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

bodhi.zazen
November 25th, 2006, 07:32 PM
chickengirl - I am rarely lost for words but your reply is 100% typical of the patronising attitude that I keep encountering (and complaining about) here....

Funny, I find chickengirl's replies are right on target and not patronizing in the least. Her response is also well thought out. I just finished installing windows and Ubuntu (dual boot). Ubuntu took 15 minutes and 1 configuration of xorg.conf

Windows took 90 minutes, several re-boots, installation of 7 drivers (post windows XP install CD), update to bios, installation of antivirus, firewall, and anti spyware.

I think your problem (John E) is that you are confusing familiarity with easy. Once you have equal experience with both OS then compare.

I also find you characterization of the CLI way off. The fact is that GUI configuration tools may fail and do not offer as many options as the CLI. If you do not know this I would have to assume a lack of experience on your part with sys admin.

aysiu
November 25th, 2006, 07:39 PM
I've also stated that there is nothing (i.e. nothing at all) that can be done with a command-line that can't be done safer & better by other methods. There's one thing I definitely prefer the command-line for in terms of efficiency--installing programs. With one command, I can install twenty programs (as long as I know the names of them). To install those programs through the GUI (Synaptic Package Manager) requires far more than twenty clicks and either twenty separate searches or a lot of scrolling/browsing.


Well actually, yes - I've built every single computer I've ever owned (apart from my laptop). Eight computers in the past 20 years or so. All this tells us is that you have become over the past 20 years an expert at installing Windows. For us novices, installing Windows is difficult. Would I have any credibility if I said, "Oh, I've had no problem installing Linux. I've been doing it the past 15 years"? Doubtful. As it is, I've had no problems installing Linux in the past year and a half, and that's how long I've been a user. The year before that, I did have problems with it, and I gave up then.

John E
November 25th, 2006, 09:01 PM
None of you seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that I am not comparing Linux with Windows. I am comparing today's Linux distros with the ones I used to know when I first looked at Linux 8 years ago. And I'm saying that in terms of installation & configuration, nothing much has improved. In fact, the only improvement I can detect is that you no longer need to re-compile the kernel.

During those same 8 years, other OS's (and especially Windows) have made far greater strides in getting new users over those basic installation hurdles.

I agree with bodhi.zazen that a typical Windows installtion takes around 90 minutes - but when it boots up, everything works. When I installed Ubuntu (and Fedora, and dyne:bolic, and Mandriva) only the most basic things were working (and even they weren't working very well). I still have no printer, no sound, no ADSL modem and no dual-head display. I'd have willingly sacrificed an extra hour's install time to get those things working.

aysiu
November 25th, 2006, 09:07 PM
None of you seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that I am not comparing Linux with Windows. I am comparing today's Linux distros with the ones I used to know when I first looked at Linux 8 years ago. I don't think you're grasping your own contradictions. You've been comparing Linux to Windows in almost all of your post in this thread:
And why do you all assume that whenever anyone criticises Linux that they're simultaneously defending Windows? The only comment I've made about Windows is that in terms of installation & configuration it is light years ahead of Linux.
The point I'm making is that Linux, for all its power, is still a horrendously unintuitive OS - perhaps equivalent to where Windows was, back in the days of NT 3.51
But even that wasn't the end of the process. I then had to find a particular file called Install.sh and run sh Install.sh for the next stage. This time, I got an error telling me that the driver install path for XServer couldn't be found. Nobody here (or on any other Linux forum) could tell me what was wrong...!

Under Windows, this would have been a breeze. There would have been an automatic installer that would have sorted everything out from a simple double click. If other OS's can manage this, why can't Linux??
During those same 8 years, other OS's (and especially Windows) have made far greater strides in getting new users over those basic installation hurdles. Considering the Anaconda installer was released as a beta in 1999 (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/History), I find that hard to believe.

I'll share a bit about the strides I've found just within a year. I tried installing Linux (Blag, an off-shoot of Fedora) in June 2004, and I found it very difficult to install and configure. Screen resolution wasn't recognized, and I had trouble finding documentation about how to fix that. Package management was probably around but wasn't well popularized or well-documented, so I was stuck in dependency hell. And hotplugging USB devices just wasn't happening.

I tried Linux again in April 2005 with Mepis and found a live CD/installer CD in one. Nvidia driver installation was just the check of an option during the graphical installation process. My screen resolution was properly detected, and package management made dependencies no longer a worry. And when I plugged in USB drives, they showed up, and I could just click them to view them. Huge strides. Huge! That's when I decided to stick with desktop Linux, and it's been getting better ever since.

By the way, Windows did make great strides in getting new users over basic installation hurdles by coming preinstalled on almost every new computer users purchased.

bodhi.zazen
November 25th, 2006, 09:52 PM
By the way, Windows did make great strides in getting new users over basic installation hurdles by coming preinstalled on almost every new computer users purchased.

And hardware manufactures develop Windows drivers but seem lacking in Linux drivers.

John E: I understand you frustrations, but I think you are exaggerating a little. Also I can have all these things set up on my Ubuntu Box (sound, networked printer, dual monitors) in 10-15 minutes. For me it is a matter of familiarity.

stuh84
November 25th, 2006, 10:48 PM
I think the point that has to be made is that yes XP and other Windows variants can find stuff hard to configure automatically, but I've yet to go to a hardware website and not see XP drivers.

You can argue that you should be looking for Ubuntu/Linux compatible hardware, but thats just saying that anyone who bought a pre-built PC that has hardware problems aren't worthy of using Linux.

At the end of the day, if you have no drivers for your kit, you WILL be able to get them for Windows (barring anything like it being a 5.25" disc drive, or a 15 year old hand scanner). If you are in Linux, then you have to HOPE that drivers are available. Even then some features may not be available.

Linux hardware support is getting so much better I will not deny that, and a lot of stuff is working out of the box, but Wireless is a large problem in Linux. Having to use NDISWrapper for using Windows drivers just shows that even Linux needs Windows in a sense. The other one is ATI graphics cards, NVidia is a dream to work with, ATI is a nightmare. Given that ATI are NVidia's only real competitor shows another issue.

Linux cannot be held accountable for the lack of provision of drivers. However, but you can look at it like a format. Blu Ray or HD DVD for example. The players themselves are ready for being in peoples living rooms, but if theres only about 20 films in total you can get hold of, thats not exactly a motivation to buy either style of player. Just because the Distro is ready itself for all it can do, that doesn't mean everyone is going to be able to use it.

bodhi.zazen
November 25th, 2006, 10:56 PM
I think the point that has to be made is that yes XP and other Windows variants can find stuff hard to configure automatically, but I've yet to go to a hardware website and not see XP drivers ...

Your point of practicality is well taken and I do not disagree.

However, Linux has all the drivers I need across several desktops and laptops. It is not as if Linux only has 20 drivers.

And I would say that at times the Linux drivers are superior to the windows drivers....

And, in counter point, I strongly disagree with:

You can argue that you should be looking for Ubuntu/Linux compatible hardware, but thats just saying that anyone who bought a pre-built PC that has hardware problems aren't worthy of using Linux.

That is EXACTLY what you should do. In fact you do this with windows all the time. For example, you do not run OSX on a i386 chip or windows on a Macintosh...

You do not buy windows incompatible hardware and expect to find drivers do you?

If you are purchasing hardware, Linux, windows, OSX, what have you, you should always do you homework....

doobit
November 25th, 2006, 10:56 PM
Huh! Just try installing some Linux stuff in Windows!
;)

bhuot
November 25th, 2006, 11:39 PM
I think how difficult Linux is to install depends mainly on how well your specific hardware is supported. And certain hardware has much better support for Linux than others. For instance setting up my Internet connection to be shared between my Mac and my Linux box was a snap and I bet most routers out there - plugged in via Ethernet adapter have excellent support for Linux. My computer came with Linux (Linspire) pre-installed and I have never had any trouble getting things installed and configured properly. When I buy new hardware, I check to see that it is Linux compatible. Certain brands support Linux better than others - Canon cameras support Linux very well as they use an open Picture to Picture protocol. I bought a new monitor, so I can use Linux and my Mac without having to switch monitors and restart, which was an Acer and there is supposedly no problems with different monitors, just the graphics card, but my graphics card worked fine before on another monitor, but when I switched and reconfigured X-windows for it, it kept on giving a weird flicker. I had to switch it to a lower resolution to get it to work and it crashed several times to get it working. I am no newbie to Linux - I installed it in 1999 via a text installer and I used it for graphic design for 2 years. I compiled my own programs. But you never know when something you haven't had to do before may be very hard to get done right. Of course some things are even easier than the Mac like software installation.

Right now I am using my Linux computer for graphic design and web browsing/email and using my Mac for word processing and web layout and I use almost all open source software on both machines. If you are using free software, it is has much better support on Linux. In fact, if you cannot afford the latest version of Adobe and Microsoft big names, you probably will get as good or better software amongst open source equivalents than in spending something like $100 on each piece of software. And on Linux open source software is supported much better than on other OSes.

stuh84
November 26th, 2006, 12:08 AM
That is EXACTLY what you should do. In fact you do this with windows all the time. For example, you do not run OSX on a i386 chip or windows on a Macintosh...

You do not buy windows incompatible hardware and expect to find drivers do you?

If you are purchasing hardware, Linux, windows, OSX, what have you, you should always do you homework....

See this is what I'm trying to say. Yes, you don't buy a PC with the intention of putting Linux on it without checking the hardware BUT how many people buy pre builts with the intention of putting Linux on?

Again we are going into hypotheticals, if you bought a PC for windows bla bla. People DO buy PC's which are built for Windows, virtually every single pre built is. To get Linux onto desktops, it HAS to cater to as much hardware as possible, especially pre builts. No matter how people should be buying hardware, they don't, personally I despise pre-built PC's because they are the reason so many people hate Windows, because they are clogged with more crap than your average sewage plant. To make any dent though, it should be Linux catering to these sort of users rather than just "Oh screw you, you should have thought about it before you bought the PC". Remember, hindsight only comes afterwards.

How often do you find people going into a PC store and coming out with Windows incompatible hardware, 1 in million maybe? Yet Linux incompatible hardware, I'd be willing to bet at a least a quarter if not much more is incompatible or at least a dog to set up. So many laptop's come with the Broadcom wireless cards (yeah I know I keep going on about the wireless, but a lot of people want it nowadays, and it took 3 months for me to get it working so I'm slightly obsessed with it :p), and yet they are terrible to try and get working, I could only do it with edgy and various how to's, Dapper was impossible.

Windows has a huge advantage as they more or less control the PC market, Mac has a huge advantage in that they will only allow (legally, ignoring OSX86) their OS on their own hardware so incompatibility is so rare its not even worth thinking about. Linux is at a disadvantage, because if it wants to become bigger, it has to become as I said so easy to install and has to have nearly every possible hardware config around available to it to be able to compete.

In a perfect world all hardware would be compatible with Linux, and all hardware vendors would release all drivers open source or their own Linux drivers. We don't live in a perfect world, and Linux is facing a huge uphill struggle to get more market share. I will support it no doubt, I am a fan of it, but I'll never give up on dual booting either, because I still find Windows XP just works whereas Linux I still have to circumnavigate so many different methods to get the simplest of hardware working.

bodhi.zazen
November 26th, 2006, 12:20 AM
See this is what I'm trying to say. Yes, you don't buy a PC with the intention of putting Linux on it without checking the hardware BUT how many people buy pre builts with the intention of putting Linux on?

Fewer and fewer all the time...


Again we are going into hypotheticals, if you bought a PC for windows bla bla. People DO buy PC's which are built for Windows, virtually every single pre built is. To get Linux onto desktops, it HAS to cater to as much hardware as possible, especially pre builts. No matter how people should be buying hardware, they don't, personally I despise pre-built PC's because they are the reason so many people hate Windows, because they are clogged with more crap than your average sewage plant. To make any dent though, it should be Linux catering to these sort of users rather than just "Oh screw you, you should have thought about it before you bought the PC". Remember, hindsight only comes afterwards.

Most people do not buy a computer to install Linux. Most people I know who buy a computer to install Linux either build themselves, do their homework, or learn after the fact.


How often do you find people going into a PC store and coming out with Windows incompatible hardware, 1 in million maybe? Yet Linux incompatible hardware, I'd be willing to bet at a least a quarter if not much more is incompatible or at least a dog to set up. So many laptop's come with the Broadcom wireless cards (yeah I know I keep going on about the wireless, but a lot of people want it nowadays, and it took 3 months for me to get it working so I'm slightly obsessed with it :p), and yet they are terrible to try and get working, I could only do it with edgy and various how to's, Dapper was impossible.

Windows has a huge advantage as they more or less control the PC market, Mac has a huge advantage in that they will only allow (legally, ignoring OSX86) their OS on their own hardware so incompatibility is so rare its not even worth thinking about. Linux is at a disadvantage, because if it wants to become bigger, it has to become as I said so easy to install and has to have nearly every possible hardware config around available to it to be able to compete.

In a perfect world all hardware would be compatible with Linux, and all hardware vendors would release all drivers open source or their own Linux drivers. We don't live in a perfect world, and Linux is facing a huge uphill struggle to get more market share. I will support it no doubt, I am a fan of it, but I'll never give up on dual booting either, because I still find Windows XP just works whereas Linux I still have to circumnavigate so many different methods to get the simplest of hardware working.

Yes to all that. But that is what makes me a geek ! :p

stuh84
November 26th, 2006, 01:55 AM
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying people buy Pre-builts to put Linux on. I was meaning in terms of buying a pre-built then hearing about Linux, and deciding to try it out. Not a huge amount of people will, but this is the biggest PC market, so even 2% of these would probably double Linux's market share.

Johnsie
November 26th, 2006, 02:14 AM
Linux should have a compatibility layer that makes it optionally compatible with Windows drivers. People should be able to choose which drivers they use, not just be stuck with Linux ones.

stuh84
November 26th, 2006, 02:16 AM
I think you could be onto something Johnsie, that sounds like a plan. If we are using NDISWrapper for wireless, why not use whats available to make hardware work?

kiyometane
November 26th, 2006, 03:11 AM
The reason why i did not have linux linux longtime ago was the inability to install it on my system. It was a driver issue back then. Suse entreprise, to me have more hardware drivers than ubuntu.
For instance ubuntu cannot boot when a hardrive is connected via a sata pci card. This what i've been told and what i also found on forums. But not a problem for suse.

John E
November 26th, 2006, 07:25 AM
Okay - I think that the difference between the 'antis' and the 'pros' is becoming clear. Those of us who complain about installing Linux are complaining because so much of our hardware failed to work "properly" both during and after installation. Those of you in support of Linux seem to take the opposite approach - that as long as the hardware worked "at all", that should have been good enough and we shouldn't expect full compatibility out of the box. After all, "Linux is not Windws" as you keep pointing out.

To those of you who don't understand our frustration let me issue this challenge to see if it will change your perception....

1) Set your display resolution to 640x480
2) With your display set only at 640x480, try to install Ubuntu.

You'll then be in the situation that I was in and you might understand why I'm complaining about it so much.

bodhi.zazen
November 26th, 2006, 08:59 AM
Okay - I think that the difference between the 'antis' and the 'pros' is becoming clear. Those of us who complain about installing Linux are complaining because so much of our hardware failed to work "properly" both during and after installation. Those of you in support of Linux seem to take the opposite approach - that as long as the hardware worked "at all", that should have been good enough and we shouldn't expect full compatibility out of the box. After all, "Linux is not Windws" as you keep pointing out.

To those of you who don't understand our frustration let me issue this challenge to see if it will change your perception....

1) Set your display resolution to 640x480
2) With your display set only at 640x480, try to install Ubuntu.

You'll then be in the situation that I was in and you might understand why I'm complaining about it so much.

I understand you frustration.

But....

1. This is not the experience of most new users.

2. The Ubuntu install CD has better hardware recognition out of the box then the Windows XP CD.

3. If I run into a problem of yours, I often know how to fix it, in the vast majority of cases in less time then it would take you to locate, download, and install the Windows XP drivers you would need if you had similar problems installing windows XP.

4. You are not comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You are comparing Windows XP pre-installed or perhaps installing with a windows system restore CD with installing Linux and you are confusing ease of use with familiarity.

You need to compare installing Windows XP from the install CD (not the system restore CD on the hardware it was designed for) and Ubuntu onto a "new" PC. First, buy a box with no OS. Then, buy Windows XP pro (separate from your purchase of a computer). Download Ubuntu. Install a dual boot system with all the bells and whistles....

You will find that it is much easier to install and configure Ubuntu.

You also have to get a little more experience with Linux under your belt. As I said, as an experienced Linux user I am able to fix a wide number of problems easily and rapidly. Just do a search in the forums under bodhi.zazen and you will find what experience can do for you. Now try searching taurus, aysiu, PriceChild, Bulldog, mssever, xyz, ..... The list goes on.....

5. Although it would be nice if hardware was universally compatible with all OS, the truth is it is not. Linux (Debian) runs on the widest range of hardware. Linux runs on a wider range of hardware then Windows and much much wider range of hardware then OS X.

As I said before, you would not run OS X on a i383 chip. You would not run Windows XP on a 286 chip. You would not run windows XP on a Palm Pilot. Windows XP has much higher requirements in terms of RAM and HD space the Linux. Try running Vista on your current computer.

The fact is Linux is compatible with more hardware and more configurations then windows, hands down.

The (sad) reality is you do need to purchase your hardware to be compatible with your OS.

Again, I am sorry you are having problems but either:
You are running hardware incompatible with Linux. You are inexperienced with Linux.

Neither of these possibilities makes Linux better or worse then Windows.

If you want to run Linux, just like windows, or any OS, you must purchase compatible hardware.

As you run Linux, and gain more experience, just like windows, or any OS, you will learn to solve a larger and larger range of problems. Linux is easier then windows because it is opensource. This means YOU can examine and modify the source code (the vast majority of Linux users do not need to do this, although you may need to install and configure a few drivers). Yes, this requires experience, but you can not do this with Windows or OS X no matter how much experience you have with the OS because the source code is not open, it is not free for you to examine and modify.

So if you have a problem in Windows, and, as with any OS, windows has it's share, you are SOL.

bhuot
November 26th, 2006, 09:06 AM
Okay - I think that the difference between the 'antis' and the 'pros' is becoming clear. Those of us who complain about installing Linux are complaining because so much of our hardware failed to work "properly" both during and after installation. Those of you in support of Linux seem to take the opposite approach - that as long as the hardware worked "at all", that should have been good enough and we shouldn't expect full compatibility out of the box. After all, "Linux is not Windws" as you keep pointing out.

To those of you who don't understand our frustration let me issue this challenge to see if it will change your perception....

1) Set your display resolution to 640x480
2) With your display set only at 640x480, try to install Ubuntu.

You'll then be in the situation that I was in and you might understand why I'm complaining about it so much.

Exactly.

bhuot
November 26th, 2006, 09:21 AM
5. Although it would be nice if hardware was universally compatible with all OS, the truth is it is not. Linux (Debian) runs on the widest range of hardware. Linux runs on a wider range of hardware then Windows and much much wider range of hardware then OS X.

The fact is Linux is compatible with more hardware and more configurations then windows, hands down.

The (sad) reality is you do need to purchase your hardware to be compatible with your OS.

Again, I am sorry you are having problems but either:
You are running hardware incompatible with Linux. You are inexperienced with Linux.

Neither of these possibilities makes Linux better or worse then Windows.

If you want to run Linux, just like windows, or any OS, you must purchase compatible hardware.



I think we are trying to mix theoreticals and technicalities with real world scenarios. Yes, Linux can run on Sparc, PowerPC, iPods, etc., so technically Linux is more compatible than Windows. But most people buy x86 computers with Windows pre-installed and get a lot of software free with it that is Windows only. Yes, you can get Linux pre-installed as I did from a little company and it works great, but I still had to pay for the cost of Windows, but unlike many others who get Windows pre-loaded, I didn't have to replace any hardware. So as the main advantage Linux has to people who are just getting used to the idea of Open Source is that it is free, buying the additional hardware to make it compatible offsets the cost of having to buy Anti-virus or Firewalls many of which can be got for free for personal use for Windows. Then you have to factor in the cost of re-training and getting help, when you cannot even connect to the Internet or get X-Windows working. Again, I have a Mac, so when my Linux computer goes down, I can search the Internet for solutions with my other computer. Maybe Linux should only be suggested to people who have a second computer.

aysiu
November 26th, 2006, 09:24 AM
So as the main advantage Linux has to people who are just getting used to the idea of Open Source is that it is free, buying the additional hardware to make it compatible offsets the cost of having to buy Anti-virus or Firewalls many of which can be got for free for personal use for Windows. While some people may have to buy additional hardware (and don't forget you can sell your incompatible hardware to offset the purchase of new hardware), it isn't necessarily the case that you buy additional hardware. I, for example, had everything Linux-compatible by sheer accident, and I'm not the only one.
Then you have to factor in the cost of re-training and getting help, when you cannot even connect to the Internet or get X-Windows working. What cost? The forums are free.

The only cost I had was the blank CDs I burnt from ISOs I downloaded for free.

bhuot
November 26th, 2006, 09:32 AM
What cost? The forums are free.

The only cost I had was the blank CDs I burnt from ISOs I downloaded for free.

I am not talking about just monetary cost, but cost in time. And to get phone support, does cost money which is necessary if 1) you cannot connect to the Internet or 2) you cannot get X-windows working.

kornelix
November 26th, 2006, 09:37 AM
While some people may have to buy additional hardware (snip) it isn't necessarily the case that you buy additional hardware. I, for example, had everything Linux-compatible by sheer accident, and I'm not the only one. What cost? The forums are free.


You were lucky. I had a new, Ä300 Canon printer/scanner/fax which I had to replace with a similar HP unit because the only driver available for the Canon was from a 3rd party (cheap but not free), and it only did the printer, not the scanner. I got the HP unit working after a long struggle with HPLIP (that was a year ago - now it is far more automatic).

aysiu
November 26th, 2006, 09:40 AM
I am not talking about just monetary cost, but cost in time. And to get phone support, does cost money which is necessary if 1) you cannot connect to the Internet or 2) you cannot get X-windows working.
Any time you install a new operating system, you need to set aside some time to learn it. That's not a deficiency on the part of the operating system.

I'd be really curious to know if anyone here has spent money calling official Ubuntu tech support, seriously.

In What have you overcome to get Ubuntu installed and working? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=110161), there were 94 posts, and only one indicated the need to buy new hardware (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1317566&highlight=purchase#post1317566). 31% had everything working straight out of the box.

I was one who voted that screen resolution wasn't working, and I didn't need to buy a new monitor or video card. I added two lines to my /etc/X11/xorg.conf file, and that fixed it.

bhuot
November 26th, 2006, 09:52 AM
Any time you install a new operating system, you need to set aside some time to learn it. That's not a deficiency on the part of the operating system.

I'd be really curious to know if anyone here has spent money calling official Ubuntu tech support, seriously.

In What have you overcome to get Ubuntu installed and working? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=110161), there were 94 posts, and only one indicated the need to buy new hardware (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1317566&highlight=purchase#post1317566). 31% had everything working straight out of the box.

I was one who voted that screen resolution wasn't working, and I didn't need to buy a new monitor or video card. I added two lines to my /etc/X11/xorg.conf file, and that fixed it.

No you probably don't have people calling Ubuntu technical support when they cannot connect to the Internet or get their monitor working, because the phone numbers are on the web. And as far as posting things, I bet their are many times as many people who couldn't get it working and just gave up without posting all the problems about their system. I still don't recommend anyone use Linux, because I am not confident I can solve their problems, so I just recommend they buy a Mac - there you can get phone support plus on site repair for $100-150 for 3 years for the consumer Macs. I would buy phone support for Linux if I could get a no limit number of issues for several years for a similar price, but they are usually much more expensive and priced per issue. Also I am still not comfortable editing my X.org configuration files. I would be about as likely to edit the Windows registry. If you do it wrong, you are stuck at the command line and I do not know the key bindings for VIM.

aysiu
November 26th, 2006, 09:55 AM
I'm with you there.

I'm not twisting anyone's arm to use Linux.

Even if you have someone helping you to install it, you also need to come with an open mind. If you are coerced into using it, you'll blame for any problem you encounter the person who coerced you into it in the first place.

My wife has problems with her Mac all the time, but she doesn't blame me, because I didn't coerce her into using Mac. She went to her it on her own (well, actually school required she get a Mac, but she embraced the requirement). So the focus goes to solving the problem not placing blame for it ("You set me up with this! This is all your fault. Everything was working great in Windows...").

dbbolton
November 26th, 2006, 11:36 AM
it's all about the community.

i run in to just as many snags with xp, but for those, i am on my own.

phen
November 26th, 2006, 12:23 PM
hello!

my ubuntu runs perfectly from the beginning. i bought my laptop, because the brand supports linux. my computer runs, while the others have problems with their network settings etc etc. compatibility problems can occur in windows, too! (really strange problems btw... a friend hat to try 4(!!!) wlan-card / router / driver combinations before he found a working one)

the only problem for me is: on the fly monitor switching for laptop docking stations. i think that windows can do that. unfortunately, linux architecture doesnt allow it by design...

argie
November 26th, 2006, 02:10 PM
I think we are trying to mix theoreticals and technicalities with real world scenarios. Yes, Linux can run on Sparc, PowerPC, iPods, etc., so technically Linux is more compatible than Windows. But most people buy x86 computers with Windows pre-installed and get a lot of software free with it that is Windows only. Yes, you can get Linux pre-installed as I did from a little company and it works great, but I still had to pay for the cost of Windows, but unlike many others who get Windows pre-loaded, I didn't have to replace any hardware. So as the main advantage Linux has to people who are just getting used to the idea of Open Source is that it is free, buying the additional hardware to make it compatible offsets the cost of having to buy Anti-virus or Firewalls many of which can be got for free for personal use for Windows. Then you have to factor in the cost of re-training and getting help, when you cannot even connect to the Internet or get X-Windows working. Again, I have a Mac, so when my Linux computer goes down, I can search the Internet for solutions with my other computer. Maybe Linux should only be suggested to people who have a second computer.
I was lucky too, see most stuff worked fine for my OOB or with minor configuration.

However, when/if I get another computer, I will be checking the hardware to see if it is Linux-compatible. And I think that's normal, if I was using Windows, I'd see that the hardware was windows-compatible. That's being an educated customer.

Also, I don't know about windows XP and above but Win98SE installation was hell (that's all Windows I ever had), and finding drivers was painful. Fortunately the basic video drivers were all on a CD, so it was only some 10 minutes of 640x480 I had to bear before that was gone.

chickengirl
November 26th, 2006, 05:34 PM
To those of you who don't understand our frustration let me issue this challenge to see if it will change your perception....

1) Set your display resolution to 640x480
2) With your display set only at 640x480, try to install Ubuntu.

You'll then be in the situation that I was in and you might understand why I'm complaining about it so much.

If the LiveCD came up at 640x480, you should have taken that as a hint to explore other distros. All Linuxes are not the same, many of them deal with hardware differently. Yes, it sucks, but one distro getting your screen resolution wrong is hardly an indictment on all Linux distros.

By the way, are you only just now admitting that your problem wasn't "the installer is too hard" but "I couldn't use the installer at low resolution?" A little disingenuous, don't you think?

John E
November 26th, 2006, 09:01 PM
You need to compare installing Windows XP from the install CD (not the system restore CD on the hardware it was designed for)

Please don't make me keep saying this... I have only ever bought 1 x PC (my laptop) with Windows pre-installed. Every other computer I've owned I've built from scratch. Not all of them were PC's and not all of them ran Windows. I have experience of many OS's including DOS, Windows, Unix, GEM, CP/M & BeOS. I don't think it's a coincidence that the ones that were difficult to install & configure are mostly no longer around.

Here's another example - this time, of a problem I haven't yet encountered yet I'll bet that it'll be a nightmare when I get to it....

What do you guys use (outside the UK) for broadband modems? In the UK, the most popular broadband modem (by a long way) is the Alcatel Speedtouch 330. It's distributed free of charge by almost every Internet Service Provider in the country - and yet Linux doesn't configure it and doesn't even include drivers for it. Here's an actual quote from 'Linux Format' (a popular monthly magazine in the UK):-

"Linux doesn't support the Speedtouch 330 because the closed source nature of part of the driver makes it difficult to distribute."

I've been working with PC's since the mid 1980's and I thought I'd heard every lame excuse under the sun - but that one deserves a prize!! The article then goes on to say:-

"For the Speedtouch 330 to work you'll need to download the speedtouchconf script from http://steve-parker.org/speedtouchconf"

It doesn't give you any hint at how you're supposed to download this script via a non-working broadband connection. Any ideas anyone?

John E
November 26th, 2006, 09:05 PM
Also, I don't know about windows XP and above but Win98SE installation was hell (that's all Windows I ever had)

I rest my case...! :)

chickengirl
November 27th, 2006, 02:10 AM
"Linux doesn't support the Speedtouch 330 because the closed source nature of part of the driver makes it difficult to distribute."

I've been working with PC's since the mid 1980's and I thought I'd heard every lame excuse under the sun - but that one deserves a prize!!

If the driver is closed source and the manufacturer doesn't provide a Linux port, then the only way to get it working is to reverse-engineer it and write a Linux driver from scratch. That hardly sounds like a lame excuse to me.


"For the Speedtouch 330 to work you'll need to download the speedtouchconf script from http://steve-parker.org/speedtouchconf"

It doesn't give you any hint at how you're supposed to download this script via a non-working broadband connection. Any ideas anyone?

Download it on another computer and put it on a flash drive or similar.

bodhi.zazen
November 27th, 2006, 05:00 AM
Please don't make me keep saying this... I have only ever bought 1 x PC (my laptop) with Windows pre-installed

No problem. All I ask of you is to stop comparing installing and configuring Linux to Windows pre-loaded.

Of course it is easier to use any OS pre-loaded then install an OS. Especially when you have not done due diligence in researching hardware compatibility before attempting to install a new OS.

And, worse, rather then learning your lesion, you are lashing out at Linux, as if somehow your poor experience was somehow the fault of Linux!

We have already agreed that Linux has a wider range of hardware compatibility then Windows and OSX.

Frankly, if you want to run Linux, or any OS for that matter, you should quit complaining and blaming the OS for your shortcomings (lack of due diligence), do your homework, and obtain the appropriate hardware.


Not all of them were PC's and not all of them ran Windows. I have experience of many OS's including DOS, Windows, Unix, GEM, CP/M & BeOS. I don't think it's a coincidence that the ones that were difficult to install & configure are mostly no longer around.

No matter what your resume of previous experience you come across as having very little experience with Linux. All your years of experience with DOS, windows, etc is obviously not helping you with Linux.

And, in all your self proclaimed experience with building your own boxes, you have obviously not learned the most basic principles of hardware compatibility....

Again, I disagree with your claims against Linux. Ubuntu has very good hardware detection and you have a very basic problem that is very easy and inexpensive to solve. You are taking this problem and, rather then solving it already, blowing it out of proportion and making inaccurate claims against the OS.

You can beat your head against the wall with your Speedtouch 330 until the cows come home. The problem is, as stated by chickengirl
If the driver is closed source and the manufacturer doesn't provide a Linux port, then the only way to get it working is to reverse-engineer it and write a Linux driver from scratch. That hardly sounds like a lame excuse to me.

Or you can do due diligence and purchase any number of inexpensive Linux compatible solutions.

BLTicklemonster
November 27th, 2006, 05:55 AM
IMHO, Linux is "readier" than the other guy...

(see attachment)

bhuot
November 27th, 2006, 07:09 AM
I agree that Linux is as easy to use as Windows or easier, but why not try to make Linux as easy to use as a Mac? Linux should be the best it can be regardless of the "competition".

ezsit
November 27th, 2006, 07:53 AM
From John E -
I've already given several examples of why text and CLI-based interfaces are old fashioned and bad - and I've also stated that there is nothing (i.e. nothing at all) that can be done with a command-line that can't be done safer & better by other methods. If you disagree with this, why not give me an example of something (anything) that you cnly do effectively with a command line interface?

Well, the last time I installed Windows XP, the first stage installer is text-based. The Windows XP installer has the user do the partitioning and formating of the hard drives in a text-based interface. BTW, the Windows XP partitioning tool is inferior to the good old DOS fdisk.exe tool. When I do a Windows XP install, I start by partitioning and formatting the drive with a bootable cdrom that boots into DOS and do the formatting from there. I've never, ever, ever had a problem with fdisk.exe. When I do a Linux install, I choose cfdisk for the task, except for Ubuntu since their text-based installer is 99% flawless.

Partitioning is one task that is better, and more safely, done with a text-based tool. The use of text based tool for partitioning reduces the chance of error by forcing the user to think carefully about what they are about to do. The partitioning process is done in your head, the tool is almost insignificant. However, the tool that forces the user to think about what they are doing is more likely to be safer to use.

I've installed many operating systems, not all of them successfully. OS/2 Warp in 1994 was the first in a long line of learning experiences. Windows 3.1 (requiring DOS first, of course) followed by every subsequent version of Windows, BeOS, Linux, Solaris for x86, FreeBSD, and SCO Unixware. Most Unix-like operating systems were more difficult than Windows, until Linux in the last few years. However, this was because the Unixes were built to work with a very limited hardware list. The Linux community has changed this for current Linux versions. Ubuntu is one of the best in my experience. But if your definition of nirvana is 100% hardware recognition, that day will never come for all users.

For someone claiming so much experience with computers, your naivet'e is surprising.

John E
November 27th, 2006, 09:05 AM
Have any of you attempted my challenge yet?

John E
November 27th, 2006, 09:13 AM
Download it on another computer and put it on a flash drive or similar.

In other words, "don't install Linux unless you've got access to some other system that works properly"


If the driver is closed source and the manufacturer doesn't provide a Linux port, then the only way to get it working is to reverse-engineer it and write a Linux driver from scratch. That hardly sounds like a lame excuse to me.

You surely aren't suggesting that Steve Parker's script reverse engineers the driver???

halfvolle melk
November 27th, 2006, 09:16 AM
Have any of you attempted my challenge yet?
I'll have a go.
- resize a dir with 1000 pics and rotate them 90 degrees in the process
- find out what's clogging up your HD and where exactly the data is located

John E
November 27th, 2006, 09:22 AM
halfvolle melk - My challenge is that you re-install Ubuntu on your PC using only 640x480 resolution.

halfvolle melk
November 27th, 2006, 09:24 AM
halfvolle melk - My challenge is that you re-install Ubuntu on your PC using only 640x480 resolution.
Oh ok, been there, done that. It was easy :p

John E
November 27th, 2006, 10:36 AM
What problems did you encounter?

kazuya
November 27th, 2006, 03:35 PM
Linux has been ready for a while. The sad truth is that windows is still not yet ready for desktop use for my needs. It is a matter of preferences.,

I showcased what I could do in Linux to a window software tester and writer. And he was blown away by the functionality that came with the OS and the minimum system resources tapped to get it doing those things.

On his and my sisters window boxes, over the weekend, we had the school IT try to help with troubleshooting the ethernet card. His resolution, card was going bad. So no internet. With my Sabayon live cd which just happened to be there, I could boot the machine and access network via firefox with no tweaking. Now tell me which is easier.

With all my linux experience, I could not troubleshoot that issue alone from windows. Did I mention the machine is dead slow with windows.

Now windows is not bad and may appear easy for those used to it alone; But once they truly get to use linux, they realize how limiting windows is.

Your new VISTA is taking some notes from linux right now. Let us see how the end-user adapts to these changes. And in the end, Vista is still a beta item. Not a fully feasible OS to use for all PCs. Hence the term on PCs, Vista ready. On the ones without Vista ready symbol, what do you think happens.. That is perhaps Windows XP ready!! Whereas linux is ready for all types of system.

Just my two cents.

chickengirl
November 27th, 2006, 03:47 PM
In other words, "don't install Linux unless you've got access to some other system that works properly"

I'm assuming the guy wrote that script for *free*, in his own *free* time, out of the goodness of his heart. Given that, what on earth do you expect him to do? Personally burn you a CD and mail it to you? I don't know about you, but where I live they have these things called "libraries" that usually have computers in them. I also have a few of these things called "friends with computers". You, on the other hand, seem to have this thing called a "gigantic chip on your shoulder".

Incidentally, what is the point of your little "challenge" other than "oh noes teh horrible ubuntu gave me teh 640x480!! Waaaaaaaaahhh!!!" ? Seriously, what are you trying to prove? That 640x480 sucks? You want all of us to feel your pain, fall before you, throw rose petals at your feet and apologize for inflicting it on you?

Have you bothered to check out other distros to see if they meet your needs better, or do you just have your heart set on whining?

(I might suggest you use the text-based installer instead, to bypass the "screen is too small to use the installer" problem, then when you've got the system up use sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg to fix the resolution. But I doubt you're actually interested in a solution.)

Brunellus
November 27th, 2006, 04:27 PM
I check this thread every so often, and I note more flames than I usually like on these forums. Please keep the flames off-forums.

As to the 'challenge': if the ubuntu live cd wasn't giving you the resolution you needed, that might have been a clue that your hardware was imperfectly supported by ubuntu in the first place. Try Suse or Fedora.

The text based installer is actually not bad, by the way. For a real challenge, I'd be interested to see if anyone installs ubuntu on a 40-column display (installer seems to need at least 60 if not 80 columns).

John E
November 27th, 2006, 04:58 PM
chickengirl - if you read my earlier posts, you'd know that I've already tried everything you've suggested. Moreover, I've tried (so far) Ubuntu, Fedora Core 6, Mandriva, Dyne:bolic and Suse.

Not one of them has managed to get my 2nd monitor working. I've already tried installing the drivers for my card - as well as sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg. I now have one monitor working at 1600x1200 resolution - but still no 2nd monitor.

Everyone keeps telling me how simple it should be to set this up - but nobody knows how to do it and I doubt that it will ever work.

In fact, I'm not the only one in this situation. I've been getting emails and PM's for the past fortnight from people who tried & failed to set up a twin monitor system.

I'd be very impressed if you could offer a solution.

Brunellus
November 27th, 2006, 05:04 PM
chickengirl - if you read my earlier posts, you'd know that I've already tried everything you've suggested. Moreover, I've tried (so far) Ubuntu, Fedora Core 6, Mandriva, Dyne:bolic and Suse.

Not one of them has managed to get my 2nd monitor working. I've already tried installing the drivers for my card - as well as sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg. I now have one monitor working at 1600x1200 resolution - but still no 2nd monitor.

Everyone keeps telling me how simple it should be to set this up - but nobody knows how to do it and I doubt that it will ever work.

In fact, I'm not the only one in this situation. I've been getting emails and PM's for the past fortnight from people who tried & failed to set up a twin monitor system.

I'd be very impressed if you could offer a solution.
multiple-monitor support is a known "tricky" issue in Linux. Not very many people, comparatively, run multiple-monitor setups.

Ubuntu tends to be non-problematic for people with common, non-problematic hardware and setups. The more specialized/proprietary/exotic the hardware, however, the more problems one is likely to encounter. This is universally true for all operating systems.


If you are looking for a technical solution, post relevant technical questions in the relevant forums/threads. It does you no good to "challenge" or "dare" other users in a thread such as this. It only comes of as needlessly hostile.

If a dual-monitor setup is absolutely indispensible--dispense with the software that prevents you from achieving it. At the end of the day, Ubuntu either works for you (as it does for me and many others) or it doesn't. If it doesn't, consider what you paid for it, shrug your shoulders, and do something that does work for you. Life's too short to spend picking senseless fights about monitor resolution.

halfvolle melk
November 27th, 2006, 05:11 PM
What problems did you encounter?
No real show stoppers. First time with my radeon 9250 I just used 640*480 which is tiny but doable. Second time, same card, faster machine, I had learned a bit more and reconfigured X before starting the install.
A while ago I built a new box carefully checking all components for compatibility -> hassle free all the way. Consider this if you want to run linux and are going to buy new hardware.

aysiu
November 27th, 2006, 07:58 PM
Discussion about the potential locking of this thread has been moved here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=308034).

John E
November 27th, 2006, 08:02 PM
If you are looking for a technical solution, post relevant technical questions in the relevant forums/threads.

Well, before this one gets locked, I'd like to point out that my original questions were posted in the technical forums. I only ended up here becasue somebody (not me) decided to merge my posts into this thread. I didn't come here through choice and I certainly didn't come here to pick a fight with anyone.


multiple-monitor support is a known "tricky" issue in Linux.

I'm glad that someone has finally had the hoensty to admit what I've suspected for the past fortnight.

Well, I'm afraid it's bye-bye Ubuntu. You came fiendishly close - but you were never quite close enough... :(

Brunellus
November 27th, 2006, 08:07 PM
Well, before this one gets locked, I'd like to point out that my original questions were posted in the technical forums. I only ended up here becasue somebody (not me) decided to merge my posts into this thread. I didn't come here through choice and I certainly didn't come here to pick a fight with anyone.



I'm glad that someone has finally had the hoensty to admit what I've suspected for the past fortnight.

Well, I'm afraid it's bye-bye Ubuntu. You came fiendishly close - but you were never quite close enough... :(
It isn't a question of dishonesty. It's a simple question of fact. Multiple-monitor setups are comparatively rare, and thus not a major priority.

Do what works. Solve what doesn't. And when it doesn't, well, take your lumps and solve problems.

John E
November 27th, 2006, 08:26 PM
It isn't a question of dishonesty. It's a simple question of fact.

Then it's probably fairer to say that this is a fact that many users are unaware of. I've been led down so many blind alleys during the past fortnight over this area in particular. And I'm not complaining about it. Those people were trying their best and I'm grateful for the fact that they tried - but deep down, I suspected that there was a fundamental weakness somewhere.


Multiple-monitor setups are comparatively rare, and thus not a major priority.

Well, they're equally rare among Mac users & Windows users too - and yet both OS's support multi-monitor setups.

I hope that Ubuntu gets its act together on this one. Apart from the graphic display limitations, I really quite like Ubuntu. Good luck to all the developers.

Henry Rayker
November 27th, 2006, 08:51 PM
Well, I think one HUGE difference between OSX and Windows is the fact that the hardware you're using was made for those operating systems.

I'm on a dual monitor machine at work running RedHat Linux with no problems whatsoever. The only limitation I've heard of in the office is you can't have one monitor left to right and the other up to down...but why would you do that?!

There are similar cases in favor of Linux over those two operating systems. I purchased my laptop without an OS...unfortunately, that also means I didn't get the drivers that came along with it...(I hate those "recovery cds" instead of the full copy of the OS). My touchpad only barely works (no double-tap for a "grab" action, two and three finger taps don't work at all, and overall, I can't adjust anything except for the speed of the cursor and the rate between double-clicks). Even if I wanted to, I couldn't install OSX. (Thank you hardware-software dependencies!)

However, Ubuntu allows full customization of my touchpad. I've tried installing just about every driver I came across for Windows, and still came up with an only partially functional touchpad.

Your experience isn't typical, mine isn't either. I think the thing to take away is that no one OS is perfect.

aysiu
November 27th, 2006, 08:57 PM
Since John E mentioned honesty earlier, I think the only honest things you can do are:

Improve the OS if you have the power to improve it, use the OS that suits you best, and recommend to people the OSes you think will suit their needs/situations best.

Be realistic and don't exaggerate shortcomings or advantages of anything.

John E
November 28th, 2006, 09:04 AM
I just replied to the poll with Other (please explain).

Not sure where I'm supposed to give my explanation but here it is. IMHO, to qualify as "desktop ready" an OS needs 3 key ingredients. The first one is item 5, from your list:-

1) It automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers

The second ingredient relates to partitioning & formatting:-

2) When partitioning and/or formatting the user's drive, it must not leave 'garbage entries' in the partition table (which other apps & OS's might interpret as a corrupted partition table)

and lastly, since no OS can ever find every conceivable driver:-

3) At first boot-up, it must offer an obvious way of configuring an internet connection (for example, a specific icon - right there on the desktop)

Finally (this one's specific to Ubuntu) - your installation dialogs are roughly 800x600 resolution. Therefore, at lower resolutions, most of the information that the user needs to read & enter isn't actually visible on the user's screen. If you need to install at 800x600 resolution, you should configure the user's display such that it always selects at least 800x600 resolution, OTOH, if you can't do that, you should redesign your installation dialogs so they'll work at 640x480 resolution.

Circus-Killer
November 28th, 2006, 09:09 AM
i think the words "desktop ready" dont actually mean much. first of all, are you talking about todays desktop, or tomorrows? obviously support cannot be created until the hardware is ready.

also, have you ever tried to install windows without having driver disks. its a nightmare. honestly, i dont think its a question of linux being desktop ready, but programmers and developers being multi-platform ready.

major software companies need to start looking at ways to make their software ready for use with any OS (like google earth, or enemy territory).

mssever
November 28th, 2006, 10:14 AM
I just replied to the poll with Other (please explain).

Not sure where I'm supposed to give my explanation but here it is. IMHO, to qualify as "desktop ready" an OS needs 3 key ingredients. The first one is item 5, from your list:-

1) It automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers
Ubuntu does this already in most cases. For me, in installing Ubuntu on three machines (one desktop and two laptops), I've had only one hardware issue, and that was wireless on one of the laptops. Everything else worked perfectly out of the box. Not even my XP system restore CD could match that (640x480 8bit color, no sound, no printer drivers, no wireless, etc.)!

The second ingredient relates to partitioning & formatting:-

2) When partitioning and/or formatting the user's drive, it must not leave 'garbage entries' in the partition table (which other apps & OS's might interpret as a corrupted partition table)Hmm... What kind of garbage entries? I've never had any problem there, either. After installing any distro I've used, Windows went on blissfully ignorant that it was sharing the computer.

and lastly, since no OS can ever find every conceivable driver:-

3) At first boot-up, it must offer an obvious way of configuring an internet connection (for example, a specific icon - right there on the desktop)I suppose an icon wouldn't hurt, but then again, almost all the time, ethernet works perfectly without configuration. If you're trying to do wireless, well wireless is a different story that no icon can fix. And I don't know about dialup.

Finally (this one's specific to Ubuntu) - your installation dialogs are roughly 800x600 resolution. Therefore, at lower resolutions, most of the information that the user needs to read & enter isn't actually visible on the user's screen. If you need to install at 800x600 resolution, you should configure the user's display such that it always selects at least 800x600 resolution, OTOH, if you can't do that, you should redesign your installation dialogs so they'll work at 640x480 resolution.I'm with you 100% on that one. I sometimes use VNC at 800x600 to connect to my server. Even then, some windows still don't fit, and they don't scroll, either. I think that this is actually a deficiency in Gnome/GTK. Of course, you can Alt+drag any window to move it wherever you want, but no new user will know that.

kornelix
November 28th, 2006, 10:41 AM
The questions in this poll betray the attitude of its author. Here are some revisions that are more relevant for a "desktop ready" OS.

MOST people can install it on MOST mainstream PCs (instead of ANY person on ANY computer).

MOST people can use it after reasonable time and effort.

Commercial or FOSS applications are available to meet most needs (instead of "every commercial app works").

Suitable for begginers, but also has advanced features for more experienced users (the original question implies that suitability for beginners rules out advanced users).

Now let's focus on a few of the notorious weaknesses of Linux:

Quality documentation is available for end users, software developers, and technical support staff, and is well organized so that needed information can be located.

OS, drivers, and apps are thoroughly tested and debugged before release.

Error messages and diagnostics are complete, understandable, and readily visible.

John E
November 28th, 2006, 01:56 PM
Hmm... What kind of garbage entries? I've never had any problem there, either.

I only found this out after a lot of reading and it seems to be a hangover from the old Unix roots. Apparantly, partition table entries contain (among ther things) the size & location of each partition stored as both an LBA and a CHS entry. Unix (and Linux too, it seems) do not set one of those entries (can't remember which one though). However, certain other utilities (in my case, Partition Magic) tend to check that the LBA and CHS entries have compatible values. If they don't, the partition table is flagged up as being corrupted. This isn't specific to Ubuntu. Fedora has the same problem. Incidentally, the latest release of Partition Magic seems to have dropped the check (presumably because it's now such a widespread problem). However, not everyone will be using the latest release.


I think that this is actually a deficiency in Gnome/GTK. Of course, you can Alt+drag any window to move it wherever you want, but no new user will know that.

Yes - that was my problem too. I did eventually find out that the windows could be dragged but it was quite frustrating at the time.

Eddie Wilson
November 28th, 2006, 03:03 PM
Its hard to say right now that linux is ready for the desktop. It is for me but not for the average user. Linux if great for the server business but not in the desktop market. As long as linux is a mish-mash of distros, packages, and bickering, the average computer user is not going to bother. Why would they? Microsoft is not free, the programs are not free, but most people today do not care. They want something they can use without much efford. They want commercial programs. Most everybody knows about viruses, spyware, DRM, slowdowns, BSOD, and I've told them they don't have to put up with any of that crap. But people don't want to have to search the internet for a driver or program so their system will work. If people can't get on the same page and develop a standard for linux, then it will never be accepted as ready for the desktop. Thats my 2 cents worth.
Eddie

Brunellus
November 28th, 2006, 03:52 PM
Its hard to say right now that linux is ready for the desktop. It is for me but not for the average user. Linux if great for the server business but not in the desktop market. As long as linux is a mish-mash of distros, packages, and bickering, the average computer user is not going to bother. Why would they? Microsoft is not free, the programs are not free, but most people today do not care. They want something they can use without much efford. They want commercial programs. Most everybody knows about viruses, spyware, DRM, slowdowns, BSOD, and I've told them they don't have to put up with any of that crap. But people don't want to have to search the internet for a driver or program so their system will work. If people can't get on the same page and develop a standard for linux, then it will never be accepted as ready for the desktop. Thats my 2 cents worth.
Eddie
Circular reasoning. Linux is not ready for the desktop because it isn't ready for the desktop.

Windows isn't ready for the desktop either--a windows install is an exercise in rebooting, driver-hunting, and irritation. Most users don't experience this, of course, because their hardware vendors pre-install Windows (with drivers) onto their computers and distribute the otherwise-identical drive images on here. My mother could definitely NOT install windows unassisted--she has enough trouble understanding what a password is.

On the "usability" side, Windows has a tremendous advantage in that it is the system that people already know how to use. This is another consequence of Bug #1. But if you can get to a user first, with a pre-installed Ubuntu set-up, this can be minimized. My mother, again, had me put an ubuntu partition on her new laptop because she had gotten comfortable using Ubuntu on her old machine--she's just not that confident in Windows.

"Readiness" is a red herring. If desktop "readiness" were the only necessary condition for mass adoption, we wouldn't be having this conversation--we'd be using Amigas. But there are other conditions as well that aren't driven by geeks or geek-on-geek warfare about what OS is the best. The IBM 5120 was a terrible system--definitely not ready for the desktop--but it dominated the personal computer market because it shipped with the cheapest OS out there, from some startup named Micro-Soft.

I've dealt with the economic consequences of this formative moment in PC history in an article on my blog (http://ouij.livejournal.com/167664.html).

Remember: geeks don't make the world go round. Money does.

Eddie Wilson
November 28th, 2006, 04:51 PM
Brunellus the reasoning may be circular but that is about as much you can give the statement, "ready for the desktop". By the way I never said that Windows, in any shape or form, was ready for the desktop. Except for the very early computers I don't know of any os that is ready for the desktop. I can remember when my greatest thrill was running OS9-Level 3 on a Coco 3. Desktop ready is subjective. If you can catch a person who hasn't been trained on Windows then sit them down with Ubuntu they may never need anything else. Notice I used the phrase NEED. I love linux and it has made computing fun again. I try to pass it on to as many people as I can but it is hard to get them to see the real fun they could have. Maybe someday it won't be.
Eddie

aysiu
November 28th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Eddie Wilson, I think most of what you're talking about boils down to preinstallation. Average users don't install operating systems. They use whatever came on the computers they bought.

Henry Rayker
November 28th, 2006, 05:14 PM
Wait, John E, you think Windows " automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers"???

What version of windows are you using? In order for my PC to work, I have to install a driver for my dvd drive (it won't do ANYTHING without the bundled software at least installed), my wireless card, my video card, my sound card, and probably a couple of other things. Ubuntu sees ALL of that. No driver hunting needed.

At least on this point, you have proven Ubuntu to be more "ready" than Windows.

aysiu
November 28th, 2006, 05:16 PM
Wait, John E, you think Windows " automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers"???

What version of windows are you using? In order for my PC to work, I have to install a driver for my dvd drive (it won't do ANYTHING without the bundled software at least installed), my wireless card, my video card, my sound card, and probably a couple of other things. Ubuntu sees ALL of that. No driver hunting needed.

At least on this point, you have proven Ubuntu to be more "ready" than Windows.
Maybe John E means when Windows users purchase new hardware, they are lucky enough hardware manufacturers provide Windows drivers that Microsoft doesn't?

Henry Rayker
November 28th, 2006, 05:40 PM
I suppose...but he's talking about the operating system, not the device manufacturers. I actually had a nightmare with a new wireless card in my PC the other night in Windows. The disk was scratched to hell (it looked like it had been thrown around a warehouse floor or something) and I knew it wouldn't actually work.

I had bought a pretty cheap card, so I guess it is my fault...I spent about a half an hour trying to find the driver online...The same card is recognized by Dapper on a new installation.

I guess my point is that you can't compare an entire platform (Windows computing, all device manufacturers' drivers etc) against just an OS. That's like comparing a Ferrari (with only one tank of gas) against an old junker (with a tanker truck constantly filling it up). If you need to get from one side of the country to another, which would you take?

Brunellus
November 28th, 2006, 05:47 PM
I suppose...but he's talking about the operating system, not the device manufacturers. I actually had a nightmare with a new wireless card in my PC the other night in Windows. The disk was scratched to hell (it looked like it had been thrown around a warehouse floor or something) and I knew it wouldn't actually work.

I had bought a pretty cheap card, so I guess it is my fault...I spent about a half an hour trying to find the driver online...The same card is recognized by Dapper on a new installation.

I guess my point is that you can't compare an entire platform (Windows computing, all device manufacturers' drivers etc) against just an OS. That's like comparing a Ferrari (with only one tank of gas) against an old junker (with a tanker truck constantly filling it up). If you need to get from one side of the country to another, which would you take?
Most users can't tell the difference between the operating system and a third-party device-manufacturer driver. Most users don't know the difference between operating systems and application software, either.

In this respect, the much-maligned Win98SE and WinME suffered a lot of the same problems as Linux: limited device support in the kernel and flaky third-party drivers. BSOD city!

Eddie Wilson
November 28th, 2006, 06:50 PM
So everybody it seems what is being said is that NO os is desktop ready and that Brunellus is correct when he said that "Readiness" is a red herring. I believe he may be correct.
Eddie

kylevan
November 28th, 2006, 06:55 PM
I don't know if this has already been touched on (I didn't want to read 359 pages of posts) but with regards to people complaining about multimedia capabilities, there IS a very detailed explanation of why mp3 and such doesn't work out of the box in the nice, pretty help viewer. Not to mention the link to the RestrictedFormats wiki

I guess the problem is that people can't read. Or won't ask for directions.

shining
November 28th, 2006, 07:25 PM
I don't know if this has already been touched on (I didn't want to read 359 pages of posts) but with regards to people complaining about multimedia capabilities, there IS a very detailed explanation of why mp3 and such doesn't work out of the box in the nice, pretty help viewer. Not to mention the link to the RestrictedFormats wiki

I guess the problem is that people can't read. Or won't ask for directions.

Like the ones who don't read this thread? :) Because I'm one of them.
Maybe it should be summed up.

abby
November 28th, 2006, 08:04 PM
I have been trying to install linux for past 3 days using UBUNTU. it just won't install. First it will freeze when CD boots at splash screen. I tried putting in acpi=off and this time it went a little further but again froze. I am surprised that UBUNTU which is touted as a great windows replacement can be such a pain to install for a technical person. I wonder why we keep talking about linux as a replacement when it can't even install. Imagine a layman trying to use any linux distro. There are so many flaws. Won't detect SATA hard drives boot a seperate kernel, advanced power config needs to be turned off....blah blah.............What is God's name will a layman know about this. Cmmon proponents of Linux and open source it's time to bow down to Windows or Mac. It has been almost 15 years since linux began evolving and it still is no where near usable and installable forget being a replacement to mighty windows. This just confirms that a corporate backing is needed for any product to work. Its not like Unix core cannot have a good GUI look at MAC. It beats windows to core and is super good, but linux is only for educational and technical community it's not a replacement.

Lord Illidan
November 28th, 2006, 08:09 PM
You already said this here : http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=307484

geoffm33
November 28th, 2006, 08:13 PM
...

Have you tried using the alternate install disk? It uses a textual installer. And, laymen don't usually install their own OS. It comes pre-installed.

I gave my father in law a PC with XP, Open Office and Firefox. Had I given him that same PC with Ubuntu Dapper, OO and Firefox he would agree that Ubuntu is a suitable Windows replacement.

EDIT: I see you've already tried my suggestion previously. Then I followed the link above and realized this is a useless thread in the wrong forum.

abby
November 28th, 2006, 08:16 PM
Have you tried using the alternate install disk? It uses a textual installer. And, laymen don't usually install their own OS. It comes pre-installed.

I gave my father in law a PC with XP, Open Office and Firefox. Had I given him that same PC with Ubuntu Dapper, OO and Firefox he would agree that Ubuntu is a suitable Windows replacement.

I agree it comes pre installed, but still installation is never seen going wrong for windows. I did try alternate installation cd.

Biggus
November 28th, 2006, 08:16 PM
Hmm, I did an install of 6.10 just over a week ago, and it recognised my sata drives perfectly.

Heck, it even did the job of deleting my old OS for me!

:D

(It was some Redmond based OS, which failed to even recognise my Intel network card, so it had to go)

Lord Illidan
November 28th, 2006, 08:18 PM
I agree it comes pre installed, but still installation is never seen going wrong for windows. I did try alternate installation cd.

Mine bluescreened during the installation...Windows, not Linux...

matthew
November 28th, 2006, 08:22 PM
Sigh. I can't see any purpose to this thread other than to blow off some steam, unless the OP is trolling. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume not.

In any case, I've installed at least 10 different distributions of Linux on almost as many different hardware configurations with excellent success. I'm sorry yours was different. You might have an unusual setup or maybe there are mischievous gremlins getting in the way, I don't know.

Ultimately, Linux, even Ubuntu isn't for everyone. I hope you can find something that works for you.

matthew
November 28th, 2006, 08:24 PM
Oops...I accidentally closed the thread momentarily. Sorry about that.

Tomosaur
November 28th, 2006, 08:52 PM
I'm sorry that Linux wasn't programmed specifically with you in mind, perhaps next time the developers will realise the error of their ways and fix this travesty. The millions of people who have successfully installed linux are clearly all geeks, and your setup is definately not strange or buggy, and you've followed all the pre-installation advice given on one of the many hundreds of websites devoted to the subject and/or linux in general, designed to avoid and/or help with installation problems.

aysiu
November 28th, 2006, 08:59 PM
abby, I've merged you with the other "Linux is still for geeks" discussions. If you want help with your problem, continue to post in your support thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=307484).

If you want to discuss general "Linux is still for geeks" issues, this is the place to do it.

Henry Rayker
November 28th, 2006, 09:36 PM
Doesn't Windows XP need an additional driver at initial installation to recognize SATA drives?

chickengirl
November 28th, 2006, 09:47 PM
I guess the problem is that people can't read. Or won't ask for directions.

Personally, I think this precisely is the problem. In these "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", I keep seeing people saying things like, "Linux will never be 'ready for the desktop' until I can (do x, y, and z) without having to ever read anything."

And, sorry, but as long as Linux is not Windows, and it isn't, there are going to be things that work a little differently and things that are outright new to you, and that means, at some point, you will have to read something. There's just no way around it.

(General "you" is meant in this post, not specific "you".)

John E
November 29th, 2006, 06:50 AM
Wait, John E, you think Windows " automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers"???

I really wish you would all stop attributing quotes to me that I never made! If you insist on quoting me. then quote me verbatim. Please refrain from making up quotes - or adding things to the quote that I didn't actually say.

vincentvee
November 29th, 2006, 06:57 AM
i think it is more of a propaganda issue, some distro's of linux aren't ready for the desktop, most are.Ubuntu is.... is windows ready for viruses?
the strength of linux lies in the weakness of windows, in every way that windows doesn't work, linux does. we all hear the trolls tell us that we need single click install and other windows like things, these are the same trolls that post in tech forums about how their systems have crashed because the double clicked an exe from joe virus writer or someone like that. since i have installed ubuntu i have saved so much time by not worrying about things like virus scanning and disk defragmentation.
when you look at it ike that, you almost have to wonder "is windows ready for the desktop?"
maybe microsoft (http://www.microslop.com) should release a distro of their own.....
:p

aysiu
November 29th, 2006, 07:06 AM
Well, as you can see from the poll above, the phrase ready for the desktop has no practical meaning since it is consensus that gives a term meaning.

People using an OS usually has little to do with how "ready" it is to be used. Windows XP is a great operating system. I think we're at the point where all the major platforms are quite stable. I've had few crashes in OS X, XP, or Ubuntu.

Not too long ago--in Windows ME or Mac OS 9, though--crashes and instability and difficult configuration were commonplace. And guess what: people used those OSes anyway. No one said, "Hey, Windows ME sucks. I think I'll just not use a computer until Windows is 'ready for the desktop.'" My wife and I used Windows ME for a couple of years actually. We were sad about our blue screens of death. We didn't like all the fiddling around we had to do to get our ethernet connection working. But, to us, that was what you had to deal with.

When MS-DOS was popular, no one complained about using the command-line. No one said, "Hey, I can't use this. I need a mouse. Where's my wizard?"

The truth is that there are ways in which desktop Linux can improve, and there are features that can be added, GUI interfaces to be created... but no matter how good desktop Linux gets, no matter how easy to install it gets... hoards of "average users" are not going to download an ISO, burn it, set their BIOSes to boot from CD and then repartition their hard drives and install and configure a new operating system.

People need to stop believing the Linux desktop myth (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth).

vincentvee
November 29th, 2006, 10:29 AM
i think that is a big part of why people say linux is not ready.....how many shops can you buy a boxed linux OS from, sitting on the shelf right next to windows?
at the only store here where i live, there is one copy of linspire sitting on a shelf(bottom shelf) hidden among so much worthless stuff.
until there is more widespread distribution of linux on cd people will be unaware of the choice, therefore they will be unlikely to make a commitment to keep using it once they do have it installed, burning iso's is a complex thing for many home users, what they want is something on disk and install straight up.

aysiu
November 29th, 2006, 05:07 PM
i think that is a big part of why people say linux is not ready.....how many shops can you buy a boxed linux OS from, sitting on the shelf right next to windows?
at the only store here where i live, there is one copy of linspire sitting on a shelf(bottom shelf) hidden among so much worthless stuff.
until there is more widespread distribution of linux on cd people will be unaware of the choice, therefore they will be unlikely to make a commitment to keep using it once they do have it installed, burning iso's is a complex thing for many home users, what they want is something on disk and install straight up. I agree with your general idea, but why not take it a step further? Instead of a Linux CD on a shelf next to a Windows computer... how about a computer with Linux already installed on it and then Windows CDs on the shelf (instead of on the computer)?

raul_
November 29th, 2006, 11:11 PM
I know many stores in Brazil sell computers with Linux pre-installed. The Linux community in Brazil is very big. I also think it's a good way of competing for prices. A computer with Linux installed is like 120$ cheaper than one with Windows pre-installed.

But i'm still sticking to the idea that it's not Linux/Ubuntu's purpose to be "ready for desktop" (whatever that means). It's just about creating a better OS for the actual users everyday, instead of basing their development in bringing in more people. i'm not saying that Linux doesn't give a damn about new users, i'm just saying that their purpose is not having 50% of the market share. If it happens, cool, but it would be a consequence, not a goal achieved

aysiu
November 29th, 2006, 11:34 PM
I know many stores in Brazil sell computers with Linux pre-installed. The Linux community in Brazil is very big. I also think it's a good way of competing for prices. A computer with Linux installed is like 120$ cheaper than one with Windows pre-installed. That's cool that Brasilian stores actually have Linux pre-installed computers. I think other countries might have to rely on online vendors who sell no-OS computers or Linux-preinstalled computers (http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/)


But i'm still sticking to the idea that it's not Linux/Ubuntu's purpose to be "ready for desktop" (whatever that means). It's just about creating a better OS for the actual users everyday, instead of basing their development in bringing in more people. i'm not saying that Linux doesn't give a damn about new users, i'm just saying that their purpose is not having 50% of the market share. If it happens, cool, but it would be a consequence, not a goal achieved Linux in general, maybe--especially distros like Damn Small Linux, Gentoo, GoboLinux, Slackware, and Debian. Ubuntu, however, is targeted specifically at taking away marketshare from Windows. (https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1)

Seiti
November 30th, 2006, 02:49 AM
That's cool that Brasilian stores actually have Linux pre-installed computers. I think other countries might have to rely on online vendors who sell no-OS computers or Linux-preinstalled computers

What it isn't so cool is that more than 70% switch from Linux to a illegal Windows, on sale everywhere around here.

John E
November 30th, 2006, 10:35 AM
What's become clear from this thread is that the phrase "ready for the desktop" is pointless because, by it's very nature, it will mean different things to different people. Just look at the 2 most popular answers so far....

2) Anyone can use it once it's already been installed and configured

which implies that Linux need not necessarily be easy to install & configure - as against:-

5) It automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers

which pretty much implies the opposite. It's a pity that the poll couldn't have had some way of measuring the "experience level" of the respondants. My guess is that those respondants who chose option 2 were mostly experienced users - whereas those who responded with option 5 were probably inexperienced users.

And this raises a further question.... who is in the better position to judge whether or not Linux is "ready for the desktop"? An experienced user or an inexperienced user?

bodhi.zazen
November 30th, 2006, 03:02 PM
IMO the first division occurs very "early" and that is laziness.

The vast majority of people use whatever OS that comes with the computer at the time of purchase. Microsoft has been successful primarily on human nature towards laziness.

I believe when purchasing a new OS you should look at your needs. What is it you need or want your box to do? Newest games, desktop workstation, server, etc.

Then ask what hardware and software combination best suits those needs.

If you are expecting Windows to run Linux native software, well that just does not work. Likewise with running Windows software on Linux. (yea I am familiar with wine, but wine does not allow 100 % compatibility as of yet).

Many are starting to run with visualization.

Not all of have the same needs and not all of will run the same OS. It is nice to have the option of Linux and most project the Linux community will continue to grow. Ubuntu is pivotal in this role both in mission but also in welcoming new users.

If you are interested in Linux and are having hardware problems with Ubuntu, well no OS is perfect. Debian, PCLinux, Knoppix, SUSE, and Fedora, to name a few, all have have different hardware compatibility and sometimes as a new user it is easier to change to a more hardware friendly distro.

At any rate, we should all be happy with the OS we use. Don't forget to have fun with your computer and take a new OS for a spin now and again.

If you do not like a distro, well don't use it.

John E
November 30th, 2006, 05:24 PM
The vast majority of people use whatever OS that comes with the computer at the time of purchase. Microsoft has been successful primarily on human nature towards laziness.

I'm not sure you can extrapolate the second statement from the first one. Windows success came out of some historical advantages in its early releases - the biggest of which was that it could run the old, DOS applications, of which there were many. However, when Windows first came out, its success was by no means assured. There were probably half a dozen competing OS's at the time - the biggest (and best established) of which was Apple Mac. But Macs had a very serious drawback.... every time you upgraded your OS, you needed to go out and buy brand new versions of all your precious applications. New versions of Mac OS would rarely run software from the previous version - and certainly not from 2 or more versions ago. Upgrading a Mac was a seriously expensive business.

By comparison, Windows was relatively cheap to upgrade since all versions continued to run old applications. You can still run DOS apps, even under Windows XP! That was probably one of the main reasons for its success. The other was that it was much easier to customise & personalise Windows than it was with an early Mac. Users felt that they could 'make it their own' in a way that wasn't possible with other OS's at the time.

Of course, all OS's have made great advances since then but I don't think you can attribute Microsoft's success to laziness - either on its part or on the part of its customers.

chickengirl
November 30th, 2006, 06:09 PM
The other was that it was much easier to customise & personalise Windows than it was with an early Mac. Users felt that they could 'make it their own' in a way that wasn't possible with other OS's at the time.

Ah, but just because you can change the color scheme to lime green and magenta doesn't mean you should...

(Yes, I did that. Forgive me, I was young...)

Brunellus
November 30th, 2006, 06:12 PM
Ah, but just because you can change the color scheme to lime green and magenta doesn't mean you should...

(Yes, I did that. Forgive me, I was young...)
hi-contrast wasn't a bad idea for certain applications.

John E
November 30th, 2006, 07:24 PM
LOL.... mine is still mostly magenta.! - though without the lime green... :mrgreen:

lyceum
November 30th, 2006, 08:21 PM
Trying to get Linux to work on every PC is like trying to get MS to work on a Mac, or vic versa. Once you get the right hardware, really everything is fine. Until you try to run Windows software, then you run into the same thing, try getting a Mac program to run on Windows or vic versa. YOu can do it, but it takes work. If you want to make the switch painless, get the right hardware and use the programs supported by the OS. If you want more, you will have to work at it, or get someone else to work at it. Just my 2 cents.

raul_
November 30th, 2006, 09:33 PM
But the thing is that Linux is like a SuperOS (of course i'm being totally impartial here :rolleyes: ) . Throw anything at it and it will morph and work fine, be it intel,amd,apple whatever. No windows or mac can do that. I just think that the idea behind this is cool.

lyceum
November 30th, 2006, 09:38 PM
But the thing is that Linux is like a SuperOS (of course i'm being totally impartial here :rolleyes: ) . Throw anything at it and it will morph and work fine, be it intel,amd,apple whatever. No windows or mac can do that. I just think that the idea behind this is cool.

This is true, at the same time you may have to work to do something. People, un-geeky people, don't like this. They like puting the disk in and little boxes telling them what to do. Sheep need a sheepherd and Windows does do a good job of telling the herd where to go. They just suck at keeping the wolves out (as they are wolves themselves?).

John E
December 1st, 2006, 09:24 AM
Lyceum - What you said about Windows is true enough, but I can't help thinking it's slighlty more complex than that. If people wanted simplicity, then everyone would be using Macs - but they aren't. You have to look at the demographic of "average computer users" and how it has changed in the past 20 years or so.

When DOS first came on the scene, the most popular applications (after WordStar and Word Perfect) were the "tweaking" utilities - PC Tools, Norton Commander and Disk Doctor. 20 years ago, even "average" users wanted something they could configure and customise. But remember that back then, computers weren't very powerful - so tweaking it to squeeze out every ounce of performance was something that people actually liked doing. An affordable computer that you could "tweak" was a novel concept back then. You certainly weren't encouraged to tweak Apple Macs and although there were other OS's (Unix) that offered configuration options, Unix wouldn't run on anything affordable.

bodhi.zazen said earlier how Microsoft had built its success from humans' natural laziness. However, IMHO, Microsoft's initial success was based on the natural human liking for novelty (especially for affordable novelties).

However, computers are now much more powerful and as far as tweaking is concerned, the novelty has worn off for most people. Most modern day computer users (and I really do mean most) do not want to go back to the days of terminal interfaces and cryptic, command line parameters. Even though they were once enthralled by them, for many people, these are now like ancient relics - interesting to a dedicated few but most folk find them a bit boring. They've all been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt and moved on.

You can argue that this is laziness - or you can argue that people have just got better things to do with their time these days. Either way, it's a problem that, in my view, Linux needs to address. Command line interfaces should be the preserve of the IT specialist - used for disaster recovery and similar unusual events. The days are gone when they were considered cool for everyday usage. With Windows and Mac I genuinely can't remember the last time I used a coomand line - but with Linux, I'm having to use them on an everyday basis and I'll bet that the rest of you do too.

steven8
December 1st, 2006, 09:42 AM
I graduated from high school in 1983. They were purchasing desktop PCs, and going to offer the first actual computer class, the next year. Until then, they had a computer lab, which only certain students had access to, via approval by teachers.

Understand that I was a mid-classman. Graduated dead-center in my class.

Now, take the 'computer lab', combined with the fact that the only people I knew who were into computers graduated in the top 3 percent of our class, and understand that I was mortally afraid of computers. I would go to my friend's house, watch him do some totally unintelligible stuff to load a flight simulator, or some such, then I would play. When it was suggested I try a hand at the keyboard, I would say 'no thank you'. I knew, it took a brainiac to understand a computer. . .and I was no brainiac.

Finally, with the advent of Windows 95, and spending 2 weeks prior reading dummies books about pcs in general and Windows 95, I bought my first computer in 1996.

So, in my view, an OS is ready when people such as myself aren't afraid to use it.

I have since learned much about computers. I installed my own hardware and operating systems and do this for others, but it took a system such as Windows 95, where it was all pictures and simple English instructions to make me brave enough to give it a try.

bhuot
December 1st, 2006, 09:58 AM
I don't know why the command line is seen as so intimidating. With just a few commands you can do many things. I remember my parents having the same amount of trouble using a Tandy 2000 286 with DOS than with Microsoft Windows and Office. Their needs with computers haven't changed much now they have a harder time finding what it is that they are looking for in all the clutter. Making things complicated is easy - making them simple is hard. But Linux has really come a long way. At one time, when I first used Linux, it was harder to use then Windows, but that was back in 1999. Nowadays Linux has gotten as easy and trouble free as a Mac in many ways. I personally think Mac OS X 10.2 was the first computer ready for the desktop. I think that the hardest to use computer should be as hard as a Mac is to use as reliable and as OS X. And Linux is well on its way. I am really looking forward to some very innovative ways to go about designing the interface with one of the Window managers. I think Linux is still waiting for a killer application for most people to switch, as it took email and web browsing to get most people to the computer in the first place.

steven8
December 1st, 2006, 10:57 AM
I don't know why the command line is seen as so intimidating. With just a few commands you can do many things.

. . .and Bode Miller doesn't understand why people find snow boarding intimidating. With just a slight movement of the hips he can do so many things.

It's all relative. In the U.S., last I read, the average I.Q. is 100. The people I knew of who worked with compters were all at 140+, and the one fella achieved like the highest score in the state on the SAT or whatever. I am not afraid of the commandline anymore, but that is because I overcame my fear.

Technophobia . . .fear of technology.

We all used computers at Goodyear, but the one fella I worked with was there before computers. He told me this story:

One of the men he worked with was the fastest at placing and typing up orders in the whole department. He was such a good typist, and had the forms memorized to where he could type up an order form and have it to the clerk before most guys had their sheet of paper in the typewriter. Had been doing it for 25 years.

Then they got computer terminals.

He was so afraid, he couldn't even type a word. Would shake so bad he couldn't work. The guy I worked with told me that they had perfectly reproduced their purchase orders on the computer screen. They were typed exactly as before, on the typewriter, but this guy was too scared to be able to do it. After a few stressful and fruitless days, they had an idea. They took a big bag and covered the monitor so he couldn't see it, and told him to type. Just type it exactly the way you would before. He did it, and they took the bag off to show him that it was perfect. It was typed in perfectly, to the letter!

After that, he had no problem doing his job.

Technophobia. He had to overcome his fears. Growing up in the 70s, computers, to me, filled rooms and were manned by guys in white coats and glasses. Brainy guys. Then they put them on desktops, but only the same brainy guys were using them. It took WHAT I CONSIDERED a friendly interface to get me to shake my fear.

Point is, if the general populace fears it, they aren't going to even try it unless there's like a million dollar prize like on T.V. We have to make them be not afraid.

mssever
December 1st, 2006, 11:16 AM
You can argue that this is laziness - or you can argue that people have just got better things to do with their time these days. Either way, it's a problem that, in my view, Linux needs to address. Command line interfaces should be the preserve of the IT specialist - used for disaster recovery and similar unusual events. The days are gone when they were considered cool for everyday usage. With Windows and Mac I genuinely can't remember the last time I used a coomand line - but with Linux, I'm having to use them on an everyday basis and I'll bet that the rest of you do too.
I agree that a GUI is important. I think that it should be possible to totally admin a Linux system without touching the command line--and I hear that some distros are making great progress along those lines. But I disagree that the command line should be the preserve of IT specialists and only used for recovery and such.

Anyone who wants a little bit more out of their computer would benefit greatly from spending some time learning the command line. I grew up with a Mac and never encountered a command line until I got my first job and used Windows 95 and NT at work. When I started college, the way to check my school e-mail was through telnet to a *nix server (I didn't know enough then to know whether it was Linux, BSD, or Unix). After a brief intro to the CLI (ls, cd, vi, and man) courtesy of my dad, I started exploring. Now, after learning the CLI quite well, there are many tasks that I can accomplish easier in the CLI than in the best GUI conceivable.

Here's an example: There was recently a thread here in which the OP had a huge directory full of MP3s that he/she wanted to resample to a lower bitrate to save disk space--but only if the current bitrate was above a certain threshhold. Now, one way to approach the problem would be to search for a program that can do this and that can work in batch mode so that you don't have to babysit it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with such an approach, but for me, the easiest/quickest solution was to do it from the command line. So, I posted a loop that would accomplish that task. Problem solved easily.

I recognize that the command line isn't for everyone. Not everyone is interested in learning enough about it to be able to use it effectively. But it shouldn't be in the "in case of emergency, break glass" category, either. There will always be power users in any OS, and if they have a good CLI, many will use it. (And Windows doesn't have a good CLI. Interestingly, MS has began to make *nix CLI tools available on their servers. Why? Because the CLI is one of the best ways to admin a server.)

By the way, I can't sit down in front of a MacOS X box for very long before firing up a terminal--and complaining that it uses tcsh instead of bash by default. So, even Mac makes it possible to use the computer in more than one way.

mssever
December 1st, 2006, 11:22 AM
. . .and Bode Miller doesn't understand why people find snow boarding intimidating. With just a slight movement of the hips he can do so many things.

It's all relative. In the U.S., last I read, the average I.Q. is 100. The people I knew of who worked with compters were all at 140+, and the one fella achieved like the highest score in the state on the SAT or whatever. I am not afraid of the commandline anymore, but that is because I overcame my fear.

Technophobia . . .fear of technology.

We all used computers at Goodyear, but the one fella I worked with was there before computers. He told me this story:

One of the men he worked with was the fastest at placing and typing up orders in the whole department. He was such a good typist, and had the forms memorized to where he could type up an order form and have it to the clerk before most guys had their sheet of paper in the typewriter. Had been doing it for 25 years.

Then they got computer terminals.

He was so afraid, he couldn't even type a word. Would shake so bad he couldn't work. The guy I worked with told me that they had perfectly reproduced their purchase orders on the computer screen. They were typed exactly as before, on the typewriter, but this guy was too scared to be able to do it. After a few stressful and fruitless days, they had an idea. They took a big bag and covered the monitor so he couldn't see it, and told him to type. Just type it exactly the way you would before. He did it, and they took the bag off to show him that it was perfect. It was typed in perfectly, to the letter!

After that, he had no problem doing his job.

Technophobia. He had to overcome his fears. Growing up in the 70s, computers, to me, filled rooms and were manned by guys in white coats and glasses. Brainy guys. Then they put them on desktops, but only the same brainy guys were using them. It took WHAT I CONSIDERED a friendly interface to get me to shake my fear.

Point is, if the general populace fears it, they aren't going to even try it unless there's like a million dollar prize like on T.V. We have to make them be not afraid. True. I too have noticed that a lot of people are afraid of computers. It took me quite some time to convince my mom that she wouldn't ruin her Mac if she made a little mistake.

That's why I do believe that a good GUI is important. But one common side effect of making computers easier for average people to use is that features that make advanced users' lives easier get removed. Why not have both?

steven8
December 1st, 2006, 11:30 AM
Oh yes, we must have both. No doubt about that. I don't want to take anything away from anybody, but when my good friend who uses Wal-Mart Connect as her ISP (God bless her!), finds out shes has to use a commandline to perform everyday tasks? She's not even going to touch it. She doesn't even want to hear about how the commandline is used as a break glass in case of emergency, type of thing. When she has an emergency, she dials my phone number. End of story. :-)

mssever
December 1st, 2006, 11:50 AM
Oh yes, we must have both. No doubt about that. I don't want to take anything away from anybody, but when my good friend who uses Wal-Mart Connect as her ISP (God bless her!), finds out shes has to use a commandline to perform everyday tasks? She's not even going to touch it. She doesn't even want to hear about how the commandline is used as a break glass in case of emergency, type of thing. When she has an emergency, she dials my phone number. End of story. :-)

I fully agree with your point. I know people in that same boat--except with AOL instead of Wal-MArt Connect. :)

steven8
December 1st, 2006, 12:13 PM
:-)

John E
December 1st, 2006, 02:21 PM
True. I too have noticed that a lot of people are afraid of computers.

When my dentist first installed a computer to handle bookings, his receptionist was absolutely terrified of it. Someone had jokingly told her that IBM stood for Inter-continental Ballistic Missile...! I'm quite sure she literally thought that by pressing the wrong button, she could start World War 3 :mrgreen:

steven8
December 1st, 2006, 03:09 PM
Oh my gosh!! :-) Poor woman. They were close. I'C'BM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 04:17 PM
Lyceum - What you said about Windows is true enough, but I can't help thinking it's slighlty more complex than that. If people wanted simplicity, then everyone would be using Macs - but they aren't. You have to look at the demographic of "average computer users" and how it has changed in the past 20 years or so. Based on my experiences (which are limited, granted), there are several things preventing people from switching to Mac from Windows:

1. Relatively high cost (real or perceived--I don't want to get into an argument about this)

2. Windows-only applications (yes, same obstacle Linux faces)

3A. The feeling of being "practical" instead of wanting "eye candy" or what's "cool"

3B. On the flip side, the lack of understanding about how much better OS X is than OS 9. When some people think of Mac, they still think of those bomb icons with the little wicks sticking out of them.

My pastor recently switched to Mac, and he had all sorts of worries. Would he have to repurchase software? How would he migrate his emails over? All the same worries people have in switching to Linux. People don't like to switch. They like what they're comfortable with.

It has (and, again, this is in my limited experience) very little to do with simplicity and a lot to do with comfort, perception of cost, and... those darn Windows-only applications.

Brunellus
December 1st, 2006, 04:23 PM
Lyceum - What you said about Windows is true enough, but I can't help thinking it's slighlty more complex than that. If people wanted simplicity, then everyone would be using Macs - but they aren't. You have to look at the demographic of "average computer users" and how it has changed in the past 20 years or so.


No, we'd all be using Amigas. The Amiga had an excellent GUI and some really killer software, and was arguably far more "ready for the desktop" than any of its competitors. It was also well-priced (a bit more than the IBM 5120 and The Clones, a bit less than the Apple Macintosh).

"readiness for the desktop" does NOT determine mass adoption. Anyone who thinks that OS marketshare is determined by the individual actions of isolated computer users totally ignores the fact that, for the vast majority of installations, users have *no say whatsoever* as to what OS is involved. Those decisions were made by faceless corporate or government bureaucrats making procurement decisions.

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 04:28 PM
Brunellus, I think what you and I have said go hand in hand: people don't decide--corporations and governments decide, and then people stick with what's decided because switching to anything else is too much trouble.

Nezzie
December 1st, 2006, 05:31 PM
Sooo I work in a unique environment ... I spend my days in a large room with 15 PC's, 15 MAC's and 5 different servers. They pay me to beta test hardware and software and gadgets and generally play with what they term as techie stuff, although Iíve heard freak room whispered in the halls more then once ... basically a geek's dream job :D

I have formatted, installed and configured 6 XP box's and 3 duel boot XP/OSX's on the new duel core iMac's in the same amount of time it has taken me to download and install 4 different versions of edubuntu/ubuntu.

Each one locking somewhere during the install process or the initial boot choking to death on the hardware load. Proprietary HP box btw.

I tried YellowDog for PPC about a year ago, similar experience. (Eventually got it up and is still running today, 2 days to install though)

I tried Mandriva/Mandrake a while back, similar experience.

Even SUSE a while back ... again similar experience.

I really would like to approach my superiors and advocate Linux and open source as a viable alternative to products distributed by profiteering gluttons ... but I canít.

If the overabundance of half assed MCSE techs we have employed are going to have to be trained just in the specifics of getting it installed, let alone day to day maintenance ... it's just unjustifiable.

Maybe someone out there could work on an actual clean install, I mean seriously a monkey with a network cable stapled to his forhead can get an XP box up and running, and Mac techís with their monthly service source cdís, omg lol ... anyway just a suggestion, ill check back in another year or two.

Ttfn

princemackenzie
December 1st, 2006, 05:38 PM
Nice trolling! Thanks for playing. :)

LLRNR
December 1st, 2006, 05:38 PM
Each one locking somewhere during the install process or the initial boot choking to death on the hardware load. Proprietary HP box btw.
Here's my question to you, and I really don't mean any harm at all: have you tried this on anything else than proprietary HP boxes ?!...

(I've got mine running great with no problems at all on a proprietary Compaq box, by the way...)

LLRNR

xpod
December 1st, 2006, 05:41 PM
I wonder how long them half assed techie types took to learn the basics if installing windows all them years ago,never mind the rest of it.???......I bet half them still have trouble doing it now.

Shame you found it too hard.....I dont know jack s**t about computers but still managed it ok.
Much easier than than windows i found.

Mabey see you in a few thousand dollars time.
Good luck

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 05:44 PM
Nezzie, since you're not really asking for help, I've plopped you into this thread. This is a far more appropriate place for your observations.

Fortunately, most of us have not had the same frustrations. Hope your experience in two years is better.


I dont know jack s**t about computers but still managed it ok.
Much easier than than windows i found. Same here.

KoRnholio
December 1st, 2006, 05:45 PM
The problem you're experiencing isn't the install process, but a faulty cd. The Ubuntu ISO is notoriously fragile and must be burned at a low speed, and even then is still prone to errors. I've never been able to burn a successful disc. My first install I did what you did - struggle with badly burned discs, trying multiple installs until it finally wouldn't hang on something. Which is why I then decided to just buy my disc for *gasp* ten dollars from Amazon.

Installation of Ubuntu from a *working* disc is probably the easiest you'll find for any OS, period (takes about a half hour for me, much less than any Windows install).

I consider it a fault of Ubuntu that its downloadable ISOs are so finicky that burning multiple copies at minimal speeds - while having no other programs open or even providing any interrupts from the keyboard or mouse, on a otherwise flawless burner attached to a machine with a 2.6 GHz processor - using newly bought discs, fails to produce a working live cd. But I stopped whining and just gave Amazon my ten dollars, and I have a perfect disc for unrestricted access to all of Ubuntu's advantages.

Eddie Wilson
December 1st, 2006, 05:53 PM
You should have tried Ship-It. And sorry but I've never had any trouble downloading and burning an iso. And thats from Ubuntu or any other site.
Eddie

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 06:08 PM
I agree with KoRnholio that Ubuntu's ISOs (for whatever reason) tend to corrupt easily, but Nezzie mentioned having the same problem with SuSE and Mandriva, so it's possible the internet connection there is buggy?

I've found the best way to download to avoid corruption is using BitTorrent. You should also do a checksum on the image before burning it, and then burn at the slowest speed available. More details here (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/iso), but, of course, Nezzie wasn't really asking for help...

FLPCGuy
December 1st, 2006, 06:48 PM
I've been trying various Linux distros intermittently for about eight years now. Each year I get excited about some new distro and generally find the desktop more polished, the apps more capable, and the installation easier and more trouble-free.

But readiness must also include driver support for most hardware or at least an open source interface to which drivers can be written for all video cards, printers, optical drives and other common hardware. Until manufacturers take Linux seriously enough to provide this support, we will be stuck in the single digit market shares which ironically prevent being taken seriously.

I was disturbed to read a recent survey which puts Windows desktop market share at 96.97%, (86.6% of that XP), OS-X at 2.25% and Linux at around 1%. That's losing ground compared to surveys I've seen in the past and doesn't reflect the quality or capability of desktop Linux fairly.

Still, it took me far too long to install Ubuntu 6.10 and get it working with my external real modem on an older mainstream Intel PC. I had a similar frustrating experience with PCLinuxOS 0.93a. Dial-up support in older distros like SuSe Personal 9.1 (the last single CD SuSe), Mandrake 9, and RedHat 8 were all superior to current releases which, like Vista, assume a broadband connection.

I don't expect it will even be worth the effort trying to hook up my Canon inkjet printer or my PaperPort flatbed scanner. There just aren't any Linux drivers. I know Ubuntu won't be able to play copyrighted protected DVD movies without adding a lot of non-open source software. And I'm pretty sure serious gamers have all gone to Windows or XBox 360.

Worse, I don't believe there is anything the Linux community can do about it. Unless someone can convince hardware makers to support Linux, there won't be any serious threat to Microsoft's desktop dominance...unless they really screw up. While Linux is 'ready' for my basic desktop needs with OpenOffice, Firefox2, Gimp, and a few other apps I use regularly, I don't think it is ready for the average folks I know who can barely use Windows.
I'm worried that unless something changes drastically, there will be fewer new desktop versions of Linux to enjoy in the future.

BlaineM
December 1st, 2006, 06:51 PM
I quess that the same thread will come up again and again about if Linux is desktop ready or not. I will stay on the opinion that I think Linux is not ready for the average person for the same reason... . People are familiar with running windows. But the average person really doesn't know how to use windows either. One of the people that I do computer work for, knows how to change their background, open the internet and the email programs... install itunes. Download, follow directions by clicking, and that is it. I think that when Linux operates only with the GUI, and does not require any "special" tweaking, then it will have more of a fighting chance if competing is the option. I do think that the ease of installation for most hardware devices is easier in Linux...

I will continue to use Linux... I love it, and now that I know the "basics" about how to run it, and change things, even down to editing files, I think that it is better due to the ability to change whatever I want. I love the fact that Linux doesn't require me to have antivirus, and antispyware and firewall software to just go on the internet.

For this, I think that Linux is better for the desktop, but not ready for the average consumer. Average people do not want to learn how their OS works, and does not want to relearn how to run the computer. Windows is for the easy person to run... even though at times, it is not easy, and definately not ease to fix sometimes... spyware junk and crap like that sucks to fix with the registry.

Tibetanmonk
December 1st, 2006, 07:51 PM
I too have pndered this for 8 years now. Not being a geek I have been hesitant. OS X is stable and magnificent. Plug and play and install and use and it is done. I just bought 4 linux and Ubuntu books and ordered a laptop; but due to all of the people I see with issues and hassles and struggling to get stuff working before you even have a chance to get something constructive done; I just cancelled my laptop order! Linux and even Ubuntu is not yet ready from the every day person that they seem to strive to get to use this OS and distro. I am all for free stuff and open minded dynamics; but a struggle is still a struggle is still a struggle...

Just my 2 cents!

CatKiller
December 1st, 2006, 08:45 PM
but due to all of the people I see with issues and hassles and struggling to get stuff working before you even have a chance to get something constructive done; I just cancelled my laptop order! Linux and even Ubuntu is not yet ready from the every day person that they seem to strive to get to use this OS and distro.

That's just silly. Of course there are lots of posts here asking for help - that's what this forum is used for. Very few people bother to post saying "I used such-and-such a feature and it was great", and those posts get put in the Testimonials section anyway.

You haven't even used it, and you're claiming that it's "not ready for the to every day person". How can you possibly tell?

I know I shouldn't respond, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Sorry.

Tibetanmonk
December 1st, 2006, 08:49 PM
I have used the live CD's on both platofirms pc and mac. I have been reading and studying and lingering here for a very long time. but that is OK!

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 09:15 PM
I've moved the "it's not ready" posts from the other thread to this one.

By the way, I've been hanging out in the customer service part of the baggage claim area at the airport, and I've studied that for decades now, and I've concluded that flying isn't worth it. There are just too many lost suitcases and boxes...

CatKiller
December 1st, 2006, 09:25 PM
I've moved the "it's not ready" posts from the other thread to this one.

Thanks, aysiu.

dca
December 1st, 2006, 09:26 PM
By the way, I've been hanging out in the customer service part of the baggage claim area at the airport, and I've studied that for decades now, and I've concluded that flying isn't worth it. There are just too many lost suitcases and boxes...


Hmmmmm.... *wish I said that*


Than I'm missing something. What is the purpose for learning Linux to begin with, then??? Buying books, laptops, toys, etc... A good portion of us on the forum have no choice but to know Linux. The beautiful thing is, Linux is just as good on an $8k server as it is for some kid who crashed his HDD and is getting a hard time from M$ to re-do his license key...

The first thing I do after either building/rebuiling an xServer or fixing one is either installing a Linux flavor or talk to it via CLI...

Oooh, the best is, most of my laptop(s) and PC(s) I use at the house are all built from spare parts anyways. Gave a nice one to my wife, one to my parents, one to hold copious amounts of MP3(s), movies, and the like - they all run Linux! It was so much easier to do that than run to the BestBuy or Staples and pay anywhere from $99 USD to $199USD for an XP license....

coder_
December 1st, 2006, 09:28 PM
I don't care about Linux being "desktop ready." I don't want it to be.

Kittie Rose
December 1st, 2006, 09:32 PM
Nobody will help me get my Image Editors running in WINE, and nobody will recommend me a decent one.

I really don't have any choice but to boot Windows as my primary OS once again.

If you want the "Linux Movement" to be more successful I suggest on working on the support base heavily; they're no point having "Linux for human beings" if I can't do what I use computers for.

KiwiNZ
December 1st, 2006, 09:36 PM
Horses for courses.

Before one migrates to a new system one should research if it will do what one wants.

IYY
December 1st, 2006, 09:39 PM
Maybe this is a better place to ask your Wine-related questions: http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/wine/

The main image editor for Linux is Gimp. If you want vector art, Xara and Inkscape are your best bets.

Kittie Rose
December 1st, 2006, 09:39 PM
Horses for courses.

Before one migrates to a new system one should research if it will do what one wants.

I did. I checked WineHQ DB for the software I wanted to use, it said it worked. Nobody is interested in helping me to get it working.

I was also assured that there would be decent alternatives where WINE does not support - there are not.

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 09:41 PM
God knows we don't need another "I'm going back to Windows" thread, especially since it'll probably end up in debates that are best carried out here.

I'm sorry you don't feel GIMP is a decent image editor. It works just fine for me. Hell, even Kolourpaint works fine for me.

Your assessment basically boils down to: "Unless Linux is Windows, I won't use it. So I'll use Windows instead." After all, you're trying to run a Windows application on a non-Windows operating system!

It's a shame you didn't read Is Ubuntu for You? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=63315) before you wasted your time.

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 09:45 PM
I did. I checked WineHQ DB for the software I wanted to use, it said it worked. Nobody is interested in helping me to get it working.

I was also assured that there would be decent alternatives where WINE does not support - there are not.
"Goodbye" posts are usually cries for help.

If anyone wants to offer more help to Kittie Rose than he's already gotten, go to this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=309524).

xpod
December 1st, 2006, 09:55 PM
too have pndered this for 8 years now. Not being a geek I have been hesitant. OS X is stable and magnificent. Plug and play and install and use and it is done. I just bought 4 linux and Ubuntu books and ordered a laptop; but due to all of the people I see with issues and hassles and struggling to get stuff working before you even have a chance to get something constructive done; I just cancelled my laptop order! Linux and even Ubuntu is not yet ready from the every day person that they seem to strive to get to use this OS and distro. I am all for free stuff and open minded dynamics; but a struggle is still a struggle is still a struggle...


I wonder how many folks you`d see on the Windows forums if they had to install it themselves???.......
I had windows for 4 months and now have had Ubuntu for a wee bit longer and i have had many occasions to install both from scratch........With the knowlage being from scratch too of course

You cant tell me installing windows from scratch when you dont know what your doing is easier than ubuntu.


If you want the "Linux Movement" to be more successful I suggest on working on the support base heavily; they're no point having "Linux for human beings" if I can't do what I use computers for.
Reply With Quote

:confused:
This human being is quite happy with the support thank you very much....
One person complains about all the support they see being given and the next complains about the lack of it...:-#

drphilngood
December 1st, 2006, 10:00 PM
...The main image editor for Linux is Gimp. If you want vector art, Xara and Inkscape are your best bets.

I use Xara Xtreme and like it as well any comparative Windows program.

Just see here:

What can Xara Xtreme for Linux do now? (http://www.xaraxtreme.org/download/what_can_xara_lx_do_now.html)

for a partial listing of its features.

Kittie Rose
December 1st, 2006, 10:00 PM
"Unless Linux is Windows, I won't use it. So I'll use Windows instead." After all, you're trying to run a Windows application on a non-Windows operating system!

Which is something, in the case of PSP7, it is meant to be able to do. I do not see a problem with this. I dislike Windows as an operating system, not the software I can run on it. I would imagine most people are the same.

I have no problem with Linux in on itself and I still need it for college lab work.

My problem is with the absolutely, quite frankly, **** poor support for software such as WINE. Nearly all the "Help" i got was "Uh, try it in lowercase instead of uppercase" and some topics got one or none replies before sinking down to the bottom. I'm sure there ARE good software alternatives there but muchly due to the nature of the "free, open source movement" half the time people don't have a clue what they are.

The attitude of "Nobody has any reason to help you" is exactly why Windows, an inferior operating system, is still the norm.


"Goodbye" posts are usually cries for help.

I dislike this analysis, even if it is partially true. I am not the one at fault here. I chose an operating system based on the information that was out there. In theory, it should be just fine for me.

Quite frankly, if this is a way of getting additional help, so be it. People should care whether someone stops using Linux or not because if you want a successful movement, you need to make sure people don't just up and leave because nobody can tell them how to do anything.

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 10:01 PM
I wonder how many folks you`d see on the Windows forums if they had to install it themselves???....... There are plenty of posts on Windows support forums even though Windows comes preinstalled and preconfigured. Here's one example (http://www.winguides.com/forums/).

CatKiller
December 1st, 2006, 10:27 PM
The attitude of "Nobody has any reason to help you" is exactly why Windows, an inferior operating system, is still the norm.

If you'll insist on both demanding help and swearing, then why would anyone want to help you? Something about honey and vinegar might be apropos.

And if you are struggling with a particular application - be it Wine, or anything - and that application has its own community that knows that application in far more detail than some other community you might happen to find, then might that not be a better tool?

Stormy Eyes
December 1st, 2006, 10:55 PM
Nobody is interested in helping me to get it working.

Of course not. If you want to use Windows apps, why are you mucking about with Linux? You don't see me trying to run GarageBand (a Mac app) on Linux.

xpod
December 1st, 2006, 10:56 PM
I find it quite ironic that folks are complaining about an application that runs windows programs........weird:confused:

Why not keep the dualboot.....Better than being a winer

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 11:00 PM
I'll have to disagree with you there. Dual boots are a pain. You have to stop everything you're doing, close them all out, reboot... just to launch one application? Not worth it unless you use that application only once a month.

Your best bets are:
1. Use a native Linux application
2. Use Wine
3. Use Crossover Office
4. Use VMWare to run Windows inside of Ubuntu
5. Get a second computer and a KVM switch

Obviously #2 isn't working for you, but there are still four other options barring a dual boot.

Brunellus
December 1st, 2006, 11:01 PM
I find it quite ironic that folks are complaining about an application that runs windows programs........weird:confused:

Why not keep the dualboot.....Better than being a winer
There's a lot of whining about WINE because, frankly, I think Linux advocates oversell WINE as a solution.


I am *extremely reluctant* to advocate WINE as a solution to peoples' migration problems because of just how temperamental it continues to be. This is not a knock against the WINE dev team--it's hard work trying to reverse-engineer the entire win32 API. But by and large, I consider WINE to be a tool of last resort.

Too many advocates, and thus too many switchers, tend to consider WINE as the tool of first resort. This is where most WINE whines come from.

Henry Rayker
December 1st, 2006, 11:07 PM
I really wish you would all stop attributing quotes to me that I never made! If you insist on quoting me. then quote me verbatim. Please refrain from making up quotes - or adding things to the quote that I didn't actually say.

I was just quoting what you thought made an OS "ready for the desktop". Because you assert that Windows is ready for the desktop, I put these two statements together.

I did this because if "[insert statement here] makes an OS ready for the desktop" and "[insert name of OS] IS ready for the desktop", then it follows that [name of OS] has [feature described in statement]

xpod
December 1st, 2006, 11:22 PM
Your probably right Aysiu....as ever:D

I really just meant when people first install ubuntu.......surely for those first weeks and months they should keep their Windows setup either as a dualboot or have Ubu on a spare system like you say???The latter making more sense i agree.
At least until they are 100% sure that they are happy with Ubuntu and have all they need in it.......THEN i would urge them to ditch that xp dualboot asap:twisted:

I dont know about "my" dualboot being a pain btw.........having dapper and edgy has been really handy for me;)

aysiu
December 1st, 2006, 11:35 PM
Good point.

xpod
December 2nd, 2006, 12:33 AM
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.

lol....i just realised how long this thread went back:-?

Ayisu i only know about a dozen folks with computers at home...in fact i only know about a dozen people down here in London....well,mabey just a few more:D

Most of them have had computers(xp) for up to about 6 years.......certainly none of them could re-install but worse not one of them knows even the most basic of things from the virus\spyware deal to the things like msconfig or Add\remove etc etc,most of them had never even heard of defragging never mind stuff like sfc & dll`s etc

Hell i was getting my dll`s and my lol`s mixed up as i left xp back in july but im now the poor git that gets called upon to go solve that lots calamitys.......I came here to get away from Windows but a cruel twist of fate is materialising it seems.

They put their trust in me at their own peril i say:twisted:

bodhi.zazen
December 2nd, 2006, 01:32 AM
Ask not if Linux (Ubuntu) is ready for the desktop :confused:.....



.... But if you are ready for Ubuntu =D>

rjwood
December 2nd, 2006, 01:45 AM
I voted 'other' because it's all about the community baby, nothing else......If you like the 'windows community', then stay there.

detyabozhye
December 2nd, 2006, 01:49 AM
I agree with KoRnholio that Ubuntu's ISOs (for whatever reason) tend to corrupt easily, but Nezzie mentioned having the same problem with SuSE and Mandriva, so it's possible the internet connection there is buggy?

I've found the best way to download to avoid corruption is using BitTorrent. You should also do a checksum on the image before burning it, and then burn at the slowest speed available. More details here (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/iso), but, of course, Nezzie wasn't really asking for help...

That's weird, I always get the CDs burned right using the fastest speed this thing can go (up to 40x) and it works fine from both Windoze and Linux.

detyabozhye
December 2nd, 2006, 01:59 AM
I too have pndered this for 8 years now. Not being a geek I have been hesitant. OS X is stable and magnificent. Plug and play and install and use and it is done. I just bought 4 linux and Ubuntu books and ordered a laptop; but due to all of the people I see with issues and hassles and struggling to get stuff working before you even have a chance to get something constructive done; I just cancelled my laptop order! Linux and even Ubuntu is not yet ready from the every day person that they seem to strive to get to use this OS and distro. I am all for free stuff and open minded dynamics; but a struggle is still a struggle is still a struggle...

Just my 2 cents!

Um, OK. I installed Linux and all the drivers and software worked out of the box (OK, OK, I installed the evil proprietary nvidia drivers manually). And let's see um, my sound card worked (Audigy 2), my network card worked, my motherboard worked, my CPU worked, even my jumpers on the hard drives worked....sounds silly?

The point is, 99% of the time people list the things that didn't work on these forums. The people for who everything worked usually keep quiet. ATM, we have 202,288 members on this forum, which is far less than the amount of people claiming that Linux "isn't ready for the desktop". I'd recommend trying it first, and then post here if something didn't work.

xpod
December 2nd, 2006, 02:02 AM
Some things work for some of the people some of the time but not everything works for all of the people all of the time....;)

Tibetanmonk
December 2nd, 2006, 02:05 AM
I've moved the "it's not ready" posts from the other thread to this one.

By the way, I've been hanging out in the customer service part of the baggage claim area at the airport, and I've studied that for decades now, and I've concluded that flying isn't worth it. There are just too many lost suitcases and boxes...


Ok - we Tibetans love a sense of humor; but you are giving a real wiseass comment. You are also not addressing my comments with any relevance. If i knew what you know and was a geek and also a snobby moderator, I could say that Linux and ubuntu are the panacea for everything. However, it is not.

Flippant comebacks don't make the argument!

good day to you. You need some awakening and i pray that you get more than you have!

Namaste!

leo1a0
December 2nd, 2006, 02:14 AM
"Desktop ready" means that for sure you will have trouble trying it in your laptop!!! :p It has happened many times to me!!!

detyabozhye
December 2nd, 2006, 02:15 AM
"Desktop ready" means that for sure you will have trouble trying it in your laptop!!! :p It has happened many times to me!!!

LOL, so true, especially when it has those buttons that even the kernel won't recognise and you can't swap the video card for something that works right (like the Vaio laptop my dad had).

doobit
December 2nd, 2006, 02:17 AM
Everything seems to work for me most of the time and that's the same I can say for any other operating system I've tried.

xpod
December 2nd, 2006, 02:35 AM
good day to you. You need some awakening and i pray that you get more than you have!

I thought Ayisu already had ubuntu:-k

prizrak
December 2nd, 2006, 07:45 AM
Ok - we Tibetans love a sense of humor; but you are giving a real wiseass comment. You are also not addressing my comments with any relevance. If i knew what you know and was a geek and also a snobby moderator, I could say that Linux and ubuntu are the panacea for everything. However, it is not.

Flippant comebacks don't make the argument!

good day to you. You need some awakening and i pray that you get more than you have!

Namaste!

Tibetan monks speaking Hindi (Hindu?)? Interesting....

On a separate note, it is not a wiseass comment it is a very valid point. This is a tech support forum, so safe for the general topic areas like Cafe you will see people posting about the problems and seeking solutions. Think about it, if you go to a hospital and never see any other humans you might come to a conclusion that the entire population consists of doctors/nurses and people who constantly require their help.

Simple thing is, you will not hear from people who have everything working. Look around on the forum for my posts you will see that they are mostly in the cafe and there were a couple of attempts by me to help newbies and like 3 posts about actual issue (which save for one have all been resolved with subsequent Ubuntu releases). Just so you know the reason why I don't help others much is because my Ubuntu installs were very painless so that I didn't have to overcome some crazy issue and I pretty much have no idea how to fix anything because I never ever had to.

If you want to contrast it with the market leader I had to learn how to deal with firewall rules, antivirus programs, anti-spyware, registry cleaners, and actually a decent amount of stuff about the registry so that I can change some settings that MS [erroneously] thought were good defaults. So yes Linux is quite ready for the desktop from a technological/usability point of view. It will be the better choice when it comes preinstalled on every Dell/HP/Lenovo/Acer/ASUS/Toshiba/Sony/Gateway/eMachines that "normal" people buy in the same way that Windows does.

114211
December 2nd, 2006, 07:46 AM
the weakness of the phrase lies in its ambiguity. it could totally be different from person to person.

kornelix
December 2nd, 2006, 08:51 AM
I agree with KoRnholio that Ubuntu's ISOs (for whatever reason) tend to corrupt easily, but Nezzie mentioned having the same problem with SuSE and Mandriva, so it's possible the internet connection there is buggy?
I think it is more likely that the CD/DVD burner or the media is flakey. I have lots of experience with burners and I have seen reliable and unreliable burners, and the same goes for media. It is important to test the media after burning, to insure it is 100% readable before trying to use it.

kornelix
December 2nd, 2006, 09:05 AM
There's a lot of whining about WINE because, frankly, I think Linux advocates oversell WINE as a solution.


I am *extremely reluctant* to advocate WINE as a solution to peoples' migration problems because of just how temperamental it continues to be. This is not a knock against the WINE dev team--it's hard work trying to reverse-engineer the entire win32 API. But by and large, I consider WINE to be a tool of last resort.

Too many advocates, and thus too many switchers, tend to consider WINE as the tool of first resort. This is where most WINE whines come from.
I have tried wine and had mixed results: sometimes I got the program to run after hunting down a dozen windows dll's and moving them to where wine wanted to have them. Some other programs never worked. I eventually went back to dual-boot, for the few things I still need Windows for: photo-stitching and income tax preparation.

John E
December 2nd, 2006, 09:31 AM
I'm sorry to keep harping on about this but the difficulty in obtaining drivers for Linux is only part of the problem. The (much bigger) problem involves the difficulty in installing the drivers (for the most part, manually) once you've found them.

Here's an example:- I just needed to install a driver for my USB broadband modem (Alcatel Speedtouch 330). There are 4 different versions of this product, all requiring different microcode.

But rather than having an intelligent install package that could identify my hardware, I (the unsuspecting user) was expected to know things about my modem's internals that I couldn't possibly know. This meant me having to try out each of the 4 microcodes in turn until one of them worked.

In this day & age I find this kind of process indefensible - but what's more worrying is the number of Linux users who are perfectly happy to put up with it. In fact, lots of people here seem to enjoy the fact that they have to faff about, fighting with their hardware and tearing their hair out. It's almost as though they feel like gladiators, conquering a savage beast. I don't understand that, at all.

And even now that my broadband connection works, I can't get my firewall to run (Firestarter - which is supposed to be the simplest to install). It just doesn't find an internet connection and refuses to start. No doubt this will turn out to be some cryptic sequence of codes that I'll need to enter via the command line - but installations shouldn't really be this difficult nowadays. With the exception of my keyboard, LAN & mouse, I've had to fight with Linux to get every single bit of my PC to work properly. Other people are entitled to their own views and they're right to point out that Windows used to be just as bad - but the key words there are "used to be". For me - no matter what the benefits of an OS - installation just shouldn't be this difficult any more.

CatKiller
December 2nd, 2006, 09:59 AM
You seem to have rather missed the point. The lack of Linux drivers is nothing to do with Linux. It is entirely down to the inability or unwillingness of the device manufacturers to make drivers. If you'd like a nicely thought out driver package that uses all of the features of your hardware, then ask the person who made your device to write it, or buy products from people who will.

The fact that drivers exist at all for that device you've chosen to use is because people have chosen to take that useless lump of plastic and make it do stuff. Reverse-engineering undocumented hardware just so that you can bitch about how hard it is to install the driver they've written for you. If you don't like it either write a better one, find someone who can write a better one for you, or make wiser choices about your hardware.

John E
December 2nd, 2006, 11:23 AM
But here's the catch.... the big claim that gets made repeatedly for Linux is that it will run on almost any hardware. This has been Linux's proudest boast ever since I first started looking at Linux, over 10 years ago. In fact, I'm looking at this month's copy of Linux Format magazine where the same old claim is still being trotted out.

Yes - Linux might technically run on anything you throw at it - but that doesn't mean it will run very well. Someone was here a few days ago boasting about how Ubuntu could be installed in about 20 mins, compared to around 90 mins for Windows XP. And that's undeniably true - but on my PC at least, XP boots up after the 90 minute installation with absolutely everything either working or (in the case of, say, an internet connection) ready to go. Okay - things might need some tweaking and in some cases it was beneficial to upgrade my drivers but everything worked to at least an acceptable level. In the case of Linux (of which I've tried 5 versions now) most of my PC's peripherals didn't work at all - and those that did, worked very badly. My graphics card, for example, would only work at 640x480 resolution, even though it's a well established card, capable of 2048x1536.

Perhaps the problem here is the perception that Linux likes to encourage that it's compatible with anything and everything. Maybe it would help if the Linux community swallowed its pride and admitted that actually, quite a lot of hardware simply isn't supported.

Drop that tired, old claim that Linux will run on anything and publish a list of graphics cards / sound cards / printers / routers / modems etc that are known to work. That, in itself, would be a major step forward in making Linux "ready for the desktop".

steven8
December 2nd, 2006, 11:42 AM
Not just Ubuntu, but here is a list of hardware that support GNU/Linux from the FSF site:

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

CatKiller
December 2nd, 2006, 11:53 AM
Linux claims nothing. It's a kernel. It just sits there, not saying a word. "Some guy on the Internet told me" is not really that authoritative, either - is it more or less so than "a guy in the pub", would you say?

Windows runs, more or less, on one platform. Some hardware is supported, provided you find your own drivers. Some hardware is supported better with some versions of Windows than it is on others, and some drivers are better than others. Almost every Windows installation I've ended up in 640x480 and 256 colours until I configured it properly and found drivers. I've had to find my own drivers for modems and network cards to be able to get online to find drivers for my network cards and modems, and I've had to find my own drivers for sound cards. Considering the resources at Microsoft's disposal with their abusive monopoly status, and the strong-arm tactics they've used on hardware manufacturers in the past to get their way, I think you'll agree that this is pretty rubbish. I've tried 5 different versions of Windows over the last ten years or so.

Linux runs on a vast range of platforms, from tiny little hand-held devices through routers and x86 PCs to blade servers, and render farms. This is something that the Linux community should be rightly proud of. All through volunteer effort. Drivers are largely written without documentation or support from device manufacturers. If your particular device doesn't work with the drivers available, you can acquire source code of the driver for a similar device free of charge, and either through your own efforts, or those of someone else, modify that driver to your needs. How do you do this with Windows drivers again? If you can't find a driver that will work with your device on your version of Windows then you're just buggered.

No device works with all Operating Systems ever. No Operating System works with all devices ever. If you believe differently, then I have a bridge you might be interested in. Ubuntu works with most of the hardware of most of the people that use it. I'm willing to believe the same is true of Windows, but then, it really ought to be, considering.


Drop that tired, old claim that Linux will run on anything and publish a list of graphics cards / sound cards / printers / routers / modems etc that are known to work.

Do you mean like the Hardware Compatibility List (http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/HCL)? There's even a Hardware INcompatibility List (http://doc.gwos.org/index.php/AntiHCL). Perhaps you'd like to help out?

kornelix
December 2nd, 2006, 11:54 AM
Not just Ubuntu, but here is a list of hardware that support GNU/Linux from the FSF site:
http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

Yes, but don't get your hopes up too much. The data is badly outdated and incomplete (like lots of other Linux documentation). For example, Nvidia is the best-supported GPU (IMHO) but nothing is there for Nvidia (perhaps because Nvidia drivers, although free, are not open source).

steven8
December 2nd, 2006, 11:59 AM
perhaps because Nvidia drivers, although free, are not open source

Exactly. Nvidia provides Linux Drivers for my Nvidia card, but they are proprietary. You won't find them listed on the FSF site. :-)

kornelix
December 2nd, 2006, 12:01 PM
I just noticed that the Ubuntu documentation on compatible GPUs is quite good. This is one reason I went to Ubuntu: better documentation in general, and a better support forum.

Sluipvoet
December 2nd, 2006, 12:15 PM
I only care about the readiness for my Desktop.
Linux is ready for MY Desktop.
But probably it is not ready for Joe Sixpack who buys a computer with a preinstalled OS, and who only installs/removes programs.
They can always switch to Mac, if they're tired of Windows.

John E
December 2nd, 2006, 12:20 PM
Linux claims nothing. It's a kernel. It just sits there, not saying a word. "Some guy on the Internet told me" is not really that authoritative, either - is it more or less so than "a guy in the pub", would you say?
Oh, come on... stop peddling semantics here. Thanks (sincerely) for the hardware link but I really think you're being disingenuous to imply that this type of quote is in some way "unofficial". Here is an actual quotation from this month's edition of Linux Format magazine...


Linux will run on practically every computer and computing device ever made. Rest assured, if you have something that calls itself a computer, it can run Linux.

I must have seen that same claim made many hundreds of times - not only by guys in the pub but in dozens of supposedly authoratitive magazines.

CatKiller
December 2nd, 2006, 12:30 PM
I must have seen that same claim made many hundreds of times - not only by guys in the pub but in dozens of supposedly authoratitive magazines.

Linux will run on practically every computer and computing device ever made. Rest assured, if you have something that calls itself a computer, it can run Linux.

A computer running Linux, and having device drivers for peripherals connected to that computer are two entirely different things.

John E
December 2nd, 2006, 12:34 PM
I know.... that's my point. :mrgreen:

CatKiller
December 2nd, 2006, 12:39 PM
Oh, come on... stop peddling semantics here. Thanks (sincerely) for the hardware link

No worries. It is all about collaboration, even in a flame thread like this one.


but I really think you're being disingenuous to imply that this type of quote is in some way "unofficial".

The serious part of what I was saying is that there is no official source. People like Linus are authoritative about the kernel. Driver developers can be authoritative to some extent about the drivers they've written. People who put distributions together are the ones that know what goes in it. But that's about it.

There's no central control, or central spokepeople, or central marketing, or anything like that. That's why it works. And that's why anything you read about "Linux as a whole" is an opinion piece, because there is no "Linux as a whole". There are only distributions that contain the Linux kernel and a bunch of other stuff.

CatKiller
December 2nd, 2006, 12:42 PM
I know.... that's my point. :mrgreen:

We're in agreement. Excellent! :biggrin:

John E
December 2nd, 2006, 12:53 PM
There's no central control, or central spokepeople, or central marketing, or anything like that. That's why it works. And that's why anything you read about "Linux as a whole" is an opinion piece, because there is no "Linux as a whole". There are only distributions that contain the Linux kernel and a bunch of other stuff.

That's a very good point..! Isn't there any kind of standards committee though? I'd always assumed that there must be but I admit, that was only ever an assumption. I don't think I've ever read anything about standards or compliance or anything like that - but most big projects have some kind of body in charge.

steven8
December 2nd, 2006, 01:02 PM
Dapper is approved by the free standards group:

http://www.freestandards.org/en/Products

CatKiller
December 2nd, 2006, 01:08 PM
Isn't there any kind of standards committee though?

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from."

As I understand it, the kind of developer that gets drawn to free software is the kind of developer that thinks that implementing standards is generally a good idea. So if there's a standard for what they're doing - POSIX, W3C, ISO, or whatever, then they'll follow it. I don't think it's especially more formal than that.

John E
December 2nd, 2006, 01:21 PM
Thanks (sincerely) for the hardware link

Oops... maybe I spoke too soon here. I can't seem to follow the list to find details of any particular device. For example, there's an implication that functionality is graded somewhere from 1 to 10, with 1 being poor and 10 being the best. But I can't see any gradings - so I can't tell which graphics cards (say) work very well and which work less well... :confused:

FLPCGuy
December 2nd, 2006, 09:35 PM
XPOD back on 367 "Most of them have had computers(xp) for up to about 6 years.......certainly none of them could re-install but worse not one of them knows even the most basic of things from the virus\spyware deal to the things like msconfig or Add\remove etc etc,most of them had never even heard of defragging never mind stuff like sfc & dll`s etc"

brought to mind the argument to be made that Windows is no longer ready for the desktop since it can't be run safely by users who don't know enough to install several Anti-Spyware & AdWare detection apps, an outbound firewall, a third party anti-virus program, and apply all updates & service packs promptly to avoid becoming part of someone's bot herd.

These days it is about as easy to recommend to the end users I support, especially those with trashed Windows full of viruses and spyware, that they just switch to something like SuSe, Mandriva, or even Ubuntu. If they can surf with Firefox, get their email from Thunderbird, write their letters with OpenOfc, and touch up then burn to CD their digital pictures, they would be doing more with Linux than they could do in Winders.

The main issue usually comes down to supporting their hardware...printers, scanners, wireless cards, etc. That's the rub. Microsoft was very careful in placing itself in the center of the PC universe. They wrote boundary layer interfaces for everything that touched Windows so others could write drivers or change protocols and code without requiring frequent changes to the internals of Windows. Then, they went further by writing entire software subsystems for printing, modems, etc. that only required minimal hardware and mini drivers. They even built in hooks for others to use to write anti-virus apps and other utilities M$ didn't want to bother with in the past.

There is no reason Linux development projects couldn't do everything possible to make it easier for hardware vendors and third parties to be able to provide hardware drivers that will work will all distros of Linux. Apple takes the opposite approach, limiting the hardware and providing their own drivers. I believe, the lack of standardized hardware interfaces or API's is really holding Linux back from replacing Windows on the desktop.

I don't see ease of use, installation difficulties, lack of polished basic applications, GUI control panels, or even available forum support as being significantly different from Windows these days. Any shortcomings are easily offset by the lower cost and lower Internet threat to Linux users.

But for the driver issue, I believe I can make the case that it may be easier for many ignorant desktop users to install and safely use a recent Linux distro than installing/reinstalling a dead/compromised version of Windows. Thus, making Linux more 'ready' for the desktop than an unprotected basic install of Windows XP (Even with SP2, XP needs 90+ critical patches, and at least five add on security apps, plus IE7).

lyceum
December 2nd, 2006, 11:36 PM
Not just Ubuntu, but here is a list of hardware that support GNU/Linux from the FSF site:

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw

I have used and recommended this list. I still can't find a wireless USB that I can just plug into my laptop and have it "just work" I bought 2 off the list, git them home and then learned that they did not work out of the box. I needed model A or whatever. I still haven't found one arg!!!! (sorry about that) but that is not Linux's, the FSF's or Ubuntu's fault. Those that make the hardware need to keep ALL of their customers in mind. It is really hard to make and keep track of the hardware. If only there was a wiki... :-k

John E
December 3rd, 2006, 06:28 AM
Not sure if it was this thread or some other - but a week or two ago, someone suggested that Linux should rethink its driver model so that hardware drivers written for Windows would also run under Linux. Even though they might not be open source, it could be a significant step forward IMHO. I'd be interested to know if that's technically feasible.

Brunellus
December 3rd, 2006, 06:40 AM
Not sure if it was this thread or some other - but a week or two ago, someone suggested that Linux should rethink its driver model so that hardware drivers written for Windows would also run under Linux. Even though they might not be open source, it could be a significant step forward IMHO. I'd be interested to know if that's technically feasible.
You are, in essence, asking for a UNIX-like system with a Windows NT kernel. If you want windows, you know where to find it.

kornelix
December 3rd, 2006, 10:01 AM
You are, in essence, asking for a UNIX-like system with a Windows NT kernel. If you want windows, you know where to find it.

It could work like ndiswrapper and adapt the two different APIs.
Might not be easy for something as complex as the printing architecture.

vincentvee
December 3rd, 2006, 01:57 PM
I did. I checked WineHQ DB for the software I wanted to use, it said it worked. Nobody is interested in helping me to get it working.

I was also assured that there would be decent alternatives where WINE does not support - there are not.

if you want to run windows stuff why didn't you just stay where you were then?
is it a case of "i want something that looks different to impress my friends"?

vincentvee
December 3rd, 2006, 02:00 PM
I agree with your general idea, but why not take it a step further? Instead of a Linux CD on a shelf next to a Windows computer... how about a computer with Linux already installed on it and then Windows CDs on the shelf (instead of on the computer)?

that would be great, something like this?
http://www.redsevenlinux.com/
would be a great thing to see, a lot of people really don't know there is a choice

diepruis
December 3rd, 2006, 02:43 PM
if you want to run windows stuff why didn't you just stay where you were then?
is it a case of "i want something that looks different to impress my friends"?

That's a bit unfair. Address his argument/post, don't just make snide comments.

CatKiller
December 3rd, 2006, 03:30 PM
I agree with your general idea, but why not take it a step further? Instead of a Linux CD on a shelf next to a Windows computer... how about a computer with Linux already installed on it and then Windows CDs on the shelf (instead of on the computer)?

Personally, I think that this (http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/windowsxpbox/) is a much better use for the box of either Windows or Linux cds than just sitting on a shelf.

But perhaps everyone's seen it already.

aysiu
December 3rd, 2006, 05:33 PM
that would be great, something like this?
http://www.redsevenlinux.com/
would be a great thing to see, a lot of people really don't know there is a choice
Or like this:
http://www.system76.com

Or this:
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/

Seiti
December 3rd, 2006, 08:27 PM
Even though they might not be open source, it could be a significant step forward IMHO.

But will it be a step forward in the right direction? Itīs better than nothing, but having the drivers sources built in the kernel is the way to go. See Intel and his wifi/vga drivers.

Brunellus
December 3rd, 2006, 10:48 PM
That's a bit unfair. Address his argument/post, don't just make snide comments.
Because it's really too much to expect of *any* operating system that it should run the software of any *other* operating system *natively*. DOS wasn't compatible with Amiga wasn't compatible with Apple Mac. It would have been almost immeasurably stupid for me to have bought a game written for the Amiga and expect it to run on an IBM-clone PC-XT running MS-DOS 3.x

For switchers, there are really only two options: Learn to live with the programs that already run on your operating system of choice, or learn to live without them. Compatibility layers and emulators are an imperfect science at best, and I don't recommend them as anything but a last resort.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Linux advocates consistently oversell WINE and its abilities. I would just as soon keep WINE a "secret" from potential switchers--telling people that Windows applications are runnable on Linux raises ridiculous expectations about the degree to which Windows software can run on a Linux machine. Better to trot out WINE as a "secret weapon" of last resort.

aysiu
December 3rd, 2006, 10:58 PM
I know plenty of Mac users frustrated they can't run Windows-only programs in Mac.

Do any of them say, "Geez. Mac OS X just isn't 'ready for the desktop'"? No. Running Windows-only programs shouldn't be a prerequisiteness for usability of a non-Windows operating system. I think it's pretty amazing that even some Windows-only programs will work correctly in Wine or Crossover Office or Cedega.

vincentvee
December 4th, 2006, 12:27 AM
You can still run DOS apps, even under Windows XP! That was probably one of the main reasons for its success.

my hp pavillion shipped with XP, in the bios and in all the system information, large disk access mode is listed as DOS
XP really is just a gui for dos, same with all windows OS
i guess it looks pretty, but then again aiglx and beryl make ubuntu look damn fine too

vincentvee
December 4th, 2006, 01:26 AM
well written, thats what it took for me to use one too, then after a long time using windows, i wnated someting that looked better(or different) and that i could customise a bit more than what i had at the time(XP), idual booted a few distro's first to give them a try, at this time linux in my opinion was not ready for the desktop, there was a lack of easy to configure packet managers and not a lot of information around at all for any one to get hold of, ubuntu is completely different, great online community and great interface


I graduated from high school in 1983. They were purchasing desktop PCs, and going to offer the first actual computer class, the next year. Until then, they had a computer lab, which only certain students had access to, via approval by teachers.

Understand that I was a mid-classman. Graduated dead-center in my class.

Now, take the 'computer lab', combined with the fact that the only people I knew who were into computers graduated in the top 3 percent of our class, and understand that I was mortally afraid of computers. I would go to my friend's house, watch him do some totally unintelligible stuff to load a flight simulator, or some such, then I would play. When it was suggested I try a hand at the keyboard, I would say 'no thank you'. I knew, it took a brainiac to understand a computer. . .and I was no brainiac.

Finally, with the advent of Windows 95, and spending 2 weeks prior reading dummies books about pcs in general and Windows 95, I bought my first computer in 1996.

So, in my view, an OS is ready when people such as myself aren't afraid to use it.

I have since learned much about computers. I installed my own hardware and operating systems and do this for others, but it took a system such as Windows 95, where it was all pictures and simple English instructions to make me brave enough to give it a try.

diepruis
December 4th, 2006, 07:20 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Linux advocates consistently oversell WINE and its abilities. I would just as soon keep WINE a "secret" from potential switchers--telling people that Windows applications are runnable on Linux raises ridiculous expectations about the degree to which Windows software can run on a Linux machine. Better to trot out WINE as a "secret weapon" of last resort.

I agree, getting WINE to run *anything* is not for the faint of heart or the newbish. I'd never use it to sell Linux.

John E
December 4th, 2006, 09:33 AM
I'm not sure if this discussion about Windows apps and WINE has stemmed from my suggestion about Windows drivers - but if so, someone has completely misunderstood the suggestion.

I wasn't suggesting that support for Windows drivers would somehow enable Windows apps to be run under Linux (which of course, it wouldn't). I was suggesting that it would solve one of your greatest headaches - namely, the fact that manufacturers seem to be unwilling to write drivers for an OS which only commands 1 percent of the market share. Kornelix mentioned ndiswrapper which has already taken this approach for wireless networking hardware. What I'm asking is whether it would be useful to extended that principle to other hardware drivers too.

vincentvee
December 4th, 2006, 11:45 AM
I agree, getting WINE to run *anything* is not for the faint of heart or the newbish. I'd never use it to sell Linux.

i just don't see the point of switching to linux to try and run windows apps.....why switch at all, it's a bit like a linux emulator for windows.....all a bit pointless

diepruis
December 4th, 2006, 03:13 PM
i just don't see the point of switching to linux to try and run windows apps.....why switch at all, it's a bit like a linux emulator for windows.....all a bit pointless

Because you prefer Linux over Windows, but you still have to / want to use Windows programs.

Brunellus
December 4th, 2006, 04:10 PM
I'm not sure if this discussion about Windows apps and WINE has stemmed from my suggestion about Windows drivers - but if so, someone has completely misunderstood the suggestion.

I wasn't suggesting that support for Windows drivers would somehow enable Windows apps to be run under Linux (which of course, it wouldn't). I was suggesting that it would solve one of your greatest headaches - namely, the fact that manufacturers seem to be unwilling to write drivers for an OS which only commands 1 percent of the market share. Kornelix mentioned ndiswrapper which has already taken this approach for wireless networking hardware. What I'm asking is whether it would be useful to extended that principle to other hardware drivers too.
Related, but not causally connected.

ndiswrapper is an imperfect beast; it doesn't work all the time with all hardware. Some modules are rejected. Other driver INF files are hard to unpack. Still other card require (proprietary) firmware to be loaded onto the card before the interface can come up.

The problem is extremely complex. It's not as if one simply waves a wand and *poof,* you have universal, binary-compatible drivers for two different operating systems running two completely different kernels.

If this level of compatibility is a *necessary condition* for your migration, then, honestly, I can save you a lot of time and bother by telling you not to even start. You will only be setting yourself up for failure if you expect this level of compatibility.

Similarly, with WINE and Windows application software, Windows users have an unrealistic expectation that they can move to Linux and also use the same software that they used on Windows. By "the same software," I don't mean Linux ports of the same software (these do exist in some cases)--no, I mean the same disks with the same windows-only binary executables. This is nonsense.

I have no problem advising people considering a switch NOT to switch if swtiching means abandoning something that is absolutely necessary to how they use their computer. If you *must* use Visual Basic... you'll know where to find it.

I know it sounds harsh. It might even come off as elitist -- "Nu-uh, Linux is ready for the desktop, but your desktop isn't ready for Linux!!!!!11111" But that's not how I mean to say it at all. The simple fact is that some things work. Others do not. Switching should be a rational process, where you evaluate the degree to which you are going to accept a certain degree of non-functionality in some areas for better performance in others.

It works the other way around, too. Having run Linux for two years, I get annoyed at certain quirks in Windows XP. In fact, I have found that I didn't have as much understanding of Windows' innards then as I have of Linux's innards now, so "migrating back" to Windows is a pain for me. I keep a Windows partition for the few Windows-only things I need to run, as a result, but I use it grudgingly. Most users will think that's too much trouble. That's their call.

Tomosaur
December 4th, 2006, 04:12 PM
I voted 'Works on my desktop', because there is absolutely nothing special or weird about my setup. I think Linux is as ready as XP was when it was released, I really don't have any more difficulty with linux than I do with XP. In fact, I would say I have less, since Ubuntu has not once yet crapped out on me (whereas XP has twice).

FLPCGuy
December 4th, 2006, 04:50 PM
I believe the point is still not being made. M$ developed NDIS to allow Windows drivers to run nics designed for running Novell packet drivers on Novell networks back when Novell WAS networking. It is one of the keys that allowed Windows to overtake and replace Novell as the standard network desktop client. Linux must do something similar with regard to the various hardware designed to work with Windows. A boundary layer or API interface would wrap around the Windows driver or driver interface and adapt it to work with Linux or at least allow a mini Linux driver to be written easily. I'm no driver programmer but I understand that the key is to program for the commonality.

All printer drivers must include information about how to implement the basics (line feed, carriage return, etc.) plus the special features of the printer and how to manipulate them. This may require the development of an entire software support system. HP developed the Page Control Language which greatly extended the early Epson and IBM interface standards.

I suggest Apple undertake this task since they are in the best position to take advantage of it and really need more hardware compatibility to advance their market share significantly. Now that they are on an Intel platform, this may not be quite as complicated. Perhaps IBM is a more likely candidate considering their deeper pockets and ax to grind with M$ (OS2). You have to be pretty old to remember that scrap.

There is also merit to the kernel integration approach, though that would tend to bloat the kernel too much IMHO. Bottom line, without a big player making a significant investment to provide better hardware support to Linux that can be carried forward, Linux won't become the desktop of the future.

doobit
December 4th, 2006, 10:43 PM
well written, thats what it took for me to use one too, then after a long time using windows, i wnated someting that looked better(or different) and that i could customise a bit more than what i had at the time(XP), idual booted a few distro's first to give them a try, at this time linux in my opinion was not ready for the desktop, there was a lack of easy to configure packet managers and not a lot of information around at all for any one to get hold of, ubuntu is completely different, great online community and great interface

Mu first computer was a Radio Shack TRS-80 model II, then I got a Tandy Color Computer and after that my first PC Clone after IBM made the hardware "open source". That was in the early 1980s. My first copy of MSDOS 2.1 was pirated.
I was no brainiac, but I was interested, and I learned to use the thing for communications and simple games and a little programming in Basic. I still think being interested is more important than being smart.

partsdale
December 5th, 2006, 04:05 AM
"I still think being interested is more important than being smart."

so true.....


Dale

steven8
December 5th, 2006, 08:17 AM
I still think being interested is more important than being smart.

This is quite true. And, as a forty one year old looking back, I'd have to agree. But, as an 17-18 year old at the time, it looked quite different. The trees were mighty big and the forest was nowhere in sight! It made me so afraid, that I wanted nothing to do with computers until I heard about and saw Windows 95.

Now, I believe that Ubuntu is perfectly ready to run a desktop. It runs mine just fine. I'm not the one you have to convince, though. My guess is, the folks who we need to convince, haven't even come close to Ubuntu in a Google search, and they never will.

We have to find a way to get it to them.

Then, we need to get a few Linux-based online game sites like MSN Games or Pogo, as there are a minimum of like 66,000 people online playing at almost any given moment. Try to play an MSN game from Ubuntu - nothing doing. Pogo did the same thing to me. Yahoo games gave me several I could play, So that's cool. This is the meter now for my wife giving totally in to a switch to Ubuntu. She told me that as long as she can do the things she likes to do (Which is the meter for most, I'd say.), she doesn't care what the operating system is.

As I say, I found the Yahoo Games, and that made her happy. The next test, I'd guess, is the make sure the PDF support is adeqaute for doing our taxes online, which is the way she likes to do it.

vincentvee
December 5th, 2006, 11:52 PM
Mu first computer was a Radio Shack TRS-80 model II, then I got a Tandy Color Computer and after that my first PC Clone after IBM made the hardware "open source". That was in the early 1980s. My first copy of MSDOS 2.1 was pirated.
I was no brainiac, but I was interested, and I learned to use the thing for communications and simple games and a little programming in Basic. I still think being interested is more important than being smart.

i totally agree with you about being interested being important, i started with a Tandy CoCo, which as i remember was not much more advanced than the TRS 80, if infact at all, but interested as i was i played around a bit and done programing in basic, i think that is where the whole idea of enthusiast computing came from, there was not much access to the computer lab at my school or to the resources therein, so i had to figure it out myself
LOL
i think i prefer it that way

vincentvee
December 6th, 2006, 12:00 AM
Because you prefer Linux over Windows, but you still have to / want to use Windows programs.
http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html

diepruis
December 6th, 2006, 10:33 AM
http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html

I said prefer Linux. I.e. the kernel, the window manager, the infrastructure, tty1-tty8. I didn't mean "dislike windows". Why would I then use a replacement for windows, when I want to use Linux?

"People are not meant to uninstall Linux and use ReactOS instead; ReactOS is a replacement for Windows users" -- http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/about_whatisreactos.html

vincentvee
December 6th, 2006, 01:30 PM
I said prefer Linux. I.e. the kernel, the window manager, the infrastructure, tty1-tty8. I didn't mean "dislike windows". Why would I then use a replacement for windows, when I want to use Linux?

"People are not meant to uninstall Linux and use ReactOS instead; ReactOS is a replacement for Windows users" -- http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/about_whatisreactos.html

misunderstood....sorry
maybe it is just me, but windows is not all that i don't wanna use, i don't wanna use anything from MS
just my personal preference

V

diepruis
December 6th, 2006, 01:41 PM
misunderstood....sorry
maybe it is just me, but windows is not all that i don't wanna use, i don't wanna use anything from MS
just my personal preference

V

Good for you. I've still to see one thing they made that's good. And that goes for their operating system as well. An operating system is ready for the desktop when it is easy to use, easy to get to the documentation and easy to understand and use the more advanced concepts. Microsoft has failed in doing this.

vincentvee
December 9th, 2006, 04:25 AM
Good for you. I've still to see one thing they made that's good. And that goes for their operating system as well. An operating system is ready for the desktop when it is easy to use, easy to get to the documentation and easy to understand and use the more advanced concepts. Microsoft has failed in doing this.

they succeded in taking the fun out of it all, i'm not saying XP is a bad product, but it is not the right one for me, as is said to me quite often by my brother, windows is more popular for a reason, what that is i don't know, i think people just like paying for stuff

seijuro
December 9th, 2006, 06:23 AM
Well I have been running WINXP and WIN98 for months with full functionality. So I thought I would give LINUX-UBUNTU a try.

UBUNTU install cd will not boot with my multi-os mbr loader. found a floppy disk loader that will load the CD. CD boots and UBUNTU installs. Alright!! It works fine.

Decided to install over my existing win98, but found that LINUX hates fat32. okay format to ext3 (after guessing this is the right thing to do). actually got the install thing right (no manual reading).

But now no driver for my wifi card. Got the card to be recognized, but no connection to the network. no idea yet what to do.

***********

ubuntu is not ready for enduser simplicity. winxp does much better at this. so does win98. still ubuntu is pretty close.

I think claiming poor wifi support just because one particular card isn't supported out of the box and using that extremism to say the whole OS is not ready for the public is unrealistic. I have a netgear wifi card as well that I chose at random because of it's price and it has been supported out of the box since breezy.

diepruis
December 9th, 2006, 09:30 AM
they succeded in taking the fun out of it all

I know exactly what you mean. But try and explain to someone - even a fellow gamer / PC geek - that Linux is more fun than Windows and they'll look at you very strangely indeed.

Brunellus
December 9th, 2006, 03:43 PM
I know exactly what you mean. But try and explain to someone - even a fellow gamer / PC geek - that Linux is more fun than Windows and they'll look at you very strangely indeed.
So true. But Linux is great for those of us who grew up on MS-DOS...a grown-up system with parts we can disassemble and understand. Awesome.

lyceum
December 9th, 2006, 07:55 PM
I think claiming poor wifi support just because one particular card isn't supported out of the box and using that extremism to say the whole OS is not ready for the public is unrealistic. I have a netgear wifi card as well that I chose at random because of it's price and it has been supported out of the box since breezy.

I would have to agree. I cannot use the WiFI on my laptop, but that doesn't stop me from using Ubuntu. There are other cards out there that do work. Now if I could only find one...

BLTicklemonster
December 9th, 2006, 11:14 PM
Bittorrent support (for me) in linux is abysmal. Is there anything remotely similar to bitcomet out there for linux?

aysiu
December 9th, 2006, 11:20 PM
Bittorrent support (for me) in linux is abysmal. Is there anything remotely similar to bitcomet out there for linux?
I don't know what you mean by "abysmal." Can you name some features you think are missing and what programs you have already tried?

seijuro
December 10th, 2006, 01:29 AM
I would have to agree. I cannot use the WiFI on my laptop, but that doesn't stop me from using Ubuntu. There are other cards out there that do work. Now if I could only find one...

Mine is a netgear MA521 got it about 2-3 years ago for $49 after rebate.

prizrak
December 10th, 2006, 07:38 AM
Bittorrent support (for me) in linux is abysmal. Is there anything remotely similar to bitcomet out there for linux?

uTorrent is on Linux and so is Azureus those two are probably the most popular ones out of all of them. What advanced functionality do you really need when you are downloading something that uTorrent for example doesn't provide?

Phosphoric
December 10th, 2006, 10:02 AM
Bittorrent support (for me) in linux is abysmal. Is there anything remotely similar to bitcomet out there for linux?

Azureus works fine for me.

Are you sure that you don't have any other issues like port forwarding or firewall settings?

BLTicklemonster
December 10th, 2006, 06:39 PM
I have simple wants. Get me to a site with what I want, let me click on something, click run, and leave me alone.

I'll keep messing around, maybe I'm just missing something. Do any of the linux based apps have a browser where I can search out what I want? Bitcomet does that just fine. I have found that for the most part, if I go looking around the web for bittorrents, I end up in constant click-traps of endless click and find nothing, click and find nothing, click and find nothing. Surely some maggot is making a killing off of all my clicks. I hoped that the dotcom debacle a while back would have proven that sponsors for ads and click for money scams would not be profitable, but apparently it is profitable after all.

Shame that capitalism has such a maggot-fied support base that these worms will invade everything on the planet to make money without earning an honest day's pay.

:) rant over.

So I guess I'll look it all over again. I do remember, when I first started using ubuntu last year, I attempted to use a BT client, and because I had no files, no site I went to would let me download anything.

lyceum
December 10th, 2006, 07:38 PM
Mine is a netgear MA521 got it about 2-3 years ago for $49 after rebate.

Does it plug in through the USB? That is the type I need.

Phosphoric
December 10th, 2006, 10:12 PM
I have simple wants. Get me to a site with what I want, let me click on something, click run, and leave me alone.

I'll keep messing around, maybe I'm just missing something. Do any of the linux based apps have a browser where I can search out what I want? Bitcomet does that just fine. I have found that for the most part, if I go looking around the web for bittorrents, I end up in constant click-traps of endless click and find nothing, click and find nothing, click and find nothing. Surely some maggot is making a killing off of all my clicks. I hoped that the dotcom debacle a while back would have proven that sponsors for ads and click for money scams would not be profitable, but apparently it is profitable after all.

Shame that capitalism has such a maggot-fied support base that these worms will invade everything on the planet to make money without earning an honest day's pay.



:) rant over.

So I guess I'll look it all over again. I do remember, when I first started using ubuntu last year, I attempted to use a BT client, and because I had no files, no site I went to would let me download anything.

I just don't understand your problem mate. I go to a couple of well known sites for my Bittorrent downloads and they are no different using Ubuntu to Windows. Can't understand your problem. What are you looking for specifically that Ubuntu can't provide and Microsoft can?

I've only recently started to use Azureus that came bundled with Ubuntu and I see no difference to Bit Spirit which I highly recommend in MS.

raul_
December 11th, 2006, 12:24 AM
I remember bitcomet sucked...most of the times the search engine didn't work. Now i have the search bar on google with an engine to look in www.torrentz.com and it gives me results from 7 or 8 different sites.

As for clients, u can always use wine if u want to. I use Azureus, but i don't like it to tell the truth. Java apps are to heavy due to their need to load the VM. but as ubuntu doesn't even eat 20% of my RAM/CPU i just use it and shut my mouth :P

seijuro
December 11th, 2006, 01:06 AM
Does it plug in through the USB? That is the type I need.

no sorry its a pc card.

user1397
December 11th, 2006, 03:15 AM
This is probably not one of the arguments of this thread, but I'd like to say it anyway.

I think that what Mark Shuttleworth is doing, is the smartest thing to do if he wants to get rid of bug #1. The slow process of making ubuntu less "free" (as in more codecs and non-FOSS software, like proprietary drivers) but at the same time easier and more desktop ready, is the only way he can hope to make ubuntu the most desktop-frienldy distro.

If you want an all-FOSS distro, go with something else, like [insert distro here].

But if you want a desktop-ready distro, then you'd better stick to ubuntu, because I believe ubuntu's gonna be as far as desktop readiness goes, while still being completely free in cost, unlike linspire or xandros, who have commercialized their distros.

raul_
December 11th, 2006, 03:39 AM
I'll have to disagree with u there erik. The reason a lot of newcomers bang their heads on the walls because they can't play mp3 or avi or whatever, is because ubuntu doesn't have any proprietary software like codecs (correct me if i'm wrong) and it's the philosophy of it's developers, and i think it's not going to change

user1397
December 11th, 2006, 03:43 AM
I'll have to disagree with u there erik. The reason a lot of newcomers bang their heads on the walls because they can't play mp3 or avi or whatever, is because ubuntu doesn't have any proprietary software like codecs (correct me if i'm wrong) and it's the philosophy of it's developers, and i think it's not going to changebut it is going to change. it is fact. feisty is going to include some proprietary graphics drivers, and I don't know what else (but I think there's more)

I'm not sure where I read it either, so I can't provide a link, but if I find it, I'll post here.

NumberOne
December 11th, 2006, 02:56 PM
/rant

First, let me start by saying that I have over 25 years of experience with personal computers, mostly in the Windows world, this is how I earn my living. I know very little about Linux.

I decided to to try Linux because I'm tired of feeding the Microsoft money machine and getting software riddled with problems.

I tried to install a Lamp server with the Gnome desktop on a P4 Gateway. Server install went okay, desktop install seemed to go okay until reboot, got an error stating that xserver was not setup properly desktop would not start.
I was installing version 6.10. If I installed the desktop without server it installed fine. Go figure. Could not get this combo to work. So I installed 6.06 Lamp server and the gnome desktop and all worked. So then I upgraded from 6.06 to 6.10 and all seemed to work. The only problem was that I did not see any splash screens during startup and shutdown. Why? I don't have a clue. Didn't seem right.

I went and bought a new computer. Gateway Athelon 64 Dual core, 2 gig memory. I installed the 6.10 lamp server with gnome desktop and all worked. I had an Nvidia graphics card the caused problems. It took way to long for me to find an updated driver and get it installed. If the driver is available, why isn't in stalled upon installation?

Set up my Web server without any problems. Got MySQL server running and functional using phpmyadmin with out any problems.

Then I tried to install Proftpd using the howto in the forums. could not get it to work. When going through the howto I recieved errors that I did not know how to resolve (being new to Linux). Then I tried to install Pure-Ftpd and Pureadmin. Had massive problems with this as pureadmin does not work. Finally found a howto using the command line and got Pure-Ftpd to work.

I use the FLAC format for my music which would not play, as well as MP3's. So I found Easy Ubuntu. Installed as per instructions, install seemed to go fine, neither music files still didn't play. :-k

Then I tried to install the beryl desktop as per the howto in the forums and could't get past the first wget command without errors. [-(

I think it will be a long time before Linux will be used by the masses. It needs to have self install packages that work, and without the command line. If the command line is needed then this forum needs a central location for the howto's that cover the different flavors of Ubuntu 6.06, 6.10, desktop, desktop with server, server alone. Until then people like me will just get frustrated and stay with the dreaded M$ Windows.

I am stuborn and will continue to try to work through things. I like Ubuntu and think it has a lot of potential but it is surly frustrating.

/end rant

taurus
December 11th, 2006, 03:02 PM
Are you looking for help or are you just trying to blow off some steams?

1.

sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg

2. If you want to configure proftpd, try to use the GUI...

sudo aptitude update
sudo aptitude install gproftpd

3. Automatix2 works great for me...
http://www.getautomatix.com/wiki/index.php?title=Installation

4. And if you think Windows is better, then there's nothing wrong with staying with it. :rolleyes:

tzulberti
December 11th, 2006, 03:07 PM
/rant
I went and bought a new computer. Gateway Athelon 64 Dual core, 2 gig memory. I installed the 6.10 lamp server with gnome desktop and all worked. I had an Nvidia graphics card the caused problems. It took way to long for me to find an updated driver and get it installed. If the driver is available, why isn't in stalled upon installation?



Of all your questions this is the only one I can answer. The nvidia drivers are not installed by default because they aren't free (as in freedom). But if you enable universe and backports, you have a nvidia-glx package, which is the nvidia drivers.

tigerpants
December 11th, 2006, 03:49 PM
/rant

First, let me start by saying that I have over 25 years of experience with personal computers, mostly in the Windows world, this is how I earn my living. I know very little about Linux.

I decided to to try Linux because I'm tired of feeding the Microsoft money machine and getting software riddled with problems.

I tried to install a Lamp server with the Gnome desktop on a P4 Gateway. Server install went okay, desktop install seemed to go okay until reboot, got an error stating that xserver was not setup properly desktop would not start.
I was installing version 6.10. If I installed the desktop without server it installed fine. Go figure. Could not get this combo to work. So I installed 6.06 Lamp server and the gnome desktop and all worked. So then I upgraded from 6.06 to 6.10 and all seemed to work. The only problem was that I did not see any splash screens during startup and shutdown. Why? I don't have a clue. Didn't seem right.

I went and bought a new computer. Gateway Athelon 64 Dual core, 2 gig memory. I installed the 6.10 lamp server with gnome desktop and all worked. I had an Nvidia graphics card the caused problems. It took way to long for me to find an updated driver and get it installed. If the driver is available, why isn't in stalled upon installation?

Set up my Web server without any problems. Got MySQL server running and functional using phpmyadmin with out any problems.

Then I tried to install Proftpd using the howto in the forums. could not get it to work. When going through the howto I recieved errors that I did not know how to resolve (being new to Linux). Then I tried to install Pure-Ftpd and Pureadmin. Had massive problems with this as pureadmin does not work. Finally found a howto using the command line and got Pure-Ftpd to work.

I use the FLAC format for my music which would not play, as well as MP3's. So I found Easy Ubuntu. Installed as per instructions, install seemed to go fine, neither music files still didn't play. :-k

Then I tried to install the beryl desktop as per the howto in the forums and could't get past the first wget command without errors. [-(

I think it will be a long time before Linux will be used by the masses. It needs to have self install packages that work, and without the command line. If the command line is needed then this forum needs a central location for the howto's that cover the different flavors of Ubuntu 6.06, 6.10, desktop, desktop with server, server alone. Until then people like me will just get frustrated and stay with the dreaded M$ Windows.

I am stuborn and will continue to try to work through things. I like Ubuntu and think it has a lot of potential but it is surly frustrating.

/end rant

Personal experience is a bitch isn't it? :) For every headbanging install, there are countless smooth ones - sorry it wasn't a pleasant experience for you, but thats probably down to your hardware config of your PC - luck of the draw really. Its a lottery.

Ubuntu worked flawlessly, first time for me, installed and set up even more smoothly than windows. It even drives my hardware better - printer and scanner in particular and also transfers to my creative mp3 faster than the native package for windows. Keep at it though, its worth it.

You could always get another computer :)

lumpki
December 11th, 2006, 04:45 PM
Your problem with Linux is that you are bringing everything you've learned about Windows over the years and thinking it will apply to a Unix-like operating system. Not only are you going to have to learn new things, you're going to have to un-learn a lot of things.

It takes time. You can't expect to just jump in and be able to do everything all at once.

You also have to be willing to ask for help when you need it. I'm certain you can get FLAC working, for instance-- easily. Did you install the proper codecs and plugins?

Take your time, and stick with it. As a former long-time Windows user myself, I hope you do. It's better over here.

"A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step."

aysiu
December 11th, 2006, 05:24 PM
I think it will be a long time before Linux will be used by the masses. The masses install LAMP servers?


/rant
...
/end rant
Well, since you're not asking for help and are just ranting, I'm plopping you into the Desktop Readiness thread. I wouldn't except for this statement I've quoted (about "the masses")--as it seems you're using it more as a server than a desktop...

If you want help, ask for it, and people will be more than willing to help you out.

jrjr
December 12th, 2006, 03:36 PM
/rant

I think it will be a long time before Linux will be used by the masses. It needs to have self install packages that work, and without the command line. If the command line is needed then this forum needs a central location for the howto's that cover the different flavors of Ubuntu 6.06, 6.10, desktop, desktop with server, server alone. Until then people like me will just get frustrated and stay with the dreaded M$ Windows.

/end rant

I agree as I had similar experiences. My initial goal was to get a web server running. My choice was to install the desktop and play around to gain some experience first before doing the server.

Well, I did that and in the end decided to run Windows server. ATI support is nearly non-existant in Linux and any troubles I asked for help on either went unanswered or some jerk would chime in with some nonsensical answer. Much of the software gives problems on install, and learning how to install it in the first place is not easy. It can be done, can be learned, and I did get past many hurdles. Sure, blame it on whatever you want, the troubles are still there no matter what the reason.

I stopped using Linux for the most part when Compiz-Quinn branched. I just did not want to keep on fixing or trying to fix my computer on an almost daily basis and I was fed up with not receiving any help. At that point I had Edgy Beta installed on another drive and could never get the video working right. Oh well, just another testament to the ATI and Linux support systems.

This thread is about readiness for the desktop and for the masses. Well, yea it will work on the desktop I guess if a person is willing to commit to the needed work to get it going. The masses are not ready for Linux though... not the other way around. In general I believe the masses want something that is a no-brainer and will almost perform a self install with no user intervention. People are generally lazy. Linux is not a no brainer. Far from it. Anyone that says different is living in a fantasy world or has been brainwashed.

Linux has a steep learning curve. Plain and simple. If you want to tackle that curve, well by all means go for it and enjoy. The majority of people won't and I would dare speculate at a percentage.... I would say that greater than 75% of (other than Linux) computer users would have nothing to do with linux once they learned what is involved with its implementation. Face facts, its tough to learn. Even if you were a first time computer user it would be tough.

By the time that Linux catches up with the ease of XP, Windows will have developed even that much farther and may by then be unstoppable. We will all be prisoners at that point...

Support DRM!

/supportive rant

hotbrainz
December 12th, 2006, 03:49 PM
Hey jrjr,

I was a complete muppet about Linux just 6 months ago. I do not claim to be an expert now. But I have a decent understanding of things to do much more than I could ever do on Windows. This is not because I dint want to learn windows. Its simply easier to do things and customise on Linux.

I did not have a great learning curve.

Let me ask you this. I installed Ubuntu on my friend's Laptop last week. the only thing i did was click "Ok"s and everything on it just works. I am not bluffing. The non-free stuff i used Automatix . All in all i guess it took me a couple of hours and I was doing stuff on internet all the time.

I honestly dont see why any joe-sixpack cant do this.

aysiu
December 12th, 2006, 04:45 PM
I honestly dont see why any joe-sixpack cant do this. That's how I used to feel, too, since my installation was virtually flawless.

It really all depends, and I think that's something both of you are missing in your sample sizes of one.

Some people have incompatible hardware, are too stuck on their Windows training, have very specific application needs (AutoCAD, for example), and simply are not willing to learn things.

Other people have extremely (through luck or good research) compatible hardware, are open minded, have basic application needs (or obscure needs that happen to be met with repository applications), and are simply willing to learn new things.

hotbrainz
December 12th, 2006, 04:50 PM
That's how I used to feel, too, since my installation was virtually flawless.

It really all depends, and I think that's something both of you are missing in your sample sizes of one.

Some people have incompatible hardware, are too stuck on their Windows training, have very specific application needs (AutoCAD, for example), and simply are not willing to learn things.

Other people have extremely (through luck or good research) compatible hardware, are open minded, have basic application needs (or obscure needs that happen to be met with repository applications), and are simply willing to learn new things.

totally agree with you on this. The point i was trying to make is that. If you are serious about Linux....just buy compatible hardware. Well, there are always people who wanna learn and they will be happy no matter how tough it gets to make things work.

Seiti
December 13th, 2006, 01:30 AM
I stopped using Linux for the most part when Compiz-Quinn branched. I just did not want to keep on fixing or trying to fix my computer on an almost daily basis and I was fed up with not receiving any help. At that point I had Edgy Beta installed on another drive and could never get the video working right. Oh well, just another testament to the ATI and Linux support systems.

Staying up to date with a bleeding edge testing alpha package demands some effort...
Not to mention a beta distro. :cool:


This thread is about readiness for the desktop and for the masses. Well, yea it will work on the desktop I guess if a person is willing to commit to the needed work to get it going.

It took me some clicks to get it working on my two laptops...
And a couple clicks more to install my HP usb printer.


The masses are not ready for Linux though...
The masses aren't ready for computing in general. But they don't know yet. All people want is a computer that just works, *without* knowing how it works. Like a car. Well then... They should get a license. :mrgreen:


In general I believe the masses want something that is a no-brainer and will almost perform a self install with no user intervention. People are generally lazy.
And the main reason to switch to another OS is frustration and anger. ;)


By the time that Linux catches up with the ease of XP, Windows will have developed even that much farther and may by then be unstoppable. We will all be prisoners at that point...
Some already are. :rolleyes:


But me... I develop with .NET framework at work, where I don't have choice, but at home I am a happy linux user. Prisoner at work, free at home :D

steven8
December 13th, 2006, 04:57 AM
This all comes around in one big circle, yet again, from what I'm reading. The masses don't want to install ANY operating system, to be honest. And with windows they don't have to, if they don't want. Just buy a computer with it pre-installed. If computers came with Linux pre-installed, and the tweaks all done. Then there would be no question, folks would just use it.

detyabozhye
December 13th, 2006, 07:21 AM
ditto.

jrjr
December 13th, 2006, 01:03 PM
That's how I used to feel, too, since my installation was virtually flawless.

It really all depends, and I think that's something both of you are missing in your sample sizes of one.

Some people have incompatible hardware, are too stuck on their Windows training, have very specific application needs (AutoCAD, for example), and simply are not willing to learn things.

Other people have extremely (through luck or good research) compatible hardware, are open minded, have basic application needs (or obscure needs that happen to be met with repository applications), and are simply willing to learn new things.

I'm a tinker'er (a word?) by nature and been doing so with computers for around 25 years. I had fun tinkering with Linux for a while, probably 4 to 5 months or maybe a tad more. My install went actually rather smoothly except for video. Sure I had video but the res was off and no 3d. It took me 3 weeks (3 WEEKS!!!) to get 3d acc. and dual screens working. Some of this was my inexperience, some was the information available, and some was ATI.

Here on these forums there are many many many different approaches to installing drivers. Most of them did not work for me. I was intently, INTENTLY, working on getting this to work and tried them all. I tried them one at a time, in combinations, and bits and pieces of different ones. It was sheer luck that I got this working. My hardware is not abstract, its main stream, so that cannot be blamed.

I was on a mission and would not accept defeat. The task was completed out of sheer luck and I could repeat the results. What an intense ordeal that was! No everyday computer user would ever go through what I did to get video working properly.

My application needs are few but specific and there are only a couple of programs that I need to use that substitutes cannot be found in the nix environment. These apps are really needed to do what I do so even if I switched to Linux, I would still NEED a Windows install. Don't even mention wine or the likes.... thats another long story of non-working, unsuported software that I lost a lot of my hair over.

Then one has to face the networking configurations. Windows is mostly a couple of clicks here and there whereas Linux requires actual configuration. It's dooable once you figure out how and this is a prime example of the hardcore Linux users claims of what needs to be learned/unlearned in the Linux learning scheme.

Sample size of one? Well, If memory serves correctly, I can recall 4 dapper desktop installs, 2 dapper server installs, and 2 Edgy installs. My server experience with Linux was tainted by a PHP bug to the point of format and install Server 2000. I would have to say that it was easier to work through the PHP trouble on a Windows box.

I consider myself very open minded. I may have tons of Windows experience but that would not stop me from switching if something better came along. To the best of my knowledge Bill Gates is not a relative and I have no burning love for the dude. Condemn him all you want but he has been successful, very successful, and Windows is not a bad operating system contrary to what a lot of people here would like to persuade others into thinking. Since Windows 2000 the OS has been very stable.

I still have a Dapper install and will probably boot into it on occasion to show people the cool cube effects. There is one program that I really like and that may prove useful someday. For the most part though, its just a toy.


This all comes around in one big circle, yet again, from what I'm reading. The masses don't want to install ANY operating system, to be honest. And with windows they don't have to, if they don't want. Just buy a computer with it pre-installed. If computers came with Linux pre-installed, and the tweaks all done. Then there would be no question, folks would just use it.

There are already machines available with Linux pre-installed. They will still need to install programs, replace hardware when it fails, and such. Lets just hope they don't try to install Video of any flavor!! That was a problem I had around 10 years ago when I tried a few distros and remains an obstacle today. Someone NEEDS to address video issues and make it easy for people rather than just giving the reasons why its hard.

detyabozhye
December 14th, 2006, 10:00 PM
One reason why Mark has decided to put in the binary video drivers in the default install I guess.

tebibyte
December 14th, 2006, 11:47 PM
It's nice to think Ubuntu is near flawless. However sometimes I wonder if some (not all) linux users and developers are able to force themselves to look things they are unwilling to see. I know all of you want to believe that Linux solutions are better than propriatry software almost way, but I am worried that this is blinding the open source community. Some people are unwilling to even think that Microsoft may be making better software than us.

This could lead to some major problems. If you think that Ubuntu is almost perfect, then why and would you want to improve it? If improvements slow down, than their is no way that Ubuntu will become a better operating system than it's competitors.

How would Ubuntu manage if the developers of the OS would be unable to listen to constructive criticism from customers. "that's not a problem. This OS is fine!"

Don't be like US president George W Bush. Look where his denial got him. :-k

Brunellus
December 15th, 2006, 12:00 AM
This will likely end up in the "not ready for the desktop" thread.

Use the software that's better. If that's not Ubuntu--or if it's not Free--then peace be with you.

If you want to make things better:

1) File bug reports and feature requests.

2) contribute time/code/money

3) Put your money where your mouth is, and support those vendors who support Linux financially.

The idea that "quality" is somehow even remotely related to the mass adoption of software is misguided, and I have posted at length on it elsewhere.

tebibyte
December 15th, 2006, 12:15 AM
This will likely end up in the "not ready for the desktop" thread.

Use the software that's better. If that's not Ubuntu--or if it's not Free--then peace be with you.

If you want to make things better:

1) File bug reports and feature requests.

2) contribute time/code/money

3) Put your money where your mouth is, and support those vendors who support Linux financially.

The idea that "quality" is somehow even remotely related to the mass adoption of software is misguided, and I have posted at length on it elsewhere.

So much for accepting constructive criticism. ;)

I'm not saying that ubuntu has many problems. I'm saying that individuals have to take an impartial adituide when recognizing if and when their is a problem. That is one thing that my continued support would never solve.

:-k As for regular users magically flocking to use software that crashes regularly, is hard to use, and is just plain bad, I don't buy it. (I am not talking about ubuntu).

I agree that I can contribute more to ubuntu, and the linux community :)

bailout
December 15th, 2006, 12:16 AM
I would agree that there is massive deniel in the Linux community. If this thread gets buried by merging in another like Brunellus suggests it will just prove the point.

wiggleroom
December 15th, 2006, 12:16 AM
How would Ubuntu manage if the developers of the OS would be unable to listen to constructive criticism from customers. "that's not a problem. This OS is fine!"

This is why your fear is unfounded. Your scenario happens constantly with proprietory software, but Open Source software is much less vulnerable.

If Adobe's customers are not happy with the way the software works, they can certainly ask for improvements but there's no guarantee they'll happen - for example, I'd quite like Photoshop to run on Linux, but I ain't holding my breath.

On the other hand, if the Gimp's "customers" would like a feature adding, and the Gimp developers are not going to add it, the "customer" can add it herself. And even if she doesn't have the skills to write software, there's a good chance someone who does will want the same thing.


Just for the record, I am not against proprietory software on principle. Some proprietory software is still much better than it's Free alternative. However, I'm much less worried about the future of Free software than the proprietory software I use. Why? Because, I know that if Free software is good enough, *somebody* will keep improving it - but if good proprietory software is abandoned or wrecked by it's makers, nobody else is allowed to touch it.

[ps] The only real threats to Free software are corporate lobbyists and their intellectual property "laws". But that's another story ;)

tebibyte
December 15th, 2006, 12:33 AM
This is why your fear is unfounded. Your scenario happens constantly with proprietory software, but Open Source software is much less vulnerable.

If Adobe's customers are not happy with the way the software works, they can certainly ask for improvements but there's no guarantee they'll happen - for example, I'd quite like Photoshop to run on Linux, but I ain't holding my breath.

On the other hand, if the Gimp's "customers" would like a feature adding, and the Gimp developers are not going to add it, the "customer" can add it herself. And even if she doesn't have the skills to write software, there's a good chance someone who does will want the same thing.

I don't feel that there are enough coders in the Open Source community that acknowledge that their are certain aspects worth adding.