Bad linux experience

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
You should realize that you are not allowed to have problems with Linux. if you do, then you didn't do enough research, and are generally a n00b. Otherwise, everything would have worked fine, and after all, what home user doesn't know how to compile a graphics driver? Sheesh.

This sounds harsh, but the first part is true. Generally, if you have a problem, you're either new to Linux or didn't do enough research. If you decide to stick with Linux, do yourself a favor and read the "How to ask questions the smart way" article:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Remember, Google is your friend. If you make time and have patience, you WILL find an answer. If you want a friendly GUI, stay away from Linux. If you want an easy installation, stay away from Linux. If you want low-hassle upgrades, stay away from Linux. If you want mass hardware/software support, stay away from Linux. If you want reliability, fine-tuned customization, and perfection, stick with Linux. Do you research, get appropriate hardware for your needs and wants, and get to work. Learn how to read documentation. Trust me, your efforts will be well rewarded if you stick with it

p.s. drag -- great post :thumbsup:

 

[Markbnj]

actually I was thinking of a world where everyone was educated and didn't just throw their hands up and cry when things didn't just work. You know like VCR clocks, computers, toasters, cars. Taking the time to understand what you are using should actually be important.

In the world in which ordinary people actually live, nobody has time to understand the devices they are using. That those devices should deliver their value with little or no overhead in terms of learning curve is such a universal aspiration of designers that I am surprised it would come into discussion here.

Or I would be, if this wasn't a Linux thread .

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

i hope it does overtake the windows desktop. That would mean people actually got smarter and we wont have so many idiots using computers out there.

Yes, if only we could go back to those halcyon days when computers were solely for the use of the educated and inititiated, all our problems would be solved.

Whatever. A car is technology for everybody, but a car only has 4-5 controls which are easy to operate with no knowlege of what's going on under the hood. Yet people take lessons in their operation, sometimes taking weeks to become competent. This surely counts as educated and inititiated.

A computer has constantly changing control systems used to perform an infinite number of different functions, plus knowlege of internal operation _is_ required. And we are expected to produce these things so that anyone can use them with _zero_ training?

The fact that windows is now used in classrooms doesn't help either. By the time kids leave school they already recieved at least informal training in windows, but without any explaination of _why_ things work and how to apply what they learned to different systems. If only people were taught the difference between programs and data, and the difference between memory and hard disks, and the fact that 'the network' is not a storage device located under my desk but is a way to communicate between machines... well, life would be easier for users, admins, and programmers alike.

 

[Markbnj]

A car is technology for everybody, but a car only has 4-5 controls which are easy to operate with no knowlege of what's going on under the hood. Yet people take lessons in their operation, sometimes taking weeks to become competent. This surely counts as educated and inititiated.

I think this analogy is strained almost to the breaking point. Like the computer, the automobile confers tremendous benefits if you learn to use it correctly. Unlike the average computer, if you don't learn to use it correctly it will kill you, and perhaps some other people as well. Few people are willing to invest much time in learning to operate devices that have no personal safety risk associated with them. A microwave is more dangerous than a computer, and you can learn to use it in ten minutes.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

A car is technology for everybody, but a car only has 4-5 controls which are easy to operate with no knowlege of what's going on under the hood. Yet people take lessons in their operation, sometimes taking weeks to become competent. This surely counts as educated and inititiated.

I think this analogy is strained almost to the breaking point. Like the computer, the automobile confers tremendous benefits if you learn to use it correctly. Unlike the average computer, if you don't learn to use it correctly it will kill you, and perhaps some other people as well.

OK, perhaps a better analogy would be machinery in the workplace (non-dangerous) ... no-one is expected to turn up and use a the facilities at a factory with no training, but they seem to be expected to use the computers.

Few people are willing to invest much time in learning to operate devices that have no personal safety risk associated with them.

Very true, in fact few people are willing to invest much time in learning anything at all. It's counterproductive, and rather a sad way to live.

A microwave is more dangerous than a computer, and you can learn to use it in ten minutes.

But a microwave is very simple - it's consumer tech in a way that PCs can never be. Sure, we could have word processing machines which are very simple, or stand-alone email devices, but a full PC with the same simplicity as a microwave or dvd player? Pipe dreams.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

A car is technology for everybody, but a car only has 4-5 controls which are easy to operate with no knowlege of what's going on under the hood. Yet people take lessons in their operation, sometimes taking weeks to become competent. This surely counts as educated and inititiated.

I think this analogy is strained almost to the breaking point. Like the computer, the automobile confers tremendous benefits if you learn to use it correctly. Unlike the average computer, if you don't learn to use it correctly it will kill you, and perhaps some other people as well. Few people are willing to invest much time in learning to operate devices that have no personal safety risk associated with them. A microwave is more dangerous than a computer, and you can learn to use it in ten minutes.

And if a user doesn't know how to use their computer they unleash viruses and evils upon the internets.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: Atheus

The fact that windows is now used in classrooms doesn't help either. By the time kids leave school they already recieved at least informal training in windows, but without any explaination of _why_ things work and how to apply what they learned to different systems. If only people were taught the difference between programs and data, and the difference between memory and hard disks, and the fact that 'the network' is not a storage device located under my desk but is a way to communicate between machines... well, life would be easier for users, admins, and programmers alike.

I learned on apple machines in school. I was perty hard to get used to windows 95.


And for people who think computers cant hurt anyone, you be the guy to tell the non computer savey teacher she just lost her thesis for her PHD and was too stupid to make a backup.

 

[drag]

This is funny.

if you want to you can learn about almost anything. I think people may invest to much time in some diversions and whatnot. If you have a family to take care of with a high maintainance house and and all that jazz then I can understand completely people not wanting to spend much time learning anything. They have precious little time anyways.

But if people have enough time to sit down and play video games, especially someting like world of warcraft, then they have enough spare time to learn anything they want to.

Personally I am the type of guy that likes learning about anything. About computers, about cars, about plumbing. I just like it all. Hell I've spent a weekend swapping out a motor and transmission in my garage for my car so I could get to work on monday. I never was taught any mechanics or anything like that from anyone, short of my dad showing me how to change out the oil in his car when I was a kid.

But I know most people aren't like that, which is fine by me. Gives me something to do. But I've had people actually tell me 'I don't want to learn anything new', which is something i don't understand.


Thing about cars is that nowadays they could be as simple as they were back in the fifties if they wanted to. Hell they could be simplier.

The modern fuel injection system is a kinda fool-proof thing. Just 5 or so sensors and a computer and your set. Engine heat, transmission selection detection, rpm speed, mass air flow, anti-knock, that's about it. It's actually much simplier then the engineering principals behind the carburator.. although the carb was a single unit, were the fuel injection tends to be spread out more.

But modern cars are designed like crap. There is no reason, beyond fasionably small and low hoods, that they should be so hard to work on. It begins to make more sense when you realise that many car lots and such make more money on servicing cars and spare parts then they do on selling the actual car in many cases...

Basicly with the engineering capabilities and the high quality mechanical devices we have as well as robust electronical devices they could engineer cars to be easy to work on and have a reliable operation.. but they don't.

 

[Markbnj]

But a microwave is very simple - it's consumer tech in a way that PCs can never be.

I think an interesting point is being lost here, and that is this: to the average business or home user, the PC is _not_ the tool. It is the environment in which the tool operates. The tool itself is the word processor, or spreadsheet, or whatever. I know home users who have put a lot of time into learning how to use a word processor, but why ask them to put a lot of time into learning the PC? To continue the earlier commenter's analogy: that would be like requiring everyone who drives a car to fully-understand highway and bridge construction, and be able to configure and maintain traffic signals.

The bottom line is this: operating systems strive to be easier and less cumbersome for the average user, so that the average user can get to using the tool they need with the least amount of unproductive crap getting in the way. Linux, no matter how much its dedicated users love it, is a humongous step backward in that sense, and so will have a hard time gaining mindshare outside a small community of digerati.

Thing about cars is that nowadays they could be as simple as they were back in the fifties if they wanted to. Hell they could be simplier.

I am not sure you understand automotive engineering. True, a lot of the complexity under the hood is features like A/C. But a lot of it is emissions control and engine control systems that reduce maintenance. I don't know how old the average poster here is, but I am old enough to have worked on a '69 chevy nova with a straight-six when it wasn't too far from new. Yes, I could crawl into the engine compartment, and that was a good thing, because I often had to. The car had to have regular plug changes, gap checks, distributor timing adjustments, valve lash adjustment, etc., etc. These days I buy Japanese cars that look like one solid mass of metal under the hood, and I can own one for five years and never lift the bonnet once.

That's a pretty good analogy for where operating systems are headed. Linux, in this comparison, is like a stripped-down '72 Ferrari: beautiful to its adherents, and also temperamental, and requiring specialized knowledge to keep it running. Very few people drive, or ever will drive, stripped down '72 Ferraris .

 

[sourceninja]

Learning how to learn is just as important too. Once you learn how to learn you can pickup concepts quickly and it takes little time. I can get most of what I need for most challenges in a few minutes. I know how to use google, I know how to read technical writing, and I know how to find information via other sources.

 

[Markbnj]

Yes, because there is payback for you, and it is worth your making the investment. What about a pediatrician who works 13 hours a day, and likes to read history at night? Would you suggest this person needs to "learn how to learn" so that they can deal with Linux better? Obviously not. The world is chock full of highly accomplished people whose raw intellectual power would burn a hole in most of our craniums, who simply don't have time to assign a high priority to Googling the correct procedure for installing a Linux driver. It's instructive, I think, that 99.99% of debates about Linux ultimately end up in some variant of the Linux adherents arguing that the people who have trouble are lazy, or unschooled, or lack the aptitude.

Probably the second two components of that diagnosis are correct, but so what? You're all simply observing the conditions that will keep Linux a niche system for geek elitists. What's more, if it ever became easy enough for the history-loving pediatrician to install and use, you all would probably adandon it for "Obtusenix" or whatever came next that allowed the priesthood to maintain its seperation from the mass of n00bs.

 

[Doh!]

People who bitch & moan about the difficulties of using linux are those who travel overseas, and bitch & moan about the natives' inability to communicate in english. If you're a windows user, once you step into the linux world, you're in a foreign territory. At least do some homework and prepare yourself to say at least "hello", "thank you" in the linux world. But it's not as bad as being stuck in the Amazon jungle. All you have to do is ask people around you that can speak your language.

 

[sourceninja]

I would suggest he can use his time better by buying a computer with linux installed on it. Then using support for issues he doesn't understand. If you are too cheap for that, then I really dont care. And yes I am an elitest in everything I do. If I am going to do something, i'm going to do it right. I learned to do my own car maintence. It wasn't because I had to or wanted to. Its because I need to know how to take care of my car and keep from getting ripped off by the people I pay to fix my car. I laugh at people who get ripped off for not doing research or learning about the things they intend to use. It doesn't take much time. You dont need to have my level of computer knowlege to use linux. But you should be able to take the time to learn the new way of doing things. We shouldn't expect all OS's to look and work like windows. I think the linux way is better. You might not. So you know what? We have choice. It's a great thing.

I can somehow learn new technology, keep up to date on system secuirty, use computers on solaris, bsd, hpux, aix, mac osx, windows, and various linux distros without effort, do my job as a program while keeping up on new tools for my job and how to use them, keep up to date on hardware and troubleshooting, learn 2 martial arts at once, pay jazz guitar in a band, take piano lessons, and still have time with my wife. People who bitch about things being too hard and not having the time to learn them simply should find something else. I dont whine that the piano interface is different then my guitar. I dont complain that my old karate training can't be leveraged in my judo or aikido classes. I dont hear my father complain when a new technology requires him to take classes so he can keep doing his job as a mechanic. If you want to use a tool learn it. They had to learn enough windows to manage somehow to get what they wanted. And I doubt they are updating their system at all, let alone looking for new drivers. If they can't learn that much about linux then they should stick with windows. Its fine by me.

And if our theoretical pediatrician new how to learn how to learn, it shouldn't take him a huge time investment to learn how to install his new nvidia driver. If he was using a modern linux distro he would of found his answer in under a minute and be done with it. he would of known how to use the tools he had at hand (google), and how to interput the information given to him with some nice critical thinking.

 

[Markbnj]

I can somehow learn new technology, keep up to date on system secuirty, use computers on solaris, bsd, hpux, aix, mac osx, windows, and various linux distros without effort, do my job as a program while keeping up on new tools for my job and how to use them, keep up to date on hardware and troubleshooting, learn 2 martial arts at once, pay jazz guitar in a band, take piano lessons, and still have time with my wife. People who bitch about things being too hard and not having the time to learn them simply should find something else.

Hahaha, it's always funny when someone you are debating with confirms your points for you. So you, a guy whose whole professional life, and a fair bit of his personal life, revolves around computers, got it all covered and if some other n00b doesn't then screw 'em.

Hey, I don't disagree. I play guitar, and write articles, and program, and run an IT department for a public company. I got it covered too, baby.

But then I am not predicting that Linux will ever overtake Windows on the desktop, because I am sure it will not. Attitudes like those you see here on the forum will, as I said before, keep it a niche system.

Debate over.

Point made.

Have a nice day.

 

[drag]

Thing about cars is that nowadays they could be as simple as they were back in the fifties if they wanted to. Hell they could be simplier.

I am not sure you understand automotive engineering. True, a lot of the complexity under the hood is features like A/C. But a lot of it is emissions control and engine control systems that reduce maintenance. I don't know how old the average poster here is, but I am old enough to have worked on a '69 chevy nova with a straight-six when it wasn't too far from new. Yes, I could crawl into the engine compartment, and that was a good thing, because I often had to. The car had to have regular plug changes, gap checks, distributor timing adjustments, valve lash adjustment, etc., etc. These days I buy Japanese cars that look like one solid mass of metal under the hood, and I can own one for five years and never lift the bonnet once.

Thats exactly what I am talking about.

Electronic ignition is simplier, more powerfull, and more reliable then a points system. Hydralic lifters don't need to have the valve lash adjusted like they did with mechanical lifters. Fuel injection is simplier and more relaible then a carburator with all of it's little holes and vaccum controlled fuel delivery stuff.

So you'd understand me when I know it's crap that you have to partially disassemble the front suspension of a car to drop the motor far enough to remove the bolts to the cover of the timing belt (which is a wear item and needs to be replaced periodicaly to prevent engine damage) to remove the timing belt to get it out of the way of the head which you need to remove to replace the blown head gasket... Which is definately not a uncommon problem with modern 4 cylinder cars.

Or about the intense hell you have to go through just to change the oil filter, change the spark plugs, or replace a worn out starter motor.

Or how a 75 cent peice of molded plastic with a silicon blob hidden in it should cost 75 dollars.

This stuff shouldn't be so difficult. This could be easy, but they figure most people dont' care and there is a lot of money to be made from parts and maintainance.

Which they are right about.

That's a pretty good analogy for where operating systems are headed. Linux, in this comparison, is like a stripped-down '72 Ferrari: beautiful to its adherents, and also temperamental, and requiring specialized knowledge to keep it running. Very few people drive, or ever will drive, stripped down '72 Ferraris .

I don't think that a Ferrari is a good comparision.

Think more along the lines of "amphibious fighting tank with a trailer hitch that can drive 250 mph and can fly" that doesn't cost anything and is freely aviable to anybody that is interested in it in infinate quantities.


It's not nearly as difficult as your trying to make it out to be. There is nothing elite about using Linux and it is perfectly usefull to people that don't know jack about computers, just much less usefull to people that don't care.

The more you know about it, the more you get out of it.

Seriously. It's not difficult. It's just very different. Many people are confused because they try to do things the same way that they learned to do them in Windows and it messes them up.

They do things like go to the manufacturer's website and try to install some horrific half-assed driver they find there.. Rather then in Ubuntu or Debian installing module-assistant and select from a list of aviable modules that can be built and compiled almost automaticly.

They go to Wine's website and try to install it from source code rather then going 'yum install wine'.

It's getting easier all the time. Gnome is much better and more stable then it used to be.

Nvidia's drivers include a utility to automaticly change the x.org configuration files to use their drivers.

Knoppix boots and runs a computer with zero isntall effort.

Things that still seriously suck are non-HP and non-Epson printers and most wifi. It's nothing that is insurmountable.

People do actually care about normal people, they are making it easier, they are addressing concerns. Ubuntu will even mail you free isntallation cdroms if burning them takes to much effort or you have dial up.

It takes a lot more effort and knowledge to fight off and uninstall some random spyware crap then it takes to install Point2play packages from Cedega and manage your Windows-only games.

But if your going to come to a forum online dedicated to running and dealing with OSes and tell them that Linux is to hard because you don't want to learn anything or are unable to learn anything or don't have enough time to learn anything.. then your going to get people telling you your probably just lazy.

 

[Atheus]

unintentional double post

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Markbnj

But a microwave is very simple - it's consumer tech in a way that PCs can never be.

I think an interesting point is being lost here, and that is this: to the average business or home user, the PC is _not_ the tool. It is the environment in which the tool operates. The tool itself is the word processor, or spreadsheet, or whatever. I know home users who have put a lot of time into learning how to use a word processor, but why ask them to put a lot of time into learning the PC?

That's not really what this debate is about, clearly a word processor is just as easy to use on linux as windows when the system is already installed. Turn on machine, click shortcut on desktop, type.

This thread was about installing the OS and graphics drivers and such - my point was that microwaves do not require such things.

Linux, in this comparison, is like a stripped-down '72 Ferrari: beautiful to its adherents, and also temperamental, and requiring specialized knowledge to keep it running. Very few people drive, or ever will drive, stripped down '72 Ferraris

C'mon! you run an IT department! You know how much effort it takes just to keep a windows network free of malicious software, let alone stop it crashing due to things that are _supposed_ to be there (SP2 i'm looking at you), but a linux system takes little to no effort 'keep it running', just the occasional apt-get upgrade. I haven't rebooted my linux boxes for months.

The ferrari analogy doesn't give linux enough credit for reliability... I think linux is a simple sports car with no traction control and EFI and crap like that which are supposed to make it easy to use, but could fail at any time. Windows is an over-engineered family hatchback, with too many gizmos and not enough attention to the actual engine and gearbox.


/edit: dammit drag! you made all my points while i was still typing them

 

[WobbleWobble]

I've done a couple (personal) Linux installs, tried it out, got everything working then figured why bother? I went back to Windows because yes, I am a gamer. Really, $100 or so for Windows ain't that bad. I also had some user issues with OO, but that's because simple ways of doing things that I was used to like dragging and dropping things into OO didn't work nicely. I need to try the current version of OO, but that's at another time.

After playing with mainly Corel, RH, Fedora and Ubuntu. I've even did a little bit of Oracle on Linux as well. I've come to the conclusion that there is the easy way of Linux and the hard way of Linux.

The hard way, downloading source code and being forced to compile it. I understand that there is reasoning on distributing source code instead of binaries, but I don't get why standard "desktop" installs for most distros don't include gcc. To me it seems like a fundamental thing in Linux, needing to use gcc to install pretty much anything. Then you have to go through package dependency hell, with your original app needing a package and that package needing another package. I'm sure versioning is an issue too. Granted, I had the patience and did my research and figured most of that out. Not indepth but enough to get it working and have a general idea of what is going on. Then I discovered apt-get and Synaptic. It made life a heck lot easier.

One thing you've really got to wrap your head around is Linux is not Windows. So stop trying to do things like in Windows. You can't simply double-click a driver install and expect it to install. The package manager systems really do make things easier. Open up Synaptic and search for firefox, check it off then install. It's that easy. Also, getting my head around the file system was a bit awkward, but it's just something you need to be aware of. The thing that annoyed me the most as a Windows users is the constant need for manually mounting drives. This was something I got really used to in Windows.

I see the benefits of Linux, but I really can't see myself using it in the near future. I'm a creature of habit and Windows works. Although I can see myself using Linux servers, since I really like how settings are stored in simple text configuration files. I also really like using grep and awk to be able to manipulate log files. Creating firewalls using iptables was nice too, since it gives you some good control. However, I don't like how if you screw up something in a configuration file for some arbitrary program, it can really screw it up and there might be no clue on exactly what is wrong.

One thing I really don't like about Linux is the community. I'm just generally speaking, but they tend to be arrogant and elitists. I know not all of you are like this, but I feel like it's a dominating mentality. So do you hardcore Linux users want Linux to prevail on the desktops along with all the newbie users or what? Or should they give up and go back to Windows because they are newbies? I still can't figure that one out.

I think there should be emphasis on the message that Linux is not Windows. I think users are accustomed to do things similar ways between products. For browsers, IE, Firefox, Opera are fundamentally the same with respect to usage. Same with WordPerfect, Office and OpenOffice. They all give a similar user experience and I think that's where Linux is really lacking. I realize it's not a flaw in the OS itself, but it will be a huge hurdle for users trying to convert from Windows to Linux.

I'm just trying to take the diplomatic approach

 

[Markbnj]

C'mon! you run an IT department! You know how much effort it takes just to keep a windows network free of malicious software, let alone stop it crashing due to things that are _supposed_ to be there (SP2 i'm looking at you), but a linux system takes little to no effort 'keep it running', just the occasional apt-get upgrade. I haven't rebooted my linux boxes for months.

This is a hairy old line that isn't even remotely true anymore. On the spyware point, if Linux were as big a target there would be just as many people attacking it. As to reliability, you clearly don't run a windows network. I have over 3000 machines in mine, spread out over 30 of the 50 states, on WANs, LANs, and dialups, all running Windows. We have one Oracle box for Peoplesoft, everything else is MS. Total support staff: four. Two network guys, two systems guys, and we do have a consultant that comes in about once a month.

Think more along the lines of "amphibious fighting tank with a trailer hitch that can drive 250 mph and can fly" that doesn't cost anything and is freely aviable to anybody that is interested in it in infinate quantities.

Well, tanks are highly specialized machines that require a crapload of maintenance and support. They are hard and expensive to build, and difficult to operate.

Let me ask a straightforward question: when I recently installed Windows XP on my new build I basically booted off the CD, made a menu choice or two, and let it do its thing. At the end of that process everything in the system was in a working state: network, graphics, input devices, hard drives

What linux install is guaranteed to give me exactly that same experience? If there is an answer, then I will get it and try it on a box here, and report my results. I think it would be interesting, because basically the Linux community as I percieve it is one big bundle of contradictions. Either the OS is so easy anyone who fails to install it is a n00b who doesn't know how to use Google, or it is hard and powerful and you shouldn't mess with it if you aren't prepared to really get into it.

I think linux is a simple sports car with no traction control and EFI and crap like that which are supposed to make it easy to use, but could fail at any time

Well, see, there were no sports cars like that, at least not until you got to something like the Miata, which was full of all the crap you're referring to .

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

try ubuntu.

 

[drag]

Let me ask a straightforward question: when I recently installed Windows XP on my new build I basically booted off the CD, made a menu choice or two, and let it do its thing. At the end of that process everything in the system was in a working state: network, graphics, input devices, hard drives.

What?

You didn't have to go Microsoft's website and download updates and reboot at least a half a dozen times, or had prepared update cdrom before hand?

I also take it that you didn't actually install on a SATA-based harddrive, because obviously then you'd have to had prepared or have a floppy disk before hand.

I know for a fact that it's very easy to get into big difficulties installing Windows. I've known several people that refuse to install SP2 on their machine even though I insist that you need it for security reasons.

At least after I isntall Ubuntu I only have to reboot once for the latest kernel update and I can burn cds, edit spreadsheets, and such things without having to install a bunch of extra software.

What linux install is guaranteed to give me exactly that same experience? If there is an answer, then I will get it and try it on a box here, and report my results. I think it would be interesting, because basically the Linux community as I percieve it is one big bundle of contradictions. Either the OS is so easy anyone who fails to install it is a n00b who doesn't know how to use Google, or it is hard and powerful and you shouldn't mess with it if you aren't prepared to really get into it.

What I think is actually happenning is that your confusing people's replies to you or your only reading things in such a way that you only see what you want to see.

Most people I know are perfectly incapable of installing Windows, just like they are perfectly incapable of installing Linux.

They don't have a clue either which way.

Your acting like Windows is so easy to deal with at install time that that is the reason that it's successfull, which is crap. Most people using Windows never have to install it. Windows gets installed on pretty much ever PC sold anywere. In fact it's very difficult to find a PC that DOES NOT have Windows pre-installed, unless you build it yourself.

This is going to be the single largest barrier to Linux adoption and continued Windows dominance. Because the OS you have right now is almost always going to be easier to use then the OS that is sitting out on a FTP server somewere.

If you can build a machine yourself and can install Windows yourself, your almost certainly capable of installing Linux yourself.

Most difficulty is going to come from Linux not being Windows and since most everybody and there mom has been using windows for 10+ years, then the transition in thinking is going to be difficult.

If I give a person a computer with Linux pre-installed they can use it just fine. I've done it before, I'll do it again and although I help them out with problems on Linux time to time I don't end up with a non-functional Linux computer sitting in the middle of my living room like I have a non-functional Windows computer right now, which I am going to fix when I get home.

Also I'm going to give them a knoppix CD when I give their computer back to them so that the next time it happens they can get on the internet and get their email and such without waiting for me to fix Windows for them again.

All software sucks.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
Let me ask a straightforward question: when I recently installed Windows XP on my new build I basically booted off the CD, made a menu choice or two, and let it do its thing. At the end of that process everything in the system was in a working state: network, graphics, input devices, hard drives

What linux install is guaranteed to give me exactly that same experience? If there is an answer, then I will get it and try it on a box here, and report my results. I think it would be interesting, because basically the Linux community as I percieve it is one big bundle of contradictions. Either the OS is so easy anyone who fails to install it is a n00b who doesn't know how to use Google, or it is hard and powerful and you shouldn't mess with it if you aren't prepared to really get into it.

You're right, the install is something windows does better than linux, but I can think of a bunch of things linux does better - like networking and security. I wouldn't be worrying about the install process anyway if I was gonna deploy linux on a network of the size you specified, I'd make an image and clone the drives, but that's not the point. The point is linux has a place, and it's FREE! You gotta give it credit for that.

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: Me
I think linux is a simple sports car with no traction control and EFI and crap like that which are supposed to make it easy to use, but could fail at any time

Well, see, there were no sports cars like that, at least not until you got to something like the Miata, which was full of all the crap you're referring to .

There are many like that, the RX7, MR2 (old ones), porsches, corvettes, aston martins... hey those are all great cars

Originally posted by: drag
All software sucks.

Shhh! don't tell them...

 

[Markbnj]

You didn't have to go Microsoft's website and download updates and reboot at least a half a dozen times, or had prepared update cdrom before hand?

I believe I had to reboot at least once, but having to do that when instructed doesn't really rate alongside compiling the graphics driver.

As for going to Windows update, yes, I did that. It's also painless, but in this case not really relevant, since the point was that after the install finished I had a working system. You don't mean to suggest, I assume, that Microsoft update is more trouble than searching the net through Google for drivers and instructions, as the OP in this thread was told he should have done?

I have a WD Raptor on SATA 0, and did not have to install any drivers for Windows to recognize the drive and install to it. It wasn't an issue at all.

Most people I know are perfectly incapable of installing Windows, just like they are perfectly incapable of installing Linux.

They don't have a clue either which way.

You may be right about this, but again not really relevant. I described my recent Windows installation and inquired after a Linux distro that would be as easy to install. Whether the average person can manage through a Windows installation is a separate question. If we're trying to answer it, then comparing my experience with XP against the OP's experience with Linux I would suggest that Windows would be less likely to cause the average person trouble.

Your acting like Windows is so easy to deal with at install time that that is the reason that it's successfull, which is crap. Most people using Windows never have to install it. Windows gets installed on pretty much ever PC sold anywere. In fact it's very difficult to find a PC that DOES NOT have Windows pre-installed, unless you build it yourself.

This is a fair point. I never suggested, however, that Windows was successful because it is so easy to install. I think it probably is easier than Linux, but I can only speak from what I have read. If oem's were doing all the installation this wouldn't matter much to the end user.

Your point about an average someone being able to use a Linux system that has been set up may be correct, but some of your fellow Linux users apparently don't think so. If you go back and read this thread again, you'll see it is full of comments about getting used to the CLI, dealing with the Linux philosophy, etc. This is what I meant by contradictions in my previous post. On the one hand the Linux community believes that their favorite O/S should be able to supplant Windows on the desktop (insert general stuff about evil Microsoft), while on the other it absolutely revels in the system's complexity and obscurity.

My favorite quote from the OP's original thread came from a poster replying to his complaints about not having the software to compile the graphics driver.

its pretty hard to compile something with no compiler.



looks like user error to me.

That pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[Markbnj]

You're right, the install is something windows does better than linux, but I can think of a bunch of things linux does better - like networking and security.

How does Linux do networking better than Windows? Windows has a TCP/IP stack, and all the packets go where I want them to. As for security, this is just a flawed argument. No system is bulletproof. If there were 100 million Linux desktops in the homes of naive consumers there would be just as many attackers, and just as many expoits. If there is an objective and reliable test result that asserts Linux is more secure than Windows XP across the board, I haven't seen it.

There are many like that, the RX7, MR2 (old ones), porsches, corvettes, aston martins... hey those are all great cars

Heh, none of those cars were reliable, although the vette and the mr2 were pretty close.

 

[Nothinman]

You're right, the install is something windows does better than linux

I would have to disagree. Even though the Ubuntu installer is ncurses based it's simpler than an XP installation. And since there's a new free release every 6mo your machine is more secure after the installation and there's less patching to do afterwards.

I have a WD Raptor on SATA 0, and did not have to install any drivers for Windows to recognize the drive and install to it. It wasn't an issue at all.

You're in the minority then or at least your motherboard came with a controller with good PATA emulation because AFAIK XP has no SATA drivers on the install disc.

As for going to Windows update, yes, I did that. It's also painless, but in this case not really relevant, since the point was that after the install finished I had a working system.

I wouldn't call it painless, from a fresh XP installation even if you install SP2 (or have it slipstreamed) you'll have to install dozens of updates and reboot more than once.

You may be right about this, but again not really relevant. I described my recent Windows installation and inquired after a Linux distro that would be as easy to install.

The hardware is the stumbling point in both installations and there's a lot more support out of the box in a Linux installation than there is in Windows. There's a few off the wall things like wifi that you'll need to get drivers and/or firmware for, but you'd have to do that with Windows too.

How does Linux do networking better than Windows? Windows has a TCP/IP stack, and all the packets go where I want them to

Having a multihomed Windows box is a PITA and the routing tables are crap to manipulate. There's virtually no IPv6 support, their NetWare client only supports IPX, MS tracert is so much slower than Linux traceroute I can't even imagine how they managed to get it so slow, the MS WIFI UI is terrible, there's no easy way for a regular user to enable/disable a network interface. I could probably come up with more, but I haven't used Windows for much in a long time.

If there were 100 million Linux desktops in the homes of naive consumers there would be just as many attackers, and just as many expoits.

That's a flawed statement. Yes, more exposure causes more people to look at the thing and thus more problems to be found but you can't argue that the same amount of exposure will result in the same amount of problems. That's like those stupid english tests that would say "All boys like Pizza. Timmy is a boy. Therefore Timmy likes pizza".

That and most of the problems found on unix-like systems are in non-system software like Apache, OpenSSL, pick an FTP daemon, etc which are all optional, don't usually have root access and are not installed on any Linux desktop system. Conversly Windows has had huge problems with their RPC and MSHTML which are not optional and run as SYSTEM and the logged in user, respectively.