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.
Thread beginning with comment 139178
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: In terms of math
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 1st Jul 2006 09:38 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: In terms of math
by hobgoblin on Sat 1st Jul 2006 10:30 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: In terms of math
by Simba on Sat 1st Jul 2006 12:58 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 Parent Score: 2