Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on September 11, 2005, 03:38:50 pm
-
After reading this thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35069.0.html), I started thinking about Linux - particularly, why such a computer-savvy computer geek such as myself hasn't taken the plunge and installed Linux.
There's two reasons, but since the first is just a bad first impression, it's really the second that matters:
[list=1]- The first time I installed a Linux distro (IIRC it was Red Hat, about 4 years ago, and KDE), I could not for the life of me figure out how to change the screen resolution from 640x480 to something a bit more sane.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not stupid. Especially not with computers. But try as I may, I couldn't figure it out. Oh, sure, I could have gone online and posted my problem and gotten an answer in 3.765 seconds, but that's not the point, really. The point is that it's not (ok, wasn't) there yet, which leads me to my second complaint:
- Pardon my French, but WTF IS WITH ALL THE GAZILLION LINUX DISTROS???!?!?!?!?
Seriously, guys, gimme a break. Get your act together, get rid of all the distros, and package the basic (yet friendly) OS into a box called "Linux". No Mandrakes, Red Hats, or even Knoppii. Take a page from the Mozilla book, and provide all the added functionality as "plugins" for those who want to mess around.[/list]
I mean, I WANT to check out Linux. It's something I need to DO in order to keep up with "things". What I DON'T want to do is figure out what the differences are between the distros and which one suits my needs better, especially not when they're ALL claiming to be just as powerful and/or friendly.
You know, I have over 150 downloaded movies and over 50 DVDs at home, from a wide range of genres. But when friends come over to see a movie, it takes over an HOUR to decide on one.
Too much choice is a Bad Thing™.
And don't even get me started on KDE vs. Gnome vs. whatever-else-they-have-now. If anyone has illusions or dreams of Linux ever becoming mainstream, they need to stop focusing on making this or that distro the perfect one, and concentrate on merging them all somehow (use Merlin's magic wand, I don't care) so that there's a comparability between the 2-3 main Windows flavors we have today (Home, Pro, and the Server line), and the one or two Linux variants. "Variants", NOT "species". :rolleyes:
Anyway, all this to say that I think THAT's why I - and many others - haven't even ventured far at all down the Linux path. There's too much pre-packaged choice. Look at the online systems in place at Dell or IBM/Lenovo(?) for laptop purchasing; there's about 3-4 main laptops, which you can configure further IF YOU WANT TO. Not 20 different laptops, each one of which can be further configured to be any other laptop, if you go far enough! :rolleyes:
-
Are you sure those 2 complaints aren't solely caused by starting off with Windows? I always thought point 2 was a strength of Linux, myself; as was the principle that you (or more likely, a company) can grab a distro and update it to their needs. Choice is never bad IMO, only indecision is.
-
My problem is that my sound card was not supported. For this I blame Creative.
-
I don't like Linux simply because it's too hard to use, and there are hardly any supported games. Yes, yes, I know, it's not Windows and you have to do all this crap to learn it, and I know that there are some games - but there are only some games, and I don't want to have to read a 600 page manual to learn how to use my OS.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Are you sure those 2 complaints aren't solely caused by starting off with Windows? I always thought point 2 was a strength of Linux, myself; as was the principle that you (or more likely, a company) can grab a distro and update it to their needs. Choice is never bad IMO, only indecision is.
No, that's EXACTLY the point! These hypothetical companies aren't going to be moving their employees from pen 'n paper to Linux, and they sure as heck ain't gonna "switch" from OSX. Face it, Windows users - on both the corporate and personal levels - are the target.
Take that company again... imagine they can't provide in-house tech support for their 600 employees who now need to learn Linux. So they need to find a tech support house that not only supports Linux, not only supports their chosen distro of Linux, but also is familiar with the modifications they made to their chosen distro of Linux! It's a ridiculous situation, and although I'm all for moving to Linux, I'm amazed that there are as many government entities switching to Linux as there are.
-
>>Too much choice is a Bad Thing™.
No, I thinkI disagree here. Most Linux ditros are specially designed to serve a specific purpouse in particular. Therefor, the choice isn't really that hard once you decicde what you need your os to do.
>>My problem is that my sound card was not supported. For this I blame Creative.
Well, part of this is MSs fault. In order to get your Windows drivers MS certified you have to agree not to port those drivers to other OS. The "MS Certified" label on the hardware box is still an important thing for a lot of people who are not as versatile with pcs.
-
Actually, no. For this its entire Creative's fault. In fact, the drivers are hard enough to set up in Windows, let alone Linux.
-
I have yet to meet a Linux distro that I consider fully working.
Seriously.
Let's start with sound. Right now I'm using an Ubuntu desktop with an Audigy 2 NX. The system recognizes it as a sound card, I can even plug it in while the system's running and it'll work. Did that right out of the box, right?
Nope.
Apparently, sound starts with ALSA. This handles the soundcard->program interface. Then, there's an OSS emulation layer, for the sound system that has been deprecated for 3 years or so. Then, there's the 'enlightened sound daemon', which Gnome uses for its system sounds, and seems to seize control of ALSA/OSS/whatever the hell it's called.
Why on earth everything doesn't simply use ALSA, I have the foggiest.
To get my soundcard to become the primary, over my built-in sound, I first had to edit a modules.conf file with a hack. Then, I had to spend hours learning how to and writing about 5-10 lines to tell ALSA to automatically resample to 96000hz, because apparently nobody noticed the severe crackling and distortion that results from sound being sent to the card in anything other than 22, 48, or 96 khz. Finally, if I forget to turn it on when I turn on my computer, I have to unmute the card (Usually I open up the console ALSA mixer, because the GUI one is worthless).
Next I'd have to set OSS, ESD, and everything else to use my virtual ALSA device that resamples. However, I chose to change each individual device to send sound to my virtual ALSA device...this has further restricted my program selection in some cases.
For games, apparently, OpenAL sits on top of ESD. I set that to use ALSA as well.
Finally, I have my soundcard giving me decent sound. Although it's still not as good as in Windows.
Now, in order to play MPCs, I have to use beep-media-player as I've never gotten support working under XMMS. It still crashes half the time due to some bug. Ubuntu also doesn't support the MPC plugin, so I had to compile and checkinstall it by hand.
In order to play MODs, I have to boot up XMMS.
Fortunately, both can play OGGs and MP3s.
In order to play movies, or DVDs, I have to open xine or Totem. Xine also has the habit of suddenly closing whenever I close certain dialog boxes, so often times I end up dragging-and-dropping files and can't use it's playlist functionality.
The fun thing about software is that with so many different distros running around, there have to be pretty much equal numbers of package versions due to the difference between directory structure and such. In the end, you usually have to compile from source to get the latest update of programs.
Not to mention that most programs are either bug-ridden or half-functional...if you combined three Linux programs, you might get the equivelant of one Windows one.
I'd like to recompile my kernel, except there are three different sets of instructions on how to do it on the Ubuntu wiki. God knows how many there are on the forums. My attempts at it have resulted in, at best, a kernel panic.
And just recently, I learned that my partitions are apparently corrupt, I did them all with the Ubuntu installer partitioner. Here I must commend Linux for gparted, and qtparted, because they're pretty functional and easy-to-use graphical partitioners. If only the engine didn't create corrupt ones...
Linux is also touted as the system of development, and the reason that it's so difficult to use is because the people who use it are so capable and computer-literate. However, VC++.NET is just worlds better than trying to do the same thing with gdb, gedit, g++, makefiles, etc etc. The customizability is nice, but when you're talking about using over six different programs to code and release a program, that's just absurd. I've tried anjuta, but never figured out how to get it to integrate with these programs, not to mention that it likes to pollute my source with a half-dozen makefiles and READMEs. Even starting an MFC project isn't so bad under Windows.
There are probably dozens of little annoyances that I'm forgetting; I could probably write a 10-page paper on the problems I've run into on Linux that I wouldn't have run into on Windows, with a summary of what I did to fix it.
But the lesson in all of this is, unless someone is extremely determined or basically forced to use Linux, and have a lot of time, it simply won't be a viable choice for an OS if they do anything past web browsing and word processing (Although I have yet to get network printing to work, and haven't tried much beyond that...)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
No, that's EXACTLY the point! These hypothetical companies aren't going to be moving their employees from pen 'n paper to Linux, and they sure as heck ain't gonna "switch" from OSX. Face it, Windows users - on both the corporate and personal levels - are the target.
Take that company again... imagine they can't provide in-house tech support for their 600 employees who now need to learn Linux. So they need to find a tech support house that not only supports Linux, not only supports their chosen distro of Linux, but also is familiar with the modifications they made to their chosen distro of Linux! It's a ridiculous situation, and although I'm all for moving to Linux, I'm amazed that there are as many government entities switching to Linux as there are.
The reason government entities, in particular, switch to Linux is that they can better maintain it. They have complete code access; using a Windows system, their hands are tied and they become reliant upon Microsoft to rectify key problems.
Particularly for government agencies - making themselves entirely reliant upon an independent company (and a foreign one at that, at least outside the US) is sort of contrary to the purpose of government entities.
If you merge together Linux into 2 or 3 codebases, then you lose that key ability. Like Windows, you can no longer make specific changes or alterations vital for your business, because you're hogtied by what everyone else wants.
-
So therefore Linux is better for companies.
What about us private users? It's completey nads to put together for us.
-
Well, I haven't used Linux, so I can't claim knowledge of what each distro may or may not be geared towards. All I'm saying is that my point still stands, and is even bolstered by your rebuttals: I, a computer-savvy dude who is but a newbie when it comes to Linux, am utterly overwhelmed by the variety of Linux flavors. Therefore, I haven't switched.
If I'm like that, how many other people (who can make their own decisions, not company peons) aren't switching for the same reasons?
-
[color=66ff00]The thing that surprises me is that BSD with it's more reliable model and it's more corporation friendly licence doesn't get more airtime. It's not bleeding edge but then it doesn't need to be it's very stable, hardened and it has a large, readily available software library thanks to the ports system.
I started out trying slackware which was just gibberish to me, Kazan suggested Fedora to me which was ok but horribly bloated and hard to handle. Finally I did a bit of reading on linux distros and saw Gentoo which, I must admit, was riding out a wave of popularity at the time but fundamentally had the idea that I wanted to see; almost complete freedom of choice.
It took me three installs to get a working system as it's been quite correctly pointed out that starting from 'stage 1' i.e. compiling the system from the ground up is not only unnecessary but a bad idea.
Stage 3 installs; those where the base system has already been compiled for a specific arcitecure are easy to set up if you follow the manual.
Gentoo's strongest and simultaeniously weakest point is that everything can be compiled from source. There are many packages that can be installed as binaries, Firefox for instance. This is a largely fast affair at the tradeoff of flexibility. Source compiliation can take minutes for the smallest of apps to literally days for something like KDE which has thankfully been changed from one massive monolithic install (pretty much) to about 300 single apps.
I've used this flexibility to install xfce4 as my window manager and I can use konqueror and konsole from KDE desktop environment. I can compile in or remove support for any number of features like ability to handle samba, ability to be remotely administered etc. etc.
The tradeoff is that there's a whole lot more to learn but then I consider it a worthy investment. I'm still tweaking DVD playback and I've yet to reinstall the bluetooth subsystem, both of which have given me trouble in the past.
Linux is by no means perfect, it has numerous issues like the previously mentioned lack of support, the deluge of similar software, the confusing array of distros. I think the significant problem for windows users is linux's tool based approach, consider that windows programs tend to try and do as much as possible from one app. Linux by comparison tends to use a large number of smaller applications which often need reading up on and memorising.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Well, I haven't used Linux, so I can't claim knowledge of what each distro may or may not be geared towards. All I'm saying is that my point still stands, and is even bolstered by your rebuttals: I, a computer-savvy dude who is but a newbie when it comes to Linux, am utterly overwhelmed by the variety of Linux flavors. Therefore, I haven't switched.
If I'm like that, how many other people (who can make their own decisions, not company peons) aren't switching for the same reasons?
Wait a mo, though. If you weren't already using Windows, wouldn't that then be an equal part of this vast morass you refer to?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Wait a mo, though. If you weren't already using Windows, wouldn't that then be an equal part of this vast morass you refer to?
It's inertia. "The devil you know..." etc. You already know how something works, even if it's not the best thing you could be using; so you'd prefer not to switch to something else unless it's in the same realm of familiarilty.
Sandwich: You might want to take a look at Linspire (formerly Lindows). I got a promotional copy once and I'm considering installing it.
-
The point seems to boil down to this as I see it:
a) Either the Linux developers make a "distro" or build or whatever you call it, that is pretty much as able as Windows is (because let's face it, any moron can use Windows, I mean, it was deisgned as a tool for the common redneck, have to give Microsoft props there, they did keep it mostly very simple) so that we who aren't native to uber can comprehend it and escape the Microsoft product of doom
b) We'll all have to force ourselves to learn and become the uber in order to escape Microsoft.
Now, necessity is the mother of many things, urgency one of them, and it seems that as Windows keeps spiraling down into retardedness, we'll all probably have to pick up the basics when it comes to Linux and sacrifice the time to learn it.
But wouldn't it be better if it was shaped into something similar to Windows, only take the high logic road instead of the red light district whore street Microsoft has taken?
-
1. Anecdotes from 4 years back is great evidence. Not.
2. *****ing about this does a whole lot of nothing. There's only one way to prevent this, which is to license the Linux kernel restrictively. This is not only a stupid idea, but is virtually impossible. It's impossible for the same reason why the kernel will never move from GPL version 2; it's not possible to get the permission from the thousands of copyright holders of Linux kernel code.
I really don't see why it's so hard to pick a distro. Go to distrowatch.com, check out a couple of the distros in the most popular 5 or 10. Choose.
-
I would try messing around with Linux even if it's confusing to a newcomer, but there is honestly not much point to it. For all of Linux's technical merits, the point of an OS is to run programs and the vast majority of the stuff out there, particularly games, are exclusive to Windows.
-
I agree with Sandwich. It's like BitTorrent. It's good that there are many varieties to choose from, but you need to have a solid, default program. It's a lot easier to get people into if you can just tell them "Go to Linux.com and download it". If Linux wants to gain more mainstream usage, it needs ti simplfy things. I'm not suggesting that it merge into a single homogenous mass, but it needs to streamline things to make it easier for people like me to take part.
-
Have you ever even used Linux? Last time I installed a distro (Debian 3.1a) the only thing I had to do was select language, partition the HD and then it automagically detected all my hardware and installed base programs. Then some post-install stuff (setting up users) and I'm done. Note that this is one of the most oldest and most server-oriented distros that exists. Not a home-oriented distro like Mandriva or SuSE.
CP5670: I agree, for a gamer Linux is useless unless it's for dual-booting or somesuch. I use a separate computer for playing most games. If anyone tries Linux thinking it's possible to use it as a gaming machine, they've been misled. Loki's been dead forever and Wine(x) will always play catchup. Aside from games there shouldn't be much of an application problem, however.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I agree with Sandwich. It's like BitTorrent. It's good that there are many varieties to choose from, but you need to have a solid, default program. It's a lot easier to get people into if you can just tell them "Go to Linux.com and download it". If Linux wants to gain more mainstream usage, it needs ti simplfy things. I'm not suggesting that it merge into a single homogenous mass, but it needs to streamline things to make it easier for people like me to take part.
:yes:
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
It's impossible for the same reason why the kernel will never move from GPL version 2; it's not possible to get the permission from the thousands of copyright holders of Linux kernel code.
That's not only possible, it's built right into the GPL. Anyone who updates the source code has the option to do so under a future version of the license.
-
No. Linus removed that portion of the license for the Linux Kernel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Licensing_terms
-
[color=66ff00]Does anyone else think that Tux the penguin is a horrible mascot?
He's just plain ugly.
[/color]
-
Yeah, Linux-tan is much better. :D
(http://makochan.mag.attis.at/OS-TAN/linux-tan.jpg)
-
Oh ****.
You opened Shrike's door.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
...
You made me laugh.
There's a reason I use FreeBSD and its straight down to your two points and a third: Linux fanboys are like Zarax, but in reverse. Its frightening.
Grab FreeBSD from http://www.freebsd.org.
Read the handbook (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/index.html).
Read the the installation section (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/install.html) in particular.
If you have any questions, ask and I'll do my best to answer.
For the record, when I switched my NT4 domain controller and IIS4 server with access databases to FreeBSD using Samba, Apache and Postgres, I did the switchover in a single week.
For desktop, I run KDE, themed for Redmond. The only major tweaks I've had to make are adding support for my sound card, MP3 player and ATAPI->SCSI mapping to the kernel. All of these were accomplished by adding, at most, two lines to my kernel config (a well documented text file) and rebooting.
-
I'm not really sure BSD will address Sandwich's issues.
Firstly, FreeBSD is not necessarily easy to install. I remember when I tried to install from a stable FreeBSD 5.x, it decided to bork out on me midway through for no reason I could discern. Installing a BSD is likely as hard as installing Slackware or Debian 3.0 (which isn't very hard from my perspective, but I'm biased).
Plus it sounds like Sandwich's problem has more to do with KDE 4 years ago than anything else. I know for certain that changing resolution in Gnome or KDE are not an issue now (if it ever was). It's probably easier in Gnome because its menus are simpler though.
Secondly, while there is only one FreeBSD, there are still multiple BSDs. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD (and then there're obscure ones like Dragonfly and Wasabi). It's not particularly clear which distros are good for what. For OpenBSD, it's very clear (secure servers, firewalls, etc.). For FreeBSD and NetBSD it's not so clear. So the problem of choice is still present with BSD unices. So while it's a greater issue with Linux (what with its hundreds of obscure distros) it's still an issue.
Hopefully I didn't sound like a fanboy there, because I tried not to. :p
-
Ubuntu seemed fairly nice from what I saw. Until, of course, I realized how evil my soundcard is. I should have just gone for the older but slightly more expensive Audigy 2...
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Firstly, FreeBSD is not necessarily easy to install. I remember when I tried to install from a stable FreeBSD 5.x, it decided to bork out on me midway through for no reason I could discern. Installing a BSD is likely as hard as installing Slackware or Debian 3.0 (which isn't very hard from my perspective, but I'm biased).
Actually, unless you want to do something strange, its a no brainer--especially when you have the manual right there to handhold you through it. Sure, some Linux variants are easier to install, but FreeBSD RELEASE-* branches are pretty much guaranteed to work if you actually, you know, read the screen and the manual. You DO have to reference the manual though (the first time).
Plus it sounds like Sandwich's problem has more to do with KDE 4 years ago than anything else. I know for certain that changing resolution in Gnome or KDE are not an issue now (if it ever was). It's probably easier in Gnome because its menus are simpler though.
My take on that was that it was an X.org (or XF86, or whatever we're calling the project this month) configuration issue. The defaults always lack modelines, which means that the server always picks the most likely to be compatible resolution. I don't think I've ever changed my resolution from within X, with or without KDE running (I don't run GNOME, I find it a bit... annoying, but that's personal taste).
Secondly, while there is only one FreeBSD, there are still multiple BSDs. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD (and then there're obscure ones like Dragonfly and Wasabi). It's not particularly clear which distros are good for what. For OpenBSD, it's very clear (secure servers, firewalls, etc.). For FreeBSD and NetBSD it's not so clear. So the problem of choice is still present with BSD unices. So while it's a greater issue with Linux (what with its hundreds of obscure distros) it's still an issue.
Lets leave out Wasabi and Firefly. They're new and niche and hardly anyone outside the OSS community knows they exist at all.
There are multiple BSDs, but anyone who uses BSD regularly will tell you: under the hood, its all the same BSD. This is the BSD selling point. Filesystem hierarchies are the same. Conventions for command line options are the same. System calls are the same. In fact, the BSD variants are more like Windows XP Home, Professional and 2k3 Server than they are like Linux's Mandriva, Slackware, Redhat/Fedora and Gentoo.
The breakdown goes like this:
OpenBSD is about security security security. Even if it means sacrificing usability. The goal is to have everything as secure as possible out of the box, and leave it to the systems administrator to open what he needs.
NetBSD is about compatiblity. This version is slutty. It'll run on anything from your old Atari 2600, to your Xbox, to your toaster and some refrigerators. Chances are, if its got a printed circuit in it, and it doesn't run NetBSD now, it'll be ported sometime in the next fifte--oh wait, they just announced your hardware is now supported. ;)
FreeBSD is about that fine and beautiful balance between the sluttiness of NetBSD and the chaste and untouchable OpenBSD. The goal is a usuable, administrable system that you would deploy in a real world server room. Its not as secure out of the box as OpenBSD (but it could be) and it isn't ported to as many platforms as NetBSD (but it could be). Its got great support and an excellent community, though and its damned fine out of the box.
The beautiful thing about all the three major BSDs is the crosstalk. Security improvements in OpenBSD are pulled into FreeBSD and NetBSD all the time. Compatibility improvements are pulled from NetBSD into OpenBSD and FreeBSD regularly. And best of all, anytime some penguin figures out a way to make some new piece of hardware work for Linux, someone (if not immediately, then soon) ports it over to BSD.
Besides. We have the Daemon.
-
See, this is exactly why I can't use Linux.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, unless you want to do something strange, its a no brainer--especially when you have the manual right there to handhold you through it.
Yeah, I would think so too. But by that metric Gentoo is just as easy to install as it shouldn't have any issues if you follow the manual word-for-word (which I did and was able to install Gentoo successfully). I don't think there're any non-geeks who will call Gentoo "easy to install" though, with its bootstrapping and compiling crap. :p
There are multiple BSDs, but anyone who uses BSD regularly will tell you: under the hood, its all the same BSD. This is the BSD selling point. Filesystem hierarchies are the same.
Yeah, this is definitely one of the places Linux distros need to standardize on. I get very annoyed when my ALSA config was in one place with Gentoo, but in a totally different place in Debian. Plus Gentoo usually sticks removable device mount points in /mnt, but Debian might stick them in /. Meh. :ick: (Though with Gnome/KDE Freedesktop.org's HAL makes it transparent for the user)
But this isn't a particularly big issue for a newbie. For the newbie the trouble comes even before they see filesystem hiearchy after all. So in that sense BSD still has the issue, though to a much lesser degree than with Linux distros.
Sandwich: There's not a whole lot that can be done by ranting about this here. None of us here are involved in making distro AFAIK and it's not like the distro makers could do anything about it. If you really want to try Linux, go ask someone about which distros are decent and nag them about configuring it too. Or you could go use FreeBSD.
Actually, the best thing you could do is get Mac OS X instead. Unix-based, pre-packaged, no big choices, and it looks much nicer than any Linux distro. Has slightly more gaming potential too. It's nice that you can choose to not have choices. :p
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Actually, the best thing you could do is get Mac OS X instead. Unix-based, pre-packaged, no big choices, and it looks much nicer than any Linux distro. Has slightly more gaming potential too. It's nice that you can choose to not have choices. :p
By next year, there will be all the choices one could want. Now that Apple is moving to x86 processors, one will be able to dual- or triple-boot any OS one wants on their machines. So OS X (best OS), Linux (most customisable), and Windows (largest application base) will all be able to run on one machine. Besides, OS X can already run any X11-based apps, which includes most of the important Linux stuff.
-
Re: Linux and gnubies:
It's not that Linux isn't yet as advanced as Windows. It's based on a totally different philosophy.
With Windows, the idea is that it just works. You don't have to know a damn thing about the hardware. However, the price you pay for this is usually about £150 for a new (bug-fixed?) version, and you're subject to Microsoft's whims.
With Linux, the idea is that you learn how to use your computer. Linux is a massive Swiss Army knife: you still have to know how to do things, but you're given tools to make it slightly more convenient. Occasionally, you have to fit a Windows-shaped peg into a round hole (ie. when installing some hardware), and a hammer won't work, so you need some of the more delicate tools for the job of subatomic restructuring.
For those who want Linux to be as easy to use as Windows: stick to Windows. Linux will never be that without compromising some basic principles.
-
I beg to differ. It is the Linux is not yet as technically advanced. Windows seperates the user from the minutae via taking care of them on its own, something that necessiates it be more advanced. Linux runs to the user for every little thing, which requires far less work.
It's like having a brick wall and a glass window. One is nice, reliable, and sturdy, and keeps stuff inside. The other breaks if you lean on it and subjects you to almost everything on the other side.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
I beg to differ. It is the Linux is not yet as technically advanced. Windows seperates the user from the minutae via taking care of them on its own, something that necessiates it be more advanced. Linux runs to the user for every little thing, which requires far less work.
It's like having a brick wall and a glass window. One is nice, reliable, and sturdy, and keeps stuff inside. The other breaks if you lean on it and subjects you to almost everything on the other side.
[color=66ff00]That's a bit of a poorly thought out argument. Claiming windows is as stable or more stable as linux is a fairly obvious gap in research.
The newer windows releases are about as stable as a good linux install, need I remind you of WinMe, Win98 and Win95? Linux has a far better uptime history (thought not as remarkable as BSD). I know people that have been running linux servers non-stop for years because it's possible to do a lot of installation and upgrading without needing to reboot unlike windows.
As for linux running to the user for everything, that's also the result of poor understanding, linux is far more verbose in it's error reporting. Linux error reports are often enough information on their own to diagnose and repair problems. Windows errors on the other hand are obfuscated and it's only through experimentation that you get to understand the issue.
Linux can be set up initially by stating parameters in readable text files which, if configured properly will allow the system to run with that configuration from that point forward. 'Set and forget' as they say.
You should do a bit more reading around the subject, you'll find that your views on linux and how it compares to windows will change as a result and you might actually be impressed by linux's capabilities. :nod:
Regarding FreeBSD: The only issue I came across on my first installation attempt was a corrupted CD, on my second attempt I installed via FTP (brilliantly easy to set up thanks to the menu driven sysinstall) which worked immediately with X without needing any tweaks. I'd call that user friendly. :yes:
[/color]
-
I have used some linux distros along the years, yet I have never fully switched to linux even after I tried 3 times. There were always some problems that turned me away back to Windows.
1. Installation problems. Sure it has become a lot easier especially in the last year or so, many distros still have room for improvement but generally installation has become a lot easier.
2. Drivers. Typically an OS should be able to boot all the way to defaul graphical user interface. But this rarely seems to te the case with linux, usually old xfree86 or x.org or video drivers being the reason. Usually even more problems with audio drivers. And what about hardware accelerated video and audio working out of the box? Not a chance. And updating drivers is pain in the ass if the drivers are not found in the main repositiories.
3. Software. Annoyingly enough many softwares do not have any sort of graphical user interface. Last time with Ubuntu, I tried to find an easy ftp server software, finally found one but it did not have graphical user interface to see what the heck is happening right now. Only knew the process was running and someone was logged in but that was all. And installing software? Usually installing software that are not in the main repositories is pain in the ass.
And the fact that your favorite windows software may also have linux source available, your average joe user is going to go bollocks when he tries to compile working software out of the source tarballs. You're rarely as lucky as to get pre-compiled binaries if you don't use the most common distros such as red hat//fedora.
Linux just won't be able to win Windows when it comes to end-user friendliness anytime soon. You seriously need to learn to do stuff that can be considered to be geek-stuff and that no average user should need to do. But so far it has been unavoidable.
The fact that there is crapload of different linux distros is both the strenght and weakness of linux.
That said, I might give FreeBSD a go and see how it compares.
-
I hate to tell you guys, but all you "Check out this distro!" peeps are just reinforcing my point, as BD hinted at:
Originally posted by BlackDove
See, this is exactly why I can't use Linux.
My point, once again, is this: I (and this "I" stands for many, many people who would like to switch) don't want to choose. I don't want to decide between the vast number of distros, researching each one's featureset, compatability, etc etc.
Like them or not, Microsoft got it (mostly) right with XP's flavors: Home, or Pro. That's what Linux needs to become to have a chance at mainstream acceptance.
Now whether that comes through one or two distros pulling so far ahead of the rest of the pack that it's not even funny, or through some magical merger between all the distros, I don't know. But the current situation simply reeks of too much choice. And, let me reiterate for those of you who skimmed over this point before: It doesn't matter if there's a distro that fits my needs or not: the fact that I have to choose among the dozens out there is the problem.
Originally posted by Descenterace
Re: Linux and gnubies:
It's not that Linux isn't yet as advanced as Windows. It's based on a totally different philosophy.
With Windows, the idea is that it just works. You don't have to know a damn thing about the hardware. However, the price you pay for this is usually about £150 for a new (bug-fixed?) version, and you're subject to Microsoft's whims.
With Linux, the idea is that you learn how to use your computer. Linux is a massive Swiss Army knife: you still have to know how to do things, but you're given tools to make it slightly more convenient. Occasionally, you have to fit a Windows-shaped peg into a round hole (ie. when installing some hardware), and a hammer won't work, so you need some of the more delicate tools for the job of subatomic restructuring.
For those who want Linux to be as easy to use as Windows: stick to Windows. Linux will never be that without compromising some basic principles.
Let's try this:
[q]It's not that Firefox isn't yet as advanced as IE. It's based on a totally different philosophy.
With IE, the idea is that it just works. You don't have to know a damn thing about the web. However, the price you pay for this is usually about 15 new bug-fixes a month, and you're subject to Microsoft's whims.
With Firefox, the idea is that you learn how to use the web. Firefox is a massive Swiss Army knife: you still have to know how to do things, but you're given tools to make it slightly more convenient. Occasionally, you have to fit a IE-shaped site into a round FF hole (ie. when visiting some online banking site), and a hammer won't work, so you need some of the more delicate tools for the job of subatomic restructuring.
For those who want Firefox to be as easy to use as IE: stick to IE. Firefox will never be that without compromising some basic principles. [/q]
Now, how does that sound? The Windows-to-IE conversion works beautifully, but the Linux-to-Firefox parts are somewhat inaccurate, wouldn't you say?
Now, why's that so? Both are open-source, both have masses of computer geeks adding, tweaking, and ootimizing things... why is Firefox such a big success, while Linux is - for most people, people like me - an utter failure?
I'll tell you why. When I install Firefox on some non-computer person's computer, it just works. There's no choice involved... that only comes if the person chooses to do so.
Now I realize that the comparison between a mere browser and the software that runs your entire system is a bit unfair, but the point still stands. Firefox succeded because it's simple, a no-brainer. And if anyone is deluded into thinking that the majority of people who use computers have brains, well, think again.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Yeah, Linux-tan is much better. :D
(http://makochan.mag.attis.at/OS-TAN/linux-tan.jpg)
What the ****? That's one messed up OS-tan. It scares me. It's like whoever drew it just decided to throw a bunch of random junk onto a loli.
Originally posted by BlackDove
Oh ****.
You opened Shrike's door.
I lubs you too. It's not like I have anything to add to this conversation; I use Win2k because it works for me and it runs all the programs I want it to. Inertia. I have no need to get some other OS.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
That's a bit of a poorly thought out argument. Claiming windows is as stable or more stable as linux is a fairly obvious gap in research.
And you have entirely missed my point. For I have made no such claim. If anything, one would expect Windows, with more advanced and more complicated programming, to be somewhat less unstable for the very reason there is more that can go wrong, because it is not a bare-bones program that requires user input for every action it takes. (And therefore, does not insulate the user from their own screwups to nearly the same extent.)
Is a slighty more unstable OS a worthwhile price to pay for not being troubled by minutae? The answer of the general populace so far seems to be yes.
-
[color=66ff00]:wtf: How else is this supposed to be interpreted?[/color]
Originally posted by ngtm1r
I beg to differ. It is the Linux is not yet as technically advanced.
[color=66ff00]If you intended to make another point then you need to word your arguments better. I see you making two points in that post:
1. Windows is more advanced than linux because it makes things easier for the user.
2. Windows is more stable than linux because it hides everything from the user whereas linux is flakey due to its transparency.
I don't see any other meaning to what you said unless you left out a handful of sarcasm smilies.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Besides. We have the Daemon.
(http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/02aug/uf004509.gif)
-
It's personal preference of course, but Linux doesn't have a GUI that approaches Windows. I've never liked Gnome or KDE; it seems they just took some elements of Explorer but just plastered it all over the text messages that the system outputs.
If Linux is to succeed in the mainstream then there has to be at least some facility of transition from Windows. As Sandwich rightly said, people don't start using Linux without first knowing how to use Windows. It could be a mammoth task, but a distribution that actively aided you in altering your user practices from one to the other would go a long way in furthering the open source cause.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
It's personal preference of course, but Linux doesn't have a GUI that approaches Windows. I've never liked Gnome or KDE; it seems they just took some elements of Explorer but just plastered it all over the text messages that the system outputs.
If Linux is to succeed in the mainstream then there has to be at least some facility of transition from Windows. As Sandwich rightly said, people don't start using Linux without first knowing how to use Windows. It could be a mammoth task, but a distribution that actively aided you in altering your user practices from one to the other would go a long way in furthering the open source cause.
[color=66ff00]I think the big push has always been to install KDE with as many desktop distro's as is possible given its similarity to the windows GUI.
For my part I consider linux to have a far superior GUI but that's down to my ability to tweak and adjust it to suit.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Now I realize that the comparison between a mere browser and the software that runs your entire system is a bit unfair, but the point still stands. Firefox succeded because it's simple, a no-brainer.
Web browsers are simple, though. It's simply an interface using a protocol. All the configuration is handled by the OS and the protocol is a standard. There is nothing to be done. The environment in which the browser runs is abstracted away from all the little differences that the OS has to deal with.
So the comparison isn't unfair; it's totally invalid.
An OS needs to know about the hardware it runs on. It can't get all that information from the hardware itself. It needs user assistance. Even Windows requires you to tell it what hardware you have if it can't find a match in its database (and the drivers it comes with usually take up half the CD).
Finally, the reason Linux sometimes needs help to get as far as the GUI is that it, like UNIX, was originally a shell-mode OS. The GUI was stuck on afterwards and is just another program. After Windows 3.11, the GUI pretty much became the Windows OS.
Yes, I know Win2K and WinXP operate in a similar way to UNIX and X, with client and server GUI components, but the philosophy is still the same: the GUI is a central part of the Windows OS.
Not so for Linux. It is still fundamentally a shell OS. X relies on a lot of drivers being operational before it can even load, and because of the structure of the OS's abstraction layer autoconfiguration is difficult.
That abstraction layer is geared towards a shell OS and always has been.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I hate to tell you guys, but all you "Check out this distro!" peeps are just reinforcing my point, as BD hinted at:
My point, once again, is this: I (and this "I" stands for many, many people who would like to switch) don't want to choose. I don't want to decide between the vast number of distros, researching each one's featureset, compatability, etc etc.
So, what exactly do you propose us Linux users do about this? We don't actually care if you like choosing a distro or not; it works fine for us. A "magical" merge of all distros is not only impossible, but undesirable.
The people using Linux like choice. Just on this forum we've got people using Ubuntu (WMC, Joey21), Debian (me), Gentoo (Maeg), Fedora (Kazan), etc. It's not just about preference either. A monoculture of OSs and even distros is not healthy for security or stability. All distros have varying degrees of stability. For example, Debian's stable branch is rock stable. It's also using outdated software by some standards. That's why people are using its testing branch or even move to Ubuntu. Same goes for security. Debian's security team makes the stable branch very secure, but not so much for the unstable branch. The difference is even greater in distros. Gentoo typically has the newest packages in quickly, but generally they are not as stable as Debian's packages.
You mentioned one or two distros getting in the lead. How do you expect this to happen? What, all distros aside from, say, Red Hat and Mandriva just call it quits? Or maybe you propose we drop the successful open source model and suddenly license Red Hat specific software under a proprietary license? Because as long as Red Hat packages GPL software or writes software using GPL libraries, the community will have the source code and will be able to use it in their own packages.
There's also no possibility of a "Linux" distribution either. Linux is trademarked and will be enforced by Linus to be used only for the kernel. So no distro can be the official Linux. The kernel is distro neutral and the kernel devs, at least, will never approve an official Linux distro using that name.
So your complaining won't get you anywhere. If it's really so big an issue that you can't ever touch Linux, that's too bad. It's obviously not the right OS for you.
Now, why's that so? Both are open-source, both have masses of computer geeks adding, tweaking, and ootimizing things... why is Firefox such a big success, while Linux is - for most people, people like me - an utter failure?
I'll tell you why. When I install Firefox on some non-computer person's computer, it just works. There's no choice involved... that only comes if the person chooses to do so.
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. There are plenty of alternative browsers for any platform that are choices. On Windows there is Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, K-meleon and others. On Linux there is Galeon, Epiphany, Konquerer, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, etc. That's quite a few options and I would hesitate to say "There's no choice involved".
It's true that there is only one Mozilla Firefox, but that's like saying there's only one Debian.
Oh, and by the way... you can expect Linux to "just work" 100% of the time when all computers run the same hardware. Or perhaps when all hardware companies release the specifications for their product. Did you know ATI's own drivers don't support all the ATI card features on Linux? Go ***** at them if you need someone to ***** at.
As a final note I'll add an anecdote: When I installed Debian 3.1a in late July (over Gentoo), the installer autodetected all of my hardware. My DVD/CD drives were all set up, my SCSI controller was detected, my SCSI HD and CDRW drive were detected, my sound card was correctly set up, etc. It definitely "just worked" for me. *shrug*
My setup is like this:
PIII 800mhz
Intel 815 based Dell motherboard
C-media 8738 sound card
3Com 905C-TX ethernet card
Adaptec AHA-7850 SCSI controller
ATI Radeon R200 QM (9100) <-- Though I didn't do an automatic install for X11 because I'd rather set it up by hand.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
I lubs you too. It's not like I have anything to add to this conversation; I use Win2k because it works for me and it runs all the programs I want it to. Inertia. I have no need to get some other OS.
Oh thank god, I thought you were about to release the images of doom, such as the FireFox koneko-chan.
Actually, I was hoping for it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
My point, once again, is this: I (and this "I" stands for many, many people who would like to switch) don't want to choose. I don't want to decide between the vast number of distros, researching each one's featureset, compatability, etc etc.
I must confess myself confused. If you dont' want to make a choice, why CHOOSE to switch to an OS that's about CHOICE?
You're telling me that you want to switch from your bicycle to a car, but you just want the car to go. You don't want to look into maybe a coupe vs. a roudster vs. a sedan. So uh, you've already got what you need. It just works. Why switch?
From my point of view, if you're CHOOSING to switch, you accept the responsibility to make a CHOICE of what you switch to.
Now, this last point is going to sound arrogant and elitist and I apologize in advance. I'm sorry I can't say this in a better way.
If you can't be bothered to become informed about the distros, about why one would pick any of them, I just can't get believe for a moment that you're the sort of person we (that's the collective of all sysadmins everywhere) want someone like you running Linux, BSD, or whatever. You're immediately falling into the sort of thinking that makes Windows one of the worst things ever attached to the collective internetwork of systems we call the Internet.
-
[color=66ff00]I was thinking that expecting a bunch of volunteers to hammer out something that suits you, for nothing, is a wee bit blind.
If you really are expecting a custom built linux distro then you'd better be willing to pay for it.
[/color]
-
what the Linux comunity realy needs to do is work on it's recruitment techniques, what they need to do is as a group try to decide wich distro is currently the best all around example of what Linux is capable of, the best generalist distro, and then they need to focus on that one distro for just a little while then they need to use that distro as the 'newb' distro focusing all there basic tutorials on it and makeing it the default starters dist, and the linux comunity needs to agree upon this. then once someone has a firm grasp upon the basics of linux they can start to make some choices, but if you have no idea what your doing, it's very hard to make desisions on something you are totaly inexperienced upon, it's like sending my grandma out to buy a new pc, or a three year old out to buy a new car, if you don't have any experience you can't compare and contrast the diferent opptions.
-
Exactly, that's why you research--precisely what Sandwich doesn't want to do.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Exactly, that's why you research--precisely what Sandwich doesn't want to do.
I believe Bobboau's point is that the Linux community needs to write up and organize information to help people get started with Linux. How many times are there posts on here about people who have no clue about how to go about installing fs2_open? With Linux, it's like that except more confusing.
Sandwich: Go ahead and try Ubuntu. It only takes a single CD to install, and while it's not perfect, the stuff at http://www.ubuntuguide.org will help you get the more popular apps working that aren't installed by default. (There's also an AMD64 guide, as some software still doesn't support 64-bit computing...however it's possible to set up a 32-bit environment to run such programs. That's how I run Flash.)
Updates are also very easy. A little icon will pop up in the upper right (Well, for me) and usually I just have to type in my password, and tell it to install the upgrades. One reboot later and they're all working.
I used to like Yoper (Specifically, version 2.1). It's minimalist and the install was extremely streamlined. However the 2.2 beta really put me off, as 2.1 didn't have drivers for my GF6600GT, none of the workarounds worked, and 2.2 seemed to be going in the direction of more and more complexity. :doubt:
-
So people like Sandwich shouldn't use Linux then. Let them use Windows or BSD. As I already pointed out, BSD is remarkably like windows: the basic system is the same across all the distributions, with only changes made for various tasks--JUST LIKE WINDOWS.
-
:sigh:
It took me something like three or four stabs at Linux over the space of five years or more before I got a system working well enough for me to do most of what I wanted. Even now, I can't do a number of things with Ubuntu - the #1 distro on distrowatch.com - that I could've done with Windows 2000.
God knows how many hours or even days I've spent simply looking stuff up or asking questions because it wasn't documented in an easy-to-see location. Hell, when I tried Gentoo, I was stalled for hours with a seemingly unsolvable problem during install, until I found a thread on the Gentoo forums with a somewhat similar problem. What annoyed me to no end was that the people talked about it as if it was something that was common knowledge. Yet no one had thought to put it in the install guide.
I have stopped recommending Linux as an alternative OS, except as a last resort, because so many things are poorly documented or extremely difficult to simply get working. 99% of the people I know IRL don't want to spend as much time as I'm willing to to simply get things working.
Like Sandwich, I'd like to totally switch over to Linux because I support the idea of OSS, and I dislike XP/Vista and know that 2000 won't be supported by programs and hardware manufacturers forever. But if I hadn't had so much time to spend 'researching' to install new software or copy files or get my sound card working, I could never have gotten Linux working to even the not-quite-functional point that it's at now.
That's the problem with Linux, not that people need to research more.
-
I have never recommended Linux as an altOS. Its insane. I recommend FreeBSD because... well there's the GUIDE. Then there's FreshPorts. And there's the GUIDE. And then there's FreeBSD Diary. And the GUIDE. And the crazy thing: most of the things the average user wants to do? Its in the guide.
Of course, you have to be willing to learn to switch over. If you're just doing it because you want to show support or whatever, well, whatever. There's college lesbians too. Most of them are straight back home, and will be after they get out of college.
Me, I recommend staying with Windows unless you've got a damned good reason to switch to *nix.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
God knows how many hours or even days I've spent simply looking stuff up or asking questions because it wasn't documented in an easy-to-see location. Hell, when I tried Gentoo, I was stalled for hours with a seemingly unsolvable problem during install, until I found a thread on the Gentoo forums with a somewhat similar problem. What annoyed me to no end was that the people talked about it as if it was something that was common knowledge. Yet no one had thought to put it in the install guide.
Worse anecdote ever.
Gentoo is one of the most infamous distros for being hard to set up and use. It should be glaringly obvious that it's not meant for a newbie. How did the part in the install book about mandatory kernel compilation not tip you off? A tiny bit of research should have made you avoid Gentoo.
From what I can tell, the only distro you have tried that was touted as "user-friendly" has been Ubuntu. You could have tried something like SUSE or Mandriva. Both are listed in the top 5 on Distrowatch. It's puzzling why you chose the distros you did if you want something simple.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
So, what exactly do you propose us Linux users do about this? We don't actually care if you like choosing a distro or not; it works fine for us. A "magical" merge of all distros is not only impossible, but undesirable.
The people using Linux like choice. Just on this forum we've got people using Ubuntu (WMC, Joey21), Debian (me), Gentoo (Maeg), Fedora (Kazan), etc. It's not just about preference either. A monoculture of OSs and even distros is not healthy for security or stability. All distros have varying degrees of stability. For example, Debian's stable branch is rock stable. It's also using outdated software by some standards. That's why people are using its testing branch or even move to Ubuntu. Same goes for security. Debian's security team makes the stable branch very secure, but not so much for the unstable branch. The difference is even greater in distros. Gentoo typically has the newest packages in quickly, but generally they are not as stable as Debian's packages.
You mentioned one or two distros getting in the lead. How do you expect this to happen? What, all distros aside from, say, Red Hat and Mandriva just call it quits? Or maybe you propose we drop the successful open source model and suddenly license Red Hat specific software under a proprietary license? Because as long as Red Hat packages GPL software or writes software using GPL libraries, the community will have the source code and will be able to use it in their own packages.
There's also no possibility of a "Linux" distribution either. Linux is trademarked and will be enforced by Linus to be used only for the kernel. So no distro can be the official Linux. The kernel is distro neutral and the kernel devs, at least, will never approve an official Linux distro using that name.
So your complaining won't get you anywhere. If it's really so big an issue that you can't ever touch Linux, that's too bad. It's obviously not the right OS for you.
You still manage to utterly miss my point. :) I am not talking from the position of someone who wants to "tinker". If I wanted to tinker, I'd have downloaded various Linux distros ages ago (as a side note, I have Red Hat, Mandrake, Knoppix, and I think one other distro downloaded, ISO's burnt and ready to install - I just never could take the leap). Linux is PERFECT for people like who I USED to be - someone with time to spend tinkering, learning a new OS, etc. I'd be interested to see the ages at which people try out Linux for the first time. I'd bet it's 80% people who are in school/college.
Anyway, the point - and PLEASE read it this time - is that if people ever want Linux to achieve widespread acceptance, to be installed on every other Tom, Dick, and Harry's computers, then there needs to be a central focus. For those of you who already use Linux, it's obviously great (or good enough). You're not the point. Mr. Joe Schmo IS the point.
If you want Linux to remain a strictly "geek" OS, with virtually no adoption among the widespread computer user base, then by all means, go right ahead the way you've been going. Distro yourselves out. :)
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. There are plenty of alternative browsers for any platform that are choices. On Windows there is Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, K-meleon and others. On Linux there is Galeon, Epiphany, Konquerer, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, etc. That's quite a few options and I would hesitate to say "There's no choice involved".
It's true that there is only one Mozilla Firefox, but that's like saying there's only one Debian.
Oh please. K-Meleon for Windows? Next to nobody's ever heard of that - I haven't. It's not a choice anymore than buying the olive oil from the little old Bedoiun lady who comes by our house every 3 weeks to sell us stuff and clean the house is a "choice" for you. On Windows, there are 3 choices, period. IE, Gecko browsers, and Opera. Linux may very well be quite another story, but people using LInux like such things.
Originally posted by Bobboau
what the Linux comunity realy needs to do is work on it's recruitment techniques, what they need to do is as a group try to decide wich distro is currently the best all around example of what Linux is capable of, the best generalist distro, and then they need to focus on that one distro for just a little while then they need to use that distro as the 'newb' distro focusing all there basic tutorials on it and makeing it the default starters dist, and the linux comunity needs to agree upon this. then once someone has a firm grasp upon the basics of linux they can start to make some choices, but if you have no idea what your doing, it's very hard to make desisions on something you are totaly inexperienced upon, it's like sending my grandma out to buy a new pc, or a three year old out to buy a new car, if you don't have any experience you can't compare and contrast the diferent opptions.
You know, that'd work wonders. I'd bet that if something like that was done, the adaption rate of Linux would climb noticably, and Linux users would realize why having a central focus for newbs is a good thing.
Originally posted by mikhael
Exactly, that's why you research--precisely what Sandwich doesn't want to do.
I don't have time. Neither do most of today's workforce. And it's THOSE people I am posting on behalf of. Not the people who DO have time to do a ton of reasearch, but those who don't - i.e. the majority of computer users above the age of, say, 21? 25? Whatever age people generally finish college and get a steady job is.
Originally posted by mikhael
I have never recommended Linux as an altOS. Its insane. I recommend FreeBSD because... well there's the GUIDE. Then there's FreshPorts. And there's the GUIDE. And then there's FreeBSD Diary. And the GUIDE. And the crazy thing: most of the things the average user wants to do? Its in the guide.
Of course, you have to be willing to learn to switch over. If you're just doing it because you want to show support or whatever, well, whatever. There's college lesbians too. Most of them are straight back home, and will be after they get out of college.
Me, I recommend staying with Windows unless you've got a damned good reason to switch to *nix.
The only OSes one heards about in the media is Wondows, OSX, and Linux. There's reports of the Massechutes (sp's all blown to hell, whatev) governmental ofices switching en masse to Linux. Not to Red Hat, not to Gentoo, not to Madrake (Mandriva? :wtf: ), but to LINUX. THAT's what people like me would like to be able to do - switch to LINUX. Obviously is this case they're switching to a certain distro, but it doesn't sound like that from the reports.
ANYway, I think part of my problem with switching is that I'd be expected at some point to have tech help-esque knowledge about it, which I simply don't have the time for. Ironic.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Anyway, the point - and PLEASE read it this time - is that if people ever want Linux to achieve widespread acceptance, to be installed on every other Tom, Dick, and Harry's computers, then there needs to be a central focus. For those of you who already use Linux, it's obviously great (or good enough). You're not the point. Mr. Joe Schmo IS the point.
If you want Linux to remain a strictly "geek" OS, with virtually no adoption among the widespread computer user base, then by all means, go right ahead the way you've been going. Distro yourselves out. :)
Well, see, that's the problem. Clearly people making Linux distros don't care if Joe Schmo is confused by the mass of distros. Even if they did, what could they do about it? Nothing.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't affect me what OS you use. Especially now that Free software is available for Windows that will avoid format lockin (e.g. Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.) it's not a big concern for me.
My problem is that you don't actually have a solution for this problem you're complaining about. You don't have the "so what?" part of your argument. What am I supposed to do about this?
The only OSes one heards about in the media is Wondows, OSX, and Linux. There's reports of the Massechutes (sp's all blown to hell, whatev) governmental ofices switching en masse to Linux. Not to Red Hat, not to Gentoo, not to Madrake (Mandriva? :wtf: ), but to LINUX. THAT's what people like me would like to be able to do - switch to LINUX. Obviously is this case they're switching to a certain distro, but it doesn't sound like that from the reports.
Government offices and home users have nothing alike. Their offices get professional IT staff to come by and smoothly go from Windows to Linux. The workers are expected to adapt, whether they like it or not, because they work there. Plus they don't do any configuring or administering themselves, they have IT staff.
If your Joe Schmo's want to hire an IT staff I'm sure they could switch to LINUX too. :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Worse anecdote ever.
Gentoo is one of the most infamous distros for being hard to set up and use. It should be glaringly obvious that it's not meant for a newbie. How did the part in the install book about mandatory kernel compilation not tip you off? A tiny bit of research should have made you avoid Gentoo.
From what I can tell, the only distro you have tried that was touted as "user-friendly" has been Ubuntu. You could have tried something like SUSE or Mandriva. Both are listed in the top 5 on Distrowatch. It's puzzling why you chose the distros you did if you want something simple.
What appealed to me was the whole customizability thing. And I'd already recompiled myself a kernel - under Yoper - several times, so that didn't scare me off.
The problem was a USE flags conflict that wasn't listed in the documentation. I very carefully went through and figured out the USE flags I wanted to use. But in the end, I was forced to use double the number due to dependencies and spent a lot of time tracking down the errant USE flag dependency that wasn't listed. :doubt:
In the end, after a lot of tweaking, I got it to boot up helluva fast, but the unwieldyness of the config files and, actually, the encouragement to use external programs to do things rather than simply doing it manually drove me off.
A Linux distro where I could choose exactly what I wanted would be excellent, but the closest I've seen is LFS. :sigh: :nervous:
I actually thought Yoper 2.1 was a very user-friendly, minimalist distro, even when you poked a little deeper to look at the startup config files. The hardest thing to do was partitioning in the installer, and after that you had pretty much everything you'd want already installed (Or in the case of OpenOffice, easily configured)
-
My personal favourite distro is Debian, but that's probably because it's the first one I used as a tool rather than a toy.
The first Linux I installed was Red Hat. NEVER. AGAIN. It seems to use scripts for configuring everything, right down to the startup sequence.
Debian simply has a set of directories with symlinks in them. Far easier to modify programmatically.
Thing is, Debian isn't particularly happy with Via Velocity onboard LAN adapters. Nor is the 2.4.x kernel, which is what the network installer uses. So my main system has a Slackware partition and Debian remains my server OS.
One of these days (after the upcoming upgrade) I'll have another shot at getting Debian working on this machine. Hopefully nForce 4 has better Linux support.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
In the end, after a lot of tweaking, I got it to boot up helluva fast, but the unwieldyness of the config files and, actually, the encouragement to use external programs to do things rather than simply doing it manually drove me off.
A Linux distro where I could choose exactly what I wanted would be excellent, but the closest I've seen is LFS. :sigh: :nervous:
You know, you might want to try Debian some time. I don't know if it's much different from Ubuntu, but it has an easy installation and you still have a lot of flexbility for configuration. You've probably already seen how useful apt-get is in Ubuntu, but the really nice part of it is how you can add more repositories to your source list to install any software missing in the main Debian respositories. On this box I have a mix of testing and unstable branch packages, as well as a bunch of experimental audio packages (I needed APE support). I suppose you can do all that with Ubuntu too, though I don't know how well its packages play with other repositories.
You could also try Slackware. That's about as minimalistic and flexible as it gets.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
My problem is that you don't actually have a solution for this problem you're complaining about. You don't have the "so what?" part of your argument. What am I supposed to do about this?
How often do people post on HLP about problems they're having with something or another when they have the solution? :wtf:
Anyway, I was sort of probing to see if there was some main distro I had missed hearing about, but I guess not. I was also wondering how many other non-Linux people agreed with my assesment. Apparently, nearly everyone. :p
-
I'm not a Linux user, though I have dabbled in it. I was quite impressed by what I saw, and feel there is no problem with the massive set of distros. Just go to the Wikipedia or something and read up on them before you think of installing them. My only problem is I should checked my hardware better before installing it, as my sound card was unsupported, even though they apparently fixed it now. I probably won't install it again for a while though, as I just got my partitions set up properly again.
-
I hate to be a *nix basher, I really do, but as far as I'm concerned Linux should stay a geek os. Why? Because it's bad enough trying to compile Flash/Director projectors for Windows & Mac (which in Director's case involves forking out another $1000), but to start making them compatible and auto-runnable with Linux distros would be chaos. Clients don't want to hear: "We have to cut back on content to make the disc compatible with 3^n platforms". They want to hear: "We can give you the same content on both PC and Mac, on the one disc, and everyone can use it."
My nightmare scenario? Home shoppers running Red Hat on their desktop. Women trying to view a client's dress catalogue CD on a *nix box and having nothing happen.
The only reason we're so advanced in terms of home computing today is thanks to the standardisation that has pervaded both the PC and Mac world. The minute that ends, the e-marketing bubble is going to shrink unimaginably fast.
Linux for servers : :yes:
Linux for software developers: :yes:
Linux for home users? : **** right off.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
Thing is, Debian isn't particularly happy with Via Velocity onboard LAN adapters. Nor is the 2.4.x kernel, which is what the network installer uses.
2.4 is the default, but 2.6 is included (type 'linux26' to the installer prompt) .
-
Yup, tried that. The driver provided for 2.6.x segfaults when loaded.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I was also wondering how many other non-Linux people agreed with my assesment. Apparently, nearly everyone. :p
[color=66ff00]That's a bit of a moot point. Non-Linux users that agree with you are either unable or unwilling to put the work in to learn how to use a distro.
I could wax-lyrical about how Citroens are crap but it wouldn't be a well founded argument as I only know the most peripheral details about them and I'd be going on what I heard from other possibly un-informed people.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]That's a bit of a moot point. Non-Linux users that agree with you are either unable or unwilling to put the work in to learn how to use a distro.[/color]
...Which is once again precisely my point. Understand, I'm not Linux-bashing. I'd be using Linux - probably multiple distros simultaneously, knowing me - if I had the time to learn. I just don't. Anyway, my only point is that for Linux to ever have a chance to achieve mainstream acceptance, similarly to what Firefox has accomplished, it will need to be concentrated and focused around one (or a select few) distros, with plain differences, clear-cut lines, like this: "ABCLinux is for running servers and other mission-critical processes, XYZnix (Lindows, even) is for people making the switch from Windows who just want to have a different OS, without having to relearn everything. And finally, Quinux is for corporate deployment, blending reasonable ease-of-use with remote management features."
-
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with taking the plunge into Linux were it not for some compatiblity concerns with things like Lightwave etc, as well as, though I may be out of date here, everytime I read a document on how to setup or configure Linux every single word turns into 'Banana' after about 15 mins.
-
:wtf:
-
Trans :
The last time I saw a Linux setup document, it was almost pure, techno-babble, and after reading too much techno-babble, I just want to hit the screen at the pretentiousness of the writer ;)
-
Um, Sandwich, there is no such thing as a "main Linux distribution". You're suffering from a misunderstanding fostered by the media you referenced. Its really not helped by the number of people (myself included) that further the same misunderstanding on a daily basis.
Linux is not an OS. Its a kernel. Period. Its not even the core of a fully fledged OS, the way BSD 'sys' is. Its the the thing that sits at the absolute center of the OS and is completely useless by itself.
You want a Linux based distribution, run by some ruling body, be it a corporation, or whatever. Great. There's companies out there for people like you. Go buy SuSE, RedHat or Mandriva. They come with user support and a manual and tech support forums and the whole nine yards. If that's still too many choices, flip a two coins (since you need two coins to make three choices).
It just seems to me that your problem here is that you're misled by the media and not willing to get educated. Your complaint is flawed. OSes are like cars: there's lots of them out there and they all do basically the same thing in generally the same way. You can pick one and learn its idiosyncrasies (my Thunderbird is very different to my Nissa SEV6 and they're both different from my Scorpio and XR4Ti). Its just not valid to complain that there's not one body out there declaring the 24 valve, 6 cylinder, all wheel drive, all wheel steering, independent suspension, four door, manual shift vehicle to be THE ONE TRUE CAR.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with taking the plunge into Linux were it not for some compatiblity concerns with things like Lightwave etc, as well as, though I may be out of date here, everytime I read a document on how to setup or configure Linux every single word turns into 'Banana' after about 15 mins.
:lol:
Originally posted by mikhael
there's not one body out there declaring the 24 valve, 6 cylinder, all wheel drive, all wheel steering, independent suspension, four door, manual shift vehicle to be THE ONE TRUE CAR.
There is, it's called Windows, and it's rusting, so we need another car that's exactly the same, only rust free.
-
Now, now. Don't turn this into a MS-bashing thing.
-
Funnily enough, Vista isn't coming off as quite as retarded with the revelations being put out at PDC. Many of the things are still stupid, but out of the 7, at least 2 or 3 should be competent (Pro, Enterprise, and possibly Home Premium).
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
How often do people post on HLP about problems they're having with something or another when they have the solution? :wtf:
You said "you 'Check out this distro!' peeps are just reinforcing my point", but what else can we tell you? That's the only help that Linux users can give, because there's no "one" distro and never will be. That's what I meant.
Anyway, my only point is that for Linux to ever have a chance to achieve mainstream acceptance, similarly to what Firefox has accomplished
You're comparing two very different things here. Nobody bothers forking Firefox because a browser only does one specific thing and Firefox does it reasonably well. The protocol it uses is well-documented and standardized. That's a totally different situation from a distro.
If I had the time to learn.
Installations for distros like Mandriva, Fedora, and SuSE are all point and click. There's nothing much to learn there. Using a desktop like Gnome is simple. Any of those come with package management programs to automagically install software. Gnome (and/or the distro) comes with optional system administration tools, so you can manage everything through dialogs and menus.
Or do you mean you don't have the time to learn which distro to use? Maybe you should try out a livecd version of distros? Mandriva has a livecd version of their distro as does SuSE. A livecd lets you evaluate the distro with very little time or effort.
Originally posted by Flipside
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with taking the plunge into Linux were it not for some compatiblity concerns with things like Lightwave etc,
Softimage XSI and Maya are available for Linux. I don't know if those'd do you any good, but I thought I'd mention it.
-
Ubuntu does as well. In retrospect, I should have tried that first.
-
I'm plotting to give SuSe a shot. I'm waiting to see what happens with Version 10.0. From what I understand, it should be even better for people than before.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Any of those come with package management programs to automagically install software. Gnome (and/or the distro) comes with optional system administration tools, so you can manage everything through dialogs and menus.
Easy to use any of those package management softwares. However, things get usually very difficult when you would need to install something that is not in the distro's package repositories. In Windows, all software installations are handled by graphical installer these days, mostly all you need to do is to click next few times and then finish. But with linux you're lucky if software developers have even pre-compiled binaries available for your distro.
-
I never have a problem finding packages. I use Debian which allows the user to specify what repositories to install programs from in a source list. So I often add a third party repository if I really need some software and don't want to compile it. This box currently has experimental audio software (for APE support and such) from an unofficial repository. It'e easy to find such repositories on, say, http://www.apt-get.org
Many applications supply debs or rpms too, which can be installed "point and click". Just open your file manager, double click and type in your password. I don't think that's very hard.
-
I just installed Windows 2000/Kubuntu today.
Windows:
Idiotic thing wouldn't recgonzie the rest of the partitions, and forced me to install it on the first primary one. (I have a primary, then a bunch of logical). Fortunately, this made sense given my setup.
Once I got past the hassle caused by Microsoft half-assing the section of the installer that handles adding drivers for things like my SATA drive, and the above error, install went pretty smoothly.
To be fair, though, I should mention that I was only able to get to this point because I slipstreamed service pack 4 onto a Windows 2000 install CD. Without it, the installer screen for custom driver disks crashes no matter what. Way to go, Microsoft. :doubt:
Kubuntu64 Linux:
Install seemed to go fine. Then I discovered that the system would only half-install. After running fsck, and wrecking the partition to the point that it was no longer bootable, I decided to try a new filesystem and reinstall. But GRUB didn't support that one, so I tried JFS. That seemed to work, but then I started getting the same error as before.
So I played on a hunch and quit out of the virtually-useless aptitutde. It has a nice little user-friendly error that tells you exactly what happened in easily understandable terms, and then apparently expects you to know and install each one of the packages individually yourself. :wtf:
I then removed my CD from the apt sources list, removed the corrupt .deb file in the apt cache, and forced it to download the package in question from the server. After that everything worked well; my soundcard even works out of the box, once I'd unmuted it. The GUI mixer is actually useful, too.
Kaffeine still crashes, and I have yet to get DVD players working.
READ THIS PART - RARE COMPLIMENT FOR LINUX
Once I'd gotten the core system working, all I had to do to get Firefox and Thunderbird working was right-click them in 'kynaptic' and then click 'install'. Then commit the changes.
But because I'd used my old home partition as well, both programs were setup exactly as I'd had them before - no hassle, no fuss, no need to export anything from some registry.
-
[color=66ff00]What filesystem did you try out of interest? Reiser?
[/color]
-
I currently have Win XP and Fedora Core 3 on the laptop and I'm currently trying to decide wether I should give Gentoo (A64) another go (pre-compiled route, as far as possible) or go with Ubuntu on my main comp.
Decisions, decisions...
/ Goes back to "debugging" BIND
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]What filesystem did you try out of interest? Reiser?
[/color]
First ext3, then XFS, then settled on JFS. I've had severe reliability problems with reiser in the past because the computer got shut off, and I've actually always wanted to try XFS anyway because it sounded the best in some research I did ~a year or two ago.
-
ok, the solution to the newb problem, as I have said, is for the specalised nature of Linux to be exploited in an avenue that it seems it currently isn't. the solution is not for there to be one linux, but for there to be one newb linux, a distro bult from the ground up to get people familurized with the linux basics, get them comfortable with the way things work, extreemly easy to install, by default selecting all the little details for you allowing you to go back and change them later if you want, or haveing an advanced option in the instalation. this distro would need to have maximal compatability ad the nicest looking interface (by default), and everyone in the linux comunity would need to send everyone to this newb disrto when they are starting out.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, the solution to the newb problem, as I have said, is for the specalised nature of Linux to be exploited in an avenue that it seems it currently isn't. the solution is not for there to be one linux, but for there to be one newb linux, a distro bult from the ground up to get people familurized with the linux basics, get them comfortable with the way things work, extreemly easy to install, by default selecting all the little details for you allowing you to go back and change them later if you want, or haveing an advanced option in the instalation. this distro would need to have maximal compatability ad the nicest looking interface (by default), and everyone in the linux comunity would need to send everyone to this newb disrto when they are starting out.
[color=66ff00]Knoppix. :)
[/color]
-
Huh, hard to understand you people :)
I have been using ONLY Linux (that is, I do have a Windows flavour arround because my gf needs to do some work on it or because I need to try some Win32 only stuff but 99% of the time I work on a computer happens on Linux) for the last 5 years now and can't complain about anything. Actually I can't stand working on Windows for more than a couple of minutes (out of a game that is) because of the interface limitations, strange responsiveness to my actions (random response times) and often crashes (yes, don't know why, could be just my hardware but even with XP I still get crashes on Windows).
I program on Linux (C/C++), IRC, Web, listen to music, watch movies, reencode movies/music when needed, download stuff, play games (yeah, fs2_open on Linux/AMD64 rules :)), write CD/DVDs and upload the Plextor DVD writer hardware on updates, etc.. Very rarely I step on needs not possible to be done on my Linux system (like the motherboard flash updating utility, now that I think of it, can't say I searched for how to do this on Linux tho).
Since I started to "play" with Linux (about 9 years ago at school) I am more of more of an oppinion that (for someone as me, a developer more than a user of computers) Linux and the whole Open Source Community is an powerful catalizer for the IT knowledge. While with the current distros this might not be still true but before you had to learn a lot of stuff to get to a point where you could use them on an acceptable level. This learning proved extremely important for me as it opened my eyes to things I never imagined that exist out there (in the IT universe), concepts and ideas from various IT fields, terms and knowledge.
Just take for example that for the last 4 years I focused on network programming by working on mostly network programming open source projects, then to some gaming network programming (the gaming server part), and now more and more into the actual client game programming (including the math, 3d terms and concepts) with fs2_open. Open source allows me to move from one field to another with just my time/ambition and IQ as the limits :) I used to work (as a job) in networking operations for many years, now I moved to programming, in the future probably I will move to operations back (but on a different level). For me Linux and open source is more than a operating system kernel and a licensing model, it is pure freedom, freedom to learn which is my favourite thing to in life (ok, besides sex :)).
It is this all variaty that makes is so cool, many distributions, many window managers, many audio players, etc. I can understand that for someone that comes from a "do it one way" world this can seem very confusing. I have one advise for them: just chose a popular distribution (that is, one that you have heard of, that is a very good principle to find out about which distribution is popular :)). After getting used to it (modern popular distributions should be pretty easy even for new Linux users) you will find it fun that you can have all those different window managers and in time you will come to appriciate that by just chosing one over another. After a while try another popular distribution, it will be fun to have a lot of stuff different now (well at least, I get bored very easy about the same thing all over again, I like to change in time stuff, to make life fun).
-
well all I'm saying is, you know more about the system, you and the rest of your comunity, I'm thinking the OS comunity at large (and the linux comunity in particular) would benifit if it was a little more accessable, if you just had a basic package so to speak, if you want to know of the distros I know of they would be red hat, mandrake, gentoo, and lindows, there are a few others but off of my head these are the ones I would think of. of those I don't exactly have a full house of easy to get started with distros.
I know from reference that linux is technicaly superior to windows, I would like to try it, I know the linux comunity wishes they could get more people (or at least that windows had less) and I'm telling you, as someone who works on an open source project, the way to get this done is to have a basic setup that will alow people to get a taste of it with minimal effort, once they have something to play with they'll stick around with it and start trying out the options.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the way to get this done is to have a basic setup that will alow people to get a taste of it with minimal effort, once they have something to play with they'll stick around with it and start trying out the options.
Yeah, and it's called a livecd/dvd. :p
A livecd/dvd is an OS on a CD. You boot from the disc and you have a full, working Linux environment with no hassle. Oftentimes you can install directly from the livedisc.
Knoppix (http://www.knoppix.org)
SuSE LiveDVD (http://www.opensuse.org/Mirrors_Released_Version#USA)
-
yes.. four years ago woot.. or three revisions of a distro ago.. w00t again
I can have a machine from parts to having a fully functioning linux install on it in 1 hour tops using Fedora Core 4 - and FC's installer is MUCH MUCH MUCH nicer than any installer microsoft has ever dreamed of. 15 minute install - load up drop to a root console "yum update" and blammo you're done.
If you want to be fancy you configure your machine for the http://www.fedorafaq.org/ yum repositories :D
my dev box at work is a great example
-
Originally posted by Mr. Fury
But with linux you're lucky if software developers have even pre-compiled binaries available for your distro.
Precompiled binaries make me feel all dirty. Compile from source for the win.
If at all possible, I avoid binaries entirely. FreeBSD gets installed via CD or FTP, then I build some basic utilities from source, grab the /src tree and do a complete rebuild of the kernel, core and userland.
-
I'm still impressed with my NX working on Kubuntu.
If not for Kaffeine krashing and .mov files not having any sound and the DVD codecs not installing nor the Win32 ones...
*wuv*
-
fedorafaq repositories for Fedora Core are excellent for the ATI and nVidia proprietary drivers - fedorafaq repackages them in a manner that makes them easy to get updates via yum
-
At the moment is use Unix OS from Sun Microsystems, Solaris 9 CDE on my Sparc system and Solaris 10 x86 on my PC both work very good for me no install trouble at all. And so far i like it, and we use Solaris allot at work to test HDD's, System Boards etc with. And to pre-install custom orderd systems.
I use the Sparc Ultra5 station for doing my private/work administration on. And the Windows for Games and Solaris 10 just for fun to fiddle around with the new options/tools it has.
Solaris 10 will have Linux support in it in later versions but so far they havent yet impleted it. But it does seem promissing, although support for linux might be doggy at the start.
-
It shouldn't be, Darkage. Solaris (for all its faults) borrows heavily from the BSD world. BSD has had a rather strong Linux compatibility layer forever.
-
Actually, Jobbs solved pretty much the problem
BSD + nice GUI and ease to use = newbie *nix
Downsides: You have to pay for every update of a certain size and you're subject to Jobb's whims ;)
-
No such thing as a free lunch (unless you're a BOFH exploiting a salesdroid).
If you want an easy-to-use OS that just works [most of the time], choose Mac or Windows.
If you want an OS that does exactly what you tell it to, without relying on the good graces of whoever runs it, choose Linux.
Simple as that.
-
OSX is not BSD. Its a Mach microkernel wrapped in a BSD-ish userland.
Please don't put OSX into our camp, Zarax, thanks.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
OSX is not BSD. Its a Mach microkernel wrapped in a BSD-ish userland.
Please don't put OSX into our camp, Zarax, thanks.
He named an impure OS! Take him to the stake! :D
Whatever you call it, doesn't change what it is.
I happen to like the old good BSD, which is a solid, stable system with almost 30 years of work behind it and without some horrifing things I've seen in many linux distros, like backporting (you should know what backporting is)... BSD was THE open source before linus played with his own creation, only with a more relaxed licensing system...
Anyways, to get back on topic, the linux community is facing an interesting dilemma: it has to face some degree of standardization and process automation before it will be able to be opened to the newbies (are you sure it's a good thing for you?), but on the other side that means sacrificing loads of community pride... Which uber exclusive feature will be left out?
I can hear the hordes of fanboys (btw, please avoid using my nickname near that word, I don't remember myself accusing anyone of zealotry here plus I've always supported my opinions with logical backing) bringing the torches because their little tool being left over...
Anyways, IMHO you will have to wait for:
a) some of the major communities joining forces
b) linus and other major gurus encouraging that
or
c) something to invest a lot of cash and human resources into such a project (atually Chronos, err... IBM is doing it but not for the benefit of the community), but since Santa isnt going to open a software house I fear that the ones investing on such a thing will dare to charge for it, thus becoming a community competitor instead of collaborating with it...
BTW, it's linux that is compatible with BSD (AKA UNIX) and not the contrary. ;)
-
[color=66ff00]Where there to be a simplification of linux it wouldn't have to be all or nothing.
You could simply have stepping stones, beginner distro, intermediate distro, advanced distro...
I still think that the very freedom that linux permits is intrinsically linked to the knowledge required to use it though. Anything else would be a dumbing down and would do so at the expense of the user.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Zarax
He named an impure OS! Take him to the stake! :D
Whatever you call it, doesn't change what it is.
Exactly: its not a BSD, BSD variant, or whatever. If having a BSD userland is all it takes for being a BSD variant, every Windows with sockets support and/or a full TCPIP stack is a BSD variant.
There's more to it than employing the userland. There's a structure, a philosophy of design, etc.
-
How trustworthy is linux kernel's support for reading and writing NTFS partitions these days? I'd really like to dual-boot as to keep WinXP for gaming purposes, but I have one hard drive which I need to have fully usable from both OS'es. FAT32 is prone to errors and is quite inefficient for single 250GB partition, so it is not really an option.
-
It can read reliably, but basically can't write (Only if you save the file with the same space as it originally had.
However, there is an ext3 driver for Windows 2000 (prolly works on XP too). I've found it to be able to read it fairly reliably, I don't think it wrote too well, on Win2k SP4. The biggest problem was that it froze explorer whenever I clicked on one item, or tried to copy one item. Multiple items worked fine though.
-
Can someone explain why NTFS support is such a big problem for Linux anyway?
It's the main reason I haven't tried out a flavour of unix at the moment (All my data is on NTFS drives and I have no intention of going back to FAT just to try out an OS).
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Can someone explain why NTFS support is such a big problem for Linux anyway?
AFAIK it is because sourcecode of NTFS is closed and M$ has not made any of it public. Which is why current NTFS support in other operating systems have been developed by trial and error.
-
That's what I thought it might be. I guess people who make low level tools must be signing licence agreements with MS then.
-
*bump*
http://spaces.msn.com/members/bryanstarbuck/Blog/cns!1psJjwgBAsV-Ph1H_Wpa4AUg!248.entry
Note the quote he includes in point 3 towards the bottom. Kinda reinforces my point, that while the diversity of Linux may be it's greatest strength, it is also its greatest weakness.
-
[color=66ff00]I can understand that you have beef with Linux but can I ask you something; does one person leaving the linux community outweigh the increasing numbers of people using linux?
I just don't think linux is for you.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Note the quote he includes in point 3 towards the bottom. Kinda reinforces my point, that while the diversity of Linux may be it's greatest strength, it is also its greatest weakness.
I'm reminded once again about the car dealership.
That raw diversity in cars just absolutely MUST be their greatest weakness.
-
Speaking of cars...
From Neal Stephenson's In the Beginning was the Commandline (http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html)
The analogy between cars and operating systems is not half bad, and so let me run with it for a moment, as a way of giving an executive summary of our situation today.
Imagine a crossroads where four competing auto dealerships are situated. One of them (Microsoft) is much, much bigger than the others. It started out years ago selling three-speed bicycles (MS-DOS); these were not perfect, but they worked, and when they broke you could easily fix them.
There was a competing bicycle dealership next door (Apple) that one day began selling motorized vehicles--expensive but attractively styled cars with their innards hermetically sealed, so that how they worked was something of a mystery.
The big dealership responded by rushing a moped upgrade kit (the original Windows) onto the market. This was a Rube Goldberg contraption that, when bolted onto a three-speed bicycle, enabled it to keep up, just barely, with Apple-cars. The users had to wear goggles and were always picking bugs out of their teeth while Apple owners sped along in hermetically sealed comfort, sneering out the windows. But the Micro-mopeds were cheap, and easy to fix compared with the Apple-cars, and their market share waxed.
Eventually the big dealership came out with a full-fledged car: a colossal station wagon (Windows 95). It had all the aesthetic appeal of a Soviet worker housing block, it leaked oil and blew gaskets, and it was an enormous success. A little later, they also came out with a hulking off-road vehicle intended for industrial users (Windows NT) which was no more beautiful than the station wagon, and only a little more reliable.
Since then there has been a lot of noise and shouting, but little has changed. The smaller dealership continues to sell sleek Euro-styled sedans and to spend a lot of money on advertising campaigns. They have had GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! signs taped up in their windows for so long that they have gotten all yellow and curly. The big one keeps making bigger and bigger station wagons and ORVs.
On the other side of the road are two competitors that have come along more recently.
One of them (Be, Inc.) is selling fully operational Batmobiles (the BeOS). They are more beautiful and stylish even than the Euro-sedans, better designed, more technologically advanced, and at least as reliable as anything else on the market--and yet cheaper than the others.
With one exception, that is: Linux, which is right next door, and which is not a business at all. It's a bunch of RVs, yurts, tepees, and geodesic domes set up in a field and organized by consensus. The people who live there are making tanks. These are not old-fashioned, cast-iron Soviet tanks; these are more like the M1 tanks of the U.S. Army, made of space-age materials and jammed with sophisticated technology from one end to the other. But they are better than Army tanks. They've been modified in such a way that they never, ever break down, are light and maneuverable enough to use on ordinary streets, and use no more fuel than a subcompact car. These tanks are being cranked out, on the spot, at a terrific pace, and a vast number of them are lined up along the edge of the road with keys in the ignition. Anyone who wants can simply climb into one and drive it away for free.
Customers come to this crossroads in throngs, day and night. Ninety percent of them go straight to the biggest dealership and buy station wagons or off-road vehicles. They do not even look at the other dealerships.
Of the remaining ten percent, most go and buy a sleek Euro-sedan, pausing only to turn up their noses at the philistines going to buy the station wagons and ORVs. If they even notice the people on the opposite side of the road, selling the cheaper, technically superior vehicles, these customers deride them cranks and half-wits.
The Batmobile outlet sells a few vehicles to the occasional car nut who wants a second vehicle to go with his station wagon, but seems to accept, at least for now, that it's a fringe player.
The group giving away the free tanks only stays alive because it is staffed by volunteers, who are lined up at the edge of the street with bullhorns, trying to draw customers' attention to this incredible situation. A typical conversation goes something like this:
Hacker with bullhorn: "Save your money! Accept one of our free tanks! It is invulnerable, and can drive across rocks and swamps at ninety miles an hour while getting a hundred miles to the gallon!"
Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"
Bullhorn: "You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!"
Buyer: "But this dealership has mechanics on staff. If something goes wrong with my station wagon, I can take a day off work, bring it here, and pay them to work on it while I sit in the waiting room for hours, listening to elevator music."
Bullhorn: "But if you accept one of our free tanks we will send volunteers to your house to fix it for free while you sleep!"
Buyer: "Stay away from my house, you freak!"
Bullhorn: "But..."
Buyer: "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
-
To make that analogy more precise, the dozens of volunteer groups are each making a different tank, each with its own quirks, strengths, and weaknesses. All of the tanks being constructed can fire 7.62mm rounds, but their main cannon size varies... 70mm, 90mm, 105mm, and 120mm. The physical sizes of the tanks differ... some are Western tanks, while others are Russian. Some use a Vickers tread system, others use the Christie system. Additionally, learning to drive one tank fully does not grant you equal mastery over any other tank; the size, bulkiness, handling are similar, but the control mechanisms are completely different: some have a single joystick, some have steering wheels, some have dual steering shafts. Some drive-by-wire, others are more manual.
Additionally, aside from the fact that all these volunteer groups are working on a tank, there is little-to-no cooperation between them. Instead of collaborating and making one "supertank" that does everything anyone could ever want, they decided to specialize. Some tanks are fast, some have incredible passability, some are heavily armored... the list goes on.
So when someone comes to this intersection, if they happen to glance at the volunteer tank engineer corner, all the see or hear is dozens of different tanks, in various stages of readiness, and hundreds of bullhorn-abusing people, their amplified voices joined into one cacophony of accoustic mud.
So these people, who merely want something to drive around, look anywhere but the tank corner.
Granted, people coming for a tank will go get a tank. But if the volunteers want others to buy tanks as well, something needs to be done.
-
This is the thread that will never die. You know you will never convince each other, right?
-
*sounds hazzard fanfare from his so-called station wagon*
This is a religion thread, steer away from here if you want to keep your sanity...
-
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
This is the thread that will never die. You know you will never convince each other, right?
Well, duh. What Sandwich wants will never happen because it can't happen. Linus, who is strongly distro neutral, holds the Linux trademark. The Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL and will be forever. There's no way there will ever be the "one Linux distro".
-
One Linux Distro to rule them all...
-
One Linux Distro to find them...
-
And the IBM trademark to enslave them all...
-
You were supposed to say "bind them", not "enslave them all". What kind of nerd are you?
-
I thought Linux was free?
If is IS free, then everyone should stop moaning about it like a bunch of babies...
If it's NOT free, ask for your money back...
-
It is. It's just support that isn't.
EDIT: Let me rephrase that. Enterprise support isn't usually free.
-
linux is only free if your time is worthless...
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
You were supposed to say "bind them", not "enslave them all". What kind of nerd are you?
You haven't seen what software becomes in IBM hands...
"we give linux for free, of course you have to buy our servers and pay $700 for evey machine per month plus our embedded consultant fee"
-
OK, so you are paying for a crap service? or a good service?
There has to be a fundemental way to resolve this - If people charge ME good money for rubbish, then they don't get any more of my business, simple as that.
-
Originally posted by Clave
OK, so you are paying for a crap service? or a good service?
There has to be a fundemental way to resolve this - If people charge ME good money for rubbish, then they don't get any more of my business, simple as that.
Who are you answering to?
-
Grey Wolf really...
But to anyone who buys stuff in general..
-
I have no experience with enterprise technical support, so I can't really say.
Zarax: It's a LotR reference. Hence, "bind them". Also, "enslave them all" doesn't rhyme.
-
Also, LotR is junk.
Well...the movies at least.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
I have no experience with enterprise technical support, so I can't really say.
Zarax: It's a LotR reference. Hence, "bind them". Also, "enslave them all" doesn't rhyme.
I know it's a LOTR reference, I just tried to adapt it to a certain thing... ;)
@Clave: Paid support is when:
a) you don't have time to fixing it alone
b) you don't have the skills to fix it
For most other cases community support will give you enough solutions most of the times, except for stuff like hardware/drivers issues.
-
Originally posted by BlackDove
Also, LotR is junk.
Well...the movies at least.
Way OT here, plus that would be whole different war :D
-
Originally posted by Zarax
And the IBM trademark to enslave them all...
Umm. IBM doesn't produce a Linux distro. Neither does it own the Linux trademark. :)
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Umm. IBM doesn't produce a Linux distro. Neither does it own the Linux trademark. :)
Exactly, they just rips other people's work selling it with their trademark... Unfortunatel IBM is what too many firms chooses...
BTW, I'm not 100% sure they don't have custom (closed?) code on the stuff they ships...
-
IIRC, if you add code to a GPL product, that code also is now covered under the GPL.
-
Well, from a personal point of view, I loathe Linux, but that's just due to it being used on our servers at the office. I will be full of glee when we switch back to Windows...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Exactly, they just rips other people's work selling it with their trademark... Unfortunatel IBM is what too many firms chooses...
Ah, right. Just like how Microsoft "ripped off" the BSD TCP/IP stack? Or how they "ripped off" their FTP utilities? Oh, or just like how Microsoft "rips off" all those developers when they distribute their Services for Unix package?
You obviously don't understand the point of open source licenses. The developers are quite fine and happy with IBM distributing their software. After all, they use the GPL license.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
You haven't seen what software becomes in IBM hands...
"we give linux for free, of course you have to buy our servers and pay $700 for evey machine per month plus our embedded consultant fee"
Except of course that's exactly what Linux on IBM isn't. But hey, why let facts in?
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Ah, right. Just like how Microsoft "ripped off" the BSD TCP/IP stack? Or how they "ripped off" their FTP utilities? Oh, or just like how Microsoft "rips off" all those developers when they distribute their Services for Unix package?
You obviously don't understand the point of open source licenses. The developers are quite fine and happy with IBM distributing their software. After all, that's why it's licensed with the GPL.
Too bad that they pays licenses for the networking components they "ripped off"...
But of course even the devil is good if it's against Mcrosoft... :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
To make that analogy more precise, the dozens of volunteer groups are each making a different tank, each with its own quirks, strengths, and weaknesses. All of the tanks being constructed can fire 7.62mm rounds, but their main cannon size varies... 70mm, 90mm, 105mm, and 120mm. The physical sizes of the tanks differ... some are Western tanks, while others are Russian. Some use a Vickers tread system, others use the Christie system. Additionally, learning to drive one tank fully does not grant you equal mastery over any other tank; the size, bulkiness, handling are similar, but the control mechanisms are completely different: some have a single joystick, some have steering wheels, some have dual steering shafts. Some drive-by-wire, others are more manual.
Additionally, aside from the fact that all these volunteer groups are working on a tank, there is little-to-no cooperation between them. Instead of collaborating and making one "supertank" that does everything anyone could ever want, they decided to specialize. Some tanks are fast, some have incredible passability, some are heavily armored... the list goes on.
So when someone comes to this intersection, if they happen to glance at the volunteer tank engineer corner, all the see or hear is dozens of different tanks, in various stages of readiness, and hundreds of bullhorn-abusing people, their amplified voices joined into one cacophony of accoustic mud.
So these people, who merely want something to drive around, look anywhere but the tank corner.
Granted, people coming for a tank will go get a tank. But if the volunteers want others to buy tanks as well, something needs to be done.
[color=66ff00]I don't think that's a good analogy.
Linux irrespective of which flavour is entirely transparent, you can take any bit you like and use it, as such all of the tanks are the same but the addons are what make them different. Any tank can have a 70mm or 90mm gun depending on the whim of the user. Some distros promote one type of build over others but there's nothing to stop you chopping and changing. It's fair to say that the way the tank is built changes from distro to distro but they're all building a pretty much identical base tank. Ubuntu and Fedora are like buying a pre-built tank with clearly defined options whereas Gentoo, Debian and linux from scratch are akin to buying a kit and building it from the ground up yourself. The thing to remember is that all of the tank parts are available to everyone for the most part so you don't have to settle on just one set of addons.
I can use the package system from debian if I wish or the ports system from gentoo to install programs in any linux build. You can choose any firewall you like, any interface you like.... It's more like asking would you like your M1 with a stereo, furry dice and mats or just the furry dice and mats.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Except of course that's exactly what Linux on IBM isn't. But hey, why let facts in?
Why let facts in when you can deny reality, right mik?
Face it, the linux community is blatantly raped by IBM, but why admit it when you can blame Microsoft?
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Too bad that they pays licenses for the networking components they "ripped off"...
But of course even the devil is good if it's against Mcrosoft... :doubt:
Huh!? No they don't. BSD's TCP/IP stack and BSD ftp tools are all licensed under the BSD license (wow, makes a whole lot of sense eh?). Since when do you pay licensing fees for BSD licensed software?
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Huh!? No they don't. BSD's TCP/IP stack and BSD ftp tools are all licensed under the BSD license (wow, makes a whole lot of sense eh?). Since when do you pay licensing fees for BSD licensed software?
AFAIK MSFT uses SCO's UNIX derivative components for its networking system, and not BSD.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
I know it's a LOTR reference, I just tried to adapt it to a certain thing... ;)
@Clave: Paid support is when:
a) you don't have time to fixing it alone
b) you don't have the skills to fix it
For most other cases community support will give you enough solutions most of the times, except for stuff like hardware/drivers issues.
[color=66ff00]c) you're not actually allowed to fix it thus making you reliant on the support service and taking the power and initiative away from you.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Face it, the linux community is blatantly raped by IBM, but why admit it when you can blame Microsoft?
Yeah. I hate how IBM contributes code to the Linux kernel. Especially how 337 entries in the Kernel 2.6.11 changelog are from IBM employees.
Oh, and I hate how they give Linux more versaility by, say, contributing another journalling filesystem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFS).
Damn IBM. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]c) you're not actually allowed to fix it thus making you reliant on the support service and taking the power and initiative away from you.
[/color]
Only if you want to fiddle with the source code, any oher kind of workaround has no such limitation.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
AFAIK MSFT uses SCO's UNIX derivative components for its networking system, and not BSD.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD):
Microsoft Windows has used BSD-derived code in its implementation of TCP/IP and bundles recompiled versions of BSD's command line networking tools with its current releases.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Only if you want to fiddle with the source code, any oher kind of workaround has no such limitation.
[color=66ff00]Ah, there you see is an important distinction. In a closed source OS you rely on hacks to fix a problem that they're not willing to help you with. In an open source OS the user can actually rectify the problem themselves and can in fact tweak any part of the OS that they don't think is up to scratch.
Money instead of being used to fix problems, can be instead used to create functionality.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Zarax
AFAIK MSFT uses SCO's UNIX derivative components for its networking system, and not BSD.
Well that explains the BSD License and copyright in the Microsoft socket stack. :wtf:
For the lazy, run a strings search on, oh say... ftp.exe. Et voila!:
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
Hey look! The BSD License header. *GASP!*
Do you actually have any touch with reality, or do you live in some happy fantasy land deep within Balmer's colon?
When I sell a client an IBM machine loaded with Linux (SuSE for preference) that client doesn't pay IBM anything except the original material cost of the machine. Where do you get this fruity idea: "we give linux for free, of course you have to buy our servers and pay $700 for evey machine per month plus our embedded consultant fee"
I guess having a consulting arm is bad or something. But its not the only way to get an IBM machine with Linux on it. Hell its not the way most companies go. But again, we're clouding your blue-sky fantasy world with facts.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I don't think that's a good analogy.
Linux irrespective of which flavour is entirely transparent, you can take any bit you like and use it, as such all of the tanks are the same but the addons are what make them different. Any tank can have a 70mm or 90mm gun depending on the whim of the user. Some distros promote one type of build over others but there's nothing to stop you chopping and changing. It's fair to say that the way the tank is built changes from distro to distro but they're all building a pretty much identical base tank. Ubuntu and Fedora are like buying a pre-built tank with clearly defined options whereas Gentoo, Debian and linux from scratch are akin to buying a kit and building it from the ground up yourself. The thing to remember is that all of the tank parts are available to everyone for the most part so you don't have to settle on just one set of addons.
I can use the package system from debian if I wish or the ports system from gentoo to install programs in any linux build. You can choose any firewall you like, any interface you like.... It's more like asking would you like your M1 with a stereo, furry dice and mats or just the furry dice and mats.
[/color]
Fine, you know more about it than I do, for sure. But you all seem to have missed my original point:
While Linux works great for tinkerers and those with time to delve into it, that description does not fit the average Joe Schmoe off the street. Therefore, IF the Linux community makes it a goal to enroach on Microsoft's hold of such computer users, something needs to change. If not, no problemo.
Kapiche?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Fine, you know more about it than I do, for sure. But you all seem to have missed my original point:
While Linux works great for tinkerers and those with time to delve into it, that description does not fit the average Joe Schmoe off the street. Therefore, IF the Linux community makes it a goal to enroach on Microsoft's hold of such computer users, something needs to change. If not, no problemo.
Kapiche?
[color=66ff00]What Linux experience do you have? What distros specifically?
I get the feeling that you've inadvertantly made things difficult for yourself.
[/color]
-
Even if he has, that's not the point. What Sandwich is saying is that Windows owns the market because of the vast legions of newbs out there. Windows is newb friendly: a lobotomised monkey can do the simple tasks most newbs want to do when using Windows, and it takes a certain degree of sophistication to reach the level where one moves past the vener of ease-of-use and discovers the suckiness of Windows. Linux is not nearly as newb friendly: It takes very little time before a Linux user reaches the point where he needs to become more sophisiticated than a lobotomised monkey to do what he needs to do.
In short, if Linux wants to make any real inroads on Windows marketshare, they need to make it lobotomised monkey friendly.
-
I can actually see where Sandwich is coming from (Red Hat ??, Red Hat 6.2, Red Hat 8(?), Yoper Linux, Gentoo Linux, (K)Ubuntu, and a quick test of Symphony OS)
With Linux it's sort of an all-or-nothing affair. You can either accept what's given to you, or you can dig around for absurd amounts of time to change the settings to something more intuitive or useful.
Even at the lower levels you have the same thing...my infamous Gentoo install started minimalistic, and ended up being fatter than Yoper with far less than 1/3 of the programs. There was a lot of source, but there were also a crapload of features I didn't care to have that I had to put in because of dependencies.
To fix that, we're talking LFS.
Help is...sporadic. Occassionally it'll be fast and painless, other times I get the impression that nobody knows any more than me.
In addition the distros seem remarkably frail. Ubuntu seemed pretty good, 'til I tried to install Kubuntu and it failed due to 1 insignificant package. Solution? Delete that package from the cache, and make apt get it from the internet instead. To a beginner user that would've totally stonewalled the installation, even though it was remarkably simple to do.
Really what it feels like most Linux things are lacking in is organization and design. Foobar and Winamp easily outclass anything under Linux, because they do their job and do it well and do it far better than anything else under Linux. I've never had to repeatedly try to recompile a plugin for either; they've worked when I dropped them in the plugins folder. Although they support pretty much all the formats I'd want to play with them.
There's also none of this "flexibility" of being able to choose your backend. They work. Period.
That's pretty much all I'm looking for. Something that works efficiently. But I find myself continually rebooting back to Windows simply because I can play my music on it without hassle, whereas on Linux it'll crash or fail to play on a random basis, then I'll have to spend a half-hour trying to fix it. Sometimes, hell, it isn't even something I did; it just breaks for no apparent reason.
Maybe I'm just using the wrong programs. Maybe there are better ones out there. But I have to ask myself, why are the 'mainstream' ones so frustratingly limited or difficult to use, when on Linux I truly do have a choice between a half-dozen different ones that will do what I want; I just have to choose between the bells and whistles.
Firefox and Thunderbird have shown what intelligent design (pun definitely not intended) and organization can do. Categories are descriptively labelled for what they contain. Important options are up front. And they do what they're meant to do superbly.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
In short, if Linux wants to make any real inroads on Windows marketshare, they need to make it lobotomised monkey friendly.
Not just lobotomized-monkey friendly...time-friendly as well. Good support is great; not needing it in the first place is even better because you can spend more time doing stuff and less time getting to the point where you can do stuff.
-
[color=66ff00]I've never got to the point where Gentoo is more trouble than it's worth, I had to install it about three times initially but I learned a hell of a lot about Linux in the process.
The first distro I ever tried was Fedora on Kazan's recommendation, it was as easy as installing windows and worked pretty much straight away. It was a bit too fat for my liking though so I went with the minimalist Gentoo.
I do admit that I have a tendency to enjoy learning linux so it has perhaps skewed my views, I don't think I'm any smarter than your average person so I don't think that Linux is beyond most of you.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Even if he has, that's not the point. What Sandwich is saying is that Windows owns the market because of the vast legions of newbs out there. Windows is newb friendly: a lobotomised monkey can do the simple tasks most newbs want to do when using Windows, and it takes a certain degree of sophistication to reach the level where one moves past the vener of ease-of-use and discovers the suckiness of Windows. Linux is not nearly as newb friendly: It takes very little time before a Linux user reaches the point where he needs to become more sophisiticated than a lobotomised monkey to do what he needs to do.
In short, if Linux wants to make any real inroads on Windows marketshare, they need to make it lobotomised monkey friendly.
EXACTLY!! *hugs the lobotomized monkeys* ;)
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I do admit that I have a tendency to enjoy learning linux so it has perhaps skewed my views, I don't think I'm any smarter than your average person so I don't think that Linux is beyond most of you.
[/color]
Trust me - the fact that you post regularly on forums (especially using your own customized colour tag) means that you're lightyears ahead of most computer users.
Example: I started the download for the trial version of Panda Antivirus for a person here at work (who I have converted to Firefox) and went back to my office. When it finished, this person came in to my office and told me it was finished, should they click on the "Clean Up" button to scan their computer?
Those of you who don't know, Firefox's download window has a "Clean Up" button that clears the list of the files you've downloaded.
I am positively sure that 99.998% of the people on HLP would not think for a moment that "Clean Up" meant "scan for viruses". But this person did. Why? Because they are not computer-literate. They click on the icon to check email, they use MS Word to write documents, and they use a browser to surf. That's basically it. The computer is a tool, nothing more. How many of us research about a hammer we would use? What kind of wood in the handle made of, how much force can be applied before it breaks, how heavy is the head, and what metal is it composed of, where is the most optimal place to grip the hammer... no, we just use the danged hammer as the tool it is.
Now a carpenter would likely know such things, because knowing the tools of his trade is important. If he can use the hammer a bit more efficiently through knowledge about it, he'll go the extra mile and save himself time and effort in the long run.
But most people just want to smack that nail and move on.
So it is with the general public and computers. They just want to send that email, to write that document, or to check that web site, and move on.
Maeg, I know that you're FAR more computer-savvy than that. ;)
-
[color=66ff00]I guess when you put it like that there's not much arguing. :nod:
As someone once said, a computer is the most complex piece of hardware you're ever likely to have in your home. I do think that Joe public should come to this realisation but they've been sold on this idea that anyone can use a computer with no training.
I guess it's keeping tech support in business though. *shrugs*
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I am positively sure that 99.998% of the people on HLP would not think for a moment that "Clean Up" meant "scan for viruses". But this person did. Why? Because they are not computer-literate.
That's not computer literacy, that's sheer laziness. There's a bloody tooltip on that button, it's not exactly advanced and it's an illustration of the (supposed) point of common interface features like, well, tooltips.
Sorry, I just get annoyed at these people who sit around like idiots rather than press a clearly marked and bloody obvious button. It's almost as bad as buying a game, wondering why it's not working, and then only checking the min. reqs on the box when asked to despite already knowing that they are on the box.
-
[caveman speech]
Singh use linux once.
Singh not sure what it was...
Singh only see 'red hat' and cute penguin
Singh try to install linux to father's computer, think it better than windows....
Linux did not like Singh...linux only show error after error and lot of coding-thingys...
Singh too young at time to know that it was something called 'c'.....
Singh try to remove linux.
But Linux not happy...linux complain....thrash everything....
Father's Computer ended up spoilt....
Singh pay the price...
Singh promised to use Linux no more...Linux was...EVIL!
[/caveman rant]
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That's not computer literacy, that's sheer laziness. There's a bloody tooltip on that button, it's not exactly advanced and it's an illustration of the (supposed) point of common interface features like, well, tooltips.
Sorry, I just get annoyed at these people who sit around like idiots rather than press a clearly marked and bloody obvious button. It's almost as bad as buying a game, wondering why it's not working, and then only checking the min. reqs on the box when asked to despite already knowing that they are on the box.
No, aldo, as much as it annoys the piss out of both you and me, it's computer illiteracy, plain and simple. Or do you have reason to think that computer illiterate people, who have trouble figuring out that a computer has to have electricity to work, somehow comprehend and look everywhere for tooltips? Please.
As Maeg said, computers are complex things. However, look at Picasa, for example. If Linux distros managed to hide their Hyde (no pun intended) faces under a Picasa-like Jekyll - an interface that's easy to use, intuitive, simple, and just works - how long do you think it would be before they started making real inroads with the "My coffee-cup holder on my computer broke" crowd?
One thing that I haven't really touched on is the naming of Linux applications. Obviously, most of them are 3rd-party apps, but still... Did anyone except for OpenOffice pick up on what MS did with Windows XP?? No longer is the sole gateway to the internet a little blue "e" on the desktop with the words "Internet Explorer" in 2pt font. No, now they have, in a very prominent position at the head of the Start menu, two items: "Internet" and "E-mail". Under those simple descriptions you get some details... Firefox, IE, Thunderbird, Outlook, whatever. But the prominent title is task-oriented, not application-oriented.
Same with OpenOffice. Their word processor's name? It doesn't even have a name. It's invoked by "Text Document" in the program menu. Same with their "Excel" ("Spreadsheet"), etc.
Yeah, branding is great - when you're recognized as King of the Hill... or at least in the same scope as the KOTH. But if you're trying to make inroads into a market where there are clear leaders, you can't afford to cryptically brand your products; simplicty and clarity rule. iTunes (uhh... music?). iPhoto (pictures). Picasa's name is a bit cryptic, although it does immediately bring up associations of Picasso, the famous painter. Microsoft apps have been King of their respective Hills for quite some time, and yet some of them are still named clearly - like Word. All the rest are actually Xeroxes, Kleenexes, and Googles... brand names that have become so popular that they ARE the definition: Excel, PowerPoint, etc.
Anyway, I didn't intend to post such a long thing again. I was just gonna link to this /. article (http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/10/10/1050254.shtml?tid=110&tid=163&tid=218) relevant to the discussion at hand. :p
-
Speaking of linux (again), does any of you know how to set-up firewire networking between two computers? It's simple enough to set up in Windows, but I haven't even managed to get linux to recognize firewire as a network connection, let alone make a working network.
-
No idea, sorry...
I am an outsider, and Sandwich summed it up perfectly imo:
While Linux works great for tinkerers and those with time to delve into it, that description does not fit the average Joe Schmoe off the street. Therefore, IF the Linux community makes it a goal to enroach on Microsoft's hold of such computer users, something needs to change. If not, no problemo.
We have 8 PCs, 2 Macs, and some laptops on our network. We used to have a Windows server, then switched to Linux. This created some fundemental issues for me:
1. All the files on the server show a creation date of Jan 1904. When asked, the IT wizard replied: 'Oh it does that, you can't change it, it's your fault for using a Mac'
Well, frankly he can DIAF, because a) I started the whole ****ing department while he was still in grade school. and b) Windows DID show creation dates for files...
2. Nobody in the whole company knows how to do anything on the server, except him. And I mean literally nothing. If it crashed, we could not restart it. We can't add new users, do virus scans, delete corrupted files, nothing.. I have a BIG problem with this - what if he gets sick? or gets stuck abroad on holiday? just simple things like that can totally trash days of work if there is a server problem. He puts far too much faith in remote monitoring for my liking...
3. There are too many unexplained problems with individual files: Icons go missing, the file type is mysteriously changed, or it changes size for no good reason... it's the sort of thing that in the long term is going to screw up good work.
4. Finally, the Golden Rule: If it ain't broke, don't fix it - Windows was not perfect, BUT it was working, and it was (semi) understandable to me. The trouble with 'gurus' is that they don't have to actually USE the friggin stuff they install, day in day out, like I do, and I suspect many other users, who suffer the needless irritation of being connected to something they have no control over.
Now if he had put something useful in, like 1000 baseT ethernet, I might have forgiven him, but right now, it's just bleh...:sigh:
-
I think your problem is more with the IT guy than the operating system.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
But the prominent title is task-oriented, not application-oriented.
Same with OpenOffice. Their word processor's name? It doesn't even have a name. It's invoked by "Text Document" in the program menu. Same with their "Excel" ("Spreadsheet"), etc.
You don't know what you're talking about. Most Linux distros organize their menus like that. Mandriva, for example, will label menu items by function (e.g. Movie Player, Text Editor, etc.). Gnome, one of the Linux desktops, always organizes programs into categories. Applications that are a part of the Gnome distribution (e.g. totem, gedit, gcalctool, epiphany) are all labeled by their function in the Gnome menu (this in on *any* distro). Even Debian's menu system (used in conjunction with Gnome/KDE's menus) will organize items into categories of applications so you can easily tell which programs do what.
Perhaps you should actually try using Linux rather than just pulling fallacies out of nowhere? Your arguments may have some truth to them, but you don't have any solid evidence because you haven't actually used Linux.
Anyway, I didn't intend to post such a long thing again. I was just gonna link to this /. article (http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/10/10/1050254.shtml?tid=110&tid=163&tid=218) relevant to the discussion at hand. :p
I've posted this over and over: It is technically infeasible to reduce the number of distros. It just can't happen. Redhat's CEO is being realistic and is trying to use that as an advantage.
We used to have a Windows server, then switched to Linux. This created some fundemental issues for me:
You need to get a new sysadmin then. It's not the OS's job to take over for the sysadmin, that's a dangerous school of thought.
Speaking of linux (again), does any of you know how to set-up firewire networking between two computers? It's simple enough to set up in Windows, but I haven't even managed to get linux to recognize firewire as a network connection, let alone make a working network.
What distribution? From what I've read distros like Mandriva will do this automagically. In Mandriva there's a control center option that will enable/disable Firewire networking.
When doing it manually it just sounds like you need to A) If eth1394 is compiled, load the module B) If you don't have it, compile it into the kernel. Then you can use standard tools like ifconfig to deal with the interface.
These links might help:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=26192
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-378168-highlight-eth1394.html?sid=1d5d61b0a91e35b82d295421f42229a8
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
You don't know what you're talking about. Most Linux distros organize their menus like that. Mandriva, for example, will label menu items by function (e.g. Movie Player, Text Editor, etc.). Gnome, one of the Linux desktops, always organizes programs into categories. Applications that are a part of the Gnome distribution (e.g. totem, gedit, gcalctool, epiphany) are all labeled by their function in the Gnome menu (this in on *any* distro). Even Debian's menu system (used in conjunction with Gnome/KDE's menus) will organize items into categories of applications so you can easily tell which programs do what.
Perhaps you should actually try using Linux rather than just pulling fallacies out of nowhere? Your arguments may have some truth to them, but you don't have any solid evidence because you haven't actually used Linux.
I was referring to all the K**** apps I saw cluttering the menus of Knoppix, the only Linux distro I ever used for more than 10 minutes. I didn't recall the other distros I'd tried (granted, years ago) as being all that different.
-
That "K-" thing is KDE. Just like lots of Gnome apps are "G-" stuff. Its an identifier in the same way lots of of stuff for years was "winSomesuch" and "macTheotherthing".
I still don't get the problem. If your point is that Linux fails before Windows because Windows is n00b friendly, you're patently, demonstrably wrong. I spend time all day every day explaining Windows to people. Its all cryptic until someone explains it. Explaining things like what that little underscore icon does and the odd diagonal figure eight does and why there's stuff hidden under the funky picture in the upper left, why do "menus" pull down, instead of opening like...well, menus? What's a window, I see a box? What do you mean click on the screen? Click on the desktop?! I am, my mouse is on the desktop! It just goes on.
No one is born understanding Windows, or OSX, or XFree w/ KDE/GNOME/Windowmaker/OLWM/whatever. And none of them are easy for a new user to understand.
-
From the thread about Media Players:
Hrm. Let me see what I can make of this. A bit OT, though
Originally posted by Sandwich (adjusted by Mik to make a point)
A "Single Unified Linux" is, IMO, a bad idea - or, at the very least, a hard-to-implement properly one. Think about it (I had to think about this very thing recently when designing machines to be webservers and firewalls): when serving webpages, a server needs to push pages almost promiscuously. But when acting as a firewall, promiscuous data trasfer is less acceptable.
This is why I use OpenBSD for firewalls, and SuSE Linux for webservers.
But that's just me.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
That "K-" thing is KDE. Just like lots of Gnome apps are "G-" stuff. Its an identifier in the same way lots of of stuff for years was "winSomesuch" and "macTheotherthing".
I still don't get the problem. If your point is that Linux fails before Windows because Windows is n00b friendly, you're patently, demonstrably wrong.
Like I said earlier:
Originally posted by Sandwich
But you all seem to have missed my original point:
While Linux works great for tinkerers and those with time to delve into it, that description does not fit the average Joe Schmoe off the street. Therefore, IF the Linux community makes it a goal to enroach on Microsoft's hold of such computer users, something needs to change. If not, no problemo.
Kapiche?
Please read that this time. I am not bashing Linux for having a problem among the techie group of users. It's great to be set up as a firewall, server, etc. That's not the point. My point I made quite clear in my quoted post 2 lines up, and I will not repeat myself. Read it.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Please read that this time. I am not bashing Linux for having a problem among the techie group of users. It's great to be set up as a firewall, server, etc. That's not the point. My point I made quite clear in my quoted post 2 lines up, and I will not repeat myself. Read it.
Yeah, and that "something" doesn't have anything to do variety of distros. Linux will have to be installed on computers out of the box from, say, Dell or HP to compete with Windows in that market.
You also don't realize there isn't any single entity you can call the "Linux community". Some companies, like Mandriva or Novell, want to spread Linux to everyone. Many of the users don't really care. Desktop software developers probably want Linux to spread for desktop systems, but I'm sure that embedded Linux kernel hackers don't care much.
So you can't generalize and say "The Linux Community doesn't care!". There are some entities that care and have quite an investment in it. If you look at their distros (e.g. Suse) you'll see that they have graphical configuration tools, control panels, nice looking installers that helps new users.
-
Red Hat too. Though I'd rather use Debian myself.
A linux distro seems more oriented to what you are going to do with it.
For instance, I'd use a light-weight distro, like debian or slackware for a server rather than using Red Hat/Fedora or Suse. The GUI is very useless in servers. Specially if used remotely.
By the way, Shanah Tovah :)
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
You also don't realize there isn't any single entity you can call the "Linux community". Some companies, like Mandriva or Novell, want to spread Linux to everyone. Many of the users don't really care. Desktop software developers probably want Linux to spread for desktop systems, but I'm sure that embedded Linux kernel hackers don't care much.
So you can't generalize and say "The Linux Community doesn't care!". There are some entities that care and have quite an investment in it. If you look at their distros (e.g. Suse) you'll see that they have graphical configuration tools, control panels, nice looking installers that helps new users.
Ok, I learned something new today then. Now, take me as an example of the standard person in regards to Linux... all those things I had assumed, or didn't know, etc? Yeah. Address those issues; that's where people are ignorant about what Linux can and can't do for them.
Originally posted by mrduckman
By the way, Shanah Tovah :)
Toda rabah!
-
Originally posted by which one of us, Sandwich?
Like I said earlier:
I still don't get the problem. If your point is that Linux fails before Windows because Windows is n00b friendly, you're patently, demonstrably wrong. I spend time all day every day explaining Windows to people. Its all cryptic until someone explains it. Explaining things like what that little underscore icon does and the odd diagonal figure eight does and why there's stuff hidden under the funky picture in the upper left, why do "menus" pull down, instead of opening like...well, menus? What's a window, I see a box? What do you mean click on the screen? Click on the desktop?! I am, my mouse is on the desktop! It just goes on.
No one is born understanding Windows, or OSX, or XFree w/ KDE/GNOME/Windowmaker/OLWM/whatever. And none of them are easy for a new user to understand.
Please read that this time. I am not bashing you for having a problem whatever it is you have a problem with. My point I made quite clear AGAIN RIGHT HERE. Read it.
-
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/11/2341210&tid=185&tid=218
-
Ok, to summarize:
Me: I'm right!
Mik: No, I'm right!
Me: No, you're right!
Mik: No, you're right!
Does that basically cover it? :p
-
No, Mike. You're wrong because your complaint is fundamnentally flawed. I've been trying to get it across to you but I'm failing. I guess I should give up.
-
This discussion makes me smile:D
-
My complaint is a simple one, and is based on a conditional: IF there is a desire for Linux OSes to have a chance at replacing the industry-standard Micorsoft OS on the computers of non-techies around the world (not talking about new users), then something needs to change in the Linux world/area/whatever to make it more appealing.
That's it. For geeks like you and me (if I had the time), Linux rocks. It's super-mega-ultra customizable, far for flexible than Windows, etc etc etc, ok? I'm not bashing *nix.
-
[color=66ff00]But linux is making a good push at the noob end of the market. Linspire, Mandriva and all of the other GUI centric distros are testament to this.
The number of variations is not a crippling factor, quite the opposite really. You'll find that each distro has certain nuances that allow a user to pick the one that's most intuitive. This follows true with the GUI orientated ones too. The thing to understand is this should only be seen as a gateway into understanding and using linux. The very fact that so many options are available infers that to take advantage of them you need to be willing to put some work in.
(by GUI orientated I mean GUI configured).
As for idiot friendly, if that's really the goal then I'd tell them to run out and buy a Mac, lack of knowledge is not an excuse when it comes to PC's. If you buy a PC then you had better understand that some level of learning is required, otherwise if it 'breaks' (i.e. stops working a certain way) which it is almost certain to do. Then you're buggered.
Everything I know about PC's came through experimentation, reading and asking questions, it has allowed me to increase my understanding and free myself at the cost of having to learn. I think of it in the following way: The more you learn, the more value you get from your PC, both in terms of available software and from a possibly moral stance. You choose to let your PC work for you or you become complacent and lose the ability to use it effectively.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
My complaint is a simple one, and is based on a conditional: IF there is a desire for Linux OSes to have a chance at replacing the industry-standard Micorsoft OS on the computers of non-techies around the world (not talking about new users), then something needs to change in the Linux world/area/whatever to make it more appealing.
IMO, some Linux distros are pretty good at being non-techy friendly. I suggest you try out the Suse Live DVD sometime. I just tried it out last night, and it was pretty easy to set things up. The livedvd uses bootsplash so you get a pretty loading screen on boot rather than lines of init script output. The graphical control center is basically a click-and-autodetect system, but it also offered quite a bit of optional advanced options for power users too.
http://www.novell.com/products/suselinux/downloads/ftp/mirrors_isos.html
-
I wish Apple would actually sell their OSX to PC's as well. Now that MACs use Intel's CPU's, it is not that far fetched.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
IMO, some Linux distros are pretty good at being non-techy friendly. I suggest you try out the Suse Live DVD sometime. I just tried it out last night, and it was pretty easy to set things up. The livedvd uses bootsplash so you get a pretty loading screen on boot rather than lines of init script output. The graphical control center is basically a click-and-autodetect system, but it also offered quite a bit of optional advanced options for power users too.
http://www.novell.com/products/suselinux/downloads/ftp/mirrors_isos.html
The lines of init script output are good, as they let you know it's actually working. If I could, I'd set Windows to do that.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
The lines of init script output are good, as they let you know it's actually working. If I could, I'd set Windows to do that.
You can press a key to get the init script output on Suse and most other distros using bootsplash.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
My complaint is a simple one, and is based on a conditional: IF there is a desire for Linux OSes to have a chance at replacing the industry-standard Micorsoft OS on the computers of non-techies around the world (not talking about new users), then something needs to change in the Linux world/area/whatever to make it more appealing.
That's it. For geeks like you and me (if I had the time), Linux rocks. It's super-mega-ultra customizable, far for flexible than Windows, etc etc etc, ok? I'm not bashing *nix.
Excellent. Your complaint is invalid because its wrong, firstly because of your continued recourse to trivia (being customizable is not even at issue, etc etc etc, ok?) and secondly you're factually incorrect.
There's already something (several somethigns actually) being done to make Linux acceptable to non-geeks. There's even a book (Linux for Non-Geeks) that addresses the issue.
The problem is not non-geeks though. The problem is not non-computer-users (like my grandmother, or whomever). The problem is the entrenched Windows user-base. And guess what? there's even something for them. Its even been pointed out in this thread at least TWICE. You can make Linux look, and act, almost completely like Windows. In fact, many of the intro Linux distros come configured to work that way out of the box.
DO NOT even say "but there should only be one" or "the user shouldn't have to pick" again. By considering *nix in the first place, THE USER IS MAKING A CHOICE. Asking them to pick a specific distro is neither burdensome nor unreasonable.
-
hence why linux has acheaved such a huge swath of people... oh wait thats right, it's still basicly obscure.
people are makeing a choice to try linux, but wich one is something they can't make any desisions on because they are totaly ignorant of it. there needs to be one single starting block, that's it, one of the windowlike distros needs to be designated the default starting position, and a big bold "TRY LINUX NOW" button on linux.com should direct to it. asking someone to pick a distro without haveing any context for the diferences between them _is_ burdensome and unreasonable, and the lack of usership is my proof. I'm sure half the computerliterate people on the planet have consitered linux, but looking into it they saw all sorts of things they were expected to make choices on and decided not to bother.
ignoreing problems makes them worse
-
My god, Bob, when you put it that way, I guess you're absolutely right. Requiring people to make and effort and learn something before making a decision IS too much to ask. You've convinced me.
*nix--Linux, BSD or whatever--doesn't need acceptance on those terms. Let the peasants eat cake.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
My god, Bob, when you put it that way, I guess you're absolutely right. Requiring people to make and effort and learn something before making a decision IS too much to ask. You've convinced me.
*nix--Linux, BSD or whatever--doesn't need acceptance on those terms. Let the peasants eat cake.
Damn straight it is, when you have got better things to worry about than to figure out which Linux distro will _work_ with a minimum of fuss.
There's a quote that expresses this much better. But occassionally, I want to get something done with a minimum of fuss and hassle. Sometimes apt-get will work, and it'll go much faster than with Windows. Other times it won't, and I'll have to spend more time googling, asking questions on forums, asking questions in the Ubuntu IRC channel, etc etc.
Kami's suggested maybe it's my choice of distro...I've got the LiveDVD of SUSE that I figure I'll try out sometime.
But I'm seriously considering moving back to Windows for one simple reason: stuff works. Spending time looking for why something isn't working and asking in IRC channels is something that I find is rare in Windows. Usually I just install the program and I can start using it.
Maybe it's just my choice of distros. Maybe it's my choice of computer hardware. But I don't have the inclination to try out every single Linux distro out there.
Open source is a great ideology...but at a certain point, it just gets to where paying some $$ outweighs the gain of using unreliable software, or "researching" it. (Which is not infallible; I've heard that mikmod will play the mod formats I've got on my computer from various places/people...nope.)
If it is generally felt in the Linux community that people should move over, there has to be a reason or motivation to go to the trouble to do so. Take OS X. It's a great reason to switch over to macs. Linux has...you'll get more familiar with Linux by troubleshooting? But few people use Linux except IT types, so what good is that going to do someone who isn't obsessed with computers?
If that's not a general feeling, then I'd say it's going just fine.
-
[color=66ff00]I'd say one of the biggest reasons why linux has config issues is the lack of support from hardware manufacturers. You can't make a piece of hardware run smoothly without detailed information, the kind of information manufacturers give to microsoft.
Also regarding 'TRY LINUX NOW', you'll find that any smart linux user who wants a new user to walk away with a good picture of linux will point people towards a live CD before telling them to choose a distro, there's a tonne of distro comparisons on the net so determining which one you think will work for you isn't too hard.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Damn straight it is, when you have got better things to worry about than to figure out which Linux distro will _work_ with a minimum of fuss.
People aren't switching to Linux for a "minimum of fuss". They're making a fundamental change in the way they use computers. Its like asking a Windows user to switch to a Mac and expect it to be a "minimum of fuss". Not bloody likely. I respectfually submit that if you have better things to do than figure out which Linux distro is right for you, you should be doing them, instead of making a poorly thought out leap into a new OS.
But I'm seriously considering moving back to Windows for one simple reason: stuff works. Spending time looking for why something isn't working and asking in IRC channels is something that I find is rare in Windows. Usually I just install the program and I can start using it.
You know, that's my experience with FreeBSD: I just install the program and I can start using it. It is extraordinarily rare that I have to figure out why the installation failed, or why the program is not performing as advertised.
Of course, I don't advocate ditching Windows. It makes as much sense to ditch Windows as it does to ditch your PS2 just because you've got a Gamecube.
Open source is a great ideology...but at a certain point, it just gets to where paying some $$ outweighs the gain of using unreliable software, or "researching" it. (Which is not infallible; I've heard that mikmod will play the mod formats I've got on my computer from various places/people...nope.)
So you make that choice. There's been lots of times I bought software because it does exactly what I want rather than having
to cobble something together out of bits I found in Freshports.org; or sometimes I just want a product now rather than waiting for something comparable to come out from the FOSS community.
Why under the stars would you have to choose only ONE over the other? This isn't a binary proposition. To abuse cars some more, I'd rather pay someone to change my spark plugs for me, but I'll change my own tire. I don't have to pay someone to change my tire just because I pay someone to change my spark plugs.
If it is generally felt in the Linux community that people should move over, there has to be a reason or motivation to go to the trouble to do so. Take OS X. It's a great reason to switch over to macs. Linux has...you'll get more familiar with Linux by troubleshooting? But few people use Linux except IT types, so what good is that going to do someone who isn't obsessed with computers?
You'll get more experience with Linux by using Linux. Its as simple as that and its exactly the same as everything else. I must ask though, if you don't need to use Linux, why switch to it? If the answer to that is "because I wanted to try something different" or "because I hate Windows" (or something similar), you've taken it upon yourself to make an effort. Not just one effort, but a series of efforts.
Christ I hate this thread, but its touched a nerve. I'm finding myself defending Linux and I absolutely loathe Linux. I'm doing it because of that nerve I mentioned. Most of what I'm seeing is "make it easier" and a general consensus that the user shouldn't have to do any sort of homework before trying out *nix. That's my sticking point. The only users that should try *nix are the users who are going to do the homework, the ones who are going to read, the ones who will make an effort. That's the bottom line.
We are not talking about switching from Hotmail to YahooMail to Gmail. We're talking about the operating system of your computer. Not only that, we're talking about moving from a hand-holding operating system to one that expects the user to be willing to tinker a bit. You're making the decision to give up some hand holding. If you don't want to give up the hand holding, don't switch.
*nix and BSD don't need to be Windows. They don't need to BEAT Windows. They don't have to take over the computing world. The only thing they NEED to be is available to the people that WANT to use them.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
*nix and BSD don't need to be Windows. They don't need to BEAT Windows. They don't have to take over the computing world. The only thing they NEED to be is available to the people that WANT to use them.
That's a great sentiment and one I agree with 100%. Most of us would agree with it more if the linux zealots didn't keep proclaiming that everyone should be using linux instead of windows as if that would be the end of everybodies computer problems.
I personally don't have the time to get the depth of experience with Unix that I have with Windows. I'd rather spend that time learning C++ as a result I don't run unix. But I don't assume the OS should change just to make it easier for me to use.
Had someone suggested that AmigaOS should become more like Windows to get a larger user-base 5-6 years ago when I used it almost exclusively I would have ripped off their head and :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: down their neck for daring to suggest such heresy so I don't blame you in the slightest for being pissed off with people who suggest that Linux needs to do it.
That said there are elements within the linux community who are largely responsible for bring this on themselves by stating that Linux is the answer to computer problems for computer illiterate or semi-literate users when it's plainly obvious that a hand-holding OS like Windows or MacOS is a much better proposition for them.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
That said the linux community is largely responsible for bring this on themselves by stating that Linux is the answer to computer problems for computer illiterate or semi-literate users when it's plainly obvious that a hand-holding OS like Windows or MacOS is a much better proposition for them.
[color==66ff00]:lol: Where was this stated? It's one of the more misguided sentiments I've ever seen.
That being said I still believe there should be a computer licence, you don't get one until you pass the basic stupidity aversion exam. It doesn't seem to be a popular idea though, much the same as my parenting licence which would solve the ongoing issue of world stupidity.
[/color]
-
I agree with both concepts actually. Especially seeing as how like with cars you can cause problems for other people if you mismanage an internet enabled computer (zombies, etc) or how you raise your kids :)
As for the first statement it's not the entire linux community that is responsible. Just the fanboys within it who spout "Should have been using Linux" as the answer to any problem someone states with MacOS or Windows. If I had a pound for every time a stupid sentiment like that has been stated on the internet I could buy Microsoft and end the debate once and for all. :D
Anyway I'll edit my original statement so that people don't get confused about what I was saying.
-
[color=66ff00]It just goes to prove that so called smart people can be idiots too. ;)
There are too many people riding on the anti MS sentiment when they should simply be arguing the benefits of using Linux.
[/color]
-
Exactly. This isn't like the "Should have been using Firefox" argument that many of us use. Firefox and IE are pretty much the same thing as far as UI goes. I swapped my mum (who's about as computer illeterate as they come) over from one to the other simply by installing Firefox, hiding the IE icon and telling her that favourites was now called bookmarks.
Telling someone that they should be using Linux because they got an e-mail virus on the other hand is completely stupid. IF all you want to do is check your e-mail, surf the web and use a few different programs (including games) then getting Linux and installing Wine so you can play them is a completely stupid way of solving the problem. Telling them not to run exe files in e-mail and installing Thunderbird is much better.
-
I have downloaded a Ubuntu 5.10 Live CD ISO and will be rebooting in a bit. I will (try to) post my experiences on using it for the first time from Ubuntu itself over the weekend.
-
This is the proper way to do things. If you need help, feel free to ask.
Remember though: like all worthwhile things, how much you get out of it will be directly related to how much you put into it.
-
Ok, but understand that I'm looking at this from the POV of the people I was trying to speak for... the computer-illiterate, the easily overwhelmed. I'm gonna be harsh. ;)
So I booted it up. The gazilion lines of "Loading this, loading that" are overwhelming. However, it's just as well, since it hung on the Enterprise Volume Management System stage. The cursor would react to stimuli (I hit enter, and it'd go to the next line, etc), but nothing was happening. So I cheated and tried stuff that I know from many years of working with computers: CTRL-Q/Z/X/C. CTRL-C worked, but I think the first time I pressed it twice, so it canceled the booting and started shutting things down. And, of course, it halted while trying to shut down the Enterprise Volume Management System. Again.
At this point I almost gave up (since this was a test for newbs, not for me). But the Me in myself wanted to figure this out. So I rebooted, and again, it got stuck at that stage. I hit CTRL-C once this time, and after a few seconds, it resumed booting. Yay!
Ok, so after some very visually awkward hopping back and forth between the Ubuntu logo and the DOS-esque loading stat screens, it finally loaded up completely.
The next snag I ran into is very unlikely to be run into by a computer newbie, as it is because of my widescreen monitor. The system was displaying at a resolution of 1024x768 (or was it 1280x1024? I didn't even notice...), but it was stretched to fill the whole screen. So the CD icon on the desktop, for example, was stretched into an oval. Fine, needs some adjustments; wide-aspect ratios are uncommon enough for that to be understandable.
So I go to Change Resolution, but all it has are 4:3 ratio resolutions. Hmm - if that's the case, why isn't it displaying with black bars on the sides of my monitor? I open up my monitor's menu, and sure enough, the display is getting a 1920x1200 resolution signal, but what's being displayed in those 1920x1200 pixels is actually a 1024x768 or 1280x1024 image. Weird.
Next hitch: The obscure "Show Desktop" equivalent button where I'm used to seeing the Start menu showing. I was clicking on that about 5 or 6 times before I realized that it wasn't going to be popping up any menus.
Ok, up top is a menubar, ala OS X, that has "Applications", "Places", and "System" (or something like that). Logical, yet still confusing, especially the "Places" menu. Turns out it's like Explorer, and you use it to get to drives on the computer. Meh, okay. There's also a few icons next to those menus, for the web browser, email, and something else I forget (I'm back in XP now).
There were some cryptically blank, plain rectangles (virtual desktops) and an equally cryptic icon for the trash can in the bottom right. And that's about it.
Thing I would change to make it more friendly:
Get all that loading code out of the way by default - it's ugly and, more importantly, overwhelming. Give the user some tips (starter at first, then switchable by the user to intermediate and advanced later on) during the boot process.
Upon first boot, launch a friendly walkthrough screen or something. Anything more than dumping the user into the desktop without so much as a helping hand.
Asthetically, brown is about THE WORST color one could pick and still get away with (ie. Wired green and hot pink don't count). It's ugly. This one is made bearable by a sort of sunset look to the desktop, but the UI elements have flat brown shading - yuck. Green, blue... not brown.
My final gripe has nothing to do with Ubuntu directly, but with the *nix filesystem as a whole. The directory structure is cryptic and beyond confusing. From what I understand, HDDs are under /dev/, right? Well, "dev" is always associated with "developer" in my brain before "device". Besides, why not call it /devices/? Are the extra 4 characters that valuable? Windows has made important strides in this arena in recent years, and Vista looks to be bringing even more improvements; the filesystem is understandable. "Documents and Settings" - fine, it ain't short, but it's explanatory. "Program Files" is just dumb, tho. :p
Anyway, the point is, don't scare away people who want to peek beyond the nice-looking, pixel-thick skin you have covering everything. I would not have been able to find my HDD had I not known ahead of time that /dev/ means "devices". It recognized the card reader drives built into my monitor; why not have the HDD's there as well?
-
Get all that loading code out of the way by default - it's ugly and, more importantly, overwhelming. Give the user some tips (starter at first, then switchable by the user to intermediate and advanced later on) during the boot process.
I guess Ubuntu isn't all that user friendly (BTW: I've never used it). As I said, Suse (same with Mandriva) uses bootsplash and doesn't show all that init script output by default.
Upon first boot, launch a friendly walkthrough screen or something. Anything more than dumping the user into the desktop without so much as a helping hand.
I believe there's something like that in the Suse Live DVD.
Asthetically, brown is about THE WORST color one could pick and still get away with (ie. Wired green and hot pink don't count). It's ugly. This one is made bearable by a sort of sunset look to the desktop, but the UI elements have flat brown shading - yuck. Green, blue... not brown.
That's the default Clearlooks theme. Again, Suse (same with Mandriva or Fedora) uses custom themes that are brighter.
My final gripe has nothing to do with Ubuntu directly, but with the *nix filesystem as a whole. The directory structure is cryptic and beyond confusing. From what I understand, HDDs are under /dev/, right? Well, "dev" is always associated with "developer" in my brain before "device". Besides, why not call it /devices/? Are the extra 4 characters that valuable? Windows has made important strides in this arena in recent years, and Vista looks to be bringing even more improvements; the filesystem is understandable. "Documents and Settings" - fine, it ain't short, but it's explanatory. "Program Files" is just dumb, tho. :p
Err. Technically you're correct, /dev contains the block devices for your harddrives. However, that's not where you'd access your harddrives.
There should be a "Computer" icon on your desktop. Click on it and it'll show your partitions, cd drives, flash drives, and any network drives. You're making it a lot harder than it needs to be.
It's true that the file structure doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it's a leftover from the old Unix. Back then a few characters were valuable (that's why copy is cp, rename/move is mv, etc.) It's tough to change now because that structure is assumed by all programs and standards are based around it.
-
If you're messing around with the dev folder directly, you're already at a level where you should either know what it means or be able to find out relatively quickly.
Or you're following instructions, in which case it doesn't really matter. ;)
Edit: Irony strikes. When I tried to burn the SUSE LiveDVD iso, k3b immediately failed with an I/O error, even running as root.
-
[color=66ff00]The real question is not if you got the OS running but if you managed t get it to do any of the stuff you normally do in windows i.e. listen to music, word-process, burn CD's, watch movies....
The OS on it's own is the facilitator, it's what you do with it that's important.
As for the linux file system, I have to agree that it's initally a bit overwhelming but when you actually figure it out once it's almost identical across all linux distros and it's actually very well thought out. You have to forget about windows' conventions.
IIRC Ubuntu uses Gnome as the interface so perhaps one of you Gnome users could point to a tutorial on customising it?
BTW, if you ever run into trouble you can almost always call up a terminal (DOS prompt) and type in 'man [whatever]' to get a MANual page for the application you're interested in.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Edit: Irony strikes. When I tried to burn the SUSE LiveDVD iso, k3b immediately failed with an I/O error, even running as root.
Have you configured K3B? IIRC, you're supposed to run the configuration program before using it.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
No, aldo, as much as it annoys the piss out of both you and me, it's computer illiteracy, plain and simple. Or do you have reason to think that computer illiterate people, who have trouble figuring out that a computer has to have electricity to work, somehow comprehend and look everywhere for tooltips? Please.
Thye have eyes, don't they? The are capable of looking at a button. They are capable of observing and remembering that sometimes little hints pop up on buttons. They are capable of trying this, before giving up.
You're defining computer illeteracy as mass stupidity, in the same vein as people who couldn't figure out that a toaster needed electricity to work, or that the fancy picture on that magic box could be changed with a remote control. That has nothing to do with computers.
Every major OS/program/whatever is designed nowadays with a common interface, for exactly the reason that you can't expect to have the user be nursemaid-ed through ever function they ever need to perform. I am not going to excuse people of being too stupid to read an observe a very simple, very visual cue on the basis that it's a computer. If they were :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: ing up by not reading the buttons on a dishwasher, we wouldn't be going "oh, it's ok, they're dishwasher illiterate".
I'd suggest, on the side, that the computer illiterate you're describing wouldn't be able to install Windows any more than a Linux distro. So the question is surely in terms of usability, in which case it's surely more of a matter of which particular flavour of OS they used first.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Ok, but understand that I'm looking at this from the POV of the people I was trying to speak for... the computer-illiterate, the easily overwhelmed. I'm gonna be harsh. ;)
[much stuff removed]
Actually, what I just read was from the point of view of a WINDOWS USER, with some Mac experience.
I should show you my mother using Knoppix. Strangely enough, the truly computer illiterate don't even notice the stuff you pointed out. You use terms like "menu" and "icon" and talk about resolution.
Let me tell you what a computer illiterate person would have done. When lots of text scrolled by, they'd have ignored it. They'd have (complainingly) waited for a desktop. Then when the stuff was out of proportion because of stretching, they would have accepted it as normal (several of my clients have wide aspect monitors, and this is precisely what they do).
You're confusing "Windows user" with "computer illiterate".
-
Get all that loading code out of the way by default - it's ugly and, more importantly, overwhelming.
And most helpful if there is a problem of some sorts :nod:
You get used to it quite fast.. soon you'll find the "black-box" booting of win systems unbelievably rude and suspicious :nervous:
-
So, today I decided I'd try and switch over to Windows as my primary OS. I had two partitions formatted, one with a few programs I used under Linux, the other with a few programs, mostly games.
First I tried it under Kubuntu. Well, the reformat failed, it just managed to make the partition unuseable.
So I tried to reboot to Windows. Oops! Grub the boot loader had started failing with error 17. :)
Next I tried the Ubuntu LiveCD. No gparted, no qtparted.
So I tried the SymphonyOS CD. Ahh, it seemed to work. Unfortunately I couldn't get grub to install with either.
Finally I used the windows 2000 recovery console to run 'fixmbr'. Worked fine, Windows 2000 booted.
Then I tried to access E:, which I'd used the ext3 driver for Win2k to map to the programs partition. Didn't work; Win2k asked me to format it.
Then I tried to access D:, my data drive. I was treated to the nice little bar graph telling me that there was ~100 GB free, and 4 kb used. Hello, where did all my files go? :)
So I booted back to SymphonyOS. Thankfully, it looks like it was just an issue with the ext3 driver, and the new partition was assigned D: instead of my data one.
But those hours of trouble are yet another good example of what I dislike about Linux. I doubt I'll find on distrowatch "Oh, and Ubuntu will !!!! over your system if you try to format a partition to Fat32" even though that would be very nice to know.
Oh, and actually, the whole thing started off with me having to manually run fsck because some of my files on the ext3 data partition had duplicate blocks. Yeah, I really feel my data is safer on Linux...
-
Things like that make me giggle.
-
Yeah, I suppose it would.
Not me, though. I take data loss very seriously. Why should I spend my time and money fixing my hard drive because I used crap software when there is a cheaper, safer, alternative?
Yes, I'm talking about Windows.
Show me a Linux distro that's on par with Windows and I'll switch. I'm still very interested in this free software movement, even though every move I try to make is hampered by the very thing I'm interested in.
I guess I'll keep hoping that someone will get their head screwed on straight and realize that something different needs to happen if Linux wants to be a desktop OS competitor.
-
I don't think you understand, WMC. I never, ever, ever see things like that. Ever. Well once and it was on Windows, using some seriously buggy beta code from Microsoft that never left beta. The closest I ever get is when a hard drive physically fail. So every time I see a story like that, I giggle because I DON'T BELIEVE IT. It must be a joke.
Now, you want a "Linux distro that's on par with Windows"? It can't be done. You obviously prefer Windows, so stay with what works. No harm, no foul, no loss. All is right with the world.
If you can't or won't do these simple, practical and generally cheap preventative things, I submit that you have failed to seriously consider the ramifications of running multiple OSes. Again, that's just from my point of view.
As for Linux being a desktop competitor, I hope I was clear when I said "why?". I don't think it need ever be a serious desktop OS. You want a machine that tells you what to think and what choices to make? OSX is right for you. You want a machine where you have to make every single choice? Linux or BSD is right for you. You want somewhere in the middle? Windows is calling your name.
Dude, don't complain about it, just use what works. It all sucks. It just sucks uniquely and individually for each unique individual. ;)
-
Linux's important role is the same as Unix's. Running servers.
-
If you want a less flip, silly answer, let me tell you what you did wrong, from my point of view. This is my own personal point of view, mind and will probably make lots of people cringe.
First of all, don't ever run more than one OS on a single physical hard drive. Ever. I don't care if you've got 98 and 2k, Linux and XP, BSD and BeOS. Don't do it. For any reason. Obviously, if one OS buggers the boot sector on a drive its sharing with another OS, there will be mayhem. Either use a bootdisk (floppies still have uses!) or manually switch between drives in the BIOS. Too much effort? Then don't run multiple OSes on the same box. Boxen are cheap, these days and so are KVMs.
Second, always seperate your data from your OS. Always. Did I mention ALWAYS? Yeah. Always. We're now up to three drives for just two OSes. And you know what? You'll almost always be happier for the investment. Use Fat32 on the data drive if you must share data between OSes with full read/write both ways. If not, just partition the drive and use whatever you like on each. Since you're not booting off this drive, you dont' have to worry about bootsector bull!!!!.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Linux's important role is the same as Unix's. Running servers.
Bah. Linux's important role is "being used for whatever a Linux user wants to use it for". There's better stuff for servers (Solaris comes to mind, as much as I detest it). There's better stuff for desktops (for most users, Windows comes to mind). The important thing about *nix is you can use it where you want, how you want, when you want, and its entirely up to you. You've got freedom (and, consequently, responsibility). That's the Linux/BSD killer app.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
But those hours of trouble are yet another good example of what I dislike about Linux. I doubt I'll find on distrowatch "Oh, and Ubuntu will !!!! over your system if you try to format a partition to Fat32" even though that would be very nice to know.
I'm still wondering why you're still using Ubuntu, because it obviously doesn't suit you. You're generalizing about "Linux" (like the rest of the clueless folks in this thread) as some kind of holistic experience. The reality is that you're using the wrong distro or approaching it in the wrong way.
That's how I felt with Fedora. Cruddy POS that was cumbersome and hard to configure. Too many graphical dialogues that don't mesh with the traditional configuration files. Utterly unsuable RPM based update system that would break on everything.
That's why I use distros like Debian, Arch or Slackware. Not Fedora.
BTW: As I said on IRC it appears the Error 17 is most commonly encountered with SATA drives in combination with the Windows boot loader or with large disks. I don't know why it worked before and suddenly doesn't (I'm still not clear on WTF you were doing with the livecd and formatting), but that's what I've found in my browing. To fix it you might need to change BIOS settings, add a small /boot partition to an IDE drive (if you've removed Linux from your HD this could be the issue), or move partitions around. I'm thinking the /boot partition issue is the most likely. You screwed up your Linux partition right?
-
No, AFAIK the partition linux itself was on was fine.
I had four partitions w/ Ubuntu:
1: Root, basic programs got by apt-get (10 G JFS)
2: Swap, duh (1 G)
3: Home, duh (100 G ext3)
4: Programs, large and/or using an installer besides apt. (100 G ext3)
I was trying to format the last one to FAT32; things like Freespace 2 have data files that can be used under both Windows and Linux, the only reason I *didn't* do that before was b/c I wasn't sure if it would work at all.
An IDE drive isn't an option due to heat/space issues.
I'm guessing that something in GRUB depended on the filesystem type of that last partition, and for whatever reason it couldn't cope with that enough to even get to the point to let me try and choose OSes. I really don't understand how it could be a problem with the Windows boot loader since the first time I tried to run Windows was when I discovered that I couldn't boot anything on the system.
But, I guess I've really gotten tired of what I see as excuses. Whatever Linux distro I'm using, I'm using it the wrong way, or I'm using the wrong one, etc etc. Mostly, I've tried to use Linux to:
- Write e-mails
- Browse the internet
- Watch DVDs
- Play music
- Develop programs
- Word process
- Play games for Linux
- Write data CDs/DVDs
To some extent at least, all've those have worked. It's the extent that it doesn't work where I'm used to it working that annoys me.
EG: I can write e-mails, but can't click on links
EG: I can view webpages, but any embedded Flash, video, or music and Firefox starts crashing or simply can't do it
EG: I can play some of my music, but not any mod files (and musepack unreliably)
EG: I can develop programs, but IDE integration is a PITA to get working, so I end up using at least three different windows to develop, not to mention that after looking through a few Makefiles I feel jaded about the whole thing
EG: I can play games, but have problems compiling/hearing half of them
EG: I can write CDs, but not DVDs.
(I have no real complaints about word processing or watching DVDs)
That's after hours of installing extra packages and figuring out which extra packages to install and patching fixes for my soundcard with .asoundrc files and learning how to write those files...
AFAIK Ubuntu is based off of Debian unstable, which usually has the latest packages. I didn't try Breezy all that much to see how much those were fixed though. I did notice that ALSA has improved NX support in the new Breezy kernel, so maybe those asoundrc hacks might not be needed anymore.
I *did* learn a lot about linux, but I don't feel like any of that learning will be put to good effort unless I end up taking a career in server management. Part of the thing is that I like tweaking my system around...Linux really gives the appearance of that, but when I stand back and look at it, there's really not much I've done. Mostly I've tweaked it so stuff works as intented, where it didn't work before.
Ironically, the thing that started me on the whole process was realizing that I was having no fun at all developing stuff in Linux, because doing anything was so convoluted and hampered by minor annoyances. I'm sure with enough reading or a different distro or a different approach I could've fixed those. :doubt: Or I could go back to Windows and just install MSVC++.NET; then I'd be able to edit-and-continue as well. I'll probably end up reinstalling Windows 2000, but that takes ~ an hour usually, never run into any problems more major than not being able to get it installed on my SATA drive.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
As for Linux being a desktop competitor, I hope I was clear when I said "why?". I don't think it need ever be a serious desktop OS. You want a machine that tells you what to think and what choices to make? OSX is right for you. You want a machine where you have to make every single choice? Linux or BSD is right for you. You want somewhere in the middle? Windows is calling your name.
It seems from this statement that you still misunderstand my reasons for starting this thread in the first place. Am I wrong in that assessment?
-
Oh, no, I understand it. I disagree with your premise.
-
This thread kind of gave me the push to try linux again. This time around I also decided to document it (http://keepersdomain.net/ubuntu-blog/index.php).
-
I've been considering the same thing, Fury, only from a server point of view (since I'm considering a generalized rebuild of my server when I get new parts for my desktop). I'd like to have a record of why I chose to do some of the things I did, you see.
I suppose I could also go ahead and dual boot my laptop (against my own earlier stated advice) to FreeBSD, since I can do that without screwing about with anything but the XP boot loader (yay sane, staged BSD boot systems!).
-
Let me revisit your original post that started this thread, so I can expand on me finding your premises flawed, Sandwich:
Originally posted by Sandwich
There's two reasons, but since the first is just a bad first impression, it's really the second that matters:
[list=1]- The first time I installed a Linux distro (IIRC it was Red Hat, about 4 years ago, and KDE), I could not for the life of me figure out how to change the screen resolution from 640x480 to something a bit more sane.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not stupid. Especially not with computers. But try as I may, I couldn't figure it out. Oh, sure, I could have gone online and posted my problem and gotten an answer in 3.765 seconds, but that's not the point, really.
This smacks of "the dog bit me when I was six, so all dogs are bad". Its a flawed bit of reasoning. It also directly illustrates the unwillingess to ask for help (on the ground that asking for help is... what? bad? I don't get it.)
The point is that it's not (ok, wasn't) there yet, which leads me to my second complaint:
- Pardon my French, but WTF IS WITH ALL THE GAZILLION LINUX DISTROS???!?!?!?!?
Seriously, guys, gimme a break. Get your act together, get rid of all the distros, and package the basic (yet friendly) OS into a box called "Linux". No Mandrakes, Red Hats, or even Knoppii. Take a page from the Mozilla book, and provide all the added functionality as "plugins" for those who want to mess around.[/list]
[/b]
Here's where you got really confused. Since there is not "basic Linux OS". As has been pointed out Linux isn't an OS. It is not. Never was. Again, this is a flawed premise. You did, however go on and uttered the worst possible thing you could have said, putting me firmly in the stance of disagreeing with you:
I mean, I WANT to check out Linux. It's something I need to DO in order to keep up with "things". What I DON'T want to do is figure out what the differences are between the distros and which one suits my needs better, especially not when they're ALL claiming to be just as powerful and/or friendly.
You know, I have over 150 downloaded movies and over 50 DVDs at home, from a wide range of genres. But when friends come over to see a movie, it takes over an HOUR to decide on one.
Too much choice is a Bad Thing™.
And don't even get me started on KDE vs. Gnome vs. whatever-else-they-have-now. If anyone has illusions or dreams of Linux ever becoming mainstream, they need to stop focusing on making this or that distro the perfect one, and concentrate on merging them all somehow (use Merlin's magic wand, I don't care) so that there's a comparability between the 2-3 main Windows flavors we have today (Home, Pro, and the Server line), and the one or two Linux variants. "Variants", NOT "species". :rolleyes:
Too much choice is a bad thing pretty much NEVER. Lack of choice, is the only possible bad thing. Lack of choice is what led to *nix being picked up as a desktop OS by so many geeks. Lack of choice is how Apple Computers got its impetus to sell more than "build your own computer" kits. Lack of choice is one of the single biggest complaints users all over the world have always had when dealing with the modern Apple and Microsoft.
And don't get me started about KDE vs GNOME either, because that's a valid dichotomy at the code level, at the window level and at the desktop environment level. If it weren't, then you couldn't make a case for OSX vs Windows, at any level.
I don't misunderstand what you're saying, Sandwich. I think you're so completely wrong from the beginning that I can't understand why you don't see it.
-
Mostly what annoys me is when there's a lack of choice about making a choice.
Usually there's some way that either makes sense to pretty much everybody, or will work for pretty much everybody.
The trick is to make a program usable first, customizable second. Make it do what it's supposed to before anything else, and make it do it 'well'.
Once you have that outlined or in place, then you start letting people change it, or else you really don't have anything to start *from*.
-
There's a certain nod back to the "Unix Way" here, WMC. I don't disagree with you, but you're missing the first step.
From my point of view, this is how it should be: First, the tool should do exactly what it is designed to do and do it well. Second, the program should be intuitively useful. Third, we can consider bells and whistles.
Linux (and this is my biggest beef against Linux) tends to give lip service to the first step, skip the second, and head full tilt into the third. BSD goes a slightly different path and solidly hits the first, spends some time on the second, and might eventually get to the third, assuming someone decides to pick up the project.
None of these, mind you, refer to the two big desktop environments, KDE and Gnome. That they're even considered in a discussion about Linux's problems is a direct testament to how spoiled most people using computers are, and how much Windows and Mac have confused the structure of computer operating systems in the eyes of the public.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Linux (and this is my biggest beef against Linux) tends to give lip service to the first step, skip the second, and head full tilt into the third. BSD goes a slightly different path and solidly hits the first, spends some time on the second, and might eventually get to the third, assuming someone decides to pick up the project.
By Linux are you referring to the kernel, the GNU tools or the applications for it in general? Because most applications for Linux also run on BSD and aren't really "Linux applications" per se (I'm sure you know that mik, just posting for general knowledge). Yay for POSIX and interoperability.
Mr. Fury:
For that Opera problem you probably need the lesstif2 package. On my system (Debian testing) opera 8.5 is shown to depend on libmotif (>= 2) or lesstif2. It may be different on Ubuntu but your package manager should point out the specific dependency.
-
mikhael: I find myself actually agreeing with you inthis thread :eek:
Yeah, that is pretty much what I meant merging 'doing it' with 'intuitively useful'. Partly because the two are sort of intertwined when doing an app; you need some sort of interface to make it do what it's supposed to, and unless you're just going to throw it away and start all over you have to factor in step two.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
By Linux are you referring to the kernel, the GNU tools or the applications for it in general? Because most applications for Linux also run on BSD and aren't really "Linux applications" per se (I'm sure you know that mik, just posting for general knowledge). Yay for POSIX and interoperability.
In this specific instance, I'm referring to the Linux community at large, not the kernel (which doesn't get seen by the user), nor the GNU tools (as they are--with the exception of EMACS--actually one of the prime examples of the Unix Way done right). Once you get outside the kernel and the GNU tools, stuff tends to suffer from feeping creaturism, cruft and out and out bogosity. That's where the distros have to step in, build their packages and dependency trees and most of them stumble there. Its one of the reasons I'm so pro-FreeBSD: when stuff is done its done right; when its done wrong, its either fixed or marked broken.
-
My responses will be in red:
[q]Originally posted by mikhael
Let me revisit your original post that started this thread, so I can expand on me finding your premises flawed, Sandwich:
Originally posted by Sandwich
There's two reasons, but since the first is just a bad first impression, it's really the second that matters:
- The first time I installed a Linux distro (IIRC it was Red Hat, about 4 years ago, and KDE), I could not for the life of me figure out how to change the screen resolution from 640x480 to something a bit more sane.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not stupid. Especially not with computers. But try as I may, I couldn't figure it out. Oh, sure, I could have gone online and posted my problem and gotten an answer in 3.765 seconds, but that's not the point, really. [/list]
[/b]
This smacks of "the dog bit me when I was six, so all dogs are bad". Its a flawed bit of reasoning. It also directly illustrates the unwillingess to ask for help (on the ground that asking for help is... what? bad? I don't get it.)
A) I fully realize that that was Then, and we're in the Now now. I've sucessfully changed resolutions on both Knoppix and Ubuntu. I was just surprised that whichever distro of Linux it was, version 2001, was drastically harder to use than a Windows OS, version 1995 (I don't recall if you could change resolutions in Windows 3.1 or not... surely you could, right?).
B) LIke I said, and like you quoted me as saying, my not wanting to search for help on changing resolutions is not the point. The point was that if a computer-savvy guy like me couldn't figure out how to change the resolution, then something was seriously flawed (in that distro and version).
You can liken it to using an elevator. Sure, you could make all the buttons identical, with super-cryptic labels, forcing elevator newbies to ask the vets how to get to the 5th floor, but why not just make it easy for all, put a simple label on the button (something along the lines of "5" would do quite nicely), and be done with it?
Intuitiveness.
Why did Google keep searchers coming back to them instead of to Yahoo, or Altavista, or Excite? Sure, partly because they gave good results, but more than that, I believe it was their simplicity - an element which they've (wisely) retained to this day.
I've no doubt that in that distro I tried all those years ago, there was an option to change the resolution to whatever I wanted. But I couldn't find it; it wasn't intuitively located, or labeled, or both, so for my intents and purposes, it didn't exist.
The point is that it's not (ok, wasn't) there yet, which leads me to my second complaint:
- Pardon my French, but WTF IS WITH ALL THE GAZILLION LINUX DISTROS???!?!?!?!?
Seriously, guys, gimme a break. Get your act together, get rid of all the distros, and package the basic (yet friendly) OS into a box called "Linux". No Mandrakes, Red Hats, or even Knoppii. Take a page from the Mozilla book, and provide all the added functionality as "plugins" for those who want to mess around.[/list]
[/b]
Here's where you got really confused. Since there is not "basic Linux OS". As has been pointed out Linux isn't an OS. It is not. Never was. Again, this is a flawed premise.
You're not making sense here, Mik ol' chap. I'm not referring to an existing all-inclusive "Linux"... I'm calling for the 'equivalent' to be agreed upon, voted into office, picked at random, whatever. For there to be one (or a very few) address(s), not 365 (see disclaimer at the bottom of the post).
You did, however go on and uttered the worst possible thing you could have said, putting me firmly in the stance of disagreeing with you:
I mean, I WANT to check out Linux. It's something I need to DO in order to keep up with "things". What I DON'T want to do is figure out what the differences are between the distros and which one suits my needs better, especially not when they're ALL claiming to be just as powerful and/or friendly.
You know, I have over 150 downloaded movies and over 50 DVDs at home, from a wide range of genres. But when friends come over to see a movie, it takes over an HOUR to decide on one.
Too much choice is a Bad Thing™.
And don't even get me started on KDE vs. Gnome vs. whatever-else-they-have-now. If anyone has illusions or dreams of Linux ever becoming mainstream, they need to stop focusing on making this or that distro the perfect one, and concentrate on merging them all somehow (use Merlin's magic wand, I don't care) so that there's a comparability between the 2-3 main Windows flavors we have today (Home, Pro, and the Server line), and the one or two Linux variants. "Variants", NOT "species". :rolleyes:
Too much choice is a bad thing pretty much NEVER. Lack of choice, is the only possible bad thing. Lack of choice is what led to *nix being picked up as a desktop OS by so many geeks. Lack of choice is how Apple Computers got its impetus to sell more than "build your own computer" kits. Lack of choice is one of the single biggest complaints users all over the world have always had when dealing with the modern Apple and Microsoft.
Black and White, the world is not. "Too Much Choice" does not share a border with "Lack of Choice". No, "Too Much Choice" borders "Just The Right Amount of Choice", which concurrently borders "Lack of Choice". But let's take this out of the Linux realm for a moment, and look at... ohh, say laptops.
"Too Much Choice" would be providing a different laptop model depending on if the RAM chips are Crucial Memory or Kingston. Or whether the BIOS battery is big and flat or short and stocky. These are decisions that - for a very large percentage of the population - serve no purpose other than to confuse and exacerbate.
"Just The Right Amount of Choice" would be offering 512Mb or 1Gb, a CD-RW/DVD-ROM, or a DVD-R/W drive. Basically the kind of choices you find on any laptop manufacturer's website today.
Finally, "Not Enough Choice" is, ironically, where the average computer user is today with regards to what OS they run on their x86. It's called a monopoly. Microsoft may be guilty, but the Linux world could do something to provide a serious challenger to that monopoly - just like was done with IE's browser monopoly when Firefox came on the scene.
And don't get me started about KDE vs GNOME either, because that's a valid dichotomy at the code level, at the window level and at the desktop environment level. If it weren't, then you couldn't make a case for OSX vs Windows, at any level.
Ok, fine... I freely admit that I have no freaking clue what the deal is with KDE and Gnome. The closest I can come up with is the difference between Windows' Explorer and another shell, say... Litestep.
I don't misunderstand what you're saying, Sandwich. I think you're so completely wrong from the beginning that I can't understand why you don't see it.[/B][/q]
Let me close with my now-common disclaimer: all my suggestions on what should change are ONLY IF YOU WANT TO MAKE INROADS among the current base of Windows users. It doesn't count for completely new computer users, nor is it a signal of some sort that Linux distros are doing what they do wrongly. They're great - for us geeks. To capture non-geek Windows users, something needs to change.
-
[color=66ff00]I think your problem is that you want a copy of Windows with 'Linux' slapped on the packaging.
You've missed the point of linux all together. Linux is choice.
[/color]
-
Well said, Maeg.
Sandwich, when it comes to Choice, the world IS binary. There's CHOICE and there's NO CHOICE. Choice might further subdivide, but to get to the subdivisions you have to already fallen down on the side of CHOICE. You might disagree with how much choice a user should have, but that can only be a personal thing: you can't determine how much choice everyone else should have. You made the following comment:I'm calling for the 'equivalent' to be agreed upon, voted into office, picked at random, whatever.
That's already been done. That's why you can buy Mandrake and SuSE at the store. Or, if you want to download one, you can visit DistroWatch's "Top 5 Beginner Friendly Distros" list, or do a little reading around Distrowatch.com. A search for "Beginner Friendly Linux" on Google reveals useful resources. You just have to make an effort.
Finally, let me address something very specifically:
B) LIke I said, and like you quoted me as saying, my not wanting to search for help on changing resolutions is not the point. The point was that if a computer-savvy guy like me couldn't figure out how to change the resolution, then something was seriously flawed (in that distro and version).
You can liken it to using an elevator. Sure, you could make all the buttons identical, with super-cryptic labels, forcing elevator newbies to ask the vets how to get to the 5th floor, but why not just make it easy for all, put a simple label on the button (something along the lines of "5" would do quite nicely), and be done with it?
Two things here. First, you complaint is valid, but only partially, because it came from self enforced ignorance. Back then, the X server could not natively change internal resolutions. It wasn't something that was done on X. At all. Ever. You restarted the X server to change resolutions. However, some basic investigation, on your own machine, in the man pages for X would have revealed that you needed to adjust some things in your X configuration file. If you had asked a veteran, he or she would have pointed out that nearly everything in *nix is configured with a text file. That single bit of knowledge will take you a VERY long way to adjusting nearly anything on a *nix system. After that, a computer savvy guy like you could have solved the problem in mere minutes.
But now we get to the second part. A windowing system is not like an elevator. An elevator is a simple gadget. Its got doors, its got floors, its got buttons and it moves up and down. That's all. A windowing system is more like... oh... a fleet of ships. There's a lot of factors, a lot of variables and everything has to work together in the right way. You weren't asking to go to the fifth floor, Sandwich. You were asking to reroute the elevator around the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, and asking it to open next to your cubicle, instead of the wall the elevator shafts were hidden behind. That was back then. If you had the same problem these days, yes, you would have been complaining about a cryptically labeled fifth floor button. Regardless, though, in both cases (then and now) examining documentation and asking for help, whether you are "computer savvy" or not, is not unreasonable.
I guess what I'm trying to say, Sandwich is that you must be THIS TALL to ride the ride:[list=1]
- You must be willing to read the documentation.
- You must be willing to ask for guidance.
- You must be willing to have patience.
- You must not expect it to be Windows, MacOS or anything but *nix.
If you don't meet these criteria, don't get in line to ride this ride. If you think that's unreasonable, tough. Its the minimum standard. Jesus, if you leave out the last point, you have what I consider to be the dead minimum standard for computer use, full stop.
You're saying *nix should do this and the other thing for acceptance by the general public for a desktop OS. I'm saying you're wrong to think that acceptance by the general public as a desktop OS is at all relevant.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Mr. Fury:
For that Opera problem you probably need the lesstif2 package. On my system (Debian testing) opera 8.5 is shown to depend on libmotif (>= 2) or lesstif2. It may be different on Ubuntu but your package manager should point out the specific dependency.
Yeah, unfortunately I had lesstif2 already installed, so that's not it. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You're not making sense here, Mik ol' chap. I'm not referring to an existing all-inclusive "Linux"... I'm calling for the 'equivalent' to be agreed upon, voted into office, picked at random, whatever. For there to be one (or a very few) address(s), not 365 (see disclaimer at the bottom of the post).
I've said many times. This is impossible. It will never happen. It can't happen. This is what the GPL , kernel developers and the Linux trademark guarantees.
"Too Much Choice" would be providing a different laptop model depending on if the RAM chips are Crucial Memory or Kingston. Or whether the BIOS battery is big and flat or short and stocky. These are decisions that - for a very large percentage of the population - serve no purpose other than to confuse and exacerbate.[/b]
Not a very good analogy. If you choose Suse (or Fedora, Mandrake or whatever) you will be limited in choices like on Windows or Mac OS X like you want. Suse might ask a couple things like "How will you partition your drive?", "What language keyboard do you use?". But you know what? I bet it'll ask less than Windows XP (I can guarantee that the Debian installer asks less than the Windows XP installer from experience).
"Just The Right Amount of Choice" would be offering 512Mb or 1Gb, a CD-RW/DVD-ROM, or a DVD-R/W drive. Basically the kind of choices you find on any laptop manufacturer's website today.
Oh, you mean like on every user friendly Linux distro?
Let me close with my now-common disclaimer: all my suggestions on what should change are ONLY IF YOU WANT TO MAKE INROADS among the current base of Windows users. It doesn't count for completely new computer users, nor is it a signal of some sort that Linux distros are doing what they do wrongly. They're great - for us geeks. To capture non-geek Windows users, something needs to change.
I don't want it to make "inroads", I use Debian and hope it will never degrade to flashy graphical crap messing with my configuration files.
Novell, Redhat and Mandriva sure seem to want to though. Oh wait, they also make distros with flashy graphical installers, graphical bootscreens, pretty Windows style login screens, preconfigured desktops and menus, and graphical configurations for everything. Hmm. *shrug*
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I don't want it to make "inroads", I use Debian and hope it will never degrade to flashy graphical crap messing with my configuration files.
Novell, Redhat and Mandriva sure seem to want to though. Oh wait, they also make distros with flashy graphical installers, graphical bootscreens, pretty Windows style login screens, preconfigured desktops and menus, and graphical configurations for everything. Hmm. *shrug*
There seem to be distros for all kinds of people, for those who prefer graphical tools to get the job done and those who prefer 'old skool' terminal. As far as I am concerned, Debian can be what it currently is, while other distros based on Debian can aim to be more new linux user friendly with graphical flashiness. :) Since there's Debian under the hood, I doubt it will pose any difficulty to go 'old skool' when necessary. I think this covered why I chose Ubuntu instead of, say SuSe.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Fury
There seem to be distros for all kinds of people...
See, Sandwich? this is what I'm talking about. :D
Thanks, Fury.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Fury
As far as I am concerned, Debian can be what it currently is, while other distros based on Debian can aim to be more new linux user friendly with graphical flashiness. :) Since there's Debian under the hood, I doubt it will pose any difficulty to go 'old skool' when necessary. I think this covered why I chose Ubuntu instead of, say SuSe.
Very true. :yes: Debian isn't the easiest to use, but it has a very robust packaging system (apt). I'm glad that Ubuntu, Knoppix and others improve on it. One of apt's greatest strengths, that Ubuntu and the like build on, is its ability to use different repositories. This can only happen in an environment with choice, not "the one distro".
BTW:
This may help for configuring Opera: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OperaBrowser
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
BTW:
This may help for configuring Opera: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OperaBrowser
Yeah, thanks. I found it yesterday but it was too late in the night by then, I'll check it out later today when I am back from work. :)
-
Ubuntu, an alternative to Windows? Not bloody likely unless you're at least a Windows geek even if you have next to no knowledge about linux.
Gah. (http://keepersdomain.net/ubuntu-blog/index.php)
-
I'm in Ubuntu, thanks to the LiveCD. However, during boot, it halts indefinitely at the "Enterprise Volume Management System" (or something like that.. "enterprise" and "volume" were definitely in there) stage. I have to hit CTRL-C to get it to skip that stage and complete the boot process.
Now, I was talking with Maeg online, and he was trying to help me figure out why I couldn't find any HDDs in Ubuntu. I have two 160Gb SATA HDDs, and two IDE HDDs, one 60Gb and one 16Gb. :p He had me run "dmesg" in the terminal window, and this is what I got:
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ dmesg
0/00
[4295321.839000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295321.839000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295321.839000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295321.839000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295321.839000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 645
[4295323.173000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295323.173000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295323.173000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295323.173000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295323.173000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295323.173000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 647
[4295323.173000] printk: 3 messages suppressed.
[4295323.173000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 292
[4295324.506000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295324.506000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295324.506000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295324.506000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295324.506000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295324.507000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 649
[4295325.848000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295325.848000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295325.848000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295325.848000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295325.848000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295325.848000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 651
[4295327.182000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295327.182000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295327.182000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295327.182000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295327.182000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295327.182000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 653
[4295328.524000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295328.524000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295328.524000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295328.524000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295328.524000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295328.524000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 655
[4295328.524000] printk: 3 messages suppressed.
[4295328.524000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 296
[4295329.857000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295329.857000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295329.857000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295329.857000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295329.857000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295329.857000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 657
[4295331.191000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295331.191000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295331.191000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295331.191000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295331.191000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295331.191000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 659
[4295332.524000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295332.524000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295332.524000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295332.524000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295332.524000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295332.524000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 661
[4295332.524000] printk: 2 messages suppressed.
[4295332.524000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 299
[4295333.858000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295333.858000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295333.858000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295333.858000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295333.858000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295333.858000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 663
[4295335.191000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295335.191000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295335.192000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295335.192000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295335.192000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295335.192000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 665
[4295336.525000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295336.525000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295336.525000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295336.525000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295336.525000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295336.525000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 667
[4295337.859000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295337.859000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295337.859000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295337.859000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295337.859000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295337.859000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 669
[4295337.859000] printk: 3 messages suppressed.
[4295337.859000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 303
[4295339.192000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295339.192000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295339.192000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295339.192000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295339.192000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295339.192000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 671
[4295340.526000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295340.526000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295340.526000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295340.526000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295340.526000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295340.526000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 673
[4295341.859000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295341.859000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295341.859000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295341.859000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295341.859000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295341.859000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 675
[4295343.201000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295343.201000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295343.201000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295343.201000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295343.201000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295343.201000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 677
[4295343.201000] printk: 3 messages suppressed.
[4295343.201000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 307
[4295344.535000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295344.535000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295344.535000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295344.535000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295344.535000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295344.535000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 679
[4295345.868000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295345.868000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295345.868000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295345.868000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295345.868000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295345.868000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 681
[4295347.210000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295347.210000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295347.210000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295347.210000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295347.210000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295347.210000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 683
[4295348.544000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295348.544000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295348.544000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295348.544000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295348.544000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295348.544000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 685
[4295348.544000] printk: 3 messages suppressed.
[4295348.544000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 311
[4295349.869000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295349.869000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295349.869000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295349.869000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295349.869000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295349.869000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 687
[4295351.194000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295351.194000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295351.194000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295351.194000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295351.194000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295351.194000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 689
[4295352.527000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295352.527000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295352.528000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295352.528000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295352.528000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295352.528000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 691
[4295352.528000] printk: 2 messages suppressed.
[4295352.528000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 314
[4295353.853000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295353.853000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295353.853000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295353.853000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295353.853000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295353.853000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 693
[4295355.219000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295355.219000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295355.220000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295355.220000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295355.220000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295355.220000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 695
[4295356.586000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295356.586000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295356.586000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295356.586000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295356.586000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295356.586000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 697
[4295358.320000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295358.320000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295358.320000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295358.320000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295358.320000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295358.320000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 699
[4295358.320000] printk: 3 messages suppressed.
[4295358.320000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 318
[4295359.654000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295359.654000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295359.654000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295359.654000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295359.654000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295359.654000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 701
[4295360.987000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295360.987000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295360.987000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295360.987000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295360.987000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295360.987000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 703
[4295362.354000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295362.354000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295362.354000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295362.354000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295362.354000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295362.354000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 705
[4295363.687000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295363.687000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295363.688000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295363.688000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295363.688000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295363.688000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 707
[4295363.688000] printk: 3 messages suppressed.
[4295363.688000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 322
[4295365.029000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295365.029000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295365.029000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295365.029000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295365.029000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295365.029000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 709
[4295366.371000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295366.371000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295366.371000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295366.371000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295366.371000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295366.371000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 711
[4295396.371000] ata2: command 0x25 timeout, stat 0x59 host_stat 0x1
[4295396.371000] ata2: translated ATA stat/err 0x25/00 to SCSI SK/ASC/ASCQ 0x4/00/00
[4295396.371000] ata2: status=0x25 { DeviceFault CorrectedError Error }
[4295396.371000] SCSI error : <1 0 0 0> return code = 0x8000002
[4295396.371000] sdb: Current: sense key: Hardware Error
[4295396.371000] Additional sense: No additional sense information
[4295396.371000] end_request: I/O error, dev sdb, sector 713
[4295396.371000] printk: 2 messages suppressed.
[4295396.371000] Buffer I/O error on device dm-7, logical block 325
[4295396.371000] ATA: abnormal status 0x59 on port 0xF88BC0C7
[4295396.371000] ATA: abnormal status 0x59 on port 0xF88BC0C7
[4295396.371000] ATA: abnormal status 0x59 on port 0xF88BC0C7
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$
....mommy... :nervous: :shaking:
-
Originally posted by Mr. Fury
Ubuntu, an alternative to Windows? Not bloody likely unless you're at least a Windows geek even if you have next to no knowledge about linux.
Gah. (http://keepersdomain.net/ubuntu-blog/index.php)
Damn, looks like I was one of the luckier folks....I really don't understand how _anyone_ who uses Ubuntu can stand things constantly not working...
-
Sandwich: I've been reading the Ubuntu forums and it appears the Ubuntu LiveCD is rather flaky. There's at least one other person with your problem, but I can't find any solutions to it. Did Knoppix work for the same thing?
-
I haven't tried Knoppix since my system overhaul/upgrade (new MB, etc). I plan to, tho.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Damn, looks like I was one of the luckier folks....I really don't understand how _anyone_ who uses Ubuntu can stand things constantly not working...
[color=66ff00]Ubuntu's one of the newer distro's, it looks like it hasn't had time to find its feet. It has a big following though so it must have something going for it besides ease of use.
I always recommend checking supported hardware lists and trying out the newest version of Knoppix to most people looking to dabble in Linux. Knoppix pretty much runs on anything so if it runs on your hardware it's likely that most other distro's can be tailored to run on it too. :nod:
[/color]
-
To tell the truth, I am very much tempted to install Windows back when I am back from work. But we'll see. :sigh:
-
I personally like Ubuntu and I've tried a few of the distro's, Redhat was a nightmare for me, Crunchbang is nice but not my taste, Mandriva I wouldn't dare touch again. Fedora... for me it's ok if I want to run it on a machine that I could throw at a wall when I get mad. Kubuntu whilst aesthetically pleasing is so damn slow it's unbelievable, I probably need a graphics card to support the graphics card supporting KDE.
At the end of the day, Ubuntu with the Gnome setup was the most user friendly for me to use, it's not overly complicated, I can code if I have to and it runs on deb files which believe it or not, despite alternative distro's using alternative file extensions, I find relatively simple to use (Maybe Debian would be the next thing I might switch too if I have to)
At the end of the day, it comes down to this IMO: Windows is a commercial OS, it targets a market whereby companies can make proprietary software, sell it and upgrade it. It supports consumerism. Linux doesn't. It can't, take Nero Linux for example, it's half the price of its Windows counterpart and is only the "lite" version of Nero. No matter how many versions Nero releases it's in direct competition with the likes of K3B, Brasero and others which are free applications that do the same thing, K3B even excels Nero Linux.
In the end, you are left with 3 choices in this world. If you want to pay lots of money and have a company do all the work, buy Mac, if you want to buy a computer and then learn to fight viruses for the rest of your life, buy Windows, or the last choice is Linux.
I've found people who slam Linux don't use it.
-
I, uh. You look like an intelligent person and I would love it if you stuck around, Vetinari, since you can put together an intelligent and readable post.
However, necroing a thread that's been dead for four years is silly. :p
-
He is of course also wrong about fighting virii if you have a half a brain, but hey... :P
-
Well that depends on the user, and what exactly they put on their machine. Let this also be a lesson to all future newcomers to please read the post dates before posting in a thread, otherwise you perform a massive necro.
By, the way, Vetinari, come closer for a sec, I have something to tell you...
:welcomeblue:
-
Bah, I was actually using google for something else that was Freespace 2 and linux related and this post came up and I always have the urge to just post in these discussion :P
-
He is of course also wrong about fighting virii if you have a half a brain, but hey... :P
For the record, the Latin plural of "virus" would be "viri." One i. :p
-
Four years passed since that thread :eek2:
Would have guessed two and a half, or something..
-
fighting viruses n windows is as easy as installing a virus scanner immediately after installing the os and keep its defs up to date, and then not do anything really stupid (like using wares without virus scaning it first, or using internet explorer). the reason windows has problems with viruses is mainly because of oem software. i find that most computers on the market come with a 6 month subscription to norton or some other virus scanner. and when that subscription expires windows users are completely defenseless, and are none the wiser. its amazing how many times i heard "i got norton im defended" then i look and see its subscription to updates expired a year ago. now that ms has come out with its own av software, free to windows users, i expect this reputation to end.
i like the idea of linux, and am capable of using it to some degree. i love linux's gcc compiler, it gives you error messages that make sense. however i find linux is a massive waste of time. i dont want to spend hours ney days setting up the os and reading the long winded poorly written instructions for installing software and drivers. the amount of things that come with linux that has a version number < 1 is disturbing. also i can never seem to get the same performance out of linux that i can with windows.
windows sucks, it does way more than an os should do and because of this its slow. the idea that an os should be a software suite is a bad idea. it should be a platform to run software. another fail point is that they have the internet in bed with the os. nobody on the internet should have a line to your operating system, that is in the relm of a server os.
long story short, operating systems suck.
-
i like the idea of linux, and am capable of using it to some degree. i love linux's gcc compiler, it gives you error messages that make sense.
As opposed to... compilers messages that don't make sense? Where and what compiler?
however i find linux is a massive waste of time. i dont want to spend hours ney days setting up the os and reading the long winded poorly written instructions for installing software and drivers. the amount of things that come with linux that has a version number < 1 is disturbing. also i can never seem to get the same performance out of linux that i can with windows.
If you don't have the patience to learn about inner working of the OS, any distribution that require you to do this are obviously out of your reach. You get what you search for. There are distributions for the common user too, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc... Perhaps you should begin by reviewing these instead of diving into distros such as DSL and Gentoo and whatnot.
windows sucks, it does way more than an os should do and because of this its slow. the idea that an os should be a software suite is a bad idea. it should be a platform to run software. another fail point is that they have the internet in bed with the os. nobody on the internet should have a line to your operating system, that is in the relm of a server os.
long story short, operating systems suck.
Windows like all OS's (apart from DIY linux distributions, but that's another matter entirely) comes packaged with what they consider to be necessary to obtain a minimally functional computer. This includes a text editor, a browser, a media player among other things. Noteworthy is the fact that most of these can be uninstalled if you dislike them. You already complained about long winded instructions, and you want to add more labor into having a fully functional computer? Finally, no OS requires internet to work, and if you are talking about Windows' activation, you can do it offline.
Long story short, try to work out your ideal OS, then try to see how bizarre or unworkable it would be in a real life situation.
-
As opposed to... compilers messages that don't make sense? Where and what compiler?
leave a semicolon off the end of a class or neglect to close a bracket or parentheses.
-
It's a parser, not an AI. :P
And gcc is also prone to it.
-
i like the idea of linux, and am capable of using it to some degree. i love linux's gcc compiler, it gives you error messages that make sense.
As opposed to... compilers messages that don't make sense? Where and what compiler?
however i find linux is a massive waste of time. i dont want to spend hours ney days setting up the os and reading the long winded poorly written instructions for installing software and drivers. the amount of things that come with linux that has a version number < 1 is disturbing. also i can never seem to get the same performance out of linux that i can with windows.
If you don't have the patience to learn about inner working of the OS, any distribution that require you to do this are obviously out of your reach. You get what you search for. There are distributions for the common user too, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc... Perhaps you should begin by reviewing these instead of diving into distros such as DSL and Gentoo and whatnot.
windows sucks, it does way more than an os should do and because of this its slow. the idea that an os should be a software suite is a bad idea. it should be a platform to run software. another fail point is that they have the internet in bed with the os. nobody on the internet should have a line to your operating system, that is in the relm of a server os.
long story short, operating systems suck.
Windows like all OS's (apart from DIY linux distributions, but that's another matter entirely) comes packaged with what they consider to be necessary to obtain a minimally functional computer. This includes a text editor, a browser, a media player among other things. Noteworthy is the fact that most of these can be uninstalled if you dislike them. You already complained about long winded instructions, and you want to add more labor into having a fully functional computer? Finally, no OS requires internet to work, and if you are talking about Windows' activation, you can do it offline.
Long story short, try to work out your ideal OS, then try to see how bizarre or unworkable it would be in a real life situation.
#11