I hear ya, I'm new to Linux and the learning curve is steep. I am using the Amigo 2.0 distribution (http://www.ibiblio.org/amigo/) which was remarkably easy to get up and running, I knew nothing about Linux, its file system, or the kernel, but I was able to get it set up in an afternoon.

Now I'm having to compile modules and figure out how to load them into the kernel; all stuff that I never had to do in Windows, but I have found there is plenty of information out there on how to configure, compile, etc.. No doubt it's time consuming and little bit frustrating, but I think the time and effort I will put into this will payoff for me in the long run.

It will be wonderful if the Linux GUI's ever catch up to the standardization
and interoperability of the Windows XP era. With the exception of Viruses,
I have run Windows XP from the beginning and Windows 2000 with little
or no problems at all in root user mode. I am just waiting on Linux to catchup
in that aspect. Seems that as far as the GUI is concerning, Linux is in
the Windows 3.1 Windows for Workgroups days. ... about 10+ years ago.

I beg to differ.
Maybe it is if you look @ Fluxbox, Blackbox or E, but KDE's desktop is very comparable to that of Windows XP including such features as a 'Start' button, a 'Quicklaunch' menu, a 'System Tray', a desktop that can hold Icons, menus, and etc.
Homework?

If you want to try out linux you could use a live evaluation CD which you can run by just shroving the CD into your windows machine or you should try an easier distribution.

I have been using linux for about 5 years and I have never compiled or added modules to a kernel. Why?
1. Because I have only used Mandrake or Suse
2. I don't have money to buy expensive add on's for my PC I just need a system that I can program on, test my programs on a running web server or networked envirnoment, email on, write documents, play a few cr***py games on, surf the web, download digital pictures on and edit the pictures.

By the way I have nightmares explaining to windows users how to do things in windows ie unzip a program and install it. It always seems a case of click this button or click this icon. It's so much easier to tell someone to open a command line and type something, or if they are that dumb with computers to stop them having any admin control.

Not ONE of the desktops I've used in Linux over
the years uses a "Program Manager" with a concept
of groups, a comparison to 3.1 is completely out of
place ...

And the praised "interoperability" and standardisation
(MS ignores standards, btw, or choses to 'enhance'
them unti they're incompatible - or make something
completely different which then via "brute force" is
considered a standard) is EXACTLY the reason that
it's so easy to whip-up a virus in a few minutes.

As for successfully running XP and 2K as Administrator
without stuffing up - congratulations, you were lucky! :}


Cheers,
Tink

Most windows users who come to my place and see KDE for the first time say things like, "What`s that? That`s different! Gee doesn`t it look nice!"

Linux hasn`t got anything to worry about in the looks department, and it`s ability to tailor the way it looks and feels leaves XP behind easily in my opinion.

Just download and use PCLinuxOS, its a free live cd that you can install on the hard drive, uses apt and synaptic, has flash java and bit torrent built in, has a lot of cool feature, dvd playback, mp3 playback, this distro will replace ur current desktop. just check it out at
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/pclos/index.html
screenshots at
http://www.pclinuxonline.com/pclos/h...een_shots.html

well... to the thread-poll, there's only three choises , i can't make a choise,
but it sounds only logical to build a good GUI to help people quit M$ and start Linux.
the best programs don't get popular because of a bad GUI.

so... i vote 1,5.

egag

Awesome, then maybe you can help me out. I am an extreme newbie with Linux who made the switch when a recovery CD wouldn't work with a new hard drive. I see you're a programmer, so you probably have quite a bit more experience with a command line interface than I do. I know windows inside and out; but even when creating and modifying registry branches, you just don't use command lines that much, so I beg your forgiveness if I ask a lot of stupid questions about exactly what the commands I'm typing in mean.

I'm running Amigo 2.0 on a FAT32 partition (for now until I get everything set up right, then I can change over to a proper partition) but can't seem to get network access. Right now I have my Linux box plugged into 5-port hub that everyone in our small office uses to share our cable modem connection. The plan is to make my Linux box a firewall, but for now I'll settle for just being able to get internet access.

At first I thought I needed a module for my network card but found out that wasn't the case by using '/sbin/lsmod'. What I need to know how is how do I configure my card to use the windows network that it's connected to? Should I set it up with a static dummy address or what?

Thanks for any and all assistance olly300!!!

That's what I've found aswell - it's fair to say that KDE's getting there when it comes to looks, ease of use - file management with Konqueror is impressive now, and with 3.3, things are getting faster still - considering the relative lack of resources it's a considerable achievement already

I have people say "That looks nice!" when they see my Enlightenment desktop - they *like* the way it relies so heavily on the mouse.

You'd be right if Linux had been made with replacing
winDOHs in mind. However, that's not the case, so there's
NO logic in trying to make it look like it. And the fact that
it doesn't look like M$ IMNSHO is a bonus ;)


Cheers,
Tink

You talk like a bunch of MAC users.
Even OSX has more interoperability and standardization
than any Linux GUI does.

Does this describe you?
You’re the type of users that get an attachment in their email and just opens it, ack
virus. Hmm, I’ll download this porn from Kazaa and won’t
even think about getting infected. You are the type of people that say, “gee my Windows
GUI sure does suck because I have 30 Trojans and other viruses
infecting my machine due to my lack of security knowledge and practices.

My note:
Windows is not about looks, in fact I strip down XP by shutting
down unused services and programs running in the background.
Hmm, ever try using msconfig? or in xp disable most of the fun
colorized GUI crap? Control Panel, System, Advanced, Settings,
Adjust for Best Performance?

KDE looks pretty, but try to organize your toolbar and desktop
by click and dragging… hmm, not happening eh?

hmm, lets see… let me use Open Office to try and copy and paste
an email address into hmm Kmail, uh what are these added characters…

this list goes on an on…

Without some standardization there will be a major lack of interoperability
between programs. Good programmers know this, which is why KDE is
improving their applications to be more interoperable with each other.
Kmail, Kate, Kspread, Kpresenter, and more. KDE sees the need
for standardization and interoperability which is a good thing, but they
are still many years behind Microsoft.

As for the rest of you that don’t think the Linux GUI’s need improvement,
rofl, have fun in a closed minded world where you have your email, browser
and office program to run on a 3Ghz machine, what a waste.

The day that I can run Photoshop, AutoCAD, High End Office Programs,
Corel Draw, Bryce 3d, or just cut and paste from any program into the next without
extra crap… then I will say that Linux GUI’s have made an improvement.

If anything, M$ is guilty of giving their users to much freedom.
Most people are not knowledgeable enough to use a computer
to its full potential, let alone have good security practices.

MAC (OSX) is great for people wanting a Fisher Price computer
that has beefed up security and a fairly easy to use and
functional GUI. But they also pay the price in proprietarism.
proprietarism = my made up word for the day

Linux squashed most security issues by forcing you to be a
non-root user by default on many distributions. How many
noob linux users have installed a video driver successfully
from the manufacturers web site? My point exactly.
“Reminds me of the Catholic church, let’s make the bible
in Latin so they have to come to us for the answers.”

Fascinating stuff, but isn't it all just a bit repetitive?

As a total Newbie before I took the plunge and installed Linux two weeks ago I lurked around various of the forums, and kept on coming across the same type of discussion over and over again.

The simple fact is that 95% of the PC using population simply wants to use the PC as a tool, either at work or at home to perform tasks that are either necessary or of interest to them. They don't want to know how the "box" is carrying them out, any more than they want to know about all of the processes taking place in a car when they drive it.

Unfortunately all of us who are contributing to or reading these forums are doing so because we are interested in computers and computing generally, and whatever our likes and dislikes for particular OS's, distros or applications are at least aware of their existence.

Therefore we are preaching to the converted - ourselves.

Using the car analogy, look at some of the TV adverts for them. These days few of them sell themselves on the basis of power, speed, technology etc. They are nearly all about comfort, safety, ease of use, "lifestyle choices" and in particular brand awareness.

THAT is what MS sells - or at least the illusion of it - and has one hell of a marketing budget to do so. It also has a coherent product range, aimed at specific sectors of its user base.

To compete with Windows for acceptance by the general public, it seems to me that Linux's main task is, unfortunately, to emulate it:

Most users are already familiar with GUI's (they think MS invented the desktop - that's marketing for you) and have no concept at all of command lines. Linux GUI's are on the whole scrappy and untidy - compare KDE to XP desktop. No contest in design terms.

Come up with names for apps which reflect what they do - PhotoShop - oh yes, does photos! Gimp - huh, whats that?

Compiling source code, burning ISO's, tarballs - forget it. Download a self extracting zip file, or stick a CD Rom in the drive, sit back and watch it work. Homer Simson can manage that.

Security, firewalls,resistance to viruses (viri?) well, they never download porn or use P2P stuff do they, so why worry. And anyway they've got Norton so that solves that.

etc. etc. etc.

I know that the samples mentioned above are a bit extreme, but remember nobody ever lost money underestimating public taste.

We live in a world where style outweighs function.
Cost (or lack of it) is largely irrelevant. Look at Calvin Klein underpants, Nike trainers, Levi jeans. No better and sometimes worse than the competition, but still bought at exhorbidant prices.

At the end of the day any OS is only going to be widely accepted by the general public if it looks good, is easy to use without technical knowledge, and does what they want it to do in the background without further input from them.

In short, yes, if Linux is going to be used by the general population it has to be easier