"Can the ordinary computer user ditch Windows for Linux? The question came up when I decided that my six-year-old version of Microsoft's Windows operating system had to be replaced. My Sony Vaio computer was still too young for the trash heap. And I was hesitant to spend $200 on the Windows XP operating system, especially with Microsoft planning to launch XP's replacement, Vista, in January. So, I decided to give the operating systems that run on Linux technology a try."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-24
Yes, OMRebel, lack of research.
Spin it how you like. There are enough Linux users around here you'll continue to get modded up.
Someone tries six distros on a machine and lists issues he had. That *is* research. Because you don't like the conclusion: "Linux is not for newbies" does not mean his methods were flawed. So actual experience using six distros; buying a book on the subject; and speaking with with different companies and developers of certain distros/applications apparently is NOT research. He did all of this. What are you an ID10T (don't want to disappoint). SO AGAIN; no matter how you spin it YOU ARE DEAD WRONG no matter how many of your little buddies mod you up (or mod me down) it does not change a damn thing.
He wasn't writing a research paper for professionals. He's an average user writing an article for other average users and what they may expect from downloading and installing some of the more mainstream distros. He even stated that some of the issues could be (maybe) overcome if someone intended to spend a lot more time (more research), though the representatives of some distros and apps told him he was SOL in some cases.
Again, WTF (hope your happy, agian I don't want to disappoint) did you expect? You never answered. What would you have someone tell newbies in his situation. Please enlighten us. After you provide some answers, please explain why this is a better choice. And remember use real merits that average users care about not philosophical BS that you *think* average users should care about. And please tell us what "real" research is because I was under the impression he did OK.
Member since:2006-03-12
Not just lack of research. I'm saying lack of substance of any kind.
Read the article, he did buy a book, he did try 6 distro's. The 6 he tried came with the book, and through his own ommision was out of date.
He's told the later version of OpenOffice is more compatible, does he try it, NO. He finds two documents that don't work, Is that one in every 5/50/5000. Was it a quick fix to make it work, or was it the fonts where different.
Is there any contrast/comparison with the upgrade between 98? and XP and that of Linux. Whats better whats worse. What about ease of installation. All I know is someone who can't type convert D: /fs:ntfs and yet the filesytem is his major problem with the upgrade, and yet he manages to install not One but six distributions, and Old ones at that.
He actually contacts these people to talk about last years distribution.
And then there is DRM, that is DVD's and lets face it iTunes, why don't these work. I'm pretty sure the reason is covered in his Book. I'm pretty sure that the
answer to these are not just all over then net. Really the answers are not that tricky. I might learn why non of his tunes will work in 2-5 years time.
And then there is the cost(I would say comparison), $200 for XP, which becomes $100 for the upgrade, and he sort of does cost comparison, but doesn't $30 For the book + $40 for Crossover(Not Wine or some visualization) + $40 to play encrypten DVD's. Sudenly Windows XP Upgrade is cheaper. Its like he sat down and thought of the most expensive way of doing things and did that, or didn't.
I have 98 next to me, I know that without me installing a codec pack is won't play and video's. I also know It won't play DVD's unless I install a 3rd party program for it to play DVD's. I know for certain I can't edit any Office application, without buying Office. I know I will have to download iTunes, Apple Quicktime, Adobe Acrobat, and to some extent Learn these. I know that not everything works between 98/XP, I know that the drivers for his computer will be years out of date, and he will have to search the web for these, inculding his ipod / printer, as well as the stuff insude his computer.
He did the least work possible to bang out an article, knew what didn't work before hand becuase its common knowledge and focused on that.
Member since:2005-11-14
You're having problems grasping the concepts correctly. "Trial and Error" is something different than "Research". "Research" takes place before you being a project, and it involves looking up specifications, asking questions, etc.. "Trial and Error" is what takes place AFTER you do your "Research", and is the process of working on the project. This really isn't rocket science we're talking about here. If you were raised in the US, then surely you've had to perform a science fair experiment. And, if so, then you know I'm right in that research was not performed. Just an experiment.
He only asked questions once he began installing the distros that came with his CD's. Again, not a difficult concept. Research takes place BEFORE the project has begun.
Linux is not for newbies, in most cases, to tackle on by themselves. They will require assistance (just like the author needed). However, take a look at what the author did at the end. He decided to run an upgrade on a '98 (or was it a ME?) machine because he felt that he didn't want to shell out the money to buy a full XP CD. Again, if the author had done any research on installing XP, he would have realized something that he was wrong about. You can perform a fresh install of Windows XP on a computer with a XP Upgrade CD, as long as you have a valid CD of a previous version. This was a Windows Newbie mistake on his part of not knowing that.
As far as your question, what did I expect? I'd expect for a "review" to actually get published, that the person writting it would actually know what he was talking about. This wasn't the case. He neither knew much about Linux, nor did he know much about Windows. For such a review to be complete, he would need to finish the article on how his upgrade went, and the time it took him on that. That did not happen. But, I can tell you from experience that he probably spent about 5 hours upgrading XP. All he had to do from the start was to go to a linux forum (not distro specific), list his machine specs, and what he was wanting his machine to do "out of the box" (so to say), and the community would have pointed him towards a distro that would have worked for him. I'd say it would have taken about 15 minutes to find a linux forum, register to post, and make his post. Then, he could have come back an hour later, found an answer for a distro that would have accomplished what he wanted. Did he actively seek out this information before he tried to switch to Linux? No, he did not. He had a book, that contained 6 distros, and he decided that was enough.
But, therein lies a problem with Linux. Too many distros. I can understand how it would confuse users who have no computer knowledge, and don't know there's a thing called "forums" out on the Internet to ask questions on.
For this particular author, Windows is probably his best option, because of a couple of reasons:
1. He is comfortable with it, and WANTS Windows. Reading the review, he was wanting something that worked like Windows, and worked with this Windows programs. That is not what Linux is.
2. He has very poor knowledge when it comes to computers to begin with. From reading the article, he doesn't know much at all about Windows, a system that he has always used (see his claim that he couldn't perform a fresh install with a Upgrade CD).
3. He was not wanting to change. If someone were truly wanting to make the change, then it's obvious that he would have to learn something different. He didn't want to bother with that.
Now, I have never gotten into any philosophic discussions on Linux. Computers are tools that I use. I don't invest my life in them, nor do I feel some sort of bond with a computer. I don't have a vision of a great society being united by a OS, and daisies blooming because of the GPL, etc.. I use what works best for the tasks that I aim to accomplish. None of my posts have anything to do with the philosophical movement of Linux. But, nice attempt.
The bottom line is this. The author is naive, didn't do his research before he began his project, didn't invest any time in working out any of his problems, and it was obvious that he just wanted an upgraded Windows from the start of the article. I simply don't see why this was viewed as "news". I could write an article, I suppose, on how my 5 year old nephew uses a computer loaded with Ubuntu for his Nickelodean (sp?) games, but what would that prove? Is my 5 year old nephew smarter than the author of this article? No. Does this mean that Linux is perfect for newbies? No. Does this mean that Linux is simple enough for a 5 year old to get on the Internet and play games? Well, yes, it does.
But, back to the larger picture. This "review" is just FUD.
PS - I am typing this on a Windows XP Pro machine (but using FireFox of course!), so you can hold back that "zealot" comment that's been rattling around inside your head.
PSS - I hope wherever you're employed, that your boss never asks you to do any research for a project. Your job could be in jeopardy.
Member since:
2005-11-14
Yes, Fuji, lack of research. I'll try to make it easy for you (since you felt unable to have a rational debate without resorting to name calling). If you're in the job market for a vehicle, do you just go to one dealer's lot, without knowing what type of vehicle you're wanting, and just pick something on that lot? Or, do you have an idea of what you're wanting to buy, and what features you're looking for in the car? Do you research the reviews on the various models of the style you're looking for, and see what features they have? Do you run a CarFax report on it (looks up history on the car)?
Fact is, I run XP as well as Linux, and I have no problem with XP. In fact, if you looked at my history on here, I'm not someone that is on the "bash MS bandwagon".
Choosing some CD's that came with a book without researching if they could do what he wanted it to do is being lazy, or perhaps naive.
So tell me, how exactly did he research the distros that he chose to make sure that it would accomplish what he wanted? I'm looking forward to seeing some more "WTF" and "ID1OT" responses from you.