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

m.musashi
October 18th, 2007, 11:37 PM
O.k. So Linux is not for EVERY ONE. Show me one thing that is? I have friends who can't even keep a pen and paper from crashing. Point is this: there will NEVER be and OS that is right for EVERY ONE. Even Windows isn't. That's why WE have chosen Linux. The only thing we can do is work together to create the best OS we can. And then get the word out that, "yes, Virginia, there really are alternatives to Windows". One known fact is that as many as 85% of all Windows users are NOT satisfied with their OS, and a staggering majority of them either don't know that there are alternatives, or they are misinformed about Linux. Our job, then, is to inform the ignorant, convert the willing, and ignore the rest. Because if we continue trying to make a OS for EVERY ONE we will end up with a poorly working Windows clone. And no body would want that.

Very well said.

OT, but wow, it's been a while since I bothered to read this thread and sadly enough nothing has changed - except it's a heck of lot longer.

Frak
October 18th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Very well said.

OT, but wow, it's been a while since I bothered to read this thread and sadly enough nothing has changed - except it's a heck of lot longer.
OT, I think everyone is on the Gutsy release parties, still... ;)

findik1
October 19th, 2007, 08:21 PM
As a linux beginner, I want to suggest a few things to user-friendly linux developers, such as Ubuntu.

I try using linux all the time but it did not work out for this main reason. I believe linux developers are not that practical compared to windows people, here are 2 examples:

(I call them unpractical, I am assuming they can implement that software as they want. However, it is possible that they could not implement that option yet, maybe due to they dont know how to do it yet. If this is the case, I take my words back).

1) open office:
I collaborate with people who use Windows all the time. They send their work with word doc or power point files. And I tried opening with open office, each time writings distorted. Power point files even worse: I had to reprepare the presentations most of the time, since fonts or formats does not match. You may say that open office is not same as power point but basically you are trying to make a product almost the same as them, so I believe the first aim should be: they have to be compatible with each other. I mean,when you look at open office, it is amazing, it has every details in it. It is a very detailed, very nice product, but it is missing very simple thing: it does not open correctly a ppt file. I believe this is a very important issue. You are giving so much effort on so fine details and basic things are a bit loose. This is my point of view.

2) Kile: This is a secondary issue, so not that urgent as openoffice, since my collaborators do not use latex anyway, but this example also gives how a linux developer is unpractical. (again if they know how to implement but if they did not implemet it, I call them unpractical).

Again, Kile is very detailed software, very user friendly latex editor, but it is missing 2 things (not that important) and therefore it is worse than winedt, in my opinion: It does not number correctly every line (stg weird with dynamic wrapping), and there is no live spell-check. Now you may say, are these things really important. Well, maybe not. But if(and only if) these are easy to implement, why are these properties are missing, I would ask.


I also used Wine to install office, but it gave bugs while file savings, sometimes crashes, does not save word doc or ppt files.

Thank you
findik

dptxp
October 19th, 2007, 08:33 PM
As a linux beginner, I want to suggest a few things to user-friendly linux developers, such as Ubuntu.

I try using linux all the time but it did not work out for this main reason. I believe linux developers are not that practical compared to windows people, here are 2 examples:

(I call them unpractical, I am assuming they can implement that software as they want. However, it is possible that they could not implement that option yet, maybe due to they dont know how to do it yet. If this is the case, I take my words back).

1) open office:
I collaborate with people who use Windows all the time. They send their work with word doc or power point files. And I tried opening with open office, each time writings distorted. Power point files even worse: I had to reprepare the presentations most of the time, since fonts or formats does not match. You may say that open office is not same as power point but basically you are trying to make a product almost the same as them, so I believe the first aim should be: they have to be compatible with each other. I mean,when you look at open office, it is amazing, it has every details in it. It is a very detailed, very nice product, but it is missing very simple thing: it does not open correctly a ppt file. I believe this is a very important issue. You are giving so much effort on so fine details and basic things are a bit loose. This is my point of view.

2) Kile: This is a secondary issue, so not that urgent as openoffice, since my collaborators do not use latex anyway, but this example also gives how a linux developer is unpractical. (again if they know how to implement but if they did not implemet it, I call them unpractical).

Again, Kile is very detailed software, very user friendly latex editor, but it is missing 2 things (not that important) and therefore it is worse than winedt, in my opinion: It does not number correctly every line (stg weird with dynamic wrapping), and there is no live spell-check. Now you may say, are these things really important. Well, maybe not. But if(and only if) these are easy to implement, why are these properties are missing, I would ask.


I also used Wine to install office, but it gave bugs while file savings, sometimes crashes, does not save word doc or ppt files.

Thank you
findik

And what happens when a document in ODF format is opened and edited in Word and then converted to ODF again ? Does the format remain the same ?

shad0w_walker
October 19th, 2007, 08:38 PM
The open office problem is very simple. Microsoft.

In case you haven't noticed they change the file formats as much as they can get away with, come out with updates that subtly alter the way things work and generally do what they can to be awkward with out being outright offensive to OO. The Microsoft file formats are as I'm sure alot of office package developers can say, horribly confusing/bad.

If Microsoft would stop and create a single standard file format then all these office packages would work together very nicely, but that would then let people dump their software. Its in their interest to keep people from finding working alternatives.

Vadi
October 19th, 2007, 08:51 PM
Yes, and this isn't OOo developers fault. Microsoft made very bad documents on how to open their files properly - so developers are pretty much guessing and trying to figure out how to make it work.

screaminj3sus
October 19th, 2007, 08:54 PM
Games. And on my computer (7600GS) compiz performas much worse than aero.

lespaul_rentals
October 19th, 2007, 09:00 PM
Games. And on my computer (7600GS) compiz performas much worse than aero.

2 things:

1. Quit whining (please).
2. What on earth are you even talking about? This guy posted a thread about problems with some applications and you seem to be hijacking his thread.


1) open office:
I collaborate with people who use Windows all the time. They send their work with word doc or power point files. And I tried opening with open office, each time writings distorted. Power point files even worse: I had to reprepare the presentations most of the time, since fonts or formats does not match. You may say that open office is not same as power point but basically you are trying to make a product almost the same as them, so I believe the first aim should be: they have to be compatible with each other. I mean,when you look at open office, it is amazing, it has every details in it. It is a very detailed, very nice product, but it is missing very simple thing: it does not open correctly a ppt file. I believe this is a very important issue. You are giving so much effort on so fine details and basic things are a bit loose. This is my point of view.

It is possible you are accussing Ubuntu for a problem that is not their own. Remember that OpenOffice is seperate software. Have you tried AbiWord for word processing cross-platform? I have and I love it, better than OpenOffice in my humble opinion. Just a tip.

findik1
October 19th, 2007, 11:16 PM
OK, one thing should be clear: I am NOT accusing of anthing! There is no point of accusing anybody anyway! (Even Microsoft in my point of view). I really am trying to migrate to Linux (and the only reason is the free spirit of it, nothing more, I should say I have not got any problems with win2000 for the last 5 years) and I am having troubles with it. I myself "experiencing" the troubles. I am really a kind of applied researcher and dont spend too much time on tweaking the software, dont have experience basically. I dont want to anyway. I use 3 applications in my computer: Matlab(scientific numerical programming), latex and office, that's it. I liked openoffice word processor and presentation, but I had a lot of problems when I got files from my collaborators in .doc and .ppt formats.

One guy above mentions that microsoft keep changing the format to make trouble to OpenOffice. This may be it! I dont know how Open office guys will keep manage to handle this kind of issues. Please let's not make an issue of who's fault or not. I was wondering whether Openoffice guys are testing compatibility issues etc...I assume they are doing...People like me dont care "fanciness" of the programs but just wheter it is doing the basic stuff or not.

Frak
October 19th, 2007, 11:58 PM
OK, one thing should be clear: I am NOT accusing of anthing! There is no point of accusing anybody anyway! (Even Microsoft in my point of view). I really am trying to migrate to Linux (and the only reason is the free spirit of it, nothing more, I should say I have not got any problems with win2000 for the last 5 years) and I am having troubles with it. I myself "experiencing" the troubles. I am really a kind of applied researcher and dont spend too much time on tweaking the software, dont have experience basically. I dont want to anyway. I use 3 applications in my computer: Matlab(scientific numerical programming), latex and office, that's it. I liked openoffice word processor and presentation, but I had a lot of problems when I got files from my collaborators in .doc and .ppt formats.

One guy above mentions that microsoft keep changing the format to make trouble to OpenOffice. This may be it! I dont know how Open office guys will keep manage to handle this kind of issues. Please let's not make an issue of who's fault or not. I was wondering whether Openoffice guys are testing compatibility issues etc...I assume they are doing...People like me dont care "fanciness" of the programs but just wheter it is doing the basic stuff or not.
Then get Crossover Office and install Word 2003.

Also, the default format is ODF, so the only thing keeping me from going to Windows is Word's inability to open ODF's properly. I was wondering whether the Word guys are testing compatibility issues etc...I assume they are doing...People like me don't care "fanciness" of the programs but just whether it is doing basic stuff or not.

leo_rockway
October 20th, 2007, 03:28 AM
Just a few things...

a) as far as i know M$ word doesn't open odt files... and if it does... then why people keep using .doc when odt is the standard format?
I am a translator and unfortunately i work with .doc files ALL day. i never had any formatting issues.

b) aero works better than compiz? i say bananas are better than corn... what does aero and compiz have to do with each other? aero is a lame glass effect, i don't see a cube, or jelly-like windows... and you need a nvidia 8800 gt x + pro sli supermegaman card to make aero start moving...

c) games? i would agree with that, but wine and cedega would run the wintendo games i want to play (and i never do play wintendo games, since i have tremulous and that's all i need)

d) i say that instead of complaining go and fix the problems you have and if you're not a programmer you can still join the developers' mailing list and provide feedback. try sending an email to ballmer or gates and telling them you don't like aero because it is a resource vacuum... i wouldn't wait for a response.

bb10
October 27th, 2007, 02:39 AM
Just a few things...

a) as far as i know M$ word doesn't open odt files... and if it does... then why people keep using .doc when odt is the standard format?
I am a translator and unfortunately i work with .doc files ALL day. i never had any formatting issues.

b) aero works better than compiz? i say bananas are better than corn... what does aero and compiz have to do with each other? aero is a lame glass effect, i don't see a cube, or jelly-like windows... and you need a nvidia 8800 gt x + pro sli supermegaman card to make aero start moving...

c) games? i would agree with that, but wine and cedega would run the wintendo games i want to play (and i never do play wintendo games, since i have tremulous and that's all i need)

d) i say that instead of complaining go and fix the problems you have and if you're not a programmer you can still join the developers' mailing list and provide feedback. try sending an email to ballmer or gates and telling them you don't like aero because it is a resource vacuum... i wouldn't wait for a response.

a) it's .docx now, and you can use this: http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/index.html to get word to open odf files

b) why does it work on my 6600GT then?

c) wine and cadega don't play all games and not everyone is like you.

d) probably because you can turn it off?

leo_rockway
October 27th, 2007, 11:44 AM
a) it's .docx now, and you can use this: http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/index.html to get word to open odf files

b) why does it work on my 6600GT then?

c) wine and cadega don't play all games and not everyone is like you.

d) probably because you can turn it off?

a) well... m$ office should open THE STANDARD files by default. if it doesn't do it then it IS m$ office's fault and not OO.o

b) well... i have an nvidia 440 mx 64mb pci, will it work with that? i'm guessing the answer is no... i can get compiz to work with that. and compiz actually does something... aero is still a lame glass effect, nothing more. no 3d effects at all.

c) then go buy a console... jeez. you don't need to pay the win license to play good games.

d) aero was an example (and even if you can turn it off, it doesn't mean it ISN'T a resource vacuum and that a "good" system deserves better). if you're trying to be picky then riddle me this "what would ballmer say if you asked him of a way to uninstall ie6 from xp?" he wouldn't even answer your mails... now stop disecting my words and go actually help a developer in the linux community.

Achetar
November 26th, 2007, 12:49 AM
Other: It has built-in Word Processor (with Spell Check, i know many ppl who would die without OO.org Spellcheck or MSWord SpellCheck), Spreadsheet, and Presentation software.

Vadi
November 26th, 2007, 01:16 AM
a) it's .docx now, and you can use this: http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/index.html to get word to open odf files


Notice how that converter is an open-source project? :)

bruce89
November 26th, 2007, 01:46 AM
Notice how that converter is an open-source project? :)

Not surprising it's under the BSD, MS wouldn't touch the GPL if it was a small rabbit.

jrjr
November 26th, 2007, 12:39 PM
Open office..... they tout compatibility but its a falsehood. Access DB's are nowhere near compatible. I hadn't tried word files but it looks like they aren't either. Can't stand liers.....

leo_rockway
November 26th, 2007, 04:35 PM
Open office..... they tout compatibility but its a falsehood. Access DB's are nowhere near compatible. I hadn't tried word files but it looks like they aren't either. Can't stand liers.....

You're kidding... right?

jrjr
November 26th, 2007, 04:37 PM
Try creating a db with OO and opening it with access....

leo_rockway
November 26th, 2007, 07:04 PM
Try creating a db with OO and opening it with access....

ok... you're kidding, right?

an OO.o database is a standard database... if m$ office can't read standard file types, that's THEIR fault, not OO.o's

EDIT: or do you mean saving it in access file format? if that's the case... then try asking m$ for their format documentation to create a fully compatible program ;-)

bruce89
November 26th, 2007, 09:04 PM
ok... you're kidding, right?

an OO.o database is a standard database... if m$ office can't read standard file types, that's THEIR fault, not OO.o's

EDIT: or do you mean saving it in access file format? if that's the case... then try asking m$ for their format documentation to create a fully compatible program ;-)

Use a proper database.

jrjr
November 26th, 2007, 10:53 PM
ok... you're kidding, right?

an OO.o database is a standard database... if m$ office can't read standard file types, that's THEIR fault, not OO.o's

EDIT: or do you mean saving it in access file format? if that's the case... then try asking m$ for their format documentation to create a fully compatible program ;-)

Thats not the point.

The point is that they advertise OO as fully compatible, which it isn't.

p_quarles
November 26th, 2007, 11:09 PM
Thats not the point.

The point is that they advertise OO as fully compatible, which it isn't.
I wasn't able to find where they advertise that. Looking around on their site, the closest thing I could find was this statement from the current press kit:

With a new user interface, OpenOffice.org 2.0 is easy to learn and use by the most inexperienced user, and is significantly more compatible with Microsoft Office files than prior versions.
Calling that a "lie" seems a bit mistaken.

jrjr
November 26th, 2007, 11:52 PM
At this site:
http://www.openoffice.org/

Some of the first words include:

Compatible with all other major office suites

Is it compatible? no
Is it partly compatible? yes

p_quarles
November 26th, 2007, 11:55 PM
At this site:
http://www.openoffice.org/

Some of the first words include:


Is it compatible? no
Is it partly compatible? yes
And it is compatible with all major office suites. That statement obviously does not imply that it will have full compatibility with every single proprietary office document format.

If you're having problems with a specific format, there are .odf plugins available for MS Office. It's much easier to patch something to support an open standard than it is to patch it for a secret specification.

jrjr
November 27th, 2007, 12:08 AM
whatever

DARKGuy
November 27th, 2007, 12:18 AM
It depends on your needs though. I've had no problems to open MS Office 2003/2007 documents in OpenOffice, however I've had problems the other way around. Who's the one to blame? OO?...

23meg
November 27th, 2007, 12:22 AM
whatever

Call people liars, and then when your statements are refuted with reason, it's "whatever"? Not that easy.

Calling a person a liar puts you under the burden of coming up with facts to debase the lie. If you're unable to, you risk ending up as a liar yourself.

jrjr
November 27th, 2007, 12:24 AM
I proved my point. You won't accept the proof is all..... like I said,
whatever

Joeb454
November 27th, 2007, 12:28 AM
I hate it when people can't accept that they're wrong, or even partly wrong.

I've not read the whole discussion, but I get the jist. I mean - yes - on the 1 side, OOo need to support the new Office 2007 files as soon as they can, but also, MS should allow plugins (that actually work) within it's office suite.

jrjr
November 27th, 2007, 12:29 AM
I hate it when people can't accept that they're wrong, or even partly wrong.



I agree and i'm done here. Thanks

leo_rockway
November 27th, 2007, 05:16 AM
i think we should stop feeding the troll...

raul_
November 27th, 2007, 06:37 PM
i think we should stop feeding the troll...

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=606055

Frak
November 28th, 2007, 02:07 AM
I proved my point. You won't accept the proof is all..... like I said,
whatever
No, you are in denial of irrefutable proof. It is difficult, both skill and legal wise, to reverse engineer a certain format when little to no information is given about it.

jrjr
November 28th, 2007, 02:26 AM
English lesson 101

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/compatibility

See # 5 - this is plain English - can't get any clearer

1: capable of existing together in harmony <compatible theories> <compatible people>

2: capable of cross-fertilizing freely or uniting vegetatively

3: capable of forming a homogeneous mixture that neither separates nor is altered by chemical interaction

4: capable of being used in transfusion or grafting without immunological reaction (as agglutination or tissue rejection)

5: designed to work with another device or system without modification; especially : being a computer designed to operate in the same manner and use the same software as another computer

sigh

p_quarles
November 28th, 2007, 02:41 AM
5: designed to work with another device or system without modification; especially : being a computer designed to operate in the same manner and use the same software as another computer
You say this is clear, but that's a broad and inclusive definition (which is what you expect from a dictionary). But I'll give you the definition. I would ask, however, which category a file format "clearly" falls under: device, system, or software? Personally, I wouldn't use any of those words if I wanted to accurately describe the idea of a "file format" to someone who'd never heard of such a thing.

What is clear, though, is that compatible (either the dictionary definition or the common usage) does not mean "able to perform each and every task as another system."

Ubuntu is compatible with the FAT32 filesystem. Is it capable of running on a FAT32 partition? No.

All you've really proven is that you disagree with the semantic assumptions of whoever wrote the OpenOffice.org front web page. Calling them deliberate liars is unfair and, imho, trolling.

mdsmedia
November 28th, 2007, 02:56 AM
Not only trolling but clutching at straws.

Nearly every "document" created in Office can be opened, "without changing" the file, in OpenOffice.

I use OpenOffice exclusively on my home-business system, and people I correspond with wouldn't know that I'm not using Office, except that I often will tell them.

I send spreadsheets to numerous people, saved in Excel format, from OpenOffice, in my role as an accountant and as finance officer to the committee of the organisation I'm a member of. They don't know I'm not using Excel.

THAT is compatibility.

Being compatible with your partner, for example, doesn't mean that you do EVERYTHING that s/he does, exactly the same way or CAN do everything s/he does. That doesn't mean you're incompatible. It means you can get along, well. OpenOffice gets along well with all commercial office suites.

Any incompatibility between say OOo and Office is the deliberate fault, and flaw, of Office.

cipher_nemo
November 28th, 2007, 08:14 PM
I added my vote by selecting "Anyone can use it once it's already been installed and configured".

The marketing/media term should focus on an operating system's usefulness, which encompasses many areas, from usefulness to installation and compatibility. However, I feel that what really matters is an operating system's reliability and expandability with current and future hardware. Ubuntu has Microsoft beat in every which way, so it has been "desktop ready" ever since its release.

With Compiz, automatic updates, and a slew of applications included on an install, ubuntu is truly a Vista killer. I think the two biggest areas holding ubuntu back, aside from the pathetic "Games for Windows" campaign and Microsoft's push to snatch up developers:

Awareness. Not every Windows user knows about ubuntu. Just today, I introduced a long-time Windows/IE user to Firefox. After 15 minutes of helping them get some cool add-ons and learn about Firefox's bookmarking abilities (notably folders in the bookmark toolbar), they've switched. It was that easy. Now, if they'd give me 1 hour of their time, I could help them switch to ubuntu.
Tainted history haunts us even today. When some Windows users hear about "Linux", they automatically dredge up mental images of command-line configurations, cumbersome installation, and hardware incompatibility of the mid-90's Red Hat Linux. Not all distros are alike, and I believe strongly that we need to keep promoting ubuntu as its own entity to shake the incorrect association with 90s-era Linux.

cyberbuff
November 29th, 2007, 10:25 AM
I think it would be great to have packages available offline. I have to redownload these packages...everytime I make a change...it may not be a problem for those with unlimited bandwidth...but that's something of concern for those who live with limited bandwidth every month...

angrykeyboarder
November 29th, 2007, 12:37 PM
Can't stand liers.....

What's a lier?

angrykeyboarder
November 29th, 2007, 12:45 PM
I think it would be great to have packages available offline. I have to redownload these packages...everytime I make a change...it may not be a problem for those with unlimited bandwidth...but that's something of concern for those who live with limited bandwidth every month...

What do you mean by "I have to redownload these packages...everytime I make a change"?

That's odd. I don't.

As long as the package is still in the archive it remains in my package cache. If I have to re-install it it's not downloaded again.

For what it's worth, I have an "unlimited" broadband Internet connection.

angrykeyboarder
November 29th, 2007, 12:50 PM
Not only trolling but clutching at straws.

Nearly every "document" created in Office can be opened, "without changing" the file, in OpenOffice [sic].

I use OpenOffice [sic] exclusively on my home-business system, and people I correspond with wouldn't know that I'm not using Office, except that I often will tell them.

I send spreadsheets to numerous people, saved in Excel format, from OpenOffice [sic], in my role as an accountant and as finance officer to the committee of the organisation I'm a member of. They don't know I'm not using Excel.

THAT is compatibility.

Being compatible with your partner, for example, doesn't mean that you do EVERYTHING that s/he does, exactly the same way or CAN do everything s/he does. That doesn't mean you're incompatible. It means you can get along, well. OpenOffice[sic] gets along well with all commercial office suites.

Can you save (or open) files in Microsoft Office 2007 format? :D

Soarer
November 29th, 2007, 01:01 PM
Can you save (or open) files in Microsoft Office 2007 format? :D

No, you can't, which has given me some problems lately.

You can though use Zamzar to convert it for you. It will even give you OO format if you ask nicely (and it's free).

Worked for me.

mdsmedia
November 30th, 2007, 05:27 AM
Can you save (or open) files in Microsoft Office 2007 format? :DI CAN save in Office 2003 or whatever....which can then be opened in Office 2007.

Can Office 2003 open Office 2007 format? Can Office 2003 SAVE in Office 2007 format?

cyberbuff
December 1st, 2007, 04:38 AM
What do you mean by "I have to redownload these packages...everytime I make a change"?

That's odd. I don't.

As long as the package is still in the archive it remains in my package cache. If I have to re-install it it's not downloaded again.

For what it's worth, I have an "unlimited" broadband Internet connection.
I am a total n00b here in Linux. Call me a dumbo if you wish but i always reinstall the whole of Ubuntu when i mess it. That means i have to 're-download' the whole package...
Love
Abhisek

leo_rockway
December 1st, 2007, 08:47 AM
@angrykeyboarder: I did open a docx file. I was pretty surprised when that happened.

@cyberbuff: this is not windows, we don't reinstall the whole OS when something goes wrong. if you want to keep doing that though, you might want to take a look at apt on cd.

ImpressMe
December 1st, 2007, 08:49 AM
@cyberbuff: this is not windows, we don't reinstall the whole OS when something goes wrong. if you want to keep doing that though, you might want to take a look at apt on cd.

But we do, and I did. Many times. Had to. Crash boom bang. My Windows box ran for 4 years and never forced me to. The world is simply not this black and white.

cyberbuff
December 1st, 2007, 09:09 AM
But we do, and I did. Many times. Had to. Crash boom bang. My Windows box ran for 4 years and never forced me to. The world is simply not this black and white.
You don't impress me...do you really mean that Linux is b/w??? :-O

Frak
December 2nd, 2007, 02:54 AM
You don't impress me...do you really mean that Linux is b/w??? :-O
I think he's talking about the penguin.

cyberbuff
December 2nd, 2007, 02:11 PM
I think he's talking about the penguin.
I have even dreamt of hugging tux...http://xs113.xs.to/xs113/07133/snoozer_likelinux_man.gif

leo_rockway
December 3rd, 2007, 02:52 AM
But we do, and I did. Many times. Had to. Crash boom bang. My Windows box ran for 4 years and never forced me to. The world is simply not this black and white.

If you ran a Windoze box for 4 years w/o reinstalling... that musta been a really sloooooooow comp, haha.

you DON'T reinstall linux when a bad thing happens, you just work it out.

angrykeyboarder
December 3rd, 2007, 05:03 AM
I CAN save in Office 2003 or whatever....which can then be opened in Office 2007.

Can Office 2003 open Office 2007 format? Can Office 2003 SAVE in Office 2007 format?

OK, let me rephrase the question.

Can OOo open, edit and save Office 2007 document in the same format?

The answer is no.

Can Office 2003 open, edit and save an Office 2007 document in the same format?

The answer is yes (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&DisplayLang=en).

Soarer
December 3rd, 2007, 07:31 AM
OK, let me rephrase the question.

Can OOo open, edit and save Office 2007 document in the same format?

The answer is no.

Can Office 2003 open, edit and save an Office 2007 document in the same format?

The answer is yes (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&DisplayLang=en).

Which only shows the level of lock-in that MS tries to apply at every turn.

Nothing new here.

angrykeyboarder
December 3rd, 2007, 10:06 AM
Which only shows the level of lock-in that MS tries to apply at every turn..

I look at it more in terms of them trying not to **** off their customers by forcing them to upgrade.

But I guess I'm not as cynical as you.

stalker145
December 3rd, 2007, 06:04 PM
I look at it more in terms of them trying not to **** off their customers by forcing them to upgrade.

But I guess I'm not as cynical as you.

It's nice that MS is so thoughtful of their customers as to not try to **** them off. Now if only they were willing to become a standards-based company, sharing information and working together with others for the greater good...

ukripper
December 3rd, 2007, 06:24 PM
OK, let me rephrase the question.

Can OOo open, edit and save Office 2007 document in the same format?

The answer is no.

Can Office 2003 open, edit and save an Office 2007 document in the same format?

The answer is yes (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&DisplayLang=en).

Can't get over Ribbon. (in sarcastic way!)

Macros programmed in MS EXCEL 2003/97 don't work in 2007 and vice versa. I had to rewrite them from scratch in VBA

I am going to start learning and using BASIC of OOo soon.

monktbd
December 4th, 2007, 02:19 PM
Now if only they were willing to become a standards-based company, sharing information and working together with others for the greater good...

but we all know that this is not in the interest of a company having a quasi-monopoly.

mdsmedia
December 5th, 2007, 03:16 AM
OK, let me rephrase the question.

Can OOo open, edit and save Office 2007 document in the same format?

The answer is no.

Can Office 2003 open, edit and save an Office 2007 document in the same format?

The answer is yes (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=941b3470-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&DisplayLang=en).

Seems it's not too difficult for OOo to do it either. ("http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=8022)

" Novell will release the code as open source and will submit it to OpenOffice.org for inclusion in the project."

stalker145
December 5th, 2007, 04:27 AM
Seems it's not too difficult for OOo to do it either. ("http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=8022)

" Novell will release the code as open source and will submit it to OpenOffice.org for inclusion in the project."

I really hope that they can get on the ball with that and get it done before the release of the next MS Office. The article's 363 days old :(

mdsmedia
December 5th, 2007, 04:36 AM
I really hope that they can get on the ball with that and get it done before the release of the next MS Office. The article's 363 days old :(Yeah, I did notice that, and the fact that it's only "available" courtesy of MS.

But the fact that MS has a "COMPATABILITY" package for earlier versions of Office actually flies in the face of the earlier post which alluded to Office 2003 being able to manipulate 2007 files, when in fact it CAN'T and needs ANOTHER package to make it possible.

According to the article, and I don't know at what stage of development it is in getting into OpenOffice.org's package, there is, or will be a compatibility package available for OOo as there is for Office.

So Office 2003 is incompatible with its younger sibling, yet OOo gets criticism for being "incompatible" with the latest Office package.

Frak
December 5th, 2007, 04:43 AM
Yeah, I did notice that, and the fact that it's only "available" courtesy of MS.

But the fact that MS has a "COMPATABILITY" package for earlier versions of Office actually flies in the face of the earlier post which alluded to Office 2003 being able to manipulate 2007 files, when in fact it CAN'T and needs ANOTHER package to make it possible.

According to the article, and I don't know at what stage of development it is in getting into OpenOffice.org's package, there is, or will be a compatibility package available for OOo as there is for Office.

So Office 2003 is incompatible with its younger sibling, yet OOo gets criticism for being "incompatible" with the latest Office package.
http://download.novell.com/Download?buildid=SfgHRzyafeg~

Tuxoid
December 17th, 2007, 04:56 AM
One problem that is keeping Linux down, is pre-installation. Most people don't see a point in getting rid of a pre-installed Operating System. OS X, Windows, Linux, whatever, average users don't care! Unfortunately :( . What can Ubuntu Linux users do? Market it to friends who aren't nerds. But, wait, didn't I say, "average users don't care!". One thing I didn't specify is why they don't care. They don't know everything that you know, and they are scared of the unknown. Ask yourself, when you heard about Linux (Linux generally, not only Ubuntu), why did you bother to switch? How did get the courage to do it? Now, ask yourself, why would my friends want to switch? Why are they scared of switching? Remember, there is a certain sensitivity to this switch, as well. It's not like they are in love with windows; they are just too comfortable with their pre-installed OS. Yes, there is cases where the average user switches to Ubuntu, and, I say, kudos to you average users using Ubuntu. Kudos! Anyway, they are not as informed as you about the possible gains of using Ubuntu.


Be sensitive, be honest, human.

Express Ubuntu

Tuxoid
December 17th, 2007, 04:57 AM
One problem that is keeping Linux down, is pre-installation. Most people don't see a point in getting rid of a pre-installed Operating System. OS X, Windows, Linux, whatever, average users don't care! Unfortunately :( . What can Ubuntu Linux users do? Market it to friends who aren't nerds. But, wait, didn't I say, "average users don't care!". One thing I didn't specify is why they don't care. They don't know everything that you know, and they are scared of the unknown. Ask yourself, when you heard about Linux (Linux generally, not only Ubuntu), why did you bother to switch? How did get the courage to do it? Now, ask yourself, why would my friends want to switch? Why are they scared of switching? Remember, there is a certain sensitivity to this switch, as well. It's not like they are in love with windows; they are just too comfortable with their pre-installed OS. Yes, there is cases where the average user switches to Ubuntu, and, I say, kudos to you average users using Ubuntu. Kudos! Anyway, they are not as informed as you about the possible gains of using Ubuntu.


Be sensitive, be honest, human.

Express Ubuntu

sorry for double post. Firefox junked up for some reason

cipher_nemo
December 17th, 2007, 08:16 PM
Tuxoid, that's an awesome observation, and I hope those reading it will learn to drop the elitism for a moment (although we might enjoy it) and market Ubuntu to friends, family, co-workers, class mates, etc., who are not as geeked-out as we are.

I've made the pitch to my co-workers, friends, and my father so far. I have at least two co-workers who are really interested in Ubuntu after they watched me install it on a crappy Dell at work, and demonstrated Compiz (Compiz Fusion), Open Office, Firefox, and some basic configuration dialogs and windows. My father was sold on the idea of Ubuntu after we discussed all of the negative issues related to Microsoft and what they're trying to do to users with Vista and their crap-filled EULA. He enjoys being critical of things, so this alone opened his eyes to an O/S that was tough to be critical of, especially with the LiveCD installer and wine to run Windows apps such as Quicken.

aysiu
December 17th, 2007, 08:27 PM
Tuxoid, that's an awesome observation, and I hope those reading it will learn to drop the elitism for a moment (although we might enjoy it) and market Ubuntu to friends, family, co-workers, class mates, etc., who are not as geeked-out as we are. And I hope people will learn to drop the evangelism for a moment and realize that people do not want to be coerced into switching OSes. It's one thing to educate people about the fact that alternatives exist, but I do not want Ubuntu marketed any more than it has been. In fact, I'd say it's marketed a little too much. It is not a drop-in replacement for Windows. People who are considering switching should be aware of all the potential obstacles they'll face.

Tuxoid
December 18th, 2007, 04:56 AM
And I hope people will learn to drop the evangelism for a moment and realize that people do not want to be coerced into switching OSes. It's one thing to educate people about the fact that alternatives exist, but I do not want Ubuntu marketed any more than it has been. In fact, I'd say it's marketed a little too much. It is not a drop-in replacement for Windows. People who are considering switching should be aware of all the potential obstacles they'll face.

Sure, but that would one part of the sensitivity I mentioned. No one should be coerced to use anything, especially an OS. Knowledge is a powerful thing, though. I guarantee there is something for everyone in ever OS, but the downside, every OS has problems, as was mentioned in your post. You have nothing to lose with the LiveCD. If you lend out a LiveCD, that's great! They didn't have to download it, burn it or test it, they just use. You need to let them ask questions and get feedback. Realize, at first they are going to be scared, thinking that it's even a huge leap trying out the LiveCD. Listen to their concerns about running Linux, hear them out. Alternative OSes are a sensitive computer issue, but, then again, most people unfortunately don't know about the gains could be useful to them.

starcannon
December 20th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Other

Until a unified package manager that works across all flavors is implemented.
The myth that software and driver development and packaging is just to difficult will continue until the Linux community decides to change it by unifying packaging and installation issues.
I think its a reasonable goal to get everyone on the same package management system, I'm just not sure that the various flavors and their contributors would find it reasonable.
Anyway just my 2 cents on the subject, and probably more than its worth.l

rsambuca
December 20th, 2007, 12:25 AM
Other

Until a unified package manager that works across all flavors is implemented.
The myth that software and driver development and packaging is just to difficult will continue until the Linux community decides to change it by unifying packaging and installation issues.
I think its a reasonable goal to get everyone on the same package management system, I'm just not sure that the various flavors and their contributors would find it reasonable.
Anyway just my 2 cents on the subject, and probably more than its worth.l

I don't see why a unified package manager would make help make linux desktop ready. As long as a particular distro's package manager works well I don't see the problem. In any event, how would you go about getting a package manager that works for rpm's, debs, and source based distro's?

pjkoczan
December 20th, 2007, 05:11 AM
Other

Until a unified package manager that works across all flavors is implemented.
The myth that software and driver development and packaging is just to difficult will continue until the Linux community decides to change it by unifying packaging and installation issues.
I think its a reasonable goal to get everyone on the same package management system, I'm just not sure that the various flavors and their contributors would find it reasonable.
Anyway just my 2 cents on the subject, and probably more than its worth.l

Besides, packaging under Linux works roughly the same way no matter what distro you use. I mean, the packages are just archives with a little metadata. Each format has dependencies (and therefore the potential for dependency hell), and if you install Firefox via rpm or deb, it installs to /usr/bin/firefox no matter what you use. alien, while not perfect, does its best to bridge that gap yet still provide autonomy of packaging systems.

That said, it was daunting to me at first to learn about packaging. Even I had the newbie questions of "what's an rpm?" and "why can't I use it in Debian?" and I'm usually a pretty clueful user. It doesn't help that most commercial products are only distributed in RPM form (I'm looking at you, Oracle). I don't know how much could be done to quell the worries and confusion unfamiliar users have about Linux packaging, because I could find the proper documentation, as I am at least slightly clueful. Other people might not know where to start.

I doubt that a unified package manager is the answer. Linux has evolved so quickly, in no small part, because of internal competition (KDE vs. GNOME, Emacs vs. Vi, Red Hat vs. Debian, etc.). I think the answer is more simply finding ways to play nice with each other. Much like K apps can work under GNOME, RPMs and debs should be at least able to be converted nicely (which they usually can), if not talk to the other's database.

cipher_nemo
December 20th, 2007, 03:56 PM
In fact, I'd say [Ubuntu is] marketed a little too much. It is not a drop-in replacement for Windows. People who are considering switching should be aware of all the potential obstacles they'll face.

I completely disagree.

While I hope no one "forces" or "pushes" Ubuntu upon anyone, I certainly disagree that it has been marketed too much. You can never "market" (read: evangelize) Linux too much since it has such a small portion of users compared to those running Windows.

I will talk about Ubuntu to anyone who is interested in listening. With that said, I don't walk around pushing the subject of operating systems and Ubuntu. It has to be something the person is interested in.

So may be my use of the word "market" might be too strong, as I don't try to sell people on ubuntu, I merely support it and offer it as an alternative to Windows that is almost a "drop in" replacement, but with some tweaks that might need to be made.

kellemes
December 20th, 2007, 04:07 PM
I completely disagree.

While I hope no one "forces" or "pushes" Ubuntu upon anyone, I certainly disagree that it has been marketed too much. You can never "market" (read: evangelize) Linux too much since it has such a small portion of users compared to those running Windows.


Number of tuxers has been doubled in the last 2 years or so..
And more than ever I see folks not 'ready' for GNU/Linux (not even Ubuntu), they seem to be talked into something they don't need.
Or maybe they're fleeing Windows? :popcorn:

cipher_nemo
December 20th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Or maybe they're fleeing Windows? :popcorn:

Probably the latter. I am one of those soon-to-be fleeing Vista for my desktops (still using XP). I only knew about Ubuntu when searching for distros to run MythTV a year ago.

Everyone needs an O/S, but no one "needs" any specific O/S unless they're using an app that simply will only work on a specific O/S (such as AutoDesk's Revit, Visual Studio, etc.). It's those exceptions that usually keep people on Windows.

Tuxoid
February 7th, 2008, 02:45 AM
If Ubuntu is going to grow bigger wings, community support needs to improve. Specifically, the community has got to start giving people advice for the GUI primarily and the Terminal, secondarily. This has been disputed upon extensively, but I believe it comes down to the original goal of Ubuntu Linux.

Ubuntu was intended to be the Linux distribution for human beings. Mark Shuttleworth has poured so much charitable effort and money into the project to make something that anyone can. This involves greatly lowering the need for the Terminal (and its not like that means that you can't use it, you just don't necessarily have to). By giving new users exclusive Terminal support, they will be scared away or even fooled into believing that the Terminal is more necessary than it is (as I was in my case).

By denying new users GUI support, you are disrespecting the efforts made by Ubuntu, KDE, and Gnome developers to make the Linux Desktop easy-to-use and their efforts to take down Microsoft (something which is a core goal in the minds of some Linux users). Yes, new users could just ask for GUI support, but they don't even know would have to (what with Ubuntu advertised as such an easy-to-use distro). Yes, the can get commercial support from Canonical, but if they see the forum, they won't know that users there will only give them Terminal support.

It's not really that hard to give advice for the GUI. Look at how I would tell someone how to change their resolution:

"Go to System -> Preferences -> Screen Resolution and click on the box next to Resolution and select the Resolution you want"

That's not to hard (and it's a lot easier for the end-user).

Believe me, you can't just cut and paste a command from a post and expect it to work. I know from experience, I tried this a lot when I was just less than a month in, and I kept on getting errors.

Yes, the Terminal is more efficient. But the difference in efficiency between the GUI and the Terminal won't matter to the average-user (and it's not like the GUI overloads the system with resource luggage to the point of lag rivaling 3 blender rendering windows processing images simultaneously).

So there is no reason for there to be limited GUI support on the forums.

simonn
February 7th, 2008, 03:05 AM
the community has got to start giving people advice for the GUI primarily and the Terminal, secondarily[/B]

Disagree.

1) It is not up to you or anyone to decide how people who volunteer their time should do it. Free as in freedom, free as in freedom, free as in freedom...

2) Why give advice for using the GUI which will only work for Gnome, KDE or XFCE when you can give a command line that will work for all of the above, the server version, maybe most other distributions, potentially even other flavours of unix or even OSX?

3) Giving directions on a command line is a lot easier than point here do that click this do that... I know, I have been doing support professionally for a long long long time.

DARKGuy
February 7th, 2008, 03:18 AM
If Ubuntu is going to grow bigger wings, community support needs to improve. Specifically, the community has got to start giving people advice for the GUI primarily and the Terminal, secondarily. This has been disputed upon extensively, but I believe it comes down to the original goal of Ubuntu Linux.

Ubuntu was intended to be the Linux distribution for human beings. Mark Shuttleworth has poured so much charitable effort and money into the project to make something that anyone can. This involves greatly lowering the need for the Terminal (and its not like that means that you can't use it, you just don't necessarily have to). By giving new users exclusive Terminal support, they will be scared away or even fooled into believing that the Terminal is more necessary than it is (as I was in my case).

By denying new users GUI support, you are disrespecting the efforts made by Ubuntu, KDE, and Gnome developers to make the Linux Desktop easy-to-use and their efforts to take down Microsoft (something which is a core goal in the minds of some Linux users). Yes, new users could just ask for GUI support, but they don't even know would have to (what with Ubuntu advertised as such an easy-to-use distro). Yes, the can get commercial support from Canonical, but if they see the forum, they won't know that users there will only give them Terminal support.

It's not really that hard to give advice for the GUI. Look at how I would tell someone how to change their resolution:

"Go to System -> Preferences -> Screen Resolution and click on the box next to Resolution and select the Resolution you want"

That's not to hard (and it's a lot easier for the end-user).

Believe me, you can't just cut and paste a command from a post and expect it to work. I know from experience, I tried this a lot when I was just less than a month in, and I kept on getting errors.

Yes, the Terminal is more efficient. But the difference in efficiency between the GUI and the Terminal won't matter to the average-user (and it's not like the GUI overloads the system with resource luggage to the point of lag rivaling 3 blender rendering windows processing images simultaneously).

So there is no reason for there to be limited GUI support on the forums.

I could not agree more. Kudos to you!

stalker145
February 7th, 2008, 05:34 AM
It's not really that hard to give advice for the GUI. Look at how I would tell someone how to change their resolution:

"Go to System -> Preferences -> Screen Resolution and click on the box next to Resolution and select the Resolution you want"

That's not to hard (and it's a lot easier for the end-user).

<snip>

So there is no reason for there to be limited GUI support on the forums.

Ah, yes, helping out in the Gnome method of changing resolution.

Now, let's say that you are using Gnome and wish to help someone who is trying to add a user. You tell them to go to System ~> Administration ~> Users and Groups. This confused individual comes back saying he has no such menu. Of course this is preposterous to you because everyone must have this menu. You come to find out that this person you are helping is using XUbuntu.

How would you or I, who has no XUbuntu experience, help walk this person through adding a user through the GUI? <BUZZ> Can't do it.

Enter the terminal. It's not just about speed or simplicity - it's also about being more cross-platform. While there are some differences in commands between the different releases (X/K/ED/Ubuntu) such as program names, the majority of everything that needs to be done to administer an Ubuntu setup is the same regardless.

There's another reason for the terminal over the GUI.

Tuxoid
February 7th, 2008, 06:48 AM
Ah, yes, helping out in the Gnome method of changing resolution.

Now, let's say that you are using Gnome and wish to help someone who is trying to add a user. You tell them to go to System ~> Administration ~> Users and Groups. This confused individual comes back saying he has no such menu. Of course this is preposterous to you because everyone must have this menu. You come to find out that this person you are helping is using XUbuntu.

How would you or I, who has no XUbuntu experience, help walk this person through adding a user through the GUI? <BUZZ> Can't do it.

Enter the terminal. It's not just about speed or simplicity - it's also about being more cross-platform. While there are some differences in commands between the different releases (X/K/ED/Ubuntu) such as program names, the majority of everything that needs to be done to administer an Ubuntu setup is the same regardless.

There's another reason for the terminal over the GUI.

Yes, while that is definitely true that there are major interface differences, that still does not make it impossible to offer GUI support over Terminal support. You just need to ask them what Ubuntu flavor they're using (while telling them its best to specify whenever they need support). Yes, its then a little more tedious having to continually ask whenever someone is having an issue, but its better than scaring them away with command line gobbledygook. In fact, it is so important to specify the interface, that I personally think it should be a new Board Rule. It's also very easy to specify the interface:

"I use Ubuntu/GNOME"

"I use Kubuntu/KDE"

"I use Xubuntu/Xfce"

It's also very easy to ask:

"Are you using Ubuntu/GNOME, Kubuntu/KDE, or Xubuntu/Xfce?"

followed by a polite request to the user asking:

"You need specify whether you're using Ubuntu/GNOME, Kubuntu/KDE,
or Xubuntu/Xfce. The way you use each is different; as each have there own
specific applications. Something that works one way in one, won't work the same way in another"

Or something along those lines. Tedious? yes. Ridiculous? No! What you rather have? A distro all set to compete with Microsoft and Apple, or a distro that is easy to use, free, and has strictly command line support through its online forum? If you choose the latter, Ubuntu might not be the right distro for your purposes. The distro should represent what the person wants. You want not care about whether you tell someone to use the GUI or command line, then that's fine, but It won't help Ubuntu reach it's goals.

mdsmedia
February 7th, 2008, 10:58 AM
Yes, while that is definitely true that there are major interface differences, that still does not make it impossible to offer GUI support over Terminal support. You just need to ask them what Ubuntu flavor they're using (while telling them its best to specify whenever they need support). Yes, its then a little more tedious having to continually ask whenever someone is having an issue, but its better than scaring them away with command line gobbledygook. In fact, it is so important to specify the interface, that I personally think it should be a new Board Rule. It's also very easy to specify the interface:

"I use Ubuntu/GNOME"

"I use Kubuntu/KDE"

"I use Xubuntu/Xfce"

It's also very easy to ask:

"Are you using Ubuntu/GNOME, Kubuntu/KDE, or Xubuntu/Xfce?"

followed by a polite request to the user asking:

"You need specify whether you're using Ubuntu/GNOME, Kubuntu/KDE,
or Xubuntu/Xfce. The way you use each is different; as each have there own
specific applications. Something that works one way in one, won't work the same way in another"

Or something along those lines. Tedious? yes. Ridiculous? No! What you rather have? A distro all set to compete with Microsoft and Apple, or a distro that is easy to use, free, and has strictly command line support through its online forum? If you choose the latter, Ubuntu might not be the right distro for your purposes. The distro should represent what the person wants. You want not care about whether you tell someone to use the GUI or command line, then that's fine, but It won't help Ubuntu reach it's goals.And obviously, with the extensive experience that EVERYONE has with ALL flavours of Ubuntu, or Linux for that matter, they'll be able to point the user to the right GUI method of solving their problem.

Forgetting that GUIs change, but commands rarely do, forgetting that I'm using Dapper and the person asking for help may be using Gutsy, or even Hardy, or Feisty, or Edgy..... the GUI changes, but the command line rarely does, and the GUIs ARE different in different DEs, so I, using Ubuntu Dapper, can't help someone using Kubuntu Gutsy, because I have an earlier version of a different DE. Yet the CLI is still the same.

Sorry, but bearing in mind that I'm a Linux beginner, and have used Windows ( or its predecessors) for about 20 years, I think that giving help in CLI is far more efficient and practical than giving GUI help, AND it beats the heck out of trying to help someone with Windows which is basically GUI only.

If an (ex?)Windows user wants to learn to use a new OS maybe if they're scared off by CLI assistance they should take a good hard look at what they really want. Are they looking for a free (note the small f) Windows clone, or a new way of doing things?

Tuxoid
February 7th, 2008, 02:52 PM
And obviously, with the extensive experience that EVERYONE has with ALL flavours of Ubuntu, or Linux for that matter, they'll be able to point the user to the right GUI method of solving their problem.

Forgetting that GUIs change, but commands rarely do, forgetting that I'm using Dapper and the person asking for help may be using Gutsy, or even Hardy, or Feisty, or Edgy..... the GUI changes, but the command line rarely does, and the GUIs ARE different in different DEs, so I, using Ubuntu Dapper, can't help someone using Kubuntu Gutsy, because I have an earlier version of a different DE. Yet the CLI is still the same.

Sorry, but bearing in mind that I'm a Linux beginner, and have used Windows ( or its predecessors) for about 20 years, I think that giving help in CLI is far more efficient and practical than giving GUI help, AND it beats the heck out of trying to help someone with Windows which is basically GUI only.

If an (ex?)Windows user wants to learn to use a new OS maybe if they're scared off by CLI assistance they should take a good hard look at what they really want. Are they looking for a free (note the small f) Windows clone, or a new way of doing things?

Yes, but it's not like the version of the distro couldn't be specified as well as the specific DE in use. Specifying the DE you are using and the version of the distro you have takes less than one line in a post on the forum:

"Im using Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon/7.10"

That tells me what DE is being used, as well as what tools the user has at their disposal. Although a little aggravating to have to do so, it's also very simple to ask if the user in question does not specify the version of the distro or the DE.

"Is it Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu? and what version of that are you under?"

It's very simple, and even more helpful.

stalker145
February 7th, 2008, 03:21 PM
Yes, but it's not like the version of the distro couldn't be specified as well as the specific DE in use. Specifying the DE you are using and the version of the distro you have takes less than one line in a post on the forum:

"Im using Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon/7.10"

That tells me what DE is being used, as well as what tools the user has at their disposal. Although a little aggravating to have to do so, it's also very simple to ask if the user in question does not specify the version of the distro or the DE.

"Is it Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu? and what version of that are you under?"

It's very simple, and even more helpful.

You are correct that it is simple to ask what flavor the person asking for help is using or having that person specify which they are using in the initial post. Our point is this, though:

While this poll (http://ubuntuforums.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=996) is a little old, it should give you an idea of the use of different DM's and WM's in Ubuntu. When only ~10% of the users use XUbuntu, for example, you have just cut out a good deal of possible assistance from ~80% of the respondents' help by not giving CLI assistance.

If someone tells me that they don't understand the CLI I just gave them to fix their problem, I will either go back and explain what it does to help educate them or, if they desire, try to walk them through a GUI solution. It's not that difficult to help someone in the GUI, but it's a far better use of my limited time to give the quick fix and be on to the next person.

To all: I would suggest that if you are averse to learning the CLI and prefer to stay with GUI fixes, or simply don't understand what was given, please specify that when requesting help and add the information as suggested by Tuxoid. We'll still help if we can. And if you'd like to learn what all the "gobbledygook" means, we can help with that, also.

quinnten83
February 7th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Yes, while that is definitely true that there are major interface differences, that still does not make it impossible to offer GUI support over Terminal support. You just need to ask them what Ubuntu flavor they're using (while telling them its best to specify whenever they need support). Yes, its then a little more tedious having to continually ask whenever someone is having an issue, but its better than scaring them away with command line gobbledygook. In fact, it is so important to specify the interface, that I personally think it should be a new Board Rule. It's also very easy to specify the interface:

"I use Ubuntu/GNOME"

"I use Kubuntu/KDE"

"I use Xubuntu/Xfce"

It's also very easy to ask:

"Are you using Ubuntu/GNOME, Kubuntu/KDE, or Xubuntu/Xfce?"

followed by a polite request to the user asking:

"You need specify whether you're using Ubuntu/GNOME, Kubuntu/KDE,
or Xubuntu/Xfce. The way you use each is different; as each have there own
specific applications. Something that works one way in one, won't work the same way in another"

Or something along those lines. Tedious? yes. Ridiculous? No! What you rather have? A distro all set to compete with Microsoft and Apple, or a distro that is easy to use, free, and has strictly command line support through its online forum? If you choose the latter, Ubuntu might not be the right distro for your purposes. The distro should represent what the person wants. You want not care about whether you tell someone to use the GUI or command line, then that's fine, but It won't help Ubuntu reach it's goals.

Still disagree based on the following:
not only us terminal distribution independent, it also teaches the (new) user a thing or two. This argument has been given over time.
Personally I don't think linux should become the next windows. It works fine right now, and the people who use it, are the people who can truly appreciate it. It sounds elitist and in a way it is. I don't want my distro becoming a mass product and having it dumbed down. Plus this way, users are forced to evolve and be more aware of the things the computer does.
I know now more about my computer than i did a year before (right before i started using linux), even though i had been using windows for over almost 10 years.

leo_rockway
February 9th, 2008, 05:52 AM
I agree with everything quinnten83 said.
I just wanted to add that people at the Ubuntu Forums are volunteers. If you ask for help and someone kindly provides a perfectly working solution that makes use of the CLI, then you should be grateful. If you don't understand what it does or how it solved your problem you could ask for an explaination if the person didn't provide one with their post (personally I tend to explain what each command I provide does).

Now, forcing people to give GUI only solutions is just dumb. If someone feels like providing a GUI solution, that's great, but it has to come out of them willingly not because the forum forces them.

90% of the time I won't provide GUI solutions because they are slower and they don't allow you to go for the whole Linux experience (ie. you don't know what the GUI is doing for you and hiding).

Frak
February 9th, 2008, 06:48 AM
Hey Tuxoid, what if I were to tell you that people at the Genius Bar and Apple Support use the CLI instead of the GUI at times? This is because nothing to the eye stays the same long, but the developer/debugging backend rarely ever sees a change in itself.

m.musashi
February 11th, 2008, 02:10 AM
Hey Tuxoid, what if I were to tell you that people at the Genius Bar and Apple Support use the CLI instead of the GUI at times? This is because nothing to the eye stays the same long, but the developer/debugging backend rarely ever sees a change in itself.

The Apple stores have a Guinness bar? Man, I need a mac!

Tuxoid
February 11th, 2008, 06:00 AM
You just cannot force someone to use the command line either. You're practically forcing people to use the command by giving them no other support option. Ubuntu Linux wasn't designed to be command-line intensive (unlike others distros). Being part of Ubuntu to me, is all about reaching the end goal the Developers set out. So the distro can be in everyone's hands. You can't get people to use the Terminal if they don't want to. If you only give people the Terminal as a support option, will be back in Windows in a flash. They're not going to go back to Windows for any other reason than the fact that they can't get support for the GUI.

The typical UbuntuForums-friendly response I get to the statement above is:

"Well maybe they're better using windows"

Terminal loyalists would say that because they think that anyone who uses Linux should use the Terminal. If you think that, though, your opinion is far from shared with the Ubuntu Developers (the guys trying to make Ubuntu comfortable to windows users). When support is needed, the community steps in and The Ubuntu Developers are back square one with trying to make the Ubuntu experience windows-user-friendly. By giving people Terminal support only, you are not showing new users the GUI achievements made the Ubuntu Developers. Thusly, they never know there even are GUI tools. With that, you are hurting the Ubuntu Developers efforts.. That to me is sad. You choose ubuntu, choose to help new users, and those new-users quit because you never gave them a chance in the wonderful GUI.

Ask yourself, are you partly responsible for any new-user giving up because your tendency to only give advice in the command line?
Did that hinder the progress of the Ubuntu Project? Ubuntu is not for people who'd like to use the Terminal. The goals set out for Ubuntu prove that entirely. If you like the Terminal, use another Distro. A Distro that does not plan on taking on Windows.

On another note, you cannot define the goal of the Ubuntu Project. No one here has done this directly, but indirectly. By making the statement "Well maybe they're better using windows", you are inadvertently saying that Ubuntu is not meant or suitable for Windows-Users (even though it is). Yes, there is still room for improvement, but that statement above translates into "You can't use Ubuntu the way I want you to use it, so go back to windows!". That is very, very offensive. I respect that there is differences in each DE, but if you can't help someone directly, there could be some documentation that can. Just say:

"I've never used xfce/kde/gnome, but there's lots of documentation that can probably help. just search online for what you're trying to do along with the name of your desktop environment. I'm sorry that I couldn't help directly"

That's not to hard. You just got someone on the right track. If Ubuntu grows on them, they might just tell others, and then others will tell others, and before you know, it's popular!

leo_rockway
February 11th, 2008, 06:14 AM
If you like the Terminal, use another Distro.

I thought GNU/Linux was all about freedom.
I love the terminal, but I also like the .deb packages. I could have installed Debian, but shipit made it easier for me to get Ubuntu. So your statement quoted above is ridiculous.

I am a volunteer (as everybody in this forums). If I give you a CLI based solution that works you can either: a) apply it. b) don't apply it and not solve your problem. What you can't do is complain. If I were a paid helpdesk person the situation would be completely different, but complaining when a volunteer gives you a solution you don't like is simply pathetic.

m.musashi
February 11th, 2008, 06:16 AM
I haven't been following this discussion because, to be honest, it's a waste of time. However, I get frustrated when people complain about having to use the command line. You don't have to. You are free to learn how to use the operating system on your own. Most (yes, not all) everything can be done from a gui. If you don't like CLI then learn the gui. It's your choice. However, if you want help, then you have to accept the help you get. If people find it easier to give CLI then so be it.

What is really frustrating is that people seem to think only Linux is CLI-centric. It's not. I have been frequently sent to a command prompt by Dell and others to fix a windows issue. Why? because it's easier. Sure, they will usually walk you through a maze of windows and clicks to fix your problem but then they are used to dealing with computer illiterate people. However, some things just can't be done from a click click here and click click there so even windows support (and apple) will use a command approach when needed.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying love it or leave it. I'm simply saying be grateful for the help you get and invest some time in figuring the rest out yourself.

It may be true that no Linux distro will replace windows if it can't become idiot proof but who's to say that the world can't get smart instead. Windows has been both a blessing and a bane - everyone has a computer and most are clueless how to use it. Maybe Linux will help encourage computer literacy. CLI is really just a shortcut to talking right to the computer rather than using a translator. When in Rome, eh?

aysiu
February 11th, 2008, 07:01 AM
Since this is a recurring discussion, I guess people can keep arguing about it, but just so people know, I'm sure that every single point is a rehash of something posted in this almost-1000-post thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=167547&highlight=cli+gui).

Tuxoid
February 12th, 2008, 08:13 AM
I haven't been following this discussion because, to be honest, it's a waste of time. However, I get frustrated when people complain about having to use the command line. You don't have to. You are free to learn how to use the operating system on your own. Most (yes, not all) everything can be done from a gui. If you don't like CLI then learn the gui. It's your choice. However, if you want help, then you have to accept the help you get. If people find it easier to give CLI then so be it.

What is really frustrating is that people seem to think only Linux is CLI-centric. It's not. I have been frequently sent to a command prompt by Dell and others to fix a windows issue. Why? because it's easier. Sure, they will usually walk you through a maze of windows and clicks to fix your problem but then they are used to dealing with computer illiterate people. However, some things just can't be done from a click click here and click click there so even windows support (and apple) will use a command approach when needed.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying love it or leave it. I'm simply saying be grateful for the help you get and invest some time in figuring the rest out yourself.

It may be true that no Linux distro will replace windows if it can't become idiot proof but who's to say that the world can't get smart instead. Windows has been both a blessing and a bane - everyone has a computer and most are clueless how to use it. Maybe Linux will help encourage computer literacy. CLI is really just a shortcut to talking right to the computer rather than using a translator. When in Rome, eh?

Yes, you are right. If you look at the windows knowledge base, half of it is in the DOS-compatible command line. That does make some command-line suggestions reasonable BUT not simple, simple tasks like changing the resolution or installing software. I can't believe how many times on the forums I've seen "apt-get install somerandompackage". It's a simple enough system that you don't have to go to the CLI to do something as simple as installing software and documentation on how to do it on any DE is easily available if you cannot help someone directly because of their DE. simple, simple tasks should not have people in the command-line.

So then, mea culpa for my anti-CLI obsessiveness, Some things can be reasonably solved in the command-line, but to many, the command-line is their last resort (if that). So most average-users will use the GUI as their first line of defense. Thusly, to use that line of defense, they need to know about everything they can use to fix problems on the GUI. They must be able to leave not one stone (or GUI tool) unturned before saying "jeez... this is serious. I better ask someone...". Then, it's about their own experience with the DE they use. They need competency in the GUI so they that feel the command-line in Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu is just a last resort (because it really is). That is when they feel safe and secure with their Operating System. They need an environment to build an extensive knowledge about the GUI. They need to be welcomed to a point where they don't stereotype Linux as command-line-intensive.

sloggerkhan
February 12th, 2008, 08:59 AM
Ignore please. SOrry.

m.musashi
February 13th, 2008, 04:30 AM
Yes, you are right. If you look at the windows knowledge base, half of it is in the DOS-compatible command line. That does make some command-line suggestions reasonable BUT not simple, simple tasks like changing the resolution or installing software. I can't believe how many times on the forums I've seen "apt-get install somerandompackage". It's a simple enough system that you don't have to go to the CLI to do something as simple as installing software and documentation on how to do it on any DE is easily available if you cannot help someone directly because of their DE. simple, simple tasks should not have people in the command-line.

Okay. Fair enough. So you are suggesting the next time we need to suggest that someone install a package, for example, we should just say to the person asking for help, "just install package x" and leave it at that. That would make things easier for all concerned - unless the person asking doesn't know how to install package X. Now they will need to return and ask how to install. We can refer them to a Synaptic how to or walk them through click by click. The first isn't very helpful, the second is a pain for us.

Solution?

sudo apt-get install X

mdsmedia
February 13th, 2008, 11:25 AM
As a Linux Newbie....or noob....for those who don't read slang very well.... the Command Line ISN'T a last resort. If you try to make it a last resort you are doing nobody any favours.
The desire of the Ubuntu Developers is to make Ubuntu easier for all, I'm pretty sure, but I'm also pretty sure that doesn't mean making CLI a port of last call.
The CLI is EASIER because the commands work in ALL versions of Ubuntu. The helper, a volunteer, doesn't need to put the user through the 3rd degree on which DE they're using. OR which version of the OS they're using. The menus change. The CLI generally doesn't. The CLI works, regardless of the DE or version, generally.
If a volunteer helper uses KDE and the person needing help is using Gnome, should the volunteer helper need to know the Gnome menu? If the CLI works, and it's a matter of copy and paste, isn' t that easier than trying to work out which menu the user is looking at?
I've been a long time operator in an IRC help channel...some 12 years....and I know how hard it is to help someone through a "complicated...to them" situation, in Windows, when command line will generally give them the result they need in a far less stressful way. The user is happier. The helper is happier. The problem is fixed.
Sorry for all those Windows users who don't want to use the command line, but isn't it easier for them if they have a command that fixes their problems rather than a GUI step through that may not help them at all?

Tuxoid
February 13th, 2008, 05:41 PM
Okay. Fair enough. So you are suggesting the next time we need to suggest that someone install a package, for example, we should just say to the person asking for help, "just install package x" and leave it at that. That would make things easier for all concerned - unless the person asking doesn't know how to install package X. Now they will need to return and ask how to install. We can refer them to a Synaptic how to or walk them through click by click. The first isn't very helpful, the second is a pain for us.

Solution?

sudo apt-get install X

Ya, and if you direct them to the correct documentation without saying anything harsh (unlike on other forums) they will be able to do it the GUI. Remember, these are new users we're talking about. You're molding their view of Linux with every bit of assistance you give. It's not hard to get to the Documentation in any of the major DEs. By default, in GNOME it's one of the three launchers next to the standard menus. It even looks like a help icon (a white question mark in a blue circle). In KDE, it's located right in the K Menu (and no one can tell me that a new users isn't going to click that out of pure curiosity. It's bloody huge K icon with a gear on it). After you click on it, you can see "Help" in the first few options on the menu. In XFCE, it's in the same place as GNOME (looks the same too). Just tell them what to search and apologize that you cannot help them directly. It's not that hard to get documentation for simple tasks. And if the don't know how to get the Help system, direct them to either, help.ubuntu.com for ubuntu, http://www.kubuntu.com/doc/index.php for kubuntu help and assistance, and for XFCE, unfortunately the documention only goes up to 6.06 (the documentation available on the desktop is 7.10, though).

akiratheoni
February 14th, 2008, 05:13 AM
To be honest, I think any newbie that's suffering a problem wouldn't care if they're using a CLI or a GUI to solve their problem; if it solves their problem, they're satisfied.

Sometimes when I want to help someone, I realize they need a GUI answer, then I realize they're on GNOME/KDE/Xfce, and I'm running Openbox. It's hard to give GUI directions if I haven't memorized the steps to access an administrative tool in GNOME or KDE.

I think the installation of packages through the command line is far easier than linking them to a download. It might not be the most 'user friendly' but it doesn't need to be; if someone's helping them, then it'll be easy for the newbie to follow their directions.


If you like the Terminal, use another Distro.

This can also be said the other way; if you like GUIs, use another distro. Ubuntu might be the easiest way so far for newbies and it does manage to avoid the use of the terminal, but it doesn't completely avoid the need of it. While I haven't used Mandriva, I have heard it has tons of wizards.

I think a lot of people (like me) go to Linux not to just have a virus and spy-ware free experience; we go to Linux to learn. I don't think I'm the only one who is willing to learn. If my problem is solved by a way I never solved in Windows, then I just learned something. If I have to copy+paste commands into an 'archaic' terminal, then I just learned something.


It's not hard to get to the Documentation in any of the major DEs.

While I do agree with you, when I first came to Linux, I always found documentation more intimidating than the Ubuntu Forums. I think it's because the programmers know how to write their code proficiently but not documentation :P Why else do you think the same questions get asked so often in the Ubuntu Forums? Because they didn't read the documentation. This could be because they didn't know it existed, or because it scared them moreso than asking for help.

The problem I see with documentation, especially for a newbie, is that they can't get any feedback on it; that's where a forum comes in. In case they do something wrong, they can ask on a forum, but not on the documentation. So, to be honest, I think documentation is best suited for those who are past their newbie phase and have learned that most problems they have are solved by searching and reading documentation.

Whew. That turned out a lot longer than I expected. Just to let you know, I'm using the term "newbie" as someone new to Linux, not as a derogatory term.

Tuxoid
February 14th, 2008, 07:50 PM
To be honest, I think any newbie that's suffering a problem wouldn't care if they're using a CLI or a GUI to solve their problem; if it solves their problem, they're satisfied.

Sometimes when I want to help someone, I realize they need a GUI answer, then I realize they're on GNOME/KDE/Xfce, and I'm running Openbox. It's hard to give GUI directions if I haven't memorized the steps to access an administrative tool in GNOME or KDE.

I think the installation of packages through the command line is far easier than linking them to a download. It might not be the most 'user friendly' but it doesn't need to be; if someone's helping them, then it'll be easy for the newbie to follow their directions.



This can also be said the other way; if you like GUIs, use another distro. Ubuntu might be the easiest way so far for newbies and it does manage to avoid the use of the terminal, but it doesn't completely avoid the need of it. While I haven't used Mandriva, I have heard it has tons of wizards.

I think a lot of people (like me) go to Linux not to just have a virus and spy-ware free experience; we go to Linux to learn. I don't think I'm the only one who is willing to learn. If my problem is solved by a way I never solved in Windows, then I just learned something. If I have to copy+paste commands into an 'archaic' terminal, then I just learned something.



While I do agree with you, when I first came to Linux, I always found documentation more intimidating than the Ubuntu Forums. I think it's because the programmers know how to write their code proficiently but not documentation :P Why else do you think the same questions get asked so often in the Ubuntu Forums? Because they didn't read the documentation. This could be because they didn't know it existed, or because it scared them moreso than asking for help.

The problem I see with documentation, especially for a newbie, is that they can't get any feedback on it; that's where a forum comes in. In case they do something wrong, they can ask on a forum, but not on the documentation. So, to be honest, I think documentation is best suited for those who are past their newbie phase and have learned that most problems they have are solved by searching and reading documentation.

Whew. That turned out a lot longer than I expected. Just to let you know, I'm using the term "newbie" as someone new to Linux, not as a derogatory term.

Yes, but then you are ignoring the idea of most DEs. That would be Intuitive Exploration. Mixed with documentation (While, I agree, the documentation is not perfect) people can pull together these ideas and make connections between where to go to do X or Y. I have KDE, GNOME, and XFCE installed on my Ubuntu 7.10 installations. I am a master of GNOME, Quite competent with KDE, and I'll admit, I am still having difficulties working in XFCE (although I plan on improving my XFCE skills). I have found that you can learn a desktop environment by feel (intuition in other words). Yes, I've referred to the Documentation in a few cases, but that has only made me able to make the correct connections between what I want to, where to find the tool, and the basics of what it can do. People can use their intuition. And akiratheoni, if some one asks a question, it's not bad to tell them to search the documentation. I'd be very surprised if there was a sizable amount of new users that didn't know how to access the menus and/or icons that contain help. In each Desktop Environment, it's pretty obvious how to do it.

On the other hand, although it is more of a standard and does not differ as much as a DE, the CLI is far from intuitive (just even by concept). Yes, with help you're giving someone all the details of a command to execute, but that relies on the assumptions that first, the person does not need to know the technical purpose of the command itself or its available options second, the user feels secure with executing the command without having an understanding of output while it executes and/or thirdly, the person doesn't fear the command-line and you're not wasting your time because of that fear (whether the fear is logical or not). Another thing I should mention, what if the person in question does not know where to find the Terminal in their DE.

original_jamingrit
February 14th, 2008, 11:32 PM
Yes, but then you are ignoring the idea of most DEs. That would be Intuitive Exploration...DE.

We can all agree there are advantages to using a GUI. But I don't think that means that a GUI can completely replace a CLI.

karellen
February 14th, 2008, 11:44 PM
I think that the GUI and the CLI peacefully coexist. they are not opposing one another, but complementary

Daveski
February 15th, 2008, 12:34 AM
I think that the GUI and the CLI peacefully coexist. they are not opposing one another, but complementary

I agree, and this is as true of Windows as it is of Linux. The Command Line is not intuative, and it is not meant to be. When you execute a command in the CLI you should have at least asked for a summary or scanned the man page. The commands are supposed to be specific (very specific), and how can it be intuative if you are supposed to know what it is you are 'commanding' the machine to do?

You need to know the SQL language if you are to write a query, but sure there are some nice GUI tools which allow you to build a command using a more intuative interface but you usually trade off flexibility for the interface. A GUI interface which is as flexible as the command line would be so immensley complex that all the benfits of a GUI would be destroyed. Using both the GUI and the CLI gives you either end of the spectrum, and all that is inbetween. i.e. the best of both worlds.

rubenvb
February 23rd, 2008, 10:06 PM
The ubuntu desktop is more than ready for desktop use, with one major exception: usb device compatibility.
I'll give an example: you buy a gps device that can sync maps with some or other internet service to update. You plug in the device and poof... you hit a brick wall: it's not supported.
Another one: you buy an mp3 player that's not compatible with ipods or mtp or somewhat other. You plug it in and poof... you're bashing your head into the wall again..

I agree this is far from linux or Ubuntu's fault, but it remains a fact nonetheless: what's the use of an OS if you can't have the peripherals to match?

NiceGuy
February 23rd, 2008, 10:45 PM
Well I guess one could argue that people should check if the device is compatible before buying it, but if your coming from an established Windows OS (like XP... not vista or '98 or even mac OSX) then this will probably be a new concept.

Where I think things could improve with regard to this is identification of if a device will work under linux or not as the vast majority of the time I'd say things do work (even if you need to go hunting for drivers etc) but that is never stated on the box. It generally says 'only compatible with microsoft windows' etc. even if its not the case.

I realize that a quick google will normally give you a quick yes or no but not everyone realizes this and even if you do, if you are in a shop etc. you can't really check,

What I'd like to see is some kind of 'reported to work under linux' statement on the packaging, No 'it will work' or anything like that, just an indication if its possible or not would be good enough for me. Maybe a disclaimer that if it doesn't then its not the manufacturers responsibility etc.etc.

Just my 2p

Daveski
February 24th, 2008, 12:09 AM
The ubuntu desktop is more than ready for desktop use, with one major exception: usb device compatibility.
I'll give an example: you buy a gps device that can sync maps with some or other internet service to update. You plug in the device and poof... you hit a brick wall: it's not supported.

Surely this is the manufacturers software, not the device or even device support itself. If Garmin / Tomtom made Linux software for their devices then you would not hit this 'brick wall'. You should register your comments with the manufacturers of the devices you would like to see Linux support for.

stalker145
February 25th, 2008, 12:58 PM
The ubuntu desktop is more than ready for desktop use, with one major exception: usb device compatibility.
I'll give an example: you buy a gps device that can sync maps with some or other internet service to update. You plug in the device and poof... you hit a brick wall: it's not supported.
Another one: you buy an mp3 player that's not compatible with ipods or mtp or somewhat other. You plug it in and poof... you're bashing your head into the wall again..

I agree this is far from linux or Ubuntu's fault, but it remains a fact nonetheless: what's the use of an OS if you can't have the peripherals to match?

Would you try running Windows on a Mac straight up? Without virtualization? Dual boot? And then complain because you didn't research if it were possible to do so?

My (very little) reading says that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to do so. Either way, my point is still that it is up to the consumer and not the seller/manufacturer to ensure that their purchase will work when they get home.

I've been perusing tons of forums and various web pages for the last several days looking for the perfect MFC printer that will suit my needs and run OOTB with Linux. Why? Because it's my responsibility and I will blame no one but myself if my purchase doesn't work right.

jeffus_il
February 25th, 2008, 01:04 PM
I would say it hasn't arrived yet, but is getting there fast, and has incredible momentum. For anyone other than a beginner it's fun, for Noobs, it can be a headache, the total noobs are fine, it's those who know just enough, not to do anything constructive but enough to be dangerous, they are the problem, but then they give us a reason to be here, and get pleasure out of telling others what to do ....

:):):):):):):):) (max images allowed)

Tuxoid
February 25th, 2008, 08:39 PM
One question that needs to be asked is, "can the average-joe with little technical knowledge get it working if it doesn't work right after installation". That doesn't just concern drivers, there's more concerns than that.

Say you're dual booting Windows XP. Windows has a NTFS partition, Ubuntu has Ext3, and the rest of the drive is FAT32. By default (at least my experience installing Ubuntu on my father's machine) You will be incapable of reading/writing from it (although Ubuntu is compatible with FAT32). This has to do with permissions and how FAT32 deals with them. Traditionally, you need to modify options in /etc/fstab. You also need root privileges to do edit fstab. Non-technical Windows refugees will not understand how to get it working. They don't know what it means.

What would be great is the ability to setup drive permissions in the installer. The user could right click their FAT32 partition, click 'edit permissions', and select 'allow any local user to read and write from this drive'. Once applied, the Partitioner applies the options specifically needed for FAT32 to allow all users read/write privileges (i.e. umask=0).

This is obviously not the only case. In general, Ubiquity could asking some more questions to get the user ripe and ready to use the system. We need to get the system to a point where nerds (like me) don't have to hang over the average-user's shoulder to get everything configured, working and stable.

This does not that Ubuntu isn't doing a good job of this already, it's just not quite there yet and I very much respect the efforts being put forward by the Ubuntu Developers but it needs to get to the point where the average-joe can get a working system without needing to know anything very technical.

Although, due to my argument, it may seem to some that I am unaware that Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu are not drop-in replacements for Windows, I am indeed aware. They will never be drop-in replacements for Windows. That's also not a bad thing (nor is it good). People still need to, learn what programs they will use, how to work the system from the GUI, and generally, how to get along with Ubuntu. It helps immensely if they don't need a nerd hanging over their shoulder to do it.

There is always going to be some who will need assistance with the switch. This should mostly be centered around learning how to use necessary programs, access files, and get around the system, and there, once they know that stuff, they're set and ready.

some people might even be able to figure a lot out themselves. Although I'm nowhere near the level of average, I figured out rhytmbox, GNOME, KDE 3.5, XFCE, Xine, Frostwire, SpeedCrunch, Art Manager, Appearance settings, Sound, etc... all by myself. I'd consider myself a power-user and I'd assume most power-users could figure most GUI things out themselves.

aysiu
February 25th, 2008, 09:10 PM
One question that needs to be asked is, "can the average-joe with little technical knowledge get it working if it doesn't work right after installation". That doesn't just concern drivers, there's more concerns than that. I don't really think that's the question to ask, since Windows fails that test as well.

The focus should be on how a preinstalled Ubuntu does, since most Windows users buy Windows preinstalled.

Preinstalled Ubuntu does pretty well, actually. The major problem seems to be with hibernate and suspend occasionally breaking with updates. That's kind of a big problem for laptops, but it happens only occasionally, and some people (for some strange reason) don't mind.

For example, on the ZaReason website (http://www.zareason.com/shop/product.php?productid=16159&cat=0&page=1):
Suspend and Hibernate are not yet working on the White UltraLapSR.

incogn(egro)ito
February 26th, 2008, 04:58 AM
Drivers are one of the most important things an OS needs to be considered ready for the desktop. People become immediately agitated, beyond reason, if something that is already inside their PC does not work once an OS is installed.

Sweet Spot
March 1st, 2008, 02:28 AM
The focus should be on how a preinstalled Ubuntu does, since most Windows users buy Windows preinstalled.

Preinstalled Ubuntu does pretty well, actually. The major problem seems to be with hibernate and suspend occasionally breaking with updates. That's kind of a big problem for laptops, but it happens only occasionally, and some people (for some strange reason) don't mind.

I wouldn't call that a major problem if it is addressed fairly quickly, or if new builds/updates would fall under more scrutiny before being released. But what I think is more important, and to address your first point about Win users buying with the OS pre-installed, is what incogn has said:

Drivers. Probably THE most single important issue at the moment. Everything else is workable, and if there are bugs, they're usually fixable. Missing or non existent drivers are more complex an issue. Read below the next quote please.


Drivers are one of the most important things an OS needs to be considered ready for the desktop. People become immediately agitated, beyond reason, if something that is already inside their PC does not work once an OS is installed.

Couldn't agree more. I brag to my Mac friends about the progress that Linux (and the flavor I use, being Ubuntu) has made, and have even stumped Apple "Genius's" on their home turf concerning why things on a mac behave the way they do, or simply don't do some of the most simple things that I can do in either Windows XP or Ubuntu, but in the end, I still lose because:

I'm limited in what I can print with my nice new Canon printer unless I pay for some third party drivers which still won't even give me access to the software which came bundled with the printer. Nor am I able to run the software which came with my S3 camera... As it stands, I can print 300 dpi text, but after that, if I wish to print color, I get some stupid company logo which is HUGE and wastes ink, and is placed in the middle of whatever I'm printing ... and I'd have to pay to get rid of that...

Big turn off. Huge. That was a month ago. Since then, I had decided that it was worth it to get a Mac for the sake of at least being able to have driver support !

Then, there are things I want to do musically speaking, (I'm a musician) and also artistically speaking (I do amateur photography) and have found that using a Mac would be a much easier and more professional way to go, rather than try and rack my brains with getting it going with Ubuntu. I mean, Ubuntu has been great for me, and I'll never give it up, but for certain things, it just is NOT ready.

Interestingly though, I've found that little things about the mac annoy the hell out of me. Doing an alt-tab only brings the app to the forefront of the top menu, and so you still have to either click on the top name to close it, or on the bottom bar icon to actually get it back to the desktop if it was minimized. I don't get that. Why wouldn't it just bring it up front on the desktop if you alt tab to the app you want ? Dumbest thing ever.

Secondly, opening a series of photos in a browser ? Like a chore and a half ! So many extra steps ! With Win Xp and Ubuntu, all I do is connect my camera, upload pics, and when it's done importing, a separate browser window opens, with all the pics in it. You click on the first pic, and either open it full screen and do a slide show, or you click the arrow for the next one, or you use your middle button/scroll wheel to go to the next one. You'd think it would be that easy on a Mac, no ? But it's not.

You have to jump through hoops and use stupid, and sluggish proprietary apps to do a database browse. And iPhoto seems crappy IMO. At least compared to Picasa 2 it does... Digikam is my choice for Ubuntu, but it's certainly not as nice as Picasa either IMO. But anyway, I digress... I still don't think Ubuntu is "ready".

Tuxoid
March 1st, 2008, 06:39 AM
I don't really think that's the question to ask, since Windows fails that test as well.

The focus should be on how a preinstalled Ubuntu does, since most Windows users buy Windows preinstalled.

Preinstalled Ubuntu does pretty well, actually. The major problem seems to be with hibernate and suspend occasionally breaking with updates. That's kind of a big problem for laptops, but it happens only occasionally, and some people (for some strange reason) don't mind.

For example, on the ZaReason website (http://www.zareason.com/shop/product.php?productid=16159&cat=0&page=1):

Yes, but the only popular brand we are getting appeal with is Dell. We are not in the position to call out windows as difficult in the case of a DIY installation. Yes, Windows is a pain to install yourself (I know from experience installing, Windows 98 once, and XP three times). It is far easier if we simplify the steps after installation than we have Canonical plead with HP or something. Getting a pre-install presence is important too, but just plenty more difficult when dealing with popular manufacturers like Acer or Sony (I'm quite impressed we got Dell on our side). Simplifying after installation problems is far easier than pleading a case with a popular Manufacturer.

Redrazor39
March 2nd, 2008, 04:22 AM
I believe this means that it can be installed easily, comprehensively, and automatically searches the web for drivers by identifying hardware and searching. It should also be fast and easy to use. It should also be efficient, so that it's easy for users to get things done fast and easily. And this seems to slip the grasp of most Linux-ers. IT HAS TO LOOK GOOD! I've seen many-a-user turn down Linux because it didn't look good or uniform or nice or easy on the eyes enough for them to want to use it, no matter how much you can customize it.

DeadZedz
March 2nd, 2008, 01:37 PM
Someone has to force hardware manufacturers to write drivers and software for GNU/Linux operating systems .
European Union has to pass more laws enforcing software companies to release their code. Like recent news about European Commission fining microsoft €899m for engaging in anti-competitive behaviour http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/28/microsoft.news

Im convinced though, if Mark Shuttleworth had a choice of legally releasing his own version of Windows Vista , he would do it , instead of pushing a debian based linux distro.
There is a reason why 90% of home PC users have chosen to use a microsoft oprating system - just look at the statistics if you want to debate me http://www.news.com/Microsoft-still-rules-server-OS-market/2100-7344_3-5088233.html.
You have to agree that windows is famous for its ability to recognise hardware and its compatibility with hardware devices.

Im convinced that software is the future of humankind - people 100 years from now will be amazed by the infatile and poor software developed today.

cipher_nemo
March 2nd, 2008, 05:55 PM
Someone has to force hardware manufacturers to write drivers and software for GNU/Linux operating systems.

That view is short-sighted. No one has to force them to do anything. Most of the hardware drivers for the Linux kernel are written by third parties (open source communities) who either take existing code and write ties to it for Linux, or painstakingly reverse-engineers things to create drivers for Linux.

What needs to be "forced" is to have hardware manufacturers release more of their drivers as open source software. Getting them to write the Linux drivers themselves is often a futile task.


European Union has to pass more laws enforcing software companies to release their code.

That is more along the lines of what is needed.


Im convinced though, if Mark Shuttleworth had a choice of legally releasing his own version of Windows Vista , he would do it , instead of pushing a debian based linux distro.

Do you know Mark at all? If you've researched him and his opinions, or even checked out his writings or blog, you'll see that he's all about freedom for software and start-ups, not closed source software like Vista. I think you need to spend more time discovering what Mark is about.


There is a reason why 90% of home PC users have chosen to use a microsoft oprating system - just look at the statistics if you want to debate me...

Yes, that reason is: ignorance. If Windows users were educated about Linux, were helped to make the switch, and could do everything they need to do in Linux, why would they choose a restricted-license, expensive piece of software when they have a 100% free option? Most of the Windows users out there do not have a high or unusual demand for special tasks or software. Most of them could use Linux without ever sacrificing or compromising on a single software-related task.

And to be honest, the latest Linux kernel supports MORE hardware than Vista EVER will. It's a simple fact: Linux supports a wider range of older hardware than Microsoft ever plans to support in future service pack releases of Vista. However, Windows XP and 2000 are different stories in that they are more compatible with a wider range of hardware than Linux.

As for statistics, they don't reflect real-world use or even reality for that matter. I can easily say that there are 3 Firefox users for every 8 Internet Explorer users. Does that reflect a Linux to Windows user ratio? No. Did I tell you where I received this information? No. Does it reflect actual number of users in the world? No. Is it pertinent to making any sort of analysis reflecting the ratio of Firefox to IE users. Absolutely not, because browsers can be made to report themselves as any other browser, and there is no way to determine the accuracy of this count for false readings, etc., etc. If you're curious though, that is the actual ratio of Firefox to IE users who have ever visited wikiHow.com according to our servers.


Im convinced that software is the future of humankind - people 100 years from now will be amazed by the infatile and poor software developed today.

That's insulting to developers, and a sweeping generalization of all code in existence. Do you realize how stupid that statement sounds, troll? Ah, I just made the mistake of feeding a troll. Shame on me.

DeadZedz
March 3rd, 2008, 02:26 PM
There is no way that the monopoly of Microsoft would end in any way unless European Union starts to pass laws supporting open source code (GPL or whatever). USA is not going to do it because Microsoft is one of the main exports of USA and deeply tied into USA government.

I dont know Mark Suttleworth personally (Im convinced that neither do you) but a linux distribution project cannot be serious thing for someone who can spend 20 million on a spaceflight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth
Im just saying that if someone had a choice of being in the shoes of Bill Gates and get the position of a main shareholder in the most successful software company selling the most successful operating system, they would take it.

That day has yet to come when Microsoft will feel threatened by any other operating system taking over home PC and laptop market.
There is no professional you can convince to run Autocad, Quickbooks, Adobe products or any other piece of prodessional software on a linux distribution
I suggest you buy an HP dv6000 laptop like mine and try to install debian or suse or mandriva or ubuntu on it - it just doesnt work. Thats why there are forums for linux distros, so that people can troubleshoot problems and try to get things work on their hardware.

I know that linux supports a lot of hardware, but I dont know of anyone who would like a linux based phone or pda or any other product.

KDE4 is a great piece of software but thats a norwegian company about to be acquired by Nokia so thats the end of that.

Why am I troll (I think its your insult but I know troll is actually a creature in norwegian mythology).
I only stated that I respect software developers and that sofware is the future of humankind. I was just trying to say that 100 years from now software is going to be completely something else than some linux kernel or windows vista. People will have to learn programming of biological computers and nanotechnology. People 100 years ago inventing a car and thinking it was the future could never imagine things like hydrogen cells or solar energy.

cipher_nemo
March 3rd, 2008, 08:56 PM
Im convinced that software is the future of humankind - people 100 years from now will be amazed by the infatile and poor software developed today.


I only stated that I respect software developers and that sofware is the future of humankind. I was just trying to say that 100 years from now software is going to be completely something else than some linux kernel or windows vista. People will have to learn programming of biological computers and nanotechnology. People 100 years ago inventing a car and thinking it was the future could never imagine things like hydrogen cells or solar energy.

Your second statement is much more descriptive and not offensive at all. Your first statement was very offensive, and probably didn't convey what you truly meant to say (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

sryth
March 3rd, 2008, 09:07 PM
KDE4 is a great piece of software but thats a norwegian company about to be acquired by Nokia so thats the end of that.



Not sure if you know this, but the last three internet tablet devices Nokia has released, as well as the next one they plan to release, are all linux based.

For reference, the items are the Nokia N770, N800, and N810. The next one in the works is the N830. I believe a pic or two of the last has been leaked and is floating around the net...but yeah, they're all linux.

DeadZedz
March 3rd, 2008, 10:56 PM
Your second statement is much more descriptive and not offensive at all. Your first statement was very offensive, and probably didn't convey what you truly meant to say (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

Im only learning. I dont know what Im talking about really. I also must learn to speak english properly - its not my first language.
Its just that one would expect linux based OS-s work better ... if Apple has been able to turn BSD into a decent operating system then why cannot it be done within GPL laws.
I know some russian guy started ReactOS http://www.reactos.org - a GPL windows project but thats not even close to original windows.
But none of it matters really. I cannot write code and I dont think that people even need computer technology that much.

saulgoode
March 4th, 2008, 08:30 AM
Im only learning. I dont know what Im talking about really. I also must learn to speak english properly - its not my first language.
Its just that one would expect linux based OS-s work better ... if Apple has been able to turn BSD into a decent operating system then why cannot it be done within GPL laws.

If you take the attitude of purchasing the hardware which is known to work with Linux then you do end up with a "decent operation system". Rather than spend $2000 (or whatever that would be in rubles) on a Mac, just spend $100 on a printer, $20 on an internet card, $50 on a soundcard, and whatever it takes to meet your needs for video.

Not only will you save money initially, but you can be reasonably assured that Linux will support your hardware long after Apple and Microsoft stop providing drivers. (I have a SCSI tape drive more than a decade old still supported by the Linux kernel).

Sweet Spot
March 6th, 2008, 09:53 PM
I also think that it (readiness) should mean an easy migration, not having to kill ones self in order to get the same basic functionality that was possible on the ex-OS. I just had to re-install XP on my wife's laptop (for the trillionth time) and in doing so, part of the process involved installing an IM client for her.

She only uses MSN, but I refuse to install (though she might want me to) SP2, as I feel it is a major intrusion for the end user. I've got XP Pro on it, with SP1 and feel that it's as secure as it should be, with some added programs to strengthen that effect... But the problem is that MS won't allow me to install the latest version of MSN unless SP2 is also installed.

The biggest problem here is that she has family that she wants to video chat with in Hungary, and MSN is her client, and linked to her IM database. Trillian doesn't offer video chat, and I've not been able to find another program which does, effortlessly on Ubuntu.

It never seemed to me that any devs were really interested in a good IM client that did video chatting as well. It might sound nit picky to some, but it was something I thought related to this thread.

leo_rockway
March 6th, 2008, 11:01 PM
The biggest problem here is that she has family that she wants to video chat with in Hungary, and MSN is her client, and linked to her IM database. Trillian doesn't offer video chat, and I've not been able to find another program which does, effortlessly on Ubuntu.

It never seemed to me that any devs were really interested in a good IM client that did video chatting as well. It might sound nit picky to some, but it was something I thought related to this thread.

My friend has a logitech cam. I plugged it in into my USB port and it was zeroconf with amsn.

OzzyFrank
March 7th, 2008, 03:19 PM
I was going to suggest aMSN, though admit I am no expert, since I never use any such programs. But I supply open source solutions to people and when asked about a possible replacement for MSN Messenger (since the latest version wouldn't work on Windows 2000), I suggested aMSN on the strength of what I had read. The client was very much impressed, but I don't know if they used video at all. I just thought I'd mention that long-time Messenger users had adopted aMSN and loved it. I suggest just Googling for some more comprehensive info. Cheers

Jay Jay
March 10th, 2008, 06:48 PM
I was going to suggest aMSN, though admit I am no expert, since I never use any such programs. But I supply open source solutions to people and when asked about a possible replacement for MSN Messenger (since the latest version wouldn't work on Windows 2000), I suggested aMSN on the strength of what I had read. The client was very much impressed, but I don't know if they used video at all. I just thought I'd mention that long-time Messenger users had adopted aMSN and loved it. I suggest just Googling for some more comprehensive info. Cheers

Spot on, I've been an MSN die-hard since 2001 and aMSN in my opinion outclasses any of the Microsoft offerings for what they now dub "Windows Live Messenger". Most of my friends who've seen me using aMSN are usually quite impressed by the software.

vkingpele
March 11th, 2008, 01:03 AM
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, because this thread is over 500 pages long, but there is one thing I would like to see in Linux or Ubuntu someday.

(First)
When you first install Windows XP there's the little help icon in the corner that wants to give you a tour of the computer and how to do things. Of course those of us who grew up using DOS and then Windows close it right away. With Linux though I kind of wish there were those pop up windows or that there was a beginner intro to the basics of what to do. When I first started I had no clue and it took hours and hours to set everything up and to do the most basic things.

(Second)
Man pages are great and all, but would it be possible to automagically have a sticky note sort of file on the desktop or the menu bar (I'm not talking about help that's a come find it... if you can:P thing rather then a here you go this should get you started sort of thing) that a new user could click on if they have no idea what command they're looking for and get search able or categorized lists of commands. Basic commands such as: top, ls, kill, crush maim, destroy, sudo, apt-get, tar, with the manpage info right there if they need it. I'm always forgetting the tar command you know, the tar -(something something).

(Third)
Same idea as the second, but make it a list of short cuts such as Shift+Insert, which I didn't learn for quite sometime. There are commands and shortcuts that every user needs to know, but they won't know unless they dig for it and that makes it harder to use.

I think this sort of thing would have helped me out a lot when I first started. And I think it would give total newbies a visual click able intro to the command prompt. Otherwise they're just going to get thrown into that black empty screen and keep thinking dir dir dir.

houstonbofh
March 11th, 2008, 11:54 PM
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, because this thread is over 500 pages long, but there is one thing I would like to see in Linux or Ubuntu someday.

(First)
When you first install Windows XP there's the little help icon in the corner that wants to give you a tour of the computer and how to do things. Of course those of us who grew up using DOS and then Windows close it right away. With Linux though I kind of wish there were those pop up windows or that there was a beginner intro to the basics of what to do. When I first started I had no clue and it took hours and hours to set everything up and to do the most basic things.

(Second)
Man pages are great and all, but would it be possible to automagically have a sticky note sort of file on the desktop or the menu bar (I'm not talking about help that's a come find it... if you can:P thing rather then a here you go this should get you started sort of thing) that a new user could click on if they have no idea what command they're looking for and get search able or categorized lists of commands. Basic commands such as: top, ls, kill, crush maim, destroy, sudo, apt-get, tar, with the manpage info right there if they need it. I'm always forgetting the tar command you know, the tar -(something something).

(Third)
Same idea as the second, but make it a list of short cuts such as Shift+Insert, which I didn't learn for quite sometime. There are commands and shortcuts that every user needs to know, but they won't know unless they dig for it and that makes it harder to use.

I think this sort of thing would have helped me out a lot when I first started. And I think it would give total newbies a visual click able intro to the command prompt. Otherwise they're just going to get thrown into that black empty screen and keep thinking dir dir dir.

I like this plan a lot. So I went looking, and found this. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=668708 Perhaps we should both participate and make something...

Daveski
March 12th, 2008, 12:32 AM
Perhaps we should both participate and make something...

I had a similar suggestion as part of this thread: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=312701&page=3

Lord Xeb
May 13th, 2008, 10:23 PM
Windows is certainly not ready for the desktop.

After installing windows XP SP2 on my computer:
- intel pentium 4 2.4 Ghz.
- Integrated soundcard "SoundMax"
- 768 MB RAM
- 128 MB nvidia graphics card (geforce *something* "something")
- HP deskjet 3420 printer
- HP scanjet 2400 scanner
- LG CD and DVD burners

I made a review:

Installation:
- The CD initially boots into some text mode installation, very hard to deal with, then in the middle of the process it is required to format partitions from text mode and then it copies itself to continue the process. This install process is average in regards of simplicity.

Dual Boot:
- The installer totally ignored my other partitions, I had to implement Grub manually in order to recover my other operating systems.

Hardware compatibility:
- Windows said that it was installed, so I booted into it, the first thing you notice is some kind of welcome to windows animation, it was silent, I could eventually figure out that sound wasn't working.
- When the animation ended and I got outside the tutorial, I could notice that the resolution was very small! this monitor+graphic card combo allows a max of 1280x1024, but windows wouldn't allow me to choose more than 400x300!

- tried checking if it detected my printer, I went to control panel, etc. But it simply couldn't detect my printer.
- The same happen happened to my scanner.

I don't know what should I do, is MS requesting me to get an OEM system instead of the computer I built? I don't really have that money, I am not sure why windows XP has failed to detect most of my hardware, when people advertise that it has great hardware support. I guess they lied to me! Sorry but I don't think windows XP is usable for me in this stage.

Software:
This is one of the points in which windows is terribly lacking, let's see:
- Notepad: VERY limited, you can't even enable auto indentation, and it only supports MSDOS text file format...
- WordPad: Not too much options, I couldn't find basic things like spell check, openoffice writer or even abiword are like 45 times more complete than this.
- MSPaint : Has anyone tried doing serious art work on this? No point of comparisson to the Gimp.
- Calc : It is kind of good although I miss expression evaluation, it is a little faster than an actual simulation of a real calculator.
- Games : VERY few games, although minesweeper is good.
- Internet explorer 6: I don't think it actually had theme support? And no tabs? wtf?

I couldn't find any spreadsheet software or presentation software.

Multimedia:
- I tried windows media player but it can't play my DVDs, it keeps poping out something like "incompatible format" I decided to give up. When it plays it is kind of good, although it takes almost all of my screen and is slow.
- Burning CDs/DVDs is either very unfriendly or missing, I couldn't find any way to burn stuff...

Customizability:
- Windows XP hardly comes with 3 themes, blue, silver and green, I think I was able to change the font size. I can also change up to 4 icons: My Computer, My documents , Recycle bin and Recycle bin (full). I am not sure if there is more customization options, I certainly couldn't find much from the menu maze, ooh I think I can also change the wallpaper..


Sorry if the following sounds like a tutorial, It is the best way I can explain stuff.

RULE ONE WITH XP: It doesn't care if you have another bootload or not, it also cannot use anything other than NTFS or FAT, so that is why they were not displayed other than maybe your partitions. The same goes for grub, it will destroy your MBR as well. That is why nothing loaded and that is why you had to go and reconfigure/install GRUB all over again. Got to remember though, you have to install drivers and whatnot on XP to run all of your hardware properly (which doesn't take long as long as you know what hardware you are running and the manufacturer.

RULE TWO: It has no universal drivers like Linux (well some linux versions). It does have great compatibility, but you have to find all the drivers first before that to happen.

RULE THREE: M$ LIKES MONEY!!! that is why you have such primitive crap on your computer (like paint, notpad, word, etc...) You have to BUY them to have 'em. But there are always the free alternatives like OpenOffice.org, GIMP, etc... For games, you got buy them. A lot of the free ones suck or are virus laiden, but if you know where to look, that isn't a problem >_>

For drivers:

First go to your CPU's manufacturer's website and download the drivers for your CPU.

Now, since you have a GeForce card, go to nVIDIA for the drivers for your card, and ATI for your Radeon cards and things (do this after you install the drivers for your Mobo or you will regret it, or at least I did).

Next you have to check your mobo for the following: Manufacture, Model and Model No., then go to the manufacturers website and install the drivers (this wshould include all your drivers from sound to graphics if you have integrated graphics). For some disc drives, you have to find the drivers for those as will.

:~/That is the reason I don't like windows... But once you know what you need and what you are looking at, your fine, it just takes forever!!!! :mad:

Frak
May 14th, 2008, 12:22 AM
The same goes for grub, it will destroy your MBR as well. That is why nothing loaded and that is why you had to go and reconfigure/install GRUB all over again.

You have an option to NOT install GRUB on installation.


RULE TWO: It has no universal drivers like Linux (well some linux versions). It does have great compatibility, but you have to find all the drivers first before that to happen.

I don't believe that there is any universal driver... anywhere...


RULE THREE: Microsoft (changed to be polite) LIKES MONEY!!!

All companies like money.


First go to your CPU's manufacturer's website and download the drivers for your CPU.

There is no such thing as a CPU driver.

OzzyFrank
May 14th, 2008, 04:18 AM
Yeah, people either forget how crappy Windows can be, or they never had to deal with it (either coz they got lucky, or they had everything preinstalled at the shop). I had 12 years Windows experience before I tried Ubuntu Edgy in Oct 2006, and can tell you I had millions of hassles, on my PCs and that of friends and clients. I am the type who will keep looking and looking for the problem and answer even while support staff swarm around me chanting "Reinstall Windows!"... and there were PLENTY of times I had to admit defeat and reinstall the whole OS.

I've gotten myself into some trouble in Ubuntu before, but have alwasy found the answer (I mean, get to a logon where the screen goes wild and you can't see anything, and still you can fix things [helps to know a couple of commands, admittedly!]). In Windows, some things that seemed to me should have had an easy fix were labelled "unfixable" by all the techs, which meant reinstalling Windows (AGAIN!!!). So while I was expecting Ubuntu to be more fiddly than Windows, it turned out the be the reverse, which is why Ubuntu is definitely my main OS now.

And for those who say "Oh, but at least Windows installs without hassle", read a couple posts above and stop dreaming, hehe! I came across plenty of failed Windows installs myself.

And don't even dare suggest that "at least Windows can play DVDs out of the box!" as your nose will start to grow exponentially!

love2learn
May 21st, 2008, 08:54 AM
Although linux in general and Ubuntu for sure have made significant improvements on the "typical" desktop operations I still think that Ubuntu could make things a bit easier. What I mean by this is just slimming down what I call "operational doubles" for instance:

I still get confussed between preferences and administration. I think they could almost be combined.

I don't think add/remove programs should even be there. Why use it instead of synaptic?

Granted I am a fairly new Ubuntu user but, if you made less choices off-of-the-bat on the install, you will have an easier time "training" new people to Ubuntu. Let the curious people find out how powerful Ubuntu/linux is, let the typical user be "hearded" into an easy to use desktop.

I also think Ubuntu is on the right track as far as "internet ready" is concerned. I like the ease of installation ( typically ) that firefox/alternate IE browsers are molding to, such as flash/java.

Just my 2cents from a newer user of Ubuntu.

houstonbofh
May 22nd, 2008, 09:20 PM
And for those who say "Oh, but at least Windows installs without hassle", read a couple posts above and stop dreaming, hehe! I came across plenty of failed Windows installs myself.
As someone who has to reinstall Windows several times a month, and install Linux several times a month, Give Me Linux Any DAY! Windows is a nightmare if you don't have a complete driver disk set.

RaderCad
May 24th, 2008, 08:01 PM
OK so I am going through an install/configure of Kubuntu and am not finding any topics with my particular problem(s.) After all it has been about 18 years from my last usage of Unix - Linux. I am an X big iron guy and can usually find the answers myself, at least I do not need a room with thousands of ring binders written in engineering-ease that have to be constantly updated with cases of loose leaf pages with 'insert this page in binder ..., page...' plus having 'this page intentionally left blank!' on one half of them. I have learned to like finding things out for myself and I consider it a challenge. At least I did not have to enter every absolute machine address for every piece of hardware in my laptop and tell the OS what it is how it acts and what it's latency is, all done in hex or octal. At least that much is mostly automatic now. Sure there is a lot that is done for you as you can tell by how bloated the OS has gotten over the years. Anyway without to much hastel I am on line and using it.
I am here writting in this page, am I not. I guess I have most of it working now. Just a big jump from being handcuffed in a small room looking out a barred window (Vista) to being out in the big world with thousands of choices and no roads at hand, just a path or two (Linux and all the derivatives.) I settled on Kubuntu as it is more or less up to the user to slit their own wrists and mess up the OS themselves. Which I have already done, more than once. Sure an OS for the masses would be nice, more users = more money for the developers. After all some of the people donate, I do.
So the more you can do for the masses the more accepted the OS becomes and the more new users switch to the OS.

Just a thought.

It could be worse
We could be forced to go back to command line OS's.

fulanodetal316
June 22nd, 2008, 07:04 AM
I don't believe that there is any universal driver... anywhere...

Drivers cannot be universal as they are an interface between universal software (the OS) and whatever random hardware you are running. This is why a driver for XP won't work for Ubuntu or OSX or even Vista, so we are pretty much stuck with using one provided by people smart enough to make them for us.

For those of you who do, thanks BTW

undertakingyou
June 23rd, 2008, 05:19 AM
Drivers cannot be universal as they are an interface between universal software (the OS) and whatever random hardware you are running. This is why a driver for XP won't work for Ubuntu or OSX or even Vista, so we are pretty much stuck with using one provided by people smart enough to make them for us.

For those of you who do, thanks BTW

Agreed. That is just a great reason to try and support hardware manufacturers that either publish their own drivers for linux, or tell their hardware secrets to those linux driver developers.

madjr
June 23rd, 2008, 06:52 AM
WOW, this thread is amazing, it's like a time machine.

have you guys read the first page ?

these predictions from 2004 by a mod were right on about Vista/longhorn:


"yes warty will be ready but requires installation,configuration and intro by nerd"

If it is configured for them, I think the average person can maintain and use an Ubuntu system. This assumes you teach them how to and the value of using synaptic to update their system.

If they go out and buy printer, they should learn to look in printer configuration to make sure they have drivers for it. Manufacturers aren't going to magically suddenly start providing cups drivers on their install CD's any time soon.

This does not mean Linux, or specifically Ubuntu isn't ready for the desktop. It means the lowest common denominator who is unable to check hardware compatibility might have problems. Even then there is paid support for this OS.

This generation of computer users is a bit smarter than their parents. I have faith that the security issues with Windows XP, and the ones that will be created with the new features in Longhorn will cause quite a few users to come our way.

The ones that adapt will stay. If they cannot they will rot in Windows world. I cannot stress enough though, that gaining Windows users is not worth becoming Windows like to the point that users who like a real Linux desktop will look to other desktop environments and distros.

The average Windows using, webshots using, download.com free Christmas wallpaper/screensaver user isn't even going to file bug reports. While we want them to use the OS, catering to them to the point where Linux users are pushed to more configurable/powerful distros and desktop environments would be folly.

bufsabre666
June 23rd, 2008, 07:08 AM
WOW, this thread is amazing, it's like a time machine.

have you guys read the first page ?

these predictions from 2004 by a mod were right on about Vista/longhorn:

where does the time go?

paulderol
June 23rd, 2008, 07:26 AM
since most users don't know how to install an OS, nor do they understand why they might do so, "ready for the desktop" is a meaningless term coined, i belive, by M$ as a counterattack.

If users had to configure their own M$ or Mac systems, they would be as unprepared as the noob-est penguin. Ready for the desktop merely means that it has a massive, for-pay support system, and perhaps a massive monopolistic business model perpetuating its hegemony.

in other words, Linux is as ready for the desktop as any user is prepared to understand how their computer works, which is the same for any self-installed system.

bkortleven
June 25th, 2008, 10:11 AM
We have a few clients using Ubuntu as a desktop system (ok, it's not a default desktop install as they are using it through thin client boxes), and they don't have any problems with it.

'Ready for the desktop' means, to me, that whatever the user needs, is possible. Wordprocessing, Calculation sheets, Surfing, Email, Transfer, Banking, ...
As long as the 'big' software vendors don't support it 100% and release Linux versions for their software, we're a bit behind. But still, the last few years we made a dramatic increase in 'usability' on the desktop. Keep moving upwards :d

paul cooke
June 26th, 2008, 02:24 PM
difficult to nail "ready for the desktop" down... the one's who are doing Linux down keep shifting the definition to include whatever program has just been up-versioned and no longer works on Linux using Wine or whatever programme du-jour Linux currently doesn't have an equivalent of...

the current attack seems to be on the educational software front... Microsoft managed to get the City of Vienna to dump their Linux machines in the classroom because a particular application didn't run on Linux... the annoying thing is the extra cost (some 8 million Euros!!!!!) of all those Vista machines would have been far better spent by paying the software vendor to port the program to Linux...

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39429910,00.htm


A key factor in the rollback decision is software used in a kindergarten language-learning programme called 'Schlaumäuse', which requires Internet Explorer, according to city officials quoted in the report.

The Schlaumäuse programme, launched in December 2007, aims to improve language skills for children of immigrant backgrounds, and has Microsoft as its principal backer, according to the Austrian Federal Chamber of Commerce (WKO).

The Schlaumäuse software requires several IE plug-ins and caused frequent crashes in Wine, the Linux software used to run Windows applications on Linux, said Erwin Gillich, the head of IT at Vienna's municipal authority, according to the ORF's report.

The software maker behind the Schlaumäuse software is planning a Firefox version for 2009, according to Ringler, who pointed out in the report that the city could have subsidised a Firefox version of the software for a fraction of the cost of the Windows Vista migration.

it would not surprise me if I subsequently hear those plugins were deliberately incompatible with Wine...

KIAaze
June 26th, 2008, 09:41 PM
For those that missed it on Slashdot: Bill Gates flaming Windows!:
http://gizmodo.com/5019516/classic-clips-bill-gates-chews-out-microsoft-over-xp

If this is the state of an OS ready for the desktop... :lolflag:

flytripper
July 4th, 2008, 02:53 AM
For those that missed it on Slashdot: Bill Gates flaming Windows!:
http://gizmodo.com/5019516/classic-clips-bill-gates-chews-out-microsoft-over-xp

If this is the state of an OS ready for the desktop... :lolflag:

LoL . is that for real!!??

hairshirt
July 4th, 2008, 11:21 AM
It's as ready as windize is, or ever was.

igoddard
July 10th, 2008, 02:33 PM
If you take the attitude of purchasing the hardware which is known to work with Linux then you do end up with a "decent operation system". Rather than spend $2000 (or whatever that would be in rubles) on a Mac, just spend $100 on a printer, $20 on an internet card, $50 on a soundcard, and whatever it takes to meet your needs for video.

Not only will you save money initially, but you can be reasonably assured that Linux will support your hardware long after Apple and Microsoft stop providing drivers. (I have a SCSI tape drive more than a decade old still supported by the Linux kernel).

To put this in perspective SCSI units are generally well behaved and can be supported generically. Unless your tape drive is non-standard in behaviour the default assumption is that any OS which supports SCSI tape drives would support it. The bigger problem would be whether the OS supports your SCSI host adapter card.

In regard to less generic hardware Linux has more problems than can be simply put down to binary-only drivers. At 6.10 my digital camera was supported on my laptop, the upgrade to 7.04 broke it. When that laptop died I went back to 6.06 for my new one. Upgrading that to 8.04 broke the camera support again. On the old laptop I' moved to Ubuntu after a routine update, not an upgrade, broke wireless networking. On 6.06 somewhere along the line, something bent, if not broke CD/DVD support in that K3B lost the ability to write disks except when run as root. Look at the support forums and you will see plenty of evidence of H/W support being broken, especially wireless, camera and graphic card.

Linux can also break more than hardware support. For some time older binaries have needed support by the LD_ASSUME_KERNEL fudge. Under 8.04 this is no longer available. I assume that this is no accident but a matter of policy, either upstream or by Ubuntu. When following up my camera issue I came across a comment about patches to fix some camera problems not being accepted by kernel devs because they didn't meet the kernel criteria for stability. So an instability that breaks H/W support doesn't get fixed - in the name of stability!!

The whole Linux development community needs to get its head round a basic requirement: what worked properly, either H/W or S/W, should continue to work properly. Without this being met Linux will not deserve to be considered Desktop Ready.

Ian

solwic
July 11th, 2008, 03:51 AM
The whole Linux development community needs to get its head round a basic requirement: what worked properly, either H/W or S/W, should continue to work properly. Without this being met Linux will not deserve to be considered Desktop Ready.

Ian

No doubt!

To me, ready-for-the-desktop in Linux terms has arrived. I think for an OS to be "ready" it needs to do whatever a user needs it to do with no more than minimal configuration. Most of the things broken in Linux are fixable with a little patience, so I'd say we've arrived.

But what's truly hurting Linux, I think, is the lack of a common API. I mean, I'm not a programmer, but one of the main conveniences of Windows is that you can run anything on it (at least far, far more than you can in Linux). As long as developers have to write 15 different versions for 15 different Linux distros, how can you blame them for not supporting Linux?

I would assume the API consolidation would make it easier to spread virii, but there has to be a work around for that. This is UNIX...at least, UNIX based...we can't be afraid of a few stinkin' virii.....

dmizer
July 11th, 2008, 06:38 AM
But what's truly hurting Linux, I think, is the lack of a common API. I mean, I'm not a programmer, but one of the main conveniences of Windows is that you can run anything on it (at least far, far more than you can in Linux). As long as developers have to write 15 different versions for 15 different Linux distros, how can you blame them for not supporting Linux?

I would assume the API consolidation would make it easier to spread virii, but there has to be a work around for that. This is UNIX...at least, UNIX based...we can't be afraid of a few stinkin' virii.....

this is completely false. only a small handful of programs run on windows. the problem is that those programs are used almost universally by the business world (ex. ms office, photo shop). the problem here is not that there aren't decent alternatives, the problem is that the alternatives don't translate perfectly into windows.

if you release your program with the source code, it will run (or can be made to run) in any linux distro.

actually, it's a bit more difficult to write programs and software for windows because the source code for windows is not available, and without all the clunky development tools that windows releases, it would be impossible to make anything work in windows. this is one major contributor to the amount of bugs that cause problems in windows.

karellen
July 11th, 2008, 11:55 AM
The whole Linux development community needs to get its head round a basic requirement: what worked properly, either H/W or S/W, should continue to work properly. Without this being met Linux will not deserve to be considered Desktop Ready.

I subscribe to this too. there's too much inconsistency and unpredictability (something works in a distro release and in the next release, it doesn't); there is no standardization among distros - countless package managers and formts, .rpm, .deb, .tag.gs and all the others; and compiling from source will never be the answer for the average user. because we're talking about the desktop market, here, don't we? not just the hobbies of tech savvy people that hang around this forum

raja
July 11th, 2008, 02:23 PM
...
But what's truly hurting Linux, I think, is the lack of a common API. I mean, I'm not a programmer, but one of the main conveniences of Windows is that you can run anything on it (at least far, far more than you can in Linux). As long as developers have to write 15 different versions for 15 different Linux distros, how can you blame them for not supporting Linux?
...

Sorry, but you are totally misinformed there. Neither can you run anything (or most things) on Windows, nor do you need to write different versions for difference distributions for Linux. Look at any project on sourceforge on code.google and see if there are 15 versions for Linux. In my small experience writing some projects, it is much easier to write for Linux than it is to write for Windows.

Frak
July 11th, 2008, 03:59 PM
Sorry, but you are totally misinformed there. Neither can you run anything (or most things) on Windows, nor do you need to write different versions for difference distributions for Linux. Look at any project on sourceforge on code.google and see if there are 15 versions for Linux. In my small experience writing some projects, it is much easier to write for Linux than it is to write for Windows.
Yes, very cross platform, the only real reason to be worried is the choice of whether to use QT or GTK+. Even then, compatability libraries exist.

solwic
July 11th, 2008, 09:02 PM
this is completely false. only a small handful of programs run on windows. the problem is that those programs are used almost universally by the business world (ex. ms office, photo shop). the problem here is not that there aren't decent alternatives, the problem is that the alternatives don't translate perfectly into windows.

if you release your program with the source code, it will run (or can be made to run) in any linux distro.

actually, it's a bit more difficult to write programs and software for windows because the source code for windows is not available, and without all the clunky development tools that windows releases, it would be impossible to make anything work in windows. this is one major contributor to the amount of bugs that cause problems in windows.

Well calm down, scooter. I wasn't sure. I noted that I wasn't a programmer, and maybe I used the wrong terms. But go to a website like skype.com and see how many different versions there are for Linux. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah I know there are places that break programs down by Windows releases, too, but we're not talking about windows.

Plus, I'm sure most companies don't want to release the source code to their proprietary software.

Anyway, just thought I'd drop my two cents in. Thanks for correcting my assumptions, but I still say that Until your choices are as simple as "Windows", "Mac", and "Linux", Windows will always be on top. :(

EDIT: And before someone mentions it, I realize that the different versions on a site like skype.com are for the package installers, and that the source program is essentially the same. But we're not talking about cross-compatibility, we're talking about desktop readiness...and what happens if Skype didn't have an Ubuntu version. Should the end user have to compile from source? I don't think so, and I believe that until the people making decisions for the major distros think so, too, we'll still be talking about Linux desktop readiness ten years from now.

Frak
July 11th, 2008, 10:35 PM
As for your end argument about skype, it is available in the ubuntu repositories if I recall.

rsambuca
July 12th, 2008, 12:56 AM
As for your end argument about skype, it is available in the ubuntu repositories if I recall.

Nope. But it is in the medibuntu repos, though.

Isaacthulhu
July 16th, 2008, 05:59 PM
"Ready for Desktop" could mean either (a): Thing "x" is ready for the desktop, or (b): that the computer is ready for the desktop or (c): that the system is ready for the desktop, although it could also have other meanings. I myself to not form opinions about what the meanings of statements are in the absence of interpretational contexts because without a context it is hard to say what anything means, so in the end to me it means "This statement is missing it's necessary context.

hongleong
July 18th, 2008, 11:19 AM
Usability is of utmost importance.

IMHO, to be "Desktop Ready" means the OS has to be completely functional out-of-the-box, immediately after a fresh installation, without having to manually install any extra packages (e.g. Java JRE, Flash plugin, libdvdcss, ffmpeg and w32codecs) before any average computer user can go about to use the computer productively.

Yes, there are valid and legal reasons why some of these packages are not included in the default list of apps. But if nothing is done to look into how to mitigate this usability issue, such restrictions will continue to affect desktop readiness for the masses.

Soarer
July 18th, 2008, 11:31 AM
Usability is of utmost importance.

IMHO, to be "Desktop Ready" means the OS has to be completely functional out-of-the-box, immediately after a fresh installation, without having to manually install any extra packages (e.g. Java JRE, Flash plugin, libdvdcss, ffmpeg and w32codecs) before any average computer user can go about to use the computer productively.

And an Office package? A graphics package? An HTML editor? A DVD/CD burner? Access to thousands of other packages?

I think you have been in WindowsWorld too long.:)

Barrucadu
July 18th, 2008, 11:32 AM
Usability is of utmost importance.

IMHO, to be "Desktop Ready" means the OS has to be completely functional out-of-the-box, immediately after a fresh installation, without having to manually install any extra packages (e.g. Java JRE, Flash plugin, libdvdcss, ffmpeg and w32codecs) before any average computer user can go about to use the computer productively.

Yes, there are valid and legal reasons why some of these packages are not included in the default list of apps. But if nothing is done to look into how to mitigate this usability issue, such restrictions will continue to affect desktop readiness for the masses.

In that case, Windows isn't, and has never been, "Desktop Ready".

scottuss
July 18th, 2008, 12:25 PM
In that case, Windows isn't, and has never been, "Desktop Ready".

Absolutely agreed. Even after you install all of this extra stuff on Windows such as Java etc, you end up with loads of other fluff that either installs without permission or installs in a stealth like way.

I always hated re-installing Windows, my machine would be so fast and clean afterwards then I would install a few apps just to get basic things done and I'd be back to a slow clogged machine.

Linux is more than ready for the desktop, it's way ahead!

fiddledd
July 18th, 2008, 12:26 PM
I'm not saying this is my opinion, I'm just curious what the responses will be. :)
How about "Linux is truly ready for the Desktop when the ABT sub forum isn't full of posts asking for help".

chickengirl
July 19th, 2008, 12:30 AM
Usability is of utmost importance.

IMHO, to be "Desktop Ready" means the OS has to be completely functional out-of-the-box, immediately after a fresh installation, without having to manually install any extra packages (e.g. Java JRE, Flash plugin, libdvdcss, ffmpeg and w32codecs) before any average computer user can go about to use the computer productively.

Yes, there are valid and legal reasons why some of these packages are not included in the default list of apps. But if nothing is done to look into how to mitigate this usability issue, such restrictions will continue to affect desktop readiness for the masses.

Many distros do include Java, Flash, etc, out-of-the-box. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows still doesn't include all of them out-of-the-box. (I'm talking about a fresh, vanilla install, not an OEM install.)

And even when they're excluded from Linux distros for legal or ideological reasons, it's not like they're difficult to get. I just reinstalled Ubuntu and getting Flash was as simple as falling off a log.

bruce89
July 19th, 2008, 12:58 AM
Many distros do include Java, Flash, etc, out-of-the-box. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows still doesn't include all of them out-of-the-box. (I'm talking about a fresh, vanilla install, not an OEM install)

I know of none, and if they do exist, they'd be breaking copyrights.


In that case, Windows isn't, and has never been, "Desktop Ready".

I can't take a OS seriously if it can't play Vorbis by default.

aysiu
July 19th, 2008, 01:40 AM
I know of none, and if they do exist, they'd be breaking copyrights. There are a lot of distros that came with all that stuff preinstalled. Some do so in compliance with the most conservative laws (Linspire/Xandros), and others do so in flagrant violation of such laws, either because they are based in a country where preinstallation of such codecs is legal or because they just don't care.

Here is a list:
PCLinuxOS
BlagBlagBlag
Mepis
Xandros/Linspire
Linux Mint

ukripper
July 21st, 2008, 03:03 PM
Usability is of utmost importance.

IMHO, to be "Desktop Ready" means the OS has to be completely functional out-of-the-box, immediately after a fresh installation, without having to manually install any extra packages (e.g. Java JRE, Flash plugin, libdvdcss, ffmpeg and w32codecs) before any average computer user can go about to use the computer productively.



Good joke!:)

djchandler
July 22nd, 2008, 04:25 AM
IMHO, to be "Desktop Ready" means the OS has to be completely functional out-of-the-box, immediately after a fresh installation, without having to manually install any extra packages (e.g. Java JRE, Flash plugin, libdvdcss, ffmpeg and w32codecs) before any average computer user can go about to use the computer productively.


I'm glad you said humble, or you'd be getting flamed severely.

Ever install Windows from scratch? Try getting up to date with any of the Windows OSes after there's been a service pack issued. Unless you're doing a bunch of installations and you go to the trouble to slipstream the service packs with the original OS install, it's way more problematic (IMHO) than Ubuntu is. In Ubuntu, all you need to do to get the rest of the codecs you need is gain access to the Medibuntu [www.medibuntu (http://www.%3Cb%3Emedibuntu%3C/b%3E).org] repositories and install via Synaptic. In Windows, if you want DivX, Ogg Vorbis, Quicktime, (anything not native Windows), etc., you have to find, download, and install all those packages separately, then try to keep each of those items updated yourself unless you want a bunch of different processes running to track those individually for you. How long will it take to boot Windows then once you have 40 or more processes running at boot? I can't count the times I've had to run msconfig to keep unnecessary processes from loading automatically.


Linux, especially Ubuntu, is ready now, no qualms. All people need to do is be willing to try something a little different. Then they'll be amazed at how simple it can be to keep your system updated and protected.

bcschmerker
July 22nd, 2008, 04:43 AM
For purposes of small business- and enterprise-level LinUX installations, I define "ready for the desktop" as being fully supported with 99.9+-percent functional application packages for most routine business needs. We already know about Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS and International Business Machines VM/CMS for AS/400, but Bell System UnIX has some business support as well--Sun Microsystems anticipated the needs of offices when developing Solaris, as an example. XFree86 is already standard on many LinUX boxes; GNU/GNOME, the K Desktop Environment, Enlightenment, &c. provide excellent management of the emerging desktop applications field. OpenOffice.org, PostgreSQL and others are working plenty hard on the business apps needed in LinUX; I consider it a matter of but months before Ubuntu and related are truly desktop-ready.

sistoviejo
July 22nd, 2008, 06:28 AM
For purposes of small business- and enterprise-level LinUX installations, I define "ready for the desktop" as being fully supported with 99.9+-percent functional application packages for most routine business needs. We already know about Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS and International Business Machines VM/CMS for AS/400, but Bell System UnIX has some business support as well--Sun Microsystems anticipated the needs of offices when developing Solaris, as an example. XFree86 is already standard on many LinUX boxes; GNU/GNOME, the K Desktop Environment, Enlightenment, &c. provide excellent management of the emerging desktop applications field. OpenOffice.org, PostgreSQL and others are working plenty hard on the business apps needed in LinUX; I consider it a matter of but months before Ubuntu and related are truly desktop-ready.

how do u define functional application?

bilijoe
July 25th, 2008, 04:57 AM
Originally Posted by hongleong http://ubuntuforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5409595#post5409595)
IMHO, to be "Desktop Ready" means the OS has to be completely functional out-of-the-box, immediately after a fresh installation, without having to manually install any extra packages (e.g. Java JRE, Flash plugin, libdvdcss, ffmpeg and w32codecs) before any average computer user can go about to use the computer productively.

I'm glad you said humble, or you'd be getting flamed severely.

Ever install Windows from scratch? Try getting up to date with any of the Windows OSes after there's been a service pack issued. Unless you're doing a bunch of installations and you go to the trouble to slipstream the service packs with the original OS install, it's way more problematic (IMHO) than Ubuntu is. In Ubuntu, all you need to do to get the rest of the codecs you need is gain access to the Medibuntu [www.medibuntu (http://www.%3Cb%3Emedibuntu%3C/b%3E).org] repositories and install via Synaptic. In Windows, if you want DivX, Ogg Vorbis, Quicktime, (anything not native Windows), etc., you have to find, download, and install all those packages separately, then try to keep each of those items updated yourself unless you want a bunch of different processes running to track those individually for you. How long will it take to boot Windows then once you have 40 or more processes running at boot? I can't count the times I've had to run msconfig to keep unnecessary processes from loading automatically.


Linux, especially Ubuntu, is ready now, no qualms. All people need to do is be willing to try something a little different. Then they'll be amazed at how simple it can be to keep your system updated and protected. Amen to that! IMHO (just to continue the trend here), I'd rather do the toughest Linux install I've ever dealt with, than the easiest Windows install I've ever done. Wait a minute. I think that's a conflict in terms. I don't think you can use "easy" and "Windows install" in the same sentence, without violating some law of nature, or something.:lolflag:

Linux, especially Ubuntu IS ready now. (Repeated for emphasis.) Installing Windows is a nightmare. Using it, once it's been installed, isn't much better. Ubuntu-Linux, on the other hand is a piece of cake to install, and a joy to use. It's as simple as that. And I'm not just talking through my hat here, I've done a lot of installations, of both OSs. Installing Linux is so easy, I never make any attempt to avoid it. Windows--yikes, I'd rather have a root canal. I finally decided, last month, to start telling my friends, "I don't do Windows. Here, stick this CD in your computer, play around with it for a while, and get back to me... because I DO do Linux.":guitar:

Just DO NOT FORGET to do the MD5SUM check of your downloaded .iso file, and check the CD you burn it to for errors BEFORE YOU DO THE INSTALL! And DO NOT RUN or otherwise use the installation UNTIL YOU HAVE RUN the "Update Manager". I cannot stress the absolute necessity of all three of these steps enough. I am convinced that at least half, maybe as much as 90% of the people who write in, grousing about how unstable, and undependable Linux is; how it hangs on them, etc., etc., etc., are running a faulty install.:(

If one tiny little bit, anywhere in the .iso file experiences a transmission error--if one tiny little bit fails to copy correctly to the CD, or if a bug-fix in one of the updates that came out after the .iso file for your installation was created, you are virtually GUARANTEED a problematic experience with your Linux install.

If Linux is anything, it is stable. So, if you are experiencing any kind of instability problems AT ALL, or any incorrect or erratic behavior from your system, YOU ARE RUNNING FROM A FAULTY INSTALL! Before you go off, half cocked, blaming Linux, be absolutely positive you have a pristine and up to date install! It takes very little time to make these checks, and bring the system up to date; less time, in fact, than the time you have to waste waiting for Windows to reboot, and reboot, and reboot, during an install and it's subsequent requisite "Windows Update".

Follow this advice, it's all documented in the "How to Install..." pages of the Ubuntu documentation, and I almost guarantee you a great computing experience. A month down the road, and you'll be wondering how you ever managed to put up with that bloated pig of an OS you were using before.

Cheers,

karellen
July 25th, 2008, 10:38 AM
Amen to that! IMHO (just to continue the trend here), I'd rather do the toughest Linux install I've ever dealt with, than the easiest Windows install I've ever done. Wait a minute. I think that's a conflict in terms. I don't think you can use "easy" and "Windows install" in the same sentence, without violating some law of nature, or something.:lolflag:

Linux, especially Ubuntu IS ready now. (Repeated for emphasis.) Installing Windows is a nightmare. Using it, once it's been installed, isn't much better. Ubuntu-Linux, on the other hand is a piece of cake to install, and a joy to use. It's as simple as that. And I'm not just talking through my hat here, I've done a lot of installations, of both OSs. Installing Linux is so easy, I never make any attempt to avoid it. Windows--yikes, I'd rather have a root canal. I finally decided, last month, to start telling my friends, "I don't do Windows. Here, stick this CD in your computer, play around with it for a while, and get back to me... because I DO do Linux.":guitar:

Just DO NOT FORGET to do the MD5SUM check of your downloaded .iso file, and check the CD you burn it to for errors BEFORE YOU DO THE INSTALL! And DO NOT RUN or otherwise use the installation UNTIL YOU HAVE RUN the "Update Manager". I cannot stress the absolute necessity of all three of these steps enough. I am convinced that at least half, maybe as much as 90% of the people who write in, grousing about how unstable, and undependable Linux is; how it hangs on them, etc., etc., etc., are running a faulty install.:(

If one tiny little bit, anywhere in the .iso file experiences a transmission error--if one tiny little bit fails to copy correctly to the CD, or if a bug-fix in one of the updates that came out after the .iso file for your installation was created, you are virtually GUARANTEED a problematic experience with your Linux install.

If Linux is anything, it is stable. So, if you are experiencing any kind of instability problems AT ALL, or any incorrect or erratic behavior from your system, YOU ARE RUNNING FROM A FAULTY INSTALL! Before you go off, half cocked, blaming Linux, be absolutely positive you have a pristine and up to date install! It takes very little time to make these checks, and bring the system up to date; less time, in fact, than the time you have to waste waiting for Windows to reboot, and reboot, and reboot, during an install and it's subsequent requisite "Windows Update".

Follow this advice, it's all documented in the "How to Install..." pages of the Ubuntu documentation, and I almost guarantee you a great computing experience. A month down the road, and you'll be wondering how you ever managed to put up with that bloated pig of an OS you were using before.

Cheers,

ok, we got it. Linux/Ubuntu is a credo and the answer to everything ;)

bilijoe
July 25th, 2008, 11:14 PM
ok, we got it. Linux/Ubuntu is a credo and the answer to everything ;) Well finally, y'all are startin' to understand. Hallelujah! =D>

So, go ye therefore into the world, and preach the word to the masses, that they too may be freed from the unrighteous Gates of bondage that have restrained them for lo these many years.:wink::wink:

For a Glorious New Day is Dawning. Freedom, brothers and sisters! Freedom to choose for ourselves! To choose between the GUI and the CLI. Freedom to choose based upon our own needs and preferences.

The time has come to break free from the old, closed world, where our vision was restricted to that which could be seen through the Windows. Windows controlled and limited by others. Others, inaccessible to us, and insensitive to our needs and desires.

Yes, I tell you, the time is NOW! Now is the time to break Free into the New and Open world of the 21st Century. A world in which we are free to choose from among many options, free to frolic among the Scripts, issue commands as fit our needs, and play amongst the many incarnations of our Beloved OS. Can I get an AMEN? "AMEN!"

Yes brothers and sisters, in this new world of choice and freedom, we have access even unto the Kernel of knowledge itself. Yea, even unto the Source itself, from which all power is derived. Let me hear you say Hallelujah! "Hallelujah!" Let me hear you say Amen! "Amen!"

Now GO! Throw open those Windows and Gates that have for so long restricted and controlled your access to the boundless universe of bits and bytes, the Megabytes and Gigabytes of our world. Go! Run free and frolic, secure in the knowledge that, should you trip up, or venture into unfamiliar territory, should you find yourself stuck, or lost in the vast possibilities of this free and open new world, help is but a Forum post away. Yes, my friends, you can feel free to explore and experiment with impunity, for within this wonderful new world there exists the bond of community. A bond that makes us all a part of a greater whole, and creates for us an environment where no newbie shall be left behind, where no user shall be left confused, where no one is an outsider. And from that bond, that feeling of caring about our brothers and our sisters, has grown a most powerful and accessible wellspring of knowledge and information, of guidance, and how-to. Ask, and it shall be given. Post to the almighty forums, and you will find a brother, or a sister, or an entire group, ready, willing, and [mmm, usually] able to guide you through whatever be your current distress.

This world of which I speak is far too vast, and far too wonderful, and powerful, and flexible, programmable, etc., for it to ever be related by simple telling. It must be experienced for one's self, in order to even begin to comprehend the vastness and fluidity of its power, and the friendly and intuitive nature of its interface.

SO GO! Go NOW, to where you can freely experience all that of which I have told you. Go to www.ubuntu.com (http://ubuntuforums.org/www.ubuntu.com). Go and "Get Ubuntu" for yourself. Follow the link to "Download Ubuntu: Download Now". Make the choices that are right for you, and "Start Download".

leo_rockway
July 25th, 2008, 11:22 PM
Well finally, y'all are startin' to understand. Hallelujah! =D>

Let me hear you say Hallelujah!

Hallelujah!

Haha, your post made me laugh. Now if anybody calls me a GNU fanatic again I can just send them to your post to show them what a fanatic really is. :P

bcschmerker
July 27th, 2008, 04:46 AM
I'd say that bilijoe put it rather succinctly. No business can afford to waste downtime with buggy applications, and one advantage with LinUX is the availability of the source code for many routine apps--an availability one seldom finds in Windows or MacOS, and one critical to debugging. As I understand things, some applications actually run more reliably as on-site compiles than as prepackages; I've only a bear of a time using source with my Everex due to specific configuration problems with gOS that result in access denials during attempted extracts (from TAR) and attempted Makes, not an issue with LinUX in general. In my earlier post this Thread, 99.9+% functional means less than 0.1% downtime from bugs, crashes, &c.; the LinUX community can react to bugs far more promptly than a commercial developer in some cases, a crucial advantage for application reliability, as others can testify.

KIAaze
July 27th, 2008, 03:42 PM
let me hear you say amen! "amen!"


amen! =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

(Note: You have been honored by being bookmarked as a special post.)

billgoldberg
July 27th, 2008, 04:22 PM
"Anyone can use it once it's already been installed and configured "

That's pretty much the definition.

Try installing OSX on a non mac pc and ask if it's ready for the desktop.

Or ask joe sixpack to install an xp retail version.

--> driver madness

If you install ubuntu and configure for the person that uses it. Give them a 5 min explanation, chances are you're never going to hear them again.

Frak
July 27th, 2008, 06:06 PM
Try installing OSX on a non mac pc and ask if it's ready for the desktop.

It comes on computers pre-installed. Good enough. Remember, the user should have to install it to be desktop ready (read somewhere up above).

Better yet, try playing some very common formats. That's right, you can't. WMV, WMA, FLAC, DivX, XviD, AC3, etc, etc, etc.

BTW, Perian (http://perian.org/)fixes this pretty well.

emshains
July 27th, 2008, 10:39 PM
It comes on computers pre-installed. Good enough. Remember, the user should have to install it to be desktop ready (read somewhere up above).

Better yet, try playing some very common formats. That's right, you can't. WMV, WMA, FLAC, DivX, XviD, AC3, etc, etc, etc.

BTW, Perian (http://perian.org/)fixes this pretty well.

BS! You can! You open it with totem, then it will download the packages you need and voila, youre playing WMV, which is a winsucks format. For windows I would usually open the explorer, catch 10 viruses on the way to firefox.com, download it, catch 1 virus googling the xvid codec, download it and then realising its a trjoan and then googling again until I find the one I need.


Linux in general may not be user friendly already, but ubuntu is. It is a lot easier than windows, if you have started with it. Just try!

And once there will be more people using linux, there will be more software made for it, and that will make more people to use linux and so on and so on. Take ATi for instance, their drivers suck now, but they opend up the source so in time we will see drivers that are developed by the toughest linux junkies and you'll see the mix of "ati+dc*+games" working.
*-means desktop compositor

emshains
July 27th, 2008, 10:44 PM
Some do so in compliance with the most conservative laws (Linspire/Xandros), and others do so in flagrant violation of such laws, either because they are based in a country where preinstallation of such codecs is legal or because they just don't care.

lamo about the just dont care!

emshains
July 27th, 2008, 10:59 PM
Well calm down, scooter. I wasn't sure. I noted that I wasn't a programmer, and maybe I used the wrong terms. But go to a website like skype.com and see how many different versions there are for Linux. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah I know there are places that break programs down by Windows releases, too, but we're not talking about windows.

Plus, I'm sure most companies don't want to release the source code to their proprietary software.

Anyway, just thought I'd drop my two cents in. Thanks for correcting my assumptions, but I still say that Until your choices are as simple as "Windows", "Mac", and "Linux", Windows will always be on top. :(

EDIT: And before someone mentions it, I realize that the different versions on a site like skype.com are for the package installers, and that the source program is essentially the same. But we're not talking about cross-compatibility, we're talking about desktop readiness...and what happens if Skype didn't have an Ubuntu version. Should the end user have to compile from source? I don't think so, and I believe that until the people making decisions for the major distros think so, too, we'll still be talking about Linux desktop readiness ten years from now.

Thats because everyone can make their own linux! And everyone can choose the one that fits them best. You dont have to try them all, just get a bunch of the best to choose, there are tons of forums and websites to get info about (mostly) every distro. As far as I can see there is no problem.

If hardware driver devs have a problem, they just make a source code of their best suiting driver, and then people who develop their distros will embed the driver into their distro, or atleast make an installer from it.

Frak
July 28th, 2008, 04:43 AM
BS! You can! You open it with totem, then it will download the packages you need and voila, youre playing WMV, which is a winsucks format. For windows I would usually open the explorer, catch 10 viruses on the way to firefox.com, download it, catch 1 virus googling the xvid codec, download it and then realising its a trjoan and then googling again until I find the one I need.


Linux in general may not be user friendly already, but ubuntu is. It is a lot easier than windows, if you have started with it. Just try!

And once there will be more people using linux, there will be more software made for it, and that will make more people to use linux and so on and so on. Take ATi for instance, their drivers suck now, but they opend up the source so in time we will see drivers that are developed by the toughest linux junkies and you'll see the mix of "ati+dc*+games" working.
*-means desktop compositor
I'm talking about OS X. I even mentioned it in the Perian reference. Learn to read entire posts my friend. Hell, I even quoted a person arguing about OS X.

/mocking of new users that forget to backtrack quoted posts

bilijoe
July 28th, 2008, 09:20 AM
Linux in general may not be user friendly already, but ubuntu is. It is a lot easier than windows, if you have started with it. Just try! :confused: How can Linux not be user friendly, while at the same time being a lot easier than windows?

I really don't get this whole "not user friendly" thing. I think it's just old rumors, still echoing around in the attic. I think Linux is easily as user friendly as Windows in general, and more user friendly than VISTA. VISTA was designed not to be user friendly. Didn't you catch that news blurb that ricocheted all round the computer community a few months back? (I wish I could find a reference to the thing). At some big computer industry conference, when Microsoft's representative got up to speak (I think it was their VP of Product Development--some high ranking guy), he couldn't deliver his presentation, because he was inundated with questions, shouted out, about VISTA. He finally had enough and basically hollered out over the din, 'All right. I'll level with you. Vista is supposed to be annoying; it's in the design spec. If you run the newest versions of Office, etc., and don't have any problematic old hardware in the system, all those annoying pop-ups will stop. It's intended to get users to move into the 21st century, and replace all their old software and hardware. Until they do, it's supposed to be annoying.' Sounds like an attempt at subliminal behavior modification to me. Isn't that illegal? If it isn't, it should be. Now, how can you compete with something like that, when it comes to being "not user friendly"? It's in the design spec. It's supposed to be "user hostile" (until you go out and spend $1,000 on new MS software, and God knows what hardware it doesn't like).

thewzd
August 3rd, 2008, 05:48 AM
:confused: How can Linux not be user friendly, while at the same time being a lot easier than windows?

I really don't get this whole "not user friendly" thing. I think it's just old rumors, still echoing around in the attic. I think Linux is easily as user friendly as Windows in general, and more user friendly than VISTA. VISTA was designed not to be user friendly. (some text removed).

I have to agree with bilijoe about 'old rumours', and here's why :-
Having been in IT (software development and a heavy multi-computer user) since early 1980's, I've watched Linux grow up. It may have been slow to get wrapped up by nice GUI front ends, but Ubuntu seem to have nailed it on the head now. That doesn't mean "job done, relax". It means, "Wow, Ubuntu's community really have something special here..." and I can see it's potential for replacing most of the Windows desktops in both personal, professional and commercial environments.

My next comment is that "Microsoft should be concerned, very concerned!". I've been pro-Microsoft products (in technical development, web development, web hosting and general-user point of view) for a very long time, and why not, there are things that they do very well. But every time they 'upgrade', there seems to be a lack of focus in why people are using their PC/desktops. Microsoft's policy, from an end-user point of view, seems to be purely revenue. Breathing in costs 10 US$ and breathing out costs 5 US$. No matter what you do, they've got a license for it or it costs something to use it. OpenOffice has been around for a long time. I even remember it before it got to version 1.0 and now since I've re-visited the whole Linux Desktop environment, it's on version 2.4 and looking really sweet now.

My point is this, I'm impressed with Ubuntu. Very impressed. And I'm impressed how much 'The Community' has come together over the years. No longer do I feel like I'm "sticking my neck out" to use a Linux desktop.

I've now installed Ubuntu on 3 of my 4 PC's and I'm in the process of moving over my full WinXP Software/Web development environment laptop too. In addition to that, my level of interest has rubbed off onto my non-technical friends, and I've already got 3 people that want me to get rid of the Windows Vista off their laptop and replace it with Ubuntu!

Microsoft should consider this retreat to be just as devastating as any attack. Silently (and about time), there are lots of people walking away from Windows' hold on their computing life!

If only MORE people could get introduced to Ubuntu... most people (Windows users) have never even heard of it, so from now on, count me in... I'll do my bit by waving my hands in the air shouting "Hey, over here... there's another way!"

fraorlando
August 3rd, 2008, 11:58 AM
hello billyjoe, no i dont think ubuntu, or other sophisticated distributions are end-user ready. Example: i need to burn a dvd with linux. Mounting the harddrives was not easy, now k3b crashes all the time in suse, when in xubuntu it would burn 10 to 50% etc, etc. Now, 3 days later, 4 different distributions installed, from which 2 wouldnt install (reason unknown), i still cant do what i want: just burn a dvd. Solution: install windows xp , burn, ready. Or even better, buy a mac...and such thingsare the answer to why linux desktops do not play a significant role for the average end-user - he just want things to be done. period. (and, for that matter, the answer to why nobody seems to like vista either...)

lancest
August 3rd, 2008, 12:41 PM
Linux is the only OS I have every used to copy/burn/rip CDs or DVDs. Very simple, though I never knew how to do it in XP and i used it many years. My point? I guess that XP didn't provide the software to do such things but Ubuntu did- at the tip of my fingers. It's wrong to assume that XP is right for everybody and Linux is somehow deficient.

OzzyFrank
August 4th, 2008, 12:24 AM
hello billyjoe, no i dont think ubuntu, or other sophisticated distributions are end-user ready. Example: i need to burn a dvd with linux. Mounting the harddrives was not easy, now k3b crashes all the time in suse, when in xubuntu it would burn 10 to 50% etc, etc. Now, 3 days later, 4 different distributions installed, from which 2 wouldnt install (reason unknown), i still cant do what i want: just burn a dvd. Solution: install windows xp , burn, ready. Or even better, buy a mac...and such thingsare the answer to why linux desktops do not play a significant role for the average end-user - he just want things to be done. period. (and, for that matter, the answer to why nobody seems to like vista either...)

Um, I think that falls under the category of "subjective"... ie: that even noticing that the vast majority of users have no such issue, you are basing your assumptions of "desktop readiness" on your own unfortunate experiences. I've had so many people be amazed how much more "ready" Ubuntu is than XP... one thing they all noted was you could play and burn DVDs "out of the box", whereas with Windows you can't do this (if you beg to differ, do a fresh install of Windows, THEN get back to me, hehe).

So, I'm sorry if you've had a rough time with it... but most of us by far haven't. I really should ask if there is possibly something you've been doing wrong? Even Nautilus has a built-in CD/DVD creator you just drag files into. Have you tried the program GnomeBaker? And if burning single-layer discs with no copyright protection, tried just right-clicking the desktop icon that appears and choosing to copy the disc?

bilijoe
August 4th, 2008, 09:29 AM
hello billyjoe, no i dont think ubuntu, or other sophisticated distributions are end-user ready. Example: i need to burn a dvd with linux. Mounting the harddrives was not easy, now k3b crashes all the time in suse, when in xubuntu it would burn 10 to 50% etc, etc. Now, 3 days later, 4 different distributions installed, from which 2 wouldnt install (reason unknown), i still cant do what i want: just burn a dvd. Solution: install windows xp , burn, ready. Or even better, buy a mac...and such thingsare the answer to why linux desktops do not play a significant role for the average end-user - he just want things to be done. period. (and, for that matter, the answer to why nobody seems to like vista either...) I really don't understand what some of you people out there are doing to get these installations where you see the end result as something overly complicated, or less than professional. I can tell you this though, you are doing it to yourself, either by using some kind of esoteric, off the wall hardware (which will screw up a Windows install just as badly), or you are doing a sloppy install somehow. :(

I have installed Ubuntu-Linux on 5 of my own machines, and 3 friends' machines. We have all been copying CDs and DVDs, and using them for backup/archive purpose, and none of us has ever had to mount a hard drive or any other drive manually. On every single install I've ever done, using Ubuntu-Linux, I've NEVER had to do anything except run the install CD, run the Update Manager, use Synaptic to get a few things that weren't part of the install (which was always a cake walk), install a printer, and start using the system, in all its glory, with all its features and functionality totally intact, right out of the box. :)

Why, on Earth, did you find it necessary to mount a hard drive manually? I just don't get it. NOBODY I know, who uses Ubuntu-Linux has EVER had ANY significant trouble getting their system to do EVERYTHING their old Window$ systems did (except crash all the time). What do all you complainers out there do [differently], to get your Linux systems to act up so severely, or perform so poorly? Really! I'd like to know. :confused:

Almost every complaint I hear sounds to me exactly like the kind of thing you run into, if you fail to ensure a CLEAN install. And that's your fault, not Ubuntu or Linux. Are you installing from "factory" install disks, or did you download and burn an image to CD yourself? If you did, did you check the MD5 hash value of your .iso file against the one in the database of "correct" MD5SUM values. If you did not, then it is you who are at fault for ALL your troubles. Did you verify that your .iso file copied to your CD without any errors? If you did not, then, again, you are the source of ALL your troubles. Did you run the Update Manager, immediately after the install was finished, and before running any programs or otherwise using the machine? If you did not... [-X

Really, what are you people doing? I mean, every time I read a post like yours, I get seriously perplexed over what it is that I don't know, that can make Linux installations go so haywire. I have been in various different corners of the computer world for almost 40 years now, and I know what kinds of failures occur, which types are software related, which are hardware related, and which are due to corrupted system (i.e., OS) files. And my experience tells me that almost every post I see, with a description similar to yours about all the problems, and how funky the OS is, it just screams corrupted system file data! A condition which, especially if it occurs right at the start, is virtually always the result of a less than proper install; i.e., USER ERROR!

The procedures for verifying the .iso file integrity (via MD5SUM comparisons), and for checking the CD, after the .iso file has been burned to it, are well documented in Ubuntu's instructions on installing the OS. And, I thought it was common knowledge, that a "proper" install, regardless of the OS, always included using the Os's program to download and install upgrades so the system is up to date, before it goes into actual use.

I don't know how it's possible for most of the types of problems disgruntled users are always complaining about to even occur. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say that if you encounter problems after an install, that can't be fixed with four or fewer posts to Ubuntu's Forums (best tech support going), then your troubles are YOUR FAULT!

Sorry to sound so harsh here, but I have been studying this phenomenon for over six months now, by reading all the posts by people who seen to think that their problems can be blamed on Linux, analyzing the types of problems most of them seem to have, and, using my significant experience to determine, what the most likely cause for problems of these types to occur,

[U]The verdict is in! The vast majority of problems reported by people who are less than impressed with Ubuntu-Linux, fall into the category of "most likely caused by corrupted program data. That would be the data that was transfered to your computer as part of the initial install.

So, boys and girls, before you go mouthing off half cocked, make damned sure you didn't create all the problems you are bitching about by screwing up your own install. Uuntil you are certain the fault absolutely is due to a programming error in the OS or one of its integral components, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! :oops:

I'm sick and tired of people, who don't know what they are talking about, sullying the reputation of what will, in due time, prove itself to be far and away the best microcomputer OS ever. Linux has been [unfairly] burdened with a bad reputation for far too long now. The majority of those who know operating systems have a great deal of respect for Linux, and hold it in high regard. That is to say that those who DO know what they are talking about, would like to see Linux get its FAIR day in court--To be vindicated, and freed of these rumors being bandied about by those who wouldn't know a GOOD OS if it bit them.

The bottom line? Linux is known for its excellence in the following areas. 1) It DOES NOT CRASH OR FREEZE! No other PC OS has EVER been as highly respected as Linux for being so stable and crash proof. 2) Linux is immune to viruses, worms, trojans, XYZware, unauthorized access to data... and crashing. 3) It uses a highly efficient, well designed, and robust file system, which it constantly grooms, to keep fragmentation, and "lost" disk space to a minimum. 4) Its source code is readily available, so, if you don't like the way something works, or need a special feature added to the basic OS, learn to program, and you can fix or modify it yourself. 5) Linux was created, expanded, improved, and maintained by people just like [most of] us, not by some glob of corporate Suits from Washington or Florida. :wink:

Well I think (I hope) I've made my point. I know I was harsh at times within these lines--that was not meant to embarrass or belittle anyone, but to make a point. A point that I think needs to be made, in order to allow Linux to develop the reputation, and public perception it deserves. I am sincerely sorry if I offended anyone--that was not, at all, my intention.
(By the way, you do know that the MAX OS X is just an Apple distro of Linux, don't you?)

Sincerely,

leo_rockway
August 4th, 2008, 10:10 AM
No other PC OS has EVER been as highly respected as Linux for being so stable and crash proof.

Pst... hey... *bsd and... er... Solaris :P
Anyway, I call my OS 'GNU' and not 'Linux', haha.

OzzyFrank
August 4th, 2008, 10:50 AM
(Quoting bilijoe:)

"I have installed Ubuntu-Linux on 5 of my own machines, and 3 friends' machines. We have all been copying CDs and DVDs, and using them for backup/archive purpose..."

Yes, it has been a pleasure doing similar, and watching the disbelief from those used to more mucking around installing Windows. The ability to play almost any vid out of the box has more than impressed some, especially when they still can't get some of them to play in Windows Media Player with 2 or 3 different codec packs installed! And install ubuntu-restricted extras and you can play EVERYTHING. And yeah, unlike Windows (XP at least) Ubuntu actually comes with some apps to burn discs!

"... and none of us has ever had to *mount* a hard drive or any other drive manually" + "Why, on Earth, did you find it necessary to mount a hard drive manually?"

OK, having been a user since Edgy 6.10, I can tell you there definitely was a time when you had to manually mount your drives, or of course get that automated by adding the appropriate lines to fstab. They started changing that in 7.04, but I still use fstab entries to have total control of how they are mounted. But yeah, what the hell is anyone doing mounting their drives manually in 8.04? I think he's telling us he has no choice, but I couldn't even begin to speculate on what is going on there, unless he was installing 6.10. And if he is having to mount the disc drive, probably God doesn't even know what is going on there!!

"NOBODY I know, who uses Ubuntu-Linux has EVER had ANY significant trouble getting their system to do EVERYTHING their old Window$ systems did (except crash all the time)."

Funny! (The crashing bit). But while I love Ubuntu and it's my main OS now, there are still some things that won't work on it, or require lots of fiddling, but that is the fault of the manufacturers. And let's not forget some hardware barely works in Windows! (Not to mention how many bits of hardware/peripherals stopped working when you upgraded Windows!).

But I've also had hardware work out of the box, while in Windows I had to set up the drivers. The only thing I can't get to work is my problem Leadtek Winfast TV/FM card ("Sorry, we don't support Linux") and my Imation DiscStakka unit.

"Are you installing from "factory" install disks, or did you download and burn an image to CD yourself?"

I think a failed download or burn would end up in the installation just failing somewhere along the line. It's definitely the biggest cause of failed installs out there. I never even knew what an MD5 was till I got into Ubuntu, now I generate them for data discs I am burning to verify them afterwards (to check your Ubuntu discs after being burned, open a terminal in the CD drive and md5sum -c md5sum.txt and it will let you know if any files failed the test).

"And my experience tells me that almost every post I see, with a description similar to yours about all the problems, and how funky the OS is, it just screams *corrupted system file data!"

Yeah, a dying hard drive can give all sorts of errors... a corrupt filesystem ain't gonna do anything but get worse... dying RAM chips leading to corruption of data... hardware conflicts doing all sorts of weird crap... it's not always the OS being a piece of crud (though it is in the case of Windows, hehe!).

"... the result of a less than proper install; i.e., USER ERROR!"

Not saying I disagree with you, but as you pointed out, the install is pretty damned simple... I don't even think there IS something you can stuff up along the way, hehehe. These people can't be pausing the install to do all sorts of weirdness, so it must be something afterwards, or something definitely hardware related. Faulty RAM chips have been the cause of so many different errors I've seen, it isn't funny (and seriously, it's never been funny! Hehe...). Seriously guys: Use the dang memtest on the Live CD, for God's sake! That way you can rule out faulty RAM before posting.

"The vast majority of problems reported by people who are less than impressed with Ubuntu-Linux, fall into the category of "most likely caused by corrupted program data."

... which could well likely be a result of faulty RAM. Happened to me in my early days of Ubuntu... luckily saved mass corruption of the system by getting rid of the faulty RAM as soon as things started getting a little screwy. (Then I had to reinstall when my hard drive died, hahaha!).

And for those who run memtest, find your memory is faulty, and you know you have 2 or more chips, just take one out and run memtest again till you figure out which chip has to be turfed.

"So, boys and girls, before you go mouthing off half cocked, *make damned sure you didn't create all the problems you are bitching about by screwing up your own install."

... and run memtest! But you are a hard man bilijoe, and I'm known as Frank the *******! hehehe...

"It DOES NOT CRASH OR FREEZE!"

Ahem... OK, let's not get into that one! Oh, shucks, LET'S! OK, it CAN happen, but yeah, even in my experience (I tinker and ask for trouble!), it is much rarer than in Windows. I've had hardware cause freezes in Windows, let alone software and just the OS having whatever errors. But Linux can freeze and/or crash, but it takes a lot more to do it!

"It uses a highly efficient, well designed, and robust file system, which it constantly grooms, to keep fragmentation, and "lost" disk space to a minimum."

Yeah, I've even seen fanboys of Vista complaining that they are still so behind on that, and that the WinFS project was dumped in favour of getting that Alpha-piece-of-crap out to disappoint millions of users as quickly as possible. Apparently, the filesystem for Windows will be the same in the next version, but possibly be more like Linux in the one after.

"if you don't like the way something works, or need a special feature added to the basic OS, learn to program, and you can fix or modify it yourself."

Good God, you ARE a hard man, aren't you?! Hehehe... that's a big ask... but yeah, at least one can do so, while in Windows world that makes you a felon!

"I know I was harsh at times within these lines"

No... I mean... you think? Hehe... but you are allowed to, just as others have a right to flame Ubuntu and Linux in general. But while your comments are based on things you know, those of the detractors are quite often based on sheer ignorance. (Test your RAM chips guys, hahaha!)

Frak
August 4th, 2008, 07:22 PM
The bottom line? Linux is known for its excellence in the following areas. 1) It DOES NOT CRASH OR FREEZE! No other PC OS has EVER been as highly respected as Linux for being so stable and crash proof. 2) Linux is immune to viruses, worms, trojans, XYZware, unauthorized access to data... and crashing. 3) It uses a highly efficient, well designed, and robust file system, which it constantly grooms, to keep fragmentation, and "lost" disk space to a minimum. 4) Its source code is readily available, so, if you don't like the way something works, or need a special feature added to the basic OS, learn to program, and you can fix or modify it yourself. 5) Linux was created, expanded, improved, and maintained by people just like [most of] us, not by some glob of corporate Suits from Washington or Florida. :wink:

1) It's crashed on my before. Whether you want to count GNU software (Gnome) or the Kernel itself, I have had it crash/panic.

2) It's not immune to virii. Nothing is immune to it.

3) ZFS is much more groomed and efficient, and it will probably never get ported to GNU/Linux because of its license. (CDDL)

4) Or you can pay someone to do it for you.

5) Novell and RedHat are corporate blobs.


(By the way, you do know that the MAX OS X is just an Apple distro of Linux, don't you?)

No its not, its sort of based on BSD. The kernel is named XNU. (Leopard received the first BSD-based UNIX 03 Certification).

cardinals_fan
August 4th, 2008, 07:39 PM
[/I][/B][COLOR=Black][SIZE=1]The bottom line? Linux is known for its excellence in the following areas. 1) It DOES NOT CRASH OR FREEZE! No other PC OS has EVER been as highly respected as Linux for being so stable and crash proof. 2) Linux is immune to viruses, worms, trojans, XYZware, unauthorized access to data... and crashing.
1. Talking about "Linux" being so "crash-proof" is silly. Linux is a kernel, nothing more. Some distributions hug the bleeding edge tightly and DO crash. Others, such as Red Hat or Slackware, stay conservative and crash very rarely. Most BSDs and Solaris are generally considered stabler than most Linux distros. Regardless, every OS crashes. It's just an issue of how often it crashes.

2. No OS is "immune" to malware.


(By the way, you do know that the MAX OS X is just an Apple distro of Linux, don't you?)

Dead wrong. Mac OS X is based off Darwin, which is in turn kind of based off FreeBSD.

Frak
August 4th, 2008, 07:48 PM
Dead wrong. Mac OS X is based off Darwin, which is in turn kind of based off FreeBSD.

I always found this interesting:

NEXTSTEP was based off of FreeBSD and other OSS software such as Carnegie Mellon University's Mach Kernel.

Darwin is based off of NEXTSTEP + FreeBSD and other OSS software as above.

OS X was initially only based on NEXTSTEP (Rhapsody), but quickly integrated Darwin components into it.

bilijoe
August 4th, 2008, 10:19 PM
Dead wrong. Mac OS X is based off Darwin, which is in turn kind of based off FreeBSD. Not according to the info screen I recently saw on a Mac Book, running OS X 10.4???? (I can't remember the exact version nbr.) I think they started out as you say, but made changes after the first version of OS X was released. I'm not a Mac guy, so I don't know for sure, but while I was mucking around helping this guy recover from having forgotten his password, the "Single User Mode" (ROOT mode) sure looked, acted, and felt like Linux to me.

Newuser1111
August 4th, 2008, 10:23 PM
Not according to the info screen I recently saw on a Mac Book, running OS X 10.4???? (I can't remember the exact version nbr.) I think they started out as you say, but made changes after the first version of OS X was released. I'm not a Mac guy, so I don't know for sure, but while I was mucking around helping this guy recover from having forgotten his password, the "Single User Mode" (ROOT mode) sure looked, acted, and felt like Linux to me.The terminal seemed the same.
But the OS X I have is 10.4.8.


Edit:
See where "Mac OS X" is in this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unix_history-simple.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unix_history.en.svg

bilijoe
August 4th, 2008, 10:30 PM
Use the dang memtest on the Live CD, for God's sake! That way you can rule out faulty RAM before posting. Good point. I always buy premium quality RAM, and rarely use RAM from an older machine, in a newer one, so I have, luckily, avoided problems associated with bad or failing RAM. But it can cause exactly the same kinds of problems as can an error during a download, or a copying error, so you are absolutely right to admonish people to use the utility. I think I'll add that to my tirade, next time I unload on someone who is bad-rapping Linux when they obviously have other problems. (I just hate that!)

bilijoe
August 5th, 2008, 12:40 AM
The terminal seemed the same.
But the OS X I have is 10.4.8.

Edit:
See where "Mac OS X" is in this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unix_history-simple.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unix_history.en.svg OK then, 'splain me then the difference. If things like FreeBSD, and OS X look, feel, and act like Linux, but are not Linux, what are they? If it looks like a rose, and it smells like a rose, and it tastes like a rose (oops, different analogy), then it must be a rose. What exactly does it take to be "Linux", as opposed to something that looks, acts, and feels like Linux?

cardinals_fan
August 5th, 2008, 12:55 AM
OK then, 'splain me then the difference. If things like FreeBSD, and OS X look, feel, and act like Linux, but are not Linux, what are they? If it looks like a rose, and it smells like a rose, and it tastes like a rose (oops, different analogy), then it must be a rose. What exactly does it take to be "Linux", as opposed to something that looks, acts, and feels like Linux?
To be "Linux", an OS must use the Linux kernel. OS X doesn't.

RiceMonster
August 5th, 2008, 12:57 AM
OK then, 'splain me then the difference. If things like FreeBSD, and OS X look, feel, and act like Linux, but are not Linux, what are they? If it looks like a rose, and it smells like a rose, and it tastes like a rose (oops, different analogy), then it must be a rose. What exactly does it take to be "Linux", as opposed to something that looks, acts, and feels like Linux?

The difference is FreeBSD is a direct descendant of Unix, and thus so is OSX. Linux is completely rewritten from scratch, and never shared any code with the original AT&T Unix at all. That's the difference.

They're two completely different kernels.

Frak
August 5th, 2008, 01:21 AM
Not according to the info screen I recently saw on a Mac Book, running OS X 10.4???? (I can't remember the exact version nbr.) I think they started out as you say, but made changes after the first version of OS X was released. I'm not a Mac guy, so I don't know for sure, but while I was mucking around helping this guy recover from having forgotten his password, the "Single User Mode" (ROOT mode) sure looked, acted, and felt like Linux to me.
A lot of Linux administration programs are mostly direct ports from Unix.

ooobuntooo
August 8th, 2008, 03:12 PM
The only way IMO for Linux to be popular is if it comes pre-installed on a wide range of hardware which is cheaper (minus the M$ tax).

I dunno if this IBM deal is going to go anywhere, they have been supporting Linux for 10 years and not much has happened.

tuxxy
August 8th, 2008, 03:13 PM
I think it need to improve the power management and then there will be an increase.

brunovecchi
August 8th, 2008, 03:28 PM
I suspect this thread is going to be moved to Recurring Discussions.

Brunellus
August 8th, 2008, 03:28 PM
I suspect this thread is going to be moved to Recurring Discussions.
suspicion confirmed. Thread is being merged with Linux Desktop Readiness thread.

Canis familiaris
August 8th, 2008, 04:50 PM
OK then, 'splain me then the difference. If things like FreeBSD, and OS X look, feel, and act like Linux, but are not Linux, what are they? If it looks like a rose, and it smells like a rose, and it tastes like a rose (oops, different analogy), then it must be a rose. What exactly does it take to be "Linux", as opposed to something that looks, acts, and feels like Linux?

I believe they all are called *nix.

iaskedalice09
August 9th, 2008, 08:02 AM
Having installed it just this Monday, I think it's very ready for an end user. There's a learning curve but it's not hard at all and I think it's well worth the time invested, considering that when I buy a new laptop it's either ubuntu or Vista. Guess which one I choose?

rpineger
August 25th, 2008, 10:05 AM
Other (please explain).

It includes production ready specialist applications for professionals such as Architects, Engineers, Technical Writers and Product Designers

State sponsored computer training courses use 'generic'/several operating systems and 'generic'/several word processors and spreadsheets and do not act as an unfair subsidy to monopolistic software providers.

nixter
August 30th, 2008, 11:07 PM
Working IT (2000 pcs HW - 500 full time staff/faculty - 3200 students) will quickly teach you that Linux is already there, as far as being ready for the desktop. It's the users of the desktop that aren't ready. If one looks at things rationally, the majority of desktop users understand very little about the devices they use every day and aren't able to install software without the assistance from some poor techie, much less device drivers -even with provided on a disc by the manufacturer. Our CTO is rather curious of Linux OSes but is simply scared to death of trusting something that doesn't come via the QC in Redmond. Funny thing is that we've relied immensely on our sun server for many years to handle mission critical data and apps ----- but that's from a commercial vendor ;)

Anyway, *nix is ready; been using Ubuntu since 5.10 - think that's right - and its like any other tool. Sometimes it is the right one for the job but sometimes it is not.:lolflag:

sandbird
September 27th, 2008, 11:09 AM
"Any person can install it on any computer without any problems" - what any Linux is not right now, and not even close.

Greyed
September 27th, 2008, 11:10 AM
"Any person can install it on any computer without any problems" - what any Linux is not right now, and not even close.

Hi troll. BTW, this doesn't apply to any other OS, either. Not Windows. Not Mac OSX. None. Begone.

leo_rockway
September 27th, 2008, 11:46 AM
"Any person can install it on any computer without any problems" - what any Linux is not right now, and not even close.

I like how you provided us with examples of where do you see the problems so we can change the problematic behaviours, how you compared this situation with other OSs (not just GNU) to see if they are also very far away from achieving this and how you offer possible solutions to this whole issue...

OzzyFrank
September 27th, 2008, 02:10 PM
"Any person can install it on any computer without any problems" - what any Linux is not right now, and not even close.

Hehehe... seriously, that's funny. And I can say that coz I just got Ubuntu onto a PIII 450MHz with 128Mb RAM, a bit below the recommended minimum system requirements. I've had issues with Ubuntu and other Linux distros on some PCs, usually pretty old ones, but nearly every time could resolve them one way or another. I've installed Windows much more times, and I can tell you from experience I've had some absolute nightmares! I mean, you have the most used OS in the world, drivers on a disc made for that OS, so you sort of expect things to work. And I repeat: NIGHTMARES I've had aplenty with Windows (and I DO know what I am doing, hehe).

As for Linux, I've been staggered how easy everything USUALLY is (I seriously DO feel sorry for those that have grief with trying to intall Linux, but look around: they ARE the exception to the rule).

And please no one say stuff like "Oh, but you can't even play a DVD 'out-of-the-box' like you can with Windows"... I don't know what frakkin' universe you come from, but Windows has no such user-friendliness in a fresh install! If you say "Oh, OK, it's been a while so I may have forgotten that even Microsoft was covering its butt re codecs and media copyright blahblahblah", so I had to get that support", I'll believe you. Tell me you just installed Windows XP and it has all that, I'll tell you that you've either got a hacked/remastered copy, or you're a liar.

Not too much has changed with Vista, yet with distros like Ubuntu, you just install one package afterwards and then all your codecs are looked after then onwards. Amazing! I have a bunch of codec packs installed in Windows and still can't play a bunch of vids i get these days, yet EVERY SINGLE ONE will play in Ubuntu! Having to type "sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted-extras" in a terminal is a small price to pay for superior media support even IF Windows did come with a bunch of codecs and copyrighted DVD support (which it doesn't).

So, not only has Linux "come a long way", it can be absolutely astonishing, especially if you've set up MANY Windows systems and have had to spend ages fiddling with this and that to get functionality that comes default in Ubuntu (like PDF viewing/creation, a decent picture editor, media and internet apps, etc).

I'm not saying the days of Windows are numbered, I'm just say that for an increasing number of us, their days are already gone. I only need to use it for eBay and OZtion software, because the heathens have yet to make Linux versions. Yeah, I use PhotoShop too, but only for some of the plugins, ie just when I need to achive a couple of effects (since I already know how to do them, and doubt I could [quickly] achieve the same results in Gimp, especially since I couldn't in PS without the plugin).

So while I repect the fact that many feel Linux still has a long way to go, I just have to exercise my right to object, especially since I've spent so much time in the Windows world, so can really compare. Cheers

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 03:52 PM
Hi troll. BTW, this doesn't apply to any other OS, either. Not Windows. Not Mac OSX. None. Begone.
He's not a troll if he's correct. OS X works without problems (hardware lock-in) and Windows allows you to load drivers during installation to maximize compatibility.

He has a point.

worx101
September 27th, 2008, 04:11 PM
He's not a troll if he's correct. OS X works without problems (hardware lock-in) and Windows allows you to load drivers during installation to maximize compatibility.

He has a point.

... no he doesn't...

OSX doesn't work on ANY computer... its far less compatible than linux so it doesn't even count.

And which version of windows? What if I use XP and there are no drivers for it(encountered numerous times now?) Especially vista, many companies have not released vista drivers for slightly older hardware.

At least Linux most likely will eventually support...

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 04:16 PM
... no he doesn't...

I'll explain it to you.


OSX doesn't work on ANY computer... its far less compatible than linux so it doesn't even count.

I am an OSx86 developer, and it has phenomenal hardware support out there. That is, as long as Apple has a Kext for it. Remember, Apple only supports their own hardware. That gives it 100% HW compatibility because it should only be run, again, on Apple hardware.


And which version of windows? What if I use XP and there are no drivers for it(encountered numerous times now?) Especially vista, many companies have not released vista drivers for slightly older hardware.

XP allows you to load drivers off of a floppy, and Vista allows you to load it off of a flash drive. And show me 3 companies that have not released drivers for "slightly older hardware". Even then, remember that Vista does need much newer hardware to work and handle correctly (Microsoft's scope).



At least Linux most likely will eventually support...

I'm not waiting 5 years for working support.

worx101
September 27th, 2008, 04:33 PM
I am an OSx86 developer, and it has phenomenal hardware support out there. That is, as long as Apple has a Kext for it. Remember, Apple only supports their own hardware. That gives it 100% HW compatibility because it should only be run, again, on Apple hardware.

Great! OSX works great on computers designed to support it... Guess what, so does Linux... So does Solaris and just about any other OS.




XP allows you to load drivers off of a floppy, and Vista allows you to load it off of a flash drive.

IF the drivers exists... And for xp, IF it fits on a floppy...


And show me 3 companies that have not released drivers for "slightly older hardware".

Pre-vista? Comeon... Seriously? if you haven't hit them you don't support anything but MACs or you are seriously blinding yourself.


Even then, remember that Vista does need much newer hardware to work and handle correctly (Microsoft's scope).

Great, so there goes the ANY PC mark. But, seriously Vista is ok now, but the only real edge it has over linux is that games mostly support only vista.

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 04:51 PM
Great! OSX works great on computers designed to support it... Guess what, so does Linux... So does Solaris and just about any other OS.


All Unix's don't support any of my computers networking cards, and Linux doesn't support my wireless... but wait... it was designed for an IBM compatible PC...



IF the drivers exists... And for xp, IF it fits on a floppy...

Slipstream them into your XP disc. Takes a whole 2 minutes with nLite.


Pre-vista? Comeon... Seriously? if you haven't hit them you don't support anything but MACs or you are seriously blinding yourself.

No, you just can't answer it so you resort to petty insults and accusations.


Great, so there goes the ANY PC mark. But, seriously Vista is ok now, but the only real edge it has over linux is that games mostly support only vista.

...Most games don't run on Linux... even with Wine...

pp.
September 27th, 2008, 04:55 PM
Slipstream them into your XP disc. Takes a whole 2 minutes with nLite.

Is that part of the XP 'distro' ?

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 05:24 PM
Is that part of the XP 'distro' ?
Look, the only reason you would ever need any extra drivers is if you have some far out hardware that's made by some island company that started up 3 days ago with no outside knowledge of them being there, and they just happen to have to care of set standards.

Windows XP/Vista complies with all hardware standards in terms of drivers and firmware. As long as the company keeps up with the standards, nobody has a problem. If the company does not support the standard, it is only the hardware manufacturer's fault.

Put the blame on where blame belongs. Microsoft too can only keep up with so much.

pp.
September 27th, 2008, 06:14 PM
Windows XP/Vista complies with all hardware standards in terms of drivers and firmware.

Say you're joking, please.

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 07:35 PM
Say you're joking, please.
It's either load 1 driver for 100 devices, or load 100 drivers and still not support 1 device.

Your choice.

Canis familiaris
September 27th, 2008, 07:43 PM
Explain.

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 07:49 PM
Explain.
All well-known video cards support the VESA standard (initiated by NEC). This was first created so all cards could use the same interface and same drivers. Now, almost all cards use the PCIe interface for connection, but still use a basic, low-level VESA interface.

This way, only one driver/module/kext has to be loaded in order to display basic graphics on a screen. The driver is small enough on DOS/NT boxes that it can be loaded in the 1st MB of memory (safe mode) and well documented enough for Linux to use it as a main interface. Now, no matter what card you have, you no longer have to include drivers or beg companies to put out even a basic documentation for how a card works. All cards will now operate (in a basic mode) on a single driver.

Now you know what I mean when I say load 1 driver for 100 devices, or load 100 drivers but still not support 1 device.

sistoviejo
September 27th, 2008, 08:08 PM
All well-known video cards support the VESA standard (initiated by NEC). This was first created so all cards could use the same interface and same drivers. Now, almost all cards use the PCIe interface for connection, but still use a basic, low-level VESA interface.

This way, only one driver/module/kext has to be loaded in order to display basic graphics on a screen. The driver is small enough on DOS/NT boxes that it can be loaded in the 1st MB of memory (safe mode) and well documented enough for Linux to use it as a main interface. Now, no matter what card you have, you no longer have to include drivers or beg companies to put out even a basic documentation for how a card works. All cards will now operate (in a basic mode) on a single driver.

Now you know what I mean when I say load 1 driver for 100 devices, or load 100 drivers but still not support 1 device.

Linux does work with all video cards on the basic console mode.
Afterwards you can install drivers (which usually come preinstalled and are detected automatically) so what's your point?

cardinals_fan
September 27th, 2008, 08:18 PM
Linux does work with all video cards on the basic console mode.
Afterwards you can install drivers (which usually come preinstalled and are detected automatically) so what's your point?
He's just saying that Windows will also do that.

pp.
September 27th, 2008, 08:58 PM
Look, the only reason you would ever need any extra drivers is if you have some far out hardware that's made by some island company that started up 3 days ago with no outside knowledge of them being there, and they just happen to have to care of set standards.

Windows XP/Vista complies with all hardware standards in terms of drivers and firmware. As long as the company keeps up with the standards, nobody has a problem. If the company does not support the standard, it is only the hardware manufacturer's fault.

Put the blame on where blame belongs. Microsoft too can only keep up with so much.


All well-known video cards support the VESA standard (initiated by NEC).

You are so right.

I happened to try running Linux on some desktop and laptop computers by unheard-of startup companies such as Dell and Compaq. Some of them happened to work out of the box, some did not.

Strangely enough, I also happened to install Windows XP on the very same computers, using the installation material as supplied by Microsoft. Guess what, there were lots of drivers missing which I had to hunt down. Of course, I was able to find those drivers. But: I did not find them on any site supported by Microsoft. I found them on the sites supported by the manufacturers of the hardware.

So, how is Microsoft's support for that hardware better than the support by Linux, if the support is supplied by those backwater companies, as you like to call them?

The VESA support: How is that useful except as a stopgap measure to get anything displayed at all? The VESA buffer is not something anyone would accept for day to day usage of a computer.

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 09:47 PM
Remember, Vista was Microsoft's first operating system to automatically install the appropriate device drivers for your hardware (with the exception of non-PnP inserted materials such as printers on Windows XP through Microsoft Update). Microsoft isn't going to bow down to companies to get their approval JUST to use 1 or 2 drivers. This is why a multitude of companies include CDs/DVDs with their hardware.

Do not get standards confused with hardware support. They are not the same subject used in many connotations. Even Ubuntu doesn't automatically install drivers for legal reasons. Microsoft is not immune to this. The latest ATi/nVidia drivers on Vista were included in Vista by default as an agreement between AMD, nVidia, and Microsoft.

In Windows XP, when you first formatted and installed, it fell back on the VESA driver as the user was expected to install their own drivers for their hardware. This is why many vendors included a special driver disc. You would run the installation material, reboot, and it was fine to use. Without the standards in place, there would be a lesser chance that you could reach to even this state.

Ubuntu can run on an nVidia card, but it doesn't support it by default. Only with a userspace driver is that possible.

pp.
September 27th, 2008, 09:58 PM
In Windows XP, when you first formatted and installed, it fell back on the VESA driver as the user was expected to install their own drivers for their hardware.

It also fell back on no NIC driver, no WLAN driver, no sound driver and whatever, and this on well known brands such as Dell and Compaq. Unless you used the original CDs supplied with the device you were out of luck and had to hunt all those drivers down.

That still is one of the major cost factors when I have to integrate even a reasonably modern PC model into my software deployment system for my fleet of Windows clients.

It may or may not be different for Vista. I don't happen to know that but I know the requirements which preclude using Vista on PCs which are older than about two years.

I do, however, know for a fact that the list of supported hardware was a permanent issue at least since Windows NT 4.0 up through Windows XP. I remember that it was an issue in Windows 95 and presumably earlier but can not prove that anymore.

Your statement that Windows makes the procurement of all needed drivers easier than Linux does is not supported by available evidence.

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 10:21 PM
It also fell back on no NIC driver, no WLAN driver, no sound driver and whatever, and this on well known brands such as Dell and Compaq. Unless you used the original CDs supplied with the device you were out of luck and had to hunt all those drivers down.

List to me all the hardware manufacturers that supply Dell and Compaq, for then, you will have your reasons.


That still is one of the major cost factors when I have to integrate even a reasonably modern PC model into my software deployment system for my fleet of Windows clients.

Sure ya do.


It may or may not be different for Vista. I don't happen to know that but I know the requirements which preclude using Vista on PCs which are older than about two years.

My PC is 5 years old and Vista runs great.


I do, however, know for a fact that the list of supported hardware was a permanent issue at least since Windows NT 4.0 up through Windows XP. I remember that it was an issue in Windows 95 and presumably earlier but can not prove that anymore.

As more variations of hardware are released, it becomes an issue for everybody. There are some lot of hardware that Linux doesn't support, and probably may never support due to the continuing change in variations. It's not useful to create a driver now to have it obsoleted a year later.


Your statement that Windows makes the procurement of all needed drivers easier than Linux does is not supported by available evidence.

I never said it was easier, I just said that a lot of vendors started releasing driver discs. I never implied that the procurement of drivers was easier. Hell, if there isn't a driver in Linux, you're pretty much SOL.

Old_Grey_Wolf
September 27th, 2008, 11:10 PM
1) Any person can install it on any computer without any problems
Most people I know don't install the OS themselves so I ruled this one out.

2) Anyone can use it once it's already been installed and configured
I picked this one because it is the way most people I know use their computers.

3) Every commercial application works on it
I don't know of any OS that does this so I ruled this one out.

4) Nothing--it's a nonsensical term
I did think about voting for this one since the poll is about what "ready for the desktop" mean[s] to you; therefore, it is a term that had not been clearly defined.

5) It automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers
The only time I have installed an OS and didn't have to hunt down drivers was when I re-installed an OS from the OEM disk provided with the computer I bought. However, if I changed the hardware after purchase, I had to hunt down drivers for the new hardware. So, I ruled this one out.

6) It comes preinstalled on computers so novice users don't have to install it
I don't think this is an appropriate option. It is asking for all computer manufacturers to offer computers with a choice of any operating system installed. I've been using computers for 36 years, and haven't seen any company offer a computer like that. I don't think it will happen any time soon either. This thread is titled "Linux Desktop Readiness Thread", so yes Linux comes pre-installed on some computers.

7) It's suitable to the needs of most beginner users but not necessarily to most intermediate ones
If I use a bell curve to describe users from beginner to intermediate to advanced; then most users fall into the intermediate range. Therefore, I ruled this one out.

8) Windows and nothing else... not even Mac OS X
This thread is titled "Linux Desktop Readiness Thread"; therefore, I considered this option flame bate.

9) Works on my desktop
I have computers (8 of them) in almost every room in my house with each dual booting various operating systems. So this option doesn't mean anything to me. I ruled this one out also.

leo_rockway
September 27th, 2008, 11:41 PM
Look, the only reason you would ever need any extra drivers is if you have some far out hardware that's made by some island company that started up 3 days ago with no outside knowledge of them being there, and they just happen to have to care of set standards.

I have a Genius scanner and I bought it in 1998. It had, of course, win9x drivers and it worked.
When XP came out I still had the same scanner (of course, why would I buy a new one if I already had a working one?) and XP didn't detect it at all. I had to hunt down drivers all over the web to see if there was one that turned my scanner from brick into... well, back into scanner.
For a year or so there was no driver availabe. Genius didn't produce any because they were selling newer scanners and they didn't feel it was profitable to produce an XP driver, I guess. But I didn't give up... I kept STFW every once in a while and then I found a Japanese site (all in Japanese, of course) that according to Google Translator had a working driver for my scanner. Luckily, it worked.
Was this M$' fault? I wouldn't say so. Was this Genius' fault? Definitely, but the same can be said when your scanner doesn't work on GNU/Linux.

But wait, I have a more interesting story.
I bought an ethernet card from "some island company that started up 3 days ago with no outside knowledge of them being there". After all, it's just an ethernet card... it __has__ to work.
Well, the card had a floppy with drivers for XP, and the card worked. But then comes a day on each XP that it needs to be reinstalled (usually every 6 months or so, we've all been there unless you are really lucky and never had to deal with Window$). The floppy, an obsolete thing even at the time I bought that ethernet card, was long lost and my last floppy driver had since been replaced with a DVD+RW.
But then again... it's only an ethernet card... it __has__ to work without a stupid driver.
Well, it turns out XP did recognize it as an ethernet card but that was about it. XP was like "yeah, it's an ethernet card alright, but it might as well be a gorilla for all I care. Give me a driver or I won't do anything."
So I had to STFW to hunt drivers down. But wait! Alas, I had no ethernet card to connect to the internets. Huh... I think I'm in trouble.
In the end I think I went to a friend's house and downloaded 2313613909104134 ethernet card drivers, copied them to a pendrive and tried them on my comp until the ethernet card worked.

An easier solution would have been to use a live cd, since GNU/Linux detects my ethernet card and connects to the internet without any problem from the get go.
What? Wait, why would I use a Kubuntu live CD to download drivers for XP... I think I'll just stay with this OS that does recognize a stupid ethernet card, thank you very much : -D



Put the blame on where blame belongs. Microsoft too can only keep up with so much.

So does GNU/Linux, what's your point?
The FSF is asking manufacturers to release their specs for a reason, don't you think?

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 11:43 PM
I have a Genius scanner and I bought it in 1998. It had, of course, win9x drivers and it worked.
When XP came out I still had the same scanner (of course, why would I buy a new one if I already have a working one?) ant XP didn't detect it at all. I had to hunt down drivers all over the web to see if there was one that turned my scanner from brick into... well, back into scanner.
For a year or so there was no driver availabe. Genius didn't produce any because they were selling newer scanner and they didn't feel it was profitable to produce an XP driver, I guess. But I didn't give up... I kept STFW every once in a while and then I found a Japanese site (all in Japanese, of course) that according to Google Translator had a working driver for my scanner. Luckily, it worked.
Was this M$' fault? I wouldn't say so. Was this Genius' fault? Definitely, but the same can be said when your scanner doesn't work on GNU/Linux.

But wait, I have a more interesting story.
I bought an ethernet card from "some island company that started up 3 days ago with no outside knowledge of them being there". After all, it's just an ethernet card... it __has__ to work.
Well, the card had a floppy with drivers for XP, and it worked. But then comes a day on each XP that it needs to be reinstalled (usually every 6 months or so, we've all been there unless you are really like and never had to deal with Window$). The floppy, an obsolete thing even at the time I bought that ethernet card, was long lost and my last floppy driver had since been replaced with a DVD+RW.
But then again... it's only an ethernet card... it __has__ to work without a stupid driver.
Well, it turns out XP did recognize it as an ethernet card but that was about it. XP was like "yeah, it's an ethernet card alright, but it might as well be a gorilla for all I care. Give a driver or I won't do anything."
So I had to STFW to hunt drivers down. But wait! Alas, I had no ethernet card to connect to the internets. Huh... I think I'm in trouble.
In the end I think I went to a friend's house and downloaded 2313613909104134 ethernet card drivers, copied them to a pendrive and tried them on my comp until the ethernet card worked.

An easier solution would have been to use a live cd since GNU detects my ethernet card and connects to the internet without any problem from the get go.
What? Wait, why would I use a Kubuntu live CD to download drivers for XP... I think I'll stay with this OS that does recognize a stupid ethernet card, thank you very much : -D



So does GNU/Linux, what's your point?
The FSF is asking manufacturers to release their specs for a reason, don't you think?

Your entire post is Apples and Oranges. They cannot compare.

leo_rockway
September 27th, 2008, 11:53 PM
Your entire post is Apples and Oranges. They cannot compare.

I was thinking more of 'crap' and 'gold'. Of course they can't compare. Windows is proprietary 'crap' and GNU is a 'golden' OS.

So... if they can't compare... why do you insist on doing so?

Frak
September 27th, 2008, 11:58 PM
I was thinking more of 'crap' and 'gold'. Of course they can't compare. Windows is proprietary 'crap' and GNU is a 'golden' OS.

So... if they can't compare... why do you insist on doing so?
I didn't, now you are making things up.

Ignored

leo_rockway
September 28th, 2008, 12:07 AM
I didn't, now you are making things up.

Ignored


XP allows you to load drivers off of a floppy, and Vista allows you to load it off of a flash drive.


Windows XP/Vista complies with all hardware standards in terms of drivers and firmware.


Remember, Vista was Microsoft's first operating system to automatically install the appropriate device drivers for your hardware (with the exception of non-PnP inserted materials such as printers on Windows XP through Microsoft Update). Microsoft isn't going to bow down to companies to get their approval JUST to use 1 or 2 drivers. This is why a multitude of companies include CDs/DVDs with their hardware.

Do not get standards confused with hardware support. They are not the same subject used in many connotations. Even Ubuntu doesn't automatically install drivers for legal reasons. Microsoft is not immune to this. The latest ATi/nVidia drivers on Vista were included in Vista by default as an agreement between AMD, nVidia, and Microsoft.

In Windows XP, when you first formatted and installed, it fell back on the VESA driver as the user was expected to install their own drivers for their hardware. This is why many vendors included a special driver disc. You would run the installation material, reboot, and it was fine to use. Without the standards in place, there would be a lesser chance that you could reach to even this state.

Ubuntu can run on an nVidia card, but it doesn't support it by default. Only with a userspace driver is that possible.

Mmmhhh... you mention XP/Vista an awful lot in an Ubuntu forum, I'll call that 'insisting on comparing'. Particularly the last post where you talk about video drivers on both OSs.

You can ignore me all you want, in fact I encourage you to stop answering me, it will only make you sound like a troll.

Have a nice day.

Frak
September 28th, 2008, 12:15 AM
Mmmhhh... you mention XP/Vista an awful lot in an Ubuntu forum, I'll call that 'insisting on comparing'. Particularly the last post where you talk about video drivers on both OSs.

You can ignore me all you want, in fact I encourage you to stop answering me, it will only make you sound like a troll.

Have a nice day.

Because you are a Linux zealot who only finds pride in insulting those that try to defend Microsoft against false accusations. Your spread of MS hate fad makes you a ruthless troll.

Stop spreading false hopes and have a nice day.

WELCOME TO OLD NAVY (kudos to who got that)

leo_rockway
September 28th, 2008, 12:33 AM
Because you are a Linux zealot who only finds pride in insulting those that try to defend Microsoft against false accusations. Your spread of MS hate fad makes you a ruthless troll.

Stop spreading false hopes and have a nice day.

WELCOME TO OLD NAVY (kudos to who got that)

Correction: I am a GNU zealot, not a Linux zealot.

I have never insulted you, ever.

I am not a troll of any kind, I back up my sayings with explanations. You only attack without explanations of any kind.

I don't spread false hopes, I spread freedom.

Please, go ahead an hit the ignore button, will ya?

p_quarles
September 28th, 2008, 12:33 AM
Because you are a Linux zealot who only finds pride in insulting those that try to defend Microsoft against false accusations. Your spread of MS hate fad makes you a ruthless troll.

Stop spreading false hopes and have a nice day.

WELCOME TO OLD NAVY (kudos to who got that)
You weren't defending Windows. You defended someone who said that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because it takes some level of expertise to install it.


"Any person can install it on any computer without any problems" - what any Linux is not right now, and not even close.
Someone called sandbird a troll for this remark. Then:


He's not a troll if he's correct. OS X works without problems (hardware lock-in) and Windows allows you to load drivers during installation to maximize compatibility.

He has a point.
So, you were implying that Windows and OS X were both installable by anyone, rather than defending Windows against Linux zealots.

Seriously.

Frak
September 28th, 2008, 12:35 AM
Windows, yes. I feel that if you follow the instructions, you'll be fine.

OS X, as long as it's on a Mac, yes, it's incredibly easy.

leo_rockway
September 28th, 2008, 12:38 AM
Windows, yes. I feel that if you follow the instructions, you'll be fine.

OS X, as long as it's on a Mac, yes, it's incredibly easy.

If you follow instructions you are fine installing GNU too. I do not follow your way of thinking.

Frak
September 28th, 2008, 12:40 AM
If you follow instructions you are fine installing GNU too. I do not follow your way of thinking.

The installation methods are few and far between. Are you referring to LFS? Gentoo? Ubuntu? Puppy?

Please, be much more specific, as there is no vanilla GNU/Linux (yes, GNU/Linux; it is nothing without a kernel unfortunately).

leo_rockway
September 28th, 2008, 12:53 AM
The installation methods are few and far between. Are you referring to LFS? Gentoo? Ubuntu? Puppy?

Any installation is accomplishable if you do follow instructions. It doesn't matter which flavour. I installed 3 and a half of those 4 you mentioned (I never tried Gentoo per se, but Ututo, a Gentoo derivative).

By the way, I'm not a programmer, I'm a simple layman translator...


Please, be much more specific, as there is no vanilla GNU/Linux (yes, GNU/Linux; it is nothing without a kernel unfortunately).

You are right, GNU is nothing without __a__ kernel. It's a cool thing the GNU project has its own.

There is GNU/kBSD, GNU/HURD and GNU/Linux.

Repeat after me: "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."

I don't need to be "much more specific" at all...

p_quarles
September 28th, 2008, 12:57 AM
Windows, yes. I feel that if you follow the instructions, you'll be fine.
This is sort of like saying "it's easy if you do it right." Which is kind of true, but it's like saying "Vi is easy if you use it right." That is also true, but it doesn't make Vi the choice text editor for beginning web designers.

Installing Windows isn't as easy as using Windows, and it isn't (in my experience) any easier than installing Linux. Installing both will vary a great deal in difficulty across different hardware. The first time I installed Ubuntu, I quite literally didn't have to do anything aside from following the onscreen prompts. That's not everyone's experience, but that is in fact easier than installing Windows on that same machine (since the NIC hardware isn't supported).


OS X, as long as it's on a Mac, yes, it's incredibly easy.
Well, yes, because it's based upon an entirely different (closed) design. Without having any experience, I'd assume it's also easy to install the Eee OS on the Asus Eee. One can certainly not expect any OS to be easily installable upon that entire range of stuff called "x86 compatible PCs." Since that is what both Windows and Linux aim to do, comparing this with Apple's business model is not useful.

Frak
September 28th, 2008, 01:11 AM
I'm going to stop replying. Last time I disagreed with an admin, I got an infraction for calling that admin a "Doodie Head".

When you become an admin, you become right appearantly.

p_quarles
September 28th, 2008, 01:16 AM
I'm going to stop replying. Last time I disagreed with an admin, I got an infraction for calling that admin a "Doodie Head".

When you become an admin, you become right appearantly.
You're trolling, frak. This isn't a dignified occupation.

I take it that your reply to my comments addressing you is either A) I'm a doodie-head, or B) I'm a Nazi who will ban you for disagreeing with me. Either way, I stand rebuffed. :rolleyes:

sistoviejo
September 28th, 2008, 01:48 AM
Remember, Vista was Microsoft's first operating system to automatically install the appropriate device drivers for your hardware (with the exception of non-PnP inserted materials such as printers on Windows XP through Microsoft Update). Microsoft isn't going to bow down to companies to get their approval JUST to use 1 or 2 drivers. This is why a multitude of companies include CDs/DVDs with their hardware.

Do not get standards confused with hardware support. They are not the same subject used in many connotations. Even Ubuntu doesn't automatically install drivers for legal reasons. Microsoft is not immune to this. The latest ATi/nVidia drivers on Vista were included in Vista by default as an agreement between AMD, nVidia, and Microsoft.

In Windows XP, when you first formatted and installed, it fell back on the VESA driver as the user was expected to install their own drivers for their hardware. This is why many vendors included a special driver disc. You would run the installation material, reboot, and it was fine to use. Without the standards in place, there would be a lesser chance that you could reach to even this state.

Ubuntu can run on an nVidia card, but it doesn't support it by default. Only with a userspace driver is that possible.

what's your point?

Frak
September 28th, 2008, 01:54 AM
what's your point?
If you cannot keep up with the conversation, don't bother asking. You're only going to make yourself confused.

leo_rockway
September 28th, 2008, 02:22 AM
I'm a Nazi who will ban you for disagreeing with me.

I invoke Godwin's law. frak, you win... xD

rune0077
September 28th, 2008, 02:26 AM
I was thinking more of 'crap' and 'gold'. Of course they can't compare. Windows is proprietary 'crap' and GNU is a 'golden' OS.


Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, a lot of people decorate their house with gold and wear gold. Only a very small minority does so with crap. So statistically speaking, Windows would be the gold that most people uses and prefers, and crap what the few "weirdos" use instead of gold. :)

LaRoza
September 28th, 2008, 02:28 AM
I invoke Godwin's law. frak, you win... xD

Look up the definition of Godwin's Law ;)

p_quarles didn't invoke it, only acknowledged that he will be called names or accused of being a nazi mod. Whether that is true or not is not really the point, but there was no comparison made.

Bachstelze
September 28th, 2008, 02:38 AM
Repeat after me: "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."

Wow. That reminds me of "The Nile is the longest river in Africa" in Brave New World*... Is that what they do at FSF meetups? I think it's called "hypnotism", or "brainwashing"...

Anyway, that would explain a lot.


* http://www.orwelltoday.com/bnwhypnosis.shtml

leo_rockway
September 28th, 2008, 02:50 AM
Shouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, a lot of people decorate their house with gold and wear gold. Only a very small minority does so with crap. So statistically speaking, Windows would be the gold that most people uses and prefers, and crap what the few "weirdos" use instead of gold. :)

No, it's not the other way around. Millions of flies eat crap not gold. Only a few of us are using gold while the millions of flies are still being fed crap.

Statistically speaking gold is rarer than crap. Windows being the most used desktop OS makes it qualify as crap.


Look up the definition of Godwin's Law ;)

p_quarles didn't invoke it, only acknowledged that he will be called names or accused of being a nazi mod. Whether that is true or not is not really the point, but there was no comparison made.

I added a xD, it was only a joke.


Wow. That reminds me of "The Nile is the longest river in Africa" in Brave New World*... Is that what they do at FSF meetups? I think it's called "hypnotism", or "brainwashing"...

Anyway, that would explain a lot.


* http://www.orwelltoday.com/bnwhypnosis.shtml

It is more like a parody. RMS says that when disguised as St. IGNUcious from the Church of Emacs. Only a joke.

EDIT: and, unlike the Brave New World example, I do know which OS I use, the person I was replying to didn't.

worx101
September 28th, 2008, 03:02 AM
All Unix's don't support any of my computers networking cards, and Linux doesn't support my wireless... but wait... it was designed for an IBM compatible PC...

Yeh, Solaris only supports a couple of my cards.

And yes Linux was designed to support any IBM compatible PC, but alot of hardware vendors refuse to support industry standards or make linux drivers. That isn't the OS's fault. Again, it runs fine a PC built to run it.


Slipstream them into your XP disc. Takes a whole 2 minutes with nLite.

... Yeh... IF you can find the drivers and if you know how... This isn't supported by Microsoft and is sorta considered a hack by them. And this isn't known by the "common masses."

We are talking easy straight forward stuff.


No, you just can't answer it so you resort to petty insults and accusations.

No, I can answer, I just don't... Because I am lazy and don't want to do the search. Pay me and I will provide at least 100 devices. *thinks about father-in-law's pro-link scanner is first on list*


...Most games don't run on Linux... even with Wine...

... yeh... I just said that? Games don't support Linux...

loseby
September 28th, 2008, 04:42 AM
Have not read the thread except for the initial post but an absolute must are basically two things. Until these happen Ubuntu will just be sad pale imitation of Windows.

1/ Graphic drivers - easy downloadable click and install drivers for your graphic cards

2/ Soundcard drivers and equaliser etc- same especially for Soundblaster x-fi.

At the moment I use my onboard sound for Ubuntu as getting X-fi to work is to big a hassle. Now onboard is ok but would love to have an easy option to adjust treble/bass

mike1234
September 28th, 2008, 04:48 AM
would love to have an easy option to adjust treble/bass

No option from Alsa mixer after double clicking sound icon??

M.

loseby
September 28th, 2008, 08:14 AM
No option from Alsa mixer after double clicking sound icon??

M.


Only get volume control HDA that has Master surround etc but no treble/bass

rune0077
September 28th, 2008, 11:49 AM
No, it's not the other way around. Millions of flies eat crap not gold. Only a few of us are using gold while the millions of flies are still being fed crap.

Statistically speaking gold is rarer than crap. Windows being the most used desktop OS makes it qualify as crap.


On the other hand, gold cost money.

Relax, it was a joke. Windows is not crap, Linux is not gold, they're software, and both has some advantages and both has some disadvantages, so they can both be gold and they can both be crap, depending on what you want to use them for. If you like customization, Linux is surely gold, but if you like to play the latest and greatest games, then it's crap.

Perhaps it's not so relevant to ask the question "Is Linux ready for the desktop"?, but instead ask "Is Linux ready for you"? For some of us, that's a yes, for others, it's a no.

Canis familiaris
September 28th, 2008, 11:51 AM
On the other hand, gold cost money.

Relax, it was a joke. Windows is not crap, Linux is not gold, they're software, and both has some advantages and both has some disadvantages, so they can both be gold and they can both be crap, depending on what you want to use them for. If you like customization, Linux is surely gold, but if you like to play the latest and greatest games, then it's crap.

Perhaps it's not so relevant to ask the question "Is Linux ready for the desktop"?, but instead ask "Is Linux ready for you"? For some of us, that's a yes, for others, it's a no.

Quoted For Emphasis...

sistoviejo
September 28th, 2008, 12:05 PM
If you cannot keep up with the conversation, don't bother asking. You're only going to make yourself confused.

you troll... :lolflag: