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

jnoreiko
December 28th, 2005, 10:21 PM
There's also a perfectly functional word processor included with Ubuntu - OOo2 Write

I really tried to like OOo2 Write.
But it lacks a number of pretty basic features a decent word processor needs.

Dr. E
December 28th, 2005, 10:33 PM
Dr. E, sorry but I think the title of your thread is not appropriate.

You should say "Ubuntu" is not ready for the desktop instead (and I'll respect your opinion although I disagree).

Anyhow it would be even more appropriate to say that Ubuntu is not for you or your hardware. I think you shouldn't generalise.


Yes, I've already been told that the fact that my Linux printer definitions don't work and I can't get my Linux WP to run means I am an inherently selfish person. A quick look at this forum, however, reveals myriads of people who can't get Ubuntu to work with their hardware or software either, at least not without investing a lot of time, effort, and obtaining help from this forum. While Ubuntu may be ready for some people's desktops, there seem to be many whose desktops it's still not ready for. I feel it is unfortunate and hope that in the future a distro comes out that is ready for Joe average's desktop. (I'm not a Windows fan either.)

Dr. E
December 28th, 2005, 10:41 PM
Corel's wordperfect 2000 for linux actually ran under wine. Which may explain why it's such a bear to install and get working.

I'm trying to install version 8 which is a native Linux program unlike the 2000 version.

tseliot
December 28th, 2005, 10:42 PM
Yes, I've already been told that the fact that my Linux printer definitions don't work and I can't get my Linux WP to run means I am an inherently selfish person. A quick look at this forum, however, reveals myriads of people who can't get Ubuntu to work with their hardware or software either, at least not without investing a lot of time, effort, and obtaining help from this forum. While Ubuntu may be ready for some people's desktops, there seem to be many whose desktops it's still not ready for. I feel it is unfortunate and hope that in the future a distro comes out that is ready for Joe average's desktop. (I'm not a Windows fan either.)
I wouldn't call you selfish (mine wasn't a real attack) and I agree with what you've just said. I hope Ubuntu improves too. And above all I hope always more hardware producers will support (also) Linux so that devices such as your printer, etc. will have drivers for Linux.

xequence
December 28th, 2005, 10:45 PM
If you think linux is not ready for the desktop, sorry, but you arnt ready for the desktop.

Its alright not to like linux. Its alright to like windows. Its not alright to say that because it doesent work for you that it doesent work for anyone else.

If you had any idea how hard it was for me to get my printer set up on windows, youd be amazed...

rjwood
December 28th, 2005, 11:15 PM
Works just fine on my desktop. It does require some work here and there. A little work never hurt anyone. Good Luck!

BWF89
December 28th, 2005, 11:29 PM
Linux is or is not ready for the desktop depending on the individual, their needs, their hardware, and how much time they want to put into learning something new.

JeffS
December 28th, 2005, 11:30 PM
I am really tired of broad swooping statemensts like "Linux is NOT ready for the desktop!!", just because a user could not get X hardware working or Y proprietary software to work.

While it's true that Ubuntu, one Linux Distro, did not work out for this one particular user's desktop, does not mean that all Linux distros are NOT ready for every individual's desktop.

I can say beyond any shadow of a doubt that Linux is ready for MY desktop, and has been for upwards of 4 years now. For ME, it works soooooo much better than Windows. But that's MY experience, and many other people's experience. And Linux is not going to be ready for everyone's desktop. Microsoft enjoys market dominance, and can rely on all hardware manufacturers and software vendors to target their platform. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that Linux has and will work out for most people's desktops, and that the percentage of people's desktops it works out for is steadily increasing, as Distros get more refined and easy to use, and as 3rd party vendors target Linux more.

While I can certainly empathize with Dr. E's frustrations, I find his making a broad, swooping statement like "Linux is NOT ready for the desktop!!!" to be patently unfair. It's especially bad considering people bent over backwards on this forum to try to help him, and these are people doing it unpaid, in their own free time, out of kindness and the desire to help fellow Linux/Ubuntu users. So does Dr. E thank them for their efforts? No, at least not in this thread. Instead he insults them by basically saying their favorite software sucks because it did not work out for him.

The bottom line is that, due to market reality (Windows dominance), Linux won't work out for everyone. And the few it does not work out for, quite often they'll come into formus such as these and blow off steam, and make insulting remarks in their frustration. It's something that the (ever growing number of ) Linux enthusiasts have to get used to. But it gets old nonetheless.

So, Dr E (if you are still reading this thread), please try to restrain the broad swooping statements. Do realize that people really tried to help you, and they did not have to help you, or were obligated to help you, and they did it out of kindness. Also realize that just because you had problems, does not mean that Linux does not work for anyone.

And realize that just because there are plenty of threads in the forums that address various hardware or software compatibility problems, does not mean that it's a huge problem with Linux. Windows and Mac have the same types of issues - people try to get support on those products all the time.

Also try some of the other suggestions (use Wine to run WP for Windows, try another distro, try a different printer).

Thank you, and good luck. :)

detyabozhye
December 29th, 2005, 12:02 AM
For me it was easier to set up Windows (SMB) network access on Linux then on Windows. It depends on the induvidual, hardware, and other things. I use Linux for almost everything, but I still use Windows to produce music.

Dr. E
December 29th, 2005, 02:51 AM
While I can certainly empathize with Dr. E's frustrations, I find his making a broad, swooping statement like "Linux is NOT ready for the desktop!!!" to be patently unfair. It's especially bad considering people bent over backwards on this forum to try to help him, and these are people doing it unpaid, in their own free time, out of kindness and the desire to help fellow Linux/Ubuntu users. So does Dr. E thank them for their efforts? No, at least not in this thread.

Actually I did thank people for their help in my first posting. I said "and people on Ubuntu Forums were very helpful."


Instead he insults them by basically saying their favorite software sucks because it did not work out for him.

I find it hard to believe that my problems with a series of 0s and 1s that make up Ubuntu have been taken to be personal insults to the users themselves. No such thing was intended. Yes, people have been very helpful, the software hasn't in my case.

kenweill
December 29th, 2005, 02:59 AM
Linux is NOT ready for the desktop?

Well, not really.

Thats just because you've learned Windows first compared to other OS, i guess. You're used to click setup.exe and its done.

In Windows, you just have to install the software that comes with the hardware, you just wait, and you're done. Most hardware vendors incorporates or ships the installer/driver for their hardware, specific for Windows. Not all hardware vendors produce drivers for Linux. Well, thats just bad. Even I myself, found it easier to install hardware/software in Windows. Its because I get used to it than I get used in Linux.

When you install software in Windows, all is automatic. You just run setup.exe and u're done.

In Linux, its different.

The problem in Linux, in my opinion, is there are alot of distributions. If you have problems and solutions in one distribution, it cannot be applied in other distributions. I mean not all. The focus on improvements are split from different distributions. Unlike on Windows, or FreeBSD, the focus is just one ONE OPERATING SYSTEM. I don't know, its just my opinion.

In Windows, all the files, or almost, needed to install the software is included with the installer of the software. dlls.

In Linux, you must have some additional files to install which is not part of the installer of the software. Some dependencies.

I guess he's referring to the same problem. And we can't blame him.

But only, he should not generalize on "LINUX". There are different flavors of Linux. Some are designed or optimized to be a server, some are for desktop. Only its just not as easy compared to Windows. Especially for beginners.

In Windows, you don't have to be an expert to install software or hardware. You just run the installer or just plugin the device, and you're done. Very simple.

In Linux, its different. Lots of configurations. Not automatic.

detyabozhye
December 29th, 2005, 03:09 AM
Well, from the looks of his posts, I don't think he was missing the double click magic of Windows.

Dr. E
December 29th, 2005, 03:25 AM
Well, from the looks of his posts, I don't think he was missing the double click magic of Windows.

No, my complaint that every step I took to install my printer or program gave me errors. All steps I took to remedy those errors gave me more errors. In spite of help from people on the Forum I still have no functioning printer and no installed Linux WP. I should mention that before even installing Ubuntu I found Linux drivers for my printer and instructions on how to install Linux WP so I figured they would be compatible and work.

mstlyevil
December 29th, 2005, 03:40 AM
No, my complaint that every step I took to install my printer or program gave me errors. All steps I took to remedy those errors gave me more errors. In spite of help from people on the Forum I still have no functioning printer and no installed Linux WP. I should mention that before even installing Ubuntu I found Linux drivers for my printer and instructions on how to install Linux WP so I figured they would be compatible and work.

Like I stated earlier in this thread, try another distribution. I bet those drivers you downloaded and the linux version of WP were designed more for Red Hat or Suse. Give Suse 10 a try and report back to us and tell us if it found your printer and installed WP.

newuser111
December 29th, 2005, 03:41 AM
even though you didnt mention your printer manufacturer, its usually best to check their website for a driver

try enabling CUPS http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=48286&highlight=CUPS+login

poofyhairguy
December 29th, 2005, 04:45 AM
I feel it is unfortunate and hope that in the future a distro comes out that is ready for Joe average's desktop. (I'm not a Windows fan either.)

Translation:

"I don't think Linux is ready till it can run Windows programs and work on all Windows hardware."

This sort of response is why older Linux users give up on converts- its not worth the effort many times.

TheRealEdwin
December 29th, 2005, 05:57 AM
Right. I guess people just want it to work out of the box.

*continues to search for his mouse forward and back button usage*

briancurtin
December 29th, 2005, 06:37 AM
i still dont get why people keep banging their heads so much and flipping out when **** doesnt work. you are not locked down to ubuntu, believe it or not. you gave this a good shot; it looks like you tried a lot of stuff, and it still doesnt work. try another distro.

i love ubuntu so far in my limited use of it, but if it doesnt work for you, try something else. i ran SuSE for 6 months and submitted a bug report about a problem i was having with my fans constantly running. i worked with the devs and found a half-assed solution. it was good for a few days, but it wasnt working how i wanted it so i jumped ship to fedora. go try something else, rather than say linux is not ready for the desktop. thats everyones last resort

Artificial Intelligence
December 29th, 2005, 07:12 AM
Dr. E you may want to look at www.distrowatch.com for another linux solution.

Deaf_Head
December 29th, 2005, 07:38 AM
Word Perfect, lol.

Isn't that what they bundle with computers if your too cheap to pay for microsoft office?

Using linux I've learned taht you can't expect to use the same programs you did in windows because support from those developers often sucks. luckily, everything I used in windows has a linux equivilent that is usually a more capable product. So stop whining and adapt.

jeremy
December 29th, 2005, 08:05 AM
NOT ready!!!
Oh dear, and here I am, innocently using it as if it was! Does this mean I'll have to get rid of it?

Lord Illidan
December 29th, 2005, 08:20 AM
i still dont get why people keep banging their heads so much and flipping out when **** doesnt work. you are not locked down to ubuntu, believe it or not. you gave this a good shot; it looks like you tried a lot of stuff, and it still doesnt work. try another distro.

i love ubuntu so far in my limited use of it, but if it doesnt work for you, try something else. i ran SuSE for 6 months and submitted a bug report about a problem i was having with my fans constantly running. i worked with the devs and found a half-assed solution. it was good for a few days, but it wasnt working how i wanted it so i jumped ship to fedora. go try something else, rather than say linux is not ready for the desktop. thats everyones last resort

That's flipping true. You don't like Ubuntu, switch to MEPIS, SUSE, Mandriva, Fedora, whatever, there are tons of distros out there...
www.distrowatch.org

firenurse4
December 29th, 2005, 08:44 AM
I usually don't reply to the "not ready" threads but one thing that struck me was the number of attempts to get a distro that would work for me. I started with Caldera, tried Red Hat times 2, Mandrake, Fedora, and Suse. The 7th go around with Ubuntu was a winner for me.

I am also not going to critize the OP when its clear he tried everything to get it to work for him. Sometimes you gotta blow off some steam. (Don't ask how I got through nursing school)

amohanty
December 29th, 2005, 08:46 AM
In Windows, all the files, or almost, needed to install the software is included with the installer of the software. dlls.


Obviously you have never heard of dll hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_hell) :)
Dependency problems exist in windows too. Unfortunately because of MS muscle and/or money (take your pick) you dont see much of it simply because vendors are muscled/bought (think walmart) into providing for it. It also has to do with market share, but then thats a more ideological discussion for another time and another thread.

Re: OP -
Frustration is part of the learning process. Inspite of running a hospital with 100s of computers my father still blows up trying to use windows (which somehow he never learned to use). On the other hand my wife after a decade of windows use, smoothly transitioned to Ubuntu. Occasionally she runs into trouble playing embedded video, but other than that shes useing it fine. Heck shes getting to be a pretty good CLI user too.Ranting is ok provided it is clearly marked as such. Ranting without letting the audience know that you are blowing steam will only draw scorn.

I sympathise with your sentiments, however blaming the software does not solve the problem. I am sorry you were unable to get the answers you needed, hopefully you can get some now. All I can say is be patient and I can assure you that the rewards will be sweeeet.

AM

Ocxic
December 29th, 2005, 01:25 PM
what features does word perfect have that others don't, have you tried any other software?

curuxz
December 29th, 2005, 01:31 PM
oh god this stupid thread is still going...

Just use OO or abword

PatrickMay16
December 29th, 2005, 01:44 PM
Linux is NOT ready for the desktop!!! Sorry folks.
Just to let you know, you're wrong. Linux is not ready for YOUR desktop.
I've been using Linux for about 3 months now and I barely use Windows any more. Linux is absolutely ready for my desktop. Your desktop is not "the desktop", as everyone has different needs.

Pablo_Escobar
December 29th, 2005, 01:49 PM
--------------------------
/| /| | |
||__|| | PLEASE DO NOT FEED |
/ O O\__ THE |
/ \ TROLL |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

somuchfortheafter
December 29th, 2005, 01:58 PM
--------------------------
/| /| | |
||__|| | PLEASE DO NOT FEED |
/ O O\__ THE |
/ \ TROLL |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


heh i like that

todomartinez
December 29th, 2005, 05:38 PM
I agree with the original post. Linux/Ubuntu is not ready to be mainstreamed. It is a fun operating system to play with. I guess you have the bragging rights that you are using something that others do not even know about. I first used a Tandy TRS-80 with a tape drive 20+ years ago. I then moved on to DOS, Windows 3.1, OS/2, Win95, Win98, Win Me, and XP. They all had their benefits but my favorite was OS/2. Anyway, my point is that I have been messing with Ubuntu for a couple of months and I still can not print to my Brother printer that is hooked up to my router. I also am having problems with installing java. I have found several ways to install Java and none of them work. Then, my Toshiba A65 (3.06G HT, 1G Ram, 100G HD, DL DVDR) heats up to the point of shutting down when I use Ubuntu. I have to place a household fan behind it to keep it cool and run Ubuntu. When I use XP, it does not heat up that much. I'm starting to think that Linux is just trying to re-invent the wheel and it is not round anymore. I may be reformatting my HD later today and waiting a few years to try Linux again.

Mr_J_
December 29th, 2005, 06:10 PM
Linux is still like walking on brittle flor boards. You've got to be carefull.

The most common problem that gets people like the maker of this thread into the "OMG! It doesn't work so it's not ready for desktop" problems are actually problems that do happen in windows to a lesser extent, but with the people that most use computers in stores.
You won't see them going around shouting the person should not install windows.
These problems are going to be there for an excepetionally long time and they will come from the misconception that people that whatever they buy will install.
Not everything can be bought and expected to work.

The only software and hardware made for linux might be the ones that have not changed in a long time. Like IDE harddrives.

Printers are complicated fast software changing, very intrinsicly linked to their maker and most printer makers couldn't care less if you can use it in linux.

The word perfect problem is probably just an order of install issue, but it is not unheard of in windows. Remember that unlinke in windows you do not have a maker approved way to install. At least that is what I understood.

I'm sorry you have problems but linux is not windows. We do not have the luxury of Linux approved hardware being widelly sold, or software that was designed for Ubuntu by big brand names.

Linux is not for everyone. It is ready for the desktop, but maybe not yours. Maybe not yet.

I hope one day you can work with Linux as well as Windows. Until then I hope our comunity develops enough make the system more user friendly, respectfull and friendly.

If you can get your problems fixed and in working order, then fine. We have another convert. If not hope your drawn here again.

Kerberos
December 29th, 2005, 06:12 PM
--------------------------
/| /| | |
||__|| | PLEASE DO NOT FEED |
/ O O\__ THE |
/ \ TROLL |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

I fail to see how having to deal with irritating problems makes anyone a 'troll', and funny as your highly original image is, all you succeed in doing is stifling user feedback with the 'Like it or use another distro' attitude.

If your name isn't 'Ubuntu' then there is no reason for you to get personally offended when someone says that there is something they dont like about it. Surely pointing out problems and discussing them can only lead to potential improvements. It seems that the only software that you can apply constructive criticism to is closed source - which is ironic given the nature of the whole open source movement.

I think Linux needs more criticism - find out what really annoys people and fix it, rather than just bundling in more apps and providing HOWTO's for common problems (which isn't a solution).

akurashy
December 29th, 2005, 06:22 PM
I think this topic is misleading and after reading the main topic I really don't see a need of putting "linux is "Not" ready".

curuxz
December 29th, 2005, 06:35 PM
why the hell is this thread not in the backyard, as it seems non-sensical, there are not even valid reasons for the anti-linux arguments just examples of poor install and lack of setup knowlege by people not even fit to have the title noob. i agree this is troll bait

bscbrit
December 29th, 2005, 07:16 PM
Curuxz
If you would care to read the other threads started by Dr E, you will realise that you are talking rubbish. It is not a bad install, but it is caused by the fact that Dr E cannot get his Lexmark printer working under Ubuntu. You appear to be accusing the OP with the silly comments made by a minority on this particular thread. Likewise, his linux version of WP wouldn't install cleanly but not through lack of trying.
Of course, if you help him you can solve all of his problems.....?

poofyhairguy
December 29th, 2005, 08:15 PM
I agree with the original post. Linux/Ubuntu is not ready to be mainstreamed. It is a fun operating system to play with. I guess you have the bragging rights that you are using something that others do not even know about. I first used a Tandy TRS-80 with a tape drive 20+ years ago. I then moved on to DOS, Windows 3.1, OS/2, Win95, Win98, Win Me, and XP. They all had their benefits but my favorite was OS/2. Anyway, my point is that I have been messing with Ubuntu for a couple of months and I still can not print to my Brother printer that is hooked up to my router. I also am having problems with installing java. I have found several ways to install Java and none of them work. Then, my Toshiba A65 (3.06G HT, 1G Ram, 100G HD, DL DVDR) heats up to the point of shutting down when I use Ubuntu. I have to place a household fan behind it to keep it cool and run Ubuntu. When I use XP, it does not heat up that much. I'm starting to think that Linux is just trying to re-invent the wheel and it is not round anymore. I may be reformatting my HD later today and waiting a few years to try Linux again.


If its not for you its not for you. Each to his own. We do not reject the idea that its not ready for a few people. We reject that when these people make sweeping generalizations that "Linux is not ready for the masses" because of their (your) experiance.

mstlyevil
December 29th, 2005, 08:30 PM
A lesson I learned a long time ago is that anything can be ready for the masses. It all comes down to marketing marketing marketing. You simply have to convince people what you offer is better than sliced bread. That was how Windows got in it's dominate position in the first place and remains why it is still there. When was the last time you seen a commercial saying something like the world of possibilities with Ubuntu/Linux? I myself have never seen a commercial for any Linux distro.

Dr. E
December 29th, 2005, 09:16 PM
what features does word perfect have that others don't, have you tried any other software?


The ability to see and directly manipulate codes and the ability to record and play keystrokes as macros. If you know of another program that does that let me know.

briancurtin
December 29th, 2005, 10:02 PM
I also am having problems with installing java. I have found several ways to install Java and none of them work.
what exactly is your problem here, because if you download the self-extracting binary on java.sun.com it tells you exactly what you need to do. there is no mistaking what it tells you to do

then you just set your path, java_home, and classpath, and it works immediately.

23meg
December 29th, 2005, 10:07 PM
To everyone who thinks the generalization in the title is a bad one, I suggest we stop posting to this thread, so that it will not get bumped anymore and spread FUD.

awakatanka
December 29th, 2005, 11:25 PM
Why people always go in defence mode and offer solutions like buy linux compatible hardware, our use free software?

Must someone first check a list of zillions of distro's before he knows if it will work? Why must do a person do that much work to get something to work on a desktop? Not always the answer is a free software solution, just because it doesn't have the same option our it doesn't excist.

Distro's need to make a simple standaard to install drivers for hardware and no commandline only troubles. I don't even start about easy install of non free software our things outside repo's because there is already some threads about that.

To much people think if it works for me it much be good and must work also for others.

awakatanka
December 29th, 2005, 11:28 PM
To everyone who thinks the generalization in the title is a bad one, I suggest we stop posting to this thread, so that it will not get bumped anymore and spread FUD.
A distro is mostly called linux for people that aren't that informed and just try out some linux. And most user friendly distro forums are full of this kind of threads. So OP has a point.



I think Linux needs more criticism - find out what really annoys people and fix it, rather than just bundling in more apps and providing HOWTO's for common problems (which isn't a solution).

I agree totaly, but some people rather ignore and keep the desktop linux a small market that can't handle criticism.

Even MS gets tons of criticism and they try to improve it in every version they don't ignore the problems but try to make a solution.

Dr. E
December 29th, 2005, 11:40 PM
I trust this posting will be the last in this thread. Please consider my points:

1-I chose Ubuntu as my distro after doing a lot of reasearch on others. I like Ubuntu's philosophy and the friendly answers I got to questions I had before I installed it.

2-I researched and found that Linux drivers exist for my printer, and found installation instructions for WP LInux before I decided to make the move.

3-I did enough homework to realize that things would not work out of the box and then spent a great deal of my time and other OPs as well trying to install my software and hardware. No, I didn't expect Ubuntu to work like Windows, nor do I want it to. That's why I'm trying to migrate from Windows.

4-I have only chronicled a small fraction of the errors upon errors received while trying to install these things. I didn't merely give up on the first try.

5-Most people on the Forum have been enormously encouraging and helpful.

6-My irate message was not meant to upset people, but to explain my reasoning for my conclusions. I am surprised that a small minority of people have a large chip on their shoulder when anyone dares mention that Ubuntu has some problems and isn't very user friendly in some regards. This was expressed as my opinion about a program and not a personal attack on andy OP or their mother.

7-The best advice I received on this forum was to try a different distro. I have, and within half an hour my printer was working.

8-I truly hope Ubuntu developers take the criticisms and difficulties users have discussed on this forum seriously so that Ubuntu does become ready for the desktop of people who are not computer wizzes.

briancurtin
December 29th, 2005, 11:55 PM
7-The best advice I received on this forum was to try a different distro. I have, and within half an hour my printer was working.
thats good to hear. im glad you looked out to another distro and got it to work quickly.


8-I truly hope Ubuntu developers take the criticisms and difficulties users have discussed on this forum seriously so that Ubuntu does become ready for the desktop of people who are not computer wizzes.
they are trying, as are all developers of all distributions. they arent developing their stuff so that it stays on the "DL" so to say. they want more people to use it and be able to use it.

John.Michael.Kane
December 30th, 2005, 12:03 AM
Every Os i feel needs some form of learning, or work to get it how the end user needs it to be. this is not just a linux problem. windows need the use to interact with it to work as well.

just my thoughts on this subject...

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 12:10 AM
Why people always go in defence mode and offer solutions like buy linux compatible hardware, our use free software?
If someone bought Windows incompatible hardware and then bashed Windows on a Windows forum because it didn't work with their hardware, would replies to this be considered "defence mode" as well? What's wrong with encouraging people to prefer Linux compatible hardware?

Must someone first check a list of zillions of distro's before he knows if it will work? Why must do a person do that much work to get something to work on a desktop?They can do searches on the forums and wiki pages of distros for experiences of other users with their hardware, and official compatibility reports. How would this be any different if you had not one but five proprietary mainstream OSes competing for market share on the x86 / AMD64 platforms? Say, if there were Windows and Zindows and Lindows and Kindows and Meadows, each of which were compatible a different set of hardware and people had to do research to choose what's best for them? Doing a bit of research, and trying things out to make sure is a Good Thing. Don't expect the best of the best to be served to you on a plate; now is a time when monopolies and one-size-fits-all solutions are becoming a thing of the past and there's no single best solution for everyone, instead, there's a multitude of choices, and you have to choose what's best for you. This is the future of everyday computing, Free or not, open source or not. Joe Average would better wake up, or he'll be left in the dust.

Distro's need to make a simple standaard to install drivers for hardware and no commandline only troubles.Drivers aren't a distro thing, they're a kernel thing, a real "Linux" thing so to speak. Installation of drivers not found in the kernel will not get any easier than recompiling your own kernel with support for them anytime soon. At the present state of things, if you're not technically proficient enough to do this, you need to get support from others, which brings us to the community aspect of FOSS; not everything works "out of the box", but if you're unlucky enough to be part of the troubled crowd, you can seek help, and if you know how to, and are ready to invest some time and energy, it's most likely that your problem will be solved. If you're not prepared to do this, do not use Linux based OSes today because they will only make life more difficult for you.

A distro is mostly called linux for people that aren't that informed and just try out some linux. My problem here isn't with people referring to Linux as if it were an OS, it's with generalizations based on nothing but personal experience. If I had problems with Windows and wasn't able to get it to do what I wanted it to do, and went to a Windows forum and said "Windows isn't ready for the desktop because my printer doesn't work with it", what would people say to me? With all basic differences between the natures of Windows and Linux aside, I don't think they'd say "Well, it works with ours, and we're all working happily with our printers, so perhaps you must be an unlucky minority. Be calm, maybe we can help you, please paste the errors you're getting, and tell us what your printer is instead of bashing Windows."

But that's exactly what we're saying.

With all this said, there will be distros that address most of your concerns in the near future, even though none of them are concerns for most present Ubuntu users. Spreading FUD with generalizations derived from personal horror stories only slows down the process. If you really want FOSS to get better, contribute (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741) in a constructive manner. If you can't bear working with FOSS, and don't want to contribute in any way, use Windows or Mac OS or whatever other OS you prefer. It's really that simple.

Back to silence.

poofyhairguy
December 30th, 2005, 12:11 AM
7-The best advice I received on this forum was to try a different distro. I have, and within half an hour my printer was working.


Excellent.

poofyhairguy
December 30th, 2005, 12:17 AM
Why people always go in defence mode and offer solutions like buy linux compatible hardware, our use free software?

Must someone first check a list of zillions of distro's before he knows if it will work? Why must do a person do that much work to get something to work on a desktop?

Because there are less standards and more possibilities in X86land than almost all other markets. The number of possibilities for the many combinations of hardware in "IBM Compatible" PCs is over a trillion.

You act like its simple to rope all this together. MS does it with the helps of thousands of third parties that make each part. Apple avoids the issues by selling you a box that is the same as the next one with limited possibilities.

Because of its marketshare size and its potential market, Linux has neither.

We do not get defensive because we are trying to keep our feelings from being hurt. We do it because its reality.



Distro's need to make a simple standaard to install drivers for hardware and no commandline only troubles. I don't even start about easy install of non free software our things outside repo's because there is already some threads about that.

Sounds great. But when you have the resources on the desktop that is a fraction of MS's its hard to make miracles happen.

I prefer to be a realist. I just buy Linux compatible hardware.



To much people think if it works for me it much be good and must work also for others.

More like "it works for me so it CAN work for others." We regect the concept that Linux is not ready, because it is ready for many.

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 12:18 AM
7-The best advice I received on this forum was to try a different distro. I have, and within half an hour my printer was working.Let us know in this thread when you have Wordperfect working as well :cool:

racecat
December 30th, 2005, 06:22 AM
I have three pcs. While I'm finding things I can do with Ubuntu (Hoary) applications that would cost a forune in Windows-world, it is a fact of life that my scanner isn't supported in Linux because the manufacturer hasn't supported it. My next scanner will be purchased with that in mind, but the point is, my scanner does work on my XP box. My third box dual boots Breezy and Win2k because I like to watch DVDs on my puter and the Win2k just does it better.

While I like Ubuntu for most everything else, I don't wish to cut off my nose to spite my face for the sake of purity. I own the three puters already (two were given to me, I'm not rich), so I use what works for given applications.

Not ready for the desktop? Maybe not everyones, but getting ever so close. I'm betting it will be by the time I would have to pay to keep using Windows. Good luck, Dr. E.

One more thing; Gibraltar!!! Bscbrit, I had the extreme good fortune to visit Gibraltar in 1976 courtesy of the U. S. Navy. It was one of the most memorable places I saw in two "Med" cruises.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents, or maybe just an excuse to mention Gibraltar, or both.

Bill

awakatanka
December 30th, 2005, 10:59 AM
If you really want FOSS to get better, contribute (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741) in a constructive manner. If you can't bear working with FOSS, and don't want to contribute in any way, use Windows or Mac OS or whatever other OS you prefer. It's really that simple.

Back to silence.His criticism was constructive the only thing that can called be wrong he used the word linux and not this distro (ubuntu). The most people attacked that little thing.

And this thread http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=109970 is that constructive in anyway? If you complain you be found a troll. But as said int that thread if you troll about MS you be found a hero.

You say linux doesn't have the market to support drivers in a goodway. But why they don't make it easier to install it?The kernel is used by all distro's so a unified install for hardware drivers must be possible. If hardware companies could reach all desktop linux user with that they would make drivers. How would linus know that there is a need for easy install of drivers if none is complaining about it?

If people don't give any criticism there wouln't be any improvement in anyway.

You say its ready for many, i say its not ready for the average people. And again without criticism it will never be ready and user friendly so all people have a easy time on it.

At the end we all want the samething.

But enough of this all , going to learn a bit more of kubuntu and his depencie hell ;) ( compiling )

lotusleaf
December 30th, 2005, 11:06 AM
My experience to date clearly demonstrates that Linux is still for computer wizzes not the average Joe.

Here's where you're wrong: I've installed Ubuntu for several people who are between 60-70 years old and each of them find it easier to use than Windows. Most of them were so ignorant of computers they thought a web browser *WAS* the internet. Each of them uses their scanners, printers, digital cameras, etc. with zero effort. In fact, ALL of them continue to tell me how much easier and better their experiences with Ubuntu Linux is than in comparison to their years of using Windows.

Your experience is your own, and demonstrates nothing about the average Joe, IMO.

Dr. E
December 30th, 2005, 12:09 PM
Here's where you're wrong: I've installed Ubuntu for several people who are between 60-70 years old and each of them find it easier to use than Windows. Most of them were so ignorant of computers they thought a web browser *WAS* the internet. Each of them uses their scanners, printers, digital cameras, etc. with zero effort. In fact, ALL of them continue to tell me how much easier and better their experiences with Ubuntu Linux is than in comparison to their years of using Windows.

Your experience is your own, and demonstrates nothing about the average Joe, IMO.


Thank you for proving my point. YOU, a computer wiz, set it up for them. THEY, the average Joes did not do the setup. I am already convinced that once it is set up and everything is running smoothly it is better than WIndows. If I didn't have this opinion I wouldn't be trying to switch from Windows. Getting everything up and running without knowing a lot about Linux is what I feel is its current weak point.

aysiu
December 30th, 2005, 12:21 PM
Thank you for proving my point. YOU, a computer wiz, set it up for them. THEY, the average Joes did not do the setup. I am already convinced that once it is set up and everything is running smoothly it is better than WIndows. If I didn't have this opinion I wouldn't be trying to switch from Windows. Getting everything up and running without knowing a lot about Linux is what I feel is its current weak point. Yes, and every Windows user installs Windows from scratch. Of course. Thank you for proving my point.

So really this thread should be retitled: "Linux doesn't come preinstalled and preconfigured on most desktops. Sorry, folks."

zorglub
December 30th, 2005, 12:25 PM
7-The best advice I received on this forum was to try a different distro. I have, and within half an hour my printer was working.


Great ! Happy for you. BTW, could you tell us which distro is Lexmark printer compatible ? A friend of mine just received one as Xmas present and is still "fighting" to make it work properly under Linux ;)

Thanks and have another beautiful day in paradise !

sapo
December 30th, 2005, 12:31 PM
When you buy i new computer what comes with it in most cases? Windows isnt it?

Now picture this in your mind:

All the new pcs come with no OS installed, then you give everybody a cdrom with windows, do you think that everyone is gonna know what to do with this cd?

And now try to imagine if all the hardware companies decided to make drivers to both: windows and linux.

Why i m saying this?

Cause everybody put the blame on LINUX, but nobody tries to look at all the effort that linux developers put on developing stuff without almost any support from hardware companies.

It is the same with software, why are linux at fault cause WordPerfect doesnt work with it?

I m using just linux for one year now, who do i blame when an app, hardware, software or something doesnt work under linux?

Do you think i blame linux? off course not, i blame the developers who didnt make linux support.

I work with software development with php, if my website, application or anything doesnt work under linux its MY fault and not linux.

To my boss as long as it works under IE he doesnt care, but i do care, cause i use linux, we dont have any customers that runs our software under linux, but if someone tries to do it, it will work for sure.

So, i now i fell like singing Carry on by Freedom Call for you ;)



Carry On

Carry on, carry on
The chanting has begun
A hymn of fame and glory - forever
And ride on, ride on
In union we are strong
A symphony for freedom and glory

We are strangers in a strange land
We are born as renegades
And show the world what they should see
When we are standing at the crossroads
Revolution is our way
We're breaking down the walls of hate

We are guardians of the future
Defenders of our faith
And we are bound for victory
When our hearts call for rebellion
We're raising our hands up to the sky
And tell the world to turn away from darkness

bscbrit
December 30th, 2005, 12:38 PM
Here's where you're wrong: I've installed Ubuntu for several people who are between 60-70 years old and each of them find it easier to use than Windows. Most of them were so ignorant of computers they thought a web browser *WAS* the internet. Each of them uses their scanners, printers, digital cameras, etc. with zero effort. In fact, ALL of them continue to tell me how much easier and better their experiences with Ubuntu Linux is than in comparison to their years of using Windows.

Your experience is your own, and demonstrates nothing about the average Joe, IMO.

You know, I think that you just hit the nail squarely on your thumb. You installed the software, not the 60-70 year olds. Now, why might that be? Could it be they couldn't install it themselves? The argument wasn't about how easy Ubunut is to use - the OP was stating that he couldn't even get his printer to work or WP. And since then, he has got his printer to work with another Linux distro. Doesn't that suggest that something that the other distro does is better than the way Ubuntu does it? Now, please, everyone, calm down. Criticism of Ubuntu does not signify the end of the world. It was one person's point of view and, although the original title was inaccurate, it was a valid criticism. Has it got to the stage where we cannot discuss things objectively?

aysiu
December 30th, 2005, 12:47 PM
although the original title was inaccurate, [the post itself] was a valid criticism. Misleading titles will always stir up the flames. I would propose any number of alternative titles that would not get people all defensive of Ubuntu or Linux:

1. Ubuntu wasn't easy for me to install
2. Why can't WordPerfect work on Ubuntu?
3. Too bad I can't buy a mainstream computer with Ubuntu on it
4. I wish all hardware was Ubuntu-compatible
5. Why do I have to complain about Linux in order to get floods of helpful posts about my problems?

Any other proposed alternative and accurate titles for this thread...?

Pablo_Escobar
December 30th, 2005, 12:52 PM
Any other proposed alternative and accurate titles for this thread...?
Another title suggestion:
I wan't my OS to think for me and do everything I want in a second.

Give me a break, I hate these flame war topics :(

lotusleaf
December 30th, 2005, 01:07 PM
You installed the software, not the 60-70 year olds. Now, why might that be? Could it be they couldn't install it themselves?

I installed it because I wanted to quickly customize their desktop for them and their needs, and they had never installed an operating system before, Windows had always been preinstalled on their systems when they purchased them. Now, if Ubuntu Linux came installed on new systems it wouldn't have to be installed. I never thought about having these people install Ubuntu but you know what, I may just run a few trials for giggles.


The argument wasn't about how easy Ubunut is to use
[..]

although the original title was inaccurate, it was a valid criticism.

This part wasn't in the title: "My experience to date clearly demonstrates that Linux is still for computer wizzes not the average Joe." That doesn't sound very objective to me, but rather subjective. Clearly this doesn't say to me 'a distribution of Linux' it says clearly "Linux" without naming a distro, and, as closing statements serve to frame the point of the article, it drives the poster's point across to us as this: "Linux is still for computer wizzes and not the average Joe".

"valid criticism" I think not.

lotusleaf
December 30th, 2005, 01:25 PM
THEY, the average Joes did not do the setup.

Neither did they install Windows, it was loaded with the computer when they purchased it. FWIW, they didn't know how to setup most of the drivers for their Windows system(s) whereas Linux supported their devices without having to install anything extra. Linux provides them with easy and stable GUI programs for them to use with their devices whereas the software provided for Windows was bloated, would crash often, and ended up giving them too many popups and screens within screens that they didn't need. There are a lot of devices for Windows where you have to hunt down drivers from a 3rd party website or that don't work at all because of a lack of drivers. No OS is perfect, but Linux is and has been ready for the average Joe. Show me one car on the market that works with parts from any other car. Why doesn't Windows show Linux partitions by default? There is a lot one can argue about but in the end, it's just a waste of energy (or picking up a paycheck in the case of those who are funded to start flame wars against free software).


I am already convinced that once it is set up and everything is running smoothly it is better than WIndows.

So, then, you don't think Linux is a cult? (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=104190) :P


If I didn't have this opinion I wouldn't be trying to switch from Windows.

Linux isn't your only option, there are plenty of others: Mac, BSD, etc.


Getting everything up and running without knowing a lot about Linux is what I feel is its current weak point.

Only for those who can't read documentation, IMO.

aysiu
December 30th, 2005, 01:34 PM
Give me a break, I hate these flame war topics :( You mean you don't regularly read these threads just for fun?

Linux ready for desktop? (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=31331)
Why I Give Up On Linux......or "what needs to be fixed" (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=108646)
Linux still needs to be more user friendly to convert Win users (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58786)
ubuntu ready for end-users? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=6996)

I think it boils down to this:

Some users imagine that Linux will get so easy that anyone can pick up any Linux distribution, pop the installer CD into any computer, and have it all be ready and working always. That is what they call "ready for the desktop."

Other users realize most people don't have the chops (skills, inclination, time, energy) to install any OS (including Windows). They figure an OS has to be preinstalled and preconfigured by an expert (a company or person) before it can be "ready for the desktop."

Again: http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktop.php
Read it, please.

It's all been argued about before... many times!

Artificial Intelligence
December 30th, 2005, 01:54 PM
You mean you don't regular read these threads just for fun?

Linux ready for desktop? (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=31331)
Why I Give Up On Linux......or "what needs to be fixed" (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=108646)
Linux still needs to be more user friendly to convert Win users (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=58786)
ubuntu ready for end-users? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=6996)



http://mandrivausers.org/style_emoticons/default/popcorn.gif

awakatanka
December 30th, 2005, 02:53 PM
Here's where you're wrong: I've installed Ubuntu for several people who are between 60-70 years old and each of them find it easier to use than Windows. Most of them were so ignorant of computers they thought a web browser *WAS* the internet. Each of them uses their scanners, printers, digital cameras, etc. with zero effort. In fact, ALL of them continue to tell me how much easier and better their experiences with Ubuntu Linux is than in comparison to their years of using Windows.

Your experience is your own, and demonstrates nothing about the average Joe, IMO.
Can you tell me what they find easier in linux then windows, because for those people its exactly the same if its preinstalled desktoplinux our windows Push start/kicker/foot select prg and run. For people that do a little more then only using preinstalled things its getting a little harder, if they try themself to install new hardware, Sure software with synaptic is easier then windows but don't try stuff outside repo's our you can have a hardtime to get it to work.

What if one of those persons get a lexmark printer for his/her birthday? you gonna tell them you got a problem, that printer is not gonna work, give it back and ask a new one that is supported? They will have a hard time to believe that the printer is not working on there Desktop but it is working on a friends desktop. Because preinstalled windows and desktop linux is the same for them because they don't have the knowhow of the different OS's.

23meg
December 30th, 2005, 03:09 PM
Now that one more FUDdy thread is out of hand and now that I've once again been unable to keep my intention not to post and not to stir debate and FUD any further...
His criticism was constructive the only thing that can called be wrong he used the word linux and not this distro (ubuntu). The most people attacked that little thing.His criticism wasn't constructive at all, I didn't attack anything, and as I said in my post, I didn't pick up on that thing; what I'm concerned about is that people make generalizations based on nothing but their own experiences. Please read more carefully and don't make me repeat myself.


And this thread http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=109970 is that constructive in anyway? If you complain you be found a troll. But as said int that thread if you troll about MS you be found a hero.You're talking about something totally unrelated; is that thread meant to be constructive? Does the poster complain? Read the first post.

If you complain unconstructively based on your own bad experiences, without basing your claims on any solid proof, you'll be labeled a troll and not be taken seriously, and this won't change.

And if people find anyone who complains about MS a hero it's their own immaturity, which is not my problem. It's not a common attitude and shouldn't become one.


You say linux doesn't have the market to support drivers in a goodway. But why they don't make it easier to install it?The kernel is used by all distro's so a unified install for hardware drivers must be possible. If hardware companies could reach all desktop linux user with that they would make drivers. How would linus know that there is a need for easy install of drivers if none is complaining about it?Driver installation is unified; if there isn't support for your hardware, you compile a new kernel module, or compile support into the kernel, that's it. As long as the kernel infrastructure doesn't change, this won't change. I suggest you do some research and find out the details for yourself.


If people don't give any criticism there wouln't be any improvement in anyway. People do give LOTS of top quality criticism and there has been LOTS of improvement. Noone should ignore this fact and noone should equate the kind of "criticism" on this thread with the kind of criticism that brought Linux to this day and is actually letting you type these posts on your OS (if you're using a Linux based one, that is). If you label something like "Linux isn't ready for the desktop because it doesn't work with my hardware" as criticism, we don't want that criticism, we've had enough of it and it doesn't make things any better and only causes further confusion, period.


You say its ready for many, i say its not ready for the average people. And again without criticism it will never be ready and user friendly so all people have a easy time on it.OK, then the "average people" of your definition can happily use Windows or any other OS, no problems. The "average people" around me and the "average users" we have here will keep using Ubuntu all the same.


At the end we all want the samething.I wouldn't be so sure.

Dr. E
December 30th, 2005, 08:17 PM
Why i m saying this?

Cause everybody put the blame on LINUX, but nobody tries to look at all the effort that linux developers put on developing stuff without almost any support from hardware companies.

It is the same with software, why are linux at fault cause WordPerfect doesnt work with it?

I m using just linux for one year now, who do i blame when an app, hardware, software or something doesnt work under linux?

Do you think i blame linux? off course not, i blame the developers who didnt make linux support.

It's not an issue of blame. I understand and sympathize with the developers. My point isn't who is to blame, my point is that it isn't ready for the average Joe,

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
December 30th, 2005, 09:27 PM
My point isn't who is to blame, my point is that it isn't ready for the average Joe,
Yes and you based your point on what exactly?
You couldn't get your specific printer to work on ubuntu, though you now discovered it works without a problem on an other distribution.

You couldn't install some half-assed, years-old port of some software that doesn't run on linux and that has several good native alternatives available.

Yes, I can see how these two points can only lead to one conclusion: Linux in general is not ready for the desktop in general.....

What a well laid out argument.

poofyhairguy
December 30th, 2005, 10:05 PM
You say linux doesn't have the market to support drivers in a goodway. But why they don't make it easier to install it?The kernel is used by all distro's so a unified install for hardware drivers must be possible. If hardware companies could reach all desktop linux user with that they would make drivers. How would linus know that there is a need for easy install of drivers if none is complaining about it?

Don't worry, Linus has heard people complain that Linux lacks a unified driver interface for binary drivers. He refuses to stick to any spec. He basically says he would quit before he would let that happen.

Why? Well..partially because it forces open drivers. Partially because it allows for the drivers to go through quality control (to get in kernel). Partially becauase then its easier to see whats going on. A few more reasons I can't explain.

Its one of the times Linus put his foot down to stop something semi-popular from happening. Its the benefit of a dictator. The basic truth is that Linux is for more than desktops, and binary drivers are things that could only help situations like desktop use (if that).

Many think it might lead to a fork one day. Not me. I like it.



If people don't give any criticism there wouln't be any improvement in anyway.


But the developers do not often read the forum. Just normal folks and volunteer staff. I promise that the most contructive thing that comes from ranting in the community chat is entertainment for others and the opportunity to blow off steam.

aysiu
December 30th, 2005, 11:54 PM
Valid criticism my ass.

What's better than whining on the forums? Making a difference (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=78741).

By the way, did we ever find out what was so great about Word Perfect that OpenOffice, AbiWord, and KWord can't do?

fordfan753
December 31st, 2005, 12:16 AM
I think this would already have been posted, but meh, if it has I'll post it again because I like this article:
http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktop.php

23meg
December 31st, 2005, 12:21 AM
By the way, I did we ever find out what was so great about Word Perfect that OpenOffice, AbiWord, and KWord can't do?
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=608197&postcount=7

The OP was pointed to alternative functionality in OOo via extensions though.

swregulator
December 31st, 2005, 05:34 AM
Sorry folks, Dr. E is right on the money. Linux is nowhere near ready for prime time on the desktop for the typical user. I am a typical user, indeed, I am much more willing to tech it up than the "typical" home user. I installed ubuntu on my laptop a couple weeks ago to try it out, for the challenge, and because I have reasons to want to know how competitive it could be. I've probably spent 25 hours fuzting with it (beyond the time I've spent using it, which has been a positive experience for things I got to work). What did I experience?

Had fish the forums to get a working mouse (a usb optical mouse worked, but a PS/2 optical mouse wasn't recognized).

Had to fish the forums for help on how to get the music player to work.

Had to fish the forums for help on getting my laptop wireless adapter to work. Ended up punting on ndiswrapper and went with a commercial solution.

Had to fish the forums on how to get the movie player to work.

In addition to all the forum fishing, I had to get comfortable using lots of commands with the terminal to make stuff work. None of it was menu driven. None of it.

I am still fishing the forums to figure out how to install a dwg reader so I can read CAD files I created for a personal project.

I attempted to install wine to be able to run some Windows programs. After several fishing expeditions into the forums failed me, I punted.

Bottom line? It is simply WAYYYY too costly for the average user to find hardware and software to do the things they want to, especially when one accounts for compatibility issues (e.g., reading dwg files, reading aunt Mary's word files without issues, etc.). While I am by no means a Windows lover (remember the general protection fault days?), it has evolved to the point where it now quite stable with XP, and it really is easy for the average user to do everything he/she wants to do without being some kind of programmer. Hardware is recognized, programs are trivial to install via menus, and things are compatible with what others are doing. All for $99. How much is your time worth?

The average user does not want to spend hours and hours figuring out how to get software and hardware to work. He/she just wants it to work. Linux simply does not offer this right now. It's not the fault of Linux, which is clearly a great operating system. There simply has not been sufficient commercial incentive to make it happen, plus the network effect and the associated compatibility issues hold it back. Maybe this will change. Hopefully, ubuntu is a start. My point is that right now, Linux simply is not ready for prime time for the typical joe. It's just too hard for Joe Typical to use.

Sorry to be so negative. It would make my day if you can show me that I'm wrong.

briancurtin
December 31st, 2005, 05:42 AM
None of it was menu driven. None of it.
and none of it will be
linux is not windows. windows is windows.

MechR
December 31st, 2005, 09:22 AM
and none of it will be
linux is not windows. windows is windows.Well, it might happen someday. Probably before Linux hits mainstream on the desktop, at any rate.

Deaf_Head
December 31st, 2005, 11:31 AM
Alot of people who try linux are really looking for a mac. heh

Sirin
December 31st, 2005, 11:41 AM
I despise the command line. Why can't anyone get that average users are not gurus at compiling or 'dpkg'ing? Why does the hard way have to be the DEFAULT way? Ubuntu is NOT for the average so-so user. It's a Geek/TechPerson only system. :mad:

mcduck
December 31st, 2005, 12:07 PM
I despise the command line. Why can't anyone get that average users are not gurus at compiling or 'dpkg'ing? Why does the hard way have to be the DEFAULT way? Ubuntu is NOT for the average so-so user. It's a Geek/TechPerson only system. :mad:
There was time when average users only had CLI, and they still could handle their computers. Propably even better than average windows user today. I started using computers with DOS when I was 8, and I didn't even understand any english then. You really don't need to be a guru to use command line. You only need some will to learn how to use it :D

If I could, I'd put every people I help with computers to use only linux CLI or DOS for a month or two. After that they'd know a lot more about how their computers work and would have easier times with graphical UI's too.

Swab
December 31st, 2005, 12:10 PM
I despise the command line. Why can't anyone get that average users are not gurus at compiling or 'dpkg'ing? Why does the hard way have to be the DEFAULT way? Ubuntu is NOT for the average so-so user. It's a Geek/TechPerson only system. :mad:

So why are you using Ubuntu?

Sirin
December 31st, 2005, 01:16 PM
So why are you using Ubuntu?

I'm not an average "What's an OS?" user, but I really don't like why there are such complex ways to do what you could do simply with the Mac.


There was time when average users only had CLI, and they still could handle their computers. Propably even better than average windows user today. I started using computers with DOS when I was 8, and I didn't even understand any english then. You really don't need to be a guru to use command line. You only need some will to learn how to use it

No one should have to be required to do this just to install something that's not in the APT repos.

"Acquire and unpack tarball. Invoke make file and compile binaries. Check termcap binaries and customize the .Xdefaults. Rename xfoo and install as root."

http://images.linspire.com/whatis_cnr/page_why_sshot_1_full.png

aysiu
December 31st, 2005, 04:04 PM
It would make my day if you can show me that I'm wrong. By your same logic, Microsoft Windows and every other operating system is not "ready for the desktop." Please read post #97 of this thread.

Oh, and this has been linked to many times. I suggest you read it also: http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktop.php

Bottom line: you're confusing use with install and configure before using. As Windows usually comes preinstalled and preconfigured, people can use it right away. As Ubuntu almost never comes preinstalled and preconfigured, people think it's difficult to use because they've never installed an operating system from scratch before.

Danielle
December 31st, 2005, 05:44 PM
Linux is NOT ready for the desktop!!! Sorry folks what an odd thing to post in a forum where most people are happily using Ubuntu on their desktops.

alot of the time i don't really understand what people are talking about until i really experience it or someone puts it into a sentence so lightbulbs are lighting in my mind as they speak
:idea:
:-D
anyway, i read such an anticle yesterday which explained how computers are not instinctive but can become second nature, when they become second nature that's how you know things should be done and they become alot more easy to you - that's how humans can become experts.

so if you change OS's and things are done differently it's hard to reset your ways because you are human and that's how humans become good at things - learned behaviour becoming second nature. you have to give it time i suppose and understand you are learning something new not doing something you are familiar with.

if anyone comes out with a sentence XP/Mac does it this way perhaps their thinking should change to i've never done this before so i have no preconceived ideas, probably hard i know. of course some things will be harder - some easier, if they weren't they'd be the same OS

MechR
December 31st, 2005, 10:47 PM
No one should have to be required to do this just to install something that's not in the APT repos.

"Acquire and unpack tarball. Invoke make file and compile binaries. Check termcap binaries and customize the .Xdefaults. Rename xfoo and install as root."I look forward to the day Linux gets a unified graphical installer format. To those who might claim there's no problem with the "package everything" repository approach, I point to the fact that Firefox 1.5 still isn't available in Ubuntu's repos a month after its release.

Ampersand
December 31st, 2005, 11:02 PM
Firefox 1.5 is available in the Dapper repositories, and has been since its release. It'll probably be in the backports once they open. If you want the latest versions of programs to be available, you might need to change distribution.

Wide
December 31st, 2005, 11:09 PM
I just dont understand?

My 6th grader uses linux, she read the wiki, installed it on her laptop with the help of this forum then off to the races she went.

To the original auther of this thread, VIM is the absolute best text editor there is. Has a bit of a learning curve however inside of a few months you'll never look back.
After all, it's just text. ;)

MechR
December 31st, 2005, 11:54 PM
Firefox 1.5 is available in the Dapper repositories, and has been since its release. It'll probably be in the backports once they open. If you want the latest versions of programs to be available, you might need to change distribution.Ah, that explains it. Thanks for the info.

briancurtin
December 31st, 2005, 11:58 PM
I despise the command line.
dont use it. its only faster than everything else doing the same thing. either learn it, or dont learn it and keep quiet about it. ford does the same thing that chevy does, but ive never messed with a ford, so can i really say that i despise their cars? no.


Why can't anyone get that average users are not gurus at compiling or 'dpkg'ing? Why does the hard way have to be the DEFAULT way? Ubuntu is NOT for the average so-so user. It's a Geek/TechPerson only system. :mad:
yes, it isnt graphical, but it also is not that hard. seriously. you have to read like 3 sentences to understand it, and if you forget, just search and you will find hundreds of threads explaining how to do it. not hard, and its a good thing is the default way. did your math teachers teach you how to graph all of the hard stuff on your calculator first, and then show you by hand? no.

prizrak
January 1st, 2006, 01:06 AM
Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular has three ways of being run.
1) Computer illiterates that have someone install and configure it for them.
2) Hardcore geeks that can handle anything no problems.
3) Those who don't mind reading/searching/following How-To's.
The best two ways are #1 and #2 as there will be the least amount of problems for the user.

jdodson
January 1st, 2006, 03:24 AM
Linux is or is not ready for the desktop depending on the individual, their needs, their hardware, and how much time they want to put into learning something new.

true dat. i am my company use ubuntu desktops/servers and some debian servers and we get along awesomely.

i think GNU/Linux is ready for the desktop. Hands down, it is ready.

Its not like anyone never had problem getting anything working in Windows, or hardware that took a dump, or never worked in the first place.

Some vendors just don't care, is that GNU/Linux fault? Hell no.

vasudevank
January 1st, 2006, 04:52 AM
just do open office, it is available in all platforms

galvatron1983
January 1st, 2006, 09:39 PM
Id argue that Microsoft Windows has never been ready for the desktop! :cool:

Rackerz
January 2nd, 2006, 12:11 AM
dont use it. its only faster than everything else doing the same thing. either learn it, or dont learn it and keep quiet about it. ford does the same thing that chevy does, but ive never messed with a ford, so can i really say that i despise their cars? no.


yes, it isnt graphical, but it also is not that hard. seriously. you have to read like 3 sentences to understand it, and if you forget, just search and you will find hundreds of threads explaining how to do it. not hard, and its a good thing is the default way. did your math teachers teach you how to graph all of the hard stuff on your calculator first, and then show you by hand? no.

I disagree. It's not really 3 sentences, and if you were an average person with not much time on there hands and you just wanted to use a computer (bearing in mind they probably can't use Windows that well) would Ubuntu be for you? Would any Linux be for you? I highly doubt it. You have to do quite a bit to get Ubuntu doing what an average person wants a computer to do. Just think, someone new to computers (usually the one's new to computers) wouldn't even be able to understand the command line. It's not basic enough and they just wont see fun in trying to get it to work. Yes, Ubuntu just works if you load it up. But when you need something to work on Ubuntu, say music which is what a lot of average people want to use it's not there and ready. An average person would think, well that's not great now, is it?

Swab
January 2nd, 2006, 12:19 AM
Anyway, the real question is: Is the desktop ready for Linux?

sapo
January 2nd, 2006, 12:20 AM
Anyway, the real question is: Is the desktop ready for Linux?
Nice point :)

mstlyevil
January 2nd, 2006, 12:30 AM
Ubuntu is hard to set up? I hate to break it to many people but if a noob uses automatix, he/she will be up and running in no time with what, three commands they cut and pasted in the console. Then everything most users would want are installed by a click of the mouse including MM codecs and drivers for Nvidia cards if you happen to have one. (You can select and deselect whatever you want installed.) I wished Windows was that easy to set up and install. The CLI has it uses and is better for some task while a GUI is more efficient at others. The only real problems for new users is harware support but that is the fault of the manufactuers.

Also a lot of Multimedia features are not a part of a basic Windows install. Try playing a DVD without first installing DVD software. Quit beating a dead horse, Linux has many easy distro's like linspire and Mephis. The main difference between Linux and Windows is that Windows comes already installed and configured out of the box. Linux is every bit as ready for the desktop as Windows.

23meg
January 2nd, 2006, 12:33 AM
Anyway, the real question is: Is the desktop ready for Linux?"The desktop" is one of the vaguest terms I've ever heard; nevertheless I'm writing an an article titled "Joe Average isn't ready for the desktop"; stay tuned.

sapo
January 2nd, 2006, 12:42 AM
"The desktop" is one of the vaguest terms I've ever heard; nevertheless I'm writing an an article titled "Joe Average isn't ready for the desktop"; stay tuned.
Already waiting to read it :)

bonzodog
January 2nd, 2006, 12:43 AM
um..guys....
anyone noticed that the orginal poster is no longer around?
I think it's time we ended this :)

benplaut
January 2nd, 2006, 12:46 AM
"The desktop" is one of the vaguest terms I've ever heard; nevertheless I'm writing an an article titled "Joe Average isn't ready for the desktop"; stay tuned.

i've got to read that!!

btw, before anyone says it, 2006 is the year of linux on the desktop!

happy new year, everyone! :cool:

simohell
January 2nd, 2006, 09:10 PM
However, it's true that it requires more effort than installing Windows, it's true that Windows just works, and it's true that linux usually doesn't work 100% without some manual intervention. No amount of rhetoric is going to change that.


Well, I think it is true, that Windows sometimes doesn't work even after a good while of manual intervention.

And of course some Windows versions work better than others. Out of some 20+ desktops I installed Windows 98 in I never came across one that would shutdown properly without installing 1 or 2 patches from MS website.

For some pieces of hardware it might be that they don't have a stable Windows driver when the product starts to be sold for Windows users. Some other hardware comes with 20+ different drivers packed to the same CD. It's then up to the user to manually detect his version of the chipset and specs for the device or to jam the Windows alltogether. Also the CD might have several different versions of all the 20+ drivers. Also some devices use the driver of a different manufaturers device that just happends to be using the same chip.

Any of these might happend unless you get a well designed computer with a pre-installed Windows. And for these kind of computers it would be just as easy to pre-install linux and prepare a driver/installation/recovery CD that would just work. I might make something like that for my laptop...

In general no OS works flawlessly with every combination of hardware. For Apple it is of course a bit better compatibility, since they choose also the hardware. It is not a question of which is good and which are bad. We don't have any good-enough-for-everyone OS's yet.

Nobody I know would get into a car that relies on Windows to run. They know it would crash sooner or later.

fastluck
January 2nd, 2006, 10:19 PM
Well, I think it is true, that Windows sometimes doesn't work even after a good while of manual intervention.


A few days ago I installed a Logitech wireless mouse on both Windows and Ubuntu, on my Vaio laptop. It took me 3 hours to get it working right on Windows. I even had to uninstall and reinstall some drivers unrelated to the mouse, before I could get it to work after a reboot.

Then I turned to Ubuntu. It wasn't recognized automatically. But I did a web search and found information that would help me get it working. From the time I booted up Ubuntu for the first time with the mouse, to the time I got the mouse working flawlessly: 45 minutes.

Someone might say, "You're not a linux newbie," and I'm not one anymore. I'm not sure when that happened. But I've been a Windows software developer since Windows 3.0 shipped, and most people who know me consider me a Windows expert. I definitely know more about Windows than linux.

It should have been the other way around, but it wasn't. Times they are a' changin'. Microsoft's only hope to extend their market dominance is to change the UI paradigm and hope linux doesn't keep pace.

cjm5229
January 2nd, 2006, 10:44 PM
Hi,
Just had to mention that my 10 yr. old son, just finished putting together a computer he built from an old Compaq Presario and parts he found in yard sales. It has an old Pentium II 400 Mgh Processor, he put in a 5Gig HDD in which he installed WinXP, and a 40 Gig Hdd in which he installed Ubuntu, I showed him where to find Automatix, and he did everything else himself. Not only did he not use just Linux compatible Hardware, Most of the hardware he used we have no idea even what brand it is. Even the memory chips were from a yard sale and he put in a 256, and two 128's and they work, (Imagine my shock!) He just did this last night and he has this thing up and running almost as well as my emachines, (new in Feb. 05.) He even connected to my HP printer through my computer. (Something I haven't been able to do is hook up to the network computer yet.) I am the first to admit that Ubuntu may not be perfect yet, which may be why they are developing a new version every 6 month's. But Windows is far from perfect too. Which is why it is constantly under development. Oh, Yeh, He is still working on the WinXP install, SP2, and several hours of updates, installing all his programs for anti virus, antispyware, antiadware, antieverythingware. I'm afraid he will run out of hardrive before he gets it setup. I tried about ten distro's myself before I settled on Ubuntu, "because it just works" I guess it just boils down to the fact that, if we all wanted the same things in life it would be a simple world, but it would also be totally boring. God gave us the freedom to choose, why should Bill Gates take it away?
Carl

Amon_Re
January 2nd, 2006, 11:45 PM
Hmm....

Is linux ready for the desktop... If i'm honest, i'm inclined to say <no> here, i'll try to explain why:

- Diversity (How does a newbie select wich distribution to use?)
- Multiple desktops (How does a newbie select wich desktop to use from the dosens out there?)
- Hardware support, what's supported, what's not, there really should be a repository about this.
- Arcane commands - A newbie user might have some familiarity with DOS or some other OS's that had a console, and suddenly he has to use cp instead of copy, mv instead of move, rm instead of del or delete....(*)

I myself have used linux since the 90's, i remember installing slackware 2.something on 386DX computers, and i'm rather familiar with various other OS's (AmigaOS, MacOS, OSX, Windows,....) so maybe that's why i never felt bothered with having to read pages after pages of text just to get my mouse working, but average Joe wants to turn on the machine, plug in the CD & just click on afew buttons & that's it.

I was pleasantly supriced with ubuntu, it's a very clean distribution, the closest i've seen when it comes at being ready for the desktop, and the only thing standing in it's way are hardware incompabilities if you ask me, wich are mostly out of the distribution's grip (in my case, it's an incompability with my mobo with the linux kernel, no amount of fiddling seems to solve that one)

jesse
January 3rd, 2006, 12:04 AM
I would never buy a Lexmark product, because Lexmark is not very Linux-friendly. But what type of printer do you use, Dr E?:rolleyes:

prizrak
January 3rd, 2006, 01:06 AM
- Hardware support, what's supported, what's not, there really should be a repository about this.
There is a wiki on that I believe. There are sites that list Linux compatible hardware.

aysiu
January 3rd, 2006, 03:10 PM
- Diversity (How does a newbie select wich distribution to use?) http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/
How do people select what university to attend, what kind of pizza to eat, or what MP3 player to buy? They read reviews, do research, and find out. Diversity and choice aren't bad things. Microsoft's just taught us they are.



- Multiple desktops (How does a newbie select wich desktop to use from the dosens out there?) Use the default--Gnome for Ubuntu, KDE for Kubuntu. Most distros default to KDE.



- Hardware support, what's supported, what's not, there really should be a repository about this. https://wiki.ubuntu.com//HardwareSupport



- Arcane commands - A newbie user might have some familiarity with DOS or some other OS's that had a console, and suddenly he has to use cp instead of copy, mv instead of move, rm instead of del or delete....(*) Mepis, Linspire, PCLinuxOS... i.e., you don't need them.


average Joe wants to turn on the machine, plug in the CD & just click on afew buttons & that's it. Which won't happen with a Windows installation from scratch either, meaning that, by your criteria, Windows is also not "ready for the desktop."

angrykeyboarder
January 3rd, 2006, 06:06 PM
A few days ago I installed a Logitech wireless mouse on both Windows and Ubuntu, on my Vaio laptop. It took me 3 hours to get it working right on Windows. I even had to uninstall and reinstall some drivers unrelated to the mouse, before I could get it to work after a reboot.

I can't imagine what went wrong. I got mine Working under windows as quickly as I could install the driver. I don't own a Sony Vaio, or a notebook computer though (not that this should make any difference).

Linux on the other hand, is another matter. I've yet to get full functionality out of my MX1000.

angrykeyboarder
January 3rd, 2006, 06:09 PM
Buy a Hewlet Packard. Their linux support is excellent. Just watch out for the libjpeg64-dev dependancy which was omitted from the installation HOWTO.

He'd probably have to ask the boss to buy that printer...

angrykeyboarder
January 3rd, 2006, 06:28 PM
Well, I think it is true, that Windows sometimes doesn't work even after a good while of manual intervention.

And of course some Windows versions work better than others. Out of some 20+ desktops I installed Windows 98 in I never came across one that would shutdown properly without installing 1 or 2 patches from MS website.

Who cares about Windows 98 in 2006? Any Windows user who's not running XP is asking for problems.


[.....]

Any of these might happend unless you get a well designed computer with a pre-installed Windows. And for these kind of computers it would be just as easy to pre-install linux and prepare a driver/installation/recovery CD that would just work. I might make something like that for my laptop...

Not necessarily. Go buy a computer with two SATA hard drives configured in RAID0 with Windows preinstalled. It will work quite well. Now change Windows to Linux and see what happens....



Nobody I know would get into a car that relies on Windows to run. They know it would crash sooner or later.

They would be equally stupid to get into a car that relies on Linux to run as it too, will crash sooner or later.

From a desktop standpoint, I've found Windows XP Professional (SP2) far more stable than Linux. Granted I'm running Ubuntu Dapper now, but that was only recent. Prior to a week ago, I'd been running Ubuntu Breezy for weeks and I'd often have lockups that would sometimes require my resorting to hitting the reset button to fix.

That almost never happens in Windows XP Professional.

Too many Linux people want to compare a current Linux distro to an old version of Windows. That's like comparing apples to oranges.

I'm no "fan" of Microsoft. I like computers, period, regardless of OS. I do love Linux and the "freedom" aspect of it, but frankly with the exception of maybe Linspire, it's got a very long way to go before it will attact any kind of mass appeal.

Windows XP and Mac OS X "just work". Ubuntu? HA!

And let's not even talk about printing.....

55eel
January 3rd, 2006, 08:17 PM
Microsoft drove me to Ubuntu six months ago. Here's why:
1. Windows is expensive. I don't think the bang's worth the buck.
2. MS movement toward resource disks. You spend $1600 on a notebook and you can't get a stinkin' Windows disk!
3. Constant security updates. Maybe my imagination, but it always seems like performance takes a hit after every update.
4. MS's morbid fear of piracy. My opinion - MS more worried about piracy than the soundness/security of their product.

I just got tired of it all. Hoary installed fine. I never could get any of the "free" winmodem approaches to work though so I finally broke down and bought the Linuxant fix ($14, I think). It's good to be Windows-free.

Amon_Re
January 3rd, 2006, 09:09 PM
There is a wiki on that I believe. There are sites that list Linux compatible hardware.

There's info all over the place, sometimes it even conflicts with eachother.
Clarity is what we should strife for, not having dosens of sites springing into existance. Besides, this is something the people over at LKML should be doing, or atleast assisting in.

angrykeyboarder
January 3rd, 2006, 09:19 PM
Microsoft drove me to Ubuntu six months ago. Here's why:
1. Windows is expensive. I don't think the bang's worth the buck.

It's only expensive if you buy it outright off the shelf. Buy it bundled with a PC and it doesn't cost that much. You could pay as much or more for a number of Linux distros.


2. MS movement toward resource disks. You spend $1600 on a notebook and you can't get a stinkin' Windows disk!

That ain't Microsoft, it's the cheap-ass company you bought the computer from. I bought mine a year ago from ABS. It came with a Windows disk (in fact, it came with two....). A friend bought a computer from HP and not only did they not get a Windows disk, but they didn't even get a restore disk. They had to make the restore disk themselves (from the "D" partition of the hard drive).


3. Constant security updates. Maybe my imagination, but it always seems like performance takes a hit after every update.

But you're not otherwise opposed to the idea of security updates? If so, I'd recommend you remove the following from your sources.list file in Ubuntu.

Any line beginning with http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu and refer to http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-security-announce/ for information on what packages you need to remove. ;-)


4. MS's morbid fear of piracy. My opinion - MS more worried about piracy than the soundness/security of their product.

I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. The fact is copyrighed software is pirated all over hell and gone. I'm willing to bet 4 out of 5 copies of Adobe Photoshop floating around right now are pirated.


I just got tired of it all. Hoary installed fine. I never could get any of the "free" winmodem approaches to work though so I finally broke down and bought the Linuxant fix ($14, I think). It's good to be Windows-free.

It will be good to be Windows free once Linux is as easy to maintain and operate as is Windows XP or Mac OS X. Untill then, I'll dual boot.

Got a printer working? I'm still trying to get two I just got working. It took a combined 20 minutes in Windows. I've toyed with it for a few hours in Linux and gave up.

BTW, I selected the printers based on their compatibility with Linux. Both are supposed to work well.

angrykeyboarder
January 3rd, 2006, 09:31 PM
Ubuntu/Linux is much easier to get a functioning system going than Windows.

Only because it's bundled most of the software you need. Strip away the image editors, office suites, development tools, instant messengers, firefox and so on and you'd spend as much time installing software as you would in Windows.

Windows recognizes all of my peripherals AND my RAID0 configuration of my hard drives. Linux doesn't do the RAID thing at all (or just barely ih limited cases).

It took me maybe 20-30 minutes tops, to get my two brand-new networked printers up and running on my roomates Windows-only box. I gave up trying with Ubuntu after a few hours. I still have no printers.

If Ubuntu has been that "smooth" for you, you've just been damn lucky.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "fan" of Microsoft. But I'm also saying that Windows XP is a very stable, versatile easy to use and configure operating system.

The only reason it's a spyware magnet is due to uninformed users and Microsoft's failure configure setup to insist upon the creation and use of a separate user account.

Most Windows users run in Administrator mode. I don't. Stay a user and use Firefox and Thunderbird, follow the usual precautions when it comes to viruses and you'll do quite well thank you.

But Windows still isn't as much fun as Linux though...

Lord Illidan
January 3rd, 2006, 09:33 PM
This guy obviously didn't do any research.... only 2 posts. He just started whining.
For the record, my soundcard doesn't work on Windows XP... A cmedia 8738... on Linux, on all distros, it worked out of the box...
So is Windows XP ready for primetime?

Granted, some things don't work.. However, that is the hardware manufacturer's fault. If you don't want Ubuntu, try SUSE it should work with WIFI..

Amon_Re
January 3rd, 2006, 09:39 PM
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/
How do people select what university to attend, what kind of pizza to eat, or what MP3 player to buy? They read reviews, do research, and find out. Diversity and choice aren't bad things. Microsoft's just taught us they are.

Telling that to someone who's been using non Microsoft systems for most of his life that's kind of insulting, don't you think? Maybe you didn't read my post & just focused on the things i listed.

Can you tell me in laymans terms, how the following distributions differ from eachother:
Ubuntu
Mandriva
Red Hat
Suse
Slackware
Debian

Have fun


Use the default--Gnome for Ubuntu, KDE for Kubuntu. Most distros default to KDE.

Gee, i thought choice was good? Whatever happened to Enlightenment, XFce, Rox...?


https://wiki.ubuntu.com//HardwareSupport

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupportComponentsMotherboards
Well look at that, a wooping 2 supported motherboards :rolleyes:
Oh, what's this?
http://www.linuxtested.com/results/asus_k8v-x_se.html
Why, it's my motherboard! The one that's not compatible with DRI! (BIOS broken, AGP goes foo)


Mepis, Linspire, PCLinuxOS... i.e., you don't need them.

Funny that, i've never, *EVER*, had the chance of installing linux on *any* of my machines without atleast having to go into the shell to fix something up, or correct something.

Oh, wait, i'm lying, it did work flawlessly on my Compaq E500 laptop, so, yea, i didn't open the console on that box yet...
Oh wait, i did, when i configured multisync & synce


Which won't happen with a Windows installation from scratch either, meaning that, by your criteria, Windows is also not "ready for the desktop."

What's with this windows obsession? Hell, installing 3rd party applications on a Mac or even a freaking Amiga is on average more user friendly.

What linux needs is clarity, pure & simple, afew solid websites with *ACCURATE* info, and a whole lot less distributions, so there's not this much re´nventing the wheel over & over & over & over & over again.

Amon_Re
January 3rd, 2006, 09:43 PM
I would never buy a Lexmark product, because Lexmark is not very Linux-friendly. But what type of printer do you use, Dr E?:rolleyes:

Get of your high horse, i've been using linux in some capacity or the other for years now & i didn't even know about problems with lexmark printers, but maybe that's because no matter what, i'd never actually touch a lexmark printer.

prizrak
January 3rd, 2006, 10:29 PM
Can you tell me in laymans terms, how the following distributions differ from eachother:
Ubuntu
A good newbie distribution, easy to install and use, does not come with much multimedia support, will require using the terminal once in a while.


Mandriva
User friendly distro, has a paid and an unpaid version, backed by a corporation, good for non techie users.

Red Hat
Most popular commercial distribution, generally used by organizations, easy for a newbie but will require usage of the terminal, also has a paid and unpaid version.

Suse
Alot like Red Hat and Mandriva, backed by Novell.

Slackware
Professional distribution for hardcore Linux hackers.

Debian
Often seen as the most stable Linux distribution, also for hardcore users, alot of other distributions are based on it.

That didn't seem that hard, and I think it was enough information for people who never used Linux to get a feel for what's going on. Some of my explanations are better than others cuz some of the distros I haven't used in a while so dunno how they are looking now.

poofyhairguy
January 3rd, 2006, 10:30 PM
Can you tell me in laymans terms, how the following distributions differ from eachother:
Ubuntu
Mandriva
Red Hat
Suse
Slackware
Debian

Have fun

Sure. Sounds fun. The differ in this way:

Each distro is its own operating system. They share a common kernel (or heart for laymen) and a few common pieces of software (such as openoffice) but each comes from a different producer and was made in a way that makes them all incompatible. Why even though they share nearly the same stuff? Because the producers of each OS made decisions in order to target that particular distro towards a certain demographic.

For example, Slackware has many design decisions that were done to make it an excellent server. Or Debian has made decisions to make the OS VERY expandable. Each distro has crucial differences that make it unique- each is an OS targeted to a certain market. Do you need to know the market for each to decide? No problem:

Ubuntu - a desktop operating system designed to be expandable. This is a great OS for users that want Linux on their desktop and are willing to work for it a little (yet do not want to pay any money).

Mandriva- a desktop operating system designed to be easy to use. This is a great OS for those that need wizards and graphical tools to get everything done.

Red Hat - a workstation/server operating system designed to work well in corporate settings. This OS is often the only distro that is compatible with many third party pieces of Linux software. - use it if you need software made for it.

Suse - a workstation operating system that is also great for desktop use. Designed to work well in both corporate and non-commercial settings, this OS is easy to set up and use for first time Linux users.

Slackware - a server OS designed to be stable as a stump, this OS is at its best when its being used as a server OS by someone that is very familiar with Linux and the command line.

Debian - a server/desktop/workstation OS that was designed to be expandable. It makes a great free alternative as a server and as a desktop, yet its real roll in the 21st century is to be a base for many other OSes (aka try Ubuntu or Mepis or some other distro based on it if you are a new user to Linux).



Gee, i thought choice was good? Whatever happened to Enlightenment, XFce, Rox...?

Nothing. They are sitting in the repos.



https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupportComponentsMotherboards
Well look at that, a wooping 2 supported motherboards :rolleyes:
Oh, what's this?
http://www.linuxtested.com/results/asus_k8v-x_se.html
Why, it's my motherboard! The one that's not compatible with DRI! (BIOS broken, AGP goes foo)

Its a wiki. Edit it if its wrong.



Funny that, i've never, *EVER*, had the chance of installing linux on *any* of my machines without atleast having to go into the shell to fix something up, or correct something.

Then you just have bad luck. I installed SUSE on my sister's box and I did not touch the command line once to get it how she expects.



What's with this windows obsession? Hell, installing 3rd party applications on a Mac or even a freaking Amiga is on average more user friendly.

Whats the obsession with third party applications? The point of Ubuntu is to provide everything MANY users need within one framework. All the software comes from a few trusted sources - its a relief in an age when spyware is king.

If you need third party stuff, use Red Hat. That OS is what most Linux based third party apps are made for. And its EASY to install apps made for Red Hat on Red Hat.

Ubuntu is not a distro for third party applications (yet). No big deal, it has other strengths.



What linux needs is clarity, pure & simple, afew solid websites with *ACCURATE* info, and a whole lot less distributions, so there's not this much re&#195;&#175;nventing the wheel over & over & over & over & over again.

Why does Linux need these things? Linux runs 7 of the top 10 supercomputers in the world, is used in many popular devices like TiVo, and is slowly building its desktop market share without any such things.

What Linux really needs is for people to stop trying to treat it like a single OS. Its a kernel. Its the heart of many OSes, but it is not an OS. Each distro is its own thing- sure they might share a few programs but they are all different (heck, Windows shares many programs with Linux distros). Its easy to figure it out when you don't oversimplify things.

Amon_Re
January 3rd, 2006, 10:36 PM
That didn't seem that hard, and I think it was enough information for people who never used Linux to get a feel for what's going on. Some of my explanations are better than others cuz some of the distros I haven't used in a while so dunno how they are looking now.

Basicly you said the same thing about all of them except Slack & debian, you basicly said that they're easy to install, but will require the use of the terminal every now & then.

That's not really what sets them apart now is it?

Care to try again?

Amon_Re
January 3rd, 2006, 10:54 PM
Whats the obsession with third party applications? The point of Ubuntu is to provide everything MANY users need within one framework. All the software comes from a few trusted sources - its a relief in an age when spyware is king.

Third party can be anything, from drivers to OSS that's not in the repository.
But hey, that never stopped me from compiling it myself, but then again, i know my way arround the console in the first place.


Ubuntu is not a distro for third party applications (yet). No big deal, it has other strengths.

Ubuntu is a very well put together distro, true, never said anything otherwise, but it's not perfect. Pretending it's perfect is counter productive at a minimun, destructive at worst.


Why does Linux need these things? Linux runs 7 of the top 10 supercomputers in the world, is used in many popular devices like TiVo, and is slowly building its desktop market share without any such things.

If you think clarity in documentation & hardware support are unneeded, then what the hell am i bothering replying to you in the first place :rolleyes:

I don't know what experiances you have with n00bs, i work in a computer store, i get confronted by non technical people on a daily basis, and believe me, they have no freaking clue where to start when it comes to using linux.

And no, these aren't idiots, some are even professors at universities & doctors, they just don't have the time & patience to fiddle with a machine for weeks, trying out all sorts of different distributions, googling for hardware problems, and wondering how to get his floppy mounted.

Ubuntu might solve quite alot of these things, but after they installed Ubuntu, where do they turn for their software needs, pray tell, how can a n00b actually chose a decent DTP package without getting lost in the labyrinth of sites?


What Linux really needs is for people to stop trying to treat it like a single OS. Its a kernel. Its the heart of many OSes, but it is not an OS. Each distro is its own thing- sure they might share a few programs but they are all different (heck, Windows shares many programs with Linux distros). Its easy to figure it out when you don't oversimplify things.

Hardware support is mostly related *to the kernel*, so yes, that's mostly a linux thing.

55eel
January 3rd, 2006, 11:05 PM
You can call it whining if it makes you feel better. I was merely giving my reasons for moving away from Windows. One thing I wasn't aware of - that the number of posts is directly proportional to the amount of research done. Thanks for clearing that up.

fastluck
January 4th, 2006, 12:48 AM
I can't imagine what went wrong. [snip] I don't own a Sony Vaio, or a notebook computer though (not that this should make any difference).

A Sony Vaio makes a big difference. Their drivers, though Windows 2000 compatible, refuse to install except on Windows XP. They actually have software whose only purpose is to force you to reboot if it discovers that your battery wasn't manufactured by Sony. I have a whole horror story about that subject alone!

I'd prefer my Windows partition to run Windows 2000, not XP (the second crappiest OS of all time). I was able to download most of the drivers I needed from the original hardware manufacturers, but finally gave up because I could never get sound working right.

Now I'm back to the original XP setup, pretty much. My next plan is to use VMWare to see if I can access the BIOS setup using Win2K. If I can, WinXP is history.

Nothing irritates me more than a hardware manufacturer trying to keep me from doing what I want to with the hardware that I OWN and legally purchased! I bought the Vaio because it is the smallest machine out there and has everything I need. But it's the last piece of hardware I will ever pay Microsoft taxes on. It's also the last piece of hardware I'll buy from Sony, unless they change their practices.

For what they charged for this machine, they should be more flexible with their users. One of the cheapest laptops is almost as small and is almost as feature-rich.

Sorry about the rant, but I'm sick and tired of being screwed by hardware and software manufacturers. I'm mad as hell, and I just ain't gonna take it no more. I hope that eventually enough people change their buying habits to start hurting these companies.

prizrak
January 4th, 2006, 01:06 AM
Basicly you said the same thing about all of them except Slack & debian, you basicly said that they're easy to install, but will require the use of the terminal every now & then.

That's not really what sets them apart now is it?

Care to try again?
Like I said I haven't used many of those in a very long time to give you enough detail. The main differences between them are target market, I think the poster after me did a good job explaining things in a layman's terms I can explain the difference between Slack, Ubuntu and Debian since I have the most understanding of those. You do have to realize that your choice of distros was very similar.
Suse, Mandriva and Ubuntu are all aimed at the desktop user and aim to be pretty simple to use and set up. They are all basically the same cept for Ubuntu is completely free.
Red Hat is a corporate distro which can make a decent desktop but being a corporate OS is harder to setup but just as easy to use.
Debian and Slack are obvious professional distros and there is no reason to even put them in layman's terms as unless you are a pro all I can tell you is DON'T TOUCH it :)
What I think is funny is that you say there needs to be less distros (or possibly one) and then say that people are reinventing the wheel. This is how competition works when there is no monopoly. I don't see people saying that there are too many cars out there and it's hard to choose. Yes you need the choice as someone who needs a minivan won't want a 2 seater but there are tons of different minivans and 2 seaters out there that have very subtle differences between them. Why is it a good thing to have like 20 different sports cars and not OS's? You can explain that to me in layman's terms ;)

fastluck
January 4th, 2006, 01:15 AM
I can't believe I'm letting myself get sucked into this argument. But I couldn't let this stuff go by and not say anything.


Who cares about Windows 98 in 2006? Any Windows user who's not running XP is asking for problems.

If a Windows user bought it, why shouldn't Microsoft support it?


Not necessarily. Go buy a computer with two SATA hard drives configured in RAID0 with Windows preinstalled. It will work quite well. Now change Windows to Linux and see what happens....
What does happen? Inquiring minds want to know...




From a desktop standpoint, I've found Windows XP Professional (SP2) far more stable than Linux.
I haven't had the same experience. I've found XP Pro as flaky as hell. My primary work machine (a fairly recent Dell), with dual monitors, won't remember the display settings on the primary monitor. It boots up at 640x480 every single time and has to be changed back. Both monitors are connected to the same dual-compatible card. Bluescreens all the bloody time. So died my last work machine (yes--that's a typo, but I thought it was fitting so I left it).


Granted I'm running Ubuntu Dapper now, but that was only recent. Prior to a week ago, I'd been running Ubuntu Breezy for weeks and I'd often have lockups that would sometimes require my resorting to hitting the reset button to fix.

That almost never happens in Windows XP Professional.

That's interesting to me. My experience is the opposite.


Too many Linux people want to compare a current Linux distro to an old version of Windows. That's like comparing apples to oranges.

Why not? Microsoft does that all the time in the RTO "studies" they keep commissioning. I'll happily compare Linux to Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows ME or Windows 3.0, for that matter. Windows loses either way. FWIW, there are only really three versions of Windows: Windows 3.x, Windows 2K and Windows XP. The other so-called "versions" are separated more by service pack and marketing hyperbole than anything else.



I'm no "fan" of Microsoft. I like computers, period, regardless of OS. I do love Linux and the "freedom" aspect of it, but frankly with the exception of maybe Linspire, it's got a very long way to go before it will attact any kind of mass appeal.

Do you want to know what I think? No? Too bad. I think you've read one too many online reviews. I doubt if you've ever tried Linspire. I also don't think you've made an honest effort to try to use Ubuntu as a primary desktop. I also think you're pissed at linux for not being what you'd hoped it would be. I went through those phases, myself.


And let's not even talk about printing.....

No, let's! Let's talk about buying a laser printer that works on Windows 3.1. Let's talk about a driver that doesn't work on Windows 98. Or Windows 2000. Or Windows XP. Why should I have to buy a new printer just because I'm running a new OS? It's a laser printer that cost a lot of money new and still has the capability the laser printer I'm using at work has. Why can't I use it anymore?

If the printer runs under Red Hat 7.0, it's likely to still work under Ubuntu. Say that about Windows.

As far as CUPS is concerned, I found it easy to set up. Granted, it's not going to autodetect across the network (or probably even locally). OTOH, the name of the printer is written on top of the printer usually. And that printer is usually in the list of CUPS printers to select from. And CUPS doesn't seem to care if the printer is hosted on Windows or Linux. ---it just works.

fastluck
January 4th, 2006, 01:20 AM
It's only expensive if you buy it outright off the shelf. Buy it bundled with a PC and it doesn't cost that much. You could pay as much or more for a number of Linux distros.


It's a matter of choice. When you buy flowers, you pay sales taxes. When you buy computers, you pay a Microsoft tax. Then you pay sales taxes, on the computer and on the Microsoft tax. Fifty dollars is fifty dollars. Why do you think Microsoft wasn't invited to the $100 laptop party?


Sounds like a short between the keyboard and the seat.
Now that is something I can agree with.

Burning Bronx
January 4th, 2006, 02:12 AM
OMG, this thread is still alive?
man TrollHunting
q
sudo apt-get remove Trolls


P.S. Quit that Windows Vs Linux crap - don't feed the trolls.
P.S.S. Still like a friend of mine likes to say: "Windows - big, bloated and full of bugs. Kind of like a dead hooker."

fastluck
January 4th, 2006, 02:38 AM
P.S. Quit that Windows Vs Linux crap - don't feed the trolls.

I know, I know....I should have never subscribed to this. But it's so much fun!

55eel
January 4th, 2006, 03:45 AM
[QUOTE=angrykeyboarder]It's only expensive if you buy it outright off the shelf. Buy it bundled with a PC and it doesn't cost that much. You could pay as much or more for a number of Linux distros.

$150 to upgrade to XP Pro on a Dell. This is preloaded - no disk

That ain't Microsoft, it's the cheap-ass company you bought the computer from...

We disagree. While I'm sure the PC makers pass extra cost on to their customers, the lion's share is MS's piece of the pie. I also think MS directs via licensing agreements to keep as many Windows disks out of the public's grasp as possible. When I bought my Dell, I didn't get a Windows disk or a restore disk either.


But you're not otherwise opposed to the idea of security updates? ...

I'm not opposed to security updates. With Windows, there are so many. MS just seems to have released a platform that's full of holes. I find it hard to believe that the developers at MS are unaware of these holes but the hackers aren't.

I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. The fact is copyrighed software is pirated all over hell and gone. I'm willing to bet 4 out of 5 copies of Adobe Photoshop floating around right now are pirated.

MS is entitled to be concerned about pirated software. My position is that they are more concerned with piracy than they are with a good product.

Got a printer working? I'm still trying to get two I just got working. It took a combined 20 minutes in Windows. I've toyed with it for a few hours in Linux and gave up...

Yes. HP 5510. I just added a printer in System>Administration>Printers and installed the HP5500.ppd.gz driver. I admit that I was surprised that it worked - I didn't expect it to. It took about 10 minutes.

steveneddy
January 4th, 2006, 04:30 AM
I am a new Ubuntu user, and although I can KINDA agree with the original post, I must admin that I have no problems getting Linux loaded and running. The last distro I installed was Knoppix distro, and after a frustrating coupla weeks, "discovered" Ubuntu. Someone at work gave it to me to try, hearing that I was a PC guy (*read "nerd").

Ubuntu installed effortlessly and without a hitch. I have a Breezy 5.10 edition installed on a 5 yr. old HP PIII, 512mb, x2 40gig HD's, dual boot with Win2K. I put the Linux on the second HD and used Automatix after the install.

I am not a hard core PC user, just like to surf and DL a few songs and stuff, but it must work flawlessly, which mine does.

Some people do have problems, but I tend to agree that it is a Carbon Based Malfunction due to either lack of knowledge or already faulty hardware. I have installed Linux in many forms on this machine and many others.

I have also installed DSL 2.0 and PuppyLinux. No probs on the old 486 and PI machines. So do I think that Linux isn't ready for primetime? I think it is getting very close, but even Windohs has problems on a laptop. Give the Kernel a little more time to mature and I believe the Linux revolution will happen. I feel fortunate to get in when I did.

Once the Kernel handles laptop issues better, Linux will take off. Remember, those of you who run XP on a laptop, the last time you let your laptop hybernate, the hic-up that XP spit out on you. Linux handles laptops almost as well as Windblows, and look how far Linux has come in five years, and where MS is after 20 years.

I prefer to be safe online and be trojan, spam and virus free.

Use Linux, set your computer free!

fastluck
January 4th, 2006, 05:47 AM
Once the Kernel handles laptop issues better, Linux will take off. Remember, those of you who run XP on a laptop, the last time you let your laptop hybernate, the hic-up that XP spit out on you. Linux handles laptops almost as well as Windblows, and look how far Linux has come in five years, and where MS is after 20 years.

I have no idea whether my laptop even hibernates. Maybe I'll try it soon. I quit trying to hybernate laptops five years ago, in Windows, on my third laptop. Out of the box, it never worked. I just gave up.

angrykeyboarder
January 4th, 2006, 06:08 AM
This guy obviously didn't do any research.... only 2 posts. He just started whining.
For the record, my soundcard doesn't work on Windows XP... A cmedia 8738...

Cmedia. Home of the $3.00 sound card!

Mikeynewbie
January 4th, 2006, 06:10 AM
What I don't understand is simply why individuals who have used windows for their entire computing life will download a live cd of linux see that they have to do some work come on a forum and throw a tantrum. For god's sake you bought your computer and we all know you did not install windows because all computers have windows pre-intalled. Try this re-intall windows with a copy that did not come with the laptop do not put in the driver restore disks afterwards and see how nothing works. Simply put nothing will work wireless etc. without those drivers and if you use a full windows os not packaged with your computer you will find that nothing but the basic os works which is what you are complaining about regarding linux live cds you have used.

Honestly if you are not willing to do some research and work you will never find a distro that will work for you cause all of them will pose some issue regarding hardware especially if you went to bestbuy and bought the darned thing (ie. made to run windows).

Furthermore you will never change anyone's mind on here because we feel this and other linux distros work and we are capable and have the patience to tweak the system so all of our hardware works. The issue simply put is that longterm windows users tend to believe that windows automtically does everything for them no it doesn't the techno guy at the hp factory or dell or even at times bestbuy sets all that up for you not windows.

If linux doesn't work for you just stick to windows for god's sake and go post on a windows forum about how you love that os and hate linux. We frankly don't wanna hear it realy.

If you want help just ask don't rant about how it doesn't work and windows is better that is probably the best way to get no help at all.

angrykeyboarder
January 4th, 2006, 06:59 AM
If a Windows user bought it, why shouldn't Microsoft support it?
For the same reason SuSE doesn't support SuSE 3.0, RedHat doesn't RedHat 5.0 and Ubuntu won't support 4.10 after April. Business are under no obiligation to support thier product for the life of the user.


What does happen? Inquiring minds want to know...
You have to ask? Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. The Kernel (or installer) doesn't recognize SATA RAID.


I haven't had the same experience. I've found XP Pro as flaky as hell. My primary work machine (a fairly recent Dell), with dual monitors, won't remember the display settings on the primary monitor. It boots up at 640x480 every single time and has to be changed back. Both monitors are connected to the same dual-compatible card. Bluescreens all the bloody time. So died my last work machine (yes--that's a typo, but I thought it was fitting so I left it).
I don't have dual monitors. Just a single ViewSonic 19" LCD connected to a NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT video card Windows has no trouble with that nor much of anything else. I've had maybe 2 BSODs in the past year and I don't even recall what they were related to.


Why not? Microsoft does that all the time in the RTO "studies" they keep commissioning. I'll happily compare Linux to Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows ME or Windows 3.0, for that matter.
And this matters because? You forget I said I'm not a "fan" of Microsoft.


Windows loses either way. FWIW, there are only really three versions of Windows: Windows 3.x, Windows 2K and Windows XP. The other so-called "versions" are separated more by service pack and marketing hyperbole than anything else.
I'd argue 4. 3.x, 9x, NT4, and XP.


Do you want to know what I think? No? Too bad. I think you've read one too many online reviews. I doubt if you've ever tried Linspire. Have you?


I also don't think you've made an honest effort to try to use Ubuntu as a primary desktop.

How many more months do I need before I "qualify" as having made an "honest effort to use Ubuntu as a primary desktop"? Considering it's my only desktop, I'm quite curious.


I also think you're pissed at linux for not being what you'd hoped it would be. I went through those phases, myself.
I'm not pissed at Linux, I'm pissed at people who blindly tout it as the end-all of operating systems - that it's far superior than Windows XP (even though it's far more difficult to configure everything from printers to multimedia). They conveniently forget that. Why? Because they have such blind hatred for Microsoft that they'll say anything.

There is a quote I love. I feel compelled to share it with you.

"Linux is for people who hate Microsoft.
FreeBSD is for people who love Unix."


If the printer runs under Red Hat 7.0, it's likely to still work under Ubuntu. Say that about Windows.
How about RedHat 5.0? FWIW, I bought a printer back in 1997, that worked under Windows 95 and now works under Windows XP. Back then Microsoft didn't have drivers for it. They came from the vendor. Nowadays it's the other way around.

Drivers for peripherials are primarily the responsibility of the Vendor. That's why they are such a problem in Linux. No one wants to write them for Linux. I'm sure the GPL scares a lot of vendors off as well.


As far as CUPS is concerned, I found it easy to set up. Granted, it's not going to autodetect across the network (or probably even locally). OTOH, the name of the printer is written on top of the printer usually. And that printer is usually in the list of CUPS printers to select from. And CUPS doesn't seem to care if the printer is hosted on Windows or Linux. ---it just works.
These printers aren't hosted on either, just the network. The CAT6 cables from each printer connect to a router to which both computers are also connected.

See the attached screen cap. The one that says it's "printing" has read that way for a few hours now. The printer hasn't made a sound in the past two days. 2 Days ago when I sent something to it, it came from the Windows box and printed just fine.

As far as the other printer being "paused"? Well that's the response I get every time I try to send something to it.

Both don't do squat. I'm sure another hour of tweaking will fix that though....

It's a good thing I have nothing but time these days.

Amon_Re
January 4th, 2006, 07:59 AM
Like I said I haven't used many of those in a very long time to give you enough detail. The main differences between them are target market, I think the poster after me did a good job explaining things in a layman's terms I can explain the difference between Slack, Ubuntu and Debian since I have the most understanding of those. You do have to realize that your choice of distros was very similar.

You know, that was kinda the reason i selected those, because they all have more or less the same target.


Debian and Slack are obvious professional distros and there is no reason to even put them in layman's terms as unless you are a pro all I can tell you is DON'T TOUCH it :)

Hah! I cut my teeth on slack 2.something something back in the 90's ;)


What I think is funny is that you say there needs to be less distros (or possibly one) and then say that people are reinventing the wheel.

No, that's an incorrect interpretation of my post, my point is that there needs to be more oversight.

As for the reinventing the wheel, there are over a hunderd distributions out there, i think that, if there were less distributions, and the people who made those were to work eg on drivers, we would be better off as a whole.

We need different distributions, but when you start loosing count of all of them, that's when you know you're getting to many.


This is how competition works when there is no monopoly. I don't see people saying that there are too many cars out there and it's hard to choose. Yes you need the choice as someone who needs a minivan won't want a 2 seater but there are tons of different minivans and 2 seaters out there that have very subtle differences between them. Why is it a good thing to have like 20 different sports cars and not OS's? You can explain that to me in layman's terms ;)

Bah, cars polute!
I more or less already explained above, i'm not advocating the abolisment of all other distro's, i'm talking about improving oversight & clarity, i'm talking about having central sites with accurate information & documentation.

If you could point a n00b to a site, with an accurate, detailed listing of supported hardware, known problems with other hardware, a big fat detailed list of distributions, with pro's & cons, that would be alot more valuable then all those flamewars you see between windows & linux users

poofyhairguy
January 4th, 2006, 08:37 AM
Ubuntu is a very well put together distro, true, never said anything otherwise, but it's not perfect. Pretending it's perfect is counter productive at a minimun, destructive at worst.

In the many posts here on the forum, I have never used "perfect" and "Ubuntu" in the same sentence unless to say "Ubuntu is not perfect." I run into its problems everyday.

Yet I know that it has strengths that compares well with many other Distros (and OSes). But its not perfect.

And Ubuntu sees the need for more outside involvement. Recently Mark began to support the Smart Package Manager:


The Smart Package Manager project has the ambitious objective of creating smart and portable algorithms for solving adequately the problem of managing software upgrading and installation. This tool works in all major distributions, and will bring notable advantages over native tools currently in use (APT, APT-RPM, YUM, URPMI, etc).

http://labix.org/smart

So the problem is being worked on.


Ubuntu might solve quite alot of these things, but after they installed Ubuntu, where do they turn for their software needs, pray tell, how can a n00b actually chose a decent DTP package without getting lost in the labyrinth of sites?[/QUOTE]

Thats what the "Add/Remove Programs" program is for. Its called Gnome-app-install and the eventual plan it to be a very easy entry into the HUGE Ubuntu repos of software.

All free.

nocturn
January 4th, 2006, 09:34 AM
Compare that to what happens when I run Windows XP and it's clear that it's not a viable alternative.

Nowadays 99% of the users just want to boot and be online, etc without spending hours in forums, trying to understand arcane command line tools,
or having to recompile the kernel (!). That is just the Middle Age of computing...


Just a note, on your laptop, you are probably not just running Windows XP, you installed it with a customized CD you got from Toshiba, which not only includes XP with service packs, but also special drivers for your system (like the wireless, which was not available when XP was developed).

If you buy a similar system with Linux on it, you will have the same benefit (the systems we sell with Ubuntu have Wireless working out of the box).

Although I'm quite capable of compiling kernels, I haven't done so since I started to use Ubuntu, all standard kernels have worked fine for me on several machines, including 3 different brands of laptops.

nocturn
January 4th, 2006, 09:45 AM
WP doesn't support it anymore. I have read quite a few post where the gist is Ubuntu is fine it those 3rd parties that haven't done their work. Unfortunately, Ubuntu can't be a completely self-contained system. In the real world people have printers and software that are 3rd party.


Yes, you are right, but...

- When I buy hardware, I check first to see which models will work with my OS. All printers I bought so far work out of the box with Ubuntu. Keep in mind that most hardware has drivers supplied by the manufacturer, not the OS. There are numerous cases where the manufacturer does not provide drivers for newer versions of windows either, leaving the hardware dead (my previous MicroTek scanner was such a case).

- If WP isn't supported any more, then how big are the chances that the windows version will still work on Vista? This is the same issue you are experiencing with Ubuntu now.
Because WP is not open source, the community cannot simply provide a custom deb to keep it running.

nocturn
January 4th, 2006, 09:55 AM
There is a lot of 'The Desktop' going around here again. I just want to point out that it does not exist.

There are just as many 'The Desktops' out there as there are users. For example, most basic computer users may just need IM/Mail/Internet, but each of them will have some unique requirement, like adding knitting software or horoscopes or whatever. Depending on this niche, an OS can be suitable for them.

You have to balance the equation for each user seperately, but I do want to add that Windows is only ready for the desktop of users that have at the very least a *very* good grasp of the installation and maintenace of Anti-Virus software and Firewalls. Face it people, grans is not installing/updating AV software and her PC is plugged right into her ADSL modem, exposing everything to the outside...

prizrak
January 4th, 2006, 10:49 AM
No, that's an incorrect interpretation of my post, my point is that there needs to be more oversight.

As for the reinventing the wheel, there are over a hunderd distributions out there, i think that, if there were less distributions, and the people who made those were to work eg on drivers, we would be better off as a whole.

My bad for misinterpreting the post. I think you have a point here :)

I more or less already explained above, i'm not advocating the abolisment of all other distro's, i'm talking about improving oversight & clarity, i'm talking about having central sites with accurate information & documentation.

If you could point a n00b to a site, with an accurate, detailed listing of supported hardware, known problems with other hardware, a big fat detailed list of distributions, with pro's & cons, that would be alot more valuable then all those flamewars you see between windows & linux users
In that light you are very much correct it would be great, although I do believe most major distros have hardware support dbase for people to look over. Never seen a comprehensive comparison of at least the major distributions, that would definetly be great. Such is nature of FOSS though I suppose everyone is free to do w/e they want to and branch :)

Face it people, grans is not installing/updating AV software and her PC is plugged right into her ADSL modem, exposing everything to the outside...
That's why there is AOL :)

Amon_Re
January 4th, 2006, 12:07 PM
Thats what the "Add/Remove Programs" program is for. Its called Gnome-app-install and the eventual plan it to be a very easy entry into the HUGE Ubuntu repos of software.

All free.

I know that, but i'm more refurring to reviews and such on said apps, it can be a pain in the **** to figure out wich app does xyz. I'm saying we need to improve the whole experiance for n00bs, not just the installation, but everything, from maintaining a system to finding & selecting applications.

Amon_Re
January 4th, 2006, 12:20 PM
There is a lot of 'The Desktop' going around here again. I just want to point out that it does not exist.

There are just as many 'The Desktops' out there as there are users. For example, most basic computer users may just need IM/Mail/Internet, but each of them will have some unique requirement, like adding knitting software or horoscopes or whatever. Depending on this niche, an OS can be suitable for them.

Very true, the word desktop is rather losely defined, but in general, there are afew points that every desktop tries to adhere to

- Consistant look throughtout the system
- Easy to maintain
- Logical layout
- User friendly

It's on the "User friendly" that we should focus, aswell as the "easy to maintain".

Ubuntu eg, is easy to maintain, it's got an update manager, it installs without too much fuss, and does what it sets out to do.

The "User friendly" bit still can use alot of work though, but that's because it touches alot of underlaying problems not easilly solved with a distribution.

The installation of gfx drivers is ample evidence of that.
How can we solve that? A good start would be clear & consistant documentation, if it can't be done inside of Ubuntu, then maybe the site can be used for that, a dbase & php will get you a long way when it comes to providing documentation, procedures & known pitfalls.


You have to balance the equation for each user seperately, but I do want to add that Windows is only ready for the desktop of users that have at the very least a *very* good grasp of the installation and maintenace of Anti-Virus software and Firewalls. Face it people, grans is not installing/updating AV software and her PC is plugged right into her ADSL modem, exposing everything to the outside...

That's true for most OSs these days, there are rootkits for just about every OS out there. Microsoft is an easy & big target, and i'm rather confident that, if ubuntu were half the size of the microsoft market, it'd be plagued by simular issue's aswell.

nocturn
January 4th, 2006, 12:56 PM
That's true for most OSs these days, there are rootkits for just about every OS out there. Microsoft is an easy & big target, and i'm rather confident that, if ubuntu were half the size of the microsoft market, it'd be plagued by simular issue's aswell.

Yes and no.
Yes, there would be an increase in malware for Linux, but the impact would still be less.

Ubuntu has safe defaults out of the box, making it a harder target, just do an nmap against a fresh install of Windows and Ubuntu. There are many such features that have traditionally protected *Nix systems much better.

Just to make the point, while Apache has always had a majority market share, it was still IIS that got cracked more...
The same goes for server, Microsoft does not dominate the server market (especially high-end clusters, mailservers and webservers), yet it tops the exploits charts there...

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
January 4th, 2006, 01:17 PM
That's true for most OSs these days, ...

No, it isn't. It's safe to use Ubuntu out of the box without an AV and Anti-spyware tool, yet this isn't true for windows.


...there are rootkits for just about every OS out there.

Amazing. After having used linux since the 90's and being familiar with various OSes you still don't know the difference between a virus and a rootkit.


Microsoft is an easy & big target, and i'm rather confident that, if ubuntu were half the size of the microsoft market, it'd be plagued by simular issue's aswell.
Great argument, haven't heard this one before....
Of course it's not only great, but also totally bogus, as it is simply based on you being confident and on nothing else.
It also ignores evidence to the contrary, as nocturn already mentioned. And while we are at it, I'm aware that IIS has greatly improved securitywise lately and guess what, it did so though its market share didn't fall, strange isn't it?

P.S.:
One final question, as you brought up the number of linux distributions.
How exactly does the fact that there a lot of distributions out there, many of which are not meant to be for the desktop anyway, have an influence on, say, Suse for example being ready for the desktop or not?

egon spengler
January 4th, 2006, 02:23 PM
The "User friendly" bit still can use alot of work though, but that's because it touches alot of underlaying problems not easilly solved with a distribution.

The installation of gfx drivers is ample evidence of that.

Generally the barometer of this mythical standard of "user friendliness" is a half senile elderly female relative, I could be being very presumptious here but aren't they somewhat unlikely to be searching for the most cutting edge graphics drivers?

Now of course you are well within your rights to argue that by your definitions obtaining the newest drivers is a basic thing ala surfing the net & checking email and should be made as user friendly as possible. All this does though is somewhat illustrate how much a universal standard of user friendliness is both an unobtainable ideal and an albatross around the neck of Linux. There will always be someone who thinks that the seemingly obscure process x is an absolute basic and of course, unlike Windows, Linux is never given any leeway and instead is branded with a red 'U' for unfriendly.

For the record though, I do vaguely recall installing nvidia drivers on both ubuntu and Xp and I'm fairly sure I got nvidia drivers off synaptic which is much easier than the process I went through to install the nvidia detanator drivers on Xp

Amon_Re
January 5th, 2006, 12:20 AM
No, it isn't. It's safe to use Ubuntu out of the box without an AV and Anti-spyware tool, yet this isn't true for windows.

I never actually used a virus scanner on any of my machines, windows machines included.


Amazing. After having used linux since the 90's and being familiar with various OSes you still don't know the difference between a virus and a rootkit.

Ah, the obligatory sarcam, it would seem you haven't taken a closer look to present day virusses, the boundrary between virus, trojan & rootkits are blurred well enough to assume a very large percentage also serve as a rootkit (and as zombie's for DDoS's)

I'm faced with those horrid bits of software on a daily basis.


Great argument, haven't heard this one before....
Of course it's not only great, but also totally bogus, as it is simply based on you being confident and on nothing else.

Here's an example get a sun cobalt server, install the available updates for it, drop it online on a fixed ip. Within weeks there's a rootkit on it.

Did the test afew months ago, as i was offered one of those beasts for free (including colocation), it was rather quickly being used for perposes other then the ones i was planning of using it, if you know what i mean.

Read the security advisories out there, you might be supriced to the amount of security fixes that get released for linux servers.

The difference however, is that most of these are less damaging then the average windows virus/trojan/whathaveyou.


It also ignores evidence to the contrary, as nocturn already mentioned. And while we are at it, I'm aware that IIS has greatly improved securitywise lately and guess what, it did so though its market share didn't fall, strange isn't it?

I'm assuming you actually mean "though it's market share didn't grow", but other then that, Apache is just the better of both products, even not considering any of the security issue's involved.


P.S.:
One final question, as you brought up the number of linux distributions.
How exactly does the fact that there a lot of distributions out there, many of which are not meant to be for the desktop anyway, have an influence on, say, Suse for example being ready for the desktop or not?

I already awnsered what i meant with that earlier, my point was, that if less people were making their own distributions, but instead were working on example given, hardware drivers, linux as a whole would grow more rapidly.

My point was that, if you spread your resources less thin out, you can have more work done more rapidly.

As for influence, since all distributions use the same base (the linux kernel) any fixes done to eg the ubuntu kernel tree will merge back into the main tree, so yes, they do indirectly influence eachother in this aspect.

Also, if debian fixes a bug in eg apt-get, ubuntu will also gain from it, and vice versa, this applies for hundreds, if not, thousands of packages.

I'll summerise my complaint yet again for you:
- Central hardware database
- Central point with detailed info on available distributions
- Consistant documentation

I'll also give one more example about the last one, because some people seem to assume i'm a windows lover, on gentoo, you have a program xorgconfig (or xorgcfg) that you can use to configure X, this isn't available on Ubuntu (atleast not in breezer, unless it's hidden somewhere outside of the default path).

There are alot more examples of these types of things, wich tend to irritate me greatly, and i'd rather say them, then to sit on them & curse at a machine i'm troubleshooting because X11 is configured on that box in yet another manner.(*)

(*) That's an example

Amon_Re
January 5th, 2006, 12:29 AM
Generally the barometer of this mythical standard of "user friendliness" is a half senile elderly female relative, I could be being very presumptious here but aren't they somewhat unlikely to be searching for the most cutting edge graphics drivers?

I'd actually settle with accurate documentation ;)
Mind you, Ubuntu's documentation seems to be top notch.

The drivers example however, is a good one, considering how many people have problems with these, question is, whom should we ask to maintain such documentation, the gfx board creators, or the community?

Speaking of wich, earlier today i noticed there's an ubuntu specific kernel, must get in touch with them kernel hackers to troubleshoot a hardware incompability ;)


Now of course you are well within your rights to argue that by your definitions obtaining the newest drivers is a basic thing ala surfing the net & checking email and should be made as user friendly as possible. All this does though is somewhat illustrate how much a universal standard of user friendliness is both an unobtainable ideal and an albatross around the neck of Linux. There will always be someone who thinks that the seemingly obscure process x is an absolute basic and of course, unlike Windows, Linux is never given any leeway and instead is branded with a red 'U' for unfriendly.

Great point, and i agree with it mostly, but i'd also like to add that the persieved image of unfriendlyness is partly our own doing, some of us linux users want to keep it as different of eg windows as possible, demanding that people pick up bash scripting before even considering tinkering with windows (yes, i'm exagerating here ;) )


For the record though, I do vaguely recall installing nvidia drivers on both ubuntu and Xp and I'm fairly sure I got nvidia drivers off synaptic which is much easier than the process I went through to install the nvidia detanator drivers on Xp

Sure, and your right, it's alot less hasle, if it works out of the box, wich isn't always the case.

aysiu
January 7th, 2006, 05:09 PM
Every now and then, people feel the need to proclaim that Linux (meaning, of course, every single distribution using the Linux kernel) is not "ready for the desktop."

Can someone define what "ready for the desktop" means? And does that definition apply to Windows? Does it apply to Mac OS X? Are there certain Linux distributions that are more "ready"? Should we just bag the phrase altogether because it means nothing?

BWF89
January 7th, 2006, 05:18 PM
It automatically detects most hardware without the need to hunt down drivers

Arktis
January 7th, 2006, 05:54 PM
Yes, and other than that, IMCO the term is nonsense. w00t! I coined a new acronym. :rolleyes:

imrumpf
January 7th, 2006, 05:54 PM
To me, "ready for the desktop" would mean an O/S that can be installed easily, has majour hardware support, a solid user base, and a solid software base. When i think of the desktop part, it has to easily be able to get up and running for the "desktop users". This usually translates into those computer illiterate idiots, such as the people that "are having a hard time buying stuff online, my ATM-thingy doesn't seem to be working!". If those people (your average desktop user) can install and get up and running in no time flat without having to jump through hoops, then the O/S is ready for the desktop.

I would have to admit that Ubuntu is a lot more ready for the desktop than windows, as it comes pre-installed with many programs needed for everyday tasks. And plus it's all free :p

There may be other questions, though, that some people may look at. Things such as "is it ready for gaming?" "is it ready as far as security?" "is it ready for workstation/server enviroments?" etc etc.

chimera
January 7th, 2006, 06:11 PM
It's a non-sensical term people use to imply they don't have the time or will to learn how to use a certain OS.

mstlyevil
January 7th, 2006, 06:32 PM
It is already installed and configured so the new user can just use it. When people say that Linux is not ready for the desktop, this is really what they mean since they have no experience outside of the Windows or Mac worlds where this is already done for the majority of users. Hardware support, driver detection nad these other things are just not issues if all the work has already been done for you to get everything working.

I also think ready for the desktop is a nonsenical term that is used to try to justify why Windows is better than Linux. People who usually make this claim want to just pop in the CD and 5 minutes later have a system up and running that can do everything Windows did for them before. The problem is that these people never even installed their copy of Windows in the first place and do not realize it is just as hard to set up for use as Linux upon install. They are comparing apples and oranges.

xequence
January 7th, 2006, 06:43 PM
It means to me that it works on atleast one persons desktop.

aysiu
January 7th, 2006, 06:46 PM
When people say that Linux is not ready for the desktop, this is really what they mean since they have no experience outside of the Windows or Mac worlds where this is already done for the majority of users. I totally agree. The funny thing is that Mac OS X is not "ready for the desktop" based on the same criteria by which people judge Linux as not "ready for the desktop."

Mac OS X, like Linux distros:

1. will not run native Windows applications
2. is not compatible with every single piece of commercial hardware--in fact, more printers, MP3 players, mice, and monitors are compatible with Linux than they are with Mac OS X
3. cannot be installed on to whatever machine you like
4. does not get releases of major computer games... or gets them very late

My wife, who loves her Powerbook, feels all these limitations... and doesn't care. She won't go back to Windows just because it works with every Samsung MP3 player, has the latest Sims release, and works with almost all commercial printers. She loves her Mac.

Likewise, I won't go back to Windows just because I have to copy and paste a few commands to get Firefox 1.5 working (instead of clicking through a wizard). I love my Ubuntu.

xequence
January 7th, 2006, 06:50 PM
EDIT: Ooops, I accedently posted a reply to another thread here...

Dr.Who
January 7th, 2006, 06:53 PM
I voted for

It's suitable to the needs of most beginner users but not necessarily to most intermediate ones

and because of this, as I posted already today in another thread, Windows is for me NOT ready. A system which is so flawed by design and makes it easy for newbies to break or get infected is not trustworthy nor ready for everyday use.

Malphas
January 7th, 2006, 07:00 PM
It's a non-sensical term people use to imply they don't have the time or will to learn how to use a certain OS.
+2

Haegin
January 7th, 2006, 07:23 PM
To me it means several things:
1. Once it is set up it works for general tasks including web, email, IM, media and work.
2. When you buy a new printer it either gives you a cd with the driver on or the driver is already there.
3. If I want to start doing a bit of image editing I know what package to install rather than having to do a "image editor" search under description on synaptic. This may sound odd but I'm sure that lots of people are turned off from linux with the thought that it doesn't have ANY software to do ANYTHING useful. If people want to edit digital photos they know about photoshop and paint shop pro and they go buy/obtain a copy. They think about linux but they dont know about the Gimp so they don't know how to do what they want - its just easier to stay on windows.

It is also a benefit if the user can pop the cd in and install it without panicking about a command based setup or strange complicated options. I think ubuntu should try and get a GUI setup with beginner, intermediate and advanced mode. Intermediate is the current one but with graphics, Advanced has all the really complicated options which are needed for special hardware etc. Beginner is rediculously simple. It partitions your hard drive automatically after asking "do you want to install ubuntu on you computer removing anything else on your computer". It asks your name and a password and sets you up with a user etc then tells you your login and password. It is so simple your grandmother could do it.

I also think functionality over eyecandy - especially in gnome. If you want eyecandy go for KDE. If you want clean and functional use gnome. It is more important for me to have a system that works than one that looks pretty when it crashes (hey look - windows fails on all accounts...). A gnome "control panel" would also be nice. Something grouping the programs under System>Preferences and System>Advanced into one place like on windows - it would help the windows users convert I am sure.

My thoughts - probably rubbish....

aysiu
January 7th, 2006, 07:36 PM
2. When you buy a new printer it either gives you a cd with the driver on or the driver is already there. Third-party support is a valid point. It's difficult to buy stuff for Linux. Even though Mac isn't compatible with every piece of software or hardware, at least the box will tell you if it's Mac-compatible.



This may sound odd but I'm sure that lots of people are turned off from linux with the thought that it doesn't have ANY software to do ANYTHING useful. So it's mainly a perception / publicity thing?


If people want to edit digital photos they know about photoshop and paint shop pro and they go buy/obtain a copy. They think about linux but they dont know about the Gimp so they don't know how to do what they want - its just easier to stay on windows. In all fairness, though, GIMP comes with a basic Ubuntu installation and I think is labeled something like "Image Editor."



It is also a benefit if the user can pop the cd in and install it without panicking about a command based setup or strange complicated options. If that's the case, Windows isn't ready for the desktop either.


I think ubuntu should try and get a GUI setup with beginner, intermediate and advanced mode. Intermediate is the current one but with graphics, Advanced has all the really complicated options which are needed for special hardware etc. Beginner is rediculously simple. It partitions your hard drive automatically after asking "do you want to install ubuntu on you computer removing anything else on your computer". It asks your name and a password and sets you up with a user etc then tells you your login and password. It is so simple your grandmother could do it. I agree fully. I may have mentioned this in another thread, but I think in the beginning you should be presented with these options:

1. Think for me. I have no clue what I'm doing.
2. Ask me a few simple questions.
3. Ask me a lot of questions.
4. Ask me everything--I want a totally custom installation.
5. Install a server for me.

Maupertus
January 7th, 2006, 07:52 PM
Although I voted for the fact that it is in fact a non-sensical term, as it is such a personal experience that changes quite rapidly. (Hell, I think Windows 3.11 is Desk Top ready ;)) But I do think that the list adresses a couple of issues that certainly keep people with windows instead of looking forward.

I like the fact that when I was installing Ubuntu, my roommate was looking over my shoulder and the ease, the hardware support and the community support amazed him. You have to agree that a (partitioned) Ubuntu install is much easier then a XP install. However he still hasn't poped in the cd I gave him because of some strange fear of falling in an enviroment incompatible with other computers, school work, gaming and the like.

So I have to conclude that "desktop ready" is such a rediculous creed that is so easily applicable to almost everything that it has no meaning. And what desk-top ready should represent is "A system that is free of incorrect dogma's". Untill people order a pc that comes without an OS, but with a couple of cd;s to choose from, you can never get them away from Windows.

My 2 credits

eriqk
January 7th, 2006, 07:57 PM
Going by the comments I've read of many people who claim Ubuntu isn't ready for the desktop, I have to conclude there is no OS that's ready for the desktop.
Seeing that many people are happily using various flavours of Windows, MacOS and $LINUX_DISTRO, I think it really doesn't mean anything.

Groet, Erik

matthew
January 7th, 2006, 09:25 PM
Most of the time (possibly every time) I have seen the phrase "ready for the desktop" used it has conveyed to me this meaning: "Does everything exactly the way I predict it should, whether my ideas are logical or completely ludicrous."

Disclaimer: time and experience working among the intellectually lazy have somewhat colored my opinion.

earobinson
January 7th, 2006, 09:43 PM
great post, looks like you have been going on a poll vendata i love it!

Omnios
January 7th, 2006, 09:46 PM
I keep hearing is Linux ready for the desktop but tather I think it should be is the user ready for Linux. Do you remember your first crack at your first os when you unpacked yoru fiirst box and set it up. For some crazzy reason users seem to think WIndows is a desktop standard which it is not. ALso each Linux Distro is its own OS designed around Linux. The question is expanded more eprtaining to whaat GUI you are using.

The same for software as in that there are program sources that run on almost all the Linux Distro's slash different OS's. Where as Windows programs are writen for Win Linux programs work on jsut about all Linux OS's/Distro's. Also try to compare what you have installed on Linux and compare how much that would cost in win.

As for software availabity there are huge amounts of programs available other that synaptic or Gnome-Files they just seem a bit more work to find. Personaly I have seen devepment software that costs thouusands for win availlable for free for Linux (C++ programe). CCheck out http://freshmeat.net/ and http://sourceforge.net/.

Lastly there seems to be a mind set that Linux should be a win knock off but I can say it definatly is not aaand remember you are larning a differnt os not a ddifferent version of windows.

poofyhairguy
January 7th, 2006, 10:38 PM
To me, "ready for the desktop" would mean an O/S that can be installed easily, has majour hardware support, a solid user base, and a solid software base. When i think of the desktop part, it has to easily be able to get up and running for the "desktop users". This usually translates into those computer illiterate idiots, such as the people that "are having a hard time buying stuff online, my ATM-thingy doesn't seem to be working!". If those people (your average desktop user) can install and get up and running in no time flat without having to jump through hoops, then the O/S is ready for the desktop.


Under that definition no OS has ever been ready for the desktop and no OS ever will....

The day an average computer user can install an OS.....lets just say the devil will sit in ice.

BSDFreak
January 7th, 2006, 10:53 PM
To me it means that i can interchange data with other users without problems, that it has support for the applications commonly used on the desktop systems (or interchangable replacements) and that it is stable.

Linux, BSD, Mac OSX or Windows will all do that for me but for the majority of users out there Windows is still the best option. (and this is because of software support only IMO).

poofyhairguy
January 7th, 2006, 10:54 PM
To me it means several things:
1. Once it is set up it works for general tasks including web, email, IM, media and work.
2. When you buy a new printer it either gives you a cd with the driver on or the driver is already there.
3. If I want to start doing a bit of image editing I know what package to install rather than having to do a "image editor" search under description on synaptic. This may sound odd but I'm sure that lots of people are turned off from linux with the thought that it doesn't have ANY software to do ANYTHING useful. If people want to edit digital photos they know about photoshop and paint shop pro and they go buy/obtain a copy. They think about linux but they dont know about the Gimp so they don't know how to do what they want - its just easier to stay on windows.


I disagree../ Photoshop costs more than a downpayment on a car. It easier only if you do not count all the labor needed to get it.

Plus there is this thread:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=33183

arnieboy
January 7th, 2006, 10:56 PM
when all hardware co's mandatorily make their drivers available to linux(not necessarily in open source form) and all important commercial (closed source) apps which do not have (or have very poor) open source alternatives port their apps to linux.

arnieboy
January 7th, 2006, 11:01 PM
when the above happens, we will magically see big brand names selling their computers with linux pre-installed and aysiu's dream will come true.

Stormy Eyes
January 7th, 2006, 11:16 PM
When somebody uses that phrase, it means they expect the OS they're griping about to work like f---ing magic.

poofyhairguy
January 7th, 2006, 11:23 PM
I voted for when its ready for any desktop or whatever.

But I know what people are implying when they say that Linux is not ready for the desktop.....

For them that means that Linux is not backwards compatible with the Windows world. Windows is the desktop. The ONLY desktop for most computer users.

To be ready for the desktop is to be able to replace Windows- in this field for people who claim Linux is not ready its because Windows sets all the criteria.

If Linux ran almost all legacy Windows software (like 1000 times better than WINE now) and Linux used all of the Windows hardware, and the Linuxs were magically one platform like Windows is (those people that gripe about the lack of an installer that works for all distros) then Linux would be ready for the desktop for its critics.

Think about it. Before Windows there was not main computer desktop. Sure there were desktops- Apple, Amiga, Atari, etc.- but for most people computers did not get on their desktop till Windows. So Windows sets the standard.

The problem with that is that Windows then leaves odd expectations in its wake. Like people expecting all the Linuxs to have a single installer. No amount of explaining to them that Linux is just a kernel has any effect. To them Windows has only one installer for the many versions (Pro, XP, 2k) so Linux must be able to do the same to "compete."

Where did that expectation come from? When the Super Nintendo could not play Nintendo games back in the days before MS won the desktop, did anyone thing that the Super Nintendo was not ready for the gameroom? No. People bought it and understood the difference.....

But today Linux needs a universal installer to be desktop ready. And when you point out Autopackage that is not good enough for some reason because its not the "official" way to install stuff or some BS.

The problem is that people expect too much out of poor Linux. I don't know why. Maybe because of community hype? Do we talk Linux up too much? We need to fix that if that is the case.

Maybe because people only know Windows so any OS HAS TO be a Windows replacement for them to grok it? Maybe because .....I don't know.

And of course sometimes these people are right. If processors are any indication, no version of Linux will ever really compete against Windows till it can run legacy Windows applications. The computer world DEMANDS backwards compatibility at every future step (sorry Itanium) so that they can bring all the crap from the past with them. A universal installer would also help. So would a way to add binary drivers easily.

When I first got into Ubuntu I had to admit that I did not understand it myself. "Why isn't more effort being put into WINE?" "Why isn't more effort being put into a universal installer?" "Why doesn't Linus just give in an allow for binary drivers to be easily installed?" I wondered all these things.

Which leads to the question- "Why can't Linux get its act together? Doesn't it want to win the war against Windows?"

Then after a year I learned....it doesn't. Linspire and a few distros might want to beat out Windows but they are a minority. Most of those who really push Linux just want Linux to be the best it can be. When you think about it the Windows world is screwed up- all the viruses, crappy closed programs that won't run with proper security settings in place (aka they demand to be run as root even though they should not), malware and spyware, and and many other bad things. Who really wants to bring that crap into the future?

Now I see the truth. Linux's community for the most part wants to leave all of that alone. Let Windows do its thing. If not being perfectly backwards compatible with Windows means that Windows will remain the primary desktop for the world for the next twenty years than oh well.....thats life.

Oh course it would be nice in Windows was a little less dominant if only to make it easier for open standards to exist (MS loves to crush those), but that can happen without playing Windows ballgame. That can happen by just beating Windows on the price issue- no need to convert those that can afford Windows and its expensive programs you need to protect from viruses and edit pictures. If they can afford it and they prefer it then let them use it with all its problems....

Ready for the desktop is a bad term. We know that. But only because critics won't say what they really mean. What they really imply is that "Linux is a bad Windows" which is someone no one here can deny.

The year of the Linux desktop was the first year Linus ran it on his desktop. Ever since we have been in the Linux age!

Malphas
January 7th, 2006, 11:24 PM
Photoshop costs more than a downpayment on a car. It easier only if you do not count all the labor needed to get it.
Yeah but individuals barely ever actually pay for high cost software like this, they charge it to a business account, get an OEM version with a piece of hardware, borrow a copy from work or a friend, download it using p2p, etc. Obviously companies have to purchase their copies legally, but the cost of software is virtually a non-issue in relation to the home market.

Stormy Eyes
January 7th, 2006, 11:29 PM
What they really imply is that "Linux is a bad Windows" which is someone no one here can deny.

Actually, KDE is a bad Windows. :) Linux is Linux, and happens to be a damned good Unix.

BSDFreak
January 8th, 2006, 12:00 AM
Actually, KDE is a bad Windows. :) Linux is Linux, and happens to be a damned good Unix.

*sigh*

If KDE is a bad Windows, what would that make a DE that limits the users options by sacrificing functionality for simplicity? A worse windows?

The answer is, of course, that both strive for different things and neither strive to be Windows.

Rackerz
January 8th, 2006, 12:03 AM
Ready for desktop? That usually means to me something that doesn't need too much configuring and were you can just install something and it works.

poofyhairguy
January 8th, 2006, 12:03 AM
If KDE is a bad Windows, what would that make a DE that limits the users options by sacrificing functionality for simplicity? A worse windows?


Don't you read the articles from the tech world's talking heads? If you did you would know that Gnome is a bad OSX.

Of course I am joking.

BSDFreak
January 8th, 2006, 12:09 AM
Don't you read the articles from the tech world's talking heads? If you did you would know that Gnome is a bad OSX.

Of course I am joking.

Hehe, i'd say that XFCE is closer to being a bad OSX though.

And i'm joking too. ;)

Iandefor
January 8th, 2006, 12:16 AM
Here's a starting point: It's usable for a new user, but the interface isn't necessarily dumbed down to the point where an intermediate or advanced couldn't do what they liked to it.

This is problematic, though, since the majority of new users migrate from Windows and aren't really aware of the differences between Linux and Windows, so they expect Linux to be the same as Windows. When they boot up Linux and don't see a start button, they immediately start having problems.
A good example of this was when my sister was home for Thanksgiving. She wanted to use the computer for IM, but when she logged on, she saw a different interface and immediately locked up because it wasn't a clone of Windows.

What my definition would mean, then, is that it's basically a copy of Windows with the ability to configure it to look less so. I guess that means the definition is used by people who are so used to the way Windows works that they expect it's been adopted as a standard all oer the world or some such thing.

mstlyevil
January 8th, 2006, 12:46 AM
STOP!!!!! Why are so many people obsessed with converting the entire world to Linux/Ubuntu/BSD/whatever you like. Look we all know that Ubuntu is a great operating system. I am not going to waste my life and stress out over converting the world. Everyone that knows me understands I use Linux. Yet no matter how much I tell them the benefits of using some form of Linux, they refuse to try it because Windows always does something better in their opinion. As far as I am concerned it is their loss not mine. I explain they can dual boot but they are afraid it will somehow mess up Windows.

Instead of trying to convert the whole world maybe we should just use it and those we come in contact with will become curious why we can do things under Linux they can not and why we do not have the massive problems with adware, viruses and other nasties. Most people will never see things the Linux way and that is fine by me. I will help anyone who wants to use and learn a Linux distro but I am not going out of my way to convince them to do so. As far as I am concerned Ubuntu is ready for the desktop but most computer users are not ready for Ubuntu/Linux.

prizrak
January 8th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Ready for desktop means that whoever is backing a certain OS pushed it on so many "desktops" that you got no choice but to use it at one point or another. Basically I'm saying it's all in the marketing. Get organizations to switch to Linux desktops (which most would love to do because of the enourmous control they would get down to running thin clients) and the rest will follow since they will HAVE TO use some for of Linux.
Great example is my dad he is staying with Windows, he knows Ubuntu kicks a$$ and he know I can set it up for him in about 2 hours but his work uses Windows and MS SQL so he has to stay with Windows. Well he also games but that could be done via dual boot easily enough. Get people's companies to use Linux and they will go to it out of necessity at home.

super
January 8th, 2006, 01:05 AM
ready for the desktop?

i think it means that if the o.s. was preinstalled on the computer, then everybody would be able to do what they want with it.

the beginners: could browse the web, write letters to their parents, play their dvd/cds, and play solitaire. if they could really ambitious they could even install a few additional programs. :smile:

the intermediate people: (like me) could do all of the above plus be able to screw around with everything enough to break it and fix it with some time and effort. and we should be able to upgrade hardware (here's the problem), swap/customize de's, source compile, and generally make things look and run the way they want it to look/run. :D and if we break it, we can re-install it.

the advanced users: heck, they can do everything with anything. so they should do whatever it is that they do. write programs for the rest of us moochers and stare at virtual console filled with code. :razz:

so basically, i think linux is on the brink of desktop readiness. if only printers, wireless cards and video cards worked flawlessly. but then, there's nothing linux can really do about these things. it's all up to the manufacturers so ...

Stormy Eyes
January 8th, 2006, 04:55 AM
STOP!!!!! Why are so many people obsessed with converting the entire world to Linux/Ubuntu/BSD/whatever you like.

Just be grateful that they want to spread the gospel of Unix and not one of the Abrahamic religions. Linux zealots don't behead people or try to subvert constitutional republics.

mstlyevil
January 8th, 2006, 05:00 AM
Just be grateful that they want to spread the gospel of Unix and not one of the Abrahamic religions. Linux zealots don't behead people or try to subvert constitutional republics.

Next we will se a new terrorist group of Unix zealots trying to blow up MSFT machines. I don't have a problem with people sharing their love of Linux, I just hate to see all of them stress because it seems to mostly fall on deaf ears.

prizrak
January 8th, 2006, 06:06 AM
Next we will se a new terrorist group of Unix zealots trying to blow up MSFT machines. I don't have a problem with people sharing their love of Linux, I just hate to see all of them stress because it seems to mostly fall on deaf ears.
I would LOVE to see that tho ;)

Stormy Eyes
January 8th, 2006, 06:11 AM
I would LOVE to see that tho ;)

Sounds like a waste of perfectly good explosives to me. If you want to blow stuff up, I can make lots of fun suggestions that would make Guy Fawkes grin.

BSDFreak
January 8th, 2006, 08:36 AM
Just be grateful that they want to spread the gospel of Unix and not one of the Abrahamic religions. Linux zealots don't behead people or try to subvert constitutional republics.

That is a somewhat ignorant statement, the overwhelming majority of the gospel spreaders do not behead people or subvert constitutional republics either, if they say it is in the name of Islam, Hinduism (up until 03 the group that did the majority of the terrorist attacks in the world was LTTE, they are mostly Hindus), christianity or Judaism then that is jsut what they say, if i massacre people in the name of FOSS it doesn't mean that the ideals of FOSS includes killing people.

But i do consider FSF followers as annoying as the JW's that knock on my door on a saturday morning.

fuscia
January 8th, 2006, 10:28 AM
'readiness' is relative. obviously, something installed for a user is more ready than something they have to install themselves. there are a few companies that sell linux installed machines and, one would assume, those machines are every bit as ready as windows machines or macs. the only other operating system i have installed, besides ubuntu, is my beloved windows ME. i found ubuntu to be an easier install. i find installing programs via synaptic package manager to be easier and more convenient than installing stuff on windows.

the problem comes when something doesn't work out of the box. while windows offers a macdonald's style menu of solutions (i guess that would make apple wendy's), linux allows one to cook it yourself. this is great, if you're a chef, but some of us have our hands full just making toast. so yeah, in that case, linux is not ready for the desktop and homemade spaghetti sauce isn't ready for the table. you have to make it.

poofyhairguy
January 8th, 2006, 11:31 AM
beloved windows ME.

Sarcasm?

Maupertus
January 8th, 2006, 10:31 PM
What we are actually all overlooking is that to the bigger (maybe biggest) part of the world, Windows functions perfectly well and as it is pre-installed on every box they will ever buy, they don't care about anything else. However, we (for lack of a better word) or the Linux Community as a whole have the personal opinion that it isn't working for us.

Hence Windows isn't desktop ready for us, once you've decided you don't like it, you will never like it and the fact that we probably have above average demands concerning our OS makes us suseptible to the 'problems' that Linux has because we are willing to look beyond what other people have learned is standard.

But I liked ME, it was the closest thing to the improbability drive ever actualy created.

matthew
January 8th, 2006, 10:37 PM
But I liked ME, it was the closest thing to the improbability drive ever actualy created."Ford, I think I'm a sofa."
"I know the feeling."

BSDFreak
January 8th, 2006, 10:41 PM
What we are actually all overlooking is that to the bigger (maybe biggest) part of the world, Windows functions perfectly well and as it is pre-installed on every box they will ever buy, they don't care about anything else. However, we (for lack of a better word) or the Linux Community as a whole have the personal opinion that it isn't working for us.

Hence Windows isn't desktop ready for us, once you've decided you don't like it, you will never like it and the fact that we probably have above average demands concerning our OS makes us suseptible to the 'problems' that Linux has because we are willing to look beyond what other people have learned is standard.

But I liked ME, it was the closest thing to the improbability drive ever actualy created.

Windows is desktop ready for me, just like OpenBSD, Slackware, Ubuntu or whatevre is, i don't really have a problem with any of the different systems and i wouldn't run any of them without securing my box before i go online.

Except ME though, ME is and always has been the worst of the 9x Windows versions, XP is lightyears ahead of any of those versions (naturally, since it isn't even really related to the 9x series of windows, the codebase is different from kernel and up).

commodore
January 12th, 2006, 08:59 PM
There's so many articles about the new Windows Vista. I have read three in magazines and a bit from the internet. Now that Vista is copying Mac so much Windows and Mac OS X will be the most advanced operating systems for their cool software like smart folders, transparent windows, ExposÚ, Inkwell, Speech and other stuff. Linux seems left behind. And it's hard to do all those programs for Linux because of different distros, window managers, file browsers.

dosed150
January 12th, 2006, 09:12 PM
pretty gui's dont mean advanced i would think to due to easily changed nature of linux that linuix systems are more advanced there where 64 bit linux os's before windows or mac did them

briancurtin
January 12th, 2006, 09:19 PM
i just read linux magazine so i dont have to read things about vista

solves that problem

Rackerz
January 12th, 2006, 09:25 PM
It's all hype, it's just because the latest Vista beta's use WMP 11 and have a rather smashing GUI. It's just Windows after all ;).

stimpack
January 12th, 2006, 09:29 PM
You should try Vista and OS X, they are not as good as you think. Alot of features like expose have linux equivelents whilst others like Vista search, while being very nice, you will never use. Vista metadata IS a nice idea and hope we get that soon, else pfft same old.

tseliot
January 12th, 2006, 09:31 PM
Well, I didn't leave Windows because I wanted something more eye candy. It was a matter of frustration.

Mr_Grieves
January 12th, 2006, 09:35 PM
I think the Linux developers and the community must start to understand that if the larger masses of people are to move to Linux, they need stuff like pretty GUIs, easier installations, easier management of programs. The less clicks, the better and the less one have to spend in terminals the better.

Linux is still years behind Windows/Mac when it comes to user friendlyness.. In my opinion Ubuntu is showing the way. Let's hope the rest of the Linux distros gets the hint. Linux for humans, not techies :)

Oh.. and games, Linux need more game support :D

Rackerz
January 12th, 2006, 09:42 PM
I think the Linux developers and the community must start to understand that if the larger masses of people are to move to Linux, they need stuff like pretty GUIs, easier installations, easier management of programs. The less clicks, the better and the less one have to spend in terminals the better.

Linux is still years behind Windows/Mac when it comes to user friendlyness.. In my opinion Ubuntu is showing the way. Let's hope the rest of the Linux distros gets the hint. Linux for humans, not techies :)

Oh.. and games, Linux need more game support :D

Agreed. The games, well it's not up to Linux it's up to game developers.

Stormy Eyes
January 12th, 2006, 09:46 PM
I think the Linux developers and the community must start to understand that if the larger masses of people are to move to Linux, they need stuff like pretty GUIs, easier installations, easier management of programs.

No, the masses don't need these things, they merely want them.


Linux is still years behind Windows/Mac when it comes to user friendlyness.

I don't consider the BSOD or overpriced hardware user-friendly.


Oh.. and games, Linux need more game support :D

Either take it up with the game developers, or just get a console.

tonyisntcreative
January 12th, 2006, 09:51 PM
I think the Linux developers and the community must start to understand that if the larger masses of people are to move to Linux, they need stuff like pretty GUIs, easier installations, easier management of programs. The less clicks, the better and the less one have to spend in terminals the better.

Linux is still years behind Windows/Mac when it comes to user friendlyness.. In my opinion Ubuntu is showing the way. Let's hope the rest of the Linux distros gets the hint. Linux for humans, not techies :)

Oh.. and games, Linux need more game support :D
My installation of Ubuntu (my first expericience with Linux) had absolutely no problems, and while it hasn't done EVERYTHING I wanted to right away, it wasn't hard to get it to do what I wanted.

In my opinion, it's just as "user friendly" as Windows ever was. That being said, I think "user friendly" is a matter of how you look at it.

Qrk
January 12th, 2006, 10:17 PM
I haven't used windows for quite some time, so I no longer find it user friendly. I am actualy fairly inept in a windows environment. Linux users will find linux easy to use when they learn it's quirks; then they will find Windows harder to use.

But that doesn't matter because to attract new users, Linux has to be easier from the start, (or at least without a large learning curve) which is not happening know.

Mr_Grieves
January 12th, 2006, 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Stormy Eyes


Originally Posted by Mr_Grieves
I think the Linux developers and the community must start to understand that if the larger masses of people are to move to Linux, they need stuff like pretty GUIs, easier installations, easier management of programs.

No, the masses don't need these things, they merely want them.

Well, ok. Linux needs the game to get the masses :)



Originally Posted by Stormy Eyes


Originally Posted by Mr_Grieves
Linux is still years behind Windows/Mac when it comes to user friendlyness.

I don't consider the BSOD or overpriced hardware user-friendly.

That's hardly the point.. the thing is that Windows/Mac is more user friendly. Windows do not have to be very unstable. The masses (and me) seems to think that it's just fine with a BSOD now and then. :) I'm not saying that you should quit using Linux here. I'm saying that the Linux community must realise the importence of user friendlyness. Like Ubuntu Linux has.



Originally Posted by Stormy Eyes


Originally Posted by Mr_Grieves
Oh.. and games, Linux need more game support

Either take it up with the game developers, or just get a console.

Great attitude.. :) That will not realise everyones dream of solving Bug #1. Linux for techies. Don't you want Linux to take over as the leading operative system? Then you must understand that games MUST get into Linux, and that is not going to happen just because the game develipers feels like it. There is a huge effort in the Linux community side aswell. As I see it, the first, and most difficult effort must come from the Linux community, with for example Wine, the desktop enviorment and etc things that attracts the regular home users. When the gaming industry see's that there is ALOT of home users using Linux, they'll want to develop games. What's driving them is just $. I don't think the brand of the OS is something they think about very much when it comes down to it.

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
January 12th, 2006, 10:22 PM
That's hardly the point.. the thing is that Windows/Mac is more user friendly.

The thing is, it isn't.
Especially Windows certainly isn't and OSX also has it's week points.

P.S.: And the is no such thing as the linux community, so I don't see how something that doesn't exist has to realize something.

Mr_Grieves
January 12th, 2006, 10:23 PM
My installation of Ubuntu (my first expericience with Linux) had absolutely no problems, and while it hasn't done EVERYTHING I wanted to right away, it wasn't hard to get it to do what I wanted.

In my opinion, it's just as "user friendly" as Windows ever was. That being said, I think "user friendly" is a matter of how you look at it.
I didn't either have any problems installing Ubuntu Linux:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=116051

But when you want to do some very simple things, you're forced down in a terminal, and that scares people.

If it was so very user friendly, so very simple, and free, why are everyone using Windows? It's not just brainwash, hahaha :) What's user friendly to example me, wich consider myself a pretty technical person that use Linux/Unix dialy, is not user friendly for my grandmother. She does not like to compile stuff. See where I'm getting?

Mr_Grieves
January 12th, 2006, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Mr_Grieves
That's hardly the point.. the thing is that Windows/Mac is more user friendly.



The thing is, it isn't.
Especially Windows certainly isn't and OSX also has it's week points.

I think this is a problem. People in general that are not being able to take criticism that should be easy to understand. I'm not defending Windows here. I'm saying that Linux need to shape up, else it will be left behind.



P.S.: And the is no such thing as the linux community, so I don't see how something that doesn't exist has to realize something.
I consider myself a part of the Linux community. Abit fluffy definition but I think you understand what I mean. All the operative systems, the software projects, everything that's Open Source and GPLish. We all got something in common and are (?) fighing for the same cause - to give everyone the ability to do stuff using software, rich or poor.

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
January 12th, 2006, 10:32 PM
But when you want to do some very simple things, you're forced down in a terminal, and that scares people.

Then use a distribution where you don't have to do this, like Suse, Mandriva, PCLinux, etc.



If it was so very user friendly, so very simple, and free, why are everyone using Windows? It's not just brainwash, hahaha :) What's user friendly to example me, wich consider myself a pretty technical person that use Linux/Unix dialy, is not user friendly for my grandmother. She does not like to compile stuff. See where I'm getting?
Ever thought it might have something to do with MS being a monopoly?
Also, I know several people who use linux who also don't compile stuff. Never, they don't even know what compiling stuff means. See where I'm getting at?

mstlyevil
January 12th, 2006, 10:34 PM
I think you misinterpret many Linux users. Most Linux users are not concerned with Linux being adopted by the masses. If the masses adopting Linux means dumbing it down and removing the CLI then these same users will migrate to something else like BSD. What makes Linux great is not the useless bells and whistles that OSX and Vista provide. Linux is great because it is a secure, stable and flexible operating system that one can tailor to his or her needs/wants. Besides Linux supports games just fine and there are many titles both open source and propietary one can enjoy with equal quality to Windows. The problem lies in that most games are coded in Direct 3D and Direct X which are Microsoft technologies. It will be a cold day in Hades before MSFT ports those technologies to Linux. The issue you have with games is not with Linux itself but it is with the companies that make the games incompatible with platforms other than Windows.

As far as eye candy and the GUI, you can already have many of the features that come with Windows Vista if you are willing to install them. Other features are being developed as we speak. Most Linux Distros will not have these by default any time soon because of compatibility issues for older hardware. Distros have to keep the base install as easy on the resources as possible so people with older equipment can still have the real advanced features Linux offers vs Vista. The problem with your mindset is you are trying to make Linux into Windows and that is just not going to happen.

SuperDiscoMachine V.5.7-3
January 12th, 2006, 10:35 PM
I think this is a problem. People in general that are not being able to take criticism that should be easy to understand. I'm not defending Windows here. I'm saying that Linux need to shape up, else it will be left behind.

I'm not people and you don't voice critizism, but make general and wrong assertions, which is an entirely different thing.



I consider myself a part of the Linux community.

That's fine, but I don't, though I use linux exclusively.



Abit fluffy definition but I think you understand what I mean. All the operative systems, the software projects, everything that's Open Source and GPLish. We all got something in common and are (?) fighing for the same cause - to give everyone the ability to do stuff using software, rich or poor.
No, that's simply not true. I'm sure there are a lot of linux users who couldn't care less about giving everyone the ability to do stuff using software. Now where does that leave us?

Mr_Grieves
January 12th, 2006, 10:43 PM
I'm afraid you're right mstlyevil, but that makes me sad. What I fight for seems to be very diffrent. An operative system for everyone, that can do everything, free.

That's also why I use Ubuntu Linux.



Linux for Human Beings

"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others". Ubuntu also means "I am what I am because of who we all are". The Ubuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world.


Not Linux for techies..

Mr_Grieves
January 12th, 2006, 10:44 PM
*Edit* Double post. Forum is abit.. slow for me. *Edit*

Jave27
January 12th, 2006, 10:48 PM
For games, one of the big stumbling blocks is big-time developers wanting to use the latest whiz-bang features of new video cards. Microsoft's DirectX is used very often as the sole platform for developers, which makes porting the game to Linux very tough. If you're a company and have a dev. who's spent that last 10 years working with DirectX, you'd probably think twice before making him/her switch to a multiplatform library. There are plenty of them out there and developing cross-platform games isn't much different from single platform, but you have to plan it that way from the start. Until the market is bigger (and it's getting bigger every day), the big game companies don't want to "waste" their development time and money on such a small percentage. Plus, supporting the variety of distributions can be painful, too.

I'm not excusing developers for targeting a single platform, I'm just listing some reasons why we haven't seen ubiquitous gaming on Linux yet.

Mr_Grieves
January 13th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Mmm, yes. It's not an easy problem to solve. That's why I think Linux distros must attract more home users.. to make it worth the game developers efforts. And.. The distros need to come up with a common platform aswell.. so you don't have to do porting across Linux distros aswell.

drizek
January 13th, 2006, 12:44 AM
i think people need to smarten up and use linux instead of linux dumbing down to be used by the people.

windows vista isnt lightyears ahead of anything. linux is mroe stable , more powerfull and just plain better. it works and it works well. Certainly it can be better, and it will become better. but that doesnt mean that it is not as good as windows.

expose is just useless bloat. alt tab works much better. and if you really want it, there is kompose.

smart folders are going to start showing up in kde 4 and possibly gnome as well. we already have the backends for it, beagle and kat. Desktop search certianly isnt an area where linux will be "left behind", and when it is all said and done, i guarantee you that hte implementation in kde will be superior to the one in vista. Im sure this will be built into gnome eventually as well, but i really dont follow it too closely.

and just so you know, my window borders right now are transparent, and i have shadows on my windows. and it is also very stable so far. There is room for improvement here as far as making the text on the titlebar readable, but the ability to make your windows transparant and have shadows accelerated by the video card is already built into linux.

mstlyevil
January 13th, 2006, 01:32 AM
Desktop search is something I personally have no use for. I disabled indexing in XP because it uses too many resources and tends to fragment the hard drive faster. The desktop search function in Vista is going to be even more resource intensive. I know exactly which folders I keep my files in and if a person is willing to organize folders and subfolders properly then that takes care of the need for a desktop search function. Desktop search is a tool more for power users and office computers, but if it is just an individuals home computer the hit on performance out weighs the functionality. If Linux does make a desktop search function available, it is something I probally won't install.

Arc Owner
January 13th, 2006, 01:46 AM
I could care less if linux gets adopted by the masses. Yes it would be cool if more people used it, but I like it how it is, and do not want my linux dummed down. That is one of the reasons I hate windows is because it is dumbed down for people who don't know how to use a computer or have any patience with one. Personally I think getting rid of things that differentiate linux from the rest of the OS's like the terminal would ruin linux. I do like ubuntu and think that having an easy to use linux distro is great, but just not one that is dumbed down to windows level.

What we need is an OS that is easy to use, but is not dumbed down to windows level, while still retaining the linux feel(in other words, Ubuntu).

And about Windows Vista, you can bet it'll be expensive considering it is MS, so I wouldn't get all excited about it just yet.:cool:
If linux wanted to have the same features as Windows Vista it could do it easily.

egon spengler
January 13th, 2006, 01:56 AM
I think this is a problem. People in general that are not being able to take criticism that should be easy to understand. I'm not defending Windows here. I'm saying that Linux need to shape up, else it will be left behind.

It's not people have a problem taking criticism, it seems to be you that is taking mild offense to people not agreeing with you. Sorry to say this but your examples are mostly weak and so not everyone is going to just blindly co-sign all hat you say.

Linux needs more games to become a viable platform like Mac? which has how many games? Barely more than Linux I would imagine, maybe less than that. So firstly just strike off your games example.

Linux is hard to install? Well you said it was easy fro you but I guess from having heard it said so many times you seem to discount you own experience (why you would do this I don't know). A LOT of people will tell you that they find Linux easier to install. I've never fully installed XP, only a repair install and having to dig out all of my driver cds was a hassle. Meanwhile beatrix, mepis, ubuntu, knoppix and pclinux have all autodetected everything. In fact right now my XP installation won't work because I changed the motherboard, this lead to XP detecting the gfx and sound card as new components on the next boot. After digging out the driverd cds again to install the drivers three new components seems to have triggered the Microsoft anti piracy measures and now I have to re-register XP before I can use it again. That's a hassle you don't get with Linux


People are scared of the command line? The command line is useful, that's why vista is introducing an improved cli shell, but if you don't want to use it install simplymepis or pclinuxos which both (I believe) completely remove the need for using the cli

Mr_Grieves
January 13th, 2006, 01:56 AM
I can't really see why Linux would be "dumbed down" by lots and lots and lots of people using it. Sounds like nonsens to me.. Why would anyone want to remove the execellt controll and configurability that we have today? Can't you have both?

Isn't Mac OSX a good example on how you can stay close to you're hardware, keep controll and still have the "click click" experience if you want?

JimmyJazz
January 13th, 2006, 01:56 AM
the more I look at Vista the less I worry.

egon spengler
January 13th, 2006, 02:01 AM
Personally I think getting rid of things that differentiate linux from the rest of the OS's like the terminal would ruin linux.

Mac has a cli, windows (sort of) has one and is getting a better one. If you want to be mr "uber leet" maybe you could try gentoo, arch, slack or linux from scratch

Kerberos
January 13th, 2006, 02:03 AM
And about Windows Vista, you can bet it'll be expensive considering it is MS, so I wouldn't get all excited about it just yet.:cool:
If linux wanted to have the same features as Windows Vista it could do it easily.
If it can then why doesn't it? It'd slaughter MS's market share and it'd be open source(GPL etc)!

mstlyevil
January 13th, 2006, 02:10 AM
I can't really see why Linux would be "dumbed down" by lots and lots and lots of people using it. Sounds like nonsens to me.. Why would anyone want to remove the execellt controll and configurability that we have today? Can't you have both?

Isn't Mac OSX a good example on how you can stay close to you're hardware, keep controll and still have the "click click" experience if you want?

OSX is prescisely what Linux users do not want linux to become. Most Mac users do not even know what the command line is. With OSX you sacrifice the freedom you have with Linux because both the hardware and software are limited for it. Linux is more flexible, scalable and customizable than OSX. Also ther are distrobutions that you NEVER have to touch the command line. You have Suse 10 and Linspire for example that will give you that click click experience you think all distros need. Linux would have to dumbed down for the average joe user to fully accept it because average joe user does not want to bother to actually learn anything about his/her computer. They want it to be another easy to use appliance like their TV or their toaster. Beside both do already exist in Linux, it is just a matter of which distro you use.

Mr_Grieves
January 13th, 2006, 02:14 AM
*Edit* I haven't used Linspire or SuSE 10, but.. if it's that good.. why does not more people use it? I don't believe it's just an question about adoption. *Edit*

Mmhm, it's abit of a no no to say that Windows is actually good at something. Not only advertising thier stuff and eating small children, but making it very easy to eat small children. You see? :D

Windows for example (a guy at work told me) made clustering a "click click" thing in thier 2003 server. That made alot of cluster-consultants really mad.. cause.. IT'S NOT THAT EASY! WAIT! STOP! Perhaps it's not.. but.. the effort is kind of cool actually. If Linux would adopt that drive to make things easy and accessable, I think Linux could very well win the big fight.

Mr_Grieves
January 13th, 2006, 02:21 AM
By the way.. if a larger distro broke away and got "dumbed down" like you write.. cause all the dumb people used it. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Everyone using Open Source operative systems? Not Windows..

Then all the techies could create thier own distro perhaps. If the OS got too easy for them, hehe.

But then again. I guess that the operative system in the world that got most users probably always will be commercial.. due to the huge market powers. There is too much money to let it be free. I guess Open Source advocates are thinking about this abit perhaps. Maybe they got a plan to stop that from happening :)

Wait.. they do.. it's called GPL! Hurray!

BoyOfDestiny
January 13th, 2006, 03:25 AM
By the way.. if a larger distro broke away and got "dumbed down" like you write.. cause all the dumb people used it. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Everyone using Open Source operative systems? Not Windows..

Then all the techies could create thier own distro perhaps. If the OS got too easy for them, hehe.

But then again. I guess that the operative system in the world that got most users probably always will be commercial.. due to the huge market powers. There is too much money to let it be free. I guess Open Source advocates are thinking about this abit perhaps. Maybe they got a plan to stop that from happening :)

Wait.. they do.. it's called GPL! Hurray!

I don't think you can really ruin that aspect of linux. You would have to remove terminal. Even with gui's and all that, command line is there...

If something is simple or I'm new to it, gui is the way to go. As for general friendliess, I'm a fan of project utopia (although I've learned to mount things manually :) ).

I have to say I really like command line though. It was like seeing an old friend again. I used it as a child in DOS, and then as windows "improved" commandline lost handy features, like pressing F3 to retype a line, etc (we can use 'up' in Ubuntu Linux to see all the recent commands, love it!)

I try to use the commandline often, whether I'm compiling something, dist-upgrading, changing dirs, changing permissions recursively with chmod (since nautilus won't let me :( ), using wget, etc. Even written a few bash scripts to download and build from cvs.

I'm a novice with it, but I enjoy using it since it's often faster to type something in there than to navigate through a bunch of windows/tabs and clicks etc.

23meg
January 13th, 2006, 03:50 AM
We have totally dumbed down distros (such as Linspire), we have semi-dumbed-down ones, we have l33t h4x0r ones with no GUI, we have everything in between, and there isn't a single entity that you can refer to as "Linux" in sentences like "Linux isn't user friendly enough". Linux is all about variety and choice. Whereas Windows has this one dumbed down environment for both Joe Average and the l33t system admin.

Linux is a kernel, and Linux distros are operating systems. A kernel cannot be user friendly. If you have to rant about the user friendliness of a certain OS, address that particular OS, not its kernel.

23meg
January 13th, 2006, 03:56 AM
*Edit* I haven't used Linspire or SuSE 10, but.. if it's that good.. why does not more people use it? I don't believe it's just an question about adoption. *Edit*Because their computers don't come preinstalled with Suse but Windows. Most people will just accept what they get and not look further if it kind of works for them, which is the case with Windows.

mstlyevil
January 13th, 2006, 03:58 AM
*Edit* I haven't used Linspire or SuSE 10, but.. if it's that good.. why does not more people use it? I don't believe it's just an question about adoption. *Edit*

Suse is among the most used Distributions in the world. I am pretty sure it has a larger user base than Ubuntu by a long shot. I don't have percentages but i am sure others on this forum probally could give you some. You can buy brand new PC's at most major retailers already loaded with either Linspire or Xandros. Both of these distros are newbie distros that do not require the use of the command line and they already come with the multimedia codecs installed including DVD playback. You are assuming that no one uses these distros, but they have a longer more estabished userbase than Ubuntu.


By the way.. if a larger distro broke away and got "dumbed down" like you write.. cause all the dumb people used it. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Everyone using Open Source operative systems? Not Windows..


For one when we say the operating system is dumbed down we do not mean that average users are dumb. They may be computer illiterate, but not dumb.

Would it actually be a good thing to create a new Windows out of Linux so the computer illiterate can use it just like Windows? The answer is no it would be a disaster. Is it a good thing to operate a motor vehicle and not understand the rules of the road and propper driving techniques? In fact is a good thing to own a car and at least not know how or when to do basic mantainece? Is it a good thing to use any tool without the basic training needed to safely operate it and maintain it? Linux pushes people to learn more of the basics about their computer and makes them better able to use it and maintain it.

The idea that it is always better to use "open source" over propietary is a matter of opinion. For a lot of people open source is a bad idea and they should stick with propietary. Also there are plenty of open source programs for both Windows and Mac users so they actually do not have to pay for software to perform most task. I have no problems with some one using Windows if that is what they want to do. There is nothing wrong with someone paying for software as long as they understand what it is they are paying for. I just don't understand your need to convert the whole world to your way of thinking. Open source software is going to be adopted because of it's quality and not because we try to make everything look and work like Windows.

DigitalDuality
January 13th, 2006, 04:56 AM
If linux ever wants to penetrate the average user.. it has a long way to come with its interface.. and i'm not just talking "pretty", but intuitive to users in general. I had not touched OS X all my life and been strictly a windows guy. I buy a mac mini.. and the adjustment process was a bit bumpy.. but the transition was swfit.

Also, applications that install themselves through a nice exe or dmg is a huge plus. I think 'nix applicaiton makers would benefit greatly from at least offering this as an option... and rpm doesn't really cut it.

The average user, especially in a business environment shouldn't need to know the inside and out of a computer just to perform tasks that are becoming more and more of a necessity.

Anyone who's done IT work who gets the 100 stupid questions a day.. (like they're computer won't turn on b/c they have the monitor cable knocked out...so you travel 20 miles to that remote office jsut to plug in a chord), knows that Linux will never survive in a market with those people. And there will always be those people.

I come across people on a daily basis who are unable to hook up their color coded plugs for a Dell system.. keyboard, mouse, keyboard, monitor and cat5.

Frankly i don't want to see Linux lose anything it currently has, not a single option. But the option to be more user friendly, more intuitive, and to have a GUI that's a bit up with the times would make huge headway in this industry. The only reason i'm concerned, is b/c i don't want open source to be continued to be laughed at.

I use Open Office for instance at my workplace on a win box and i get laughed at merely b/c of it's slow load time and stupid crap with it's interface. (The cut/copy/paste being at the bottom of the right click menu for instance.. what other app does that? and why did Sun think it'd be a good idea?) Just stupid crap like will throw the avg business computer user for a loop.

poofyhairguy
January 13th, 2006, 05:14 AM
Great attitude.. :) That will not realise everyones dream of solving Bug #1. Linux for techies. Don't you want Linux to take over as the leading operative system? Then you must understand that games MUST get into Linux, and that is not going to happen just because the game develipers feels like it. There is a huge effort in the Linux community side aswell. As I see it, the first, and most difficult effort must come from the Linux community, with for example Wine, the desktop enviorment and etc things that attracts the regular home users. When the gaming industry see's that there is ALOT of home users using Linux, they'll want to develop games. What's driving them is just $. I don't think the brand of the OS is something they think about very much when it comes down to it.

The biggest mistake one can make concerning Ubuntu (or desktop Linux in general) is to assume the path to dominance concerns Ex-Windows users.

Ubuntu could be the most popular desktop OS in the world without a single Windows switcher. Most of the world lacks a computer today, partially because of software cost. Bug #1 was meant to fix that problem; not to give Windows users another ship to jump on to.



If it was so very user friendly, so very simple, and free, why are everyone using Windows? It's not just brainwash, hahaha :)

Nope, most of it is market forces. But popularity does not mean quality. Mc Donalds is the most popular food on the planet yet no sane person would say its the best!


What's user friendly to example me, wich consider myself a pretty technical person that use Linux/Unix dialy, is not user friendly for my grandmother. She does not like to compile stuff. See where I'm getting?

Not really. If Ubuntu can preinstalled and set up like Windows is on a Dell, your grandmother could easily use it. It was five months into my Linux career before I compiled something, and thats because I am a nerd. With Ubuntu most users need not compile things. Just click the Firefox icon and go!

Of course I get your point, I just don't agree. Thats what makes choice great.

poofyhairguy
January 13th, 2006, 05:18 AM
Also, applications that install themselves through a nice exe or dmg is a huge plus. I think 'nix applicaiton makers would benefit greatly from at least offering this as an option... and rpm doesn't really cut it.


Well good, because Ubuntu does not use RPMs.

Everything most users need are in the repos, a click away.

poofyhairguy
January 13th, 2006, 05:19 AM
There's so many articles about the new Windows Vista. I have read three in magazines and a bit from the internet. Now that Vista is copying Mac so much Windows and Mac OS X will be the most advanced operating systems for their cool software like smart folders, transparent windows, ExposÚ, Inkwell, Speech and other stuff. Linux seems left behind. And it's hard to do all those programs for Linux because of different distros, window managers, file browsers.

A lot of that stuff Linux is getting or has already gotten. Heck, we have some neat things OSX and Vista will lack. See my sig for info.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 05:27 AM
Either take it up with the game developers, or just get a console.

That is equivalent to "either take it up with the xxxxx developers, or just get another PC and run windows on it." for other software yet i don't think you'd ever make that comment.

It's the only reason i have windows installed on any of my machines, if it was just me using them i'd skip the game if it doesn't have a native Linux port since i don't really like supporting companies that do not support Linux but since i'm not the only one using these computers i'll keep a copy of windows so my son can play his games on it.

I have no less than 4 pc's that are all good enough to play the latest games, why would i buy a console too?

DigitalDuality
January 13th, 2006, 05:42 AM
Well good, because Ubuntu does not use RPMs.

Everything most users need are in the repos, a click away.
Oh i fully agree. the repos are great. But you're also limited to the software in the repos, rather than the community having some kind of standard.

I'm sure most people here (after having Ubuntu for a while) will have apps that were not in the repos.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 05:49 AM
Oh i fully agree. the repos are great. But you're also limited to the software in the repos, rather than the community having some kind of standard.

I'm sure most people here (after having Ubuntu for a while) will have apps that were not in the repos.

No you are not limited to what's in the repos, it's not harder to download a .deb than it is to download a .rpm, it's just as easy for any user to make a .deb too and if you find an .rpm you want, you can enjoy rpm dependency hell by either installing it as an rpm or converting it into a .deb and then install it.

The community standard is .deb.

poofyhairguy
January 13th, 2006, 05:52 AM
Oh i fully agree. the repos are great. But you're also limited to the software in the repos, rather than the community having some kind of standard.

We DO have a standard. Debs. They are all over the net. With the next release we will have a GUI way to install them (which will make them equal to an exein most respects).

If you are talking about the greater Desktop Linux community, then there is another standard- tar files. It just happens that that standard sucks sometimes. Hence the debs!



I'm sure most people here (after having Ubuntu for a while) will have apps that were not in the repos.

Most? Really? As in most people here have compiled something for their computer? I don't think that is the case....

drizek
January 13th, 2006, 06:04 AM
in kubuntu dapper, installing a deb is as wasy as

1)rightclick
2)install

DigitalDuality
January 13th, 2006, 06:05 AM
i'm not trying to attack linux, or this community. Ubuntu is best distro i've found..and definately has the most welcoming and helpful community i've ever seen, and i'm no linux guru by anymeans... The fact is that linux (and open source in general..be it in terms of formats, apps, or OS) hasn't penetrated the populace that it needs to penetrate, and there's reasons for this. And some of those reasons lay back on the average user's experience on the machines.

I've known plenty of tech savy people who like the idea of open source, like the idea of linux.. or maybe they're just in the mood for an environment change..they're bored.. and they get fed up with linux in less than a week and back to Mac or Windows they run.

Linux..Ubuntu especially...Fedora too in alot of respects, have made alot of headway and i applaud that. I just don't think it's enough.

It's enough to attract me and keep me, but that.. isn't enough.

Oh... and i had no idea about the GUI debs, that sounds really promising :) Very cool. Hopefully i learn a thing or two before i get lazy with GUI's ..hehe.

poofyhairguy
January 13th, 2006, 06:16 AM
It's enough to attract me and keep me, but that.. isn't enough.


I think one's choice of OS is a personal thing. So I personally believe that IS enough that many users find it worth using.

That said, development is not stopping any time soon.

drizek
January 13th, 2006, 06:23 AM
That said, development is not stopping any time soon.

no, on the contrary. development picks up steam every day.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 06:34 AM
i'm not trying to attack linux, or this community. Ubuntu is best distro i've found..and definately has the most welcoming and helpful community i've ever seen, and i'm no linux guru by anymeans... The fact is that linux (and open source in general..be it in terms of formats, apps, or OS) hasn't penetrated the populace that it needs to penetrate, and there's reasons for this. And some of those reasons lay back on the average user's experience on the machines.

Why does it need to penetrate that populace? Why would i care if you want to run Windows?


I've known plenty of tech savy people who like the idea of open source, like the idea of linux.. or maybe they're just in the mood for an environment change..they're bored.. and they get fed up with linux in less than a week and back to Mac or Windows they run.

And nobody cares, let them use what they want.


Linux..Ubuntu especially...Fedora too in alot of respects, have made alot of headway and i applaud that. I just don't think it's enough.

What would be enough for those who prefer Windows is that it is windows, it will never be Windows an nobody really cares what you or others are using, it's entirely up to each and every user what they want to use.


--------------------------

The truth is that those who like windows better and are willing to give up on Linux because it's not just like windows are worthless to the FOSS community anyway, they don't contribute in any way, if they did, they'd work towards getting what they want throught the FOSS community instead, either by coding themselves or by contributing in the lists. If they run Linux for a week and decide they like Windows better they are not willing to put any time or effort into the Linux community and we're better off without them.

Plenty of the people you see asking for help here are the ones that will give help in a year, who will do bug reports, who will come up with ideas and requests, who will code their own applications, so the FOSS community will live on and prosper without those who are essentially useless to it, the system that weeds out the worthless users (to the community) works very well.

ardchoille
January 13th, 2006, 06:39 AM
Linux left behind?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

I don't think so.

DigitalDuality
January 13th, 2006, 06:43 AM
I think one's choice of OS is a personal thing. So I personally believe that IS enough that many users find it worth using.

That said, development is not stopping any time soon.

I'll agree. But i'd also fathom to say that over half of computer users have no idea about the rights issues, DRM politics, any ideas about anti-competive practices by tech companies, and exactly what "causes" they are paying for. They don't realize how much they're price gouged at times (depending on product, OS or not).. so while it's a matter of personal choice and preference, i'd fathom to say that most don't realize ..even a tiny bit, the consequences of their actions for better or worse, when it comes to chosing what they decide to use.

I support open source, not b/c of the "ooh and ah" great factor of the products (though there's definately some products..such as ubuntu that have that), but b/c i do not support out-dated business models, b/c i don't support companies that erode away individual rights, and b/c i don't support anti-competitive practices. B/c i don't think a company should install a root-kit to keep me from even making back-up copies of my own music...and b/c i support the voluntary, libertarian, community effort and sharing of information that goes into the movement itself. I really don't care if it's freeware or not, i'm definately more concerned with the open source model itself and the licensing behind it and what that stands for and would love to see it spread like wildfire.

So if i'm critical, it's because i have a belief in something that i want to see succeed much further than it has. So good that dev isn't haulting anytime soon.

prizrak
January 13th, 2006, 06:45 AM
I am so tired of people comparing Linux to OS X and Vista. Linux is a modern OS that is more powerful than either of the other ones. Until it gets preinstalled on people's computers it will not penetrate the Windows dominated market.
Someone mentioned that Linux needs all the features of Vista, it does not, those things are VERY resource intensive and Linux is an OS that tries to use the least resources possible. I believe that as it stands right now Linux (and BSD) is ideally suited for the business desktop, companies could benefit from a fully *nix environment from the control and customization it provides.
To whoever said that an IT pro was excited that Server2003 made clustering all about clicking. Here is my response: Yes all we need is IT personnel that is used to clicking on things to make them work rather than be able to think about how to configure things to run more efficiently........
Linux is NOT Windows, it does not have to be, it is NOT dependent on ex-Windows users. Ubuntu's Linux for Human Beings philosophy does not mean that it is dumbed down for the Joe Sixpack. If you read the website it quite plainly states that the reason for Ubuntu existing is to bring computing to countries that do not have the income to afford proprietary software. This is where FOSS shines it doesn't exclude anyone from using it, it allows for cheaper hardware in many cases and does not limit what can be done with it as well as having built in mechanism for complete customization to tail everyone's needs. This is where SimplyMEPIS comes from, it's all point and click. Then you have Slackware that desont' even have package management, and there is Ubuntu that is about halfway between the two.
Oh and all of you that want a free alternative for Windows check out http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html

DigitalDuality
January 13th, 2006, 06:46 AM
Linux left behind?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

I don't think so.

That's multi-facted issue.

Linux, by default has better security practices built in by default. The heavy practice of not running as root is a good one. We can also take into consideration that security hole ridden software isn't embedded and non-removable from the OS (such as IE and WMP). And if you go through the hell to remove IE, you lost your ability to keep up with security patches and updates. So from a security standpoint, your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But you also have to look at the fact that viruses, spyware, ad-ware, etc.. is written on a massive scale to effect the standard. If i was a virus or spyware writer .. targeting linux or OS X computers wouldn't be high on my priority list.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 06:58 AM
I am so tired of people comparing Linux to OS X and Vista. Linux is a modern OS that is more powerful than either of the other ones. Until it gets preinstalled on people's computers it will not penetrate the Windows dominated market.
Someone mentioned that Linux needs all the features of Vista, it does not, those things are VERY resource intensive and Linux is an OS that tries to use the least resources possible. I believe that as it stands right now Linux (and BSD) is ideally suited for the business desktop, companies could benefit from a fully *nix environment from the control and customization it provides.
To whoever said that an IT pro was excited that Server2003 made clustering all about clicking. Here is my response: Yes all we need is IT personnel that is used to clicking on things to make them work rather than be able to think about how to configure things to run more efficiently........
Linux is NOT Windows, it does not have to be, it is NOT dependent on ex-Windows users. Ubuntu's Linux for Human Beings philosophy does not mean that it is dumbed down for the Joe Sixpack. If you read the website it quite plainly states that the reason for Ubuntu existing is to bring computing to countries that do not have the income to afford proprietary software. This is where FOSS shines it doesn't exclude anyone from using it, it allows for cheaper hardware in many cases and does not limit what can be done with it as well as having built in mechanism for complete customization to tail everyone's needs. This is where SimplyMEPIS comes from, it's all point and click. Then you have Slackware that desont' even have package management , and there is Ubuntu that is about halfway between the two.
Oh and all of you that want a free alternative for Windows check out http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html

The bolded part is wrong.

drizek
January 13th, 2006, 07:01 AM
ya, slackware actually has a pretty good package manager. it isnt GUI though, AFAIK.

ardchoille
January 13th, 2006, 07:09 AM
That's multi-facted issue.
.. But you also have to look at the fact that viruses, spyware, ad-ware, etc.. is written on a massive scale to effect the standard. If i was a virus or spyware writer .. targeting linux or OS X computers wouldn't be high on my priority list.
You obviously didn't read that entire article. It explains why viruses don't do the same amount of damage in Linux that they do in Windows - also explains why Linux viruses fizzle out quickly. Targeting the Linux OS doesn't do much good because of the way Linux is built - writing viruses for Linux is pretty much a waste of time. If Linux were to dominate the computer market tomorrow, we still would not see the number of viruses in Linux that have always plagued Windows.. and that article explains why.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 07:16 AM
ya, slackware actually has a pretty good package manager. it isnt GUI though, AFAIK.

There are gui's for it, none is installed by default though (of course not, it is after all Slackware ).

If you'd want you could download slapt-get and gslapt to have something that resembles apt-get+synaptic. Then there is Dropline Gnome with their own system for slackware, if you like Gnome that is.

BSDFreak
January 13th, 2006, 07:19 AM
You obviously didn't read that entire article. It explains why viruses don't do the same amount of damage in Linux that they do in Windows - also explains why Linux viruses fizzle out quickly. Targeting the Linux OS doesn't do much good because of the way Linux is built - writing viruses for Linux is pretty much a waste of time. If Linux were to dominate the computer market tomorrow, we still would not see the number of viruses in Linux that have always plagued Windows.. and that article explains why.

The "everything is a file and every file has it's permissions" bit of Unix is what really makes *nix better security wise.

Of course, there are plenty of things to set up on a newly installed Linux box to secure it, running ANY system without a properly configured firewall is asking for trouble, thankfully it's extremely easy to set up a firewall in Linux.

prizrak
January 13th, 2006, 11:56 AM
The bolded part is wrong.
Hmm interesting, I got a friend running Slack and she claims there is no package management, since I never used Slack I just went by her words :)