PDA

View Full Version : Do Ubuntu users/advocates value their time?



ruleboy
October 13th, 2006, 01:09 PM
Reading through some of the "I tried Ububtu and now its back to Windows" threads I can help but wonder if Ubuntu advocates value their time in the common "Ubuntu is free" argument?

If you take the time to learn this, configure that, ask questions to get basic functions working and then decide which applications you want to use...well for 200 dollars you can just get a Windows system with all of that taken care of.

I understand those who see fixing these problems and advocating Ububtu as a "hobbie", or in my case just an educational experience for the resume, but do others value their time at all?

If I had worked for the same amount of time as I spent getting Ubuntu working I would have earned enough money to buy a whole new computer, like a Mac mini or entry level iMac (or another Windows computer).

buckethead27
October 13th, 2006, 01:12 PM
True, it is time consuming, but it is worth it. After many problems with windows, I have decided to stay with Ubuntu. Granted, I do have problems that wouldn't occur in a Windows or Mac, but there is some feeling of Ubuntu that keeps me on it. Plus, I like to figure things out; I'm a problem solver.

Paul41
October 13th, 2006, 01:23 PM
I stay very busy so I definitely value my time. For me there was some time getting things set up the way I like them, but I would have also had to do that with Windows. There was also the additional time it took because I was learning how things worked in Ubuntu/Linux. However, now that things are set up and I know how things work I think that I actually save a lot of time. When I used Windows it was not uncommon to have to stop what I was doing and reboot because something got hung and there was no other way to fix it. I have never once had to reboot Ubuntu to get the system to work properly after a problem. For me Windows also ran slower in general compared to Ubuntu. So in my opinion the initial investment in time is well worth it.

ButtonMasher
October 13th, 2006, 01:24 PM
Of course we value our time. That seems like a silly question. A lot of people do give up on Linux because they think that having something work out of the box will save them time. That's not necessarily true. Once they get their first virus or spyware attack they see things differently. Countless hours are wasted every year trying to rescue Windows PCs from malware. Not to mention the crashes, freezes, BSODs, and other problems that come from a Windows PC destabilizing over time. I'd rather spend a lot of time configuring a system to get it work the way I want it, knowing that down the road it's going to be stable and secure, than having something work immediately, and dreading what will happen months from now when I have to get something done.

matthew
October 13th, 2006, 01:38 PM
I took the time I saved from running virus scans, defragging hard drives, configuring and maintaining a firewall and trying to keep ahead of spy/adware and applied those time savings to learning linux. **

Now, after 18 months I'm so far ahead on my time savings that I've applied the time I have saved to learning other things, being more efficient at doing my work, playing more with my kids, and doing more of the things I love.

There is definitely a learning curve at the beginning, but in the long term it is very well worth it. I value my time so much I'm willing to spend some of it as an investment to save more later.

**notice I never mentioned rebooting, reinstalling due to system compromise or severe slowdown, etc. I'm just talking about the time I saved from switching from a very well-administered and healthy Windows system.

tenn
October 13th, 2006, 01:46 PM
I own versions of Windows and I recently got XP home edition with the laptop I purchased I don't have a lot of time that's why I use Ubuntu it just works it does not take a long time to learn or set things up there maybe the odd device etc that some may have trouble with but this also can happen in Window.
I have Ubuntu running on 4 computers 3 PC's and a laptop and have no problems at all I don't have to pay for 4 versions of Window at $200 each I don't have worms,virus,Trojans...
its almost perfect.
I am confused that some people think I will buy a OS that has a huge amount of bugs, there is a lot of security issues that still are a problem, I will need to than buy third party apps
pay extra for MS office and than after six months ask why does my computer run so slow.

cunawarit
October 13th, 2006, 02:04 PM
I was thinking about that last night, Iím using Debian Etch now.

I managed to get Debian Sarge setup exactly as I wanted it to without much problems. The only issue I had is that it didnít auto-detect my graphics chip and that I had to edit the X setting manually to get it to run a 75Hz.

I tried to upgrade to Etch with APT and it went horribly wrong. Then I tried the install CD and it went fairly smoothly, I still needed to edit the X settings manually to get it to run at 75Hz, but Etch detected my graphics card.

Now to the issue, I like Youtube, and I need the Flash plugin to view the videos. In Sarge I installed it and it worked straight off like a dream. In Etch it wonít play any sound, Iíve read a couple of pages on this and there is different advice around.

My thought revolved around what it would be like to use Linux (in general, pick a distro) for work instead of Windows. And it wouldnít be that easy without some external help.

Some things that are obvious (to me) in Windows seem hard in Linux, like sounds, Iíve worked out my issue stems from kernel 2.6 using ALSA as opposed to OSS which is used by Kernel 2.4. I may be WAY wrong! I am very new to Linux... I ran into problems when upgrading via APT because the upgrade didnít quite get the Xfree86 to Xorg migration of settings and whatnot right, I tried to fix it by hand but gave up and went for the install CD.

OK, I freely admit that a lot of the issue is that I am a Windows power-user but not a Linux power-user. This will come with time and perseverance. But right now, if I were forced to choose as an OS to use for a desktop at work, Iíd have to go with Windows XP. I know I am not going to waste time figuring out how to get things working in XP, figuring Debian out at home is fun, but I couldnít possibly excuse the hit in productivity Iíd take if I switched to Debian at work 100% with no support from a Linux guru... I have fun at home with it, and it is nice figuring things out, but Iím not ready for a switch when my livelihood depends on it.

If I worked in a company where I could get Linux support easily, then yeah! Iíd give it a go. But for now Linux remains a hobby, and Windows is for work.

PS: I haven't bought a single app for Windows at home. Antivirus I use Clamwin, for development Visual Studio 2005 Express, for DB mySQL and MS SQL Server Express, for graphics GIMP, OppenOffice instead of MS Office, etc, etc, etc... The whole idea that if you choose Windows you need to buy applications is a fallacy.

tenn
October 13th, 2006, 02:11 PM
The general user does have to buy apps how many people out there say I will buy Windows XP and than run Clamwin.

cunawarit
October 13th, 2006, 02:18 PM
The general user does have to buy apps how many people out there say I will buy Windows XP and than run Clamwin.

I think its more a case of the average user being willingly conned into buying software. At least I converted my GF to free apps, she runs Clamwin now.

BLTicklemonster
October 13th, 2006, 02:22 PM
As I have stated before, the normal Windows user took more time to "learn" windows than it will take to install and configure Ubuntu, yet because they already "know" windows, they think Ubuntu ought to "be like" windows; install OS, click a few downloads, or drop in a few cds and click a few things, and they are done. When they find that it's not, and they have to (OMFG) actually learn something new, some wimp out, some half heartedly try, some stick with it until they succeed.

So is Ubuntu free, or do you have to earn it? Well, let's look at it from the "earn" it point of view shall we?

How much does Windows cost you? How much of your valuable time does it take you to:
set up and tamper with or disable your firewall
install spyware blockers
install antivirus
install spyware removers
install malware blockers
install malware removers
activate windows
contact support to prove to them that you are indeed the licensed owner of windows on your machine
oops, kids went to a game cheat site, now you have to install cwshredder and hijackthis.
oops, its one of the new ones, now you have to install registry hack software that envolves booting to safe mode, deleting files from the command line, etc.
Dang, didn't work, start at top of list, and remember, microsoft is going to think you're up to something because you're explaining to them that you are the legitimate owner of an os that is being installed on a machine for the second time in a month!!!
YOUR COMPUTER HAS THEIR SOFTWARE ON IT!!! YOU DON'T OWN IT, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO USE IT, AND HAVE TO PAY THEM MONEY FOR THE RIGHT TO USE IT, BUT YOU DO NOT OWN IT!

Do you really want to have someone elses stuff on your computer, or would you rather have stuff that YOU OWN, that BELONGS TO YOU, that you can do anything you want with?

Yeah, I'd pay myself my current wages to learn to use MY OWN OS THAT I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT WITH in my own time, wouldn't you?





(good, send me the check. ha ha ha got ya)

*edit:

Oh, and I never have problems with windows. Used correctly and responsibly, it is the best operating system around. But I fix computers for people in my spare time, so I see all the cons of having windows on a computer. Yet the money comes in, so I don't complain. And yes, I use Ubuntu and am at the point now where I am seriously considering making the total move; wipe out the windows partition and only use xp in vmware when needed. Hey, I want my stuff on my computer, not someone else's stuff on my computer...)

cunawarit
October 13th, 2006, 02:40 PM
YOUR COMPUTER HAS THEIR SOFTWARE ON IT!!! YOU DON'T OWN IT, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO USE IT, AND HAVE TO PAY THEM MONEY FOR THE RIGHT TO USE IT, BUT YOU DO NOT OWN IT!

I donít own my work computer, nor do I own the software I write for work. Personally it doesnít bother me what software the company I work for decides to use.

I know what you are saying, and I am a believer in open source. But in the real world there are more factors to consider and both commercial and open source software can be valid solutions.

Lord Illidan
October 13th, 2006, 02:45 PM
At first I wasted a ton of time configuring things how I wanted and messing things up. But then that's it.

Buffalo Soldier
October 13th, 2006, 03:13 PM
Time spent on learning new things is never considered a waste.

Plus any time spent on learning tools that empowers you and gives you freedom is very worthwhile.

Furthermore it also gives you another perspective on computing. Any ability to see from an alternative perspective is a skill worth acquiring.

jonrkc
October 13th, 2006, 03:16 PM
I've used Linux exclusively since I reached my final-straw stage with MS Windows (and Microsoft) in January 2003, when I attempted to upgrade to XP using a $100 package I bought at an office-supply store, only to find out that the "OEM" Windows 98 on my existing machine (which I had PAID already to use) was not sufficient and I needed a fully-independent original copy of Windows to upgrade from. Nowhere on the XP package did I see this mentioned. I had just lost $100 to Microsoft, since you can't return opened software for a refund.

At that point I bought another, used, computer and installed Mandrake 8.0 and was off on my head-banging, loudly-cursing adventures with Linux.

I am retired. I do not see how anybody with a full-time job can possibly learn to use Linux at home.

But I will never ever voluntarily use any Microsoft product again, that I swore, and that I swear. I will toss my computer in the dumpster first. I use Linux for ethical and moral reasons, not for convenience.

When Linux (now using Ubuntu, by the way) works, it's great. The appearance on the screen is infinitely better than Windows ever thought to be. And I *own* my software. I can hardly imagine now that I was ever content to lease software. But most consumers probably don't even know they don't own their Windows software.

The advantages of Linux so far outweigh the perils and drawbacks to using MS Windows that for me there's simply no comparison; Linux wins hands-down, with all its difficulties for the average user.

Yes, I value my time, and I resent having to spend hours finding solutions to problems that developers should never have let happen in the first place. But I will stick with it.

I do feel very sympathetic toward those with limited time to spend on getting things running. I hope this will change some day. Until then, Linux really doesn't have a chance against MS Windows--and that's worse than a great shame, it's deplorable.

BLTicklemonster
October 13th, 2006, 03:17 PM
I donít own my work computer, nor do I own the software I write for work. Personally it doesnít bother me what software the company I work for decides to use.

I know what you are saying, and I am a believer in open source. But in the real world there are more factors to consider and both commercial and open source software can be valid solutions.

:) work machines don't count, I meant "on my own time" :)

But I know what you're saying, good point in that aspect.

cunawarit
October 13th, 2006, 03:21 PM
:) work machines don't count, I meant "on my own time" :)

That's entirely different then :) I have three PCs at home, two with Linux and one with Windows... I like having Windows at home, but I am not paying for more than one license. I'm not made out of money, nor do I need Windows in more than one machine.

On my own time I use Linux almost exclusively.

jonrkc
October 13th, 2006, 03:29 PM
I should add that I keep my ancient (by computer-land standards) Win98 machine, now held together by duct tape, just in case I have an emergency that requires me to use MS Windows (as opposed to using it voluntarily). Such a thing happened when I wiped out the OS on my first MP3 player by replacing the vfat file system with ext3. (Don't do it!) I had to go get the firmware, which NATURALLY was Windows-only (grrr) and reinstall it using the old 98 machine. To my relief and great surprise, it worked. Now I'm very careful to avoid the system files on the MP3 player, which are exposed and vulnerable--a stupidity in my opinion; however, the player is great and now I have a second, larger-capacity one...which I haven't destroyed yet.

The_Apprentice
October 13th, 2006, 03:35 PM
I also read the woes of many poeple, but have to say that I had the base Ubuntu up and running at the speed of a speedy CD-ROM on a speedy machine :)

I set up my TV card in about 10 mins + about 45 minutes searching for who to do it.

I used LAMPP to set up a PKP-Nuke website on the box, again in about 1 hour including investigations.

My laser printer is installed and working, that took 1 to 2 hours of mucking around.

I have an NXServer installed, so I can have remote desktop in a puTTY tunnel.
Infact the thing that took the longest was getting the puTTY tunnel working when we only allow port 80 and 443 traffic through the firewall at work.

These forums have been invaluable, along with all the people that have taken the time to answer my questions.
Google is great, and often finds things on ubuntuforums that the ubuntuforum search engine does not find.

I have the advantage that I started my days in DOS and have worked in IT for around 16 years. I understand the concepts, and can apply them to Linux.
I have always wanted to try and apply myself to learning Linux and Ubuntu is the first distor that has kept me at it.

Anyways, to answer the question.
I have very little time what with work and my 19 month old daughter, my gaming clan mates, my biker mates, etc, etc.
I do value my time, but I also value what I do with my time.

To me learning a new Operating System, solving the problems, and making it do what I want it to do is a very valid use of my time.
Infact my install replaces my Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 machine, hosting a website and Exchange 2000 Webmail, etc, which I had running at home.

I guess it is what you are trying to do.
If you want to run Windows games, and Microsoft Office (as many people seem to want to be able to do) then stick with Windows. IMHO.

If you want a free OS with free software that does what it says on the tin, then stop whinging and either put the effort in or go and slob on the sofa.

Edit:
Oh, and I do have a Windows XP 64 machine for playing games and using stuff that only runs on Windows.

DoctorMO
October 13th, 2006, 03:44 PM
If you take the time to learn this, configure that, ask questions to get basic functions working and then decide which applications you want to use...well for 200 dollars you can just get a Windows system with all of that taken care of.

this isn't true, $200 will buy you a licence to use an incomplete, buggy api. nothing about that sounds very nice.

With linux I can just install it without worry or bother and have everything work.

cunawarit
October 13th, 2006, 05:11 PM
this isn't true, $200 will buy you a licence to use an incomplete, buggy api. nothing about that sounds very nice.

With linux I can just install it without worry or bother and have everything work.

I think that is a exaggeration; Windows is not incomplete, or buggy. No more than any other OS. It does have security issues though.

There are certain things that only work in Windows, as far as I know I canít connect my Nokia phone to Linux. Nokia hasnít done the software for this. If I want to sync my appointments between my computer and phone I need Windows.

dddouglas
October 13th, 2006, 05:27 PM
I have spent a lot of time “maintaining” my Windows boxes with spy ware removal and virus definition updates (paid for every year or so) etc. Every time I added an application I spent time removing the “free offers” that came with it. If they weren’t removed they had a tendency to bog everything down. I use to spend a lot of time cleaning up the old HDD. I use to spend a lot of time trying an app. that did not fit my needs (and I paid for) and then found I needed to get the deluxe version of (pay more for). I gave up spending time on Windows forums that the only real fixes involve paying. So short answer, yes I value my time. Just my 2 cents worth, the UBUNTU was free.

aysiu
October 13th, 2006, 05:38 PM
I think a better question is "Does anyone value her time?"

Most people are inefficient, and most people spend at least a chunk of their time not doing anything productive (sitting around watching TV, napping, eating too much, etc.).

At least when you invest time in learning Ubuntu, you're actually learning something. It's like saying someone's not valuing her time because she wants to learn a foreign language.

In my experience, the only Windows users who value their time are power users. Most Windows users I know (co-workers, family) do not value their time on their computers because they don't use keyboard shortcuts or actually learn how to do things quickly.

I spend the same time at work as my co-workers do, but I get my computer tasks accomplished a lot faster than they do because I'm willing to learn how to do that. For example, while someone else might think it's a great idea to scan through an Excel list and "eye" the list to find duplicates, I know it makes far more sense to learn how to use the EXACT function.

I see people fumbling with their mice all the time, trying to highlight 300 cells and then accidentally scrolling too far and highlighting 3000 cells instead. Then they start again. Do those people value their time?

To me, it's almost always worth your time to learn how to do something effectively if it's something you spend a lot of time doing. If I spend a lot of time on the computer (and a lot of people do for their jobs), I should learn to use the computer.

To some people, though, it's not worth the time to learn a new OS because they won't be spending a lot of time with it. Or it's not worth the time to learn a foreign language, because they won't be able to practice it. Or it's not worth the time to learn to ski, because they can't afford a lift ticket.

Yes, anyone who is willing to install and configure a new operating system probably has to view it at least somewhat as a hobby. But if someone installed and configured Ubuntu for you, and you're just using it, I don't see how your time has any less value than someone's who had Windows installed and configured for her.

P.S. I spent a lot of time in Windows trying to get rid of spyware/adware. I also spent a lot of time scouring the internet trying to find programs to do what I wanted to do.

In Ubuntu, I just install stuff from the package manager. Everything is free and all search results are software and get updated automatically every six months. No spyware or adware.

And if I work longer hours, I don't earn the money to buy a Mac--I'm exempt. No matter how many hours I work, I get paid the same. But if I work hours learning Ubuntu, I get a free operating system.

PriceChild
October 13th, 2006, 05:49 PM
well for 200 dollars you can just get a Windows system with all of that taken care of.I think you forget how long you have been using a windows system and are used to it. Remember how bare a standard windows is? No dvds, office protection etc.

Personally, i spend about an hour total installing an ubuntu system... that includes the main install, and all the little tweaks i like plus software installs such as firestarter - all done easily using a single list of packages.

I don't count time messed with Beryl as that's just for fun :)

BLTicklemonster
October 13th, 2006, 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by ruleboy:
well for 200 dollars you can just get a Windows system with all of that taken care of.

Ah heck I'll get on the bandwagon here:

200 bucks for a machine with a windows version you will need to upgrage some time for a hundred bucks.

Or 200 bucks for a better machine (invest what would have been spent on software on a better mobo or cpu) and put ubuntu on it.

:)

mahy
October 13th, 2006, 06:37 PM
If you take the time to learn this, configure that, ask questions to get basic functions working and then decide which applications you want to use...well for 200 dollars you can just get a Windows system with all of that taken care of.

Try to remember your first moments using windows. For me, it was win95. I was like: WTH is this?! How do i switch it off? Not by clicking Start button! (and so on) It wasn't at all easy to get it do what i wanted to. Long-time Linux and Mac users who switch to Windows experience similar bewilderment. So try to be fair to Ubuntu, learn to use it and you'll see.

Besides, you must be joking about "getting basic functions working". What exactly doesn't work on your machine? All the proprietary stuff can be easily installed using Automatix. And if you've got some weirdo hw (such as an USB modem), chances are you're out of luck, but that's not linux's fault at all.

justin whitaker
October 13th, 2006, 07:45 PM
Hmmm....sure, I value my time. My time is expensive. Just ask me to do something for you. ;)

I'm uncertain how to approach this question, since I dual boot. I'm a gamer, so I still need a windows partition around....but I can't say for how much longer that is going to be.

For example, yesterday, I ran AVG. Found a trojan attached itself to WINDOWS.EXE. AVG could not handle it. Spent some time trying to fix it, instead of gaming, writing, or doing any of the productive things I usually do.

Eventually, I just said, "Self, you have a new harddrive on order. How about you just wipe that puppy, and put 6.06.1 on it?"

Twenty minutes later, I have a really nice desktop, I am online, and I have automatix2 running. Paid some bills, answered some emails. Got productive.

Time saved is also time well spent, I think. :-D

Narzuhl
October 13th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Ok so I think I will put my .02 into here. (talking strictly GUI not Text setup or use)
I value my time, and with my Windows box gone i have more time to do the things i need to do on my PC.
Some one mentioned Ubuntu is not as out of the box ready as Windows.....Lets See....
I have used Linux and BSD off and off for several years, both have improved a lot.
Why did I switch at home to Ubuntu? To be honest it was the only OS that would boot off a Toshiba 3440 I had. This Laptop does not have a CD Tom so a USD (way to slow) or PCMCIA cdrom had to be used. XP would not boot off of this without a floppy, BSD did not even see the CD rom once it booted (odd), and several others would not boot. So I found Ubuntu, worked fine.
Look at some of the Distro out there. Some totally cater to the windows user, some do not.
I work in a 90% MS environment, and I am the SE at the company. Server wise I have no problem with Windows 2003, we install them and never touch them, keep the AV up to date and have had 3 issues in the last 2 years and one was hardware.

For desktops XP is great, I really believe MS home type products (yes XP Pro fits there) are intended for Lazy people. With Windows Vista around the corner I decided to look else where for an OS. I feel out of touch with working on my PC.

Did any of you ever use 95/98 or 2000. At least these OSís still required some knowledge of what is happening. How many did use these at home and had a book on 95/98Ö..I am sure several.
Ubuntu is ready to go out of the box I think, unlike Windows.
Let do a quick test.
Video Ubuntu could be ready but I updated. Windows XP SP2, No choice had to update.
Sound Ubuntu, work out of the box. Windows XP SP2Ö.where is that driver.
LAN  Ubuntu, worked out of the box. Windows XP SP2Ö..where is that driver (for most).
WAN Ubuntu, supported card and worked. Windows XP SP2 same card no go need a driver.
Printer HP1300 supported on both and as easy to setup on both.
Software? Ubuntu Ready. Windows, i have to get what installed?

So saying Windows is ready out of the box is not entirely true. Vista Beta was not any better, and would not run on my old Dell 5000e, either would XP nicely.

Ubuntu can be ready out of the box just as much as any Windows OS and even then more so.
People have just been brainwashed the Microsoft is the way to go.
One the biggest problem is people are afraid of change. People still have it in their head that Linux is hard to use and will not work for what they use (Email, Internet and Word?)
This is not true, I have actually found it easier to use.
Windows is hard to use if you actually do anything other than surf the internet. Change the INI file, remove that Spyware, delete that virus from the Registry, for some people this is hard.


Well that is my .02

Bezmotivnik
October 13th, 2006, 08:25 PM
Yes, I think the question is slightly misstated: Lots of people here highly value their time and have busy lives. They just enjoy doinking around with computers. Time spent on abstruse Linux arcana is recreation for them.

I'm not one of these people, however.

I like Ubuntu and don't mind a little fiddling, but when I went wireless and hit that brick wall, ](*,) I just dropped Linux as a major waste of time and sanity. It's not my job to kludge inadequate software and I refuse to do it.

I'll wait until it's fixed. Every day I check in to see if 6.10 is released yet and when it is I'll reinstall the new version, set it up on a clean drive, run Automatix and give it another try. If wireless works, I'm in. If not, I'm out. Life's too short.

aysiu
October 13th, 2006, 08:35 PM
If I ever went wireless, I'd buy a System76 computer and not bother with crossing my fingers or ndiswrapper.

MasonM
October 13th, 2006, 08:37 PM
Time spent learning is never wasted. Time spent defragging a harddrive, cleaning out malware, and rebooting the computer is all time wasted.

I've been using Linux for over 10 years. I'm not bragging when I say that I can install and configure a Linux distro in far less time than I can install Windows, configure options, hunt for, download, and install drivers, install an AV app, and install multiple antispyware apps.

Most of the people who complain that Linux is too hard and go back to Windows have probably never actually had to install a Windows system from scratch. They are also coming into something new without any desire to actually learn something new which is an almost sure path to failure from the start.

meng
October 13th, 2006, 08:44 PM
The original question is a good one, although pejoratively phrased. In many ways this is the "hidden cost" of using Linux, but as others have stated here, many of us consider time spent tweaking Linux to be time well spent. However, we should bear in mind that when advocating Linux to others (e.g., our friends), not everyone wants to spend this time like we do.

My analogy, which you're free to ridicule, is this: golf is a very time-consuming hobby, and personally I don't care for it, but golfers actually like spending time playing it.

Bezmotivnik
October 13th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Time spent learning is never wasted.
That high-sounding sentiment really needs to be challenged: In my lifetime, MOST of the time I've spent learning was wasted, by almost any objective standard of value.

ALMOST ALL of the computer stuff I've learned over the past twenty-five is utterly wasted now. It becomes obsolete and irrelevant, as dead as Julius Caesar.

That's the whole point to short learning curves. That's why shortening learning curves as much as humanly possible should be the #1 goal for any software developer and documentation writer.

aysiu
October 13th, 2006, 09:04 PM
I view it as similar to any alternative lifestyle.

For example, my wife and I are considering ditching our car next year (she needs it this year for school). We're already considering how we're going to have to restructure our weekly activities--get groceries more frequently but in smaller quantities, allow more time to get places, bring a book to read while waiting for the bus, etc.

In the end, though, it would:

1. Save us lots of money (car insurance, fees, parking, tickets, repairs, gas)

and

2. Pollute less (yes, the buses pollute, too, but they'll run regardless of whether we are on them or not--the car won't)

I'm not vegan, but I know vegans have to "waste" a lot more time doing research and more money sometimes buying special ingredients in order to maintain their lifestyles.

Running a Linux desktop or laptop is a lot like being vegan or carless (well, if you come from a car culture, which my wife and I do). You're embracing an alternative lifestyle to accomplish the same tasks (travel, nourishment, computing), and that takes a little research, a little setting up, a little adjustment.

Now that I'm all set up, though, it doesn't take me any longer to use Firefox than it takes my wife on her Mac. It doesn't take me any longer to edit web pages than it takes my wife on her Mac. It's the transition that takes time, not the actual use.

beercz
October 13th, 2006, 09:25 PM
My boss values my time :-?

MasonM
October 13th, 2006, 10:04 PM
That high-sounding sentiment really needs to be challenged: In my lifetime, MOST of the time I've spent learning was wasted, by almost any objective standard of value.

ALMOST ALL of the computer stuff I've learned over the past twenty-five is utterly wasted now. It becomes obsolete and irrelevant, as dead as Julius Caesar.



Sad that you think that way. If you hadn't taken the time to learn to read and write you wouldn't be posting here now. If you hadn't taken the time to learn how to use a computer you wouldn't be posting here now.

What you have learned over time has allowed you the ability to learn even more. I'd say that a pretty good objective value. Even if what you learn becomes obsolete having learned it allows you to learn new things that are related if different. How many people could earn a living if they hadn't spent time learning first?

I agree that software should be as intuitive as possible, but if even the most well planned application is presented to a person who doesn't even know how to use a mouse it's not going to work for them.

The time I have spent learning has ultimately saved me time in the long run as I can apply that knowledge to other areas. I'd call that a pretty objective value.

meng
October 13th, 2006, 10:08 PM
I also disagree that old computer knowledge is useless. I still rely on principles I learnt during the days I used DOS and Pascal. And just one data-loss catastrophe, no matter how long ago, is enough to make a lifetime habiting of backing up regularly. Times have changes, but many things remain the same!

cogsprocket
October 13th, 2006, 10:09 PM
I'm not going to give a huge load of bias to anything here. I'm a .NET developer in an all Windows shop and I get a lot of flack for being a Linux user (even though, technically, that's why they hired me). I had a lot of experience with Linux server administration and developing applications for that platform. Prior to working for the company I do now I had little Windows development experience and absolutely no experience with .NET. The guy who went on with me about how Java developers can't take their experience with Java and become proficient C# developers can eat a line of snot a mile long.

Why do I think the arguments on the part of the Windows advocates are wrong? First off, as smooth as my experience has been with my XP machines (two side by side at work) when it comes to some things, well, it's just a pain in the neck. I'm not going to go on about firewalls, viruses and spyware. If you're conscientious, behind NAT and practicing a solid security policy (there is no "secure operating system" security is a discipline) you're not going to wind up in the horror story so many blinder wearing Mac and Linux zealots go on about. No offense intended to other advocates, I hope you understand where I'm coming from with that statement. While productivity increases as far as server administration is concerned, developing for the web in Visual Studio.NET is an absolute horror. I cannot tell you how many countless hours I have spent with VS telling me .NET 1.1 is not installed or running or that I need UNC share or "Do I want to try to connect with FrontPage extensions?" NO! I don't!

On the other hand I did some work in PHP this week on the very same server and it went very quickly thanks to the mapped network drive I have to our web root. This is not to the credit of Windows, however, simply the fact that I need very little to get PHP up and running.

Alternatively, in Linux while my productivity is increased as far as development goes I do find myself spending an awful lot of time tweaking and adding new programs. I do a lot of troubleshooting on my desktop and notebook. A lot of customizing my desktop, trying new programs, looking for solutions. I spend an enormous amount of time working with config files on my server. Configuring iptables. Managing users. Adding and removing services. All these things are very time consuming and most of them are not incredibly fun, however, these are the sort of administrative tasks that I would have to do on any platform and none of them really have all the features I'd like to see.

What really gets my goat, however, is that people use the "free" argument for and against Linux. "Hey my operating system didn't cost me a dime and I was able to get a laptop/desktop for much cheaper" or "Look what you have to put up with for free software" using the "free" argument is penny-ante OS debate material. In my opinion, the fact that Linux is free is simply a nice bonus. You see, I'd pay the same for a pre-built system at the usual outlets because I can expect to see Windows. I've got a copy of XP Home Upgrade that has found itself on no less than 5 seperate machines that had no operating system on them at all and every single one activated as though the copy I had were being installed for the first time. Is that an argument for Windows? Not really, but it does say something for the amount of leniency that is possible from a proprietary system. I'm not one to tout Linux as the be-all end-all and I won't also claim Microsoft to be the great corporpate monopoly hell-bent on world domination. I'm not so jaded as to believe that Bill Gates is, in fact Satan.

But I will say this. I enjoy my time in Linux systems quite a bit more because I'm not Joe PC-User. I'm a geek and I enjoy the challenge. I love the shell, I am pleased when I see what can happen when fellow geeks get together and build something that has the capacity to function at a high level of efficiency with the intent to share what they've done. This is what I get from Linux. This is what I take away. Not that I have saved a lot of time or money, neither solution really does that much for me. What I take away is the simple satisfaction of being a part of a common interest community, being a contributor and being able to incorporate that into what I do on a day to day basis. Yes sir, I value my time. I don't waste time worrying about simple things like installation times, defragging or firewalls. Time devoted to that was never mine to begin with because despite the operating system, administrative tasks come with computer ownership. The time I do worry about doesn't happen here. It happens when I step away from this keyboard.

beercz
October 13th, 2006, 10:12 PM
I also disagree that old computer knowledge is useless. I still rely on principles I learnt during the days I used DOS and Pascal. And just one data-loss catastrophe, no matter how long ago, is enough to make a lifetime habiting of backing up regularly. Times have changes, but many things remain the same!
meng you are so right!!! I remember those DOS/Pascal days - and I backup daily - always have done.
One difference between us though is that I have managed so far to avoid a catastrophe, thank goodness.

meng
October 13th, 2006, 10:14 PM
meng you are so right!!! I remember those DOS/Pascal days - and I backup daily - always have done.
One difference between us though is that I have managed so far to avoid a catastrophe, thank goodness.
I didn't lose much. I consider myself fortunate.

beercz
October 13th, 2006, 10:16 PM
I didn't lose much. I consider myself fortunate.

A valuable lesson. Take note everyone!

The_Apprentice
October 13th, 2006, 10:22 PM
But I will say this. I enjoy my time in Linux systems quite a bit more because I'm not Joe PC-User. I'm a geek and I enjoy the challenge. I love the shell, I am pleased when I see what can happen when fellow geeks get together and build something that has the capacity to function at a high level of efficiency with the intent to share what they've done. This is what I get from Linux. This is what I take away. Not that I have saved a lot of time or money, neither solution really does that much for me. What I take away is the simple satisfaction of being a part of a common interest community, being a contributor and being able to incorporate that into what I do on a day to day basis. Yes sir, I value my time. I don't waste time worrying about simple things like installation times, defragging or firewalls. Time devoted to that was never mine to begin with because despite the operating system, administrative tasks come with computer ownership. The time I do worry about doesn't happen here. It happens when I step away from this keyboard.


That, I believe, is what it is all about. Well said that man.





PS. That is not to say that Linux is only for geeks.

Opsidian
October 14th, 2006, 12:04 AM
i fnd I spend more time helping other people with their windows machines then I did learning the basics of Linux. Plus it was more cost efficient for me to get familiar with Linux on a more regular basis then how I used to only do it as a hobby. Doing volunteer work for a non profit organization installing Ubuntu on 15 machines for free is alot cheaper then installing XP and MS Office on those 15.
As for time saving, popped my Belkin wireless card in the laptop after a fresh install and it was plug and surf. Popped it in the Windows laptop and spent about 15 minutes letting the install cd do whatever it was doing.

ago
October 14th, 2006, 12:16 AM
Sure I value my time, that is exactly why I stay well away of Windows...

You say with $200 everything is taking care of?

In your dreams...

You forgot that you need to fetch all the drivers required because windows autodetection is pityful, reboot, install all additional software from various vendors/websites, reboot, install an antivirus, reboot, update the anivirus, install the firewall, reboot, configure the firewall, defragment the hard disk, uninstall software that did not uninstall properly, clean self installed programs from startup, clean the registry, run anti spyware, run periodic CD AV scan, manually update individual apps (since the autoup-dater only takes cares of the OS), take ghost images because all else may fail and windows restore tool is useless, check the patches to avoid WGA & co... And you have to repeat these operations again and again and again... On each windows machine...

I am far more efficient in Linux than I ever have been in Windows and I do not have to worry about the above anymore, talk to me about time...

aysiu
October 14th, 2006, 12:23 AM
Can someone explain what these $200 computers are? Are those US dollars? I haven't found any computers for $200. I'm a real cheapie--the last two computers I bought were eMachines and neither the one I bought two years ago or the one I bought five years ago was only $200.

Rather than you needing to buy a new computer, Ubuntu gives you the opportunity to breathe life into an old one. Pop Xubuntu... or Ubuntu with Fluxbox or IceWM, and it'll fly again for free!

meng
October 14th, 2006, 12:36 AM
As I've said before, and will say again, if you only have one reason for switching to Linux, you probably won't succeed in migrating (from Windows). So if your only reason for migrating is to save money, you'll soon come up against frustrations like having to install mediac codecs, websites that require Flash 8/9, wireless card drivers, and so on. Soon enough you're scurrying back to Windows, but forever more with bitter memories of Linux.

Now if you're like me and you want to switch because it's free and open-source and has geek value and more customizable and non-conformist (to an extent) and stable and secure and has a great user community and is fun to learn ...

Well, maybe you can argue with my enumeration, but if you have multiple reasons, you experience fun challenges rather than frustrations, and you persist and then you, er, win!

So to reduce the debate to "it's free but it's time-consuming" completely misses the point of using Linux in the first place. Besides, you can pay for Linux distros that take a lot of hassle out of setting up hardware and codecs.

Yossarian
October 14th, 2006, 04:55 AM
Orignally posted by aysiu
Can someone explain what these $200 computers are? Are those US dollars? I haven't found any computers for $200. I'm a real cheapie--the last two computers I bought were eMachines and neither the one I bought two years ago or the one I bought five years ago was only $200.

Rather than you needing to buy a new computer, Ubuntu gives you the opportunity to breathe life into an old one. Pop Xubuntu... or Ubuntu with Fluxbox or IceWM, and it'll fly again for free!


I've seen pcs in Ottawa in small business stores for like 250 CDN, which is maybe 200 in yank dollars. I could express it as a Fourier series, but I have lost all presence of mind when it comes to basic maths. And there my boots were, gone! Call it the beer effect.

Anyways, they're basically used P4 machines. Maybe 256 ram.


Originally posted by meng
As I've said before, and will say again, if you only have one reason for switching to Linux, you probably won't succeed in migrating (from Windows). So if your only reason for migrating is to save money, you'll soon come up against frustrations like having to install mediac codecs, websites that require Flash 8/9, wireless card drivers, and so on. Soon enough you're scurrying back to Windows, but forever more with bitter memories of Linux.

Now if you're like me and you want to switch because it's free and open-source and has geek value and more customizable and non-conformist (to an extent) and stable and secure and has a great user community and is fun to learn ...

Well, maybe you can argue with my enumeration, but if you have multiple reasons, you experience fun challenges rather than frustrations, and you persist and then you, er, win!

So to reduce the debate to "it's free but it's time-consuming" completely misses the point of using Linux in the first place. Besides, you can pay for Linux distros that take a lot of hassle out of setting up hardware and codecs.

I switched for the same reason(s).

I love to screw with my stuff alot. Hmm, my motorcycle is working just fine? Maybe I'll try to adjust the banjo tighteners after misreading the manual. I'm sure this will not end up costing me 10 dollars!

I use Ubuntu on a pc that wheezes on XP. Didn't take too much time. Even plain gnome ubuntu runs really good.

IYY
October 14th, 2006, 05:07 AM
I value my time very much. This is why I don't want to waste it finding cracks for MS Office, downloading codecs from shady sites, running regular virus and spyware scans, having to hack my system using shady tools just to change the theme, having to find every tiny program manually (without Synaptic), install it at the risk of getting infected with some nasty virus, and it'd usually just be an ``evaluation'' version anyway.

The Ubuntu installation was far easier and faster than the XP installation. Finding new software is easy, fast and secure. I can write scripts to automate many boring and time consuming tasks.

And on top of that, whenever I use GNU/Linux I actually learn things and become better and more efficient every day. In Windows, I reached a plateau after a few months.

I value my time very much.

Bezmotivnik
October 14th, 2006, 05:39 AM
Sad that you think that way. If you hadn't taken the time to learn to read and write you wouldn't be posting here now. If you hadn't taken the time to learn how to use a computer you wouldn't be posting here now.
Listen, son, don't patronize me; you don't have the rank.

That's also an invalid point. I never said that ALL learning was wasted.


What you have learned over time has allowed you the ability to learn even more. I'd say that a pretty good objective value.
That's simply wrong. Some helped over the long haul, but most didn't. Most learning (computer and otherwise) was a dead end -- ultimately wasted time that could have been spent more productively doing almost anything else. I don't know an honest adult who doesn't look back on their formal and informal education and bemoan the irrelevancy and pointlessness of most of it and the sheer, profligate waste of youth and energy it absorbed.

At my age, I would love to unlearn most of the garbage crammed into my head in the vain hope of freeing up some organic RAM.

Bezmotivnik
October 14th, 2006, 05:51 AM
Can someone explain what these $200 computers are? Are those US dollars? I haven't found any computers for $200.
Check my specs link below. That was over a year ago. They're better boxes now, too, but slightly more expensive.

BLTicklemonster
October 14th, 2006, 05:56 AM
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.

Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for life.

... then there's the ones who immediately get the hook caught in their eye...

Bezmotivnik
October 14th, 2006, 06:52 AM
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.

Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself for life.

... then there's the ones who immediately get the hook caught in their eye...
And the ones who immediately get the hook caught in my eye. :mad:

aysiu
October 14th, 2006, 07:20 AM
Check my specs link below. That was over a year ago. They're better boxes now, too, but slightly more expensive.
So Fry's has $99 computers? Never knew that.

Bezmotivnik
October 14th, 2006, 08:28 AM
So Fry's has $99 computers? Never knew that.The typical "sale" price is $169, and that's with everything but the monitor. Their "list" price is $269, but it's $169 about half the time. Occasionally they go nuts and it's $99.99 for an in-store, one-day deal when they first get in a huge shipment, and Fry's gets truckloads of single items.

This is the current version (http://shop4.outpost.com/product/4714029?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG). It's also factory loaded with Linspire.

Nothin' fancy, but it's a perfectly good little box when you add some more memory. I tarted mine up a bit more (as you can see) from long rebate deals, but all it really needed was some more RAM. Unfortunately, RAM is crazy high at the moment, but it will go back down.

argie
October 14th, 2006, 09:05 AM
Reading through some of the "I tried Ububtu and now its back to Windows" threads I can help but wonder if Ubuntu advocates value their time in the common "Ubuntu is free" argument?

If you take the time to learn this, configure that, ask questions to get basic functions working and then decide which applications you want to use...well for 200 dollars you can just get a Windows system with all of that taken care of.

I understand those who see fixing these problems and advocating Ububtu as a "hobbie", or in my case just an educational experience for the resume, but do others value their time at all?

If I had worked for the same amount of time as I spent getting Ubuntu working I would have earned enough money to buy a whole new computer, like a Mac mini or entry level iMac (or another Windows computer).
I guess I was lucky. 20 minutes to complete install, < 25 to internet. Windows was a killer, and besides $200 is enough to buy a new computer :D

If I could get a job for $10 a minute, I'd be a rich man now. I swear it.

mdsmedia
October 14th, 2006, 09:26 AM
Listen, son, don't patronize me; you don't have the rank.

That's also an invalid point. I never said that ALL learning was wasted.


That's simply wrong. Some helped over the long haul, but most didn't. Most learning (computer and otherwise) was a dead end -- ultimately wasted time that could have been spent more productively doing almost anything else. I don't know an honest adult who doesn't look back on their formal and informal education and bemoan the irrelevancy and pointlessness of most of it and the sheer, profligate waste of youth and energy it absorbed.

At my age, I would love to unlearn most of the garbage crammed into my head in the vain hope of freeing up some organic RAM.

Not wanting to patronize you, but I'm also sorry you think that way. I learned a heck of a lot at work that I wasn't taught at college, and I found some of what I learned at college to be, not incorrect, but simply not real life.

But to say that your learning years were wasted is to forget A LOT of what you did learn at school and college. I've been doing a short course recently where I learned a heck of a lot, but listening to some of the others they seemed to think the "tutor" was patronizing them. If they'd just opened their minds and listened to what he was saying they might have learned something from him too.

I'm sorry, but I think if you think all those years were a waste of time, they were wasting their time teaching you.

aysiu
October 14th, 2006, 09:30 AM
A lot of the learning that happens in life is not the learning you're "supposed" to learn.

For example, in high school, you are "supposed" to learn reading, writing, science, math, foreign languages, etc. What you actually learn is how to be or not to be the center of attention, how to keep a schedule, how to deal with different types of people, how to cope with authority figures, etc.

I don't regret any of the learning I've had to do. I've just learned different things from what I was taught.

mdsmedia
October 14th, 2006, 09:33 AM
So Fry's has $99 computers? Never knew that.Correct me if I'm wrong but the OP was talking about $200 for Windows.

slimdog360
October 14th, 2006, 10:32 AM
Indeed we do value our time, but also our money, which is why we use linux. Once one spends a few weeks learning about the new operating system it is pretty easy to modify anything.

missmoondog
October 14th, 2006, 10:48 AM
it's like this, plain and simple. the average joe blow computer user WOULD NOT be able to learn linux if they only had 1 computer at home. i say that because the first time one of the updates screwed the computer up like a couple have here a while back, that person would be toast. but. another plain and simple reson why, is the command line. no person in the world would know how to do anything with that, out of the box.

meng
October 14th, 2006, 01:31 PM
I don't regret any of the computer or non-computer learning I've gone through. Happy times!

MasonM
October 14th, 2006, 03:34 PM
Listen, son, don't patronize me; you don't have the rank.
A bit testy eh?

Firstly, I wasn't patronizing you.

Secondly, I am hardly a kid as I am in my mid 40s. I couldn't care less about your imaginary "rank".

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I see no reason to be rude just because we have a difference in perspective.



At my age, I would love to unlearn most of the garbage crammed into my head in the vain hope of freeing up some organic RAM.

I can understand that. I also learned quite a lot that isn't pertinent or particularly useful to me today. We disagree only in the opinion of whether that learning time was actually wasted.

meng
October 14th, 2006, 03:43 PM
I agree, let's keep this civil.

aysiu
October 14th, 2006, 06:14 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but the OP was talking about $200 for Windows.
I wasn't responding to the OP.

Bezmotivnik
October 14th, 2006, 10:18 PM
I also learned quite a lot that isn't pertinent or particularly useful to me today. We disagree only in the opinion of whether that learning time was actually wasted.
That would seem glaringly obvious to me, particularly when it led to nothing else of use -- a dead end, as I said. QED.

There are no doubt people here who were educated for jobs that didn't even exist by the time their training was complete, and the information they learned became obsolete and irrelevant long before they had any opportunity to use it. That happens all the time. It's happened to me. That's a total waste.

Never mind that most "learning" we are compelled to absorb in schools turns out to be factual error, pernicious nonsense or worse, manipulative lies that degrade us as humans and constrict our natural abilities against our own interests.

That's not merely a waste of time, it's victimization by a social racket.

Yes, as I said, "time spent learning" can clearly be a huge waste of time, as in the case of dead-end software or technology, and it's frequently a lot worse.

To assert that "time spent learning is never wasted" is some quasi-religious dogma; it certainly has no logical basis in fact.

gvgerman
October 14th, 2006, 10:38 PM
I realize I'm coming in late on this, but with regards to the quote in post #1 ...
well for 200 dollars you can just get a Windows system with all of that taken care of I can vouch that the MSWindows OS upgrade I did on my desktop computer had many more issues than I found installing Ubuntu. Even after getting help from MS, the new OS was never quite right and it has been an error-prone frustrating experience ever sense.

fuscia
October 14th, 2006, 10:58 PM
i got my laptop from system76, which came with dapper installed. all i had to do was create a new user account. i had to do a lot more work on my neighbor's dell, which came with XP (xtra poopy?): deleting all the promotional crap from AOL (that sh*t's worse than kudzu), etc.

Bezmotivnik
October 14th, 2006, 11:05 PM
I wasn't responding to the OP.
Actually, though, Fry's sells WinXP boxes very cheaply (about $30-$40 more) and even sells MB/CPU combos with OEM XP Home included for about that difference. I hadn't seen that angle before.

BLTicklemonster
October 15th, 2006, 04:18 AM
(that sh*t's worse than kudzu)

Ah, a fellow southerner?

jonrkc
October 15th, 2006, 04:48 AM
I think a better question is "Does anyone value her time?"

Most people are inefficient, and most people spend at least a chunk of their time not doing anything productive (sitting around watching TV, napping, eating too much, etc.). [...]

This is a remarkably cogent and pertinent post! One of my pet peeves for as long as I can recall has been the lame excuse, "I don't have time" coming from people who watch trashy TV all evening long. What they really mean is, "I prefer to watch trashy TV."

Of course, though, that still leaves the case of the thousands who'd love to have pure Linux but honestly don't have time to implement it because of family concerns, having to work two jobs to survive, etc. It's those that I feel really sorry for.

Oh, and by the way, I have tried to highlight 300 (or fewer!) cells and ended up highlighting 3000 (or more) and finding myself in the next county , so to speak, in my spreadsheet. I thought I was the only one. :)

aysiu
October 15th, 2006, 04:55 AM
People who would love to have pure Linux but don't have time to implement it should buy their next computer from a Linux dealer like System76 (they install and configure it for you).

Or if they don't have the money, contact a local LUG and have those people install it for them. Linux users tend to be very enthusiastic about helping others get up and running.

As for the highlighting thing, I use Excel at work, and here are two tips:

If you want a particularly large number of cells highlighted but not all of them, hold down the Shift key and then press Page Down until you get to roughly the cells you want. While still holding the Shift key, press the down arrow to get to the exact set of cells you want.

If you want to go all the way to the last filled cell (not highlighting all the blank ones to row 60,000), then hold down the Shift key and press Control and the down arrow. That will highlight to the last filled cell.

jonrkc
October 15th, 2006, 05:40 AM
Thanks for the Excel tip, Aysiu. I knew about the shift thing, but not about the shift+control. I use OpenOffice.org but generally the same basic keybindings seem to exist between Excel and OO.o.

Good idea about the LUG's; and I think an increasing number of companies are preinstalling Linux by request. The company I bought my last two computers from will do that. It also supplies quite a few universities--I hope that's a hopeful sign.

Of course there will still be the inevitable tweaks, major and minor, that will have to be made. But a lot of work might be saved that way.

slimdog360
October 15th, 2006, 07:37 AM
here is another excel tip, but only for excel '97. Im not to sure if it works in the recent ones.

1.Open a new workbook

2.Press F5

3.Enter X97:L97 and press Enter

4.Press Tab

5.Press Ctrl+Shift and click the Chart Wizard button on the toolbar.

and ta da instant plane sim. pretty cool, if not old.


for openoffice:
in calc
in any cell type =Game("StarWars") then press enter

there is also supposed to be a plane sim for openoffice but I could never get it to work, the supposed instructions

in calc
1.Click on sheet 3 to go to the third sheet.

2.In the range drop-down box type A2000:L2000. This will select the 2000 th row.

3.Now while pressing the key combination CTRL+ALT+P click on the background colour icon.

4.Keep CTRL+ALT+P pressed for about 45 seconds.

Gargamella
October 15th, 2006, 10:51 AM
mmm i think it is true what you're saying, but you have to believe that linux will be better and better

i have been a linux user for 2 years and it seems to me that there have been great improvements, expecially in ubuntu,that is a easy-to-use distro.

just think that microsoft put out a release every 3-4 years... ubuntu has a very active development, so i think that you have to believe in this distro.

Bobajot
October 15th, 2006, 12:59 PM
I hadn't noticed that Installing Ubuntu took much time in comparison with windows READ this http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=277432 . Sure there were a couple of issues but a lot less than installing XP pro corporate. Most new things take time even Windows games. You're perhaps asking the wrong question i.e. do computer enthusiasts value their time. Same could be asked about any other hobby.

BLTicklemonster
October 15th, 2006, 02:37 PM
If one values one's time, then investing time in linux is a wise investment. It's a long term investment, not one for short gains. Surely there is a setback in your initial investment, but the eventual benefits are worth it.

Period.

So aysiu is an excel junky, too. Cool. While others at work use access, I am an old timey hold out and stick with excel. I sat and put everything in accel once, but wasn't pleased with it, deleted it all and went back to my trusty excel with all my macros which do all the work for me. Just enter a few lines, press crtl+g and watch it copy and paste and print away.


!!! star wars!! how funny. Also, try closing the game, then try putting the lines in another cell and see what it says. Way too funny.

chaosgeisterchen
October 15th, 2006, 02:42 PM
I am a master in wasting time. Not being proud of it. But that's the way it is.

cogsprocket
October 16th, 2006, 01:48 PM
If one values one's time, then investing time in linux is a wise investment. It's a long term investment, not one for short gains. Surely there is a setback in your initial investment, but the eventual benefits are worth...


Ticklemonster, your avatars always crack me up.

ago
October 16th, 2006, 02:14 PM
If one values one's time, then investing time in linux is a wise investment. It's a long term investment, not one for short gains. Surely there is a setback in your initial investment, but the eventual benefits are worth it.
And that is true for almost any investment. You "pay" something today to get something more tomorrow. Linux is no exception.

Sushi
October 16th, 2006, 02:26 PM
If you take the time to learn this, configure that, ask questions to get basic functions working and then decide which applications you want to use...well for 200 dollars you can just get a Windows system with all of that taken care of.

Um, no you can't. Or are you saying that if I give MS 200 bucks, they will give me OS that I will NEVER have to tweak in any shape or form (for example, it will automatically change the background-image the moment I feel like changing it), and it will come bundled with the apps that most perfectly suit my needs? That I never ever have to think about what apps I would like to use, nor would I ever have to think about how to do something. And it will always and every time "just work"?

Can I get a version of Windows that does all that? No? Then what was your argument again? I do believe that you have no argument. Speaking as someone who admins Windows-machines for a living, I'd say that you are full of it.

But let's assume for a second that you are right, and this "Magic-Windows" really does exist. Then you need to ask yourself this: "Will I sacrifice my long-term security and control for short-term comfort?". Well, do you? Will you take the easy way, because the other way would be too hard? Because you refuse to learn anything new? Because you dislike change?

All the "problems" you listed boil down to the fact that there are lots of people who have learned to use Windows over the course of years. And when they try to use something that is NOT Windows, they will have problems becuse things are different when compared to Windows.

My wife has used Windows, Linux and OS X. Currently we are using OS X, because our PC is not working. And she has problems with it. Just yesterday she wanted to change the desktop-background, and she found it to be very hard and cumbersome. And she keep on having problems with the OS. She constantly compares OS X to Ubuntu, and in her book, OS X falls short. So why exactly should I buy OS X, when I can get superior alternative FOR FREE? How about Windows? She has seen what it's like over there, and she has no desire to use it. So why buy Windows?

brt
October 16th, 2006, 02:43 PM
hmm i did several installations of ubuntu and it always worked out of the box.
just need to install nvidia drivers for accelerated 3D, just like you should/must in windose but i did never need to install any chipset-drivers, sata, raid etc.

i also save a lot of time because i do not need to crawl the internet looking for needed "software-cracks"... just a click to the menu and new wanted softwarfe gets installed, hey thats real fast !

and no permanent reinstalling every now and then when the system is f.'ed up and the lots of reboots everytime i install some peace of software in windose, yes that saves me also a lot of time.

i know people being busy all the time trying to fix their windows, poking around in the registry, just to make it a bit more secure or deactivating some unwanted, "undocumented" features.

this gives us ubuntuusers so much time that we can also answer such interesting questions here on the forum ;)

BLTicklemonster
October 16th, 2006, 04:29 PM
I have fun with my Avatars, thanks :)


Here's something to think about. Take a Windows XP cd and install windows on one box that is not connected to the internet, then take an Ubuntu cd and install on a computer not connected to the internet.

Now try to set up a spreadsheet on both machines.

Oh. That's right. Well then, edit an image using a clone tool, layers and masks.

Oh. Okay, then install some free software from the cd that... oh. Dang.

Well, okay, hook them both up to the internet. Now find one place on each computer where you have gazillions of free programs you can install.

Dang, sorry, I forgot your windows machine would immediately start sucking up viruses like that, my bad. You know, you could just wipe that xp drive and install Ubunutu on it, right? Sure would save you a lot of time... :-k

(started sucking up viruses IF you are lucky enough to be able to go online in the first place, that is)

TeeAhr1
October 16th, 2006, 10:16 PM
This seems rather trollish, but what the hell, I'll bite. Hey, not like I value my time or anything.

How much time, in the last year, have you spent maintaining your Windows machine? Defragmenting your archaic filesystem (or, if not, suffering from performance lag because you didn't defrag)? Ridding yourself of malware? Restoring your entire system because you missed something that the malware writers didn't and now you're pwned? Rebooting because your system lags to the point of unusability within 48 hours of uptime?

I have spent a combined total of zero hours and zero minutes in the last year performing any of the above-mentioned tasks. Yes, I've been keeping score.

meng
October 16th, 2006, 10:21 PM
To answer the specific question "do we value our time?" - if we do, we do, and if we don't, we don't. Does it really matter, so long as we're otherwise happy?

BLTicklemonster
October 17th, 2006, 02:47 AM
This seems rather trollish, but what the hell, I'll bite. Hey, not like I value my time or anything.

How much time, in the last year, have you spent maintaining your Windows machine? Defragmenting your archaic filesystem (or, if not, suffering from performance lag because you didn't defrag)? Ridding yourself of malware? Restoring your entire system because you missed something that the malware writers didn't and now you're pwned? Rebooting because your system lags to the point of unusability within 48 hours of uptime?

I have spent a combined total of zero hours and zero minutes in the last year performing any of the above-mentioned tasks. Yes, I've been keeping score.

I repair computers for people who don't listen. So, yeah, they're good for a while when they pick up their machines, but they always come back because they forgot to upgrade or run something, or a window popped up and it said they had a virus (even though I told them that the blue e means "format everything", and just use firefox with all the neat addons...)

weasel fierce
October 17th, 2006, 04:08 AM
It takes more time, but you learn in hte process. It usually means you can fix your computer, when you break it.

The time saved from buying it pre-installed, is money spent when you pay geeksquad 20 dollars to install a piece of software, or buy a new computer once it dies from something (which I know plenty of people that does)

aysiu
October 17th, 2006, 04:27 AM
It's more than $20.

pannerrammer
October 17th, 2006, 04:50 AM
I got this from my father-in-law this afternoon. He uses windows2000. If any MS-advocate can sort this, without expending time/effort, I'd be grateful...


"I am getting difficulties with the Olivetti printer. Ever time I try to print a document it flashes PRINTER F in the bottom of the screen. When I press this I get the legend on the screen ďcannot print doc to LPT1Ē. I tried switching off the computer and then on again, the lights on the printer would not illuminate whichever button on the machine I pressed. I switched off the computer overnight. When I started up the computer the lights on the printer came on but the PRINTER F flashed . this resulted in the same message. I have tried all the connections, no joy. Opening the lid of the printer does not bring the ink carrier into view. I manged to get some printing done whilst the printer had a lucid moment but now it seems to have failed. Incidentally the ďFound new hardwareĒ message came up several times when I switched the computer on. At first I cancelled it , but eventually I used the next button several times and eventually the whole thing disappeared from the screen. I have not seen it since. Do I need a new printer."

Simple truth is most things require some effort/time, but once you've put the effort in it becomes easiest not to have to change (again)... or you'll have to put more time/effort in (again, again). The advocates of stasis win!

ask any Wordstar user about Wordperfect...
ask any Wordperfect user about MSWord (dos)
ask any MSWord (dos) user about AmiPro....
Ask any AmiPro user about MSWord
Ask any MSWord user about OpenOffice...
etc.

Been there, done all that..

Value my time? Of course I do... I spent a couple of days last week (wasting my time?) learning to use (playing with) QCAD. Time well spent. I can now do something I couldn't do last week.

weasel fierce
October 17th, 2006, 04:51 AM
Whats the difference between the two price columns ?

ericesque
October 17th, 2006, 05:04 AM
I think what Ruleboy was probably going after was reasons why people DO spend time using Ubuntu. More of a "what am I missing here" than "You people are wasting your time".

For me, Ubuntu is about the problem solving and the beauty. Problem solving is one of my favorite things to do. When I am facing a task that I'm not looking forward to, I turn it into an excersize in problem solving. My mind is very analytical.

As for beauty, I am currently on a quest to find the perfect theme for my computer. However, I'm realizing it may be a quest much like that of a woman trying to find the perfect purse. I'll constantly look and try out more themes than any rational person would, yet there is always one tiny piece of the puzzle that is missing. Regardless of all this, I find Ubuntu and many of the themes available more pleasing than XP.

BLTicklemonster
October 17th, 2006, 05:36 AM
Oh. Hadn't thought of that.

I just like messing around. And the added bonus that I'll never have to pay for anything is nice. We're not rich folks, and I'd as soon put all my money in my machine, you know.

deepwave
October 17th, 2006, 06:27 AM
I have used Linux as my desktop and development machine for well over 6 years now. While it did start off as a hobby, I have done most of my undergraduate studies using Linux. So using Ubuntu Linux as a my main productive desktop machine is well... natural.

Yes I do value my time. Everything (with the exception of some gaming) I can do just as easily under Linux as Windows. In many cases, thanks to my programming/computer science experience I can actually do things faster until Linux then Windows. One bit of Python (or Perl) scripting and I can do miracles (or supernatural disasters) with my filesystem.

Everything that I need I find in Ubuntu: web surfing, report writing, programming, graphics (raster, vector and 3d wee!), presentations, watching movies, listening to music, syncing my MPIO MP3 player, emails, IM, and yes even gaming to a large extend.

But I think the best reason why using Linux is time saved (vs Windows), is when things GO HORRIFICALLY wrong. Thats right. I have had everything from X crashes to a near-wipeout of my unbacked up home directory. A hallmark of good software IMHO is when it exits gracefully... after having its brains blown out.

Under Windows, if something crashes. Thats it. Restart. Hardware glitch? Restart. Explorer Freezes? Restart. Update. Restart. Install a frigging program? Restart. Restart. Restart.

Under Linux, if something dies... maybe restarting the X server. Not an issue. A misconfigured important service decides to act up? A second with Vi and re-running the service. Everything works. I will not even bother including the standard no viruses argument.

When I accidentally hoshed my system and deleted my home partition, I tried to recover. No corporation-printed easy-pesy-Windows recovery utilities helped. Panic. Some quality with Google and a little app called parted, I managed to save 95% of my files. Using Knoppix. Thats right using Linux.

I use Linux. Why? Cause I don't have the time to waste with Windows.

aysiu
October 17th, 2006, 06:30 AM
I use Linux. Why? Cause I don't have the time to waste with Windows. Put very nicely.

Amen.

mdsmedia
October 17th, 2006, 06:31 AM
I wasn't responding to the OP.Consider me corrected :)

rickyble
January 9th, 2007, 01:42 PM
I do value my time. I started back in the dos days and really thought that some of those releases were some of the best, very simple and worked very well. Command lines and editing bat files. Very user friendly really. If you think its hard to work in Linux then either u have forgotten or never used something called windows from the start 3.1 2.1 etc. They were so terrible that they hardly ran at all. Not only did u need to know dos and its configurations but u had to fight shared dlls overwrites and a complete re-learning of menus and where files were keep and what control the pc. As MS forced the market to install only their OS and drop all other DOS versions the brainwashing began. If you tell me that windows won out because it was the best, then you really don't have much of a memory or you really never used anything else. I too like many here have used linux for along time off and on. It really was not any different then learning another OS. To control it and use u must learn it from the inside out. For it to used by the masses it must simple and very easy to use. When problems start simple users don't try to fix most things, they call someone else or take it somewhere. Its kind of like a car. Most people put in gas and turn the key. Who cares what makes it work or why. When it doesn't work, they take it somewhere else to have it fixed.

Time wasted is not time learning. There are forums galore on how to do everything Microsoft. If you try to use it to do high end things u will be there searching those forums for answers too. An you will reinstall/reconfigure more than once to get what you need to do the job. Someone spoke of autoupdates. I can not tell u how many people I know who have had their MS machines trashed by some sort of autoupdate, be it MS or software.

The bottom line is Linux is becoming a viable options not just for power users but finally for the first timers. If only the PC distributors would give it the chance, stand up to MS and put a Linux distro on all their new PCs as a dual boot or as the main OS MS would once and for all have some real competition and both Linux and MS would be forced to be the best they could be and everyone would have a much better choice and a much better OS.

BLTicklemonster
January 9th, 2007, 03:40 PM
This is kind of embrassing, guys, but if I want to be productive, I would do better to use windows.

From the instant I press enter in the grub menu (at boot) :

XP - 18 seconds and I'm at the desktop ready to rock.

Dapper - 42

Feisty - same +/-

Edgy - varies, but never better than 35


CDS, DVDS
XP - Burning and ripping cds, dvds: precise and exactly right every time, no problems ever.

Ubuntu - I wonder, if I do it this way this time if it will work for a change....

SCRIPTING IN USCRIPT AND MAPPING IN UNREALED

Not gonna happen in linux, but it is possible in vmware, though results are sporadic.

ARTSY FARTSY STUFF

Though I am getting better (imho) than I used to be when using Gimp, I can just do so much more with photoshop. (anyone use Gimp in xp and notice how much faster it is than in linux? wtf is up with that?)




But, God help me, I'm addicted to linux now and will never stop using it. No, I'll never let vista in my house, but I can imagine I will be forced to always have a window box for one reason or another.

Yes, when my computer boots, it boots to linux. I only use windows when I need to archive a disk.

So, do I value my time? Come to think of it, time is relative anyway, so it's what you make of it, I guess. So what's the point? We got all the time in the world, waste it all you want. Had God wanted us all to rush about all American Corporate-Greed-like, time would be finite.

Mateo
January 9th, 2007, 06:02 PM
It's simply not true that windows computers get viruses, spyware, and firewall attacks all the time. Welcome to 2007, that was a problem with Windows98 and ME, maybe a slight problem for a year or two with XP. It's not a problem any more. You can browse every shady website on the internet and are rather unlikely to get hit with a virus. Unless you are stupid enough to open email attachments, you aren't getting viruses or anything else.

Mateo
January 9th, 2007, 06:05 PM
From the instant I press enter in the grub menu (at boot) :

XP - 18 seconds and I'm at the desktop ready to rock.

Dapper - 42

Feisty - same +/-

Edgy - varies, but never better than 35.

not for me. It takes about the same amount of time to get into the desktop, but for me once the desktop is loaded I still got another 15-20 seconds of stuff loading in XP before the start button functions or I can do anything. In ubuntu once the panels are up, everything's loaded and ready to go.

MrHorus
January 9th, 2007, 06:12 PM
I understand those who see fixing these problems and advocating Ububtu as a "hobbie", or in my case just an educational experience for the resume, but do others value their time at all?

Of course I value my time but I enjoy helping people and advocating FOSS wherever possible.

I remember years ago when I first started using Linux from a shell account and how clueless I was and if it wasn't for people taking the time to help me and to answer my stupid (but now obvious) questions, I would not be where I am today.

BLTicklemonster
January 9th, 2007, 06:32 PM
not for me. It takes about the same amount of time to get into the desktop, but for me once the desktop is loaded I still got another 15-20 seconds of stuff loading in XP before the start button functions or I can do anything. In ubuntu once the panels are up, everything's loaded and ready to go.

I've got everything shut down in xp so it starts minimally. Where does one go to do that in ubuntu? I turned off as much laptop and other support stuff that I could find, but I'm sure there's other stuff going on that does not need to be going on.

PatrickMay16
January 9th, 2007, 06:35 PM
A cool guy I know who works in the US Air Force told me that he uses Windows XP instead of linux, now, because of his job; he has less free time, and so he uses windows XP because it's more convienient.

Last night I was playing around with my dad's laptop and the Edgy live DVD that came with linux magazine. I spend a whole load of time trying to get the built-in wireless to work, and I kind of got it half-working (could scan the area for access points and it could see them, but would not connect). That was like after an hour, and I just gave up. But anyway, LINUX takes a lot more time than windows to get working. It's a sacrifice we make for our operating system.

Mateo
January 9th, 2007, 06:36 PM
I tried turning everything off in XP, to no avail. Unless I start in safe mode, it takes an extra 15-20 seconds to load all the worthless stuff.

meng
January 9th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Different folks, different computers, different setups, different priorities. There's little point mocking Linux users OR Windows users about their preferences. Myself, I find Windows takes more time to install, is less flexible, software is too expensive, overall is less fun, but allows me to run some games which don't work well under wine. And the boot time is slow, even though I've got very little installed on there. But that's just my story and I'm sticking to it. If your experience is different, I'm not surprised, but don't feel you have to justify your choice to me!

Tutu 1234
January 9th, 2007, 06:57 PM
Well Ubuntu runs about twice as fast as XP for me, I own 3 windows XP licenses (1 that's not OEM, cost me over £200) and I was a windows advocate but it took me less time to install Ubuntu and configure how I want than it takes me to install XP and configure it. Not bad given I was pretty much a linux virgin. Do I value my time well Ubuntu loads a lot quicker (20secs compared to minute+ for XP), burning a DVD takes around 10mins took well over 40 in windows. Everything works fine and stable (Although XP was always incredibly stable for me), took my mum an hour or 2 to learn how to use Ubuntu (Which is less time than it took her to learn Windows.). I love the fact that the hard disk with my swap file can still copy at decent speeds (In windows it used to take me 20 minutes to unrar a 700meg file and playing a vid at the same time was a distinct No no, fine in Ubuntu).

If I didn't value my time I think I'd still be using windows for me it took about a month to delete my windows partition and gain another 120gig, it also saved me much £ as I now don't need to upgrade the PC for decent performance, although I'm certain if I did Ubuntu will be my primary OS and Windows if at all ran will be only in a VM.

I should point out I only have 256 meg which I'm sure slows windows down to the crawl it is but Ubuntu even with beryl installed stills flies in comparison.

I'm really glad I made the switch before Vista corrupted me.

The only scary thing for a windows user is Terminal but with an Internet connection it's nothing anyone who ever used Dos couldn't handle.

BLTicklemonster
January 9th, 2007, 07:35 PM
Oh HECK yeah, ubuntu is way easier to install, and it's what I prefer to use, regardless of anything I mentioned earlier. I just thought I'd jsut once in my life make a blunt honest statement, lol.

play0r
January 9th, 2007, 08:12 PM
yes i value my time & that's why i use linux.
things are far more easier to manage within the linux environment. once you get comfortable enough with the terminal, you'll wonder why you ever did things in a gui (at least this is my personal experience).
i like to have absolute control over my system & being able to poke around under the hood so to speak is a plus to. since i know my hardware like the back of my hand i was able to cut down the size of the kernel image considerably & improve the overall performance of my system.
it took me far longer to setup windows xp pro with security in mind (installing anti-virus/malware/spyware software, firewall software, disabling "hidden" windows components & configuring the group & user policies.) & even simple things like setting up customized themes, how the explorer windows look, disabling certain buttons & the like in the start menu & explorer windows. not to mention the time lost doing scans & defragging your filesystem.
since my hardware is extremely old (in technological time anyway) it yields far better performance when i use linux compared to my windows xp pro boot. in windows even with my minimal themes, it seems fairly sluggish compared to my minimal gnome configurations.
plus since it's so old, it just works out of the box. no hassles with my hardware. minimal configuration of my xorg.conf & driconf to get my graphics acceleration up to par with the performance & quality i need.
what isn't there to love about that?
the only thing that lacks in a linux environment is if you're a gamer, but even then it's still possible to play games that are native to windows if you're willing to spend the time or hell just have a dual boot & boot into windows when you wanna go play some high-end game. flash support is seriously lacking, but i can get over that.
linux seems to have been more about the journey & not the destination for me. it's turned into a pseudo-hobbie for i guess.
in conclusion having the freedom to choose the technology i want has been the best part of this experience.

ez,
play0r

Xzallion
January 9th, 2007, 08:28 PM
Everything is always detected and works fine for me. Ubuntu saves me time.

I have three computers in my house that I have to keep running, all have Windows XP on them, and two dual boot ubuntu. Every single time I try to install Windows on them, it will not activate even with the product key from the machines sticker. So I have to call tech support, wait 30 mins to be told their system is down/malfunctioning/being updated and call back in an hour/day/week. Then after this headache, patch it, install a firewall (done before patching), and set up antivirus, install firefox, and then finally install any other misc. apps that I need (like a good word processer and office suite like OpenOffice). Generally it takes me about 5 hours to set up windows, doing everything I know how to shorten the time. I can get Ubuntu up and going in an hour. In two hours I can have it completely configured to my liking, while windows... that takes some time.

I value my time. Between college, work, sleep, and the few precious hours I have left to myself, I want things to just work right, and let me enjoy those few hours.

CheshireMac
January 9th, 2007, 08:40 PM
I'm going back to the original question post, without reading any of the responses . . .probably bad form, but I like the argument put up by it . . .
My response to that is this: although you do consume a lot of time tweaking Ubuntu, and yes, for $200 you can get Windows and it's already set for use, but it's set up to use like everyone else on the planet uses it.
Also, let's use hypotheticals here . . .say you have Ubuntu set up to the way you like it (Mine constantly changes, but it's ready for any large task) . . .and you have another machine with Windows Whatever Edition . . .which is easier to save when you accidentally pick up a virus? Oh wait . . .you can't pick up a virus on Ubuntu . . .I forgot!
K . . .so you fixed that virus in Windows. Great. Now, to make sure nothing like that happens again, you get an anti-virus program . . .if you're lucky, you've found one that's free and might keep itself updated . . . Ubuntu's machine is sleeping soundly without a gun under it's pillow.
Also, you've decided to start backing up all of your files so you don't lose anything important, just in case that anti-virus program sucks. So Ubuntu's Terminal does it with just a few key-strokes. Your Windows machine, meanwhile, is looking online for a good backup program, which like your anti-virus program (which just got bypassed) you'd be lucky to get for free.
So, by this time, Windows and Ubuntu both have new versions out that are better than their predecessor . . .or so they claim. Ubuntu offers you the amazing new upgrade through Terminal (It can do anything almost anything, ya know. ;) ) using Apt-Get . . .how easy, right? Windows, on the other hand, requires that you go to Staples and pick it up there for ANOTHER $200 . . .if not more. Damn . . .that's unfortunate.
Okay, so you've gotten the new Ubuntu, and shelled out another stack of cash for Windows WE2.0 . . .Ubuntu has kept all your settings from the previous version except for a few things you need to tweak or update. Windows is brand new, right out of the packaging . . .which means you have to set everything up again, install all of your favourite programs again, and I think I've made my point, yes?

Lord Illidan
January 9th, 2007, 10:36 PM
It's simply not true that windows computers get viruses, spyware, and firewall attacks all the time. Welcome to 2007, that was a problem with Windows98 and ME, maybe a slight problem for a year or two with XP. It's not a problem any more. You can browse every shady website on the internet and are rather unlikely to get hit with a virus. Unless you are stupid enough to open email attachments, you aren't getting viruses or anything else.

Not if you are a clueless windows user, looking around for free mp3s and cracks to play your misbegotten games, and still using Internet Explorer 6 and Service Pack 1. Not everyone may know how to use a computer as you or I do.

And cracks can bring down a Windows XP system quite easily. When I tried to crack my legal Windows XP installation (which was giving me problems with activation, since I upgraded my graphics card, mobo, and CPU), and it costs a lot to call Microsoft from Malta, I had to search high and low, in the process nearly disabling my system altogether.

Note: I am not condoning illegal cracks, or anything, but in Malta, the average Windows user is full of em.

And even where every piece of software is legally gotten, I've seen XP go wrong. At school, one of the XP computers boots to the desktop, halts with an error message and restarts automatically. Ad nauseum.



Last night I was playing around with my dad's laptop and the Edgy live DVD that came with linux magazine. I spend a whole load of time trying to get the built-in wireless to work, and I kind of got it half-working (could scan the area for access points and it could see them, but would not connect). That was like after an hour, and I just gave up. But anyway, LINUX takes a lot more time than windows to get working. It's a sacrifice we make for our operating system.

Aye, wireless is a big problem. I also tried it with my late granddad's laptop. However, on my desktop PC, the same distro detected every piece of hardware out of the box. All I had to do was download and install nvidia drivers from the repositories and modify a line in /etc/modules/alsabase.conf to make it work.

With Windows XP, I have to do like this :

1. Install NVIDIA drivers or computer runs like sh** at 1024x768
2. Install soundcard drivers from Intel.
3. Install printer drivers from HP...if I can't find the CD, as I usually do, it is a 80mb download from a server thousands of miles away!!
4. Install bluetooth drivers.

from different websites, etc. From Ubuntu, they are either provided as-is or else, they are in apt-get repositories. Which is easier?

As for the XP installation itself, it takes longer than Ubuntu, and is far more boring...while I was installing Ubuntu, I was surfing the web. And while initially, boot speed is blazing, it then invariably slows to a crawl.

Plus, even while there is an element of risk in Ubuntu..."will this work or not??", I like living on da edge!:mrgreen:
5. Install

Mateo
January 9th, 2007, 10:38 PM
i guess it varies from person to person, but i haven't had a problem since my old ME computer.

meng
January 9th, 2007, 10:43 PM
1. Install NVIDIA drivers or computer runs like sh** at 1024x768
2. Install soundcard drivers from Intel.
3. Install printer drivers from HP...if I can't find the CD, as I usually do, it is a 80mb download from a server thousands of miles away!!
4. Install bluetooth drivers.

I can relate to #1 and #3. On my notebook, the ATI video card performs awfully unless you install other drivers. Also, to install an HP printer you need to install 100MB of crap. Actually, it's 450MB, but you can delete 350MB and it will still work.
EDIT: to clarify, we're talking about Windows here. Lord Illidan's quote was about Windows, so is mine.

teaker1s
January 9th, 2007, 10:49 PM
point is I setup a ubuntu desktop for my grandparents and it's reliable I'm 168 miles from them so reliability is a key factor. with windows it forever went wrong and made for regular over the phone repair calls

macogw
January 10th, 2007, 12:02 AM
My stuff all worked out of the box. All I had to learn was where to click, and that was easy. Setting up WPA about a month after I got it was probably the most time-consuming thing, and that was only because I skipped a step (doh!). I wanted to learn something new though, and I did. I spend all my time in front of the computer and having it actually be *stable* is great.

Even when I put a Broadcom wireless card in my mom's desktop, it took under 20 minutes to set up ndiswrapper, install the driver, and set up Network Manager and its applet.

macogw
January 10th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Also, to install an HP printer you need to install 100MB of crap. Actually, it's 450MB, but you can delete 350MB and it will still work.

What? HPs work from a clean install. You don't have to download and install anything, because HPLIP is already in there. The fact that my oldest computer is attached to a Lexmark (the only non-HP printer we have) is the only reason it's not running Xubuntu.

meng
January 10th, 2007, 12:10 AM
What? HPs work from a clean install. You don't have to download and install anything, because HPLIP is already in there. The fact that my oldest computer is attached to a Lexmark (the only non-HP printer we have) is the only reason it's not running Xubuntu.
I'm talking about WINDOWS.

Mirena
January 10th, 2007, 09:59 PM
There is a learning curve, i am still on it. But MS has it too it is not intuitive I remember taking a course back in MS 95 that is why is was easy afterwards but my parents still struggle with a lot of the basics.
Time consuming I made my computer dual boot I install MS XP in my costume made computer and surprise I had to intall a lots of extra drivers for an intel motherboard in order to turn the sound on, the printer, etc.
In Ubuntu it took less time and it recognised most of the devices immediately.
Not to mention I had the infamous NTFS dynamic problem when I reinstall XP and had to reconstruct the MBR with asoftware I had to buy in order to save the information for my storage disk and found out the hard way, how patch up MS is, how lousy is its recovery console and that most of its recovery instructions will probably ruin your information if followed.

macogw
January 10th, 2007, 10:16 PM
What? HPs work from a clean install. You don't have to download and install anything, because HPLIP is already in there. The fact that my oldest computer is attached to a Lexmark (the only non-HP printer we have) is the only reason it's not running Xubuntu.
I'm talking about WINDOWS.
Oh. Wow. Okay, it's been years since I installed an HP printer on Windows (haven't gotten a new computer in 4 years aside from my Ubuntu one), so I don't remember that, but wow. I do remember their terrible customer service. I'll never forget how stupid their tech support is. "Format the hard drive" "That'll delete everything" "No it won't" "I'm 12, and you're an adult so I'll do it, but I still think you're wrong" do it..."You're wrong"


There is a learning curve, i am still on it. But MS has it too it is not intuitive I remember taking a course back in MS 95 that is why is was easy afterwards but my parents still struggle with a lot of the basics.
I started on a member of the Apple ][ line, but I grew up fixing Windows 95, so I never felt a learning curve aside from "learn to fix the darned thing" and "hey if I hit ctrl alt del about 20 times, the BSOD goes away!" But it's very evident looking at my mom. I decided that since my family doesn't know how to update/run all the stuff you need to protect a Windows computer, it'd mean less "fix this!" for me to give them Linux (prompted by my siblings saying they intend to switch to Linux when they get their own computers because Windows is expensive when there are good free alternatives and worrying about viruses and stuff sucks). I told my mom it'd be different, but that I think she's be fine with it because unlike people who are good on computers, she doesn't really have a lot of stuff to relearn since she never learned to use Windows anyway. She seems to be doing okay--or at least no worse than Windows. She can even get a new document in OOo without backspacing out an old one :D (big improvement for her) and while she isn't comfortable with the idea of multitasking just yet, she did listen when I showed her how to open a new tab in FF and she can ctrl+P now.

truthfatal
January 10th, 2007, 10:46 PM
I value my time greatly, but I don't assign monetary value to it. :)

So for the question posed by the OP I would say that In the time I've spent learning and configuring different *nixes I have earned enough knowledge to install, configure, and do basic maintennance on a *nix operating system. I'm sure this might be immensely valuable if I'm ever in a position where I need, or want, to install and maintain a *nix be it for a paying job, or a friend who is interested in Linux. Helping a friend pays quite well in happiness, while the job would hopefully pay equally well in currency.

macogw
January 10th, 2007, 11:07 PM
I value my time greatly, but I don't assign monetary value to it. :)

So for the question posed by the OP I would say that In the time I've spent learning and configuring different *nixes I have earned enough knowledge to install, configure, and do basic maintennance on a *nix operating system. I'm sure this might be immensely valuable if I'm ever in a position where I need, or want, to install and maintain a *nix be it for a paying job, or a friend who is interested in Linux. Helping a friend pays quite well in happiness, while the job would hopefully pay equally well in currency.
Yep, that's true. I work at a computer upgrade & service shop, and it's all Windows. One guy used to use RH. The owner's son thinks I'm nuts for using Linux when everyone else uses Windows. He also says Linux is bad because it actually works. He can't get paid to fix it like he can to de-virus Windows. When I told this to some *nix users they said to tell him he can make a lot more teaching Linux than he can fixing Windows. It's true. People who know their way around Linux like the back of their hands and can teach others how to be sysadmins on Linux or how to setup and run a LAMP-based server can make a lot because they're rather rare.

saulgoode
January 11th, 2007, 12:37 AM
I value you my time very highly. And I can think of no way more worthwhile to spend it than learning.


Off topic: Every time I see the acronym OP, I am thinking "offending party". :)

Falcorian
January 11th, 2007, 09:24 PM
I value my time very highly.


That's why I use Ubuntu, I hate the constant rebooting of Windows, the slow downs, the broken stuff. Once Ubuntu was configured, it performed like a champ.

Omnios
January 11th, 2007, 09:29 PM
I said this before Linux is free as in free beer but not free as in time. When I was working in a factory I looked at it as a 8 hour work out. My mud games that I play are a work out for my mind. Now that I use Linux I think of it as hours of schooling for free. Face it windows keeps you stupid and Linux makes you a uber mind freak. Wait a couple of Ubuntu versions and sit back and think of what you knew back then compared to now.

StueyB
January 12th, 2007, 01:08 AM
I have a slightly different slant on this one for you. I work in a predominantly windows enviroment (ok we do have an AS/400 but thats not something to big up ;) )

I needed a quick fix to a problem. We didn't have the $$$ for the commercial software, windows etc so I cobbled it together using GNU tools and the like.

Ok my time isn't free. HOWEVER it worked out a lot cheaper that putting Windows on, fixing it up (W2K3 SP1 anyone?) configuring all the stuff to go with it , AV, Terminal Services licences etc.

So although it took me 3 days from beginning to end to get all the stuff integrated etc, I can now easily make changes to the script and add parts to it etc.

CheshireMac
January 13th, 2007, 06:54 AM
I said this before Linux is free as in free beer but not free as in time. When I was working in a factory I looked at it as a 8 hour work out. My mud games that I play are a work out for my mind. Now that I use Linux I think of it as hours of schooling for free. Face it windows keeps you stupid and Linux makes you a uber mind freak. Wait a couple of Ubuntu versions and sit back and think of what you knew back then compared to now.

I have to agree here . . .I knew how to perform various tasks in Windows (IPConfig, SysRestore, etc.), but I didn't really know what was happening . . .I just assumed Bill and his wily bunch had put together something that could pilot itself.
The beauty behind Linux (Especially Ubuntu for usability) is that you find yourself constantly looking at it and telling yourself 'It's just not good enough yet, and finding newer ways to improve it . . .it's just a knack that all users pick up without realizing, until one day, someone starts a thread about why Linux sucks, and you have an endless amount of knowledge to prove otherwise. ~LOL~
It's not that you MUST learn everything about Linux when you have it. It's just that you realize the advantages of being educated, and Windows tells you it's illegal to learn about them. ~LOL~
So, Mr. Thread starter, if you're still reading this, that is why Windows is NOT better than Linux in terms learning . . .educational values and the consumer's right to product information. Also, I wrote a big ol' post back in page 11 or so, ranting about time consumption. It's good. ;)

TrikkeDaddy
January 19th, 2007, 06:51 AM
I am beginning more and more to like Linux. Anything worth something is worth studying and getting to know the ends and outs.

randomnumber
January 19th, 2007, 07:15 AM
I just want to say that the point that I started to hate MS was when I found out how much they charged for their office suite. If I remmeber right, it was +250 $ for a education version. >500 for a full version.

I then found OpenOffice, FREE.

When I changed hardware on my desktop with XP I got all kinds of licensee BS. Every time I had to reinstall XP, I have to call MS and tell them to give me a new code. The most recent time I was trying to install a sata hard drive. Because of the little difference in the computer I got threatened by my OS that I had to register it or it would not work after 30 days. My own OS treats me like a thief and yes, my XP installs are all legal.

I had used Linux before but I never got into much. I currently run linux only and the only reason I still have dual boot XP is that I really like the Half Life 2 games.

People tell me how great XP is and I admit it is a good OS but I still have to reinstall it once a year because it gets too cluttered. It gets slower too. I have run anti virus software and never found a virus.

x64Jimbo
January 31st, 2007, 04:15 AM
Reading through some of the "I tried Ububtu and now its back to Windows" threads I can help but wonder if Ubuntu advocates value their time in the common "Ubuntu is free" argument?

If you take the time to learn this, configure that, ask questions to get basic functions working and then decide which applications you want to use...well for 200 dollars you can just get a Windows system with all of that taken care of.

I understand those who see fixing these problems and advocating Ububtu as a "hobbie", or in my case just an educational experience for the resume, but do others value their time at all?

If I had worked for the same amount of time as I spent getting Ubuntu working I would have earned enough money to buy a whole new computer, like a Mac mini or entry level iMac (or another Windows computer).
Your argument is flawed. Windows required a learning curve when you first started, too. The difference with Ubuntu is that once you've learned it, every upgrade is free. You probably learned Windows a few versions ago. Well, did you get your upgrade to XP or Vista for free? Absolutely not! Microsoft wants to take every added feature or convenience and turn it into profit, which is pretty standard for a "for-profit" business, so we won't hold it against them. However, when Ubuntu started only a couple years ago, it was light years behind where it is now, and every upgrade has been completely free, and will continue to be so as long as Ubuntu is developed.

Also, you're only considering one facet of the word "free." When you talk about "free," you're referring to "free as in beer" which means free of charge, or "gratis." That's one benefit of Ubuntu - no money involved, ever. But Ubuntu is also free in another sense that cannot have a monetary value assigned to it, and that is "free as in freedom" which means that you are free to do with it as you choose. MS has a very extensive license agreement that you have to agree to if you wish to use their OS. Not so with Ubuntu. You can use Ubuntu to do anything you want, whereas Windows is quite restricted in that way. To me, Free as in Freedom is WAY more important than Free as in Beer. I would gladly pay the same price for Ubuntu as Windows if Linux cost money, just as long as I got to keep using it the way I want to with no restrictions. I don't want someone to tell me how many times I can install my OS before I have to call HQ and get my serial # re-activated. That's lame. I don't want someone telling me how many times I can copy my own CDs. I own them, so I should be able to do whatever I want with them. MS wants to tell me what I can and can't do with my computer, and I think that is totally bogus.

So yes, there is an investment that has to be made in switching to Ubuntu. It's an investment of time. Anyone who has taken a business class will tell you that the term "investment" is more than just a cost - it's a rate of return as well. My investment of time in learning Ubuntu has more than paid off by saving me time in other areas. Without even taking into account all the Linux programs that do things faster than their Windows counterparts, there's a huge chunk of time saved by me never having to worry about a virus ever again. No spyware, no viruses, no defragging my hard disk, no unnecessary paging operations, and no Windows Updates that require me to restart my computer while I'm in the middle of working on something. Ubuntu is low maintenance once you have it set up, and that is something you will never be able to say about Windows. Investments pay off, and Ubuntu is no exception.

Lastly, I don't buy the "my free time can be valued at $X/hr because that's what I get paid at my job" argument. You don't work during your free time, and if someone calls you during your free time and asks you to work, you say no. Free time is for hobbies that you don't get paid for. If you value your free time in dollars, there's something wrong with you.