Hello there, I am a Newbie [Archive]

Yippee38

12-21-2000, 01:32 PM

This article hits the nail on the head. Although I'm a little less desktop-centric that the author and don't mind fiddling, I agree with all he's said. I purchased SuSE 7.0 about 2 months ago (upgrading from 6.3) and found it much easier to use than the previous version. However, I'm still not up and running with it for several reasons. 1) Since I'm on DSL, I'm wading through the security issues and setups. This is a real pain for a non-network admin like me. 2) I dread setting up sound. Because I've got an Aureal Vortex running on an Athlon mobo, I know that it will make my system totally unstable as soon as I set it up. 3) Mostly, as the author said, I just want to use it. Once in a while, I will feel like sitting down and rebooting to Linux to try to figure out the next step in setting the system up. Most times, I just want to sit down and use my system. Windows is working now, so I use it now.

I've also seen comments that reflect what the author is saying. For example, I've seen comments to the effect of, "I could get into more detail, but if I walked you through it step-by-step, you wouldn't learn anything." I don't have an aversion to learning something new, but I am not the normal user. My Dad for example, will never use Linux because he doesn't care what a kernel is, nor does he want to. He wants to be able to push the power button, enter his password and start playing Red Alert 2. When he gets Quake 3 Team Arena, he wants to be able to put the CD in the CD-ROM and let the install run with minimal intervention. He wants to plug his digital camera into the USB port, import his pictures and maybe e-mail them to me via AOHell. Until he and the mass of other users (I said USERS) can do those types of things with the same relative ease that they can in Windows, Linux doesn't stand a chance on the desktop.

OTOH, I hate Windows' instability and would LOVE to see Linux address these issues.

Yippee38

frustratedlinuxnewbie

12-21-2000, 01:35 PM

well, i think the article's points are valid. there's this old documentary i saw a few weeks ago. the triumph of the geeks. evidently the success of M$ was its GUI implementation. well, yes mac has a better GUI but it's so darn expensive and M$ has more apps. i don't think availability of apps is a problem with linux. we have lots of free apps already! the dilemma is how to make those apps and the linux OS available to the mere mortals. i believe there is a project started by some members of lno that died down. the lno linux distro? maybe we could revive that project and focus on the ultra newbies. those who only want to "use" the PC unlike us techies. and maybe we could give more attention on the input from non-techies. what do you think guys? do we want linux to be used only by the tech-loving geeks or do we want to destroy the evil eM$pire and change the world?

... or maybe we could wait for mandrakesoft or suse to make their distros more newbie friendly and change the world for us http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
I'm bored :(

mrBen

12-21-2000, 01:41 PM

One of the things that I think will make a big difference is the big name support that Linux is now getting. For instance IBM is putting loads of effort in. What could this do, I hear you ask. Well, think about this. IBM owns OS/2 Warp, which is very similar to Windows. What if IBM decided to lend a hand to the WINE project? Plus, once the Linux userbase grows, hardware vendors will have to start producing Linux drivers. Things like this I think bode well for the future.

I believe that Linux can be the future of the desktop. I reckon it can be all things to all men, from USERS to GEEKS and everything in between. But it'll take time. Part of the problem is the number of users who quickly become geeks and forget how to be users.

allard

12-21-2000, 01:50 PM

mrBen argues that we should convince GUI users to love the command line.

That won't get it done.

I am an expert UNIX command line user and have been since 1976!

Yet, I would not wish this on anyone.

The original article contains several items that I totally agree with and frustrations I have had. UNIX has a tradition of very good code with very cryptic (but pretty darn complete) documentation. I too always have to to do research to remember how to use the rpm command. I too can't stand the file managers in Linux -- not because I prefer the command line but because the file managers suck.

The Linux GUI designes sometimes seem more concerned about background patterns and pretty icons than practical keep-it-simple design.

Linux should have a GUI equivalent of the Win Control Panel. Linuxconf bites. Get RID of it. I end up having to write my own network config script, so lame are the built-in Linux network config tools.

One idea: (this would give us the best of both worlds) Have a GUI Control Panel that *both* configures things for you *and* tells you exactly what files/scripts are affected by the change. Linuxconf does a horrible job of that. Part of the problem may be a lack of config standards - sometimes things are in files declaratively sometimes they are commands in scripts and everyone and their brother has a different way to write a script.

-- Dennis (http://oceanpark.com)

Shad

12-21-2000, 01:57 PM

What must be remembered is that command line commands are used because they are the Lowest Common Denominator. Just like most MS Winndows programs had a quick start that said click on Start, click onRun, then type g:\setup.exe
even though you popped in the cd and the Setup would autorun. They put that there just in case autorun wouldn't work.

One doesn't tell one to open up kpackage or if that is not available open Yast, or open GnoRPM, or even use alien to convert to deb, et al. You tell them rpm -i file.rpm

Much of what he describes seems to have already been done. If you read the manuals for RH or Mandrake, they list the steps in a fashion similiar to what was outlined. Heck even an old copy of Linux for Dummies does the same thing.

My Dad, who is not even comfortable with a Mac, can sit down at my Linux box and browse the web, or type up a report. Using Linux is not terribly difficult. The problem everyone runs into is that there is a different subset of hardware that works with Linux than that wich works with Windows.

------------------
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

YaRness

12-21-2000, 01:59 PM

i was talking about something like this somewhere else on this board. i think you guys nailed it.

most people want to drive the car, not build it. s'why most people have windows/aol. geeks have linux because they either WANT to build it/fix it, or get ticked enough about the car not being good enough that they LEARN to build it or fix it. and, most importantly, geeks are capable of learning to fix the car. not everyone is a geek.

------------------
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind."
Registered Linux User #188285 http://counter.li.org/
------------------

mrBen

12-21-2000, 02:08 PM

Hey http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/frown.gif - I didn't says I wanted people to love the CLI, just know how to use it. If you have a car (see above) you may not be able to replace the alternator, but you sure as hell better be able to change a tyre.
Plus, think about the touch-typing analogy. What I was trying to say was not that everyone should be forced to learn it but that they should be made aware that this is an 'expert' option that might be worth an investment of time in to learn something about.

michealk

12-21-2000, 02:28 PM

I am not a Linux Newbie. For the record, I've been using Linux since pre-1.0 kernels (1993), calculated and wrote my first XF86Config file by hand, and am currently employed as an Embedded Linux Developer at a company in Ottawa, ON, Canada.

I read with interest the Hello there, I am a Newbie article. The author does make a number of interesting and valid points, however I find fault with a few of his assertions and conclusions.

First, Linux was never intended to be sold as a commercial OS. I'm sure the thought may have crossed Linus' mind now and then while he was coding the first few kernels, but he just wanted a decent, UNIX-like OS for himself. There's the keyword: UNIX. UNIX is and always will be a command-line driven OS that is not known for it's userfriendliness. No matter how pretty an X-Windows face you put on it, the heart of the beast is an ugly, confusing, but extremely powerful command-line oriented interface.

The author seems to view Linux as a way to abandon his reliance on Microsoft products. He repeatedly refers to Windows in a deragatory manner, and expresses his wish to "BEAT BIG BILL!!!". Fine, I agree with some of the sentiment. But someone please tell me *why* the hordes of dissatisfied Windows users have chosen to place their hopes of a Microsoft-free environment in a UNIX BASED OS? As I mentioned earlier, UNIX is ugly, and not for the faint-hearted! There are other alternatives out there. Be (http://www.be.com) offered an *excellent* desktop replacement OS, that effectively hid the command line, offered incredible multimedia performance, and had a nice, easy-to-use GUI to boot! Why Linux? It doesn't seem the natural choice for someone who identifies himself as a "USER", who doesn't want to deal with "engine room" stuff. Would this same individual install Solaris for x86? How about SCO Unix? One of the OpenBSD family? No? Then *why* Linux? Why does he expect it to be *any* different than any other Unix or Unix-like operating system?

Don't get me wrong: I love Linux, and I use it exclusively as my desktop OS. But I understand Unix, I know how to work with it. I know that when my ISP changes the DNS servers around, I can go edit /etc/resolv.conf with vi. But I don't think that Unix is for everyone, and I think the media has really misled a lot of Windows and Mac users with their Linux hype.

Now, on to the rest of his article, which I will address on a point-by-point basis:

1. Linux went nowhere until the graphic interface and AUTO-install came onto the scene.

What is your definition of nowhere? At that time, Linux was still being used extensively on the Internet to provide web and ftp services, among many other things. Technical users were quite happy with it. If you mean it went nowhere as far as a typical "USER" was concerned, then please see my previous point about the intended audience of a UNIX OS.

2.We NEVER, EVER want to confront the Command Line!

Again, perhaps you should pick an OS that is not based on a command-line interface.

3. It needs to change for us all to win.

At this point, I'm going to stop -> All of his points are basically complaints about the nature of Unix itself. Statements such as "I don't even think Linux should be 'free'", and "I paid $20 for my Distributions of M72 and RH7 very, very happily, but they are supported by well-meaning total geeks" only serve to illustrate his ignorance of the subject.

To summarize, Linux has more in common with other Unixes such as BSD, Solaris, SCO, and HP-UX, than it does with Windows. If you wouldn't install one of those on your system, you shouldn't consider installing Linux. There are very, very nice GUIs out there, and excellent configuration tools. However, make no mistake: Linux *is* Unix in nature. You *will* have to get your hands dirty, and you *will* have to use a command line. Do not expect things to be served to you on a platter as in Windows or Macintosh. If that's what you want, then either stick with those *user* platforms, or find another similar one (again, I point out the excellent, oft-neglected BeOS).

You wouldn't expect an F16 to be as simple to operate as a standard Cessna, would you?

michealk

12-21-2000, 02:37 PM

One other thing I noticed: Several people have complained about the built-in tools in Linux.

I'd like to point out that Linux is really pretty much the kernel (usually in /boot/vmlinuz) and the kernel modules in /lib/modules. Everything else is *not* Linux. The rest of those files that come with your distribution are *not* Linux. The Linux operating system is actually quite small. *All* the other tools, utilities and software that is included in a distribution are included by the company or organization that produces the distribution.

So, if you have a problem with "Linuxconf" (and who doesn't? It is pretty bad), please remember that it's not Linux you have a problem with: It's a piece of 3rd party software. Just as Microsoft Office is a separate software package, and *isn't* the Windows OS.

mrBen

12-21-2000, 02:47 PM

I read michealk's response with interest. Way to go. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif Personally, I have always been a command line fan - I used DOS all the time. But I'm not a full on hacker, just a part-time geek. I like to fiddle in my spare time, and use the GUI for day-to-day stuff. (Also a big Vi fan http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/wink.gif )

Also I agree on the BeOS front - nice OS and worth checking out the personal edition. However, I do believe that Linux can be an OS for ex-Windows users, but it depends on why they're fed up with Windows. If you want more power over your environment, and want to tinker, then Linux is great. If you simply need a 'cheap' option, then perhaps BeOS is better.

IMHO

------------------
mrBen

Broken

12-21-2000, 02:48 PM

I am a Linux newbie. Piecing together my own system I thought I could boot it with Linux Mandrake and the minimals(500mhz AMD K62, 64mb RAM, 2 gig HD, and an old Cirrus Logic graphics card). Installation went smoothly, but when restarted the screen would flash with the command line or not boot with X. I even ventured further to try Corel Linux with hopes of success. Failure. I could really use a simple How-To manual as discussed, something a high school freshman could comprehend after a PC intro class. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/confused.gif

ixll

12-21-2000, 02:49 PM

I totaly agree with what he is saying about simplifying the whole linux experience. The majority of people who use linux at this point in time are coders or ultra geeks that can't stand the MS man. The rest of the public can't stand the MS man either but have no other choice at this point because 99.99% of the world barely has time to take a crap let alone learn how to compile a kernel. What needs to be done is get Linux to have the ability to look, feel, and operate in very much the same way as Windows 9X does. The problem with MS Windows isn't that it is full of bad ideas it is just full of bad code. You make an OS that has the same options as MS Windows for the casual user then you will see the linux community explode. "You mean I can install this Linux thingy and do the same things that Windows does but never see another GPF in my entire life... And it's free?!?!" No sane person would stick with windows.

Any idiot with a half hour of time can load Windows and be on the net in around an hour and a half. I tried loading linux a couple of months back and took me three weeks just to figure out how to install a program once I had it loaded. Granted it did load my sound, web browser, and get my nic running during the install but that does me no good when I can't figure out how to load an MP3 player or even how to download a file because it is cryptic. This whole thing needs to be brought back down to the basics. What do people, in general, want?

Easy internet access

Easy E-Mail Access

Easy Word Processing

Easy Financial Tracking

A few simple games to play

No one really needs to know what a command line is or even that it exists. How many Windows users do you know have used the command prompt... Ever? I know quite a few that don't even understand what a c:\> prompt is. But these same people are the ones out there spending 3-400$ a month on new programs and games for windows because any idiot can get a program and load it without problems. But maybe >1% of the stuff on retail shelfs out there actually works with linux out of the box. Most you need to hunt down some patch or hack and load it manually using the command line. Not fun for the vast majority of computer users.

Tigger

12-21-2000, 02:50 PM

On the lines of mrBen's stuff about cars.

What I think these users need is like a driving lesson.

Imagine getting into a car for the very first time.

How do you start it?

What does the circular thing do?(steering wheel)

What are those things on the floor for?

What is the stick for?

How do I get it to go from my house to the mall?

For those of us that know how to drive, this is very easy but for those that have never seen a car before, how would they cope?

I think this is the issue that the article is stressing. We all know how to use computers and those of us that have a great deal of experience with dos,unix and other CLI based OS'(other mainframe OS' included), the transition to linux was not all that intimidating. To those that really only know computers from the windows or mac gui perspectives, the CLI is very daunting.

I personally can fix cars and most electronics devices(vcr's and tv's included). How many of you can do that with comfort. I wouldn't recommend fixing tv's and stuff like that unless you understand the underlying principles of the thing. You surely don't need to know how to adjust the convergence or colour gains to be able to watch TV? Do You?

Linux has been an elite club for geeks mainly until recently due to all the stock market hype and the big players like IBM.

I would like to see a wider adoption of Linux and greater ease of use for those that just want to use it as a home workstation. I see Linux as a very real possibility for the youth in some third world countries to get a chance to be involved in the large global information highway. If we can educate the youth, they can help their countries better survive in the world today. For these people that have very little to start with, a free OS like Linux is great for financial reasons but intimidating for technical reasons.

Linuxnewbie was started by Sensei for this very reason!

I am going to start writing a few more NHF's with this in mind.

I personally prefer to do things from the CLI but then again, I have been tinkering with computers for 20 years now so I am very accustomed to it.

This should be used as a wake-up call to the whole community(distro vendors included) to get through the standardization issues as soon as possible and move forward to a bright future!

Bottom Line - let's not get upset with these kinds of remarks or articles, let's do something to try to eliminate them!

It will only get better as we move forward and we will all benefit from it.

Just my $.02 http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif

ghmitch

12-21-2000, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Tigger:
We all know how to use computers and those of us that have a great deal of experience with dos,unix and other CLI based OS'(other mainframe OS' included), the transition to linux was not all that intimidating. To those that really only know computers from the windows or mac gui perspectives, the CLI is very daunting.

I agree 100%. This is the heart of the issue. The topic of the article is in fact itself a bit confusing. The term 'newbie' should have been 'non-technical newbie'. There is a difference. I believe that the needs of these new 'non-technical' users should be and are being addressed, but that takes time. In the mean time, if they really want to be on the 'cutting edge', I would urge them to seek out technical assistance at an install fest or such. Once installed, in my experience, point and click does the job.

Linuxman

12-21-2000, 03:34 PM

Can I cast a shadow on this issue and discussion? I don't agree with the author of that article at all. I could not disagree more with everything he writes.

When I decided to take the plunge, I did some research to find out which distro was most newbie friendly – that was over two years ago. I purchased The Complete Idiot's Guide to Linux as a handy resource. I had no trouble installing Caldera’s OpenLinux 1.3 and even purchased a Slackware version to see what it was like. Even Slackware back in 1998 wasn't that bad. The distros now are much more newbie friendly than back then.

Another thing I did was search for resources on the internet which brought me to this place – the most user-friendly, newbie friendly, ****, the most friendly place, I’ve ever been online. If you have a question, big or small, easy or complex, you get answers here - without an elitist attitude. Even some of the more dreadful and boorish members of this community will offer valid, cogent advice when presented with a Linux-related question from another community member.

Sorry, Mr. Rigby, but I don’t believe you when you say 9,999 out of 10,000 want to do things your way or the way you describe – it’s just not true. Many people don’t mind getting into the guts of the computer and software, especially the younger generation. Frankly, my wife still uses WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS which is, if you don’t know, a command line program.

Two pieces of advice I can offer: 1) set this place, LNO, as a bookmark to frequent regularly and get your answers here from knowledgeable people who went through the tough part of Linux; and, 2) get a distro like StormLinux or Caldera’s OpenLinux 2.4 to see how easy it could be to use Linux.

------------------
ADOPTION not abortion. Proud father of an adopted boy.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!

NFL Week 16
Ravens 13, Arizona 7
Not pretty, but they got it done. Hey, Dilfer was due for a bad game.
W 11
L 4
Next Week, the Jets at Home. At least they get the fewest points allowed in a season record.

guitarlyn

12-21-2000, 03:59 PM

A newbie OS without any special configuration? There are a few I can suggest for the person that fits the profile of the retired man that are rarely suggested. Why not QNX RTL or BeOS. These are free downloads, can run from a DOS partition, have autodetection that blows anything in Linux away as a whole, and have autoupdates that don't have the dependancy problems. They also provides the services that the writer wants. They are propietary, but that doesn't seem to be a concern. If the user is stuck on an actual Linux distro, then MaxOS fits the bill with a Windows like desktop and Control Panel for configuration (though the hardware detection is not up with QNX or BeOS). The reiser file system is also 10x's faster than ext2 and the install is maybe 30 minutes for a full install. I think these suggestions would be more in-line with what the writer wants.

Hope this helps,
~Guitarlynn

Gargoyle_sNake

12-21-2000, 05:13 PM

But, I HIRED excellent technical people

I picked this up right away, here we have a perfect specimen from the clueless "management" side of the IT world. Now you can really see the perspective of all those non-techie IT managers who think they know the best route for us lackey geeks. I almost came into this with a 'we dont WANT you as a linux user' attitude, but in an effort to calm myself and promote peace and well being, I will not. Sir, the command line interface, while lost souls such as yourself are terribly afraid of not being able to CLICK one of 2/3 mouse buttons on something, is a much more useful and powerful interface. 101-key keyboard vs. 3 button mouse. hmm. And yes, when I'm in windows I navigate using the keyboard as much as possible. The "free" part of linux is EXACTLY what keeps people coming to it. Open and free. Be in the know, become a geek, learn to use the CLI, you dont have to love it, just know it. Sheesh. Stupid computers. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
---------
-=Gargoyle_sNake
http://www.thekult.org

Slacker7

12-21-2000, 06:09 PM

I think the argument was very well written. I feel we MUST have a set standard in Linux distros instead of tossing thousands of programs at a newbie who just installs a distro, not really knowing what hes doing. Im still somewhat a newbie, using Slackware7, and with many distros I have tried, ive felt overwhelmed at the amount of packages installed. Just my 2 cents...

michealk

12-21-2000, 06:30 PM

I notice a continuing trend in responses to this post. Statements such as "It should be easy to use - something someone who's completed a high-school PC intro course can do" are prevelant in the replies. One person even states something to the effect of "We're all fed up with MS too, but we don't have any other options!!!"

First off, as per my previous reply, Linux is derived from Unix. Unix is *not* an operating system that can easily be grasped after a simple high-school level Intro to PCs course! You have to understand that Unix has been the domain of computer science gurus at universities throughout the world for years now. Additionally, it's not new! It was developed in the 60's, from research and work done in the 50's. This means that irregardless of whether you're running Linux, or Ultrix, BSD, or some other Unix flavor, there's a *lot* to learn.

I'm afraid my earlier post may not have clearly represented my thoughts on Linux and Newbies. To clarify: I think Linux is great, and I would love to see hundreds of thousands of people switch from Windows to Linux. However, realistically, a portion of these people do not need the power and configurability of a Unix system! Much like the author of the article, they don't want to see a command line, and don't need to remember cryptic commands like "ps -ef | grep netscape | grep -v grep | awk '{print $2}' | xargs kill" (don't do this or you'll kill all instances of Netscape... http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif.

The strange thing is, these non-Unix types are clamouring for Linux - they *must* install it on their machines! ANYTHING to get out from under Bill & Microsoft's thumb! But surprise! Once they get a working Linux system up and running, they find out that it's *not easy to use*, that the GUIs are confusing, that command line interfaces rule the day, and that something as simple as printing a file seems to be a painfully complex exercise.

Unix is *not* for everyone! Just as a Hummer isn't for every driver! An operating system should be and *is* a tool. Use the right tool for the right job. Running webservers, doing development work, performing analysis of data, or providing a highly configurable environment. THAT'S what Unix/Linux is good for. If you want to surf the web, send email, and write documents, and don't want to get "under the hood", then you *really* don't need the power of Linux or Unix.

An interesting phenomenon: Microsoft and the media have brainwashed people into believing that "there can be only one!". If it's not Microsoft, it's got to be Linux! That's not the case. With proper protocols, file formats, and standards, it doesn't matter *what* OS you run - it's the data that makes the difference.

There are alternatives besides Linux, and I highly recommend them to anyone who doesn't want to get their hands dirty with an OS. Check out BeOS (http://www.be.com) for starters.

On the other hand: If you're not afraid to get your hands dirty, enjoy learning something new, and love the thought of completely and totally customizing your system, by all means, please stick with Unix and Linux. But be aware, there are some rough times ahead - the road's getting smoother every day, but you'll still hit a pothole now and then. Luckily, other Linux users tend to give a tow to whoever needs it.

Shad

12-21-2000, 07:22 PM

How many people here have put together a computer and then installed an OS on it? Linux does a hell of lot better job than even the latest from Redmond. Go ahead, put together a computer from various oddball parts and try to load up ME. Where do you go if it locks up? It does happen. What do you do if the drivers are not in ME? What do you do if there are no drivers for your modem on the install CD? And you don't have the drivers CD?

John would have been alot better to compare a prebuilt Linux box then this. From the tone of the article it sounds like he would never think to install MS Windows on bare hardware. Why should the installation of Linux be any different? Or better yet, install a dual-boot with Win2k.

From his view point it sounds like he would go out and buy a Win2k machine if that was what he needed. If he wants a Linux machine he probably would have much better luck with a p[re-built one. Several companies offer them. And they come as both Desktops and Laptops. Even some of the big boys like IBM or Dell are offering them. If you go with a smaller shop like pogolinux, they probably would even cnfigure them machine for x printer, scanner, or whatever you are going to add at your request.

Then see how hard it is to use, particulary after you have RTFM. I mean it. I have the manuals for RH6.1. They contain a lot of useful info about both doing things with CLI and GUI. I seriously doubt that RH7 has changed that much with its manuals. MDK7.1 was the same way, if even more user friendly.

See my reasoning on the Start>Run issue with Windows Programs on why everything is give from CLI perspective.

I know the with Mandrake I was able to install Q3A from a GUI. I doubled clicked on the CDROM drive, then I doubled clicked on Install, and away we went. This wouldn't have worked with say Caldera. That is why there are CLI instructions. They should work for everyone. If they don't work exactly (ie /cdrom instead of /mnt/cdrom) the use should hopefully be familiar enough with his system to infer the proper procedure.

------------------
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

Strike

12-21-2000, 07:39 PM

My opinions thus far are perfectly in step with michealk's responses. Here are a few more things...

Do I think it'd be neat to see people extend Linux so that it would be as "easy to use" as Windows without all the crashes? Sure, and it can be done (and probably will be with all the hype we've got going). Do I find it a necessary thing to insure the success of Linux? No. Linux will live on when it stops being a fad. It doesn't need money backing it up, so it will only die when people stop developing it in their spare time.

While it may seem weird that I don't agree with the article, being a moderator here at LNO and all, it really isn't. I encourage everyone to try Linux, but it really is NOT for everyone. I have the best time helping people who are really hungry to learn and who want to dig deeper to the heart of the problem. That's the kind of person I am, and that's the kind of person that I think has the greatest success in dealing with UNIX-like systems. Now, seeing as how I am a HAL on these boards, I will probably never tell someone "maybe Linux isn't for you", no matter how badly I feel that way. But I have no problems saying that I pass judgment on people's posts, and if it seems to me like helping them wouldn't really convince them to use Linux then I will move on to the next one.

Also, one last thing - I believe Linux distributions (emphasis on this, because the kernel itself isn't getting any "easier") will become much more easy to use for the general public because it will be more familiar to more people. That's the big win that Windows has going for it right now - it is a standard (sadly). People are shocked to NOT see Windows on a PC. When that begins to change and people start to see Linux on desktops, fewer people will be clueless about Linux. It fits into the car analogy as well. People don't learn to drive at driver's eductaion classes. People learn how to drive by observing others doing the same thing time and time again. People don't learn to use Windows easily because it's well layed out. People can easily learn Windows because they've seen it used a million times. You turn the tables on that, and you decrease the steepness of the learning curve.

Death on Wheels

12-21-2000, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by michealk:
Just as a Hummer isn't for every driver!

WHAT?!

http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/confused.gif

------------------
Kurt Weber
Shell scripts? Shell scripts? We don't NEED no stinkin' shell scripts!
White, heterosexual, middle-class, and proud!
I've never understood why Bill Gates would name his company after his penis.

[This message has been edited by Death on Wheels (edited 21 December 2000).]

a2o917

12-21-2000, 09:30 PM

Linux is very complicated for a first time user who just wants to get away from Bill and MS. Redmond Linux is a distro being developed by a Linux guy who wants to make life simpler for these people. It is sopost to be able to hide the command line and let the users use KDE. The developer says that he wants people like his wife and mother to feel comfortable using it. tho it is TOO simple for me I can see if it turns out good recomending it for new users.

rayh

12-21-2000, 10:29 PM

Wonderful article ... like a long awaited stake-thu-the-heart to the Linuxweenies who want nothing more than a dirty keyboard to grope their fav electro-mechanical blow-up doll.
From computer systems the weenies want pain, obscurity and complexity ... and whine like whipped pigs when any advance is made to promote useful work.
Squeak, weenies, while your freeze-dried and powdered, cause weeniedom is a BUG, not a feature of information processing systems ...

lacunar

12-21-2000, 11:10 PM

I have read your note Mr. Newbie. My conclusion is that maybe you have the wrong operating system? I hope that the following comments don't make you angry. Because that is not my intent. I only want to say that it is my belief that if you are not a sort that has the pioneer spirit, Linux may not be for you. You still seem to want the world of convenience that the GUI offers. I have been working with Linux since the RH 5.2 days. The interfaces have become better, not perfect, but better. There are many sites and resources such as this one. From my own personal experience, I'll offer this comment:Linux people are generally those who have worked very hard to obtain the level of expertise they enjoy. They will help you, but you are going to have to work for the knowledge. Same holds true for the operating system. You are going to have to work to master this one.

Tigger

12-21-2000, 11:38 PM

Like or not, Linux has become somewhat of a corporate interest and unless it can get more desktop market share, it might just end up as an embedded OS for internet devices.

More and more hardware companies are making these "Internet Appliances", which I might add, Linux is very well suited to. If Linux becomes only an OS for embedded devices, the desktop support might slowly disappear and we would all be forced to run another OS.

I think it is great that one single CD with a Linux Distribution on it can become anything from a router and firewall to a web server to a home desktop system. It is this versatility that has helped it come as far as it has. As more people become interested in it, the better it gets cause programmers keep adding functionality and usefullness to it.

Whether people like or not, GUI's have helped the PC reach its level of popularity and widespread use. A quick glance at a colour filled graphical display of a chart or network snapshot allows us to quickly see what is happening and continue with something else. Less time gets wasted looking through heaps of data and more time gets spent keeping things running smooth.

Linux has a great deal of user friendliness and ease of use provided that the user has been given a little roadmap or as some of us may remember, the little templates that were put on keyboards to aid with applications like lotus 123 and word perfect. Think of how something like Word Perfect would have been like without a template for the keyboard for the beginning user.

Linux is not some kind of guarded secret reserved for only the elite programmers. It may have started as an OS only for programmers to learn on and tinker with but they kept adding to it. If we would have kept that same initial mentality about Linux, almost everyone at Linuxnewbie would not be using it cause we are not all programmers. It is just another step in the logical evolution of the OS and I whole-heartedly believe that everyone should be able to enjoy the stability and robustness of this wonderful OS we have all come to love.

Lets not forget about the wonderful technology of cars. The early car owners had to almost be mechanics to keep them running but many people with great ideas(like Ford who thought everyone should have a car) helped to make it the simple necessity it has become today. I think some of you are a little too quick to try to stop the progress that is inevitable.

I have noticed a great deal of change in the types of questions here on LNO. As the distros are getting easier to install and configure, the types of questions are changing. A large number of the old questions I used to answer are no longer asked. It has been constantly evolving and will continue to do so.

So to the person who wrote the initial article that sparked all this, I must just say :

PLEASE BE PATIENT AND ASK YOUR QUESTIONS HERE AT LNO. THINGS ARE CHANGING AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE YOUR "WISHES" COME TRUE.

There are a lot of good people here that are more than willing to help you, and others like you, out.

WELCOME!

ndogg

12-21-2000, 11:39 PM

I have to agree, yet disagree, with michaelk and Strike, I don't think Linux is for everybody, but the reason everybody wants to use it is because everything is being written for it. Not only that, but it will always have the promise of being free, something that BeOS or QNX don't have. However, if we were smart, we'd all be working on AtheOS ( http://www.atheos.cx ) and trying to make that the future dominant desktop, but the problem with that is it doesn't have an X Server, despite being POSIX complient. That means everything for X would have to virtually be rewritten, and let's face it, geeks are lazy, and so that's not about to happen.

I think people deserve to have an OS that works and is not tied down, but many don't want to "build the car and fix it." They just want to "drive."

Geeks tout that security does not come through obscurity, and guess what, people are going to listen, that means we have a responsibility to keep that promise. So far, Linux is where most of this hype surrounds, and so thus people are going to assume that they should use Linux because it is open and they don't know about anything else.

------------------
Too much Sun can give you cancer. Windows break too easily.
Apples/Macintoshes can rot. BSD... sounds too much like LSD.
Penguins are the only animals sophisticated enough to wear a
tuxedo.

Linux, the only one with the Penguin.

http://ndogg.n3.net

mikeylikesitz

12-22-2000, 12:07 AM

Linux isn't for everyone, but the thing i can't stand being told is that i can't or am forbidden. I tried linux for the first time about a year ago and used Mandrake 7.0 and had no problems with the instalation except for the fact i didn't know enough and unknowingly erased my Windows and didn't have enough knowledge to get it back.(that hurt) I admit the first reason i got into linux was trying to be some sort of überhacker(someone should have slapped me really hard) and i heard that if i wanted to do that i really should use linux and get rid of windows and AOHell. But when i read more and more about linux i realized what it was about to me...the possibilities...the control...the learning cliff...lol http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/biggrin.gif I myself am was a GUI slave and i still love it and dont want to give it up, but i have found myself using the command line more and more. I think the reason i have stuck with it is the possibilities of the *UNIX* structure and the GUI together, and the ideas of things i would like to see and the fact that if i learn enough i wont have to wait for someone to think of it and develop it but that i could do it for myself. I have to hand it to microsoft, Win products are easy to use as far as the GUI but the more you use it the more you learn about it. In linux the more you learn about it the more you use it, and that is the thing i like the most is options and diffrences. In final...I think the *idea* of linux can take this thing we call the internet by storm and give us as human beings the thing we like the most...ease...stability...power...and most of all choices about what we want.

------------------
life is a journey not a destination

Dr SuSE

12-22-2000, 12:18 AM

I think your a dumb ***! In your cry baby *** post you write "we do not want to learn" well, that's your problem!

You owned a w.a.n company then went sane? My ***, your went belly up because your tech's quite because your such a dick that you wouldnt let them talk to paying customers. Hell, I'd a told you to shove your job and attitude up your *** on the first day.

You bring technology to third world countries? No wonder they are still 20 years behind.

Linux wasnt going anywhere until the graphic interface and the Auto install? Where are you from, a third world country? The only place Linux wasnt going was on your box.

Jeez, your not asking for much other than for people to turn Linux into Windows. I think what you should do is call Bill and ask him if he will make a special windows 95 for you that uses the Linux kernel and the windows GUI. I'm sure he'll do it just for you.

[This message has been edited by Dr SuSE (edited 21 December 2000).]

zatriz

12-22-2000, 12:25 AM

Ok, In my opinion This guy is some what right and wrong. First of all Yes i admit that linux is a hacker os for geeks but newbies and people who have had no unix experience can and WILL use it also. I was a strickly windows user until about 4 years ago. Mainly because i didn't even knew that linux existed. I have always loved the command line. Dos. But even for me i had a hard time with linux. I started with redhat 5.2 yes granted that rh7 is a lot more user friendly then 5.2 People still have a hard time using it. Everytime you wanna install a program you have to do rpm -ivh program.rpm or ./configure, make, make install. I personally love this. I feel in control but my sisters dont. They just wanna login and be able to use staroffice. or Email. I can live with linux being hard alot of us geeks can. But lets face it the number of people that can not out number us by alot. And most of those people may be people we know. I have 3 computers. I would like to run linux on all of them. But i cant. I have to have windows running so my sisters can use it. They wanna just click and have it do everything. I have to create symbolic links just for them to access everything in windows. Do you think a newbie will know how to do that with just point click. Lets face it. Linux has a long ways to go before it will even come close to compare with windows userability. Windows is so easy that even an idiot can use it. Redhat and Mandrake are coming close but we still have quite a ways to go still. I am a linux user. Always will be.

Let us be one with the Penguin.

sprintf

12-22-2000, 12:27 AM

What kind of a moron wrote this article? Anyone who is as stupid as you shouldn't be using Linux (or even attempting to use Linux) and is just annoying the smart people who are willing to actually spend some time learning. If you don't want a server OS, dont need development tools, want everything to be extremely simple, and never want to see a command line, why don't you just stick with windows/mac?

(I apologize for sounding so conceited, but I really couldn't help it.)

[This message has been edited by sprintf (edited 21 December 2000).]

Sensei

12-22-2000, 12:36 AM

Slow down bashers....

I think it should be reminded every once in awhile that there are people that are like J. Rigby out there...ahem...the majority!

If we want Linux to grow we are going to have to bend imho...

------------------
Sensei
LNO Seti Black Belts Team Stats
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_11027.html

Join the Linuxnewbie.org SETI Black Belts!
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=11027

mrkennie

12-22-2000, 12:39 AM

well i am gonna get my 2 cents in...

HELL YEAH http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Who is M$, and who is Bill F*****g Gates, I dunno

Dr SuSE

12-22-2000, 12:48 AM

I have no problem with bending but this guy comes right out and says that he wants to be able to use Linux the same way he uses Windows and doesnt want to have to learn.

If he had a different attitude and was willing to learn instead of just wanted someone to hold his hand and build Linux around him then I'd have a different attitude right now also.

In the time he spent writing that lame article I wonder how much he could have learned if he had used that time to read some of the NHF's or some of the 1000's of other Linux documents available on the Internet.

Strike

12-22-2000, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Sensei:
If we want Linux to grow we are going to have to bend imho...
Totally agreed, but that doesn't mean I want it to grow in the way that the author talked about. I could care less if it gets all pretty because I have become used to it (and I haven't even been using it for a year). But, as stated in my post above, it would be a neat thing to see, yes.

mrkennie

12-22-2000, 01:01 AM

well i have not been using linux long, prolly about 7 months now, and i still have lots to learn! I find many ppl give up with linux in the first few seconds cos they find it too hard cos it never had a gooey setup and did not used doze terminology. Well correct me if i am wrong linux is a million times more powerfull than doze just off of the command line. If some ppl cant be botherd to pull a finger out their microsofty *** and type a simple command that would start actually making some use of ya box now and again, then stay with ya massivly limited point and flick gui win bloody doze environment.
Ever used DOS??? heh

there said it http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Who is M$, and who is Bill F*****g Gates, I dunno

twist

12-22-2000, 01:20 AM

Most computer users are lazy and don't want to have to learn something that they already know (Windows). They hear all this hype about how Linux is *SO* much better than windows and think that it's better by being easier to use. They couldn't be more wrong!! Linux is better because it's more stable, makes *much* better use of it's resources, and well.. it's cool!

If people would post their big opinions with a bit of previous research things like this wouldn't happen. I read this article and just thought "I've seen this so many times before."

People want Linux to be Windows. Uh-uh! I like the way Linux is going (in almost every direction) and it is a geek OS.

Leave it to the geeks. Go play with Windows if that's what you want Linux to be. You won't be happy if you try to turn Linux into Windows.

twist

12-22-2000, 01:24 AM

And yes it really is me.. not an imposter. QUIT LOGGING MY DAMN IP!

[I already know the response to that - "Then quit posting" -- I think I just might.]

per©oDåN

12-22-2000, 01:36 AM

RE: Shad's first post and one of michealk's: Yes, maybe a bit more emphasis should be placed on the fact that LINUX is the kernel... Distros are each like separate OS's.... Even though most (even slightly) experienced users can cross-circumnavigate distros, just saying that might be good for beginners... I mean, Win9X has a kernel ... it's just not GPL'ed and only comes in one distro that upgrades every so often...

RE: Tigger: good reply, I use the analogy of "I've never driven an 18-wheel rig before... I'd never imagine being able to just hop in & drive up I95 with it right away"

My personal slant: everyone I know (in the physical world) who proports to be LINUX-savvy, and who I thought (for years, in some cases) were like LINUX gnurus, has turned out to be nothing more than LINUX users at the user-level. They run out and try every distro without learning the first thing about services, mods, cmmd line editors, or anything, really other than how to use Netscape in X. And when I talk to them, all they ask me is questions like "What distributions have you installed?" "What Window mgr do you use?" I am always like ... none, really... I've been using one distro for 2 years and am still working with Afterstep @ the desqtop... but I can get the machine working with all the appropriate services and apply it to some real-world purpose... But still I have to admit I've only used Red Hat all this time and still am not leet in X. (Ok, so I installed Drake once, but other than that nada), and it makes me look like the jr. grasshopper in their circle.... but like I ask them something about vi or samba conf, & they're like "uhhh... yeah... & stuff... whatever..."

I was under the impression for a long time that you should try out every dist first before Lin-from-scratch, but now think that it migh benefit anyone attempting to be lin-admin (or anything greater than a very topical user), should just go LFS first... For 2 years, I was bogged down trying to fsck w/ X and figure out what I would ever do with this handed-to-me-with-a-silver-spoon-distro...

Then I came here...

And I realized that if you gotta ask yourself that question, don't waste your fsckin' time trying to learn linux... (unless, of course, your only aim really is to impress your lackey friends who just install distro-after distro and would never even try to compile something)...

My point? BEWARE EXPERIENCED LINUX USERS: The sheep are starting to migrate to your OS now...

(& I'm not saying I'm not one of them, so don't fsckin' flame me too bad)

-per©

ndogg

12-22-2000, 01:40 AM

I still say we should slyly head the flock off into the direction of AtheOS, which aims to be a desktop OS, but it's still very much in its infancy (it definitely needs Linux emulation for binaries like BSD)...

It would give people a reliable OS that's still easy to use, and still be open source.

------------------
Too much Sun can give you cancer. Windows break too easily.
Apples/Macintoshes can rot. BSD... sounds too much like LSD.
Penguins are the only animals sophisticated enough to wear a
tuxedo.

Linux, the only one with the Penguin.

http://ndogg.n3.net

scott_R

12-22-2000, 02:29 AM

This article would be almost laughable if it wasn't for the way this guy tried to act like he was a computer pro. Unfortunately, the fact that he hired "technical experts" to run his computers doesn't seem to dissuade him from a poor attempt at proving linux is hard. Somehow he beleives that he can install windows by just popping in the disk, but every linux distro is hard.

I think that most of us can agree that most linux distros are relatively easy to install now, and in many regards, easier to install than windows. (For those that haven't ever attempted an OS install, linux has the advantage of being open, and allowing you to figure out what to do if it does mess up. Windows is much more of a guesswork/experience thing.)

As far as never using a CLI, it is true that it would be nice to be able to avoid the command line if you are an average user. On the other hand, this guy claims to want to install and run his distro, effectively making him an administrator. While I would love to have many configuration programs at least offer an option to use the root account, instead of popping up an error, I like the added protection of the "cryptic" command line. If you are scared of it, don't use it. There is no reason to use it, at least with mandrake, unless you want to add something to the system, in which case you need to know more about your system anyways, so get off it.

Ok, by the authors points...

1) server-most server installs erase all info on the hd, while most users use a dualboot of one sort or another.

2) development stuff-a lot of this is still needed when you compile programs. Even if it isn't, ignore this stuff. You're kids may want to use it, and it doesn't take that much space.

3) Help- we know we need to do a better job at help files. This is a cheap shot, and the author knew this if he did any research at all. Yet he still bashes the fact that many help files mention the CLI, which is instructive to those not desiring to be boxed in by their mouse.

4) CLI- ok, I hit this one already, but to say that your org. should not use it all? People used computers, albeit somewhat inefficiently, with the CLI for years. To go to the other extreme invites the same problems.

ok, then he goes into an anti windows rant, then back to another list of bogus problems.

desktop
-------
1)installed mandrake but couldn't find a directory viewer. Mine is at the bottom of the screen in a big icon. Also in the menu, and there are several other ways to view the directory, including the "repulsive" CLI.

2) rpm- there are, what, three major commands to rpm? -i=install -U=upgrade -e=erase/uninstall
tough to learn...

3) Mandrake 7.2 cd stuff- click cdrom icon. directory that this guy couldn't find opens up, listing files on cd. Point and click, just like in the "better" windows, and you are done.

4) add a user- another tough one. As root, open linuxconf, or drakeconf, and click add a user.

5)sound- as root hit sndconfig.

6)printer- will let this one slide. My guess is he didn't enable the "anti-stepping" option.

7)modem-enter linuxconf and set up your modem, just like in windows. Only major difference is you may have to add dns settings, while Windows may do it automatically.

After careful consideration, I have to admit, this guy is no idiot, he just doesn't have a clue about the root account!

------------------
RTFM=Rewrite The F***ing Manual
For more info, visit http://rute.sourceforge.net/
The snow's falling, and so is MS...:)

Yippee38

12-22-2000, 02:39 AM

I'm glad some of you more savvy people posted your opinions here. I guess I was looking at things from a skewed perspective.

I do, however, have one question: Why can't Linux be an OS for "everybody"? You all keep saying how powerful and flexible. Take that power, take that flexibility and create a distro that anybody can use. Feel free to leave out a lot of the stuff that power users need, but the average PC/Mac user doesn't care about. Make it as the author recommends. Make a couple million. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif Why not?

Yippee38

a2o917

12-22-2000, 03:34 AM

I am gona agree w/u Yippee38. Why don't we have distros for SysAdmins and differnt distros for newbies. Heck why not just set up one that can be instaled differnly? We don't because the p-gramers that could create the distro are like the people on this board. The majority of them acomplished Linux users who think that you need to learn every thing about linux to use it. Well I've got news, you don't and you shouldn't. In one posting it was said the the newbie that wrote the article was lazy and in anoughter it was said that Llinux geeks were lazy. Well every one is lazy, cut them some slack and give the win-babies something that they can use. Otherwise Linux, nomater how mush it has expanded or how many geeks run it, will die out, because the majority of PC users will run MS soft. I said it earlayr and I'll say it now, Redmond Linux, if everything works, will be a great newbie distro. Why don't ya quit bashing them and givem some help?

Strike

12-22-2000, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Yippee38:
I do, however, have one question: Why can't Linux be an OS for "everybody"? You all keep saying how powerful and flexible. Take that power, take that flexibility and create a distro that anybody can use. Feel free to leave out a lot of the stuff that power users need, but the average PC/Mac user doesn't care about. Make it as the author recommends. Make a couple million. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif Why not?
Originally posted by a2o917:
Why don't we have distros for SysAdmins and differnt distros for newbies. Heck why not just set up one that can be instaled differnly? We don't because the p-gramers that could create the distro are like the people on this board. The majority of them acomplished Linux users who think that you need to learn every thing about linux to use it.
I don't think anyone, especially the posters on these forums would be upset if someone came out with a really easy to use Linux distro that worked 99% of the time out of the box with all sorts of setups. I think it'd be really cool and convenient. But, what bothers me is when people are so emphatic about saying how such a distro is necessary or imperative to the future of Linux, because it just isn't true. Linux will live on whether or not the general public accepts it. Linux is popularity-insensitive. Sure, it is helped by popularity, but it can't be killed by a lack thereof.

Muzzafarath

12-22-2000, 08:01 AM

I just have one comment on the article:

I don't even think Linux should be "free" I think paying for its support efforts is a small thing.

You've got it all wrong. Linux is not supposed to be "free" as in not paying for it, it's supposed to be "free" in the sense that you can do practically whatever you want with it (install it on as many computers as you want, change it, release your changes)... It's about freedom, not money!

singlespeed

12-22-2000, 09:17 AM

Whoa!!! Hold on there sparky(ies)…..

I think we all may be forgetting something fundamental here. Who ever said Linux was for USERS? Linux wasn’t started to make a nice happy friendly push the button and go OS for the average Joe. It was developed by a Comp Sci student for Comp Sci students. The web site is called “Linuxnewbie.org” not “Totalnewbie.org.” A certain technical ability level is required from the start. All those who are complaining that Linux is too hard for the average user are right, but it was never meant for the average user!!!!! I’ve been a tech for a long time now and am so damn bored with M$ that I could just go postal at any moment. I use Linux because it’s so damn configurable. I use it because I can get down to the command line and go nuts. I use it because I can recompile the kernel into anything I want. I use it because like a shot of double expresso to the brain I’m suddenly awake and interested again!!! For once I get to solve a problem I want to solve and not one that I need to solve because of some damn M$ instability or incompatibility. (OK… OK… calm happy thoughts, calm happy thoughts……)

Now, let me step back a sec and state that I understand the frustration of the common user with Linux and I agree the things that have been asked for would make it a great OS. But lets be careful what we wish for here…..

Accomplishing the “One Button” Linux distro where everything is easy and anyone’s grandma can use it would require a lot of effort, time and yes... EXPENSE. Is anyone here interested in creating another M$ disguised as a Penguin? It’s often been said that to vanquish a beast, one must become a beast. Freedom comes at a price. The price for Linux is time and patience. If you’re not a geek and you want to use Linux because you just can’t stand M$ then either put in the time and endure the pain or hire a geek to do it for you. If you do want to learn and do it yourself then welcome aboard! We’ll be happy to help in any way we can (for free) but this isn’t a pleasure cruise honey…. Pick up an oar and start rowing!!!

The original post made a great point that I have seen and agree with. Great techs are born, not created. You either have it or you don’t. Linux is for that small group. I’m not saying it should be kept as a precious little gem hidden away from the masses but let’s not tame it so much that it takes the joy out of it for the true techs.

Mr. Rigby, the spirit of many many things in this world have been broken in the name of “sharing it with the masses.” Tux is a penguin in the wild right now and it would be a sad day to see him bound and chained into an off the shelf, over stuffed, “Push button” OS like M$. Now that being said, that doesn’t mean that a distro for the true, non-geek newbie couldn’t be developed. Since you seem to have the time and inclination, and have experience managing techs, why not start a small development company with the purpose of creating a true “entry level” Linux distro? Here’s a hint though…. bundle the hardware and software together, pre-configured, pre-loaded, and pre-tested……. I believe it’s called a “Turn Key” system…..

I’m all for Linux. I welcome anyone to the Linux world that want’s to come in and I actually encourage it. But like a wild frontier, it’s simply not for everyone. How many great, wild and wondrous things has the world lost in the name of progress?

Again, let’s be careful what we wish for…..

------------------
Jeff
~Perception is the Reality

five40i

12-22-2000, 12:52 PM

Boy I tell you all.....You are all so easily wound up.....Some wanker doesn't like Windoze, tries Linux and can't figure out how it works and them *****es about why it isn't like Windoze....If he wanted something different why does he want it to be like windoze....IT AIN'T WINDOZE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT'S LINUX....AKA UNIX with a nice picture

UncleMonty

12-22-2000, 01:31 PM

The post starting all of this raised some good, valid points, but if you want a dedicated, single-purpose appliance, you shouldn't buy a computer. Computers are by their nature complex devices. Wait a few months and more dedicated appliances will appear on the market for those who haven't the inclination to learn the half-dozen or so command-line commands necessary to get by as a computer user. Computers aren't for everybody, and probably never will be.
You can't really get away from the command line, for practical computing. It's just easier for some jobs to type a single command than to waste time pointing and clicking on half a dozen icons.
A really nice in-between step is the Midnight Commander utility usually packaged with Red Hat and Mandrake distros. I rely heavily on MC for file management. I could recommend gvim as well, for text editing.
As to his having trouble installing Mandrake 7.2, I found that distro won't install on my new AMD K6-2 / 500Mhz box, but installs without trouble on my old Cyrix 6x86 / 133Mhz "test bed" computer. I suspect a hardware conflict, but haven't yet looked into it. Red Hat 6.2 runs nicely on the AMD, so I'm leaving it that way.

lancelotdulac

12-22-2000, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Dr SuSE:
I have no problem with bending but this guy comes right out and says that he wants to be able to use Linux the same way he uses Windows and doesnt want to have to learn.

And why shouldn’t he be able to use Linux the same way he uses Windows? Give me one good reason why people shouldn’t be able to have the ease of use of Windows but with the power, flexibility and stability of Linux. If anybody in the Linux community want to see Linux on the average home user’s computer, then someone will have to release a “learn free” Linux distribution. Until then it will never reach the “World Domination” status that I see so many Linux advocates claim they want.

Right now Linux is perfect for the Server market, it’s perfect for the desktop “computer geek” market, it is even well suited for the corporate desktop, since corporate users don’t have to maintain the system. However, Linux still has a lot of work before it’s suitable for the home user that simply want’s to type letters, surf the net and play games, much like this guy was outlining in his letter.

If the Linux people want ID to write the next Quake release to Linux, Linux has to become as “brain free” for the average user to setup, use and install applications as Windows is.

Originally posted by Dr SuSE:
If he had a different attitude and was willing to learn instead of just wanted someone to hold his hand and build Linux around him then I'd have a different attitude right now also.

Again, why should he have to learn to type a letter or send an email. He doesn’t have to learn to do that on Windows. This poster is posting the same complaint that many Linux users do, HE HATES WINDOWS. He wants something new, user friendly and stable. Sure one can tell him to use BeOS, but since there is no real certainty of Be continuing to support the Be OS after they gave their new Internet Appliance direction, why would he want to risk wasting money on a potentially unsupported desktop. QNX RTP is currently only meant for developers and has very few applications, why use QNX. Apple isn’t that much better than MS (IMHO) and is way too expensive and proprietary compared to your x86 PC, so why bother with them. Linux is constantly being hyped as the Microsoft killer by many Linux advocates and the press, so it’s only natural that one would try it as a replacement. Since so many people are claiming how “just as user friendly as Windows” Linux is, why shouldn’t the average joe expect that to be true and why shouldn’t he be able to expect it to be “Learn Free”, much like Windows.

Linux falls short to windows in the “setup and configure” arena. I have had many a Windows install where it detected EVERYTHING my computer had. Not one single linux install I have done has ever done that. If I replace my video card in Windows, Windows detects that and all I have to do is feed the computer the new driver disk when it asks. With Linux, I have to manually reconfigure X so it knows the new card, how’s grandma ever going to be able to figure out how to do that? (Not that I mind doing this myself mind you, but that’s why I’m a developer)

I see so many Linux lovers advocating Linux on the desktop for the average user and then complaining that some people don’t want to learn the gory details. (Note: I’m not referring to you, I have not seen enough of your posts to know if you advocate linux for the average joe) The average user doesn’t even know the gory details of Windows, why should they have to know these for Linux.

Originally posted by Dr SuSE:
In the time he spent writing that lame article I wonder how much he could have learned if he had used that time to read some of the NHF's or some of the 1000's of other Linux documents available on the Internet.

True, he probably could have spent his time better learning more about Linux, if he really wanted to learn more about the details of Linux. But it seems his attempt was to point out to those Linux developers who claim linux is already suitable for the average joe (ie: Redhat, Mandrake, Corel, etc.) what still needs to be done if they really want to make those claims true. If somebody who actually has technical skill (or at least thinks he does) gets frustrated with it, how frustrated do you think grandma is going to get? If any of these distributions really want to be on the average joe’s home computer, they better listen to someone who is the average joe.

(Please note, I am in no way trying to assume you think the average joe should even use Linux. I am merely pointing out many a Linux user think they should and that this person’s complaints are reasonable complaints for anyone who thinks the average Windows user should switch to Linux. If these Windows users are really going to change to Linux, the Linux programmers are going to have to make Linux so user friendly that the only thing the user’s notice about the switch is the lack of crashing. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/wink.gif )

aflynt

12-22-2000, 03:57 PM

Maybe someone just needs to put out an extremely simple, beos like distro of linux. Something with an install that does a really good job of detecting and setting up hardware(like RH or Mandrake), only installs one WM(perhaps KDE2), installs only essential packages(just installing KDE2 might work for this), has decent GUI configuration tools ala Mandrake, automatically sets up user permissions appropriately when you install, doesn't install Apache and Senmail, etc...

A simplifed version of Mandrake with a GUI apt-get function would be perfect for this. Kind of like a workstation version of Linux. Instead of giving the option in one distro to have different classes of installation just release another class of the distro that specifically targets ordinary non-alpha-geek users.

This isn't something that I would want myself and I don't think that your average already-initiated Linux user would be all that into it either(once you get used to the mind-boggling array of options you become quite fond of them). It would, however, be perfect for someone who wants a simple, stable, and established OS for routine desktop/HO uses and really has no interest in learning how everything works. This type of user is totally against every fiber of my being, but most computer users are like this. Releasing an alternate distro versions would allow people like me to have the power and options they want and give the other people something they don't really need to think about.

Aaron

theoenophile

12-22-2000, 04:45 PM

Well having been using Linux since about march of this year, I can agree in principle with alot of what is being talked about. How ever:

1. Some of the most powerful "windows" commands are available through the command line. Since I started doing sysadmin work and oracle dba work, more and more of what I do is throught the command line. I think regular users objection to it is that they are so mouse driven. Take away your users mouses and they can't do anything !! Mostly you can't teach old dogs new tricks if they are not interested. I agree being lazy is a factor, however learning a new OS like Linux takes work.

2. Sorry, but any number of the "big" computer systems companies like Dell, I think Compaq, and others will provide you a system with linux (at least RH) already on it. Would they do a dual boot system for you? Maybe, I have not asked. Okay, this does defeat part of the Linux movement.

3. I agree installing on your own is not always easy and takes some planning, again involving some work, and people are lazy, so they can't just turn on the pc and away it goes. But ask yourself this question: How many mainstream computer users/consumers have actually installed their own windows operating system? Not many. And another question: How many times has the installation of a windows based software program FUBAR'ed your system? Far too many.

Me, I'll just keep on my slow pace learning all the details of Linux which I already know to be a surperior OS to windows. Linux's time in the mainstream market will arrive very very soon and I believe will be a big competitor to M$. Just look how the Palm OS is still kicking MS butt. I feel that Linux has a similar following to Palm and M$ you had better watch out.

2

gwpritch

12-22-2000, 05:32 PM

A computer is a tool just like a toaster, a Mercedes-Benz or a jackhammer.

There are those out there who just want to use it as such...to get the job done. They are not interested in building the damn thing or servicing it if it goes wrong.

Then there are those like myself who want to get the job done but don't mind tinkering with the guts of the tool itself...for fun... as a hobby when I've got the time.

Then there are those who's life is the tool- building, designing, fixing, hacking the guts out of it. All power to them, without them the job will never get any easier.
But, shouldn't everyone be able to use the best tool possible. Should only the automotive engineers be able to drive the Mercedes because they can design it, build it from a kit and troubleshoot when it breaks. You geeks (no offense intended - just trying to make a point) should stick with the MSFord Pinto...even if it does explode into a ball of flame when backended.

Lets can the 12-year-old attitudes and name-calling, boys. Unless you're a Mennonite (no offense intended), progress means making things easier... for everyone. How many of you are driving a standard transmission, or even know how for that matter? and hey it has plenty of advantages over an automatic.

And to the originator of this fascinating topic...I think your concerns are being addressed but as has been pointed out it takes time. In the meantime, stick with it, learning something new and even difficult can be rewarding in itself.

[This message has been edited by gwpritch (edited 22 December 2000).]

StarbuckZero

12-22-2000, 07:07 PM

Why not help this guy? Linux as mosly programmers/geeks and admins. We could easly make this easy for an Windows user. I'm not trying to take M$ off the market, I just want some room for us. I took my time to learn Linux and my friends was thinkin' I was crazy. Saying it's no point in learning something like that when it doesn't have the games or support that he would want. I think Linux isn't that far when it comes to a desktop OS.

Here is somethings I would like as a Linux user:

1. Very easy to install apps and games.

2. Very easy to upgrade apps.

3. A standard 500MB install.

Here is why:

1. I would want things easy to install because I just want to install the program and just go. No trying to fix things or figure out why my KDE 2.0.1 icons are not showing up.

2. Updating is good but using the Mandrake Updater program does some odd stuff and I don't know how to fix it so I end up having to go back to what I was using or reinstalling Linux again.

3. A nomral Mandrake 7.2 install even when I uncheck the stuff that I don't want. It still is around 3GB install. Then when Mandrake is install I got pine,Kmail,Netscape's E-mailer when it comes to tools that are just for checking E-mail. Do I need all this? If so when why? If it's something I want I'll just put in the Mandrake CD and install the stuff that I want.

Now I know you are thinking? Starbuck why do you want to move Windows users over to Linux? Because with more user come more games, supported software and hardware. You don't even have to think about paiding for half of your software because we have been building our own for years. So why not do it? I want more games and I want more software. I figure we could get some of great easy to use software for big time companies if we dumb down the OS a little. I have some great friends that are programmers, but none of them want to use Linux because it's hard to install some software and they just want to take a little time to learn the OS then go. I think we not only need to dumd down the OS for normal Windows users but for ourselfs. I been using Linux for a year and it's still hard for me to install some software...

[This message has been edited by StarbuckZero (edited 22 December 2000).]

TheRealChas

12-22-2000, 09:08 PM

Okay. Others have said it here, I figured I'd reiterate it with my own unique twist.
1: I owned a computer WAN company.

1a: Merely owning a company or hiring good people doesn't make you an authority. Also, the jab at "socially inept techs" is uncalled for.

2: Only teachers can teach.

2a: Everyone is a teacher. You learn something from everyone you meet. Even if it's only their name.

3: Expertise and teaching are mutually exclusive.

3a: No. This isn't correct. It just happens that some people who learn extremely well get frustrated with people who don't necessarily grasp things as easily as they did.

4: Good teachers do not necessarily know how to compose study material.

4a: Again, this is a gross over-generalization.

5: I've never seen a top programmer who wasn't born to be one.

5a: BAH! Nobody's BORN knowing C++! Some of it is innate aptitude, along with conditioning brought about by interaction with their environment. Anyone can code C++. Not everyone can do it well or creatively.

6: For every one of you enamoured with the command line there's 10,000...

6a: Linux is not a venue of majority rule. It's a place of individual and group achievement.

It's no lie that CLI is more powerful and versatile than GUI. In fact, if it weren't for CLI, GUI simply couldn't exist in the first place.

7: Linux could own the world.

7a: Aside from Linus' jokes about 'World Domination', that isn't the purpose of Linux. Linux is a technically oriented ALTERNATIVE to other operating systems. It is not, and never was intended for general consumption.

8: Linux went nowhere until the graphic interface and AUTO-install came on to the scene.

8a: This is your opinion. I, and thousands of others have been using Linux since WELL before the advent of the GUI.

If they were going nowhere, there would have been no call for separate distributions.

9: Geeks, we need you and we are eternally grateful for the chance to escape Big Bill's clutches, but we do not want to learn the exciting things like compiling kernels and customising the distribution. We want to do what I am trying to do:

9a: Your first sentence merely demonstrates that you misunderstand the purpose of Linux. It's not about "escaping Big Bill's clutches". It's about having an OS that's technically oriented, expandable, and customizable, as well as open to maintenence.

As to the second sentence, if you don't want to learn it, don't use it. As harsh as that sounds, it's reasoning is sound.

If you don't want to invest effort into a venture, you don't want that venture badly enough, and are wasting your time.

10: Install a general purpose USER installation.

10a: Several distros do jus this.

11: Auto-install the BASIC things.

11a: That's what "Minimal Install" means.

12: Help sources in plain english.

12a: Many of the MAN pages, help files, e-books, and other such don't get too much plainer.

13: Every time you mention a command line, you have failed.

13a: Only if we accept your notion that everything should be totally desktop-centric, which NO operating system is. CLI sometimes happens to be the fastest/most efficient way to input or output data on your system. Especially in a *nix-type environment.

14: We NEVER, EVER want to have to confront CLI.

14a: You're using the wrong operating system then. If you want to see CLI as little as possible, go use a DOS-derivative OS that's based out of Redmond, WA. It's called Windows.

Linux, for most intents and purposes, is Unix. Unix is CLI-centric. There's no way around that.

15: You should never complain without a suggested soloution.

15a: Good precept.

16: Anyone trying to write any form of support manual needs to be exposed to the difficulties for a TRUE beginner.

16a: The problem with trying to write from a newbie's POV is that you HAVE to have SOME common reference points and a minimum level of knowledge. Otherwise it's like a high-order game programmer telling you how to code in the programming language for his particular game engine.

17: They should borrow a Mac or...

17a: Why? Everyone knows how it feels to be new at something. Trying to recapture it by diving into yet ANOTHER platform is pointless.

18: 90% of all Linux potential will be frustrated Windows users.

18a: This doesn't mean we have to turn Linux into a Windows clone. It means that if the Windows users is THAT frustrated, the expense of time necessary to grok Linux will be considered negligible compared to the continual frustration with Windows.

19: Beginners will buy computers with Star Office on them.

19a: That isn't desireable. Linux not only expects some modicum of expertise, but it REQUIRES it. They'd be no better served by a castrated Linux install than they are by Windows.

20: I have a lot of USER experience.

20a: This is a good starting point. But that's all it is. A starting point, not an end in and of itself.

21: As of this morning, I have not been able to *ever* successfully install a USEABLE Linux system. Latest attempts being Mandrake 7.2 and after great frustration, RedHat 7.0. Which went on like a dream compared to the " user friendly" M72.

21a: Define "usable". What went wrong? Hardware incompatibility? Installation glitches? User error?

22: If the code can be cut to setup the primary install requirements, why can't it be set up so that I can simply download a program and install it exactly as the Primary Install does it? "Select the Package you want and click here".

22a: To a certain degree you can. What the install progam is doing is essentially what you have to do to install things anyhow. Again, you have to LEARN what's going on.

23: How to simply find a Directory Viewer was a big task. Nowhere did I readily see how to do it.

23a: If you installed a copy of Mandrake 7.2 or RedHat 7.0 with either KDE or Gnome, there should be a link to your home directory on your desktop.

In addition, though you don't want to hear this, your DOS training should hold you in good stead.

/dir works from the command line.

24: How to use the "raved about" RPM.

24a: Taking time and reading the help files, HOWTO's, and manuals should clear this up. No, it's NOT intuitive (until you learn it).

25: How to access a CD.

25a: You answered the question yourself. And again, the answers you seek are all in the documentation that comes with your CD's.

26: How to add a user.

26a: Read the supplied information on it.

27: Sound simply does not work.

27a: Read the supplied information. It's right there, and in plain english.

28: Printer does not work.

28a: Read the manual. Some configuration of the system is required. Just as with Windows.

29: Modem will not dial out despite being found.

29a: Have you set up the dialer right? Is the modem hardware or software driven?

30: I want to use KDE2. Why is this so difficult.

30a: Because it was not being distributed when the current iteration of the operating system was being tested. That's like asking why Windows95 doesn't install with IE 5.5.

Why's it so difficult? Answer, it isn't. Follow the instructions, and ask for help when you get confused.

31: Install instructions.

31a: Mostly common sense.

32: Howtos.

32a: All this stuff's already included. Most of the progs your want are already in the distro. If they're not, you should be researching them yourself.

33: Use Win4Linux.

33a: If you need that extra "security".

34: Engine-room mentality

34a: If you're not willing to dig in, and get into the "engine room", then Linux is an inappropriate choice.

In addition, we should NOT have to castrate the OS simply for those people on an "I hate Windows but want something just like it" lark.

What this all boils down to. You have to be willing to LEARN. If you're not, you're don't WANT to use Linux.

------------------
It's amazing. How can I
get both feet in my mouth
when my head's shoved so
far up my rectum?

Lorithar

12-22-2000, 10:44 PM

*grins* and chuckles some...

Whooooo eeeeee!!!

1) The point the gentleman was making is that Linux as a user oriented operating system has a long way to go. He's quite correct.

2) To each and every one of the elitist, holier than thou, 3L33t D00dz out there ... go stuff a sock in it. PERIOD. You are NOT better than the gentleman that wrote the article. Just because you believe you've mastered linux and can rule the world, you have become only a fool.

3) Thank you Sensei for your interjection. Yes... the previous comment was a tad flamish.. but I am developing a thread here .. and I feel that the comment as directed is accurate.

4) This site, as I understood it was arranged to allow individuals who wished to learn Linux to come together to trade knowledge.
On this point the author of the article is wrong, EVERYone can teach. Perhaps not as well as others, but the point to be made is that he can use a computer, just not as well as others... this comparison can be applied to any art, science, action, form, ability or whatnot. Yes, some are better at somethings than others, but Linux is indeed a techie's OS right now. I've been playing with computers since the days of the 4004 processor and have dealt with CP/m DOS, all flavours of windows, Minix, MVS VM VMS/xa and early forms of Linux. I DID not develop a proficiency in Linux until recently.. I learned C programming becuase of Minix... I had to ... it was broken when I got it ... it didn't like my damned modem .. so ... I poked.. this makes me a techie .. .but I don't hold other peoples lack of curiosity and determination against them. It would be possible to build a distribution that would do what he wants, but it would HAVE to be extensively supported, and one would have to get one's software installations from the source, or from some place where standards applied to the package that installs.

Standardization is one reason windows is as popular as it is. 99.9% of the time the installation will work.

5) I come here to find answers (and nowadays to provide them) and I find that most people are here to do the same. I don't much like trolls, and some would consider the gentlemans article trolling, BUT .. only if they were into the idea that knowing something made them 'cool'

Linux is a computer operating system. period. Using it requires knowledge, and skill. The gentleman would like to see it be easier, nothing wrong with that.. (unless you think it cool of course.... then it *darn* wouldn't be cool anymore, and damned... you'd have to go get your nose pierced or something.. )

(apologies to those who are indeed into piercings, not as a cool thing, but as body art)

Don't come here to be cool, or elitist, come here to learn something powerful and effective. Come here to trade your knowledge honestly and openly. HELP others .. just because you CAN, not because it means you're better than them. Yes ... linux is an alternative to Winders, but I still have a 98 box on the go ... (hey .. I LIKE descent 3.. and need the winders box to play it on well..)

I offer one simple idea... Redhat has in my opinion, (at least the 6.x distros) the best support for new users, and ease of installation. They have done their best to make it *usable* by utter newbies, but.. it is NOT perfect. Even with Windows there is hardware that is not recognized, or performs poorly, but due to the widespread nature of the critter there is more support available for those instances, and for Linux users who truly like using the os there is NO HARM in making it more user friendly, and therefore widening the base of distribution, and therefore widening the saleability of the addon products... (Hey .. if Descent were available in a direct linux port, I'd PLAY that one... they aren't gonna do that until they can sell 7 or 8 million copies .. easily.)

Sooooooo... if you are *into* linux and REALLY want to see it take off, contribute, make an effort to help someone. For each and every person that makes that effort, we increase the user base, thus the likelyhood that the next version of Diablo or Descent will be target built for linux. That corporations will make a better driver for that USB rewriteable DVD rom that you have.. that the cable modem (don't you dare call it a router) drivers for internal units will be written.
That users like the author of the article will get the chance to use an OS that is bulletproofed by something on the order of 35,000 independant programmers, all looking over one anothers shoulders. Rather than an OS that is made in secret because if it wasn't EVERYone would know where the holes in security are.

(no .. I can't back that figure, but it is an extrapolation from an essay on linux programmers ... and by a generalization is the number of people in the world at any one moment working on core kernel code... NOTE at any ONE moment.)

C'mon people, get into the spirit. If what he says annoys you, then... ignore him. He is quite correct in several of his statements. My other half will be designing web pages, but I am the one building the boxen, putting together the network, and designing the connectivity .. she doesn't wanna do that... but she's great at web pages..

If you wanna *get in on the latest fad* .. go .. .. .... start your own damned fad.

spingoogL

12-22-2000, 11:41 PM

I may be wrong, but isn't dos a castrated OS. At the time it was made, unix was THE OS. IBM wanted to sell to users. Gates walks in and sais, "Have I got the operating system for you." He then procedes to write the code that is now known as DOS. At least that is the version of the story that I heard (rumor mill...)
Look at dos and look at the most used Unix commands. Notice some similarity.

Bill Gates hit the nail on the head. He gave the world what it wanted. A castrated operating system. A few commands that most people could learn and use.

Unix is a GREAT operating system. Unfortunately so, maybe it is too great. Not everyone needs to know the ins and outs of their computer. They just want it for whatever they got it for (Word processing, CAD, Email, surfing the web, and maybe some games... ya right! After 1 hr of writing an email and 30 hrs of BG2. [Why did I buy this thing again?]).

I personally don't mind MS Windows. Lots and lots of programs made are made for Windows. BUT! M$ can put out a Cadillac interface with a really crappy engine. What pisses me about Windows is the price and stability. They have no significant competition. Hmmm, lets charge $85 dollars for the software, even though we could sell it for $60, and still make a billions of doll hairs this year. Ahhh, the perks of monopoly.

Linux (the kernel), was started by Mr. Torvalds, because he wanted to do it. The GNU got a hold of it and made it popular. The kernel is solid, stable and small. Very nice. Now it is going into appliances. So! How much packet forwarding and firewalling is going to happen here, or any other thing that Linux is so good at doing. Perhaps a castrated OS for the masses that actually works good, isn't such a bad idea after all.

KISS = Keep it simple stupid
Ever played acrophobia.

[This message has been edited by spingoogL (edited 22 December 2000).]

ndogg

12-23-2000, 12:35 AM

Many of you who disagree with J. Rigby are right, Linux was not meant to clone Windows, it was meant to clone UNIX, a very difficult to learn OS, but there is a large portion of the geek community want to conquer the world and they want to do it with Linux. Conquering the world to them represents a challenge, and if they succeed, hopefully we'll all benefit.

KDE was started not because they wanted to attract end users to UNIX/Linux, but rather because creating a desktop, especially on UNIX/Linux, was a challenge, and geeks like to be challenged. I think a lot of people misinterpreted their attempt to create a desktop as meaning that they wanted everyone to use UNIX/Linux, and so thus, you now have the GNOME Foundation. Like it or not, there are people that are trying to make a Window-ish Linux, and so Windows people are going to come over anyway because of them. Complain all you want about these clueless people, but it's very difficult to stop momentum.

Many people like J. Rigby are frustrated with Gates and Co. and I don't blame them. What other company in any other industry sells their customers products defective to such a degree? I guess the question is whether we have a responsibility to them to help them get away from those products?

------------------
Too much Sun can give you cancer. Windows break too easily.
Apples/Macintoshes can rot. BSD... sounds too much like LSD.
Penguins are the only animals sophisticated enough to wear a
tuxedo.

Linux, the only one with the Penguin.

http://ndogg.n3.net

buzz lightyear

12-23-2000, 01:20 AM

Just a couple of things to think about:

First, I'm not even using linux yet because I want to learn a bit more first. However, my curiosity about linux is from all the media hype by distributors that makes it seem that linux is really the best way for everyone to go, but apparantly not everyone here agrees with that.

Second, for the car people and cli people: you'd be amazed how many GUYS (I meet them all the time) can hardly figure out how to check the tire pressure, much less change the tire. You'd also be amazed by the number of regular windows users who go into a panic or blindly click the "close" icon when an error comes up.

Third, most who find linux hard to install probably never installed windows. For all of its' "ease of installation", those who have had to actually install it have seen the number of errors that can come up. Most users bought the computer with windows and most of the other software already installed. My point...windows probably isn't a whole lot easier, but everything's already there when you buy the computer.

I'd like to end my series of comments with a question: is linux more efficient than windows i.e. will linux do more with my 96MB of memory and my 550 celeron processor than windows does?

For those discouraged by windows, just look at ME and read what it really says: "Microsoft has now run out of innovative things to do with an OS."

vvx

12-23-2000, 05:09 AM

Well, currently I'm working for this public defenders office helping them with a big computer upgrade.. They're using pretty damn old stuff, the "before" picture was an avg. desktop of a p-100 with win95.. Though, there was a couple dozen dos machines.. No biggy, all they needed to do was run wp5.1 for dos.

At any rate, yesterday I brought one of those fellows using a dos machine their new windows computer.. I can assure you they didn't just jump in -- obviously they had never used windows before in their life. They seem to have all they need to worry about figured out now, after a few quick lessons by me on whatever issues he was having, but the point is at first he couldn't even use a windows computer. The whole concept of the start menu, icons, shutting down, it's gotta be pretty daunting. Now, I can guarantee you if I called this guy's phone and told him to change his resolution, or even to simply rename an icon, he'd prolly do a double-take.. He can use it, not configure it.

Linux is the same way, which is what we all have to realize. Using linux is no feat.. Configuring it is hard -- but only because it's different. People talk about a centralized location to configure everything. "/etc". Not too hard to find your configuration files.. Most are very well commented. No, that's not how you would do it on windows..

You want to talk about centralized configuration? Windows2000, where would I click in order to change the .. IP address? Simple enough, start, settings, control panel, network, select tcp/ip and properties. Good, now how about changing the .. hostname? Another simple task.. start, settings, control panel, system, network identification. Hmm, well, those are in different places, but it makes sense if you've used windows, right? Okay, how about the network comment tag? start, settings, control panel, administrative tools, computer management, right click on my computer, select network identification tab.. I mean, comon! You call that centralized?

The only way any OS is "easy" to configure -- is when you don't need to configure it. Let's face it, the avg. computer consumer is going to buy themselves some compaq/dell/gateway computer, plug everything into wherever it fits, and get the neighbor's kid to setup their internet account. The reason it's easy is they don't configure it. Linux won't be easy until you walk into a circuit city and have computers with linux preinstalled right there, on the show floor. That's what linux needs.

Dirk

12-23-2000, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by michealk:
One other thing I noticed: Several people have complained about the built-in tools in Linux.

I'd like to point out that Linux is really pretty much the kernel (usually in /boot/vmlinuz) and the kernel modules in /lib/modules. Everything else is *not* Linux. The rest of those files that come with your distribution are *not* Linux. The Linux operating system is actually quite small. *All* the other tools, utilities and software that is included in a distribution are included by the company or organization that produces the distribution.

So, if you have a problem with "Linuxconf" (and who doesn't? It is pretty bad), please remember that it's not Linux you have a problem with: It's a piece of 3rd party software. Just as Microsoft Office is a separate software package, and *isn't* the Windows OS.

These are valid arguments from ONLY a geek perspective. The world needs now a quality alternative to Windoz and Linux is the only viable alternative. Linux WILL become that GUI used by more folks than any other unless MS changes radically for the better, if for licensing than no other reason. The inevitable evolution will be furthered[sp?] by the geeks accepting Linux's transformation sooner rather than later.

singlespeed

12-23-2000, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Lorithar:

2) To each and every one of the elitist, holier than thou, 3L33t D00dz out there ... go stuff a sock in it. PERIOD. You are NOT better than the gentleman that wrote the article. Just because you believe you've mastered linux and can rule the world, you have become only a fool.

2a) You are way off base here and obviously haven't understood what any of us that are speaking out against Mr. Rigby mean. Nobody here is acting like an elitist. On the contrary, what everyone is saying in one way or another is "No, it's not easy, it never was meant to be. We put in the time to learn it and if you want to then we're happy to help. Making the whole OS easier for you isn't helping you. Stick with Windows if you want to remain a non engine room user."

5) I come here to find answers (and nowadays to provide them) and I find that most people are here to do the same. I don't much like trolls, and some would consider the gentleman’s article trolling, BUT .. only if they were into the idea that knowing something made them 'cool'

Linux is a computer operating system. period. Using it requires knowledge, and skill. The gentleman would like to see it be easier, nothing wrong with that.. (unless you think it cool of course.... then it *darn* wouldn't be cool anymore, and damned... you'd have to go get your nose pierced or something.. )

(apologies to those who are indeed into piercings, not as a cool thing, but as body art)

Don't come here to be cool, or elitist, come here to learn something powerful and effective. Come here to trade your knowledge honestly and openly. HELP others .. just because you CAN, not because it means you're better than them. Yes ... linux is an alternative to Winders, but I still have a 98 box on the go ... (hey .. I LIKE descent 3.. and need the winders box to play it on well..)

5a) Again, you miss the point. Nobody (or very few) are coming here to be "Cool" or Elitist. We're here because we want to learn and exchange information about a very technical OS. Mr. Rigby walked into a highly technical social environment and started bashing techs with backhanded comments and straight out insults. Implying that we were born with some technical gift and somehow owe it to society and non techs like him to make life easier for them. The only thing we were born with was the drive to learn and patience to stick it out when the learning gets tough. If he got flamed once or twice in this thread he deserved it. Mr. Rigby's motives are not that of the Linux community at large despite what media hype would have you believe. If Linux de-thrown's M$ then it does so by the natural order of things. Mr. Rigby doesn't like M$ or "Big Bad Bill Gates" then don't use his products, Steve Jobs is no saint either but he has an OS that’s just as user friendly. Big Bad Bill Gates is a billionaire because he made computers easy for the lazy Mr. Rigby's out there. Kudo's to Mr. Gates. That's not the Linux agenda. So Mr. Rigby either pay up (cash for M$ or personal learning time for Linux)or shut up!

You ran a WAN Company (and you still spell it w.a.n.?), big deal. Because of this we should all drop what we're doing and re-engineer an OS for your liking? Clearly you, Mr. Rigby, are the only elitist here. I’ve seen your kind many times. I’m rich, I ran a company, the world owes me everything…. Getting your hands dirty once in a while wouldn’t kill you. Try mowing your own lawn, cleaning your own house, doing your own laundry, changing your own oil, and loading your own OS before you expect to motivate others to do it for you with backhanded comments, insults and some self serving crusade that very few here are interested in.

Mr. Rigby did have some valid ideas about where Linux could (notice I didn’t say “should”) go. It’s a shame his execution was so horrible and mis-guided. I hope Mr. Rigby is reading all these postings but I would suspect that would take too much effort on his part. Maybe if someone printed them out and then went through and highlighted the good parts for him. I know how time consuming retired life can be. Ya hear that knocking on the door Mr. Rigby? It’s reality knocking…. Maybe you should answer it and get a grip… There are no free rides, the world and Linux community owe you nothing until you put in the time to learn and contribute. We’re not the techs that you use to boss around and hide from your paying customers. Having run an international company I would expect you to know a little more about diplomacy in a foreign culture. Would you start bashing a potential foreign client’s customs and society the minute you stepped in the door and still expect to get that contract? No? I didn’t think so. So what makes you think it will get you anywhere here?

------------------
Jeff
~Perception is the Reality

[This message has been edited by singlespeed (edited 23 December 2000).]

Lorithar

12-23-2000, 01:10 PM

*sighs*

Indeed... most of us here are here to learn and share, but *anyone* who believes that Mr. Rigby and those like him can be dismissed without a thought is *not* thinking clearly. Linux as an alternative is indeed the only viable operating system which will/can replace windows, thus breaking the code silence. My point is that as a commercial product windows is broken. period. If one were to buy a car, new design, new model, and the damn thing died on the road as often as windows does, if it were to randomly steer you into the safety barriers on the highway as often as windows does, the company would be out of business in days. Bankrupt. Now.. I don't fault MS for marketing.. they've made the desktop computer a universal concept, communications is now easier than it ever was before with those desktops. But still the product is developed in secrecy, with no controls by the outside world. Cars are required to go through testing .. documented testing by external public agencies. Linux goes through this testing.. there are *way* fewer faults and holes in the code... the comparisons that MS has had published sum the known *holes* in all linux distributions against NT .. and NT still has one or two more known bugs. Sooooo if you were to look at any one distribution the *known bug* list count would be 27 or 28 versus 147 ..

This code secrecy is one reason we need to step away from windows. People like Mr. Rigby are nessesary for the process of breaking the code secrecy wall .. because for every one of these bodies that uses linux, becomes familiar with linux, and spreads the base, Linux is one step farther along in providing a solid computing STANDARD.

True ... right now you do need to get down into the engine room. And muck with the guts.. for us techinically inclined folks thats fine... but *do not tell someone go use windows because linux is not for you*... linux is not easy and will take some time to learn and most will never want to do that .. .so ... we as the techies we are need to join in and help create the standard that will let users like Mr. Rigby in the door.

Simply shooing him away because he doesn't care to learn indicates a tendency to elitism by implication. It is akin to ... well .. if you don't want to learn to touch type, you can't use a computer.

And I am sorry ... there are a number of people here who have clearly shown that they are here only to lord it over those that don't know linux..... Although I admit some days I have moments when I am ready to bash anyone who complains about the way any computer works over the head, I am mostly a forgiving and patient person... I never attack someone directly on their abilities. I work in a third/fourth level support environment and deal with folks who are supposed to be computer literate in our environment ... and regularly label some of them with the almighty L ... but these are folks who have been trained, educated, and are supposed to support something..... a business person who runs a business does not nessesarily have the technical skills of his/her employees...

All in all Mr. Rigby makes valid points. Yes... right now you need to be able to muck in the engine room. BUT .. .we as techies need the Mr. Rigbys out there to make OUR lives easier.... becuase if the development standard for linux becomes the the standard for code development on all bases, the code becomes that much better, more stable, more reliable, easier to support, and easier to use. We sometimes forget that something that we do on a day to day basis and regard as easy is for others a confusing and mind bending chore.

quasimojo

12-23-2000, 01:27 PM

Hey, here's a thought, if you don't want to learn how an OS works and are deathly afraid of a command line DON'T USE LINUX!!!!!!!

In case this guy hadn't noticed, user education is a big part of the linux movement, remember? The whole reason Linux evolved was as an alternative to BIG BILL'S house of orthodoxy.

Want to install and app, no problem windows can do it for you... Want to add some hardware, just use this handy wizard... have to keep rebooting your PC because of GPF Blue Screens, don't worry about it, just reinstall your OS.

Is this what this guy want's linux to become, a more reliable Windows? I've got news for you, Microslop is already working on that one. Our mission should be to help raise people's understanding of how a PC and OS work together. We should be showing the interested how to do for themselves (as we are doing with the Linux OS and this forum already) rather than let a company do it for them. Handing the world another brainless, "hands-off" OS would be compounding the problem!!!

If you don't like the challenges Linux, BSD, or BEOS pose, don't ask the using populace to dumb it down!!! Either the end user should wise up, pay up (consultants in this area are poised to make alot of money) or use a simpler Microsoft based system.

Sorry for the general rantiness of this post, but I can't believe how many regular posters are sopping up this drivel without so much as a second thought!

gwpritch

12-23-2000, 04:04 PM

Bloody Hell!!! I guess I was wrong.

You don't have to be a Mennonite to oppose progress.

Paraphrasing:
Linux is not easy and was never meant to be.
If you can't understand it or don't have the time to hack into the guts f.o. and go back to windows.
This is a highly technical social environment and those with less understanding arn't welcome.

No, does'nt sound the slightest bit elitist to me.

It is to weep. With attitudes like this we should all be back tilling the fields with the jawbone of an ***. And believe it or not if these attitudes don't change...Linux will die as much as you or I think of it. because guess what kid, one day you won't have the time to put into it, either that or you won't be able to afford the box you hack on, and there won't be anyone else to take over...they'll have given up in disgust.

singlespeed

12-23-2000, 04:13 PM

gwpritch,

Nobody is saying:

"If you can't understand it or don't have the time to hack into the guts f.o. and go back to windows."

We're saying that this is what it is and it works for the poeple who have spent the time to create it and learn it. If it's too hard then don't use it. If you want to use it then welcome aboard, put the time in like we all did and contribute, we'll all be here to help along the way. Don't just sit on your high horse, insult us for being "Techies" and demand change.

and as for:

"This is a highly technical social environment and those with less understanding arn't welcome."

I hope you're not paraphrasing me because if so you're taking my statement completely out of context. Perhaps you should read it again. My statement said:

Mr. Rigby walked into a highly technical social environment and started bashing techs with backhanded comments and straight out insults. Implying that we were born with some technical gift and somehow owe it to society and non techs like him to make life easier for them. The only thing we were born with was the drive to learn and patience to stick it out when the learning gets tough. If he got flamed once or twice in this thread he deserved it.

I have stated all along that anyone willing to put in the effort is welcome. Maybe Mr. Rigby should try walking into a Harley Bikers bar and start *****ing about why can't Harley's be more reliable and easier to maintain like the Japanese bikes are. Think he'd win any friends that way? In essence this is what he did here. He did have some valid concepts that may or may not develop in the Linux world. His approach and motives were horrible though. He managed to bash everyone from the Kernel hackers, to the GUI developers, to the truly dedicated Linux users and to the people who have spent countless hours writing the man pages and How-to's. Quite a motivational tactic he has there. All along his motivation was "Why can't Linux be more like Windows???" Because it's not Windows and just because he feels it should be doesn't me an it should be.

*sigh* is right.

Lorithar, you're still missing the point. Linux was never developed to be a Windows killer. Replacing Windows isn't the answer. Linux doesn't need people like Mr. Rigby at all to keep it alive or drive the development of it. Linux will most likely never take over windows on the desktop. There is nothing stopping Mr. Gates and company from creating their own propriety version of a Unix OS. If they so chose to do that, with their marketing and capitol, there would be almost no hope for companies like RedHat to compete. And if that were to happen it wouldn't spell the end for Linux either. BTW, where do you think they (M$) got a lot of their code improvements for Win2000 from? Hmmm could it be HP-UX? You're trying to insight a crusade for something that is rediculouse. There are plenty of alternate OS's out there besides M$. Just because Linux is progressing doesn't mean the goal is to Wipe out M$ Windows. Linux already owns 25% of the server market worldwide and that percentage is growing. To say that Linux will Definately take over Windows on the desktop is completely short sighted. You act as if M$ was the first and only company to keep their code secret. Nobody is shooing Mr. Rigby away. We're simply not buying what he's selling. If he so strongly believes in Linux then maybe he should take the time to learn it instead of sitting around whining about how it's too hard and waiting for the very people who he degrades (you know, we elitist techy people)in his article to make the OS easier for him because he doesn't like having to pay Mr. Gates. The battle between Linux and M$, if one even truely exists is about source code, not about having to pay for a product. I have news for you, that's how the world works. You have to pay for things. People at Microsoft have to eat too. A lot of development and money was laid out to produce an OS that was easy enough for the likes of Mr. Rigby. I doubt Mr. Rigby has ever installed an OS. Let him give NT4.0 a try and see how far he gets. That's no walk in the park either if you don't know your hardware. Then when that proves too hard will he start *****ing at M$ user groups that they need to make Windows easier for the common user? You think the hackers that develop Linux and software for Linux wake up every morning with a white hot desire to bury M$? They develop Linux because they love it. It's a free OS because that's what the people developing it want it to be more than they want to get rich off it. Pervert that into a replacement for Windows and you will truely kill Linux.

------------------
Jeff
~Perception is the Reality

[This message has been edited by singlespeed (edited 23 December 2000).]

Yeti

12-23-2000, 04:41 PM

First of all Mikey, have you ever worked on aircraft? Much less military ones?
Things like HOTAS (Hands on Throttle and Stick) are designed for reduction in pilot workload.... Which is a good analogy of what the man was asking/saying. If you even check out PM recently some of that way cool technology is FINALLY making its way down to the Cesna range of aircraft. Look up the history in Jane's dude, and back to the point. Linux is an open system, some people want to be out from under the thumb of the Gates daemon. Would it be a huge seller if someone did make a non-GPL installer and Interface for linux? Dern straight. And what the real thing to remeber is how M<S got so big..... So... let us embark on the quest gladly, bringing the meek along with... beofre the Gates of hell open up and do the deed for us, thus enslaving a new generation.
The internet was created by acedemics, at the request of the Military, and when commercialized, became the driving force in the economy. The ideal still lives though through us, but trying to be cliqueish about it is ..... non-productive.
After all dude, it IS your livelihood....
Whereas those of us who are admin types....
and teacher types....
SHOULD LISTEN TO THE USERS WITH BOTH EARS.

Linux is chosen not by its own choice, but by the choice of programmers.
Want to kill an OS? stop making programs....
Want to nominate one for acendancy? Make programs....
It is as simple as that.... deal with it.

guitarlyn

12-23-2000, 05:08 PM

This may be way off base, but what this article truly reminds me of is the 50 end users that bought and tried to install Win2K, when it was first released, and couldn't get it to work any better than Mr. Rigby with Linux. I spent a month (through e-mail) teaching them how to configure their system, explaining that Win2K was not an upgrade for Win98 (that idea was pushed by retailers), and simply enlightening them that some hardware and software was simply incompatible with the OS. I asked these people the same question I ask Mr. Rigby, if your comfortable with Win98 and it does everything you want it too, why frustrate yourself if you don't plan on doing some learning on your own. The reply was generally the same, "We just wanted the newest, best OS available." It seems Mr. Rigby more or less is at the same point. You want everything like Win98, stay with that OS, otherwise quit wasting our time and effort.
~Guitarlynn

Muzzafarath

12-23-2000, 05:35 PM

I may be wrong, but isn't dos a castrated OS. At the time it was made, unix was THE OS. IBM wanted to sell to users. Gates walks in and sais, "Have I got the operating system for you." He then procedes to write the code that is now known as DOS. At least that is the version of the story that I heard (rumor mill...) Look at dos and look at the most used Unix commands. Notice some similarity.

Small correction: Bill Gates didn't write DOS. He (or his company) bought it from some guy. It was originally called QDOS - Quick and Dirty Operating System and it was some sort of weird clone of CP/M and (to some extent) Unix. They renamed it to MS-DOS, MicroSoft Disk Operating system.

I'd like to end my series of comments with a question: is linux more efficient than windows i.e. will linux do more with my 96MB of memory and my 550 celeron processor than windows does?

Perhaps. Linux is not plagued with having to support old 16-bit DOS programs (like the Win9x/ME series of OS:es) and requires a lot less memory and CPU power (= more RAM and clock cycles for the programs _you_ want to run http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/wink.gif) than Windows 2000 does. I used to run a small server here at home (http, ftp, ssh, smpt and pop3) on a 486 with 16 mb of ram and a 500 meg harddrive. It didn't even have a cdrom drive. I'd like to see someone put Windows 2000 on that machine. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif

There is nothing stopping Mr. Gates and company from creating their own propriety version of a Unix OS.

Wasn't Xenix created (or bought) by MS?

Dirk

12-23-2000, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Dirk:
These are valid arguments from ONLY a geek perspective. The world needs now a quality alternative to Windoz and Linux is the only viable alternative. Linux WILL become that GUI used by more folks than any other unless MS changes radically for the better, if for licensing than no other reason. The inevitable evolution will be furthered[sp?] by the geeks accepting Linux's transformation sooner rather than later.

My apologies to all. This reply was meant for a differrent post ab=nd I've just realized what I've done. Dirk

keating305

12-23-2000, 10:35 PM

OK, I'm a Linux newbie. I got sold on the idea that Linux was a superior O.S. I don't doubt that at all. Almost anything would be superior to ANY MicroSoft product. I'm tired of apologists saying "it doesn't crash THAT often". It DOES crash that often, almost anytime it's asked to do anything but the most basic tasks, it crashes. But I digress- we're flaming Linux, aren't we? Well, as I said, I'm a Linux newbie. As a matter of fact, I just established an internet connection for the first time this afternoon. I'm using CorelLinux, and I'll tell you a story. About 8 months ago, I saw a news item that said that Corel was releasing a Linux Distribution based on Debian, which has a reputation for stability. Great!! Maybe this is what I'm looking for!! So, I bought the Deluxe edition. I was going to reformat my hard drive, and install Linux on its own partition. NO DICE- I didn't know it, but I had a set of defective CDs. Corel replacedthem and I tried again- NO DICE- WIN95 kept corrupting my MBR and deleting LILO. Disgusted, but not discouraged, I built a new computer, and installed a separate hard drive for Linux- SUCCESS!! I got a stable installation that co-existed with WIN95 OSR2.1, and allowed me to boot to either system with no hassle. I've finally come to my main point. Review what I've done to get to this point. Does anyone think i"m afraid to get my hands dirty? I've only been interested in computers for about two years, I have NO formal training in any computer-oriented discipline. Now, would one of you high and mighty Linux gurus want to help me re-build the engine in my car? I can do that too, can you? I'd much rather have a new Lincoln Navigator than a Model T- They both perform their assigned tasks, but the Navigator is much prettier(not really, but I'm making a point), and you DON'T HAVE TO GET UNDER THE HOOD AS OFTEN. New technology is supposed to be more convenient, so what is the advatage of an operating system that needs to have it's valves ground every week? Command-line systems will always be around, and thats as it should be. But not all of us want to program. Don't be elitist about Linux, or it will end up as a historical footnote. Linux should be the great equalizer, no an "old boys" system. The command structure is a baffling mish-mosh. I'm afraid to try anything, because I DON'T UNDERSTAND, not because I'm not capable of learning, or don't care to learn. But when I try to get information, I'm confronted with a patois that makes no sense! SPEAK ENGLISH!!! Talk geek among yourselves, if you must, but don't look down your nose at someone who doesn't speak the language- after all, you were a newbie once upon a time.

singlespeed

12-24-2000, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by keating305:
But when I try to get information, I'm confronted with a patois that makes no sense! SPEAK ENGLISH!!! Talk geek among yourselves, if you must, but don't look down your nose at someone who doesn't speak the language- after all, you were a newbie once upon a time.

You're the type of person who would travel to a foreign country on vacation and get pissed because people there didn't speak english. We are speaking english, just because you don't have the experience and haven't learned the vocabulary yet doesn't mean we're looking down our collective noses at you. Get the chip off your shoulder.

Does anyone think i"m afraid to get my hands dirty? I've only been interested in computers for about two years, I have NO formal training in any computer-oriented discipline. Now, would one of you high and mighty Linux gurus want to help me re-build the engine in my car? I can do that too, can you? I'd much rather have a new Lincoln Navigator than a Model T- They both perform their assigned tasks, but the Navigator is much prettier(not really, but I'm making a point), and you DON'T HAVE TO GET UNDER THE HOOD AS OFTEN. New technology is supposed to be more convenient, so what is the advatage of an operating system that needs to have it's valves ground every week? Command-line systems will always be around, and thats as it should be. But not all of us want to program.

Then buy the OS that doesn't require you to get into coding!! You said it yourself, that's what you'd prefer. And what the hell does rebuilding an engine of a car have to do with any of this? Did I miss the post where one of us "Linux Gurus" was complaining that rebuilding the engine in our car was too complicated? If you don't want to program than that's fine, nobody will slight you for it in the least or hold it against you, but in the same sence, then stay with an OS that doesn't require it. How many times does it have to be said!?!?!?

New technology is supposed to be more convenient, so what is the advatage of an operating system that needs to have it's valves ground every week?

Hello..... just because Linux is new to you doesn't mean it's new technology. Last I checked Unix has been around since the 60's.

Talk geek among yourselves, if you must, but don't look down your nose at someone who doesn't speak the language- after all, you were a newbie once upon a time.

Hold on a second, nobody's looking down their nose at anyone. This is by far the most friendly tech support site I've ever seen. This whole issue is about Mr. Rigby writing a half baked article about how Linux is too hard and we should re-code it to make it more user friendly so we can overthow Mr. Gates evil empire. That was never the idea. If your going to be a Johnny Come Lately then maybe you should take the time and see what's going on and why before ripping everyone about what you think is wrong and what you (Mr. Rigby) think should be done. Nobody ever denied anyone the knowledge they seek and very rarely is anyone ever ridiculed for asking questions here. But to walk in and start dictating how the people here should talk and act is really pretty arrogant. When I first started out with computers it was a lot harder to get help from people "in the know". I would have killed for a site as friendly and helpfull as this. There is a line though where this site best helps those who help themselves. Computer technology and Linux especially takes a lot of time and research to master. I spend anywhere from $500 to $1000 a year for books on the subject.

FOR THE LAST TIME, IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO PUT IN THE TIME AND EFFORT TO RESEARCH AND LEARN ON YOUR OWN, THEN MAYBE, JUST MAYBE LINUX ISN'T THE OS FOR YOU.

That doesn't mean your not welcome to join our ranks and it doesn't mean you're dumb. It also doesn't mean we're elitists or techno snobs either. But we've all put in the time and still do, don't walk in and start dictating what Linux is and what it should be and what it should do for you and how we should talk. If you want to change it then learn to hack code and make the changes, nobody's stopping you. Yes, every guru here was once a newbie. Nobody here has forgotten that, that's why there is a Linuxnewbie.org, but do you honestly believe they got to be guru's by sitting around whining about how hard it is or how everybody speaks technobabble?

------------------
Jeff
~Perception is the Reality

[This message has been edited by singlespeed (edited 23 December 2000).]

Shad

12-24-2000, 12:29 AM

Keating,
I noticed that this was your first post here, at least with that alias. The people here do try to help. I am not sure what you mean by geek talk. Are you refering to using the proper technical terms? I might need to explain mount points to you, but there is no better way to describe them. If we were to talk about Molecular biology, would you abject to the terms nucleic acids or lipids? I mean I could call them the building blocks of life, but that would be a gross oversimplification.

I have no problem with Linux becoming easier. As long as it doesn't sacrifice the stability and configurability that I have come to expect. What John Rigby wants doesn't exist in any OS. The ability to do a perfect install on any machine (except for maybe something like Mac OS X but then Apple controls all the hardware there). Linux is at the point where I could either buy a preinstalled Linux box or build my own and give it to my parents for thier use. About the only thing they wouldn't be able to do is use some proprietary Windows software that they might go out and buy, or bring home from work. And that is quite a rarity, about three times currently they have done so, with only one thing (demo of DreamWeaver) that doesn't have a direct Linux comparable program.

Yes I would need to teach them a little (I already have them using Linux now), but I needed to do the same thing with Windows, so what's the difference?

I had gotten my parents a Idiot's Guide to Windows and they got pretty competent with it, at least to the point that they could change the resolution and install a program. I don't doubt that with the manual and maybe a for Dummies or Idiots Guide they could do just as well.

And they would never need to touch CLI, though my dad would problably be more comfortable using it, but then he uses old terminals that connect to some big mainframe computer at work. He is used to esoteric commands and expects to have to do a bit of learning to use a computer. He knows a keyboard is generally quicker than the mouse, except for things like Web browsing.

------------------
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

keating305

12-24-2000, 11:11 AM

Well, my missive seems to have struck a nerve or two!
To explain and clarify: The automotive analogy was to find a common ground... I mean, everybody has a car, right? Well, if there had been no progress in automotive technology over the past 73 years, we would still be driving Model T's (n.b.- the last Model T was built in 1927- 73 years ago). Now, from my point of view, I COULD live with a Model T, but I don't think I'd want to. They required a great deal of "under the hood" time, and were prone to fits of mechanical angst that would drive the owner to tears. I'm not saying they weren't a useable transportation device, they often got from A to B quite well, and that is the point of a car, but they could (and often did) break down. If your Model T broke down, you had two choices- get a person who knew how to fix it, or learn to fix it yourself- kind of like what we're discussing here RE: Linux. OK I want to learn how to fix my Model T, and I get the impression that this site has the POTENTIAL to help me.
I'm not trying to tell anyone what Linux needs. From what I've seen of it I'm impressed. All I'm saying (back to the thread) is that, for those of us who didn't start back in the '70's, a GUI is all we really know. Our experience is limited to the MicroSoft interpretation of operating systems, and there lies the rub- I don't feel that Linux is any more difficult to learn than any other technical concept, but the fundimentals are not the same as the ones we learned to operate Windows. So does this mean that I am excluded from using Linux? I don't think so. I'm rather good at figuring things out, and I'll keep trying, but there are a lot more people who will just give up- and thats just not fair.

tnordloh

12-24-2000, 12:42 PM

It looks like you need to develop some problem solving skills. Just take all the problems you have, and eliminate one at a time. Maybe start with the modem. Do a search for your particular modem on Google, or something.

Also, the tools are out there. It's amazing to me that you basically keep saying

"I want this task to be easier, but I don't want to use the tools that have been designed to make this task easier, because they are not good enough."

A person doesn't just jump in a car and drive, either. There is a learning curve in everything in life, and you are old enough to know that.

I'm one of those tech geeks you speak of with such disregard, and I believe you are correct about programmers either being born with an inclination to code or not. But I think you will find that the average computer geek isn't just that. Many of us play instruments, or love sports. I personally want to build my own boat, and am into martial arts. I have a natural desire to learn about everything. I don't just want to be a user, in any facet of my life. I'm reminded of an expression I read a few days ago;

"In the garage of life, there are mechanics and there are drivers. Mechanics wanted."

In your "user manifesto" you reveal a basic misunderstanding of what a gui is. Let me take a moment to expand on this.

A gui is basically a gigantic decision tree. Every step you take in it is pre-ordained by the person who drew the buttons you will be clicking on. That means that basically the only person who will every be truly happy with the gui alone is a person with absolutely no imagination or free will. That is the weakness and downfall of the gui, and why it will never entirely eliminate the command line.

Please take the time to analyze your life. Discover how many areas you have let fall into this user mentality. I believe it is a mistake to become so narrow-minded that all of the decisions you can make can be defined on a decision tree written by someone else.

ndogg

12-24-2000, 11:34 PM

Almost everyone here is arguing what has already been argued to death: don't want to learn, don't use Linux or Linux should become a viable alternative because Windows sucks. Put nicely, it's ****ing tiresome and old. Let's not determine the path of Linux, but rather let it play out. If there are people willing to make it a viable alternative to Windows by putting a nice GUI on it, let them waste/use wisely their time. If someone wants to learn Linux, you can be sure that he/she will. There is no question about whether a person will not have a chance to learn Linux and how an OS works. Arguing is just a waste of energy.

------------------
Too much Sun can give you cancer. Windows break too easily.
Apples/Macintoshes can rot. BSD... sounds too much like LSD.
Penguins are the only animals sophisticated enough to wear a
tuxedo.

Linux, the only one with the Penguin.

http://ndogg.n3.net

tminos

12-24-2000, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by scott_R:
4) add a user- another tough one. As root, open linuxconf, or drakeconf, and click add a user.

Or, horror of all horrors, type "adduser" at the CLI! http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/eek.gif
Who would ever have guessed that one?? http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/confused.gif

ndogg

12-25-2000, 01:27 AM

Short of reading your mind, the best interface to a computer would be a command line that understands prose.

------------------
Too much Sun can give you cancer. Windows break too easily.
Apples/Macintoshes can rot. BSD... sounds too much like LSD.
Penguins are the only animals sophisticated enough to wear a
tuxedo.

Linux, the only one with the Penguin.

http://ndogg.n3.net

trouble

12-25-2000, 04:09 PM

I completely agreee with the original author, and disagree strongly with those who say that LINUX has to be diffucult because of its very nature.

Try this logic: How much does anyone have to know about modulation, semiconductor electronics, antenna theory etc, to use an FM radio or a television set? Despite the great complexity of the underlying technologies in these devices, enough time has passed for their complxities to be overlaid with a simple interface.

The same will be true of LINUX, it just takes time and motivation.

The basic mistake of Mirosoft Windows is that the focus started with the interface, and neglected the careful design of the underlying technology. This approach will take longer to succeed, because, by analogy with buildings, its hard to keep the facade while rebuilding the superstructure. It can be done, with enough time and money, but it is much better to start with a solid superstructure.

LINUX is in a position where the facade, the final step in development, is now being constructed. It is a lot easier to change the facade on a solid structure, that the other way around.

Returning to the radio/TV analogy, did you know that back in the early 1900's, to tune a radio required the user to make complex adjustments with three mutually ineracting tuning dials? Plus the user had to understand how and where to mount a large anntenna. Today's radios are a testament to how, given time, a complex technology can be overlaid with a simple interface.

At the risk of appearring rude, it seems to me that some technical people resist overlaying simplicity on a technology because they fear becoming irrelevent in a culture where they currently have control.

Don't fear change - embrace it. Like it or not, over time LINUX will be overlaid with a
simple interface.

One last thing - this interface will not be like Misrosoft's Windows. I reckon that MS Windows is not simple at all. It has a "relative" simplicity, meaning compared with some alternatives it can appear simple, but it actually is very complex.

Simpler ways will be designed that achieve the same tasks that we currently do with computers. It just takes time and motivation. We have plenty of that.

Paul