Why Linux will not be accepted by the wide majority

[nonidentity]

Linux has proven to be a stable platform, no doubt about that!

It is efficient on the Internet resources. It doesn't bleat about it's presence a la MS.

But...............

The installation is OK if you get the mainstream CDs. Just wait till you want to change something then the fun starts. MS also has this problem but the interface certainly helps, better than Linux. ie The packaging is friendlier in MS - a BIG selling point! People pay BIG money for this!

The are not enough applications other than MS Office equivalents. eg MS Project, MS Access. This absolutely kills Linux as an alternative.

The environment is not consistent. Why doesn't the originators pick KDE or GNOME or whatever and MAKE it work and make it SLICK. A big selling point! Most users do not want to "discover" where things are or not! They just want to use it!. It is frustrating!

There is inconsistent standards, so many that there are none! Everybody implements their version of the standards, (justified of course) -sounds like the arguments MS uses to me.

More work needs to go into the "control centre". Most users and "administrators" are NOT world experts and this is were MS scores everytime. The anthem of READ THE SOURCE should be banned and left to developers and projects NOT users! Utilities! Utilities! Utilities! Get it!

The key is simplicity and reliability.

Don't get me wrong I develop and I am enjoying Linux but it needs to come a long way before it will become mainstream. I f not it is just another UNIX varioation interesting but not worth investing in. Ask yourself, haw many computer languages were the answer and are now obsolete? I personally have sixteen - see what I mean...... better the devil you know than the one you don't.....the pervasive argument is stick to mainstream stuff as it works!

The argument that Linux is free doesn't cut it as that is the only BIG selling point! Not enough she cried! Pity I think!

Any comments?

[Hena]

One thing you left out is OEMs, that microsoft has. Most people dont want to install the software and since win comes automatically, they learn to use it. Plus its annoying to pay for win and use linux :p.

[Okie]

Utilities! Utilities! Utilities! Get it!

you rnot going to start yelling Developers, Developers, Developers, like monkey boy Steve Ballmer did, are you????

[Dave2001]

There are first of all lots of Office packages - koffice for KDE or StarOffice and OpenOffice if iam not wrong .

For the rest - the main point that you make that linux is inconsistent . But hey - everybody can make his/her desktop look how he/she wants ! This is a very big plus i think !!! You can make your desktop look like XP or an Mac whatever you want !

This is the freedom of choice !


It is true that mostly Linux requires more work right now then a windows installation - but therefore you have the reliability of Linux ! Thats a big big plus i'd say !



David

[z0mbix]

I have to agree with you there nonidentity. But these are some of the reasons I love linux :)

[nonidentity]

No, I thankfully do NOT work for MS. You see, the baulk of people are NOT developers and want consistent interfaces. It gives them a warm feeling in a world of constant changes.

The community must produce standardised products not variants. This confuses everybody, (I know there are pedjudiced fanatics on both sides). I just wish that Linux was more mainstream so there is a REAL alternative to the MS juggernaut on the desktop. Usually, the fanatics thaT are so vociferious run there own desktop and think this is the world. When you have extended networks of 100K devices with mainframes etc. Linux has the opportunity to get ahead of MS as it can more closely intergrate with corporate systems. MS still thinks it can replace mainframes. It can't the investment is to large. If Linux orginators can get their differences behind them a BIG opportunity exists!

Thanks.
;)

What do you think?

[anacron]

Originally posted by nonidentity
the baulk of people want consistent interfaces.

I just wish that Linux was more mainstream so there is a REAL alternative to the MS juggernaut on the desktop.

Linux already has consistent interfaces. No matter which distro you buy, you can bet that at least KDE & gnome are there. I've used 4 different varieties of Linux in the last month, and I had the same desktop every time. Yes, Linux has tons of choices that you can make in this area, but choice is the great strength of Linux, not that it's free. Take away the wide selection of software, and you've robbed Linux of half its charm.

Linux is mainstream. You can buy the boxed sets at most major software resellers, and Walmart now sells it preinstalled. IBM made $1 billion from Linux related sales last year, and expects to double that figure this year. Linux is a major player in the server OS department, and Linux related news can be found in almost every industry trade magazine. Linux is not a fringe OS. Linux is mainstream.

I've done about 50 Linux installs (and hundreds of Windows), and I can tell you that the entry level Linux distros (Mandrake, redhat, SuSE, Turbolinux) load faster and as easy as Windows.

Linux distros come standard with what would be thousands of $ in software in Windows. Windows made desktop computing functional. Linux made it fun.

Linux is everything an ordinary desktop user could want. They just don't know it yet!;)

[chikn]

The only thing linux needs is a standardized directory structure and a standard gnome/kde menuing system and developers developing under a standard set of libs that is included standard by all distros.

[mrBen]

I'm still confused as to why people bother posting topics like this? Do they think we haven't thought of these things?

Anyway, to the response:

1. Linux being free is a big selling point to some people. Like me. I don't have much money, and I like to spend what I do have on hardware.

2. I don't have much money, therefore my hardware is crap. It'd probably run Win98 (now unsupported and not available), but would flounder with MS Office, even if I could afford it.

3. It has all the applications _I_ would ever need. OpenOffice, Opera, GIMP and Sylpheed do me fine.

4. The community is much more entertaining and fulfilling to belong to (IMHO).

5. I've learnt more in a couple of years of Linux use (about computers in general) than I did in previous years of Windows use (where what I learnt was generally much more Windows specific).

6. It's more fun. ;)

7. IMHO the OS design behind *nix is far better than Windows - I believe in the command-line as the best tool for some jobs.

8. And some other stuff :p

So there.

[MarcRochkind]

Well said... I basically agree.

My favorite sentence from the replies above is this one:

"Linux already has consistent interfaces. No matter which distro you buy, you can bet that at least KDE & gnome are there."

I'm putting together a series of articles for newcomers, and in the process have installed four distros so I could evaluate them from a newcomer's perspective (Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, and Lycoris). The list of silly things that just confuse newcomers is quite long. Having to choose the user interface is only one of them.

How about this one: Instead of including a floppy disk that can be used to boot the computer, the first-time user is asked to enter the BIOS to make the computer boot from a CD, or make his or her own boot floppy by running a program on the CD (under Windows!).

Or this: When setting up the network card, the user is asked whether DHCP is available.

Or this: Samba is installed, but with a smb.conf file that is guaranteed not to work. Can you imagine what the engineers must have been thinking when they decided to install a component so that it will initially not work?

I could go on and on... in fact, I have, and hope to have some of my articles available in a few days.

--Marc

[dunbar]

Centralized 'government' ala M$ serves to focus development efforts - there is, after all, only one GUI implementation shipped with W98.
Slashdot/Freshmeat... Linux in general allows individualism without restriction.... which individualism acts toward diluting development resources over many projects, instead of all working on one project.... imagine where Gnome would be today if all of KDEs developers, all of Gnomes developers, all of XFCEs developers teamed up on it!

Having a massive audience helps as well - users want the next solution, and since the solution is only needed to work on the massively popular OS they use (Ok, 6 versions, but many are redundant development tasks), the audience pulls toward one massively popular goal - which means one development effort - easier to justify the expenses that way.

Being a giant monolithic, closed source OS with tremendous audience, the director of the OS can tell the peripheral manufacturers where to go next (Whoa! now that was loaded with puns!!).

And since when was the audience able to tell the other OS they did not want this feature done some certain way.... as if users could reject the software: 'We want a software package which does not use 3500 dlls'. They already hear the OS company saying 'We're sorry, Mr/Mrs Peon, but this is the best solution - you'll need to buy a new operating system if you want a mouse upgrade. What next - will M$ deliver a new PC with each OS revision? The hardware people must love that idea!!!

Further - dumbing down the user helps a lot towards keeping them loyal - while I ran M$ products, I never edited my registry for any reason, never needed to ask in forums for help installing, was able to navigate the help system, etc.

[MarcRochkind]

I basically agee with dunbar.

Another huge advantage for the dominant OS is that MS doesn't have to check out the hardware themselves or write the drivers. All computer and peripheral manufacturers need to ensure that the equipment works with MS's principal systems before even launching the product. Very few of them would be similarly concerned with Linux.

Although, in time they will be, to some degree, and having only ONE Linux rabbit to chase will help enormously. So, the standardization and consolidation efforts are very important.

In writing my tutorial, I devoted a lot of space to two issues, neither of which Windows users normally have to deal with at all:

1. Making room on a Windows system for Linux, and handling dual-boot issues. Not strictly speaking a Linux-related issue at all, as the complexity would be the same for any second OS. But, nonetheless, an obstacle for many people new to Linux, as previously they had only one OS. (I strongly advise beginners to dedicate a whole machine to Linux, but realistically, of course, many can't afford to.)

2. Installing Linux. Windows normally comes pre-installed. Only a tiny percentage of Windows users ever upgrade by installing a new version of Windows. Usually, Windows users upgrade when they buy a new computer.

So... my advice to Linux distributors who are serious about attracting desktop users would to be to continue to put effort into installation and dual-boot issues. The improvements in the last couple of years have been dramatic, but there is still work. (For example, some distros claim to be able to reduce the Windows partition, but then in the fine print they say that they can't do it for NTFS file systems. I wonder if they even know that XP comes as NTFS as a matter of course? It is stupid to claim to be able to do something when there is such a large probability that it won't work!)

--Marc

[proffy]

Originally posted by mrBen
2. Win98 (now unsupported and not available)


Win98 is still supported I believe. MS still creates software for it, like IE and such as well as their office suite, games etc...

[proffy]

Originally posted by MarcRochkind
I wonder if they even know that XP comes as NTFS as a matter of course?

I don't know if all OEMs install XP on NTFS, it will work on FAT32 however. I actually ran XP on FAT32 for 6 months before I reformatted and installed on NTFS (I was quad booting with 98, win2k, server, and XP home).

[glussier]

Most of the people (probably over 95%), contrary to some of you may think, to play games, run office applications and surf the internet. Microsoft. Win2k and winxp are excellent at these tasks, and contrary to one has said, you can customize the interface, I can even have a windowmaker look or blackbox look if I want to, I only have to download a few utilities.

If Linux wants to be more popular, they first have to find a few OEMS who are willing to sell their computers with linux pre-installed. And probably, it wouldn't hurt if Linux could boot faster (for now it is at least twice as slow as win2k andwinxp to get to a desktop). It also wouldn't hurt if applications could load faster, presently windows applications loading time is much faster than Linux. Don't tell me the f***en crap, that IE is integrated into windows, load any applications and you'll soon see that windows is much better than linux at loading applications. Another thing that wouldn't hurt, is if power management was better on linux, right now, both my laptops can last about 30minutes longer on batteries with win2k than any Linux distribution.

Also, for most people buying a new computer, windows and office doesn't cost much as the cost is burried in the price of the pc, which cost is peanuts as Microsoft charges only something like $40.00 for the whole thing in volume sale to OEMs.

I like Linux, and I have it installed on 2 workstations, but for now it is not going to replace windows on my 2 laptops.

As for complexity, I'm not a good person to judge that. I was trained as an IBM/360 370 and 390 assembly programmer, so I'm not afraid of a command line, and I think Linux is easy enough to learn, as long as you want to put a minimum of effort.

[undef]

linux is not gonna go away because no one party is in control of it. secondly, anyone who is satisfied with linux has seen something they like. they'll not give it up without a fight. what i'm trying to say is this: linux might not go mainstream but no one can kill it.

i agree it's good to standardize some things but what i might call standard might not coincide with your idea of standard so by doing this you take away freedom of choice, which is one of the things that make linux great OS.

as for linux booting up slower than windows, consider shutting down the services you don't need. for windows loading programs faster, maybe it got something to do with the fact that one is multiuser, multitasking and the other is not. or maybe something to do with the fact the some OS requires X megs of ram to run properly.

[bdl]

Anyone care to make a wager on how long we go before someone else posts 'how linux will never be accepted by the mainstream'?? I say at most two days. Anyone else?

[glussier]

Originally posted by undef
linux is not gonna go away because no one party is in control of it. secondly, anyone who is satisfied with linux has seen something they like. they'll not give it up without a fight. what i'm trying to say is this: linux might not go mainstream but no one can kill it.

i agree it's good to standardize some things but what i might call standard might not coincide with your idea of standard so by doing this you take away freedom of choice, which is one of the things that make linux great OS.

as for linux booting up slower than windows, consider shutting down the services you don't need. for windows loading programs faster, maybe it got something to do with the fact that one is multiuser, multitasking and the other is not. or maybe something to do with the fact the some OS requires X megs of ram to run properly.

In case you didn't know, win2k (the nt kernel) is multiuser and multitasking. And the services I don't need are stopped in Linux as they are in win2k. There is 144mB of ram on my 200mhz laptop and 512mB in my Thinkpad 1.13ghz P3M. It's not that I don't like Linux, but on laptops it doesn't cut it. I have FreeBSD installed on my serveir P3S-1.4 with 1.5gB of ram and I also have Linux (Mandrake and Redhat) running on 2 other workstations, 1 is a P3T-1.13@1.36ghz and the other is a CelT1.0@1.33.

[glussier]

Originally posted by bdl
Anyone care to make a wager on how long we go before someone else posts 'how linux will never be accepted by the mainstream'?? I say at most two days. Anyone else?

You won't have to wait 2 days, here I come. :)

If Linux doesn't become like windows, that is pre-installed on some workstation with restoration disks, something similar to Compaq, Hp, Dell and the Cow, then forget about Linux becoming mainstream like window. The reason I'm using Linux, is that I like the command line, and I like to play in the program sources and compile my programs. The next problem Linux has, is lack of support for some hardware. So, probably, one thing which could help Linux, would be some computers being sold, being labelled has "Linux compatible computer", something like the "Intel Inside" logo would be nice.

[anacron]

Originally posted by glussier
Most of the people (probably over 95%), contrary to some of you may think, to play games, run office applications and surf the internet.

Which is exactly the reason that 95% of people would have more fun using their PCs if they had Linux.

I am sick of hearing people insist that Linux can't compete with Windows on the desktop because it's not as good as Windows on one particular issue or another. What a load of crap. It seems that every time Linux leaps another usability hurdle, there are people waiting in the wings with a new "obstacle to desktop acceptance".

Mandrake, Redhat & SuSE are now easier installs than Windows (faster, too) and KDE is certainly no harder to use. If there's one thing that Windows has that Linux needs it's a marketing infrastructure. Microsoft spends $billions to infuse the computer users of the world with Windows awareness and dependency.

The ONLY thing keeping that 95% from using Linux is ignorance. Ignorance of the existence of Linux, ignorance of how to use Linux, ignorance that they even have a choice. And that's not a failing of the Linux OS; that an opportunity for the Linux community.

If I hear one more person whine about Linux not being ready for the destop, I'm gonna scream!

[evil_roy]

You guys spend a lot of time worrying about this. Why ?

[anacron]

Originally posted by evil_roy
You guys spend a lot of time worrying about this. Why ?

Fair question. Here's why:

As long as active members of the Linux community insist on spreading FUD about the desktop usability of Linux, the image of Linux as 'not ready for prime time' will live on. (Ironically, that image is one of the things keeping Linux from mass adoption.)

And as long as there is FUD being spread in posts, those of us who care about Linux advocacy have to respond. If we don't, newbies who don't know any better, or folks that may be considering Linux, will interpret our silence as agreement.

Sometimes I just get a little flustered wondering what Linux has to do to satisfy some people. :rolleyes:

[Okie]

You guys spend a lot of time worrying about this. Why ?

i agree why worry about it, sure i want to see Linux pre-installed on computers too, i try to convince Windoze only users, but if they wont listen and are too chicken to try then i shake the dust off my feet and move on (their loss not mine)...

the Windoze only users are the only ones losing out on a vastly superier OS, and the ones that use both Linux & Windoze and still don't see the quality Linux has over Windoze are not looking, or have not used it enough to see it...

i still have a old copy of Win98,(gutted thanks to "Revenge of Mozilla") and it does not have any networking abilitys because i do not trust it on the internet, i almost never use it anymore except for a Piece of crap flatbed scanner that Cannon made & from what i seen on their web site Cannon does not even know there is a Linux, this is the last product i buy from Cannon, abd yes i checked for it at LinuxUSB and Sane.org (no joy)...

[MarcRochkind]

Mandrake, Redhat & SuSE are now easier installs than Windows (faster, too) and KDE is certainly no harder to use.

Don't agree with this statement at all. Windows is way ahead in handling a wide range of peripherals, and in setting up basic services like printing and file sharing across a network. (For example, you plug a printer into a Windows computer, it automatically recognizes the printer, sets up the driver, and... you print! With the typical Linux installation, you haven't even determined which subsystem to use [CUPS vs. whatever] in the same period of time!)

(I've installed the 3 distros you mention, each in their very latest incarnations, and nearly all versions of Windows, too.)

It's really unfortunate that the typical response to criticism of Linux is to defend Linux. I would prefer that the typical response would be to understand what's behind the criticism, figure out what that reality is, and come up with some way for Linux to improve.

[glussier]

Originally posted by Okie


i agree why worry about it, sure i want to see Linux pre-installed on computers too, i try to convince Windoze only users, but if they wont listen and are too chicken to try then i shake the dust off my feet and move on (their loss not mine)...

the Windoze only users are the only ones losing out on a vastly superier OS, and the ones that use both Linux & Windoze and still don't see the quality Linux has over Windoze are not looking, or have not used it enough to see it...

i still have a old copy of Win98,(gutted thanks to "Revenge of Mozilla") and it does not have any networking abilitys because i do not trust it on the internet, i almost never use it anymore except for a Piece of crap flatbed scanner that Cannon made & from what i seen on their web site Cannon does not even know there is a Linux, this is the last product i buy from Cannon, abd yes i checked for it at LinuxUSB and Sane.org (no joy)...

I have been using linux since the first release of Slackware, back in 1993 or 94. You have to take win98 for what it was designed for: a good general purpose O/S to play games, do some office apps and surf the net and for the net, with a good firewall, it is a good O/S. I never compared win98 to Linux, but compare win2k/winxp to Linux., then you might see things differently. Each of these O/S have their use, like it or not.

[anacron]

Originally posted by MarcRochkind
For example, you plug a printer into a Windows computer, it automatically recognizes the printer, sets up the driver, and... you print! With the typical Linux installation, you haven't even determined which subsystem to use [CUPS vs. whatever] in the same period of time!)

More FUD. I've installed local & networked printers in Linux (on a WinNT network, no less) and all you have to do is go to the printer config utility & tell it where the printer is. For the most recent distros, the driver is almost always right there, ready to go.

With Windows 2K & XP, there's often a need to load the software, which ends up taking considerably more time than the Linux install.

You see, I know this because I do it for a living, as PC & network support tech for 150 users in a mixed environment.

And because I install Windows & Linux both many times over (every week, ad nauseum), I KNOW that Linux is the faster install. I believe KDE to be no less user friendly, but that's more subjective, and my main evidence is my kids (ages 13, 9 & 5), who have used it for over a year with no complaints.

[MarcRochkind]

Sorry... I misunderstood your earlier post. I see now that you meant that Linux was the faster install for YOU. Of course, only you would know that.

I am concerned with an entirely different issue: The difficulties of installing Linux for the average desktop user, rather than the computer professional or expert. I should have made my perspective clear.

(I am from Central Maryland... clicked on your link, even. But, can't come to your meetings, as I live in Colorado.)

[evil_roy]

If all of the reasons given for 'choosing' ( I use that term tongue-in-cheek) Windows were true , then everyone would be using a Mac. You want ease of use and **** that works out of the box .. try OSX. You want *nix stability and network capability...try OSX.

There are other more important reasons and they have nothing to do with functionality, security , peripherals or choice.

I believe there have been several high profile court cases recently...but maybe they didn't have the insight and so it was all a waste of time and money.

[anacron]

Originally posted by MarcRochkind

I am concerned with an entirely different issue: The difficulties of installing Linux for the average desktop user, rather than the computer professional or expert.

A Linux install isn't quicker or easier for me because I do it for a living. With Mandrake, Redhat & SuSE, I end up clicking "next" on almost every window. They auto detect & install everything. These distros make it very hard to mess up the install.

What I was saying is that these Linux distros ALWAYS install faster than Windows, for any user. If installing these distros takes someone longer than 45 minutes (on 64M of RAM), I'd be surprised. The only variable being how long that person spends customizing their install with package selection. Of course, Windows has no package selection, because it comes with no decent apps anyway, you have to buy them later. :)

[Acidkewl]

I was just thinking Linux is not accepted by the wide majority because you really have to know something about it to use it and configure it. You have to know things ulike windows where its self explainitory and made for the dumbass. But so many people now a day are so lazy they dont want to take the time to learn it or maybe they dont have the time whatever their reason, you have to know something about linux to really utalize it and so many people dont want to take the time to learn when they can just use windows, or Mac.

[miker]

in my experience linux IS ready for the desktop. I use it at home and I've used it for vulnerability testing on corporate LANs.

however, linux is not ready for Senior Management who ultimately decide which solutions go in and which don't.

Microsoft hospitality is very buddy buddy with snr mngmt, I wonder why!

but what has corporate policy go to do with your home desktop?

well, you remember that Microsoft crap you copied at work and installed at home ...

[slapNUT]

Why Linux will not be accepted by the wide majority

All this cutting edge sophistocated bleeding edge editorial about the inadiquacies of linux have certainly converted me to a life of Windows! How about you?

Thank you for posting this insight that has never been posted before in my 5 years of using *nix machinery.

[Timothy L. Miller]

Gotta post my $.02.
Ok. Yes, linux installs are faster than windows. I've installed Mandrake, Alt, RH, Libranet, Slack (although it didn't work), Debian (although I never did get my X problems sorted out), Win2K, Win98, WinXP, and overall, if doing a simple install, linux is quicker.
Although what some people say about a standard user not being able to get things working is correct. Out of 20 people I know at work, 1 would know what DHCP was, and whether or not he needed it. They all do of course, but only 1 would know that. The others would sit and wonder why their cable wasn't working...Printers. Sorry, but WinXP has it ALL OVER linux on this one. my steps to use my printer in xp: 1. Plug in. 2. Wait to hear "boink" 3. Print. LInux is still easy, but not NEARLY that simple. And there are many other things. Such as office software(uing openoffice as my example since that's what I like). I install in windows, logout, any user can use it. Not linux. You have to either install it for each user or do a /net install from a terminal, then do a workstation install from each user you want to be able to use it. Going back to my 20 friends, again, I'd say 1 would even know what workstation is...or if that's what they wanted.
Games. Sorry, I know it's beating a dead horse, but until there are games for Linux, it's NOT going to be mainstream desktop. When I can go down to walmart and pick up the latest Star Trek Starfleet Command for linux...then yes. Too many people like to play games, unless software vendors are willing to cater to linux users and actually release linux versions, then it'll suffer the same fate as the MAC, never being more than a niche product(or, perhaps, a NON-NICHE product, since it can do everything else that windows can, most of it better??)
And the laptop user is right. Linux's laptop capabilities are currently...lacking. I've used WinXP, Win2K, Mandrake, Alt, and Libranet to my laptop. Win2K is by far the best. it works. Alt is fairly unusable, because I just have the single cd download, which doesn't include support for everything...making it impossible to get on net (pcmcia ethernet adapter, recognizes it, can't install though). Mandrake worked, but it did indeed suck the battery. And boot-time was a killer. Overall, I could get about 1/2 the productivity as with Win2K. LIbranet was slightly better, but not by much...
Everything said though, if you loook at Linux's history (I started trying it with Mandrake 7.1, RH 6.something, OpenLinux 2.4), it has come a LONG way in a short time. And considering the amount of developers for it is growing every day, it should continue to improve. And since the price to try it is right, I will continue to sing the praises of linux, even if there are some things about it that are less than optimal. And I will support it (when I can afford it, which isn't right now!!).

[CMonster]

In fact, Linux is not suitable for the "average" user.

Let me clarify that:

We have all probably heard the statement "The average person uses only 10% of his brain."

Well, it's true! And Linux requires more than 10%

[scanez]

1. I could care less if linux becomes mainstream, it works for me as it is, that's all that matters.

2. The ONLY reason windows is easier for people, is because that is what they are used to. If you took someone who's never used a computer before and sat them in front of say Mandrake, they would of course learn how to use linux just as well and as fast as they would have learned how to use windows.

[ASCI Blue]

Why linux won't be a mainstream OS?


Posts like this, people who don't know crap about their PC's, and people too stupid to know there's something better.

[scanez]

Originally posted by hop-frog
i'd like to start seeing TV commercials advertising linux
You mean like the IBM linux commercials? ;)

[proffy]

Originally posted by scanez
1. I could care less if linux becomes mainstream, it works for me as it is, that's all that matters.

2. The ONLY reason windows is easier for people, is because that is what they are used to.
I've been waiting for someone to finally hit the nail on the head.

Two thumbs up for scanez!

[proffy]

I can’t see what everyone is arguing about. Install times, whether or not KDE is as easy to use as windows, how difficult a printer in to install etc…

Why the heck does anyone want linux to be mainstream anyway? Sometimes we Linux enthusiasts sound like Jehovah’s witnesses, going door to door to get people to switch to our “OS religion”. You like to use Linux? Great, do it. But don’t try and push it on the rest of your family and friends! Sheesh, let people use what they want.

Windows is easier to use for most people, simply because that’s what they are used to. Heck, sometimes I get confused when sitting at a Mac because I ain’t used to it :) .

Now everyone, get on with your lives!

[Strike]

The only thing that worries me is that the MS majority might soon turn to things like Palladium and their DRM stuff will shut the rest of us off from the "dumber" parts of the world that are depending on such Bad Things(TM) as Palladium. Oh well, it will be interesting, to say the least.

[anacron]

Originally posted by scanez

You mean like the IBM linux commercials? ;)

In the IBM commercials, Linux is part of the cast, but not the star of the show.

Example: I was in the checkout line of my local grocery store last week, and I was wearing a Tux polo. Anyway, the cashier says to me, "Do you like penguins?" I took the opportunity to explain that this penguin was Tux, the mascot of the Linux computer operating system. And then she said, "Linux? Isn't he a basketball player?"

What Linux needs is a way to make the mass computing public aware of its existence - and superiority. Microsoft has a multi-billion $ marketing machine to shove Windows down our throats; Linux has us - the Linux community.

That's why Linux advocacy (as individuals & through LUGs) is so important; and that's why refuting FUD (such as has been seen on this thread) is so important. In the end, we are the face of Linux to the world!:)

[proffy]

Originally posted by anacron
Microsoft has a multi-billion $ marketing machine to shove Windows down our throats
So you want RedHat to have a multibillion dollar marketing machine to shove Linux down my grandmothers throat?

Why can't YOU be happy using Linux, instead of trying to get other people to use it?

[anacron]

Originally posted by proffy

Why can't YOU be happy using Linux, instead of trying to get other people to use it?

Everything that we want as Linux users: more apps, better hardware compatability, Linux OEMs, etc. is dependent upon a GROWING base of Linux users.

Microsoft has been trying to snuff out Linux and the Open Source movement for a few years now, and the main reason that they have failed is that Linux is becoming increasingly popular, and therefore has its advocates to defend it, either in public, or behind the scenes in corporate board rooms. Right now there are lots of industry leaders saying that there'll be a bigger Linux market to sell to as years go by, and companies hear this - and act accordingly.

If the Linux user base every flattens out, or God forbid starts to trail off, Microsoft will proclaim the end of the Linux era (and they'll likely be believed by important people who just don't know any better).

If you want to see more and better Linux code, work for a larger Linux user base. There is strength (and market share) in numbers.

If you couldn't care less if Linux thrives or dies, then go about your business like it doesn't matter. You just may get your wish...

[Allen614]

Microsoft put out a bulletin saying they would no longer support Win98 after 2002.

[proffy]

Originally posted by anacron
Right now there are lots of industry leaders saying that there'll be a bigger Linux market to sell to as years go by.
I don't want a Linux market to sell to. I like FREE software. If linux gets too big, and replaces Windows in the workplace, how long before MS releases Office for linux? How long before, AOL icons start appearing all over the desktop? I don't want RedHat to become the next windows.

I like the pace that Linux is at now. It improves with each new release and is steadily approaching Macs and Windows in terms of ease of use. The last thing I want is for Linux to take over 90% of the desktop market. It would only be a matter of time before Larry Ellison, Scott McNealy, Steve Jobs, or someone else takes Bill Gate's place.

I happy the way things are and see no reason to spread my "religion" to keep linux from dying.

[anacron]

Originally posted by proffy

I don't want a Linux market to sell to. I like FREE software.
I happy the way things are and see no reason to spread my "religion" to keep linux from dying.

Well then, that's where we differ.

I want more and better Linux software. I want to see Linux advance in the marketplace and I will do everything in my power to keep Linux from dying (or more realistically, to be killed off by indifference).

I am a Linux advocate.

[Silent Bob]

Originally posted by glussier
And probably, it wouldn't hurt if Linux could boot faster (for now it is at least twice as slow as win2k andwinxp to get to a desktop).

I timed my 'puter booting into win2k and RH 7.1 (fresh installs of both).

I started from the moment I made a selection at the LILO prompt and stopped the clock every time that user input was needed (just for username and password it turned out). 2K took 20 seconds longer. As apps have been installed in 2k and the registry has grown the time to get to a usable desktop has also grown. RH on the other hand has stayed mostly the same (it's a little bit quicker now because I don't have as many services going as are on by default).

I don't know how consistent these results are for other machines. The only one I checked was my own :)

[CMonster]

Hello Sir or Madame;

You might think you believe in Tux already, but Tux was merely the one sent by Linus.

I'm here to ask you if you know that the MS empire is about to come to an end? Yes, and only 144,000 true Linusians are going to be Celestial Linux gurus while the rest of us good people remain here on Earth using the bset OS around - Linux.......

Why yes, I am a Linus's Witness.... would you like a free copy of our "AWAKE Alternative OS" magazine?

Remember that Tux is not enough, you must call upon the name of Linus directly....

wait... please don't turn that hose on meeeee! -- !YIKES that's c-C-COLD!


Hello Sir or Madame.... oh no! ..DOGs! grrrr...! bar-rar-rar-rarf! -grrrrrrr!!

[glussier]

Originally posted by Silent Bob


I timed my 'puter booting into win2k and RH 7.1 (fresh installs of both).

I started from the moment I made a selection at the LILO prompt and stopped the clock every time that user input was needed (just for username and password it turned out). 2K took 20 seconds longer. As apps have been installed in 2k and the registry has grown the time to get to a usable desktop has also grown. RH on the other hand has stayed mostly the same (it's a little bit quicker now because I don't have as many services going as are on by default).

I don't know how consistent these results are for other machines. The only one I checked was my own :)

I don't know how Redhat was 20 seconds faster, My 1.4ghz rig can boot win2k in less than 30 seconds. You should probably learn how to disable non required services. :) And, if you didn't know the registry's unused keys can be removed and the registry compressed.

[anacron]

Originally posted by glussier


I don't know how Redhat was 20 seconds faster, My 1.4ghz rig can boot win2k in less than 30 seconds. You should probably learn how to disable non required services. :) And, if you didn't know the registry's unused keys can be removed and the registry compressed.

Oh yeah. These are things that the "wide majority" of PC users will do - right after they finish reading their Windows 2000 Quick Start Guide...:rolleyes:

[glussier]

Originally posted by anacron


Oh yeah. These are things that the "wide majority" of PC users will do - right after they finish reading their Windows 2000 Quick Start Guide...:rolleyes:

LOL. One was saying, in a previous post, that you need 10% of your brain to run windows. To efficiently run windows, you probably need as much brain as you need to run Linux. How many window users, know that they can run multiple background batch jobs, while still running their Microsoft Office to write a word document? Probably not too many!

[CMonster]

How many window users, know that they can run multiple background batch jobs, while still running their Microsoft Office to write a word document? Probably not too many! -hehehe, probably not too many because the OS either crashes because of the extra load or runs so pitifully slow with the multiple batch jobs running in the bg that the users give up trying.....

Don't all Windows OSs run multiple jobs in the bg almost all the time anyway -like spyware, trojans, worms, and viri?

[glussier]

Originally posted by CMonster
-hehehe, probably not too many because the OS either crashes because of the extra load or runs so pitifully slow with the multiple batch jobs running in the bg that the users give up trying.....


Don't all Windows OSs run multiple jobs in the bg almost all the time anyway -like spyware, trojans, worms, and viri?

You probably never used an nt O/S, or don't know how to configure one properly.

[proffy]

Originally posted by Silent Bob
I timed my 'puter booting into win2k and RH 7.1 (fresh installs of both).

2K took 20 seconds longer.

I think it's generally accepted that XP boots much faster than linux. IT shouldn't be a big deal though, since you typically don't need to boot linux as much (no forced reboots for security fixes).

However, I timed XP pro and RedHat 7.2, both default installs in my PIII 800MHz.

XP, 25 seconds
RH, 73 seconds

These values will change depending on what services you have, etc, etc...

[CMonster]

You probably never used an nt O/S, or don't know how to configure one properly. -pu hahahahahahaha!

Is that your best shot?

1994 -even after Microsoft released NT 3.5 -fixing major bugs in the previous version- and some corporations finally began to take NT seriously, the joke I heard most often was that NT stood for ""Nothing-is-compatible-Technology." -I was 34 then.

what I think of my legal, paid-for, non-pirated copy of Win2Khttp://www.dslextreme.com/users/cmonster3/mickey.jpg

http://www.dslextreme.com/users/cmonster3/tuxsuper1.gif-tomorrow we're going to take over the world!


http://www.dslextreme.com/users/cmonster3/domination2.jpg

[henrikf]

(This is my accumulated rant from all these threads about comparing Windows & Linux)

I think the approach to get Linux accepted in the public is a bit strange...

Everyone is yelling at and threatening Win-users to use Linux because :

- Micr0$oft is t3h D€v1l !!!!!!
- All installations of Windows hangs ALL THE TIME.
- Penguins are c00l
- Loose promises that Linux can do everything Windows can, and much better.
- If you use Windows you are st00pid because you don't use Linux.
- You CAN'T get ANYTHING done in Windows, ever. It's for gaming only, and it does a poor job at that.

What I think would be a better approach:

- Just because Microsoft loves Windows and dislikes Linux don't mean the best answer is to love Linux and really REALLY hate Windows. That only broadens the gap between the users.

- If Linux really is better at things than Windows, SHOW IT! Take a bunch of screenshots of programs in Windows and the corresponding program in Linux and write an unbiased comparison of how to get the same job done in Linux! Just telling someone "It can be done in Linux" don't convert any users.

I like Windows and that's what's I've been using for the past year exclusively (used mostly for gaming and DiVX w/ TV-out). I like Linux and I really REALLY hopes it gets a bigger public acceptance, but with the wrong attitude, I just don't see it happen! :(

Hm... enough ranting for now, time for lunch ;) brb

[Ludootje]

Originally posted by nonidentity
The installation is OK if you get the mainstream CDs. Just wait till you want to change something then the fun starts. MS also has this problem but the interface certainly helps, better than Linux.
In MS, you can't customize a lot, if you want to customize your windows as much as your windows, you're stuck since there aren't any howto's / manpages / ... about editing MS' config files.

The packaging is friendlier in MS - a BIG selling point! People pay BIG money for this!
That depends: .exe's are more friendly than .rpm's or sources, but apt / dpkg is much more friendly than .exe's.

The are not enough applications other than MS Office equivalents. eg MS Project, MS Access. This absolutely kills Linux as an alternative.
There's MrProject, a great tool. For access: staroffice comes with such a tool (openoffice & sot office, the free staroffice clones, don't have that tool though since it's copyrighted - therefore you need to pay for it, just as you need to pay for ms office). There are *tons* of alternatives to M$ Office: gnome office (which includes evolution, abiword, gnumeric, mrproject and others), siag office, koffice, sot office, openoffice, staroffice,...

The environment is not consistent. Why doesn't the originators pick KDE or GNOME or whatever and MAKE it work and make it SLICK. A big selling point! Most users do not want to "discover" where things are or not! They just want to use it!. It is frustrating!
I don't get it. What do you mean by discovering? Everything is in the menus... what more do you want? an ugly m$-interface?

There is inconsistent standards, so many that there are none! Everybody implements their version of the standards, (justified of course) -sounds like the arguments MS uses to me.
There are the LSB (Linux Standard Bsomething, not sure of what it stands for:o), but most distros don't use it AFAIK :( There are a lot of standards for filetypes, but since those are open source most apps support them. example: you could say that .abw (abiword format) is a standard, but since it's an open source standard, koffice for example works perfectly with it (and ditto the other way around: abiword supports .kwd files perfectly)

More work needs to go into the "control centre". Most users and "administrators" are NOT world experts and this is were MS scores everytime. The anthem of READ THE SOURCE should be banned and left to developers and projects NOT users! Utilities! Utilities! Utilities! Get it!
err? read the source? lol! no one ever told me that one, and it would be hard for me to believe someone actually told you that. there's control center in linux like there is one in m$, no, there are tons of them: drakconf, yast, yast2, webmin, swat, kcontrol, linuxconf, (x)adminmenu,... If *all* distros used standard stuff for directories, than I suppose that I could use drakconf, yast2, linuxconf,... on my libranet, but this isn't possible, and that's a shame :(


I don't wanna flame you, not at all, but the alternatives are there... they just need to be used more, and perfectionized a bit. I get your point and agree with you, but not entirely. Linux is moving fastly I think, and soon it will be ready for mainstream.

Maybe it is now, but just because people are used to "Start -> Settings -> Control Panel" to change stuff (instead of https://localhost:10000 or whatever) it isn't really. I think almost everyone started with windows (those who didn't probably started with mac's, but not with linux), and that's the only problem. Someone who *never* used computers could maybe start using linux easier than a windows veteran could.

[Ludootje]

Originally posted by Hena
One thing you left out is OEMs, that microsoft has. Most people dont want to install the software and since win comes automatically, they learn to use it. Plus its annoying to pay for win and use linux :p.
No idea what OEM's are...
Your last sentence: there are computers sold with linux pre-installed now: Lycoris Desktop/LX sells them, and I heard "kmart" or something like that now sells computers with Mandrake pre-installed.

[MkIII_Supra]

Originally posted by anacron


Oh yeah. These are things that the "wide majority" of PC users will do - right after they finish reading their Windows 2000 Quick Start Guide...:rolleyes:

How is editing the registry any different than editing a .h file or a conf file? So once again you make the argument that Linux is not ready for the average user! Something I have been saying for some time now.

I finally got SuSE 8.0 to install and run with a modicum of stability and speed although the GUI still locks the system up randomly. Anyhow I am posting from SuSE 8.0 right now, but that is another post another topic.

Telling an average user to fire up vi then edit a conf file and or a .h file so that he/she can get thier GUI to work or a driver to function or to speed up boot times is no friggin' different than telling them to edit thier registry!

The difference is that Windows has utilities that help the average user do this.... Norton System Works! I use it for my W2K system and it seems to keep the system performance right in line with the system I have, still faster on all accounts than my SuSE 8.0 install.

In a corporate environment with support staff, yes Linux is ready for the desktop. The key is a trained support staff. But for the average.... AVERAGE user... okay one more time FOR THE AVERAGE USER Linux is not ready.

The current user base of Linux with the exception of maybe about 5% of you, are not average users with no career / family life. The rest of you are professional IT's of some sort or school kids with either really crappy weather or no social skills to associate with the other kids and play or whatever.

Point is that the majority of users are family folk that have no knowledge of anything other than point and click. They don't care how or why a computer works or how or why software installs. Does it work? If not then send it to someone than can fix it because they DO NOT HAVE THE TIME OR EVEN CARE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE!!! they just want the stupid thing to work. Period.

This is where the Linux advocates seem to get confused, People don't care how or why!!!

Nuff for now...

[Silent Bob]

Originally posted by glussier


I don't know how Redhat was 20 seconds faster, My 1.4ghz rig can boot win2k in less than 30 seconds. You should probably learn how to disable non required services. :) And, if you didn't know the registry's unused keys can be removed and the registry compressed.

My point was just that a 'fresh out of the box' no-tinkering-done install of RH booted faster than the same type of install of 2k.

I don't doubt that 2k could boot faster (I quite like 2k). I would doubt that the average person would be able to make it though :)

[anacron]

Originally posted by MkIII_Supra


How is editing the registry any different than editing a .h file or a conf file? So once again you make the argument that Linux is not ready for the average user!

Telling an average user to fire up vi then edit a conf file and or a .h file so that he/she can get thier GUI to work or a driver to function or to speed up boot times is no friggin' different than telling them to edit thier registry!


I've been using mandrake & redhat for a year & a half now, and I've NEVER had to do those things, nor will most anyone else. I've done over 50 installs of Mandrake & redhat, and they are always good to go within 40 minutes, with no file editing necessary. The user friendly distros (Mandrake, Redhat, Suse, Turbolinux) work right out of the box for people using typical, off the shelf hardware. For those using very old or cutting edge hardware, there may be some trickery involved, but that's true with any OS.

It's only the fraction of a percentage of users who are trying to squeeze greater performance out of their boxes that end up doing that kind of stuff.

So, once again, LINUX IS NOT ONLY READY FOR THE DESKTOP, LINUX IS ON THE DESKTOP! I know, 'cause I've been looking at it for 18 months, without ever having to do anything special!

Sheesh, my 13 and 9 year old sons have never had any problems running KDE; they dual boot, and they think its just as easy and tons more fun. I guess they benefit from not being raised as Windows drones. They figure that Windows is nothing more than a different OS, and they treat it as such.

[dunbar]

Although next to useless, there are thousands of MCSEs out there, tens of thousands? Millions? That versus a few thousand RHCEs. Now, when it comes to paying for RHCE, at say $2000 a head, ROI becomes a big issue, because I have not spent that much on the last 3 cars added to the last 2 PCs - I am not going to plunk down what I spent for 2 weeks Disney vaca for a family of 4!! Companies usually pay for any training, and with a corporate install base of 1/4 of the M$ klunk, who is gonna pay to advance a tech that nobody needs? And who would hire a RHCE when the whole ompany is loyal to M$?

Lots of avenues where us, the lay people, could grow the Linux business, by us getting really skilled and telling our corporate IT flunkies that we want a better OS, on better hardware.

Since M$ is driving the PC hardware into winmodem land, Linux will always chase someone elses specifications, leaving this OS with second class capabilities.....

Food for thought.

[CMonster]

Although next to useless, there are thousands of MCSEs out there, tens of thousands? Millions? That versus a few thousand RHCEs. Now, when it comes to paying for RHCE, at say $2000 a head, ROI becomes a big issue, because I have not spent that much on the last 3 cars added to the last 2 PCs - I am not going to plunk down what I spent for 2 weeks Disney vaca for a family of 4!! Companies usually pay for any training, and with a corporate install base of 1/4 of the M$ klunk, who is gonna pay to advance a tech that nobody needs? And who would hire a RHCE when the whole ompany is loyal to M$?

Lots of avenues where us, the lay people, could grow the Linux business, by us getting really skilled and telling our corporate IT flunkies that we want a better OS, on better hardware.

Since M$ is driving the PC hardware into winmodem land, Linux will always chase someone elses specifications, leaving this OS with second class capabilities.....

Food for thought.

.........I thought about it...

You really haven't kept up with the news have you? There is a steady expansion of Linux into corporations, it is being adopted by schools, governments, high-tech scientific industries, and even the American millitary. Corporate America is also embracing Linux for a miriad of aplications -yes, including the desktop workstation - as well as the entertainment industry where Linux is not only being used to run huge "render farms" but is now being used for some of the individual graphics workstations as well.

As for going out and getting a magic $2000 Cert (any cert) and thinking that employers are just going to be beating your door down to give you $40-$100K a year .... that's not likely. Try to revise your figures and expect maybe to spend a minimum of $40,000 for a 4-year degree in something useful like electronics engineering and then you should have quite a few opportunities awaiting you -otherwise it's just back to the dot.com dreams. My son is winding up a bachelor's in telecommunications at DeVry, which incidentally requires a course in Linux , and already he has some fair offers.

-and dude, if that's the case you seriously outta think about getting a better car ;)

[evil_roy]

Originally posted by MkIII_Supra



Point is that the majority of users are family folk that have no knowledge of anything other than point and click. They don't care how or why a computer works or how or why software installs. Does it work? If not then send it to someone than can fix it because they DO NOT HAVE THE TIME OR EVEN CARE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE!!! they just want the stupid thing to work. Period.



Mac , despite the wild flame aimed at god-knows-who , your point above is quite valid. But Windows is not the answer. By a long shot. I don't think any PC OS has managed to achieve true ease of use. Look to gaming consoles , ATM's , cars , public transport ticketing systems for intuitive & reliable computing experiences. To claim any version of any PC operating system is intuitive is naive.

If ease of use out of the box was a huge selling point , then Apple would be king. MS did not get it's dominance due to any technical superiority or ease of use. It is dominant due to illegal and unethical business practices. The fact that a company that acts this way can win advocates is disappointing. You may as well try and defend Phillip Morris while you are at it.

Anyone who does not care for choice or freedom could do well to read this http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html. What is coming in the way of Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Palladium is frightening , but seemingly accepted by the lemmings who will trade freedom and choice for supposed ease of use.

Try a RedHat install with a 'Ximianised' setup. If you want to use mail,browse,office and standard print/scan etc then you will never need to see a command line. That is the point. If you are editing c header files then you have gone in way deeper than you ever have to , but it's there if you want.

What on earth are people expecting when they say "desktop" nowdays ? From this thread I think the term "workstation" would be more appropriate. Anyone who claims linux is not ready for workstation use is just plain wrong. Maybe it's too hard for a lot of people , and they should stick to desktop level computing. W2k , linux or OSX makes little difference to a true desktop user. The differences are under the hood - maybe a few people in this thread shouldn't look there.

[danrees]

Originally posted by Timothy L. Miller
Printers. Sorry, but WinXP has it ALL OVER linux on this one. my steps to use my printer in xp: 1. Plug in. 2. Wait to hear "boink" 3. Print. LInux is still easy, but not NEARLY that simple.

Well in Red Hat you just click Printer Administration, add printer and follow a wizard.

In Debian, you just apt-get install cupsys cupsys-bsd and mozilla http://localhost:631. Then click printers, add printer, test page.

It's not really a major stumbling block IMO.


And there are many other things. Such as office software(uing openoffice as my example since that's what I like). I install in windows, logout, any user can use it. Not linux. You have to either install it for each user or do a /net install from a terminal, then do a workstation install from each user you want to be able to use it. Going back to my 20 friends, again, I'd say 1 would even know what workstation is...or if that's what they wanted.


You're making an unfair comparison with win9x. If you install OpenOffice.org on Windows XP or 2000, it will install in the same way as in Linux - i.e. the base installation in Program Files and then user settings and Documents and Settings

Linux's history (I started trying it with Mandrake 7.1, RH 6.something, OpenLinux 2.4), it has come a LONG way in a short time. And considering the amount of developers for it is growing every day, it should continue to improve. And since the price to try it is right, I will continue to sing the praises of linux, even if there are some things about it that are less than optimal. And I will support it (when I can afford it, which isn't right now!!).

Although I don't agree with everything you posted, I agree with that. We can't expect the same usability from GNU/Linux in its short desktop lifespan (KDE started as a concept in 1996, GNOME even later). Give it time - even if you don't have programming skills you can help developers by submitting worthwhile usability suggestions.

[Grognard]

Hmmmm, elite attitude turns off prospective users.

The area where Winders has it hands down, no argument, no question is software installation. Put the CD in the drive, and it installs, if you need Direct X X.0 then it asks, and installs it from the SAME CD. No dependecies, no missing libraries, no installation woes from being installed in different areas in different distributions. Put it in, and it installs. Until Linux can do that, it will always be somewhat behind. Games support is also a major problem.

What my wife and buddies want; Make it work NOW, I'll tinker (or not) with it later to make it perfect for me.

Originally posted by scanez
1. I could care less if linux becomes mainstream, it works for me as it is, that's all that matters.

2. The ONLY reason windows is easier for people, is because that is what they are used to. If you took someone who's never used a computer before and sat them in front of say Mandrake, they would of course learn how to use linux just as well and as fast as they would have learned how to use windows.

[njcajun]

Originally posted by nonidentity
Linux has proven to be a stable platform, no doubt about that!

It is efficient on the Internet resources. It doesn't bleat about it's presence a la MS.

But...............

The installation is OK if you get the mainstream CDs. Just wait till you want to change something then the fun starts. MS also has this problem but the interface certainly helps, better than Linux. ie The packaging is friendlier in MS - a BIG selling point! People pay BIG money for this!


This is not Linux's problem. Linux is a kernel. It's up to the independent projects and the distribution vendors who package the kernel with these projects to make things friendly. In addition, because something is different from windows doesn't make it automatically 'not good'. I'll sooner learn to deal with RPM than the Windows registry! The packaging in windows just looks friendlier on the surface. Unfortunately, as soon as a problem arises, that friendliness is replaced with things like 'See your System Administrator', which is pretty useless. I'd rather have the information, thanks.

People who pay big money for this are idiots, although I'm not saying that you're wrong - they certainly spend wads of cash for a pretty interface that does next to nothing and yet has the balls to demand a few gigs of space and double the standard amount of ram.


The are not enough applications other than MS Office equivalents. eg MS Project, MS Access. This absolutely kills Linux as an alternative.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. MS Office aside, there are more choices in Linux to perform whatever task you want to perform than there are in Windows. I think StarOffice 6 pretty much has the Office users covered, and mrproject and MySQL take care of the others you mention. You really should be more specific here, because I'm sure whatever you come up with in windows that you say doesn't exist in Linux (aside from proprietary stuff like quicktime) would be quickly proven wrong with a quick trip to freshmeat, sourceforge or google :)


The environment is not consistent. Why doesn't the originators pick KDE or GNOME or whatever and MAKE it work and make it SLICK. A big selling point! Most users do not want to "discover" where things are or not! They just want to use it!. It is frustrating!


This shows a complete lack of understanding where Linux is concerned. It's NOT UP TO THE 'ORIGINATORS'. For all intents and purposes, Linux has no originators (of course, technically Linus first created it), but again, you refer to distributions, not Linux. These are not the same. Do some reading :)

One of the primary goals of the open source community in general is to provide users with freedom of choice. 'Standardizing' on a single look and feel would basically just create another Windows or Mac, and we don't need that (if we did, we'd buy windows or an apple). The reason Linux does so well is that this freedom of choice exists! If you need a dumbed down, windows-y interface, fine - go for KDE, if you're an admin or a more hardcore user, you might opt for blackbox or windowmaker. There's no way to standardize on a single interface and please everyone - Windows and the Mac have proven that already, so we've learned from their mistakes. :)


There is inconsistent standards, so many that there are none! Everybody implements their version of the standards, (justified of course) -sounds like the arguments MS uses to me.


What the hell are you talking about here? Is this filler for the post or something? There's no such thing as implementing a 'version of the standard' -- you either do or don't adhere to the standard. Also, 'everybody' does NOT implement their own version of the standard (I'm making assumptions about who 'everybody' is here...). Generally, 'everybody' implements the standard, and then Microsoft 'enhances' it, which is their marketing term for 'make interoperable' or 'break'. There are too many examples to list here.


More work needs to go into the "control centre". Most users and "administrators" are NOT world experts and this is were MS scores everytime. The anthem of READ THE SOURCE should be banned and left to developers and projects NOT users! Utilities! Utilities! Utilities! Get it!


There are more utilities in the Linux distributions than you could ever dream of having in Windows. I think the misconception here is that when you move to Linux, it should look and act like windows. We're not even trying to get to that point, so if that's what you're basing all of this on, you're completely wasting your time. It wasn't made to be windows. It was made to be Linux. That being the case, you WILL have to probably buy a 'Linux for Dummies' type book to get you rolling in Linux land. Believe me - it's not as hard to move from Windows to Linux as you might think... My mother and two friends use it, and I don't even ever get support calls. People had to adjust to using a computer after using a typewriter for years as well -- but yet here we are and there are no more typewriters! Buy a book... it's not Windows (thankfully).


The key is simplicity and reliability.


Not really. It's part of it, but this is a gross oversimplification. Not enough space and too vague an argument to really bite into :)


Don't get me wrong I develop and I am enjoying Linux but it needs to come a long way before it will become mainstream. I f not it is just another UNIX varioation interesting but not worth investing in. Ask yourself, haw many computer languages were the answer and are now obsolete? I personally have sixteen - see what I mean...... better the devil you know than the one you don't.....the pervasive argument is stick to mainstream stuff as it works!


Mainstream stuff, in my experience, does NOT work any better than anything else. Moving from Windows to Linux is quite like moving from a 6-foot broken down pool table in a bar to a 12-foot snooker table with perfect lighting, balance and settings. At first it seems unnecessarily difficult, but as your experience grows, you tend to come to appreciate the space, as it opens up all kinds of possibilities.


The argument that Linux is free doesn't cut it as that is the only BIG selling point! Not enough she cried! Pity I think!


You have obviously not been around the Linux block for very long. Please reserve judgment until such a time that it doesn't seem to regurgitate the misconceptions prevalent in the media rags (which are all bunk, by the way).

Any comments?

Not really. :) I'm glad you're enjoying Linux, though :)

[Strike]

Just to add to njcajun's post - Quicktime (even Sorenson codec) is supported in every version of Xine that is >= 0.9.11

[Timothy L. Miller]

Originally posted by danrees
You're making an unfair comparison with win9x. If you install OpenOffice.org on Windows XP or 2000, it will install in the same way as in Linux - i.e. the base installation in Program Files and then user settings and Documents and Settings
Yes, but it will be installed and usable for all users, without having to rerun the setup program. That's the whole point. I've installed many times on XP, and I've never had to rerun the installation for users other than the one I originally installed on yet. I don't know for sure Win2K, since I only use that on my laptop...and use 602ProPC Office on it, for it's ability to print bar codes.

[Timothy L. Miller]

Originally posted by nonidentity
The installation is OK if you get the mainstream CDs. Just wait till you want to change something then the fun starts. MS also has this problem but the interface certainly helps, better than Linux. ie The packaging is friendlier in MS - a BIG selling point! People pay BIG money for this!

actually, this is getting to be less and less of an ordeal in many of the modern distributions. With Libranet and Debian, you can apt-get just about any program you could want. Sorcerer/Mage/whatever other spinoffs the original sorcerer produced have essentially the same thing. You simply type a few lines(emerge <program>, I think), and it does the work for you, downloading the SOURCE, and compiling it for you. This is another distro I'd love to learn...but WAY to over my head for installation and setup. With mainstream (eg debian/libranet) distro's, the amount of packages you can have automatically installed in this manner is in the thousands!!

[janet loves bill]

I have read more than a few posts from various Linux BBS's, and now that I think about it I am glad that R/H and Drake did not install on my PIII box, for some odd reason Slackware 8.0 was the only ISO that I could get to work, and I am enjoying the CLI. Win98se and Works Suite 2K are the only M$ products that I have ever used. And to tell you all the truth I just got plain tired of point and click, and I am burned out playing games all the time and the thought that there had to be something better to stimulate the creative juices and make using a computer more interesting was too strong to pass up. Well I think I have found it, been having problems getting sound card to work but I am taking this as a challenge!! It has been frustrating yes, but I see it is just part of the learning curve!!
There is something in the Air now and the smell of it is RANK!! Hardware and Software copy control is going to be shoved down OUR throats!! M$, Hollyweird, the RIAA and a few select Senators and Congressmen who have been bought and paid for by Hollyweird Millionaires are fixing to give ALL of us the shaft, Big Time. Which is why I am sticking with Open Source and learn how to make it work for me and support to GPL community when I can!! The next few years won't be pretty at all. M$, Intel and AMD are starting to work together to make the Hardware and Software to support the new Palladium Pc chips . This new Hardware and Software Architecture is going to be a real threat of OUR Freedoms and the way we can or cannot use OUR computers, IE ,CD burners could be Illegal in a few years, just a little something to think about. My final thought is this.....THE US Gov'nt DID NOT buy this computer for me, I paid for it myself and I will not let them dictate how I will use it or what software I can or cannot install on it! We all need to pull together and help/show other Home users like me that Linux can be an interesting and fun adventure/experience. Sometimes change is good, but there will always be those that like the status quo and refuse to see the light, oh well, live and let live. Thx for listening!!

[Lorithar]

*hmm*

One *serious* advantage linux has over windows is something I demonstrate daily ... *grin* ... you can kick the daylights outta the gui, kill it *dead* and not have to reboot the system....
Let me see what happens when I do that in windows...

The advantage here is that I can run utterly developmental levels of Xwindows on my box, and not kill the webserver, mailserver, etc... (although ... there have been a few ATI rage drivers that have locked the box solid ...but I was prepared for it... ) ..
My linux takes about 45 - 60 seconds to boot ...completely ... even on the k6-500 ... what is this with everyone saying that linux takes longer to boot?... winders takes *much* longer than linux in my case .. .but then I've leaned and meaned my startups ... and I don't run redhat ... which I've noted goes through about 100 startup scripts ... most of which are unnessesary...

[njcajun]

Originally posted by Strike
Just to add to njcajun's post - Quicktime (even Sorenson codec) is supported in every version of Xine that is >= 0.9.11

Let me know if I've misunderstood something, but I thought it to be true that you *cannot* play movie trailers, clips, pr0n or whatever from sites that are in quicktime format... is this not true? Can someone explain what the deal is with Quicktime in linux? The project page indicates what I've stated - but like I say, I may have misunderstood. Thanks!

[glussier]

Originally posted by Lorithar
*hmm*

One *serious* advantage linux has over windows is something I demonstrate daily ... *grin* ... you can kick the daylights outta the gui, kill it *dead* and not have to reboot the system....
Let me see what happens when I do that in windows...

The advantage here is that I can run utterly developmental levels of Xwindows on my box, and not kill the webserver, mailserver, etc... (although ... there have been a few ATI rage drivers that have locked the box solid ...but I was prepared for it... ) ..
My linux takes about 45 - 60 seconds to boot ...completely ... even on the k6-500 ... what is this with everyone saying that linux takes longer to boot?... winders takes *much* longer than linux in my case .. .but then I've leaned and meaned my startups ... and I don't run redhat ... which I've noted goes through about 100 startup scripts ... most of which are unnessesary...



With the winxp bootvis update, you can boot to a desktop: Pressing the poweron button, 30 second to the desktop, including the bios post. You can awaike your computer from deep sleep and be ready to go in 15 seconds and less than 5 seconds to the desktop without optimizing anything. Compare an nt kernel with linux, not a single user O/S such as win9x.

And, I don't believe that you would boot a k6-2-500 in 45 seconds, at least not to a kde or gnome desktop, and I will believe you less if you tell me that you have an nvidia card and you are loading the Opengl drivers.

[undef]

Originally posted by Grognard
Hmmmm, elite attitude turns off prospective users.

The area where Winders has it hands down, no argument, no question is software installation. Put the CD in the drive, and it installs, if you need Direct X X.0 then it asks, and installs it from the SAME CD. No dependecies, no missing libraries, no installation woes from being installed in different areas in different distributions. Put it in, and it installs. Until Linux can do that, it will always be somewhat behind. Games support is also a major problem.

What my wife and buddies want; Make it work NOW, I'll tinker (or not) with it later to make it perfect for me.



if that's the case then that'll be the end for those that don't have high speed and rely on 33k modem to download stuff from the net. we'll be looking at 300megs plus per download. so if you'll pay a little attention to what you want for linux, people would be forced to upgrade, get this and that before they can use linux. this is not what linux is about.

[TacKat]

You know, considering the size of most GNU and other Linux software, it's entirely possible to fit all the libraries that any particular program would require on a single CD. With a clever enough install program (or even just a modified configure) you could detect when something needs to be installed and do it. You'd have to standardize things but the technical difficulty is not too great.

The thing is, I have never installed any Linux software beyond my distro from CD. There's a different distribution model at work here. You can get your Linux software one piece at a time online for free. You don't see entire CDs at your local software store devoted to something like XMMS. In fact, you see almost no Linux software CDs beyond distros at software stores.

Like undef said, in order for Linux downloads to work like a Windows CD, you'd have to download hundreds of megs for a single program just to cover all the bases. And it's not just a Linux thing. If you've ever downloaded a free windows game from the net that required DirectX, but you didn't have it installed, the software installer won't install it for you - it'll just tell you to go to MS's site and download it.

edit: grammar

[TonyTheAutomationGuy]

:eek: Wow! Mainstream or not, __ NIX OS's run fine and last a long time. Check out Walmart.com. They are selling PC's Preloaded with "LINDOWS" for $299.00. No clue how it runs, but I'll bet they get some takers!

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by scanez
1. I could care less if linux becomes mainstream, it works for me as it is, that's all that matters.

2. The ONLY reason windows is easier for people, is because that is what they are used to. If you took someone who's never used a computer before and sat them in front of say Mandrake, they would of course learn how to use linux just as well and as fast as they would have learned how to use windows.

To me this argument just seems like a convenient way of dismissing all the valid complaints about Linux ease of use problems. Personally I used Acorn RISC OS back in the 80s, changed to Mac OS in the early 90s, then moved to Windows a few years ago, I have also installed and played with BeOS, OS/2 and OPENSTEP on my PC. I don't have any problem with changing between different OSes, I certainly don't expect everything to work like it does in Windows, out of all those OSes Windows is probably my least favourite.

I have had more frustration and hassle using Mandrake Linux 8.2 for a few weeks, than in the past 10 years of using other OSes. I have spent hours reading FAQs, HowTos and Man pages to try to learn the system and I still feel like a newbie out of my depth. When I changed to Mac OS I don't think I even opened a manual, I certainly didn't spend hours hunting down help from forums and often cryptic help files. A lot of things in Windows are annoying, inelegant and badly designed, but most things aren't too hard to work out. Linux is far more complex and user hostile than all the other OSes I have used put together.

Installing a second graphics card and setting up a dual headed display was a total nightmare, and still doesn't work as well as it did in Windows. Even installing and upgrading apps is often painful and time consuming, even when I can find a Mandrake specific RPM it sometimes doesn't go smoothly. I don't think I had ever had a software install fail until I tried Linux, I had heard about dependency hell before, but that's just the start of the problems with installing software in Linux.

Then there's the horrible state of the Linux GUI. I thought Windows 3.1 was a total joke back in the early 90s, but at least it's apps had a fairly consistent look and feel, I would probably chose it over the inconsistent mess of different apps in Linux. I think Linux fans who are happy using the command line, just don't get how important a consistent user interface is to most users. Linux isn't ready for normal desktop users, it isn't even close to being as easy to use as Windows.

If Linux fans ever want it to compete with Windows as a desktop OS they need to acknowledge the flaws in Linux and try to think of ways to fix them. Rather than insulting the users who have complaints and hiding behind Linux advocate rhetoric.

[chikn]

I have had more frustration and hassle using Mandrake Linux 8.2 for a few weeks, than in the past 10 years of using other OSes. I have spent hours reading FAQs, HowTos and Man pages to try to learn the system and I still feel like a newbie out of my depth. When I changed to Mac OS I don't think I even opened a manual, I certainly didn't spend hours hunting down help from forums and often cryptic help files. A lot of things in Windows are annoying, inelegant and badly designed, but most things aren't too hard to work out. Linux is far more complex and user hostile than all the other OSes I have used put together.

Then just dont use it. Linux isnt Windows, it isnt Mac OS, it is Linux and its entirely different. In the 10 years of you using other OS's youve become yet another MS zombie and want to compare it all to that. It takes me mere minutes to work through issues on linux now even though its rare I have any. I have no frustrations with Mandrake 8.2 at all, but as Ive said before maybe Im just smarter, so my 6 year old must be also. If for the past 10 years youd been using unix or linux variants you would find it routine.

But I myself like linux being somewhat complicated. As a Unix/NT admin thats done my time building my career it pains me to see these "I now windows inside and out cause I use it home and Ive paid $10k for my strictly that day memeorized material for testing MCSE" try to apply for admin jobs(most companies are wise to this now and require a certain amount of formal experience thank god). I think more corporations will be moving to linux as a large portion still depend on Unix and can avoid the licensing costs of MS. Im perfectly content with people not wanting to try linux and put in the time necessary to develop a fluent working knowledge of the os. Just more feathers in my cap.

[scanez]

Originally posted by Dave_K
If Linux fans ever want it to compete with Windows as a desktop OS they need to acknowledge the flaws in Linux and try to think of ways to fix them. Rather than insulting the users who have complaints and hiding behind Linux advocate rhetoric.
That's just my point1 I've never read ANYWHERE that one of the goals of linux was to compete with windows and try to overtake it. If you heard otherwise, you received misleading information. I personally like everything about linux (including the awesme enlightenment GUI) much better than windows. It works for me, the way I want it, that's all that matters. It's not a "let's try to beat windows down" thing, it's just a "let's provide an alternative to windows" thing. If you don't like it. DON'T USE IT! <-- my 3 year old cousins can understand this concept, why can't you :confused:

For the record, every member of my family I have shown linux to (who have NO, I repeat NO, computer experience) find linux easier than windows. So the whole "linux is unfriendly and not suited for newbies" argument just gets old.

If you think linux sucks, then why do you feel so threatened by it, enough to launch stupid rants against it? I've never ever ranted about windows on a windows forum. Why? Because I could care less what they use, linux works for me and that is all that matters. The goal of linux is not world domination ;)

Edit: And another thing, you want to talk about pointing out flaws and trying to fix them? Have you ever even looked on any linux/distro bug lists (such as Debians) and seen that fixing bugs/making improvements is a top priority on developers minds? Perhaps you should learn more about this kind of stuff before making such idiotic claims as "they need to acknowledge flaws and try to fix them"...THEY DO! Much more than I could say for microsoft that's for sure ;)

[jstead1]

You are right. Most people will not switch to Linux. Not because Windows is "better" or "easier" or "user friendly" or even personal preference. They will stay with Windows because it is what they have. Most people will go all day complaining about a stone in their shoe and never take the shoe off. After a while they get used to the stone.

I switched to Linux (Mandrake) a couple of months ago. There are plenty of programs to do just about anything I used to do on Windows. I had no problems upgrading from Mandrake 8.1 to 8.2, and no problems going from KDE 2.2.2 to 3.01 and then 3.02. Upgrades are easy. Help is bountiful. It is different than Windows, but I think on the whole easier.

I spend more time "administering" the Windows portion of my machine (my wife and kids still use Windows) than I do the Linux portion of my machine.

The only Windows program I still use is Money2000. Linux has viable alternatives, but the one that I think looks best (gnucash) does not have some of the features I want (scheduled for next year, I can wait). At least gnucash won't have all the advertising that I get now in MS Money (people pay for this program and MS still puts advertising in).

[fancypiper]

:D Boy am I glad I'm not in the wide majority :D

I run a rock stable computer and I can kill any unwanted running program I want. My processes cooperate and they do not have to give another program permission to use the cpu. If a prog crashes, I don't have to reboot. What is all this fuss about speed of booting? Are you changing hardware and kernels every day or what?

I can even run another entire distro within my working distro. Maybe if Windows could do that, they could fix their bugs. AFAIK, MS has never repaired the vulnerability in IE's back button.

I can get to x very speedily with alt-F7, so where is the problem of speed everyone is talking about?

If a progrqam is too slow for your comp, simply compile it with optimizations for your box as most distros are designed to run on almost everything, even a 386.

I have freedom of choice and it sounds as if some people would be more comfortable back in their nice, warm, Microsoft cell that you even have to pay for.

As for me, I choose liberty, not boundaries.:D

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by chikn


Then just dont use it. Linux isnt Windows, it isnt Mac OS, it is Linux and its entirely different.

The problem isn't that Linux is different, the problem is that in a lot of ways it's worse than other OSes. I'm probably going to go back to Windows, I have been trying to give Linux a fair go, but I have had about as much of it's problems as I can take. I'm seriously considering buying a Mac now that Mac OS X is becoming more mature, from what I have seen it combines ease of use and a powerful underlying OS, I wish that was true of Linux.


In the 10 years of you using other OS's youve become yet another MS zombie and want to compare it all to that.

So using a variety of *NON-MS* OSes for most of the last decade has turned me into an MS zombie? I fail to see anything resembling earth logic in that statement, although it's true that if I didn't have anything better to compare it to, I wouldn't have as many complaints about Linux. But I have used other OSes and they are all much more user friendly than Linux. Linux could learn a lot from them, particularly from NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP, that managed to combine an underlying UNIX based OS with a consistent and easy to use interface back in the late 80s.

It takes me mere minutes to work through issues on linux now even though its rare I have any. I have no frustrations with Mandrake 8.2 at all, but as Ive said before maybe Im just smarter, so my 6 year old must be also. If for the past 10 years youd been using unix or linux variants you would find it routine.

That's probably true, but I shouldn't have to spend a decade learning to use a OS to get used to it's egregious complexity. I don't think it took me longer than a few days to become comfortable using Mac OS, it took me a week at most to learn to use Windows, I learned the basics of using OPENSTEP and BeOS by playing with them for just a few hours. Linux is simply far more user hostile than those OSes, just learning the absolute basics has taken days of reading and research. Until simple tasks like installing software can be accomplished without the user having to become an expert on the OS, Linux will not be ready for the desktop.

But I myself like linux being somewhat complicated. Im perfectly content with people not wanting to try linux and put in the time necessary to develop a fluent working knowledge of the os. Just more feathers in my cap.

You're happy with Linux remaining an OS for elitist geeks who are willing to spend a large amount of time learning to use it. Most people just want an easy to use OS that lets them get the job done with minimum hassle. Personally I would love to see Linux become a desktop OS that competes with Windows for ease of use. To be honest I'm not exactly sure why you're posting in a thread titled "Why Linux will not be accepted by the wide majority", when you obviously don't care about that.

[anacron]

NEWS FLASH - - -

Linux isn't only ready for the desktop - it's already on the desktop! It's on more desktops than all of the other OSs you mention - combined.

You expect to take 10 years to learn Linux?! Why? My 13 year old son's PC runs Redhat 7.3 (he loves it for the games that come standard & for web surfing), my 9 year old son uses Mandrake 8.2 (agin for the preinstalled games & the Loki titles we've added), heck, even my 5 year old daughter plays Frozen Bubble! 10 years to get used to it's "egregious complexity". More ID10T FUD. Maybe I'll have my kids walk you through the finer points of KDE...

I'm happy with Linux because it's an easy to use OS that lets people get the job done with minimum hassle. Personally, I know that Linux already surpasses Windows as a desktop OS in ease of use. Of course, after 4 posts, you have obviously concluded otherwise...:rolleyes:

[chikn]

You're happy with Linux remaining an OS for elitist geeks who are willing to spend a large amount of time learning to use it. Most people just want an easy to use OS that lets them get the job done with minimum hassle. Personally I would love to see Linux become a desktop OS that competes with Windows for ease of use.

I just said I was fine with it. I dont care if it turns into a geekless mainstream OS.

But again my 6 year old son has no problems using it so he must be a l33t h4><0ring 6 y34r 0ld f00 because he can use linux, even let him nav his way through a Mandy install last week, and he reads at a 1st grade level. Hes not ready for a complex iptables script but if he wanted to go the windows easiness route and could hit the firewall config wizard in Mandy and click through 4 screens and have it done. But I wouldnt expect most peoples intelligence to exceed that of a 6 year old.

To be honest I'm not exactly sure why you're posting in a thread titled "Why Linux will not be accepted by the wide majority", when you obviously don't care about that.

And why are you on a linux board posting about how linux sucks for no other reason than blatant trolling.

[glussier]

Linux isn't only ready for the desktop - it's already on the desktop! It's on more desktops than all of the other OSs you mention - combined.



I don't agree with this statement. More than 90% of desktops are running windows, not the other way around.

Personally, I develop hardware and software to interface process control equipement with computers. Some of my customers have windows and some others are using *.nix systems. An O/S is only a tool, so why should one bash one or the other? I my opinion, is is a plus to be able to master as many o/s as one can. Is linux good? Yes it is. Is windows good? I don't know about win9x or winme, but the winnt o/s works great also. Each O/S have their own purpose, and it took me a long time joining an linux forum, mostly because of the attitude of some of the linux users (not seen as often in windows forums). The attitude I'm talking about, can be seen in some of the other threads, mostly from linux users who have less than 6months experience with a *nix system and berely know how to do an ls or a chmod.

Stop bashing linux or windows for that matter. Bashing another O/S won't get more people on your side, it will only scrare them away. I never say that I am more intelligent than another person, just because I can program in x86 assembler and another person can't, so why should we see posts, such as a window users are stupid or I have a higher IQ 'cause I use Linux? The only thing being proven by these folks, is how troll they can be.



BTW for the other that says he can run linux under linux. Who cares, I can run linux under windows and windows under linux. vmware is available on multiple platforms. In win2k/winxp, I can kill a process without booting, when that said process has a problem. That type of statement doesn't help linux's cause, it only shows how little you know about windows.

[anacron]

Originally posted by glussier


I don't agree with this statement. More than 90% of desktops are running windows, not the other way around.


I meant the niche OSs (OpenStep, BeOS, Mac OS X, etc.).

I don't think of Windows as a desktop OS, though I think with some work, it might one day be able to compete with Linux.:D

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by scanez

That's just my point1 I've never read ANYWHERE that one of the goals of linux was to compete with windows and try to overtake it. If you heard otherwise, you received misleading information.

You should tell that to the makers of "easy to use" Linux distributions, most of them claim that Linux is ready to compete with Windows as a desktop OS. For example, the website for Mandrake Linux makes this claim: "A computer running the Mandrake Linux operating system can be as easy to use as a computer which uses Windows or Mac OS". Numerous Linux advocates and Linux publications have argued that Linux is as easy to use as Windows and is ready for the desktop, that's why I installed it and gave it a try. After using Linux for the past few weeks I personally I think that it's untrue that Linux is as easy to use as Windows, for reasons I have already mentioned.

For the record, every member of my family I have shown linux to (who have NO, I repeat NO, computer experience) find linux easier than windows. So the whole "linux is unfriendly and not suited for newbies" argument just gets old.

It may be an old argument, but while it's still true it's going to keep on being made. I'm sure some people manage to use Linux without any ease of use problems, just like some poeple manage to use Windows 95 without it ever crashing, but that doesn't mean that it's ease of use problems don't exist. If you want to disprove my argument, why don't you tell me what I have got wrong and how I should fix it.

If you think linux sucks, then why do you feel so threatened by it, enough to launch stupid rants against it?

I don't think Linux sucks, I think is has some real advantages, but also has lots of ease of use problems that make it inferior to Windows as a desktop OS. If Linux is so perfect for you, why do you feel so threatened by my "stupid rants"?

Edit: And another thing, you want to talk about pointing out flaws and trying to fix them? Have you ever even looked on any linux/distro bug lists (such as Debians) and seen that fixing bugs/making improvements is a top priority on developers minds? Perhaps you should learn more about this kind of stuff before making such idiotic claims as "they need to acknowledge flaws and try to fix them"...THEY DO! Much more than I could say for microsoft that's for sure ;)

Actually I was refering to the Linux advocates on boards like these, the main response to criticism of Linux is something like "Linux rules and you're just a Windows Zombie". Rather than telling me why I'm wrong, offering solutions or thinking of ways that the problems could be fixed in the future. Actually Linux programmers seem very good at fixing bugs in their software, but fixes for the many ease of use problems seem to be taking a lot longer.

[fancypiper]

Originally posted by glussier


I don't agree with this statement. More than 90% of desktops are running windows, not the other way around.

In the USA, I believe that is true. Have you checked out China and other asian countries, South America, etc?


Personally, I develop hardware and software to interface process control equipement with computers. Some of my customers have windows and some others are using *.nix systems. An O/S is only a tool, so why should one bash one or the other? I my opinion, is is a plus to be able to master as many o/s as one can. Is linux good? Yes it is. Is windows good? I don't know about win9x or winme

I know about Windows 98 and after it gulped all my stuff and lost it (twice), I started looking for something that would let me use that piece of hardware for something besides losing information and gaining frustration. I found it and it works period.

Since I paid good money for that license and the product is worthless, I am not about to pour more money down that pit and take another chance that they might have better stuff. I have heard that since msdos days and I have heard wolf once too many times for my taste.


but the winnt o/s works great also. Each O/S have their own purpose, and it took me a long time joining an linux forum, mostly because of the attitude of some of the linux users (not seen as often in windows forums). The attitude I'm talking about, can be seen in some of the other threads, mostly from linux users who have less than 6months experience with a *nix system and berely know how to do an ls or a chmod.


The helpfulness of the folks in the community is what I love about Linux. As for Windows, do you like mood music while on hold? All the advice I have gotten from them was stuff I had already tried and failed with, so I can't say I like the attitude of the paid "support" that comes with Microsoft.


Stop bashing linux or windows for that matter. Bashing another O/S won't get more people on your side, it will only scrare them away. I never say that I am more intelligent than another person, just because I can program in x86 assembler and another person can't, so why should we see posts, such as a window users are stupid or I have a higher IQ 'cause I use Linux? The only thing being proven by these folks, is how troll they can be.

Personally, I love freedom of speech. Some people think they have the right to be listened to, though. I have no guarantees for that. I;ll bash what I think is bad stuff and promote what I think is good. You may disagree if you wish.


BTW for the other that says he can run linux under linux. Who cares, I can run linux under windows and windows under linux. vmware is available on multiple platforms.

I can do that for free legally and I don't need to buy vmware. I just get the kernel and compile usermode into it.


In win2k/winxp, I can kill a process without booting, when that said process has a problem. That type of statement doesn't help linux's cause, it only shows how little you know about windows.

I can't in Windows98 and I have never had anyone able tell me a way to do so when the computer freezes and will not respond to any keyboard or mouse manipilation.

I stand ready for enlightenment.

(Oops, I run fluxbox :D )

I will not do further business with a company that releases a defective produce and will not make it functional or replace it with a functioning product, so I doubt very much that I would attempt win2k/winxp. Once burned, twice shy, you know.

I do business with businesses that use good business practices, not a company that will not deliver a functioning product.

You are still free (wrong word, allowed I should say) to use Microsoft products if you like. I won't mind, but I still run a computer that well pleases me.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by anacron
NEWS FLASH - - -

Linux isn't only ready for the desktop - it's already on the desktop! It's on more desktops than all of the other OSs you mention - combined.

I don't doubt that there are more Linux users than there are BeOS or OPENSTEP users, despite being wonderful OSes they are pretty much dead. Do you have a reliable estimate of how many desktop Linux users there are, I can't imagine how something like that could be worked out with any accuracy. I doubt there are many normal users who are using Linux as their desktop OS, the only Linux users I know are geeks who are willing to dedicate a large portion of their free time to learning the OS, something that most people wouldn't be willing to do.

You expect to take 10 years to learn Linux?! Why?

Actually that was a rather facetious response to someone who said "If for the past 10 years youd been using unix or linux variants you would find it routine.". I don't expect to take any particular amount of time to learn Linux, all I know is that it's taken much more time and effort to learn the basics of Linux than to learn enough to use Windows, Mac OS, etc. After two weeks using an OS I expect to have worked out how to install software without any problem, actually in most OSes (including the UNIX based OPENSTEP) it's as simple as double clicking a file. But in Linux hardly any of the software installs have gone smoothly, I have several apps that I'm trying to get installed at the moment. Getting my dual headed display set up took days of posting on forums and reading help files, I still haven't got power management set up properly. These are things that were no problem in Windows and Mac OS, yet were complicated and problematic in Linux.

More ID10T FUD. Maybe I'll have my kids walk you through the finer points of KDE...

Or maybe you can explain why my criticism of Linux is wrong, before you dismiss it as FUD.

I'm happy with Linux because it's an easy to use OS that lets people get the job done with minimum hassle. Personally, I know that Linux already surpasses Windows as a desktop OS in ease of use. Of course, after 4 posts, you have obviously concluded otherwise...

Actually after 3 weeks of having constant problems using Linux I have concuded otherwise. If you think I'm wrong then please explain what mistakes I have made.

[anacron]

Originally posted by Dave_K


You should tell that to the makers of "easy to use" Linux distributions, most of them claim that Linux is ready to compete with Windows as a desktop OS. For example, the website for Mandrake Linux makes this claim: "A computer running the Mandrake Linux operating system can be as easy to use as a computer which uses Windows or Mac OS". Numerous Linux advocates and Linux publications have argued that Linux is as easy to use as Windows and is ready for the desktop, that's why I installed it and gave it a try. After using Linux for the past few weeks I personally I think that it's untrue that Linux is as easy to use as Windows, for reasons I have already mentioned.

It may be an old argument, but while it's still true it's going to keep on being made. I'm sure some people manage to use Linux without any ease of use problems, just like some poeple manage to use Windows 95 without it ever crashing, but that doesn't mean that it's ease of use problems don't exist. If you want to disprove my argument, why don't you tell me what I have got wrong and how I should fix it.


Linux is easy to use. Linux is ready for the desktop. Because it's GUIs have more to offer, and is therefore more enjoyable to operate, it will one day surpass Windows in desktop usage. There, I'll say it. How could I not believe this after watching my children use KDE with no more difficulty than Windows.

Anyone who says that KDE has "ease of use" problems ought to be looking for their next computer at Toys R Us...

[glussier]

Sure, you are free to use wathever O/S you want on your own box. But, for myself, I'll keep using all O/S which can put bread on my table, be it *.nix or windows. :)

Enough rambling for me!!! :)

[scanez]

Originally posted by Dave_K
If Linux is so perfect for you, why do you feel so threatened by my "stupid rants"?
Good question :) Answer: I don't so I will stop responding to threads like these ;)

[bugfix]

Originally posted by glussier
Sure, you are free to use wathever O/S you want on your own box. But, for myself, I'll keep using all O/S which can put bread on my table, be it *.nix or windows. :)

Your computer can do that? Wow, I've seen a computer combined with a coffee maker but never one combined with a bread maker. Cool. :D

[CMonster]

It seems to me that some Windows users will never be satisfied that any other OS is easy to use until it is an exact clone of Windows, right down to the "Start" button, "Explorer," "Task Manager," "System Tray," and maybe even a "DOS" prompt .... I'm sure that most avid Windows users would also find using a Mac for the first time "Stupid," "Unintuitive," and awakward.

"Easy to Use" does not mean "It works exactly the same way," -you just might have to learn some new ways of doing things -ouch- brain expansion!

http://www.dslextreme.com/users/cmonster3/linlic.jpg

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by chikn


And why are you on a linux board posting about how linux sucks for no other reason than blatant trolling.

Why are you even responding to my post if you think it's a "blatant troll"? I'm posting in a thread titled: "Why Linux will not be accepted by the wide majority" because I have opinions on that topic that I would like to discuss with other people. I'm sorry if you are unable to cope with people criticising your OS of choice, a lot of Linux fans seem to take criticism of it very personally.

Linux fanatics seem to have a rather strange definition of a troll, in a glossary of internet terms I found had this definition:

"An individual who regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait."

While the Linux fanatic definition of a troll seems to be:

"Anyone who criticises anything about Linux"

This is a section from the Linux advocacy FAQ http://rute.sourceforge.net/node51.html

"Why should I not use LINUX?

If you are a private individual with no UNIX expertise available to help you when you run into problems and you are not interested in learning about the underlying workings of a UNIX system, then you shouldn't install LINUX."

If the author of that document posted here he would probably be called a troll for having that opinion.

I suppose that's simpler than actually having to think of a response to criticism of Linux, but I really would like to know why you obviously think I'm wrong about it. If you have no interest in actually discussing the topic of this thread and the criticism I have made then I don't understand why you are responding to my posts.

[fancypiper]

Originally posted by Dave_K

Actually after 3 weeks of having constant problems using Linux I have concuded otherwise. If you think I'm wrong then please explain what mistakes I have made.

Ya' picked the wrong distro!

Try Gentoo and you might learn linux in 3 days.

Try emerge <package> for downloading and installing a package and it's depencencies. Then, just edit the config files and bang! it's there.

[bugfix]

Windows is easy to use, huh? Then someone explain to me why I had to boot in to Linux and change the partition table with Linux fdisk because the Windows installer couldn't read it. This on a 'virgin' h/d.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by anacron


Linux is easy to use. Linux is ready for the desktop. Because it's GUIs have more to offer, and is therefore more enjoyable to operate, it will one day surpass Windows in desktop usage. There, I'll say it. How could I not believe this after watching my children use KDE with no more difficulty than Windows.

Anyone who says that KDE has "ease of use" problems ought to be looking for their next computer at Toys R Us...

No offense intended, but I really don't think you understand what makes a computer easy of use and elegant. Even ignoring the problems with configuration and installation of hardware and software, there is the problem of inconsistent apps. Consistency between applications is one of the key things in an easy to use GUI, and that is something that Linux apps totally lack. It's much more important than the look of the GUI or even the usability of individual features like taskbars etc. Linux will never compete with Windows for ease of use while even basic features like cut/copy/paste and drag & drop work differently in different apps. I can recommend some good books about user interface design if you are interested in learning about the topic.

[fancypiper]

Have you tried selecting (to copy) and middle-click to paste? (some apps may need shift or control in addition)

That works for me, much better than the clunky way windows does it.

Or are you trying the windows way of selecting, control c and control v which lots of apps in linux see no need of using?

Consistency between applications is one of the key things in an easy to use GUI

The gui is fairly new to Linux, so it isn't up to linux's normal standards of consistency.

Linux programs are very consistant when you use the linux tools and you don't get hung up on having to do something with point and click.

See Linux and the Tools Philosophy (http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2000/07/25/LivingLinux.html) .

I can't figure out how to pipe and re-direct stuff when a program is designed as monolithic, stand alone structure as some GUI applications seem to want to be.

[glussier]

Originally posted by bugfix


Your computer can do that? Wow, I've seen a computer combined with a coffee maker but never one combined with a bread maker. Cool. :D

NC.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by CMonster
It seems to me that some Windows users will never be satisfied that any other OS is easy to use until it is an exact clone of Windows, right down to the "Start" button, "Explorer," "Task Mamager," "System Tray," and maybe even a "DOS" prompt .... I'm sure that most avid Windows users would also find using a Mac for the first time "Stupid," "Unintuitive," and awakward.

"Easy to Use" does not mean "It works exactly the same way," -you just might have to learn some new ways of doing things -ouch- brain expansion!

This argument is almost always made when someone criticises Linux ease of use, yet I very rarely see people argue that Linux needs to turn into Windows to become more user friendly. I must have missed the post that made that argument in this thread, otherwise I can't see how this post is relevant. Personally I have changed between a number of different OSes and tried several others, the only one that has taken a lot of time and effort is Linux. That's not due to it being different, for example OPENSTEP and RISC OS are both quite different from Windows. It was more hassle simply because I encountered a number of problems that don't exist in the other OSes. Those problems need to be fixed before I will consider Linux an easy to use desktop OS like Windows, Mac OS etc.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by fancypiper


Ya' picked the wrong distro!

Try Gentoo and you might learn linux in 3 days.

Try emerge <package> for downloading and installing a package and it's depencencies. Then, just edit the config files and bang! it's there.

I picked the distribution that was recommended to me by several reviews and the majority of people who responded to a post I made. I'm considering trying a different distribution, I haven't looked at Gentoo, from what I have heard it lacks the nice graphical tools of other "easy to use" distributions. Some of the Debian based distributions look quite good, but I hate the idea of scrapping my current distribution after all the effort I have put into getting all my hardware and software working. Especially when I'm not sure how much of an advantage there really is in changing to Debian or anything else.

From what I have seen RPM is by far the most popular packaging format, quite a lot of software is only available as source or RPM. Also, most of the non-RPM distributions only seem to be practical if you have a very fast internet connection. The Linux software on magazine cover disks hardly ever includes Debian packages, and software CDs often don't seem to be available in anything but RPM and source. For example when I bought KDE 3 on CD from LinuxEmporium.co.uk there wasn't a Debian version available. Actually quite a lot of software on CD is source only, which often makes it a nightmare to install for a relative newbie such as myself. As I have a very slow connection, downloading big software packages and their dependencies just isn't realistic.

[fancypiper]

Originally posted by Dave_K
I picked the distribution that was recommended to me by several reviews and the majority of people who responded to a post I made. I'm considering trying a different distribution, I haven't looked at Gentoo, from what I have heard it lacks the nice graphical tools of other "easy to use" distributions.


Bah! Easy is as easy does.

There is no easy to use distribution of any OS. Linux is a very powerful, secure and flexible operating system with outstanding stability, so don't expect learning it's capabilities to be quick and easy. It is a unix work-alike with ideas added from any computer OS that some developer liked and decided to add. With all that power and security comes a price, it is more complicated than Windows (I believe, MS won't let us see their source so we can see) to run (but easier in my opinion 'cause I can type a command easily but have trouble finding a control under 14 layers of gui point and clicks) because it was designed on the internet rather than an isolated or small networked computer system. Check the internet security pages for results.

Gentoo is a build from scratch Linux, so it has exactly what you decide to have and since it starts with the basic linux tools, you are forced to learn real linux rather than use gui toys. As far as I know, all computers have had keyboards and will for a long time and I have never understood the big fear in typing something rather than point and click.


From what I have seen RPM is by far the most popular packaging format, quite a lot of software is only available as source or RPM. Also, most of the non-RPM distributions only seem to be practical if you have a very fast internet connection. The Linux software on magazine cover disks hardly ever includes Debian packages, and software CDs often don't seem to be available in anything but RPM and source. For example when I bought KDE 3 on CD from LinuxEmporium.co.uk there wasn't a Debian version available. Actually quite a lot of software on CD is source only, which often makes it a nightmare to install for a relative newbie such as myself. As I have a very slow connection, downloading big software packages and their dependencies just isn't realistic.

From what you are posting, the obvious choice for you would be Redhat then, which was my choice for that very reason and I still recommend it over the others I have tried, mainly because it works with minimum trouble on install.

I used Redhat for 3 years until I got enough nerve to try others. (Mandrake <shudder> no tools all gui, I couldn't even make the devices I needed, ugh, phoie).

I got fed up with the limitations of RedHat's included packages and rpm. The source is always available, so my choice was to build my distribution to my satisfaction and I am getting darn close to what I want.

I have sympathy for your phone line costs there, but if you know someone with a fast connection, there are CD burners that will minimize d/l times

I am installing Gentoo on a 56kmodem and had a gui running by the 3rd day. I was even using links to browse and post during my chrooted gentoo install proceedure. Surf the net while installing Windows, now. I thought not.

I pick the packages, emerge with the --fetchonly flag overnight while I am asleep, and then compile while doing other things, and then configure the packages.

[anacron]

I agree that Linux is much more difficult for you to use than anything else you could ever imagine.

I now admit that you will never feel comfortable in such a challenging environment as KDE with its insurmountable obstacles, such as the frightening "problem of inconsistent apps".

As you have so candidly admitted, for you "consistency between applications is one of the key things (for you) in an easy to use GUI, and that is something that Linux apps totally lack. It's much more important than the look of the GUI or even the usability of individual features like taskbars etc."

I'm terribly sorry to hear that you can't enjoy a GUI until features like cut/copy/paste and drag & drop work exactly the same in different apps.

I sincerely hope that someday in the future, you will rise up to the challenge and overcome your digital disability.

I leave you with my deepest regrets.:(

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by fancypiper
Have you tried selecting (to copy) and middle-click to paste? (some apps may need shift or control in addition)

That works for me, much better than the clunky way windows does it.


It's more a personal preference than something that's wrong with the GUI, but I really loathe the way copy and paste using the mouse works. I find that more often than not I want to paste some text over the top of something else. For example if I want to replace an URL in a browser window, I have to remember first to delete the original URL because selecting it will replace the clipboard contents. Also it means I can't keep a selection of text in the clipboard for any length of time as I'm sure to select something else sooner or later. I quite often hit the middle button to paste some text, only to find that I have double clicked a word at some point and that's now in the clipboard. There's also the issue of apps that use the middle mouse button for other tasks depending on where it's used. This is something I can probably get used to in time, but I think for me the disadvantages outweigh it's occasional speed advantage. As much as I dislike copy and paste using the mouse, it's not something I would bring up if that was the one consistent way of doing it.

Or are you trying the windows way of selecting, control c and control v which lots of apps in linux see no need of using?


That is the only option in some apps, for example selecting text in KOffice apps doesn't add it to the KOffice app's clipboard, although I can use the middle button to paste it into other apps. After copying it with ctrl+c it can be pasted into the KOffice app using either ctrl+v or the middle mouse button. Selecting text in the browser I use (Opera) adds it to that app's clipboard, but it can't be pasted into KOffice apps unless it's copied using ctrl+c. Obviously there are two separate clipboards in use here, it means that middle clicking in KOffice could paste different text to middle clicking in another app. Also, between some apps copy and paste just doesn't work, for example I can't copy text from OpenOffice to KWord using either method, despite being able to copy and paste from KWord to OpenOffice. There are loads of other inconsistencies and problems I have found with copy and paste, but I think the ones I have mentioned are more than enough.

Then there's the different methods of cutting text, that seems to have a separate clipboard in some apps. I tend to use copy and paste then go back and delete the text, rather than using cut and paste as I don't trust it to be reliable. That's all just handling text, copy and paste of images and other types of data is even more of a mess. This is something that worked well on the Apple LISA back in 1983, yet it barely works at all between Linux apps in 2002. Then there's drag and drop of data between apps, to be honest it doesn't always work properly in Windows, but it's mostly unusable in Linux.

The gui is fairly new to Linux, so it isn't up to linux's normal standards of consistency.

Linux programs are very consistant when you use the linux tools and you don't get hung up on having to do something with point and click.

There are some really clever things that you can do with CLI tools, I have mainly been learning the basics and ignoring most of the power of the CLI, but I have stumbled onto some really powerful and clever features. I wish the GUIs available had a tenth of the elegance and efficiency of the CLI tools. But the fact is, many tasks can only really be accomplished with graphical apps, or are simply easier with them. For example, image editing using GIMP, viewing and editing MS Office compatible documents, graphical web browsing, etc. The CLI is one of the big advantages of Linux but for me and a lot of other people the GUI is much more important for day to day use.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by anacron

I'm terribly sorry to hear that you can't enjoy a GUI until features like cut/copy/paste and drag & drop work exactly the same in different apps.

I sincerely hope that someday in the future, you will rise up to the challenge and overcome your digital disability.

I leave you with my deepest regrets.


I sincerely hope that someday in the future, Linux will rise up to the challenge and overcome it's many ease of use problems. Maybe eventually it will have the level of elegance I take for granted in just about every other desktop OS released in the past 15 years.

If it doesn't then that's something all Linux users should deeply regret, it will certainly never compete with Windows on the desktop in it's current state.

[fancypiper]

Bash scripting, grep, piping and redirection can do tons more faster than any gui cut, copy and paste.

Don't use a steamshovel to plow your garden. Learn the tools and how to put then together

The command line does the work, the gui impresses windoze lusers :cool:

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by fancypiper


Bah! Easy is as easy does.

There is no easy to use distribution of any OS. Linux is a very powerful, secure and flexible operating system with outstanding stability, so don't expect learning it's capabilities to be quick and easy.

To be honest I just don't need a secure, flexible and powerful OS for my needs, most other desktop users don't either IMO. If I ever need to set up a secure server Linux will be my first choice, but that just doesn't matter to me as a desktop user. I wish Linux could combine it's power with ease of use, like NEXTSTEP did over 10 years ago, as I do like having the CLI available. But I can live without the command line more happily than I can live without ease of use.

Gentoo is a build from scratch Linux, so it has exactly what you decide to have and since it starts with the basic linux tools, you are forced to learn real linux rather than use gui toys.


If I get fired from my job and need a new hobby, then maybe I will have a look at that. But at the moment the few advantages for me just don't justify the investment of free time necessary to get it working. I simply don't enjoy playing with software enough to want to spend weeks learning in depth how an OS works. Using Mandrake Linux for the past few weeks has been about as much frustration as I can take.


From what you are posting, the obvious choice for you would be Redhat then, which was my choice for that very reason and I still recommend it over the others I have tried, mainly because it works with minimum trouble on install.

I don't really see any advantages of Redhat over Mandrake, it still has all the problems that come with an RPM based distribution.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by fancypiper
Bash scripting, grep, piping and redirection can do tons more faster than any gui cut, copy and paste.

Don't use a steamshovel to plow your garden. Learn the tools and how to put then together

The command line does the work, the gui impresses windoze lusers :cool:

Perhaps you can explain to me how I can accomplish the basic tasks I mentioned in me previous response to you, using the CLI tools you mention. I just can't see how I could scan and edit a photograph, view an Excel spreadsheet and create a bar chart from the date, edit a Word document with formatting, graphically browse the web, etc. without using the GUI.

[fancypiper]

If Windows does the job for you the way you want it to, why are you wasting your time on Linux if the desire isn't to learn how to use it.

Are you really interested or just trolling? There are serious people here that do want help learning, but if you don't like the tools that do the job easily (if you know how to use the tools), use the ones you are used to using instead of wasting your and other's time.

Use a spoon to dig a ditch, I don't care. it makes no matter to me. I love freedom of choice and I made mine. It's up to you to make your choice.

I'm finished on this thread.

[EugeneTSWong]

I find that cut + paste in Windows is way better than in Linux. People shouldn't have to say, "Did you try this app or that setting?". With Windows, you can keep your fingers on the keyboard the entire time. It's so intuitive.

Right thumb goes on (Ctrl).
Right fingers go on (arrow keys or other grey keys).
Left pinky goes on (Z) for undo or (A) for select all or (Shift) for selecting text.
Left ring finger goes on (X) for cutting text.
Left middle finger goes on (C) for copying text.
Left index finger goes on (V) for pasting text.

Anybody who says that there is an easier method, needs to do some real explaining. I do agree that the "Select then middle click" method available in Linux comes in handy, but it doesn't even compare to the Windows way. I am quite a dedicated Linux user, by the way. So, it's not as if I can't figure it out. I also realize that some Linux apps allow us to do things the same way as Windows does, but still, that's not standard to Linux.

[bugfix]

Originally posted by EugeneTSWong
Right thumb goes on (Ctrl).
Right fingers go on (arrow keys or other grey keys).
Left pinky goes on (Z) for undo or (A) for select all or (Shift) for selecting text.
Left ring finger goes on (X) for cutting text.
Left middle finger goes on (C) for copying text.
Left index finger goes on (V) for pasting text.


No, no, no....! The left hand operates all cutting and pasting actions without the any input from the right hand.

Pinkie goes on control and a combination of the other 3 fingers and the thumb hits Z,X,C, and V. This way the right hand can stay on the mouse if neccessary but preferably near the cursors to move and for selection (in combination of the left hand using the shift key.)

[undef]

Originally posted by Dave_K


No offense intended, but I really don't think you understand what makes a computer easy of use and elegant. Even ignoring the problems with configuration and installation of hardware and software, there is the problem of inconsistent apps. Consistency between applications is one of the key things in an easy to use GUI, and that is something that Linux apps totally lack. It's much more important than the look of the GUI or even the usability of individual features like taskbars etc. Linux will never compete with Windows for ease of use while even basic features like cut/copy/paste and drag & drop work differently in different apps. I can recommend some good books about user interface design if you are interested in learning about the topic.

Dave, dave, dave: you still don't get it do you?
LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS.
just because you know how to ride a bike doesn't mean you can fly a plane.

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by fancypiper
If Windows does the job for you the way you want it to, why are you wasting your time on Linux if the desire isn't to learn how to use it.


Actually Windows doesn't do the job for me the way I want it to, that's why I'm considering changing to Mac OS X in the near future. I tried Linux because I hoped that it would provide a better solution than Windows. I hoped that Linux had begun to approach the level of ease of use of other desktop OSes, that's the impression I got from all the desktop Linux hype in the past year. But it looks like Linux still has a very long way to go, the underlying OS has some wonderful features and sometimes the CLI is great. But while the GUI is still a primitive, inconsistent mess and the OS requires a much greater investment of time than any other OS I have encountered, it will not be acceptable to me and I doubt it will be accepted by the wide majority (the original topic of this thread).

[Dave_K]

Originally posted by undef


Dave, dave, dave: you still don't get it do you?
LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS.
just because you know how to ride a bike doesn't mean you can fly a plane.

Sorry, but it's you who just doesn't get it, you really don't have the slightest clue about user interface design and why it's important. I have said this before I will say it again now, because it just doesn't seem to be sinking in. I don't want Linux to be like Windows or any other OS, I have used a wide variety of different OSes and I'm fine with them all being different. Actually a lot of the best features in OPENSTEP, Mac OS and RISC OS are the ones not shared with Windows. The problem is that when it comes to ease of use, Linux is simply inferior to almost ever other OS I have used.

Would you accept the argument that multitasking and stability in Windows 3.1 is just different to how it is in Linux, rather than being inferior? Would you agree with someone who said that you just need to get used to restarting your computer twice a day and that poor stability just makes it different, rather than making it worse than a stable OS like Linux?

To me Linux fans are making an argument just as stupid as that when they say that I just need to get used to the Linux ease of use problems. More than anything it seems like a convenient way of dismissing any criticism of the Linux GUI, without having to come up with solutions or admit that Linux has problems. If the GUI doesn't matter to you then obviously it isn't a problem, just like some people don't care about multitasking as they only run one app at a time. But I think the wide majority of people want an elegant and easy to use GUI, at the moment that's something that Linux lacks. Maybe that will change in the future, but seeing so many Linux fans respond with empty rhetoric rather than possible solutions doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the future of desktop Linux.

[chikn]

Originally posted by undef


Dave, dave, dave: you still don't get it do you?
LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS.
just because you know how to ride a bike doesn't mean you can fly a plane.

Windows <= Bike

Linux >= Plane

:D

[danrees]

As much as I advocate Linux, my nature is that I am rational about most things. It seems clear to me that there is a trade-off between stability, flexibility, and freedom in Linux, and its steep learning curve, lack of user-friendly documentation (improving, but a lot is still too technical), and the vast potential for things to go wrong if one is not careful.

Clearly people place a higher value on certain considerations, and so for some people Linux just isn't suitable (yet?). That isn't too say that they're stoopid, lame, a suXor or any other l33t term of disparagement, rather that their personality or circumstances are different.

Grandma using her computer to check e-mail and surf the world wide web doesn't really care whether she uses KDE, GNOME, Blackbox, Enlightenment, Window Maker etc... She just wants to read her e-mail. For her, freedom is confusion.

If you use Linux, great, enjoy it. If you don't, why not try it? If you don't like it, then that's fine. Tell developers and the community what you think is wrong with the OS, and try again in a year or two.

[wolfhalen]

why does everyone go off on whether or not linux is or ever will be for mainstream computer users???

It was never really intended for that purpose, in fact it wasn't even supposed to see the light of day. linus released it and enough people caught on, now it's a worldwide phenomenon. It did this on it's own, basically through word of mouth. in fact I don't know one person (computer geek or not) that hasn't at least heard of it.

if it makes it totally mainstreem, well that's cool, if it doesn't, who the f**k cares. No one company can buy it out and ruin it to the point windows is anyway so what's the difference......

now you have a point, it could use some help in the configuration department, but it gets better with each NEW distro i try.....where as windows hasn't progressed measurably for a few years. IMO.....

[windowsfree]

Well, I can speak as a very new Linux user, and as a person who isn't all that computer literate.
I love using Linux, my computer actually works like it should, I spent enough money putting it together that I shouldn't have to pay through the a** for a crappy opperating system like XP but (there's always a but)
I would like to see more user friendly apps like a vidieo player that I can locate, I can't find GTKam to install my digital camera which I know sounds dumb!, and I installed flashplayer but can't get it to work. If these things among others were easyer to find then I wouldn't see any reason for people to buy windows except that they like to throw away money.
I use mandrake 8.2 and have no micro$oft software on my computer at all, and love it

[endorphinjunkie]

What most people who whine about how difficult it is to learn any flavor of linux don't seem to realize is that it took them more than a day or two to learn windows. I didn't learn dos, win95 or win98se overnight either. Why in the world would you think it would be easier to learn linux. I don't know the problem he has with Mandrake, but that is arguably the easiest distro to use. The only trouble that I was getting the dvd player to play, at first. But in less than 24 hrs after finding this board, that was solved. (By the way, thanks everyone for the help)

[Palin]

My $.02

Dave I think you are going to find that OS X doesn't have all that you wish maybe it will. If you really want the OS that meats all of your criteria then you will most likely need to build it yourself.

out of all the OS's I've used over the years Linux has the most promise. Why because it is really driven by the users. When I was earning my degree at a univesity the department I was in used Sun Workstations exlusively when i started. Back then I was a little bewildered. Through hindsight I realize they were using the best OS available. And yes there is a learning curve one I am willing to devote the time to since I will be moving away from the Windows world. I can no longer in good concience support a company like them. If I am required to use it at work that is one thing but at home I will personally not use it. (now if i can just convince my wife to do the same).

[blamm]

Originally posted by Okie
you rnot going to start yelling Developers, Developers, Developers, like monkey boy Steve Ballmer did, are you????

hahahahaha Not Monkey Boy !
Cabbage Patch ! :D

[rwtoften]

I'm just a regular computer user who uses linux
if I, could run my nascar 2003 on linux, I'd have no use for microsoft. I burn my cd's, use email, surf the net, chat, etc.
All this other stuff u ppl talk about I, don't care about and most users don't! If the system doesn't run right ppl will not use it! That's where microsoft has it's grip on the software business, easy to install and use, so what u have to reboot, and least u don't have to use a command line to install some program! And figure out why it's not working properly. Myself
I, prefer using linux because it's more stable and don't mind messing around alittle with the sotware install. But have friends who don't and will not bother till linux is alittle more user friendly(which I think it is anyways) just need my nascar to run on it please!:cool:

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by endorphinjunkie
What most people who whine about how difficult it is to learn any flavor of linux don't seem to realize is that it took them more than a day or two to learn windows.

Took a long time to read this whole thread. Your post is the reason for my sig. :)

I read an article yesterday from a Linux enthusiast tell 'Why Linux may not be for you'. The bottom line, if you are trying Linux because you want a better windows, you will not be satisfied. You want to use Linux because it is Linux.

As mentioned at least 12 times, OEM is the reason MS is popular. From personal experience, with many people, Windows is, at times, plain old crap. Easy to use crap, and at times, it DOES shine. I use Linux because is simply shines all the time on my machine. I am a very experience user, and I am the OEM for 21 people so far in my extended family/friend network. I refuse to support Windows anymore because I just fix the same stuff over and over and over, usually with the three R's. For purely neccessary for my sanity reasons, I installed Linux. I would NOT have bothered is Windows really was as good as MS believes. I don't get tech calls anymore, and everyone, including my 70+ years old parents love it. Get his, my Dad just recorded and converted his entire Album libary to OGG! Figured it out 100% on his own :)

All I can say to the origional poster is, dump the comparison to Windows, Linux is not Windows, DUAL boot until you learn (as it did with years over the years) what Linux is about. When it creeps in, you will wonder, as my wife so elequently stated about 2 weeks ago (She love Redhat 8.0), 'Why can't people just run windows in Redhat?'

hlrguy

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by hlrguy
the three R's. Three? I know reboot and reinstall, what's the third?

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by bwkaz
Three? I know reboot and reinstall, what's the third?

remove, re-install,reboot, although I guess it is
remove,reboot,re-install,reboot,reconfigure,
reboot,hope for the best till it breaks again.
:D

hlrguy

[bs_texas]

Originally posted by hlrguy
remove, re-install,reboot, although I guess it is remove,reboot,re-install,reboot,reconfigure,
reboot,hope for the best till it breaks again.
:D

hlrguy

Hmmm... Sounds like my linux experience so far. :eek:

But, I hope I'm gettin' better.

[Manojo]

Hi,
I haven't gone through the 192 replies to this thread, and hope this has nt already been said.
Windows GUI is good - Linux's too: but why in the great heavens do you have to install all packages available on first install to get the GUI completely working?
In all, with Mandrake 9.1, there are about 62 packages on first install. I installed 61, so I did not get the whole GUI:I double-click the home folder on the desktop :bad link, doesn't exist
I click on "start" button, I don't see any progs.

???

[DSwain]

First of all, as was said early on in this fourm, Linux is fairly mainstream. Not to the extent of MS software, but still mainstream. I think one big change that could be made is with the command line. I honestly have no idea how to do anything in the command line, it's a pain. The desktop(s) in linux are not bad at all, honestly, it's much better than any Windows desktop. Easy to custimize, change colors, things like that. Another big reason is that this is all built by the "community." Getting support for large amounts of hardware, and making everything very simple is probably not an option while building an OS. If Linux did that, it would take just as long as it takes to release an MS OS (2 years or so.) The built in software/utilities is actually much better than MS stuff. It all works fairly easly, and is pretty nice. There should be not much of a need to install any software if you're a common "home/small office" user. It's all there.

And the biggest reason of all, it's free. That was probably the first thing to appeal to me. :D

[2ndsign]

Originally posted by glussier
Most of the people (probably over 95%), contrary to some of you may think, to play games, run office applications and surf the internet. Microsoft. Win2k and winxp are excellent at these tasks, and contrary to one has said, you can customize the interface, I can even have a windowmaker look or blackbox look if I want to, I only have to download a few utilities.

If Linux wants to be more popular, they first have to find a few OEMS who are willing to sell their computers with linux pre-installed. And probably, it wouldn't hurt if Linux could boot faster (for now it is at least twice as slow as win2k andwinxp to get to a desktop). It also wouldn't hurt if applications could load faster, presently windows applications loading time is much faster than Linux. Don't tell me the f***en crap, that IE is integrated into windows, load any applications and you'll soon see that windows is much better than linux at loading applications. Another thing that wouldn't hurt, is if power management was better on linux, right now, both my laptops can last about 30minutes longer on batteries with win2k than any Linux distribution.

Also, for most people buying a new computer, windows and office doesn't cost much as the cost is burried in the price of the pc, which cost is peanuts as Microsoft charges only something like $40.00 for the whole thing in volume sale to OEMs.

I like Linux, and I have it installed on 2 workstations, but for now it is not going to replace windows on my 2 laptops.

As for complexity, I'm not a good person to judge that. I was trained as an IBM/360 370 and 390 assembly programmer, so I'm not afraid of a command line, and I think Linux is easy enough to learn, as long as you want to put a minimum of effort.


what distro do you have?my linux can run circles around xp.x boots very fast i use
evil entity,slackware and gentoo.

software's easier to install in windows ehh?! ive installed things in linux just fine and its doesnt corupt itself within 2 months like windows.

you not correct about the oem volume sales to date.
garanteed youll pay for a version of xp home in a preinstalled computer 150$ more for the computer.

linux is not going to dumb itself down for the mindless masses and sacrifice quality.it doesnt need a market to survive.its shown that!

remember ok!linux doesnt need to be sold to survive!

[DSwain]

You have a good point there. But either way, I would love to learn Linux, and anybody who is interested into any form of computing should. Linux is large scale network material, and an IT consultant would need to know how to run it, I would assume that at least. In the end, I want to learn Linux, and everybody should because it has a lot to offer. This is why I'm here though now isn't it?