Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 1st Mar 2009 17:26 UTC, submitted by kaiwai
Hardware, Embedded Systems Long-time OSNews reader Kaiwai has written down his experiences with his Acer Aspire One, Linux, and Windows. He concludes: "After a hectic few weeks trying to get Linux to work, I am back to square one again - a netbook running Windows XP SP3 as it was provided by Acer when I purchased it. I gave three different distributions a chance to prove themselves. I expected all three distributions to wipe the floor with Windows XP - after all, these are the latest and greatest distributions the Linux world have to offer. There has been at least 7 years since the release of Windows XP for Linux to catch up to Windows XP and from my experience with Linux on this said device - it has failed to step up to the plate when it was needed."
Thread beginning with comment 351223
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by bigbeck
by bigbeck on Sun 1st Mar 2009 21:19 UTC
bigbeck
Member since:
2009-03-01

Darknexus hit the nail right on the head. I started using computers about a year before Windows came out. That meant working with Dos. I hated it until a graphical menu system came out called Geoworks. Now the computer was easy to use. I mean you still had the problem of driver load order locking up the machine whenever you installed new hardware but overall it was much much easier than working from the command line.

I have the new and easy to use Puppy Linux. Installed easily with just a few clicks but I still had to edit a file to get Grub to work. Printer and internet configured easily. So far so good. Next I downloaded Kstars and Stellarium,unzipped them and proceeded to locate a setup or install file - nothing. Couldn't figure out how to install a couple of simple applications. Went to a Linux forum and found out that I had to use a compiler or some other tool from the dark ages. WTF! Too much BS. At first I thought Puppy Linux was Great - until I tried to install another program which should have taken a couple of clicks. As bad as XP is, it's still way easier and faster than Linux. Like others have said,it's not 1985. Simple is always best;) Maybe in a few more years Linux will catch up to Windows speed. Just for the record,I'm not a Micrsoft fan.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by bigbeck
by setec_astronomy on Sun 1st Mar 2009 21:46 in reply to "Comment by bigbeck"
setec_astronomy Member since:
2007-11-17

It's tempting to put the blame on you for choosing a distrobution which does not focus on providing (for example, since you wanted to use kstars) a nice KDE environment or non-mainstream niche programs (as much as I like stellarium, it is not a middle-of-the-road kind of application), because it is targeted at different useage scenarios and hardware usually too limited to run KDE or other graphically intense programs at reasonable speeds (puppy fans, don't shout at me, that is the impression innocent bystanders get). You may be able to install the corresponding KDE 3.x and the stellarium packages from Slackware (stellarium may only be available as a slackbuild or a contributed package via slacky.eu or linuxpackages.net, though) since Puppy has (iirc) a certain level of compability with recent Slackware releases (starting with 12.x, if I'm not mistaken).

In general, I try to refrain from posting "had you used distro xyz, everything would have worked marvelously" type of comments, because they
a.) don't help the persons having problems
b.) imply that they were to stupid to arrive at the "correct" distrobution by themselves and last but not least
c.) always provoke posts of the "well I'm using said distro xyz and while this or that may work, instead using feature foo is broken beyond recognition" type.

I would be interested to know why your choice fell on puppy (a fine distro, no arguments about that) instead of a distrobution with a more complete base repository of software, though.

More on topic, it would be interesting to know why manufactors of netbooks chose to either roll out their own half-baked, seldom updated distrobutions (acer/linpus, I'm looking at you) or go with a rather obscure player like Xandros instead of cooperating with established distros like the *butus, openSuse or Mandriva (or at least seem to have done so, during the first two waves of netbooks). If I remember correctly, this whole buisness started with the Everex PC and gOs.

And since so many users here seemingly have to build their own kernel drivers from sources: Do this popular, newbie friendly distrobutions really have no precompiled kernel module for the most common models (eee 70x/90x/1000, acer aspire one / MSI wind, etc.) in their repositories? I only have netbook - experiences with arch linux and although you have to perform several installation-steps manually after the vanilla setup has finished, there is a binary kernel package in a contributed repository (I choose to go with blind's kernel from AUR for my eee 1000h, but that is just because I prefer to stay close to the vanilla kernel)?

EDIT: various typos and gramatical errors
EDIT2: The first sentences were really not ready for primetime :-)

Edited 2009-03-01 21:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by bigbeck
by Doc Pain on Mon 2nd Mar 2009 02:46 in reply to "Comment by bigbeck"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I hated it until a graphical menu system came out called Geoworks. Now the computer was easy to use.


And when "Windows" was released, everything was harder to use again. :-)

No, honestly: GeoWorks was a very fine piece of software. In some regards, it had functions that even today's "Windows" doesn't have, such as the ability to detach menues or simple drag and drop between applications.

Next I downloaded Kstars and Stellarium,unzipped them and proceeded to locate a setup or install file - nothing.


I don't know the Linux distribution in particular (PuppyLinux), but I think it comes with a means intended to install software on it, maybe a kind of package manager (like apt-get, yum, pkg_*). THIS is the tool that is supposed to install software. If you need to download and unzip something, you're mostly doing something wrong on a mondern Linux distribution. Like with every toolset, you have to use the correct tool for the task. Downloading things (from the web) and manually installing them looks like "from the dark age" to me.

Couldn't figure out how to install a couple of simple applications. Went to a Linux forum and found out that I had to use a compiler or some other tool from the dark ages. WTF!


What do you think (binary) programs come from? Grown on trees? :-)

Honestly again: The advice you've been given seems to look strange. Modern Linux distributions usually don't require you to use a compiler or anything else to install software. Maybe you should have studied your toolset a bit more carefully? Of course, there are highly-customizable Linux distributions that do not come with installable precompiled software packages where compiling is needed. But if you use a modern Linux distribution that is "easy" to use (definition of "easy" depends on the standpoint and experience, as always), you can simply use the tools it provides to install software.

As bad as XP is, it's still way easier and faster than Linux.


Your standpoint and experience, not mine (which is exactly the opposite).

Like others have said,it's not 1985. Simple is always best;) Maybe in a few more years Linux will catch up to Windows speed.


Well, it already has. Of course there are distributions loaded with bloat and crap, just like the MICROS~1 products they want to imitate to make its new users "feel home" faster. You cannot take them to compare.

And you're mixing "simple" and "speed", both of them usually are individual feelings of the user. "Speed" is usually a term based on efficient algorithms and maximum control over hardware functionalities. "Simple" depends on, as I said, the standpoint and the experience of the user. What may look simple to me may look strange to you, and vice versa, such as manually downloading software... dark age of 1985... :-)

Just for the record,I'm not a Micrsoft fan.


Doesn't look this way to me, but I'll believe your statement. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by bigbeck
by bigbeck on Wed 4th Mar 2009 13:05 in reply to "RE: Comment by bigbeck"
bigbeck Member since:
2009-03-01

I hated it until a graphical menu system came out called Geoworks. Now the computer was easy to use.


And when "Windows" was released, everything was harder to use again. :-)

Yes, Windows was a joke compared to Geoworks. And Windows still is a joke compared to that 20 year old Geoworks.:-) Sad,but true.

Reply Parent Score: 1