[WMCoolmon]

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...

[mikhael]

Things like that make me giggle.

[WMCoolmon]

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.

[mikhael]

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.

[Grey Wolf]

Linux's important role is the same as Unix's. Running servers.

[mikhael]

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!!!!.

[mikhael]

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.

[Kamikaze]

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?

[WMCoolmon]

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. 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.

[Sandwich]

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?

[mikhael]

Oh, no, I understand it. I disagree with your premise.

[Fury]

This thread kind of gave me the push to try linux again. This time around I also decided to document it.

[mikhael]

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!).

[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:
[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".

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.

[WMCoolmon]

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*.

[mikhael]

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.

[Kamikaze]

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.

[WMCoolmon]

mikhael: I find myself actually agreeing with you inthis thread

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.

[mikhael]

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.

[Sandwich]

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".

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.