I gave up on Linux

[skritch]

Originally posted by defcom_1
I'm not saying it's dead simple in windows, but you have to admit, it's simpler than linux.

I admit it. However, Windows is written by one group of people, with strict hierarchical, top-down management of how things interoperate.

Samba was written by an independent group of people from those who wrote the kernel, and those both were written separately from those who developed X11, and that in turn was separate from those who wrote the various window and session managers in use today.


In Windows, the various functions are tightly integrated. In Linux, it's a hodgepodge of loosely associated programs.

You shouldn't complain how complex working with various Linux programs can be. You should marvel that there's any integration whatsoever.


It took several years for the Linux crowd to whittle itself down to two major windowing environments -- Gnome and KDE, and to have developers start adopting one or the other's "look and feel".

It'll take a few more before people start standardizing on GUI control of various applications. The big problem there is that the GUI teams view that sort of thing as the responsibility of the app developers (and things like Samba were never written with a GUI in mind), and the app developers view that sort of thing as the responsibility of those who want GUI control -- namely, the GUI developers.

You have to understand -- GUIs in Unix are, by and large, an afterthought. As they were in Linux. For the first few years, there was no X11 functionality in Linux to speak of. It wasn't until around 1998-ish that any serious effort was made to develop a full-fledged, functional desktop environment for Linux (I was with the Gnome project at the start).

That they've come as far as they have in 5 years is admirable. Look at Windows 3.11; that's roughly equivalent to where the Linux desktop is now. It'll get there, but it'll be about 5 more years. Having IBM and Novell pushing development will help a great deal.

 

[skritch]

Originally posted by gb25
True, but the amount of knowledge required to operate a computer running linux and a computer running windows are completely different.

I agree completely. But knowing that, deciding to use Linux and then complaining about it isn't fair.

I'm not saying that the average user should be able to build a computer. But there is no reason to expect the average user to know how an OS works. Knowledge of the interworkings of an OS isn't required to operate a computer.

And here, we'll have to agree to disagree. It IS necessary. You must, at a minimum, understand the conventions the OS expects you to use to interact with it. And to understand at all how the OS responds when you do certain things, you must learn even more. This is the point at which many people throw up their hands in frustration. However, rather than paying someone else to fix things, or learning how to fix them oneself, people just blame the computer or the OS or the program as being "bad".

Would you blame your car for being poorly-designed because you have to change the oil? Would you complain that you have to learn about your engine in order to perform an oil change? Would you refuse to change it yourself and refuse to pay someone to change it for you, and instead sit and whine about how poorly the car operates?

Of course not. But that's what people do with computers.

By the way, you don't have to know how a gun or a car works in order to operate it. Does it help? Sure. But it is in no way required.

Yes, you do. At least the fundamentals. And you have to demonstrate a minimum level of competence when so doing.
And yes, I would support a licensing scheme for computer/Internet use.

True, you can operate both without proper licensing, but you can also run over people and shoot yourself in the foot. Neither is the fault of the tool. Yet everyone wants to blame the tool when it comes to computers.

What is the minimum required to operate a computer? For most people, it consists of turning it on. They want to turn the computer on and use it. Simple as that. Try using linux and the minimum raises a few notches above what the average user wants to deal with.

No, it consists of turning it on, knowing how to interact with the OS to achieve their goals, knowing how to use the programs they need to use to achieve their goals.

Millions of people still can't do that with Windows, let alone Linux. What the average user wants and what's reasonable to demand are two different things (see my analogies above regarding blaming the tool).

 

[GreNME]

Here's the long, short and medium of it.

Linux is not for Joe Luser. Not in its current state.

Windows BARELY falls into that category, now. It's getting closer to being every idiots' OS, which Mac has claimed quite honorably for years. They've built an idiot-usable OS on top of UNIX. Very impressive.

Bingo. And even OS X still has its parts which take a bit of doing, especially in non-Mac environments. I'm definitely not a Mac fanatic, but they've taken what Linux is basically built off of and done what Linux has yet to do: make it "just work" for 90% of the people who use it.

This doesn't mean Linux should try to make Just Another MacOS, either. The Linux community shouldn't do that any more than they should emulate Windows. What Linux needs, though, is more people who are into ergonomics, layout, and visual design working on the OS. The Gnome and KDE projects do a fair job, but they are almost completely comprised of programmers, writing programs for other programmers. It's the same with the support system, and with the implementation. However, what the Linux community does provide is the best testing and code-troubleshooting bed out there that does not cost a fortune. This doesn't mean the code is always the best thing out there since sliced bread (though many will claim it is), but you can't beat putting out some New Thing and having a few thousand people kick the tires for you for little or nothing as far as pay. If anyone in commercial programming were to be honest, they would say that open source has provided a good field of study, testing, and practice for viable programmers. Not everyone who plays with Linux or writes a few scripts is automagically SuperDuperProgrammerElite, but the environment the community provides was rare and difficult to access before Linux grew.

The thing is, despite this great community and the respectable advances of the OS, it's still not a regular consumer-level OS. I have a hard time imagining it actually making it there, too, because I already see people bitching and whining about "pretty interfaces" and "eye candy" whenever someone tries to add to the visual aspects of any OS (anyone else remember the hell RH caught for BlueCurve?). Smaller does not equal better, and less is not always more. Linux has gotten way better with this, but the general mindset of "keep everything as hands-on as possible" is still one of the driving forces of the Linux community, and that is very much not the mindset of the user market. This is what keeps Linux at a 1% market share, despite its growing use as a server.

 

[skritch]

Originally posted by GreNME
Bingo. And even OS X still has its parts which take a bit of doing, especially in non-Mac environments. I'm definitely not a Mac fanatic, but they've taken what Linux is basically built off of and done what Linux has yet to do: make it "just work" for 90% of the people who use it.

Technically, Mac OS X is built of a Mach microkernel originally derived from the NeXT operating system (NeXT was a company founded by Steve Jobs when he left Apple the first time). FreeBSD forms a great amount of the supporting OS which is Mac OS X.

Linux, on the other hand, was written out of a desire to have something more powerful than Minix, which was originally designed as a teaching tool to help people learn how a Unix operating system works. It's a monolithic kernel written largely from whole cloth, whose heritage seems to be a hodge-podge of both BSD and System V.

 

[GreNME]

Originally posted by skritch
Technically, Mac OS X is built of a Mach microkernel originally derived from the NeXT operating system (NeXT was a company founded by Steve Jobs when he left Apple the first time). FreeBSD forms a great amount of the supporting OS which is Mac OS X.

Linux, on the other hand, was written out of a desire to have something more powerful than Minix, which was originally designed as a teaching tool to help people learn how a Unix operating system works. It's a monolithic kernel written largely from whole cloth, whose heritage seems to be a hodge-podge of both BSD and System V.

And this disagrees with what I said how? Both are third-gen Unix knockoffs. OS X is built from a real OS, while Linux is built from a learning tool. OS X comes off as a good end-user OS, and Linux is good for the field of learning and study. How is what you posted any different from what I said?

 

[skritch]

Originally posted by GreNME
And this disagrees with what I said how?

You said, about Mac OS X: "they've taken what Linux is basically built off of [...]"


I was merely elucidating that point a bit. Linux was built from Minix. OS X was built from NeXTStep and FreeBSD.

Yes, they're all Unix-alikes. Neither, however, has a lineage that traces back to Tahoe or Reno BSD, or Unix Version 7 (the rough parentage of the current BSD/SysV branches of Unix, respectively). And neither is in any way related to the other, except that both adhere to the POSIX standards these days, more or less.

 

[ZenPirate]

To add a bit to earlier install time discussions, Fedora Core installed faster on my box than XP pro did, and Xandros 2.0 (with it's four step install) was perhaps the easiest and fastest install I've ever done.

*edit* On the box in my sig I've tested

mandrake 9.2 - didn't like it at all. It didn't seem very stable to me and I never did get 3d support working right

Suse 9.0 - not a bad distro, but net install was a pain

Fedora Core 1 - a bit buggy, Gnome 2.4 rocks. Time must be spent to add mp3 and dvd support. Red Carpet from Ximian now works with Fedora so upgrading the system is super easy. 3d support was easy to install, as was ntfs read support

Xandros 2.0 - It works. period. The catch is: you must pay for it.

 

[gb25]

Originally posted by skritch
I agree completely. But knowing that, deciding to use Linux and then complaining about it isn't fair.

If something doesn't work the way that you want it to (without too much trouble), then it is fair to complain all you want. Be it windows or linux. It just so happens that for most people, linux is simply too much trouble to deal with.

And here, we'll have to agree to disagree. It IS necessary. You must, at a minimum, understand the conventions the OS expects you to use to interact with it. And to understand at all how the OS responds when you do certain things, you must learn even more. This is the point at which many people throw up their hands in frustration. However, rather than paying someone else to fix things, or learning how to fix them oneself, people just blame the computer or the OS or the program as being "bad".

Again, what's the minimum? What you or I may consider common knowledge is something that most people don't care to learn. To some people it simply isn't worth either their time or money to learn how to do everything to an OS.

By the way, there is a big difference between using a computer and troubleshooting and repairing a computer. You seem to be suggesting that everyone should be able to fix any problems that they may have with their computer, such as instability, blue screens, etc... I think that's expecting too much.

Would you blame your car for being poorly-designed because you have to change the oil? Would you complain that you have to learn about your engine in order to perform an oil change? Would you refuse to change it yourself and refuse to pay someone to change it for you, and instead sit and whine about how poorly the car operates?

Your comparison doesn't make any sense. You don't have to know anything about your engine to know to change your oil. Ask most people why they change their oil, and they will probably say "because you are supposed to change it every xxxx miles." They don't know why, just that they are supposed to. Changing your oil would be akin to something like defragging your hard drive. They are both general maintenence that people know that they should do. I don't know many people that complain about having to defrag their hard drive.

However, people do complain when something goes wrong with their computer. Just as they complain when something goes wrong with their car. A better comparison would be when your car starts dying randomly and your computer randomly blue screens. Both situations where the tool is (most of the time) at fault. Of course most people will complain when either situation happens. And yes, people will blame the car for being poorly designed, just as they will the computer.

You seem to think that the average user should be able to fix the "simple" problems when they happen. Do you also think that the average driver should be able to fix the "simple" problems that they may have with their car? What about when their AC quits working? Or when the electricity quits working?

True, you can operate both without proper licensing, but you can also run over people and shoot yourself in the foot. Neither is the fault of the tool. Yet everyone wants to blame the tool when it comes to computers.

I don't quite understand your comparison. Often when there is a problem with a computer, the computer is at fault. Running people over or shooting yourself in the foot is in most cases user error.

 

[skritch]

Originally posted by gb25

Your comparison doesn't make any sense. You don't have to know anything about your engine to know to change your oil.

You need to know its operating environment and typical use to choose the proper weight oil. You need to know its capacity to know how much oil to put in. You need to know its architecture to know where the dipstick is, where the drain plug is, where the fill point is, and so forth. You need to know what to look for in the drained oil to catch any serious problems before they cripple your engine. You need to know the dangers of overfilling, to drive home the point about capacity. You need to know the dangers of running under capacity, to drive home the dangers of running low. You need to know the dangers of not changing the oil, to drive home the whole point of the exercise.

Now, what were you saying about not needing to know anything about the engine?

Ask most people why they change their oil, and they will probably say "because you are supposed to change it every xxxx miles." They don't know why, just that they are supposed to. Changing your oil would be akin to something like defragging your hard drive. They are both general maintenence that people know that they should do. I don't know many people that complain about having to defrag their hard drive.

I do. And not only do they complain about having to do it, they refuse to learn how to do it properly at the same time they refuse to pay someone else to do it. These people simply never defrag. And when told they should, they blame the computer.

However, people do complain when something goes wrong with their computer. Just as they complain when something goes wrong with their car. A better comparison would be when your car starts dying randomly and your computer randomly blue screens. Both situations where the tool is (most of the time) at fault. Of course most people will complain when either situation happens. And yes, people will blame the car for being poorly designed, just as they will the computer.

Neither situation is typically the fault of the tool. It's almost always due to mistreatment and/or misuse. "Fault of the tool" means, "manufacturing or design defect". Neither is the case in either situation you describe.

By the way, things rarely, if ever "randomly fail". There is almost always a cause, and that cause can almost always be tracked back to (mis)use. This is doubly true with computers.

You seem to think that the average user should be able to fix the "simple" problems when they happen. Do you also think that the average driver should be able to fix the "simple" problems that they may have with their car? What about when their AC quits working? Or when the electricity quits working?

Yes, I do think so. In all the cases you outline. I also think people incapable of such simple mental challenges shouldn't be allowed to breed.

I'm constantly amazed that these people manage to breathe without detailed instructions and someone standing by to pump their chest because the lungs' owners are too lazy and/or stupid to be bothered.

I don't quite understand your comparison. Often when there is a problem with a computer, the computer is at fault. Running people over or shooting yourself in the foot is in most cases user error.

You're simply wrong. Most computer problems are PEBCAK, just as running people over and perforating one's foot are.

I challenge you to list 5 computer problems that are not user error (that do not include hardware failure). Reminder: "Having to edit a file" is not a computer problem.

 

[GreNME]

Originally posted by skritch
You said, about Mac OS X: "they've taken what Linux is basically built off of [...]"


I was merely elucidating that point a bit. Linux was built from Minix. OS X was built from NeXTStep and FreeBSD.

Yes, they're all Unix-alikes. Neither, however, has a lineage that traces back to Tahoe or Reno BSD, or Unix Version 7 (the rough parentage of the current BSD/SysV branches of Unix, respectively). And neither is in any way related to the other, except that both adhere to the POSIX standards these days, more or less.

Wrong.

The mach kernel is based directly off of FreeBSD, which is based off of Unix from way back (obvious changes since then). Minix is based roughly off of Unix as well. Both Linux and OS X are 3rd generation Unix knock-offs, neither actually being a "Unix" though both having pretty much the same compatibility with Unix. However, there are even those in the Mac community who say that since OS X has BSD as part of its core (NeXT was used for interface), it has even more Unix compatibility than Linux, which was basically a rewrite of the POSIX in Minix.

However, none of this changes the point: Linux is not as refined as OS X is for the desktop, nor is it as refined as XP. It's a great learning tool, but not as great a personal computing tool for the general public.

 

[skritch]

Originally posted by GreNME
Wrong.

The mach kernel is based directly off of FreeBSD, which is based off of Unix from way back (obvious changes since then). Minix is based roughly off of Unix as well. Both Linux and OS X are 3rd generation Unix knock-offs, neither actually being a "Unix" though both having pretty much the same compatibility with Unix. However, there are even those in the Mac community who say that since OS X has BSD as part of its core (NeXT was used for interface), it has even more Unix compatibility than Linux, which was basically a rewrite of the POSIX in Minix.

However, none of this changes the point: Linux is not as refined as OS X is for the desktop, nor is it as refined as XP. It's a great learning tool, but not as great a personal computing tool for the general public.

Good lord! Mach was a research project started at CMU in 1987. FreeBSD didn't exist until 1993. "the POSIX" is a misnomer; POSIX is a set of standards. Few, if any, were implemented in Minix. NeXT was the name of a company; NeXTStep, the OS, and there's NO remnant of NeXTStep in OS X's interface, and only a minimal carryover of NeXTStep's philosophy to OS X. Unix is well past its third generation. There is no such thing as "compatibility with Unix" because there is no "Unix" that exists as an entity (unless you want to consider System 7).


Please, just stop now, before you embarass yourself further. You've just amply demonstrated your tenuous grasp on the subject matter.

 

[XOR != OR]

Whoa, talk about thread hijack.

You folks make me so damned proud sometimes.

Now, as to the actual subject of the thread ( which seems to have morphed into computer education, Windows being easier than Linux and a few other things.. )

1) If this were a perfect world, where virus writers were strung up by their nuts when they even thought about it, then we wouldn't need to educate people about their computers. We could get away with it "just working". But, uninformed users are a bigger problem then the viruses themselves, and therefore education is critical.

Do you realize how little we would have seen from something like Blaster or Melissa if 90% of all internet users had basic security training?

2) As I am fond of saying, because it's true, linux is easier to use than windows. Why people say it is hard is because they learned on windows ( the retarded way ) how to do something, then they try to take those lessons and apply them to linux, which does things in a much simpler fashion ( normally. Not always ).

This is what trips most people up. People think of linux and think they have to learn how to compile stuff to get it working, and that's simply not the case for the casual user. Casual defined as Email/web/word processor.

Both Linux and OS X are 3rd generation Unix knock-offs, neither actually being a "Unix" though both having pretty much the same compatibility with Unix.

Just to clarify: Linux is it's own OS, it doesn't have a parent OS it was branched from. You didn't say that, but it wasn't clear.

It's a great learning tool, but not as great a personal computing tool for the general public.

This is another point where I'd like to test. The grandma test, as it were.

We build two systems, identical. Load up our respective OSes ( Linux and XP ), and give them to two people who haven't used a computer within the last 10 years, both of equal technical aptitude.

I would be willing to bet that we both get the same amount of questions initially, gradually dieing down while they get used to the systems. Then, a sudden burst of calls for you when Grandma has opened something she shouldn't have in email.

However, you'd have me with OSX. That is a damn nice OS, let me tell you. If MS and linux have any intelligence, they will be reaching for emulating OSX's interface, making improvements as they go.

That said, I will still stick by my previous belief: The linux folks should not be wasting as much time and effort on the desktop as they are. They need to be making advancements in Samba and the kernel. They need to focus on introducing features and tools that would make them indespesable in any organisation, even from the PHB's perspective ( oo, look, it makes shinies on the monitor...pretty ). Sure, the desktop is nice and all, but it's not what's going to win the hearts and minds of the IT folks in corporations.

There, I hope that's off topic enough. I'd hate to think I'm loosing my touch.

 

[GreNME]

Like I said, XOR, I wish you lived nearby. I'd do the whole setup test and the grandma test with you.

As for skritch: I'm not even going to get into a computing history debate with you. You're trying to obfuscate the fact that OS X got right what Linux has yet to. Windows XP has done the same, without the Unix background (doing it instead from an OS/2-y direction). Linux is quite plainly an enthusiast OS, and without the enthusiast, the OS would have no market.

 

[gb25]

Originally posted by skritch
You need to know its operating environment and typical use to choose the proper weight oil. You need to know its capacity to know how much oil to put in. You need to know its architecture to know where the dipstick is, where the drain plug is, where the fill point is, and so forth. You need to know what to look for in the drained oil to catch any serious problems before they cripple your engine. You need to know the dangers of overfilling, to drive home the point about capacity. You need to know the dangers of running under capacity, to drive home the dangers of running low. You need to know the dangers of not changing the oil, to drive home the whole point of the exercise.

Now, what were you saying about not needing to know anything about the engine?

I would be willing to bet that less than 25% of the car owners in the US (probably less) know those specifics. That's why all of the places that change car oil exist. Because most people don't do it themselves.

I do. And not only do they complain about having to do it, they refuse to learn how to do it properly at the same time they refuse to pay someone else to do it. These people simply never defrag. And when told they should, they blame the computer.


Neither situation is typically the fault of the tool. It's almost always due to mistreatment and/or misuse. "Fault of the tool" means, "manufacturing or design defect". Neither is the case in either situation you describe.

By the way, things rarely, if ever "randomly fail". There is almost always a cause, and that cause can almost always be tracked back to (mis)use. This is doubly true with computers.

Not necessarly. I've seen many, many problems caused by things such as power supplies, hard drives, fans, etc... randomly failing. I've also seen many cases where blown capacitors on mobo's caused problems. I guess that is caused by misuse huh?

Yes, I do think so. In all the cases you outline. I also think people incapable of such simple mental challenges shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Well, there is a case where I assure you that you are in the minority. I guess if lightning were to strike a transformer outside your house, you would just change it yourself huh?

By the way, what are you, some kind of jack-of-all-trades that is licenesed to repair anything? Because most places require licesning to do electrical or A/C work.

I'm constantly amazed that these people manage to breathe without detailed instructions and someone standing by to pump their chest because the lungs' owners are too lazy and/or stupid to be bothered.

Chances are that many of these people are related to you.

You're simply wrong. Most computer problems are PEBCAK, just as running people over and perforating one's foot are.

I challenge you to list 5 computer problems that are not user error (that do not include hardware failure). Reminder: "Having to edit a file" is not a computer problem.

No where did I say that all were caused by hardware. Or that people never cause problems. But a lot of stability or blue screen problems can be caused by hardware failure. Blown caps on mobo, bad memory, bad hard drive, bad power supply, etc...

 

[BobSutan]

Originally posted by XOR != OR
This is another point where I'd like to test. The grandma test, as it were.

We build two systems, identical. Load up our respective OSes ( Linux and XP ), and give them to two people who haven't used a computer within the last 10 years, both of equal technical aptitude.

I would be willing to bet that we both get the same amount of questions initially, gradually dieing down while they get used to the systems. Then, a sudden burst of calls for you when Grandma has opened something she shouldn't have in email.

I'll let ya know how it goes. I'm moving back to the States in May and I already have 2 requests for new computers from family members. Up until I read this thread I was thinking of using the latest RedHat/Fedora. The main reason I wanted to go with Linux over Windows is
A. The OS and Desktop apps are free
B. They'd be less likely to accidentally muck something up.

I figure I'll be taking the brunt of the frustration by doing the installation and configuration. As far as general everyday usage is concerned I feel Windows and Linux are about equal. Where Linux has the upper hand is that you're less likely to break the damn thing by just using it.

 

[XOR != OR]

Originally posted by GreNME
Like I said, XOR, I wish you lived nearby. I'd do the whole setup test and the grandma test with you.

That would be...interesting.

Probably be better company then what I normally deal with out here ( cow tipping, still the best way to keep the locals amused ).

 

[GreNME]

Heck, I'd be sure to buy you a beer no matter what the results of the "tests."

 

[cuemasterfl]

I only read about 2 pages of this thread, but here's what I have to say. I tried Linux about 3-4 months ago I believe. I can't remember which distro I tried, but I tried a few and one of them installed with everything working on my system - I didn't have to mess with any drivers, which was a huge relief.

However, I uninstalled after a week or so because of the following:

1) I thought it would run faster than XP, but on my machine, it didn't. It ran at about the same speed.

2) I hate CLI. I want to double click icons and see stuff work. I don't want to be manually configuring everything.

3) I really didn't know how to do some of the basic tasks I do with XP, and I don't expect to have to search for information. With XP, everything is intuitive.

4) There are some programs not available on Linux that I need in my everyday chores.

5) Gaming. 'Nuff said.

Now, if, and mean IF they make Linux behave more like Windows XP (talking about ease of use), I would definitely try it again. Until then, I am extremely happy with my XP.

 

[Kriegführung]

#5 is my only reason to holding on to WinXP.

 

[CrimandEvil]

Originally posted by Kriegführung
#5 is my only reason to holding on to WinXP.

Same here, but I made a nice place on my HD for Linux though.
Funny thing about that "Grandma test" I installed linux (Suse 8.2) and the next thing I know my little brother (age 16) and sister (age 12) where really playing with it. These are people that know less about computers then the average person knows about Black Holes, Quasars, and Worm Holes yet they really like it. I'm use to that sort of thing though, hell long ago I gave up the idea of a GF whos eyes don't glaze over when I talk about that stuff.
It was a same to put XP on my machine (since I didn't use it for gaming yet) since it took quite sometime to get use to it's "ease of use." <Shudders>

 

[skritch]

Originally posted by CrimandEvil
hell long ago I gave up the idea of a GF whos eyes don't glaze over when I talk about that stuff.

They exist. My wife's an engineer at Sun.

 

[holyroller1]

Skritch

You evidently have much higher standards as to what you "need" to know to operate anything.

A little while back you used the car analogy so we will stick with that. You said the operator "needs" to know certain things. You are very mistaken. The average auto operator has NO idea how much oil, washer fluid, tranny fluid, or any of the other maintenance items. You know what they do know? Valvoline instant oil change baby!!! They get in turn the key(hit the power button), put it in drive(open whatever proggy the need), turn the wheel and use the gas and brake(use whatever proggy).

The computer is a tool just like a car. They need to know how to "operate" it not maintain it. The average user has no use with having to know how maintain something that they use strictly as a tool. The job of maintenance goes to Best Buy, CC, Comp USA whatever. Just as car maintenance is "outsourced". Heck the average user doesn't even update their Windoze updates. They turn the computer on to surf the net, email someone, type a doc whatever. They don't care that they can't install a driver properly or whatever, heck many don't know what a driver is for that matter. And if they want to install a program they want to just double click, say yes, yes, next and be done. They don't want to worry about dependencies or anything such as that.

You and I, people like us are tweakers, we like to understand the nuts and bolts. We are not the majority of computer users I assure you.

I think that the original thoughts brought forward in this post are very valid. Linux has not yet reached primetime for average Joe. This has been pointed out by many in the past and remains to be true IMHO.

This post is not a slam on Linux or even windows. I happen to be a network admin for a company that is almost exclusively Win OS's with a little RH Enterprise on the side. But I am also a tweaker and use Slackware as my desktop at home when I am not gaming or recording music. Linux still doesn't have support for my MIA audio card, oh well. Anyway, I can see why the average person would not venture in the 'nix world just yet. If you can't see this just think about the average people. People you meet in Best Buy that are actually taking advise from the 16-17 year old sales person that doesn't know the difference between 802.11b and g. That should open your eyes as to what the average user wants to learn about the actual inner workings of a PC.

And there are many things that are even easier for me on Win or Mac than 'nix. As mentioned before Recording, Photo Editing, Games etc...

 

[Josh_B]

Originally posted by skritch
They exist. My wife's an engineer at Sun.

Mine works at lavalife editing HTML/Java ... she also does PC troubleshooting on the sides. When she's not fixing PCs, she's programming

 

[XOR != OR]

Originally posted by Josh_B
Mine works at lavalife editing HTML/Java ... she also does PC troubleshooting on the sides. When she's not fixing PCs, she's programming

I met a geek chick once. I don't think I made a good impression. While she was spouting off about pointers and constructions, I was drooling.



* True story

 

[Josh_B]

Originally posted by cuemasterfl
I only read about 2 pages of this thread, but here's what I have to say. I tried Linux about 3-4 months ago I believe. I can't remember which distro I tried, but I tried a few and one of them installed with everything working on my system - I didn't have to mess with any drivers, which was a huge relief.

However, I uninstalled after a week or so because of the following:

1) I thought it would run faster than XP, but on my machine, it didn't. It ran at about the same speed.

2) I hate CLI. I want to double click icons and see stuff work. I don't want to be manually configuring everything.

3) I really didn't know how to do some of the basic tasks I do with XP, and I don't expect to have to search for information. With XP, everything is intuitive.

4) There are some programs not available on Linux that I need in my everyday chores.

5) Gaming. 'Nuff said.

Now, if, and mean IF they make Linux behave more like Windows XP (talking about ease of use), I would definitely try it again. Until then, I am extremely happy with my XP.

Linux does run faster than XP, just not in the ways you were expecting. It is, from my readings, about 10% faster in general. X-Windows is not generally one of the faster things, as instead of the GUI being part of the kernel, like in the Win32 world, X-Windows runs mostly as a user-space app. If you were to perform the same functions you do in WinXP, at the Linux CLI, it would be noticeably faster. As with most things in life, this small tradeoff in speed means that if your X-server crashes, you can simply hit ctl-alt-backspace, and go back to the CLI, where you can easily troubleshoot. Not so in Windows. In Windows, if your GUI crashes, you'll enjoy restarting. This was done on purpose in the Unix world, as it allows critical server-oriented processes to continue running in the background, even if X crashes.

Manually configuring 'everything' under Linux is a myth. There are many utilities that can help you setup 'everything' under Linux. Under redhat, there are many Windows-like interfaces; just try running redhat-config-xfree, for example, or redhat-config-users. Seem familiar? Besides, don't you want to know what changes a utility is making to your OS' system files? I hate the Windows registry - there's nothing like making a single point of failure for all of your most critical system settings. What's more, I've been working with Windows since I was 15 (I'm 23 now), and I do understand about the registry, but there are some parts of the registry I won't touch out of fear of disturbing the "voodoo-magic" that holds it together...

More and more games are being created that run on multiple OS'. Those that don't work under Linux natively, can sometimes be run using WineX.

 

[Josh_B]

Originally posted by XOR != OR
I met a geek chick once. I don't think I made a good impression. While she was spouting off about pointers and constructions, I was drooling.



* True story

*Picks up XOR != OR's jaw from floor*

 

[cuemasterfl]

Originally posted by Josh_B
Linux does run faster than XP, just not in the ways you were expecting. It is, from my readings, about 10% faster in general. X-Windows is not generally one of the faster things, as instead of the GUI being part of the kernel, like in the Win32 world, X-Windows runs mostly as a user-space app. If you were to perform the same functions you do in WinXP, at the Linux CLI, it would be noticeably faster. As with most things in life, this small tradeoff in speed means that if your X-server crashes, you can simply hit ctl-alt-backspace, and go back to the CLI, where you can easily troubleshoot. Not so in Windows. In Windows, if your GUI crashes, you'll enjoy restarting. This was done on purpose in the Unix world, as it allows critical server-oriented processes to continue running in the background, even if X crashes.

Manually configuring 'everything' under Linux is a myth. There are many utilities that can help you setup 'everything' under Linux. Under redhat, there are many Windows-like interfaces; just try running redhat-config-xfree, for example, or redhat-config-users. Seem familiar? Besides, don't you want to know what changes a utility is making to your OS' system files? I hate the Windows registry - there's nothing like making a single point of failure for all of your most critical system settings. What's more, I've been working with Windows since I was 15 (I'm 23 now), and I do understand about the registry, but there are some parts of the registry I won't touch out of fear of disturbing the "voodoo-magic" that holds it together...

More and more games are being created that run on multiple OS'. Those that don't work under Linux natively, can sometimes be run using WineX.

Thanks for the info Josh B. I really was expecting you to slam me for not being interested in learning what I needed to learn etc. (got from a previous post in this thread), but I appreciate you understanding I know nothing about Linux

I decided to download the latest SUSE that can be run from the CD. I know it won't have the same performance as if I installed ir to the hard drive, but I will burn it later and try it. At least I can play with it and try to learn a little without fear of blowing my computer up

 

[[H]EMI_426]

It took me four years or so to give up on Linux. I wish I had earlier. I'm so much happier with FreeBSD.

 

[Josh_B]

Originally posted by [H]EMI_426
It took me four years or so to give up on Linux. I wish I had earlier. I'm so much happier with FreeBSD.

Well I don't know about giving up on Linux, but FreeBSD is nice too.

Not to hijack this thread too much, but does anyone here have a fair amount of experience with OpenBSD? I recently purchased it, and would love to try it, but I haven't found an in-depth installation guide

 

[skritch]

Originally posted by Josh_B
Well I don't know about giving up on Linux, but FreeBSD is nice too.

Not to hijack this thread too much, but does anyone here have a fair amount of experience with OpenBSD? I recently purchased it, and would love to try it, but I haven't found an in-depth installation guide

Have you tried the documentation at http://www.openbsd.org/ ? That's what I used when I was learning how to install it.

 

[cuemasterfl]

Hello again

I am writing this from the Live Evaluation version of SUSE 9 (the one that boots from CD). Everything seems to be functioning ok (video, sound, internet, etc). Now I have a couple of questions:

- Is there anyway to make this version install to a hard drive, rather than run from the CD?

- I have 2 physical drives. One is 40GB (with XP on) and the other is a 20GB split into 17GB and 3GB (used for backups etc). All partitions on this computer are NTFS. I am thinking of changing the partition sizes of the second hard drive to something like 10GB and 10GB, and keeping the one partion of 10GB for SUSE (if I can install this to hard drve). I guess I should format that partition with Fat32, right? (as I understand Linux doesn't like NTFS too well).

BTW, I really like the look of SUSE. If there's anyway I can set up a dual boot with XP on my C: drive and SUSE on another drive, I would be a very happy man. I guess I should burn to CD the critical stuff on my backup drive, just in case a disaster should happen.

 

[Stanley Pain]

I have Mandrake 9.2 installed on my laptop for "work" stuff


I've messed around with various distros (SuSe, Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake) on my home machine.

While all the distros are nice, they all lack one thing. The ability to play ALL the games I have

Once Linux reaches the point that I can just plop a game into the CD-rom drive, install it, and play it, It will have no home on my home machine

Cheers,

Mr. Pain

 

[svet-am]

Originally posted by cuemasterfl
Hello again

I am writing this from the Live Evaluation version of SUSE 9 (the one that boots from CD). Everything seems to be functioning ok (video, sound, internet, etc). Now I have a couple of questions:

- Is there anyway to make this version install to a hard drive, rather than run from the CD?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but no... SuSE is one of the few distros out there that only distributes a demo ISO. If you want a full install of SUSE, then you'll need to either download the install CD/floppy set and do a network install or you'll need to actually purchase it.

This is mostly due to the fact that SuSE is huge (5+ CDs).

 

[ZenPirate]

The network install is a pain. I have a fast connection, so it only took me about 2 hours to do a custom install (about 1.5GB). With SuSe I recommend buying the cd's.

 

[Vlad_M]

Originally posted by ScourggeFX
After spending over 40 hrs configuring my R9700 to work with Mandrake 9.2, numerous reinstalls, and endless searches of how tos, I just figured it wasn't worth it anymore. Just too many problems. While it may be different for you, I was soundly disaapointed at how much time I spent trying to get the graphics 3D part to work.

Back to good 'ol W2k.

I thread crapped and then disrespected a forum moderator, hence my ban.

 

[XOR != OR]

Ok folks, just tested it out, and I am impressed.

Fedora Core 1. Did a basic workstation install, keeping the defaults ( auto-partition, auto-package selection ). Took 30 minutes, from power on to first login.

Further, for ease of use, Fedora core has the auto login function working.