Make Linux easier for the general population! Please.
 

Why are things that should be so simple, so complicated on Linux...its times like this I find myself praing Window XP for its user friendlyness and no brainer installs.

I know the hard core Unix/Linux users want to keep it complicated to protect it, and keep ther skills in demand but its never going to make it mainstream and overtake M$ marketshare if it does not become a scaled back OS for dummies. Which all us newbies are. We have been brainwashed into the windows way of things that it makes converting to Linux very hard at times...

Don't get me wrong I think Linux has the potential to over take Windows, its does everything they can, I think its far more flexible, powerful, secure, the list goes on an on...but there has to be an easy starter linux for newbies with all the full blown power user options...I have wanted to migratate to Linux several times over the last few years...and I found my self always giving up and going back to the enemy, M$ Windows.

But I also find myself continually going back to test the Linux waters in hopes that this time it will meet my expectations as a Windows user. One thing is for sure because of the complex nature of Linux it painstakenly forces you to learn the thing in depth. Which I really don't care to become a Linux engineer, just a happy enduser. I don't want to spends hours everyday trying to solve problems or figure out complicated setup routines. I just want to install it, and use it. I want to spend my time enjoying the system, and being productive with my time. If I wanted to Learn how to become a Linux Engineer I would take a Red Hat certification coarse.

Maybe if one of the leading distributions adopted a interviewing style setup and configuring method it would really boost Linux past Windows and into the majoring or homes. (You know the way some of the Income tax service companies (ie. Quicktax) help you do your taxes on line for example, think about it if they can make doing takes a breeze then it can make using Linux a breeze too, just have to OS ask the user logical questions that branch out like surveys do.)

Make Linux easier by reinventing the way we interact with it.

**Together we can make a difference**

Listen, I don't know what you've tried, but my SO who isn't a geek when it comes to PCs has made the switch. The Mandrake 9.1 install is soooo smooth anyone can try it.

I know some people have had technical problems now and again (myself included) but for the most part, these can be fixed (and lets not kid ourselves...I've had just as much problems and more installing ANY windows version...)

The fact is, for the average user who doesn't have to install linux, linux is just as easy to use as windows. I prove this time and again when either my parents or my inlaws come visit and surf the net using KDE or Gnome without any problems. They click around, they play games...easy.

Now installing linux is a bit more difficult, but not as hard as it used to be, especially if you use Mandrake, which goes out of its way to make it easy.

That being said, linux will never be THAT easy because it requires something from you...some thought, some effort (not that much) and a willingness to learn.

You said it yourself up above "I find myself praising XP for its user friendliness and NOBRAINER installs" ...You are being trained to NOT use your head. So break free, use it! Gain control. Use your head a bit (that's all anyone ever asks) and gain the control over your system that Microsoft is taking away from you.

I have no problems making linux easy...I find many distros do exactly that. But it will never let you be a zombie like windows does.

Your interview style idea is very good IMHO...however, I don't think that linux is hard to install as it is.

Don't like the options
 

I have been a computer professional for fifteen years, and I don't think I am a bad one - I have many very happy clients and have set up some sophisticated systems in my time.

However, I still find myself wasting days getting simple stuff to work on Linux sometimes. It drives me nuts. And I'm what you might call a "OSS zealot" - I really wouldn't use Microsoft products at all if I could. However, there are just too many things on linux that make life very complicated.

well said tcaptain. your post makes mine almost obsolete,
so i have removed all the bits which are in yours already.

but here's my personal opinion.

if someone wants to try linux for the first time, i will
first point them to a distro such as knoppix, which they
can try without making changes to their current setup.
then, if they like it, and are aware of the patience needed
to switch to a new os and learn new things, i will point
them to the distrowatch site, and have them check out
the major distributions, explaining that there are special
windows-like distros for those who want an easy switch
without much change, like xandros, lindows and lycoris,
and if they want to go a bit deeper, i will advise mandrake,
redhat and suse.

if people want unix with the options of windows, i suggest
they use windows 2000 or xp, since it is built on modified
unix architecture.

all new things require time getting used to. if you really
want to use linux as a new user, be patient, keep an open
mind and be sure to have some time to allocate to it.

as for linux and the need to beat windows; linux does not
need to beat it at all in my opinion. it should just be there,
for those who want to use it. let windows keep it's quirks
and perks. and let us have linux the way we like it; with
us in the drivers' seat, happily rolling along at our own
pace, instead of the car having no steering wheel.

where do you want to go today?

i want to go nowhere. and if i do, i will do it in my own time
and when i am ready. just give me the steering wheel and
the keys. and i'll let *you* know where i will be going.

(i can't seem to get that end-rant straight, but i'll leave it)

i think there is something all of you are missing. there is a certain, ummmm, balance u could say i guess. There is a tradeoff between ease of use and power/functionality. The greater the level of abstraction from the real nuts and bolts of a computer, the poorer it will perform. Instead of asking, why is Linux so hard, perhaps ask yourself, why do you want to learn Linux? Is it b/c Windows "sucks," or is it b/c you have a burning interest concerning what makes a computer really work? If ur answer was the first one....well, um, go buy a Mac!

Heehee, this reminds me of a great .sig I saw:

Linux: Telling Microsoft where to go today since 1991

:D

I think you hit on a good point here...and a problem we see day in and day out when someone tries to use linux.

They DON'T want to learn. They want to be treated like 4 year olds because that's how they are conditionned!

Now I'm not saying that's you Paul...far from it...you had a good idea for a style of install...but I'm seeing this a LOT, whiners who b*tch because they DON'T.WANT.TO.THINK. waaah! waah! When I use windows, it does all this for me! Waah wahh! I have to read a 2 page 'man page' WAAAH! Linux is HARD!

Or my favorite:

"Just TELL me, I don't have time to use google!!!"

Yeah.

Me, I'd be happy if everyone used linux...that's fine by me because the fun thing about linux is that you can put all sorts of tools on top of it that make it neat, shiny and easy....and it doesn't take anything away from me.

BUT, I'd be a whole LOT happier if some of these users would get off their duffs, turn off "Survivor" or whatever pablum is being force-fed today and actually fired up some neurons.

They don't have to be smart, or even proficient...they just have to TRY...I'll help! Gladly! As long as my answers aren't requested (and sometimes DEMANDED) because those people can't be bothered to think.

Thanks for your comment Guys
 

tcaptain,

Your absolutely right as far as an enduser goes just sitting down and crusing the net or running existing programs its as easy as windows, as long as someone who knows what their doing has installed and set it up properly. Thats the pinch.

I should have clarified that my gripe is primarily on the side of Installation and Setup, compared with M$ Windows XP for example. For me the Linux distros I have tried are still overly complicated when it comes to things that should be simple. Linux is how many years old now? Why keep it in the dark ages just to protect the interest of the experts. I have no problem learning, but after hours of getting nowhere with somethings one has to just give up at some point after hitting your head against the wall repeatidly. I say give the users what they want. Have dumbed down version for us newbies, a middle of the road version for the experienced users, and an overly complicated one for the Pros. (This could even be in one singe distro asked during the Interview Install, the very first question at boot up.)

BTW - Thanks for acknowledging my Interview style Install and Setup idea.


bananaman,

Thank You, you have outlined my same feelings exactly. I too have 15 years of computer experience, mainly with M$ products, and I don't have the huge amounts of time to spend trying to learn to do things the same things on Linux that I can do on Windows XP in a fraction of the time. Sure you can run into problems on any system, but the question is how often and how many bumps in the road must you hit before you get to where you want to go and get on with your life. regardless of if we are talking about Home use or in a Business enviroment (Even more importantly in a business enviroment) Time is money, you need to get things working fast and easy. At home, I would rather spend time with my family then 8 hours with Linux trying to figure out whats wrong, why its not working for me.

Even performance wise my Windows XP system are lightning fast compared to Redhat 8. I can reboot and be back in the despktop in seconds, where Redhat taken several painful minutes to get there....My Windows XP runs circles around it.
(I just wish that some bias people in the linux community would try to refrain from Flaming Windows and its users and stick to the facts.) Yes Windows is easier for the novice, and yes it is faster, and yes it supports the most popular hardware and software. They last thing I want to do is get into a headbutting debate over which is better in general, because you ask 100 different people and you'll get 100 different opinions, because they all have different experiences and needs.

tcaptain,

You say, "linux is just as easy to use as windows."

You really are kidding yourself if you think that.

The main problem with Linux is installing application and configuring them. Even installing things that should be relatively simple can waste hours of time.

And with respect to Linux being somehow "better" because you have to use your head, I would rather use my head just programming the applications that my clients need, rather that spending hours working out trivial configuration issues and dependancies.

I'm not bashing Linux. I think it's great. But if you think it doesn't need improving when it comes to ease of use, you've got your head in the sand.

When I started using Linux (May 2002) I didnt have a clue but I thought Id give it a try.



I started with Red Hat 7.2 I installed easily (nice simple gui install).

I however didnt even know how to mount a Floppy disk :) but
I thought well Id "Use Gnome to sort the problem" how wrong was I. Once I worked out how to mount the drives etc... things got a lot easier. Soon after I went over to Slack 8.1 and wouldnt go back to RedHat, or any other distro because I like the way Slack works.

From May 2002 Knowing very little to now (still knowing little:)) Ive become confident in using the O/S so much so Im doing my MSc Dissertation using Apache 2.0 (Still learning) PHP (still learning), MySQL (Still learning), OpenSSL (definitely Still learning) and Slack 8.1 in order to produce a Secure E-Commerce website.

All of this within a year of tinkering and fiddling.

Linux is more powerful than Windows because it uses the Command line to do the simple things and thus allows you more flexibility.

Linux isnt difficult to install or use The secret to it is you have to sit down work out what you want to do and do it (then when things go wrong post here to get help :)).

For every day operations yes Linux offers a lot of functionality of Windows but it seems people are just scared of the command line and/or used to Windows only software such as Photoshop, MS Office etc...

I'm not kidding myself, for *ME* Linux *IS* easier to use than windows. I've used windows forever, I still have to use Win2K at work.

For developping at work, I find that until I installed Cygwin...I just was wasting time in windows.

For docs, I use OpenOffice...and yeah, it ain't perfect (If you compare it to the latest wizzzbang MS Office) but for what I need, basic memos, charts, docs...it works fine and no one knows I'm using anything different.

Now...I never said Linux didn't need improving. It does. A lot. However, it really isn't as bad as you say...unless you just don't want to think.

Yeah, there are some things that just need a lot of praying and working and reading to get to work...for me it was DVD playback on my machine...but you know, Windows has some things that don't work right out of the box and you have to dig and tinker to get to work TOO! If you're saying Windows is always easy and flawless, You, sir are the one kidding yourself. Also, you're kidding yourself if you say that Windows installs are just soooo easy. Win2K included. The only easy install we've had here was by restoring a disk image :D. If you compare a linux install (and I'd suggest Mandrake, or RedHat...because SOME installs *are* harder than others like Debian or gentoo) with a Windows install, you'd see they are about the same when it comes to complexity and bugginess (they both have quirks).

To me, its like working in Vi instead of in Notepad....at first, MAN it was tough and it didn't make sense, but once I figured it out and practiced....WOW...what a difference!

I don't want to start a war on who crashes the most...both Win2K and Linux are rock stable in my opinion, but in MY experience, my uptime is a lot better in linux than any windows machine I work with...and its the same experience with our network guys when it comes to the very few linux installs we have at work.


HOURS? Man, what have you been trying? Unless you're including compile time on large apps or something. I mean sometimes there's RPM-dependency-hell, but speaking of improvements above, this is one area that's gotten a LOT better with URPMI or if you want, Apt-get (both awesome)...or even portage. Compiling from source is hit or miss, sometimes its easy sometimes its hard...but you know what? The toughest installs I've had are the installs where I didn't read the README docs FIRST!

I don't understand why people get so upset about lnux being terribly difficult. I have no education in computers. Ipicked up a copy of suse 7.3 from bestbuy just over a year ago. I had just gotten a new computer so I had an extra to toy around with. It took a couple of installs with the manuals glued open but I figured it out. From there, it was smooth sailing...learning wise. I've tried many different install and noticed the different ways distros deal with stuff. Mandrake is close to the interview style of things...but it's pretty close to being "no brainer." Red Hat is also very simple. Slackware is easy if you know what you are doing...and if you don't, it's a great way to learn! Gentoo isn't just point and click but the documentation is so excellent that if you can follow directions, it's simple.

I don't think some regular joe is going to switch from xp to linux just because. If someone likes to tinker with stuff and learn about computers, the switch will happen. If someone is always hearing about this great linux thing, and has somebody to walk them through...okay rescue them when something goes wacky...then they might switch also.

I think it's great that there are "simple" distros like mandrake. I also really enjoy the "tinkering" distros like gentoo and slackware. No distro is "brainless," all you have to do is follow directions.

exactly! comprehending Linux means reading! i have 1000 page book, RH8 LInux Bible. there are so many dogeared and highlighted pages it looks like its years old, but guess what? i bought RH8 3 weeks ago! if u think u can learn linux just by using it, u are crazy! at the least u need some online resource if not a book or two. LINUX IS NOT POINT AND CLICK! I'm gonna make my own distro, it'll be called: LIW = Linux Isn't Windows (oh yeah recursion im so 1337). It's read and type! And as far as not being as fast as Windows, yes perhaps on the GUI side u r correct, BUT: try and backup ur hard disk on windows, and then do it on Linux! my newby ass was able to write a simple script consisting of only a dozen lines, and my hard drive can be backed up weekly without me even being at the terminal! that is the power of Linux, automating system tasks! let me see u do that in Windows! well actually, yes i could do that, i could sit down in MSVC++ and in about 12 hours (straight) i could write a program that automatically backs up my drive...lets' compare the work there...

I have to confess, that one thing that drew me to linux is that I can tinker a LOT more than in Windows and make things just right (for me).

(It was the ethical nose-dive Microsoft took that kept me with linux tho hehe).

I admit to enjoying tinkering with my personal system, even if it isn't broken.

neenee,

If Windows is like a Car without a Steering wheel then Linux is like a car that requires a 10 page manual for starting the Ignition, using the Turn signal, and stepping on the gas or break.

Would you want to drive a car that took 8hrs to learn how to drive just to make a 15 minute trip?

I couldn't resist... :)

One simple fact of computers and human life that seems consistently overlooked in discussions like this--on every forum I've visited--is that there are people who don't have tons of spare time to spend tweaking their computer setups or mastering arcane commands and intricate operating systems. They are people who work for a living or have busy lives that don't revolve 100% or even 90% around their computers, but who want to use computers for writing, spreadsheets, communication, graphics applications, research, and even a little infrequent relaxation with games.

Why, then, don't they "just use Windows"?

Because they also have a moral sense that tells them they're doing something deeply unethical if they support Microsoft's greed-driven, invasive ethos by their purchases and by signing their privacy away.

I have enormous respect for all computer geeks, and wish I'd been born with a true geek mentality myself. But I also wish some geeks would get this simple point through their heads: there are people who need to spend time away from their computers, yet who need to USE their computers, and want to do so in a morally responsible way.

These are the users who'd be well served by Linux and open-source software if only it could somehow, someday, be made easier to use.

That's ok. Just as long as we agree that "not having a lot of spare time" doesn't mean (which these days it seems to) "can't be bothered to think for myself so YOU do it for me!"

This point is made over and over and over...someone posts up a problem sometimes they say its urgent and they don't have the time to read a manual. Well lo and behold, the answer was posted a couple of hours later using a 20 second google search....if that person had used google on his own in the first place he'd have saved 2 hours.

You can only make things so easy before you start taking away the options that made the original thing great in the first place.

My argument is that it already is easy. Not no-brainer...but easy...and its getting easier all the time. And you have the help of an AWESOME community that's willing to help (and LQ is a GREAT example of this).

'You can only make things so easy before you start taking away the options that made the original thing great in the first place.'

Well said. I agree. (And I have spent hours searching for solutions before posting some of my questions, which seemed like they should already have answers, somewhere.)

Yes, I do worry that if Linux were to become commercialized, then it would soon be another Microsoft situation, and then what would be left for people with moral integrity to use? So it appears to me that Linux (which I'm incorrectly using as a catch-all term to include open-source everything) must remain basically non-commercial: and that means it will never be completely smooth sailing.

Better difficult than enslaving.

What Id really like to know is why so many people either say Linux rocks and Winblowze or vice versa.

Both have a place in the market, all be it diferrent people use each O/S in different ways.

In my opinion if you want an easy GUI to play games word process watch DVD's etc then use Windows.

If you want something "Different" that can do most of the above (relatively easily) plus more then use Linux.

However one point there can be no real argument about is Linux is far superior in terms of Server software mainly due to the "GNU/GPL" and the fact that there is so much support freely available.

My point is not that Windows doesn't work well (sometimes) or that Windows doesn't have some great applications (it most surely does). It's simply that I cannot use Microsoft products anymore and feel I'm not doing something deeply immoral. Buying into that kind of greed and into that kind of attitude that treats all users like PROBABLE criminals (not just potential ones) is something I will not do any longer, period. I will stop using computers first. I made that decision some time ago and I am sticking to it.

Linux is easy....

The problem is, people think they're using Windows when they're not. Linux is a different thought process.

In my opinion, if you take someone who's ONLY ever used Linux and let them try Windows, they'll be seriously frustrated. Have you seen how stupidly difficult it is to manage your resources in Windows?!?

-R

There's a place in the market for an easy OS sure. But in my opinion, there's no longer a place anywhere for Microsoft and its business practices (I'm sure the Mob is reading the papers and taking notes from them). :D

Definitely take your point I dont like the way Bills taking things.

What with his current plan to have super-servers set up all over the world where we save all our information so he can see it all.

This and past practices (Opera + plus broken Style sheets etc...) Dont really do the companies image much good

jonr,

Thank You! Finally Someone said it, Perfectly!
I love computers, but I have a Job and a family, and other responsibilites too. I get home at 6pm, I eat dinner, I spend time with my family if possible, then when my kids are in bed I go to my computer at about 9pm. (These days with Linux researching
I end up going to bed around 2 or 3 in the morning, only to get up at 7am to get ready for work. THATs 4 to 5 hrs a night tryig to learn and setup Linux. I am maybe a newbie but I am no dummy, and I think I have come a long way in the short time I have had Linux, but its too overly complicated to fit comfortaly into my busy schedual and life. When I do sit down to use my computers I want to enjoy it and I want it to work, period.

tcaptain
You need to get off the train wreck your on. Don't assume no one puts any effort into learning linux, sure some don't, but the rest of us do, and we are the one screaming the loudest because we have put in the efforts and its still not helping. Not everyone may be as Linux savy as yourself, so don't penalize others for not knowing as much as you might. We can all be expert users. Nor do all of use want to, don't flame us for it.

Isn't the Linux community suppose to be about support, helping those who want to convert to do it.
Excuse me for saying so, but its comments like yours that not only prevent the birth of Linux Newbies but also scare them away for good. Its the newbie phase that is so critical to winning over permanent Linux users. The problem is the learning curve with Linux is far to high for most newbies with little time to spare. How does that help the growth of the Linux community? Especially if you got your copy of Linux as a free download with no support or documentation, its easy to say forget it because its to difficult, on the other hand if you bought a boxed set and spend money on it you might be inclined to work harded at it, if you have the time.

I am here because as "jonr" said I don't agree with M$ and their unethical practices like stealing stuff from other OS's, Charging for Licenses, their greed and the limitations they set on you, to name a few. I want a "better" alternative that does eveything Windows XP does and more, as easy as they do it. Microsofts reputation aside Windows XP is a great product, but I want more...much of the extras, flexability, and power that Linux offers on top of what I get from Windows XP.

I want the BEST of both Worlds. Whats wrong with that?

P.S.- No one said anything about taking anything away from Linux, just adding simplicity to it for those who need it as an option.

Paul Parr, you wrote
I'm wondering if it's possible. When a program is written in can be really easy to use or really flexible. It's very hard to mix the two togeter.
To make a program easy to use means to include everything, write good default options, wizards etc. It makes the program big.
To make a program flexible means to think about different possible options users may want to have, give the user a possibility to configure the program. It makes a program big.
When you want to have easy to use and flexible program it makes it not 2 times bigger, but more. A bigger program means more bugs, makes the program hard to debug and so on.
It's always a tradeoff, unfortunately.

The biggest problem I can see now is because of drivers (no drivers, drivers licensing problems, different methods of installation and so on). It is really hard to make a program that can download/compile/configure a driver, when there can be 1000 possible methods and the driver uses one of them and we don't know which one.

Similar thing with software. The only method to run out of dependencies is to have everything in binary format, with dependencies in one package. But such a thing will make a 4 cd distro fill 4 dvds (or more). And there's no simple solution.

I know it doesn't make much sense...

I am not sure if that makes any sense
 

Mara,

Think about it...Windows XP comes on a Single CD, and Linux can come on up to 8 CDs or even DVDs.

How can you say making Linux easy and flexible to use would make it far to large?

Thats makes no sense at all. I think Windows XP supports far more hardware out of the box than Linux does and comes with many things Linux is missing by default.

:tisk:

hehe. nice one Paul :)

hmm.. i'd like to add one thought of my own:

most, if not all people who i hear complain about linux
being difficult, are those who come from windows or
other cruise-controlled operating systems. to those
who started with linux, i think it is as easy as windows
is for those who started with dos / windows.

it's like comparing languages. to people in korea, korean
is easy as they learnt it young. but english is difficult to
them. the same goes for english people wanting to learn
korean.

oh.. and about linux not having support for everything
with a new install; that's one of the powers of linux. you
have control over what is installed. that way you decide
where and when you make the trade between functionality
and performance.

hm.. this thread begins to lean towards 'windows vs linux',
which was not the purpouse of it i think... *shrugs*

hmm *looks up and reads.. that looks about right. yup.

*walks away into the shadows...

Re: I am not sure if that makes any sense
 

Does XP come with 10 window managers, 5 spreadsheets, 2 office suites, compilers, headers for everything and so on?

How big can be kernel+libc+some needed libraries+kde/gnome (but not both) in smaller versions (not all apps)? Now - much less than a cd (half of it, I guess). Drivers are not big. I'm now counting how much does modules for a kernel with support to everything take - I guess 30-40MB.
Linux distro !=(is not equal to) Windows XP

Much more software comes with Linux.

Re: I am not sure if that makes any sense
 

But the hardware manufacturers are best buddies with Microsoft--that's why Windows supports so much out of the box. There are surely financial incentives of MANY KINDS available to hardware and software firms, in supporting, in many cases exclusively, the Microsoft platform.

By contrast, there's no financial incentive at all in providing drivers and other software, and hardware, for Linux. It would, at least at this point, be an act of altruism, and while not unheard of, an altruistic corporation is about as close to oxymoronic as you can get.

When you say Linux, your talking about the kernel. Linux isn't gigabytes in size, its all the apps that are included that a distro bundles with it.

Linux isn't hard, most just make it out to be harder. You have to be smarter than the computer. Think different. Don't expect it to do everything for you. Linux was never intended to take over the desktop market and still isn't. Though major distro's push this as it's better for them cause it means more exposure and more money.

Stop comparing Linux to the Windows ease of use though, cause its never been intended to be a Windows, but the opposite.

Intended by who? There's no person controlling GNU/Linux. No control where it's going. So where do you know it from?

I think it is more to do with manufacturers. Most windows users will never have installed an operating system before. They just use the computer straight out of the box. Even if they reinstall windows they will usually have used a manufacturers disk complete with drivers for the hardware.

If manufacturers would build PCs with linux preinstalled and with a driver disk then most people would find it a lot easier.

Maybe this is an untapped market! Anyone fancy starting a business?

Individual distro's might be pushing Linux in whole to reach desktop and market shares, but the whole idea behind Linux itself from the beginning never intended it to get as far as it is now. Rmember, Linus started this as a hobby and I'd bet he still doesn't care if it ever reaches as the mainstream desktop OS wiping out Windows..

Oh well.. I should have reworded my first post better..

We can say the same about really many things in the software/IT world. Think about UNIX, about IBM and first PCs, about IBM and their OS for PCs... It's because we don't know the future. :)

"Stop comparing Linux to the Windows ease of use though, cause its never been intended to be a Windows, but the opposite."

trickykid,

The problem is most people these days (like myself) really only ever knew Windows (if we were lucky enough), we don't have anything else to compare it too. That or its the first time user who never used a computer before.

I think we have to remember that not everyone one has had the life long exposure to Computers and OS's as some of us have. We started back in the days of the Command Line OS, these days kids are stating in the GUI OS. They are use to the eye candy of Windows, and using the same stuff their friends are using at home, and what they will probably be using when they start working.

I did not intend for this to be another Windows vs Linux debate, so lets try to stick to the Basic topic again with out going off on a tangent again. Partly my fault. :rolleyes:

****The point was making Linux easier for the general population....in regards to installation and Setup for the Newbie such as me. It has nothing to do with the experienced user, or seasoned professionals. (Although the Poll includes those groups for the sake of my Interview Install idea.

Ok. Peace. :Pengy:

You have to realize, GUI or no GUI, if you apply yourself, your going to learn it no matter what. And kids, well their usually the one's that can catch on more quickly than older adults. Most who start out with Windows didn't know a thing even being introduced to a GUI, so there's no difference in the learning curve with any OS.
If I had my way, every OS would be CLI only.. ;)

And you won't be able to turn this thread around cause its only opening up doors to compare Linux, Windows and any other OS out there.

But like I said once before, Linux isn't hard, people just make it harder than it really is. But my point exactly Mara, there is not
Corporation running the show with Linux.. so all the people who know how to code for it and develop it, don't need it to be easier, like I said, its not made to be as easy as point here, click this, there your done.. Linux is already easy to those who develop and hack at it.

[snipped]

[snipped]

Exactly. Linux is a superb low to mid-end server platform that is also capable of providing capable users the practical elements Windows offers but in a slightly different more flexible manner.

The point just seems to be lost on a lot of people that there is simply no operating system available for ethical persons who don't have a lot of time to devote to learning computer things, but who none the less need to use computers.

I don't know how to express it any more clearly, so I'm done trying.

There's been comments about people just wanting to get home from work, eat dinner, email, surf the web, and maybe pay some bills (or whatever baby boomers do online). :) The thing is, you don't have to tweek linux. Default installs of almost every distro I've installed work just fine. Before I get flamed, I know kernels can be modified, programs can be compiled, all sorts of stuff can happen. But if you want a word processor, a web browser, an email client, a finance manager, and a multimedia player, then you can get that with linux in about half the install time--unless you go with gentoo :). (It took about 2 hours to upgrade to xp from me on my laptop, and 30 minutes to do basic mandrake install.) Here's a comparison: there are four computers networked at my house--mine and my 3 roomies. I'm the only one running linux. I restart my machine about once a month...i turn it off when I'm out of town and stuff. On the two computers with win 98, after running for about a week, the resources are so bogged down that nothing works right. The win 2000pc will go for about two weeks before it wigs out.

What I'm saying is this: Linux is easy to set up if you read (that's been said enough) and it allows you to just tool around without having to be a computer geek doing what you want to do. My roomies are jealous about how well my pc runs. :)

MACINTOSH?

I know I'm weird but I consider myself mainly a DOS user and all these debates are about Windows vs. Linux like DOS never existed. And somehow how non-Linux users are used to a life of OEM bliss.

I've always been way behind the curve. Around 1992 I started with DOS 3.3 with some weird GUI. That computer ran *seven* years without a reinstall or, so far as I can recall, a crash. Yep - OEM bliss. I was never connected to the net and completely ignored Windows. Then the HD died. And I finally got on the net with a 486SX running DOS 5.0 and had my first look at Windows - Windows 3.1 - in 1999 - on a 2200 bps modem. And then I got a Pentium running Windows 98 and trashed the 486 playing around with the software. And then I got an HP with Windows XP just as the hardware in the Pentium broke. After awhile of using XP I took the old computers back out and started playing and learning. I rebuilt the 486 to OEM specs which required hunting for weird drivers and whatnot. Then I 'upgraded' it to DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11, then WfW3.11. Then I tried FreeDOS on it. And I played around with cracking the case and installing drives on the Pentium and rebuilding that system. Formatted Win98 off and installed Caldera OpenLinux and then VectorLinux. All this time, I was using DOS 6.22 a lot which was way better than 3.3. *g* Yeah - DOS 6.22 in 2002-2003. Go figure. And then I failed at getting MuLinux to run on the 486SX but eventually got BasicLinux to run off of floppy and a ramdrive and then got it to the hard drive booting from DOS using loadlin and then got it completely independent using Lilo. And have X in for the moment, as long as it doesn't blow my monitor.

But this is a long way of saying that I am used to the command line and I don't much like GUIs except for fun and I'm not averse to tracking down obscure files on the net when things don't work and downloading info and reading about it for hours and haunting used bookstores to find books on Linux. I've used Windows and I don't like it. I'm more comfortable using DOS and DOS apps than anything else. So I'm perfectly suited for Linux, right? Willing to work, learn, think, and happy with the command line or a simple console "graphics" file manager - not because I need it and don't understand how to do things without it but simply because 'arrow'ing and 'enter'ing directories is easier than 'cd'ing and 'cd ..'ing them. Delirously happy with half a dozen terminals and wondering what the hell you really need a GUI for with a command line like that.

And DOS freaking sucks. 8.3 names and single-tasking and no real operating system at all. And Linux freaking sucks. LFNs and multi-tasking and a fantastic OS but...

DOS is not case sensitive and spaces are not often required. The current directory is the first thing searched. Why the hell else would I be in that directory? DOS has a help program (finally - yeah, 9 years ago, but 3.3 didn't have it) where there is a discussion and a list of switches and their explanations. Then notes for exceptions and oddities. And then examples for how to actually do stuff. And the directory structure is up to me. And DOS installs automatically, essentially. So then I add the apps I want. And I have one mouse and one CD-ROM and so on - and I get the drivers for them. DOS doesn't try to include a zillion desktops and office suites. Why should it? It's supposed to be the operating system and essential utilities. Why would I want a bunch of crap on there when I'm going to buy or download something I like better anyway? Even BasicLinux comes with nano and e3 - so what I do but go download and install joe as soon as I can? - And I write two - count 'em, two - config files located in the root (unless I use Win3x and I have precisely two more in the Windows root). And if a program needs something weird like CWSDPMI it includes it, or it's easy to get. There are no libs or dlls or anything. No installers and no registry either. Unzip it and type the name in. Boom. Program. Don't like it? Delete the directory. Boom. No program. The only thing you have to watch out for is those programs that want to change your autoexec or config. That's why I have backups of those two files - well, one reason.

Want to learn about writing those two files? Hit the help for config commands and batch commands. And hey - they're cross-referenced via hyperlinks. It's like... why, it's like HTML. Wow! And all the stuff's going to be there because DOS is DOS is DOS. And there I am - I've written files using COPY CON and EDLIN and gotten real lazy with EDIT and incredibly lazy with my file manager's internal editor. I've written batch files to automate simple repetitive tasks or simply do neat things. I've added a 'locate' command and don't even need to 'updatedb'.

Etc. How is this possible? Cuz DOS sucks. It's incredibly weak, simple, and easy - though those stereotypical Windows zombies would be utterly lost, I'm sure.

Now what happens in Linux? I crack my knuckles on a really picky command line that is case sensitive and space requiring. I'm sure there's an advantage to this somewhere. Probably for the programmer. Not only do I have to type ./foo to get to something in the current directory, I have to type /foodir/foo all the time. Where the hell else is it going to start but root? Why the leading '/'? Again, I'm sure there's an obscure good reason for this. Instead of help I have docs... and I have man... and I have info. Mans and infos cross reference each other for the purpose of slamming the other system. Info requires a load of ridiculous EMACS BS to grasp. And man is a sheet. And docs are scattered all over literally *hundreds* of directories and *thousands* of files. And because Linux is better it's more powerful and versatile and has thousands of switches on every command. All of which are treated equally in alphabetical order and presuppose familiarity with all the other ones. No sense of priority or what is typical and what is arcane. The directory structure would make a Byzantine bureacrat happy. And I *can* change that - if I'm familiar with a million considerations and go to a *whole* lot of effort and only manage to break half the system even so. Linux installs by asking me about which of the thousands of video cards and monitors I have because it includes thousands of drivers for every kind except the kind I've got, probably. And good luck finding them - probably buried in some obscure package of drivers somewhere. But let's say xf86config is happy and you run X to take a look - all seems cool. Until my monitor fries. I ran *very* cautious settings - Win3x looked better - and still... my Pentium's monitor fried. DOS has certainly never done that and not even Windows. Now to configure... well, it *might* be your /etc/bashrc or maybe your /etc/bash-profile or maybe your ~/bashrc or maybe your ~/bashrc-profile or... no, wait - here it is! ~/bashrc-private. Until I switch distros and that one doesn't have that file. And that's for the shell. Of which I have to configure two - root's and user's. Now what about lilo.conf and /etc/fstab and init and xinitrc and - hell I've got half a dozen rc.d directories to go through and... Well, let's install some apps. Hm. Can I use a .tgz package or an .rpm - a Red Hat rpm or a SuSe or a.... - maybe a Deb package? Nah, let's install from source. Too much dependency hell (suspiciously like dll hell except that dll hell means having too many useless ones that don't bother you usually, rather than conflicting or missing ones). Oops. Compiling is *way* more problematic and I still don't have the required libraries. I've got glibbertygibbet.so.zo.8 but not glibbertygibbet.so.zo.9. Damn. I thought all the glibberytgibbets were in the glibbertigiblib? Now. Where did all this stuff go? I didn't unzip in foodir and it didn't go to C:\Program Files... let's look at the freaking programming script that tells the compiler what to do... because, after all, I AM a programmer. I'll understand it. Oh wait, no, I'm not a programmer. Crap. So writing shell scripts is pretty much out of the question, too, huh? Sure better than batch files... except I can write batch files.

Well, all I really wanted to do was edit a simple text file, anyway. Let's fire up an editor. Um - how come my arrow keys don't arrow? And my backspace backspace? And so on and so forth? Oh, I can edit a file to make my keys work? Thanks very much. That'd be very easy if my keys ALREADY worked. And what do you mean, it *might* be termcap or it *might* be terminfo or it *might* be...

Yeah. It's definitely because I'm SO FREAKING LAZY AND CODDLED AS A WINBLOWS USER that this seems a little too complicated.

And no, I don't want to use Microsoft. DOS is cool but it sucks at the same time and it's dead and it's still Microsoft. And Windows is lame through and through and it's Microsoft. And, no, I don't want to use Apple. It's more Windows than Windows, whatever the kernel, as far the user 'look and feel' is concerned. And Apple would be ten times as evil as Microsoft if they hadn't been ten times as incompetent at marketing - they would have had proprietary *machines* to go with a proprietary OS.

So, yeah - Linux could focus on some coherence and consistency and work on providing a scale of things - here are the basics and here are the more advanced things and on up to turning you into the compleat hacker. But, no, it's a thousand different programmers and a dozen different distros all conflicting with one another. But - what could be more basic than BasicLinux? Well, nothing, seeing's how it doesn't have 'su' or 'locate' so I have to run as root a lot and can't find anything anyway - and this after I downloaded the separate package to enable to me to add a user so I'd even have a choice about running as root. Now what package is 'su' and 'locate' in? Half the very few damn things I know how to use aren't even IN here. And I complain about a million switches on things but BL has a half-million switches missing from things like 'less' and 'sort' and whatnot. Thank you busybox, I suppose. So still too many switches and not the ones I need.

And if this post was too long and incoherent and hard to get through, you must just be a coddled windoze user who doesn't take the TIME to READ.

/me takes the trollbait...

I installed WinXP Pro on a new machine over the Xmas holidays. It was one of the most frustrating things I've had to deal with in a long time. Why? Because I'm not familiar with it I suppose.

I've been using linux at work (construction management) since 1999 when I first installed SuSE 6.0 on my destop machine followed shortly by an installation on my Toshiba Satellite. In my life Windows OS's are the foreign object. Until last December I had spent at least 8 months a year for the last 11 years working away from home. Linux on the road was far easier for me to manage. I could rant on and on about why I feel GNU/Linux is a superior solution but I don't think I need to accelerate the holy war brewing in here.

I will offer this - Saying that "Linux should be more like Windows" is like saying that tea should be more like coffee.

I liked Digiot's rambling and feel the same way, including feelings about DOS. I was happiest with computers when I was using DOS. Things have gone downhill ever since.

"And Apple would be ten times as evil as Microsoft if they hadn't been ten times as incompetent at marketing - they would have had proprietary *machines* to go with a proprietary OS." Digiot said it right. And that--and the fact that I'm not wealthy--is why not MacIntosh instead of Windows or Linux.

But, McLeodnine, I don't see any holy war. This seems to be a remarkably civil discussion--though of course it's the same old territory that's been gone over again and again. (BTW I'm tickled with your screen-name, and wonder how many people know how to pronounce it.)

Wow have I touched a nerve here or what!
 

***45 replys , and almost 350 views in less then a day.

This thread has definately caught some attention. Wow!

I want to thank everyone for their comments, and all the pros and cons of Linux, and the (shall remain unamed) alternative OS's.

What I have learned from this thread is simply this...
How you use Linux depends on what your needs are, what and where you use it for. Do you use it at work, or at home, do you like to play games, or program. Is it a requirement that you setup a complex network, or is it a stand alone system. Do you use it primarily as a server or as home entertainment, or productivity.

I think what is really at the core of what Linux is all about is FREEDOM, freedom of choice and flexibily, and evolution. I guess what most newbies like myself need time to discover is that Linux does not come in only Vanilla, there are many flavors of Linux, and it comes down to what flavor each of use like the best. Some people may not like any of the flavors either, and thats ok too.

In the last few years that I have been testing the Linux Waters I have turned tail and run back to Windows, but I've always kept my eye on Linux because it had something attactive and maybe even additive to me. One thing I have noticed in that time is that Linux is Evolving at an amazing rate and its becoming much more of what I personally like. I like what I'm seeing these days, choices that weren't there before. For me I think the Linux packages like Xandros, Lycoris, and maybe even Lindows are far more suited to the novice Linux Desktop user (Except what really sucks is none of these are FREE, although low cost, which forces many newbies to opt for testing linux on the available FREE distros). For other experienced users they are not their flavor. I wish that Linux community would just stop banging each other over the head with the "One Linux" for all mentallity. Like I see before, not everyone is a seasoned professional, nor does everyone want to be.

I have to say that I think that the Linux developers are listening to the needs to the GROWING Linux population. Even companies like Redhat and Mandrake are offering a wider range of Linux packages to try and reach all audiences. For example, Redhat has a standard version and a professional version, and during install they ask what type of install you want Desktop, Server, etc. Mandrake has like 6 different versions of their product. They are also releasing newer improved flavors like Redhat 9, and Mandrake 9.1 as the most recent examples. (With things like Gnome 2.2, and KDE 3.1 which have made major strides towards more user friendly GUIs for the Novice users like me.) Things are looking good!

So please you seasoned pros, don't be so bias towards us novices, we want to evolve too, but at our own pace, and in an enviroment we are comfortable with. So if you Love using the command line because you have used it forever and thats what your use too, or just prefer then kudos to you, but don't expect the rest of the world to follow your example, some of us have broader appreciation for the richer flavors. You may like simple vanilla, but I like Rocky Road.

One thing I think most of us can agree on is we like (Ice Cream). i.e Linux. :D

Keep up the good work Linux!

***Power to the People***
:newbie:

Paul, I think you got it :D

We're not biased against novices tho...despite some of the things I said. I do try to help, I love it. Its called (to me) paying back for the help I got.

But its more fulfilling to help someone who wants to learn and just needs a leg up than someone who doesn't want to learn and wants linux to be like windows :D

i think the SuSE Setup system (was it yast in the install already?) was very easy

just like the xp install. Just read the things and click next or ok

There's one pretty indisputable advantage of a Linux install over a Windows one: you don't have to sign your life away--sometimes several times!

And you don't have to reboot (usually).

I guess that makes two advantages. :)

One last thing I want to add is that I have come to notice many hardcore users seem to want to keep things complicated and get offended when we newbies ask for easier alternatives. They don't want it to go mainstream, they want to keep it all to themselves for some weird reason, but I can't understand the logic to this, as it servers to prevent the natural evolution and improvement of Linux. Its like saying why should I drive if I know how to walk. I just don't get it. Are they afraid of Linux becoming more widely accepted as the better alternative to the other GUI based OS's out there, or do they just want to be completely different?


Thanks again everyone.