Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[Orunitia]

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

[CTSLICK]

This is how it should be done:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...onvert+windows

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

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

So far...so good.

[floppy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[UbuWu]

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

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

[Curlydave]

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

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

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

[aysiu]

I've installed Mandriva, SuSE, and Ubuntu. None of the installations was anywhere near as easy as Windows. Each left something uninstalled or misconfigured. (Somebody will jump on me for that, claiming "unsupported hardware" or some such nonsense. Don't believe it.)

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

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

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

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

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

[racecat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

[aysiu]

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

I'm at four months, but I feel very much the same way. I have to use XP for work, but I love coming home to Ubuntu. And... I don't use any special apps. I just use Firefox, Thunderbird, and a simple game called Gnocatan. Occasionally I'll use GIMP to crop a photo.

[poofyhairguy]

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

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

[Brunellus]

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

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

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

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

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

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