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

Zeroedout
April 7th, 2007, 02:01 AM
Everyone has their own personal reasons for whatever OS they use, however the dealbreaker for me is the fact that ubuntu is FOSS. That means every peice of ubuntu can be understood, from the most useless kernel modules (pre 802.11 wifi drivers) to the greatest applications (firefox). Not only can we understand how every peice of the operating system works, but it's all documented (some parts better than others). Not only can we understand it, but we can participate in it's development! If I don't like where things are going, I am free to fork the code and do with it as I please (except publically release a binary and keep the source code). I can literally do whatever I want with the operating system on my computer. I can even compile my own custom kernel, as a fellow techie you should appreciate this. There is an immense feeling of satisfaction when I have a kernel that is using ONLY what I need all built straight into it. Now mind you, I am a ****** programmer, however I can still manipulate code and get it to do as I want, for the most part. Where I have trouble, there are a plathora of IRC channels and forums full of friendly people (again for the most part) willing to help. Windows has some of these aspects, however nothing even close to the degree a free operating system such as linux does. I hope I provided some insight and perhaps when I have more time on my hands I will post more reasons why I use linux.
PS it is not the fault of linux devs that hardware support can be ****** at times, if the company is not willing to provide the source, the very least they should do is provide a spec sheet. I am not familair with driver development, but with the spec sheet, writing a driver becomes a 100 times easier than having to reverse engineer it. Most companies refuse to provide ANYTHING, some provide a spec sheet, and a very few activly help in driver development.

PilotJLR
April 7th, 2007, 02:32 AM
Id just like to say also, I program 3 languages in windows, am a computer technician and certainly like to think Im no dummy. But this is getting beyond a joke.

And please dont reply with "there is spyware in windows" my firewall sorts that out.




* Your firewall does not sort that out... even a good enterprise grade firewall with A/V does not catch most (or even many) instances of spyware.

* Playing media files requires installing codecs, which takes about 5-10 minutes in a majority of cases. If you provide specifics on what you want to play, someone here would be happy to help you.

* If you post specifics (from "lspci" output) on your sound card, someone here can also likely help you get that fixed.



Issue 1 (spyware) is a legit concern with Windows, and is a result of the overall Windows security model (or lack thereof).

Issue 2 (codecs) is super easy to fix, and is not present out-of-the-box for legal reasons.

Issue 3 (driver) is a proprietary issue... this is the least convenient fix, although almost anything can be made to work.


A "technician" or programmer can handle all of these things. Do you actually want any assistance, or is this post a troll??

Osvaldo
April 7th, 2007, 02:35 AM
Hi,

I'm not a computer developer, I'm a photographer and I use Ubuntu for about a year now.

Apart from some hardware troubles, that need a little tweaking, once you set them up Linux, and particularly Ubuntu is the best operating system I use. I had used Windows, and I still do, in my work, and I have a Mac Laptop. I prefer using Ubuntu to Windows and Mac

I have made an effort to learn how to use it and I don't have a single pirated program on my computers. So Ubuntu is a great and cheap. Some people I know like Windows, but they haven't payed their pirated proprietary software. In Portugal salaries are low, and proprietary software costs a lot for us, so Ubuntu allows me to have money to travel a lot more (it's a great Ubuntu feature LOL).

The greatest mistake a Windows user can do when migrating to Ubuntu is to expect Ubuntu to be a copy of Windows. Ubuntu is different, installing programs, dependencies, editing text files, using the shell.... If you accept to start from the beginning, your Windows experience can be very valuable, otherwise it can't.

Best regards,

Osvaldo

Dream.
April 7th, 2007, 02:57 AM
Thankyou for your replies,


* Your firewall does not sort that out... even a good enterprise grade firewall with A/V does not catch most (or even many) instances of spyware.

* Playing media files requires installing codecs, which takes about 5-10 minutes in a majority of cases. If you provide specifics on what you want to play, someone here would be happy to help you.

* If you post specifics (from "lspci" output) on your sound card, someone here can also likely help you get that fixed.

Issue 1 (spyware) is a legit concern with Windows, and is a result of the overall Windows security model (or lack thereof).

Issue 2 (codecs) is super easy to fix, and is not present out-of-the-box for legal reasons.

Issue 3 (driver) is a proprietary issue... this is the least convenient fix, although almost anything can be made to work.


A "technician" or programmer can handle all of these things. Do you actually want any assistance, or is this post a troll??

I have already posted about the mic problem and lspci output here http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=398711 Perhaps keep discussion on the topic to that thread.

I dont want to generate a great debate about spyware and what I can and can't block.

The media formats Im not even bothered with as yet, unless I can fix the mic Ubuntu is useless to me.

dpar
April 7th, 2007, 03:15 AM
I am not a Technician or a programmer of any sort. I'm a Mechanic. I came to Linux with an open mind, ie: did not try to relate everything to Windows. I have not had any problems that I could not eventually solve.(With a lot of help from this forum:D )
I enjoy Linux very much and think it is well worth the small effort that is required to learn it. ( If I can do it anyone can!)

PilotJLR
April 7th, 2007, 03:24 AM
I posted a reply to your original sound card thread. The lspci output is the chipset, which is what your card uses.

I also don't want to debate on you firewall... but I can't help but wonder why you feel you're protected. I use Windows a lot at work too, but we regularly get spyware despite several level of protection (Fortune 500 company). Just a heads up...

Valstorm2323
April 7th, 2007, 03:33 AM
Because it feels good not to rent the windows OS from Bill Gates because that's what he's letting you do.

I'll say yes Ubuntu has problems here and there but you can always try a different OS, no need to go crying right away to windows.

As for the people that are posting, most of them have probably been dumbed down like I have from extensive windows usage.

Wether your experience is good or bad with Ubuntu, at least you installed another OS besides Windows.


So my reason to keep Ubuntu, I feel free to do what I want.
With windows it's... ... ahh a new version came out... how much is that one now.... crap!

eagle63
April 7th, 2007, 03:34 AM
In my experience, Linux makes a wonderful platform for Java development. This is reason enough for me to use it. I'm a java dev by profession, and recently switched my work computer to Ubuntu from Windows XP. I'm seeing a 50% reduction in the amount of time it takes to compile our codebase. SAME HARDWARE, HALF THE TIME!

Eriol_Ancalagon
April 7th, 2007, 04:07 AM
From what I see, people here mostly are not answering his question. eagle63 did with his Java experience, but mostly, they're either saying "do it because it's not windows" or some other FOSS-like reason, or they're somewhat close-yet-off-the-mark. A prime example is below:

I am not a Technician or a programmer of any sort. I'm a Mechanic. I came to Linux with an open mind, ie: did not try to relate everything to Windows. I have not had any problems that I could not eventually solve.(With a lot of help from this forum:D )
I enjoy Linux very much and think it is well worth the small effort that is required to learn it. ( If I can do it anyone can!)
This guy (as is the case with many others here) is well-intentioned, but unfortunately doesn't answer what was asked, which was: "What can Ubuntu offer me that windows can't?" I'll show how people aren't answering this at all below (please don't take this as a flame dpar, your post just happened to be an easy one to express it with):

I am not a Technician or a programmer of any sort. I'm a Mechanic.
Somewhat non-relevant, and possibly not good for the OP's ego either, as somebody he probably thinks is technically inferior (you're portraying yourself that way) is showing him something, which from being a techie myself, never feels good.

I came to Linux with an open mind, ie: did not try to relate everything to Windows.
You're basically saying he does NOT have an open mind, which while true or not, again, doesn't help.

I have not had any problems that I could not eventually solve.(With a lot of help from this forum:D )
This is actually a negative from the OP's perspective. Why SHOULD you need help to solve it? 95% of installs with Windows (ok, it might be lower, but that's not the point) really don't need any initial help at all. It "just runs" fine initially for most things. This section of this post just says that Ubuntu DOES NOT.

I enjoy Linux very much and think it is well worth the small effort that is required to learn it. ( If I can do it anyone can!)
Again, he doesn't WANT a significant learning curve if he can't see the benefits! That's the heart of the OP's post: What's the advantage? What is GOOD that outweighs whatever pain might be required or encountered along the way?


And to not be overly negative, here's some good.

Benefits of Linux in General:
Faster: it's just faster for just about everything that's processor-intensive. Or rather, it's easier to control the overhead, and bring it down when needed. And often even WITH bells-n-whistles running, the process scheduler is a lot better so that when doing many things, one task can't "starve" all the others easily.
More Secure: despite the FUD from others out there, it is much more secure, with less exploitable holes. Basically, MS only patches AFTER there's already an exploit in the wild being used. Linux & Friends basically patch whenever there's a POTENTIAL for one, basically meaning that whatever MS has patched is almost-certainly only a tiny sub-set of existing vulnerabilities

Benefits of Ubuntu Specifically:
Generally easy to get-going: the install is slick, and usually gets your box to a "more usable" point than most other Linux distros
It's the "Flavour of the Month" right now: Well, it is. Everybody's talking about it, so there's usually support if there's an issue under Ubuntu
I'm sure there's many others, but that's the benefits. But in the end, it comes down to one simple thing: Does it do what you need it to do? If it can, and you can deal with the negatives, then great, but if it can't, then you'll either need a mixed environment, or stick with whatever works best (windows, or otherwise).

delilahjed44
April 7th, 2007, 04:48 AM
Hey, well I have been using Ubuntu for a lil while, but I do have quams with it. I also have yet to receive some help on the problem, what I did get did not resolve the issue. Now as for as ubuntu/linux, well its actually KING over windows, once you start getting into it there is a freedom about it, and no more having to clean out, IE> cookies> Prefetch>Temps>Recent>Mru>and tons of other left over bull, no Ubuntu does all that for you on a 30 mount start up. No more defrag, of course this is after you optimize your OS by cleaning it our then defrag or your system or it dogs down.I too have a mic that for now I cant even get my sound working on 3 German Programs. I have Wine installed and a portion of my programs play then it logs missing files. I have downloaded every media player in Synaptic and Automatix and to no avail have they helped. Tried to change the avi files to except different player, no victory, even changed the removable disk and drive properties and nothing. I could not return to the default as it was not offered after the change. So I wont even bother with trying a mic on Ubuntu now, it is usless to me since the programs wont work. That is the issue at hand. I am sorely depressed to even consider Linux to windows again. Believe me there is a change, linux is very addictive for everything else in a good way. The tecks do what they can when they can. I digress, off to the URL the teck sumitted on page earlier for mic

Sherri

Sherri

LuxVoodoo
April 7th, 2007, 05:42 AM
I apologize if I sound too negative I am just trying to be realistic about the whole situation.

I'm more of a lurker in these forums, but I find it kind of funny how a lot of people, fresh onto Linux, give up so easily and then cry here about the experience instead of sincerely asking for help.

Here's some realism about my particular Ubuntu experience:

Up until the end of January of this year, I was a complete Windows user who owned a Windows 98 machine for eight years. I bought this Windows XP machine last year. They were the only two machines and operating systems I had ever worked on. I didn't know the first thing about Linux when I downloaded the Ubuntu distro in January. I had never used a command line interface in my life and didn't know the first thing about partitioning a drive, let alone every detail about Linux.
I was a 39 year old guy who knew only Windows.

I have a 200 GB hard drive that I have enough hard time filling up with 25 GBs of stuff. So, on a whim, I decided to install Ubuntu and dual boot my machine. With the exception of the headphone jack on the front of my computer, the Ubuntu install detected every device I had connected to the machine. I had even steeled myself for problems installing my printer/scanner. That actually only took five minutes. Learning how to get the latest version of Java up and running in Firefox took a bit longer, but I got it going by reading these forums. Everything else, I learned out of two books ("Ubuntu Unleashed" and "The Official Ubuntu Book"). Like I did when I got my first Windows 98 machine, I researched what I didn't understand. That process took more than a week. It's taken me a little less than three months, but I've got it down to where I'm using my Ubuntu partition about 90% of the time. (I'm still learning my way around Wine for the gaming.) Me, the guy who knew absolutely nothing about Linux when he installed it.

This is my own opinion: a lot of people's frustrations with Linux seem to stem with things not working right out of the box. A lot of that appears to come from issues with the licensing for software/drivers and vendors not writing drivers for Linux. Why should they? Microsoft has strongarmed their way into something like 98% of all computers. They can charge up to $400.00 for their latest operating system because they've gotten people hooked onto it like addicts on crack. But I'm seeing a trend with other people like myself. The awareness that there's alternatives out there is starting to leech out towards the average home user. As long as people expect a different experience from Linux than Windows, then they'll probably be like me and wind up loving whatever distro they go with. I knew going in Linux would be a different sort of challenge for me. I also went in knowing that no OS is ever released in a perfect state. Give me one instance where any flavor of Windows wasn't immediately followed up with some sort of patch and I'll eat my Edgy live CD.

One of the main reasons I'm using my Ubuntu partition more and more these days is security. With just a few basic Firestarter tweaks and a bare bones AV scanner, my system hums along on Ubuntu better than it does in Windows XP. My Windows AV and the two spyware apps that I run want to idiot proof the box so much that even fetching mail through Thunderbird was like watching grass grow. Instead of fixing security holes and actually doing something about cutting spammers and hackers off at the knees, it's been left up to third party security vendors to immunize everybody's machine. Sometimes that results in bloated software that leaves no room for configuration. Which, in turn, leads to a very slow computing experience. Not so with Ubuntu. For somebody like me who is aware of the dangers out there in my inbox, I'm able to use the OS as I see fit. I only install what I need and ignore the rest. With Ubuntu, I feel like I don't need a whole CD wallet of software to be safe. I need a couple of select things and that's it.

But, hey, what do I really know. I don't know crap about Linux. And yet, here I am, working and doing my everyday tasks in it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to work with Windows. But chances are you're probably spending just as much time scanning and securing Windows as you would if you were tweaking Ubuntu. To me that's a pretty realistic assumption. I guess it all boils down to how you feel you should be spending your time.

hikaricore
April 7th, 2007, 06:07 AM
Next time someone asks me about linux I will suggest they spend the bucks and buy windows. I certainly will not recommend Ubuntu nor would I sell a computer with Ubuntu installed on it, which was something we

Well that's very nice of you to do.

Your microphone doesn't work so you're going to spread the FUD about linux in general?

Have you even bothered trying a different distrubution?

Ubuntu is not for everyone, certain hardware just does not work without alot of kicking and
screaming. I wish it weren't true but it is. This is often the case with generic hardware, and
even some non-generic hardware where the mfg. will not release any info about their drivers.

I've known people who hated ubuntu and went to fedora and everything worked, and vice-
versa. The point that I'm trying to make is this.

1. YOUR MICROPHONE doesn't work, these things happen, try a different distro, windows, or whatever makes you happy. Also you're lazy and won't read a howto on setting up audio/video codecs.
When offered assistance in this thread on the subject, you shunned it because it wasn't about your @#%ing microphone.

p.s. You know Edgy is not considered technically stable by the community right? Have you ever tried Dapper?

Good luck, and PLUR.

**edit**

Forum moderator merges thread for 23,561hp.
Thread dies.
Forum moderator gains 1,233 xp.


**edit**

Hallvor
April 7th, 2007, 06:34 AM
What can Ubuntu offer me that windows can't?

The good sides:

1. A free OS
2. An OS from 2007 with a modest computer. (I run Xubuntu 7.04 on a laptop with 1,4 ghz processor and 256 mb ram, and it is VERY fast.)
3. A very secure OS.
4. Easy updates. The updates does not only cover the OS, but also the programmes.
5. Fast install. Took me less than two hours to get everything up and running. Last time in Windows, it took me a whole day to install Windows XP, antivirus and all the other software I wanted.
6. Little work once you have it set up. It does not bloat down over time as Windows tends to do.
7. Good hardware support. (Yes, I actually wrote that. Ubuntu will recognize almost everything without having to install drivers from a CD. Some drivers are lacking or buggy, but many manufacturers don`t bother writing linux drivers or providing specs, so you can`t really blame Ubuntu for that.)
8. Easy-to-understand GUI.
9. No BS errors. No "illegal operation in 8747348937839X00000000" or whatever.
10. Very stable.
11. Can run for many days without slowing down.
12. The command line! A single command will save time and many clicks.
13. You can actually make your desktop look good.


:guitar:

Dream.
April 7th, 2007, 06:49 AM
5. Fast install. Took me less than two hours to get everything up and running. Last time in Windows, it took me a whole day to install Windows XP, antivirus and all the other software I wanted.

I dont believe you :)

deanlinkous
April 7th, 2007, 07:25 AM
Id just like to say also, I program 3 languages in windows, am a computer technician and certainly like to think Im no dummy. But this is getting beyond a joke.

Ive had this Ubuntu o.s. for over a week now

So were you that windows-expert technician after having windows for only a week too???

Being a expert in one OS by no means makes you anything but a pure-green-newbie in another OS......

aysiu
April 7th, 2007, 08:31 AM
How many of these "Windows is so much better/easier" threads start out "I'm a programmer/technician/system administrator of X years..."?

Before I started using desktop Linux, I taught high school English. I'm not a programmer or computer technician or whatnot. We have truck drivers, teachers, photographers, soldiers, and writers installing, configuring, and using Ubuntu on a daily basis.

Windows experts are the last people I'd recommend desktop Linux for.

darrenm
April 7th, 2007, 08:59 AM
I dont believe you :)

I do. Windows is a bloody pain in the **** when you're used to something easy like Ubuntu.

When family and friends insist on keep running Windows I have to keep fixing it for them when it breaks.

My little brothers laptop has just started refusing to boot. It starts loading Windows XP, is about to load the desktop then blue screens but flashes so quick then resets you can't see whats wrong.

So I choose safe mode. Exactly the same. Then I choose last known good config. Exactly the same. So I have to boot from the Windows CD and use the recovery console. Except it skips straight past the recovery console and goes into the partition screen. Eventually I have to boot Windows on my computer (which I really avoid doing) so I can install BartPE and make a bootable Windows CD so I can then boot off it and run chkdsk on the drive, which fixed it. All that crap to just run chkdsk.

I stopped using Windows because of the random nature of everything. You never know what you'll have to fix next. I have a young family now and I don't have any time to mess around so I have to run Ubuntu. It's a bonus thats it free (in all senses).

Then at work the other day, someone had bought a new computer with Vista. Vista won't work with our companies software so I had to tell him to put Windows XP on the computer. Thats when the nightmare started. Hours of phone calls and swearing to just install the network card driver. He had to find someone with a CD-RW drive. Find a blank CD from somewhere, download the driver to CD, take it back to the other PC, talk through a really crap driver installation routine. When I have a call about a Linux server its like a huge sigh of relief because I can just SSH in and fix almost anything 30 seconds after the customer rang in and in a lot of cases before they even know something is wrong. Take for example printing from the server to shared printers on Windows machines. Someone decides to have a play and change their hostname on Windows, suddenly CUPS can't print to that machine anymore. In Linux as soon as a printer is down it emails me to tell me, I SSH in, run nmblookup for that hostname, see its not there so run nmblookup -A on the IP the person is connecting from and get the new hostname. Change CUPS and restart. Grand total of about 25 seconds. I'd love to try that on a Windows server.

Anyway enough ranting, to answer Dreams initial concerns, use whatever is best for you. This isn't a religious cult or timeshare where the community has an obligation to convert you. If you like Ubuntu/Linux then use it, if you don't then don't use it. If you consider the Microphone issue to be a show stopper then you have to decide if its worth investing the time to investigate and potentially fix it or not. If you feel you have given it enough time to ensure you're not missing out on something that may be better for you then great, go back to using Windows and tell everyone the issues you had with Ubuntu. Good luck whichever way.

vf514
April 7th, 2007, 09:12 AM
How many of these "Windows is so much better/easier" threads start out "I'm a programmer/technician/system administrator of X years..."?

Before I started using desktop Linux, I taught high school English. I'm not a programmer or computer technician or whatnot. We have truck drivers, teachers, photographers, soldiers, and writers installing, configuring, and using Ubuntu on a daily basis.

Windows experts are the last people I'd recommend desktop Linux for.

Aysiu, you have made an excellent and enlightening point. That is why everyone on this board likes Ubuntu better then I do, isn't it?

aysiu
April 7th, 2007, 09:13 AM
Aysiu, you have made an excellent and enlightening point. That is why everyone on this board likes Ubuntu better then I do, isn't it?
Could be.

Lucifiel
April 7th, 2007, 09:32 AM
Ubuntu ought to suit the needs of both beginner and advanced users.

Perhaps, when the installation starts, the installer can ask you if you're a beginner or advanced user and allow you to configure certain things, depending on the mode. This prevents a novice from messing up but at the same time, allows someone who's familiar with Linux, to set whatever he/she needs.

Furthermore, this setting could also be programmed into Ubuntu so that when the pc starts up for the first time, the user can also alter a certain variety of settings, depending on what are his skills.

For example: the questionaiire could have questions like:

a)How long have you been using Linux?(If this is your first time using Linux, skip to option __)
b) Do you know what a "Terminal" is? (If not, skip to option ___ )
c) How familiar are you with command-line interface in Linux?
d) Have you used Windows before? (If yes, skip to option ___)

And so on.

Also, it would be better if this was part of a Walkthrough or Linux Tutorial Wizard that could be accessed from Applications.

Finally, I'd love to see a Dummy Terminal Box included. This would ALLOW people to mess around with various settings, without destroying their own computers. (Edit: I've seen something similar to a Dummy Terminal Box, being used by www.w3schools.com You can practise html and other scripts by using a Dummy box that shows you the changes but as soon as you leave the page, everything resets.)

julian67
April 7th, 2007, 09:42 AM
I think it's worth pointing out that many people's Windows problems with BSOD, trojans, virus etc arise from running as Administrator which was the MS default until Vista. I don't like Windows but it is actually very stable if you take care to configure it. This however isn't easy, for one thing there are just so many applications that will not work unless run as Administrator, this even includes a few from MS which is shameful. And the run as feature is not satisfactory as it won't work with everything you want it too. The person I know who knows most about Windows (he is an experienced security expert and progammer) tells me it takes him 4 full days to set up XP or 2000 to be secure and function as he wants. This is almost as long as me figuring out that Network-Manager in Ubuntu is borked (joke). This involves a lot of work in the registry locking down paths and setting permissions etc. I know less about Windows but am a reasonably experienced user and it takes me maybe a full day to install XP and a reasonable set of applications and configure the user accounts and file/folder permissions to the point I feel safe to go online or let someone else use an account on the machine.

Contrasting this to GNU/Linux I'm extremely happy that I can take about 30 or 40 minutes to install Ubuntu Edgy from the alternate CD and have a decent working (if slightly exciting) system right away, or take maybe an hour or two to install openSuse and have an extremely stable OS with a pre-configured iptables firewall and AppArmor locking down paths and permissions beyond the regular unix defaults.

I'm happy to set up a default Ubuntu or openSuse OS on someone's computer so that they can use it right away and not worry. When I install XP for people it's a pita trying to make it safe for them and I'll have to spend some time educating them about different user accounts, password protection, avoiding applications that only run as Admin, to use a different browser etc etc etc ad infinitum. Frankly this is all too much to take on board for the non technical/enthusiast user and I don't think the typical non-interested user should have to be bothered about such things. Vista won't run on most of the hardware that people already have and this leaves GNU/Linux as the only real choice people have, but for most people it still looks so unfamiliar and kind of scary.....ooooh noooo a command line...someone fix me a drink! If they can't do something in a GUI with a wizard they can't do it. I think that's where Ubuntu and any other distro aiming at the general desktop has to be if it wants to persuade people it's a drop in substitute for proprietary OS.


edit: Lucifiel I think that's a great idea. For many people the live installer is fine but it's not for everyone. The alternate CD or text mode from the DVD is ok but still many choices are made for you. A simple 3 choice Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced would be fine where beginner is the fully automated live installer, Intermediate lets you configure the bootloader, networking options and graphics and Advanced lets you micro manage the complete install like on Slackware or openSuse.

RAV TUX
April 7th, 2007, 09:50 AM
I voted:


Nothing--it's a nonsensical term

http://skins.hotbar.com/skins/mailskins/em/google_emoticons/emoti_218.gif

Dream.
April 7th, 2007, 09:59 AM
My intention of stating that Im a technician and program in windows was simply to state I have half a brain, no one is a computer expert. Bill Gates is no expert either.

Sure linux is different to windows, and I never presumed I'd be a linux expert overnight.

My point about having ubuntu for over a week now simply points out how long I have spent trying to resolve one (1) single issue.

hikaricoreThe average dummy that buys a computer would be back in the shop every five minutes wanting to know why this or that wont work, and would be much more cost effective for them to simply install windows, which is why I would not recommend linux. Their first question would be "whats a terminal"

darrenm You had to boot from a cd to run chkdsk, big deal. Your trying to install vista, its crap I agree. Listen if you needed a driver for ubuntu and could not get that particular machine on the net would you still be complaining about having to find a cd-rw, find a blank cd, download the driver and then take it back to the ubuntu machine? I think not, your trying to make something easy sound painfull.

As far as xp goes I did my first fresh install after 4 years!!!! Yes thats right I ran xp pro for four years and not once did it crash or freeze or bluescreen on me. The only reason I did a fresh install was I thought it about time I did one. I run development tools on a daily basis and never had a problem with the o.s.

Ive already had one instance where the filebrowser went mad and opened 4 of the same window each time I browsed a directory on ubuntu.

I understand that I need to install this and that to be able to watch dvd's or some of the windows extensions (.wmv,mpeg etc) that is not a problem for me.

What do you suggest?? I go out and buy another sound card only to find the mic on it doesn't work either? And Im not the only one with this problem as stated in previous post with link to the bug fix report.

Enough of this thread for me its not getting my problem solved. But as others have said here also, it really isn't up to scratch as an alternative to windows, for the average user who just logs on to surf the net and check emails etc it would be a nightmare. (they would go to play an .mp3, oops it wont play, watch a .wmv oops totem dont like that either etc etc etc you know what I mean)

Dream.
April 7th, 2007, 10:04 AM
Lucifiel some good points there.

Lucifiel
April 7th, 2007, 10:21 AM
edit: Lucifiel I think that's a great idea. For many people the live installer is fine but it's not for everyone. The alternate CD or text mode from the DVD is ok but still many choices are made for you. A simple 3 choice Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced would be fine where beginner is the fully automated live installer, Intermediate lets you configure the bootloader, networking options and graphics and Advanced lets you micro manage the complete install like on Slackware or openSuse.

Well, I was thinking of also allowing the novice user to set certain hardware settings 'cos many often have to configure their network ip, and other areas, in order to get their computer to work efficiently. Yet, many of these novice users may not know anything much about Windows, even, for a lot of people tend to configure their settings by following instructions left by someone else.

Also, for a Dummy Terminal Box, perhaps only certain settings and keyboard shortcuts can work within the Box. This is to prevent said user from launching some key combination and finding himself stuck and panicking and cold rebooting when for an advanced/intermediate user, simply hitting certain keys would do away with that issue.


Lucifiel some good points there.

Oh, thank you! :)

Edit: Btw, I might be very new to Linux but I'm quite decent at picking up commands and stuff. So far, I've already disabled certain components, responsible for some of the bugs in Feisty. Now, every operating system has bugs and problems but to fix a medium to severe bug in Ubuntu requires knowledge of command-line. This might be doable for an advanced/intermediate user. However, for a novice user, this is quite difficult. Furthermore, what happens if a critical bug occurs when someone has just started learning how to use Ubuntu or just started using Ubuntu. This is going to be tough, man.

aysiu
April 7th, 2007, 10:25 AM
Obviously, you'll disagree, but one of the things I like about Ubuntu's installer is its simplicity--it doesn't pester you with a lot of questions. You get asked your username, password, time zone, etc. and that's pretty much it.

Novices or those who want simplicity can use the Desktop CD (also known as the "live CD"). Advanced users can have more control over the installation by using the Alternate CD:
The alternate install CD allows you to perform certain specialist installations of Ubuntu. It provides for the following situations:

* creating pre-configured OEM systems;
* setting up automated deployments;
* upgrading from older installations without network access;
* LVM and/or RAID partitioning;
* installing GRUB to a location other than the Master Boot Record;
* installs on systems with less than about 192MB of RAM.

RAV TUX
April 7th, 2007, 10:32 AM
Obviously, you'll disagree, but one of the things I like about Ubuntu's installer is its simplicity--it doesn't pester you with a lot of questions. You get asked your username, password, time zone, etc. and that's pretty much it.

Novices or those who want simplicity can use the Desktop CD (also known as the "live CD"). Advanced users can have more control over the installation by using the Alternate CD:

I prefer an anaconda installer, like the one I use in Oz.

http://skins.hotbar.com/skins/mailskins/em/google_emoticons/emoti_13.gif

aysiu
April 7th, 2007, 10:37 AM
Yeah, Anaconda's pretty slick. I remember using it to install Blag (which is Fedora-based).

23meg
April 7th, 2007, 10:41 AM
they would go to play an .mp3, oops it wont play, watch a .wmv oops totem dont like that either etc etc etc you know what I mean)

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/easy-codec-installation

RAV TUX
April 7th, 2007, 10:44 AM
Yeah, Anaconda's pretty slick. I remember using it to install Blag (which is Fedora-based).
Sabayon also uses it...Sabayon is Gentoo based.


http://skins.hotbar.com/skins/mailskins/em/google_emoticons/emoti_437.gif

aysiu
April 7th, 2007, 10:45 AM
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/easy-codec-installation
Don't forget Linux Mint, Ubuntu Ultimate Edition, Mepis, PCLinuxOS, Blag, Linspire...

Lucifiel
April 7th, 2007, 11:06 AM
Obviously, you'll disagree, but one of the things I like about Ubuntu's installer is its simplicity--it doesn't pester you with a lot of questions. You get asked your username, password, time zone, etc. and that's pretty much it.

Novices or those who want simplicity can use the Desktop CD (also known as the "live CD"). Advanced users can have more control over the installation by using the Alternate CD:
Hmmm... I'd started to type out an argument against your points when I realised that you might indeed be right.

If so, perhaps allowing people to select the following would perhaps be less annoying:

1)I want a guided installation.

Description: I have never used a computer before, or I have rarely used computers or I am new to Linux. For 1), then finally, two options:
1.1)I do not know much or I know nothing about computer software and hardware(or just replace the entire term with "computers"). I do not wish to set anything.

1.2)I may not know much about or I may know nothing about computer software or hardware(or just replace the entire term with "computers") but, my ISP or workplace requires me to input certain settings like Modem, Internet, etc.

2)I want an unguided installation.

Description: I know what I'm doing with Linux and have used Linux before. I'd like to specify certain hardware/software settings when I'm done installing.

And then instead of integrating all the hardware/software specifications, etc. into the installer, perhaps, a Wizard could pop up when you've booted into Ubuntu the first time after you're done installing.

Then, the user could choose and input various settings.

darrenm
April 7th, 2007, 12:52 PM
darrenm You had to boot from a cd to run chkdsk, big deal. Your trying to install vista, its crap I agree. Listen if you needed a driver for ubuntu and could not get that particular machine on the net would you still be complaining about having to find a cd-rw, find a blank cd, download the driver and then take it back to the ubuntu machine? I think not, your trying to make something easy sound painfull.

I just meant that to someone who is used to Ubuntu, things in Windows can be a bit of a challenge.

I've never needed a driver for Ubuntu.

hikaricore
April 7th, 2007, 07:02 PM
How many of these "Windows is so much better/easier" threads start out "I'm a programmer/technician/system administrator of X years..."?

Before I started using desktop Linux, I taught high school English. I'm not a programmer or computer technician or whatnot. We have truck drivers, teachers, photographers, soldiers, and writers installing, configuring, and using Ubuntu on a daily basis.

Windows experts are the last people I'd recommend desktop Linux for.

great post, absolutely perfect

hikaricore
April 7th, 2007, 07:20 PM
hikaricoreThe average dummy that buys a computer would be back in the shop every five minutes wanting to know why this or that wont work, and would be much more cost effective for them to simply install windows, which is why I would not recommend linux. Their first question would be "whats a terminal"

This is in general a problem of self-inflicted ignorance. One of the biggest problems in the world today is people don't care about anything, especially people here in the states. The don't care or want to know how something works, they just want it to work. This isn't specific or limited to linux, windows, or computers at all. This is about technology making the human race retarded.

You wouldn't believe the number of people who don't know how to thread a needle, check a tire for air pressure, or set the clock on their vcr. People refuse to learn or even read a damn manual.

What it all comes down to is that you're saying it's better just just sell people on a product and be done with them. Instead you could help them learn, offer assistance persuit of the education of mankind. It only takes one epiphany to reopen a closed mind and make someone want to learn. I'm not saying that linux is better than windows but it's different, and different makes people think. People need to and should think rather than just have everything done for them.

I know there's no reason for me to even be writing this but the hope you'll think about it. If I ignored your response and didn't say exactly what's on my mind I'm no better off than the rest of the "average dummies".

Frak
April 7th, 2007, 07:36 PM
This is in general a problem of self-inflicted ignorance. One of the biggest problems in the world today is people don't care about anything, especially people here in the states. The don't care or want to know how something works, they just want it to work. This isn't specific or limited to linux, windows, or computers at all. This is about technology making the human race retarded.

You wouldn't believe the number of people who don't know how to thread a needle, check a tire for air pressure, or set the clock on their vcr. People refuse to learn or even read a damn manual.

What it all comes down to is that you're saying it's better just just sell people on a product and be done with them. Instead you could help them learn, offer assistance persuit of the education of mankind. It only takes one epiphany to reopen a closed mind and make someone want to learn. I'm not saying that linux is better than windows but it's different, and different makes people think. People need to and should think rather than just have everything done for them.

I know there's no reason for me to even be writing this but the hope you'll think about it. If I ignored your response and didn't say exactly what's on my mind I'm no better off than the rest of the "average dummies".
Not just carelessness, but just so damn lazy. We've spoiled the world with too much ease, but until they learn harder ways, they'll never know power under somebody's control.

If somebody else installs software on your computer, is it really your computer anymore?

Dream.
April 7th, 2007, 11:07 PM
Just a little update... I decided to overlook the microphone problem for the time being and decided to get the media apps to function correctly.

After following all the instructions found at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats and then at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Medibuntu as per the instructions on the restricted formats page, guess what, dvd's will not play as the pages say they will, why am I not surprised.

So anyway, I got up this morning and thought I would tackle the microphone issue, well at least try to. I tested the onboard sound and guess what, exactly the same problem with both audio setups.

I thought hmm, so I tested my microphone on two other computers, it works fine, as it does on this computer in windows.

Bottom line... With all the hours waisted trying to get this to work I could have bought several copies of windows :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

llamakc
April 7th, 2007, 11:28 PM
Or you could have paid somebody who knew what they were doing to fix your problem for you.

Dream.
April 7th, 2007, 11:37 PM
Yeah????? browse the forums, many others have this same microphone issue. Apparently in the previous release microphone did not work at all. So whos gonna take my money and fix that??

Wake up to yourself and face the facts, just like every other ubuntu user you get so damn upset at the slightest mention of windows being better than ubuntu.

Makes mental note: check the unsubscribe box so I don't have to listen to dribble.

Frak
April 7th, 2007, 11:49 PM
Yeah????? browse the forums, many others have this same microphone issue. Apparently in the previous release microphone did not work at all. So whos gonna take my money and fix that??

Wake up to yourself and face the facts, just like every other ubuntu user you get so damn upset at the slightest mention of windows being better than ubuntu.

Makes mental note: check the unsubscribe box so I don't have to listen to dribble.

Don't feed the trolls! :P

http://www.howardlyon.com/images/paintings/page%203/Cave%20Troll%20Final%20Small.jpg

darrenm
April 8th, 2007, 12:02 AM
Just a little update... I decided to overlook the microphone problem for the time being and decided to get the media apps to function correctly.

After following all the instructions found at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats and then at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Medibuntu as per the instructions on the restricted formats page, guess what, dvd's will not play as the pages say they will, why am I not surprised.

So anyway, I got up this morning and thought I would tackle the microphone issue, well at least try to. I tested the onboard sound and guess what, exactly the same problem with both audio setups.

I thought hmm, so I tested my microphone on two other computers, it works fine, as it does on this computer in windows.

Bottom line... With all the hours waisted trying to get this to work I could have bought several copies of windows :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Strange. I've never had any problems at all getting any restricted codecs media to play. What happens when you try to play DVDs? Which application do you use?

What did you do to try and get the Microphone to work?

vf514
April 8th, 2007, 12:20 AM
I think it's time that we attempt to standardize Ubuntu improvement suggestions in an attempt to ax the redundancy of soapboxes on this topic. Some of you may recall my post about how I thought Ubuntu should be improved. After Aysiu merged the post into this megathread I read some of the other posts in this thread and thought to myself "wow, do these posts ever look exactly like mine." What I think people should do (and yes, what I think I really should've done) is to keep things brief, original, to the point. People come here to get things about Ubuntu off their chest. They can still do that, but they should do it in a different way.

1. First, users should be directed to the Criticism FAQ before making a post. That way, you can be sure that everyone hasn't heard about your complaints before. Aysiu has been really good about this.

2. Please, spare us the lengthy introductions. I'll use my own post as a bad example:



First of all, I will start by saying that I like Ubuntu. I actually do. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have used Ubuntu (or Debian) for the year I have been using it. I really want it to be something great; something that will change computing for the better. To sum it up: I am not posting this because I hate Ubuntu, I am posting this because I want it to be better. Much better. What I have here is a list of reasons why I don't like Ubuntu. If you are offended by criticism of Ubuntu (and who would be, it's just an operating system...) I advise you to sit this one out. Again, I'm only trying to be constructive.


We really don't need it. Let's say you've been a system administrator for five years, are not trying to hurt peoples feelings, and just trying to give constructive critcism. In that case:

"I am have been a system admistrator for five years. Here is what I would like to see improved in Ubuntu:"

will do just fine.

3. Please, be brief. Don't go on and on like I did. Nobody wants to read needlessly long posts.

4. Realize that if you are very experienced with a particular operating system other then Linux (and know in detail how to make use of every single advantage), then you will of course be less likely to enjoy Ubuntu.

That said, here is a templete of how I think these posts should look like:

------

[Optional computer experience statement (no more then 1-2 sentences).] I would like to see Ubuntu improved by:

[Overview of first problem.] [Explanation of problem. (Remember to be brief, keep what you are saying relevant to the point you are trying to make.)]


[Overview of second problem.] [Explanation of problem. (Remember to be brief, keep what you are saying relevant to the point you are trying to make.)]

...

[Overview of nth problem.] [Explanation of problem. (Remember to be brief, keep what you are saying relevant to the point you are trying to make.)]

[If you must, scribble some other comments that you can't keep to yourself down here. Remember, be brief.]

------

Here is my updated post:

------

I have used Windows for four years, and believe I am experienced with it. I have also used Linux for over a year. Here is what I would like to see improved in Ubuntu:

Issues in Desktop design need to be addressed. Application UI (such as between GTK and Qt apps) should look more consistent. Investigate what type of colors and UI designs users prefer to use, rather then basing them on an ideology. Design should be based on solid research and fact, rather then on ideologies, for instance. Fonts do not look as good as they do in Windows with Cleartype enabled.

I also have some problems with things Linux developers unfortunately are most likely unable to solve. I would like a larger selection of programs that do the things I need them to do (i.e. third party apps). I want out of the box support for MP3s and DVDs.

------

There. Even my own post was a little on the long side, but still; everything I wanted to say in my last post (and more!) at less then a quarter of the length, and probably in a way that was actually more powerful then the previous post.

BTW, I didn't know whether to post this here, or in the "suggestions on how to handle desktop readiness posts" thread. I decided to post it here, though, because this concerns what people say about this topic, and the two different things I wanted to say are somewhat interconnected (and one of them wouldn't be applicable material for the other thread). If a mod thinks it should be moved, then move away.

LuxVoodoo
April 8th, 2007, 05:40 AM
Just a little update... I decided to overlook the microphone problem for the time being and decided to get the media apps to function correctly.

After following all the instructions found at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats and then at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Medibuntu as per the instructions on the restricted formats page, guess what, dvd's will not play as the pages say they will, why am I not surprised.

Up until I saw this post, I never tried to play DVDs in my Ubuntu partition. So I decided to see if it would work. It didn't. I did a quick Google, which came up with this page:

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_DVD_playback_capability

I then cut and pasted the three following commands from the page into the terminal:

sudo aptitude install libdvdread3
sudo /usr/share/doc/libdvdread3/install-css.sh
sudo aptitude install totem-xine

(the second command actually installed libdvdcss2, which was the next command after the above three)

The first DVD I put in after doing those simple three commands worked perfectly. In fact, in Windows Media Player, the picture often jumped and skipped. In WinDVD it was better. The smoothest performance, by far, was in Totem in Ubuntu, although the contrast is a little funky and needs some tweaking.

Total time to figure all this out? Fifteen minutes.

hikaricore
April 8th, 2007, 06:35 AM
Just a little update... I decided to overlook the microphone problem for the time being and decided to get the media apps to function correctly.

After following all the instructions found at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats and then at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Medibuntu as per the instructions on the restricted formats page, guess what, dvd's will not play as the pages say they will, why am I not surprised.

So anyway, I got up this morning and thought I would tackle the microphone issue, well at least try to. I tested the onboard sound and guess what, exactly the same problem with both audio setups.

I thought hmm, so I tested my microphone on two other computers, it works fine, as it does on this computer in windows.

Bottom line... With all the hours waisted trying to get this to work I could have bought several copies of windows :) :) :) :) :) :) :)


Maybe you should give linux a last ditch effort and try Sabayon Linux: http://www.sabayonlinux.org

From what I've read, dvds and mp3s work right out of the box, it even has automatic install of restricted video drivers (about a year before ubuntu added this).

If less work is what you're looking for it may be your best choice.

Otherwise, please buy as many copies of windows as you like. Peace out.

m.musashi
April 8th, 2007, 06:50 PM
I think it's time that we attempt to standardize Ubuntu improvement suggestions in an attempt to ax the redundancy of soapboxes on this topic.
I think this is a really nice idea but in reality it won't help Ubuntu any. The people who have the greatest impact on Ubuntu (i.e. devs) don't spend a lot of time here. You might be able to post suggestions on launchpad but I think it's mainly for bugs. Although if something isn't working right then I guess that's a bug.

However, it would be nice to find a way to limit the amount of rants and such. I realize the guy who just fried Windows or spends hours trying to fix something isn't going to be happy or overly rational and may want to rant. But they are also unlikely to spend time reading a bunch of other rants and then suddenly realize they don't need to add their own.

Truth is, aysiu's approach is probably the best. Or they could simply be jailed but that's kind of harsh. It would send a message though - just not one that's much in the spirit of Ubuntu.

prizrak
April 9th, 2007, 01:57 AM
Yeah????? browse the forums, many others have this same microphone issue. Apparently in the previous release microphone did not work at all. So whos gonna take my money and fix that??

Wake up to yourself and face the facts, just like every other ubuntu user you get so damn upset at the slightest mention of windows being better than ubuntu.

Makes mental note: check the unsubscribe box so I don't have to listen to dribble.

If you have a problem with Edgy (which wasn't actually very good) install Feisty. You can either get a Beta now or wait for the release on the 17th (I think that's the release date).

I've been on Ubuntu since Warty (first one) and had no problems with anything including DVD playback and power management. This was across 3 very different machines. No one is going to convince you to use Ubuntu. If you are looking for a drop in replacement of Windows, try OS X. Linux based OS's aren't meant as replacements/clones, only alternatives. If you want to try Linux look for another distro. Most have a LiveCD so you are really not risking anything. Try Mint Linux, it's Ubuntu with all the proprietary stuff.

odoyle
April 9th, 2007, 03:27 AM
OK... so I had several people convince me that Linux was the shiznat... but at this point I'm too frustrated and feel much too stupid to go on. The support forums that are out there are complicated at best, impossible at worse. I LOVE the way Linux is layed out. I love the ease of how to get to programs. I love that I don't have to worry about viruses or giving the evil Microsoft more money... but all these commands and confusing install methods have driven me crazy.

I've spent hours and hours and hours trying to get my wireless up... to no avail. I've looked at every forum on the subject, done every command. I've been told by many Linux users on this forum that partitioning a hard drive in Linux is hard and very confusing, and I'm not willing to fully give up windows yet and I don't want to buy another computer just to be able to run Linux.

After my hours of frustration I have decided that I can deal in my Windows environment. Maybe sometime soon Linux will be user friendly enough for me to switch over too. Thank you all for your help... I can say I am extremely impressed with the quickness of help on this forum and others!

scrooge_74
April 9th, 2007, 03:38 AM
Sorry to hear you have to go back. Maybe your expectations were set to high.

Your wireless problems are common it depends on the hardware you have and driver support. Partitioning harddrives I find it very easy.

It sounds like you have spent time on other forums and the results have not been so happy for you.

It seems you have spent the last few days working with Linux and your experience was not that good. You are expecting for things to just work whenthat sometimes is not possible.


Maybe Feisty will be more to your liking

Good luck

Soldierboy
April 9th, 2007, 03:49 AM
There is a learning curve that must be overcome when a new user is coming from Windows, but after you're over it, it's free-sailing. Look forward to your return to the bright side in the future.

x-ray vision
April 9th, 2007, 03:53 AM
You are expecting for things to just work whenthat sometimes is not possible.

Then what's the point? I'm expecting things to work to and trying to fix things is driving me to pull my hair out! I have two threads open right now because I can't get my printer to work or watch Quicktime and WMV clips embedded in webpages. I love the benefits of Linux (no viruses, not having to restart Windows, no overbloated new OSs, etc.), but an OS that takes hours to fix each individual problem (if at all) that pops up isn't much of an alternative.

metroknight
April 9th, 2007, 03:55 AM
All computer systems are hard at first. I screwed my system up big time and now I'm reinstalling it and updating again. That is life (shrugs). Have you tried setting up a dual boot? This would let you have your windows and also get to play with linux. This is what I'm doing. It gives me footing in both worlds.

odoyle
April 9th, 2007, 04:01 AM
All computer systems are hard at first. I screwed my system up big time and now I'm reinstalling it and updating again. That is life (shrugs). Have you tried setting up a dual boot? This would let you have your windows and also get to play with linux. This is what I'm doing. It gives me footing in both worlds.
I understand that metroknight... but can you give me decently simple step by step understanding of how to set up a dual boot. Many have tried on this forum and not one seems to use language that the average (or even efficient) Windows user could understand. Partitioning the hard drive is hard... and most people recommend that you actually but a whole seperate hard drive to run Linux on. I am on a laptop and don't have that option and I can't afford to not be able to access my Windows if I screw something up in the partitioning.

MrKlean
April 9th, 2007, 04:03 AM
If you think Linux is hard... wait till you try Vista.... and find you have a lot of hardware to replace LOL!!

WiseElben
April 9th, 2007, 04:04 AM
It's not goodbye. You'll come crawling back soon... I can sense it. Actually, this is what I did. It took me three tries to finally be free of Windows (well, I still have Windows for the occasional game).

See you soon!

odoyle
April 9th, 2007, 04:06 AM
If you think Linux is hard... wait till you try Vista.... and find you have a lot of hardware to replace LOL!!
actually... funny you say that. I'm running Vista business on this computer and it works well for the things that Linux is hard on... like very simple things i.e. wirelessly connecting to the internet. Don't get me wrong... Vista is terrible but at least it's pretty easy to set up and use.

metroknight
April 9th, 2007, 04:08 AM
With a laptop, it is more difficult. Give me a little bit of time to look some things up. I was researching this topic a few days ago for my wife's laptop.

What type of laptop do you have?
Do you have a recovery disk or a windows disk?

The reason I ask is that there is always a chance of fubaring your windows setup and it always pays to be prepared for the worst.

ButteBlues
April 9th, 2007, 04:10 AM
I understand that metroknight... but can you give me decently simple step by step understanding of how to set up a dual boot. Many have tried on this forum and not one seems to use language that the average (or even efficient) Windows user could understand. Partitioning the hard drive is hard... and most people recommend that you actually but a whole seperate hard drive to run Linux on. I am on a laptop and don't have that option and I can't afford to not be able to access my Windows if I screw something up in the partitioning.
Try reading these two:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/partitioning
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/installing

Famicommie
April 9th, 2007, 04:11 AM
Then what's the point? I'm expecting things to work to and trying to fix things is driving me to pull my hair out! I have two threads open right now because I can't get my printer to work or watch Quicktime and WMV clips embedded in webpages. I love the benefits of Linux (no viruses, not having to restart Windows, no overbloated new OSs, etc.), but an OS that takes hours to fix each individual problem (if at all) that pops up isn't much of an alternative.

I think that Linux is like every other OS in that regard. I cringe to think of how long certain tasks took me in Windows. Finding obscure codecs, registering strange DLL components, nigh endless hardware conflicts, etc. A computer is a computer, and at the end of everything you will have to understand the basics about the OS before you can truly work efficiently in it. Linux is no different from Windows, in that you have to learn certain universal (if difficult) tasks before you are able to utilize it in the way that you want to.

Once you become familiar with linux, you start to be able to do tasks that initially took you hours in only ten minutes. So, in my honest opinion, Linux isn't necessarily harder to use than Windows, it simply requires going through a learning process that we forgot the pains of in Windows.

nick24
April 9th, 2007, 04:12 AM
[. Partitioning the hard drive is hard... and most people recommend that you actually but a whole seperate hard drive to run Linux on. I am on a laptop and don't have that option and I can't afford to not be able to access my Windows if I screw something up in the partitioning.[/QUOTE]


Partitioning the HD is not hard at all, let the installation process handle that for you automatically. here is a link to a step by step guide WITH SCREENSHOTS http://www.debianadmin.com/ubuntu-edgy-eft-desktop-installation-with-screenshots.html

odoyle
April 9th, 2007, 04:12 AM
I've got a Dell Inspiron D620. 2 gigs of RAM. 2 GHZ intel dual core. 120 gig hard drive, 2 gig recovery drive. Running Vista Business. Pretty nice system other than the Vista

lamalex
April 9th, 2007, 04:15 AM
if you want person-to-person help with dual booting IM me on one of my IM's (look right). I'll be glad to help and same with trying to get your wireless working.

33702turbo
April 9th, 2007, 04:16 AM
I am also a newb that is pretty much fed up with the whole switching over to linux fully. I have 2 computers and my laptop is still running windows, this is the only reason linux is still on my other computer. I am having trouble with my dvd burner not working, but i am searching for the right answer that i need. But the main reason for keeping linux is that there are a few programs that i want to play around with, and get to know. so i am still tring to find the missing peices to my puzzle..

thenme
April 9th, 2007, 04:18 AM
but at this point I'm too frustrated and feel much too stupid to go on.

Micro$oft is counting on it!

Keep trying. At first its a bit overwhelming but, you wouldn't quit a Spanish course just because you couldn't speak Spanish after the first week...would you? The language is not hard to use just different from what you know.

The issues that you are facing are not uncommon. There are answers available, the biggest hurdle for me was learning how to ask the right questions.

As stated feisty 7.04 might be more up your ally. I don't use wireless but there are much better network tools in feisty that I have read make that process a hole lot easier.
I would download the feisty beta and make a liveCD and play around with it. I wouldn't advise installing that until they release a stable version but that's coming in just a few weeks.

I felt the same way when I started, Just give it some time, you'll get it.

metroknight
April 9th, 2007, 04:19 AM
I couldn't find the one thread that I read but here is one that is similar to what your needs. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=404611

ButteBlues post the other links that I was looking for.

How experienced are you with computers? There are Terms that throw me for a loop alot with Linux. I took me a little bit to figure out what certain things meant.

ronocdh
April 9th, 2007, 04:19 AM
MrKlean's comment made me LOL, which I appreciate. But back on topic, OP's point is just one voice in a resounding chorus. We (by which I mean those of us still sticking it out in the Linux camp, hopefully forever!) all know by now that Linux is not for everyone. This isn't news. It's just not there yet!

Of course, Ubuntu is doing more than any other distro (IMNSHO) to change that, and with each release it's better, faster, stronger. Heck, my mother's been running it since Dapper! Better yet, my 20 year old girlfriend installed Linux without me on her university-provided Dell laptop. She had to partition the drive within WinXP and then installed Edgy. Sure, she broke it pretty quickly by messing around--but she got it installed in the first place!

If one doesn't have the personality to quest after unknowns all day long, perhaps even for a weekend (took me two days straight to get my wireless working! I'm talking a Saturday and a Sunday here), then Linux, even Ubuntu Linux, just isn't their cup of tea. Not yet, anyway.

Of course, my personal opinion is that with a taste of Linux, a lot of people will stick around. It took me a long time to get the hang out of, but now that I'm confident, tinkering in Linux is truly a joy for me. Are you a tinkerer? If not, prepare for some frustration. If you are experimental, adventurous, ambitious, foolish =D then give it a go! Otherwise... well, check back in six months. ;)

:guitar:

ajmorris
April 9th, 2007, 04:20 AM
I understand that metroknight... but can you give me decently simple step by step understanding of how to set up a dual boot. Many have tried on this forum and not one seems to use language that the average (or even efficient) Windows user could understand. Partitioning the hard drive is hard... and most people recommend that you actually but a whole seperate hard drive to run Linux on. I am on a laptop and don't have that option and I can't afford to not be able to access my Windows if I screw something up in the partitioning.

If you install windows 1st and then ubuntu, GRUB (the bootloader that starts at boot time where you select your operating system) will already have windows in it's list of Operating Systems.

ronocdh
April 9th, 2007, 04:23 AM
As should be overwhelmingly clear by now, dual booting is absolutely the way to go in this situation. I'm writing this from a triple booted laptop, and while it did take a small amount of work to get everything running happily, man is it worth it! Now whenever something breaks in Linux, I just flip to OS X. Rock steady. When I want to game, I just reboot into XP. (Yes, I really keep XP on here just for that!)

33702turbo
April 9th, 2007, 04:26 AM
MrKlean's comment made me LOL, which I appreciate. But back on topic, OP's point is just one voice in a resounding chorus. We (by which I mean those of us still sticking it out in the Linux camp, hopefully forever!) all know by now that Linux is not for everyone. This isn't news. It's just not there yet!

Of course, Ubuntu is doing more than any other distro (IMNSHO) to change that, and with each release it's better, faster, stronger. Heck, my mother's been running it since Dapper! Better yet, my 20 year old girlfriend installed Linux without me on her university-provided Dell laptop. She had to partition the drive within WinXP and then installed Edgy. Sure, she broke it pretty quickly by messing around--but she got it installed in the first place!

If one doesn't have the personality to quest after unknowns all day long, perhaps even for a weekend (took me two days straight to get my wireless working! I'm talking a Saturday and a Sunday here), then Linux, even Ubuntu Linux, just isn't their cup of tea. Not yet, anyway.

Of course, my personal opinion is that with a taste of Linux, a lot of people will stick around. It took me a long time to get the hang out of, but now that I'm confident, tinkering in Linux is truly a joy for me. Are you a tinkerer? If not, prepare for some frustration. If you are experimental, adventurous, ambitious, foolish =D then give it a go! Otherwise... well, check back in six months. ;)

:guitar:


Well said....

arvevans
April 9th, 2007, 04:28 AM
1) You must have free hard drive space available for Linux. Install Windows first and tell it to use only half of your laptop's hard drive.

2) Install Ubuntu Linux second and tell it to use the free space on your laptop hard drive.

That is all there is to it. The Ubuntu installer will automatically set up dual boot for you.

DO NOT:
a) reinstall Windoze after installing Linux. It will overwrite the dual boot with a windows only boot process.

lamalex
April 9th, 2007, 04:30 AM
1) You must have free hard drive space available for Linux. Install Windows first and tell it to use only half of your laptop's hard drive.

2) Install Ubuntu Linux second and tell it to use the free space on your laptop hard drive.

That is all there is to it. The Ubuntu installer will automatically set up dual boot for you.

DO NOT:
a) reinstall Windoze after installing Linux. It will overwrite the dual boot with a windows only boot process.

not entirely true, but effectively it's true enough. Your way is definitely easier, but you can install Linux and then windows, you just need to make sure you have a GRUB livecd to reinstall GRUB from.

Billium
April 9th, 2007, 04:40 AM
I can really understand where you are coming from. I started this process several weeks ago and am just now getting somewhat the feel for what I am doing.

I have the advantage of having an old HD that was just lying around so I added it to my computer and loaded Ubuntu 6.06 onto it. Most things work fine.

When I downloaded the CD from ubuntu.org, it gave me the option to get the correct one for my system. AMD Athlon 64. It also gave me the option to dual boot onto the same disk and partition the HD thru the default settings. That part was easy. I just entered thru the defalut screens and the program set itself up.

My issue, which is for another thread, is how to get software (drivers?) through the synaptic pagage manager. None of my card readers or my digital camera wil get recognized.

Take a week off like i did, come back and keep trying. I knew nothing then and I know more now. That's progress.

I started one thread that was "switching computers". Read it and see how uneducated I was.

m.musashi
April 9th, 2007, 06:12 AM
I've got a Dell Inspiron D620. 2 gigs of RAM. 2 GHZ intel dual core. 120 gig hard drive, 2 gig recovery drive. Running Vista Business. Pretty nice system other than the Vista

Did you by chance mean a latitude D620? That is what I have. I don't believe D620 is an inspiron model. The D620 is a pretty nice laptop. I installed edgy as a dual boot the day I got it. Everything worked out of the box - wireless, graphics (did have to install the nvidia driver for acceleration but even without it worked fine and full resolution), touchpad (better than vista since I can touch scroll which vista doesn't). Not a single problem.

The install is very easy. Partitioning is all but automatic unless you want to do it manually. I did to make a separate /home and it was still easy. Were you actually trying to install Ubuntu or another Linux distro? I don't mean to be rude or anything but I've installed Ubuntu on about a half dozen dell laptops and never once had a problem.

You may be done with Linux for now but if not, give it another go. Maybe a new download. Did you verify it and all that? Try Dapper or Edgy. Feisty is good too even though still beta but I personally didn't like the partitioner as well as in Edgy. It seems a bit harder to do a manual setup. If you have a problem post a detailed description in the right subforum. Or PM me if you want. I have the same gear so I might be able to walk you through it, so to speak.

jiminycricket
April 9th, 2007, 09:23 AM
actually... funny you say that. I'm running Vista business on this computer and it works well for the things that Linux is hard on... like very simple things i.e. wirelessly connecting to the internet. Don't get me wrong... Vista is terrible but at least it's pretty easy to set up and use.

It's purely the hardware manufacturer's fault. Dell tends to use Broadcom cards that 1) don't have open specifications so people can't even write drivers for free 2) don't open source hteir drivers 3) don't even provide Linux drivers.

There are open source, reverse engineered Broadcom drivers for certain Broadcom wireless cards in new Linux distros with the new Devicescape stack, like Feisty Fawn and Fedora 7. The only reason we even have these is because Broadcom/Cisco/Linksys violated the GPL by distributing GNU/Linux as their firmware, and so they ended up releasing the source after haggling, which included the Broadcom wireless binary blob (ironically, the only driver that Broadcom really "released" for Linux). Reverse engineering efforts have focussed on that so I hope you can see it's not for lack of trying. I don't think many Dell wireless chips are supported by bcm4xx though, so ndiswrapper and bcm43xx-fwcutter is still the only solution for those. That's why Dell selling Linux is such a big deal because of FOSS drivers. (http://direct2dell.com/one2one/archive/2007/03/28/9655.aspx)

You'll find people do have wireless working on Linux--it all depends on the manufacturer of the wireless card. Also there are many cases of Vista having problems with hardware, but hopefully if your laptop is vista certified there won't be, just as a Linux certified laptop would work well. If you installed Vista on a non-supported computer, you'll find that Aero will be disabled, many apps will not work due to "unsupported graphics card" (eg., Windows Movie Maker, DVD maker, etc) and the overall experience is crappy.

My IBM R50 worked perfectly with Ubuntu. (Compiz, wireless, suspend perfect!)

darrenm
April 9th, 2007, 09:48 AM
My IBM R50 worked perfectly with Ubuntu. (Compiz, wireless, suspend perfect!)
Same here with my Lenovo 3000 C100
I had problems with the supplied Broadcom wifi card so I spent £10 on an Intel IPW2200 and its been fantastic. Network-Manager is awesome with it.
Bluetooth works better than in Windows on the same machine
Intel 915 graphics work great with Beryl
Suspend, hibernate, etc all work fine
Hotkeys all work fine.

When your hardware is all made by someone who supports Open-source such as Intel its a great experience when everything just works.

Lucifiel
April 9th, 2007, 11:12 AM
Judging from the very latest posts in this thread, perhaps Ubuntu ought to also include a guide on its' live cd-rom, one that asks you to consider the list of hardware you have and on whether their drivers support Linux. I know that's something every user should do before installing another operating system but heck, a few reminders are helpful.

prizrak
April 9th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Does anyone have experience dual booting with Vista? I'm not sure that GRUB can handle it, if so the OP is kinda screwed :(

Dragonbite
April 9th, 2007, 02:42 PM
Does anyone have experience dual booting with Vista? I'm not sure that GRUB can handle it, if so the OP is kinda screwed :(NOT THAT I WOULD TRUST IT, but I was at a Vista demonstration recently, and the guy was touting how Vista includes a bootloader which allows it to also boot Linux (and other OSs).

I think part of that is for migrating (dual-boot with WinXP until you're moved everything over and/or all of your programs run on Vista).

Fr@nKy
April 9th, 2007, 02:56 PM
I did dual boot Ubuntu 7.04 Herd 5 + Windows Vista! It works but there's a problem LoL I can't uninstall grub because there's no way to make fixmbr with Windows Vista DVD that I know of :P I went back to XP after that! But GRUB recognizes Windows Vista (as Windows Vista/Longhorn if I recall it well) and it's able to load it ;)

julian67
April 9th, 2007, 03:39 PM
Same here with my Lenovo 3000 C100
I had problems with the supplied Broadcom wifi card so I spent £10 on an Intel IPW2200 and its been fantastic. Network-Manager is awesome with it.
Bluetooth works better than in Windows on the same machine
Intel 915 graphics work great with Beryl
Suspend, hibernate, etc all work fine
Hotkeys all work fine.

When your hardware is all made by someone who supports Open-source such as Intel its a great experience when everything just works.

I'd disagree that having your wifi card not work is perfect. And I know for a fact that NM in Ubuntu cannot handle static IP addresses, see launchpad for more details....hardly awesome unless you only ever connect with dhcp, in which case it would look good and you would be none the wiser.

prizrak
April 9th, 2007, 04:41 PM
I'd disagree that having your wifi card not work is perfect. And I know for a fact that NM in Ubuntu cannot handle static IP addresses, see launchpad for more details....hardly awesome unless you only ever connect with dhcp, in which case it would look good and you would be none the wiser.

You can assign static IP's using the normal network GUI. I do agree that there is a problem. I would like to see it allow static IP's on some networks and DHCP on others. For instance my g/f's router can't possibly serve DHCP and handle WAP at the same time. Let's face it, I would rather turn off DHCP than I would WAP.

julian67
April 9th, 2007, 05:00 PM
You can assign static IP's using the normal network GUI. I do agree that there is a problem.

At this point in Ubuntu only the command line really works quickly. Imo it was a real mistake to ship NM broken/crippled. It would have have been better to not include it until it functions as intended but I guess someone decided they just had to ship with the latest thing. I tried Debian Etch this week and it's the same which really surprised me. It's hard to believe that at least 2 major distros are knowingly shipping with broken network tools while there are other Free distros that have demonstrated the same tools can function brilliantly but there it is, it's happening. The implementation has been proven in openSuse, Slackware and Fedora, surely it can't be beyond the ability of the Debian and Ubuntu communities to study those implementations and take advantage of the progress made by others. I had an idea that this was one of the key advantages of open source development.

prizrak
April 9th, 2007, 06:02 PM
At this point in Ubuntu only the command line really works quickly. Imo it was a real mistake to ship NM broken/crippled. It would have have been better to not include it until it functions as intended but I guess someone decided they just had to ship with the latest thing. I tried Debian Etch this week and it's the same which really surprised me. It's hard to believe that at least 2 major distros are knowingly shipping with broken network tools while there are other Free distros that have demonstrated the same tools can function brilliantly but there it is, it's happening. The implementation has been proven in openSuse, Slackware and Fedora, surely it can't be beyond the ability of the Debian and Ubuntu communities to study those implementations and take advantage of the progress made by others. I had an idea that this was one of the key advantages of open source development.

Weird, I heard that Debian was supposed to work with it properly. I think the reasoning was that NM is good for less technically inclined users who are unlikely to assign static IP's. Presumably more experienced users wouldn't have a problem figuring it out. Also I think there was quite a bit of pressure from the community. Here we finally have a decent Wi-Fi manager that can handle WPA but it wasn't installed until Feisty and it made Ubuntu seem behind the times. What I don't understand is, is it really that hard to include the ability to handle different configs for different networks in NM? What kinda bugs me as well is that there is no [obvious] way to see what networks it will connect to automatically. Presumably it's not a very difficult addition to have something like the Preferred Networks list in Windows.

In general Feisty wasn't able to implement alot of things that have been promised. I don't want to call it a disappointment because it really is great, but I do wish all of the things worked out. Personally I think that Feisty is basically what Edgy was supposed to be. Then again nothing is ever perfect ;)

m.musashi
April 9th, 2007, 06:56 PM
Does anyone have experience dual booting with Vista? I'm not sure that GRUB can handle it, if so the OP is kinda screwed :(

I have vista running with both edgy and feisty using GRUB. It works just fine. There is a recovery option on the vista DVD but I can't remember if it had an option to fix the mbr. I fried vista trying to use gparted to resize the partition and had to reinstall. While trying to fix it I tried to take GRUB out of the picture but as I recall I wasn't able to. I ended up reformatting the whole drive and then reinstalling feisty.

But, long story short, it does work. Whether you really want to do this or not is the question. I got a free upgrade so figured why not but so far I am not too happy with it. It's probably better than XP but still has plenty of bugs. If I had paid good money I'd be pi**ed.

Viva la Linux!

rsambuca
April 9th, 2007, 07:05 PM
Does anyone have experience dual booting with Vista? I'm not sure that GRUB can handle it, if so the OP is kinda screwed :(

Yeah, Grub handles it fine. The one silly thing is if you have XP and Vista, then you have to go through a couple of bootloader screens to get to XP or Vista. Grub directs you to the Vista Loader, which then allows you to select which version of Windows you want.

The one thing that Vista clearly does not like is having its partition re-sized after it is already installed. It seems that is where many people are having problems.

m.musashi
April 9th, 2007, 07:41 PM
The one thing that Vista clearly does not like is having its partition re-sized after it is already installed. It seems that is where many people are having problems.

Yep. I even used the backup tool to make a full backup. After deleting and resizing the partition I chose the option to restore from the full backup and it gave me the same size partition even though it was now twice as big. Vista simply chose to see a 60 gig partition as 30 gigs. Totally messed up. So I had to do a clean re-install and scrap the backup altogether. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a backup.

So after the reinstall I choose to restore just my files from the other backup option in vista (just files not full) which I also used before reinstalling. That works fine but Vista won't add incrementally to this backup even though it used it to restore everything. So I have to run a new file backup. I didn't know this would happen and the backup drive filled up and the backup process quits with an error. I clean out the drive and start again but now I just keep getting a message telling me the last backup ended with an error and there is no way out of the loop. The backup tools are one of the better tools in vista but it seems they don't work very well.

prizrak
April 9th, 2007, 09:28 PM
Yeah, Grub handles it fine. The one silly thing is if you have XP and Vista, then you have to go through a couple of bootloader screens to get to XP or Vista. Grub directs you to the Vista Loader, which then allows you to select which version of Windows you want.

The one thing that Vista clearly does not like is having its partition re-sized after it is already installed. It seems that is where many people are having problems.

In my experience Ubuntu doesn't like to be resized either.

m.musashi
April 9th, 2007, 10:20 PM
I've resized Ubuntu several times but it is difficult (so far impossible in my experience) to more or resize to space in front of a partition but I think that is move an issue with gparted than Ubuntu. It does seem easier to make it smaller rather than bigger.

udha
April 9th, 2007, 10:27 PM
Heres my thoughts...

Ive already waisted too many hours on Ubuntu trying to fix this and that and still I have other problems to sort out such as playing any sort of media files and a broken microphone.

Id just like to say also, I program 3 languages in windows, am a computer technician and certainly like to think Im no dummy. But this is getting beyond a joke.

...

And please dont reply with "there is spyware in windows" my firewall sorts that out.

I apologize if I sound too negative I am just trying to be realistic about the whole situation.

Waisted eh? Being able to program isn't an indicator of what you know about computers, in your case it's what you know about windows. And that likely makes you a brilliant windows tech, but not a computer tech. If you had the same ability with linux that you do windows, you'd choose GNU/Linux any day of the week, the security model is better, the firewall is a part of the kernel! and is still just as powerful as any enterprise firewall I've ever used by Cisco, and I am one of a few who controls two of our main core routers for an ISP in the city I work in.

But if you think spyware is stopped with a firewall, you've just proven your ignorance, a firewall has nothing to do with spyware! if the spyware/virus/trojan/worm/etc gets in, say via email or a website, then it's in, it was requested and the firewall, be it SPI or DPI is likely going to let it through because your user asked for it. transmissions back out won't even be stopped if they send out via SMTP or use port 80 or 443, unless you have a whitelist and employ default deny policy to all your customers.

Anyway, I'm not trying to attack you here, but look at it from the perspective of the user, they can't do anything you do with computers anyway, so they are at the same point with Windows or Linux, they can't install it, they can't install drivers and rarely programs, so, assuming they have a tech who can, then what's the difference to them? Security, for one, savings, no need for ongoing anti-virus subscriptions. And it is infact easier to use for a novice, if someone has never used a computer, or windows before, they look at ubuntu, see clearer icons, and buttons with meaningful symbols like friendly ticks and red x's for cancel, and immediately have a natural understanding of what they are doing.

Furthermore, Windows in a multiuser environment doesn't work, I still use it at work and there is a WIndows 2003 Server for some thinclient displays, and some Office applications fail to work, like our Outlook 2003 connecting to Hosted Exchange which uses RPC over HTTP, can't work on a secured Terminal Server. Then sometimes excel will show another user's spreadsheet in the quick view payne, this is just unforgivable security wise! Windows is trying to push you more and more into using the user directory, but then hasn't implemented it enough, I tried to put a user's home directory on another drive and lock down C to be read-only so it couldn't get damaged any further, but hey-ho, windows can't do that, so much for security, let's go and get this $$$ anti-vir and $$$ subscription, and oh look, a guest account still managed to infect the entire computer with this zero-day animated cursor flaw when using IE, what's the point of user-level permission when the entire computer can still be compromised? THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! And I for one, was sick of having to accept it, so I jumped ship two years ago, after many failed years of trying, the ever worsening news of Vista is what clinched it for me.

m.musashi
April 10th, 2007, 12:03 AM
Furthermore, Windows in a multiuser environment doesn't work, I still use it at work and there is a WIndows 2003 Server for some thinclient displays, and some Office applications fail to work, like our Outlook 2003 connecting to Hosted Exchange which uses RPC over HTTP, can't work on a secured Terminal Server. Then sometimes excel will show another user's spreadsheet in the quick view payne, this is just unforgivable security wise! Windows is trying to push you more and more into using the user directory, but then hasn't implemented it enough, I tried to put a user's home directory on another drive and lock down C to be read-only so it couldn't get damaged any further, but hey-ho, windows can't do that, so much for security, let's go and get this $$$ anti-vir and $$$ subscription, and oh look, a guest account still managed to infect the entire computer with this zero-day animated cursor flaw when using IE, what's the point of user-level permission when the entire computer can still be compromised? THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! And I for one, was sick of having to accept it, so I jumped ship two years ago, after many failed years of trying, the ever worsening news of Vista is what clinched it for me.
As a network admin (sorry I'm not sure your exact title but that sounds close) you might appreciate this - or not.

I work at a high school (teacher not tech) and recently discovered that students can install apps to their network directory. They have installed all sorts of apps including web browsers and, get this, TOR. Now they can punch right through our district's firewall and do anything they want - no filtering and no tracking (as I understand it since it's encrypted). I have no idea if this is a window's flaw or an example of an inept tech department but it's certainly unacceptable. Granted, the students don't like the filter but it's for both their protection and the district's.

Frak
April 10th, 2007, 12:40 AM
As a network admin (sorry I'm not sure your exact title but that sounds close) you might appreciate this - or not.

I work at a high school (teacher not tech) and recently discovered that students can install apps to their network directory. They have installed all sorts of apps including web browsers and, get this, TOR. Now they can punch right through our district's firewall and do anything they want - no filtering and no tracking (as I understand it since it's encrypted). I have no idea if this is a window's flaw or an example of an inept tech department but it's certainly unacceptable. Granted, the students don't like the filter but it's for both their protection and the district's.
Flaw in Windows or Flaw of Techs?
Both
Its the Tech's job to cover even M$'s flaws.

I've never had a problem with kids avoiding the proxy, in fact we blocked most major online proxy services and yahoo, yep yahoo. Using yahoo sends you through their own proxy to visit the site.
No problem here, we run Ubuntu on (most of) our computers :D

udha
April 10th, 2007, 01:16 AM
As a network admin (sorry I'm not sure your exact title but that sounds close) you might appreciate this - or not.

I work at a high school (teacher not tech) and recently discovered that students can install apps to their network directory. They have installed all sorts of apps including web browsers and, get this, TOR. Now they can punch right through our district's firewall and do anything they want - no filtering and no tracking (as I understand it since it's encrypted). I have no idea if this is a window's flaw or an example of an inept tech department but it's certainly unacceptable. Granted, the students don't like the filter but it's for both their protection and the district's.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness, I knew this as one of those menacing students :shock:
And to be fair, the same can be said of linux, the user has the ablity to run and do as they please in their own user space, they can save things (Unless it's also mounted as read-only) and even then they can still use /tmp for that session. They can chmod and execute said downloads, but they wouldn't be able to by-pass a firewall restriction, and if you have something like that, I'd strongly suggest a default-deny policy. Block EVERYTHING, then allow things one by one.

So with everything blocked, allow access to your proxy server, then unless they use that proxy server, they can NEVER get out. Hope this helps ;)

m.musashi
April 10th, 2007, 01:18 AM
Flaw in Windows or Flaw of Techs?
Both
Its the Tech's job to cover even M$'s flaws.

I've never had a problem with kids avoiding the proxy, in fact we blocked most major online proxy services and yahoo, yep yahoo. Using yahoo sends you through their own proxy to visit the site.
No problem here, we run Ubuntu on (most of) our computers :D

Do you mean they can easily use a proxy to get around your filter or they have not been able to get around it? Although we block many proxies there are always new ones. However, being able to set up their own (TOR, etc.) means we have absolutely no control at all. They can even set up a p2p and run that. Our network is a joke.

Frak
April 10th, 2007, 01:21 AM
Do you mean they can easily use a proxy to get around your filter or they have not been able to get around it? Although we block many proxies there are always new ones. However, being able to set up their own (TOR, etc.) means we have absolutely no control at all. They can even set up a p2p and run that. Our network is a joke.
Sorry, filter, my mind was hung :)

m.musashi
April 10th, 2007, 01:22 AM
Thanks for your thoughtfulness, I knew this as one of those menacing students :shock:
And to be fair, the same can be said of linux, the user has the ablity to run and do as they please in their own user space, they can save things (Unless it's also mounted as read-only) and even then they can still use /tmp for that session. They can chmod and execute said downloads, but they wouldn't be able to by-pass a firewall restriction, and if you have something like that, I'd strongly suggest a default-deny policy. Block EVERYTHING, then allow things one by one.

So with everything blocked, allow access to your proxy server, then unless they use that proxy server, they can NEVER get out. Hope this helps ;)

Well, I'm not in charge of the network. I just think it's funny (or sad) that students can do so much while our techs think they can't.

To clarify, in Linux would a user be able to actually install a program to a network drive and run it even if they have no admin privileges? We have a Linux thin-client lab and since I'm not the admin I can't even add a printer. I find it hard to believe that students would be able to install a program regardless of location.

Frak
April 10th, 2007, 02:36 AM
Well, I'm not in charge of the network. I just think it's funny (or sad) that students can do so much while our techs think they can't.

To clarify, in Linux would a user be able to actually install a program to a network drive and run it even if they have no admin privileges? We have a Linux thin-client lab and since I'm not the admin I can't even add a printer. I find it hard to believe that students would be able to install a program regardless of location.
I don't think they could without Administrator privilages?

m.musashi
April 10th, 2007, 04:28 AM
I don't think they could without Administrator privilages?

That is what I was thinking. However, with our windows network they can install apps. Depending on the app, some will install normally and others they can install by changing the default from the C drive to their network folder. If they know how to do that, and it isn't hard, they have a whole lot more control than anyone thinks.

I thought maybe this was another example of the flaws in the windows design vs Linux but I don't know enough to say for sure.

garbage792
April 10th, 2007, 09:09 PM
This is my third attempt at trying to get Ubuntu to work. My first attempt failed because I could not get wpa wireless connectivity. It was a long time ago. I tried to install ubuntu again later but gave up when a simple upgrade sent my computer to console (the graphics environment refused to work.)

Funny thing is that everytime I try to get ubunutu working to some level, it always takes roughly the same amount of time. Thats because I have poor memory. I cannot remember what files I edited and what I added in them and what programs/scripts I installed. Everytime I have to go through forums endlessly. I have good photographic memory though. If only more of the ubuntu configuration was gui based then i wouldn't have such problems.

I tried again two weeks ago. This time the wpa worked flawlessly but my sound broke. Basically I am forced to use an external sound card and some of the programs (like flash) kept on trying to use the onboard sound card. After spending hours I finally found a way that solved it (I black listed the on board sound card by editing some configuration file.) The point being that it was NOT a driver problem but still took me hours to fix :(

Next problem was that I could not get the proper resolution. The 915resolution hack kept on failing me. Editing some more files and a combination of various things fixed it. Again took me hours.

These things shouldn't be so hard. These can be made simpler (just like wpa support works so well now).

This time I am thoroughly documenting everything so that if I need to reinstall, it may be less painful.

Ubuntu has come a long way.
For me Ubuntu would be ready if

1.) There is a detailed GUI for configuring sound specifically ALSA and any other configurations that need file editing.

2.) Also for some applications I still cannot get more than two applications to produce sound at the same time (something that other operating systems do easily).

3.) I still have some trouble running flash in firefox. It stops given audio mostly. I then have to restart firefox.

4.) My USB sound card works when I connect it through a USB hub but not otherwise (It is just so weird).

5.) More codecs support. There are still some video files that do not work :(

Anyways this is the first time that I have not uninstalled Ubuntu after trying because I am finally able to get some basic functionality for the first time. In fact I am enjoying the beryl a lot :)

julian67
April 10th, 2007, 09:29 PM
This is my third attempt at trying to get Ubuntu to work. My first attempt failed because I could not get wpa wireless connectivity. It was a long time ago. I tried to install ubuntu again later but gave up when a simple upgrade sent my computer to console (the graphics environment refused to work.)

Funny thing is that everytime I try to get ubunutu working to some level, it always takes roughly the same amount of time. Thats because I have poor memory. I cannot remember what files I edited and what I added in them and what programs/scripts I installed. Everytime I have to go through forums endlessly. I have good photographic memory though. If only more of the ubuntu configuration was gui based then i wouldn't have such problems.

I tried again two weeks ago. This time the wpa worked flawlessly but my sound broke. Basically I am forced to use an external sound card and some of the programs (like flash) kept on trying to use the onboard sound card. After spending hours I finally found a way that solved it (I black listed the on board sound card by editing some configuration file.) The point being that it was NOT a driver problem but still took me hours to fix :(

Next problem was that I could not get the proper resolution. The 915resolution hack kept on failing me. Editing some more files and a combination of various things fixed it. Again took me hours.

These things shouldn't be so hard. These can be made simpler (just like wpa support works so well now).

This time I am thoroughly documenting everything so that if I need to reinstall, it may be less painful.

Ubuntu has come a long way.
For me Ubuntu would be ready if

1.) There is a detailed GUI for configuring sound specifically ALSA and any other configurations that need file editing.

2.) Also for some applications I still cannot get more than two applications to produce sound at the same time (something that other operating systems do easily).

3.) I still have some trouble running flash in firefox. It stops given audio mostly. I then have to restart firefox.

4.) My USB sound card works when I connect it through a USB hub but not otherwise (It is just so weird).

5.) More codecs support. There are still some video files that do not work :(

Anyways this is the first time that I have not uninstalled Ubuntu after trying because I am finally able to get some basic functionality for the first time. In fact I am enjoying the beryl a lot :)

It's not a bad idea to take notes and save web pages where you found good advice, if you have /home on a separate partition it's easy to keep all this information for the next time. I have a big collection of docs, sticky notes,and webpages which are invaluable.

There is a gui Alsa mixer for Gnome, I've used it in Ubuntu. Alsaconf and alsamixer seem simple enough anyway.

Flash 9 is available for Linux, perhaps you are using 7?

USB, is your hub powered? I've experienced some USB devices need more power than available via the computers USB ports, particularly if you use more than one USB device.

I had the same trouble in Ubuntu with only one application able to use the soundcard at a time, I didn't work out why. In openSuse I can make as much noisy confusion as I like :) Most souncards can work with Alsa but you might need a newer driver than available in Ubuntu, check out the Alsa site and see if your card is supported. Alsa have good guides on installing the drivers from source.

prizrak
April 11th, 2007, 03:24 AM
Which version are you currently trying? At this point I generally advise everyone to give Feisty a whirl, it goes final in 9 days (8 by the time you read it likely) and seems very stable. In fact I've been running it since Herd 2 without issues.

garbage792
April 11th, 2007, 03:10 PM
It's not a bad idea to take notes and save web pages where you found good advice, if you have /home on a separate partition it's easy to keep all this information for the next time. I have a big collection of docs, sticky notes,and webpages which are invaluable.

There is a gui Alsa mixer for Gnome, I've used it in Ubuntu. Alsaconf and alsamixer seem simple enough anyway.

Flash 9 is available for Linux, perhaps you are using 7?

USB, is your hub powered? I've experienced some USB devices need more power than available via the computers USB ports, particularly if you use more than one USB device.

I had the same trouble in Ubuntu with only one application able to use the soundcard at a time, I didn't work out why. In openSuse I can make as much noisy confusion as I like :) Most souncards can work with Alsa but you might need a newer driver than available in Ubuntu, check out the Alsa site and see if your card is supported. Alsa have good guides on installing the drivers from source.

Alsaconf and alsamixer do not allow me to chose sound cards and put priorities on them or disablem them. It all has to be done in the configuration files (which usually ignored my priorities anyways till I blacklisted some devices)

Yes I am using Flash 9. The sound problem migt have to do with the ALSA and not with flash. I just cannot tell.

Well my usb hub is not powered. That is so strange. Also one of my external hard drives (seagate) when connected through the hub refuses to be detected in Ubuntu mostly but is detected perfectly in windows.

I hope that Ubuntu can come up with a better alternative then alsa. As for the USB problem, I think that I should probably try posting a thread about it with details. There might be some magic cryptic command that fixes the problem :lolflag:

I am using the latest feisty by the way. Thank you for your replies.

Brunellus
April 11th, 2007, 03:15 PM
Alsaconf and alsamixer do not allow me to chose sound cards and put priorities on them or disablem them. It all has to be done in the configuration files (which usually ignored my priorities anyways till I blacklisted some devices)

Yes I am using Flash 9. The sound problem migt have to do with the ALSA and not with flash. I just cannot tell.

Well my usb hub is not powered. That is so strange. Also one of my external hard drives (seagate) when connected through the hub refuses to be detected in Ubuntu mostly but is detected perfectly in windows.

I hope that Ubuntu can come up with a better alternative then alsa. As for the USB problem, I think that I should probably try posting a thread about it with details. There might be some magic cryptic command that fixes the problem :lolflag:

I am using the latest feisty by the way. Thank you for your replies.
your external hard drive may be formatted in NTFS and not FAT32. Ubuntu disables NTFS mouting by default. The kernel drivers for NTFS will permit read access, but write access is still technically experimental and is not recommended for people who can't live with irrecoverable filesystem corruption.

commands may be cryptic, but they are seldom magical.

Henry Rayker
April 11th, 2007, 03:28 PM
commands may be cryptic, but they are seldom magical.

Lawl! I suppose they are sometimes cryptic...if not magical, at least dreamy?

As for the harddrive issue, it really probably is the NTFS file system not being mounted. I had a similar issue when I started using Ubuntu. I solved that issue, though, by making my windows harddisk 3 GB in size and never using it again. :)

mstlyevil
April 11th, 2007, 04:37 PM
I'm not certain Linux will ever be ready for the desktop for most people. It is just too different from what most people are used to working with.

Brunellus
April 11th, 2007, 04:42 PM
I'm not certain Linux will ever be ready for the desktop for most people. It is just too different from what most people are used to working with.
then the statement is "people are not ready for the Linux desktop," which is true.

mstlyevil
April 11th, 2007, 04:45 PM
then the statement is "people are not ready for the Linux desktop," which is true.

Hmm, good point. I would probably have to conclude both are the case.

beefcurry
April 11th, 2007, 05:03 PM
then the statement is "people are not ready for the Linux desktop," which is true.

Thats just generalization. Its marketing. Apple OSX is desktop ready, yet its not being widely adopted. Things like this takes time. Companies need to invest in long term plans, first schools adopted it, then a new generation will be familiar with it etc. To be honest, in my High School I would say only 5% have even heard of Linux, and 99% has never had the word unix touch their ears. BSD is out of the question. No one knows about Linux. No one will ever know about Linux until someone advertises. For every 1 person that switches to Linux, 98 more try windows. The age of whose ever produce is best wins is over. Its now whoever's produce people are most used to (hearing, seeing, using) wins. iPod is now a household word like Windows, lets make Linux a house hold word as well.

tenshi-no-shi
April 11th, 2007, 06:53 PM
I personally think that Desktops need one major thing that Windows does not have. They need to be secure out of the box. You should not have to install a third-party anti-virus just to go online. You should not have to rely on a third-party firewall to keep people out. Those things should be either integrated or unnecessary.

I have had only minor annoying problems with Ubuntu since switching to Hoary. I have done reinstalls when I upgraded to Dapper and then to Edgy, but really it seams that it was not necessary. Heck just yesterday I did a MAJOR upgrade to my computer, changing out my older Socket 423 P4 and Motherboard to an Newer Socket 478 P4 and Motherboard. I mean I had integrated peripherals on both boards (Network Card & Sound Card) and I had no problems. I have switched out drives, added usb cards, switched video cards (from ATI to Nvidia), etc. and never had problems.

The only problems I have had are with trying to get programs that run on windows to run on this computer, but other than that nothing.

I personally think that Linux is now more user friendly and more "Ready for the Desktop" than windows. And linux doesn't pack unnecessary programs and bloat into their OS like others do.

mstlyevil
April 11th, 2007, 07:13 PM
I personally think that Linux is now more user friendly and more "Ready for the Desktop" than windows. And linux doesn't pack unnecessary programs and bloat into their OS like others do.

Have you ever installed SuSe? It kills me how much bloat just a minimal install of SuSe has.

BobLand
April 11th, 2007, 08:05 PM
After spending 50+ hours trying to change my resolution to 1600x1200 I finally decided enough is enough. I am not a total nube. I've worked in IT for over 20+ years, 3 of which was on Solaris.

I've found the system, all around, to be much slower then W2K. Regardless of your idea that everything is included, it may be but for me it's not. I'll admit I'm stuck in my ways. After all, I've been using W2K since it came out. The only time the system downed was when I moved or turned the machine off for routine maintenance (adding/subtracting hardware).

When I initially installed W2K the OS installed everything. No tweaking. No fiddle faddle. Over the years when I added new devices Windows immediately found them and either installed the drivers or requested the CD.

In ubuntu, nothing is obvious. Too much time is spent trying to find things, worse, getting them to work. During the agonizing journey to find the resolution commands and drivers found numerous errors with the kernel that were allegedly all ready there. They all supposedly fixed the problem. When I finally got to install the latest nvidia drivers, it took over 15 minutes for the driver to "fix" errors and find missing objects. After restarting x resolution was 960x700 or some such, not the 1600x1200 promised. Nor was it the stated resolution. It was still 1024x760. That begins to smell like an insult. Then on a restart x would not come up. Asked to review the errors, they stated nothing. I had to revert back to the original xorg.conf. Again.

I consider my self an above average user. 95% of windows user can barely write letters and access the internet. Most are in a self-inflicted fog. After all, they did not sign up for geekdom.

If you want greater acceptance you have turn away from the geek mentality that you probably don't even think you have. Users don't want to know about terminals, they don't want to wrestle with updates, they don't want to install drivers using arcane methods, they don't want to be programmers, and as nice as you think your interface is, it is lags behind both windows and mac.

I would really like to use linux as a full time OS. I love the idea of OpenSource and free software. But there is a lot of that coming down to the windows world. I use many freeware programs and pay for some shareware. I'm willing to do this because the products meet my standards. I can't say that for much about what's in ubuntu.

Again, you must turn away from the geek mindset. First, admit it, then see how you can use it more productively. The world needs something like linux. My first attempt was SUSE 1.0. Over the years I tried other flavors. In the end, there was always a large gap of what was promised and what was delivered. This is not just my experience. I've had this correlated my many co-workers, all wanting an alternative to Gates & Jobs.

You're asking users to abandon what they are used to for your alternatives. I don't find your alternatives to be that. They feel like taking a step back. Like it or not, users want things to stay the same. Sure, there are the adventurous but they are a very small minority.

Don't be caught in the microsoft "where will I let you go today" attitude which you are dangerously close to emulating.

I don't want this post to go on endlessly. It is just part of my frustrations and disappointments in a product that has so much potential but delivers so little.

I wish you the best of luck and success. I deeply desire that you succeed in your endeavors. I will not remove ubuntu from my disk or mind. I will check back on occasion to see how it progresses.

Thank you for reading my rant.
bobland, aka Burt Alcantara

dstew
April 11th, 2007, 08:14 PM
Hi Burt, nice thoughtful rant.

I think what you are experiencing is the work involved in getting open source to function well. It is like cutting the grass yourself, or paying someone else to do it. The commercial OS's are like getting someone else to cut your grass. They do a professional job. But it is something you can do yourself. It requires work. The open software movement needs people to spend lots of hours making it happen, not just programmers but users too. Sometimes it is really hard, but doing these hard things helps everybody learn, and helps make the systems better.

Bachstelze
April 11th, 2007, 08:15 PM
I mostly agree with yu but I disagree on one point. Among all the "user-oriented" Linux distros, Ubuntu is without a doubt the one hat is least close to the "Microsoft-way". I think that's why Ubuntu is so popular: it is friendly for the user without restricting his/her freedom. However, Kant told us that, if I may say so, freedom is not free, which means that if you want to be free, you have to work on it, it does not grow on trees.

Ubuntu tries to do just that : be friendly to the user without imprisoning him/her in a Windows-like wold. It is still far from perfect but Rome wasn't built in one day. I prefer a non-perfect distro that has ideals I respect to another that perfectly achieves ideals I hate.

Big Dave
April 11th, 2007, 08:15 PM
Bye.

xpod
April 11th, 2007, 08:19 PM
If you want greater acceptance you have turn away from the geek mentality that you probably don't even think you have. Users don't want to know about terminals, they don't want to wrestle with updates, they don't want to install drivers using arcane methods, they don't want to be programmers, and as nice as you think your interface is, it is lags behind both windows and mac.

I`m sorry you feel this way but i think your wrong about needing to be a programmer to use Ubuntu....I discovered Ubuntu last summer only some 4 months after switching a computer on for the very first time and learning how to use this is no harder than learning how to use Windows......and i certainly aint no programmer.

If Windows works well for you then use that.
Good luck

SorenK
April 11th, 2007, 08:20 PM
I consider my self an above average user

I've only been using Ubuntu for a little less than a month. I got everything working just fine. I love it.

One thing I have noticed though, is that in all the rants like this one, the person making it always considers themselves "an above average user." Or their some IT professional or something. But I guess all of us newbs for whom it just works are just lucky geeks who don't even know that we're geeks.

DARKGuy
April 11th, 2007, 08:23 PM
... I couldn't have said that better. You totally put in words all my thoughts about the end-users who are used to Windows and want to go to Linux.

200% Agreed.

I use Linux now at work along with a Windows system, dual-boot, and at home too, but for the common user... compared to other distros, Ubuntu's the most user-friendly one, but not as enough as Windows.

Some hardcore Linux users hate Windows, yet, they don't see the difficulty for users who are used to Windows to learn what Linux is and how to use it.

Hell, I'm a Tech Support guy, started on computers when I was 5 and do tons of stuff in programming and computer art, yet, It took me about 2 days to configure my VIA UniChrome Pro IGP in a 3.8Ghz/1Gb DDR2 at work because it needed compiling, searching for files, drivers, reading docs.... it's a pain for common users, they prefer to pay for something easier - that's the key: Make linux easier for the end-users, and you'll get more people.

igknighted
April 11th, 2007, 08:25 PM
I understand your pain, its not an easy transition. But linux doesn't want to be everyone's OS. Lots of the problems you ran into (especially the graphics issues) are due to companies not supporting linux and providing drivers that clash with the linux philosophy. The idea of a binary driver like the nvidia drivers talking to the kernel is foreign here, its not how it should be. Therefor, the drivers tend to be touchy because the system wasn't designed for them.

Sure, we could make linux interface with binary things better. And I bet it would lead to an "easier transition". But linux is about many things, and getting a large user base is not one of them. Free software (in the philosphical sense) is a priority, as is a system completely open and tweakable. These graphics drivers (and many wifi drivers and some others) don't fit this, and us linux users would rather support companies that support us than give up principles to get a broader user base.

It's not for everyone. I'm sorry it didn't work out. The fact that you describe yourself as an above average user probably has a lot to do with that. Windows knowledge = nothing in linux. If you accept that you know nothing you will find more success. Good luck with win2k.

Rui Pais
April 11th, 2007, 08:30 PM
...
When I initially installed W2K the OS installed everything. No tweaking. No fiddle faddle. Over the years when I added new devices Windows immediately found them and either installed the drivers or requested the CD.

...

when i initially installed W2K it has only the OS, notepad, a browser, a bad mail reader and 2 ridiculous games, minefields and flipper (i never find the way to uninstall it so i deleted the exe)
With Linux you get the OS, the desktop environment that you choose, 1 (or more) Office suite, 1 (or more) image processor, cd/dvd recorder, compilers and IDEs for it, scientific apps and so on.
All stuff i needed to pay to get on windows (sometimes worst then Linux equivalents)

The problem is that you are used the way things are in Windows. Another OS requires always a learning/forgetting(old habits) period. Thats all.
I used Windows for years (3.11 till w2k) and now, after 5 years of Linux exclusively i make myself a fool every time i site behind a Windows (always looking for virtual desktops, terminal, press tab for autocompletion, moving windows pressing alt+mouse, :lol:).

Btw, some of my equipment of the time worked automatically on linux and have a lot of troubles on W2k (microtek scanner, w2k drivers remained beta till microtek suspend the line and support, my epson was not on windows drivers database, my realtek was too new to w2k, required a floppy since it leaves me without net...)

jputman01
April 11th, 2007, 08:31 PM
ive been using linux for about 6 months, everthing works fine for me, i boot into windows maybe once a month. the fact that the software is free and some computers use proprietary drivers etc it is going to be difficult to get it to do everything for you without some tweaking.

btw i love the grass cutting analogy!

simonfoley
April 11th, 2007, 08:31 PM
I am afraid I agree completely with the original poster. I have tried four times now to get Ubuntu to work satisfactorily and I just always hit a wall or block. I am the person all my colleagues call on to help fix their PC's. If I can not get along with it, how can we expect my mom, my grandma and other such users to get along?

Most users no absolutely nothing of how a computer works. Ubuntu is just too complicated for the average user.

Let's take my current problem. Installing NVIDIA drivers. The most popular video card on the market and I am having to trawl through this to get my screen to not be jerky.

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_Graphics_Driver_.28NVID IA.29

http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Latest_Nvidia_Edgy

And this is user friendly?

aysiu
April 11th, 2007, 08:34 PM
After spending 50+ hours trying to change my resolution to 1600x1200 I finally decided enough is enough. I am not a total nube. I've worked in IT for over 20+ years, 3 of which was on Solaris. Written almost to formula.

I've plopped it in with the rest of the "not ready" rants--here if you want to read, and here if you want to avoid.

By the way, the few times I've had the "privilege" of installing Windows from scratch, my screen resolution woes were very similar to this (http://ask.metafilter.com/26497/How-to-get-the-screen-resolution-up-on-an-XP-PC). I find fixing problems in Linux much easier. That's over 20 years of Microsoft OS experience and only 2 years of Linux experience talking here.

Want a new user to use Ubuntu? Set it up for her or him. Otherwise, buy it preinstalled. It's not as if people who can only type emails and surf the web will be okay if you give them a blank computer and a Windows CD: "Here. Install this."

I can guarantee you they won't know what a driver is or where to get one. They will wonder where their Word is. They won't know how to get anti-virus installed or the ethernet connection working.

Stop blaming desktop Linux for its sociological shortcomings (lack of preinstallation, lack of awareness, lack of acceptance by the mainstream media), and compare apples to apples.

Read more here:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth

jputman01
April 11th, 2007, 08:35 PM
I am afraid I agree completely with the original poster. I have tried four times now to get Ubuntu to work satisfactorily and I just always hit a wall or block. I am the person all my colleagues call on to help fix their PC's. If I can not get along with it, how can we expect my mom, my grandma and other such users to get along?

Most users no absolutely nothing of how a computer works. Ubuntu is just too complicated for the average user.

Let's take my current problem. Installing NVIDIA drivers. The most popular video card on the market and I am having to trawl through this to get my screen to not be jerky.

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_Graphics_Driver_.28NVID IA.29

http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Latest_Nvidia_Edgy

And this is user friendly?


do you have a thread started about your issue? i would like to take a look at it, see if maybe we can help you out, there are many many users that have nvidia cards working, mine took about 5 minutes

igknighted
April 11th, 2007, 08:38 PM
I am afraid I agree completely with the original poster. I have tried four times now to get Ubuntu to work satisfactorily and I just always hit a wall or block. I am the person all my colleagues call on to help fix their PC's. If I can not get along with it, how can we expect my mom, my grandma and other such users to get along?

Most users no absolutely nothing of how a computer works. Ubuntu is just too complicated for the average user.

Let's take my current problem. Installing NVIDIA drivers. The most popular video card on the market and I am having to trawl through this to get my screen to not be jerky.

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_Graphics_Driver_.28NVID IA.29

http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Latest_Nvidia_Edgy

And this is user friendly?

As I said before, call nvidia. Linux doesn't need this stuff. Linux isn't designed to interface the kernel with a binary driver. That is a shoddy workaround. As soon and nvidia and ATI step up to the plate and offer real open-source drivers and they don't work, complain away. But linux is about principles. We cannot bend to proprietary software. We cannot make the kernel easier to build binary drivers onto. We need to stand firm and force vendors to open-source the drivers.

mstlyevil
April 11th, 2007, 08:40 PM
I am afraid I agree completely with the original poster. I have tried four times now to get Ubuntu to work satisfactorily and I just always hit a wall or block. I am the person all my colleagues call on to help fix their PC's. If I can not get along with it, how can we expect my mom, my grandma and other such users to get along?

Most users no absolutely nothing of how a computer works. Ubuntu is just too complicated for the average user.

Let's take my current problem. Installing NVIDIA drivers. The most popular video card on the market and I am having to trawl through this to get my screen to not be jerky.

http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_Graphics_Driver_.28NVID IA.29

http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/Latest_Nvidia_Edgy

And this is user friendly?

Did you try another distro yet? I suggest Mepis or PCLOS if you want the easiest experience both hardware and software wise. SuSe gives me huge fits every time I install it. Ubuntu on the other hand as well as Mepis, PCLOS and Debian install and work flawlessly on my hardware.

I would suggest you try some others first before drawing a conclusion it is too hard to use Linux.

aysiu
April 11th, 2007, 08:47 PM
Mepis has had one-click installation of Nvidia drivers for at least two years.

It seems as if Ubuntu will have this in less than two weeks, too--with the release of Feisty Fawn.

I wouldn't judge Ubuntu's "desktop readiness" by its ease of installing Nvidia drivers, though. Ubuntu is committed to free and open source software. Closed source software is an afterthought or a concession.

Interestingly enough, Mepis has been around for almost three years, but people still say "Linux isn't ready" and "Linux is too difficult."

mstlyevil
April 11th, 2007, 08:58 PM
Interestingly enough, Mepis has been around for almost three years, but people still say "Linux isn't ready" and "Linux is too difficult."

That is because they choose distros like Debian, Open SuSe, FC and even Ubuntu (To a lesser extent) which require the use of the terminal for some basic things and you have to depend on third parties to get it fully up and running.

As soon as they see these distros are not as simple as Windows was to them (Not that Windows is simpler, they just perceive it that way.) they give up and scream that Linux is not ready.

We need to steer people who want to try Linux to the easy to use distros first or we need to physically help them set their systems up in order to change their perception.

darrenm
April 11th, 2007, 09:00 PM
I've been an IT Pro for 30 years... I've compiled lots of software for Microsoft when their programmers got stuck... I always reinstall windows for my friends and family and get told continuously I'm a whizz with computers... My experience includes AIX, Irix, Solaris, BeOS, OSX, SCO, Minix, Binix and others... Ubuntu wouldn't work my graphics card or sound and I'm the most technical person in the world with computers so everyone else must be lieing...

Yawn. Change the fappin record.

</rant>

aysiu
April 11th, 2007, 09:11 PM
We need to steer people who want to try Linux to the easy to use distros first or we need to physically help them set their systems up in order to change their perception. That's exactly what I do. I hate it when people say "Ubuntu is the best distro for new users." It isn't yet. Most new users love their proprietary software, drivers, and formats. I always recommend Mepis and PCLinuxOS before recommending Ubuntu. Hell, Mepis even is based on Ubuntu now and uses Ubuntu repositories.

an4rew
April 11th, 2007, 09:14 PM
Too many problems with Ubuntu for me, it looks really nice and well designed but not even close to windows which is so much easier and if i have a serious problem i know how to fix it. However when something messes up my Ubuntu i need HELP!

Ubuntu and other linux distros do not want to copy windows they want to be different and in doing that they are not making it easy for windows converts.

m.musashi
April 11th, 2007, 09:15 PM
I think Brunellus made a similar point a few pages back but it seems some people come to Linux and complain that Linus isn't ready, when, in reality, Linux is what it is. Unless you are helping to make it more like what you want, you had better be willing to adapt to Linux. If not, don't use it.

Are you ready for Linux? If not, and you want to use it, then take the time to learn and keep an open mind.

It seems pretty egotistical and self-centered to say that Linux isn't ready for me so it clearly isn't ready for anyone else. Otherwise, it's the user that isn't ready for Linux.

aysiu
April 11th, 2007, 09:21 PM
Too many problems with Ubuntu for me, it looks really nice and well designed but not even close to windows which is so much easier and if i have a serious problem i know how to fix it. However when something messes up my Ubuntu i need HELP! Translation: I'm used to Windows, and I don't want to learn a new operating system.

That's okay. Learning takes time and energy. If you don't want to learn something new, stick to what you know. But don't make it sound as if it's the fault of the new OS. If I move to China tomorrow, it's going to be tough for me to pick up Chinese. Doesn't mean English is a better or easier language to learn. I'm just more familiar with English.

In fact, as someone who used either Windows or MS-DOS almost all my life, I can attest to Ubuntu being much easier to learn. I had "mastered" (for my purposes, anyway) Ubuntu within a month of using it. "Mastering" Windows took me over a decade. It felt as if there was always something new to learn in Windows just to maintain it, even when I'd been using it for years. I had to learn Control-Alt-Delete. I had to learn to defragment. Then I had to learn regedit. Then I had to learn about anti-virus and anti-spyware tools. I had to learn about drivers and all sorts of confusing Control Panel options. Too much trouble, but I thought that's what computing was all about. When I finally rolled up my sleeves to use Linux, I found it wasn't as difficult as everyone said it would be... or even as difficult as it had been for me the year before.


Ubuntu and other linux distros do not want to copy windows they want to be different and in doing that they are not making it easy for windows converts. Yes, that migration assistant in Feisty Fawn is terrible. So is the easy codec installation. I'm sorry--what's so difficult for migrating? As far as I can tell, almost all of the complaints have to do with the fact that Ubuntu isn't preinstalled on most people's computers--nothing to do with the software itself.

scrooge_74
April 11th, 2007, 09:22 PM
Remember people want the easy way out on everything. I have seen many post where users just want somebody to give them the answer, they dont want to even look it up first. They just sign in and their first post is demanding a solution.

I for my part decided to learn as much as possible before demanding solutions from others which in many instances the solutions where there for those who will look for them. And then I try to give back by pointing people to the urls with the answers to their problems and not just tell them how to do stuff.

The typical Windows user wants things to be resolve by someone else rather than learn how to do stuff by themselve. In that sense Linux will never be ready for the desktop for them.

aysiu
April 11th, 2007, 09:25 PM
The typical Windows user wants things to be resolve by someone else rather than learn how to do stuff by themselve. In that sense Linux will never be ready for the desktop for them. Not if Dell makes good on its word. We'll see. It's all about preinstallation. Or at least that's one major part. The other major part is forcing people to use it at work and school.

If you're forced to use Ubuntu at work and school, do you really think you'd make your life any easier by buying a Windows computer for home?

m.musashi
April 11th, 2007, 09:25 PM
That's exactly what I do. I hate it when people say "Ubuntu is the best distro for new users." It isn't yet. Most new users love their proprietary software, drivers, and formats.
I think that is a little unfair to Ubuntu. I think it can be a great distro for new users - provided they don't have to install and set it up. Ubuntu, more than some others, requires a bit of tweaking if you want the proprietary drivers and such. If the new user can't do the tweaking then they will be frustrated. If someone else does the install and tweaking then I think it can be a great alternative.

But, yes, there are better options for a new user that wants to do it all but doesn't want to spend too much time learning anything (isn't that the MS model?). However, Ubuntu and SuSE were the first two distros I tried (I installed both at the same time but gave up on SuSE pretty quick) and I knew nothing about Linux at the time. I had my difficulties but I was willing to learn and so I did. I have since tried several others but I like Ubuntu best.

aysiu
April 11th, 2007, 09:28 PM
Considering most new users want proprietary stuff and install and configure Linux themselves, Ubuntu is not what I would recommend for them.

Special exceptions would be people who do not care about proprietary stuff, explicitly say they want to learn how to do things properly, love the command-line, or are planning to buy a System76 computer.

m.musashi
April 11th, 2007, 09:32 PM
Yes, I agree that if you want it all and you want to do it yourself Ubuntu may be a bit more of a hassle - or a learning opportunity :) depending on your frame of mind.

mstlyevil
April 11th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Considering most new users want proprietary stuff and install and configure Linux themselves, Ubuntu is not what I would recommend for them.

Special exceptions would be people who do not care about proprietary stuff, explicitly say they want to learn how to do things properly, love the command-line, or are planning to buy a System76 computer.

I started on Linux with Hoary. This was before EU and AX were options for getting multimedia. There was this ubuntuguide that was awesome for people willing to jump in and learn. I think I reinstalled 4 or 5 times the first week before I was able to get things done halfway properly. I would not trade that experience in for the world.

My sound had to be hacked to work properly. My drives had no DMA without hacking. My radeon choked, yet I stuck with it because I wanted to learn something. Now I can install most distros I tried with my eyes shut in less than 30 minutes and have them completely configured in about an hour to my liking.

I can't even say that about Windows to this day and I have installed it (From an actual Windows CD not a recovery disk) hundreds of times.

If you want to learn how to do things on Linux, then Ubuntu or Debian are perfect. If you want no fuss then you need to look elsewhere.

aysiu
April 11th, 2007, 10:34 PM
Same here, totally.

I tried Ubuntu because of all the hype, but I didn't know about doing checksums on ISOs, I got a bad burn on Ubuntu, and I also didn't know about the Ubuntu Guide at first. So even when I did get a good burn, I wasn't that impressed.

So I used Mepis for a month and loved it... until I realized the Mepis Lovers couldn't answer any of my intermediate questions... or even some beginner ones.

Eventually I found out about the Ubuntu Guide and the Ubuntu Forums, and I haven't turned back since. That was Hoary Hedgehog, which I think, besides Feisty, is the most solid Ubuntu release.

stalker145
April 11th, 2007, 11:54 PM
One thing I have noticed though, is that in all the rants like this one, the person making it always considers themselves "an above average user." Or their some IT professional or something. But I guess all of us newbs for whom it just works are just lucky geeks who don't even know that we're geeks.


The fact that you describe yourself as an above average user probably has a lot to do with that. Windows knowledge = nothing in linux. If you accept that you know nothing you will find more success. Good luck with win2k.


The problem is that you are used the way things are in Windows. Another OS requires always a learning/forgetting(old habits) period. Thats all.


Translation: I'm used to Windows, and I don't want to learn a new operating system.

That's okay. Learning takes time and energy. If you don't want to learn something new, stick to what you know. But don't make it sound as if it's the fault of the new OS. If I move to China tomorrow, it's going to be tough for me to pick up Chinese. Doesn't mean English is a better or easier language to learn. I'm just more familiar with English.

<DING> This is so true. How is it that someone who has never used windows (my five-year-old son) can pick up how to play games and tinker around with Linux, but it's so horribly difficult for someone with two decades of computer-related experience has to run off at the mouth about Linux "readiness"? It's amazing.
My 13-year-old son has no problems getting on my computer and getting on the interweb, writing papers, playing games, whatever... just point him at the USP ("Start Menu") and he's off to the races.
There are countless examples around this forum of people getting their parents/grandparent/old friends onto Linux and they soon are installing, configuring, and teaching others.
Oh, but wait, these people are all geeks that should be relegated to back rooms and called upon only in the event of a computer-related emergency. No, strike that, in a Linux-related emergency since Linux isn't ready for computers.
<Yawn>

Aysiu, I do thank you for placing these threads in one centralized location. It keeps me entertained and is always a nice reminder of why I've moved away from Winderz - arrogant users who know more than anyone because they can click a stinking mouse... what was that I just clicked?

aysiu
April 12th, 2007, 12:01 AM
I replied in this other thread to your last bit about the centralized location: How best to handle "Linux is not ready for the desktop" threads (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=396172)

J Snyder
April 12th, 2007, 02:57 AM
I've given Ubuntu a hefty benefit if the doubt over the past couple of years or so; I know it's a pretty much bulletproof OS and it's got tons of open source support behind it, but WHY IS IT SO HARD to get ANYTHING done? I've been at this ever since Dapper Drake and MY GOD I've never been so frustrated with a computer OS.

I freely admit I'm no computer whiz kid- I can assemble a machine out of spare parts and cobble up a working system, but damned if I know how to program anything. Which leads me to the root of the problem I have with Linux/Ubuntu:

It doesn't 'Just Work'. Far from it, in my experience. For every application- just playing mp3's for crying out loud- it's a trial and error thing to find what media player will run what or what needs what codec. For wireless networking, it's been an absolute nightmare- I won't even go into the anger-filled hours spent just trynig to get a perfectly good PCI card working. And how to get these everyday applications to work? Open a terminal and type in blah blah blah and hope for the best, because unless you're schooled in Linux you have absolutely no idea what you're typing or why- you do it because somebody in the forum said 'hey this is is how *I* got it to work'..and that's after you've seen a post or posts containing a completely different method!

I love the fact that it's a easy user interface, the fact that it does 'run straight from the box'- but only if you want, say, a word processor or hook into a wired network. Anything other than that and you're in for an education in frustration.

I'm working with 6.10 right now, and already my blood pressure is up a few points. I will be downloading the new beta- 7.04?- tonight and giving it a shot. If it's not any better in the 'it just works' department I'm going to have to shelve the Ubuntu idea and keep my browser bookmarked for future reference. I am tearing myself away from Windows, and have been considering going to either Ubuntu or Mac all the way- so far, it looks like I'll be working a lot on my perfectly working ten year old iMac before I even try to fire up a Linux machine again.

When Ubuntu gets to the point where I can install it, write a document, connect to an open wireless network, and play my mpeg or mp3 files without having to call a special session of Congress to get everything to work correctly I'll consider making the switch again. Until then, I am pained to say, Ubuntu and Linux in general will remain as nothing but a novelty in my collection of Operating Systems.

maniacmusician
April 12th, 2007, 03:15 AM
I've given Ubuntu a hefty benefit if the doubt over the past couple of years or so; I know it's a pretty much bulletproof OS and it's got tons of open source support behind it, but WHY IS IT SO HARD to get ANYTHING done? I've been at this ever since Dapper Drake and MY GOD I've never been so frustrated with a computer OS.

I freely admit I'm no computer whiz kid- I can assemble a machine out of spare parts and cobble up a working system, but damned if I know how to program anything. Which leads me to the root of the problem I have with Linux/Ubuntu:

It doesn't 'Just Work'. Far from it, in my experience. For every application- just playing mp3's for crying out loud- it's a trial and error thing to find what media player will run what or what needs what codec. For wireless networking, it's been an absolute nightmare- I won't even go into the anger-filled hours spent just trynig to get a perfectly good PCI card working. And how to get these everyday applications to work? Open a terminal and type in blah blah blah and hope for the best, because unless you're schooled in Linux you have absolutely no idea what you're typing or why- you do it because somebody in the forum said 'hey this is is how *I* got it to work'..and that's after you've seen a post or posts containing a completely different method!

I love the fact that it's a easy user interface, the fact that it does 'run straight from the box'- but only if you want, say, a word processor or hook into a wired network. Anything other than that and you're in for an education in frustration.

I'm working with 6.10 right now, and already my blood pressure is up a few points. I will be downloading the new beta- 7.04?- tonight and giving it a shot. If it's not any better in the 'it just works' department I'm going to have to shelve the Ubuntu idea and keep my browser bookmarked for future reference. I am tearing myself away from Windows, and have been considering going to either Ubuntu or Mac all the way- so far, it looks like I'll be working a lot on my perfectly working ten year old iMac before I even try to fire up a Linux machine again.

When Ubuntu gets to the point where I can install it, write a document, connect to an open wireless network, and play my mpeg or mp3 files without having to call a special session of Congress to get everything to work correctly I'll consider making the switch again. Until then, I am pained to say, Ubuntu and Linux in general will remain as nothing but a novelty in my collection of Operating Systems.
If you've been using Ubuntu for two years, and still haven't learned to use it, you either don't learn/adapt very well, or you don't make an effort to actually learn (as opposed to just following howto's and typing in commands that people tell you to). If you can't make the crucial effort to learn, then yes, Linux is probably not for you. Most of the problems you mentioned are pretty easily solvable.

Codecs; there are lots of howto's around that tell you what packages you need. Most of the packages you need are in the repository. Some are outside, and you can either hunt them down and install manually, or use Automatix to install them.

Wireless; If your specific card doesn't work at all in any way possible, tough luck. Linux can't force hardware vendors to release drivers. Save yourself the grief and go buy a Linux-compatible wireless card; there are some that work out of the box completely, no problems at all.

command line; stop just following other people's directions, and actually learn it. It's not monumentally hard. I hadn't touched it half a year ago, and now I use it quite often, because it's a lot faster than a GUI for doing certian things

In conclusion, I just have to say a few things; there's no way you've been using Ubuntu for two years and haven't learned how to install codecs or at least heard of Automatix. Additionally, your efforts are misdirected. You're too focused on fixing the problem. If you just learn how stuff works in Linux, problem solving becomes so much easier. Finally, you don't seem to agree with the Free ideals of Ubuntu. Canonical pushes the limits a little bit by including proprietary firmware drivers with their OS because they believe that hardware functionality is a basic need that surpasses everything else. Other than that, for things like proprietary codecs, they choose to stick to the philosophy that they have a commitment to. There's nothing wrong with that, especially since they're facilitating the installation of codecs so much already in a post-installation condition.

I hope you choose to interpret this constructively rather than as a flame. I'd hate to think that all that text got wasted.

tbroderick
April 12th, 2007, 03:21 AM
Maybe Ubuntu isn't for you. You should take a look at Mepis or Freespire as they include the codecs by default. Please don't dismiss GNU/Linux as a novelty just because you had problems with it. It works perfectly well for lots of people.

DoctorMO
April 12th, 2007, 03:51 AM
I love the fact that it's a easy user interface, the fact that it does 'run straight from the box'- but only if you want, say, a word processor or hook into a wired network. Anything other than that and you're in for an education in frustration.

I'm working with 6.10 right now, and already my blood pressure is up a few points. I will be downloading the new beta- 7.04?- tonight and giving it a shot. If it's not any better in the 'it just works' department I'm going to have to shelve the Ubuntu idea and keep my browser bookmarked for future reference. I am tearing myself away from Windows, and have been considering going to either Ubuntu or Mac all the way- so far, it looks like I'll be working a lot on my perfectly working ten year old iMac before I even try to fire up a Linux machine again.

When Ubuntu gets to the point where I can install it, write a document, connect to an open wireless network, and play my mpeg or mp3 files without having to call a special session of Congress to get everything to work correctly I'll consider making the switch again. Until then, I am pained to say, Ubuntu and Linux in general will remain as nothing but a novelty in my collection of Operating Systems.

Sir you do yourself a disservice by loosing your cool and degrading yourself to whining at the alta. We know the problems, they arn't our fault and if you can't deal with that then go away.

I suggest next time you want to rant you stick your head in a metaphorical water bucket and cool off that way.

such pests, do nothing ranters and nothing works cry babies.

GuitarHero
April 12th, 2007, 04:02 AM
I will give him this, without these forums those problems might not be as easy to solve. As much as I love these forums, I wish they weren't necessary to run ubuntu.

FoolsGold
April 12th, 2007, 04:10 AM
I will give him this, without these forums those problems might not be as easy to solve. As much as I love these forums, I wish they weren't necessary to run ubuntu.
With all due respect, you didn't learn how to use Windows on your own; no-one did. You'd work things out the best you could, but would have had to ask questions for things you didn't know. But since Windows is so prevalent, no-one remembers the first time they touched a computer, or at least Windows, so they think it was easy ever since the beginning. Nup.

Ubuntu is a little tricker, but not really that difficult. The problem is it's not prevalent to the extent that Windows is, so finding help is best done through the forums, and THAT'S perhaps the biggest reason Ubuntu is so successful - it's easy to get answers to questions. Ubuntu can always be made easier, but don't think that Windows doesn't require people asking for help either.

J Snyder
April 12th, 2007, 04:25 AM
For all those who have replied thus far: I freely admit I don't adjust very well and am a slow learner when it comes to having to hand-program an Operating System. My rant was borne perhaps from expecting too much from an essentially free product.

I KNOW the good folks who develop this stuff can't plan for every contingency; I KNOW they can't accomodate every Tom, ****, and Harry that downloads a Live CD and gives it a whirl.

On the other hand, I get the impression that Linux/Ubuntu is being promoted (at whatever level) as the logical 'savior' OS of computer users, given it's ease of installation and basic use. HOWEVER, though- as I mentioned, getting it to do anything other than what it comes pre-loaded with seems to be the proverbial 'stone in the shoe' of new users. I call as my first witness the Forums, specifically that section devoted to wireless networking. Linux/Ubuntu may in fact be 'all that' but for the masses it's just not easy to operate without having to self-school in how to program the thing to do what in any other system is a no-brainer.

I also lay no claim to having sat and worked *constantly* over Ubuntu for two years- far from it. I do have a Real Life (tm) and unfortunately it doesn't leave a whole lot of time to devote to learning computer coding and such. When I buy a new car, I don't expect to have to learn how to adjust the transmission for a smooth ride- when I install a computer OS, I don't want to have to spend hours to train it to do basic tasks. Certainly I'm sure there are easy solutions for getting sound, internet, etc., applications working, but why on God's green earth do they have to be so hard to find- average users like myself have a devil of a time finding solutions.

Perhaps I'm being too hard on Linux/Ubuntu- I know it's a good system and given the proper care and feeding it can do wonderful things. HOWEVER, learning HOW to care for it and feed it properly are, unfortunately, an uphill climb for some of us.

And, no, I'm not a whiner about it. Ubuntu is free; perhaps I should keep that in mind when I get frustrated with it and act/react accordingly.

Iowa Dave
April 12th, 2007, 04:36 AM
I used to be in that same mental space of ultimate frustration. It wasn't that Linux worked badly, it just didn't work as well as I wanted it to.

Not quite sure what happened. Hanging around in the forums I started to find answers that worked, and questions that I hadn't thought of, and answers to those questions, too. It turned my attitude completely around. I'm taking it one "challenge" at a time instead of all at once. And Ubuntu has become my primary platform, on a home network that includes MSOS and MacOS as well.

The bit about the codec means "driver" to me. I built a barebone recently that gave me issues with the video and audio. Went to the motherboard manufacturer's website to see what audio and video chips were built in. Found a how-to in the forums for installing the right drivers, and that took care of it.

The book stores are starting to carry more Ubuntu books. I'm building up a library of them. One thing I'm, finding is plenty of suggestions on things like which MP3 players work best.

One thing that helped me overcome some hardware problems: reinstalling the system. Ubuntu checks hardware during the installation and loads drivers based on what it recognizes. I ws able to fix a couple of issues with add-on hardware that way.

Hope that helps somewhat.

FoolsGold
April 12th, 2007, 04:51 AM
Download Automatix:

http://www.getautomatix.com/

It's been mentioned earlier, but this is a life savour if you want things done the way you're asking. Once you get it running, you'll see why.

ArtificialSynapse
April 12th, 2007, 04:54 AM
Yeah, I've honestly just started seriously using Linux in the last couple months, and although it's been a bit frustrating at times, I've not had that many issues with it, and when I do have issues ( as opposed to using something like Windows ) Linux actually tells me what's wrong, and allows me to intuitively fix it, rather than just patching this, or removing that. Maybe you've a seriously incompatible system or something, most of Ubuntu does just run ' out of the box ' anyways. Only a few things I can think of off hand that don't run out of the box, and if you follow some community based support, you'll get them up and running in no time. :(

brentoboy
April 12th, 2007, 05:03 AM
For all your aches and pains, I highly recommend linuxmint
http://linuxmint.com/

It has the benefit of being ubuntu -- I dont even mean "based on ubuntu" the current version (bianca) *is* ubuntu edgy, except it has mp3 codecs and video players and proprietary drivers and things pre installed and working.

I installed it on one of our boxes here, and my wife really liked it a lot. She went to CNN, and pulled up one of those video clips, and it just played. Unbelievable.

And, other than a handful of "questionably legal" repositories, its just an ubuntu system with a slightly different list of pre-installed packages.

the real benefit is, especially for a slow learner, all of what you already know will still work for you.

-good luck with that.
All those nay-sayers who say "maybe it just isn't for you" just aren't living up to the ubuntu code of conduct. Only you can say it isn't for you. And, if you haven't given up yet, try mint. Mint is refreshing.

aysiu
April 12th, 2007, 05:04 AM
Merged to the desktop readiness thread.

PatrickMay16
April 12th, 2007, 05:12 AM
Linux is no joke. You must be prepared to deal with hard to use stuff, stuff which makes little sense, stuff that won't work, stuff that works fine and then breaks for no reason, stuff that works only after hours of effort, long and complicated manual pages, and people who tell you that you're an idiot or that you're a whining crybaby after you get angry and complain about things.

If you can put up with that, then it's all good. If not, I'd suggest you get a mac if you're looking to get away from windows. Personally, I'm not keen on the Mac so much. But my dad loves it. I asked him 'how can you stand this mouse with no distinction between the different buttons' and I got in one lil fight and my mom got scared. She said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in bel Air'.
I whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I can say this cab is rare, but I thought 'Now forget it' - 'Yo homes to Bel Air'.
I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 and I yelled to the cabbie 'Yo homes smell ya later'; looked at my kingdom I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

darrenm
April 12th, 2007, 11:33 AM
If you have downloaded 7.04 then the codecs should be working for you now and maybe the wireless depending on your wireless card.

Incidentally, which wireless PCI card do you have?

stalker145
April 12th, 2007, 12:39 PM
I freely admit I don't adjust very well and am a slow learner when it comes to having to hand-program an Operating System... I also lay no claim to having sat and worked *constantly* over Ubuntu for two years- far from it. I do have a Real Life (tm) and unfortunately it doesn't leave a whole lot of time to devote to learning computer coding and such.

I can certainly relate to you here. I work 12 hours a day and come home to kids and a wife that need attention. You just have to have your priorities straight and, quite frankly, you do seem to have them straight for you.
I'm not going to say that you should sacrifice whatever it is that's keeping you from picking up on these strange commands, techniques, or terms - no way! You should understand, though, that it's just not right to blame someone else because you haven't picked this up as quickly as you feel you should have. Ever try learning another language? Spanish was a breeze for me. German wasn't too bad, but I forgot most of it over the last few years. Japanese - forget about it... too hard. It's all about how you apply yourself in the time that you've allotted to learn something.


When I buy a new car, I don't expect to have to learn how to adjust the transmission for a smooth ride- when I install a computer OS, I don't want to have to spend hours to train it to do basic tasks.

I love the car analogy - it's so cute. Let's look at it from another point of view. Your car is your computer. You turn on your computer/turn on your car. They both run. Now get on the internet/put the car in drive (or first gear)... have you figured that one out? Pretend you've never driven a car before since Linux is new to you. Now try driving on a highway, in the rain, during rush hour. Equate that to installing your wireless/codecs/video/whatever.

There's your comparison. You can not expect to be able to get into a car for the first time and drive like a pro any more than you can expect to be able to sit in from of a brand new operating system and make it work like someone that's used it for years efficiently.

Take a breath, relax, and seek knowledge. It will help you in the long run.

Brunellus
April 12th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Linux is no joke. You must be prepared to deal with hard to use stuff, stuff which makes little sense, stuff that won't work, stuff that works fine and then breaks for no reason, stuff that works only after hours of effort, long and complicated manual pages, and people who tell you that you're an idiot or that you're a whining crybaby after you get angry and complain about things.

If you can put up with that, then it's all good. If not, I'd suggest you get a mac if you're looking to get away from windows. Personally, I'm not keen on the Mac so much. But my dad loves it. I asked him 'how can you stand this mouse with no distinction between the different buttons' and I got in one lil fight and my mom got scared. She said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in bel Air'.
I whistled for a cab and when it came near, the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I can say this cab is rare, but I thought 'Now forget it' - 'Yo homes to Bel Air'.
I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 and I yelled to the cabbie 'Yo homes smell ya later'; looked at my kingdom I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air.
parents just don't understand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O4sSZc2WCU)

The Fresh Prince & DJ Jazzy Jeff for the WIN.

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 06:57 PM
Read this blog:

http://www.wildgardenseed.com/Taj/blog/2007/04/15/will-linux-ever-make-it-to-the-desktop/

I highly agree with it.

Linux needs to stabilize and implement Taj's suggestions.

What do you think?

Kernel Sanders
April 16th, 2007, 06:58 PM
Linux already has made it to the desktop iirc

use a name
April 16th, 2007, 06:58 PM
Hehe, to mine at least. :)

macogw
April 16th, 2007, 06:59 PM
Made it to my mom's desktop and my laptop...

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 07:04 PM
Read the blog!

macogw
April 16th, 2007, 07:16 PM
How do repositories not work? Repositories are a GREAT thing. They mean you have all trusted apps. I'd like to make a Synaptic-for-Windows that links to installers for all the Free Software for Windows just to make life easier. When s/he mentions beta testing, that's not for "regular users," it's for people-who-know-what-they're-doing. People-who-know-what-they're-doing can build from SVN/CVS or install a beta binary from a website on their own / with gdebi. CNR handles the commercial stuff for *spire/*buntu, so that doesn't really count for us either.

But I'll agree about Autopackage. Autopackage's 2 little files should be included in all distros by default so that using Autopackage doesn't even involve that first-time-download-to-set-it-up thing.

Drivers: ever heard of Portage? It compiles everything against your kernel. Why can't the little "wizard" act like a mini-portage?

Toadmund
April 16th, 2007, 07:18 PM
However, the kind of breakage I’m talking about doesn’t happen between these large releases. The “bad” breakage happens in the minor releases (2.6.8 -> 2.6.9, 2.6.17 -> 2.6.18). This causes 2 problems:

1. HW Manufacturers need to constantly update their drivers (if they’re not maintained by the Linux community).
2. Drivers usually can’t be backported easily.


I agree, when I update from edgy to Feisty, why do I need to re-compile my graphics driver?
Why not just keep the same configuration to carry over to the next version?
I've been without a functioning ATI driver for too long now, I think because my xorg 7.2 does not have a driver made by ATI yet, don't they get tired of writing us new drivers every 6 month's?.

Adamant1988
April 16th, 2007, 07:23 PM
I think the author of that blog does mean well, and he does introduce some arguments that I've not seen before, but in the end it's the same ol' story "FIX IT LIKE WINDOWS!".

GNU/Linux (as a platform) is much friendlier when you make the source available, particularly for ISVs. If a software developer releases the source, and works with distributions to ensure that X package makes it each distribution that they're targeting then they've done their job.

Firstly, I think a comparison between "Windows" as a platform and "Linux" as a platform is in order.


Windows: Is frozen upon release, software is then developed for each release, so that release becomes a platform. Windows XP was the standard windows platform for desktop users for years, now that is shifting to Vista. Future applications will be developed with Vista in mind.

"Linux": On the other hand, is a scattered platform if you even want to call it that. The REASON that Linux is capable of developing SO quickly is because of that very same fragmentation that the author complains about. a 1 year release cycle in Linux is fairly hefty anymore, and with two years of time (think Debian) the new software won't even run on your system. Linux is in a constant state of development from all sides, which is great.

The other issue here is, that (as you'll notice) when open source software is developed for "Linux" the source is released and so forth as per the terms of the GPL. These applications are designed with certain versions of libraries in mind, etc. They are NOT designed with XYZ distribution in mind most times.

So, as long as Xdependencies are available in a distribution, the software will work in that distribution. If ISVs want to develop easily for Linux and get help from the community at the same time they'll need to do a few things:

1) Release the source / GPL their software:
Yes, they can get around doing this and be alright, but it's a lot more work on their part.

2) Use a business model for this software that is NOT dependent on selling "copies" to the user. In most cases providing a strong highly demanded service is a suitable alternative.


So, in summary, It doesn't appear to be that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" but that ISVs are just not ready for "Linux". They'll come around eventually.

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 07:26 PM
How do repositories not work? Repositories are a GREAT thing. They mean you have all trusted apps.

I think you are misunderstanding here.

You are thinking of the interface Synaptic / apt-get and the resolving of dependencies.

What Taj and others (including I) want is to have a distro-neutral way of doing it. Repositories are bound to a distro.

The problem with the repositories is that someone will always want a newer version of a certain piece of software - and they don't want to upgrade their whole distro.

This is extremely annoying - let's say that I want to have the newest Rhythmbox on Dapper because it has some bug fixes I need - then I have to upgrade to Feisty which has that version. Not flexible enough.

Ideally the new version of Rhythmbox would have some dependencies like Gnome 2.10, Linux 2.6, Gtk 2.4. On Dapper, these are satisfied- then no problem, that can be installed!

macogw
April 16th, 2007, 07:26 PM
2) Use a business model for this software that is NOT dependent on selling "copies" to the user. In most cases providing a strong highly demanded service is a suitable alternative. [/I]

Subscription services. Plenty of online gaming things are done with subscription services. Make a basic free version and let that be in the repos, but then restrict access to things without subscription. This, of course, works best if the program interfaces with some online service, but I'm sure it's possible for offline things too.

IYY
April 16th, 2007, 07:28 PM
I'm sorry, but this guy is wrong. It's not that Linux has no problems, but they certainly are not the problems he describes.


The Linux kernel has no way for hardware manufacturers to distribute drivers with their hardware.

I don't think he understands how drivers (kernel modules) work in Linux. It is very possible for a company to offer a CD with drivers (or a simple download location), and companies like nvidia have done this. Anyone who has actually done any driver coding will say that it's actually much easier to write Linux drivers than Windows drivers.


Namespace Conflicts: Installing everything under one prefix just doesn’t work.

He says that this is one of the major six problems with Linux, but so far I am yet to see anyone affected by it.


No Platform: Linux has no list of standard libraries/versions of libraries that all distros are guaranteed have. (ISVs need this).

It's true that there is a need for more standardization of libraries, but it's not as bad as this guy thinks it is. You can always add a dependency, or ship the library with your program.


Centralized repositories for installation just don’t work.

...if this the case, then why is Microsoft trying to copy this model with Vista, advertising it as one of its greatest innovations? Same thing with platform online purchase models? It's a very very good system, and is much easier to use than the alternatives.

aysiu
April 16th, 2007, 07:28 PM
Another one of these?

Why?

Maybe I should start a poll called "What makes Linux better--'Linux isn't ready for the desktop' articles or actually doing something?"

In any case, this is what I have to say:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth

macogw
April 16th, 2007, 07:30 PM
I think you are misunderstanding here.

You are thinking of the interface Synaptic / apt-get and the resolving of dependencies.

What Taj and others (including I) want is to have a distro-neutral way of doing it. Repositories are bound to a distro.

The problem with the repositories is that someone will always want a newer version of a certain piece of software - and they don't want to upgrade their whole distro.

This is extremely annoying - let's say that I want to have the newest Rhythmbox on Dapper because it has some bug fixes I need - then I have to upgrade to Feisty which has that version. Not flexible enough.

Ideally the new version of Rhythmbox would have some dependencies like Gnome 2.10, Linux 2.6, Gtk 2.4. On Dapper, these are satisfied- then no problem, that can be installed!

What about the backports repos? Those bring newer software to older Ubuntus. I imagine other distros have something like that. And yes, I love the interface and ease-of-use and security of a repo, but I get that you'd want new stuff. But then, that's why we have backports. I do want to see Autopackage get bigger though. I really like the idea, and the implementation is really simple. If only those 2 files were installed by default :mad: then it wouldn't even require the right-click-and-make-it-executable thing. I've tried suggesting it for a default part of an Ubuntu install, but the devs won't do it.

Adamant1988
April 16th, 2007, 07:36 PM
What about the backports repos? Those bring newer software to older Ubuntus. I imagine other distros have something like that. And yes, I love the interface and ease-of-use and security of a repo, but I get that you'd want new stuff. But then, that's why we have backports. I do want to see Autopackage get bigger though. I really like the idea, and the implementation is really simple. If only those 2 files were installed by default :mad: then it wouldn't even require the right-click-and-make-it-executable thing. I've tried suggesting it for a default part of an Ubuntu install, but the devs won't do it.

I think that's because Autopackage has a history of not putting things where they belong, and probably doesn't play nice with the package management software.

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 07:40 PM
I think the author of that blog does mean well, and he does introduce some arguments that I've not seen before, but in the end it's the same ol' story "FIX IT LIKE WINDOWS!".

Not, that's not what he is saying. You are reading too much into it. He used Apple as an example as well.

What he wants is someone acting responsible. Not breaking API/ABI stability when NOT necessary. Do you think it is funny that Nvidia has to release newer drivers all the time or that Vmware suddenly doesn't work. It is simply irresponsible to something like that.

The end user is fighting with this, this is *not good enough*



GNU/Linux (as a platform) is much friendlier when you make the source available, particularly for ISVs. If a software developer releases the source, and works with distributions to ensure that X package makes it each distribution that they're targeting then they've done their job.


Proprietary software is not going away. Accept it.




Firstly, I think a comparison between "Windows" as a platform and "Linux" as a platform is in order.


Windows: Is frozen upon release, software is then developed for each release, so that release becomes a platform. Windows XP was the standard windows platform for desktop users for years, now that is shifting to Vista. Future applications will be developed with Vista in mind.

No, with Vista, Windows 2003 and XP in mind.




"Linux": On the other hand, is a scattered platform if you even want to call it that. The REASON that Linux is capable of developing SO quickly is because of that very same fragmentation that the author complains about. a 1 year release cycle in Linux is fairly hefty anymore, and with two years of time (think Debian) the new software won't even run on your system. Linux is in a constant state of development from all sides, which is great.


It is great. But do you think it is cool that hda is now known as sda? Even though the kernel developers has a good reason for that, it is not good enough. It is not okay to break something like that.



The other issue here is, that (as you'll notice) when open source software is developed for "Linux" the source is released and so forth as per the terms of the GPL. These applications are designed with certain versions of libraries in mind, etc. They are NOT designed with XYZ distribution in mind most times.


That is correct, but we are talking about stability here so Taj suggest NOT using totally unstable libraries.



So, as long as Xdependencies are available in a distribution, the software will work in that distribution. If ISVs want to develop easily for Linux and get help from the community at the same time they'll need to do a few things:

1) Release the source / GPL their software:
Yes, they can get around doing this and be alright, but it's a lot more work on their part.

2) Use a business model for this software that is NOT dependent on selling "copies" to the user. In most cases providing a strong highly demanded service is a suitable alternative.



So releasing binary-only software would not work?



So, in summary, It doesn't appear to be that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" but that ISVs are just not ready for "Linux". They'll come around eventually.

Yes, let's wait and see. There is not much commercially software available for Linux and there won't be in a long time. In the meantime all major vendors are selling Windows on their desktops (let's see if Dell has the balls).

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 07:46 PM
I think that's because Autopackage has a history of not putting things where they belong, and probably doesn't play nice with the package management software.

Maybe, but that doesn't explain why something like zeroinstall is not more popular.

Hint: distros don't want it. They want control of their packages. They don't want to supply a desktop with no software and software packages that can be easily installed on any distro. They think they will loose the competition.

koenn
April 16th, 2007, 07:50 PM
Another one of these?
I think this one's a little different. it goes beyond the superficial "... if Linux had this/that feature " or "if (a) Linux (GUI) behaved more like (the) Windows (GUI)".

Still, while I can"t really put my finger onhow I gor there, when finished reading the article I also had a feeling of
( Originally Posted by Adamant1988)

it doesn't appear to be that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" but that ISVs are just not ready for "Linux".

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 07:55 PM
What about the backports repos? Those bring newer software to older Ubuntus..

Yes, backports are good but only to an extent. That is when people stop making the backports or give up.

Backports rely on the libraries in that distro. They won't upgrade any of them - for stability purposes.

However, introducing side-by-side installations would solve this issue, I think. Why can't apt handle more than one version of a package?

koenn
April 16th, 2007, 07:56 PM
They want control of their packages. They don't want to supply a desktop with no software and software packages that can be easily installed on any distro. They think they will loose the competition.
Historically, distro's were the way to distribute linux + assorted software to those who were unable to compile a kernel + applications from scratch.
Hence the name "distro".

Now, today, for some commercial distro's, it may be about selling CD's, but I think it's mostly about providing support. If you want to offer support (the main business of opensource companies), you need a (rather stable) platform. Eg. Canonical can offer support for Ubuntu (with only packages from Main), because they then know what they're dealing with. they're not offering support for Universe, let alone 3th party repo's or .deb's in the wild.

Adamant1988
April 16th, 2007, 07:58 PM
Not, that's not what he is saying. You are reading too much into it. He used Apple as an example as well.

What he wants is someone acting responsible. Not breaking API/ABI stability when NOT necessary. Do you think it is funny that Nvidia has to release newer drivers all the time or that Vmware suddenly doesn't work. It is simply irresponsible to something like that.

The end user is fighting with this, this is *not good enough*

The end user would NOT have to fight with this if it weren't for the fact that these companies choose to keep their sources closed. Proprietary doesn't play nice with open source.




Proprietary software is not going away. Accept it.
It may very well diminish in importance, and eventually all but disapear. If open-source makes it to the point where your software won't get very far if it's closed up you have a very good incentive to open-source it.




No, with Vista, Windows 2003 and XP in mind.

New software is only going to be developed for XP and 2003 for so long. Honestly, Vista and Longhorn are going to be where it's at.





It is great. But do you think it is cool that hda is now known as sda? Even though the kernel developers has a good reason for that, it is not good enough. It is not okay to break something like that.
Honestly, never effected me any, and obviously it didn't do too much damage because my Linux systems work just fine. The open source community is quick to adapt.




That is correct, but we are talking about stability here so Taj suggest NOT using totally unstable libraries.

There are plenty of stable libraries out there, If they want to develop for mass approval they should go with more stable dependencies and develop for that.



So releasing binary-only software would not work?

No, it works, it works now even. It just isn't as efficient or easy as it would be to distribute your source code and let the distributions compile the packages for it and get it in the repos. Eventually corporations will realize how to effectively get to the GNU/Linux community.


Yes, let's wait and see. There is not much commercially software available for Linux and there won't be in a long time. In the meantime all major vendors are selling Windows on their desktops (let's see if Dell has the balls).
Honestly, I don't need it anyway. Most of my applications are run right inside of firefox, and anything that's running ON MY DESKTOP is open sourced and works great right from the repos.


Also, to argue your point about the repos being singled to a distribution, Not all distributions are the same, and therefor not all repos will suit them. A universal repo/package management system is not worth the time it would cost and the way it would slow down progress. Aside from the fact it won't happen.


Maybe, but that doesn't explain why something like zeroinstall is not more popular.

Hint: distros don't want it. They want control of their packages. They don't want to supply a desktop with no software and software packages that can be easily installed on any distro. They think they will loose the competition.

Yeah, it's all about competition. Never mind the STRICT standards that Debian and Ubuntu maintainers adhere too in order to NOT have the official repos break your system. I know if I poured my time into packaging things for a distro and joe-schmoe released an Autopackage that seriously screwed up Debian system, I would HATE to catch the flack for that one, but I probably would.

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 08:05 PM
Historically, distro's were the way to distribute linux + assorted software to those who were unable to compile a kernel + applications from scratch.
Hence the name "distro".

Now, today, for some commercial distro's, it may be about selling CD's, but I think it's mostly about providing support. If you want to offer support (the main business of opensource companies), you need a (rather stable) platform. Eg. Canonical can offer support for Ubuntu (with only packages from Main), because they then know what they're dealing with. they're not offering support for Universe, let alone 3th party repo's or .deb's in the wild.

I acknowledge what you are saying.

However, fixing the instability of the platform and making installing newer packages easier are not conflicting goals.

Ubuntu can only support their official packages, of course. However, see how little commercial software is in the repositories (skype, opera). ISVs don't want to build 30 packages, 1 one for every distro version (Dapper, Edgy feisty) and 1 one for every distro vendor.

Deb and rpm are not going away, I don't want them to. I want it to be easy to install future versions of my favorite software easily and not have to upgrade the distro all the time.

karellen
April 16th, 2007, 08:07 PM
it surely did make it to my desktop for couple of years. and it's here to stay :)

kragen
April 16th, 2007, 08:10 PM
nice post - that blog entry was an interesting read.

In response to some other peoples comments: I think some of you are taking this the wrong way and being a little overly defensive. Yes he's being very critical - but that's what constructive criticism is - criticism :P
For example, although he lays into centralised repositories a lot whilst failing to mention their advantages, I think its fair to say that he has a lot of good points on the subject - it might work now, but it might well not work if linux were to become more mainstream: Perhaps there changes that can be made that lead to a better solution for everyone.

Also, I don't think "Fix it like windows" is whats going on here - he's comparing to windows because, lets face it, windows is the predominant desktop for a reason - if linux really wants to compete, then we need to be looking at similar levels of functionality, but that doesn't mean we need to do it in the same way.

EDIT: For clarity: What I meant was we shouldn't "Fix it like windows", but we should look at the things that windows has up on linux, and recognise how those factors may or may not have played an important role in making windows the most popular desktop OS by a good margin.


I don't think he understands how drivers (kernel modules) work in Linux. It is very possible for a company to offer a CD with drivers (or a simple download location), and companies like nvidia have done this. Anyone who has actually done any driver coding will say that it's actually much easier to write Linux drivers than Windows drivers.

Hmm, it sounds a little like you don't understand what he means: The way I read it, the important part was the distribution of those drivers - there needs to be a nice way for users to install drivers - the binaries / sources that NVIDIA provide are horrible to install, everyone uses the drivers in repositories instead, for this very reason.

You might dispute the fact that these areas can be seen as "problems", but you can't dispute that there are many drawback to the current methods, and that there is room for improvement - There might well be far superior methods that fix the potential problems that he mentions, and keeps advantages that we currently have.

Adamant1988
April 16th, 2007, 08:15 PM
I acknowledge what you are saying.

However, fixing the instability of the platform and making installing newer packages easier are not conflicting goals.

Ubuntu can only support their official packages, of course. However, see how little commercial software is in the repositories (skype, opera). ISVs don't want to build 30 packages, 1 one for every distro version (Dapper, Edgy feisty) and 1 one for every distro vendor.

Deb and rpm are not going away, I don't want them to. I want it to be easy to install future versions of my favorite software easily and not have to upgrade the distro all the time.

I don't mean any offense but that's just not realistic.

First off: It is recommended by Microsoft that you re-install Windows every 6 months (or maybe 9, sometimes I get a bit dyslexic). Ubuntu releases on a 6-month schedule, predictably. So... updating every 6 months is theoretically not a big deal and comes with the Microsoft seal of approval :)

What you're asking is for distributions to intentionally destabilize themselves so that you can install Pidgin 2.9, or FireFox 3.0. which is just wrong of you to ask.

As for ISVs having to build 30 packages, they don't "HAVE" to do that. They CHOOSE to do that to avoid releasing the source to the community. If the source were released the application would spread like wild-fire and quickly find it's way into most repos.

On a side note, perhaps you would prefer a distribution like Arch Linux that uses a rolling release style. :)

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 08:17 PM
The end user would NOT have to fight with this if it weren't for the fact that these companies choose to keep their sources closed. Proprietary doesn't play nice with open source.

I agree with that.



It may very well diminish in importance, and eventually all but disapear. If open-source makes it to the point where your software won't get very far if it's closed up you have a very good incentive to open-source it.


yes, in thirty years or so. But the point is that people with needs that are not fulfilled with open source alternatives simply cannot use Linux. You think the fault lies totally on the vendor side, I say it is fault of both: Linux changes too many things and the vendors are not open enough.




New software is only going to be developed for XP and 2003 for so long. Honestly, Vista and Longhorn are going to be where it's at.

Sure, once XP and 2003 are phased out. Windows 2000 still works fine.



Honestly, never effected me any, and obviously it didn't do too much damage because my Linux systems work just fine. The open source community is quick to adapt.


Sure, just rewrite all the documentation. Oh, you using Linux 2.6.20: then its sda. If it is 2.6.19 it's hda, if it's 2.6.30 it is xda. Pretty redicilous.



There are plenty of stable libraries out there, If they want to develop for mass approval they should go with more stable dependencies and develop for that.


Sure, I am criticizing a program like eg.f-spot.



No, it works, it works now even. It just isn't as efficient or easy as it would be to distribute your source code and let the distributions compile the packages for it and get it in the repos. Eventually corporations will realize how to effectively get to the GNU/Linux community.
should go with more stable dependencies and develop for that.

You still havent covered the betatesting case / case where people won't upgrade their whole distro to use a program.



Honestly, I don't need it anyway. Most of my applications are run right inside of firefox, and anything that's running ON MY DESKTOP is open sourced and works great right from the repos.


Until I can play my videos, my music, have an online spreadsheet that doesn't work like s*it (doc.google.com), I will keep my desktop programs.



Also, to argue your point about the repos being singled to a distribution, Not all distributions are the same, and therefor not all repos will suit them. A universal repo/package management system is not worth the time it would cost and the way it would slow down progress. Aside from the fact it won't happen.


Why will it slow down progress? I haven't seen any good arguments for this.

It won't happen, I know. That's because people don't care.



Yeah, it's all about competition. Never mind the STRICT standards that Debian and Ubuntu maintainers adhere too in order to NOT have the official repos break your system. I know if I poured my time into packaging things for a distro and joe-schmoe released an Autopackage that seriously screwed up Debian system, I would HATE to catch the flack for that one, but I probably would.

Strict? Yes, Debian is strict for all its packages. Ubuntu for main, but not for universe.

Adamant1988
April 16th, 2007, 08:20 PM
nice post - that blog entry was an interesting read.

In response to some other peoples comments: I think some of you are taking this the wrong way and being a little overly defensive. Yes he's being very critical - but that's what constructive criticism is - criticism :P
For example, although he lays into centralised repositories a lot whilst failing to mention their advantages, I think its fair to say that he has a lot of good points on the subject - it might work now, but it might well not work if linux were to become more mainstream: Perhaps there changes that can be made that lead to a better solution for everyone.

Also, I don't think "Fix it like windows" is whats going on here - he's comparing to windows because, lets face it, windows is the predominant desktop for a reason - if linux really wants to compete, then we need to be looking at similar levels of functionality, but that doesn't mean we need to do it in the same way.



You see, everyone thinks that. Take a critical look and you'll see that "making it more like windows" is NOT the best way to do things. Copying windows is NOT always the best way to do things, etc. The only thing windows does right IMO is it's system configuration tools.

I would much rather have GNU/Linux rather than an open sourced version of Windows. If that's what you're after, go use React OS.

Also, Windows is the predominant desktop because Bill Gates made some very slick moves and put Windows in the position to be the predominant desktop. Linux is Linux, let it be what it's going to be and stop judging it according to what you've been taught is the way things should be done.

mech7
April 16th, 2007, 08:21 PM
How do repositories not work? Repositories are a GREAT thing. They mean you have all trusted apps. I'd like to make a Synaptic-for-Windows that links to installers for all the Free Software for Windows just to make life easier. When s/he mentions beta testing, that's not for "regular users," it's for people-who-know-what-they're-doing. People-who-know-what-they're-doing can build from SVN/CVS or install a beta binary from a website on their own / with gdebi. CNR handles the commercial stuff for *spire/*buntu, so that doesn't really count for us either.

But I'll agree about Autopackage. Autopackage's 2 little files should be included in all distros by default so that using Autopackage doesn't even involve that first-time-download-to-set-it-up thing.

Drivers: ever heard of Portage? It compiles everything against your kernel. Why can't the little "wizard" act like a mini-portage?

Repositories don't work because they don't contain ALL of the software and they don't contain up to date software..

igknighted
April 16th, 2007, 08:22 PM
it's on my desktop

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 08:25 PM
I don't mean any offense but that's just not realistic.

First off: It is recommended by Microsoft that you re-install Windows every 6 months (or maybe 9, sometimes I get a bit dyslexic). Ubuntu releases on a 6-month schedule, predictably. So... updating every 6 months is theoretically not a big deal and comes with the Microsoft seal of approval :)


First, that's not correct. If you can give me some documentation on that, I would appreciate it. Other than that, you are just trolling.



What you're asking is for distributions to intentionally destabilize themselves so that you can install Pidgin 2.9, or FireFox 3.0. which is just wrong of you to ask.


I think you are misunderstanding. I am advocating a way to install packages that don't conflict. I don't want packages to install into /usr (/usr is broken, I think).



As for ISVs having to build 30 packages, they don't "HAVE" to do that. They CHOOSE to do that to avoid releasing the source to the community. If the source were released the application would spread like wild-fire and quickly find it's way into most repos.


it's their choice. Their business model is based on proprietary software. I don't necessarily like proprietary software, but Linux would really benefit from having some games. Games companies won't open source their stuff.



On a side note, perhaps you would prefer a distribution like Arch Linux that uses a rolling release style. :)

yes, I was thinking of that.

justin whitaker
April 16th, 2007, 08:29 PM
I think the author of that blog does mean well, and he does introduce some arguments that I've not seen before, but in the end it's the same ol' story "FIX IT LIKE WINDOWS!".

GNU/Linux (as a platform) is much friendlier when you make the source available, particularly for ISVs. If a software developer releases the source, and works with distributions to ensure that X package makes it each distribution that they're targeting then they've done their job.

Firstly, I think a comparison between "Windows" as a platform and "Linux" as a platform is in order.


Windows: Is frozen upon release, software is then developed for each release, so that release becomes a platform. Windows XP was the standard windows platform for desktop users for years, now that is shifting to Vista. Future applications will be developed with Vista in mind.

"Linux": On the other hand, is a scattered platform if you even want to call it that. The REASON that Linux is capable of developing SO quickly is because of that very same fragmentation that the author complains about. a 1 year release cycle in Linux is fairly hefty anymore, and with two years of time (think Debian) the new software won't even run on your system. Linux is in a constant state of development from all sides, which is great.

The other issue here is, that (as you'll notice) when open source software is developed for "Linux" the source is released and so forth as per the terms of the GPL. These applications are designed with certain versions of libraries in mind, etc. They are NOT designed with XYZ distribution in mind most times.

So, as long as Xdependencies are available in a distribution, the software will work in that distribution. If ISVs want to develop easily for Linux and get help from the community at the same time they'll need to do a few things:

1) Release the source / GPL their software:
Yes, they can get around doing this and be alright, but it's a lot more work on their part.

2) Use a business model for this software that is NOT dependent on selling "copies" to the user. In most cases providing a strong highly demanded service is a suitable alternative.


So, in summary, It doesn't appear to be that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" but that ISVs are just not ready for "Linux". They'll come around eventually.

I never thought I would agree with Adamant on anything, but you can pretty much take this post, and say "DITTO!"

:D

GuitarHero
April 16th, 2007, 08:30 PM
All of the points that blogger made were valid, some were somewhat opinionated, but that it the nature of such. I agree with him on most counts, which is why I'm saving to move over to Apple.

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 08:34 PM
You see, everyone thinks that. Take a critical look and you'll see that "making it more like windows" is NOT the best way to do things. Copying windows is NOT always the best way to do things, etc. The only thing windows does right IMO is it's system configuration tools.

I would much rather have GNU/Linux rather than an open sourced version of Windows. If that's what you're after, go use React OS.

Also, Windows is the predominant desktop because Bill Gates made some very slick moves and put Windows in the position to be the predominant desktop. Linux is Linux, let it be what it's going to be and stop judging it according to what you've been taught is the way things should be done.

It is funny Adamant, that you didn't acknowledge kragen's points.

You want Linux to be left alone, we want it to improve - and not be like Windows. Maybe we just disagree.

However, I am seeing more and more of this: people constantly denying Linux's problems (or accepting it as it is) instead of accepting constructive criticism.

aysiu
April 16th, 2007, 08:42 PM
However, I am seeing more and more of this: people constantly denying Linux's problems (or accepting it as it is) instead of accepting constructive criticism. That's not what I'm seeing.

I'm seeing more and more of this: people constantly claiming Linux has problems it doesn't really have, ignoring the real problems Linux has and offering nothing constructive for improving Linux. Then there are those who are actually doing something productive (LSB, Portland Project, code fixing, documentation contributions, monetary donations, offerings of preinstalled Linux distros on computers for sale, etc.).

macogw
April 16th, 2007, 08:42 PM
Repositories don't work because they don't contain ALL of the software and they don't contain up to date software..

They contain quite a lot, and it generally is rather up to date, unless you're using Dapper, in which case, that's because you're going for "use old stuff for stability," like using a stable Debian release. If you want stable, you're getting old. That' just how it works. New and stable are very often mutually exclusive. And if by "up to date" you mean the latest beta, then you're obviously not asking for stability at all, and if you want unstable, you should be prepared to *fix* unstable stuff, and if you're good enough with computer to fix unstable breakage, you're good enough to compile things on your own. Keep pre-compiled binaries in repos for people who need them because they can't fix breakage. Those of us who can fix our stuff can also compile our stuff.

justin whitaker
April 16th, 2007, 08:42 PM
Ok, now I am going to say something constructive.

First: open source is like herding cats. It is impractical to think that all developers and distribution creators are going to simply comply with a central edict to "do things this way." That's not going to happen. In some ways, the diversity of development ideas and development styles is part of the reason why the platform moves so quickly-the diversity is a strength, in other words.

Second: there are plenty of of source based distros out there, if you dislike RPMs and Debs. The spectrum of usability v. flexibility goes from Sabayon on one end, to Linux From Scratch on the other.

One problem is dependency management: if there is not some sort of package or payload including all of the dependencies, then it is up to the developer to come up with some sort of intelligent dependency checking (and basically rewriting the wheel), or for the user to do it. I do not think that that is a recipe for growth of Linux installs.

For the stability question, I would say that bleeding edge distros are not stability compatible-things are going to break. That is why Debian and Slackware are still major players here, putting stability over chasing the latest fad (Beryl anyone?).

I can't speak to ETF, since I am not a programmer. If there is a major issue there, then that needs to be fixed. My sense is that this is more offends the bloggers sense of a clean OS, as opposed to a real system issue.

I would like to see people come up with real solutions to Linux's perceived problems. The source is there, why not take the code and run with it?

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 08:49 PM
That's not what I'm seeing.

I'm seeing more and more of this: people constantly claiming Linux has problems it doesn't really have, ignoring the real problems Linux has and offering nothing constructive for improving Linux. Then there are those who are actually doing something productive (LSB, Portland Project, code fixing, documentation contributions, monetary donations, offerings of preinstalled Linux distros on computers for sale, etc.).

How do you not know if the people donating or reporting bugs are not those who are complaining?

People can have many roles at the same time.

And what are the real problems then?

You cannot really change a lot if all the time you have is about one hour per day and you still want to be "a normal person" (socializing, having other hobbies etc.).

It takes people working on it full time.

Adamant1988
April 16th, 2007, 08:50 PM
It is funny Adamant, that you didn't acknowledge kragen's points.

You want Linux to be left alone, we want it to improve - and not be like Windows. Maybe we just disagree.

However, I am seeing more and more of this: people constantly denying Linux's problems (or accepting it as it is) instead of accepting constructive criticism.

I am not denying that it has problems, every piece of software/platform has it's pros and cons. What you call a problem, I call a feature. You only call it a problem because you want "Windows without Microsoft" so to speak.

Centralized Repos: Feature
Fragmentation: Feature

But honestly, problems with things like GUI config tools, etc. those are all distro dependent some distributions have TONS of config TOOLS, others would rather you do it by hand. "Different strokes for different folks" as they say.

A lot of people are exactly like you when they first move to Linux, and as time goes on you get used to it, although grudgingly, and then as time moves forward even more you eventually have this epiphany and say to yourself "Woah, I understand why they do this now". You might have known why things are the way they are before, but not understood it until much later.

In any case, you don't go into Apple's forums demanding they add a start bar, and accept viruses and spyware. What honestly makes you think you have any more of a right to come in here making demands (read: "opinionated suggestions)?

aysiu
April 16th, 2007, 08:52 PM
How do you not know if the people donating or reporting bugs are not those who are complaining?

People can have many roles at the same time. Well people should speak up then.

Next time one of these articles should come around, maybe the author should say, "And I'm so glad I'm part of making these improvements come about by doing ___________. Anyone who wants to help, here are some good resources for you to chip in." Otherwise, it just sounds like whining to me.


And what are the real problems then? If you want to know what the real problems are, check out the bug reports on Launchpad (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs), look at some of the threads in the Gutsy Gibbon development forum (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=238), and read the article I linked to earlier:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth


You cannot really change a lot if all the time you have is about one hour per day and you still want to be "a normal person" (socializing, having other hobbies etc.).

It takes people working on it full time. There are six billion people in the world. If each offered an hour of her time... think of the possibilities.

By the way, there [i]are people working full-time on Linux. Ubuntu employs its own full-time and fully-paid developers in addition to the volunteer developers who work on Ubuntu and various open source projects. Other distros also have full-time employees. There's someone at Red Hat whose job it is just to design icons and other artwork. It's a misconception about Linux and open source that everything is just volunteer. Volunteers do, however, contribute a lot. This entire forum (which has been helpful to me and to lots of others) is a volunteer effort.

23meg
April 16th, 2007, 08:55 PM
However, I am seeing more and more of this: people constantly denying Linux's problems (or accepting it as it is) instead of accepting constructive criticism.

What I'm seeing is more and more of this: people constantly bluffing with the "constructive criticism" card, rehashing complaints that are well acknowledged and being worked on, and ending up with a drawing hand. In doing that, they're not only being unable to provide valuable feedback; they're also creating nuisances that the uninitiated lose time on and get confused about.

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 09:05 PM
I am not denying that it has problems, every piece of software/platform has it's pros and cons. What you call a problem, I call a feature. You only call it a problem because you want "Windows without Microsoft" so to speak.


No, that's what you think. I want Linux without the problems. Again, you are twisting my words around. I never said anything about Windows.

Centralized Repos: Feature
Fragmentation: Feature



But honestly, problems with things like GUI config tools, etc. those are all distro dependent some distributions have TONS of config TOOLS, others would rather you do it by hand. "Different strokes for different folks" as they say.


This is not what we are talking about.



A lot of people are exactly like you when they first move to Linux, and as time goes on you get used to it, although grudgingly, and then as time moves forward even more you eventually have this epiphany and say to yourself "Woah, I understand why they do this now". You might have known why things are the way they are before, but not understood it until much later.


Sure, people of that opinion are noobs. That is trolling again.

I see what you are saying: we should just accept, nothing is going to change anything. If that's the way it is, you don't belong in the open source community. You should be *open* to new ideas, not close the discussion down.



In any case, you don't go into Apple's forums demanding they add a start bar, and accept viruses and spyware. What honestly makes you think you have any more of a right to come in here making demands (read: "opinionated suggestions)?

We are having a discussion. We are not demanding anything. We try to give constructive criticism.

kragen
April 16th, 2007, 09:07 PM
You see, everyone thinks that. Take a critical look and you'll see that "making it more like windows" is NOT the best way to do things. Copying windows is NOT always the best way to do things, etc. The only thing windows does right IMO is it's system configuration tools.

I would much rather have GNU/Linux rather than an open sourced version of Windows. If that's what you're after, go use React OS.

Also, Windows is the predominant desktop because Bill Gates made some very slick moves and put Windows in the position to be the predominant desktop. Linux is Linux, let it be what it's going to be and stop judging it according to what you've been taught is the way things should be done.

You completely misunderstood me - I didn't say we should copy windows, I don't think that would be a good idea - I said we should look at the reasons why windows is so successful and use it to identify whats missing in linux.


So, in summary, It doesn't appear to be that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" but that ISVs are just not ready for "Linux". They'll come around eventually.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree; are you seriously trying to tell me that not one of the many issues listed would be discouraging to ISV's? Better still: forget the ISV's for the moment, fixing the problems/issues (whatever you want to call them) listed will benefit the open source community greatly, it could lead to better stability, faster development - for me, the fact that it benefits the ISV's is immaterial in comparison.

Don't get me wrong: ISV's do need to change if they're going to mesh nicely with open source projects, but there are also steps that open source developers need to take if its ever going to happen. I see it more of a meet in the middle thing: ISV's aren't going to suddenly going to switch to the OSS way of thinking - it doesn't benefit them, at the same time, Open source developers aren't going to go out of their way to accommodate ISV's - the costs outweigh the benefits. We're going to meet in the middle.

Also: in the long term I think the mesh between ISV's and OSS needs to happen eventually for linux to survive as a usable OS.

koenn
April 16th, 2007, 09:09 PM
However, I am seeing more and more of this: people constantly denying Linux's problems (or accepting it as it is) instead of accepting constructive criticism.
OK, I do believe the guy that wrote that article meant it as constructive critisism. However, I do feel there's something wrong about his analysis.

How's this for a fifferent take on the matter:

The guy had valuable points in a world of proprietary software. There, you keep your source closed, and provide a stable ABI and a stable documented APT for ISV's to write their applications against. Same with drivers etc.

In an open source world you don't need that. The way Linus designed Linux is to include drivers by recompiling the kernel - everyone has the source so it's no big deal. It may be a big deal for and end -user, but distro's and their package maintainers take care of that. Same with "the latest newest" applications : They can be recompiled and packaged into a distro if the ISV made the source available (yes, Adamant has a point there). So the ISV's problem of 'I need a stable API/ABI for my closed sorce binary to interact with' is easily solved, in een open source context., not in a closed source context

Therefore, I think that the analysis in that blog speaks of Linux' faiulures/problems in a closed source/proprietary software model. Maybe that is not the point of an open source OS. Maybe the point was to change the model into an open source model. you know : think outside the box, change the rules of the gaim, change the context. Linux, GNU and the likes are just means to that end.

So the blog article indeed reeks of "fix it like windows" : it says : make Linux work in a world of proprietary software. Or (re kragen) : would looking at what made Windows succesful (in its own typical proprietary modell) have any relevance to making Linux succesfull in een Open Source context ?

lapsey
April 16th, 2007, 09:09 PM
there is a simple test for all this.

ask Grandma what


find . -name "*_40*" -execdir bash -c "mv \$1 \"\`echo \$1 | sed s/_40/\ /g\`\"" -- {} \;

means.

If she cannot answer, Linux is not ready for the desktop!

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 09:10 PM
What I'm seeing is more and more of this: people constantly bluffing with the "constructive criticism" card, rehashing complaints that are well acknowledged and being worked on, and ending up with a drawing hand. In doing that, they're not only being unable to provide valuable feedback; they're also creating nuisances that the uninitiated lose time on and get confused about.

Ok, let's rehash it:

Autopackage and Zeroinstall are working on easy installs. Are the distros helping them? No (for various reasons).

Is anybody working on easy driver installations? No

Is anybody working on the GTK header madness? No, not to my knowledge.

API/ABI: people are not working to resolve these issues.

LSB: Is not taken seriously.

So what a thread like this does, is to remind people that these points are being ignored.

aysiu
April 16th, 2007, 09:11 PM
What I'm seeing is more and more of this: people constantly bluffing with the "constructive criticism" card, rehashing complaints that are well acknowledged and being worked on, and ending up with a drawing hand. In doing that, they're not only being unable to provide valuable feedback; they're also creating nuisances that the uninitiated lose time on and get confused about.
More details here:
What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741&highlight=whining+difference)

Adamant1988
April 16th, 2007, 09:18 PM
You completely misunderstood me - I didn't say we should copy windows, I don't think that would be a good idea - I said we should look at the reasons why windows is so successful and use it to identify whats missing in linux.
Eh, the only thing windows has to offer is solid user GUI config tools.




I'm sorry, but I completely disagree; are you seriously trying to tell me that not one of the many issues listed would be discouraging to ISV's? Better still: forget the ISV's for the moment, fixing the problems/issues (whatever you want to call them) listed will benefit the open source community greatly, it could lead to better stability, faster development - for me, the fact that it benefits the ISV's is immaterial in comparison.

Don't get me wrong: ISV's do need to change if they're going to mesh nicely with open source projects, but there are also steps that open source developers need to take if its ever going to happen. I see it more of a meet in the middle thing: ISV's aren't going to suddenly going to switch to the OSS way of thinking - it doesn't benefit them, at the same time, Open source developers aren't going to go out of their way to accommodate ISV's - the costs outweigh the benefits. We're going to meet in the middle.

Also: in the long term I think the mesh between ISV's and OSS needs to happen eventually for linux to survive as a usable OS.

Oh, I know for a fact that the 'problems' listed there are an issue for ISVs, causing them to not support Linux as well. I just think it's a problem on their end not ours. The community builds it, if the ISVs don't want to make it for us and the demand is there it WILL happen eventually. This can be seen with the open sourced ATi drivers (which apparently are going to support my card very soon). ATi didn't release the source and the community reverse engineered the drivers.

in relation to your statement in bold:

If ISVs want so badly to develop for Linux it's simple: "Release the source, we'll take care of the rest". Personally I think the community has done a bang-up job so far without ISVs and if they choose to continue refusing to work with the community, then the community won't care.

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 09:18 PM
OK, I do believe the guy that wrote that article meant it as constructive critisism. However, I do feel there's something wrong about his analysis.

How's this for a fifferent take on the matter:

The guy had valuable points in a world of proprietary software. There, you keep your source closed, and provide a stable ABI and a stable documented APT for ISV's to write their applications against. Same with drivers etc.
[QUOTE=koenn;2464050]
In an open source world you don't need that. The way Linus designed Linux is to include drivers by recompiling the kernel - everyone has the source so it's no big deal. It may be a big deal for and end -user, but distro's and their package maintainers take care of that. Same with "the latest newest" applications : They can be recompiled and packaged into a distro if the ISV made the source available (yes, Adamant has a point there). So the ISV's problem of 'I need a stable API/ABI for my closed sorce binary to interact with' is easily solved, in een open source context., not in a closed source context

How are you going to deliver a driver to be installed on eg. Dapper?

Don't say, that you need the source, because dapper is a fixed target.



Therefore, I think that the analysis in that blog speaks of Linux' faiulures/problems in a closed source/proprietary software model. Maybe that is not the point of an open source OS. Maybe the point was to change the model into an open source model. you know : think outside the box, change the rules of the gaim, change the context. Linux, GNU and the likes are just means to that end.

So the blog article indeed reeks of "fix it like windows" : it says : make Linux work in a world of proprietary software. Or (re kragen) : would looking at what made Windows succesful (in its own typical proprietary modell) have any relevance to making Linux succesfull in een Open Source context ?

Nope, I think it deals with issues that are very real.

Adamant1988
April 16th, 2007, 09:22 PM
[QUOTE=koenn;2464050]OK, I do believe the guy that wrote that article meant it as constructive critisism. However, I do feel there's something wrong about his analysis.


How are you going to deliver a driver to be installed on eg. Dapper?

Don't say, that you need the source, because dapper is a fixed target.



Nope, I think it deals with issues that are very real.

If you want a driver for a fixed target, package it for that target. The tools to make .deb files for Ubuntu are free., last I checked. Otherwise release the source, and it WILL be taken care of.

aysiu
April 16th, 2007, 09:27 PM
there is a simple test for all this.

ask Grandma what


find . -name "*_40*" -execdir bash -c "mv \$1 \"\`echo \$1 | sed s/_40/\ /g\`\"" -- {} \;

means.

If she cannot answer, Linux is not ready for the desktop!
And you're basing this on what?

I don't know what that string of codes means, and Linux works fine for my desktop.

I don't see what that cryptic command has to do with anything.

Ask your grandma what
jdnajkn vkjlna bkjlent lkna blntqk tnlkbn al means. If she can't answer it correctly, then Linux is ready for the desktop.

Makes about as much logical sense as your post did.

I can only hope you were being sarcastic.

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 09:28 PM
Pathetic to put this thread into another one.

Just close it!

Henry Rayker
April 16th, 2007, 09:30 PM
Linux will be ready for the desktop when I have the time to install it...until then, my laptop will suffice and my desktop will remain powered off.

As far as the complaints are concerned, I agree with Adamant.

-Hardware drivers - bogus complaint and the author doesn't understand how these things work. The only problems I've ever seen are regarding video drivers...these issues are a result of the Beryl boom and will be sorted out in due time.

I think it is worth noting, however, that if the hardware IS supported in the kernel, the driver issue becomes a total non-issue. I think that is leagues ahead of M$...every time I reinstall the damn OS, I spend about 8 hours installing updates, drivers, restarting every 3 minutes, more updates etc. etc. etc.

-Namespace conflicts - well, it would be amazing if different projects didn't use the same name...but I think this is hardly a weakness worth noting. I've never encountered this issue, nor have I encountered a situation whereby it would happen...it WOULD be nice if the root directory was set up slightly differently (a bit more new-user friendly, if you will) but hardly necessary.

-Platform - I had SERIOUS issues from Windows 98 to Windows XP. A large amount of my software just wouldn't function properly. As Adamant pointed out, each windows release is treated as a separate platform and, once the newest is released, support for the previous releases is seen as a bonus, not as a given. In this regard, I don't see the "linux" model as being any worse. The releases do come more frequently, but I have experienced no ill effects.

-Stability - I'd rather have my apps unstable than my entire system. Viruses, adware and spyware, oh my!

-Repositories - The repos are, oftentimes, for stable software. They are for the everyday user to use. If you want newer software, compile it yourself. If a user is savvy enough to know (and care) when a new version is released, they will upgrade via the other channels (and possibly even beta test). I know people who were still running Firefox 1.0 up until a month ago on their windows machines...most people just don't CARE what version they are using.


I think that, for the most part, this argument seems to hinge on the fact that the linux model is one that harbors open source. Most of the problems seem to sit on the fact that users need proprietary (closed source) software. I am quite fine with my open source alternatives and have no desire to use anything else. The software I use at work (VLSI CAD software, for the most part) is ONLY available for Linux/Solaris machines...however, if the tools you need for your job aren't available here, maybe you should stick with Windows (or OSX)...trying to make the switch would be like a dentist trying to use a cement truck. Use the tools you need where they are available and don't complain that the reason your patients can't open their mouths is THEIR fault.

salsafyren
April 16th, 2007, 09:34 PM
More details here:
What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741&highlight=whining+difference)

Making a difference?

Yes, under your terms!

You cannot handle a discussion and calls it whining.

Really mature.

justin whitaker
April 16th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Pathetic to put this thread into another one.

Just close it!

Actually, if you read this thread, you will see many of the points you raise (and the blogger raised) are echoed here.

Welcome to the larger discussion. :D

23meg
April 16th, 2007, 09:41 PM
So what a thread like this does, is to remind people that these points are being ignored.

No, all it does is make people lose time that they could have used constructively to improve FOSS, and confuse them. I could have triaged a few bugs, tested an ISO image or sorted a couple of ideas/specs with the free time I wasted in this thread; I didn't, neither did the people viewing and posting to this thread, and that's a loss for FOSS.

It's called barking up the wrong tree; the people who read your "constructive criticism" here can do nothing about those problems, and the people who can do things already know about them. The end result: you do more harm than good, even though your intentions may be good.

Adamant1988
April 16th, 2007, 09:48 PM
Making a difference?

Yes, under your terms!

You cannot handle a discussion and calls it whining.

Really mature.

Uhm, it is whining. Also the purpose of this thread as far as I can tell is to introduce you to JUST how unoriginal and well documented your complaints are.

Either go fix it, pay someone to fix it, or be quiet.

kragen
April 16th, 2007, 10:43 PM
Eh, the only thing windows has to offer is solid user GUI config tools.

Oh, I know for a fact that the 'problems' listed there are an issue for ISVs, causing them to not support Linux as well. I just think it's a problem on their end not ours. The community builds it, if the ISVs don't want to make it for us and the demand is there it WILL happen eventually. This can be seen with the open sourced ATi drivers (which apparently are going to support my card very soon). ATi didn't release the source and the community reverse engineered the drivers.

in relation to your statement in bold:

If ISVs want so badly to develop for Linux it's simple: "Release the source, we'll take care of the rest". Personally I think the community has done a bang-up job so far without ISVs and if they choose to continue refusing to work with the community, then the community won't care.


Windows has over 300 times as many users and linux does, its got a bit more than just pretty GUI tools. If you truly believe that's all windows has to offer, then you're as nieve as you sound.
ISV's can't do anything about the problems listed - all they can do is try and work around them. Unfortunately there's only so much they can do, and invariably what they end up with is a shabby, unprofessional experience - which is difficult to sell. They're not going to develop for linux until someone works around these problems - it has to be the linux developers, these physically aren't problems that ISV's can work around.
ISV's don't want to develop for linux: they want to make money. If they release the source code and turf it over to the community, then they won't make any money: It's not going to happen.
Ultimately ISV's don't loose out - the open source community does. We're the ones who don't have good graphics card drivers because we don't have the spec's for the cards, and the developers wont release good drivers themselves. We're the ones who have to run games in wine, Graphic artists can't use Photoshop, or any of the other industry standard professional video and photo editing tools.

I'm done arguing with you, I know I can't win, because I used to think like you do :) It's still very fustrating though - you seem to want the open source movement to shoot itself in the foot, simply to prove that OSS is better than proprietary software, when in fact the real test is simply in how good linux is: whether or not it means that some linux users buy some software from ISV's. Surely its better that people use linux whilst needing to buy some software from ISV's, rather than people being forced to use windows because they need to buy software from ISV's.

saulgoode
April 16th, 2007, 11:14 PM
.. Surely its better that people use linux whilst needing to buy some software from ISV's, rather than people being forced to use windows because they need to buy software from ISV's.

Why is that better? The users would then still be dependent upon the whims of a proprietary vendor for support. NVidia doesn't release the details of its hardware for one main reason: they want to drop support for that hardware in a couple of years so that you have to buy new hardware. Adobe uses the same subversive business model as Microsoft: is it somehow "better" to be dependent upon Adobe to visit certain webpages than it would Microsoft?

Linux provides a way for developers to work together, sharing their experiences, knowledge, and code to fill a need they consider pressing: eliminating dependency upon the business model of "intellectual property" and planned obsolescence. Its goal is not to eliminate those things -- you are free to depend upon them if you like -- just to offer an alternative. Mutating Linux into a proprietary model does not support that goal.

Adamant1988
April 17th, 2007, 12:21 AM
Windows has over 300 times as many users and linux does, its got a bit more than just pretty GUI tools. If you truly believe that's all windows has to offer, then you're as nieve as you sound.
ISV's can't do anything about the problems listed - all they can do is try and work around them. Unfortunately there's only so much they can do, and invariably what they end up with is a shabby, unprofessional experience - which is difficult to sell. They're not going to develop for linux until someone works around these problems - it has to be the linux developers, these physically aren't problems that ISV's can work around.
ISV's don't want to develop for linux: they want to make money. If they release the source code and turf it over to the community, then they won't make any money: It's not going to happen.
Ultimately ISV's don't loose out - the open source community does. We're the ones who don't have good graphics card drivers because we don't have the spec's for the cards, and the developers wont release good drivers themselves. We're the ones who have to run games in wine, Graphic artists can't use Photoshop, or any of the other industry standard professional video and photo editing tools.

1) If you are seriously going to downplay the effect that smart business moves and marketing have had on the Windows user base you are more naive than you sound.
2) No, ISVs have a great option that they think they don't have. open up their code.
3) Open source != no money: You can make money in open source through other means than boxing up your software and selling versions.
4) Really? Because I don't feel like I've lost out on anything. I don't use beryl, or 3d acceleration of any kind, I don't need those drivers they're just a fun play thing. Obviously if the demand were high enough in the Linux community for a photoshop esque program an open source version would exist. Maybe it's being worked on right now. The same goes with other "industry standard" tools.

GNU/Linux is not a catch-all. It is not for everyone, it does not do everything nor should it.




I'm done arguing with you, I know I can't win, because I used to think like you do :) It's still very fustrating though - you seem to want the open source movement to shoot itself in the foot, simply to prove that OSS is better than proprietary software, when in fact the real test is simply in how good linux is: whether or not it means that some linux users buy some software from ISV's. Surely its better that people use linux whilst needing to buy some software from ISV's, rather than people being forced to use windows because they need to buy software from ISV's.
No, I want the "open source movement" to stand on it's feet. I'm personally very tired of dealing with the small amount of proprietary bits and bobs on my machine. You argument suggests nothing other than "open source can't do it!", well, wrong. "Open source" CAN do everything that it needs to and it WILL. But don't take my word for it, wait ten years
.

kragen
April 17th, 2007, 01:45 AM
Why is that better? The users would then still be dependent upon the whims of a proprietary vendor for support. NVidia doesn't release the details of its hardware for one main reason: they want to drop support for that hardware in a couple of years so that you have to buy new hardware. Adobe uses the same subversive business model as Microsoft: is it somehow "better" to be dependent upon Adobe to visit certain webpages than it would Microsoft?

Linux provides a way for developers to work together, sharing their experiences, knowledge, and code to fill a need they consider pressing: eliminating dependency upon the business model of "intellectual property" and planned obsolescence. Its goal is not to eliminate those things -- you are free to depend upon them if you like -- just to offer an alternative. Mutating Linux into a proprietary model does not support that goal.

Its better because we are only partially dependent on proprietary vendors, rather than being completely dependent, as is the case for the majority of computer users at the moment (through windows). Of course not being at all dependent would be ideal, but that's never going to happen until OSS proves itself as a viable business model - through linux becoming a successful OS, that people actually use.

Take graphics cards for example: There has been one attempt at an open source graphics card project, but to my knowledge it has been largely unsuccessful - probably because development of graphics cards takes a fair amount of money and resources - for someone to commit to that they have to be sure its not going to turn out to just be a huge loss. It's only ever going to happen once OSS has been proven.

By making linux work nicely with proprietary software, not only is linux going to become more usable, and hence more widely used, but we are going to encourage proprietary developers to work with linux, which could (in the distant future) help persuade those developers to have a go at open source development.

If OSS then goes on to prove itself against closed source development, then eventually proprietary software is going to become less common until its essentially completely replaced. In the worst case, where it turns out that OSS doesn't stand up against proprietary software development when it comes to more resource-intensive areas (like gaming development, where lots of artists etc... are needed, or hardware development), then we're left with an open source OS, that works with proprietary vendors to make up for its shortcomings - which would have been the best we could have hoped for anyway if OSS doesn't turn out to compete.

Of course I think that OSS is a far superior way of thinking, but if linux developers insist on shooting themselves in the foot, and going out of their way not to support proprietary software, then people either won't be able to run linux because the industry standard software they require doesn't run on linux, or won't want to run linux because users need to mess about with 3rd party repositories and instructions to install simple things like or graphics card drivers, or mp3 codecs. (ogg is never going to become popular until after linux is popular - how far are hardware developers going to go to support the audio compression format of choice of less than 0.3% of the worlds computer users).

Seiti
April 17th, 2007, 02:57 AM
there is a simple test for all this.

ask Grandma what


find . -name "*_40*" -execdir bash -c "mv \$1 \"\`echo \$1 | sed s/_40/\ /g\`\"" -- {} \;

means.

If she cannot answer, Linux is not ready for the desktop!

My grandma doesn't have a computer... But I do have one, switched from Debian Sarge to Ubuntu last year and still don't know what that line of code means... (not without the man pages =)

Ok, but if my grandma had a computer maybe I could ask her what


net statistics server

means, and know if Windows is desktop ready =)

Adamant1988
April 17th, 2007, 03:05 AM
Its better because we are only partially dependent on proprietary vendors, rather than being completely dependent, as is the case for the majority of computer users at the moment (through windows). Of course not being at all dependent would be ideal, but that's never going to happen until OSS proves itself as a viable business model - through linux becoming a successful OS, that people actually use.

Take graphics cards for example: There has been one attempt at an open source graphics card project, but to my knowledge it has been largely unsuccessful - probably because development of graphics cards takes a fair amount of money and resources - for someone to commit to that they have to be sure its not going to turn out to just be a huge loss. It's only ever going to happen once OSS has been proven.

By making linux work nicely with proprietary software, not only is linux going to become more usable, and hence more widely used, but we are going to encourage proprietary developers to work with linux, which could (in the distant future) help persuade those developers to have a go at open source development.

If OSS then goes on to prove itself against closed source development, then eventually proprietary software is going to become less common until its essentially completely replaced. In the worst case, where it turns out that OSS doesn't stand up against proprietary software development when it comes to more resource-intensive areas (like gaming development, where lots of artists etc... are needed, or hardware development), then we're left with an open source OS, that works with proprietary vendors to make up for its shortcomings - which would have been the best we could have hoped for anyway if OSS doesn't turn out to compete.

Of course I think that OSS is a far superior way of thinking, but if linux developers insist on shooting themselves in the foot, and going out of their way not to support proprietary software, then people either won't be able to run linux because the industry standard software they require doesn't run on linux, or won't want to run linux because users need to mess about with 3rd party repositories and instructions to install simple things like or graphics card drivers, or mp3 codecs. (ogg is never going to become popular until after linux is popular - how far are hardware developers going to go to support the audio compression format of choice of less than 0.3% of the worlds computer users).

I am normally not a "black or white" person, but if one proprietary company controls an IMPORTANT part of your experience, you're every bit as much a slave to them as before. Moving to free software and then using proprietary bits and bobs to give you an experience you NEED gives you exactly the same amount of freedom you had before. So, you're either Free or you're not, I don't see room for a gray area.

Do I use proprietary bits? absolutely, I have fglrx installed on my system, and I've got flash and mp3 codecs. Honestly, of the three, flash has the greatest control over my use of the computer. So I'm very excited to hear that gnash is producing an open implementation, as many of the websites I frequent and services I use require that flash be installed (My Google Talk client for one)

m.musashi
April 17th, 2007, 03:39 AM
there is a simple test for all this.

ask Grandma what


find . -name "*_40*" -execdir bash -c "mv \$1 \"\`echo \$1 | sed s/_40/\ /g\`\"" -- {} \;

means.

If she cannot answer, Linux is not ready for the desktop!
I suspect the point you are trying to make is that as long as this type of code is needed to run Linux on your computer then average users will never be able to run Linux.

This type of logic, however, if very flawed. Using Linux on a computer (or even windows for that matter) is not the same as setting it up. My wife is about as computer illiterate as they come and yet she is able to use Ubuntu on her laptop day in and day out without any problems. I simply set it up and don't mess with it. It has run flawlessly for about 18 months now. I upgrade to the new release every 6 months and run occasional updates.

Most of us on these forums have problems because we either like to play around and inevitably break something (part of the learning process for many) or we are new users trying to install an OS without a lot of experience. Once it's set up, and you leave it alone, it is a very competent alternative to OSX and windows.

Cheers

rsambuca
April 17th, 2007, 06:04 AM
Where the heck did all these posts suddenly come from?:confused:

steven8
April 17th, 2007, 06:32 AM
Where the heck did all these posts suddenly come from?:confused:

Well, they don't all have the same thread title, so I'd say it was yet another merger. Just a guess, mind you.

Tomosaur
April 17th, 2007, 02:11 PM
there is a simple test for all this.

ask Grandma what


find . -name "*_40*" -execdir bash -c "mv \$1 \"\`echo \$1 | sed s/_40/\ /g\`\"" -- {} \;

means.

If she cannot answer, Linux is not ready for the desktop!

That makes no sense. Grandma doesn't need to use that command. However - she can if she wants to. It's like saying a screwdriver isn't 'ready' because you can turn it in two different directions. Computers are far more powerful and versatile than Windows allows you to be. Linux makes no attempt to cripple itself to stop you messing up. It's not a valid complaint to say that just because you can utilise obscure commands, it's not 'ready for the desktop'. If anything, YOU are not ready for Linux, if you want your hand held all the way.

prizrak
April 17th, 2007, 07:43 PM
Last I checked Linux ran on 45% of world servers. It also runs a good percentage of supercomputers (not sure what the actual percentage is). All of those use some kind of hardware that requires drivers and proprietary software. For example the company I work for uses Oracle on RedHat servers. I use Flash and RealPlayer on Ubuntu. Somehow all the horrible API/ABI, broken compatibilities and crazy FLOSS voodoo don't stop those things from being installable and working. So if ISV's manage to create server software and even desktop software that seems to work fine on Linux (even games look at id) then wtf are we talking about?

Apparently it is more than possible to:
1) Create proprietary software and drivers that will work just fine on Linux.
2) Make money even if your main product is open (Sun Microsystems anyone? Perhaps IBM? RedHat and Novell don't seem to be in trouble either).

What is this talk about lack of proper open source video cards? There is Intel that has open drivers. In fact they are working on a discrete graphics board and all of their built in stuff works.

There is CnR that allows ISV's to sell software on Linux and not give a damn about API/ABI issues,

Not to mention that no one is stopping them from doing what they have been doing on Windows since 98. Provide a package that has all the dependancies within it and install it into user's directory. In fact when I install NetBeans from Sun (it's not in repos) it sets up a menu entry for me. When I click on a .jar file it will run in Java without any other actions on my part.

That neatly brings me to another way ISV's can develop for Linux. They can use things like Mono and Java. This way they don't have to care about what is going on with the system. These projects are open source and are available in the repos. Life of an ISV is not as grim as it sounds and there are many different ways of selling for Linux.

abcuser
April 17th, 2007, 07:43 PM
I would like do discuss about good and bad think about Ubuntu:

Good (pro):
1. Free (and open source) software that just works. The biggest disadvantage of property software are not the software it self (because it is not-free) but maintenance of software. Property software has official release and service packs, fixpacks, patches, hot fixes, special builds etc. So you need to install for example version 5.0 and then couple of fixes which can be a nightmare. With free or/and open-source software there is version 5.1.8.1.1 so one final version with all fixes included.

2. It is very very easy to install software that is planed (integrated) into Linux. In Ubuntu there is Application | Add Remove option that just installs the software without any wizard - just does the dirty install job. This tested software always works.

Bad (contra):
1. The worst thing in Linux (Ubuntu too) is installation of third party software not included in Ubuntu itself (property software) like games and any other kind of property software. If you would like to install any kind of third party software, there can be a nightmare on Linux. Reading manuals "is must" job also asking questions on forums "is must" job. Having pre-installation tasks, installation tasks and post-installation task are very common property software procedures on Linux. After that getting official help from companies like IBM, can also be a nightmare - I just got some answer from IBM, that they are aware that some product doesn't work on Ubuntu and that I should find out a solution by myself until (probably not in the near future) IBM finds out solution by itself. Windows has one excellent solution it is called setup.exe after running this command wizard display and you just pick some options and next, next and finish. All the dirty install and post-install tasks are done automatically without reading manuals or asking for some expert experience. Installing third party software on Windows is just mater of minutes, installing on Linux can be the mater of days.

2. Second nightmare on Linux is lack of standardizations between Linux distributions. I have been working with different Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Red Hat, Suse, Fedora) and there are so many different problems installing and configuring each of distributions that I doubt there exist system like "Linux" - there just look like there are several "Linux" systems. That is bad, very bad. There are also many different administration tools. I love Yast on Suse Linux, but running yast on any other distribution just returns error "command not found". There is needed a lot of time to have working software on different distributions. Because lack of standardization on Linux system there are at least two problems: less software is programed by ISV, because it cost money to adopt to different distributions and because of lack of standardization there are pre-install, install and post-install tasks. That makes administration more complex and more costly to maintain.

3. The wrong marketing behind popularization of Linux. Linux is marketing as substitute to Windows, which is not entirely true. The true is that for almost every property software there is open-source substitute. What is the problem is that end user must learn new software to get the same functionalities that has already have on Windows. If someone is learning to use new software it should be better like Firefox 1.5 against Internet Explorer 6. If it is not most average user will hate Linux. The worst thing for average user is "command shell" - why the hell I must use shell commands to do simple task like installing software. What I see Linux is good for three kind of people:
- one that have very little knowledge (because of lack of knowledge that don't have any additional trouble),
- standard Mum & Dad users which are using web browser, e-mail program (or Gmail from Google) and some kind of simple text editor
- experts and geeks - they don't mind to spend some time to learn/read manuals/ask on forums etc.
But Linux is probably not suitable for the biggest group that is ordinary users with some (but not expert) kind of knowledge. They know little bit of this and little bit of that. They spent some months or years to get this basic knowledge and now they need to throw away all this knowledge to get ordinary task to do. So marketing of the Linux as "better" system is totally wrong, because Linux is not better it is different. Just like Windows is driving a car, Linux is just riding a motorcycle. So if you want to enjoy the ride you need to learn.

That are my pro & contra. What about your opinion?

prizrak
April 17th, 2007, 07:44 PM
It's like saying a screwdriver isn't 'ready' because you can turn it in two different directions.
Hey that's real confusing man :( I always turn it in the wrong direction at first.

dspari1
April 17th, 2007, 07:48 PM
What is so hard about double clicking on a *.deb file and clicking the install button? The only thing hard that I've come across is getting windows applications to run with Linux, but that's about it.

drbob07
April 17th, 2007, 07:54 PM
In rebuttal, there is amazing standardization between Linux distributions.

For one, they for the most part use the same kernel.
Secondly, if someone does not offer a .DEB package, there are guides on converting RPM's, and the source almost always comes with an INSTALL / README doc that you can use step by step to compile and install the software.

Every linux distro is capable of compiling source code provided you follow instructions. Not to mention everything you want you can get using Synaptic or apt-get anyways.


Then about the proprietary software, this is a *good* thing, the last thing I want is a FREE OPEN SOURCE piece of software installing closed source drivers, props to ubuntu for the whole restricted-drivers manager.

And I don't think Linux is in the market as a Windows Substitute so much as it is in the market as being an advanced users OS / the free Open Source OS. Although distros are popping up all over that are trying to be more "Windows User Friendly"


And you shouldn't be focused on finding proprietary software as much as you should be focused on finding open source alternatives. The only program I don't have an open sourcce alternative to is Counter-Strike and Ventrilo, both of which run excellently under wine ;)

manojvekaria
April 20th, 2007, 08:19 AM
This is a question that bugs me all the time? Its an open ended question.

One of the main aims of ubuntu is being user-friendly. Which i think it is not. It is really really hard for a newbie to get used to Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is going to overtake Vista, or Mac when Its got the following Features

Installation
It has to get a very powerful installation engine. Almost every half a minute someone is posting, how do i install, beryl, why isn't flash working blah blah. Just go to packet manager, and click. You are going to get it.

Ready on the Road
It should have everything a user needs pre-installed in the installation CD.

1) The Most Widely used Drivers (Graphics Card, e.t.c, wireless cards). If someone has fixed a support for drivers. It should direct the user to the site, and directly install, without any stupid code. To make a system, you have to be user friendly. How can anyone type code, when he does not understand what is going on.

2) Beryl - Installed on the CD, if your computer is capable. click and its working. No need to script and mess. No Downloading, themes ready to implement.

3) All Media Codecs. A powerful player. only one player, which is easy to use, and can play almost every kind of a file, including flash, DVD's e.t.c

4) All the most widely used Applications. i.e Mozilla with hotmail, gmail addons. Firefox with all the real, flash add-ons, Adobe Reader e.t.c Why does some one have to download Automatix, or anything. Put it there on the Installation CD.

5) VMware - Almost 90% of ubuntu population uses dual booting system. It should have Vmware, i.e a small button which has a microsoft logo (If you have any windows version running), you click it, and windows open sin a new desktop, or a tab. A single click you're in windows, and on another back to ubuntu. (It should be ready on the ubuntu). When the computer starts, it asks you politely (which session do you want to choose.). Together with WINE and NTFS -3g, meaning you can open .exe files, and also read and write to your new drive, which is both shared by windows and ubuntu. Your document drive. Incase anything crashes, your documents are always safe. (Automatically create a Document drive partition.)

6) Video Tutorials. When you freshly install ubuntu, it should welcome you, tell you how much of your hardware is not working, and will it be able to fix it automatically. Showing you in video's how to use thunderbird, get the things done in ubuntu the way you were doing in windows.

7) Let Ubuntu Speak English, not C. It should have its own huge tutorial website. which has views on which ready made devices, can have ubuntu working, without any tweaking. all hardware works seamlessly. If you have tutorials. Have diffrent versions of Ubuntu (Dell, Hp support)e.t.c If you download the version. Install it like a .exe file, and its working.

8) A good interface, like vista. if you start typing it has search results of programs, documents e.t.c. Simple. It gives you comments, and doesn't bug you like vista does.

9) Lastly Offline Suppport - I do not have a working internet connection. If you are saying that ubuntu is for all the people who can't afford Vista. Then they cannot afford a high speed internet connection. Lets take a scenario - If you want to install a new program. start clicking on the synaptic packet manager. The manager is going to make you a file. Including the dependancies and everything. Quote you how much downloading it will take. All you have to do is put the file on the flash disk. Go to a cybercafe, or your friend's house which has an internet connection. double click the file, and bang. a progress bar appears, showing how much downloading has been done. when its finished. its already made up a bigger file.

go back to ubuntu, and double click the file, all you needed is installed seamlessly, giving you peace of mind.




-------------To not make it large--------
Most Computer Users have something better to do, rather than spending hours typing code, and getting them frustrated. Make a System, which is ready on the Road. Detects what you want, and installs it. The next time you want more. Put the CD/DVD, and you get it. no fuss. After a month. You get asked if you want to make backup. it makes a .iso file, with the base ubuntu, and all the features you had. if you crash. Put the backup CD, and you are back.

This is what i call Ubuntu - Linux for Human beings. What it is now is Ubuntu - Linux for Computer Geeks.


Don't mind the language

kahrytan
April 20th, 2007, 08:33 AM
I hear you. Ubuntu does need better Newbie support. You should do some Video sessions yourself. There is an app in repo that records the desktop. I forgot the name.


1. VMware is same the thing as the Virtual PC. It has nothing to do with dual booting. I will say that Grub needs a GUI for configuration.
2. Libdvdcss2 for encrypted dvds is illegal to use. Thus not installed by default.
3. Compiz is installed on Feisty but disabled. It needs graphics card driver installed which is easily done too.
4. You should do Video Tutorials yourself. This is the linux community so contribute by doing that. And if you are a newbie, then all the better.
5. Linux can look better then Vista using themes from gnome-looks.
6. Offline support is done by the DVD. It containsa boatload of packages on it.
Ubuntu Feisty can overtake Vista but it lacks playability of the latest games. WoW does play on Linux with Wine and is allowed by Blizzard Entertainment.

DreamcastJack
April 20th, 2007, 08:37 AM
I'm still pretty new w/ the Buntu, but I only get a few set backs every once in awhile. I think Fiesty is a step in the right direction.

jvc26
April 20th, 2007, 08:47 AM
I dont normally reply to these 'ready for the desktop' posts, as we all know the arguments whiuch are batted forwards and backwards seemingly infinitely. But I thought this time I shall put my views across, I'm afraid I definitely disagree with you on a fair number of these points.



One of the main aims of ubuntu is being user-friendly. Which i think it is not. It is really really hard for a newbie to get used to Ubuntu.

I fear you are mixing up user friendly and user familiarity. You wont be used to Ubuntu - how many people have used Linux before - very few, most use Windows, and as with everything it takes time to get used to the new method of doing stuff. But man - synpatic for installing - how easy and simple is that? The Install process is a point and click/tab select depending on what you're doing, and also, the forums are here which pretty much helps you through any of the learning process if you're willing to go for it.



Ubuntu is going to overtake Vista, or Mac when Its got the following Features

Interesting point, but have you considered - does Ubuntu want to? Remember, Ubuntu is about freedom, it wants people to have the choice of what they want to install, put on the OS they desire, its not about we want the largest market share. Installation should be up to everyone and i think Ubuntu is more about making itself more usable and better for its users, not about driving to make everyone install Ubuntu.




Installation
It has to get a very powerful installation engine. Almost every half a minute someone is posting, how do i install, beryl, why isn't flash working blah blah. Just go to packet manager, and click. You are going to get it.

Apt-get is majorly powerful - how much more powerful than the windows alternative - get millions of separate cds, put them in then get the exe run that and there you go. Ubuntu - just either type in apt-get install or search on synaptic click... and you're there.



Ready on the Road
It should have everything a user needs pre-installed in the installation CD.

It does, in accordance with Ubuntu's licensing - REMEMBER, Ubuntu doesnt ship with any proprietary things as it is a FREE OS, its designed with Freedom in mind so installing proprietary things is not available - they're not hard to add, but it does have pretty much everything you need. Also think, there are millions of packages out there that people use - to put everything that everyone needs on a cd you'd need about 50.



1) The Most Widely used Drivers (Graphics Card, e.t.c, wireless cards). If someone has fixed a support for drivers. It should direct the user to the site, and directly install, without any stupid code. To make a system, you have to be user friendly. How can anyone type code, when he does not understand what is going on.

Follow guides on the forum/wiki - theyre very easy to do like copy and paste this in to terminal...
The second is there is the Envy script - download, install and then run - gfx drivers installed, and you're up and running.



2) Beryl - Installed on the CD, if your computer is capable. click and its working. No need to script and mess. No Downloading, themes ready to implement.

Youve missed the main issue here. Beryl is BETA software, therefore not considered stable enough for distro inclusion. Also beryl and compiz are remerging so maybe after that has happened and stability improves it might be, but until then, its not stable enough to be included under Ubuntu's strict package inclusion policy. And - not everyone wants beryl, lets face it.




3) All Media Codecs. A powerful player. only one player, which is easy to use, and can play almost every kind of a file, including flash, DVD's e.t.c

See above. Ubuntu is about freedom, no proprietary stuff, and all the different players have different things people like/dislike - why else would there be so many to choose from. You dont have to go beyond Rhythmbox to be honest unless there is something you want particularly. Also I can go one further. There are an awful lot of codecs, mp3 included which to add them into the distro straight away would be ILLEGAL in several/many countries. Even XP doesnt come with every codec you have to download them for that too via players/illegal downloads.



4) All the most widely used Applications. i.e Mozilla with hotmail, gmail addons. Firefox with all the real, flash add-ons, Adobe Reader e.t.c Why does some one have to download Automatix, or anything. Put it there on the Installation CD.

Its free. Thats why. Also why put on adobe reader when there is a free one on there already? You dont have proprietary things because it is against ubuntu's license.



5) VMware - Almost 90% of ubuntu population uses dual booting system. It should have Vmware, i.e a small button which has a microsoft logo (If you have any windows version running), you click it, and windows open sin a new desktop, or a tab. A single click you're in windows, and on another back to ubuntu. (It should be ready on the ubuntu). When the computer starts, it asks you politely (which session do you want to choose.). Together with WINE and NTFS -3g, meaning you can open .exe files, and also read and write to your new drive, which is both shared by windows and ubuntu. Your document drive. Incase anything crashes, your documents are always safe. (Automatically create a Document drive partition.)

VMWare is owned by a company you see - you have to get a license for your copy so you cant put it in ubuntu. Also have you considered how many of your '90%' actually dual boot. There are a huge number of folks here, like me who are 100% Ubuntu and dwouldnt want all that stuff already on their system slowing them down, using resources they dont want used. Also added point here::: Why do you dual boot? - its important to remember VMWare doesnt support 3d at the moment. Loads of people want games, on VM unless your pc is insanely fast they will perform badly if at all as pretty much every game requires 3d drivers, and won't run in VM. Basically what you are advocating is a dual boot - a window which asks you which you want to boot into? That sounds like grub to me. Also - if you can run an OS natively it runs better than in VM always (unless again, your pc is so blindingly fast) but if it is so fast surely then there is no issue with a dual boot? VMs are good for apps such as photoshop which are a lacking in Ubuntu. But for anything requiring 3d you're all at sea... Dual boot won't be defeated by VMs because not everyones pc is a monster which is capable of running it as fast as if it were just running native. Dual booting isnt hard, and its as simple as selecting the OS in GRUB. VMs alas cannot do what a dual boot can, and as such the situation you are advocating is inadequate for things beyond needing the second OS for things like photoshop. Finally, a VM can only support what Ubuntu recognises - it doesnt have additional hardware support as it uses the hots OSs hardware, so if Ubuntu doesnt recognise it you wont have it in a VM either. So you have to dual boot if there is no way of getting hold of certain things.



6) Video Tutorials. When you freshly install ubuntu, it should welcome you, tell you how much of your hardware is not working, and will it be able to fix it automatically. Showing you in video's how to use thunderbird, get the things done in ubuntu the way you were doing in windows.

Ubuntu isnt windows mate. Thats a fact at that won't change. If it does, Ill stop using Ubuntu. I don't want a windows clone, I want a nice clean lined system, much faster and nicer than windows, one which is efficient and does everything I want quickly and simply. Yeah tutorials are nice as they show you what you need to learn, but no, not how to do everything you did in windows in ubuntu - thats a waste of time, if you want to adopt Ubuntu you have to leave windows behind you. Its a different OS and as such has different rules. If you buy a mac do you use it like a PC???? You use it for what you need it for, but in the way a mac is used, not as if you have a flash looking, pc.



7) Let Ubuntu Speak English, not C. It should have its own huge tutorial website. which has views on which ready made devices, can have ubuntu working, without any tweaking. all hardware works seamlessly. If you have tutorials. Have diffrent versions of Ubuntu (Dell, Hp support)e.t.c If you download the version. Install it like a .exe file, and its working.

Havent you ever seen the wiki? Its got loads and loads of information on there seriously, pretty much everything. Ever done a forum search? Pretty much every question has been answered before, honestly. Also when you installed windows was the install process any harder than the Ubuntu one? I think you'll find it isnt - you dont just double click an .exe you get your cd, boot from it, then follow the partitioning and install steps - sound familiar? Ubuntu's install process is pretty similar - except... you dont have to go through installing all your mobo drivers after ubuntu is installed (pretty much, there are hardware components which arent recognised) but more are recognised in my experience - with windows I had to install sound, networking, usb2, etcetc after installing windows. No such extra steps with Ubuntu (apart from ATI, but thats not Ubuntus fault thats ATI being a closed source company which refuse to OSS their drivers or release good linux ones.



8) A good interface, like vista. if you start typing it has search results of programs, documents e.t.c. Simple. It gives you comments, and doesn't bug you like vista does.

I dont want a blinking Windows clone cheers, I'm happy being free of that, and gnome is a lovely interface, its clean, plain and without all the rubbish which comes entrapping things like Vista - install beryl for eyecandy and you have a lovely looking system.



9) Lastly Offline Suppport - I do not have a working internet connection. If you are saying that ubuntu is for all the people who can't afford Vista. Then they cannot afford a high speed internet connection. Lets take a scenario - If you want to install a new program. start clicking on the synaptic packet manager. The manager is going to make you a file. Including the dependancies and everything. Quote you how much downloading it will take. All you have to do is put the file on the flash disk. Go to a cybercafe, or your friend's house which has an internet connection. double click the file, and bang. a progress bar appears, showing how much downloading has been done. when its finished. its already made up a bigger file.
go back to ubuntu, and double click the file, all you needed is installed seamlessly, giving you peace of mind.

Download the .deb files, double click and install. Have you every seen the 'make package script' in the synaptic package manager? Makes you a script to download all the dependencies, you go to a connection run it, the dependencies are downloaded and woah - a double click on the .deb file installs them ;) (FYI - go to synaptic package manager, select the files you want, and allow the dependencies, then I think it is -> File -> Make Package Download Script (Or words to that effect) and then it will ask you where you want the script saved to. Select the desktop for instance, then take it to a connected pc and run the script and so on...



This is what i call Ubuntu - Linux for Human beings. What it is now is Ubuntu - Linux for Computer Geeks.

I'm not a geek, I use Ubuntu to work and get things done, I use Ubuntu to ensure that my system runs quickly and efficiently, I do my work, do gfx designing, watch dvds, listen to music, check my emails, go on the internet. (pretty much what everyone uses computers for) I have a lot of time when I'm not with my computer, thats having a life. Ubuntu is a working OS if you want it to be, it doesnt need to be a windows clone. Thats why its for human beings - not for machines who dont think, just have what comes to them on a plate - pre installed and no choice in what goes on/doesnt, dont need to investigate when things go wrong - instead have to go to someone else who charges them the earth to fix their problems, dont need to know where things are or what their computer is doing. Yeah you can use Ubuntu without knowing whats going on - copy and paste commands, and it will serve you well - wont get clogged up with viruses, non fixed registry things, need defragging every few months etc one set up it will run... and run... but for those who want to explore and be free of windows as well as those who dont want to know but are willing to bother to set it up to avoid windows, man Ubuntu is, at present the best OS around for that. The day it becomes a windows clone, I'm out of here - full of bloat, viruses, slow, grumbly, full of massive apps I dont want or need - I had enough of that with windows.

One other point. Ubuntu is about freedom - thats freedom to choose. If you want windows - why dont you use windows? Im not saying that in a throwaway attack sort of a thing, merely, despite all its failings windows does a lot and if you need certain apps is pretty much the only platform. Why so keen to get rid of it? If you're happy with windows there is absolutely no reason to adopt Ubuntu - in fact I would advise against it, unless you have a particular need to or want to.

Il

mdbarton
April 20th, 2007, 08:52 AM
In installing the additional codecs, drivers, flash, etc I''ve learnt a lot more about ubuntu. Yes it took some time - but really no more than the time wasted on windows installing the latest anti-virus, anti-adware, anti-spyware software - and far more rewarding! My advice if you're new to ubuntu - stick with it, once you've got the initial setup done, you'll probably find that it is a much more stable and usable OS than windows.

Yeah, games would be nice.

freebird54
April 20th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Whew! ok - here's my take.

Installation. Ubuntu is the only thing I have ever installed that went competely through without errors, or needing drivers to complete. Many people find the same. The posters are the unlucky ones.

It has everything the user needs - unlike any nonfree alternatives. OPenOffice, CD players - browsers - all the the usual things.

1. Most widely used drivers are on the install CD. You are on the net to get anything else that might crop up, not stuck in an excusive install program waiting.

2. Compiz is installed by default - turn it on in preferences. Beryl is an option - in the repos.

3. Not legally possible. Very easy to get, instructions on first page of User support forums.

4. See above. Automatix not needed.

5. Very dependent on hardware possibility. If you are running a dual boot with 256 RAM, and a 20Gb HD - not possible. Might be interesting as an option - but also tricky re: licensing your WIn installation.

6.Videos might be nice. However,3 problems. First is hardware requirements - you need enough to be able to play a vid. Second - with speed of version releases, difficult to keep them current. Third - we need people to make them. See earlier post.

7. 2 things here. Documentation could be simpler. Keep in mind that all documentation has to be produced in much more than English. The Links provided in the Bookmarks in Firefox send you to a lot of the best Docs. These forums provide the rest. Other things - version for supplier? Not even MS can afford to do that - the seller configures MS to fit its hardware. Ubuntu already detects and just works on most on them.

8. The interface is already better than Vista - and for more configurable. I know of at least 7 choices of window manager available for it.

9. Easily handled. Just order the DVD set for a complete (including repos) distribution. Everything at your fingertips with no net access (well - everything except the forums :) )

Last sugggestion re backup. Could be an idea - and doable - if it can detect what hardware you have that could do the job. Easy to have it make the suggestion though - good idea.

Hope this helps your understanding of the current situation!

Jhongy
April 20th, 2007, 09:06 AM
I hear you, but you need some perspective.

1. Linux does have the most widely used drivers pre-installing, already there in the kernel for you. Windows does not and never has. First thing after installing Windows is to run through your list of hardware and find/install drivers for them. The Ubuntu installer is IMO faster and more polished than the Windows equivalent.

2. It will be when it is ready. Right now it is not. It is Beta software. You must understand that it cannot be included by default. Despite this, Compiz is just two clicks away in Feisty.

3. Read Ubuntu's mandate. It is about *free* software - free as in freedom. They therefore leave out these codecs. If you install a fresh copy of WinXP SP2, you'll also find it is missing the majority of codecs you will need -- many of which you will have to downlaod from untrusted sites. In Ubuntu, you can install them with just a few clicks.

4. You don't yet "get it". Don't worry, I didn't at first. All applications are provided in the Ubuntu repositories. All you have to do is go into Synaptic and search for them and click "go". This is *much* easier than the equivalent search-find-guess-download procedure on Windows, or search-find-torrent-check-for-viruses-install process.

Automatix is really unneccessary here, and IMO can be confusing to new users.

*this* is where the community fails for newbie users, IMO. The install process is actually very natural when explained properly, but most people who help just type up a few commands because it is quicker. But it is not the *only* way.

For example, to install an application that isn't already in the repositories, most people will give you
-- a line of code to open and edit your repository sources list
-- a line of code to download a public key for authenticating to the new repository
-- a line of code to add this to your system
-- a line of code to get and install the new app from the repo.

This, while very efficient and powerful -- and one of the things many people grow to love about Linux, is completely unacceptable for newbies.

The same procedure is very intuitive and completely possible using point-and-click:
-- open synaptic, find the menu entry for adding a software source
-- add the location of the source
-- download the public key
-- in synaptic, find the menu entry to import the key
-- find the software you want in synaptic and click to install

This is less efficient, but much, much easier for newbiews to understand and becoe comfortable with. It's a much gentler introduction. And users are much more likely to see the benefits of shared, secure repositories, and their power, "friendliness", and ease of use. They won't "get" anything -- just like you didn't, if presented with simple command line entries.

5. I don't think Ubuntu should start offering Windows integration by default -- sorry, I think that would annoy too many users. Of course they can't use the MS logo! What the heck?

6. Agreed -- make them yourself. Ubuntu is a community project. Someone has to do it, and that someone will be a user like you. Get involved, participate, learn together, have fun! That's what this is about. Make a website of the videos and stick some ads on to cover your costs or make a little cash, if you like.

7. No, Ubuntu is genuinely rather easy to use, it is just *different*. I agree help pages could be upgraded may times over. As for .exe files -- no, no, no, no. Linux is not Windows. One click installs through trusted repositories is far superior to allowing random files to execute on a click, and all the inherent security implications therein. Think of Ubuntu as a universe of trusted applications that we can all add to and you'll hopefully begin to see the appeal. I think this needs to be more openly evangelised to new users.

8. I think the interface is pretty straightforward. Again, I agree with better offline documentation. try visiing your Synaptic package manager and installing "Beagle" (or searching for "search" in there). You'll get an instant search tool that is way, way better than the Windows equivalent.

9. is an interesting idea. It would be relatively easy to produce with a few scripts. "create script to download these files on another computer" option would be pretty neat. Guess what, go into the development forum and ask for the feature. Make a good case. It may end up in future versions of Ubuntu. That's what this is about.

If, after all of this, you still don't "get it"... that Ubuntu is different, it's not *supposed* to be like Windows, although we all would like it to be easy to install and use, then you really should go back to Windows. Here you have a huge community that is collaborating on making something that is easy to use, open, free/non-restrictive, and something that innovates and expands our computing boundaries. They're not attempting to copy Windows -- that's not the point. If after reading this, you can still see the value of the project, then remeber this: you (like me), are a noob. Accept that things are different and move on. Learn the differences. It won't be long until you see for yourself that people are not lying when they say that it's not more difficult, "it's just different". I didn't believe a word of it at first, but I do now.

x-ray vision
April 20th, 2007, 09:28 AM
3. [/B]Read Ubuntu's mandate. It is about *free* software - free as in freedom. They therefore leave out these codecs. If you install a fresh copy of WinXP SP2, you'll also find it is missing the majority of codecs you will need -- many of which you will have to downlaod from untrusted sites. In Ubuntu, you can install them with just a few clicks.
I haven't had any problems playing audio/video with Windows XP, but I've had all sorts of problems with Ubuntu. I still can't play video clips that end in .3gp with audio, even after searching the forums and starting a thread here and on other message boards. It really would be nice to have an OS like Ubuntu that doesn't have the things that most of us hate about Windows (cost, viruses, spyware, resource hog, etc.) while still having the ease of use of Windows for those of us who don't get the satisfaction of figuring out how to fix these problems; we'd just rather not have the problems to begin with.

jvc26
April 20th, 2007, 09:58 AM
I'm sure you dont get .3gp support in windows by default - I always had to install codecs/players for the format. Linux mint has the codecs installed already and is Ubuntu based (am around 99% sure about that) you could just install that version or just generally get a linux version which comes with the codecs. By installing Ubuntu you have to live with the fact it is a FREE OS, and as such doesnt, as is said so often, have proprietary codecs in it - inclusion, as also has been said several times, in some countries/states is ILLEGAL! Its nice not to have problems, and beyond my ATI graphics card - no fault of Ubuntus, I have had next to none, those which I have had have been fairly easily rectifiable. It depends, I think, on what you use/need and how much work you're willing to put in to avoid the aforementioned spyware/adware/bloat/viruses/etc. windows is liveable with, and if you dont have a reason to need to adopt Ubuntu, there is no pressure to do so - dual boot is also a simple option.
Il

Jhongy
April 20th, 2007, 10:28 AM
I'm pretty sure you don't either... you also don't get DivX, XVid, OGG, MP4, and a whole host of others. that Microsoft would really rather you not use. Many of the unofficial download packages for these have traditionally shipped with spyware.

A ton of stuff you open in media player goes like this... (status bar-->) Unknown format... searching for codec..... (pop-up-->) codec not found. I rmember even installing a game (Mafia I think it was), and WinXP SP2 didn't carry the bloody codec for it.

I do *not* think Windows is easier in this regard --- unless you already have a collection full of WMA music. But that is hardly Ubuntu's fault.

It's true, some Ubuntu devs would probably really rather you not use restricted formats... but in this case, this is *not* in their own self interest, it's in yours!

toxickiwi
April 20th, 2007, 10:30 AM
You should google"problems installing vista" it will make you feel better :)

rillip
April 20th, 2007, 10:57 AM
Frankly, if one finds Ubuntu impossible, then they simply need to switch distros / OS's. Ubuntu is not about being for everyone, it's about being for the people who will fit it well. Installing just about anything isn't hard.

Almost all of the things you say it needs, it has, many times over what Windows has (can't really speak to Macs). Tutorials? I've found them easier for Linux than Windows. Updates? Available offline, as Illuvitar was able to come up with in less than an hour. Ever try to update Windows without an internet connection?

Drivers? Don't make me laugh. Typical Ubuntu install: everything works. One or two driver installations that can be done at the command line with three lines, from adept/synaptic with a few clicks. Things like 3d drivers (normal display works fine by default), extra mouse buttons (normal buttons work fine by default), etc. Typical Windows instal: wait for a good ten minutes while it loads drivers for things you don't have because it doesn't try to detect your hardware during the install. Then when you start Windows, you're in a lousy graphics mode, 640x480 with 16 colors, maybe 256 if you're lucky. Install your graphics adapter from CD. Reboot. Install your USB drivers from CD. Reboot. Install your sound drivers, your lan drivers, reboot, reboot.

Have you ever had a Windows install that came with Flash? With Adobe? No? Huh.

As for media codes, I can't count how many times I've downloaded an AVI file, and gotten "Error requesting codec" from Windows Media Player. Why do I have to get it, I can play that AVI file fine, what's wrong with this one? Why do I have to install a new codec to have this AVI play sound, but that one alreay does? I'll agree there are more codes by default in Windows, but it's been pointed out why those aren't an option in a deafult Ubuntu install, and they're no more difficult to find and add in Linux than Windows.

If you find looking for the answers, reading them, asking for help and listening to be too difficult, find a distro that suits you better. No hard feelings to be had here if you pick something that suits you better. Ubuntu wants a certain level of education and maturity. Ubuntu wants entusiasm and curiosity. Yes, you can just sit down and do your work. But you can do that on anything. If what you are trying to do isn't working, and you're not willing to invest the effort to make it work, then Ubuntu is not for you. That's okay; it doesn't have to be for you. Best wishes finding the OS that makes you happy, no matter what it is.

You say Ubuntu isn't Linux for humans, it's Linux for Computer Geeks. I think you're missing the bigger picture. Many of us here are computer geeks. That's why we're here.

Non computer geeks are at home, typing their documents and checking their e-mail. Non computer geeks aren't trying to download a video from a torrent and watch it in full screen without latency, grainyness or slow frame rate. They're on their way to Blockbuster to rent it, where they will watch it on their TV. They're playing baseball with their kids, or on the way to ballet practice, or grocery shopping. They're not trying to setup a 3d desktop with transparency and shading.

The things you are proposing that are too techy about Ubuntu are the kinds of things you should be technical enough to do, or are things you're not interested in doing. If you're in between, it's not for you.

Ubuntu will not overtake Windows unless people naturally become well suited to Ubuntu. No ammount of feature creep will make it overtake Windows. Many people like Windows because so many of their applicaitons take no configuration. They install them, they use them, done. I don't like that, I want to use a single click instead of a double. I want to be able to move it to a seperate desktop so it's out of the way, not just have it sit in my tray with thirty other things. I want to change my keyboard shortcuts, what the middle mouse button does, and in fact, maybe make it do several different things depending on the program. I do not accept the fact that my OS has to be reinstalled every year or so to keep it stable. I do not accept the fact that hardware detection is so difficult, or that I need to reboot after installing or uninstalling a program. I don't accept the fact that I have to reboot because one program crashed, and the computer never becomes stable again.

That's my experience with Windows. Windows isn't for me. That's why I'm not using it. I don't really see the point in going to MS's forums and saying that if Windows wants to eliminate Ubuntu, it needs to have the ability to configure what kernel it's running to my hardware, or be able to define shortcuts per program, or that they need a video tutorial to explain how to setup Trillion to connect to several different messengers the way I'm used to on Kopete, etc.

You have some interesting ideas. Most of them I feel are already addressed. Some of them could be useful to some, but not me. Others exist, but you apparently aren't familiar with them (no shame in this; for example, check out the System76 board in the 3rd Party section. It's a company that sells laptops with Linux preinstalled, ensures all your hardware is setup by default, has guides for what to do to fix your specific hardware and version of Ubuntu, etc).

If you want to see these things happen, do them. Boldly declaring the distro to be impossible and then giving complaints that are not the experience of the users here, in general, is not a very effective strategy to get any of this done by someone else. I'll be interested to see your tutorials, and I'm sure if you ask for information for them, you will get plenty of replies on ways to do things that you can incorporate. I'm sure that if you ask, some one can help you set up a repository DVD to use for the offline installs too. Good luck!

freebird54
April 20th, 2007, 11:10 AM
Interesting review here http://lunapark6.com/ubuntu-704-feisty-fawn.html

Thought this might be a good place for it :)

TimelessRogue
April 20th, 2007, 12:24 PM
Good morning, Manojvekaria ...

We (the Ubuntu Community) are sorry you, as a noob, are having difficulties with Ubuntu. That said, we are here to help you get over any stumbling blocks you encounter ...

As Illuvator, Jhongy, rillip and others have said (and you will hear much more of this, I'm sure) Ubuntu has more than enough features "out of the box" to satisfy your daily needs on any PC you might install it on and many more esoteric offerings available to you post-installation. But ... if you are having problems with anything in particular, just holler ... someone will be here to help you and walk you through it to resolution ... there may even be a solution already addressed on these forums.

And once you are become more familiar with Ubuntu and get into it a bit, if you have a problem and manage to come up with a solution on your own, feel free to contribute to the cause. Or if you have what you feel is legitimate request for an improvement or additional feature ... provided it's reasonable and within the bounds of legality, that is ... ask and you shall be listened to. That's part of what this is all about ... community.

Impossible? Quite the contrary, my friend ... Ubuntu (and Linux in general) is totally possible with a future full of possibilities, as each new release has shown us: continued improvement as it evolves ... and we are all ... geeks and noobs alike ... involved in that process. Come ... join us in that evolution ..

As others have already said, this a a free community ... free as in freedom of choice, freedom from the bonds of proprietary software, freedom from security issues and infringements such as ads and pop-ups, freedom to speak your piece or cry out for help and know that there is someone there who will listen and respond positively ... and so much more ...

Sooo ... welcome to the Community of Ubuntu ...

rxtx
April 20th, 2007, 12:30 PM
My two cents.

I've found Ubuntu very "easy to use" and familarise myself with. I'm by no means well versed in Linux, but within 30mins of install, I was up and running on my wireless network, with widescreen resolution, codecs installed and even a pretty screensaver selected.

Out of the box, installing Win XP on my Dell laptop, NONE of the video, network controllers, card readers OR sound are detected/installed (okay, they are in Vista, but hey)-- Ubuntu hooked up everything almost flawlessly.

The install process works very well too, is simple and clear with advanced options if needed. Once the install has started, only a few more clicks are needed to set things in motion so you can stroll off for a cup of tea. MUCH more straightforward and less convoluted than any non-unattended windows based install.

Obviously there is a lot under the hood which will take me a while to get to grips and experiment with, but as for "off the bat" install, how much more simple could things be? Even codec install and download is guided, something which Windows would not offer- leaving you to troll the net to fall foul to codecpacks full of spyware etc.

I look forward to carry on using Ubuntu- I've not left a linux system installed for more than a week at most before because I couldn't really get to grips, but Ubuntu is here to stay!

</worthless nonsense>

Backdraft
April 20th, 2007, 12:48 PM
Just my two sense as a Windows user sympathizer, because I still support them at work all day. I understand Linux in general is not for everyone. But there are a lot of Windows users our there who are disillusioned with the OS right now. Security issues, crashes, etc, and they are looking for an alternative. Ubuntu is by far the best alternative I've found. But Windows as interfaces go, Windows is all they are used to. I'm not saying they should expect everything to be just like Windows, thats obviously not the point. But I think the Ubuntu Christian Edition has the right idea for these types of users. They made the interface very similar to what Windows users are used to. And that alone may make them more comfortable with using Ubuntu everyday. Perhaps it should be looked into making a kind of "Windows convert" version of Ubuntu, with a similar look to the Christian edition, but without the additional packages they use. Again, maybe just the visual familiarity of that look will help some people be more comfortable. I'm not quite to the point where I could do anything of that sort - I've been a long time Linux tinkerer, but I'm nowhere near ready to actually work on code or anything like that, which is why I pawn this idea off on those of you more advanced than I. Personally, I don't want my machine to look like Windows. But for the newbs that know nothing but MS Windows, just that familiar look may make them more comfortable experimenting.

miley6112
April 20th, 2007, 12:52 PM
I know they really don't make this user- friendly I just joined and I am thinking of quitting because it is too hard.

miley6112
April 20th, 2007, 12:54 PM
Is anyone here?

lamalex
April 20th, 2007, 01:02 PM
@miley6112: It's really easy, it's just different from windows. You can't change to Ubuntu and expect it to be windows, if that's what you're looking for then, I would suggest windows, or if you're really set on linux maybe Linspire. What problem are you having that makes you say it's really hard?

AndyCooll
April 20th, 2007, 01:08 PM
But I think the Ubuntu Christian Edition has the right idea for these types of users. They made the interface very similar to what Windows users are used to. And that alone may make them more comfortable with using Ubuntu everyday. Perhaps it should be looked into making a kind of "Windows convert" version of Ubuntu, with a similar look to the Christian edition, but without the additional packages they use.

Interesting idea. However there is already a distro that does this called Linspire. It even goes as far as providing the additional help features and pre-installed codecs etc for Winderz converts requested by the OP. Maybe the OP would be better trying Linspire!

:cool:

proalan
April 20th, 2007, 01:21 PM
Yet another newbie angry rant thread,


I know they really don't make this user- friendly I just joined and I am thinking of quitting because it is too hard.

whats not user friendly about it?

Ubuntu is the most complete operating system i've come across, it takes time to learn and get used to. I don't get why people bother trying ubuntu when they've already decided to dismiss it.

My first OS was windows 95 and back then there was no such things as support forums to aid me to learning it.

Do the research, try helping yourself before asking for help, most of the threads here are unnecessary as the questions have been countlessly answered elsewhere

rxtx
April 20th, 2007, 01:29 PM
I'm failing to see how this can be "hard" to use. Is "hard" just =! windows?

greymongrey
April 20th, 2007, 01:34 PM
I'm failing to see how this can be "hard" to use. Is "hard" just =! windows?

It's can be hard when you first come from Windows. It can be totally mind blowing because it's all so different. After a short time things start to get better and you realize it really is easier than Windows.

mlentink
April 20th, 2007, 01:38 PM
I agree, you need a sense of perspective.

Every installation is unique, because we all use our computers differently and for various things. In view of that, the number of questions or problems that are reported here in the forums is surprisingly small. Because this is the place where they are all collected.
For M$, most prblems are not reported on forums like these, because Vista is not a community-effort, it's purely commercial, So the vast majority of problems go through the regular channels of helpdesks with all of their escalation-procedures. Believe me, I'm in the business, I know. Would you believe me when I say that our support people are keeping their fingers crossed on every monthly M$ patch-day? It seems with every item they fix, they break one or two others. But you don't hear too much about that, because it's mostly absorbed in the channels. The tip of the iceberg and all that. Aside from migrating Dapper-Edgy-Feisty I've diligently applied all updates and aside from one little one that was my own mistake in te first place, I haven't had any problems.

I guess if you want an OS to be like Vista, you should buy Vista.

brodiepearce
April 20th, 2007, 01:41 PM
A lot of the points in the OP will just weigh Ubuntu down even more than it already is. Right now there's already lots of packages that the average user probably doesn't need (Read: want) installed by default. A lot of the things you mentioned are also not possible, as one of the posts on the first page mentioned, the w32codecs and libdvdcss packages are legally not to be included in official Ubuntu repositories. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

*Edit*
Actually, I just read the OP the whole way through, I can't believe I just wasted my time coming up with a half-decent response to your points. I cannot understand how you can exagerate the minor frustrations within Ubuntu that much. You think Ubuntu is "Ubuntu - For Computer Geeks", why don't you go and try Gentoo or Red Hat, THEN see what you think about Ubuntu jerk.

As for the installation, like many other posts in here, the Ubuntu installation has got to have been the simplest, quickest, least frustration OS install I have ever performed. Windows takes about 2 hours to install on my system, Ubuntu is usually finished after no more than half an hour.