PDA

View Full Version : Linux Desktop Readiness Thread



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

srt4play
May 11th, 2007, 05:31 PM
After seeing these types of threads so often a new thought has been triggered in my brain. Or as they would say on Spongebob, my brain just hatched an idea.

People complain about Ubuntu not being like XP , not being user-friendly enough blah blah blah we see this all the time. It's nothing new or fresh.

For some reason I now see Ubuntu as a work in progress, something that over time will become these things for these complainers. I knew this in the back of my mind but I guess never thought of it as it pertains to these kinds of threads. It's not like there aren't usability bugs and such file on launchpad and ease of use specs that are being worked on to become part of Ubuntu.

If you look at the progress that has been made so far in such a relatively short period of time, you can't help but see a very very bright future for Ubuntu and Linux in general.

And it makes me happy.

8)

DoctorMO
May 11th, 2007, 06:57 PM
"We must learn to believe the little lies, so that we can believe the big lies; how else will they ever become."

aysiu
May 11th, 2007, 07:05 PM
Apologies if this has already been done to death No need to apologize, but it has been done to death. Read the thread I merged yours with... if you have the time.

You may also want to read (a much shorter read) ***** Announcement Please Read First Criticism FAQ & Ways To Help ***** (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=408434&highlight=criticism+faq)

prizrak
May 11th, 2007, 10:56 PM
CJ56,

I won't quote all of your post it's quite lengthy but no one is expecting Ubuntu (or any Linux distro) to become the next MS and dominate the desktop world. 20-25% would be more than enough to get recognition from ISV's and OEM's. Look at Apple, they have a 5% market share and alot of companies that don't develop for Linux (here I mean those that develop for Windows) develop for them.

As far as who would use Ubuntu in 5 years time, aysiu has outlined it quite well on his webpage but I'll rehash it here.
1) Complete barebones users like you. Not very likely to need anything outside of the repos.
2) Developers - I hope I don't have to go into details ;)
3) Tinkerers - No comment obviously.

m.musashi
May 12th, 2007, 04:19 AM
As far as who would use Ubuntu in 5 years time, aysiu has outlined it quite well on his webpage but I'll rehash it here.
1) Complete barebones users like you. Not very likely to need anything outside of the repos.
2) Developers - I hope I don't have to go into details ;)
3) Tinkerers - No comment obviously.

I would also add

4) any average user who wants an alternative to expensive, bloated, questionable software.

The only reason Linux and Apple don't have a larger market share is lack of awareness. Sure, most have heard of Apple but they usually have a lot of misconceptions. Also, if you want an Apple you have to actually intend to buy one. You can't just walk into best buy and pick one up. As people get more educated (or maybe I should say "if"), MS's market share will drop. They may hold onto 50% or more but it will drop.

I still don't understand why so many people are willing to spend additional money on office, spyware, adware and anti-virus programs. There are good programs for windows but there are a lot of fairly bad ones. I was helping someone with Roxio my dvd today and that is a piece of junk. Sure, if you fight with it and keep at it eventually you will get something close to what you want. But no one complains and says "oh, this is a horrible program." No, they keep using it and say "eh, what more do you expect." But if a Linux program has any faults they rip it to shreds. It's amazing to me that people are so willing to accept this situation but so unwilling to consider alternatives. In the end, I think most people are just so tech illiterate that they would rather accept the questionable state of windows rather than invest energy into learning something. It's pretty sad really but it is the way things will continue for quite some time. The enlightened few have moved on.

steven8
May 12th, 2007, 04:27 AM
I would also add

4) any average user who wants an alternative to expensive, bloated, questionable software.

The only reason Linux and Apple don't have a larger market share is lack of awareness. Sure, most have heard of Apple but they usually have a lot of misconceptions. Also, if you want an Apple you have to actually intend to buy one. You can't just walk into best buy and pick one up. As people get more educated (or maybe I should say "if"), MS's market share will drop. They may hold onto 50% or more but it will drop.

I still don't understand why so many people are willing to spend additional money on office, spyware, adware and anti-virus programs. There are good programs for windows but there are a lot of fairly bad ones. I was helping someone with Roxio my dvd today and that is a piece of junk. Sure, if you fight with it and keep at it eventually you will get something close to what you want. But no one complains and says "oh, this is a horrible program." No, they keep using it and say "eh, what more do you expect." But if a Linux program has any faults they rip it to shreds. It's amazing to me that people are so willing to accept this situation but so unwilling to consider alternatives. In the end, I think most people are just so tech illiterate that they would rather accept the questionable state of windows rather than invest energy into learning something. It's pretty sad really but it is the way things will continue for quite some time. The enlightened few have moved on.

Agreed with all but the Roxio. I liked Roxio on Windows. I found it to be very user friendly. A great program. On the flip-side, I have not missed it one bit since moving to Linux. Gnomebaker just plain rocks as well!!

Frak
May 12th, 2007, 04:29 AM
I would also add

4) any average user who wants an alternative to expensive, bloated, questionable software.

The only reason Linux and Apple don't have a larger market share is lack of awareness. Sure, most have heard of Apple but they usually have a lot of misconceptions. Also, if you want an Apple you have to actually intend to buy one. You can't just walk into best buy and pick one up. As people get more educated (or maybe I should say "if"), MS's market share will drop. They may hold onto 50% or more but it will drop.

I still don't understand why so many people are willing to spend additional money on office, spyware, adware and anti-virus programs. There are good programs for windows but there are a lot of fairly bad ones. I was helping someone with Roxio my dvd today and that is a piece of junk. Sure, if you fight with it and keep at it eventually you will get something close to what you want. But no one complains and says "oh, this is a horrible program." No, they keep using it and say "eh, what more do you expect." But if a Linux program has any faults they rip it to shreds. It's amazing to me that people are so willing to accept this situation but so unwilling to consider alternatives. In the end, I think most people are just so tech illiterate that they would rather accept the questionable state of windows rather than invest energy into learning something. It's pretty sad really but it is the way things will continue for quite some time. The enlightened few have moved on.
Read the book, "Who Moved My Cheese?". I'm serious, you now have the average user.

m.musashi
May 12th, 2007, 05:09 AM
Agreed with all but the Roxio. I liked Roxio on Windows. I found it to be very user friendly. A great program. On the flip-side, I have not missed it one bit since moving to Linux. Gnomebaker just plain rocks as well!!
After fighting with roxio for several hours today I definitely don't like it. I also don't like the auto start stuff it adds. But I'll agree that it was user friendly - just not system friendly.


Read the book, "Who Moved My Cheese?". I'm serious, you now have the average user.
Actually, I've had that book shoved down my throat by at least two principals who felt it was the key to winning over staff when implementing changes. It never worked. However, while it has been a failure at convincing everyone how positive change is and they should just embrace it, it's dead on as far as how people react.

BTW, I personally love change. I almost always support it - except when I disagree :)

smaker
May 14th, 2007, 03:29 PM
hi,,

I came recent from the window and it is easy there for 3d install and I dont recall warning about it....here it say no support and proprietary can not be easy fix...I wonder why after this time that we can't install as similar to window by download and click it so as to find support ?

so thanks

smaker

wieman01
May 14th, 2007, 03:31 PM
What exactly is your problem?

srt4play
May 14th, 2007, 04:11 PM
He's confused by the notification balloon that the restricted drivers manager is showing him that tells him the proprietary drivers can't be supported. He never saw this in Windows, therefore he is confused and doesn't know what to do. :)

I can't believe I was able to translate it either.

wieman01
May 14th, 2007, 04:20 PM
He's confused by the notification balloon that the restricted drivers manager is showing him that tells him the proprietary drivers can't be supported. He never saw this in Windows, therefore he is confused and doesn't know what to do. :)

I can't believe I was able to translate it either.
You a smart guy then. Me not. :-)

MarkX
May 14th, 2007, 04:33 PM
He's confused by the notification balloon that the restricted drivers manager is showing him that tells him the proprietary drivers can't be supported. He never saw this in Windows, therefore he is confused and doesn't know what to do. :)....

It's a highly confusing message.
The most obvious meaning is that the drivers for xyz won't work on your computer, for one example.
How's a noob even supposed to know what "not supported by Ubuntu means??? Does it mean it won't work with Ubuntu but other Linux distros? WTF's a "restricted driver" anyway?

What *DOES* it mean? Someone?

srt4play
May 14th, 2007, 05:36 PM
A restricted driver is one that is not opensource, meaning Ubuntu cannot work on it to fix problems with it. Ubuntu provides it as a convenience.

MarkX
May 14th, 2007, 06:58 PM
A restricted driver is one that is not opensource, meaning Ubuntu cannot work on it to fix problems with it. Ubuntu provides it as a convenience.

Ah OK, thanks!
I suggest the message be changed to something more appropriate and understandable to anyone.

How about:
"While this manufacturer's driver may work with your computer, Ubuntu cannot guarantee it's functionality."
Or something like it.

Presently it's too vague and uses specialised terms a noob can't be expected to know the implications of, so tell him what the deal is in plain language.
I seem to remember a goverment funded "plain english" campaign here in GB with an approval logo:

Developers should read all about it:
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

smaker
May 14th, 2007, 08:17 PM
Ah OK, thanks!
I suggest the message be changed to something more appropriate and understandable to anyone.

How about:
"While this manufacturer's driver may work with your computer, Ubuntu cannot guarantee it's functionality."
Or something like it.

Presently it's too vague and uses specialised terms a noob can't be expected to know the implications of, so tell him what the deal is in plain language.
I seem to remember a goverment funded "plain english" campaign here in GB with an approval logo:

Developers should read all about it:
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

sorry bad english I get help !...so I can not use this here as 'might' not work and not supported...someone suggest another linux to me maybe..I want support I can trust like windows installer.

thank you
smaker.

srt4play
May 14th, 2007, 09:54 PM
I want support I can trust like windows installer.

Look up "irony" in the dictionary, and you'll find a link to this post.

CameO73
May 14th, 2007, 11:33 PM
Have you ever seen something like this in Windows?
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/cdigiamo/tutorial/v220/wizard4.png
The Restricted Drivers Manager in Ubuntu tells you about the same. You could just try the restricted driver -- worked for me (nVidia driver for my 7600GT, 3D without any problems!). And since we're talking about proprietary drivers, you'll likely encounter this 'problem' in most other Linux distributions.
Bottom line: at least try it before you dismiss it.

smaker
May 15th, 2007, 04:51 PM
Look up "irony" in the dictionary, and you'll find a link to this post.


Im not sure how t his is meat to be helpful ?

thank you
smaker

eentonig
May 15th, 2007, 04:58 PM
To start: Forget "Like in windows"

If you want "Like in windows", stay in windows. Ubuntu and Linux in general is NOT like windows. And it will never be like that.

Concerning your issue, just try the 'restricted drivers' and see what happens. It's a pop-up to inform you it might not work, but it doesn't garantuee that it wont work.

Allthough I strongly recommend you to improve your english skills if you want to install things like this under linux. Most support you'll need is available, but in english.

smaker
May 15th, 2007, 04:58 PM
Have you ever seen something like this in Windows?
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/cdigiamo/tutorial/v220/wizard4.png
The Restricted Drivers Manager in Ubuntu tells you about the same. You could just try the restricted driver -- worked for me (nVidia driver for my 7600GT, 3D without any problems!). And since we're talking about proprietary drivers, you'll likely encounter this 'problem' in most other Linux distributions.
Bottom line: at least try it before you dismiss it.

I do not see this error when I use nvidia install in windows , so it would seem this does not apply to my situation, but I do understand your reference. This driver is mandatory for me so I was surprised to see this warning here is what my post was indicating.

I do not feel its safe to use this if ubuntu can not support such a important requirement, and if as you say 'other distros' have the same problem then maybe too much faith is given to linux. I ask a friend and she is using mandriva and she has confirmed this driver is working directly after install and gives no warning at all so I think this may be a good option.

thank you all for your time.
smaker

Soybean
May 15th, 2007, 05:45 PM
The warning isn't saying that there's anything wrong with the driver, it's just letting you know that, unlike everything else in Ubuntu, that driver isn't open source. None of your Windows drivers are open source, so if you're happy with Windows, there's no reason to worry about this warning. Microsoft doesn't provide support for your NVidia drivers any more than Ubuntu does.

Also, Mandriva would use the same driver. If there's no warning message there, it just means they're not telling you about it.

srt4play
May 15th, 2007, 09:49 PM
Im not sure how t his is meat to be helpful ?

thank you
smaker

It is ironic that you "want support you can trust like windows installer."

It wasn't meant to be helpful, I already tried that. At this point in the thread I was trying to point out the insanity of your eagerness to trust Windows and unwillingness to trust Ubuntu, which is quite backwards from reality.

tanelt
May 16th, 2007, 12:12 PM
"Other (please explain)"


I think Linux is ready for the desktop when a true Windows expert (who has been using Windows since 3.1 and knows Windows from pratically inside out) can get the most important things, like the screen resolution and refreshrate, working correctly (without too many headaches).

If that's done, then Linux is ready for the desktop.

/Edit: okay, just kidding. I think it's ready when most people can do most, if not all, of their day-to-day tasks farily easily.

steven8
May 16th, 2007, 01:34 PM
"Other (please explain)"


I think Linux is ready for the desktop when a true Windows expert (who has been using Windows since 3.1 and knows Windows from pratically inside out) can get the most important things, like the screen resolution and refreshrate, working correctly (without too many headaches).

If that's done, then Linux is ready for the desktop.

/Edit: okay, just kidding. I think it's ready when most people can do most, if not all, of their day-to-day tasks farily easily.

Then it is ready, because you just described my family.

raja
May 16th, 2007, 04:45 PM
"Other (please explain)"


I think Linux is ready for the desktop when a true Windows expert (who has been using Windows since 3.1 and knows Windows from pratically inside out) can get the most important things, like the screen resolution and refreshrate, working correctly (without too many headaches).

If that's done, then Linux is ready for the desktop.

.

I think that is pretty ridiculous. We consistently find that the "windows experts" have the most difficulty doing things in Linux. And, if by analogy, we say that a linux expert has to be comfortable with windows, then windows is nowhere near ready for the desktop.

aysiu
May 16th, 2007, 04:56 PM
And non-English languages will be "ready for the desktop" when 40-year-old American linguistic experts who've never spoken them before can pick them up more easily than a five-year-old can.

Yes, the stipulation is completely ridiculous.

moffatt666
May 16th, 2007, 05:18 PM
I believe GNU/Linux IS reasy for the desktop, well, certain Distros are. When I installed Ubuntu nothing needed configuring - everything worked immediately - printer, sound, internet, the lot and it all used programs I was familliar with from Windows such as Firefox and Open Office. I had used Mandriva before that and although it was easy to install and configure, the repos were never updated as they were version specific and support was hard to come by.
I am a computer technician in my spare time and I often get called out due to a Windows re-install. Users find it very difficult to install drivers for OEM devices and it often takes a couple of hours to get a fresh WinXP install on its feet. I don't see that as being user friendly or ready for the desktop. Onboard driver support for printers in Windows is very limited and only some of the oldest hardware on the markey has drivers pre-installed for Windows whereas many user firendly versions of Linux require the user to do absolutely nothing to get the most common hardware up and running in minutes (WLANs are another matter entirely).
So answer me this, "Is Windows ready for the desktop?" In my opinion it is not. You have to install loads of drivers for even the most common pieces of hardware and it can take ages downloading and installing many pieces of software from many places.

aysiu
May 16th, 2007, 05:31 PM
So answer me this, "Is Windows ready for the desktop?" In my opinion it is not. You have to install loads of drivers for even the most common pieces of hardware and it can take ages downloading and installing many pieces of software from many places. Here's the difference, though: Windows doesn't need to be ready for the desktop--it's already on the desktop... the majority of business and home desktops worldwide.

Desktop Linux is held to a higher standard, a much higher standard.

But most arguments about "desktop readiness" don't really matter that much anyway, practically speaking. Mac OS X is about as "desktop ready" as it gets, and it still has only single-digit desktop market share.

Market forces and inertia are hard to beat, no matter how many features, how much stability you have, or how good a reputation you have.

moffatt666
May 16th, 2007, 05:46 PM
Here's the difference, though: Windows doesn't need to be ready for the desktop--it's already on the desktop... the majority of business and home desktops worldwide.

Desktop Linux is held to a higher standard, a much higher standard.

But most arguments about "desktop readiness" don't really matter that much anyway, practically speaking. Mac OS X is about as "desktop ready" as it gets, and it still has only single-digit desktop market share.

Market forces and inertia are hard to beat, no matter how many features, how much stability you have, or how good a reputation you have.

Many a true word you write there, aysiu. Mac OS is just about the pinnacle of desktop readiness as it has to come preconfigured for the target hardware.

Happy_Man
May 16th, 2007, 08:39 PM
Many a true word you write there, aysiu. Mac OS is just about the pinnacle of desktop readiness as it has to come preconfigured for the target hardware.

Ah, but Mr. Jobs and crew don't have to worry, as they can custom-compile drivers for all their hardware and stick that on every production machine, since they're all white, semi-translucent clones of each other....With Linux and Windows that is not so.

DARKGuy
May 17th, 2007, 03:51 AM
And non-English languages will be "ready for the desktop" when 40-year-old American linguistic experts who've never spoken them before can pick them up more easily than a five-year-old can.

Yes, the stipulation is completely ridiculous.

Um, I'm a native Spanish-speaker person... I could translate Linux stuff to Spanish, I just don't know how to XD... (and yes, pure, neutral Spanish, not with modisms or lingos, I hate those when it comes to translations ¨¨).

On topic though, Ubuntu is greatly advanced and it could easily be the best Linux distro around, both for novice and advanced users :)...but it lacks good, commercial-quality games (there are only a few GOOD ones though, and I've been able to get Lineage II C4, Q3A/Q4, WoW and the NFS series to run, but that's not everything if you get what I mean...) and that's a big obstacle that makes it hard for the desktop user.

For example... a friend of mine who doesn't like to get complicated with stuff has been going on and off the Linux realm every now and then. Recently though, with my help and his own research he's been able to get Ubuntu running nice 'n dandy, with Beryl and all (he even released his first Beryl video on youtube... his name's fedddeh or something like that :P) but I bet it has costed him lots to learn.

Speaking in MSN today at work, he told me he wasn't in Linux and I asked him why. He told me that "there was nothing else to do"... and he's mostly right. For someone who's a gamer and wants to get off the Windows realm, gaming is something that matters. There are hundreds of gamers out there using Windows for various reasons, and I'm sure a big percent of them is because of gaming.

When Linux (and not Ubuntu) gets more support for recent games (sorry, running Diablo II or Q3A isn't the hype now) or cooler native games, more people will migrate to Linux.

"What will this bring?" you say, "the thing isn't about how much people is into Linux, but if Linux is ready for the desktop or if it isn't".

Well, I'll tell you something: The more people who get into Linux, the more future programmers there will be (hopefully)... or at least, more people getting into the roots of Linux and contributing with their grain of sand. Some people get really interested and motivated when they see new stuff and want to try it out, customize and experiment with it - the fruits and results of that experimentation will help others, who in order will help others, and so on, like a chain.

If there's a common interest between a big group of people, then a goal can be archieved. I'm living that right now with my i-team online game project for Linux, and if it can happen with a simple game, it can happen with a bigger project.

Linux is all about choices right? then let's give users more things to choose. Some might don't like the way Nautilus looks - then modify and submit your modifications! - others might prefer a skinnable WinAmp clone with modern skins - then look how can you contribute to make that a reality! - others might prefer a different GUI lookalike - then learn how to contribute to a WM/DE project or make your own one!... the more choices the new user has, the more stuff the user can combine to feel "at home" in Linux.

The thing is, make the person stay in Linux. Give them enough choices, give them stuff they're used to use. With a mentality like "Linux/Ubuntu isn't like Windows nor it's gonna be like it" you're scaring most Windows users off ... of course, they can choose if they want to stay with Windows or not, it's not a war about who gets more users to their OS, but if the person can stay in Linux and handle itself like it handles in Windows, then that will help it to get curious with time and explore different things...

Only those who have read my post novel (sorry, lol!) can understand what I mean, if they're clever enough ;).

Sweet Spot
May 17th, 2007, 11:49 PM
Desktop ready. Hmmm. Too many variations on the idea of what that means, so I'll just chime in with my 2 cents.

I am a former windows user, started with 3.xx and worked up to XP pro. Knew I'd not be doing the Vista thing, but that was after I even installed Ubuntu.

I was always pretty technically proficient enough to handle problems which came along with the territory of using Win, and I also have experience building my own PC's, so obviously, I'm not afraid to get a bit dirty. For a person like ME, yes it's ready for the desktop.

However, I can't help but think about all of the less than technical minded individuals who would bite their nails off in terror at some of the things they might have to get into w/Linux.

For example, right now, I'm simply trying to figure out how to install a GAME. A lot of people migrating to Linux will want to at least know that they have the possibility of gaming. So I'm having this problem installing Actioncube, even WITH the .deb files, as it's giving me an error saying "dependencies not satisfiable" I have no idea of what that means, but I'm trying to figure it out.

I rebuilt my source.list updated synaptic, and still, nothing. Which of course brings me to... dependency hell. I've had decent luck in this area so far, but to be honest, dependencies COULD be handled better, and if the Ubuntu devs wanted to do something worth while, I think it should be a dedication to get a lot more games into the repo's. As it stands, it's not wholly difficult to get certain things up and running if you have someone give you copy and paste stuff, but in a lot of cases, it's not even that simple.

A lot of times some code just doesn't work for some reason, and then you have a post in which there are 4 people trying to help, and then what you get is a mess of code that starts looking like a bundle of twine, and I guarantee that the "average" Windows user, will NOT be able to handle that.

While it's true that there's a learning curve for everything, especially something like a new OS, there are certainly things which COULD be made more easy to install, or better yet... a lot more automated. After all, this is Linux, where it would make sense to have everything centralized, unlike in Windows, where you have TONS of third party vendors pushing software which then requires different patches, codec packs or service packs or plain ol MS authentication etc...

On the other hand, if I handed my father a new PC loaded w/Ubuntu and his primary point of using the machine was to do word processing, e mailing, browsing the web, listen to music, watch movies or even chatting with family on an IM client, then yes, I'd say it's ready. He would hardly ever have to do anything but auto update, and otherwise not have to worry about virus', spyware etc.. and just work.

Frak
May 18th, 2007, 12:10 AM
Run

sudo dpkg -i <location of file>
and it will say you have missing dependencies
then run

sudo apt-get -f install
should work

smaker
May 18th, 2007, 03:41 PM
To start: Forget "Like in windows"

If you want "Like in windows", stay in windows. Ubuntu and Linux in general is NOT like windows. And it will never be like that.

Concerning your issue, just try the 'restricted drivers' and see what happens. It's a pop-up to inform you it might not work, but it doesn't garantuee that it wont work.

Allthough I strongly recommend you to improve your english skills if you want to install things like this under linux. Most support you'll need is available, but in english.

That is arrogant, and you are not nice.

If you are a sampling of ubuntu, I think ubuntu is in big trouble.

bye
smaker

smaker
May 18th, 2007, 03:42 PM
The warning isn't saying that there's anything wrong with the driver, it's just letting you know that, unlike everything else in Ubuntu, that driver isn't open source. None of your Windows drivers are open source, so if you're happy with Windows, there's no reason to worry about this warning. Microsoft doesn't provide support for your NVidia drivers any more than Ubuntu does.

Also, Mandriva would use the same driver. If there's no warning message there, it just means they're not telling you about it.

I dont get the error message in either windows or mandriva..does this mean neither of them care about me as much as ubuntu ?

bye
smaker

smaker
May 18th, 2007, 04:27 PM
It is ironic that you "want support you can trust like windows installer."

It wasn't meant to be helpful, I already tried that. At this point in the thread I was trying to point out the insanity of your eagerness to trust Windows and unwillingness to trust Ubuntu, which is quite backwards from reality.

That might be your reality ( not meant to be helpful) , but its not the reality of millions of others 'windows' users for whom their giant monopoly maintains a ( and rightfullly so based on the arrogance and mean spiritedness I see here ) 98% marketshare. The ONLY thing linux has going for it is that its basically free; its not because its more stable. The only app I"ve had crash lately in windows, is Firefox..imagine that, a OSS application. Make sure nvidia knows about that so they can make sure to release better drivers in the future :-). I think you might just have something to use against them now hmmmm .

No sir, what I find backwards is the willingess of the NIX community to be so overwhelmingly arrogant whilst at the same time ( some of you anyway) thinking they may get larger numbers of useers trying it, and then again all while demanding better vendor suppport , - and demanding that companies 'open source' their drivers while thinking they operate from a position of power. They hold a VERY tiny % marketshare atm. That is some awesome denial .

I think that atm NIX Is nothing more than a fart on the horizon and mostly because of attitude. It spreads over the culture, stinking and laying around like a blanket of thick fog carrying alot of bad mojo,- and you whine about bad support..well hello ! ;-)

That is what I think of when I see your mean comments,- coupled with the fact that no one has the guts to call you on them.

Wow, go linux ;)

That apperance is what some people will see, so it is no wonder that linux is not very successful yet, leaping out at the public with such huge market share numbers.

The fact that no one seems to be even the slightest bit annoyed or embarrased by this treatment of me by their famed collleagues, is immensely indicative of the fact that many of the hordes of linux are just GAAS.

I have given my opinion and Im sure I will be attacked because thats just what teh linux machine does ,- so I see no reaon to behave like the famed fart on the wind that I try desperately not to emulate so I wont stick around much.

Linux deserves MUCH better, because it offers hope to those wanting more security, stability ( maybe not firefox? ) , openness and affordability ( you may not be poor, but that does not change the reality that for 'some' people linux IS a alterative to the poor house ).


bye 4 now.
smaker

lucia_engel
May 18th, 2007, 04:32 PM
Wow for someone that's not really good at English from looks of the first few posts, you sure seem more articulated in your last post.

tgm4883
May 18th, 2007, 04:45 PM
That might be your reality ( not meant to be helpful) , but its not the reality of millions of others 'windows' users for whom their giant monopoly maintains a ( and rightfullly so based on the arrogance and mean spiritedness I see here ) 98% marketshare. The ONLY thing linux has going for it is that its basically free; its not because its more stable. The only app I"ve had crash lately in windows, is Firefox..imagine that, a OSS application. Make sure nvidia knows about that so they can make sure to release better drivers in the future :-). I think you might just have something to use against them now hmmmm .

No sir, what I find backwards is the willingess of the NIX community to be so overwhelmingly arrogant whilst at the same time ( some of you anyway) thinking they may get larger numbers of useers trying it, and then again all while demanding better vendor suppport , - and demanding that companies 'open source' their drivers while thinking they operate from a position of power. They hold a VERY tiny % marketshare atm. That is some awesome denial .

I think that atm NIX Is nothing more than a fart on the horizon and mostly because of attitude. It spreads over the culture, stinking and laying around like a blanket of thick fog carrying alot of bad mojo,- and you whine about bad support..well hello ! ;-)

That is what I think of when I see your mean comments,- coupled with the fact that no one has the guts to call you on them.

Wow, go linux ;)

That apperance is what some people will see, so it is no wonder that linux is not very successful yet, leaping out at the public with such huge market share numbers.

The fact that no one seems to be even the slightest bit annoyed or embarrased by this treatment of me by their famed collleagues, is immensely indicative of the fact that many of the hordes of linux are just GAAS.

I have given my opinion and Im sure I will be attacked because thats just what teh linux machine does ,- so I see no reaon to behave like the famed fart on the wind that I try desperately not to emulate so I wont stick around much.

Linux deserves MUCH better, because it offers hope to those wanting more security, stability ( maybe not firefox? ) , openness and affordability ( you may not be poor, but that does not change the reality that for 'some' people linux IS a alterative to the poor house ).


bye 4 now.
smaker

You want it to be more like windows? We could drop the warning message but it still wouldn't make the driver open source. That is what mandriva did, they didn't implement the warning. Things will always be different in linux. That is a good thing, if people wanted to switch to something like windows, then they should use windows.

People need a reason to switch. If your switching just to switch or because you heard about how much better linux was, then I suggest you return to windows. Not because I don't want you here, but because you will have a better user experience.

eentonig
May 18th, 2007, 04:47 PM
That is arrogant, and you are not nice.

If you are a sampling of ubuntu, I think ubuntu is in big trouble.

bye
smaker

Exactly what part didn't you find nice? As my post wasn't put to bring him down.
Maybe my comments were a bit to cryptic.
Originally Posted by eentonig View Post
To start: Forget "Like in windows"
Linux isn't windows. And if you want to use linux, all the knowledge you gathered using windows is practically useless. So if you keep comparing it to what you know in Windows, it's just a way to get frustrated.
So this wasn't meant to pick on Windows. If someone wants to use windows, I support them with whatever question they have. Just as I'll do over here.

If you want "Like in windows", stay in windows. Ubuntu and Linux in general is NOT like windows. And it will never be like that.
Same as above. Don't use linux if you want it to be a free windows replacement. It is a free Windows replacement. But it's definitly not the same. Be prepared for that.
Concerning your issue, just try the 'restricted drivers' and see what happens. It's a pop-up to inform you it might not work, but it doesn't garantuee that it wont work.

This has been explained enough in the previous posts, I guess?

Allthough I strongly recommend you to improve your english skills if you want to install things like this under linux. Most support you'll need is available, but in english.

And this is the one that most likely fired you up. correct?
I'm not a native english speaking guy myself (hence the obvious errors in my writing.). And using and installing linux doesn't necessarely require you to even speak it. Most distributions have tons off translations that allow regular users to work in almost any language they desire. But as soon as you start playing with what's under the hood, you'd better be able to fluently read and understand what the people write about in the support forums.
And so far, I have only found decent, system wide, support on english forums. I'm dutch speaking myself, fluent in French and adequate to understand German. I know some good fora in those languages, but they never cover all my needs.

smaker
May 18th, 2007, 05:36 PM
Wow for someone that's not really good at English from looks of the first few posts, you sure seem more articulated in your last post.

You forget friends come in handy sometimes.

bye
smaker

moffatt666
May 18th, 2007, 08:34 PM
First things first (and this one is really important whenever you're doing anything with computers), don't panic. There is a pretty good chance the driver will work, just give it a try. As someone said before, with certain pieces of software in Windows, you'll get the "Stop, this hasn't passed testing!" window. 95% of the time, these progams work just fine and t is the same with this driver - all it means is that the Ubuntu community can't adjust it to make it work flawlessly under Linux. It's true that it's the same with other *nix OSes just some of them don't tell you. Remember - Microsoft don't provide support for 3rd party software, including graphics drivers, and that all support is provided by the company that supplied it - which is basically what this message says only it is directed at the specific driver.

By the way, there are also foreign language Ubuntu Forums which may better suit your needs - they're listed on the ubuntu support - forums page.

srt4play
May 18th, 2007, 08:39 PM
After seeing the OP's long post on the second page, I think this thread needs to be merged with the "Linux Desktop Readiness" thread. He doesn't want to hear or understand the logic behind the restricted drivers warning, as we have explained to him, he just wants to bitch how Ubuntu is not like Windows.

moffatt666
May 18th, 2007, 09:03 PM
I think you're right, srt. I was just doing my bit to convince him, however.

The Pinny Parlour
May 19th, 2007, 03:00 AM
Goodness NO. It's nowhere near ready.

Networking is a shambles and printer and games support is dreadful.

DARKGuy
May 19th, 2007, 03:41 AM
Goodness NO. It's nowhere near ready.

Networking is a shambles and printer and games support is dreadful.

To make it ready, developers should start working on those weak points, among others.

Why they don't, is the question.

aysiu
May 19th, 2007, 04:27 AM
games support is dreadful. So you don't consider Mac OS X ready either then, I guess. You're entitled to your own definitions of ready.

DARKGuy
May 19th, 2007, 04:46 AM
We can be here discussing for ages, but why don't we do something about it? we could help tackle the weak points that make Ubuntu "not ready for the desktop" according to common conclusions that can be grabbed from this 720(+) page thread and - help - do something concrete about it, don't you all think?

steven8
May 19th, 2007, 05:06 AM
We can be here discussing for ages, but why don't we do something about it? we could help tackle the weak points that make Ubuntu "not ready for the desktop" according to common conclusions that can be grabbed from this 720(+) page thread and - help - do something concrete about it, don't you all think?

But aye, there's the rub - for me. I do not feel Ubuntu is lacking in any way as being ready for the desktop, since I use it to run my desktop on a daily basis.

NoTiG
May 19th, 2007, 05:14 AM
I think first of all it has to pass the porn test. For me it really has problems with some files. I am pretty sure i have all codecs installed. I have also tried the totem, and mplayer plugins for mozilla. Neither are completely satisfactory. This needs to be worked on.

Sound issues need to be worked on i think too. Like if one application hogs the sound source, so other applications cant use it... thats not good. I cannot watch a flash movie and then have a system sound or movie playing in the background. Sound needs to get better. maybe with polyp audio or whatever.

it needs to boot up faster. I think they will solve this later with upstart they said.. maybe the next release or +1 .

THemeing IMO needs to be easier. And more coherent. Like just press one button and totaly switch themes... a complete theme and not a hodgepodge of incomplete hacks. Like just a few themes by default would be nice.

For me flash, and firefox combination crashes alot. Way to often to be called stable. i am pretty sure this is flashes fault since its still pretty new.

Games of course. This one will be nigh impossible to fix.

i will think of more later

DARKGuy
May 19th, 2007, 05:19 AM
But aye, there's the rub - for me. I do not feel Ubuntu is lacking in any way as being ready for the desktop, since I use it to run my desktop on a daily basis.

Same here, but I feel there's a lack for good commercial games, better support for them, a better (easier) way for novice users to install wireless network drivers (terminals scare them :/ ), same for printers (it's a pain to set up networked printers in my experience, because it's all complicated with CUPS, getting weird files and such) and easier ways to do stuff. (Should I say I spent an entire day at work trying to set up a VIA video chipset on my work comp? googling through thousands of pages, compiling and hacking through files isn't something a novice user would do...)

I have a BIG idea for projects to make the migration from Windows/OSX easier for other users, but alas, I have school, work, family and other personal projects (iteam) and that takes most of the time I could spend programming them... but it would be a great idea to make 'em real :(


I think first of all it has to pass the porn test. For me it really has problems with some files. I am pretty sure i have all codecs installed. I have also tried the totem, and mplayer plugins for mozilla. Neither are completely satisfactory. This needs to be worked on.

LOL, I haven't had any problem with videos, except WMVs :P


Sound issues need to be worked on i think too. Like if one application hogs the sound source, so other applications cant use it... thats not good. I cannot watch a flash movie and then have a system sound or movie playing in the background. Sound needs to get better. maybe with polyp audio or whatever.

And it's better right now than it was before =/, but you're right, it needs improvement on multiple audio output :/


it needs to boot up faster. I think they will solve this later with upstart they said.. maybe the next release or +1 .

It's alright with me, but yes, in my 3.2Ghz / 512Mb DDR2 533Mhz, Windows boots faster than Ubuntu - but it's not turtle-speed :P


THemeing IMO needs to be easier. And more coherent. Like just press one button and totaly switch themes... a complete theme and not a hodgepodge of incomplete hacks. Like just a few themes by default would be nice.

I totally agree with you, a "theme control panel" like Windows or something that lets select you THEMES instead of components would be nice. One thing is changing metacity+gtk, and other thing is changing emerald+gtk+metacity+background+icons+cursors+colo rs+fonts, all in one same place.


For me flash, and firefox combination crashes alot. Way to often to be called stable. i am pretty sure this is flashes fault since its still pretty new.

Do you use the free flash plugin? :/ I've had no problems with the non-free one :).


Games of course. This one will be nigh impossible to fix.

Nah, it'll be hard, but not impossible... it's improving :P.

prizrak
May 19th, 2007, 06:23 AM
a better (easier) way for novice users to install wireless network drivers (terminals scare them :/ ), same for printers (it's a pain to set up networked printers in my experience, because it's all complicated with CUPS, getting weird files and such)
Not a single issue with either of those. Some cards are a complete and utter bitch to set up but that's due to lack of actual drivers for Linux. Networked printing has no issues for me, at work I am able to use both an HP and a Xerox printer, the setup was completely via GUI. All I did was point it to the correct print server then chose the printer from the list, then put my domain log in info. At home I can connect to an HP printer as well, it's just an average deskjet attached to a desktop (Windows based at that). It works about 50% of the time but it works the same way with the Windows laptop as well so I don't think it's a Linux issue. It's all very hit and miss, very much dependant on hardware. It can be pretty easily avoided if you do research though.

It's alright with me, but yes, in my 3.2Ghz / 512Mb DDR2 533Mhz, Windows boots faster than Ubuntu - but it's not turtle-speed :P
I have a different experience. Ubuntu takes longer to get from POST to log in prompt but MUCH faster to get from log in prompt to a usable desktop. In fact on the same machine Ubuntu gets to a useable desktop quite a bit before XP and I don't load unnecessary stuff on my machines. (though the system in question has been happily 100% Ubunted since Feisty Herd 2).

P.S. I actually don't own a single Windows machine the only ones in my household are my father's.

raja
May 19th, 2007, 02:04 PM
I have a different experience. Ubuntu takes longer to get from POST to log in prompt but MUCH faster to get from log in prompt to a usable desktop. In fact on the same machine Ubuntu gets to a useable desktop quite a bit before XP and I don't load unnecessary stuff on my machines.

My experience too. When the desktop comes up on Ubuntu, it is ready and usable. With windows, I can see the desktop, but for another 2 minutes atleast, things are so slow that I have to sit ans wait it out. (Even worse now that I seldom log into it, because whenever I do everything from my antivirus to windows to java starts updating).

smaker
May 19th, 2007, 10:46 PM
After seeing the OP's long post on the second page, I think this thread needs to be merged with the "Linux Desktop Readiness" thread. He doesn't want to hear or understand the logic behind the restricted drivers warning, as we have explained to him, he just wants to bitch how Ubuntu is not like Windows.

Actually I am n ot trying to do this, although the 'linux mentality' is again showing through with flying colors to showcase how correct I am.

Linux is for people it seems that dont mind putting others down, when its conveneient to not have to address the real issues.

Nice try at a dodge, but its clear you are uniformed as to my actual intentions , although in your adventure to ASSume them you make a perfect example of yourself and that no one has replied shows perfectly the anal retentiveness of linux which I want zero part of. I hope windows continues to dominate as long as 'attitudes' like this are prevalent and I''ll do whatever I can to make sure thats a reality.

bye
smaker

ukripper
May 19th, 2007, 10:55 PM
Actually I am n ot trying to do this, although the 'linux mentality' is again showing through with flying colors to showcase how correct I am.

Linux is for people it seems that dont mind putting others down, when its conveneient to not have to address the real issues.

Nice try at a dodge, but its clear you are uniformed as to my actual intentions , although in your adventure to ASSume them you make a perfect example of yourself and that no one has replied shows perfectly the anal retentiveness of linux which I want zero part of. I hope windows continues to dominate as long as 'attitudes' like this are prevalent and I''ll do whatever I can to make sure thats a reality.

bye
smaker

Wish you Goodluck.

srt4play
May 19th, 2007, 11:59 PM
Actually I am n ot trying to do this, although the 'linux mentality' is again showing through with flying colors to showcase how correct I am.

Linux is for people it seems that dont mind putting others down, when its conveneient to not have to address the real issues.

Nice try at a dodge, but its clear you are uniformed as to my actual intentions , although in your adventure to ASSume them you make a perfect example of yourself and that no one has replied shows perfectly the anal retentiveness of linux which I want zero part of. I hope windows continues to dominate as long as 'attitudes' like this are prevalent and I''ll do whatever I can to make sure thats a reality.

bye
smaker

I wasn't trying to dodge anything, just calling it like I see it. I think the lesson learned from this thread YET AGAIN is it is best to use what you want, and have willingness to learn when you try something new. Your "problem" was solved for you long ago in this thread, but you didn't want to accept the explanation instead you wanted to argue.

Frak
May 20th, 2007, 01:03 AM
Actually I am n ot trying to do this, although the 'linux mentality' is again showing through with flying colors to showcase how correct I am.

Linux is for people it seems that dont mind putting others down, when its conveneient to not have to address the real issues.

Nice try at a dodge, but its clear you are uniformed as to my actual intentions , although in your adventure to ASSume them you make a perfect example of yourself and that no one has replied shows perfectly the anal retentiveness of linux which I want zero part of. I hope windows continues to dominate as long as 'attitudes' like this are prevalent and I''ll do whatever I can to make sure thats a reality.

bye
smaker

Origanally posted by Matthew on Ubuntu Forums & Social Forums
----Troll Spotting----

Trolls often have many basic characteristics in common:

1. Low post count. Trolls usually do not last long enough on a forum to rack up a large number of posts. Be particularly suspicious of any poster whose count is not yet in double digits and who appears to be causing trouble.

2. Suspicious IP addresses. Puppet accounts will have IP addresses identical to that of the TiQ (Troll in Question).

3. Suspicious E-mail Addresses. Accounts that are similar in nature to those of the TiQ can indicate a puppet account. AOL accounts, for example, are particularly suspect, because AOL allows multiple usernames for a single account.

4. Syntax and grammar. Trolls, particularly Deceptives, invariably have trouble hiding their writing styles. Puppet accounts, or serial accounts created after previous accounts have been thoroughly discredited, will display traits similar to that of the TiQ.

I wouldn't argue with Matthew...

Sources
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1032102
http://socialdiscussion.com/computers-internet/312-other-definitive-guide-internet-trolls.html

Enverex
May 20th, 2007, 01:18 AM
My experience too. When the desktop comes up on Ubuntu, it is ready and usable. With windows, I can see the desktop, but for another 2 minutes atleast, things are so slow that I have to sit ans wait it out. (Even worse now that I seldom log into it, because whenever I do everything from my antivirus to windows to java starts updating).

Opposite experience here. Ubuntu to a fully loaded desktop with no HD activity is nearly 2 minutes. Windows to fully loaded desktop and no HD activity is just under a minute,

prizrak
May 20th, 2007, 05:01 AM
Opposite experience here. Ubuntu to a fully loaded desktop with no HD activity is nearly 2 minutes. Windows to fully loaded desktop and no HD activity is just under a minute,

Interesting.... Wonder what your hardware config is, sometimes Linux doesn't play well with certain hardware although it recognizes and configures it.

m.musashi
May 20th, 2007, 05:56 AM
Opposite experience here. Ubuntu to a fully loaded desktop with no HD activity is nearly 2 minutes. Windows to fully loaded desktop and no HD activity is just under a minute,

With Vista it's about 15 MINUTES to no HD activity. Actually, that's just a guess since there seems to be continuous HD activity whenever I'm using it (very rarely lately). I really should dump it and go back to XP but since I almost never use it, I figure any time spent fixing windows is just a waste of time.

Oh, and for me grub to feisty desktop is 45 seconds.

The Pinny Parlour
May 20th, 2007, 10:30 AM
So you don't consider Mac OS X ready either then, I guess. You're entitled to your own definitions of ready.

I'm not talking about Mac I'm talking ubuntu. Games are moot anyway. It's Networking and Printers that are the big issue that needs a whole release dedicated to getting it right. As of now it's an absolute shambles. Networking? what networking? Samba is horrible to setup and get working for the casual user/layperson or new user. As I have mentioned before, if Shuttleworth wants a "desktop ready" ubuntu, he really needs to dramatically improve these areas.

Enverex
May 20th, 2007, 10:59 AM
Interesting.... Wonder what your hardware config is, sometimes Linux doesn't play well with certain hardware although it recognizes and configures it.

It's always been this way with my machines. I think the problem most users is is that they have loads of crap start when Windows starts and don't know how to remove it from start-up (needs to be done through the registry). But on the other hand Linux, or rather Gnome does seem to take more time than it should to start on my desktop.

Desktop has been through some changes (new motherboards, processors, etc) without the issue having changed. Laptop boots Windows faster too.

Desktop is:
Athlon64 X2 3800+
2GB PC2700 (4x512MB PC3200 but board clocks down to 333 with 4 sticks).
Asus A8N-E Motherboard
GeForce 7900 GTO
Antec SmartPower 450w
Hitachi/IBM 320GB IDE (hdparm clocks it at 76MB/s).
LiteOn DVD+-RW
SoundBlaster Audigy
DNTV Live! QuattroS

Laptop is:
Pentium 4 Northwood 2.4Ghz
512MB DDR 266Mhz
Hitachi 40GB (hdparm clocks at 24MB/s)
Radeon Mobility 9000 64MB
Toshiba DVD/CD-RW
Atheros chipset PCMCIA A/B/G
Onboard Realtek Audio (AC'97).

freebird54
May 20th, 2007, 11:06 AM
I suppose networking could be simpler - but I fail to see how printing could be any easier - unless you use a Windows-only printer. I have always used a 'mainstream' printer (either PCL compat or Postscript w/laser or Epson compat w/dot matrix) and there the only thing I ever had to do with print setup on Ubuntu is reset my printer port to Centronics mode. Linux has always correctly configured my printers out of the 'box'.

BTW - load times. My experience is pretty close to usual here. I time from grub prompt (which is equal for both) and Win is quicker to login prompt, and Ubuntu much quicker from there. I determine 'ready for use' by including the time for Firefox to load and display my home page on both systems. Ubuntu: 1:10 average Win XP Pro 1:45 average (when I used to boot into it regularly) - and now Win takes 4 Mins plus because of AV updates etc - even if I kill the autoscan....

If Ubuntu is measurably slower, it probably means it is trying to configure something that is not working (perhaps intentionally). Perhaps a second NIC? Or ipv6? or...

(my full $.02...Canadian) :)

aysiu
May 20th, 2007, 11:10 AM
I suppose networking could be simpler - but I fail to see how printing could be any easier - unless you use a Windows-only printer. I have always used a 'mainstream' printer (either PCL compat or Postscript w/laser or Epson compat w/dot matrix) and there the only thing I ever had to do with print setup on Ubuntu is reset my printer port to Centronics mode. Linux has always correctly configured my printers out of the 'box'. Same here.

In fact, I brought my Ubuntu laptop to work once, and it automatically detected the networked printer and added it. I didn't have to do anything except click Add New Printer and click through the defaults. The setup for that same printer in Windows is a lot more complicated, involving selecting some TCP/IP thing and knowing the actual IP address of the printer and the printer model number... and finally have the driver CD available.

freebird54
May 20th, 2007, 11:14 AM
Previous post 'crossed in the mail'. My Windows is actually fairly quick compared to the default install. I got in there and cleaned up quite a bit, including stopping unneeded services. What I *SHOULD* do next is clear off the AV stuff and so on - as I'm not going on the Net with XP again any time soon! Presumably that will make quite a difference again - if I can get rid of it all....

darrenm
May 20th, 2007, 02:23 PM
I'm not talking about Mac I'm talking ubuntu. Games are moot anyway. It's Networking and Printers that are the big issue that needs a whole release dedicated to getting it right. As of now it's an absolute shambles. Networking? what networking? Samba is horrible to setup and get working for the casual user/layperson or new user. As I have mentioned before, if Shuttleworth wants a "desktop ready" ubuntu, he really needs to dramatically improve these areas.

I can't see how networking can be any easier in Ubuntu. Are you talking about network connectivity? Or network services? Can you describe what you mean by networking, its a pretty generic term.

The Pinny Parlour
May 20th, 2007, 04:23 PM
I can't see how networking can be any easier in Ubuntu. Are you talking about network connectivity? Or network services? Can you describe what you mean by networking, its a pretty generic term.

Having computers see each other and share folders/files. Example: WinXP > Ubuntu and vice versa. Don't tell me it's easy. It wasn't and isn't.

ububaba
May 20th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Having computers see each other and share folders/files. Example: WinXP > Ubuntu and vice versa. Don't tell me it's easy. It wasn't and isn't.

I agree completely with you. If we think otherwise, we would be deceiving ourselves.

Enverex
May 20th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Having computers see each other and share folders/files. Example: WinXP > Ubuntu and vice versa. Don't tell me it's easy. It wasn't and isn't.

System > Admin > Shared Folders.

The only thing that may not work is certain folders due to permissions... (which is where it gets annoying and you have to set the Samba config file to force a certain user for those folders).

The Pinny Parlour
May 20th, 2007, 04:30 PM
System > Admin > Shared Folders.

The only thing that may not work is certain folders due to permissions... (which is where it gets annoying and you have to set the Samba config file to force a certain user for those folders).

I wish my experience was that easy. I'm happy that yours was though. ;)

Enverex
May 20th, 2007, 04:32 PM
I wish my experience was that easy. I'm happy that yours was though. ;)

It's always easy, assuming you know what you need to do before you try and do it. Technically that is all that needs to be done on any machine (the force user is the key part to it).

prizrak
May 20th, 2007, 04:35 PM
It's always been this way with my machines. I think the problem most users is is that they have loads of crap start when Windows starts and don't know how to remove it from start-up (needs to be done through the registry). But on the other hand Linux, or rather Gnome does seem to take more time than it should to start on my desktop.

Desktop has been through some changes (new motherboards, processors, etc) without the issue having changed. Laptop boots Windows faster too.

Desktop is:
Athlon64 X2 3800+
2GB PC2700 (4x512MB PC3200 but board clocks down to 333 with 4 sticks).
Asus A8N-E Motherboard
GeForce 7900 GTO
Antec SmartPower 450w
Hitachi/IBM 320GB IDE (hdparm clocks it at 76MB/s).
LiteOn DVD+-RW
SoundBlaster Audigy
DNTV Live! QuattroS

Laptop is:
Pentium 4 Northwood 2.4Ghz
512MB DDR 266Mhz
Hitachi 40GB (hdparm clocks at 24MB/s)
Radeon Mobility 9000 64MB
Toshiba DVD/CD-RW
Atheros chipset PCMCIA A/B/G
Onboard Realtek Audio (AC'97).
Hmm... Nothing is jumping out at me as something that would actually cause a problem. Must be one of those random things. Still sux though.

The Pinny Parlour
May 20th, 2007, 04:36 PM
It's always easy, assuming you know what you need to do before you try and do it. .

Agreed there. :)

126 threads on "Windows Networking"
131 threads on "Samba Windows"

Yep....Easy lol :D

prizrak
May 20th, 2007, 04:41 PM
I wish my experience was that easy. I'm happy that yours was though. ;)

Similar here with Feisty. My father's Windows desktop's shared folder is seen through Places>Network and I could connect right away w/o any extra config. Same with setting up a shared folder on my Feisty fileserver, at work SMB folders work jsut as well despite them being Windows based. One thing that Ubuntu is missing is easy NFS share mounting and changing from synch to asynch requires config file editing.

ububaba
May 20th, 2007, 04:42 PM
Agreed there. :)

126 threads on "Windows Networking"
131 threads on "Samba Windows"

Yep....Easy lol :D

What a coincidence?

The Pinny Parlour
May 20th, 2007, 04:45 PM
So it appears to be Hit & Miss regarding peoples Networking experiences with Ubuntu. Point is, it could be made better and eliminate the issue (the people who experience them) have.

Enverex
May 20th, 2007, 04:48 PM
So it appears to be Hit & Miss regarding peoples Networking experiences with Ubuntu. Point is, it could be made better and eliminate the issue (the people who experience them) have.

The ONLY thing they need to do to make it work out of the box easily is to add a tickbox and field called "Force User?" and then the ability to select a user (this fixes the unable to browse, can't read and/or can't write issue).

I'm not entirely sure what other issues people could be having.

The Pinny Parlour
May 20th, 2007, 04:49 PM
The ONLY thing they need to do to make it work out of the box easily is to add a tickbox and field called "Force User?" and then the ability to select a user (this fixes the unable to browse, can't read and/or can't write issue).

I'm not entirely sure what other issues people could be having.

HA don't make me laugh.

Enverex
May 20th, 2007, 04:54 PM
HA don't make me laugh.

... your response is making me believe your networking issue may have been PEBKAC.

The Pinny Parlour
May 20th, 2007, 04:56 PM
... your response is making me believe your networking issue may have been PEBKAC.

TCP/IP Punch buddy

Enverex
May 20th, 2007, 04:57 PM
TCP/IP Punch buddy

No I'm serious. What actually was the problem?

The Pinny Parlour
May 20th, 2007, 04:59 PM
No I'm serious. What actually was the problem?

It wouldn't work. Got it the end but it took time and editing and....

darrenm
May 20th, 2007, 08:50 PM
I suppose because I've been using Samba for ages it seems easy to me. If you don't have experience with it then it may be frustrating.

But networking itself (i.e. not trying to provide a reverse engineered compatability layer to Windows file sharing which is equivalent to NT4 server functionality and the EU are fining Microsoft millions because they won't release interoperation docs for) is better than any other operating system in my experience.

jiminycricket
May 20th, 2007, 09:59 PM
Famous Samba bug...please please please fix for Gutsy Gibbon or GNOME 2.20. smbpasswd absolutely needs a GUI.

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

ukripper
May 21st, 2007, 08:55 AM
Famous Samba bug...please please please fix for Gutsy Gibbon or GNOME 2.20. smbpasswd absolutely needs a GUI.

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

GUI would be good addition for newbies but however, security will be compromised if SAMBA is set to SHARE instead of user.

freebird54
May 21st, 2007, 09:03 AM
Just a thought. Could it default to share *IF* it detects it is behind a NAT? Finding itself with a DHCP addy of 192.168.1.2 could be a fairly likely indicator?

There may well be a reason why not - but with explanation of what the choice is, and why - might be simpler...

DARKGuy
May 21st, 2007, 09:13 AM
GUI would be good addition for newbies but however, security will be compromised if SAMBA is set to SHARE instead of user.

Windows doesn't have a perfect security either. Both in Windows and Linux the user has to follow some steps to decide for itself if it wants to compromise its computer security or not. We're not gonna dictate what the user is going to use, let's let the user decide if it wants Samba to be set to SHARE or USER, depending on its needs. But, alas, there should be some GUI to help the user :).

ukripper
May 21st, 2007, 09:37 AM
Windows doesn't have a perfect security either. Both in Windows and Linux the user has to follow some steps to decide for itself if it wants to compromise its computer security or not. We're not gonna dictate what the user is going to use, let's let the user decide if it wants Samba to be set to SHARE or USER, depending on its needs. But, alas, there should be some GUI to help the user :).

Windows NTFS permissions are all GUI based which makes it simpler but not secure as user can compromise security by themselves setting wrong permissions for files or folders but having advanced settings user can grant very restrictive permissions for each file which I think is very handy at times. However, it can create problems on workgroup machines which are not in domain have problem sharing files behind NAT especially when restricted permissions are applied. Domain controller makes things easier in this case when machines are registered in domain controller then permissions are assigned on both levels Machine as well as User which I believe is best solution in windows environment for sharing files. But whereas Linux is concerned Samba is totally different how it handles SMB and I think which makes it a strong point for Linux in my view.

Enverex
May 21st, 2007, 09:45 AM
I don't see a problem with a GUI as long as it has a warning or better yet, can be switched to "Advanced Mode" which shows more than just the basic features but isn't recommended for people that don't know what they are doing.

RawMustard
May 21st, 2007, 10:40 AM
This such a ******** discussion that goes on all too often all over the net. Is Linux ready for the desktop?
Well here's a tip, for me and thousands/millions of Linux users all over the world it is!
It gets pretty tyring reading the moans of dissatisfied windows users every other day because they can't make Linux do what windows does.
You know what? Who cares? Seriously, use what works for you and if you're not happy, use something else.
You see for me and millions of other people around the world, Linux is more than ready and Windows[TM] and MacOs[TM] are far from ready!

I was a windows user starting from DOS and working through Win95/98/98se, NT4.0, WIn2k, and XP. All the while traveling the windows path, I got more and more frustrated with the MS-Gods and their crap, their ridiculous licences, buggy/insecure software. Third party software writers all fighting for their share of "YOUR" computer's resources, a gazillion startup apps in your system tray all feuding over who's best to do the job and who gets to phone home first. None of them needed, all of them useless and all of them screwing over your computer eXPerience, slowing it down and generally making a complete nuisance of themselves. Then came XP, carrying the same useless baggage but it got worse, the net started becoming a nasty place for poor old windows and the MS-Gods really didn't give a crap, as long as they got lots of sales and Windows was easy to use, at the expense of security and user eXPerience.

So what was a Windows user to do? nLite, get rid of all the useless crud, write inf files to manipulate your install routine and change default reg settings to try and make XP a bit smoother, less insecure, have the ability to take back some control over what app was going to be your firewall, which one was going to be your default browser, which app was going to play your media files without phoning home all it knows every two days! (WOW! Windows is really easy to use!) Great, works a treat but then the big smack comes from the MS-Gods for doing the unthinkable. You tampered with their beloved spy machine, so they punish you, no more updates for you, you're a bad, bad rebellious criminal and if you want to continue using windows, you'd better toe the line or we're coming for your kids!

So where too from here, "Vista"? I don't think so. "MacOs"? Nope, even more restrictive than Windows. "Linux"?, well my phone and pda won't sync to it but the windows software was complete crap anyway. "It's harder to use they reckon". Well derrr, so was DOS when I first got it. "It doesn't detect hardware properly", hmm, where did I put my XP driver CD's again? Ah ****, in the attic under all the fishing mags! "It has no software they say!" Looks at the past 15 years of bank statements and realises I could have gone on that trip to Canada and catch me a king salmon on all the money I wasted on buggy crap windows software that would only let me do what the maker wanted and not what I wanted! apt-get this and apt-get that sounds pretty good to me!

So here I am, running Feisty 64bit on my brand new home built system. Which incidentally; while going through the pain of transitioning from Windows98se to Nt4.0 and then Win2k back in the old days, I learnt a valuable lesson! Never buy hardware unless you know it's going to work, because even on windows some things "JUST DON'T" work out of the box and can be a nightmare!

Hardware not detected during install of Feisty = "0" Hardware not working after installing Feisty = "0" Even my Asus computer remote control worked out of the box with no drivers needed. It needs that biggest piece of crap-ware known to man to run in XP - Windows Media Spier, err I mean player or the drivers do nothing!

Anyway, is Linux ready for the desktop you ask? Well for me it sure is, for you it might not be, but then I like the freedom of apt-get this and apt-get that when it's midnight and I'm up to my armpits in terminals trying to make my remote control, control our prime-minister from my study and I need some little app that lets me spin his head around with the touch of a button, I don't miss the days of hunting down key-gens at all :)

feest
May 21st, 2007, 10:50 AM
I think linux is really making it's way now with the support of binairy packages... I think it is importand for an OS that anyone can install applications without any trouble...

scrooge_74
May 21st, 2007, 04:32 PM
I think linux is really making it's way now with the support of binairy packages... I think it is importand for an OS that anyone can install applications without any trouble...

If the application I want is in the repositories then there is no problem installing it.

karellen
May 21st, 2007, 08:36 PM
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420
feel free to...anything :D
let the "show" begin...:)

ThinkBuntu
May 21st, 2007, 08:52 PM
Drivel. Flame-bait. Call it what you want.

aysiu
May 21st, 2007, 08:52 PM
Do people get paid to write these articles? Why does Adrian Kingsley-Hughes think these are new insights?
Five crucial things the Linux community doesn’t understand about the average computer user (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420&page=2)
1 - On the whole, users aren’t all that dissatisfied with Windows
2 - Too many distros
3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
5 - Linux is still too geeky

Seriously, do these people think they're original? The richest part is trying to make it sound as if it's the conclusion to a comprehensive scientific study:
Over the past decade I’ve had the opportunity (through my websites, blogs and the online classes I’ve run) of coming into contact with tens of thousands of computer users from all walks of life and this experience has been extremely valuable to me in getting a glimpse into how individuals view the relationship they have with their computer. Based on this, along with my recent experience with Linux distros and communities, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are five crucial things the Linux community doesn’t understand about the average computer user, and that these five things are slowing down the adoption of Linux onto desktop systems in the home and office.

aysiu
May 21st, 2007, 08:55 PM
Oh, I've merged the other thread on the same topic in with this. It really is just "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" FUD anyway.

Ireclan
May 21st, 2007, 09:00 PM
I thought all his points had some merit, save number 5. That one was just utter bullsh*t.

starcraft.man
May 21st, 2007, 09:02 PM
Bleh... read the blog, it hasn't got much to say... 2 is a bogus argument, Ubuntu is fast becoming the defacto beginner Linux OS for many people who want to try, it eases people in gently and then they can learn more if they want or not. 3, A lot of hardware already is supported very well (Audio, ethernet networking, graphics, usb) and the rest are catching up. I might add importantly, that look at all the trouble Vista has had in the hardware department... its no barrel of fun, and not only is some hardware not supported but some OEMs just plain undercut what you need to get the max out of Aero just for daily use (selling 64 MB integrated cards rather than suggesting 128 and 256). The rest is rather that we should dumb down linux, which doesn't seem to me the point. Linux in my mind isn't there to present a simple clone of either of the other OSes, its there for those who want something different and are willing to put the effort in to learn something new. The bottom line is some users plain don't want to put the effort in, and I wish them luck with whatever they use, thats their choice.

I might add this man obviously hasn't tweaked around with Windows that much there are plenty of commands still necessary in windows, they are even improving the command line with a new power shell in Vista. Obviously it isn't dead, a few important ones would be netstat and ipconfig, there are lots more that give detailed info on how things are working. Not to mention there are plenty of times in the past years I have had to manually go in and edit the stupid registry simply because a program failed to uninstall right or ceased functioning. There are plenty of advanced functions in windows, people are just used to them, like having memorized ctrl alt del.

They are all starting to sound the same though....

aysiu
May 21st, 2007, 09:10 PM
Most of this stuff has already been addressed here many months ago--these arguments against desktop Linux aren't new or even remotely convincing:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

starcraft.man
May 21st, 2007, 09:38 PM
Most of this stuff has already been addressed here many months ago--these arguments against desktop Linux aren't new or even remotely convincing:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

Aye, you know maybe we should have a new policy and send all the bashers to badvista.org (http://badvista.fsf.org/) (can always post it in the comments on these blogs) so they can read the wonderful os they'll be forced into in 3 years time or less (a lot of them it seem haven't actually seen all the problems right below the surface) >.>. Just a thought, I know the site itself is a bit biased, but many of the articles linked to on it are neutral and to the point (look at the latest groklaw burning article for instance).

I shall keep that bookmarked for future though, thanks for pointing it out oh great cat lord :D.

ububaba
May 21st, 2007, 09:46 PM
Most of this stuff has already been addressed here many months ago--these arguments against desktop Linux aren't new or even remotely convincing:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

No doubt most of the problems have been addressed to already. Every time I have a problem I try
to solve it myself yet it is some how not all that easy to locate all that has been said before. Many persons
out of their kindness and eagerness to help, immediately try to make suggestions instead of directing
one to the previous solutions. We keep on expanding the size of the haystack every day, with no end
in sight. Some sort of a streamlining should be given priority. Because the site is bursting at the seams.....

hobieone
May 21st, 2007, 09:48 PM
funny you mention bad vista.org and there recent burning article! i find it funny due to i have actually seen that very thing happen in person on vista machine. along with vista poping up a message saying burn process being shut down due to the os thinks the items being burned might be copyrighted material. and not only has alot of people not seen the problems below the surface not many have relized that vista replacement was recently scheduled for release either late 2009 or sometime 2010 which mean vista will be around for 2-3 years. and ms is currently debating wether or not to do a service pack for vista in 2008 or do what they did with win 98 and make a vista second edition due to the sheer amount of issues it has

starcraft.man
May 21st, 2007, 09:55 PM
funny you mention bad vista.org and there recent burning article! i find it funny due to i have actually seen that very thing happen in person on vista machine. along with vista poping up a message saying burn process being shut down due to the os thinks the items being burned might be copyrighted material. and not only has alot of people not seen the problems below the surface not many have relized that vista replacement was recently scheduled for release either late 2009 or sometime 2010 which mean vista will be around for 2-3 years. and ms is currently debating wether or not to do a service pack for vista in 2008 or do what they did with win 98 and make a vista second edition due to the sheer amount of issues it has

Or just dump it like a rock, they did that to ME, maybe this really should be called Windows MEll :p.

I don't know if MS has the ability to just drop it like that though and make a second edition even, I mean the estimates of cost of development were put at about 6 billion dollars for Vista I think (XP took less than a third of that I believe, thats a fortune even for them). If it only has 3 years, I wonder if they'll even break even on the cost...

I did not know about it preventing you from burning files it thinks you pirated though, just another example of how deeply rooted is restrictions are... the moment MS decided to stop being an enabler of the user and instead become a limiter (sometime in the shelf life of XP, WGA is prolly the big turning point) they lost any respect I still had for them. Its not up to an OS to stop a user from doing anything.

prizrak
May 21st, 2007, 11:01 PM
1 - On the whole, users arenít all that dissatisfied with Windows
2 - Too many distros
3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
5 - Linux is still too geeky
Why they let those people blog somewhere like ZDnet I got no idea but here is a point by point.

1 - If that were true I would not have so many people ask me about Mac and complain to me about Windows DAILY.

2 - Too many cars, too many keyboards, too many toothpaste brands, hell too many Vista editions. Obvious BS, those who are aware of Linux will have a prefered distro or will know someone who can advise them. Those who are not aware of Linux won't be using it.

3 - People can spend 10 minutes on Google and do some research, most people I know (non techies I might add) do their research on all long term purchases. This is just being an educated consumer. Those who don't do research end up with crap either way so what is the difference?

4 - As far as most "average" users are concerned there is no CLI in Linux. That is of course unless you happen to find an "average" user who will somehow install his/her own OS.... They are hardly average then are they? OS X just HAPPENS to have bash (iirc, might be a different shell) no one is bitching about it not being ready.

5 - And the blog author is an idiot. If he can make a unsubstantiated claim so can I. At least mine is somewhat grounded in reality.

Also I would LOVE it for someone to define "too geeky" for me.

aysiu
May 21st, 2007, 11:05 PM
"Too geeky" means "not Windows or Mac."

So "by definition" Linux is "too geeky."

ububaba
May 21st, 2007, 11:08 PM
"Too geeky" means "not Windows or Mac."

So "by definition" Linux is "too geeky."

Perhaps that's where crux of the problem lies.

prizrak
May 21st, 2007, 11:18 PM
I don't know if MS has the ability to just drop it like that though and make a second edition even, I mean the estimates of cost of development were put at about 6 billion dollars for Vista I think (XP took less than a third of that I believe, thats a fortune even for them). If it only has 3 years, I wonder if they'll even break even on the cost...
The development costs aren't going out the tube, if they do decide to just make Vista 2nd edition they will just do a bunch of bug fixes (won't cost them much), considering that they would sell it as a completely new OS they would turn a profit quite quickly.

prizrak
May 21st, 2007, 11:18 PM
"Too geeky" means "not Windows or Mac."

So "by definition" Linux is "too geeky."
Hehe basically.

jiminycricket
May 21st, 2007, 11:28 PM
GUI would be good addition for newbies but however, security will be compromised if SAMBA is set to SHARE instead of user.

Read that entire bug's comments, it's much more htan setting it to share. Users who try to share a folder, then access it from a Windows PC, suddenly find themselves facing a password prompt __THAT DOES NOT WORK__ even if they put in the their user name and password. I honestly don't know why this has gone on for all releases of Ubuntu so far since it's a huge problem.

prizrak
May 21st, 2007, 11:59 PM
Read that entire bug's comments, it's much more htan setting it to share. Users who try to share a folder, then access it from a Windows PC, suddenly find themselves facing a password prompt __THAT DOES NOT WORK__ even if they put in the their user name and password. I honestly don't know why this has gone on for all releases of Ubuntu so far since it's a huge problem.

Yes I can confirm that, the only guess is that it's a SAMBA problem?

loathsome
May 22nd, 2007, 12:09 AM
I voted 'Any person can install it on any computer without any problems' - Ubuntu is really moving towards this goal, and it's very close with Feisty - not quite yet there, but very close.

Josh Kurtz
May 22nd, 2007, 03:51 AM
It's nonsensical since it means so many different things for different people.

In my opinion, it's ready for the desktop since I can run everything I need without much tweaking. Some people may think it's not ready since it can't run iLife or ProTools. Most windows users can't install a copy of XP even if it's from a restore cd so I don't think easy installation will get Linux any more ready for the desktop than it already is. Hell, it's already easier to install and maintain by leaps and bounds. What's holding it back is it not being offered as a default option on most systems. Microsoft has done a great job at eliminating choice. I'm not trying to bash them by saying this, it just is what it is: smart business on their part. Most people don't even think of the OS as something independent of their computer. Windows is their computer. Gates and company were aware of, strived for and achieved this long ago.

To change this mentality will take years. Ask most people over 30 that aren't techies and they don't know what Linux is. Even if Dell and HP offer it they're not going to gamble $1000 to buy a laptop with something they've never heard of on the screen. Younger people, under 30, have grown up with a computer and are not as intimidated by Linux. I have younger guys ask me what Linux is and when I tell them that it's an operating system most of them understand what that means(I know, I know, it's a kernel but let's not slice hairs).

I think that as this younger generation and the next couple grow up that Linux will grow in popularity. I don't think that you can teach an old dog new tricks so, for the most part, Joe-55-year-old-office-worker isn't going to want to try it. They just want to know which antivirus is better: Norton or McAffee?

starcraft.man
May 22nd, 2007, 04:11 AM
The development costs aren't going out the tube, if they do decide to just make Vista 2nd edition they will just do a bunch of bug fixes (won't cost them much), considering that they would sell it as a completely new OS they would turn a profit quite quickly.

Hmmm, I dunno. That seems too easy, and many of the problems with Vista (at least the ones I have) seem to be MS' new philosophy rather than bugs to be fixed. I mean MS now seems to want to limit your choices rather than give you more (see the DRM, WGA, pushing new Vista only compliant CD filesystem, etc...). I don't think any of those would be fixed in a new edition. Then again, maybe its all in the wrapper and a facelift changes everything... 2k and XP come to mind.

Oh well, I don't think it matters much, I won't be buying Vista Vers. 1 or 2. >.>.

m.musashi
May 22nd, 2007, 04:13 AM
This such a ******** discussion that goes on all too often all over the net. Is Linux ready for the desktop?
Well here's a tip, for me and thousands/millions of Linux users all over the world it is!
It gets pretty tyring reading the moans of dissatisfied windows users every other day because they can't make Linux do what windows does.
You know what? Who cares? Seriously, use what works for you and if you're not happy, use something else.
You see for me and millions of other people around the world, Linux is more than ready and Windows[TM] and MacOs[TM] are far from ready!

I was a windows user starting from DOS and working through Win95/98/98se, NT4.0, WIn2k, and XP. All the while traveling the windows path, I got more and more frustrated with the MS-Gods and their crap, their ridiculous licences, buggy/insecure software. Third party software writers all fighting for their share of "YOUR" computer's resources, a gazillion startup apps in your system tray all feuding over who's best to do the job and who gets to phone home first. None of them needed, all of them useless and all of them screwing over your computer eXPerience, slowing it down and generally making a complete nuisance of themselves. Then came XP, carrying the same useless baggage but it got worse, the net started becoming a nasty place for poor old windows and the MS-Gods really didn't give a crap, as long as they got lots of sales and Windows was easy to use, at the expense of security and user eXPerience.

So what was a Windows user to do? nLite, get rid of all the useless crud, write inf files to manipulate your install routine and change default reg settings to try and make XP a bit smoother, less insecure, have the ability to take back some control over what app was going to be your firewall, which one was going to be your default browser, which app was going to play your media files without phoning home all it knows every two days! (WOW! Windows is really easy to use!) Great, works a treat but then the big smack comes from the MS-Gods for doing the unthinkable. You tampered with their beloved spy machine, so they punish you, no more updates for you, you're a bad, bad rebellious criminal and if you want to continue using windows, you'd better toe the line or we're coming for your kids!

So where too from here, "Vista"? I don't think so. "MacOs"? Nope, even more restrictive than Windows. "Linux"?, well my phone and pda won't sync to it but the windows software was complete crap anyway. "It's harder to use they reckon". Well derrr, so was DOS when I first got it. "It doesn't detect hardware properly", hmm, where did I put my XP driver CD's again? Ah ****, in the attic under all the fishing mags! "It has no software they say!" Looks at the past 15 years of bank statements and realises I could have gone on that trip to Canada and catch me a king salmon on all the money I wasted on buggy crap windows software that would only let me do what the maker wanted and not what I wanted! apt-get this and apt-get that sounds pretty good to me!

So here I am, running Feisty 64bit on my brand new home built system. Which incidentally; while going through the pain of transitioning from Windows98se to Nt4.0 and then Win2k back in the old days, I learnt a valuable lesson! Never buy hardware unless you know it's going to work, because even on windows some things "JUST DON'T" work out of the box and can be a nightmare!

Hardware not detected during install of Feisty = "0" Hardware not working after installing Feisty = "0" Even my Asus computer remote control worked out of the box with no drivers needed. It needs that biggest piece of crap-ware known to man to run in XP - Windows Media Spier, err I mean player or the drivers do nothing!

Anyway, is Linux ready for the desktop you ask? Well for me it sure is, for you it might not be, but then I like the freedom of apt-get this and apt-get that when it's midnight and I'm up to my armpits in terminals trying to make my remote control, control our prime-minister from my study and I need some little app that lets me spin his head around with the touch of a button, I don't miss the days of hunting down key-gens at all :)

Quoted for posterity. A bit of a rant (and I love a good rant) but spot on imho. Amen!

Frak
May 22nd, 2007, 04:40 AM
This such a ******** discussion that goes on all too often all over the net. Is Linux ready for the desktop?
Well here's a tip, for me and thousands/millions of Linux users all over the world it is!
It gets pretty tyring reading the moans of dissatisfied windows users every other day because they can't make Linux do what windows does.
You know what? Who cares? Seriously, use what works for you and if you're not happy, use something else.
You see for me and millions of other people around the world, Linux is more than ready and Windows[TM] and MacOs[TM] are far from ready!

I was a windows user starting from DOS and working through Win95/98/98se, NT4.0, WIn2k, and XP. All the while traveling the windows path, I got more and more frustrated with the MS-Gods and their crap, their ridiculous licences, buggy/insecure software. Third party software writers all fighting for their share of "YOUR" computer's resources, a gazillion startup apps in your system tray all feuding over who's best to do the job and who gets to phone home first. None of them needed, all of them useless and all of them screwing over your computer eXPerience, slowing it down and generally making a complete nuisance of themselves. Then came XP, carrying the same useless baggage but it got worse, the net started becoming a nasty place for poor old windows and the MS-Gods really didn't give a crap, as long as they got lots of sales and Windows was easy to use, at the expense of security and user eXPerience.

So what was a Windows user to do? nLite, get rid of all the useless crud, write inf files to manipulate your install routine and change default reg settings to try and make XP a bit smoother, less insecure, have the ability to take back some control over what app was going to be your firewall, which one was going to be your default browser, which app was going to play your media files without phoning home all it knows every two days! (WOW! Windows is really easy to use!) Great, works a treat but then the big smack comes from the MS-Gods for doing the unthinkable. You tampered with their beloved spy machine, so they punish you, no more updates for you, you're a bad, bad rebellious criminal and if you want to continue using windows, you'd better toe the line or we're coming for your kids!

So where too from here, "Vista"? I don't think so. "MacOs"? Nope, even more restrictive than Windows. "Linux"?, well my phone and pda won't sync to it but the windows software was complete crap anyway. "It's harder to use they reckon". Well derrr, so was DOS when I first got it. "It doesn't detect hardware properly", hmm, where did I put my XP driver CD's again? Ah ****, in the attic under all the fishing mags! "It has no software they say!" Looks at the past 15 years of bank statements and realises I could have gone on that trip to Canada and catch me a king salmon on all the money I wasted on buggy crap windows software that would only let me do what the maker wanted and not what I wanted! apt-get this and apt-get that sounds pretty good to me!

So here I am, running Feisty 64bit on my brand new home built system. Which incidentally; while going through the pain of transitioning from Windows98se to Nt4.0 and then Win2k back in the old days, I learnt a valuable lesson! Never buy hardware unless you know it's going to work, because even on windows some things "JUST DON'T" work out of the box and can be a nightmare!

Hardware not detected during install of Feisty = "0" Hardware not working after installing Feisty = "0" Even my Asus computer remote control worked out of the box with no drivers needed. It needs that biggest piece of crap-ware known to man to run in XP - Windows Media Spier, err I mean player or the drivers do nothing!

Anyway, is Linux ready for the desktop you ask? Well for me it sure is, for you it might not be, but then I like the freedom of apt-get this and apt-get that when it's midnight and I'm up to my armpits in terminals trying to make my remote control, control our prime-minister from my study and I need some little app that lets me spin his head around with the touch of a button, I don't miss the days of hunting down key-gens at all :)
Preach! Apt and Aptitude are gifts from heaven, and moreover, they are a virtue to live by :)
And none of us should ever have to be pushed to the point of using keygens, then you know something is wrong.

DARKGuy
May 22nd, 2007, 06:32 AM
Using a keygen it's just a way to get software you can get for free in Linux :P ... only softwares I'd maybe pay for are Cedega, NeroLINUX (I trust them, in fact I downloaded a demo some time ago and it burned a DVD correctly, not like Gnomebaker, K3B or other burning programs that have made me waste money and CDs, I dunno why) and WoW :P because I have the rest of the apps I need for free. Can you have that in Windows? ;) don't think so ^^.

Who knows, maybe apt & aptitude could become better in the future... I'd like to do "sudo apt-get install girlfriend && sudo apt-get apartment && sudo apt-get car && sudo make world peace" :P

prizrak
May 22nd, 2007, 01:57 PM
Hmmm, I dunno. That seems too easy, and many of the problems with Vista (at least the ones I have) seem to be MS' new philosophy rather than bugs to be fixed. I mean MS now seems to want to limit your choices rather than give you more (see the DRM, WGA, pushing new Vista only compliant CD filesystem, etc...). I don't think any of those would be fixed in a new edition. Then again, maybe its all in the wrapper and a facelift changes everything... 2k and XP come to mind.

Oh well, I don't think it matters much, I won't be buying Vista Vers. 1 or 2. >.>.

Those issues aren't really problem with the OS itself, they aren't really viewed as problems by MS's core audience. If you never use anything but Windows you won't care that a particular CD can only run on Windows.

loathsome
May 22nd, 2007, 02:08 PM
Using a keygen it's just a way to get software you can get for free in Linux :P ... only softwares I'd maybe pay for are Cedega, NeroLINUX (I trust them, in fact I downloaded a demo some time ago and it burned a DVD correctly, not like Gnomebaker, K3B or other burning programs that have made me waste money and CDs, I dunno why) and WoW :P because I have the rest of the apps I need for free. Can you have that in Windows? ;) don't think so ^^.

Who knows, maybe apt & aptitude could become better in the future... I'd like to do "sudo apt-get install girlfriend && sudo apt-get apartment && sudo apt-get car && sudo make world peace" :P

sudo apt-get -y money + 5000

O:)

sasakitomiya
May 23rd, 2007, 05:26 AM
In a resent ZDNet artical about Linux a good point was made about Ubuntu. I quote:

Ubuntu is nice, itís solid, itís fast and itís robust (so far anyway), but itís also way too geeky in spots. Donít get me wrong, overall Ubuntu is nice, friendly and convivial. But there are dark corners that absolutely reek of Linux geekdom cliquiness that average users arenít going to feel at home in (I donít feel at home there). Ubuntu updates are one such area where you need a high level of know-how to understand whatís going on.What the Ubuntu dev team need to do is find, I donít know, 100 people who arenít Linux geeks and stick them in front of the OS. Use these people to get feedback on different aspects of the OS. As soon as users start to look confused, scared or go bug-eyed then something needs tweaking. If your average home user is going to look at Ubuntu as an alternative to Windows or Mac, all these geeky corners have to be smoothed out.

Maybe we all ARE a bit to Linux minded and need to step back find someone that has never even heard of Linux and have them try to install and use Ubuntu. It would help provide insite even for documentation. I know for one that every answer we want about Ubuntu is in the documents all you have to do is read them. But think about this. You have to READ THEM and FIND THEM. Windows is just "Click Next" and when unsure of what to do "Click OK". I know it isn't the best thing to do but it makes life easy for the Computer illiterat. All the other points in the artical are not very valid. I feel only point 5 is. I love Linux don't get me wrong but my Girlfriend can't use it even if her life depended on it. It's powerful but I just don't think its user friendly for non-computer savy people.

sasakitomiya
May 23rd, 2007, 05:30 AM
Sorry forgot to post the urls.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420&tag=nl.e622

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=374&tag=nl.e622

aysiu
May 23rd, 2007, 05:41 AM
Yeah, we've been talking about it. I merged yours with the other thread about the same article (and just general "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" discussion).

prizrak
May 23rd, 2007, 02:27 PM
buntu updates are one such area where you need a high level of know-how to understand whatís going on.
No more cryptic than Windows updates, most "average" Win users I know don't have a clue about the updates. In XP actually the updater will ask you to set it to auto-update and you choose a time for updates and never even see them (also possible in Ubuntu). I do wish it would show what problem is fixed in the update.

What the Ubuntu dev team need to do is find, I donít know, 100 people who arenít Linux geeks and stick them in front of the OS. Use these people to get feedback on different aspects of the OS. As soon as users start to look confused, scared or go bug-eyed then something needs tweaking.
B.S. an OS X user will be confused by Windows, Windows user will be confused by OSX. Doesn't mean the OS's are hard to use. Hell I still can't use OS X w/o wanting to smash the computer.

You have to READ THEM and FIND THEM.
OMG the poor, poor user. He has to READ to understand something....... Sorry dumbest argument on the planet, you have to learn to even walk if you want to use something you have to LEARN how to use it.

indows is just "Click Next" and when unsure of what to do "Click OK".
That mentality is the reason I have to explain to people that I am not their personal PC support. Here is a fun dialog (real one at that), "This action cannot be performed while the file system is mounted, would you like to force dismount the file system?" <OK> <Cancel>. Guess how many hours it took me to reinstall Windows on that computer after clicking <OK>

kuja
May 23rd, 2007, 03:28 PM
What the Ubuntu dev team need to do is find, I don’t know, 100 people who aren’t Linux geeks and stick them in front of the OS.

I think I've heard of something similar to this being done before, in particular, with 100 people who had never used computers before, wish I could find some links regarding that. I'm pretty sure the results were surprising, as these people seemedly faired much better than people who had previously used Windows in the past.

Cheese Sandwich
May 24th, 2007, 02:36 AM
Summary:

1 - On the whole, users arenít all that dissatisfied with Windows
2 - Too many distros
3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
5 - Linux is still too geeky

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420

cantormath
May 24th, 2007, 02:37 AM
1) It is not that we dont understand.......its that we dont care......
2) There are many distros, but there is only 1 linux......do some research.
3) If you want certainty, blame the hardware companies for your crappy hardware. Linux wants to support it.
4) Most people using linux do not use the command line on there desktop setup.
5) If you dont like it geeky, go be cool with your spyware and virii on your Windows box........GO GO........::Grin::

Lucifiel
May 24th, 2007, 02:41 AM
No to all points except Point 3 which isn't the fault of Linux. I'd say that they want a duplicate of Windows. For most, they're so accustomed to Windows and the ways of working within Windows that the slightest changes cause them to throw a hissy fit.

FurryNemesis
May 24th, 2007, 02:47 AM
Seconded. LINW.

a12ctic
May 24th, 2007, 02:48 AM
Summary:

1 - On the whole, users arenít all that dissatisfied with Windows
2 - Too many distros
3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
5 - Linux is still too geeky

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420

1. They arent dissatisfied because they don't understand there is a superior alternative.
2. Please explain to me how choice is a bad thing? It lets you get specifically what you want, and improves quality, something that windows completely lacks.
3. Not a single peice of my hardware hasn't worked in linux... Not even my lexmark printer.
4. Well, most people are idiots, the command line is one of the main reasons I use linux over windows. Its much simpler, far more efficient, and faster to get things done.
5. Good, lets keep it that way, I don't want to be providing free tech support through forums for users that don't understand their moniter isnt the cpu.

ThinkBuntu
May 24th, 2007, 03:08 AM
Summary:

1 - On the whole, users aren’t all that dissatisfied with Windows
2 - Too many distros
3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
5 - Linux is still too geeky

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420

1. Of course they are.
2. No, they have no problem with choice.
3. And Windows guarantees this?
4. I don't have to touch my command line unless I want to with user-friendly Linux.
5. And the coupe de gr‚ce...name-calling!

What a load of rubbish.

aysiu
May 24th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Merged again with the "desktop readiness" thread.

Omnios
May 24th, 2007, 03:13 AM
Summary:

1 - On the whole, users arenít all that dissatisfied with Windows
A: In my case I was dissatisfied with windows.

2 - Too many distros
A: There is one Linux and many distros. Distros are started by different people and organizations so there will always be different distros.

3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
A: Tell that to the hardware vendor

4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
A: I like the command line: booting into recovery mode and punching some code beets reformating and reinstalling.

5 - Linux is still too geeky
A: When it stops being geeky I might consider somthing else to play with.

Cheese Sandwich
May 24th, 2007, 03:42 AM
3. Not a single peice of my hardware hasn't worked in linux... Not even my lexmark printer.


My Visioneer onetouch scanner hasn't worked. ;)

(just keeping it real :D)

igknighted
May 24th, 2007, 05:38 AM
Summary:

1 - On the whole, users arenít all that dissatisfied with Windows
2 - Too many distros
3 - People want certainty that hardware and software will work
4 - As far as most people are concerned, the command line has gone the way of the dinosaur
5 - Linux is still too geeky

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420

1) False, they just don't know it. There is frustration about "how computers work", but its not directed at windows because there is a lack of understanding as to why windows itself is the problem and not the computer. And that there are alternatives.

2) No way, choice is good. Besides, consolidating would chase devs away and lose more users than it gains (mainly from frustration). Its nice the way it is. Diversity of a community leads to success. Theres only one windows, ergo, no diversity, ergo, not secure.

3) As do I, but people still buy Vista and less HW works with that than with Linux. While there is certainly ANECDOTAL evidence of this, it wont be a real issue for some time. Right now most of those who want to try linux are just going for it anyway, with a few vocal exceptions. We haven't gotten to the crowd that cares about that other stuff yet. And I doubt we ever will, as if these people go to linux it will be through an OEM like Dell anyways.

4) Ok, so use one of many distro's that doesn't require much CLI (ie, not Ubuntu). No biggie, you just are making life more difficult for yourself.

5) Umm, no comment. Thats all perception. If people want to think that way, theres nothing we can do to stop them. It's their loss.

prizrak
May 24th, 2007, 02:39 PM
Merged again with the "desktop readiness" thread.
You should write a little forum script that does it for you ;)

ezphilosophy
May 24th, 2007, 04:45 PM
You should write a little forum script that does it for you ;)

:D

...and another script to find all the threads that need to be moved! ;)

ububaba
May 24th, 2007, 05:15 PM
Not a bad idea at all.

aysiu
May 26th, 2007, 07:14 PM
Not the most intelligently written rebuttal to Five crucial things the Linux community doesn't understand about the average computer user, but a rebuttal nonetheless:
Five Tired Old Myths About GNU/Linux (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/87416/index.html)

DARKGuy
June 1st, 2007, 03:02 AM
I stumbled upon this article... it was written in '99, but it's a good read and not just a linux-bashing article :P

http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec102499.html

Squid_blk
June 2nd, 2007, 07:35 PM
Linux's file system organization is enough to scare people from being here. I am still into my first month with Linux and some things went really well and others were not so easy to figure out. I installed a program the other day. It works. But I have no idea where it is. It runs from the terminal. I supposedly moved it to the /usr/bin file but when I look there it is not there. I searched for it and no found. But it works. Where the heck is it? I do not know. Ubuntu is desk-top based but you still need the terminal. Terminal is power but also can be scary. Things get done and sometimes you don't know what it did. This will take time to learn.

julian67
June 2nd, 2007, 08:11 PM
Linux's file system organization is enough to scare people from being here. I am still into my first month with Linux and some things went really well and others were not so easy to figure out. I installed a program the other day. It works. But I have no idea where it is. It runs from the terminal. I supposedly moved it to the /usr/bin file but when I look there it is not there. I searched for it and no found. But it works. Where the heck is it? I do not know. Ubuntu is desk-top based but you still need the terminal. Terminal is power but also can be scary. Things get done and sometimes you don't know what it did. This will take time to learn.

The typical user generally has no need to know where a program is installed, only that it is installed and perhaps how to remove it. If you want to know where it is
locate foo and you should see every instance of your program named foo. Or if you prefer a gui you can use Synaptic and search your app and see its properties. You don't really need the terminal to find everything on your system (though it's quicker for many things), but you need to know how to look for it.

A new user to Windows would be lost navigating an Windows structure. Nobody is born knowing that they need to look for their Win programs in C:\Programs and also config files in C:\Documents & Settings\Username and various hidden subdirectories, and lets not forget that masterpiece of obscurity the Windows Registry. By comparison the Linux directory hierarchy is actually reasonably logical

The terminal is something you can just use little by little as you become more comfortable with the system. Of course it means remembering stuff instead of being prompted by a GUI but it doesn't have to be complex unless you want it to be. .

prizrak
June 2nd, 2007, 10:34 PM
Linux's file system organization is enough to scare people from being here. I am still into my first month with Linux and some things went really well and others were not so easy to figure out. I installed a program the other day. It works. But I have no idea where it is. It runs from the terminal. I supposedly moved it to the /usr/bin file but when I look there it is not there. I searched for it and no found. But it works. Where the heck is it? I do not know. Ubuntu is desk-top based but you still need the terminal. Terminal is power but also can be scary. Things get done and sometimes you don't know what it did. This will take time to learn.

Why does it matter where the program is if it runs? Application settings are in the /home/user directory in hidden folders if for some reason they need to be changed. I find the Windows directory structure confusing. Is the stuff on C:\, D:\, J:\? What if you got folders named the same on all of those? Linux can span same directory over multiple drives so you can just have 3 HDD's that are mounted in /home/user.

DARKGuy
June 2nd, 2007, 11:30 PM
Why does it matter where the program is if it runs? Application settings are in the /home/user directory in hidden folders if for some reason they need to be changed. I find the Windows directory structure confusing. Is the stuff on C:\, D:\, J:\? What if you got folders named the same on all of those? Linux can span same directory over multiple drives so you can just have 3 HDD's that are mounted in /home/user.

The problem is that Windows users are used to know where an app is installed and where are its files. For example in Windows we all know all the program's internal data is stored in the same folder. Configuration and such is in the registry (kinda like /etc) and user preferences/stuff in Documents and Settings\User. Plain easy.

I had a problem with VMWare lately, in which I almost screwed my system up trying to remove EVERYTHING related to it, so I could reinstall VMWare again...

In Windows, it would have been as easy as: Deleting C:\Program Files\VMWare, deleting everything that says "vmware" in the registry (or running CCleaner) and removing anything VMWare-related in Documents & Settings.

In Ubuntu it was a different story: Files were stored in /home, /var, /etc, /usr and /opt... not to mention there were still files that contained the string "vmware" in them that I had to delete... of course that screwed up apt with xserver-xorg-video-vmware and it kept annoying me with a message saying that it suppossed that the package had no files installed... Package I had to reinstall, also. After learning how to find all files with a string "vmware" (involved some googling & grep), stuff like "locate", "whereis", "updatedb" and such, learning how to remove all files that I found with those commands (more googling & bash scripting), I could solve my problem.

That took almost 3/1 time that it would have costed me in Windows. Developers need to be more organized and the Linux filesystem needs to be less fragmented in so much folders. Windows has 5 (Documents & Settings, C:\Windows, C:\Windows\System32, C:\Program Files & the registry) while Linux is still a maze I'm discovering day by day :/

saulgoode
June 3rd, 2007, 01:33 AM
The problem is that Windows users are used to know where an app is installed and where are its files. For example in Windows we all know all the program's internal data is stored in the same folder. Configuration and such is in the registry (kinda like /etc) and user preferences/stuff in Documents and Settings\User. Plain easy.

Google "DLL not found" and peruse the results. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of programs that have problems with Windows finding their libraries even though, according to you, they are all in the same place. Why is that? The GIMP (for Windows) puts all of its DLLs in its internal folder. Why can't Windows find them? Or worse, why does Windows find an old version of a GTK+ DLL in its System32 directory and use that instead of the one installed with the program? How is an application supposed to use its own internal library if Windows insists on using whatever happens to be in its System folder first?

And if things are so "plain simple" on Windows then why do so many uninstallers fail to remove all of the appropriate files and leave orphaned entries in the registry? Should uninstalling programs under such a plain simple system be so trivial that an uninstaller isn't even necessary?

And have you ever tried to use more than one disk? Try to have a program keep its data on your D: drive -- or put the program there itself. Either way you will run into trouble.

The Microsoft filesystem structure is no simpler than Linux's, it just seems that way to you because you are familiar with it. Having a single directory containing all of a program's files may make sense for Windows because each program is in competition with the others for your dollars and none of them want to share information. The opposite is true for Linux, different programs go to great lengths to share information in a common format and placed in a location accessible by all others.

aysiu
June 3rd, 2007, 01:42 AM
C:\Program Files is an illusion of simplicity and consolidation and means little more than /usr/bin does, for most practical purposes.

prizrak
June 3rd, 2007, 01:46 AM
The problem is that Windows users are used to know where an app is installed and where are its files. For example in Windows we all know all the program's internal data is stored in the same folder. Configuration and such is in the registry (kinda like /etc) and user preferences/stuff in Documents and Settings\User. Plain easy.

I had a problem with VMWare lately, in which I almost screwed my system up trying to remove EVERYTHING related to it, so I could reinstall VMWare again...

In Windows, it would have been as easy as: Deleting C:\Program Files\VMWare, deleting everything that says "vmware" in the registry (or running CCleaner) and removing anything VMWare-related in Documents & Settings.

In Ubuntu it was a different story: Files were stored in /home, /var, /etc, /usr and /opt... not to mention there were still files that contained the string "vmware" in them that I had to delete... of course that screwed up apt with xserver-xorg-video-vmware and it kept annoying me with a message saying that it suppossed that the package had no files installed... Package I had to reinstall, also. After learning how to find all files with a string "vmware" (involved some googling & grep), stuff like "locate", "whereis", "updatedb" and such, learning how to remove all files that I found with those commands (more googling & bash scripting), I could solve my problem.

That took almost 3/1 time that it would have costed me in Windows. Developers need to be more organized and the Linux filesystem needs to be less fragmented in so much folders. Windows has 5 (Documents & Settings, C:\Windows, C:\Windows\System32, C:\Program Files & the registry) while Linux is still a maze I'm discovering day by day :/
Hahahahaha. I'm sorry but that is plain funny.
1) Very few Windows users have any clue whatsoever about where their programs are.
2) Some programs are in Program Files, some are in the root, all programs are named after the company that makes it. For instance Norton Antivirus is going to be in "Symantec" folder.
3) Files are stored in Documents and Settings\All Users, Documents and Settings\User, Documents and Settings\Default User, Documents and Settings\Application name. It took me quite a bit of time to locate save files for games back when I used to game on the PC.
4) The Registry - holds a crapload of information about the software some of it overrides the config files some compliments some duplicates. Not to mention that you have to be VERY well versed in Windows to even know how to get into it much less get around it.

You might want to remember that you have been using Windows for years. It's very easy for me to find files in Linux and same with Windows because I have used both and are used to how they both work. I have a friend who's father used to be an engineer for Kodak. He used UNIX on a very advanced level back when he was still working. He called me more than once to figure out his Windows problems.

bodhi.zazen
June 3rd, 2007, 02:24 AM
C:\Program Files is an illusion of simplicity and consolidation and means little more than /usr/bin does, for most practical purposes.

hahaha ... lmao ... so true.

DARKGuy
June 3rd, 2007, 03:54 AM
Google "DLL not found" and peruse the results. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of programs that have problems with Windows finding their libraries even though, according to you, they are all in the same place. Why is that? The GIMP (for Windows) puts all of its DLLs in its internal folder. Why can't Windows find them? Or worse, why does Windows find an old version of a GTK+ DLL in its System32 directory and use that instead of the one installed with the program? How is an application supposed to use its own internal library if Windows insists on using whatever happens to be in its System folder first?

GTK+ was made for Linux. That's why it has problems with Windows... all of those programs are implementations because the filesystem is different. That's why it brings errors.

A DLL problem can be easily solved in the 70% of the cases with DLL-files.com and some googling. Say, NFSMW has problems with PCs that don't have DX updated... it's easy to find a solution, then download DirectX (in that case) and update... the VB/VC runtime are a problem sometimes but getting the DLL mostly solves it. Same with OCXs and VBXs.

Why Windows uses the one in System32 instead of the one in the application? because that's how Windows was made. If you've used windows as much as I have (since 3.1...) you might have noticed that all the DLLs that are in System32 precede the ones that are in the application's path, at least in the 90% of the cases. I might have seen one or two program that don't follow that rule, but most (if not all) windows programs work that way because Windows says so.


And if things are so "plain simple" on Windows then why do so many uninstallers fail to remove all of the appropriate files and leave orphaned entries in the registry? Should uninstalling programs under such a plain simple system be so trivial that an uninstaller isn't even necessary?

I understand your concept. In MS-DOS stuff was so easy that removing the directory was all there had to be done (at least for games which I used a lot). Since OSes have been growing with time, more files get spreaded through more folders, that's why it's almost impossible (except for freeware/small apps) to keep everything in one folder and the registry. Big apps don't do that. The problem with uninstallers are the developers of those themselves. If Windows users developed a better installer, problems like that wouldn't arise.

And talking about uninstallers... could you answer to me, then, why do I need to have the VMWare source code already compiled in order to use the uninstaller in case vmware-uninstall.pl doesn't work? Do I need to waste HD space having the source compiled in there (when I have installed the app already and don't need it, literally) without a good uninstaller to remove it? why did I had to pass through all that painstaking process because the uninstaller didn't work? the Linux filesystem isn't a jewel, nor it is Windows's.

Same goes for WINE (Which doesn't have an uninstaller first)... after compiling it for half an hour, why do I need to have the source code already compiled in case I have to use the uninstaller? (make uninstall)... that's pointless. Windows wins in this point against these two apps (even though some of the uninstallers can be crap, I admit it).


And have you ever tried to use more than one disk? Try to have a program keep its data on your D: drive -- or put the program there itself. Either way you will run into trouble.

I've had up to 3 disks at once (3Gb, 6Gb and 8Gb) for 2 years and I've had no problems since 2k & XP. Problems would arise, obviously, if I take out one of those drives... Linux would do the same too. Removing files from a program installed in a different drive might take a bit more work, but it doesn't involve as much work as I had to do with VMWare in a single drive...


The Microsoft filesystem structure is no simpler than Linux's, it just seems that way to you because you are familiar with it. Having a single directory containing all of a program's files may make sense for Windows because each program is in competition with the others for your dollars and none of them want to share information. The opposite is true for Linux, different programs go to great lengths to share information in a common format and placed in a location accessible by all others.

Now that's a wrong concept. I don't know why the hell most of the Linux vs. Windows opinions I see are "because of the money" or "because of competition".... geeze, get real. Some programs share info with Windows and others don't. Firefox takes info from Explorer when importing bookmarks. Thunderbird does the same with Outlook and Eudora (even though Explorer, Outlook & maybe Eudora don't share it with these programs because they weren't made to do this with these programs).

Yes, information in Linux can be in a common place to be shared and accessible by other programs. Why then, did I had to read the README file in UT2004 (something barely any "classic" gamer does) to know that all my config files were in .ut2004 and those preceded the ones in ~/ut2004? coming from a Windows world, I would think that logically the files I would have to edit are the ones in ~/ut2004... but no, it isn't the same way in Linux and that's what confuses most users. They can learn, but it's confusing to see two User.ini and UT2004.ini in different folders and try to guess if the changes you made in .ut2004 will really work... (I do know that, but, everyone has a different level of knowledge...).


C:\Program Files is an illusion of simplicity and consolidation and means little more than /usr/bin does, for most practical purposes.

That's right, except that the folders are almost spread everywhere. Have you ever tried uninstalling a program without apt? Ubuntu would be hell without apt as uninstaller...


Hahahahaha. I'm sorry but that is plain funny.
1) Very few Windows users have any clue whatsoever about where their programs are.
2) Some programs are in Program Files, some are in the root, all programs are named after the company that makes it. For instance Norton Antivirus is going to be in "Symantec" folder.
3) Files are stored in Documents and Settings\All Users, Documents and Settings\User, Documents and Settings\Default User, Documents and Settings\Application name. It took me quite a bit of time to locate save files for games back when I used to game on the PC.
4) The Registry - holds a crapload of information about the software some of it overrides the config files some compliments some duplicates. Not to mention that you have to be VERY well versed in Windows to even know how to get into it much less get around it.

You might want to remember that you have been using Windows for years. It's very easy for me to find files in Linux and same with Windows because I have used both and are used to how they both work. I have a friend who's father used to be an engineer for Kodak. He used UNIX on a very advanced level back when he was still working. He called me more than once to figure out his Windows problems.

Glad I made you laugh ;).

1) Nor you nor me are someone to judge the average Windows user's knowledge. When you run the installer it ASKS where to install it (only Loki installers do that...). Whereas most users just click Next, others prefer to read and choose a special folder. Can you do that with something apt-get'd? don't think so.

2) Not all, some programs have the company name as primary folder. Others don't.

3) It depends on the developer. the NFS series always store their game data in My Documents if I'm not mistaken. Halo saves its data in "Documents and Settings\User\Application Data\" IIRC... but mostly everything falls on subfolders of Documents and Settings.

4) The registry isn't complicated. I used it since Windows 95 and I was 11-12 years old back then (I'm 18 if you're wondering). File formats are in the first key (can't remember the name right now), application preferences (gobally for all users) are in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CompanyName\ and application data for the users (where most programs store data) is in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\CompanyName\ ... what's so hard about it? It's like /etc ... you also have a crapload of stuff in there, it's no different.

Haha :P I've had that happen to me too xD. Hey, I'm no Windows expert, I've just been using it since 10 years ago, and Ubuntu about a year ago. It's hard to find or do stuff when you're used to a specific OS, but that doesn't mean something like "We have it this way and if you don't like then **** off and go pay Bill"... I insist in that the Linux filesystem can be sorted in a better, simpler way for the novice user. Not everyone has the same learning pace/skill that some here have, so we've got to think about them too. Isn't that what Ubuntu is trying to do? Humans don't have the same learning skill... else, we would all be Gurus.

YokoZar
June 3rd, 2007, 04:26 AM
And talking about uninstallers... could you answer to me, then, why do I need to have the VMWare source code already compiled in order to use the uninstaller in case vmware-uninstall.pl doesn't work? Do I need to waste HD space having the source compiled in there (when I have installed the app already and don't need it, literally) without a good uninstaller to remove it? why did I had to pass through all that painstaking process because the uninstaller didn't work? the Linux filesystem isn't a jewel, nor it is Windows's.

Same goes for WINE (Which doesn't have an uninstaller first)... after compiling it for half an hour, why do I need to have the source code already compiled in case I have to use the uninstaller? (make uninstall)... that's pointless. Windows wins in this point against these two apps (even though some of the uninstallers can be crap, I admit it).Why are you compiling source code rather than using the software packages? Software packages uninstall very cleanly in Ubuntu, and do all the work of compilation for you.

prizrak
June 3rd, 2007, 04:33 AM
1) Nor you nor me are someone to judge the average Windows user's knowledge. When you run the installer it ASKS where to install it (only Loki installers do that...). Whereas most users just click Next, others prefer to read and choose a special folder. Can you do that with something apt-get'd? don't think so.

I'm speaking from experience with "normal" Windows users but you are correct. You can't tell apt-get where to install but it's not necessary because it always installs into the same folders that the OS is going to look in.

4) The registry isn't complicated. I used it since Windows 95 and I was 11-12 years old back then (I'm 18 if you're wondering). File formats are in the first key (can't remember the name right now), application preferences (gobally for all users) are in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CompanyName\ and application data for the users (where most programs store data) is in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\CompanyName\ ... what's so hard about it? It's like /etc ... you also have a crapload of stuff in there, it's no different.
I ran into some very random stuff in my time. Of course it depends mostly on how the application writes to the registry. I find /etc a bit easier mostly because it can be searched with the normal OS search system. The files inside of it are a different story some of those config files are insane.


It's hard to find or do stuff when you're used to a specific OS, but that doesn't mean something like "We have it this way and if you don't like then **** off and go pay Bill"... I insist in that the Linux filesystem can be sorted in a better, simpler way for the novice user.
I didn't mean to say it, I mostly meant that the filesystem setup is no worse than Windows and requires some learning. I do agree I see no point in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin and so on. That is a relict of mainframes and huge servers and is really no longer necessary on desktop systems.

DARKGuy
June 3rd, 2007, 04:33 AM
Why are you compiling source code rather than using the software packages? Software packages uninstall very cleanly in Ubuntu, and do all the work of compilation for you.

VMWare server doesn't have any .deb packages yet, and I wanted to try WINE 0.9.37 'cause I was having problems with Lineage II in 0.9.33 until I figured out it was just a faulty installation error :P but it was pointless to need to have the source code compiled in order to run the uninstaller...

I deleted the WINE source and I had to download it, compile it, make install and then make uninstall, for then installing 0.9.33 through apt-get (40-50 min, including download time)... pointless :P


I'm speaking from experience with "normal" Windows users but you are correct. You can't tell apt-get where to install but it's not necessary because it always installs into the same folders that the OS is going to look in.

Yeah, that's right :P it's pointless in that sense and it's good for Linux. But can be confusing for first-time users who come from Windows.


I ran into some very random stuff in my time. Of course it depends mostly on how the application writes to the registry. I find /etc a bit easier mostly because it can be searched with the normal OS search system. The files inside of it are a different story some of those config files are insane.[/qupte]

Agreed @.@ ... /etc is a good thing, way better than the registry, but the config files in there are insane, yeah :P...

[QUOTE=prizrak;2771201]I didn't mean to say it, I mostly meant that the filesystem setup is no worse than Windows and requires some learning. I do agree I see no point in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin and so on. That is a relict of mainframes and huge servers and is really no longer necessary on desktop systems.

Huh, I didn't thought about that but now that you point it, you're right. Thing is, to change the whole Linux filesystem even in tiny bits, it would require a LOAD of global work right? I dunno but I think it must cost a lot to change the whole Linux filesystem, and I don't think the Ubuntu developers are gonna change that, sadly :( :( :(

prizrak
June 3rd, 2007, 04:34 AM
Why are you compiling source code rather than using the software packages? Software packages uninstall very cleanly in Ubuntu, and do all the work of compilation for you.

Because repos are frozen on each release to get newer versions you may need to compile.

saulgoode
June 3rd, 2007, 04:43 AM
GTK+ was made for Linux. That's why it has problems with Windows... all of those programs are implementations because the filesystem is different. That's why it brings errors.
And the programs that are causing you grief in Linux (VMWare and UT2004) are Windows programs and the problems are equally caused by filesystem differences.


Why Windows uses the one in System32 instead of the one in the application? because that's how Windows was made. If you've used windows as much as I have (since 3.1...) you might have noticed that all the DLLs that are in System32 precede the ones that are in the application's path, at least in the 90% of the cases. I might have seen one or two program that don't follow that rule, but most (if not all) windows programs work that way because Windows says so.

And that is a poor design choice by Microsoft. A programmer (or a user, for that matter) should be able to supercede any system call. You are correct with your example of ~/.ut2004 not taking precedence over the system configuration, it absolutely should; not doing so handicaps the user and limits the flexibility of the software.


Originally Posted by saulgoode
The Microsoft filesystem structure is no simpler than Linux's, it just seems that way to you because you are familiar with it. Having a single directory containing all of a program's files may make sense for Windows because each program is in competition with the others for your dollars and none of them want to share information. The opposite is true for Linux, different programs go to great lengths to share information in a common format and placed in a location accessible by all others.


Now that's a wrong concept. I don't know why the hell most of the Linux vs. Windows opinions I see are "because of the money" or "because of competition".... geeze, get real. Some programs share info with Windows and others don't. Firefox takes info from Explorer when importing bookmarks. Thunderbird does the same with Outlook and Eudora (even though Explorer, Outlook & maybe Eudora don't share it with these programs because they weren't made to do this with these programs).

That last part of your statement is the result of the competition to which I referred. The system does not provide the sharing of information, it is the individual projects which must be cognizant of the location & format of the configuration files (presumably in a directory nested under Program Files) and this is handled on an application-by-application basis.

Linux takes a different approach by grouping files by their function so that, for example, all browsers would get their bookmarks from a common format (XML seems to be the standard) from a common file. The Linux filesystem architecture is based on the placement of files based on their functionality, not on which software vendor supplies the program.

Overall, I think that the technical detail of your response serves as ample evidence that the Windows filesystem is far from "plain easy". Nor would I claim that the Linux filesystem hierarchy is perfect, but there is at least a logic to the Linux system which works very well for the Free Software community -- and make no mistake, Linux does cater to the Free Software developers, just as Windows caters to the proprietary ones.

raja
June 3rd, 2007, 04:48 AM
And talking about uninstallers... could you answer to me, then, why do I need to have the VMWare source code already compiled in order to use the uninstaller in case vmware-uninstall.pl doesn't work? Do I need to waste HD space having the source compiled in there (when I have installed the app already and don't need it, literally) without a good uninstaller to remove it? why did I had to pass through all that painstaking process because the uninstaller didn't work? the Linux filesystem isn't a jewel, nor it is Windows's.

Same goes for WINE (Which doesn't have an uninstaller first)... after compiling it for half an hour, why do I need to have the source code already compiled in case I have to use the uninstaller? (make uninstall)... that's pointless. Windows wins in this point against these two apps (even though some of the uninstallers can be crap, I admit it).
there, it's no different.



You are comparing apples with oranges. If you want to compare uninstallers in windows with the install /uninstall process in linux, you have to compare against uninstalling using package managers. Using aptitude or apt-get to install or uninstall programs is way easier. And far superior to the windows way.

saulgoode
June 3rd, 2007, 04:59 AM
I didn't mean to say it, I mostly meant that the filesystem setup is no worse than Windows and requires some learning. I do agree I see no point in /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin and so on. That is a relict of mainframes and huge servers and is really no longer necessary on desktop systems.

Files in /usr are not guaranteed to be available until after the system has reached a point in the boot process where it is mounted; therefore you have /bin and /sbin (which contain the necessary files to boot the system). For Ubuntu, the distinction between bin and sbin might seem unnecessary but Ubuntu is the exception amongst Linuxes and other distros make good use of the distinction (for example, my users with SUDO privileges don't have /usr/sbin in their PATH -- they must type out the full path to the command as an extra hedge against screwing up).

DARKGuy
June 3rd, 2007, 05:00 AM
And the programs that are causing you grief in Linux (VMWare and UT2004) are Windows programs and the problems are equally caused by filesystem differences.

What about WINE?


And that is a poor design choice by Microsoft. A programmer (or a user, for that matter) should be able to supercede any system call. You are correct with your example of ~/.ut2004 not taking precedence over the system configuration, it absolutely should; not doing so handicaps the user and limits the flexibility of the software.

Yeah, but for users coming from Windows, it's confusing to have INIs in .ut2004 and ~/ut2004 :P


That last part of your statement is the result of the competition to which I referred. The system does not provide the sharing of information, it is the individual projects which must be cognizant of the location & format of the configuration files (presumably in a directory nested under Program Files) and this is handled on an application-by-application basis.

I agree with you in this and it's what I meant, however...


Linux takes a different approach by grouping files by their function so that, for example, all browsers would get their bookmarks from a common format (XML seems to be the standard) from a common file. The Linux filesystem architecture is based on the placement of files based on their functionality, not on which software vendor supplies the program.

I repeat, SOME apps install themselves in: 1) User's location, or 2) A default one. In this case sometimes the program makes a folder with the company name as its parent one, but some don't. I can show you screenshots if you want ;).


Overall, I think that the technical detail of your response serves as ample evidence that the Windows filesystem is far from "plain easy". Nor would I claim that the Linux filesystem hierarchy is perfect, but there is at least a logic to the Linux system which works very well for the Free Software community -- and make no mistake, Linux does cater to the Free Software developers, just as Windows caters to the proprietary ones.

Windows's filesystem is easy, FAR easier than Linux's... well, at least it's more "centered". In a common Windows install you get:

WINDOWS
Program Files
Documents and Settings
System Volume Information
Recycler

(and maybe others, I don't remember clearly).

In Linux/Ubuntu, you get about the double of this list... nothing's confusing inside home, but outside home... it's a maze. The logic works for the programs, but it's confusing for the final user. I recognize it has advantages over Windows's (/etc, /usr/bin, /home and /var/log/ are great examples of that), but it still needs some polishing.


You are comparing apples with oranges. If you want to compare uninstallers in windows with the install /uninstall process in linux, you have to compare against uninstalling using package managers. Using aptitude or apt-get to install or uninstall programs is way easier. And far superior to the windows way.

What about Linux in general? there is yum and other package managers.... Windows doesn't have package managers... Linux source packages don't use package managers (I'm talking about .tar.gz's, like WINE's or VMWare's for example), those are files which you download. Uninstalling them also enters in the context and it could be a direct comparison, if you take a look at it. Make install is the same thing as running Setup.exe, and Make Uninstall is the same thing as running Uninstall.exe or Unwise.exe (of course, that is if you want- er, need to waste space by leaving the source code compiled so you can run the uninstaller).

YokoZar
June 3rd, 2007, 09:31 AM
VMWare server doesn't have any .deb packages yet, and I wanted to try WINE 0.9.37 'cause I was having problems with Lineage II in 0.9.33 until I figured out it was just a faulty installation error :P but it was pointless to need to have the source code compiled in order to run the uninstaller...

I deleted the WINE source and I had to download it, compile it, make install and then make uninstall, for then installing 0.9.33 through apt-get (40-50 min, including download time)... pointless :PSo why not use the packages provided by WineHQ?

http://winehq.org/site/download-deb

(By the way, I build these myself ;) )

YokoZar
June 3rd, 2007, 09:37 AM
In Linux/Ubuntu, you get about the double of this list... nothing's confusing inside home, but outside home... it's a maze. The logic works for the programs, but it's confusing for the final user. I recognize it has advantages over Windows's (/etc, /usr/bin, /home and /var/log/ are great examples of that), but it still needs some polishing.You, as a user, don't need to touch anything outside of your home directory though. Configuration programs and the package manager should handle that for you. The exception is things you compile or "hand-configure" yourself, but the whole point of a distribution like Ubuntu is to avoid having the user do that in the first place.


What about Linux in general? there is yum and other package managers.... Windows doesn't have package managers... Linux source packages don't use package managers (I'm talking about .tar.gz's, like WINE's or VMWare's for example), those are files which you download.It seems like you simply missed the packages offered on the Wine download page. I'd like to fix the winehq website to figure out how you managed to find the source tarball before you found what you were supposed to, namely the page I linked in the post above. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate you telling me how you navigated the Wine website (or, perhaps, where else you got the source from).

darrenm
June 3rd, 2007, 09:40 AM
Linux's file system organization is enough to scare people from being here. I am still into my first month with Linux and some things went really well and others were not so easy to figure out. I installed a program the other day. It works. But I have no idea where it is. It runs from the terminal. I supposedly moved it to the /usr/bin file but when I look there it is not there. I searched for it and no found. But it works. Where the heck is it? I do not know. Ubuntu is desk-top based but you still need the terminal. Terminal is power but also can be scary. Things get done and sometimes you don't know what it did. This will take time to learn.

Yup. No-one ever said you don't need to learn to be able to do more advanced stuff in a more powerful OS. Just for future reference if you have a program that is in your path then just type
which [program] and it will tell you where it is. Alternatively if you need to find out where a package has put files then
dpkg-query -L [package name] will do the trick. Its just a matter of learning, I get stuck all the time with Windows stuff and have to ask the Windows guys at work to help me out.


The problem is that Windows users are used to know where an app is installed and where are its files. For example in Windows we all know all the program's internal data is stored in the same folder. Configuration and such is in the registry (kinda like /etc) and user preferences/stuff in Documents and Settings\User. Plain easy.

I had a problem with VMWare lately, in which I almost screwed my system up trying to remove EVERYTHING related to it, so I could reinstall VMWare again...

In Windows, it would have been as easy as: Deleting C:\Program Files\VMWare, deleting everything that says "vmware" in the registry (or running CCleaner) and removing anything VMWare-related in Documents & Settings.

I don't think you could just remove the program files directory, find stuff in the registry with the same name and finding stuff in documents and settings for a program and then not run into problems related to reinstalling the software in future or something being left in the registry conflicting.


In Ubuntu it was a different story: Files were stored in /home, /var, /etc, /usr and /opt... not to mention there were still files that contained the string "vmware" in them that I had to delete... of course that screwed up apt with xserver-xorg-video-vmware and it kept annoying me with a message saying that it suppossed that the package had no files installed... Package I had to reinstall, also. After learning how to find all files with a string "vmware" (involved some googling & grep), stuff like "locate", "whereis", "updatedb" and such, learning how to remove all files that I found with those commands (more googling & bash scripting), I could solve my problem.

That took almost 3/1 time that it would have costed me in Windows. Developers need to be more organized and the Linux filesystem needs to be less fragmented in so much folders. Windows has 5 (Documents & Settings, C:\Windows, C:\Windows\System32, C:\Program Files & the registry) while Linux is still a maze I'm discovering day by day :/

But again, its just learning. Once you learn how to use the system fully then you get to be able to do more advanced stuff. I don't understand how thats not a simple concept to grasp? The tools and the way of working is just different. If you use the system for a while you may get it, if you don't want to learn then stick with what you know. Once you learn how to do what you want to do then you will find the way the Ubuntu filesystem is laid out is far superior. updatedb and locate are pretty deprecated these days, its better to use the package tools and find and combinations of other better tools to do things quicker, sleeker and more efficiently.


And talking about uninstallers... could you answer to me, then, why do I need to have the VMWare source code already compiled in order to use the uninstaller in case vmware-uninstall.pl doesn't work? Do I need to waste HD space having the source compiled in there (when I have installed the app already and don't need it, literally) without a good uninstaller to remove it? why did I had to pass through all that painstaking process because the uninstaller didn't work? the Linux filesystem isn't a jewel, nor it is Windows's.

Same goes for WINE (Which doesn't have an uninstaller first)... after compiling it for half an hour, why do I need to have the source code already compiled in case I have to use the uninstaller? (make uninstall)... that's pointless. Windows wins in this point against these two apps (even though some of the uninstallers can be crap, I admit it).

Why not just use the add/remove programs to install vmware? http://vcoc.co.uk/d/9220-2/vmware.png


4) The registry isn't complicated. I used it since Windows 95 and I was 11-12 years old back then (I'm 18 if you're wondering). File formats are in the first key (can't remember the name right now), application preferences (gobally for all users) are in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CompanyName\ and application data for the users (where most programs store data) is in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\CompanyName\ ... what's so hard about it? It's like /etc ... you also have a crapload of stuff in there, it's no different.

What about all those ones at the top (forget the names now) with random strings of numbers or letters like DFDDG-322422-dsfsfsdfs-sdf434ffs-fdsfs4223 . Its been a while since I've been in Windows registry so I can't really remember. But I remember that software always used to put stuff in there and it could be anywhere in there with no way of knowing where. I don't get whats so hard about running
dpkg-query -L postfix | grep '/etc' to see what files postfix has in /etc . Can you do that with Windows packages?


VMWare server doesn't have any .deb packages yet,

Uh? Its in the repos ^ look above.

DARKGuy
June 3rd, 2007, 12:52 PM
So why not use the packages provided by WineHQ?

http://winehq.org/site/download-deb

(By the way, I build these myself ;) )

Huh, my mistake 'cause I didn't had the winehq repo added in the sources.list :P but why is the source provided then? isn't source an install method? why can't we use it if we want? (by the way, your packages are great :P).


You, as a user, don't need to touch anything outside of your home directory though. Configuration programs and the package manager should handle that for you. The exception is things you compile or "hand-configure" yourself, but the whole point of a distribution like Ubuntu is to avoid having the user do that in the first place.

I like to edit stuff by hand :P and sadly, for some stuff, there is a lack of a GUI by the preference of "making the user learn the terminal", and when somebody wants to make one, they sometimes tell him off. I'd love a GUI to make sharing folders easier. I'd love a GUI to configure samba easier. I'd love a GUI for editing networking with more options than the ones that currently are, etc...


It seems like you simply missed the packages offered on the Wine download page. I'd like to fix the winehq website to figure out how you managed to find the source tarball before you found what you were supposed to, namely the page I linked in the post above. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate you telling me how you navigated the Wine website (or, perhaps, where else you got the source from).

Huh, as I said before, I thought I had the WINE repo on my sources.list and was always getting 0.9.33 (through Feisty's repo, though) and I wanted to try a newer one. If I'm not mistaken, the download-deb page has changed now, because a few weeks before it said that WINE for Feisty was in the universe/multiverse repositories. That's why I got confused thinking I already had the WINE repo and wanted to compile the latest one by source.


I don't think you could just remove the program files directory, find stuff in the registry with the same name and finding stuff in documents and settings for a program and then not run into problems related to reinstalling the software in future or something being left in the registry conflicting.

Well, it has worked for me for a hundred apps, since I lived in a Windows world back then and never ran into problems o.O. Both with old and new programs and games. XP has had no problems anyways... older windows used to suffer from that ;).


But again, its just learning. Once you learn how to use the system fully then you get to be able to do more advanced stuff. I don't understand how thats not a simple concept to grasp? The tools and the way of working is just different. If you use the system for a while you may get it, if you don't want to learn then stick with what you know. Once you learn how to do what you want to do then you will find the way the Ubuntu filesystem is laid out is far superior. updatedb and locate are pretty deprecated these days, its better to use the package tools and find and combinations of other better tools to do things quicker, sleeker and more efficiently.

That's right, but it could still be sorted in a more efficient way than it already is =/...


Why not just use the add/remove programs to install vmware? http://vcoc.co.uk/d/9220-2/vmware.png

VMWare server, latest version? and I use apt-get :P synaptic is "too slow" for me o.o;


What about all those ones at the top (forget the names now) with random strings of numbers or letters like DFDDG-322422-dsfsfsdfs-sdf434ffs-fdsfs4223 . Its been a while since I've been in Windows registry so I can't really remember. But I remember that software always used to put stuff in there and it could be anywhere in there with no way of knowing where. I don't get whats so hard about running
dpkg-query -L postfix | grep '/etc' to see what files postfix has in /etc . Can you do that with Windows packages?

Those are Class IDs... I dunno what they're for, just that they store random info... yes I know it's confusing :P something that Ubuntu doesn't have thanks God :P and about the command... why do we need to learn a command when there could be a GUI tool? (I've tried to use nautilus file searcher with different results than when running "find" from the terminal :P, so that's why...). Besides, I used a command that somebody told me in the IRC channel... info differs, and somebody should set up a better FAQ with the "suggested terminal commands" we should all use in case we have to.

Anyhow, I need to go and I'll come back tonight, so I won't be able to answer this afternoon :P

julian67
June 3rd, 2007, 01:59 PM
VMWare server doesn't have any .deb packages yet,

Yes it does, it's available from the canonical feisty commercial repo as is graphically demonstrated in another post. This and most of your other difficulties described arise not from any deficiency in the OS but from your approach, i.e not preparing, not researching anything, making erroneous assumptions and being angry at other people when you are wrong (!), not reading the docs till you broke something etc. Example: you mentioned earlier great difficulty removing xserver-xorg-video-vmware. if you bothered to read the properties tab within synaptic of this package you would see it is the video driver used when Ubuntu is run within vmware as a vm. It is not used for running vmware and you have no reason to remove it, it isn't associated with the vmware package you installed.

prizrak
June 3rd, 2007, 05:42 PM
Yeah, but for users coming from Windows, it's confusing to have INIs in .ut2004 and ~/ut2004 :P
To be fair that's a ut2004 fault not Linux.

DARKGuy
June 3rd, 2007, 06:33 PM
Yes it does, it's available from the canonical feisty commercial repo as is graphically demonstrated in another post. This and most of your other difficulties described arise not from any deficiency in the OS but from your approach, i.e not preparing, not researching anything, making erroneous assumptions and being angry at other people when you are wrong (!), not reading the docs till you broke something etc. Example: you mentioned earlier great difficulty removing xserver-xorg-video-vmware. if you bothered to read the properties tab within synaptic of this package you would see it is the video driver used when Ubuntu is run within vmware as a vm. It is not used for running vmware and you have no reason to remove it, it isn't associated with the vmware package you installed.

As I said, I don't use Synaptic... it's a way too slow app for my taste, while apt-get is just plain fast & easy to use. I don't talk without a base to defend myself, you could go into the IRC and ask what are the type of questions I ask there, and if I ever have researched before asking. Sometimes I do what a casual user would, a normal user who comes from Windows and tries stuff that, supposedly, "should work". Assumptions are the wrong ones you're making about me reading docs. I admit, I -hate- to read man pages when there should be some more assistance to the user where it should be, other than "rtfm"..., but when it's needed I do. Even more often if I'm gonna ask in IRC later, because I know they're gonna ask me that.

I DIDN'T had difficulty removing xserver-xorg-video-vmware. I didn't read the synaptic properties tab because I don't use synaptic, and you also assume I don't know what is that. I -do- know what is xserver-xorg-video-vmware because I've used it in Linux VMs when I was in Windows back then. While I was removing all files that contained a string "vmware" I accidentally removed that one and apt was complaining about it, that was all... geeze.

I'm not angry at people, I -know- when I'm wrong and when I'm not ... then again, everyone has their own individual concepts about what's right and what's wrong :).


To be fair that's a ut2004 fault not Linux.

Yup, that's right, but it's what most apps and games use, too. (.loki, .wine, etc).

julian67
June 3rd, 2007, 07:44 PM
As I said, I don't use Synaptic... it's a way too slow app for my taste, while apt-get is just plain fast & easy to use. I don't talk without a base to defend myself, you could go into the IRC and ask what are the type of questions I ask there, and if I ever have researched before asking. Sometimes I do what a casual user would, a normal user who comes from Windows and tries stuff that, supposedly, "should work". Assumptions are the wrong ones you're making about me reading docs. I admit, I -hate- to read man pages when there should be some more assistance to the user where it should be, other than "rtfm"..., but when it's needed I do. Even more often if I'm gonna ask in IRC later, because I know they're gonna ask me that.

I DIDN'T had difficulty removing xserver-xorg-video-vmware. I didn't read the synaptic properties tab because I don't use synaptic, and you also assume I don't know what is that. I -do- know what is xserver-xorg-video-vmware because I've used it in Linux VMs when I was in Windows back then. While I was removing all files that contained a string "vmware" I accidentally removed that one and apt was complaining about it, that was all... geeze.

I'm not angry at people, I -know- when I'm wrong and when I'm not ... then again, everyone has their own individual concepts about what's right and what's wrong :).



Yup, that's right, but it's what most apps and games use, too. (.loki, .wine, etc).

It doesn't matter if you use synaptic or apt-get in the terminal or aptitude or any other front end for apt-get, the d*mn application is in the d*mn repo!!!!!! and you can find and install it using apt-get, or synaptic, or aptitude or by downloading the .deb and double-clicking on it if that's what you prefer.

You say you know when you're wrong. That makes you unique in humankind because if we knew when we're wrong we'd never be wrong would we????? :D But anyway this is one of those times. You are wrong. Even if you don't know it. You can install vmware-server like this
sudo apt-get install vmware-serv er First you will have to add the commercial repo to your /etc/apt/sources.list

DARKGuy
June 3rd, 2007, 07:57 PM
It doesn't matter if you use synaptic or apt-get in the terminal or aptitude or any other front end for apt-get, the d*mn application is in the d*mn repo!!!!!! and you can find and install it using apt-get, or synaptic, or aptitude or by downloading the .deb and double-clicking on it if that's what you prefer.

And then you say I'm the angry one e_e... I think I stated earlier that I didn't know it was in the repo, alright? but, once again, if I once want to install it from source, I can't?


You say you know when you're wrong. That makes you unique in humankind because if we knew when we're wrong we'd never be wrong would we????? :D But anyway this is one of those times. You are wrong. Even if you don't know it. You can install vmware-server like this
sudo apt-get install vmware-serv er First you will have to add the commercial repo to your /etc/apt/sources.list

Sometimes we know we're wrong but don't admit it, notice it or even fix it, sometimes it's done on purpose, too. We're humans after all. I know I can install vmware (or any other app) that way, I just didn't know it was in the repos until recently. Still, that's not the case and we're getting a bit "off topic" :P

YokoZar
June 3rd, 2007, 08:24 PM
Huh, my mistake 'cause I didn't had the winehq repo added in the sources.list :P but why is the source provided then? isn't source an install method? why can't we use it if we want? (by the way, your packages are great :P).Source is provided because Wine is an open source project. Distribution packagers like me take that source and make packages for it. As you already noted, installing from source has tons of issues - uninstallation is hard, you might not be sure you have everything configured/compiled right, etc. This is why packages were invented in the first place.

Now, if you wanted to build the Wine packages from source, you can do that too. That one's even easier than building the source tarball: just apt-get build-dep wine && apt-get --build source wine. That'll then give you your very own .deb file to play with.


I like to edit stuff by hand :P and sadly, for some stuff, there is a lack of a GUI by the preference of "making the user learn the terminal", and when somebody wants to make one, they sometimes tell him off. I'd love a GUI to make sharing folders easier. I'd love a GUI to configure samba easier. I'd love a GUI for editing networking with more options than the ones that currently are, etc...No Ubuntu developer I'm aware of seriously argues that we shouldn't make things easier in order to force the user to learn the hard way. Sometimes you'll hear people (especially users of more complicated distros) argue that an advantage of complication is forcing you to "learn", but I've never seen that around here.


Huh, as I said before, I thought I had the WINE repo on my sources.list and was always getting 0.9.33 (through Feisty's repo, though) and I wanted to try a newer one. If I'm not mistaken, the download-deb page has changed now, because a few weeks before it said that WINE for Feisty was in the universe/multiverse repositories. That's why I got confused thinking I already had the WINE repo and wanted to compile the latest one by source.The latest Wine packages get into the development versions of Ubuntu (currently Gutsy) shortly after they come out. Ubuntu package versions, however, are frozen just before release except for security and major bugfixes - this is why the Wine included with Feisty is 0.9.33.

If you have the backports repository enabled, however, sometimes newer Wine versions will creep into there.

dannymichel
June 10th, 2007, 05:35 AM
Source: http://planet-geek.com/archives/003830.html

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. It's everything I wanted from an OS. Speed, flexibility, games, eye candy, productivity, and powerful development tools. But there are certain things it lacks that remain as barriers to wider adoption.

Photoshop
The grand daddy of third party applications for Windows, Photoshop from Adobe, is the de facto standard for graphics editing. Designers use it to mock up websites, photographers use it to modify their artwork, it is the tool to end all tools for graphics manipulation.
But what about The Gimp? Yes, there is a very powerful tool out, in the form of the Gimp, arguably the most complete and useful tool to come out of the Gnome project. (In fact, much of The Gimp was used as the basis for Gnome, notably GTK). Gimp has gone through many updates and truly is the most polished of the available apps. In this, Gimp can be considered a useful replacement for Photoshop, incorporating many of the features that PS provides. But it isn't Photoshop. Just as Photoshop's interface can seem impossible to fathom to the regular user, Gimp's toolset is just as complex. While they both have similar feature sets, the learning curve for both is quite steep, and there are far more Photoshop users than there are Gimp users - at least in the professional market.

Quicken and Quickbooks In this, there can be no argument. There are no applications for Linux that have the depth of support and comprehensive abilities of Quicken and Quickbooks from Intuit. There are several attempts going on in the form of GnuCash and others, but none come close to the functionality level of these tools. Entire businesses base their very existence on these applications, not only as a desktop tool but an online resource for money management.
The Intuit applications are one example where a rewrite to mimic functionality would not be sufficient. There must be industry support for the file formats, the online services, and the support infrastructure behind the applications to make it a viable choice for a small business to make. As it stands now, that structure is not available to a Linux user. In financial applications, unlike desktop applications such as word processors and spreadsheets, years of historical data is frequently stored within the application. A user invests in the software and the company behind it. Very few opensource applications can provide the long term guarantee of support and service required by a personal and/or business financial application.

Microsoft Office Love it, hate it, despise it, consider it the root of all evil; however you like to approach it, there is no denying that Microsoft Office is the lynchpin of Microsoft's hold on the desktop market. The comprehensive software suite is the carrot by which any user will naturally migrate toward Windows as a desktop environment. "I'll use any machine as long as I can email my word documents around and do group scheduling." That simple statement unfortunately only has one answer, and that's Microsoft Office, and from there, that means Outlook.
Because of this reality, there is zero chance Microsoft will every port Office to Linux. It is not a paying environment (unlike the Mac where users will happily pay Microsoft for the application), and supporting Linux as a desktop environment will only hurt Microsoft's hold on the desktop. Also because of this, the Office problem is one that has gotten the most attention among opensource developers and, it must be said, commercial ventures.
On the opensource side, OpenOffice is the clear leader in Office-like applications. Spreadsheet, presentation manager, word processor, graphics editor - they're all there, and to a large degree, they work fairly well, even with Microsoft documents - a fact that is not lost on the software giant. Microsoft knows that compatable tools will hurt their market position, which is one of the reasons they vehemently oppose the Open Document Format (ODF) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Document_Format). Why pay a thousand dollars for an Office suite from Microsoft when an opensource version can work just fine on the same files?
Unfortunately, OpenOffice has some serious deficiencies, not the least of which is performance. Microsoft has had 15 years to tune and tweak Office, and has hundreds of developers whose job it is to make Office fast, stable, and useable. The OpenOffice developers have no such luxury, and the application suffers because of it. Tasks that can take a few second under Excel may take 3 minutes under OpenOffice Calc.
And then there's the the Outlook problem. First, in terms of 'pleasure to use' - Outlook is a bad email client. Microsoft has attempted, in one application, to appeal to all users from the stay at home dad up through the Fortune 1000 installations, all within the same program. The result is a muddied, difficult to use, enormous application that, unfortunately, CAN do everything, it just does it all poorly. Most of the functionality in Outlook can be replicated in other email clients, and there are thousands available. The one thing that has never been reproduced to the level that Outlook provides is scheduling. The lack of an OpenSource, usable, shareable calendar system for Linux is the final nail in the 'Not available for business' sign across the Linux desktop. Outlook's group scheduling functionality, when coupled with an Exchange server, is unparalleled. Yes, there are plugins for clients like Evolution that can talk to an exchange server, but that still requires the Exchange server. The net win is zero, and can be argued to be a loss because a Windows box is still required for Exchange, and Windows client is still required to configure and maintain the Exchange server. Where is the win?

Skype What? Skype? Cmon, there already is Skype for Linux! Sure there is, but as anyone who has worked on the Windows version will tell you, the differences between the two versions are noticeable in one huge issue. The Linux version of Skype does not support video.
It could be argued that Video under Linux is hardly an advanced, well supported technology. But with the wide ranging availability of v4linux, and well documented support for various webcams, it's inexcusable for Skype, two years after providing a Linux version of its software, has not provided a working video interface.

Trillian In the world of multiprotocol clients for Windows, Trillian has come out on top as the best supported, most frequently updated, and arguably most profitable package around. Supporting all of the major chat systems (Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, Jabber, and IRC), all within an easy to use interface, Trillian has become the default client for a sizeable portion of the community that wishes to not be wedded to only one IM system.
But again the cry goes out. What about GAIM^H^H^H^HPidgin? It does all these protocols just fine, why not use it? Friends, I encourage you to sit down with a Trillian user, and suggest to them to try GAIM. The interface is laughably primitive, so wrapped up in its Gnome roots that the developers are blind to how painful it is to use for someone not intimately familiar with Gnome already. I've tried on numerous occasions to use Gaim to try and unify my two primary communication mediums (IRC with X-Chat, and Jabber-Client-Du-Jour for others), and each time I've found myself chewing the furniture over the idiocy and outright painfulness of GAIM's interface. Perhaps now, with the legal issues with AOL out of the way, there may be hope for updated versions, but I believe Cerulean Studios is missing out on a golden opportunity to get into the Linux market by not providing a version for Linux.

Visio Object-based drawing and charting. Many companies revolve their businesses around Visio drawings. There's really no decent alternative for Linux, and Visio has adamantly refused to allow compatable applications to be developed.

Games This is a generic category. Lets face it, compared with Windows, Linux is a poor gaming platform. Sure there are some ports for some great games, and the folks on the Wine project have made fantastic leaps in providing a runtime environment on a Linux host for playing the most popular games, but... they're not native. Getting World of Warcraft to run under Linux can be a long frustrating experience, which begs the question "why bother?"
Certainly Microsoft has a hand in keeping the Windows platform viable for gaming, primarily in the form of DirectX, a licensed multimedia interface that many (actually, most) of the game developers adhere to. Windows provides the hardware interface to the devices, DirectX provides the API to the games. It would be great if DirectX were available for Linux, which would make porting the games easier. I don't need to explain that pipe dream.

Conclusions Many times the media has proclaimed "This is the year of Linux on the desktop!" and, to be fair, Linux has made great inroads here. Many governments are questioning the monolithic "single vendor" problem with Windows and are looking for alternatives. It's a great challenge to these organizations, as there is little lure to Linux on the desktop other than throwing off the yoke of subservience to Microsoft, and until either these applications are made available or viable alternatives are around, Microsoft will never really be displaced as king of the desktop.

handy
June 10th, 2007, 05:52 AM
It's been on my desktop for 18+ months. As far as bug #1 is concerned, its just a matter of time, don't hold your breath though.

M$ barely exists in my consciousness anymore. :D

eentonig
June 10th, 2007, 06:54 AM
The problem is that you expect the same as you had in Windows.

Photoshop: I agree it's a better product then Gimp. That's not linux fault. It's Adobe not writting a linux version.

Quicken: Never used it. GNUCash does what I want for home usage. But again. Not Linux, but Intuit to blame fotr not releasing a Linux version.

MS Office: I don't like it. For me, it's to bloated. OO needs some tweaking, I agree. But don't tell me that MS Office is that lean suite you pretend it to be. And again, you point out what my final conclusion is. MS doesn't want to support ODF.

Visio: MS doesn't release a Linux variant. No complete replacement found. I agree.

Skype: It works. Ok no video. Most of the time, I don't want people to look at me when I'm behind the pc anyway.

Trillian/Gaim: boils down to preferences.

games: Hardly a productivity issue. But again software devellopers not supportive.


Conclusion: ALL your issues are related to third party products. What can linux do or be held reliable for, if some software x doesn't work on your machine? I'd love to make a support call to Ms and tell them, "You're product isn't ready yet. Because I can't get Amarok working on it!!" They'll kindly inform me to take it up with the company who wrote the bloody thing.

So my final conclusion is:

Linux is ready for the desktop. But the users and software companies aren't. From my experience, Ubuntu is more 'ready for the desktop' then windows. After install (20'), I got a more productive machine then after a Windows install (1h30')

me1on
June 10th, 2007, 06:57 AM
Have you tried Kopete? It's a great IM client, and better than Pidgin and Trillian by far IMO. Plus it has an excellent interface and comes with a bunch of useful plugins that add additional functionality such as cryptography, word replacement, and translation. There's also a pretty cool web-based IM client called Meebo (http://www.meebo.com/).

pmj
June 10th, 2007, 08:48 AM
Trillian may be popular and feature-rich, but it's ridiculously complicated and doesn't follow ANY kind of UI standards, anywhere. Do some testing yourself and sit your mom down in front of Trillian and ask her to do a few tasks, then do the same with Pidgin. Now, there is a lot I don't like about Pidgin, but it has the easier interface by far.

Did they even fix the huge issues with bloat and instability in Trillian? It was a few years since I used it, and it was a pig. An unreliable pig.

juxtaposed
June 10th, 2007, 04:12 PM
Photoshop
The grand daddy of third party applications for Windows, Photoshop from Adobe, is the de facto standard for graphics editing. Designers use it to mock up websites, photographers use it to modify their artwork, it is the tool to end all tools for graphics manipulation.

I tried it in windows. It wasn't very good.

I don't understand all the hype about it being the best thing ever. I find it mediocre.


Quicken and Quickbooks In this, there can be no argument. There are no applications for Linux that have the depth of support and comprehensive abilities of Quicken and Quickbooks from Intuit.

Never used them, so I don't care at all.


Microsoft Office Love it, hate it, despise it, consider it the root of all evil; however you like to approach it, there is no denying that Microsoft Office is the lynchpin of Microsoft's hold on the desktop market.

The only office type things I do, I use AbiWord and Gnumeric.

When I had whatever the fullest featured microsoft office was on my computer (both 2003 and 2007), I only used two programs in it.


Skype What? Skype?

I don't use it, I don't care.


Trillian In the world of multiprotocol clients for Windows

Used it a bit in windows, didn't like it.


Visio Object-based drawing and charting. Many companies revolve their businesses around Visio drawings. There's really no decent alternative for Linux, and Visio has adamantly refused to allow compatable applications to be developed.

Isn't this part of microsoft office?

I used it once, it was decent.


Games

Linux has enough games for me. I don't need the latest game that needs 4GB RAM.

celsofaf
June 10th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Games
(...)
Certainly Microsoft has a hand in keeping the Windows platform viable for gaming, primarily in the form of DirectX, a licensed multimedia interface that many (actually, most) of the game developers adhere to. Windows provides the hardware interface to the devices, DirectX provides the API to the games. It would be great if DirectX were available for Linux, which would make porting the games easier. I don't need to explain that pipe dream.

The game developers should just replace DirectX for OpenGL. Their games will run fine in Windows and Linux, and the porting from one to another just mostly painless. Plus, they get the advantage of working with a free platform. It's not Microsoft's fault here.

jgrabham
June 10th, 2007, 04:34 PM
Never used them, so I don't care at all.




I know, call me old fashioned, but I can be bothered to get my phone out of my pocket!

ynnhoj
June 10th, 2007, 04:52 PM
i think that, for the most, it's just a matter of needing more time to sharpen the linux alternatives to those programs. for example: photoshop has been around quite a bit longer than the gimp (or krita). of course it's going to be more advanced; they've been developing it for that much longer. it's not easy to play catch-up. same goes for openoffice vs. ms office.

an exception would be visio--like others have mentioned, there really isn't something close to it for linux. but for me? oh well, i don't use it and i don't care. in fact, i can safely file trillian and skype away under "don't care" as well. :)

and games? c'mon.. let's focus on more important things first.

shen-an-doah
June 10th, 2007, 04:52 PM
I'm getting quite sick of people who reckon "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" simply because it doesn't do things exactly the same as Windows. "Zomg! GIMP isn't laid out like Photoshop! It sucks!" What is it with people and not being willing to learn anything new when changing to a completely different operating system?

You know what? I like things being different, because it often means the developers have started from scatch and found the best way to do something they want rather than the best way to copy someone else. Compare OpenOffice to AbiWord. OOo is slow and annoying because it tries to give you everything that MSOffice does, whereas AbiWord has started from scratch and asked "What do people need?" And do you know what they need? They need to open a document, write it, make it look nice and be able to to do that anywhere. AbiWord does that quickly and easily.

rksk16it
June 10th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Ahem, i use PC for just 2 things:-

1. Games
I agree that having a native DirectX support is good and "in most cases" give the better performance, but all those anti-viruses, spywares and firewalls (and who knows viruses, spywares, malwares etc...) running behind cause enough irritation while playing the games. I have a quite powerful PC so running World of Warcraft on linux (using wine) gives me believe it or not much better satisfaction than winXP...though in both cases speed was same (nice framerate even under full graphics)...but there was nothing to minimize the game in between and put a message like this :-

Some <xyz> program is trying to run (<xyz> scrip)/(modify registry )/(access internet)..., what do you want :-
blah, blah, blah....

2. Programming:-
You cannot deny the superiority of linux over windows in this area...if u don't believe this, ask any programmer :popcorn:

zodmaner
June 10th, 2007, 05:24 PM
I'm getting quite sick of people who reckon "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" simply because it doesn't do things exactly the same as Windows. "Zomg! GIMP isn't laid out like Photoshop! It sucks!" What is it with people and not being willing to learn anything new when changing to a completely different operating system?

You know what? I like things being different, because it often means the developers have started from scatch and found the best way to do something they want rather than the best way to copy someone else. Compare OpenOffice to AbiWord. OOo is slow and annoying because it tries to give you everything that MSOffice does, whereas AbiWord has started from scratch and asked "What do people need?" And do you know what they need? They need to open a document, write it, make it look nice and be able to to do that anywhere. AbiWord does that quickly and easily.

Agreed. I got the impression that most of the problems he had is a matter of personal preferences more than anything.

moredhel
June 10th, 2007, 06:38 PM
I loved it when you said trillian is the most updated. Despite it taking months and years for new versions to come out. Just scan over the article on wikipedia and you will see.

"The developers of Trillian were infamous for missing deadlines. During the long wait for Trillian "0.64", they coined the term "Soon™", which gained notoriety as development time became longer and longer in later versions. As of May 2007, it has been twenty-seven months (more than two years) since the last stable release of Trillian."

init1
June 10th, 2007, 06:54 PM
I don't need any of those. The open source equivalents are fine.

forrestcupp
June 10th, 2007, 09:27 PM
I don't use it, I don't care.



Just because you don't use it doesn't mean a lot of others don't as well. I don't use Samba, but I care about its well-being because a lot of people do use it, and it is a pretty important thing. That goes for anyone who spouts off the "I don't use it" argument about anything.

As for the whole original post: Linux has already been quite proficient on the desktop for some time now. Nothing needs to change for it to be great on the desktop. It just isn't for everyone, just like Mac isn't for everyone. That doesn't mean I don't want some things to change, though.

jrusso2
June 10th, 2007, 09:58 PM
The only one of those that I think is really important would be Photoshop and Microsoft Office. Now Photoshop because it would allow a lot of professionals using Mac to use Linux.

And Microsoft Office because it would allow a lot of corporations that use Microsoft Desktops to use Linux instead.

There is zero chance of Microsoft porting office to linux how ever but Adobe might do a photoshop version.

Now that Mac runs on Intel it seems like it might not be such a big deal to recompile the Mac Photoshop for linux.

juxtaposed
June 10th, 2007, 10:48 PM
Just because you don't use it doesn't mean a lot of others don't as well.

The whole "this is what linux needs to have a chance on the desktop" title gives the impression that... Linux needs those programs to have a chance on the desktop.

I am saying that linux works fine on my desktop, aswell as other peoples desktops, without those programs.

I don't like it when people come in and say stuff life "I need these programs and I can't get them on linux, therefore linux as a whole is doomed without them" and assume that just because they need some speciality program that others do to, or that the alternatives arn't good enough for others.

forrestcupp
June 11th, 2007, 12:07 AM
The whole "this is what linux needs to have a chance on the desktop" title gives the impression that... Linux needs those programs to have a chance on the desktop.

I am saying that linux works fine on my desktop, aswell as other peoples desktops, without those programs.

I don't like it when people come in and say stuff life "I need these programs and I can't get them on linux, therefore linux as a whole is doomed without them" and assume that just because they need some speciality program that others do to, or that the alternatives arn't good enough for others.

Well, you're right about that. That's why in the last half of my post I said that Linux has been proficient on the desktop for some time now, and it doesn't need to be changed to be great on the desktop.

I've just been rubbed the wrong way too many times by people who think something isn't important because they don't use it.

nalmeth
June 11th, 2007, 12:53 AM
The Seven Tools that Linux Needs to Have A Chance on the Desktop
CrossOver Office takes care of these issues quite nicely.

Use OpenWengo instead of Skype.

Cedega or Windows for gaming.

Linux doesn't NEED ANYTHING from these tools, it will tread on just fine without.
Linux is beyond the Desktop.

Adamant1988
June 11th, 2007, 12:57 AM
I can condense this list of seven things into, about 2 things.

1) Strong 3rd party corporate support (ISV, in otherwords)
2) Marketing

The optional #3: development assistance from corporations who build on the platform, or a strong business model to pay for developers.

Bluecircle
June 12th, 2007, 06:37 AM
The only thing I agree with there is Quickbooks, and GnuCash isn't that bad. I hate Trillian, Pidgin is much better! I don't care about Visio or Skype, and OpenOffice is just as good if not better than MS Office. Tthe GIMP is good enough for all the photo editing I do, and the only game I play is Open Arena.

Although when Crysis comes out I'll have to set up and XP desktop...

brim4brim
June 12th, 2007, 09:32 AM
Source: http://planet-geek.com/archives/003830.html

Trillian In the world of multiprotocol clients for Windows, Trillian has come out on top as the best supported, most frequently updated, and arguably most profitable package around. Supporting all of the major chat systems (Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, Jabber, and IRC), all within an easy to use interface, Trillian has become the default client for a sizeable portion of the community that wishes to not be wedded to only one IM system.
But again the cry goes out. What about GAIM^H^H^H^HPidgin? It does all these protocols just fine, why not use it? Friends, I encourage you to sit down with a Trillian user, and suggest to them to try GAIM. The interface is laughably primitive, so wrapped up in its Gnome roots that the developers are blind to how painful it is to use for someone not intimately familiar with Gnome already. I've tried on numerous occasions to use Gaim to try and unify my two primary communication mediums (IRC with X-Chat, and Jabber-Client-Du-Jour for others), and each time I've found myself chewing the furniture over the idiocy and outright painfulness of GAIM's interface. Perhaps now, with the legal issues with AOL out of the way, there may be hope for updated versions, but I believe Cerulean Studios is missing out on a golden opportunity to get into the Linux market by not providing a version for Linux.


From downloads.com comments (excuse the HTML, downloads.com doesn't allow you to select the text in comments for some reason):


<p class="author">by: <a href="/3642-2150_4-2747785.html">DedsDestiny</a>
on 02-May-2007 03:15:07 PM </p>

<p><strong>Pros:</strong> Good if you use multiple instant messengers.</p>

<p><strong>Cons:</strong> I have been using Trillian for a long time now because I have many different Instant Messengers and with Trillian I only need to use one program.
<p>Cerulean has been touting their new IM program Astra for a long time now and I'm wondering why there is such a hubub about this newest edition of Trillian.
<p>I can't see any difference at all between this version and the previous one...with one exception.
<p>When installing this version I was asked if I wanted to also install some sort of weather program on my pc. You're given the option of saying no, which I did. However, while the installation was being completed I noticed that the ASK toolbar was also being installed without my permission.
<p>Now since I use Firefox and not IE it's not a huge issue but now my WinPatrol is constantly asking me if I want to allow this browser helper to be installed. Even though I say no it still continues to ask me.
<p>This has become quite annoying and since there is no major difference in this version and the previous I am considering uninstalling it and going back to the previous one.
<p>It would have been nice to be given the option of having the ASK toolbar installed, not just forcing it on me.
<p>
<p>Shame on you Cerulean!</p>
[/quote]

I'll take Gaim over a program that installs crap on my system.

DoktorSeven
June 12th, 2007, 10:23 AM
If you want to run Windows applications, go use Windows. We have replacements for every single thing you mention that work more than adequately for everyone.

Go grab a copy of Vista, wipe Linux, install, and you can run the programs you want to run.

Enverex
June 12th, 2007, 10:30 AM
I used Trillian while on Windows for the most part a while back and to be honest I much prefer Pidgin. Especially as Pidgin doesn't keep telling me I need to pay for it either.

But yeah, also sick of the "What Linux needs..." posts. What Linux needs is for people to stop dwelling on software they can't use and try getting used to things that they can use.

SkyNet2029
June 12th, 2007, 10:42 AM
It is simply asinine and self-centered to say that 'Bloatware-Option B,C,D,X" as nauseum is what linux needs to make it in the desktop environment. All this heated debate over a matter of personal opinion.

Linux is, and always will be (without the help of the OP, I might add) about choices.
'OMGBBQ ! i am such an uber-user that minus the clickety-point GUI I am lost!' Use your brain for something other than finding new and exciting ways to bend over for the man. Face it. That crap works for you. Great. The majority of the Linux users I know are looking for a solution to buggy code and ridiculously inflated pricing schemes. Personally, I prefer KMyMoney, but that is I. Far be it from me to insist all do things my way, or have things my way 24/7 365. Innovate. You don't like the drab (if over 19000 applications is drab, there's also that road called BSD for you to peruse), then do something about it. Contribute. Learn. Contribute some more. Just don't sit there and say 'Hey,man. Where is M$ this or that. Clue number One: This is not Microsoft. It's Linux.

Wow. Trillian.
Bigger Wow. Games.
Colossal Wow. Office Apps.
One word man, Sourceforge.

Ok, so that's actually two, but you get the idea.

As for Linux, it will still be here when you pull your tiny little head out of there and realize Linux is already taking the desktop market.

runningwithscissors
June 12th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Who cares? Are we not tired of topics like these by now?

shen-an-doah
June 12th, 2007, 11:53 AM
What Windows needs to be ready for the desktop:

- Device drivers for anything other than the latest and greatest hardware
- Full-featured programmes available for free upon installation (Even Macs get iLife, Windows gets Works at most)
- A file system that doesn't require constant maintenance to keep it working
- A security system that doesn't teach the user to just click "allow" whenever it comes up because it comes up every time you try to do anything
- Proper implementation of standards
- An easy and simple way to install anything and completely update your system all at once
- Simple programmes that do exactly what you want, quickly and efficiently (I do not open a media player to read the news, I open it to play media!)

Well, that's 7. I'm sure other people can think of more...

NumberOne
June 12th, 2007, 12:27 PM
I think what the original poster was trying to say was that for businesses to make the change to Linux, there needs to be some compatible apps to be able to access the years of data that has been accumulated. (financial data-Quickbooks, Photoshop drawings,etc).

It is not the software vendors fault that they are unwilling to port these applications to Linux, its Linux's fault. How many versions of Linux are there out there? Each one slightly different. If you publish software that is Linux compatible, it better work out of box for the entire spectrum of Linux. What a nightmare for the software vendor.

Look, I love Linux and hate M$, but right now Linux is ready for the computer savy person, not the average Joe.

3rdalbum
June 12th, 2007, 12:48 PM
Let's see, by those arguments, if the Macintosh is "ready for the desktop".

1. Photoshop is available on the Mac, but performance is seriously lacking on Macintels because of the emulation involved. And it's lacking on the PowerPCs because of operating system overheads.

2. Quicken and Quickbooks are available; I don't think many people actually use those programs really. Not really a "Linux-desktop-blocker" IMHO.

3. Microsoft Office: Also available, but it has always been a poor cousin of the Windows version. The Windows version is more current than the Mac version, and when the Mac one is finally updated it will no longer have support for VBA macros.

4. Skype seems to keep pretty up-to-date on the Mac side, but few people use Skype for video chat (unless, possibly, you're talking about business). Mac fans are more likely to use their own programs rather than Skype.

5. Trillian: No Mac version. I believe it runs in Wine or Crossover on Linux?

6. Visio: No Mac version. You'd have to use Crossover, like you would on Linux.

7. Games: There's no DirectX support for the Mac, and generally the only place you can buy Mac games is an Applecenter. Not many commercial games get released for the Mac OS.

So, the Mac OS isn't ready for the desktop? Nobody seriously suggests that. The difference is, when people buy a Mac, they're EXPECTING it to be different because they have had to use it on a different computer. When people install Linux, they expect it to be more like Windows than it is.

3rdalbum
June 12th, 2007, 12:50 PM
Look, I love Linux and hate M$, but right now Linux is ready for the computer savy person, not the average Joe.

The average Joe doesn't use Quickbooks or Quicken; nor does he use Photoshop or Visio. He certainly doesn't know enough about Microsoft Office to use any of the features that are not present in Openoffice.org.

Preinstalled Linux is as good, if not better, for the average Joe than any other operating system.

realist144
June 16th, 2007, 06:11 AM
My hardware configuration: AM2 motherboard Gigabyte GA-M59SLI-S5, Gigabyte video card GNX256T256D (Geforce 8600), CPU Athlon 64X 4600+, 4GB Corsair DDR800 memory, sata drivesÖ I am not a gamer, but I use extra gear for math modeling in excel and convert to C# after. So I need extra gear to handle 200mb Excel files + do some multitasking.
I really like Beryl for the fun of it and tried to get Linux on my second drive.
None of Linux packages install on my system. Most go into a black screen mode with nothing happening. Suse was the only one that formatted the drive in ďsafe installĒ mode, but failed to load video card drivers and I wasnít able to even confirm an administrative password. So Suse installation stacked in the process too.


I have no problem installing old good Windows 2000 on my system and itís running flawlessly. It is extremely stable (never crashed), free Avast antivirus and Spybot is all I need for extra security running behind Linksys router firewall. I also use WinAso to optimize the system and these 3 freeware programs cover the entire short comes that Linux fans love to make look like a big deal and Linux doesnít have such issues, blah, blahÖfor Humanity. But show me Linux based installer as robust as Microsoftís? All these Linux driver installation nightmares puzzle even IT professionals who love digging code. Of cause itís always easier to see others fault and blame Microsoft. What about Linux faults? They are still bigger then Microsoftís. Oh yeh, Linux IT idealism, they call it Linux Philosophy is so great, but thatís still merely an unlocked potential with full release dates behind horizon. Actual performance rather sucks. - ďMade by wanna be philosophers who canít connect the dotsĒ. Linux junkies like to talk about MS status quo issuesÖ But what about Linux wanna be saviors of IT world? So eager to charge consultantís fees and solicit donations for ever buggy wares- self proclaimed nonprofits of IT world, yet not the prophets. Their ideas are so great: ďyes Pinkie, letís take over the world at next releaseĒ. Oh, they arenít evil, they work for bright future of computing that never materialize.. Itís all in the making, in their spectacular Mickey Mousing. And the Open world they live in is so open, they never want to hear all these as they open only in one way Ėcriticizing others and bragging big time about themselves.
Desktop Linux is in a mode of winning little wars, but always loosing the battle to Microsoft and Microsoft likes to keep it that way. I wouldnít be surprised to learn that
Softy uses its power to press chip makers to sabotage release and development of Linux Drivers, creating an artificial bottleneck. And Linux developers should know better. If they brag to be so good, why canít they just hack Vista drivers and make them work on Linux, why canít they create an installer better automated and driver updated then Microsoftís? As someone on Xandros board said ďdonít use hardware later then 2006Ē
That puts Linux 1-2 year behind on the hardware side. Sockets AM2 boards are the future of AMD chips, but they arenít supported under Linux or have issues. Obviously timely driver compatibility is the biggest issue that makes a huge dent in Linux idealistic philosophy.
Hey, crack the drivers and make real good installer or Linux will always be a ware for poor geeks working second hand PCís and never cutting edge OS.
I really want Desktop Linux to succeed. In meanwhile Iíll probably install Vista. Free desktop world moved to Torrent, but not to Linux, not yet. Letís face it.
Yeah, and what about latest and the greatest GA-M57SLI-S4 Ė first board in history that utilizes free open source UNIX Bios that loads in 3 seconds? Anyone made this board work under Linux? I heard some big time Linux bragging Ė huge victory, blah, blah. Yeah victory but for whom? In reality Vista runs better on this board, then Linux. Unless someone on Linux side hacked it by now. Let me know, I am real curious. I believe it to be logical hack: at least one AM2 board with UNIX bios Ė first in history. If someone has full Linux install hack at least for that mobo, let me know. If itís a flawless hack I will move my ware and make MS Windows run on Linux. Till then Iíll try my luck with Vista as 64bit. Donít tell me Vista horror stories, there are more horrors in Linux then in MSWindows. I am looking for actual solutions, not for a Linux religion. And I donít buy your Linux higher IQ bull. If your IQ is real high, you would play with things much more interesting then digging Unix code. Trouble shooting installation problems Ė thatís for intellectual mediocrities. I simply work with systems that are proven and working already but I keep an eye on something new and already debugged. Why to waste time on such low key debugging activity, there are better things in life Ė this is higher IQ thinking.

Cappy
June 16th, 2007, 06:34 AM
Obviously a troll .. I'm not going to even argue against your points because they are completely made up. I urge everyone else to do the same. There are better things to do in life than argue against trolls.

tgm4883
June 16th, 2007, 06:48 AM
Obviously a troll .. I'm not going to even argue against your points because they are completely made up. I urge everyone else to do the same. There are better things to do in life than argue against trolls.

I agree, I read a couple sentences and then realized that there is no organization. The whole thing looks like a giant rambling run on. Makes it impossible to read.

Cappy
June 16th, 2007, 10:02 AM
By the way "realist144", I'm using AM2. Many many people use AM2 boards on linux.

You should ask on the forums rather than signing up to rant about your experience.

For instance, your video problem is well documented:
I have full instructions, for you to copy and paste here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2833525&postcount=14

"If they brag to be so good, why can’t they just hack Vista drivers and make them work on Linux, why can’t they create an installer better automated and driver updated then Microsoft’s" - illegal, Wine is quite an ambitious project, though.

Your motherboard:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=430801&highlight=GA-M57SLI-S4

Post back if you need help.

ukripper
June 17th, 2007, 03:29 PM
realist144 has no base to stand on and just rambling utter nonsense. I am using AM2 and have no problems what so ever and for your information SOUNDMAX in XP dint work properly on my AM2 machine but in linux it is flying your knickers off. To stand up on your argument please read or educate(more appropriate) your views before putting them into firing line.

This goes to show how many people like realist144 don't even try linux but make up stuff and try to backup their own personal views just to argue over something which is nonexistent. But sorry mate this is ubuntu forums, we recognise people like you who try to put others away from linux won't work on us.

First try and then speak.

Thanks.
Meanwhile have this:popcorn: and chill out.

raja
June 17th, 2007, 05:02 PM
Realist, you have to come back once you are sober. That rambling was so incoherent and impossible to even read.

mikesown
June 17th, 2007, 06:38 PM
I'm primarily an OSX/Windows user, but I've used Ubuntu on the side for some time. Here are my main gripes with linux:

1. The X Configuration file. This is outrageous(yes, outrageous) to have for something as commonplace as a GUI. Almost everyone using a desktop distro will use a GUI, so why have a configuration file? In my experience, it only creates frustration. Why should I have to edit this file to add acceleration or change the resolution or bit depth? It should be built into a control panel setting. The configuration file should _not_ exist at _all_.

2. Compiling drivers into the kernel. On windows, I don't have to do this, so why should I have to do this on Linux? On windows, I just open the device manger, click update driver, and find the .inf file. On linux, I usually have to download a tarball(or two, or three) and compile them into the kernel. The kernel should be set once you get it. Windows manages to have a closed source kernel and binary drivers without recompiling anything, so why should linux require a kernel recompile for anything?

3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT).

The top things I'd like to see added/changed:

1. A device manager with SIMPLE driver management needs to be added. A binary format for drivers needs to be established similar to what windows has. Just browse for the .inf file and click install. That's all that should need ot be done. There shouldn't be obscure dependecies for drivers. Everything needs to be built into the kernel.

2. All configuraiton files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favor of a GUI tool to apply settings.

3. The driver system for linux should be changed so that nothing depends on internel kernel code(requiring a recompile of the kernel). Perhaps a kernel extension system similar to OSX should be adopted where the kernel need not be recompiled, but can be extended via kernel extension drivers.

What are your thoughts on this?

tageiru
June 17th, 2007, 06:45 PM
1. The X Configuration file. This is outrageous(yes, outrageous) to have for something as commonplace as a GUI. Almost everyone using a desktop distro will use a GUI, so why have a configuration file? In my experience, it only creates frustration. Why should I have to edit this file to add acceleration or change the resolution or bit depth? It should be built into a control panel setting. The configuration file should _not_ exist at _all_.

Planned for Xorg 7.3


2. Compiling drivers into the kernel. On windows, I don't have to do this, so why should I have to do this on Linux? On windows, I just open the device manger, click update driver, and find the .inf file. On linux, I usually have to download a tarball(or two, or three) and compile them into the kernel. The kernel should be set once you get it. Windows manages to have a closed source kernel and binary drivers without recompiling anything, so why should linux require a kernel recompile for anything?

We already have that. The problem is that Linus and his merry band of hackers refuse to maintain a stable internal ABI.

steveneddy
June 17th, 2007, 06:49 PM
I don't think that Linux will ever get rid of the CLI, although there may be some distros come up with a GUI for all of the configuration that a user could do.

Personally I feel as if the average user needs to become comfortable with the command line and learn to CP if there is something he/she needs to do. Find the command in the forums or internet search and CP into the terminal. Easy.

I do wish the X.conf file was a little easier to deal with, also. But in defence, I use the latest drivers from the repositories so I don't have to recompile the kernel after a kernel update. Saves time and headache.

I use the nvidia-glx-new (or something like that) from Synaptic and it runs very well, looks great and it doesn't give me problems.


3. The driver system for linux should be changed so that nothing depends
on internel kernel code(requiring a recompile of the kernel). Perhaps a kernel extension
system similar to OSX should be adopted where the kernel need not be recompiled,
but can be extended via kernel extension drivers.


Great idea.

MonkeyBoy
June 17th, 2007, 06:52 PM
3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT).


2. All configuraiton files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favor of a GUI tool to apply settings.


There is nothing wrong with a GUI but GUIs are only good as far as their design goes. When using the CLI to edit configuration files you have control over everything. This is one of the greatest strengths of Linux. You really can do whatever you want with it.

If your suggestion was implemented we would lose the very things that I believe most Linux users appreciate most.

ThinkBuntu
June 17th, 2007, 06:55 PM
I'm primarily an OSX/Windows user, but I've used Ubuntu on the side for some time. Here are my main gripes with linux:

1. The X Configuration file. This is outrageous(yes, outrageous) to have for something as commonplace as a GUI. Almost everyone using a desktop distro will use a GUI, so why have a configuration file? In my experience, it only creates frustration. Why should I have to edit this file to add acceleration or change the resolution or bit depth? It should be built into a control panel setting. The configuration file should _not_ exist at _all_.

2. Compiling drivers into the kernel. On windows, I don't have to do this, so why should I have to do this on Linux? On windows, I just open the device manger, click update driver, and find the .inf file. On linux, I usually have to download a tarball(or two, or three) and compile them into the kernel. The kernel should be set once you get it. Windows manages to have a closed source kernel and binary drivers without recompiling anything, so why should linux require a kernel recompile for anything?

3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT).

The top things I'd like to see added/changed:

1. A device manager with SIMPLE driver management needs to be added. A binary format for drivers needs to be established similar to what windows has. Just browse for the .inf file and click install. That's all that should need ot be done. There shouldn't be obscure dependecies for drivers. Everything needs to be built into the kernel.

2. All configuraiton files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favor of a GUI tool to apply settings.

3. The driver system for linux should be changed so that nothing depends on internel kernel code(requiring a recompile of the kernel). Perhaps a kernel extension system similar to OSX should be adopted where the kernel need not be recompiled, but can be extended via kernel extension drivers.

What are your thoughts on this?
You just need to get used to it. For a while, Synaptic was the most comfortable tool for me, and at times it still is. But when I know what I want to install, precisely, a simply "sudo aptitude install krita" is much easier: The terminal takes no time to start, and is probably the last program that will crash. It's a different way of working in many ways. I can assure you that it was harder for me to come from Mac OS (7,8,9,X) to use Windows which I now use daily at the office than it was to go from Macs to Linux (starting with Ubuntu).

Laterix
June 17th, 2007, 06:57 PM
2. All configuraiton files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favor of a GUI tool to apply settings.

No offence, but this would be just STUPID. What about those who run Linux as server and doesn't want GUI? Human readble configuration files are one of the best things in Linux. I don't say that there shouldn't be GUI tools. GUI tools are good, but why get rid of config-files? It's easy to have both.

koenn
June 17th, 2007, 06:58 PM
What are your thoughts on this?
Threads like these are a waste of bandwidth.
You're used to how Windows works, you noticed, on the few occasions that you booted Linux, that it does things differently, and your conclusion is that Linux should do it the way Windows does it.
The people who actually build linux, like the command line interface and are big fans of configuration files. I doubt that your inconvenience will make them change their mind.

Lord Illidan
June 17th, 2007, 07:04 PM
No offence, but this would be just STUPID. What about those who run Linux as server and doesn't want GUI? Human readble configuration files are one of the best things in Linux. I don't say that there shouldn't be GUI tools. GUI tools are good, but why get rid of config-files? It's easy to have both.

Same here. I've been using Linux for years, and I picked up the concept of config files straight away. Xorg.conf is a big one, but that should be getting fixed soon.

happy-and-lost
June 17th, 2007, 07:04 PM
Linux is not Windows and GNU's Not Unix.


2. All configuraiton files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favor of a GUI tool to apply settings.Like the Windows Registry? :rolleyes:

starcraft.man
June 17th, 2007, 07:11 PM
I'm primarily an OSX/Windows user, but I've used Ubuntu on the side for some time. Here are my main gripes with linux:

1. The X Configuration file. This is outrageous(yes, outrageous) to have for something as commonplace as a GUI. Almost everyone using a desktop distro will use a GUI, so why have a configuration file? In my experience, it only creates frustration. Why should I have to edit this file to add acceleration or change the resolution or bit depth? It should be built into a control panel setting. The configuration file should _not_ exist at _all_. I disagree, the xorg conf is powerful. Just yesterday I was setting up a VM and wanted it to be a specific size to max the window and if I had picked a standard size it would have pushed the windows outside of my maximum resolution or smaller than. By editting the xorg I got a custom size I couldn't have with a straight GUI (they almost exclusively provide standard sizes). There is the graphical config with the command "sudo dpkg-reconifgure xserver-xorg".

2. Compiling drivers into the kernel. On windows, I don't have to do this, so why should I have to do this on Linux? On windows, I just open the device manger, click update driver, and find the .inf file. On linux, I usually have to download a tarball(or two, or three) and compile them into the kernel. The kernel should be set once you get it. Windows manages to have a closed source kernel and binary drivers without recompiling anything, so why should linux require a kernel recompile for anything? Envy (http://albertomilone.com/nvidia_scripts1.html), installs and uninstalls drivers like a charm.

3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT). Your opinion, I happen to love CLI and I spend up to 60% of my time in it, for installing and editing things in my computer.



Answered your problems, your suggestions were practically the same as your rant problems >.>. In the end you seem to be looking for something Linux isn't, thus I'd recommend you stick with what you have and we will do the same.

prizrak
June 17th, 2007, 07:22 PM
1. The X Configuration file. This is outrageous(yes, outrageous) to have for something as commonplace as a GUI. Almost everyone using a desktop distro will use a GUI, so why have a configuration file? In my experience, it only creates frustration. Why should I have to edit this file to add acceleration or change the resolution or bit depth? It should be built into a control panel setting. The configuration file should _not_ exist at _all_.
What do you think OS X uses to hold it's settings? Well here is a little hint a CONFIG FILE! There is a GUI to it but that's something else alltogether, It's already planned for 7.3 anyway.

3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT).
It's a dependancy? Guess what, OS X includes a complete CLI, in fact I believe it uses bash as it's shell. It was also built from the ground up as a UNIX system (a flavor of BSD) with a GUI on top.

2. All configuraiton files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favor of a GUI tool to apply settings.

Where would the settings be stored? Do you have ANY idea of how computers work? Windows keeps it's configuration settings in a mix of config files (.ini) and the registry (which is just a file with a database schema). OS X uses nothing but configuration files, from what I know they are in XML like format but I could be wrong.

3. The driver system for linux should be changed so that nothing depends on internel kernel code(requiring a recompile of the kernel). Perhaps a kernel extension system similar to OSX should be adopted where the kernel need not be recompiled, but can be extended via kernel extension drivers.

How the hell do you create a driver that talks to a kernel and doesn't depend on the kernel? OS X and Windows have that because they have a stable ABI that is only changed (if it is) between major OS releases. In Linux you tend to get a new kernel every couple of months. A huge number of drivers are part of the kernel anyway and I have installed drivers from simple .deb files (just double click the mofo) without any kernel recompile on Ubuntu. If anything there should be more stable drivers available in the kernel. Also any time I install a new nVidia driver from the repos I don't recompile the kernel. Perhaps a driver repository would be something to consider but your approach is plain impossible.

EDIT:
Another thing you might want to consider is that Linux in general (and even Ubuntu in particular) is not necessarily geared towards the lowest common denominator (which OS X and Windows are, in fact I can't stand OS X's dumbed down IMO interface). Linux is an OS that is more for IT professionals or power users. It isn't designed to replace Windows or OS X it is there to provide an alternative. Another thing you might want to consider is that Linux is a "set up once, run forever" OS. Windows requires constant attention and OS X/Apple is more like an embedded system and comes with a pretty hefty price tags compared to a "regular" PC.

Ireclan
June 17th, 2007, 07:40 PM
1. The X Configuration file. This is outrageous(yes, outrageous) to have for something as commonplace as a GUI. Almost everyone using a desktop distro will use a GUI, so why have a configuration file? In my experience, it only creates frustration. Why should I have to edit this file to add acceleration or change the resolution or bit depth? It should be built into a control panel setting. The configuration file should _not_ exist at _all_.


This, as many others have said, is being fixed.



2. Compiling drivers into the kernel. On windows, I don't have to do this, so why should I have to do this on Linux? On windows, I just open the device manger, click update driver, and find the .inf file. On linux, I usually have to download a tarball(or two, or three) and compile them into the kernel. The kernel should be set once you get it. Windows manages to have a closed source kernel and binary drivers without recompiling anything, so why should linux require a kernel recompile for anything?


This will, I agree, have to be changed, though I don't agree that the kernel should be "set" once you get it.



3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT).



I fail to see your point of view. Linux is not "dependent" on the command line; it has GUI tools. It may have a heavy relationship with the command line, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. I doubt Linux's relationship with the command line will change any time soon, as it is a part of its philosophy. I myself would welcome less attachment to the command line, but that is my personal preference.



1. A device manager with SIMPLE driver management needs to be added. A binary format for drivers needs to be established similar to what windows has. Just browse for the .inf file and click install. That's all that should need ot be done. There shouldn't be obscure dependecies for drivers. Everything needs to be built into the kernel.


First you want driver files to be kernel-independent, and now you don't? Please make up your mind...I myself like the way Windows handles drivers. I agree with you there. Dependencies, however, are just a part of Linux. I fail to see how the situation regarding those could be made any easier than it already is, so I suppose you will just have to get used to it.



2. All configuraiton files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favor of a GUI tool to apply settings.


This has to be the most asinine request I've heard made. If the configuration files were eliminated, how could you easily edit them from the command line? While I myself don't care for the command line much, I HAVE had to rely on it once or twice. Plus, what would those who prefer the command line do? Configuration files are (as I see them, anyway) Linux's fall back for when the GUI fails. This makes it superior to Windows, which has no such fall back system. And you'd strip that all away? That's just SILLY.



3. The driver system for linux should be changed so that nothing depends on internel kernel code(requiring a recompile of the kernel). Perhaps a kernel extension system similar to OSX should be adopted where the kernel need not be recompiled, but can be extended via kernel extension drivers.


You'll get no arguments from me there.

Rabidmonkey1
June 17th, 2007, 07:41 PM
Not to restate the obvious, but Linux is not Windows or OSX. They are very different in many respects, and as a recent Linux "convert," I would like to encourage you by saying what you can learn from Linux is very practical and useful - cross platform. Windows and OSX are designed so that a layman can come in a click around and have everything work. Linux is challenging because it does everything you ask - you just sort of have to learn how to ask the right questions - it's not holding your hand in the process like windows or OSX would. Essentially, its a freedom thing - you'll be tied down to proprietary systems with proprietary software - and if you're okay with that, then fine. But if you really want to have full control and the ability to Administer a system, then you're not going to get that necessarily with proprietary systems.

I'll be the first to admit, you need to invest time and energy to learn how to effectively work Linux. That being said, there are great community resources out there, and distros like Ubuntu are making it easier and easier to take the plunge.

juxtaposed
June 17th, 2007, 07:50 PM
1. The X Configuration file. This is outrageous(yes, outrageous) to have for something as commonplace as a GUI. Almost everyone using a desktop distro will use a GUI, so why have a configuration file? In my experience, it only creates frustration. Why should I have to edit this file to add acceleration or change the resolution or bit depth? It should be built into a control panel setting. The configuration file should _not_ exist at _all_.

sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg

There, an ncurses GUI for you.



3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT).

No, linux doesn't need to be like windows.

What is easier to follow:
Click here, then there, then drag that there, then uncheck that box, then press ok, then close it
or
Copy and paste this command

And what about the servers that don't want a GUI? Or what if you mess up the GUI and need to fix it with the CLI? Do you think it should be like windows where the only way to fix something is to reinstall?


2. All configuraiton files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favor of a GUI tool to apply settings.


Come on.

The whole "this is my will, do it now" thing is annoying, and it gets old fast.


What are your thoughts on this?

Stop trying to change linux into windows.

If you want windows, use it. Don't expect linux to be exactly what windows is but stable and without viruses.

corney91
June 17th, 2007, 07:51 PM
Sounds like all you want is windows, perhaps linux is too customisable for you as well?:p

steveneddy
June 17th, 2007, 07:57 PM
Sounds like all you want is windows......

That's what I wanted to say

bonzodog
June 17th, 2007, 08:42 PM
I'm primarily an OSX/Windows user, but I've used Ubuntu on the side for some time. Here are my main gripes with linux:

1. The X Configuration file. This is outrageous(yes, outrageous) to have for something as commonplace as a GUI. Almost everyone using a desktop distro will use a GUI, so why have a configuration file? In my experience, it only creates frustration. Why should I have to edit this file to add acceleration or change the resolution or bit depth? It should be built into a control panel setting. The configuration file should _not_ exist at _all_.

This is being done for Xorg 7.3, and will be stable for 7.4. However, you need to get away from the windows design model, and realise that X merely runs as a program on top of the Linux Shell. It needs somewhere to refer to when it starts so it gets the same settings time after time. In windows, this is handled inside the registry. In the new X, it will rely on a new system called xrandr, which will run a detection daemon each time you boot, and will have a basic number of settings stored in a local file that are over written each time X is started.


2. Compiling drivers into the kernel. On windows, I don't have to do this, so why should I have to do this on Linux? On windows, I just open the device manger, click update driver, and find the .inf file. On linux, I usually have to download a tarball(or two, or three) and compile them into the kernel. The kernel should be set once you get it. Windows manages to have a closed source kernel and binary drivers without recompiling anything, so why should linux require a kernel recompile for anything?

You need to read a very long book about the way the Linux Kernel works.
OSX and windows both have micro-kernels, and the drivers are run as extensions of it. Linux uses the monolithic kernel model, whereby drivers are built as loadable modules at kernel compile time. This is one of the greatest arguments known to exist in the world of operating systems, and it started in 1992, and is still not over 15 years later.
Please read this, and look up the monolithic vs micro kernel argument:
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html


3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT).

This is practically impossible, due the very nature of Unix design. The whole power of Linux is in the CLI.
Even OSX runs the Aqua windowing system on top of the shell, which is also Bash.
MS Windows gets away with it by running the GUI env right from the kernel a s driver of sorts. This is why it's so unstable, as it places high memory loads on the kernel directly, without piping via the shell. Think about how much more stable Windows 3.11 was when it ran on top of DOS.
Most GUI progs actually are merely parsing information through a CLI background program - not all though. Some programs are written in the language of whatever desktop environment you happen to be using, and make calls directly to the API itself.


The top things I'd like to see added/changed:

1. A device manager with SIMPLE driver management needs to be added. A binary format for drivers needs to be established similar to what windows has. Just browse for the .inf file and click install. That's all that should need ot be done. There shouldn't be obscure dependecies for drivers. Everything needs to be built into the kernel..
Please see my answer to the second question above.


2. All configuration files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favour of a GUI tool to apply settings.

And what, do you humbly suggest we replace this with?

A registry??? um...MS has to replace the registry in Windows with..guess what. configuration files!!!
All programs need configuration files in which to store settings. This is an unchangeable fact. Microsoft tried for a while to replace this with a registry which used keys. Gnome also does this now, but there is no denying it is a complete mess, and highly impractical. Sorry, no, not going to fly.


3. The driver system for linux should be changed so that nothing depends on internel kernel code(requiring a recompile of the kernel). Perhaps a kernel extension system similar to OSX should be adopted where the kernel need not be recompiled, but can be extended via kernel extension drivers.

What are your thoughts on this?

Sigh. See question two.

fyllekajan
June 17th, 2007, 08:43 PM
What are your thoughts on this?
A Windows poweruser is not automatically a Linux poweruser. Linux is about choice so if there's a need for a GUI somewhere then there should be one also, but it shouldn't be dumbed down to GUI only, just to satisfy windows users that get abstinence from not continuously moving their mouse around.

Motoxrdude
June 17th, 2007, 08:54 PM
If you have no terminal and config files, it limits you to whatever the GUI tools allows you to do. I, the "average" linux user loves the config files. It only takes a short time to get used to them anyways.
Gui tools with config files would be the best solution IMO.

Feba
June 17th, 2007, 09:01 PM
Like has been stated, Linux is not a free version of Windows, or OSX, or any of the numerous other operating systems out there. Just because you saw someone make a theme that looks like like Aqua or Aero doesn't mean that isn't true ;)

There's a popular essay on this, basically it compares windows to a motorcycle, and linux to a car. Just because you can ride one in a race doesn't mean you're capable of driving to the supermarket in another.

Honestly, if you just want a free operating system, look into ReactOS. Linux isn't going to change some of the best things about it to fit Windows users any more than Windows is going to become open source for linux users.

Tundro Walker
June 17th, 2007, 10:03 PM
I'm tired of posts like this. You're so used to your OS doing things one way, that you think all other OS' should do it that way, too. There's reasons why Linux uses config files instead of a registry, and all the other things you're complaining about. Go do some research, because this has been complained about time and time again on these (and I'm sure other Linux forums), instead of just openly firing away and ticking off others.

prizrak
June 17th, 2007, 10:08 PM
Like has been stated, Linux is not a free version of Windows, or OSX, or any of the numerous other operating systems out there. Just because you saw someone make a theme that looks like like Aqua or Aero doesn't mean that isn't true ;)

There's a popular essay on this, basically it compares windows to a motorcycle, and linux to a car. Just because you can ride one in a race doesn't mean you're capable of driving to the supermarket in another.

Honestly, if you just want a free operating system, look into ReactOS. Linux isn't going to change some of the best things about it to fit Windows users any more than Windows is going to become open source for linux users.

Another thing I would really like to stress is that OS X in fact uses .plist config files that are simply editing via the GUI.

M$LOL
June 17th, 2007, 10:11 PM
3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT).


No, we need the command line. Even if "non-power users" don't like it, the rest of us need it. Why on Earth do we need everything to be rooted in the GUI? M$ tried it that way, and their OS sucks.

Zenerek
June 17th, 2007, 10:47 PM
So basically mikesown, you want ubuntu...or linux in general to be a free windows clone

If you want windows it's right there waiting for along with it's bugs spyware,little (software patches) that god knows what they are actually trying to do and don't forget the hefty price tag

That little vista stunt with the complicated activation and dx10 only working for vista really turned me off, as it stands i cannot totally leave windows yet, i like to game and linux just can't get that right (yet), as well i have not been able to get past some annoying harware problems with ubuntu(that thread i created asking for help with my raid problem...which nobody helped me with :( )

so will i ever leave windows? maybe...maybe when they start making games only for vista....i guess i will have to go console only

to all the others who praised the config files, yeah they can be great, if you know the correct and usually unique syntax for each individual file, it's hard enough keeping track of all those commands form the shell(and almost none ending options...or so it seems sometimes) but then one must know the syntax of the config files and maybe a little bit about what that file changes.

Even with these things in mind i prefer the command line never leave and see it as a challenge and knowledge to be learned

jrusso2
June 17th, 2007, 11:34 PM
Think about how much more stable Windows 3.11 was when it ran on top of DOS.
Most GUI progs actually are merely parsing information through a CLI background program - not all though.

Windows 3.11 stable? Stable as long as you didn't run more then one program at a time maybe. It could barely multi task.

prizrak
June 18th, 2007, 12:27 AM
Think about how much more stable Windows 3.11 was when it ran on top of DOS.
Most GUI progs actually are merely parsing information through a CLI background program - not all though.

Windows 3.11 stable? Stable as long as you didn't run more then one program at a time maybe. It could barely multi task.

Whoever said that had a real bad analogy. DOS was a single task OS and Windows was a multitask hack on top of it. Pretty much anything but the NT line was a very ugly DOS hack, brilliant in some ways but ugly nonetheless.

Xzallion
June 18th, 2007, 12:33 AM
Linux is not Windows and GNU's Not Unix.


ditto.

tanelt
June 18th, 2007, 01:25 AM
Linux has terrible hardware support. This is still true, no matter what most people here think. Unless the hardware manufacturers see the need to make (better) drivers for Linux, the typical enduser will not use it. Who in the world wants to use an OS that doesn't support his or her hardware? If I go to the store, I can buy basically ANY piece of hardware I want and it's garanteed it will work perfectly on Windows. But with Linux I have to do extensive research to find out how well a certain thing works. Again it's up to the hardware manufacturers of course, so there's not much to do about it.

The other problem is that Linux zealots are arrogant and intimidating elitists. This is so true. Those types of fanboys will overhype and defend anything even remotely related to Linux, while also bashing the company that holds over 90% of the the market share like there's no tomorrow. The funny thing is, however, that they act really surprised and furious if someone like me trying to switch to Linux happens to say something negative about Linux. It should be pretty obvious that newbies having major problems are extremely frustrated if even the basic things don't work. But they just can't seem to imaging themselves being on the newbies' situations. Having practically no knowledge when dealing with the problems at hand, while the arrogant elitist (who luckily happened to buy the correct hardware) is mocking you is not a very good feeling. Unfortunately what they don't realize is that it makes the person never want to try Linux again and will surely make him spread the word about bad Linux is on the desktop. It's especially sad if that person has been giving free tech support to hundreds of people the past 10 years and is one of the most trusted one in their eyes.

steveneddy
June 18th, 2007, 01:31 AM
I can't believe this thread is still alive.

Extreme Coder
June 18th, 2007, 01:33 AM
Linux has terrible hardware support. This is still true, no matter what most people here think. Unless the hardware manufacturers see the need to make (better) drivers for Linux, the typical enduser will not use it. Who in the world wants to use an OS that doesn't support his or her hardware? If I go to the store, I can buy basically ANY piece of hardware I want and it's garanteed it will work perfectly on Windows. But with Linux I have to do extensive research to find out how well a certain thing works. Again it's up to the hardware manufacturers of course, so there's not much to do about it.

The other problem is that Linux zealots are arrogant and intimidating elitists. This is so true. Those types of fanboys will overhype and defend anything even remotely related to Linux, while also bashing the company that holds over 90% of the the market share like there's no tomorrow. The funny thing is, however, that they act really surprised and furious if someone like me trying to switch to Linux happens to say something negative about Linux. It should be pretty obvious that newbies having major problems are extremely frustrated if even the basic things don't work. But they just can't seem to imaging themselves being on the newbies' situations. Having practically no knowledge when dealing with the problems at hand, while the arrogant elitist (who luckily happened to buy the correct hardware) is mocking you is not a very good feeling. Unfortunately what they don't realize is that it makes the person never want to try Linux again and will surely make him spread the word about bad Linux is on the desktop. It's especially sad if that person has been giving free tech support to hundreds of people the past 10 years and is one of the most trusted one in their eyes.
This company that achieved 90% of the market share didn't achieve it by being a fair competitor and making a wonderful product, did it?

The only type of hardware that I think wouldn't work on Linux well is propably exotic peripherals. There are probably others, but I don't know about.

k99goran
June 18th, 2007, 01:36 AM
sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg
= gibberish if you are new to Linux.

What is sudo? What is dpkg? "Reconfigure"? What is Xserver? What is Xorg? Why that particular order? Why those particular commands? What will it do?

A GUI doesn't just work as a shortcut for changing settings in your operating system, but also as a guide. If you are given a number of shortcuts, where one is called "screen settings" or something similar, you don't have to be particularly knowledgeable of the operating systems to figure out what to do next.

This was my main reason for switching from Ubuntu to Kubuntu, I was able to set the maximum resolution without searching the Internet each time for some command line I would forget 5 seconds after reading.

Having said that, the number of settings that require the user to search the Internet for cryptic commands are shrinking by every release, which I'm glad to see. The complaints I read from people regarding Linux are often historical.

JetskiDude911
June 18th, 2007, 01:37 AM
I think you just need to spend time getting use to Linux. I've been working and playing with since I was young, so it's not too difficult for me. Plus, finding information on the Internet can be a huge help. A quick search on Google can help resolve and issue or get something done very quickly.

I love the way Linux is. I love the community.

tanelt
June 18th, 2007, 01:41 AM
This company that achieved 90% of the market share didn't achieve it by being a fair competitor and making a wonderful product, did it?

The only type of hardware that I think wouldn't work on Linux well is propably exotic peripherals. There are probably others, but I don't know about.

The only thing that matters to the user is if something works or not. Philosophy always comes second.

Would you use Linux on the desktop if your monitor would show you an image that makes your eyes bleed (while it works perfectly in Windowsi) and after countless number of failed attempts you find out that there's nothing you can do about it?
Would you consider a typical CRT monitor being an exotic piece of hardware?

Extreme Coder
June 18th, 2007, 01:56 AM
I never heard of such a weird thing before.. What's your video card and monitor?

Tomosaur
June 18th, 2007, 01:59 AM
Commands which appear cryptic at first rapidly become second nature, just like the sequence of clicks with which you might change some settings through a GUI. The argument is completely invalid - the CLI is not the cryptic, confusing, scary beast you make it out to be.

As for the complaints about drivers - it's painfully obvious that you haven't done your research. The reason why you have to compile drivers from source (even though you don't, if you stick to the repos) is because we value security, and like to know what we're doing when we give some lump of code the right to run as and when it deems it necessary. Yes, it 'could' be easier if it was all automatic and you didn't have to do anything yourself, but then we'd be in the same position as Windows users - endless battles with viruses / spyware, driver conflicts, system slow-down, library redundancy etc etc etc. Modular kernel add-ons (eg, drivers) which you compile yourself are much, much better than binary blobs which you have to trust (and then spend a lifetime working out conflicts and other problems).

Nekiruhs
June 18th, 2007, 02:10 AM
I never heard of such a weird thing before.. What's your video card and monitor?

Yeah, its pretty common with unsupported video cards, its called 600 X 480 resolution.

k99goran
June 18th, 2007, 02:10 AM
Commands which appear cryptic at first rapidly become second nature, just like the sequence of clicks with which you might change some settings through a GUI. The argument is completely invalid - the CLI is not the cryptic, confusing, scary beast you make it out to be.
I beg to differ. Installation tutorials like the ones you will find on the Ubuntu-guide and many other sites do not encourage the user to learn the commands. They usually say something like "copy this line and paste it into the terminal". And if not, a new user would most likely do so anyway. I never learned the "sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg" line for instance, I just remember where I got it and copied it each time I needed it.

As for the complaints about drivers - it's painfully obvious that you haven't done your research. The reason why you have to compile drivers from source (even though you don't, if you stick to the repos) is because we value security, and like to know what we're doing when we give some lump of code the right to run as and when it deems it necessary. Yes, it 'could' be easier if it was all automatic and you didn't have to do anything yourself, but then we'd be in the same position as Windows users - endless battles with viruses / spyware, driver conflicts, system slow-down, library redundancy etc etc etc.
Hardware manufacturers tend to include viruses into their drivers? I find that very hard to believe...

Tomosaur
June 18th, 2007, 02:22 AM
I beg to differ. Installation tutorials like the ones you will find on the Ubuntu-guide and many other sites do not encourage the user to learn the commands. They usually say something like "copy this line and paste it into the terminal". And if not, a new user would most likely do so anyway. I never learned the "sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg" line for instance, I just remember where I got it and copied it each time I needed it.


Then what's the problem? If anything, that is faster than clicking around all over the place to change settings. One command vs ten clicks? I think I'll take the command line, tbh. You could also create an alias to run that command, if you didn't want, or couldn't, get on the internet to find the command again. For example, you could fix your gui by typing 'fixgui' at the terminal. The terminal also means that if something is going wrong, you don't have to rely on the GUI working to fix the problem. Besides which, if we're talking about the mysterious 'average user', he/she doesn't learn how to fix their problems anyway, regardless of the OS. 9 times out of ten, it falls to 'the computer guy', or the son / daughter with the most expertise to learn how to fix said problem, and then fix said problem, in one session. Chances are, average Joe User never touches the Control Panel in Windows, or the CLI in Linux. A command is far, far easier to remember, and describe, than a sequence of clicks.



Hardware manufacturers tend to include viruses into their drivers? I find that very hard to believe...

Not everyone uses the drivers from the hardware manufacturers - and it is possible for attackers to hijack a manufacturer's website and replace the driver with a modified one which contains a virus. Then there's the reassurance (with open-source drivers / software) that the driver doesn't do stuff you wouldn't want it to do - send personal info, for example. Even if you don't know what to look for in the source code of a piece of software, there are enough people who DO, who will look over the code and thus be able to raise an alert if the driver is somehow malicious. And THEN, you don't rely on that company continuing to exist for you to receive security updates, new features, etc etc etc.

I'm not denying that there aren't usability issues - we definately do need a 'one click compile & install' option, for example (especially since Ubuntu doesn't actually provide the tools you need to compile for yourself in a default install), but the idea that we should do away with the whole 'do it yourself' ethos is, frankly, a bad one.

23meg
June 18th, 2007, 02:23 AM
Hardware manufacturers tend to include viruses into their drivers? I find that very hard to believe...

Postal service doesn't tend to carry bombs. Would you let it into your house if they shipped you a black box welded shut with no sender address?

Anything can go into a binary blob, including but not limited to

- code that causes security vulnerabilities
- code that compromises basic user rights
- code that fails to play well with existing code
- malware

and we just can't fix it when the source isn't available.

init1
June 18th, 2007, 02:26 AM
I'm primarily an OSX/Windows user, but I've used Ubuntu on the side for some time. Here are my main gripes with linux:

1. The X Configuration file. This is outrageous(yes, outrageous) to have for something as commonplace as a GUI. Almost everyone using a desktop distro will use a GUI, so why have a configuration file? In my experience, it only creates frustration. Why should I have to edit this file to add acceleration or change the resolution or bit depth? It should be built into a control panel setting. The configuration file should _not_ exist at _all_.

2. Compiling drivers into the kernel. On windows, I don't have to do this, so why should I have to do this on Linux? On windows, I just open the device manger, click update driver, and find the .inf file. On linux, I usually have to download a tarball(or two, or three) and compile them into the kernel. The kernel should be set once you get it. Windows manages to have a closed source kernel and binary drivers without recompiling anything, so why should linux require a kernel recompile for anything?

3. The command line dependency. This is the worst part about Linux altogether. Yes, so called power users tout that the command line is great and powerful.However, it's very annoying to the average user. Linux needs to have everything rooted in GUI, and possibly abandon the shell as a 'basis' for the OS(a la Windows NT).

The top things I'd like to see added/changed:

1. A device manager with SIMPLE driver management needs to be added. A binary format for drivers needs to be established similar to what windows has. Just browse for the .inf file and click install. That's all that should need ot be done. There shouldn't be obscure dependecies for drivers. Everything needs to be built into the kernel.

2. All configuraiton files should be eliminated. As it stands now, GUI tools only try to edit these configuration files, which is an ugly process. Therefore, configuration files need to be eliminated in favor of a GUI tool to apply settings.

3. The driver system for linux should be changed so that nothing depends on internel kernel code(requiring a recompile of the kernel). Perhaps a kernel extension system similar to OSX should be adopted where the kernel need not be recompiled, but can be extended via kernel extension drivers.

What are your thoughts on this?

These"things you hate about linux" are because of the linux roots. Linux is now FAR easier to use than it was. It was not designed for desktop use, but for a powerful and free OS. The changes that you suggest would take a lot of time to develop because the system was not designed to act like this. Personally, I like linux how it is and think that ubuntu is incredibly easy and was designed to be easier than the average distro. Most of the distros I try require a lot more work and skill. You seem to be one who likes the Windows shell, but I find it takes up too much space and gets in my way. Linux is for some, but not for others. I am sorry that your linux experience is not ideal, but it is not that easy to completely redesign the entire structure of an operating system, which appears to be the best way to fix some of the things you hate.

Ripfox
June 18th, 2007, 02:29 AM
Take away my command line, take away my freedom and power.

PhatStreet
June 18th, 2007, 02:35 AM
I beg to differ. Installation tutorials like the ones you will find on the Ubuntu-guide and many other sites do not encourage the user to learn the commands. They usually say something like "copy this line and paste it into the terminal". And if not, a new user would most likely do so anyway. I never learned the "sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg" line for instance, I just remember where I got it and copied it each time I needed it.That's a really good point, actually, and the desire to learn what everything actually meant in Linux was one of the reasons I'm now using Arch. It's more work, but I have more control and I know what things are.

I have nothing against using terminal commands, but the copy+paste gibberish does indeed raise a good point.

Feba
June 18th, 2007, 02:44 AM
Linux has terrible hardware support. This is still true, no matter what most people here think.

It's the hardware not supporting the software, not vice versa. And most hardware can be made to work with linux without too much effort, try to run many things on windows WITHOUT having the driver CDs around and it's nearly as bad, especially if the manufacturer has died (I've been through this, works perfectly on Linux, windows won't recognize it).

Linux, last I checked, was one of the FIRST OS to support 64 bit processors. We're perfectly capable of supporting hardware, as long as the manufacturers play nice. We can't reverse engineer and clean room every little bit of hardware, aside from taking a crapload of time, it's damn expensive.


while also bashing the company that holds over 90% of the the market share like there's no tomorrow.

Tobacco production is a large share of the agricultural market. That doesn't make it good for the consumer. Asbestos used to make up an incredible amount of insulation. I think you see where I'm going with this.


= gibberish if you are new to Linux.

And how is a windows user supposed to change their GUI. "Control Panel". How is this helping with settings, or configuration, or my monitor? ANY computer software will take effort to learn, it's the user's fault for not taking that initiative, not the OS for not dumbing it down. If you look at any random computer system, you'll see most of it is very nonsensical from a complete-beginner's point.

Consider what it takes to install a program in the CLI, as opposed to the GUI.

CLI:
TYPE apt-cache search <program>
WAIT for the list
TYPE sudo apt-get install <program> with the result you wanted in <>
TYPE your password

GUI:
CLICK applications
CLICK Add/Remove programs
WAIT for it to update
TYPE in your search term
SCROLL to the result you want
CLICK the Install button
CLICK apply
CLICK apply
TYPE your password
CLICK OK

Obviously, the CLI is much much faster and more convineant. The user should learn how to use their computer efficiently, even if it isn't the easiest way to do it. Either way, system tasks WILL NEVER be easy for an end user to understand. As was said above, how many "Average Users" know what a Hz is? They're going to have the most tech savvy person they know or have handy configure their monitor anyway. We should focus on making it a painless process, not a simple one.


Would you use Linux on the desktop if your monitor would show you an image that makes your eyes bleed (while it works perfectly in Windowsi) and after countless number of failed attempts you find out that there's nothing you can do about it?

Of course not, and nobody would, however that isn't the case. Obviously the reason we all use linux is because it DOES work for us, and for most of us, better than windows ever did.



Installation tutorials like the ones you will find on the Ubuntu-guide and many other sites do not encourage the user to learn the commands.

That is because they are written to show a user how to INSTALL something, NOT how to use a command line. There are many tutorials out there for the command line, if you wish to look for them.

starcraft.man
June 18th, 2007, 02:50 AM
That's a really good point, actually, and the desire to learn what everything actually meant in Linux was one of the reasons I'm now using Arch. It's more work, but I have more control and I know what things are.

I have nothing against using terminal commands, but the copy+paste gibberish does indeed raise a good point.

And I beg to differ with both of ya. Ubuntu guide provided a very nice service when I was just starting out all noob like (I admit, I was noob like before I got my almost 1800 beans :p). I used it as a guide to get all my common things installed easily (synaptic didn't make sense to me yet and add remove was missing plenty of things). By using Ubuntu Guide I copied and pasted their sources list, found all the basic apps and things I was missing (like java and flash) and at the same time I figured out partly on my own things like sudo aptitude and what the commands actually meant simply from repeated use and messing around. I admit I also partly used psychocats and ubuntu forums but a great degree I did on my own just trying things and different commands. I also admit I partly had a will to learn terminal, but hey I think thats an essential part of Linux/Ubuntu. If you don't want to ever use CLI, you should stick to Windows/Mac.

Ubuntu Guide serves a good purpose, it gets people up and running without an unofficial means like automatix/easy ubuntu (does at the same time tell how to install them...) and serves partly as an intro to CLI. Admittedly, copy and pasting commands is not a very good and easy way to learn, but it can be useful and it does get people up and running fast and on their own.

In an ideal world, we'd have a sign up course or something for new people and host live interactive pod/netcasts to teach them fundamentals and CLI. It is not an ideal world though.

Edit: Yay for Feba. Did a good job with those points. In the end I'll only add this: The intention of Linux is not to become a windows or mac clone with a million GUI screens. It is to be its own OS, stand on its own merits. It is difficult to switch OS (harder than changing search engines with a click) but in the end it simply boils down to your will to learn, patience and time. If you don't have that, stick with what you got. You have to change for the new OS, not the other way around. The differences are what makes it great.

I should probably read up more on this discussion, I only responded to the one point... >.>

livewire94
June 18th, 2007, 03:01 AM
I tried Ubuntu Linux for a week trying to get away from the windows environment. It didn't work the way I thought. First you have to learn the commands for the terminal, that could be frustrating. Then a lot of hardware is not installed correctly. I couldn't get my tv card to work, my sound was screwed up, my webcam wasn't working right and more.

Linux may work for some people but it wouldn't work with my system correctly. It is a neat OS if you just want email and internet and Openoffice. Other than that, most programs for Windows that everyone enjoys just will not work in Ubuntu.

So I have to say im going back to Windows until Linux can catch up. If anyone thinks about installing Ubuntu, Good Luck. As you can see there are hundreds of posts in this forum with people having issues with it. Its just not ready for the public.

raul_
June 18th, 2007, 03:03 AM
I would ask for a refund if I was you :mrgreen: I hope you come back though

alienexplorers
June 18th, 2007, 03:03 AM
Sorry to see you leave.

steveneddy
June 18th, 2007, 03:03 AM
It's not windows and never will be. You were expecting to act like Windows, which it never will.

Windows won't run in Linux like they will never run on a Mac. You could have tackled WINE. You could have searched the forums for answers, but Ubuntu and Linux in general isn't for everyone.

You only asked about your TV card and the sound. The ATI video card could have been running well if you had stuck with it q little while.

Oh well. You only had six posts anyway. Why am I wasting my breath?

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1544/postiig9bm6.gif (http://imageshack.us)

qamelian
June 18th, 2007, 03:05 AM
= gibberish if you are new to Linux.

What is sudo? What is dpkg? "Reconfigure"? What is Xserver? What is Xorg? Why that particular order? Why those particular commands? What will it do?


Sorry, but this doesn't wash. If you don't want to learn, don't bother trying something new. Do you also think that someone who has always driven cars with an automatic transmission should be able to get behind the wheel of a car with a standard transmission and simply drive without learning some new skills?

When you switch OSes, there is a learning curve. Get over it.