Bad linux experience

[loic2003]

I figured my original thread belonged in here, really:

original thread.

 

[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.

 

[loic2003]

I fully admit that I'm a linux noob, and was expecting a learning curve... but this is more of a learning cliff!

 

[sourceninja]

seems like your whole problem was with the linux way. You don't like a command line = linux not for you (the command line is a feature not a low tech dos window). You also didn't understand the distro you were working with and assumed linux is linux. I would also state that I do not like fedora, but thats just me. It seems that you dont understand fedora's package managment, that also led to your problems. And yes markbnj, if you are having problems with your computer only 2 things are to blame, the computer, or the user. It sounds to me that the computer was doing what it was told. If that was easy for the user or not was another story. This can be true of windows too, I know of a few windows programs that average user couldn't setup. Hell ever try to install AiW drivers a few years ago?

My suggestion, stick with windows. But if you really want to try linux, find a distro (i perfer ubuntu). Learn how to use it. Ask questions on the forums, install it and use it. If you do use ubuntu EVERYTHING you want to do should be installable via synaptic. Of course you will need to add at least 1 repository to synaptic, but the instructions are there and clear as day on the ubuntu website. You should never have to compile anything. This could also be done with fedora, but I find that you will have better luck with ubuntu's userbase on the ubuntu forums for getting your questions answered.

You must always ask questions. Remember, this is a new OS for you, with a new way of doing everything. Every windows thing you know is worthless here. If you can realize and deal with that you will ask questions and learn the new way. Otherwise you will hate it.

Yes, linux is hard. Its not for everyone and its not ment to be. Distros target different types of users. Fedora targets the redhat crowd, but I've personally found it harder to use for noobs then ubuntu. Ubuntu targets the desktop crowd. It trys to provide a complete desktop (including 3d nvidia drivers) for users. Other distros target different users, such as debian, gentoo, suse. Hell even linspire targets the idiot crowd (dont ever use linspire). Making your linux choice is more about the distro then anything. You just have to find the one for you. For most new users, I think that distro is ubuntu. But dont ever let anyone tell you what distro to use. That is a quest for only you.

 

[M00T]

From the other thread:

I'm sorry but you people are biased. Many failures people have with linux are directly related to usage. Of course you will not succeed in using Linux in a desktop environment with a distribution that does not tailor to a wide range of users.

IMO, rpm based distros are evil and unusable for desktops. Yum is a poor attempt at ports, apt-get and portage. If you looked in the OS forum lately, you'd see that Ubuntu is the common answer for "what distro today?"

There is a reason for that. Ubuntu used apt-get which is a package management system capable of resolving and installing dependencies from common repositories. Apt-get is a mature system. It has been around longer than Fedora's Yum, and works a lot better.

If you really want to be subjective about linux and want a real desktop experience, try this combo:

Download and install Ubuntu.

Download and install the automatix script.



Now... learn how to use apt-get and forget about all those stupid RPM hells you came across with Fedora, Redhat and Suse.


If this doesn't improve your linux experience 100%, you can PM all your rants to me.

 

[doornail]

CLI's pick off the elderly and the lame, thus culling the herd.

Seriously, you should just stick with Windows -- especially if you have zero interest in the CLI. People who look at computers as an appliance will do better with Windows and those who look at computers as "build anything kits" will get the most out of Linux.

 

[The Linuxator]

I completley understand the trouble and frustration the OP had to go through, but seriously what's so special about having a necessary thing such as a driver require all that BS work. Yes what's taboo about a GUI doing things automatically for users ? Jeez!! For those that are talking about Ubuntu , the only thing that I will give you is that Apt-get is superior to YUM in some aspects. But Ubuntu in general, oh please the installation method sucks, the damn thing hadn't installed right on three different PCs I have, and not even the Live CD s work, plus the Anaconda installer is superior to the Ubuntu installer by miles.
YUM is being improved I have noticed alot of improvements done last week on it, It's only a matter fo time before they get it up to Apt-get's level. At least Fedora Core has the main idea understood, which is that users should be able to install their packages independentley of apt-get yum or whatever, I can go to one of the many websites such as intel for example, download my Linux driver in rpm form, double click that rpm package, wait for it to install and done. There aren't much distros out there that can do such thing.

OP are you using yum extender ? If not go to terminal become root, and type : yum install yumex
after that go to system tools ---> Yum extender and you will get a nice GUI interface for yum instead of the retarded terminal one.

 

[sitheris]

Don't start with Fedora, start with Ubuntu, Mandriva, or something geared to those new to Linux

 

[LokeanSon]

From the original post:

Now, am I being unreasonable here when I state that Linux is wholly inappropriate for a home desktop?

I think it's more appropriate to raise your objection with the distribution you tried and not Linux in general. There are substantial differences between how different distributions do things. To use an extreme contrast... Had you tried Gentoo, would it be fair for you to say that Linux is wholly inappropriate for anything but tinkering, based on your experience of compiling everything for yourself, and dancing around the command line to get things working?

Ubuntu is good. When it comes to RPM based distributions, Suse and YAST are the best thing I know of as far as ease of use goes. Clear, concise information for every package it wants to install when you update the system is a mouseclick away. The last time I tried RedHat was years ago, but everything I've read from objective sources about the current version, is that it is still targeting the technically oriented crowd. Edit - To clarify, the crowd that doesn't mind doing somethings from the command line, and in some ways, prefer it.

I think your experience and your opinion is valid and I appreciate you sharing it, as it adds to the information I've already read that tells me not to recommend RH/FC to people looking for a "just works" desktop system. Would you have had the same problems with Suse or Ubuntu? I doubt it, but then again, you could have. But really, you can't know that for sure unless you've tried them. Which is why I think it is more appropriate and logical for you complain about the distribution you tried, because Fedora Core is Linux, but Linux is not Fedora Core.

As far as this:

I like the OSX way of 'it just works'. I like to hit that power button, log in and use the computer. Not maintain it, or just get it running.

Plenty of people call Apple's technical support for assistance on things. The thing is, with MacOS, YOU HAVE THAT OPTION, so the process of troubleshooting anything that goes wrong is transparent for you, in that you're never left with a sense of helplessness. Comparing that, to a free distribution you downloaded that has no support, well, that's another point that I think is not fair. Had you purchased a commercial distribution that included support, you could have been up and running after a phone call.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Listen, if you're a linux noob.. I IMPORE you to use GOOGLE. When I had problems, just a simple google search for a tutorial would help solve the problem. Now granted, in general, installing things in linux is much different (maybe harder), but if you have the proper tutorial then its a snap.

http://fedoranews.org/mediawiki/index.p...o_Install_NVIDIA_Display_Driver_on_FC4

 

[Armitage]

Linux is user friendly - it's just picky about it's friends.

But seriously, Linux/Unix has a different way of looking at the world, and it takes some time and effort to pick it up. A weekend isn't going to do it. But then, how long did it take you to get proficient at setting up and maintaining windows? It amazes me how many people complain about how hard linux is to set up, but when pressed admit that they've never installed any OS before! Not saying this is the case here, but I've seen it a few times.

And as someone else pointed out, the CLI is a feature. Not something they haven't gotten around to fixing yet.

 

[Markbnj]

But then, how long did it take you to get proficient at setting up and maintaining windows?

Given the OP's experience, I would say that Windows might have been this hard to set up... almost... in about 1988. But I don't ever remember having to get a compiler to compile my graphics drivers.

 

[LokeanSon]

Originally posted by: Armitage
Linux is user friendly - it's just picky about it's friends.

But seriously, Linux/Unix has a different way of looking at the world,

I think you should go further... Each distribution has a different way of looking at the world. Where we are today, the words "Linux/Unix" actually convey very little about what someone can expect from any given Linux/*nix distribution, AS FAR AS "ease of use" experience goes.

 

[Doh!]

Google...Google...Google....

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

But then, how long did it take you to get proficient at setting up and maintaining windows?

Given the OP's experience, I would say that Windows might have been this hard to set up... almost... in about 1988. But I don't ever remember having to get a compiler to compile my graphics drivers.

Most modern cards (nvidia/ATI) have a binary only driver, thus you don't compile them (you would require source to do that, and they won't give you the source). If you had the source, they could add it to the kernal and make life much easier. It's the card makers fault you have to jump through these hoops, not the distros.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: Markbnj

But then, how long did it take you to get proficient at setting up and maintaining windows?

Given the OP's experience, I would say that Windows might have been this hard to set up... almost... in about 1988. But I don't ever remember having to get a compiler to compile my graphics drivers.

Most modern cards (nvidia/ATI) have a binary only driver, thus you don't compile them (you would require source to do that, and they won't give you the source). If you had the source, they could add it to the kernal and make life much easier. It's the card makers fault you have to jump through these hoops, not the distros.

I've never looked into the guts or run into this problem since I always have compilers installed. But I think the compiler is required to build the interface between the binary driver and the particular version of the kernel you're using.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

But then, how long did it take you to get proficient at setting up and maintaining windows?

Given the OP's experience, I would say that Windows might have been this hard to set up... almost... in about 1988. But I don't ever remember having to get a compiler to compile my graphics drivers.

I dunno - last time I installed Win2k (about 2 years ago) I remember it being a complete PITA compared to a linux install I was doing at the same time. Several missing drivers I had to go look for - including the basic PCI NIC, so I had to use my linux box to do the looking. Then a huge pile of service packs and other errata that required endless reboots. And a few other hassles that I seem to have repressed the memory of. vs. the Linux install that "just worked".

But then, I haven't used windows as a primary OS for about 6 or 7 years.

 

[loic2003]

well I must have a slice of humble pie, I've done some more research and now have the graphics card working. I needed to install the development packages it turns out. It works nicely now.

So here's my next question: who knows of decent repositry for other drivers? In particular, I'm looking for a fedora core 4 driver for the ASUS A7VT 400 motherboard..

Thanks all.

 

[FrustratedUser]

After reading this thread I realize why Linux is never going to really compete with Windows for an average user.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser
After reading this thread I realize why Linux is never going to really compete with Windows for an average user.

As sad as this is for me to say, I am afraid it will take years and years for it to become / may never become user friendly, as long as this anti-user friendliness exists in the linux community ppl wil never switch from the monopolistic company's products and they will still suffer from bad performance , false promises ,viruses ,spam&spyware

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Listen, if you're a linux noob.. I IMPORE you to use GOOGLE. When I had problems, just a simple google search for a tutorial would help solve the problem. Now granted, in general, installing things in linux is much different (maybe harder), but if you have the proper tutorial then its a snap.

http://fedoranews.org/mediawiki/index.p...o_Install_NVIDIA_Display_Driver_on_FC4

unfortunately this is not always reliable either as linux is so highly configurable that what works on one system doesn't always work on another.
there have been countless times I have followed tutorials and simply not had the desired end effect...often because the tutorial is outdated, steps are left out that seemed obvious to the author, or simply because I wasn't familiar enough with linux to know what the hay they were talking about.

I can think of at least once where a tutorial made my system inaccessable and had to have bersl2 bail me out.

So they are a tool but one you may want to be very careful with.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: daniel49
unfortunately this is not always reliable either as linux is so highly configurable that what works on one system doesn't always work on another.
there have been countless times I have followed tutorials and simply not had the desired end effect...often because the tutorial is outdated, steps are left out that seemed obvious to the author, or simply because I wasn't familiar enough with linux to know what the hay they were talking about.

I can think of at least once where a tutorial made my system inaccessable and had to have bersl2 bail me out.

So they are a tool but one you may want to be very careful with.

Well you'd have to know how to search for them. Generally searching with google will pull the most popular result (the most popular tends to be the most effective) with the given keywords. And mainly look for tutorials from any wiki. They tend to be the most complete (try putting wiki in your search).

And its not about searching for one perfect tutorial. Its best to read multiple ones to gain the most knowledge about the subject. But personally I've always been able to find a good tutorial mainly because although linux is highly configurable, instructions are almost always given through the command line to prevent a lot of confusion (given once you've gotten used to typing in the command line).

 

[Nothinman]

After reading this thread I realize why Linux is never going to really compete with Windows for an average user.

And it probably won't ever have to, Linux and maybe a few other embedded OSes will win over the smaller devices and eventually replace full blown computers for basic computing duties. At least one company that produces those touch screen games used in bars uses Linux for their devices and millions of drunk people use them without any problem every day =)

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Linux is a freaking joke. You know, I even had a hell of a time downloading it! I ended up choosing a distro based on the fact it was the only one I could access online. Fedora, if I remember correctly. A couple years ago I had brief access to Mandrake Linux, and I couldn't even install the drivers. With Fedora, not only was I unable to install my audio or LAN drivers, I couldn't even move files from place to place. Shouldn't that be as simple as drag-and-drop?

Installation is pretty weak, too. Jesus, how many discs do you need for an OS? And they have to be burned a certain way, by special software. I wasted ~15 or so CDRs trying to get it right. I ended up having to use Alcohol 120% and my slowest of two burners.

Linux may be stable. It's also the most impractical computer environment I've ever seen.

Once I had to work on a Laptop running Windows 95 with a 486SL-25 and 20MB RAM and no CD-ROM. I couldn't do much with it, but at least I could browse around the net and manage my files. With a Linux box, every last little thing is a day-long hassle--literally--and in the end I couldn't get it to function at all.

 

[Nothinman]

With Fedora, not only was I unable to install my audio or LAN drivers, I couldn't even move files from place to place. Shouldn't that be as simple as drag-and-drop?

"Works for me".

Installation is pretty weak, too. Jesus, how many discs do you need for an OS? And they have to be burned a certain way, by special software. I wasted ~15 or so CDRs trying to get it right. I ended up having to use Alcohol 120% and my slowest of two burners.

There are plenty of distributions with only 1 disc and they're not in any special format, ISO9660 is the same filesystem used on pretty much every CD in the world.

Once I had to work on a Laptop running Windows 95 with a 486SL-25 and 20MB RAM and no CD-ROM. I couldn't do much with it, but at least I could browse around the net and manage my files. With a Linux box, every last little thing is a day-long hassle--literally--and in the end I couldn't get it to function at all.

If you don't like it, that's fine. But don't run around saying it doesn't work just because you couldn't figure it out.