Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[arnieboy]

Arnieboy, I did not say "make it the best", I said "make it the best it can be", as in ensure that Linux reaches its full potential, whatever that potential may be. If I meant to say that we ought to make Linux better than either Windows or Mac OS, I would have said so.
Stormy Eyes --> Its impossible to compare myself to just myself and try and become the best "that I can be" and "realize my true potential". There has to be some operative comparison somewhere with some external entity due to which i feel that I have not reached my true potential yet.. think about it. if that hadnt been the case.. we would still have been living in the stone ages,

[arnieboy]

In accordance with my previous pledge (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=307823#post307823), I've been trying to keep out of this, but I really think people shouldn't be talking about Linux as if it's one distribution. Part of the beauty of Linux is its variety. Different distros suit different needs. The OP can be all haughty and "no comment" me if he wants, but I really think anyone who wants to run as root and not know what goes on behind the scenes should use Linspire. That's what it's there for. People who are concerned about security and control of their computer should use Ubuntu. There are many other distros out there, too, that suit various users needs. What may be "user-friendly" for a Fedora user or Gentoo user may not be "user-friendly" to a Mepis user.
aysiu --> its good to now that u feel good about the varieties in linux and its many flavors... but if u dig a little deeper u will find that the essential difference among all distros is the way the softwares are packaged. The rest of the differences (like not telling u how to login as root) are too minor to mention. Irrespective of whether Dag Wieers makes a rpm for u or Christian Marillat makes a deb package for u.. u will be using essentially the same kernel, the same GNOME, the same KDE, the same GTK2 and qt and hence the same linux (with a few tweaks here and there).

[aysiu]

aysiu --> its good to now that u feel good about the varieties in linux and its many flavors... but if u dig a little deeper u will find that the essential difference among all distros is the way the softwares are packaged. The rest of the differences (like not telling u how to login as root) are too minor to mention. Irrespective of whether Dag Wieers makes a rpm for u or Christian Marillat makes a deb package for u.. u will be using essentially the same kernel, the same GNOME, the same KDE, the same GTK2 and qt and hence the same linux (with a few tweaks here and there). I totally agree--the fundamental differences are basically package management, but most of the OP's concerns also are addressed by Linspire. What you're talking about is theory. I'm talking about practice. And package management is a big deal. Yum doesn't do it for me. apt-get/Synaptic does.

[arnieboy]

I totally agree--the fundamental differences are basically package management, but most of the OP's concerns also are addressed by Linspire. What you're talking about is theory. I'm talking about practice. And package management is a big deal. Yum doesn't do it for me. apt-get/Synaptic does.
Talking of theory and practice ---> Yum did it for me for 4 years and i never had any complaints. I knew how to add the correct repositories to make yum do the work for me (and yes google used to work in those days too) and all the time I had apt-get and (yeah synaptic as well) on a rpm based distro to fall back on. in fact I used to get updated packages there within a couple of days through either yum or apt-get.

[aysiu]

Talking of theory and practice ---> Yum did it for me for 4 years and i never had any complaints. I knew how to add the correct repositories to make yum do the work for me (and yes google used to work in those days too) and all the time I had apt-get and (yeah synaptic as well) on a rpm based distro to fall back on. in fact I used to get updated packages there within a couple of days through either yum or apt-get. Have you ever used Blag? It's Fedora-based, but it comes with apt-get/Synaptic. It's also only one CD.

[arnieboy]

Have you ever used Blag? It's Fedora-based, but it comes with apt-get/Synaptic. It's also only one CD.
I dont need to use Blag just because its apt-get based. The rpm distro that I was talking about was Fedora itself (well actually redhat 7 through fedora core 3) and they all had apt-get capability. if u think that apt-get for rpm based distros is a new phenomenon, then u need to do some more research (both theoretically and practically).

[aysiu]

I dont need to use Blag just because its apt-get based. The rpm distro that I was talking about was Fedora itself (well actually redhat 7 through fedora core 3) and they all had apt-get capability. if u think that apt-get for rpm based distros is a new phenomenon, then u need to do some more research (both theoretically and practically). Apt-get was already there? You didn't have to install it? Why are there instructions for installing apt, then?

http://www.fedorafaq.org/#apt

I know there are RPM-based distros with apt. Please don't condescend and make assumptions. PCLinuxOS is an RPM-based distro with apt, and I liked it for the most part.

Geez. Assumptions, assumptions.

And I think the whole point of this stupid thread (yet another Linux isn't ready yet rant) is that just because something is capable of doing something doesn't mean it actually does it right off the bat. Sure, anyone can customize Ubuntu to run as root, but it starts off with a sudo'ed user. Linspire starts out with root.

The whole point is that a lot of people don't want to have to enable and customize certain things. There are certain features people want just out-of-the-box. A big complaint about Ubuntu is that it doesn't come with proprietary multimedia codecs. Well, one could argue, it has the capability to use those multimedia codecs, but that's not what people are complaining about. They're complaining about having to install those. And, for those people, I'd recommend a different distribution. I happen to like that Ubuntu is free in every sense of the word.

Capability and default usability are two very different things.

[blastus]

That may be true, but like the Matrix, we can't just pull people out of Microsoft any more than Morpheus could have simply unplugged Neo from the Matrix. Windows users, like Neo, have to want to be free. Otherwise, we're no different from the US government trying to force a democratic republic on Iraq.

True true but then there's agents to fight as well! :razz:

[arnieboy]

Apt-get was already there? You didn't have to install it? Why are there instructions for installing apt, then?
When i said apt-get was "already there", I did not mean it came pre-installed. i meant it could be installed anytime. Linux in those days was not about what came "pre-installed" but what its potential capabilities were and wat u cud install on it.


The whole point is that a lot of people don't want to have to enable and customize certain things. There are certain features people want just out-of-the-box. A big complaint about Ubuntu is that it doesn't come with proprietary multimedia codecs. Well, one could argue, it has the capability to use those multimedia codecs, but that's not what people are complaining about. They're complaining about having to install those. And, for those people, I'd recommend a different distribution. I happen to like that Ubuntu is free in every sense of the word.
People are not complaining about having to "install" multimedia codecs. If u take some time out from this chat forum and concentrate on the support forums, u will find that most of their concerns are regarding the inability of these codecs to run a certain joespornpalace.mov or greatgandhi.mpg.


Capability and default usability are two very different things.
and the desire to increase the capability of something by means of making it easier to configure is an entirely different thing and is also possibly what sets Windows and Linux apart in Windows' favor.

[aysiu]

When i said apt-get was "already there", I did not mean it came pre-installed. i meant it could be installed anytime. Linux in those days was not about what came "pre-installed" but what its potential capabilities were and wat u cud install on it. Which was my point about Blag v. Fedora. I wasn't saying Fedora is incapable of using Apt.



People are not complaining about having to "install" multimedia codecs. If u take some time out from this chat forum and concentrate on the support forums, u will find that most of their concerns are regarding the inability of these codecs to run a certain joespornpalace.mov or greatgandhi.mpg. Again, making more assumptions. I spend plenty of time in Absolute Beginners, and I know that people complain about getting the codecs to work. I'm talking about people who really do complain about having to install those codecs (like in these forums). Why are the posts in Absolute Beginner more valid than the ones in Community Chat? I don't understand why you're making a distinction.

[arnieboy]

I don't understand why you're making a distinction.
am sleepy dude. got a long working day ahead tomorrow. We can carry on with this tomorrow and make this the most talked abt thread in the history of linux forums. Peace.

[aysiu]

am sleepy dude. got a long working day ahead tomorrow. We can carry on with this tomorrow and make this the most talked abt thread in the history of linux forums. Peace. I think it's probably best if we just leave it as is. I don't even know what we're arguing about. Have a good night.

[aysiu]

My impression now is that Linux IS ready for average home desktop use, if it can change in just a few areas. Interesting. I just saw this article in Slashdot by a longtime Windows user who tried Linux for ten days, and this is part of this conclusion:

If you rely on your computer or laptop as purely a word processor and a device for sending e-mail or surfing the web then by all means, please go over to the Linux side of things

I know a lot of Windows users who purely word process, send email, and surf the web, and I happen to agree with that conclusion as well.

To read the full article, go here:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:1CvlEjwElaUJ:www.flexbeta.net/main/printarticle.php%3Fid%3D106++site:www.flexbeta.net +10+Days+as+a+Linux+User:+A+GNU+Perspective+on+thi ngs+printable&hl=en&client=firefox-a

[poofyhairguy]

I know a lot of Windows users who purely word process, send email, and surf the web, and I happen to agree with that conclusion as well.


I agree:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58862&page=1&pp=10

[poofyhairguy]

aysiu --> its good to now that u feel good about the varieties in linux and its many flavors... but if u dig a little deeper u will find that the essential difference among all distros is the way the softwares are packaged. The rest of the differences (like not telling u how to login as root) are too minor to mention. Irrespective of whether Dag Wieers makes a rpm for u or Christian Marillat makes a deb package for u.. u will be using essentially the same kernel, the same GNOME, the same KDE, the same GTK2 and qt and hence the same linux (with a few tweaks here and there).

Not true. Its also WHAT they chose to include. And where they chose to put the files. And what libs they release with. And what the distro is made for (desktop distro, firewall distro, etc).

If your comment was true, every RPM I can touch could be alienized and be forced to work with Ubuntu. I promise- this is not the case. There is a bigger bunch of differences than choice of packages.

[aysiu]

I agree:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58862&page=1&pp=10

Poofy, that is one of the best articles I've read about Linux, along with oneandoneis2's Linux is not Windows (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm). Thanks for the link!

[poofyhairguy]

Poofy, that is one of the best articles I've read about Linux, along with oneandoneis2's Linux is not Windows (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm). Thanks for the link!

I must thank you. Your writing inspired me to do that!

(please proof read if you have time please).

[aysiu]

I must thank you. Your writing inspired me to do that!

(please proof read if you have time please). I didn't use my English teacher "comb" on it, but when I read it I didn't see any egregious errors.

[KiwiNZ]

Somewhere someone in this thread said that software and or Linux distributions don.t have to be user friendly , or words along that general theme.

That is a strange thought.

Software is to be used , by users . if it isnt friendly for users to use then it ceases to have a reason to exist.

And as for the holy land of the command line .... Bah its a myth , using the command line is a pain , remembering all the correct BS . The sooner distros reduce the need to use it to about once in a blue moon the better.

[Knome_fan]

And as for the holy land of the command line .... Bah its a myth , using the command line is a pain , remembering all the correct BS . The sooner distros reduce the need to use it to about once in a blue moon the better.
Nope, I'll have to disagree here.
Using the command line is great and if you know what you are doing very powerfull and userfriendly. In fact I think that having a good command line is one of the greatest strengths of Linux. Btw., MS is currently working on a new and powerfull command line for Windows, because Windows sure is in need of one.

What I think you are getting it is that having to use the command line for "normal" desktop use is a pita and should be reduced as much as possible. I could totally agree with that notion.

[KiwiNZ]

.......
What I think you are getting it is that having to use the command line for "normal" desktop use is a pita and should be reduced as much as possible. I could totally agree with that notion.

Agreed :)

[poofyhairguy]

And as for the holy land of the command line .... Bah its a myth , using the command line is a pain , remembering all the correct BS.

You miss the best part about the command line. Its not remembering commands and working from it (even though I can do that now). Its copying commands out of some how to that you have NO idea what they mean and getting things to just work magically in a few minutes of copying and pasting. With an all GUI system you have to spend time learning each GUI to get past it (or wade through a how to with tons of screenshots).

I don't understand my xorg.conf AT ALL, but I know that command I copied to change it allows to me to clone my screen on my TV and get my other monitor to have its own desktop!

[newbie2]

For example if ubuntu devs try to decide which media player to include and one player is good for organizing music but another is better for viewing movies. If they could just combine the movie part of one and the music part of the other into a crossover mediaplayer to include with ubuntu.... That would make good use of both project's efforts.
why isn't Mplayer default??... -->
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu
http://mplayer.dev.hu/homepage/design7/info.html

[newbie2]

why isn't Mplayer default??... -->
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu
http://mplayer.dev.hu/homepage/design7/info.html
which is the best in ubuntu ? -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_media_players

[clehel]

I see that with a sterotypic title I attracted a few stereotypic answers. I am sorry for that (I mean, sorry for both sides). But fortunately a few people found that my original post was not just complaining, but about real problems for a newcomer, that those people who are already used to Ubuntu do not even notice. I especially thank poofyhairguy!


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Sudo is one of the best things about Ubuntu! It is BETTER than people are told (by asking for a password) that rootish things are happening. We do it the EXACT way Apple does, and no one gives Apple **** for it. The fact that people in Windows run in root all the time (which would happen in Ubuntu if you did not have the password protection in your example) is THE BIGGEST REASON that spyware/malware/viruses destroy the Windows world. If this one day becomes the "one thing" holding us back....then I say screw it, hold us back!

OK, if there is any danger in the 'transparent rooting' (clicking OK on a warning message silently gives you root privilege) I suggested because of viruses, etc., then my idea is not good.


Is automounting on the desktop not good enough? If people want to install things from the Ubuntu install CD/DVD Synaptic does it automatically. What more could you want?

In one earlier reply I also mentioned, I ran into the weird behaviour of gam_server, it was using the CD many times when nothing else used it. This was very frustrating, also to my Linux expert son. Maybe it is more a problem with gam_server than with the mount-unmount processes, and there is a bug in it somewhere. If I mount/unmount on the desktop, AND gam_server let me live, then I can live with that.

There is one problem I mentioned in my original post that nobody reacted to so far: when as a user I open and edit a text file that has root only write permission, I am allowed to do that, until the point when I want to save the modified file. Then, and only then I get a message, "Access denied". Is it not possible to have a friendlier approach? Like I am told at the time of opening the file that it can be opened read-only, because I do not have root privilege. Or what if at that time a dialog opens giving me an option to switch to root (with typing in the password, of course)?

This last part of my post is just theory, and life and practice will decide, anyway: I read some of the suggested articles, they are good. I could not read the "10 days" article, it is just way too long for me. In the Linux Not Windows article there is something that I do not agree with, though.


None of the people creating Linux profit from it gaining a bigger userbase. None of the people on the Linux forums profit from it gaining a bigger userbase.

If more people start to use Linux/Ubuntu due to your efforts, there are a few things happening, in additon to boosting your ego, and having to spend more time to help the newcomers: you get good feeling (just ego boost, you might say, but not only, I think), and all those who are helped get good feelings, too. And real help. And also, there are quietly working spiritual laws, like "As you sow, so shall you reap", and "The love you get is equal to the love you give". Although we do not notice these in everyday life, they still do work, and they are universal. If you give more help, you might expect to get more help yourself, when you need it the most. Is the Ubuntu Forum not a wonderful example of this? I know your help can not be expected and demanded, because you do it at the expense of your free time, voluntarily, etc. But if you do it, it can be just good for you, and it is very much appreciated. Again, I thank for all of you!

[67735]

I very much want to understand and love Linux, but not because I hate XP or OSX. Back in the day I bugged my parents for a TI99/4A so I could start learning BASIC. I was never much good at it, but I did try for a long time.

My curiosity about computers has never been satisfied. I've tried to install all major "flavors" of Linux to varying success, and I've settled down towards Ubuntu as a good foundation on which to learn.

What I would like to know is where should I start to find out the absolute basics. The ubuntuguide.org begins with "how to add extra repositories" but I am not at that level yet. I have no idea what a repository is.

After that is sudo apt-get update and sudo apt-get upgrade. Those I managed to figure out, although all the characters screaming up the screen were a blur and for all I know I might have just accidentally launched the space shuttle.

This thread has been a mix of impatience and understanding towards the frustrations of a real-life newbie. We don't know where to begin, that's all.

Is there a guide somewhere online which walks us through the very basics, such as how to get on a motorcycle instead of "hop on and start driving"?

[clehel]

Is there a guide somewhere online which walks us through the very basics, such as how to get on a motorcycle instead of "hop on and start driving"?
I just started this thread as a newb, too, but I already made substantial progress. I can share with you some of the online links that I found to be good. They are mostly about command line interface, bash, and basic commands:

http://www.linuxcommand.org/index.php
http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/cats/commands_shells.html
http://www.linux.com/search.pl?topic=89
http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.html

Good luck! :-P

[Buffalo Soldier]

Is there a guide somewhere online which walks us through the very basics, such as how to get on a motorcycle instead of "hop on and start driving"?This might interest you. HOWTO: For People New to Ubuntu (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=13042)

Plus I really appreciate any suggestion to add to the list.

[Kvark]

There is one problem I mentioned in my original post that nobody reacted to so far: when as a user I open and edit a text file that has root only write permission, I am allowed to do that, until the point when I want to save the modified file. Then, and only then I get a message, "Access denied". Is it not possible to have a friendlier approach? Like I am told at the time of opening the file that it can be opened read-only, because I do not have root privilege. Or what if at that time a dialog opens giving me an option to switch to root (with typing in the password, of course)?
For me (i use gedit) it opens as read only, which means I can mark and copy text but can't paste, type or do anything else that would change the file. Which is better then telling you that you can't do changes after you work with the file as it does for you. Personally I would perfer to be able to edit it and then when saving get the choice to either enter sudo password or save the modified version somewhere else. But details like this could probably be argued in eternity among the users, and it doesn't lead anywhere unless whoever maintains the program in question happens to enjoy reading endless low quality argumentations on random forums.

[67735]

Thanks, all. I'm going to give those suggestions a try!

[Lord Illidan]

Personally, I believe that if more users enter the Linux world, we might enjoy more driver support from manufacturers, who will finally realise that it is worth making drivers for Linux..

Secondly, the more users, the more potential programmers and bug testers..

So, why not convert more users?

Also, I believe that the terminal has its good things and its bad things. It is great to type a single line of code into a terminal and have it done immediately, if you found the code on the internet, but if you have no internet access? If you have no idea what to do?
Most things are better off with a GUI. A GUI is eminently easier to use. Ok, it might be slower than a terminal for most people, but for newcomers, a GUI is better. Experts can remain with the terminal. Personally, I prefer a mix of both. I hate having to remember a cryptic command everytime I want to edit my /etc/fstab or whatever. Right, there is the Ubuntu Guide, but there are users with no access to Ubuntu Guide out there.

Synaptic is cool. I love it. However, a simple one click method to install .debs which cannot be found in the repos is a good idea, too. I don't think it is hard to do, though I am not a programmer yet, and don't tell me that it is cloning Windows, or to go to Linspire, because I want to use Ubuntu, and in my opinion, Windows has a good grasp of things, which explains their market share.

And, yes, Ubuntu needs to become more userfriendly. Not just to convert Win Users, but also to convert people who have never used Windows before. Experts and geeks think that Ubuntu has to remain how it is. I steadfastly refuse. The more userfriendly Linux becomes, the better it is for everyone.

[Lambert]

This is the one part of linux forums that puts me on edge. I do not understand why the community replies the way it does when someone gives their opinion, specifically towards improvement where that improvement seems to imply windows clone. People could try a distro, find they don't understand and struggle and do a couple different things. 1. Stay silent and go back to windows 2. speak their opinion so the end user can be understood and the os improved

Unlike some I like to see posts with someone ready to speak their opinion. Do they speak to soon sometimes with out a full understanding, yes. But at least their speaking. Many times I read where those state "if more people used linux then more vendors would support drivers and linux could improve" Here are comments from those on how to improve or make it so more would use it? Do we have to take these as "make it a windows clone" no.

The moto for ubuntu is "linux for human beings" yet in posts like this I read things like, "if you don't like it go back to windows" or similar type statements saying linux isn't for everyone. ???? If linux (or specifially ubuntu) wants to grow and be for human beings, shouldn't we consider these opinions from others? The distro doesn't have to be molded based on these opinions or simply emulate what people are used to but the "human being" has to be considered? How do you address people's needs? 1. Make changes to the os so it is simple and people just say, wow, I can use this. 2. Simplify the change over / education part. I saw linspire brought up once, I'm not big on them as their distro isn't for me but they seem to be addressing this. With out knowing to much about their distro, they have put focus on both of these. It's simplified in some ways and in others they offer their tutorial.

I'm new to linux. From what I've read linux has come a long way in the past years to become more main stream. It's now to the point with distros like ubuntu where it will be given a closer look by the average user. The various distros may be ready to start making an impact with the average desktop user but is the community? Give them a chance to speak and let's address their concerns constructively so linux can grow.

[aysiu]

Personally, I believe that if more users enter the Linux world, we might enjoy more driver support from manufacturers, who will finally realise that it is worth making drivers for Linux..

Secondly, the more users, the more potential programmers and bug testers..

So, why not convert more users? I totally agree. A lot of people say "Linux doesn't need more users," but even though it may not need more users, more users could certainly help. I mean, for one thing, look at how many frustrated gamers there are. I don't game myself, but a lot of folks have to rely on Cedega or dual-booting. If Linux had more users, gaming companies would have to sit up and starting porting more games.



Also, I believe that the terminal has its good things and its bad things. It is great to type a single line of code into a terminal and have it done immediately, if you found the code on the internet, but if you have no internet access? If you have no idea what to do? Yes, that's true, but in reality who doesn't have internet access? a very, very few of those who have computers. Some people have only dial-up, which is a hurdle itself, but the vast majority of users--certainly ones considering switching to Linux--have some form of internet access.



Most things are better off with a GUI. A GUI is eminently easier to use. Ok, it might be slower than a terminal for most people, but for newcomers, a GUI is better. Experts can remain with the terminal. Personally, I prefer a mix of both. I hate having to remember a cryptic command everytime I want to edit my /etc/fstab or whatever. Right, there is the Ubuntu Guide, but there are users with no access to Ubuntu Guide out there. Users with no access to the Ubuntu Guide will never be successful with Linux. A GUI alone doesn't help you solve all your problems. You need guides, tutorials, and forums. No internet access: very little chance of successful Linux adoption.



Synaptic is cool. I love it. However, a simple one click method to install .debs which cannot be found in the repos is a good idea, too. I don't think it is hard to do, though I am not a programmer yet, and don't tell me that it is cloning Windows, or to go to Linspire, because I want to use Ubuntu, and in my opinion, Windows has a good grasp of things, which explains their market share. You don't have to go to Linspire for this (in fact, I don't think Linspire even does that), but Mepis does, so it can be done. When I double-click a .deb in Mepis, Kynaptic opens up and installs it for me. Maybe Ubuntu's working on it, but in the meantime, if it's important to you, consider switching to Mepis--it's very point-and-click, and it's not a Windows clone, as Linspire is.

[mstlyevil]

I will say that Kubuntu needs a users guide as detailed as the one for Ubuntu. I switched back to Ubuntu because of the lack of information on how to configure kubunu. As far as ease of use, Ubuntu so far is as easy to use as Windows. It is just different and I am still learning how to use it. I had a far harder time figuring out Windows and how to maintain it to keep it from getting buggy. My first Computer was a celeron toshiba satelite with the first release of Win XP. I bought it in Nov 2001. Within months the laptop would just shut down within minutes of startup due to spyware,malware,and viruses. I thought it was a hardware problem and sold it for 100 bucks. The buyer reinstalled windows and it worked fine. Ouch!!! that was when I learned about spyware, adware and viruses and how to protect myself and rid my system of them. I also built me a new computer and bought Win XP Pro for it. I spend a ton of time everyday I am logged on running AV,Spybot, Adaware, defragging and so forth and not enough time enjkoying my computer. So to say Windows is user freindly and Linux is not, is bogus. They are different and it takes time to learn how to use each one and maintain it so you can use it at will. I will say it has taken far less time for me to figure out how to install and set up my Ubuntu then it ever did with WinXP.
When I format XP, I spend 5 or 6 hours just loading drivers and updates. I had Ubuntu up and running in 2 hours. so how is that harder? Anyway enough of my rambling on, that is my experience so far.

[Kvark]

This is the one part of linux forums that puts me on edge. I do not understand why the community replies the way it does when someone gives their opinion, specifically towards improvement where that improvement seems to imply windows clone. People could try a distro, find they don't understand and struggle and do a couple different things. 1. Stay silent and go back to windows 2. speak their opinion so the end user can be understood and the os improved
Yes, there is some non constructive replys to this kind of topics. Discussions like this thread should fill two purposes...

It should help experienced users understand why newcommers with a certain background face certain problems. This purpose is filled after 2-3 newbies posted and after that it just gets repetive for experienced users to discuss it over again with the 40th newbie. This is why some replys are non constructive.

The other purpose is to help newbies understand why some things like sudo, synaptic & the command line doesn't work in a way that seems logical given the background the newbie has. This is why it is sad that it partly turns into an argument about cloning windows instead of a discussion about why linux works like it does.


The moto for ubuntu is "linux for human beings" yet in posts like this I read things like, "if you don't like it go back to windows" or similar type statements saying linux isn't for everyone. ????
People are very different, work with very different things and have very different interests. Therefore it is impossible for one linux distro to be for everyone and ubuntu is not for everyone since that would be impossible. There is a lot of linux distros around so maybe there will one day be a distro for each niche and then the linux kernel would be for everyone. But today there is many niches that no distro fills so today the linux kernel is clearly not for everyone.

That tag line "linux for human beings" is probably meant to say that even though it is a linux distro, there are no reasons to be afraid of ubuntu. And it sais it in a way that goes well with ubuntu's philosophy. But that line is too damn easy to read things into and bend to support any argument.

[Stormy Eyes]

Give them a chance to speak and let's address their concerns constructively so linux can grow.

If they want their concerns addressed, they should be filing bug reports and requests for enhancement at Ubuntu's Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/) instead of ranting on a forum that the developers don't have time to read.

[aysiu]

This is the one part of linux forums that puts me on edge. I do not understand why the community replies the way it does when someone gives their opinion, specifically towards improvement where that improvement seems to imply windows clone. People could try a distro, find they don't understand and struggle and do a couple different things. 1. Stay silent and go back to windows 2. speak their opinion so the end user can be understood and the os improved. I understand why the community replies this way, and I've been on here only three months:

1. We've heard it all before.
2. We're not the people to talk to about improvements--the developers are.
3. The attitude of these "improve Ubuntu" posts tends to be one of "I, as a user, am telling you as developers what needs to be done" rather than "Wouldn't it be cool if...? Yeah, we users can dream." The former attitude is obnoxious because we've heard it all before, we are not the developers, and there's just generally a sense of haughtiness that comes with these "improvement" lists.

It makes about as much sense as demanding on some XP forums that Microsoft make improvements in Windows or demanding on Brad Pitt's fan website that Brad take a different kind of movie role.

And while I took the time to read the worthless pile of crap that the OP wrote in this thread, clearly he didn't bother to even skim my Anatomy of a Well-Intentioned Troll post that someone linked to.

Would it be cool if Gedit gave you a warning before you opened a read-only text document? Sure. Does complaining about it on the forums help? No. Does it really hold Ubuntu back from mass desktop adoption? Hardly. Would making that suggestion to Gnome developers help? Probably more than whining here.

If you ask me, I think people on these forums are more patient than Mac users on Mac forums or Windows users on Windows forums. Mac and Windows users simply would not put up with this garbage. If I said, "Oh, yeah, Mac is almost ready for the desktop if it just improved X, Y, and Z," I would be beaten to the ground by Mac zealots. Same for Windows. And I can list plenty of things about both Mac and Windows that are not "user-friendly."

[poofyhairguy]

If more people start to use Linux/Ubuntu due to your efforts, there are a few things happening, in additon to boosting your ego, and having to spend more time to help the newcomers: you get good feeling (just ego boost, you might say, but not only, I think), and all those who are helped get good feelings, too. And real help. And also, there are quietly working spiritual laws, like "As you sow, so shall you reap", and "The love you get is equal to the love you give". Although we do not notice these in everyday life, they still do work, and they are universal. If you give more help, you might expect to get more help yourself, when you need it the most. Is the Ubuntu Forum not a wonderful example of this? I know your help can not be expected and demanded, because you do it at the expense of your free time, voluntarily, etc. But if you do it, it can be just good for you, and it is very much appreciated. Again, I thank for all of you!

I must admit, its a good feeling to help people.

[Stormy Eyes]

If you ask me, I think people on these forums are more patient than Mac users on Mac forums or Windows users on Windows forums.

Oh, I am being very patient. I haven't done a single "Either RTFM or go back to Windows" post yet -- aside from that thread where I bashed the Ubuntu bashers.

[tseliot]

Perhaps the title of this thread should be"Linux still needs to be more like Windows to convert Win users". This would match the expectations of Windows users although I would NEVER want Linux to be like Windows. I want Linux (distros) to improve and go ahead (in a different way from Microsoft OS).

P.S. no offence, I'm just trying to think as a Windows user does.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Bringing to attention two somewhat related threads in Ubuntuforums:
Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58017) thread, and
How To: Convert Windows Users to Ubuntu (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58862) thread.

[67735]

It got friendly for a while, then it got ugly.

"We" Windows users (as if it's Us against Them) are making an honest effort to try something different.

RTFM and Try The Million Other Posts That This Has Pertained To folks need to realize that there is no one FM and that it's difficult to find what we're looking for in all the other Million Posts.

If there were less "RTFM, idiot", and one single fix, such as "You really need THIS type of media player to do what you want it to AND here's how you install it, click for click..."

People learn by doing and then adding onto that experience. Linux is too complicated for most people to pick up without some serious help. Please don't "flame" us because we ask for that assistance.

[poofyhairguy]

Please don't "flame" us because we ask for that assistance.

I promise, we won't if you ask for help. If you EVER get a nasty response from someone in the beginner forum (or anywhere) when you are told off because you ask for help of how to do something, tell me and I'll mod them back to the stone ages.

We have helped thousands of new users on this forum. And we will continue to do so!

Now, suggestions are a different thing....

[67735]

Your response is one of the main reasons to attempt something different. The community of Linux users (Ubuntu here, of course) is unbelievably selfless in their giving to others before they are given to.

Please continue your support of this forum, Mr. Poofyhairguy. The future is individuals helping the masses, not corporations helping anyone.

[poofyhairguy]

Your response is one of the main reasons to attempt something different. The community of Linux users (Ubuntu here, of course) is unbelievably selfless in their giving to others before they are given to.

Please continue your support of this forum, Mr. Poofyhairguy. The future is individuals helping the masses, not corporations helping anyone.

Thank you. I will continue to help. I began to like Ubuntu because of the community, and I'm glad to add to it!

[aysiu]

RTFM and Try The Million Other Posts That This Has Pertained To folks need to realize that there is no one FM and that it's difficult to find what we're looking for in all the other Million Posts. Actually, someone linked to the Anatomy of a Well-Intentioned Troll thread early on. OP didn't bother to read it, though.



Please don't "flame" us because we ask for that assistance. Who got flamed for asking for assistance? You must have this confused with another thread. I look at the Absolute Beginner section of the forums every day, and I try to help out as much as possible. Take a look at the title of this thread. Does it look as if it's asking for assistance? No. It's demanding change because of what it perceives Linux as "needing."

[Hobbsee]

It got friendly for a while, then it got ugly.

"We" Windows users (as if it's Us against Them) are making an honest effort to try something different.

RTFM and Try The Million Other Posts That This Has Pertained To folks need to realize that there is no one FM and that it's difficult to find what we're looking for in all the other Million Posts.

If there were less "RTFM, idiot", and one single fix, such as "You really need THIS type of media player to do what you want it to AND here's how you install it, click for click..."

People learn by doing and then adding onto that experience. Linux is too complicated for most people to pick up without some serious help. Please don't "flame" us because we ask for that assistance.

*sigh*

Honestly...

There is a manual, it's the ubuntu wiki. To be fair, there are a few things that could be added, but it's workable enough.
Failing that, there's the ubuntu forums, the search in the ubuntu forums. Failing those, there's google - there's even a linux section of google if you want to try there.

As for multiple posts, the how to guides seem to be pretty good...

Serious help comes - it just requires that you do a small amount of looking for it, where you learn other interesting things as well, rather than expecting help to come bouncing out of your computer screen, as soon as you write a post...

And i say this as a very new linux newbie...who has used windows all the time up till now...

[npaladin2000]

My dear Brothers!
I hope you forgive me for this long message. I would like to tell you my humble opinion on where Linux still needs to improve. I am not perfect, of course, and neither is my opinion. I respect you very much, and I intend to help, not to offend. I apologize if you have read similar messages a zillion times.

Indeed we have. We even tend to listen to intelligent suggestions. tbc...



Shortly about myself: I am not a computer professional, but still quite knowledgeable about computers, although I am clearly a GUI guy. About 5-6 years ago I made a serious attempt to switch to Linux, and at that time I failed, due to various reasons. Now I made a second attempt, and now I succeeded. Two things changed in the meantime: Linux became better, and my son grew up, and became a Linux expert (and even an open source programmer). He chose the hardware, picked the right distribution (Kubuntu), and even installed it for me. I took over the computer at this point, and I still had a few annoying problems. With his help I succeded, without it I might have failed again, I don't know. (I am not sure, this Forum is really very great, it might have worked this way, too...)

You know, this is the way it's supposed to be, with people actually taught how to use their systems, instead of thinking of them as home appliances. Back when all computers were introduced this way, there were MUCH fewer problems...


My impression now is that Linux IS ready for average home desktop use, if it can change in just a few areas.

Uh oh....


There is tremendous progress, and beautiful programs are written. My favorites are LiveCDs, OpenOffice, Krusader, Konqueror, Synaptic, VMware, but the list is long... There are still a few areas, where I feel some change is needed, with the goal to come up with such a user friendly version of Linux that can be used by average people, on an average home desktop. They are the following:

This is why i said "Uh oh." This is NOT the goal of Linux. It IS the goal of some specific distributions, but the goal of Linux itself is for a clean, stable, and secure operating system.


1. Software installation/Package management: I like Synaptic, but it is still far from a double-click install. (Of course we do not need to just slavishly mimick Windows, but if something is better, or more user friendly in that OS, the wise behavior would be just to accept and learn.) The limited repositories might not be enough for some people. If you download just a single package that is not from these repositories, you either have to learn and use dpkg (forget it for an average user) or have to set up a local repository, and update it after downloading any new package, so Synaptic can see it. I succeeded with the latter, but not so easily. (Installed OpenOffice2.0 beta this way)
- Is it a bad idea to create a sample local repository as part of a distribution? If you would click on 'Reload' in Synaptic, it might run first a script to update Packages.gz in the local repository, and then do it's normal jobs, among them checking packages in the local repo as well.
- Is it possible to set up the system in a way that a double click on a deb package (in the local repository, for example) invokes Synaptic, and it knows what to do with it?
- Still, the issue of dependencies remain, and I have simply no enough insight on this.

I'll agree that they need a "double-click install" bit for DEB packages, but as to the rest I completely disagree. That's the way Windows does it. It's not necessarily better. For Windows, you have to go running all over the net to find software that you might want and then have it install a whole bunch of junk that you can't even find (A.K.A. dll-hell). Linux installers do the same thing, but the implementation is different. Firstly, each of those "dll"s (we call them libs) is it's own installable package, so you can track EVERYTHING that goes in. Second, you have a monstorous repository of software to choose from, and all you have to do right-click and say "mark for installation." Or double-click. Or highlight it and hit the spacebar. ANd when you remove it, you have the option of removing it COMPLETELY, configs included. WIndows installs usually leave DLLs laying around, an only some of them allow you to remove the configs.

Next


2. Am I a SUPERUSER or just an ordinary mortal? Sudo, su, sudo su, kdesu, or whatever: I don't care. On an average desktop, I trust myself, I am not schizophrenic. It is very much unfriendly manner that one side of me always prompts the other side of me for a password. Or the naive side of me just edits a text file, and when wants to save it, the SUPERUSER side of me tells (and tells only then!!) that 'Access denied'. This is very unfriendly again.

I'm gonna cut you off here. Why? Because you're an ordinary mortal. Everyone should be an ordinary mortal unless they need to do something special. It's harder to hurt the OS that way. It's been proven so much that WINDOWS is changing to that "su, sudo, whatever" method for Vista. So one way or another, you're gonna have to get used to it. Unless you want to go to Fedora or some other distro that gives you a root user, but even they bug you about not using it on a daily basis.

It's REALLY easy to type "su" at a prompt. It's also easy to set up a sudo nautilus entry in the menu any time you want to run that as root.

Next.



3. Using a CD, floppy, etc. When I put a CD into the tray, I just want to use it, and have it available in all applications at once. And when I finished using it, I just want to be able to remove it by pushing it's eject button. I just don't care whether it is mounted or unmounted, and whether that is done via autofs, ivman, file protocol, media protocol, .desktop file, or whatever. I don't even want to know.

Ok, Linux could use monitoring of CDs to auto-unmount them when the eject button is pressed. That may be implemented soon. The rest won't. News flash: no one uses floppies anymore. ;) And you have to unmount flash cards and cameras and such before you disconnect them from Windows too. That's what that whole "safely remove hardware" thing is..it performs the same function: to complete the pending reads and writes and unmount the volume, so that you don't just yank the sucker out and lose data. Only in Linux it's easier: just right-click on the thing in "My Computer" and hit "unmount" or "eject."



4. Windows emulation.

Ugh, barely worth a response. Go check out Crossover Office if you must.


5. The console is a great tool, really powerful. But for a beginner it is overwhelming and unfriendly.

Beginners don't belong in the command shell. That's what the GUI tools are for. There's very little that you can't do in the GUI. You can do more in some cases than with Microsoft's GUI. You can also do a lot more with a Linux CLI versus a Microsoft CLI, but in either OS, there are some situations where you're better off using the CLI for something (Example: you're in Windows and need a NIC's MAC address). Anyway, it's safer using the Linux CLI just for emssing around and learning. Why? You don't have root/admin/superuser access by default..you're an ordinary mortal and can't hurt as much. :)



6. United we stand. I see that in the last couple of years a huge amount of energy poured into the Linux area: tens of thousands of software projects started, and over 300 distributions... Might be even more than what MS was able to put into Windows. But still, Windows is the dominant OS, and a major reason for this is 'divided we fall'. MS has monopoly, it protects it well, and uses it's energy in a focused way. Linux also has areas with monopoly within Linux: the kernel, Apache web server, etc. And they are a good thing, because the interested people work together, and not on parallel things, sometimes even against each other. I read a question on a forum of why there are so many distributions, and parallel things in Linux. The answer was "because it's a free world, and we do not have a monopoly to protect." It sounds very nice, but it is very misleading, in my opinion. Because this is the exact same reason of why MS is still able to have a huge lead on the desktop. Human nature is difficult to change, so for a united Linux approach (which I see as very much desired) I see no other way than a distribution becoming dominant.

Oh no, another one. Listen, Linux is as likely to reduce itself to one distro as Microsoft is likely to sell one version of Windows; in other words, it ain't gonna happen. OSes are specialy designed for particular needs, and so are distributions. Linspire and Xandros are excellent home-user OSes (WinXP Home) while Novell Linux Desktop and Ubuntu make good workstations (XP Pro). Fedora and Debian make nice entry-level+ servers (Win2003 server). To compete with 2003 Advanced, Enterprice, and Datacenter servers you have SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, CentOS, Novell OpenEnterprise Server, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (in Advanced and Enterprise versions).

Would you install Windows 2003 Datacenter Server on your desktop? No, I didn't think so. Beyond that, the distributions compete with each other for mindshare, which benefits us, the "consumer" in this situation. Through that method, inferior distros will be Darwin-ed away, and what will be left are a couple of the best for each level, and maybe a couple of niche OSes (Like Gentoo). Matter of fact, this has already happened at the enterprise Linux level...it's all Red Hat and Novell. And Debian has a piece of some of it also.

Personally I thin Fedora and Ubuntu are 2 of the top workstation distros, with Xandros running a close 3rd. Linspire is up there as a home OS. All of these offer easy package management in some form (Fedora's is the hardest, but YUM is an APT knockoff, and APT is in Fedora's extras repository anyway). Gentoo and Knoppix are niche OSes, as are DSL (Damn Small Linux...I keep a copy in my wallet just in case).

[aysiu]

I
Ok, Linux could use monitoring of CDs to auto-unmount them when the eject button is pressed. That may be implemented soon. The rest won't.
...
Only in Linux it's easier: just right-click on the thing in "My Computer" and hit "unmount" or "eject." Just wanted to add something here: if I see a CD or DVD on my desktop and right-click and select "eject," it unmounts and the actual CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive physically ejects. I don't see what's so bad about that.

[Galoot]

Relative n00b chiming in here.

First of all, even if it hadn't been said in this thread already, it's obvious that this is the sort of thread that must come up a lot. No matter the topic, from favorite authors to software, there will always be people who want to offer suggestions for improvement. No problem with that, especially in open source, and clehel made some good points.

Secondly, asking why Linux (or Ubuntu) should be made more user friendly is just being silly, though I'm sure it was deliberately so. I'm nopt calling you out, Stormy. I read your whole message, not just the one word. :) Anyway, why should it not be easier? Unless this is some cult I stumbled into, with secret handshakes and levels through which I must pass before reaching some level of status, then of course it should be user friendly. Not because Windows is user friendly, but because software and operating systems that do what we want them to do, as effortlessly as possible, should always be a goal. Would you deliberately choose to pound a nail in with your shoe when a hammer is within arm's reach? If the idea is to keep people out of our little club, fine. Say so. For me, the goal is to get my work done in as short a time and as effortlessly as possible(*). Tools that are difficult to learn or that stand in the way of that goal are useless to me. Powerful tools don't have to be difficult tools.

Of course, folks must be at least a little bit willing to learn. Double-click installing is no more intuitive using apt-get, however. Faster at times, but not easier once you learn how. Surely none of us were born with the knowledge of double-clicking <i>or</i> using apt, though. But it should be a goal to embrace as many people as possible. Isn't that the Ubuntu philosophy? That means forever questing to make things easier. Not necessarily easy in the way Windows makes things easy, but easy all the same. And in a secure way, please and thank you.

Thirdly, I personally find Linux in general (and Ubuntu, specifically) pretty easy to learn my way around in, especially with the help of this community. It could be easier, but that could be said for any operating system. Anyone who has never used a computer before--anyone who doesn't have to unlearn old habits gained via some other operating system--could learn their way around Linux (not to mention Ubuntu) as fast as they could in Windows (and maybe on a Mac, too, though I don't know from experience). Me, I'm unlearning old DOS and Windows habits, which trips me up from time to time, but my experience with Linux is at least as non-painful as it was when I first had to learn DOS 3.1. If anything, it's easier. Just different.

But making things even easier should always be a goal. Always. Anyone who asks why Linux should be made even easier should perhaps reconsider whether they really want to use a computer in the first place, and maybe think about buying themselves an abacus or a sliderule instead.


(* And porn. Can't forget the porn.)

[Lord Illidan]

I find the linux terminal very useful now.. however, I believe that frontends can be developed, and should be developed for most tasks.

And while we're at it, there are people without internet access. I know pensionants, and other people in Malta who still have no access to the internet. And let's face it, if somebody uses Ubuntu because he does not have the money to buy Windows, then it is possible that he might not have the money for internet access. And these users can be found in 3rd world countries by the thousands. No internet access = no access to these forums and no access to the Ubuntu Guide or FAQs.

How can this be solved? A good solution would be to include a small manual with the Ship-it cds. A better solution would be to give most commands which have to be done only with the terminal a gui frontend, which is more intuitive.

And I firmly disagree that linux be restricted to geeks and elitists. It goes against the Ubuntu philosophy for one thing : Linux for human beings, and further more, it makes Linux a non viable market for games developers like Blizzard, etc... Soundcard manufacturers, who release their drivers for Windows only, while we remain with Alsa or OSS, and companies who produce programs for just windows, while we remain with their Open Source equivalents, which can be either just as good, or better, but in some cases, much worse..

For example - Gimp is extremely good, a good alternative to Photoshop and Paintshop Pro for those with limited budgets.

Yet, Nvu is hardly comparable with dreamweaver...

[darkmatter]

Yet, Nvu is hardly comparable with dreamweaver...

And a big thanks for that. No offence, but I've always hated Dreamweaver...

[npaladin2000]

We have no problem making Ubuntu Linux more user-friendly. We DO have a problem making Ubuntu Linux (and Linux in general, IMHO) more like Windows. Fact is, there are a couple of "Windows-like" distros out there already: Xandros and Linspire. Linspire doesn't have a free version but Xandros does. Anyone looking for Linux to be more like Windows should be using one of those.

People need to accept the fact that this is NOT Windows, and it's not even MacOS. Things do NOT work the same; they're only similar in that they're both operating systems. Things that work one way in Windows likely will not work the same way in Linux (Then again, it might.....then again, it might work BETTER.)

I do think we need fewer, more focused distros out there. I can understand localization distros, but they should really be merged with their "ancestor" distro. Seems like anyone who feels like putting out a distro these days slaps a name on it and puts it out there, and it hardly offers anything unique, if anything at all. That really is NOT healthy, but a lot of these guys doing this would be completely useless in a real distro project as they can't program, but just repackage. But the community will wean out the losers I believe. Those that no one is interested in will fail. Those that people want will suceed; even if the author wants to give it up, the community will clamor for him/her to turn it over to them and development will continue.

[Knome_fan]

We have no problem making Ubuntu Linux more user-friendly. We DO have a problem making Ubuntu Linux (and Linux in general, IMHO) more like Windows.

Who is we? Is there a club somewhere, did I simply miss something?
Btw., I would indeed have a problem making Ubuntu Linux more like Windows, I simply lack the relevant skills to do that.



People need to accept the fact that this is NOT Windows, and it's not even MacOS. Things do NOT work the same; they're only similar in that they're both operating systems. Things that work one way in Windows likely will not work the same way in Linux (Then again, it might.....then again, it might work BETTER.)

I don't know if they need to accept it, but it's a simple fact. However, from reading the original post I didn't really get the impression the poster wanted it to be just like windows, he just wrote about his experiences and what is lacking in his opinion. Not that I agree with him on most of the things he says, but simply stating "It isn't windows, you have to accept it" isn't a very clever response either, imho.



Seems like anyone who feels like putting out a distro these days slaps a name on it and puts it out there, and it hardly offers anything unique, if anything at all.

For example?



That really is NOT healthy, but a lot of these guys doing this would be completely useless in a real distro project as they can't program, but just repackage.

I don't know, I still have more respect for people being able to do that than for people engaging in rather fruitless discussion on some forum like you and me, but that's just me maybe.



Honestly, there's a "Big 10" distros or so that are needed. It's a lot more than one might think since many distros are closely related or straight derivations. Incidentally,

Are they? Honestly, why not make it 9, or, gasp, even 11?



Mandrake isn't one of the 10. ;)

That's sad, as Mandrake sure is one of the best distros out there. But then again, if you say otherwise, i think they'll have to close down.



Neither is Slackware...I'm not sure of the continued justification for the existence of Slack, other than bragging rights for those who manage to use it.
Hm, at first I wanted to make the daring suggestion that the continued justification might be that people still want to use and people still want to develop it, however I think the main reason is to give people like you who are not clever enough to get it to work something to whine about in some Linux forum.

[a-nubi-s]

Almost all the points in the original post are already available in one distro or another.

1. PC-BSD has double click .pbi installers; Debian offers the whole 14 CD repo for local storage if you want
2. Linspire can run as root/single user, take your chances :twisted:
3. Auto mount/unmount, manual eject for CDs? Works in PCLinuxOS
4. Does Windows offer Linux, BSD or OS X emulation for all apps yet?
5. Distros like Mepis and PCLinuxOS are very "point n' click, no console needed
6. No, this is why many of us are here - freedom to choose. We don't want one-size fits-all, because it doesn't

So now comes the beauty of Open Source. You are free to create a distro with all these parts from any distro and offer it to the world. Go on, I dare ya :)

[bored2k]

1. Software installation/Package management: I like Synaptic, but it is still far from a double-click install.A gazillion distros have double clic installations. Now I don't ever remember being able to update EVERYTHING installed on my Windows only partition with one single package manager.[/quote]

2. Am I a SUPERUSER or just an ordinary mortal? Sudo, su, sudo su, kdesu, or whatever: I don't care. On an average desktop, I trust myself, I am not schizophrenic. It is very much unfriendly manner that one side of me always prompts the other side of me for a password. Or the naive side of me just edits a text file, and when wants to save it, the SUPERUSER side of me tells (and tells only then!!) that 'Access denied'. This is very unfriendly again. I feel it would be friendlier if during installation of Linux ((K)Ubuntu) the user would be asked if (s)he wants traditional root/user setup, or just a single user. With explanation, of course. If single user is chosen, then anytime the user enters a directory, or edits a file that has root only privilege in a traditional system, then a warning message would appear telling that you plan to modify something critical for the system. If you click OK, then you are given root privilege, even without you knowing about it. As soon as you leave that area, you are quietly converted back to plain user, again without you knowing about it. This way the whole permission system of Linux does not need to be modified, and it is still friendlier.Windows VISTA WILL have a sudo like system. So i guess youll have to stay on Win XP forever.

Your other points have been answered already.

[Lord Illidan]

I hear the Windows Vista sudo system will be optional..

Which means bad security as always...

About synaptic, it's awesome, and the lack of it on Windows is a definite 10 points to Linux!

[tseliot]

Knome_fan, I agree with you but please calm down, this is a discussion in which we can express our opinions which of course are not meant to be taken as universal truth. I like the possibility to choose the Linux flavour I like most just like you do.

npaladin2000, no offence but distros like Mandriva and Slackware are successful distros, so please don't be too hard on them. The fact that you don't like a distro or that it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it's useless or not among the best 10 distros (althoug I don't think the best 10 distros exist, apart from in your mind and they would be YOUR 10 FAVOURITE distros). My favourite distros are Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS and I THINK the latter is not useless.

Please let's have friendly discussions and let's be more open to other opinions. In a nutshell should use more "I think" when writing our opinions so as to make other people consider them as such.

C'mon let's do it for the sake of this great Community :)

[clehel]

To aysiu,
First of all, we are friends, I hope you agree!
I don't know where to start... This whole thread was a big learning experience for me. I read many of the articles suggested, including your troll story, which I found to be good. I suspected some points I made were made by many people before me, and I also felt I might not be right in some points from the very beginning (these turned out to be mostly the 2 & 3). Still I seem to have made some points that many people agreed to, although not all (the rest). Why did I not reply to you so far? (This seemed to bother you a lot...) Because I feel I have the right not to respond if I feel I am not really treated like a human, or even like a well-intentioned troll. I was asked to go by some people back to Windows, by you to Linspire, automatically. (Without really reading my post that for example I did not want to be root all the time.) Or telling everyone that what I wrote is a pile of crap.

Yes, you are right, I was not asking help for myself. It was in my original post that I already went through these, and just want to report what caused me a problem. But I do not think I was demanding anything. And I do not think I asked Ubuntu to look like or behave like a Windows clone, either.

Yes, you are right again, the problem with not being able to save a root permission-only file with a text editor as a user is not enough to give up on Ubuntu. Yes, alone it is not. But when you start with Ubuntu, you face all the problems at the same time. Alone any of them might seem minor. But there are many, and together they can be a source of frustration for many-many days, and enough for someone to give up. My list was actually not complete, I just included those that I felt effect the whole system, and I felt there is some room to make them better. If any of them can be made better, just minor, seemingly unimportant details, then the overall chance of survival is better.

I see and completely understand/agree that facing newcomers' similar posts is VERY unnerving, frustrating, unproductive, whatever you want, I agree. But it is still needed in some form, because a frequently repeated problem migh be real, and the newcomer might need help (in my case, I did not). I agree that a troll does not need to be fed, too. So maybe the solution would be to set up a poll in a very visible place for the newcomers, where they can rate different areas of Ubuntu in terms of friendliness/problems they caused to them (like hw recognition, installing Ubuntu, package management, etc). And they can also have an area for comments, but they know they will not necessarily get any direct reply. If that already exists, please let me know, I could not find it. (I am not demanding that to be set up, just thought about it as a good idea, OK?) After a while this might be a useful source of info for developers or people who put together new Ubuntu releases.

It might also help to give more visibility for newcomers to some key articles, like Linux is Not Windows, your troll article, etc. Newcomers should vote only after reading these articles, because it gives them a better view. And also have visible info for newcomers how and where to report a bug, how to contact developers (of course, these should be used with caution). I am sure these are available, I just did not find them yet. I heard about Bugzilla, but that's it...

And, if a newcomer makes a mistake, point out the mistake, but please still treat her/him like a human being. Thank you, and I really appreciate your friendly comments, if any!

[aysiu]

To aysiu,
Why did I not reply to you so far? (This seemed to bother you a lot...) Because I feel I have the right not to respond if I feel I am not really treated like a human, or even like a well-intentioned troll. Not replying is fine. The "no comment" comment was obnoxious, even moreso than my "end of story" comment.



I was asked to go by some people back to Windows, by you to Linspire, automatically. (Without really reading my post that for example I did not want to be root all the time.) Or telling everyone that what I wrote is a pile of crap. Actually, there's nothing wrong with Linspire. I really do think it would suit your needs. I'm just tired of people equating Ubuntu with Linux. Ubuntu is one flavor. Linspire is a flavor that seems to suit your needs. And, actually, I just re-read your original post, and you do want to run as root all the time. You just want to have a little warning appear when you modify system files. That's not secure. Part of security isn't just protecting you from yourself--it's protecting you from people or programs who might take over your computer and share your privileges. If only a warning and not a password prompt comes up, there's no way to stop malware from modifying important files and actually taking over your computer.



Yes, you are right, I was not asking help for myself. It was in my original post that I already went through these, and just want to report what caused me a problem. But I do not think I was demanding anything. I disagree. Anyone who titles a thread "Linux still needs to be more user friendly to convert Win users" is demanding something. If you're just pointing out a few problems, you could have titled your thread "A few problems I've had with Ubuntu," pointed out a few problems, said "But I made it through anyway," and end it by saying, "Has anyone else had these problems? Does anyone know if the Ubuntu team is working on fixing these for Breezy?"


And I do not think I asked Ubuntu to look like or behave like a Windows clone, either. Yes, you do. Just because you don't say the exact words "Linux must be a clone of Windows" doesn't mean that your expectations aren't mostly Windows-centric (running as root, for example--even in Mac OS X you're prompted for a password every time you do something system-critical).


But there are many, and together they can be a source of frustration for many-many days, and enough for someone to give up. My list was actually not complete, I just included those that I felt effect the whole system, and I felt there is some room to make them better. If any of them can be made better, just minor, seemingly unimportant details, then the overall chance of survival is better. You're missing a few things here:

1. I'm a newbie myself. I started only four months ago. I had growing pains, too.
2. Every OS has a learning curve. When you learn Mac there are growing pains. When you learn Windows there are growing pains.

Again, you can express frustration without creating one of these useless "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" threads. Look at the "What do you not like about Ubuntu?" thread. No one says, "Oh, just go back to Windows and shut up!" there. Why? Because it's people commiserating. They're just saying, "Oh, you've had that problem, too?" It's not "This is what's wrong with Linux. It has to be fixed." Very different attitude.



I see and completely understand/agree that facing newcomers' similar posts is VERY unnerving, frustrating, unproductive, whatever you want, I agree. But it is still needed in some form, because a frequently repeated problem migh be real, and the newcomer might need help (in my case, I did not). I agree, too. See above.



It might also help to give more visibility for newcomers to some key articles, like Linux is Not Windows, your troll article, etc. Newcomers should vote only after reading these articles, because it gives them a better view. And also have visible info for newcomers how and where to report a bug, how to contact developers (of course, these should be used with caution). I am sure these are available, I just did not find them yet. I heard about Bugzilla, but that's it... We have stickies, but I've always found no one really reads stickies except the people who don't have to.



And, if a newcomer makes a mistake, point out the mistake, but please still treat her/him like a human being. Thank you, and I really appreciate your friendly comments, if any! Don't talk about treating people like human beings. "No comment" isn't treating people like human beings. This post is treating me more like a human being. I don't appreciate being patronized to.
Admittedly, I shouldn't have tagged "end of story" to my first post, but a civilized response would have gone something like this: "I don't know why you said 'end of story.' That seems a rather abrupt closing, but I've never tried Linspire. I may give it a shot."

What you still don't seem to realize after this whole thread and reading articles and such is that Linux comes in many flavors. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. Ubuntu isn't Linux. And if you don't like Linspire, try Mepis. You can double-click a .deb to install it in Mepis. You can even run as root in Mepis (if you want to).

[Stormy Eyes]

Neither is Slackware...I'm not sure of the continued justification for the existence of Slack, other than bragging rights for those who manage to use it.

Slackware doesn't need to justify its existence, and neither does any other distro. If Volkerding is willing to work on Slack, and people want to use it, that is reason enough for Slackware to exist. I personally think it's rather arrogant to talk about distros having to justify their existence.

[AlexanRO]

1. Synaptic is by far the easiest way to find, download and install programs. I love to just mark checkboxes , click apply, wait a minute or so, and then start using the programs. The repositories are quite big with 16k packages so almost everything is there. But yeah for the (very few) programs that aren't there and for dial up users who get the programs from somewhere else then online it would be nice to click on the .deb, answer yes, and then start using the program.

2. The problem is that when a program wants to change a system file (or do any other sudo task) the system needs a way to tell if it is because you told the program to do the change or because the program is a virus/trojan/whatever that wants to mess up the system. So a confirmation that a virus wouldn't know of is needed, that'd be your password.

3. Windows is too willing to eject CDs when you push the button, it even does it in the middle of burning them! But if no program currently needs the CD then I agree with you. For floppys I think the problem is that a floppy drive is entirely mechanical, the software has no way to know when you put in or take out a diskette. Windows seems to solve this by mounting and unmounting every time it reads or writes something.

4. If linux gets more market share then maybe those special programs will come in a linux native version. Until then I'd personally think using windows is the best option if you need specific windows programs. Emulation can never compete with the real thing.

5. Yes, some help with learning the commands is what users need to get started with the command line. The best help might be to get a book from the library. Once they know the commands it is easy & fast to use.

6. The problem here is not that there is so many different projects but rather that it is not easy enough to move features between them. For example if ubuntu devs try to decide which media player to include and one player is good for organizing music but another is better for viewing movies. If they could just combine the movie part of one and the music part of the other into a crossover mediaplayer to include with ubuntu.... That would make good use of both project's efforts.
There is Ubuntu, Mepis, Mandriva (Formally Mandrake), Fedora, SUSE, PClinuxOS, and if you prefer to pay (heh) Linspire, and Xandros. If it needs to be any friendlier a much needed adjustment should be made between the keyboard and chair.

my $0.02

AlexanRo

[matthew]

WLinspire doesn't have a free version .
I just saw this yesterday...not much on the site yet, but I imagine more will be coming.

Freespire (http://freespire.jasp.com/)

[poofyhairguy]

. And also have visible info for newcomers how and where to report a bug, how to contact developers (of course, these should be used with caution). I am sure these are available, I just did not find them yet. I heard about Bugzilla, but that's it...


bugzilla is the only official channel for developer feedback.

[Galoot]

Here's a good read. (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)
Thank you for this link. After years of commercial software brainwashing, it's nice to have the definitions used in the FOSS world all spelled out in one place.

Shoulda-coulda-woulda... I kick myself for switching from DOS to Windows instead of from DOS to Linux. I've got a lot of catching up to do.

[its_jon]

I am a newb.

I agree with a lot of the original suggestions.
However I like Linux for its common sence and order....So, The installation of software should be regimental...... However, it should also be as simple as possible if you are using a GUI tool., as thats the whole point of it.

I dont subscribe to the argument that Ubuntu is not trying to be a Windows clone... as it is obviously attractive in look and feel to newbs like us who are trying it out from a Microsoft background.

The way linux works is so much better and when you think about it, it should be more simple to make idiot proof.

With all this going for it, why is a newb forced and encouraged to use the terminal for the most basic of operations.
Im all for using a terminal to speed things up when I start to learn more but I dont want to be compiling things straight away, whatever that means.

[aysiu]

With all this going for it, why is a newb forced and encouraged to use the terminal for the most basic of operations.
Im all for using a terminal to speed things up when I start to learn more but I dont want to be compiling things straight away, whatever that means. Read this:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=59334

It may shed some light on some of your concerns.

[Hobbsee]

Just wanted to add something here: if I see a CD or DVD on my desktop and right-click and select "eject," it unmounts and the actual CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive physically ejects. I don't see what's so bad about that.

I just thought i'd add that ubuntu does have a cd eject program. It's called eject, and is in the repositories (with the extra ones enabled like the ubuntu guide says)

Description:
ejects CDs and operates CD-Changers under Linux
This little program will eject CD-ROMs (assuming your drive supports
the CDROMEJECT ioctl). It also allows setting the autoeject feature,
currently supported by a number of the Linux CD-ROM drivers. See the
documentation in /usr/src/linux/Documentation for more information on
the autoeject feature.

On supported ATAPI/IDE multi-disc CD-ROM changers, it allows changing
the active disc.

[Stormy Eyes]

With all this going for it, why is a newb forced and encouraged to use the terminal for the most basic of operations.

Because it's easier for me if I can give you a set of commands that you can paste into the terminal in order to get done what you need to get done. If I had to walk newbies through GUI after GUI, I wouldn't have the patience to help anybody. However, since I can say "paste this command into your terminal, and then this one" in just a couple of minutes, I can help a newbie without turning my hair grey.

[its_jon]

Because it's easier for me if I can give you a set of commands that you can paste into the terminal in order to get done what you need to get done. If I had to walk newbies through GUI after GUI, I wouldn't have the patience to help anybody. However, since I can say "paste this command into your terminal, and then this one" in just a couple of minutes, I can help a newbie without turning my hair grey.

Ok then, I offer you a challenge then sir !

Help me to gain internet access through my Sagem 800 USB modem.
I have cut and past a lot of suggestions into a terminal, none of which I understood. Because of this action I have no visual referance or history of my actions....I just entered 'stuff' into a terminal....at the end of it all my modem still does not work and I have no idea what drivers or combination of compiles have been loaded if any because I have no visual referance.....

Its a bit like giving someone directions on a road system, you could simply tell the road name and junction numbers or you can use 'iconic' landmarks.......to someone with no knowledge of the area iconic landmarks are best. This way not only will they arrive but they will remember the route vividly.

Does this make sense now ?

[aysiu]

No, because your Sagem modem won't work even with GUI. It has nothing to do with GUI or command-line. GUI is just a pretty face for the command-line--they serve the same function on the system level.

For example, if a command-line sudo apt-get install package doesn't work, it doesn't mean that trying to install that same package through Synaptic Package Manager is going to work.

And, as a matter of fact, the command-line gives you a whole history of what you tried. In GUI, there's no history unless you're taking a movie...

Didn't someone already say that?

[npaladin2000]

And, as a matter of fact, the command-line gives you a whole history of what you tried. In GUI, there's no history unless you're taking a movie...

Didn't someone already say that?

Probably, but it bears repeating. The Linux terminal is a lot more powerful and a LOT more user-friendly than the Windows CLI. ;) "DOSKEY" is enabled by default. we have tab completion, manpages...

[a-nubi-s]

Originally Posted by aysiu
No, because your Sagem modem won't work even with GUI. Not true. The Sagem 800 does work in Linux. There are plenty of pages online. For example:

Sagem Fast 800 on Linux (Debian) (http://www.larsen-b.com/Article/143.html )


Edit: I even found one right on the Ubuntu forums. It's in Spanish but the drivers link and code is there.

http://www.ubuntu-es.org/node/1221

[clehel]

And, actually, I just re-read your original post, and you do want to run as root all the time. You just want to have a little warning appear when you modify system files. That's not secure.
"a warning message would appear telling that you plan to modify something critical for the system. If you click OK, then you are given root privilege, even without you knowing about it. As soon as you leave that area, you are quietly converted back to plain user, again without you knowing about it."

This is from my original message. I thought of switching to root with a click, but not always staying as root. Other people already pointed out that this is not secure without a password, so I admitted it is not a good idea.

Yes, you do. Just because you don't say the exact words "Linux must be a clone of Windows" doesn't mean that your expectations aren't mostly Windows-centric (running as root, for example--even in Mac OS X you're prompted for a password every time you do something system-critical).

I don't agree, see above. Only my idea was not secure, so no good.


You're missing a few things here:

1. I'm a newbie myself. I started only four months ago. I had growing pains, too.
2. Every OS has a learning curve. When you learn Mac there are growing pains. When you learn Windows there are growing pains.

I did not miss these (of course everybody is a newbie at one point, and of course any OS has pain learning it), but they do not invalidate my point. If Ubuntu can be made better, even in seemingly minor details, it would be good to do that, because it means Ubuntu overall becomes better, and easier to master. I am already very much afraid to use the term "user friendly" (although I think it is a good term), because in many people's mind it is associated with Windows, and triggers an automatic hostile response, or they say Linux/Ubuntu is already user friendly, just not to everybody.


Don't talk about treating people like human beings. "No comment" isn't treating people like human beings. This post is treating me more like a human being. I don't appreciate being patronized to.
Admittedly, I shouldn't have tagged "end of story" to my first post,
Now we can start arguing who started, which is absolutely meaningless. In my original post I wrote "I intend to help, not to offend". If I still offended some people, I apologize. Even with it's mistakes, many people were not offended, and considered my post "a good honest post that deserves a good honest reply". And did not consider it demanding. But yes, you are right, the wording you suggested would have offended less people.


What you still don't seem to realize after this whole thread and reading articles and such is that Linux comes in many flavors. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. Ubuntu isn't Linux. And if you don't like Linspire, try Mepis. You can double-click a .deb to install it in Mepis. You can even run as root in Mepis (if you want to).
Of course I know about other flavors, although I have not tried any. (Back in 2000 I tried Caldera, now SCO. What a shame...) Originally Ubuntu was chosen by my son, but now I wholeheartedly agree with him. There are many things you consider when you choose a flavor, not just ease of use. Large userbase, good support, predictably stable future, and being free (no cost) are very important to me, as I do not plan to change flavors. So I am willing to accept some trade-off in some other areas, if necessary. And these criteria mean Ubuntu right now.

OK, I think we should stop arguing, because we argue over tiny details back and forth, and just waste our time. God bless you! :-P

[npaladin2000]

"a warning message would appear telling that you plan to modify something critical for the system. If you click OK, then you are given root privilege, even without you knowing about it. As soon as you leave that area, you are quietly converted back to plain user, again without you knowing about it."

This is from my original message. I thought of switching to root with a click, but not always staying as root. Other people already pointed out that this is not secure without a password, so I admitted it is not a good idea.

Uhh, exactly WHAT is the advantage of that? What if you're not SUPPOSED to be root? That's the whole idea behind having to enter an authorized password in order to modify something critical. You know, just in case you got up from your desk and some other jerk in your office sat down with an evil grin on his face...until he saw the password prompt anyway. ;)

Besides, as I said, Windows has copied (stolen?) Ubuntu's way of doing things, with a pseudo-sudo (Hey, THAT'S funny!) for Vista. By mass adoption, it seems to have been judged the best compromise.

[clehel]

Uhh, exactly WHAT is the advantage of that? What if you're not SUPPOSED to be root? That's the whole idea behind having to enter an authorized password in order to modify something critical. You know, just in case you got up from your desk and some other jerk in your office sat down with an evil grin on his face...until he saw the password prompt anyway. ;)

You are right, if you are in an office. Just I considered an average home environment, with no "hostile" user around. I was told that it is not secure even in this case, because a virus might mimick that click on the OK button, but can not mimick your password. So I already accepted that my idea is not good, so it's not worth talking about it.

[Lord Illidan]

I think the thread has outlived its usefulness...

[Stormy Eyes]

Ok then, I offer you a challenge then sir !

Help me to gain internet access through my Sagem 800 USB modem.

Oh, sure, ask me to help with a piece of hardware with which I am utterly unfamiliar. That's really f---ing cute. If you wanted help making your DVD-ROM work, I could tell you exactly what to punch into the terminal. But a brand of USB modem I've never used? Forget about it.

[Brunellus]

Ok then, I offer you a challenge then sir !

Help me to gain internet access through my Sagem 800 USB modem.


While I admire your tenacity, after all that fuss, one wonders why you haven't gone and gotten a DSL modem that has ethernet.

As poofyhairguy always says, this is the Real Cost of Linux. Faced with unsupported hardware, you must either 1) hack or 2) bail. In similar situations, I've bailed, and spent my money on things that are already known to work or are more easily supported.

And don't let's get into the "there are THOUSANDS of these buggers out there" discussion again....because it doesn't matter. If the ONE on your desk doesn't work for YOU, and nothing you can do can make it work, well, in the words of Bones McCoy, "he's dead, Jim." Anyway I find it hard to believe--no, impossible to believe--that Tiscali would set up a network that COULD NOT under NO CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER use modems that have ethernet connectors.

Freedom isn't free.

[neighborlee]

No, it doesn't.

Linux is NOT a Windows clone, nor should it be. Most users who switch to an alternative OS (not just Linux) from Windows expect differences, and accept them.

User- friendliness is not defined by the 'Windows way'. Just because you are used to a certian methodology doesn't make it law.

you and everyother l33t minded linux user just doesn't GET it yet. M$ has THE MARKET SHARE atm..and its not going to let go of it 'easily'..it aint rocket science brother!!

no market share no games or apps or drivers for you!! ( or a VERy slow trickle if any )

thats the point of this guys post...get of the way and let logic lead instead of linux l33t attitude.

end of story

nl

[neighborlee]

No, it doesn't.

Linux is NOT a Windows clone, nor should it be. Most users who switch to an alternative OS (not just Linux) from Windows expect differences, and accept them.

User- friendliness is not defined by the 'Windows way'. Just because you are used to a certian methodology doesn't make it law.

who says it has to be a windows clone..was that the tone of his original post..pppppppppppppppppalease.

latre
nl

[neighborlee]

No, it doesn't.

Linux is NOT a Windows clone, nor should it be. Most users who switch to an alternative OS (not just Linux) from Windows expect differences, and accept them.

User- friendliness is not defined by the 'Windows way'. Just because you are used to a certian methodology doesn't make it law.

who says it has to be a windows clone..was that the tone of his original post ?..pppppppppppppppppalease.

latre
nl

[neighborlee]

No, it doesn't.

Linux is NOT a Windows clone, nor should it be. Most users who switch to an alternative OS (not just Linux) from Windows expect differences, and accept them.

User- friendliness is not defined by the 'Windows way'. Just because you are used to a certian methodology doesn't make it law.

who says it has to be a windows clone..was that the tone of his original post ?..of course not and your suggestion to reduce his post to that level is sadly misplaced and not worthy in a ubuntu forum.

latre
nl

[neighborlee]

1. Synaptic is by far the easiest way to find, download and install programs. I love to just mark checkboxes , click apply, wait a minute or so, and then start using the programs. The repositories are quite big with 16k packages so almost everything is there. But yeah for the (very few) programs that aren't there and for dial up users who get the programs from somewhere else then online it would be nice to click on the .deb, answer yes, and then start using the program.

yeah we need just something like that..gdeb doesn't work well or im using it wrong..??



3. Windows is too willing to eject CDs when you push the button, it even does it in the middle of burning them! But if no program currently needs the CD then I agree with you. For floppys I think the problem is that a floppy drive is entirely mechanical, the software has no way to know when you put in or take out a diskette. Windows seems to solve this by mounting and unmounting every time it reads or writes something.

your perception but I guarantee you not the same for others..i've used windows for a VER Ylong time and i've NEVER done that...apparatnly ymmv and it DID <wink>



6. The problem here is not that there is so many different projects but rather that it is not easy enough to move features between them. For example if ubuntu devs try to decide which media player to include and one player is good for organizing music but another is better for viewing movies. If they could just combine the movie part of one and the music part of the other into a crossover mediaplayer to include with ubuntu.... That would make good use of both project's efforts.

agree totally..nice suggestion!!

latre
nl

[neighborlee]

1. Synaptic is by far the easiest way to find, download and install programs. I love to just mark checkboxes , click apply, wait a minute or so, and then start using the programs. The repositories are quite big with 16k packages so almost everything is there. But yeah for the (very few) programs that aren't there and for dial up users who get the programs from somewhere else then online it would be nice to click on the .deb, answer yes, and then start using the program.

yeah we need just something like that..gdeb doesn't work well or im using it wrong..??



3. Windows is too willing to eject CDs when you push the button, it even does it in the middle of burning them! But if no program currently needs the CD then I agree with you. For floppys I think the problem is that a floppy drive is entirely mechanical, the software has no way to know when you put in or take out a diskette. Windows seems to solve this by mounting and unmounting every time it reads or writes something.

your perception but I guarantee you not the same for others..i've used windows for a VER Ylong time and i've NEVER done that...apparatnly ymmv and it DID <wink>



6. The problem here is not that there is so many different projects but rather that it is not easy enough to move features between them. For example if ubuntu devs try to decide which media player to include and one player is good for organizing music but another is better for viewing movies. If they could just combine the movie part of one and the music part of the other into a crossover mediaplayer to include with ubuntu.... That would make good use of both project's efforts.

agree totally..nice suggestion!!

latre
nl

EDIT: sorry for double post it was def. not on purpose as is clear by my other posts.

[Parkotron]

Is Linux ready for my grandmother? Maybe, if it was perfectly preconfigured, but the truth of the matter is that Windows has a few huge advantages.

I think a big point that a lot of people are missing is that Windows is a commercial product, and an particularly expensive one at that. If you shell out that $350 for a copy of WinXPPro, that money isn't labelled "PROFIT" and sent directly to Mr. Gates bank account. It's used to pay employees, lots of full time employees to be more specific.

Sure many open source projects have paid employees, but usually not that many. And sure there are thousands of volunteer developers working on Linux, but in their spare time and on the projects THEY are interested in. Microsoft can pay a team of twenty people to work a full year on a boring and rarely used part of the operating system, that you'd be hard pressed to find a single volunteer developer take an interest in. Documentation is another example. A Linux developer, after adding feature X to their project, is generally much keener to start work on feature Y than to properly document feature X. Why? Programming is funner. Microsoft can hire large teams of writers who's only job is to produce documentation.

Another huge advantage that Windows has, is that there's really only ever one current version of Windows. (Sure, there's Home and Professional editions, but one is just a stripped down version of the other.) And Windows only really supports one architecture. (edit: I forgot about WinXP64, which makes me a liar on both points just mentioned.) All this makes installing software much simpler. To find precompiled software on Linux, you must always specify distribution, release, and architecture.

Windows installs only what it installs. You get one media player, one email client, one web browser, one file manager, one image viewer, 6 games, etc. It doesn't "support" other software. That's the software vendors problem. Windows sets itself up and lets the other guys worry about how to make the software to work. If a program refuses to work on Windows, it's the programs fault, not Windows. Linux on the other hand has repositories full of supported software. There's no real way to draw a line between the OS and installed programs.

All that said, I'm not a huge Windows fan. I've been using Linux for the last 8 months and am loving it. Many of the advantages of Windows I mentioned are considered disadvantages by Linux users, including myself. But I, like a large percentage of you, am a tinkerer and am willing to put some work in to get things exactly how I want. My grandmother, however, would rather see things just work, and in that case Windows had the upper hand.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Is Linux ready for my grandmother? Maybe, if it was perfectly preconfigured, but the truth of the matter is that Windows has a few huge advantages.

Perfectly preconfigured. That is the only advantage that Microsoft have. I think 95% of x86 (Intel, AMD) computer manufacturer has preinstalled & preconfigured Win XP completed with all the required drivers.

The best example I can give is my Dell notebook (Inspiron 510m). It comes with 5 CDs; MS Win XP, MS Works, Drivers + Utilities, Dell Media stuff, Cyberlink DVD stuff and Sonic Digital media stuff.

To re-install Win XP I need first to:
install the OS itself,
then install the drivers (using Dell CD, can't download because network card still not installed) + a couple of restarts,
Configure settings; display, networking and etc,
download AVG antivirus, Yahoo Messenger, Firefox, Thunderbird, winamp and etc,
hunt down the latest drivers from Dell website (have to manually compare the version number of every drivers or compare the release date of the drivers to see it they've got anything newer than what I've installed) + a couple of restarts.
fine tune a few settings such as networking cause MS Autowizards stuff keeps trying to configure things to its own liking and no user control + freedom.


Compare it with installing Ubuntu Hoary:
Install the OS, (everything detected and configured during installation) + the installer connects to repo, downloads and updates itself.
apt-get kernel 686, epiphany and few other apps (single restart because of kernel update)
the only manual tweaking i have to do is to my xorg.conf for viewing using external monitor

Compare it with installing Breezy: same as above except i dont need to tweak anything for FN+F8 (interna - external display switching) to work.

Ubuntu (and also other GNU/Linux, especially Debian-based) are becoming a lot easier to install, configure and maintain up to date.

If anyone here has ever guide their friends to re-install Win XP they'll know its not an easy thing to do to. The multiple drivers/cd, lack of proper error output to diagnose anything, reliance on auto wizards that takes control away from you, and the list goes on.

Most of the time installing Ubuntu or any other GNU/Linux feels hard because:
its our first attempt at installing a new OS
we have no prior experience of using it we have no idea of how the things supposed to work
new way of doing things; command line interface, text file editing, reading error output and etc.

Most of the time installing Win XO seems easier because;
computer manufacturer already installed it - we have a complete and running win XP to play with and get familiar first
most of us have done it a few times, things get easier and familiar with more practice
back then we were re-installing Win XP only, no need to think about how to make it play nice with other OS
winXP makes it nearly impossible to play nice with other OS, thats why its recommend to install it first then only install GNU/Linux.


Perhaps the topic should be:

user: not ready for Ubuntu, or GNU/Linux, or any other OS that is not pre-installed and pre-configured by computer manufacturer.

[TimelessRogue]

Hey, sorry to hear of you problems ... I, on the other hand, after trying several distros over the years, have found Ubuntu to be by far the easiest and shortest install/use track. Downloaded and installed Hoary 5.04 including the LiveCD. Both worked from the getgo although the full install required some minor tweaking ... network configuration mainly. LiveCD on the otherhand has worked just fine and fully functional with no tweaking so far including wireless and modem.

And this is all on an older (like by seveal years) HP n5000 at that!

Stick with it ... give it another try, especially after going through these forums for some great advice specific to your situation. It there's a problem, you'll find the answer and support here ...

[DancingSun]

I think Ubuntu's more likely to encounter problems than Windows on a bleeding edge PC. I've seen many posts reguarding problems with sound, video cards, wireless LAN, dual core CPU, printers....stuff like that. I also heard some scanners when used on Linux won't be able to utilize some of the features that are available in Windows.

[bam]

pfft, I had zero issues, oh wait, xmms would work, but that was solved in like, 5 minutes, everything else worked flawless, i have a Sager 8790, runnin dual boot(yes there are some windows programs I have to run for my job), but other than that linux all the way.

[Arne Caspari]

I think Ubuntu's more likely to encounter problems than Windows on a bleeding edge PC. I've seen many posts reguarding problems with sound, video cards, wireless LAN, dual core CPU, printers....stuff like that. I also heard some scanners when used on Linux won't be able to utilize some of the features that are available in Windows.

Just to show that it can very well also be the other way round:

I have a ASUS Pundit based computer here with ATI IGP chipset. You have no chance to run this computer directly with Windows because the drivers for this chipset is missing on the original WindowsXP CD. So you have to have the driver CD ready ( which I am missing ) or you have to have access to a second PC with CD burner and good knowledge how to find the correct drivers on the net.

This system runs right out of the box with Linux ;-)

[DancingSun]

Just to show that it can very well also be the other way round:

I have a ASUS Pundit based computer here with ATI IGP chipset. You have no chance to run this computer directly with Windows because the drivers for this chipset is missing on the original WindowsXP CD. So you have to have the driver CD ready ( which I am missing ) or you have to have access to a second PC with CD burner and good knowledge how to find the correct drivers on the net.

This system runs right out of the box with Linux ;-)
Well, at least ATI has the drivers for Windows. Current hardware driver support is lagging behind Windows. That's a fact. Not that it's totally Linux's fault, but it's a fact that is inconvenient to the user, nonetheless.

I so wish that all manufacturers release release Linux drivers, and that Linux can have one packaging format so that I don't have to be bummed out when these drivers are released in rpm format (I don't want to go throught trouble of converting these packaging formats). I was going to buy a Canon Pixma multifunciton printer, but I decided to hold off until a Linux driver is made...if ever.

[mousepad]

I am suffering from winxp withdraw right now. I had some spare time during my summer vacation and thought I'd like to dive into Linux, deciding to skip dual-boot entirely. All I've ever used has been windows since 3.1. My biggest concern was not being able to do everything I wanted to on a linux system. I mean, my computer already had winxp professional on it (meaning I already paid for the program, why switch?) Linux advocates make a convincing argument for free alternative windows programs with openoffice, gaim, xine, and wine who needs their costly alternatives, but it's those small random programs that don't have ports. No one using x likes to mention the huge amount of time spent on packages, compiling source, using the terminal and fixing little things that work already in windows.

Of course, there are many positive aspects of linux and I'll probably be glad I took the time to learn it. However, I feel that the linux community has misrepresented the ease of transitioning from different systems. I heard "all the popular programs have their free equivalents linux! all other programs can be emulated through wine! You have everything you need! Modern distros easy setup!" No one mentions the tedious package and driver configuration necessary just to get DVDs to work or talks about the shortcomings of emulating, or the process just to get a program to show up on the applications bar, or the necessity to reassign special keys and shortcuts. After my first day of using linux I am almost fed up with all the little things that need to be configured. Windows has its downfalls , but the total amount of time spent scanning for viruses, setting up a firewall, defragmenting, doing a fresh install of windowsxp regularly would probably amount to less than the amount of time configuring linux has required. Maybe if I was back in middle/high school during the summer I wouldn't care so much and recommend everyone to try the "better" OS. Honestly, I know people who have been using computers for years, but don't know basic things like how to setup a printer or timid about searching for a program and installing it from the internet. These are the people who buy full desktop sets. How could linux possibly hope to appeal to the regular person when it expects so much setup time from the user? Maybe, for the tech lovers, but most users don't want to see code or spend time customizing they want the job done. I converted to linux for better security and in hopes that I wouldn't have to purchase another copy of microsoft word or an antivirus subscription again , but in the end, nothing is really free.

[madjo]

Well I also recently switched from Windows too, but Ubuntu was remarkably easy to install... especially if you follow the instructions of the UbuntuGuide.org (http://www.ubuntuguide.org)
most things in Ubuntu are easily installed through 'apt-get install', 'synaptic' or 'dpkg -i' (with .deb files) .. so no hassle with compiling etc, and automatic dependencies checks/installs. :)
Granted, not all files are in the repositories, but a large chunk is.

But I do have dual boot, just in case. (Which was just as well, because with my tinkering I broke the first installation right on the first day :) )

btw, I have never seen any of the claims you are telling... sure many win programs have linux counterparts, but certainly not all are available... and some are better and others are much worse...
I think the people, who told you that, really need a reality check :)

[GeneralZod]

I think the people, who told you that, really need a reality check :)

Indeed. If I had super-powers (beyond the ability to fly and shoot laser beams out of my eyes that I already have, of course :)), I'd make it my mission in life to track down every person who misrepresents Linux as being as good as (or better) than Windows in every possible way and give them a good kick in the pants :). And yes, these people do exist and they do far more harm than good - such people initially prompted me to try Linux (Mandrake 9.1, way back in Sept '03) with claims that it was completely superior to Windows, and that no applications ever crashed, etc. The gap between expectation and reality was so wide that the disappointment rapidly changed into frustration and a peculiar sense of...betrayal, I think, which extended to the entire Linux community even though it was, as is so often the case, only the vocal minority who deserved to bear the brunt of blame. I was so disillusioned with it, in fact, that I vowed never to try it again.

As it so happens, I eventually did try it again (just over a year ago) and with my reduced expectations (and Desktop Linux's incredible improvements since the last time I'd used it - honestly, it was like night and day!) I soon fell in love with it and will now never go back to Windows :)

I'm firmly convinced that had people taken a more balanced approach to advocacy (stating that yes it does have many advantages over Windows, but be prepared for missing functionality, unsupported hardware, etc), I would never have had such a severe backlash against Linux. In fact, nowadays, my "advocacy" consists of a litany of problems that people will run into should they try Linux. Oddly, this arouses far more curiousity than the Zealot's Approach, presumably because people think "Hmmm...Zod's a fairly smart fellow, and he's just listed all these shortcomings and yet he still uses it first time. I guess Linux must have some other, perhaps less tangible, advantages, then. I wonder what they could be? Perhaps I'll try it for myself!"

Edit:

I should also point out that installing Ubuntu on my desktop and Laptop are both easier than installing Windows, so please don't assume that any difficulties you had will be experienced by others - it's pretty much 100% dependent on your hardware.

[pizzach]

Meh. Everyone likes to tout their own OS. I think it levels the playing field a bit though. So many people never try anything different unless it's forced upon them because different = bad and different = some work. You know you have started to use another OS/program enough though when you stop noticing what's missing from the new program and notice the strengths of both (or at last the new program.)

I have run about 3-4 different distros/versions trying to get my foot in the door for linux. I think that would include, YDL, Ubunu, redhat in VirtualPC on my Mac, and Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the first one that worked enough with my hardware right of the bat to let me keep it. (Had problems with unrecognized cdroms/floppy drives, no sound, no modem, no ethernet, Not having X11 even start up on a fresh install....) I could work around most of the problems now. But first trying linux and being forced to a terminal screen with little knowlege of available commands or structure of everything is not the ideal way to start. ;-)

[Kvark]

Linux advocates make a convincing argument for free alternative windows programs with openoffice, gaim, xine, and wine who needs their costly alternatives, but it's those small random programs that don't have ports.
Yeah, no alternatives for all the things that are so small or specialized that there is only one or two programs that does it. That might be the worst thing about switching from one platform to another.


No one using x likes to mention the huge amount of time spent on packages, compiling source, using the terminal and fixing little things that work already in windows.
This is very random. If you have hardware that isn't supported or need programs that aren't among the 16k packages in synaptic's repos then you're bound to get some trouble or even a hell of a mess.

If not then it's a pretty sweet ride... I was lucky with almost all my hardware being supported. On my first try to install Ubuntu I got drivers, programs and settings sorted out much faster then what it usually takes me to reinstall Windows with all the drivers, programs and settings. www.ubuntuguide.org had everything that I needed to do summed up and everything I needed to do it was easy to get with synaptic.

After a while I noticed several small things that needed to be tweaked or changed, like reorganizing the panels and adding a few keyboard shortcuts. But it's good to ponder over what panel layout, shortcuts and such gives you the most convinient environment to work in.

Maintenance after setup and tweaking... only to make backups, nothing else needs to be done, there isn't even any need to virus scan or defrag the hdd. Once it works it keeps working. :grin:

...well, thats if you're lucky and what you have and need happens to be supported. Otherwise, yeah it can be a hell.


However, I feel that the linux community has misrepresented the ease of transitioning from different systems. I heard "all the popular programs have their free equivalents linux! all other programs can be emulated through wine! You have everything you need! Modern distros easy setup!"
Seems like you where unlucky and ran into someone whose head is up in the clouds. I was told that "you'll miss your windows programs cause running them in the wine 'emulator' doesn't work very well at all. But there are linux programs at least for the most common tasks such as office suite, image editing and chatting."

It's all about luck, if the persons you happen to bump into are living in reality or not.



Might be worth to mention that average users shouldn't install an OS, they should stay with whats already installed on the computer and in worst case use the recovery disks that came with it. Or if an average user changes os, he/she better have a geek friend do the setup work. Most average users will have problems already with trying to figure out what a partition is when installing Windows or Ubuntu or any other OS.

[Brunellus]

I am suffering from winxp withdraw right now. I had some spare time during my summer vacation and thought I'd like to dive into Linux, deciding to skip dual-boot entirely. All I've ever used has been windows since 3.1. My biggest concern was not being able to do everything I wanted to on a linux system. I mean, my computer already had winxp professional on it (meaning I already paid for the program, why switch?) Linux advocates make a convincing argument for free alternative windows programs with openoffice, gaim, xine, and wine who needs their costly alternatives, but it's those small random programs that don't have ports. No one using x likes to mention the huge amount of time spent on packages, compiling source, using the terminal and fixing little things that work already in windows.

Of course, there are many positive aspects of linux and I'll probably be glad I took the time to learn it. However, I feel that the linux community has misrepresented the ease of transitioning from different systems. I heard "all the popular programs have their free equivalents linux! all other programs can be emulated through wine! You have everything you need! Modern distros easy setup!" No one mentions the tedious package and driver configuration necessary just to get DVDs to work or talks about the shortcomings of emulating, or the process just to get a program to show up on the applications bar, or the necessity to reassign special keys and shortcuts. After my first day of using linux I am almost fed up with all the little things that need to be configured. Windows has its downfalls , but the total amount of time spent scanning for viruses, setting up a firewall, defragmenting, doing a fresh install of windowsxp regularly would probably amount to less than the amount of time configuring linux has required. Maybe if I was back in middle/high school during the summer I wouldn't care so much and recommend everyone to try the "better" OS. Honestly, I know people who have been using computers for years, but don't know basic things like how to setup a printer or timid about searching for a program and installing it from the internet. These are the people who buy full desktop sets. How could linux possibly hope to appeal to the regular person when it expects so much setup time from the user? Maybe, for the tech lovers, but most users don't want to see code or spend time customizing they want the job done. I converted to linux for better security and in hopes that I wouldn't have to purchase another copy of microsoft word or an antivirus subscription again , but in the end, nothing is really free.
If your needs are specialized enough to require Windows, or you feel that you're not up to doing what you need to do *at this time* to get Ubuntu or any other distribution running, well...don't. Really, it's not a big deal.

Each user makes his own calculation of his own needs. For some, who have fairly conventional hardware, installation isn't an issue. If their needs are general--a bit of word processing, some web, and so on--then desktop linux is ideal.

Some users have very specific needs in mind with specialized hardware. For these users, things are more complicated...if you wanted to build a supercomputer cluster, say, or a server, Linux would be great. If, however, you required a lot of proprietary tools/extensions to proprietary software, then linux becomes a little more bother, as you've noted.

The difficulties are two: 1) identifying those areas where there is no equivalent software/hardware to do the job, and 2) learning to use those alternatives, as opposed to the windows applications themselves.

In my observation, most 'switchers' don't bother with 1 and complain bitterly about 2. In the words of StormyEyes--if you want Windows, you know where to find it.

[aysiu]

I'm sorry someone misrepresented Linux to you. I would never, of course, say there's a free alternative out there for every Windows program or that everything can be emulated with Wine (who told you that?).

Linux is clearly not for you. Read my sig.
I'm perfectly happy with it and didn't run into any of the problems you did, probably because my expectations were lower and my requirements less stringent.

[joker]

I have been a microsoft user from the DOS days and I agree with you that linux can be a pain in some areas. I just converted my desktop about a month ago to linux, specifically ubuntu, with some mixed results, and 2 other machines too, a dual boot for my sis because she thought my desktop looked neat (450 mhz AMD K6-2) and on a 400 mhz celeron just for fun and experimentation. I have to say without a dobut if the hardware is supported by linux, it is far far easier to install Ubuntu than Windows. On my sisters dual boot machine, setting up the windows partition was more time consuming and aggrevating than the linux partition. I had to hunt down drivers for sound, video, and most difficult of all... the modem. Ubuntu already had all these drivers in the base install... yes, even the modem! But to be fair Ubuntu could not detect the network card, which was the only one windows could detect, instead of troubleshooting the driver I just grabed another one form my junk pile and all was good. The other two machines were completely supported.

My Ubuntu desktop is great for basic things, however, I have to boot into windows every now and again for things such as EAC (exact audio copy), I have tried many linux alternatives but nothing in linux does it all. That said, I prefer to use ubuntu whenever possible. I like the desktop environment better than windows and some of the programs too. for example, I find the gimp to be more useful for editing photos than any of the windows programs I have for the same purpose (no, I don't have photoshop so I can't compare), I also find xine to be head and shoulders above windows media player. I do have to gripe at the people who say linux is exponentially more stable than windows. Its not in the desktop relm anyway, I have crashed a number of programs and even locked the system a time or two. Not any worse than my windows install, less I think, but enough to say linux isn't that far superrior to windows in stability.

As for system setup my first go 'round was also tough, then I forund that someone made a install script for most of the things in the ubuntuguide to automate it, that is what really makes the install painless.

I have not had to compile anything yet, synaptic has had every package I have asked for, mame, zsnes, vlc, etc... but I am not really a power user yet so maby that will change with time.

Ubuntu is definitely lacking gui friendliness in some areas, the device manager for example is not very useful, at least no where nead as useful as windows, configuring screen resolutions can be a pain, etc.

The biggest plus I see is in the future of technology. the next release of Ubuntu, Breezy, in a month or so is supposed to take care of a lot of my minor quibbles (like the cut/paste feature) and add some nice functionality, as opposed to the upcomming windows vista release which will give me a slightly different desktop and many new restrictions on what I can do with my computer. Subsequent releases will further widen this gap, and I don't want to supprot the trend of locking down technology and limiting functionality. while I admit there are shortcommings in linux, I believe it will continue to improve and is 'good enough' for now.

[xequence]

I am suffering from winxp withdraw right now. I had some spare time during my summer vacation and thought I'd like to dive into Linux, deciding to skip dual-boot entirely. All I've ever used has been windows since 3.1. My biggest concern was not being able to do everything I wanted to on a linux system. I mean, my computer already had winxp professional on it (meaning I already paid for the program, why switch?) Linux advocates make a convincing argument for free alternative windows programs with openoffice, gaim, xine, and wine who needs their costly alternatives, but it's those small random programs that don't have ports. No one using x likes to mention the huge amount of time spent on packages, compiling source, using the terminal and fixing little things that work already in windows.

Of course, there are many positive aspects of linux and I'll probably be glad I took the time to learn it. However, I feel that the linux community has misrepresented the ease of transitioning from different systems. I heard "all the popular programs have their free equivalents linux! all other programs can be emulated through wine! You have everything you need! Modern distros easy setup!" No one mentions the tedious package and driver configuration necessary just to get DVDs to work or talks about the shortcomings of emulating, or the process just to get a program to show up on the applications bar, or the necessity to reassign special keys and shortcuts. After my first day of using linux I am almost fed up with all the little things that need to be configured. Windows has its downfalls , but the total amount of time spent scanning for viruses, setting up a firewall, defragmenting, doing a fresh install of windowsxp regularly would probably amount to less than the amount of time configuring linux has required. Maybe if I was back in middle/high school during the summer I wouldn't care so much and recommend everyone to try the "better" OS. Honestly, I know people who have been using computers for years, but don't know basic things like how to setup a printer or timid about searching for a program and installing it from the internet. These are the people who buy full desktop sets. How could linux possibly hope to appeal to the regular person when it expects so much setup time from the user? Maybe, for the tech lovers, but most users don't want to see code or spend time customizing they want the job done. I converted to linux for better security and in hopes that I wouldn't have to purchase another copy of microsoft word or an antivirus subscription again , but in the end, nothing is really free.

About the only thing you said in that article I aggree with is that wine doesent work that good.

I mean, how hard is it to type "apt-get install enlightenment" or something else into the terminal? You dont even need to click on the file to install it, it installs on its own if you use apt-get! YOu dont even have to click "next" while installing! You MIGHT have to press "Y" once but oh well.

[aysiu]

How could linux possibly hope to appeal to the regular person when it expects so much setup time from the user? In one sense, you're totally right, but what you said is misleading. After all, Windows takes just as much (if not more time) to set up if installed from scratch (no recovery disks). Problem is that the vast majority of Windows users never install Windows. Hell, I know a lot of people who won't even install programs that are just a double-click on a setup.exe file.


Maybe, for the tech lovers, but most users don't want to see code or spend time customizing they want the job done. You're right. Otherwise, we'd still be using Windows. I came to Linux for the customization. A lot of others come for that, too. If you don't want to customize stuff, there's little reason to leave Windows.


I converted to linux for better security and in hopes that I wouldn't have to purchase another copy of microsoft word or an antivirus subscription again , but in the end, nothing is really free. On the contrary, it's completely free--Ubuntu in particular--nothing is proprietary and nothing costs money. In fact, it's because it's completely free that you have to put so much work into installing and configuring it. If it came with nonfree stuff (Java, MP3, etc.), then it wouldn't be as much work.

I'll have you know, though, when I lost my recovery CDs for my Dell laptop, Windows XP was a super-pain to install, and there were no codecs to be found for my DVD-ROM.

[poofyhairguy]

I heard "all the popular programs have their free equivalents linux! all other programs can be emulated through wine! You have everything you need! Modern distros easy setup!"

Whoever told you that lied to you.

I personally beleive the biggest problem in the community is lying to convert users. We don't need them that badly. I appologize for the mistakes of another zealot.

[poofyhairguy]

Whoever told you that lied to you.

I personally beleive the biggest problem in the community is lying to convert users. We don't need them that badly. I appologize for the mistakes of another zealot.

This is how it should be done:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58862&highlight=convert+windows

[Brunellus]

Whoever told you that lied to you.

I personally beleive the biggest problem in the community is lying to convert users. We don't need them that badly. I appologize for the mistakes of another zealot.
could be that was told "most" and heard "all."

I know that happens to me sometimes.

[poofyhairguy]

could be that was told "most" and heard "all."


Sometimes its hard to represent your side even with moderate language.

[aysiu]

Well, I just did a Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aubuntuforums.org+every+windows+program+ha s+a+linux+equivalent&btnG=Google+Search) that leaves me resting easy that it was probably no one in these forums who said every Windows program has a Linux equivalent.

[mousepad]

After reading the thread PoofyHairGuy posted I probably fall under the catagory:


What Users Shouldn’t Be Converted to Ubuntu

Biggest Category: Someone with a medium amount of Windows experience.

I already knew how to do everything I wanted to do in windows. The biggest problem for me was every couple years needing to pay for security, then every several years for a new OS. I guess I am divided between someone who really shouldn't get linux and someone who should try linux. My experience leaves me ambivalent, nearly regretting that I installed linux. At the same time, I see that the community works hard to improve the software, so who knows what I'll like next year? It was my fault for not setting up a dual-boot first. I could always download a copy of windows and use my old key (since my rescue partition is gone), but I won't. Sink or swim I guess?

[poofyhairguy]

I already knew how to do everything I wanted to do in windows. The biggest problem for me was every couple years needing to pay for security, then every several years for a new OS. I guess I am divided between someone who really shouldn't get linux and someone who should try linux. My experience leaves me ambivalent, nearly regretting that I installed linux. At the same time, I see that the community works hard to improve the software, so who knows what I'll like next year? It was my fault for not setting up a dual-boot first. I could always download a copy of windows and use my old key (since my rescue partition is gone), but I won't. Sink or swim I guess?

I must admit, despite being the person that wrote that document, I myself am a middle user. The thing is, I was not converted....I wanted something different.

I would suggest dual boot. I do it. I also suggest holding back a little while, collecting yourself, and try again with Breezy in a month when its released. Now that you have some experiance, you can figure out by then what you really want.

[aysiu]

I guess I am divided between someone who really shouldn't get linux and someone who should try linux. My experience leaves me ambivalent, nearly regretting that I installed linux. At the same time, I see that the community works hard to improve the software, so who knows what I'll like next year? It was my fault for not setting up a dual-boot first. I could always download a copy of windows and use my old key (since my rescue partition is gone), but I won't. Sink or swim I guess? I'd say tough it out--maybe try a distro that works better with your hardware and that includes proprietary stuff (Ubuntu is too free to do everything automatically for you). I'd recommend Blag or Mepis.

[Orunitia]

I would tell anyone to dual boot first. Take it slow and make sure linux is what you want before completely getting rid of windows. I know my first mistake was deleting windows (even if it was an accident. Darn mandrake partitioner.) I had a bad first try at it and didn't try linux again for a long time. Then I dual booted and started to love it. Now I'm without windows on my computer.

[CTSLICK]

This is how it should be done:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58862&highlight=convert+windows


Hysterical...had I read this before trying ubuntu I might have never attempted an install. ;) A medium amount of Windows experience with a wireless set up to boot! Sure...I know just enough to be dangerous, just ask the IT guys where I work. Don't get me wrong, that post you reference is chock full of good advice to any budding Linux evangelist.

But my first ubuntu install worked for me any way. Maybe because I approached this as an experiment...Windows has kicked my butt many times so why should I be surprised if Linux does the same? More important, I have no illusions or expectations that Linux can replace either Windows or Apple for me. Finally I have defined my expectations for Linux on my old laptop in advance...just web browsing, email and chat please. No thesis papers, gaming or photo editing here. I have other machines, Windows and Apple, that can handle that.

So far...so good.

[floppy]

Overall, you are right. Linux advocacy is often poorly done. The community has a number of fanatics who are looking for converts, almost religously. There are also a number of people who will tell you "it's easy" or "it should've been easy" or "it's easy for me." That's a good way to make a questioner feel foolish; believe me, I've heard it too often. If you hear that statement, go elsewhere for advice.

Like you, I was misled into Linux originally. There was a supposedly knowledgeable geek who assured me that all the functions I was using were available for free. I failed in my first attempt at getting any use out of Linux. That was 1999.

This year I tried again, hoping to get a newly-replaced computer running for just regular browsing and word processing. I've installed Mandriva, SuSE, and Ubuntu. None of the installations was anywhere near as easy as Windows. Each left something uninstalled or misconfigured. (Somebody will jump on me for that, claiming "unsupported hardware" or some such nonsense. Don't believe it.)

On the other hand, Linux is basically a pretty good product and idea. It's the idea that keeps me coming back, not the product. It is getting better. But it's not at the point, yet, where all the typical functionality is there without tweaking or banging your head on a wall on most computers.

The thing to remember, above all else, is that there's a lot of folks who realize what you've said is quite valid. And they are working on it.

In summary, the things I've learned:
1) Linux is free only if your time is worthless. (a common quote)
2) Linux is still not ready for non-geeks to install.
3) Linux is continually being improved.

[UbuWu]

Windows has its downfalls , but the total amount of time spent scanning for viruses, setting up a firewall, defragmenting, doing a fresh install of windowsxp regularly would probably amount to less than the amount of time configuring linux has required.

But once you have configured it right (which indeed still takes far too much time), it will take far less time than windows from then on.

[Curlydave]

I am suffering from winxp withdraw right now. I had some spare time during my summer vacation and thought I'd like to dive into Linux, deciding to skip dual-boot entirely. All I've ever used has been windows since 3.1. My biggest concern was not being able to do everything I wanted to on a linux system. I mean, my computer already had winxp professional on it (meaning I already paid for the program, why switch?) Linux advocates make a convincing argument for free alternative windows programs with openoffice, gaim, xine, and wine who needs their costly alternatives, but it's those small random programs that don't have ports. No one using x likes to mention the huge amount of time spent on packages, compiling source, using the terminal and fixing little things that work already in windows.

Of course, there are many positive aspects of linux and I'll probably be glad I took the time to learn it. However, I feel that the linux community has misrepresented the ease of transitioning from different systems. I heard "all the popular programs have their free equivalents linux! all other programs can be emulated through wine! You have everything you need! Modern distros easy setup!" No one mentions the tedious package and driver configuration necessary just to get DVDs to work or talks about the shortcomings of emulating, or the process just to get a program to show up on the applications bar, or the necessity to reassign special keys and shortcuts. After my first day of using linux I am almost fed up with all the little things that need to be configured. Windows has its downfalls , but the total amount of time spent scanning for viruses, setting up a firewall, defragmenting, doing a fresh install of windowsxp regularly would probably amount to less than the amount of time configuring linux has required. Maybe if I was back in middle/high school during the summer I wouldn't care so much and recommend everyone to try the "better" OS. Honestly, I know people who have been using computers for years, but don't know basic things like how to setup a printer or timid about searching for a program and installing it from the internet. These are the people who buy full desktop sets. How could linux possibly hope to appeal to the regular person when it expects so much setup time from the user? Maybe, for the tech lovers, but most users don't want to see code or spend time customizing they want the job done. I converted to linux for better security and in hopes that I wouldn't have to purchase another copy of microsoft word or an antivirus subscription again , but in the end, nothing is really free.


Agreed. I know exactly what you're talking about. Some might try to counterpoint everything you said, but in the end you have some very good points.

[aysiu]

I've installed Mandriva, SuSE, and Ubuntu. None of the installations was anywhere near as easy as Windows. Each left something uninstalled or misconfigured. (Somebody will jump on me for that, claiming "unsupported hardware" or some such nonsense. Don't believe it.)
Why not? I had difficulty installing Windows. Do I now have the right to say on Windows forums everywhere that none of my Windows installations were anywhere near as easy as Linux. Each has left something uninstalled and misconfigured? Surely someone will jump on me saying that I'm a Linux fanatic. It's true, though--Windows didn't recognize my sound card or my screen resolution, and when I lost the restore CD from Dell, I didn't have any codecs for playing DVDs.

Making vast generalizations on your limited experience can go only so far. Just how many different hardware configurations have you tried with Linux? How many hardware configurations have you tried with Windows (I mean installing Windows, not just using what comes preinstalled)?

The truth is that Linux has to live up to impossible standards. People expect every single Linux distribution to be an easy install on every single hardware configuration--hardware that, in fact, is usually not even designed for Linux. If anything goes wrong in Windows, though, it's just an inconvenience--it's not a faulty OS.

BS. And you can jump on me for saying that, too, if you want.

This is four months of Linux experience and twenty years of Windows experience talking here.

[racecat]

Why not? I had difficulty installing Windows. Do I now have the right to say on Windows forums everywhere that none of my Windows installations were anywhere near as easy as Linux. Each has left something uninstalled and misconfigured? Surely someone will jump on me saying that I'm a Linux fanatic. It's true, though--Windows didn't recognize my sound card or my screen resolution, and when I lost the restore CD from Dell, I didn't have any codecs for playing DVDs.

Making vast generalizations on your limited experience can go only so far. Just how many different hardware configurations have you tried with Linux? How many hardware configurations have you tried with Windows (I mean installing Windows, not just using what comes preinstalled)?

The truth is that Linux has to live up to impossible standards. People expect every single Linux distribution to be an easy install on every single hardware configuration--hardware that, in fact, is usually not even designed for Linux. If anything goes wrong in Windows, though, it's just an inconvenience--it's not a faulty OS.

BS. And you can jump on me for saying that, too, if you want.

This is four months of Linux experience and twenty years of Windows experience talking here.


Here, here. I had to reinstall Win200 on an Intel PC and guess what? Not even Microsoft had all the drivers, not even the onboard nic. Had to get like 3 or 4 from Intel. But wouldn't you know it, Ubuntu found everything and ran. Guess I was lucky, but I get the feeling this is more the rule than the exception with Ubuntu.

After about three months, I'm hooked. I don't know what it is, but I hate to boot up the Windows boxes. I'm almost completely converted. But, then I'm not running any special apps.

My problem with Microsoft isn't about Bill Gates or their products. I think its about their greed. That being said, all the work is refreshing and rewarding and I'm learning a lot. If Bill is right and the average PC user is a spider monkey, could it be that HIS products have MADE windows users INTO spider monkeys?

Bill

[aysiu]

After about three months, I'm hooked. I don't know what it is, but I hate to boot up the Windows boxes. I'm almost completely converted. But, then I'm not running any special apps. I'm at four months, but I feel very much the same way. I have to use XP for work, but I love coming home to Ubuntu. And... I don't use any special apps. I just use Firefox, Thunderbird, and a simple game called Gnocatan. Occasionally I'll use GIMP to crop a photo.

[poofyhairguy]

In summary, the things I've learned:
1) Linux is free only if your time is worthless. (a common quote)
2) Linux is still not ready for non-geeks to install.
3) Linux is continually being improved.

I agree with the second one and the third one. The first one only refers to Linux on the desktop, not Linux as a whole (my sister's Tivo does not eat her free time setting it up despite it running Linux).

[Brunellus]

In summary, the things I've learned:
1) Linux is free only if your time is worthless. (a common quote)
2) Linux is still not ready for non-geeks to install.
3) Linux is continually being improved.

Sorry your hardware didn't pan out. Better luck next time.

My time isn't worthless. I've learned a lot getting my machine up and running, and I'm profiting from that experience. But then, I do enjoy tinkering with my computer a litle bit--for those who have no interest in this, yes, getting a few things up and running is not worth the time, financially speaking.

I dont' want to talk about 'Linux' as monolithic anymore. The only monolith in Linux is Linux--the kernel. GNU/Linux, the OS(es) is much more diverse....Xandros or Linspire apparently rate high on the non-geek scale, but I've only played with either. Geek-fests like Slackware, Gentoo, and LFS continue to exist alongside Debian its daughters and Red Hat/Fedora, SuSe, and Mandrake/Mandriva.

the hardware permutatiosn are likewise endless-- we can thank the huge market created by MS-DOS and Windows for this in the x86 world....and Linux even runs on lots of other architectures--ARM, SPARC, AMD64, PPC, just to name a few.

It's the nature of the beast that some dark corners will remain unexplored, or unattended-to. The only thing we can hope for is that these dark spots are pushed ever further to the fringes.

[factotum218]

Yeah, I went through about 2 years of feast or famine with Slackware when I started out. After reading all the religios wars betweeen Windows, Linux, BSD, and Mac, I was finding a reason to justify my complaints about what I was running at the time-XP, and blindly say Slackware blew it out of the water even though I didn't yet have a simple thing like a fully functional desktop system with sound working. I dual-booted, I ran Linux only, I ran Windows only. After a while I realized it was just that fact that I was putting what ever OS I used up on a pedistal and left getting something productive done to the side.
About six months ago I ended up going straight Linux. It wasn't anything that I planned out. I didn't premeditate anything about how I was going to get things done. I just sort of slid into it and I dont even remember the day it happened anymore.
The greatest thing you can do it just go with it and see where it takes you and make your own decisions. No matter the outcome it is more fun and more comfortable in the long run. :grin:

[npaladin2000]

I agree with the second one and the third one. The first one only refers to Linux on the desktop, not Linux as a whole (my sister's Tivo does not eat her free time setting it up despite it running Linux).

Actually, I'd agree with the first one. You see, a Tivo isn't free for your sister at all. Linux was free for the Tivo guys in monetary cost only...they had to spend a currency called time in order to get it to do what they want and make a distributable product.

Yet another reason why I don't like the phrase "free software" very much at all. it's too misleading, requires too much explanation and too many "but"s. But there are certain fanatics that love it for those same reasons (gives them a chance to spout off into explanations because they KNOW 99% of the world interprets it as "no monetary cost"). Personally, if I want free beer, I'll go to the librery and read the Constitution. :)

That's why one of Linux's greatest strengths, the community, is also it's biggest disadvantage at times. While most are moderate and helpful, some are too fanatical, evangelistic, and scary, saying things that conned poor mousepad into stepping into something he clearly wasn't ready for. But dare to tell them something that contradicts, like "No, free software isn't the best solution for me, I want to play MP3s!" or 'This doesn't support my hardware properly" and they start going off into the all-to-familiar rhetoric "Well, you should be using OGG!" and "Why didn't you check your hardware?" (I can understand this one, but most people don't realize that companies like Canon don't provide Linux drivers and need to be TOLD AHEAD OF TIME!). And then, there's the best one "Well, take the source code and fix it yourself!" to the n00b they invited in with no coding knowledge, experience, or talent. THis REALLY turns people off, and what ends up happening is we lose a potential Linux convert because he wasn't EASED into it. Fanatics just want to throw everyone into the pool and let them sink or swim. ;)

And just like in any crowd, the moderates are not the ones that are usually heard. It's those loud, annoying extremists...mostly because they make themselves so annoying it's hard to NOT notice them ;)

Anyway, I have a multi-step program I recommend to people who are interested in investigating, evaluating, and eventually switching to Linux. It'll work for anyone, except maybe Bill Gates and HIS fanatics. ;)

Step 1: FOSS 'em. Install the following onto the WIndows vict..er..USER'S system:
Firefox
Thunderbird
GAIM
GIMP
OpenOffice
GVIM-32 or XEmacs for Windows
VLC
If they're interested in programming, maybe the GCC compiler or Python (with IDLE) depending on the language. If they're into VB, immediately back away slowly ;)

Show them hwo to use these programs, demonstrate them, let them feel comfortable with them. Explain that these are all applications that are cross-platform, and work the same on any other OS besides Windows.

Step 2: Knoppix 'em. Give them a liveCD, show them around the interface a bit. Show them what's similar and what's different. Demonstrate a few INTERESTING things that can be done with the CLI...no, I don't mean CLI Vim. Maybe MUTT, or the TOP command. Vi should never be shown to a potential convert; it's too scary. ;)

Step 3: Grub 'em. It's dual-boot time. Luckily you already have that nice Knoppix CD with QTparted so you can resize their Win32 partition. ;) Now that they're used to a Linux interface you can install a distro based on several factors:

1. What they need to do
2. What DE they're comfy with

Good possibilities include Fedora, Blag, SUSE, Knoppix itself, Ubuntu/Kubuntu, etc. Possibly Xandros and Linspire too. Debian is too hardcore...Fedora and SUSE are just barely short of hardcore themselves, but they'll work, and have better application compatibility than the others. I hate to admit it, but Mandriva would be a good choice too. Stay clear of Slack and Gentoo. CentOS is probably too hardcore too. Walk them through the setup and install; explain what's going on; don't just throw them in. Oh..make sure the default boot is to Linux...make them work at it if they want to boot Windows. ;)

That's it. At that point, they'll likely stick with Linux for most things, and only boot to Windows if they have to.

[drizek]

i disagree with that number 2.

suse 10 is easier to install and configure than windows xp is, assuming you know what kind of hardware you have in your computer. im not just alking about people whove used linux for a while, suse has a GUI and help for _everything_.

also, if you dont know a lot about computers, then you will be confused when installing both windows and suse. the only difference is that every computer a person buys already has windows installed on it by default. Most windows enthusiasts however should have no problem picking up linux if they give it a chance and are willing to put up with a little frustration, depending on their hardware. its entirely likely that a computer(like mine) can work 100% with no post-install configuration. but it could also turn out to be a nightmare.

[floppy]

Making vast generalizations on your limited experience can go only so far.

Like I said, someone would jump on me. Notice the automatic assumption of "limited experience" and the line of questioning accusations following from that assumption. It's quite easy to do that sort of argument. Try http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22straw+man%22+logic for further examples.

Rather than engage in that sort of argument, I'll simply stand by my experience, my conclusions, and my statements. If anyone wishes to question my details, please do it by private message rather than clutter up this thread.

[npaladin2000]

i disagree with that number 2.

suse 10 is easier to install and configure than windows xp is, assuming you know what kind of hardware you have in your computer. im not just alking about people whove used linux for a while, suse has a GUI and help for _everything_.

That's why I brought it down into the "barely" category. The problem with that and other large distributions is the fact that they're large, and include so much "stuff" as to intimidate a new user. That's why Debian is out, dontcha know. But since SUSE and Fedora have fairly friendly installers AND a ton of graphical utilities for configuration, they would make tolerable choices. Have to be careful with SUSE though, because between YAST, the K config programs, and the GNOME config programs, things can get a bit confusing.

However, tighter, less "huge" distros, like Ubuntu and Xandros tend to also be less intimidating, with lots of graphical help and fairly simple installers (Ours is quite a bit simpler than Debian's due to the removal of several steps). They're much more "focused" if you will, and specifically designed for desktop use.

Ubuntu, Xandros, and Blag are probably the best choices, especially since they're designed specifically for desktop use, rather than as "hobbyist" distros that often serve both a server and desktop role. Plus Ubuntu has great community support as well, Xandros has paid support if you buy the distro, and while Blag's community is nonexistent, it's basically dressed-up Fedora and the Fedora community is useful there.

Remember, people need to learn to crawl before learning to walk. And learning to run has to come last. You can't skip straight to a marathon.

[Kvark]

Rather than engage in that sort of argument, I'll simply stand by my experience, my conclusions, and my statements. If anyone wishes to question my details, please do it by private message rather than clutter up this thread.
This is the biggest problem with this thread.

For many people who installed Ubuntu on one or a few machines the install went perfect so those people will stand by their experiences and conclusions and state that Ubuntu is a piece of cake to set up.

For many others who installed Ubuntu on one or a few machines the install went to hell and a lot of troubleshooting was needed so those people will stand by their experiences and conclusions and state that Ubuntu is a piece of crap that takes ages to set up.

A sensible discussion between those two groups can hardly be expected.

[aysiu]

Like I said, someone would jump on me. Notice the automatic assumption of "limited experience" and the line of questioning accusations following from that assumption. It's quite easy to do that sort of argument. Try http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22straw+man%22+logic for further examples. You don't even know what a straw man is.



Rather than engage in that sort of argument, I'll simply stand by my experience, my conclusions, and my statements. If anyone wishes to question my details, please do it by private message rather than clutter up this thread. Yes, stand by your experience and conclusions. That was my point exactly.

[aysiu]

This is the biggest problem with this thread.

For many people who installed Ubuntu on one or a few machines the install went perfect so those people will stand by their experiences and conclusions and state that Ubuntu is a piece of cake to set up.

For many others who installed Ubuntu on one or a few machines the install went to hell and a lot of troubleshooting was needed so those people will stand by their experiences and conclusions and state that Ubuntu is a piece of crap that takes ages to set up.

A sensible discussion between those two groups can hardly be expected. I agree. The problem is that people like me (who are in the first group) have no idea how many others have smooth installs as well, and people like floppy have no idea how many others have hellish installs. No one also knows how many hellish installs have to do with user incompetence or bad hardware.

All I know is that no OS (not even Windows) can promise to be an easy installation on every machine out there. If Ubuntu isn't an easy install, don't blame Ubuntu. I don't blame Windows for the hellish installs I had (I had to install Windows twice and both experiences were hellish).

I do believe the original post-er was misled, and I'm sorry about that. No one should ever say that making the transition is easy. It's not. I had a hard time transitioning to Mac OS X (and I didn't even have to install it). Any change is difficult.

[poofyhairguy]

Actually, I'd agree with the first one. You see, a Tivo isn't free for your sister at all.

Exactly why I beleive it was wrong. The first often quoted rule implies that you can't pay to remove the usability problems with Linux. She paid to not have Linux problems....in currency not called time. The Linux is still free for her....she did not pay extra to have a Linux based PVR over a Window Media Edition one.



Linux was free for the Tivo guys in monetary cost only...they had to spend a currency called time in order to get it to do what they want and make a distributable product.

Just like Apple spent a bunch of time making OSX work on Apples and MS spends a lifetime making Vista work on anything.

All OSes cost something. So you can't fault Linux for that. When people make the comment "Linux is free only if your time is worthless" they almost seem to imply that the only currency that can buy a nicely working Linux machine is time. As if its not "professional grade" like Windows or something else is. That is not the case.

[bam]

I am suffering from winxp withdraw right now. I had some spare time during my summer vacation and thought I'd like to dive into Linux, deciding to skip dual-boot entirely. All I've ever used has been windows since 3.1. My biggest concern was not being able to do everything I wanted to on a linux system. I mean, my computer already had winxp professional on it (meaning I already paid for the program, why switch?) Linux advocates make a convincing argument for free alternative windows programs with openoffice, gaim, xine, and wine who needs their costly alternatives, but it's those small random programs that don't have ports. No one using x likes to mention the huge amount of time spent on packages, compiling source, using the terminal and fixing little things that work already in windows.

Of course, there are many positive aspects of linux and I'll probably be glad I took the time to learn it. However, I feel that the linux community has misrepresented the ease of transitioning from different systems. I heard "all the popular programs have their free equivalents linux! all other programs can be emulated through wine! You have everything you need! Modern distros easy setup!" No one mentions the tedious package and driver configuration necessary just to get DVDs to work or talks about the shortcomings of emulating, or the process just to get a program to show up on the applications bar, or the necessity to reassign special keys and shortcuts. After my first day of using linux I am almost fed up with all the little things that need to be configured. Windows has its downfalls , but the total amount of time spent scanning for viruses, setting up a firewall, defragmenting, doing a fresh install of windowsxp regularly would probably amount to less than the amount of time configuring linux has required. Maybe if I was back in middle/high school during the summer I wouldn't care so much and recommend everyone to try the "better" OS. Honestly, I know people who have been using computers for years, but don't know basic things like how to setup a printer or timid about searching for a program and installing it from the internet. These are the people who buy full desktop sets. How could linux possibly hope to appeal to the regular person when it expects so much setup time from the user? Maybe, for the tech lovers, but most users don't want to see code or spend time customizing they want the job done. I converted to linux for better security and in hopes that I wouldn't have to purchase another copy of microsoft word or an antivirus subscription again , but in the end, nothing is really free.


actually, I switched 2 weeks ago, I have played with redhat5(hated it) and suse 9.1 in the past(even payed for it(support), but I installed ubuntu in like 20 minutes, it recognized everything(ie no configuration) xmms kinda balked at me , but a friend of mine in irc helped me get it running in like 5 minutes, so as for ease of transition, easy as pie, I havent looked back, except for those other programs that are windows only that I have to use(for work), I even played with xfce(incredibly fast) got kde installed will play with it later, but gnome seems to fit me best, but we shall see.

[rolfotto]

Like I said, someone would jump on me.

From your initial and follow up posts - it's kinda expected.

This can be a very touchy subject and a lot of people of much varying experiences - not only with Ubuntu but other distros as well.

In order to have no disagreement or someone not jump on you - you need to be prepared not to post at all^_^ Which is not to say you shouldn't, but be prepared for dissent.


In summary, the things I've learned:
1) Linux is free only if your time is worthless. (a common quote)
2) Linux is still not ready for non-geeks to install.
3) Linux is continually being improved.

Strongly disagree with number 2 because I have helped total non-geeks install it (and "help" here pretty much means and is generally limited to giving someone a CD with some distro on it.)

As for the rest, I refer to "Is Windows Ready For the Desktop?"
http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/2033216

Not so much to counter what you said - but just to show that YMMV - for some people, various aspects of Windows is just as hard. As you said yourself, you were on Windows since 3.1 - over ten years.

Did you learn everything you do on Windows overnight? Some people don't realize how much time they stuck into their environment of choice and so when they switch, it becomes much harder to make the same investment in the new environment because "it should just work" yet it may not have "just worked" in the old environment as you remember, you trained yourself in that environment and newbies tend to feel that in Linux without being able to pinpoint the problem (of a different mindset on this platform) and instead ascribe it to a fault of the software.

But this isn't also to say Linux doesn't have it's own problems. Which it surely does. But another advantage Windows has is that it's almost always pre-installed. Which means that the vendors sat down and made sure that it had all the drivers/software/etcetera in order to work out of the box - then they pump out X amount of identical machines. Linux doesn't have this benefit - it's almost always installed by the end user who get's to have the fun to wrestle with any problems rather than a technician. And for the sheer scope of that task, I find (top) Linux distros do extremely well.

Personally, I had much more trouble installing Windows freshly on machines (with a generic Windows copy, not a company recovery disk) as I had with Linux.

Hope you stick around or perhaps decide to come back in a couple years where it may be more polished to your liking.

[phen]

allways the same topic... always the same lalalalalalalalala

sometimes you are lucky with a hardware / os combo, sometimes you're not people should use whatever they want! I want linux

peace

[egon spengler]

There are also a number of people who will tell you "it's easy" or "it should've been easy" or "it's easy for me." That's a good way to make a questioner feel foolish; believe me, I've heard it too often. If you hear that statement, go elsewhere for advice.

You're right but then again there are equal amounts of people like yourself who found it hard and so from there conclude that Linux must be hard and will go around telling everyone that Linux is hard. A great many people seem to believe for some reason that their experience is always representative of everybodys experience.

[bob1082]

The problem is all the buttons are not in the places you are used to.

Go into somebody's kitchen and move every thing in the cabnets and drawers.

Then sit back and watch them try to cook a meal.

You will be watching one frustrated person.

I have tried Linux (red hat, mepis) in the past but I did not have the time to change my computer habits. So I could not kick the windows habit.

then my computer running XP crashed hard would not even take a re-install

I started pondering the pain of finding a dozen or so install disks. installing and configuring apps hardware drivers and then downloading all those little apps and installing them spybot, adware, real player, codecs, at that point I stopped thinking about it because it was depressing. I rememberd my Mepis live Cd put it in installed it, in 20 min I was 90% from full function (for some reason I can not figure out samba in mepis for file sharing) either way I hit the net to look for a new Mepis CD and ran accross Ubuntu downloaded it installed it in about another 45 min I was running minus two problems I had a dual monitor set up under XP (it took two days to get that working under XP) and for some reason my DVD/cd burner only reads DVDs now. I posted a thread on the latter.

Faced with the task of reinstalling all that crap or figuing out a few new things.

I mananged to kick the windows habit.

Windows is a Habit. a lot like smoking!

Ubuntu/Linux is much easer to get a fuctioning system going than Windows.

most of the time I have spent is in figuring out what programs I need to do the things I want.

I have 5 computers 2 intel boxes 1 amd box and 2 powerPC(mac) boxes by the end of this month I will be Windows Free.

The next computer I buy if it is not preconfigured with Linux will be NoOS

[pizzach]

Windows is for people who want to double click, Linux is for people who want a fast, safe, and secure system, but are willing to do things in a different manner. Macs are for people who basically want Windows without the malware.

I felt that comment was a bit out of line. How linux, Mac OS X and Windows are used are about equally different. As the local resident Mac expert*, I felt the comment was about roughly equal to what a Windows would say about Mac or Linux when they don't know anything. :roll: But no offense taken.

*expert = what ever you want it to mean or think it means

[Sushi]

I have been using Linux since SuSE 7.1 (or something along those lines). And while it has progressed a lot in that time, a lot remains to be done. Begin rant:

I have a Mac Mini with OS X. I also have a PC that is Linux/W2K (for games) dualboot-machine, and I have an old laptop for testing distros. In the past few months, I have done comparisons between Linux and OS X. And it's true what they say: OS X "just works". Everything is easy and simple. You might say that Apple has an advantage because they design both the software and the hardware. But users don't care why things are the way they are, they care about how they are.

What made me realize that Linux is simply too hard to use? When I installed OpenSUSE. More precisely: when I plugged in my WLAN-card, and it "just worked", to my amazement. Now, what's so bad in that? Hardware that work without any hassle? True, it's not bad in itself. But when I plugged it in, I was prepared to spend a long time struggling with it, trying to make it work. My positive surprise when it just worked showed that deep down, I knew that Linux needs tweaking and working on, in order to work properly. And it doesn't need to be like that.

A bit later I was sitting on my Ubuntu-machine, using gtkpod to fill my iPod Mini with music. I had to tweak the settings, I had to manually mount the iPod, and when I unmounted it, the iPod still showed the "do not disconnect" on the screen. Things like that simply did not happen in the Mac. The thing "Just Worked", with zero hand-holding. Had I been a newbie, I would have been utterly confused.

Linux is a powerful OS. It makes the impossible tasks possible. But it makes easy tasks difficult. I'm planning to buy an iPod for my wife. And I'm thinking of her using Mac + iTunes to manage it, or using Linux and gtkpod (I haven't tested Amarok 1.3 yet) to manage it. The Mac/iTunes-combo beats Linux/gtkpod-combo 10-0. I'm sorry but it does. Not only is iTunes easier to use, it looks better, which makes it a joy to use. gtkpod looks... not as good.

So, what does that mean in practice? Either I spend long time instructing her on how to manage iPod in Linux. Or, every time she wants to manage it, I'll be there, holding her hand. Or she will use a Mac to do it. In the case of instructing her on how to do it, I can already hear her comments: "I just want to add and remove music from the iPod! Why does it have to be so damn difficult?". She has told me something similar multiple times when using Linux.

Using a computer should be enjoyable to the user. But even the "easy to use distros" ((K)Ubuntu, OpenSUSE etc.) are not foolproof. They are harder to use than they need to be.

Many people are fed up with Windows, and they want something different, something that works. But they are going to look at Linux, and they are going to look at OS X, and they will ask "why should I use Linux, when I could use OS X instead?". We know the strengths of Linux, and we could tell those users those strenghts. But they do not care about them. They just want to use their computers, instead of fighting with it. They have fought enough with Windows, and they have no desire to continue that fight with Linux. Instead of fighting with viruses and spyware, they would be fighting with confusing options, apps that are too difficult to use, UI's that need refining, and hardware that just doesn't work right.

[aysiu]

You might say that Apple has an advantage because they design both the software and the hardware. But users don't care why things are the way they are, they care about how they are. Regardless, it still has the advantage you just explained. Even if users don't care why, the why still exists.



A bit later I was sitting on my Ubuntu-machine, using gtkpod to fill my iPod Mini with music. I had to tweak the settings, I had to manually mount the iPod, and when I unmounted it, the iPod still showed the "do not disconnect" on the screen. Things like that simply did not happen in the Mac. The thing "Just Worked", with zero hand-holding. Had I been a newbie, I would have been utterly confused. And who do you think designs, manufactures, markets, and sells iPods? Ubuntu?



I'm planning to buy an iPod for my wife. If you want her to use Linux, and you're complaining about the iPod integration, get her another MP3/Ogg/etc. player, not an iPod.



They just want to use their computers, instead of fighting with it. They have fought enough with Windows, and they have no desire to continue that fight with Linux. Instead of fighting with viruses and spyware, they would be fighting with confusing options, apps that are too difficult to use, UI's that need refining, and hardware that just doesn't work right. So buy a computer from Microtel (http://www.microtelpc.com/Default.aspx?tabid=227), WalMart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3595030), or Sam's Club (http://www.samsclub.com/eclub/main_shopping.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&n=0&mt=a&coe=0&oidPath=0:-23542:-23589:-43881:-43904:-43906:-43911:864525).

You may also want to check out these two threads:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=59596
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58017

[angkor]

A bit later I was sitting on my Ubuntu-machine, using gtkpod to fill my iPod Mini with music. I had to tweak the settings, I had to manually mount the iPod, and when I unmounted it, the iPod still showed the "do not disconnect" on the screen. Things like that simply did not happen in the Mac. The thing "Just Worked", with zero hand-holding. Had I been a newbie, I would have been utterly confused.


You could have it automounted you know, you could have done an 'eject /media/iPod in stead of an umount command and it would stop showing the "do not disconnect sign".

Don't blaim Ubuntu for things you didn't think of / search for.

Btw if you really need the eassiest Linux distro's look into Mepis, PCLinuxOS and Linspire. Ubuntu is not necessarily qualified for every newbee.

[poofyhairguy]

I have always felt that OSX was closer to a very complex Playstation game then Windows or Linux- the control of hardware makes a world of difference. They gain a lot of simplicity by controlling the hardware. Its easy to make it just work when you know everything you must be just working with, the possibilies for normal x86 boxes are over a billion! Of course an iPod is going to work better with an Mac then Ubuntu- its an Apple product! Cool thing is a lot of MP3 players work well with Ubunt. Ones that advertise "no drivers needed," usually cheap.

I don't know what inspired this thread. Ubuntu doesn't work as well as Apples with Apple hardware. Big surprise. Every nerd knows about Apple and its whole "experiance." We also know what it costs: a new machine and new Apple toys. If you did the same for Linux (Linux happy hardware + Linux happy toys) the experiance is very nice. I know, I do it.

So really...this is not a call to arms? Arms? Like a war? Or a skirmish? Who cares about beating Apples at being an "experiance" when there are billions of people on the planet that can't afford ANY Apple experiance. Or a legal Windows experiance. Ubuntu is for them.

Enjoy your Apples though. You pay the premium for a reason.

[Sushi]

Regardless, it still has the advantage you just explained. Even if users don't care why, the why still exists.

And who do you think designs, manufactures, markets, and sells iPods? Ubuntu?

If you want her to use Linux, and you're complaining about the iPod integration, get her another MP3/Ogg/etc. player, not an iPod.

It doesn't matter. Like it or not, iPod is the premiere mp3-player in the market. If I wanted to get the best and easiest to use mp3-player, iPod would be it.

[Sushi]

You could have it automounted you know, you could have done an 'eject /media/iPod in stead of an umount command and it would stop showing the "do not disconnect sign".

Don't blaim Ubuntu for things you didn't think of / search for.

I'm not "blaming Ubuntu", I'm blaming Linux in general. Linux is hard to use. Yes it really is.

you illustrate my point exactly. If I wanted it to "just work", I have to tweak it. users don't want to tweak things, they just want to use it. And I used the KDE's "safely remove device"-thingy, I did not umount it from the CLI or something like that.

[poofyhairguy]

It doesn't matter. Like it or not, iPod is the premiere mp3-player in the market. If I wanted to get the best and easiest to use mp3-player, iPod would be it.

Part of what makes it so easy to use is iTunes, which lacks a Linux version.

[poofyhairguy]

I'm not "blaming Ubuntu", I'm blaming Linux in general. Linux is hard to use. Yes it really is.


Ok. Great. That it?

[Sushi]

I don't know what inspired this thread. Ubuntu doesn't work as well as Apples. Big surprise.

So we are admitting defeat? "Linux wont work as well as Macs do, so get used to it". I'm sorry, but I wont "get used to it". Maybe I'm asking for impossible, but I do not think so. I want Linux to kick ass on all fronts, including ease of use. Simply admitting that "Linux will never be as easy to use as Mac is" is not acceptable IMO.


So really...this is not a call to arms? Arms? Like a war? Or a skirmish? Who cares about beating Apples at being an "experiance" when there are billions of people on the planet that can't afford ANY Apple experiance. Or a legal Windows experiance. Ubuntu is for them.

Stop deluding yourself. Some tribesman living in Sahara is not Ubuntu's target-market. And even those poor that Ubuntu targets, still need a computer, and those cost money. Yes, Apple-hardware costs money. But so does Linux-hardware.


Enjoy your Apples though. You pay the premium for a reason.

I have enjoyed using a Mac. But I also like Linux (it's my main OS). But I fail to see this "premium" you are talking about. The Mini wasn't that expensive IMO. Yes you can get an expensive Mac. But you can also get an expensive dual-Opteron-machine, so I don't see the difference.

And I find it sad that Mac is considered a "premium" product, whereas Linux is delegated to lower status. It doesn't have to be like that! Just because OS X only runs on Macs, and those cost money (like all hardware does), doesn't mean that Linux could not achieve the same level of ease of use. But many seem to think that OS X is destined to be the easy to use OS, whereas Linux is destined to be the "Geek-OS". I'm not willing to accept it. I think that Linux CAN be easy to use, and I WANT it to be easy to use.

What I want to do is to challenge the status-quo. Instead of admitting defeat, we should work on the problem. Instead of thinking (for example) "yeah, OS X is the easiest to use OS, but Linux is Free (both in beer and speech), and you can run it on just about all computers", we should aim for "Yeah, OS X is easy to use, but Linux is even easier to use AND it's Free AND it runs on all computers!".

Really, it seems to me that many think that "Yeah, Linux is going to kick Windows'es ass! but we can't touch OS X". I'm not willing to admit that. Linux could be a "premium" product, it would just be a premium product that happens to be free. Instead of thinking that only those regular users who can't afford a Mac, would be using Linux, we should be thinking that those users who use Linux instead of Mac, do so because Linux is better. Even though they could get a Mac, they still choose Linux, because it's so easy to use and bullet-proof. That is what I want.

My rant is not meant as a flame towards Linux

[Sushi]

Part of what makes it so easy to use is iTunes, which lacks a Linux version.

What is iTunes? It's a music-jukebox. There are plenty of those in Linux (Juk, Amarok, etc.). There's no real reason why those apps couldn't work as well as iTunes does.

the fact that we DO have apps on Linux that can talk with iPod (gtkpod for example) proves that Linux-apps CAN interoperate with iPod. And there's no real reason why they couldn't do so as well as (or better!) iTunes does.

[bored2k]

Many people are fed up with Windows, and they want something different, something that works. But they are going to look at Linux, and they are going to look at OS X, and they will ask "why should I use Linux, when I could use OS X instead?". We know the strengths of Linux, and we could tell those users those strenghts. But they do not care about them.Clearly you have no issues with the current Mac computers´ price tag, wich most of us here do. It's a matter of choice, pocket and philosophy. Some here wouldn't buy Mac/Windows because they're software is nonfree/non.GPL (hint Azz). Others prefer Linux because of all you can learn and the fact that you are no longer being a mere neophyte puppet for the corporate mass (hint: me) while others simply wouldn't get a Mac or buy Windows because of their high price tag (hint: me again). I don't know about you, but I do care about my pocket.

[bored2k]

What is iTunes? It's a music-jukebox. There are plenty of those in Linux (Juk, Amarok, etc.). There's no real reason why those apps couldn't work as well as iTunes does.

the fact that we DO have apps on Linux that can talk with iPod (gtkpod for example) proves that Linux-apps CAN interoperate with iPod. And there's no real reason why they couldn't do so as well as (or better!) iTunes does.
I'm not sure how can you compare Mac/iTunes support vs Ubuntu/gtkpod (there are many others like banshee, gnupod). How can you blame Linux for trying to emulate a closed source non friendly software like iTunes? We're lucky enough we even have something that works.

[Knome_fan]

The reactions to this thread are just hilarious. :grin:


Who cares about beating Apples at being an "experiance" when there are billions of people on the planet that can't afford ANY Apple experiance. Or a legal Windows experiance. Ubuntu is for them.
Is this the linux equivalent to Barbara Bush's "they are underprivileged anyway, so this works pretty well for them" Astrodome comment?

@sushi:
I understand your frustration and I absolutely agree.
I can't comment on the ipod though, as I don't own one, but a friend of mine who is using kubuntu told me that it worked fine out of the box for him.
Out of curiosity, did you try the ipod with opensuse, or with breezy? Maybe the situation improved there.

[Sushi]

Clearly you have no issues with the current Mac computers´ price tag, wich most of us here do.

Computers cost money. Linux might be free, but hardware it runs on is definitely not free. Yes, there are expensive Macs, but there are expensive Linux-machines as well. And yes, there are dirt-cheap Linux-machines (like the Walmart-machines), but you usually get what you pay for. And there are cheap Macs as well (like the Mini, which doesn't feel like a cheap machine).


It's a matter of choice, pocket and philosophy. Some here wouldn't buy Mac/Windows because they're software is nonfree/non.GPL (hint Azz). Others prefer Linux because of all you can learn and the fact that you are no longer being a mere neophyte puppet for the corporate mass (hint: me) while others simply wouldn't get a Mac or buy Windows because of their high price tag (hint: me again). I don't know about you, but I do care about my pocket.

I understand the philosophy. I use Linux because it's free (both in speech and in beer), and I like to be in charge of my machine. But do we need to make a choice? Why is it that we have to choose between a Free operating system and easy to use operating system (I'm not including Windows here, because that this just sucks ;))? Why couldn't we have a Free OS that is also easy to use? Why is it that if we choose Free OS, we have to give up the ease of use? Is there something in "freeness" that inherintly makes it harder to use? I do not think so?

Yes, I want the whole cake! I want the Freedom, and I want the ease of use :)! Those two are not incompatible with each other!

[Sushi]

@sushi:
I understand your frustration and I absolutely agree.
I can't comment on the ipod though, as I don't own one, but a friend of mine who is using kubuntu told me that it worked fine out of the box for him.
Out of curiosity, did you try the ipod with opensuse, or with breezy? Maybe the situation improved there.

I used it with 5.04. Desktop was KDE, and the app was gtkpod. And it did require manual tweaking in order to function properly.

[bored2k]

Computers cost money. Linux might be free, but hardware it runs on is definitely not free. Yes, there are expensive Macs, but there are expensive Linux-machines as well. And yes, there are dirt-cheap Linux-machines (like the Walmart-machines), but you usually get what you pay for. And there are cheap Macs as well (like the Mini, which doesn't feel like a cheap machine).Err you're drowning yourself there buddy. Do you know what kickass CPU I could assemble with the cost of the -in my opinion- mediocre Mac Mini ? You are right, computers cost money, but using linux saves you about 200+ extra US dollars on the extra fat that is a preinstalled nonfree operating system. And Mac hardware is not the cheapest in the world either .. http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif

[Knome_fan]

I used it with 5.04. Desktop was KDE, and the app was gtkpod. And it did require manual tweaking in order to function properly.

Hm, did you try amarok? It has at least some ipod connectivity, though again, I haven't tried it myself and can't comment on how well it works or not.

[weasel fierce]

I think everyone would love more hardware support, but where is it going to come from ? Sure as heck isnt coming from a lot of the hardware manufacturers

[Knome_fan]

Err you're drowning yourself there buddy. Do you know what kickass CPU I could assemble with the cost of the -in my opinion- mediocre Mac Mini ? You are right, computers cost money, but using linux saves you about 200+ extra US dollars on the extra fat that is a preinstalled nonfree operating system. And Mac hardware is not the cheapest in the world either .. http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/eusa_whistle.gif

So? And this boils down to what exactly?
That Linux shouldn't improve? That it shouldn't be easy to use?

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I simply fail to see your point.

[poofyhairguy]

So we are admitting defeat? "Linux wont work as well as Macs do, so get used to it". I'm sorry, but I wont "get used to it". Maybe I'm asking for impossible, but I do not think so. I want Linux to kick ass on all fronts, including ease of use. Simply admitting that "Linux will never be as easy to use as Mac is" is not acceptable IMO.


Good. Help code to make it better. I know the GTKpod project is a one man show ran by a person that likes Linux with an iPod. I bet that person needs help. If you can't code, help bug test. Email and ask if there is anything like art or something else you can help with. Here is web page:

http://www.gtkpod.org/about.html

Or help Rhythmbox with its iPod support.

Just blowing off steam in the forum is not better than accepting defeat or whatever....



Stop deluding yourself. Some tribesman living in Sahara is not Ubuntu's target-market. And even those poor that Ubuntu targets, still need a computer, and those cost money. Yes, Apple-hardware costs money. But so does Linux-hardware.

Tribesmen? Who said anything about tribesmen? I was more thinking a poor school with donated hardware. Thats why Ebuntu was made:

http://www.edubuntu.org/

For the founder of Ubuntu, helping situations like that is the most important thing.



I have enjoyed using a Mac. But I also like Linux (it's my main OS). But I fail to see this "premium" you are talking about. The Mini wasn't that expensive IMO. Yes you can get an expensive Mac. But you can also get an expensive dual-Opteron-machine, so I don't see the difference.

Its cool. I personally would have bought a mini if its graphics card was more modern.



And I find it sad that Mac is considered a "premium" product, whereas Linux is delegated to lower status. It doesn't have to be like that! Just because OS X only runs on Macs, and those cost money (like all hardware does), doesn't mean that Linux could not achieve the same level of ease of use. But many seem to think that OS X is destined to be the easy to use OS, whereas Linux is destined to be the "Geek-OS". I'm not willing to accept it. I think that Linux CAN be easy to use, and I WANT it to be easy to use.

It can happen. Is it that way now? Nope. but it can get there. For your issue of the iPod thing I can tell you that GTKPod is a dead end, and that in Breezy Rhythmbox will have iPod support by default. Breezy has a lot more big upgrades to make things easier. So the band keeps marching on.



What I want to do is to challenge the status-quo. Instead of admitting defeat, we should work on the problem. Instead of thinking (for example) "yeah, OS X is the easiest to use OS, but Linux is Free (both in beer and speech), and you can run it on just about all computers", we should aim for "Yeah, OS X is easy to use, but Linux is even easier to use AND it's Free AND it runs on all computers!".

Maybe...but thats hard. Linux has to run on almost anything AND "just work" more than a Mac? Thats like the CEO of Electronic Arts going into the developer's area and saying "I know that the next PC version of Madden will have less bugs work better on a lot of hardware compared to the next Playstation version."

Oh well. I am wrong. Linux just works. Just works in Tivo. Just works in my sister's cell phone. Just works in 9 out of the top 10 supercomputers in the world.



Really, it seems to me that many think that "Yeah, Linux is going to kick Windows'es ass! but we can't touch OS X". I'm not willing to admit that. Linux could be a "premium" product, it would just be a premium product that happens to be free. Instead of thinking that only those regular users who can't afford a Mac, would be using Linux, we should be thinking that those users who use Linux instead of Mac, do so because Linux is better. Even though they could get a Mac, they still choose Linux, because it's so easy to use and bullet-proof. That is what I want.

How much do you want it? Enough to help develop? Enough to pay SUSE for their professional version to support Linux. Enough to use Mepis (sounds like the distro you would like the best as it has good iPod support TODAY)? How much?



My rant is not meant as a flame towards Linux

Sure. But what was it meant to do?

[poofyhairguy]

Is this the linux equivalent to Barbara Bush's "they are underprivileged anyway, so this works pretty well for them" Astrodome comment?


No, just a "Mark decided that Ubuntu should develop a version that works good for schools in any situation (because its better to spend money on educating), rather than focus the most on being an OSX replacement."

Thanks for bringing in a Katrina reference, makes thing much clearer.

[Sushi]

Err you're drowning yourself there buddy. Do you know what kickass CPU I could assemble with the cost of the -in my opinion- mediocre Mac Mini?

1. Most people don't assemble their own computers
2. you couldn't put together something like the Mini, not with double the money.

The moment you say "but I can build a better computer....", you lose the argument. Joe Sixpack doesn't build computers. Many geeks do build computers, but many do not. I have built my own PC, but I can see that PowerMac (closest equivalent on the Mac-side) has many advantages over my home-built machine. It's innards are clean and uncluttered. the case is very uncluttered and smooth and it's quiet. And before you say that I can't build a machine: I have a specially-insulated case that is designed to be as quiet as possible, I have cool 'n quiet operating on my CPU etc. etc. And still it's noisy.


You are right, computers cost money, but using linux saves you about 200+ extra US dollars on the extra fat that is a preinstalled nonfree operating system. And Mac hardware is not the cheapest in the world either

It's not THAT expensive. No, really it isn't. True, Apple doesn't offer dirt-cheap $299 machines, but there are affordable Macs out there. And last time I checked, OS X is $129, not $200+

[poofyhairguy]

Is this the linux equivalent to Barbara Bush's "they are underprivileged anyway, so this works pretty well for them" Astrodome comment?


What bugs me also about this comment is that it is obvious I think Ubuntu is a better deal (otherwise I wouldn't have over 4000 posts here) so to compare me to Mrs. Bush telling that to people in the Astrodome and then going back to a huge house is quite off. I use Ubuntu near full time. I have an iPod, I have had trouble with GTKPod. I have Breezy now because Rhythmbox has iPod support. I walk in the exact same shoes.

I'm just glad that I am not seen as the main "customer." I'm glad schools are. I'm glad that people that need an OS shipped to them are.

[Knome_fan]

No, just a "Mark decided that Ubuntu should develop a version that works good for schools in any situation (because its better to spend money on educating), rather than focus the most on being an OSX replacement."

Nobody talked about an OSX replacement. Sushi talked about improving linux. That this lead to comments like the one I quoted was as unfortunate as it was predictable.

[Buffalo Soldier]

Stop deluding yourself. Some tribesman living in Sahara is not Ubuntu's target-market. And even those poor that Ubuntu targets, still need a computer, and those cost money. Yes, Apple-hardware costs money. But so does Linux-hardware.The average basic pay for the working class in my country is around 1300-1500. I spent about 1800 on a no-brand x86 computer and slap Ubuntu on it. While the cheapest Power G5 will cost around 8500. We are not some tribesman, but Apple software/hardware are too expensive for us (or for me at least).

Actually I don't mind anyone starting "A call to arms: Linux needs to just work" movement or anything. But please let it be a REAL effort (bug report, development or any other contribution) to make GNU/Linux better. Not just throwing tantrum.

[Knome_fan]

What bugs me also about this comment is that it is obvious I think Ubuntu is a better deal.

Nope, this isn't obvious from
Who cares about beating Apples at being an "experiance" when there are billions of people on the planet that can't afford ANY Apple experiance. Or a legal Windows experiance. Ubuntu is for them. at all. Maybe you should chose your words more carefully in the future.

[Sushi]

Good. Help code to make it better.

I'm not a coder, but there are other ways to help besides code.


Just blowing off steam in the forum is not better than accepting defeat or whatever....

It's better to bring attention to problem, that to simply admit the problem and do nothing about it.


Tribesmen? Who said anything about tribesmen? I was more thinking a poor school with donated hardware. Thats why Ebuntu was made:

You talked about "billions of people", so the tribesmen are included :).


Its cool. I personally would have bought a mini if its graphics card was more modern.

Compared to x86-machines in the same price-range, it's vid-card is downright hi-end! Just about all cheap x86-boxes have integrated graphics that use the system-RAM. The Mini has a dedicated GPU with dedicated VRAM.


It can happen. Is it that way now? Nope. but it can get there. For your issue of the iPod thing I can tell you that GTKPod is a dead end, and that in Breezy Rhythmbox will have iPod support by default. Breezy has a lot more big upgrades to make things easier. So the band keeps marching on.

That's good to hear. Really, it is.


Oh well. I am wrong. Linux just works. Just works in Tivo. Just works in my sister's cell phone. Just works in 9 out of the top 10 supercomputers in the world.

None of those are personal computers. You are comparing apples to oranges. I'm a desktop-user, I don't care one bit how well Linux works in TiVo.


How much do you want it? Enough to help develop?

Enough that I have spent lots and lots of time helping users, making suggestions, making mockups, providing feedback, arrange Linux-events, handing out Knoppix-CD's, evangelize, create bug-reports etc. etc. etc. And once my own finances improve a bit, I'm planning to financially support a developer.


Enough to pay SUSE for their professional version to support Linux. Enough to use Mepis (sounds like the distro you would like the best as it has good iPod support TODAY)? How much?

I have in fact given quite a bit of money to Linux. I pay to my LUG which uses the money to push Linux, I have bought (yes, bought) Linux-distros.


Sure. But what was it meant to do?

to stop the complacency. To make people realize that things do not have to be like this. Really, why is it that if I say "You know, Linux could do this a lot better than it's doing it today", it's assumed that I'm "flaming Linux"?

[poofyhairguy]

Nobody talked about an OSX replacement. Sushi talked about improving linux .

Actually, the whole thing has been about improving Ubuntu. Ubuntu has the GTKPod problems. Works like a charm in Mepis.

[Sushi]

The average basic pay for the working class in my country is around 1300-1500. I spent about 1800 on a no-brand x86 computer and slap Ubuntu on it. While the cheapest Power G5 will cost around 8500. We are not some tribesman, but Apple software/hardware are too expensive for us (or for me at least).

G5 PowerMacs are hi-end machines. You could always get a lower-specced machine. But really, this is not about Mac-hardware as such. This is about making Linux easy to use.


Actually I don't mind anyone starting "A call to arms: Linux needs to just work" movement or anything. But please let it be a REAL effort (bug report, development or any other contribution) to make GNU/Linux better. Not just throwing tantrum.

I'm already doing all that. I have been a pain in the ass in the KDE-community for quite some time, when I have been pushing for ease of use, simplification, cleanliness and general kick-assness :). I have organised events, I have envangelised, I have created bug-reports....

[Sushi]

Actually, the whole thing has been about improving Ubuntu. Ubuntu has the GTKPod problems. Works like a charm in Mepis.

the subject is "Linux needs to "just work"". I have yet to see a Linux-distro that "Just Worked". Some work better than others, but none are dead simple to use.

[poofyhairguy]

Nope, this isn't obvious from at all.

Yeah, because I think 4000 posts next to my name and moderator status is enough to show I prefer Ubuntu Knome_fan.



Maybe you should chose your words more carefully in the future.

I stand by what I said there. Billions of people can't afford software all over the world. A person or group in that situation has certain needs that Ubuntu is trying to meet. The school district near me could benefit a lot from what Ubuntu is being developed into. So can my community center. Heck, when I was a kid I couldn't afford software. I wish I had Ubuntu then. I'm glad I have it now.

You are quick to correct me Knome_fan, even when I am not in the wrong.

[Knome_fan]

Yeah, because I think 4000 posts next to my name and moderator status is enough to show I prefer Ubuntu Knome_fan.

Jesus, 4000 posts and being a moderator doesn't make your comment more intelligent, no.



I stand by what I said there. Billions of people can't afford software all over the world. A person or group in that situation has certain needs that Ubuntu is trying to meet. The school district near me could benefit a lot from what Ubuntu is being developed into. So can my community center. Heck, when I was a kid I couldn't afford software. I wish I had Ubuntu then. I'm glad I have it now.

That's not what you said in the first place.
Further, this is still a dumb, ignorant and off topic comment, as nobody doubted that Ubuntu is a good thing, has its uses, has its advantages. However, that doesn't mean that Ubuntu should not improve.



You are quick to correct me Knome_fan, even when I am not in the wrong.
But you are wrong and, how do I put it, you are quick to give me reasons to correct you.

[poofyhairguy]

I'm not a coder, but there are other ways to help besides code.

Great! One way to help if you can is to use Breezy and see if its acceptable. If not file a bug report:

https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/

Ot two. All of mine have been read!



It's better to bring attention to problem, that to simply admit the problem and do nothing about it.

Good point. I'll agree with that line of reason.



You talked about "billions of people", so the tribesmen are included :).

Once again you are correct!



Compared to x86-machines in the same price range, it's vid-card is downright hi-end! Just about all cheap x86-boxes have integrated graphics that use the system-RAM. The Mini has a dedicated GPU with dedicated VRAM.

I know. I would have given in if I didn't know an Intel based Mac is coming soon (I actually like Intel).



That's good to hear. Really, it is.

GTKPod bugs me as well.




None of those are personal computers. You are comparing apples to oranges. I'm a desktop-user, I don't care one bit how well Linux works in TiVo.

Then please be more clear. Ubuntu is the OS. Linux is just the kernel under the hood technically or every OS based on it in a broader sense. Not to slap you down or nothing, just so you know. :)



Enough that I have spent lots and lots of time helping users, making suggestions, making mockups, providing feedback, arrange Linux-events, handing out Knoppix-CD's, evangelize, create bug-reports etc. etc. etc. And once my own finances improve a bit, I'm planning to financially support a developer.




to stop the complacency. To make people realize that things do not have to be like this. Really, why is it that if I say "You know, Linux could do this a lot better than it's doing it today", it's assumed that I'm "flaming Linux"?

Its not that people think you are flaming Ubuntu, its just that honestly there are better ways to help. The bugzilla link is the official direct line to the developers- if you want use it to get ideas across. Just posting that Ubuntu is not as good as it could be is not taken as a major revelation because just about everyone has that opinion about some part of Ubuntu. For you its the iPod, for me its copying Apple's desktop acceration, for some its WINE support, for some its SATA drive support. Ubuntu is not there yet at all. Most people know it. I do.

Just help if you can. Breezy will be only the third release and its come a long way from Warty but it won't be "ready" either. So the developers will keep going at it.

I can tell that you really want to help, and that is welcome. If you can try out Breezy and report waht you think to the developers. Thats the best way to help move Ubuntu along, and make it better for everyone!

[poofyhairguy]

Jesus, 4000 posts and being a moderator doesn't make your comment more intelligent, no.

No, but its the best proof I have that I don't think Ubuntu is anything but the best (for me). Thats all I was saying. I wasn't saying my comments are better, or anything like that.



That's not what you said in the first place.
Further, this is still a dumb, ignorant and off topic comment, as nobody doubted that Ubuntu is a good thing, has its uses, has its advantages. However, that doesn't mean that Ubuntu should not improve.

Lets agree on that an leave it alone then. Agree to disagree and keep the off topicness away.



But you are wrong and, how do I put it, you are quick to give me reasons to correct you.

No one made you my personal police man Knome_fan. I appreciate when I am way out of line and you put me in my place, but to compare me to the most current example of condescension in the public area could be something that someone could call a personal assult. Especially when it does not apply at all.

[Sushi]

Great! One way to help if you can is to use Breezy and see if its acceptable. If not file a bug report:

https://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/

Ot two. All of mine have been read!

I have submitted bug-reports to KDE, but I haven't done so with Ubuntu (yet, at least)


Then please be more clear. Ubuntu is the OS. Linux is just the kernel under the hood technically or every OS based on it in a broader sense. Not to slap you down or nothing, just so you know. :)

When I talk of "Linux", I mean the whiole shebang. The kernel, the desktop, the apps, the works. If I talk about the kernel, I talk about "the Linux kernel". Besides, it's easier to say "Linux needs to be better!", than it is to say "Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora, Mandriva, Debian, Linspire etc. need to be better!" :).

Please, let's not turn this in to "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux"-debate :).


Its not that people think you are flaming Ubuntu, its just that honestly there are better ways to help. The bugzilla link is the official direct line to the developers- if you want use it to get ideas across. Just posting that Ubuntu is not as good as it could be is not taken as a major revelation because just about everyone has that opinion about some part of Ubuntu.

Like I said, I'm not specifically complaining about Ubuntu. I'm complaining about Linux as a whole. The problems I described are not something only Ubuntu suffers from, they are common to all Linux'es. And not only are they distribution-problems, they are application- and desktop-problems as well.


I can tell that you really want to help, and that is welcome. If you can try out Breezy and report waht you think to the developers. Thats the best way to help move Ubuntu along, and make it better for everyone!

Updating to Breezy would be a bit difficult for me. For starters, my Ubuntu-machine is my main machine. If I upgrade to potentially unstable version, I risk hosing the entire system. I do have a test-machine for these kinds of things, but it's currently running OpenSUSE (it's a good thing to check out the other alternatives as well).

[agger]

So we are admitting defeat? "Linux wont work as well as Macs do, so get used to it". I'm sorry, but I wont "get used to it". Maybe I'm asking for impossible, but I do not think so. I want Linux to kick ass on all fronts, including ease of use. Simply admitting that "Linux will never be as easy to use as Mac is" is not acceptable IMO.



Everything in Ubuntu and Linux is not perfect, and everything's not finished
either. It is not very surprising that Apple have perfect iPod support on their
Macs a long time before it appears in Linux.

If you don't find the current status of Ubuntu "acceptable", here's three things
you can do:

1) Don't use it
2) Be patient and wait until things get better - Ubuntu has a new release every six months
3) Join the development community and do something about it.

Complaining about it here and *demanding* something from people who either have better things to do or have nothing to do with actual decisions will bring you nowhere.

If you find a bug and it really annoys you, file a bug report. If you want to follow up on how it's faring, join the community as a tester.

I think Ubuntu can easily end up being as user-friendly in every respect as
OSX. But it will take time, and if you want to support it you need to be patient
and contribute as much as you feel for it.




Stop deluding yourself. Some tribesman living in Sahara is not Ubuntu's target-market. And even those poor that Ubuntu targets, still need a computer, and those cost money. Yes, Apple-hardware costs money. But so does Linux-hardware ...


I find that comment offensive and would like to counter you on that one: I think that Africans are VERY MUCH a part of the intended target audience
of Ubuntu. Mark Shuttleworth is a South African and very devoted to free software and education in Africa, remember?

And the potential African users will vey much need something's that free and works over the ability to run iPods. If Mark Shuttleworth thinks that being able to run a school network with recycled computers (costing next to no money) is more important than supporting iPods, you'll have to excuse me if I happen to agree.

Apart from that, my Rhythmbox in Hoary supported my son's iPod Shuffle with no problems whatsoever - so things are not ALL bad with regards to working out of the box in Ubuntu. Matter of fact, they are mostly cool :-)

[poofyhairguy]

When I talk of "Linux", I mean the whiole shebang. The kernel, the desktop, the apps, the works. If I talk about the kernel, I talk about "the Linux kernel". Besides, it's easier to say "Linux needs to be better!", than it is to say "Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora, Mandriva, Debian, Linspire etc. need to be better!" :).

Please, let's not turn this in to "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux"-debate :).

I didn't mean to sound like a stuffy shirt or anything. Sorry. I just wanted to point out that the GTKPod problem (at least) was specific to Ubuntu. I have had the same problem, but not with other distros.



Like I said, I'm not specifically complaining about Ubuntu. I'm complaining about Linux as a whole. The problems I described are not something only Ubuntu suffers from, they are common to all Linux'es. And not only are they distribution-problems, they are application- and desktop-problems as well.

I'll agree with you there. Ubuntu is only responsible for so much.



Updating to Breezy would be a bit difficult for me. For starters, my Ubuntu-machine is my main machine. If I upgrade to potentially unstable version, I risk hosing the entire system. I do have a test-machine for these kinds of things, but it's currently running OpenSUSE (it's a good thing to check out the other alternatives as well).

Well, then I'll make the best bug reports I can for iPod behavior. And when you upgrade to Breezy please fill out any bug reports of things that don't meet your standards.

If you can, also continue to help in other ways. I see you point about desktop Linux not being there yet for many, and I have hope the situation will continue to improve. Thanks for your comments and try to report bugs if your can.

[az]

Updating to Breezy would be a bit difficult for me. For starters, my Ubuntu-machine is my main machine. If I upgrade to potentially unstable version, I risk hosing the entire system. I do have a test-machine for these kinds of things, but it's currently running OpenSUSE (it's a good thing to check out the other alternatives as well).


Let's not mince words. You care complaining. Linux (or, more accurately FLOSS) does not work that way. There is no complaint department in an open process. Whining about shortcommings rarely acomplishes anything other than annoying a lot of people.

If you really really want to continue complaining, do so in a more respectful tone - maybe *that* can actually motivate somebody to change something.

[Sushi]

Everything in Ubuntu and Linux is not perfect, and everything's not finished either. It is not very surprising that Apple have perfect iPod support on their Macs a long time before it appears in Linux.

The iPod is one thing, but there are other things as well. And like I said, since we DO have software that can talk with iPod, there should be no real reason why it couldn't be as easy to use with Linux as it is with Mac.


If you don't find the current status of Ubuntu "acceptable", here's three things you can do:

I'm not talking specifically about Ubuntu, I'm talking about Linux in general. And I'm comparing it to the easiest to use OS on the market. And I'm merely saying that there's no reason why Linux couldn't be as easy to use.


Complaining about it here and *demanding* something from people who either have better things to do or have nothing to do with actual decisions will bring you nowhere.

Where exactly have I made any demands? Have I said that "fix this! NOW! I'm the one giving orders around here!"?


I find that comment offensive

What's so offensive about it? The fact that people living in middle of Sahara don't care one bit about computers? That the idea of them having a computer is ludicrous since they don't even have electricity? That they have better things to focus on, than installing latest release of Gnome?


and would like to counter you on that one: I think that Africans are VERY MUCH the a part of the intended target audience of Ubuntu.

Africans? Sure! People living in a middle of desert with no electricity? Maybe some day, but not today. There are LOTS of people in Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) who could use a computer. But there are lots and lots of people out there who are (as of today) not potential computer-users.


And the potential African users will vey much need something's that free and works over the ability to run iPods. If Mark Shuttleworth thinks that being able to run a school network with recycled computers (costing next to no money) is more important than supporting iPods, you'll have to excuse me if I happen to agree.

Where exactly have I said that they shouldn't be doing that? You seem to miss my point by a mile. I said that Linux (including Ubuntu and other distros) are difficult to use. Or more precisely: they are more difficult to use than they need to be. Saying "But you can use Ubuntu in African schools running on old machines!" is besides the point by a mile. Of course it's great that those schools get free software, and I haven't disputed that fact, or have I? And my rant was not targetted specifically at Ubuntu, It's targeted at Linux in general! The subject doesn't even mention Ubuntu, it talks about "Linux".

Yes, you can use Ubuntu (or any other Linux-distro for that matter) in 3rd world countries. Does that mean that Ubuntu (or Linux in general) shouldn't be made as easy as possible to use? Even to the rich-snobs in the industrialised countries with their iPods and all? When someone says "This thing here is too hard.", is it a valid response to say "But you can use Ubuntu/Linux in 3rd world countries!"? Yeah, knowing that makes the system work better for me.

Making the system "just work" does not take away from Linux, as far as using them in poorer countries do. It would still be Free software. Free software CAN be easy to use. There is no proprietary magic formula that Apple sprinkles over OS X. There is nothing magical in OS X. We CAN be better.

I'm quite amazed by the hostility of my post. In essence, I'm suggesting that we should be better than OS X. That's it. What's so bad in that?

[Adrenal]

Let's not mince words. You care complaining. Linux (or, more accurately FLOSS) does not work that way. There is no complaint department in an open process. Whining about shortcommings rarely acomplishes anything other than annoying a lot of people.

If you really really want to continue complaining, do so in a more respectful tone - maybe *that* can actually motivate somebody to change something.
If you want Macintosh, use Macintosh. Really, they are far better at delivering a Macintosh experience then we.
Ubuntu as good at one thing, and thats this thing called the 'Ubuntu experience'. Yes, its slightly different, but no one's making you use it.
In the humble words of many open source guys before me, 'where's the patch?'. That is, if you don't like something, fix it.

[KiwiNZ]

This thread is only going one way I think .
Maybe my big box of locks need to brought out [-X

[Sushi]

Let's not mince words. You care complaining. Linux (or, more accurately FLOSS) does not work that way. There is no complaint department in an open process. Whining about shortcommings rarely acomplishes anything other than annoying a lot of people.

If you really really want to continue complaining, do so in a more respectful tone - maybe *that* can actually motivate somebody to change something.

So, I'm (or anyone else for that matter) is not allowed to say that "you know, this particular thing could be easier"? If I say something like that, I'm being "disrespectful"?

I'm not "whining". I'm merely saying that many things in Linux are hard to do. And there's no real reason for them to be hard. And I'm suggesting that there is no real reason why Linux couldn't be as easy to use (or easier) than OS X (the current gold-standard when ease of use if concerned). But for some reaosn people read my comment like the Devil reads the Bible (as the saying in Finland goes).

Hell, maybe I should just shut up then? Linux works perfectly. There are absolutely no shortcomings in it. everything is just downright blissful, and there is absolutely zero room for improvement. I guess my problems of installing the WLAN-card in Ubuntu were just a dream. Getting my PCMCIA-card to work in OpenSUSE was just delusion of a feverish mind. Getting sound working on my laptop isn't really a problem at all.

Seriously: I want Linux to be great. I want it to be the best possible OS on all fronts. When I suggest that, and I suggest that we target the bests OS in the ease-of-use department, people get their panties in a bunch. Apparently suggesting something like that is strictly verboten.

Maybe we should just be content with playing the second fiddle when ease of use is concerned?

[Knome_fan]

Let's not mince words.

Ok, let's not.



You care complaining.

No, he's not.



Linux (or, more accurately FLOSS) does not work that way.

Who said it did and above all, how does it work?



There is no complaint department in an open process.

There is, it's called bugzilla.



Whining about shortcommings rarely acomplishes anything other than annoying a lot of people.

As does accusing other people of whining.



If you really really want to continue complaining, do so in a more respectful tone

Funny that you of all people should talk about a more respectful tone.

[Sushi]

If you want Macintosh, use Macintosh. Really, they are far better at delivering a Macintosh experience then we.
Ubuntu as good at one thing, and thats this thing called the 'Ubuntu experience'. Yes, its slightly different, but no one's making you use it.

What is that magical "Macintosh experience"? It's that things "Just Work", with zero hassle. is it really ludicrous to have something like that in Linux as well? I suggested that we target the same ease of use as Macs offer. Is that a bad suggestion? is it something that should not be suggested? Is it madness to suggest "Linux should "Just Work" as well". But it seems that when I suggest that we make things easy to use and streamlined (IOW: enjoyable to use), I get suggestions along the lines of "dood, just use a Mac then! This is Linux!". Is it so that Macs are the systems that are enjoyable to use, because things just work, whereas Linux is supposed to be harder to use?

There is nothing magical in OS X that the Linux-community couldn't re-create. And is there ANY good reason why it shouldn't be re-created? Or is it that if we make Linux "Just Work", we would be copying OS X or something? Therefore things in linux must be hard to use.


In the humble words of many open source guys before me, 'where's the patch?'. That is, if you don't like something, fix it.

Sorry, I'm no coder. But there are other ways to contribute. Or is it so that if you can't code, you can't comment on how the system works?

[KiwiNZ]

I think we have reached a point where this will achieve nothing , Ibelieve best all around if we close and move on

[poofyhairguy]

Where exactly have I said that they shouldn't be doing that? You seem to miss my point by a mile. I said that Linux (including Ubuntu and other distros) are difficult to use. Or more precisely: they are more difficult to use than they need to be. Saying "But you can use Ubuntu in African schools running on old machines!" is besides the point by a mile. Of course it's great that those schools get free software, and I haven't disputed that fact, or have I?

No you haven't. In that comment I did not imply that its not a great thing. I was just pointing out what niches ther leader of Ubuntu is trying to fill with its creation. I AM making the statement that pleasing a desktop user that is used to the OSX experiance is a different goal than creating a good low cost OS for people that need it. I even suggested an Linux Distro that has a focus closer to what you want -Mepis. I didn't even say that Ubuntu cannot please you. That it cannot get better. I'm just saying that people like myself and yourself are not the "target market" thats all.



And my rant was not targetted specifically at Ubuntu, It's targeted at Linux in general! The subject doesn't even mention Ubuntu, it talks about "Linux".

Some Linux is better than others. Such blanket statements don't fit all.



Yes, you can use Ubuntu (or any other Linux-distro for that matter) in 3rd world countries. Does that mean that Ubuntu (or Linux in general) shouldn't be made as easy as possible to use?

No. It just means if in the next release the developers have to pick to spend time on either Edubuntu or better MP3 player support, they will pick Edubuntu. For every Ubuntu release so far some things have been cut at the end. But it keeps getting easier everytime. I would be a fool to say its as good as its going to get now.



Even to the rich-snobs in the industrialised countries with their iPods and all? When someone says "This thing here is too hard.", is it a valid response to say "But you can use Ubuntu/Linux in 3rd world countries!"?

No, and I never mentioned third world countries at all. You brought that stuff in. I just said Ubuntu was designed for people that want a good OS but can't afford commercial offerings. I even mentioned that myself, a "rich-snob in a industrialised country" benefits from it greatly and that I wished I had it as a kid when I could not afford any software.


There is nothing magical in OS X.

It is my opinion that Apple's close control over what OSX runs on creates the "magic,"and that other products that use Linux (such as a Tivo) have the same ease of use magic for the same reason. But thats just my opinion. So lets not debate such fluff.



I'm quite amazed by the hostility of my post. In essence, I'm suggesting that we should be better than OS X. That's it. What's so bad in that?

Nothing is bad about that. But I have to ask, how does it actually make the situation better?

[Knome_fan]

Nothing is bad about that. But I have to ask, how does it actually make the situation better?

Well, for one thing this thread could have evolved into a discussion about what we could do to improve Linux.
Unfortunately it has from the beginning only descended into bashing the original poster.

[zenwhen]

the subject is "Linux needs to "just work"". I have yet to see a Linux-distro that "Just Worked". Some work better than others, but none are dead simple to use.

First of all, you cannot interact with someone's hardware better than they can. You cannot write software that works better with the iPod than iTunes. Apple manufactures the iPod, and distributes iTunes. The reason the iPod does not work perfectly on the Linux platform is that Apple is ignoring this platform. Learn where to point your blame. The blame lies with Apple. You cannot beat someone at their own game when they are the only one who knows the rules. We'd need the source code to iTunes to beat them at this one.

Also, do you think the Ubuntu Dev's have a magic wand? Why do you think we have new releases? Why do you think there are so many new kernels in a Dev cycle? Do you think no effort is going towards making this "just works" thing happen for you? You aren't;t going to get it tomorrow. You wont get it in Breezy, but it won't be because there wasn't an effort to make it happen. The best thing you can do is stop asking for an effort to be made that is already being made, and help as much as you can. You are asking for rain during a monsoon.

[TravisNewman]

Just for future reference, stereotyping African people as "a bunch of people who live in the desert with no electricity" is not cool. Maybe most of them do live in the desert without electricity, but to group them all together like that, and with the tone that was used, is condescending and offensive to ALL Africans.

I put this note here because this thread has kinda become the shining example of "what not to do." If you see a thread going like this, and you have nothing constructive to say, just stay out of it, please.

[elpresidente]

I am suffering from winxp withdraw right now. I had some spare time during my summer vacation and thought I'd like to dive into Linux, deciding to skip dual-boot entirely. All I've ever used has been windows since 3.1. My biggest concern was not being able to do everything I wanted to on a linux system. I mean, my computer already had winxp professional on it (meaning I already paid for the program, why switch?) Linux advocates make a convincing argument for free alternative windows programs with openoffice, gaim, xine, and wine who needs their costly alternatives, but it's those small random programs that don't have ports. No one using x likes to mention the huge amount of time spent on packages, compiling source, using the terminal and fixing little things that work already in windows.

Of course, there are many positive aspects of linux and I'll probably be glad I took the time to learn it. However, I feel that the linux community has misrepresented the ease of transitioning from different systems. I heard "all the popular programs have their free equivalents linux! all other programs can be emulated through wine! You have everything you need! Modern distros easy setup!" No one mentions the tedious package and driver configuration necessary just to get DVDs to work or talks about the shortcomings of emulating, or the process just to get a program to show up on the applications bar, or the necessity to reassign special keys and shortcuts. After my first day of using linux I am almost fed up with all the little things that need to be configured. Windows has its downfalls , but the total amount of time spent scanning for viruses, setting up a firewall, defragmenting, doing a fresh install of windowsxp regularly would probably amount to less than the amount of time configuring linux has required. Maybe if I was back in middle/high school during the summer I wouldn't care so much and recommend everyone to try the "better" OS. Honestly, I know people who have been using computers for years, but don't know basic things like how to setup a printer or timid about searching for a program and installing it from the internet. These are the people who buy full desktop sets. How could linux possibly hope to appeal to the regular person when it expects so much setup time from the user? Maybe, for the tech lovers, but most users don't want to see code or spend time customizing they want the job done. I converted to linux for better security and in hopes that I wouldn't have to purchase another copy of microsoft word or an antivirus subscription again , but in the end, nothing is really free.

A WHOLE day? Wow. So you learned how to use Windows 3.1 in less than a day?

Personally, I understand your frustration. I encouter this frustration several times a week in my job in computer support, but my frustration often comes from difficulties in making things work in Windows properly. For example, a client had jacked up his wireless on his laptop. Getting the linksys software to actually uninstall and then reinstall took over an hour and then the drivers wouldn't install properly (WPC54G). In the end, it was easier and cheaper to buy a different brand PC card and install that, which is what the client did. I don't necessarily blame Windows. I've had numerous problems with the software for that part with multiple clients (it installs fairly easily in Linux, however).

This is the cost of doing business in the computer age. Linux, Windows. You are frustrated after a day of installing Linux. I had no problems installing Linux. I was frustrated after an hour of installing a PC card in Windows. Perhaps you've installed it with no problem. Had it been my PC, I would've taken the time to figure it out as I do when encountering a problem in Linux. I've found that resolving problems in Linux has been more straight-forward than Windows, but that anecdotal. I use both OS's and enjoy the benefits of both (esp. Ubuntu and Windows 2000)

[Grey Socks]

After having a complete system thrashed by a very good virus, I decided that my
learning was going to be forced into some linux distribution. I played around with SUSE 5.53 prior to that.
Knoppix 3.1 served my needs beyond the virus but I needed something a bit more friendly so I'm currently using SUSE 9.1 personal which has done a fine
job of detecting this aging server I use and converting my cds to usable ogg form. It won't use my dual processors though, so I'm intending to migrate into
Ubuntu here in a few days.
Windows 2000 is my OS of choice for gaming only, I never let that machine touch the internet at all.
So far SUSE has been par none for detecting all my older hardware like the two
SCSI drives and the SCSI controller.
I use Linux like any good tool, so some distros are better than others for certain
applications and certain hardware types.

[blastus]

I'm a new Linux convert also, going on one month. I can attest to the frustration of switching, I mean I even posted a couple of rants about Linux when I came over to the dark side. :smile: I've used a Microsoft OS since the days of 386s and MS-DOS 5.0. I also hold a B.Sc. in Computing Science and tons of experience in the industry--all kinds of experience except none with GNU/Linux.

BUT, the community here has been extremely understanding, helpful and patient. They have opened my eyes to the fact that Linux is not Windows and Linux *can be* just as *easy* as MS-Windows. The problem is that if you've only ever used MS-Windows you have to learn that things in Linux are done differently. That said, I still think right now, Linux is *harder* to use for me BUT the more I learn about Linux the more my attitude is changing.

The fact is is that experienced MS-Windows users (like myself) take for granted the knowledge they already have about MS-Windows and then expect that that knowledge should be applicable in Linux. They think that MS-Windows doesn't require any knowledge to setup, configure, or use therefore it is automatically easier to use. And they are right, MS-Windows IS easier to use for them because of the knowledge and expertise they already have about MS-Windows--but they take that knowledge for granted.

I wasn't converted to Linux. It is something that I've wanted to do now for about a year. I switched because I hate Microsoft.

-I hate them because they continually engage in illegal and unethical practice and can buy their way out of anything--one word, antitrust.
-I hate them because they are an unfettered monopoly that has gained their position not by producing good products but by gorilla and strongarm tactics.
-I hate them because they are using their monopoly to gain control of all aspects of corporate and personal computing not through innovation but through assimilation.
-I hate them because they push closed standards and proprietary format garbage on the free and open Internet.
-I hate them because they deceive and lie to the public sector and to consumers and people believe them.
-I hate them because they arrogantly resist open standards and open formats in order to perpetually lock consumers into MS-Windows and MS-Office--the twin pillars of their crumbling empire.

I think the boiling point for me though was their SCO-related statements on the GPL and also discussions I had a long time ago with ignorant MS fundamentalists about proprietary MS-Office file formats.

[Master Shake]

My take...

I first toyed with linux a few years back, starting with a double floppy distro (I was on dialup at the time), and a few weeks later, purchasing the then-current version of Mandrake (Can't remember the version number). Anyway, I liked what I saw, but the install didn't go easily. Then I got DSL service. a USB DSL modem. THat version of Mandrak didn't have USB support, and I couldn't find any support for it at all. I then abandonded my linux experment for a few years.

Fast forward to last month. I get Ubuntu, and try to install it on my XP machine as a dual boot. the Ubuntu partitionere totally confused me, and as such, I ended up wiping out my whole hard drive. One strike against Ub. Then I tried get XP back up on my machine, and damn if Dell didn't include a CD with the drivers my computer needed. I was stuck as

1) My dell had just gotten out of warranty
2) Windows did not auto-detect the important drivers -- sound card, video, nic...
3) No drivers means unable to use my Cable modem to download the drivers anyway. I had fun going to a neighbor's house, downloading 12 MB of drivers ON A DIALUP CONNECTION and then burning them to CD.

2 strikes for Dell, 1 strike for XP

After I got that taken care of, I downloaded a partitioning utility, did the partitions before installing Ubuntu, and Ubuntu detected everything right off the install! Even my Internet connection was there upon reboot! I was stunned. Once I figured out how to use Synaptic, getting a firewall, and other utilities was a breeze!

But I still had problems with linux...

1) Many games included with Ubuntu didn't like my sound card. I have to kill a process every time I want to run these. IMHO, I shouldn't have to do that (And these are pretty fun games too)

2) I have a wife who uses the same computer, and absolutely HATES Ubuntu (but since its my computer, tough, toots!)

3) Have been having nothing but problems with trying to install MAngband on Ubuntu. (I have a thread on it here somewhere)

4) Learning curve. My mind is like a steel trap. What goes in comes out all mangled. What I learned several years ago with Mandrake, totally left, or got mangled. Have to re learn, and some of hte things are not that intuitive (I will say one good thing about the distro of Mandrake I had... they had four books from Sams -- Teach Yourself Linux in 24 hours, Teach Yourself Mandrake Linux in 24 hours, Practical Linux, and Linux Hardware Guide all on theCD in PDF format. This is why I never got rid of the mandrake CD's)

5) Games. I have some DOS games, and some newer Win games that won't run, and I'm not paying $50 for Cedega.



(And I might add, one BIG plus with Ubuntu, is that if your net connection is configured, in the . IRC client that comes with Ub, the first connection on the list takes you to the Ubuntu Help channel. A VERY big plus! I've recieved a lot of help there!)

Over the course of my existence, Win has had just as much, if not many more problems than my limited experience with linux.

The only real "consistent" arguments I can see against Linux right now are gaming and the learning curve. Sure Linux does have a lot of greatgames, but where's Half Life 2? The major mainstream games aren't there. (I'm only using HL2 asan example. I have it under win, but it has the famous stuttering problem which Steam refuses to acknowledge, but that's another topic). As far as the learning curve goes, its like a native English speaker trying to learn Esperanto

As far as configuring Linux vs. Win, no two computers are the same, so everyone will have different mileage. This is to be expected, so IMHO it is not as strong an argument for /against Linux.

[climhazzard85]

I hope none of you mind me posting this here, as this is not meant in any way to be a flame of any sort, but I really am looking for some input.

About a week ago I bought an iBook to use for school, which kind of "rekindled" my interest in computers, which has been lacking over the past few years, and over the last few days I have been thinking about trying Linux again. I've used Linux on and off over the past few years, rarely have it installed for more than a few weeks before getting annoyed with it and deleting it. The reason that I would install Linux now, is to get a decent understanding of Linux/Unix architecture, because I want to major in Information Systems, and chances are I'll have to deal with some sort of *Nix.

The problem I have is, as a long time (7 years?) Windows user, trying to understand why people dislike Microsoft and Windows so much. It's true that in the past, Windows was somewhat unstable, but with Windows 2K and XP, I've had very, very few problems.

People cite that you can get viruses and spyware and so forth on a Windows platform, but if you are getting virus's and spyware, chances are you are screwing up somewhere. I haven't had a virus or any spyware on this install of XP that I've had for almost 3 years now. So to me, arguing that Linux (or Mac) is a virus-free environment is completely irrelevant.

As far as stability is concerned, I will get about 3-4 weeks out of my computer (a Dell, that is) with XP before it starts getting slow to the point where I have to reboot, which is hardly a hassle after a few weeks. At that time I had 128 Megs of ram, and I just threw 256 more in recently, and have yet to see how long XP will go before it needs a restart.

So with the technicalities (as far as I'm concerned) out of the way, the other argument I constantly read is that Microsoft is an evil monopoly company. Yeah, they may be, but the question is, who cares? They make software that works, and yes it costs money. Why is there such a problem with actually PAYING for software? If all software was created for free, do you realize what that would do to the software industry? There are a LOT (no, I don't have numbers) of people who are employed software programmers, who get paid for their hard work. I have no problem with people who are kind-hearted and want to make software for free, that is fantastic, but to me would be ridiculous if that were the only method of software creation. This is one of the main parts that I hope I am looking at from the wrong view...and someone can shed some light on what "open source" and "free software" is all about for me.

Lastly, my experiences with Linux have been less than great. To be honest, Linux confuses me, and I haven't taken the time to learn how it works. The problem with learning how it works for me, is that there are SO many different variations of EVERYTHING. There are hundreds of distributions, software package versions and so forth. The file system structure also bewilders me, why does Linux make it so hard to install programs and uninstall them? I have nothing against using a command line...I love it actually, but everything is so separated in Linux I find it hard to understand.

I am a pretty open-minded person (at least on this subject), and I hope someone can explain what I don't understand, and maybe change my (sub?) informed opinions on these things. Anyway sorry for the long post...just what I've been thinking over the past few hours :razz: , Thanks

-Evan

[aysiu]

First of all, you don't have to use Linux. Linux isn't for everyone. People can give their own reasons for using Linux, but if you're comfortable using Windows, no one should convince you out of it. Some people are plagued by spyware and viruses. If you aren't, cool.

Secondly, people hate Microsoft for many reasons that have nothing to do with the company charging for software. In fact, many Linux distributions also charge for their OSes. Read the "Why is everyone so anti-Microsoft?" thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=65863) for more details.

Thirdly, installing programs in Linux is usually easier than in Windows. Check out this comparison of installing Blender in Windows v. Linux (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/winuxinstall.php).

Do whatever makes you happy. If you want to explore Linux, cool. If you don't, that's cool, too. Since you're using a Mac, maybe you should just get Mac OS X. It has a unix-like architecture and uses many of the same terminal commands Linux does.

Best of luck in whatever you do.

If you want some more comprehensive answers, I suggest you lurk on these forums for a few weeks. We cover just about every topic you mentioned--Why switch to Linux? Why not like Microsoft? What's so great about Linux? How do I install this application?

[poofyhairguy]

The problem I have is, as a long time (7 years?) Windows user, trying to understand why people dislike Microsoft and Windows so much.

Personally its because Windows is boring.

[aysiu]

Personally its because Windows is boring. I'd like to ditto that and also emphasize the personally. Windows may not be boring for everyone, but I found it boring, and I find Linux exciting. That's why I switched. Everyone has her own reasons for switching to/trying out Linux.

[mlomker]

I am a pretty open-minded person (at least on this subject), and I hope someone can explain what I don't understand, and maybe change my (sub?) informed opinions on these things.

I think I could use a foreign language analogy here...if you grew up in a household that speaks English and it effectively allows you to communicate then why learn another language? It's going to take longer because you don't use it as much, it's going to seem awkward because the rules are different and you'll probably have trouble communicating anything meaningful for a while...a real bummer since that's the entire purpose of a language.

You're not going to be able to sit down at a foreign operating system (linux or a Mac) and be terribly productive for a while. You'll probably have to read a few books and 'waste' some time learning how to do things differently. You'll probably discover a few things that your new 'language' does better than the first one if you give it some time.

Or you could just stick with English...most everyone else does.

Personally, I'm starting my second year of Chinese classes tomorrow morning. I can't do much more than ask for a glass of water at this point. :wink:

[aysiu]

Or you could just stick with English...most everyone else does.

Personally, I'm starting my second year of Chinese classes tomorrow morning. I can't do much more than ask for a glass of water at this point. :wink: Globally, of course, most everyone (or the largest minority) speaks Chinese. Good thing you're taking those classes!

[climhazzard85]

Thirdly, installing programs in Linux is usually easier than in Windows. Check out this comparison of installing Blender in Windows v. Linux (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/winuxinstall.php).?

Yeah, but what about stuff like codecs and media player integration into the browsers? I had a hell of a time with that in the past (year or 2 ago?) maybe it has been improved?


Do whatever makes you happy. If you want to explore Linux, cool. If you don't, that's cool, too. Since you're using a Mac, maybe you should just get Mac OS X. It has a unix-like architecture and uses many of the same terminal commands Linux does.?

I do have OS X (Tiger), came with the iBook, I know it has similarities to *nix, but it's really completely not needed when using it.




If you want some more comprehensive answers, I suggest you lurk on these forums for a few weeks. We cover just about every topic you mentioned--Why switch to Linux? Why not like Microsoft? What's so great about Linux? How do I install this application??

Yeah, I have been lurking for about a week, and decided to post my thoughts.


Personally its because Windows is boring.

I agree, it is boring, works for me, but boring.




You're not going to be able to sit down at a foreign operating system (linux or a Mac) and be terribly productive for a while. You'll probably have to read a few books and 'waste' some time learning how to do things differently. You'll probably discover a few things that your new 'language' does better than the first one if you give it some time.

Or you could just stick with English...most everyone else does.



I've never read a book on anything related to Windows. Additionally, I've become decently productive in OS X after having the iBook for less than 2 weeks. I guess they are easier languages then :)

[aysiu]

I've never read a book on anything related to Windows. Additionally, I've become decently productive in OS X after having the iBook for less than 2 weeks. I guess they are easier languages then :) Or maybe you're just a fast learner. I have to tell you--I had quite a time learning Mac OS X, as "intuitive" as it claims to be. I didn't have to read any books, but I had to do plenty of internet research to get basic multi-tasking working. I find it extremely annoying that when you've minimized or hid a window and then select that application using cmd-tab that the window does not restore itself. I had to search around for third-party software just to turn off the annoying boot-up noise.

My wife and I were also confused at first by this "zoom" button that's always a plus sign whether or not it shrinks or enlarges your window. It also doesn't seem to have any kind of consistent behavior, even though theoretically it's supposed to expand your window to fit the text or contents contained within.

Granted, my wife and I have gradually learned to love OS X, but it took learning, as does any language.

And some people pick up languages quite easily.

You also have to keep in mind that using Linux is quite easy--it's the installation that's tricky, and most Windows and Mac users never install Windows or Mac OS X. I've had four people with absolutely no Linux experience (my wife and three friends of ours) walk up to my Linux computer, turn it on, surf the internet and check email with it, and even edit Word documents, then shut the computer down without having to ask me a single question.

[climhazzard85]

Or maybe you're just a fast learner. I have to tell you--I had quite a time learning Mac OS X, as "intuitive" as it claims to be. I didn't have to read any books, but I had to do plenty of internet research to get basic multi-tasking working. I find it extremely annoying that when you've minimized or hid a window and then select that application using cmd-tab that the window does not restore itself. I had to search around for third-party software just to turn off the annoying boot-up noise.

My wife and I were also confused at first by this "zoom" button that's always a plus sign whether or not it shrinks or enlarges your window. It also doesn't seem to have any kind of consistent behavior, even though theoretically it's supposed to expand your window to fit the text or contents contained within.

Granted, my wife and I have gradually learned to love OS X, but it took learning, as does any language.

And some people pick up languages quite easily.

You also have to keep in mind that using Linux is quite easy--it's the installation that's tricky, and most Windows and Mac users never install Windows or Mac OS X. I've had four people with absolutely no Linux experience (my wife and three friends of ours) walk up to my Linux computer, turn it on, surf the internet and check email with it, and even edit Word documents, then shut the computer down without having to ask me a single question.

Regarding OS X:
The annoying boot up noise (haha) is silent for me if I set the volume to mute. As for multi-tasking, it was annoying for me also, until I found out how to use Expose, which is IMO awesome.

Linux:
You are right that the installation is the hard part, but it's not the initial install for me that is hard, it's configuring everything afterwards. I hate that it's so hard (or was) to get video to work properly. Even getting consistancy between menu systems (new program install...icon / menu item nowhere to be found?).

[aysiu]

Regarding OS X:
The annoying boot up noise (haha) is silent for me if I set the volume to mute. But I don't want the volume muted, just the boot-up noise.


As for multi-tasking, it was annoying for me also, until I found out how to use Expose, which is IMO awesome. Expose's cool-looking, but I still run into the minimized window problem, even when I press F9.



Linux:
You are right that the installation is the hard part, but it's not the initial install for me that is hard, it's configuring everything afterwards. I hate that it's so hard (or was) to get video to work properly. That's part of the installation process. I consider installing and configuring together to be part of the "installation process," as that's what happens when you buy a computer with the OS preloaded. My eMachines "restore" disks don't just reinstall Windows XP--they install and configure it with the proper codecs and the PowerDVD program, etc. Likewise, my wife's Powerbook doesn't come with a Mac OS X CD--it comes with a restore CD.


Even getting consistancy between menu systems (new program install...icon / menu item nowhere to be found?). Consistency between menu systems? I don't know what that means. Are you using KDE apps in Gnome or something? I have to confess, though, that Linux desktops are generally inconsistent about adding menu entries for newly installed programs. Sometimes killing the Gnome panel (i.e., refreshing it) can help, but sometimes it doesn't.

I still don't understand why you don't just tinker with Mac OS X's unix-like frame. I find it a lot of fun. If you want the "best of both worlds," so to speak, you should try using Fink on Mac OS X. You can apt-get install and do all sorts of Linux commands and use Linux programs on Mac!

Here's the link: http://fink.sourceforge.net/

[weasel fierce]

As long as you use something that makes you happy, its all good.

Personally, to me, working on windows makes me feel like I am working against the system, while linux feels like its working with me.

[climhazzard85]

But I don't want the volume muted, just the boot-up noise.

Expose's cool-looking, but I still run into the minimized window problem, even when I press F9.

That's part of the installation process. I consider installing and configuring together to be part of the "installation process," as that's what happens when you buy a computer with the OS preloaded. My eMachines "restore" disks don't just reinstall Windows XP--they install and configure it with the proper codecs and the PowerDVD program, etc. Likewise, my wife's Powerbook doesn't come with a Mac OS X CD--it comes with a restore CD.

Yeah, most computers do come with restore discs now. I have installed XP on my Dell from the cd's they include, and I had to reinstall all the drivers myself, I don't know if Dell has changed that or not. I've also installed OS X, which is insanely easy, but I'd hope so since Apple makes both the software and hardware.


Consistency between menu systems? I don't know what that means. Are you using KDE apps in Gnome or something? I have to confess, though, that Linux desktops are generally inconsistent about adding menu entries for newly installed programs. Sometimes killing the Gnome panel (i.e., refreshing it) can help, but sometimes it doesn't.

The latter is mainly what I meant, the menu entries.


I still don't understand why you don't just tinker with Mac OS X's unix-like frame. I find it a lot of fun. If you want the "best of both worlds," so to speak, you should try using Fink on Mac OS X. You can apt-get install and do all sorts of Linux commands and use Linux programs on Mac!

Here's the link: http://fink.sourceforge.net/

Well, I have 2 reasons, one I don't really want to mess with a computer that I need for school. The other reason is that it's a laptop, I don't use it as often when I'm home, but I'm always on my desktop.

[raven]

About a week ago I bought an iBook to use...
if you are a power user that is fine just give it time, if you want to use it just as a tool you do not have to understand it, it will work after installation, and when ever you have a problem just call a PRO, as in MSwindows...


The problem I have is, as a long time (7 years?) Windows user, trying to understand....
you are absolutely right, 2k and xp are very good, why some hate them, they are like bullies in a school yard, I believe a lot of people wil hate bullies.


People cite that you can get viruses and spyware and so forth on a Windows platform, but if you...
I agree 100%


As far as stability is concerned, I will get about 3-4 weeks out of my computer (a Dell, that is) with XP....
mine does not go slow,my xp will stay as long as I want it (16 week) last time and I had to shut it cause had to go on vacation, so for sure you are doing something wrong with your xp, that it become slow.


So with the technicalities (as far as I'm concerned) out of the way, the other argument I constantly read is that Microsoft is an evil monopoly company. Yeah, they may be, but the question is, who cares? They make software that works, and yes it costs money. Why is there such a problem with actually PAYING for software? If all software was created for free, do you realize what that would do to the software industry? There are a LOT (no, I don't have numbers) of people who are employed software programmers, who get paid for their hard work. I have no problem with people who are kind-hearted and want to make software for free, that is fantastic, but to me would be ridiculous if that were the only method of software creation. This is one of the main parts that I hope I am looking at from the wrong view...and someone can shed some light on what "open source" and "free software" is all about for me.
here I have to explain my own opinion about open source and why in my minimal way I am contributing (I say minimal cause millions of people are in it).
the PC is very important in todays life, and in emerging countries like mine, people do not have 200$ or more to spend on OS win or mac, so I believe all basic programs including OS have to be free for all, and all specilaized softwares must have a free learning version, so the poor can have an opportunity to learn or to have the advantage that the internet have to offre (education, research,services), so they have a chance to pull themselves out of poverty and illetracy. I hope you analize this, and to contribute in the success of open source and without hating MS, as it is not the issue for me.


Lastly, my experiences with Linux have been less than great. To be honest, Linux confuses me....
as above, if you love learning, it is great, I spent sleepless night on some problems, and solved them after so much hard work, and I love this part of learning,you say too many distros, just choose 2 or 3 and have fun, other than that, to each his own pleasure.


I am a pretty open-minded person (at least on this subject), and I hope someone can explain what I don't understand, and maybe change my (sub?) informed opinions on these things. Anyway sorry for the long post...just what I've been thinking over the past few hours :razz: , Thanks

-Evan
I am using Kubuntu now and I can do anything as I would do on xp, only my sony mini disc, but this is sony side and not linux...

open source = public libraries, imagine no books for you cause you can not pay for them, so many wasted talents......just imagine.

[aysiu]

open source = public libraries, imagine no books for you cause you can not pay for them, so many wasted talents......just imagine. Or, because of DRM, you're allowed to read the books you buy in only a certain number of rooms, and you can't lend it to a friend, either.

[climhazzard85]

here I have to explain my own opinion about open source and why in my minimal way I am contributing (I say minimal cause millions of people are in it).
the PC is very important in todays life, and in emerging countries like mine, people do not have 200$ or more to spend on OS win or mac, so I believe all basic programs including OS have to be free for all, and all specilaized softwares must have a free learning version, so the poor can have an opportunity to learn or to have the advantage that the internet have to offre (education, research,services), so they have a chance to pull themselves out of poverty and illetracy. I hope you analize this, and to contribute in the success of open source and without hating MS, as it is not the issue for me.


open source = public libraries, imagine no books for you cause you can not pay for them, so many wasted talents......just imagine.

Well, what I disagree with is that there is nothing that says products produced *have* to be free for anyone, and goes against everything any decent economy has worked for. What I do agree with is that it is great for the poor to be able to have stuff to use for free, but it simply can't be the only option, or it'd make everyone poor due to lack of jobs.

The other thing I find so stupid is that people complain that windows costs money, which is true, but it comes on almost all computers. Unless you are using a computer that is older than 4 years (XP came out in late 2001), than you would already have windows. If your computer is over 4 years old, Linux with X probably runs like crap anyway.

[climhazzard85]

Or, because of DRM, you're allowed to read the books you buy in only a certain number of rooms, and you can't lend it to a friend, either.

I do not agree with this analogy.

- No law is stopping you from borrowing a freind's computer and using Windows.
- No law is stopping you from borrowing a freind's book and reading it.

There ARE laws stopping you from copying the Windows OS, and there ARE laws stopping you from photocopying copyrighted (books) material.

[raven]

Well, the thing I disagree with is that there is nothing that says products produced *have* to be free for anyone, and goes against everything any decent economy has worked for. What I do agree with is that it is great for the poor to be able to have stuff to use for free, but it simply can't be the only option, or it'd make everyone poor due to lack of jobs.

The other thing I find so stupid is that people complain that windows costs money, which is true, but it comes on almost all computers. Unless you are using a computer that is older than 4 years (XP came out in late 2001), than you would already have windows. If your computer is over 4 years old, Linux with X probably runs like crap anyway.

Sir, in 1 way or another you pay for it (even it seems it came for free on a new pc), and I do not say you can not sell softwares, I just said my opinion about basic software as an OS, or other softwares as office suite like OOo, I do not hate MS, I just love open source for the generosity, and I will support them...
you can sell softwares you can buy softwares, you can never come back to this forum, life goes on.......for everybody

[aysiu]

The other thing I find so stupid is that people complain that windows costs money, which is true, but it comes on almost all computers. Unless you are using a computer that is older than 4 years (XP came out in late 2001), than you would already have windows. You pay for it, whether you see it or not. You're right, though--it is stupid to complain about money because the "free" of Linux is not necessarily cost, as in money--it's freedom to distribute and to modify and redistribute. Part of that freedom is the freedom to charge money for the OS, which Linspire and Xandros do, as do Mandriva, Red Hat and others. Sometimes you can get a cost-free version, but it may not have everything the cost version does.

Ubuntu's an exception to this--it's free all the way.


If your computer is over 4 years old, Linux with X probably runs like crap anyway. Obviously you've never used Damn Small Linux or Ubuntu with XFCE4.

[climhazzard85]

Sir, in 1 way or another you pay for it (even it seems it came for free on a new pc), and I do not say you can not sell softwares, I just said my opinion about basic software as an OS, or other softwares as office suite like OOo, I do not hate MS, I just love open source for the generosity, and I will support them...
you can sell softwares you can buy softwares, you can never come back to this forum, life goes on.......for everybody

Yes you "pay" for it in a way, but it's really not a valid point in an argument saying Windows cost is higher than that of Linux. It's not like Windows is an option on a new computer, so you have it either way, that's all I'm saying.

[aysiu]

- No law is stopping you from borrowing a freind's computer and using Windows. -- No law is stopping you from borrowing a freind's book and reading it. I'm not talking about the computer. I'm talking about DRM. I bought (as in paid for) songs from the Apple iTunes store, and when I reformatted my computer with Windows without "de-authorizing" the computer, Apple would not let me play the song I paid money for because I'd exceeded the limit on the number of computers I could play it on. Keep in mind, I'm using the same computer I was before, just reformatted. And that fits the analogy exactly. I pay money for a book--I want to be able to read it anywhere I want--the same room, too, even if I repaint it.



There ARE laws stopping you from copying the Windows OS, and there ARE laws stopping you from photocopying copyrighted (books) material. Actually, the laws don't stop you from photocopying books. There's something called fair use. And, you own a book once you buy it. You don't own XP--you're just licensing it.

[climhazzard85]

Obviously you've never used Damn Small Linux or Ubuntu with XFCE4.

You're right, I haven't.

*edit* nevermind

[climhazzard85]

I'm not talking about the computer. I'm talking about DRM. I bought (as in paid for) songs from the Apple iTunes store, and when I reformatted my computer with Windows without "de-authorizing" the computer, Apple would not let me play the song I paid money for because I'd exceeded the limit on the number of computers I could play it on. Keep in mind, I'm using the same computer I was before, just reformatted. And that fits the analogy exactly. I pay money for a book--I want to be able to read it anywhere I want--the same room, too, even if I repaint it.

Actually, the laws don't stop you from photocopying books. There's something called fair use. And, you own a book once you buy it. You don't own XP--you're just licensing it.

I understand what you have to say in the first paragraph, that is stupid, they need to set it up better.

As for photocopying books, there is no way you are legally allowed to copy an entire book and massively redistribute it. You don't own the content in a book either, you own the paper and the book itself, just like you own that CD for XP.

[aysiu]

Yes you "pay" for it in a way, but it's really not a valid point in an argument saying Windows cost is higher than that of Linux. It's not like Windows is an option on a new computer, so you have it either way, that's all I'm saying. Well, it really depends on your circumstances. Take my situation, for example. Sure, Windows was included in the cost of my PC, but I like to burn CDs, and the CD burning "software" that's included with Windows is less than adequate for multi-session CDs or ISO-burning. I prefer things like Nero or Easy CD Creator. In Linux, I don't have to buy things like that are buy the newest version when it comes out--I just sudo apt-get install k3b or, more likely, have K3B already installed.

Same goes for editing PDFs. In KWord, I can import and export PDFs for free. In Windows, I'd need Adobe Professional or some other commercial (and expensive) software program to do that.

Sure, there are many open source and cost-free programs for Windows, but the vast majority of Windows users do not know of these programs, and they may be (rightly) skeptical of "free" software, given the spyware epidemic that you've been lucky enough to avoid. I know I don't just download anything I spot on download.com. I'd be a fool to do that. Anything you apt-get through the Ubuntu repositories won't have malware in it, though, and it's guaranteed free.

Also, Ubuntu is a high quality OS, and it's completely free. When Breezy comes out next month, guess how much Ubuntu users will pay to dist-upgrade. Nothing. When Vista comes out... you either stick with XP or you shell out the cash.

[aysiu]

As for photocopying books, there is no way you are legally allowed to copy an entire book and massively redistribute it. You don't own the content in a book either, you own the paper and the book itself, just like you own that CD for XP. You can't photocopy the entire book and mass-distribute it, but you can photocopy parts of it, and you can own the book. No one can take it away from you. You don't own XP, even if you have the CD in your hands and you paid money for it.

[climhazzard85]

When Vista comes out... you either stick with XP or you shell out the cash.

Guess again, you shell out money for a new pc. If these rumors and articles are true, most current computers will barely suffice for Vista. I read it will need 256 megs of VIDEO ram, insane huh? Oh well, I'm waiting for Vista before I upgrade my 3 year old Dell.

[raven]

Yes you "pay" for it in a way, but it's really not a valid point in an argument saying Windows cost is higher than that of Linux. It's not like Windows is an option on a new computer, so you have it either way, that's all I'm saying.

no sir, in Brasil you can buy a PC from DELL, without an OS, it comes with DOS and not installed, and this is the monopoly of MS in rich coutries, and in the US you can refuse to have MS on your PC, cause you can refuse the EULA of MS, and they have to reimburse you the OS, but trust me is HELL to spit bach your money that you paid for the OS....
anyway peace, I believe you are clinging to your opinion, and not as you mentioned that you are open minded, I DO NOT HATE MS, I HAVE XP THAT CAME WITH MY PC, I USE IT AND LOVE IT, MY NEIGHBOUR CAN NOT HAVE THIS, SO THAT IS WHY I INSTALLED UBUNTU FOR HIM, AND HIS ENJOYING THE INTERNET AND THE RICHENESS OF EDUCATION AND ALL WHAT OFFERS. WITHOUT OPEN SOURCE THIS CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT PIRATED CD'S,
conlusion, I love open source, Linux is not hard (at least for me) if you give it time, I remeber my self with win95, asking (what the heck is control panel) and where I can find it, and I see this with my brother using XP, he calles me to ask me how he can open a document (he is extreem case) but he find it hard, as you find hard linux, just give it time if you love learning new logic
peace my friend

[climhazzard85]

You can't photocopy the entire book and mass-distribute it, but you can photocopy parts of it, and you can own the book. No one can take it away from you. You don't own XP, even if you have the CD in your hands and you paid money for it.

Right, but the point is, you can't redistribute either in it's entity legally, which is what we are really talking about here.

[climhazzard85]

no sir, in Brasil you can buy a PC from DELL, without an OS, it comes with DOS and not installed, and this is the monopoly of MS in rich coutries, and in the US you can refuse to have MS on your PC, cause you can refuse the EULA of MS, and they have to reimburse you the OS, but trust me is HELL to spit bach your money that you paid for the OS....
anyway peace, I believe you are clinging to your opinion, and not as you mentioned that you are open minded, I DO NOT HATE MS, I HAVE XP THAT CAME WITH MY PC, I USE IT AND LOVE IT, MY NEIGHBOUR CAN NOT HAVE THIS, SO THAT IS WHY I INSTALLED UBUNTU FOR HIM, AND HIS ENJOYING THE INTERNET AND THE RICHENESS OF EDUCATION AND ALL WHAT OFFERS. WITHOUT OPEN SOURCE THIS CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT PIRATED CD'S,
conlusion, I love open source, Linux is not hard (at least for me) if you give it time, I remeber my self with win95, asking (what the heck is control panel) and where I can find it, and I see this with my brother using XP, he calles me to ask me how he can open a document (he is extreem case) but he find it hard, as you find hard linux, just give it time if you love learning new logic
peace my friend

Damn, I am open to other opinions, and I think it's great that Linux can help people who can't afford an OS, like I stated before. I know that you can get a dell without an OS and get your money back, but as you said, it IS quite a pain and isn't usually a valid option for most people.

The other thing I don't understand is, how can those who can barely afford a computer, afford the internet? Here I pay more for the damn internet in a year than my computer costs! This is probably my fault that I don't understand, as I'm part of a society where the money for a computer really isn't a big deal (anymore, it used to be when computers were in the thousands for a basic setup).

[aysiu]

Right, but the point is, you can't redistribute either in it's entity legally, which is what we are really talking about here. You're arguing with a straw man here, climhazzard85. I didn't say you could photocopy a book in its entirety and redistribute it.

[aysiu]

Damn, I am open to other opinions, and I think it's great that Linux can help people who can't afford an OS, like I stated before. I know that you can get a dell without an OS and get your money back, but as you said, it IS quite a pain and isn't usually a valid option for most people. Read raven's post carefully. In Brasil, you can buy a Dell without an OS. It's in the US that you have to get Windows XP preloaded and then try to send it back to Microsoft.

[raven]

Damn, I am open to other opinions, and I think it's great that Linux can help people who can't afford an OS, like I stated before. I know that you can get a dell without an OS and get your money back, but as you said, it IS quite a pain and isn't usually a valid option for most people.

The other thing I don't understand is, how can those who can barely afford a computer, afford the internet? Here I pay more for the damn internet in a year than my computer costs! This is probably my fault that I don't understand, as I'm part of a society where the money for a computer really isn't a big deal (anymore, it used to be when computers were in the thousands for a basic setup).

family help (with $) so the kids of the family can have internet, for school or what ever, so everybody pitch to buy a pc (old, couple of years from rich families) now every penny count (or in my case every real) so why he have to pay for an OS and office suite, wich are the most basic for simple function of a PC, old pc comes with no OS, and if we do not go on pirate CD, no can do, so here comes open source, with free OS, free office, now if I want to learn database open source gives me the opportunity, while MS will charge me for every software, you just have to put youself on a strict budget and you will see how opensource help. but that is beyond the subject, as I mentioned I can do anything on my linux box, all my family is using Linux, they enjoy it, I enjoy it, and I hope you enjoy it, if not I am sure MS will still around.

[TravisNewman]

I don't hate windows, and I don't hate that Microsoft sells software instead of giving it away. What I hate is microsoft's unfair business practices that practically force themselves on everyone.

I don't have the link, I'll try to find it, but I read something tonight about a guy who bought XP, brought it home, found out that he would have to reformat his pc, so he tried to take it back. Unopened. The store wouldn't take it back because MS said they'd sue the store if they took back unopened copies. You can send it back to MS for a refund in 30 days, so he sends it back on the 2nd day, and 34 days later gets a letter from MS saying it was too late, and that he missed the deadline. So he sells it on ebay. MS makes ebay take it down, the guy petitions, and gets it back up and sells it. MS then tries to sue him 37 times I think it was, but they have no ground because he was authorized to resell it based on the MS license. he goes to the press and MS THEN tries to buy him off so that they won't get bad press.

That's just one example.

Microsoft's disrespect for legal business practices and their disrespect for open standards (I won't even get into that tonight), for the single purpose of gaining a monopoly on everything. That's why I won't use Windows unless I have to.

[aysiu]

Yeah, but what about stuff like codecs and media player integration into the browsers? Ubuntu can't come with stuff like that because it's proprietary, and Ubuntu is committed to being free. Linspire, however, does come with all that, as do Blag and Mepis. Even with Ubuntu, you just have to copy and paste a few commands into the terminal, and you're all set: http://ubuntuguide.org/#codecs


I had a hell of a time with that in the past (year or 2 ago?) maybe it has been improved? Wow. A year ago? Two years ago? Linux improves by leaps and bounds. Even six months ago, Mepis' hotplugging ability was sorely lacking. Now that's all patched up. I first tried Linux a year ago, and I was utterly turned off, but now live CDs are popular, as are sophisticated and easy-to-use package management systems. A lot changes in Linux year to year.

[mlomker]

I've never read a book on anything related to Windows. Additionally, I've become decently productive in OS X after having the iBook for less than 2 weeks. I guess they are easier languages then :)

What's interesting about the language analogy is that no 5 yr old has taken a class on their native language, either. You generally learn as you go, by making mistakes, and having the people around you help you out.

What happens when people learn something 'foreign' is that they get quickly overwhelmed and forget that they actually spent *years* gradually learning the old way. Adults are also less tolerant of making mistakes and that's why they have so much trouble learning new things.

You find the Mac easier because the two copy each other, back and forth. Linux is truly different. It's the difference between studying written English and Chinese versus going Spanish to French or Italian. They use similiar alphabets so the move is easier.

[mlomker]

It's in the US that you have to get Windows XP preloaded and then try to send it back to Microsoft.

That is due to an agreement that Dell has with Microsoft. There are many smaller system building companies that will sell you a PC without an operating system. I bought my new laptop from CyberPower without one.

[mlomker]

Wow. A year ago? Two years ago? Linux improves by leaps and bounds.

I've tried linux once per year for the last three years. This is the *first* year that it has stayed on the PC for good. I would totally agree with your statement.

I will also preface that by saying that I'm a power-user (a Windows network admin) and I still don't think it's prime-time for novices.

[aysiu]

I've tried linux once per year for the last three years. This is the *first* year that it has stayed on the PC for good. I would totally agree with your statement.

I will also preface that by saying that I'm a power-user (a Windows network admin) and I still don't think it's prime-time for novices. I, too, am a power user (not a programmer or admin, though... maybe a little less powerful than that). I think it's prime-time use for novices but not prime-time install and configure for novices... and, honestly, I don't think there will ever be a time when Linux is "prime-time" for any idiot to install on any system and be guaranteed not to run into any overwhelming problems.


That is due to an agreement that Dell has with Microsoft. There are many smaller system building companies that will sell you a PC without an operating system. I bought my new laptop from CyberPower without one. There are actually a few places, too, where you can get a PC with Linux preinstalled. WalMart (http://www.walmart.com), for example, sells notebooks with Linspire preloaded. Microtel (http://www.microtelpc.com/) sells both notebooks and desktops with Xandros preloaded, and they're prominently displayed, not some tucked away hidden place behind the XP models.

[mlomker]

install on any system and be guaranteed not to run into any overwhelming problems.


That is a good distinction to make since most people do not load Windows for themselves. However, linux plug-and-play isn't quite there. I still get a lot of questions regarding mounting drives, memory sticks, cameras, etc.



There are actually a few places, too, where you can get a PC with Linux preinstalled. WalMart (http://www.walmart.com), for example, sells notebooks with Linspire preloaded.

I didn't know that! I ran Linspire for a month before moving to Kubuntu. It was *very* user friendly and detected everything on my older laptop perfectly right out of the box. I couldn't get basic things like networking to work at all on my new laptop, however.

I think Kubuntu's just one step below those two in usability. The big difference is automatic installation of Ndiswrapper and the inclusion of non gpl-ed but free software. I haven't tried MEPIS but I've also heard good things.

[aysiu]

That is a good distinction to make since most people do not load Windows for themselves. However, linux plug-and-play isn't quite there. I still get a lot of questions regarding mounting drives, memory sticks, cameras, etc. It's pretty close, though. And, honestly, when it does work in Linux (i.e., most of the time), it's a much better mounting/unmounting model than Windows is (for more details see my previous post about this, with links to screenshots (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=324742&postcount=10)).



I didn't know that! I ran Linspire for a month before moving to Kubuntu. It was *very* user friendly and detected everything on my older laptop perfectly right out of the box. I couldn't get basic things like networking to work at all on my new laptop, however. Linspire had the best hardware detection I've seen in over twelve distros, but I'm not a fan of CNR, and I couldn't get apt-get or Klikit! to work with Linspire.



I think Kubuntu's just one step below those two in usability. The big difference is automatic installation of Ndiswrapper and the inclusion of non gpl-ed but free software. I haven't tried MEPIS but I've also heard good things. Mepis is supposed to be really good with wireless. Not having wireless, I don't know.

[Turtle.net]

I don't hate windows, and I don't hate that Microsoft sells software instead of giving it away. What I hate is microsoft's unfair business practices that practically force themselves on everyone.
[...]
Microsoft's disrespect for legal business practices and their disrespect for open standards (I won't even get into that tonight), for the single purpose of gaining a monopoly on everything. That's why I won't use Windows unless I have to.

I agree perfectly with this post.
Windows XP is a very good OS and it works very weel on all my machines.
But I cannot understand that everyone (using MS) found normal that the work you have done few years ago simply using Word, or Excel, is not compatible with your current version of MS-Office...

MS makes huge profits selling softwares, using closed format, to be sure that you will never buy something else than MS.

For me using Linux is a matter of freedom (freedom of configuring your computer as you wish, uninstalling softwares you do not need). \\:D/

...Ok I am a little bit too enthusiastic...I will take a nap to calm me down...

[xequence]

Windows is just windows... You cant really do much in it. WIth linux you can mess around and make things better, make them worse, whatever you want. It is alot more customizable. Linux is what you want it to be...

People dont seem to like microsofts commercial practices. They sell a 130$+ operating system, yet in many peoples eyes you can get a better one for free. (Linux).

I installed a new install of XP. It took 9 minutes to be loaded up with viruses... I cant get sound to work in it ether.

[poofyhairguy]

I don't think there will ever be a time when Linux is "prime-time" for any idiot to install on any system and be guaranteed not to run into any overwhelming problems.


I agree. The lack of many Linux driver will make that the case always.

[gflores]

I sometimes wonder if I had started using some sort of Linux in my first computer, how I would become so accustomed to it. I do agree that there should be no typing on the console. People seem to think it's ok that it's just copy and paste. But believe me, today's users need wizards... next->next->finish. Simple as that with a nice UI.

Another small problem it seems to have is that there are so many programs that do the same thing. This is both good and bad, but mostly bad for new users, which seem to get confused. This probably means that one program doesn't stand out of the bunch. This is evident from looking at the equivalent-programs-for-Linux table. Just tell a user to install one program, that's all they really want to know, especially new users.

Microsoft: I use WinXP and think it is great. I'm not sure what the deal is with people getting viruses and spyware. Its got its pros and cons. As for Microsoft being evil, well they are. They are a monopolistic company which has abused its powers. Be sure to check out these links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroSoft#Antitrust_problems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_criticisms_of_Microsoft

[weasel fierce]

I dont mind the console really. Though GUI options are always nice.

Keep in mind that its not all console and bother though. Finding software through synaptic is a heck of a lot nicer than prowling through search engines and websites for the same program :)

[aysiu]

I sometimes wonder if I had started using some sort of Linux in my first computer, how I would become so accustomed to it. I do agree that there should be no typing on the console. People seem to think it's ok that it's just copy and paste. But believe me, today's users need wizards... next->next->finish. Simple as that with a nice UI. So use Linspire or Mepis. That's what they're there for. And, honestly, once Ubuntu is set up, it's all point and click, too. Only the person installing Ubuntu has to manually edit things like /etc/apt/sources.list or /boot/grub/menu.lst. Regular users don't do that on a day-to-day basis, or don't have to.



Another small problem it seems to have is that there are so many programs that do the same thing. This is both good and bad, but mostly bad for new users, which seem to get confused. This probably means that one program doesn't stand out of the bunch. This is evident from looking at the equivalent-programs-for-Linux table. Just tell a user to install one program, that's all they really want to know, especially new users. That's why Ubuntu comes with only one program per task. If you want to install others, you can, but Ubuntu deliberately does not overwhelm you with choices.

[climhazzard85]

So use Linspire or Mepis. That's what they're there for. And, honestly, once Ubuntu is set up, it's all point and click, too. Only the person installing Ubuntu has to manually edit things like /etc/apt/sources.list or /boot/grub/menu.lst. Regular users don't do that on a day-to-day basis, or don't have to.

That's why Ubuntu comes with only one program per task. If you want to install others, you can, but Ubuntu deliberately does not overwhelm you with choices.

Hey my thread is still alive, haha. I played around with the Ubuntu Live disc last night, I was trying to get media working properly (my biggest frustration with linux). I was able to get divx to work, but the win32 codecs wouldn't install with apt-get or whatever the beginners guide told me to paste. I read somewhere on the forum that they are no longer available.

[drizek]

i dont think that is true. i just think its more an issue of you using a livecd rather than the win32 codecs not being vailable.

[bob_c_b]

So with the technicalities (as far as I'm concerned) out of the way, the other argument I constantly read is that Microsoft is an evil monopoly company. Yeah, they may be, but the question is, who cares? They make software that works, and yes it costs money. Why is there such a problem with actually PAYING for software? If all software was created for free, do you realize what that would do to the software industry? There are a LOT (no, I don't have numbers) of people who are employed software programmers, who get paid for their hard work.

1. Those "technicalities" are pretty serious, and while as a desktop I think Windows is somewhat competent for savvy users, it is still lacking on the server and requires an undo amount of "safekeeping" on both sides of the netowrk. If you really consider having to run a bevvy of tools to keep the riff-raff out the cost of operating a PC then you truly have known no other solution than MS. I manage several hundred systems, the bulk of them Windows boxes. I find MS quality to be average at best and don't consider things that need this much babysitting to be "software that works".

2. Who cares about the evil monopoly? Maybe you should, as many good companies with good ideas have been stemarolled by MS illegal tactics. Open standards have been subverted, poor communities and school districts have been shut out of the tech boom, etc... Part of the greater problem is that people tend to overlook bad behavior if it doesn't (at least in their immediate perception) impact them in a negative way. If you don't think MS strong arm tactics have harmed you on some level you are wrong.

3. 85% of programmers write code that never makes it to retail, they manage code for in house systems and would not be out of jobs if F/OSS became the dominant player tomorrow. In fact, due to the support model that commercial F/OSS companies have to operate on there is a likely chance that many commerrcial software companies would add jobs. Part of the problem here is you don't understand the distinction between "Free as in beer" and "FREE as in speech", and with all the FUD the MS hype machine spread you can't be blamed for this.

4. F/OSS and open standards were the fuel that launched the first tech boom. Many of these closed source companies that are pushing so hard for proprietary standards and DRM today built their work on those open source/standard projects. MS has itself acknowledged they could not have grown as they did in the oppressive culture of patent law they helped create. F/OSS is poised to fuel the next wave, the wave that will lessen MS grip on the industry, but it won't get far if people don't care. MS is banking on your apathy.

I don't use Linux because I am anti-Microsoft. I use Linux and actively support F/OSS because I am pro good software, pro open standards and an active proponent of fair use rights. You asked before, who cares? I do, and many other people here and around the world do. If you choose to ignore the low quailty and high price MS illegal monopoly have created, go right ahead. If you choose to sit by while your fair use rights and and privacy are stripped away, go right ahead. But by not paying for MS products and supporting F/OSS you can reverse these trends. If MS and Apple (and many others) have their way, they will decide what you do with your data. Who cares? You should.

And finally, Linux is just more fun to tweak.

[climhazzard85]

1. Those "technicalities" are pretty serious, and while as a desktop I think Windows is somewhat competent for savvy users, it is still lacking on the server and requires an undo amount of "safekeeping" on both sides of the netowrk. If you really consider having to run a bevvy of tools to keep the riff-raff out the cost of operating a PC then you truly have known no other solution than MS. I manage several hundred systems, the bulk of them Windows boxes. I find MS quality to be average at best and don't consider things that need this much babysitting to be "software that works"..

Can't comment, I have no experience in this.


2. Who cares about the evil monopoly? Maybe you should, as many good companies with good ideas have been stemarolled by MS illegal tactics. Open standards have been subverted, poor communities and school districts have been shut out of the tech boom, etc... Part of the greater problem is that people tend to overlook bad behavior if it doesn't (at least in their immediate perception) impact them in a negative way. If you don't think MS strong arm tactics have harmed you on some level you are wrong..

I don't view the monopoly as a bad thing. I don't want there to be a million different OS's on the market to deal with.


3. 85% of programmers write code that never makes it to retail, they manage code for in house systems and would not be out of jobs if F/OSS became the dominant player tomorrow. In fact, due to the support model that commercial F/OSS companies have to operate on there is a likely chance that many commerrcial software companies would add jobs. Part of the problem here is you don't understand the distinction between "Free as in beer" and "FREE as in speech", and with all the FUD the MS hype machine spread you can't be blamed for this..

Can you explain this further without the acronyms? lol, sorry.


4. F/OSS and open standards were the fuel that launched the first tech boom. Many of these closed source companies that are pushing so hard for proprietary standards and DRM today built their work on those open source/standard projects. MS has itself acknowledged they could not have grown as they did in the oppressive culture of patent law they helped create. F/OSS is poised to fuel the next wave, the wave that will lessen MS grip on the industry, but it won't get far if people don't care. MS is banking on your apathy..

Huh? sorry.


I don't use Linux because I am anti-Microsoft. I use Linux and actively support F/OSS because I am pro good software, pro open standards and an active proponent of fair use rights. You asked before, who cares? I do, and many other people here and around the world do. If you choose to ignore the low quailty and high price MS illegal monopoly have created, go right ahead. If you choose to sit by while your fair use rights and and privacy are stripped away, go right ahead. But by not paying for MS products and supporting F/OSS you can reverse these trends. If MS and Apple (and many others) have their way, they will decide what you do with your data. Who cares? You should..

I have used linux software and I have used Microsoft (and purchased). I don't think that MS's software is low quality at all, but it is expensive.


And finally, Linux is just more fun to tweak.

I got tired of "tweaking" years ago, now I just want something that works properly (XP has never given me an issue).

[aysiu]

Hey my thread is still alive, haha. I played around with the Ubuntu Live disc last night, I was trying to get media working properly (my biggest frustration with linux). I was able to get divx to work, but the win32 codecs wouldn't install with apt-get or whatever the beginners guide told me to paste. I read somewhere on the forum that they are no longer available. If you're so frustrated, use Blag, Linspire, or Mepis. They come with proprietary codecs. Ubuntu is totally free and doesn't come with those. If you don't want to bother with tweaking, don't install Ubuntu.



I don't view the monopoly as a bad thing. I don't want there to be a million different OS's on the market to deal with. Those aren't the only two options--one OS or millions of OSes. You can have something in between, believe it or not. Competition is a good thing.



I got tired of "tweaking" years ago, now I just want something that works properly (XP has never given me an issue). If XP works for you, use it. No one's trying to convince you to use Linux. If you want to play around with something to get to know unix-like structures, then don't complain, though.

[climhazzard85]

If you're so frustrated, use Blag, Linspire, or Mepis. They come with proprietary codecs. Ubuntu is totally free and doesn't come with those. If you don't want to bother with tweaking, don't install Ubuntu.


Well the problem is, it seems like linux is always going to be a step behind windows and mac in terms of updated software, or maybe that's changed. Is it still possible to play wmv in Ubuntu or has it really been removed?

[TravisNewman]

Well the problem is, it seems like linux is always going to be a step behind windows and mac in terms of updated software, or maybe that's changed. Is it still possible to play wmv in Ubuntu or has it really been removed?
you can play them if you install w32codecs. IIRC you can't install anything in the LiveCD, where would it install to? (I haven't tried doing massive htings with the live cd lately, so I may be wrong).

you may need to add the backports to get these.

[occy8]

Originally Posted by its_jon
Ok then, I offer you a challenge then sir !

Help me to gain internet access through my Sagem 800 USB modem.


try this
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/archive/23/2004/12/3/202072

[Master Shake]

5. The console is a great tool, really powerful. But for a beginner it is overwhelming and unfriendly. And not too many people have many hours to spend in front of the console, just to figure out what command to use, or what's wrong with the command you just entered. The man pages are not meant as a help system, but as a reference. There are a few good command line tutorials online, and I feel it would help if one of them would be incorporated into the Help menu of the console, or would be available through other ways as well. Also, a searchable, human readable help system for at least the most important commands would be helpful. I know, asking and criticizing is easy, words are cheap...

One thing I appreciated about Mandrake (and the only reason I kept my Mandrake CD's) is that they had 4 Linux books on the CD in PDF format:

- Teach Yourself Mandrake Linux in 24 HOurs
- Teach Yourself Linux in 24 Hours
- Linux Hardware Guide
- (and the one that helped me the most) Practical Linux

Perhaps in a future edition, they could include the excellent Introduction to Linux (http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/index.html) in PDF format.

[matthew]

Perhaps in a future edition, they could include the excellent Introduction to Linux (http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/index.html) in PDF format.
Ask and you shall receive. It's available in pdf format here: http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/intro-linux.pdf

[Master Shake]

Ask and you shall receive. It's available in pdf format here: http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/intro-linux.pdf

Oh, I grabbed it from there a few days ago. My point is that Ubuntu should include this doc on the install CD. Its very excellent.

[Yaron]

Ubuntu = human – not really! (not yet)

Lately I have used the Ubuntu Live-CD, and was very excited about it.
(It needs to be said that I have no real Linux/UNIX background!)

I found it to be a grate push towards Linux 4 Human beings,
And so I went & installed it on my HD. (not without difficulties)
But, how can you claim ubuntu is Linux for humans if…?

1. Ubuntu didn't mount my partitions automatically - any other live-cd dos!

2. Whey did I need to wrecked my brines out to find a way to reclaim privileges on my, yes, my HD!!!
(IRC Ubuntu instructed me to use a script that fixed it)

3. As a Linux newbie, whey did I have to edit xorg.conf, to be able to see more then blinding 60Hz
refresh rate & more then 1024 desktop resolution ? (I use a standard MAG CRT Display)

4. And if it's sp humane, why when I selected my regional setting to "Jerusalem"
Did it not make any attempt to ask me if I may want to install Hebrew?
(Which I need to be stated, was easy to do so after installation)

5. After Installing Hebrew I hade to wrecked my brines out, yet again!
To figure how to switch batwing layouts, whey did it not add the layout change panel
itself when I add Hebrew, or hade en option to do so directly From the Adding Languages Panel
itself, a small v-box would have done the trick!

Not to mention how I found out the shortcut that switched the layout,
A windows user would have never guessed it! Ctrl+Alt+Alt.

6. What the hell is a "Synaptic Package Manager"?
I'm not from en English Speaking Country, how the hell I should I
Know what "Synaptic" is?! (Yah, any old human would, right?!)

I'm not mansioning little other things, just the big annoying ones.
That's the reasons whey I think ubuntu it steel not Linux for Humans.
Well not yet anyway! (For me or any regular win user)

Dimmit, you are so near there!!

Best Regards, Yaron.
(Well, maybe not so best, since you made me wrecked my brines out so much)
:)

[mangar]

Hi Yaron:
1. The Hebrew layout problem is fixed in the next version of ubuntu (5.10)
that is supposed to be out in the 13.10.2005
2. try to use the following program:
http://placelibre.ath.cx/keyes/
it will solve your multimedia problems.
3. nice thing: hebrew date calendar:
add to your repositores:
deb http://libhdate.sourceforge.net/debian/ breezy main
than d/l hdate-applet.

Good luck!
Tomer

[mangar]

Oh, yeah, synaptic is not an English word! is a name;
It could have been: "Yaron's package manager", or "Bulebule package managar"

(like winamp music player - winamp is not a word..)
Tomer

[hashimoto]

Ubuntu = human – not really! (not yet)
...
6. What the hell is a "Synaptic Package Manager"?
I'm not from en English Speaking Country, how the hell I should I
Know what "Synaptic" is?! (Yah, any old human would, right?!)



Well Yaron, I could quite well ask what is "Excel", "Powerpoint" or "xxx"? Does Excel or Powerpoint translate into something meaningfull in hebrew so you immediately know what the programs do? How did you know that Excel is a spreadsheet program? Or that Powerpoint is for making presentations? Maybe you learned it somehow? You see what I mean?

Synaptic is a name of a program as well. You just need to learn that. Linux isn't Windows, things don't have the same names they have in Windows, they don't work the same way as in Windows and there are huge differences in the way things are managed.

I dont know the meaning of Synaptic. But I don't know the meaning of Excel either. Doesn't prevent me from using either.

[Yaron]

Well Yaron, I could quite well ask what is "Excel", "Powerpoint" or "xxx"? Does Excel or Powerpoint translate into something meaningfull in hebrew so you immediately know what the programs do? How did you know that Excel is a spreadsheet program? Or that Powerpoint is for making presentations? Maybe you learned it somehow? You see what I mean?
Synaptic is a name of a program as well. You just need to learn that. Linux isn't Windows, things don't have the same names they have in Windows, they don't work the same way as in Windows and there are huge differences in the way things are managed.
I dont know the meaning of Synaptic. But I don't know the meaning of Excel either. Doesn't prevent me from using either.

So whay not to do it like this,
"Synaptic (A Package Manager)"

[Yaron]

Its Shouldn't Be That Complicated to Fix this things a REALY bring ubuntu
Up to any human being level…..

If you ask me, if those things were fixed,
I could sagest ubuntu to my friends With peace of mind.


It is so claws, but yet so far…