Is Microsoft Windows ready for the desktop?

[jeremy]

I see this question asked so often about GNU/Linux that I feel it is time to ask the same about one of the alternative OS's available.

[weasel fierce]

I see this question asked so often about GNU/Linux that I feel it is time to ask the same about one of the alternative OS's available.

How many virus killers and spyware killers does it come with, fresh from the CD ?

[newbie2]

I see this question asked so often about GNU/Linux that I feel it is time to ask the same about one of the alternative OS's available.
nah... :-P :-P

"A third key?!
But according to two witnesses attending the conference, even Microsoft's top crypto programmers were astonished to learn that the version of ADVAPI.DLL shipping with Windows 2000 contains not two, but three keys. Brian LaMachia, head of CAPI development at Microsoft was "stunned" to learn of these discoveries, by outsiders."
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/5263/1.html

"The European Parliament reports have sparked Continent-wide anger. Questions
have been raised by officials in Denmark, Germany, Norway, and Holland,
while the Swedish government has launched an investigation into whether
Swedish companies have been victims of covert NSA surveillance.
In Italy, a Rome deputy district attorney has opened an inquiry to determine
whether NSA activities violate Italian privacy law.
More important, perhaps, the reports encouraged France and Germany to lift
their restrictions on the use and sale of strong encryption software, which
Washington has been trying to limit."
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/1999-September/005968.html

"Germany's Bundiswehr is banning Microsoft software (and presumably other major American software packages) from use in critical environments due to concern over "back doors" suspected to have been placed for the use of U.S. spy agencies, particularly the NSA (National Security Agency).
China, last year, declared Linux, particularly the home grown Red Flag Linux, the official operating system for Chinese government and commerce due to similar security fears."
http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010318.html

[Stormy Eyes]

I see this question asked so often about GNU/Linux that I feel it is time to ask the same about one of the alternative OS's available.

Windows isn't good enough for me. It's not good enough for my wife. I wouldn't inflict it on my worst enemies; cutting them down would be more merciful.

[Kerberos]

The only reason Linux doesnt have the spyware problem Windows has is a lack of userbase. In Linux the installing program is assumed 'trusted' almost as much as the Windows one and there is no reason, apart from a scarcity of installs, that spyware cannot exist on Linux.

Due to the fact most of my time spent with computers is work related I can take no sides down to politics as my computing decisions have to be justified, and the best decision for the job. For example I cannot justify setting up a Linux fileserver if it'll take me 2 days to do, and another few weeks of learning to be able to maintain the thing myself. A Microsoft solution, although with their own problems, is just much easier to install, maintain and administer.

I have 15 Windows PC's open for public use 12 hours a day, for gaming, scanning and internet. I spend an hour or so every month patching* but apart from that I spend no time on admin, and very few people need help once you point them in the right way.

So yes, Windows is desktop ready.

* The bulk of the patching appears to be FireFox updates. Not that I mind installing security updates (better than not having them!).

[Kerberos]

I'm not looking for a flamewar btw, Its just I still think the prerequisite knowlege for running and maintaing a Linux system is above the level than can be expected from 90% of the population. Its getting there, but not yet.

[egon spengler]

The only reason Linux doesnt have the spyware problem Windows has is a lack of userbase. In Linux the installing program is assumed 'trusted' almost as much as the Windows one and there is no reason, apart from a scarcity of installs, that spyware cannot exist on Linux.

I often hear people say that the reason there is no spyware/viruses for Linux is because so few people use it. Thing is though there has to be a few million Linux users, I know Linux counter estimates there being 29 million Linux users http://counter.li.org/estimates.php

Lets assume that that is a massivley overoptimistic estimation, there still has to be at least a few million Linux users, is it really not worth creating spyware for them? What about viruses? As others before me have noted the motivation for many virus writers seems to be simply showing off, wouldn't creating the first wide spread Linux virus be quite a feather in the cap for a budding virus writer?

As for your other point about not using Linux because you can't be bothered to learn how to use it that's fair enough. If you got something that works realisticallly there is no pressing need to go learn a whole new system just for the sake of it. I didn't bother with Linux myself for a long time because I thought (wringly it turned out) that it would be too much hassle to learn. The thing you need to bear in mind though is that you weren't born with the knowledge of how to learn windows, that is something you learnt some time ago. From that it seems unlogical to conclude that because you personally don't want to invest the time it takes to learn how to use Linux that Linux is somehow lacking in comparison to Windows. Someone completely new to computer who is learning it all from scratch could just as easily learn Linux as Windows

[Kvark]

For someone who has equal experience with all systems I would say windows is definately not the easiest option. For someone who is completely new to computers. Both windows and many linux distros are hard to start out with. OSX, Ubuntu or perhaps Linspire are probably the easiest points to start at for a computer illiterate. In the other end of the scale, someone who is very good at using both windows and linux will find that most things goes a bit faster to do on linux then on windows.

...but that is theoretical cases, in relaity it looks like this:

Everyone has already used windows for years. If you are a wizard on windows and a newbie on linux. Then of course you know how to do everything on windows and nothing on linux! Thus I have to say that windows is the only system that can ever be ready for desktop. No matter how easy to use another system gets or how illogical windows acts. People are still very experienced with windows and newbies on all other systems.

[Omnios]

Windows is to far ahead of itself. Just connecting to the internet can cause programs install themselves. Your homepage can get changed without your knowledge wich can take hours to figure out how to get your homepage back. Also I have actualy heard of someone calling in a tecki to get rid of all the spyware and un hijack there computer. ActiveX is a total failure but they refuse to admit defeat in on that issue. For someone with a fair bit of computer knowledge should be ok but a total newb is in for a supprise. Also I read of this but it seems rare but visiting the wrong site could get your modem highjacked with a new 976- isp which charges your phone with a heafty phone bill.

People say Windows is so far ahead but in reality there way to far ahead of themselves. Now the issue of trusted sites and systems might be attempts to address this but one point, they dont own the interenet and if I remember what the founder of the internet stated, they did not wan't this. This showes even there attidude towards the internet is borked

[panickedthumb]

The only reason Linux doesnt have the spyware problem Windows has is a lack of userbase. In Linux the installing program is assumed 'trusted' almost as much as the Windows one and there is no reason, apart from a scarcity of installs, that spyware cannot exist on Linux.

The reason spyware doesn't exist on Linux is 1) no activeX, 2) you aren't always in root mode, 3) the people developing open source software aren't thick enough to put spyware in it, 4) even if they were, most software that you could ever need comes from a few central, trusted repositories. The benefits of making spyware for Linux would outweigh the costs, if they could find a way in, but that doesn't seem too likely.

I notice you didn't mention viruses. Good on your part ;) It's possible to write a virus for linux, surely, but if I recall correctly, there's only been one, and it was just a script that deleted some files. It's quite hard to make a virus do anything in Linux.

Due to the fact most of my time spent with computers is work related I can take no sides down to politics as my computing decisions have to be justified, and the best decision for the job. For example I cannot justify setting up a Linux fileserver if it'll take me 2 days to do, and another few weeks of learning to be able to maintain the thing myself. A Microsoft solution, although with their own problems, is just much easier to install, maintain and administer.

Lets be fair, you could set up a GENTOO server for that, starting from stage 1 (meaning, compiling every single executable and library on the system, essentially) and it still wouldn't take 2 days. A couple of good howto's on the net, and it'll take you one or two days to learn how to maintain it.
This isn't a fair analogy, I admit, I frequently exaggerate to make a point, but it's like saying you'll stick to your bike, because learning to drive a car would take a couple weeks to learn.


* The bulk of the patching appears to be FireFox updates. Not that I mind installing security updates (better than not having them!).

I have a hard time believing that, on Windows pcs, the bulk of your security updates are Firefox.

[aysiu]

The only reason Linux doesnt have the spyware problem Windows has is a lack of userbase. In Linux the installing program is assumed 'trusted' almost as much as the Windows one and there is no reason, apart from a scarcity of installs, that spyware cannot exist on Linux. This argument is old and tired. Read this rebuttal (http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#myth1) to the myth.

Or did you think there was ActiveX in Linux. There isn't.


Due to the fact most of my time spent with computers is work related I can take no sides down to politics as my computing decisions have to be justified, and the best decision for the job. A Microsoft solution, although with their own problems, is just much easier to install, maintain and administer. Yes, you clearly sound unbiased--having equal experience with both platforms...


The bulk of the patching appears to be FireFox updates. Yes, it's a shame Mozilla's far more vigilant than Microsoft about patching security holes.

[aysiu]

I see this question asked so often about GNU/Linux that I feel it is time to ask the same about one of the alternative OS's available. Well, we had a lot of trouble trying to get wireless working on our friend's Windows 2000 Dell laptop, and we never got it working (it didn't even seem to support WEP encryption). We just could not get it to work with our home network.

Now, if this were a Linux computer, people would say, "Ah, it's not ready. See, its hardware support sucks."

Since it was a Windows computer, we just said, "Oh, well," and we let him use my wife's Powerbook instead. No OS is "ready for the desktop" any more than another (if the three you're comparing are Windows, Mac, and Linux).

Each has its own problems for end-users, particularly novices.

Since Windows is the standard and few users install Windows or Mac, the point is moot. People are used to Windows. Commercial software is made for Windows. It doesn't matter if Windows is intuitive or not, secure or not, stable or not, pretty to look at or not. People use Windows because it is well-supported by hardware vendors, software vendors, and other users. It's preinstalled.

For me, the fact that, out-of-the-box it doesn't come with DVD-reading codecs, CD-burning software, office productivity software, or serious image editing tools is sad.

[BWF89]

Lets assume that that is a massivley overoptimistic estimation, there still has to be at least a few million Linux users, is it really not worth creating spyware for them? What about viruses? As others before me have noted the motivation for many virus writers seems to be simply showing off, wouldn't creating the first wide spread Linux virus be quite a feather in the cap for a budding virus writer?
Don't most computer hackers (the kind of hackers that destory things) use Linux or Unix? If so why would they make a virus that is designed to attack their own system if it ever came back to them?

[jdodson]

The only reason Linux doesnt have the spyware problem Windows has is a lack of userbase. In Linux the installing program is assumed 'trusted' almost as much as the Windows one and there is no reason, apart from a scarcity of installs, that spyware cannot exist on Linux.

Ah yes, a logically flawed arguement. I hear these often. I hear this particular one from Windows users who want to feel good about the fact they use Windows. You argument is logically flawed because you are comparing the GNU/Linux OS and Windows OS, since you rightly believe that they are both Operating Systems, which they are, that because of that similarity, but of course GNU/Linux will fall to the same pitfalls as any Operating System. However, your arguement falls down when you take the time to realize that we are talking about two completley different models of security and how one obtains software. Let us consider the models that Windows and GNU/Linux currently use. I will use XP and Ubuntu as the examples. Ubuntu users install 90% of thier software from Universe. Any spyware in Universe? No. The rest of the 10% is more than likely patented or non-free codecs, things like realplayer, non-free games, and maybe a driver or two(ndiswrapper, etc). And more then likely it could be a source build from a open source project. Any spyware in any of those softwares? Not likely. Windows XP model. Spyware is loaded in TONS of software, even the default Windows XP install(and beyond that, one would consider XP spyware in itself). You claim that GNU/Linux could have as much spyware as Windows, however you are talking about a world that does not exist. Plus, getting spyware on GNU/Linux to work right, is a completley different task than in Windows because, yet again both Operating Systems are different.

Due to the fact most of my time spent with computers is work related I can take no sides down to politics as my computing decisions have to be justified, and the best decision for the job. For example I cannot justify setting up a Linux fileserver if it'll take me 2 days to do, and another few weeks of learning to be able to maintain the thing myself. A Microsoft solution, although with their own problems, is just much easier to install, maintain and administer.

If you had spent as much time learning GNU/Linux as you did Windows, you wouldnt have to learn anything. I work for a company with seasoned GNU/Linux admins and they can rock out a new server in no time flat. Dont justify computing platforms because they are "easier" for you. Justify a computing platform because it is the best option. In the end, you chose software you know, that is a horrible way to go about things. The best descision is not always the devil you know.

I have 15 Windows PC's open for public use 12 hours a day, for gaming, scanning and internet. I spend an hour or so every month patching* but apart from that I spend no time on admin, and very few people need help once you point them in the right way.

Thats great, I have a script to do my patching and spend 0 hours a week doing it. Our admins do the same. I wonder which model you think is better, yours or mine. So I wonder which you would consider more productive. Just because you don't know my way, doesnt make yours better.

[jdodson]

Don't most computer hackers (the kind of hackers that destory things) use Linux or Unix? If so why would they make a virus that is designed to attack their own system if it ever came back to them?

Because the Unix security model is less apt to supporting run of the mill viruses than a Windows system is. Windows users run around in admin mode all day long, we do not. I would rather attack a system with full rights from the get go than a locked down system.

Plus GNU/Linux is a mixed bag, one system might be setup differently and have different versions of software on it. One expolit might not exist on another machine.

However unpatched old Redhat 8.0 boxes can get owned in a few days of hacking(or hours). Same goes for any unpatched OS really. Then again, I take that back, you could setup a Warty box, and by default it allows ZERO ports open to the outside world. No one will even hack that box from the net due to the fact that you are not running any services on TCP/IP. So I would take an unpatched Warty box over a XP box any day. Totally different models, the Ubuntu model kicks the Windows models *** for security. Toss in SELinux and we are now lightyears beyond Windows dreams for security.

[egon spengler]

Don't most computer hackers (the kind of hackers that destory things) use Linux or Unix? If so why would they make a virus that is designed to attack their own system if it ever came back to them?

True. But then again you need to bear in mind that most people somewhat knowledgable about viruses and how best to avoid them (and I would speculate that virus writers know a bit about viruses) rarely get infected. Myself I have only ever had one virus and that was down to a massive lapse of judgement on my part. I don't believe at all this notion that the instant you connect to the net with windows you are instantly infected with an onslaught of viruses ad spyware

[panickedthumb]

"I don't believe at all this notion that the instant you connect to the net with windows you are instantly infected with an onslaught of viruses ad spyware"

It's been proven. If you aren't behind a router or firewall, and have no virus protection, it's pretty dang quick, or can be. Happened to me in 5 minutes once.

[bored2k]

True. But then again you need to bear in mind that most people somewhat knowledgable about viruses and how best to avoid them (and I would speculate that virus writers know a bit about viruses) rarely get infected. Myself I have only ever had one virus and that was down to a massive lapse of judgement on my part. I don't believe at all this notion that the instant you connect to the net with windows you are instantly infected with an onslaught of viruses ad spyware
The 12-minute Windows Heist (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/0218209&tid=172&tid=220&tid=218)

[jdodson]

True. But then again you need to bear in mind that most people somewhat knowledgable about viruses and how best to avoid them (and I would speculate that virus writers know a bit about viruses) rarely get infected.

Most people think trojans, viruses, worms and malware are the same thing. That shows they are not knowledgeable about the underlying differences. For instance, how one goes about protecting against all of them, because you protect yourself in different ways from each instance.

I am not sure what you point is that virus writers rarely get viruses. Please elaborate.

Myself I have only ever had one virus and that was down to a massive lapse of judgement on my part. I don't believe at all this notion that the instant you connect to the net with windows you are instantly infected with an onslaught of viruses ad spyware

Yeah ok so you don't get infected, or rarely. I never do. Wait, wait, never. Right. However, you are not most people, and I know people generally believe things based on experience, however your experience is not the experience of everyone. It seems that _most_ people do, in fact get infected with bad programs. Because you do not does not set the bar for reality, it sets your experience level.

[egon spengler]

Funnily enough I did almost add that I would wager a sizeable amount of the people on this forum have probably had minimal problems with viruses etc. I don't solely base my doubt over the ubiquity of viruses on my own exerience, from seeing countless others on various forums who also claim to exercise common sense and safety makes me think that viruses are not so much of a problem for semi informed users. So far we have me and jdodson who are not constantly plagued, I bet that quite a few of the rest of you are in the same boat as us.

Anyway, my point was that while I do believe it is a possibility that all virus writers use Linux exclusively and so only devise viruses for windows so as to prevent themselves from getting infected inadvertently I don't think that is the most probable reason for the lack of linux viruses. I believe that if you are aware of the threat and so learn how to take care of your system you greatly reduce your chances of any infection. I also believe that a virus writer may well be keenly aware of the importance of running a tight ship. Combining those two assertions I arrive at the belief that virus writers would quite likely have no fear of releasing a linux based virus. Of course I could be wrong, just to me the idea that all or even most virus writers consider linux off limits seems unlikely

[aysiu]

Can we redirect this discussion to address the original question? There have been plenty of discussions the reasons for the lack of viruses on Linux systems. If you want those, you can read them:

http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-22455.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-9089.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=6333
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=43911&goto=nextoldest
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-35204.html

As for Windows, I think it's fun to imagine what it would be like to live in a Linux world and then try Windows. Often Linux is judged in terms of how it lives up to Windows users' expectations. Can you imagine how Windows would measure up if the reverse approach were used?

I'd probably say, "Hey, how do I change the splash screen? How do I change my window decorations? Where's my apt-get install? Where are any package managers? I have to search around the internet to find a simple CD burning package? Then I have to pay for it or use a 30-day trial? Why am I running as root? Where's the XP 'live' CD? I have to shell out $300 for office productivity software? Why does a stupid balloon pop up every time I try to do something? I lost the activation key--now what am I supposed to do with this worthless CD?"

It's all about expectations. Windows users don't want a different "user-friendly" system. They want Windows without the spyware and with a lot of free software.

People don't care whether something is "ready" or not--they simply use what they've chosen. I've never heard a Windows user who can't configure a printer say, "That's it. Windows isn't ready for the desktop. I can't use this." Well, they may say that in a moment of frustration, but they end up sticking it out, getting it to work, at least until they can afford a Mac computer.

Many people who just try out Linux for one or two hours immediately give up upon encountering one single problem. Then, the hands go up in the air, "Linux isn't ready for the desktop. I'd better write an article about it. Maybe ZDnet will publish it."

A little while ago Roblimo wrote an article (http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/05/18/2033216) on this very thing (Windows desktop "readiness").

[Lowe]

Someone should buy aysiu a whip. ;p

[aysiu]

Someone should buy aysiu a whip. ;p Or a "Think Linux" T-shirt. I saw someone wearing one of those today. It was cool.

[DJ_Max]

So yes, Windows is desktop ready.

For you maybe, but not for me. The question that should have been asked was for who is Windows ready for?

[Hanj]

It's like comparing a saloon motorcar with an off road 4X4 and saying this one is better than that one for any variety of reasons. The fact is that they both do a certain job very well.Personally, I think the problem is that most people are never faced with the choice of whether to use MS or open source software.

At least here in Sweden it is virtually impossible to buy a new computer without Windows (and often Office too) preinstalled. If you're buying a laptop it's even worse. And a (non-geeky) person who has payed a lot of money for some piece of software is not very likely to immediately throw it away for some other software.

If, on the other hand, computers were sold with nothing installed, I think a lot more people would at least try the free alternatives before spending all their money on MS products. I'm not saying that vendors shouldn't be allowed to pre-install anything, just that customers should be informed about the alternatives. My point is that many people have no idea how much they are actually spending on windows and office. They think it's more or less free because it came with the computer they just bought.

[gray-squirrel]

The only reason Linux doesnt have the spyware problem Windows has is a lack of userbase. In Linux the installing program is assumed 'trusted' almost as much as the Windows one and there is no reason, apart from a scarcity of installs, that spyware cannot exist on Linux.

http://www.utexas.edu/its/security/personal/windows/useraccount.html

If more Windows users read the principles contained in the above link and applied them, it would be less of a problem than it is now.

It would not necessarily apply to Windows ME, 98, and 95, so one would have to take extra care on those systems.


So yes, Windows is desktop ready.


But are the people truly ready for Windows? If they're not ready or not willing to handle the responsibility of creating admin-only and regular accounts or anything similar to what Linux-based systems have, the answer is no, Windows is not desktop ready. Not in my opinion, anyway.

[Mugendai]

Not here to insight a flamewar, but this thread basically looks like, "Help me to justify myself in using Linux instead of Windows".

I'll break it down into a QnA thing

Q> Is Windows ready for the desktop?
A> All notions of security aside, yes. While it is the most vulnerable OS in existance, it also is made for the desktop, and practically defines the requirements for being a desktop. You can make all the arguments you want about how it lacks security, or how obtaining software for it, envolves a web search(that will very quickly produce tons of results), or how everything is exceedingly expensive, or how custumization requires third party tools. But when it comes down to it, the numbers don't lie. You've got a simple majority standing there telling you, "Windows is ready for the desktop".

Q> Is Windows secure enough for the modern world?
A> HELL NO! It is not only designed against everything we know as being good security practices, but is THE main target of people who seek to violate computers. But great amount of security can be gained by good third party software. And make the system safe enough for most people. And if your system gets roasted by a virus, finding someone who has expertease in fixing the situation is easy, since Windows is so highly used, and so highly skrewed. But if people knew the alternative levels of security offered by well designed operating systems, they would not be satisfied with the security in Windows, however, they'de still use it.

Q> Isn't Windows too expensive for the modern world?
A> Absolutely, and the fact that its price is constantly rising, well is just insane. Plus most of the software for it follows the notion that software is a thing you sell. It's a very expensive OS. However this doesn't phase most people, as most people just go ahead and steall windows, and the software for it, unless they are buying a new computer with it. With M$s upcoming resistances to Windows piracy, I expect to see atleast a small decline in Windows usage, due to the fact that there are going to be people saying, "If I have to pay for this, then it just ain't worth it."

Q> Is Linux ready for the Desktop?
A> No. Sorry guys, it isn't. I so very much wish it was, but it just isn't. Why? Hardware support is not good enough. Software is not prolific enough for it(see M$s new "Buy Windows cause people wrote software for it" campaighn). And alas, yes it is not easy to use enough.

Q> What do you mean "Hardware support is not good enough", I've gotten all my stuff running in Linux!
A> To be able to use a piece of hardware, the proccess should either entail your OS discovering and setting up the hardware, or you going the manufacturers site downloading a file, running it, and hitting next a few times till the drivers are installed and ready to go. Linux does a very good job of supporting loads of hardware out of the box. But it ends there, getting hardware running that isn't already in the OS can be a major pain in the ***. And some of it only works due to the existance of windows drivers(see ndiswrapper). Plus many pieces of hardware that are supported under Linux, come up wanting to what they can be used for in Windows. This is all due to two things, one, lack of manufacturer support for Linux. If the guys making the hardware would just make good drivers for Linux too, we would be in a great place. Problem is, the other issue. If a company wants to support Windows, they only have to design a driver for it. If they want to support Linux, they have to design a driver for what, 10 different OSes(and even then there are hundreds of Linux distros it will still not work on). The problem is a lack of standards, and a lack of good modular design on the behalf of hardware supporting software. The entire Linux crowd needs to work out a single standardised system everyone can obide by, then companies will be able to afford to make drivers for Linux. As I said it is also bad design. A great way of being able to understand this, is to go try to update your video card drivers. In Windows, you install the drivers with a GUI, and when it's done it's either working, or you have to reboot and its working. In Linux, OMG, its this entire badly documented, if documented at all, difficult process envolving command line work with exceedingly long commands, and understanding of things most people have no idea about. This is a bad model, you should be able to drop in a new driver, and tell the system to use it, all in an installer. Until Linux has a standardized driver system, and one that is designed well, it's going to sit behind Windows for hardare support. (another option would be a driver wrapper system that companies coudl write for that would then work itself into each distros design)

Q> What do you mean there ain't enough software? Dude, there is soo much Linux software out there it ain't funny!
A> Very true, tons of Linux software. Often it has software that cost way less and is way better than the windows equivelents. Mainly I am refering to commercial software. One kuhl thing about Linux, is that for almost ever piece of high quality commercial utility there is on windows, there is atleast one high quality open source application that does the same thing under Linux. (Though on the down side there is often another 50 not so high quality ones to sift through to find the diamond amongst them). However, the software suffers the same issue as the hardware software. Its too much trouble to design for a few thousands linux distros. Often software for Linux is made only for one or two distros, and it can be very difficult to figure out how to get it to work under your chosen distro, it would be impossible for most people in this world to figure out. This results in a drop in available software. And there is no real good solution for the situation, the best I could say would be if there was one standardized install system people could dev for, that would then work itself out for each distro.
Of course the biggest lacking in software, Games. Linux might have lots of free open source games, but it just can not stack up to the plethora of high quality games designed for Windows. If you are Gamer, Linux is a bad choice. Yea, there are was to coherce windows games ot run in Linux, but they rarely run as well as they do under Windows, and low and behold Cedega ain't free(unless you manage to compile the OS version of it, which isn't as complete as the pay version). While some companies do take the time to actually make Linux versions of games, the numbers are few and far between, and they suffer the same issues as other Linux software, getting it to work on your Distro may be a pain, or impossible.
And finally, there is no Miranda for Linux, sure, ther eis GAIM, but GAIM doesn't even come close to Miranda.

Q> What do you mean Linux is too difficult to use? You are just saying that cause you don't know the system well yet.
A> Ya know what annoys me? I have not been able to figure out how to customize my applications menu in Gnome in Ubuntu yet. Then I right click an entry, I don't get the options that the Gnome manual mentioned. There must be some restriction I don't know about, perhaps user permissions(although my user has SU access). I'm sure I'll be able to figure it out, once I read the FAQs and or forums, but come on, I shouldn't have to do that to change the menu! In windows, its very easy to do, in Ubuntu, I have to go figure it out by reading forums, there is no reason for this. It would also be nice if I could gain su rights when using Nautilus, I don't like having to use the command line to work with files, I should be able to do this in Nautilus, and do so without having to jump through a hoop. But alas, it does require hoop jumping, to do it, I run gksudo nautilus. Why is there not a menu entry for sudo nautilus? Or howabout nautilus having the ability to ask for my su password when I want to use higher level permissions? These are examples, of it being difficult to use. Of course the pinnacle of difficulty is having to use sh to do alot of things. CLI's just are not intuitive, they don't follow the model of GUI, which is, "Here is what you can do, take your pick" The CLI is "You need to already know what you can do, and tell me it, and be sure you spell it right with proper capitalization, and if you don't know then go reading many many many manuals or forums".
It is true that when Linux holds your hand it tends to do a great job of it, but when the time for hand holding is gone, you are in a deep dark world. I feel like when Linux hand holds, it's like parents covering their childs eyes to the difficulties of the world, and then one day throwing them out into a hell demension, and saying, good luck, if you need help then hunt down others that have already figured it out. The contrast between the easy to use things, and everything else is immense. I swear with Linux things are either exceedingly easy, or exceedingly hard. And for some reason I am always trying t do things that are exceedingly hard, which seem like they should be exceedingly easy(as they are in Windows). It feels like there is a learning block between hand hold stuff and what makes it too too. Like I can enable remote desktop right? But what is it? What software is it running? Where are the docs on it? I dunno, it's been obscured, that really annoys me.
Which brings me to the installation system. Yea it's great that I have most the software I want handed too me on a silver platter, click, and hit go, and bam its done for me. But it isnt that simple. Number one versions are often outdated, and getting new versions can be very very difficult, completly defeating the easy packaging system. Number two, where the hell did it put the files? This is too easy, when I install stuff in windows, I see where the program goes, and infact choose. When I do it with synapic/apt-get its setup completly for me, without bothering to inform me what it installed where. There is tons of software I can install, but most of it doesn't even have in the description, where I can find docs on what the hell was just installed where and how to use it. Come on, what is the point in having an easy installer for something if I have to hunt down docs just to find the binary. Its great when I get a Gnome menu entry, but when I don't, I'm completly left in the dark.


Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, I hate Windows, I've been trying to escape Windows for years, but Linux just ain't ready yet. Understand all of the things I've mentioned that I have problems with in Linux, I mention cause I would like to see the problems remedied, so I can use Linux better.

[DJ_Max]

*sigh*
To say Linux isn't desktop ready is stupid. Of course it's ready, I'm using it. For me, it's desktop ready. Windows on the other hand, is not, for me. But the opposite is true for others.

Everybody is different, to say a OS is or isn't desktop ready makes no sense. The question should have been "Who is Microsoft WIndows ready for"?

Do a little reading. http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktop.php because this thread is pointless.

[OttoDestruct]

Personally, I think the problem is that most people are never faced with the choice of whether to use MS or open source software.

At least here in Sweden it is virtually impossible to buy a new computer without Windows (and often Office too) preinstalled. If you're buying a laptop it's even worse. And a (non-geeky) person who has payed a lot of money for some piece of software is not very likely to immediately throw it away for some other software.

If, on the other hand, computers were sold with nothing installed, I think a lot more people would at least try the free alternatives before spending all their money on MS products. I'm not saying that vendors shouldn't be allowed to pre-install anything, just that customers should be informed about the alternatives. My point is that many people have no idea how much they are actually spending on windows and office. They think it's more or less free because it came with the computer they just bought.

Thats the thing, if Linux users want more people educated about Linux, they need to take more initiative. Beyond the tech realm, ruled by the geeks, very few people understand even what an OS is, let alone that theres a free one with loads of free stuff for it. There are two ways I see Linux taking ground in commercial brick and mortar stores being installed on hardware (keep in mind theres are opinions of a Linux simpleton):

1) Small businesses with Linux users loading it up on special ordered blank hardware
2) The rare chance that large companies (Staples, Office Max, Best Buy, whatever is in your own place of origin) begin a niche market with Linux as an option. OSX is having this problem as well, but Apple has money, and they made their own stores.

[aysiu]

Not here to insight a flamewar, but this thread basically looks like, "Help me to justify myself in using Linux instead of Windows".
I know this borders on obnoxious, but the English teacher in me has to let you know insight is a noun. I believe the word you're looking for is incite. Still, I'm glad you appear to have used Ubuntu for more than two days...

But when it comes down to it, the numbers don't lie. You've got a simple majority standing there telling you, "Windows is ready for the desktop". If people really had a choice about what OS to install upon purchasing a computer, I'd agree with you--numbers don't lie. That's a bit like saying ________ (fill in the blank) is a great country because the vast majority of people who were born in that country stay in that country. It's not that easy to just emigrate to another country--you have to make a real conscious effort to do, go through a lot of red tape, and get a work visa. Maybe a lot of people are unhappy with their country of birth, but they're comfortable there (because that's what they're used to), and they think it's too much trouble to move to something else they don't know is necessarily better.

I don't know. When I go to HP, Dell, Sony, or other major retailers' websites to purchase a laptop or desktop, I don't get a choice of operating system. The only choice I get is XP Home or XP Professional.

I think most people stick with Windows even if it's difficult or "not ready for the desktop" because they think their only other choice is to ditch their PC and buy a Mac. I hear complaints all the time at work about how difficult Windows is.


No. Sorry guys, it isn't. I so very much wish it was, but it just isn't. Why? Hardware support is not good enough. Software is not prolific enough for it(see M$s new "Buy Windows cause people wrote software for it" campaighn). And alas, yes it is not easy to use enough. What you say is partially true, but I have to say if you ever do a fresh Windows install, you have about a 50/50 chance of it not recognizing your hardware. What do you mean by "not easy to use enough"? I've had two guests and my wife (all Linux novices... actually, pre-novices) use my Ubuntu computer, and not a single question was asked. They knew how to use Firefox. They knew how to navigate menus to shut down the computer. It's all point-and-click. What's so difficult about using Linux?

Mainly I am refering to commercial software. One kuhl thing about Linux, is that for almost ever piece of high quality commercial utility there is on windows, there is atleast one high quality open source application that does the same thing under Linux. (Though on the down side there is often another 50 not so high quality ones to sift through to find the diamond amongst them). I have to agree with you there. If you're into buying a lot of commercial software, Linux isn't for you. I'm not into buying a lot of commercial software, and yet I get quality CD burning, graphics manipulation, and secure FTP options. It all depends on what you want. Just because Linux isn't for everyone doesn't mean it's not "ready for the desktop." Windows isn't for everyone either. Mac isn't for everyone either.


A> Ya know what annoys me? I have not been able to figure out how to customize my applications menu in Gnome in Ubuntu yet. Then I right click an entry, I don't get the options that the Gnome manual mentioned. There must be some restriction I don't know about, perhaps user permissions(although my user has SU access). I'm sure I'll be able to figure it out, once I read the FAQs and or forums, but come on, I shouldn't have to do that to change the menu! You have a valid point. It's dumb that you have download SMEG to edit a menu, but that's really a Ubuntu thing. I used Gnome in Blag and could edit menus. And all KDE desktops come with editable menus.

It would also be nice if I could gain su rights when using Nautilus, I don't like having to use the command line to work with files, I should be able to do this in Nautilus, and do so without having to jump through a hoop. But alas, it does require hoop jumping, to do it, I run gksudo nautilus. Why is there not a menu entry for sudo nautilus? Or howabout nautilus having the ability to ask for my su password when I want to use higher level permissions? Why is this an example of Linux being difficult to use? It's called security. If people could just click around with root permissions, you'd have as secure an OS as Windows. Sure, if you want to create a root account and browse around as root all the time, you could do whatever you wanted. However, that's not secure. Really, if this sort of thing bugs you, I'd advise using Mepis over Ubuntu. I like Ubuntu, but I don't mind the command-line. Mepis is all point-and-click, including browsing as root within a user account. You can't generalize about all of Linux because of Ubuntu.

Its great when I get a Gnome menu entry, but when I don't, I'm completly left in the dark. Program launchers usually go into /bin or /usr/bin, but honestly, you don't have to know where something went in order to use it. Just type the name of the program: nautilus.

[Omnios]

Is Windows ready let me put it this way. I helped my friend get rid of his spyware all 120 of them the next day was better only about 90. I personaly know at least 3 people who paid to have there hard drive reformated and windows reinstalled because of web problems be it pop ups or spyware viruses which there anti viruses missed which gradualy resulted in corupt files.

YOU do not get windows free with your computer it is worked into the cost and the price lingers. I priced out my box with an without windows way back when and the difference in price is quit a bit. A friend had a tecki friend try to reinstall Xp supplyed with his computer from a holesaler and he could not get it working so had to take it into the shop for a reinstall. For some reasons these resalers seem to love installing windows!

[bored2k]

YOU do not get windows free with your computer it is worked into the cost and the price lingers. I priced out my box with an without windows way back when and the difference in price is quit a bit. A friend had a tecki friend try to reinstall Xp supplyed with his computer from a holesaler and he could not get it working so had to take it into the shop for a reinstall. For some reasons these resalers seem to love installing windows!
You are correct and I completely agree. About 2 months ago my dad was going to get a computer so he asked me about good stores to get decent parts (he has learned by hearing me rant numerously about how certain stores sell "cheap" computers with the crappiest hardware brand possible and just get a cute case to cover it up) and once he got all the hardware prices and the approximate cost of the computer, he gave me a phone call to check the prices with me. Boy was I shocked when he said the price. WITH Windows preinstalled the computer was about 150 U.S. dollars MORE expensive. People usually think Windows is as indispensable as a motherboard so they just don't care about this, but I off course saved my dad huge bucks my _not_ letting him buy it.

[panickedthumb]

"You have a valid point. It's dumb that you have download SMEG to edit a menu, but that's really a Ubuntu thing. I used Gnome in Blag and could edit menus. And all KDE desktops come with editable menus."

No, it's a Gnome thing. The current version of Gnome doesn't have menu editing. Blag was using an older version, or had implemented menu editing themselves.

[poofyhairguy]

Why is there not a menu entry for sudo nautilus? Or howabout nautilus having the ability to ask for my su password when I want to use higher level permissions?

I have the answer I think is best if you wish to hear it: the developers don't want you mucking around with a super nautilus. Why do you need it? You don't need it for the home folder, and thats where all of your data and self installed programs should be anyway. The rest of the file system is kinda off limits. Most people aren't qualified and shouldn't mess with it. Why would someone need to?

There are a few good reasons why, but in all of those cases the skill of the person needing to do that task should be high enough so that a little gksudo nautilus shouldn't bug them. Do you need it just to get that Windows feel, the feel that you can tamper with and screw up anything? Eventually Gnome will get to the point that the file system is hidden just like OSX. Asking "why I can't get in there" is like asking "why the government I pay tons of taxes to and Jefferson wrote was "of the people" won't let me in a restricted area." Because you don't need to.


I swear with Linux things are either exceedingly easy, or exceedingly hard.

I kinda agree.

And for some reason I am always trying t do things that are exceedingly hard, which seem like they should be exceedingly easy(as they are in Windows).

Let me guess...you are a webcam fan? Those people seem to dislike Linux the most.

Number one versions are often outdated, and getting new versions can be very very difficult, completly defeating the easy packaging system.

Unlike in the nonfree software world, most OSS software has VERY frequent releases. Is it that bad to run software that is six months old instead of two, or to use one point release less than the newest? I don't get this complaint from people used to Windows. They will use a 4 year old OS, with a copy of Office XP (or OLDER!) and then they gripe that they can't get the latest software in Ubuntu. I think really the gripe is the lack of a Windows style installer, and this is chosen to be the less ignorant way to pass off that gripe.

Number two, where the hell did it put the files? This is too easy, when I install stuff in windows, I see where the program goes, and infact choose. When I do it with synapic/apt-get its setup completly for me, without bothering to inform me what it installed where. There is tons of software I can install, but most of it doesn't even have in the description, where I can find docs on what the hell was just installed where and how to use it. Come on, what is the point in having an easy installer for something if I have to hunt down docs just to find the binary. Its great when I get a Gnome menu entry, but when I don't, I'm completly left in the dark.

97% of the time entering the name of the program in the run dialoge gets it to work for me. I agree it will be neat when everything has a menu entry, but why does it matter for you to know where the files are installed? The only time I ever needed to know in Windows is when I apply cracks (that I don't need in Linux). Maybe thats just me.


Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, I hate Windows, I've been trying to escape Windows for years, but Linux just ain't ready yet. Understand all of the things I've mentioned that I have problems with in Linux, I mention cause I would like to see the problems remedied, so I can use Linux better.

Don't get me wrong, despite me picking apart your points many are very valid. I offer a defense because there isn't a "Linux marketing department" to do it for me or it. Also please note that just listing your complaints here does nothing. If you want input into Ubuntu, you have to file bugs in bugzilla. There is no official voice or eyes on these official forums.

[Kerberos]

The bulk of the problems in Windows are social engineering attacks, usually tricking users to hit 'ok' at a critical stage so they can own the box. The only reason this works is the users dont know enough to understand what they are doing is bad. I dont see how using Linux will suddenly get rid of a problem that uses humans as the primary method of infection.

Also claiming a 3yr old unpatched Windows install will get rooted on the net is stating the obvious. Your an idiot if you go on the net with a machine lacking 3 years worth of patches, rather than Microsoft.

A little bit of user education drops the virus, worm and spyware infection rates down to virtually zero. It seems ironic saying to Windows users 'use Linux and you'll never have spyware again', but if they were to just learn a little about what they have it wouldn't be a problem (as opposed to adopting and having to learn an entire new OS). Basically your wanting to switch people from an OS they are having problems with because they dont understand it properly to an OS thats actually more difficult to use.

[Kerberos]

If you want input into Ubuntu, you have to file bugs in bugzilla. There is no official voice or eyes on these official forums.
Are usability bugs bugs (or just features?)

:D

[Knome_fan]

The bulk of the problems in Windows are social engineering attacks, usually tricking users to hit 'ok' at a critical stage so they can own the box. The only reason this works is the users dont know enough to understand what they are doing is bad. I dont see how using Linux will suddenly get rid of a problem that uses humans as the primary method of infection.

Ehm, that simply not true. What about all the worms that attacked Windows in recent years? What about all the IE exploits that merely required people to open a prepared website? What about the fact that Windows defaults to using the admin account, that most people run as admin and that there's a lot of software around that only works when people are admin? Clearly the last point aggrevates the problem if people click OK at the wrong time.


Also claiming a 3yr old unpatched Windows install will get rooted on the net is stating the obvious. Your an idiot if you go on the net with a machine lacking 3 years worth of patches, rather than Microsoft.

Well, the problem is that there isn't a newer version of Windows available, so what's your point?
This reminds me of an other funny thing I recently had the pleasure to read. MS claiming that with SP2 Windows is 15times less likely to fall prey to a worm attack than it is without SP2. Now that's of course a good thing, but what is funny about it is that this is achieved by, tada, simply enabling a firewall by default and thus not exposing the dozens of services Windows is running by default to the net. Now doesn't that tell you that MS made a bad design descision when the initially decided not to that in the first place? How is that the users fault?

[Kerberos]

Well, the problem is that there isn't a newer version of Windows available, so what's your point?
The difference is while most companies call it a new version, and usually charge for it, Microsoft calls it a service pack and lets you download it for free.

A more fair comparison then would be Windows XP vs Red Hat 6, which I dont think you would consider fair.

In summary problems that have been fixed are no longer problems and certainly dont belong in here. Its 2005 now you know!

[Knome_fan]

The difference is while most companies call it a new version, and usually charge for it, Microsoft calls it a service pack and lets you download it for free.

And with what am I expected to download it with my fresh XP install that I shouldn't expose to the net? See the problem?

Btw., thanks for gracefully ignoring all the other points I raised and reminding me that it's 2005 allready.

[Kerberos]

And with what am I expected to download it with my fresh XP install that I shouldn't expose to the net? See the problem?

I dunno, you could download it and burn it to cd, get it off of someone you know, the front of a magazine, or from Microsoft themselves for absolutley nothing [Link] (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp2/cdorder/en_us/default.mspx)?

Also if you buy it now it will have SP2 already included.

[poofyhairguy]

Are usability bugs bugs (or just features?)

:D

I'd say. Plus bugzilla is hte official channel.

[Mugendai]

I know this borders on obnoxious
I have no problems with people correcting my english, feel free.

do a fresh Windows install, you have about a 50/50 chance of it not recognizing your hardware.
Right right, but then you just go to manufacturers sites, grab simple point and click to install drivers and you are good to go. There is no digging through documents(or all too often, lack thereof) to try to figure out how to get it to go for hours on end. You've got to RTFM so many manuals its not funny, like you have to become an expert in everything to get it working right, IF it wasn't already done for you.

"not easy to use enough" knew how to use Firefox. navigate menus to shut down the computer. It's all point-and-click
Yea, sure, but I can't get you to come over here and configure my box for me (^_^). It's great if someone else is going to set it up for you, or it came setup for what you wanted, but anything else, and you really have to do alot of reading and hunting and scouring.

It all depends on what you want.
True, if you want what is handed to you, and you don't wanna change that, Linux is excellent. Really you just can't beat Linux when it comes to being able to get an OS that does all the common things people would wanna do with a computer(save for gaming), right out of the box. But if you wanna, or need to, do somehthing a lil different, it can take a surprsing amount of work.

you want to create a root account and browse around as root all the time
no no, not at all.. I wanna get a gksudo prompt to access the filesystem with root priveleges when I need such access. I'm new, and there are files like everywhere, and they are not well organized cause they were aboviously placed in locations by many different people with different ideas on how to organize a file system. So I need a nice graphical display of whats in what for navigating this thing, atleast till I know where things are at. I'de be perfectly fine if nautilus could let me do whatever, until I wanted to do something that needed root privs, then it could say, "hey gimmie your password", basically the same way I use sudo in terminal. But this is the sort of thing everyone new to Linux would want, I know some people are ookay with typing exceedingly long strings of text that are case sensitive, but I'm not, and I think most people new to linux arent. Accessing the filesystem is an integral part of getting Linux configured.

You can't generalize about all of Linux because of Ubuntu.
The best I can do, is pull from my experienc with the distros I've tried, which due to slow internet access(I had ot drive a half hour to town and 'borrow' a coffee houses wan for an hour to get this Ubuntu in a resonable time) and not having all the time in the world to learn Linux, has not been that many, a red hat or two, a few mandrakes, a go at gentoo, and a shot at redmond, a few days with the help of an expert, trying to get Suse going but no success, oh and I gave OpenBSD a shot once.
For the most part I had tried to put it on my desktop, which meant I wanted my video card to have a proper working driver, and it has been the bane of my issues every time, and I had a new video card each time too... Bad experience with printers and my hardware issue on Ubunutu is/was that it wont work with the touchpad built into the keyboard I have on it.
This Ubuntu time, it will be different, this time, I'm breaking down and rebuilding my windows server(built on exteamly expensive software) as a Linux server. Since I wont be doing desktop stuff on it, it should do the job, but I have been working on making it do what my windows box did for days, and I am not there yet.

you don't have to know where something went in order to use it. Just type the name of the program
I know that, but if I want to make a menu entry for it, or even an sl on my desktop to it, I need to know where it is. But more importantly, to get much of the software I'm messing with working I need ot know where the files have gone, or atleast where I should be putting the files if I'm installing manually.

[aysiu]

Right right, but then you just go to manufacturers sites, grab simple point and click to install drivers and you are good to go. There is no digging through documents(or all too often, lack thereof) to try to figure out how to get it to go for hours on end. You've got to RTFM so many manuals its not funny, like you have to become an expert in everything to get it working right, IF it wasn't already done for you. My point exactly. For Windows, the manufacturer does it all for you. And I had a much easier time fixing my screen resolution with a fresh Ubuntu install than I did with a fresh Windows install.


no no, not at all.. I wanna get a gksudo prompt to access the filesystem with root priveleges when I need such access. You've got two options, then. You can use Mepis, which has this built in already, or you can create a launcher in Ubuntu for gksudo nautilus.


The best I can do, is pull from my experienc with the distros I've tried, which due to slow internet access(I had ot drive a half hour to town and 'borrow' a coffee houses wan for an hour to get this Ubuntu in a resonable time) and not having all the time in the world to learn Linux, has not been that many, a red hat or two, a few mandrakes, a go at gentoo, and a shot at redmond, a few days with the help of an expert, trying to get Suse going but no success, oh and I gave OpenBSD a shot once. Yes, that's fine. I don't think you should have tried every distro out there, especially if you have dial-up, but you also shouldn't generalize about all Linux. I have to say, most of what people complain about Ubuntu is answered with Mepis. I love Ubuntu, but if you're going to complain about configuring things... use Mepis. It's not a Linux problem. It's a bad user-distro mismatch.


I know that, but if I want to make a menu entry for it, or even an sl on my desktop to it, I need to know where it is. But more importantly, to get much of the software I'm messing with working I need ot know where the files have gone, or atleast where I should be putting the files if I'm installing manually. The majority of apps will be in usr/bin or /bin, but you can create a launcher that has just the name of the app--you don't need to know where it is.

[student]

you know, this thing einstein said pops up in my mind:
The essential thing is to live believing that absolute truth when it
touches upon this world, when it becomes relevant for us, is relative
to us, conditioned by the points, circumstances, conditions receiving
it. In the analogy given above, countless relative truths reflect the
absolute truth located at the center point of the circle or the
straight line at innumerable other points according to the properties,
color and design of each. As long as people recognize, acknowledge,
and defer to their own distance from the absolute truth, and don't go
beyond their human limits, unmanageable conflicts will not arise. But
when people lose this sense of proportion about themselves and their
capacity to know and propose the truth, when they take what is
relative for what is absolute, they fall into errors with catastrophic
consequences.

maybe something fitting on the ubuntu logon splash or something :smile:

[Mugendai]

Because you don't need to.
sick.... Why I need it? Configuration of the system. So far my sum total of experience with Linux has been that of trying to get it configured. So I have been moving all across the filesystem working on stuff. Plus the home path ain't the only place to do things, etc, for instance is a must for write access if you are configuring the system. var/www pretty well needs controlled if you are working on web. And low and behold everything I've ever installed absolutely does not wanna go in the home folder, thems go in everything from etc, to usr, to var...
Most of the stuff I'm working on now, is stuff that is run without anyone logging in, so it deffinetly doesnt belong under my home directory.

In both Linux and Windows, I spend a large amount of the time I use the system with some file manager open with root level access. The last time I skrewed something up by doing this was long ago trying to clean out part of the windows directory(mostly dlls) to make a little space(way back when that little space mattered), and even then I fixed it.

Let me guess...you are a webcam fan? Those people seem to dislike Linux the most. That was rude and unwarrented.

they gripe that they can't get the latest software in Ubuntu
Typically if I am installing a package myself, it's because I need to. I know about OSS, just cause I use Windows as my primary OS, doesn't mean I'm ignorant to OS coding, I've got a project on sourceforge. I love bugtrackers. I don't use explorer, I use Litestep(open source), I don't use ICQ/AIM/Trill etc, I use Miranda(open source, and better than GAIM [minus the cross platform]), I use firefox, thunderbird, openoffice.org, filezilla, Azureus, TightVNC, sometimes the gimp, xnview, and a plethora of open source dev tools, including virtual linux systems. I'm no stranger to open source. I'm no stranger to the fact that open source updates often. And I'm no strangers to constantly getting the latest bleeding edge version and installing it with little to no difficulty. If it has an installer, quick simple install, if it doesn't then it's just a file extraction.
Sure it's not CVS/SVN new, but close enough for me.
But when I wanna do something like this under Linux, it can be a big pain. Cause files go everywhere, and I am very often unsure as to where to put them. PLus unfortunately to get the latest running under Unbuntu I have to make it.

97% of the time entering the name of the program in the run dialoge gets it to work for me.

Application->Run
gksudo nautilus
run
enter password

Much much much more difficult than

Application->Nautilus(root)
enter password

It's just a matter of logical convienance. For noobs like me having to remember the exact names of things like gksudo and nautilus can be quite a pain.

"Linux marketing department" to do it for me or it. Also please note that just listing your complaints here does nothing.
I just want Linux to be better. I am dissapointed that it is still behind windows in several aspects even after the several years it has been trying to get its foot in M$'s bankvault. Part of usage(I huge part for me) is configuarion(I reconfigure things all the time), and that is what is soo difficult in Linux, getting things to that point where the system is how you want it, with the software you need.
And that's Linuxs biggest downside, it can still be very difficult to get the system to be what you want. Linux needs a better organized, and, more importantly, standardized, filesystem layout(and I am still of the notion programs get one folder containing themselves, they should not be distrubuted across the filesystem). With different people putting varying files in varying places, using varying versions of varying source, results in making configuration very complicated.

There is one standard that is well adhered to. Configure programs via text files, put any details needed in the text file. This means configuration means hunting down and modifying text files. Many times the text files have entries that are to point to where in the filesystem X file is located. You have to know where that file is, and make sure that its path has permissions for that programs user. Having to hunt down such files all the time is what makes the proccess so complicated.
There are hundreds of variables in config files that need to be pointed to files or paths, and this is because you can stick things however you want wherever, instead of adhereing to some unified standard.

I just, I so wish this was all easier, cause I really wanna use Linux. Or possibly more importantly, I really want to not use Windows. I just get frustrated. I've been spending many many hours, and all of my time trying to get my Ubuntu system configured(as a server), I'm distraught, and tired of working on it, and obviously extreamly annoyed with having to flip all over the filesystem to find file paths.

I know blabing about this isn't going to do any good, but this thread is not a thread for doing good, it's a thread for discussing the readyness of windows for the desktop(in contrast to Linux)[most of the posts are contrasting windows security{HAH!} to Linux security]. And well it's a meaningless discussion, that will have sort of fruit, I just don't want Linux users acting like "they are there" when it comes to desktop readyness, cause they absolutely positively are not. As in "don't stop working on it now, there is still much work to be done".

[NoTiG]

As for the directory structure needing to be reorganized... not really. Everything a regular desktop user needs is under ~ anyway.. and if your poking around in the filesystem then your more than likely not a regular user anyway.

Here is an explanation of the file structre if you want to know where things go: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html

[Kyral]

Okay, whoever says Linux hardware detect stinks, is an idiot. For desktops at least (laptops are still a pain)

I run a custom built PC. Now that usually means (for me) wierd combos of parts that were never meant to go together. Guess what? Everything detected and working properly. Now yes, I did install the NVidia drivers, and killed ESD, but compare that to how long it takes to reinstall XP if you don't have one of those Restore CDs from Dell. It took me 6 HOURS (not including the install sequence itself) when I installed XP on this thing to get everything detected.

Yanno how long it takes me to reinstall my Linux system? 30 mins (again, not counting the install sequence, which is only about an hour). Thats to my theme, 99% of customizations restored, and whatnot.

Is Windows ready for the desktop? No
Is Linux? YES

[aysiu]

I just want Linux to be better. No, you just want Ubuntu to be Windows. If you don't like the command-line, use Mepis or Linspire.


I just, I so wish this was all easier, cause I really wanna use Linux. Or possibly more importantly, I really want to not use Windows. That's your problem. You don't want Linux. You want Windows but better. Linux can be better than Windows in many respects, but it is not Windows.

I also think you're thinking just because you are having trouble with Linux (or Ubuntu specifically) that everyone's having trouble. I've had absolutely no trouble with Ubuntu at all. I'm not a developer. I'm not a sys admin. I'm not a web server maintainer. I'm not a programmer. I'm just a user. All I did was follow a few steps in the Ubuntu Guide and ask a few questions on this forum, and I was set up. I think part of your frustration stems from being just too used to the Windows way of doing things.

[bored2k]

No, you just want Ubuntu to be Windows. If you don't like the command-line, use Mepis or Linspire.

That's your problem. You don't want Linux. You want Windows but better. Linux can be better than Windows in many respects, but it is not Windows.

I also think you're thinking just because you are having trouble with Linux (or Ubuntu specifically) that everyone's having trouble. I've had absolutely no trouble with Ubuntu at all. I'm not a developer. I'm not a sys admin. I'm not a web server maintainer. I'm not a programmer. I'm just a user. All I did was follow a few steps in the Ubuntu Guide and ask a few questions on this forum, and I was set up. I think part of your frustration stems from being just too used to the Windows way of doing things.
I just, I so wish this was all easier, cause I really wanna use Linux. Or possibly more importantly, I really want to not use Windows.Have an open mind about Linux. Just like aysiu "rantishly" said before me, we are not trying to emulate another OS. Just try to remember how much you _don't_ want to be a "click and run" person who doesn't understand a bit about computers who has to obey what the corporate daddy commands your box to do. It's not hard, it really is not, but you just have to think everything your doing is learning how to think outside the box and not be one more of the masses. Remember you've been using your other OS for years now, and you can't really hide the fact that all that time you've been simply clicking next-next-next-Finish, so when we first say "open a Terminal" you can and will get headaches, but its just part of the learning process.

[poofyhairguy]

sick.... Why I need it? Configuration of the system. So far my sum total of experience with Linux has been that of trying to get it configured. So I have been moving all across the filesystem working on stuff. Plus the home path ain't the only place to do things, etc, for instance is a must for write access if you are configuring the system. var/www pretty well needs controlled if you are working on web. And low and behold everything I've ever installed absolutely does not wanna go in the home folder, thems go in everything from etc, to usr, to var...
Most of the stuff I'm working on now, is stuff that is run without anyone logging in, so it deffinetly doesnt belong under my home directory.

Good you are an advanced user. gksudo is for you.


That was rude and unwarrented.

It was a joke that didn't go well. Sorry, I forgot you don't answer questions around here all day like I do.


PLus unfortunately to get the latest running under Unbuntu I have to make it.

Or ask the nice backport people



It's just a matter of logical convienance. For noobs like me having to remember the exact names of things like gksudo and nautilus can be quite a pain.

You are not a "noob." If you are in more than the home or media folder for ANYTHING, you are not a noob. Just make a laucher for gksudo nautilus if you want one.


I just want Linux to be better. I am dissapointed that it is still behind windows in several aspects even after the several years it has been trying to get its foot in M$'s bankvault. Part of usage(I huge part for me) is configuarion(I reconfigure things all the time), and that is what is soo difficult in Linux, getting things to that point where the system is how you want it, with the software you need.
And that's Linuxs biggest downside, it can still be very difficult to get the system to be what you want. Linux needs a better organized, and, more importantly, standardized, filesystem layout(and I am still of the notion programs get one folder containing themselves, they should not be distrubuted across the filesystem). With different people putting varying files in varying places, using varying versions of varying source, results in making configuration very complicated.

The way any desktop Linux battles the difficulty of the GNU world is with good defaults. Ubuntu tries to be very nice out of the box. It will always be hard to configure Linux, to do the newest things. Things don't get easy until after they are new...If you reconfigure all the time then your skills must advance. Some things should be easy (changed themes), some things will never be (installing newest stuff not in repo from tar file). The fragmentation of the GNU OS makes any other situation impossible in my opinion.


There is one standard that is well adhered to. Configure programs via text files, put any details needed in the text file. This means configuration means hunting down and modifying text files. Many times the text files have entries that are to point to where in the filesystem X file is located. You have to know where that file is, and make sure that its path has permissions for that programs user. Having to hunt down such files all the time is what makes the proccess so complicated.
There are hundreds of variables in config files that need to be pointed to files or paths, and this is because you can stick things however you want wherever, instead of adhereing to some unified standard.

Are you complaining there isn't a GUI for everything? You should try KDE (especially SUSE's KDE), it has a GUI for almost everything.


I just, I so wish this was all easier, cause I really wanna use Linux. Or possibly more importantly, I really want to not use Windows. I just get frustrated. I've been spending many many hours, and all of my time trying to get my Ubuntu system configured(as a server), I'm distraught, and tired of working on it, and obviously extreamly annoyed with having to flip all over the filesystem to find file paths.

Well...Linux is not Windows. If you want a Windows that doesn't suck, buy a copy and work on it for a while. If you want Linux, then find a way to make it work.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

And well it's a meaningless discussion, that will have sort of fruit, I just don't want Linux users acting like "they are there" when it comes to desktop readyness, cause they absolutely positively are not.

Well...who defines if its "there?" You do? I hope not. You dislike Windows and Linux. Your expecations for OSes is obviously too high. Do I? Then I say its ready, because I use it for such. The truth is that there is no one thing, so we can never get "there" so no one loses sleep over it.

As in "don't stop working on it now, there is still much work to be done".

No one is stopping now on any side of the fence.

[poofyhairguy]

Well...Linux is not Windows. If you want a Windows that doesn't suck, buy a copy and work on it for a while. If you want Linux, then find a way to make it work.


One last note: If you REALLY want a customized box, try Gentoo.

[drizek]

IMO, Windows is perfect for the desktop. There really is no competition. Sure it might seem like a waste to some, but there really isnt anything else it can be used for.

I have a windows cd on my desktop right now, and its the best damn coaster i've ever used!

[poofyhairguy]

IMO, Windows is perfect for the desktop. There really is no competition. Sure it might seem like a waste to some, but there really isnt anything else it can be used for.

I have a windows cd on my desktop right now, and its the best damn coaster i've ever used!


LOL


Thats really funny.

[Mugendai]

fixing my screen resolution with a fresh Ubuntu install
I had that issue too, and instead of hooking up an extra monitor to fix the issue, I went to another computer to figure out how to do it the right way, took me quite a while to get it straight, but I did.
In windows, I woulda booted safe mode to fix the issue.

you can create a launcher
Well it's not that I'm trying to figure out how to do this, I'm saying I shouldnt have to figure out how to do this. Shoulda been a sudo nautilus option maybe under admin section, or atleast should be able to edit the menus.

you just want Ubuntu to be Windows
Uck, no. My windows box is very customized, cause I dun like windows. I dont want Ubuntu, or any other OS for that matter, to be windows. What I want is for Linux to be able to do what all other OSes can do. I want a super OS, the best there is. The OS that makes everyone happy from super expert, to novice, to beginner, to clueless. I'm a programmer, and when I have the opportunity, I will take everything good(and not just what I think is good) from all similar projects, and code them into one project.
I want a dream OS, and I see the potential for it in Linux.

thinking just because you are having trouble with Linux
I've always had trouble with Linux, usually hardware issues. Anyone else with the same hardware would have the same issues. But each time I've had the issues in Linux, I haven't had them in Windows. So in that respect Windows > Linux, and I think that can be remedied, (Windows >= Linux ) should always return false, but as is, it isn't.

I'm just a user
Herein lies what is prolly the big difference in our experience. I AM a programmer(and gamer). My definition of what a computer is for is different than yours, I spend most of my time on a computer working on some project that I and someone(usually someones) else is going to be using. I spend my time customizing the behavior of my system. When something don't do what I want it to do, if I have the time and access to do so, I make it do what I want. When I install a piece of software in windows, it's Next, Next, Advanced Install, Next, Next, let me see which compenents you are installing, and where too, ookay, next next, finish. Then I go move the entires for it into a categorical organized file tree(in my start menu, which I dont use the start menu, but instead a set of litestep images that display folder contents of each category), moving the entire folder of shortcuts to a more tree, and the main executable to the main list for the category.
I spend hours in days updating to the latest binaries of software, etc....
I almost always have a file manager open(dirctory opus, not explorer).
And finally I play games.

I want Linux to let me do all this stuff however it is I wanna do it. I am dissapointed that it feels so disorganized, I just wouldn't make software the way alot of the people make it. I always go that extra step, adding that extra bit to make it easy for others to customize it, and easy to get it going.

When I make software I also make installers that have the philosophy, work on install, modify after. Tho I sometimes give extensive options during install(like once I made an NSIS installer that setup several text based config files, and a mysql database and user. Asked the user for options for doing this, or let them take the defaults.(this was installing a linux piece of software on windows, which is why it needed such a smart installer, cause it was soo much trouble to install/configure)[I also went on to write configuraor and front end for the software]

learning how to think outside the box
It feels more like I'm having to learn how to think inside someone elses box. Or more so, a whole bunch of someone elses who dont all think the same. I wanna be able to do it how I want, which is in my own box, and not anyone elses.

Look this would be my preferred method for software installion for Linux.
A.) Archive, or Text or Gui installer, choise of where it goes, and what goes
B.) File or Text or Gui configurator for all options.
C.) Works out of the box. I extract it, it is ready to do it's thing, but may need to be changed to do its thing the way I want/need it to
D.) All files in one directory structure, save for possibly configuration settings
E.) Explaination of each option

See and I don't think this is too much too ask.
But as is, its like, either its all isntalled for me, somewhere, not only without asking me where, but not even telling me where. And usually with parts all over the filesystem.
Few things work out of the box, most require me to hunt down the config files, and documentation, possibly a tutorial to figure out how to make them work, sometimes having to go get other tools(which also need a complex install proccess) to get it going, even in the minimal since.

Too be clear, really I'm not messing with all that much end user GUI based applications here, I'm messing with server type stuff, and programing type stuff and compileing software that I want. And needing to manually install things.

there isn't a GUI for everything?
No I'm saying I should have reasy access to get too the files I need to configure. I deffinetly dont wanna edit files in nano or vi, I wanna use a GUI editor. I dont wanna spelunk the filesystem in terminal, too much trouble, especially when I dunno the path names, wanna use a file manager. Just saying, an OS that wants to be configured via files, should make accessing those files for editing as easy as possible to users with sufficient credentials.

buy a copy and work on it for a while
The cost will always make windows suck, and so will M$. I've use dit for years and hated it for years. But I'm a gamer, and not been able to get the hardware games going in Linux. And I liek to customize things and havent found an equivelent to Litestep nor Miranda...

who defines if its "there?"
The general public. Who use windows. Not cause it's the only option for what comes with the computer, not even simply that most people dont know that it exist(which IS the secondary prime reason), but because of why no one knows it exists.. Retailers are not ready to support it, because it is too difficult to support, and because it cant play games in a supportable fashion. And the varying things I'm talking about are what make it too difficult to support, and what makes the game, and hardware, devs not be intrested in deving for Linux.
So long as the retailers dont think it is ready, it isn't ready. When its ready, it'll be my main OS. Thats how you will know when it is ready. (^_^) me, I'm the guy, I'm soo important.. woo woo woo...

[Mugendai]

the best damn coaster i've ever used
I dunno about the best, it's prolly just as good as most of my CDs, but deffinetly the most expensive coaster you'll ever use.

[aysiu]

You're still condemning all of Linux because Ubuntu doesn't suit your needs.

Use Mepis. I'm not kidding. I think Mepis would be a great distro for you. It's all GUI, all works straight out of the box. You can configure stuff later. All the partitions are on the desktop automatically.

Otherwise, if you want it fully customized to be your "dream OS," use Slackware, Gentoo, or Linux from Scratch.

Linux isn't for everyone, but especially Ubuntu (only one distro) isn't for everyone. Find another distro and stop complaining. I don't complain on Mandriva forums because I didn't have a good experience with Mandriva. I moved on. I found a distro that worked for me.

Borrowing an analogy from this website (http://www.oneandoneis2.com/), you're like a motorcyclist who wants to try out driving a car, gets a two-door, then complains that cars don't hold enough people. How about a four-door? How about a mini-van? Linux is great because of its variety. Linspire, Mepis, Xandros, Damn Small, Vector, Blag, Arch, etc.--these each offer different things for different users. Ubuntu suits the needs of many users, which is why this forum is a vibrant place and Ubuntu is #1 at DistroWatch. It doesn't, however, suit the needs of all users.

Clearly it doesn't suit your needs. Sorry. But move on. There are better things out there for you.

[drizek]

I dunno about the best, it's prolly just as good as most of my CDs, but deffinetly the most expensive coaster you'll ever use.
well, the hologram does give it a nice look(xp professional edition is perfect for office use), and you also dont have to worry about feeling bad when it gets scratched.

But i heard that windows vista is going to have some major improvements. It will come on a DVD, so it is thicker and more durable. They are also going to have windows 32bit and 64bit edition on the same DVD, so its like getting two coasters in one.

[aysiu]

By the way, I know my last post may have come across as essentially saying, "Bug off. Go away!"

I didn't intend it that way. If you want to stick it out with Ubuntu, and you have specific questions, "How do I do this?" "What do you like about Ubuntu?" "I'm trying to do X. Have others tried that?" you'll find the community here very supportive.

If, however, you just want to whine and complain about Ubuntu, I would suggest trying another distro. If the dream OS doesn't exist, you can create it yourself (the aforementioned Linux from Scratch). You can find a happy place. Take some of that negative energy and channel it into something positive. I hope you do find your dream OS.

[poofyhairguy]

Well it's not that I'm trying to figure out how to do this, I'm saying I shouldnt have to figure out how to do this. Shoulda been a sudo nautilus option maybe under admin section, or atleast should be able to edit the menus.

Valid complaint. I think breezy shall have the latter.


Uck, no. My windows box is very customized, cause I dun like windows. I dont want Ubuntu, or any other OS for that matter, to be windows.

Good.

What I want is for Linux to be able to do what all other OSes can do. I want a super OS, the best there is. The OS that makes everyone happy from super expert, to novice, to beginner, to clueless. I'm a programmer, and when I have the opportunity, I will take everything good(and not just what I think is good) from all similar projects, and code them into one project.
I want a dream OS, and I see the potential for it in Linux.

Nice goal.


I've always had trouble with Linux, usually hardware issues. Anyone else with the same hardware would have the same issues. But each time I've had the issues in Linux, I haven't had them in Windows. So in that respect Windows > Linux, and I think that can be remedied, (Windows >= Linux ) should always return false, but as is, it isn't.

Understandable. Hardware problems are one of the biggest problems, and is often a problem linux can't fix directly. I've gotten into the habit of buying hardware to work with Linux (to replace stuff that doesn't) but that does add a cost. Over the year I've used Linux, I have spent more on replacing hardware than a new cost of Windows (home). I see this as the "price" of Linux for me. My mother once told me that nothing in life is free. It will either cost your money or your time. Linux costs me both but its worth it to me. Still less initial cost than buying the other big desktop OS (which requires investment in a new computer with an Apple on it).
Its worth it because I like Linux more. No OS will ever be free in that aspect. RMS will tell you that.


Nice goal.
Herein lies what is prolly the big difference in our experience. I AM a programmer(and gamer). My definition of what a computer is for is different than yours, I spend most of my time on a computer working on some project that I and someone(usually someones) else is going to be using. I spend my time customizing the behavior of my system. When something don't do what I want it to do, if I have the time and access to do so, I make it do what I want. When I install a piece of software in windows, it's Next, Next, Advanced Install, Next, Next, let me see which compenents you are installing, and where too, ookay, next next, finish. Then I go move the entires for it into a categorical organized file tree(in my start menu, which I dont use the start menu, but instead a set of litestep images that display folder contents of each category), moving the entire folder of shortcuts to a more tree, and the main executable to the main list for the category.
I spend hours in days updating to the latest binaries of software, etc....
I almost always have a file manager open(dirctory opus, not explorer).
And finally I play games.

I want Linux to let me do all this stuff however it is I wanna do it.

I hate to tell you this...I'm not trying to be negative...but um....you want it done how windows does it. For all intesive purposes...you want Linux to be just like Windows in one big aspect. Linux can't. Linux is a kernel. Ubuntu maybe could one day...or maybe some other distro could....but then one would need at least double digit marketshare (for that kind of third party support). And it can be done...somday...I hope. But you know how it is today, so useless point on my part.


Nice goal.I am dissapointed that it feels so disorganized, I just wouldn't make software the way alot of the people make it. I always go that extra step, adding that extra bit to make it easy for others to customize it, and easy to get it going.

When I make software I also make installers that have the philosophy, work on install, modify after. Tho I sometimes give extensive options during install(like once I made an NSIS installer that setup several text based config files, and a mysql database and user. Asked the user for options for doing this, or let them take the defaults.(this was installing a linux piece of software on windows, which is why it needed such a smart installer, cause it was soo much trouble to install/configure)[I also went on to write configuraor and front end for the software]

It feels more like I'm having to learn how to think inside someone elses box. Or more so, a whole bunch of someone elses who dont all think the same. I wanna be able to do it how I want, which is in my own box, and not anyone elses.

Well.....with Linux that can be done. But how much time are you willing to spend? Unlike Windows, or OSX many times in Linux the only way to buy a solution is to either spend your time or pay someone to do it. You want games in Linux? Buy Cedega, it works good for me. You want to install Windows exes? Buy Crossover, it works for me.

And you are learning someone elses box. Since Ubuntu is libre and you have programming skills, you could change the code into what you want. Or pay someone to do it. But otherwise, how is Ubuntu supposed to read your mind and know exactly what you want? If you want to build and OS made for you by you, do Gentoo or something. Then make it how you want. If you want the Windows experiance (as in drivers, game support, and such) then you have to use Windows. The Gnu OS is what it is. A lot of people's individual ideas. Some don't mix together well...but they all do well enough. You can add yours if you want to spend the time/money. But that is always the case.


Look this would be my preferred method for software installion for Linux.
A.) Archive, or Text or Gui installer, choise of where it goes, and what goes
B.) File or Text or Gui configurator for all options.
C.) Works out of the box. I extract it, it is ready to do it's thing, but may need to be changed to do its thing the way I want/need it to
D.) All files in one directory structure, save for possibly configuration settings
E.) Explaination of each option

See and I don't think this is too much too ask.

You mean your prefered software install for Ubuntu. Each distro is its own OS.

Ubuntu will have an new installer soon. You might like it. If you don't well...


No I'm saying I should have reasy access to get too the files I need to configure. I deffinetly dont wanna edit files in nano or vi, I wanna use a GUI editor. I dont wanna spelunk the filesystem in terminal, too much trouble, especially when I dunno the path names, wanna use a file manager. Just saying, an OS that wants to be configured via files, should make accessing those files for editing as easy as possible to users with sufficient credentials.

Have you ever tired SUSE? Its 9.3 version is free for download now, and it has the best GUI config stuff in the business. If GUI tools are what you really want, get the distro that gives you that. Ubuntu only uses the Gnome tools, to help push and develop the common tools. But use the right OS for the job.

The closest disto to what you want is SUSE, I think. If it can't make you happy with YAST, nothing in Linuxland can today.


Retailers are not ready to support it, because it is too difficult to support, and because it cant play games in a supportable fashion.
So long as the retailers dont think it is ready, it isn't ready. When its ready, it'll be my main OS. Thats how you will know when it is ready. (^_^) me, I'm the guy, I'm soo important.. woo woo woo...

Ok....hmmm...Wal-Mart sells a computer with a GNU OS (Linspire) on it. Fry's (I went recently) has computers with Linspire on them too. HP recently annouced a current laptop line of theirs will support Ubuntu out of the box. Dell with ship you a server with Linux on it. What retailers are you talking about? Just because ALL don't? Just because not all big box makers give an option?

You know, MS has these things called contracts. And the contracts say that the big computer makers can get OEM XP copies at a low rate. but part of that contract says that nothing else can ship on their XP PCs other than XP or DOS. When HP announced its official, backed support for Ubuntu, they had to set it up so that after you bought your laptop( with free dos...lol...on it) then would ship you Ubuntu seperatly. Or they might lose those great OEM prices and totally wreck (even more) Carly's dream to out Dell Dell.

Look. You can see what Ubuntu is now. You say you have skills, I believe you. I trust you can see what it is. You can see how fast it develops. You know the drill. If its not there yet for you, it won't be tomorrow. I personally think it will take 5 years before gamers will be satified with a Linux (opinion), and maybe a while before Ubuntu has all the GUI tools you need. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

I think one of the biggest problems with Linux fans is that they push it where it doesn't belong. I personally apologize if someone blindly pushed it one you. To me, it sounds at best you could be a Dual booter who just works or tinkers on the Linux side. I have an XP install (rarely use it) so there is no shame or whatever.

It sounds that you either want SUSE+Crossover+Cedega or XP+cgwyn, or OSX and a new game console. There is the honest answer, the most you could expect out of the community after giving so much information. I hope you find what tool fits you best, and enjoy yourself along the way.

[nocturn]

Retailers are not ready to support it, because it is too difficult to support, and because it cant play games in a supportable fashion. And the varying things I'm talking about are what make it too difficult to support, and what makes the game, and hardware, devs not be intrested in deving for Linux.
So long as the retailers dont think it is ready, it isn't ready. When its ready, it'll be my main OS. Thats how you will know when it is ready. (^_^) me, I'm the guy, I'm soo important.. woo woo woo...

Our store will be selling Ubuntu based laptops in a month or two, I serously think it is ready!

[Kerberos]

Have an open mind about Linux. Just like aysiu "rantishly" said before me, we are not trying to emulate another OS. Just try to remember how much you _don't_ want to be a "click and run" person who doesn't understand a bit about computers who has to obey what the corporate daddy commands your box to do.
Which is the problem...

It's not hard, it really is not, but you just have to think everything your doing is learning how to think outside the box and not be one more of the masses. Remember you've been using your other OS for years now, and you can't really hide the fact that all that time you've been simply clicking next-next-next-Finish, so when we first say "open a Terminal" you can and will get headaches, but its just part of the learning process.

... I just dont care. I use computers to do a job. If I wanted a 'lifestyle choice' I'd buy a Mac. But I dont and like 95% of the computer using public its just a mean to an end.

Your telling people that there is no choice but for Linux to be more difficult, that the reason its more difficult is because corporations are bad (dont understand that one but nm). And that I am in the wrong for wanting something really easy that doesn't get in my way. But this is a 'Is Linux ready for the Desktop' discussion and by your own words its blatantly not.

Especially if you keep telling people (who mainly just want to get things done) that they are in fact wrong for wanting things to be easy and just "Open a terminal". I dont want to learn* Linux.

You want everyone that uses Linux to embrace your philosophy, but that wont work as most people dont care. It seems there is also a belief that usabiliy != power, that things have to be difficult to be good - which isn't true. If its hard to use its because the developer hasn't spent enough time on the interface, not because its a 'powerful' bit of software.

I want an OS that I dont have to care, code, or get evangelical about. If by your own words Linux is unsuitable to me because of that then the thoughts 'niche market' and 'not ready for the desktop' spring to mind.

But thats just me and I'm a ex-programmer graphic designer so what do I know?

* Learn, as opposed to 'figure it out when I need to do it'.

[Kerberos]

For example, I cannot find out my own IP. Its not in the networking settings. It looks like a visit to google is in order. Is it due to Linux' inherent superiority that I cannot find this information out (easily) through the GUI?

[egon spengler]

Herein lies what is prolly the big difference in our experience. I AM a programmer(and gamer). My definition of what a computer is for is different than yours, I spend most of my time on a computer working on some project that I and someone(usually someones) else is going to be using. I spend my time customizing the behavior of my system. When something don't do what I want it to do, if I have the time and access to do so, I make it do what I want.

Think about this for a second. You previously said that Linux/Ubuntu is not ready for the desktop because it does not meet your exacting requirements. In most instances I have seen this mythical barometer of desktop readyness has always been the basic user; the person who doesn't want or need to do any more than email, surf and write docs. What you are looking to do is not the quintessential desktop use. In fact didn't you say that you was configuring a server?

I think the problem is that anyone who can't get a Linux distro to meet their exact needs starts talking about "Linux isn't ready for for desktop"

The general public. Who use windows. Not cause it's the only option for what comes with the computer, not even simply that most people dont know that it exist(which IS the secondary prime reason), but because of why no one knows it exists.. Retailers are not ready to support it, because it is too difficult to support, and because it cant play games in a supportable fashion. And the varying things I'm talking about are what make it too difficult to support, and what makes the game, and hardware, devs not be intrested in deving for Linux.
So long as the retailers dont think it is ready, it isn't ready. When its ready, it'll be my main OS. Thats how you will know when it is ready. (^_^) me, I'm the guy, I'm soo important.. woo woo woo...

Well as others have mentioned it's not quite as simple as that. Microsoft has policies in effect that limit the ability of Linux to be supported by retailers

For example, I cannot find out my own IP. Its not in the networking settings. It looks like a visit to google is in order. Is it due to Linux' inherent superiority that I cannot find this information out (easily) through the GUI?

I assume you mean your wan IP, I'm using flux at the moment so I can't see the usual gnome menu but i do know that you can see you lan IP from gnome network tool. Of course if that is not what you want then that is of no use to you. Out of curiousity though, as far as I know there is no windows gui that displays network information and so, assuming that there isn't, do you consider that a strike against Windows the same way that you seem to consider it a strike against Linux?

[aysiu]

For example, I cannot find out my own IP. Its not in the networking settings. It looks like a visit to google is in order. Is it due to Linux' inherent superiority that I cannot find this information out (easily) through the GUI? I don't even know how to do that in Windows or Mac via GUI. When our IT support guy at work checks our IP addresses, he always runs cmd from the Start Menu and types "ipconfig." If people are going to argue that Linux isn't ready for regular users because of stuff like this... do you really think regular users...

1. know what an IP address is
2. care what their IP address is
3. know how to check their IP address, regardless of OS

?

The only reason I know is from seeing our IT support staff at work do it (and always through DOS), and only because I pay attention to such things. Most people at my workplace don't. They just want their problems fixed.

And, once again, you can ignore me if you want, but the Linux point-and-click environments are around--Mepis and Linspire. If you want to keep harping on Ubuntu because you hate the command-line, go to another distro. I've grown to love the command-line (I didn't at first), so that's why I'm staying. Why are you hanging around these forums?

By the way, I've mentioned Mepis about ten times in this one thread, and the anti-Linux crowd doesn't seem to get it.

One last time: if you don't like the command-line for configuring things, go use Mepis! Stop complaining about Ubuntu already.

No one going to art college complains that it doesn't prepare them for med school...

[Kerberos]

I don't even know how to do that in Windows or Mac via GUI. When our IT support guy at work checks our IP addresses, he always runs cmd from the Start Menu and types "ipconfig." If people are going to argue that Linux isn't ready for regular users because of stuff like this... do you really think regular users...

So because you can do it on the CLI as well as the GUI, and that techie chose the CLI that means that you dont need the GUI?

The only reason I know is from seeing our IT support staff at work do it (and always through DOS), and only because I pay attention to such things. Most people at my workplace don't. They just want their problems fixed.
You do realise your, instead of reading what I said, trying to justify the reasons why it doesnt tell you your IP address in a part of the GUI that blatantly should.

If you want to find your IP on Windows just double click the network icon on the system tray. You may need to click the summary tab, but thats it. If there isnt an icon you can go to control panel->networking, or go to network places from my computer. And all of these are easy to work out without prerequisite knowlege and dont require the CLI.

Now how do you do it in Ubuntu?


By the way, I've mentioned Mepis about ten times in this one thread, and the anti-Linux crowd doesn't seem to get it.

One last time: if you don't like the command-line for configuring things, go use Mepis! Stop complaining about Ubuntu already.
I havn't replied to any post pointing out Mepis as I have used it, and think its utter crap. The start bar thing is so full of junk (weather reports, 16 quick icons ffs, system monitors etc) that there is no room for any running programs - in fact you have to scroll it left-right at low res as it doesnt fit onscreen (thats just not good). Of course if you remove the crap on the start bar you just get large spaces instead and _still_ no room for programs.

[dataw0lf]

For example, I cannot find out my own IP. Its not in the networking settings. It looks like a visit to google is in order. Is it due to Linux' inherent superiority that I cannot find this information out (easily) through the GUI?

In my opinion? Yes, it is because of Linux's 'superiority' that I find out my IP (along with alot of other stuff) with ifconfig. But I'm a Linux guy. I run Linux servers. It works for me.

Yes, Windows is ready for the desktop. In fact, it's far more ready for the desktop than Linux. I couldn't care less; I'm not a desktop user, that's the whole point.

And as far as this whole security nonsense goes regarding Linux versus Windows, Microsoft's security infrastructure, release cycle, etc, destroys Linux. If you want security, go Unix. I suggest you take a look at Bruce Potter of the Shmoo Group's excellent presentation on the subject, you might learn something. I'm tired of people trashing Windows security and praising Linux security when they are using the wrong arguments.

[weasel fierce]

isnt the IP what you get when you go to Administration - Networking and hit the DNS tab ?

[Kerberos]

isnt the IP what you get when you go to Administration - Networking and hit the DNS tab ?
Nope. It tells me my DNS servers, but no IP. If you click Properties on ETH01 in the Networking box (as above) you get told DHCP, but the IP, Subnet and Gateway boxes are just empty. I can ping yahoo.com, so im sure I am getting an IP address (so its not that). Click here for a screenie! (http://newworldhorders.com/upload/ubuntu_ip.png)

So in fact I needed ifconfig (i tried various random commands, including ipconfig). Its things like this that are deal-breakers for me. I have no problem what-so-ever with command line interfaces, but I personally dont want to use one and neither does 95% of the computing population.

Linux is for power users, while Windows is for users. Judging by the flat refusal by most of this thread to even recognise the above as even a problem reinforces this.

[weasel fierce]

ah, my bad.


I must admit the problem never quite occured to me, as I usually just go to www.myip.dk or some such. I wasnt even aware of how to find the IP on a windows machine :)

[aysiu]

Linux is for power users, while Windows is for users. Judging by the flat refusal by most of this thread to even recognise the above as even a problem reinforces this. I (a regular user) have never found a need to do this in Windows or Linux. You, however, are beyond a regular user. Saying that Linux isn't ready for the desktop (or regular user's desktop) because you can't graphically check your IP address is like saying my current car isn't ready for drivers because the oil filter is difficult for me to reach (on my old car, it was easy to reach). Regular car drivers don't change their own oil. Likewise, regular computer users don't check their IP addresses. Regular users do check their email and use the internet. Occasionally, they Word process or listen to music. All of that can be done on Ubuntu graphically. I wish Windows users who are programmers/developers/web admins/etc. would stop trying to speak for regular Windows users who just do normal things and couldn't give two hoots about checking an IP address.

[Kerberos]

So Linux is somehow better for normal users because it only lets you check your IP (and do god knows what else) through the command line only?

Surely your not seriously saying that having boxes _right there_ that can contain useful information, yet dont, is somehow a good thing? That the only way to find it out is by typing an unguessable command into the terminal, and this is somehow making Linux better?

IP addresses are used quite a lot, telephone debugging, setting up LAN games, configuring firewalls (on behalf of the user, or even by the user). Its pretty much certain that instead of finding it in 5 minutes (you'd _expect_ it to be in the networking settings ffs) they will probably spend instead 30mins+ on forums, faqs and readmes (like me). The cumulative man hours that Linux wastes on stupid stuff like this is the reason I dont use it.

[Brunellus]

The cumulative man hours that Linux wastes on stupid stuff like this is the reason I dont use it.

Good for you. Don't use Linux, then.


If you don't use linux, much less ubuntu, then what on earth are you doing here?

[Kerberos]

If you don't use linux, much less ubuntu, then what on earth are you doing here?
I dont like MS and I dont want to use Windows (and there is the threat of the approaching permenant vendor lock-in) so I thought I'd try out Linux. Ubuntu is the best one I've found so far, but still feels like a GUI added on to a CLI, rather than a fully functional GUI in itself.

The CLI should really be optional, rather than mandatory, for an OS to have large scale appeal imo.

[aysiu]

Surely your not seriously saying that having boxes _right there_ that can contain useful information, yet dont, is somehow a good thing? That the only way to find it out is by typing an unguessable command into the terminal, and this is somehow making Linux better?


I havn't replied to any post pointing out Mepis as I have used it, and think its utter crap. The start bar thing is so full of junk (weather reports, 16 quick icons ffs, system monitors etc) that there is no room for any running programs

If Mepis does too much stuff, it's junk that's cluttering up your desktop (by the way, Mepis has a built-in firewall, Guarddog, that's all graphical). If Ubuntu doesn't have an obscure graphical feature, it's lacking as an OS.


The cumulative man hours that Linux wastes on stupid stuff like this is the reason I dont use it. What are the cumulative man hours you've spent arguing on this forum your anti-Linux FUD? How is that productive? Hm. Maybe it'd scare off potential new users. As opposed to using those man hours to learn something and become a new user yourself.

In October of last year, I wrote an article about Linux (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxvwindows.php) in which I said that it isn't ready for the desktop (not in those exact words). I'd tried out a couple of distributions, and they were just too frustrating. I didn't sign up for any forums and heckle users. I wrote one article on my own website and went back to Windows, where I was comfortable. I came back to Linux in April, and I found it had vastly improved. Now, I'm a big fan, and I write articles like the one in my signature. It's true--I've put many hours into setting up my Linux configuration, but I didn't spend hours harassing people for their choice of OS. It's also true that once I did get Linux set up, it's now a piece of cake to use. And finally, it's true that the few times I've had to install Windows, it's always been a nightmare.

Installion <> Use

And programmers/developers/web admins/sys admins <> 95% of the computer using populace

Just as I told Mugendai, I'm telling you: find something that works for you, and put your positive energy into making that better. Obviously Ubuntu isn't working for you, and no one here is trying to convince you that Ubuntu will work for you. All we're saying is Ubuntu works for us, and based on what you've said, I'm clearly closer to an "average user" than you are (until recently, I didn't even know what an IP address was). Find Windows. Find another Linux distro. Find Unix. Find BSD. Find Mac OS X. Whatever works for you, go for it. Stop trolling these forums... seriously.
Precious man hours wasted trolling at the Ubuntu forums...

[qalimas]

To check your IP in Ubuntu go to System, Administration, then Netowrk Tools (I think, I ahven't been on Ubuntu in a while). If on Kubuntu, open the Info Center and go to Network Interfaces.

Now, you can stop complaining about not being able to see your IP in the GUI, becuase you can, you just didn't take hte time to figure out how, instead you were here trying to say Linux is bad because you can't even find the option in the panels to see your IP.

[Kerberos]

Just as I told Mugendai, I'm telling you: find something that works for you, and put your positive energy into making that better.
Surely discussing downfalls and possible improvements on the forum is working to make it better. How am I meant to know what I can do to help and where my skills would be useful if I dont talk about it?

[aysiu]

Surely discussing downfalls and possible improvements on the forum is working to make it better. How am I meant to know what I can do to help and where my skills would be useful if I dont talk about it?

please note that just listing your complaints here does nothing. If you want input into Ubuntu, you have to file bugs in bugzilla. There is no official voice or eyes on these official forums.

Any reason you singled out Ubuntu in particular? Is this the distro you view as closest to perfect if it would just fix a few bugs?

Maybe as an "ex-programmer graphic designer" you could do something tangible to improve Ubuntu and/or Linux instead of just complaining on these forums. Have you ever thought of becoming a Linux developer?

See, the thing is, I've been using Linux for almost four months now (not that long), and I've seen people like you probably several dozen times on Linux forums. You're not helping, and your criticisms are not original either. Take a look at these threads:

http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-6333.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-6996.html
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=52678&page=3
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-38710.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-21311.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-4655.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-891.html

And that's just Ubuntu's forums. Go to Linux Questions or Linux Forums or any other Linux forums--it's all the same. I think you should take Poofyhairguy's suggestion. If you think there's a bug, file a bug report at bugzilla (http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/). Otherwise, one of the following would probably be a best course of action for you:

1. Start developing Linux. Put some of those ex-programmer graphic design skills to good use.
2. Use another distro.
3. Use Windows or Mac OS X.
4. Use Ubuntu and stop complaining.

Any of those would probably be better for both you and this community than what you're doing now.

[Kerberos]

Now, you can stop complaining about not being able to see your IP in the GUI, becuase you can, you just didn't take hte time to figure out how, instead you were here trying to say Linux is bad because you can't even find the option in the panels to see your IP.
If you took the time to read my post you'll see I even included a screenshot of it quite clearly not displaying the IP. Now if *I* cant find the GUI IP checker I really dont see what hope a normal user has of finding it.

In WMP (Windows Media Player) people autmatically click on the Red X furthest top right of the current window to close, but since WMP has a different theme with a less contrasting button many users end up not seeing its close button and close the window behind, rather than WMP as they simply didnt notice its close button because its different.

My point is bugs can exist outside code. Its possible to identify problems with a GUI that wouldn't have been at all obvious at the design stage but have very real problems in the real world. Sure there is nothing wrong with it, but if you sit and watch 4 different people make exactly the same mistake in a row, surely its better to change the software to minimize the chance of problems rather than chalking it down to them needing to be educated?

[poofyhairguy]

... I just dont care. I use computers to do a job. If I wanted a 'lifestyle choice' I'd buy a Mac. But I dont and like 95% of the computer using public its just a mean to an end.

Your telling people that there is no choice but for Linux to be more difficult, that the reason its more difficult is because corporations are bad (dont understand that one but nm). And that I am in the wrong for wanting something really easy that doesn't get in my way. But this is a 'Is Linux ready for the Desktop' discussion and by your own words its blatantly not.

You don't get it. You want something with no learning curve. You want a clone of Windows. YOU WON"T FIND THAT HERE NOW, OR TEN YEARS FROM NOW. Both have different strengths and weaknesses, and there are somethings Windows has that is almost impossible to do in Linux. Sorry.


Especially if you keep telling people (who mainly just want to get things done) that they are in fact wrong for wanting things to be easy and just "Open a terminal". I dont want to learn* Linux.

You don't want to get **** done. You want to customize, play games, FREAKING LOOKUP THE IP ADDRESS!!! How can you claim you want Linux for productivity, when to me it seems that your favorite things about Windows is screwing aroung. For people that just want a simple desktop, a web browser, and a way to get some office work done Ubuntu is there. You want to play, and you want it to act like Windows.


You want everyone that uses Linux to embrace your philosophy, but that wont work as most people dont care. It seems there is also a belief that usabiliy != power, that things have to be difficult to be good - which isn't true. If its hard to use its because the developer hasn't spent enough time on the interface, not because its a 'powerful' bit of software.

When did anyone here say "we want everyone that uses Linux to embrace our philosophy." Or better yet, when did we say "we want everyone to use Linux?" No time. If the masses come they come- for what it is. If they don't we still have the server room. Thats life. Its ready for me. I spend my time here helping other who want it. You want a Window's clone, and I'm going to tell you right now you are looking in the wrong direction.


I want an OS that I dont have to care, code, or get evangelical about. If by your own words Linux is unsuitable to me because of that then the thoughts 'niche market' and 'not ready for the desktop' spring to mind.

Niche market is a good thing. Linux is on the biggest supercomputers, embedded devices, routers, and DESKTOPS (mine and hundreds of people here). You mean "Linux is not ready to convert the masses over from Windows when they refuse to learn anyway to use a desktop that isn't the Windows way." And you are correct about that. You win! Is that what you want? No, you want a free windows clone. Then you loose.


But thats just me and I'm a ex-programmer graphic designer so what do I know?


You know more than a regular user, so stop acting like one. I tried to be nice, but you wouldn't let me.

Your type will be the abosolute last type to be happy with Linux. Right now Linux is the best for the absolute clueless (as long as you set it up for them) because then they can do basic things -webbrowse, make office documents, play puzzle games- without viruses or malware. And it rules for the super wizard nerds. People that LIKE the command line. People that LIKE to see source code. People that like the idea of thousands of pieces of free software.

You are a person in the middle. You aren't a wizard (or you wouldn't bitch about the command line) and you aren't clueless (because you know what an IPaddress IS). You are a middle user. The problem with middle users is that they have lots of knowledge in Windows and they want to translate that knowledge directly to Linux. It took them years to learn Windows, and it insults them to turn into a newbies again. They want EXEs (despite the fact that package managers are superior) and they want games and they want 100% hardware support. There is only one OS that offers that, and thats not changing at ALL in the near future.

Problem with your kind is that your refusal to learn new things is YOUR loss. The command line kicks *** FOR SOME THINGS once you learn it- you can trick out your box by copying lines off of a howto without knowing what they mean. Without one, you are stuck searching through GUI options.

Your kind will be last. If your kind ever crosses over. Luckily we can get to double digit marketshare without your kind (which is the magical level when we get thrid party support)...so we don't need you. Its nice if you want to stay and help, but otherwise....Enjoy the virus ridden, spyware infested, expensive, closed "desktop paradise" called Windows.

Surely discussing downfalls and possible improvements on the forum is working to make it better.

Sure it is. We love new ideas. What we don't love is the 200th (maybe more) person saying "WAH, I want Ubuntu to act like Windows." Great help those people are.


How am I meant to know what I can do to help and where my skills would be useful if I dont talk about it?

You do it. You find that there is no GUI option for finding an IP address? Code one. OR make a howto, or report everything to buzilla. ADD something to the community more than you opinion and we will respect your opinion. Just throw out your opinion and it will get throw back at your because everyone has one which makes it WORTHLESS.

My softer side gave up on you.

[aysiu]

Am I the only one who thinks the command-line isn't such a bad thing? I have to admit when I started using Linux, I wanted GUI for everything (which is why I was drawn to Mepis over Ubuntu initially), but now I've really grown to appreciate the command-line. I'm not going to use it exclusively, but a hammer can't do everything. Sometimes a screwdriver is better for the task at hand. Do I want new users being confused by clicking on the wrong thing (IP address) and saying, "Hey, what's this?" Probably not. Windows hides certain things from you, and Ubuntu doesn't show you everything in GUI (but it hides nothing).

What you're really doing with Mepis and Ubuntu is setting up a catch-22. If Linux has GUI for everything, it's bloated junk. If Linux has command-line for some things, it's lacking in functionality.

[bored2k]

http://www.freebyte.com/jokes_humor_cartoons_fun/images/dragdrop.jpg
http://www.freebyte.com/jokes_humor_cartoons_fun/microsoft_strategy.html

[egon spengler]

Linux is for power users, while Windows is for users. Judging by the flat refusal by most of this thread to even recognise the above as even a problem reinforces this.

On the subject of refusal to acknowledge what about the fact that throught this thread you have steadastly refused to acknowledge any point made by anyone other than your fellow "ubuntu is trash" posters? I think it's pretty clear that you are not really posting here for any other reason than to just remind us all incessantly about how terrible ubuntu is

Its pretty much certain that instead of finding it in 5 minutes (you'd _expect_ it to be in the networking settings ffs) they will probably spend instead 30mins+ on forums, faqs and readmes (like me). The cumulative man hours that Linux wastes on stupid stuff like this is the reason I dont use it.

I would bet my life that the very first result for linux find ip address (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=linux+find+ip+address&btnG=Search&meta=) in google would have answered your question in 30 seconds. How it took you 30 minutes to find this information I don't know

[Brunellus]

I dont like MS and I dont want to use Windows (and there is the threat of the approaching permenant vendor lock-in) so I thought I'd try out Linux. Ubuntu is the best one I've found so far, but still feels like a GUI added on to a CLI, rather than a fully functional GUI in itself.

The CLI should really be optional, rather than mandatory, for an OS to have large scale appeal imo.

Let me heartily commend Apple and OSX. Well-engineered GUI, "just works," famous user-friendliness. And snazzy design sense at that.

What you want is Linux tomorrow. Well, if you want Linux tomorrow you can have it--tomorrow. Most of the people posting here and using linux are willing to have linux today--with all its attendant joys and pains.

Joys? I have a system that works the way I want it....and it gets closer to the way I want it every time I fiddle with it.

I wouldn't consider myself a 'power user,' either--merely receptive, adaptive, and persistent. I try not to throw up my hands and panic whenever I run into a snag. Often as not, the problem can be resolved....I just have to be willing to do it.

If you don't want to use linux this time around--well, I don't think too many people can blame you. That's your decision, after all. By the time you come around later, it may be better, and/or suit your needs better. But then again, if you don't get involved, it may never suit your needs.

And getting involved doesn't mean bitching on the forums endlessly. It means learning how things work *now*, so that you can contribute meaningfully to how they will work *later*. So file your bug reports and keep coming. You can be assured that they will at least be looked at--unlike what you might file over at Microsoft.

But I'll let you digest that before you vomit out more spleen.

[drizek]

For example, I cannot find out my own IP. Its not in the networking settings. It looks like a visit to google is in order. Is it due to Linux' inherent superiority that I cannot find this information out (easily) through the GUI?

You can see the IP in a gui. it has nothing to do with being inferior.

The thing is, you think that linux should come customized for YOU out of the box working 100%. thats not the right way of looking at it. for every person who needs to look at an IP(and is too stupid/arrogant to not be able to use a CLI for it) there are 1000 other users who feel taht the IP being displayed is just a waste of space. If it is really that important to you, download a superkaramba/gdesklets theme, and have your IP sitting on your desktop all day long in a pretty colored box. bitching here and saying youre going back to windows just makes you look whiny and selfish.

" The CLI should really be optional, rather than mandatory, for an OS to have large scale appeal imo."

again, youre assuming that people give a damn about their IP. it was designed this way so that it CAN have widespread appeal. an IP is confusing to most people because they dont know what the hell it is. Also, UBUNTU IS NOT A NOOB DISTRO. Ubuntu is a distro for people who want to _really_ be able to use linux without having to do too much manual stuff. IF you want a GUI for everything, use linspire or xandros. Someone recommended using OSX, why not use linspire? you dont need to buy a new pc for it, its pretty cheap, and requires no commandline use.

[poofyhairguy]

Another thing I don't understand- how hard is it really to customize Ubuntu? We have that huge big nice howto forum, with an index:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=53050

Sure most of the howtos involve a cli way to do things, but the reason is because its easier to copy and paste than to learn a new GUI and so it can take less steps to do things.

Most things in those howtos can also been done in a GUI. But it would take longer to show it that way, and the margin of error would increase.

My recent howto, Enlightened Gnome:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=54476

Tells you how to edit ONE line on ONE file and totally change your desktop experiance. To do that in Windows I would have to buy some software. In Linux I suck it up and edit the file. Easy to me. In fact, there might be a way to do my howto in a GUI, but thats not the best way to explain it.

But you can sit around and install programs in synaptic all day and customize all you want without leaving a GUI. New desktops, new themes, new window managers, new everything. A whole new world. KDE has AWESOME GUIs for cutomizing. So many options. In Windows I would have to buy a program or edit the registry to do half that.

I don't understand the basis of the argument. And in the end it doesn't matter. Ubuntu should not try to focus on the middle ground Windows person (my opinion). It should not try to out Windows Windows. It should focus on the rest of the world that hasn't used Windows, or people that don't want Windows, or people that want to try something new.

It should focus on Ms. Hemmings who just wants to make Office documents without having to worry about viruses. It should focus on Mr. Scott who wants to play Java and Flash games on the internet without having to worry about malware. It should focus on the Jewel School District that can't afford Windows and Office licences for new machines. It should focus on people that never used a computer. People with older computers. People with disabilities. People who have simple, but important needs.

That is the future. That is what Ubuntu wants to be. Its "Linux for Human Beings" not "Linux for Windows Users." You ask a lot of things of specific, nerdy things out of Ubuntu and say "is that too much to ask." The answer is yes, considering what you paid for it.....

[Mugendai]

doesn't want or need to do any more than email
See, this is the thing. From my experience. The basic user wants to do these things:
Internet
Email
Document writing
Music
Playing Games

Linux does fine on these things until you get to the last entry.

[Mugendai]

I don't even know how to do that in Windows or Mac via GUI.
It's easy in Win98/ME \/, but the functionality is still hidden, in a command there is no link to.
But for Win2K/XP, there isn't an easy GUI way. I think that is a good point.
It would be wise to include a GUI for this in Linux, would make another point where Linux does beat windows on usability.

Normal people actually need to see their IP today. This is becoming more and more true as people get Cable/DSL which come with routers, and they need to configure the routers to let them do certain things, like play online games, or borrow music.

I think when this becomes needed though, most people end up calling an IT pro(likely the ISP's guys), or reading a tutorial on how to do it. And those things would tell you how to find out your wan IP.

But, flat out, I've seen in many tech support forums having to do with anything that gets fw/router issues, "How do I found out my IP?". It's not user friendly in windows. It would be wise to make it user friendly in Linux.

[Mugendai]

Microsoft's security infrastructure, release cycle, etc, destroys Linux.
Wha? HA!. Please! Know what you are saying.
M$ doesn't fix problems, till they are dangerous. Security holes, like the one the sasser virus used, are reported to M$ months, sometimes as much as a year in advance. And M$ doesn't fix them till someone exploits them.

There are still a few known reported severe security vulnerabilities that would allow anyone to pop into a windows box, and skrew it over that M$ still hasn't patched, and prolly wont until someone exploits it.

M$ has to constantly release patches for their software to fix exploited security vulnerabilities. You might think that this high release speed of patches is a grand thing.

But in the Linux/BSD world, the idea is to find the exploits BEFORE people punch them, and release security fixes ahead of time. You may see less security fixes for Linux/BSD, understand that when this is the case, it is because the OSes were built with security in mind during design, and it allows for far fewer vulnerabilities in the first place.
And often a security vulnerabilaty in Linux can be something along the lines of, if a person is standing at your box, with X user, in Y situation, with Z knowledge, they can gain access to K root only path.
This isn't a problem in windows, since if you are at the box, you pretty much own the entire filesystem, so there is no need to worry about securing specific paths, since the whole thing is ready to be eaten.

[poofyhairguy]

See, this is the thing. From my experience. The basic user wants to do these things:
Internet
Email
Document writing
Music
Playing Games

Linux does fine on these things until you get to the last entry.

Why? My Gnome games and KDE games work fine. There are at least 1000 free games in synaptic. The hardest core computer gamer I know is my mom, and she plays solitare and freecell.

What you mean is "Linux can't play all Windows games easily." But most people don't have the newest hardware, and the rest have cedega.

If you really think most people are playing Doom 3 or Half Life 2 or whatever on their desktop, you are mistaken.

[drizek]

See, this is the thing. From my experience. The basic user wants to do these things:
Internet
Email
Document writing
Music
Playing Games

Linux does fine on these things until you get to the last entry.
no, linux is great at all of them. there are just more games for windows, but thats ok.

[Mugendai]

... come on man. People aren't going to be satisfied with frozen bubble and pySol...

It doesn't have to be the brand spankingest new game. Look at all the games on PopCap's site.. those lil games are alot of fun, and lots of people play them, and they arent made for Linux.

You can go back to 4 year old games, and you know what? They aren't on Linux. There arent a few games that aren't for linux, most aren't. There are more for the Mac....

While Cedega is an option, it is not an option that is particularly good. It means the games run slower, and there is a complete chance for bugs. It's extra software to buy, and for it to be an amiable thing for the normal desktop user to use, it will need to come pre-installed. Since it is software for Linux that isn't in a repository, it is going to require atleast a novice level of experience to be able to mearly install.

Plus it requires extra abilaties to be able to install some of the games, beyond normal desktop user capabilaty.

If it was a built in compatability layer that pretty much all distros includes, I could agree it to be an amiable solution. But it isn't. And it isn't free.

Anyway it goes, Linux freeware games just don't stack up to the commercial game industry. A desktop user can't go into a store and pick up a high quality game for their Linux box.

All of the families I know play games on their PC that would only be playable via Cedega, and that there is no Linux alternative to. And I'm talking about normal familes, completly lacking in computer geeks, or gamers.

But even if Cedega came installed on the system, and even if it required no expertese to install the games, and even if it meant the games could play 100%.. there is still the task of getting and installig a working video driver. And you know the thing about video drivers. Even if it came with a properly installed working one, some point down the road the user will HAVE to upgrade it to get it working with modern games. One of the first things you see in any games tech support forums is "Make sure you have the latest drivers for your hardware". Installing a video driver for Linux is far beyond the ability level of a normal desktop user.

[drizek]

there are a lot of cool modern games for linux like doom 3, AA, UT series, etc.

also, the majority of the people are going to be playing frozen bubble and pysol because they arent hardcore gamers. most non-gamers just play these small minigames to waste time. there are hundreds of these games in synaptic, and it is one hell of an advantage over windows. casual gamers play on consoles, and hardcore gamers can dual boot so they can play the non-native games and play the native ones in linux.

the video card driver argument is extremely stupid. nvidia drivers are much easier to install in linux through apt than in windows. even ati is improving their drivers to be somewhate usable. and its not like nvidia cards are inferior to ATI cards. ATM, nvidia actually has better cards, so you sacrifice nothing.

[poofyhairguy]

... come on man. People aren't going to be satisfied with frozen bubble and pySol...

It doesn't have to be the brand spankingest new game. Look at all the games on PopCap's site.. those lil games are alot of fun, and lots of people play them, and they arent made for Linux.

You can go back to 4 year old games, and you know what? They aren't on Linux. There arent a few games that aren't for linux, most aren't. There are more for the Mac....

While Cedega is an option, it is not an option that is particularly good. It means the games run slower, and there is a complete chance for bugs. It's extra software to buy, and for it to be an amiable thing for the normal desktop user to use, it will need to come pre-installed. Since it is software for Linux that isn't in a repository, it is going to require atleast a novice level of experience to be able to mearly install.

Plus it requires extra abilaties to be able to install some of the games, beyond normal desktop user capabilaty.

If it was a built in compatability layer that pretty much all distros includes, I could agree it to be an amiable solution. But it isn't. And it isn't free.

Anyway it goes, Linux freeware games just don't stack up to the commercial game industry. A desktop user can't go into a store and pick up a high quality game for their Linux box.

All of the families I know play games on their PC that would only be playable via Cedega, and that there is no Linux alternative to. And I'm talking about normal familes, completly lacking in computer geeks, or gamers.

But even if Cedega came installed on the system, and even if it required no expertese to install the games, and even if it meant the games could play 100%.. there is still the task of getting and installig a working video driver. And you know the thing about video drivers. Even if it came with a properly installed working one, some point down the road the user will HAVE to upgrade it to get it working with modern games. One of the first things you see in any games tech support forums is "Make sure you have the latest drivers for your hardware". Installing a video driver for Linux is far beyond the ability level of a normal desktop user.

Ok. Fine (except for the stuff about cedega, when you pay its easy to install games in it).

If you want to get picky, those sorts of users also would want mp3 support out of the box and codec support out of the box. So Ubuntu can't serve that user. Nothing to cry about.

There is a reason that by default Ubuntu is configured to be a nice, clean business desktop. In a company, the lack of games for a platform is a GOOD thing. We have to get acceptance in the workplace before we can get acceptance in the home. Thats how IBM and MS did it....

[aysiu]

This is purely anecdotal, and it could be the kind of crowd we hang out with, but my wife and I don't have any serious PC gamer friends or acquaintances. My wife is a pretty serious gamer, but only on consoles (PS2/Gamecube). I play the occasional Gnocatan.

It all depends on what your needs are. Linux isn't for everybody.

[Mugendai]

a lot of cool modern games for linux
No, there are a FEW cool modern games for linux.

majority of the people are going to be playing frozen bubble and pysol
Thats mostly people at work. The games I see people at home play, are actual games that cost moneys. And I'm not talking about my hardcore gamer friends. There was a poll showing people spending more time doing electronic gaming, than going to movies or watching TV. Families today will now spend some time casually playing a $50 game on their PC.

hundreds of these games in synaptic
Yes Linux by far has the winning cup on cheap, free mini-games.
However if you plop down the money for them, the same sorts of mini-games for windows are of exceedingly higher quality, as they make full use of the video capabilaties of modern 3D hardware.

hardcore gamers can dual boot
Just because a person is a hardcore games, doesn't automatically mark them for having the expertise to dual-boot. And having to dual-boot is like saying, well Linux isn't good enough to do this thing that people commonly wanna do.

nvidia drivers are much easier to install in linux through apt
Actually I haven't tried this yet. Didn't realise that they were actually available through apt. But are they the latest? Nope they are about a half a year old. Meaning if you had a problem with game, you prolly couldn't get tech support till you got the latest driver.

As for you dont need ATI drivers cause NVidia is better. Oh come on. That has not yet been decided which is better. It is a long standing ongoing battle. Sure I'm on NVidia's side, but lots of people aren't. But anyway it goes, there is an ATI card in my notebook.

I wonder if there is an easy way to get nvidia the drivers in any other non-apt distros

[aysiu]

You're kind of missing the point--Linux isn't for everyone, and almost no one in the Linux community even imagines it's for everyone. If you're not able to play the games you want to play, and you don't want to dual-boot, and you don't want to use Cedega, then stick with Windows. Even Mac can't play all the latest games, yet they are "ready for the desktop" in everyone's opinion.

Each person should assess her or his own needs and see which operating system best meets those needs. However, just because Linux doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work for everyone. I know plenty of people who use computers just to listen to music, check email, and surf the internet. These people would all be well-served with a number of Linux distros.

I'm one of those people, and Ubuntu's perfect for me, especially since the one game I do play (Gnocatan) is native to Gnome.

[drizek]

No, there are a FEW cool modern games for linux.


Thats mostly people at work. The games I see people at home play, are actual games that cost moneys. And I'm not talking about my hardcore gamer friends. There was a poll showing people spending more time doing electronic gaming, than going to movies or watching TV. Families today will now spend some time casually playing a $50 game on their PC.


Yes Linux by far has the winning cup on cheap, free mini-games.
However if you plop down the money for them, the same sorts of mini-games for windows are of exceedingly higher quality, as they make full use of the video capabilaties of modern 3D hardware.


Just because a person is a hardcore games, doesn't automatically mark them for having the expertise to dual-boot. And having to dual-boot is like saying, well Linux isn't good enough to do this thing that people commonly wanna do.


Actually I haven't tried this yet. Didn't realise that they were actually available through apt. But are they the latest? Nope they are about a half a year old. Meaning if you had a problem with game, you prolly couldn't get tech support till you got the latest driver.

As for you dont need ATI drivers cause NVidia is better. Oh come on. That has not yet been decided which is better. It is a long standing ongoing battle. Sure I'm on NVidia's side, but lots of people aren't. But anyway it goes, there is an ATI card in my notebook.

I wonder if there is an easy way to get nvidia the drivers in any other non-apt distros
"Thats mostly people at work. The games I see people at home play, are actual games that cost moneys. And I'm not talking about my hardcore gamer friends. There was a poll showing people spending more time doing electronic gaming, than going to movies or watching TV. Families today will now spend some time casually playing a $50 game on their PC."

ELECTRONIC gaming, not windows gaming. themajority of gamers use consoles. you think anyone is playing doom 3 on their integrated graphics and 128mb ram emachines? yeah right.

" Just because a person is a hardcore games, doesn't automatically mark them for having the expertise to dual-boot. And having to dual-boot is like saying, well Linux isn't good enough to do this thing that people commonly wanna do.
"

i never said it did, that was assumed by you, when you said that gaming was the limiting factor for linux adoption. as for linux not being good enough, again not true. weve already been over this. the lack of games for linux has absolutely nothing to do with the quality and capabiliteis of linux as an OS.

" Actually I haven't tried this yet. Didn't realise that they were actually available through apt. But are they the latest? Nope they are about a half a year old. Meaning if you had a problem with game, you prolly couldn't get tech support till you got the latest driver.
"

the reason the drivers are old is not because of laziness or anything like that. the latest nvidia drivers are buggy, and the ubuntu devs decided to stick with the old ones. when new drivers are released that fix the problems a lot of the people are having, they will be in the repositories ASAP.

[aysiu]

Thats mostly people at work. The games I see people at home play, are actual games that cost moneys. And I'm not talking about my hardcore gamer friends. There was a poll showing people spending more time doing electronic gaming, than going to movies or watching TV. Families today will now spend some time casually playing a $50 game on their PC.
How about some real polls?

http://www.alexassoc.com/games/GDmemo.shtml#grow says "In may 2001, through our monthly Video Game Snapshot tracking service, we surveyed 2,000 U.S. households to find a penetration of 33%, or 35.5 million homes that own a video game console (note that the number of U.S. households grew from 96.6 million in 1995 to 104.2 million in 2001)."

That's 33% with a gaming console. Even if all of those people also have computer games (highly unlikely scenario), that's still only 33%.

http://www.theesa.com/archives/2003/05/games_are_posit.php has a breakdown on types of games played:

"Type of Game Played Most Often Online: puzzle, board, game show, trivia or card game (56 percent); action, sports, strategy or role-play game (20 percent); persistent multi-player universe (7 percent); or none of the above (7 percent)."

Looks like puzzle, board, and games show are the most popular at 56%. The point isn't that Linux is for everyone. Let me say that again: Linux is not for everyone. Do you want me to say it a third time? Linux is not for everyone. But if you want to say gaming is a serious obstacle for most users in adopting Linux, you must be kidding yourself.

How about this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4423365.stm

"It found that 40% of US homes own a PC, game console or handheld gaming device. Almost a quarter of these, 23%, own all three types of gaming gadget and the vast majority of gamers, 89%, do their playing via a console"

So, if 40% of US homes own some kind of gaming device, and 11% do not use a console, that's 4.4% who do serious PC gaming. That 4.4% isn't holding back mass Linux adoption.

Everyone knows the biggest obstacle is Dell preinstalling its computers with Windows XP.

[poofyhairguy]

As for you dont need ATI drivers cause NVidia is better. Oh come on. That has not yet been decided which is better. It is a long standing ongoing battle. Sure I'm on NVidia's side, but lots of people aren't. But anyway it goes, there is an ATI card in my notebook.

Who says ATI's support is better? Nvidia's drivers rule!

[Mugendai]

themajority of gamers use consoles.
I don't even call those people gamers, they are just lil silly people.
pfft on consoles I say.


i never said it did, that was assumed by you
You acted like it was nothing for a hardcore gamer to do. If it isn't then it isn't a viable options for you to have brought up.

you said that gaming was the limiting factor
Not. THE limiting factor, A limiting factor

the lack of games for linux has absolutely nothing to do with the quality and capabiliteis of linux as an OS.
It's the design of linux that makes it a poor platform to develop games for. If it was better designed for handling games, it would have more. The big issues being installation(so many different Linux distros, how to support install on them? Much harder than dealing with windows/osx), and of course having to dev for an OS who has low focus on graphics, and sound hardware layers doesn't help. It is also much more difficult to support Linux, cause thats like supporting a few hundred different OSes.

A good idea would be a very well designed layer similar to OGL/Direct*... that would work with OGL, and Direct*, and all the varying sound and input facilaties of all the major OSes.. allowing for design once, and letting game companies be able to afford Linux development. Though there is still the issues of how to install with so many differently configured OSes needing different install methods, and how to support such a wide variety of OS.

the reason the drivers are old is not because of laziness or anything like that
I didn't say that was the reason, I said not using the newest version can very likely mean no support by the company. Of course there is also my view on "new version has bugs" which is, "so does the old version, they just moved"

But it is good to know that atleast for Ubuntu NVidia's hardware is supported well. It means the next time I try something on my PC, well if I go with Ubuntu atleast, maybe I wont have to bend over backwards to try to get the video working.

[Mugendai]

Who says ATI's support is better? Nvidia's drivers rule!
I dont think anyone says ATI's support is better. But there are plenty who say that the hardware is better.

I have no clue how to install the ATI drivers on my notebook, there doesn't seem to even be any install info like anywhere on the ATI site.

[poofyhairguy]

I dont think anyone says ATI's support is better. But there are plenty who say that the hardware is better.

I have no clue how to install the ATI drivers on my notebook, there doesn't seem to even be any install info like anywhere on the ATI site.

oh I get it. ATI drivers can be installed in Ubuntu by apt-get as well:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BinaryDriverHowto/ATI?highlight=%28binary%29

[drizek]

I don't even call those people gamers, they are just lil silly people.
pfft on consoles I say.



You acted like it was nothing for a hardcore gamer to do. If it isn't then it isn't a viable options for you to have brought up.


Not. THE limiting factor, A limiting factor


It's the design of linux that makes it a poor platform to develop games for. If it was better designed for handling games, it would have more. The big issues being installation(so many different Linux distros, how to support install on them? Much harder than dealing with windows/osx), and of course having to dev for an OS who has low focus on graphics, and sound hardware layers doesn't help. It is also much more difficult to support Linux, cause thats like supporting a few hundred different OSes.

A good idea would be a very well designed layer similar to OGL/Direct*... that would work with OGL, and Direct*, and all the varying sound and input facilaties of all the major OSes.. allowing for design once, and letting game companies be able to afford Linux development. Though there is still the issues of how to install with so many differently configured OSes needing different install methods, and how to support such a wide variety of OS.


I didn't say that was the reason, I said not using the newest version can very likely mean no support by the company. Of course there is also my view on "new version has bugs" which is, "so does the old version, they just moved"

But it is good to know that atleast for Ubuntu NVidia's hardware is supported well. It means the next time I try something on my PC, well if I go with Ubuntu atleast, maybe I wont have to bend over backwards to try to get the video working.
" I don't even call those people gamers, they are just lil silly people.
pfft on consoles I say."

ok. call hem whatever the hell you want, they still make up hte majority of the gaming industry.

" You acted like it was nothing for a hardcore gamer to do. If it isn't then it isn't a viable options for you to have brought up."

dual booting is not any harder than running just ubuntu(although you do have to put up with windows).

ill refresh your memory " See, this is the thing. From my experience. The basic user wants to do these things:
Internet
Email
Document writing
Music
Playing Games

Linux does fine on these things until you get to the last entry."

game companies can work with distro makers, the same way that commercial companies like opera(the browser) work today. the gaming company leaves it up to the distro makers to figure out how to make the game installable on their distro. it could even be as easy as apt-get install halflife2. and then before it downloads it, synaptic asks you for a cdkey. its very possible, and a much better way than in windows.

no layer is needed. its like saying there needs to be a layer that allows browsers to support both w3c standards and MS's **** standards. we dont need more of anything, we just need less of MS. opengl is more than capable.

" I didn't say that was the reason, I said not using the newest version can very likely mean no support by the company. Of course there is also my view on "new version has bugs" which is, "so does the old version, they just moved""

this has nothing to do with linux. this could apply to any OS, including windows. lets say the latest nvidia drivers BSOD your machine, and valve will only support you if you have them. youre SOL.

" I didn't say that was the reason, I said not using the newest version can very likely mean no support by the company. Of course there is also my view on "new version has bugs" which is, "so does the old version, they just moved""

nvidia cards work well in any distro. the best experience ive had was yoper, which had them installed and configured out of the box(aka, on first boot you had full 3d acceleration). try doing that with windows.

[panickedthumb]

" While Cedega is an option, it is not an option that is particularly good. It means the games run slower..."

Not true for me. I get much better performance out of Half-Life 2 through Cedega than through Windows.
I point out HL2 because its the only one that I've noticed ANY difference with.

[drizek]

" While Cedega is an option, it is not an option that is particularly good. It means the games run slower..."

Not true for me. I get much better performance out of Half-Life 2 through Cedega than through Windows.
I point out HL2 because its the only one that I've noticed ANY difference with.
same with me(although sound stutters, but ive never attempted to fix it). the difference is that it is using dx8.1 in cedega vs dx9 in windows. if you go into the video settings in windows and set it to use dx8 acceleration, you will see an improvement in performance(and reduced image quality).

[Stormy Eyes]

See, this is the thing. From my experience. The basic user wants to do these things:
Internet
Email
Document writing
Music
Playing Games

Linux does fine on these things until you get to the last entry.

Linux has plenty of games. They're just not big-name commercial games. If you object to the dearth of big-name commercial games on Linux, discuss your objections with Valve, Blizzard, EA, BioWare, et al. Id Software releases their games for Linux. If you want FPS, take your pick from Quake, Doom, or Epic Software's Unreal Tournament games.

[Mugendai]

its very possible
HAH.. but not in any way probable. Here get any game you want, and all you need is a keygen. They aren't that dumb.

its like saying there needs to be a layer that allows browsers to support both w3c standards and MS's
No it is not. Its not on that level at all. There is more to making a game than interfacing with a graphics layer. There is also sound, interface(such as joysticks/mouse/keyboard), and networking. OGL does not provide a full layer to all of these facilaties. There are also OS specific concerns for achieving various things, a compatability layer lets developers write once, and then support all OSes. Do you think the reason so many games run only on windows is that devs think its a better OS, or they simply don't care about other OSes? No, it is because it costs money to develop the extra versions, and most dont find it fiscally sound to support the other OSes. Don't beleive they will make more from the userbase than the cost to do it, and support it.
With a single standard interface for all of these components, companies could write for it just once, and then would have made versions for all OSes. Such a layer could even be exapanded to allow them to simultaniously dev for PCs and Consoles.

this has nothing to do with linux
If it was windows, you could update the driver easily, yourself, even if it BSODed your box.

nvidia cards work well in any distro.
Maybe it's finally fixed, but in the past I've constantly failed to get the video card working right. Perhaps I just always had THE one card that was going to fail. I am actually quite good at having just the wrong stuff to cause issues. I havent tried installing the drivers in other distros recently, so maybe the install proccess works now. Though, last time I tried was maybe a year ago, and I couldn't get it going then. Think that was a mandrake install.

the best experience ive had
The best I've had was with this Gentoo live CD. I popped it in, it booted up, workign on my NVidia card and played UT2K demo. Only thing it failed to make work properly was the force feedback on my mouse. That was about 3 years ago.

[drizek]

HAH.. but not in any way probable. Here get any game you want, and all you need is a keygen. They aren't that dumb.


No it is not. Its not on that level at all. There is more to making a game than interfacing with a graphics layer. There is also sound, interface(such as joysticks/mouse/keyboard), and networking. OGL does not provide a full layer to all of these facilaties. There are also OS specific concerns for achieving various things, a compatability layer lets developers write once, and then support all OSes. Do you think the reason so many games run only on windows is that devs think its a better OS, or they simply don't care about other OSes? No, it is because it costs money to develop the extra versions, and most dont find it fiscally sound to support the other OSes. Don't beleive they will make more from the userbase than the cost to do it, and support it.
With a single standard interface for all of these components, companies could write for it just once, and then would have made versions for all OSes. Such a layer could even be exapanded to allow them to simultaniously dev for PCs and Consoles.


If it was windows, you could update the driver easily, yourself, even if it BSODed your box.


Maybe it's finally fixed, but in the past I've constantly failed to get the video card working right. Perhaps I just always had THE one card that was going to fail. I am actually quite good at having just the wrong stuff to cause issues. I havent tried installing the drivers in other distros recently, so maybe the install proccess works now. Though, last time I tried was maybe a year ago, and I couldn't get it going then. Think that was a mandrake install.


The best I've had was with this Gentoo live CD. I popped it in, it booted up, workign on my NVidia card and played UT2K demo. Only thing it failed to make work properly was the force feedback on my mouse. That was about 3 years ago.
" HAH.. but not in any way probable. Here get any game you want, and all you need is a keygen. They aren't that dumb. "

actually, they are. steam works the same way.

ya, the sound could definelty use some work under linux(its not too bad though). my point was taht we didnt need another "layer," we just needed to make the software that was already there work on all OS's.

" If it was windows, you could update the driver easily, yourself, even if it BSODed your box."

and? whats your point? you will have to rollback to the previous one id you want to be able to use your computer again.

ive never had any real problems with nvidia drivers for both my mx 440 and 6600gt in any of the distros ive tried.the 6600gt was a good one, but the 440 was a no-name POS, and it still worked fine anyway.

im going to try and install ATI's drivers on the other pc in a couple days though to see if theyve finally gotten their act together.

[poofyhairguy]

Maybe it's finally fixed, but in the past I've constantly failed to get the video card working right. Perhaps I just always had THE one card that was going to fail. I am actually quite good at having just the wrong stuff to cause issues. I havent tried installing the drivers in other distros recently, so maybe the install proccess works now. Though, last time I tried was maybe a year ago, and I couldn't get it going then. Think that was a mandrake install.

With my 6600 GT, the Linux drivers were VERY easy to install and had features the Windows drivers didn't have.

Nvidia has great drivers. My desktop acceration seems much smoother too -comparing running xcompmgr with 6600 GT to running it with 5200 FX or a (shudder) 9600 Pro ATI.

[nocturn]

I dont like MS and I dont want to use Windows (and there is the threat of the approaching permenant vendor lock-in) so I thought I'd try out Linux. Ubuntu is the best one I've found so far, but still feels like a GUI added on to a CLI, rather than a fully functional GUI in itself.

The CLI should really be optional, rather than mandatory, for an OS to have large scale appeal imo.

I'm going to make an assumption here. You do not want to use windows to avoid the MS vendor lock in, so you came to GNU/Linux. What you hoped to find was Windows without the legal hassle, am I right?

Well, GNU/Linux is not Windows.
Linux is modular in design. That means that one system runs on top of the other. The same goes for the GUI, it is a module on top of the Xserver wich runs on the Kernel. This means that not every function is tied into the GUI because you may have a system without a GUI altogether.

That said, Ubuntu is working very hard to provide a GUI for all end-user tasks so that the average user never has to drop to the CLI. This is a work in progress and if you do find something missing, file a bugreport on it (either in the Ubuntu bugzilla or in the Gnome one).
Doing this would be constructive critisism and your issues might get resolved. Posting in complain-only threads does not help anyone (the OP could have spend this time filing bugreports instead of posting this).
Note that not every change you desire will be implemented because not everyone may agree with you (your complaint about the IP address will probably be followed up).

Look, you get this great system for free with an entire community to support it and a direct line to the developers. Please consider this a moment before ranting on the people who donate their time and money to bring you a pleasant computin experience.

If you do not like Linux or Ubuntu, you are free to look elsewhere (even to Windows), but then you'd have to accept the drawbacks to those systems as well.
If you want to stick around and help make Ubuntu/Linux better, by all means do so.

[drizek]

With my 6600 GT, the Linux drivers were VERY easy to install and had features the Windows drivers didn't have.

Nvidia has great drivers. My desktop acceration seems much smoother too -comparing running xcompmgr with 6600 GT to running it with 5200 FX or a (shudder) 9600 Pro ATI.
ya. the only way to get 16x antialiasing without a 7800GTX is to use an nvidia card in linux.

the new drivers have some nice improvements in them as well. Itwould be nice if they would fix em up so we can actually use em though. i want to see if i can get a better overclock in linux using the nvidia-settings with coolbits than i can with windows. i read a review where they got a 6600gt GPU upto 590mhz. mine is at 535 in windows right now. they also have a pretty noticeable improvement in doom3 performance, which is cool. its been over two months since 7667, so its about time nvidia releases another driver. hopefully it will be a good one.

[poofyhairguy]

ya. the only way to get 16x antialiasing without a 7800GTX is to use an nvidia card in linux.

the new drivers have some nice improvements in them as well. Itwould be nice if they would fix em up so we can actually use em though. i want to see if i can get a better overclock in linux using the nvidia-settings with coolbits than i can with windows. i read a review where they got a 6600gt GPU upto 590mhz. mine is at 535 in windows right now. they also have a pretty noticeable improvement in doom3 performance, which is cool. its been over two months since 7667, so its about time nvidia releases another driver. hopefully it will be a good one.

Yeah, its kinda hard to get some features out. But when you do!!! Thank God for the Gentoo Forums....

My xorg file confuses me more than I care to admit.

[cowlip]

I see this question asked so often about GNU/Linux that I feel it is time to ask the same about one of the alternative OS's available.
No, it's very slow with Azureus in hte background, but on Linux Azureus doesn't slow things odwn at all for me--network wise or CPU wise. And it's not as fun to use as KDE or Gnome :D

[drizek]

Yeah, its kinda hard to get some features out. But when you do!!! Thank God for the Gentoo Forums....

My xorg file confuses me more than I care to admit.

what i meant was that in windows, a 6600gt only lets you use 8x antialiasing. the nvidia driver in linux lets you set it all the way upto 16x. in windows, this is only possbile with a 7800gtx. obviously, games are unplayable at this setting(unreal slideshow 2004, doom 3fps, neverrender nights, tux painter, etc. ;)) but its still cool to have.

i can manage x.org pretty well, except for when it comes to monitor resolutions. that just confuses the hell out of me.

[bored2k]

i can manage x.org pretty well, except for when it comes to monitor resolutions. that just confuses the hell out of me.
I just stick to "dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg" for my resolutions. I wouldn't want to shorten my NEC's monitor life..

[Mugendai]

I just stick to "dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg" for my resolutions. I wouldn't want to shorten my NEC's monitor life..
This is the sorta thing I'm talking about with video drivers.

Peeps deffinetly shouldn't have to be doing this (I've noticed there is an nvidia-settings program in the repositories tho.. perhaps it makes up for this?).

I keep hearing things like "Linux is not for everyone".. or "Ubuntu is not for everyone"...
Well.. I think it should be. Why shouldn't it be for everyone? OSX, and Windows developers don't say, hey lets try to get just one market on our system. They aim very wide.

Ubuntu is Linux for Human Beings right? That's all human beings, not just some human beings.
There are certain things that can be none multiple ways, such as, installing software. The attempt should be to make as many of these installation methodologies as possible available. Or atleast pick a method that would satisfy all.

The apt-get/synaptic methodology is a little too, "do it for me". You only have access to what has been packaged for you, which could be state of the art, or it could be generations behind the origional.(I know the whole horde package was too far behind to use, so I ended up doing it manually of the course of several hours) And you don't get much choice if any about how the install is done, especially you don't get to choose where the software goes, which wouldn't be SO bad if it told you where it put it. All too often I install something in synaptic, and there is no menu entry made for me. At this point I get to guess how to run it. I can track down documentation(prolly the best thing to do) or hunt down the binary or script on my system that I need to be running.

There are certain things that using synaptic, all you end up with is an extracted program. You don't get anything more. Well in this case, it could be preferable to manually extract, because it is likely you are going to be needing to do a fare amount of configuring of the software before it is going to do anything. This means what you need to start with is the manual. You need to extract it where the manual says, and follow the docs(if there are any).
Using the apt-get way, you dont know where the software is, and in turn, you dont know where its docs are. The only good apt-get really does in this case, is it get you those dependancies you need, and puts them in the locatiosn on your system, that your distro wants them in. But you are stuck not knowing where to find the files to work on them.

IMO it would be a big improvement if, atleast in the case that the software doesn't come ripe and ready out of the box, with a menu entry, that it tell you atleast where it put the files, especially the main binaries, config files, and the docs. Possibly even open the document that explains configuration, for you, or give you links to it in a menu list or something.

This doesn't solve the, how to get software from outside the repositories, and install it issue, but it would be an improvement on the repository distribution methodology.

What do you think?

Just a step in the way to fighting, "Well Linux(or Ubuntu) isn't for everyone, go elsewhere if you don't wanna do it our way.", and replacing it with, "Linux for Human Beings", it CAN and SHOULD be for everyone.
For you the question "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" might mean, "Is Linux ready for the lowest common denominator?", but for me it means, "Is Linux ready for everyone?"

[You have to understand, I am a software developer. I often spend time writing free software for people I dunno. And I go through the trouble of adding many features/options to the software that I myself will never use, spending days working on features or even programs that will do me no good. Simply because I know some people might want it(or may have requested it), and I wanna make the software usefull to everyone needing/wanting that kind of software. So I have severe problems with the coding notion "X isn't for everyone, do it my way, or hit the highway"]

[aysiu]

I keep hearing things like "Linux is not for everyone".. or "Ubuntu is not for everyone"...
Well.. I think it should be. Why shouldn't it be for everyone? OSX, and Windows developers don't say, hey lets try to get just one market on our system. They aim very wide. On the contrary, Windows is not for everyone. Why else would get so many people going, "I'm so tired of Windows. I want to give Linux a try"? Windows doesn't do well because people try every OS out there and say, "Hey, Windows is the best." Windows comes preloaded on every major commercial PC that isn't produced by Apple. As for OS X... well, I wouldn't say that's for everyone, either. It's not for me. I'll use it, and there's a lot I appreciate about it, but I don't dig the Finder/Expose/Dock thing--that's not how I multi-task. Will anyone be lost using a Mac? Probably not too lost. Though, for the longest time, I couldn't figure out how to install programs on OS X. People should choose what's right for them. You're also missing a big part of the "choosing an OS" dynamic. A lot of the criticisms of Linux as being difficult have to do with set up, not use. Mac is always set up for you--that's what makes Macs so great--hardware and OS fit seamlessly together because they've each been designed for the other. On Windows, less so, but it's still there. Once Linux is installed and set up, it's not that much harder to use than OS X.


The apt-get/synaptic methodology is a little too, "do it for me". So when Windows or Mac hides things from the user, that's reaching a broad base; when Linux does it, it's too "do it for me"? Please...


[You have to understand, I am a software developer. I often spend time writing free software for people I dunno. And I go through the trouble of adding many features/options to the software that I myself will never use, spending days working on features or even programs that will do me no good. Simply because I know some people might want it(or may have requested it), and I wanna make the software usefull to everyone needing/wanting that kind of software. So I have severe problems with the coding notion "X isn't for everyone, do it my way, or hit the highway"] How about helping to develop Linux instead of complaining on these boards?

[egon spengler]

I keep hearing things like "Linux is not for everyone".. or "Ubuntu is not for everyone"...
Well.. I think it should be. Why shouldn't it be for everyone? OSX, and Windows developers don't say, hey lets try to get just one market on our system. They aim very wide.

Ubuntu is Linux for Human Beings right? That's all human beings, not just some human beings.

I don't think that people mean to imply that the intention for ubuntu is to only appeal to a tiny niche market. When people try ubuntu and are disapointed because it doen't meet their expectations how else do you expect ubuntu users to react other than say "Oh well, I guess ubuntu isn't suited to you". I'm sure that we are all agreed that choice is a good thing, ubuntu is just one more option available for a user but as the old saying goes you can't please all of the people all of the time. There just will be some people that don't like something about ubuntu

The apt-get/synaptic methodology is a little too, "do it for me". You only have access to what has been packaged for you, which could be state of the art, or it could be generations behind the origional.

So in other words you can only get what its available. Same as windows really. I can agree that knowing that there is a newer version just out of reach can be annoying but at the same I would think that quite often it's mainly the power users who feel compelled to have the latest, greatest version of everything (but then again firefox has so many bugfix releases it must be hard for the repository maintainers to keep up). For a power user I don't think compiling is prohibitively complicated. A time consuming hassle yes, too complicated, no.

IMO it would be a big improvement if, atleast in the case that the software doesn't come ripe and ready out of the box, with a menu entry, that it tell you atleast where it put the files, especially the main binaries, config files, and the docs. Possibly even open the document that explains configuration, for you, or give you links to it in a menu list or something.


I haven't installed anything in a while so I can't quite remember but I generally use aptitude instead of synaptic and I think that aptitude *might* possibly tell you where stuff is going. I know that it displays a lot of info about something but to be honest I don't generally pay any attention unless there's an error. I definitely agree though, an option to have the manager informing the user where the stuff has been installed to would be helpful to many

A tip in case you might not be aware;

whereis appname

This will show you the path to the application binary and the man file. Generally though you don't actually need to know where the man file is to run it but still, the user should be able to know whatever they want to know

[Mugendai]

Windows is not for everyone.
I didn't say they were for everyone, I said they aim wide. You will find Windows used by complete noobs, novices, experts, on servers, in business, at home.
I'de say the markets they care least about, are those that wanna own their box, and those that don't wanna pay for their box.
Linux on the other hand, can, and should aim wider than that.

So when Windows or Mac hides things from the user, that's reaching a broad base; when Linux does it, it's too "do it for me"? Please...
I'm not talking about just any old thing. I'm talking about one the most common tasks one needs to do on a computer, software installation. It's one thing to hide info that users don't need, it's another thing to hide crucial information needed to get components running.
I don't know of any software on Windows/OSX that when installed don't have a menu entry, AND don't tell you where it was installed to. "I stuck this on your computer somewhere, you will have to figure out where, and how to use and configure it" is not a good installation mentality.

How about helping to develop Linux instead of complaining on these boards?
I'm not complaining. This is a discussion about OSes being ready for desktop use. And I am trying to change peoples minds who think Linux is "there". I consider it dangerous to a good thing to act like it's ready when it isn't. And I like to argue.

As for helping develop Linux, I have alot more to learn about it, before I work with core components. And do already develop software that runs on Linux. When I write software, it should compile under most opperating systems. Currently working, with others, on a cross platform pay per month massive multiplayer space strategy game(as my hopefully some day paying project)[much of the source is written on Linux technologies].

[poofyhairguy]

This is the sorta thing I'm talking about with video drivers.

Peeps deffinetly shouldn't have to be doing this (I've noticed there is an nvidia-settings program in the repositories tho.. perhaps it makes up for this?).


bugs me too. I have been asking a lot, and I have learned that either this release or the next Gnome with have a way to edit the xorg through a GUI.


I keep hearing things like "Linux is not for everyone".. or "Ubuntu is not for everyone"...
Well.. I think it should be. Why shouldn't it be for everyone?

Because thats impractical. All the computer users of the world have so many different needs. Ubuntu can't be all that. Linux might can. Ubuntu can't. We have limited resources. We have limited time.

Its funny. I usually tell Ubuntu fans to preach "use what fits you best." Thats our community's way. AND ITS BETTER THAN THE OLD WAY. The "Linux will save the world way." The new way we sound practical, not like zealots. But with you we can't win. We say "Ubuntu is good for everything" and we get a hundred posts of "Ubuntu sucks at this." So then we say "use what works best" and "Ubuntu has specific strengths" and you say "I think it should be for everything." Its like when my girlfriend asks if she looks fat in a dress, I lose either way.


OSX, and Windows developers don't say, hey lets try to get just one market on our system. They aim very wide.

********. Apple intends for OSX to be in the "I'm shopping for a new computer and I want something different" market. OSX isn't trying to be a Window's clone, its not trying to dominate the server room, its not trying to be a universal OS. Windows is meant for users that have x86 hardware that they want an OS for. Specific markets they do have....


Ubuntu is Linux for Human Beings right? That's all human beings, not just some human beings.

Yep...thats great. Bring that all that junk out. My pet peave on this forum is people using Ubuntu's philosophy to back up their crappy arguements. Ubuntu is an OS for human beings. What that means is that ALL human being CAN use Ubuntu if they want, free of charge. That DOES not mean that Ubuntu is trying to target and fill every OS need for every human being. Please don't drag the Ubuntu philosohy through the mud again....thats a way to piss me off, get the thread locked and end our debating fun.... :)


There are certain things that can be none multiple ways, such as, installing software. The attempt should be to make as many of these installation methodologies as possible available. Or atleast pick a method that would satisfy all.

How about this? In Ubuntu you can now:

1. Install a binary using Synaptic

2. Install compile and install the source code from a tar file

3. Use an autopackage (many people on the forum have used them with success)

4. Install a Windows program with Wine.

There is no method that "satisfies all." That is a delusion. Ubuntu will officially support the way that is TECHNICALLY BEST FOR US, seeing as how we want the OS to continue to work well.


The apt-get/synaptic methodology is a little too, "do it for me". You only have access to what has been packaged for you, which could be state of the art, or it could be generations behind the origional.(I know the whole horde package was too far behind to use, so I ended up doing it manually of the course of several hours) And you don't get much choice if any about how the install is done, especially you don't get to choose where the software goes, which wouldn't be SO bad if it told you where it put it. All too often I install something in synaptic, and there is no menu entry made for me. At this point I get to guess how to run it. I can track down documentation(prolly the best thing to do) or hunt down the binary or script on my system that I need to be running.

99.999% of the time a program can be run by entering the programs name. but you are correct, this is a problem. Soon Ubuntu will have another way to install packages. Easier than Synaptic. And EVERY program in the Main will have a menu option. And hopefully in the future this will also extend to the packages in the Universe as well. This a valid complaint, one that our best and brightest are working on.


IMO it would be a big improvement if, atleast in the case that the software doesn't come ripe and ready out of the box, with a menu entry, that it tell you atleast where it put the files, especially the main binaries, config files, and the docs. Possibly even open the document that explains configuration, for you, or give you links to it in a menu list or something.

I promise, your concern in this matter is valid. Our goal is more menu options. Anyone that wants to help can volunteer to be a MOTU. I hear they have great parties.


Just a step in the way to fighting, "Well Linux(or Ubuntu) isn't for everyone, go elsewhere if you don't wanna do it our way.", and replacing it with, "Linux for Human Beings", it CAN and SHOULD be for everyone.
For you the question "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" might mean, "Is Linux ready for the lowest common denominator?", but for me it means, "Is Linux ready for everyone?"

It is for everyone. When you want to download the ISO, we don't ask "who are you?" You can just get it. Microsoft asks who the hell you are when you install its OS. Thats where we want to be different. The question is not "is Ubuntu ready for everyone?," but instead "Is everyone ready for Ubuntu?" We can't please everyone. No point in even trying. Its better to just make quality software that works, than make it as availible as possible. Those that want it can come get it. Choice is a great thing about life.


[You have to understand, I am a software developer. I often spend time writing free software for people I dunno. And I go through the trouble of adding many features/options to the software that I myself will never use, spending days working on features or even programs that will do me no good. Simply because I know some people might want it(or may have requested it), and I wanna make the software usefull to everyone needing/wanting that kind of software. So I have severe problems with the coding notion "X isn't for everyone, do it my way, or hit the highway"]

As a software developer, you also must know that development time and resources are limited. So you have to use them wisely. Why try to "out Windows Windows" to please ex Windows users when most of the world has never used a computer? Why not focus on making a simple to use OS for most of the world?


I didn't say they were for everyone, I said they aim wide. You will find Windows used by complete noobs, novices, experts, on servers, in business, at home.
I'de say the markets they care least about, are those that wanna own their box, and those that don't wanna pay for their box.

The market Ubuntu shoots for is those people that can't afford Windows.


I don't know of any software on Windows/OSX that when installed don't have a menu entry, AND don't tell you where it was installed to. "I stuck this on your computer somewhere, you will have to figure out where, and how to use and configure it" is not a good installation mentality.

Thats you best point. We have nothing to say about that (yet).


I'm not complaining. This is a discussion about OSes being ready for desktop use. And I am trying to change peoples minds who think Linux is "there". I consider it dangerous to a good thing to act like it's ready when it isn't.

Its not "there." And we haven't rested on our merits. EVERY six months will bring a new Ubuntu release. Every release will bring usuability improvements. We are working to make it better. We are not working to make it more like Windows.

And I like to argue.

Me too...I can defend Ubuntu all day.

Linux on the other hand, can, and should aim wider than that.

Linux does. Linux is on routers, cell phones, refigerators, desktop computers, servers. Almost everything with a CPU has a Linux version for it.

Ubuntu is different than Linux, and it has a different fate. Ubuntu is a desktop OS aimed at those that don't have an OS they like or can't afford one. Thats why Ubuntu is shipped to people, and we have lots of free support here. Ubuntu is an OS. Linux is a kernel. It will do you nicely to not confuse the two...

[aysiu]

I didn't say they were for everyone, I said they aim wide. You will find Windows used by complete noobs, novices, experts, on servers, in business, at home.
I'de say the markets they care least about, are those that wanna own their box, and those that don't wanna pay for their box.
Linux on the other hand, can, and should aim wider than that. Linux also aims wide--wider, in fact. You have a Linux for people who want Windows but not Windows (Linspire). You have one for people who want something a little different from Windows but still very point-and-click (Mepis). You have a less-bloated but still newbie-friendly distro that uses the command-line for configuration (Ubuntu). You've got a distro aimed at older hardware/portability (Damn Small Linux). You've got a distro you can build exactly to your specifications (Debian). You've got a recovery CD distro (Knoppix). And those are just the Debian varieties.


I'm not talking about just any old thing. I'm talking about one the most common tasks one needs to do on a computer, software installation. Common task for whom? I don't know many people who install software on their computers. Seriously. And when I do install software for them, they usually never update the software. To be perfectly honest, I also rarely install software. Sure, when I first installed Ubuntu, I had to download a whole bunch of packages through Synaptic (the one program I had to install outside of Synaptic I could do so entirely through GUI--Opera), but since then... nah. I have my browser, my email, my little electronic board game. That's it. Most users needs are quite simple. The bulk of everyday users do not install and uninstall software, check IP addresses, etc. It also doesn't matter where the applications live, as long as you know how to launch them. First of all, they usually are in /bin or /usr/bin. But even if you don't bother to find the application's exact location, you can still type it in the terminal, and it launches. You can also create a launcher, too, without knowing where the application lives. So why does the everyday user care where the app installed? Truth is, she doesn't. You care. All most computer users care about it being able to use the computer. And Mac OS X doesn't create launchers for you, either.


I'm not complaining. Could have fooled me.

This is a discussion about OSes being ready for desktop use. And I am trying to change peoples minds who think Linux is "there". I consider it dangerous to a good thing to act like it's ready when it isn't. And I like to argue. Why? What's so dangerous about it? First of all, as Poofyhairyguy said, no one's resting on her laurels here. Ubuntu is in constant development, as are all Linux distros. No Linux advocate has ever said, "You know what, guys? I think Linux is perfect right now. Let's not develop any more. No more apps. No better hardware detection. We just don't need anything else." So what's so dangerous about it? And as for Linux being "there," what's "there"? See, for you "there" seems to mean do things the Windows way (I know you'll deny it, but you constantly compare it to Windows), and that's never going to happen. "There" also can be misinterpreted to mean "ready to be installed and used by any close-minded fool who can't learn anything."

There are countless success stories (mine included) of people who are just regular users--not developers or programmers--and found Linux, had an open mind and installed it. I also happen to know, having installed Windows a few times that it's never easy to install an OS. Luckily for me, Ubuntu has actually been easier to install than Windows. I can't say that's true for everyone under any circumstance, but it's true for enough people.

I wouldn't flat out say, "Hey, anyone. No matter what your attitude, you can just pop in a Ubuntu CD and everything will work out of the box. You won't have to do anything to configure it to your liking, and you won't have to learn anything to know how to use it." However, I also wouldn't say, "If you're thinking about trying Linux, don't! Don't do it unless you're some crazy hacker. Normal people can't use this OS. It's crazy!"

Then again, I wouldn't say either of those things about Windows, either. OS X is in a class by itself because you can use it only a Mac, and it's pretty much guaranteed to work out of the box because it's designed to work on that box. Even so, Mac definitely has a learning curve. Before my wife and I discovered Expose, switching between windows was a definite pain. It still kind of is, actually. I didn't know that when installing apps you have to drag the (what I thought was already installed) app to the applications folder. That's because I came with a Windows mindset (once you go through the wizard, it's already in C:\Program Files). Each OS has a different mindset and a different set of rules.

This is what I would say (and it's in my sig, which you might want to check out): if you can follow some directions and have an open mind, use Linux. If you have a Linux expert who can install Linux for you, use Linux. If you're a disgruntled Windows user who wants Linux to be Windows but not Windows, forget it (unless you like Linspire).

If you don't consider the above qualifications to be "there," then we just have different definitions of what "there" is.

P.S. As for Windows being "ready for the desktop" or not (which was the original topic of this thread), I took a quick look at a Windows XP forum, and check out the threads on the first page:

http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23328
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23309
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23276
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23308

People who think Linux is hard to install and configure should really try installing Windows. It's an eye-opener. It was for me, anyway. You get to see what happens when Dell (or whoever) isn't there to do all the hard work for you.

[Mugendai]

Linux also aims wide--wider,
But see, Windows does that kinda thing with one distro. Its a matter of being difficult to shape Linux into being what you want.

Common task for whom?
Everyone I know, except my mother and father. The only reason they don't install stuff, is that I will always do it for them. For all the familes I know who don't have an IT pro in their house, they install software. They go to the store, buy it, and install it. They go to websites, download it, and install it.
A new windows system is bare. And while some people simply use what is there, in my experience most people go get software to add to it. I have not worked on a single windows box that someone has not installed something on. Usually, they've installed several somethings.

It also doesn't matter where the applications live
I get the impression you haven't tried setting up anything more advanced than X apps. For many things that aren't simply X apps, you need to know at bare minimum where the config files are, and they often want the exact location of several binaries, or other locations.

And, FYI, in the case that Linux doesn't support your hardware to begin with, you may find yourself installing things that aren't in repositories, that again, require knowledge of locations and more. I've come across this every time I've installed Linux, accept on this Ubuntu install, where I dind't have any fancy hardware to deal with.(Actually the mouse pad didn't work, but I know the serial port on the computer is messed up, and thats prolly why, tho the pad did work in windows, I plugged a USB mouse in in the end)

The first task I had was to get TightVNC installed and working, that took quite some time, and required me to know the locations of things. (I know Ubuntu comes with an integrated VNC, but it isn't good enough for me, I wanted Tight with it's enchanced protocols and client side cursor tracking and junk. Man, I can watch screensavers at about 30FPS over the network with tight, I'm impressed, DEFFINETLY cant do that in windows.)

Could have fooled me.
In an argument, you give reasons, specifics to make your case. If you do not give any reasons for your argument, then you are playing the, "Nuh uh" "Uh huh!" "Nuuuh UUUUH!!" "Yesss HAAAH" game. And I'm not 2. So I'm sorry if my list of reasons sounds like whining to you. But it isn't. I am trying to make valid points here. Feel free to try to pick apart my points and show them as invalid in your rebuttle.

Why? What's so dangerous about it?
First off, when I say "there" I mean, "ready for the desktop". And it's dangerous , because if devs think it is "there" when it is not, it will never get "there". It doesn't mean they would stop working on Linux, but may stop trying to make it ready for desktop use.

If you're a disgruntled Windows user who wants Linux to be Windows but not Windows
I don't want Linux to be Windows. Again, my Windows system is prolly one of the least Windowsy Windows systems. But I want the option to do things in ways that are the best. Just cause I hate windows, doesn't mean it does everything wrong. Certain things can be incorperated and improved on.

I truley beleive Linux can be better than Windows in all respects. I beleive it can let people do things however, a grand way of doing this, is with configuration systems that are simple enough for a noob, and powerful enough for an expert. I think re-thinking methods for doing some things, could make them alot easier to do, without loosing the power of flexability provided by current methods.

I am sometime surprised by how many options are only available by re-compiling software. There are two reasons I can see for this, one would be, perhaps a very tiny performance improvement wrought by not having un-needed code. Such improvements would be miniscule, but could matter on applications used for large server environments. The other I can see, is lack of time to do it right, or too lazy to do it right. Options in config files good, options requiring re-building software are well.. ouch!

http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23328
Likely hardware issue, likely memory
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23309
Likely hardware issue, description too unclear to even guess at the specifics
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23276
Well I would say, try the manufacturers site driver for the Realtec card. I've had problems where in some systems the latest version of the RealTec drivers on Windows don't work right. But the ones on the manufacturers site do. Luckily for them, it's easy to install the manufacturers drives. In Linux if there were other drivers avail, they would have a hell of a time figuring out how to install them. However in Linux, they prolly wouldn't have this problem anyway(modern Linux systems atlest)
http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23308
Someones install got borked. Who knows what they did to bork it. Coulda been one of many many things. Could be hardware failure. Likely some file is damaged, or there is a bad driver installed. Similar issues could have occured in Linux. If your crucial system files are damaged, you may just have to re-install the system. The method of fixing it in Windows is a re-install, as it's easy enough to install that the user can prolly be safe doing it, and windows can do a repair install.

With Linux, an IT pro will likely be needed to fix the issue. Whether a re-install, or an actual fix, the problem just cant be fixed by a basic user. A Linux re-install may fix the issue, but to get the system re-configured properly may very likely require an IT pro. If it was easier to install software that wasn't in the repository, then even a basic user could do it.

Anyway it goes for any OS, if the cause of the damage was a hardware issue, an IT pro is needed to fix the situation.

However, Windows is more succeptable to such issues. Especially with their low security, and constant root access.

People who think Linux is hard to install and configure should really try installing Windows. It's an eye-opener. It was for me, anyway. You get to see what happens when Dell (or whoever) isn't there to do all the hard work for you.
My sister-in-law succesfully installed and configured windows on here own. She is missing an entire chromosome in her DNA.

If the hardware is bad, the box isn't going to work with any OS. Linux can be very easy to install, like I said easiest install I've seen is Lycoris/DesktopLX(start install super easy, play solitaire while it does the install for you!). But once the OS is in place, you may have to deal with unsupported hardware, something that isn't a real problem in windows due to high availablity of easy to install hardware drivers.

I think one place where Linux could improve that would move it closer to being ready for desktop, is working out ways for hardware manufacturers to make drivers that can be installed on any Linux OS with relative simplicity.

[aysiu]

You completely missed the point of my last post. There is no "there" as in a place. There's never a time when Linux developers will say "That's it. We don't need to do anything else." Cheesy as it sounds, it's not a destination; it's a journey. And people are working on getting hardware support. It doesn't just happen magically.

[Brunellus]

I truley beleive Linux can be better than Windows in all respects. I beleive it can let people do things however, a grand way of doing this, is with configuration systems that are simple enough for a noob, and powerful enough for an expert. I think re-thinking methods for doing some things, could make them alot easier to do, without loosing the power of flexability provided by current methods.

I am sometime surprised by how many options are only available by re-compiling software. There are two reasons I can see for this, one would be, perhaps a very tiny performance improvement wrought by not having un-needed code. Such improvements would be miniscule, but could matter on applications used for large server environments. The other I can see, is lack of time to do it right, or too lazy to do it right. Options in config files good, options requiring re-building software are well.. ouch!

***



I think one place where Linux could improve that would move it closer to being ready for desktop, is working out ways for hardware manufacturers to make drivers that can be installed on any Linux OS with relative simplicity.

Fewer and fewer "rebuilds" are necessary, provided you're careful about using hardware already known to work with your intended software.

Your issues might be valid--absolute beginners who dont' know the first thing about their computers or how a computer works will be perplexed. But this is equally true of configuring any operating system--and more true the deeper you get into each.

The hardware question is a chicken-and-egg question--Hardware manufacturers don't want to release drivers or specifications for Linux because they fear too small a market, while users wont' adopt Linux because they fear too small a hardware selection. I've decided to resolve this the only way that works--with money. Yes, folks--I shop for hardware that works with Linux. Does it involve a little more thought and consideration? Yes. But it makes sure that my dollars line the pockets of those manufactuers which meet *my* needs and the needs of the greater GNU/Linux community--and if they can be convinced that that means more profit to them because of some competitive advantage, well--there's your solution right there.

But merely complaining on here, loudly, doesn't do you any favors. If you want to do anything about it, get a project together, or at least submit formal bug reports/feature requests.

If you don't want to use Linux--well, nobody put a gun to your head. You delete that partition on your hard drive and go to any other OS you want--Windows XP (or Vista, coming soon), *BSD...or you could sell up and go to Apple.

Essentially, what we're asking you to do in the forum is to be productive: post constructive bug reports and feature requests, help other users in situations wherein you have some expertise, and maybe contribute a little to the discussion. We want you to like GNU/Linux and not hate Windows.

[Mugendai]

merely complaining on here, loudly
I just explained, that I'm not here to complain. I'm here to state my side of the discussion we are having.

It doesn't mean I don't like Linux, or don't want it. But as I work with it more and more, I see more reasons why it is not ready for the desktop. Like the number of hours I just spent getting my VNC server how I wanted it.

This as I said before, is not a thread for being constructive. Unless you consider it constructive to claim that Linux is ready for the desktop, and windows is not.

Anyway, FYI, for those that don't know it. I am setting up Ubuntu as a server, router/firewall, email, web, ftp, hotline. I have no plans of removing it or anything, it's just a matter of getting all the stuff working right.

[aysiu]

Can you explain what "ready for the desktop" means to you? Because the only definition I can think of by which Linux is not ready is "can be installed by anyone and have everything working straight out-of-the-box, regardless of hardware, and every single imaginable task--even ones most users don't care about or even know how to do on Windows--can be done via GUI."

However, if your definition for "ready for the desktop" is "usable by the general populace, who don't look up IP addresses graphically or otherwise or set up VNCs, once installed and set up by someone knowledgeable about computers," then Linux is just as ready as Windows or Mac OS X.

In fact, even if your definition is "able to be installed and used on the majority of computers with little to no problems," I'd say Linux is a match for Windows, and may even have a leg up.

No one's arguing with you that you had difficulty setting up VNC. But you can't possibly imagine that it taking hours to set up VNC (and I don't even know if that timeframe is typical, having never set it up myself--in Windows, Mac, or Linux) is what's holding Linux back from general home desktop adoption.

People use Windows because it's there, just as most people use Internet Explorer because it's there.

[Stormy Eyes]

As far as I'm concerned, Windows isn't ready for the desktop because its command line is a depraved joke. MS-DOS used to be pretty decent, but with every version of Windows after 95, Microsoft kept crippling its command line more and more.

[rolfotto]

Linux also aims wide--wider,

But see, Windows does that kinda thing with one distro.......

To state my experience level - I'm a relative linux newbie and an amatuer programmer.

First, Windows doesn't aim wider with one distro (there are the Server editions haven't been shown to be significantly different other than concurrent users, also the embedded versions which is a stripped down NT kernel last time I checked) but you are forced, as a consumer, to take what is handed to you.

When I bought my computer - Windows was on it - I didn't choose it. They didn't have to aim for me at all.

When I first came to the linux world - I saw the number of distros as a weakness but now know better. One size doesn't fit all. Ubuntu is a good desktop. But for older (which I have a few) computers you might want to run Damn Small Linux, Puppy Linux or Vector linux. For a more hobbyist/poweruser/speeddemon type, you might want to Linux From Scratch, Gentoo, or perhaps Yoper. Or if you need a solid server - Slackware or one of the *BSDs.

Windows One Size Fits All doesn't work with a lot of people.

Its a matter of being difficult to shape Linux into being what you want.

Okay, I was following all sides but this quote threw me into a WTF moment^_^ Because it infer that Windows is easy.

Oddly enough, I found the opposite to be true. Windows is easier on the superficial aspects but as soon as you use it for a while or want to go beyond the GUI it gets either very hard or very expensive (no free programs) to do what you want.

For instance, I would have never switched but for this - nearly two years ago all I WANTED out of Windows was a fast computer (to this end I bought a 2.6GHZ P4) to browse the web, have an ftp client to upload stuff to my site rolfotto.com, a graphic file manipulation program (photoimpact), play/create some mp3s, and do some eBay auction management with ebay auction assistant software.

I didn't run as Admin/root ever except to install programs and it was a hassle to learn how to do that because many programs expect admin priviledge off the bat as standard - but it can be done.

At first everything ran great - Windows started up in around a 30 seconds. Things ran fast. My first problem I ran into was explorer and the 1 million pop-ups! Everytime I went on the web I started getting more and more which, with every click, would only spawn a dozen or so more children. Okay, so I switched to Mozilla. That was good but explorer kept nagging me about setting it back to the default browser. It's especially annoying when a program opens IE even if it isn't the default browser.

Then I wanted a graphics program beyond Paint. I had an old Photoimpact OEM pre-install from a previous 1998 computer that I was no longer using. Would it install? No. The disk was for Compaq computers only and now I had a Medion. So I had to either go out and steal it or buy it for circa $70 dollars. My time is money and I run my own business sharing a location with several other businesses, so I can't afford to pirate software as stupid as that sounds so I bought it. It was the same basic program in 2003 as it was in 1998. For me at least - not being a power user needing super advanced functions.

Then I needed an FTP program. Were there any free ones? Not that I saw - just a bunch of shareware. I bought wsftp from Ipswitch for about $40 at the time. A little overkill for what I needed, but it worked.

Then my database for the eBay auction assistant software became corrupted. The company promised to fix my data if I send them my database file. I did. They never sent anything back. I had to look at a solution to get into my corrupted database and at least find a way to extract my information (customer lists, transactions, inventory) if nothing else - it was based on Access so I bought an Microsoft Access 2003. It was a cool $300 bucks. I installed the application and it turned out I couldn't fix the corrupted database because my db was based on Access 2000 format. I could read it, but not find the problem and save it because Access 2003 would only allow saving it in the new format but then Auction Assistant couldn't read it. I wanted to return the POS Access 2003, but since the shrinkwrap was opened, I couldn't. Microsoft wouldn't address my complaint of this lack of basic functionality nor would send me a previous MS Access. I had to find one that hopefully wasn't a pirated copy on ebay. That was a major hassle.

Then on my same auction assistant software I wanted to make some programs that connected to the database and did things that the auction software didn't. Since no programming software comes with Windows, I had to buy some. Even though I trained in C/C++/Lisp, I wanted to hack out something fast and so I tried Visual Basic. Coming out of college as I did, I expected MS Software to be cheaper. In college, I could get many MS things for my own like $50-90. Visual Basic for the average joe cost $300! That wouldn't be bad in itself, but oftentimes the program or language just ignored my basic instructions or macros for no reason. To this day, I don't understand how to search MSDN nor did MS host communities like this one to help people solve problems. If I wanted support, I had to buy it and that I wasn't willing to do.

Well, that's all as programs went. Throughout that MS adventure, I installed programs regularly just to check them out. Installing is much easier than uninstalling in many cases - programs that uninstall leave remnants all over the place. Despite my best efforts and only seldomly running as root, spyware/malware/crapware built up.

I first started with Lava's Adaware. While it detected things, my computer still got slower. Next came Spybot - Detect and Destroy (? name). Not only did my computer get slower but now things were starting up at boot time w/o my permission. I installed StartUpControlPanel but once things were deleted, they would just reinstall themselve again. I tried another start-up program. Same results. I went into the registry. I don't understand the registry at all - I don't want to. I changed settings there - settings were being changed right back. I installed AVG free antivirus program. It slowed down the computer even more, checking everything. It broke a month later. More spyware was taking control of my computer - I installed Microsoft's Beta Spyware detector - thankfully free. All the spyware detectors started detecting less and less while my compture was getting more and more infested.

I got a HiTi photo printer. It was sweet. But once it turned on and connected with the computer, it had to be REINSTALLED, in this case daily in the controlpanel-hardware. It was like it was never installed before. NO firmware upgrade nor latest drivers fixed it.

I read up on windows Services. Many service are enabled by default. So I turned things off according to a list. ActiveX and servers the experts said were vulnerable. My computer couldn't print anymore. Even if I turned the services back on. Microsoft Update wouldn't work anymore. Even if I tried it manually. Because ActiveX wasn't on. I have to turn on one of the most vulnerable services to get security patches? Microsoft's update website won't work with firefox, which I replaced mozilla with by now. Why wouldn't an update website not work with another browser and only IE? Isn't this getting fascist? When I turned off the services I don't need or are vulnerable, half of everything breaks.

My IE was now regularly hogging my processor for no reason, I'm not even using it yet it's taking up to 90% of the processor. I know of no way to fix it and it happens every 90 minutes. It's the filebrowser of the system. There's no way to tear out I think. Windows isn't modular enough to do that - once I shut IE down, there is no more GUI capabilities in the system - I'm left staring at my wallpaper. Which is nice because all the folders are gone and I'm left staring at the beautiful Tsunami-sama:

http://www.rolfotto.com/TS_Scenes3/image_31.html

Now booting takes 12 minutes give or take. Yes, XP gets to the sign-in in about 1 and 1/2 minutes. But then after signing it, I hear my harddrive whirring for the next 10 or so minutes. I can't do anything or start up any programs. By now several unwanted programs are started up instantly and splayed across the screen. The task bar is also full of services and programs that I tried deleting to no avail. I haven't done anything let but over 750MB of my 1024MB ram is used already. Windows wants you to reboot on installation of every single software or minor setting change, it seems. A hassle.

A business client sends me a file that has to be open in MS Office. I check the price. Insane - like over $400-500. Up to now, Worddoc was good enough - I'm only a start-up, no one fancy but I don't want to appear like unprofessional and ask him to reformat it.:( I hear about OpenOffice. I download it. A little quirky. But it works, and for free. It's actually pretty nice.

More popups now. In firefox no less. I have a router/firewall plus have been using XP's firewall but my friend tells me of a free firewall that is better. It's called Tiny Firewall. We look it up but by now it costs 49 dollars. No longer free. Apparently the company wanted its own cut. Which is fine. But I'm not spending more money.

I'm contemplating whether to do a clean install. As a minor in CS, I can only imagine what normal people are going through. But I lost the CD quite a while ago in the shuffle that is my life. The last straw comes when I find a software-based keylogger running on my machine. I don't know where it came from or how it got there, but it's such an incredible invasion of privacy.

I was running a free browser and free office software anyway so I dumped Windows back in December 2004 and never looked back. I found Ubuntu in April with the new release of 2005. I'm still experimenting but my computer boots up in 40 seconds like it did in April. Slightly slower than a clean Windows install but after I sign in I don't have to wait for the services to start up which Windows hides and Linux does before booting X. No software has installed without my permission and while some hardware took a bit of tweaking to get install, no settings have miracously changed back for no reason afterwards. The only thing I'm missing is the ebay software, but now they have an online version I'm checking out....

All the software I need is free and usually better. I can even program for free or setup all types of servers which is nearly unthinkable in the MS world (except for the occasional print/filesharing server, barring 10 simultaneous users or more) I was surprised that Gimp is better than Photoimpact (for me) and more of my computer resources go towards running my programs - not running AV software or a million spyware detectors.

Microsoft is very good at making the superficial seem easy, but underneath the surface lies a very inflexible system and if your way isn't their way, you are out of luck.

The problem with making it more like Microsof is that the command line does have a steeper learning curve and it's not as pretty. But you trade in that initial pain for being able to do more and more effectively. The GUI cuts off your choices to begin with and will never let you get past a certain level.

Computers should be marketed as a toolbox. Microsoft would be a better pretty looking tool box but nearly empty upon delivery. For every tool you need, you'd have to pay money. And the tools would be very restricted in use. There are some flashy tools that you don't get elsewhere unfortunately.

Linux would be a toolbox that comes in any shape or size. You can fill it up with tools for free and do what you want with them. But your hammer would be missing a nice cushy rubber grip like the Microsoft hammer and just be plain. But you're more comfortable at the end anyway because you can leave by 3p.m. while the MS guy has to work overtime to finish his job^_^

[egon spengler]

It doesn't mean I don't like Linux, or don't want it. But as I work with it more and more, I see more reasons why it is not ready for the desktop. Like the number of hours I just spent getting my VNC server how I wanted it.

So you base your assertion the Linux is not ready for the desktop on the facat that you had trouble setting up ubuntu as a server? Do you not see the error in reasoning there?



This as I said before, is not a thread for being constructive. Unless you consider it constructive to claim that Linux is ready for the desktop, and windows is not.



It's a facetious thread pointing out that many of the arguments as to why Linux does not meet this mythical standard of desktop readiness can equally applied to Windows. I know that you are not stupid and so I think that you know that

[raven]

I am a poweruser on MsWin products from win95/Winxp
I wanted to try Linux since Caldera openLinux eDesktop2.4 around 1999
could not install it on my P3 450 at that time
MY PC came with win98 so obviously win98 was easy to install
at that time comparing to Linux, but I remember
when a problem arise and help will tell me go to ControlPanel/network settings/TCP/IP was a foreign language.
Never the less as a n00b with pc's at that time, win98 was very complex to install and operate
comparing to ex: putting on the TV, changing chanels on the remote TV,
driving my car (even thou when I learned driving it was a nightmare looking at the road and changing stick in the same time).
6 month ago a friend talked to me about Linux and then he helped me install Slackware, I did not like it, cause I compare it to MsWin,
then I started to fiddle with Debian, Mandake(then), FC2/3/4, Novell/60day tryout,
and then Ubuntu/Kubuntu, and I spend a lot of time getting help from the forums,
and in the end I started understanding the logic of Linux and the way it operate (I am still a n00b) but a lot more comforble operating a Linux box.
As I remeber so was my Win98 on a box that it was made for it at that time.
and to say MsXP is very easy, well my brother is n00b on XP and still sees XP as complex as I would see Linux at the begining.
So the point is in my experience, today Linux is as easy to operate for a n00b
as XP but not easier, just different logic.

As always I would like to thanks the whole Open Source community
for the knowledge and the pleasure it gaves me to use Linux and learn,
and all, for the best price FREE. a big Thank You.

[Mugendai]

"ready for the desktop"
In general to me, it means, most tasks can be done with ease. Just because I am experienced, doesn't mean I don't want it to be easy. And it makes it very hard for me to switch to something that is harder, or limits what I was already doing. When Linux is as easy as windows for most tasks, including installing needed software(you can say normal people don't do it, but I don't beleive you, I've been installing stuff since I first got my first computer. And it was easier with DOS than it is with Linux[unless the Linux software is GUI, and actually works out of the box])

Now the rest of this is just my past weeks experience... It isn't a defence for my argument. It is simply what I have observed, and I'll attempt to be as unbiased as possible.(which means, I'll attempt to not down Windows just cause I hate it, and I'll attempt to not down Linux simply to defend my argument)

It's been a week now, and I finally have my mail server set up how I want it.
I can't tell you how many pieces of software I had to install manually, but there were several. Some I had to recompile to get them to do what I want.
And all I was really trying to do is match just one piece of really expensive software.
Now, this software, Kerio Mail Server, is available for Linux too you see.. but there is no Debian installer, and since it's commercial no source to compile to get it to work on debian based distros(yea.. could who would wanna run a server on the most stable and secure of the linux platforms)

In that week, I set up TightVNC how I wanted it. It was difficult to figure out due to lack of docs, or scattered docs. And then finally dumped it and went with RealVNC the latest version, which I had to compile was able to work almost as well as Tight, tight is still deffinetly faster, and I will prolly still try to find a way to get Tight to do what I want. I still had many hours of fun figuring out how to configure it just right.
Installing VNC on the PC is far far easier, quick installer install and done. However, in Windows I wouldn't have had as nice a setup as I now have in Linux. My only option in windows is to have it control my main screen, and accept only that small week password.
In Linux, I now have it setup so that when a connection is made to the system, an X server is opened for that session, that is independant of the graphics hardware capabilaties of the system. The connection works way faster than it doesn in windows, and updates much more properly. On login the user has to enter the proper password, and is then presented with the KDM login screen. And can then login at that point. The VNC connection can be closed and then reopen and the X session will stil be right where it was(normal behavior was to dump the X session as soon as the VNC connex closed). The X session remains open until I logout of it, and once I do the VNC service is closed as well, and is only run again (by inetd) when a new connection is requested, and then a new X session is created.
I like this, it is IMO better than the way it works in windows.
I did however spend atleast 12 hours figuring out how to get this all setup and working this way.

I got KDE setup, I was able to use Synaptic to do this, though on my connection it took about 6 hours to download. I likely could have disabled quite a few packages that I don't need. But the nice thing is, once I'm all done, I can go back and disable all that stuff I dont need on my server, like the games, very easily with synaptic. The toughest part of this was getting KDM working with VNC. Wasn't particularly well documented, and unlike in GDM I had to go track down and edit some files to get it to work.

Then there was the server stuff.

-Postfix for SMTP, the only way I got this setup was with the help of tutorials, many different tutorials. This was all config file editing, database creation, and an annoying amount of new files creation. Prolly the most difficult part of postfix was figuring out how to get it to properly use maildrop.
-Amavis+ClamAV+SpamAssassin for content scanning. This allowed for scanning for virtuses, and spam. Again, all conf file editing, and again, only with the help of tutorials.
-Courier IMAP for POP3 and IMAP. This was conf files, permissions modification, and again only with the help of tutorials.
-maildrop for mail delivery and filtering. I absolutely had to recompile this, and courier authlib to be able to get it to properly use MySQL for authentication, like the rest of the setup I had. I spent more time on maildrop, than on postfix, imap/pop, and the content scanners combined. It took me quite a while to find a doc that even mentioned being able to use MySQL with maildrop, let alone to figure out how to do it.

Ookay so the true server part of the mail servers there, I'de say it took me atleast 3 days to set that up.
I spent the rest of the time getting the webmail system setup. I tried threeish webmail systems. SquirrelMail was the first, and I tried it with the help of tutorials. It's a pretty nice system, not pretty, but a good setup, configurable and has lots of plugins. What I really had problems getting working how I wanted, was the mail filter modification. More than anything I want the webmail as a way to modify mail filters on the server side, so this was a big concern for me. After alot of searching I decided to give IMP a try(the Horde webmail system). It certainly looks nicer, feels more professional. Very well layed out as well in the design, veyr modular. Unlike with Squirrel, all of what I wanted to do was in the official Horde packages. In Squirrel I had to get 3rd party addons to get several things I wanted.
Ingo was the filtering system for Horde, and was infact more capable than the one I found for squirrel. The Horde modules had direct in support for several of the SQLey things I was doing.
I had lots of confusing things to work through, and had to deal with lower levels of documentation. It wasn't all 100% conf file editing, cause Horde has web admin config for many features. But what was conf file editing was hard, and not quite well documented. I had to setup an FTP server to use to transfer the filter files from horde to the mail users dirs, I found this annoying and unneccisary, and it meant I also had to take extra time getting an FTP server configured how I want it. But in the end I got it all working, even the password module with SQL. I should point out that I had to get all of the Horde stuff from the site, the version in the Ubuntu repos is exceedingly old, and totally useless.

I also got ProFTPd installed and running, and somewhat setup, though it's going to take quite some time to get the FTP part of it setup how I want.

Now I could have done all of this, and gotten my firewall/router software setup in windows, in just a few hours time using highly expensive software. It took a week under linux, and even though, I know how to do it now, it would still take me a few days to do it again. More than anything this is a comparison of doing things using extreamly expensive tools, and open source tools.

Now even though it was hard as hell to do in the open source method I think I will be very satisfied with it, more so than with the corperate software. However, some enterprising people could work out a simple installer and GUI management package for a nice setup like this, and make the task for other far far far easier, quicker, and more maintainable. It may have been hard in the OS method, but if I knew Linux coding a lil better, I could have made a management and installer package like I mentioned in the amount of time it took me to set it all up this first time.

What I'de love to see is more programmers taking that extra step to make the software easier to use, it is infact, not that hard of a step to take.

[poofyhairguy]

What I'de love to see is more programmers taking that extra step to make the software easier to use, it is infact, not that hard of a step to take.

Its harder than you think. Its not easy to make good GUIs. Is not easy to make hardware work when the company who made it won't help in any way. Its hard to package EVERY PIECE of OSS software in the pacakge manager. Its hard to make binaries that install on every Linux box.

MS has spent millions (maybe billions) developing Windows. It wasn't easy for it to get where it is. Same truth holds for Linux.

[Mugendai]

Its harder than you think
No, actually, it's easier than most people think. Especially if you use a good dev environment like wxWidgets, that really its an excellent GUI dev system(amongst other things) AND.. its cross platform. You can really turn out GUIs very quick with this. I know this from experience. I think just most programmers making the important stuff don't realise that the GUIs arent that hard to implement.


Is not easy to make hardware work when the company who made it won't help in any way.
Again, a better hardware support arcitecture, and standardized install methods could really help with this. Linux is a complicated environment to develop hardware software for.

Its hard to package EVERY PIECE of OSS software in the pacakge manager.
I know, which is why I say good self installers are neccisary, it's unreasonable to expect all the linux software repos out there to keep up with the software in them.

MS has spent millions (maybe billions)
but Linux HAS been around as long as modern windows systems. It's just that its had a different focus, and hasn't had large funding for a relatively large amount of time. But we are supposed to be out to prove that the open sharing of ideas and responsabilities is able to overcome the corperate methods. Well, atleast thats the Open Source scene to me.

[Mugendai]

(no free programs)
ehh.. I can't agree with that. Much of the stuff that runs under linux, also runs under windows.

explorer
Possibly part of the issue, is that I see an OS as being small, and then adding what you want to it by installing software. I never actively used Internet Explorer, nor did I ever consider it a reasonable option. The only thing I ever used it for is Windows Update. The only pop-ups I suffered were in Netscape.. and then I got free popup blockers, and then there was popup options built into Mozilla and Firefox, and so was the end of popups for me.

I must admit, I have had to clean out several home users systems of IE, OE, and the infections they allowed in. And in every case I said, dont use IE, use Firefox, and dont use OE, use Thunderbird. But people are bad about complying with professionals reccomendations and often fall back to using infect ready software.

As for graphics program, you know.. The Gimp, it installs on Windows.

You couldnt find free FTP software? There is quite a few, I reccomend Firezilla.
(One of the first places I go to find software, is SourceForge)

I wanted to return the POS Access 2003
Mugendai's reccomendations for returning opened software. Take it back, say there is a problem with it, and you need a replacement. Go get the replacement off the shelf, it'll be shrinkwrapped.
Go to another location of the same store, take it back and ask for your money, after all, you didn't open it.

As for your situation, I woulda found someone who had Access 2003, and got them to let me use it to fix the issue. Or better yet yelled out the company who was supposed to be fixing it, louder, including contacting the BBB.
Though, I likely wouldn't be using that kinda software in the frost place... heh..

Since no programming software comes with Windows, I had to buy some.
Or you coulda used mingw, and devc++, both free and open source. And as for a good GUI type dev kit, I woulda reccomended wxWidgets, very nice stuff, open source cross platform dev kit including GUI, sound, networking lib and more.


Despite my best efforts and only seldomly running as root, spyware/malware/crapware built up.
Man, I never got overrun by this stuff, the only people I know who did used IE, or went installing whatever adware willy nilly. The only thing Spybot S&D every finds on my system is tracking cookies.

I have to wonder if you were getting hit with backdoor viruses that installed crap on your box, if you didnt have a firewall, you very well could have gotten infected by simply being on the net.

HiTi photo printer
Who knows, by this time a system format woulda been good.

Why wouldn't an update website not work with another browser and only IE? Isn't this getting fascist?
No, it's a matter of the fact that Mozilla browsers are too secure to allow websites to do what Windows Update has to do to install things. It's a bad idea to have a website gain such powerful control over your Box, but M$ wants to own your box, and could care less if it results in you getting viruses and spyware.

It's the filebrowser of the system. There's no way to tear out I think.
Actually, I don't know of a way to completly tear it out. But I dont use it as my filebrowser, there are other filebrowsers for windows. Some of them actually free, but my favorite cost cash, Directory Opus. I havent found a Linux filebrowser that stacks up to DOpus, I really wish I could though.

However iexplorer and explorer are infact two seperate programs. They run as seperate proccesses, and you can kill iexplorer.exe and leave explorer.exe running. However, neither are running on my box. I also replaced the shell with Litestep(not for noobs), there are several free open source alternate windows shells, I would prolly reccomend geoshell to anyone starting with shell replacement.

Tsunami-sama
Not so keen about that SS of Tsunami, I like this one better:
http://wallpapers.theotaku.com/view.php?action=retrieve&id=18167

A business client sends me a file that has to be open in MS Office
Ugh.. I hate it when people do this. Can't they learn to save in plain text, or atleast a compable format?

OOo tho, I use it, love it, it totally beats the crap out of the whole M$ Office Suite.

free firewall that is better
Kerio Personal Firewall. It's been free and stayed free. You can pay to register it to get extra features, but you dont need that extra crap anyway. It's what I install on everyones box. However, I don't beleive in the need for personal firewalls when you are already behind a full fledged firewall.

The only thing I'm missing is the ebay software, but now they have an online version I'm checking out....
You could prolly run it in Wine, or using an emulator.

setup all types of servers which is nearly unthinkable in the MS world
...thats very false. Especially since you can run most Linux servers on windows. Plus there is alot of server software out there that costs loads of money, but can be very easy to use and install.

not running AV software or a million spyware detectors.
Running more than one Spyware detector is bad. All you need if any is Spybot, and I almost never run that, maybe once a year, never running in background. As for AV scanners, absolutely a Windows thing. You HAVE to have an AV scanner in windows always running. You may want to look into ClamAV in Linux as well if you are paranoid.

Microsoft is very good at making the superficial seem easy, but underneath the surface lies a very inflexible system and if your way isn't their way, you are out of luck.
It's more flexible than you realise. And the mentality of software design across the board is usually one that makes things simple for users. Try doing something that isn't handed to you on a silver platter and you will understand what I mean.

But you trade in that initial pain for being able to do more and more effectively. The GUI cuts off your choices to begin with and will never let you get past a certain level.
See.. and I don't beleive this to be true. IMO you do not have to sacrifice anything to have a GUI. A GUI is a great system, you can lay out all the options before the user, provide an easily viewable, well layed out representation of them, provide short descriptions of each option, and provide a quick link to get detailed info on the usage, all in one place. It makes the learning curve on things soo much smaller.

Computers should be marketed as a toolbox
It's a rough analogy to make straight, but I'll modify.
Windows would be an uglier highly expensive toolbox. It comes with a few tools, some you will use often, some not, but almost all of them aren't nearly as good as other tools out there. But almost every tool out there would fit in it, and most of the tools were designed to go in that toolbox. The tools that do come with it, typically work right out of the box, and may not let you set them up to do absolutely everything you want, but there is often another tool that will do it instead. Because many tools need to be adjusted to make the user comfortable, most of the tools come with the ability to make easy adjustments using controls to get the tools to fit the users hand just right. Most of the well known good tools are highly expensive, but there are yet more not well known tools that are free and on several occasions better than the expensive ones. Unfortunately the toolbox has a really poor padlock on it, and there are many people out there with the keys to unlock it, and you always find yourself in a place full of people, including the kinds who want to borrow your hammer without asking. You can however get your own better padlock, but the latch for the padlocks is still not very durable, and there are ways to break in. There is also a sea of free tools you can get that do all kinds of neat and useless things, however often these tools come with all kinds of garbage on them, that once it gets on your toolbox, and other tools, is very hard to get off. And after using tools like this for a while, your other tools and box get soo gunked up it becomes awekward to use. And the box is not so durable, so every year or so you have to give it a real hozing down and repair all your tools and get it all back in order. It is however simple enough of a thing that you could do this yourself, though it may be best to get a proffesional to do it for you.[there are more disadvantages, but this is long enough already]

Linux on the other hand is rather different toolbox. In its basic nature it comes with the parts needed to build the box, as well as instructions on how to fabricate the tools. You need to supply your own tools to build the box and fabricate the tools, but luckily you can get all of that stuff for free. And even better yet, there are a bunch of people who will put it all together for you, and give you a Linux toolbox completly assembled. But since the basic toolbox on it's own, with it's tools don't do any of the things most people want to do with a toolbox, and the things that it does do, most people wouldnt have a clue what to do with, these folks who make boxes for you, also fill it up with all kinda of tools, and even do custom chrome jobs on them that can make them look super sweet, way sweeter than a Windows toolbox. There are hundreds of folks who make these custom Linux toolboxes, and a few that are highly coveted. Some of them even sell versions the toolboxes that come with some extra special tools, and customer service to help those who don't understand how to use their tools. Most of the tools for the Linux toolboxes however aren't the same ones used on most Windows toolboxes, several of them are way better, some aren't quite as good, but anyway it goes, there are tons of tools available, and most of them completly free. With some toolboxes, the tools come prefabricated and preassembled and properly configured for everyday use. In other toolboxes the plans for building the tools yourself are freely available, but you have to do it yourself. There are tools for most of the common things the basic toolbox user wants, though using some of them can feel kinds weird, the balance isn't quite right on the hammers, and the skrewdrivers dont provide the same torque you are used to. Some of the tools have easy adjustments for these things on them, others require you to take them apart, and read manuals to get them how you want them, and others require you to downright refabricate the parts to get them to your liking. But if you are willing to adjust to what is provided for you, then you don't have to worry about all that fuss. But if you like to tweek things to be just how you want them, then you better be ready to get your hands dirty. Some tools you can only get if you fabricate them yourself, most atleast come prefabricated, but you have to assemble them to your liking, and a few come preassembled with easy to use adjustment controls(like most Windows tools). However several of the toolbox manufacturers preassemble tools that the origional designers dont preassemble, for you. However these tools aren't always provided in a fashion that you can find them without really digging through your toolbox, and even when you find them, it can be very difficult to figure out how to use them, sometimes you even have to go searching for instructions elsewhere, or for people who know how to use them to help you. Again this isn't a problem for basic users as most of the tools they use are preassembled, and have adjustment controls on them. But for people trying to use these toolboxes to do more advanced things, often the tools need to be atleast assembled, if not fabricated. And may very well require a long amount of time reading manuals, self help guides, and speaking with others that use the tools to be able to get such tools in working order the way these people need them. And unfortunately this happens on some of the basic users needs as well. Most commonly this is on tools that are needed to opperate specific other machinery. Most of the machinery was designed to work with Windows tools, and because there are so many different Linux toolboxes and tools, it can be very difficult for them to design Linux tools to work with their machines that are easy enough for a basic user to use, and still work under the vast variety of configurations that are possible in Linux toolbox. This is especially true of machinery that has to fit into small portable tookits and so ends up integrated in ways that are not so common. All in all, it is fully feasable that a basic user can find a Linux toolbox to work with their machinery that suits there needs and meets their level of knowledge. But for those wishing to do more with their tools, or are unlucky enough to have machinery that is either completly incompatable with most linux tools, or that require modification, getting a usable Linux Toolbox could be very difficult, With enough dedicated people however, all the tools could be made much easier to use, and could be made to work better with some machinery by using better standards for machinery interfaces. The pad locks and latches that come with Linux boxes though are absolute marvels of design, and blow away locks other than those of BSD boxes.

[poofyhairguy]

No, actually, it's easier than most people think. Especially if you use a good dev environment like wxWidgets, that really its an excellent GUI dev system(amongst other things) AND.. its cross platform. You can really turn out GUIs very quick with this. I know this from experience. I think just most programmers making the important stuff don't realise that the GUIs arent that hard to implement.

All I was saying is that it takes a different set of skills to make a good GUI than program a good program. Thats why MS and Apple have professional designers in their staff. Hopefully as Gnu grows, more graphic designers will get on board.


Again, a better hardware support arcitecture, and standardized install methods could really help with this. Linux is a complicated environment to develop hardware software for.

the next Ubuntu release will be one of the first Linuxs to have a modular Xorg I think. That should help on the graphic driver side.

But we are supposed to be out to prove that the open sharing of ideas and responsabilities is able to overcome the corperate methods. Well, atleast thats the Open Source scene to me.

Some methods are better for different things. So far, Gnu methods have made a better (not easier) server, but closed methods (point at Apple) make a better desktop.

[Kerberos]

All I was saying is that it takes a different set of skills to make a good GUI than program a good program. Thats why MS and Apple have professional designers in their staff. Hopefully as Gnu grows, more graphic designers will get on board.
Unfortunatley if you do have GUI design skills in preference to programming and comment (from a professional perspective) that Linux's GUI needs a lot of work you get informed to 'F**k off Windows fanboy' or words to that effect.

http://daringfireball.net/2004/04/spray_on_usability

Software needs to be designed around the GUI, not 'we'll do usability later'. And programmers dont want to be told how to make their apps, or get told (to them for completely unnecessary reasons) that that button shouldn't be there. There not full time and probably arn't even getting paid. So fair enough.

What Linux needs is an oppertunity for people to actually discuss GUI issues in an enviroment that doesn't incite defensive behaviour. At the moment its publically stated that the developers dont read these forums so any suggestions are unheeded anyway. The problem I see is the Linux develpment process doesn't foster an environment to encourage GUI designers as they simply dont fit into the development model.

The reason I linked that article is I think it says it perfectly. Linux has made massive grounds in the server and developer software market (Apache marketshare anyone?), yet when it comes to GUI, user targetted software its a whole different story. There must be a reason?

[Mugendai]

Yah looking over that aticle, lot of it makes since, some things are unfounded.

"But do you doubt for a moment that Longhorn will provide more improvements from Windows XP than desktop Linux will gain during the same period?"

And to answer that. Yea.. I pretty much doubt it. Micrsoft hasn't done a particularly good job at "improving" windows from one itteration to the next. So far as I've heard, mostly it will be flashier(trying to meet up with the pretyness that is OSX and KDE I suppose).

The biggest 'improvement' I expect, is going to be in M$s ability to secure themselves against pirates, and to better track and control user behavior.

One of the other things I can't agree so much with, is how difficult he makes out GUI work to be. Making an easy to use highly configurable, and well layed out GUI doesn't require a tremendous amount of work, especially if you learn to use the work others have provided already. What I can agree about GUI that takes alot of work, is the artistic side, making GUIs look downright attractive like OSX and KDE look, that takes talent, and isn't learned.

[Brunellus]

Unfortunatley if you do have GUI design skills in preference to programming and comment (from a professional perspective) that Linux's GUI needs a lot of work you get informed to 'F**k off Windows fanboy' or words to that effect.

http://daringfireball.net/2004/04/spray_on_usability

Software needs to be designed around the GUI, not 'we'll do usability later'. And programmers dont want to be told how to make their apps, or get told (to them for completely unnecessary reasons) that that button shouldn't be there. There not full time and probably arn't even getting paid. So fair enough.

What Linux needs is an oppertunity for people to actually discuss GUI issues in an enviroment that doesn't incite defensive behaviour. At the moment its publically stated that the developers dont read these forums so any suggestions are unheeded anyway. The problem I see is the Linux develpment process doesn't foster an environment to encourage GUI designers as they simply dont fit into the development model.

The reason I linked that article is I think it says it perfectly. Linux has made massive grounds in the server and developer software market (Apache marketshare anyone?), yet when it comes to GUI, user targetted software its a whole different story. There must be a reason?
Because GUI development isn't a priority.

The priorities for development, as I see them, are hardware support, stability, and security. And once again, there is no larger entity seeking total Linux domination of the desktop market--and thus, no Emperor of Useability to enforce his iron will upon developers to make software that is designed around the GUI.

If/when one of the larger industry players gets serious about this, you might see some action...and, as I fully expect their changes to be available to the community through the magic of the GPL, you will then see wave of development in that direction.

[Incidentally, I see Novell/SuSE as the potential standard-bearer here, pushing NLD and OpenSuSE on corporate desktops]

So again: cool your jets. I forsee heavy corporate backing for such a project in the future. For now, either roll up your sleeves and contribute, or deal with the situation as it presently exists.

[rolfotto]

As for your situation, I woulda found someone who had Access 2003, and got them to let me use it to fix the issue.

The information in the database was sensitive - I had enough problem sending it to the company but I had a level of trust there (plus they were part of ebay, who has seen 95% of that info anyway) that I didn't to any random person that has Access 2003. It's not feasible or responsible of me to swap around a database with thousands of CC numbers and customer info.

The cheapest solution is not always the best for me.

Or better yet yelled out the company who was supposed to be fixing it, louder, including contacting the BBB.

The company is Blackthorne but was bought up by ebay - since they were bought up by eBay they have become very unresponsive and it is well known.

Or you coulda used mingw, and devc++, both free and open source. And as for a good GUI type dev kit, I woulda reccomended wxWidgets, very nice stuff, open source cross platform dev kit including GUI, sound, networking lib and more.

Well, I was only typing my experience and any human's experience is limited.

I realize now that there is free tools for windows available - but in the Institute of Tech I was trained in, we only used MS Visual Studio and had the blinders to everything else. Being a Windows Corporate User, you are somewhat trained/accustomed to buying the solution and distrusting the free lunch - seeing it as unreliable at best.

My only esposure to freeware was firefox/openoffice at the time and when I looked into alternative programming solutions at the time for Windows - they tended to be shareware, not do what I need easily, or simple add-ons to MS-VS.

Man, I never got overrun by this stuff, the only people I know who did used IE, or went installing whatever adware willy nilly. The only thing Spybot S&D every finds on my system is tracking cookies.

I have to wonder if you were getting hit with backdoor viruses that installed crap on your box, if you didnt have a firewall, you very well could have gotten infected by simply being on the net.


Who knows, by this time a system format woulda been good.

I was running about 7-8 spyware detectors at the time. I always had an external firewall and had XP's firewall enabled. I ran IE on high security for a short time before install firefox.

I don't quite understand how spyware can install itself from the browser. It's also possible that it came in through the shareware I kept trying out left and right (~20 programs a week) - but I only installed from sites I trusted and which had reviews. But as a business, I went for more productive programs, I never went out of my way for Kazaa or Limewire or things of that nature.

However iexplorer and explorer are infact two seperate programs. They run as seperate proccesses, and you can kill iexplorer.exe and leave explorer.exe running.

Then it was explorer.exe that was taking 90%. I never ran Iexplorer if I could help it. Besides, when I killed explorer.exe, everything but the wallpaper disappeared - if I killed the webbrowser version - it should have just killed the webbrowser - right?

Not so keen about that SS of Tsunami, I like this one better:
http://wallpapers.theotaku.com/view.php?action=retrieve&id=18167

Ah, from the artbook, I think. Tsunami-sama is a classic beauty and I tend to treat her as such, but I like this swimsuit picture as well:
http://www.rolfotto.com/TS_Scenes3/TNM_R21_1295999087.jpg


...thats very false. Especially since you can run most Linux servers on windows. Plus there is alot of server software out there that costs loads of money, but can be very easy to use and install.

Yes, but that like installing X11 software on the Mac - even if it's based on Freebsd, it's still very clunky on that platform compared to native Mac application. But I never used *nix software on Windows - never occured to me you could back in the day.

See.. and I don't beleive this to be true. IMO you do not have to sacrifice anything to have a GUI. A GUI is a great system, you can lay out all the options before the user, provide an easily viewable, well layed out representation of them, provide short descriptions of each option, and provide a quick link to get detailed info on the usage, all in one place. It makes the learning curve on things soo much smaller.

In almost every app I ever used, I had to do things over and over - (copy and paste info all over the place for instance) - that I always wished there was a way around the GUI - like a CLI or scripting tool.

I think some programs would themselve benefit if they contained within themselve a personal, optional, CLI where they would accept GUI equivalent commands but with more options.

Anyway, it was nice talking. I'm not saying any person is right or wrong - but I think the two environments are different enough to foster different attitudes about computers. And the more I learn about linux - the easier it becomes. On windows, it was as if I could only skate on the surface and if something every went wrong - I had to rely on others to fix it or be out of luck.

I find mucking about in Linux more normal and thus if something breaks, I have an inkling where to go to fix it because it's more transparent. Mucking about in Windows is not normal for the average user - but it does break and I still have no clue about it's structure - the registry, how program get put where, why things just start up at boot time, etcetera. The idea of just clean installing every time doesn't sit well with me - though I'm prepared for it by seperating backing up data regularly.

BTW, your analogies weren't bad - I'd edit them down to size though for use in conversations :)

[poofyhairguy]

Unfortunatley if you do have GUI design skills in preference to programming and comment (from a professional perspective) that Linux's GUI needs a lot of work you get informed to 'F**k off Windows fanboy' or words to that effect.

Depends. What do these people say? "Linux lacks a GUI like Windows" maybe? Then they will get a negative response. But if they say "I made a new GUI for a program, help test" then usually we are responsive:

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=67

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=74

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=77

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=75

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=50607

I guess in your example the "problem" with the Linux world is that work talks and "suggestions" walk. If people are only willing to contribute "this is not enough like Windows" then they won't get the response they want. Part of that is because many of the developers aren't getting paid, so to say that they are not living up to a standard they might dislike angers them. Part of this is because its not good advice. Saying "your distro needs better GUIs helps no one." Saying obvious stuff like "you need a ndiswrapper GUI" helps no one. Saying "Ubuntu is not entirely ignorant of Fitt’s Law: the target area for clicking to reveal the Desktop is usefully enormous, because it includes the bottom-left-most pixel of the screen. Unfortunately this effort will be wasted on many people, because the button’s corners are rounded, so it does not look like it includes the bottom-left-most pixel of the screen." or some other high level thing like that will get noticed.

http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2005/04/11/ubuntu

So will contributing artwork, or GUI tools.

[Kerberos]

Yah looking over that aticle, lot of it makes since, some things are unfounded.

"But do you doubt for a moment that Longhorn will provide more improvements from Windows XP than desktop Linux will gain during the same period?"

I agree with you there. I actually dont see what they can do to Longhorn to actually 'improve' it. The areas that they _really_ need to fix are practically impossible without breaking backwards compatibility with everything. Between rogue installers, the filesystem (c: lol) and the constant pressure to 'protect' (the new Genuine Advantage system is a pain in the *** even if you are legitimate) their hands are pretty much tied when it comes to any of the major problems.

And to answer that. Yea.. I pretty much doubt it. Micrsoft hasn't done a particularly good job at "improving" windows from one itteration to the next. So far as I've heard, mostly it will be flashier(trying to meet up with the pretyness that is OSX and KDE I suppose).

The Jump from Win98 (leaving out ME as I'd rather use Win 95) to Win XP was massive. The kernel and memory management are NT's, not 98's so its actually stable, plug and play for removable storage, driver management is much improved and generally the system and controls have been improved an order of magnitude over 98. And I think KDE is ugly personally.

The biggest 'improvement' I expect, is going to be in M$s ability to secure themselves against pirates, and to better track and control user behavior.

One of the other things I can't agree so much with, is how difficult he makes out GUI work to be. Making an easy to use highly configurable, and well layed out GUI doesn't require a tremendous amount of work, especially if you learn to use the work others have provided already. What I can agree about GUI that takes alot of work, is the artistic side, making GUIs look downright attractive like OSX and KDE look, that takes talent, and isn't learned.
I disagree. Its easy making a GUI, making a complete program interface that is easy to learn, intuitive and flexible is extremely difficult. It is the belief that 'its easy because its got a GUI' that causes a lot of problems. Eyecandy does not mean easy to use. If you get asked a question you dont understand, or get given a list of options that you cant make a choice from as there is no further details then your going to be just as stuck, GUI or CLI. All that a GUI gives is the potential for ease of use - it doesn't guarantee it.

[Kerberos]

I guess in your example the "problem" with the Linux world is that work talks and "suggestions" walk.
I've said that it'd be a good idea to display the DHCP allocated IP address in the GUI rather than leaving the only avenue of discovery as the (rather unguessable) ifconfig command. I think that was a pretty fair complaint, but even then I just got a flaming.

You said Linux needs more graphic designers to 'get on board' but graphic designers _are not_ programmers, and you cant expect them to become so in order to help.

[Brunellus]

I've said that it'd be a good idea to display the DHCP allocated IP address in the GUI rather than leaving the only avenue of discovery as the (rather unguessable) ifconfig command. I think that was a pretty fair complaint, but even then I just got a flaming.

You said Linux needs more graphic designers to 'get on board' but graphic designers _are not_ programmers, and you cant expect them to become so in order to help.

It is discoverable under the GUI--as discoverable as it is under windows, anyway. Right-click the top taskbar, add, network monitor. left click the network monitor widget--hey presto.


You 'get on board' by submitting your requests to the proper (developer) channels, and/or by publishing long and systematic essays with useful, concrete suggestions. Let's have a long essay on exactly what needs to be addressed to make GNOME/Ubuntu/GNU 'acceptable' to you. You might even consider submitting it to the bugzilla as a feature request, or a series thereof.

I don't even know why I bother posting to this thread anymore.

[Mugendai]

The information in the database was sensitive
heh.. I didn't mean any ol person. I meant to look for a personal friend, someone you knew. And just get them to let you use their system for a bit.. then you can clean up any traces. But yea, I get the concern with sensitive info. Though, access is a horrible place to store important data.

I don't quite understand how spyware can install itself from the browser
The main thing is that once it is in, it's hard to get out while running the OS. M$ prefers to give control to companies rather than users, the result is limitations to your abilaties to do what needs to be done. What got in opens holes, and uses IE's controls to access the web to download more garbage into your system. Shareware is a common place for this, the ad banners you see in them, or sometimes important parts of the product itself are actually just IE plugins, and get to bypass several security mechanisms normally in place, thats one of the big entry points.

if I killed the webbrowser version - it should have just killed the webbrowser - right?
Right. If explorer alone was taking all that CPU, then there was likely some part of it that was either proccess locked or infected with a virus. Either way, you can actually completly forgoe use of explorer by using alternate shells like GeoShell. This is a very very not well known fact.

BTW, your analogies weren't bad - I'd edit them down to size though for use in conversations :)
Heh, I am long winded, and will likely not pull it up in a conversation again. (^_^)

[allans]

To check your ip, go to applications, system tools then network tools. I use a static address but works fine for me.

Allan

[rykel]

IF Windows XP:

1. Is GPL; <-- this is my main reason for preferring Linux

2. Has all the bells and whistles of GNOME and KDE;

3. Has been overhauled by all the world's programmers so that it is now stable, virus/malware-resistant and does not crash into the Blue Screen Of Death (BSOD); and

4. Keeps the existing way of installing software (ala Autopackage (http://www.autopackage.org) for Linux) and updates (ala Synaptic);

I believe I will use Windows.

imho, it IS ready for the desktop, and it IS the desktop - for almost every PC user in this world.

If Microsoft decides to go GPL one day, and Linux users are still figuring out how to install the latest OpenOffice.org RPM into Ubuntu, many will convert to Windows. That is a pity, because Linux already has points #1-3 except #4, which means it is many steps ahead of Windows for now.

[mstlyevil]

http://www.utexas.edu/its/security/personal/windows/useraccount.html

If more Windows users read the principles contained in the above link and applied them, it would be less of a problem than it is now.


Have you ever tried to play a game in a limited accopunt on Xp? I tried to set up a seperate user account for daily use and a Admin account for installing software. It was always hit and miss on which games and apps would play in the limited account. That is why most people still run thier accounts in admin mode.

[Heliode]

When I read about Apple porting OSX to Intel I wondered when MS was going to make Windows run on Intel!

*ba-ching!* thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Tip the waitress.

[daller]

Windows is actually quite stable! My trashbin has been up for days! :D

...Well, my switch to kubuntu is based on my problems configuring Windows XP to fit my needs!

[Malphas]

Preinstalled - yes, from scratch - no.

[Mr_J_]

I believe Windows might be ready for office work, but definatly not for home use.
In the home most people want to control the computer because they payed for it, but the problem is they have no knowledge that should allow them that sort of control easily and safely. At least in windows where the option to screw up is more than willing to be there. You see if you screw up in windows money falls in someones pocket, but in Linux no one gets money for screwups.
So linux gets lesser screwups than windows.

Linux has a learning curve which believe it or not is smaller than windows.
You see logic drives most linux window managers and linux in general.

Simply linux has more things to learn to control than windows.
The power of linux is in learning to control all those little pieces.

In windows the amount of knowledge is smaller, but more hidden.
In linux the people want you to learn to do all those things so it gets simple over time. Since most these things are used by thousands who have to learn each of them they get simpler and simpler faster.

In windows no one really cares what you are doing or how. Even if they do.
The new versions of the OS take too long in coming.
If they ever change the way to something simpler people will get the same problems in windows than in linux.

The diference between linux and windows is you are suposed to mess around in windows. Even if you don't know you are suposed to mess around.
In linux you are suposed to know what you are doing before you start doing it.

Like I heard before. Linux is power, but power comes with responsibility for you to control that power.

[xequence]

My opinion on the topic, not all the posts... Im not reading 16 pages ;)

Yes, windows is ready for the desktop. So is Linux. And BSD. And OSX. And any other OS that people use.

Linux users tend to be harder on windows then it deserves, and windows users tend to be harder on linux then it deserves.

Sure, I find microsoft to be a horrible company, but windows isnt as bad as you think. I know they could definitally do better with their massive R&D budget, but still... Office 2003 is quite a piece of work. Its super fast and comes with more then Openoffice does. Though the cost is higher then it should be to me, it really doesent matter.

Its all preference - If you like Windows and MS Office, use it. If you like Linux and Openoffice, ues it. Or use a combination, or all of them.

[prizrak]

Mugendai
Kerio Mail Server can be easily installed with the alien command since it's an .rpm file.
If you went to either help.ubuntu.com or www.ubuntuguide.org you would have known that ;)

Whoever couldn't find the IP (I don't remember the name Kerberos I think) my Breezy install came with a network monitor in the system tray you right click on it then click on the support tab and the IP is right thur.

Now on the subject, firstly lets define what being desktop ready even means, to me it means that:
1) the OS easy to use
2) doesn't take alot of power to run
3) supports most hardware out of the box
4) comes with the most common software
5) easy to install/find additional software
(note: I don't believe games to be a metric of desktop readiness, since majority (over 50% of people game on consoles/handhelds not computers)

Now to see what OSes fit the requirenment
Ubuntu
1) I'd say 90% present since some things would require some tinkering with the CLI (note: most of the How-To's here can be done with GUI but copy/paste commands from the forum is easier)
2) Very much yes, especially if you run it with XFCE or fluxbox
3) Clean install on my laptop detected EVERYTHING and same with the desktop (custom built) however I'd say that it's about 70-80% there.
4) Yes very much yes
5) Synaptics, need I say more? An average user will have little problem finding what is needed there are very few things that I personally haven't found in the repositories
Overral we have 3 out 5 which is not bad

Windows
1) Well yes everything is GUI based but still requires expertise
2) HAHAHAHAHA anyone seen Vista minimum RQs? Even XP is hardware intensive
3) Umm no, like really no. XP SP2 doesn't install appropriate video, network, wi-fi, sound drivers for both my machines, on the other hand there is alot of 3rd party support
4) This one is no, there is no office package or AV or firewall (well SP2 has a bad one)
5) Yes on the install, not so much on the finding, still takes a certain amount of searching the web and downloading it (or going to a store)
So we got 2 out of 5 which is less than linux

I won't enter OS X into it just because it's specific to its hardware.

On the problem with GUI vs CLI, here is the issue saying that all software needs a GUI is the DUMBEST idea I have heard. The truth is that Linux is mostly run on servers which means that the GUI is not actually needed as the software will be setup once and run for a while. There is also the supply/demand relationship between UI and software, if most people want a GUI someone makes one, case in point Firestarter. A good GUI is actually hard to make Xine-ui has a GUI, that thing sucks, you need to KNOW what each of the options does, the only difference there from a CLI is that you don't need to type in the command but you still need to know WTF is going on. Now ALL Linux software is capable of being setup via the GUI you need to create one, for that you need major corporate backing to hire GUI experts.
Saying that it was hard to set up your server and that's why Ubuntu isn't desktop ready is umm retarded, server != desktop two different things. Yes it took longer to set up the server on Linux thant it would on Windows, now think about how much faster that server is and how much more uptime it is going to enjoy. If you go all the way and not let X start up at all when the server does and only have VNC access the server will be capable of some serious stuff, with Windows you would be wasting resources on running that useless GUI that cannot possibly be turned off.

[entangled]

Having read most of the 16 pages of discussion I think I have only a couple of comments.
My feelings about Windows and Linux desktops (having used both for years):

Windows desktop came of age in 1995 and hasn't really improved, functionally, since. You could say this is the test of time or just a lack of innovative drive from MS.
MS have marketed their products so much that most users will go along with the herd and are not impressed by 'non-conformers'.
Windows desktop functionality is very similar in almost all respects to any alternative desktop.

Linux desktops have evolved freely over the years; basically it is the survival of the fittest. The best are equivalent to Windows but none seem to really surpass windows. Linux desktop marketing will never equal MS so I can't see desktop popularity equalling MS either.

[daller]

The easiest way to compare two products, is how much functionally you get per dollar! :D

Personally I think kubuntu has more functionality than Windows, but I respect the people who thinks differently.

Let's say (k)ubuntu is only 80% functional compared to windows! (I think it's the other way around)

Lets look at the functionality/dollar scores:

Windows: 100/$100 = 1

(K)ubuntu: 80/$0 = #DIV/0!

:D

[3rdalbum]

Now on the subject, firstly lets define what being desktop ready even means, to me it means that:
1) the OS easy to use
2) doesn't take alot of power to run
3) supports most hardware out of the box
4) comes with the most common software
5) easy to install/find additional software

I won't enter OS X into it just because it's specific to its hardware.


You won't? I will!

1. OS X is easy to use. Sure, it's too much like NeXt for my liking, and Windows users have trouble with it (the whole "unlearning Windows" issue) but otherwise it's very good.
2. OS X falls down in this respect. OS X comes with all kinds of bells and whistles designed to eat up CPU time. I mean, what desktop user needs built-in distributed computing capabilities? Who really needs to index their e-mails? Why the heck does it require a Firewire port just to run?
3. Out of the box, it supports less hardware than Ubuntu. But then, in recent years hardware manufacturers have turned away from the idea of plug 'n' play. I've no idea why they would reinvent the wheel rather than use a well-designed, well-tested set of standard drivers.
4. OS X has the iLife suite, but I would consider those to be toys in comparison to what a desktop user would need. The (sometimes optional) iWork suite is not designed for interoperability with the de-facto standard programs.
5. It's always been easy to install software onto Macs, and it's getting easier to find OS X programs; but Synaptic is the best thing since sliced bread for finding and installing programs. I just wish there weren't so many great programs that aren't in Universe. (yeah I know, I should become an MOTU)

[Robocoastie]

The only reason Linux doesnt have the spyware problem Windows has is a lack of userbase. In Linux the installing program is assumed 'trusted' almost as much as the Windows one and there is no reason, apart from a scarcity of installs, that spyware cannot exist on Linux.

The reason Linux more secure is because of /root. A program has to work tons harder to get through the fact that the user in most linux distros is not running as root. If the windows computer has an admin account and runs as limited user only then it is almost as secure as linux. The problem is the vast majority of windows software is made to run in admin mode thereby forcing the user to run as admin.

[airtonix]

Thus I have to say that windows is the only system that can ever be ready for desktop. No matter how easy to use another system gets or how illogical windows acts. People are still very experienced with windows and newbies on all other systems.

well said old chap....this is the year 51 After Ford.... where we put corporate nursery ryhmes under our childrens pillows at night. evil very eeevvvillllllll...

[mrgnash]

The only reason Linux doesnt have the spyware problem Windows has is a lack of userbase. In Linux the installing program is assumed 'trusted' almost as much as the Windows one and there is no reason, apart from a scarcity of installs, that spyware cannot exist on Linux.

You do realise that this argument has been debunked so many times it's not funny, don't you?

[Kerberos]

Let's say (k)ubuntu is only 80% functional compared to windows! (I think it's the other way around)

Lets look at the functionality/dollar scores:

Windows: 100/$100 = 1

(K)ubuntu: 80/$0 = #DIV/0!

:D

Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing. Using your logic if Windows cost $1...

Win - 100/$1 = 100
(K)ubuntu - 80/$0 = #DIV/0!

When in reality people normally work on an hourly rate. As soon as the excess time spent tinkering unnecessarily (based on how much you think your time is worth) surpasses the paid cost of the OS (and for many people time is worth much more than money) then it's no longer cheaper.

[mrgnash]

When in reality people normally work on an hourly rate. As soon as the excess time spent tinkering unnecessarily (based on how much you think your time is worth) surpasses the paid cost of the OS (and for many people time is worth much more than money) then it's no longer cheaper.

Why is Linux be more conducive to 'tinking unnecessarily.' Given that you yourself qualify such tinkering as unnecessary, how can you factor this into an equation of cost-effectiveness? :confused:

[prizrak]

Kerberos,
This is not the best argument, as Windows also takes time (more time than Ubuntu in my experience with clean installs) to set up and figure out. There is also set up vs maintenance time to be concidered.
Lets say I spent 2 hours (don't remember how long it actualy took) on a clean Breezy install and got everything working, since then I don't have to touch it at all. Update manager takes care of the updates, malware is scarce enough to be concidered nonexistant, fragmentation is not as big a problem as it is in Windows, there is no registry to clean out, there is no spyware.
Now take Windows, so it came with my computer so I seemingly don't have anything to do. Cept that it will take me about an hour to get rid of all the junk that has been installed, and depending on how old the install image another hour on updates (after installing the freshest install image straight of MSDN of MCE 2K5 I had like 60 updates and then 10 more after those were done, which took quite a bit of time installing). I will leave out installing your favorite apps since they might come with the install. After that is all done you have the pleasant task of running various maintenance software at least once a month (I had some stuff run once a week). You will inevitably have serious fragmentation if you deal with large files, there will be broken registry entries since every file is listed in it, there will be the need to run spyware cleaners no matter how careful you are, there will be the A/V monitor running and slowing you down all the time, there will be countless restarts on updating.
Point here is that if you are going to bring time into it, you have to take it all the way. Using nothing but set up time isn't the best metric since Windows is preinstalled more often than not. Get an OEM Linux machine and you won't have to spend any time setting it up yourself.

[Kerberos]

For one, you overstate the virus/registry/fragmentation/spyware issues massively. I dont get spyware as I dont do anything that would let it install itself. I don't get viruses as they dont really exist in their traditional forms anymore and as I am always behind a dedicated (linux) firewall I'm fairly safe from them. I also didn't say any more than to point out why his 'Linux is better no matter what simply because its free' attitude is wrong.

My idea of a good system is one that you can use without documentation. Linux's dependance on howtos and readmes is its main issue imo. You want to do the smallest thing you have no choice but to look it up - as you certainly can't just figure it out (even something as mundane as installing a .deb). That and its irrating buggy network (https://launchpad.net/people/a-laignel/+reportedbugs) and the Linux communitys habit of discouraging discussion on software improvement* - after all no amount of bugzilla would ever make clippy or bob decent programs.

All that said I am looking forward to trying Dapper as it seems like they have cured a lot of things I have issues with.

* 'The developers don't read this', 'File a report with Bugzilla', 'Don't like it use Windows', 'Its the "Linux Way"' etc.

[ComplexNumber]

For one, you overstate the virus/registry/fragmentation/spyware issues massively. I dont get spyware as I dont do anything that would let it install itself. I don't get viruses as they dont really exist in their traditional forms anymore and as I am always behind a dedicated (linux) firewall I'm fairly safe from them. but you also have to ask yourself, is the average user as knowledgable as you about security? i don't get spyware on windows either, but then again i know what to do and what not to do. sadly, the average user is clueless in this department...and thats where windows fails. there will always be some give and take between security and short-term user friendliness.

[prizrak]

For one, you overstate the virus/registry/fragmentation/spyware issues massively. I dont get spyware as I dont do anything that would let it install itself. I don't get viruses as they dont really exist in their traditional forms anymore and as I am always behind a dedicated (linux) firewall I'm fairly safe from them.
In your individual case yes it is overstated, but spyware is not only things that install it's also tracking cookies and temporary internet files that can do that. I got those (not so much the latter as I had my system set to wipe them on browser close) but cookies yes very much so (also an issue in Linux I will point that out). Fragmentation is a huge issue if you deal with large files (creation/deletion) haven't encountered the same problem on my Ubuntu system my fragmentation is 2.1% according to fsck and has been for months. Registry is another one of those pretty big issues, let the system run for a few months w/o cleaning it and see how slow it gets. Same with all the tmp files, that aren't confined to one directory and are a huge pain. I had a system cleaner that ran about once a month removing over 200MB in obsolete files. Also I bet it took you a little while to set up your system to be secure.
I also didn't say any more than to point out why his 'Linux is better no matter what simply because its free' attitude is wrong.
That statement I agree with, I don't agree with the reasoning you used in the previous post.
My idea of a good system is one that you can use without documentation. Linux's dependance on howtos and readmes is its main issue imo. You want to do the smallest thing you have no choice but to look it up - as you certainly can't just figure it out (even something as mundane as installing a .deb).
I suppose that would be subjective, I didn't read any how-to's first time I tried Ubuntu it was pretty intuitive. I do have to point out that the first time I tried using a mouse and Win 3.11 I was completely confused and had no idea how to work it.
That and its irrating buggy network and the Linux communitys habit of discouraging discussion on software improvement* - after all no amount of bugzilla would ever make clippy or bob decent programs.
Agreed, it is often overused. However they do have a point any meaningful feedback should go to the devs not forumers we don't write the software they do.

[Kerberos]

there will always be some give and take between security and short-term user friendliness.
The two arn't mutually exclusive. Difficulty in use is based on how much effort the developers have put in - it has nothing to do with security. OSX being the case in point.

[mrgnash]

The only system you can use without documentation - and I would argue that if one is using said system to perform complex tasks, the procedure of which they are unfamiliar with, they would need to refer to some form of documentation regardless of the OS in question - is one that you are already familiar with. A lot of Windows advocates who complain about the learning curve involved in becoming Linux-literate, seem to take their knowledge of Windows for granted, as if it were some innate property bestowed at conception.

As someone who has installed, setup and instructed numerous people in the use of Windows XP for their computing needs, I can testify that this is simply not the case. The user who is as a tabula rasa with regard to the workings of Windows will be confounded by many of the things which seem 'intuitive' and 'natural' to the experienced user.

[aysiu]

If Windows didn't need documentation, my co-workers wouldn't constantly pester me for help on how to use it. I can assure you they do pester me. I don't mind helping them out, but you can hardly argue convincingly that Windows is intuitive to everyone.

It isn't.

Just today I was asked by a co-worker how to see the desktop without individually minimizing all the windows.

Yesterday, I was asked by another co-worker how to take a screenshot.

[Lin-X]

Can't find your new programs in Linux? Look in Synaptic, find the program title, right click it and choose properties. It will show you everything installed in the package and where it is.

[daller]

Learning (K)ubuntu is considerably faster than learning Windows...

...What takes alot of time, is to unlearn Windows!

Windows-users need as much documentation as (K)ubuntu-users do! (For the same tasks!)

The fact that (K)ubuntu holds more tools (possibilities) than Windows, is the logic explaination to why it needs more documentation!

Cheers!

[prizrak]

Well KDE is fairly difficult to figure out for a newbie. I can vouch for that. GNOME on the other hand is extremely easy and discoverable when you are just starting out, after you become seasoned enough it makes little difference.

[aysiu]

Well KDE is fairly difficult to figure out for a newbie. I can vouch for that. GNOME on the other hand is extremely easy and discoverable when you are just starting out, after you become seasoned enough it makes little difference. It really depends on what you're trying to do.

Install a theme? Sure, easier to figure out in Gnome.
Install a GDM theme? Much easier to figure out than installing a KDM theme.
Assigning a keyboard shortcut for printing the screen? Yup. Easier in Gnome.

But...

Getting NumLock to stay on by default? Easier to figure out in KDE.
Getting rotating wallpapers or a different one per desktop? Easier in KDE.
Making a keyboard shortcut to open a random application? Easier in KDE.

It all depends on what you're trying to do.

[prizrak]

It really depends on what you're trying to do.

Install a theme? Sure, easier to figure out in Gnome.
Install a GDM theme? Much easier to figure out than installing a KDM theme.
Assigning a keyboard shortcut for printing the screen? Yup. Easier in Gnome.

But...

Getting NumLock to stay on by default? Easier to figure out in KDE.
Getting rotating wallpapers or a different one per desktop? Easier in KDE.
Making a keyboard shortcut to open a random application? Easier in KDE.

It all depends on what you're trying to do.
Overall ease of figuring it out for everyday tasks is better in GNOME than KDE. The defaults are more sane than they are in KDE for your average Windows dweller (as I used to be). Older GNOME wasn't this way though, I used to prefer KDE to it quite a bit because of all the customizations. Now I prefer GNOME, especially since Kubuntu never managed to work right :)

[daller]

Overall ease of figuring it out for everyday tasks is better in GNOME than KDE. The defaults are more sane than they are in KDE for your average Windows dweller (as I used to be). Older GNOME wasn't this way though, I used to prefer KDE to it quite a bit because of all the customizations. Now I prefer GNOME, especially since Kubuntu never managed to work right :)

Speak for yourself! Not on behalf of everyone!

When it comes to Windows-habits, I think KDE is closest! (And thereby easiest for daily tasks)

I've got more than 30 people to convert from Windows to (K)Ubuntu, and almost all of them chose Kubuntu.

[Stormy Eyes]

These guys make computers that don't require documentation. Why don't you guys see if they have something that'll fit your needs? (http://www.nintendo.com)

[prizrak]

Speak for yourself! Not on behalf of everyone!

When it comes to Windows-habits, I think KDE is closest! (And thereby easiest for daily tasks)

I've got more than 30 people to convert from Windows to (K)Ubuntu, and almost all of them chose Kubuntu.
Well I was talking from personal experience, Kubuntu might have different defaults than w/e it was that I was using (RedHat possibly, maybe something else) but the default there was Mac like interface with 1-click and stuff. Also when it started a setup wizard appeared asking me to set all kinds of options up. (Didn't do that on Kubuntu, but that thing didn't work worth crap on my systems anyways)

[3rdalbum]

Making a keyboard shortcut to open a random application? Easier in KDE.


Well, that's convinced me to switch to KDE... ;) :p

[geo15]

Windows is easier to maintain than Linux and it is more user friendly.

[ESPOiG]

what is it the top 3 desktop enviros are what

Gnome
KDE
Xfce

right?

[mostwanted]

Windows is easier to maintain than Linux and it is more user friendly.

I like how you totally elaborated on that and explained why you think it is so :)

[prizrak]

Windows is easier to maintain than Linux and it is more user friendly.
I have a big fat WTF comming your way on that one. Considering that Linux is pretty much a one time setup if you are not changing anything in the machine or like me get bored of one WM and switch to another. How could Windows be possibly easier to maintain that Linux?!
Here is my Windows maintenance list (just as an example)
Antispyware: 1/week
Antivirus: Runs all the time, full scan once in a while.
Reg Cleaner: 1/week
File cleaner: 1/week
WinUpdate: 1/month (restart required most of the time)
Defrag: every few months depending on how much file creation/deletion is involved.

Ubuntu maintenance list.
FSCK: autoruns every 30 mounts
Update: runs whenever (restart required ONLY on new kernel)

You are right Windows is MUCH easier :)

[aysiu]

Well, that's convinced me to switch to KDE... ;) :p Maybe it doesn't convince you, but keyboard shortcuts are important to some of us--it's one of the main reasons I get annoyed using Windows. And, yes, I've tried defining keyboard shortcuts for items in the Quick Launch toolbar in XP, and it hasn't worked (on multiple computers, mind you).

Windows is easier to maintain than Linux and it is more user friendly. Anti-virus, anti-spyware, registry rot... yeah, I can see your point.

It's also more user-friendly. After all, my co-workers all had to ask me where the "show desktop" button was on their fresh XP installs when we upgraded from 2000. In Ubuntu, it's already there for you on a default install.

[ComplexNumber]

Windows is easier to maintain than Linux and it is more user friendly. for a microsoft certified engineer. yes, linux is really difficult to maintain compared to windows. just think of all that defragging, antivirus checks, anti-malware checks, hassle with setting up permissions, and registry checks that have to be done on linux and that aren't necessary on windows due to its highly secure, stable, and well designed nature.

[bscbrit]

Maybe it doesn't convince you, but keyboard shortcuts are important to some of us--it's one of the main reasons I get annoyed using Windows.

:p I think the point the poster was making was that you have a keyboard shortcut to open a random program. I think that you meant a specific program.... I never have had a problem carrying out random actions but I sometimes have a problem doing something productive. ;)

[aysiu]

:p I think the point the poster was making was that you have a keyboard shortcut to open a random program. I think that you meant a specific program.... I never have had a problem carrying out random actions but I sometimes have a problem doing something productive. ;) You got me being imprecise with my language. I got cuffed by the language police. The ex-English teacher hangs his head in shame...

[prizrak]

Maybe it doesn't convince you, but keyboard shortcuts are important to some of us--it's one of the main reasons I get annoyed using Windows. And, yes, I've tried defining keyboard shortcuts for items in the Quick Launch toolbar in XP, and it hasn't worked (on multiple computers, mind you).

Anti-virus, anti-spyware, registry rot... yeah, I can see your point.

It's also more user-friendly. After all, my co-workers all had to ask me where the "show desktop" button was on their fresh XP installs when we upgraded from 2000. In Ubuntu, it's already there for you on a default install.

Some of mine are smoking and when people make multiple threads asking the same question over and over :) What are some of your pet peeves ?
I agree, as someone who works alot on a laptop kbd shortcuts are the best thing since sliced bread. On the desktop it's quite a bit less important since mice are quick enough. In XP btw the kbd shortcuts can be assigned to any shortcut in the properties dialog. (Works quite well).

[aysiu]

I agree, as someone who works alot on a laptop kbd shortcuts are the best thing since sliced bread. On the desktop it's quite a bit less important since mice are quick enough. You may be a whiz with the mouse, but mice just aren't quick enough for me. I'm usually fumbling around to hit the right spot to click, and sometimes I click the wrong window (or behind the window instead).

Take, for example, a task I often do at work--I cut and paste, line by line, a document into a screen in our database (yeah, our database is f'ed up--you can't just paste in an entire document--you have to copy and paste line by line).

To do that by mouse, I would have to click on my source document, highlight a line, right-click, select "cut," click on the database window, click in the line I want to be in and right-click and select "paste."

Via keyboard, I just press Shift-Down, Control-X, Alt-Tab, Control-Y, Enter, Alt-Tab--Repeat. In XP btw the kbd shortcuts can be assigned to any shortcut in the properties dialog. (Works quite well). I've never been able to get this to work. You're talking about this, right (see screenshot)? Yeah, for some strange reason, I can't get that to work in XP at home or at work.

What I'd really love in XP, since I have to use it at work, are keyboard shortcuts for the following (and if anyone knows shortcuts for these, please let me know):

Maximize window
Empty Recycling Bin
Open My Documents (not just Explorer in general)
Change screen resolution (move up or down one option)

Edit: I found a keyboard way to maximize windows in Windows. It's not exactly a shortcut, but if you press Alt-Spacebar, a context menu will pop up. If you then press X when the context menu appears, the window will be maximized.

[prizrak]

You may be a whiz with the mouse, but mice just aren't quick enough for me.
Years upon years of FPS gaming :)
I've never been able to get this to work. You're talking about this, right (see screenshot)? Yeah, for some strange reason, I can't get that to work in XP at home or at work.

Exactly what I was talking about, not sure why it wouldn't work for you :/
What I'd really love in XP, since I have to use it at work, are keyboard shortcuts for the following (and if anyone knows shortcuts for these, please let me know):

Maximize window
Empty Recycling Bin
Open My Documents (not just Explorer in general)
Change screen resolution (move up or down one option)
1) Doesn't exist (pretty sure)
2) Doesn't exist (same as above)
3) It DOES exist but I cannot remember. Possible guess Windows+M (Windows+D shows the desktop)
4) I do believe you can assign that in either ATI or nVidia driver interface. Not too sure tho.

[aysiu]

3) It DOES exist but I cannot remember. Possible guess Windows+M (Windows+D shows the desktop) Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it, and it appears to minimize the current window.

[prizrak]

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it, and it appears to minimize the current window.
Nice, I suggest try combination of Windows+<key> and see what each does.

[almahtar]

I don't believe at all this notion that the instant you connect to the net with windows you are instantly infected with an onslaught of viruses ad spyware

It's kind of scary actually how true it is. For a project for my Databases class in college, we set up a linux computer just sitting on normal residential cable internet and had it log all of the virus, hacking, and spyware attempts against it. Over the last month it's logged 16,000 attempts. 10,000 of those were just port scans/people looking to find vulnerabilities, the other 6,000 were Microsoft-Specific attacks like spyware, worms, etc. 6,000 in a month... that's 200/day. Divide that by 24 hours and you get a little less than 10 attacks per hour. Suddenly 16 minutes doesn't sound so unrealistic.

This is in backwoods Moscow, Idaho... a cowtown. Imagine what it's like in a big city!

[Carrots171]

In some ways, MS Windows is ready for the desktop, and in other ways it isn't.

-Availability
MS Windows definitely wins here. Windows is preloaded on the majority of home PC's, just about anyone can walk into a computer store and buy a Windows PC. PC's with other operating systems pre-installed are simply much harder to come by.

-Security
MS Windows isn't ready for desktop here. Windows has many virii, and spyware. More importantly, Microsoft is infamous for leaving security holes unpatched for long periods of time. Faster patching and a more secure OS to begin with are needed here.

-Included Applications
Windows simply doesn't come with much. There's no office suite, and there are very few multimedia apps to speak of. Windows comes with an oudated browser that lacks many features that are found in Firefox, Safari, and many other web browsers. Windows should really have an "additional assembly required" sticker on it.

-Maintenence
With Windows, you'll have to regularly defragment your drives, scan for spyware, and scan for viruses, something you don't have to do with most other operating systems.

-Application and Hardware Support
Windows wins here. It simply supports more hardware and more applications than other operating sytems because it is the most popular. And unfortunately, there are still some badly-coded websites that just aren't compatible with any browser except for Internet Explorer.

[prizrak]

-Included Applications
Windows simply doesn't come with much. There's no office suite, and there are very few multimedia apps to speak of. Windows comes with an oudated browser that lacks many features that are found in Firefox, Safari, and many other web browsers. Windows should really have an "additional assembly required" sticker on it.
I will play the devil's advocate here (I use Ubuntu exclusively). I find it funny how people say that Windows doesn't come with enough software to be useable out of the box yet the second MS tries to include some software (WMP being the prime example) with the OS they get sued by everyone for anticompetitive behavior.

[ZylGadis]

That is the reason antitrust laws exist. If Microsoft want to avoid that, they should consider dropping their market share. A lot. Simple as that.
If antitrust laws did not exist (and Microsoft was completely free to do what they wanted unlike now, when they have to bribe judges to get half of what they want), you can imagine that within 2 years the flag of USA would officially have the Windows logo on it.

[prizrak]

That is the reason antitrust laws exist. If Microsoft want to avoid that, they should consider dropping their market share. A lot. Simple as that.
If antitrust laws did not exist (and Microsoft was completely free to do what they wanted unlike now, when they have to bribe judges to get half of what they want), you can imagine that within 2 years the flag of USA would officially have the Windows logo on it.
What you are saying is unrealistic, it is impossible to drop the market share of a company that achieved 95% presence. As it stands right now MS doesn't have to do anything to keep their market share where it's at, at least not on the desktop in any case. The only possible way for MS to escape the antitrust law issue would be to be split into MS platforms and MS applications.
That is hardly the point though, alot of Linux users attack MS for shipping Windows barebones (unless it's an OEM install) while at the same time attacking the company for attempting to include the applications that just about any Linux distro comes with.
As I said before I'm a Linux user but the hypocrisy is interesting.

[BobSongs]

Heh. Thought I'd throw this into the mix to stir up some fun/trouble.

Paul Thurrott (http://www.winsupersite.com/) is a Windows evangelist. In a five page glowing review of his latest Vista Beta install - four pages are devoted to the newest features, power, etc. Enough text to choke a horse.

But I would point you to his last page (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5308_05.asp). I never thought I'd ever read him say such things. He's not a Microsoft employee. But he's very outspoken for Redmond.

Sure, the final paragraph almost seems like he's backpeddling. But everything up to that point is not only good writing... it's just totally unexpected. It's surprising how scathing he is.

Seems even Paul Thurrott is wondering if it's ready for the desktop. ;)

[prizrak]

Heh. Thought I'd throw this into the mix to stir up some fun/trouble.

Paul Thurrott (http://www.winsupersite.com/) is a Windows evangelist. In a five page glowing review of his latest Vista Beta install - four pages are devoted to the newest features, power, etc. Enough text to choke a horse.

But I would point you to his last page (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5308_05.asp). I never thought I'd ever read him say such things. He's not a Microsoft employee. But he's very outspoken for Redmond.

Sure, the final paragraph almost seems like he's backpeddling. But everything up to that point is not only good writing... it's just totally unexpected. It's surprising how scathing he is.

Seems even Paul Thurrott is wondering if it's ready for the desktop. ;)
Heh, yeah I read that article was pretty interesting. I don't think he was wondering if it was ready for the desktop it's more along the lines of him being disapointed in Vista. It promised a million different features and ended up dropping just about all of them. The features it did provide for the most were broken in some way.
It is fun to see people who are basically MS fanboys speak out against their favorite monopoly :)

[BobSongs]

hehehehee.

You get it. Sure; I realize he'll never get within 30 feet of an Ubuntu setup CD. He'll be buried with every Windows setup disk from version 1.01.

I'm just saying that with such a scathing review it almost makes you wonder if Windows is ready for the desktop when Thurrott pulls out the sawed-off shotgun and blows off a few shots in Billy's general direction. ;) After all: that's the question. Is MS Windows ready for the desktop. And after almost 5 years time it seems Vista still isn't.

Meh. No loss. I've given Windows the heave-ho as my main O/S about 6 months ago. I still need it from time to time because I fix people's PCs. But what a relief it is to work in Ubuntu. :-D

[hanzomon4]

Yes,
The time I have spent using windows for the most part has been smooth. When I got my first computer using windows was bizarre. Getting messages like "you have preformed an illegal operation" lead me to belive I was going to jail but after using windows and computers in general for a while it became less of a hassle. Years later when I started to become more computer literate
I rarelly had problems, no crashes, viruses, or spyware issues. A few months ago when I began to play with linux it was hard and furstrating. My system would often crash or I would have some strange problem just like when I started out using windows. Now I mostly use linux and have less problems then when I first started out. I've come to rely on the command line, config files, wikies and howto's. I have learned alot of things that I never could do in windows such as find all the *.m4p files on my computer and move them to a directory with one command.
I think that the questions about linux being ready for the mass market has less to do with the os and more to do with people. Most people don't feel comfortable messing with there computers and would prefer to leave it "as is"
no matter how easy or difficult the os is. My time (just 4 or 5 months) with linux tells me that it is just as ready for the desktop as windows for most users, but as long as windows comes pre-installed on every new computer most users will use windows "it's the name they know".

[3rdalbum]

I agree with hazomon about it being all about people.

A friend of mine from India (whose first computer was preloaded with Linux, BTW!) wants one of my other friends to rip a DVD for him, encode it to Mpeg-4 and e-mail it to him. He found a nice intuitive Windows program for her to use.

Will she actually download the program and use it? No. Why not? Because she's only been taught how to use MS Office, Internet Explorer and MSN. I somehow convinced her to use Firefox after her computer got overwhelmed with adware and automated diallers and stuff. The problem is: People are being taught how to use specific programs, and so they think they don't know how to use anything else. Anything outside their comfort zone is automatically classed as "too hard", so they don't even try to use it.

I've given other people instructions about how to record audio from their microphones/other audio devices, yet they won't even TRY to do it. When they asked me how to do these kinds of things, were they hoping that the only programs they'd need to use would be Internet Explorer and MS Works?

[tseliot]

-Security
MS Windows isn't ready for desktop here. Windows has many virii, and spyware. More importantly, Microsoft is infamous for leaving security holes unpatched for long periods of time. Faster patching and a more secure OS to begin with are needed here.
"virii" doesn't exist as a word. "viri" does exist but means "(important) men" (from "vir, -i").
The plural of "virus" is "virus" in Latin. In English you can say "viruses" (with reference to the field of IT).

I'm just splitting hairs ;)

[Carrots171]

"virii" doesn't exist as a word. "viri" does exist but means "(important) men" (from "vir, -i").
The plural of "virus" is "virus" in Latin. In English you can say "viruses" (with reference to the field of IT).


Hehe... thanks. I've heard people saying "virii" a lot. :-#

[ronnielsen1]

Your online world gets better when everything works simply and effortlessly together. That's the basic idea behind Windows Live

Well they posted this on their site. I wonder if that's their basic idea behind windows. If I felt that way I wouldn't be on an Ubuntu site.:)

[prizrak]

Windows Live is just a way to plug the iceberg sized hole in the side of the Titanic that is Windows. Because of all the *wares Windows gets there is a need for the software to stop that. So MS created a service/software that will take care of all the things at the same time and with only application to run, which is nice for the end user (I wished for something like that when I was a Windows user).

[Jagged]

Half the reason I switched to linux was because I was so stinkin annoyed with microsoft "security"...endless updates, viruses, hijackings....I was spending more time trying to protect my computer than actually using it.

[Koori23]

[QUOTE=

People say Windows is so far ahead but in reality there way to far ahead of themselves. Now the issue of trusted sites and systems might be attempts to address this but one point, they dont own the interenet and if I remember what the founder of the internet stated, they did not wan't this. This showes even there attidude towards the internet is borked[/QUOTE]

I agree with you to some extent. I think that Linux will play a huge part in Window's security because of the direct comparison between the two. Also, Microsoft (for a while there) seemed to get cocky about itself. When that happens, things go south. It's not hard to conclude that the Internet or the World Wide Web (Yes, they are separate entities) are being used for things that it wasn't intended for. Windows sorta got caught between a rock and a hard place as far as that goes. It was the only thing people had and the Internet took off without any thought at all for security. Those two things combined make for one disaster of enormous proportions. Example would be IE vs Netscape in the early browser wars.. What's funny is, the exact same thing is happening now.. Between IE and Firefox, which owes it's success to those features presented first in Netscape.. Odd..

[blastus]

Example would be IE vs Netscape in the early browser wars.. What's funny is, the exact same thing is happening now.. Between IE and Firefox, which owes it's success to those features presented first in Netscape.. Odd..

Firefox rose like a phoenix from Netscape's ashes. :twisted:

[Carrots171]

Firefox rose like a phoenix from Netscape's ashes. :twisted:

...which is why Firefox was originally named Phoenix.

[ultranet]

Dudes and dudettes, i agree w/ most of the stuff here, but have a thing Linux is behind in:
DRM and HDCP.
For instance, a lot of news and movie content on the web is DRM'ed, and of course usually in wmv format. E.g., yahoo news, and msnbc news.
HDCP is a new thing, and appears to be a major improvement in content encryption. I sincerely hope that it gets cracked for Linux, but it's a big question mark. Alternatively, somebody needs to get a license and write some apps that do HDCP on Linux.

[prizrak]

Dudes and dudettes, i agree w/ most of the stuff here, but have a thing Linux is behind in:
DRM and HDCP.
For instance, a lot of news and movie content on the web is DRM'ed, and of course usually in wmv format. E.g., yahoo news, and msnbc news.
HDCP is a new thing, and appears to be a major improvement in content encryption. I sincerely hope that it gets cracked for Linux, but it's a big question mark. Alternatively, somebody needs to get a license and write some apps that do HDCP on Linux.

Linux supports DRM 100%. It's all about content providers that don't choose to take advantage of it.

[gurgle]

Dudes and dudettes, i agree w/ most of the stuff here, but have a thing Linux is behind in:
DRM and HDCP.
For instance, a lot of news and movie content on the web is DRM'ed, and of course usually in wmv format. E.g., yahoo news, and msnbc news.
HDCP is a new thing, and appears to be a major improvement in content encryption. I sincerely hope that it gets cracked for Linux, but it's a big question mark. Alternatively, somebody needs to get a license and write some apps that do HDCP on Linux.

i dont want DRM.

[B0rsuk]

I don't want DRM.

[Epperly]

The 12-minute Windows Heist (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/01/0218209&tid=172&tid=220&tid=218)
hahaha omg, "releasing almost 8,000 new viruses in the first half of 2005 and increasingly teaming up in joint ventures to make money"
That's so many, that's like 44 new viruses a day.

[Tanizaki]

"virii" doesn't exist as a word. "viri" does exist but means "(important) men" (from "vir, -i").
The plural of "virus" is "virus" in Latin. In English you can say "viruses" (with reference to the field of IT).

I'm just splitting hairs ;)

You had it right until you said, "The plural of "virus" is "virus" in Latin" Virus had no plural in Latin because virus was not a countable noun. Similarly, in English, "gasoline" has no plural.

[Brunellus]

You had it right until you said, "The plural of "virus" is "virus" in Latin" Virus had no plural in Latin because virus was not a countable noun. Similarly, in English, "gasoline" has no plural.
you could conjecture that the plural of "virus" might be "virora", since all neuter nominative and accusative plurals must end in -a. But I've never read it in real Latin, either.

[RussianVodka]

This weekend my younger brother hastled me into buying him a month of WoW with my credit card. And so I figured since I'm paying for it, I'll install Windows and get in on some of the action.

So, since Windows overwrites the boot loader, I figured I'd back up my important data to another computer, and whipe the system.

After about 3 tries of installing Windows, and it (at the very begining) telling me that I have no HD, I remembered that I have to turn off SATA support, because Windows doesn't know how to use it (yeah, I can download drivers, but why should I if Linux supports it by default. What horrible hardware support Windows has...)

Then, after it installed, I ran into a rather large problem. My WiFi drivers were not installed by default. But it's cool, I thought. I have a laptop, I'll just bring it downstairs and connect it directly to the router. But for some odd reason it wasn't connecting. So I open up System Tools, and it says that I don't have ethernet drivers. Now, I work as tech-support at University, and I set up Windows on a lot of computers, and this is not at all an uncommon problem. But it's usualy due to the hardware being old. I on the other hand have a several month old laptop. This shouldn't be happening. That was just pathetic. I ended up burning the driver install files to a CD and installing from there.

So I painstakingly install about half a dozen drivers. Some of them, like the Video card drivers would only install if they were from HP's website. The one's from nVidia's website wouldn't work. And the system begun to look great.

Now I had to install Software. And what the hell? They expect ME, the holy user, to download and install the software myself? Seriously, what's wrong with them! Instead of just checking off a few options and leaving my computer to do the rest, I had to download and install them all manualy? And that's just things like FireFox and OpenOffice. I didn't bother trying installing any codecs. I have bad memories of it since before I switched to Linux.

But eventualy everything was set up. Later that day, I was sitting in my dorm in college, surfing the web (normal sites, like Youtube and digg.com), when a few of my friends dropped by. So I show them that I have Windows installed, and go to show 'em my WoW account. I double click on the icon, and everything on my computer freezes except the mouse. Since windows is prone to being a bitch, I didn't think much of it and hit ctrl+alt+del. After getting the BSOD for roughly a second, my computer restarted. And it refused to boot up. Just gave ma black screen after it passed the BIOS part.

So I throw in a Linux CD, go to install it on the partition I had saved for Linux, and notice that my entire disk is blank? What the hell? And then the thought hit me... "HOLY CRAP! I DIDN'T INSTALL AN ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE!"

So I install Linux, boot up Automatix, and had a full system up and running in about an hour (slow download speed).

My conclusion: Windows is not Desktop-Ready. It was a pain in the *** to install, a pain in the *** to get set up, and then died because I didn't install an antivirus (didn't care to look for a good free one). And this is comming from a Computer Science major who sets up computers at his job.

Seeing as so many people complain about how hard Linux, is, I thought I'd tell a story about how hard it was to migrate to Windows after having only Linux on my machine for 5 months.

[d3v1ant_0n3]

Lol. Nice read;)

I have to reinstall windows soon on our desktop (it's doing that annoying thing where it's gone slow for no really apparent reason, like it just DOES after a while), and I dread all the problems I'm going to run into. I haven't had to think about drivers or things for months. Oh, tell a lie. I installed the newest ATI driver (yech) the other week. It was a total PITA.

[Pray]

Hahaha, bet it annoyed you to no end, I gave up on Windows when it wouldn't use my sound card drivers, signed or not. Couldn't agree more with your statement! :mrgreen:

[jc87]

Don't get me started about the times (more than one) when windows decided on his own to remove my modem drivers without even asking me:twisted:

Or the hours lost in basic system maintenance (defrag, spyware scan, etc...)

Or the fact that it only wants to install in my primary hard-drive:rolleyes:

[IYY]

I installed Windows XP yesterday.

- Audio drivers not installed by default, I had to find a CD. Lucky for me I still had one, because I have no idea what brand of sound card I have.

- Video drivers not installed by default. That's not so bad, because I can get them from the nvidia site, but the default look was just painful. Horrible resolution, few colours and laggy moving of windows. Even the vesa driver is 1000 times better.

- WiFi drivers not installed by default. This was a real problem, because I don't know what wireless card I have (I got it used from a friend), and I can't even connect to the internet to get the drivers!

The solution?

Run the Ubuntu live CD, where all the drivers work perfectly without any configuration, check what the wireless card is called and copy the drivers to my windows partition (it's NTFS, but I don't care about screwing up a fresh installation.)

I have no idea what I would have done without Ubuntu.

[zachtib]

and then died because I didn't install an antivirus (didn't care to look for a good free one).

I'd try AVG, that's what I give to all of my friends that still use windows. and yeah, running a windows pc without antivirus on a college network... bad idea

[aysiu]

(Moved to the proper subforum.)

Windows doesn't need to be "ready for the desktop." It's on the desktop almost everywhere--ready or not!

[izalac]

(Moved to the proper subforum.)

Windows doesn't need to be "ready for the desktop." It's on the desktop almost everywhere--ready or not!

You know, aysiu, sometimes I just can't help it but hate it when you're right :/

[EdThaSlayer]

This is a first!
Now that I look back on Windows, I really think that the design is very inefficient. I mean,why first search for a program,then download a program(or get it via the cd) and then have to double click on it if all you need to do is check a checkbox and click on apply? Now being a Linux user, I will never be able to go back to Windows and ever feel the same.

[hoagie]

Indeed a nice read. However as Aysiu said it, nobody cares if it;s ready or not, it's akready there.

[IYY]

(Moved to the proper subforum.)

Windows doesn't need to be "ready for the desktop." It's on the desktop almost everywhere--ready or not!

This is very similar to what I tell people when they say Linux is not ready for the desktop. It certainly is ready enough for me and many other people.

[aysiu]

By the way, these two links in my signature detail the trials of installing Windows:
This weekend, I reinstalled XP and Ubuntu. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=221756)
Installing Ubuntu: A comparison of Ubuntu 6.06 and Windows XP (http://rhosgobel.blogspot.com/2006/06/installing-ubuntu-comparison-of-ubuntu.html)

[carlgm]

Vista supports SATA out of the box and has major improvements with regards to networking.

[izalac]

Vista supports SATA out of the box and has major improvements with regards to networking.

Well, I'm glad I don't have to wait for my features till Vista arrives 8)

[Klaidas]

What horrible hardware support Windows has
Umm, hello?... Isn't Windows the one who has all the drivers, and linux driver support for new and some old devices is poor?..

nd what the hell? They expect ME, the holy user, to download and install the software myself? Seriously, what's wrong with them!
Yes, I'm afraid they also want you to click buttons on your mouse and even the keyboard!!! I mean, WTF?!

My conclusion: Windows is not Desktop-Ready.
Hm... And it's on like... every desktop PC for no reason?

And this is comming from a Computer Science major who sets up computers at his job.
That's cool... However, how neutral regarding windows were you when you were writting this? ;)

[Henry Rayker]

The only point I'd like to refute is this one:

Hm... And it's on like... every desktop PC for no reason?

Just because something is currently done one way doesn't mean that way is right. The reason why Windows is included on every system is more to keep up with the status quo, stay with tradition, etc. than to put the most appropriate OS on the systems.

I'm not one of the rabid Windows hating Linux monsters you'll occasionally run into; I just firmly believe that Vista is a HUGE step away from appropriate for most users.

[aysiu]

Umm, hello?... Isn't Windows the one who has all the drivers, and linux driver support for new and some old devices is poor?.. In answer to your question: No.

Windows itself doesn't have all the drivers. The people who manufacture the hardware have the drivers and, in the interests of economic viability, make sure they create Windows drivers for their products. That's why, when you buy a printer or other peripheral, it almost always comes with a CD of Windows drivers.

If Windows hardware support were great by itself, you wouldn't need that CD.

Of course, whether the hardware manufacturer or Microsoft supplies the driver, it's true that you will almost always be able to find a driver for Windows.

This is not necessarily the case for Linux.

Hm... And it's on like... every desktop PC for no reason? The reasons have nothing to do with "desktop readiness," "user-friendliness," or "ease of installation." They have everything to do with strong-arm business practices, shady deals, buyoffs of lawsuits, and backstabbing of former partners.

Edit: removed anti-Bush remark

[RussianVodka]

Umm, hello?... Isn't Windows the one who has all the drivers, and linux driver support for new and some old devices is poor?..


Sure, I could find drivers for all my hardware. But I would expect at least some to be there out of the box. Maybe having my GPU pre-installed is too much to ask, but having my ethernet working certainly isn't.


Yes, I'm afraid they also want you to click buttons on your mouse and even the keyboard!!! I mean, WTF?!

Yeah! Exactly! Those bastards.:D


Hm... And it's on like... every desktop PC for no reason?

Has more to do with marketing than with anything else.


That's cool... However, how neutral regarding windows were you when you were writting this? ;)

Very biased against Windows. But I think it's understandable considering how bad my experience with it was. And this isn't the first time such a think happened.

[Bender the Robot]

Windows not desktop ready ?
Epson Perfection 3170 scanner installation:-
'XP' - insert cd, and a few mouse-clicks later the scanner is 'up and running' . Time taken, 5 minutes, maximum.
'ubuntu' - eight months later, 'ubuntu' is still refusing to acknowledge that there is a scanner attached to the PC.
Which one of those scenarios is 'desktop ready' ? No wonder I still use 'Windows' for my critical work !

[Henry Rayker]

Windows not desktop ready ?
Epson Perfection 3170 scanner installation:-
'XP' - insert cd, and a few mouse-clicks later the scanner is 'up and running' . Time taken, 5 minutes, maximum.
'ubuntu' - eight months later, 'ubuntu' is still refusing to acknowledge that there is a scanner attached to the PC.
Which one of those scenarios is 'desktop ready' ? No wonder I still use 'Windows' for my critical work !

This is more Epson's fault. If they gave Windows the same driver support they gave Linux, you couldn't find an Epson product...anywhere. They would be out of business.

[Bender the Robot]

Regardless of whose fault it is, it still makes 'XP' ready and 'ubuntu' not ready, for me.

[aysiu]

Windows not desktop ready ?
Epson Perfection 3170 scanner installation:-
'XP' - insert cd, and a few mouse-clicks later the scanner is 'up and running' . Time taken, 5 minutes, maximum.
'ubuntu' - eight months later, 'ubuntu' is still refusing to acknowledge that there is a scanner attached to the PC.
Which one of those scenarios is 'desktop ready' ? No wonder I still use 'Windows' for my critical work !
Definition of "ready for the desktop"--supported by third-party vendors? Sure, then, Windows is desktop ready, of course.

Of course, discussions such as this are meaningless, because no one can agree on a definition for that phrase anyway... (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=113874&highlight=ready+desktop)

[Bender the Robot]

Definition of "ready for the desktop"--supported by third-party vendors? Sure, then, Windows is desktop ready, of course.

Of course, discussions such as this are meaningless, because no one can agree on a definition for that phrase anyway... (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=113874&highlight=ready+desktop)

Point taken... I'll just continue to use both systems anyway, so nothings changed.

[ShadowVlican]

HP comes pre-installed with windows, so they should have some recovery CDs or partition so that you can easily put windows back to factory defaults

and lol.. of course u have to install firefox and openoffice... MS expects you to use the INCLUDED internet explorer and expects you to buy their Office Suite.... i don't think we'll ever see Windows ship with Firefox or OpenOffice ;)

also, it's true Windows doesn't have Ethernet drivers for some of the recent boards, so being a long time windows user i had downloaded all drivers before installing windows :) don't blame you for not knowing though because similar situations happen to us MS users while using linux for the first couple times ](*,)

[mssever]

Windows not desktop ready ?
Epson Perfection 3170 scanner installation:-
'XP' - insert cd, and a few mouse-clicks later the scanner is 'up and running' . Time taken, 5 minutes, maximum.
'ubuntu' - eight months later, 'ubuntu' is still refusing to acknowledge that there is a scanner attached to the PC.
Which one of those scenarios is 'desktop ready' ? No wonder I still use 'Windows' for my critical work !

Let's make a comparison on equal terms: don't use the CD that came with the scanner--only use whatever driver support is included in XP. Because that's basically what you're doing with Ubuntu (not that you have a choice as Epson probably doesn't provide Linux drivers).

[Bender the Robot]

Let's make a comparison on equal terms: don't use the CD that came with the scanner--only use whatever driver support is included in XP. Because that's basically what you're doing with Ubuntu (not that you have a choice as Epson probably doesn't provide Linux drivers).

I compare them as they 'come out of the box'... that's the way it 'works' in the real world, and the way it always will do. I've tried the drivers from avasys (several times) - no joy 'no devices available', same result with my 'Coolscan', so no point in me thinking that 'ubuntu' is going to handle all my photographic needs, it isn't, and that is the only reason I have a computer. Without my cameras I have no need for a computer.

[3rdalbum]

I tried to get a scanner working on my Mac. It didn't say on the box that it supported Mac OS X, and there wasn't any driver on the CD for OS X, and I couldn't get the scanner to work. I guess Mac OS X isn't ready for the desktop.

[steven8]

Oddly enough, the Toshiba website tells me straight out that they do NOT have Linux support for my USB modem, and yet the rndis_host driver supplied by Dapper works like a charm.

[steven8]

Try this: http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&infoType=News&oid=25021&prodoid=35836301&noteoid=38581

It is Epson Kowa, a third party vendor listed on the epson site. You'll find a link to it in the first FAQ.

Here is what it supports:

Image Scan (version 1.5) supports the following models:
EPSON Perfection 610
EPSON Perfection 640U
EPSON Perfection 1200S
EPSON Perfection 1200U
EPSON Perfection 1200U PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 1240U
EPSON Perfection 1250
EPSON Perfection 1250 PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 1260
EPSON Perfection 1260 PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 1640SU
EPSON Perfection 1640SU PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 1650
EPSON Perfection 1650 PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 1660 PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 2400 PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 2450 PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 3170 PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO
EPSON Perfection 4870 PHOTO
EPSON Expression 1600
EPSON Expression 1680
EPSON Expression 1640XL
EPSON GT-10000
EPSON GT-10000+
EPSON GT-15000
EPSON GT-30000
EPSON Stylus CX5200
EPSON Stylus CX5400

[Bender the Robot]

I've already tried it, same old 'no devices available'... but thanks very much anyway, steven8.

[SlCKB0Y]

I've already tried it, same old 'no devices available'... but thanks very much anyway, steven8.

PEBKAC

[Bender the Robot]

Not at all... the problem lies in the OS.

[glug101]

HP comes pre-installed with windows, so they should have some recovery CDs or partition so that you can easily put windows back to factory defaults

and lol.. of course u have to install firefox and openoffice... MS expects you to use the INCLUDED internet explorer and expects you to buy their Office Suite.... i don't think we'll ever see Windows ship with Firefox or OpenOffice ;)


Yeah, I'm sure that HP will have a restore cd, so you can reinstall all the needless crippled versions of products and HP links that came with the original machine. I can't stand getting computers dirrectly from the factory. Whether it's going to be a Windows box or a Linux box, my first step is a complete wipe and reinstall with MY disks. Absolute nonsense that I would get a crippled 'trial' version of office software with my churchs new Dell, when OpenOffice is available FOR FREE.

Oh, and here is a vote for Linux being usable... my 67 year old, non-technical mother is currently using Ubuntu.

[ShadowVlican]

Yeah, I'm sure that HP will have a restore cd, so you can reinstall all the needless crippled versions of products and HP links that came with the original machine. I can't stand getting computers dirrectly from the factory. Whether it's going to be a Windows box or a Linux box, my first step is a complete wipe and reinstall with MY disks. Absolute nonsense that I would get a crippled 'trial' version of office software with my churchs new Dell, when OpenOffice is available FOR FREE.

Oh, and here is a vote for Linux being usable... my 67 year old, non-technical mother is currently using Ubuntu.
you're willing to wipe because you are a POWER USER. Joe average would be the last on this planet to consider a clean install of WHATEVER operating system on his HP. Reason i mentioned restore CDs is because seems like the OP doesn't know Windows too well to begin installing from scratch, and that's where restore CDs come handy, they do everything for you!

and yes, ubuntu is surely usable... but try asking your grandma to help install [Bender the Robot]'s scanner.. or just visit the newbie forum for more examples ;)

done? my point exactly.

[Bender the Robot]

Bender's scanner is staying where it is... hooked up to 'XP'. Bender has decided that he doesn't need a scanner to 'surf' the internet and, as everything else is working, he just can't be bothered to make any more work for himself than is necessary.
The fact is that Bender is inherently lazy. ;)