PDA

View Full Version : Linux Desktop Readiness Thread



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

SunnyRabbiera
November 7th, 2006, 12:27 PM
Linux is ready for the desktop, its just people demand that it would work instantly with thier favorite hardware and software right away.
Linux is not meant to be a replacement for Windows, it is an alternative windows.
If a hardware or software wont work in linux there are good resaons for it:
1: most hardware and software companies dont know about linux, or how to code for it.
2: Most hardware and software companies are contracted by microsoft so thier hardware would only work for Microsoft.
3: Most companies dont even see Linux as a viable OS, mainly because it is open and they dont want thier precious money to go away.
Most of your faults are caused by the companies that make that mouse, Printer, DVD player, wireless card, internet router or whatever and not linux.
Linux has come a long way without much support by big companies, and you should not place your blames on linux but on those companies you buy from...
Linux isnt the issue, big companies are.

chickengirl
November 7th, 2006, 05:29 PM
These people are regarding Linux in a different way.

I find the attitude to say 'Linux is not Windows. Change your habits or go dying' rather rude and it does not fit to a community which wants people to change their main operating system.
The "Linux is not Windows" article isn't saying "you're not l33t enough for Linux, so **** off." It's saying "Linux fundamentally is not Windows, so if you come to Linux expecting Windows, you will be disappointed. This is what you can expect instead."

It's not elitist, it's just a statement of fact.

dalani
November 8th, 2006, 01:02 AM
Then the question obviously becomes "Who is Linux intended for?" as opposed to "Is linux ready for the desktop?" By your statement here, if what you say is ultimately true (and I know from using several distros that it most certainly is), then Linux will never be an operating system for those who can only stand point and click.

Of course, I'm not saying this is right either. I think Linux should be just as equally used as Windows or Mac or any other operating system in the mix, but until the question 'Who is Linux intended for?' becomes solved definitely, then Linux will continue growing without an ultimatum on who it's ultimately growing for.

Not everyone has time to wade through man pages and loads of syntax to solve something when they have things to do.to do!!! So the question of who is Linux intended for is moot.

The question should be "what do users want to do with their computers?"

EDIT: Just so this not be construed as a pointless rant, here is my two cents worth of constructive advice:

Someone with a few hours to spare (maybe months) could create a cross referenced GUI access to man pages (BEagle with some code) such a user need only type in the problem and Beagle thing could display the required commands with syntax examples. Contrary to popular belief a CLI is not the problem (anyone can type), its the syntax and total lack of concrete examples that keep most new users from trouble shooting the probelm themselves. Context help tools are not new but it might be what Linux is missing;

aysiu
November 8th, 2006, 01:13 AM
Not everyone has time to wade through man pages and loads of syntax to solve something when they have things to do.to do!!! So the question of who is Linux intended for is moot.

The question should be "what do users want to do with their computers?"
In my experience, my Windows-using friends and co-workers spend more time being frustrated and trying in vain to find the answers to their problems than I do when using Ubuntu.

I experience this every day at work--people having things "mysteriously" go wrong because they can't be bothered to learn how to use their Windows computers efficiently and effectively.

Time? I don't see how I have any more time than anyone else. We all have twenty-four hours in a day, and I spend the same hours working that all my Windows-using co-workers do. In fact, if anything, I see Windows users (at least the non-"power users") around me wasting lots of time because they don't bother to learn keyboard shortcuts or tricks to automate processes they take hours to do.

If those people "don't have time to waste" reading man pages (by the way, I don't read man pages, but I seem just fine using Ubuntu), why do they waste time comparing Excel sheets by hand? Why do they waste time clicking on a file in the open dialogue and then clicking on the Open button instead of just double-clicking the file to open it? Why do they make manual edits to documents instead of using Find/Replace or the "Compare and merge documents" feature in Word?

Most users who don't put forth the effort to learn how to use a Linux distro also put forth very little effort to learn how to use Windows. Time is not of the essence to these people--minimal learning with maximum labor is.

P.S. Can you explain what man page you have to read in order to use Linux on the desktop? Thanks.

dalani
November 8th, 2006, 01:24 AM
The phenomena here is that there are experienced users including windows 'power users' who are not making the complete switch to Linux for various reasons most of which revolve around the idea that linusx is not ready for the desktop.

PERSONALY i WOULD HESITATE TO RECOMMEND LINUX because if grandmawants to hook a webcam (for example), there is possibly a few hours of forum time toget it working. With windows( for reasons some else cited) it's just plug and play..

Now if the beagle help thing existed , I know I just need to type in the problem (webcam) and know what I need to look for. SOrt of a formailzed wiki with links. Ubuntu should build that into the distro Call it the Ubuntu KnowledgeBase

emarkay
November 8th, 2006, 01:46 AM
I, humbled, reappear with my palms out and my tail between my legs.

I THOUGHT, that Ubuntu was a Windows replacement. I THOUGHT that it was RFTW. I THOUGHT that I could take a decade plus of GUI and a few years of command line experience and adapt to Unix in a flash.

I was wrong.

I have read the posts and articles and all the diatribe about Linux and Windows and hobby and Business applications, and studied reviews and Diggs and other opinions, and still want to believe that somehow, someday, some variant of Linux will be truly "plug-n-play" compatible with Windows 98SE/XP...

Sure, put up all the "This is illegal" and "Do not use this in the USA" and all that other crap, and add the Automatix and Easy-Whatever repositories, and then you will have some fey representation of a Windows replacement OS that can be used for both the hobbyists and the Capatalists.

Isn't that the point? Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole Apple vs. PC thing is so last century.

Aren't we ALL trying to accomplish the same thing now? I close my rant with the following question:

Can Ubuntu become a Windows replacement for the masses?

...and if not, why?

MRK

PS: I will continue to dual boot 98SE and Ubuntu, and learn, and read, and promise that from now on, I will only cry for help when I am totally overwhelmed.

pony-tail
November 8th, 2006, 01:50 AM
Unfortunately I would not be of much assistance to you as I am Unix trained and not that familiar with windows - but what I can say is that my 10 year old grandaughter has no issues installing Ubuntu (or Win2k) on her 2.4gig P4 and making the necessary configuration changes including installing XGL and Beryl thanks primarily to a couple of pretty good how-tos on this forum . She installs all of her own software and generally maintains the machine so how hard can it be the biggest thing I see is unlearning the habits of sometimes years of windows use Linux no matter what Disto is NOT windows and due to software patents etc never will be ! But that does not make Linux bad - just different. I am trained on AIX and even that is a vastly different animal.

aysiu
November 8th, 2006, 03:37 AM
Can Ubuntu become a Windows replacement for the masses?

...and if not, why? The answer? Read this:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/linuxdesktopmyth

mrgnash
November 8th, 2006, 03:42 AM
Unfortunately I would not be of much assistance to you as I am Unix trained and not that familiar with windows - but what I can say is that my 10 year old grandaughter has no issues installing Ubuntu (or Win2k) on her 2.4gig P4 and making the necessary configuration changes including installing XGL and Beryl thanks primarily to a couple of pretty good how-tos on this forum . She installs all of her own software and generally maintains the machine so how hard can it be the biggest thing I see is unlearning the habits of sometimes years of windows use Linux no matter what Disto is NOT windows and due to software patents etc never will be ! But that does not make Linux bad - just different. I am trained on AIX and even that is a vastly different animal.

Bravo. That's exactly right... Linux is not inherently harder than Windows (in fact, I think it's much easier in a lot of ways) it's just that the learning curve in any situation is always going to be steeper when previous operating methods/habits/expectations interfere.

chickengirl
November 8th, 2006, 04:45 AM
I have read the posts and articles and all the diatribe about Linux and Windows and hobby and Business applications, and studied reviews and Diggs and other opinions, and still want to believe that somehow, someday, some variant of Linux will be truly "plug-n-play" compatible with Windows 98SE/XP...

You may be looking for ReactOS (http://www.reactos.com/).


Can Ubuntu become a Windows replacement for the masses?

...and if not, why?

Ubuntu shouldn't become a Windows replacement for anybody. It should be the best open source OS it can be, and if more people use it as a result, so much the better. But those people should be coming to Linux because they want to use Linux, not because they want a free Windows clone.


PS: I will continue to dual boot 98SE and Ubuntu, and learn, and read, and promise that from now on, I will only cry for help when I am totally overwhelmed.

I hope you don't think anyone is telling you to STFU and not ask questions. If you wait until you're totally overwhelmed to ask for help, you'll come here all "Linux sucks!! It's all BROKEN and I'm going back to WINDOWS!!!!" And that doesn't help anybody. :p

chickengirl
November 8th, 2006, 04:54 AM
PERSONALY i WOULD HESITATE TO RECOMMEND LINUX because if grandmawants to hook a webcam (for example), there is possibly a few hours of forum time toget it working. With windows( for reasons some else cited) it's just plug and play..

Depends on the webcam. If she buys the right one (or if you buy the right one for her) it could very well be plug-n-play.

I'm sure there are lots of webcams that don't work with macs. Does that mean OS X isn't ready for grandma?

chaosgeisterchen
November 8th, 2006, 07:23 AM
The "Linux is not Windows" article isn't saying "you're not l33t enough for Linux, so **** off." It's saying "Linux fundamentally is not Windows, so if you come to Linux expecting Windows, you will be disappointed. This is what you can expect instead."

It's not elitist, it's just a statement of fact.

I do not negate that. I do say that I do not like the attitude of people trying to bash other people wanting to configure their Linux as near as possible to their old windows settings..

DoctorMO
November 8th, 2006, 07:44 AM
If they wanted a computer like windows why don't they stick with windows? we're not here to pander to peoples personal tastes.

If someone wants a windows clone they can get off their **** and make one, we've given them enough parts to do so.

SunnyRabbiera
November 8th, 2006, 08:02 AM
I, humbled, reappear with my palms out and my tail between my legs.

I THOUGHT, that Ubuntu was a Windows replacement. I THOUGHT that it was RFTW. I THOUGHT that I could take a decade plus of GUI and a few years of command line experience and adapt to Unix in a flash.

I was wrong.

I have read the posts and articles and all the diatribe about Linux and Windows and hobby and Business applications, and studied reviews and Diggs and other opinions, and still want to believe that somehow, someday, some variant of Linux will be truly "plug-n-play" compatible with Windows 98SE/XP...

Sure, put up all the "This is illegal" and "Do not use this in the USA" and all that other crap, and add the Automatix and Easy-Whatever repositories, and then you will have some fey representation of a Windows replacement OS that can be used for both the hobbyists and the Capatalists.

Isn't that the point? Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole Apple vs. PC thing is so last century.

Aren't we ALL trying to accomplish the same thing now? I close my rant with the following question:

Can Ubuntu become a Windows replacement for the masses?

...and if not, why?

MRK

PS: I will continue to dual boot 98SE and Ubuntu, and learn, and read, and promise that from now on, I will only cry for help when I am totally overwhelmed.

No but it can be a great alternative OS for the masses.
Honestly so many people think Linux is a replacement for windows, its not meant for it... its an alternative not a replacement....
Like OSX is an alternative, like BSD or Solaris.

sloggerkhan
November 8th, 2006, 09:09 AM
It's funny. I started on a mac as a kid back in the days of OS 7,8 and 9. Then at school they had apple classics with real floppy disks and some macs. Then the next school had all windows, and next. though I had a mac at home through end of High School, I was also using windows at school and managing a windows laptop the last couple of years of highschool. Then for college I got a windows laptop cause it was cheaper, my family at home moved ot OSX sometime in High School. First year of college, I had a class with some programming and a little command line. Then after a year with windows, I installed ubuntu. For me, the most confusing thing was the hard drive partitioning. Coming from a mac, the cd installer was like nostalgia for the better things in OS 9, and gnome finally showed the DATE and TIME instead of just the time, stupid windows thing. And config aren't too complicated. Really, as long as you can look up what config files do what and modify them to match, the rest of the system takes care of itself.
But I guess I'm kinda weird because I've never had any real trouble using any operating system. I barely use windows these days (I use it for a fallback for those times when I ruin my linux install) and people still ask me for advice about it.

But what's been shocking me lately is this: People who are not computer people probably couldn't instal Ubuntu or Xubuntu or Kubuntu themselves, but if you do it for them, they prefer it to windows.

I still can't believe it, but I've come to the conclusion that if you are dealing with the average person who just wants to IM/Browse Net/Do Email/Word Processor/Use iPod, they genuinely seem to prefer gnome or xfce to windows. They think it's easier and simpler. No joke. The only people in that user class who don't seem to like it are the ones who use iTunes music store....

Now dealing with devoted/longterm/hardcore windows users is a different story... Most of them are looking for problems so they don't have to feel guilty about paying $100-600 for MS office and seem to think that being able to go to the ADD/REMOVE menu to get software is somehow worse than using a CD. (Which tends to be the exact opposite of the regular people who think it's awesome.)

Anyhow, to all the people who say that linux isn't for everyone, I think maybe that's true if you have to install and configure it yourself, but if people can get it installed for them, the semi-clueless users seem to love it.

bhuot
November 8th, 2006, 08:04 PM
The reasons I think Linux is being held back has nothing to do with making Linux work like Windows. I think the interfaces should be radically different in Linux than in Windows as Windows is not easy to use either. I don't think the command line is the problem either - it is a great strength. The problem with the command line is that people are not confident that they can type in everything accurately. Posters who respond with type this at the konsole should make sure people know that they can copy the code from the webpage and paste it into the command line. When I tell people who are afraid of the command line to do this, they are very relieved. Linux should not be made exactly like Windows, but there are many things that Linux is shooting itself in the foot with. First of all standardization of Linux distributions to putting the files in the same place for programs and configuration - I don't see why this is a Linux things to have things incompatible for no real advantage. Make the control panel the same across different distributions - basically people are doing the same things, but they have to re-learn everything each time they switch Linuxes. Programs should be renamed by distributions or desktop environments so people don't have to remember the specific program - example - call it web browser instead of Firefox. Gnome already does this to a great degree. So does Linspire. This is not making things exactly the same as Windows - it is just making things better for everyone.

in fact this is all available in this article

http://fedoranews.org/cms/node/1500

chickengirl
November 8th, 2006, 09:02 PM
Programs should be renamed by distributions or desktop environments so people don't have to remember the specific program - example - call it web browser instead of Firefox. Gnome already does this to a great degree. So does Linspire. This is not making things exactly the same as Windows - it is just making things better for everyone.

Blech. That's one of the things I hated about Linspire. If you want to make it clear that Firefox is a web browser, then file it under "web browsers" in the menu, or call it "Firefox Web Browser". Don't just hide from me what program I'm using -- frankly, I find that insulting.

I don't have a problem with making Linux easier to use, but I disagree with the sentiment that that means everything needs to be dumbed down for "grandma" or "average Joe". Why is everyone so eager to get Joe and Grandma on Linux anyway? If they're happy with Windows, let them use Windows. If they've got virus problems, get them anti-virus, or better, a Mac. Linux is for people who are at least somewhat interested in the workings of their computer and who are willing to learn. Joe and Grandma just want to play poker and email their grandkids (respectively). They don't need Linux. Let Linux be for the people who want to use Linux. If you're going to foist Linux on Joe and Grandma, let it be in the form of some nifty Linux-powered gadget that plays games/does internet/email and that's all it does. Because that's really all they want. Don't stick them with all the other baggage.

Why can't we just concentrate on making Linux the best it can be? Why must we be so obsessed with the Microsoftian ideal of "our OS on every desktop, whether they want it or not"?

Christmas
November 8th, 2006, 09:27 PM
One of the factors can be one the base things Linux is based on, and that is open-source. Probably most of the big corporations developing software don't want to give all their code away so they find a proper medium in Windows. Closed source software, most of it payed, their own licenses and their own ways of protecting the program by making the user to buy a license code to use the program. I think it's a different business model. I'm not an expert but let's take XChat for Windows for example. It is payed, but someone can modify and compile it so he can use it without the need to register it, am I right? So he could give the binary away then, and no money for XChat developers.

bhuot
November 8th, 2006, 09:48 PM
I don't see a problem with distributions or desktop environments making it easier for the average user. The advanced user can use another Windows Manager and not use OpenOffice.org and use an advanced distribution like Gentoo. If you really know all the ins and outs of your computer, then what are you using Ubuntu for? Ubuntu uses Gnome for their default desktop environment to make it easier for the average user. In fact most of the major programs Linux users use are clones of Windows or Mac programs because that is what people want and what developers are interested in designing. The vast majority of users and potential users want things to be easier and so do the developers. For those who want this to be an elitest club should go to a more hardcore distribution where they can have ultimate control. They should also be able to make their own distribution if they are really that advanced.

chickengirl
November 8th, 2006, 10:12 PM
I don't see a problem with distributions or desktop environments making it easier for the average user. The advanced user can use another Windows Manager and not use OpenOffice.org and use an advanced distribution like Gentoo. If you really know all the ins and outs of your computer, then what are you using Ubuntu for? Ubuntu uses Gnome for their default desktop environment to make it easier for the average user. In fact most of the major programs Linux users use are clones of Windows or Mac programs because that is what people want and what developers are interested in designing. The vast majority of users and potential users want things to be easier and so do the developers. For those who want this to be an elitest club should go to a more hardcore distribution where they can have ultimate control. They should also be able to make their own distribution if they are really that advanced.

Excuse me, exactly where did I say that I am Linus Torvalds personified and know everything there is to know about every computer in the world? I wasn't aware that Ubuntu was only for people who have never seen a computer before. I thought it was for human beings. Maybe I was mistaken.

It's not elitist to say that maybe -- just MAYBE -- Grandma doesn't need to be using Linux.

The fact is, "average Joe" and someone like me (and many of the people on this forum) have very different needs. Average Joe could not care less about what OS he is running. He just wants to play some games, surf the web, and write some e-mail. All of the other things that Linux can do would only confuse Joe. So by your logic, we should just cut them out, right? Shoehorn everybody into the lowest common denominator. Hey, if you don't like using a Playskool computer, you can just compile your own distro! Because apparently, in your world, there are only two kinds of people - your grandmother and Linus Torvalds. Absolutely no room in your worldview for someone like me who wants a computer that can do some nifty things, and to be able to mess around a little bit, but who appreciates the convenience that something like Ubuntu offers.

The fact is, Joe would have no use for my ideal setup, and I would have no use for Joe's. But if you got your way, people like me would be tossed out on the street in favor of marketing to Joe, who doesn't care about Linux and would be just as happy with Windows. Charming.

pichalsi
November 8th, 2006, 10:35 PM
yeah i have to agree with the above post... i think development should not always go the way windows goes... there are better ways to improve usability, i.e. i dont know if this works in windows but i discovered that where i rotate mouse wheel over kde panel its like alt tab. that hell useful at least for me

Sef
November 8th, 2006, 10:46 PM
The fact is, "average Joe" and someone like me (and many of the people on this forum) have very different needs. Average Joe could not care less about what OS he is running. He just wants to play some games, surf the web, and write some e-mail. All of the other things that Linux can do would only confuse Joe. So by your logic, we should just cut them out, right? Shoehorn everybody into the lowest common denominator. Hey, if you don't like using a Playskool computer, you can just compile your own distro! Because apparently, in your world, there are only two kinds of people - your grandmother and Linus Torvalds. Absolutely no room in your worldview for someone like me who wants a computer that can do some nifty things, and to be able to mess around a little bit, but who appreciates the convenience that something like Ubuntu offers.


Same with me. I doubt if I will ever be as technical as Linus, but I do enjoy doing more than just turning on the machine and using it.

indigoshift
November 8th, 2006, 10:58 PM
I had to use the command line... in 2006??

This style of thinking in general has always bothered me. It would be like someone getting into a car and saying, "this is a manual transmission...in 2006??"

I mean, I can see how someone can erroneously equate the CLI with computer antiquity, but they're wrong, plain and simple. The $64 question then becomes: how could we go about changing this preconceived notion?

aysiu
November 8th, 2006, 11:28 PM
Based on the some of the conversations in this last page, I would say that my favorite thing about desktop Linux is that it's not just one thing.

Linspire is available for some users.

Mepis and PCLinuxOS are available for others.

Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian...

Slackware, Gentoo, LFS...

Then there are some specialized distros like Damn Small and Knoppix.

Lots of different target audiences. Mythical "grandma" may not dig Gentoo, but Linspire might be her cup of tea.

spinflick
November 8th, 2006, 11:46 PM
Based on the some of the conversations in this last page, I would say that my favorite thing about desktop Linux is that it's not just one thing.

Linspire is available for some users.

Mepis and PCLinuxOS are available for others.

Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian...

Slackware, Gentoo, LFS...

Then there are some specialized distros like Damn Small and Knoppix.

Lots of different target audiences. Mythical "grandma" may not dig Gentoo, but Linspire might be her cup of tea.

I'm sure that Joe Average and Granny will be only to happy to check out all these distros one free weekend, so long as Granny doesn't miss her favourite soap opera and you can keep Joe Average out the pub long enough .

Personally I dont care what Granny or Joe use, that's there problem, I only care about Linux. Not world domination, that's microsoft speak.

aysiu
November 8th, 2006, 11:59 PM
I'm sure that Joe Average and Granny will be only to happy to check out all these distros one free weekend, so long as Granny doesn't miss her favourite soap opera and you can keep Joe Average out the pub long enough . Actually, I'm sure they'll use whatever came preloaded on their computers, which would probably be Windows.

dalani
November 9th, 2006, 01:24 AM
Ease of use has never been an issue once everything is up and running in Ubuntu. If pre-installed I agree Linux is actualy easier and safer to use for the non-computer literate. But put yourself in an office that uses Linux or windows. If something goes wrong or adjustements need to be made, it might be difficult even for a Linux user to get it going without having to check forums and google this and that. Windows and Mac have extensive context help. DO the inventory of Linux vs Windows comparisons and you'll see that onboard context help tools is the only thing windows has that Ubuntu doesn't.

The answer: Linux is ready for the desktop but no one knows yet. (Hasn't M.Shuttleworth heard of a press release??) Maybe the Linux pinguin logo should show up at soccer games now.

SC_Frank
November 9th, 2006, 02:33 AM
chickengirl --

I think your statement about trying to make Linux as good as it can be and that it should not be dumbed down in an effort to make everyone use it is the best analogy I've ever - ever heard for Linux being what it is. I've found in my daily use (without Windows) that it forces me to use what the distro gives me and those apps usually do all the their windows equivalents do, with far less overhead. Plus, I simply like using Linux so it's something I wanted to use, therefore I'll try to learn those things I don't know and teach others who do "want" to know what I've learned and experienced. Is that not the golden rule for the open source community anyway?? - share knowledge to build something better.

Just wanted to pass along my comments about how you expressed yourself within this thread.

Frank:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

bhuot
November 9th, 2006, 02:51 AM
I think there is a difference between 1% usage and world domination. There is a happy medium. I think it would be great if people used all sorts of different software and operating systems. I just want Linux to get enough critical mass so we can enjoy multimedia on the web without having to install codecs that are illegal in my country or using Windows emulation. And I don't see what is so hard about changing Windows Managers - especially for people who don't mind using the command line. All you have to do on Ubuntu is to install it through synaptic and then click on session on log in and then select the window manager from a menu. It is not rocket science. Also I don't think Gentoo is as hard as they make it sound. Again with a graphical system like X-Windows, people can use whatever Window Manger they choose and whatever theme they want, so people can very easily do whatever they want to. If you use OpenOffice.org - that is a Microsoft Office clone. If you use Gnome, it is very similar to how the Mac is designed and if you use KDE it is very Windowsesque. People can at the same time with the same system have hundreds of different incremental levels of challenge using Linux, so making it default to making it easy makes much more sense as people can easily challenge themselves by a couple clicks of the mouse button.

sloggerkhan
November 9th, 2006, 03:10 AM
I sorta feel an anti-granny vibe;) I think we're missing something big: For a home user, if someone sets up a stable version of Ubuntu, in particular, granny, it will work out better for her than windows.

Why? She won't constantly be worried about the latest virus.
Her computer will do the 3 things she might possibly want to do without problem.
It will run quickly and consistently, and not fill with junk.
She won't be able to break anything because her user won't have permission to do so.

I personally think that Ubuntu makes a hell of a lot more sense for Grandma and Grandpa than windows. I could see them using mac, also.

Once again, I reiterate, that for non-technical users, linux will work for them, there will be no problems, and they'll only know the difference because they don't have to pay for an antivirus. The ubuntu sudo/"rootless" system makes the thing perfect for these users.

And remember, attracting these users in ESSENTIAL in fighting bug #1.

chickengirl
November 9th, 2006, 03:25 AM
chickengirl --

I think your statement about trying to make Linux as good as it can be and that it should not be dumbed down in an effort to make everyone use it is the best analogy I've ever - ever heard for Linux being what it is. I've found in my daily use (without Windows) that it forces me to use what the distro gives me and those apps usually do all the their windows equivalents do, with far less overhead. Plus, I simply like using Linux so it's something I wanted to use, therefore I'll try to learn those things I don't know and teach others who do "want" to know what I've learned and experienced. Is that not the golden rule for the open source community anyway?? - share knowledge to build something better.

Just wanted to pass along my comments about how you expressed yourself within this thread.

Frank:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Thanks. :mrgreen:

sweemeng
November 9th, 2006, 03:47 AM
want some unfortunate news, these are comments that i get from the last few months.

some people can't get their sata drive working very well.

i got friends who try linux and complaint keyboard(actually it is a well known bug)

i try to run a livecd long time back on a friends pc, the graphics won't work

friend who screwed up installation in ways that i don't understand(then ends up with a linux-windows war).

user need to edit sources.list to get more software software(though i think the latest automatix fixes that),

and many other more because the hardware don't work well(not many hardware is like that). which i can fix, but ordinary user don't. most hardware in windows work with plug and play.


good news, from the same period(from me.......)

most doesn't have problem with latest hardware.

i got someone that is learning kubuntu.

the software that can replace most windows app is very capable, so no need to depend on windows app anymore

there is linux version of cool application, google earth, picasa for example

wine been very helpful

automatix, helps alot

Orwell
November 9th, 2006, 03:59 AM
Personally, I'm glad I've made the switch to Linux. I'm no computer expert and have been spoiled by years and years of MS-brainwashing. Having installed Linux for the first time, i'm finding that it is quite a steep learning curve for me at the moment. With that said, i've found that not only does Ubuntu currently meet my needs/wants in an OS, in some ways it exceeds them.

At the end of the day, we have to throw out a lot of what we know about Windows lest we bring excess baggage with us. Ubuntu isn't Windows....and in my opinion, that is it's best quality. I'm looking forward to making a truck-load of mistakes...and learning from them.

Viva La Linux! :KS

sweemeng
November 9th, 2006, 04:14 AM
harsh truth, linux is still for people that is willing to learn. it is for people that is willing to explore new things. and willing to do thing differently that what their previous os does. each operating system is different, both have their easy and hard part.

if things are done properly windows too can be secured, and do not need to be formated periodically. not just linux. it just that it is harder to mess up linux. once linux is successfully installed, problem rarely comes up.

ordinary user is different than geeks(like me), for us geeks, python is for this, perl is for that, opera vs firefox choices is natural. but for ordinary user, choices is not really good, come on how many people actually uses firefox, not in my place anyway, or open office. try to imagine they have to choose between ubuntu, fedora or suse, even with ubuntu they have to choose ubuntu and kubuntu.

the argument for linux(or FOSS software in general) is cost(at least at my place) and freedom. i don't really like, the fact that i have to go through wga to get microsoft software. and the cost of windows is ridiculous. and application is expensive, and people resort to crack to get it work. which is one reason for FOSS.

open source os such as linux is still for geeks, pretty much allows us to do anything we want, don't like(or don't have) an app from the distro, compile it. we can put a linux on pendrive, or on cd as livecd. try do that windows.

aysiu
November 9th, 2006, 04:37 AM
I don't compile from source, and I don't know Python from Perl.

I do just fine with Linux, though. You don't have to be a programmer or "geek" to get it going. You just have to be willing to roll up your sleeves, try a different way of doing things, and occasionally paste in a few commands other people give you.

crembz
November 9th, 2006, 09:41 AM
Hi all,

Just venting my frustration while i reinstall windows on my laptop.

I love the open source ideology and the community and all that. But I have still to get around to actually getting a fully functioning linux install on one of my systems!!!! Aside from my old s**t box systems, linux always struggles with newer hardware and pretty much anything it can't detect on install.

Every 6 months or so i decide to check out how far linux has actually come. I've given up on getting games to run on linux, all i want is a solid system that i can use to email, browse the net, write documents, light spreadsheeting, listen to music and moderate programming.

I have spent over 12 hours in the past few days just trying to get a wireless network card working. That was after numerous hours plugged into my router to get my display and touchpad working. ANY ... ANY operating system that needs a user to spend that much time to get some hardware working is NOT an option. I don't care how many fanatics there are out there and how many times they say "linux is better" "linux is more secure" ra ra ra ... Linux is still and, i'm beginning to think, will always be a second rate OS for home use. I don't care about server environments and security, i don't have any.

All I want is a wireless connection, a working display would be nice, and a working touchpad!

Maybe I'm plain incompetent when it comes to linux, but i still feel there is ALOT of room for improvement.

Ahhhh that's better!

sloggerkhan
November 9th, 2006, 05:14 PM
Once again, the average user does not want to try 30 OSes on CDs or put one on a Pen drive.

All they want is to check email, visit youtube, buy some swag on e-bay, and maybe IM or email their brother 2 states away.

The average user does not want to isntall even 1 OS if they can help it.

They do not even want to have to install programs themselves, though they probably end up having to. (a lot of old people are often surprised by the fact that windows comps don't really come with any useful software, and have trouble with the idea of installing things.)

Gnome desktop is not too different than any other GUI. In fact, we all know that gnome is in pretty much more intuitive and easier to use for a typical user using a computer for the first time than windows is.

The only barrier to adoption is that we aren't giving all our friends and grannies comps with a stable linux configured for them instead of windows.

Seriously, pre-installed gnome is like the answer to people who don't know jack about computing:

Reiterate:
Linux/Ubuntu/Gnome combo makes it difficult for them to trash their systems

It simplifies their GUI layout

It makes providing the services they use obvious

It won't need maintainance once properly installed

They won't have to buy a new version of quicken every year

No more antivirus subscription

They will be happy, life will be better, things will be peachy.

emarkay
November 9th, 2006, 10:47 PM
Aysiu, I did read that page - but it's 404 now.

Why CAN NOT Ubuntu be a SUBSTITUTE for Windows?

I am not talking about world domination or a noob Granny or some Unix geek, but so you can just get in and drive to do whatever you want to accomplish.

Ford or Chevy, while the fonts are different and the headlamp switch is in a different place, there's 4 wheels and a motor, and some form of a labeled transmission to get from point "A" to point "B" with only a rudimentary bit of skill and training...

Doesn't anyone agree that THAT is what will set UBUNTU apart from the plethora of Eek-Geek's Distro of the day.

kuja
November 9th, 2006, 11:03 PM
I am not talking about world domination ...
You can leave the talks of world domination to me. Kyahahahahaahaha!!

chickengirl
November 9th, 2006, 11:19 PM
Aysiu, I did read that page - but it's 404 now.

Why CAN NOT Ubuntu be a SUBSTITUTE for Windows?

I am not talking about world domination or a noob Granny or some Unix geek, but so you can just get in and drive to do whatever you want to accomplish.

Ford or Chevy, while the fonts are different and the headlamp switch is in a different place, there's 4 wheels and a motor, and some form of a labeled transmission to get from point "A" to point "B" with only a rudimentary bit of skill and training...

Doesn't anyone agree that THAT is what will set UBUNTU apart from the plethora of Eek-Geek's Distro of the day.

Linux is not Windows! (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)

Linux vs Windows is not Ford vs Chevy. It's car vs motorcycle. Yes, they both take you from point A to point B, but they are entirely different types of vehicles. Knowing how to drive a car does not mean you automatically know how to drive a motorcycle or vice-versa.

People choose the type of vehicle that they do because it's the type that meets their needs. Different people have different needs, and that is why we have cars and motorcycles.

Question: If granny or average Joe has got their Windows system just the way they like it, they've installed anti-virus and firewall, dumped IE and done everything they need to do to be reasonably secure... WHY should we be trying to get them to switch to Linux? What would Linux be able to offer to them?

I'll tell you what Linux has to offer for me:
* It's free. I'm cheap. Match made in heaven. (Flipside: No cost inevitably also means no paid tech support. I'm fine with that. But Joe or Grandma might be happier with the paid tech support, and be willing to shell out the bucks for that. And that is perfectly okay! None of us are wrong, we just have different needs and interests.)
* It's open, which means I can mess around with it. This is one of the main selling points of Linux, IMO, and I'm all over it. (Flipside: Grandma and Joe aren't interested in this. And that's okay! We have different interests.)
* It can do nifty things. (Flipside: Grandma and Joe may not have a use for shell script tom-foolery and cron jobs and all that stuff. They do, however, have a use for their favorite computer game/tax software/whatever, which may not work in Linux. And that's okay! Diff'rent strokes, diff'rent folks.)

If Joe or grandma has virus/scumware issues, isn't dependent on any Windows-only programs, and/or has a use for some of the nifty things Linux can do, and is willing and able to learn something new, then they may be able to profit from moving to Linux. But if none of those situations apply to them, then why are we so desperate to get them to switch?

chickengirl
November 9th, 2006, 11:52 PM
Another thought: Those of you who are so eager to make "a Linux for neophytes"... Have you guys heard of Linspire (http://www.linspire.com/)/Freespire (http://freespire.org/) and ReactOS (http://www.reactos.com/)? Why don't you get on board with them instead of trying to make Ubuntu something it isn't (a newbies-only/windows clone distro)?

Yes, making things easy to use is good, but here's the thing: Training wheels make bikes easier to use, right? Someone who's never ridden a bike before may want training wheels. But I, who already know how to ride a bike, would have no use for training wheels. Not only would I have no use for them, they would get in my way. Bolting training wheels on a bike makes that bike unsuitable for people who already know how to ride a bike -- and dumbing a distro down for the newbies makes it unsuitable for use by non-newbies.

Newbie-ism is fleeting. "Knowing how to ride a bike" is forever. There's a reason that the people who make all the cool, nifty bikes make them without training wheels.

shining
November 10th, 2006, 12:17 AM
Another thought: Those of you who are so eager to make "a Linux for neophytes"... Have you guys heard of Linspire (http://www.linspire.com/)/Freespire (http://freespire.org/) and ReactOS (http://www.reactos.com/)? Why don't you get on board with them instead of trying to make Ubuntu something it isn't (a newbies-only/windows clone distro)?

Yes, making things easy to use is good, but here's the thing: Training wheels make bikes easier to use, right? Someone who's never ridden a bike before may want training wheels. But I, who already know how to ride a bike, would have no use for training wheels. Not only would I have no use for them, they would get in my way. Bolting training wheels on a bike makes that bike unsuitable for people who already know how to ride a bike -- and dumbing a distro down for the newbies makes it unsuitable for use by non-newbies.

Newbie-ism is fleeting. "Knowing how to ride a bike" is forever. There's a reason that the people who make all the cool, nifty bikes make them without training wheels.

I don't understand. Isn't ubuntu supposed to be a newbie distribution? I thought it was its goal, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Though, I never heard it was meant to be a windows clone. I don't know why you are assimilating these 2 different terms.
And while it's harder to satisfy different kind of users, it isn't impossible. An user friendly distro can satisfy both linux newcomers, and more experienced users who don't want to waste too much time on configuring/installing their system.
There are still distribution who are less newbie oriented, for example the one ubuntu is based on. But also many others..

mo79
November 10th, 2006, 12:18 AM
Linux is not Windows, but if I'm not mistaken, Ubuntu does want to be 'the' Linux that will serve as a worthy contender. Don't get me wrong though, I like Ubuntu/Linux in general, but 'Rome' isn't happening until a) Ubuntu gets much more consumerist, b) Hardware and software companies find the platform worthy enough to contribute to.
Also, while Open Source/Free Software is laudible (I don't say no to a free lunch, especially one you can see made :) ), people want to make money. And coin filled hands dictate everything, even when it comes to art.
I will continue to use Linux for a number of tasks, but some tasks are just only available in Windows for me. Thus the reason Linux is not ready to for the desktop (although technically it is) is because Microsoft is not pissing enough people yet.

chickengirl
November 10th, 2006, 12:31 AM
I don't understand. Isn't ubuntu supposed to be a newbie distribution? I thought it was its goal, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Though, I never heard it was meant to be a windows clone. I don't know why you are assimilating these 2 different terms.
And while it's harder to satisfy different kind of users, it isn't impossible. An user friendly distro can satisfy both linux newcomers, and more experienced users who don't want to waste too much time on configuring/installing their system.
There are still distribution who are less newbie oriented, for example the one ubuntu is based on. But also many others..

As I understand it, Ubuntu is supposed to be a distro that is suitable for use by relative newcomers and more advanced users.

There are people in this thread who seem to think that people who are more-or-less comfortable with The Linux Way and don't need their hand held have no business using Ubuntu at all. Apparently, I'm supposed to screw off and use Gentoo or Linux-From-Scratch (!!! for Pete's sake!!!) just because I know a thing or two.

A bicycle without training wheels is suitable for use by newcomers to bike-riding (if they're sufficiently motivated and don't mind getting a couple of bruises while they're getting the hang of it) as well as advanced bike-riders. A Fisher-Price My First Training Bike is only suitable for preschoolers. I don't want Ubuntu to be a preschoolers-only distro. Do you?

kuja
November 10th, 2006, 12:33 AM
I don't understand. Isn't ubuntu supposed to be a newbie distribution? I thought it was its goal, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Though, I never heard it was meant to be a windows clone. I don't know why you are assimilating these 2 different terms.
And while it's harder to satisfy different kind of users, it isn't impossible. An user friendly distro can satisfy both linux newcomers, and more experienced users who don't want to waste too much time on configuring/installing their system.
There are still distribution who are less newbie oriented, for example the one ubuntu is based on. But also many others..
Indeed. Ubuntu's goal is to be "easy to use", and they say "linux for human beings" - not "linux for (x-)windows users." Easy to use is a more general term. The windows clone market is already covered by the Linspire/Xandros sort of crowd.

ShadowVlican
November 10th, 2006, 01:27 AM
i feel the same way

but i don't think we're allowed to talk like this here ;)

flame-suit on. :twisted:

sloggerkhan
November 10th, 2006, 02:15 AM
Ubuntu is linux for all without caring what windows like. And my techy friends and my grandma and my next door neighbors all agree that windows pretty much sucks... So why be like it? It can be for them because of it's customizable flexibility, and it can be for geeks too. Yay!

Albi
November 10th, 2006, 02:57 AM
Took me a few days to get my first ubuntu system running well, but my recent reformat took me 30 min instead of 12 hours it took the first time.

Ironically, the hardest part of using Linux is right at the beginning, if you can get someone to do all the stuff for you like you did when you bought the laptop with XP, you will like linux much better, but you have to understand that there is a steep learning curve at the beginning. If you tried to install windows from scratch with no experience on it, you would probably have similar results.

BLTicklemonster
November 10th, 2006, 02:58 AM
i feel the same way

but i don't think we're allowed to talk like this here ;)

flame-suit on. :twisted:

You replied!!! I'm telling on you!!!

:)

So yeah, there's still some hardware that doesn't work in linux, and until game makers get with the program, we'll be left out on many of them. Keep checking. Linux has come a long way in the last 6 years, I mean a looooong way. Who knows what the next several have in store for us?

bikeboy
November 10th, 2006, 03:32 AM
A bicycle without training wheels is suitable for use by newcomers to bike-riding (if they're sufficiently motivated and don't mind getting a couple of bruises while they're getting the hang of it) as well as advanced bike-riders. A Fisher-Price My First Training Bike is only suitable for preschoolers. I don't want Ubuntu to be a preschoolers-only distro. Do you?

Nicely put. Having Debian roots, Ubuntu has all the power of the most advanced distro, but doesn't force everyone using to learn every single in and out of the system at any stage. It's the 1st and only distro I've installed for full time use and I've found that it has grown with me as I've learnt more. What more could you want?

bhuot
November 10th, 2006, 04:49 PM
Another thought: Those of you who are so eager to make "a Linux for neophytes"... Have you guys heard of Linspire (http://www.linspire.com/)/Freespire (http://freespire.org/) and ReactOS (http://www.reactos.com/)? Why don't you get on board with them instead of trying to make Ubuntu something it isn't (a newbies-only/windows clone distro)?

Newbie-ism is fleeting. "Knowing how to ride a bike" is forever. There's a reason that the people who make all the cool, nifty bikes make them without training wheels.

I'm glad you brought that up. In fact I have used Linspire and it is very easy in many ways and to a large degree satisfies my requirements but Gnome is not supported with Linspire which make things much easier for me to get more done. The most important thing that stops me from using Linspire is that they almost *never* do updates to their programs. I also like the Debian approach without having all the stuff I don't use installed like with Suse. I even took a survey and it recommended Ubuntu.

I am of the persuasion in having a Mac too that I like to install lots of programs and be up to date on them and I do have a lot of computer knowledge, but I enjoy creating things, not fixing things or setting things up. I am adventurous but don't want to spend a lot of time getting things to work. I would just stick with the Mac, but no one besides Steve Jobs seem to be able to run the company, so when he dies, Apple may go down with him.

Also I use almost all open source software now, so it makes sense to use and Open Source operating system - this software is tested more on Linux and X-Windows is much more user friendly on Linux. I would use PC-BSD if it was compatible with my hardware which is nothing unordinary - my computer came with Linspire pre-installed.

techweenie
November 11th, 2006, 06:54 AM
I too used to check out the progress linux has made in ease of use and hardware support. In the past I always used some flavor of redhat or Fedora Core, but this time I tried ubuntu. I like it so much that it has replaced Windows for everything but games. Kind of a waste now because Windows is sitting on that fancy 600GB raid 0 setup all by itself....

Shay Stephens
November 11th, 2006, 07:42 AM
It does take time to deprogram yourself from windows thinking to Linux thinking. I was an MCSE and all that jazz, and it has taken me about a good 6 months to get on top of things, and another 6 months to start getting into the finer points where I can troubleshoot problems myself.

So go easy on yourself, it takes some time. Give yourself that time.

3rdalbum
November 11th, 2006, 12:17 PM
If the wireless card is what's holding you back, get a new wireless card. Hey, it's cheaper than buying a Mac, isn't it?

jhmac77
November 11th, 2006, 07:35 PM
The way I see it, Ubuntu linix is a language, different from Windows but Windows is a simpler language. If we want other people to use Ubuntu maybe we need to simplify our language.
Just a thought.
Jim

jhmac77
November 11th, 2006, 07:43 PM
All I know is my wife would have a fit with ubuntu. Windows is too complicated for her in some places. We have one desktop and two users so guess who will win out, Windows or ubuntu?

Tomosaur
November 11th, 2006, 08:02 PM
"I can't get used to Linux, make it more like Windows!".

Linux is better for some things, Windows is better for others. Use Windows if you prefer it, don't complain about how not everything is exactly like it. All of your suggestions are reasonable, yes, but what motivation would linux developers have for implementing them and making them standard? To make Linux more like Windows? What's the point in that? If you want to use Windows, go ahead and use it. If you want to use Linux, find a distribution that does what you want it to do, and use that. There are distributions available which are specifically designed to be similar to Windows, you could try one of those. You have to understand the difference between the user interface and the operating system, and there are many many variations on the interface. You should be able to find one that suits you.

Shay Stephens
November 11th, 2006, 11:50 PM
If the wireless card is what's holding you back, get a new wireless card. Hey, it's cheaper than buying a Mac, isn't it?

This has made a huge difference for me. Getting hardware that works with linux just makes everything works so much smoother. No more head butting. And it really is cheaper than throwing money at the problem by buying a new system.

ShadowVlican
November 11th, 2006, 11:55 PM
You replied!!! I'm telling on you!!!

:)

So yeah, there's still some hardware that doesn't work in linux, and until game makers get with the program, we'll be left out on many of them. Keep checking. Linux has come a long way in the last 6 years, I mean a looooong way. Who knows what the next several have in store for us?
:-# ;)

and you bet! linux HAS come a long way :D i've been following ubuntu releases for a while... installing it everytime a new revision comes out... and it's great stuff! but still has long ways to go :)

AndyCooll
November 12th, 2006, 12:17 AM
All I know is my wife would have a fit with ubuntu. Windows is too complicated for her in some places. We have one desktop and two users so guess who will win out, Windows or ubuntu?

Well in a similar case scenario for us, it was Ubuntu.

My missus is a "basic user - Internet, e-mail, music, photos, office software - and she has no problems using it. I've set the system up true (but then I would have had to do this whichever OS had been chosen!). However she is proof (albeit in a survey of one) that Linux is too complicated for such users.

:cool:

kerry_s
November 12th, 2006, 12:22 AM
I hate when people whine because they can't get something built for windows to work in linux. If it dosen't work look at getting something linux compatiable. As long as there's propriety crap, there will always be something that won't work. It all depends on how willing you are to make a change.

Christmas
November 12th, 2006, 12:50 AM
Double-click installs. I don;t know what an RPM or Deb file is (or whatever they are called). I just want to download a program, click on its main icon and watch it install. I don't want to have to install managers to handle certain file types. There is nothing intuitive about installing programs in Linux, even if you toy with Symantic. Power users can still use the root to install the files, but a quick and easy way would be great
Well I had the same feelings not only about this, but many other things when I switched from Windows to Linux. But after I began to understand how things work and that generally things get done different in Linux than in Windows, well this new way seems to me faster and more intuitive now. Why? Because I am now used to install applications in Ubuntu and it's very easy. For example (and I don't want to start a war about if it really is or not faster or easier) now I only have to type "sudo apt-get install program_name", where program_name can be any audio player, game, or any other program available in the repositories. In Windows I had to download each program separately and then install it. My point is that once one really understands that the Linux way is not the Windows way and once it gets used to it, things will stay different for him.

If it needs a root command, it's not good. Seriously, if I wanted to stick to command prompts I'd still be using DOS. At this point of time Linux might be better than Windows, but MacOS kicks it in the teeth when it comes to an intuitive GUI design.
While I agree most of the people that come from Windows are used to using only GUI, CLI is one of the most powerful features that Linux implements. There have been lots of discussions, and I read here on the forums about persons who were power users or even programmers on Windows didn't find the Linux's CLI a commodity. Actually there are many GUI interfaces for almost each task, however typing is faster and most of the time easier to explain.

aysiu
November 12th, 2006, 01:05 AM
Merged with the the Linux isn't ready for the desktop thread.

deepwave
November 12th, 2006, 01:31 AM
Its funny how much people debate whether or not Linux is not ready for the desktop. I have used Linux as a desktop for 5 years now, and 3 of those on a laptop. Linux as a usable, reliable desktop is something that happened 5 years ago. The problem of the Linux desktop revolved around the problem of getting X setup. A few years ago, people considered configuring and setting up X a rite of passage. Now it is a few clicks away.

I think the question should be: Are people ready to make Linux their desktop?

sweemeng
November 12th, 2006, 02:04 AM
I think the question should be: Are people ready to make Linux their desktop?

dead on.............

bhuot
November 12th, 2006, 03:01 AM
If you are comparing Linux to Windows now, I think Linux is much easier. In fact, in some ways Linux is as easy or easier than using a Mac. I just want this to continue. I think this is the way to a few more percent market share for Linux on the desktop, is to make it so much easier than using Windows that it is as easy to use as a Mac. Then I see lots of migrations. More most people, ease of use is paramount after compatibility. Ubuntu 6.10 has made it for me in ease of use to make it my primary desktop as of now with Flash working properly and now that I have my Mac sharing the Internet with Linux and Linux with its own monitor. I will need the Mac less and less. I don't need it any more for graphic design and thats one of the main things I use my computer for. Linux now has the applications for most people including graphic design and with Gnome 2.16 and with OpenOffice.org 2.0.4 in Ubuntu 6.06 and the add remove programs in the applications menu, it is so slick. I can't imagine anyone rationally saying that Linux is too hard if they are used to Windows.

ShadowVlican
November 12th, 2006, 03:21 AM
I hate when people whine because they can't get something built for windows to work in linux. If it dosen't work look at getting something linux compatiable. As long as there's propriety crap, there will always be something that won't work. It all depends on how willing you are to make a change.
linux advocates should be saying nothing is BUILT FOR WINDOWS ;)

but i agree with your statement... which is part of the reason why linux isn't ready for widespread use


I think the question should be: Are people ready to make Linux their desktop?
no i'm not ready to use the terminal and search forums for answers to solve problems which are rare in windows


If you are comparing Linux to Windows now, I think Linux is much easier. In fact, in some ways Linux is as easy or easier than using a Mac. I just want this to continue. I think this is the way to a few more percent market share for Linux on the desktop, is to make it so much easier than using Windows that it is as easy to use as a Mac. Then I see lots of migrations. More most people, ease of use is paramount after compatibility. Ubuntu 6.10 has made it for me in ease of use to make it my primary desktop as of now with Flash working properly and now that I have my Mac sharing the Internet with Linux and Linux with its own monitor. I will need the Mac less and less. I don't need it any more for graphic design and thats one of the main things I use my computer for. Linux now has the applications for most people including graphic design and with Gnome 2.16 and with OpenOffice.org 2.0.4 in Ubuntu 6.06 and the add remove programs in the applications menu, it is so slick. I can't imagine anyone rationally saying that Linux is too hard if they are used to Windows.
ubuntu makes it really easy to install software, TRUE :)

the software installed is better alternatives than the ones available in windows? :-k IN MY OPINION, FALSE. :twisted:

photoshop > gimp
ms office > openoffice
foobar2000 > hhmmmm..... (i have foobar tweaked for BIT-PERFECT output to my receiver.. i think i'll have a hell of a time getting that to work in linux... but i'm sorry to admit i haven't really tried)

back to ease of use... just check out the forums for more examples ;)

ShadowVlican
November 12th, 2006, 03:29 AM
Open thoughts about Linux...
i haven't read any part of this large thread, but i have some open thoughts about linux

it's great that so many people are involved with open source and free software such as ubuntu, but to succeed there must be a way to combine these efforts

as a linux noob, i was confused why there was so many distribution? this just acts to split up the communities, so we have Redhat people, ubuntu people, suse people, etc...

not only that, many programs and DRIVERS are also specific to distributions.... that is NOT good..

my dream is for linux to unite... makes it easier for everyone... more power to one team, instead of spread out into many teams?

er... yea.... that's my thought

bhuot
November 12th, 2006, 03:57 AM
ubuntu makes it really easy to install software, TRUE :)

the software installed is better alternatives than the ones available in windows? :-k IN MY OPINION, FALSE. :twisted:

photoshop > gimp
ms office > openoffice
foobar2000 > hhmmmm..... (i have foobar tweaked for BIT-PERFECT output to my receiver.. i think i'll have a hell of a time getting that to work in linux... but i'm sorry to admit i haven't really tried)

back to ease of use... just check out the forums for more examples ;)

For most people's uses I think it is. I never could afford Photoshop and I strongly suspect I wouldn't use all that power. I bought Dreamweaver and for what I do Nvu works just as well. I don't mean that Gimp matches even Photoshop Elements feature for feature, but that may not be necessary in most cases. I am comparing graphics programs in the 100 dollar range on the Mac. Also being able to put things in more open formats more easily is worth more than some of those features that I don't need.

Tomosaur
November 12th, 2006, 04:03 AM
i haven't read any part of this large thread, but i have some open thoughts about linux

it's great that so many people are involved with open source and free software such as ubuntu, but to succeed there must be a way to combine these efforts

as a linux noob, i was confused why there was so many distribution? this just acts to split up the communities, so we have Redhat people, ubuntu people, suse people, etc...

not only that, many programs and DRIVERS are also specific to distributions.... that is NOT good..

my dream is for linux to unite... makes it easier for everyone... more power to one team, instead of spread out into many teams?

er... yea.... that's my thought

Many distributions are specifically aimed at an audience. 'General' distributions like Ubuntu have more success because their target audience is everybody. Many distributions also start off as a hobby, or an experiment, just to see if it can be done. I personally prefer this kind of approach rather than a 'one size fits all' methodology. At the moment, Ubuntu makes everything I want/need to do very easy, but it may not in the future, and if/when that time comes, I can just switch to another distro.

bhuot
November 12th, 2006, 04:13 AM
no i'm not ready to use the terminal and search forums for answers to solve problems which are rare in windows

back to ease of use... just check out the forums for more examples ;)

I am ready. I remember trying to get things fixed with Windows like uninstalling Compuserve 2000, so I could use another ISP. I took it down to the shop and they "fixed it" but when I returned to it, it still didn't work. Also a printer kept on printing out weird symbols instead of the documents I wanted. I took it down and they "fixed" it but it still didn't work. We finally sold it to them since they thought it was so great and it wouldn't work for us. I remember Adobe Reader not upgrading right and having to use Ghostscript on Windows. I remember the computer locking up when I was using a couple of programs at once constantly. By then I had given up on trying to get it to work. We also had trouble getting hardware that worked from major companies like HP. We went to a local shop and asked him what he could build us that worked and for what price and he didn't support Linux. Buying a Mac was much cheaper. This time when using Linux I bought it pre-installed from Tiger Direct - a magazine based computer store I had seen catalogs of before. It works great a year later. The only thing that doesn't work right is the DVD burner can't burn DVD-ROMs - it can read them and burn CD-ROMs but not the DVD data. But I have to be honest I hit the CD tray with my foot quite hard, so it is likely I broke it.

d3v1ant_0n3
November 12th, 2006, 04:17 AM
I hate when people whine because they can't get something built for windows to work in linux. If it dosen't work look at getting something linux compatiable. As long as there's propriety crap, there will always be something that won't work. It all depends on how willing you are to make a change.

I tend to whine when my gamecube games won't work in the PS2. Despite the fact that they're different systems, with different file formats and all the jollyness that goes along with it.

Not really, but I like the analogy.

On a different note, is this thread still going?

aysiu
November 12th, 2006, 05:15 AM
I tend to whine when my gamecube games won't work in the PS2. Despite the fact that they're different systems, with different file formats and all the jollyness that goes along with it.

Not really, but I like the analogy.

On a different note, is this thread still going?
If this thread isn't going, there will be another one like it that thinks it's original. I'd rather people see there's a history.

ShadowVlican
November 12th, 2006, 05:44 AM
For most people's uses I think it is. I never could afford Photoshop and I strongly suspect I wouldn't use all that power. I bought Dreamweaver and for what I do Nvu works just as well. I don't mean that Gimp matches even Photoshop Elements feature for feature, but that may not be necessary in most cases. I am comparing graphics programs in the 100 dollar range on the Mac. Also being able to put things in more open formats more easily is worth more than some of those features that I don't need.
fair comparison :) i would agree that open format is for the better, since more software could be developed for it without being hung by the licensing fees

however i like to use a format that is widely used.. er :-k get what i mean? :-|


I am ready. I remember trying to get things fixed with Windows like uninstalling Compuserve 2000, so I could use another ISP. I took it down to the shop and they "fixed it" but when I returned to it, it still didn't work. Also a printer kept on printing out weird symbols instead of the documents I wanted. I took it down and they "fixed" it but it still didn't work. We finally sold it to them since they thought it was so great and it wouldn't work for us. I remember Adobe Reader not upgrading right and having to use Ghostscript on Windows. I remember the computer locking up when I was using a couple of programs at once constantly. By then I had given up on trying to get it to work. We also had trouble getting hardware that worked from major companies like HP. We went to a local shop and asked him what he could build us that worked and for what price and he didn't support Linux. Buying a Mac was much cheaper. This time when using Linux I bought it pre-installed from Tiger Direct - a magazine based computer store I had seen catalogs of before. It works great a year later. The only thing that doesn't work right is the DVD burner can't burn DVD-ROMs - it can read them and burn CD-ROMs but not the DVD data. But I have to be honest I hit the CD tray with my foot quite hard, so it is likely I broke it.
i'm unable to sympathize with you because i have never encoutered those situations ever since winXP came out

sounds like your situation is similar to those who got fed up with linux and moved to another OS


d3v1ant_0n3, this thread was combined with another one (in windows OS forum), so maybe that's why it seemed like it was back from the dead

ShadowVlican
November 12th, 2006, 05:51 AM
Many distributions are specifically aimed at an audience. 'General' distributions like Ubuntu have more success because their target audience is everybody. Many distributions also start off as a hobby, or an experiment, just to see if it can be done. I personally prefer this kind of approach rather than a 'one size fits all' methodology. At the moment, Ubuntu makes everything I want/need to do very easy, but it may not in the future, and if/when that time comes, I can just switch to another distro.
maybe i went too far with 'one size fits all' methodology, but that is certainly not what i was aiming for

you can see that there are many distributions targeted at "everybody", that's where i was aiming, to unite those together (i'm excluding niche audiences with specific needs because they know their stuff while a regular joe like myself would be clueless)

deepwave
November 12th, 2006, 06:34 AM
no i'm not ready to use the terminal and search forums for answers to solve problems which are rare in windows


Problems that are rare in Windows, and not rare in Linux or Unix. And vice versa. You will not find that answers to your xserver configuration problems, will help you run a better Windows system. Likewise, you will not find that answers to registry problems, will help you run a better Linux system. At least not directly.

You will find that searching for solutions begins a journey of discovery. Along the way you will become able to handle both, and in fact ANY system.

I know this sounds all very Zen-like. I consider Linux to be part of my Zen of Computing.

deepwave
November 12th, 2006, 07:15 AM
There are many distributions because there are many different ways of tackling the same problem. The problem often being: making Linux an OS that the majority of people can use. But the different ways, involve different techniques and different mentalities. There is a WORLD of difference in mentality between the Red Hat, Debian, Gentoo and Ubuntu communities. And we all know what happens you try to force different ideals (even contractory ones) together.

The real issue in the minds of those new to Linux and non-issue for Linux veterans, is why we (devs and Linux community) are not working to get everyone to switch. That is not the point. We use Linux because it works for us. Many of us like the freedom, the community and the flexibility of it. If you want to join us, that is cool with us. If not, that is your choice. The whole idea of Linux is just that, the freedom to choose.

patrick295767
November 12th, 2006, 08:13 AM
To be totally honest, I agree with this post. Not that I have anything against Linux (don't get me wrong). I just think that the main stumbling block for Linux on the average desktop is the lack of ease.

For example:
I have a 19" widescreen monitor. On a completely fresh install, I had to manually edit the config file in order for xserver to recognize my 1440x900 resolution. That won't fly with mom & pop.

If Best Buy has to go out and hire a bunch of people to help grandma install a modem, you can sure bet she'll throw her hands up in the air when she hears about reconfiguring her network settings when she reboots.

Just examples...

But I have nothing against Linux, so I hope noone read my thoughts wrong.

It depends the neeeds of the users, some persons will like using console and keyboard,
and some others will use the frontend.

This two possibilities are a big chance for Server and installing purposes. In some field (science), it is kind of "obliged" to use Unix based operating system.

( Console & command lines are a big thing that has to be kept for programming purposes. )

Grretz

bhuot
November 12th, 2006, 04:16 PM
however i like to use a format that is widely used.. er :-k get what i mean? :-|



One of the main reasons why I use open formats is that I want people to be able to see what I have worked on a hundred years into the future. But open formats can and are widely used. Sure, you won't see that many DVI files on the Internet, but PDF is every where as well as HTML which are both open. Anther common one that is partially open is RTF.

ShadowVlican
November 12th, 2006, 10:11 PM
One of the main reasons why I use open formats is that I want people to be able to see what I have worked on a hundred years into the future. But open formats can and are widely used. Sure, you won't see that many DVI files on the Internet, but PDF is every where as well as HTML which are both open. Anther common one that is partially open is RTF.
yes, i planned on using PDF as an example of wide-spread use that practically any computer can open/view/edit, however i didn't think it was open source... are you sure? (cuz i remember adobe being upset with the next MS office with regards to the PDF format)

but yes, as long as the format is widely used, you can bet that's the format i use and prefer, whether open sourced or not

shining
November 12th, 2006, 10:38 PM
yes, i planned on using PDF as an example of wide-spread use that practically any computer can open/view/edit, however i didn't think it was open source... are you sure? (cuz i remember adobe being upset with the next MS office with regards to the PDF format)

but yes, as long as the format is widely used, you can bet that's the format i use and prefer, whether open sourced or not

I don't think you can say that a format is open source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/support/topic_legal_notices.html



Accordingly, the following patents are licensed on a royalty-free, nonexclusive basis for the term of each patent and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces, consumes, and interprets PDF files that are compliant with the Specification


I don't understand what this means. Why can't MS include pdf support in Office?

ShadowVlican
November 12th, 2006, 11:03 PM
yea that's what i thought and was quoting "bhuot" to verify

i just remember some conflicts between adobe and microsoft regarding PDF inclusion in the next office, i'm sure google should be able to provide more details. that lead me to believe that PDF is not open format, but nonetheless widely used

BLTicklemonster
November 12th, 2006, 11:14 PM
Merged with the the Linux isn't ready for the desktop thread.

I have been keeping up with stuff I want to know how to do in case I ever do new installs, so I can just come here, go to my private messages, and they are all there, pmed to myself. You forum admin/mods are killing all my links. Can you please leave markers where the old thread was or something? I mean why should I go to all this trouble now if my links will be dead in 2 months time? And heaven forbid I even try the links in my sig. I wonder if they all work? ](*,)

Other than that, you folks are doing a great job, keep up the good work.

aysiu
November 12th, 2006, 11:15 PM
Why can't MS include pdf support in Office? It can. In fact, it does in MS Office for Mac... unless that's somehow Mac OS X having its own function that's just available within Office.

If PDF required pay-for licenses, I doubt the "export to PDF" option it would be included in OpenOffice or KOffice or Gnome Office.


I have been keeping up with stuff I want to know how to do in case I ever do new installs, so I can just come here, go to my private messages, and they are all there, pmed to myself. You forum admin/mods are killing all my links. Can you please leave markers where the old thread was or something? I mean why should I go to all this trouble now if my links will be dead in 2 months time? And heaven forbid I even try the links in my sig. I wonder if they all work?

Other than that, you folks are doing a great job, keep up the good work. I actually leave a permanent redirect most of the time when I merge threads. I'm not sure about other moderators, though.

BLTicklemonster
November 12th, 2006, 11:16 PM
And another thing, if pdf is open source, where's my free pdf maker that doesn't rely on some lame printer link to work? Is there an linux pdf maker that works? Link? Debs? Repos (trusty only please!!! lmao) ?

aysiu
November 12th, 2006, 11:28 PM
OpenOffice?
KWord?
Gedit?

As far as I know, none of those need "some lame printer link" to work. Of course, I don't know what you mean by "some lame printer link."

BLTicklemonster
November 12th, 2006, 11:31 PM
I have yet to be able to open and modify a pdf file, though knowing me, I probably did something wrong!

If you try to get a freeware pdf editor for windows, you usually end up using something that makes you have to have a printer installed already. Like all of use can afford printers! I'm downloading freeware ffs!!! Hello? lol


And thanks for the care you take in keeping things straight when you moderate. :)

bhuot
November 13th, 2006, 02:56 AM
I have yet to be able to open and modify a pdf file, though knowing me, I probably did something wrong!

If you try to get a freeware pdf editor for windows, you usually end up using something that makes you have to have a printer installed already. Like all of use can afford printers! I'm downloading freeware ffs!!! Hello? lol



You can on Mac OS X with a lot of inexpensive shareware and it is very high quality. Apple used PDF for its print and display system on OS X instead of postscript which it already had used in its design, because they didn't have to pay Adobe any money that way. If Adobe didn't charge Apple where they probably lose a lot of customers do to this inclusion (you can print to PDF from any native OS X application), then I don't see them charging Microsoft.

aysiu
November 13th, 2006, 03:27 AM
I have yet to be able to open and modify a pdf file, though knowing me, I probably did something wrong!

If you try to get a freeware pdf editor for windows, you usually end up using something that makes you have to have a printer installed already. Like all of use can afford printers! I'm downloading freeware ffs!!! Hello? lol


And thanks for the care you take in keeping things straight when you moderate. :)
Oh, you want to modify PDFs? That's a different story.

KWord allows you to import PDFs and then export them again, but it's not exactly modifying, as the formatting is not always preserved.

bhuot
November 13th, 2006, 04:12 AM
I have yet to be able to open and modify a pdf file, though knowing me, I probably did something wrong!


If you are only given a file in PDF format, the author probably didn't want you to modify it.

shining
November 13th, 2006, 11:37 AM
It can. In fact, it does in MS Office for Mac... unless that's somehow Mac OS X having its own function that's just available within Office.

If PDF required pay-for licenses, I doubt the "export to PDF" option it would be included in OpenOffice or KOffice or Gnome Office.


Yes, so it's rather confusing. They have a license so that anyone can write an app which exports to pdf without paying anything to adobe, but Adobe can still prevent the most widely used app for doing it?
So it's possible and royalty-free by default, but Adobe can then change it for each specific case?

bhuot
November 13th, 2006, 06:45 PM
Yes, so it's rather confusing. They have a license so that anyone can write an app which exports to pdf without paying anything to adobe, but Adobe can still prevent the most widely used app for doing it?
So it's possible and royalty-free by default, but Adobe can then change it for each specific case?

It is a royalty free format, but Adobe has several patents on it. I think Adobe is shooting itself in the foot by trying to get Microsoft to not implement it, if this is true and not just speculation. It gives Microsoft an excuse to be less open and deny people a feature most users would wish.

aysiu
November 13th, 2006, 06:54 PM
I'm not sure if you consider Wikipedia a credible source on this issue, but you may want to read up on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf

emarkay
November 14th, 2006, 02:02 AM
If this thread isn't going, there will be another one like it that thinks it's original.

Aysiu, again, appreciate your great input and Ubuntu assistance, but stop and think about this reply, for me, for a bit.

Doesn't that illustrate a point - even if you ignore the unsearched duplicate posts and the whiners-for-whining's-sake posts - that there is a major disconnect between Ubuntu and the userbase?

Why can't we get some FACTS from Canonical about WHAT is the purpose of Ubuntu in the on the desktop, and overall?

What do THEY envision it as; A Windows replacement, just another Linux distro, a Noob friendly hand holder, a geek's dream, something to spent time and money on, a fully integrated suite, something eventually that is shipped with every new PC, or what???

Getting the facts straight from the source, and then for all of us to have a clue as to the desired direction, will go a LONG way to eliminating all the speculation, gnashing of teeth, and confusion.

Surely SOMEONE agrees here?

SURELY SOMEONE can get them to make a statement?

Well, somebody? :)

MRK

aysiu
November 14th, 2006, 02:14 AM
I think the major disconnect is between what frustrated end users perceive as the source of their problems and the real source of the problems.

For example, an end user who is used to having Dell install an operating system for her and find all the drivers for her may not realize how hard it is to install an operating system from scratch, but since preinstalled Linux isn't as common, people often have to install it themselves and compare preinstalled Windows to install-by-yourself Linux and then conclude Linux is more difficult to install.

Likewise, many people assume that if something done the Windows way in Linux is difficult, Linux is then difficult. For example, people may be unfamiliar with package management (which is, by far, easier than setup.exe installations), so they go to some site, download a .tar.gz and have no idea what to do with it. Package management is an easier model, but it's not easier for the end-user because it's not a familiar model.

In other words, people are coming with double standards and unrealistic expectations. Migrating to desktop Linux is like moving to a new country where they speak a different language. If you expect it to be the same as your country, you'll naturally be disappointed. Many migrants think desktop Linux is "Windows without problems." It's not Windows--it's not Windows at all.

For more info, go here:
http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/linuxdesktopmyth

.t.
November 14th, 2006, 02:33 AM
Well, we all know it's "Linux for Human Beings"! Duh!

yabbadabbadont
November 14th, 2006, 02:37 AM
Well, we all know it's "Linux for Human Beings"! Duh!

Every time I see that catch phrase it makes me wonder "Who else could it be for?!?" (You don't see many Linux using hamsters... :D)

emarkay
November 14th, 2006, 02:43 AM
I think the major disconnect is between what frustrated end users perceive as the source of their problems and the real source of the problems.

In other words, people are coming with double standards and unrealistic expectations. Migrating to desktop Linux is like moving to a new country where they speak a different language. If you expect it to be the same as your country, you'll naturally be disappointed. Many migrants think desktop Linux is "Windows without problems." It's not Windows--it's not Windows at all.


Yes, and IYHO, it makes perfect sense. I won't play "analogy wars" here, but again, what is the pont of Ubuntu, from the source - and not just some slogan, either.

For example, I just read that they (Canonical) want to put a 3D desktop in the next release. How in the holy realm of reality does that count as anything other than bloatware? But then again, it's THEIR program.

Don't you see how, if we are told (for example) that "UBUNTU is not WINDOWS and is not ever supposed to be a desktop replacement", that this would eliminate much controversy for those that may, IOHOs, think it is, or can be, or should be, or whatever.

MRK

aysiu
November 14th, 2006, 02:49 AM
Saying Ubuntu is not Windows does not mean it's not supposed to be a desktop replacement.

I can replace my cat with a dog and get companionship, but I'll be sorely disappointed if I expect the dog to act the same way my cat did!

xhaan
November 14th, 2006, 02:55 AM
Every time I see that catch phrase it makes me wonder "Who else could it be for?!?" (You don't see many Linux using hamsters... :D)

I tried to teach my hamsters but... they can't use the mouse OR keyboard!
My Syrian hamster just can't reach all the keys without accidentally pushing the wrong ones, and my two dwarf hamsters are so light that they don't even push the keys in when they walk over them... and none of them can use the mouse properly, and hamsters are too nearsighted to read the monitor anyways so I'd have to get a text to speech program or something.

yabbadabbadont
November 14th, 2006, 03:03 AM
I tried to teach my hamsters but... they can't use the mouse OR keyboard!
My Syrian hamster just can't reach all the keys without accidentally pushing the wrong ones, and my two dwarf hamsters are so light that they don't even push the keys in when they walk over them... and none of them can use the mouse properly, and hamsters are too nearsighted to read the monitor anyways so I'd have to get a text to speech program or something.

Hamsters trying to use a mouse... there's a one liner in there somewhere. :twisted:

Wouldn't you need a text to squeek program instead. :lol:

BLTicklemonster
November 14th, 2006, 12:57 PM
If you are only given a file in PDF format, the author probably didn't want you to modify it.

Well, for some reason our IT dept decided it would be logical to allow some, but not all, members of our extended con"blom"erate to be licensed to use adoobie, and these brain sturgeons send out pdf files for us to fill in and email back. They still don't understand that we can't use them. And don't get me started on all the other software we're licensed to use because no one downtown knows how to set up anything useful using Microsoft. It's a wonder we get anything done. And linux horrifies them, they being Microsoft Certified Geniuses and all.

deepwave
November 15th, 2006, 07:49 AM
Well, for some reason our IT dept decided it would be logical to allow some, but not all, members of our extended con"blom"erate to be licensed to use adoobie, and these brain sturgeons send out pdf files for us to fill in and email back. They still don't understand that we can't use them. And don't get me started on all the other software we're licensed to use because no one downtown knows how to set up anything useful using Microsoft. It's a wonder we get anything done. And linux horrifies them, they being Microsoft Certified Geniuses and all.

lol... Almost like as if using Microsoft Windows makes your desktop un-ready for development. ;-)

Maybe someone should start a computer desktop is not ready for the desktop thread. ;-) My IMHO they are all so usable, and you can never get any real work done.

Dreadknott
November 17th, 2006, 11:29 PM
Windows stinks, but Linux is better? Bull!

I looked at linux with RedHat 6.X and very little worked. Redhat 7, and 8 were just as bad. My sound finally worked with ALSA compiled from source with RedHat 9, but no graphics driver for ATI and no easy joystick or webcam.

Redhat drops support for desktop, so I droped RedHat.

Mandrake gets it right and everything works but the joystick, of course I had to buy Nvidia graphics, Epson printer, and Philips webcam. Codecs get installed and Linux seems good, until ipod, TV cards, etc.

Redhat decides to support destops...

Ubuntu comes out, and its the bomb, been playing with Ubuntu since 4.10, and all is well, no TV or ipod, but I will wait. I spent hundreds of hours on dual monitors, config files, network printers, and felt good I could use Linux to surf the web, check email and download a podcast with bashpoder, but flash gets so far behind it becomes useless.

Got a laptop six months ago just for 6.06, but Intel HD audio wont work, Sprint EVDO wont work. Joystick works, but its not worth it without sound, but finally ipod and podcasts are easy to use, STILL DUAL BOOTING!

Set up a 2TB system at the house, using tutorials on the net, spent $150 on RocketRaid 464 just to find out the linux drivers are not current and the only distro that works with their drivers is Fedora 4. Bought a MegaRaid i4 on ebay for $80 to replace the RocketRaid, because Toms Networking tutorial says it works out of the box with Ubuntu 6.06...NOPE!

Nice to hear Flash Beata 9 is out, maybe in a year it will be finished for Linux and everyone else will be using Flash 11...

Never got to my TV tuner cards, even that special 3000 one I bought because it was just for Linux...NOT!

Cancelled my Cedega since all the games go to crap every time a patch comes out.

Linux is good for servers, good for engineers, and a good toy for home enthusiasts, but its worthless for the average PC user.

LUG's are just great, everyone doesnt need windows, always glad to show you their laptop, but you ask any of the Linux gods if sound, ipod or some other recent device works, and you get, "oh, I dont need that."

After several years, and several thousand dollars, hundreds of wasted evenings and long drives across town to users groups full of evangelical gurus who never seem to help, I'm going to just go buy another copy of Windows and get my 2TB IDE Raid 5 server working.

Linux is great as a Uber-toy, but when you need to get something up and running in a few hours and cant wait a few weeks, Windows is all we have.

If anyone has been able to get the HD audio on a Toshiba P105, or a Raid 5 with MegaRaid i4 511 IDE card working, please let me know and I WONT BUY A $200.00 copy of XP PRO on Sunday, November 19th.

Ubunt forums have been the best I've seen. Sorry for the rant...
Good luck, Thanks!

s_h_a_d_o_w_s
November 17th, 2006, 11:38 PM
Wow, thats a hell of a post. I still disagree about windows being better. Sometimes you have to find the right guides but even then it's sometimes hard. I still wouldn't switch back to windows if bill payed me 1000$. It's so ugly and unstable and all the viruses. But thats just me.

Cheers,

and welcome to the forums!

Swab
November 17th, 2006, 11:47 PM
Have you considered a typewriter? :)

meng
November 17th, 2006, 11:48 PM
Sounds like Linux isn't for you. But that doesn't mean it's not for the average user. Good luck with Windows.

Lord Illidan
November 17th, 2006, 11:52 PM
I agree with the OP in several points. Nuff said.

ormus
November 17th, 2006, 11:59 PM
you can be sarcastic all you want, it dont alter the fact that hes right.
linux as a serious OS for the home/business user? forget it.
redhats a joke. mandrakes is just so funny.

ubuntu?
works out of the box ok. but for media playing? give me a break.
upload photos from your camera? yes, eventually, after spending many hrs searching forums on howto. (still no usb icon though).
change the screen resolution, permanately? yes, after a week.


i love playing with ubuntu, but as a serious OS for the masses? its as much use as a chocolate teapot.

dasunst3r
November 18th, 2006, 12:07 AM
you can be sarcastic all you want, it dont alter the fact that hes right.
linux as a serious OS for the home/business user? forget it.
redhats a joke. mandrakes is just so funny.

ubuntu?
works out of the box ok. but for media playing? give me a break.
upload photos from your camera? yes, eventually, after spending many hrs searching forums on howto. (still no usb icon though).
change the screen resolution, permanately? yes, after a week.


i love playing with ubuntu, but as a serious OS for the masses? its as much use as a chocolate teapot.I'll have to agree with that -- I remember the time when I tried to install RH9. It was no good compared to Mandrake (10), but since Mandrake charged money for the update notification and stuff, that was also no good. I have been hopping back and forth between SUSE and Ubuntu. During my one-year hiatus from Ubuntu, I could really tell that there are indeed some significant improvements!

Throughout my three years of using Linux, I did have to put up with a few minor incompatibilities and do some extra research. It requires an investment (primarily mental), but I think it's worth it in the end.

meng
November 18th, 2006, 12:09 AM
you can be sarcastic all you want, it dont alter the fact that hes right.
1 out of 4 replies was "sarcastic", but in a good-natured way. How about taking a deep breath and being a little less thin-skinned?

We understand you and the OP don't think much of Ubuntu/Linux as an OS for the masses, but I only respect your individual opinions as individual experiences, and not generalizable to the rest of the human population. Everyone's needs and preferences are different.

It's not perfect, but show me which OS is.

d3v1ant_0n3
November 18th, 2006, 12:11 AM
In terms of the actual things I do on my computer (as opposed to the things I try and break), I would consider myself an average user.

I websurf. I edit photos. I listen to music and watch movies. I manage my mp3 player and camera. I email. I play a bit of solitaire.

And Ubuntu suits me fine. There has been very little I've had to spend hours trying to sort out. The only major problems I've encoutered have been ones I've created myself, either by messing with files I shouldn't have (much harder than it is in Windows) or by using software thats nowhere near stable release (beta version of Edgy, pre-beta Beryl).

This has been said a million and one times before, but if you hadn't used windows before, and were just presented with a disk containing Windows XP, and nothing else (ever read the 'manual' that comes with OEM Windows??), how much of a chance would you give it?

If Ubuntu came pre-setup on machine, like Windows does, it would be a very different affair.

As it stands, Ubuntu isn't right for the OP. Fine. Fair enough. But then Windows isn't right for me. Does that mean it's not right for everyone else as well?

taurus
November 18th, 2006, 12:13 AM
I am going to move this over to Cafe since it has nothing to do with support except Linux is not really for the home users!!! :rolleyes:

tageiru
November 18th, 2006, 12:38 AM
If anyone has been able to get the HD audio on a Toshiba P105, or a Raid 5 with MegaRaid i4 511 IDE card working, please let me know and I WONT BUY A $200.00 copy of XP PRO on Sunday, November 19th.

Save yourself the trouble with hardware raid cards, use the built-in software raid in Linux.

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO.html

What is your problem with ipods? My nano works nicely with Rhythmbox.

techstop
November 18th, 2006, 12:39 AM
It's unfortunate that you have come across so many obstacles.

I guess the major advice for anyone using or wanting to use linux is to do lots of research on the hardware you intend to use *before* you buy. You could have avoided all of those RAID issues. A lot of people think software RAID in linux gives unbeatable performance for the price anyway;

http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1190/sam9806b/9806b.htm

Similarly, did you research the hardware components of your laptop before buying? There are many search results on Google of sound problems with linux on your model laptop.

I don't think you can blame the hardware issues on ubuntu however, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to provide quality, working drivers for their products for the operating systems that people use them on. You can tell a linux-friendly manufacturer by the driver support they provide.

Ergo, I only buy nvidia graphics cards, ati drivers have been laughable for quite some time. Similarly, I bought a Samsung laser printer because they provide linux drivers. They work beautifully, and I will be sure to buy another Samsung printer when the time comes. I bought a Twinhan DVB-T digital tv tuner card because the linux support is well known. I bought a D-Link PCMCIA wireless network card because it uses a chipset with strong linux support. There are more examples of linux friendly manufacturers, you need to seek them out and support them. Windows is not a better operating system because some hardware manufacturers are lazy and short-sighted.

Flash was a problem for a little while, but 9 is installed on my system (i dont even know how it got there, automatix maybe?), it works much better, still a few web site crashes, but once you install adblock extensions and block those annoying ads, no more crashes!

I admit Linux can be frustrating, I have been struggling for the last few days getting MythTV installed on a HTPC box. There have been many obstacles, but they have all been overcome with the help of the fantastic linux community, and I now have a functioning system that can do much more than Windows Media Center 2005 could ever do, at a much better price!

That said, Linux (or Ubuntu) can't be all things to all people. I dual-boot with WinXP and also run WinXP as a VMware virtual machine. I need Windows for MS Visual Studio which was compulsory for a programming subject I did last semester at uni. I play some Steam games on there as well, and synch my Nokia phone every fortnight or so. So, I still use Windows for a few things, but I groan every time I have to choose Windows from my grub menu. I sincerely prefer my ubuntu installation, and use it for ~99% of computer's uptime.

There is only one way to enjoy the freedom of Open Source Software, and that is to get in there, get your hands dirty, get frustrated, overcome the obstacles and come out the other side with fast, secure, powerful OSS that doesn't constrain you by licensing fees and license agreements. You can then enhance the community by helping others with your skills. That can only be a good thing for you, others and the OSS community. There are no advantages in closed software, only drawbacks for the enduser.

Dreadknott
November 18th, 2006, 12:51 AM
@Techstop

I support Linux because I believe good innovations come from open source.

When you spend hours on forums and Google looking for hardware and you always run into problems, it just gets old.

Here’s the guide on the MegaRaid, two $80 cards and two different motherboards, I can’t figure out why it’s not like the tutorial...

http://www.tomsnetworking.com/2006/08/01/cheap_fast_diy_raid_5_nas/index.html

Thanks for trying to help.

JurB
November 18th, 2006, 01:02 AM
i love playing with ubuntu, but as a serious OS for the masses? its as much use as a chocolate teapot.

No need for the "masses", all they'll bring is more rants.
You can see it happening right now on these forums thanks to xgl/aixgl/compiz/beryl/whatever.[-(

Dreadknott
November 18th, 2006, 01:08 AM
@Tageiru

Software raid wasn't an option for eight 350GB HDDs and ipods are working. Back a couple of releases ago I was having a hell of a time with ipod, but Linux caught up.

The sound on the laptop was discussed in the forums and many folks got it working, but none on a toshiba. I got hold of this Ubuntu evangelist who had the same laptop I bought, he said he installed Ubuntu on his web page, but when I emailed him to see how he got his sound working, I got, "if you find out, let me know"

http://www.johnlittle.org/new_laptop_toshiba_p105_s6024

adamkane
November 18th, 2006, 01:10 AM
Ubuntu is meant for the mass of humanity, who don't have access to Windows. It's also for those who don't want a proprietary OS.

slavik
November 18th, 2006, 01:26 AM
To the thread starter: At least you tried Ubuntu and are aware of its existance. Do you really think you would've been happier had you never tried it and have a larger shock when you wouldn't like the latest thing that other OS makers (maker to be exact) put out to market?

loell
November 18th, 2006, 01:33 AM
Sorry for the rant...
Good luck, Thanks!

you'd probably shoot me on this but, did you just figured out, that ranting
is probably the best way to have quick responses to your hardware problem? ;)

or have you ask before and did not get any replies?

Compucore
November 18th, 2006, 01:46 AM
Well I am sorry that you had all these kind of problems as well in using linux especially ubuntu linux. The only thing that I can come up with is that the kind of hardware that you are using may not have ben Linux compatable. I've been a technician for the last 10-15 years myself. And I have been programming on and off as well since the early 90's which I was able to get my degree in finally. When I first tried ubuntu specifically I think it sa hoary hedghog. I had one hell of a time getting to run properly on one of my clone computers. All due to a sound card bot being linux compatable. But when I had tried it on my dell computers. It worked perfectly. Now usually I try to stay in the middle of the road when it comes to buying hardware that I need that will work in both Windows and Linux. So I don't have to worry if I have to go to one or the other. I won't be cursing uderneathmy breath over here.

Compucore

Bartender
November 18th, 2006, 02:02 AM
Set up a 2TB system at the house...
Linux is...worthless for the average PC user.

Yeah, I know what you mean, everyone I know has had nothing but trouble with their Dells after they stuffed 2TB of RAID storage inside then switched to Linux.

Dreadknott
November 18th, 2006, 02:14 AM
you'd probably shoot me on this but, did you just figured out, that ranting
is probably the best way to have quick responses to your hardware problem? ;)

or have you ask before and did not get any replies?

lol! Thats what I had in mind,but they moved me off the hardware forum... That rant got a bunch of hits real quick!

I posted before on the raid issue, but I didnt get a response.

Ya' know, I will stil keep playing with Linux, Ubuntu and Suse are the two best distros out there and the howto's are right up there with Gentoo.

I'm killing myself on this media server project, I've got a grand in it and two months of bashing my head on the table!

It is not Linux, or Ubuntus' fault, its the open source model.

Hghpoint has Linux drivers compiled for their raid card as .img files for Suse 8,9,10, Fedora 1,2,3,4,5, Redhat 7,8,9, and source code for the rest. The raid aray builds corectly on newer distros, but they never checked past rebooting the os to see if it was ok.

As a result, Suse 9,10 and Fedora 5,6 and source wont work and their support team says they dont have enough demand for them to fix them or build Debian packages.

So the issue isnt support from manufacturers, its the darn open source, to many forks, to many different distros, hell even Fedora 4's driver wont work on Fedora 5. Theres no way I can expect anyone to keep up with drivers like that, they just have to make NT, 2K, 2K3 and XP for Windows once and thats it!

DoctorMO
November 18th, 2006, 02:33 AM
you ungrateful kif OP! here we are trying to program good software built to be expanded, to not cause security breaches while at the same time trying to keep the software market open to the only thing that can't get bought out by Microsoft and all you can do is whine!

We have enough problems with every propritory company under the sun attacking us, having a gazzilian undocumented formats, hardware devices, new applications that everyone wants to use and saw somewhere and yet never lift a lazy finger to do anything about the support in Linux.

We're not your bleedin slaves and this isn't a free lunch, who ever told you that was telling you porkies. the way it works is this: if you don't like something: change it or pay someone else to change if for you. that's the way this model works. but all you do is take, take, take.

go away!

vayu
November 18th, 2006, 03:01 AM
It is not Linux, or Ubuntus' fault, its the open source model.


No it's the closed source model. The number of people involved in closed source eclipses the number in open source by magnitudes. Yet the open source model keeps up well. There are many, including me that find it better. Closed source is closed.

taurus
November 18th, 2006, 03:18 AM
lol! Thats what I had in mind,but they moved me off the hardware forum...
I moved your thread over here because your original post has nothing to do with asking questions or trying to solve problems. So, it was a wrong place for your thread. Instead, the whole entire screen was nothing but whine about Ubuntu or Linux... ](*,)

blastus
November 18th, 2006, 03:19 AM
ubuntu? works out of the box ok. but for media playing? give me a break.

Since when does Windows play all different kinds of media files out-of-the-box? If you think it does you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you took the time to learn, you'd find out that it is easier to setup multimedia playback (incl DVD movies and all different kinds of crappy proprietary media formats) in Ubuntu than it is in Windows. This despite all the issues surrounding proprietary media formats.

sweemeng
November 18th, 2006, 03:41 AM
as i said many time, and many time i said. linux is not for anyone, if you think windows serve you better fine, go use it. we don't blame you, at least i don't.

Dreadknott
November 18th, 2006, 04:05 AM
We're not your bleedin slaves and this isn't a free lunch, who ever told you that was telling you porkies. the way it works is this: if you don't like something: change it or pay someone else to change if for you. that's the way this model works. but all you do is take, take, take.

go away!

Man, I hit close to home. Some of you are on the defense.

I read the Cathedral and the Bazaar; I understand the open source model.

All I'm saying is that open source is a victim of its own success. Too many forks, too many differences of opinion, few things ever get finished before someone else forks it. Some distros have embraced open standards, but until more versions of Linux jump on, the hardware manufacturers won’t be able to maintain drivers.

Take offense if you wish, call me ungrateful.

I have spent hundreds of hours reading Linux books, forums, and config files, I've never missed an episode of The Linux Link or LUG Radio tech shows, but as much as I love the idea of Linux, it will never be what the Linux community wants it to be until all the distros can standardize enough for hardware manufacturers to make drivers. Even some of the community open source drivers won’t work from one year to the next.

My first post is frustration, because no matter how much I check, research, plan, something seemingly simple in Linux always seems to turn into a mess.

With all that said, I apologize to all and anyone who may think I wanted to just offend when I posted in my frustration.

Does anyone know of a four cannel IDE raid card for PCI that works EASILY with Ubuntu?

fuscia
November 18th, 2006, 04:20 AM
i'd go back to windows, if i were you. it sounds like you have absolutely no luck buying equipment.

po0f
November 18th, 2006, 04:41 AM
rant > /dev/null, thank you.

maniacmusician
November 18th, 2006, 04:54 AM
Does anyone know of a four cannel IDE raid card for PCI that works EASILY with Ubuntu?

Now there's a question to ask in the Hardware Forum, without accompanying rant ;) haha just teasing...but seriously, you'll get a better answer over there.

I do understand your frustration, but I suggest you abandon this thread and let it die (or ask the mods to close it) and continue a sane discussion somewhere else...people are going to come in here, read your first post, and cuss you out without reading the rest of the thread. So, I do appreciate the effort you're willing to put in, but get this thread closed to save a lot of hassle :) good luck with that raid setup.

Toontwnca
November 18th, 2006, 04:59 AM
Sounds like Linux isn't for you. But that doesn't mean it's not for the average user. Good luck with Windows.

Agreed.
I'm not an average user. Less than.
If it weren't for copy/paste most of
my time would be wasted. :D
My typing skills are less then basic.

John.Michael.Kane
November 18th, 2006, 05:04 AM
This thread serves only to start flame wars,and other problems.

@Dreadknott try making a detailed list of your problems,and post them in their respective section of the forum.

Note: that some of your issues maybe of an obscured nature,and thus you may not find a known answer here right away.

Thread Closed..

greggh
November 18th, 2006, 07:25 AM
http://desktoplinux.com/news/NS4646261136.html

From the piece...


Question: What kind of future, in general, do you see for Linux desktops? Will they finally be able to break into the mainstream -- whatever that is?

Shuttleworth's Answer: Yes -- I think Linux will be the dominant platform. It already defines the landscape in the server space (from supercomputers to YouTube). The desktop is just a matter of time, IMO.

aysiu
November 18th, 2006, 07:31 AM
"[M]atter of time" = decades?

What does "matter of time" mean? It's a sufficiently vague phrase to disprove or argue against.

greggh
November 18th, 2006, 07:45 AM
"[M]atter of time" = decades?

What does "matter of time" mean? It's a sufficiently vague phrase to disprove or argue against.

I may be a cockeyed optimist, but I think Linux on the desktop will see a tremendous growth spurt in the just the next 2-3 years, and I would not be surprised to see Linux as the dominant desktop OS in less than 10 years. In the future I buy into the idea that the browser will be the OS that people really use and it won't even matter so much what OS its running on. And if that's the case, it's going to be hard for MS or Apple to market a product that people are going to shrug and think, who cares, as long as Firefox works on it.

Kayne
November 18th, 2006, 07:56 AM
As long as Linux or Ubuntu in special doesn't come preinstalled and gets love from software and hardware vendors, I see no chance.

Most people couldn't care less about the OS they're working with as long as it's working (somehow)

NoTiG
November 18th, 2006, 08:02 AM
eventually linux (ubuntu) is going to be as easy to install as firefox. People will essentialy just click an icon and the Installer will automatically bootstrap when the computer reboots. As hardware progresses this will seem even more seemless. The domination of linux is assured simply through its snowball effect... the more people that use it the more individuals help it. It is a question of when but not if. Especially if manufacturers like Dell start offering rebates for their Unused windows copies!

Titus A Duxass
November 18th, 2006, 08:14 AM
I agree with Aysiu, matter of time = how long is a piece of string?

Linux will never become dominant, MS has that status already and it is hardly likely to change.

adam.tropics
November 18th, 2006, 08:58 AM
I think people spend far to much time worrying about and debating bug #1, when in truth, as soon as the majority of the other 19494 (not all verified I know) are addressed, then number 1 will take care of itself! But honestly, I think Linux has its own momentum now, and whether or not it becomes dominant, no matter, because it has the ability to co-exist.

aysiu
November 18th, 2006, 09:00 AM
I think people spend far to much time worrying about and debating bug #1, when in truth, as soon as the majority of the other 19494 (not all verified I know) are addressed, then number 1 will take care of itself! It's quite the other way around, actually.

Force people to use it through preinstallation and deals with corporations, and then the rest of the bugs will be fixed.

It doesn't matter how well you get Ubuntu functioning, most people will not install and configure their own operating systems.

NoTiG
November 18th, 2006, 09:03 AM
well it looks like the PS3 could be a potential addition to the userbase. You can even put ubuntu on it and they just released the installer to day for "otheros" . If its free I wonder how many will take advantage... especially considering that you can put something like mythtv .... there are some downsides though (like only 256 mb of ram) meh...

adam.tropics
November 18th, 2006, 09:12 AM
It's quite the other way around, actually.

Force people to use it through preinstallation and deals with corporations, and then the rest of the bugs will be fixed.

It doesn't matter how well you get Ubuntu functioning, most people will not install and configure their own operating systems.

Ok, so I don't want to mis-direct the thread, but aysiu, I don't see how that sort of fits with the ideals of Open Source, Ubuntu, whatever. Although, if you are making the point that to beat 'them', you need to do so at their own game, then perhaps you are right. As for your second argument, sadly, for the most part, I agree.

blastus
November 18th, 2006, 09:12 AM
Linux will never become dominant, MS has that status already and it is hardly likely to change.

If history has taught us anything, things can always change. Great all powerful empires have risen and fallen. :)

Microsoft is reaching the stage where the market for their products are saturated and they cannot expand anymore. They are hard pressed to create new products that people will want to upgrade to every single year, so instead they try to force users to upgrade. They are slowly being squeezed by open source software and open standards/formats on all sides.

Linux is becoming better and better and easier and easier to use. Linux is also strongly associated with the open source movement and so as open source software continues to rise so will Linux. Look at the numbers (http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html).

I don't know, but I believe that as early as 2010, over 10% of the desktop PC market worldwide could be running OS X and/or Linux.

rejser
November 18th, 2006, 09:15 AM
what structure can be used on ps3?

Software vendors like adobe and others will ain't gonna start produce for linux until more people run linux, and people won't use linux for the software "problem", They don't care what os is running on the pc, or that there is good alternatives to every program.
Why is everyone so obsessed that linux should be the domenating os? People just want's something that works, my familys xp computers work flawless, for them there is no reason to switch.

DC@DR
November 18th, 2006, 09:16 AM
I only hope GNU/Linux has such a success as Firefox does now, then it is the best possibly feasible scenario, IMO. Even Firefox is really easy to install, and runs cross-platform, and many people see that it's better than IE with speed, more secure, lots of extensions, but then what, we only got 11-13% of the market, and we don't see any big change in that figure anymore, I mean no dramatic growth rate like the last two years for Firefox, and with IE7 rolled out, Mozilla is going to have a tough and struggling time ahead to keep its user-base not fading away...IMHO, even GNU/Linux is as easy to use/install as Firefox (despite all other BIG problems like software/hardware supports, etc), I guess we won't never get to 20% of desktop market share, it's sad but true :(. But for me, even 5% of the desktop market share is still GREAT and I'm happy enough if we can get there.

aysiu
November 18th, 2006, 09:36 AM
Why is everyone so obsessed that linux should be the domenating os? Not everyone is. Some of us would be perfectly content with only 5-10% of the desktop market.
People just want's something that works, my familys xp computers work flawless, for them there is no reason to switch. Great for your family. I know a lot of families (and co-workers and friends and acquaintances) who have many problems with XP. I personally have no functionality problems with XP, but I've found it to boring and it doesn't have a good package management system and has too many licensing restrictions.

Your family's experience isn't universal. It's your family's experience.

People should be able to freely pick whatever they want. Right now, a lot of people are stuck with Windows, whether they like it or not.

P.S. It's obvious the discussion has quickly gone away being specifically about Shuttleworth's remarks to being more generally about the Linux desktop market share, so I've merged it with the other discussion about that.

awakatanka
November 18th, 2006, 09:36 AM
The time that happens we don't use OS as a desktop anymore. Networkcomputers will be the deal a little bootrom that connects to the internet and everything will be started from that. And we pay to use those appz. Lot of things point in that direction all ready.

PryGuy
November 18th, 2006, 10:13 AM
Is there a Network Linux project?

argie
November 18th, 2006, 11:34 AM
The time that happens we don't use OS as a desktop anymore. Networkcomputers will be the deal a little bootrom that connects to the internet and everything will be started from that. And we pay to use those appz. Lot of things point in that direction all ready.

That, imo, is going to take a lot of time. A LOT of time, things are just great the way they are, with storage space and computer power growing faster than bandwidth is.

bhuot
November 20th, 2006, 07:57 AM
The way I have imagined it happening is one day Windows is predominant and then the very next day Linux will be, since it doesn't require someone to buy a new computer to use it unlike using Mac OS X.

rimian
November 20th, 2006, 11:40 AM
As a web developer, I am still amazed at the tools Linux offers me to help me run my business.

Linux is a long way from being a widely used on the desktop but it sure does make up for it in other areas.

jimrz
November 22nd, 2006, 05:48 AM
Ubuntu isn't for you. Ubuntu is for those looking for an affordable and less proprietary OS. Ubuntu is for the mass of humanity without access to a proprietary OS.

funny...always thought 'for human beings' meant everyone...

meng
November 22nd, 2006, 05:50 AM
funny...always thought 'for human beings' meant everyone...
Does "everyone" include Steve Ballmer?

jimrz
November 22nd, 2006, 06:01 AM
Does "everyone" include Steve Ballmer?

I suppose that it has to...see my sig...same idea, if you give up or restrict any part of freedom then it is all effected

meng
November 22nd, 2006, 06:04 AM
But, seriously, Linux/Ubuntu for everyone doesn't mean that it will appeal to everyone, just that it should be accessible to everyone. For those who aren't interested or can't accept some degree of change, Linux is not for them. Ubuntu is not perfect, but it's getting better all the time.

mdsmedia
November 22nd, 2006, 06:06 AM
Does "everyone" include Steve Ballmer?Mr Ballmer could USE a bit of time on these forums and using a proper OS. He probably has Ubuntu on his home machine and all his FUD is out of insecurity, and the fear that MS will find out :mrgreen:

Peepsalot
November 22nd, 2006, 06:08 AM
Does "everyone" include Steve Ballmer?
Well, the obvious answer to that is that Steve Ballmer isn't human (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer).

jimrz
November 22nd, 2006, 06:12 AM
But, seriously, Linux/Ubuntu for everyone doesn't mean that it will appeal to everyone, just that it should be accessible to everyone. For those who aren't interested or can't accept some degree of change, Linux is not for them. Ubuntu is not perfect, but it's getting better all the time.

absolutely agree...and those that meet your description should use something else, but ONLY because it suits them better.

John E
November 22nd, 2006, 07:38 AM
BudaTx - I'm with you on this one. During the past week or so, I've been experimenting with various flavours of Linux. Every one of them has been a big letdown - though to be fair, Ubuntu has given me the fewest problems. Linux, as an OS, does not live up to the hype. Just look at the problems being reported in this forum. Time & time again they're about corrupted hard drives and/or graphics cards not working. I had exactly these problems myself, albeit that the trashed hard drive was caused by a different distro (or more likely, by GRUB). The most basic requirements for any OS are that:-

a) You can see what you're doing, and
b) It keeps your precious data safe.

I'm both dismayed and astonished that Linux (which, let's face it, is now a mature OS) still hasn't managed to master these most basic requirements. On every Linux forum I've visited, it seems to be taken for granted that graphical niggles and hard drive corruption are just facts of life that newbies need to get used to.


Ubuntu is for the mass of humanity without access to a proprietary OS.

Well, that might be the mission statement - but Linux in general, is for people who want a GUI but who don't want to admit they want one. It's aimed at people who still hanker after the 'good old days' of computing - the arcane, command-line interface with its cryptic codes and "secret society" mentality. Don't get me wrong - I've encountered some very dedicated & helpful experts in this forum - but it's very clear that to some people, the GUI is just a tool to lure in the unwary - rather like a witch handing out sweets to children.

The Linux community (or at least, the patronising Luddites among it) need to grow up & join the 21st century, like the rest of us. Yesterday, someone genuinely answered a question from me by saying, "I know the answer but I'm not going to tell you" - as though I was some kind of simpleton who couldn't be trusted with his own PC...! 'Intuitivness' is the key to all modern OS's. Gone are the days when computers were designed to appeal to a nerdy band of techies & geeks.

Linux has a lot going for it - but it's high time it ditched its nerd-ish roots. So often I hear Linux (and Mac) fans deriding Microsoft as though it's somehow 'pandering ro the masses'. Whereas the real truth is that to design a modern OS that's intuitive enough to appeal to the business world - as well as the average Joe - is a far from trivial task. And only Microsoft, for all its problems, has managed to achieve it.

meng
November 22nd, 2006, 04:27 PM
John E, you outline a compelling argument that you should stick with MS Windows. Insulting the community is gratuitous, but I understand the desire to vent your frustration. Why not avoid the frustrations entirely and stop tinkering with an OS that isn't suiting your needs?

jhenager
November 22nd, 2006, 04:53 PM
The most basic requirements for any OS are that:-

a) You can see what you're doing, and
b) It keeps your precious data safe.


It is up to the user to keep his precious data safe. Nobody should be installing an OS unless it is a new system or the data has been backed up and verified.

These forums are active because thousands and thousands of people are finding Ubuntu and installing it, and a few have issues. This shouldn't be surprising owing to the fact that it will install on Macs, PowerPCs, AMD & Intel 32 and 64 bit systems. In addition, a lot of these people have never installed an OS before, because Windows came preinstalled on their systems.

When an airplane takes off on time and lands safely on schedule, it doesn't make the news. That's what happened on three of my home systems, all different Frankensteins with different processors, hard drives, motherboards, network cards, etc.
No problems at all.
I'd love to tell you about all the problems I had installing Vista, but to someone in love with Redmond products, it would come off as Gates bashing. I will just say it took me three days on the same exact hardware as it took less than an hour to install Ubuntu from the Live CD. I have been in tech support since 1993, and my first job was taking calls for Windows 3.1 and the phone rang constantly with people having problems.
So, just be aware that YMMV.

Bartender
November 22nd, 2006, 04:58 PM
The most basic requirements for any OS are that:-

a) You can see what you're doing, and
b) It keeps your precious data safe.



I hope you're not inferring that Windows meets those basic requirements?

Hey, jhenager, you zero'ed in on the same outlandish statement...

carlosqueso
November 22nd, 2006, 05:06 PM
I'm definitely no super nerd who hates GUIs, but I often ssh into my home computer from work. This lets me do things like chat and IM. I do this from the console because it's fast. Also, I challenge anyone to use naim for a while and say that console programs are inherently bad UI design.

jhenager
November 22nd, 2006, 05:21 PM
I hope you're not inferring that Windows meets those basic requirements?

Hey, jhenager, you zero'ed in on the same outlandish statement...

8)
When I tried to download RC1 from Beta 2, the folder was empty. Yet, if I searched for the file, I got this:
Volume in drive C has no label.
Volume Serial Number is E0AC-F9C2

Directory of C:\Users\Jeff\AppData\Local\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Application Data\Temporary Internet Files\Virtualized\C\Users\Jeff\Desktop

09/20/2006 08:24 PM 2,709,782,528 vista_5600.16384.060829-2230_x86fre_client-lr1cfre_en_dvd.iso
1 File(s) 2,709,782,528 bytes

Keeping in mind that this was Beta software, it still didn't install a ton of confidence in me that they are going to get Vista right.

ezsurfer
November 22nd, 2006, 06:53 PM
I don't agree at all that Linux distributions for years are any more HD unsafe than anything Redmond has put out. Remember XP SP2 and the Oh yeah, IF you happen to have a Compaq PC, it might just wipe your drive out...then 17% (per response of IT administrators) of all computers installed initially with the SP required a full reformat of the HD?

I just installed Ubuntu on the same Compaq. Had to make a leap of faith at one portion of the install, but the install came off without any major problems.

After a week, I still haven't figured out my printer woes on the LAN printer, but I have corrected the wireless LAN issue and the Windows Share issues.

Would I call this not ready for primetime? No way, My wife's 4 personal address books in MS Outlook are much more daunting, and so far, every techie I've talked to says no way to fix.

Every OS has it's quirks, and it's dedicated followers. So far, Edgy Eft has converted myself and every one of my friends that has tried it. That's fairly impressive.

And as agreed by all, the forums are awesome... 8)

rajeev1204
November 22nd, 2006, 11:51 PM
hi

installed 6.06 LTS a few days ago.hmm installation was quite ok.but now what.cant even surf the net properly.no 64 bit flash,real player or nothing.sure, there r ways to get things working but that aint in tune with the just works philosophy.that just works is a windows thing.no webcam support no nothing.i was using a pirated copy of windows xp which is a good OS, and iam going to purchase a official copy. for a gamer like me , linux is no good.just for id soft games iam not switching to linux.its still a ser ver OS i guess.bye bye.



TOO BAD.i guess the good things in life come at a price !

Henry Rayker
November 22nd, 2006, 11:55 PM
I love posts like these...the ones where they don't give you a chance to even try to help. They just spout that "just works" propaganda crap.

From a truth standpoint, more things "just worked" for me in Ubuntu than in Windows...if you are going to use a phrase like that, I would prefer you define it. Try using a Windows OS without installing drivers for your hardware.

Kobalt
November 22nd, 2006, 11:57 PM
Should we even answer these kind of posts ? I'm not sure here...
Look, if you're happy with windows, then just fine, buy it, as you wrote. But when you write
the amount of info on the forums for getting stuff to 'just work' in ubuntu linux makes it look like a pre release version of windows 95 .!!!!., it seems to me that you neither really tried Ubuntu and Win95.
And you don't seem to have posted a lot of questions on how to get your Ubuntu working properly...

Ciao then.

doobit
November 23rd, 2006, 12:01 AM
delete

addicted68098
November 23rd, 2006, 12:02 AM
Its funny, I had the opposit reaction (even though I got sick of Microsoft the 16th time they screwed me over), and flash player and real player are both easy installs.

LLRNR
November 23rd, 2006, 12:06 AM
Its funny, I had the opposit reaction (even though I got sick of Microsoft the 16th time they screwed me over), and flash player and real player are both easy installs.

So this confirms my opinion, that you really have to WANT something to get it done... That's the spirit!

Rajeev1204, people DO try to help... if you let them.

LLRNR

BarfBag
November 23rd, 2006, 12:12 AM
64 bit applications aren't as mature as 32 bit, so it's a little trickier to get them working. But why am I even trying?

First of all, type a little cleaner. Your post burned my retinas out.

Second of all, define "just works?" Why do you Windows users even use that phrase anyway? Wasn't it Apple that came up with it? Windows requires tweaking in different ways to work properly. The automatic updates DISASTER (reboot in between a few at a time, a long wait for SP2, then more reboots in between a few at a time), anti-virus software, anti-spyware software, drivers - the list goes on. With Ubuntu, it's installed a little after 15 minutes (unless it's formatting the entire drive), updates are a breeze (only restart required is when there's a kernel update), the average user doesn't need virus or spyware protection, and most of your drivers are taken care of (with the exception of graphics and extra stuff like webcams). Ubuntu "just works" once you make some easy tweaks. If you use an install script like Automatix, everything will be taken care of for you and all you have to do is go to another desktop, do whatever you want to do, and wait for it to be finished.

Seriously - why am I even bothering to write this post? I don't know. I'm just sick of people ranting over things they don't know what they're talking about.

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 12:12 AM
hi
thanks for replying.no offense guys.cool it. the thing is i heard a lot about ubuntu on the net and gave it a try. but iam a total newbie at things like this and linux on a desktop for a casual user is a tough choice.

for ur information it was the first time i partitioned a drive in my life.it could not resize automatically so i formatted a whole partition manually. anyway then install was easy but i got into trouble with nvidia drivers from repository.i had to reboot into windows and come back to this forum. then things went ok. but what good is a 64 bit which has no flash for browsing? anyway i downloaded firefox 2 so its ok now. but what about multimedia? webcams? they just work? no! i should thank nvidia for providing 64 bit drivers or i would have fried my brand new 7600 GT .tried automatix, easy ubuntu - hmm just doesnt work. and dont tell me about chroot cos i aint trying those things. i dont want to mess up.

these things require time to configure and i dont have that. u guys probably love tinkering which i do too but still........

let me know what u feel about this.

bye and good luck for linux

QUEEN HIPPOLYTA
November 23rd, 2006, 12:12 AM
I have to say on both ubuntu and kubuntu I have only had a few issues where things did not work and for me that is OK because on windows it was like 1 out of 8 programs that did not function correctly. not to mention I dont ever have to worry about a virus on here :D :D :D :D

Kobalt
November 23rd, 2006, 12:20 AM
Whoa you really crack me up :

but what good is a 64 bit which has no flash for browsing?
Do you really think your 64bit system is only good to get your flash working ? With IE7 and WinXP I guess you could :)
Oh and by the way : webcams and multimedia stuff just doesn't work out of the box with Windows, it's a myth. And you should see how easy (3 clicks !!) to get your iPod to work on Ubuntu (and I mean being able to play, transfer music and videos...).

FatalFungus
November 23rd, 2006, 12:21 AM
Learning Ubuntu, or Linux in general, after close to 15 years of Windows and DOS use is about the same as learning DOS, then Win 3.1, then Win 95 etc. etc. Its no different this time around. Well, maybe a little easier with message boards like this one. Did you give up that quickly when you first sat down in front of Windows? No.

SnTholiday
November 23rd, 2006, 12:22 AM
installed 6.06 LTS a few days ago.hmm installation was quite ok.

I have never experienced an easier install than Ubuntu 6.06 and
6.10. The system finds all my hardware, and installation takes a fraction of the time Windows XP takes. Don't know what he means by "but now what.cant even surf the net properly", no explanation. Since the installation of Ubuntu is cut by more than half the time it takes to install Windows, I don't mind having to do a little more to get things working like Flash, etc.

Looks like a kid started this thread if you ask me.

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 12:31 AM
hi
thanks for the reply.

My OS is 64 BIT 6.06 LTS by the way .
What i meant was that the first step someone generally takes after loading a new OS is check the internet connections .(NETWORKING). Anyways, i do that first. flash is a problem and so is real player. even though helix is working on a 64 BIT real player .i got my web cam to plug and play on windows easily. And what about games?who makes games for Linux anyway. Full respect to ID SOFT for their games .and nvidia for their support.

anyways , i will keep trying to get things to just work !

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 12:39 AM
So this confirms my opinion, that you really have to WANT something to get it done... That's the spirit!

Rajeev1204, people DO try to help... if you let them.

LLRNR


Hi

thanks for the polite reply sir.

cos of good replies like yours, i will stick around and try to get things working.
some people got angry with my post i guess.

thanks and regards

rajeev

PartisanEntity
November 23rd, 2006, 12:40 AM
I am a total newb, I installed Dapper about 2-3 weeks ago, and now it has become my main system (this from a guy who has been quite at home with windows and using it for many years). I have hardly logged into Win XP since installing Ubuntu.

Dapper hasn't crashed once yet.
My wifi card hasnt crashed and works perfectly (it used to crash all the time in win xp).
The fans on my laptop don't switch between hi and low modes 50 times a second.
I haven't had to surf various sites chasing software.

sudo apt-get..., Synaptics and Automatix took care of it all for me.

Thank you to all those who posted in my threads and helped me out :)

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 12:46 AM
I am a total newb, I installed Dapper about 2-3 weeks ago, and now it has become my main system (this from a guy who has been quite at home with windows and using it for many years). I have hardly logged into Win XP since installing Ubuntu.

Dapper hasn't crashed once yet.
My wifi card hasnt crashed and works perfectly (it used to crash all the time in win xp).
The fans on my laptop don't switch between hi and low modes 50 times a second.
I haven't had to surf various sites chasing software.

sudo apt-get..., Synaptics and Automatix took care of it all for me.

Thank you to all those who posted in my threads and helped me out :)

hi

good to hear that . but iam using a 64 bit version and i have problems.i wish that just like athlon 64 works 100 % with 32 bit OS , this should have worked similarly.i guess iam new to all this and will give it more time

bye and thanks

rajeev

Derek Tomes
November 23rd, 2006, 12:54 AM
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary ease of use, deserve neither Liberty nor ease of use!

Apologies to B.F.

LLRNR
November 23rd, 2006, 12:58 AM
i will stick around and try to get things working.

OK, then ;)

As far as I know, 64 bit systems are still a problem, generally speaking, since it's quite a new technology and many software companies did not yet have the time to make their products working properly for such systems. Eventually, they'll be obliged to upgrade, but they're a bit overwhelmed by now. At least this is my feeling about it. (Yes, I admit, I'm an ignorant standing in the shadows of an old 32bit junkie sys !)

As for games, I'm afraid I can't say anything here, since I never was a gamer (do Gothic I & II and Minesweeper count ?)

I see your main problems are Flash and Real player now... I'm afraid I don't understand, you mean they won't install on your 64bit system?

About partitioning and stuff... Take it easy, mate, you'd laugh if I told you that the first time I installed WinXP I first formatted my HDD from a startup floppy in CD support mode and then I didn't understand why I couldn't just do <cd drive letter>:>setup :lol: I was so stupid that I didn't figure out I had to boot from the CD... it kept telling me "This program cannot be run in MS-DOS mode", lol.

Keep in mind that everybody is a beginner at some point in their life. (As for myself, I don't remember if I have a full month of Linux experience at all.) Fortunately enough, this community beats off any kind of closed source apps tech support, IMO. The people here are wonderful, they just do this 'cause they like it.

Best regards,

LLRNR

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 01:04 AM
OK, then ;)

As far as I know, 64 bit systems are still a problem, generally speaking, since it's quite a new technology and many software companies did not yet have the time to make their products working properly for such systems. Eventually, they'll be obliged to upgrade, but they're a bit overwhelmed by now. At least this is my feeling about it. (Yes, I admit, I'm an ignorant standing in the shadows of an old 32bit junkie sys !)

As for games, I'm afraid I can't say anything here, since I never was a gamer (do Gothic I & II and Minesweeper count ?)

I see your main problems are Flash and Real player now... I'm afraid I don't understand, you mean they won't install on your 64bit system?

About partitioning and stuff... Take it easy, mate, you'd laugh if I told you that the first time I installed WinXP I first formatted my HDD from a startup floppy in CD support mode and then I didn't understand why I couldn't just do <cd drive letter>:>setup :lol: I was so stupid that I didn't figure out I had to boot from the CD... it kept telling me "This program cannot be run in MS-DOS mode", lol.

Keep in mind that everybody is a beginner at some point in their life. (As for myself, I don't remember if I have a full month of Linux experience at all.) Fortunately enough, this community beats off any kind of closed source apps tech support, IMO. The people here are wonderful, they just do this 'cause they like it.

Best regards,

LLRNR

hi

thanks again for replying. i have to admit using gparted was the easiest thing to do . but it still had a problem reading my windows partiotions .ok never mind that.
yes realplayer and flash r not supported for 64 bit but i somehow managed to install them through these forums.Runs horribly though .anyway 64 bit realplayer is under development so good.

and by the way gothic and minesweeper dont count as games ! hehe:) http://ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

regards

rajeev

LLRNR
November 23rd, 2006, 01:13 AM
Alright then, it's a good thing there'll soon be a RealPlayer for 64bit systems. As for the Flash player, I never saw it run on 64bit PCs, but I installed on my 32bit system the Flash 9 plugin beta form here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=279990) and it works just fine.

Just... take it easy, say what your problems are, one by one, and if somebody knows a way to help you out, I'm sure they will.

Cheers,

LLRNR

gn2
November 23rd, 2006, 01:14 AM
Suggest you try 32-bit.

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 01:18 AM
Whoa you really crack me up :

Do you really think your 64bit system is only good to get your flash working ? With IE7 and WinXP I guess you could :)
Oh and by the way : webcams and multimedia stuff just doesn't work out of the box with Windows, it's a myth. And you should see how easy (3 clicks !!) to get your iPod to work on Ubuntu (and I mean being able to play, transfer music and videos...).

hi
sorry. i guess the heading freaked u out.( i love windows). i got too excited when downloading a 64 bit OS for my athlon 64. so when i had problems visiting flash sites i got a bit disappointed. it seemed like a basic thing to include that in the O.S. anyways i admit the installation was super fast and easy and it was the first time i installed an OS in my life. :)

currently i have issues with getting my webcam to work but iam looking through the forums.

and by the way - u have had way too much ubuntu hehe :)

regards

rajeev

dmizer
November 23rd, 2006, 01:33 AM
i'll echo gn2, and urge that you reinstall with the 32 bit version. you'll find that most of your problems will be resolved. you'll also not notice much (if any) performance loss.

linux 64 bit is not a good choice for the first time linux user, especially since (as you've noted) you refuse to do chroot.

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 01:38 AM
i'll echo gn2, and urge that you reinstall with the 32 bit version. you'll find that most of your problems will be resolved. you'll also not notice much (if any) performance loss.

linux 64 bit is not a good choice for the first time linux user, especially since (as you've noted) you refuse to do chroot.


hi
thanks for the reply. but i kinda have a thing for 64 bit so ill stick with that :) . my priority is to get quake 4 installed and running on my system. i hope that works in 64 bit. if not then maybe ill give chroot a try.

but iam still sticking with 64 bit .

regards

rajeev

P.S. still not sure how chroot works !!:)

PennYanPete
November 23rd, 2006, 01:40 AM
Hi rajeev

Glad to see this thread turn into something civil.

Good luck with your Ubuntu install

PYP

bodhi.zazen
November 23rd, 2006, 01:40 AM
the amount of info on the forums for getting stuff to 'just work' in ubuntu linux makes it look like a pre release version of windows 95 .!!!!.



Windows does not just work. It appears that way because: You are familiar with windows. windows was pre-installed for you.

I have installed windows and it certainly does not install anywhere as smoothly as Ubuntu. Steps to install:Run and install Windows XP. Download and install drivers. Install antivirus software. Install firewall (yes, I now windows has a firewall "built in" but for a variety of reasons, the primary one that Microsoft is in partnership with the largest producer of spam to start with, I do not trust it). Install at least 2 anti-spyware programs. Install java, flash (no, just like Ubuntu, these are not pre-installed with windows).

* This does not include partitioning. Just try to resize an Ubuntu partition and create a partition for windows with the Windows install CD !

* And, if you install Windows after Ubuntu, good luck on the Microsoft forums getting the Microsoft boot loader to boot Ubuntu.

Please compare Apples to Apples so to speak.Compare Ubuntu pre-installed (yes, you can but computers with Ubuntu pre-installed) with Windows pre-installed (including java, flash, etc).
Compare installing Ubuntu to installing windows.
And last, be aware of the "familiarity factor". After you have years of experience with Linux (from you posts it sounds as if you have been using windows since windows 95, that is 12 years of experience). You should wait until you are at least familiar with the OS before you compare them, otherwise your comments are nothing more then "I like windows because someone else installed it for me and I am unfamiliar with anything else".

Welcome to Linux. :p

ahood
November 23rd, 2006, 01:53 AM
What is the make and model of the webcam?

Plug in the webcam in a USB port. Open up the terminal in Ubuntu and type


lsusb

What is the output?

If the webcam is listed, then the system sees the device and all that is needed is getting a driver that will work with it.

DrH

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 01:54 AM
hi

yes u r right.i got a bit overwhelmed with the forums.

i do agree i installed ubuntu in 15 min flat. the first OS i installed myself in my life. i think ubuntu is the easiest distro there is today for a newbie.It automatically detected all my major hardware and stuff and sound and network too. while i did get into trouble installing display drivers, i guess i may have overlooked something.but i solved it through the forums.

but i still have issues that wont let me enjoy my computing as i used to as a windows user.anyways i guess these things will be sorted out soon cos iam looking forward to full usage of my linux installation.and by the way , how do they keep something amazing like an O.S for free?? .its great.

regards

rajeev

stupidkid
November 23rd, 2006, 01:56 AM
hi
thanks for replying.no offense guys.cool it. the thing is i heard a lot about ubuntu on the net and gave it a try. but iam a total newbie at things like this and linux on a desktop for a casual user is a tough choice.

for ur information it was the first time i partitioned a drive in my life.it could not resize automatically so i formatted a whole partition manually. anyway then install was easy but i got into trouble with nvidia drivers from repository.i had to reboot into windows and come back to this forum. then things went ok. but what good is a 64 bit which has no flash for browsing? anyway i downloaded firefox 2 so its ok now. but what about multimedia? webcams? they just work? no! i should thank nvidia for providing 64 bit drivers or i would have fried my brand new 7600 GT .tried automatix, easy ubuntu - hmm just doesnt work. and dont tell me about chroot cos i aint trying those things. i dont want to mess up.

these things require time to configure and i dont have that. u guys probably love tinkering which i do too but still........

let me know what u feel about this.

bye and good luck for linux

Are you using 64bit Windows? If not, why don't you just install the x86 version of Ubuntu??

flameproof
November 23rd, 2006, 02:24 AM
rajeev1204
I am with you! We run Win 98 and Xp in the office and I setup one Edgy only PC last week.

Still, it's a bit unfair to say Ubuntu is like an early Win95 release. Win95 was OK, I would say Win 3.0 beta.

Speed is worst then any Win version I ever tried. And those cryptic code strings remind me of the DOS days in the late 80th.

After I tried Ubuntu myself I can now only laugh about the "Linux will replace Windows" discussion. At least not with anything that's currently on the market. Ubuntu is far too user unfriendly and demands far too much technical knowledge from Joe Average. I am fairly OK with computers, but have to say it took me way too long to make the system running. Now it runs somehow, but still has some minor problems.

Linux may have some impact on the server market. That's understandable. Usually nobody is working on a server PC, and there's a geek that managed to install it. And best of all, due to the cryptic Linux, the Geek now secured his job for years to come.

True, the community is great and helpful. But that is normal for desperate people that fight for survival. Because we REALLY NEED HELP from all sides.

I will let that Ubuntu PC stay now. It's only used by a minor clerk anyway. email and OpenOffice is fine for em. OpenOffice can even print, well, at least on one of the printers.

I would not use it for my own PC. I need software for Barcode design, label printing, IGES-SLDPRT-DXF-DWG viewers.

If Ubuntu really wants to compete with Windows it has to become far more automatically. So for now, Windows is the far better system in terms of speed, easy installation, user friendliness. At least for now.

Anoobiz
November 23rd, 2006, 02:46 AM
hey what abt the free coffi and speedy product suport raj! btw did i hear a critacle eror on ur side :p

podunk
November 23rd, 2006, 02:47 AM
If Ubuntu really wants to compete with Windows...

It doesn't. Competition involves selling. Linux is free. Linux has no "market share", it has no marketing campaign, no ad budget.

It's a movement, not a market force. There's a difference.

Anoobiz
November 23rd, 2006, 02:50 AM
OMG! all this window talk is making my screen fulla bird crap... cud sumbody plz pass me the Mr.Mustle :p

iam_foo
November 23rd, 2006, 02:51 AM
people who dis linux are ALWAYS windoz users who arent that bright.

if you really understood the differences between the two, you'd realize linux is FAR superior. but that takes a mentality capable of understanding more that "point & click".
lemme simplify for you:

linux is modular.
linux is far more secure.
linux is far more configurable.
linux is free.

these are just a couple examples of how linux is superior.
and if linux wasn't a threat to microsoft, why have they tried so
adamantly to hurt linux in the court system?, and when that failed
made efforts to merge with SUSE.
maybe linux isnt superior in all catagories to windoz yet..but it will be..count on it.
linux developement is faster than windoz..that's a fact.
and the linux market is growing at a faster rate than windoz.
the US is much slower to accept linux..but other countries LOVE IT.
it all leads to the conclusion that linux WILL win the desktop war.
believe that.
5 yrs tops.
now BOW DOWN!
:twisted:

lemuriaX
November 23rd, 2006, 03:08 AM
flameproof,

I am a n00b but have been amazed at how well Ubuntu recognizes hardware and have installed it several times in the past few months on a variety of PC's.

Sure have to learn some new stuff but everything has been easy enough to find and implement.

What about security and stability?

rev_b
November 23rd, 2006, 03:13 AM
The desktop market still isn't ready for 64 bit computing. Not with windows or Linux. Vista x64 RC1 is a joke about compatibility. You don't get a twice as fast sistem by using a 64 bit OS, you can only adress more memory. That will be usefull when 4 Gb of RAM won't cut it in desktops, but not for now.

I have a 64-bit CPU and I always used 32-bit OS.

About "just works", not so. Ubuntu "just works" much more than windows. After installing windows, you think is so natural to install drivers for your sound card, video card, ethernet, motherboard, office, photoshop/whatever, winzip, winrar, antivirus, firewall, antispyware, and so on.

With Ubuntu, the only thing I have to worry is to install nvidia-glx drivers. After installing from live CD, I have my network properly configured, my SB audigy working, my TV card working, my bluetooth working, my scanner being recognised by Xane, the CD has drivers for my printers. That's much more than you can say about windows XP...

I've been using Windows for years, it took me only some weeks to get into Ubuntu basics. In my opinion, it's fast to learn about linux/Ubuntu than Windows. Using command line is hard? Yes it is, but digging into windows registry isn't that easy also.

You must have an open mind if you want to learn something new. Linux is way different from windows, but after you have figured some basic things out, it's way better than M$ bloated OS.

56phil
November 23rd, 2006, 03:13 AM
Some of the best things in life are free ... like Ubuntu.

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 03:18 AM
hey what abt the free coffi and speedy product suport raj! btw did i hear a critacle eror on ur side :p


hi
yes anoobiz , support is super . in one hour i got 50 replies. hehe nice. i guess using the ' i love windows' heading worked :)


regards

rajeev

P.S webcam seems to be installed but i get the not connected message in camorama.probably needs tweaking .spca5xx drivers work!

i will keep u guys posted

happy ubuntuization!!!!!!!!

flameproof
November 23rd, 2006, 03:22 AM
Linux has no "market share",

podunk, I can not agree. It has a share in taking market away from MS. Also, not all Linux packages are free. And certainly the support ain't free if you use a maintenance company.


people who dis linux are ALWAYS windoz users who arent that bright.

iam_foo - you just discredit yourself with a statement that is simply a fallacy and hard to underlay with evidence.

Just a reminder that Apple stresses the "easy to use" slogan with great success. As long as a Ubuntu user needs to use "terminal" to input cryptic DOS like strings it will stay off the mainstream market.

LLRNR
November 23rd, 2006, 03:23 AM
be aware of the "familiarity factor"He's right, you know? It's just not fair to say "Linux is no good" when you only tried it out for a few days... while you forget how much time you invested in learning Windows in the first place (or DOS, or whatever).


You must have an open mind if you want to learn something new. Linux is way different from windows
Yup, that's right. (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)

As rev_b pointed out, 64bit systems refer to the CPU's registries. It's all about the amount of memory that can be accessed, not about the performance.

LLRNR

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 03:30 AM
He's right, you know? It's just not fair to say "Linux is no good" when you only tried it out for a few days... while you forget how much time you invested in learning Windows in the first place (or DOS, or whatever).


Yup, that's right. (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)

As rev_b pointed out, 64bit systems refer to the CPU's registries. It's all about the amount of memory that can be accessed, not about the performance.

LLRNR

hi again LLRNR

my first thread on the ubuntu forum and its a hit . so many replies. i guess this is what the world needs. passionate people. anyways i think i have loaded the drivers for my cam and i hope it works now.

i got support in 3 hours .that is amazing.


regards

rajeev

P.S how do i close this thread? phew iam tired!!:)

BTW r u still playing minesweeper?!!!!!:)

flameproof
November 23rd, 2006, 04:34 AM
It's just not fair to say "Linux is no good"

I agree 100% Same applies to Windows though.

Right now, other then it's free, I can not see one major reason to switch other then the "no MS" reason.

To add one point: I think in an office environment where users just use (Open)Office, email and browser Ubuntu fits very well once setup.

rev_b
November 23rd, 2006, 05:33 AM
Right now, other then it's free, I can not see one major reason to switch other then the "no MS" reason.

- Not only the OS is free, but most of software is free / Open Source. You can set a very productive workstation and spend nothing on software.

- Much more secure OS. You don't need 3 or 4 third party comercial programs installed just to make sure your system doesn't get infested.

- Boots faster, feels faster, much more versatile

- Better memory management

- Several desktop environements to choose, highly customizable.

- Better printer drivers :)

- Very good multimedia support

- Good multimonitor support. Did you know you need third party software to get a taskbar on a second monitor in windows? You get video aceleration in both monitors also, you can do that in windows. You can't display a capture from your TV card and play another video file at the same time in windows.

So I'll put it backwards, other than gaming, I can't think of a major reason for not switching to Linux. I did.

bodhi.zazen
November 23rd, 2006, 06:18 AM
After I tried Ubuntu myself I can now only laugh about the "Linux will replace Windows" discussion. At least not with anything that's currently on the market. Ubuntu is far too user unfriendly and demands far too much technical knowledge from Joe Average. I am fairly OK with computers, but have to say it took me way too long to make the system running. Now it runs somehow, but still has some minor problems.

Yes and no. Linux would replace windows quite quickly if all new computers had Ubuntu pre-installed and in order to run windows one had to purchase windows, download it via ftp or torrent, install, and configure windows, then find and install all the propriatry drivers.

Imagine if hardware manufactures designed hardware Linux compatible and Microsoft had to build all the drivers after the fact.

These are things you need to consider in you comparisons. Both Macintosh and Microsoft have concurrent hardware and software development. Because of this Linux is always going to lag behind. So yes, if you want to run the newest, latest hardware it would be wise to run the software that was developed to run with it.

But if you are willing to test and contribute to opensource and you are willing for the Linux development to catch up you can run a very slick OS in modern hardware. Linux has a much wider range of hardware compatibility then either Windows or OSX for example.


Linux may have some impact on the server market. That's understandable. Usually nobody is working on a server PC, and there's a geek that managed to install it. And best of all, due to the cryptic Linux, the Geek now secured his job for years to come.

Are you saying you installed windows yourself? Again you can purchase a computer with Ubuntu pre-installed and if you spec it out it costs hundreds of dollars less then it would with Windows installed. Again you need to compare Linux pre-installed with Ubuntu pre-installed or Windows install to Linux install.

cryptic is just another term for familiarity. If you had 10 + years experience with the Linux CLI it would not be so cryptic.

Finally, IT professionals both have secure jobs and are geeks, Linux or Windows, the OS is irrelevant.


[/quote]True, the community is great and helpful. But that is normal for desperate people that fight for survival. Because we REALLY NEED HELP from all sides.[/quote]

I do not think this statement pertains to me. I am very comfortable with Linux, with or without X. I am not desperate. I am not fighting for survival.

I see the Ubuntu community as a nurturing community where new Linux users can come for assistance. The community is growing. More and more people are finding that Ubuntu is a great OS and are choosing to convert.


I will let that Ubuntu PC stay now. It's only used by a minor clerk anyway. email and OpenOffice is fine for em. OpenOffice can even print, well, at least on one of the printers.

I would not use it for my own PC. I need software for Barcode design, label printing, IGES-SLDPRT-DXF-DWG viewers.

If Ubuntu really wants to compete with Windows it has to become far more automatically. So for now, Windows is the far better system in terms of speed, easy installation, user friendliness. At least for now.

As podunk said, we are not trying to compete. I disagree that windows is "the far better system in terms of speed, easy installation, user friendliness".

Let us set up a dual boot machine, From scratch not pre-installed. Purchase a windows XP CD and download and install the necessary drivers. Purchase and install antiviral software, a firewall, and anti-spyware. Download and install Ubuntu. I guarantee it is easier to use Ubuntu to partition then windows XP install cd. The windows boot loader will not boot Ubuntu. This is a big problem. Fortunately GRUB will boot either OS.

Speed? no way. My linux box is optimized for speed and will run faster than windows any day.

"user friendliness" is subjective and based on familiarity. If we stay with open source cross platform software ease of use is equal (firefox, thnuderbird, Openoffice, google earth). If we go with 'propriatry" stuff well I would love to see you run Linux native software on your windows box. You will have as much trouble running Windows programs on Linux, although Linux has wine. Again user friendliness is equal.


I agree 100% Same applies to Windows though.

Right now, other then it's free, I can not see one major reason to switch other then the "no MS" reason.[quote]

I am glad you are happy with windows. From my perspective I can also claim I can not see one major reason to switch to Windows.

It all comes down to familiarity not superiority.

I would wager that if you had equal familiarity with Ubuntu as Windows you might change you opinion. Especially if you could save yourself all that hassle of viruses and spyware.

[quote]To add one point: I think in an office environment where users just use (Open)Office, email and browser Ubuntu fits very well once setup.

Well, that is what Ubuntu was designed to do. And it does so out of the box. period. No additional "setup" is required. In fact you can do all this from the live CD with nothing other then booting to CDROM. You can save user data to a usd device.

adam.tropics
November 23rd, 2006, 06:19 AM
As long as a Ubuntu user needs to use "terminal" to input cryptic DOS like strings it will stay off the mainstream market.

Whilst pretty guis are all well and good, and yes, the more the merrier, the terminal has its place, believe me. If you take the time, and it doesn't really take much, you will find you can often achieve a whole lot more, a whole lot faster from the terminal. If you take one look at it and write it off as 'too geeky' or arcane, you are really missing the point. As for the speed claims you made about Ubuntu, I am thinking you are exadurating for the sake of your point, which doesn't help fix it does it.

As for rajeev1204, welcome and good luck, although I am not sure I'd recommend too many posts with this title!

freshmaker
November 23rd, 2006, 06:43 AM
It is really REALLY amassing....:mrgreen:

If one posts thread like "i love windows" everybody goes there read it carefully and answers to the guy who even does not want any advise or help.
And the guy laughs at you/us for doing this.
But if one really needs some help sometimes "i said only sometimes" nobody will read it.
Isn't it funny/funky?!?
I suggest then: Lets open here Windows section. It will be fun...

Regards,
freshmaker

cantormath
November 23rd, 2006, 06:47 AM
I love posts like these...the ones where they don't give you a chance to even try to help. They just spout that "just works" propaganda crap.

From a truth standpoint, more things "just worked" for me in Ubuntu than in Windows...if you are going to use a phrase like that, I would prefer you define it. Try using a Windows OS without installing drivers for your hardware.

The thing that is funny is that they think we care......Like we are a help desk that is afraid of loosing their business.

Some day this Point-n-click engineer will see the light and rtfm in regards to linux.
Actually, you dont even need a manual to use ubuntu....it has gotten so user friendly.

adam.tropics
November 23rd, 2006, 06:53 AM
I suggest then: Lets open here Windows section. It will be fun...

Regards,
freshmaker

been done (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=170)! btw, you have a point!

rajeev1204
November 23rd, 2006, 06:57 AM
hi again

it is indeed funny that by using a headline 'i love windows' people just swarm in to reply . so let me make things a little clear. if u read my original post , all i said was about ease of use at setting up a user experience similar to windows , for example about webcams and stuff.

i would again make it clear that i had the O.S installed in 15 min flat and it was flawless.display drivers for my 7600 gt was available in the repositories.yes , some codec issues remain but i know that work is on in that area.

and u guys will be happy to know i got my webcam up and running in 3 hours flat thanks to these forums. and please stop this windows hate attitude cos we may stop people from getting genuine help and just focus on rhetoric.

By the way , the synaptic package manager is awesome .phew. a monster indeed.

regards

rajeev ( started this thread).

thank u for all the help

housam
November 23rd, 2006, 07:05 AM
As I've said before, UBUNTU is a way of life . it is for people who wants to learn , who has open minds and live hearts.That's all folks.

kiyometane
November 23rd, 2006, 07:46 AM
you need patience. That's what happens when u use an os for the first time. If you want to use linux symillar to windows stuff i suggest he gets suse entreprise desk 10. It has everything built in already.
Choose ubuntu to start your way up, so that u have a better understanding of linux in general.

cantormath
November 23rd, 2006, 07:51 AM
I suggest then: Lets open here Windows section. It will be fun...

Regards,
freshmaker

Here you GO -> A Windows Discussion (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=170)

freshmaker
November 23rd, 2006, 08:29 AM
Here you GO -> A Windows Discussion (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=170)

Yeah! Thanks!
I meant something like "Farewell section" (which was the original idea of this thread)
I just wanted to say that you guys are trying to help someone who does not WANT to be helped... you can help the one who really needs HELP!
:)

cantormath
November 23rd, 2006, 08:32 AM
One cannot help those that do not want to be helped.

aysiu
November 23rd, 2006, 08:39 AM
hi

installed 6.06 LTS a few days ago.hmm installation was quite ok.but now what.cant even surf the net properly.no 64 bit flash,real player or nothing.sure, there r ways to get things working but that aint in tune with the just works philosophy.that just works is a windows thing.no webcam support no nothing.i was using a pirated copy of windows xp which is a good OS, and iam going to purchase a official copy. for a gamer like me , linux is no good.just for id soft games iam not switching to linux.its still a ser ver OS i guess.bye bye.



TOO BAD.i guess the good things in life come at a price !
rajeev1204, it seems some people are willing to help you get Ubuntu working. If you want help, please post a support thread (with an appropriately descriptive title) in Absolute Beginner, General Help, or one of the other support sections.

If you want to continue a discussion about Ubuntu compared to Windows, you can keep posting in this thread.

Circus-Killer
November 23rd, 2006, 08:40 AM
linux is all about choice. but one choice that is always over-looked is the choice of OS. linux does give you another option to windows, but it doesn't make windows any less of an option.

for some people, windows is the best way to go. there arent many cases where i'de recommend windows over linux, but there are a few.

gn2
November 23rd, 2006, 09:07 AM
rajeev1204
I am with you! We run Win 98 and Xp in the office and I setup one Edgy only PC last week.

Still, it's a bit unfair to say Ubuntu is like an early Win95 release. Win95 was OK, I would say Win 3.0 beta.

Speed is worst then any Win version I ever tried. And those cryptic code strings remind me of the DOS days in the late 80th.

After I tried Ubuntu myself I can now only laugh about the "Linux will replace Windows" discussion. At least not with anything that's currently on the market. Ubuntu is far too user unfriendly and demands far too much technical knowledge from Joe Average. I am fairly OK with computers, but have to say it took me way too long to make the system running. Now it runs somehow, but still has some minor problems.

Linux may have some impact on the server market. That's understandable. Usually nobody is working on a server PC, and there's a geek that managed to install it. And best of all, due to the cryptic Linux, the Geek now secured his job for years to come.

True, the community is great and helpful. But that is normal for desperate people that fight for survival. Because we REALLY NEED HELP from all sides.

I will let that Ubuntu PC stay now. It's only used by a minor clerk anyway. email and OpenOffice is fine for em. OpenOffice can even print, well, at least on one of the printers.

I would not use it for my own PC. I need software for Barcode design, label printing, IGES-SLDPRT-DXF-DWG viewers.

If Ubuntu really wants to compete with Windows it has to become far more automatically. So for now, Windows is the far better system in terms of speed, easy installation, user friendliness. At least for now.

Try PCLinuxOS.

John E
November 23rd, 2006, 09:15 AM
The point I'm making is that Linux, for all its power, is still a horrendously unintuitive OS - perhaps equivalent to where Windows was, back in the days of NT 3.51 (partly GUI but still heavily dependent on the command line). Every Linux distro I've installed has corrupted my partition table - though admittedly, this was easily fixed (using Windows utilities). But that was only the start of my problems....

The arcane requirements of trying to install applications and drivers from a command line is something that other OS's ditched at least 15 years ago and I'll give you a perfect example of why Linux should ditch it too....

I needed to install drivers for my graphics card. The instructions started my telling me to open up a terminal window and type the following, which I did:-

tar xvzf matrox_driver-x86_32-4.4.0.tar.gz

Hardly a command that anyone could have guessed, but let's leave that aside for the moment. Even though I'd typed everything in correctly and checked it faithfully, I kept getting an error that the relevant file could not be found. I even copied & pasted the actual instruction from the README file straight into my terminal window but still I got the same error. Finally, after 30, minutes, I hit upon the idea of finding the actual file and copying the name from its icon. This time, everything worked. There was no visible difference between any of the entries I'd tried - but clearly, there was some character in that long file name that looked right but wasn't exactly the right character.

But even that wasn't the end of the process. I then had to find a particular file called Install.sh and run sh Install.sh for the next stage. This time, I got an error telling me that the driver install path for XServer couldn't be found. Nobody here (or on any other Linux forum) could tell me what was wrong...!

Under Windows, this would have been a breeze. There would have been an automatic installer that would have sorted everything out from a simple double click. If other OS's can manage this, why can't Linux??

I'm astonished that anyone, in this day & age, still seeks to defend the old command-line interface. There is nothing (and I mean NOTHING) that can be done with a command line that can't be done safer and better by some other means. How many people would have thought to copy the target file's name from its icon? And this is the big problem with Linux. So often, you can follow the instructions to the letter but these stupid problems prevent you from making any progress. All in all, it took me 5 days (FIVE DAYS) just to get my monitor out of 640x480 resolution!!! Yet hardly anyone here could see why that was a problem..!

There's only one reason why programmers like using command lines.... because they're lazy programmers. And I know, because I'm a C++ programmer myself. Command lines are a kop-out. If they don't work, the lazy programmer can blame the 'stupid' user for not typing in the correct info. I know loads of programmers like this. Programming GUI's is just too difficult for them.

As I said earlier, Linux has got a lot going for it - but it's holding itself back by pandering to lazy programmers who can't be bothered making the effort to write modern, robusy software.

Your rivals sussed this out a long time ago and at the end of the day guys, it'll be your loss.

Bachstelze
November 23rd, 2006, 09:20 AM
Now let me ask you a question. We've been trying to help you for quite a moment but you're still there ignoring our advice completely and just trolling around about how great Windows is, then why won't you just go back to Windows ?

meng
November 23rd, 2006, 09:28 AM
Well just feel free to call me a loser. Forgive me if I don't genuflect to the big bad C++ programmer who assumes that if his experience with Linux was bad, everyone else's must be too.

John E
November 23rd, 2006, 10:13 AM
My whole night went for search for commands (tons of dependencies, libraries, and for 90% I had to use the command line... in 2006??)

I've been making exactly this point on another thread - "Why I'd love to use Linux (but can't)". I'm not going to repeat everything here but I've just given a very good example of why this arcane style of interfacing should be dumped. Linux needs to modernise if its ever to join the other mainstream OS's.


Dealing with linux will NEVER be as easy as more popular OS's, but that doesn't mean its worse.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, Caimex - but yes it does...!

John E
November 23rd, 2006, 10:27 AM
Now let me ask you a question. We've been trying to help you for quite a moment but you're still there ignoring our advice completely and just trolling around about how great Windows is, then why won't you just go back to Windows ?

Not sure if that comment was aimed at me - but the reason I'm trying to run Linux is that it's needed for a project that I'll soon be joining.

And again, speaking personally, I haven't ignored anyone's advice. I've tried out everything that everyone's suggested. Some of it worked, some of it didn't.

John E
November 23rd, 2006, 11:46 AM
But ask yourself this - Is it not user friendly? Or are you too accustomed to Windows?

[...]

I can honestly say though, in a few weeks of using ubuntu, I was pretty well trained in it.

Yes, that's the key point here. It's that initial stage of setting up that causes so much frustration and risks alienating users. If there are any Ubuntu developers watching, here's my 2 cent's worth....

There are 4 basic things that users MUST be able to do reliably and quickly when they come to a new OS:-

1) Firstly, it goes without saying - but any new OS must install itself cleanly without corrupting data or confusing other OS's on the user's hard drive. Yes of course, the user should have backed everything up before he started - but that's no excuse for an OS designer to be cavalier and trample over everything else. Partitions contain information that might not be relevant your OS but which is needed by other OS's and partition managers. Make sure that these structures are set up so they can be understood by anything that needs to understand them. This seems to be causing problems among Linux installations which fail to set up certain partition table entries that aren't relevant to Linux or Unix.

2) Within MINUTES of installation, the user's keyboard, mouse & monitor(s) must be working satisfactorily. All of them (esp. mouse & monitor) must be easy to adjust if the resolution or sensitivity aren't to the user's taste. This still seems to be a major problem area with many distributions of Linux (incl. Ubuntu).

3) There must be a simple way of connecting to the internet - and it must be RIGHT THERE ON THE DESKTOP. So far, I haven't found any obvious apps for setting up my internet connection (although, to be honest, I've been so bogged down by other problems that I've yet to tackle the internet in any depth).

4) It must be possible to install applications (and especially, drivers) WITHOUT having to learn unfamiliar commands. A simple installation process for drivers is absolutely paramount.

If you can get a new user simply & efficiently over those 4 basic hurdles, you'll have a fan for life.

freshmaker
November 23rd, 2006, 02:09 PM
Why do you feel the need to even talk then. You know we disagree with you and yet you are posting on a linux forum. Why not go to a windows forum?
We don't feel a sense that we are loosing you as a customer........linux is free :KS If you try it again and have real questions.......you are always welcome back....
One cannot help those that do not want to be helped.

@ cantormath if you are trying to quote me I think you have the wrong person or you have not understood who "loves windows" or why is against who. You may try to read it again and not pointing innocent people 8) (nobody is innocent though)

Regards freshmaker

cantormath
November 23rd, 2006, 02:22 PM
@ cantormath if you are trying to quote me I think you have the wrong person or you have not understood who "loves windows" or why is against who. You may try to read it again and not pointing innocent people 8) (nobody is innocent though)

Regards freshmaker

Corrected.....didnt mean you, sorry.

PiruErkki
November 24th, 2006, 04:24 AM
if linux is harder to learn than more popular OS it sure doesnt mean its worse than others, every OS has good and bad things. I have been using windos since it started and now have noticed that i use ubuntu more than windows.



There are 4 basic things that users MUST be able to do reliably and quickly when they come to a new OS:-

1) Firstly, it goes without saying - but any new OS must install itself cleanly without corrupting data or confusing other OS's on the user's hard drive.

tell me a really good example when windows don't mess up every other OS installed on computer when you are installing it. Installed many linux distros on computer with windows and other linux distros and never had any problems but when i installed windows on a computer which allready had linux installed it messed up the whole installation of linux.....so you can't say windows is so great when it comes to that you have to install at least two OS on same computer

-- windows and linux has both their own place in this world --

BLTicklemonster
November 24th, 2006, 05:19 AM
To me, at this time, expecting to get 64 bit systems to work is like trying to drive a German troop train to Moscow in '42. I guess you'd have to know what I mean by that... but really, sometimes things come out before their time. 64 bit, imo is one of these things. (as well as cell phones, but we won't get into that here)

deepwave
November 24th, 2006, 05:24 AM
if linux is harder to learn than more popular OS it sure doesnt mean its worse than others, every OS has good and bad things. I have been using windos since it started and now have noticed that i use ubuntu more than windows.


I think the issue here is not learning how to use Linux. The issue is about learning how to install and admin a powerful and flexible system. Admining and using are very different. I think if you preloaded PCs with Linux, people would not find using Linux any harder than Windows. Admining is what gets most people. Even under Windows, keep a secure (malware free , rootkit-less) system is an uphill battle. Keeping (admininstrating) any system to be secure is an uphilll battle.



tell me a really good example when windows don't mess up every other OS installed on computer when you are installing it. Installed many linux distros on computer with windows and other linux distros and never had any problems but when i installed windows on a computer which allready had linux installed it messed up the whole installation of linux.....so you can't say windows is so great when it comes to that you have to install at least two OS on same computer

-- windows and linux has both their own place in this world --

Installing and partitioning Windows is just as un-fun as Linux. That is why most people get there PCs preloaded and automatic re-imaging "recovery" CDs.

ShadowVlican
November 24th, 2006, 06:56 AM
Installing and partitioning Windows is just as un-fun as Linux. That is why most people get there PCs preloaded and automatic re-imaging "recovery" CDs.
dual booting aside (since i have no personal experience) install and partitioning in windows is VERY easy!

booting with windows disc has the option of partitioning/formatting the drive in which you want to install windows on

even after you installed windows, there is a management tool that lets you partition/format new drives

just goto My Computer > Manage > Disk Management

no need for any command lines, or manual mounting, heck you only need a keyboard if you decide to name your partition :lol:

John E
November 24th, 2006, 09:34 AM
I think the issue here is not learning how to use Linux. The issue is about learning how to install and admin a powerful and flexible system. Admining and using are very different. I think if you preloaded PCs with Linux, people would not find using Linux any harder than Windows.

I entirely agree with this. Using applications under Linux is actually no less intuitive than any other OS - but getting everything to the stage where Linux was "usable" was a real pain. Configuration and driver installation were particularly frustrating and stressful.

anaconda
November 24th, 2006, 02:17 PM
install and partitioning in windows is VERY easy!

booting with windows disc has the option of partitioning/formatting the drive in which you want to install windows on

even after you installed windows, there is a management tool that lets you partition/format new drives

just goto My Computer > Manage > Disk Management

no need for any command lines, or manual mounting, heck you only need a keyboard if you decide to name your partition :lol:

Yep, BUT windows just cant install at all to a hard-disk, which is already full. Windows requires that you already has to have free space or a partition you can just delete and install windows to..

Linux is often installed to a hard-disk, which already has windows taking 100% of the space. So you need to be able to resize the windows partition and make new partition to the freed space etc.. Of cource this kind of installation is a bit more difficult.

And you dont really need cli in ubuntu either. you can use qtparted (graphical tool) to edit/make partitions.

chickengirl
November 25th, 2006, 01:11 AM
There are 4 basic things that users MUST be able to do reliably and quickly when they come to a new OS:-

1) Firstly, it goes without saying - but any new OS must install itself cleanly without corrupting data or confusing other OS's on the user's hard drive.

Ubuntu does this, if you know what you're doing. Neophytes should not be messing around with their OS - they should buy pre-installed or get their resident computer geek to do it. However, assuming a little basic knowledge about partitions and such, it's fairly easy to set up a dual-boot that preserves your Windows installation. If I had a Linux machine and wanted to dual-boot Windows, what do you suppose are the chances that the Windows installer would have any interest in preserving my Linux partitions? And how about setting up the bootloader to let me access both OSes? I know what I suppose the chances are.


4) It must be possible to install applications (and especially, drivers) WITHOUT having to learn unfamiliar commands.

Using a package manager (in Ubuntu's case, Synaptic) to fetch programs from the repositories is the normal way to install programs in Linux. I had to figure this out when I switched to Linux, but figure it out I did. Installing programs on a Mac evidently involves something called a "disc image". If I got a Mac tomorrow, I would probably have to do a little reading and figure it out. But, this seems to be your problem. You have no intention of figuring anything out. You expect everything to work exactly as in Windows (which, incidentally, you also had to figure out at first) and if it's in any way different in Linux, it's unfamiliar, which means you don't want to learn anything about it, regardless of how much easier or better it may turn out to be. Frankly, I feel sorry for you. Learning new things is what makes life worth living. And if you don't want to learn anything new, why are you trying to use Linux in the first place?

If I got a Mac tomorrow and insisted on trying to use it without ever having to learn anything about it, I would fail miserably, and rightfully so. Mac is not Linux, and Linux is not Windows.

You may be interested in the "Linux is not Windows" link in my sig.

deepwave
November 25th, 2006, 01:54 AM
dual booting aside (since i have no personal experience) install and partitioning in windows is VERY easy!

booting with windows disc has the option of partitioning/formatting the drive in which you want to install windows on

even after you installed windows, there is a management tool that lets you partition/format new drives

just goto My Computer > Manage > Disk Management

no need for any command lines, or manual mounting, heck you only need a keyboard if you decide to name your partition :lol:

Thanks for the tip. I personally have repartitioned drives, setup for dual boot, so many times I can't remember and I am very comfortable with this.

I find repartitioning un-fun in the terms: of repartitioning drives with valuable un-backed up data. I have done it before, even manually recovering a deleted /home partition (me being stupid and careless).

Another reason why partitioning is not fun, is that many times inexperienced people can screw up partitioning. If no data is involved, there is no problem. If data is involved, hell brakes loose on so many levels it is not even funny. I would never suggest partitioning or installing OSes, for the majority of people who own computers. By some strange coincidence, the majority also run a competing preloaded OS.

ShadowVlican
November 25th, 2006, 02:33 AM
Thanks for the tip. I personally have repartitioned drives, setup for dual boot, so many times I can't remember and I am very comfortable with this.

Another reason why partitioning is not fun, is that many times inexperienced people can screw up partitioning. If no data is involved, there is no problem. If data is involved, hell brakes loose on so many levels it is not even funny. I would never suggest partitioning or installing OSes, for the majority of people who own computers. By some strange coincidence, the majority also run a competing preloaded OS.
hey np, i'm a windows freak, on par with the linux freaks that can do all sorts of wierd stuff with their OS ;)

and yes, you speak the truth :)

John E
November 25th, 2006, 01:19 PM
chickengirl - I am rarely lost for words but your reply is 100% typical of the patronising attitude that I keep encountering (and complaining about) here; the invariable assumption that all newbies are dumbo's who know nothing about computers and shouldn't be messing with them.

And why do you all assume that whenever anyone criticises Linux that they're simultaneously defending Windows? The only comment I've made about Windows is that in terms of installation & configuration it is light years ahead of Linux. This is undeniably true - and those of you who think it isn't are thinking of Windows the way it used to be, 10 or 15 years ago.

I am not seeking to compare Linux and Windows. I am comparing Linux (today) with the way it was when I first tried to install it, some 7 or 8 years ago. Back then it was a tortuously difficult OS to install and get running.

And it's still a tortuously difficult system to install and get running today. Nothing has improved (at least, not in that area). Most other OS's (yes, including Windows) have made great strides in this area and are now child's play to install & configure - but not Linux however. It's a serious shortcoming in an otherwise impressive OS - and it's an area that still has plenty of room for improvement.

Footissimo
November 25th, 2006, 01:54 PM
chickengirl
And it's still a tortuously difficult system to install and get running today. Nothing has improved (at least, not in that area). Most other OS's (yes, including Windows) have made great strides in this area and are now child's play to install & configure - but not Linux however. It's a serious shortcoming in an otherwise impressive OS - and it's an area that still has plenty of room for improvement.

Just upgraded to edgy doing a full clean reinstall. I put the disk in, let it load and pressed 'install'. A few simple questions and 20-30 minutes later, one edgy desktop with all the usuals working lovely (aside from my printer where I had to go through the tortuously difficult process of selecting it from a list of other HP printers)

I don't know how I coped TBH.

stuh84
November 25th, 2006, 04:01 PM
Ever tried getting a Wireless card working in Linux?

Took me about 3 months on and off with two different PC's and actually having to wait until I got Edgy to be able to get the damn things working.

XP would be a case of downloading a driver, installing, rebooting, and then doing the usual WEP/WPA Key config and SSID input.

The fact is everyone I see saying how Linux is ready for the desktop is in the hypothetical case that it would be pre-installed on as many PC's as Windows so that everything is working. Yes, pre-installed would work without a problem. Back to the real world for a second though and I've heard of few Pre-installed vendors (System76 is the only one that comes to mind, I've heard of some before but can't remember them). Linux in nearly all cases will HAVE to be installed by the end user, which is why people find it hard.

Linux is ready for the desktop yes, but that doesn't mean its ready for desktop installs by everyone, which is the route that almost everyone would have to take.

You can talk about how it should be pre-installed till the cows come home, fact is its not, so its pointless trying to think so. To get Linux and Ubuntu to be accepted widely, it has been drastically easier to install than XP, because most users will never have to install XP. It needs to be comparable with installing a driver and everything just works. Unfortunately this is so unlikely to happen for all cases simply due to the sheer amount of OEM hardware out there that can cause problems.

A general increase in GUI methods for sorting just about every hardware issue (sort of like YaST) would be a step forward, but its not a requirement, I think Ubuntu will survive without it, just means you can't get people who've just bought a computer for the first time to start using Ubuntu straight away.

Redache
November 25th, 2006, 05:10 PM
I think you're missing the point. Linux isn't windows, it doesn't try to be and it never will be. Yes Microsoft have an impressive hardware database for people to use but not everything works in Windows out of the box either. I've got a Creative Audigy 2 and recently I reinstalled windows due to viruses and slow down, Windows didn't automatically detect or configure the audigy which meant that I had to go to the Creative website to download all the drivers myself. Now Creative are a big brand that only offer support for windows. When I installed Ubuntu no extra configuration was needed and it detected and configured my audigy automatically. Now in this case which OS was easier for the end user? the one that has the full support of Creative but doesn't come with an automatic driver, or the one that Creative refuses to support but actually worked during the Live CD test and install?.

One example of why saying Windows is vastly better at Hardware config is not always correct.

If you want Linux to be Windows, then just use Windows. Linux is meant to be a cure for the problems Windows inherently has due to the way it's constructed and due to it's massive market share. It's not imitating, it's not trying to go in the same direction it's just trying to be a different OS that people can choose.

When I installed Ubuntu I went through the Live CD install and whilst it was installing I surfed the Net and looked around a bit during the 10 minute install process.
When I installed Windows XP I went through its install procedure and I ended up going to the Pub for an hour and on my return it was nearly finished. As soon as it loaded it needed more configuration to get everything working and it's defaults for screen resolution and refresh rate were killer on my eyes.

Before trying Ubuntu why not search the internet for compatibility issues with all of your hardware? if you have a computer with extremely exotic hardware how can you expect Ubuntu to automatically detect it? think before you try. A little research is all it takes before you take the jump and try it out. Or better yet try the Live CD and see if it works for you!.

and I'll add Mac OS into the old argument here. Mac OS isn't the same as Windows, Mac OS isn't the same as Linux. Mac OS is a very good OS currently as it offers ease of use and security to the mainstream market. Apple were saved by NeXtStEp in the early 90's. Now Mac OS has grown into an innovative operating system and hardware wise Mac's are still light years ahead PC's because of things such as the EFI. But Apple don't hold a huge market share, does this make Apple a bad company? Or does it mean that Windows users don't know better?.

If you aren't willing to try change, then don't bother. Just continue to use Windows and enjoy it as it grows in price.

Bit of a cool thing; Dell were interested in releasing Mac OS based computers if Apple would release it on a broader hardware scale. Mac won't but it shows that the big computer manufacturers want an alternative OS to Windows.

Stanley Krute
November 25th, 2006, 05:31 PM
...I hope I won't upset anyone, but I feel I have to tell this.

Thanks for the excellent post. It parallels my own thoughts.

Most of the responders are missing the point.

That's okay. There are enuf folks who want Linux to maintain its intellectual strength AND Just Work Out Of The Box that things are going to be made easier. It's inevitable.

-- stan

chickengirl
November 25th, 2006, 07:00 PM
chickengirl - I am rarely lost for words but your reply is 100% typical of the patronising attitude that I keep encountering (and complaining about) here; the invariable assumption that all newbies are dumbo's who know nothing about computers and shouldn't be messing with them.

Did I say you were a noob? No, I did not. Your point #1 was specifically "Linux is too hard for noobs to install, therefore Linux isn't ready, blah blah blah." And my response was, "Noobs shouldn't be installing an OS without at least some semblance of a clue about what they are doing. And if you do have at least a small clue, it isn't that hard."

Would it be "patronizing" of you to warn me that I, who have absolutely no knowledge of auto mechanics, should not be poking around under the hood of my car? Would it be condescending to tell me to put down the wrench and leave it to someone who knows what they're doing? No. It would be sound advice.


And why do you all assume that whenever anyone criticises Linux that they're simultaneously defending Windows? The only comment I've made about Windows is that in terms of installation & configuration it is light years ahead of Linux. This is undeniably true - and those of you who think it isn't are thinking of Windows the way it used to be, 10 or 15 years ago.

Have you ever actually installed Windows? Using the recovery disc doesn't count. Have you ever started with a computer and a Windows install disc and tried to get a working system out of the deal? I've tried it. It takes bloody ages and is liable to run into all kinds of ridiculous problems along the way. And this was XP that I was working with.

In stark contrast, give me a computer and an Ubuntu disc and I can have it up and running in half an hour. And I'm no guru. I'm just an ordinary user with, oh, maybe a medium-sized clue and a capacity to learn. As far as I'm concerned, Linux installation is light centuries ahead of Windows.


And it's still a tortuously difficult system to install and get running today. Nothing has improved (at least, not in that area). Most other OS's (yes, including Windows) have made great strides in this area and are now child's play to install & configure - but not Linux however. It's a serious shortcoming in an otherwise impressive OS - and it's an area that still has plenty of room for improvement.

Well sorry, but I have to call that "stuff and nonsense". Have you seen Mandriva's installer? That's a thing of beauty, that is. That was the first Linux (also the first OS in general) that I've ever installed. It went off without a hitch. And IMO, Ubuntu's text installer really is not that far behind the "pretty" ones. You just have to put away your misconception that anything text- or CLI-based is old and bad and be willing to come in with your brain engaged.

(Incidentally, the Windows installer is the definition of tortuous. Look up "tortuous" in the dictionary and you will find a picture of a Windows install disc next to the entry.)

John E
November 25th, 2006, 07:25 PM
Would it be "patronizing" of you to warn me that I, who have absolutely no knowledge of auto mechanics, should not be poking around under the hood of my car?
What is patronising is your belief (which seems to be shared by many others on this forum) that the newbies here have no experience with computers and are therefore 'unqualified' to offer criticisms.



Have you ever actually installed Windows? Using the recovery disc doesn't count. Have you ever started with a computer and a Windows install disc and tried to get a working system out of the deal?
Well actually, yes - I've built every single computer I've ever owned (apart from my laptop). Eight computers in the past 20 years or so.



You just have to put away your misconception that anything text- or CLI-based is old and bad
I've already given several examples of why text and CLI-based interfaces are old fashioned and bad - and I've also stated that there is nothing (i.e. nothing at all) that can be done with a command-line that can't be done safer & better by other methods. If you disagree with this, why not give me an example of something (anything) that you cnly do effectively with a command line interface?



Incidentally, the Windows installer is the definition of tortuous.
Then I can only assume that you haven't installed Windows for a very long time (or that you've only installed very old versions).

John E
November 25th, 2006, 07:30 PM
Ever tried getting a Wireless card working in Linux?

Took me about 3 months on and off with two different PC's
I don't doubt it...! I spent five entire days just trying to get my graphic display to work a bit higher than 640x480 !!