Is it me...Or is Linux just a tad difficult...??

[Erk]

I do try to understand it, but all these command line entries really nark me off. It's not even straightforward to download a program and type in an 'install' command, there's all the tars and gzips and then a file might have to be compiled (??), it takes ten lines to install...Or to add a new piece of hardware (it has to be compiled and added to the kernel??!!) What is all this?

Is there anywhere on the internet (or in old fashioned paper book form) that explains Linux in plain language (i.e. translates from the Windows world to Linux speak)? Most of us users out here aren't techies who love all this command language. We just want to get the computer up and running, reliably, and get on with our work.

(And by the way, I've already tried 'Running Linux' 3rd edition by O'Reilly, and that was written for Unix-people..!!)

Otherwise I think I'll have to give Linux the boot (no pun intended)...and stick with Microsoft Windows...

Erk.
:mad: :confused: :mad:

[7]

One word my friend: Mandrake. No more CLI.

I install programs with just one command;
apt-get install <prog>

couldn't be simpler :D

Seriously though, imagine a technophobiac (I made that up) trying to get Windows to work, even starting programs and moving around the filesystem, I'm sure you've seen them. Well that was all of us when we first used Linux. Learn the basic conventions, and everyday administration is easy.

[ 29 September 2001: Message edited by: 7 ]

[Craig McPherson]

It's intentional.

Power and simplicity are inversely proportional. If you make a system more powerful, you make it less simple. If you make a system more simple, you make it less powerful.

You can't have it both ways; you have to make a choice.

[jcrowe]

If you give linux some time you'll understand things. I use windows at work and we have a windows 2000 server set-up there. I am the only one in the office that knows linux so they wanna keep the 2000 server, but you can't imagine how many times we've run into problems that don't really have a solution on windows. But the same problem could be fixed/worked around in about 5 minutes if it was linux instead of Win2000.

One thing that helped me was to keep a large selection of bookmarks for helpful linux sites. That and :cool: google :cool:

Good luck.

PS. Anything that is written in a book is ussually to old to be useful and it's on the net anyway. :)

[Craig McPherson]

Originally posted by Erk:
<STRONG>Most of us users out here aren't techies who love all this command language. We just want to get the computer up and running, reliably, and get on with our work.</STRONG>

Okay, I'm not trying to sound like a smart-arse here (even though you'll probably take it that way), but if you're not "techies who love all this command language," and you just want to "get the computer up and running, reliably, and get on with our work", then why are you using an operating system designed by and for "techies who love all this command language"??

I don't get it.

If you just want to get your work done in a simple fashion, there's already an OS for that Windows 2000. I grudgingly admit that it's pretty darn good on technical merits (compared to previous Windowses, at least), and the only real problem now is the price, the insipid licensing, and the fact that Microsoft has committed more crimes against humanity than the entire Nazi party. Well, there's a solution to that, too. Don't want to pay for it? Don't. Get a CD-R copy from a friend, and use it, with no regrets. Don't try to use an OS that wasn't designed for you.

[cheerios]

Dude, here at school, they don't even let you USE Win 2K server or some such... a friend had it on her comp, and had a tech support dude in to fix something, and he told her it had to go, 'cuz she oculd use it to screw up the server... plus, my comp doesn't even SUPPORT 2K... I tried once.. it was a disaster... So, I guess I'm in the same spot.. looking for something that won't crash every 20 seconds, or eat my papers the day before theyre due. And all told, Linux seems the way to go, but I havn't used a commmand line since DOS! it's intimidating, and even more so, when they tell you, you have to be in root to change anything, but be careful, 'cuz you can screw your whole OS over in root... ugh! ok, done ranting, but I hear what this dude's sayin'... Good luck, and run around int he NHF, they've been helpful to me...

[edit] wrong windows name :/

[ 29 September 2001: Message edited by: cheerios ]

[rex holmes]

Originally posted by Craig McPherson:
<STRONG>... but if you're not "techies who love all this command language," and you just want to "get the computer up and running, reliably, and get on with our work", then why are you using an operating system designed by and for "techies who love all this command language"??

I don't get it.

... Don't try to use an OS that wasn't designed for you.</STRONG>

You people All suck as Linux advocates. This is from linuxnewbie's "about" page:

"... we at Linuxnewbie.org want to crush that stigmatism and make Linux more popular with everyday users, thus propelling Linus' original vision of bringing a Unix based operating system to the desktop."

Linux does not _have_ to have a sucky user interface, and it doesn't _have_ to be difficult to get going: it just is right now. Hopefully someday somebody'll write a decent desktop/GUI, everyone'll switch & MS will shrivel up & die.

Until then, the linux advocate's shouldn't be telling everybody who finds it difficult to just go back to Windows. I think it necessary to have an OS where a user can "get under the hood", but 90% of computer users don't need that - they need to type up a report, listen to a song, balance their checkbooks, surf the internet, etc. A good OS shouldn't stand in the way of actually doing the work that a user has to do. A good OS would be transparent to those who want it that way, while those that want to dig deeper can.

---------------

The inverse relationship between simplicity & power is BS, btw. A hammer is simple. A steamroller is complex. Is a hammer more powerful than a steamroller? No, I didn't think so. (This doesn't mean that you should use a steamroller to hammer a nail, though...)

Rex

PS - shouldn't this thread be under rants?

[dhyatt]

I'll add 2 more cents! Please all you Linux newbies like me, give Mandrake 8.1 a whirl, you won't be much more dissapointed then Windows 98!

[Erk]

"why are you using an operating system designed by and for 'techies who love all this command language'"..."the only real problem now is the price, the insipid licensing, and the fact that Microsoft has committed more crimes against humanity than the entire Nazi party."..."Don't want to pay for it? Don't. Get a CD-R copy from a friend, and use it, with no regrets. Don't try to use an OS that wasn't designed for you."

Ah, well there's the rub...I'm not trying to use an OS designed by techies, I'm trying to get away from Microsoft because of cost, and being more and more tied to their ever more insipid way of doing things (Passport, anyone?)...Added to that I'm trying to set up a small server network which isn't going to cost the earth, and be as reliable as possible on PC based hardware. But what I really need is a smoother translation from Windows to Linux. It's impossible to go from a pretty much GUI based system to one that, in its tightest form, has no GUI at all. I need a guide that says "this is how you would have done it in Windows, now here's how, step by step, the same thing is done in Linux". And if something can be done better in Linux, then it explains, in clear, thought out language, how it is done.

The main trouble I have is that all the books and HOW-TOs are written in tech speak, and presume the reader already has knowledge of Unix or Linux. This is not what will convince Windows users (those with an interest in configuration) to convert to Linux...I'd love to use Mandrake, but that isn't going to help me in the long run, because I'll need to set up a non-GUI system...

Erk
:confused: :mad: :confused:

[Okie]

get Mandrake 8.1 or Redhat 7.1 or SuSe 7.2 these three are the most user friendly Linux Distros, personally i prefer Redhat, it automatically configured my hardware perfictly and the install is a no brainer...

and as far as the commandline stuff i am in the same boat as you, i just hate it and only use it if absolutly necesarry and i end up having to read up a little first and get the lines i need to use typed up in the text editor first and have em both open side by side just to get it right...

[Craig McPherson]

Originally posted by rex holmes:
<STRONG>You people All suck as Linux advocates. </STRONG>

Well, let me state one thing first off: I hate Linux advocates. No, I don't actually hate anybody, but I hate Linux advocacy. If somebody needs "convincing" to use an operating system, they probably don't have any business using it to begin with. People should use the best tool for the job, or use any operating system that interests the personally, not use something because an "OS evangelist" told them to.

I do "counter-advocacy," actually. If somebody asks me "Why should I use your operating system?" I reply "I can't think of a single reason. Goodbye." If they actually do wind up using the operating system after that, then it's because they want to, not because they were tricked into it by some evangelist.

Trying to sway people to your "cause" is stupid. If your cause is worth supporting, the people who want to support it will support it without anyone suckering them into it. In fact, if you actively discourage people from your cause, you'll weed out the people who don't really want to be there.

That's why I don't try to be a "Linux advocate." I don't even consider myself a "Linux user": I'm a Debian user, and the version of Debian that I happen to use uses the Linux kernel. That's my only connection to Linux. Debian GNU/HURD is also available, as is a somewhat goofy half-hearted Debian GNU/Win32, but the real jewel on the horizon is Debian GNU/BSD. Once it reaches a level of usability (and I'll be helping it out however I can), I'll have no reason to be associated with Linux at all. I find myself being more in sync with BSD users much more often than with Linux users anway: namely, I don't consider rebelling against or destroying Microsoft to be a primary driving goal for one's life the way that most Linux users these days do (although I'll engage in as much MS-bashing as the next guy when the mood strikes me).


This is from linuxnewbie's "about" page:

"... we at Linuxnewbie.org want to crush that stigmatism and make Linux more popular with everyday users, thus propelling Linus' original vision of bringing a Unix based operating system to the desktop."


Do I really need to add a disclaimer to all my posts saying "My views do not represent the views of the administration of this website and/or Internet.Com and/or any of its subsidaries and/or anyone other than myself"??

And Linus had a vision of bringing a UNIX system to his desktop, not Joe Q Random's grandmother's. He created an operating system (well, he didn't CREATE an operating system, he patched his own kernel underneath the GNU operating system) for himself to use.

Hopefully someday somebody'll write a decent desktop/GUI, everyone'll switch & MS will shrivel up & die.

This "destroying the evil Micro$oft is the highest goal in life, I am so 31337 because I'm a 1337 Linux d00d... how do I get my mouse to work in X??" attitude is pretty much the worst thing about Linux users.

I think it necessary to have an OS where a user can "get under the hood"

Then why are you trying to weld my hood shut instead of worrying about your own durn hood?

but 90% of computer users don't need that - they need to type up a report, listen to a song, balance their checkbooks, surf the internet, etc.

Why would they need a UNIX-based OS for this? What the heck is wrong with Windows 2000 if that's all you want to do?

The inverse relationship between simplicity & power is BS, btw. A hammer is simple. A steamroller is complex. Is a hammer more powerful than a steamroller? No, I didn't think so. (This doesn't mean that you should use a steamroller to hammer a nail, though...)

If all you need to do is hammer a nail, then just stick with the hammer and get your bloody hands off my steamroller!!!


PS - shouldn't this thread be under rants?

This thread gets posted once a week. Nobody ever says anything new. I'm pretty much just re-typing old posts from memory in response to clones of posts I've read many times before.

[yngtm27]

Newbie linux user here. It was a little intimidating at first and I still have much to learn but I'm enjoying the challenge. It's not like Windows even though I'm using the KDE desktop. I really like the freedom this OS allows. If there is a problem, one can "go under the hood" and fix the problem in most cases. That's the power of the command-line interface. And besides if I can get the OS for less than a tenth the cost of W2k or even XP (or even free much of the time) then it's worth it to me to take the time and learn.

Installation was easy with the SuSE distro although I had to go back and install the kernel headers so I could install some drivers properly.

Windows kind of seems like a toy OS to me now (although it's just as complex but made idiot proof).

[Erk]

:) :D :)
Well, with all the issues I was having with Linux (at least as far as networking was concerned), it seems that my invesment in SuSE 7.2 today has paid off. It's certainly alot better than 6.4. Though there's still the issue of learning command lines and text files, at least I've been able to get my network started...

Now, if someone can point me in the direction of some good training pages for the most basic Linux command line elements (such as all this compiling and stuff) then I'll be the happiest bunny in Pengiunland...

;)

[X_console]

I do try to understand it, but all these command line entries really nark me off. It's not even straightforward to download a program and type in an 'install' command, there's all the tars and gzips and then a file might have to be compiled (??)

You don't have to use the command line if you don't want to. Also, if you're using RedHat, or any other distribution that supports RPMs, you can install stuff pretty much in the same way as you would using Windows. What distribution are you using? Get a book that talks about that distribution and you'll get much further down the road.

Or to add a new piece of hardware (it has to be compiled and added to the kernel??!!)

You might be able to find custom kernels out there already made for you and the hardware you're using. Or you can find someone who has an exact system like yours running Linux and ask them to compile the kernel for you.

Also, please take a look at the NHFs here. http://www.linuxnewbie.org/nhf/intel There are tutorials for most things, including compiling and installing software from source if that particular topic confuses you. There's also one on compiling your kernel. Most of these tutorials were written for newbies, so you should be able to understand them.

[Derango]

"This "destroying the evil Micro$oft is the highest goal in life, I am so 31337 because I'm a 1337 Linux d00d... how do I get my mouse to work in X??" attitude is pretty much the worst thing about Linux users."

hehe, thanks craig...thats the funniest thing I've seen in quite some time ;)

And I definitly agree with that, as well as the rest of your post.

The moral of the story: Use whatever works for you.

[Rob 'Feztaa' Park]

Originally posted by Craig McPherson:
<STRONG>If all you need to do is hammer a nail, then just stick with the hammer and get your bloody hands off my steamroller!!!</STRONG>

OMG.... I have been enlightened...

I guess I'll stop trying to sell steamrollers to my friends.

[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: Rob 'Feztaa' Park ]

[Craig McPherson]

Do not criticize a man until you have walked at least 2000 miles in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you are 2000 miles away and you have his shoes." -- Unknown

That actually originated from a newspaper competition which challenged readers to emulate the style of Jack Handey's famous "Deep Thoughts" series of quotes. There was a lot of really great stuff submitted, including the quote above. I saw the original newspaper article, but it quickly started getting passed around the Internet, getting edited, and getting false attributions added. One version going around claims that all the quotes were written by children, which is false (someone made up fake names and ages for each of the quotes; I have no idea why). Some people incorrectly attribute the quote in question to Steve Martin, or to Jack Handey himself. The more time that passes after something funny like that is written, the more it becomes an "urban legend" and the harder it is to find out where it came from; fortnately I was lucky enough to see a copy of the original newspaper article (I think this was in 1997) before the origins of the piece got clouded in mystery.

The actual quote is something like this:

"Don't criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then, wnen you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have his shoes."

And, on the subject of shoes, a real Jack Handey quote:

"Once, I wept because I had no shoes. Then, I met a man who had no feet. So I took his shoes. It's not like he needed them or antyhing."

[ 01 October 2001: Message edited by: Craig McPherson ]

[viscia]

I do "counter-advocacy," actually. If somebody asks me "Why should I use your operating system?" I reply "I can't think of a single reason. Goodbye." If they actually do wind up using the operating system after that, then it's because they want to, not because they were tricked into it by some evangelist.

Actually, you did think of a reason..

People should use the best tool for the job, or use any operating system that interests the personally, not use something because an "OS evangelist" told them to.

Hmmn. Although the little "destroying the evil Micro$oft is the highest goal in life, I am so 31337 because I'm a 1337 Linux d00d... how do I get my mouse to work in X??" quite was funny, I have to disagree with the idea that the only reason to choose an OS is because it works.

I do enjoy having a feel for the command line and suddently realizing what all those rc.? files are about, but my arguments for running GNU/Linux are very much tied in with the free software movement that brought the GPL into existence in the first place.

It's kind of like avoiding Gillette when you don't like animal testing, or buying your books from local shops instead of chains, etc. Corporations like Microsoft rely on people using the quickest and easiest solution ('best tool for the job') to maintain their stranglehold. So long as we look at what we do in terms of how quickly we get what we want rather than what we're willing to support as Citizens, there will always be some kind of Microsoft around to exploit us.

Personally I'm all for advocating, insofar as it remains honest. There are some real tradoffs in switching from windows, one of them is a steep learning curve and a need to understand more about the system if you're planning to use more than what comes pre-installed. Some may find the added stability and security aren’t worth the extra effort, but that the freedom is. I see no problem suggesting to someone who asks why ‘my’ OS is worth using that there is more to this than simply choosing what works best. If they still only want to know about functionality, they can say so and get an honest assessment. If they really just want a good book on how to use the thing, I’d skip the whole shebang and tell them to look at the listing at LNO - &lt;http://www.linuxnewbie.org/bookshelf/bs-1.html&gt;. Personally I find it useful to have a basic reference book on commands and to type “man &lt;anything&gt;” as soon as I’m not sure what to do next. Also it's a good idea to break things into steps. As in - "Today, I'm going to make the mouse wheel work." Be surprised how quickly you learn what's going on behind the scenes when you have a very specific goal in mind. Keep postin' Erk.

[Frank Taplin]

Well this is kind of getting off the topic but I have found a couple of books which have helped me with learning the basics. Now these books are geared more toward system administration than general use. Linux for Windows 200/NT Administrators by Mark Minasi is a good book for relating things to what you know in Windows. The only drawback is thaat it assumes a high level of Windows administration knowledge.
Also the Linux Bible and the Red Hat Bible by Hungry Minds put things in a pretty basic format.
The only problem I have with the command lines is that I come from the DOS world and tend to use use the old DOS commands automatically.

[DJ Jansen]

Mandrake Mandrake Mandrake Mandrake...

enough said.

[LakLar]

I have to say something.

i work for an ISP and we have WIN2k and Slackware linux servers. I was able to install and apply the win2k server A LOT easier and faster than I can with Linux. Ya I am using RH, but i thought it was supposed to be the easiest.

I am trying to install different mail server. I am missing these dependencies, this program is compatible with that program, un tar this tar that rpm -urpasdlkfasdf this, ./make a;lskdjfasdj that, read this file (that has nothing to do with what I am doing) Read that file, do this, try that, compile this(which isn't too bad) this isn't compatible, that isn't compatible, this software isn't compatible but this MIGHT be, mount this unmount that, kde this (which isn't too bad either) Gnome that, login here, logout there.

My point is that I am a programmer, that does some sys admin. Linux has a whay to go before installing a linux server is as easy or easier than Win.

don't get me wrong, I am a huge advocate of linux, but installing is a pain and I don't think It could be any harder. I have been working on this server for over a week now, but could have setup a win server in just a few days.

Using linux isn't hard or much harder than windows, but I think the majority of the complaints about linux is the install. It is just too damn difficult for anyone, unless you have been around and using linux for well over a year, to understand how to install stuff.

But I guess that is why all the *nix Admins get all the good money. :)

[lm72]

When started with Linux i hated the whole command line becasue it was hard to understand at first but keep it at it un one day you will feel right home.

But for GUI Lover Mandrake it best.

For CLI Lover Debian,Slackware,SuSe Linux is king

Alex :)

[Rob 'Feztaa' Park]

There's a simple fact that I think a lot of people here don't understand... EASY is BAD.

Unix (and it's derivatives) were not designed to be easy. They were designed to be powerful, and that's what they are. "Power" and "Ease of Use" are two mutually exclusive things. You can't have a powerful system that is easy to use. It just doesn't work.

Windows (and MacOS for that matter) were designed to be easy to use. As a result, any semblance of power has been removed from them (or rather, not added in the first place).

I don't know if I can state it in any simpler terms... Unix has power, and thus cannot have ease of use. The opposite is true of windows.

If you can't handle the power, don't try. Just don't.

[Balamut]

Now, if someone can point me in the direction of some good training pages for the most basic Linux command line elements (such as all this compiling and stuff) then I'll be the happiest bunny in Pengiunland...Did you read this http://dsl.org/cookbook/ ? It`s ABC. ;)

[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: Balamut ]

[Balamut]

I am trying to install different mail server. I am missing these dependencies, this program is compatible with that program, un tar this tar that rpm -urpasdlkfasdf this, ./make a;lskdjfasdj that, read this file (that has nothing to do with what I am doing) Read that file, do this, try that, compile this(which isn't too bad) this isn't compatible, that isn't compatible, this software isn't compatible but this MIGHT be, mount this unmount that, kde this (which isn't too bad either) Gnome that, login here, logout there.I think main obstacle of Linux on desktop is the lack of standards (I mean as agreements not as injunctions) and old and outdated manuals and docs. I have in my /usr/share/doc/HOWTO some 1999 year instuctions. Ppl create programs impying that some lib or dll or glib must be in certain place but I have newer version in there and program can`t compile or can`t run. Every distributor invents its own wheel placing kernel libs etc in different places not compatible with other distributors`, trying to grab market :(

[Strike]

First of all, quoting anything from the linuxnewbie.org mission statement doesn't apply to pretty much ANY of the forum members here (including myself). We all do as we please. The only real connection I have is that I uphold the AUP of the board. Sure I "advocate" Linux, but I do it in a way that I think Craig might even consider approving. I don't pretty it up saying "oh, it's easy you can just jump right in and use it as a replacement for Windows in no time flat". Believe me, when someone hears about Linux for me they know that it does get easy eventually but that it does take some time, and that it won't be fun the whole time through the learning process.

[av1998]

Question: "Is it me...Or is Linux just a tad difficult...??"

Answer: Well, I'd say it's probably both - It's you and Linux is also a tad difficult.

Here's what newbies need to do ..... continue using Windows or Mac or whatever until you have learned Linux enough to function independently. The whole Linux as a desktop OS notion is still some ways from being a household product. The installation itself is enough to drive many people crazy. On top of that, the command line and other intricacies will be quite a battle to grasp. Then, there is also the problem with software and programs for daily family/office use such as Quicken, The Sims, AutoCAD, and various other mainstream products.

If you are interested to run Linux exclusively someday, be prepared to spend the time and the effort to learn. It will take months or years in order to master the Linux OS.

[mrBen]

IMHO I think it's all relative. For instance, when I first used Windows NT, I could not work out how to log out. I'd been using Windows for years, and I could shut down the blimmin' thing. Eventually I gave up, and used the old 3-finger salute, and THERE IT WAS !!

On the whole, though, I'd agree with the power/simplicity thing. But distro's like Mandrake are really contending in the ease of use stakes.

Personally I think the steep learning curve is worth it, but I'm sure that there will be plenty of those who disagree. But they can have X terminals running KDE of my server ;)

On another note, I also have Running Linux, and I have read large chunks of it, despite never having used Unix before installing Linux and had no big problems with it. (Except there aren't enough pictures :D)