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

poptones
July 9th, 2005, 05:33 AM
Without going into the Mac department, I challenge you to go to CompUSA, find 10 computer items that won't run under XP, and post them here.

How do you define "won't work?" Does it count if they "won't work" unless you spend hours screwing with drivers that don't properly install? Or with game software that was written before XP but is still being sold and yet only works in xp - if at all - after a visit to their forums and hours spent poring over inane "FAQs" and searching their support forums for similar experiences?

I have here a wireless card, two games and two modems and none of them were I able to get working in XP. They were all purchased from big name dealers AFTER the release of XP. And I'm just one person.

t2kburl
July 9th, 2005, 05:40 AM
But then, one would have to say that NO OS is "ready for prime-time" since Windows XP undoubtedly has the largest HCL in the world, especially with hardware made since 2000.

Without going into the Mac department, I challenge you to go to CompUSA, find 10 computer items that won't run under XP, and post them here.
Sure ... just send me the $100 I'd need for the gas to get to the nearest CompUSA and I'll go look :)

I know that since XP came out every piece of hardware (in the PC realm) has been "designed for XP". It would be stupid for hardware manufacturers not to. Many of them forced sales of new hardware by failing to provide XP drivers for older hardware. M$ and the manufacturers probably made a boatload of $$$ off the whole thing. Probably the thing I appreciate most about Linux is that it is not greedy like that. People are just reluctant to change from what they are comfortable with. Windows is like an old shoe, its comfortable, even though it has an infinite number of holes in it.

No OS is perfect. There will never be one that is. I'm just glad we have a choice now that linux (and especially Ubuntu) has evolved to the point where it can be used for nearly every common computer task without having to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Sure it takes some time and effort to learn some of its nuances, but we all went through the same process when we first learned windows.

martinultima
July 9th, 2005, 04:45 PM
I'll admit, I have to agree that Ubuntu isn't quite ready... Linux on a whole is more than there, but Ubuntu...

I've been using Linux a couple years now, and have actually been maintaining my own distribution (www.ultimalinux.cjb.net) (disclaimer, link posted purely for informational purposes, not meant as an advertisement or anything) lately... never had a problem with any system, be it my first Red Hat 8.0 to the latest version of Slackware to (obviously) my own system.

Anyway, my friend was telling me that he switched to Ubuntu quite a while ago because it was so popular and just a lot easier for him. I figured, oh well, why should I care? Recently though I decided that since I just built a really nice new system and had too much free time now that the thing actually ran everything fast enough that it was done almost before starting that I may as well download Ubuntu... grabbed the torrent, burned the Live CD, and rebooted...

Have to say that I do somewhat like it. I'm not a GNOME fan - I prefer KDE (and yes, I do know about Kubuntu, but I wanted to try the original first...) - but I do like the Human theme and all that stuff. And it's cool how Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Evolution, etc. all fit onto the one CD... but couple things I don't like.

First of all I really wish there were just a couple more programs... kind of disappointing that only a few would be included.

Second of all, driver support is a big thing for me. I've been using NdisWrapper because my home network is all-wireless, but it was really surprising that it wasn't in Ubuntu. Damn Small (www.damnsmalllinux.org) has in *50MB* NdisWrapper and the linux-wlan-ng drivers, which I sometimes use with an older adapter of mine. Ubuntu has neither. Also, every other distro I know of, including Damn Small, supports 1024x768, which is what I like because of my 17" monitor, but Ubuntu only lets me do 800x600. Pitiful.

Overall, nice system, but needs a good deal of work before I can consider it usable enough to install.

[Note that I'm not saying that it's not ready for everyone - I think it's an acceptable enough system for most purposes, and don't see any reason not to use it - it just doesn't meet all of my rather specific needs.]

qalimas
July 9th, 2005, 04:57 PM
Have you ever installed Windows then loose your driver disk for your graphics card? It's a 50/50 chance the driver from the vendor's site will actually work. I've had a lot more Windows problems (includign with drivers), then I've had with Linux.

Leif
July 9th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Have you ever installed Windows then loose your driver disk for your graphics card? It's a 50/50 chance the driver from the vendor's site will actually work. I've had a lot more Windows problems (includign with drivers), then I've had with Linux.

Hear hear. While I'm not sure I'd say linux is better on average than windows in terms of hardware support, it's not a black and white picture.

At my place of work, they decided to abandon a scanner because they lost the driver disk. The only way to get the driver was through the scanner company's website, where they charged more than a new scanner to send you a new driver disk.

manicka
July 9th, 2005, 10:55 PM
I think it's an acceptable enough system for most purposes, and don't see any reason not to use it - it just doesn't meet all of my rather specific needs.]

You're main argument seems to be that not enough software is on the install CD. The install CD contains more software than you'd ever find on a windows disc and anything else you could want is available through the repos and easily added.

I don't understand this argument. It sounds to me like all of your needs have been met with ndisswrapper etc. What more could you want from a distro? :-k

JoeUbuntu
July 25th, 2005, 02:55 PM
Hi everyone, just thought some of you would be interested if I shared my thoughts about my experience with Ubuntu. This will probably be quite a long post, and may be a bit rant-y, if you'll forgive me in advance, but I'll start from the top with a bit of background.

Recently, on my week off from work I decided to take the plunge and install Ubuntu, recommended to me by a good mate. Being no stranger to Linux or Unix in general, it was part of some of the qualifications I have done. In the past I have also tried : Redhat/Mandrake/Slackware (in about 2001), Mandrake/Suse/Redhat/FC1 about 2 years later. It seems I come back every couple of years to "check up" on linux's progress.

Now personally, I am not a computer geek nor do I want to be. . However, I am quite happy and willing to put in the hard yards to get something working to my desire. In fact I will plug at something small for what little spare hours/days/weeks I have, just to get the satisfaction of it working, which in my previous Linux experiences what I was doing endlessly to get something simple working. Also, to get the satisfaction of having it done "by your own hand" so to speak. This is why I'm a big Mac fan - beautiful out of the box, but infinitely configurable.

Anyway, this brings me to the reason why I installed Ubuntu in the first place. It seemed to me that finally I was going to have open-source freedom from Windows. Not that I hate windows, I just severely dislike it. I dislike the people who make it, how they monopolise and market it, and how they make you do things how they want you to do them, not how they are meant to be done. I really like the freedom and versatility linux has to offer, and when I saw Ubuntu running on my mate's pc I really liked what I saw. So I came home, downloaded the cd, and booted it up.

The installer was a breeze for me. I use computers for quite a portion of the day, both in work and at home, and have been for a large part of my life, so I didn't have a problem with it.

Anyway, upon re-booting I was very satisfied with what I saw. Beautiful graphics, clean lines, and apart from the messy white scrolling writing that reminds me of the unix/linux immaturity of the past, it was very satisfying. I entered my username and password, and was instantly transported into the desktop.

Now, I do everything you'd expect the average computer user to do - I watch movies, download, listen to music, browse the web, play a game of solitaire (and maybe one of need for speed underground, once a month or so) etc. - I also love having a bloody clean computer, with everything looking and feeling crisp and responsive, and everything customised the way I like it to be. Maybe it seems quirky to the *average* linux user, but I'm a huge fan of wysiwyg desktops, with the added bonus of hugely configurable depth within an OS, if you have the patience.

Unfortunately, the first hurdle for me was internet. Upon logging in, I took a look around. No ADSL GUI. Fine, I thought. I remembered some of my old linux experience (spending 3 days browsing the web and going through endless man pages to configure something that most OS's do out of the box sticks with me for a long time) and opened up xterm (or gnome-terminal, whatever). and rp-pppoe I typed. Nothing. Hm. After a little fiddling, pppoeconf worked just fine. I brought up the link with my provider, and opened firefox.

And then I looked around the desktop (Gnome, by the way - I've disliked KDE ever since redhat 5), and I quote - "****". No "link up" icons. Nothing. Now I thought to myself, what if my mum came over and decided she wanted to check up on some books - I'd need an indication that it was connected. To cut a long story short, I spent an extra half an hour buggerising around getting rp-pppoe installed and ok, which of course given the no root user of the os (which I really like, now that I'm used to it) has to be started with my password.

Anyways, after locating the Ubuntu guide, setting up lots of software for myself was a breeze. Perfect, clear instructions to provide me with plenty of clean, working software, with minimal fuss. Great! Pity it would be a bit of a bastard to follow if I didn't know a damn thing about linux, which I wouldn't if I didn't have previous experience with it. Especially understanding software installation - where it's placed, where to get it from (repositories etc.) and the different packaging formats.

Anyways, I hit my second hurdle. XMMS wouldn't give me any sound. The long and the short of it is (because this is turning into a damn essay), after spending many hours browsing the forums and the web for solutions, and trying many things, I installed alsa and libraries and hoo-ha and etc, and it broke the sounds in gnome. This WOULD be fine because they sort of annoy me. But I can't have them both at once, because installing esd or polypaudio breaks alsa. Only a slight annoyance, but really I'm HUGE (Read- Huge to the power of 10) on satisfaction when it comes to doing what I need to do and having those little things like interface sounds.

Installing Neverball really got my head ticking as to the immaturity of many aspects of linux, as I was reminded of the nightmares and headaches I had gone through in the past with ATI and NVIDIA driver hell. And I did. Hours of searching, terminal sessions and hot tea, I finally got them working. And it was satisfying.

Anyway, So about three days later (mind you these aren't the only headaches I had in that time - they were just the most prominent ones - and don't forget I may be an a-typical Ubuntu user, demanding satisfaction and ease of use while requiring in-depth configuration and function - most people may just want to write an e-mail or surf the web) I finally got down to business. The desktop was configured to my liking with themes, desktop icons and such. Great!

Meanwhile, I had completely forgotten I had work to do. So, I loaded up my mac with OS X, and did my work. But something wasn't right - it may have been the fact that I had just spent four days configuring my system the way I wanted it, to do basic tasks... but no, it wasn't. I felt like a go of a video game.

Fine, I thought to myself! Naive little old me, I decided that wine would have reached a stage of maturity where I could just "apt-get install wine winetools" (which is still out of reach for the average user). I was wrong. I went through CVS and build hell, re-living what made me craving to be clicking the apple menu once again. And my games didn't work in the end. Cedega was fine, except for a conflict with my ATI drivers (which in case anyone is interested, pthread support in Cedega 4.0 and up interferes with ATI drivers, and stops anything working), but the chances I'll pay money, to play something I've already paid for, that I only play once a month? None.

This lead me to another thing - I only slightly dabbled (read: one or two hours MAX) in trying to get my home studio (yes, I am an audio semi-professional/hobbyist of sorts) including cd burning up and running - how bare it seemed (and WAS!) without wonderful (and essential applications like cool edit pro, logic audio and reaktor to lighten up my day - and converting a song to CD audio in gnomebaker every time I want to try out my track on my other cd player, taking over a minute or two, is just plain annoying when I can do the whole burning process in under 20 seconds in windows. Plus the never-ending audio hell of alsa/oss emulation/esd/etc. and lack of support for professional audio functions such as asio and proprietary cards and mixers etc...

I'll cut it short here, because this is one of the longest reviews I have ever written on something which I *just* don't have time for. 7 days after the initial install, wine still isn't what I expected, and neither is linux - yet, Unfortunately I'm back to writing my forum posts in Openoffice for windows, then pasting them into the thread.

A simple conclusion would be that Ubuntu (or linux in general, given that it's supposed to be the most user-friendly, although not quite bleeding edge distro) is not quite at a stage of maturity where a computer user (newbie/average user/business professional) can pick it up and be happy.

Keep in mind This is *not* a flame, or a criticism of the developers, or the users, or hardcore *nix geeks, or anyone else who has the time, initiative, or money to help us average Joes out by providing something wonderful for us all. This is NOT a request to be corrected on aspects of the grammar of my post, NOR is it a request to start a flame war about how I didn't do something properly, or how I'm mis-informed, or how I have no idea, or with such and such modifications or terminal commands I could have had something working easily, or I'm just not "leet" enough. I just don't care, I'm not a geek and words will never hurt me. It's just MY experience. It's an open-heart request for anyone to provide wonderful conversation or comments on any of the aspects I've discussed here.

Now don't get me wrong. I love Ubuntu. I will follow it's progress, once every six months or so, and it's increasingly looking like the linux distro I will come back to when I can see open source as practical for my purposes. This *isn't* a negative opinion, I'm actually the happiest and most comfortable using Ubuntu that I have ever been out of the Windows rat-hole that I normally work and play in - apart from mac os... Unfortunately for now, it's going to be 'partimage /dev/hda2' and 'cdrecord Ubuntu5.04.image' - don't correct me on these, I know I've shortened them, but you get the point. So anyways, I hope people enjoyed my essay-type-thingie, and I hope people have enjoyed the words I have to offer.

Signing out, and warmest regards to the Ubuntu community,

Joe

adwait
July 25th, 2005, 03:09 PM
Hey!
Well, you have to understand that windows is designed more for ease of use and less for security, hence the ease of use. Ofcourse, I agree that Linux is certainly more difficult to install/configure......but then that's what the great forum/chat support are for.........try getting that from Windows. BTW: You say you dislike windows because you dislike ppl monopolizing the market, what do you think Apple does with the mac???

Anyway, all in all, the point is Ubuntu is a much easier OS to SECURELY use. If you are familiar with Linux, and would like to keep your PC virus free, especially when other users who are not particularly proficient have a tendency to open unknow executables.....Ubuntu is the way to go.

aysiu
July 25th, 2005, 04:06 PM
A simple conclusion would be that Ubuntu (or linux in general, given that it's supposed to be the most user-friendly, although not quite bleeding edge distro) is not quite at a stage of maturity where a computer user (newbie/average user/business professional) can pick it up and be happy.



It's just MY experience.

These two statements are incongruous. I'm actually less geeky than you are (when you started going off on ALSA and editing tools, you lost me), and I was able to pick up Ubuntu and be happy. The only glitch I ran into was my screen resolution being off, but that was an easy fix. Have you ever tried installing Windows? No, no, no--installing Windows, not just putting in the recovery CDs that came with your pre-installed copy. I'm tired of these masquerading-as-trying-to-help or masquerading-as-not-flames flame posts. How is this any different from other "Linux is not ready for the desktop" posts or articles? The only difference is you keep insisting you carry the warmest regards, but you do the equivalent of visiting someone's house, smiling, then spitting on the carpet.

By the way, "Joe," you may want to take a look at this article (http://hari.literaryforums.org/?p=19).

ccj@griskroppen
July 25th, 2005, 04:49 PM
you do the equivalent of visiting someone's house, smiling, then spitting on the carpet.

Not at all. Linux is developed by fairly hardcore geeks. Unless they ask their
moms, little sisters and aunts [1], at every turn, "can you handle this?", linux will
end up being a lot harder to use than OSs for the Rest of Us(tm).

I'd say JoeUbuntu contributed a valuable aunt-check, which Ubuntu almost passed.
If the linux community gets its hackles up at the slightest criticism, how does it
hope to ever be able to beat Bill and Steve?

My experience with linux is similar to JoeUbuntu's. I really like Ubuntu, and if I
were to choose an OS on purely religious grounds, I'd definitely go for the Ubuntu
distribution. However, I like to play games and watch DVDs. The sad truth is that,
for various reasons, this is much simpler in Bill's Monopoly OS, so I still keep an XP
partition for this purpose.

[1] Yes, that was sexistic. I apologise to anyone who may take offense.

MikeyXX
July 25th, 2005, 05:07 PM
Thanks for your experience. You managed to balance pros and cons and give your opionion without giving the impression it was the only one to be had. Well done.

aysiu
July 25th, 2005, 05:09 PM
The sad truth is that, for various reasons, this is much simpler in Bill's Monopoly OS, so I still keep an XP partition for this purpose. Sure, gaming I can buy, but the sad truth is that Windows is just as hard to use (if not harder) than Linux. Installing Windows, likewise. Most Windows users do not install Windows, so they think it's simple to use. In fact, according to the New York Times, there are PhDs in computer science throwing away computers because they think Windows is too difficult to reinstall. (http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/1797)

I'm tired of these myths. Once Linux is set up correctly, it's just as point-and-click as any other OS. Hm. How do I surf the internet on my Ubuntu? Do I go to the command-line? Do I have to mess around with a config file? No, I simply click on my Firefox icon, just as I do in Windows. How do I edit a Word document in Ubuntu? Do I have to go to the command-line? Do I have to mess around with a config file? No, I simply double-click the Word document, just as I do in Windows.

Do you realize how many times a day Windows users come to me with their problems? And they don't even have to install Windows. We're talking about just plain old use problems--spyware, random .dll errors, and the like.

pmj
July 25th, 2005, 05:57 PM
I often hear people say that Linux is just as easy to use as Windows is, and I both agree and disagree. I think it depends on who the user is.

Lets split all computer users into three groups: beginner, intermediate and expert.

I'd say that for beginners, Linux is just as simple as Windows to use. They click icons, use word processors, surf the web, use mostly just default applications and will probably never do any changes besides perhaps the wallpaper. No problem on Linux.

For the those in the middle however, I'd say Windows is easier, and not by a small margin either. I belong to this group, and whenever I want to do something a bit more advanced, like installing/uninstalling software or tweak something to be more to my liking, I *constantly* have to use the command prompt and edit config files. Often I also have to google for half an hour to find a solution to a problem.

For the experts, well, they will of course find Windows limited and will have no problem bending Linux to their will.

Still, in my very unqualified opinion the biggest problem (at least as seen by many Windows users) with Linux isn't something that can be fixed by the Linux community. What we need is drivers and commercial software.

Stormy Eyes
July 25th, 2005, 06:10 PM
If the OP had bothered to do some research before installing Ubuntu, he would have known from the outset that professional audio capabilities under Linux aren't up to Mac or Windows standards. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

aysiu
July 25th, 2005, 06:10 PM
I totally agree. A lot of newbies who worry that their grandmas and "Joe Sixpack" won't be able to use Linux are actually intermediates themselves who are projecting. I would never recommend Linux to an intermediate user unless she had a specific reason to use it and was willing to learn Linux.

Linux is perfect for beginners with Linux expert friends, for intermediates who are willing to learn something, and for experts.

By the way, what software are you installing that you have to use the command-line for? Do you not use Synaptic Package Manager? Or are you talking about using the command-line to edit the /etc/apt/sources.list?

crispingatiesa
July 25th, 2005, 06:14 PM
Hey Joe... where you goin' with that gun in your hand...

JH

poofyhairguy
July 25th, 2005, 07:19 PM
Now personally, I am not a computer geek nor do I want to be.

Sorry you hate the stigma, but anyone that did what you did is a nerd. Hate to tell you that....normal people don't know what Linux IS.


Unfortunately, the first hurdle for me was internet. Upon logging in, I took a look around. No ADSL GUI. Fine, I thought. I remembered some of my old linux experience (spending 3 days browsing the web and going through endless man pages to configure something that most OS's do out of the box sticks with me for a long time) and opened up xterm (or gnome-terminal, whatever). and rp-pppoe I typed. Nothing. Hm. After a little fiddling, pppoeconf worked just fine. I brought up the link with my provider, and opened firefox.

People that have dial up have it even worse.



Anyways, after locating the Ubuntu guide, setting up lots of software for myself was a breeze. Perfect, clear instructions to provide me with plenty of clean, working software, with minimal fuss. Great! Pity it would be a bit of a bastard to follow if I didn't know a damn thing about linux, which I wouldn't if I didn't have previous experience with it. Especially understanding software installation - where it's placed, where to get it from (repositories etc.) and the different packaging formats.

The guide is the level where we are at right now. I say if you can't get through the guide, you won't like Ubuntu. Its a nice filter.


Anyways, I hit my second hurdle. XMMS wouldn't give me any sound. The long and the short of it is (because this is turning into a damn essay), after spending many hours browsing the forums and the web for solutions, and trying many things, I installed alsa and libraries and hoo-ha and etc, and it broke the sounds in gnome. This WOULD be fine because they sort of annoy me. But I can't have them both at once, because installing esd or polypaudio breaks alsa. Only a slight annoyance, but really I'm HUGE (Read- Huge to the power of 10) on satisfaction when it comes to doing what I need to do and having those little things like interface sounds.

Sound is a big problem now, and is a HUGE priority for the next release (yes I know Linux people always say that).



I felt like a go of a video game.

Fine, I thought to myself! Naive little old me, I decided that wine would have reached a stage of maturity where I could just "apt-get install wine winetools" (which is still out of reach for the average user). I was wrong. I went through CVS and build hell, re-living what made me craving to be clicking the apple menu once again. And my games didn't work in the end. Cedega was fine, except for a conflict with my ATI drivers (which in case anyone is interested, pthread support in Cedega 4.0 and up interferes with ATI drivers, and stops anything working), but the chances I'll pay money, to play something I've already paid for, that I only play once a month? None.

Ubuntu and Linux does suck for 3D games. When I switched to Ubuntu, I bought a gamecube.



I'll cut it short here, because this is one of the longest reviews I have ever written on something which I *just* don't have time for. 7 days after the initial install, wine still isn't what I expected, and neither is linux - yet, Unfortunately I'm back to writing my forum posts in Openoffice for windows, then pasting them into the thread.

Hey, you can't please everybody. Ask the people wanting webcam drivers or laptop suspend support.



A simple conclusion would be that Ubuntu (or linux in general, given that it's supposed to be the most user-friendly, although not quite bleeding edge distro) is not quite at a stage of maturity where a computer user (newbie/average user/business professional) can pick it up and be happy.

Its not the most user friendly. Its about midway. Linspire is the most user friendly.



I just don't care, I'm not a geek and words will never hurt me.[/B]

Would it hurt you if I called you a geek for even giving Linux a chance?

poofyhairguy
July 25th, 2005, 07:27 PM
I often hear people say that Linux is just as easy to use as Windows is, and I both agree and disagree. I think it depends on who the user is.

Lets split all computer users into three groups: beginner, intermediate and expert.

I'd say that for beginners, Linux is just as simple as Windows to use. They click icons, use word processors, surf the web, use mostly just default applications and will probably never do any changes besides perhaps the wallpaper. No problem on Linux.

For the those in the middle however, I'd say Windows is easier, and not by a small margin either. I belong to this group, and whenever I want to do something a bit more advanced, like installing/uninstalling software or tweak something to be more to my liking, I *constantly* have to use the command prompt and edit config files. Often I also have to google for half an hour to find a solution to a problem.

For the experts, well, they will of course find Windows limited and will have no problem bending Linux to their will.

Still, in my very unqualified opinion the biggest problem (at least as seen by many Windows users) with Linux isn't something that can be fixed by the Linux community. What we need is drivers and commercial software.

Very good observation. I totally agree, and I have been saying that for a while. Its only good for people who think computers are "magic boxes with elves inside" and nerds. The middle people won't be happy ever, because as soon as Linux catches up (say with cd burning- k3b is better than nero to me- and iPod stuff) new **** comes out that middle ground users want but Linux can't provide (say good wireless support, chatting with webcams, and pocket PC syncing). Its a uphill treadmill that can never be reached.

For myself, I'm willing to spend extra (new nvidia card for me) and forgo some things to have a Linux desktop. Most people won't and I don't blame them for it. Thats why I talked my sister into a Powerbook, its a good middle ground.

I personally believe that the Linux "desktop" won't take off until Wine has matured to the point where it can run Windows apps almost as good as Windows can. When a Linux system can be an "upgrade" to Windows (instead of a replacement) by bringing with it all of the programs and settings from a person's Windows side.

By that time though Windows might not be having the bad spyware problems, so the need to move to Linux will be small (some people say cost will be a factor, but after a year of Linux use I have concluded that the only way most middle ground Windows users can be happy with Linux is if its a pay for version so it comes with codecs and such).

But all is not bleak, despite its problems many of us here like and use Ubuntu. Its worth the sacrifice, its worth the time spent for us. As long as some people like Linux, its not a problem. Its amazing what little problems we DO have, considering our marketshare.

Pretty good review overall. I invite you back for Breezy to see if our audio problems are fixed (that seems to be a good part of your problems).

Have a nice day.

aysiu
July 25th, 2005, 07:42 PM
Its not the most user friendly. Its about midway. Linspire is the most user friendly. Or Mepis.

poofyhairguy
July 25th, 2005, 07:58 PM
Or Mepis.


Linspire is a little farther than Mepis. Its click-and-run is THE easiest way to install software (Windows and OSX included) and it does everything out of the box,

Mepis would be a close second. I like Mepis a lot, I'm just scared that the inclusion of codecs makes it a lawsuit waiting to happen. I hope not.

PS: great sig. You are a pretty good writer I must say.

I will quote that a bunch.

aysiu
July 25th, 2005, 08:17 PM
Linspire is a little farther than Mepis. Its click-and-run is THE easiest way to install software (Windows and OSX included) and it does everything out of the box, You're totally right. I just wanted to throw in Mepis because, much as I love Ubuntu, when I hear people complain, I think they have to at least try Mepis.



PS: great sig. You are a pretty good writer I must say.

I will quote that a bunch. No problem. I appreciate the compliment. The best essay I ever read on Linux has to be this one, though: Linux is not Windows (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm). Sure, there's a bit of unnecessary elitism in there, but the analogies are wonderfully apt.

pmj
July 25th, 2005, 08:26 PM
But all is not bleak, despite its problems many of us here like and use Ubuntu. Its worth the sacrifice, its worth the time spent for us. As long as some people like Linux, its not a problem. Its amazing what little problems we DO have, considering our marketshare.

I tried Mandrake a few years ago, and it was a huge improvement on Red Hat which I tried a couple of years before that. And now I try Ubuntu and again it's a huge improvement. If it continues to improve at the same rapid pace, can the future be anything but bright? :)

Gary Powers
July 25th, 2005, 08:49 PM
If the OP had bothered to do some research before installing Ubuntu, he would have known from the outset that professional audio capabilities under Linux aren't up to Mac or Windows standards. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

But Stormy, his point is that they should be. That's one of the things that must be done to level the playing field with MS.

On the other hand, I kind of like tweaking things. Silly me spent yesterday afternoon trying to install Gentoo!

Gary

JoeUbuntu
July 25th, 2005, 11:35 PM
HI guys, thanks for the great responses... I guess it's exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to open with the community. Maybe I should take a bit of time to respond to my feedback?



These two statements are incongruous. I'm actually less geeky than you are (when you started going off on ALSA and editing tools, you lost me), and I was able to pick up Ubuntu and be happy.

Entitled to your opinion, but this ain't a court of law. It's just in MY experience, and I am who I am :smile:


I'm tired of these masquerading-as-trying-to-help or masquerading-as-not-flames flame posts.

Come on, let's be decent shall we? :-P I quote:


I'd say JoeUbuntu contributed a valuable aunt-check, which Ubuntu almost passed.
If the linux community gets its hackles up at the slightest criticism, how does it
hope to ever be able to beat Bill and Steve?

Thanks ccj@griskroppen, I guess I was just trying to convey exactly what was going on my my mind.


Do you realize how many times a day Windows users come to me with their problems? And they don't even have to install Windows. We're talking about just plain old use problems--spyware, random .dll errors, and the like.

Hence a great reason for having a go at an alternative :grin:


For the those in the middle however, I'd say Windows is easier, and not by a small margin either. I belong to this group, and whenever I want to do something a bit more advanced, like installing/uninstalling software or tweak something to be more to my liking, I *constantly* have to use the command prompt and edit config files. Often I also have to google for half an hour to find a solution to a problem.

That seems to be exactly where I fit in! And believe it or not, I enjoy spending valuable time fixing something - as long as it gets fixed! Problem with Windows is it breaks again, and in my experience, the problem with linux is either it's not fixed, or I have to constantly struggle to get something or other else fixed. Mind you, dependency hell is gone in Ubuntu, which is quite pleasing.


If the OP had bothered to do some research before installing Ubuntu, he would have known from the outset that professional audio capabilities under Linux aren't up to Mac or Windows standards.

Maybe I did know that - I happen to be an optimist O:)


I totally agree. A lot of newbies who worry that their grandmas and "Joe Sixpack" won't be able to use Linux are actually intermediates themselves who are projecting. I would never recommend Linux to an intermediate user unless she had a specific reason to use it and was willing to learn Linux.

I'd probably categorise myself as a mixed bag. I have heaps of experience with computers, and use them much of the day for audio production and essay writing, but the last statement essentially sums it up, except for one thing - in my case my specific reason to use it was for a) a mad challenge and b) to see if open source had matured to my liking (plus of course many other reasons.


Hate to tell you that....normal people don't know what Linux IS.

Unfortunately I was hoping that that had changed. Maybe it hasn't? We can only hope for the best, which I guess one thing that interested me in Ubuntu in the first place - "Linux for human beings?" "Gee, can't wait to give that a shot, maybe I can get rid of windows once and for all!"

Once again, I quote:



If the linux community gets its hackles up at the slightest criticism, how does it
hope to ever be able to beat Bill and Steve?

Thanks ccj@griskroppen, I'd say you've made my day. This is exactly the attitute I open that had replaced the blind hatred linux users used to portray when things didn't go their way.


Would it hurt you if I called you a geek for even giving Linux a chance?

Not at all. All I have to do is hop in my car and go for a cruise with my mates, and everything is forgotten! So no hard feelings :-)

Anyway, let's keep the ball rolling if we can people. I really enjoy listening to what other people have to say along the same tangent.

Regards,

Joe

-Edit- Oh by the way, I'm not what anyone here calls a weblogger - didn't even know what one was before I read up on it, just now. This is probably the first time I've written about my experience in a message board. I guess I was hoping that the community was ready to help me out by sharing ideas and opinions about their similar experiences. That's why I wrote the paragraph in bold in my first post - I'm hoping for genuine experiences from people who have something contructive to share :)

Takis
July 25th, 2005, 11:36 PM
I think people forget how much time and effort they spent learning Windows. For me, it took at least 5 years before I think I could say I was an expert using Windows. I must have reinstalled it at least 30 times just due to me breaking things.

I think it's wrong to say anything 'just works' - Windows for sure doesn't. What happens when you're missing drivers, or base programs such as DVD players? You have to go out and install them yourself - but it's just that because you're used to the Windows interface, it doesn't seem so scary, or even like an extra effort because you knew from experience that you'd need to do that anyway. Imagine a 5 year SuSE, Fedora or whatever user switching to Ubuntu. Would they be scared off? I think not. What if they'd never used Windows in their life, and tried to give it a go? That'd be interesting.

aysiu
July 26th, 2005, 12:09 AM
I think people forget how much time and effort they spent learning Windows. For me, it took at least 5 years before I think I could say I was an expert using Windows. I must have reinstalled it at least 30 times just due to me breaking things. Only five years? It's taken me about two decades...



I think it's wrong to say anything 'just works' - Windows for sure doesn't. What happens when you're missing drivers, or base programs such as DVD players? You have to go out and install them yourself - but it's just that because you're used to the Windows interface, it doesn't seem so scary, or even like an extra effort because you knew from experience that you'd need to do that anyway. Actually, when I had to reinstall Windows and didn't have the drivers and DVD player CDs that came with my computer, it was hell to install. I didn't know what to do about the missing codecs that came with InterVideo WinDVD. I didn't even know what codecs were. I didn't know where to get a driver for my sound card or how to install it. That's the same frustration people feel when they move to Linux. The big difference was that I didn't have to install Windows the first time. Dell did it all for me and even included the restore CDs (I just happened to misplace them for a little while).

Nothing works "out of the box" unless someone worked on it before it went "in the box." For me, that "someone" is usually Dell, eMachines, or Apple. If it's for a Ubuntu or Mepis install, though, that person is me.

Stormy Eyes
July 26th, 2005, 05:32 AM
But Stormy, his point is that they should be. That's one of the things that must be done to level the playing field with MS.

<vocalTone="contemptuous">
Oh, really? It really must be done? You know, I've noticed over the years that a lot of newbies seem awfully eager to boss around volunteer developers. Those who want professional audio should either pay for it, or start coding; they have no right to make demands of volunteers.
</vocalTone>

poofyhairguy
July 26th, 2005, 06:23 AM
Only five years? It's taken me about two decades...

Actually, when I had to reinstall Windows and didn't have the drivers and DVD player CDs that came with my computer, it was hell to install. I didn't know what to do about the missing codecs that came with InterVideo WinDVD. I didn't even know what codecs were. I didn't know where to get a driver for my sound card or how to install it. That's the same frustration people feel when they move to Linux. The big difference was that I didn't have to install Windows the first time. Dell did it all for me and even included the restore CDs (I just happened to misplace them for a little while).

Yep. Try to burn DVDs, play DVDs or install the default XP on a SATA drive. I dare you. It would suck.



Nothing works "out of the box" unless someone worked on it before it went "in the box." For me, that "someone" is usually Dell, eMachines, or Apple. If it's for a Ubuntu or Mepis install, though, that person is me.

That is what you would call "the true barrier to entry."

Takis
July 26th, 2005, 06:56 AM
<vocalTone="contemptuous">
Oh, really? It really must be done? You know, I've noticed over the years that a lot of newbies seem awfully eager to boss around volunteer developers. Those who want professional audio should either pay for it, or start coding; they have no right to make demands of volunteers.
</vocalTone>
Without any of the contemptuousness, I think Stormy's right. The developers are volunteers - it's like telling the Red Cross where they should go and help out.
Xian has a nice little signature, I can't remember it exactly but it goes along the lines of 'if all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every screw as a nail' or something like that. The thing is though that you can't use a screwdriver too effectively as a hammer, either. When we (the pro-Linuxists) argue for Linux, we should be aware that it's not the source (Edit: not source, I mean solution) to all computing problems.

poofyhairguy
July 26th, 2005, 07:06 AM
When we (the pro-Linuxists) argue for Linux, we should be aware that it's not the source to all computing problems.

I think you mean solution.

JoeUbuntu
July 26th, 2005, 08:56 AM
<vocalTone="contemptuous">
Oh, really? It really must be done? You know, I've noticed over the years that a lot of newbies seem awfully eager to boss around volunteer developers. Those who want professional audio should either pay for it, or start coding; they have no right to make demands of volunteers.
</vocalTone>

These were my exact words:

"Keep in mind This is *not* a flame, or a criticism of the developers, or the users, or hardcore *nix geeks, or anyone else who has the time, initiative, or money to help us average Joes out by providing something wonderful for us all."

Meanwhile, I paid through my teeth for my professional audio gear, software, and macs - I just check back with the whole linux thing every couple of years to see if I can use open source to my advantage in the pc part of my studio.

senorcheaposgato
July 26th, 2005, 03:43 PM
Alright, I'd just like to throw in my thoughts about switching to Ubuntu.

I switched over completely in November of '04. No turning back for me--I wiped XP entirely and jumped in. I went that route partially because my computer is barely functional and I don't think it could handle a dual-boot situation, and partially because I'm married to a true geek who is always here to walk me through my problems. (note: I did not say fix my problems, he makes me do that--he just tells me the how and why of it.)

For years I have used computers for the basics--internet (research, e-mail, etc), word processing, and that's about it. Not terribly exciting, but with Windows I had no desire to learn how to do more. Even if I'd had that desire, my computer probably couldn't handle it. The blue screen of death and I were seeing a little too much of each other as it was.

Since I've installed Ubuntu (my first Linux distro) I've had _one_ problem that was any kind of bother. I updated my kernel and could no longer boot. My in-house geek showed me how to fix it, and I'm in smooth waters again.

Here's the thing: I would have called myself a pretty basic user (in terms of skill) with Windows. I knew how to configure network settings, install programs, do _basic_ troubleshooting. With Ubuntu, it's an entirely different playing field for me. I think you've made a good point on this thread with the issues that intermediate users face, with one exception: I came to Ubuntu as a basic user, and I'm working towards intermediate without problems, simply because this is the system I'm learning.

I love Ubuntu dearly. It's an amazing OS. While I have my occasional frustrations, they are fewer and farther between than with Windows. I admit it, I'm turning into a geek because of Ubuntu, which the husband loves. He's always wanted me to be as interested as he is, so when I ask him to teach me how to do something, he gets pretty excited. (our project for the moment is "intro to php.") Besides the functionality of Ubuntu, I love the philosophy behind it (and Open Source in general).

I guess my point is that yeah, Ubuntu is a breeze if you have an expert handy when you need help. And learning more skills for the first time in Linux eliminates the intermediate slump. I live in an all-ubuntu household (2pc, 1 ex-mac), and I wouldn't have it any other way.

aysiu
July 26th, 2005, 04:01 PM
I admit it, I'm turning into a geek because of Ubuntu Same here. Former English teacher--now Linux geek.



I guess my point is that yeah, Ubuntu is a breeze if you have an expert handy when you need help. One might even say it's... breezy? My "expert" is the Ubuntu Guide... I wish I had an in-person expert handy.

Stormy Eyes
July 26th, 2005, 05:15 PM
These were my exact words:

I read it, but I didn't buy it. Call me cynical, if you like, but I've seen enough of what another user describes as "reverse elitism" to suspect it every time somebody complains that Linux doesn't do everything they're used to doing "out of the box".

isTHEr3mOr3
July 26th, 2005, 05:40 PM
I guess my point is that yeah, Ubuntu is a breeze if you have an expert handy when you need help.
Damn.. wish I had a (female prefered) :) expert in my neighbourhood! I learned it on my own and I guess that took some more time than necessary.
But no complaints, I'm glad I learned the (still basic) skills.

I went from Mandrake 9.2 - 10 to Fedora Core 2 - 3 to Ubuntu.
Ubuntu is the best in hardware detection and with the ubuntuguide very easy to install. Recommended for every average Linux user. I don' t know if it's the best for winning over lazy Windows users. I think Suse / Fedora are doing a better job automaticly partitioning and resizing the Windows partition. That should be as easy as humanly possible.

________________
don' t click here! (http://tlinux.blogspot.com/2005/07/signature.html)

PatrickMay16
July 26th, 2005, 06:24 PM
Have you ever tried installing Windows? No, no, no--installing Windows, not just putting in the recovery CDs that came with your pre-installed copy.
Yes. My brother enjoys putting together computers out of bare parts, and I often watch him doing it. He always installs Windows 2000 Professional on the computers he builds. By watching him, I've learned, and I can say that Windows 2000 is fairly easy to install and configure.

By the way, JoeUbuntu, I wasn't angered or offended by your article on your experience with Ubuntu. I found it pretty interesting myself.

aysiu
July 26th, 2005, 06:37 PM
My brother enjoys putting together computers out of bare parts, and I often watch him doing it. He always installs Windows 2000 Professional on the computers he builds. By watching him, I've learned, and I can say that Windows 2000 is fairly easy to install and configure. Your brother probably knows exactly what bare parts to get and what drivers they need. Yes, if a Linux expert puts together her own computer with bare parts, it may seem easy, too. Just because I have an easy time installing Ubuntu doesn't mean everyone will. Likewise, just because your brother (who can't possibly be your "average" computer user if he's putting together his own computers) has an easy time installing Windows doesn't mean everyone does.

Also, note your use of the word "learn." That's what it's all about. You have to learn how to install and use Windows, just as you have to learn how to install and use Linux.

I have no problem with Joe Ubuntu posting his experiences and problems with Ubuntu. My problem is with his conclusion:

A simple conclusion would be that Ubuntu (or linux in general, given that it's supposed to be the most user-friendly, although not quite bleeding edge distro) is not quite at a stage of maturity where a computer user (newbie/average user/business professional) can pick it up and be happy.

And I wrote an entire article about why his conclusion is illogical and not particularly helpful (all apart from the fact that he's one person installing Ubuntu on one set of hardware with some very specific technological demands). See my signature.

poofyhairguy
July 26th, 2005, 07:59 PM
Yes. My brother enjoys putting together computers out of bare parts, and I often watch him doing it. He always installs Windows 2000 Professional on the computers he builds. By watching him, I've learned, and I can say that Windows 2000 is fairly easy to install and configure.


Yep, ole W2k is magical. Beats the crap out of its fisher price ancestor. I can't use it anymore though- the fonts get to me (no true type or nothing).

senorcheaposgato
July 26th, 2005, 08:04 PM
I have to agree with aysiu completely on this one. The fact is that Ubuntu (or ANY Linux distro) is not for everyone. Period.

Nor should any OS be universal, although if one did exist, everyone using a computer would have to be an expert to get it configured. Therein lies the problem. Different people, different needs, different solutions.

Much as I hate to admit it, a large portion of computer users are better off with Windows. Alright, don't attack me, let me explain: Windows works for people who don't know what they're doing and don't care. Hell, it works for some people who DO. And that's fine for them. I really and truly abhor Microsoft, primarily because of business practices. They charge an exhorbitant amount for a line of products that is mediocre at best. Since that's working for them financially, they have no drive to improve their product. But hey, if people are willing to pay $200 plus dollars for an OS that turns efficiency and functionality on their heads, then...ok. But count me out.

The key difference between proprietary software and Open Source is philosophy. Right? Open source is pioneering, self-sufficiency, education. If you don't have what you need, make it. If you don't know how it works, learn. Open source is not for spoon feeding, and that's GOOD. The expectations it places upon the user open up worlds of functionality, efficiency, and customization that you can never get with anyone-can-use-it proprietary software. Open source software is for people who love computers for what they are, not what they do.

Look, since Linux isn't about making money, then why fight to "win over" users? What good does it do? Aysiu is right on this count (in my opinion)--it does NO GOOD. I honestly believe that flooding this (and every other distro's) forums with new users doesn't help anyone--the quality of community help will drop dramatically, new users will just get angry about how Linux "isn't user friendly," and the whole Linux community will ultimately be hurt.

I think it's dangerous to be evangelical about Linux. (I live in the south of the United States, where evangelical christians are a fact of life--they're the ones always trying to convert people to their school of thought.)

I really think it's important to remember that Linux is one option, not the option.

(thanks again to aysiu, who said all of this far better than I could hope to.)

Stormy Eyes
July 26th, 2005, 08:19 PM
I think it's dangerous to be evangelical about Linux. (I live in the south of the United States, where evangelical christians are a fact of life--they're the ones always trying to convert people to their school of thought.)

Somebody give this lady a cigar.

aysiu
July 26th, 2005, 08:38 PM
Much as I hate to admit it, a large portion of computer users are better off with Windows. Alright, don't attack me, let me explain: Windows works for people who don't know what they're doing and don't care. Hell, it works for some people who DO. And that's fine for them. Hate to disagree with someone who's so eager to agree with me, but even though I think Linux is not for everyone, I don't believe "a large portion of computer users are better off with Windows." Perhaps that large portion of computer users would be better off with Mac OS X. I've seen far too many people screw up their Windows computers...


I honestly believe that flooding this (and every other distro's) forums with new users doesn't help anyone--the quality of community help will drop dramatically, new users will just get angry about how Linux "isn't user friendly," and the whole Linux community will ultimately be hurt. You're right. We should be honest about what's involved with Linux. I don't agree with anti-Linux FUD, but I won't pretend either that migrating to Linux is a cakewalk. It's usually not as bad as people say it is, but you have to be willing to overcome roadblocks and learn a little bit along the way. You will not, as senorcheaposgato points out, be "spoonfed" here (though the Ubuntu Guide, thankfully, comes pretty close to spoonfeeding).



I think it's dangerous to be evangelical about Linux. (I live in the south of the United States, where evangelical christians are a fact of life--they're the ones always trying to convert people to their school of thought.) You bring up a good point here. I don't even evangelize about Firefox any more. If people come to me with internet problems, of course I answer, "You're still using Internet Explorer?" and point them to Firefox, but I never approach people with Firefox unsolicited. By the way, I'm going to be an obnoxious ex-English teacher and point out that evangelizing (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evangelizing)and evangelical (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evangelical) mean two different things--though, Evangelicals will often evangelize...

senorcheaposgato
July 26th, 2005, 08:57 PM
Aysiu - Alright, point taken. OSX is a better option than Windows, however, what is that migration like? I don't know, I've only used OSX on a very casual basis (husband's Mac before installing Ubuntu).

It would be wonderful to see a migration to that, but who knows if that will happen. We can only hope, eh?

poofyhairguy
July 26th, 2005, 09:17 PM
I disagree.



Look, since Linux isn't about making money, then why fight to "win over" users? What good does it do? Aysiu is right on this count (in my opinion)--it does NO GOOD.

It does do good. As our marketshare increases, more drivers are created for Linux (or better ones...ATI anyone). More software is released for Linux (games anyone?) and less websites are made for IE only.

We will get locked out less (trusted computing anyone?), we will gain more resources, and we will get our open standards to be industry standards.

Now, I admit forcing people over to Linux before they are ready hurts the cause more than it helps. But its false to say that a greater marketshare is not a good thing.

aysiu
July 26th, 2005, 09:19 PM
Aysiu - Alright, point taken. OSX is a better option than Windows, however, what is that migration like? I don't know, I've only used OSX on a very casual basis (husband's Mac before installing Ubuntu) For heavy Windows users the migration isn't too bad. I actually outlined in this thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=51873) some specific problems my wife and I encountered when we first started using Mac OS X, but a lot of those problems are petty. In the end--Mac, Linux, Windows--people know how to click on something and have it open. In fact, my wife and I have a mutual friend staying at our place for a week. She has no Linux experience at all (she uses an Apple iBook), but she sat herself down at my Gnome Ubuntu desktop, didn't ask any questions and right away started checking her email on Firefox. When she was done, she asked if it was okay to shut down the computer. I said it was, and she didn't ask any other questions. She knew somehow to click on the Gnome footprint, click log out, then shut down. If you know how to use computers... you figure it out eventually.

aysiu
July 26th, 2005, 09:23 PM
It does do good. As our marketshare increases, more drivers are created for Linux (or better ones...ATI anyone). More software is released for Linux (games anyone?) and less websites are made for IE only. That's a good point. Just look at Firefox's rise in marketshare. All of a sudden, I'm reading news articles about how website designers for businesses have to make their websites Firefox-compatible or risk losing customers. If the Linux desktop rises in marketshare, more games, more software will be ported over in addition to hardware drivers.

Better yet, you might even be able to buy a state-of-the-art computer at Best Buy or Dell with Linux preloaded.

On a less practical note, it's good to have someone to talk to. Much as I love these forums, the prospect of having one of my friends to chat Linux with is exciting. I do have one friend who's considering switching over, but she found Ubuntu discouraging for some reason. I'm trying to goad her to keep up with it, but we'll see.

In my dream world, Apple would take over the desktop market with something like 50-60% share. Windows would have something like 20-30%. Linux would have about 20% also. I really don't think Linux is for everyone, but I do think a lot of potential Linux users get scared off because of FUD in the news media. I also firmly believe that the Mac interface is designed for the masses. Sure, computer gurus love tinkering with the Unix-like underpinnings of OS X, but on the face of it, Mac offers very little customization and a lot of optimization. I even know some Windows users who don't customize their desktop backgrounds. A lot of people don't want to use computers. In fact, if they could have an email/internet machine, they'd use that instead, probably (similar to how a Playstation or Gamecube is a game machine).

psyched321
July 26th, 2005, 10:19 PM
Better yet, you might even be able to buy a state-of-the-art computer at Best Buy or Dell with Linux preloaded.

I don't want to bust your bubble, but if you've read some of the initial post, you'd see why Linux in its current state would be a nightmare for your regular Dell user.

Many users in reply say that Linux "isn't meant for the desktop masses" and they shouldn't complain that it doesn't work "quite right". Yet, presence in the desktop arena has long been an aim for Linux advocates. That's why projects such as GNOME and KDE have emerged, and Ubuntu.

Linux is very well suited in officesand vertical devices where it's only a small range of applications are being used most of the time. I've seen alot of cash registers running Windows XP! This seems completely silly to me. Also, Linux is perfectly suited to the internet kiosk.

The average computer user wants to do alot - games, internet, file-sharing, and he does a lot of downloading.

Unforchunately, the Linux desktop is fractured and this makes software installation difficult. This could be improved by keeping the Ubuntu distro coherent so that Ubuntu users, at least, can easily install software.

So, in summary, Linux for your average Dell buyer? I don't think so!

aysiu
July 26th, 2005, 10:25 PM
I don't want to bust your bubble, but if you've read some of the initial post, you'd see why Linux in its current state would be a nightmare for your regular Dell user. Contrary to your assumptions, I've not only read the initial post, but I've also read closely and participated actively in the entire thread. The initial post is talking about difficulties installing Linux, not in using Linux. If Linux came preinstalled in a Dell PC, it would not be that difficult to use. In any case, we were just speculating about if Linux's desktop marketshare increases.


The average computer user wants to do alot - games, internet, file-sharing, and he does a lot of downloading. On the contrary, the "average" computer user wants to do very little--type the occasional document, look at family pictures, surf the web, and check email. You're not talking about average people when you talk about file-sharing, downloading and installing software, and playing games (Okay, maybe Solitaire I'll concede).

Out of the twenty people in my office, I am the only one who does any sort of tweaking of his system. People are very hesitant to even install Firefox, and when they do, they seldom update it or put new themes or extensions on it. People in my office don't even do the Windows updates, even though the update icon just sits in their system tray for months and years. Almost no one I know does serious PC gaming--I'm talking friends, family, co-workers, former fellow students, church members. These people you're talking about are not "average." Sorry.

poofyhairguy
July 26th, 2005, 10:44 PM
So, in summary, Linux for your average Dell buyer? I don't think so!

If it comes preinstalled, sure.

dataw0lf
July 26th, 2005, 11:24 PM
Oi. Gimme a break.

1) Microsoft products are above mediocre (Visual Studio is a great product, you have to admit it. XP was a substantial improvement etc)

2) Morally, I'd rather buy from Microsoft than Apple

I'll let the anguished screams ensue and then I'll explain myself.

Go.

aysiu
July 26th, 2005, 11:32 PM
1) Microsoft products are above mediocre (Visual Studio is a great product, you have to admit it. XP was a substantial improvement etc) Did anyone say Microsoft products are mediocre? I believe the general sentiment of this thread has been "Linux isn't for everyone, but we'd sure like more people using it." I happen to think Microsoft Office is extremely powerful. It's a great product.



2) Morally, I'd rather buy from Microsoft than Apple
I'll let the anguished screams ensue and then I'll explain myself. Now you're just being deliberately inflammatory. My guess is that you're going to say something like how Apple is even more of a monopoly because they don't let you choose what hardware you run. If you're buying/using software on moral grounds, though, it makes sense to use Linux. If you're in love with Visual Basic, use Microsoft.

panickedthumb
July 26th, 2005, 11:48 PM
Agreed, MS products are above mediocre on their own. The comparison is the key. Compared to OSX (regardless of whatever moral objections you may have) and Linux, the BSDs, even BeOS, Windows pales in comparison. The only advantage I've ever seen was the fact that Windows is supported more from 3rd parites (yes, like ATI who really needs to hop on the Linux train. Or hop all the way on, I guess). Office is the most complete office suite I've ever seen, but it's the one piece of software that's made me want to pull my hair out the most. Windows media player is just flat out crap. IIS is buggy and hole-ridden when compared to Apache. Visual Studio... is amazing. I wish something as robust was available for us. But overall, I do see MS products as being a little mediocre, yeah.

I am looking forward to your explanations :)

senorcheaposgato
July 27th, 2005, 03:43 AM
Alright, Poofyhairguy. You make an extremely valid point--more marketshare would put pressure on manufacturers to give linux support.

Here's the thing, though: one function that is (I think) common to a lot of users is media--DVD, etc. Since a lot of the encryption/encoding is proprietary, you have to pay. With Microsoft/Max that's not an issue (obviously). Linux, however, isn't selling a product, ergo no profit, ergo no money to buy the "right" to use the file types. Yes, I'm aware that it's possible to get past that (as well as wireless networking), but things would be a _lot_ easier if Linux distros had rights to the codecs.

So yeah, getting hardware support and standards compliance would be amazing and great and a lot of other superlatives. Hardware support I can see in the future...but standards compliance? I don't know, really. I'm not trying to trash Microsoft (much), but I think we all know how well they meet those standards. Hopefully that front will be broken (at least in part) by the rise of Firefox. Here's hoping, right?

And as to Microsoft's products, I did call them mediocre. They work (usually) and they do what you want (sometimes), but they're not that great. I think this is because Microsoft is after profit, not quality. They're turning a pretty nice profit as it is, so why work harder to improve the product? Ignorance is bliss; in this case, ignorance is also profit for Microsoft.

At any rate, having 3rd party support all around would be fantastic, and it's something to strive for. I still stick to my guns (and I think many of you agree) that trying to convince people to switch against their will is a good way to make them hate Linux.

aysiu
July 27th, 2005, 03:48 AM
Here's the thing, though: one function that is (I think) common to a lot of users is media--DVD, etc. Since a lot of the encryption/encoding is proprietary, you have to pay. With Microsoft/Max that's not an issue (obviously). Linux, however, isn't selling a product, ergo no profit, ergo no money to buy the "right" to use the file types. Yes, I'm aware that it's possible to get past that (as well as wireless networking), but things would be a _lot_ easier if Linux distros had rights to the codecs. Actually, sometimes Linux is selling a product. Look at Linspire--it costs money to buy, money to install software on, and it has excellent hardware support and all the multimedia codecs included. Ubuntu deliberately does not include those codecs because part of its philosophy is being completely free (money and software-wise).

Hardware support is a different issue because codecs can be enabled, but some drivers simply do not exist for Linux.


And as to Microsoft's products, I did call them mediocre. They work (usually) and they do what you want (sometimes), but they're not that great. I think this is because Microsoft is after profit, not quality. They're turning a pretty nice profit as it is, so why work harder to improve the product? Ignorance is bliss; in this case, ignorance is also profit for Microsoft. I think your general assessment of the Microsoft attitude is right on. For years, they didn't make any push to improve Internet Explorer. It wasn't until Firefox started taking market share that they realized browsers had to be secure and have tabbed browsing. I still think Microsoft Office is a killer piece of software, though.

poofyhairguy
July 27th, 2005, 04:18 AM
I still stick to my guns (and I think many of you agree) that trying to convince people to switch against their will is a good way to make them hate Linux.

Tis true.

panickedthumb
July 27th, 2005, 04:56 AM
A point about the mediocrity of Microsoft products-- it's all opinion. There's no test to tell whether something is good or not. In my experience, MS products, other than Halo and VS, are mediocre. In others views they may be fan-freakin-tastic.

dataw0lf
July 27th, 2005, 05:42 AM
Now you're just being deliberately inflammatory. My guess is that you're going to say something like how Apple is even more of a monopoly because they don't let you choose what hardware you run. If you're buying/using software on moral grounds, though, it makes sense to use Linux.


Well, yeah. I guess I was. However, the point I was actually going to make was that Apple is basically raping the open source community. Yeah, KDE. Yeah, muscling Broadcom into not releasing AirPort Linux drivers. They're taking alot more then they're giving, yet geeks are embracing them because they give us a couple scraps. ********.

Yeah, they like to monopolize their hardware. But it's not choosing what hardware you're allowed to run. It's being able to choose what you run on that hardware. Sure, we've gotten Linux PPC up and it's doing pretty well. But Apple continues to make it as hard as possible to do so. They don't want Linux to succeed! And now, they're in direct competition with us, with a Mach kernel with a BSD microkernel. And they'll do whatever they have to to crush the competition. They're no better than Microsoft in that aspect.

I don't purchase, and haven't used in well over 6 years, Microsoft's nor Apple's products. It's a conscious decision I make.
It's not because of open source, or moral zealotry; it's because I do development on Unix and Linux, run numerous Unix and Linux servers, and just prefer the environment. Yes, I love open source. I haven't released a closed source product in about 7 years, and I refuse to do so anymore. But, I think closed source solutions can work out well for a variety of products. However, I do think libraries and the like should all be open source.



If you're in love with Visual Basic, use Microsoft.

I'm not in love with Visual Basic. I just appreciate how well their debugger and profiler works. It's far better than anything Linux has to offer. I've used gdb for a number of years (8?) now, and it still can't touch MS's debugger. It's a fact of life.

However, making such comments: 'If you're in love with Visual Basic...' etc, are rather idiotic. You don't have to love anything to appreciate something else. And this is the attitude most people in the community have. And most of THOSE don't have any idea what they're talking about. They just jump the band wagon and ride.



And as to Microsoft's products, I did call them mediocre. They work (usually) and they do what you want (sometimes), but they're not that great. I think this is because Microsoft is after profit, not quality. They're turning a pretty nice profit as it is, so why work harder to improve the product? Ignorance is bliss; in this case, ignorance is also profit for Microsoft.


I think you're a bit confused. Microsoft does produce good products. XP works pretty well. So does 2000/2003. For clients, anyways. I'd never make my job any harder by running a Windows server, but, honestly, I've never ran one before. The job would be harder because, well, I just don't know the operating system that well.

Obviously, Internet Explorer (to which I assume you're referring to) is a symptom of alot of tech companies (or any company, for that matter), not just Microsoft. The sole reason to produce IE at the time was to kill Netscape. After they killed it, there was no reason to continue developing the browser, not actively anyways. This is obviously wrong; but if you're going to demonize Microsoft for this corporate crap, you better demonize many, many, many other companies as well (including, in particular, Apple).

However, actively developed applications from Microsoft (ala Visual Studio; in particular, Visual C++ and it's included debugger and profiler) are pretty damn good. This is because they have competition in these areas. If you follow the logic, that's why they're coming out with the newest version of IE (to include more W3C compliance). Because Firefox poses a threat.

To go off on a tangent, Firefox is one memory munchin' sucka. Jeez. Firefox Lite anyone (Mozilla) ?

So that's what the community has come down to in recent years. We've had numerous threads on this subject ( I know panickedthumb agrees with me on most of my points), but noone seems to listen. Do what YOU think is right. Don't do it because some elitist on <x> IRC channel told you to, or you read the hacker's manifesto and it's oh so cool, form your OWN opinions. And when you do form your own opinions, at least don't be so blinded and biased as to attack something you seemingly have no knowledge about. This is just as bad as any other bigot.

panickedthumb
July 27th, 2005, 05:55 AM
"And when you do form your own opinions, at least don't be so blinded and biased as to attack something you seemingly have no knowledge about. This is just as bad as any other bigot."

This is the part where I think miscommunication is to blame. I don't think anyone is demonizing microsoft or anyone else. You're right that XP works pretty well (though not for some), and as I said, VS is amazing. But I hate XP for many reasons, and in many situations think it's well below mediocre. And I'm not just talking about IE, I'm talking about the OS itself. I don't see any opinions here that are blinded and biased and I don't see anyone attacking anyone. I think the general opinion is that there's no one operating system (or any software for that matter) to fit everyone, but people are still sharing their opinions. w0lf, you know how much I hate bashing. I see bashing as uninformed flaming, but criticism is totally different.

On a side note, I can tell you're still a little upset from the Cold War 2 thread ;)

aysiu
July 27th, 2005, 05:59 AM
However, making such comments: 'If you're in love with Visual Basic...' etc, are rather idiotic. You don't have to love anything to appreciate something else. And this is the attitude most people in the community have. And most of THOSE don't have any idea what they're talking about. They just jump the band wagon and ride. Why is it idiotic? So you want to make a semantic distinction between appreciating and being in love with something--fine. I don't care. What is this "bandwagon" you keep referring to? I admit that Microsoft has some good products--I happen to like Microsoft Office, and I've mentioned that a couple of times already. I've also mentioned a couple of times that I don't think Linux is for everyone.


So that's what the community has come down to in recent years. We've had numerous threads on this subject ( I know panickedthumb agrees with me on most of my points), but noone seems to listen. Do what YOU think is right. Don't do it because some elitist on <x> IRC channel told you to, or you read the hacker's manifesto and it's oh so cool, form your OWN opinions. And when you do form your own opinions, at least don't be so blinded and biased as to attack something you seemingly have no knowledge about. This is just as bad as any other bigot. Stop these non-specific roundabout comments. If you have issue with a specific thing I or someone else has said, take issue with it. I don't use IRC, never have. And I think everything I've posted here has been even-handed and completely forthright. You don't have to agree with me, but when you accuse me and/or others of being blind, biased, and following the bandwagon, you're overstepping your bounds and making too many assumptions of your own.

dataw0lf
July 27th, 2005, 06:07 AM
Stop these non-specific roundabout comments. If you have issue with a specific thing I or someone else has said, take issue with it. I don't use IRC, never have. And I think everything I've posted here has been even-handed and completely forthright. You don't have to agree with me, but when you accuse me and/or others of being blind, biased, and following the bandwagon, you're overstepping your bounds and making too many assumptions of your own.

Perhaps you missed my point. I wasn't trying to be specific. I'm making a comment about an unfortunate trend in the community in general. You don't have to get defensive about it. I wasn't directing anything at you; that's why I put quotes above the comments I was referencing to YOU. If you want to argue those, feel free.

The below is another 'general' statement. I'm hoping, this time, you can differentiate between what's directed at you, and what's not. If you have trouble this time, my next post I can prepend every line with who and what it's directed at. Let me know

The bandwagon is the Linux elitism that's developed slowly over the years. And most of the 'elitists' haven't used Linux for more than a couple years! They just feel 'safe' by going with the true open source advocates because they have no true moral convictions of their own.

The IRC thing was an example of your basic beginning Linux zealot. I have no idea how most people come the decision to use terms like 'Microsuck' or 'Winblows', and then degrade Microsoft as a whole, but I can make a good guess. If you want to attack Microsoft, use specifics. If you're morally opposed to Microsoft, however, don't turn a blind eye to the other companies that use similar tactics. I certainly think that there's a valid reason to be morally disgusted with such companies. But when people say 'Microsoft products sux0rz' etc, this is just being bigoted.

aysiu
July 27th, 2005, 06:14 AM
The IRC thing was an example of your basic beginning Linux zealot. I have no idea how most people come the decision to use terms like 'Microsuck' or 'Winblows', and then degrade Microsoft as a whole, but I can make a good guess. If you want to attack Microsoft, use specifics. If you're morally opposed to Microsoft, however, don't turn a blind eye to the other companies that use similar tactics. I certainly think that there's a valid reason to be morally disgusted with such companies. But when people say 'Microsoft products sux0rz' etc, this is just being bigoted. No, I completely agree--this is a disturbing trend in the community. I just don't see what that has to do with this thread. In fact, it seems all of the Linux advocates in this thread have a pretty balanced view of things. I haven't seen a lot of unilateral Microsoft hate or zealotry here. No one has proposed that everyone use Linux. I haven't seen the usual Windoze and Micro$oft references. That's why I took your attack personally--you called one of my comments "idiotic," then you went on a rant that had seemingly nothing to do with what's happening in this thread... so I mistakenly took the two to be related.

dataw0lf
July 27th, 2005, 06:21 AM
No, I completely agree--this is a disturbing trend in the community. I just don't see what that has to do with this thread. In fact, it seems all of the Linux advocates in this thread have a pretty balanced view of things. I haven't seen a lot of unilateral Microsoft hate or zealotry here. No one has proposed that everyone use Linux. I haven't seen the usual Windoze and Micro$oft references. That's why I took your attack personally--you called one of my comments "idiotic," then you went on a rant that had seemingly nothing to do with what's happening in this thread... so I mistakenly took the two to be related.

Well it was senorchwhatsername that set me off. With comments like 'Windows products are mediocre at best' this is just a broad statement and I thought I'd make a standard BOFH rant about the trend that bothers me most about the community. But, you're right, this is more about me just having a bad day on the forums. I've almost broken three computers today, in arguments as far ranging as C as a beginning language and the Iraqi War!

Hm, I only got two hours sleep last night, too. Sorry if anyone took me the wrong way; just remember I AM just a ranting BOFH, and you'll find the humor in my indignance quick enough.

aysiu
July 27th, 2005, 06:25 AM
But, you're right, this is more about me just having a bad day on the forums. I've almost broken three computers today, in arguments as far ranging as C as a beginning language and the Iraqi War! Yeah, I checked out the Cold War 2 thread, and I can understand why you'd feel frustrated.

JoeUbuntu
July 27th, 2005, 08:45 AM
The original point of this topic for me was to post my experience with Ubuntu and linux in general, and request for open and honest comments relating to mine and other user's experiences. I guess I got it. ](*,)

Seems like the online community as a whole has "grown up" a whole lot less than I had expected.

poofyhairguy
July 27th, 2005, 08:56 AM
Seems like the online community as a whole has "grown up" a whole lot less than I had expected.

What do you mean by that? We are an online community of nerds. Compared to the other big online nerd communities - slashdot, unreal tournament servers, or usenet- posts this place is about as mature as you can find. You didn't get a single "STFU n00b!" or a "RTFM then eat it!" I mean...nerds by nature don't have the best social skills (not saying all nerds are like that, just making generalizations that have grains of truth) so expecting more is too much.

Oh...I get it. You expected something other than a nerd majority. Come back when Dell (or some big computer pusher) ships a Ubuntu desktop PC. Till then...

JoeUbuntu
July 27th, 2005, 09:32 AM
I expected people to be more mature, sensible, accepting, helpful and understanding... regardless of their lifestyle choice. Do I ask too much?

All I want is some good food for thought, I thought posting my experience was a good way to recieve that. :neutral:

Knome_fan
July 27th, 2005, 09:48 AM
I expected people to be more mature, sensible, and understanding... regardless of their lifestyle choice.
I can't even begin to tell you how much I hate this kind of discussion style.

Constructing something totally abstract like "the online community" only to then call it names is a very grown up thing to do in itself...

I don't know what you expected, but you wrote a rather lengthy piece about your problems with Ubuntu and put it in online forum for discussion. Didn't you expect that people would in fact discuss it and some would even disagree with you?

Now if you disagree with what people wrote, answer them specifically, or ignore them, or whatever, but don't broadly insult everyone you perceive to be part of the "online community", whatever that may be.

Finally, about your initial post, there are some things I agree with, for example the DSL situation, which is far from ideal and some things I don't agree with, for example your gripes with wine, but I fear disagreeing with you just shows that I'm not mature, sensible and understanding enough...

poofyhairguy
July 27th, 2005, 10:00 AM
I expected people to be more mature, sensible, accepting, helpful and understanding... regardless of their lifestyle choice. Do I ask too much?


Of any large group, that is asking too much. Even the Mensa club has immature, elitest, mean and spiteful a-holes.

What did you think- we are breeding a better kind of human in Ubuntuland?

JoeUbuntu
July 27th, 2005, 11:06 AM
I just don't understand why everyone is throwing sticks and stones at each other about other topics, when all I've done is come with open arms, and my experience.

If I've made any incorrect generalisations then that is my mistake, but is there a way we can actually have a good conversation here? I just want everything to stop fighting and get back on topic, and I'm sure you'll find I'm very accepting of people disagreeing with me about my experience with Ubuntu, however illogical that may sound.

There has to be some people here with some more sense than arguing about rediculous stuff, picking out little points in sentences and being correct in every way, doesn't there? Maybe another incorrect assumption on my part.

How does this community expect to get any further if a newbie can't simply post his experience and ask for some decent responses, not Microsoft VS Linux vs. the world or Knowledge vs. Power etc et. al?

aysiu
July 27th, 2005, 03:07 PM
I just don't understand why everyone is throwing sticks and stones at each other about other topics, when all I've done is come with open arms, and my experience. Your humility is overwhelming.



How does this community expect to get any further if a newbie can't simply post his experience and ask for some decent responses, not Microsoft VS Linux vs. the world or Knowledge vs. Power etc et. al? Do you realize that, just like you, anyone with an email address can sign up for the Ubuntu Forums and post whatever she wants? The sense of "community" is, strictly defined, very loose. I think you'll find people generally helpful if you come with questions, and say, "Help me."

If, however, you post a long experience, which is only your experience, and then say
A simple conclusion would be that Ubuntu (or linux in general, given that it's supposed to be the most user-friendly, although not quite bleeding edge distro) is not quite at a stage of maturity where a computer user (newbie/average user/business professional) can pick it up and be happy. You're not exactly inviting discussion--you're inviting flames.

That said, until some recent posts, I think the discussion has been fairly mature and rational. What forums have you been to on computers that have been more "mature" than the Ubuntu Forums? If you think things are bad here, take a look at the X vs. XP (http://bbs.xvsxp.com/forums/) website forums.

Why don't you pose some honest, open-ended questions instead of making inflammatory statements like "Linux isn't mature enough" or "This forum isn't mature enough"?

senorcheaposgato
July 27th, 2005, 07:37 PM
JoeUbuntu- I don't mean for this to be offensive in any way, but I don't think that the way this thread has developed is surprising at all. You did make comments that are inflammatory to some members of the community, but let's be honest--there's nothing that can be said that won't **** SOMEONE off. Fact of life, eh?

At any rate, topics you touched on in your original post are being further discussed in here: you posted about your experience with Ubuntu, why you are not choosing to use it at the moment, and that (to me, at least) naturally brings to mind the general topic of new users, power within the tech industry/community, and reasons for use of different OSs.

I hope you can follow my reasoning here as to why the thread hasn't wandered _that_ far. And I'd venture to say that this kind of discussion is going to cause controversy by it's very nature. At any rate, any "sticks and stones" thrown here are not thrown hard enough to cause real damage--I know (as I hope others do) that this is a kind of intellectual excercise, hopefully an enlightening one. No hard feelings (I hope), just throwing around ideas. Sorry that the post has gone away from your original intent, but I do hope you can see why it's changed.

poofyhairguy
July 27th, 2005, 07:52 PM
How does this community expect to get any further if a newbie can't simply post his experience and ask for some decent responses, not Microsoft VS Linux vs. the world or Knowledge vs. Power etc et. al?

Umm...we can't "police" our community. We don't kick people out because "what you post is bad PR" or because "you are too focused on MS."

Secondly...you do know that posting here does nothing right? NONE of us are Ubuntu developers. They don't have time to cruse through the forum.

We are all fans and a few fanatics. If some of irrationally defend Ubuntu its because that all we CAN do...we have no more say then you do. This is the official forum, but there is no official voice here.

I'm honestly sorry you expected so much. I'll tell you what though. Go in a Chevy forum and make honest complaints about their trucks, or go in a Apple forum and criticize OSX. Or go to a Democrat forum and comment on why they lost last year. I bet you will see a lot worse than here. I'm actually proud of this thread. Not once were you cussed out, not once were you banned for what you said.

You can express what you want here. And if you will reread the thread you will see many insightful comments. WTF did you expect? "Thanks for the gentle criticism, we will get working on that right away?" You didn't give us any money, and you aren't related to us so we have no motivation to do anymore than we did.

And I'm going to tell you a little secret: you are not original. TOO MANY users come in here (and other Linux forums) and offer nothing but criticism. You didn't offer any code...any patches. You didn't offer any professional research or anything of value. You just offered you opinion. If it was thrown back in your face, its because "Ubuntu is not ready" opinions are a dime a dozen around here.

We now have canned responses for people like you. We now get all defensive- more than we should. Is that fair? No. But is it fair that every person that comes in here criticizing what we like gets nice treatment? No.

I must know- what DID you expect? What didn't we do? Why should we -those that have invested a lot of time in this project- care what you, a "drive-by user says?" I'm not being harsh or mean...I'm being honest. I want to know.

aysiu
July 27th, 2005, 08:04 PM
I must know- what DID you expect? What didn't we do? Why should we -those that have invested a lot of time in this project- care what you, a "drive-by usr says?" I'm not being harsh or mean...I'm being honest. I want to know. I agree. I think the responses you got made sense. Can you give us a sample of the kinds of responses you were expecting?

JoeUbuntu
July 27th, 2005, 11:06 PM
Uh - doesn't matter anymore. I give up.

egon spengler
July 28th, 2005, 01:10 AM
Seriously Joe, it seems as if you are disapointed becuse you didn't get met with a resounding chorus of "Yes, you are completely right". I installed ubuntu on two machines, the first went flawlwssly, the scond had problems with my ethernet card (i needed to load a different driver) and then my sound card (i have two cards so i needed to switch the order), bascially the same difficulties you encountered so I can understand your frustration at them not working instantly. That said I know people who have had big problems installing sound cards with xp, cards not being recognised/poor drivers are not an exclusively Linux problem.

Some of your other complaints though seemed completely misdirected, I really can't see how a person can logically conclude that Linux not being able to run software that was not designed for Linux is a shortcoming. You might as well complain that your Xbox can't play Ps2 games.

If you knew beforehand that there are no heavyweight audio apps for Linux how can you install the os then complain because there are no audio apps?

JoeUbuntu
July 28th, 2005, 01:25 AM
I wasn't complaining. I don't think it's about right or wrong. It's MY EXPERIENCE! As I said before - enough already, enjoy your arguments. Maybe this community just isn't as friendly as I had hoped.

DirtDawg
July 28th, 2005, 02:08 AM
Of any large group, that is asking too much. Even the Mensa club has immature, elitest, mean and spiteful a-holes.

What did you think- we are breeding a better kind of human in Ubuntuland?

Ha! I love it.
Anyway, I feel bad for JoeUbuntu. I've definitely tossed some posts out there which were not recieved well (usually when I'm grouchy, or I misunderstand the original post, or when I'm just not thinking straight) and to be honest it can be a little emberassing/distressing for me.
Well, Mr. JoeUbuntu, I have a secret for you. I have two computers! (no, really, I do) One brand-new Dell with Windows XP installed and one old-ass g3 Macintosh with Ubuntu. For me, the reality is I simply cannot completely abandon Windows. It's just not practical yet and it sounds like you may be in the same boat.
I prefer my Linux-box and use it whenever I can. But overall, I tend to use a fairly even combination of the two (some open-source tools are better for certain projects and vice-versa).
My suggestion? Get yourself either another hard drive for your main computer or another, older computer for Linux. There's nothing wrong with a full toolbox!
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: Peas. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

egon spengler
July 28th, 2005, 02:15 AM
I wasn't complaining. I don't think it's about right or wrong. It's MY EXPERIENCE! As I said before - enough already, enjoy your arguments. Maybe this community just isn't as friendly as I had hoped.

In what way was I unfriendly to you? I sympathised with your problems because the same (or similiar) had happened to me.

I guess you take offence because in the scond part of my post I disagreed with you on sometings. Not sharing the exact same opinion as you is not being unfriendly Joe

aysiu
July 28th, 2005, 02:16 AM
I wasn't complaining. I don't think it's about right or wrong. It's MY EXPERIENCE! As I said before - enough already, enjoy your arguments. Maybe this community just isn't as friendly as I had hoped. Clearly it wasn't just your experience, because you said Linux isn't ready for regular users. You didn't say "Ubuntu doesn't work for me on my computer, even though it appears to work for other people." That would be "your experience."

You claimed that you don't care if people disagree with you, but when we disagree, you say we're "unfriendly" or "immature." We still haven't seen what your examples are of how we could be friendly and disagree with you. As a newbie myself, I have to say this Ubuntu Forums has a wonderfully accepting and friendly community in my experience. If your experience is different, maybe that's just you.

Stormy Eyes
July 28th, 2005, 02:27 AM
I expected people to be more mature, sensible, accepting, helpful and understanding... regardless of their lifestyle choice. Do I ask too much?

That's a lot to ask when I've been drinking. Luckily, I'm sober tonight. I only get to make an ass of myself once a month, according to my wife.

JoeUbuntu
July 28th, 2005, 03:48 AM
Ha! I love it.
Anyway, I feel bad for JoeUbuntu. I've definitely tossed some posts out there which were not recieved well (usually when I'm grouchy, or I misunderstand the original post, or when I'm just not thinking straight) and to be honest it can be a little emberassing/distressing for me.
Well, Mr. JoeUbuntu, I have a secret for you. I have two computers! (no, really, I do) One brand-new Dell with Windows XP installed and one old-ass g3 Macintosh with Ubuntu. For me, the reality is I simply cannot completely abandon Windows. It's just not practical yet and it sounds like you may be in the same boat.
I prefer my Linux-box and use it whenever I can. But overall, I tend to use a fairly even combination of the two (some open-source tools are better for certain projects and vice-versa).
My suggestion? Get yourself either another hard drive for your main computer or another, older computer for Linux. There's nothing wrong with a full toolbox!
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: Peas. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Absoloutely. That's the kind of post that I can respond to! Believe it or not, I own 7 macs (all old school except for my new ibook) and I use that for work, and another newer one for music.

Unfortunately I have to keep the Windows-based computer for compatibility with half the software I have, but it's a great idea ;-) - maybe I should grab myself an older pc for messing around with.

You're probably right - I just can't abandon Windows either, as sad as it sounds - I guess I had my heart set on finally removing myself from it. A combination of three different operating systems is less efficient, but realistically if I absoloutely wanted to do so I wouldn't be able to migrate to open source and Apple - at the moment.

Unfortunately.... I may have to wait, until Microsoft goes DRM happy (if that happens) and I won't have a choice but to use Macs and Linux exclusively :) - or I'll have to wait until Ubuntu can fulfill my (rather high) expectations.

Gabbahead
August 2nd, 2005, 04:30 PM
I've now had Ubuntu Linux installed for two days and I've had several Linux gurus on hand to help me out with problems, changes and such. And I honestly cannot see how Linux expects to take on Windows. It has a lot going for it: stability, power and flexibility. But for reasons I don't understand, Linux builds go out of their way to avoid Windows and MacOs ideas and standards. It's okay to be different, but familiarity also has its perks. Take these as you like (and really try and not say "But Linux gives you more choice" or "Windows users are spoonfed". I heard those before and they didn't sway my opinion because they were just that. Neither actually got me to accomplish something in Linux).

-These suggestions should apply for all Linux builds. They should be standard if you want to woo other users. I know some builds support some of these things, but that's not nearly enough.

- Let the Windows main and secondary keys actually do something in Linux. The Windows key could drop down the main menu and the second key could give a context menu in a word processor. Make it do something OUT OF THE BOX. Windows users don't map keys and we'll never want to. Unless you have a Mac, your keyboard has these keys.

- 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.

- Make drives easily mountable. I eventually gave up trying to mount my NTFS partitions. Instead I created a FAT32 one (using Ubuntu's installer). Windows found the new partition immediately. Linux didn't. It expected me to mount the partition. Anyone ever Google on mounting a drive? It makes sense if you use Linux, not it you are new to it. Can't Linux at least say "Hey, a new partition! Would you like to do something with it?"

- Easily solutions. It took me three hours of trying to access my NTFS partitions via Linux. It took Google and Windows ten minutes before I could browse my Linux partitions via Windows Explorer.

- Linux would really benefit from virtual folders as seen in Tiger OS. It would cut down on the confusion of all the folders in the root directory. I ended up putting all my stuff on the desktop because I didn't know where else to put it within easy access.

- 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. High-level or admin operations can be done in the root, but the most menial of tasks should have a easier way. In fact, hurdle jumping seems to be a theme in Linux. Remember the three click rule of web design: if it takes more than three clicks, you've lost 'em. Linux requires a lot of clicking or typing.

- The Linux software library is kinda shocking. Don't take my word for it; go to Fileforum.com and see how many Torrent and RSS apps there are for Windows vs. Linux. Openoffice, Abiword, CDex, Miranda, Trillian, Thunderbird... all of those work in Windows. Shirusupad, Bitspirit, Maxthon, Winamp (bar an aged version 3 build), Filezilla... none of these work in Linux (unless they forgot to list a build or you are willing to rearrange the source codes a bit). Now if Linux is all about choice, Windows' software catalog easily makes up for that. Sure, I might need to reboot a bit more often and do a reinstall every few months, but at least I can use the software I want to use, not alternatives. I don't start regarding Pepsi as Coke once the Coke is finished.

A good OS goes beyond its on-paper features. You can explain to a general PC user about all of its benefits - if it's not easy it won't have any appeal to them. I'm not attacking Linux - I'm pointing out why I as a Windows user would never use it. It's not because I love Windows (I don't), but Windows is easier to use - hands-down. Put a new users in front of three machines - Linux, Windows and Mac. Mac will win, Windows will be second. Linux will laud its own superiority, showing what a powerhouse it is full of choice and promise for users with patience. It will still be stone last because if the average user really wanted to get dirty with his OS, we'd all know how to service our own cars.

black hole sun
August 2nd, 2005, 04:46 PM
I agree with most of your points, except for that on synaptic. It is stupidly easy to use; if you are too lazy to work with it then why are you even using a computer, since it's obviously taking up more of your precious time than it should? It's as point-and-click as it could possibly get!

N'Jal
August 2nd, 2005, 04:49 PM
Unfortunatly this is the open source model, some people want their version of linux to behave one way, others other ways, SuSE linux has a two button click software installation via YaST2 but you have to pay for SuSE, SuSE also is very good for detecting partitions. dectected my NTFS partiton and gave me instant read access, no write access but read was good enough. Again SuSE was good for auto-mounting my devices. However for me SuSE is a power hungry OS, totally drained my system's resouces and GNOME don't work very well, though it might be fixed with Novelle linux. Its all wat you want, and Ubuntu works for me, sure i often have to edit some files, but in windows's i had to run several scan's a day.

maruchan
August 2nd, 2005, 06:01 PM
I've now had Ubuntu Linux installed for two days and I've had several Linux gurus on hand to help me out with problems, changes and such.

Wow, that must be nice. Who are you, Bill Gates?


And I honestly cannot see how Linux expects to take on Windows.

Yes, you must be Bill Gates. ;)

All joking aside, it's pretty clear you don't "get it." You can't see past the GUI to realize that it's just another interface, along with the CLI. Each has its uses. Try this in your GUI of choice: I want a list of all 500 file names in folder X to be written to a document, with no other information included. How long did that take you in your fancy GUI? Were you even able to do it? This takes about 5 seconds on a command line.

As for NTFS drives, it took me about 10 minutes to mount mine, not having tried it before. Not sure what your problem was there.

Anyway, Linux is as much a sentiment as an end-user experience, and you only focus on the latter, or the latter as it applies to brand new end-users. Have you asked non-newbies why they like it? Why it might be worth it to stick around and learning Linux? No, you haven't. You're like the cook who walked around the kitchen with his nose plugged, afraid he might smell something offensive, then left and complained that none of the food smelled right.

Omnios
August 2nd, 2005, 06:35 PM
Basicly as Linux develops things are changing making things easier over all. But I would like to point out this is Ubuntu Linux is not windows or a windows knock off and will develop in its own direction. Ubuntu Linux is a different operating system than say windows. Though there will always be room for improvements Linux has a broad user base with different types of users its not just a desktop.

When I first started I was scratching my head about the terminal thing but found as I learn't how to use Linux I would be lost without if it is extreemly usefull. As for sudo well its a security trade off I would not recommend disabling it which can be done.

weasel fierce
August 2nd, 2005, 06:45 PM
When I had to do an emergency install of windows, because my linux CD had an error (I have a crappy CD burner), I realized that windows couldnt detect my internet connection or my video card, without running the install CD again for my broadband. Ubuntu detected both immediately.

Im not that computer smart, but in an hour, it should be possible to go online with an EXISTING internet connection hooked to the computer.

Made me realize that windows is only considered easy because its all done for you in advance


As for software, I think this depends more on the specific needs. Pretty much everything I use a computer for, I can do with Ubuntu as well, and it generally works better. Gaming is not one of them, but well, I'll use the 600 dollars I saved from not buying windows and MS office, to buy 12 new PS2 games ;)

az
August 2nd, 2005, 06:51 PM
It is what it is.

It linux's main goal was to be more prevalent than windows, it would have done that years ago. The fact is it is an open source project. That means that if more people have more important things to do than comparing linux to windows, other projects get done instead.

Basically, a whiny post like your's is useless, If you want to effect change, roll up your sleeves and do it. This is not a complaint department.

If there were one company making linux, then you could phone them up and talk to their complaint department. But since this is not about "taking on windows", rephrase your issues in a more contructive manner and maybe we'll get somewhere.

KingBahamut
August 2nd, 2005, 06:54 PM
Most of these points are idiosyncratic to a beginning user expects to find once the install process is finished. Honestly for a user not to expect a learning curve when embracing FOSS is a joke. You cant expect to wield extreme power over your OS in a day. Users like you really upset me, because your not willing enough to "learn" how to use the tool to begin with. You merely expect that because its something that might resemble Windows that it must behave in the same manner.

It doesnt.

While I admit that your concerns about standardization and documentation are well warranted, your other points are meaningless and useless. You want a windows machine, go use one.


Point 1 - The Windows Key. Its a Microsoft thing....why would we bother to even use it?

Point 2 - There is a lovely package manager on your Ubuntu System called Synaptic. Search for desired package (somewhere between 16000 and 20000 on the repository), check it, Click Apply and it installs.

Point 3 and 4 - Drives (NTFS) are easily mountable. Install ntfsprogs and learn how to use them.

Point 5 - Virtual Folders ( /home/<username>/ ) , as of this statment you seem a lot less likely like a Linux user / newbie and more like a flamer.

Point 6 - what does innovative GUI design have to do with Root command nessecity. Those sorts of things protect you as the user. Wouldnt want you to just go and delete the /usr folder now would we.

Point 7 - My favorite - the Linux Library. Ok gents here we go. Winamp - XMMS, Bit-anything (refering to a bit torrent client) - Gnome-Torrent, Azuerus. CDex - goobox,grip Shirusupad - Evolution, Knote. Maxthon - Galeon,dillo,firefox,opera. Trillian - Gaim. Thunderbird - aside from using thunderbird itself , Evolution, Sylpheed, Balsa, and Kontact.

Now then if you really had a Linux Guru helping you with all of this, and he really knew what he was doing then you would know most of this information already. I dont see that you came and asked us any of those questions - Im sure Id gladly have directed you in the right manner. As would anyone else in here. So if your going to flame, please try to do it and admit it, rather than try to hide behind some concept that you are displeased because of your experience with Ubuntu. Educate first, then you have the right to make such claims.

<off the soapbox>

To the Moderators, I apologize. I dont handle incompetence like this very well.

the_purulent
August 2nd, 2005, 06:56 PM
[snip] ... but well, I'll use the 600 dollars I saved from not buying windows and MS office, to buy 12 new PS2 games ;)


Hear Hear! Well said! :-P

Kvark
August 2nd, 2005, 06:57 PM
-These suggestions should apply for all Linux builds. They should be standard if you want to woo other users. I know some builds support some of these things, but that's not nearly enough.
The only thing that applies to all linux distros is the linux kernel. And it is a wonder they got even that in common. To make something apply to all linux distros would be even harder then to force microsoft and apple to use it in both windows and osx. Just accept that the different distros are just that, different from eachother, one for each flavour.


- Let the Windows main and secondary keys actually do something in Linux. The Windows key could drop down the main menu and the second key could give a context menu in a word processor. Make it do something OUT OF THE BOX. Windows users don't map keys and we'll never want to. Unless you have a Mac, your keyboard has these keys.
Agree 100%. They should do something. Exactly what they should do can be debated for eternity. As for menues in word proccessors, right click, the menu key and Alt+letter combo already takes care of that. IMO one should open the program menu and the other open a command terminal window.


- 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.
To download programs from websites or p2p networks is awfully cumbersome and complicated. It is much easier to just put a checkbox for the program in synaptic.


- Make drives easily mountable. I eventually gave up trying to mount my NTFS partitions. Instead I created a FAT32 one (using Ubuntu's installer). Windows found the new partition immediately. Linux didn't. It expected me to mount the partition. Anyone ever Google on mounting a drive? It makes sense if you use Linux, not it you are new to it. Can't Linux at least say "Hey, a new partition! Would you like to do something with it?"

- Easily solutions. It took me three hours of trying to access my NTFS partitions via Linux. It took Google and Windows ten minutes before I could browse my Linux partitions via Windows Explorer.
Agreed, it is stupid that it doesn't auto mount. This should be considered a bug. I wonder if anyone has filed a bug report to www.ubuntulinux.org's bugzilla to complain that NTFS partitions doesn't auto mount.


- Linux would really benefit from virtual folders as seen in Tiger OS. It would cut down on the confusion of all the folders in the root directory. I ended up putting all my stuff on the desktop because I didn't know where else to put it within easy access.
Yes. It is a problem when users go outside of home and get confused. What can be done is... Make it 100% completely impossible for normal users to see anything outside of their own /home/username/ directory. And let only admin accounts like root see everything. Sudoers would have ability to make everything visible with a sudo command. ...But perhaps it is better to just add a warning message for newbies stating "Keep all your files your home directory. Warning: you may get confused if you go outside of your home directory, so don't!".


- 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. High-level or admin operations can be done in the root, but the most menial of tasks should have a easier way. In fact, hurdle jumping seems to be a theme in Linux. Remember the three click rule of web design: if it takes more than three clicks, you've lost 'em. Linux requires a lot of clicking or typing.
Sudo and/or the root user (i guess thats what you mean with root commands) are vital to basic security. One of the main reasons windows security sucks is that users (and therefore programs, viruses and intruders too) can do admin tasks without a sudo command or a special root user.


- The Linux software library is kinda shocking. Don't take my word for it; go to Fileforum.com and see how many Torrent and RSS apps there are for Windows vs. Linux. Openoffice, Abiword, CDex, Miranda, Trillian, Thunderbird... all of those work in Windows. Shirusupad, Bitspirit, Maxthon, Winamp (bar an aged version 3 build), Filezilla... none of these work in Linux (unless they forgot to list a build or you are willing to rearrange the source codes a bit). Now if Linux is all about choice, Windows' software catalog easily makes up for that. Sure, I might need to reboot a bit more often and do a reinstall every few months, but at least I can use the software I want to use, not alternatives. I don't start regarding Pepsi as Coke once the Coke is finished.
You are right. If you want to use linux software then use linux. If you want to use windows software then use windows. To use linux when you want microsoft word instead of openoffice would be like getting a can of pepsi when you want to drink coke.


A good OS goes beyond its on-paper features. You can explain to a general PC user about all of its benefits - if it's not easy it won't have any appeal to them. I'm not attacking Linux - I'm pointing out why I as a Windows user would never use it. It's not because I love Windows (I don't), but Windows is easier to use - hands-down. Put a new users in front of three machines - Linux, Windows and Mac. Mac will win, Windows will be second. Linux will laud its own superiority, showing what a powerhouse it is full of choice and promise for users with patience. It will still be stone last because if the average user really wanted to get dirty with his OS, we'd all know how to service our own cars.
IMO linux is easier to use then windows. As in it goes faster for me to do what I want to do in linux compared to in windows when it works. But considering some things (like auto mounting NTFS drives) does not work, you need to troubleshoot linux more often then windows. Which is a huge problem. Hopefully the user friendly distros like ubuntu will have eliminated the need for troubleshooting within a year or so. So you can just go ahead and use it.

Gabbahead
August 2nd, 2005, 07:50 PM
Thanks for all the replies. A lot were very interesting and useful. I just want to point out a few things then I'll let the topic be.

- I don't plan to roll up my sleeves and make the changes. I don't program and I don't work with tech. I already have a job and if paying for a Windows copy that does more or less what I want it to out of the box is worth more than either paying for a Linux expert or spending time doing it for myself.

- I've heard that it's a paradigm shift or a sentiment. That's very poetic, but I don't tend to turn to creativeness when it comes to an OS. This is purely an argument over practicality and Linux's lack of intuitiveness lacks its brute strenght.

- Synaptic. I had a clean Ubuntu install and I downloaded a program for Linux. With no way to load it, I used Synaptic, which didn't register the files. I took someone's advice and set Synaiptic to global and multiverse (or something in that line). Still no package. Reload. Still no package. I rebooted - no package. Trying to figure out if the file I downloaded wille ven work with my machine, let alone coax it into Synaptic, is far more effort than 'point and click' to launch Demoshield.

- O, on a sidenote, most Linux programmers write the worst manuals imaginable. Full of technical detail, but rarely any "how do I do this?" stuff. They just seem to assume you know how to already.

I'm curious: if only the Kernel is what binds Linux builds, where is the version that mimmicks Mac or Windows platforms, right down the conventions and standards, but incorporates all of Linux's great features? Synaptic is clever and the OS has a very solid feeling to it. But it's a thug to work with. Linux really has a lot of potential, but I now see why every year I hear that Linux will be big in 2 years. I heard that as far back as 1998.

This post is also to bring some clarity to all the Windows bashing. I'm not fond of Windows and the Linux and Mac sides always make a noise about being better. And now I notice that Linux is just as full of crap as Windows is, for all the opposite reasons.

Maybe Google needs to develop its own Linux. They'd get it right.

KingBahamut
August 2nd, 2005, 08:10 PM
Thanks for all the replies. A lot were very interesting and useful. I just want to point out a few things then I'll let the topic be.

- I don't plan to roll up my sleeves and make the changes. I don't program and I don't work with tech. I already have a job and if paying for a Windows copy that does more or less what I want it to out of the box is worth more than either paying for a Linux expert or spending time doing it for myself.

- I've heard that it's a paradigm shift or a sentiment. That's very poetic, but I don't tend to turn to creativeness when it comes to an OS. This is purely an argument over practicality and Linux's lack of intuitiveness lacks its brute strenght.

- Synaptic. I had a clean Ubuntu install and I downloaded a program for Linux. With no way to load it, I used Synaptic, which didn't register the files. I took someone's advice and set Synaiptic to global and multiverse (or something in that line). Still no package. Reload. Still no package. I rebooted - no package. Trying to figure out if the file I downloaded wille ven work with my machine, let alone coax it into Synaptic, is far more effort than 'point and click' to launch Demoshield.

- O, on a sidenote, most Linux programmers write the worst manuals imaginable. Full of technical detail, but rarely any "how do I do this?" stuff. They just seem to assume you know how to already.

I'm curious: if only the Kernel is what binds Linux builds, where is the version that mimmicks Mac or Windows platforms, right down the conventions and standards, but incorporates all of Linux's great features? Synaptic is clever and the OS has a very solid feeling to it. But it's a thug to work with. Linux really has a lot of potential, but I now see why every year I hear that Linux will be big in 2 years. I heard that as far back as 1998.

This post is also to bring some clarity to all the Windows bashing. I'm not fond of Windows and the Linux and Mac sides always make a noise about being better. And now I notice that Linux is just as full of crap as Windows is, for all the opposite reasons.

Maybe Google needs to develop its own Linux. They'd get it right.
Point 1 - If you can honestly condone the concept of spending 600 dollars retail in money to do that, its your right to do so. However your disgruntled speaking of windows is suspect that you probably keep a pirated copy in hand for both windows and its accompanying products. Either way, neither in my opinion is good.

Point 2 - This statement is an Oxymoron. It is either incapable of Brute Strength or its incapable of being Intuitive, which is it, or both?

Point 3 - This comes stemmed from the fact that your afraid to grab a tarball and install it. While synaptic Stores over umpteen thousand packages, all easily installable through search and click. If you find something that isnt there, or are too afraid to search, then its more user error than it is incompatability over the interface and its use. Afraid to install a tarball or learn how to?

Point 4 - Dont read many O'Rielly books do you?

Point 5 - mimmicks, this is a curious statement to me because your talking about Innovation and Intuitiveness.....both would involve something that isnt like Mac or Windows. You want Windows - Go install XPde. You want Aqua, Take the bottom toolbar away, install gdesklets, and use the Gnome Toolbar Desklet app.

Now, onto your previous statement about the command line, if the shell were so weak as you say, then why has M$ stressed so much the reintroduction of the command shell into its Vista build....just a question.

Google - How do you know they havent?

aysiu
August 2nd, 2005, 08:43 PM
I've now had Ubuntu Linux installed for two days and I've had several Linux gurus on hand to help me out with problems, changes and such. And I honestly cannot see how Linux expects to take on Windows. First of all, you're judging Linux after two days? Two days. It took me weeks to adjust to Mac OS X--which, some would argue, is the most "user-friendly" OS out there. Second, Ubuntu is not all Linux. Honestly, though it's my favorite distro now, it turned me off at first--too much command-line, not enough automatic stuff. Now, I love the command-line, but that's now. It took Mepis to get me into Linux. Perhaps Linspire might suit you better--it's a Windows clone.



-These suggestions should apply for all Linux builds. They should be standard if you want to woo other users. I know some builds support some of these things, but that's not nearly enough. No, as a matter of fact, they shouldn't. I agree there should be one or two distros that target new users, and those distros should be highly publicized, but part of the beauty of Linux is that it has something for everyone. There's a small distro, a big distro, a Windows-like distro, a distro from scratch, a live distro, a server distro, etc. Granted, there don't need to be the hundreds of distros there are... but to make them all conform to your limited "I've used Linux for two days" standards would be terrible and self-centered (you being the self here).



- Let the Windows main and secondary keys actually do something in Linux. The Windows key could drop down the main menu and the second key could give a context menu in a word processor. Make it do something OUT OF THE BOX. Windows users don't map keys and we'll never want to. Unless you have a Mac, your keyboard has these keys. Once again, judging Linux from one distro and two days makes you make hasty judgments. On Mepis, which uses KDE, I used the settings wizard, said I wanted Windows settings, and the Windows key popped up the KMenu. What you're really saying is you want KDE, not Gnome, and that can be your preference. I like Gnome better, but that's just me.

Also, what does the CMD key from a Mac computer do in Windows? Windows keyboards are designed for Windows computers, not for Linux computers.



- 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. It doesn't get easier than Synaptic. Reload. Search. Mark to install. Apply. What's so "not intuitive" about that? I think it's far less intuitive to do it the Windows way. Open browser. Google search around. Find the right version. Download. Click setup. Go through a wizard. Next. Next. Next. Finish. Reboot.



- Make drives easily mountable. I eventually gave up trying to mount my NTFS partitions. Instead I created a FAT32 one (using Ubuntu's installer). Windows found the new partition immediately. Linux didn't. It expected me to mount the partition. Anyone ever Google on mounting a drive? It makes sense if you use Linux, not it you are new to it. Can't Linux at least say "Hey, a new partition! Would you like to do something with it?" First of all, you're creating a double-standard. Windows finds the partition "immediately" because FAT32 is a native Windows filesystem format. Did Windows find your Linux partition? No. So why complain when Linux doesn't find your Windows partition? Also, you're probably a KDE person, not a Gnome one. In KDE, all your partitions (mounted or unmounted) will show up on your desktop automatically. Please don't make judgments about Linux because you've used one distribution for two days.



- Easily solutions. It took me three hours of trying to access my NTFS partitions via Linux. It took Google and Windows ten minutes before I could browse my Linux partitions via Windows Explorer. Why would it take you hours? If you just asked on this forum or searched this forum, you'd have come up with this link very quickly:

http://ubuntuguide.org/#automountntfs

Also, are you really going to argue the case that's it's usually easier to find Windows solutions on Google than it is to find Linux ones? Let's see. When I got a "Failed" error message box in my Windows XP every time I logged in, I had no idea what to do. So I Googled, but it was tough. What do you Google? "Failed"? "Failed error message"? Nothing worked. When I got "kernel panic" after installing Mandriva, I just Googled it, and by the second result, I had it fixed. You can't take one situation and then argue it's difficult for everything.



- Linux would really benefit from virtual folders as seen in Tiger OS. It would cut down on the confusion of all the folders in the root directory. I ended up putting all my stuff on the desktop because I didn't know where else to put it within easy access. So use GoboLinux (http://www.gobolinux.org/), then.



- 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. High-level or admin operations can be done in the root, but the most menial of tasks should have a easier way. In fact, hurdle jumping seems to be a theme in Linux. Remember the three click rule of web design: if it takes more than three clicks, you've lost 'em. Linux requires a lot of clicking or typing. No, Linux does not require a lot of typing. First of all, Ubuntu does require a lot of typing to set things up. Now that I have things set up, I almost never need a terminal. I sometimes use a terminal because I find it more convenient, but I never need it. Also, that's Ubuntu. Mepis is all point-and-click, so is Linspire. Maybe those distros would serve you better.



- The Linux software library is kinda shocking. Don't take my word for it; go to Fileforum.com and see how many Torrent and RSS apps there are for Windows vs. Linux. Openoffice, Abiword, CDex, Miranda, Trillian, Thunderbird... all of those work in Windows. Shirusupad, Bitspirit, Maxthon, Winamp (bar an aged version 3 build), Filezilla... none of these work in Linux (unless they forgot to list a build or you are willing to rearrange the source codes a bit). I don't know. I couldn't find a good free Windows program that substitutes for Illustrator or Nero, but Sodipodi and Gnomebaker work just fine for me. It all depends on what your needs are.



It's not because I love Windows (I don't), but Windows is easier to use - hands-down. You mean for a Windows user who's used Linux for two days? Yes. It's true. But I still click my Firefox icon to open Firefox in Linux. I still hit control-S to save documents in OpenOffice. I don't understand what's so difficult about using Linux.



Put a new users in front of three machines - Linux, Windows and Mac. Mac will win, Windows will be second. Linux will laud its own superiority, showing what a powerhouse it is full of choice and promise for users with patience. It will still be stone last because if the average user really wanted to get dirty with his OS, we'd all know how to service our own cars. Uh... actually, why will Windows be second? You're talking about "new users--never had to use a computer before? What's so less intuitive about Linux? All of your critiques of Linux are from a Windows user's expectations.

The truth is:

1. You're very used to Windows.
2. You've used Linux for two days.
3. You don't realize how unoriginal your ideas are--everyone in the Linux community has heard them many times before. Hey, I've been using Linux for only three months, and I've still heard them many times before.
4. Linux will never make you happy unless it's an exact clone of Windows. So use Windows. Or Linspire.

KingBahamut
August 2nd, 2005, 08:46 PM
asyiu , there is a build of Nero called NeroLinux, and its runs fairly nice.

http://www.nero.com/en/NeroLINUX.html

aysiu
August 2nd, 2005, 08:51 PM
asyiu , there is a build of Nero called NeroLinux, and its runs fairly nice.

http://www.nero.com/en/NeroLINUX.html No, I love Gnomebaker and K3B. My point was that in Windows I could not find a free subsitute for Nero. In Linux there are many.

KingBahamut
August 2nd, 2005, 08:54 PM
God love Gnomebaker , but this discussion isnt about that.

More about trying to understand Gabbahead's argument, which is starting to lose its flair. I think he needs more flair, at least 20 pieces of it.

aysiu
August 2nd, 2005, 08:55 PM
- Synaptic. I had a clean Ubuntu install and I downloaded a program for Linux. With no way to load it, I used Synaptic, which didn't register the files. I took someone's advice and set Synaiptic to global and multiverse (or something in that line). Still no package. Reload. Still no package. I rebooted - no package. Trying to figure out if the file I downloaded wille ven work with my machine, let alone coax it into Synaptic, is far more effort than 'point and click' to launch Demoshield. No wonder you don't think Synaptic is intuitive--you're so ingrained with the Windows way of doing things. Synaptic puts things so behind-the-scenes that you don't even need to download something by yourself to install it. You just search for it in the repositories, mark it for installation, and Synaptic will download it and its dependencies, unpack them, and install them for you.



- O, on a sidenote, most Linux programmers write the worst manuals imaginable. Full of technical detail, but rarely any "how do I do this?" stuff. They just seem to assume you know how to already. Yeah, that terrible Ubuntu Guide (http://www.ubuntuguide.org)--no "how do I do this?" stuff whatsoever... B.S.



I'm curious: if only the Kernel is what binds Linux builds, where is the version that mimmicks Mac or Windows platforms, right down the conventions and standards, but incorporates all of Linux's great features? Linspire. There's your Windows clone. Just shell out you're money, and you've got Lindows (which is what Linspire used to be called).

By the way, if you take this quiz on what Linux distro is right for you (http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/index.php), I'll bet Ubuntu will not be the top result.

aysiu
August 2nd, 2005, 09:01 PM
God love Gnomebaker , but this discussion isnt about that.

More about trying to understand Gabbahead's argument, which is starting to lose its flair. I think he needs more flair, at least 20 pieces of it. Well, I was addressing Gabbahead's argument that Windows has a better selection of free software equivalents than Linux. My point was--depends what software you use.

KingBahamut
August 2nd, 2005, 09:06 PM
Well, I was addressing Gabbahead's argument that Windows has a better selection of free software equivalents than Linux. My point was--depends what software you use.
Tried to make that prevelent in my first post to his argument. Pretty much 98% of the time I can offer any alternative to software in the Linux envoirment, that would be used in the windows envoirnment.

aysiu
August 2nd, 2005, 09:15 PM
Tried to make that prevelent in my first post to his argument. Pretty much 98% of the time I can offer any alternative to software in the Linux envoirment, that would be used in the windows envoirnment. I'm just backing you up, then. I usually just link to this page (http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/table.shtml) of Linux equivalents for Windows programs.

KingBahamut
August 2nd, 2005, 09:19 PM
I'm just backing you up, then. I usually just link to this page (http://linuxshop.ru/linuxbegin/win-lin-soft-en/table.shtml) of Linux equivalents for Windows programs.
Thats a damn good link aysiu , I pretty much just rely on memory.

Kvark
August 2nd, 2005, 09:21 PM
- I don't plan to roll up my sleeves and make the changes. I don't program and I don't work with tech. I already have a job and if paying for a Windows copy that does more or less what I want it to out of the box is worth more than either paying for a Linux expert or spending time doing it for myself.
Installing windows+programs on your own takes much longer then installing linux+programs on your own. And less hardware works out of the box with windows.

But if you get it preinstalled when you buy a computer (or use a recovery disk custom made for that computer brand). Then all that job with hardware drivers and stuff is already done by the tech guys at the computer store. So in your case you'll have to stick with whatever comes preinstalled I guess. If computer stores would sell preinstalled linux, then you could get it without having to set it up yourself.


- Synaptic. I had a clean Ubuntu install and I downloaded a program for Linux. With no way to load it, I used Synaptic, which didn't register the files. I took someone's advice and set Synaiptic to global and multiverse (or something in that line). Still no package. Reload. Still no package. I rebooted - no package. Trying to figure out if the file I downloaded wille ven work with my machine, let alone coax it into Synaptic, is far more effort than 'point and click' to launch Demoshield.
Your mistake was "I downloaded a program", that is a cumbersome and unmodern way to get programs. Instead...
1. Open synaptic.
2. Browse the sections or use the search function to find the program(s) you want.
3. Mark the checkbox next to the program(s) you want.
4. Click apply.
5. The program is automatically downloaded and installed for you.
...it takes less then one minute of work and then you can sit back and wait, depending on your connection speed. While you are searching for a download for your windows program. A linux user on slow connection is in the kitchen getting coffee while his computer takes care of things. A linux user on a fast connection is already using the program before you even find the download.


O, on a sidenote, most Linux programmers write the worst manuals imaginable. Full of technical detail, but rarely any "how do I do this?" stuff. They just seem to assume you know how to already.
Go buy a book then or call tech support. Oh, right, there is no tech support to call cause you are not a paying customer. But I'm sure there is some payed for option somewhere that includes tech support, Perhaps Linspire does, I wouldn't know.


I'm curious: if only the Kernel is what binds Linux builds, where is the version that mimmicks Mac or Windows platforms, right down the conventions and standards, but incorporates all of Linux's great features? Synaptic is clever and the OS has a very solid feeling to it. But it's a thug to work with. Linux really has a lot of potential, but I now see why every year I hear that Linux will be big in 2 years. I heard that as far back as 1998.
Why make a ripoff of osx or windows when apple already does an excellent job with osx and microsoft takes good care of windows?? If you want windows, then go ahead and use the real thing, there is no need for a ripoff.

Besides, microsoft gets 3k patents per year. It is probably impossible to make a windows wannabe system without getting sued over a couple hundred of those patents.

Well, there is some linux versions that are pretty similar to windows even if they are still linux. But from the sounds of your posts. Nothing thats not made by microsoft can be similar enough for you.


This post is also to bring some clarity to all the Windows bashing. I'm not fond of Windows and the Linux and Mac sides always make a noise about being better. And now I notice that Linux is just as full of crap as Windows is, for all the opposite reasons.

Maybe Google needs to develop its own Linux. They'd get it right.
Well, linux is quite different, since it is an entirely different system. Perhaps so different that you see it as opposite. Wheter or not it is crap...

German sounds like crap to me because I don't understand it. Neither do I have any intention of learning it. But it sounds normal to the germans and those who learn it.

Linux seems like crap to you because you don't understand it. Neither do you have any intention of learning it. But it seems normal to linux users and those who learn it.

aysiu
August 2nd, 2005, 09:21 PM
Thats a damn good link aysiu , I pretty much just rely on memory. Yeah, and it was easy to find, too (contrary to the OP's assertion). It was the first Google result when I searched for "Linux equivalents Windows programs."

maruchan
August 2nd, 2005, 09:24 PM
- I've heard that it's a paradigm shift or a sentiment. That's very poetic, but I don't tend to turn to creativeness when it comes to an OS. This is purely an argument over practicality and Linux's lack of intuitiveness lacks its brute strenght.

This makes zero sense to me. Linux's lack of intuitiveness lacks its brute strength?

"Alex, I'll take Well Thought-out Statements for $2000, please."

If you don't believe the sentiment part, you should be using Windows. Mac OS and Linux are both fueled by sentiment, so like I said, you will always feel out of place because you don't "get it."

Anyway, your troll-net has been cast far and wide, and continues to rake in victims with its diverse varieties of bait. You aren't answering any questions, only restating your original points. I am going to wriggle out of the net now and leave. See ya!

manicka
August 2nd, 2005, 09:29 PM
SuSE linux has a two button click software installation via YaST2 but you have to pay for SuSE.

Actually, SuSE has a free version (DVD iso) as well that gets you up and running, then can be upgraded via yast to the full pro version. I used SuSE for a couple of years before Ubuntu and while I agree that it's not as slick as Ubuntu, it is still a very fine distro that most users would be more than happy with.
Fortunately we now have Ubuntu to make us deliriously happy. :D

KingBahamut
August 2nd, 2005, 09:37 PM
Actually, SuSE has a free version (DVD iso) as well that gets you up and running, then can be upgraded via yast to the full pro version. I used SuSE for a couple of years before Ubuntu and while I agree that it's not as slick as Ubuntu, it is still a very fine distro that most users would be more than happy with.
Fortunately we now have Ubuntu to make us deliriously happy. :D
Manicka, the SUSE ftp version is totally free. You can get the whole OS granted you have umpteen hours to nurse the install , unless your on dialup, then it takes about a month to install. =)

manicka
August 2nd, 2005, 10:04 PM
Aren't we saying pretty much the same thing?
My point was that SuSE has free versions as well, it's not a pay only only distro as implied in the post I replied to.

Juergen
August 2nd, 2005, 10:06 PM
O, on a sidenote, most Linux programmers write the worst manuals imaginable. Full of technical detail, but rarely any "how do I do this?" stuff. They just seem to assume you know how to already.
If this means the 'man'-pages I can at least agree a bit here.
Look at the bottom of this http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2004/11/11/FreeBSD_Basics.html for an example of the BSD-manpages.

As soon as FreeBSD 6.0 is stable, I'll take a look at it.
That is of course no option for 'gabbahead' ;-)

KingBahamut
August 2nd, 2005, 10:09 PM
If this means the 'man'-pages I can at least agree a bit here.
Look at the bottom of this http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2004/11/11/FreeBSD_Basics.html for an example of the BSD-manpages.

As soon as FreeBSD 6.0 is stable, I'll take a look at it.
That is of course no option for 'gabbahead' ;-)
Gabbahead really needs to use Xandros.

poofyhairguy
August 3rd, 2005, 12:25 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.

Will happen one day.



- Make drives easily mountable. I eventually gave up trying to mount my NTFS partitions. Instead I created a FAT32 one (using Ubuntu's installer). Windows found the new partition immediately. Linux didn't. It expected me to mount the partition. Anyone ever Google on mounting a drive? It makes sense if you use Linux, not it you are new to it. Can't Linux at least say "Hey, a new partition! Would you like to do something with it?"

Best comment made in my opinion. IS needed.





- The Linux software library is kinda shocking. Don't take my word for it; go to Fileforum.com and see how many Torrent and RSS apps there are for Windows vs. Linux. Openoffice, Abiword, CDex, Miranda, Trillian, Thunderbird... all of those work in Windows. Shirusupad, Bitspirit, Maxthon, Winamp (bar an aged version 3 build), Filezilla... none of these work in Linux (unless they forgot to list a build or you are willing to rearrange the source codes a bit). Now if Linux is all about choice, Windows' software catalog easily makes up for that. Sure, I might need to reboot a bit more often and do a reinstall every few months, but at least I can use the software I want to use, not alternatives. I don't start regarding Pepsi as Coke once the Coke is finished.


Yep. But in Windows you pay through the teeth do do that. (or steal like a moral lacking pirate) In Linux most programs are free.

poofyhairguy
August 3rd, 2005, 12:29 AM
PS...I moved this to avoid running off new users.

aysiu
August 3rd, 2005, 02:19 AM
Best comment made in my opinion. IS needed. Not for Linux in general, though--just for Gnome. KDE has this already.

poofyhairguy
August 3rd, 2005, 04:00 AM
Not for Linux in general, though--just for Gnome. KDE has this already.

Us gnomers can do that too.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=33584&highlight=gnome

Its just not the default.

aysiu
August 3rd, 2005, 04:05 AM
Us gnomers can do that too.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=33584&highlight=gnome

Its just not the default. I thought we were talking about auto-recognizing partitions. In any case, I know Gnome can do a lot--that's why I use it, but for some Windows users, having things out-of-the-box automatic means a lot, so KDE's good for that. Personally, I like creating launchers and such the way I like them. KDE was good when I was just starting out, but I've grown to like Ubuntu/Gnome.

N'Jal
August 3rd, 2005, 04:19 AM
I didn't know about the free suse thing, i had heard about it but i really didn't know if there was any truth in it, or would even like to attempt it, i have Broadband but wouldn't know if i had all the .rpm's, i didn't even know if suse was going to be continued past the 9.X series, since novelle bought them over. But they seem to be relesing both, still i wouldn't go back to it, it's too resource hungry on my system.

Kerberos
August 3rd, 2005, 05:18 AM
There seems to be two opinions among the Pro OS crowd...

a: 'Its better because it is.'
b: 'its not as easy because open source requires more of the user.'

Now its certainly not point a: and this isnt a dig at Linux, but sooner or later you have to get your hands dirty (such as recompiling the kernel when you didnt know that the OS _wasnt_ the WM dirty). Its not that its not fairly simple in itself, it just requires weeks of training to understand the basic concepts to carry out the task (if you even can).

For average end users Linux is _not_ what they are looking for. They dont care about the OS movement and never will. I dont use Linux because I dont care about OS politics and do what is best for the job (my job) which is Windows.

This guy simply said 'here's what I feel is keeping Linux back'. A few of you read the post with open minds and said 'He's right on a lot of those points' but the majority just flamed him and congratulated themselves on another one set to right.

Linux isn't ready for mass public consumption simply due to it not being designed with end users in mind. Mozilla sucked, nobody really used it. Firefox rocks and the reason people use it (and it has about 20% share on average on most of my sites) is because its a great, well polished bit of software - not because it embodied the Open Source ideals.

Linux just needs to listen to criticism a bit more*.

* The whole point of this rant is in a 'Linux will take over the world' context. If you dont think everyone should give up Windows and switch to Linux then ignore this post.

aysiu
August 3rd, 2005, 05:28 AM
Did you even read this thread? No one said Linux was going to take over the world.


Now its certainly not point a: and this isnt a dig at Linux, but sooner or later you have to get your hands dirty (such as recompiling the kernel when you didnt know that the OS _wasnt_ the WM dirty) I haven't done any such thing, and I use Linux (I'm using Linux right now). Here's what I do every day when I come home:

1. Boot computer
2. Press the "Internet" and "Email" keys on my keyboard, which launch Firefox and Thunderbird, respectively.
3. Read up on a few favorite websites.
4. See if I get any emails.

That's on a Ubuntu Gnome desktop. When did I have to recompile the kernel? Have you even read these posts?


This guy simply said 'here's what I feel is keeping Linux back'. A few of you read the post with open minds and said 'He's right on a lot of those points' but the majority just flamed him and congratulated themselves on another one set to right. I like your assumption that anyone who agrees with you/the original post-er has an "open mind," while everyone else is a "flamer." Want to back that up? Let's see. I've used Microsoft OSes for twenty years. I've used Linux for three months. Do you really think I'm less open-minded than an experienced Windows user who used Ubuntu Linux for two days and decided he had great critiques of how to make Linux better for everyone?

And aren't you just flaming us and congratulating yourself on setting us straight?

You must be joking. If anyone's flaming in this thread, it's you, Pal.

Kerberos
August 3rd, 2005, 05:31 AM
When I had to do an emergency install of windows, because my linux CD had an error (I have a crappy CD burner), I realized that windows couldnt detect my internet connection or my video card, without running the install CD again for my broadband. Ubuntu detected both immediately.
So not having device drivers for hardware that probably didn't even exist when the CD was pressed makes Windows inferior? If you were to try it again with a new XP cd with SP2 it'd probably work immediatley too.

Also try burning data cd's at 4x (or 2x). Takes longer but they tend to work more.

Kerberos
August 3rd, 2005, 05:42 AM
I like your assumption that anyone who agrees with you/the original post-er has an "open mind," while everyone else is a "flamer." Want to back that up? Let's see. I've used Microsoft OSes for twenty years. I've used Linux for three months. Do you really think I'm less open-minded than an experienced Windows user who used Ubuntu Linux for two days and decided he had great critiques of how to make Linux better for everyone?

You must be joking. If anyone's flaming in this thread, it's you, Pal.
I see what your saying, I appreciate I worded it in a less than perfect way but my post was basically just saying 'Listen to criticism rather than flaming it'. I wish Linux was as great as people make out. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that it seems almost taboo to say 'I dont like Linux' does annoy me quite a bit though.

At the end of the day I'm not going to use Linux simply because its a much, much less productive environment for me than the alternatives. End of story.

weasel fierce
August 3rd, 2005, 05:58 AM
So not having device drivers for hardware that probably didn't even exist when the CD was pressed makes Windows inferior? If you were to try it again with a new XP cd with SP2 it'd probably work immediatley too.


An integrated Intel video card from Dell ? I think this thing was used for Soviet submarines in 1955...
I dont think the windows CD had SP2, but it did have the first one included, as I borrowed it from my wife's new laptop.

Its not the only reason I found Windows doesnt cut it for me, but it stuck out, that windows could not find neither my video nor internet connection, whereas Ubuntu found both immediately.




Also try burning data cd's at 4x (or 2x). Takes longer but they tend to work more.
Yeah, I did that the second time, and it worked much better. I was just impatient I figure :)

aysiu
August 3rd, 2005, 06:04 AM
I see what your saying, I appreciate I worded it in a less than perfect way but my post was basically just saying 'Listen to criticism rather than flaming it'. I wish Linux was as great as people make out. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that it seems almost taboo to say 'I dont like Linux' does annoy me quite a bit though. No, you're totally right in general--I just don't think that criticism rightly applies to this particular thread. Someone who uses Linux for two days probably isn't in the best place to offer critiques for the entirety of Linux and its distributions. I think rather than "flaming" the original post-er, people took on the points one by one.



At the end of the day I'm not going to use Linux simply because its a much, much less productive environment for me than the alternatives. End of story. And no one's going to say "You must use Linux." I say "to each her own," and I think a lot of people here would agree. If Linux doesn't make you productive, don't use it. If you don't like Linux, don't use it. If you use it for two days and complain it's not like Windows, well... sorry. It isn't like Windows. That doesn't mean a) Linux can't be used by regular users or b) all versions of Linux are the same or c) all versions of Linux should be like Windows.
So I think you have two valid points. People should accept valid criticisms of Linux. Linux isn't for everyone.

I just don't see how those two points have anything to do with this thread.

panickedthumb
August 3rd, 2005, 06:08 AM
"I don't like linux" isn't taboo. Unfounded arguments about why linux sucks, or isn't "ready" for some arbitrary goal made up by the poster are certainly taboo.

Open source isn't about winning anything, it's not about converting X amount of users, or getting X amount of market share. It's about making a solid, capable, stable, secure... QUALITY program. I believe fully that many of the more popular distributions have succeeded in this. Saying, for example, that it's a problem that the windows key doesn't work in gnome is like saying my key doesn't work in my neighbor's door, or my new Constantine DVD won't play in my portable CD player.

If Gabbahead had worded it differently, asking for help maybe, being more understanding, waiting more than 2 days to come up with solutions to problems that, had he kept at it for a little while, he would have realized weren't problems at all, then maybe this thread would be free of the ill-tempered. As it is, he seemed to come in knowing that he would hate it, planning on hating it, and ended up hating it, and made an account here just to tell us what we're doing wrong. Though, I could very well be wrong. That's just how it seems.

And I'm not a developer, or an officiant, I'm a volunteer moderator, so my opinions mean as much as any of you on how things go. But I know that these types of posts would really hurt if I were a developer.

Kerberos
August 3rd, 2005, 06:09 AM
An integrated Intel video card from Dell ? I think this thing was used for Soviet submarines in 1955...
I dont think the windows CD had SP2, but it did have the first one included, as I borrowed it from my wife's new laptop.

The FC4 video driver for my dell 550 celerons throws up graphical corruption problems on install (making it impossible). I guess Dell just suck. :D

Kerberos
August 3rd, 2005, 06:16 AM
"I don't like linux" isn't taboo. Unfounded arguments about why linux sucks, or isn't "ready" for some arbitrary goal made up by the poster are certainly taboo.
I do believe he provided a concise list, with opinions and suggestions, on various faults.


Open source isn't about winning anything, it's not about converting X amount of users, or getting X amount of market share. It's about making a solid, capable, stable, secure... QUALITY program. I believe fully that many of the more popular distributions have succeeded in this. Saying, for example, that it's a problem that the windows key doesn't work in gnome is like saying my key doesn't work in my neighbor's door, or my new Constantine DVD won't play in my portable CD player.
To use your analogy it would be like everybody having a key on their key ring that did absolutley nothing at all. Useful. Why not make it open something if its going to sit there?


If Gabbahead had worded it differently, asking for help maybe, being more understanding, waiting more than 2 days to come up with solutions to problems that, had he kept at it for a little while, he would have realized weren't problems at all,
It entirely depends on the definition of problem. I think what you were actually experiancing was 'constructive criticism'.

Kerberos
August 3rd, 2005, 06:20 AM
BTW on a Windows system without the windows key, you can use CTRL+ESC. IBM lappys never seem to have the Windows key and I'm too lazy to reach for the mouse if I dont have to. It also seems to have higher priority (and works when the Windows key doesn't a lot too) :)

panickedthumb
August 3rd, 2005, 06:23 AM
I do believe he provided a concise list, with opinions and suggestions, on various faults.

Actually, this was more open ended about much more than this particular thread.


To use your analogy it would be like everybody having a key on their key ring that did absolutley nothing at all. Useful. Why not make it open something if its going to sit there?

The key on the key ring would do something if they were in Windows, is my point. My analogy was bad though, I admit.


It entirely depends on the definition of problem. I think what you were actually experiancing was 'constructive criticism'.

I think that's the point though, most people here seem to think that his definition of the problem(s) was totally off. And the 2 days thing.. it was 2 days. How were you at Windows after you'd used it 2 days? Could you give any constructive criticism when you CAN'T know what you're doing yet?

aysiu
August 3rd, 2005, 06:38 AM
I do believe he provided a concise list, with opinions and suggestions, on various faults. Yes, and those opinions and suggestions were unfounded (because Linux <> Windows and Ubuntu is not all of Linux) and the "faults" were just because he was trying to do things the Windows way. Look at how he was using Synaptic! That wasn't the "easy" way to install software; that was the Windows way.



To use your analogy it would be like everybody having a key on their key ring that did absolutley nothing at all. Useful. Why not make it open something if its going to sit there? No. Actually, the analogy was quite good.

Windows key > Useless in Gnome > Useful in Windows
Neighbor's key > Useless in own door > Useful in neighbor's door

Your analogy's the one that doesn't work

Windows key > Useless in Gnome > Useful in Windows
Useless key > Useless in own door > Useless in neighbor's door



It entirely depends on the definition of problem. I think what you were actually experiancing was 'constructive criticism'. How is it constructive? As if some developer is going to say, "Wow! I never thought of that before! Hey, guys, we can make the Windows key do something in Gnome! Wow... it's amazing. He used Ubuntu for only two days and thought of that. I've been using Linux for ten years and never came up with that."

Yeah. Really constructive. If people want Lindows, they should use Linspire and pay for it. You can't complain that Mac doesn't install software the way Windows does, so why would you complain that Linux install software a different way? And you can't possibly argue that empirically Synaptic is more difficult to use than Windows setup wizards (after you've found the program to download).

Let me tell you--the first time I tried to install anything in Mac OS X, I was frustrated beyond belief. I downloaded a .dmg file. I double-clicked it. I went through the installer dialogue. Then, a white disk icon appeared on the desktop. I opened the disk icon and saw the program. When I double-clicked the program, it opened the program. When I dragged the white icon to the trash, the program closed. I didn't know what I was supposed to do. Was I supposed to just leave this white thing on the desktop or else not be able to use the program?

Nobody ever told me I had to drag the program icon out of the white icon and into the Applications folder, then dump the white icon into the trash. Now... that's easy, granted, but when you're used to doing things the Windows way, it isn't intuitive. Likewise with Synaptic. The original post-er assumed one had to find a program oneself and download it, then install it. That's a Windows mindset. Ubuntu/Linux mindset is go to Synaptic (or use apt-get) to find/download/install the software all at once. This isn't intuitive to Windows users. It doesn't mean it's difficult. I hardly think convincing developers to "use" Synaptic to install a tarball is "constructive criticism."

Now real constructive criticism does a few things:

1. It acknowledges strengths as well as weaknesses
2. It establishes a true reason for lack of malicious intent
3. It offers concrete suggestions that are in the spirit of the original project being critiqued
4. It is based on informed experience

I know this because I was an English teacher for five years. I never just slammed a paper, no matter how bad it was. To be constructive, you have to know a paper (or operating system) well enough to be able to say, "This is what worked. This is what was effective." Only then can you say, "This is what you need to work on."

Likewise, people have to trust you in order for your opinion to have any weight. I'm Asian-American. If I walk into a Black church full of Black people who don't know me and just start going off, "You know what's wrong with the Black church today? This is what we need to fix..." uh... how do you think they're going to take it? Do you think they're going to say, "Thanks for the constructive criticism. You're so amazing for bestowing this knowledge upon us"?

You also have to offer suggestions that make sense. If people are building a monument to a war hero, you can't say, "Well, can we just not mention the war? Let's put peace symbols all over this and write 'baby killer' at the top. I think that'd be more accurate." Maybe you don't personally agree with war, but the spirit of the project is honoring a war hero--by not honoring that war hero, you're not offering constructive criticism.

Lastly, I was an English teacher because I went to school to study English. I later did graduate studies in teaching. My students did not know more about literary criticism than I did. Nor does someone with two days experience with Ubuntu know more about Linux than Linux developers/users/forum moderators.

When I was frustrated with my Mac experience, I didn't sign up for a Mac forum and tell them Mac is not ready for regular users, make a list of all of the things I thought were "wrong" with Mac, and then tell them if they want Windows users to "make the switch" they have to make Mac more like Windows. I would have had as much right to complain as the original post-er. After all, Windows didn't make me drag anything to C:\Program Files in order to install stuff. Windows didn't make me create my own shortcuts. Once the installer was done, the installation was done. The same argument could be made for Linux and Synaptic (or Yum, YaST, RPM).

Kerberos
August 3rd, 2005, 06:55 AM
No. Actually, the analogy was quite good.
So your telling me if Microsoft called it 'Penguin' and there was a pic of Tux on it Linux still wouldn't adopt it? Or do they refuse to support a key thats on just as many Linux keyboards as Windows keyboards simply to 'stick it to the man'?

The way I have always worked is if a user has problems, its not the user that (most of the time) should learn how to do it, but instead the environment should be looked at as to how to avoid the user having the problem in the first place - its like risk assessment at work with software. Linux is pretty slack with this (not overall, just in a few critical areas) due to the varying nature of the skill of the contributors.

The first part of accepting a problem is admitting its there u know! :P

aysiu
August 3rd, 2005, 07:01 AM
So your telling me if Microsoft called it 'Penguin' and there was a pic of Tux on it Linux still wouldn't adopt it? Or do they refuse to support a key thats on just as many Linux keyboards as Windows keyboards simply to 'stick it to the man'? No. I'm telling you that there's no reason a Windows key has to be there. In fact, I've seen many Windows computers without a Windows key. People just press Control-Esc to access the Start Menu. Why does Linux (or Gnome, I guess) have to have the Windows key do anything? After all, not all keyboards have Windows keys.



The way I have always worked is if a user has problems, its not the user that (most of the time) should learn how to do it, but instead the environment should be looked at as to how to avoid the user having the problem in the first place - its like risk assessment at work with software. The problem is that "the user" isn't fresh. The user wants to do things the Windows way--see the part of my post above about installing programs in Mac OS X. Just because you're used to a certain way doesn't mean it's the easiest way. I'm used to English, but that doesn't mean Spanish isn't an easier language (after all, it's more consistent in its grammar, spelling, and pronunciation). However, learning more English will always be easier for me than learning more Spanish--English is what I'm used to.

And Windows will always be "easier" to you because that's what you're used to. You don't have to use Linux, but let it be different--some people like it for being different.

And, as I mentioned before, if people just want a Linux Windows clone, they can use Linspire. No one's holding a gun to their heads, saying, "Use Ubuntu or no Linux at all!"

panickedthumb
August 3rd, 2005, 07:01 AM
Microsoft developed the idea for the windows key, I imagine, for windows purposes. The gnome developers don't see a need for it, so they don't include it. You're looking at this from the "what can we do to get more users" standpoint instead of "what can we do to make a good product" standpoint. The windows key seems to be the big sticking point here, and I really don't know why. Getting more users is a goal for commercial software, where the point is to make money. If 95% of Windows users wanted a button called "show a dancing grapefruit", prominently placed in the middle of the desktop, Microsoft would do it, and rightfully so. If 95% of Gnome users wanted it, it wouldn't get done, and rightfully so. An extreme analogy, but I'm just making a point so don't take that as my gospel or anything.

The first part of accepting a problem is the problem being there. This is a lack of a feature, not a bug, and it's dangerous to confuse the two.

Kerberos
August 3rd, 2005, 07:07 AM
Sorry, your right, Linux is perfect. My bad.

Kvark
August 3rd, 2005, 07:19 AM
Sorry, your right, Linux is perfect. My bad.
Nobody claimed that linux is perfect. What was claimed was that making it more like windows is not the way to improve linux.

If you want something like linux, use linux. If you want something like windows, use windows. Thats why suggestions to make linux more like windows are not something that can help improving linux. Because there is already another system (namely windows) that fills the role of being more like windows.

If you make a suggestion on how to make linux easier to use in a linux way then linux users would probably like the suggestion.

aysiu
August 3rd, 2005, 07:21 AM
Sorry, your right, Linux is perfect. My bad. On the contrary, it isn't. I can name a number of things that are wrong with Linux. First of all, there are far too many distributions. Part of Linux's strengths is its variety, but there's a delicate balance to be had between variety for innovation and consolidation for efficiency of manpower. NTFS-writing capabilities are in only the experimental stages. Some Linux distributions have outdated repositories. KDE is bloated and slow. Gnome doesn't recognize partitions right away (something the original post-er wrote that many conceded as a fault of Gnome).

The problem with your attitude is this: there's no room for disagreement.

If someone says something bad about Linux, people either have to agree (these people are "open-minded" in your view) or they clearly believe Linux is perfect and should be on everyone's desktop.

Truth is that you're agreeing with the OP simply because he criticized Linux, and you happen to think Linux is impractical for your needs. Unless we all bow down and say, "Yes, two-day user, you are so right," you think we're all Linux snobs who can't acknowledge any faults of Linux.

I've named a few. If you want, I (and others) can name many, many more. The problem isn't that there aren't any Linux faults.

The problem with this thread is that the faults Linux has aren't ones that are just Windows-to-Linux cultural adaptation problems, and they also aren't ones someone who uses Linux for two days is in any position to be putting forth to the Linux community as "constructive criticism."

By the way, these arguments are so old...

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=38710
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=14120
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-6996.html
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=45315&page=2
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-6333.html
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-891.html

We've got all the "constructive criticism" we need. The sarcastic remarks don't make people more open to "constructive" criticism.

benplaut
August 3rd, 2005, 08:56 AM
just a clarification... it's not the windows key... it's name is Super

:roll:

Knome_fan
August 3rd, 2005, 09:25 AM
There are things out there in the great, wild internet that constantly keep amazing me.

For example there are people like Kerberos, who join a Linux forum with the only intention to troll and flame and tell everyone how much linux sux and of course call everybody who disagree with them names, because only people who agree with you are open minded, whereas the others are fantics, zealots, whatever.

Seriously, this is a fascinating phenomenon, as I never understood what drives people to do such a thing.

For example, though there are a lot of things I don't like about Windows, I never even thought about joining a Windows support community with the sole intention to tell everyone how much Windows sucks and how everyone disagreeing with me is a zealot and fanatic. Really, it never occured to me that this would be a worthwhile thing to do with my time.

As I said, amazing.

nocturn
August 3rd, 2005, 09:38 AM
To summarize, your complaint seems to be that Linux is different from Windows, which is exactly the point.

We could mimick windows behaviour just for the sake of converting users, but that is no solution in the long run. Making the correct design choices is the way to go, maybe some don't like that but unlike windows we do not depend on having a large user base.

Needless to say I disagree with your points and if Ubuntu would go that way, I'd be shopping for a new distro (not that I expect this to happen).

poofyhairguy
August 3rd, 2005, 09:47 AM
* The whole point of this rant is in a 'Linux will take over the world' context. If you dont think everyone should give up Windows and switch to Linux then ignore this post.

Noted.

Please know that most actual developers don't care about this, so this is only a concern to a vocal bunch of users. You are correct, "a Linux for everything" makes us look short-sighted at this point.

poofyhairguy
August 3rd, 2005, 09:55 AM
On the contrary, it isn't. I can name a number of things that are wrong with Linux. First of all, there are far too many distributions.

I disagree. Many are based on popular ones, and if there are two many no new ones could come forth so the story of Ubuntu would have never been told (if there are two many distros now, there were too many before Ubuntu).

ubuntp
August 3rd, 2005, 12:13 PM
Warning: Random ramblings ahead!

Linux is not Windows. Windows is not Mac OSX. Mac OSX is not Linux.

If you grew up on Windows you expect some things to be done the Windows way, not because it's better (it very well might be) but because you're used to it. There is nothing wrong with that, but maybe you should just stick to the OS you're used to, instead of expecting the new OS to behave like your old OS did. It doesn't work that way.

I see only a few main problems for Linux, the most important one being that many Linux developers are technuts, who mostly develop stuff for themselves and know most quirks of Linux. There is a serious lack of people who are designers or do research on interfaces and stuff like that. Microsoft and Apple have whole divisions just doing that stuff. Now GNOME is slowly realising this, and Ubuntu is also a good step in the right direction.

Another problem is that there's killer apps missing on the desktop. GIMP is not Photoshop, it pales in comparison to Photoshop (that is the truth). OpenOffice is not MS Office, it gets the job done, but that's about it. I even prefer AbiWord to OpenOffice. Linux needs one app where everyone sees it and says: **** i wish that was available on Windows, and makes them at least dual boot.

I also think WINE hurts Linux more than it helps. Instead of developing native apps for Linux people just use WINE, further ensuring the dominance of Windows even though they are not using WIndows. That's not a good way to encourage developers to make more apps for Linux.

Next thing is: innovate, don't immitate! As i already said GNOME is already on the right path, if you check out the speeches from this years GUADEC you can see this.

Maybe Linux should also lose its fear of the word "commercial". Not everything in Linux has to be free. If some company comes and makes GIMP better than Photoshop and charges 500$ for it why not? They probably deserve those 500$. Volunteers and programmers working in their spare time will only spent so much time on sth. as compared to people being paid well for doing it. Stuff like Softimage and Maya is being available on Linux and nobody would expect those thousand dollar apps to be free just because they are running on Linux. Make a free GIMP Basic and a 500$ GIMP Pro and all is well. I realise that is going against the Ubuntu philosophy so as an alternative: Hire people to develop GIMP Pro, but give it away for free still. How that is gonna work if you're not a philantrop and multi billionaire is a question that i cannot answer.

Drop the attitude towards Windows! Windows isn't #1 just because of the aggressive marketing department but because it actually does a few things quite well. One example i saw at this years Debconf: There was this one guy talking about Live CDs (like Knoppix) and mentioned there is even a Windows Live CD now (i think he was talking about Bart PE). He just couldn't let that joke slide that it's crappy and crashes a lot. While he probably never even tried it. The days of Windows being crappy are gone since NT5 appeared. While i was still using Windows it maybe crashed less than 5 times on me in all those years since Windows 2000 came out.

Linux does quite a few things better than Windows, and once you're used to it you don't wanna lose the control you have over the system as compared to Windows. That's fine for technuts, but the average user doesn't care, he just wants things to work. Like i already said twice GNOME and Ubuntu are walking in this direction right now so there is hope.

And there's some more minor things but those are the most important ones that i can think of right now. I still think Linux has long way on the Desktop, even though Ubuntu is a good step in the right direction. On the server side of things it's different, Linux has surpassed Windows a long time ago here.

I've been a DOS/Windows user forever, but have been running Debian on my servers for about 6 years or so. I've tried to make the switch to Linux on the desktop quite a few times since then, but Ubuntu is the first time i probably am gonna switch.

Oh and last thing: Games. Companies need to make native ports for Linux. It was funny when (i think) Miguel de Icaza mentioned on this years GUADEC that he installed Windows for research purposes *cough* GTA San Andreas. That problem will automagically solve itself though when all the other problems get solved because Linux is gonna get more marketshare and companies will notice.

Kvark
August 3rd, 2005, 12:32 PM
First of all, there are far too many distributions. Part of Linux's strengths is its variety, but there's a delicate balance to be had between variety for innovation and consolidation for efficiency of manpower.
There is a problem here. But it is not the number of distros that is the problem. It is that moving things between distros is not pain free.

It would be nice for the users if rpms and debs could be moved between distros (maybe autopackage can solve this?). And it would be nice for developers if they could just look at a feature another distro has, say "hey, that would fit perfectly with our goals", and copy-paste it over without extra work and without causing a mess (maybe distrubuted revision control can solve this?).

ubuntp
August 3rd, 2005, 12:47 PM
More about trying to understand Gabbahead's argument, which is starting to lose its flair. I think he needs more flair, at least 20 pieces of it.
I think that OfficeSpace reference should not go unnoticed :D

Kvark
August 3rd, 2005, 01:00 PM
[B][SIZE=1]Maybe Linux should also lose its fear of the word "commercial". Not everything in Linux has to be free. If some company comes and makes GIMP better than Photoshop and charges 500$ for it why not? They probably deserve those 500$. Volunteers and programmers working in their spare time will only spent so much time on sth. as compared to people being paid well for doing it. Stuff like Softimage and Maya is being available on Linux and nobody would expect those thousand dollar apps to be free just because they are running on Linux. Make a free GIMP Basic and a 500$ GIMP Pro and all is well. I realise that is going against the Ubuntu philosophy so as an alternative: Hire people to develop GIMP Pro, but give it away for free still. How that is gonna work if you're not a philantrop and multi billionaire is a question that i cannot answer.
Yep, linux needs more commercial stuff. But licence fees is a failed model and a sinking ship. Instead, make money on support, maintenance, first hand update access, custom versions, services, anything else you can think of. In Gimp's case, and maybe for most developers, the pay could come from companies that want new features "You don't have the resources to prioritize the feature we want? we'll pay for the development, just make it happen! our publishing department needs this.".

az
August 3rd, 2005, 01:11 PM
Sorry, your right, Linux is perfect. My bad.


The best way I have found to describe it is: "it is what it is"

To a windows user, if is not the same thing as windows. To a any of the linux software developpers, it is usually something that allows them to run their application better than windows or mac. I am sure that they think GNU/linux is the best OS for their projects.

When you talk about Windows, you talk about one thing.

When you talk about Mac, you talk about one thing.

GNU/Linux is not only one thing and you cannot treat it as such. You cannot say that linux needs more of this or that. Well, you can, but it certainly would not be true of everybody.

nocturn
August 3rd, 2005, 01:12 PM
[B][SIZE=1]
Another problem is that there's killer apps missing on the desktop. GIMP is not Photoshop, it pales in comparison to Photoshop (that is the truth). OpenOffice is not MS Office, it gets the job done, but that's about it. I even prefer AbiWord to OpenOffice. Linux needs one app where everyone sees it and says: **** i wish that was available on Windows, and makes them at least dual boot.


I also like Abiword a lot, but OpenOffice is very good. MS Office does have more features, but the main issue is that a lot of them do not work. I have to use MS Office at work and it screws up 1 out of every 3 documents. I hate the hiding menus, I hate the crashes.
OpenOffice is big and slow, but it works. I never had to redo a single document after years of using it (starting with StarOffice 5).



Maybe Linux should also lose its fear of the word "commercial". Not everything in Linux has to be free. If some company comes and makes GIMP better than Photoshop and charges 500$ for it why not? They probably deserve those 500$. Volunteers and programmers working in their spare time will only spent so much time on sth. as compared to people being paid well for doing it.


People are free to create proprietary software for Linux and they are free to use it. Myself and many of the community choose not to support this line of thinking though, because we believe that software should be Free.



Drop the attitude towards Windows! Windows isn't #1 just because of the aggressive marketing department but because it actually does a few things quite well. One example i saw at this years Debconf: There was this one guy talking about Live CDs (like Knoppix) and mentioned there is even a Windows Live CD now


It may do some things quite well, but most often those things were done by others first (Apple, OS/2). And it does most things quite horribly.

Additionally, many in the community seriously resent the aggressive marketing, and why shouldn't we? I had to cough up money to Microsoft to buy a laptop that runs Ubuntu Linux *only*. I would have less bad feelings towards them if I wasn't *forced* to pay for a product I do not want.
I would be happy if they didn't try to patent every vague idea they ever copied (like smilies, using XML for wordprocessing, ...).



And there's some more minor things but those are the most important ones that i can think of right now. I still think Linux has long way on the Desktop, even though Ubuntu is a good step in the right direction. On the server side of things it's different, Linux has surpassed Windows a long time ago here.


Again, I have seen this argument over and over many times. What exactly is 'The Dekstop'? Once you define this I can argue if Linux is ready for it or not (or if Windows is ready for it).



I've been a DOS/Windows user forever, but have been running Debian on my servers for about 6 years or so. I've tried to make the switch to Linux on the desktop quite a few times since then, but Ubuntu is the first time i probably am gonna switch.


Good for you, but my 'The Desktop' has been running Linux since 1997, exclusively since 1999. My wife too has about 3-4 years on Linux only. It has been ready for our idea of 'The Desktop' for years, while windows does not live up to it.


Oh and last thing: Games. Companies need to make native ports for Linux.

I agree, but this is outside the control of the community.

ubuntp
August 3rd, 2005, 01:50 PM
People are free to create proprietary software for Linux and they are free to use it. Myself and many of the community choose not to support this line of thinking though, because we believe that software should be Free.
I support that idea myself, but unfortunately not everyone will give his time for a greater good. Eventually there will be kids to feed and bills to pay. Also what's so evil about charging money for software? If it helps you to be more productive or earn money yourself why not pay for it?


It may do some things quite well, but most often those things were done by others first (Apple, OS/2). And it does most things quite horribly.
I do sense arrogance again. Microsoft may have stolen half of their OS, but the user doesn't care. They may do evil things, the user doesn't know or doesn't care. And the answer to agressive marketing is not using agressive marketing yourself, instead just deliever a better product and the word will spread eventually.

What is the desktop? The desktop is what gives you the oppurtunity to be productive (or to get some enjoyment, or both). If you're just browsing the internet and reading email you can be mostly productive using Linux today. If you want to get some enjoyment, like games, Linux is not your choice. If you want get some enjoyment by watching movies you will still be hassled with quite a few things. There is still many minor things that need to be sorted out, because minor things can brake the whole experience for users. If there's one site you want to visit but it's not rendered correctly the user might think: oh well i've had it with linux, it's completely useless for me. If there's this new gadget you bought, and it doesn't work with linux, you're either gonna get rid of the gadget or linux.

Knome_fan
August 3rd, 2005, 02:02 PM
I support that idea myself, but unfortunately not everyone will give his time for a greater good. Eventually there will be kids to feed and bills to pay. Also what's so evil about charging money for software? If it helps you to be more productive or earn money yourself why not pay for it?

1. You seem to think that people who develop free software don't get paid, yet this is obviously not the case. (Just look at the guys working at novel, redhat, canonical, IBM, HP, Oracle, etc.)
2. There's nothing evil about charging money for software. You don't seem to be aware of it, but free software doesn't have anything to do with not charging money for the software. On the contrary, the FSF encourages developers of free software to sell their software for as much money as they possibly can.



And the answer to agressive marketing is not using agressive marketing yourself, instead just deliever a better product and the word will spread eventually.

Eh, no, not really. People and corporations do pay a lot of money for marketing because it pays, so how is not doing marketing going to help?

ubuntp
August 3rd, 2005, 02:14 PM
1. You seem to think that people who develop free software don't get paid, yet this is obviously not the case. (Just look at the guys working at novel, redhat, canonical, IBM, HP, Oracle, etc.)
2. There's nothing evil about charging money for software. You don't seem to be aware of it, but free software doesn't have anything to do with not charging money for the software. On the contrary, the FSF encourages developers of free software to sell their software for as much money as they possibly can.
I see my post has been misunderstood. I know that there is people who get paid to develop free software, but there is not many of them. I'd be surprised if it's 1% of all people working in the industry, and there are mostly part of a larger business model that includes nonfree software, or hardware or other things. I also know that free software has nothing to do with beeing free (like not paying any money for it), but i think that's what nocturn wants. Even Richard Stallman charged people some dollars 20 years ago to copy emacs on disks and sent it to them or to add some new features. And if you read my previous (long) post that's exactly what i said anyway.


Eh, no, not really. People and corporations do pay a lot of money for marketing because it pays, so how is not doing marketing going to help?
The keyword here was agressive.

nocturn
August 3rd, 2005, 02:14 PM
I support that idea myself, but unfortunately not everyone will give his time for a greater good. Eventually there will be kids to feed and bills to pay. Also what's so evil about charging money for software? If it helps you to be more productive or earn money yourself why not pay for it?


Free Software and the GPL do not prevent you from charging money for your software. It does allow copying however.
The problem with commercial software (even if you would make the source available and only use open protocols) is that it locks out the groups of people that cannot afford it (the lower incomes).

With computer skills fastly approaching the importance that reading and writing used to have, you can see the problem.
The net result is the same as illiteracy had 100 years back, locking out certain groups of society.



I do sense arrogance again. Microsoft may have stolen half of their OS, but the user doesn't care. They may do evil things, the user doesn't know or doesn't care. And the answer to agressive marketing is not using agressive marketing yourself, instead just deliever a better product and the word will spread eventually.


I'm sorry, but I do care. I care about them extorting OEM's into bundling their products and theirs alone. I do care about them holding patents to lock out any competition.
And I also care that they almost bought a law imposing software patents in the EU.

I hold a very deep contempt for any company/institute that takes that kind of actions. It is ethicly unacceptable.

I'm not suggesting to use aggressive marketing (the very idea makes me feel dirty), but I do support any actions that force Microsoft to play fair with the competition. This includes forcing them to open up protocols, and prosecuting their stronghold on the OEM market (which is already illegal in many countries, including mine).



What is the desktop? The desktop is what gives you the oppurtunity to be productive (or to get some enjoyment, or both). If you're just browsing the internet and reading email you can be mostly productive using Linux today. If you want to get some enjoyment, like games, Linux is not your choice. If you want get some enjoyment by watching movies you will still be hassled with quite a few things. There is still many minor things that need to be sorted out, because minor things can brake the whole experience for users. If there's one site you want to visit but it's not rendered correctly the user might think: oh well i've had it with linux, it's completely useless for me. If there's this new gadget you bought, and it doesn't work with linux, you're either gonna get rid of the gadget or linux.

That is just the point I wanted to make. Their is no 'The Dekstop'. There are a number of different desktops out there.
Linux suits mine much better then Windows does, so if asked, I say it is ready for the desktop. Equally, I would grade windows as not ready for my version of the Dekstop. If I was a heavy gamer, things would be different, but I'm not.

For this argument to be made, you will first need to define which desktop you use as the baseline (point by point) and then evaluate how well each contender does for each point in your list.

Knome_fan
August 3rd, 2005, 02:23 PM
I know that there is people who get paid to develop free software, but there is not many of them. I'd be surprised if it's 1% of all people working in the industry, and there are mostly part of a larger business model that includes nonfree software, or hardware or other things.

More than you probably think. And turning software into a commodity that is available for people to use seems to me one of the basic ideas of free software, so how do business modesl including hardware invalidate my point?
Btw., you also seem to forget that the vast majority of people who get paid for writing software are paid in house, not people doing large public software projects. Those people will be paid no matter if software is free or not.



I also know that free software has nothing to do with beeing free (like not paying any money for it), but i think that's what nocturn wants. Even Richard Stallman charged people some dollars 20 years ago to copy emacs on disks and sent it to them or to add some new features. And if you read my previous (long) post that's exactly what i said anyway.

If you are aware of that, then why did you write something different? Also, I don't really know what Nocturn things, but how you think you know is beyond. And charging from his recent post you seem to have been wrong about his thoughts anyway.



The keyword here was agressive.
Not really, as even with agressive being the keyword your post about marketing doesn't make a lot of sense imho.

nocturn
August 3rd, 2005, 02:27 PM
I also know that free software has nothing to do with beeing free (like not paying any money for it), but i think that's what nocturn wants. Even Richard Stallman charged people some dollars 20 years ago to copy emacs on disks and sent it to them or to add some new features.


I'm not saying that people cannot make money from software development. But I do think that a Free (as in GPL) alternative should be available for it.
I do not even mind companies like SuSE (Novell) and Mandrake/Mandriva charging for the boxed product or manuals, as long as the source is available.
Go ahead and charge me 20 Ä for an Ubuntu CD. Chances are I'd pay it, but I still have access to it if I do not have the resources to pay for it.
You can even put install CD's in libraries.


The keyword here was agressive.

When did you see Ubuntu (or another Linux) use agressive marketing techiniques?

nocturn
August 3rd, 2005, 02:34 PM
OK, just a small point on making money from software (or computers in general).

Just take this example.
- The government needs a program to make geographical charts.
- One of it's institutes gets an amount of money to do it
- Said instituted has programmers/designers working for it, who do the job.
- They release the result under the GPL
- Any other government body can also use the resulting software
- I, the taxpayer who funded the development in the first place can also download the software and even improve it if I had a use for it. This benefits me and the program maker (maybe the modifications I made ar usefull for the government too).

The other alternative is to pay a commercial vendor who keeps the code.
- I fund the goverment which pays the company
- the company pays the programmers (most likely in a low-wage country)
- The goverment has a license to use the program. If another service wants it, it costs money all over again
- I cannot use nor enhance the product I helped pay for. So the possible benefit for myself and others is lost.

The number of paid programmers is about the same, yet the benefits to society as a whole are much greater with Free Software.

ubuntp
August 3rd, 2005, 02:43 PM
That is just the point I wanted to make. Their is no 'The Dekstop'. There are a number of different desktops out there.
Linux suits mine much better then Windows does, so if asked, I say it is ready for the desktop. Equally, I would grade windows as not ready for my version of the Dekstop. If I was a heavy gamer, things would be different, but I'm not.

For this argument to be made, you will first need to define which desktop you use as the baseline (point by point) and then evaluate how well each contender does for each point in your list.
I agree. But chances are the more things you might want to do higher the probability that using Windows will give you a better experience, simply because it has more and better applications for many things. The basic things (like browsing folders or pictures or even burning a CD) might even already be better on linux today. I really like GNOME. I miss sophisticated apps like Photoshop or SoundForge.

Oh and about the agressive marketing: I never said Linux should use agressive marketing, exactly the opposite! :D

ubuntp
August 3rd, 2005, 02:44 PM
If you are aware of that, then why did you write something different?Where? I think you should ready my previous post where i complained about not enough people charging money for software on linux.

Brunellus
August 3rd, 2005, 02:45 PM
Linux made an otherwise-unuseable computer useable by me, allowing me to rescue data already stored on its fat32 partitions. That computer, now six years old and well past its "useful" consumer life is now in use by an entire household for e-mail and network tasks.

That alone has made me a convert.

Are there shortcomings? Yes. Administering many things requires a bit of study and familiarity with a command line, still. This doesn't bother me in the slightest, since I grew up on MS-DOS.

I should say here that I can't understand the original poster's complaint about the windows keys. Since their mysterious appearance on new keyboards in 1995, I have never figured out a single good use for them, and have ignored them. Playing with them now, at work, running win2k, I note that I've not been missing much. I'll need to find some more productive use for them when I get home.

In a way, I'm not scared of linux because I wasn't scared of DOS when I was little. I started getting scared of computers when Win95 began the process of abstracting more and more function from me, and I couldn't keep up with the way things were done.

Linux isn't Windows, guys. The sooner you realise and accept that, the easier the transition is. You have to be humble enough to acknowledge that you are learning a new OS, and to be receptive to learning it. The admission of ignorance, after all, is the beginning of wisdom.

nocturn
August 3rd, 2005, 02:55 PM
I agree. But chances are the more things you might want to do higher the probability that using Windows will give you a better experience, simply because it has more and better applications for many things. The basic things (like browsing folders or pictures or even burning a CD) might even already be better on linux today. I really like GNOME. I miss sophisticated apps like Photoshop or SoundForge.


It's not the more things you want to do with your desktop. It depends on *what* you want to do with your desktop.

If you want a graphical design desktop, maybe windows does better (I don't know), but probably, MacOS beats them both.

If you want a coding desktop, chances are that Linux suits you better.

If you want a security/forensics station, Linux beats the competition hands down.

If you do mainly surfing, IM, Office, ... Linux takes the lead again in my opinion, specially the lack of virusses/spyware is a big advantage.

This is the heart of the whole discussion.

Just a note, my wife is opening a store, all the internal desktops will be running Ubuntu... it offers all that is needed and does it well.



Oh and about the agressive marketing: I never said Linux should use agressive marketing, exactly the opposite! :D

I know, I was referring to you stating that Linux shouldn't fight agressive marketing with agressive marketing. It shouldn't and it isn't, so we agree on this.
But I do think that many parts of the agressive marketing of MS are immoral and often illegal, so I really would like to see it stopped.

nocturn
August 3rd, 2005, 03:01 PM
In a way, I'm not scared of linux because I wasn't scared of DOS when I was little. I started getting scared of computers when Win95 began the process of abstracting more and more function from me, and I couldn't keep up with the way things were done.

Linux isn't Windows, guys. The sooner you realise and accept that, the easier the transition is. You have to be humble enough to acknowledge that you are learning a new OS, and to be receptive to learning it. The admission of ignorance, after all, is the beginning of wisdom.

I went through the same cycle 8 years ago. Indeed, letting go of what you knew and accept that something is different is the first and biggest step off the way.

KingBahamut
August 3rd, 2005, 03:04 PM
Seems I was a bit late on this thread....though it wasnt a bad idea to move it. The entire argument can be summed up very simply.....


Linux + "learning curve" + properly asked questions / (ubuntu forums + other resources ) = a fairly stable system that "just works".

As long as users are willing to ask the right questions, or the wrong questions in the proper way, and they are willing enough to get their hands a little dirty at first , then I feel that such a user would be happy with the end product. There arent Stupid questions, nor are the people who ask such questions themselves stupid. They are uninformed , and its up to use to inform them. The more gently and calmly that we can do this, the more people we will slowly ebb the tide of the current consumer/hobbyist/enduser - base.

Of course with individuals as Gabbahead , who started this thread to begin with, its hard. Its hard to satisfy a need with a user that has preconcieved opinions about the way things should work, coupled with a desire to do nothing other than just point and click. The Linux community will find it hard to accomodate these users, because no system is without its need of administration and configuration that involves more than a point and click.

I use Ubuntu, I invite my friends to use Ubuntu, and I support the Ubuntu cause.

Knome_fan
August 3rd, 2005, 03:10 PM
Where? I think you should ready my previous post where i complained about not enough people charging money for software on linux.

I support that idea myself, but unfortunately not everyone will give his time for a greater good. Eventually there will be kids to feed and bills to pay. Also what's so evil about charging money for software? If it helps you to be more productive or earn money yourself why not pay for it?
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=284662&postcount=65

ubuntp
August 3rd, 2005, 03:14 PM
But I do think that many parts of the agressive marketing of MS are immoral and often illegal, so I really would like to see it stopped.
I think the Linux community should not bother with Microsoft marketing at all, nor should they spend any ressources fighting their propetiary standards. I'll eleborate later.

ubuntp
August 3rd, 2005, 03:15 PM
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=284662&postcount=65
Yes but thats exactly what i said. I'm confused, or maybe you are.

Knome_fan
August 3rd, 2005, 03:49 PM
Yes but thats exactly what i said. I'm confused, or maybe you are.
Ok, this is really getting off topic, but one last try to make myself clear.


I support that idea myself, but unfortunately not everyone will give his time for a greater good. Eventually there will be kids to feed and bills to pay.
I took this as you stating that people don't earn mony writing free software. As I think you are wrong here, I responded accordingly.


Also what's so evil about charging money for software? If it helps you to be more productive or earn money yourself why not pay for it?
As you were talking about free software I took this to mean that you think making money with software is somehow again free software. I pointed out that this is not the case. I'm still unable to see how one could interpret your words just quoted in an other way, but maybe that's just me.

poofyhairguy
August 3rd, 2005, 07:01 PM
What is the desktop? The desktop is what gives you the oppurtunity to be productive (or to get some enjoyment, or both). If you're just browsing the internet and reading email you can be mostly productive using Linux today.

Agreed.


If you want to get some enjoyment, like games, Linux is not your choice.

False. Most people like puzzle games best, and Linux has plenty of those. Plus Linux can play old console games (including PS1) and many big time computer games (Doom 3, newest Unreal). The idea that Linux is boring is false.


If you want get some enjoyment by watching movies you will still be hassled with quite a few things.

You are hassled on Windows as well. For the past week I have been with my parents (all Windows users). I downloaded the newest episode of Empire. On every Windows machine, no amount of downloading of codecs or new software could get the sound to work. I put the CD in my Ubuntu computer when I went home for a day (gxine with w32codecs installed) and it played fine, sound and all.

Its not that easy on Windows either.


If there's this new gadget you bought, and it doesn't work with linux, you're either gonna get rid of the gadget or linux.

Option 3: Buy a gadget that works with Linux.

aysiu
August 3rd, 2005, 08:42 PM
Option 3: Buy a gadget that works with Linux. You know (and I alluded to this in an earlier post), I hate to say it, but a lot of the things people fault Linux for are true in Mac OS X as well, but nobody says Mac is not "ready for the desktop." When we bought a scanner for my wife's Powerbook, a printer for my wife's Powerbook, and an MP3 player for me (that I would want to be able to work with her Powerbook), we took very much into account whether new hardware we bought was Mac-compatible.

In fact, I was looking at some MP3 players with a friend recently, and he's more inclined to use Sandisk than Creative MuVo because in the Amazon description it says Sandisk supports Mac OS X and Windows 2000/XP, whereas Creative says it supports only 2000/XP.

Now, that doesn't mean if you plug a Creative MuVo player into a Mac, the Mac will not read it. It probably just means that the CD that comes with the Creative player won't work on Mac.

The point, really, is that you buy hardware to work with what you have. A co-worker of mine has a DVD player but no VCR. So I offered to lend him a videotape of a show he wanted to see, and he refused. He probably never buys videos, knowing he has no VCR. Likewise, why would you buy a "latest" gadget that doesn't work with your operating system?

In conclusion, if Windows users hate Windows so much, they have a choice--they can either suck it up or switch to another OS. If they switch, they have to realize other operating systems (Linux distros/ Mac) do not do things the Windows way. Mac, like Linux, doesn't have a Windows key. Mac, like Linux, does not support all hardware. Mac, like Linux, doesn't play all the latest games. Mac, like Linux, cannot yet use Google Earth.

Does this make Mac "not ready" for users? No. Then, why does it make Linux not ready?

People just expect Linux to be "Windows minus the BS (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=349429)" (I'm not kidding; this exact phrase showed up in a LinuxQuestions forum a couple of days ago). It doesn't have BS, but Linux is not Windows. And I'd advise anyone who wants Linux to be Windows to stop whining on Ubuntu forums and just buy a copy of Linspire already.

Ubuntu is Linux for human beings, not Linux for Windows users who want a Windows clone.

Kerberos
August 3rd, 2005, 11:10 PM
Not in any context at all, have a look at Linky! (http://www.developer.com/design/article.php/1545991). I do quite a lot of web design where usability and accessibility factor quite a lot, and its my general feeling that overall Linux is behind Windows (and they are both behind OSX) - albeit probably due to the fact that the open source community can't hire teams of experts. From my perspective and personal experiance thats just the way I think it is.

Not that Windows isn't fundamentally rotten to the core on a technical basis, its just that more attention has been to paid to the front end and user interaction, whereas Linux, due to its nature, is tailored in the other direction. But OSX proves that the two dont have to be mutually exclusive.

I cant think of anything extra to say that wont incite a flamewar, so there it is.

Kvark
August 4th, 2005, 12:14 AM
albeit probably due to the fact that the open source community can't hire teams of experts.
Whats so hard with hiring a team of experts? I can't see any reason why linspire and many other GNU/Linux projects wouldn't have experts working full time with user interfaces and functionality.

qalimas
August 4th, 2005, 12:24 AM
You seem to have made the mistake of thinking Linux is a clone. It's not, if you like the Mac, go for it, we don't care :D

bootlinux
August 4th, 2005, 12:30 AM
"I've now had Ubuntu Linux installed for two days"

Sorry, Linux is not Windows and I hope it never is. Linux has a learning curve to it, but so did Windows. Remember the first time you sit down in front of a computer? I've been using Linux for about a year now and compared to windows it's very superior. Linux is a different game and once your learn the rules it's much, MUCH easier to use then the other brand. Stick with it and forget the Microsoft mind set.

Kerberos
August 4th, 2005, 12:35 AM
You seem to have made the mistake of thinking Linux is a clone. It's not, if you like the Mac, go for it, we don't care :D
Actually my next computing purchase will probably be a Wintel Apple Laptop, with the hope of never having to dual boot it (With XP that is) - that is my dream.

poofyhairguy
August 4th, 2005, 02:12 AM
Ubuntu is Linux for human beings, not Linux for Windows users who want a Windows clone.


Their is a good sig quote if anyone lacks one.

OttoDestruct
August 4th, 2005, 02:34 AM
Perhaps one of the things about the argument about Ubuntu not being a Windows clone you have to realize is the way Ubuntu is marketed. I tried Gentoo a while ago as my first attempt to dive into linux, after someone told me it was a great OS. I won't go into how much of a disaster that was. The next thing was Mepis. I liked it. It advertised a Linux distro which an average user could..... use. My biggest problem with it happened to be with KDE, so I decided to migrate over to Ubuntu after about a month of using Mepis then retiring back to windows out of frustration at KDE (not Linux itself). Just like the first user I've been using Ubuntu for 2 days. Like Mepis Ubuntu is marketed as a 'desktop' distro. All the people saying it isn't a windows clone, thats completely true, it's not trying to be windows, but it IS trying to clone windows productivity. From that standpoint, I am 100% satisfied. I wanted a Linux OS which I could to 'normal' tasks, as well as one I could actively learn how to use Linux on without it throwing me in the ocean. If people are looking for an OS to act like windows, they should use windows. If you're prepared to actually learn that Linux has its own nuances, then I suggest coming over to the Penguin side.

matthew
August 4th, 2005, 02:38 AM
My thoughts to OP:

1. Get the chip off your shoulder, it is so distracting that I'm finding it hard to listen to or even care about the things you are trying to say.

2. If you like Windows better that is not a problem for me. If you are expecting Linux, Mac OS or any other operating system to be a clone of Windows you must not understand a) the legal systems of the world and the likelihood that Microsoft would try to sue the pants of anyone who came too close to cloning Windows and b) anyone capable of writing an operating system wouldn't want to do so anyway.

3. Learning anything worthwhile (how to play music, speak a language, history, art, literature, a new operating system, how to please and woo an attractive member of the opposite sex, pretty much anything) requires a bit of study and work. If you don't want to work to learn Linux, that's fine, take the time to learn to use something else or continue to use what you have already spent time learning to use. Just don't complain to the world that the ability to use it didn't magically appear in your head. It's the same deal with anything else worth using/doing/learning/pursuing and don't attempt to tell us you didn't have to learn how to use Windows like everyone else who has used/uses it.

Anything else I might be tempted to say would fall outside of the kind and gentle manner typical of these forums and the Ubuntu community so I will stop here hoping that what I have said is taken in the intended manner: a gentle reminder that even disagreements when coupled with gracious words are far more easily discussed and overcome and that even when truth is obscured by obfuscation it can still be seen. You have been heard, your words have been considered and this is all the response I believe your comments merit at this time.

maruchan
August 4th, 2005, 03:19 AM
Very good points, matthew. I especially agree with the last (3rd) one. In fact, I read the OP's comment about having a lot of "Linux gurus" around to help out as a sort of defensive "don't tell me I haven't done my homework"-style remark. That usually means the OP doesn't want to do the homework.

It's far too easy to jump in and spray bullets everywhere and leave. This is true in any environment. I'll bet Windows developers are tired of people telling them why Windows sucks and leaving. Same with OS X.

What's tough -- and ultimately beneficial to any project -- is to stick around, learn why things are the way they are, and start learning how to influence the project.

This is probably a good lesson for any newbies who are watching.

OttoDestruct
August 4th, 2005, 05:45 AM
I just found this (http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2005/04/11/ubuntu) and found it to be one of the funniest things I have ever read in terms of comments on how an OS should be. This guy should get an award for how anal he is. As redundent as it may get, read the whole thing through. Especially the very bottom sentence.


69. Itís brown.

Classic.

It sounds from the get-go he expects whatever OS he's using to function / look 100% like it was built specifically just for him.

theinvictus
August 4th, 2005, 06:16 AM
LInux maybe a great operating system, but if it isn't user friendly enough (and I mean at the begining with all the configuration, I'm sure once you have it all setup properly there's very little difference between using it and using windows), then most users aren't going to use it. I have a fairly good knowledge of Windows, having been a windows user for over 10 years, and with that knowledge and general knowledge I was able to install Ubuntu, dual-booting with XP fairly easily. However, I could see where many users less experienced than myself would get lost just installing Ubuntu.

However after install, I've had a nightmare trying to get online using a wireless USB card. It's as if there's just roadblock after roadblock for the average user if they wanted to try Ubuntu.

Now, personally I have no NEED for Linux, Windows XP works just fine for me, I don't have to worry about spyware, or virii, or crashes usually, because I take good care of Windows. However the reason I was motivate to try Linux was OS politics. My personal philosophy is a far better match with Ubuntu than the Microsoft corporation. As such I wanted to act upon my beliefs and switch to an OS more in like with my ideology.

I think the one thing Ubuntu, and maybe linux as a whole suffers the most from is a lack of a good centralized documentation base, and tutorials and guides deisgned at the brand new user. As worthless as I find Microsoft's little bubbles and wizards oriented at new users, at one time they were very usefull and insightful, and just made things easy to use.

Again, Linux may or may bot be better than Windows, I really am not experienced enough with Linux to enter that argument, however if we operate on the premise that linux, and ubuntu in particular is better, then isn't it a great dis-service to computer users everywhere to make it so difficult to set up Ubuntu that users eventually just give up on it and never even get to see the possible benefits of Ubuntu?

I can't claim to be impartial, having been a Windows user for life, however, I would like to see Ubuntu and other open source software projects succeed as much as possible, and in order to do that I believe that they should be easier to use out of the box. People shouldn't have to search through this and other forums, as well as google, and still not understand how to get on the internet....there should be a knowledgbase, and a comprehensive faq, and tutorials, all in on place.

Personally, I'm not all that impatient, and part of the reason I decided to install Ubuntu was for a challenge to reduce my summer time boredom. So I'll try and stick with it and figure out how to get on the internet, if worst comes to worst, In a month I'll have a regular lan connection with wires so I should be able to connect then. But its the little things to matter. If Linux wants to grow into its own, its going to have to provide the ease-of-use users have come to expect from an OS. It is not selling out, or attempting to create a windows clone to create an easy to use operating system with a short learning curve. Instead, I would call that success.

N'Jal
August 4th, 2005, 06:54 AM
Ah driver problems, simply put most hardware vendors don't want to have to support Mac let alone Linux, but the way linux is going some companies are having to start to offer drivers.

Believe me, my speedtouch modem is easy to set up, but it's time consuming and involves editing a lot of text files, hmm perhaps i should write a bash script on it.

poofyhairguy
August 4th, 2005, 07:58 AM
LInux maybe a great operating system, but if it isn't user friendly enough (and I mean at the begining with all the configuration, I'm sure once you have it all setup properly there's very little difference between using it and using windows), then most users aren't going to use it. I have a fairly good knowledge of Windows, having been a windows user for over 10 years, and with that knowledge and general knowledge I was able to install Ubuntu, dual-booting with XP fairly easily. However, I could see where many users less experienced than myself would get lost just installing Ubuntu.

However after install, I've had a nightmare trying to get online using a wireless USB card. It's as if there's just roadblock after roadblock for the average user if they wanted to try Ubuntu.

Now, personally I have no NEED for Linux, Windows XP works just fine for me, I don't have to worry about spyware, or virii, or crashes usually, because I take good care of Windows. However the reason I was motivate to try Linux was OS politics. My personal philosophy is a far better match with Ubuntu than the Microsoft corporation. As such I wanted to act upon my beliefs and switch to an OS more in like with my ideology.

I think the one thing Ubuntu, and maybe linux as a whole suffers the most from is a lack of a good centralized documentation base, and tutorials and guides deisgned at the brand new user. As worthless as I find Microsoft's little bubbles and wizards oriented at new users, at one time they were very usefull and insightful, and just made things easy to use.

Again, Linux may or may bot be better than Windows, I really am not experienced enough with Linux to enter that argument, however if we operate on the premise that linux, and ubuntu in particular is better, then isn't it a great dis-service to computer users everywhere to make it so difficult to set up Ubuntu that users eventually just give up on it and never even get to see the possible benefits of Ubuntu?

I can't claim to be impartial, having been a Windows user for life, however, I would like to see Ubuntu and other open source software projects succeed as much as possible, and in order to do that I believe that they should be easier to use out of the box. People shouldn't have to search through this and other forums, as well as google, and still not understand how to get on the internet....there should be a knowledgbase, and a comprehensive faq, and tutorials, all in on place.

Personally, I'm not all that impatient, and part of the reason I decided to install Ubuntu was for a challenge to reduce my summer time boredom. So I'll try and stick with it and figure out how to get on the internet, if worst comes to worst, In a month I'll have a regular lan connection with wires so I should be able to connect then. But its the little things to matter. If Linux wants to grow into its own, its going to have to provide the ease-of-use users have come to expect from an OS. It is not selling out, or attempting to create a windows clone to create an easy to use operating system with a short learning curve. Instead, I would call that success.


What you are mostly talking about is driver problems. I know for a fact (I'm finally in the know) that a GUI ndiswrapper tool is being made.

And the wiki is getting better. And the forum is getting bigger. Things will get easier....this october shows only the first year of Ubuntu! It was a lot better than Windows first year.

Of course, large scale Linux migration could happen tomorrow if people would just forget they had PDAs, webcams and wireless networks.

(just kidding)

nocturn
August 4th, 2005, 08:01 AM
I think the Linux community should not bother with Microsoft marketing at all, nor should they spend any ressources fighting their propetiary standards. I'll eleborate later.

Then we strongly disagree on this point. I think we should increase the amount of resources to fight closed standards and patents (Hura again for the recent victory in Europe).
If we don't, we will see more and more Free Software developers being sued on (false) patents, but without the money to fight back.
If we don't we will quickly find that Linux gets shut of from accessing the rest of the world (remember MS proposal to fight SPAM? I would lock us clean out).

Outside of our technical community, we need things like legal defense funds for our members. We need organisations challenging patents (or the whole patent system).
We need our governments for force companies to open up protocols that are needed to integrate with other systems (like the proposed EU sanction against MS).

nocturn
August 4th, 2005, 08:08 AM
its my general feeling that overall Linux is behind Windows (and they are both behind OSX) - albeit probably due to the fact that the open source community can't hire teams of experts.

That is an opinion you hold. But from my viewpoint it is much the other way arround.
I have been a mix of System/Network admin, programmer, web application designer and some others over the last 6 years. From my viewpoint, Linux has been miles ahead of Windows ever since I started using it (1997). In fact of all the systems I used (including AS/400, mainframe, OS/2 and others), Windows is the worst I've seen.

About professional teams, that is nonsense. Ubuntu actually pays a substantial number of very talented programmers to work on Linux and so do SuSE, Mandrake, RedHat and even IBM.
The unpaid volunteers who generously donate their time are often the people who spend their dayjobs writing the 'professional' software you buy.

I don't know where this misconception comes from, but it seems widespread.

poofyhairguy
August 4th, 2005, 08:13 AM
That is an opinion you hold. But from my viewpoint it is much the other way arround.
I have been a mix of System/Network admin, programmer, web application designer and some others over the last 6 years. From my viewpoint, Linux has been miles ahead of Windows ever since I started using it (1997). In fact of all the systems I used (including AS/400, mainframe, OS/2 and others), Windows is the worst I've seen.

About professional teams, that is nonsense. Ubuntu actually pays a substantial number of very talented programmers to work on Linux and so do SuSE, Mandrake, RedHat and even IBM.
The unpaid volunteers who generously donate their time are often the people who spend their dayjobs writing the 'professional' software you buy.

I don't know where this misconception comes from, but it seems widespread.

Sun....you forgot Sun. They did most of the research for Gnome.

npaladin2000
August 4th, 2005, 09:15 AM
LInux maybe a great operating system, but if it isn't user friendly enough (and I mean at the begining with all the configuration, I'm sure once you have it all setup properly there's very little difference between using it and using windows), then most users aren't going to use it. I have a fairly good knowledge of Windows, having been a windows user for over 10 years, and with that knowledge and general knowledge I was able to install Ubuntu, dual-booting with XP fairly easily. However, I could see where many users less experienced than myself would get lost just installing Ubuntu.

I highly doubt it. When you examine the two installers side by side, you'll notice that the Ubuntu (Debian) installer is actually a bit MORE user-friendly than the Windows OS installer. The Windows one can get away with it because, basically, no one installs it; it's already there. But I seriously think an end user would have more trouble installing Windows than Ubuntu, or many other Linux flavors (Fedora, BLAG, SUSE and Xandros have pretty friendly installers also...then you have 1-button ones like Knoppix and MEPIS).

Ask yourself how automated Windows's partitioning is. And how an end user would deal with that (keyboard driven, mind you!) screen.


However after install, I've had a nightmare trying to get online using a wireless USB card. It's as if there's just roadblock after roadblock for the average user if they wanted to try Ubuntu.

Did it work in Windows without installing the manufacturer-provided driver? I didn't think so. Why would you expect it to in Linux? Admittedly, Linux's out-of-the-box hardware support is better than Windows's, but it's not perfect. If you want a driver for a particular piece of hardware, you should go to the same place you'd request a windows driver from: the hardware manufacturer. If they don't want to provide a driver for Linux, it'your fault for not doing your research, just as it would be for buying a piece of hardware with no Windows drivers, and whose manufacturer refuses to provide Windows drivers.

Sorry, but when people complain that lack of hardware support is all Linux's fault when they don't hold Microsoft similarly accountable burns me up a bit.


Again, Linux may or may bot be better than Windows, I really am not experienced enough with Linux to enter that argument, however if we operate on the premise that linux, and ubuntu in particular is better, then isn't it a great dis-service to computer users everywhere to make it so difficult to set up Ubuntu that users eventually just give up on it and never even get to see the possible benefits of Ubuntu?

Again, I find the installer easier than Windows; it's largely automated with sane and helpful prompts when interaction is needed. Same with the Fedora installer (Anaconda) though it's a bit more complex. The SUSE installer....well, I like the Debian and Fedora installers. :) Actually, SUSE's isn't bad, but it's not as easy as the other two. Incidentally, I've done a LOT of Windows installs....more than I've done Linux installs, as a matter of fact. Maybe because windows needs to be reinstalled so often? Hehe

As to post-install config; it really depends on which part. Network is fairly easy on both; dial-up is hard in both. ISPs sometimes write auto-config software for Windows, but that's not Microsoft or Windows making things easier; it's the ISP. Hand-configuring a dial-up account in Windows is a serious pain in the you-know-what. Printing setup is actually easy in both, but network printing to all but a Windows-shared printer is harder to set up in Windows (add port? What port? I want to print over the network, I already have a network port...what do they mean add a port?); adding a network printer is just like adding any other printer in Linux: pretty easy.

Consider this and tell me how much sense it makes: To add an LPR network printer in Windows (most common home print servers use LPR) you first have to add a port for it. Then, to add this printer, you have to go through the wizard again, and select LOCAL PRINTER, not NETWORK PRINTER. I mean come on, you added a TCP/IP printing port..logically you'd be adding a network printer, right?


I can't claim to be impartial, having been a Windows user for life, however, I would like to see Ubuntu and other open source software projects succeed as much as possible, and in order to do that I believe that they should be easier to use out of the box. People shouldn't have to search through this and other forums, as well as google, and still not understand how to get on the internet....there should be a knowledgbase, and a comprehensive faq, and tutorials, all in on place.

I agree with the need for it to work better "out-of-the-box." Though, depending on the indended application Ubuntu might already do so. It won't play DVDs out of the box, but neither will Windows. ;)

There are actually quite a few repositories of knowledgebases and FAQs around. A tutorial might not be a bad idea...you know how 2000 and XP have some dialogs and graphics as a sort of "getting started" tutorial? Might be a good idea for Ubuntu....actually, might be a GREAT idea. I think I'll make an OpenOffice presentation and it could run on the first login or something, if the developers are interested.

Kerberos
August 4th, 2005, 10:01 AM
Perhaps one of the things about the argument about Ubuntu not being a Windows clone you have to realize is the way Ubuntu is marketed. I tried Gentoo a while ago as my first attempt to dive into linux, after someone told me it was a great OS.
Same here. A flashing cursor and no access to the internet (as my only net capable machine was the one with the CD in it). Gentoo is more like an exciting computer puzzle game than a practical OS for newbies.

I won't go into how much of a disaster that was. The next thing was Mepis. I liked it. It advertised a Linux distro which an average user could..... use. My biggest problem with it happened to be with KDE, so I decided to migrate over to Ubuntu after about a month of using Mepis then retiring back to windows out of frustration at KDE (not Linux itself).
Same. I had Mepis installed and my main problem was the 16 system tray icons, the tray performance graph, the weather in georgetown and time and date. Problem was I had to run it at 800x600 (smll TFT). The bar had to scroll left and right as it didn't fit, and when you did work out how to remove things it just left a blank space, so you still had to scroll, and your programs still had 1 sqr inch to list themselves, only this time with whitespace everywhere.


Just like the first user I've been using Ubuntu for 2 days. Like Mepis Ubuntu is marketed as a 'desktop' distro. All the people saying it isn't a windows clone, thats completely true, it's not trying to be windows, but it IS trying to clone windows productivity. From that standpoint, I am 100% satisfied. I wanted a Linux OS which I could to 'normal' tasks, as well as one I could actively learn how to use Linux on without it throwing me in the ocean. If people are looking for an OS to act like windows, they should use windows. If you're prepared to actually learn that Linux has its own nuances, then I suggest coming over to the Penguin side.
Possibly. I find I get flamed into the ground every time I even so much as mention problems Linux may have. Of course its not like I am involved in usability and accessibility every day in my general job and do know what I'm talking about, but if people are going to refuse to acknowlege any problems and just throw back 'Well its not Windows' to valid usability criticisms then they are holding Linux back, not helping it.

The original poster finishes on a bad note with the software comments, not due to him being wrong but more being its impossible to comment due the massive quantity of software availible on each side, but he makes some really good points otherwise that should not be ignored.

Brunellus
August 4th, 2005, 02:54 PM
LInux maybe a great operating system, but if it isn't user friendly enough (and I mean at the begining with all the configuration, I'm sure once you have it all setup properly there's very little difference between using it and using windows), then most users aren't going to use it. I have a fairly good knowledge of Windows, having been a windows user for over 10 years, and with that knowledge and general knowledge I was able to install Ubuntu, dual-booting with XP fairly easily. However, I could see where many users less experienced than myself would get lost just installing Ubuntu.

The installation process and the installer itself continue to be under active development. Warty's installer was adequate; Hoary's was better. I expect a bit of improvement in Breezy....And with OpenSuSE now on the scene, I wonder how long it's going to take for someone to adapt SuSE's excellent installer to Ubuntu or an Ubuntu-daughter distribution.


However after install, I've had a nightmare trying to get online using a wireless USB card. It's as if there's just roadblock after roadblock for the average user if they wanted to try Ubuntu.

Blame the device manufacturers for releasing windows-only binary drivers. Support here is improving, but slowly.

I had similar problems when I first migrated, but I persisted (not least because it was a forced migration--I needed to recover data on an unbootable WinME box). Once I made the commitment to shut up and start learning, things got better immediately. Having learned about the hardware support issues, I did the sensible thing, and planned further upgrades/ hardware acquisitions to work with my preferred OS. This, of course, was old news for me--I remember the angst of trying to get new gizmos to run nice games for an MS-DOS system. I learned as a small child to check for possible incompatibilities early to avoid disappointment later.

The more I look at migrants to GNU/Linux, the more struck I am by one thing: most of the complaining seems to be from people who started using computers at or around the release of Windows 95. People who ran DOS seem much less bothered.


Now, personally I have no NEED for Linux, Windows XP works just fine for me, I don't have to worry about spyware, or virii, or crashes usually, because I take good care of Windows. However the reason I was motivate to try Linux was OS politics. My personal philosophy is a far better match with Ubuntu than the Microsoft corporation. As such I wanted to act upon my beliefs and switch to an OS more in like with my ideology.

If you don't need Linux, well...Linux doesn't need you, either. If XP does whatever you need, in the way that you need it, by all means keep using XP. If you really wanted to act in line with your beliefs (rather than with your interest, which is a separate calculation), then you'd probably want to sit back and learn as much as possible about this brave new world that you're entering.

Otherwise, let me echo the advice you'll hear a lot in these fora: get an Apple and run OSX. It'll be prettier than Ubuntu, for sure--probably just as secure and stable, and you'll have fewer hardware headaches. Plus, chicks dig 'em.


I think the one thing Ubuntu, and maybe linux as a whole suffers the most from is a lack of a good centralized documentation base, and tutorials and guides deisgned at the brand new user. As worthless as I find Microsoft's little bubbles and wizards oriented at new users, at one time they were very usefull and insightful, and just made things easy to use.

That's a fair point. Documentation for Linux is squirreled away online in a myriad of places...and locally in the man pages (type $man PROGRAMNAMEHERE in a console). But you'll find that a lot of the people who have already migrated are migrating, in large part, to get away from Window's obsessive "nagging-nanny" treatment of most common users. For a laugh, say "clippy" at a Linux user.


Again, Linux may or may bot be better than Windows, I really am not experienced enough with Linux to enter that argument, however if we operate on the premise that linux, and ubuntu in particular is better, then isn't it a great dis-service to computer users everywhere to make it so difficult to set up Ubuntu that users eventually just give up on it and never even get to see the possible benefits of Ubuntu?

It's not difficult by default.

Incidentally, have you tried reinstalling Windows from scratch lately? Ubuntu's basic installation is merciful compared to that.

Xandros and Linspire aim directly at people migrating from windows. They get mixed reviews around here because people moving from other distributions to Xandros and Linspire are frustrated by *that* set-up.

Let me repeat it again, for emphasis: these things are always under constant and furious development--both by amateurs with nothing to give but time and skill, and large corporations, who want to leverage free software's advantages.


I can't claim to be impartial, having been a Windows user for life, however, I would like to see Ubuntu and other open source software projects succeed as much as possible, and in order to do that I believe that they should be easier to use out of the box. People shouldn't have to search through this and other forums, as well as google, and still not understand how to get on the internet....there should be a knowledgbase, and a comprehensive faq, and tutorials, all in on place.

"Who will bell the cat?"

For ubuntu--the wiki is here, now. Don't like it? You can edit it, too! Even minor edits and howtos end up doing everybody a world of good.

One of the main difficulties with getting comprehensive documentation together is the sheer number of hardware configuration permutations out there. What works for most users will probably not work for the one guy who's trying to make a system from disparate spare parts. You can't ask to cover *every* eventuality.


Personally, I'm not all that impatient, and part of the reason I decided to install Ubuntu was for a challenge to reduce my summer time boredom. So I'll try and stick with it and figure out how to get on the internet, if worst comes to worst, In a month I'll have a regular lan connection with wires so I should be able to connect then. But its the little things to matter. If Linux wants to grow into its own, its going to have to provide the ease-of-use users have come to expect from an OS. It is not selling out, or attempting to create a windows clone to create an easy to use operating system with a short learning curve. Instead, I would call that success.

I hate being scolded.

aysiu
August 4th, 2005, 03:01 PM
I find I get flamed into the ground every time I even so much as mention problems Linux may have. One could argue any Linux advocate in this thread gets "flamed into the ground" (by you) every time he tries to defend Linux. In a previous post I tried to show you I can admit to faults Linux has, so I've showed that I can acknowledge both where Linux has strengths and weaknesses.

You've been anti-Linux the whole thread (actually, your whole time on the Ubuntu Forums), and I have yet to see a valid criticism of Linux in any of your posts, just some vast generalizations with no examples.

Basically your approach is this: I'll make an outlandish statement about Linux. If people here don't agree with me, they're fanatics and won't admit that there are problems with Linux.

But, go ahead. Ask Linux users what they think is wrong with Linux--they'll have long, long lists of what they think is wrong with Linux. We just don't think what you or the original post-er think is wrong with Linux is what's wrong.

There are real problems in Linux (not mentioned by you or the original post-er), and there are "problems" Windows users have because they expect Linux to be Windows.

Curlydave
August 4th, 2005, 03:14 PM
Like Blackholesun, I agree with all points except for synaptic. As it stands now, Linux likes to make things as difficult/unintuitive as possible to do some basic things. I shouldn't have to be constantly checking the wiki/forums/irc channel to do basic tasks.

Brunellus
August 4th, 2005, 03:16 PM
Like Blackholesun, I agree with all points except for synaptic. As it stands now, Linux likes to make things as difficult/unintuitive as possible to do some basic things. I shouldn't have to be constantly checking the wiki/forums/irc channel to do basic tasks.
New users are *always* having to refer to documentation to do basic tasks. Watch someone use a computer--running any OS of your choice--for the first time.

Curlydave
August 4th, 2005, 03:17 PM
New users are *always* having to refer to documentation to do basic tasks. Watch someone use a computer--running any OS of your choice--for the first time.

Not the same; having to repeatedly dig up console commands is more unique to Linux.

Brunellus
August 4th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Not the same; having to repeatedly dig up console commands is more unique to Linux.
the base system is a command-line interface. Programs under development work there, first, before fancy graphical frontends are developed. For many, graphical frontends are never developed because they are simply not priorities.

This will change with time. But the main focus is *getting things to work* rather than *making them pretty* or *making it idiotproof*

Curlydave
August 4th, 2005, 03:23 PM
the base system is a command-line interface. Programs under development work there, first, before fancy graphical frontends are developed. For many, graphical frontends are never developed because they are simply not priorities.

This will change with time. But the main focus is *getting things to work* rather than *making them pretty* or *making it idiotproof*

Ok, so maybe later things will be better in this area. However, right now these are fairly important issues. The bottom line is that most people don't want to spend the time or effort dealing with this.

Brunellus
August 4th, 2005, 03:33 PM
Ok, so maybe later things will be better in this area. However, right now these are fairly important issues. The bottom line is that most people don't want to spend the time or effort dealing with this.
They don't have to.

Given fairly standard hardware, ubuntu is largely trouble-free. The major issues come with the multimedia support--which can't be added to the official distribution for legal purposes. Even so, it isn't too hard to get things going.

egon spengler
August 4th, 2005, 03:33 PM
If you want a driver for a particular piece of hardware, you should go to the same place you'd request a windows driver from: the hardware manufacturer. If they don't want to provide a driver for Linux, it'your fault for not doing your research, just as it would be for buying a piece of hardware with no Windows drivers, and whose manufacturer refuses to provide Windows drivers.

Sorry, but when people complain that lack of hardware support is all Linux's fault when they don't hold Microsoft similarly accountable burns me up a bit.


I agree with your point that people wrongly hold Linux accountable for a lack of drivers for certain hardware but I don't think that I would go so far as to say that it's somehow this guy's fault. Like many windows users trying Linux for the first time he quite likely bought his usb card long before he considered Linux. Now if he had gone out to buy a card specifically to use with Linux and didn't get the right one that would be something different




Possibly. I find I get flamed into the ground every time I even so much as mention problems Linux may have. Of course its not like I am involved in usability and accessibility every day in my general job and do know what I'm talking about, but if people are going to refuse to acknowlege any problems and just throw back 'Well its not Windows' to valid usability criticisms then they are holding Linux back, not helping it.

This is a thoroughly dishonest thig to say. What has actually been happening is that you make some negative statement about Linux based on either a misconception or just the idea that Linux should work identically to Windows, people point out where you are either misinformed or hoping for something contrary to the aims of almost all Linux distros and you get angry over it. I've noticed a trend amongst amost all of the people who post on this forum about how much they dislike Linux, they seem to be unable to take on board any respose short of "Yes, you are completely right. Linux is trash and I shall never use it again". Disagree in any small way with them and you are either flaming or unfriendly or close minded.

KingBahamut
August 4th, 2005, 03:39 PM
I agree with your point that people wrongly hold Linux accountable for a lack of drivers for certain hardware but I don't think that I would go so far as to say that it's somehow this guy's fault. Like many windows users trying Linux for the first time he quite likely bought his usb card long before he considered Linux. Now if he had gone out to buy a card specifically to use with Linux and didn't get the right one that would be something different




This is a thoroughly dishonest thig to say. What has actually been happening is that you make some negative statement about Linux based on either a misconception or just the idea that Linux should work identically to Windows, people point out where you are either misinformed or hoping for something contrary to the aims of almost all Linux distros and you get angry over it. I've noticed a trend amongst amost all of the people who post on this forum about how much they dislike Linux, they seem to be unable to take on board any respose short of "Yes, you are completely right. Linux is trash and I shall never use it again". Disagree in any small way with them and you are either flaming or unfriendly or close minded.
The object is for us to be as openminded as possible. Of course in the face of many Windows users, and I deal with them daily, it becomes a problem.

Curlydave
August 4th, 2005, 03:47 PM
The object is for us to be as openminded as possible. Of course in the face of many Windows users, and I deal with them daily, it becomes a problem.

Trust me, it faces many Linux users as well. (I'm a dual-booter myself, so not sure what you'd call me.)

aysiu
August 4th, 2005, 04:11 PM
Not the same; having to repeatedly dig up console commands is more unique to Linux. This is mostly in set up and installation. Now that I have Linux set up, I never have to use the console (I sometimes choose to). And the Ubuntu Guide (http://www.ubuntuguide.org) has pretty thorough documentation for all that.

aysiu
August 4th, 2005, 04:13 PM
The object is for us to be as openminded as possible. Of course in the face of many Windows users, and I deal with them daily, it becomes a problem. On the contrary, it's quite easy for me to be open-minded: I am a Windows user... and a Linux user. I've been a Windows/DOS user ever since DOS came out, and I've been a Linux user for three months. How does that not make me open-minded about the Windows way of doing things?

Of course, I'm just speaking for myself, but I'd suspect most Linux users started out as Windows users. How many Windows users can say they started out as Linux users? If anyone needs to be "open-minded," it's Windows users.

sonny
August 4th, 2005, 04:21 PM
If you don't like a Linux Distro, then you should try an other, if you don't like the other one, try a third, and so on, until you've found the Distro you like, many windows users argument could be, I don't have time or I don't have to do that in windows, my answer would be: You only have one windows distro (the others are just upgrades or downgrades), and you also have only one Mac Distro, so it's OBVIOUS ou don't need to do it in either windows or mac, because they don't give you as much choises as Linux does. For all users who think that running under root is not a problem, and want their OS to automatically write the fstab then use Linspire, if you want to build your own Linux Distro you can download LFS, but the point is: Linux is not one Distro, if you are planning to write something about Linux, first you have to use ALL the Distro's you can find, if you think that would be hard then go to www.distrowatch.com and you'll find many distro's, after you have tried all Linux Distro's in there, then you are able to talk about what Linux can or can't do, you can say that it fits you needs or not (you can get lucky and find a Distro that fits your needs, that you like and that does everything you want, like I have with Ubuntu). You have to do ALL that because Linux IS NOT one Distro like Windows or Mac, sometimes I heard things that other Distro can do, so I find out about that I learn how Ubuntu is able to do it, then implement it, that's all it takes.

dare2dreamer
August 4th, 2005, 04:23 PM
A thought about clicking on .deb files...

I think the main reason that it is a BAD idea to have it be too easy for a .deb file to be installed directly off the net is that, while probably well intentioned, these pieces of software are not a part of the official Ubuntu distribution. If one doesn't work, breaks your system or (not that I've EVER seen it) contains malware it is going to be an epic headache for a new user to sort out and it will likely reflect poorly on the distribution (which is especially sad in this case because they are completely without fault in this scenario).

One idea for a "meet them halfway solution" might be to create a urltype that fires off an application that installs the version of the piece of software currently in the ubuntu repositories. I envision it something like this...

1. user clicks on a ubuntuapt://someapp (or whatever it ends up being called link)
2. user is prompted for their password (sudo)
3. apt is searched, and if the application is available it is installed and the user is notified.
4. if the application is unavailable the user is notified. (hell, perhaps canonical is optionally notified as well...like popularity-contest in debian but more on-demand)

It makes sense that this would be something coded into ubuntu's version of firefox, as an ubuntu user is the only one who could really take advantage of it. The hardest part would be convincing programmers to include an "ubuntuapt" link on their sites.

Just a random thought.

Kerberos
August 4th, 2005, 05:57 PM
Thinking about it it seems strange that software is ever allowed to install itself (that is it is trusted). It should be up to the operating system to install the software (placing files, creating configs etc). Double click installs, yes, but OS handled so there can be no problems with an uninstall. It'd also help you stop invasive programming (such as quicktime, real, winzip etc) which try and put as many icons and quickstarters on your computer as possible*. Its the whole idea of 'branding' that makes them try and make their programs prominant (you dont even need one shortcut to quicktime, let alone 4).

Even FireFox is bad for this - it puts a new quicklaunch icon every time you update it if there was one there or not already.

OttoDestruct
August 4th, 2005, 06:34 PM
Thinking about it it seems strange that software is ever allowed to install itself (that is it is trusted). It should be up to the operating system to install the software (placing files, creating configs etc). Double click installs, yes, but OS handled so there can be no problems with an uninstall. It'd also help you stop invasive programming (such as quicktime, real, winzip etc) which try and put as many icons and quickstarters on your computer as possible*. Its the whole idea of 'branding' that makes them try and make their programs prominant (you dont even need one shortcut to quicktime, let alone 4).

Even FireFox is bad for this - it puts a new quicklaunch icon every time you update it if there was one there or not already.

Er... Maybe you just need to uncheck those little boxes saying 'create a shortcut on the desktop' or 'create quicklaunch shortcut'.... that's always worked for me ;-)

Kvark
August 4th, 2005, 06:49 PM
Thinking about it it seems strange that software is ever allowed to install itself (that is it is trusted). It should be up to the operating system to install the software (placing files, creating configs etc). Double click installs, yes, but OS handled so there can be no problems with an uninstall. It'd also help you stop invasive programming (such as quicktime, real, winzip etc) which try and put as many icons and quickstarters on your computer as possible*. Its the whole idea of 'branding' that makes them try and make their programs prominant (you dont even need one shortcut to quicktime, let alone 4).

Even FireFox is bad for this - it puts a new quicklaunch icon every time you update it if there was one there or not already.

Yeah, I have always found it strange that windows allows an .exe installer to install a program. Who knows what else it puts in besides the intended program. The only argument I can think of for installers independant from the system is that those installers can leave hidden traces that are left after uninstall. So users can't use a 30 day trial twice cause next time the installer finds that hidden trace. (remember, security & protection against the user is important for propriarity software).

nocturn
August 5th, 2005, 07:26 AM
Sun....you forgot Sun. They did most of the research for Gnome.

How could I forget! I used Gnome (Ximian Desktop 1) at my previous job on a Sun server with thin clients (Sunray)... Very nice setup.

nocturn
August 5th, 2005, 07:30 AM
One could argue any Linux advocate in this thread gets "flamed into the ground" (by you) every time he tries to defend Linux. In a previous post I tried to show you I can admit to faults Linux has, so I've showed that I can acknowledge both where Linux has strengths and weaknesses.

You've been anti-Linux the whole thread (actually, your whole time on the Ubuntu Forums), and I have yet to see a valid criticism of Linux in any of your posts, just some vast generalizations with no examples.

Basically your approach is this: I'll make an outlandish statement about Linux. If people here don't agree with me, they're fanatics and won't admit that there are problems with Linux.

But, go ahead. Ask Linux users what they think is wrong with Linux--they'll have long, long lists of what they think is wrong with Linux. We just don't think what you or the original post-er think is wrong with Linux is what's wrong.

There are real problems in Linux (not mentioned by you or the original post-er), and there are "problems" Windows users have because they expect Linux to be Windows.

You're quite right. Many people critise even without specifying what is wrong, I posted in a thread on another forum where some guy said that Gnome and KDE were still missing GUI features and pollish that Windows has. So I asked him exactly what was wrong/missing and he replied that he didn't have any examples handy...

nocturn
August 5th, 2005, 07:33 AM
Not the same; having to repeatedly dig up console commands is more unique to Linux.

First off, I think you can manage your Ubuntu system for 99% at least without ever typing a command.

For servers it is different, but if you do not understand enough about your server to do this, I doubt it is wise to connect it to the Internet.

On another note, what is so bad about the command line? If you have good documentation (like Ubuntuguide), copying and pasting the commands is actually easier then following instructions that require you to go through 5 levels of menus.

nocturn
August 5th, 2005, 07:34 AM
Ok, so maybe later things will be better in this area. However, right now these are fairly important issues. The bottom line is that most people don't want to spend the time or effort dealing with this.

Curlydave, what tasks did you have to perform in the command line that were not possible in the GUI?

npaladin2000
August 5th, 2005, 07:38 AM
You're quite right. Many people critise even without specifying what is wrong, I posted in a thread on another forum where some guy said that Gnome and KDE were still missing GUI features and pollish that Windows has. So I asked him exactly what was wrong/missing and he replied that he didn't have any examples handy...

I have examples. Lots of them. I'd list them, but someone already did:

http://www.cai.com/virusinfo/encyclopedia/ :grin:

Kerberos
August 5th, 2005, 02:20 PM
For servers it is different, but if you do not understand enough about your server to do this, I doubt it is wise to connect it to the Internet.

On another note, what is so bad about the command line? If you have good documentation (like Ubuntuguide), copying and pasting the commands is actually easier then following instructions that require you to go through 5 levels of menus.

Ever had to install Apache, PHP + MySQL on Windows? It's a nightmare. You have to move files, edit paths, copy bits of config file about the place and search through loads of readmes and repeatedly trying to start it up (usually to get an error message along the lines of 'Cannot start service: An error has occured'. Its the hardest bit of software to install on Windows by a long shot, which is a complete show stopper for anyone who cannot do the above themselves easily, to the point where my colleagues get me to put it on their laptops for them because they cant work it out.

I see this as a massive disservice to computer users. Why should it be incredibly difficult to install and use? I think this is a much, much more serious problem than viruses and worms which, although are annoying, dealing with them is far more in the ability range of normal users than being given a .tar.gz and told 'install this'.

The problem with the command line is it requires an already existing level of knowlege much, much higher than that required to use a GUI environment. I dont think my mum will ever be capable of using a CLI yet I dont see why that should stop her using a computer.

This is a pretty severe example, but even things as simple as a mislabled or misplaced button or silly default can cause huge problems, and pointing these out tends to result in a flaming, but its these things that are important to end users.


You're quite right. Many people critise even without specifying what is wrong, I posted in a thread on another forum where some guy said that Gnome and KDE were still missing GUI features and pollish that Windows has. So I asked him exactly what was wrong/missing and he replied that he didn't have any examples handy...

Hmmm. First post in this thread said...



- Let the Windows main and secondary keys actually do something in Linux. The Windows key could drop down the main menu and the second key could give a context menu in a word processor. Make it do something OUT OF THE BOX. Windows users don't map keys and we'll never want to. Unless you have a Mac, your keyboard has these keys.

- 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.

- Make drives easily mountable. I eventually gave up trying to mount my NTFS partitions. Instead I created a FAT32 one (using Ubuntu's installer). Windows found the new partition immediately. Linux didn't. It expected me to mount the partition. Anyone ever Google on mounting a drive? It makes sense if you use Linux, not it you are new to it. Can't Linux at least say "Hey, a new partition! Would you like to do something with it?"

- Easily solutions. It took me three hours of trying to access my NTFS partitions via Linux. It took Google and Windows ten minutes before I could browse my Linux partitions via Windows Explorer.

- Linux would really benefit from virtual folders as seen in Tiger OS. It would cut down on the confusion of all the folders in the root directory. I ended up putting all my stuff on the desktop because I didn't know where else to put it within easy access.


So theres a few for you now.

nocturn
August 5th, 2005, 02:28 PM
Ever had to install Apache, PHP + MySQL on Windows? It's a nightmare. You have to move files, edit paths, copy bits of config file about the place and search through loads of readmes and repeatedly trying to start it up (usually to get an error message along the lines of 'Cannot start service: An error has occured'. Its the hardest bit of software to install on Windows by a long shot, which is a complete show stopper for anyone who cannot do the above themselves easily, to the point where my colleagues get me to put it on their laptops for them because they cant work it out.


I installed Apache on Windows before yes, went quite smooth and I don't know about the others.

Regarding the ease of doing things in the GUI, this all all good and well for desktop machines, but an admin setting up an internet connected server needs to know how it works, or he will make mistakes.



So theres a few for you now.

I was talking about things in general, not only this thread alone.
And I happen to disagree with the points the OP made. Linux is not Windows, and I doubt it will ever be.

Kerberos
August 5th, 2005, 02:37 PM
I installed Apache on Windows before yes, went quite smooth and I don't know about the others.

Have you actually tried to install PHP and MySQL as well? Its not 'smooth'.

KingBahamut
August 5th, 2005, 02:41 PM
Have you actually tried to install PHP and MySQL as well? Its not 'smooth'.
Trying to get Windows to run the AMP part of LAMP is a bear in my opinion. Of course I guess in this case it would be WAMP ( should be called WHIMP , but hey...what can I say, really). I believe there used to be a domain for this .....www.wampserver.com ??, I could be wrong.

nocturn
August 5th, 2005, 03:23 PM
Have you actually tried to install PHP and MySQL as well? Its not 'smooth'.

As I stated above, no I haven't and I have no desire to try. I documented the install of Apache2 with Tomcat5 on windows for other sites (at work), that's all.

Juergen
August 5th, 2005, 03:42 PM
Trying to get Windows to run the AMP part of LAMP is a bear in my opinion. Of course I guess in this case it would be WAMP
AFAIK it's xampp, and installation should be as easy as with other windows software:
http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp.html
Haven't tried it myself though.

clehel
August 21st, 2005, 08:32 PM
My dear Brothers!
I hope you forgive me for this long message. I would like to tell you my humble opinion on where Linux still needs to improve. I am not perfect, of course, and neither is my opinion. I respect you very much, and I intend to help, not to offend. I apologize if you have read similar messages a zillion times.

Shortly about myself: I am not a computer professional, but still quite knowledgeable about computers, although I am clearly a GUI guy. About 5-6 years ago I made a serious attempt to switch to Linux, and at that time I failed, due to various reasons. Now I made a second attempt, and now I succeeded. Two things changed in the meantime: Linux became better, and my son grew up, and became a Linux expert (and even an open source programmer). He chose the hardware, picked the right distribution (Kubuntu), and even installed it for me. I took over the computer at this point, and I still had a few annoying problems. With his help I succeded, without it I might have failed again, I don't know. (I am not sure, this Forum is really very great, it might have worked this way, too...)

My impression now is that Linux IS ready for average home desktop use, if it can change in just a few areas. There is tremendous progress, and beautiful programs are written. My favorites are LiveCDs, OpenOffice, Krusader, Konqueror, Synaptic, VMware, but the list is long... There are still a few areas, where I feel some change is needed, with the goal to come up with such a user friendly version of Linux that can be used by average people, on an average home desktop. They are the following:

1. Software installation/Package management: I like Synaptic, but it is still far from a double-click install. (Of course we do not need to just slavishly mimick Windows, but if something is better, or more user friendly in that OS, the wise behavior would be just to accept and learn.) The limited repositories might not be enough for some people. If you download just a single package that is not from these repositories, you either have to learn and use dpkg (forget it for an average user) or have to set up a local repository, and update it after downloading any new package, so Synaptic can see it. I succeeded with the latter, but not so easily. (Installed OpenOffice2.0 beta this way)
- Is it a bad idea to create a sample local repository as part of a distribution? If you would click on 'Reload' in Synaptic, it might run first a script to update Packages.gz in the local repository, and then do it's normal jobs, among them checking packages in the local repo as well.
- Is it possible to set up the system in a way that a double click on a deb package (in the local repository, for example) invokes Synaptic, and it knows what to do with it?
- Still, the issue of dependencies remain, and I have simply no enough insight on this.

2. Am I a SUPERUSER or just an ordinary mortal? Sudo, su, sudo su, kdesu, or whatever: I don't care. On an average desktop, I trust myself, I am not schizophrenic. It is very much unfriendly manner that one side of me always prompts the other side of me for a password. Or the naive side of me just edits a text file, and when wants to save it, the SUPERUSER side of me tells (and tells only then!!) that 'Access denied'. This is very unfriendly again. I feel it would be friendlier if during installation of Linux ((K)Ubuntu) the user would be asked if (s)he wants traditional root/user setup, or just a single user. With explanation, of course. If single user is chosen, then anytime the user enters a directory, or edits a file that has root only privilege in a traditional system, then a warning message would appear telling that you plan to modify something critical for the system. If you click OK, then you are given root privilege, even without you knowing about it. As soon as you leave that area, you are quietly converted back to plain user, again without you knowing about it. This way the whole permission system of Linux does not need to be modified, and it is still friendlier.

3. Using a CD, floppy, etc. When I put a CD into the tray, I just want to use it, and have it available in all applications at once. And when I finished using it, I just want to be able to remove it by pushing it's eject button. I just don't care whether it is mounted or unmounted, and whether that is done via autofs, ivman, file protocol, media protocol, .desktop file, or whatever. I don't even want to know.

4. Windows emulation. The lack of just a single application in Linux might be enough to prevent someone from switching from Win to Lin. There are still some holes, although less and less. Of what I tried, VMWare is clearly the best emulation software, but unfortunately it is not free. wine can't do everything, qemu is good, but slower than VMWare (this I just heard, have not tried myself). So there is still room to progress here for a free software, and it is still very important.

5. The console is a great tool, really powerful. But for a beginner it is overwhelming and unfriendly. And not too many people have many hours to spend in front of the console, just to figure out what command to use, or what's wrong with the command you just entered. The man pages are not meant as a help system, but as a reference. There are a few good command line tutorials online, and I feel it would help if one of them would be incorporated into the Help menu of the console, or would be available through other ways as well. Also, a searchable, human readable help system for at least the most important commands would be helpful. I know, asking and criticizing is easy, words are cheap...

6. United we stand. I see that in the last couple of years a huge amount of energy poured into the Linux area: tens of thousands of software projects started, and over 300 distributions... Might be even more than what MS was able to put into Windows. But still, Windows is the dominant OS, and a major reason for this is 'divided we fall'. MS has monopoly, it protects it well, and uses it's energy in a focused way. Linux also has areas with monopoly within Linux: the kernel, Apache web server, etc. And they are a good thing, because the interested people work together, and not on parallel things, sometimes even against each other. I read a question on a forum of why there are so many distributions, and parallel things in Linux. The answer was "because it's a free world, and we do not have a monopoly to protect." It sounds very nice, but it is very misleading, in my opinion. Because this is the exact same reason of why MS is still able to have a huge lead on the desktop. Human nature is difficult to change, so for a united Linux approach (which I see as very much desired) I see no other way than a distribution becoming dominant. I hope it will be Ubuntu, and I wish the Ubuntu team would be very successful!!!

God bless you all,
Csaba :smile:

qalimas
August 21st, 2005, 08:45 PM
We don't want Linux to become a clone, we don't care much for Windows emulation. The goal of Linux is not to have everyone in the world use it, there's no point, because no one is making money. The goal is to make an operating system someone will use if they want to use it. If you want Linux, then you'll use Linux, you won't use a GUI on Linux that makes Linux work like Windows does. If you want Windows, you poor soul, then use Windows, it's only $300(!). If you don't want Windows, and you don't want Linux, then don't mix htem together and ruin something good, get a Mac and be done with it.

Windows is for people who want to double click, Linux is for people who want a fast, safe, and secure system, but are willing to do things in a different manner. Macs are for people who basically want Windows without the malware.

After a while of using Linux, I do get lost on Windows, and I keep saying to myself, when is Microsoft going to get something like Apt-Get? Where is my powerufl terminal? Why isn't Gaim in here by default? What happened to my pretty themes?

It goes both ways, and I think I'd prefer Synaptic over a double clickable EXE. (PS, I think in the HowTo forum, someone made a mod that can let you run the dpkg command on a deb if you right click it -- not positive, but worth looking for.)

weasel fierce
August 21st, 2005, 08:50 PM
Userfriendly ness is a good goal to aim for, but there are plenty of areas, where linux is ahead. Hardware detection on a fresh windows install is usually horrible, f.x.

Double click installs are nice, for stuff thats not in synaptic. But if its a choice between
"google, click, close pop up, click, download, close pop up, exit browser, double click, install"

or "synaptic, click, install, exit"

I can live with the latter :)



Ultimately, I dont think Linux /needs/ to become the number one, or whatnot.

aysiu
August 21st, 2005, 09:02 PM
I don't view your suggestions for "improvement" as real improvement. It sounds as if you're just used to what you're used to. Want to run as root? Want to have no idea what's being mounted or unmounted? Use Linspire. End of story.

RastaMahata
August 21st, 2005, 09:07 PM
We don't want Linux to become a clone, we don't care much for Windows emulation. The goal of Linux is not to have everyone in the world use it, there's no point, because no one is making money. The goal is to make an operating system someone will use if they want to use it. If you want Linux, then you'll use Linux, you won't use a GUI on Linux that makes Linux work like Windows does. If you want Windows, you poor soul, then use Windows, it's only $300(!). If you don't want Windows, and you don't want Linux, then don't mix htem together and ruin something good, get a Mac and be done with it.

Windows is for people who want to double click, Linux is for people who want a fast, safe, and secure system, but are willing to do things in a different manner. Macs are for people who basically want Windows without the malware.

After a while of using Linux, I do get lost on Windows, and I keep saying to myself, when is Microsoft going to get something like Apt-Get? Where is my powerufl terminal? Why isn't Gaim in here by default? What happened to my pretty themes?

It goes both ways, and I think I'd prefer Synaptic over a double clickable EXE. (PS, I think in the HowTo forum, someone made a mod that can let you run the dpkg command on a deb if you right click it -- not positive, but worth looking for.)
come on... dont flame him...

@ clehel:
I respect some points, but others are just out of scope...
1. Yeah, .deb installation with double click or drag/drop to synaptic would be great.
2. I dont know. I feel comfortable on how I'm using just sudo. I rarely use gksudo...
3. Heck, mounting is ay better that in windows. In windows, If you are running a cd and click the eject button on the tray, the program colapses. In linux, you have to eject it from the computer, and I think it's way better this way. Again, it's a thing of taste.
4. Why would I need emulation? I have only needed wine once, and it's for running Civ III
5. Well, yeah, an intro to the console would be great. Just like there's an intro to python.
6. Well, it somehow brings competence. And competence is always good. ;)

matthew
August 21st, 2005, 09:48 PM
My dear Brothers!I respect you very much, and I intend to help, not to offend. I apologize if you have read similar messages a zillion times.
Please forgive me but I promised myself I wouldn't post on this thread since I have done so on many of the zillion similar threads previously posted.

Oops! I did it again. (With apologies to all for the inevitable annoying song now running through your heads.)

darkmatter
August 21st, 2005, 10:10 PM
Linux still needs to be more user friendly to convert Win users

No, it doesn't.

Linux is NOT a Windows clone, nor should it be. Most users who switch to an alternative OS (not just Linux) from Windows expect differences, and accept them.

User- friendliness is not defined by the 'Windows way'. Just because you are used to a certian methodology doesn't make it law.

clehel
August 21st, 2005, 10:20 PM
To qalimas:
You misunderstood many things, I am sorry. I already made it, so no need to talk about who wants Windows, and who does not. Was my original message really this confusing?

Emulation of a few software does not mean a clone. Unfortunately, I really do have a few pieces of Win sw that I have to run, and do not exist in Linux. I can list them, just so you can believe: 1/ an English-Hungarian large dictionary, (I do translation)2/ a special software written for DVD subtitling, with special file format, does not exist, just in Win environment. 3/ I know some friends, they would switch, but they need Macromedia Dreamweaver and Flash.

So I made it, and I feel sorry for those who are less capable than us, pay 300$ to MS, and still get viruses, when a more secure OS is available, and it is free, even. What is the right behavior? To laugh at those people, and be proud that you made it, or to try to help them? I tried to report what caused problems to me in switching, so this OS can become friendlier, and more people can escape from MS's hug.

To weasel fierce:
I basically agree with you. Inconvenience exists only for packages that are not in the repos. Otherwise, once you learn it, Synaptic is really good. And yes, Linux is very friendly in some areas.

To aysiu:
No comment.

To RastaMahata:
Thanks. I describe above why I need emulation. I see diversity also brings competence. But with this fragmented approach, Linux will never be able to help many people. Everybody should have a right for safe access to information on the web, and what most people get for 300$ from MS is easy access to viruses, adware, etc.

weasel fierce
August 21st, 2005, 10:23 PM
I do agree that a GUI method to install DEB files wouldnt be amiss.

Kvark
August 21st, 2005, 10:31 PM
1. Synaptic is by far the easiest way to find, download and install programs. I love to just mark checkboxes , click apply, wait a minute or so, and then start using the programs. The repositories are quite big with 16k packages so almost everything is there. But yeah for the (very few) programs that aren't there and for dial up users who get the programs from somewhere else then online it would be nice to click on the .deb, answer yes, and then start using the program.

2. The problem is that when a program wants to change a system file (or do any other sudo task) the system needs a way to tell if it is because you told the program to do the change or because the program is a virus/trojan/whatever that wants to mess up the system. So a confirmation that a virus wouldn't know of is needed, that'd be your password.

3. Windows is too willing to eject CDs when you push the button, it even does it in the middle of burning them! But if no program currently needs the CD then I agree with you. For floppys I think the problem is that a floppy drive is entirely mechanical, the software has no way to know when you put in or take out a diskette. Windows seems to solve this by mounting and unmounting every time it reads or writes something.

4. If linux gets more market share then maybe those special programs will come in a linux native version. Until then I'd personally think using windows is the best option if you need specific windows programs. Emulation can never compete with the real thing.

5. Yes, some help with learning the commands is what users need to get started with the command line. The best help might be to get a book from the library. Once they know the commands it is easy & fast to use.

6. The problem here is not that there is so many different projects but rather that it is not easy enough to move features between them. For example if ubuntu devs try to decide which media player to include and one player is good for organizing music but another is better for viewing movies. If they could just combine the movie part of one and the music part of the other into a crossover mediaplayer to include with ubuntu.... That would make good use of both project's efforts.

DJ_Max
August 21st, 2005, 10:31 PM
We don't want Linux to become a clone, we don't care much for Windows emulation. The goal of Linux is not to have everyone in the world use it, there's no point,
I agree, I hate it when people come up with the term "user friendly" as if it's some standard a piece of software can meet, when it's impossible to meet, as everyone's different. Like I said before, I don't find Windows user friendly.

Here's a good read. (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)

clehel
August 21st, 2005, 10:32 PM
No, it doesn't.

Linux is NOT a Windows clone, nor should it be. Most users who switch to an alternative OS (not just Linux) from Windows expect differences, and accept them..

So do I. I also agree Linux should not be a Win clone.


User- friendliness is not defined by the 'Windows way'. Just because you are used to a certian methodology doesn't make it law

I agree again. But all of this does not mean Linux has no area to become friendlier. I just tried to point to some of those.

egon spengler
August 21st, 2005, 10:33 PM
1. I strongly disagree with the idea that double clicking Windows exes is easier than using synaptic. As far as file not included in the repositories an easier way to install them would be nice, I agree. Something to bear in mind though, would the average user often be in such dire need of bleeding edge software that doesn't exist in any of the repositories? I may well be wrong but I think that may well be more the realm of the power user for whom i would think that dpkg -i *packagename* would not be too hard a command to master. Nonetheless easier installation WOULD be nice.

2. This is a design of philosophy of ubuntu. I don't think that there's much chance of them changing it. You could add a root account (http://ubuntuguide.org/#setchangeenablerootpassword) if you really want or try a different distro that approaches these things differently

3. Cds and usb drives automount don't they?

4. Not really an issue for me but I guess it can be for some. The thing is, although some people might be disuaaded from using Linux because of the lack of a certain app if the iimage of linux was to become nothing more thana windows emulator tht might also disuade peple from usig Linux. I am not sure if Linux should be no more than Windows but cheaper.

5. Help with how to use the console would be good. Agreed.

skoal
August 21st, 2005, 10:35 PM
yippers, _right_ on time...

sure enough, while glancing at my watch, it's been a whole 2.5678098761 hours since a similiar type of post like this hit these forums. Sweet...these forums are better than the atomic clock at nist.time.gov/...

\\//_

benplaut
August 21st, 2005, 10:36 PM
i always get a bit riled up when i see a "Linux needs to be..." post...


Anatomy of a Well Intentioned Linux Troll (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58017)

DJ_Max
August 21st, 2005, 10:41 PM
So do I. I also agree Linux should not be a Win clone.



I agree again. But all of this does not mean Linux has no area to become friendlier. I just tried to point to some of those.

Agreed, but you can't really say Linux needs to be friendlier., as it's just a Kernel. You may say, "Ubuntu needs to be friendlier." You want hand holding, try Linspire, as thats it's goal.

clehel
August 21st, 2005, 10:48 PM
2. The problem is that when a program wants to change a system file (or do any other sudo task) the system needs a way to tell if it is because you told the program to do the change or because the program is a virus/trojan/whatever that wants to mess up the system. So a confirmation that a virus wouldn't know of is needed, that'd be your password.

3. Windows is too willing to eject CDs when you push the button, it even does it in the middle of burning them! But if no program currently needs the CD then I agree with you. For floppys I think the problem is that a floppy drive is entirely mechanical, the software has no way to know when you put in or take out a diskette. Windows seems to solve this by mounting and unmounting every time it reads or writes something.

2. Thanks. I did not think about viruses. Is it a real danger on Linux?

3. Of course, I thought about a situation when no program is using the CD.

darkmatter
August 21st, 2005, 10:49 PM
Help with how to use the console would be good. Agreed.


$ man bash ;-)


But all of this does not mean Linux has no area to become friendlier. I just tried to point to some of those.

Agreed. I'm not against improvements, it just seems that to many user's expect those improvements to follow a Windows-like methodology.

It's a better solution to improve on already existing methods of accomplishing tasks in GNU/Linux systems (someone previously mentioned dragn'drop to Synaptic - tha's a good example of what 'friendlier' Linux should be, and an excellent suggestion as well)

Another great idea (vision of the future) is the concept of PAL, as presented by the author of autopackage. Dn'd installation/uninstallation of applications. As long as this could be accomplished in a manner that does not bypass current security safeguards, I'm all for it.

darkmatter
August 21st, 2005, 10:53 PM
I did not think about viruses. Is it a real danger on Linux?

Not particularily. But as with any OS, it is alway's possible.

The larger issue, IMHO, regarding how security is handled is as a safeguard against rooting.

clehel
August 21st, 2005, 10:57 PM
3. Cds and usb drives automount don't they?

The story is not this simple. I had more problem unmounting/ejecting the CD, then mounting it. Something called gam_server frequently turned out to be using it, and in some cases even killing it, or umount -l did not help. In some cases these did help, so it was confusing. Even my "Linux guru" son could not understand the situation.

macgyver2
August 21st, 2005, 11:05 PM
I agree, I hate it when people come up with the term "user friendly" as if it's some standard a piece of software can meet, when it's impossible to meet, as everyone's different. Like I said before, I don't find Windows user friendly.

Here's a good read. (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)
I agree, and great link... I always like a when someone uses examples to make points, like in that article. I also know a few people that I need to print out copies for.

XQC
August 21st, 2005, 11:06 PM
The goal of Linux is not to have everyone in the world use it, there's no point, because no one is making money.
Erm, ok, but what's your point against suggestions in order to improve Ubuntu?
That kind of a statement is not productive.

Not EVERYONE should use Windows, but Ubuntu has really to attract more users, just because of the monopoly that Microsoft holds in the desktop segment.

I can't imagine what it would like if their never was a project like Firefox. Probably I still would use IE6, not knowing that there are much more comfortable ways to browse the internet. But because of the popularity of Firefox, MS is eager to release IE7 with its new features, they don't want to lose more users.
If there was no Firefox, internet would still be in year 1998.

It's quite the same with Ubuntu really.
Ubuntu has to bring new innovations and new ideas, with the goal to be more user-friendly. Then Microsoft could realize, that it's not a good idea to resolve bugs after like a few months, because they see security holes not as a matter of threat.

DJ_Max
August 21st, 2005, 11:15 PM
Erm, ok, but what's your point against suggestions in order to improve Ubuntu?
That kind of a statement is not productive.

Re-read that replier's post, and you'll see it makes sense.

Erm, ok, but what's your point against suggestions in order to improve Ubuntu?
That kind of a statement is not productive.

Not EVERYONE should use Windows, but Ubuntu has really to attract more users, just because of the monopoly that Microsoft holds in the desktop segment.

I can't imagine what it would like if their never was a project like Firefox. Probably I still would use IE6, not knowing that there are much more comfortable ways to browse the internet. But because of the popularity of Firefox, MS is eager to release IE7 with its new features, they don't want to lose more users.
If there was no Firefox, internet would still be in year 1998.

It's quite the same with Ubuntu really.
Ubuntu has to bring new innovations and new ideas, with the goal to be more user-friendly. Then Microsoft could realize, that it's not a good idea to resolve bugs after like a few months, because they see security holes not as a matter of threat.
Read the whole thread, because from you're post we're back at the beginning. Everyone doesn't have the same standards, so in a sense, it's impossible to make an OS user-friendly. The question I ask, is for who do you want Ubuntu be user-friendly for?

Stormy Eyes
August 21st, 2005, 11:41 PM
Linux is user-friendly. It's just damned picky about its friends.

XQC
August 22nd, 2005, 12:29 AM
Wait, stop.
I am not remembering that I wrote "Ubuntu isn't user-friendly"

I'm just trying to say, it needs to be MORE user-friendly.

When somebody just tells me "It is user-friendly (period)." or "You can't handle it, so don't use it" and doesn't really give further arguments, I get the impression that this person doesn't want to improve anything and it's almost the same as saying "Ok, now we have Hoary and maybe Breezy, but after that we can stop development, because this is now user-friendlyness in itself". I also find that very elitist and this attitude doesn't help anybody.

And I say, there actually IS room for further improvements, for example the multimedia segment, that is way too nonexistend, or at least not in the same quality as Windows (I'm NOT saying, it should be LIKE Windows!).

Though Ubuntu itself can't be blamed for this, it's the community. That is what Open-Source is in the end.

Buffalo Soldier
August 22nd, 2005, 12:45 AM
I also find that very elitist and this attitude doesn't help anybody.It does help. It helps to keep out windows-drone-who-wannabe-cool-*nix-user.


Linux is user-friendly. It's just damned picky about its friends.I agree with Stormy Eyes. Don't we have a special name for a person/thing that tries to please, be nice and friendly with everyone?

GNU/Linux is NOT about converting Win users. And it shouldn't be.

DJ_Max
August 22nd, 2005, 12:56 AM
Wait, stop.
I am not remembering that I wrote "Ubuntu isn't user-friendly"

I'm just trying to say, it needs to be MORE user-friendly.

When somebody just tells me "It is user-friendly (period)." or "You can't handle it, so don't use it" and doesn't really give further arguments, I get the impression that this person doesn't want to improve anything and it's almost the same as saying "Ok, now we have Hoary and maybe Breezy, but after that we can stop development, because this is now user-friendlyness in itself". I also find that very elitist and this attitude doesn't help anybody.

And I say, there actually IS room for further improvements, for example the multimedia segment, that is way too nonexistend, or at least not in the same quality as Windows (I'm NOT saying, it should be LIKE Windows!).

Though Ubuntu itself can't be blamed for this, it's the community. That is what Open-Source is in the end.
After a while these types of threads get redundant, as it's mostly based on opinions. You keep mentioning "user friendly" like it's aa actual universal label you can give something, which is what you're trying to do, but you can't. For example, for me, I find Gentoo to be user friendly, but at the same time, Windows not user friendly. It's all a matter of preference.

If you don't find a Linux distro, such as Linspire, to be up to par on your standards, then to be blunt, Linux isn't cut out for you. Like you said, thats FOSS.

BUT, your comment on multimedia makes sense, but it has been explained before, until popular proprietary formats, libraries such as wmv, mp3, mpeg, etc.. go open source, it won't advance much (or open source formats such as OGG catch on.) Because it simply can't due to legal issues.

XQC
August 22nd, 2005, 01:01 AM
Don't we have a special name for a person/thing that tries to please, be nice and friendly with everyone?
I don't like someone like that either but we're talking about an OS here. We are not supposed to interact with the OS or have emotions for it. It should work for us, simple as that. And yes, I want an OS where I don't have to much care about it. But saying "then Linux is not for you, buy a mac" isn't really the right thing IMHO.
I realize there are different views about the phrase "the way of working" but I'm not saying that Ubuntu should change it's whole interface, but there are things that still need improvement.
And if you really want the little techiness that bad, than Ubuntu should give you the choice for it.


After a while these types of threads get redundant, as it's mostly based on opinions.
You're right, that's the reason I'm cutting myself out of this topic. I don't have new revolutionary arguments, many people said this and that before me. And I read countless topic on that myself.
I'm just bored at the moment, that's all :grin:

Stormy Eyes
August 22nd, 2005, 01:17 AM
I agree with Stormy Eyes. Don't we have a special name for a person/thing that tries to please, be nice and friendly with everyone?

'Fido' comes to mind.


GNU/Linux is NOT about converting Win users. And it shouldn't be.

I agree. I came to Linux for the wrong reasons -- anger at Microsoft -- but I stayed because I came to love Linux. Nobody should use Linux just because they can no longer forgive Microsoft's defects.

Stormy Eyes
August 22nd, 2005, 01:21 AM
I'm just trying to say, it needs to be MORE user-friendly.

Why? Just to lure those sick of Microsoft? I do not think that is a good enough reason.

Buffalo Soldier
August 22nd, 2005, 01:27 AM
What newbies to GNU/Linux really needs are helpfull people that are actively involved in bug reporting, testing, helping with the questions in here and etc. Not someone with 3 out of 10 post complaining "linux should be more like windows".

Stormy Eyes
August 22nd, 2005, 01:29 AM
What newbies to GNU/Linux really needs are helpfull people that are actively involved in bug reporting, testing, helping with the questions in here and etc. Not someone with 3 out of 10 post complaining "linux should be more like windows".

RIGHT ON!

poofyhairguy
August 22nd, 2005, 01:30 AM
Good honest post. I give good honest response.



1. Software installation/Package management: I like Synaptic, but it is still far from a double-click install. (Of course we do not need to just slavishly mimick Windows, but if something is better, or more user friendly in that OS, the wise behavior would be just to accept and learn.) The limited repositories might not be enough for some people. If you download just a single package that is not from these repositories, you either have to learn and use dpkg (forget it for an average user) or have to set up a local repository, and update it after downloading any new package, so Synaptic can see it. I succeeded with the latter, but not so easily. (Installed OpenOffice2.0 beta this way)
- Is it a bad idea to create a sample local repository as part of a distribution? If you would click on 'Reload' in Synaptic, it might run first a script to update Packages.gz in the local repository, and then do it's normal jobs, among them checking packages in the local repo as well.
- Is it possible to set up the system in a way that a double click on a deb package (in the local repository, for example) invokes Synaptic, and it knows what to do with it?
- Still, the issue of dependencies remain, and I have simply no enough insight on this.

Apt-get is the way. It the best way to control the chaos the is the Linux desktop I think. A new frontend for apt-get will come with Breezy, easier than Synaptic. I agree that clicking to install debs would be cool though.



With explanation, of course. If single user is chosen, then anytime the user enters a directory, or edits a file that has root only privilege in a traditional system, then a warning message would appear telling that you plan to modify something critical for the system. If you click OK, then you are given root privilege, even without you knowing about it.


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Sudo is one of the best things about Ubuntu! It is BETTER than people are told (by asking for a password) that rootish things are happening. We do it the EXACT way Apple does, and no one gives Apple **** for it. The fact that people in Windows run in root all the time (which would happen in Ubuntu if you did not have the password protection in your example) is THE BIGGEST REASON that spyware/malware/viruses destroy the Windows world. If this one day becomes the "one thing" holding us back....then I say screw it, hold us back!



3. Using a CD, floppy, etc. When I put a CD into the tray, I just want to use it, and have it available in all applications at once. And when I finished using it, I just want to be able to remove it by pushing it's eject button. I just don't care whether it is mounted or unmounted, and whether that is done via autofs, ivman, file protocol, media protocol, .desktop file, or whatever. I don't even want to know.

Is automounting on the desktop not good enough? If people want to install things from the Ubuntu install CD/DVD Synaptic does it automatically. What more could you want?



4. Windows emulation. The lack of just a single application in Linux might be enough to prevent someone from switching from Win to Lin. There are still some holes, although less and less. Of what I tried, VMWare is clearly the best emulation software, but unfortunately it is not free. wine can't do everything, qemu is good, but slower than VMWare (this I just heard, have not tried myself). So there is still room to progress here for a free software, and it is still very important.

I hate to say it but....I agree. This does hold people back. But A lot of the Linux community is working on it, and we help not at all talking about it.



5. The console is a great tool, really powerful. But for a beginner it is overwhelming and unfriendly. And not too many people have many hours to spend in front of the console, just to figure out what command to use, or what's wrong with the command you just entered. The man pages are not meant as a help system, but as a reference. There are a few good command line tutorials online, and I feel it would help if one of them would be incorporated into the Help menu of the console, or would be available through other ways as well. Also, a searchable, human readable help system for at least the most important commands would be helpful. I know, asking and criticizing is easy, words are cheap...

We are working on that. More GUI tools are comming, we just want to drag Gnome to that point instead of making closed tools.



I see no other way than a distribution becoming dominant.


100% correct. You made a friend with that comment. I think cross distro Linux standards are a pipe dream without that.

If I sounded like I was mad or frustrated in my post, know I am not. I just have strong opinion too...just like you. I thank you for your insight, and I hope you help us with elbow work to make Ubuntu easier. Have a nice day.

XQC
August 22nd, 2005, 01:36 AM
Why? Just to lure those sick of Microsoft? I do not think that is a good enough reason.
Ever heard of something like.. let's say... competition?


Not someone with 3 out of 10 post complaining "linux should be more like windows".
I'm not sure if you actually meant that line serious or if you're simply trying to flame me.

Stormy Eyes
August 22nd, 2005, 02:57 AM
Ever heard of something like.. let's say... competition?

I've heard of it. I just think that rather than concern ourselves with Microsoft and Apple, we would do better to concern ourselves with carving out our own path and making Linux the best OS it can be, not an "alternative" to Windows or Mac OS. It's bad enough that Linux is a derivative of System V UNIX, but I suppose Linus had to start somewhere, and what he wanted was a home Unix that wasn't Minix.

blastus
August 22nd, 2005, 03:21 AM
I recently made the jump into Linux myself and I can tell you that there are huge challenges and obstacles to overcome simply because some things are done differently, you have to unlearn some things, and you have to get confortable with doing things differently. The point is is that regardless of what OS you install or use, you still need an enormous amount of knowedge and understanding of certain things to really do anything with that OS.

I still think Linux needs work IF it is going to be more friendly to convert Windows users. However, I don't think the obstacle is so much with learning Linux as it is with unlearning Windows. Window's users live in a Microsoft world and it can be very difficult to think in non-Microsoft terms inspite of the fact that they may even know some things about Linux. Microsoft and virtually everyone they have come in contact with have conditioned them into believing that there is no other practical way to use a computer but to use Microsoft Windows and Microsoft products. Moving them from Windows to Linux is kind of like the Matrix. Window's users are a part of "the system" and they need our help if we are going to free them from that system :razz:

arnieboy
August 22nd, 2005, 03:58 AM
I've heard of it. I just think that rather than concern ourselves with Microsoft and Apple, we would do better to concern ourselves with carving out our own path and making Linux the best OS it can be, not an "alternative" to Windows or Mac OS. It's bad enough that Linux is a derivative of System V UNIX, but I suppose Linus had to start somewhere, and what he wanted was a home Unix that wasn't Minix.
With due regard to your viewpoints, I have a few counterpoints to make:
For one thing u are contradicting yourself. When u say we should not be concerned with Apple and MS and go about carving our own path, I respect that idealism. But immediately after that u say "we will make it the best". when u use the word "best" u are making a very strong comparison with the rest and it also suggests that all along u have been quite abreast of whats been better in Apple or MS and tried to improve on ur own OS and make it the best. thats what i call double standards.. and it generally originates from irrationality.
If linux wants to really become the best, it has to iron out its shortcomings (most of which windows users term as user-unfriendliness).. what they mean is "i can do that with a single clickon windows. why does linux make me type ten commands for doing the same thing?" This is a very valid point! It might be snuff to u and me and a few thousand others who have fed ourselves with the nuances of linux since we were in our nappies but what about the millions out there who have been fed windows fodder for a decade? Turning into the "best" means converting the masses from the inferior to the superior so that they all agree that the superior is the best.. we already know its much better.. but hey.. we dont rule the world.. the millions out there (read as dedicated windows users) taken together do. if we dont wanna care abt what they think then we shd stop this "we will become the best and will take over the world someday rant" and get back to second grade softwares and rave about the command line and its awesome powers.

Stormy Eyes
August 22nd, 2005, 04:14 AM
Arnieboy, I did not say "make it the best", I said "make it the best it can be", as in ensure that Linux reaches its full potential, whatever that potential may be. If I meant to say that we ought to make Linux better than either Windows or Mac OS, I would have said so.

Stormy Eyes
August 22nd, 2005, 04:16 AM
Moving them from Windows to Linux is kind of like the Matrix. Window's users are a part of "the system" and they need our help if we are going to free them from that system :razz:

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

aysiu
August 22nd, 2005, 04:27 AM
In accordance with my previous pledge (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=307823#post307823), I've been trying to keep out of this, but I really think people shouldn't be talking about Linux as if it's one distribution. Part of the beauty of Linux is its variety. Different distros suit different needs. The OP can be all haughty and "no comment" me if he wants, but I really think anyone who wants to run as root and not know what goes on behind the scenes should use Linspire. That's what it's there for. People who are concerned about security and control of their computer should use Ubuntu. There are many other distros out there, too, that suit various users needs. What may be "user-friendly" for a Fedora user or Gentoo user may not be "user-friendly" to a Mepis user.