ZDNews’ David Coursey is the person who was a long-time Windows user, but after pressure from his readers gave a month-long try to MacOSX, and since then he enjoys every minute with it. The other camp, the Linux users, now ask David to give a long shot at their favorite operating system. David installed Red Hat 7.3, and here is where he got stuck so far.Our Take: Some very valid points from David about how Linux distributions stack up today as desktop systems, on the other hand, Red Hat is targeting the server market and not the desktop. And by server market, it means that you do things the way the manual says, not how you figure them out to do or how it is done on other OSes. Given the fact that David is a Linux newbie, using a more user friendly distro like Lycoris or Mandrake would have been advisable. However, indeed, the user unfriendly problems David mentions are real limitations of how things working together on a Unix or compatible system, at least when this system is expected to behave as a “desktop” system.
Can a Windows User Learn to Love Linux?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
But it certainly doesn’t fit my perfect Linux distro vision… Maybe if he was comparing with his experience with Windows .NET Server or Mac OS X Server, he would be better off
Linux was my first go at a unix invorinment, and straight away i loved it. I loved how you could be loged in at once, and have various X session, and all the cool stuff the GUI could do. But while these are linux strengths they are also their weeknesses.
While these are good things, they are generaly slow and bloaty. For e.g, X. Big Fat and Slow.
I prefer BSD atm, but we’re recently got a new computer and ill be installing Gentoo and Debian on it soon, with possibly, netBSD and FreeBSD, which should be grand
.
My problem is there are just too many cool Operating Systems out there, and im afraid theres just not enough time to try them all
.
I notice that none of the comments to the article actually tell him
how to change screen resolution and depth on the fly.
Presumably you can do this on up to date Linux distributions. If not,
it’s certainly a major gap in the GUI engine.
You don’t want to run a game and a DTP program at the same resolution.
X isn’t that fat and slow you can do things on X that you won’t on other Graphic primitives providers or whatever to call them
Does X have Multi Monitor Support?
> you can do things on X that you won’t on other Graphic primitives providers or whatever to call them
Yes, things that 0.0000001% of the desktop users care about.
I think it’s fat and slow.
If I managed to install and set up Linux correctly (including XFree) 7 years ago, then it should be no problem now with all these tolls which distros include now. There is a control panel in latest versions of Mandrake (don’t know about RedHat, which was my very first Linux distro).
And yes, Linux supports multiple display devices with ease.
X has multi monito support
X let you export your display over the network
X let you have any virtual display and you can run more than one X server on the same machine
X is extensible
X isn’t perfect, but just bashing it because someone heard that someone said that in his opinion X has some flaws, is something idiot.
Try yourself an accelerated Xserver on a decent card on a decent DE/DS/WM, maybe you won’t like it or maybe you will
Its funny .. that some dude who knows enough about OSes to write technical articles about them is having problems installing Redhat in 2002. Why bother? Get a reinstalled machine or, better still, stick with what you know.
“Its funny .. that some dude who knows enough about OSes to write technical articles about them is having problems installing Redhat in 2002. Why bother? Get a reinstalled machine or, better still, stick with what you know.”
Right on. I’m a photographer and I started out with Redhat 4.2. Maybe I should apply for his job…..
Learn to love Linux enough to make it your primary OS? Well, that depends on what kind of user you are. Your chances are pretty good if ..
1) You hate Microsoft
2) You’re tired of Windows security and/or stability issues (though even hardcore Linux nuts will have to admit that with the advent of 2k/XP, stability isn’t as much of a problem as it used to be)
3) You find the Windows GUI too limiting
4) You don’t mind occassionaly (or sometimes often) reading documentation to figure out how things work
5) If free really matters to you and your own value system will not allow you to pirate software
6) You’re not intimidated by the command line
7) You like to tinker with and get into the guts of an OS (of course, you don’t HAVE to do this with Linux, but it is a nice bonus
However, you may run into problems if …
1) You’re a ‘non command-line’ power user who demands every bell and whistle (what the Linux crowd usually call useless crap) from the apps you use
2) You don’t want to or don’t have time to learn anything new, and want something that works just like Windows
3) You’re a hardcore PC gamer (though I understand WineX is working to eliminate this issue .. but is it there yet?)
4) You run certain professional quality specialized apps, such as audio/sound editors. (Of course, there are almost always open source alternatives out there that work for most people, but sometimes when you’re looking for that one feature …)
Well, what else can I say? Many people have tried Linux and found it to be quite a bit better than Windows. Some people (like myself) have tried it and gone back to Windows. But if I didn’t like Win2k so much, I’d probably be running Linux right now. IMHO, it’s all a matter of personal preference and not a matter lack of intelligence or being ‘brainwashed by M$’, as many of the Linux faithful would have you believe.
Yes, I know this is an article from a guy trying to migrate from Windows to Linux (well…), but:
Nice, that is, but only 640×480 pixels, significantly lower resolution than I’m used to. No problem, I’ll just open the control panel, find the video settings, and make the change. Except that there is nothing even remotely like a video control panel you’d find in Windows or the Mac OS.
How did you learn how to do this in Windows to begin with? Right clicking the desktop background or finding the right icon in the “control panel” isn’t more intuitive than whatever way Red Hat does the same thing. I installed RH some years ago and set the resolution without any problems afaic remember. I don’t think it has gotten any worse in the last few years. At that time I was a complete newbie in the Linux world.
I also agree with all the people saying that he should have chosen Mandrake/Suse/Lycoris instead.
Wonder if there will be another article about when the guy starts installing apps and end up in dependency hell???
“How did you learn how to do this in Windows to begin with? Right clicking the desktop background or finding the right icon in the “control panel” isn’t more intuitive than whatever way Red Hat does the same thing.”
I did it in Redhat 7.2 by running something like ‘XConfigurator’ .. easy, but not altogether obvious until I started digging through the docs. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’d say the Control Panel approach is a hell of a lot more intuitive
But, I have no idea of there’s an easier way of doing it either (that doesn’t involve the command line).
I agree, Suse or Mandrake would have been a much better choice for his purposes.
I did, so it’s obviously possible.
I only pimp myself out to a Windows environment occasionally at work. Otherwise, I handle most of the Linux work there too. I also don’t have a Windows machine at home.
IMHO, it’s all a matter of personal preference and not a matter lack of intelligence or being ‘brainwashed by M$’, as many of the Linux faithful would have you believe.
I don’t think that Linux faithful care what you or anyone else run. People trying to profit off of Linux might, but I doubt most users do. What stirs up the “brainwashed by MS” stuff is when people start spewing forth nonsense.
Instead of saying, “I like Windows because it fits my needs”, or, “I like Windows because its easy to use”, some say, “Windows is more stable than Linux”, or, “Windows is superior to Linux”. These two statements, and others like them, are documentably false. I think that’s when Linux faithful start getting irritated.
While these are good things, they are generaly slow and bloaty. For e.g, X. Big Fat and Slow.
X is a lot of things (difficult to configure for new users for instance), but big, fat, and slow are not attributes you can describe it with.
But that is so easy to log into a terminal (run xterm or press Ctrl+Alt+FX -> x=F1 to F6) as root or any 0 User ID (UID) and type mcedit /etc/X11/XF86Config!! Yeah, maybe not for a newbie, but it’s pretty good to go into the inner part of an OS do the all the things yourself. Or, at least, check the hell it out.
maybe that guy may found that option charming…
Its funny .. that some dude who knows enough about OSes to write technical articles about them is having problems installing Redhat in 2002. Why bother? Get a reinstalled machine or, better still, stick with what you know.
It’s funny… just the other day someone was saying how tiring it was to see reviews of the latest Linux distros that are NOT done by Linux junkies, & that we ought to see reviews done by first-time installers. So we get one, one, and the guy gets reamed… for telling the truth! You just can’t please everyone.
I thought the review was quite fair, esp. considering the installation h*ll two of us at my workplace went through with Linux.
The problems with X, and the problems with the Linux interface, have GOT to be fixed. But when people who aren’t even computer novices complain about them, Linux advocates just take this crappy attitude… If non-novices as well as novices have trouble with Linux installation, the problems are not with them!!!
Well, I’ve seen a lot of Linux users that are GUI zealots and don’t even know how to use the commandline except for logging in and starting X.
Myself I didn’t start my computing career with an UNIX system, but if I run an UNIX OS, there will be definitely be no KDE or Gnome on it. And on my BSD box at work I use to have avg 9 terminals in X11 to do my stuff fast. Some so-called Linux freaks at work even called me stupid for using the terminal :/ So…
Most of the Linux users are mainly just hating Microsoft. At least it looks like this to me.
This whole “you will of course love Linux, everybody does!” mentality doesn’t go that well with me. It’s not that I don’t think anyone should use linux, just that they shouldn’t make such outragous claims as much of the industry does (everything is the best, most inovate, blah blah blah).
I have used Linux, quite a lot, I still prefer XP. I have no trouble getting Linux for free, no problem installing it, I have configured most things and work with C/C++ on a daily basis. I am a power user in every fiber of my body, yet I don’t think Linux is vastly more powerful, nor better.
So, please don’t post more of these “Look at how much I hate Microsoft, let’s show the world how great linux is!” articles, they don’t say anything useful, ever. It would be like posting a link to Microsofts latest commercial (I can’t see how they could have made such dumb ass commercials for .NET, they should fire those people at once!).
Don’t turn into slashdot, please.
Using Mandrake 8.2 (btw – this has been the same since I moved to Mandrake a while ago at version 7.2) to change the display settings, click on the “Mandrake Control Centre” icon (it’s on the KDE desktop, otherwise use the menu under “Configure”). Enter the root password (or the special “system” password if you want, and that was the difficult bit), then click on the “Hardware Icon”, then “Display”. Then select the resolution from the drop down box (combo box in programming terms). Then it will ask you if you want to test it. Then it’s done.
You can also change loads of other stuff here: mouse, printer, scanner, keyboard, services, fonts, menus network connections and so on, and to be fair, the new 8.2 version of the control centre isn’t too bad.
No CLI, no hand editing config files, no obscure commands, no strange arcane bits of black magic either.
The Windows version is (I think) menu->Control Panel-> Display -> select resolution? – do you still have to reboot in the newer Windows versions?
The only real difference is having to enter the root password, which isn’t really a difficult thing. XConfigurator? I ran into it when I tried to install BSD. Hmm, not good at all, especially if you don’t have a mouse!
Using Mandrake 8.2 (btw – this has been the same since I moved to Mandrake a while ago at version 7.2) to change the display settings, click on the “Mandrake Control Centre” icon (it’s on the KDE desktop, otherwise use the menu under “Configure”).
The funny thing is that Mandrake was the distro which had most trouble identifying my Nvidia Geforce2 MX, which made setting the configuration (resolution, bpp & refresh rate) like I wanted it. Neither Suse, Redhat or Lycoris was nearly as difficult.
In my experience Mandrake is very easy as long as you don’t wan’t to change the presets drastically. When you reach that point Mdk seems harder than most other distros.
> Look at how much I hate
> Microsoft, let’s show the
> world how great linux is
Bashing so-called “linux zealots” has become a favouritie past-time. I am personally begining to think that the zealotry actually belongs to the anti-linux camp.
And talking of zealotry, what would you call somebody who says another OS is “cancerous”, or “unamerican”, and that XP is the “greatest invention by man”? What would you call someone who actually spends money to undermine other OSes?”
Seems to me like there are more Windows Zealots out there. Seems to me like the Windows zealots are the ones who also have the power, and likelyhood, to actually harm others.
So, if you wish to attack zealotry, you know where to begin.
“I think it’s fat and slow.”
Its open source, so signup and make it better.
1) You hate Microsoft
I dislike (mabye hate) Microsoft because their products (most of them) suck. So, yes.
2) You’re tired of Windows security and/or stability issues (though even hardcore Linux nuts will have to admit that with the advent of 2k/XP, stability isn’t as much of a problem as it used to be)
Yep
3) You find the Windows GUI too limiting
Limiting? That’s not really the word… insufficent might be a better word. Close enough, so, yes.
4) You don’t mind occassionaly (or sometimes often) reading documentation to figure out how things work
5) If free really matters to you and your own value system will not allow you to pirate software
Eh. I wont pirate software… free is good, but not necessary. 1/2 of the statement is correct.
6) You’re not intimidated by the command line
Correct, but I dont want to have to use it when there is (or could be) a faster and more practical way to do something.
7) You like to tinker with and get into the guts of an OS (of course, you don’t HAVE to do this with Linux, but it is a nice bonus
Not yet.
So, most of the aboce I agrred with, or partialy agreed with. However, I still dont like Linux. Windows sucks. Linux stinks (for my purposes). So, there is not a compeling reason for me to switch.
If I were to rate operating systems on a scale (1 being the worst, 10 being the best) this is about what it would be like
8 – BeOS (8, because of the lack of hardware support, lack of apps, and a few other things)
7.5 or 8 – MacOS X – a very nice OS, but not perfect
6 – Linux
4 – Windows 98
3 – Windows 95/ME/etc
I have not used XP enough to give it a rating. A guess would be that it would be anywhere from a 5 to a 6. Mabye 6.5… but I doubt it would get to 7.
3) You’re a hardcore PC game
Not hardcore, but I cant go completely away from windows because I do like games. I might could switch to the mac, it probley has enough games for me.
Windows is superior to Linux
Hmm, that can or cannot be a false statement. If he or she is talking about the OS it’s self, in a technical sense, it’s probley a false statement.
But, if you add to the equation the software that’s availbie, hardware support and tech support windows may seem superior to linux.
When I say that some os is is better than another, I am talking technicly. I factor in stuff like stability, security, easy of use, speed, etc. I do not add the range of availible applications (and I usualyy do not consider hardware support either)…
X is a lot of things <snip>, but big, fat, and slow are not attributes you can describe it with.
I dissagree, but I do not feel like debating that point today…
I have not used Windows at home for 3 years, but I have yet to have Linux do what I want. I just installed ELX — Because it touted a control panel — and am having a similar problem. There are tools in the control panel, but not to change the screen resolution. In my case, it’s too high. I have trouble reading the tiny text.
BeOS lets me change the screen by opening the Preferences folder. How do you change the sceen in Linux?
Sorry but…there’s nothing you could say in such a Win vs Linux discussion that hasn’t been said before.
“I think it’s fat and slow.”
“Its open source, so signup and make it better”
Ah, the good old it’s-open-source-so-you-are-not-allowed-do-critizise-it-argument.
A simpler solution is not to use it, I think.
I like some things about GNU/Linux but not the graphical stuff.
There are many ways, my favorite (i think this only works in XF3) is “Xsetup” run at a command prompt, it’ll ask you all the questions needed to setup all of X (though configuring the mouse itself can be a chore (hint tab + space)). There’s also xf86config, Xconfigurator, and others. Or, you can just edit /etc/X11/XF86Config yourself (its really not all that hard if you read the PLENTIFUL comments).
I’ll admit it, doing the “simple” stuff in linux may not be as easy as windows, but how often does that happen? I setup my X config once so far in 8months of using this new computer. Took me a while to learn samba and nfs, but it also took me a while to learn windows networking, which might i add, newbies arent too shit hot at either.
It doesnt matter what conclusion this guy gets to, if he says linux is good, ppl will say “he is wrong.” and if he says it sucks ppl will say the same. I read those articles not to see “if linux is ready for the desktop”, but to see how different people think of linux, different point of views. I personally fell in love with linux the minute i saw it, might not be the same for others.
Now is it fat an Slow. The some of the slowness is due to it useing TCP so the server and client can talk to each other. But note, this is also a great peice of functionality. Its like Windows, Heaps of functionality, but lots of bloat and slowness!
1) You hate Microsoft
Nah, I don’t hate Microsoft. I perhaps hate Netscape and Sun even more.
2) You’re tired of Windows security and/or stability issues (though even hardcore Linux nuts will have to admit that with the advent of 2k/XP, stability isn’t as much of a problem as it used to be)
I never had a security problem with Windows for the past… 7 years. Not bad.
3) You find the Windows GUI too limiting
Actually, I don’t find Windows XP GUI limiting. But for Windows 9x, if I’m forced to use it, I would use it with Litestep. But then I find Linux GUI too limiting…
4) You don’t mind occassionaly (or sometimes often) reading documentation to figure out how things work
The only time I read documentation was in 7.1 of Linux Mandrake, where I was trying to figure out where is the control panel for hardware and everything non-KDE.
5) If free really matters to you and your own value system will not allow you to pirate software
I’m against piracy of software. But I do use some non-free (as in freedom and price) software like Opera, WP Office (just uninstalled it, I hardly use it nowadays), and in the future, StarOffice 6.0.
6) You’re not intimidated by the command line
I never used command line until recently because of number 7.
7) You like to tinker with and get into the guts of an OS (of course, you don’t HAVE to do this with Linux, but it is a nice bonus
A very nice bonus.
1) You’re a ‘non command-line’ power user who demands every bell and whistle (what the Linux crowd usually call useless crap) from the apps you use
Wrong, it is the (what the GNU CLI hippy crowd usually call useless crap). However, if the apps I use have all the features I need, and want to use, well, I’m happy with it.
2) You don’t want to or don’t have time to learn anything new, and want something that works just like Windows
Then I would buy a Mac, yes? Or just reboot to Windows, yes? (PS, I was a total newbie/non-geek when I started using Linux Mandrake).
3) You’re a hardcore PC gamer (though I understand WineX is working to eliminate this issue .. but is it there yet?)
If I was a hardcore PC gamer, I wouldn’t consider Linux. OT, because WineX wraps DirectX commands around OpenGL, DirectX games on Linux is always slower, significantly when comparing with Windows.
4) You run certain professional quality specialized apps, such as audio/sound editors. (Of course, there are almost always open source alternatives out there that work for most people, but sometimes when you’re looking for that one feature …)
If that’s the case (audio and sound), you wouldn’t be using Windows either, right?). As for Open Source Altenatives, what is keeping them back is that
a) I never used that feature and don’t need it. I don’t want to implement it.
b) Oh look at the patents behind the feature!
Using Mandrake 8.2 (btw – this has been the same since I moved to Mandrake a while ago at version 7.2) to change the display settings, click on the “Mandrake Control Centre” icon…..
One of the many things Mandrake is continuously doing wrong is not putting control stuff in the KDE andd GNOME control panel. And then for the rest fo the WMs, have this Mandrake Control Center. One Mandrake Forum, they explain it for you why they didn’t do so. Shortening it: “We are lazy, we use Perl, Perl have no QT bindings, live with it”.
The funny thing is that Mandrake was the distro which had most trouble identifying my Nvidia Geforce2 MX, which made setting the configuration (resolution, bpp & refresh rate) like I wanted it. Neither Suse, Redhat or Lycoris was nearly as difficult.
Same here. But it didn’t matter. As long I can read the screen after installation to download NVidia’s drivers, it didn’t matter.
And talking of zealotry, what would you call somebody who says another OS is “cancerous”, or “unamerican”, and that XP is the “greatest invention by man”? What would you call someone who actually spends money to undermine other OSes?”
No one seems to be supporting the half truths about Linux, and that blatant lie about XP.
I have not used XP enough to give it a rating. A guess would be that it would be anywhere from a 5 to a 6. Mabye 6.5… but I doubt it would get to 7.
I would give XP a rating of 7, because it comes with annoying things like everytime you connect to the Internet, a balloon would ask you to get a .NET Passport, and also XP has quite a number of security problems, and there is some inconsitency in the UI, as some parts of the OS still use Win 9x style, and Win 9x icons.
Ah, the good old it’s-open-source-so-you-are-not-allowed-do-critizise-it-argument.
I think he was sacarstic.
You can see what resolutions X is set to by pressing CTRL-ALT-MINUS or CTRL-ALT-PLUS to cycle through them. If it doesn’t have the required mode you would have to set it up in XF86Config. For Redhat Et al you would use some configuration tool, since I use slackware I edit the file. Than you restart X and your desired resolution will be there. You can also change what resolution is first picked by X. The ease of doing this depends on your distribution not on Linux or X. Most people would chicken out in slackware but the next Lycoris seems to make it dead easy.
Of course if X was setup properly in the first place he wouldn’t need to do this.
I would like to see a review of such a person trying to install slackware, debian, BSD or LFS that would be interesting
Setting up X is always stupid compared to choosing display resolution and bit depth in any other modern operating system I’ve seen. I’m not sure it’s even possible to change the bit depth of the server without restarting it (the control-alt-keypad trick only changes resolution, as far as I know). There are distributions which make it relatively painless–but only relative to other X installs, not relative to Windows. I’ll agree it’s gotten a lot better than the days you had to set up the proper modelines yourself, down to the dot clock. The configuration utilities are better now, but I still usually find myself having to answer questions about my monitor’s refresh rates and/or editing the XF86Config file by hand for an initial setup. When the configuration utility “figures it all out” itself, it usually figures it all out with defaults I don’t like–usually the highest resolution it can find, at a godawful low refresh rate. A setting of “1024×768, 85 Hz refresh” is trivial in Windows or BeOS; it’s always, always, always been a trial to get it set up in X. And now that I’m using a USB keyboard/mouse… well, let’s just say it’s caused problems.
To whoever asked if Windows “still required rebooting when you changed resolutions,” um, I’ve never had to under Windows 95 or Windows 2000. Actually, I didn’t need to do that under Windows 3.1 the times I ran it at work many years ago with a Number 9 video card. There are a lot of valid reasons to throw bricks through Windows, but that ain’t one of ’em.
Setting up X is always stupid compared to choosing display resolution and bit depth in any other modern operating system I’ve seen.
The weird thing is that in Linux I have never changed my screen depth since I chose it. I have no problems with applications asking to change the depth or anything.
Which kinda makes your point moot. Setting the screen depth in windows normally requires a reboot since all the icons end up wrong.
And besides your only talking about XFree86 have you used any other X server?
Which kinda makes your point moot. Setting the screen depth in windows normally requires a reboot since all the icons end up wrong.
I change resolutions on this laptop a lot of times, when connecting it to the TV. Most of the icons end up properly, except is you have to many, and end up having some above the others…. I never reboot to change the resolution.
No the colour depth of the icons ends up wrong.
No the colour depth of the icons ends up wrong.
I have never had a problem with wrong icons after changing colour (‘screen’?) depth: not under Windows 95, any of the versions of NT, nor Windows 2000. Yours sounds like a display driver problem.
Ah, I understand what you mean now: when you switch colour depth and high-colour icons are in use, they end up wrong? Yes, I’ve seen that on Small Windows (and maybe NT 4). Windows 2000 apparently doesn’t suffer from it though.
Well the answer to “Can a Windows User Learn to Love Linux?” is profusely obvious. Most linux people are windows converts, which is why I say that it is obvious.
X11R6 sucks. I find it laughable anybody would try to defend it. Even when it was first created it didn’t have routines for scrolling or drawing paths. Its multi-monitor support stinks too. You have to find a wm which supports it (many claim to, none do it well) and you can’t even add new displays without restarting the whole X server!
You don’t think that happens a lot? It happens all the time when you use a Powerbook.
X ought to be scrapped. Unfortunately UNIX has a bad history of getting rid of legacy.
The answer to the question from Don Cox and others is “You can’t” or a more expansive answer “You can’t yet, but if people still want to we’ll get around to it eventually”
There is no “get a new GC and redraw yourself” event in X so there is no way to change the bitdepth of existing applications connected to the server. Future extensions to X11R6 will allow you to change the native bitdepth and create new visuals for the new applications, while old applications remain connected to visuals which are now emulated.
This is more or less what happens to simple apps on Windows when the bitdepth changes (which is why Windows continues to recommend that you restart the whole system)
Personally I hope that 8-bit and 15-bit/16-bit displays die out completely. No-one should have to put up with nasty dithered graphics.
To change the native resolution and bitdepth on X you would ordinarily change the config files (e.g. XF86Config) with either a configuration tool or a text editor, and then restart X. This kind of sucks, but most people only do it when they buy a new monitor or video card.
You can switch to a lower display resolution in X by using API calls just like in DirectX, so e.g. movie players and games will do it automatically. Users can also change display resolution using hotkeys, but X always keeps the virtual resolution (desktop size) constant, so most users don’t want this.
BTW Red Hat probably isn’t the easiest Linux distribution in which to configure X nicely, but if you have a Matrox card you can get a nice graphical MATROX branded X display config app which will run on any common distribution. Actually it runs for non-Matrox hardware too, but most of the features (e.g. Clone to TV) don’t work