Lovelace. But, usually, if you don't think grandma would be aware of a phenomenon, then it probably isn't common knowledge. Software dependencies and compiling from source code is something that only Ada, Frances, and Grace could grok. Most of the rest of us wouldn't know what that's all about, and that means it's not something you should expect the general public to be able to deal with.

karellen
February 23rd, 2007, 01:13 PM
I don't know about others, for me Linux Desktop is ready...or at least that's how I feel
or should I say I'm ready for it :D?...

cantormath
February 23rd, 2007, 02:59 PM
That's a huge insult, you have no idea what my problems are, yet you have the chutzpah to insult me by saying I don't know how to use linux? :mad:

Apparently no one on ubuntu-forums knows how to use linux either, because at least 1 problem I've had is unanswered in several threads on this board.

Sorry for the insult, I get a little testy when folks insult Linux. The problem you mention, at least in the depth that you mentioned it in, is the exact opposite description of some of the benifits of Linux, especially compared to Windows.

I agree with aysiu, describe the problem in as much detail as possible, we all love to help. Thats what makes us nerds ::grin::

:KS

cantormath
February 23rd, 2007, 03:00 PM
CNR is Click-N-Run. At least that is what I think aysiu is refering to.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 03:06 PM
Sorry for the insult, I get a little testy when folks insult Linux. The problem you mention, at least in the depth that you mentioned it in, is the exact opposite description of some of the benifits of Linux, especially compared to Windows.

No, what's funny is that you turned out to be 100% wrong. I said that there are boot problems sometimes (for me it's monthly) and you said the reason was because "you don't know how to use linux". It turns out that one of the major issues I had was a bug that even the ubuntu developers don't know how to fix yet. See how arrogance and presumptuousness can be completely insulting when you have no idea what the person is even talking about?

And again, when I go 1+ years with ubuntu always booting cleanly the first time (that means no incorrectly overwriting by menu.lst grub, and no fsck having to reboot because it faile) then I'll say that their boot problems are equivalent. So far that's not looking good.


I agree with aysiu, describe the problem in as much detail as possible, we all love to help. Thats what makes us nerds ::grin::

No, you shouldn't have to "fix" anything. It should always work, without user input. My grandma shouldn't have to edit menu.lst or do anything else to get her computer to at least boot to gnome.

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 03:37 PM
No, you shouldn't have to "fix" anything. It should always work, without user input. My grandma shouldn't have to edit menu.lst or do anything else to get her computer to at least boot to gnome.

I would love to visit the world you describe. It reminds me of those commercials here in the states for Wall-Greens "Here in Perfect..."

Sadly we live in the real world where nothing is perfect. Grandma may need to call someone to fix her Windows PC, her Mac or her Ubuntu box if she doesn't want to do it herself. Computers are dumb, they only know

0 and 1

yes or no

If we wait for perfect, we will never have anything. Cars break down, dishwashers break down, PC's break down. The difference between FOSS and MS/Mac is that YOU CAN FIX IT if you know how. That is the point. You may notice that FOSS programs normally say, "you can do what you want, there is no warranty of any kind, have fun with it" where an other programs say "if you mess with the code we will get you and if it is broken, we are not liable" (I am paraphrasing). Don't expect so much! We are all only human.
;)

cantormath
February 23rd, 2007, 04:02 PM
No, what's funny is that you turned out to be 100% wrong. I said that there are boot problems sometimes (for me it's monthly) and you said the reason was because "you don't know how to use linux". It turns out that one of the major issues I had was a bug that even the ubuntu developers don't know how to fix yet. See how arrogance and presumptuousness can be completely insulting when you have no idea what the person is even talking about?

And again, when I go 1+ years with ubuntu always booting cleanly the first time (that means no incorrectly overwriting by menu.lst grub, and no fsck having to reboot because it faile) then I'll say that their boot problems are equivalent. So far that's not looking good.


I tried to apologize for calling you a moron.....but I surely have no reason to take it back.
I am 100% right in saying you know nothing about linux, and I can only hope you ask the correct question with the right information so that someone answers it for you.


No, you shouldn't have to "fix" anything. It should always work, without user input. My grandma shouldn't have to edit menu.lst or do anything else to get her computer to at least boot to gnome.
You live in a perfect world my friend. There is nothing that does not need fixing sometimes.
Remember, it is not your grandma that installed that perfect OS you reference, it is the IT guy/gal at the manufacturer that worked out all the bugs so that it would not give her problems. Maybe you just need a good Linux admin :) .

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 05:12 PM
I tried to apologize for calling you a moron.....but I surely have no reason to take it back.
I am 100% right in saying you know nothing about linux, and I can only hope you ask the correct question with the right information so that someone answers it for you.

Your arrogance and presumptuousness knows no end, I see. Let me remind you, I said that linux fails to boot cleanly sometimes. You said the reason was because "you don't know anything about linux". It turns out that one of the errors I encountered was a bug that that the developers haven't even fixed yet. Regardless of how much linux knowledge I would have had, the error would have still occurred. The computer would have still failed to boot. It was the software's fault, not my lack of knowledge.

The fact that you continue to be condescending towards me in every post shows me that you are not a kind or reasonable person, so from now I will be ignoring you.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 05:15 PM
I would love to visit the world you describe. It reminds me of those commercials here in the states for Wall-Greens "Here in Perfect..."

This is a straw man of what I am saying. Let me be perfectly clear:

I want boot failures to be extremely rare. That's not asking for perfection, that's a reasonable request that my computer starts cleanly almost all the time. If a problem occurs once ever couple of years or so, that's ok. But in my experience so far boot failures has been extremely common, not extremely rare. Until that is fixed, this is something that linux is lacking IMO.

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 05:25 PM
This is a straw man of what I am saying. Let me be perfectly clear:

I want boot failures to be extremely rare. That's not asking for perfection, that's a reasonable request that my computer starts cleanly almost all the time. If a problem occurs once ever couple of years or so, that's ok. But in my experience so far boot failures has been extremely common, not extremely rare. Until that is fixed, this is something that linux is lacking IMO.

Just because there is a bug does not mean it is happening to everyone. It has never happened to me, and when I say that I have put Ubuntu on over 100 computers and it has not happened 100% of the time. I sell and give aout Ubuntu/Xubuntu boxes and I set Ubuntu up on PC's with illegal copies of Windows or no OS and 2 eMacs now. I am still in contact with all of my past customers. I really can't see why you are using an OS with a bug that effects your PC. You are the first person I know of with the problem, so it is rare to me. That does not mean it does not happen or that it will never happen. How many Ubuntu users are there? How many are there with this problem? Get these numbers and we can see how often or rare it is. Without those stats, saying it is a major problem to be delt with amounts to FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) for new users that may never encounter the problem.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 05:35 PM
Whether the particular bug is rare is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm saying that errors should be extremely rare on all computers. I've had boot failures many times in the past 2 months. I count boot failures as:

1) Bugs like the one I talked about before.

2) Grub incorrectly writing a new menu.lst file with the wrong values, which then has to be fixed by the user (the computer should know the values itself, without user input).

3) fsck failing to finish a scan and therefore having to reboot.

Those are all boot failures, they happen regularly. They should be extremely rare for every last user.

m.musashi
February 23rd, 2007, 05:46 PM
It's a well known fact that Linux doesn't like all hardware - or perhaps more accurately, not all hardware likes Linux. While this gets better and better all the time, the only solution now is to either not use Linux if doesn't like your hardware or buy new hardware. I'm not trying to be glib. It's just the nature of the beast.

Truth is, if your hardware gets along well with Linux then errors are extremely rare - unless you like to muck around and then you have to expect things to go wrong. I used to have to fix windows a lot too. Fortunately, Ubuntu at least is easy to fix...on my hardware.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 05:49 PM
It's a well known fact that Linux doesn't like all hardware - or perhaps more accurately, not all hardware likes Linux. While this gets better and better all the time, the only solution now is to either not use Linux if doesn't like your hardware or buy new hardware. I'm not trying to be glib. It's just the nature of the beast.

This argument has been thrown out already, and debunked already. None of my boot failures have been hardware related. None.

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 05:58 PM
Whether the particular bug is rare is irrelevant to what I'm saying. I'm saying that errors should be extremely rare on all computers. I've had boot failures many times in the past 2 months. I count boot failures as:

1) Bugs like the one I talked about before.

2) Grub incorrectly writing a new menu.lst file with the wrong values, which then has to be fixed by the user (the computer should know the values itself, without user input).

3) fsck failing to finish a scan and therefore having to reboot.

Those are all boot failures, they happen regularly. They should be extremely rare for every last user.

I guess the point that had been made over and over and over is that this is not a common issue for everyone, just like not everyone that has Windows gets the "blue screen of death" all the time. Nothing will ever be perfect for every user, but you do have the right to wish it so. Wishing will not make it posibe, but it is always good to hope and dream of the furture. Once that bug gets fixed it will be replaced by another. It is the way of things.

:neutral:

m.musashi
February 23rd, 2007, 06:01 PM
This argument has been thrown out already, and debunked already. None of my boot failures have been hardware related. None.

Sorry. I don't know the nature of your specific issue. However, I'd like to know why it is certainly not hardware. Odds are if it was software then a large number of people would be experiencing the problem. Of course, software and hardware have to work together so it could be a software bug that only affects certain hardware. In any case, I don't see how any problem can be 100% software and 0% hardware unless it is a major flaw that affects nearly everyone (like a recent kernel update I heard about :)).

The other option, of course, is a problem with a config file. It could have been created by the software or by installing or modifying other software. In this case it probably is a code issue of sorts.

Brunellus
February 23rd, 2007, 06:02 PM
This argument has been thrown out already, and debunked already. None of my boot failures have been hardware related. None.
let's put this to rest.

1) You had a boot failure. It was a documented and known bug. It is also extremely rare.

2) Bugs are bugs. Windows boots, but runs open by default all the time.

Your install failed. We know why. That failure prevents you from using Linux until the bug that caused your boot failures is fixed. That is entirely understandable.

But please also understand that your isolated boot failure is not an absolute bar to anyone else adopting the OS, nor should it be needlessly generalized into a universal argument against adopting the OS. "Kernel bug X caused my boot to fail, so obviously Linux is useless" is a silly argument. The truth is closer to "Kernel bug X prevents me from using Linux. "

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 06:04 PM
I guess the point that had been made over and over and over is that this is not a common issue for everyone, just like not everyone that has Windows gets the "blue screen of death" all the time. Nothing will ever be perfect for every user, but you do have the right to wish it so. Wishing will not make it posibe, but it is always good to hope and dream of the furture. Once that bug gets fixed it will be replaced by another. It is the way of things.


So your computer boots every time (with a maximum of 1 error in the past year) without you ever having to fix anything?

You didn't have to edit the menu.lst ever?

Your computer never runs fsck at boot?


---------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be suggesting that I'm merely extremely unlucky. If you find me a windows user who has had at minimum 2 boot failures per month from the first very time they ever used windows, then I will concede that this is possibly merely extremely bad luck on my part.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 06:06 PM
1) You had a boot failure.

Wrong. I've had multiple boot failures in the 2 months since I've used linux.

The particular bug was only 1 of said failures.

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 06:11 PM
So your computer boots every time (with a maximum of 1 error in the past year) without you ever having to fix anything?

You didn't have to edit the menu.lst ever?

Your computer never runs fsck at boot?


---------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be suggesting that I'm merely extremely unlucky. If you find me a windows user who has had at minimum 2 boot failures per month from the first very time they ever used windows, then I will concede that this is possibly merely extremely bad luck on my part.

That would be correct, and not just my one PC, which is a laptop, but over 100 other PC's I have put Ubuntu on. The few times I have had problems I messed things up. bug: lyceum :)

And most of the PC's I use are Dells in case you were wondering.

Brunellus
February 23rd, 2007, 06:14 PM
Wrong. I've had multiple boot failures in the 2 months since I've used linux.

The particular bug was only 1 of said failures.
My computer has never failed to boot.

My root filesystem was corrupted, yes (user error), but I had enough of a recovery console to back up my remaining data and troubleshoot the problem.

Your recurring boot problems are exceedingly rare. Please accept this.

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 06:15 PM
In addition to wat Brunellus just said:
I wouldnt call

3) fsck failing to finish a scan and therefore having to reboot. a boot failure. It's common to reboot after a filesystem check - especially when major repairs have been performed. Not rebooting would mean starting up with an inconsistent file system - not something you want. Besides that, they only "fsck failing to finish a scan " I've ever seen (and i think you refer to) is that fsck wants the user to confirm or choose to make changes rather than doing an 'automatic' repair in cases that may resulkt in loss of data.

Still, that does not mean the system fails to boot - it means the filesystem of your computer is having trouble.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 06:16 PM
That would be correct, and not just my one PC, which is a laptop, but over 100 other PC's I have put Ubuntu on. The few times I have had problems I messed things up. bug: lyceum

And most of the PC's I use are Dells in case you were wondering.

That's interesting. You promised that you have never edited menu.lst? I find that hard to believe if you're dual booting. (By never I mean never, not even when you installed the system).

If you can find me a person who has as frequent windows boot failures as I, which means at minimum of 2 per month from the very first time they used windows, then I will start to believe that it's plausible that my problems are freak bad luck (and a huge coincidence).

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 06:18 PM
You didn't have to edit the menu.lst ever?
I've never had to come anywhere near it.
The only reason i know it exists is that i like to find out how stuff works

m.musashi
February 23rd, 2007, 06:20 PM
I've edited menu.lst but only because I wanted to clean it up. I've never had to edit it. I dual boot and this was set up correctly. In fact, for a while I was quad booting (edgy, dapper, suse, windows on two different HDs) and even then grub was set up correctly. I did clean it up a few times because after a few kernel updates it was getting messy.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 06:20 PM
In addition to wat Brunellus just said:
I wouldnt call
a boot failure. It's common to reboot after a filesystem check - especially when major repairs have been performed. Not rebooting would mean starting up with an inconsistent file system - not something you want. Besides that, they only "fsck failing to finish a scan " I've ever seen (and i think you refer to) is that fsck wants the user to confirm or choose to make changes rather than doing an 'automatic' repair in cases that may resulkt in loss of data.

Still, that does not mean the system fails to boot - it means the filesystem of your computer is having trouble.

I've had fsck go to about 66% and then reboot and rerun itself. the second time it usually finishes and loads.

I've also had it complete fully and reboot itself.

Regardless, it's a boot failure in my mind. Any time the computer fails to boot in its normal amount of time, that's boot failure. I have things to do, I need to use my computer now, not 10 minutes from now.

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 06:22 PM
You promised that you have never edited menu.lst? I find that hard to believe if you're dual booting
The Ubuntu installs I've done so far detected the presence of "an other os" and created a dual boot menu automatically - if I recall correctly. (they always went so smoothly that i hardly remember anything else but clicking "next")

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 06:24 PM
Regardless, it's a boot failure in my mind.
well, it's your mind. can't argue with that.

Just curious : Do you also consider other OS's that run file system checks and repair file system errors as "not ready fopr the desktop" and "lacking" ?

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 06:24 PM
The Ubuntu installs I've done so far detected the presence of "an other os" and created a dual boot menu automatically - if I recall correctly. (they always went so smoothly that i hardly remember anything else but clicking "next")

It did that for me too. But what it did incorrectly for me was:

when installing a new kernel it thinks my linux partition is hd(0,0) when it's actually hd(0,2)

it thinks my linux device is hda1 when it's actually sda3.

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 06:30 PM
That's interesting. You promised that you have never edited menu.lst? I find that hard to believe if you're dual booting. (By never I mean never, not even when you installed the system).

If you can find me a person who has as frequent windows boot failures as I, which means at minimum of 2 per month from the very first time they used windows, then I will start to believe that it's plausible that my problems are freak bad luck (and a huge coincidence).

I am going to show my ignorance now but... I do not know what menu.lst is. I have never had to use it. I do not use the terminal much. And I have sold one PC dual booted w/ Window in the master hd, Ubuntu on the slave. My dad's PC is a dual boot but I think we are going to change that to just Ubuntu with XP running inside Ubuntu, and my laptop was dual booted when Vista RC2 came out for 4 months. I do not like Windows, I try to keep my PC pure, but I will be picking up Vista to dual boot again for school. I have never had problems, and neither have the other 3.

-edit-
I did have to wipe the hard drive and re-install the dual OS's 3 times, but that was due to Vista issues, Ubuntu was fine.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 06:31 PM
well, it's your mind. can't argue with that.

Just curious : Do you also consider other OS's that run file system checks and repair file system errors as "not ready fopr the desktop" and "lacking" ?

I consider them to be boot failures, yes.

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 06:38 PM
This weekend I 'll probably be trying to fix my girlfriend's computer - or at least try to salvage some data, if at all possible. The thing (Win XP) refuses to boot - when i trun it on all it says is "unable to load windows - can not find c:\windows\system"

Now, that's a boot failure.
I just wish it would have checked and repaired the filesystem before system files just disappear.

aysiu
February 23rd, 2007, 06:40 PM
I've never had to the edit the /boot/grub/menu.lst in order to get my dual boot working.

I edited it to get rid of the splash option (I don't like the boot splash screen--I like verbose) and to add a grub splash image of Tux.

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 06:44 PM
I consider them to be boot failures, yes.

Just wondering, do you think ANY OS is ready for the desktop? and, have you tried Mac? *(just curious on the second one, no point)

Tomosaur
February 23rd, 2007, 07:42 PM
So your computer boots every time (with a maximum of 1 error in the past year) without you ever having to fix anything?

You didn't have to edit the menu.lst ever?

Your computer never runs fsck at boot?


---------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be suggesting that I'm merely extremely unlucky. If you find me a windows user who has had at minimum 2 boot failures per month from the first very time they ever used windows, then I will concede that this is possibly merely extremely bad luck on my part.

My Ubuntu install has only ever had one boot error, and I caused it myself, because I wanted to know how it worked. Windows, however, has refused to boot, with the infamous "NTDETECT NOT FOUND" error, or some other vital system file. Does that mean Windows is useless? Of course not. I find Ubuntu is more suitable as a desktop OS than Windows XP - I can do far more with Ubuntu 'out-of-the-box' than I can with Windows. I still use Windows from time to time though - mostly because I need to develop for both platforms.

FSCK is designed to run at boot. If hardware wasn't dismounted correctly - fsck runs on the next boot. If you go so many boots without running fsck, fsck runs. I would rather fsck ran and told me if something was wrong, rather than letting the problem get worse and worse.

In the end - the vast, vast majority of Ubuntu users don't have your problems. It is clearly some combination of your hardware, your software, and your usage patterns, which is causing said bugs to manifest themselves. If it was some universal bug - then everyone would be having these problems, and clearly, they're not.

EDIT: Windows also has chkdsk.exe. Is this a boot failure, or is it just part of keeping your machine in shape? Just because Windows isn't configured to run it every 30 boots or whatever, doesn't mean it's a 'failure' on Linux/Ubuntu's part. You can turn it off on Linux too, it's just configured to occur at a sensible interval.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 07:49 PM
Just wondering, do you think ANY OS is ready for the desktop? and, have you tried Mac? *(just curious on the second one, no point)

I was posting in the "things linux is lacking thread" until it got moved. That's what I'm saying is lacking, failure-proof booting (except in extremely rare occurrences, maximum of once per year).

Yes, the other OSes I have used do not have the frequent boot failures. I treid mac sometimes, a friend has a laptop.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 07:55 PM
In the end - the vast, vast majority of Ubuntu users don't have your problems. It is clearly some combination of your hardware, your software, and your usage patterns, which is causing said bugs to manifest themselves. If it was some universal bug - then everyone would be having these problems, and clearly, they're not.

You have 0 evidence that any of this is my fault. None. Don't you think it's morally wrong to blame someone for something until you have, at minimum, some evidence that they are at fault?

This would be like me blaming you for the Kennedy assassination for no particular reason. The fact that other people don't have as frequent errors doesn't mean it's my fault. You're going to have to actually point out specifically what I have done wrong before that's anything other than extremely bad manners.


FSCK is designed to run at boot. If hardware wasn't dismounted correctly - fsck runs on the next boot. If you go so many boots without running fsck, fsck runs. I would rather fsck ran and told me if something was wrong, rather than letting the problem get worse and worse.


EDIT: Windows also has chkdsk.exe. Is this a boot failure, or is it just part of keeping your machine in shape? Just because Windows isn't configured to run it every 30 boots or whatever, doesn't mean it's a 'failure' on Linux/Ubuntu's part. You can turn it off on Linux too, it's just configured to occur at a sensible interval.

Chkdsk never runs on my 2 windows computers. Never.

If you want fsck to frequently run, that's your prerogative. I would rather it never run, ever, unless I specifically tell it to. How do I turn it off (including after bad dismounts)?

prizrak
February 23rd, 2007, 08:35 PM
You have 0 evidence that any of this is my fault. None. Don't you think it's morally wrong to blame someone for something until you have, at minimum, some evidence that they are at fault?

This would be like me blaming you for the Kennedy assassination for no particular reason. The fact that other people don't have as frequent errors doesn't mean it's my fault. You're going to have to actually point out specifically what I have done wrong before that's anything other than extremely bad manners.



Chkdsk never runs on my 2 windows computers. Never.

If you want fsck to frequently run, that's your prerogative. I would rather it never run, ever, unless I specifically tell it to. How do I turn it off (including after bad dismounts)?
No one said it was YOUR fault what was suggested is that If the error is specific to YOUR system that means that a problem is somewhere in THAT PARTICULAR system not the OS itself. If that was an actual issue with the OS that error would present itself on every computer.

Just as an example, my parents drive a Buick Century and recently the remote keyless entry system gave up (the actual part in the car not the little remotes I checked). Does that mean that Buick just completely sux because that one system failed in one specific car? If that were the case then it wouldn't work in my friend's car that also happens to be a Buick that was made in the same model year but has twice the mileage (my parents don't drive much).

Things break that's how it is. Hardware is different it works differently with different OS's and different drivers and that's how it is. Doesn't make the actual OS crappy or broken. For instance Windows can't run on PPC, just can't no way it will work. Ubuntu can however, hence Windows sux and it's a crappy OS. I submit it is not desktop ready if I can't load it on an old school Mac.

I had Windows auto run chkdsk after bad dismounts before and I had run it myself manually at boot where it would detect issues that it would have detected earlier had it ran automatically.

darrenm
February 23rd, 2007, 08:37 PM
Mateo, it does actually sound like you have a hardware problem when fsck keeps having to do major repairs on your filesystem. Have you run a RAM test?

Also I dual boot and I've never had to edit menu.lst. When kernel upgrades happen they just overwrite the old kernel as the default one and it just works. I never get any boot problems and fsck runs every 25 mounts like its supposed to.

It sounds like you edited the menu.lst file yourself and changed the entries in the section that it tells you not to modify otherwise upgrades will break it.

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 08:41 PM
So it's not hardware-related.

Good thing some people saw fit to file bug reports on it:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/initramfs-tools/+bug/21759
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-source-2.6.17/+bug/59792

Both bugs are confirmed, and one's been assigned high priority already.

If you believe being unable to boot-up is a Linux-only issue, I suggest you check out this Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=windows+can%27t+boot+into&btnG=Google+Search).

No software is perfect. All developers can do is test it on their own machines and fix bugs that users report on their machines. The bug has been reported and is being worked on.

These are the bugs for Mateo's issue. aysiu forn them yesterday. It is not a hardware issue, though it does sound like one.

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 08:50 PM
If you want fsck to frequently run, that's your prerogative. I would rather it never run, ever, unless I specifically tell it to. How do I turn it off (including after bad dismounts)?
see tune2fs : http://www.netadmintools.com/html/tune2fs.man.html

the options your looking for are probably
-c 0 # don't check every (30) mounts
-e continue # continue normal operation when errors are detected
-f # Force the tune2fs operation to complete even in the face of errors

you have to set it for every partion separatly, and they have to be unmounted.

This is a recipy for disaster. Filesystem errors will go undetected and unrepaired, files will get corrupted and unaccessible, data will get lost, you will experience real boot errors (the system will fail to boot), you will have something more to complain about in this thread.

Tomosaur
February 23rd, 2007, 08:54 PM
You have 0 evidence that any of this is my fault. None. Don't you think it's morally wrong to blame someone for something until you have, at minimum, some evidence that they are at fault?

What? I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm saying it's happening to you, and thus is not indicative of other people's experiences. It is therefore foolish to say 'It's not ready', or 'it's broken', when the number of people experiencing these issues is virtually nil.



This would be like me blaming you for the Kennedy assassination for no particular reason. The fact that other people don't have as frequent errors doesn't mean it's my fault. You're going to have to actually point out specifically what I have done wrong before that's anything other than extremely bad manners.
See above.




Chkdsk never runs on my 2 windows computers. Never.


Congratulations (or not - perhaps there's something wrong and you've no way of knowing.)



If you want fsck to frequently run, that's your prerogative. I would rather it never run, ever, unless I specifically tell it to. How do I turn it off (including after bad dismounts)?

Disabling fsck after bad dismounts is probably a bad idea. This is just something you'll have to put up with with Linux. Mounting and dismounting is handled differently than on Windows. . If it's running as just a normal check, then by all means, extend the amount of time between checks, using:


sudo tune2fs -c <number> <device>

So, for example, if I wanted to make fsck run only every 1000 boots/mounts on /dev/hda1, then I would type:


sudo tune2fs -c 1000 /dev/hda1


The act of disabling fsck altogether is a little more complex, and varies depending on distribution / version. In any case - the relevant script which handles fsck should be in /etc/init.d. It is on DSL, which is the only version of Linux I currently have access to. This may not work on Ubuntu. All I have to do on DSL is:


cd /etc/init.d
sudo nano ./checkroot.sh


In that file, there is a line which says 'rootcheck=yes'. I just change it to 'rootcheck=no', and save the file. Although the boot message still says 'checking root file system', it doesn't actually start the scan. It doesn't even check if I intentionally crash the system, or turn it off without powering down. The method should be pretty similar under Ubuntu, but I won't be able to make sure for a few days.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 08:56 PM
No one said it was YOUR fault

Tomosaur suggested that it was (at least partially) my fault:


In the end - the vast, vast majority of Ubuntu users don't have your problems. It is clearly some combination of your hardware, your software, and your usage patterns, which is causing said bugs to manifest themselves.

Don't you consider it bad manners to suggest that something is someone's fault before there is any evidence? I do.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 08:59 PM
Mateo, it does actually sound like you have a hardware problem when fsck keeps having to do major repairs on your filesystem. Have you run a RAM test?

It hasn't happened in a while. I think it probably happened after it didn't shut down properly or something (not my fault). It hasn't happened in a few weeks though.

Also I dual boot and I've never had to edit menu.lst. When kernel upgrades happen they just overwrite the old kernel as the default one and it just works. I never get any boot problems and fsck runs every 25 mounts like its supposed to.


It sounds like you edited the menu.lst file yourself and changed the entries in the section that it tells you not to modify otherwise upgrades will break it.

Might sound like it, but I didn't, so that's not it. The only thing I ever edited menu.lst for was to add 'unhide hd(0,1)' to my windows entry, because grub incorrectly left that out when I installed ubuntu.

never touched any of the settings.

Tomosaur
February 23rd, 2007, 09:00 PM
Tomosaur suggested that it was (at least partially) my fault:



Don't you consider it bad manners to suggest that something is someone's fault before there is any evidence?

As I've explained, I never once said it was your fault. I was pointing out that it was happening to you, not everyone who was using linux. If you interpret 'your usage patterns' as 'your fault', then I'd suggest you're looking for issues where there aren't any. The simple fact that it is not happening to everyone else proves that it is something to do with you. This does not imply that it is your fault. As you have already established, it is a bug - but one which is being affected by something in your environment. This is not the same, at all, as saying it is your fault.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 09:01 PM
This is a recipy for disaster. Filesystem errors will go undetected and unrepaired, files will get corrupted and unaccessible, data will get lost, you will experience real boot errors (the system will fail to boot), you will have something more to complain about in this thread.

Really? My windows partition doesn't run chkdsk ever 30 boots, or ever, and I've still yet to have a single boot failure since I bought this computer (2 years ago).

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 09:03 PM
As I've explained, I never once said it was your fault. I was pointing out that it was happening to you, not everyone who was using linux. If you interpret 'your usage patterns' as 'your fault', then I'd suggest you're looking for issues where there aren't any. The simple fact that it is not happening to everyone else proves that it is something to do with you. This does not imply that it is your fault. As you have already established, it is a bug - but one which is being affected by something in your environment. This is not the same, at all, as saying it is your fault.

Please explain what you meant by "you usage patterns", then? I interpreted that as "you screwed it up".

Brunellus
February 23rd, 2007, 09:03 PM
Really? My windows partition doesn't run chkdsk ever 30 boots, or ever, and I've still yet to have a single boot failure since I bought this computer (2 years ago).
Use the windows partition if Linux isn't working for you.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 09:07 PM
Congratulations (or not - perhaps there's something wrong and you've no way of knowing.)

Sure there is, I can run it manually.


Disabling fsck after bad dismounts is probably a bad idea. This is just something you'll have to put up with with Linux. Mounting and dismounting is handled differently than on Windows.

Fine, I'll accept it doing it on bad dismounts, though I will still hold this against linux as a boot failure when keeping my running tab on how often the system fails to boot cleanly.




If it's running as just a normal check, then by all means, extend the amount of time between checks, using:


sudo tune2fs -c <number> <device>

So, for example, if I wanted to make fsck run only every 1000 boots/mounts on /dev/hda1, then I would type:


sudo tune2fs -c 1000 /dev/hda1


I don't ever want it to run a "normal check". I'll do that myself. Can't I just use the value of 0?

Tomosaur
February 23rd, 2007, 09:10 PM
Please explain what you meant by "you usage patterns", then? I interpreted that as "you screwed it up".

The combination of the software you have installed - where your machine is, how you use it. Do you use lots of hardware intensive programs which could cause excessive wear and tear on your hard drive? Is your computer in a well ventilated area? Do you use it for extended periods of time? Etc etc etc. All of these things can be conducive to problems with a computer. Just because Windows doesn't run chkdsk all the time doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong - it just means it's not running chkdsk, for whatever reason - be it windows hasn't detected any fault, or chkdsk just hasn't been triggered to run, or whatever. The absence of a file-system check does not automatically mean the filesystem, or even the hard drive, is ok. Perhaps ext3 doesn't work well on your hard drive, it could be anything. The fact still remains that your issue is an extremely rare one, and isn't representative of the operating system as a whole.

EDIT: Seriously now, I'm getting tired of this. If you're just going to troll, go elsewhere. We've all explained our opinions. You don't want fsck to run ever. I've told you how to do that on DSL - you'll have to check for yourself whether the same method works on Ubuntu, I don't have access to an Ubuntu machine right now. If you want to use Windows, then go and use Windows, nobody is forcing you to use Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution. FSCK works perfectly well for the vast majority of people. It doesn't for you, and I'm very sorry, but I've told you how you can stop it from running. If you want to try that, then go ahead, but I personally believe fsck is a benefit, not a curse - despite the extension it puts on the boot time. Run it manually, whatever, it doesn't bother me, it's your computer.

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 09:15 PM
These are the bugs for Mateo's issue. aysiu forn them yesterday.
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source...ols/+bug/21759
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source....17/+bug/59792
It is not a hardware issue, though it does sound like one.

both seem to occur on systems with elaborate partitioning schemes, on of the bugs in particular occurs when grub is chainloading lilo on an other partition.
Hardly something that is likely to occur for the majority of users. I don't see "grandma" setting up multiple partitions and configuring lilo. So going from a bug with limited impact (in terms of affected users) to a general "Linux is lacking when it comes to booting error-free" is kinda stretching it.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 09:26 PM
The combination of the software you have installed - where your machine is, how you use it. Do you use lots of hardware intensive programs which could cause excessive wear and tear on your hard drive? Is your computer in a well ventilated area? Do you use it for extended periods of time? Etc etc etc. All of these things can be conducive to problems with a computer.

No, yes and no. Even if the answers to any of the above questions were yes (with the possible exception of the 1st), that wouldn't explain why I sometimes have boot failures in ubuntu and never have them in windows. I actually am probably harder on the windows partition because I use it for games (sometimes) and as a media center.


Just because Windows doesn't run chkdsk all the time doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong - it just means it's not running chkdsk, for whatever reason - be it windows hasn't detected any fault, or chkdsk just hasn't been triggered to run, or whatever. The absence of a file-system check does not automatically mean the filesystem, or even the hard drive, is ok. Perhaps ext3 doesn't work well on your hard drive, it could be anything.

I just ran chkdsk now. No errors.


EDIT: Seriously now, I'm getting tired of this. If you're just going to troll, go elsewhere. We've all explained our opinions.

Not trolling, the thread was titled "what is linux missing" (or something like that, can't remember). So I posted my experiences about that. Trolling would be going to every thread and just saying "linux sux0rs".

If you don't like hearing some of the ways linux is imperfect, you've picked the wrong topic to read ;). No one forces you to read every topic on the board.


You don't want fsck to run ever. I've told you how to do that on DSL - you'll have to check for yourself whether the same method works on Ubuntu, I don't have access to an Ubuntu machine right now. If you want to use Windows, then go and use Windows, nobody is forcing you to use Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution. FSCK works perfectly well for the vast majority of people. It doesn't for you, and I'm very sorry, but I've told you how you can stop it from running. If you want to try that, then go ahead, but I personally believe fsck is a benefit, not a curse - despite the extension it puts on the boot time. Run it manually, whatever, it doesn't bother me, it's your computer.

I don't have a problem with fsck, I have a problem with fsck running without my permission.

I originally posted this as a problem that linux has with frequent rebooters (Which I am). If fsck runs every 30 boots, for me that's almost once a week! I don't want that. I would, at maximum, want it to run once every 6 months, but even then, I don't want it running when I am in critical need of using the computer. It's better to just do it manually every once in a while.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 09:34 PM
both seem to occur on systems with elaborate partitioning schemes, on of the bugs in particular occurs when grub is chainloading lilo on an other partition.
Hardly something that is likely to occur for the majority of users. I don't see "grandma" setting up multiple partitions and configuring lilo. So going from a bug with limited impact (in terms of affected users) to a general "Linux is lacking when it comes to booting error-free" is kinda stretching it.

Nothing elaborate about mine. Windows and Ubuntu, that's it! Also there's the windows recovery and the linux swap. so 4 partitions total, 2 per OS.

Whether it's a common problem or not doesn't mean this is not a way linux is lacking. Assuming the problem is caused by having lots of partitions, one OS has a bug and the other doesn't.

qamelian
February 23rd, 2007, 09:35 PM
I originally posted this as a problem that linux has with frequent rebooters (Which I am). If fsck runs every 30 boots, for me that's almost once a week! I don't want that. I would, at maximum, want it to run once every 6 months, but even then, I don't want it running when I am in critical need of using the computer. It's better to just do it manually every once in a while.

I've seen enough hard drive failures on Windows to know that having a disk check run on a regular schedule is a good thing, as it can often catch disk failures before they become critical. I'm a frequent rebooter and I still see fsck every 30 reboots as a blessing rather than a problem.

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 09:42 PM
Nothing elaborate about mine. Windows and Ubuntu, that's it! Also there's the windows recovery and the linux swap. so 4 partitions total, 2 per OS.

Whether it's a common problem or not doesn't mean this is not a way linux is lacking. Assuming the problem is caused by having lots of partitions, one OS has a bug and the other doesn't.

While you are correct, it is not a critical thing Linux is lacking. If it were a common problem, then it would be an area Linux lacked.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 09:44 PM
While you are correct, it is not a critical thing Linux is lacking. If it were a common problem, then it would be an area Linux lacked.

I disagree. I think any user (of any OS) should be able to use their computer without frequent boot failures. I don't think us in the minority should be regarded as unimportant.

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 09:48 PM
Whether it's a common problem or not doesn't mean this is not a way linux is lacking. Assuming the problem is caused by having lots of partitions, one OS has a bug and the other doesn't.
If it was a common problem, your generalization would be justified. It is not a common problem.
And did I understand correctly that you think the other OS doesn't have bugs ?

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 09:53 PM
I disagree. I think any user (of any OS) should be able to use their computer without frequent boot failures
Yes. In Utopia.

For your particular problem : 98% of your boot problems will disappear when the bug gets fixed.
Then you will be able to experience other bugs. Should you choose to start using other operating systems because of that, you'll encounter yet other bugs.

Tomosaur
February 23rd, 2007, 09:57 PM
I disagree. I think any user (of any OS) should be able to use their computer without frequent boot failures. I don't think us in the minority should be regarded as unimportant.

Nobody is saying you're unimportant - we're arguing that trouble-free booting is not an area where Linux lacks. Linux boots fine for me and the vast majority of other linux users. It's like me complaining that Windows is lacking because it crashes 'more than frequently'. I have the common sense to know that my problems with Windows are isolated, and not indicative of Windows in general.

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 10:03 PM
If it was a common problem, your generalization would be justified. It is not a common problem.
And did I understand correctly that you think the other OS doesn't have bugs ?

I didn't say anything about bugs in general. I was talking specifically about boot failures. And yes, I don't think any other OS has as frequent boot failures as the one I have occurred.

As I said before, find me a person who has many boot failures per month on another OS and I'll concede that I'm just extremely unlucky.


Yes. In Utopia.

Utopia to believe your computer should boot without failure most of the time? We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.


For your particular problem : 98% of your boot problems will disappear when the bug gets fixed.

That's only 1 particular bug. That only happened Once to me, ever. The other problems, such as fsck rebooting my computer sometimes, or grub incorrectly rewriting my menu.lst have happened many times.

I think people might be mistakenly think I have just this 1 problem that is causing me a lot of trouble. That 1 problem was a major problem (required me to reinstall), but it only happened once. It's actually a lot of little problems that add up to frequent boot failures (and lost patience on my part).

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 10:12 PM
I disagree. I think any user (of any OS) should be able to use their computer without frequent boot failures. I don't think us in the minority should be regarded as unimportant.

And that takes us back to my origanal post to you about the Wall-Green comercials :popcorn:

"Welcome to Perfect"

Mateo
February 23rd, 2007, 10:14 PM
And that takes us back to my origanal post to you about the Wall-Green comercials :popcorn:

"Welcome to Perfect"

Not perfect, just extremely rare boot failures (maximum of once or twice per year). I only expect this because I've experienced it myself throughout most of my computing life.

Tomosaur
February 23rd, 2007, 10:16 PM
As I said before, find me a person who has many boot failures per month on another OS and I'll concede that I'm just extremely unlucky.


It doesn't work like that - the fact that we can't find anybody suffering the same problems as you proves that you are very unlucky. If there were more people suffering these problems, then we would concede that there was something dodgy about the OS. There aren't more people, so the only logical explanation is that it's an isolated case, and although we can appreciate that it irritates you - it doesn't mean Linux has something wrong with it. It just means that it seemingly doesn't play nicely with your particular environment. Just like Windows doesn't play nicely with virtually any non-Windows environment.

koenn
February 23rd, 2007, 10:17 PM
As I said before, find me a person who has many boot failures per month on another OS and I'll concede that I'm just extremely unlucky.
...
Utopia to believe your computer should boot without failure most of the time?

The other problems, such as fsck rebooting my computer ...

It's actually a lot of little problems that add up to frequent boot failures (and lost patience on my part).

Oh, so you still consider precautions such as a file system check to be a "boot failure". I thought we got passed that, especially after you got instructions on how to turn it of + explanation why that would be a bad idea.

We're walking in circles here - or should I say we're feeding a troll ?

Henry Rayker
February 23rd, 2007, 10:22 PM
I didn't say anything about bugs in general. I was talking specifically about boot failures. And yes, I don't think any other OS has as frequent boot failures as the one I have occurred.

As I said before, find me a person who has many boot failures per month on another OS and I'll concede that I'm just extremely unlucky.

Actually, for whatever reason, my Windows partition NEVER boots the first time (either from when the machine is off or if I reboot from Ubuntu). Every time I reboot, it claims there may be an error, checks the whole disk, doesn't find anything and then reboots. EVERY single time. If I don't let it finish its error check, it will just request to do it again (infinite loop). I'm certain nothing is wrong with my disk for two reasons, though...1) Ubuntu says it's fine, 2) the Windows check never finds anything wrong. In order to boot into windows, I have to select the Windows partition from GRUB, then let it go through it's thing, then it reboots and I have to re-select from GRUB...

lyceum
February 23rd, 2007, 10:29 PM
We're walking in circles here - or should I say we're feeding a troll ?

That would be my feeling. Where did I put that sign?
*looks for "do not feed trolls" sign*

(no offence Mateo, but it has been 2 days of circles now)

:)

aysiu
February 23rd, 2007, 10:43 PM
I don't believe (maybe I'm wrong--I don't know) Mateo is a troll.

But I do know that this discussion is going nowhere. Mateo believes Linux is lacking... something and that something has directly to do with boot failures and Mateo's personal experience, which is shared by some other users.

Other forum members believe boot failures are not unique to Linux and are not as common as Mateo's experience would lead her or him to believe.

The boot failure already has a bug report filed on it and is being worked on. If that's a deal breaker for you, don't use Linux. Otherwise, use it.

And if you want to keep arguing in circles, argue in circles if that's what makes you happy.

FLPCGuy
February 23rd, 2007, 11:30 PM
Actually, for whatever reason, my Windows partition NEVER boots the first time (either from when the machine is off or if I reboot from Ubuntu). Every time I reboot, it claims there may be an error, checks the whole disk, doesn't find anything and then reboots. EVERY single time. If I don't let it finish its error check, it will just request to do it again (infinite loop). I'm certain nothing is wrong with my disk for two reasons, though...1) Ubuntu says it's fine, 2) the Windows check never finds anything wrong. In order to boot into windows, I have to select the Windows partition from GRUB, then let it go through it's thing, then it reboots and I have to re-select from GRUB...
Sounds like a corrupted XP boot file (NTLOADER, etc.). Run the XP disk and select R)epair with no repair diskette. At the command prompt type fixboot. That should replace the boot files and solve your problem. If it doesn't, remove the read only attribute on boot.ini [attrib -R \boot.ini], reboot and from Windows use Notepad to verify the correct parameters in the bootup command. This example is for XP on the first drive [rdisk(0)], first partition [1] on an IDE disk, [drive and partition numbers could be higher on your system].

[boot loader]
timeout=8
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOW S
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="...XP Pro" /fastdetect

Be careful, if you run FIXMBR you will have to reinstall GRUB on the master boot record to run anything but Windoze.

Henry Rayker
February 23rd, 2007, 11:37 PM
Sounds like a corrupted XP boot file (NTLOADER, etc.). Run the XP disk and select R)epair with no repair diskette. At the command prompt type fixboot. That should replace the boot files and solve your problem. If it doesn't, remove the read only attribute on boot.ini [attrib -R \boot.ini], reboot and from Windows use Notepad to verify the correct parameters in the bootup command. For example, [drive and partition numbers vary]
[boot loader]
timeout=8
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOW S
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="...XP Pro" /fastdetect

Be careful, if you run FIXMBR you will have to reinstall GRUB on the master boot record to run anything but Windoze.

Yeah...I boot into windows about once a month, if that. I hadn't booted into windows for over 6 months until last night, where I found my little notepad note to try to fix that error...not a priority..

cantormath
February 24th, 2007, 12:04 PM
Not perfect, just extremely rare boot failures (maximum of once or twice per year). I only expect this because I've experienced it myself throughout most of my computing life.


I don't know if I am alone on this, but maybe Mateo should just stay away from Linux till its ready, He has the magic ability to break things in ways none of us can. :)

wersdaluv
February 24th, 2007, 12:24 PM
To make using Ubuntu easier, there are two parties who need to adapt. The first is the usability the Operating System, while the second is the user.

Absolute Beginners need to do their job, but that is not the point that we have to concentrate on. We can never do their job for them. All we can do are all we can do.

I believe that Windows and Mac OS are more attractive to Absolute Beginners with computers. For some reason, that is the way it is. I hope Ubuntu would be more attractive to them one day.

As a part of the Ubuntu Community, what can each one of us do to make Ubuntu more usable for everyone, most especially for the Absolute Beginner?

kanha
February 24th, 2007, 12:58 PM
ubuntu or for matter of facts all linux have a very good community support.
But for a absolute beginner it is hard to find right place for their queries.
I think if somehow the help sites (like forum,unofficial faq,official document)can be more more visible at the time of first install will be very useful.
ubuntu can make a icon for these links on desktop at default install
afterwards people will find their way by themselves:guitar:

xpod
February 24th, 2007, 02:11 PM
Well as an "absolute computer beginner" about 11 months ago and an Ubuntu beginner only some 7 months ago now all i can say is "how easy does it need to be"????It`s only hard if you dont know the answer and you aint willing to go find it out somehow!

Windows is supposed to be the most easy thing in the world for any new computer user to get to grips with and it comes pre-installed for most.But you tell that to practically any of the Windows using folks i know.They`ve had computers for years in some cases and still dont know how to do the most basic of things....the things that really need to be done that is.
Prior to my new found interest in the things they used to just buy new pc`s when the current ones became unusable.

Personally i reckon Ubuntu would only be a bit easier for us "normal" users if it came installed somehow just as Windows is BUT even if it did.... if people aint going to take a little bit of time to at least learn the basics of their Distos/OS`s then they`d be as well selling the bloody pc`s and saving themselves the hassle.......and cost.

I was`nt afraid to ask a lot stupid "seeming" questions to start out and i did one hell of a lot of reading .......and that was just with Windows, before i even found Ubuntu:)

I might not have started out interested in OS`s and Distro`s(WTF did that mean back then?)but i did start out at least wanting to know the basics of how these boxes of wires worked, for no other reason really than keeping my kids safe as they began their computing lifes....and of course i needed to know how to keep the computers safe from them...ok. and moi.

I`ll never know half the s**t some of you`se guys do but at least i know the difference between a DLL and a LOL now:)

highneko
February 24th, 2007, 02:18 PM
For an absolute Beginner I suggest connecting to the irc server irc.freenode.net and joining #ubuntu, #bash, and #linux.

insane_alien
February 24th, 2007, 02:41 PM
the only reason people find ubuntu hard is because they have gotten used to windows. if someone who has never used a computer before learns on ubuntu then they will find windows hard as well (assuming that they only learned how to do basic things and didn't pick up on how the things actually work.)

chewearn
February 24th, 2007, 02:55 PM
I am of the opinion that too many Windows users only think Windows is easy to use, but they are simply deluding themselves.

Sure they know where to click, and how to do this or that; but unknown to them, their PC is one or more of below:
1. part of a zombie army spewing email spams
2. spyware/virus infested, leaking their personal information to some websites
3. wasting a huge percentage of clock cycles running antivirus program
:mrgreen:

aysiu
February 24th, 2007, 04:57 PM
I believe that Windows and Mac OS are more attractive to Absolute Beginners with computers. For some reason, that is the way it is. I hope Ubuntu would be more attractive to them one day.

As a part of the Ubuntu Community, what can each one of us do to make Ubuntu more usable for everyone, most especially for the Absolute Beginner? While I like the positive spin you're putting on it ("What can we do to improve?" as opposed to "Ubuntu sucks!"), this ultimately will become a Linux-ready-for-the-desktop thread, especially with your assertion that Windows and Mac are more attractive to Absolute Beginners--which will lead to discussions about preinstallation and market forces.

Anyone genuinely interested in doing her part to make Ubuntu better, should just follow some of the suggestions in this thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741). I'll even sum it up for you here: file bug reports, contribute code, donate money, write documentation. You can also maintain packages, create artwork, do professional marketing, and install and configure Ubuntu for friends and schools/organizations.

Otherwise, you can discuss to your heart's content here.

SumChipper
February 24th, 2007, 04:59 PM
This is my first post so I feel somewhat qualified to answer this question. :smile:

My ubuntu installation on my ThinkPad was completely painless and I have not had any problems since (Friday morning.)

BUT

I think the single biggest obstacle to ubuntu on the average user's desktop is installing programs. There needs to be a standard way (at least on ubuntu) to install software: double-click install icon, install runs, install finishes, click finish, run new program.

That's my .02.

Anyway, glad to be finally on the ubuntu "team" and I look forward to learning and hopefully contributing in the future.

chewearn
February 24th, 2007, 05:11 PM
I think the single biggest obstacle to ubuntu on the average user's desktop is installing programs. There needs to be a standard way (at least on ubuntu) to install software: double-click install icon, install runs, install finishes, click finish, run new program.


What do you mean there is no standard way?! :rolleyes: Everything in ubuntu can be installed via Synaptic.

Double-clicking install icon only appeared to be "standard" because you are so used to Windows method. Actually, in Windows, you need more than one way to install things:
1. click on install icon
2. Windows update
3. Pop in a CD, wait for auto-run
4. Find the add new hardware wizard, select other sources, navigate to the CD-ROM folder, and select .inf file

etc etc.

aysiu
February 24th, 2007, 05:12 PM
Well, I happen to agree with both of you.

There is a standard way. Unfortunately, not all software follows that standard. Fortunately, though, a lot of software does.

I've never found a need to install software from outside the repositories.

SumChipper
February 24th, 2007, 05:46 PM
I guess I meant installing from online downloads; after download completes there is an install icon on the desktop, you double-click it, etc.

Like I said, I'm very new and this is just my initial impression. Synpatic is very nice but I guess I'm not used to going into a program to install a program. Does that make since?

I think my brain has been trained to "think" how Windows thinks. :?

Frak
February 24th, 2007, 05:50 PM
I guess I meant installing from online downloads; after download completes there is an install icon on the desktop, you double-click it, etc.

Like I said, I'm very new and this is just my initial impression. Synpatic is very nice but I guess I'm not used to going into a program to install a program. Does that make since?

I think my brain has been trained to "think" how Windows thinks. :?
If you download a .deb, you can just double click on the icon to install it.

aysiu
February 24th, 2007, 06:00 PM
Like I said, I'm very new and this is just my initial impression. Synpatic is very nice but I guess I'm not used to going into a program to install a program. Sure you are. In Windows, you use a program like Internet Explorer or Firefox to search around the internet trying to find setup.exe files. You also use the Control Panel's Add/Remove Programs to remove programs (who really uses that to add programs?).

It makes total sense to have an application to install applications. Why does that make less sense than using an application to find a file that you download to your desktop that will then install an application and which you'll later have to delete so it won't be cluttering things up?

Tobster
February 25th, 2007, 12:56 AM
I always feared from installing Universal software in a Linux distribution because to date I have not been able to do it I always failed.

Surely this must be seen as a "Bug" and everyone in the Ubuntu and Open Source Community must get together and put pressure on Novell to fix this bug.

At the end of the day installing external software should be something like chick on install then chick on file to be install then click on confirm.

But it not it always terminal type in some code and in my case get a failure message.

GNOME and KDE if they really wont to be the Open Standard then make it easy to you them, make it easy to install software.

I might try and put an online partition to try and fix this bug

Toby

Tomosaur
February 25th, 2007, 01:16 AM
I always feared from installing Universal software in a Linux distribution because to date I have not been able to do it I always failed.

Surely this must be seen as a "Bug" and everyone in the Ubuntu and Open Source Community must get together and put pressure on Novell to fix this bug.

At the end of the day installing external software should be something like chick on install then chick on file to be install then click on confirm.

But it not it always terminal type in some code and in my case get a failure message.

GNOME and KDE if they really wont to be the Open Standard then make it easy to you them, make it easy to install software.

I might try and put an online partition to try and fix this bug

Toby

What? The universe repository is still software packaged for Ubuntu, there should be no problems with it. Also, what have Novell got to do with anything? I'm confused :confused:

Polygon
February 25th, 2007, 01:17 AM
he is basically saying that there should be something that makes software easier to install, like windows where you double click and press OK a bunch of times.


there is already such a thing: .deb packages

I have never used a distro that uses stuff like rpm's, but with deb packages in dapper and up you simply double click them, click install, give your root password and then it gets installed

the problem is a lot of distros use different packaging types. I say everyone should just agree on one... but then everyone will say "we want the freedom to choose which one" so it will most likely never happen.

DrainBead
February 25th, 2007, 01:22 AM
I always feared from installing Universal software in a Linux distribution because to date I have not been able to do it I always failed.

Surely this must be seen as a "Bug" and everyone in the Ubuntu and Open Source Community must get together and put pressure on Novell to fix this bug.

At the end of the day installing external software should be something like chick on install then chick on file to be install then click on confirm.

But it not it always terminal type in some code and in my case get a failure message.

GNOME and KDE if they really wont to be the Open Standard then make it easy to you them, make it easy to install software.

I might try and put an online partition to try and fix this bug

Toby


If you ever manage to find a package that is not in the reps and not available in a .deb format you could just stick it in a directory, use SMART and add the directory as a channel.

If you really need to compile from source, well most of the time that is unproblematic, just use checkinstall and SMART.

Novell has nothing to do with Ubuntu, if you think it does and tried to use their reops i can see why you are having problems.

KDE and Gnome are both great DE's and both have the ability to associate files and do just that, in Ubuntu, in Fedora and in SuSE.

Clarification would be in order.

Polygon
February 25th, 2007, 01:27 AM
hey drainbread, what is smart exactly, mind giving a link to its homepage or something?

DrainBead
February 25th, 2007, 01:33 AM
hey drainbread, what is smart exactly, mind giving a link to its homepage or something?

It's even in the repos and was discussed as a replacement for apt in future versions, i fell out of the loop and don't have time to get back in so now i don't know.

More info about SMART at http://labix.org/smart

It'll handle pretty much anything you throw at it including your own downloaded files.

For some reason the Ubuntu build of it sucks so i recommend building on your own (and no, you don't have to tell me how ironic that is) ;)

aysiu
February 25th, 2007, 03:41 AM
I haven't found the need to install external software, but I don't see this as a bug. I see the lack of a .deb file provided by the developer as a bug. If you really think it's a bug, file a bug report on it.

In the meantime, I've merged this into the desktop readiness thread.

koenn
February 25th, 2007, 12:23 PM
I always feared from installing Universal software in a Linux distribution because to date I have not been able to do it I always failed.

Surely this must be seen as a "Bug" and everyone in the Ubuntu and Open Source Community must get together and put pressure on Novell to fix this bug.

At the end of the day installing external software should be something like chick on install then chick on file to be install then click on confirm.

he is basically saying that there should be something that makes software easier to install, like windows where you double click and press OK a bunch of times.
there is already such a thing: .deb packages

I have never used a distro that uses stuff like rpm's, but with deb packages in dapper and up you simply double click them, click install, give your root password and then it gets installed

the problem is a lot of distros use different packaging types. I say everyone should just agree on one... but then everyone will say "we want the freedom to choose which one" so it will most likely never happen.

Indeed, installing software (on most Linux distro's) can be done with a few mouse clicks so there's no bug there.
There are also only two major package types : .deb and .rpm - rpm is original by RedHat but widely used in other distro's, .deb originally from Debian and used by all Debian-derived distro's. You can say that 2 is "too many" but in fact you never have to worry about it. If you use Debian, Ubuntu or whatever, you use debs, if you use Redhat, Fedora and the likes, you use rpm. No confusion. If you want to make things complicated, you can convert rpm's to debs (there are programs to do that for you).

If you like to compare to Windows (as is common on this 'desktop readiness' thread) : Windows has at least 4 different installer mechanisms : the traditional setup.exe, microsoft's own .msi format, self-extracting archives (zip, ...), 3th party installers such as Wise and InstallShield, and so on.

Frak
February 25th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Indeed, installing software (on most Linux distro's) can be done with a few mouse clicks so there's no bug there.
There are also only two major package types : .deb and .rpm - rpm is original by RedHat but widely used in other distro's, .deb originally from Debian and used by all Debian-derived distro's. You can say that 2 is "too many" but in fact you never have to worry about it. If you use Debian, Ubuntu or whatever, you use debs, if you use Redhat, Fedora and the likes, you use rpm. No confusion. If you want to make things complicated, you can convert rpm's to debs (there are programs to do that for you).

If you like to compare to Windows (as is common on this 'desktop readiness' thread) : Windows has at least 4 different installer mechanisms : the traditional setup.exe, microsoft's own .msi format, self-extracting archives (zip, ...), 3th party installers such as Wise and InstallShield, and so on.
That is a very good point
Windows has 4 installers, they all accomplish the same job, and are cross compatable.
Linux has 2 installers, they both accomplish the same job, and are both cross compatable.

No fuss, No bug... :guitar:

Naralas
February 25th, 2007, 07:49 PM
Hopefully this is taken as positive helpful suggestions rather than an assault on anyone. It is just meant to be useful:


Now I understand the frustrations with people saying what I am about to say, the first is that, it's all been said to death, and the most it seems I can hope to do is reorganize old thoughts and perhaps offer new or positive solutions, but I think offering actual plausible solutions, and hopefully, a unique splash of cold water, will make me somewhat unique.

The first thing I cannot stress enough is beggars cant be choosers, we are losing on the OS front, we are barely even represented, until Microsoft is truly afraid, until people realize that we are a better alternative than OSX we are failing. So it is true, we are fighting (or should be) for attention. Our product is free, keeps people from throwing out old computers, suits all non-gamers, and is more secure than Windows has ever dreamed of being. Yet we fail. Well Ubuntu being my favored OS for trying to spread the word with, I will take a moment to look at it, and its community, to see why we are failing to “beg” and instead asserting our nerdy “this is right, do it!” mentality.

Ubuntu is orange and brown by default, ewwww... I change this right away (and orange is my favorite color!), and most Linux users won't complain about it because they either like it, or change it. It's not a big deal to us, just a few minutes of clicking, maybe drawing a nice blue background in GIMP or downloading a picture from Google Images, but to people who are unfamiliar with Gnome or Linux, its a shame. It would scare them right off, they have no idea how much more customizable Linux is, and until they are, it is only logical to give them the most neutral interface possible. See: Microsoft, the people who are kicking our *** with an inferior OS. They don't even offer the level of customization we do, yet, most people don't want to know how to, or bother changing what works, as long as they don't mind how it looks, and those who do want to change it will wrestle with the impossible garbage you need to go through to start changing things , or install bloatware to do it, (because they were initially hooked, and we failed to be the ones to hook them) so we need to first keep them, then teach them. Even strong users must hate the fact that when they spread this distro they have to customize the look on every machine they set up.

Command line sucks. I cannot stress this enough. Windows > DOS, it's just that simple. Everyone believes it. I know not asking your processor to process the graphical front end to something so simple as moving a file is smart, but there is a reason it was moved away from. We aren't running P1's anymore, and even if we are they can handle a GUI! Hell click-and-drag is so much faster than typing out the directories that it's usually faster anyway. Despite the high you get from feeling like a l33t h4x0r running command line there is really no good reason to hold back your OS from the public, unless you really want it to fail, so you can sit in a corner explaining how much better your PC is. Now the reply to this is going to be “oh but we don't need the command line anymore we just use it because we know what we are doing!” which is well and good, but see every guide to Linux on the net, they waste no time telling you the best way to do things is open up the console. Once again, this is a recipe for disaster, I can't imagine a more solid way to scare off your public. Offer some sort of reward for a graphical, screenshot assisted, guide to Linux. (As opposed to this: http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy which is wonderful I admit, but not entirely perfect.)

“Compile this”, oh my f%&#ing god! Let me ask you all to run a little experiment, walk down the street and ask 50 people if they know how to compile a source file. They haven't a damn clue even what a source file is, and they don't need to know if everyone was to smarten up that is. Once again, there are hidden benefits to this, but they are not worth it. Microsoft figured this out before you, isn't that embarrassing?

Things don't just work. It's horrid. You need to pick between AIGXL or XGL depending on your specific graphics card and configuration, and often submit your xorg.conf files to dozens of people before someone can figure it out. This problem isn't an easy one, but it needs to dissolve.

Why am I not writing, and offering all these solutions, or why don't I just release my own distro or write guides? Well because I am still a Linux n00b, who has been to XP and back a good 5 or 6 times due to the stupidity of some developers and so-called guides, I am not capable of offering a solution yet but I am working as hard as I can now, and I will be working as hard as I can once I am one of the capable.

Why is my opinion valuable? Well because I am an eager user who loves Linux, loves the philosophy and the ideas, and was even lucky enough to have a laptop with a wireless card and pretty much everything else supported out of the box (IBM T41 + 6.06 not 6.10) and yet, I have felt an outsider, and have had to run from this community several times, if you can't even win me over without my convictions, without me begging you to get it right for me, and accepting every flaw I can bare, then how the hell are you going to win over the public?

saulgoode
February 25th, 2007, 08:03 PM
What is this "winning" and "losing" of which you speak?

izanbardprince
February 25th, 2007, 08:05 PM
I agree with some of what you said.

The main thing keeping the command line around for file installation is the package manager issue, RPM vs DEB, different distros need different RPM's and DEB's, different versions of the same distro need different packages.

So thats why commercial software like DOOM 3 is distributed as a shell script, they don't want to host a bajillion packages and this method at least WORKS across all Linux platforms, it's bad but it works.

And until there is a unified package management scheme, thats whats gonna keep happening.

izanbardprince
February 25th, 2007, 08:07 PM
What is this "winning" and "losing" of which you speak?

He's talking about how some aspects of Linux are from the dark ages, and more of it really needs to be simplified and moved to the GUI if people are to take Linux seriously compared to Windows and Mac OS.

Naralas
February 25th, 2007, 08:10 PM
He's talking about how some aspects of Linux are from the dark ages, and more of it really needs to be simplified and moved to the GUI if people are to take Linux seriously compared to Windows and Mac OS.

w00t, I thought I screwed up because he didn't follow, but having someone explain it for me made me feel good ^^

Sorry for the misunderstanding tho.

MetalMusicAddict
February 25th, 2007, 08:12 PM
Im sorry Naralas. You havnt said anything that hasnt been said 1000 times on every other linux forum including this one.

We've really heard it all before. :)

Naralas
February 25th, 2007, 08:16 PM
Heh, no need to apologize for pointing out what I made clear in my first lines.

Nobody's doing anything about it so throwing it in front of people as much as possible until something is done is about the best I can do.

Adamant1988
February 25th, 2007, 08:21 PM
I skimmed through the post, gathered the main ideas, and have decided that you're re-hashing old complaints (as you said you were doing).

It's important to note that we are not losing anything. Novell is losing, Red Hat is losing, Linux is not an entity and has no real goals. If my goal for my Linux distribution is only to do one thing very well, obviously I'm not aiming for control of the world. Ubuntu doesn't seem to aspire to be the #1 desktop Linux, it seems to "just be". There needs to be a certain amount of give and take within the community. The community should never expect new users to bend to their will, neither should new users expect the community to bend to theirs. Compromise is important here.

In relation to the color scheme that goes with default Ubuntu, yes, it's ugly. We all know it, hopefully that will change but I'm not counting on it. A lot of aesthetic things about lots of Linux distros are horrible, and require a little time to fix, but it's basic stuff.


As for the command line, I can only hope that it is not phased out of Linux over time. It is a wonderful tool of considerable power that I made a lot of use of during my time with Dapper. I actually wrote bash scripts to automatically sort my mp3s, jpegs, etc, into their respective folders. I can't do that with a GUI yet. No the CLI is not pretty, but it is highly functional and it's a wonderful tool. New users should (over time) learn to embrace this tool and recognize it as part of the system and not a throw-back to the days of DOS. New users should not HAVE to touch the command line, but the system should teach them to interact with it so that they can manage their system far more effectively and efficiently, and maybe even be a little proud of themselves for learning more about "the computer".

Concerning your spout about source files, I've never had to compile one in the entire time I worked with Linux, so your point here is moot. At this point it's as simple as double clicking a .deb to install a package, or opening up GAI. CNR integration will only make things easier. Source installations are for the bleeding edge geeks who need the new stuff that's not in the repos, or for Gentoo users. Your choice.

AIGLX and XGL are not core technologies, they're still not perfect, and if you're using them as a selling point for Linux you are sorely misleading whoever you're talking to. Yes, they can be functional, but there is a major risk associated with running either Beryl or Compiz at this point. Those kind of toys are not stable yet, and therefor not a major selling point.

You are not an outsider unless you make yourself one. I use windows and I still feel like I'm part of the Linux community, it's about your perspective. You do not have to know how to code to help produce change, but you need to produce creative ideas instead of re-hashing criticisms. You need to say "This is the problem, here is how I think we can fix it". Be detailed, be open. This is the open source community, if your idea has wings it will fly. I'm actually working with a developer right now to create a detailed introduction to a technology we think could allow for a single package format to work cross distribution without restricting any distribution from doing whatever it wants. We'll post that on dev mailing lists and wherever we think it would get the exposure it needs to take off, and so on. If you want to help, there are plenty of ways to get involved, you seem to have the drive to be creative so apply it. I look forward to seeing what you offer up in the future.

MetalMusicAddict
February 25th, 2007, 08:23 PM
Heh, no need to apologize for pointing out what I made clear in my first lines.

Nobody's doing anything about it so throwing it in front of people as much as possible until something is done is about the best I can do.
Thing is, people know. So "throwing it in front of people as much as possible" will only go to **** off alot of people and that gets you nowhere as well.

Theres a finite amount of people working on this stuff. Its so DIY you dont even know. Best way to change something is to get directly involved.

This will quickly be folded into the "Linux is not ready for the desktop" mega thread.

Naralas. In the end I was in the same boat. I got involved, learned some things and now I lead the Ubuntu Studio (http://ubuntustudio.org/) project. A person can make a difference.

saulgoode
February 25th, 2007, 08:23 PM
Ahh... So I "win" if you choose to use the same operating system as I have. Now I understand. :-k

fahadayaz
February 25th, 2007, 08:26 PM
well why not do something about it then?

Sammi
February 25th, 2007, 08:27 PM
Aysiu is so going to merge this with the "The Linux Desktop Readiness Tread" mega tread :popcorn:

Adamant1988
February 25th, 2007, 08:30 PM
Which is a real shame. I understand why they do it, but the individual mood of threads gets lost like that. :(

MetalMusicAddict
February 25th, 2007, 08:34 PM
Which is a real shame. I understand why they do it, but the individual mood of threads gets lost like that. :(

Thing is, this has happen so much on the forum there was a outcry that was more powerful that the info in the individual threads. People just got tired of the re-hashing.

It ended up being "We know, we know." Over and over.

Adamant1988
February 25th, 2007, 08:37 PM
Thing is, this has happen so much on the forum there was a outcry that was more powerful that the info in the individual threads. People just got tired of the re-hashing.

It ended up being "We know, we know." Over and over.

I suppose. I think a good option is to encourage creative solutions, give these complaints their own place on the forums, let people make their individual points and let the community come up with creative solutions for them, or put the concerns to rest. When an issue is resolved, point to that thread, etc.

maniacmusician
February 25th, 2007, 08:43 PM
Yeah, it's going to get merged.

Some quick answers to the OP:

-The color will probably not change for a while, and really isn't worth getting worked up about. Any user, no matter how stupid, will figure out how to change the colors if it really bothers them that much. I don't really think it's that big a deal. There's also the fact that more than half the users polled seemed to like the orange and brown. I think it's kind of soothing myself, I'm comfortable with it.

-The command line really doesn't suck. It sucks for you, because you don't know how to use it, and don't feel like you need to. The example you gave is really a moot point. For most tasks, there exists a GUI method and a CLI method; users can choose whichever they want. Are you going so far as to absurdly suggest that Linux users should abandon the CLI altogether? Dream on. The CLI may be the single most powerful tool that exists in Linux. It has the potential to make everything much more efficient and productive. Sure there are things like moving files that are easier in the GUI (depending on who the user is) but a large majority of tasks are faster and better done in the CLI. Take installing packages. Installing packages from repos using the command line is cake; Even if you don't know the package name, you can do an "apt-cache search searchterms" and find the package you're looking for. Then, sudo apt-get get install packagename. Try doing that in Synaptic and compare the times. It may only be 30 seconds or a minute at a time, but those really add up after a while. I'll agree that we need to give new users better education on how to use the CLI, but I'd never want to eliminate it.

- You hardly ever have to compile something in Ubuntu. I've done it maybe 3 or 4 times, and that's because I wanted to, not had to.

- That's just based on relative user experience. Some people find it harder to get stuff working based on badly supported hardware. It was a piece of cake for me, because I made sure most of my hardware was working. But yes, Xorg setups could be easier, and that's actually being worked on.


I understand that you feel like you're making valid points here, and some of them are valid; but for the most part, it's just recycled thoughts, as you've said yourself. I'm not trying to shut you down here, I just refuted your points because I believe they're wrong. Your points were actually pretty easy to refute.

Naralas
February 25th, 2007, 08:45 PM
well why not do something about it then?
Shame you didn't read my post..



I skimmed through the post ... and have decided ...
If you want me to take you seriously you need to first read what I said, and second don't be preemptively contradicted by the media that you are trying to contradict.

Never having to compile source files? Well that would be because you either used very standard programs, or searched for a mirror that had precompiled it for you.

I know nobody is making efforts to change the problems with Ubuntu's default look, so like I said, best I can do is keep throwing it in their faces. It's an identity thing that I understand, but it dosen't count if it is changed on every system to which it is installed.

You also said that Linux does not perhaps, have a dream to make itself the number one desktop linux, well considering the slogan "linux for human beings" it can be assumed atleast, that they asipire to be accessable for everyone. So I said what I said.

Once again, "learning to use the command line" is just--- junk. Improving the GUI is the way to go. Also note, I never said to remove it, hell, even Windows hasn't done that. People will always love the "omg im l33t" feeling that you and others get from never touching a mouse, but most people need it.


I suppose. I think a good option is to encourage creative solutions, give these complaints their own place on the forums, let people make their individual points and let the community come up with creative solutions for them, or put the concerns to rest. When an issue is resolved, point to that thread, etc.

So your saying we need a creative solution for a simple problem? You speak like I am trying to teach math to the ADD or ADHD, let's not give people special education flashbacks shall we?

Shay Stephens
February 25th, 2007, 08:46 PM
We are not loosing. Microsoft is loosing its mind share and clout, it is on a downward spiral. Linux and freedom are gaining mindshare. Look at the openBios, open graphics card, and other open hardware projects that are making real progress in bringing freedom to the hardware side of things to counter the DRM and trusted computing tyrants. Look at all the software projects that are maturing to 1.0 status or better (e.g. K3b) or refining and advancing the state of the art (compix, beryl, etc). We are just a year or two away from having a lot of things all converge.

It is short sighted to compare just what you see right now and ignore the wave just behind you. There is a lot to be excited about, and there is a lot you can accomplish right now with the tools at hand.

prizrak
February 25th, 2007, 08:47 PM
XGL is not supported by Ubuntu hence shouldn't be used. AIGLX works perfectly fine for any card that supports it. Not all cards support it, not all cards support Aero Glass interface on Vista either so it's a completely moot point. On Feisty Bery was working perfectly for me since Herd 2 and up till couple of days ago when updates broke it.

ice60
February 25th, 2007, 08:49 PM
maybe linux isn't for you if there's so much you don't like, maybe you're better off with windows, or maybe a mac :confused:

it sounds like you want it to be something it's not. i really like linux and am happy enough as it is

Naralas
February 25th, 2007, 08:50 PM
Yeah, it's going to get merged.
Are you going so far as to absurdly suggest that Linux users should abandon the CLI altogether? Dream on.

I never said you need to remove it. People seem to dream in all the parts that werent said but, if they were, would discredit me...

I said that you should stop throwing it at n00bs.

Also you said I was "easy to refute" well that depends on if you think I was refuted. It is simply obvious that Ubuntu will not replace Windows as is, and if Linux users think Linux is for the 31337 and want to keep it to themselves then make that clear in your mission statements that you are "holier than thou"

maniacmusician
February 25th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Shame you didn't read my post..


If you want me to take you seriously you need to first read what I said, and second don't be preemptively contradicted by the media that you are trying to contradict.

Never having to compile source files? Well that would be because you either used very standard programs, or searched for a mirror that had precompiled it for you.

I know nobody is making efforts to change the problems with Ubuntu's default look, so like I said, best I can do is keep throwing it in their faces. It's an identity thing that I understand, but it dosen't count if it is changed on every system to which it is installed.

You also said that Linux does not perhaps, have a dream to make itself the number one desktop linux, well considering the slogan "linux for human beings" it can be assumed atleast, that they asipire to be accessable for everyone. So I said what I said.

Once again, "learning to use the command line" is just--- junk. Improving the GUI is the way to go. Also note, I never said to remove it, hell, even Windows hasn't done that. People will always love the "omg im l33t" feeling that you and others get from never touching a mouse, but most people need it.



So your saying we need a creative solution for a simple problem? You speak like I am trying to teach math to the ADD or ADHD, let's not give people special education flashbacks shall we?
lol...using the command line has nothing to do with feeling "l33t". That may be your interpretation, but it's a rubbish one. I'm nowhere close to being elite at anything using Linux. I started using it a little more than six months ago. I use it because it gets stuff done faster, period. So far, every person I've properly taught the CLI to has loved it because it actually makes them more productive.

the color isn't changed in all the computers it's on; a lot of people just keep the color, because they like it. You, as one person, can't overrule the majority.

Naralas
February 25th, 2007, 08:52 PM
We are not loosing. Microsoft is loosing its mind share and clout, it is on a downward spiral. Linux and freedom are gaining mindshare. Look at the openBios, open graphics card, and other open hardware projects that are making real progress in bringing freedom to the hardware side of things to counter the DRM and trusted computing tyrants. Look at all the software projects that are maturing to 1.0 status or better (e.g. K3b) or refining and advancing the state of the art (compix, beryl, etc). We are just a year or two away from having a lot of things all converge.

It is short sighted to compare just what you see right now and ignore the wave just behind you. There is a lot to be excited about, and there is a lot you can accomplish right now with the tools at hand.

when you stare right into the face of the progress you seek, and search for it, it might seem like its happening, but by no means is it a runaway train.. if you looked closely at all the anti-linux movments im sure you'd see they were "progressing" too. Now I admit Linux is growing, but without the changes I suggested I tell you right now, no matter how much some people claim to know about it, it will NOT take off.

koenn
February 25th, 2007, 08:59 PM
I think adamant1988 and maniacmusician already answered most of your points, but let me quickly add a few before this thread gets burried in the "Desktop Readiness" junk yard.


it's all been said to death, that - at least - is correct.

but I think offering actual plausible solutions, and hopefully, a unique splash of cold water, will make me somewhat unique. I haven't found any sollutions in your post. No unique splash of cold water in the face either


Ubuntu is orange and brown by default, ewwww As many, you confuse Ubuntu with Linux. Ubuntu is just 1 of many distributions. Other distro's don't use orange and brown as defaulkt theme colors. What's your point then ?


Windows > DOS,
bash != DOS. bash > DOS.
The fact that microsoft, as of november 2006, released "Power Shell" to finally get a decent command line in Windows, should tell you something.


Why is my opinion valuable? Well because I am an eager user who loves Linux, loves the philosophy and the ideas, Maybe. Or your just venting your frustration because you couldn't get things to work, and in stead of figuring out why, you lay the blame with "Linux". I fail to see the value.

prizrak
February 25th, 2007, 09:01 PM
Never having to compile source files? Well that would be because you either used very standard programs, or searched for a mirror that had precompiled it for you.

What did you have to compile? More so what would a regular Web+E-mail user need to compile that doesn't come by default in Ubuntu?

I know nobody is making efforts to change the problems with Ubuntu's default look, so like I said, best I can do is keep throwing it in their faces. It's an identity thing that I understand, but it dosen't count if it is changed on every system to which it is installed.
Care to back that up? Since Dapper the default look is actually very nice and out of the way. Sure the Human theme looks pretty bad on Beryl but that's mostly because it becomes overly shiny. Look and color scheme are very subjective and no OS will be able to pull it off. I hate Aqua and XP look personally, and the "Classic" Windows look makes me wanna fall asleep.

xorg issues are getting worked out, 7.3 is gonna be P&P and "Bullet proof X" is part of Feisty spec.


Once again, "learning to use the command line" is just--- junk. Improving the GUI is the way to go. Also note, I never said to remove it, hell, even Windows hasn't done that. People will always love the "omg im l33t" feeling that you and others get from never touching a mouse, but most people need it.

I have not had the need to drop into CLI on Ubuntu unless I wanted to play around with something. Everything can be done via GUI, if your issue is documentation then feel free to write some. Aysiu has been creating GUI guides for a while now, no reason you can't. The reason most guides are CLI is because it's universal and much quicker than GUI. Since you seem to think CLI is BS and ancient. OS X has a full blown UNIX shell, MS has a new shell that will be as full featured and powerful as bash. As someone who works in IT I can tell you that CLI is extremely important and having to support Windows servers sux.

macogw
February 25th, 2007, 09:02 PM
cli is easy for n00bs: copy & paste
how do we know how they editted their gui? "there should ber a button at the top"...what if they're using kde or moved the gnome panel? or what if the guide-writer moved THEIR panels? a screenshot on my computer could confuse a newb. it confuses my mom all the time because I don't have a bottom panel of windows. and i dont make my top panel visible. we'd have to keep our things at default-config to keep from confusing the newbies. what if in 4 months they have to know if they use system > administration that its really GNOME Control Center now? too much worrying about what the buttons look like

cli is faster than gui, by the way. much faster. thats why i use it. but you dont have to!

and you SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO COMPILE ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!! We have repositories for a reason. USE THEM! Only people who know what they are doing should even be bothering with compiling. The only code I ever compile is my own! Other than that, well um...when trying to figure out how to build packages for the repos, I have to compile, but that's it.

EDIT: I'm with Prizrak on how much it sucks not to have a functional CLI in Windows.

ice60
February 25th, 2007, 09:06 PM
Naralas, did it ever occur to you that what you think the goals for linux are and what they really are might be two different things?

someone posted this on another forum yesterday, it's postsed here somewhere too -
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

prizrak
February 25th, 2007, 09:07 PM
when you stare right into the face of the progress you seek, and search for it, it might seem like its happening, but by no means is it a runaway train.. if you looked closely at all the anti-linux movments im sure you'd see they were "progressing" too. Now I admit Linux is growing, but without the changes I suggested I tell you right now, no matter how much some people claim to know about it, it will NOT take off.

Linux based OS's will not take off as mainstream until you can go into BestBuy (or any other such store) and buy a PC with Linux on it. No amount of customization and ease of use will make someone install an OS if they are not interested in technical stuff. OS X is easy, secure and is preinstalled on hardware customized for it yet Apple is less than 10% of the market.

ice60
February 25th, 2007, 09:08 PM
lol, the thread was moved :lolflag:

John.Michael.Kane
February 25th, 2007, 09:10 PM
Threads merged...

macogw
February 25th, 2007, 09:10 PM
XGL is not supported by Ubuntu hence shouldn't be used. AIGLX works perfectly fine for any card that supports it. Not all cards support it, not all cards support Aero Glass interface on Vista either so it's a completely moot point. On Feisty Bery was working perfectly for me since Herd 2 and up till couple of days ago when updates broke it.

And before anyone talks about X breaking, I'm going to point out that Feisty is not done yet so anyone found saying "see! see! Things break!" needs to shut their mouth. the break is caused by there only being one person packaging xorg 7.2 and not all of the parts being merged simultaneously. ALSO Beryl is not done yet! Beryl is in alpha mode just like Feisty. If you don't want anything to break, don't touch either of them!

Naralas
February 25th, 2007, 09:11 PM
XGL is not supported by Ubuntu hence shouldn't be used. AIGLX works perfectly fine for any card that supports it. Not all cards support it, not all cards support Aero Glass interface on Vista either so it's a completely moot point. On Feisty Bery was working perfectly for me since Herd 2 and up till couple of days ago when updates broke it.

Well if it's as simple as you put it then, your right, I am entirely wrong. I have never got it working (tried only once for like 5 minutes) and I was under the impression that for half of graphics cards it would work wrong, or for another group of people it would just cause errors unless you had the exact setup of this-and-that which is entirely PC dependant, making it not a good solution for most poeple.



maybe linux isn't for you if there's so much you don't like, maybe you're better off with windows, or maybe a mac :confused:

it sounds like you want it to be something it's not. i really like linux and am happy enough as it is

I just made it clear that Linux can be, and is close to being what I want it to be. The only way it is "not what I am looking for" is if it is content never having market dominance. End of story.
If your going to join the smartass who said "well maybe we don't WANT to be popular" (who I can only imagine got his *** kicked a lot in school) then I will wait for someone on the Ubuntu team to tell me they don't want to be popular, and then ask them why they are so eager to send me 50 Cd's everytime I request...



If I hear one more person trying to finalize there statements by calling something a "moot" point, I will snap.

Now I imagine by the time I post this another 3 or 4 posts aiming to stifle exactly what I anticipated they would try to stifle would have emerged. this is really a matter of numbers here, I don't have the time to read and argue every point that is going to be brought up, but lets make this simple:

If you suspend a few things, the first being, a disbelief that Linux is trying to be popular.. (I guess its so perfect that it is impossible for it to have failed... if its not grabbing attention it must not want to right?) and the idea that people should take an operating system, the underlying layer of your PC in most peoples eyes, and have to "change" it by default, you will not fail at gaining popularity... its that simple.

you can continue to try shut me down as every group of you's has done to every group of me's in the past but the fact is, your still not growing at such an amazing rate... perhaps listening and not just blindly sticking to what you think would be in your benefit? you all talk about how typical this is, but isnt it even more typical that as soon as the haters jump in the constructive critics seem to just give up on the thread?

Naralas
February 25th, 2007, 09:14 PM
Linux based OS's will not take off as mainstream until you can go into BestBuy (or any other such store) and buy a PC with Linux on it. No amount of customization and ease of use will make someone install an OS if they are not interested in technical stuff. OS X is easy, secure and is preinstalled on hardware customized for it yet Apple is less than 10% of the market.

Yup I agree! I can't wait for that, but I truly believe that without these suggestions at least being considered, and not being made the victims of mudslinging we will not grow.

Your doing exactly what I said would be done, instisting your ways are right when they aren't working! Linux has had a damn long time, and allot of wonderful devoted programmers. You can't say "oh yeah the change is coming" and then stifle it...

koenn
February 25th, 2007, 09:24 PM
perhaps listening and not just blindly sticking
we have been listening. That's how we can tell that we've heard it before.

Naralas
February 25th, 2007, 09:26 PM
you sir are a fool :lolflag:

Uhm, perhaps you miss the point of discussion, but MAKING your points is kinda a critical part. Speak...


As many, you confuse Ubuntu with Linux. Ubuntu is just 1 of many distributions. Other distro's don't use orange and brown as defaulkt theme colors. What's your point then ?

Read again, or read for the first time, I said I was going to use Ubuntu as an example because they are closest to what I am looking for, and they are trying the best solutions.


bash != DOS. bash > DOS.
That is completely irrelevant... It might be a better command line, but ANY gui is better than no gui according to the public. Give up, smarten up, or stick to your crap userbase.

I have come to the conclusion that Linux users and developers just are as arrogant as I refused to beleive. Yes, I am suggesting you dumb-down what you are doing to make the computing world a better place, but if your to amazing to do such a thing, you can keep it...

Adamant1988
February 25th, 2007, 09:29 PM
when you stare right into the face of the progress you seek, and search for it, it might seem like its happening, but by no means is it a runaway train.. if you looked closely at all the anti-linux movments im sure you'd see they were "progressing" too. Now I admit Linux is growing, but without the changes I suggested I tell you right now, no matter how much some people claim to know about it, it will NOT take off.

I'm going to just condense everything into one short little post. Anyone who can sit there and point out a flaw, but can't say why it's a flaw, or how to fix it, is worthless. You're not being constructive you're saying "Fix it." How should we fix it? Give us something more to go on than "there is a problem", we know there's a problem but obviously any fresh ideas are useful.

I'll go ahead and remind you, this is not a classroom. We are not your students. You are not right off the bat because you have some title we know nothing about. You will meet with more friction by demanding changes than you will by suggesting new ideas for changes.

koenn
February 25th, 2007, 09:32 PM
you can continue to try shut me down
or you could tell us something we don't know.
Honestly, I'd be interested in a new, deep, innovative, clever analysis of why Windows is dominating the desktop market and what it would take for Linux, or a Linux distribution, to take that position.
So far all I've heard is "command line sucks", "brown and orange, eewww" , "things break" and other moot points. That's just not good enough - and it being repeated over and over by you and many others doesn't make it more valuable.

macogw
February 25th, 2007, 09:32 PM
Naralas, do you know WHY you can't buy a Linux PC in BestBuy? It's because the major manufacturers are FORCED by Microsoft to sell ONLY Microsoft PCs. If they do not comply, they have to pay out the asterisk for Windows and then their computers will be "overpriced" so to keep prices down they ignore every other OS. It's Microsoft's anti-competitive measures that are the problem.

Oh, and how often do you look at tutorials for Windows? You don't because you never set it up yourself! It's installing and setting up Linux for all the illegal codecs and all that's harder and requires a guide. What computer-illiterate does THAT? They don't! The geek sets it up at the company who makes the Windows computers so that the illiterates don't have to do anything. The geek sets it up and gives it to their illiterate friend in the Linux world. The illiterate never does set up in either world. Why are you expecting there to be instructions for people who wouldn't install it themselves anyway? That makes no sense. This isn't an elitist thing. This is logic. If you are afraid to copy and paste, you are probably afraid to install an OS yourself. Let the geek set it up. Once it's set up, the user never has to touch the command line. The user never has to do anything complicated. Because I set it up, my mom thinks it's easier than Windows to use Linux. If she had set it up, she'd think it's hard too. If she had set up Windows she'd think it was hard too. Setting it up is hard regardless of OS. The KEY is to not let the user set it up. Get the geek to do it.

You teach computer science to people who don't know basic math? Impossible. Computer science requires knowing at least algebra. Do you mean you teach them to click "File" then "Save"? That's not computer science.

Tomosaur
February 26th, 2007, 12:18 AM
Before I begin, I'd just like to say I have read the replies to this post, but I wanted to go back and see what the fuss is all about. Much of this may have been said before.



Ubuntu is orange and brown by default, ewwww... I change this right away (and orange is my favorite color!), and most Linux users won't complain about it because they either like it, or change it. It's not a big deal to us, just a few minutes of clicking, maybe drawing a nice blue background in GIMP or downloading a picture from Google Images, but to people who are unfamiliar with Gnome or Linux, its a shame. It would scare them right off, they have no idea how much more customizable Linux is, and until they are, it is only logical to give them the most neutral interface possible. See: Microsoft, the people who are kicking our *** with an inferior OS. They don't even offer the level of customization we do, yet, most people don't want to know how to, or bother changing what works, as long as they don't mind how it looks, and those who do want to change it will wrestle with the impossible garbage you need to go through to start changing things , or install bloatware to do it, (because they were initially hooked, and we failed to be the ones to hook them) so we need to first keep them, then teach them. Even strong users must hate the fact that when they spread this distro they have to customize the look on every machine they set up.
This is an opinion. I happen to like the orange and brown look. Unless you can speak for the rest of the world, this point isn't a point at all. I like the blue look of Windows, and I like the orange/brown look of Windows. I think this is less of a deal than you make it out to be. If the user doesn't like it - the way to change these things is fairly obvious with a brief scan of the preferences menu. It just doesn't even register as a problem I'm afraid. I doubt that it scares anyone at all off.



Command line sucks. I cannot stress this enough. Windows > DOS, it's just that simple. Everyone believes it. I know not asking your processor to process the graphical front end to something so simple as moving a file is smart, but there is a reason it was moved away from. We aren't running P1's anymore, and even if we are they can handle a GUI! Hell click-and-drag is so much faster than typing out the directories that it's usually faster anyway.

If you can type at a reasonable speed, the command line is faster. Added to this, you have tab-completion, which speeds everything up anyway. I want you to do a little experiment. Open up a terminal, and copy a file, any file, from somewhere in the system to your home directory. Now do the same in the GUI. The syntax, if you don't know, or anyone else wants to try it, is:


cp /file_to_copy.txt ~

You can use tab completion if you like. The simple fact is, this method is a lot faster. Yes, the GUI may be more relaxing, or just plain 'nicer', but it is in no way faster.


Despite the high you get from feeling like a l33t h4x0r running command line there is really no good reason to hold back your OS from the public, unless you really want it to fail, so you can sit in a corner explaining how much better your PC is. Now the reply to this is going to be “oh but we don't need the command line anymore we just use it because we know what we are doing!” which is well and good, but see every guide to Linux on the net, they waste no time telling you the best way to do things is open up the console. Once again, this is a recipe for disaster, I can't imagine a more solid way to scare off your public. Offer some sort of reward for a graphical, screenshot assisted, guide to Linux. (As opposed to this: http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy which is wonderful I admit, but not entirely perfect.)
The average user does not need to touch the command line in Ubuntu. The reason it is suggested when support is requested is because it's faster, and easier to explain than saying "Click this menu, then that, then check the third box down, then click apply, then click ok". It's much easier to just tell them the command. The real problem is that there's no central place for these configurations. Feisty is meant to have a control panel area, which will make explaining how to do things via the GUI a lot easier, so hopefully that will improve the situation. The simple fact of the matter is that people just don't bother checking how to do things before coming here and asking for help. They don't see "Control Panel", so they don't know what to look for, or else they just don't consider trying to help themselves. The command line should not be removed, because it is a powerful tool. Yes, many traditionally CLI apps could do with a GUI frontend, there's no denying that. Ubuntu's major benefit is that, for the most part, you don't need to spend hours configuring every little thing post-install. Those users who do run into problems can normally solve them through the GUI. Only when all else fails do they come here, aside from a few who really aren't that knowledgable about computers etc. Despite the immense amount of traffic that comes through this forum - most support requests are actually for pretty complicated problems, ones which are more quickly solved through the command line than the GUI. It's just the way it is. For things like multimedia etc, which are a very common support request here - the simple answer is that the developers are working on it. Watch Feisty for some big improvements.



“Compile this”, oh my f%&#ing god! Let me ask you all to run a little experiment, walk down the street and ask 50 people if they know how to compile a source file. They haven't a damn clue even what a source file is, and they don't need to know if everyone was to smarten up that is. Once again, there are hidden benefits to this, but they are not worth it. Microsoft figured this out before you, isn't that embarrassing?
Synaptic has thousands and thousands of applications available for free. The chances of an ordinary user running across a program they need to compile for themselves is incredibly small - and the applications which come in this format are normally applications which are intended for the kind of people who know how to, or don't mind, compiling from source.



Things don't just work. It's horrid. You need to pick between AIGXL or XGL depending on your specific graphics card and configuration, and often submit your xorg.conf files to dozens of people before someone can figure it out. This problem isn't an easy one, but it needs to dissolve.
What? Xorg has worked flawlessly for me, apart from one unfortunate occasion which was a dodgy update by the repo managers. I didn't need to choose between AIGXL or XGL - Ubuntu made it 'just work'. For the vast majority of people, this is the case - it DOES just work. Unfortunately, graphics cards are complex devices, and with little or no co-operation from some of the more popular graphics card manufacturers - this situation is unlikely to improve. The problem, again, is more than just a 'Linux' one. Hardware manufacturers need to change their attitude, or people need to use graphics cards which are supported on Linux. This is no different from Windows - if you don't have the driver - you get only a very basic display. It just can't be solved by Linux developers alone - they need the co-operation of the manufacturers. There have been recent improvements in this area, and more manufacturers are properly documenting their devices at the request of open-source developers. The drivers will come, it'll just take a little while.



if you can't even win me over without my convictions, without me begging you to get it right for me, and accepting every flaw I can bare, then how the hell are you going to win over the public?
This is more or less the point of a short release cycle. Users who have difficulty with one version can come back a few months later and check out what's been improved. The problem with your kind of rant is that it doesn't actually help anybody. This is a community forum - very few key Ubuntu developers actually read them. The people here are just ordinary users who want to stick around and help others. If you want Ubuntu to improve - you can visit Launchpad (http://launchpad.net) and see which areas are already flagged, or suggest new improvements etc.

prizrak
February 26th, 2007, 01:17 AM
And before anyone talks about X breaking, I'm going to point out that Feisty is not done yet so anyone found saying "see! see! Things break!" needs to shut their mouth. the break is caused by there only being one person packaging xorg 7.2 and not all of the parts being merged simultaneously. ALSO Beryl is not done yet! Beryl is in alpha mode just like Feisty. If you don't want anything to break, don't touch either of them!

Yes you are correct I should have clarified that. Feisty is in development and I have no problem with things breaking. In fact I'm surprised at how well it's been working since Herd 2 (can't say anything before then).

mahlib
February 27th, 2007, 06:57 AM
PAM modules are horribly written. They all poorly reinvent features provided in other modules or in existing libraries in one form or another. I'd like to see a configuration file parser for PAM so that an optional configuration file may be parsed in a standardized way.

Printing support with CUPS and Samba is also quite horrible. The SMB backend to CUPS is so backwards, I almost want to throw up when I see the code. Sending cleartext passwords over a network and in the process queue? In 2007?

X itself is still not "modular" enough. Why is there a centralized xorg.conf? That should be split up.

And why are we still doing a 2.6.x and 2.7.x kernel development setup? Just pick one tree and work with it. It worked in the past, but seems to just hinder development now.

If things like unified network logins for printers matter, then Linux is not for you. Then again, neither is any system that uses CUPS and Samba in the way described (which includes BSD as well).

Matzas
February 27th, 2007, 05:06 PM
I have tried Linux Ubuntu and Kubuntu for some months, and i must say that you need to have a lot of time, and a lot of interest in solving problems on computers to use this OP. To have a video card to work - NVIDIA - one have to write a complete A4 with commands. And a printer from Canon can not be used at all, maby if you write another A4 page with commands, but only maby.

Who among the common computer users do you think is prepared to do that? And further, is it not time to take the step outside the nerd community and create a software for the common man?

I think i speak for most people when i say that i want to USE my computer, not spend all the time making it work by writing a lot of commands i don't understand.
There are nicer things in life than computers...

Windows may have flaws, but it is working...

darrenm
February 27th, 2007, 05:22 PM
And why are we still doing a 2.6.x and 2.7.x kernel development setup? Just pick one tree and work with it. It worked in the past, but seems to just hinder development now.

What 2.7 kernel?

SCO thought there was a 2.7 kernel as well... http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=27500

Rodneyck
February 27th, 2007, 05:38 PM
Why are you even here then? It is clear from all the walls you put up that Windows is meant for you. Linux allows freedom to use YOUR computer they way YOU want to, no lock-ins, back-alley deals with other companies, no viruses, no virus software needed, etc.

Setting up Nvidia drivers is a breeze, but it only takes a careful read through the many available howtos out there. I did it in like two minutes, and that was with a coffee break. I have a Canon printer and it works. If you want better drivers for it you could try Turboprint drivers which work just like the ones Canon makes for Microsoft who won't release any of their specs so open source can make better drivers for naysayers like yourself. Not all problems are on Linux's doorstep. Many have to do with how the companies tout to M$crosoft.

Good luck with Vista..from what I have read, it has its own driver problems at the moment.

bigken
February 27th, 2007, 05:45 PM
its your choice to use what ever you like personally the only thing I have to setup is my printer everything eles works out of the box and thats on three work stations and two laptops all with wireless conections :)


I must be one of the lucky ones I dont need windows :lolflag:

stalker145
February 27th, 2007, 05:46 PM
Windows may have flaws, but it is working...

Same here. I have been using Ubuntu as my only OS since February of '06 and have run into no problems other than what I have created and simple unsupported hardware. My two computers (A Micron GX2 Laptop and a self-built desktop) have had no instability nor have they had a lack of hardware support: They just work.
I can understand your point, though. Windows has massive support from everyone and their brother when it comes to compatability with hardware. This is something that we Linux users have to either wait for or try to make our own solutions.


...i must say that you need to have a lot of time, and a lot of interest in solving problems on computers to use this OP.

You are absolutely correct here. For me (who my wife calls a nerd, but I consider myself to be an avid learner) it is all about, as mentioned, the desire to learn. If you want something that you can not fix, if you want something that "just works" then there is no question that you should stay with that which does work for you. Be it Windows, Linux, Mac, or whatever, if it 'aint broke, don't fix it.


And further, is it not time to take the step outside the nerd community and create a software for the common man?

Please see my previous statements. I, and many others here, have had no problems setting up and using their computers. We have chosen, for our own reasons, to use another OS - whether they be moral, financial, or simply adventure. While there are the odds and ends of hardware that are not supported, there are a growing number of devices that work with our chosen OS. As acceptance of Linux rises, so will the compatable devices.


I think i speak for most people when i say that i want to USE my computer, not spend all the time making it work by writing a lot of commands i don't understand.
There are nicer things in life than computers...

I totally agree. Getting out and walking in the park is nicer. Spending time with my family is nicer. Being able to surf the interweb without fear of viruses, spyware, and whatever else is nicer. That is why I, personally, have chosen an OS that I do not need to maintain, clean, or fix (unless I break it). To each his own, though.

Remember that you will always be welcome here and I, for one, will not fault you on what you choose to do with your equipment. Stop by again any time for a chat. :KS