I gave up on Linux

[ScourggeFX]

After spending over 40 hrs configuring my R9700 to work with Mandrake 9.2, numerous reinstalls, and endless searches of how tos, I just figured it wasn't worth it anymore. Just too many problems. While it may be different for you, I was soundly disaapointed at how much time I spent trying to get the graphics 3D part to work.

Back to good 'ol W2k.

 

[MTB2Live Live4Comps]

sorry to hear that. if you decide to eventually come back - i highly recommend gentoo. i got my radeon working in about 15 minutes.

 

[skritch]

Sorry to see you give up, but Linux does have a rather steep learning curve. It's the tradeoff for such a powerful OS.

 

[ZenPirate]

Originally posted by ScourggeFX
After spending over 40 hrs configuring my R9700 to work with Mandrake 9.2, numerous reinstalls, and endless searches of how tos, I just figured it wasn't worth it anymore. Just too many problems. While it may be different for you, I was soundly disaapointed at how much time I spent trying to get the graphics 3D part to work.

Back to good 'ol W2k.

Took me all of 4 minutes to get my Radeon 9700 working with 3d acceleration in Fedora core 1. Xandros 2.0, my current distro, installed the ati drivers by default. Maybe it's time to try a different distro instead of giving up.

 

[Kriegführung]

I got my 9500pro working fairly easy under Gentoo, but gaming performance just isn't the same as XP. Sound is also lacking, but that is Nvidia's fault in my case since they don't have great drivers for soundstorm in Linux.

 

[tim_m]

i wouldn't consider linux for everyday desktop use at this point. only servers

 

[ZenPirate]

Originally posted by tim
i wouldn't consider linux for everyday desktop use at this point. only servers

Actually, I consider Linux distros perfect for everyday desktop use, just not as gaming machines. Mozilla for browsing and email, xmms for music, xine/mplayer for video, OpenOffice.org for work, and GIMP for graphics. All for "free". Not too shabby, IMHO.

 

[GreNME]

Wow, three "try another distro" suggestions and one... well, I don't know where to categorize the "It's the tradeoff for such a powerful OS." line (except to point out that "difficult" does not equal "powerful").

I'm with tim on this one. Linux does web serving, file serving, routing/firewalling, and database handling pretty damn well. However, it is still nowhere near as polished for the desktop as the more mainstream OSes. I prefer Apache and Lin over IIS and Win almost any day, but give me XP over a *nix on the desktop.

 

[XOR != OR]

Originally posted by GreNME
I'm with tim on this one. Linux does web serving, file serving, routing/firewalling, and database handling pretty damn well. However, it is still nowhere near as polished for the desktop as the more mainstream OSes. I prefer Apache and Lin over IIS and Win almost any day, but give me XP over a *nix on the desktop.

I would have to say, as did ZenPirate, for everyday desktop usage, linux is damn nice. If there was the software I needed for it where I work, that's what we'd be on.

For gaming, it does suck. But then, ATIs are not known for their compatibility under linux ( nvidia, on the other hand ).

Sorry you left, ScourggeFX, but ask yourself why you wanted to use linux in the first place?

 

[Zwitterion]

I dunon, i've come to fidn that Linux is better as a desktop os for me than Windows is. In fact, the only way that I can find windows is better, is for gaming. Other than that...

 

[MTB2Live Live4Comps]

Originally posted by tim
i wouldn't consider linux for everyday desktop use at this point. only servers

i'd say that depends a lot on where you stand on self-configuration. if you're willing to spend a few hours configuring your desktop environment once, everything will be good from then on.

Other than using computers at school, i only use linux. And even at school, I only use opensource projects (firebird, gaim, abiword mainly). I'll occasionly load up knoppix if i'm gonna be on the comp for 2 free periods. i simply find it that much better of an environment.

The only place i can really say linux is still a bit lacking would have to be wide game support and 3D CAD applications. Streaming Web media could be better, but most of it works. There are also a number of hardware devices where companies REFUSE to help the opensource community and don't release even partially good (or any) drivers themselves.

 

[GreNME]

XOR:

I would have to say, as did ZenPirate, for everyday desktop usage, linux is damn nice. If there was the software I needed for it where I work, that's what we'd be on.

It's not bad once you take aaaaalllll the time to configure everything, which has taken, in my experience, far longer than XP or 2000 ever has. It's not as hard as it first seems when moving to it from Windows, but it's still harder than Windows is, with much of the support being questionable (unless you find some really good friends for resource). All in all, it's still a tinkerer's OS, and not a typical-end-user's OS, which does not make it good for the desktop. People who like computers and toying with CLI as a hobby will love Linux, but the average computer user will get annoyed with it or tired of it.

 

[CrimandEvil]

Sorry to hear that. I've used Mac OS, Windows, and Linux. I never had trouble with Linux, except nvidia's drivers, but I found it hard to get use to WinXP. Took a couple of weeks before I had XP the way I liked it, linux took just a weekend same with Mac OS X. I figured that it was just because I'm sort of a geek.
I don't believe that Linux as is will work as a desktop, it really needs some company to help refine it before that happens. Look at what Apple did with Unix.

 

[RazeDS]

Originally posted by Zwitterion
I dunon, i've come to fidn that Linux is better as a desktop os for me than Windows is. In fact, the only way that I can find windows is better, is for gaming. Other than that...

Same here. Linux is just so much easier to use. Then there's the things you can do with Linux that are nigh impossible on Windows. The only time I would recommend using Windows is if you need software that's only available for Windows.

The whole Linux users vs Windows users situation reminds me a lot of the Windows users vs. Mac users arguments back before OS X.
"Mine's more flexible and powerful"
"So? Mine's more elegant and easier to use"
Well.. ecept Windows couldn't possibly pass for "more elegant".

Speaking of Mac vs Win, it's interesting the way things have turned out; with Windows now taking the role of "toy OS" and Mac OS becoming a more flexible/powerful system.

 

[MTB2Live Live4Comps]

Originally posted by RazeDS
Speaking of Mac vs Win, it's interesting the way things have turned out; with Windows now taking the role of "toy OS" and Mac OS becoming a more flexible/powerful system.

lol what a horrible toy. anyway, 10.3 is pretty damn nice - they FINALLY got Aqua running - uh - acceptably fast. still doesn't compare to the freedesktop.org server, but it's a very good improvement. i'll still never buy a mac - unless you wanna fork over 4000 before i get a decent system (alright alright slight exaggeration).

 

[XOR != OR]

Originally posted by GreNME
XOR:

It's not bad once you take aaaaalllll the time to configure everything, which has taken, in my experience, far longer than XP or 2000 ever has. It's not as hard as it first seems when moving to it from Windows, but it's still harder than Windows is, with much of the support being questionable (unless you find some really good friends for resource). All in all, it's still a tinkerer's OS, and not a typical-end-user's OS, which does not make it good for the desktop. People who like computers and toying with CLI as a hobby will love Linux, but the average computer user will get annoyed with it or tired of it.

Default install of Fedora Core installs faster than winxp. And after the install, I have all the tools I need to do basic work; web browser, email client and word processor. And not some dinky word processor, but a fully functional one.

Aside from that, in an enterprise enviroment, you map out the application directories, so you only need to install any given program once. If you really want to go all out for it, it's entirely possible and quite easy to create diskless work station that pull their boot image from the server and map out the appropriate drives.

And on top of THAT, you don't have to worry about keeping track of licenses.

And don't even get me started about the differences between windows and linux for profile storage ( hint: Windows is ass-backwards ).

 

[Dracul]

one thing that kept linux from being my desktop os, was the fact that i require all my mouse buttons to work, and i could never get my back or forward button to work in linux... otherwise i'd probably be running it now...

 

[Shadow2531]

Recently I dumped win2k and installed Debian.

It's been a little rough., but now that I know what I'm doing more, it's actually pretty awesome.

Because I am forced to configure everything manually, I am learning so much more.

Here's a summary of my recent experiences with linux.

I have found that most of my problems were because I overlooked some requirement for a program or driver.

I just installed the nvidia drivers for my video card. I couldn't install them at first because I overlooked that I needed the kernel-headers source installed to compile. I then installed them, but it couldn't find them, so I had to manually point to the kernel-headrers. Once I did that, everything worked perfect. It wasnt hard at all once I followed directions properly.

I had to install a different sound card because I cannot get vortex1 drivers to compile and install.

I had to use ppxp to connect to the net because no other program would work.

I could not get ogle and ogle-gui to work right until I wiped them out and downloaded the newer versions of each and their dependencies.

XMMS is great. I really hated ditching winamp.

Right now I'm just trying to get my HP720c printer to work with CUPS, get my vortex1 sound card working and get my hp scanner working.

To make a long story short, my point is that even though it has been rough, once I get everything working, I won't need windows for anything. Not even my emulators.

(currently trying to get gens emulator to compile too)

To make one more point, even though it's been rough, I'm not giving up, because I'll get it. I've learned more in a week on linux than I have in years with windows and I've learned a lot in windows.

@op, I would give it another shot..

 

[ScourggeFX]

Maybe I expected too much out of Linux, expecting it to work just like Windows. I just wished I didn't have to spend soo much time configuring. I'm not really a tinkerer by nature...I just want it to work.

The advantages of Linux are: its free, looks good, does most stuff for free while you pay for Windows programs. But if I ever see another CLI again, I'll............

The one big disadvantage Linux (Mandrake) currently has is support for newer hardware, like my R9700pro is lacking. I meticulously followed the instructions to the letter, and still it wouldn't do 3D.

I may be willing to give it a try again, if there is another distro that is comparable to Mandrake, in looks and function.

Nothing like -download -click -and install....easy!

 

[GreNME]

Default install of Fedora Core installs faster than winxp. And after the install, I have all the tools I need to do basic work; web browser, email client and word processor. And not some dinky word processor, but a fully functional one.

Whatever you say, man. Frankly, I don't believe you that it's so easy, and I have installed new installs of *nixes, mostly on my own machines. Tell me I'm on the wrong distro or whatever, but that's a cop-out: there are some distros which do out of their way to simplify things, but at its core, Linux remains far too hands-on. For an example of what the end user does not want to have to deal with, read the entire of Shadow2531's post without the gleam of an enthusiast in mind.

It's all well and good here on the [H], because it give people bragging rights: "I just got <insert name> device working under <insert distro> after configuring <insert name> file and spending an hour reading this man page and checking out three different internet forums for clarifications! w00t!" The regular user doesn't want to have to take that many steps, and with XP and OS X, those changes are typically made simple. It's not that Linux is hard, but it's a different enough paradigm that trying to convince long-time Windows users that it's easy is an exercise in futility, and in the end, it really isn't easier, and still takes more work in general than XP and OS X. The user doesn't want or need to know all about the computer, they just want the thing to work.

Of course, what I'm saying isn't going to make much sense on THIS forum, because the people who have come here and registered are obviously at least passingly interested in tech, so the idea of "getting your hand dirty" (figurative) is A Good Thing™.

 

[bradt]

Originally posted by GreNME
Whatever you say, man. Frankly, I don't believe you that it's so easy...

For the record, an XP Home installation on takes roughly an hour, IIRC. I could install Red Hat 8 (or maybe it was 7?) in half the time. Gentoo, on the other hand, takes about an hour to set up the OS, but another hour or so installing and configuring my desktop.

Frankly, I don't care if anyone ever develops a windows-y Linux. If my mom and grandma can't use Linux, it doesn't hurt the open source movement at all, since they would never be able to contribute anything back anyway(except maybe donations, but I doubt that would amount to much).

Linux is definitely for the tinkering sort, and that's that. It's a hobby and a novelty for me. If you don't like the idea of having to configure things here and there, possibly with nothing more than a text editor, then stick to Microsoft/Apple products.

 

[GreNME]

For the record, an XP Home installation on takes roughly an hour, IIRC. I could install Red Hat 8 (or maybe it was 7?) in half the time. Gentoo, on the other hand, takes about an hour to set up the OS, but another hour or so installing and configuring my desktop.

What the heck does install time have to do with the ease of the OS? That's like the nuts here who think boot times or shutdown times are a good measure of performance.


I never said Linux wasn't a good OS, nor that it isn't very great for the open souce community, who need an OS they can poke under the hood with. I am saying that it just isn't an OS that is viable on the desktop for anyone but geeks who love to tinker. In other words, it's not ready for the desktop—it's basically (based on) a server OS.

Want to test that? Take an XP machine and a Linux machine (pick your own distro), then let someone else use both for a week without connecting it to the internet. Encourage that person to try to tailor the desktop of the OS to suit their behavior within that week, but don't be the person to help them do it. If you perform the test, feel free to post the results.

 

[hellomcfly]

Originally posted by ScourggeFX
I may be willing to give it a try again, if there is another distro that is comparable to Mandrake, in looks and function.

alot of people seem to be ditching mandrake and redhat and going to SuSe. it might be worth you looking into.

 

[svet-am]

Originally posted by hellomcfly
alot of people seem to be ditching mandrake and redhat and going to SuSe. it might be worth you looking into.

And it's about damned time, too. I like to kick back and watch all the folks scramble to get things working in Gentoo, Red Hat, Mandrake and the like while I just say to myself "SuSE had that working a long time ago..."

 

[XOR != OR]

Originally posted by GreNME
Whatever you say, man. Frankly, I don't believe you that it's so easy, and I have installed new installs of *nixes, mostly on my own machines.

*shrug* It's not for me to convince you or for you to believe me, it's simply how it is.

Tell me I'm on the wrong distro or whatever, but that's a cop-out: there are some distros which do out of their way to simplify things, but at its core, Linux remains far too hands-on.

Now this is funny. That's like saying "Windows goes out of it's way to simplify things, but at it's core, it remains far too hands-on".

At a low enough level, EVERYTHING is hands on. That's sort of the point in having the OS built around it.

I maintain; Give me two identical systems, hardware config allowed under both OSes, and I will have my linux box up and running faster than you have yours, AND I could have it up and running with less knowledge of the system than the average window user needs.

The regular user doesn't want to have to take that many steps, and with XP and OS X, those changes are typically made simple. It's not that Linux is hard, but it's a different enough paradigm that trying to convince long-time Windows users that it's easy is an exercise in futility, and in the end, it really isn't easier, and still takes more work in general than XP and OS X. The user doesn't want or need to know all about the computer, they just want the thing to work.

I would agree with you, if you were right. Some distros, yes, they are a pain in the ass ( debian comes to mind ) to install. Some, on the other hand, are built for the user who just wants things to work. Default disk partitioning, default package installation. The only thing ( RH 9 here ) that is not user friendly about the basic install is the fact that it forces the user to log in. They are supposed to have auto-login facilities, but I have never gotten those working.

Of course, what I'm saying isn't going to make much sense on THIS forum, because the people who have come here and registered are obviously at least passingly interested in tech, so the idea of "getting your hand dirty" (figurative) is A Good Thing™.

Believe it or not, some of us are aware of others and the points of view they hold. Not many, no, I grant you that, but some of us.

 

[GreNME]

XOR:

At a low enough level, EVERYTHING is hands on. That's sort of the point in having the OS built around it.

But not enough of any Linux is built around the hands-off approach. This is good for servers, and even for some workstations (we'll get a better idea when/if we see what IBM manages in 2005), but not for the desktop.

I maintain; Give me two identical systems, hardware config allowed under both OSes, and I will have my linux box up and running faster than you have yours, AND I could have it up and running with less knowledge of the system than the average window user needs.

Do you live in the Philly/NJ area? I'd love to take you up on that.

I would agree with you, if you were right. Some distros, yes, they are a pain in the ass ( debian comes to mind ) to install. Some, on the other hand, are built for the user who just wants things to work. Default disk partitioning, default package installation. The only thing ( RH 9 here ) that is not user friendly about the basic install is the fact that it forces the user to log in. They are supposed to have auto-login facilities, but I have never gotten those working.

Nope. Hardware configuring is still a bitch. Printers, faxes, pen drives, monitors and vid cards (especially the H/V refresh) are still hands-on. CUPS helps with the printers/faxes, but it takes more than "stick in CD and have it detect" to get the drivers installed. I love getting a solid Linux install going, but plug-n-play is a bitch, even with the newest kernel.

<side note> I used to have the info for auto logon, but never tried it, and don't remember what the steps were. If I come across it, and you need it, I'll try to shoot what I had over to ya. </side note>

Believe it or not, some of us are aware of others and the points of view they hold. Not many, no, I grant you that, but some of us.

Yes, I know. In fact, when it comes to that, I happen to hold you in rather high regard for understanding that not everyone wants to be [H]ard.

Really, the only problem I have with Linux as a whole right now is that the KISS method is not often enough used with many user-level processes. I will grant that XP sometimes goes too far, though, and the changes slated for SP2 seem to address many of those "already configured" settings. Some things need to be turned off (or on, like a simple firewall). However, overall, Linux seems to still be usable for only those who don't mind knowing a bit about the particulars of their hardware (in terms of how it works in the computer, not what it is), and support for Linux is still geared towards geeks and not end-users. That makes things more difficult for the typical end users.

 

[svet-am]

Originally posted by GreNME
XOR:
Nope. Hardware configuring is still a bitch. Printers, faxes, pen drives, monitors and vid cards (especially the H/V refresh) are still hands-on. CUPS helps with the printers/faxes, but it takes more than "stick in CD and have it detect" to get the drivers installed. I love getting a solid Linux install going, but plug-n-play is a bitch, even with the newest kernel.

I've kinda sat back and watched this thread develop, but I've gotta take you to task on this, buddy. Why on EARTH are we still continuing to cater to the lowest common denominator by insisting that we turn our computers into brain-not-apply appliances.

There is a reason that the computer has the mystique around it that a washing machine or television does not. Those appliances have zero learning curve. However, computer do. Nothing we do will (or should) change that.

People will never ever learn to truly appreciate the power of what their computers can do until they bump up their own involvement and knowledge.

If grandma can't work the computer, fine. Let her not use it and get left behind.

Sure, there are points in Linux where even techies still need a leg-up from now and then, but those are usually intricately detailed networking or configuration issues -- definitely not something that the average user would venture into, and certainly not something prevents Linux from being a suitable desktop OS.

And, just to negate what you said with an example, my printer, pen drive, video card, audio card, monitor, network card, and secondary IDE controller (I dont have a fax running on it) are ALL detected out of the box and work perfectly fine without me ever needing to touch a single conf file.

BTW, I'm surprised no one (that I noticed) has mentioned Lycoris Linux as a Windows-style Linux.

 

[Josh_B]

Originally posted by Dracul
one thing that kept linux from being my desktop os, was the fact that i require all my mouse buttons to work, and i could never get my back or forward button to work in linux... otherwise i'd probably be running it now...

So edit your XF86Config file then

 

[Josh_B]

You know, I can't understand why someone wouldn't want to know what happens inside their PC. It's the same reason I wonder why anything happens. Why does my heart continue to beat? Why does my car go forward when I push the gas pedal? How do people like Picasso paint so well? Hell - even the proverbial question - why is the sky blue?

How come people don't want to know these things?

Are some people happy being ignorant of these things?

If you'll allow me to draw an analogy:

No one complains that it's too much work to learn how their car operates. Everyone I know has been eager to get behind the wheel at the earliest possible age, and all of the people I know talk about what new cars are out, how they modded their car, etc etc.

However, when it comes to computers, no one wants to know how they work, or spend any time using them to get to know their intricacies. Why is that?

I say if you don't know how to do something, learn. How do you learn anything in life? You either go to school to learn about it, or you have a friend who can help you answer your questions.

Everyone should stop being so goddamn lazy and learn how an OS REALLY works.

 

[GreNME]

I've kinda sat back and watched this thread develop, but I've gotta take you to task on this, buddy. Why on EARTH are we still continuing to cater to the lowest common denominator by insisting that we turn our computers into brain-not-apply appliances.

Because computers are for everyone, not just computer enthusiasts. Welcome to the 21st Century, where just like the automobile, the television, and the telephone, we have acquired a new technological marvel as a part of popular culture—the personal computer. Personal computers have grown so innocuous over just the last twenty years, that they are in everything: in our appliances, in our phones, in our cars, and in our marketplaces (behind the sales, not just FOR sale). Doctors, lawyers, bankers, accountants, secretaries, florists, and grocery store clerks use them daily, and to imply that all of them should have a burning desire to understand the underlying technology is the hieght of delusion. Computers are a tool, not something that defines who you are. Knowing plenty about computers does not make you intellectually superior to someone else, it just means you know more about computers. Operating a tool that is so pervasive to our society does not—and should not—require a degree, a certification, or hours of searching through forums, BBSes, and manual pages to be able to adequately operate.

There is no operating system available that can be a multi-user and multi-capable OS (meaning able to do a wide range of things) that doesn't require some kind of understanding and practice to operate. However, Windows XP is, to date, much better at serving a wider variety of tasks to a wider variety of users on a wider variety of desktop configurations than Linux is, despite the very capable abilities of an operating system that has basically grown from being the hobby project of a few people to a viable option in plenty of serious situations.

And, just to negate what you said with an example, my printer, pen drive, video card, audio card, monitor, network card, and secondary IDE controller (I dont have a fax running on it) are ALL detected out of the box and work perfectly fine without me ever needing to touch a single conf file.

What distro are you running? Because frankly, I don't believe you. I know the setup of almost all the major distros, and they all require the answering of certain hardware questions (though each one for different things), which you either answer or it doesn't work right when you finish installing. Can you give me the name of this "panacea" Linux distro?

BTW, I'm surprised no one (that I noticed) has mentioned Lycoris Linux as a Windows-style Linux.

Linux does not have to be a better Windows, it has to be a better Linux. Projects like Lycoris, while great for getting mindshare and attracting fence-sitters, is not going to get anything done for the usability of Linux as Linux, because it's trying to be Windows. For more than 95% of the computing public, Windows is "good enough." Linux does not need to be "good enough," it has to be "better by far" than Windows is, if it wants to build a better Windows. So, the best option for the developers of *nix projects is to not mimic Windows for everything, but to make what gets done as intuitive and user-friendly on the front end as possible. Linux doesn't need to be like Windows, it needs to be as good on its own right. Right now, it has yet to achieve this.

 

[gb25]

Originally posted by Josh_B
Everyone should stop being so goddamn lazy and learn how an OS REALLY works.

Perhaps some people would rather just use the computer for what if offers them, and not spend all of their time learning what makes a computer work. After all, that is why we have people who specialize in computers. Let them worry about how an OS works. Meanwhile, people who specialize in other things like medical sciences, education, physics, etc... can spend their time learning their preferred profession.

You know, a heart surgeon could say that you should stop being so goddamn lazy and learn how to perform open heart surgery. Granted, using linux isn't quite as complicated as performing heart surgery. But depending on how much you want to learn about an OS, I guess it could probably be close.

 

[svet-am]

Originally posted by GreNME

What distro are you running? Because frankly, I don't believe you. I know the setup of almost all the major distros, and they all require the answering of certain hardware questions (though each one for different things), which you either answer or it doesn't work right when you finish installing. Can you give me the name of this "panacea" Linux distro?

Well, Lycoris, Xandros, Lindows, Mandrake 9.2 and Red Hat 9 supported all of my gear out of the box. Knoppix does as well. Currently, though, I'm running SuSE 9.

My equipment is as follows if you want to follow up:

IDE controller: HPT370 - kernel supported
Printer: HP 720c - grabbed by Anaconda / CUPS
Monitor: Mitsubishi DiamondPro 87TXM - grabbed by XF86Setup /YaST
Network Card: Intel etherExpress Pro 100/B - kernel support
Audio: Creative Audigy1 - kernel support
Pen Drive: Lexar 1GB Secure JumpDrive - kernel support (seen as /dev/sda1)
Video Card: nVidia GFX 5700u - supported native for 2D (nVidia automated installer for 3D support) via XF86Setup / YaST

Granted, on some of the hardware, I do have to set some options (like the monitor and video card resolution), but the selections are done via a GUI *exactly* the way Windows handles it.

For the printer, Anaconda grabs this on the first reboot after install.

For the NIC, by default it goes to DHCP and just works. If you need static IP, then there's a little config needed. But, again, a GUI exists and it is no more difficult than Windows.

As for your comment about computer use not requiring a college degree, you missed my point entirely. I'm voluntarily diluting the value of computer-centered college education. IMHO, there are certain 'trivial' topics such as the understanding of binary, basic computer software skills, and a rudimentary understanding of computer logic that SHOULD be de facto across the entire breadth of society. People should just know these things 'just coz.'

People in society still don't understand these simple things about computers, yet everyone is taught how an internal combustion engine works in 7th grade physical science. Why the disparity there?

 

[defcom_1]

Originally posted by svet-am

As for your comment about computer use not requiring a college degree, you missed my point entirely. I'm voluntarily diluting the value of computer-centered college education. IMHO, there are certain 'trivial' topics such as the understanding of binary, basic computer software skills, and a rudimentary understanding of computer logic that SHOULD be de facto across the entire breadth of society. People should just know these things 'just coz.'

People in society still don't understand these simple things about computers, yet everyone is taught how an internal combustion engine works in 7th grade physical science. Why the disparity there?

I belive you're missing the point he's trying to make. You're still just an operator, even at your level. Do you understand circuit design. Or do you understand the underlying metallurgy that governs how the core of your cpu is manufactured, and how it's constructed? etc etc.. we could go on for weeks about all the underlying technology that goes into your computer. We won't get into plant design, (fab plants are horribly complicated) etc, but by your argument, you're saying that everybody should know a bit about it. You just can't. That is why society is as specialized as it is.

Almost everybody uses a computer as a tool, from biochemists working at a pharmaceutical company to the taxi cab company, to streamline dispatches. The don't need to know how it works. Who gives a crap about binary, processor speed, or the XF86config file. They need to run the software tool that are created, by others who specialize in creating those tools, so that they can continue with their work. Look around your house one day, and really think, do you know what went into all that stuff. Paperclips don't just appear at the store... they are made somewhere, and people spent time desiging them.

I use windows. I will continue to use windows until I can get a linux distribution that I can pop a cd in, wait 1 hour, and then i'm set. XP automatically assiges a half decent resolution, which isn't that hard to change (I don't have to edit a config file, I can just go into a simple menu. Imagine that!) I fully support everybody who does work with Linux, the more power to you, but if you argue that average Joe off the street is better running linux than windows..

And yes, youc can say, well, he should learn. Why should he? Have you learned how your car works, I mean really works? The underlying thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, physics, etc... that make sure everything works as well as it does? No, you just want to step in your car, and it gets you from point A to point B. You know you have to take it into the shop when there is a problem, or when you need to get your oil changed. That's it! Can you imagine a world with computers that simple? It would be great if grandma could just get her terminal, and e-mail me. My grandmother is intimidated by computers, she doesn't own one, but I think it would be wonderful if something simple enough was designed so that she could e-mail me. I would be happy. Technology isn't for technology's sake.

Technology is for society's sake, and improving it. Improving communication. Improving the productivity of an individual, so that a larger contribution can be made to society. If a tool is too complicated, it must be refined, so that less time is required to use that tool, for the benefit of society. Though the hard work of many people, this can be achieved. But we can't just leave everybody in the dust, because in the end, society won't accept it, and a wonderful tool will be lost.

 

[mwarps]

Here's the long, short and medium of it.

Linux is not for Joe Luser. Not in its current state.

Windows BARELY falls into that category, now. It's getting closer to being every idiots' OS, which Mac has claimed quite honorably for years. They've built an idiot-usable OS on top of UNIX. Very impressive.

Linux has a fuck of a learning curve if you have no idea what's going on, why it's going on and how it's going on.

For those of us who are in possession of a clue, we choose to keep something free, fast and stable around.

I have four machines here. Two run windows; One for games and TV recording/encoding [Don't bother even trying, Linux tools are NOwhere as advanced as the Windows tools, though I would love a reliable and fast CLI converter(MPG2-VP3)], the other for mobile gaming [Shuttle XPC].

For my desktop-only needs, Linux slams the crap out of Windows.
KDE and OpenOffice. Interopts with everything I've thrown at it so far. I'm waiting for something that doesn't work, including PowerPoint shit. Very impressive so far. Did I mention that I've got something just as powerful, more stable and reliable and completely free?

I am a college student. I don't have the money to pay for four windows licenses, and four office licenses. Why the fuck would anyone in their right mind spend literally over $1000 for something which is 90+% equivocally functional that they can get for free?

These are my reasons, my opinions, my thoughts.

Yours are different, I'll guarantee it, and I really don't give a shit. But, don't flame, it's just not nice.

 

[skritch]

Originally posted by gb25
Perhaps some people would rather just use the computer for what if offers them, and not spend all of their time learning what makes a computer work. After all, that is why we have people who specialize in computers. Let them worry about how an OS works. Meanwhile, people who specialize in other things like medical sciences, education, physics, etc... can spend their time learning their preferred profession.

You know, a heart surgeon could say that you should stop being so goddamn lazy and learn how to perform open heart surgery. Granted, using linux isn't quite as complicated as performing heart surgery. But depending on how much you want to learn about an OS, I guess it could probably be close.

If you expect to use a tool, you have a responsibility to learn how to use the tool properly. That includes learning how to operate that tool.

This is true of guns. This is true of hammers. This is true of cars. This is also true of computers.

Should you be able to build a car, a hammer, a gun, a computer? No. Should you be able to understand enough about a car, a gun, a hammer, a computer that you do not accidentally harm yourself or others?

Hell yes.

If you're unwilling to learn that minimum, pay someone to operate your computer for you. Pay someone to operate your gun for you. Pay someone to operate your car for you. Until then, stay off my streets, stay out of my shooting range, and stay off my network.

 

[doh]

Originally posted by tim
i wouldn't consider linux for everyday desktop use at this point. only servers

Linux has served as a desktop machine for me since June 2003. I have done spreadsheets, word processing, web development, C coding, Bash coding, Gentoo development, instant communications (IM & IRC), web surfing and more.

What Linux lacks for a workstation is CAD software.


Such a broad statement "Linux is not ready for everyday desktop use" is false unless you want to use programs that are specifically written for MacOS or Windows or some other platform.

To the original poster: Try a different distro. Gentoo has great docs and a wonderful community that love to help.

 

[defcom_1]

Originally posted by doh


Linux has served as a desktop machine for me since June 2003. I have done spreadsheets, word processing, web development, C coding, Bash coding, Gentoo development, instant communications (IM & IRC), web surfing and more.

What Linux lacks for a workstation is CAD software.


Such a broad statement "Linux is not ready for everyday desktop use" is false unless you want to use programs that are specifically written for MacOS or Windows or some other platform.

To the original poster: Try a different distro. Gentoo has great docs and a wonderful community that love to help.

It's not the lack of helpful community, or tons of information out there that is the barrier to entry. It's the obscure configurations, editing respective files etc... that cause the problem.

for the power user, who loves to learn, yes, it's great and wonderful for desktop use. For somebody who just wants to get an OS running, it's a nightmare. Changing or configuring almost anything involves editing configuration files, etc etc.. Even what is quite a simple operation in windows, setting up a file share, is a nightmare in linux. You have to edit the samba configuration file, make sure the user is added to samba etc. etc. It took at least an hour of messing with it for an operation that's a simple right click -> share in windows.

what i'm saying is, yes, it's great, if you're willing to devote a large portion of your time to it. It's a giant pain if you just want to get something done.

 

[skritch]

Originally posted by defcom_1
It's not the lack of helpful community, or tons of information out there that is the barrier to entry. It's the obscure configurations, editing respective files etc... that cause the problem.

for the power user, who loves to learn, yes, it's great and wonderful for desktop use. For somebody who just wants to get an OS running, it's a nightmare. Changing or configuring almost anything involves editing configuration files, etc etc.. Even what is quite a simple operation in windows, setting up a file share, is a nightmare in linux. You have to edit the samba configuration file, make sure the user is added to samba etc. etc. It took at least an hour of messing with it for an operation that's a simple right click -> share in windows.

And yet, you always see questions from people who can't get file sharing in Windows working.

I think you're being slightly disingenuous about how simple it is in Windows.

 

[defcom_1]

Originally posted by skritch
And yet, you always see questions from people who can't get file sharing in Windows working.

I think you're being slightly disingenuous about how simple it is in Windows.

I'm not saying it's dead simple in windows, but you have to admit, it's simpler than linux.

 

[gb25]

Originally posted by skritch
If you expect to use a tool, you have a responsibility to learn how to use the tool properly. That includes learning how to operate that tool.

True, but the amount of knowledge required to operate a computer running linux and a computer running windows are completely different.

Should you be able to build a car, a hammer, a gun, a computer? No. Should you be able to understand enough about a car, a gun, a hammer, a computer that you do not accidentally harm yourself or others?

I'm not saying that the average user should be able to build a computer. But there is no reason to expect the average user to know how an OS works. Knowledge of the interworkings of an OS isn't required to operate a computer.

By the way, you don't have to know how a gun or a car works in order to operate it. Does it help? Sure. But it is in no way required.

If you're unwilling to learn that minimum, pay someone to operate your computer for you.

What is the minimum required to operate a computer? For most people, it consists of turning it on. They want to turn the computer on and use it. Simple as that. Try using linux and the minimum raises a few notches above what the average user wants to deal with.