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

aysiu
March 19th, 2007, 09:33 PM
And I would hold my tongue on the "Windows will always dominate the OS market", Apple Macs and Linux Manufacturers are gaining use every day. Especially since Vista came out. It bears restating, too, that Mac OS X is notoriously "easy to use" and full of "good marketing." And yet it has put only a dent into Windows huge desktop marketshare. Ease of use and marketing are red herrings... or only two of many small factors, if anything.

Lord Illidan
March 19th, 2007, 09:47 PM
Let's put it more precisely then:

For the vast majority of software that ordinary users need, software installation is easier and more intuitive in Ubuntu than in Windows.

For some relatively obscure software, software installation is easier and more intuitive in Windows than in Ubuntu.

Personally, I don't use any software outside the repos, but I know different users have different needs.

Ok, we are in common ground there. Although I never found any difficulty installing software in Windows.

One of the things I love about Ubuntu is driver detection, ironically enough. Just a sudo apt-get install nvidia-glx and nvidia drivers are installed. Soundcard drivers are there, printer and scanner is fine.

With Windows, it is 3 hours of downloading and installing. And my printer is an hp1110psc, if I lose the installcd, it means downloading 80 mb of drivers from a v.slow connection.

bodhi.zazen
March 19th, 2007, 09:49 PM
It bears restating, too, that Mac OS X is notoriously "easy to use" and full of "good marketing." And yet it has put only a dent into Windows huge desktop marketshare. Ease of use and marketing are red herrings... or only two of many small factors, if anything.

As has been said many times ...

The single biggest factor is pre-installation.

Two examples ~

1. How many Windows users would know how to resize an Ubuntu partition and install Windows along side Ubuntu including set up of Dual Booting ?

2. I installed Ubuntu on a box here 3 months ago. The owner had Windows hacked 3 times in 8 months or so, even with Norton antivirus and firewall. Thus the third time I re-installed windows (she has no $ to purchase any kind of support) BUT I also installed Ubuntu. I told her I would support only Ubuntu (as I was doing this on my free time at no charge and I am more familiar with Ubuntu then Windows anyway).

Result ~ She has had no further security intrusions and has not booted to Windows in 3 months. To refute TheBigJimbrowski, she even installed and configured her printer, on her own, no guidance from me, and WITHOUT THE CLI.

Conclusion : Most users learn to use the OS that is installed for them. In fact children learn Ubuntu as fast as they learn Windows (I should know, I teach them as a part of community outreach).

m.musashi
March 19th, 2007, 11:51 PM
Conclusion : Most users learn to use the OS that is installed for them. In fact children learn Ubuntu as fast as they learn Windows (I should know, I teach them as a part of community outreach).

Very true. My own kids (6 and 10 and girls if that matters) are very comfortable with Ubuntu. Granted they usually just play games on the web or do a bit of homework but isn't that just about all anyone does? :)

We also have a Linux thin-client at work. The high school students have complained that it's ugly (they are old computers) and different but it only takes them minutes, or maybe seconds, to find open office or firefox and get to work. One student was dead against Linux and said he'd never consider it. 6 months later he is wanting to install it at home. Reason? He is tired of all the windows hassles. While he will have Linux hassles too they are pretty minor once everything is set up. It's the setting up that is the hassle - windows, Linux or OSX.

Dragonbite
March 20th, 2007, 03:35 AM
But what if I need to get software which isn't on the repositories? When I downloaded my first .tar.gz file, I stared at it for hours. I couldn't understand what all the files were. I was like, WTF does CONFIGURE mean? And even though the repos are vast, there are always files which aren't on the repos nor in .deb format.

That's probably one of the few things RPMs have going for them, even though they aren't perfect.

Having stand-alone installers would be a good thing I think. Fedora, CentOS (and I'm not sure about Suse) use RPMs but they also have Yum to manage them. Yum may not be as polished as APT-GET but it's a start. The RPMs are also supposed to be getting worked on and updated so maybe they'll be able to make it a stronger contender?! Who knows...

saulgoode
March 20th, 2007, 04:19 AM
With Windows, it is 3 hours of downloading and installing. And my printer is an hp1110psc, if I lose the installcd, it means downloading 80 mb of drivers from a v.slow connection.

I installed XP Pro for a relative recently and the HP driver installation required that I click "Next" (or "OK", or "Accept", etc) FOURTEEN times! And later when I actually went to test it out, a couple of more times. I had forgotten how annoying that aspect of Windows was.

the.dark.lord
March 20th, 2007, 10:08 AM
http://gracefulflavor.net/2006/12/10/breakup-letter-from-desktop-os-market-to-linux/
http://gracefulflavor.net/2007/03/19/enough-with-the-linux-blather/#more-10

Take a look at those, people. Drop him a few comments from us ;).

3rdalbum
March 20th, 2007, 10:50 AM
It sounds like he's been using desktop Linux for approximately 3 days.

xyz
March 20th, 2007, 10:55 AM
When something starts with

I think it’s time we had a talk, you and I.
I stop reading.

igknighted
March 20th, 2007, 11:19 AM
I can certainly understand his frustration. The exuberance of linux users can be quite excessive at times. In reality, his view is probably more likely than we would like to admit. Not because linux isn't as good, not because linux isn't a better choice for most computer users from a functionality, security and economic standpoint (because I believe it is superior in those areas)... but rather MS is ingrained into America's (and through their imperialism much of the rest of the world's) view of computing. When you need to blow your nose, you reach for a Kleenex. When you grab a cola, you are grabbing a Coke. When you need to type a letter, you use MS Word. It begins in school. Little Suzy doesn't want to use something other than what the school has so Mommy and Daddy buy the latest MS Office so it is the same. These basic computing skills are not ever taught. What is taught is "how to use M$ ______". Until schools teach "how to use a word processor, here is M$ Word, here is OO.o, etc., there is no chance. Same with work. If Jimmy uses linux on his desktop at work because his company found it was cheaper, maybe he says, "wow... this is easy... and free... maybe I'll try it at home." Until these types of scenarios are commonplace, linux has no chance. And to be completely pragmatic, I think by the time linux could establish the presence necessary for that type of exposure the nature of computing will have changed so drastically that windows and linux might not exist as we know them today.

In summary, I fear in many ways I must agree with this blogger. Not on the basis of how good the product is, but on the basis of exposure (or lack there of). That said, one should never underestimate the power of a motivated grassroots campaign, the type which linux is turning into. It may take time, and I wouldn't say it's likely, but there is certainly hope that linux will spring up on the desktops of many someday.

PatrickMay16
March 20th, 2007, 11:24 AM
LOTD is, and has always been, a total non-starter outside the hobbyist and tech-elite crowds, and it will remain so for quite some time

As much as you'd all like to say that this person is mad, they've really hit a true point here. Most of all who use linux do a lot of reading up and tinkering and so on, and are enthusiasts. A person who just uses a computer to get work done, and doesn't what's on it as long as it works, might try linux if you say it's good and useful. Then they'll probably give up after getting bogged down in problems and getting rude responses when they go to help forums or IRC channels.

And before you say "NO MY MUM USES LINUX!" that's because you set it up for her, worked out initial problems for her, and you're there to help when anything breaks itself (which it does. Remember that big fuss over the X server being broken for many by an update?).

igknighted
March 20th, 2007, 11:31 AM
As much as you'd all like to say that this person is mad, they've really hit a true point here. Most of all who use linux do a lot of reading up and tinkering and so on, and are enthusiasts. And before you say "NO MY MUM USES LINUX!" that's because you set it up for her, worked out initial problems for her, and you're there to help when anything breaks itself (which it does. Remember that big fuss over the X server being broken for many by an update?).

In slight contrast to what I said above... these people who happily use linux after an expert set it up are no different than the millions who use windows after an expert set it up. This same user couldn't set up windows or fix it if it broke. Therefor, the expert still needs to get called in. The issue is why should Joe and Jane buy a linux PC pre set-up? Well, they need to know the security benefits, the economic benefits, and that it is practical. This relies on education. Especially K-12 (US grades).

PS... if I was to release a distro that would be installed OEM by a company like Dell so many never-evers would use it... there would be no new kernel released. Only the simplest fixes would go out. Unless the new kernel could come with the source, and also seek out all modules and rebuild them... then it would not be updated. Simple as that.

darrenm
March 20th, 2007, 11:45 AM
That's probably one of the few things RPMs have going for them, even though they aren't perfect.

Having stand-alone installers would be a good thing I think. Fedora, CentOS (and I'm not sure about Suse) use RPMs but they also have Yum to manage them. Yum may not be as polished as APT-GET but it's a start. The RPMs are also supposed to be getting worked on and updated so maybe they'll be able to make it a stronger contender?! Who knows...

You do know you can download .deb s in the same way as RPMs and install them by double-clicking them?

Tomosaur
March 20th, 2007, 01:41 PM
The arguments are very circular:

"Nobody uses Linux because nobody sells it."
"Nobody sells Linux because nobody buys it."

The only real reason that nobody sells linux is because Microsoft have OEMs in a chokehold. Yes, Linux has problems - but they're no more serious than the problems faced by Windows and OSX. If OEMs started selling pre-installed Linux, then these problems wouldn't exist. ONCE a Linux machine is set up - it is infinitely more stable and organized than a Windows machine. All we need, really, is for OEMs to use hardware which is known to work, and images of a reliable, well maintained distribution.

igknighted
March 20th, 2007, 02:04 PM
The arguments are very circular:

"Nobody uses Linux because nobody sells it."
"Nobody sells Linux because nobody buys it."

The only real reason that nobody sells linux is because Microsoft have OEMs in a chokehold. Yes, Linux has problems - but they're no more serious than the problems faced by Windows and OSX. If OEMs started selling pre-installed Linux, then these problems wouldn't exist. ONCE a Linux machine is set up - it is infinitely more stable and organized than a Windows machine. All we need, really, is for OEMs to use hardware which is known to work, and images of a reliable, well maintained distribution.

"All we need is OEM's to sell linux"...

This is a nice goal, but think of the logistics... why would an OEM want to sell linux? It is expensive on their end, and who would buy it? Linux users (myself included) voted up the idea on Dell's ideastorm, but many (myself included) have no intention of ever buying a Dell, regardless of their linux offerings. So current linux users aren't the main base an OEM would want. And average users who linux proponents (like myself) want to target wont just buy a linux PC, even if its $50 cheaper and comes from Dell. The price difference (if it could even exist... which I doubt) isn't going to convince users to buy a PC with an OS they have no experience with.

As I said above, education and exposure is key. No one will consider linux unless they see it and have some experience with it at work and/or at school. OEMs wont risk offending MS and investing the money to do a legitimate linux offering unless there is true demand... which we as a community can help stir up. Partly by showing the OS to friends/family, but even more so by encouraging schools and libraries and other public institutions to consider linux. The world doesn't have to revolve around MS, but in many ways our education system encourages this.

Somenoob
March 20th, 2007, 02:18 PM
I've really had enough of these messages from people with windows habits and never seen a CLI in their life. It's not a good idea to criticize something you used for a few days and hardly know anything about.

karellen
March 20th, 2007, 02:19 PM
I think he's not madman, only an iliterate/ignorant pc user....who feels confortable with what he has and with his old habits. everyone is free to choose what's more suited for him and satisfies him better. no real problem. there are choices (and consequences) for everybody

Henry Rayker
March 20th, 2007, 02:22 PM
And before you say "NO MY MUM USES LINUX!" that's because you set it up for her, worked out initial problems for her, and you're there to help when anything breaks itself (which it does. Remember that big fuss over the X server being broken for many by an update?).

Three points:
1) igknighted pointed the first one out...it is NOT fair to compare one operating system whose installation has been pre-configured, all drivers installed and ready to go out of the box against an operating system which you have to install on blank hardware. This isn't fair for many reasons, but I think those are incredibly obvious. If you don't see them, ask back and I'll explain. The initial problems have already been worked out. On a similar note, have you ever installed Windows (not from a reinstall disk etc. but from an "off-the-shelf" box of Windows)? If you don't have the driver cds, you could be in a LOT of trouble.

2) Don't bring that X server breaking by update crap into that point. This is due to the fact that people are using unsupported graphics drivers and, when the kernel updates, the driver must be reinstalled. If someone installs Beryl and crap for "their mum" (or any other person, for that matter) without talking to them about the potential failures, they deserve to get yelled at by a frustrating user. My girlfriend uses proprietary drivers on her desktop (because she wanted the nice screensaves) but understands that, if an update breaks the X session, she just reboots and selects the old kernel and goes on...because I explained that to her. If she refused or couldn't understand what I was talking about, I wouldn't have installed the drivers...simple as that.

3) I (and many people here, I'm sure) am (are) already the "go-to" person for computer questions...what difference does it make if I'm being called about a problem with a Linux based OS or Windows? (Aside from the obvious: I set up the Linux one; one is open source and I can look deeper into the problem; MOST problems with Windows are viruses and crap that it just frustrates me to no END to fix etc. etc. etc.)

Dragonbite
March 20th, 2007, 02:34 PM
You do know you can download .deb s in the same way as RPMs and install them by double-clicking them?um.. :oops: no.

So it's more the case of projects not building .deb files as often as .rpm files (from what I've seen, but that's not saying much).

karellen
March 20th, 2007, 02:52 PM
Three points:
1) igknighted pointed the first one out...it is NOT fair to compare one operating system whose installation has been pre-configured, all drivers installed and ready to go out of the box against an operating system which you have to install on blank hardware. This isn't fair for many reasons, but I think those are incredibly obvious. If you don't see them, ask back and I'll explain. The initial problems have already been worked out. On a similar note, have you ever installed Windows (not from a reinstall disk etc. but from an "off-the-shelf" box of Windows)? If you don't have the driver cds, you could be in a LOT of trouble.

2) Don't bring that X server breaking by update crap into that point. This is due to the fact that people are using unsupported graphics drivers and, when the kernel updates, the driver must be reinstalled. If someone installs Beryl and crap for "their mum" (or any other person, for that matter) without talking to them about the potential failures, they deserve to get yelled at by a frustrating user. My girlfriend uses proprietary drivers on her desktop (because she wanted the nice screensaves) but understands that, if an update breaks the X session, she just reboots and selects the old kernel and goes on...because I explained that to her. If she refused or couldn't understand what I was talking about, I wouldn't have installed the drivers...simple as that.

3) I (and many people here, I'm sure) am (are) already the "go-to" person for computer questions...what difference does it make if I'm being called about a problem with a Linux based OS or Windows? (Aside from the obvious: I set up the Linux one; one is open source and I can look deeper into the problem; MOST problems with Windows are viruses and crap that it just frustrates me to no END to fix etc. etc. etc.)

the difference is that in windows the proprietary drivers come on the cd with the pc so for the average user it's only a task of "next->next->....done" and from that point there won't be any display-related problem ;). so what it has nothing to do with linux but with the hardware manufactures? the average user doesn't know/doesn't care. I'm tired of all these complains that "Linux disappoint me/Linux fails me/Linux it's not like windows/Linux doesn't do what windows does" and so on. if you don't like, don't use it. it's free, it's daring and it forces you to learn new things. wow...that's really a bad thing for everyone out there! :confused: If average joe just wants to write in word and browse the web and chat, he'd better stay with windows. no bothering at all (at least until something breaks or viruses plunge in). for me linux meant expanding my horizon's in the IT field...I feel more complete, I can compare now both linux and windows from the perspective of somebody who uses both and it has some abitlities in both. I'm a curious person, so I like change. and learning :)

tagra123
March 20th, 2007, 03:00 PM
um.. :oops: no.

So it's more the case of projects not building .deb files as often as .rpm files (from what I've seen, but that's not saying much).


I noticed it too when first getting started. Sometimes you just can google and find the deb other times you have to make install.

What would be super is if the

apt-get build-dep
./configure
make
checkinstall

Could be used in a gui just like a deb. Make it invisible to the user. IF they can find the source than they might still have to extract or simply have the applet do it for them:

"This looks like source - Would you like to install"?

"The software you are installing depends on these files: a, b,c . I it Ok to Install?

"Depends installed, Now compiling source."

"Source is compiled."

"Installing Program "

"Complete."

If this would be done than even most new users could get things installed - those that didn't already have debs.

Brunellus
March 20th, 2007, 03:20 PM
I noticed it too when first getting started. Sometimes you just can google and find the deb other times you have to make install.

What would be super is if the

apt-get build-dep
./configure
make
checkinstall

Could be used in a gui just like a deb. Make it invisible to the user. IF they can find the source than they might still have to extract or simply have the applet do it for them:

"This looks like source - Would you like to install"?

"The software you are installing depends on these files: a, b,c . I it Ok to Install?

"Depends installed, Now compiling source."

"Source is compiled."

"Installing Program "

"Complete."

If this would be done than even most new users could get things installed - those that didn't already have debs.
God I hope not.

The only packages you should be compiling from source are things of *vital* importance. The only thing that comes immediately to mind are device drivers.

Regular users should *not* be wasting their time compiling for most applications. Not only does it take a great deal of computer time away--ask anyone who's installed Gentoo lately--but it makes a mess of an otherwise orderly binary package management system.

If you absolutely, positively must compile everything from source--well there's Gentoo, with its excellent portage system, as well as SourceMage. There's also FreeBSD's ports, upon which Gentoo's portage is based.

bonzodog
March 20th, 2007, 04:29 PM
I think that people here have gone very short/narrow sighted. The attempt to grow the Linux Desktop is just one part of a much wider battle, which is the dominance of Open Source Software over Proprietary.

What we are trying to achieve here is to make Open Source the default way of developing software. Persuade these companies that the days of Closed Source are over, and the model of the future is Open Source, and the GPL. Whether it be on Apple, Linux, or MS Windows. The Linux platform is just the most favoured, as it fits in best with the whole philosophy.

NyquistLimit
March 20th, 2007, 04:31 PM
God I hope not.

The only packages you should be compiling from source are things of *vital* importance. The only thing that comes immediately to mind are device drivers.

Regular users should *not* be wasting their time compiling for most applications. Not only does it take a great deal of computer time away--ask anyone who's installed Gentoo lately--but it makes a mess of an otherwise orderly binary package management system.


Just out of curiosity, what do you recommend I do for new versions of software that havnt been backported or dont exist in the repositories?

For example while I was using Kubuntu Edgy (about 3 months ago) I wanted to get the latest version of Kerry Beagle Search (version 0.2.1) because it had alot more functionality than the version in the repositories (0.1). No debs existed for edgy and the Debian Etch debs wouldnt work.

Have a look at this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=2287489). The OP was posted in February of this year, 3 whole months after 0.2.1 was released (December 4th 2006). The solution was only just posted last week.

Why should I have to wait so long for software to reach my distro? Why do I have to upgrade my entire operating system (0.2.1 is included in Feisty) in order to get a new version of one single program? Why do I have to jump through hoops to install updates to my applications?

Do you realise how inconvenient this situation is? I feel sorry for people who would like new versions of software but they cant get them unless they are backported. They might have to wait many many months....or in most cases the app is NEVER backported!

What do you say to these people? What do you recommend?....upgrade to feisty? compile it yourself?

Why are programs not being backported more frequently? Or even better.....why, after all these years, isn't there a standard binary package installer usable under all linux distros? In fact, even this wouldnt be good enough. You need an installer that will work under all linux distros and under all VERSIONS of each linux distro.

For example, If I want the latest version of SmartFTP for windows I google search for it, download the installer and double click. It doesnt matter if I'm using Windows 2000, XP or Vista. This is the convenience that people want and expect from a computer.

I'm not trying to troll or anything. I honestly find it difficult to understand why the linux community thinks that it's ok for the people behind the distributions to package 3rd party software. Shouldn't the developers of the 3rd party software be packaging their own software!? The fact that the job is left up to the distros is completely backwards. Something is fundamentally wrong here. It's insanity, it's incredibly inefficient. Can someone please tell me why you think this software distribution model is a good thing?

From the moment I install a stable version of a linux distro I'm forever left with the same versions of all the included apps. Why is this? Why am I locked into having old versions of applications?

For a community of people who preach the virtues of free choice and flexibility it's bewildering that 3rd party software is frozen at the version numbers of distro release day.

Death_Sargent
March 20th, 2007, 04:42 PM
Basically i be-leave install should be as easy as windows vista is SUPPOSED to be to install. (maybe even an upgrade adviser)

Also there should be a way to roll back device drivers from the click of a button. Like in the windows device manager.

Brunellus
March 20th, 2007, 04:44 PM
I am the least competent person on these forums to deal with your question. I tend to be a bit of a retrogrouch as far as my software preferences go--obviously not *so* much of a retrogrouch, otherwise I'd run Debian Stable.

In general, however: your flexibility is always there. If you want to drink from the source, you can always do so--but I don't think the developers are under any particular obligation to support you by making it double-click easy.

You can either have stability or live on the bleeding edge. You cannot do both. New features introduce new bugs and new instabilities. The software development cycle has feature freezes, bug-squash periods, and periodic 'stable' releases in order to give the userbase something to hold on to while the next version is under development.

Some projects are better at incremental releases than others. Ubuntu, for instance, has so far been largely successful with its semiannual release cycle. Debian, on the other hand, is notorious for release cycles that run on geological time, even in "testing." The freedom and flexibility comes from your choice in what distro to use and what software to use. Indeded, the choice continues into the method by which you install the software: binary packages or source compiled.

When I was a young boy, I would get into schoolyard fights. My father would scold me--"you should not fight," he said, "unless faith or morals are at risk. Ask yourself--are they at risk? If not, then it's not worth fighting." A similar rule goes for source compilations. You should not be compiling from source unless

* The binary version is simply unusable--it will not run. This is often the case for device drivers. My USB webcam, for instance, needed a development version of the driver which I had to compile myself. I might have saved myself the trouble by buying equipment that was known to work.

OR

* There is a feature in the development source tree that you cannot live without. By "Cannot live without," I mean "I cannot do my work without this feature." I do NOT mean "this feature is really cool, but I can live without it."

Distributions are not bound to service your insatiable beta fever. If you want that, I heartily recommend Gentoo and breakmygentoo to you. Otherwise, a bit of sanity is necessary.

Dragonbite
March 20th, 2007, 04:53 PM
It doesnt matter if I'm using Windows 2000, XP or Vista.Sorry... I can't quite get EVERYTHING for Windows 2000 so I have to look at the System Requirements (IE 7 anybody?). And what about those poor people running Windows 98? (Yes, there are still a number of people running Windows 98 because it does what they want to).

Windows, due to it's monopolisticly-gained position as the "standard", has made people believe that all you do is double-click on the *.exe file to install ANYTHING. People are blinded to what actually goes on in an installation and that has helped facilitate spreading virus', malware, adware and spyware.

If Windows had only half of it's market share or less... then Windows would have to actually work at managing not ever program providing .exe files, not all drivers working with Windows, trying to fill-in the gaps with wireless cards, etc.

And with Windows, when there is an update.. you have to fiind (Google?) the website providing the program then navigate to xyz website, download the .exe file and then run it and hope ( a ) there's no virus, ( b ) it is compatible with your system and other programs installed, ( c ) you don't have to uninstall previous versions and ( d ) Microsoft let's you (a new and improved feature!).

This all may work, assuming you got the right website (it's Ad-Aware at Lavasoft, not Adaware) in the first place.

Or you open Synaptic, click Update, click Mark Updates and click Apply. Done (for everything).

Which one is really easier for the vast majority of consumers?

The beauty of Linux is that you can take any distro and pretty much make it into whatever you want. Each distro, though, starts you off at a point which may be closer or not to what you want to have, and then you go from there.

With Windows, they drop you off where they want you to, and if you are lucky (and often willing to spend $$$) you can get to where you want.

NyquistLimit
March 20th, 2007, 05:26 PM
I am the least competent person on these forums to deal with your question. I tend to be a bit of a retrogrouch as far as my software preferences go--obviously not *so* much of a retrogrouch, otherwise I'd run Debian Stable.

<snip>



Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your reply and completely respect your unswaying advocacy of the fundamental ideologies of the linux world; however, I just don't understand why things are the way they are now and why are these topics are seen as satisfactory by linux users.

You say that developers have no obligation to package their software for easy installation. Fair enough. However, I say that developers would very much like to package their software in an easy to install binary, however they are unable to do so because there are too many competing packaging standards and linux distributions. As a software developer myself I want my users to have the easiest experience while using my software. That includes the installation process.

It would be completely unacceptable for windows applications to be released without some form of installer. The linux solution to this problem is distro specific repositories, but this is terribly inefficient :( Instead of one developer creating one package, you have 500 people making packages for each of the distributions!

When you mention stability of the OS, why does this include 3rd party apps? Why am I forced to install from source? Why can't the distros update the repositories with new versions of the applications and I can make the choice of whether or not I want to upgrade? I agree that you shouldnt force the updates down the throats of users who are happy with old versions of software but at least give us the choice!

You recommend that I try Gentoo or some other "hardcore" linux distros. You misunderstand my requirements! I dont want to tweak or compile things from source. I dont necessarily want bleeding edge software either! I just want an easy way of getting the latest versions of important apps if I see that the new version has features that I really really want! Why do I have to resort to Gentoo and such great inconvenience to achieve this?

The situation right now is very restrictive and frustrating and I don't understand why you people are comfortable with the current state of affairs :confused:

rsambuca
March 20th, 2007, 05:33 PM
NyquistLimit, it definitely sounds like you prefer to use the latest software available. If that is the case, then I don't think you will ever be completely happy with an ubuntu based distro. Yes, latest and greatest often has more/improved features, but these versions are often a little less stable. From day one, the ubuntu developers have gone for stability over latest and greatest. I think that the market ubuntu is going after in the desktop arena are perfectly happy having the slightly older repo versions.

As far as giving people choices of upgrades or not, it takes time to put these packages together, and as we have seen, the developers are working hard enough as it is trying to keep up with the 6 month schedule.

In the end, I don't see what the big deal is waiting 6 months for a new version of a program.

Lord Illidan
March 20th, 2007, 05:47 PM
"All we need is OEM's to sell linux"...

This is a nice goal, but think of the logistics... why would an OEM want to sell linux? It is expensive on their end, and who would buy it? Linux users (myself included) voted up the idea on Dell's ideastorm, but many (myself included) have no intention of ever buying a Dell, regardless of their linux offerings. So current linux users aren't the main base an OEM would want. And average users who linux proponents (like myself) want to target wont just buy a linux PC, even if its $50 cheaper and comes from Dell. The price difference (if it could even exist... which I doubt) isn't going to convince users to buy a PC with an OS they have no experience with.

As I said above, education and exposure is key. No one will consider linux unless they see it and have some experience with it at work and/or at school. OEMs wont risk offending MS and investing the money to do a legitimate linux offering unless there is true demand... which we as a community can help stir up. Partly by showing the OS to friends/family, but even more so by encouraging schools and libraries and other public institutions to consider linux. The world doesn't have to revolve around MS, but in many ways our education system encourages this.

I agree that Linux might not be ready for the desktop for some users...and I also believe that we are doing our best to make it ready. But again, first we have to take off the stranglehold imposed by Microsoft. In a way, it is almost frightening. Millions of users (or was it billions) knowing nothing but Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft. It's scary, and it's not good.

But the thing about Linux is that everyone can give a hand, unlike Microsoft.

Regarding the article posted, it seems that the user's main gripe is about aesthetics. Well, I think he does have a point there. Many distros are just not taking enough care of this...and the obvious disrepancy between GTK and QT apps are very jarring, especially when you have a nicely themed GTK theme and a default QT theme.

Soundsystems..hopefully this will be arranged in the future. IMHO, it is ridiculous that we had two soundsystems (OSS and ALSA) for such a long time...we should standardize on these basic lowlevel software.

And I'd also love it if we could improve OpenOffice...and put it on a diet, or else rewrite the whole thing from scratch or something :)

Yes, we do have a lot to go, don't we? But, we'll climb the stair step by step.

Lord Illidan
March 20th, 2007, 05:48 PM
I think that people here have gone very short/narrow sighted. The attempt to grow the Linux Desktop is just one part of a much wider battle, which is the dominance of Open Source Software over Proprietary.

What we are trying to achieve here is to make Open Source the default way of developing software. Persuade these companies that the days of Closed Source are over, and the model of the future is Open Source, and the GPL. Whether it be on Apple, Linux, or MS Windows. The Linux platform is just the most favoured, as it fits in best with the whole philosophy.

I think we still have to coexist with closedsource software for the time being...unless some miracle happens :)

NyquistLimit
March 20th, 2007, 05:56 PM
Windows, due to it's monopolisticly-gained position as the "standard", has made people believe that all you do is double-click on the *.exe file to install ANYTHING. People are blinded to what actually goes on in an installation and that has helped facilitate spreading virus', malware, adware and spyware.

As is the case in all walks of life, with convenience comes carelessness. You cant blame the convenience of an installer for the lack of education of windows users.


And with Windows, when there is an update.. you have to fiind (Google?) the website providing the program then navigate to xyz website, download the .exe file and then run it and hope ( a ) there's no virus, ( b ) it is compatible with your system and other programs installed, ( c ) you don't have to uninstall previous versions and ( d ) Microsoft let's you (a new and improved feature!).

Storm in a teacup! Why do linux users always completely exaggerate the potential problems of Microsoft products? I dont have anti virus or firewall software on my pc, I do not have problems with such things. I have never had to worry about whether or not an application will conflict with other installed programs. I don't even know what you're refering to when you say this. Can you give me an example please?

Your last sentence in the above quote is blatent fanboyism. When has MS ever prevented the execution of a 3rd party application?

Would you like me to describe the sequence of events I've encountered while trying to update a linux application?

-Goto google to find Kerry Beagle Search
-Click on link to kde-apps
-see that there is no deb
-goto ubuntu forums and search for deb (none found)
-google search for deb
-find deb for debian etch
-try to install deb but install fails
-decide to compile from source
-run ./configure
-configure fails, need to install dependencies
-run synaptic, click on all dependencies and install them
-try ./configure again
-fails again because there is a dependency that is not in the repositories for this version of Ubuntu
-google search for the dependency <- at this point I give up but I shall continue with the required steps
-download source for dependency
-compile dependency and install it
-now try to compile kerry again
-if compile works then install it
-add kerry beagle to .autostart script


I gave Ubuntu and Kubuntu and OpenSuse a very objective chance as my primary OS a few months ago. I spent over 3 months with these various Linux distros as my primary OS so I am by far an MS fanboy. However, I went back to windows because of the many problems I encountered while trying to install new apps, setup my display drivers and configure my hardware. This isn't fanboyism, it's common sense on my part because I can't tolerate so much inconvenience in my life!

DoctorMO
March 20th, 2007, 06:04 PM
I use linux and I fight for free software in every byte on every computer, I'm not going to win but at least I know I have a life goal.

NyquistLimit
March 20th, 2007, 06:12 PM
NyquistLimit, it definitely sounds like you prefer to use the latest software available. If that is the case, then I don't think you will ever be completely happy with an ubuntu based distro. Yes, latest and greatest often has more/improved features, but these versions are often a little less stable. From day one, the ubuntu developers have gone for stability over latest and greatest. I think that the market ubuntu is going after in the desktop arena are perfectly happy having the slightly older repo versions.

As far as giving people choices of upgrades or not, it takes time to put these packages together, and as we have seen, the developers are working hard enough as it is trying to keep up with the 6 month schedule.

In the end, I don't see what the big deal is waiting 6 months for a new version of a program.

Ok, I guess Ubuntu really isn't for me then. I'm extremely eager to have an easy to use distro as a hobby OS but unless I can quickly update to the latest versions of applications I won't be happy with it. Do all distros freeze versions of software when they're released?


As far as giving people choices of upgrades or not, it takes time to put these packages together, and as we have seen, the developers are working hard enough as it is trying to keep up with the 6 month schedule.
Again, if the software developers had the job of packaging the software this problem wouldnt exist. It doesnt exist in the world of Widnows or MacOS so there's no reason for it to exist in the linux world. I think there's a dire need for a standardised packaging format to cover all linux distros.

fxscreamer
March 20th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Dear Linux Gurus,

I'm a long time computer user of Windows and OSX, and a novice Linux user. I started my Linux days back on Fedora Core 2, doodling around with KDE, installing mplayer, nvidia drivers, and what not. However, as some of this was interesting and fun, I realized what a real pain in the *** all of this is. I've currently installed a dual-boot system of Ubuntu 6.10 on my Powerbook for fun, but even that has its drawbacks. I had some Linux gurus sit down and try to get my wifi working for an hour, but no success.

See, this is what I'm talking about. While we are starting to see billboards on highways for Ubuntu, governments and businesses switching to open source, we still aren't seeing anything close to the home user advantage. Let's face it, while Linux is great for servers, and has got a massive face lift to the GUI interface, it is still atrociously ridiculous to make work. No mom or dad, or even a moderately savvy computer user is going to have the patience to sit down and check dependencies and update kernels, and get things like their trackpad and wireless card to work correctly.

I've been told that making things work instantly on OS installation is hard, because every system is different , and has different setups in order for things to work. However, this never stopped Windows or OSX. There are many configurations and preloaded drivers ready to go for multiple system setups, whether it be AMD, Intel, 32-bit-64-bit, etc. May I also add that Linux's file system is still atrociously messy? Running everything from the command line prompt, opening up a terminal is NOT how the mass public is going to do things.

My point is, while the infrastructure is in place, and the market share and hopes for Linux is growing, it's still nowhere near convenient for everyday applications from the client end, especially in the world of media, graphics, music, etc. Windows and OSX especially, are easy enough for a 5 year old to understand. I can offer just a few suggestions to make Ubuntu, and Linux for that matter, a little more user friendly.

* Have a C: drive, or main drive in a graphical interface, with file navigation identical to OSX or Windows.

* For the hardcore linux users, have an icon that says something like "Go Deep" that allows you to get to the root level of the file system (unlike OSX).

* Have preloaded, and included drivers for multiple system setups, with multiple hardware configurations and detecting software, so it doesn't take you 5 hours to get your wireless card working.


Time is money, and Linux takes too much of it away for any practical client applications. It needs to be quick, efficient, and straight to the point. I'm very surprised that Linux hasn't evolved more than it has, considering the masses of people united in order to make a superior operating system. The closed production houses of Apple and Microsoft have seemed to make a more client-ready OS.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this. I would have no problem using Linux in the future, that is if it can be as slick, and convenient as the current competition. I don't need to hear about Windows haters. It's still one of the best options for client workflow.

Thoughts?

-fxscreamer

TheBigJimbrowski
March 20th, 2007, 06:35 PM
Sorry I must have misunderstood the aim of the forum, I was reacting to Roger's post, which rang so true to my feelings - now you have moved it and it is somewhat out of context and looks like a rant, but never mind.

About point and click interfaces as opposed to CLI-


I wrote- It isn't that which is wrong with Windows, in fact, is it exactly that which is right with Windows, i.e. why it is so popular; not marketing, usability. Do you really believe that something for free is not competing with something which is 300+bucks simply because of marketing? If Linux was useable we would all be using it.



aysiu wrote - Care to back up that claim?

Sure - you're little survey might well produce that result, and you are quite right about preloading Windows on proprietory machines, and I do not disagree with you about this being wrong in anti-monopolic principle... However, I am afraid you are missing my main points.

Ubuntu/Linux is not as useable (intuitive) as Windows. Full stop. If you are even arguing this point then you are ignoring the elephant in the room, like all the other Linux people I have ever come across. There is absolutely no way that my mum could use Ubuntu. You forget how much you know, nerds, and when people point out that you are talking a different language you tend infer that these people are stupid. Don't forget, you didn't know what a partition was either once.


You don't really use Add or Remove Programs in Windows to add programs--only to remove them. Windows users somehow know (Does Windows tell you to do this? No) the easiest way to get software is to Google around for a file to download, double-click the file, and then click Next a bunch of times? How did they know to do this?

The important phrase here is "Windows users somehow know (Does Windows tell you to do this? No)" - this is because it is INTUITIVE. Clicking next is obvious what you have to do, typing "apt get-install somesoftware" into a CLI is about as far from intuition you could ever get, and that's what I mean when I say Windows has better useability, my mum can figure out how to install Skype in Windows, (and the instructions how to do this takes seconds and I didn't have to write it down for her - "go to skype.com, download it and follow the instructions") She wouldn't have a clue where to start in Ubuntu.


Windows isn't easier than Linux. The other day at work, I heard a co-worker complaining to technology that her computer just randomly froze. The tech support guy played around with her computer a bit, forced a reboot, and then just wrote it off as "Just one of those Windows quirks, I guess." That's what it always boils down to. Doesn't work in Windows? "Just a quirk." "Just an annoyance I have to deal with." Doesn't work in Linux? "Oh, Linux is just for nerds." "Linux is too hard to use."

Sounds like your 'technical support' is a Linux fan who refuses to fix Windows properly on principle, or actually because he hasn't taken the time to learn about Windows. I am afraid, and I promise I am NOT exaggerating for effect here, in my experience, Ubuntu was FAR less reliable than Windows XP, it crashed, it hung, it froze, it failed to install things, apps didn't work the way they should, it forgot settings between reboots, it reset my xorg.conf way too many times..etc etc etc that's all I was saying. If a desktop OS doesn't 'just work' then it is a failure. Simple.

bodhi.zazen -


Who is Roger anyway ?


Roger is a previous poster in the original thread from which you moved my post, who makes exactly the same points as I did, only more concise as I don't have time to write short posts, and this is I why I refer to him in my post, you would do well to find the posts and read them.



Next time, however, please read the sticky. It is clearly stated NO OS BASHING in the Beginners Team Forum and that includes Ubuntu.


errrm...where does it say that then...? Don't worry, I promise not to be horrible about anyones OS anymore :rolleyes:



TheBigJimbrowski: No one is forcing you to use the command line. If you are happy with an anlternate OS so be it. Many new users feel as you do, but IMO, you should expect to learn a few things when you try a new OS.


Well, if I want to use Ubuntu/Linux instead of Windows then I have to use the command line, and yes, I am forced to do it. The typos in your post above should help you see my point with what the problem with text interfaces which require abstract commands. I am quite happy to learn new things, I do every day, but unless you are already a nerd, Ubuntu will never be useable all the time you insist on a text based interface. I wouldn't have even tried to install Ubuntu if I didn't have a host of reasons to try it, and I was prepared fully for the learning curve, but I am afraid that that curve is way to steep for your average user. Even a computer savvy one like me. That's my point, I am NOT happy with my alternative OS, its just that there is still no real alternative yet after nearly 20 years of development.



You need to evaluate the whole process. If you boot a new OS you should get a feel for it and as youself ~ Do I like this OS enough to spend some time learning how to use it ? If the answer is yes, expect to spend a few weeks/months/years learning ... If not, stay with the old one. Either way no big deal. go with your preference.


I spent, as I said, three months 'evaluating the whole process' (which means having an unusable computer for 3 months) and my conclusion was unfortunately Ubuntu is simply not desktop ready.

"Do I like this OS enough to spend..." what??? I want my OS to work, drive my videocard's features, all of them, recognise hardware automatically, play MP3's and DVD's when I put them in and have it actually work, that's all. No, I do not want to spend hours trying to get my OS to do the simplest things, and here lies the greatest issue for Ubuntu/Linux - people DO NOT HAVE THE TIME to make it work, it has to largely work on its own. Until you get this right, it will fail as a desktop. And this is why, IMHO, Windows wins this game hands down.



Ranting, however, only makes you seem unreasonable.


I'm ranting because Linux has been around for about 18 years now, and I'm still waiting for a real alternative to Windows to be produced, and I really thought Ubuntu might be it.

But it still hasn't got over the 80's CLI hangover, (why? Probably a bit of Kudos which goes with the text based CLI provides i.e. cos its different from MS), and this infuriates me, especially when I hear you (plural general) slagging off Windows users as if they are stupid/impatient/lame or whatever. There is a very good reason why Windows is so prolific in this world, and why most people choose it over any other OS, and I have never met a Linux lover who realises what that difference is. It seems I still haven't.

Good luck with your efforts, I hope that Ubuntu DOES take over from Windows, I really do, but until it does what Windows does, you are going to fail. I am not a Windows zealot, I would LOVE to get away from Windows, but Linux/Ubuntu is not ready for me yet, and I have merely pointed out a few of the reasons why not. Listen or not, either way no big deal. Go with your preference.

{edit} :D Then You get accused of being a 'troll' - yet another Linux fanboy phrase which means nothing to Human beings. I'm guessing that a troll is one who has a point of view different from the foum general. I'm not original, no, Im probably repeating what HUNDREDsof people have already said. Its up to you to figure out why so many of us are saying it.

Steveire
March 20th, 2007, 06:35 PM
This is not an original troll.

fxscreamer
March 20th, 2007, 06:37 PM
This is not an original troll.


I don't quite understand what you're saying, or implying. :confused:

aysiu
March 20th, 2007, 06:41 PM
I've merged these threads into a more appropriate place for discussion.

DoctorMO
March 20th, 2007, 06:41 PM
it is still atrociously ridiculous to make work

Not really, hardware that works, works very well. hardware that doesn't may or may not work depending on the tech level of the user/admin. the point is that on other platforms you just give up and sell the wifi card on ebay. but with linux you want your cake and eat it and so complain that the entire linux stack is not friendly because of a few stumbling blocks which we are trying very hard to get rid of.

If these problems are insurmountable, then please come back and try fiesty and maybe fiesty+1.

mykalreborn
March 20th, 2007, 06:42 PM
linux is free, so considering this, considering that it's a comunity effort, i think it's doing pretty well. linux is advancing, and it's advancing faster than windows or mac. it just started a little later then the other two, that's all.
yes you can't really imagine mom and dad patching a kernel. but if this is so, then how can the idea of a computer app entering your system and flooding it with spam and porn, destroying your system, slowing it down and what-not seem normal?

Brunellus
March 20th, 2007, 06:45 PM
Ok, I guess Ubuntu really isn't for me then. I'm extremely eager to have an easy to use distro as a hobby OS but unless I can quickly update to the latest versions of applications I won't be happy with it. Do all distros freeze versions of software when they're released?


Again, if the software developers had the job of packaging the software this problem wouldnt exist. It doesnt exist in the world of Widnows or MacOS so there's no reason for it to exist in the linux world. I think there's a dire need for a standardised packaging format to cover all linux distros.
in a word, yes.

If you want to walk on the wild side, there's also Debian Unstable (aka Debian Sid). Unstable repos update continuously, but are not guaranteed to work. In fact, keeping a rather mixed sources.list is a BAD idea as far as stability and dependency resolution goes. But if you're looking for a hobby rather than an absolutely stable production platform, I'd point you there, or to Gentoo.

PatrickMay16
March 20th, 2007, 06:46 PM
HENRY MY MAN! HENRY'S DISCO


Three points:
1) igknighted pointed the first one out...it is NOT fair to compare one operating system whose installation has been pre-configured, all drivers installed and ready to go out of the box against an operating system which you have to install on blank hardware. This isn't fair for many reasons, but I think those are incredibly obvious. If you don't see them, ask back and I'll explain. The initial problems have already been worked out. On a similar note, have you ever installed Windows (not from a reinstall disk etc. but from an "off-the-shelf" box of Windows)? If you don't have the driver cds, you could be in a LOT of trouble.

2) Don't bring that X server breaking by update crap into that point. This is due to the fact that people are using unsupported graphics drivers and, when the kernel updates, the driver must be reinstalled. If someone installs Beryl and crap for "their mum" (or any other person, for that matter) without talking to them about the potential failures, they deserve to get yelled at by a frustrating user. My girlfriend uses proprietary drivers on her desktop (because she wanted the nice screensaves) but understands that, if an update breaks the X session, she just reboots and selects the old kernel and goes on...because I explained that to her. If she refused or couldn't understand what I was talking about, I wouldn't have installed the drivers...simple as that.

3) I (and many people here, I'm sure) am (are) already the "go-to" person for computer questions...what difference does it make if I'm being called about a problem with a Linux based OS or Windows? (Aside from the obvious: I set up the Linux one; one is open source and I can look deeper into the problem; MOST problems with Windows are viruses and crap that it just frustrates me to no END to fix etc. etc. etc.)

For your first point, I doubt it would be any different if linux in its current state was preinstalled on computers.

For your second point, the drivers are available in the repositories, so they should be tested with the updates to make sure they work. They've even considered including those drivers by default for the next releases (so I heard), so it makes no difference. It is still a valid point that updates can break stuff.

It isn't just limited to that x-server problem.
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/breezy/+source/galeon/+bug/63756
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=240957&page=8 - with this one, the guy actually tried using the open driver as well as the nv driver, and that failed also.
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-24763.html%5B/t-23364.html
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=369118

For your third point: that may be all good and well, but what if in some area the 'go-to guy' doesn't use linux, and doesn't know anything about it? This will be a problem if someone gets a computer preinstalled with linux; it's not guaranteed that anyone will be able to help with their problems.

What I'm trying to say is, ubuntu/linux is great, but the guy in the linked articles does indeed have a point with some of the stuff he had to say. Right now linux is only suitable for the user who knows what they are doing.

aysiu
March 20th, 2007, 06:54 PM
I think some people need to read this:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth

Please also keep in mind that "ease of use" is a red herring. Mac OS X is "easy to use" and has made only a small dent in Windows' dominance of the desktop market. Plenty of Linux distros, too, are easy to use for even those who "need" proprietary software and codecs--Linspire, Mepis, PCLinuxOS, Linux Mint.

I also would like to say that in my almost two years using Linux on the desktop, I've neither felt the need nor the urge to "patch a kernel" (I wouldn't know where to begin, even if I did feel that need) or to recompile a kernel (are they the same thing?). I keep to the repositories and don't really need software outside of it. I don't mind my software being updated every six months--I kind of like it, actually. And I hate keeping track of product activation keys, approaching license agreements with paranoia instead of curiosity, and having a crippled run-as-limited-user-most-of-the-time functionality.

Not to mention that all of these cries of "Linux needs to be easier to use" are totally useless and do not acknowledge the hard work the developers put into making Linux easier to use. You see that progress tangibly every six months. Just look at the Feisty specs if you don't believe me:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/feisty

You also can talk about this for six thousand posts in a thread all you want. If you want to be a part of real change, read this thread (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741).

rsambuca
March 20th, 2007, 07:00 PM
Ok, I guess Ubuntu really isn't for me then. I'm extremely eager to have an easy to use distro as a hobby OS but unless I can quickly update to the latest versions of applications I won't be happy with it. Do all distros freeze versions of software when they're released?
If yo want to keep up with the latest and greatest, you might be happier using Gentoo or one of its derivatives. I would suggest giving Sabayon linux a shot. It is based on Gentoo and so utilizes the portage system, the documentation is well maintained, and if you want to test it out, there is a live DVD to try out before you install anything. The latest version 3.3 just came out and I have been testing it out.

PatrickMay16
March 20th, 2007, 07:08 PM
Please also keep in mind that "ease of use" is a red herring. Mac OS X is "easy to use" and has made only a small dent in Windows' dominance of the desktop market. Plenty of Linux distros, too, are easy to use for even those who "need" proprietary software and codecs--Linspire, Mepis, PCLinuxOS, Linux Mint.

WHoaughuhuhg!!!!!! .......those quote marks on the "need". If I'm going to spend upwards of £300 on a computer, perhaps I don't need, but certainly WANT it to work optimally. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh. So those proprietary drivars are of critical importance, at least until projects like Nouveau and the like reach maturity. Otherwise, ubuntu will lie forgotton if one can't use their 3D graphics.

Dragonbite
March 20th, 2007, 07:24 PM
... I dont have anti virus or firewall software on my pc, I do not have problems with such things. I have never had to worry about whether or not an application will conflict with other installed programs. I don't even know what you're refering to when you say this. Can you give me an example please?


Find the correct website:
Early rumors had it that if you searched for Adaware, it actually led you to a website that downloaded a program that actually installs spyware, and you had to make sure there was a hyphen "-" between the "d" and the "a". Yes, it is a rumor but that doesn't mean that it was not potential and my system is too valuable to me to test this theory.

Also, most people know Ad-aware, but don't know Lavasoft, so unless somebody gave you the link, or you see the link in an advertisement you almost have to Google/Yahoo it.

( a ) Hope there isn't a virus:
+ For most mainstream programs it is safe from virus', and rootkits.

( b ) Hope it is compatible with your system and other programs installed That's why people put those pesky links usually titled "System Requirements"
+ IE7 is not available for Windows 2000.
+ Visual Studio Express is not avaialbe for anything previous to Windows 2000 SP 4.
+ DirectX 9 is available for everything WindowsXP and earlier. DirectX 10 is not.
+ Cisco's VPN client was not compatible with ZoneAlarm and I had to change Firewall software (Comodo works).

( c ) you don't have to uninstall previous versions
+ Visual Studio Express is the latest program I've come across that requires you to uninstall previous version.

( d ) Microsoft let's you
+ I am looking for the article I read a while ago regarding Microsoft's feature of turning off applications it deems is "suspicious"

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

I need firewall software because I do not have a router with a built-in firewall or a proxy server, I have dial-up internet access.

Last week (14th or 15th of March) I installed Windows 2000 fresh on a hard drive and in the short amount of time online to try and download WinZip from Download.com (which failed) or run an update at Microsoft.com (the ONLY 2 sites I went to) I had received 8 Critical Objects Ad-Aware found (TAC level 5 or 7 I think) and 1 Virus that Clam found.

Not to mention, if I were looking for a program I would first
+ go to http://packages.ubuntu.com (http://packages.ubuntu.com), enter the keyword "kerry" and change Distribution to "any".
+ I would see the three versions they have listed and click on my appropriate one (dapper)
+ I would see that it is not hte latest-and-greatest (not 0.2.1)
+ I would click on the Homepage link (http://en.opensuse.org/Kerry)
+ I would read on the page

Kerry Beagle is a KDE frontend for the Beagle desktop search daemon.

It was written for and first time included in SUSE Linux 10.1.
and realize that .deb packages are a 2nd thought if any for them as RPMs are their first.
If I was a "gotta have it NOW" kinda person I'd go to the project's entry on dke-apps.org (http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=36832) and download the .tar.bz2 file.
Or, I'd wait for a bit.

darrenm
March 20th, 2007, 08:57 PM
Wow. I honestly can't believe some of the stuff thats posted on this thread (or joined to this thread), it gets me feeling all frustrated that I can't get this people and give them a good shaking and tell them to wake up.

I work supporting Linux systems. Gotta get that out of the way. I know what I'm doing with Linux so I'm never looking at a problem with a lack of confidence that I can sort it or get around it in some way. BUT I never have any problems... Everything has gone swimmingly and everything 95% of computer users around the world would want just works. My wireless just works, pops up when I'm in new places asking for a passphrase, my desktop including fonts looks fantastic, every day or so I get a little icon asking me if it can update, when I've finished for a bit I just close the lid and it suspends until I open the lid, press the power button and 3 seconds later I'm back to my desktop. If I get a video file with some dodgy codec it will just install the correct codec for me. In fact I sometimes wonder about installing Gentoo just to have something to do.

The simple fact is, I have to run only Ubuntu because I don't have the time to run Windows. I need something I don't have to worry about, that just works when I pick it up, put it down and does everything as advertised.

When you think about it, if Windows does find itself at a slightly lower market share then it's dead and buried. Ubuntu and Linux have all community support and backup of the hackers(in the correct terminology), developers, advanced users etc who do a fantastic job making all the hardware work when there's no specs out there. Say if Windows was suddenly at 80% market share and some applications that require stability and security were only on Linux and the hardware to support this stuff didn't have Windows drivers then there would be nothing anyone could do about it. I still think once an OEM takes the step (which Dell seems to have done) to actively push Linux desktops and they start selling, which causes other OEM's to do the same then it will start a landslide which Microsoft will do very well to stop.

Every year is supposedly year of the desktop for Linux, but anyone with a brain knows that Ubuntu is ready for the desktop for almost any user as long as its preinstalled. Once installed on supported hardware it is far easier to use than Windows. From any unbiased point of view its easy to see that. Bug #1 will only start to be resolved by the OEM's and SI's.

One thing the community can do to help is to remind everyone Ubuntu is here to stay. Start a mass distributed marketing campaign by doing things like emailing local radio shows to discuss the alternatives to Windows, email TV shows, email any website that provides media services that are only in closed formats or rely on Microsoft-only DRM or client applications. Be a nuisance to everyone that stands in the way.

aysiu
March 20th, 2007, 09:13 PM
Every year is supposedly year of the desktop for Linux, but anyone with a brain knows that Ubuntu is ready for the desktop for almost any user as long as its preinstalled. Well, as you can see from the poll, we don't even have a consensus on what the phrase ready for the desktop means, so that may be at least one source of the confusion here.

igknighted
March 20th, 2007, 09:18 PM
Dear Linux Gurus...

My point is, while the infrastructure is in place, and the market share and hopes for Linux is growing, it's still nowhere near convenient for everyday applications from the client end, especially in the world of media, graphics, music, etc. Windows and OSX especially, are easy enough for a 5 year old to understand. I can offer just a few suggestions to make Ubuntu, and Linux for that matter, a little more user friendly.

* Have a C: drive, or main drive in a graphical interface, with file navigation identical to OSX or Windows.

* For the hardcore linux users, have an icon that says something like "Go Deep" that allows you to get to the root level of the file system (unlike OSX).

* Have preloaded, and included drivers for multiple system setups, with multiple hardware configurations and detecting software, so it doesn't take you 5 hours to get your wireless card working.


Time is money, and Linux takes too much of it away for any practical client applications. It needs to be quick, efficient, and straight to the point. I'm very surprised that Linux hasn't evolved more than it has, considering the masses of people united in order to make a superior operating system. The closed production houses of Apple and Microsoft have seemed to make a more client-ready OS.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this. I would have no problem using Linux in the future, that is if it can be as slick, and convenient as the current competition. I don't need to hear about Windows haters. It's still one of the best options for client workflow.

Thoughts?

-fxscreamer

As for your three suggestions:

1) I do not understand this. Mac OSX has the same file structure as Linux. Go to a terminal, type cd / and then ls... all the usual suspects are there. They are hidden in the default file manager, however... just like Ubuntu. Ubuntu by default hides everything except /media and /home. I think /home is descriptive enough, but perhaps /media could use a nickname in the file browser to let people know thats where other disks are mounted.

If you mean inside /home (like a My Documents, Downloads, etc. section), well, many distro's do this, but I would rather not have those things. I think Mepis does a decent jobs of setting these up however, so you might look into that and see if its what you had in mind (each folder gets its own special icon and everything if I'm remembering correctly).

2) Again, whats wrong w/ terminal access or removing the hidden folders from .hide? I think that the current method of doing this is already sufficient. Anything too much more and the core base will get frustrated. I want to see linux expand, but if it means customizing my OS the way I like it is infringed upon, well then forget those windows users. Linux is unique, first and foremost we must not lose that.

3) This is a nice thought, but not practical. If it was, it would already have been done. That said, I don't think its that big an issue. As the "average user" at the level you speak of will never try to install linux on their own, either a techy friend will work the kinks out setting it up or they will by an OEM linux pc... which would clearly come with compatible hardware. I think Mint is on to the right idea making a GUI for ndiswrapper. I haven't used it (my card uses madwifi) but it seems nice. Sure more OOTB support would be a nice plus, but in the eyes of Joe computer user, its not really an issue (I mean really, most people don't know what a WEP key is, so setting up wireless is not a task for most users).

All good ideas, but I think in many ways they are already implemented. As time goes on wireless support will get better as vendors release drivers and others get reverse engineered. Soon "N" will be out and the storm will start again, just as it did from "b" to "g". But as long as OEMs have cards they can choose to set up the system with, then wifi isn't a big deal.

koenn
March 20th, 2007, 09:54 PM
Thoughts?
-fxscreamer
You haven't thought this through, I think, or your making generalisations from your anecdotical experience.


Time is money, and Linux takes too much of it away for any practical client applications. It needs to be quick, efficient, and straight to the point.
When I first installed Ubuntu, I booted a live CD, clicked "Install", and in 35 minutes had a fully operational computer.
Recently I had to re-install a friends computer. Installing XP took 45 minutes, and then I still had to start the rest of the setup : antivirus, office suite, spysweeper, pdf reader, ...
Which one is more quick, efficient, and straight to the point then ?


May I also add that Linux's file system is still atrociously messy? Running everything from the command line prompt, opening up a terminal is NOT how the mass public is going to do things.

*[Linux should] Have a C: drive, or main drive in a graphical interface, with file navigation identical to OSX or Windows.

First of all? I don't understand how you jump from file system to comand line, as if the two are related. So I'll handle them separately.
- file system. From an end-user's point of view, /home/<username> is all you need so don't worry about the rest of the file system. It's easily accessible, eg in a Gnome desktop : Places : Home Folder. Just as easy as "My Documents".
From a system administration's point of view, the unix way of having the filesystem paths independent of the disk subsystem is a great asset : /home is always /home. /etc is always /etc. On a DOS/Windows filesystem, everything file-related always depends on drive letters - and that can become very messy very fast.

- if you still think you need to "run everything from the command line", you've been misinformed. The command line is often faster, more efficient and easier if you know how to use it, but if you don't, there's point and click sollutions for almost everything. You don't need command line more ofthen than you need to edit the registry on a windows system - and often for similar cases : solve system problems to which there is no easy "next next next finish" solution.



* Have preloaded, and included drivers for multiple system setups, with multiple hardware configurations and detecting software, so it doesn't take you 5 hours to get your wireless card working.
So, that's your big frustration, and probably why you made this post, isn't it ? couldn't get the wireless going.
Well, there are problems with support for certain wireless cards, and some other hardware. The answer to that has been posted over and over on these forums.
For hardware to work, you need drivers. Usually, the people who make the hardware also make the drivers, and include them on CD's that you get with the hardware. For some reason, those hardware manufacturers are willing to create Windows drivers, and sometimes Mac drivers, but hardly ever Linux drivers.
You may find that some drivers are already 'in' Windows automatically. That's because someone put them there : either Microsoft has a deal with the hardware manufacturer, or the company that built your computer and put Windows on it has.
So, where do you go when you need a driver for a wireless card ? To the company that made that wireless card.

Of course that won't help, so Linux developers have started to create those drivers themselves. To do that, they need to know the specifications of the hardware that the driver is for - and most hardware manufacturers are not willing to give those specs. Still, linux developers manage to create very good drivers. Or they find ways to use Windows drivers on Linux, which is quite extraordinary because drivers are very hardware and operating system specific. the "ndis wrapper' works that way - and because it's so extraordinary, it requires tweaking, and does not always work. Still, the bottom line is : the problem is caused by the hardware vendors. If they'd be a bit more cooperative, lots of problems would just disappear.

koenn
March 20th, 2007, 11:12 PM
Ubuntu/Linux is not as useable (intuitive) as Windows. Full stop. If you are even arguing this point then you are ignoring the elephant in the room,

[...]

The important phrase here is "Windows users somehow know (Does Windows tell you to do this? No)" - this is because it is INTUITIVE.

Wrong. There is no elephant in the room. There's also no such thing as intuition in the use of software.

You do not intuitively know that double-clicking an icon will install software. You've learned that, and over the years it's become an acquired reflex. You did not learn it from Windows - except maybe from a help text or a beginners course in 'using the computer' - if you're about my age.
There is nothing intuitive about getting a search engine to locate a file to download when you want to install software.

a ' mouse over' or maybe even a single click on an icon could be regarded as rather intuitive - in the sense that once you've figured out that the mouse moves a cursor and thus is your hands extension to the computer, and the icon is a real-live metafore such as a file folder, moving the cursor to the icon would be like (real life) grabbing a folder to do something with it. Maybe 1 click to to say 'yes, that one'. Two clicks ? No.

Usability of software (or any other tool) usually refers to
* shortening the time to accomplish tasks
* reducing the number of mistakes made
* reducing learning time

and important aspects of useability in software design are
- consistency
- real life methaphors.

You're a victim of the consistency trap :
Linux desktop GUIs are, to a great extend, consistent within themselves - but not with Windows. So your MS Windows reflexes do not always return the expected result in an Ubuntu GUI.
From there to saying that Ubuntu/Linux is not as useable (intuitive) as Windows, is a long stretch.

aWilson
March 21st, 2007, 12:00 AM
If Ubuntu really wants to make inroads among typical computer users (ie: those who want to turn on their machine and have it work), then it must become much more user friendly.

Upon my recent Ubuntu install, I had to spend hours sifting through the forums to find how to mount my Windows ntfs partition and another fat partition which I want to use to transfer all my documents for use in Ubuntu.

If Ubuntu developers seriously think most (95%) of users will go into terminal and play around with stuff like fstab, they are seriously mistaken. There is no way my girlfriend, my mother, my father, my neighbors or most people I know have nearly the technical savvy required to, first of all, find the proper information (http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/mountwindows) and, secondly, to properly follow the required steps.

I fully support the principles fro which Ubuntu and OpenSource in general stand for, but people won't switch unless it is made easy for them. Most (myself included) won't want to abandon Windows entirely until they are confident that Ubuntu can meet all their needs.

Sorry to sound critical, but my comments are meant to be constructive. Keep up the good work!

aysiu
March 21st, 2007, 12:03 AM
I've merged your thread to a more appropriate place. Read this thread. You'll find it fascinating. You may even learn something.

You can start here:
What does "for human beings" mean? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=379699#post379699)

cowlip
March 21st, 2007, 12:09 AM
aWilson: ntfs-3g solves your problem, and yes it has a GUI and will mount things automatically. You do not need to use fat32 (....also patent encumbered in the US, although recently struck down in Germany) to transfer files anymore.

But of course this is Microsoft's problem because NTFS is a trade secret that you have to pay lots of money for access to documentation...this has taken years of reverse engineering.

SIDE NOTE FEEL FREE TO IGNORE:

Isn't it interesting how much pain and paralysis a monopoly can cause to consumers and the computer industry as a whole? If it's not NTFS, it's Exchange, or Group Policy and Active Directory...of which there are initiatives to integrate into, like Samba 4 or Linux alternatives to them that already exist--thin clients, openLDAP, etc. But the moment MS changes their code, the Linux/FLOSS/'any other competitor's' side has to reverse engineer again (see Kerberos as another dirty MS trick).

m.musashi
March 21st, 2007, 12:24 AM
Ubuntu/Linux is not as useable (intuitive) as Windows. Full stop. If you are even arguing this point then you are ignoring the elephant in the room, like all the other Linux people I have ever come across. There is absolutely no way that my mum could use Ubuntu. You forget how much you know, nerds, and when people point out that you are talking a different language you tend infer that these people are stupid. Don't forget, you didn't know what a partition was either once.
You should give you mum more credit. If she can learn to use windows she can learn to use Linux once it's set up. If she has already learned windows she may not be willing to learn Linux but that doesn't mean she can't. You don't have to know what a partition is to use windows or Linux - only to set it up. Try to keep that straight:).

It's really sad that people who come here to complain about Linux can be so blind to the fact that regular users don't install their OS. If you want to try to install an OS then more power to you. If you fail then that is your fault not the OS. Sure, it could be easier and devs are working night and day to make it so. But the fact remains, if you want to install an OS then you better learn how that OS works and how to install it. After all, there are a lot of people that have installed many Linux distros. If it was a crappy OS then there would not be successful users. If you don't want to take the time to learn then don't. Just don't complain to successful and happy Linux users.

bodzasfanta
March 21st, 2007, 12:28 AM
Few months ago we had some conversations about USB mouse problems in Ubuntu (6.10, 6.04... etc)
I read on a Mandriva blog that USB mouses crash because of a Linux kernel error.
I found lot of forums talking about this problem (all distros!!)
We found a working solution: noapic irqpoll pci=routeirq, but it doesn't fully help.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...ight=usb+mouse
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...ht=bodzasfanta
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...ht=bodzasfanta
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthre...ht=bodzasfanta

Is it going to be fixed in Feisty Fawn, or not??

67GTA told me to try BIOS update. I did it but I'll just try tomorrow. Do you think
is it help or not?

rewrittenfromscratch
March 21st, 2007, 01:06 AM
I agree with lwalper. Ubuntu just plain doesn't work out of the box. And for me, it just doesn't work at all.

I'm a new Linux user, and I had to fight for days to get my wireless card working. Finally got that up and running, learning all the way just how impossible it is to install programs in Linux. Not being able to install the programs I want is annoying, but the deal-breaking is the lack of iPod support.

I know, technically, Ubuntu has iPod support. But none of the programs will actually work with my 80-gig 5.5g iPod. I've been through GTKPod, Songbird, GNUPod, Rhythmbox, Amarok, RockBox, and YamiPod. None of them (none!) would sync my music to my iPod.

Furthermore, my external USB hard drive will only mount as read-only.

Can it be fixed? Probably. But I have better things to do with my time than spend days fighting against an un-cooperative operating system.

I'm getting my hands on a Windows disc ASAP and washing my hands of this Linux thing.

Tomosaur
March 21st, 2007, 01:11 AM
I agree with lwalper. Ubuntu just plain doesn't work out of the box. And for me, it just doesn't work at all.

I'm a new Linux user, and I had to fight for days to get my wireless card working. Finally got that up and running, learning all the way just how impossible it is to install programs in Linux. Not being able to install the programs I want is annoying, but the deal-breaking is the lack of iPod support.

I know, technically, Ubuntu has iPod support. But none of the programs will actually work with my 80-gig 5.5g iPod. I've been through GTKPod, Songbird, GNUPod, Rhythmbox, Amarok, RockBox, and YamiPod. None of them (none!) would sync my music to my iPod.

Furthermore, my external USB hard drive will only mount as read-only.

Can it be fixed? Probably. But I have better things to do with my time than spend days fighting against an un-cooperative operating system.

I'm getting my hands on a Windows disc ASAP and washing my hands of this Linux thing.

Regardless of your experience with Ubuntu - these posts do not belong in the support forum. If all you're going to do is troll, there are other places. Please don't clog up this forum for the people who are sticking with Ubuntu, and asking for help. If you've made your mind up, it is better for everyone if you just leave. We don't want to hear it, and you don't want help, so just don't post.

aysiu
March 21st, 2007, 01:14 AM
I've moved it out of support and into discussion.

cowlip
March 21st, 2007, 01:19 AM
rewritten: I'm sure there's some underlying problem with your iPod situation that this may not necessarily fix, but you mentionned a list of apps. There's a new one called Floola that people seem to like so you may want to give it a try

http://www.floola.com/

tagra123
March 21st, 2007, 01:43 AM
God I hope not.

The only packages you should be compiling from source are things of *vital* importance. The only thing that comes immediately to mind are device drivers.

Regular users should *not* be wasting their time compiling for most applications. Not only does it take a great deal of computer time away--ask anyone who's installed Gentoo lately--but it makes a mess of an otherwise orderly binary package management system.

If you absolutely, positively must compile everything from source--well there's Gentoo, with its excellent portage system, as well as SourceMage. There's also FreeBSD's ports, upon which Gentoo's portage is based.

This is simply not true. You must have missed the point of what I was saying. It is not a waste of time if there is no package or if you want to stick with the LTS package but still want a feature in the newer software.

Now -- if you use checkinstall it is integrated with synaptic so that you can uninstall the same way you normally do.

I agree that it would be better if there were debs for the newer software or anything I decided I needed but that is not always the case.

Maybe what I really mean is it would be nice if there was a gui compiler that gives the option to install when finished -- using apt or aptitude.

For instance using Dapper I have the latest k3b, conky, DVDStyler, a newer ffmpeg and a few others. I sure don't want Edgy or Fiesty on a machine I use for work.

FyreBrand
March 21st, 2007, 04:28 AM
This is simply not true. You must have missed the point of what I was saying. It is not a waste of time if there is no package or if you want to stick with the LTS package but still want a feature in the newer software.

Now -- if you use checkinstall it is integrated with synaptic so that you can uninstall the same way you normally do.

I agree that it would be better if there were debs for the newer software or anything I decided I needed but that is not always the case.

Maybe what I really mean is it would be nice if there was a gui compiler that gives the option to install when finished -- using apt or aptitude.

For instance using Dapper I have the latest k3b, conky, DVDStyler, a newer ffmpeg and a few others. I sure don't want Edgy or Fiesty on a machine I use for work.You don't want to use Edgy, a stable incremental release, on your work machine but you are willing to compile software from source which may cause your system to become unstable and crash. There is a reason every latest release of software isn't backported to Dapper or any distro's long term stable release. There could be things in the newer software which aren't kernel compatible or that introduce bugs that reduce stability.

Why not install Edgy, a stable release, an a separate partition to see if it works for you?

cowlip
March 21st, 2007, 04:53 AM
I think this is extremely interesting. I found this in the Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter (why didn't I know about this thing before? It's a treasure trove of news :))

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuWeeklyNewsletter/Issue32#head-9cacefdae4f11f7bd5380526ff39859f3f0ccc81


Mercian Labels, a UK security label printer, is in the process of migrating from Microsoft to Ubuntu and other open source technologies. Because of the lack of case studies for small companies to use open source, Mercian is blogging their transition at [WWW] http://www.selfadhesivelabels.com/blog. Read the full article: [WWW] http://www.prbuzz.com/mercian-labels-blogs-case-study-1268.html.

One of the funny things is that a Wine developer apparently commented on their blog and asked what Windows software they were having trouble with under WINE. How cool is that?

o0splitpaw0o
March 21st, 2007, 12:48 PM
I made a profiling a new user and how to handle that user presentation for the NU Ohio Team (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OhioTeam/NewUserTeam?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=profilinguser-ubuntu-ohio.odp)just to kind of give people who want to assist what works and what doesn't based on the users tech ability. I see threads all the time "Hey new to Ubuntu... how to I install this" and replies with terminal commands immediately... kind of scary for someone green.

tagra123
March 21st, 2007, 04:58 PM
You don't want to use Edgy, a stable incremental release, on your work machine but you are willing to compile software from source which may cause your system to become unstable and crash. There is a reason every latest release of software isn't backported to Dapper or any distro's long term stable release. There could be things in the newer software which aren't kernel compatible or that introduce bugs that reduce stability.

Why not install Edgy, a stable release, an a separate partition to see if it works for you?

I want to know how compiling a newer version of 1 program and then installing it with dpkg, or aptitude is going to break my system.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a deb contains a compiled binary. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but compiling builds a binary using the existing libs on my system. Umm, not sure how this makes my system unstable. The fact is it didn't.

I personally never NEVER -- type make install. Why? I'd rather have an easy method of uninstalling the binary using synaptic or aptitude

Personally, I worry more about downloading a precompiled deb from an external repository or for that matter the universe than compiling my own.

I compile the deb, then install the deb -- so that it can be easily uninstalled.

I've heard two criticisms that lead me to believe the critics haven't tried it themselves

#1 Compiling takes a long time -- I dismiss this --- 4 to 5 minutes at the most, for most of the smaller programs like k3b, dvdstyler, conky, ffmpeg, on my machine. (My machine is no high powered machine either) Now if compiling mythtv that might be another story.

#2 Compiling makes your system less stable - I wouldn't fully dismiss this for kernels or drivers but compiling and installing the new k3b, for instance, shouldn't make your computer crash at random or not want to boot.

Make your own debian packages:

http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/02/21/1546215

http://www.aboutdebian.com/compile.htm

Another reason you may want to compile is no deb for it. Edgy doesn't have debs every program either. There is a lot of free software out there that is written for Linux/UNIX that's only available in source code or rpm format. So your option is to use alien on an rpm, which in my experience will break your system, or compile. I don't really see how the newer version is any different that the older version as far as the system cares -- once it's compiled.


All of what I am saying boils down to this: If the only option to get the binary is to compile, then it would be nice to have a gui solution to help out the new user, including resolving dependencies.



As far as introducing a bug, it might also fix a bug in the existing version.

I do use the Edubuntu edgy CD for the kids in persistent mode on other computers. -- Its just about the same as installing.

Brunellus
March 21st, 2007, 05:08 PM
I want to know how compiling a newer version of 1 program and then installing it with dpkg, or aptitude is going to break my system.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a deb contains a compiled binary. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but compiling builds a binary using the existing libs on my system. Umm, not sure how this makes my system unstable. The fact is it' didn't.

I personally never NEVER -- type make install. Why? I'd rather have an easy method of uninstalling the binary.

Personally, I worry more about downloading a precompiled deb from an external repository or for that matter the universe than compiling my own.

I create the deb then install the deb -- so that it can be easily uninstalled.

I've heard two criticisms that lead me to believe the critics haven't tried it themselves

#1 Compiling takes a long time -- I dismiss this --- 4 to 5 minutes at the most, for most of the smaller programs like k3b, dvdstyler, conky, ffmpeg, on my machine. (My machine is no high powered machine either)

#2 Compiling makes your system less stable - I wouldn't fully dismiss this for kernels or drivers but compiling and installing the new k3b, for instance, shouldn't make your computer crash at random or not want to boot.
1) Compiling does take time. 4-5 minutes for something small like conky, sure...but AbiWord? OpenOffice? Firefox? I'd rather be reading the ubuntuforums.

2) As Mr. Rumsfeld said so memorably: there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Compiling your own stuff from CVS/SVN repos introduces unknown unknowns. Your system may not hard lock, but the program itself may be less stable. If you're into testing, go for it, and keep careful notes. If you need/want a more stable production environment...well, stick with the known knowns.

But if I understand your concerns correctly, you're looking for something like apt-build. apt-build will build you a deb which you can then checkinstall. This is a bit of an imperfect solution, since you're dependent on apt-source repositories, which may or may not contain the source code you need/want.

If your'e really desperate to have this sort of set-up and solution, I figure your needs might be better served by Gentoo.

Cippa Lippa
March 21st, 2007, 05:25 PM
Dear all

I have read with interest this nice philosophical thread. In Italy we would say that it is a discussion about the sex of angels :)
So, since I am a new user of kubuntu I thought I might make my two-penny-worth point.

I find ubuntu and kubuntu very easy to install. Never been very installation savvy, even in windows but Ubuntu, besides crashing the first installation due to a faulty cd installed like a charm and I have to add that I was amazed that the whole installation process was so slick.
I guess most windows users would feel the same (don't forget how ugly it is to install windows)

then it comes the pain because post-installation is probably the core problem. The reasons for this I would say are the following

1. linux is open source and community based - thus help is found in forums. This is not how a windows user find help usually. windows forums are very different and you guys know that.
This means that there are tons of proposed solutions for the same problem posted in linux's forums. This creates confusion and a sense of chaos that completely tunr off the new users...
There would need to be an authoritative resource for bug-fixing solutions which is not forum based. Something like a Ubuntu repository for solutions tthat every user know can access to troubleshoot. This resource would do the job of collecting the working fixes and posting them in a common place

2. The command line is not the issue. In ubuntu you can do most of the stuff out of the command line (beside the real bug-fixes). The problem is that forums are mainly populated by experts who use the command line because is easier for them. Newbies would need the instructions to be in GUI format... at least till they get confident enough.

3. The many problems that you can have with a linux post-installation tend to disappoint those users which come to linux under the euphoria of linux=nobugs. I was disappointed too to find that some problems were real bugs nobody knew how to fix. I was disappointed to learn that softwares crash also in linux. It took me a wekk now to realize the advantages (speed, overall incredible stability of a working installation)

4. If the ubuntu computer is properly set-up there is no way one can say that it is harrder than windows. Especially with KDE which is very click-based. I think it is fantastically easy to use. It just need to be explored as we all did when we got our first windows installation. I still today learn of new panels in windows...

5. the driver problem... this can't be solved directly. You need advertising - make linux sounds warrm and fuzzy and easy - make it easy to install - companies must be bought into distributing dual booting systems (windows +linux). No newbie would buy a linux-only pc! come on guys be realist! when curiosity will take over they will learnthe slow way their way into linux till the point in which they will switch. The usage statistics of linux would go up encouraging manufacturares to actually make drivers for linux and there is how you start the virtuous circle. Dual-booting PCs guys... that's the way to go... everybody is curious about linux because everybody is frustrated with windows... give them a chance to try linux without getting hurt and they will!
And make sure linux will look cool... look what apple did... getting an ugly mp3 player to be the sensation of the century... just because white is cool... make ubuntu white :-)


These are my two pennies...

Cippa

tagra123
March 21st, 2007, 05:57 PM
1) Compiling does take time. 4-5 minutes for something small like conky, sure...but AbiWord? OpenOffice? Firefox? I'd rather be reading the ubuntuforums.

But if I understand your concerns correctly, you're looking for something like apt-build. apt-build will build you a deb which you can then checkinstall. This is a bit of an imperfect solution, since you're dependent on apt-source repositories, which may or may not contain the source code you need/want.

If your'e really desperate to have this sort of set-up and solution, I figure your needs might be better served by Gentoo.

Ubuntu will suit me fine. I just replace some of the old with newer programs. I don't need last nights build of everything, but is nice to be able to have newer version of a program when the new version addresses a problem I was having with the older version or just has a feature I want. I wish there was a pre-made package for every program-- every version-- don't think thats going to happen.

Something exactly like apt-build, yes, except allow me to pick the source and version. Don't' force the repository version allow the other versions, too. Basically give a choice.

AS far as Thunderbird and Firefox -- I never had the need to compile. I don't use the version forced on me either. -------freedom------- My Thunderbird and Firefox are in /opt and I can let mozilla tell me when that program needs an update and use their own mechanisms to keep me up to date, that is, I don't use apt for these two programs.

My real point again is it would be nice to have a GUI way of installing from source for the times we have to.

deanlinkous
March 21st, 2007, 06:02 PM
building from source from your distros repo SHOULD be as safe and as stable as pulling in the binary and you may see performance gains


My real point again is it would be nice to have a GUI - way of installing from source for the times we have to.
Sounds cool to me! I am surprised there isn't a cool package manager that handles source - at least repo-source. Surprise synaptic doesn't have that option somewhere.

tagra123
March 21st, 2007, 06:11 PM
building from source from your distros repo SHOULD be as safe and as stable as pulling in the binary and you may see performance gains

Sounds cool to me! I am surprised there isn't a cool package manager that handles source - at least repo-source. Surprise synaptic doesn't have that option somewhere.

THANK YOU!.


I'll look into building one myself. I mostly code genealogy software for windows but this might be a nice open source project.

aysiu
March 21st, 2007, 06:23 PM
The problem is that forums are mainly populated by experts who use the command line because is easier for them. Newbies would need the instructions to be in GUI format... at least till they get confident enough. I have to disagree with you there on several points:

1. The forums are mainly populated with beginners. There are also a lot of intermediate users (like me)--just one step up from beginner. I'd say there's only a small handful of experts.

2. Going along with #1, you don't have to be an expert to use the command line. It is easier even for intermediate users. I was using the command-line one month into using Linux--didn't use it with Mepis (my first month in Linux), was deathly scared of it; started using it with Ubuntu (my second month in Linux) and loved it.

3. When it comes to online support in a text-based forum, command-line instructions are the easiest for both those seeking help and those giving it. It also happens to be faster, but that's just a side benefit. It is far easier to copy and paste a terminal command than to be walked through by description a point-and-click process--especially with people's interfaces not always looking the same (toolbars moved around, different desktop environments, different programs of choice). Also, if commands happen to fail, there is always an error message that can be posted back for further review. Oftentimes with failed GUI processes, all you get from the person with the problem is "Then it just disappeared" or "It didn't work." Those phrases aren't terribly helpful for troubleshooting. Something like bash: wine command not found is, however.

tagra123
March 21st, 2007, 06:45 PM
I have to disagree with you there on several points:

1. The forums are mainly populated with beginners. There are also a lot of intermediate users (like me)--just one step up from beginner. I'd say there's only a small handful of experts.

2. Going along with #1, you don't have to be an expert to use the command line. It is easier even for intermediate users. I was using the command-line one month into using Linux--didn't use it with Mepis (my first month in Linux), was deathly scared of it; started using it with Ubuntu (my second month in Linux) and loved it.

3. When it comes to online support in a text-based forum, command-line instructions are the easiest for both those seeking help and those giving it. It also happens to be faster, but that's just a side benefit. It is far easier to copy and paste a terminal command than to be walked through by description a point-and-click process--especially with people's interfaces not always looking the same (toolbars moved around, different desktop environments, different programs of choice). Also, if commands happen to fail, there is always an error message that can be posted back for further review. Oftentimes with failed GUI processes, all you get from the person with the problem is "Then it just disappeared" or "It didn't work." Those phrases aren't terribly helpful for troubleshooting. Something like bash: wine command not found is, however.

I partially agree, especially for the 1month to get the basic command lines and what is happening. And the fact there there are a lot of beginners helping beginners. I'm no expert, I can get it done now, but I'm no expert either.


I imagine for those that don't remember the DOS Prompt, that the command line could look cryptic the first time that they need to use it.

Maybe this exists already but is there a gui wiki/help..

Some sort of help comparing both Command line and the equivalent GUI Programs actions s

_______________________________________
COMMAND LINE

tar ............................ command line help

.................................................. .........................................
GUI
Archive Manager


help here...........................

_______________________________________

Does this exist already?

You may remember when Win95 first cam out there were all sorts of screen shot sites like windows95.com thatsprung up to describe just this sort of thing.

aysiu
March 21st, 2007, 06:51 PM
I imagine for those that don't remember the DOS Prompt, that the command line could look cryptic the first time that they need to use it. I remembered the DOS prompt, but I was still extremely scared of the command-line when I first started using Linux. I think that's what it ultimately boils down to--fear. It's not that the command-line is difficult to use, only that people fear it being difficult.

I had no idea, for example, when I first started, that you could just copy and paste commands. I also didn't know at first about the Ubuntu Guide (http://www.ubuntuguide.org), which had all the major commands all in one place.

Cippa Lippa
March 21st, 2007, 08:23 PM
well ok, let's say that the command line might look cryptic. But sometimes it happens also in windows that you have to run stuff from the dos prompt.

quote: I remembered the DOS prompt, but I was still extremely scared of the command-line when I first started using Linux. I think that's what it ultimately boils down to--fear. It's not that the command-line is difficult to use, only that people fear it being difficult: finish quote

when newbies don't want to use the prompt in windows or don't want to tweak the system they just reinstall by asking a friend... this could also be done in linux.

My idea is just that linux need to be advertised more and a more consistent troubleshooting guide should be compiled on the net. Wikis are in the right direction but I guess we need more to encourage new users.

Cippa

dracomordag
March 21st, 2007, 08:42 PM
i think the main issue with Ubuntu is how ridiculously difficult it is to install right off the bat. for users with the latest, most standard hardware, it can go on without a flaw. however, just one irregularity in your system (aka having a non-nVidia video card) can cause errors that, while often easy to fix, introduce the user right away to what many would consider "ridiculous computer-speak" with stuff like sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg and the like.

i think most would agree that Ubuntu is as easy, if not EASIER than most other OSes once it has been installed and basic programs set up.

another key issue is the terminal. I, for one, was what most would call a "power user" on XP: i couldn't program a single line of code, but I knew fluently how every piece of the machine worked, and could fix any error, etc. However, in all of my MS customization and use, i never once had to use a single terminal code. everything had a graphic-based UI. I think graphic-based workarounds are much more natural and familiar to any user, and if Ubuntu can create a couple more, it'd really help. ESPECIALLY for compiling from source and xorg configuration (although ive heard rumors of a graphical xorg configuration in the works)

Brunellus
March 21st, 2007, 08:52 PM
i think the main issue with Ubuntu is how ridiculously difficult it is to install right off the bat. for users with the latest, most standard hardware, it can go on without a flaw. however, just one irregularity in your system (aka having a non-nVidia video card) can cause errors that, while often easy to fix, introduce the user right away to what many would consider "ridiculous computer-speak" with stuff like sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg and the like.

i think most would agree that Ubuntu is as easy, if not EASIER than most other OSes once it has been installed and basic programs set up.

another key issue is the terminal. I, for one, was what most would call a "power user" on XP: i couldn't program a single line of code, but I knew fluently how every piece of the machine worked, and could fix any error, etc. However, in all of my MS customization and use, i never once had to use a single terminal code. everything had a graphic-based UI. I think graphic-based workarounds are much more natural and familiar to any user, and if Ubuntu can create a couple more, it'd really help. ESPECIALLY for compiling from source and xorg configuration (although ive heard rumors of a graphical xorg configuration in the works)
You'll take my terminal when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

I'm not against GUIfication--I just don't like having to rely on it, and the longer I use computers, the more I tend to want to go back to command lines.

Then again, I grew up as an MS-DOS gamer. I spent too many childhood afternoons and evenings mucking about the bizareness of MS-DOS 6.22's config files, mainly playing with memory management. When Windows 95, and later 2000, started to abstract the system in the Registry (which was not human-readable), I had to rely on GUIs, but abruptly stopped having any sort of understanding as to what I was doing.

Now, having migrated to Linux, I did experience the worst of the learning curve. Imagine being forced to migrate to a new OS which didn't support your networking hardware. . . but I sucked it up and took my lumps. At the end of the day, ti was either get Linux working or have no computer at all. After the first month or so, I started feeling comfortable. After a year, I was grateful: Linux had given me back the computer of my childhood. Sure, it was complex, alien, and sometimes confusing. But I could look into every nook and cranny, and with a bit of study, I could know how it worked, and what parts did what.

Sure, the average user doesn't care. He wants his big blue E, his Youtube, his porn and WoW. But I, myself, am satisfied: none of my problems thus far have proven insurmountable if I have been willing to do a bit of work and/or study.

reformedgeek
March 21st, 2007, 11:31 PM
Well as average users go, I recon my mum counts as one of them.
She has a yahoo mail (and gmail thanks to yours truly) account, like uploading photos, chatting via IM and just generally writing docs and web surfing.
So, my mum was 'raised' on Windows machines, having done night classes and the like a few years back. Recently I installed Fedora Core 5 and then later Kubuntu on my parents' home machine and I rarely, if ever, get a call about something not working, or not being able to do something like copy files etc.
[Once I got a call after having visited and apt-get updated nearly everything and some media files didn't play (fixed by running Automatix and finding the missing codecs).]
I even noticed the desktop was set to rotate background images, something I've never used in the 5+ years of using *nix, which made me smile! My mum had discovered something I never used!
Most recently she's been going on about how she like linux now as she doesn't have to worry about virii and the like. And any mention of her investing in an XP machine seemed to have gone away...
So there you go. True story.

Proof that, yes, once installed, (K)Ubuntu/GNUlinux works great!

aysiu
March 22nd, 2007, 08:13 AM
My wife just spent the good part of tonight trying to fix for a friend a spyware- and virus-infested computer... finished the reinstall but none of the reloading of apps.

Without going into details, after tonight, I can't imagine anyone thinking an XP installation is easier than a Ubuntu one... and she had the Dell CDs too (drivers, etc.)

Frak
March 22nd, 2007, 05:59 PM
My wife just spent the good part of tonight trying to fix for a friend a spyware- and virus-infested computer... finished the reinstall but none of the reloading of apps.

Without going into details, after tonight, I can't imagine anyone thinking an XP installation is easier than a Ubuntu one... and she had the Dell CDs too (drivers, etc.)
Good point, I only installed XP in a VM just for Office '07, other than that, I wouldn't install XP on my computer for the 90% take compared to the 10% give of Windows. Not worth it to me.

aysiu
March 22nd, 2007, 06:16 PM
It was so troublesome that my wife (a total Mac fanatic) even said at one point, "It might just be worth it for you to install Linux for them?" Unfortunately, I didn't have a Ubuntu CD on me, and I wasn't too sure about support for the latest iPods on AmaroK and Banshee or Rhythmbox. But it was that bad. My wife is by no means a Linux advocate...

yabbadabbadont
March 22nd, 2007, 06:43 PM
My wife is by no means a Linux advocate...

Whoa! Sounds like grounds for divorce. Then again, you are a Linux advocate, so I guess it could work both ways. :lol:

lyceum
March 22nd, 2007, 07:32 PM
My wife just spent the good part of tonight trying to fix for a friend a spyware- and virus-infested computer... finished the reinstall but none of the reloading of apps.

Without going into details, after tonight, I can't imagine anyone thinking an XP installation is easier than a Ubuntu one... and she had the Dell CDs too (drivers, etc.)


It was so troublesome that my wife (a total Mac fanatic) even said at one point, "It might just be worth it for you to install Linux for them?" Unfortunately, I didn't have a Ubuntu CD on me, and I wasn't too sure about support for the latest iPods on AmaroK and Banshee or Rhythmbox. But it was that bad. My wife is by no means a Linux advocate...

I had been trying to get a friend to make the switch for some time now. After the 3rd install his wife said "No more, call Dave and get that thing he has that looks like Mac" (I use gDesklets). He was shocked that it was running in about 15-20 minutes. I gave him a copy of Ubuntu hacks and he was good to go still in less time that the XP re-install. He had planned for a week, he got it done in a Saturday afternoon. Now any time anyone mentions Windows he just shakes his head.

But hey, if you are a mod here, shouldn't you have an Ubuntu CD on you at all times? ;)

Brunellus
March 22nd, 2007, 07:42 PM
But hey, if you are a mod here, shouldn't you have an Ubuntu CD on you at all times?

that reminds me, I need to replenish my stash at work. I keep livecds stockpiled in case of a network outage. Central IT may take a licking, but my section should still keep on ticking.

aysiu
March 22nd, 2007, 07:42 PM
But hey, if you are a mod here, shouldn't you have an Ubuntu CD on you at all times? ;) Maybe I should.

m.musashi
March 22nd, 2007, 08:00 PM
But hey, if you are a mod here, shouldn't you have an Ubuntu CD on you at all times? ;)
Actually, they are supposed to have a microchip implanted in the forearm (ala casino royale). I guess some are just squeamish:).

Brunellus
March 22nd, 2007, 08:04 PM
Actually, they are supposed to have a microchip implanted in the forearm (ala casino royale). I guess some are just squeamish:).
I have to protest at the spreading of such lies and misinformation.

We all have brain implants, a la "Terminal Man."

m.musashi
March 22nd, 2007, 08:19 PM
I have to protest at the spreading of such lies and misinformation.

We all have brain implants, a la "Terminal Man."

Actually, with the brain implants you can never be too sure about anything else. I should know. I've seen Total Recall.

I_have_seen_the_light
March 27th, 2007, 05:22 AM
maybe its just a matter of preference. its true, there are somethings in Ubuntu that would seem too difficult to configure, but think about about it, you get to learn a lot more about your computer.

I_have_seen_the_light
March 27th, 2007, 05:23 AM
maybe its just a matter of preference. its true, there are somethings in Ubuntu that would seem too difficult to configure, but think about about it, you get to learn a lot more about your computer. :):)

Tomosaur
March 27th, 2007, 02:15 PM
I've been hearing about how Linux Desktop is making a comback, but I think Linux is way behind when it comes to ease of use. I'm a computer geek. Everyone comes to me for computer questions and help. I tried Ubuntu years ago, but didn't like it to much. I wanted a little project this weekend, so I decided to give Ubuntu another try. The install process went fine, zero problems. When the desktop came up, I noticed the resolution was pretty low. I checked the preferences, and my standard resolution for the Dell 2001FP is 1600x1200. That resolution wasn't an option. I then went to Nvidias site, and saw they offered drivers for Geforce cards. I downloaded, tried to install, got unicode error message. I then did research on Ubuntus forum, and I had to printout 2 pages of terminal instructions to get the Nvidia drivers installed.

This is pretty sad. I managed to get them installed, resolution was how I wanted it. I then installed a few other programs, which was pretty easy using the built in installers. I rebooted my system to do some stuff in Windows. Later, I rebooted into Ubuntu, and bam, got a "Failed to start the X Server" erorr. For some reason, my xorg.conf was bad. I went back to the forums, and read up on how to fix this using sudo dpkg-reconfgure xserver-xorg. I went thru the process keeping all of the defaults. I then started the gdm, and first thing I noticed was no sound. Next thing was my resolution was incorrect. Finally the graphics were very sluggish.

So, I'm back in WinXP. I'm pretty disappointed about my experience so far. This is alot of trouble trying to get something to work and its Way to much trouble for an average user.

Any thoughts/suggestions on what I did wrong? Why is installing standard Nvidia drivers so difficult? What happen to my sound?

Just because you know what you are doing with Windows does not mean you should know what you are doing with Linux. If anything, it makes you far less likely to be able to use Linux comfortably. By your own admission, you are a 'computer geek'. What you mean is that you are a Windows geek. You know how Windows works, and you're used to it. When you have trouble with Linux, your first thought is 'how is someone less skilled supposed to do this?'. In reality, a less experienced Windows users is less ingrained in the 'Windows way'. They don't know how they'd do it in Windows, and they don't know how they'd do it in Linux, either, so they ask, do whatever's necessary, and are merrily on their way.

I'm very sorry that you had problems, and I hope you get it all working ASAP, but the reality is - you do not speak for everyone, regardless of their experience. The vast majority of people do not need to mess about with their settings just to get the display to function properly - thus, you are an exception. The likelihood is that you didn't check whether your hardware would work properly, and assume that there is something fundamentally wrong with Linux (ie - in this case, usability). The truth is that it's different. It's not nice to mess about with drivers and such - but there is a very simply solution: don't buy from unfriendly or unco-operative manufacturers.

maccawolf
March 27th, 2007, 02:27 PM
I'm probably the last person in the world that should mention this being as I'm an extreme Linux/Ubuntu newbie, but I have realized that I didn't become CONVERSANT in Windows immediately, so I will not become proficient in Linux in one day either. It is time consuming to learn, but I feel it will be worth it in the end to be able to say "G'BYE" to MS for good! :)

megamania
March 27th, 2007, 02:35 PM
I'm a computer geek. Everyone comes to me for computer questions and help.
You're not a computer geek. You are a Windows geek.

It takes time to learn and get used to a new system.

linuxmonkey
March 27th, 2007, 02:47 PM
but there is a very simply solution: don't buy from unfriendly or unco-operative manufacturers.

Last time I checked, Nvidia was the leading manufacturer of graphic cards. Don't blame me if they are "un-friendly".

I re-installed Ubuntu last night, installed the gfx drivers via Envy. Everything is working fine now including my sound.

My main point was Linux is FAR from going mainstream. Sure it has a learning curve like everything else, but its not the same as a Windows user switching to Mac. I'm not knocking Linux, just stating my opinion which I believe is the truth. It may be hard for a long time Linux user to realize this.

Tomosaur
March 27th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Last time I checked, Nvidia was the leading manufacturer of graphic cards. Don't blame me if they are "un-friendly".

I re-installed Ubuntu last night, installed the gfx drivers via Envy. Everything is working fine now including my sound.

My main point was Linux is FAR from going mainstream. Sure it has a learning curve like everything else, but its not the same as a Windows user switching to Mac. I'm not knocking Linux, just stating my opinion which I believe is the truth. It may be hard for a long time Linux user to realize this.
I didn't blame you, I just said that you should look before you leap. As it happens, nVidia cards are probably the easiest cards to get up and running with Linux - nVidia at least release Linux drivers. There are also some damn good free drivers available too. I have an nVidia card myself, and I didn't need to do anything at all to get it all working nicely on Ubuntu, right out of the box. When I wanted the 3d acceleration that only nVidia's proprietary drivers currently provide, I installed those. It must have taken me something like 5 minutes, with one reboot, and I can choose to delay that one reboot and carry on working if I feel like it. On Windows, to install nVidia's drivers, I have to remove the old drivers, reboot, install the new drivers on a crap resolution, reboot, then hope that it worked. From where I'm sitting, installing the drivers on Linux is far, far easier than doing it on Windows. If 'mainstream' means extra work and two reboots just to install drivers, then I'm quite happy with my 1 command (to start the nvidia installer and 1 (optional) reboot.

OH: and nVidia also bundle a tool with their drivers to configure X to utilise the drivers properly. It's hardly brain surgery.

floke
March 27th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Sorry to have to tell you this, but Linux is already mainstream.
It's just everybody else who has to catch up.

:popcorn:

qamelian
March 27th, 2007, 03:10 PM
I've been hearing about how Linux Desktop is making a comback, but I think Linux is way behind when it comes to ease of use. I'm a computer geek. Everyone comes to me for computer questions and help. I tried Ubuntu years ago, but didn't like it to much. I wanted a little project this weekend, so I decided to give Ubuntu another try. The install process went fine, zero problems. When the desktop came up, I noticed the resolution was pretty low. I checked the preferences, and my standard resolution for the Dell 2001FP is 1600x1200. That resolution wasn't an option. I then went to Nvidias site, and saw they offered drivers for Geforce cards. I downloaded, tried to install, got unicode error message. I then did research on Ubuntus forum, and I had to printout 2 pages of terminal instructions to get the Nvidia drivers installed.

This is pretty sad. I managed to get them installed, resolution was how I wanted it. I then installed a few other programs, which was pretty easy using the built in installers. I rebooted my system to do some stuff in Windows. Later, I rebooted into Ubuntu, and bam, got a "Failed to start the X Server" erorr. For some reason, my xorg.conf was bad. I went back to the forums, and read up on how to fix this using sudo dpkg-reconfgure xserver-xorg. I went thru the process keeping all of the defaults. I then started the gdm, and first thing I noticed was no sound. Next thing was my resolution was incorrect. Finally the graphics were very sluggish.

So, I'm back in WinXP. I'm pretty disappointed about my experience so far. This is alot of trouble trying to get something to work and its Way to much trouble for an average user.

Any thoughts/suggestions on what I did wrong? Why is installing standard Nvidia drivers so difficult? What happen to my sound?
Frankly, you're saying the same thing I said when I upgraded to WinXP years ago. The default install wouldn't allow me to go above 800X600 when I knew I could go to 1280X1024. Trying to install the Nvidia drivers repeatedly resulted in stop errors until I disconnected bits of hardware one item at a time to discover it was my sound card that caused the problem. Once the drivers were installed, everything worked just dandy including the sound card...until I decided to upgrade my sound card and discover that it's drivers wouldn't install until I uninstalled the old drivers and manually removed dozens of files and several registry entries relating to to old card (which was simply an older version of the same card!).

So, I guess my question is...why is Windos XP so user unfriendly?

Okay, end of defense. The problem is not Linux but the way Nvidia and other companies choose to produce and distribute their drivers in ways that are unfriendly to Linux. Don't shoot the OS when the hardware manufacturers are at fault for making things more difficult than they should need to be.

seshomaru samma
March 27th, 2007, 04:08 PM
i suggest you let someone with zero exprience of windows to install xp in a machine that windows doesn't have the drivers for (if you installed windows before you know that this happens often) what do you think they will do ?
they will be clueless. they will not think about openning the 'device manager' or whatever you call it. for you it might be intuitive ,but actually its a learned skill from years of practice. even if you tell your newbie friend where this device manager is they wouldn't know what to do with it. this doesnt mean windows is not friendly.

you are a novice in linux , you just started you have a lot to learn. at the moment your idea of friendliness is an OS where you can utilise the skills you acquired using Windows. this is however impossible cause Linux is a different OS

give it some time and you will become an expert in Linux as well , and then you will be in a position to decide which one is more friendly

aysiu
March 27th, 2007, 04:19 PM
i suggest you let someone with zero exprience of windows to install xp in a machine that windows doesn't have the drivers for (if you installed windows before you know that this happens often) what do you think they will do ? My wife recently reinstalled Windows for a clueless Windows user. When she asked the other person for the Windows installation CD, the clueless Windows user replied, "What's Windows?" And my wife had to explain that it's the operating system (the phrase meant nothing, of course, to the clueless Windows user, who just thinks of her computer as "the computer"), and then she had to explain that it's the program that allows other programs like iTunes and Internet Explorer to run on the computer.

Even my wife had a hard time figuring out the Windows XP installer and all the drivers and such. The installer is text-based (like the Ubuntu Alternate CD) and asks questions most end-users have no clue about. Do you want to delete the partition or not first? Should it be a fast reformat to NTFS or a slow one? Who cares? Who knows?

And the drivers were no better. Sometimes you appeared to go through some wizard on the CD. Sometimes the wizard extracted to a folder. Sometimes the wizard actually installed the driver. There was nothing in the Control Panel called "Install drivers." I think she ended up digging around and trying to go through Add/Remove Hardware, and that didn't work, so she had to go through System > Hardware > Device Manager. And then she didn't remember what folder the "wizard" had extracted the drivers to. This went on and on.

Point being: Windows isn't easier or more intuitive to install. It also took an extremely long time. The whole time I was thinking, "The time it took us to figure out the driver for the ethernet card, I could have hard Ubuntu up and running... and it would have automatically detected the internet connection!" My wife even, at one point, said, "Could you install Linux for her?" I didn't have a Ubuntu CD on me, and the person she was "fixing" Windows for had a newer iPod, so I wasn't so sure that'd work (does AmaroK or Banshee support the newest Nano?).

In any case, Windows is no walk in the park. I can install Nvidia drivers in Ubuntu within two minutes (maybe even faster if I already have extra repositories enabled). And in Mepis, I can do it with one click during installation.

linuxmonkey
March 27th, 2007, 05:16 PM
First I would like to say thanks for all the comments. I hope I didn't step on anyones toes. I have re-thought some of my comments, and see that I may have been a little to hard on Linux. I have to agree that the base Ubuntu install is easier then installing Windows (and its faster). I am not giving up this time on Ubuntu. I guess I had a bad experience and was venting. So far I like what I see, once I got over the Nvidia driver issue solved. I'm not sure if I can make Ubuntu my main OS, since I rely on a number of windows based programs day to day, but I hope to search for replacements. I'm hoping to find a site with a table of windows apps to Linux apps replacements.

Sorry if I offended anyone, I hope to be able to contribute to the forum in the future.

prizrak
March 27th, 2007, 07:27 PM
linuxmonkey,
From your post, your WIndows experience worked against you quite a bit. You went to the nvidia site and had to deal with the nvidia installer (that does tend to fail). What you should have done is gone to Synaptic looked for nvidia-glx installed it and ran sudo nvidia-xconfig. That was literally all that had to be done to get your drivers installed. Then you would have to edit your xorg.conf to include the resolution you want and be on your marry way. Then you hit ctrl+alt+backspace to restart X (no need to reboot the entire system) and you can choose you resolution with a GUI tool.

In Feisty (the current Beta) there is a GUI tool that will allow you to install AND activate the driver in 2 clicks without any fuss. It also comes up on first boot so you don't even have to look for it. Still need to play wtih xorg.conf.

In Feisty+1 xorg.conf will be deprecated for xrandr that will work with udev for 100% plug and play support. You won't ever be in any trouble regarding with X. I hate to say it but it's 100% user error in this case.

prizrak
March 27th, 2007, 07:32 PM
My wife recently reinstalled Windows for a clueless Windows user. When she asked the other person for the Windows installation CD, the clueless Windows user replied, "What's Windows?" And my wife had to explain that it's the operating system (the phrase meant nothing, of course, to the clueless Windows user, who just thinks of her computer as "the computer"), and then she had to explain that it's the program that allows other programs like iTunes and Internet Explorer to run on the computer.

Even my wife had a hard time figuring out the Windows XP installer and all the drivers and such. The installer is text-based (like the Ubuntu Alternate CD) and asks questions most end-users have no clue about. Do you want to delete the partition or not first? Should it be a fast reformat to NTFS or a slow one? Who cares? Who knows?

And the drivers were no better. Sometimes you appeared to go through some wizard on the CD. Sometimes the wizard extracted to a folder. Sometimes the wizard actually installed the driver. There was nothing in the Control Panel called "Install drivers." I think she ended up digging around and trying to go through Add/Remove Hardware, and that didn't work, so she had to go through System > Hardware > Device Manager. And then she didn't remember what folder the "wizard" had extracted the drivers to. This went on and on.

Point being: Windows isn't easier or more intuitive to install. It also took an extremely long time. The whole time I was thinking, "The time it took us to figure out the driver for the ethernet card, I could have hard Ubuntu up and running... and it would have automatically detected the internet connection!" My wife even, at one point, said, "Could you install Linux for her?" I didn't have a Ubuntu CD on me, and the person she was "fixing" Windows for had a newer iPod, so I wasn't so sure that'd work (does AmaroK or Banshee support the newest Nano?).

In any case, Windows is no walk in the park. I can install Nvidia drivers in Ubuntu within two minutes (maybe even faster if I already have extra repositories enabled). And in Mepis, I can do it with one click during installation.

That's nothing. I was installing XP on a brand new computer with a Intel SATA II RAID and it could not see the drives at all. Upon pressing F6 to install a 3rd party driver it asked me for a floppy..... Luckily the old system had a floppy drive and my co worker had a floppy disk lying around. The install that should take no more than an hour on that system took me about 3 days. Not to even mention that a default Windows install has no software. Sadly my father games on his PC and uses it for work so Ubuntu is not a possibility but I can bet that it would work w/o a problem with the RAID.

prizrak
March 27th, 2007, 07:34 PM
First I would like to say thanks for all the comments. I hope I didn't step on anyones toes. I have re-thought some of my comments, and see that I may have been a little to hard on Linux. I have to agree that the base Ubuntu install is easier then installing Windows (and its faster). I am not giving up this time on Ubuntu. I guess I had a bad experience and was venting. So far I like what I see, once I got over the Nvidia driver issue solved. I'm not sure if I can make Ubuntu my main OS, since I rely on a number of windows based programs day to day, but I hope to search for replacements. I'm hoping to find a site with a table of windows apps to Linux apps replacements.

Sorry if I offended anyone, I hope to be able to contribute to the forum in the future.

Good way to find out about alternatives to your Windows programs is ask on the forums. The community is here for support so use it ;)

m.musashi
March 27th, 2007, 11:19 PM
(does AmaroK or Banshee support the newest Nano?)..

Yes it does but I don't know if it works to the same extent as iTunes as I have never downloaded or installed iTunes - I refuse to use it. I didn't even want an iPod but my Dad bought it. I told him I wanted one with ogg support and gave him a few ideas. I'm sure he walked into wal-mart and said my son wants an mp3 player. What's an mp3 player? And then just bought what they suggested. He doesn't know anything about technology.

Anyway, I was able to load and remove songs using AmaroK. That is all I did. However, it works. Mine is a 2nd generation Nano - i.e. the new ones.

aysiu
March 27th, 2007, 11:31 PM
Good to know. Wish I'd had my Ubuntu CD on me...

m.musashi
March 27th, 2007, 11:37 PM
It's been a while and I can't remember the web site but there was a way to set up a net install of several versions of Linux. I can't remember if Ubuntu was one of them. Basically, you made a few choices and it set up a small file that you booted from - I think that's how it worked. I wouldn't be suprised if there are other sites like that. It would save you from needing to carry CDs. Of course you would need a network connection so on a "broken" PC you'd be out of luck. Also, without broadband I'm sure it would be futile.

toasted
March 28th, 2007, 12:08 PM
linuxmonkey,
In Feisty (the current Beta) there is a GUI tool that will allow you to install AND activate the driver in 2 clicks without any fuss. It also comes up on first boot so you don't even have to look for it. Still need to play wtih xorg.conf.

Really... does it do this for ATI as well? My biggest nightmare is with the ATI driver. So much so I havent booted into Linux in months. Last time, Ubuntu updated itself and trashed grub in the process. It made me really upset to have to go fix it again. That gets really old.




In Feisty+1 xorg.conf will be deprecated for xrandr that will work with udev for 100% plug and play support. You won't ever be in any trouble regarding with X.

Huh?

Frak
March 28th, 2007, 12:14 PM
Really... does it do this for ATI as well? My biggest nightmare is with the ATI driver. So much so I havent booted into Linux in months. Last time, Ubuntu updated itself and trashed grub in the process. It made me really upset to have to go fix it again. That gets really old.




Huh?
Yes, its called restricted Driver Manager, its in System->Preferences->Restricted Drivers.

And the developers are working on a project known as "Bulletproof X"

BLTicklemonster
March 28th, 2007, 01:00 PM
All told, I've wasted along the order of 30 dvds trying to get an acceptable dvd rip from ubuntu.

More than 5 is unacceptable.

In that other os (which I keep for just such things, though I'd rather not) I only waste one if I accidentally remove the menu and the movie starts automatically, but it's still a viable dvd.

I think I only ever got one dvd to burn ever in ubuntu, and that had no menu, and I never figured out how to get a menu, and the dvd was not encrypted, and didn't need to be shrunk.

I have no idea why noobs (noober than me, I would guess) can do it after running ubuntu for a short time, but this is absolutely totally pi**ing me off.

Does the RIAA fund Canonical or something? :)

No really, the whole dvd thing is making a partition with XP on it a must have for me. I don't like that.

Therefore, it is apparent that, in my case and many others, Ubuntu facilitates the need to have XP. My, don't you know Microsoft just loves to hear that? Well I don't.

prizrak
March 28th, 2007, 01:59 PM
All told, I've wasted along the order of 30 dvds trying to get an acceptable dvd rip from ubuntu.

More than 5 is unacceptable.

In that other os (which I keep for just such things, though I'd rather not) I only waste one if I accidentally remove the menu and the movie starts automatically, but it's still a viable dvd.

I think I only ever got one dvd to burn ever in ubuntu, and that had no menu, and I never figured out how to get a menu, and the dvd was not encrypted, and didn't need to be shrunk.

I have no idea why noobs (noober than me, I would guess) can do it after running ubuntu for a short time, but this is absolutely totally pi**ing me off.

Does the RIAA fund Canonical or something? :)

No really, the whole dvd thing is making a partition with XP on it a must have for me. I don't like that.

Therefore, it is apparent that, in my case and many others, Ubuntu facilitates the need to have XP. My, don't you know Microsoft just loves to hear that? Well I don't.
You are complaining because it's difficult to perform a questionable activity? (Illegal in many countries but most definetly questionable). Who made you burn the file to the DVD without checking it first? I'm sorry but if you can't figure out to mount and watch the ISO to make sure it's correct before burning it, no OS would help you...

linuxmonkey
March 28th, 2007, 02:08 PM
In Feisty (the current Beta) there is a GUI tool that will allow you to install AND activate the driver in 2 clicks without any fuss. It also comes up on first boot so you don't even have to look for it. Still need to play wtih xorg.conf.


This is partially true. I installed the Feisty beta yesterday. Nothing popped up automatically after install. I went under Admin, Restricted drivers, and enabled the Nvidia drivers. When I rebooted, the graphics looked the same. I checked my resolution settings, nothing new. I then had to edit the xorg.conf (why?) and add 1600x1200. After a reboot, my resolution was correct. I tried the 3D Desktop effects, and they work ok. One thing I notice is I don't have the Nvidia application to change various settings. When I used Envy on 6.10, it installed this.

BLTicklemonster
March 28th, 2007, 02:10 PM
You are complaining because it's difficult to perform a questionable activity? (Illegal in many countries but most definetly questionable). Who made you burn the file to the DVD without checking it first? I'm sorry but if you can't figure out to mount and watch the ISO to make sure it's correct before burning it, no OS would help you...

Eh? Archiving my own personal DVDs which my children can and will destroy. Even the non encrypted ones are troublesome. I ripped one to iso in feisty yesterday, then burned it and got a dvd which is full, but god only knows what is on it, because it will not work in any dvd player. I can put it in the tray and try to look at it's contents, and it refuses to show anything. How can that be? Did I not burn something ubuntu can recognize to it using software that ubuntu uses? (the dvd copy function under places on the toolbar) Yet I boot to windows and copy it and I get a dvd that will burn on any dvd player. I don't need an OS to help me, thank you very much, and pious posts from people who do not care to help do add to the dissatisfaction. Bless your heart for even taking the time to post, though.

prizrak
March 28th, 2007, 02:34 PM
This is partially true. I installed the Feisty beta yesterday. Nothing popped up automatically after install. I went under Admin, Restricted drivers, and enabled the Nvidia drivers. When I rebooted, the graphics looked the same. I checked my resolution settings, nothing new. I then had to edit the xorg.conf (why?) and add 1600x1200. After a reboot, my resolution was correct. I tried the 3D Desktop effects, and they work ok. One thing I notice is I don't have the Nvidia application to change various settings. When I used Envy on 6.10, it installed this.

You have it, it just doesn't come with a .desktop file to put it on the menu. You can make a shortcut or just run it in run command/cli the command is

nvidia-settings

The reason why you need to edit xorg.conf is because the GUI frontend depends on the xorg.conf for the back end. It can only display resolutions that are in there. xorg 7.3 is supposed to address that issue but it's not going to be completed in time for Feisty release so we got 6 more months of that. Having said that, xorg is usually pretty good at detecting correct resolution, at least I had no issue with it on anything I have tried including TV's.

Eh? Archiving my own personal DVDs which my children can and will destroy. Even the non encrypted ones are troublesome. I ripped one to iso in feisty yesterday, then burned it and got a dvd which is full, but god only knows what is on it, because it will not work in any dvd player. I can put it in the tray and try to look at it's contents, and it refuses to show anything. How can that be? Did I not burn something ubuntu can recognize to it using software that ubuntu uses? (the dvd copy function under places on the toolbar) Yet I boot to windows and copy it and I get a dvd that will burn on any dvd player. I don't need an OS to help me, thank you very much, and pious posts from people who do not care to help do add to the dissatisfaction. Bless your heart for even taking the time to post, though.
That practice is still questionable at best and is illegal in most countries (actually since you are in the US it is illegal here under the DMCA). Sorry law is law even it's idiotic. Perhaps you might want to use a bit more advanced application than "dvd copy function" which from what I understand is very limited. I bet that on XP you have something more than the built in CD burning software that takes care of your DVD's. Also if it's a problem you can use something to get an ISO of the disk first, then mount it (without burning) and make sure that it's working. As far as software goes there is DVD::rip (not sure if it can do straight DVD copy or just ripping), gnomebaker, if you feel like paying Nero Burning Rom, there is also k3b on the KDE side.

As far as help goes, this is not a support thread, this is a "Linux not ready for the desktop" thread. If you are going to claim that inability to make a copy of a DVD makes an OS not ready for the desktop you are not going to get help with burning a DVD you will be given another user's opinion as to why you are wrong.

linuxmonkey
March 28th, 2007, 02:40 PM
As far as help goes, this is not a support thread, this is a "Linux not ready for the desktop" thread. If you are going to claim that inability to make a copy of a DVD makes an OS not ready for the desktop you are not going to get help with burning a DVD you will be given another user's opinion as to why you are wrong.

In his defense, he stated these were family DVDs. He would be breaking the law if it were copy protected DVD's. Plus, please don't kid yourself. Burning homemade DVDs is becoming more and more popular, especially with HD cameras coming down in price. This is definitely one of the reasons someone would buy a computer for, hence Linux Desktop.

BLTicklemonster
March 28th, 2007, 02:41 PM
Thank you.

m.musashi
March 28th, 2007, 04:34 PM
That practice is still questionable at best and is illegal in most countries (actually since you are in the US it is illegal here under the DMCA). Sorry law is law even it's idiotic. Perhaps you might want to use a bit more advanced application than "dvd copy function" which from what I understand is very limited. I bet that on XP you have something more than the built in CD burning software that takes care of your DVD's. Also if it's a problem you can use something to get an ISO of the disk first, then mount it (without burning) and make sure that it's working. As far as software goes there is DVD::rip (not sure if it can do straight DVD copy or just ripping), gnomebaker, if you feel like paying Nero Burning Rom, there is also k3b on the KDE side.
Actually, the laws are rather confusing. IANAL but under fair use guidelines you have the right to make backup copies of anything you legally buy. A long time ago the music industry was upset about cassette tapes for the same reason. There wasn't any technology to encrypt albums and the courts decided that if you bought the album you had the right to make a cassette copy - fair use. By the same measure, you can also legally rip your CDs to your computer and then play them on your iPod.

The guidelines are the same for DVDs you buy. However, it is apparently illegal to crack the encryption so you are stuck in a rather stupid catch 22. You are allowed to back up your DVD but you are not allowed to crack the encryption so you can't back up your DVD which you are allowed to do, etc. etc. However, you can purchase a program like AnyDVD and do it anyway. Does anyone see the futility here?

I really think it's time the music and movie industry realize this and look for alternatives. Rather than trying to prevent copying, bundle CDs and DVDs with bonus materials that people will want. If they want to copy the movie let them. However, they won't get the cool extras. My Batman Returns, for example, came with a comic book. Blu-ray and SACD are another good idea. Really high quality video and audio that currently can't be copied. Eventually someone will figure out a way (actually didn't someone already crack blu-ray?). I think the music industry should have pushed SADC or DVD-audio more. I'll buy a high quality audio disc but I have little interest in the mediocre sounding CDs. I think there are just too many technologically ignorant people making our laws. Is there a single senator under 50? Can any of them use a computer as anything more than a glorified typewriter? We need a few gamers and hackers in the US congress. Anyway, a little food for thought.

deanlinkous
March 28th, 2007, 04:50 PM
I am waiting for my bologna to jump off my bread and a warning appear that this bologna can only be eaten with the officially licensed bread - not just any bread I choose.

toasted
March 29th, 2007, 02:13 AM
Yes, its called restricted Driver Manager, its in System->Preferences->Restricted Drivers.

And the developers are working on a project known as "Bulletproof X"

So, are there widescreen resolutions yet? I got a 22" widescreen a while ago and Ubuntu didnt provide support for it.

prizrak
March 29th, 2007, 03:36 AM
In his defense, he stated these were family DVDs. He would be breaking the law if it were copy protected DVD's. Plus, please don't kid yourself. Burning homemade DVDs is becoming more and more popular, especially with HD cameras coming down in price. This is definitely one of the reasons someone would buy a computer for, hence Linux Desktop.

Yes very much so, however I am betting that any camera you get will come with a DVD burning software as well as video editing. According to him he said he was using Nautilus's built-in CD/DVD burner. I'm sure it could burn a data CD/DVD without a single issue, aparently video DVD's are a bit harder to deal with. If K3b or GnomeBaker can't handle DVD burning that he wants then I will agree to his point. By the same token I seriously doubt that XP can handle DVD burning without 3rd party software, in fact I'm not sure that even Vista can do it.

surfjdh
March 29th, 2007, 04:18 AM
I installed with ease, operate with fair ease, and look foward to getting on my computer EVERY day now, just to find cool software and demo it

rsambuca
March 29th, 2007, 04:28 AM
By the same token I seriously doubt that XP can handle DVD burning without 3rd party software, in fact I'm not sure that even Vista can do it.

It is built into Vista now.

saulgoode
March 29th, 2007, 05:47 AM
Vista is not capable of burning ISOs or movie DVDs. It can burn audio CDs and data files.

cowlip
March 29th, 2007, 05:57 AM
That practice is still questionable at best and is illegal in most countries (actually since you are in the US it is illegal here under the DMCA). Sorry law is law even it's idiotic

Jon Lech "DVD John" Johansen isn't in jail and he (...seemingly) created libdvdcss. He's from Norway, where I guess fair use seemed to matter.

"Law is law" is not excuse for a bad law, haven't we seen that with prohibition already? In fact there's already been economic harm from the DMCA so I'm glad to live in a country untouched by it, as of so far.

BTW, rsambuca's right AFAIK: Vista can burn data DVDs now, and I'm pretty sure some editions of it with "Windows DVD Maker" can make dvd movies. XP can only drag n drop CDs without third party software.

linuxmonkey
March 29th, 2007, 06:00 AM
Vista is not capable of burning ISOs or movie DVDs. It can burn audio CDs and data files.

LOL. :D

m.musashi
March 29th, 2007, 06:29 AM
Vista is not capable of burning ISOs or movie DVDs. It can burn audio CDs and data files.

You know, this is pretty sad. I would have thought they would have added this to Vista but noooo.

An ISO image is a file that contains all the information necessary to duplicate the contents of a disc. You can't create a disc from an ISO image using Windows, but there are disc burning programs available with this ability.
From the horse's mouth (http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/2fa35b0d-b280-4589-9805-55e753888f5c1033.mspx)

vf514
March 29th, 2007, 10:03 AM
First of all, I will start by saying that I like Ubuntu. I actually do. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have used Ubuntu (or Debian) for the year I have been using it. I really want it to be something great; something that will change computing for the better. To sum it up: I am not posting this because I hate Ubuntu, I am posting this because I want it to be better. Much better. What I have here is a list of reasons why I don't like Ubuntu. If you are offended by criticism of Ubuntu (and who would be, it's just an operating system...) I advise you to sit this one out. Again, I'm only trying to be constructive.

Now then, let's begin.

1. The intuitively is extremely questionable. At best. Guys, when I type "sudo apt-get dist-upgrade" I want an upgrade, not problems eagerly awaiting right around the corner. Common sense dictates that if you offer a way to do something it should work. Otherwise, remove the darn thing. If a user types this, just print a message saying "Sorry, but this isn't going to work. Here's how you actually upgrade your OS..." and have that be the only way to do it. I've also heard that people have gotten an authentication error when they try to upgrade, using the official method. Sorry guys, but if this happens, you have broken upgrade system. "But wait, I thought this operating system is supposed to work!" says the new user, his patience wearing thin...

Next, text file configuration, which I would very much like to see depart the face of this Earth. The advantages of using text files to configure your programs are absolutely zero. First, you have to backups of the darn thing, which is of course never fun. Otherwise, if you delete an important keyword in the file that you don't remember, you are done. Typos? Forget it.

"But what about when X11 breaks!?" the ever-so-loyal Linux user retorts. Um, no. First of all, X11 shouldn't break. The GUI on my Windows system doesn't break...I don't care how many times you change the resolution, or how many video drivers you install. (Bulletproof X is a step in the right direction, on the bright side.) Second, we can be creative and write intuitive CLI based applications. The debian-installer is an example of this.

2. Ubuntu is a design trainwreak.

2a. The abysmal font rendering system. I am fortunate enough to compute in 1280x1024 resolution, but this seems to be a chore in Ubuntu, an OS which really butchers the fonts in that resolution to bits. "Oh, my eyes!" I exclaim to myself, each time dark fonts are rendered on a bright background. Compare that to the beauty of Windows Cleartype, which is very pleasant to look at. The fonts themselves could use some work, too. Windows invested in font research, so should Ubuntu. Oh, and please, refrain from clicking that "take screenshot" button in an attempt to prove me wrong...you can't see the font problems in screenshots, curiously enough. And no, messing with the fonts options does not do anything (except put an ugly border of RGB around the fonts, which were bad to begin with...)

And oh yes. Open Firefox on Edgy. And the terminal, for that matter. Bolder system fonts? Yup. Inconsistencies with other programs? Check. Ugly? Mhm. Will the developers do anything about it? Heck no!

2b. Ubuntu is just ugly. It is time for a wake up call. Brown is not going to work. Orange is not going to work. Edubuntu is not going to work (to say the least). I invite you take a look at the following lovely post:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=285916&highlight=should+ubuntu+lose+the+brown

And what do you see? I'll tell you what I see, I see an opposition rate of 46% to the brown color. Forty-six percent. From Ubuntu's own community. Is this unacceptable? Of course it is.

"But you can change the appearance!!" the loyal Linux user (LLU) exclaims. First of all, I don't want to have to change every part of the operating system (GTK, GDM, splash screen...) just to make it look decent. Secondly, the default theme is very important. Which impression is most important to a new user? The first one, you silly duckling. What theme do do we market the operating system with? The default one. What theme would I like to be happy using? The default one? Right again.

Take a look at the download site for Ubuntu:

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download

Right under the logo on the top left, we have a failure in CD design. Now look at the boxart for Windows Vista. Heck, look at the boxart for XP. And OS X. Now that is the correct way to market an operating system.

"But...Ubuntu should be unique!!" the teaming LLUs respond. Look, I can write a "unique" operating system. In it, every time a command is given, the word "hello" is output.

> startx
"Hello."

> vim /etc/X11/xorg.conf
"Hello."

> do something!!!
"Hello."

Is this a unique operating system? It sure is! Is it nice to use? Er...well, lets not be too harsh here. I did write it, after all.

The bottom line is, which would you rather use? A well-designed operating system? Or a "unique" one? And, guess what? Ubuntu can still be unique with a nicer color. Perhaps green. Perhaps white. There are many colors that may be available. How do we find which one? Do research, of course, and the one that would be best for a human interface. Every Operating System In The Known World didn't use blue because of an inspiring ray of light from the sky! They use blue because it has become clear that it is the most usable color.

3. We really, really need to wake up in comparing Ubuntu to other operating systems. Mindless bashing of other operating systems, along baseless comparisons between them and Ubuntu, have become so bad that I have no choice but to accuse some community members of being in a state of complete denial. Let's take that oh-so-famous example, Windows XP, the operating system that many using Linux have come to hate. I have read so many stories about how Windows is "prone" to viruses and unstable and become very frustrated each time I hear one.

Now, is Windows secure and stable right out of the box? I really don't know, in fact. From the beginning, I always install anti-virus software, as well as Firefox, and of course all updates. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that once all these updates and programs are installed, Windows is extremely stable and extremely secure. In order to set reasonable benchmarks for Ubuntu, we must compare it with Windows at its absolute best, and not blindfold ourselves with a Windows we make purposely make weaker. In years, I have not had one single virus, not one single BSOD, and on a day-to-day basis, the system has always worked, provided only (1) antivirus was installed, (2) Firefox is used, and (3) updates were installed. If we compare Windows with Ubuntu at its best, Windows must be at its best as well.

When I am greeted with grub each morning, I ask myself "Should I use an operating system that works all the time and does everything I need it do? Or, should I use an operating system which will require a reboot each time I want to do something it can't do and only usually works?" Guess which one I usually choose.

Now, I present to you some other statements commonly made for your reading pleasure.

3a. "If you believe editing text files are not user friendly, what about editing the registry?" Oh, please. I have to do that--what--maybe once every three years?

3b. "But Ubuntu is not Windows. Please respect this." That's funny, Mac OS X isn't Windows either, and it is a lot nicer at present then Ubuntu. Learning curve? Nope. User friendliness? Oh yes.

Again, I like Ubuntu. I like Beryl. It is fun to have a free (gratis) operating system at my disposal. I think Windows does have some problems. For instance, updating it is slow. It takes a while to install. And so forth. I do think, however, that Windows is at present much better then Ubuntu. Hard work can make Ubuntu really good too.

OffHand
March 29th, 2007, 10:05 AM
Again, I like Ubuntu. I like Beryl. It is fun to have a free (gratis) operating system at my disposal. I think Windows does have some problems. For instance, updating it is slow. It takes a while to install. And so forth. I do think, however, that Windows is at present much better then Ubuntu. Hard work can make Ubuntu really good too.

Use whatever floats your boat. C ya later.

fuscia
March 29th, 2007, 10:11 AM
copying text files? right click on the text file, select copy and paste. it will make 'copy of text file'. quite the nightmare, yes?

xyz
March 29th, 2007, 10:23 AM
Well vf514...I don't know what you're talking about! I'm not saying I NEVER had any problems with Ubuntu but I never had yours unless I created them myself! I'm not saying you created them either!

I tried things out and it broke! I tried learning stuff and it broke. It's normal!
Backing up at the right moment (when my OS is running fine) is my friend; restoring takes about 15-20 minutes.

You've been a very lucky man with Windows....

Finally, this kind of thread is really getting old; we've had soooo many!

I'm not saying you make absolutely no points but I really do not understand how all these pbms came down on you with Ubuntu.

Spr0k3t
March 29th, 2007, 10:26 AM
I have an answer to almost every one of your concerns... but I'm not going to waste my time. However, there is one huge misconception I do have to point out to you.

Firefox does not use GTK or QT3, it uses XUL and has its own font rendering system. The fonts can be customized to your liking. You can remove FireFox from the system if you would like and download the official tarball from Mozilla... but the fonts will still be the same until you make the changes to the preferences or chrome settings inside of Firefox.

No offense intended, but you sound like the fisherman trying to tell all the other fishermen how to cast out a line or mend their nets. If you want the change to happen, don't complain, instead find a project you believe worthy of supporting and get involved. From the tone of your post, you have the means, but do you have the gusto?

Shin_Gouki2501
March 29th, 2007, 10:27 AM
i totally agree text file editing can lead to to problems, and i really don't understand what so many people like about that...
A feature should be always compared with how it reacts on failure.

Editing text files can easily create such, because u can't check if the value that u are currently changing is correct. without leaving the textfile....

afljafa
March 29th, 2007, 10:29 AM
Well - this will probably end up being a hundred pages long.

All I can say - I made a concious decision to stick with Feisty for a month before I would entertain the idea of going back. A week and half in and I think it`s going to stick this time.

I don`t miss those annoying little freezes for no particular reason because the OS just can`t quite work out how to handle any one of a multitude of events. Or it`s refusal to shut down because the OS just can`t quite work out how to handle any one of a multitude of events. Or that feeling that no matter how hard you cleaned - you just know you didn`t get all that spyware. Or a desktop that refuses to evolve.

Plenty of things I don`t miss really.

kerry_s
March 29th, 2007, 10:30 AM
I believe ubuntu as a whole is improving with each release. Linux in general is always pushing forward, comparing it to windows is ridiculous. Windows has had years of work to get to where it is and it is not perfect either, on top of that company's provide for what windows does not. Linux is growing everyday and the more people who stick with it and teach others from there experience's will help linux become better and the best alternative. I believe that eventually linux will have enough numbers that it can and will no longer be ignored by main stream company's. Time is the only barrier at this point. :)

karellen
March 29th, 2007, 10:31 AM
First of all, I will start by saying that I like Ubuntu. I actually do. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have used Ubuntu (or Debian) for the year I have been using it. I really want it to be something great; something that will change computing for the better. To sum it up: I am not posting this because I hate Ubuntu, I am posting this because I want it to be better. Much better. What I have here is a list of reasons why I don't like Ubuntu. If you are offended by criticism of Ubuntu (and who would be, it's just an operating system...) I advise you to sit this one out. Again, I'm only trying to be constructive.

Now then, let's begin.

1. The intuitively is extremely questionable. At best. Guys, when I type "sudo apt-get dist-upgrade" I want an upgrade, not problems eagerly awaiting right around the corner. Common sense dictates that if you offer a way to do something it should work. Otherwise, remove the darn thing. If a user types this, just print a message saying "Sorry, but this isn't going to work. Here's how you actually upgrade your OS..." and have that be the only way to do it. I've also heard that people have gotten an authentication error when they try to upgrade, using the official method. Sorry guys, but if this happens, you have broken upgrade system. "But wait, I thought this operating system is supposed to work!" says the new user, his patience wearing thin...

Next, text file configuration, which I would very much like to see depart the face of this Earth. The advantages of using text files to configure your programs are absolutely zero. First, you have to backups of the darn thing, which is of course never fun. Otherwise, if you delete an important keyword in the file that you don't remember, you are done. Typos? Forget it.

"But what about when X11 breaks!?" the ever-so-loyal Linux user retorts. Um, no. First of all, X11 shouldn't break. The GUI on my Windows system doesn't break...I don't care how many times you change the resolution, or how many video drivers you install. (Bulletproof X is a step in the right direction, on the bright side.) Second, we can be creative and write intuitive CLI based applications. The debian-installer is an example of this.

2. Ubuntu is a design trainwreak.

2a. The abysmal font rendering system. I am fortunate enough to compute in 1280x1024 resolution, but this seems to be a chore in Ubuntu, an OS which really butchers the fonts in that resolution to bits. "Oh, my eyes!" I exclaim to myself, each time dark fonts are rendered on a bright background. Compare that to the beauty of Windows Cleartype, which is very pleasant to look at. The fonts themselves could use some work, too. Windows invested in font research, so should Ubuntu. Oh, and please, refrain from clicking that "take screenshot" button in an attempt to prove me wrong...you can't see the font problems in screenshots, curiously enough. And no, messing with the fonts options does not do anything (except put an ugly border of RGB around the fonts, which were bad to begin with...)

And oh yes. Open Firefox on Edgy. And the terminal, for that matter. Bolder system fonts? Yup. Inconsistencies with other programs? Check. Ugly? Mhm. Will the developers do anything about it? Heck no!

2b. Ubuntu is just ugly. It is time for a wake up call. Brown is not going to work. Orange is not going to work. Edubuntu is not going to work (to say the least). I invite you take a look at the following lovely post:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=285916&highlight=should+ubuntu+lose+the+brown

And what do you see? I'll tell you what I see, I see an opposition rate of 46% to the brown color. Forty-six percent. From Ubuntu's own community. Is this unacceptable? Of course it is.

"But you can change the appearance!!" the loyal Linux user (LLU) exclaims. First of all, I don't want to have to change every part of the operating system (GTK, GDM, splash screen...) just to make it look decent. Secondly, the default theme is very important. Which impression is most important to a new user? The first one, you silly duckling. What theme do do we market the operating system with? The default one. What theme would I like to be happy using? The default one? Right again.

Take a look at the download site for Ubuntu:

http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download

Right under the logo on the top left, we have a failure in CD design. Now look at the boxart for Windows Vista. Heck, look at the boxart for XP. And OS X. Now that is the correct way to market an operating system.

"But...Ubuntu should be unique!!" the teaming LLUs respond. Look, I can write a "unique" operating system. In it, every time a command is given, the word "hello" is output.

> startx
"Hello."

> vim /etc/X11/xorg.conf
"Hello."

> do something!!!
"Hello."

Is this a unique operating system? It sure is! Is it nice to use? Er...well, lets not be too harsh here. I did write it, after all.

The bottom line is, which would you rather use? A well-designed operating system? Or a "unique" one? And, guess what? Ubuntu can still be unique with a nicer color. Perhaps green. Perhaps white. There are many colors that may be available. How do we find which one? Do research, of course, and the one that would be best for a human interface. Every Operating System In The Known World didn't use blue because of an inspiring ray of light from the sky! They use blue because it has become clear that it is the most usable color.

3. We really, really need to wake up in comparing Ubuntu to other operating systems. Mindless bashing of other operating systems, along baseless comparisons between them and Ubuntu, have become so bad that I have no choice but to accuse some community members of being in a state of complete denial. Let's take that oh-so-famous example, Windows XP, the operating system that many using Linux have come to hate. I have read so many stories about how Windows is "prone" to viruses and unstable and become very frustrated each time I hear one.

Now, is Windows secure and stable right out of the box? I really don't know, in fact. From the beginning, I always install anti-virus software, as well as Firefox, and of course all updates. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that once all these updates and programs are installed, Windows is extremely stable and extremely secure. In order to set reasonable benchmarks for Ubuntu, we must compare it with Windows at its absolute best, and not blindfold ourselves with a Windows we make purposely make weaker. In years, I have not had one single virus, not one single BSOD, and on a day-to-day basis, the system has always worked, provided only (1) antivirus was installed, (2) Firefox is used, and (3) updates were installed. If we compare Windows with Ubuntu at its best, Windows must be at its best as well.

When I am greeted with grub each morning, I ask myself "Should I use an operating system that works all the time and does everything I need it do? Or, should I use an operating system which will require a reboot each time I want to do something it can't do and only usually works?" Guess which one I usually choose.

Now, I present to you some other statements commonly made for your reading pleasure.

3a. "If you believe editing text files are not user friendly, what about editing the registry?" Oh, please. I have to do that--what--maybe once every three years?

3b. "But Ubuntu is not Windows. Please respect this." That's funny, Mac OS X isn't Windows either, and it is a lot nicer at present then Ubuntu. Learning curve? Nope. User friendliness? Oh yes.

Again, I like Ubuntu. I like Beryl. It is fun to have a free (gratis) operating system at my disposal. I think Windows does have some problems. For instance, updating it is slow. It takes a while to install. And so forth. I do think, however, that Windows is at present much better then Ubuntu. Hard work can make Ubuntu really good too.

hmm...well, man, how can I say this without being rude and probably banned: for windows YOU PAY. and not 5$. for mac os x YOU PAY. these are commercial products. check what that means. linux (ubuntu, opensuse, fedora or whatever distro you want to use and bash) is FREE. period. and besides you get a functional (and I know what I mean as I'm no linux guru but not the average joe either) for nothing. what's your problem? expectations?! do something if you really care, support those men who write code driven almost entirely by passion. give them money or at least time. translate some how-to's. advertise. write angry mails to oem for not supporting linux even with binary drivers. post a blog and share some thoughts about what it is to be done to improve it instead of just criticize. because at this point everything dies. at rhetorical statements and complains and pleas for "something better, better fonts, better hardware support, better default theme (it's really hard to click a few times, indeed...), better artwork, better free (gratis? applications" and the huge list goes on. I think you're missing the whole big picture here...

and, in the last, it's about freedom. feel free to use whatever you like. but if you can't do something better for what you get, just shut up. because you have no right to complain. IF you would have paid 0.01$ for what you use, then yes, you had all the right in the world to be disatisfied. but when you give NOTHING besides your time, you are in no position to request ALL (or even excelence).

needtolookatascreenshot
March 29th, 2007, 10:32 AM
3a. "If you believe editing text files are not user friendly, what about editing the registry?" Oh, please. I have to do that--what--maybe once every three years?
And how often did you have to edit text files in the last weeks, months, whatever old friend? And what exactly did you edit?


3b. "But Ubuntu is not Windows. Please respect this." That's funny, Mac OS X isn't Windows either, and it is a lot nicer at present then Ubuntu. Learning curve? Nope. User friendliness? Oh yes.
Well, I sat next to someone using a mac for the first time yesterday and to state that there is no learning curve is simply amazing, to put it mildly...

cowlip
March 29th, 2007, 10:34 AM
Fonts are a weird thing. Debian has the same rendering as Ubuntu does, while SUSE and Red Hat both render differently. Also, there's the whole Freetype patent issue (I don't think they're software patents, but actual normal patents); however in terms of software patents, there's vfat in the kernel, Samba in the distro, and MS holds patents on these things/extensions of these things, so it may be a bit of a dichotomy.

Freetype patent issues (http://freetype.sourceforge.net/patents.html)

I don't think you're wrong because obviously you've used Ubuntu and gotten experience with it, but really maybe it's just not for you. It might not be for me, either. But for a computer newbie, it might be right for them. I also don't use Ubuntu currently but the community is a great thing, so personally, I appreciate you posting back your "Linux whines (http://robitaille.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/whats-your-linux-whine/)" here. GNU/Linux can only get better with time. It's just a matter of competing with today's proprietary OS's for users and features.

This'll probably get merged into the "Linux Desktop Readiness" thread BTW. I just want to say that I think your post was well-written as well.

Shin_Gouki2501
March 29th, 2007, 10:38 AM
yes i think most people for get the ubuntu/ Linux consits of MANY parts, shell , x-sever and such...

Those are developed independend from each other so the progress "overall" might seem not as fast as windows.

But if u look on "special" -side projects, they tend to evolve very fast! -> look at beryl.

winodows eveole many of its components bit by bit.

ubuntu /Linux is far more heterogene. Some areas are far infront the windows pendant, but many seem behind .

And there the "Linux" user comes into play. He customises his systems in a way to get rid of those problems. So every Linux besomes "optimal" by configuring ur OS.

Many windows user doesn't want to do this , so they feel lost when they switch to windows..

DoctorMO
March 29th, 2007, 10:39 AM
Sir linux is what you make it, as a programmer I have no inclination to help solve your problems both because you intend not to help me do so and you post to a users forum instead of the correct place in a development forum, preferably the development forum of the program in question.

You also have to realise that linux isn't really linux. it's lots of little tools stuck together in order to make a working system; we might be behind windows and mac os x in integration terms but we far surpass windows on technologies obviously you never get to see this so it's a bit moot for me to point it out.

Spr0k3t
March 29th, 2007, 10:45 AM
Sir linux is what you make it, as a programmer I have no inclination to help solve your problems both because you intend not to help me do so and you post to a users forum instead of the correct place in a development forum, preferably the development forum of the program in question.

You also have to realise that linux isn't really linux. it's lots of little tools stuck together in order to make a working system; we might be behind windows and mac os x in integration terms but we far surpass windows on technologies obviously you never get to see this so it's a bit moot for me to point it out.

Well spoken Doc.

karellen
March 29th, 2007, 10:45 AM
why people fail to realize or forget the simple & essential fact that linux is free and windows/mac it is not? it's so plain obvious...and it makes a huge difference

Shin_Gouki2501
March 29th, 2007, 10:50 AM
but when people want Linux "rdy for the desktop" integration is an essential component , don't u agree?
wbr Shin Gouki

OffHand
March 29th, 2007, 10:53 AM
why people fail to realize or forget the simple & essential fact that linux is free and windows/mac it is not? it's so plain obvious...and it makes a huge difference

No, it does not. Besides that, I donate to projects so it's not free for me ;)

Adamant1988
March 29th, 2007, 10:54 AM
Having read your ridiculously long rant that says absolutely nothing new, but instead takes old complaints puts them in a much more flame-bait worthy "angry" wrapping, I can say that I've lost brain-cells from start to finish. I find it interesting that instead of simply not using Ubuntu you felt the need to write your anger out in a post on our forums deliberately asking for people to flame you. You deserve what you get.

I will say that I love the way you used "LLW" to attempt to make people feel bad/unoriginal for perfectly legitimate responses to your problems. I would suggest you wait around for feisty, but the fact of the matter is I'm about as sorry to see you go as I am sorry that my aunt's cancer in remission. In other words, good luck, see you, don't let the door hit you, and all that.

Spr0k3t
March 29th, 2007, 10:54 AM
And, lest we not forget, "A million monkeys pounding upon a million typewritters will eventually produce the complete works of shakespear himself." - Author Unknown. Coinsides with, "Thousands of well paid developers on thousands of computers will eventually produce the latest version of windows." When you exchange the element of paid developers with volunteer programmers, the result is a form of Linux.

Because we all know that Steve "pit-stains monkeyboy" Ballmer loves developers.

karellen
March 29th, 2007, 10:55 AM
I agree that if I take something for free I am ready to make some steps in learning new things, I am willing to configure it and to tinker it, to get my hands dirty under the hood and so on. if the average joe wants a windows clone but at no cost and with no headaches, he'd better write to santa claus or the easter bunny

Adamant1988
March 29th, 2007, 10:58 AM
And, lest we not forget, "A million monkeys pounding upon a million typewritters will eventually produce the complete works of shakespear himself." - Author Unknown. Coinsides with, "Thousands of well paid developers on thousands of computers will eventually produce the latest version of windows." When you exchange the element of paid developers with volunteer programmers, the result is a form of Linux.

Because we all know that Steve "pit-stains monkeyboy" Ballmer loves developers.

Yes, but millions of idiots pounding away at their keyboard eventually just becomes redundant, thanks to the internet we can be sure of this.

Monkeys:1
Humans: 0.

Spr0k3t
March 29th, 2007, 10:58 AM
20 replies in 1 hour... can't wait until the rest of the English speaking world wakes from their slumber.

:popcorn:

Adamant1988
March 29th, 2007, 11:00 AM
20 replies in 1 hour... can't wait until the rest of the English speaking world wakes from their slumber.

:popcorn:

Yeah, sheesh, where is that bury button when you REALLY need it.

Docter
March 29th, 2007, 11:13 AM
I used to use AmigaOS, in the days of win95 but as the years went on more and more features were lacking and then XP came out. I'll be honest, I was impressed with Micro$ofts latest, having trained on win95. But then I began to lose interest in computing in general, I stopped developing my own software, I became a "user" and my PC became, for all intents and purposes, a media centre.

I thought I'd just grown out of my interest but then I installed Ubuntu and was transported back to a time when fixing a problem was about more than reinstalling. I 'm enjoying myself again, I've been playing with SDL and brushing up on my C, had a look at Python, my home network is now totally ubuntu, I was able to use those text configuration files that you hate so much to fine tune my modem (I now have a much more stable connection than I ever had in XP and In the event of disconnection a bash script I knocked up will be called to fix it). I can actually get to my files without waiting for My Computer to scan available hardware.

Even the home version of micro$ofts OS is desigend to be maintained by a proffessional and even then it often ends up with a reinstall. Reinstalling windows, with all the 3rd party software, is no small order even with decent backups.

Turns out that Micro$oft did a good job of killing my interest but after a couple of weeks of ubuntu I'm better. Having said all that it is a fact that some people are better suited to M$. Good luck to them.

Shin_Gouki2501
March 29th, 2007, 11:21 AM
Ok maybe the Headline of the thread is a bit harsh.

But i think a user wants to express his opinion. And i think thats a very big plus u do actually have the possibility here to say to ur OS Creator:
"Hey i like to see X Y in here"


Now of course u cannot do this for every request that pops up here in forums but i think it would not hurt to acknowledge the pro's and con's of both ubuntu/Linux and Windows.

Linux has his disadvantages but is working hard on it. But e.g. Bullet proof X took more than half a year to be implemented.

Upgrade issues are IMO a justified argument he mentioned!
Its ok for me that there are diffrent ways to upgrade ubuntu. But if "the" option to upgrade ur system doesn't work or even crashes ur system, something should be done about it , dont u agree?

so develeopement is coming along :)

teaker1s
March 29th, 2007, 11:41 AM
Having read your ridiculously long rant that says absolutely nothing new, but instead takes old complaints puts them in a much more flame-bait worthy "angry" wrapping, I can say that I've lost brain-cells from start to finish. I find it interesting that instead of simply not using Ubuntu you felt the need to write your anger out in a post on our forums deliberately asking for people to flame you. You deserve what you get.

I will say that I love the way you used "LLW" to attempt to make people feel bad/unoriginal for perfectly legitimate responses to your problems. I would suggest you wait around for feisty, but the fact of the matter is I'm about as sorry to see you go as I am sorry that my aunt's cancer in remission. In other words, good luck, see you, don't let the door hit you, and all that.

I have to love these threads, now if issues were asked and how to resolve, the response would be better and maybe the issues could be resolved.
Windows registry is a pain not a plus this thead appears to be suggesting that ubuntu should be like windows and windows is faultless.:lolflag:

dbbolton
March 29th, 2007, 12:01 PM
Orange is not going to work.

ok, NOW i'm offended !one!!!one!!!!oneone!one!!!

DoctorMO
March 29th, 2007, 12:20 PM
but when people want Linux "rdy for the desktop" integration is an essential component , don't u agree?

Users may want "ready for the desktop" in their radicalism; but programmers want good software and only notice the users when they post in bug reports in the correct places.

To Sum: If you not willing to get involved in the correct place (ubuntu forums is NOT the correct place) then you have no reason to complain, be thankful that it works at all.

TheMono
March 29th, 2007, 12:29 PM
The phrase:

"Now, is Windows secure and stable right out of the box? I really don't know, in fact. From the beginning, I always install anti-virus software, as well as Firefox, and of course all updates. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that once all these updates and programs are installed, Windows is extremely stable and extremely secure. In order to set reasonable benchmarks for Ubuntu, we must compare it with Windows at its absolute best, and not blindfold ourselves with a Windows we make purposely make weaker"

makes no sense. How is a Windows without that done purposely made weaker? Rather, a windows WITH that done is purposely made stronger. If you want to be fair, then test an Ubuntu install out of the box, no tweaking, no security patches, no extra programs - but use the same criteria for Windows. Hell, I'll let you use Windows SP2, since that is what is sold. So install WinSP2, and install Ubuntu, let's say 6.06, that's a year old. Which is more secure and stable?

EDIT: Sorry, as I wrote that, I forgot Vista had been released now lol. The point stands though. Vista out of the box, no tweaks, no extras, vs. Dapper out of the box, no tweaks, no extras.

needtolookatascreenshot
March 29th, 2007, 12:30 PM
Users may want "ready for the desktop" in their radicalism;

That's radical? Good thing you didn't tell all those people who made linux ready for the desktop. (Maybe not for all, but at least for mine).



but programmers want good software and only notice the users when they post in bug reports in the correct places.
That's quite insulting to developers actually, considering how much effort goes into making free software userfriendly.



To Sum: If you not willing to get involved in the correct place (ubuntu forums is NOT the correct place) then you have no reason to complain, be thankful that it works at all.
To sum it up: That's neither the spirit of Ubuntu (go look up what they say about it on the homepage), nor of the linux community as a whole.

Bartender
March 29th, 2007, 12:37 PM
The OP hasn't been back. Maybe this thread oughta be rolled into aysiu's monolith

Spr0k3t
March 29th, 2007, 12:44 PM
The OP hasn't been back. Maybe this thread oughta be rolled into aysiu's monolith

That's what I'm waiting for. It seems this thread is nothing more than Sparta at a state fair.

/me begins to chop away at the pink cotton candy beast

{btw - love the avatar}

afljafa
March 29th, 2007, 12:45 PM
:popcorn:

use a name
March 29th, 2007, 12:59 PM
Windows XP always worked for me. Never had really big troubles, apart from the system (ok, registry (ok ok, system)) getting full of nonsense. But it worked. It works for a lot of people.

But, at some point I needed linux for some things, 8 years ago. It could replace some of the Windows functionality, but I've always used Windows for everything except the things I needed linux for. Things have changed. I use linux all the time now.

Why? Not because it would do all other things better than Windows. Certainly, there are things Windows 'does' better (ie, there are better tools for the job...) To me linux is just good enough at the things Windows would do for me. The big bonus lies in the fact that linux has never stopped to amaze me with real upgrades coming at short intervals. I'm using a system now that's not only good enough for now, but also for the years to come. It's alive. (Ok, that sounds scary...) It just gives me the feeling of a real robust system that really is unstopable.

Ok, the textfile stuff can be quite hard. Especially when X does not work... Anyone tried using SaX (http://sax.berlios.de/) on Ubuntu?
On the other hand, you'll always be able to fix things if you break it. Not like Windows where you depend on some fix-my-installation-when-it's-broken tool that does not work.

All in all, yes, linux requires some effort at this moment in time, but I believe even that to change pretty soon. On the other hand, help is just a Google "howto topic" away, unlike Windows. I registered here, because I expected to have to ask a real lot of questions. I did not have to (check my post count). I barely had any question, and as far as I had 'm, the answers were here.
Main benefits of linux: free, runs on low spec systems (so again 'free') and growing every day, both the system and the application pool.
Learning curve may be an issue, but support certainly isn't.

Shin_Gouki2501
March 29th, 2007, 01:05 PM
and i think a bug report is not the right form for feedback from users to programmers.

I think it happens quite often with Linux/ubuntu that usability comes second to new features.

some comments on the pgrade problem?

ice60
March 29th, 2007, 01:12 PM
i really like linux, and you really like windows. i'll use linux and you can use windows, now everyone's happy http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-638.gif

arkangel
March 29th, 2007, 01:24 PM
Is this guy serious ?

How much did you pay for Windows , or OSX , and see what you can do and what you cannot.

Now tell me how much did you pay for linux (burning included if you wish) and see what you can achieve. Consider there is a release every 6 months (while for crapy Vista they have to wait 5 years) Not bad at all right ?

and do the comparison. If you don't like, you don't like period.

karellen
March 29th, 2007, 01:31 PM
Is this guy serious ?

How much did you pay for Windows , or OSX , and see what you can do and what you cannot.

Now tell me how much did you pay for linux (burning included if you wish) and see what you can achieve. Consider there is a release every 6 months (while for crapy Vista they have to wait 5 years) Not bad at all right ?

and do the comparison. If you don't like, you don't like period.

I'll join you. all this discussion makes me wonder not if linux is ready for the desktop but if every-day-average-user-with-great-expectations is ready for linux.

Shin_Gouki2501
March 29th, 2007, 02:07 PM
Again it seems u bring the responsibility towards the user.

Of course the user needs "also" to change his thinking, because windows != linux.

But if linux want to become better as windows ( and is it about to be just now), linux have to find also solutions were no solution exist in windows.

example:
Video Codecs.

Most people would say , Windows works great with that but thats not half of the truth.
I remember clearly in the "beginig" of MPEG-4 time(and soem still!) many people arround me installed "Codec Packs" to get proper playback for their videos.

In "most" cases this worked, but sometimes they messed up more then got something to work...

easy Codec installation should help on ubuntu to solve this problem. So thats a plus for ubuntu / Linux.

prizrak
March 29th, 2007, 02:07 PM
Jon Lech "DVD John" Johansen isn't in jail and he (...seemingly) created libdvdcss. He's from Norway, where I guess fair use seemed to matter.

"Law is law" is not excuse for a bad law, haven't we seen that with prohibition already? In fact there's already been economic harm from the DMCA so I'm glad to live in a country untouched by it, as of so far.

BTW, rsambuca's right AFAIK: Vista can burn data DVDs now, and I'm pretty sure some editions of it with "Windows DVD Maker" can make dvd movies. XP can only drag n drop CDs without third party software.

DVD Jon never created libdvdcss he created DeCSS that WAS ruled to be illegal in the US (where BLT is from btw). libdvdcss never went through a court ruling and is still questionable. Law is still law, regardless of whether it's good or bad. There is a protocol involved in changing law and it doesn't include breaking it. I for one feel that any pedestrian that tries to cross on a red light or in the middle of the road does not warrant me slowing down even for a millisecond but if I ever ran someone over I could forget about driving at the very least.

Windows DVD maker is a separate piece of software. Basically what I said, if gnomebaker can't handle video DVD-to-DVD copying (and I don't have a dvd burner in a non windows machine to check) then yes that's a problem and one that needs to be solved otherwise it's same as Windows.

Cannonade
March 29th, 2007, 02:19 PM
I would define desktop readiness as being an OS that works with no bugs (as far as that term can go!), can be easily installed on any computer by anyone and can come preinstalled for people who choose not to build their own PCs or use laptops.

I certainly class Ubuntu as desktop ready and I would love to see it preinstalled on laptops and desktops, though I do build my own desktops. However, I do not class Sabayon as desktop ready, because it is too unstable and Beryl is currently only a beta. Once an OS is in its release stage, no longer an alpha, a beta or a pre-release, it is ready for the desktop. I think Sabayon still needs a little more work until it is ready.

seshomaru samma
March 29th, 2007, 02:23 PM
I think Windows XP is a wonderful operating system. I have used it for many years on several boxes at work and rarely got a virus. It has always been very stable for me. Recently I got a patch that breaks Windows protection against changing themes and I have to admit that I made it look quite beautiful.

For over a year though I have been using Linux at home - mostly Ubuntu and recently Debian . To be honest , I enjoy working with text files and tweaking the system with the terminal. I get a much deeper satisfaction from working with Linux . I feel that I have contributed and shaped my own system and it makes me feel great.
Sure I can buy an XP and install it easily ,but what's the fun in that?

on the side note : the price of an XP + Office +antivirus is almost equal to that average salary in China, where I live.

Dual Cortex
March 29th, 2007, 02:38 PM
I hate to agree with his statement on the need of a bulletproof X. It is the most annoying part of Linux.

Nonno Bassotto
March 29th, 2007, 02:52 PM
I will reply to some points at random.

1) Better fonts. I use an external repository for fonts and I get much better fonts than windows + cleartype. Search the forum for fonts. I may agree that they should be installed by default (maybe it's a patent problem?) but the fact is I've not been able to get such good-looking fonts on windows.

2) Text file configuration. I'm one of the people who like this. Since you say there are no reason, I will give you two.

First I can always edit a text file. It's usually more or less understandable, I can make some try and backup it, I can edit it in remote, I can edit it in a console if everything goes wrong. Any graphical tool will not be available on remote or with broken X. It may also happen that you make some change to a program, it stops working and you are not able to undo the change because to do that you need to open the program itself and access the settings.

Second I can save the settings just by copying a single file. Do I have to install a new PC and configure Samba? Or do I reinstall? Wonderful, just copy a text file and all the work is done.

Consider that I had to edit the registry in Windows to be able to see Djvu files. I was still using Internet Explorer then. The only software available to display these files was a browser plugin. I installed it but Explorer refused to open the files anyway. After hours of Googling I found what the problem was. Internet explorer has five security areas, with different security settings. One of these area refers to the files on your own computer and it is hidden. This means you cannot edit it unless you make it appear modifying some key in the registry. But of course you don't know you have to edit it until you have any clue that this hidden area exists at all... And this was not the only case where I had to edit the registry.

3) Mac does not have a learning curve. Is this true? Surely it is nicely presented, but is it really easy to use? As a typical example, I absolutely miss the right click menu. I know I can use the apple button for it, but most apps simply don't use the right click menu system. So when I look for something I know should be there, I'm lost. Maybe after some time using Mac (I don't own one) I will learn that things work differently. But the fact is that THERE IS a learning curve. By the way: can windows get maximised in OSX? It's really annoying to read long pdfs in little windows.

If you are saying that Mac don't have a learning curve because you don't have driver problems... well, try installing Mac on anything else than what it was designed for.

m.musashi
March 29th, 2007, 03:10 PM
...can be easily installed on any computer by anyone...

I think that is asking a bit much of any OS. I would venture to guess the percentage of Windows users who can actually install it from scratch (i.e. not a repair partition set up by the manufacturer) is quite low. In fact, I think Ubuntu is easier to install than Windows but I wouldn't say that if everyone can't install it then it isn't ready. Of course it is a nice goal but not overly practical as most users don't want to be able to install. They want Dell to install it, for example.

JAPrufrock
March 29th, 2007, 03:16 PM
I think you're too close to the trees to see the forest. When I boot up Ubuntu, I feel good. It brings a smile to my face, unlike when I boot up Windows. I know my box won't get infected with a virus. I know I don't have to worry when I buy something on-line. I know when I shut down my box, it will shut down. I know when I connect to other computers via ssh or samba, it will connect. I know, I know, I know ..........etc.

karellen
March 29th, 2007, 03:20 PM
I think you're too close to the trees to see the forest. When I boot up Ubuntu, I feel good. It brings a smile to my face, unlike when I boot up Windows. I know my box won't get infected with a virus. I know I don't have to worry when I buy something on-line. I know when I shut down my box, it will shut down. I know when I connect to other computers via ssh or samba, it will connect. I know, I know, I know ..........etc.

nicely said. I second you :)

ika
March 29th, 2007, 03:23 PM
You can't just say "I mean well, but" and then say something that is very, very, not well.

daynah
March 29th, 2007, 03:48 PM
You can't just say "I mean well, but" and then say something that is very, very, not well.

How can you say something so very very wise, and your post count says 0 beans? If all of the useless things I say is worth 1 bean, then what you said must be worth much more. :)

Windows ate my run32.dll. I virus scanned every week, rarely did one show up, and the night after a virus scan (which was clean), explorer crashed, and run32.dll wasn't there! That's one of just a handful of run32.dlls you can only "fix" by fully reinstalling. So I literally had my windows cd in my hand about to put into the cd slot and then I thought...

"This would be a great time to try that linux thing I tried when I was little." (I used red hat when I was a kid and it stunk).

So I took over my dad's computer for an hour while I figured out how to burn an ISO (I had never burnt a cd in my LIFE folks) and now I'm the happiest kid in the world.

True, MY windows was pretty clean. But Linux never randomly deletes my xorg.conf.

John.Michael.Kane
March 29th, 2007, 04:01 PM
Thread merged....

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 04:07 PM
How can you say something so very very wise, and your post count says 0 beans? If all of the useless things I say is worth 1 bean, then what you said must be worth much more. :)

Windows ate my run32.dll. I virus scanned every week, rarely did one show up, and the night after a virus scan (which was clean), explorer crashed, and run32.dll wasn't there! That's one of just a handful of run32.dlls you can only "fix" by fully reinstalling. So I literally had my windows cd in my hand about to put into the cd slot and then I thought...

"This would be a great time to try that linux thing I tried when I was little." (I used red hat when I was a kid and it stunk).

So I took over my dad's computer for an hour while I figured out how to burn an ISO (I had never burnt a cd in my LIFE folks) and now I'm the happiest kid in the world.

True, MY windows was pretty clean. But Linux never randomly deletes my xorg.conf.
I'm amused to note how many users on these forums are literally Windows refugees.

I moved to Linux because I had no choice: WinMe wouldn't boot any more, and I couldn't afford a new computer. I could afford the 30 bucks my copy of SuSE 9.1 cost (no computer, no internets, no way to make ISOs, kiddies!), and I jumped in the deep end.

I had been an MS-DOS kid, and wasn't afraid of migrating to a new OS if that's what kept me under budget. The migration was a LOT easier than most, I think, because Windows had thoughtfully burned all my bridges behind me. There could be no going back.

linuxmonkey
March 29th, 2007, 04:16 PM
Bravo vf514, well said.

I just started using Ubuntu, and it seems that some people on this forum take offense when you tell them something negative about Ubuntu. What they don't understand is, when you act like this, you put people off from Linux. So far my experience with Ubuntu is like my experience with Win95. I use to have a crash every other day with Win95, applications error, etc. With Ubuntu, I've had the same experience. With WinXP, I maybe have 2-3 BSOD over the 4-5 years I've been using it. Most of the time it just works.

You may ask "If you like WinXP so much, why are you trying Ubuntu?". The answer is simply because I like to try new things. I haven't tried Vista out yet, and I'm not happy about some of the things I hear about it. I was hoping that Ubuntu would be something I could use on a daily basis, but that not possible after using it for the past week. Even a program like Amarok crashed on me multiple times within an hour. This is suppose to be a popular music player for Linux.

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Bravo vf514, well said.

I just started using Ubuntu, and it seems that some people on this forum take offense when you tell them something negative about Ubuntu. What they don't understand is, when you act like this, you put people off from Linux. So far my experience with Ubuntu is like my experience with Win95. I use to have a crash every other day with Win95, applications error, etc. With Ubuntu, I've had the same experience. With WinXP, I maybe have 2-3 BSOD over the 4-5 years I've been using it. Most of the time it just works.

You may ask "If you like WinXP so much, why are you trying Ubuntu?". The answer is simply because I like to try new things. I haven't tried Vista out yet, and I'm not happy about some of the things I hear about it. I was hoping that Ubuntu would be something I could use on a daily basis, but that not possible after using it for the past week. Even a program like Amarok crashed on me multiple times within an hour. This is suppose to be a popular music player for Linux.
if you're running Feisty (the development version, currently in beta): surprise. It WILL crash.

If you need something more stable, please consider running a "stable" version. 6.06 (Dapper) is older and a bit less feature-rich in many cases, but is remarkably stable. 6.10 (Edgy) is. . .well, edgier than Dapper, but infinitely more reliable than Feisty.

Windows users who migrate to Linux bring a bad "beta fever" habit to their new environment. Here's a tip, migrants: Newer is not necessarily better. If you run on the cutting edge, you will bleed, especially on projects that are under heavy development. Keep that in mind when selecting software.

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 04:24 PM
I just started using Ubuntu, and it seems that some people on this forum take offense when you tell them something negative about Ubuntu. There are several reasons people don't take too kindly to criticisms like these of Ubuntu:

1. The criticisms are usually presented in an antagonistic (rather than a friendly) way. In all fairness, your thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=394487) was not antagonistic. I think you got a lot of helpful responses because you ended your post with
Any thoughts/suggestions on what I did wrong? Why is installing standard Nvidia drivers so difficult? What happen to my sound?

2. The criticisms are often wrong or are misperceptions of what really is going on. Blaming support for certain hardware on the Linux developers instead of the hardware manufacturers, or pretending that most things need to be configured by a text file or through the terminal

3. The criticisms are often vague and not really constructive. "Ubuntu needs to be more 'user-friendly.'" Great. How?

4. The criticisms generalize about Linux problems that are specific to Ubuntu. Other distros can automount internal hard drivers and partitions with the correct partitions. Other distros include proprietary codecs. Not every problem you experience with Ubuntu is a Linux problem.

5. The criticisms talk about Ubuntu as if its development is stagnant, not taking into account that many of things people think developers are sitting on their thumbs about... the developers are actually fixing! Look at Reasons why I aint using ubuntu on my personal desktop... (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=891), which was started in October 2004. All of that stuff has been fixed. Do you think the OP had anything to do with that? I doubt it.

6. We've heard all these criticisms before. They're not new. In fact, there's even an FAQ about it (although people rarely read it): https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

7. A lot of critics like to make some long whining post instead of actually doing something constructive like contributing documentation, donating money, filing bug reports, etc.

It isn't that people think Ubuntu is perfect. It's just that whining rants have rarely resulted in anything productive. For more details, read What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference... (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741)

Oddjob74
March 29th, 2007, 06:09 PM
Just a question wondering eactly what the average Ubuntu user does! I switched to ubuntu a week or so ago and have been glued to my laptop for almost every free minute I have had. Doing what? Trying to get my damn webcam working! Amongst other things related to basic internet use! I can imagine that no-one who is competant with this OS actually works!!! As I can imagine it would take me years to grasp this OS! And unfortunately I work, so translated into everyday free time I would be at least 50 before I could understand how to install a webcam! I am presently looking for my XP disc! :(

lamalex
March 29th, 2007, 06:13 PM
I spend my time surfing the web, playing games, talking to my friends. Ubuntu for me was way easy to set up and I have some nasty hardware on my laptop (broadcom wireless and ATI x200m graphics). Usually (not always) a hard to set up Ubuntu is not Ubuntu's fault but the user not troubleshooting efficiently. I'm also a full time student in college and have a job where I work 20 hours a week, a girlfriend, a band, and friends.

compmodder26
March 29th, 2007, 06:14 PM
I've never had trouble getting my components to work with Ubuntu. But I don't have a webcam so, I can't help you with that. To answer your question though. Yes I do work, as a Programmer/Server Administrator, and I consider myself very competent with the OS. In my free time, I try to help out on here.

kosmic
March 29th, 2007, 06:15 PM
Simply answer Support hardware manufacturers that give the spefications of theirs hardware, and don't buy crappy hardware like winmodems...


Last but not least linux is not windows

spinflick
March 29th, 2007, 06:16 PM
It says on your profile you joined in March? So when you first started using windows you where a windows genius in a couple of weeks?

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 06:20 PM
Just a question wondering eactly what the average Ubuntu user does! I switched to ubuntu a week or so ago and have been glued to my laptop for almost every free minute I have had. Doing what? Trying to get my damn webcam working! Amongst other things related to basic internet use! I can imagine that no-one who is competant with this OS actually works!!! As I can imagine it would take me years to grasp this OS! And unfortunately I work, so translated into everyday free time I would be at least 50 before I could understand how to install a webcam! I am presently looking for my XP disc! :(
I'm sure the point of your post was just to blow off some steam, vent your frustration, etc., so I'm merging your thread into this one (the perfect place to blow off steam).

Now that that's out of your system, it's good to see you're actually asking for help in a support thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=395743).

Patrick K
March 29th, 2007, 06:23 PM
Working on the OS seems to be the major thing most user do, at least judging from this forum. I suspect, though, 90%+ Ubuntu/Linux users never mess with the OS after the first few hours of setup. Of course, we rarely see those users here. They are happily doing whatever it is they do. Here we see only the ones with problems.

koenn
March 29th, 2007, 06:33 PM
T
6. We've heard all these criticisms before. They're not new. In fact, there's even an FAQ about it (although people rarely read it): https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

I've just read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ for the very first time. It's amazing. It could be the standard reply to - I'd say - 80 or 90 % of the usual Desktop Readiness criticism posts - or is that too much rtfm style ?

spinflick
March 29th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Working on the OS seems to be the major thing most user do, at least judging from this forum. I suspect, though, 90%+ Ubuntu/Linux users never mess with the OS after the first few hours of setup. Of course, we rarely see those users here. They are happily doing whatever it is they do. Here we see only the ones with problems.

Amazing how some people can know exactly what everyone else is or isnt doing.

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 06:41 PM
I've just read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ for the very first time. It's amazing. It could be the standard reply to - I'd say - 80 or 90 % of the usual Desktop Readiness criticism posts - or is that too much rtfm style ?
Most people who complain just want to feel heard. They don't really care if the points have been made before and/or countered before. Unfortunately, most also don't care to actually do something to make Ubuntu better. They'd rather just complain that Ubuntu isn't better or doesn't live up to their expectations.

aysiu
March 29th, 2007, 06:44 PM
Amazing how some people can know exactly what everyone else is or isnt doing.
It makes only logical sense.

One should not hang around the baggage claim customer service area at an airport and then assume that all or even most passengers on airlines have their luggage lost in transit.

These forums serve two main purposes:
1. Offering support to those experiencing problems
2. Offering tips on how to tweak your desktop to look cool or do something cool

Then there's a third purpose that's an after-thought:
3. Providing a place for forum users doing #1 and #2 to "shoot the breeze" and talk about other stuff.

If all you cared about was a working desktop and you had one, why would you hang out here on these forums and do #1 and #2?

airtonix
March 29th, 2007, 07:12 PM
muwahaha the average user?....what ever they did with any other system they first got ..... really i think my friend uses his $3000 g5 to fish for murlocks. or was that gnome rouges? gah must be warsong then......

really an average user....well winston wakes up and does stretches infront of this paperclip that constantly reminds him hes late for his 2minutes of hate, down at the superrbowl.

prizrak
March 29th, 2007, 07:48 PM
Just a question wondering eactly what the average Ubuntu user does! I switched to ubuntu a week or so ago and have been glued to my laptop for almost every free minute I have had. Doing what? Trying to get my damn webcam working! Amongst other things related to basic internet use! I can imagine that no-one who is competant with this OS actually works!!! As I can imagine it would take me years to grasp this OS! And unfortunately I work, so translated into everyday free time I would be at least 50 before I could understand how to install a webcam! I am presently looking for my XP disc! :(

I started using Ubuntu when I worked part time and attending school full time. Now I work full time. Never really have any problems with hardware. I've been using Feisty since Alpha 2 and had no issue with it whatsoever. Up until this laptop I never really bothered to research my hardware to make sure it worked with Linux. Sure I don't use a webcam but I suspect there are webcams that work just fine with Ubuntu and you should have probably looked first.

As far as what I do. I browse the net, talk on IM (I don't use voice and stuff so I really don't see any issues there), check my e-mail, play silly games, program, type stuff up, download and transfer music. Just about anything anyone else would do with a computer.

Brunellus
March 29th, 2007, 07:54 PM
Just a question wondering eactly what the average Ubuntu user does! I switched to ubuntu a week or so ago and have been glued to my laptop for almost every free minute I have had. Doing what? Trying to get my damn webcam working! Amongst other things related to basic internet use! I can imagine that no-one who is competant with this OS actually works!!! As I can imagine it would take me years to grasp this OS! And unfortunately I work, so translated into everyday free time I would be at least 50 before I could understand how to install a webcam! I am presently looking for my XP disc! :(
What do I do?

* Edit digital photos using GIMP.

* Scan documents and images using with xsane.

* Read e-mails and sync my old Palm IIIxe with Evolution.

* Practice my LaTeX skills.

* Lurk on usenet with slrn

* Chat with my friends on Gaim (aim, jabber, gtalk, msn, yahoo) and IRC

* Play the odd game of Ur-Quan Masters

* Type up documents using OpenOffice and/or AbiWord

* Check up on my RSS feeds with Liferea

* Watch videos with Totem-Xine

* Listen to my (large) collection of music (ogg vorbis, naturally) with Rhythmbox

Oh, and

* Use Firefox to read the ubuntuforums.

stiivn
March 30th, 2007, 01:36 AM
Sorry ubuntu, I really wanted to like you after hearing all those good things, but the reality turned out to be quite a computer nightmare for me!

Let me explain:

I download the ubuntu iso, burn it and boot the installation program. Installation is fast and easy, click next next next and you're done. After logging in I notice my network card, sound card and other things are not working, thus no internet, bugger ...

Maybe I can fix it using the system menu, but lo and behold, as soon as I try to scroll or move a window everything turns into a 1fps slide show almost to the point of freezing my system! I mean wtf? It's not like I'm using a 386 :confused:

Back in windoze I try to look for troubleshooting info but don't find anything useful and decide to reboot into ubuntu, thinking I missed some config option or something.

Now comes the funky part: after rebooting my machine (from ubuntu) my keyboard doesn't work anymore, even the bios tells me: no keyboard found!

So what happens is I get to the grub bootscreen but can't select anything until the countdown finishes and ubuntu loads by default. Once ubuntu is loaded the keyboard works again, but if I turn off my machine and reboot the keyboard is ****** again :lolflag:

So I'm stuck with an unusable ubuntu and can't boot from cd, cause all of my boot cds require a "press any key to boot from cd ...". In a last resort I figure that changing grub's boot order in the config files might at least get me windows back. Of course you gotta be root to change the files, but you can't login as root. Again time lost until I find the option that enables root login through the welcome screen.

Finally I can change the default boot option to 2 (0 is ubuntu, 1 is ubuntu safe mode, so 2 must be windows right?). However it turns out 2 is just the title line above the windows boot option, netting me a nice boot error.

So now I'm left with an unbootable system and with a ****** up keyboard, great! :mad:

With everything else having failed, I desperately try the rough approach and open up my case, look for the bios jumper and reset it (not having fun at all, cause the jumper is hidden behind stuff I have to take out first). Said and done, I reboot and the keyboard works again! Of course I boot right away into windows recovery console and hit "fixmbr" to get rid of grub and all the annoyance!

All in all I wasted 4-5 hours for nothing and ask myself why oh why?
Isn't ubuntu supposed to be sort of stable? Or was I just extremely unlucky with having hardware that's problematic with ubuntu?

My spec if that helps:


Intel Core 2 Duo
ATI 1950xt
Creative XiFi Soundcard
Onboard network
and a logitech keyboard :lolflag:

jeffc313
March 30th, 2007, 01:39 AM
your BIOS does not register the keyboard? that is odd. must just be your hw setup.

stiivn
March 30th, 2007, 01:45 AM
I'm no pro at system level stuff, but the keyboard always worked and got registered on boot up, only after an ubuntu reboot something changed that caused it to fail ...

zorkerz
March 30th, 2007, 01:46 AM
Man sorry you hand so much trouble. It is deffinately not supposed to be that painful. Im not sure what happened to your keyboard it sounds like the bios setting got changed some how. I did not realize ubuntu changed anything in the bios. Is it supposed to anyone. Im guessing you may have gotten a corrupt iso or badly burnt disc somehow.
Check this out to md5sum the iso before you burn it and check integrity of the disc after you burn it. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HowToMD5SUM
hope this does not turn you off forever. You could also search around an the forums and see if others have had problems with your comp.
good luck

john_spiral
March 30th, 2007, 01:46 AM
get into your BIOS to see that the keyboard is present and detected. Set the CD-ROM as first boot device.

boot off CD -> get into terminal

post results of below command:

more /boot/grub/menu.lst

and

sudo fdisk -l

problems like this will give you a better understanding of how the system functions.

DoctorMO
March 30th, 2007, 02:31 AM
The first problem was obviously a run away process (slow down) posibly corrupt memory, or iso or cd burn (don't use cheap cds!) the second problem was that he's probably using a usb keyboard. some bioses have setting to enabled or disable usb keyboards. I plugged in a standard ps2 keyboard to get my machine back after I was messing about with it.

The third problem is that your messing about with it like you think you know what your doing and you don't. either your reading a SuSE help book, you have bad advice from somewhere or your a rare linux user that doesn't really know what your doing. in this case it have been better to seek help instead of break your system further.

Considering that this is such a rare occasion I will ask you the impossible. to forgive the human made machine and the human made software and bare no grudge against it; it means you no frustration and I think you should give it a chance to serve you better.

I hope I hear from you again.

karellen
March 30th, 2007, 02:57 AM
it's your hardware, not ubuntu

kerry_s
March 30th, 2007, 03:21 AM
Sounds like you got a "built for windows system" blaming the free OS is weak.

dbbolton
March 30th, 2007, 03:28 AM
ok, let me get this straight. you tried software libre, which basically has no warranty, didn't like it, and now, instead of just going back to microsoft, you have to whine about it to the community. is that it ?

TBOL3
March 30th, 2007, 04:01 AM
A. I THINK it's your ATI card that's giving you a slow fps.

B. To the community, instead of criticizing him, we could try to help (However I do wish there wasn't as much swearing).

C. Stiivn probably won't be back here. He just wanted to tell us he didn't like it.

dbbolton
March 30th, 2007, 04:52 AM
A. I THINK it's your ATI card that's giving you a slow fps.

B. To the community, instead of criticizing him, we could try to help (However I do wish there wasn't as much swearing).

C. Stiivn probably won't be back here. He just wanted to tell us he didn't like it.
it's not my job to convince people to switch operating systems. some things are not meant to be. if he were genuinely concerned, he could have been more diplomatic. personally, i think he just wanted to vent. i don't need to read others' venting on this forum. that's why xanga was created.

aysiu
March 30th, 2007, 05:01 AM
dbbolton's partially correct here. This was not written as a support request but a rant. If the OP had asked for help, she or he would have gotten it.

However, there is a place to put venting on this forum--the Linux Desktop Readiness thread. Of course, if you use Xanga for it, I won't mind...

dbbolton
March 30th, 2007, 05:04 AM
dbbolton's partially correct here. This was not written as a support request but a rant. If the OP had asked for help, she or he would have gotten it.

However, there is a place to put venting on this forum--the Linux Desktop Readiness thread. Of course, if you use Xanga for it, I won't mind...
yeah, this thread has become a kind of jail for that sort of thing. if he originally posted here, i never would have noticed, but his individual rant has been merged here. i think we can both agree that the café is not a place to post your personal beef with ubuntu- EXCEPT in this thread.

aysiu
March 30th, 2007, 05:15 AM
yeah, this thread has become a kind of jail for that sort of thing. if he originally posted here, i never would have noticed, but his individual rant has been merged here. i think we can both agree that the café is not a place to post your personal beef with ubuntu- EXCEPT in this thread. Yes, agree with this last part.

Whether this is a "jail" or not depends on how you define a jail. We actually have a Jail, which most people can't see or post in. That is separate from this thread. I like to think of this thread as more of a centralized location for arguing about Ubuntu or Linux being "ready" or not.

It makes it easy to find such posts if you're interested and easy to avoid such posts if you're not interested. Unlike support requests, where each situation is unique, complaints about Ubuntu and Linux tend to blend all together and be rehashes of the same arguments and counter-arguments.

cowlip
March 30th, 2007, 10:41 AM
Sorry
bugger ...


Back in windoze I try to look for troubleshooting info but don't find anything useful and decide to reboot into ubuntu, thinking I missed some config option or something.

Now comes the funky part: after rebooting my machine (from ubuntu) my keyboard doesn't work anymore, even the bios tells me: no keyboard found!

So what happens is I get to the grub bootscreen but can't select anything until the countdown finishes and ubuntu loads by default. Once ubuntu is loaded the keyboard works again, but if I turn off my machine and reboot the keyboard is ****** again :lolflag:

So I'm stuck with an unusable ubuntu and can't boot from cd, cause all of my boot cds require a "press any key to boot from cd ...". In a last resort I figure that changing grub's boot order in the config files might at least get me windows back. Of course you gotta be root to change the files, but you can't login as root. Again time lost until I find the option that enables root login through the welcome screen.

Finally I can change the default boot option to 2 (0 is ubuntu, 1 is ubuntu safe mode, so 2 must be windows right?). However it turns out 2 is just the title line above the windows boot option, netting me a nice boot error.

So now I'm left with an unbootable system and with a ****** up keyboard, great! :mad:

With everything else having failed, I desperately try the rough approach and open up my case, look for the bios jumper and reset it (not having fun at all, cause the jumper is hidden behind stuff I have to take out first). Said and done, I reboot and the keyboard works again! Of course I boot right away into windows recovery console and hit "fixmbr" to get rid of grub and all the annoyance!

All in all I wasted 4-5 hours for nothing and ask myself why oh why?
Isn't ubuntu supposed to be sort of stable? Or was I just extremely unlucky with having hardware that's problematic with ubuntu?

My spec if that helps:


Intel Core 2 Duo
ATI 1950xt
Creative XiFi Soundcard
Onboard network
and a logitech keyboard :lolflag:


1) Your keyboard doesn't work anymore: so reset the escd in your bios, use another keyboard to get into your bios first of all. This isn't Ubuntu's fault, I've had dual boot Windows installs do the same thing. It's something to do with the bios not detecting hardware/peripheral changes correctly and not communicating with the OS. You needn't have opened up your PC for this, I have this same situation and a google search fixed my problem.

2) As for instability, try adding a 'noapic' or 'acpi=off' option to your kernel boots when you load grub. You can edit the boot options by pressing 'e' at the grub boot screen

Soarer
March 30th, 2007, 12:13 PM
I spend my time surfing the web, playing games, talking to my friends. Ubuntu for me was way easy to set up and I have some nasty hardware on my laptop (broadcom wireless and ATI x200m graphics). Usually (not always) a hard to set up Ubuntu is not Ubuntu's fault but the user not troubleshooting efficiently. I'm also a full time student in college and have a job where I work 20 hours a week, a girlfriend, a band, and friends.

So you just come on here to boast I guess :lolflag:

toasted
March 30th, 2007, 01:08 PM
So, are there widescreen resolutions yet? I got a 22" widescreen a few months ago and there werent any drivers that supported it.

prizrak
March 30th, 2007, 02:05 PM
So, are there widescreen resolutions yet? I got a 22" widescreen a few months ago and there werent any drivers that supported it.

As far as I understand how it works you can set any resolution that your video cards and monitor can support in xorg.conf. Xorg 7.3 should do it all automatically through some plug and play magic (no idea how they are doing it).

Doughy
April 2nd, 2007, 04:09 AM
I have been a windows user since I knew how to use a computer. Recently, I decided to give Ubuntu an honest try to see if it could become my operating system of choice. This write-up is an honest critique from a new user. I concluded that Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution is not ready for typical home users for the following reasons. If anyone has counter-arguments to my reasoning, I would love to hear your response. I am no Linux expert, and if I am mis-informed, please correct me. My critique is not meant to drag down, but rather to encourage a solution to the issues that I have noticed.

Let me disclaim myself by saying that I really WANT Ubuntu to succeed. I think that we need a shake up for windows/Mac OS, and Ubuntu is providing just that. I hope to someday use Linux exclusively. There were a lot of things that I really LIKED about Ubuntu, including the installer which was phenomenal.

First of all, installations of software packages are too big of a hassle. The fact that entire programs such as Automatix have been written to install things for you is a testament to the fact that things are not where they need to be. If I want a program, I should be able to go to the software website, download, and install. I shouldn't have to use a search engine to find specific installation instructions for my programs. I understand that the Add/Remove utility in Ubuntu eases much of this burden, but it is unrealistic to think that Ubuntu will be able to update their repository for all software that someone wants to use. The entire Linux community needs to create a standard on how things are installed.

Secondly, with all the different distributions of Linux that are being used, it will be harder and harder to keep up driver support. Is it really fair to ask hardware vendors to provide drivers for every Linux distribution that arises? I understand that often just one driver will do the trick for many different distros, but with the ever growing Linux genealogy, we're diverging rather than converging. An official standard needs to be created that can "certify" a certain distro or software package. Developers could make sure that their programs are compliant so that their stuff could be run on any compliant distro.

Some of you may disagree, but Ubuntu on my computer is actually much less stable than my windows XP. Over the past few days using ubuntu, things have crashed fairly often. One particular crash when trying to fix my sound card caused me to have to completely reinstall Ubuntu. I also notice that daily tasks aren't executing as quickly as in windows. For all the talk that Linux is much more stable, I can't say that I agree based on my experience.

old_geekster
April 2nd, 2007, 04:43 AM
I can tell by your tone that you truly are giving constructive criticizm.:( This is or should be very acceptable on any forum. Here are my counter-points.


First of all, installations of software packages are too big of a hassle. The fact that entire programs such as Automatix have been written to install things for you is a testament to the fact that things are not where they need to be. If I want a program, I should be able to go to the software website, download, and install. I shouldn't have to use a search engine to find specific installation instructions for my programs. I understand that the Add/Remove utility in Ubuntu eases much of this burden, but it is unrealistic to think that Ubuntu will be able to update their repository for all software that someone wants to use. The entire Linux community needs to create a standard on how things are installed.

Just the fact that "Automatix" is available and FREE is a major advance. If you had never used another OS, you would be astounded at how Linux functions.

How many times have you had to reboot after installing a program? Too me, this is a great trade-off. I have been using Edgy for a month and have installed numerous programs. I have had to reboot a total of 4 times. These were for major upgrades.


Secondly, with all the different distributions of Linux that are being used, it will be harder and harder to keep up driver support. Is it really fair to ask hardware vendors to provide drivers for every Linux distribution that arises? I understand that often just one driver will do the trick for many different distros, but with the ever growing Linux genealogy, we're diverging rather than converging. An official standard needs to be created that can "certify" a certain distro or software package. Developers could make sure that their programs are compliant so that their stuff could be run on any compliant distro.

This is a good point. I agree that it would be great if all of the distros would use the same drivers. However, there always has been one or two distros that have taken front stage. These are the ones that have the best tech support and driver support. The best thing to do is find the top distro, Ubuntu, and stick with it.


Some of you may disagree, but Ubuntu on my computer is actually much less stable than my windows XP. Over the past few days using ubuntu, things have crashed fairly often. One particular crash when trying to fix my sound card caused me to have to completely reinstall Ubuntu. I also notice that daily tasks aren't executing as quickly as in windows. For all the talk that Linux is much more stable, I can't say that I agree based on my experience.

Think about this for a moment. The rig that you are using was actually designed to run Windows. The fact that Linux even runs is a great feat.

I spent 5 months researching components for the rig in my "signature". Of course, it was built to run XP, but Edgy runs faster because the components are high-end.

I have XP Pro on one drive and Edgy on the other. I haven't had to run an anti-virus program since I began using Edgy. I run AVG every day on XP. I have two files that have been quarantined in the past week. I haven't had time to deal with them.

Since you seem to being having issues with Ubuntu, it might be a good decision to try a different distro that will suit your rig better.

Again, I respect your opinions, but I had to respond because I have had a great experience with Edgy/Beryl.

julian67
April 2nd, 2007, 04:52 AM
I have been a windows user since I knew how to use a computer. Recently, I decided to give Ubuntu an honest try to see if it could become my operating system of choice. This write-up is an honest critique from a new user. I concluded that Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution is not ready for typical home users for the following reasons. If anyone has counter-arguments to my reasoning, I would love to hear your response. I am no Linux expert, and if I am mis-informed, please correct me. My critique is not meant to drag down, but rather to encourage a solution to the issues that I have noticed.

Let me disclaim myself by saying that I really WANT Ubuntu to succeed. I think that we need a shake up for windows/Mac OS, and Ubuntu is providing just that. I hope to someday use Linux exclusively. There were a lot of things that I really LIKED about Ubuntu, including the installer which was phenomenal.

First of all, installations of software packages are too big of a hassle. The fact that entire programs such as Automatix have been written to install things for you is a testament to the fact that things are not where they need to be. If I want a program, I should be able to go to the software website, download, and install. I shouldn't have to use a search engine to find specific installation instructions for my programs. I understand that the Add/Remove utility in Ubuntu eases much of this burden, but it is unrealistic to think that Ubuntu will be able to update their repository for all software that someone wants to use. The entire Linux community needs to create a standard on how things are installed.

Secondly, with all the different distributions of Linux that are being used, it will be harder and harder to keep up driver support. Is it really fair to ask hardware vendors to provide drivers for every Linux distribution that arises? I understand that often just one driver will do the trick for many different distros, but with the ever growing Linux genealogy, we're diverging rather than converging. An official standard needs to be created that can "certify" a certain distro or software package. Developers could make sure that their programs are compliant so that their stuff could be run on any compliant distro.

Some of you may disagree, but Ubuntu on my computer is actually much less stable than my windows XP. Over the past few days using ubuntu, things have crashed fairly often. One particular crash when trying to fix my sound card caused me to have to completely reinstall Ubuntu. I also notice that daily tasks aren't executing as quickly as in windows. For all the talk that Linux is much more stable, I can't say that I agree based on my experience.

You've got quite a lot of things very wrong, through misunderstanding some basic concepts.

First the big one, driver support. Different distributions do not require different drivers. Once drivers are integrated into the kernel, they are maintained from that point on by the kernel devs. For the hardware manufacturers this means that once they or someone else has compiled a suitably functional and licensed driver they can stop worrying about it. Changes needed for new kernel versions will be handled by the Linux kernel devs automatically. For the user it means that once a device is supported they can use any distribution and know it will work. No install OS, find driver, install driver and reboot like MS. It just works immediately on installing the OS or plugging in the device. If you've installed a few printers or scanners on MS you'll immediately appreciate this.

Software installation. Nobody is obliged to use Automatix or easy ubuntu etc and as far as I can tell these scripts are entirely superfluous. I haven't used them but I have full multimedia support, mostly enabled by Gstreamer 10 and plug ins, all available from the repositories for most distributions (all the ones I tried anyway, openSuse, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware etc). It's easy enough to get Flash installed without some silly 3rd party script. Searching out scripts or binary packages online and obtaining them from unknown untrusted sources and installing them is dumb and almost never necessary. the big distributions have an incredible range of software, tens of thousands of supported packages. Some distributions aim for total stability and the packages are a little old but well tested, patched and secure. Others aim to have the latest thing and no promises and then there's everything in between. Afaik every distro besides Slackware, Gentoo, and Linux From Scratch (if you can call that a distro...I doubt it) have package managers which handle obtaining and installing the software and all its dependencies, and usually take care of security patches too. all you have to do is select the package. What might be difficult for someone coming from Windows is that you don't know any of the applications or exactly what to look for! But package managers have good search functions and you can always ask someone.

Speed: Like any OS out of the box you need to configure a few things to get it just right for you. Same as in Windows you would manage the running services, the start up programs, remove the stuff you don't need etc. You need to do the same with Ubuntu. A clean install of XP or particularly 2000 feels very fast. Add your software firewall and AV and watch it slow down. Notice how it hardly ever boots everything with the same sequence twice and if you're unlucky it boots with lots of stuff you don't remember installing, and how after a few months it's slow slow slow. When I boot into Ubuntu or openSuse it's exactly the same very time. Not exciting like windows at all.

Stability: it seems possible to me that you maybe installed and configured Ubuntu for the first time? How many things in life did you get exactly right first time? yeah me too. It takes a while. You probably didn't experience these teething difficulties with Windows because someone else set up the OS and the applications for you, and now you have plenty of experience it feels like second nature, but it isn't. You had to learn all that stuff you know about Windows and you'll have to learn a lot about any other OS you use.
Personally I don't think Ubuntu 6.10 is anywhere near being the most stable distro and it doesn't claim to be either. If you want stability use Dapper LTS, not Edgy, the clue is in the name :lolflag: Or use one of the enterprise or enterprise led distros like Suse/openSuse which seems rock solid stable to me, or Fedora or bite the bullet and install Slackware and get learning.

You would probably get a lot of benefit from sticking with it for a while because it takes some time for stuff to make sense and if Ubuntu doesn't do it for you try a different distro. I'd very strongly recommend openSuse for someone switching from MS into a completely new environment, they have really polished off a lot of the rough edges and have a great selection of up to date packages, while I find that plenty of Edgy ones are old, some are even older than the packages in Debian stable. There is a lot of hype around Ubuntu and mostly it is totally deserved but some of it is just skillful marketing. It isn't the be all and end all of distros and there are others out there equally innovative and at least as professional. You do have a choice of some extremely good ones to pick from. Which one suits you you'll have to find out for yourself.

aysiu
April 2nd, 2007, 05:00 AM
If anyone has counter-arguments to my reasoning, I would love to hear your response. I've merged your thread into the larger discussion about Linux "desktop readiness." Read the whole thing or even several portions, and you'll see plenty of concurring and counter-arguments to your reasoning.

You can also read more here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CriticismFAQ

Doughy
April 2nd, 2007, 06:09 AM
You've got quite a lot of things very wrong, through misunderstanding some basic concepts.

First the big one, driver support. Different distributions do not require different drivers. Once drivers are integrated into the kernel, they are maintained from that point on by the kernel devs. For the hardware manufacturers this means that once they or someone else has compiled a suitably functional and licensed driver they can stop worrying about it. Changes needed for new kernel versions will be handled by the Linux kernel devs automatically. For the user it means that once a device is supported they can use any distribution and know it will work. No install OS, find driver, install driver and reboot like MS. It just works immediately on installing the OS or plugging in the device. If you've installed a few printers or scanners on MS you'll immediately appreciate this.


So, if I am a hardware company, how do I choose to write the original driver then? With all the different distros possibly modifying their own kernel, which one do I choose? What guarantees that if the driver works on one distro, it will work on another?

rsambuca
April 2nd, 2007, 06:21 AM
So, if I am a hardware company, how do I choose to write the original driver then? With all the different distros possibly modifying their own kernel, which one do I choose? What guarantees that if the driver works on one distro, it will work on another?

Welcome to ubuntu! I hope we can get everything straightened out for you in a timely fashion. With regards to this last question, I think you seem to be under the impression that there are many different kernels out there. In fact, all of the different linux distributions use the same linux kernel (although some are using older versions of the kernel). I think the most current version of the linux kernel is 2.6.20.#. The '2' is the kernel version number, the '6' is the major revision number, the '20' is the minor revision number, and the last number refers to specific fixes, I think. Once a driver has been integrated into the current kernel, it will be there going forward, and thus it will work with all distro's based on that kernel number or later versions.

bikeboy
April 2nd, 2007, 06:23 AM
The vanilla kernel is distro independent, that's what you would write for. The linux.org version essentially. Then the distro maintainers will integrate that version and apply their own changes where necessary, utilising the drivers present in the vanilla kernel they originally obtained.

Doughy
April 2nd, 2007, 06:26 AM
I see. I WAS under the impression that the kernel was different for each distro. Thanks for the clarification.

rsambuca
April 2nd, 2007, 06:33 AM
I forgot to address your point about the software packages. I think there are very few programs that you won't find an equivalent for in the ubuntu Synaptic Package Manager. If you go to System -> Administration -> Synaptic Package Manager, enter your password and you just click on the program(s) you want to install. Press OK, and the program, with all of its dependencies, is installed for you. Even your Applications menu should be updated for most graphical based programs. The only time I have had to "go fishing" for programs and manually compile them is when I have chosen to do so just to learn or try something.

I think you will be impressed with Synaptic if you give it a chance. Once you open it up, try searching for words you want, and you should have a few options.

cowlip
April 2nd, 2007, 07:40 AM
.

darrenm
April 2nd, 2007, 08:40 AM
I have been a windows user since I knew how to use a computer. Recently, I decided to give Ubuntu an honest try to see if it could become my operating system of choice. This write-up is an honest critique from a new user. I concluded that Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution is not ready for typical home users for the following reasons. If anyone has counter-arguments to my reasoning, I would love to hear your response. I am no Linux expert, and if I am mis-informed, please correct me. My critique is not meant to drag down, but rather to encourage a solution to the issues that I have noticed.

Echoed again, thanks for the politeness and correct tone.


Let me disclaim myself by saying that I really WANT Ubuntu to succeed. I think that we need a shake up for windows/Mac OS, and Ubuntu is providing just that. I hope to someday use Linux exclusively. There were a lot of things that I really LIKED about Ubuntu, including the installer which was phenomenal.

First of all, installations of software packages are too big of a hassle. The fact that entire programs such as Automatix have been written to install things for you is a testament to the fact that things are not where they need to be. If I want a program, I should be able to go to the software website, download, and install.

You can. You download a .deb file or just click it on a website and it will run directly in the software installer.
e.g. http://www.nomachine.com/download-package.php?Prod_Id=1 and http://wine.budgetdedicated.com/archive/index.html . Any self-respecting modern Linux package that isn't in the repositories needs to have Ubuntu .deb files available on their website.


I shouldn't have to use a search engine to find specific installation instructions for my programs. I understand that the Add/Remove utility in Ubuntu eases much of this burden, but it is unrealistic to think that Ubuntu will be able to update their repository for all software that someone wants to use.

Why? I've (almost) never had to get anything outside of the repositories. The exception is NX who provide .deb files on their website so I just click and they install from firefox.


The entire Linux community needs to create a standard on how things are installed.

Yep, we are trying. Theres this one package management system that provides everything you could ever want; bulletproof upgrades, versioning, one-click install, advanced dependency resolving etc. The files end in .deb ;)


Secondly, with all the different distributions of Linux that are being used, it will be harder and harder to keep up driver support.

I disagree there. This has been a problem in the past but its now pretty much just a one horse race for desktop Linux. It was that Fedora Core was a serious competitor to Ubuntu but thats not the case now. Think Linux == Ubuntu so therefore if manufacturers build and test for Ubuntu they've pretty much got the widest Linux useage covered.


Is it really fair to ask hardware vendors to provide drivers for every Linux distribution that arises?

If they want to then they have to provide source to the kernel maintainers. If they just want to support the community then they just need to release specs. If they want to ensure everything works on the most popular distribution which is showing no signs of slowing down then they just need to make Ubuntu packages.


I understand that often just one driver will do the trick for many different distros, but with the ever growing Linux genealogy, we're diverging rather than converging.

It's really not. It's converging. If you look at any new Linux distribution created now, they're all based on Ubuntu. There's no point to starting a new distro from scratch as Ubuntu already has everything in place and hobbyists can base from that.


An official standard needs to be created that can "certify" a certain distro or software package. Developers could make sure that their programs are compliant so that their stuff could be run on any compliant distro.

I think a Ubuntu-certified standard has been talked about. Not sure of the current status.


Some of you may disagree, but Ubuntu on my computer is actually much less stable than my windows XP. Over the past few days using ubuntu, things have crashed fairly often.

Hardware support is a pain when hardware is only tested and fudged to work with Windows, Dell and OEM pre-installs is about to rapidly change that though.


One particular crash when trying to fix my sound card caused me to have to completely reinstall Ubuntu. I also notice that daily tasks aren't executing as quickly as in windows. For all the talk that Linux is much more stable, I can't say that I agree based on my experience.

Thats fair enough, its not going to suit everyone on every piece of hardware. Do whatever is best for you based on all your values. I have only Intel hardware in my laptop and it runs Ubuntu like a dream, others may not be as lucky.

prizrak
April 2nd, 2007, 02:31 PM
Try using Feisty, if you are feeling adventurous you can try it out now while it's in Beta if not wait for two weeks until it goes final. In my experience it is extremely stable and fast. Seems like everything just plain works without problems (even the tablet).

aysiu
April 3rd, 2007, 07:19 PM
I've moved the entire Ubuntu == Linux discussion to its own thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=400370).

mykalreborn
April 3rd, 2007, 07:36 PM
An official standard needs to be created that can "certify" a certain distro or software package. Developers could make sure that their programs are compliant so that their stuff could be run on any compliant distro.

i see what you mean, but that's the whole thing that made linux work: it's bazaar-like comunity (this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond) guy wrote a book on this called "The cathedral and the bazaar"). linux is not controlled by one man, or one organization even. linux just is. it's whole existance is fueled by an ever increasing number of enthusiasts - although there are plenty of people who get paid - who contribute to it freely. what you're suggesting is, in a way, the cathedral.
also, linux is quite stable and what you've experienced is probably a lack of hardware support. but linux really is more stable. there was a thread on this forum where people were showing off their web servers and they were bragging who's system had the most "uptime" (which means how much did a system run continously, without being rebooted once) and let me tell you there were a lot of them showing off with 3 digit numbers. :D

aysiu
April 3rd, 2007, 07:38 PM
From the LSB website (http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB):
The Linux Standard Base delivers interoperability between applications and the Linux operating system. Currently all major distributions comply with the LSB and many major application vendors, like MySQL, RealNetworks and SAP, are certifying. The LSB offers a cost-effective way for application vendors to target multiple Linux distributions while building only one software package. For end-users, the LSB and its mark of interoperability preserves choice by allowing them to select the applications and distributions they want while avoiding vendor lock-in. LSB certification of distributions results in more applications being ported to Linux and ensures that distribution vendors are compatible with those applications. In short, the LSB ensures Linux does not fragment. From The Portland Project website (http://portland.freedesktop.org/wiki/):
Portland is a joint OSDL/Freedesktop.org initiative to provide independent software developers (ISDs) with stable APIs into Desktop Linux and other Free Desktop platforms. The first result of the Portland initiative is Xdg-utils, a free set of open source tools that allows applications to easily integrate with the desktop configuration your customer has chosen to work with.

aysiu
April 4th, 2007, 01:55 AM
I've moved the post about "this thread should have its own subforum" to How best to handle "Linux is not ready for the desktop" threads (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=396172)

Dragonbite
April 4th, 2007, 07:17 PM
( d ) Microsoft let's you
+ I am looking for the article I read a while ago regarding Microsoft's feature of turning off applications it deems is "suspicious"
I didn't find it yet, but I did find the "features" Vista includes described here http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/drvsign.mspx:

The following are new features in Windows Vista:

• Administrator privilege is required to install unsigned kernel-mode components. This includes device drivers, filter drivers, services, and so on.

This applies for all development phases, including pre-release product code and non-product code such as tests.

• x64 versions of Windows Vista require Kernel Mode Code Signing (KMCS) in order to load kernel-mode software.

• Components in the Windows Vista Protected Media Path (PMP) must be signed for PMP, and all other kernel-mode components must be signed by WHQL or Kernel Mode Code Signing, in order to ensure access to premium content.

• Driver binaries that load at boot time must contain an embedded signature.

• Install packages and self-extracting executables downloaded through Internet Explorer must be digitally signed in order to run or install.

• Digital signatures are required for hardware-related drivers for the Windows Logo Program.

• Components must be signed by a certificate that Microsoft Windows "trusts" as described in the white papers on this site.

I think the article I originally read was a little more paranoid-fud but not 100% off.

brennydoogles
April 5th, 2007, 04:46 PM
Thanks Taurus, that did it.

Sorry for the depreciating comment but I have been praying for Linux to take off for years and yet it seems to be determined to remain clunky and unfriendly to the average PC user.

I would love for Linux to do to Micro$oft what AMD did to Intel.

Thanks again :)

Anything seems unfriendly if you have grown up using something completely different. Linux is different, but once you get used to it you will find it to be much more powerful and secure.
<Dislaimer> The remainder of this post is opinionated and may be offensive to those who take it too literally</disclaimer>
<opinion rant>
I think the only thing keeping linux from taking off in America is a lack of education... Schools don't teach it, and Americans are too lazy and stupid to try to learn something new.</opinion rant>

Zzl1xndd
April 5th, 2007, 05:02 PM
Thanks Taurus, that did it.

Sorry for the depreciating comment but I have been praying for Linux to take off for years and yet it seems to be determined to remain clunky and unfriendly to the average PC user.

I would love for Linux to do to Micro$oft what AMD did to Intel.

Thanks again :)

Its not so much that its Clunky Or Unfriendly but it is a different way of doing things and that sometimes makes it seem harder then it is. I mean the first time I used a Mac I had to take a few min to figure out how to install programs. I mean dragging it into the App folder isn't hard but because I didn't know. Linux took me about a good 2 weeks to get used to and Now I find windows Clunky and hard to use.

rustybronco
April 5th, 2007, 05:24 PM
I think the only thing keeping linux from taking off in America is a lack of education... Schools don't teach it, and Americans are too lazy and stupid to try to learn something new.</opinion rant>
Don't take this personally or literally.
Thats why I am here, to learn something new...and yes i'm an american. :) so not all of us are.

h0ax
April 5th, 2007, 05:28 PM
let's not turn this into a country-by-country debate.
Fact of the matter is, if you're brought up on a Linux machine the first time you use a computer, you'll be great a Linux and when you switch to Windows you'll be like, huh?

takes time going in either direction, same with Mac OSX

thenme
April 5th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Don't take this personally or literally.
Thats why I am here, to learn something new...and yes i'm an american. :) so not all of us are.

I second that!

LaRoza
April 5th, 2007, 05:32 PM
Anything seems unfriendly if you have grown up using something completely different. Linux is different, but once you get used to it you will find it to be much more powerful and secure.
<Dislaimer> The remainder of this post is opinionated and may be offensive to those who take it too literally</disclaimer>
<opinion rant>
I think the only thing keeping linux from taking off in America is a lack of education... Schools don't teach it, and Americans are too lazy and stupid to try to learn something new.</opinion rant>

Not just Americans, that is just human nature, but it is true. It is not a lack of education, I never learned how to use a computer in school, I am 19, and everybody I know except one person learned how to use a computer at home by using it.

What Linux needs in better marketing and awareness. If there was a sign that said:

"Tired of Windows? Try Ubuntu"

with a box of DVDs and CDs and a little booklet with the basics, all the disks would be gone very quickly.

If a computer shipped with Ubuntu...

rustybronco
April 5th, 2007, 05:47 PM
People in general take the easy way (click) and by doing that will never learn, some of us have a need for learning, we are the best chance for converting people to linux, the average m$ user will never convert it has to be easy for the masses or it won't work, the world is getting complacent and stupid and i'm getting old.

Jussi01
April 5th, 2007, 05:47 PM
If a computer shipped with Ubuntu...

System 76 (http://system76.com/)

aysiu
April 5th, 2007, 06:01 PM
I don't really see how this is "unfriendly."

It's a lot easier to do Alt-F2
gksudo nautilus than to launch Windows Explorer with the Run As... option in Windows (http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877_11-6161147.html) or run Finder in Mac OS X with root privileges (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010514171224297).

You can even, if this is something you do often, create a keyboard shortcut or launcher for the command gksudo nautilus.

When my wife wanted to change a system file on her Powerbook, we had to use sudo nano in the terminal to do it.

In any case, it's a bad default in Ubuntu not to have an "Edit as root" option. There are Nautilus scripts you can create or extra plugins for Konqueror in KJubuntu, but some other Linux distros come with a "Konqueror as root" option in the menus by default (Knoppix and Mepis, for example).

vf514
April 5th, 2007, 06:19 PM
I don't really see how this is "unfriendly."

It's a lot easier to do Alt-F2
gksudo nautilus than to launch Windows Explorer with the Run As... option in Windows (http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877_11-6161147.html) or run Finder in Mac OS X with root privileges (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20010514171224297).

You can even, if this is something you do often, create a keyboard shortcut or launcher for the command gksudo nautilus.

When my wife wanted to change a system file on her Powerbook, we had to use sudo nano in the terminal to do it.

In any case, it's a bad default in Ubuntu not to have an "Edit as root" option. There are Nautilus scripts you can create or extra plugins for Konqueror in KJubuntu, but some other Linux distros come with a "Konqueror as root" option in the menus by default (Knoppix and Mepis, for example).

I would like to also be able to left click on Nautilus and then click "Run as root," without the need to make a script.

aysiu
April 5th, 2007, 06:29 PM
I would like to also be able to left click on Nautilus and then click "Run as root," without the need to make a script.
There's a thread about this already (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1544222) (not sure why it's in the Backyard), a bug report about it (https://bugs.launchpad.net/nautilus/+bug/9247), and a specification blueprint (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/privileged-nautilus). Let's hope it makes it in for Feisty+1 in October.

phyzik
April 5th, 2007, 07:46 PM
I haven't read the whole thread (lol) and I don't know if this has been mentioned (or if it's the right place to post it), but here's my 2 (euro)cents on this issue:



(Ubuntu) Linux as a (one of the) mainstream operating system(s)


There are thousands of discussions, blogs and ideas about this question - when will Ubuntu (and Linux in general) become widespread OS and what has to be done to get it there?
I'd say it's practically there, but 3 main things remain to be solved:


1)difficulty (practically solved)

Linux (and I'm mainly referring to Ubuntu) is definitely not more difficult than Windows. I'd say it's even easier than Windows:
- installing the OS is amazingly easy - if you just keep on clicking "next", you actually end up with a fully working system (in Windows, you still have a lot of work to do, mainly install all the necessary applications)
- installing new applications is a matter of finding it on a list and clicking a single button (you can type it, too, but we're talking Average Joe here)
- updating the entire system is practically automatic (it's pretty hard job in Windows, applications are not included in the updates, and generally the best thing to do is format and reinstall everything)
- customizing is incredibly easy (no need to patch something, themes/icons are easy to find) and extensive (from background to 3d effects), there are lots of different applications for different levels of customization (Beryl, Compiz, Metacity)
- a user doesn't have to worry about viruses, trojans and similar problems



2) Commercial and widespread applications (some progress has been made):

- Microsoft Office - OOo can do practically everything MO can, but it's pretty bloated (you cannot make it occupy less than 200 MB of HD; My MO installation in Windows yues 40MB total), and up until 2.2 version, it was pretty ugly, too (but the new icons are great, and finally fully customizable!); in my opinion, this is not an issue any more
- Adobe suite - you just cannot pretend Gimp is the same thing, Adobe needs to make a Linux version
- Macromedia - ok, there's NVU that's pretty cool, but some flash-making app would be appreciated, and also - NVU is a dead project as far as I know :(
- games - until people can install WoW, Heroes of M&M, Quake XII or any other game, Linux won't be able to replace Windows for an average user (I also like to play games - that's why I have a dual booting system & a Windows VM)
- Skype, MSN - while it IS possible to have a video chat in linux, it's pretty hard to set it up, and mine is a rather bad solution (amsn for video and chat (with smileys), skype for audio)
There are 2 solutions to this problem - 1) commercial application makers decide to make a Linux version and 2) Wine becomes 1.0 and can seamlessly run any .exe in Linux



3) Marketing (almost non-existent)

An average Joe doesn't know about Linux; maybe he heard about it somewhere, "something hackers use in the films"; he doesn't have an option when he buys his computer; even if he did, it would sound like this:

- Sir, what do you want to have on your PC - windows or linux operating system?
- I want it to be black and to have a mouse with no wires and to have a slim monitor.

So until there is an extensive marketing campaign (at least on the order of spreadfirefox.com, preferably bigger) there's no way Linux can take over Windows. Linux (especially the we-love-average-Joes distros like Ubuntu) need new users, people who have never used PC before (children, people in third world countries or people, like my father, that until recently thought they would never have to use a computer...) that will easily adapt to "linux way of doing things". A good troubleshooting network should be easily available - this website is a great place to start from, but also a my-geek-buddy method usually does lots of the work, too.



Conclusion - until the second and third issue don't get solved, there really is nothing linux developers can do to spread linux.
As an operating system Linux (and Ubuntu in particular) is much better than competition, now it only needs to show that to other people (average Joes and commercial application CEO's).

damien

prizrak
April 5th, 2007, 10:47 PM
but here's my 2 (euro)cents on this issue:
What do you actually call a euro cent?

- games - until people can install WoW, Heroes of M&M, Quake XII or any other game, Linux won't be able to replace Windows for an average user (I also like to play games - that's why I have a dual booting system & a Windows VM)
Non issue for a huge majority of people. PC gaming is very much a niche market, the games you are listing are even more so. A pretty big number of users won't be playing games that are more involved than solitaire and such. Consoles are really the choice for average Joe as far as gaming goes. PC gaming tends to require above average knowledge.

An average Joe doesn't know about Linux; maybe he heard about it somewhere, "something hackers use in the films"; he doesn't have an option when he buys his computer; even if he did, it would sound like this:
Dell is going to be preinstalling Linux on business laptops and desktops. That actually brings me to another point, no matter how good marketing is the way to get into the home desktop is through corporate desktop. People tend to use at home what they use at work. Look at Apple, they are well known to J6P but they have a 4% market share anyway.

aysiu
April 5th, 2007, 10:55 PM
Non issue for a huge majority of people. PC gaming is very much a niche market, the games you are listing are even more so. A pretty big number of users won't be playing games that are more involved than solitaire and such. Consoles are really the choice for average Joe as far as gaming goes. PC gaming tends to require above average knowledge. More details here:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/gamingperspective

On a random note, I just heard about Second Life for the first time last night, in case anyone knows what that is. I feel as if I've been living under a rock...

brennydoogles
April 6th, 2007, 06:51 AM
Don't take this personally or literally.
Thats why I am here, to learn something new...and yes i'm an american. :) so not all of us are.

I'm American too lol. I just get frustrated at the lack of motivation found in most of the country when it comes to learning.

deanlinkous
April 6th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Its all about entertainment...not learning
We are raising our kids witht he expectation that anything *good* has to be entertaining therefore learning takes a back seat.

A radio was good enough before TV came along. A tv was good enough before movies. Movies were good enough before.....

Who wants to learn when they can be entertained....and forms of entertainment are ALL around us. Makes learning seem downright boring - and isn't *boring* exactly what kids have been complaining of for a looong time.

All work and no play makes jack a very dull boy, so all play and no work must make jack one heck of a fun guy....

prizrak
April 6th, 2007, 05:22 PM
More details here:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/gamingperspective

On a random note, I just heard about Second Life for the first time last night, in case anyone knows what that is. I feel as if I've been living under a rock...

I had the same feeling when I found out about it (like 2 months ago) but at the same time the idea seems idiotic so I don't care :)

Dragonbite
April 6th, 2007, 05:57 PM
I had the same feeling when I found out about it (like 2 months ago) but at the same time the idea seems idiotic so I don't care :)I didn't think much of it until I found out a friend of mine is making money full-time in Second Life and they were in the process of opening up an office in Manhattan.

prizrak
April 6th, 2007, 07:01 PM
I didn't think much of it until I found out a friend of mine is making money full-time in Second Life and they were in the process of opening up an office in Manhattan.

Not bad. Not a fan of Manhattan mostly cuz I gotta go there every damn day :)

Dream.
April 7th, 2007, 01:04 AM
Heres my thoughts...

Ive already waisted too many hours on Ubuntu trying to fix this and that and still I have other problems to sort out such as playing any sort of media files and a broken microphone.

Id just like to say also, I program 3 languages in windows, am a computer technician and certainly like to think Im no dummy. But this is getting beyond a joke.

Ive had this Ubuntu o.s. for over a week now and still have several problems. Many others are constantly posting problems about it, and it seems there will be problems encountered every time you wish to install something. Next time someone asks me about linux I will suggest they spend the bucks and buy windows. I certainly will not recommend Ubuntu nor would I sell a computer with Ubuntu installed on it, which was something we were considering doing at the shop.

So heres my question(s). Who can convince me to stick with ubuntu and for what reason, what benefit am I going to gain in banging my head against the wall for the next week to get media files to play and putting up with a broken microphone that there seems to be no fix for?

What can Ubuntu offer me that windows can't?

Should I rip my sound card out and use the onboard sound to get the mic to work or will I find this also fails? I really dont see why I should compromise a perfectly good piece of hardware in order to get an operating system to function properly.

And please dont reply with "there is spyware in windows" my firewall sorts that out.

I apologize if I sound too negative I am just trying to be realistic about the whole situation.

llamakc
April 7th, 2007, 01:23 AM
Why attempt convincing you? You already said that you'll tell folks to buy Windows.

DoubleQuadword
April 7th, 2007, 01:31 AM
Heres my thoughts...
What can Ubuntu offer me that windows can't?


Well, I could post a whole bunch of things here that may serve as answers to that question; but let's be clear and concise:

In general, regardless the linux distro, it provides reliability, speed, flexibility and stability. I recommend you to compare both OSs more deeply to see the extremely clear difference between them. Why not start by looking the system resources administration?

Linux is indeed overwhelming, you should use it. The problem, basically, appears because most people are still sticked to Windows and I, personally, find Linux highly efficient in various aspects.

Regards.