Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 30th Jun 2006 19:19 UTC, submitted by Yadav Ji
Linux "Over the years, I've had a number of people asking me what I believe the problem was with further migration over to Linux by the public at large. To be frank, I don't believe that there is a simple answer to this. To me, there are a number of factors that play a role in keeping Linux out of the mainstream limelight" writes Matt Hartley in his opinion piece.
Order by: Score:
In terms of math
by smitty_one_each on Fri 30th Jun 2006 19:41 UTC
smitty_one_each
Member since:
2005-07-07

A common theme that I have heard when people explain to me why they have no real desire to try Linux is the perceived learning curve. When pressed, the person being asked will eventually divulge that they were told that it was simply too difficult to learn. Finally when pushed into giving their "source" of this information, the truth ultimately comes out - they heard about it from another disheartened user speaking about their feelings with regard to one particular distribution.

People want something as simple as arithmatic.
GNU/linux presents you with something more like algebra.
I think it can be shown that, over time, GNU/linux distros have improved in all ways, and will continue to do so, but the system will always punish the feckless user who refuses to apply themself to learn new stuff.
You can pull the slaves out of "Egypt", but you may not get "Egypt" out of the slaves[1].
Some of these concepts, like the basics of mathematics, simply have to be learned.

[1] Metaphorically speaking; not attacking the modern country in any way here.

Reply Score: 5

RE: In terms of math
by chlordane on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:25 UTC in reply to "In terms of math"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

"You can pull the slaves out of "Egypt", but you may not get "Egypt" out of the slaves[1]. "

That is actually a VERY deep analogy, todays society is a little like rome, egypt, babylon all wrapped into one.....

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: In terms of math
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE: In terms of math"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> That is actually a VERY deep analogy

Considering that modern archeology has found no evidence that the Hebrews were ever really slaves in Egypt, and on the contrary, has found evidence that they probably were not, it's also a very WRONG analogy.

The Egyptian captivity was most likely either a completely made up mythology, or something that at some point became confused with a captivity that really did happen. Perhaps the Babylonian captivity (which bares strong resemblences.)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: In terms of math
by Jedd on Sat 1st Jul 2006 06:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In terms of math"
Jedd Member since:
2005-07-06

True on all accounts. The hebrews NEVER were slaves in Egypt contrary to what they'd like you to believe. Pure bible myth.

I know this is off topic, please feel free to mod me down. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: In terms of math
by Pixie on Sat 1st Jul 2006 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In terms of math"
Pixie Member since:
2005-09-30

It's indeed a deep analogy, in the sense that it goes beyhond the egipt itself, focusing is belitling it for the sake of preciousims, there's far more 'egypcians' represented on it, even if they are represented in a 'non existen' act.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: In terms of math
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 1st Jul 2006 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In terms of math"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Considering that modern archeology has found no evidence that the Hebrews were ever really slaves in Egypt, and on the contrary, has found evidence that they probably were not, it's also a very WRONG analogy.

That doesn't make it a WRONG analogy, that makes it one that refers to fictional circumstances.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: In terms of math
by chlordane on Sat 1st Jul 2006 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In terms of math"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

"Considering that modern archeology has found no evidence that the Hebrews were ever really slaves in Egypt, and on the contrary, has found evidence that they probably were not, it's also a very WRONG analogy. "

The Hebrews?
Dont you mean Israelites?

I dont mean Jews when I say that, I mean the northern 10 tribes that are seperate from Judah and Benjamin...which would make 12 tribes....

Plus, I have seen the evidence that PROVES every bit of the bible, and its all physical evidence of what happend....

"The Egyptian captivity was most likely either a completely made up mythology, or something that at some point became confused with a captivity that really did happen. Perhaps the Babylonian captivity (which bares strong resemblences.)"

The reason it may seem like a myth, is because of History Channel distortion....hell, a lot of the Roman Mythology actually happend in the days of Noah.....

Everything can be proven...

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: In terms of math
by Sphinx on Sat 1st Jul 2006 19:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In terms of math"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Everything including virgin birth and resurrection?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: In terms of math
by Jedd on Sat 1st Jul 2006 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In terms of math"
Jedd Member since:
2005-07-06

Touche!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: In terms of math
by chlordane on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 06:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In terms of math"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

^_^ ok, I can see you dont care much for religion so let me say this.....

Every one know whats going on in this world, and it wont require people to go to hell unlike what 90% of the preachers in this world teach....thats the whole point of Jesus dying and being ressurected, to save man kind from himself.....

and you dont even have to belief that for it to happen...

To answer your question, yes everything can be proven...
you just have to know how...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: In terms of math
by Sphinx on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: In terms of math"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Typical Christian vaccum think to presume not caring for or sharing your religious beliefs is not being religous at all.

thats the whole point of Jesus dying and being ressurected,

Makes perfect sense, an omnipotent being would send his son, wait 33 years then have him killed just to make a point and if I read that bible correctly you are dead wrong and it will require 90% of you going to hell. Sorry, but there is no mention of any last minute deals, the entry requirements are quite clearly stated.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: In terms of math
by chlordane on Mon 3rd Jul 2006 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: In terms of math"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

^_^

Edited 2006-07-03 02:28

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: In terms of math
by chlordane on Mon 3rd Jul 2006 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: In terms of math"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

If are truly seeking the TRUTH on this matter....
I will gladly give you the answers....it is not the job of a Christians to convert people, we are only required to live our lives as Christ did...

Dont believe me?
I can point out the scriptures that are ignored by A LOT of Christians

"Sorry, but there is no mention of any last minute deals, the entry requirements are quite clearly stated."

There are no "last minute" details....the major things that happen are planned....

I have proven my beliefs verse by verse...

How can God create us, leave Satan here to screw us, then say to us, (mankind) that we are doomed to be burned forever and ever, with no end in sight....?

Thats just one common misconception about the bible says....

Have you studied the bible?
Can you read Greek and Hebrew?
If you havent looked at the translations of the bible in those langauges, it will seem that God would torture someone for an Eternity......but that is miles from the bible actually says....

I am not a minister, I just do what I read, no matter what any one says......thats including the Pastor of my church.....

God is my Life......
I just use computers as tools..... ^_^

Edited 2006-07-03 02:39

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: In terms of math
by Pixie on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In terms of math"
Pixie Member since:
2005-09-30

> The reason it may seem like a myth, is because of
> History Channel distortion....hell, a lot of the Roman
> Mythology actually happend in the days of Noah.....

Please prove us that it was true, please do so, we have an urge to know the truth, the history channel work is nothing more then a set of lies done to control the world, untie us from this misleading triths that are coming to our cable tvs

Reply Score: 1

RE: In terms of math
by Dolphin on Sat 1st Jul 2006 06:58 UTC in reply to "In terms of math"
Dolphin Member since:
2006-05-01

Compare Vista to Fedora Core 5: which is easier to install? Setup? Run? Use?

FC5 wins by a long way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: In terms of math
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 1st Jul 2006 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE: In terms of math"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

Sorry but I disagree. It does not win by a long way, not yet at least.

What's below is NOT meant as linux bashing in any way. I use this system on daily basis at home (and at work) and I love it. I'll try to be as objective as I can here.

which is easier to install?
I'd say it's a tie if you go with the defaults on both systems.

But let's say we've got a curious user that wants to go for a more customized instalation, with some complex partitioning scheme (going thru partitioning is required if you want to dualboot with windows which is what most beginners tend to do) - windows installation is going to be easier to comprehend simply because there's not much to choose from (in terms of filesystems, software selection etc).

I'm not saying it's 'limited choice=better' but for a beginner it's definitely less confusing.

Setup?
I take it, that by setup you mean post-installation configuration stuff.

Let's look at an example of installing gfx card drivers that don't come with the os: On windows it's pretty much "double click setup.exe -> click next until the window disappears -> you're done".

On linux you'd probably have to do a little more than that depending on how well the hardware vendor has prepared the installation script. If all goes well the installation will be as easy as in windows but you still have to run some xorg configuration script/tool (aticonfig for example) and set some options that aren't always as obvious (like configuring dual-head, or setting up desired refresh rates).

I can only speak for ati cause that's what I use but their linux drivers gave me some trouble more than once.

So, even for the average user that could care less about customizing his xorg.conf it is slightly more difficult and confusing on linux.

That's just a tip of the iceberg if you're talking about configuring your system of course but getting hardware 3d acceleration working is a good example of standard post-install setup that most users go through.

Run? Use?
Once you've configured your system to support your hardware, customized your DE, installed all software you're going to use and all that both systems are going to be equally friendly to use.

Due to the fact that it's easier to avoid viruses, spyware and all that stuff on linux I'd say that would be the winner here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: In terms of math
by hobgoblin on Sat 1st Jul 2006 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In terms of math"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

install?

last time i checked, most anyone hit "next> next> next>" until the installer goes "err, you realy need to fill out the data on the lines marked with red before we can continue".

thats if they do a install at all. windows have the upper hand in that you can stop by any local electronics store, buy a of the shelf computer, and it will come preinstalled with windows.

setup?

last time i did a nvidia install it was a case of having the kernel headers available (most desktop distros have that as a default these days just in case) and edit maybe one line in the x.org config file (or replace the open source 2D nvidia driver with the proprietary one).

after that i logged out of the desktop of choice, watched x.org restart and was shown the nvidia logo before the login dialog.

never realy done a ATI driver install, but from what i understand, it do not even require a kernel module.

but then again, i have run into windows users that freak at the idea of installing software on their own. ok, so its mostly middle aged or older people but still.

so each time we do a "joe sixpack" debate, maybe we should try to define the knowledge and experience that joe have with computers first?

Edited 2006-07-01 10:31

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: In terms of math
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 1st Jul 2006 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In terms of math"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

last time i checked, most anyone hit "next> next> next>" until the installer goes "err, you realy need to fill out the data on the lines marked with red before we can continue".

That's why I said if you go with defaults installing linux is going to be as easy as your typical windows install.

If it's a new harddrive/computer you have to do the partitioning on both systems, also true if you're going to do dual-boot since linux installers prefer to remove all your partitions and create their own unless you tell them otherwise (so clicking next>next>next can have some bad consequences).

last time i did a nvidia install (...) but from what i understand, it do not even require a kernel module.

If you're using a "supported distribution" (according to ati that's either SuSE or RedHat) installing ATI drivers SHOULD be a piece of cake. It usually is.
You download the driver, run the installer as root, click next a few times, if this is a first install: run aticonfig --initial (AFAIR, you will need to add other options too if you want dual-head for example) restart X and you're done.

After that you SHOULD have a working setup but it's not always so easy. Just two days ago I tried to upgrade my ati drivers and here's what happened:

Since somehow the way of installing the kernel module directly did not provide me with working hardware acceleration last time I tried it on previous drivers - I generated and rpm for my system (SuSE 10.1). After upgrading with -Uvh I restarted X and... it didn't get back up (black screen and a freeze). Same story after reboot so I had to boot to runlevel 3... (and so on and so on).

Wether it was my fault or the installation script fault is irrelevent here - if your "joe sixpack" runs into this kind of not-so-best-case-scenario he needs to have some knowledge of how things work to sort the problem out and the problem here is he probably needs to know more to troubleshoot his linux install than his windows install.

That is of course if he'll even bother with installing those drivers at all. You don't need 3d acceleration for web browsing or writing letters... but then he might have a usb dsl modem like i do... or a wireless card...

Those are just scenarios where setting up your system driver-wise is easier in windows over linux.

If things get auto detected and linux has drivers for your devices it's all fine, then you can say it's equal to windows or better because you don't have to do anything. The problems starts where you have to do some work on your own or do some troublshooting.

Bottom line, in relation to Dolphins post: I have to disagree that seting up linux is easier than setting up windows.

but then again, i have run into windows users that freak at the idea of installing software on their own. ok, so its mostly middle aged or older people but still.
so each time we do a "joe sixpack" debate, maybe we should try to define the knowledge and experience that joe have with computers first?


About defining level of experience... that's a tough one. Writing my post I assumed that our "joe sixpack" is someone fairly accustomed with using a computer for daily tasks like webbrowsing, with a will to learn/experiment (not scared of his pc, installing or modyfing stuff) and some knowledge on what exactly is a driver, what partitioning means etc.

PS. If a user can't do something on their own they might ask friends or family for help. Much higher chance that they know someone with some level of windows knowledge than they know a linux savvy person to call in such case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: In terms of math
by hobgoblin on Sat 1st Jul 2006 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In terms of math"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

but if they are using linux bacause of word of mouth, they most likely got it from a person within their sosical circle.

now, if they read about it on some webpage (i admit, linux have gotten some mainstream press lately) they are most likely surfing some technical page and therefor have a bit more knowhow then what i would define as the avarage windows user ;)

and if so, i hope they have enough of a clue to read more then just the headline and hit download. if not, i wonder how they got as far as they did.

yes i know linux have rough edges. but some of the stuff (drivers mostly) cant be helped until the corps that make the hardware rethink how they do biz.

the wireless stuff is a issue because diffrent contrys have diffrent laws about signal strength. and rather then burn a new chip for each contry they make one with a strength regulator thats programable. because of this they cant release the data needed to write a driver (risk of lawsuits or worse within some contrys and so on)...

btw, its not only in linux that install of proprietary drivers can be a mess. i have seen windows installs that would not go beyond basic vga because some displaydriver messed up.

i think it was a ATI card ones where i had to check every driver on the cd because windows could not make up its mind about what driver to use. end of story? none of them worked. whos at fault? windows? ati? i dont know.

still, i have had better experience with ati drivers lately, so things improve over time. i guess ati just dont think linux have the marketshare to realy care about driver quality yet ;)

but then thats a chicken and egg thing. as long as linux dont have the marketshare, they are not worth the bother. but as they are not worth the bother, then they cant get marketshare.

all in all, it realy depends on what your going to use the computer for. mainstream gaming? forget linux. even with wine or that offshot, its a uphill battle both ways...

simple office work and surfing, should work flawlessly unless you have to work with highly advanced ms office files, and even there progress is being made (in more ways then one).

thats realy the problem of the computer. it can be made to do all kinds of things. right now, some of those things are "best" done with windows. but for other stuff, linux may well do just as well or even better ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: In terms of math
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In terms of math"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> last time i did a nvidia install it was a case of having the kernel
> headers available (most desktop distros have that as a default
> these days just in case) and edit maybe one line in the x.org config
> file (or replace the open source 2D nvidia driver with the
> proprietary one).

And you honestly think this is acceptable to the average end user? Hint: They will panic as soon as they see the words "kernel headers".

Again, it's the "It's good enough. And lazy users are the real problem" argument. No. It is NOT good enough for end users. And it needs to be fixed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: In terms of math
by hobgoblin on Sat 1st Jul 2006 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In terms of math"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

oh how lazy we have become...

like i stated in that () up there. most desktop aimed distros will put a the kernel headers into place as default, so the user dont have to know about it...

or maybe im just spoiled tanks a distros ability to grab the nvidia drivers, the kernel headers and then some the moment i tell it to upgrade said drivers ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: In terms of math
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE: In terms of math"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> Compare Vista to Fedora Core 5: which is easier to install? Setup?
> Run? Use?
>
> FC5 wins by a long way

Oh really? Hmm... Let's see what happened the last time I installed FC5 on my laptop.

* Widescreen video mode did not work out of the box. Adding the resolution to xorg.conf did not work either. I had to search the Internet and find a mode line for it that I had to add by hand.

* Wireless networking did not work out of the box. I had to download sorce code for mad-wifi and then build it by hand, after installing missing libraries and headers by hand as well.

* Even after I got wireless networking to work, Gnome's wireless network configuration software sucks. Example, it requires you to know in advance what kind of encryption your network is using, if it is using it at all. Windows on the other hand, automatically probes and prompts for a key if the network needs one.

Those little extra helping hands are what make the difference between an end user friendly OS, and one that is not.

Those problems alone debunk your claim. FC5 is no where near as easy to set up as Vista.

Edited 2006-07-01 13:02

Reply Score: 2

Who cares?
by Barnabyh on Fri 30th Jun 2006 19:50 UTC
Barnabyh
Member since:
2006-02-06

>Should Windows users looking to simply try something different consider looking into a beginner-friendly distribution of Linux? Or should they instead, stick with they know and leave the Linux world to the Linux geek. It's your call. Actually, it's a decision that each Linux user has to make everyday someone questions them about the operating system.<

It's not so much what they Should do or not, it's about what they wantand whether they are willing to learn something new. They (and I) had to learn how to use and install Windows one day ages ago, and let me tell you it wasn't easy at first. They can also learn how to make Linux work for them just as I did, with a little bit of time, dedication, and interest.
There is no reason today why somebody genuinely interested could not accomplish this, and in some aspects I find the current state of Linux distributions easier than Windows.
If they can't be bothered, scr*w 'em, that's fine as well, not everybody has to run Linux anyways, we're not in competition. And let's not forget the BSD's which I'm now, feeling more and more comfortable with *nix, planning to give a shot for their very own reasons.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Who cares?
by Ronald Vos on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:17 UTC in reply to "Who cares?"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not so much what they Should do or not, it's about what they wantand whether they are willing to learn something new. They (and I) had to learn how to use and install Windows one day ages ago, and let me tell you it wasn't easy at first. They can also learn how to make Linux work for them just as I did, with a little bit of time, dedication, and interest.

It's not necessarily about how hard it is to learn Linux, as compared to Linux, but more about comparative advantage. The problem for me is that I'm expert with Windows, and a moderate noob with Linux. Now I could say the latest SuSe has a lessened learning curve than Winxp because it's so polished, and comes with all sorts of stuff to make my life easier.

But: it's another learning curve, with a vaguely defined advantage (no Microsoft) for going through it. I'm not paying for either Winxp or SuSe, but with one I'm certain I can do anything I want with it, and with the other it's a big questionmark (I have to relearn how to use apps, and relearn which apps to use for what).

But am I going to be better off in the end?
SLED is great with auto-detection (detects my wireless!), but since my wireless usb dongle's instructions are geared for Windows, and I'm unfamiliar with the configuration under SuSe, I haven't been able to correctly set things up in SLED yet.

So no internet, and a much harder life under Linux than Windows.

It's simple deal-breakers like that (hardware is often a single point of failure) that make Linux less attractive a deal.

Thing is..there needs to be a 'genuine advantage' in using Linux..enough to off-set the downsides. You can only lessen the downsides, but as long as Linux isn't the biggest player, you can't eliminate the downside of lesser hardware compatibility, and as long as Linux doesn't get pre-installed, you're not getting rid of the learning curve.

Linux needs really cool software, if the goal is to get people to switch.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Who cares?
by Jon Dough on Sat 1st Jul 2006 13:27 UTC in reply to "Who cares?"
Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

They had to learn how to use and install Windows one day ages ago

Wrong answer. In all likelyhood, Windows came pre-loaded and pre-setup on their computer.

In order to compete effectively, GNU/Linux must become widely available pre-loaded and pre-setup on computers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Who cares?
by Barnabyh on Sat 1st Jul 2006 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Who cares?"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

No really, you haven't addressed the 'learn how to use part'. People were not born with the knowledge how to use Windows wired into their brains, they had to learn this as well. Unless you're of the generation that grew up with a Windows computer from 3 yrs old.
Windows coming pre-loaded without a need ever to reinstall is only an argument possibly since XP times, and even then a reinstall would suit a lot of people better than trying to work with a system that's become unstable and spyware-ridden with most average users lacking the knowledge or inclination to fully get rid off.
If you remember in Win3.1/95/98 times we used to have to reinstall every few months, and despite buying it preloaded people would still have to learn the install routine if they wanted to keep using that expensive piece of hardware in the corner. And just thinking of all these Y2k patches back then without Windows update - what a nightmare.

Reply Score: 1

Perceptions
by historyb on Fri 30th Jun 2006 19:56 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

Perception is a huge thing, people precieve that Linux is hard weather they heard from someone or just's think that way because of an MS ad they heard.

That's the biggest hurdle, perceptions.

There are very easy to learn Linux Distro's out there; some just wont leave MS for anything, are they are afraid of anything different.

As an OEM seller and tutor of PCLinuxOS I do my best to let people know that Linux is not difficult.

Reply Score: 5

not for everyone
by jcinacio on Fri 30th Jun 2006 19:59 UTC
jcinacio
Member since:
2006-03-12

Not surprised.

Linux really does have great deal to offer to anyone that doesn't mind learning a few things, but it isn't for everyone (yet). For the most part, it's not a huge learning curve (and in some cases, its barely there) but it exists.

People who don't care to learn how to do the simplest of things and just want them done should stick to other OS's , not create false expectations and then become "disheartened" by a particular distro.

Reply Score: 3

One problem I find
by situation on Fri 30th Jun 2006 20:14 UTC
situation
Member since:
2006-01-10

A lot of new users hear about this "Linux" thing on the internet, and think it sounds like the silver bullet for all their problems. So they install it, assuming it will be like a flawless Windows, and then slowly lose motivation over various problems.
I agree with Barnabyh above; those who are actually dedicated and willing to put in enough time can learn Linux easily. The state of certain user-friendly Linux distros makes this a certainty.
I think the problem is just that the average user who whines upon failure and disheartens others normally went in with vastly different expectations on what Linux would deliver. That's if they even willingly tried Linux; a lot of the time it's forced upon them by friends (who figured out Linux, and it is easy to them).
It's like Linux is the "in thing" with the geek crowd, so lots of unprepared people jump on the bandwagon.

Reply Score: 2

truth of the matter...
by Novan_Leon on Fri 30th Jun 2006 20:20 UTC
Novan_Leon
Member since:
2005-12-07

Linux just isn't as dummy friendly as Windows. Linux isn't very hard to learn if you put the time and effort into learning it, but it still isn't as dummy friendly as Windows.

Actually, I think the primary reason people choose Windows over Linux is:
1. The applications they and their friends have always used are on Windows.
2. They've always had Windows and don't have any reason to switch.
3. Windows comes pre-installed on computers in most national retail stores.

You have to realize, in order for most people to run Linux they have to #1 wipe Windows off the hard drive and #2 install Linux. Most non-techies simply don't know how to do this, and have no reason to want to in the first place.

Reply Score: 5

RE: truth of the matter...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 30th Jun 2006 20:46 UTC in reply to "truth of the matter..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Add to that:

4. Being free as beer doesn't matter to people, who are using cracked Windows versions. There are a lot of those installations. Why spend time learning how to use your freedom when you can live in a cage for free?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: truth of the matter...
by Barnabyh on Fri 30th Jun 2006 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE: truth of the matter..."
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

Let's see what all these people / organizations are gonna do when the WGA kicks in and disables all their OS's after 30 days without the proper licence code (assuming of course that MS will go ahead with this).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: truth of the matter...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: truth of the matter..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That is if they have installed it. You can run the OS without the WGA installed - you will however lose the capability to update your system via Windows Update or Microsoft Update.

But then, many cracked versions of Windows are banned already, so they probably wouldn't be affected much by this. They would however be vulnerable to non-MS spyware and non-MS security threats.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: truth of the matter...
by Barnabyh on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: truth of the matter..."
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06
RE[5]: truth of the matter...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 30th Jun 2006 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: truth of the matter..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

They cannot lock down your Windows installation without having access to it. You can just prevent Microsoft from having access and you can still use it. Just don't update anything from Microsoft, use 3rd party firewall and antivirus and so on.

It will naturally limit some of the functionality in Windows, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: truth of the matter...
by kaosphere on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: truth of the matter..."
kaosphere Member since:
2006-06-16

"Let's see what all these people / organizations are gonna do when the WGA kicks in and disables all their OS's after 30 days without the proper licence code (assuming of course that MS will go ahead with this)."

Well, people will just find their next xp "corp" verion or crack. It's no different when MS first introduced activation. Even worse that people will just run an unpatched xp.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: truth of the matter...
by Tom Janowitz on Sat 1st Jul 2006 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE: truth of the matter..."
Tom Janowitz Member since:
2005-12-05

This is one huge of a point. All of my friends (literally) have Windows cracked. If not the paltry Microsoft antypiracy policy, they might (at least some of them) just by now switched to Linux. But as it is now - nobody has any incentive in doing so, becouse they don't pay for Winows either - this "advantage" of Linux suddenly is being rendered non existant. End where I leave almost everybody are building box's for themselves, so no OS preinstalled.

Reply Score: 2

RE: truth of the matter...
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:57 UTC in reply to "truth of the matter..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually Windows can become very difficult when things go wrong.
Example: I was using XP with AVG and ZoneAlarm.
AVG stopped working properly (updates failed). I tried to uninstall it and reinstall. That is very difficult, because the AVG installer keeps telling you that there is a previous version, even if you have manually deleted everything called "avg" and "grisoft"
OK, looking for a new antivirus I decided to give Avast a go. I wish I had never done it, because Avast and ZoneAlarm are absolutely incompatible.
To cut a long story short, after several days of grief and after trying almost every possible combination(of course I have also linux installed), finally I am using Antivir and Windows Firewall (and in the meantime I caught 6 viruses after surfing unprotected for a very short time).
So is Windows dummy friendly? It depends...

Reply Score: 1

RE: truth of the matter...
by chlordane on Sat 1st Jul 2006 02:57 UTC in reply to "truth of the matter..."
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

"Actually, I think the primary reason people choose Windows over Linux is:
1. The applications they and their friends have always used are on Windows.
2. They've always had Windows and don't have any reason to switch.
3. Windows comes pre-installed on computers in most national retail stores."

#4: People DO NOT want to learn anything else....
Windows works for the most part, and thats all that matters.....

its the most unfortunate thing about a Microsoft dominated world....

"You have to realize, in order for most people to run Linux they have to #1 wipe Windows off the hard drive and #2 install Linux. Most non-techies simply don't know how to do this, and have no reason to want to in the first place."

Yeah, Grandma wont be adding slices to her Linux hard-drive anytime soon....^_-

All of your points are true...
Education is Key....

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: truth of the matter...
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 03:08 UTC in reply to "RE: truth of the matter..."
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> Education is Key....

Yeah... But the education that needs to be done is *not* educating the users. It is educating the developers about what the users want.

You can't change the people to comply with the demands of the software. You have to change the software to comply with the demands of the people. And that IS the key... A key that for whatever reason, most of the Linux desktop evangelist crowd just don't get or seem to be able to grasp.

Edited 2006-07-01 03:12

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: truth of the matter...
by Cloudy on Sat 1st Jul 2006 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: truth of the matter..."
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

It's not just developers. "nerds" like us are technologists and we tend to concentrate on the technology. Doing so we lose sight of the fact that to most users the technology is just a tool and if they notice it at all it's because it's in their way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: truth of the matter...
by chlordane on Sat 1st Jul 2006 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: truth of the matter..."
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

"Yeah... But the education that needs to be done is *not* educating the users. It is educating the developers about what the users want. "

I think your right, I didnt mean we should change the average user, some people have only heard of Linux, but couldnt tell you what it is....
They are TOLD what to buy, because we are no longer considered people, they CONSUMERS, buy, eat and destroy.....

If its up to the developers, Microsoft has already screwed us...

Reply Score: 1

RE: truth of the matter...
by anon4848 on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:59 UTC in reply to "truth of the matter..."
anon4848 Member since:
2006-06-10

I have to disagree with two of your basic assumptions

1. Linux is hard to learn
2. You have to wipe your hard drive

I did not wipe my hard drive yet I am posting this from a Linux distribution using the Mozilla browser. I also did not spend a lot of time learning anything new. Did not read any books on Linux, no manuals, and no guides. I have an old computer and it will not run WinXP, only has 128MB RAM. But I wanted something more current, so I found the site distrowatch and found out mini distributions would work the best on my machine. I am on dial-up, DSL not available, so I ordered two Linux CD's. Put the CD in and the text script ran (similar to the DOS script in Win98). It automatically configured everything except my dial-up connection. This is not any different than Windows, in Windows I have to set-up the modem using dial-up networking, similar thing in Linux. I wanted to play music, short cut on the desk-top (like media player) and it plays the CD I put in. I want to type a letter, short cut on desktop (just like word). In fact just about everything I need is either on the desktop or in the start menu. Now with everything so easy, how is Linux hard? Where is the steep learning curve?

Reply Score: 5

RE: truth of the matter...
by Jedd on Sat 1st Jul 2006 07:00 UTC in reply to "truth of the matter..."
Jedd Member since:
2005-07-06

Man I wish I could vote you higher than 5 (someone beat me to it :-p )

Your first 8 words says it all:

Linux just isn't as dummy friendly as Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: truth of the matter...
by hobgoblin on Sat 1st Jul 2006 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE: truth of the matter..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

i think its a old linux saying that goes:

linux is user friendly, its just picky about its friends...

somtimes i just wish people would stop worrying about having to learn and just learn. im tired of doing the spyware sweep and antiviral update ever so often because they cant take 5 min to learn what the dialogs are about...

Edited 2006-07-01 10:41

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: truth of the matter...
by Jedd on Sat 1st Jul 2006 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: truth of the matter..."
Jedd Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm in 100% agreement with what you are saying. Right on man! Right on.

Reply Score: 1

RE: truth of the matter...
by solidsnake on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 08:55 UTC in reply to "truth of the matter..."
solidsnake Member since:
2006-06-04

You are absolutely correct.

I used WIN98 for years because I did not have the money to buy a copy of XP. Windows was all I had known of and I had no reason to switch to an alternative system. It was already installed on the computer I owned at the time and worked fine most of the time.

WIN98 worked fine for me at least but I wanted something better. Since I could not get XP, I wondered if there was an alternative. I simply typed in "alternative OS" in google. I was fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to get the Debian website. Things turned out well for me because at least I was curious and because I am too cheap (or broke) to buy a copy of XP.

Unfortunately Windows has a virtual monopoly on home computer software and most of the equipment is made to work using Windows software. It took me some time to learn the ins and outs of linux. The average user doesn't have the time to deal with setting up a new system.

Many people I have spoken to about switching to linux want to know: "Can I run my programs like MS Word, Games or watch videos?" -- "Is it difficult to learn?"--"Will my equipment work"-- "Who makes Linux"--"What the heck is a dependancy" "Config, Make, Make Install what?" and so on.

I think more has to be done to introduce the general public to Linux and the great things that it has to offer. We need to make linux more visble to the average computer user. Invite friends or family to take a look at your Linux box! Put it on a laptop to show co-workers! Pass on USEFUL honest information
about Linux. Let's get out there and break the Windows addiction!

Reply Score: 1

It's a chicken and egg problem
by tomcat on Fri 30th Jun 2006 20:24 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

Users aren't turning to Linux in large numbers because the big hardware OEMs aren't offering fully integrated Linux desktop boxes to consumers. And hardware OEMs won't offer desktop Linux boxes until there are sufficient users.

Of course, that doesn't entirely explain why OEMs aren't offering Linux boxes. I mean, after all, there will always be risk-takers that are willing to take chances in creating new markets. Apple, Tandy, and IBM each too substantial risks when they introduced their first desktop machines.

But that's where Microsoft comes in. It almost doesn't matter how good Linux is. Windows is "good enough." Cost isn't a significant factor, either. Large OEMs get copies of Windows for, like, $35 for XP Home and, like, $50 for XP Professional -- and they pass on that cost to consumers regardless; in fact, the OEMs make a profit on each OS sold, so, there's very little incentive to move away from that business model.

In my opinion, the best way for Linux advocates to advance adoption of their OS is to work directly with OEMs like Dell, Gateway, and others. Why not create a Dell Linux? Or Gateway Linux? Or similar solutions? In other words, lower the cost of integration for Dell et al to the point that they would consider it. That doesn't address the support side, but it's a good start, IMHO.

Reply Score: 4

anon4848 Member since:
2006-06-10

The problem is not the OEM's it is Microsoft. IBM was ready to ship OS/2 to businesses, Microsoft withheld the Master for Windows 95 until the last minute as retaliation. Be tried to get OEM's to dual-boot BeOS, not even make it exclusive and OEM's could not because of Microsoft. The OEM's stance was proven correct when Be found an Asian OEM to dual-boot and Microsoft went there to tell the company if they allowed Be on their hardware, they would lose their Microsoft OEM license. Do not cite the anti-trust judgement, it was one of the weakest handed to a convicted company. AT&T was broken into seven companies in an anti-trust settlement. Microsoft they just told them we will be watching you, and let them help choose the oversight group. Microsoft became ubiquitous in the home because they were what people used at work, and their OEM exclusive rights contracts. Not because they had better games, more software or better solutions. Just about any office product there were better alternatives, initially than MS Office. Borland Paradox, Harvard Graphics Presentation software, WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and dbase IV. You mention Tandy and IBM and Apple, but forgot Texas Instruments and Commodore. I would not actually put IBM in this group as they were mostly business oriented. The ones who sold to individuals, when we still had a choice, were Commodore, Texas Instruments, Radio Shack, and Apple. Commodore 64, TI994a, TRS80, and Apple IIe.

Reply Score: 4

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I agree with much of the latter portion of your post; however, the anti-competitive behavior that you're citing in which MS threatened OEMs predates the antitrust trial. The antitrust judgement effectively bars Microsoft from retaliatory responses to OEMs. Are you aware of any circumstance since then in which Microsoft has strongarmed OEMs to preclude the installation of alternate operating systems; including, revoking an OEM's license, increasing the price, etc? I haven't heard of any examples, and I'm sure that the DOJ would like to hear of any, if you know of them. I think that that is the real test of Microsoft's power. If an OEM can install Linux or Apple or whatever on a PC, then the antitrust trial has been effective, in my opinion. Again, show me a violation and I'll agree with you on that point.

You're right about my not including Commodore and TI. That was an oversight on my part. Commodore and TI sold a lot of their machines into homes. I bought their machines, too.

I'm not sure what degree exclusive contracts contributed to MS dominating the productivity software market. One of Microsoft's big advantages was that it developed graphical alternatives to its competitors text-based DOS applications first. Additionally, Microsoft was one of the first vendors to start offering fully integrated suites of productivity software that combined word processing, spreadsheets, presentation, and databases. This reduced the need for businesses to buy separate pieces of software to address their needs. I think that these two factors really turned the tide in the productivity software market. But, of course, that's just my opinion.

Reply Score: 1

I remember...
by Gregory Isaacs on Fri 30th Jun 2006 20:58 UTC
Gregory Isaacs
Member since:
2006-06-30

... as I was about to buy my first computer I didn't even know about different OS'es. I think most people don't either. Friends of mine used Macs and that's how I got one too and later on chose Linux.
The average user maybe has an attitude to operating systems like any other electronic product in the household like tv's, washing machines or anyting else. The OS running is accepted as if it's an inseparable part of the pc which you have to treat like the handling of your video recorder or any other electronic device.

Reply Score: 2

Get Positive
by moleskine on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:00 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

It's easy for people to change to Linux if they find open source a compelling idea/philosophy or if they are genuinely interested in the technical nuts and bolts of a new operating system.

But that's always going to be a small minority. For the majority, the question is, What does the hassle of switching to Linux give me I can't get on Windows or Mac anyway? In most cases the answer is nothing, nothing at all. Only a few people are going to use Linux because of a compelling open source app they can't afford or can't obtain on Windows.

So I guess Linux needs to shed its geeky image and find some strong and positive reasons for itself. Anything less, and the inertia of staying with what's "good enough" will always win out especially as it is not Linux but Windows which comes preloaded on 90+++ per cent of new machines.

I don't think it helps that Linux troubles with wifi, multimedia apps/codecs and 3D drivers so often crop up as a disincentive to change. The reasons for this have been explained millions of times for years, but they cut no ice at all with end users who want something that Just Works. Bragging from outfits like Novell about beating Microsoft on the desktop is a bit of a farce when basis issues like these are still unresolved.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Get Positive
by Morin on Sat 1st Jul 2006 13:45 UTC in reply to "Get Positive"
Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

One strong point of Linux could be (but isn't yet) the community working together to build a good system. This has worked on the Mac with Dashboard. It has worked with UI extensions to World of Warcraft. In both cases, users have invented lots of add-ons that solved actual problems, gave other users an advantage, or were just fun. Such things could be a strong point of Linux and are fully in line with the spirit of free software.

There are reasons why this doesn't work with Linux currently. For one, writing a useful module for Linux is just too hard, whether it's an application, desktop widget, library, or kernel module. Secondly, Linux is too split: The only thing that is common is the kernel, and even the kernel comes in many configurations.

I see a future in a system that is based on Linux, with centralised development of the core parts to avoid splitting, and community development of add-ons, the successful ones being added to the core. Combine that with standardized hardware to avoid HW problems, and a good and easy-to-use programming interface. And of course a clear direction *which* position to hold in the market.

Reply Score: 1

Linux is for Experts
by RGCook on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:06 UTC
RGCook
Member since:
2005-07-12

This article hits the nail firmly on the key heads. I wish he would have used headings because they included:

1. Lack of cooperation and unified development standard
I think a lot of folks would agree that there is a lot of wasted/redundant effort due to the various distro being independently developed out there. Add to that, there is really no unified set of standards that I have seen. It's more of, may the best distro win. And so you are left with a bunch of distros each with a particular stong area, but none that is collectively got it all. Imagine a distro that was unified with all of the best work and buid on that.
2. Hardware support, particularly wifi cards
My gawd do wifi cards make my hair fall out.
3. Perception that Linux is too hard
That's because it is. This is another case of jaded experts and geeks deciding that it is really simple to install, configure and use. It's not.
4. Should windows user swtich? is asked at the end of the article.
I believe that if you don't mind paying for Windows then you should not switch. Because Linux does not provide the new desktop user with any compelling reasons to switch other than cost, at the detriment of learning to use something that is far more difficult to use with much less broad hardware support. So it goes, the Linux Desktop remains the domain of the expert user who knows how to make it tick and what to buy so that works when he brings it home.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux is for Experts
by Barnabyh on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:24 UTC in reply to "Linux is for Experts"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

Didn't think I'm an expert, but thanks ;-) . Are all these people in the user forums as well? Just asking a few questions there can usually sort all your troubles and will keep your install happy for a long time to come.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux is for Experts
by arctic on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:30 UTC in reply to "Linux is for Experts"
arctic Member since:
2006-04-19

"Imagine a distro that was unified with all of the best work and buid on that."

Some distros try that already (e.g. Yoper), but it is VERY hard to create such a distro as not all things are easily compatible due to the layout of some distros. Furthermore, who decides what is the "best" of all distros? Every user has a different view on this. Some users swear on packman, others on emerge, some on apt-get, some on urpmi or yum or <enter tool of choice> and then there is the endless discussion if KDE or Gnome or Fluxbox or yet another DE/WM is the best solution. You see, it is more complicated as it seems at first glance.

"3. Perception that Linux is too hard
That's because it is."

This - again - depends on the user. For some it is easy, for others not. Those who have problems with it are those that usually buy a computer with a pre-installed system and that have NEVER in their life installed an OS. Let them install Windows. They fail. Let them install OS9 or OSX. They fail. Let them install Linux. They fail again. This is not Linux fault but a general lack of training/education imho.

"4. Should windows user swtich? is asked at the end of the article.
I believe that if you don't mind paying for Windows then you should not switch. Because Linux does not provide the new desktop user with any compelling reasons to switch other than cost, at the detriment of learning to use something that is far more difficult to use with much less broad hardware support."

You must be new to Linux or you probably haven't used Linux at all. Otherwise I cannot understand your comment. If it were only cost, then many users wouldn't have switched to Linux. Ever heard about system-security? About some superior GPL software? ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Linux is for Experts
by RGCook on Fri 30th Jun 2006 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is for Experts"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

I've been using Linux since SUSE 9 but I was generally disappointed with 10.0 with the change in package management, bugs, etc. Yeah, I know, try this, try that. But enough of that. In some ways, Linux is regressing, not advancing. I want a system that works without having to chase down packages, dependencies, get ndiswrapper up and running, etc.

To some folks, I am a new user, to others, they look at me and say, Wow, you really know Linux. I just want to get my work done and have a lot of fun. SUSE's tag line. Ironic.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux is for Experts
by Cloudy on Sat 1st Jul 2006 02:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Linux is for Experts"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Those who have problems with it are those that usually buy a computer with a pre-installed system and that have NEVER in their life installed an OS.

That's a persistent myth, but I'd like to see some hard numbers.

Most of the people I know who have problems with Linux are OS developers and embedded systems developers. They tend to run into hardware compatibility issues most frequently, followed by system administration problems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Linux is for Experts
by arctic on Sat 1st Jul 2006 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Linux is for Experts"
arctic Member since:
2006-04-19

Hard numbers are not easy to find. I can only speak of my own experience. Right now, I have migrated over 200 people to Linux and of those, every user who had previously installed OSX or MS-DOS or Windows (3.1,95,XP,etc) or OS2/Warp was able to install Linux with very little to no assistance. It was only those users who never installed any system before (roughly 75% of those whom I migrated) that were unsure where to start. They usually didn't even know that you can boot from a CD, nor did they know that they can enter the BIOS and change the boot-sequence there. It was all caused by a lack of teaching.

OS Developers have usually problems on every OS that they are not accustomned to. Windows develoers, for instance, work day in and day out with Windows and it is their "second personality". They think like their operating system (this is not a negative remark, to mind you). So, if those developers try a new OS, they usually apply their knowledge, their thinking of the old OS to the new OS and fail, because they have to understand first that e.g. Linux is not Windows. If you don't throw away the old Windows habits and Windows-thinking, you will fail sooner or later. Same with OSX. If you are a ting-time Mac developer, you think in "Mac-terms" and will have a very hard time on Windows until you manage to throw the "Mac-way-of-doing-things" away.

Hardware compatibility can be a problem on any OS, thus it is not a valid point imho for saying "linux is for experts".

For those whith system-administration problems, there are chats, forums and - Books!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Linux is for Experts
by Cloudy on Sat 1st Jul 2006 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux is for Experts"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

OS Developers have usually problems on every OS that they are not accustomned to.

This is not consistent with my rather extensive experience with OS developers. They tend to be no different than any other when it comes to adapting to how to use a particular system, but they tend to be much better at understanding the vageries of how to install one.

Hardware compatibility can be a problem on any OS, thus it is not a valid point imho for saying "linux is for experts".

While it can be a problem on any OS, by comparison to Windows, it is a signficant problem for people installing Linux on new hardware.

The problem is that hardware makers tend to design and debug their hardware for PCs running Windows, so that even the latest hardware will have windows drivers. This tends to limit hardware problems on Windows to machines with unusual configurations of hardware.

Linux, on the other hand, tends to lag in drivers for the latest hardware, if for no other reason than it takes time after the hardware is available for someone to write and debug the open-source driver. So someone buying a new system is far more likely to run into this sort of problem with Linux.

Reply Score: 1

Linux vs Windows
by WereCatf on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:12 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I wonder, why are so many people seeing everything as a competition, like: "choose one or the other, both can't exist!" They can coexist peacefully. Sure, Linux is a great OS, and, atleast in my humble opinion, in many ways superior to Windows, but it just will not replace Windows. That won't happen. Atleast not within some 10-20 years. There are a lot of reasons, only one of them being the fact that most people use Windows applications, or someone they know uses such and thus forces this previous person to use the same in order to collaborate. Hardware support, or the lack of a lot of support, is another important thing to notice. The fault is not with Linux or the developers, it is with the companies which only create Mac/Windows drivers.

And, what I see as a great problem, is the fact that people (ones who use Linux themselves) often compare Linux and Windows, and claim that they are pretty much the same and Linux is just as easy...The fact is, Linux is easy to learn and use, but only if you are willing to learn. And if you compare Windows and Linux, tell people how great Linux is and so on, people will assume it is just an improved version of Windows. But it isn't! It is a different OS, and by nature and design, works differently! One can't just assume it works the same. People who are interested to learn Linux, should be notified of the fact that it is not Windows, and as such, they will, every single one of them, have to learn new things and adapt to a bit different way of doing things. Unless they can deal with that, there is little hope they will be happy with Linux...

And just as a little note here in the end: I actually dislike this Windows-does-things-like-this-lets-copycat-mentality. Linux is Linux, and should remain that. Sure, copying of good ideas is always a good thing, but trying to imitate the behaviour of another OS, just in order to _try_ to make the life of a Windows-convert easier, is a bad thing. They need to learn the Linux way, or not use Linux at all.

Reply Score: 4

It's easy to explain.
by Sabon on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:33 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's easy to explain. The problem is the geeks and nerds who install nerd and geek distros of Linux on Joe and Jane computers.

Joe and Jane just want to surf the web, do e-mails, do a small amount of writing in a word processor, and get music for their music players. They also want everything to work without hassles and they NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, N E V E R want to have to look at or use a command prompt. Everything should configure automagically and icons should for installed applications (which they install with only a double-click) appear in a very easy to figure out place.

With nerd and geek distros this doesn't happen and Joe and Jane get pissed off and want to kill the geek or nerd that put this pos on their computer. Meanwhile the geek or nerd is shocked at their response.

Reply Score: 5

v Newbie
by Sodapop on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:44 UTC
what?
by SK8T on Fri 30th Jun 2006 21:50 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

I don't think linux is more difficult as Windows.

A linux vs. Windows comparison: (we take ubuntu as linux distro)

1) Software:
Office Suite:
Windows: -
Linux: OpenOffice (in most cases no installion)

Image manipulation:
Windows: Paint
Linux: GIMP
(I think everyone knows whats more professionel)

In general how to find and install software:
Windows: in most cases, www.google.com
Linux: synaptic - apt - yum - etc.

2) Drivers
Windows: you need to insert your driver cds
Linux: in most cases you don't need to install any drivers

How to change a driver?
Windows: Remove the old one, reboot, install new on, reboot
Linux: for example xorg.conf; change one Line to change the graphics driver and restart x.

3) Software you don't need to manage as a newbie:
When you are new to windows, you have to know how you manage: your Antivirus Software, your Firewall, your Spyware software, how often you should clean up your hdd, and so on.
In linux, you doesn't need to know all these things.

So I think, for a computer newbie, a modern linux is easier as windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE: what?
by Trollstoi on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:20 UTC in reply to "what?"
Trollstoi Member since:
2005-11-11

OMG teh zealotry. Let me fix it for you:

1) Software:
Office Suite:
Windows: Microsoft Office (business standard. install is only click on OK)
Linux: OpenOffice

Image manipulation:
Windows: Photoshop (business standard. install is only click OK)
Linux: GIMP

2) Drivers
Windows: you need to insert your driver cds (Windows drivers supplied with every piece of hardware)
Linux: in most cases you don't need to install any drivers In a lot of cases it's hopeless to expect the hardware to work

How to change a driver?
Windows: most of the time just double click the new drivers installator and then OK, OK, OK....
Linux: for example xorg.conf; change one Line to change the graphics driver and restart x.

Really, if Linux wants to be on the average guy desktop, it'd better work on the issues instead of twisting reality to pretend they don't exist.

Edited 2006-07-01 00:24

Reply Score: 4

A Tale of two Software Installs.
by kadymae on Fri 30th Jun 2006 22:53 UTC
kadymae
Member since:
2005-08-02

1) I use and *like* Ubuntu for PPC on one of my Apple laptops at home.

2) Opera is my preferred browser at home and work

So recently I tried to install Opera 9 on the Ubuntu laptop at home. It didn't take. I tried a reinstall. Nope. I can't launch it at all. (Explicative deleted) Synaptic can't find Opera to uninstall it. So, in order to do a clean install of Opera, I'm going to have to run that command that lists all the places that the Opera files are hiding and then I get to go and remove them.

By. Hand.

I just installed Opera 9 here at work on the (hack, spit!) XP Pro box. It also got borked up and crashed upon launching. I tried reinstalling.

As soon as I clicked the icon and the installer launched I got a wonderful little box which asked if I wanted to uninstall Opera or did I want to repair my install.

I clicked repair and Opera's working just fine now.

[great stabby rage]
WHY CAN'T WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT NICE AND THAT **USEFUL** ON LINUX?!
[/great stabby rage]

Because, seriously, if I were a complete n00b, I'd probably call having to remove 30 or so files by hand the end of my Linux experience.

And as for Synaptic? Still incredibly unimpressed. It can't even find the opera.sh file in /usr/bin.

Edited 2006-06-30 22:55

Reply Score: 2

joesnow Member since:
2006-02-09

simple, use a different distro, w/ different package management. I think Ubuntu is cool an all... but there are some things I can't stand about it, such as what you stated. I find things much much easier to handle in Fedora, SUSE, Gentoo (yea..even gentoo), in regard to clean and easy package management w/o any messes to clean up.

Reply Score: 1

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

simple, use a different distro

1) This isn't a very n00b friendly answer.

"Your problem is you need to wipe the drive and start all over again from scratch."

2) So you're saying that I'll get the "repair" option with those distros?

Also keep in mind I have 2 major criteria when shopping for a disto.

A) I want Gnome out of the box. (And if switching from KDE to Gnome is any harder than clicking a button in settings, that's too much work.)

B) Must be PPC. (And the last time I went shopping for a Linux distro, Ubuntu 4.10 was pretty much it outside of [hack, spit!] YDL.)

Yes, I could compile, but I am only willing to compile X86 binaries to PPC twice a year -- on Dec. 32 or June 31st.

Edited 2006-06-30 23:54

Reply Score: 2

chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

So recently I tried to install Opera 9 on the Ubuntu laptop at home. It didn't take...

I just installed Opera 9 here at work on the (hack, spit!) XP Pro box. It also got borked up and crashed upon launching


I just installed Opera 9 on my x386 Ubuntu desktop. I used sudo dpkg -i to install, it just worked. Maybe it was unwise to use synaptic. It looks like it installed easier for me on Ubuntu than for you on XP.

Reply Score: 2

Fred Member since:
2005-07-06

"And as for Synaptic? Still incredibly unimpressed. It can't even find the opera.sh file in /usr/bin."

Just as MSI, dpkg (and thus apt) and really any other package management system will only do what it's told to do. Synaptic doesn't "find" files, it's told where they live and whether or not they should be uninstalled or not.

So basically your gripe is with the person who built the package for Opera, not with the distribution or its package management system...you did use the package management system did you? I hope you're not trying to get synaptic to remove something it's not aware of...

That said, I agree that it would be nice if there were some repository of what major software packages is installed and how. Preferably with a command to
uninstall it, too. Two things would be needed: Every major app has to register itself somewhere (fat chance in hell) and then we'd get the same buggy things as the Windows Registry is now (as that is where Windows keeps it), and I think we collectively agree that that is a very bad idea.

So basically today's situation is that you stick with what the distribution's package manager supports. If you go around it, or install poorly developed packages, you're basically up in s**t's creek.

PS, just as in Windows it's perfectly possible to use competing package management systems on your linux box. I can use source, rpm, deb, and probably even portage on e.g. my debian box. Just as I can use InstallShield, MSI, legacy 16 bits setup, that nullsoft installer thing, etc on Windows. All I really need to be aware of is that I also manage the software with the tools which installed it. Windows takes some of that burden away for you through appwiz.cpl, but that doesn't change that the installer which installed the software also of stays in control of it. And like everywhere else, it's quality greatly depends on the quality of the package installed. And there are some truly horrific packages out there, be it RPM, DEB, MSI, Instalshield, whatever. Even Microsoft itself breaks every rule in the MSI book with everything but the most basic installer packages. It's never as simple as the rulebook prescribes.

Reply Score: 1

Why Linux Has Failed Most Beginners?
by hraq on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:12 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Simple Answer: Because Linux or any other OS is not enough for everything.

Everybody here expect that a sigle platform must be the only way to achieve his/her goals in computing; which is not true.

I expect that a good computer user (like ones who read osnews.com) would use 2 computers one as the primary one and the other the secondary one for tasks the previous one cannot do or cannot execute reliably.

Good combination would look like this:
1. windows/linux
2. windows/Mac
3. windows/solaris
4. windows/PC-BSD
In the previous combo windows will serve as gaming/special applications OS while the 2nd one as Internet/multimedia/server OS.

So, no single platform ,till now, is enough for advanced users.

Reply Score: 3

windex
by joesnow on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:14 UTC
joesnow
Member since:
2006-02-09

what OSnews publishers don't seem to understand is, there is no real "competition" between windows and linux on the desktop market, for regular users. Linux is there, yes, by all means you're able to switch if you want, if you know how. But there's no major push by Linux users to get Windows users to convert, what I don't understand is why people want to believe that there is.

All developers (no, not some, All that I've contacted in some way shape or form) do not agree that they would like to see windows users "switch" to linux, in fact they express that they would rather Windows users stick to their windows and not switch as to save them much time, having to dumb down their applications they develop for/on, for people who're incapable of operating linux as a non-beginner would.

This also applies to the "war" going on between Gnome and K Desktop, what war? The developers in all their blogs (all meaning, no exceptions whatsoever) state that they couldn't care any less about the other development camp's userbase, they want people to choose. They're not trying to be superior over the other devel camp at all, it's so far apathetic to the point that they don't even pay much attention to each other.

Seems to me like people that're "used to" the windows world, have started to use linux, and brought their socio-dramatic headlines with them. I personally am for widening the gap between novice user and tech, just like it used to be, to insure IT job security, and keep "users" where they should be, and keep "admins" doing the tech work, like they should be.

Edit: response to previous post ::
I use Linux for everything, including gaming, all my games I play...yes UT, Quake4, Starcraft, HL2, on and on, I use it for multimedia, I use it for specialty applications (see crossover office/ cedega / wine), everything. I have no issues. It's all about the know-how, not what the OS can or "can't" accomplish.

The goal is not "getting people to switch" that's Apple/Mac, people confuse it way too often. This is free software we're talking about here.

Edited 2006-06-30 23:21

Reply Score: 5

RE: A Tale of two Software Installs.
by joeprusa on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:31 UTC
joeprusa
Member since:
2006-05-25

That is nonsense. I had absolutely no problems installing and uninstalling Opera on Kubuntu. Seems to me you had a damaged package. Or a package for wrong Ubuntu version.
The XP "repair" is great but it is there simply because on Windows software packages tend to break without any reason. It sometimetime helps, sometimes not.
If you have a good package for your Linux distro then everything works and you are able to uninstall it pretty easily.

Reply Score: 1

RE: what?
by Finalzone on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:50 UTC
Finalzone
Member since:
2005-07-06

Additional point about comparison of Windows XP and a Linux distro like Ubuntu.
In most case, a Microsoft Windows XP does not come bundled with most applications ready to use such as Office. The fact is Microsoft Windows XP systems are customized by vendors with an additional fee.

Like some posters pointed out, applications like Photoshop are expensive so some users got the cracked version instead.

In my view, a newbie user will have a tremendous amount of time to get Microsoft ready to use for Office and Web browsing. All of these without support from vendors.

Reply Score: 2

Sheesh!
by porcel on Fri 30th Jun 2006 23:54 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Complete trash. Mierda, Merde.

That's what this article is. Yeah, Mod me down, but the article's only purpose was to sell advertising through underlined words and heavy ads on every f--king page.

Get a f--king life and stop writing trash.

And yeah, Linux is fine as is without pointless advise from morons.

Reply Score: 2

v Nothing is wrong with Linux
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:17 UTC
RE: Nothing is wrong with Linux
by WereCatf on Sat 1st Jul 2006 06:25 UTC in reply to "Nothing is wrong with Linux"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Ahh...Simba, Simba...What a troll you are..I just thought to post a small reply, in order to perhaps clear up a bit of the FUD you're spreading.

There's nothing wrong with Linux. It is ready for the average users. Users are just lazy and don't want to learn anything about how their system works. That's not Linux's fault.

First of all, that really is not a fault with Linux, or a distro for that matter. The truth is, an average user, used to using Windows for whatever he/she usually does, probably will not want to learn how to do thing differently. Just sit one such person in front of a Mac, and they will most likely dislike it, too. And still, Mac OS X is considered ready for the desktop. No one here claims Linux or Mac OS is ready for *every* desktop..Heck, Windows isn't ready for *every* desktop, either.

And the fact that out of the box, most Linux distros can't play most popular media formats is not Linux's fault either. It's the fault of non-standards compliant web sites and patent holders. So nothing is wrong with Linux

Well done! You *are* indeed correct! That is the fault of people developing proprietary formats. Sure, I admit, an average user don't care about that. All they want is to be able to watch/listen their media files without hassle. But, you fail to see a few things here. First of all, Linux distros, even in default install, includes support for a lot more formats than a default Windows install. I wonder, what does an average Windows user do if she wants to watch a DivX movie in a default Windows installation? She'd probably have to do some Googling..but what to search for? What if she doesn't even know it is a DivX one? And even if she did, typing "DivX" in Google results in something completely different than what she would have expected. After a lot of Googling, and perhaps asking around, she might find out she needs something like K-Lite Codec Pack, but she doesn't know what it really is. She doesn't care. Just wants to watch the movie. At this point she's very frustrated, downloads whatever she thinks is K-Lite and then, if she even knows how to do it, installs it. Well, now she *may* be able to watch the movie, or maybe not. I have experienced problems with K-Lite myself in a few occasions, like a green screen, or that some other formats stopped working..Oh, and the second point you failed to notice is the fact that f.ex. Ubuntu is free, as in no-money-paid. So what do you expect? You get everything for free? If you did pay 50$ for a decent distro, you would get mp3 playback and so forth..

Oh. And all those problems new Linux users claim to have with Linux (such as getting it to play more than one sound source at the same time) don't exist in reality...

Actually such a problem does exist. People claiming that is not possible are just talking against better knowledge. The fact is that certain sound cards don't support multiple opens, and as such, only one app can use the sound card at any single moment. Note howerever that these cards are rare. Most cards work just fine. I have had two cards which did not work correctly: an nVidia nForce 2 integrated sound chip, and a Via one. Both the fixed easily, though, just by making sure ALSA uses dmix plugin. These kinds of situations could be fixed either by making sure the distro enabled dmix by default, or modifying ALSA to enable dmix if the hardware doesn't support multiple opens. Though, I would prefer the latter. The first solution would be only a work-around, and might result in a slight performance loss with cards that do support multiple opens.

And even if they do have them, haven't you heard of dbus? Nevermind the fact that many apps down't support it cause they are still based on OSS and not ALSA, and the fact that most Linux distros don't have dbus configured out of the box

Now this then is just complete bull...First of all, dbus has absolutely nothing to do with audio. Nothing. Dbus is a message-queuing framework so that applications can more easily co-operate and send certain kinds of messages to each other. And for the second thing: any OSS apps can use ALSA. ALSA does have OSS emulation, so no problems there. And for the third: there really isn't much to configure for dbus. It just needs to be run. And nowadays I don't know any recent distro which didn't come with dbus..

And also, Linux is not harder to use then Windows anyway. It's just different. So nothing is wrong with Linux

Very true, indeed =) The same applies to Macs, too..

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nothing is wrong with Linux
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Nothing is wrong with Linux"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> What a troll you are..I just thought to post a small reply, in order
> to perhaps clear up a bit of the FUD you're spreading.

I'm not spreading FUD. Everything I said was true. Except that when I said dbus, I meant to say dmix.

> Very true, indeed =) The same applies to Macs, too..

Wrong... Go ahead and as a new a user to get Quicktime support working in Linux. See how long it takes before they give up. I have an even better one. Ask them to upgrade their nvidia drivers.

And again, the point you are missing is that end users simply don't care at all who's fault it is. And I don't know how many times I have to say that before the zealots will get it.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Hmmhmm, I still say you're spreading FUD. Perhaps intentionally, or perhaps just because you don't know about things. Shall we address a few things first..

I'm not spreading FUD. Everything I said was true. Except that when I said dbus, I meant to say dmix.

Well, this is what you said earlier:
And even if they do have them, haven't you heard of dbus? Nevermind the fact that many apps down't support it cause they are still based on OSS and not ALSA, and the fact that most Linux distros don't have dbus configured out of the box

First of all, even if you meant dbus, not a single application needs to support it. Actually, they even cannot support it. It is an integral part of ALSA, and as such, any program works with or without it.

As for getting Quicktime support working in Linux, all you need to get is MPlayer. Atleast it works just fine for me. Another solution would be to get CrossOver Office and install the official QuickTime Player on it. That, too, works just fine. Sure, it is a bit more work than under Windows or Mac, but then again, you decided to ignore my argument on getting f.ex. support for Divx/Theora/etc working under Windows...Could it be because you couldn't argue with that one?

Just one thing: have you even tried upgrading nVidia drivers under f.ex. Ubuntu? I did install Ubuntu for my little sister, and it was just point and click after that to upgrade it...SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop does things even easier than Ubuntu..

Oh, and I *did* say the following about average users:
Sure, I admit, an average user don't care about that. All they want is to be able to watch/listen their media files without hassle

You just failed to notice that, too.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Newbie
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:19 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Your comments are a bit vague. Could you:

1) Give us a list of your hardware that doesn't work, and what commands you need to to enter?

2) What distribution are you using? Good distros have their package managers update menus when apps are installed. (You uninstall apps with the Package Manger, by the way.)

3) I'm sorry, but that's rather unlikely. You must be very unlucky, because I also have tried many distros with various hardware (since 1999), and crashes are a very rare occurence. They are usually X freezing because of a bad/misconfigured driver. Could you give an example of a distro/hardware combination? Was it on laptops? Did you use Nvidia or ATI cards?

I think it's great that you want to give Linux another try. Here's my suggestion: download the Ubuntu Desktop CD and try it on your PC without installing it (it's a Live CD). You'll need at least 384MB for the Desktop CD to be usable, but that should give you an indication if it works or not.

Note: you won't get 3D and wi-fi might not work with the Live CD, because these drivers are usually proprietary and cannot legally be included on a CD. Once you have Ubuntu installed, use EasyUbuntu to install 3D drivers and try out Linuxant's driverloader if the wifi card wasn't picked up by the Live CD (you'll need access to your Windows drivers).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: what?
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:28 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Microsoft Office and Photoshop come on the Windows Install CD? That's news to me...

Oh, I see, you forgot to mention that the user first needs to go to the store and fork over 1000$ to buy these two pieces of software, while the Linux equivalents come bundled with any distro.

Really, if Linux wants to be on the average guy desktop, it'd better work on the issues instead of twisting reality to pretend they don't exist.

How is it Linux's fault if Microsoft refuses to release Office for Linux, and Adobe refuses to release Photoshop for Linux?

Fortunately, MS Office works fine with Crossover Office (I use it daily) and Gimp is an adequate Photoshop substitute if you don't have to do print work (I use both regularly for my job and personal work).

In a lot of cases it's hopeless to expect the hardware to work

Here, let me fix that for you: "In a few cases hardware isn't supported. Like for Apple computers, it's better to check if a piece of hardware is supported before buying it, in the odd case it isn't (fortunately, Linux supports more hardware than Mac OS X)."

Troll indeed...

Edited 2006-07-01 00:31

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: what?
by Trollstoi on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what?"
Trollstoi Member since:
2005-11-11

Nobody said it comes with Windows at all. Big effing deal to provide a lot of subpar software and claim that it's more "complete".... the Linux equivalents don't really do the job.

Linux isn't suitable for average user software, and it's a fact. If it wants to reach the desktop market and be significant, worst thing to do is hide your head in the sand.

Or just stick to the server market where lies Linux' true strenght.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[4]: what?
by dumbkiwi on Sat 1st Jul 2006 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: what?"
RE[5]: what?
by Trollstoi on Sat 1st Jul 2006 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: what?"
Trollstoi Member since:
2005-11-11

While you add nothing relevant with your comment, it may serve you well, as it can be applied directly to Linux zealots, who keep saying that "Linux is teh ready for average desktop". Linux is user friendly for you, for me, for most OSNews readers... let me break the news for you: it's just too difficult for average people. Spend more time with non techies...

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Nothing is wrong with Linux
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:34 UTC
RE[2]: Nothing is wrong with Linux
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Nothing is wrong with Linux"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> Was that really necessary?

It's not anti-Linux. It is simply the ugly truth that the Linux zealots don't want to admit. They want to blame it on everything but Linux.

And that, my friend... Is why Linux isn't ready for the desktop. Because the zealots who promote it as a desktop OS would rather pretend problems don't exist, or blame the problems on everything but Linux. And that is why the problems never get fixed. Because no one wants to admit they exist.

Edited 2006-07-01 00:47

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"It's not anti-Linux. It is simply the ugly truth that the Linux zealots don't want to admit. They want to blame it on everything but Linux."

Funny, I have been using Linux for years, I am definitely not a zealot (I even dual boot with Windows) and yet I have found Linux better than Windows since Mandrake 9.1 or SUSE 8.2: all the software I need already included, support for my hardware out of the box.
And Windows? Get an antivirus, firewall, Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D, registry cleaner...
Don't forget to clean your files and your registry, defragment, run regular antivirus and antispyware scans...
But do you know what is worse? By far the majority of users i know don't care about those tasks, and their Windows partition is always a mess beyond recovery...

Reply Score: 4

another path....
by collinm on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:46 UTC
collinm
Member since:
2005-07-15

cool another pathetic text, osnews seem to like this kind of article

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: what?
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:47 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Nobody said it comes with Windows at all. Big effing deal to provide a lot of subpar software and claim that it's more "complete".... the Linux equivalents don't really do the job.

That's opinion, not fact. I beg to disagree: for the vast majority of users, OpenOffice and Photoshop do in fact "do the job"...you'd be surprised at how few Word features people really use (many don't even know what Styles are...the horror!)

As far as Gimp is concerned, it has 98% of Photoshop's features, and those it lacks are only used by very specific types of graphic artists.

In any case, both of these run very well with Crossover Office, and so if a user really can't live without these apps he can always use that solution.

Meanwhile, Windows is still lacking a good Media Player apps for video, and a music player as feature-full as amaroK.

Linux isn't suitable for average user software, and it's a fact.

Again, that's not a fact but rather your opinion (and with a name like Trollstoi, let's just say that your credibility on the matter isn't very high).

Linux is quite suitable for the majority of computer users, who only use their PCs for surfing the web, watching videos, listen to music and do "light" Office work. It's also suitable for a variety of other users, but of course it always depends on which software are required. In some cases, such as Video Editing, it is Windows that is lacking from a professional standpoint.

If it wants to reach the desktop market and be significant, worst thing to do is hide your head in the sand.

Who says anything about hiding one's head in the sand? Linux can still be improved, of course, but guess what: that's what Linux developers all over the world are doing every day, and at a much higher pace than Windows, might I add.

Or just stick to the server market where lies Linux' true strenght.

Whatever. Linux on the desktop will continue to improve and more people will continue to adopt it, despite what naysayers like you will say.

I am noting, however, that you completely ignored my rebuttal to your argument that it was somehow Linux's responsibility if MS Office, Photoshop and hardware drivers are not available for it. In fact, you continue with this fallacious argument by suggesting that we are somehow "hiding our heads in the sand" about this. Now, I've demonstrated you were wrong about this; can you at least admit this and stop repeating this fallacy, or will you continue with spouting your FUD?

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: what?
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: what?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> OpenOffice and Photoshop do in fact "do the job"

Come back to me when OpenOffice doesn't take 10 times longer than MS Office to start up. And when OpenOffice Calc can read my Excel Spreadsheets properly without messing up the formulas.

> As far as Gimp is concerned, it has 98% of Photoshop's features

You haven't used most of the advanved features of Photoshop have you? Gimp doesn't even come close. And also, Gimp is excesssively slow compared to Photoshop when dealing with production quality images.

> Linux is quite suitable for the majority of computer users, who
> only use their PCs for surfing the web, watching videos, listen
> to music and do "light" Office work

Of course it is... After I finally figure out that the reason I can't play my mp3 collection out of the box is because I have to install a plugin which I am given no help with other than "Unknown file format" when I try to play my mp3... And after I try to install that software that came with my new digital camera that makes it easier to work with photo collections and libraries, only to find out it only works with Windows... And after I figure out that the reason I can't view quicktime videos is because I need mplayer and mplayer-plugin... But wait... They still don't work? Oh... That's cause I have to manually fetch the win32-codecs and then copy them into a specific place. Ah... Finally I can view quicktime... And Although with bugs, and lousy performance... Unless it is using the Sorensen 3 compression format... Now I am just completely out of luck... And even now, some Web sites still insist on having Genuine Windows Media Player, and won't play at all. Oh... And of course, you mean it is suitable for viewing videos after I figure out that the reason I can't watch most DVDs is because I need to install a plugin to handle the encryption, which it is questionable whether I can legally even do in many countries... And even then, the chances of getting that plugin to work with many players installed by default on distros is virtually null. So time to look for a new player.

Oh good... Now I can finally watch DVDs... But performance is crap... Ah right... That's cause out of the box, Linux doesn't enable DMA on DVD drives, so I have to type this wonderful thing as root at the command line that goes something like hdparm -d1 /dev/cdrom or somethingn along those lines.

Yeah... Real suitable for the average user who just wants to browse the web, play music, and watch videos.

Edited 2006-07-01 01:08

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: what?
by dumbkiwi on Sat 1st Jul 2006 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: what?"
dumbkiwi Member since:
2006-01-02

You haven't used most of the advanved features of Photoshop have you? Gimp doesn't even come close. And also, Gimp is excesssively slow compared to Photoshop when dealing with production quality images.

So are we talking about the needs of average users or not? If so, then photoshop is far beyond what the average user needs. So is gimp probably. A professional graphic artist probably needs photoshop because it is the industry standard and they're probably trained in it. However, this does not have any relevance for the "average user". In any event, photoshop runs on crossover office.

[/i]And after I try to install that software that came with my new digital camera that makes it easier to work with photo collections and libraries, only to find out it only works with Windows...

Almost all digital cameras work out of the box, and the software available for managing image libraries is far superior to the crap that camera manufacturers ship with their products. Digikam is a prime example. A little anecdote: My sister-in-law came to stay, and had some photos of our kids on her camera that I wanted. I asked if I could copy them onto my computer. She said she didn't have the cd that came with it, so I couldn't. I said I'd give it a try, plugged it in, camera icon appeared on the desktop, and away I go. That's the ease of use of linux. Ease of use that windows users have never had, or can understand.

[i]And after I figure out that the reason I can't view quicktime videos is because I need mplayer and mplayer-plugin..


Show me how you watch quicktime videos on a default windows install?

Although with bugs, and lousy performance... Unless it is using the Sorensen 3 compression format... Now I am just completely out of luck

I don't know when you last used mplayer, but the performance is phenomenal on my machines, compared to windows on the same machine, cpu usage is minimal.

Oh... And of course, you mean it is suitable for viewing videos after I figure out that the reason I can't watch most DVDs is because I need to install a plugin to handle the encryption, which it is questionable whether I can legally even do in many countries... And even then, the chances of getting that plugin to work with many players installed by default on distros is virtually null. So time to look for a new player.

Show me how you play DVD's on a default windows install? or xvid or divx for that matter? Installation of libdecss is legal in more countries that it's illegal. In fact it's only illegal where there is legislation against circumventing copy protection, and I can only think of one country I know if that has such legislation.

Oh good... Now I can finally watch DVDs... But performance is crap... Ah right... That's cause out of the box, Linux doesn't enable DMA on DVD drives, so I have to type this wonderful thing as root at the command line that goes something like hdparm -d1 /dev/cdrom or somethingn along those lines.

When did you last use linux. I've used it since 2000, and every install has enabled dma by default.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: what?
by Trollstoi on Sat 1st Jul 2006 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: what?"
Trollstoi Member since:
2005-11-11

People don't use MS Office because they make intense usage of some real advanced hidden unique MS Office feature, but because they were taught to use it, that's all they know, and they are not interested in learning anything new.

Linux zealots should try to understand this concept: average user isn't interested in learning and reading. And why should they anyway? It's not their passion, it's not their hobby.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: what?
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: what?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> In any event, photoshop runs on crossover office.

And feels like exactly what it is: A gross hack designed for people who would rather put up with crap than simply use the right OS for the job because they have turned Linux into the poster child for the religious cause of socialist software.

> Digikam is a prime example.

Digikam has an outdated user interface that would have been considered current in 1995. It's an interface designed by techies for techies. Not for the average user. In otherwords, it's not a prime example.

> Show me how you watch quicktime videos on a
> default windows install?

I get a dialog box that says "This program requires Quicktime. I'm going to go fetch it and automatically start the install. you just need to click ok"

Compare that to Linux... Quicktime doesn't work. No help with how to make it work. Visit forum or IRC. Find out you need mplayer. Install. Still doesn't work. Go back to forum or IRC. Find out you need win32codecs. Install. Still doesn't work for playing embedded content in Web pages. Go back to forums or IRC for third time, ands find out you need a mozilla plugin (which has to be installed by hand). Some videos still don't play. Go back to forum or IRC for fourth time, only to finally be told "Sorry. You are just out of luck. Not all quicktime compression codecs are supported".

Sorry. But Quicktime is *MUCH* easier to get working on Windows than on Linux. And that is part of the problem. Even if some of these things can't be included in Linux because of patents, etc. There is no reason they can't make things easier. At least whwen you get an error, you could be told in the dialog where to get what you need to fix it. Instead of just told something like "Unknown file format". That's just lazy programming on the part of the developers. They follow the old UNIX philosophy of "we expect you know what you are doing". Well, the average user does not know what they are doing. And that philosophy simply doesn't work for them.

> I don't know when you last used mplayer, but
> the performance is phenomenal on my machines,

The real quicktime player in Windows can rewind, fast forward, I can drag the slider back to replay, etc. Without the software missing a beat. That simply doesn't work on Linux. Play with the current position too much, and you will get long delays cause of caching problems, and more often than not, the video and audio end up out of sync with each other. (The fact that it loses the video completely sometimes and only shows a black box where the video should be because of an apparent event handling bug where the software fails to act on the window manager telling it that it has become visible again after something has uncovered it is also a rather nasty problem.)

> and I can only think of one country I know if
> that has such legislation.

Well, for one. There is more than one country. And for another thing, a lot of countries are getting tougher on this. So expect more countries to pass laws that make it illegal as piracy grows worse.

> When did you last use linux. I've used it since
> 2000, and every install has enabled dma by default.

On hard disks yes. On optical drives, no. Even as little as 2 or 3 months ago, Ubuntu did not have DMA enabled by default on my DVD. And Ubuntu is supposed to be one of the most user friendly distros out there.

Edited 2006-07-01 03:04

Reply Score: 4

RE[8]: what?
by dumbkiwi on Sat 1st Jul 2006 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: what?"
dumbkiwi Member since:
2006-01-02

poster child for the religious cause of socialist software.

<sigh>

Digikam has an outdated user interface that would have been considered current in 1995. It's an interface designed by techies for techies. Not for the average user. In otherwords, it's not a prime example.

Huh?

I get a dialog box that says "This program requires Quicktime. I'm going to go fetch it and automatically start the install. you just need to click ok"

No you don't. For a start, "programs" don't require quicktime, files do. Second, if I click on a .mov file in vanilla windows, I get a dialog that says windows doesn't recognise this file, and then asks what program I want to open it with. This is just as opaque as for linux. There is no indication what program is required, or where to get it from.

That simply doesn't work on Linux. Play with the current position too much, and you will get long delays cause of caching problems, and more often than not, the video and audio end up out of sync with each other. (The fact that it loses the video completely sometimes and only shows a black box where the video should be because of an apparent event handling bug where the software fails to act on the window manager telling it that it has become visible again after something has uncovered it is also a rather nasty problem.)

Huh? Interestingly, I have a mac mini, and the performance of mplayer for playing quicktime far surpasses quicktime on the mac mini. I just don't know what you're talking about here.

On hard disks yes. On optical drives, no. Even as little as 2 or 3 months ago, Ubuntu did not have DMA enabled by default on my DVD. And Ubuntu is supposed to be one of the most user friendly distros out there.

Can't answer this one. I've got sata drives, and no issues, but can't say for pata. It would surprise me, but you may be right.

Reply Score: 3

RE[9]: what?
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: what?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> No you don't. For a start, "programs" don't require quicktime, files
> do. Second, if I click on a .mov file in vanilla windows.

"programs" was a typo. But click on a link in a browser that requires quicktime, and you will usually be offered the opportunity to install Quicktime with a minimum of hassle.

> This is just as opaque as for linux.

It's still a lot easier to install Quicktime in Windows. In Linux you have to download multiple files, install some by hand, move files by hand, etc.

> I have a mac mini, and the performance of mplayer for
> playing quicktime far surpasses quicktime on the mac mini.

The Mac Mini is not exactly a fair comparision. it has an anemic video card that uses shared memory, an anemic processor, and is RAM starved even when maxed out.

> Can't answer this one. I've got sata drives, and no issues, but
> can't say for pata. It would surprise me, but you may be right.

SATA drives run in DMA mode automatically. In fact, the option to hdparm that controls DMA doesn't even work on SATA drives. You will get an error if you try to use it about a missing procedure entry point or something along those lines (the SATA drivers don't even have the function entry point for enabling / disabling DMA) On ATA drives though, the drives have to specifically be set to use DMA. And even Ubuntu does not set the DVD drive to use it by default. Only the hard drive.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: what?
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: what?"
RE[3]: Nothing is wrong with Linux
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 00:54 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

The problem is that your entire post was a Strawman argument. Linux advocates do not generally speak like this or hold these arguments. In other words, you grossly exaggerated in order to make an anti-Linux argument (and it is, in fact, an anti-Linux argument - at least be man enough to admit it).

Linux is ready for a lot of desktops, just not all of them (just like Windows and OS X).

Because the zealots who promote it as a desktop OS would rather pretend problems don't exist, or blame the problems on everything but Linux. And that is why the problems never get fixed. Because no one wants to admit they exist.

As I have indicated in my response to Trollstoi, many of the issues have little to do with Linux developers, but rather with hardware vendors who use proprietary drivers and/or refuse to release them for Linux.

However, you make another false statement when you say that problems never get fixed, because in fact problems do get fixed, and at a very rapid rate too. They get fixed because, contrary to your strawman argument, people do in fact recognize them - they recognize them and attribute them to the people who are really responsible for them, unlike you.

Shoot, my 4-hour wireless access code is almost up (I am at a hotel in London for the week)...I won't be able to post after this, so I'll leave you with the last word. I'll try to come back on Sunday to see if the thread is still alive.

Meanwhile, have a good night and "Come on England!" (Sorry, getting carried away by World Cup Football Fever...)

Edited 2006-07-01 00:55

Reply Score: 3

Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> Linux advocates do not generally speak like this or hold these
> arguments. In other words, you grossly exaggerated in order to
> make an anti-Linux argument

No. I didn't exagerate at all. Most Linux zealots do speak this wway (not every Linux user is a Linux zealot. But the ones who try to claim Linux is ready for the average user's desktop and is as easy to use as Windows usually are)

You even demonstrated some of it yourself in your response to another poster. You tried to claim it was "unlikely" he was experiencing the problems he claimed because "You had never experienced them. And the only time you did it was X related".

> As I have indicated in my response to Trollstoi, many of the
> issues have little to do with Linux developers, but rather
> with hardware vendors who use proprietary drivers and/or
> refuse to release them for Linux.

I rest my case... That's one of the things I pointed out. The "It's not Linux's fault" argument.

Clue-by-four: The typical desktop user *does not care who's fault it is*. All they care about is "It' doesn't work. And I don't have anyone to call and complain to about it. All I get is "It's open source. We don't make any kind of promise at all that anything will work with anything."

The average desktop user is not willing to put up with stuff that doesn't work simply to support some religious fanatical "Freedom from closed source hardware and closed source drivers and closed source software" movement like the typical Linux zealot is.

> (and it is, in fact, an anti-Linux
> argument - at least be man enough to admit it).

It's not an anti-Linux argument. It is an anti-zealot argument. An anti "OMFG, Linux is the best thing in the history of computing, and is ready to like totally displace Windows for every person's desktop" argument.

Edited 2006-07-01 01:13

Reply Score: 0

You are all wrong.
by Fuji257 on Sat 1st Jul 2006 01:14 UTC
Fuji257
Member since:
2006-01-24

At least 95% of Linux acceptance problems could be QUICKLY overcome.

They are not overcome, because SOLUTIONS often require something that goes against the GNU philosophy [politics] then to make matters worse when one DISTRO implements a SOLUTION that doesn't fall into the above trap one of two things take place:

1. The solution is ignored by other distro's because they don't like it for reasons of PRIDE or not even agreeing about the problem

2. The solution is a COMPLETE hack and waste of code, but simply because its the only one available, most distro's adopt it.

All these problems stem from the very open nature of Linux distro's. It won't change. Linux [anywhere close to its current "philosophy"] will never make serious headway on the desktop. We've been hearing the same crap about how its going to take over the desktop for years now, c'mon and get real. It'll take the desktop when Jesus comes back [i.e. NEVER]

Reply Score: 2

RE: You are all wrong.
by Cutterman on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 17:30 UTC in reply to "You are all wrong."
Cutterman Member since:
2006-04-10

No. It'll take over the desktop when Microsoft get into the act and produce a Microsoft Linux.

Only half joking BTW ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: You are all wrong.
by deathshadow on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE: You are all wrong."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> No. It'll take over the desktop when Microsoft get into the act and produce a Microsoft Linux.

Only half joking BTW


Not a half bad joke, either... I keep waiting for Microsoft to dust off Xenix and make their own *nix flavor to 'slap down the young upstart'

But then, people do often forget that Microsoft WAS in the UNIX business for over a decade.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: what?
by Finalzone on Sat 1st Jul 2006 01:37 UTC
Finalzone
Member since:
2005-07-06

Come back to me when OpenOffice doesn't take 10 times longer than MS Office to start up. And when OpenOffice Calc can read my Excel Spreadsheets properly without messing up the formulas.

Does Microsoft Office come bundled with Microsoft Windows? Another question is which version of OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office do you refer? Remember that OpenOffice.org is practically crossplatform while MS Office is not.

You haven't used most of the advanved features of Photoshop have you? Gimp doesn't even come close. And also, Gimp is excesssively slow compared to Photoshop when dealing with production quality images.
Again, does Photoshop come bundled with MS Windows XP? Which version are you referring? If you want to get a better graphic application like Photoshop, prepare to shell a lot of money. I have seen a lot of people getting a cracked version of Photoshop because they cannot afford to buy it. GIMP will suffice for most of general users.

Of course it is... After I finally figure out that the reason I can't play my mp3 collection out of the box is because I have to install a plugin which I am given no help with other than "Unknown file format" when I try to play my mp3...
This has a lot to do with license and patent issues. Most free distro systems cannot include proprietary formats without approval or they will face possible lawsuit. If you want to get these, buy a commercial distros like SUSE, Mandriva to name a few.

And after I try to install that software that came with my new digital camera that makes it easier to work with photo collections and libraries, only to find out it only works with Windows... And after I figure out that the reason I can't view quicktime videos is because I need mplayer and mplayer-plugin... But wait... They still don't work?

You have to blame yourself given your knowledge of operating system and you didn't research the list of digital camera that can be used on a Linux distro. Usually, you don't need to install a software of digital camera as it will be automatically detected by the application and associated with the proper tool. As for quicktime, you will need to download the plugin for MS Windows XP too and Apple is not willing to make plugins for Linux system while others like Real do.

And of course, you mean it is suitable for viewing videos after I figure out that the reason I can't watch most DVDs is because I need to install a plugin to handle the encryption, which it is questionable whether I can legally even do in many countries...
Yet the encryption is patented. Have you tried a Xine based player?


Oh good... Now I can finally watch DVDs... But performance is crap... Ah right... That's cause out of the box, Linux doesn't enable DMA on DVD drives, so I have to type this wonderful thing as root at the command line that goes something like hdparm -d1 /dev/cdrom or somethingn along those lines.

After reading the last paragraph, I wonder what distro did you use.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: what?
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: what?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

LOL

Thank you very much. You hit virtually every point of my [canned-zealot-parrot] post and proved it was NOT a strawman argument like archiesteel claimed.

> This has a lot to do with license and patent issues.

The "It's not Linux's fault. It's patents." argument

> You have to blame yourself given your knowledge
> of operating system

The "It's not Linux's fault. It's lazy users who don't want to learn details about their OS." argument.

> Yet the encryption is patented.

The "It's not Linux's fault. It's patents" argument again. And you combined it with the lazy users argument as well.

> After reading the last paragraph, I wonder
> what distro did you use.

The "It's not Linux's fault. I never had that problem. The problem. The problem doesn't really exist" argument.

Thank you again for proving virtually every thing I said about Linux zealots in my post that was critisized by archiesteel.

Again. Clue-by-four: The typical desktop user *does not care who's fault it is* All they care about is "It doesn't work. And I have to screw around to make it work. And even then, it often works poorly" And they care that there is no one they can call up and complain cause Linux just says "We offer no guarantees that anything will work with anything".

Again, you can make all the excuses you want for why things don't work. Patents, lazy users, hardware vendors, etc. In the end, none of them matter to the people who you are trying to claim Linux is ready for.

Reply Score: 3

RE[8]: what?
by Finalzone on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:20 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: what?"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

Zealot of a kernel?

Nice try. I only use your own example because you appear to be very familar with a Linux distro given the fact you mentionned how did you get the system work. Nowhere you cited which distro you use for your example so distros users can at least provide assistance as they can.

> This has a lot to do with license and patent issues.

The "It's not Linux's fault. It's patents." argument


You have omitting the quote about free distribution and commercial distribution. When you said Linux, what do you exactly mean? Note that I have specifically mentionned Linux distro which is completely different from Linux (i.e Kernel).

> You have to blame yourself given your knowledge
> of operating system

The "It's not Linux's fault. It's lazy users who don't want to learn details about their OS." argument.


Again, you didn't specify the distro you used for the example as I pointed out in the post. You keep blurring the difference with all Linux based distros. Basically, you knew what you are doing given the fact you have given the step how you manager to install that particular application.

> After reading the last paragraph, I wonder
> what distro did you use.

The "It's not Linux's fault. I never had that problem. The problem. The problem doesn't really exist" argument.


You haven't answered the question yet you have quickly trigged the gun about zealotry.

Again. Clue-by-four: The typical desktop user *does not care who's fault it is* All they care about is "It doesn't work. And I have to screw around to make it work. And even then, it often works poorly" And they care that there is no one they can call up and complain cause Linux just says "We offer no guarantees that anything will work with anything".

Sorry to burst the bubble, you gave a false conclusion with your example as you have deliberately avoided to specify the distro you use and you keep using "It's not Linux's fault" flag without hesitation. Due to this lack of information, I have intentionally not mentionned what to do for installing support for proprietary format.

Reply Score: 2

RE[9]: what?
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:39 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: what?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> You haven't answered the question yet

The distro I specifically had in mind was Ubuntu, which is supposed to be one of the more user friendly distros out there. I use it as an example because it shows that even what most consider to be the shining example of end user friendly Linux falls way short. And I have used plenty of other distros in my time as well. Fedora Core 4 and 5, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, and, back in the day, Caldera (which was once the poster child of "Linux is now truly ready for the desktop thanks to Caldera... And we all know where Caldera went...).

> Due to this lack of information, I have intentionally not
> mentionned what to do for installing support for proprietary
> format.

I don't need you to tell me. Iknow how to do it. I have over 15 years of combined experience with various flavors of Unix. I have also helped others do it. But if I had a nickle for every time some one came into an IRC channel to say "I can't get Quicktime videos to play in (insert distro here)", I would be a very rich person.

> you gave a false conclusion with your example

I did not give a false conclusion. I told you the truth you know is the truth, but don't want to accept. Beccause you would rather believe that the average computer user cares eenough about "freedom in software for everyone" that they are willing to put up with this kind of stuff. And the simple truth is, they don't. So none of your excuses about who's fault it is (patents, hardware vendors, lazy users, or whatever) matter at all. Cause in the end, all the end user cares about is "It doesn't work on Linux, or it is too hard to get working on Linux. And in Windows, it either just works, or is much easier to get working"

Reply Score: 1

RE[10]: what?
by kernelpanicked on Sat 1st Jul 2006 05:15 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: what?"
kernelpanicked Member since:
2006-02-01

Ok, That's about enough. I've watched you troll the hell out of this entire discussion and modded your ass down where appropriate.

""programs" was a typo. But click on a link in a browser that requires quicktime, and you will usually be offered the opportunity to install Quicktime with a minimum of hassle. "

So you don't even know the difference between an OS supporting a format and a particular web site offering a download because is has detected that you don't have the software to play the file you requested?

"I have over 15 years of combined experience with various flavors of Unix. I have also helped others do it. But if I had a nickle for every time some one came into an IRC channel to say "I can't get Quicktime videos to play in (insert distro here)", I would be a very rich person."

Somehow I seriously doubt that. Here's a hint. Real admins with 15+ years experience on UNIX don't whine because they can't figure out how to install a package on f--king Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 2

RE[11]: what?
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: what?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> I've watched you troll the hell out of this entire discussion and
> modded your ass down where appropriate.

You modded me down because you are zealot who doessn't agree with me (and you abused the moderation system in doing so. My posts were not off topic, nor personally attacking, nor had foul language, or any of the other VALID criteria for moderating down. So what you really did was have a childish temper tantrum in which you decided to say "I don't like it or agree with it. So I am going to childishly ignore the moderation rules and mod it down." I will be filing a complaint with OSNews Staff about your abuse of the moderation system.

> Somehow I seriously doubt that. Here's a hint. Real admins with
> 15+ years experience on UNIX don't whine because they can't figure
> out how to install a package on f--king Ubuntu.

I never said I couldn't figure it out. I said newbies can't figure it out. And if you had read my entire post, that would have been ABUNDANTLY clear. But you were so busy throwing your temper tanturm that you couldn't even engage in basic reading comprehension.

But now you have also resorted to the typical zealot strategy. "If we can't attack the points made, attack the person making them personally, and twist their words and throw up strawman arguments to try to divert the attention from the real issues."

Edited 2006-07-01 06:11

Reply Score: 3

RE[12]: what?
by kernelpanicked on Sat 1st Jul 2006 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: what?"
kernelpanicked Member since:
2006-02-01

> I've watched you troll the hell out of this entire discussion and
> modded your ass down where appropriate.

"You modded me down because you are zealot who doessn't agree with me...<snip useless rant>"

You love that word zealot don't you? How bout this? I don't even use Linux, so I really shouldn't care less, much less would I fall under your stupid zealot category. Now, you were modded down for trooling and outright lying about something you knew nothing about. I, and others I'm sure, find that quite offensive, so no I did not abuse the mod system. Have a nice day.

Reply Score: 1

RE[13]: what?
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: what?"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> and outright lying about something you knew nothing about

Show me one place where I lied. You can't. Cause I didn't.

Yes, you did abuse the moderation system. And my complaint has been filed with the staff. You have a nice day too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[10]: what?
by Finalzone on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 01:16 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: what?"
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

The distro I specifically had in mind was Ubuntu, which is supposed to be one of the more user friendly distros out there. I use it as an example because it shows that even what most consider to be the shining example of end user friendly Linux falls way short. And I have used plenty of other distros in my time as well. Fedora Core 4 and 5, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, and, back in the day, Caldera (which was once the poster child of "Linux is now truly ready for the desktop thanks to Caldera... And we all know where Caldera went...).

You have not mentionned a single commercial distribution like Xandros, Mepis, Mandriva, Linspire to name few. Basically, your own example was already flawed from the beginning.

I don't need you to tell me. Iknow how to do it. I have over 15 years of combined experience with various flavors of Unix. I have also helped others do it. But if I had a nickle for every time some one came into an IRC channel to say "I can't get Quicktime videos to play in (insert distro here)", I would be a very rich person.

No matter the experience, we are learning everyday in our lifetime. A good expert is also a good learner and listener too. You keep whining about that particular issue yet you are unwilling to hear other people's advices therefore you are yourself to be blamed no matter the operating system used .

I did not give a false conclusion. I told you the truth you know is the truth, but don't want to accept.

Actually your imposed your view on a specifc distro (Ubuntu on your example) as if it is the only truth. I pointed out that is not depending of the users who have a different Linux based distro.

Beccause you would rather believe that the average computer user cares eenough about "freedom in software for everyone" that they are willing to put up with this kind of stuff.

The problem is you don't speak for the whole average computer user. For example, my mother and sister know how to use Fedora Core 5 once they got an explaination how the system works.

Reply Score: 1

It's all about the shell!
by buff on Sat 1st Jul 2006 02:22 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

Most beginners are baffled by linux since they try to use it like Windows and have little awareness of what the shell is and what to do with it. GUI's have gotten better but I still believe every linux user should read a basic book on unix or the bash shell.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's all about the shell!
by MadDwarf on Sat 1st Jul 2006 13:34 UTC in reply to "It's all about the shell!"
MadDwarf Member since:
2005-07-07

"I still believe every linux user should read a basic book on unix or the bash shell."

And this is why Linux will never become a mainstream OS with the home-user.
jo Six-pack does not want to have to read a big technical manual before using her computer. She wants to sit down in front of it and look for where to click.

While I agree that most people would get more out of Linux if they learnt about CLI, most people will stick to a point'n'click interface, given the option.

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>>>> "I still believe every linux user should read a basic book on unix or the bash shell."

>> And this is why Linux will never become a mainstream OS with the home-user.

EXACTLY.

Gah, BASH - the 'good enough' attitude at it's worst. The original SH was FINE back when 150 baud modems served out shared access from Xenix or System III off a PDP-11, but the cryptic and archaic shell should probably have gotten the axe the moment bandwidth passed the 9600 mark.

Hmm... for some reason I'm reminded of this:
http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/computing/unix.html

Reply Score: 1

Sorting it out
by mipeligro on Sat 1st Jul 2006 03:32 UTC
mipeligro
Member since:
2006-06-03

Joe User isn't lazy or stupid. But Joe User lives in the world where his toys and even his tools tend to work out of the box and he can usually get away without reading the manual until he tries to do something 'expert' with them. Joe User likes it that way, and he should. After all, he didn't buy his toy or his tool so he could maintain it. He bought it so he could play with it or use it.

Computers don't work that way. As product developers, we suck. But Joe User is going to see how close he can get to a computer that works that way.

So, he can go into his local consumer electronics emporium, look around, and buy a computer. Odds are it's going to run Windows, unless he wandered into an Apple store. It's going to be pretty well integrated. The bits he wants for reading email and surfing the web are going to be there. The first time he boots it up, it's going to run him through a "wizard" that, 99+ per cent of the time is going to get him up and running without problems. If his local consumer electronics emporium is on the ball, they're even going to sign him up for a dial-up or dsl account, and charge him to set it up for him. (Sure, it's going to have lousy default security, but Joe User's not been around enough to care, or his buddies have told him he "only needs...")

(Ignore the fact that 50% of all PCs are returned because of broken hardware. That's the same for either Windows or Linux.)

Joe User, typically isn't going to wander into the Apple store either. For the same reason he wanders into the local consumer electronics emporium instead of a high end audiophile shop when he wants a new receiver.

It doesn't matter if Linux distros are competitive, once properly set up and installed, with Windows. Nobody sells such configurations in the local consumer electronics emporium. or even online for that matter.

I don't know if Linux distros have to "compete" with windows or not, but if they do want to compete with it for Joe User (who is the majority of new users) that's what they're up against, and that's what they're failing to do.

Joe Worker is even harder for the Linux distros. Joe Worker has his PC set up by company IT, and he's expected to use the Exchange server for his email and calendar. The shared resources are SMB shares, and half the corporate server applications, like payroll and expense report filing, are optimized for IE. Joe Worker is a salmon swimming upstream if he tries to run a Linux distro in that environment.

Joe Pro is in a similar situation to Joe Worker, except that unless he's developing software for Linux, windows is also going to have the draw of high end software to support what he does. Gimp is not a competitor to Photoshop. There's no high end publishing software for Linux. There's no legal software, no medical software, no GIS software, no CAD software et cetera, competitive with the windows version in the same field. Unless Joe Pro works in a field that until recently was dominated by Unix servers or workstations, (like serious animation) he's not going to run on Linux because it doesn't meet his needs.

Reply Score: 2

Linux being competition
by kop316 on Sat 1st Jul 2006 03:34 UTC
kop316
Member since:
2006-07-01

While it would be interesting for Linux to be used a lot more, I don't know or really care if it truly matters. Linux is not in any danger of going puff if we don't continue growing. Linux works for some people (I am completely happy with using Ubuntu 6.06, and had next to no problems with it); and Windows, Mac, FreeBSD, Solaris, or whatever is better for other people.

Yes it is a great pain to set up some things (like Wifi, mulitmedia, and 3D), and if you do not wish to set it up, you can try a distro with all that setup, or you are welcome to use what ou have been using. We do not put a gun to your head and force you to use it.

Other then it would be less of a pain to install some devices, and games would be ported to Linux, what huge difference would it make if we got the desktop world to use Linux? I agree if people are better off with it, we should help them with trying it, but why should we force Linux down other people's throats who are happy with what they have?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux being competition
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 03:37 UTC in reply to "Linux being competition"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> Linux is not in any danger of going puff if we don't continue growing.

Linux isn't going to go puff even if it loses all of its desktop marketshare. Because the desktop is an extremely minor part of its market. It always has been, and still is, primarily a server OS. And that's where it does very well.

Reply Score: 1

well
by deanlinkous on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:30 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

I dont know what to say... I thought the articel was a bit lite on arguments and supportting material.

One reason I think linux often fails windows users is because they think they know a lot about computers and how they work and operate. So then they try linux only to discover C drive is no longer C drive...so what is it? They find out their is no device manager so how do you update drivers and such? In other words they are suddenly confronted with the fact that they dont know computers but instead they know windows OS. But they dont realize this distinction so then they tell people linux is hard and if the 'computer' genius cannot figure out linux then it has to be hard. Whereas if someone took even half the amount of time to get familar with linux as they did with windows then they would have a lot less trouble. Thats right, to install and use linux you should learn a little something. You did with windows and you would with linux.

I would say beginners have failed linux by going into thinking they know something and that it should somehow be natural then. You learned windows...you have to learn linux. And anymore it isn't that hard...

Reply Score: 1

RE:Why Linux Has Failed Most Beginners
by TusharG on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:32 UTC
TusharG
Member since:
2005-07-06

I dont know about others... but even after being using Linux for 7 years.. after migrating entire company to Linux... at my home I still have dual boot with Windows and Linux... for only one reason... Linux sucks while playing Videos, Movies in different formats... If I play movie on Linux it has observed that player crashes 50% of the time during the entire run... and my wife is not geek to debug and figure out what was wrong.. she simply reboots machine into Linux and plays it through Media player... and same movie runs in windows without a single problem...
I'm bit annoyed of the same... but for me this one area is where Linux is miles behind Windows and Mac.

Reply Score: 1

deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Which formats? Which player? Which DE? I run debian etch, and gnome and the default install handles a lot but there are packages I can install to provide a lot of other formats and of course there are some 'supposedly illegal in some places' codec you can also use.

As far as the newer proprietary formats I am sure you do have problems since IMO that is the reason these newer formats keep coming out is to make sure people run back to propreitary software and make sure DRM gets entrenched into everything as well as keep rolling in the dough for the proprietary OS, to run the proprietary software, to watch the proprietary format.

Just say NO to proprietary video! ;)

Reply Score: 2

Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> Just say NO to proprietary video! ;)

No thanks. I'd rather just be able to view the entertainment I want. If you want to suffer from a lack of enterainment choices because you think the "no DRM cause" is an important enough issue to sacrifice for, then be my guest. To me, it's just not worth it.

Reply Score: 2

deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

And if you want to suffer from DRM and being locked in to the next upgrade and the new version that has extra ads and you have to pay for the same music for different devices then you go right ahead. To me its just not worth it.

I view the entertainment I want also, but if they have wrapped it up in a proprietary format then I dont want it since I am letting them dictate what is installed on my computer and so forth.

If you want those formats on linux then you mak ask yourself why the people making those formats dont provide them for linux. Keep paying them to NOT provide for linux and I am sure they never will be on linux. ;)

Reply Score: 0

Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> To me its just not worth it.

Well, to most people who have a problem with DRM, anything they can't pirate and get for free is not worth it. Since that's the reason most of the people who have a problem with DRM really have the problem. All the other arguments are just strawman arguments to cover up the real one, which is "DRM makes it harder to pirate music and movies".

I'm not saying that is you. I'm just saying that is typically what really happens.

Reply Score: 1

deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Really. So you think purchasing the same song over and over is reasonable? That is like having to purchase three copies of the same book since you can only read it in certain places. It is like music with a expiration date. ;)
btw - I have about 10gigs of oggs, every song paid for if it was required. I have over 200 movies and none of them pirated or free.

But as far as DRM simply being about people who illegaly obtain media then I think that barely scrapes the surface of the issue. And DRM certianly does not stop people who use illegal means. Nothing will stop them since they dont care about breaking whatever is implemented.

Reply Score: 1

hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

My friend I could play all kind of format you might image on linux and more reliably than windows. Formats that was successfully played by me and which I have a DVD for it to test all linux distros are:

1. asf
2. avi-divx
3. avi-xvid
4. vcd dat
5. mov
6. mov-hd ( high definition mov files )
7. mpeg / mpg
8. rm / rmm
9. DVD vob
10. wmvhd

Audios:

1. aif
2. asf
3. avi
4. mov
5. mp3 (64-320 cbr and vbr)
6. ogg
7. rm
8. wav
9. wma (v 8 and v 9)

All playable without a sigle crash through:
1. Fedora 5
2. Xine (libraries and GUI)
3. few codecs readily available from the internet (some backaged as windows .dll)

CPU usage for wmvhd 1440x1080p and with P4 2.8 Ghz HT enabled and GF4600ti and proprietary nvidia drivers installed and 1 Gb Memory was 30%!!!! which was fast and you would have a plenty of CPU to do server tasks on the background as well.

You need to hire someone professional to get you video to work under linux and once done it will never crash again and will never let you look back to windows. You must overcome your fear and admit your lack of linux administrative power and let who is more knowledgeable do your job.
Time will proof me right for you...good luck with linux!!

Reply Score: 3

heck
by deanlinkous on Sat 1st Jul 2006 04:35 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

it is so easy anymore that I have forgot a LOT of stuff I use to "have" to know when I used debian woody. I mean on etch with a full gnome-desktop-environment install I dont think I have hardly hit the command line at all for anything.... I havent tweaked anything on three of my systems at all!

OT - wooooohooooo I finally got some votes to spread the love....gotta spread the love....who gets some votes...

Reply Score: 1

I would use it...
by kaiwai on Sat 1st Jul 2006 05:22 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

But the problem is, none of my software is available on it. The day when I can hook up an iPod and syncronise without needing to tweak paths and the like, then it is ready for the desktop.

The day when I can go down the road, purchase well known application, native for Linux, then it'll be ready for the desktop.

The day when I can purchase any old piece of hardware knowing that the driver is just a cd install or download way, then it'll be ready for the desktop.

Until then, it'll be a relegated niche for those who wish to purchase a cheap computer so they can install a pirated copy of Windows onto, or for fanboys hell bent on 'raging against the evil empire'.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I would use it...
by deanlinkous on Sat 1st Jul 2006 05:45 UTC in reply to "I would use it..."
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Tha makes no sense in so many ways. ;) You may want to talk to apple about the ipod thing. Why anyone wants to lock themselves into something like that is beyond me but I do know that as long as people pay for stuff that doesnt work on linux then we will always have stuff that doesnt work on linux.

You obviously have a windows mentality according to this statement - "driver is just a cd install or download way" that is HORRIBLE and would be a step backward for linux. I have a three newer systems and all of those work out of the box with linux. Windows I have to download about 60megs of drivers and software for just ONE of them and the thing is the network card is one of those things I need a driver for so unless I have it I am screwed.

I admit that XP works for you, cant you just admit that linux works for me and many others? Linux is a niche because it isnt preinstalled on every computer. Real newbies have just as much problems figuring out windows as linux after it is installed and running. No difference. My mom had never used computers, she started on linux, took a lot of learning but she does fine with the basics now. My mother-in-law never used computers, she started on windows, took a lot of learning but she does fine with the basics now. No difference!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I would use it...
by kaiwai on Sat 1st Jul 2006 07:56 UTC in reply to "RE: I would use it..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Interesting, according to your profile you have made 63 posts, and yet, you don't know that I'm a Mac user?

Sorry, but the benchmark I use to compare Linux against is my current machine, an iMac loaded with MacOS X 10.4.7 - if it doesn't beat it, then I'm simply not going to move.

You can crap on about so-called freedom till the cows come home, but the simple fact is; iPod uses AAC/MP4 which is an openstandard (faac/faad is used on *NIX), the iPod functionality is already provided by gtkpod/Amarok.

What I am getting at is a distributor who actually spends the time integrating those components into one bundle so that if I were to install it, my iPod would work as expected, my hardware would be supported as expected.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I would use it...
by deanlinkous on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I would use it..."
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

So you are saying it does work and you dont have a problem? What?

Why wait on a distributer to do that for you. That is the power of linux and the freedom. If you want X and Y and Z to use such and such then you can do that yourself whereas I may want A and B and C to do that.

So you can take songs from your ipod, and play them on xmms on linux? Make a cd to play in yoru car? pop them on your little mp3 player when you are on the jet ski? really? WOW the ipod isnt as restricted as I thought if this is true.

Reply Score: 1

I would use it...
by kaiwai on Sat 1st Jul 2006 05:24 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

But the problem is, none of my software is available on it. The day when I can hook up an iPod and syncronise without needing to tweak paths and the like, then it is ready for the desktop.

The day when I can go down the road, purchase well known application, native for Linux, then it'll be ready for the desktop.

The day when I can purchase any old piece of hardware knowing that the driver is just a cd install or download way, then it'll be ready for the desktop.

Until then, it'll be a relegated niche for those who wish to purchase a cheap computer so they can install a pirated copy of Windows onto, or for fanboys hell bent on 'raging against the evil empire'.

Reply Score: 1

Linux/Window to BeOS or not to be
by stormloss on Sat 1st Jul 2006 06:09 UTC
stormloss
Member since:
2005-08-03

There is the wonderful thing you can do with computer hardware its called dual/multi boot. lol

Don't pick one OS over another, collect em' all! lol
This is OSnews after all.

Apple has the right idea with Boot camp.

BTW windows fanboys, Not all Linux distros are tared with the same brush, and the Linux desktop environments dont all revolve around KDE and Gnome,
(I myself love Enlightenment desktop).

But the truth is there are hidden agendas on both sides of the Linux/Window fence from it's canonisers.
Linux is readly for a long time for the mild power user.

Edited 2006-07-01 06:10

Reply Score: 2

Jedd Member since:
2005-07-06

Right on!

Reply Score: 1

Hmm..
by deathshadow on Sat 1st Jul 2006 08:22 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

A lot of the article seems like pointless droning, but he kind of hits it on the head with the 'geeks only club' mentality...

You see this on places like the Ubuntu forums, where for example if you asked about installing opera, 99.99% of the time the users there will reply with:

"ok, open up a terminal, and type:

sudo cp /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list_backup
sudo gedit /etc/apt/sources.list"

THAT RIGHT THERE is proof enough of the geeks only attitude, and most nubes are going to tell you to "Go frotz yourself, I'm going back to Windows/OSX"... The thing is, you can turn the multiverse on from the damned UI in Synaptic! THERE IS NO NEED TO GO TO BASH FOR THIS.

He also hits an important point with the wireless - I'm sorry, but that the gnome/kde front-ends STILL cannot set WPA/WEP up properly, forcing you to edit /etc/network/interfaces just to add your key... Now this is not entirely their fault, as there are no less than FIVE different ways of stating a WEP key: two ways for open, three ways for shared, depending on WHO WROTE THE DEVICE DRIVER! - and that's before you even GET into WPA.

It seems the people making the various linux addons (that turn the ACTUAL linux kernel into something useful) have the 'make a command line interface, it's 'good enough' attitude towards EVERYTHING... and frankly that ALONE is enough to send users who 'just want it to work' SCREAMING back to Windows/OSX...

I think a lot of that is the 'sacred cow' status the Unix legacy has in the OS; and why I'm surprised OSX has as many supporters in the *nix community as it does - as Apple did the smart thing, and did EVERYTHING possible to hide as much of the *nix BULLSHIT from the user. IT'S WHY GUI'S WERE INVENTED IN THE FIRST DAMNED PLACE.

Then there's the matter of video - specifically X, which hangs about Linux's neck like a dead albatross. No matter how much they optimize it down, no matter how many polyfill/blitter benchmarks are made that are 'skewed' to it's favor, the bottom line is X feels painfully sluggish and archaic, and putting bloated WM's with even MORE bloated graphical effects atop that isn't helping. Seriously, X11 is like Old Yeller, the dog that needs to be taken out back of the woodshed and shot.

That you STILL cannot get a WM to actually provide RELIABLE visual cues that it's doing something like say... LAUNCHING AN APPLICATION is damned near unforgivable. That it's consistantly bad across WM's leads one to the fact that it's X's separation from the OS and application control that's the root of the matter... Be it KDE, Gnome, XFCE, enlightenment, what have you... You click to start a program, you get the hourglass/cursor combo (or your WM's equivalent) with some brief disk access - then the disk access stops and it goes back to a normal cursor, with no activity for 5-10 seconds... So you think it failed and try launching again - lather rinse repeat, the cursor stops working and the next thing you know ten copies of that application all open at the same time? Seriously, What the hell is Linux DOING during that 'pause' at application launch? It gives it a unpolished unfinished appearance and annoys the HELL out of new users... Hell, I still do it from time to time and I've been using linux for 8 years or so.

Which sums up the linux desktop experience - disjointed, inconsistant, unfinished and unpolished. Just the stupid shit like when you hit shutdown in most newer distros, and it immediately drops you to a shell login screen and SITS THERE while shutdown stuff runs in the background (Yes, GDM, I'm pointing at you).

... and that's before we even GET to OpenGL; NOTHING shows how much the linux device driver model SUCKS more than trying to get acellerated OpenGL working, even in the 'pay distros' many people fervently claim work 'out of the box'. 90% of the time you end up having to recompile the kernel to include the AGPGart/PCIe memory interface drivers SPECIFIC to your mainboard chipset, then PRAY that the video card you have is supported by the drivers be it the OSS or proprietary ones. That's COMPLETELY unacceptable PERIOD.

The author mentions 'compared to two years ago' - this term does apply well to the linux desktop on the whole; Two years ago I frequently said "Linux as a desktop OS has BARELY caught up to Windows 3.1 in terms of functionality" - Now, I'd compare it more to Windows 95C w/USB. It works, but the hardware support for the 'newly supported devices' is buggy at best. Sure, it does all sorts of fancy new 'eye candy' that makes it LOOK on the surface like a modern OS, but even a few minutes using it quickly reveals how much work remains to be done for it to even be a contender.

Seriously, USB/PCMCIA hotplugging isn't as good as Win98 was, Wireless is certainly nowhere NEAR what most win98 wireless implementations are in terms of ease of use... and openGL is damn near as quirky as the old miniGL driver was on the voodoo cards.

Some of this probably stems from that Linux drivers are in a constant state of "catch up" - even old drivers have to be damn near rewritten every time Linus decides to change the hardware level kernel interface. That ANY old devices are still working in the 2.6.x kernel tree is a testament NOT to the linux kernel, but to the community of maintainers and testers. The blame doesn't JUST lie with Linus though, it can be extended to the open source mentality on the whole - where 'binary compatability' is damned near sacrilege... and yet look at the thing that lets most people even RUN their wireless cards - the ndiswrappers... What do those do again? They let you run Windows WDM drivers; a stable fixed binary level driver implementation that really hasn't changed since NT4.

There is MORE to the reason hardware vendors aren't THAT interested in supporting linux than the classic 'revealing trade secrets by going open source' excuse (although that's a DAMNED good excuse)... there's the feasability of maintaining the drivers in a economic manner... when a minor kernel revision (at least from the numbering scheme) can break drivers at the SOURCE level, the time and effort of maintaining the drivers for your products becomes unreasonable at the existing price-points; leaving support at the whim of the community, something no forward thinking company is going to rely on - and certainly something no business major would even THINK of. Windows side of things on the other hand, a WELL WRITTEN WDM driver will not only work on NT4, 2K, 2K3 and XP, but also on 98 and ME (in theory at least). Why do you think 64 bit XP/2K3 drivers are such a royal pain to find? Simple, they are no longer BINARY level compatable with the Win32 versions... IN THEORY it should just be a recompile from source with a minor change or two - but that takes EFFORT - more effort than most hardware manufacturers are willing to spend. Linux drivers are no different in this regard.

Which is NOT to say linux doesn't have it's advantages: Security, user policies, price... and frankly the 'big two' bloated operating systems (Win,OSX) have NO PLACE being used as servers, while linux is an EXCELLENT solution for the server world where things like Wireless and OpenGL mean exactly two things - Jack and shit.

It's just NOT ready for use as my daily desktop, and I've got 30+years of computing under my belt starting out hand-coding 4040, 8080 and Z80 assembly in the 70's. I know old-school Unix like the back of my hand, and still end up shaking my head going "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" on trying to do the simplest of things in Linux. If I'm still having trouble with the SIMPLEST of things after 8 years of using linux - I cannot IMAGINE what a nube would think.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hmm..
by hraq on Sat 1st Jul 2006 09:14 UTC in reply to "Hmm.."
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

1. Linux is not a single OS.
2. Linux purpose is not to be a desktop OS
3. Linux users need not to change kernel every now and then (RHEL will be supported for 7 years with one kernel version)
4. Real powerful linux Desktop promoters are Redhat and Novell and both of them don't have the power or money to simplify linux or force hardware manufacturers to write drivers for their OSs.
5. You based your frustration of linux on one distribution called ubuntu which is not a major linux distro with no powerful company behind it to support it or simplify it, even during installation of that distro you are not able to choose to install kernel headers and kernel sources, try RHEL 4 eg and download nvidia kernel and all you have to do is
1. Open konsole
2. su -
3. password
4. init 3
5. login as root
6. password
7. sh NVIDIA-driver-version.run
Done. Now try fedora which is also from Redhat, then you cannot do the previous steps, because of issues in kernel headers and source code, so its all about the distro choice and your frustration is gone! Ubuntu is also a debian based distro which mean you cannot install rpms which is the most common package technology available online applications.
I mean that even though linux is not intended to be a desktop OS you still can use it as a destop OS only if you have the guts to learn, be patient and not to ask too much from it ( let linux box be your secondary device to let you do things you cannot do with the shakky windows like server tasks, internet, multimedia).

Again, be patient and wait for the 2nd wave of linux maturation (which might take another 10 years). And always remember that linux started in 1993 and windows and Apple on 1984-85.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm..
by deathshadow on Sat 1st Jul 2006 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm.."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> 1. Linux is not a single OS.
No shit sherlock.

>> 2. Linux purpose is not to be a desktop OS
Then WHY push it for normal users, which is the whole TOPIC AT HAND. The whole POINT of the discussion is that it's not - and that SOME people keep trying to tout it as such.

>> 3. Linux users need not to change kernel every now and then (RHEL will be supported for 7 years with one kernel version)
Unless you want to add hardware that isn't supported by your older kernel (see the lions share of wireless in 2.4.1 and earlier kernels, even WITH ndiswrapper)- or are concerned about security updates that haven't been backported, or want to support the latest distro - which was my POINT from a hardware manufacturers point of view. SURE, one user doesn't have to change their kernel 'really'... but someone writing drivers DOES have to worry about the what... eight to ten minor revisions the past year, a hefty number of which break code in drivers?

>> 4. Real powerful linux Desktop promoters are Redhat and Novell and both of them don't have the power or money to simplify linux or force hardware manufacturers to write drivers for their OSs.

... and notice how much their pay versions of the OS (especially the enterprise versions) lag behind on EVERYTHING, including bugfixes. (RHE3 with RAID drivers comes to mind)... Pay SPECIAL attention to the fact that the spun off Fedora Core is now a better/more reliable product than ANY of the RHE's or mainstream RedHat releases... Half the time you pay for assistance on RHE now, the most common suggestion is to either fold in or switch to Fedora - and that's from RED HAT'S OWN SUPPORT CHANNELS!!!

>> 5. You based your frustration of linux on one distribution called ubuntu which is not a major linux distro with no powerful company behind it to support it or simplify it,

Which of course is why it has been simplified so much, it's one of the few distro's I'd even THINK of sitting grandma down at that... and I was using Ubuntu as an example BECAUSE it's one of the simplest on doing this stuff - but most of what I said APPLIES to other distro's... I've tried FC, Debian, SUSE, the works - and while they are all different in the details, the problem itself is uniform.

>> even during installation of that distro you are not able to choose to install kernel headers and kernel sources

Ok, apparantly you don't know what the word SIMPLE means... Much less ASSUMING the distro includes your mainboard drivers for AGPGART and/or PCIx - which unless you happen to have a nForce mainboard probably means you are shit out of luck; Try that with a VIA or SIS chipset, and you are reduced to downloading tarballs and building by hand.

>> 1. Open konsole
2. su -
3. password
4. init 3
5. login as root
6. password
7. sh NVIDIA-driver-version.run


Did you EVEN READ the post you responded to? Ok folks, here's a PERFECT example of someone who "doesn't get it." Mind you, [u]YOU AND I[/u] may be able to decipher and do that, but that doesn't mean it's something a nube should even be ASKED to try in the first damned place; WHICH AGAIN is the entire topic being discussed.

>> Again, be patient and wait for the 2nd wave of linux maturation
Odd, I thought we were on the third by now - it has been a decade after all... Bare minimum we're in the second since there are at least attempts at hotplugging - At least when I insert a CD or USB flash disk I don't have to futz around at the command line with mount anymore (of course, sometimes you still have to on the unmount) - to me, things like that and the new WM's like KDE and Gnome ARE the 2nd wave.

>> (which might take another 10 years)
With the attitude that making things like openGL work right you have to go to a terminal and run shell commands, it just might. That SHIT should be wrapped by the damned GUI already.

>> and always remember that linux started in 1993 and windows and Apple on 1984-85.

Built on a posix/unix foundation that predates both by a good decade.

COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT... Not that I'd expect most of the linux apolists to even UNDERSTAND the concepts.

It's a fine OS, but for {censored} sake, be HONEST ABOUT IT'S SHORTCOMINGS.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm..
by anon4848 on Sat 1st Jul 2006 16:56 UTC in reply to "Hmm.."
anon4848 Member since:
2006-06-10

You have some good points, and I cannot answer about the geeks only mentallity on Ubuntu, never been to the forum. My perception is you make the same mistake others have made, that one particular forum is representative of all Linux users and advocates. I have recent experience using Win98, I am still using it and your assertion Win98 was hot swappable was a joke, right? Why did you think they called it plug and pray?
The only OS, that I had experience with at the time that Win98 came out, that was truly plug and play (and hot-swappable) was Mac. You could plug any new device into a Mac and it just worked. Windows, get new device, script comes up detecting new device and asks if you have the disk, you answer yes. After you install the device driver, guess what? REBOOT. Now how is that plug and play? When I got a digital camera, load in driver and reboot. Scanner, load in driver and reboot. USB storage device, load in driver and reboot. Second USB storage device, load in driver and reboot. You get the idea. Linux, plug in camera card and access right away, no reboot. USB storage, plug in and access right away, unplug and plug in different size USB storage (this was the one Win98 needed a driver for, even though it is the same manufacturer) and access right away. If I can access this, as I said earlier, why the perception Linux is for geeks or is hard to use? I am certainly no computer guru and I could not tell you the difference between a codec and a Kodak, but I am able to do everything in Linux EASIER than I do in Win98. Burn CD's, play audio and video (one application in Linux and four in Windows - Real, Quicktime, Divx player and Media Player), Chat (one application in Linux and at least five in Windows - ICQ, AIM,IRC,MSN,and Yahoo).
I am not opposed to buying software, own enough as it is, but do not want to pay for things that should be included. And when I wanted applications for Windows, browse tucows or cnet, found application oops this one is trial ware, nope this one is shareware, well maybe not this one it is nagware. Okay found a free one, well maybe not, it is crippled ware. Then still have to download it, remember where it downloaded to, open it (have to have/get unzip utility - does not come with Windows). After unzipping most applications state REBOOT WINDOWS before using. Linux, click on desktop, and applications are listed, select applications, application is downloaded and installed and placed in menu. No hunting, no reboot, no fuss. And the application WORKS. I have no idea with your experience why you have so much trouble with Linux, maybe you are doing more advanced technological things than most of us Mom and Pop types. I just want to be able to do the following;

1. unload camera to PC - check
2. burn CD's - check
3. check e-mail - check
4. write corresondence - check
5. save files to rtf -check
6. listen to music CD's - check
7. print on USB priner - check
8. access USB storage device - check
9. chat - check

Seems to me anyone can use it, and it is made for everyday use.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm..
by deathshadow on Sat 1st Jul 2006 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm.."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

You seem to have plugging a device in and installing it's drivers confused with 'hot plugging' - which is the ability to plug in and unplug a device. Sure, you had to install the drivers on a new device then, that's because those were NEW devices that the OS didn't come with drivers for. ONCE the drivers were in, you didn't have to lather, rinse, repeat the install every single time.

What I'm referring to on the hot-plug issue is that linux can be... a bit less than forgiving on UNPLUGGING the device in the case of USB, and plugging a device in after the power is on in the case of PCMCIA. NEITHER case is handled 'gracefully' as it were, quite often locking up the KERNEL or forcing a 'Kernel Panic'... LORD HELP YOU if you try SATA hot-plugging.

MIND YOU, things have gotten a LOT better on that since the 2.6.1 and 2.4.3 Kernels - but it STILL seems to be a craps shoot every time you unplug something USB and/or plug/unplug a PCMCIA device... JUST like Win95C and Win98 (pre SE) used to.

Of course I got a laugh out of a few things... Mind you I'm comparing to XP in this case, not 98... Burning CD's in linux - EASIER? About the same in my estimation... (not as good as directCD when it comes to file browser integration)... Audio and video from four applications in windows? "Media Player Classic" with real alternative and qt alternative fixes that one damned quick; Hell, you add real alternative and qt alternative and suddenly Real and quicktime files play in WMP just fine. Chat? Only a RETARD would install the buggy, bloated clients from AOL, MSN, Y!, etc... GAIM is available on Windows, I use Trillian, there are a half dozen others as well. (Just like on OSX I use FIRE)... Actually, I'd kill for a port of Trillian to linux because frankly - GAIM doesn't cut it.

Of course, the real kicker I always get is how people talk about how 'hard' it is to find/install applications in windows compared to linux - OH, IF ONLY that were true. You want to hit windows for something, THAT'S NOT IT. Any idiot can walk into a store, BUY (the shock, god forbid programmers get PAID for their work) a CD or DVD off the shelf with a application or game, take it home and install it... Look at the games industry; I know a lot of 'technical' folks tend to look down on gamers - but it's a multi-billion dollar industry that has been the driving force behind all that fancy GPU power; and it got that way by SELLING products, not sharing the source code, and PAYING the good money to it's programmers.

But that is the REAL problem with Windows - ANY IDIOT can download ANY OLD .EXE off the web and run it... (or executable pretending to be a different filetype that the user never sees because 'hide file extensions' is on... talk about a retarded thing to do in ANY OS)

/carlito/ That's not cool... /carlito/

Seriously, complaining about lack of applications or difficulty in finding/installing them for Windows is... just... wow... SPECIAL, in the same way some olympics are special.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmm..
by WereCatf on Sat 1st Jul 2006 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm.."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

What I'm referring to on the hot-plug issue is that linux can be... a bit less than forgiving on UNPLUGGING the device in the case of USB, and plugging a device in after the power is on in the case of PCMCIA. NEITHER case is handled 'gracefully' as it were, quite often locking up the KERNEL or forcing a 'Kernel Panic'... LORD HELP YOU if you try SATA hot-plugging.

I am intrigued by this. Me, I have had about a dozen different computers, every single one using Linux, and a few of them would dual-boot Windows (only for games, though). Not a single one has crashed, gotten confused or anything similar when I have plugged/unplugged a USB device. Neither on my brother's computer or my little sister's. I am not saying it isn't possible, but out of curiosity, I would like to hear a bit more details, like what hardware was that..About PCMCIA then..I have only had a laptop with PCMCIA, and it did have a quirk. I used a PCMCIA WLAN card, that wasn't supported under Linux. So I used ndiswrapper to make it work. It worked like a charm, until I unplugged the card and plugged it back in. For some reason, ndiswrapper failed to notice the card until I unplugged it and plugged it in again. Though, after that it worked again with no problems.

Chat? Only a RETARD would install the buggy, bloated clients from AOL, MSN, Y!, etc... GAIM is available on Windows, I use Trillian

I disagree. A lot of users, especially business users and young people have to use the official clients in order to get voice and/or video support. Gaim, god knows why, still doesn't do that. I have never used Trillian, so I don't know anything about it. But if you want to use Trillian under Linux, perhaps you could mail them and ask if they're ever going to release a version of it for Linux. As for the official clients...I would think that releasing official native Linux versions of those clients would be a good idea. Even for Microsoft. Atleast they could advertise their services better then, and since not every Linux user is a zealot, they probably would not care who it is from, as long as it works.

Well, these are just my opinions. I just wonder why doesn't Microsoft try to invade the Linux desktops, too? Would it somehow damage their image? I doubt it. Hmm.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hmm..
by deathshadow on Sat 1st Jul 2006 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm.."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> but out of curiosity, I would like to hear a bit more details, like what hardware was that..

You probably got lucky with your USB hardware and/or motherboard. I've not seen this problem with intel or nvidia chipset mainboards (blessed be the nforce mainboard chipsets) while if you are stuck with a SIS, VIA, etc, it's a headache... and the older intel BX chipsets on legacy laptops do freak from time to time, and it's really common on the PPC. Again a linux 'shortcoming' is you need to be DAMN certain of what hardware is in the box... One wrong manufacturer and poof!

My old P2 366 laptop I ressurected with Xubuntu (I'm starting to REALLY like the new XFCE w/thunar BTW) and my Sandisk Trio flash reader for example HATE each-other if you direct connect them, but if you install a USB hub between the two it works fine... and the problem does not exist running win2k. My toilet seat blueberry G3 iBook running FC4 works fine with the SanDisk, but HATES if I unplug or plug in my Belkin wireless - but it hot-plugs FINE in OSX... and I had the SATA connectors crack (cheap plastic, seriously, who designed this piece of shit connector?) in my old barton 2500 desktop - in XP it would go 'SATA1 Unplugged', and seconds later 'SATA1 plugged in' at random intervals (thankfully it wasn't the boot drive) - still worked fine 90% of the time. (needless to say I did replace the cables... BTW, spraying WD-40 in your SATA connectors is a GOOD IDEA, and cleaning the plastic parts with armor all is an even BETTER idea to keep the plastic from cracking in the heat). Under Sarge if I let the OS mount that drive, when the disconnect happened it would either lock up linux HARD, or cause a kernel panic. (mind you, this was about a year ago... I've since sold off that machine and upped to a A64)


>> About PCMCIA then..I have only had a laptop with PCMCIA, and it did have a quirk. I used a PCMCIA WLAN card, that wasn't supported under Linux. So I used ndiswrapper to make it work. It worked like a charm, until I unplugged the card and plugged it back in. For some reason, ndiswrapper failed to notice the card until I unplugged it and plugged it in again. Though, after that it worked again with no problems.

That's semi-typical of the ndiswrapper - interestingly the ndiswrappers seems more forgiving of hot-plugging PCMCIA than the native ones... Like the native Ralink drivers that are coming in the latest Ubuntu and FC offerings... My Dell Insprion 2500 (yes, I have a LOT of hardware) works FLAWLESS with my Belkin F5D7010 on insertion/removal, but flakes out on and off with a 'Ark Technologies' card I picked up on the cheap - thing is BOTH cards are visually identical (externally and internally) and run the same chipset (RT2500)

Oh, which for those of you running multiple operating systems lemme just pimp the Belkin wireless cards - specifically the PCMCIA F5D7010 and the USB F5D5070. Flawless in linux (well, apart from the headache of setting up WEP shared or WPA, but that's not the drivers fault), flawless in OSX (using the drivers off RaLink's website), flawless in Windows. Who could ask for more?

>> As for the official clients...I would think that releasing official native Linux versions of those clients would be a good idea. Even for Microsoft. Atleast they could advertise their services better then, and since not every Linux user is a zealot, they probably would not care who it is from, as long as it works.

I've actually been surprised they haven't put more effort towards this - but then it is such a small portion of the computing community they probably have a hard time justifying the cost of such a move - because unlike the people who wrote GAIM, the programmers at MSN, Yahoo, ICQ and AOL all expect to get PAID for their work. This whole thing called "running a business"

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hmm..
by WereCatf on Sat 1st Jul 2006 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm.."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I thought to answer this, even though it is getting a bit off-topic. Nevertheless, it's a discussion about Linux on a desktop..

You probably got lucky with your USB hardware and/or motherboard. I've not seen this problem with intel or nvidia chipset mainboards (blessed be the nforce mainboard chipsets) while if you are stuck with a SIS, VIA, etc, it's a headache... and the older intel BX chipsets on legacy laptops do freak from time to time, and it's really common on the PPC. Again a linux 'shortcoming' is you need to be DAMN certain of what hardware is in the box... One wrong manufacturer and poof!

As I said, I have had a bunch of machines, from different ages. At the moment, I have only two in use. A 64-bit Sempron 2600+, and a 733mhz AMD Duron. Both running Via chipsets. Without a single hitch. I also have used Intel 440BX, Ali Aladdin-V, nForce 2...Never a single problem getting either USB1, or USB2 to work. Except for one single case, but the motherboard is faulty. Plugging in any USB device causes the machine to freeze in the BIOS Post screen.. =/ Though, I have never used PPC hardware. These are all i386-compatible systems. I just get the feeling that I'm not a lucky girl, it's you who's an unlucky guy ;P

Belkin F5D7010

That's the WLAN card I used, but it didn't use RT2500 chipset, it was another one for which there are no native drivers. Be glad you got a RT2500 one.

I've actually been surprised they haven't put more effort towards this - but then it is such a small portion of the computing community they probably have a hard time justifying the cost of such a move - because unlike the people who wrote GAIM, the programmers at MSN, Yahoo, ICQ and AOL all expect to get PAID for their work. This whole thing called "running a business"

Well..I'd say that it would be a good policy for Microsoft to get atleast some of their software running on Linux desktops. And as to getting paid..I think the people behind Yahoo, ICQ, MSN Messenger, they all get paid even if those apps are free to download and use.

Ps. As for Trillian..I installed it in Wine 0.9.15 and the installation went just fine. I only tried to run it, and it seems to work just fine. No graphical glitches or such. The only things are that when clicking on a menu, the menu appears a bit below the Trillian window for some reason, and the Wine guys still see getting tray-icons to work correctly (show up in the actual panel, instead of a separate window) a rather unimportant feature. Too bad..Oh, and Trillian wants Quicktime installed, but the newest version which includes iTunes doesn't install properly. QuickTime 6.5 should work just fine, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmm..
by Cloudy on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm.."
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

Not a single one has crashed, gotten confused or anything similar when I have plugged/unplugged a USB device.

There is a bug in hotplug support that shows up in various combinations of kernels as recent as 2.6.16.1 that causes the USB subsystem to stop enumerating correctly when the same device is repeatedly removed and reinserted into the same port.

It is particularly noticable if the device is a composite device that supports mass storage and generic endpoints, as is the one I'm currently debugging.

Greg K-H is aware of this, and here's an example dmesg from an occurance:

Jun 21 11:36:41 cloudy kernel: sd 21:0:0:0: scsi: Device offlined - not ready af
ter error recovery
Jun 21 11:36:48 cloudy kernel: usb 5-3.1: reset full speed USB device using ehci
_hcd and address 25
Jun 21 11:36:51 cloudy kernel: usb 5-3.1: device descriptor read/64, error -110

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hmm..
by deanlinkous on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 05:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm.."
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Are you using hotplug?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Hmm..
by Cloudy on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm.."
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

yes

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hmm..
by deanlinkous on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmm.."
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Actual hotplug? Instead of UDEV on a 2.6.16 kernel?

Reply Score: 1

Linux Superiority complex
by orfanum on Sat 1st Jul 2006 09:03 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

What follows is based on experience, and is not intended to inflame any passions or hurt any feelings. It's just metaphorically-driven reportage. Some fora are good at helping the newbie, other are really, and frankly, condescending. I detect likewise a lot of condescension at OSNews regarding non-Linux users. I fail utterly to see the reason for this apart from the assumption that those with inside knowledge about computers feel themselves innately supperior to non-technical folk.

If I own a car, am I expected to know how the computer-driven fuel-injection system works exactly, understand implicitly the chemical, mechanical and other scientific principles behind its operation, and how this particular system in my brand of car differs in minor respects from the system performing the same function in a particular rival's model? No, all most people can reasonably be expected to do is know how to run regular and simple maintenance tasks to increase the life and usefulness of their investment, and put gas/petrol in it.

If my car broke down and I took it to a mechanic who merely proceeded to give me the history of motor combustion, an overview of the Ford manufacturing process, and how mass production of the petro-chemical engine has scuppered other innovatons in the automobile industry, and making me feel like a complete idiot while doing so, instead of fixing my car, I would just take my business elsewhere.

Windows is hard, cars are hard, but the internet-based mechanics out there for Windows-users have a different attitude in the main to those who know little about computers but still need to get from A to binary B from that demonstrated especially by Linux people, in my own experience (although some have proved to be More Useful Than Others).

If Linux folk want to know who is really putting them to shame in my view, it's the BSD people. To paraphrase Ruskin - "go to BSD in all singleness of heart, and walk with her laboriously and trustingly, having no other thoughts but how best to penetrate her meaning, and remembering her instruction; rejecting nothing, selecting nothing, and scorning nothing . . . and rejoicing always in the truth"

Reply Score: 1

RE: Linux Superiority complex
by arctic on Sat 1st Jul 2006 13:36 UTC in reply to "Linux Superiority complex"
arctic Member since:
2006-04-19

You are right, there are always users who use an OS or a certain distro in order to show everybody else that they are "übergeek" and those users hurt any OS or distro. The vast majority of Linux users, I guess, still tries to help as best as they can and is polite, friendly and fair. But it is always the "733t geeks" that speak out loudest when nobody wants to hear them really, thus spreading a bad light on everyone who uses that particular OS/distro. ;)

Reply Score: 1

MSN and multimedia support
by djst on Sat 1st Jul 2006 10:45 UTC
djst
Member since:
2005-08-07

The two reasons why my girlfriend starts Windows instead of Ubuntu on our dual-boot notebook is MSN Messenger and multimedia web content.

There is just no real alternative for MSN if you want all the bells and whistles. aMSN doesn't even support fundamental features such as the status text field (at least not the latest version in the Dapper repositories).

When surfing the web, there are some sites that let you use whatever browser you prefer, and some don't (being from Sweden, www.expressen.se comes to mind). Even after taking the manual steps to enable proprietary multimedia codecs, Firefox support is not hassle-free.

If it wasn't for those two usages, my girl would be as confident in Linux as she is in Windows. She even admits things look sexier in Linux. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: MSN and multimedia support
by arctic on Sat 1st Jul 2006 16:07 UTC in reply to "MSN and multimedia support"
arctic Member since:
2006-04-19

I just checked www.expressen.se on my Linux box and - no problem. Everythig works. Just make sure that you have Java and Flash installed on your system and the site will work with Firefox on any Linux distro.

Can't give you any advice on MSN though as I never used it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Nothing is wrong with Linux
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 14:39 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

No. I didn't exagerate at all. Most Linux zealots do speak this wway (not every Linux user is a Linux zealot. But the ones who try to claim Linux is ready for the average user's desktop and is as easy to use as Windows usually are)

So anyone who holds the argument that Linux is easy to use is probably a zealot? Nice way to avoid rational debate by demonizing those who disagree with you.

Have you ever seen a newbie use a pre-configured Linux desktop? The fact (supported by empirical studies) is that Linux is as easy to use as Windows. Remember, most users don't have to install and configure Windows, it comes pre-installed on most computers.

The fact is that you consider all Linux advocates to be zealots, and will try to ridicule them instead of engaging in rational debate. Linux "zealots" as you describe them are few and far between, and no more common than Windows zealots and Mac zealots.

A bit of objectivity wouldn't hurt your argument...

You even demonstrated some of it yourself in your response to another poster. You tried to claim it was "unlikely" he was experiencing the problems he claimed because "You had never experienced them. And the only time you did it was X related".

Let's use logic, shall we? He claimed (without giving any actual distro or hardware examples) that he had tried various distro and hardware combinations over the years and that crashes were commonplace. This goes against my own experience and the experience of most Linux users (as can be gleaned from a cursory look at Linux forums all over the Internet).

So, should I just assume that my own experience is invalid, as well as that of countless other users, just because of one poster? The answer is obviously no. My experience tells me that the case of the OP is actually quite rare (I did not mean unlikely as in "you're lying", but rather as in "you're unlucky"). Arguing such a case isn't being a zealot, nor is it turning a blind eye to Linux issues, it's simply speaking the truth. If you have a problem with that, well, tough luck.

Clue-by-four: The typical desktop user *does not care who's fault it is*. All they care about is "It' doesn't work. And I don't have anyone to call and complain to about it. All I get is "It's open source. We don't make any kind of promise at all that anything will work with anything."

Actually, he does have someone to talk to: the hardware manufacturer. Who would you call if your USB camera didn't work with Windows, Microsoft? I doubt it. You'd call Logitech or Creative or whoever it was that made the webcam. The same holds true with Linux.

The average desktop user is not willing to put up with stuff that doesn't work simply to support some religious fanatical "Freedom from closed source hardware and closed source drivers and closed source software" movement like the typical Linux zealot is.

Please, please don't profess to speak for newbies. You only speak for yourself, and nobody else. Don't try to present yourself as an authority on how novice computer users think, because you aren't.

The reason I use Linux has nothing to do with religion. Here you go again, demonizing your opponents instead of trying to come up with rational arguments. You should try something else than strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks once in a while, because all it makes you look like is a Windows zealot.

It's not an anti-Linux argument. It is an anti-zealot argument. An anti "OMFG, Linux is the best thing in the history of computing, and is ready to like totally displace Windows for every person's desktop" argument.

Very few Linux advocates hold that type of argument. Even in this thread there hasn't been anyone saying what you said.

That said, it IS true that Linux is ready for a lot of desktops, if not all of them. Instead of saying that those who claim this are zealots (an ad hominem rhetorical fallacy), why not try to gvie arguments as to why this is not the case? You might regain a little bit of credibility, because right now you have very little of it left.

Reply Score: 5

RE[8]: what?
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 14:41 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Linux zealots should try to understand this concept: average user isn't interested in learning and reading. And why should they anyway? It's not their passion, it's not their hobby.

So I guess they won't be using the new MS Office, then, considering they'll have to learn a new interface? (Which is much more different from the current MS Office than OpenOffice is, incidentally...)

By the way, keeping using the words "Linux zealots" to refer to Linux advocates really indicate your own zealotous anti-Linux bias.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: what?
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 14:47 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Come back to me when OpenOffice doesn't take 10 times longer than MS Office to start up.

Use OpenOffice quicklaunch.

And when OpenOffice Calc can read my Excel Spreadsheets properly without messing up the formulas.

Which formulas are those? I transfer sheets between Excel and Calc all the time, and conversion is actually quite good. I think you're thinking of macros.

You haven't used most of the advanved features of Photoshop have you? Gimp doesn't even come close.

Which feature are these? (Note: I already mentioned that if you're doing print work you should stick with Photoshop, which runs under Linux with Crossover Office.)

And also, Gimp is excesssively slow compared to Photoshop when dealing with production quality images.

I use Photoshop CS2 daily in the course of my work, and performance sucks. We're actually thinking of going back to PS 6.0. There's nothing wrong with Gimp's performance in my opinion, but perhaps you'd like to provide us with some recent benchmarks?

Of course it is... After I finally figure out that the reason I can't play my mp3 collection [...] Oh good... Now I can finally watch DVDs... But performance is crap...

Try EasyUbuntu. Problems solved.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: what?
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 14:50 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Ok.. Now I know for sure you are a zealot... if you can actually keep a straight face when you make that claim.

Instead of personal attacks, why not actually try to use rational arguments for a change?

Give me a break. Nothing Linux has can even come close to the software available for Windows when it comes to music players and video players.

KMplayer or Totem are better than Windows Media Player. You can watch any format (including Quicktime and Realplayer) with them. Try that with WMP.

And tell me which Music Player beats amaroK as far as features go. Please. I insist.

Because insults are just not enough.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: what?
by SK8T on Sat 1st Jul 2006 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: what?"
SK8T Member since:
2006-06-01

in much answers of my thread "what?" I read something like that:

"Sorry, but Quicktime is much easier to get work on windows as on linux".

But that is not true. Lets see; what do you do to get quicktime work on Windows?
go to www.apple.de; download it, install it, and may reboot. (approx 20 clicks).

And what do you do on Linux?
In Ubuntus case: Open synaptic, install libquicktime (approx 5-7 clicks).
Now every media player on Ubuntu can play .mov files.

so, now to MS Office vs. OpenOffice.
It's easier for the computer newbie if the Office suite is preinstalled, isn't it?

and so on ...

Edited 2006-07-01 16:14

Reply Score: 2

Sad picture
by Sphinx on Sat 1st Jul 2006 20:05 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

An entire generation of virtually brain dead morons sitting in the floor squeezing tooth paste into their socks. How depressing. How would they have fared with cpm or dos?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Hmm..
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 20:51 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

THAT RIGHT THERE is proof enough of the geeks only attitude, and most nubes are going to tell you to "Go frotz yourself, I'm going back to Windows/OSX"... The thing is, you can turn the multiverse on from the damned UI in Synaptic! THERE IS NO NEED TO GO TO BASH FOR THIS.

True, however it is simple to follow terminal instructions than GUI instructions. And though the terminal may frighten some, remember that everybody used it in the heydays of the IBM PC - that's including secretaries, dads, kids, and a whole lot of other non-technical users. Have users become dumber now that the GUI reigns as king? I for one hope not.

All I know is that when I'm forced to do "family/friends technical support" (which happens quite often, despite what the pro-Windows crowd would have you believe), I really wish there were simple command-line instructions I could give them instead of "all right, go to the Start Menu, then type Control Panel, then click on Network Connections...it's a little icon that looks like two monitors connected together...ok, now tell me what's in the window that just popped up...tell me which tab you're on...yeah, the little thingies at the top..." You get the picture...

He also hits an important point with the wireless - I'm sorry, but that the gnome/kde front-ends STILL cannot set WPA/WEP up properly, forcing you to edit /etc/network/interfaces just to add your key...

One word (well, two really, but they're concatenated together): NetworkManager. To respond to your point, they are front-ends that do not require you to touch /etc/network/interfaces ever. You detect a wireless network, you click on it, it asks you for the WEP/WPA password/key/whatever, you're connected. And if you come back to that network, it remembers your key from the last time. Voila! Yet another example of how Linux developers (I'm including KDE/Gnome devs in this) do actually fix issues, despite what naysayers would have us believe.

A final word. In another post, you asked "then why push it?"...but the fact of the matter is that very few Linux users and enthusiasts are actually pushing Linux on anyone. I know I'm not, and yet I'm a strong Linux advocate. The article linked to in this OSNews entry even acknowledges that (I'm assuming you've RTFA...)

So while I think it's fair to point out Linux flaws, I don't think it's fair to accuse Linux users and advocates of doing something that, by and large, they are not doing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmm..
by deathshadow on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm.."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> One word (well, two really, but they're concatenated together): NetworkManager. To respond to your point, they are front-ends that do not require you to touch /etc/network/interfaces ever. You detect a wireless network, you click on it, it asks you for the WEP/WPA password/key/whatever, you're connected.

Unless of course the network in question is using a shared key, in which case you have to hunt as to where to put the word 'restricted' in the password line - which can go in three different places depending on what hardware driver is loaded.

I'd also point out that the Gnome and XFCE network panels do NOT detect nearby networks automatically, nor did the KDE one last time I checked (which was about three months ago). In fact, 'out of box' the only way I've found to get an AP list out of any of the 'big' distros (slack, deb, ubuntu, FC, mandriva) was from a terminal with "iwlist"...

That said, yes; NetworkManager is a very NICE addition and fills the hole in a great many distros, but it STILL won't let you set a shared key properly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: It's a chicken and egg problem
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 20:55 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Are you aware of any circumstance since then in which Microsoft has strongarmed OEMs to preclude the installation of alternate operating systems; including, revoking an OEM's license, increasing the price, etc?

As usual, corporate lawyers have found a way to circumvent the penalties inflicted on Microsoft. While Microsoft cannot retaliate as such against an OEM, it can however decide not to give them a discount on Windows, and instead charge them the full price. Since this isn't punitive de jure, it can get away with it, though it is a form of retaliation de facto.

When you got billions in the bank, you can pretty much buy your way out of most legal penalties...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmm..
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:01 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Oh, which for those of you running multiple operating systems lemme just pimp the Belkin wireless cards - specifically the PCMCIA F5D7010 and the USB F5D5070.

Thanks, that's a great tip. I was just looking out for such a Linux-compatible device.

unlike the people who wrote GAIM, the programmers at MSN, Yahoo, ICQ and AOL all expect to get PAID for their work. This whole thing called "running a business"

Except the MSN, Yahoo, ICQ and AOL clients are all free...

This example actually showcases a strength of open-source apps. Take Kopete, for example: because its developers were not trying to "pimp" a particular IM protocol, it can connect to all of them. So if you have friends that are on MSN, others that are on Yahoo! and yet others that are on AOL (does anyone use ICQ anymore), you can stay in touch with all of them with a single app and a single UI, instead of having to run three separate ones as you would have to under Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Hmm..
by deathshadow on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm.."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Except the MSN, Yahoo, ICQ and AOL clients are all free...

Except that Y! and AIM DO generate revenue through adservices, while MSN is free because they are trying to use it to promote MSN - only one you really get me on is ICQ, but that's because for all intensive purposes it's a dead protocol kept afloat by AOL's budget since it is basically just a subset of AIM. All the others are basically payed for by their respective parent companies advertising budget (even when it doesn't have advertising) - it might not be WORTH it to spend the allmighty dollar on paying your coders to write it for something that won't RUN your product. How do all those nice Yahoo plugins (that tend to install in IE whether you want them or not) work in Linux or OSX again? How's that connecting to AOL in linux with ALL the AOL ads, targeted news, etc working out? Of interest, AOL does make a client for OSX (even though iChat also handles the protocol) - why? Because they MAKE AOL for the Mac.

This is the difference in thinking between business majors and 'normal folks' (and why again the business majors are "laughing themselves all the way to the bank")

>> instead of having to run three separate ones as you would have to under Windows.

You may wish to re-read the post you replied to. Trillian, GAIM, Miranda... Hell you can even get plugins for some of the Jabber clients now for the other protocols - or connect through the upstream servers. You don't "have to run three separate ones under windows" - in fact you haven't had to for at least SIX YEARS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hmm..
by deathshadow on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmm.."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> How do all those nice Yahoo plugins (that tend to install in IE whether you want them or not) work in Linux or OSX again? How's that connecting to AOL in linux with ALL the AOL ads, targeted news, etc working out?

Great, now I'm quoting myself - damn I'm chatty today. ;)

Just occured to me, now there's another arguement IN FAVOR of linux. DAMNED good one at that.

Reply Score: 2

My experiences
by Coxy on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:14 UTC
Coxy
Member since:
2006-07-01

Hello,

I read osnews everyday but decided to make my first post after reading the comments to 'Why Linux Has Failed Most Beginners'

I'm a windows user, and web designer. I tried Linux in University (Redhat if memory serves), my experience of it was less than successful. I wanted to try Linux after selecting to specialise in Programming instead of Design - I thought I should learn to use JavaScript and specialising in Programming for a year was the only way to do that.

There were about 5 of us in the class from the Design school... it was a bit of a shock, going from the Design department to the Electrical Engineering department. Gone were the macs with students listening to music, using Flash and Director, talking, chatting. We were now in nerd heaven... row upon row of what I thought were old computers with some crappy old operating system on... turned out to be something called UNIX. By each computer was a student, just sitting there programming away, not talking, doing there best to ignore everyone else or at least trying to pretend they were on there own. Even the tutors were different, in the Design department the tutors rooms were like cool cafes, the tutors in the EE department seem to be part Robot, they were surrounded by opened computers (actually on and running with wires and god knows what connected up to them and disc drives too (not installed)). Some of the computers had fans blowing air in to them, I thought this was funny at first.

After a few weeks it be came apparent to us (the 5 from Design) that everyone else seemed to have already learnt JavaScript and Perl and used Linux at home, most of them seemed to ignore what the teacher was saying and were working on the projects. Everytime the teacher tried to get us to do something he had to stop and show us a 'graphical' way to do it... this was because his request that we "open a terminal and type 'gobledigook a- s- s-'" (or something like that) would mean him having to tell everyone what a terminal was how we open it and what a- s- s- meant.

I was given readhat by the geeks with the promise that it was easy to use and install - I think this was probably a joke ;-)

I was living with my brother at the time and he is a programmer, writing device drivers as well as software for telcoms voice recognition as well as designing the circuits for the hardware. I thought he could help... he told me not to. He had trouble installing it. His friend from Taiwan on the course to also said not to. He owned a computer chain store in Taiwan and was studying Programming to get out of the retail side of computing. That fact that two geeks found it difficult to install should have been a warning to me.

I installed redhat and after help from my brother, I was able to get it installed. If he hadn't of helped me I wouldn't have stood a chance... I use a computer everyday, I'm not a techie, but also not a newbie. If the installer that came with redhat was suppossed to be easy to use and understand for someone coming from windows (which everyone in EE said it was) then I must be Jesus Christ. I had know idea what half of it was, I've installed windows 2000 and xp several times, I had to do was click the mouse a few times, type in my name and go make a cup of tea.
This I found was really difficult. This should be fixed I think, I read a lot of comments in OS news by Linux users saying that ther 80 year old aunt uses Linux and that if they can use linux everyone can... I wonder if these Octogenarians actually had to install Linux and if they did, was the poster claiming to have an 80 year old aunt sitting next to them going through every step with them, I have a few aunts too but none of them would be able to install Linux.

One of the reasons I wanted to try Linux was because the software I had to use on my course was very expensive, I was told by posts to Linux forums and by questioning to the EE department that Linux had equiv. programmes and if they didn't exist they could be run using something called wine or VMware. Redhat was installed, with for some reason 6 or 7 text editors, 8 email clients etc, etc. Why? Why? Again, why? Most were unfinshed beta software or require that I use the Command line. Nothing seemed very professional (this is my view when I compare the software I had on windows). So I started up my first 'euiv.' app, I had some images to edit so I ran the Gimp, a programme I was assured by the EE students, was like Photoshop, only better 'coz it's free...' the Gimp was a painful experience. Anyone who has used Photoshop on a Mac and then been made to use !Paint on RISC OS will empathise entirely with my pain. The other thing I noticed was the time it took to load the applications - why's it take so long? And why has everything got a K in fromt of it's name?

I wanted then to install a new web browser... I use IE on windows. For this I'm called lazy (if the post at firefox forums are to be believed), yes lazyness is claimed to be a reason for not switching from the default installed (IE) to another browser on windows. To my surprise, questions at Linux forums on the subject of installing a browser were frowned apon. Why would I want to use a different browser? I just have to learn to use Firefox, 'it's better than IE!'. I see, it's ok to use the default browser that ships with Linux, just not the default browser that ships with windows... if you do that your lazy... hmm. Eventually I managed to download Opera. This lead to my next problem having to install software. This is awful in Linux. There were all kinds of problems, other things had to be downloaded and installed. I had to type gobledigook into the commandline. What kind of 80 year old granny can do this without problems? I can't and I have good eyesite and nimble fingers.

Reply Score: 1

My experiences continued
by Coxy on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:15 UTC
Coxy
Member since:
2006-07-01

... My next problem was the fonts, they were all blocky and not smooth at all. I gave up on trying to fix that, the 'fix' that I discovered after searching the net was just to time consuming for me to try. I won't even begin trying to tell you my problems setting up my zip disc or the printer... Then I discovered that the software equivelants were really just pale immitations and couldn't let me work. After one week spent trying to use Linux I gave up.

I'm now living and working in Germany. Sometimes I'm interested in trying Linux again (I guess I can't believe that an 80 year old spinster in Kansas is better at using computers than me!)

I often read that OSS is great because it's cross platfrom. As a 'normal' computer user, using Windows, this means crao to me... I'm not interested in using an app that's sole benefit is that I can use it in Mac OS, Windows and Linux. I'm not interested in 'learning to use an OS' as I'm often told in comments here that I must if I want to use Linux... comments like this make me think back to the EE department and the geeks there on the computers - with 24 hours a day to sit in front of their computers. I'm married now and have children, I get just a few hours a day to work... learning how to re-build the kernel or compile a programme from source is not very high on my list of priorities. I just need things to work and more importantly be able to work. For this the software needs to be there, an it isn't not in Linux. The argument that Linux is more stable is as far as I can see is bollocks. I experienced crashes and problems all the time, Everyone claims there computer is crash free, I know plenty of windows users that their windows never crashes either.

I like the posts by RGCook and Sabon, they were great. As a windows user who tried Linux I agree with them, a shame Die hard Linux users seem to deny there are any problems with Linux. I think the biggest problem with Linux is that the people who use it and who write the programmes don't actually live in the real world, they live in a world where people spend 20 hours a day in front of a computer. I guess after 20 hours a day in front of a computer Linux is pretty easy, but how many people in the real world have that kind of time. I guess we can just add up all the Programming students in the world -;) and all the 80 year old aunts, and all those six year old kids that seem to be nephews of the Aunts, they also seem to be able use Linux (if posters here are to be believed) and can rebuild the linux kernel in the time it takes me to look up what an IP address is in google - amazing. When my step son was 6 he could hardly even use the mouse or switch the computer on.

I may try Linux again in the future, maybe Ubunto, everyone seems to go crazy over it. I think first though, issues raised in the article 'Why Linux Has Failed Most Beginners' need to be fixed. Just my views.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hmm..
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:41 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

How do all those nice Yahoo plugins (that tend to install in IE whether you want them or not) work in Linux or OSX again?

Actually, the point with Yahoo is moot, because they did in fact produce a Linux client.

I understand the rest of your point regarding potential ad revenue, however I seriously question the effectiveness of such ads.

You are right regarding Trillian, GAIM, etc. on Windows. I should have refrained from that last sentence - however, my point illustrating the strenght of open source software still stands, as these alternatives are in fact open source.

So, what is the conclusion of all this? Sure, AOL and MS may not have IM clients for Linux, but who cares? The open source alternatives (both for Linux and Windows) are simply more convenient.

Reply Score: 2

RE[8]: Hmm..
by deathshadow on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Hmm.."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> as these alternatives are in fact open source.

Actually, Trillian is NOT... likely because they offer a 'pro' version that costs MONEY (ooh, there's that pesky bugger again) in addition to the free 'basic' version.

>> The open source alternatives (both for Linux and Windows) are simply more convenient.
Damned straight, though I'd also add the free but non open-source ones (ok, one) to that list.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Hmm..
by Finalzone on Sat 1st Jul 2006 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Hmm.."
Finalzone Member since:
2005-07-06

So, what is the conclusion of all this? Sure, AOL and MS may not have IM clients for Linux, but who cares? AOL does have IM clients for Linux
http://www.aim.com/get_aim/linux/latest_linux.adp

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hmm..
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:46 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

I'd also point out that the Gnome and XFCE network panels do NOT detect nearby networks automatically, nor did the KDE one last time I checked (which was about three months ago).

It does now. As I'm typing this, I've got about half a dozen networks showing up in my knetworkmanager applet.

That said, yes; NetworkManager is a very NICE addition and fills the hole in a great many distros, but it STILL won't let you set a shared key properly.

I'm pretty sure shared keys are handled properly in the latest version. You should give it another try.

Again, this does highlight one of my main points: yes there are issues with Linux, but they do get fixed!

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hmm..
by deathshadow on Sat 1st Jul 2006 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm.."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

It's often easy to forget that... When you actually USE the OS and patch/upgrade to the latest versions, eventually wiping and re-installing the latest distro time and time again because X feature hasn't been back-ported or Y program won't work with the old kernel tree and the new kernel breaks compatability... Revisiting it every few months in the hope that Z problem has been fixed, and still hasn't after a couple YEARS, it's easy to think the OS development is at a standstill...

Forgetting of course the endless myriad of things that HAVE been fixed. Marketing 101 - people are 100 times more likely to remember, emphasize and take action on the negative than they are the positive aspects of anything.

Case in point - the new Dapper Xubuntu... XFCE has really 'wowed' me this time out - In terms of features is about now on par with the Gnome of two years ago - a major leap in functionality since my 'last encounter'... and that in Xubuntu they set it up to look almost IDENTICAL to the Gnome desktop was... surprising, but somewhat welcome. The idea of having a lightweight WM that can provide close to identical functionality to the full-blown 'bloated' eye-candy version is a WELCOME choice. It's still not as 'polished' as the KDE/Gnome versions of Ubuntu, but Xubuntu is lean enough to give win98 a serious run for it's money speed-wise on low end boxes.

... and I REALLY like Thunar - now if they could just add SAMBA support to it. (you can still use the old manager for that, though it tends to 'hijack' your desktop and refuse to copy more than one file at a time without locking up... Fortunately I have a FTP server on the LAN).

That it by default shows a filesystem TREE made me VERY happy - since I'm a 'tree kind of guy'. (Yes, I was a Xtree fan. Commander can kiss my ass) I THINK of filesystems as a tree - spatial navigation to me is annoying, slow and difficult to actually USE.

Given how rough it was around the edges under Breezy, I kind of questioned them making Xubuntu it's own standalone instead of a package option on the Ubuntu/Kubuntu CD's after a 'server install'... But it has indeed matured to the point it deserves it's own distro.

Which is typical of Linux on the whole - it's a moving target. Problems you had a month ago may no longer even exist, or may fester for years to come. If you haven't tried it in a while, try again... If you are hesitant to repartition, try a live CD or see if you can find a VMWare Player image of a distro. READ the support forums for each of the distro's before trying them, paying special attention to the hardware support areas, doing searches for each of your hardware componants. Research ahead of time can save you time and headaches when you finally settle on a distro.

...and just because I and some others don't find it ready for use on my day to day workstation, doesn't mean it might not meet your needs - and it does meet my needs in some cases. like a G3 iBook that is PAINFULLY slow on OSX, or the PII 366 Compaq laptop I use as a MP3 boombox because of the KILLER speakers in it.

... and if NOTHING else, using it for AT LEAST A WEEK AFTER GETTING EVERYTHING WORKING gives you PERMISSION to badmouth it. I'm kind of funny about this one, but I usually get royally bent at people who badmouth things they never even gave a chance.

Reply Score: 2

Coxy
by archiesteel on Sat 1st Jul 2006 21:49 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Many of the issues you had were fixed in the last two years. I recommend you try out the latest Ubuntu Desktop CD and see for yourself.

Cheers!

(OT: Man, is it ever sad here in London with the England team having lost...I saw grown men actually cry in the pub I was at.)

Reply Score: 1

deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

WOW you prove we are correct better than we ever could. Thanks for that! See folks, some uses expect everything to be just like windows instead of a different operating system which is exactly what linux is.

Yes you wanted to see what was on drive C. Now turn that around and see how well windows would see what was on hda5?

You learned and got used to the fact that windows designated the hard drives by letters so what is so hard about learning and getting used to a different way?

Linux has bloat if you want bloat. Windows on the other hand has bloat whether you want it or not. I can install debian etch with gnome and a slew of software in less than one gig of space, can you say the same with XP?

Your understanding of web standards...well....leave a lot to be desired also. Once again it show that you just want linux to copy and do everything like windows. Which do you think is worse. That mozilla wont recognize tags that microsoft/IE made up on a whim or that microsoft/IE wont recognize tags that are a part of the agreed upon standard?

You sir are worthy of one thing. One of my votes.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Well, to most people who have a problem with DRM, anything they can't pirate and get for free is not worth it.

How about this one: you buy the latest Korn CD, but you can't rip it to your iPod because as soon as you put it on a PC, it loads its own player that allows backups to be made, but only in protected WMAs...this is a real-world example, not a hypothetical one.

I was able to backup the songs to the iPod only after installing an app that creates a fake virtual sound card and re-encodes the ouput into unprotected mp3s. The fact of the matter is it would have been a lot simpler to just download the songs off of Kazaa (or whatever it is that people use these days).

DRM only makes life difficult for law-abiding citizens, not pirates.

Reply Score: 2

deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Exactly! People who dont mind breaking the law wont suddenly change their mind because it has another protection scheme.

My sister-in-law, bunch of downloaded music from one of those online services. Harddrive dies. She tells me it is no big deal since she has made CDs of the My Music folder. I tell her that is cool. So we reload everything, corrupted license, dont have the rights to these songs, no way to get them back. etc...

Reply Score: 2

Cool
by archiesteel on Sun 2nd Jul 2006 22:49 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

I know this is off-topic in a way, but I just found out the Texas Instrument 4-in-1 card reader on my laptop, which wasn't working with Breezy Badger, now works in Dapper Drake. Since that's kernel stuff (I think) I imagine it works in other distributions as well...

Another example of how Linux progresses everyday, though not always where we'd want it more. Not that it would be any different with Windows...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cool
by deathshadow on Mon 3rd Jul 2006 15:21 UTC in reply to "Cool"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Actually a LOT of devices now work in Dapper that haven't caught up in other distros yet...

Problem is they broke as many old things as they added new ones.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cool
by archiesteel on Mon 3rd Jul 2006 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Cool"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

That may be true...I'm just happy that ALL the hardware on my Compaq Presario laptop works perfectly!

Reply Score: 1