Linux Desktop Readiness Thread

[arnieboy]

Arnieboy, I did not say "make it the best", I said "make it the best it can be", as in ensure that Linux reaches its full potential, whatever that potential may be. If I meant to say that we ought to make Linux better than either Windows or Mac OS, I would have said so.

Stormy Eyes --> Its impossible to compare myself to just myself and try and become the best "that I can be" and "realize my true potential". There has to be some operative comparison somewhere with some external entity due to which i feel that I have not reached my true potential yet.. think about it. if that hadnt been the case.. we would still have been living in the stone ages,

[arnieboy]

In accordance with my previous pledge, I've been trying to keep out of this, but I really think people shouldn't be talking about Linux as if it's one distribution. Part of the beauty of Linux is its variety. Different distros suit different needs. The OP can be all haughty and "no comment" me if he wants, but I really think anyone who wants to run as root and not know what goes on behind the scenes should use Linspire. That's what it's there for. People who are concerned about security and control of their computer should use Ubuntu. There are many other distros out there, too, that suit various users needs. What may be "user-friendly" for a Fedora user or Gentoo user may not be "user-friendly" to a Mepis user.

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

[aysiu]

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

I totally agree--the fundamental differences are basically package management, but most of the OP's concerns also are addressed by Linspire. What you're talking about is theory. I'm talking about practice. And package management is a big deal. Yum doesn't do it for me. apt-get/Synaptic does.

[arnieboy]

I totally agree--the fundamental differences are basically package management, but most of the OP's concerns also are addressed by Linspire. What you're talking about is theory. I'm talking about practice. And package management is a big deal. Yum doesn't do it for me. apt-get/Synaptic does.

Talking of theory and practice ---> Yum did it for me for 4 years and i never had any complaints. I knew how to add the correct repositories to make yum do the work for me (and yes google used to work in those days too) and all the time I had apt-get and (yeah synaptic as well) on a rpm based distro to fall back on. in fact I used to get updated packages there within a couple of days through either yum or apt-get.

[aysiu]

Talking of theory and practice ---> Yum did it for me for 4 years and i never had any complaints. I knew how to add the correct repositories to make yum do the work for me (and yes google used to work in those days too) and all the time I had apt-get and (yeah synaptic as well) on a rpm based distro to fall back on. in fact I used to get updated packages there within a couple of days through either yum or apt-get.

Have you ever used Blag? It's Fedora-based, but it comes with apt-get/Synaptic. It's also only one CD.

[arnieboy]

Have you ever used Blag? It's Fedora-based, but it comes with apt-get/Synaptic. It's also only one CD.

I dont need to use Blag just because its apt-get based. The rpm distro that I was talking about was Fedora itself (well actually redhat 7 through fedora core 3) and they all had apt-get capability. if u think that apt-get for rpm based distros is a new phenomenon, then u need to do some more research (both theoretically and practically).

[aysiu]

I dont need to use Blag just because its apt-get based. The rpm distro that I was talking about was Fedora itself (well actually redhat 7 through fedora core 3) and they all had apt-get capability. if u think that apt-get for rpm based distros is a new phenomenon, then u need to do some more research (both theoretically and practically).

Apt-get was already there? You didn't have to install it? Why are there instructions for installing apt, then?

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

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

Geez. Assumptions, assumptions.

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

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

Capability and default usability are two very different things.

[blastus]

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

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

[arnieboy]

Apt-get was already there? You didn't have to install it? Why are there instructions for installing apt, then?

When i said apt-get was "already there", I did not mean it came pre-installed. i meant it could be installed anytime. Linux in those days was not about what came "pre-installed" but what its potential capabilities were and wat u cud install on it.

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

People are not complaining about having to "install" multimedia codecs. If u take some time out from this chat forum and concentrate on the support forums, u will find that most of their concerns are regarding the inability of these codecs to run a certain joespornpalace.mov or greatgandhi.mpg.

Capability and default usability are two very different things.

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

[aysiu]

When i said apt-get was "already there", I did not mean it came pre-installed. i meant it could be installed anytime. Linux in those days was not about what came "pre-installed" but what its potential capabilities were and wat u cud install on it.

Which was my point about Blag v. Fedora. I wasn't saying Fedora is incapable of using Apt.

People are not complaining about having to "install" multimedia codecs. If u take some time out from this chat forum and concentrate on the support forums, u will find that most of their concerns are regarding the inability of these codecs to run a certain joespornpalace.mov or greatgandhi.mpg.

Again, making more assumptions. I spend plenty of time in Absolute Beginners, and I know that people complain about getting the codecs to work. I'm talking about people who really do complain about having to install those codecs (like in these forums). Why are the posts in Absolute Beginner more valid than the ones in Community Chat? I don't understand why you're making a distinction.