Bad linux experience

[networkman]

PICNIC = Problem In Chair Not In Computer

 

[Markbnj]

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.

I know some folks have said this here, but I don't believe it. This is one claim someone will have to prove to me. Every hardware manufacturer there is supports Windows first, and many support only Windows. XP installed off the OEM or retail CD will support just about everything I can think of except TV Tuners, and MCE supports most of those. If Linux supports more kinds of hardware, and I don't know that it does, then I am betting it is mostly stuff the average person doesn't need.

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.

Speaking of stuff the average person doesn't need to do... I think it's obvious that the debate here is over mass market adoption and the average end-user, 99.99% of whom don't ever touch any of that stuff. Your comment about tracert I simply don't understand. Tracert spends virtually all of its time waiting for ICMP TTL expired packets to come back from servers. As a software developer I would be amazed if the o/s had any effect on its performance at all. You could write it in Javascript and it would run just as fast.

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".

You can't argue that it wouldn't. It might result in more. Until the same number of attackers are probing for holes you can't claim anything like the coverage of potential exploits that Windows gets. I'll grant you that Unix was more secure for a long time, but that was largely because the OS had a longer history of being run in more sensitive environments. Linux? Who knows? Linux adoption is miniscule. It's a statistical inkblot.

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.

I won't argue this point. Windows started out as a chunk of swiss cheese, but you can't lump "unix-like" systems together and call it reflective of Linux security. For one thing, over 90% of the last thirty years just about all "unix-like" systems were run by professional system administrators. Even then the security of the system depended largely on how good the admin was, and that is still true. Today the admin is very often some Joe running a home system.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

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.

Well, I'm about to see just how easy the Ubuntu install is. I'm going to do it myself in a few hours.

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.

XP has no SATA drivers, no, but for whatever reason the install works fine on my SATA drive, too. Some folks have trouble with it, I'm sure, but I bet the solution is pretty simple and easy to identify.

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.

Sure, it's a little annoying, and somewhat time-consuming. But, like I said before, never in the process am I left wondering, "will this work?" or "what do I do next?" Linux for me is always a nightmare and a half. Whenever I have an issue, there's less than 50% chance I can figure out how to resolve it in a timely manner (IE, within a day). That's why I never keep it installed.

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.

Even if true, that means absolutely nothing. While it would be nice to have Windows XP and all my drivers on one disc, it's not by any means necessary. I honestly don't mind a few reboots in the installation process. With Linux, if by some chance the driver isn't included with the distro, I'm screwed. I have to look for obscure third-party drivers on the net (using a Windows partition of course, because without drivers I can't access the net through Linux). Then I have to figure out how to install them. To this day I can't figure out how to install my external DSL modem or SoundBlaster Audigy LS (hopefully that will change later today). You call that easier?

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.

99% of the time, if drivers aren't automatically installed by Windows XP, you can install them with discs provided with the hardware. If you've lost the discs, or by some chance they weren't included, you can just visit the website and download them. This is a simple and painless process. Not so with Linux.

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.

I don't understand a bit of that, I admit. But I will say that with Linux I can't even connect to the internet--at least, not until I figure out how to install my DSL modem. How's that for networking?

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.

I agree with you, here. Even if Linux were full of more potential holes, it still wouldn't matter, because, for better or worse, it is not being attacked as relentlessly as Windows. On the flipside, though, does that one strength outweigh all its apparent weaknesses? I don't think so.

 

[The Linuxator]

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? 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 .

This is the point, today the main thing that users want to accomplish is how to complete a certain task, using the easiest , least time consuming method.
I am a Linux user and I can share some info here :

1 - You learn a lot.
2 - You get angry a lot.
3 - You deprive yourself from many and many pleasures (i.e unsupported hardware, nice windows commercial software, nice drivers...etc)
4 - You have wasted a sh!tload of time.

Why did I say "wasted" because in our modern times, as sad as it is for me to say, but Linux is an ineffecient operating system ATM, all of you Linux gurus just don't see the point, are you going to tell me that your mom that went last month to Florida to visit your sister via a Boeing is an idiot because she doesn't know how a jet engine works ?
Sometimes I thank God that people with such a way of looking at computing and effeciency were not in Bill Gates position 10-15 years ago,. becasue they would have made Computing 10 times worse than what Bill has it right now.
Linux can be made much easier, and it's capable of doing so, but most of the ppl behind it are such snobs that they don't want the " inferior people" to join their circle.
PS : When I say Linux here I mean distrowise

 

[sourceninja]

I think its funny everyone brings up compiling graphics drivers. You NEVER have to compile the nvidia 3d graphics driver. In most distros you dont even have to download it from nvidia. If you do have to download it from nvidia you have to compile the glue that goes between your kernel and the driver. This is because of the way the linux kernel is designed. If the driver is not made for that version of the kernel you will get errors. This is to prevent old outdated unsupported drivers from getting used. This is a good thing.

 

[Nothinman]

I know some folks have said this here, but I don't believe it. This is one claim someone will have to prove to me. Every hardware manufacturer there is supports Windows first, and many support only Windows. XP installed off the OEM or retail CD will support just about everything I can think of except TV Tuners, and MCE supports most of those. If Linux supports more kinds of hardware, and I don't know that it does, then I am betting it is mostly stuff the average person doesn't need.

IME OEM Windows discs are just normal Windows discs, they just bundle them alongside the driver discs.

There's no doubt Linux supports more hardware, the fact that it supports ~25 architectures alone puts it over the top. And there are hardware manufacturers that support Linux first. AMD64 was tested first on Linux beceause the port was so easy, Intel had PCI Express patches for the kernel before the and there's probably other stuff that I don't remember.

Speaking of stuff the average person doesn't need to do...

You asked how the networking was better, the average person doesn't need anything more than TCP/IP and a DHCP client so the question doesn't really apply anyway. Why does MS include all of that VPN crap if the average person doesn't need it? The average person could get by on Linux just fine too. Web browsing, email, word processing, photo editing, etc all work just fine and are provided by free apps.

Your comment about tracert I simply don't understand. Tracert spends virtually all of its time waiting for ICMP TTL expired packets to come back from servers. As a software developer I would be amazed if the o/s had any effect on its performance at all. You could write it in Javascript and it would run just as fast.

I understand that's how it's supposed to work and I think most of the problem is in the Windows resolver, it's like 10x slower than the Linux one. I have a perl script for work that spends 99% of it's time doing DNS requests and it takes ~5 minutes to run on Linux but would take like a half hour or more on Windows. For instance, running traceroute to a host 3 hops away on this Linux notebook takes 0.018s. On a Windows box on the same network, same DNS servers, etc running a tracert to the same host takes 7.5s. No, 7s isn't long but the magnitude of difference is obvious and when using it on the Internet the delay is much more noticable and annoying.

You can't argue that it wouldn't. It might result in more. Until the same number of attackers are probing for holes you can't claim anything like the coverage of potential exploits that Windows gets. I'll grant you that Unix was more secure for a long time, but that was largely because the OS had a longer history of being run in more sensitive environments. Linux? Who knows? Linux adoption is miniscule. It's a statistical inkblot.

Technically you can't argue either way, it's all speculation. But I think it's fair to say that Linux exposure has gone up many magnitudes in the past 10 years and the number of exploits has not risen in tandem. And there are security holes fixed all the time that were never found by blackhats because there's simply more people reading the source code. The whole "many eyes" thing is a bit extreme, but it does work to an extent. And with companies like IBM, HP, RedHat, etc all supporting Linux I'm sure they have people doing just security related work. But as I said, most security problems are with userland apps that aren't technically part of Linux, things like Apache have been running on unix with huge amounts of exposure for a very long time.

I won't argue this point. Windows started out as a chunk of swiss cheese, but you can't lump "unix-like" systems together and call it reflective of Linux security. For one thing, over 90% of the last thirty years just about all "unix-like" systems were run by professional system administrators. Even then the security of the system depended largely on how good the admin was, and that is still true. Today the admin is very often some Joe running a home system.

Sure I can, you can't claim that Linux developers haven't learned anything from the past problems. No, they won't catch them all automatically but it still helps a lot. And as I said, distributions like Ubuntu don't install anything actively listening on the network, not even ssh, so the chance of exploitation is a lot lower.

Some folks have trouble with it, I'm sure, but I bet the solution is pretty simple and easy to identify.

And I say the same thing about a lot of Linux problems that new users have, if you know what to look for anything can be considered easy to fix.

Sure, it's a little annoying, and somewhat time-consuming. But, like I said before, never in the process am I left wondering, "will this work?" or "what do I do next?" Linux for me is always a nightmare and a half. Whenever I have an issue, there's less than 50% chance I can figure out how to resolve it in a timely manner (IE, within a day). That's why I never keep it installed.

I'm always wondering whether the next Windows patch will break something of mine, MS' history is too jaded for me not to. And Linux is a nightmare because you don't understand the system, you have an advantage with Windows in that you already understand it. Imagine being a lawnmower repair man and being asked to fix a diesel engine, they both perform similar functions but the inner workings are different enough that you won't be able to just jump in and fix it without some work.

Even if true, that means absolutely nothing. While it would be nice to have Windows XP and all my drivers on one disc, it's not by any means necessary. I honestly don't mind a few reboots in the installation process. With Linux, if by some chance the driver isn't included with the distro, I'm screwed. I have to look for obscure third-party drivers on the net (using a Windows partition of course, because without drivers I can't access the net through Linux). Then I have to figure out how to install them. To this day I can't figure out how to install my external DSL modem or SoundBlaster Audigy LS (hopefully that will change later today). You call that easier?

Of all of my machines only 1 of them requires a 3rd party driver (I do install the closed nVidia driver, but it's not required for X to run) that 1 driver will be included in the kernel eventually since it's GPL'd. And as for your Audigy, I know most of the Audigy models are supported out of the box but I have no idea what chipset the LS uses so I can't say for sure. And my cable modem 'just works' because it's not attached to any device, I just plug it into the network.

I agree with you, here. Even if Linux were full of more potential holes, it still wouldn't matter, because, for better or worse, it is not being attacked as relentlessly as Windows. On the flipside, though, does that one strength outweigh all its apparent weaknesses? I don't think so.

No, you don't agree with me. I'm saying Linux doesn't have as many problems and increased exposure won't be a big deal. The token example is Apache vs IIS, Apache has nearly 70% of the webserver marked and yet IIS has a much worse security history. Apache has had problems, but nothing anywhere near as bad as things like CodeRed.

 

[nweaver]

Linix CAN BE for the average joe...it just to work when they pull it out of the box. I have 2 linux boxes with family, as I got tired of fixing windows for them, and one of the 2 had an illegal copy of windows.

They don't care what they run, only that it works. For them Linux for email/web has been more reliable/stable, and not by a little bit, BY A LOT!

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Well, I care what I run. I don't like not being able to record music because Ubuntu isn't compatible with Audacity.

You know what I do like? I like Adobe Audition, where I can record, mix and edit music to my heart's delight. I like being able to encode just about any video file to DVD with TMPGEnc Plus & DVD Author. I like to perfectly splice my live recordings to SBE-less CD tracks with CD Wave. I like to perfectly extract CD audio using Exact Audio Copy. I like to convert any music file to any other format with a single command using dbPowerAmp Music Converter. I like to capture just about any non-Flash streaming media with Streambox & NetTransport. I like to synchronize video using VirtualDub, and edit it with Adobe Premier.

Sure, every once in a while I run into a bug. Not often, though. Very rarely, in fact.

I'm trying like hell to get Ubuntu to work, but so far all I've been able to do is browse the internet. Go Linux.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
Well, I care what I run. I don't like not being able to record music because Ubuntu isn't compatible with Audacity.

You know what I do like? I like Adobe Audition, where I can record, mix and edit music to my heart's delight. I like being able to encode just about any video file to DVD with TMPGEnc Plus & DVD Author. I like to perfectly splice my live recordings to SBE-less CD tracks with CD Wave. I like to perfectly extract CD audio using Exact Audio Copy. I like to convert any music file to any other format with a single command using dbPowerAmp Music Converter. I like to capture just about any non-Flash streaming media with Streambox & NetTransport. I like to synchronize video using VirtualDub, and edit it with Adobe Premier.

Sure, every once in a while I run into a bug. Not often, though. Very rarely, in fact.

I'm trying like hell to get Ubuntu to work, but so far all I've been able to do is browse the internet. Go Linux.

1. How much did you pay for all those apps

2. I'm sure you learned those all (and how to make them work well with your OS) in one day, right?

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: nweaver

1. How much did you pay for all those apps

Nothing. The only expensive apps I use are Adobe Audition & Premier. I rarely use Premier, so I could honestly do just fine without it. And if I needed to I could pick up a used copy of Audition (or Cool Edit Pro 2, which is the same thing) for $100 or so.

2. I'm sure you learned those all (and how to make them work well with your OS) in one day, right?

The only tough cookie was TMPGEnc Plus. But even it would work with most files out of the box. All I had to do was figure out the ins and outs of a few obscure codecs. Otherwise everything worked fine immediately.

 

[drag]

Who cares what it costs? It's weither or not it's usable is what matters. Seriously.


Anyways how it Audacity 'not compatable' with Ubuntu?
For breezy they should have a Audacity package aviable in universe.

Maybe what your running into is that your sound card does not support hardware mixing.

By default Ubuntu starts up a 'esd sound server' which is fairly craptastic and will prevent other programs from directly accessing your sound card if your sound card can only take one software sound input at a time.

The solution is to disable that, I beleive you can find that in Systems then sound preferences then uncheck 'start up sound server'.
Or maybe through to the desktop menu -> preferences -> sound and in there will be a check for enable sound server.. that's how it's setup for me in Debian sid.

then log out and log back in, for good measure. Open up a terminal and do "killall esd" just to make doubly sure that it's disabled.

I don't know about Breezy, but esd was a problem for earlier versions.

The goal in all this is to make sure that no applications or whatnot are trying to use your sound card.

This sound 'hardware mixing' and 'software mixing' crap is one of the bad things about Linux. It's a bit of a pain.

You have several solutions.
The easiest is to go out and buy a new sound card. Probably a Audigy 1 or 2.
The second one is to use only use Alsa programs and enable dmix, which I won't go into here. There are better resources out on the web.
the Third is to use a sound deamon like esd or artsd to do software mixing.
the fourth is for more actually working with audio rather then just desktop use. It's to use jackd deamon.

For the last one try installing qjackctl and use that to control your sound card. Using apps like Ardour (Linux DAW) you can use the qtjackctl to route sound and midi information from program to program. Also then you can play around with other things like Ladspa plugins for filters and effects and such.

there is some information on your sound card.
http://alsa.opensrc.org/index.php?page=ca0106

Like how to enable playback from mic and such.

They have lots of usefull information regarding sound in Linux and such.
http://alsa.opensrc.org/

 

[drag]

What a second...

Alsa versions 1.0.9 and newer enable software mixing through dmix by default now. I just found that out.

So if your using alsa applications, or make sure your apps are configured to use alsa then software vs hardware mixing cards should be a non-issue.

You may still have problems with some OSS-only apps. (OSS was the older sound stuff for Linux) Stuff like Skype, Realplay, and Teamspeak may still have issues with seizing control of the sound card.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

I go to System > Preferences > Multimedia Systems Selector. There for "input" I can choose ALSA, ESD or OSS. But no matter what I choose, I get the same "failed to construct test pipeline" error. I'll try all three with Audacity, but I don't have high hopes.

Also keep in mind I wouldn't even have to deal with this if Ubuntu would let me install software myself (as opposed to selecting it from the official list in the System menu). The software I *should* be using is Ardour.

Of course, I can't use Ardour, because Linux is ridiculously complicated. Apparently I have to know how to install Ardour before I can figure out how to install Ardour. Perfect.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Nope. ALSA, ESD, and OSS all fail as settings.

 

[drag]

to install Ardour..

First off you need to enable access to universe. These are packages that are not officially supported by Ubuntu, but are still free software. There is also Multiverse and restricted.

You have two methods. The 'newbie' method (the method that is suppose to be easier because it uses a GUI exclusively) is to use synaptic.. The easy method is to edit /etc/apt/source.list and manually edit or replace it with your own.

See:
http://wiki.arslinux.com/Ubuntu
Also this is for the previous version of Ubuntu, Ubuntu 5.04, but it's pretty close.
http://ubuntuguide.org/#extrarepositories

After you enable the extra universe, multiverse and such then go:

apt-get update
This should find all the servers and download the package lists/database
apt-get dist-upgrade
This will aggressively update your machine to match what is aviable on the repositories.
A safer method is to go:
apt-get upgrade

dist-upgrade may try to uninstall stuff or install extra packages that you didn't request.

after that you can go ahead and use synaptic gui package amanager to search for ardour, audicity and such.. or you can go:
apt-get install ardour audacity qjackctl

and then also install most of the recommended software packages and such if you want to. It's recommended.

edit:
To copy and paste into the terminal, since obviously you can't use ctrl-v and such with it, is to highlight what you want to copy, then middle click on the terminal. Then it will paste the text as if you typed it.

There are lots of sound stuff to play around with. Look through synaptic package manager to see all the stuff that is aviable after you enable the extra repositories.

Reading through that guide, or at least skimming through it should be helpfull also.

For capturing sound ignore all the gnome crap, until you know you can get it to work. Using alsamixer bypasses a lot of cruft.
There are some notes about it here:
http://alsa.opensrc.org/index.php?page=ca0106