If "free" means "libre", you're correct. I use gnu/linux on all my machines, including work, and it does what I want it to do. The cost of an o/s is trivial. The restrictions on proprietary software are expensive.Bottom line... if Linux wasn't free, my guess is that almost nobody would use it.
If "free" means "libre", you're correct. I use gnu/linux on all my machines, including work, and it does what I want it to do. The cost of an o/s is trivial. The restrictions on proprietary software are expensive.
I don't think anyone really expects Linux to take over anything...
I just spent 2 weeks trying to create a simple network share, remote desktop and assign the correct permissions and whatnot; never got it working right. I also couldn't get most of the CLI commands to actually do anything and that was even after I memorized everything I needed to configure.
Your distro probably didn't add it on purpose. What normal user needs that anyway? lol. Slackware 14.2 has curl-7.50.1.The libcurl library in use (7.29.0) and its SSL backend ("NSS/3.19.1 Basic ECC") do not support custom
handling of certificates. A libcurl built with OpenSSL is required.
I run into these issues, roll my eyes and just want to go back to my Windows systems.
Your distro probably didn't add it on purpose. What normal user needs that anyway? lol. Slackware 14.2 has curl-7.50.1.
I was calling you abnormal. Thought that was pretty self-explanatory.Anyone that needs to use software that requires curl with openssl needs it. The error message seemed pretty self explanatory.
I don't think anyone really expects Linux to take over anything...
I just spent 2 weeks trying to create a simple network share, remote desktop and assign the correct permissions and whatnot; never got it working right. I also couldn't get most of the CLI commands to actually do anything and that was even after I memorized everything I needed to configure. I finally gave up and installed Win7 and I did everything I wanted in less than 40 minutes, including installation.
I like Linux, specifically debian and ubuntu, but I don't think I could use them regularly for anything other than basic tasks and browsing the web.
Bottom line... if Linux wasn't free, my guess is that almost nobody would use it.
This.And honestly most people are clueless on Windows too.
Nothing is free, but not all methods of payment are trivial to convert to monetary value. For example, what are the current rates of privacy or ethical principles in USD?It's only free if you disregard the concept that time isn't money.
Been using it for the last 12 years. Really, it's easier than Windows for most things these days. And honestly most people are clueless on Windows too; my father actually has an easier time on his Debian box than on a Windows machine.
You could remove the terminal from gnu/linux, and most people would get along just fine. Having it adds power and flexibility, but it isn't required. My mother uses Ubuntu, and she'd have no idea what I was talking about if I told her to open the terminal.Your father can actually sudo apt-get or wget this and that crap more so than a point and clink executable installer?
I would argue that Windows is more point and click where is Linux isn't very much command line driven. Some like it, others don't.
apt-get is a package manager for the terminal. You can also use a gui front end like synaptic(which I generally use), or software center(ubuntus's default, and what my mother uses). There's also aptitude for the terminal which is recommended over apt-get, but I've never gotten on with it.But if you get rid of terminal then you're left with the package manager.
How do you go about installing things other than what's available in the package manager?
Aren't there any IDE's that could handle the compile, i.e. recognize the build config within source package as a "project"?Otherwise, you can compile from source, but that requires the terminal of course. Outside the purview of the n00b, but not hard, and it's nice having the option.
I demand the reverse. That's why I don't use windows, and very little proprietary software. "You can't do that" is an unacceptable answer when the limitation is artificial. I don't expect everything to be handed to me(though it usually is), but I expect to be able to fix and modify things if I'm willing to get my hands dirty, or spend some money.(Except poorly supported hardware. Counter-example: Windows 10 installer did not have a network driver for a Z170-based board. Since I could not solve that in Windows by "pressing a button", I don't demand that from other OS either.)
Synaptic is text based and tied to the repo of the distribution. It lists not only the software, but all dependencies IF THE REPO HAS the software. If not, it's repo hunting time and editing synaptic to add the new software. Stuff like Ubuntu's "software manager" is a newer development and not all users approve of such novelties.My father actually has an easier time with Synaptic (you know, that graphical package manager that's been around for at least 10 years...?) than looking for software for Windows on the 'net. It's all in one place, has its own "search engine," effectively, that ONLY returns relevant results, and oh, no worries about shady s*** getting installed if you download the wrong thing because the webpage has 8 "Download Me!" buttons and 7 lead to something like Slimware or similar malware.
The closest thing in the Windows world is Ninite.com.