Linux Mint. A new user review.

[facerip]

First off let me start by saying that I'm 100% new to linux. I know absolutely nothing about it.

The first reason I wanted to switch to linux is that I'm tired of having to call Microsoft everytime I reformat because I have reached the activation limit on my Windows XP key. The second reason is that I found I don't really use very much Windows exclusive software.

The first part was trying to find a distro that was attractive. I had read the article about Ubuntu and I was really interested in that. One of the main reasons was that it was very well supported and the installation looked streamlined. I have had previous nightmares of installing FreeBSD and having it look worse than windows NT.

So I looked through the Ubuntu website and forums and then I talked to a friend who suggested Linux Mint. This was very attractive, seeing how I could use the liveCD and it came with a few more things than the standard.

Probably one of the best things about liveCD is being able to log onto IRC/AIM/Firefox to find answers to questions. This is leagues ahead of Windows (for me anyways). The installation process was probably one of the most hassle free things I've ever experienced.

After the installation I was notified that I needed to install updates. This was a giant suprise because it only took about 3 or 4 minutes. I'm used to having to patch Windows for a solid hour. Once again everything was running smooth. I was able to look on the Ubuntu forums or Linux Mint for answers to questions. use IRC/GAIM right out of the box. For me that is a major plus, the ability to just use things right away. When you only have one computer and you want to do something major this is an important feature.

After my updates I had just set up all my normal IRC stuff, x-chat is an amazing client (First time ever using it, though I don't know perl or python for scripting, it has everything you need built in.)

My next step is to install the latest Nvidia driver, there seems to be a solid guide on doing it.

Some things that I was initially scared of was having to use the terminal and figuring out how to install things not in the package manager.

Using the terminal is still pretty frustrating, but I figure it is a learning process. It's not that it is a complicated system, I just don't know much about it yet. I've already learned a great deal just by reading the forums/faqs and talking with friends. I will probably pick up a print resource at my local bookstore to aid me further.

I haven't installed anything yet outside of the package manager (which is so new user friendly), but I plan on installing most of the Quake series tonight. It's really the only software I use that wasn't included. Plus there is a great deal of information out there so I'm sure it wont be a hassle.

If anyone has questions about new user's perspective; ie, you are interested in switching, please let me know.


edit: ended up in the wrong subforum :[

 

[young wing]

I have been running ubuntu for a while now. Nothing but good things about it...Im just waiting to see how my 8800GTS works with it...

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Linux Mint eh... is that meant to help with the bad taste in my mouth left over after the Y.A.N.L.D. (Yet Another New Linux Distro) "new car smell" wears off? Just kidding... but it is a new distro to me, never heard of it. Might fire it up in a VM at some point to take a peek, but really, I doubt it's significantly different from any other distro at this point.

Funny how I just loaded the main page for the website (http://linuxmint.com) and the very first picture I see there about the codename "Bianca" release leaves me with one impression:

Vista.

Why is that, I wonder. The wallpaper is so blatantly a rip of the greenish "Energy" wallpaper in Vista, good lord. In trying to be different, so many distros still go for that "Windows" look and feel. Makes no sense to me, but whatever.

I'll check it out later and report if anything substantial is noted.

 

[facerip]

I understand your point. For me, it wasn't really a desire to jump into something totally foreign. I wanted something that looked somewhat familier but would allow me to venture further.

This just had the appeal of being very Windows like and would allow me to install and use with little to no Linux knowledge.

 

[The Donut]

I just switched from Vista to Ubuntu Edgy, i'm a 100% new user too. I'm enjoying it and have learnt alot - I find some things frustrating, but having got WINE configured correctly, Beryl running (which is quite nice) and someo ther things i'm pretty happy. Although, I have dual booted for now since I want to play C&C3 in a few days.

 

[As I Lay Dying]

Feisty is pretty badass so far, but to my understanding linux mint is just ubuntu with extra stuff like codecs and stuff that ubuntu wont put in for legal issues.

 

[bbz_Ghost]

I understand your point. For me, it wasn't really a desire to jump into something totally foreign. I wanted something that looked somewhat familier but would allow me to venture further.

This just had the appeal of being very Windows like and would allow me to install and use with little to no Linux knowledge.

Perfectly understandable, and the primary reason why a lot of Windows users are now thinking about "making the switch" and I don't mean to Macs.

I do like Beryl, it's very cool - the coolest eye candy yet created for personal computers, I'd say - but in the long run does it really increase someone's productivity when using their computer? I can't say for sure there, but for me I rarely use any of the effects unless I'm just showing people what Beryl is like and what it can do. Always gets the "WOW" and I don't mean what Microsoft has in mind with Vista, that's for certain. hehe

 

[eeyrjmr]

Perfectly understandable, and the primary reason why a lot of Windows users are now thinking about "making the switch" and I don't mean to Macs.

I do like Beryl, it's very cool - the coolest eye candy yet created for personal computers, I'd say - but in the long run does it really increase someone's productivity when using their computer? I can't say for sure there, but for me I rarely use any of the effects unless I'm just showing people what Beryl is like and what it can do. Always gets the "WOW" and I don't mean what Microsoft has in mind with Vista, that's for certain. hehe

initially I was the same, but now... just moving a window so it has a slight wabble is alot nicer then just moving a non-wabble (basically I miss it when it aint there)

Transparancy is a godsend (for coding and checking logs behind windows)
some extra little things that while added for the 3D stuff made general desktop use easier (mouse-wheel increase functionality)..

 

[xnert]

There's a review here with further initial impressions, for folks interested...

http://www.itreviews.co.uk/software/s456.htm

 

[[H]EMI_426]

I have had previous nightmares of installing FreeBSD and having it look worse than windows NT.

I'd love to de-rail your thread over comments like this, but it's just not worth it any more.

 

[general]

"Why is that, I wonder. The wallpaper is so blatantly a rip of the greenish "Energy" wallpaper in Vista, good lord. In trying to be different, so many distros still go for that "Windows" look and feel. Makes no sense to me, but whatever."

Probably because Windows is the pre-emininant desktop everywhere and it does offer quite a good look and feel.

Good luck with mint. I'm interested in seeing how it goes. If it's like Ubuntu it will be great when doing standard things, but anything out of the box means a large time investment. Until 'Linux' (as in all companies who make distros) can come together and standardize on a file format/installer to install things like drivers and also standardize on one desktop for mainstream use, it really won't be anything but a niche on the desktop.

 

[Stellar]

I'd love to de-rail your thread over comments like this, but it's just not worth it any more.

Why? Who knows how long ago he tried FreeBSD. Up until recently and the FreeBSD Gnome project, FreeBSD did look very much archaic and NT-like.

 

[facerip]

I had probably tried FreeBSD and OpenBSD about a year and half ago just to see what it was all about. I knew nothing so I knew I was going to have a hard time. I couldn't really get help broken down into real noob language, so that turned me off pretty quick.

Linux mint was fantastic but I started to dislike how overly automated it was, so I switched to Arch Linux.

None the less Linux Mint was a great new user distro, it's better than Ubuntu because it comes with a lot more stuff pre-installed. It was easier to get going and get things working than Windows XP was.

 

[[H]EMI_426]

Why? Cause FreeBSD's docs are still worlds better than what was available in 1993 for Linux, and I managed to do just fine back then. I'd dare to say that my FVWM X setup back then was not archaic and wasn't anything anywhere near NT-like.

Sounds like the OP just didn't dig hard enough. That's all there is to it. If you want everything handed to you, fine, enjoy you "Mint." Just don't unload on everything else cause you couldn't do the (minimal) legwork.

Help broken down in to noob language? Get over it. Learn what they're talking about. You can always keep working backwards until you do understand, then go forward from there.

 

[movax]

I have been running ubuntu for a while now. Nothing but good things about it...Im just waiting to see how my 8800GTS works with it...

IMO installing Linux nvidia drivers are easier than their windows cousins. I don't really care about the whole binary thing (infact, I dislike the GPL intensely, viral and restrictive, but that's another thread...more of a fan of BSD/MIT/LGPL), so it works awesomely for me. Beryl loves my 7300, and is plenty smart enough to make the GPU do a lot of the work instead of slapping everything on the CPU/RAM like old-skool shells.

 

[Stellar]

Why? Cause FreeBSD's docs are still worlds better than what was available in 1993 for Linux, and I managed to do just fine back then. I'd dare to say that my FVWM X setup back then was not archaic and wasn't anything anywhere near NT-like.

How does that apply to what he said?

Sounds like the OP just didn't dig hard enough. That's all there is to it. If you want everything handed to you, fine, enjoy you "Mint." Just don't unload on everything else cause you couldn't do the (minimal) legwork.

He didn't "unload" on anything. He said it was NT-like (which it was) and not noob-friendly (which it was). He's stating the type of user he is. There are those who "dig" to make an operating system work for them and there are those who have, you know, shit to do and would like it to just work for them. And actually in the post just above yours he claimed he passed over Mint because it was too "automated" in favor of Arch. So, go figure.

Help broken down in to noob language? Get over it. Learn what they're talking about. You can always keep working backwards until you do understand, then go forward from there.

That's just an assanine thing to say.

 

[Bones]

I'm downloading the LiveCD now to play with in a virtual machine. It's fun to poke at these desktop distros to see if they live up to their stated goals. Mint's is to be "an elegant, up to date and comfortable GNU/Linux desktop distribution." We'll see

Sounds like the OP just didn't dig hard enough. That's all there is to it. If you want everything handed to you, fine, enjoy you "Mint." Just don't unload on everything else cause you couldn't do the (minimal) legwork.

Help broken down in to noob language? Get over it. Learn what they're talking about. You can always keep working backwards until you do understand, then go forward from there.

Hemi, I agree with you somewhat. Much of the posting about Linux here springs from the same mindset present in the Windows vs Linux debates. Most of the posters on this forum like to think of themselves as "computer enthusiasts", while they are really "hardware enthusiasts" that know a little bit about Windows. They like to do power-userish sorts of things with their computers, like use RAID arrays, try different video card drivers, etc. They then try out a Linux distro, expecting to apply their Windows knowledge to Linux to do the same power-userish things. In general, they fail miserably and then complain that Linux is not easy enough or doesn't do things like they expect. After all, they are a hardcore computer guru who has paid their Windows dues, so their failure and frustration is Linux' fault, right?

Those complaints mostly come off like whining, but I cut them some slack because I know it's frustrating to learn something complicated and new. What many people seem to forget is that Windows is equally frustrating to people who have no Windows knowledge. Instead, we get the occasional thread where everybody sits on their geek perches and looks down on the teacher who insisted her students use floppies instead of USB flash drives, or laughs at the person who used an unpatched WinXP box on the Internet for years without a firewall.

 

[[H]EMI_426]

How does that apply to what he said?



He didn't "unload" on anything. He said it was NT-like (which it was) and not noob-friendly (which it was). He's stating the type of user he is. There are those who "dig" to make an operating system work for them and there are those who have, you know, shit to do and would like it to just work for them. And actually in the post just above yours he claimed he passed over Mint because it was too "automated" in favor of Arch. So, go figure.



That's just an assanine thing to say.

My statement applies cause there's nothing archaic about FreeBSD. It's all very well-documented...The base-system stuff in particular, plus a lot of the more user-necessary ports.

If he's really got so much shit to do, why is he bothering to learn a different OS? If his time really is that important, why is he bothering with this thread at all? I have tons of stuff to do, but I'm willing to do the legwork to learn what I have to learn to do what I want to do.

Asinine thing to say? How so? There is a minimum price for entrance. In this case, it's being able to understand things at a certain level. If you can't, work up to that level. Don't expect everyone to bring it down to you. I certainly wouldn't at my workplace and I certainly wouldn't expect anyone "serious" about this stuff to not know a few basics.

There's really two kinds of *nix users: those that don't want to use Microsoft products and those that actually want (or need) to use *nix. The differences in the two groups are pretty easy to spot.

 

[facerip]

My statement applies cause there's nothing archaic about FreeBSD. It's all very well-documented...The base-system stuff in particular, plus a lot of the more user-necessary ports.

If he's really got so much shit to do, why is he bothering to learn a different OS? If his time really is that important, why is he bothering with this thread at all? I have tons of stuff to do, but I'm willing to do the legwork to learn what I have to learn to do what I want to do.

Asinine thing to say? How so? There is a minimum price for entrance. In this case, it's being able to understand things at a certain level. If you can't, work up to that level. Don't expect everyone to bring it down to you. I certainly wouldn't at my workplace and I certainly wouldn't expect anyone "serious" about this stuff to not know a few basics.

There's really two kinds of *nix users: those that don't want to use Microsoft products and those that actually want (or need) to use *nix. The differences in the two groups are pretty easy to spot.

So what if I don't have all the time in the world to learn a new OS. Maybe I want to switch to a new one because I didn't want to upgrade to vista. No one asked you to come in here and act like king FreeBSD dick. SO what I had some trouble using it, that turned me off from it. If I wanted to cause myself grief and annoyance I would have stuck with it.

I said I was looking for something easy to use, I'm sure I could have downloaded and hunted down all the information in the world to make my FreeBSD experience a lot better. No need to elucidate the fact that you know what you are doing. Not everyone has the same software savy, especially when it comes to troubleshooting a foreign operating system.

Please spare me the idiocy of the non-Windows OS zealot. You had nothing constructive to add to this post. So why do you feel the need to continue to make comments about my dislike of BSD? This was a review of a Linux distro that was an easy switch for a Windows user. If you can't add to that then please stay out of my thread.

 

[osalcido]

Probably one of the best things about liveCD is being able to log onto IRC/AIM/Firefox to find answers to questions. This is leagues ahead of Windows (for me anyways). The installation process was probably one of the most hassle free things I've ever experienced.

I dont get it, do you think you cant use those programs with windows?

 

[Stellar]

I dont get it, do you think you cant use those programs with windows?

I think his point was - not from a native LiveCD environment. However you are easily able to do this with BartPE for Windows.

 

[Bones]

I've toyed with the Mint LiveCD. It is a Windows-ified Ubuntu... It presents a Gnome desktop tweaked to look and feel something like Windows. Underneath the Windows skin, it is clearly built on top of Ubuntu. Nothing wrong with that, of course, it is a good foundation to build on.

So is it "an elegant, up to date and comfortable GNU/Linux desktop distribution"? Perhaps it would be comfortable for Windows users, but I like having multiple desktops and other *nix desktop features, so I felt constrained while using it. If elegant means a limited and stripped down desktop UI, then I suppose it is.

This distro doesn't suit me, but I think that others would be content with it. I would recommend it over Ubuntu to people who want to ween themselves from Windows.

 

[general]

"Hemi, I agree with you somewhat. Much of the posting about Linux here springs from the same mindset present in the Windows vs Linux debates. Most of the posters on this forum like to think of themselves as "computer enthusiasts", while they are really "hardware enthusiasts" that know a little bit about Windows. They like to do power-userish sorts of things with their computers, like use RAID arrays, try different video card drivers, etc. They then try out a Linux distro, expecting to apply their Windows knowledge to Linux to do the same power-userish things. In general, they fail miserably and then complain that Linux is not easy enough or doesn't do things like they expect. After all, they are a hardcore computer guru who has paid their Windows dues, so their failure and frustration is Linux' fault, right?

Those complaints mostly come off like whining, but I cut them some slack because I know it's frustrating to learn something complicated and new. What many people seem to forget is that Windows is equally frustrating to people who have no Windows knowledge. Instead, we get the occasional thread where everybody sits on their geek perches and looks down on the teacher who insisted her students use floppies instead of USB flash drives, or laughs at the person who used an unpatched WinXP box on the Internet for years without a firewall."

I think I'll use this forum as an example of why the hardcore linux community will pretty much always keep linux based OS's as a failure on the desktop. Mint can be as great as it wasts to be, but there will always be the need to use apps not built into the OS and they are likely written by hardcore linux zealots who love compiling binary drivers are really even dislike using X over a command line. This leads to applications that don't work across the board easily, have difficult installation processes and quite often have no GUI.

How is it that you magically know that people on here think of themselves as computer or hardware enthusiasts? There are plenty of different people on here. 'Linux' (or really you should be saying Linux based OS's as they are all quite different) is most definitely more difficult to setup, use and install than Windows. Linux based OS's are FREE and you can't even give it away. There are plenty of people out there, myself included, who would love to run a linux based OS, but in the end it isn't worth the hassle. Not everyone lives in their parents basement cranking out command line commands in between bouts of WOW and hot pockets. Some of us have things to do with our time and want things to just work, install easily and have a GUI. It's amusing how so many hardcore linux OS users blame the difficulty inherent in using a linux based OS on the differences between it and Windows.

The complaints might come across as whining, but they're there because of valid issues. Windows is not nearly as difficult for those with experience with Windows. I can't recall the last time I've had to crank out a DOS command. Windows has a file system that doesn't look it was written by a dyslexic 10 year old addicted to crack. The programs written for it essentially always have an installer that just works, the programs have a GUI and adhere to one set of design principles. Contrast this with a linux variant where you'll have multiple formats of install file (although there may not be one for your distro, but you might be able to convert one), the program might be written with your desktop in mind and when you go to look up any issues with the program on the web, you might find an answer for your distro and version.

Linux is endless more complicated than Windows or OSX. It's great that some people like knowing the ins and outs of an operating system, but the majority of users don't care. They want to use a computer to do things for them. To most people, the joy in computing isn't in knowing about computing, but in what computing can do for them. Unfortunately, it is the former who, more or less, solely drive the linux community. Ultimately, this is the strength of the linux community, but also a good part of the reason why linux based OS's are, are likely always will be, a failure on the desktop.

 

[Bones]

How is it that you magically know that people on here think of themselves as computer or hardware enthusiasts?

The same way you came to this conclusion, perhaps:

... apps not built into the OS and they are likely written by hardcore linux zealots who love compiling binary drivers are really even dislike using X over a command line.

At least I can back up my assertion by pointing out that most of the posts on this forum are computer hardware and software related. They seem to be posted by people who enjoy doing things with computers. How many Linux application developers do you know, and how many are hardcore zealots?

Anyway, I am not a Linux elitist or zealot. I guess I presented my point in a roundabout manner in that last post, so I'll try to be more plain about it since you completely missed it, general. My point is that people who consider themselves proficient in Windows should not assume that the Linux operating system works in the same ways, and the interfaces for doing some things are substantially different.

Windows is not nearly as difficult for those with experience with Windows.

And Linux is not difficult for people with Linux experience. Apparently, Linux is difficult for people with only Windows experience. Which was my original point - expecting otherwise, based solely on previous Windows experience, is silly and venting about it comes off as whining. An analogy would be buying a new car with a manual transmission, having only ever driven automatics, and complaining that your new car is too hard to drive around. Either learn how, or return the car if it's not worth the time to learn.

The second part of my post is about how those complaints get treated - it was intended to be a poke at [H]emi for being an asshole. We should be helpful towards those who are having difficulty with something. If they want to be helped, that is. Complaining about how "Linux sucks" doesn't garner much help. I think the OP has a pragmatic attitude towards the whole thing.

 

[el_poderoso]

I currently have Ubuntu Dapper-Drake on an old PC that only had a 10g drive. I have a "new to me" 80g drive on the way, so I backed up my files, settings and packages on a slave drive. My plan was to reload the Ubuntu distro on the new 80g drive and restore my settings and files (something that took no small amount of determination)

BUT, if Mint is basically Ubuntu with the hard to find drivers (I found them) can I install Mint and restore my settings/files made on an Ubuntu distro?

 

[general]

"And Linux is not difficult for people with Linux experience. Apparently, Linux is difficult for people with only Windows experience. Which was my original point - expecting otherwise, based solely on previous Windows experience, is silly and venting about it comes off as whining. An analogy would be buying a new car with a manual transmission, having only ever driven automatics, and complaining that your new car is too hard to drive around. Either learn how, or return the car if it's not worth the time to learn."

I fully understand your point and wholeheartedly disagree. Taking a person from Windows and moving them to, say, OSX is worlds easier than moving them to 'linux' (I use quotes because there are so many variants that it shouldn't be treated as one whole entity). Similarly, taking someone from OSX to Windows is world's easier than 'linux'. Why? Because Windows and OSX are made by people who put ease of use as a priority. They do care that someone might have to use a command line and it is not something they want to have happen. They have program managers, marketing people and architects who prioritize ease of use over keeping things open and not restricting choice in any way. The people who are most into linux based OS's don't care that they have to use a command line or that others might also. It doesn't bother them, but to most people, using technology to do something useful is important. They don't care about the technology in and of itself.

Your car analogy is very fitting. Sure, moving to a manual might be an adjustment and people might compare it to an automatic, but the automatic is inherently easier to learn, use and deal with. It does cost more up front, but it is inherently easier. In the case of linux based OS's, however, most of the community seems to think that the only reason why people find a linux distro difficult is because they are used to Windows. That is not largely the case. People find linux distros difficult because they are not fully polished and ready for prime time. They lack drive support and this is not always advertised. In many cases, just figuring out the directory structure on an FTP to download an distro image is impossible and hardy ever documented. Distros come based on various kernels, with various front ends, in various versions from various organizations. This makes troubleshooting and supporting the OS much more difficult.

To insinuate that people who have trouble with linux have such trouble because they are used to Windows is rubbish. Sure, there is an amount of learning that has to take place, but when that amount of learning negates the value of the OS itself, it is time to realize that something is broken.

When the linux world gets together and comes up with one mainstream front end, one click and go installer format, virtually eliminate the need for the command line, develop uniform command line commands for those 1/10000 times you might need to use it, develop a directory structure that makes sense, is intuitive and uses actual words and comes up with howtos and documentation that don't read like a 10,000 page medical journal then you can complain that people have difficult with linux because it is not windows. As it stands right now, you have technical people who really want to run linux who don't because they have productive things to do with their life and they don't want to spend all day making a video clip play in firefox.

"We should be helpful towards those who are having difficulty with something. If they want to be helped, that is. Complaining about how "Linux sucks" doesn't garner much help. I think the OP has a pragmatic attitude towards the whole thing."

The linux community is both good and bad in this regard. Support for particular OS's is great, but there are so many that it is difficult. The linux community should be using that linux sucks feedback as the impetus to fix things. The problem is the community is fragmented and is largely full of people who have no desire to see their hobby go mainstream.

 

[Bones]

I fully understand your point and wholeheartedly disagree. Taking a person from Windows and moving them to, say, OSX is worlds easier than moving them to 'linux'... (snip)

I've never said anything about Linux being as easy or easier to use than Windows. That is irrelevant to my point, which is that expecting it to be like Windows is wrong.

To insinuate that people who have trouble with linux have such trouble because they are used to Windows is rubbish. Sure, there is an amount of learning that has to take place, but when that amount of learning negates the value of the OS itself, it is time to realize that something is broken.

When somebody brings preconceptions of what and how an operating system does things, it definitely leads to trouble. Take this thread, for example. The OP tried to do things the Windows way and ignored the package manager, and got into trouble.

As for the learning part, it has been said that Linux is only free if you don't value your time. That depends on how far you dig into the system. The desktop oriented distros, from what I've seen, require very little investment of learning time to use adequately.

When the linux world gets together and comes up with one mainstream front end, one click and go installer format, virtually eliminate the need for the command line, develop uniform command line commands for those 1/10000 times you might need to use it, develop a directory structure that makes sense, is intuitive and uses actual words and comes up with howtos and documentation that don't read like a 10,000 page medical journal then you can complain that people have difficult with linux because it is not windows.

I could insert some comparisons here with the Windows registry, malware problems, and Vista hardware compatibility, but those arguments are every bit as specious as yours. And the state of the docs depends on your distro; ever look at Ubuntu's docs? They are quite accessible. Making up silly generalities like that does nothing to advance your argument.

As it stands right now, you have technical people who really want to run linux who don't because they have productive things to do with their life and they don't want to spend all day making a video clip play in firefox.

I've used distros that have no problems with video playback out-of-the-box. For those that don't, it doesn't take all day; again, another silly made-up generality. And technical people who really want to run Linux generally do, I think.

The linux community is both good and bad in this regard. Support for particular OS's is great, but there are so many that it is difficult. The linux community should be using that linux sucks feedback as the impetus to fix things. The problem is the community is fragmented and is largely full of people who have no desire to see their hobby go mainstream.

I believe that the diversity of Linux' community is its greatest strength.

We clearly have two different points of view on Linux; you view it as a competitor to Windows, and I couldn't care less about that. I use Linux to get things done, and have no problems doing so. Despite your assertions on time consumption and ease-of-use, I get my tasks done quickly and rather painlessly with Linux operating systems. I am not alone in this.

At any rate, this thread has been hijacked enough. If you want to post unfounded blanket statements about Linux usability, Linux programmers, and the Linux community, then I suggest you start a new thread.

 

[general]

Is there really a need to quote my post when yours is right after mine? You seem to be able to write coherently and well. I'll be able to get the ghist of what you're saying without wasting bandwidth and storage space.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said. My argument in regards to Windows people and linux had to do with your quote that, "And Linux is not difficult for people with Linux experience. Apparently, Linux is difficult for people with only Windows experience." There is an underlying hostility in much of the linux community in regards to people trying a linux based OS and finding that their issues are due solely to how things worked in Windows. The good thing for the linux crowd, is that the OSX crowd act much the same. The different is that dealing with a linux based OS vs. any Windows/Mac variant in the last 10 years is much more difficult. Tos ayt that Linux is difficult for people who don't know it is akin to saying that brain surgery is only difficult to most people because they don't have 10 years of college, a several years in residency. It's straight up difficult. Sure it's not difficult to people who know it because they've put forward an inordinate amount of effort and patience in figuring things out. People use Windows as a reference point as that is what they've used in the past, that does not mean that this is why linux based OS's are difficult.

The example you gave is not atypical to Windows. The person wants to download something and have it easily install. Linux sucks at this. In fact, all of the people who drive the linux community can't get away from their machines long enough to come up with and agree on a single install format. What a novel concept. Not everything is easily availabile in apt-get or Synaptic. Adding in sites for synaptic to search isn't always easy either. A package manager is a huge step forward, but it's still not game ready. Do I need to see 10,000 packages in that list?

Windows registry? People in the linux world always bring this up. I simply can't recall the last time I've had to touch the registry. Ever. I haven' t had relatives asking me about it or friends and there has been nothing I've needed to touch it for. Ever. Of course, configuring linux made me edit all types of things. Malware problems? Sure. Linux based OS's immunization is at least partly due to its footprint. Touche on the Vista hardware compatibility. That said, MS has an upgrade advisor application. Ubuntu, with all of it's hardware incompatibilities, doesn't even mention it on it's website. The highest ranking post on the Ubuntu forums that was returned by Google mentioned running the live disc as a test. I personally have done this and while the live CD worked magically, no sata drives were to be found upon installation. Hilarity ensured when I found out that Ubuntu wouldn't be updating the kernel to one containing the drive in question until the next major upgrade. I managed to find one post related to the motherboard where someone had upgraded the kernel to fix this. I loaded the distro onto an ATA drive and after much research, I set forward to update the kernel only to have the installation destroyed. After hours of trying to load a video driver from command line, I gave up and reinstalled and left the crappy ATA drive in place.

Some distros might play things out of the box, but this variability makes supporting and using linux much, much more difficult. Some people battle through the install and configuration only to ask about such things and be given the, "Oh you should have used XXXXX distro."

The diversity of the community is only going to keep linux as what it is...a niche OS that is used by a small community of enthusiasts and for servers and embedded devices. You say you couldn't care less if it has competition with Windows? Do you really think that KDE and Gnome don't watch OSX and Windows for GUI features? If you say you get it done, then you're benefitting from the ease of use of commercial desktops. If Windows and OSX were as difficult to deal with then the linux OS bar would be even lower. The very reason why linux as a desktop OS has such a small footprint is that it does not excel in getting things done. I don't have to take time to compile drivers in OSX or Windows. I also don't need to find ways to convert RPM files to whatever installer suits my distro. Every program I use comes with a graphic installer and when I load Server 2003, amazing, it comes with a GUI. I can even find FTP server programs that don't require a command line. I also don't manually have to edit anything ever. I don't have to research how to edit files, different commands, etc. The OS is setup to be user friendly, linux is setup to accomodate many different interests. Given that the audience of this thread (potential Mint users) are likely to be new to linux, it is important that they realize these things.

My statements were perfectly explained well enough. Oddly, you have no problems with discussing this topic, yet when someone disagrees with you then they need to start their own thread.

 

[Bones]

The topic is Mint Linux, not the Linux vs Windows holy war. We have hijacked facerip's thread, and I'm sure he doesn't appreciate that.

Any hostility I have displayed here is due to you twisting my words to suit your Windows-Linux ranting. I did not draw any sort of Windows-Linux difficulty or usefulness comparison in that first post. As I said before, I don't care about that at all, and I'm certainly not going to debate something that is entirely opinion based. The WIndows vs Linux topic never ends and nobody is better for it. I only replied to your postings to set straight my stated opinions, which were:

1. Don't complain that Linux is too hard or doesn't work like Windows, ask questions instead (or maybe give some feedback to the distro/application developers)
2. Everybody should be helpful to the newbies

 

[general]

Fair enough. I do agree with you that people have to expect things to be different from Windows and that the linux community needs to be helpful to new users. It's just unfortunate that the community in general is not willing to make the changes needed so that running a linux based OS for a general user isn't like pulling teeth. Making complaints that linux is hard in general are perfectly valid.

Hopefully our debate here will show potential Mint users what their expectations should be.

 

[Captain Colonoscopy]

So, does Linux Mint have native support for Broadcom wireless cards? I have been piddling around off and on with Ubuntu 7.04 and SuSE 10.2 trying to get my silly wifi card working on my HP/Compaq nx6125 laptop for the last few days. I, too, am a linux newbie but I can do some of the command-line stuff.

If anyone has experience with this distro and broadcom wifi cards I would love to hear about it.

 

[eeyrjmr]

So, does Linux Mint have native support for Broadcom wireless cards? I have been piddling around off and on with Ubuntu 7.04 and SuSE 10.2 trying to get my silly wifi card working on my HP/Compaq nx6125 laptop for the last few days. I, too, am a linux newbie but I can do some of the command-line stuff.

If anyone has experience with this distro and broadcom wifi cards I would love to hear about it.

the broadcom is more of a kernel-level thing and pretty much all distro's provided the driver for it for a release or two (I know FC5 did)
The latest kernel (2.6.21) has a vastly improved broadcom driver& wireless stack and since it is in-kernel source it will work with standard wireless tools

but thats not to say use the command-line tools, there are more convinient tools out there (wifi is a PITA!!!), this tool is NetworkManager and comes with all distro's

So go back and try Ubuntu again and you should have that applet/program.. use that
otherwise FedoraCore has it and I use it with a broadcom wifi chip at work.. but wait for Fedora7 (next week) it will have the latest driver for it

 

[Captain Colonoscopy]

Ubuntu and SuSE both detected and "configured" the card automatically. The problem is that it cannot connect to any wireless network, regardless of encryption.

I went so far as to install the ndiswrapper and try using the driver from my vista install (dual boot) but that doesn't work either. I found a bunch of other stuff to try on various forums but I thought if Mint would work out of the box I would just do that instead of dicking around for a few more days. I'm just messing around with Linux, used to use SuSE at work a few years ago and then I started working at a Windows/Cisco shop and kinda forgot everything I learned.

Sorry to hijack the thread