******
What's the difference between a Linux install and a Windows install to someone who calls a technician in anyway? Why not install Linux for him and be done with it?
******

Hey tinkster, we finally agree on something. Nice!

If there are two different "classes" of users, say, the end user and the admin (technician, sysop, or whatever) at least in a corporate environment the end user can count on the help of a professional to make life easier with linux. I argued in favor of this, once. There's no difference between a win and a lin computer for a user who only clicks an icon, opens a prog, enters data and saves it. The real pain is when you have to:

1. Download an iso.
2. Burn cd's.
3. Setup your bios to boot from cd (uh! real macho skills!)
4. Run the linux installation. Remember that even the easiest ones ask for partitioning stuff, and people get stuck (Ricdave's Joe six pack probably doesn't even know there's such a thing as partitions). Oh, and there's the root passwd!
5. Reboot the machine and config the remaining items.

The same with windows, if I recall my past corporate experience. People get stuck printing a document, and many can't feed the printer with paper, change ink cartridges, etc... That's why there's an admin. All this keeps you computer people employed.

Should Icemncmth teach linux to his lawyer client and let him walk free?

Should Smcoptyltd print a file with the ten most common computer problems that makes people call a technician and give a copy to his architect client?

So, to mantain a minimum of coherence with the prior postings, and with my previous "repetitive" criticism, I suggest we discuss whether:

1. the general adoption of linux brings any benefit to us.
2. If so, is friendliness necessary?

As a biologist, I can't help to think of windows as a "roach", simple, small, easily killed, but more easily breed. A survivor.
And linux as, say, a cheetah, fast, elegant, inteligent, beautiful and... prone to extinction!!
I hate to think this way, but...
Sorry bothering you all with this. Help me change it!

YES, It brings many benefits.

The most important to many people: It's usally free!!!
Appart from this, beneffits for those people u say are, maybe, sability and... that many webs that they visit on the net are hosted on linux servers and, without linux the would find many downtimes xD
Well, most of the good points are for the people interested in computers, in learnign and in being free.

I don't agree with you when you say that linux is prone to extinction. In my school, linux is being installed in most computers. They are doing the same in many places in my country and all around the world. What linux need is to me known by the ppl. Most people love linux when they see theyr good looking and own-taste-adaptable grapchical enviroments. Many of my (stupid) class mates said: oh, what a piece of s***, u can't install Counter-Strike on it. Well, u can (with wine... ) and, who the hell needs CS? There are many (well, not many, but some) really good free linux games (Legends, Enemy Territory etc..).
What they have to do is not to go back to windows because they vant play those rubbish games, or because they have to re-learn some things (Typical self-confident "windoze expert" class mate expression: 'Oh, where is A:\'). What they have to do is to ask for linux ports and for GPLization of the software

We have to move an ask and learn and fight!! if we want to go one step forward. The humanity has never gone ahead just by sitting an praying god to do theur work.

well, now u have my point of view (again ). Biez!

You could buy the CD, you know, and support Linux
(or a distro) that way ... and the BIOS thing I believe
would apply to your winDOHs, too?

Or you buy a lindows machine at wallmart.

The point that you miss to see here is that smcop
suggests that there's two classes of users, those
who care to know how things work, and those who
don't. That's not necessarily a distinction between
professionals and laymen. And the point is that there
are people who DON'T give a toss at all. If you install
them a set-box and it does what they want they will
use it, be it Linux or Windows, and they won't care
how long or complex setting them up was... as in his
architect example:"Make it work" "Where's the AutoCAD
CD?" "What do you need that for?" :)



1. I doubt it, despite ricdave's and your best efforts.
2. Not after the most recent turn the conversation took ;)
It says that a) they will have someone set the box up for
them or b) be willing to learn. Which is pretty much my
point if you care to scroll back ;)

*cough*
Simple? Small?
*cough*

The difference between Linux and a cheetah is that
no-one is taking away Linux' food or territory, and that
the number of installations has been growing exponentially,
despite your idea that it's hard to install/maintain.



Cheers,
Tink

I listen to jazz and classical music, not the droning, simple-minded crap you hear all over the radio---but I don't go around trying to convince people to do the same.

Similarly, when I buy wine at the liquor store, the clerk doesn't spend half an hour talking me into buying some esoteric vintage only a wine expert could appreciate.

Apparently most Linux developers feel the same way. They don't want to eat up 80% of their time writing GUI's when they can just write tools that get the job done. It might be different if they were paid to code, but most of them aren't.

The only legitimate reason I can think of to try to convince people to use Linux is to induce developers to contribute to it. These are not people who need convincing to look at an intriguing, free OS.

Why care if non-technically-interested users switch to Linux or not? I can think of two reasons:

(1) Because you think Bill Gates is too rich.

Sounds like jealousy to me. Who cares how much money some guy has?

(2) Because you like to be right---that is, to convince people to believe what you do.

Sounds like insecurity, the need for validation---like people who join organized religions, then go around trying to convert other people. They crave validation. (If you wear underwear on your head, people think you're crazy---but if you get 10,000 other people to do it, it starts to look sensible.) (Hey, isn't that actually how fashion works?)

Why waste precious time worrying what OS other people use? You can't teach pigs to sing---and even if you could, you'd just have a bunch of horrible noise. Sort of like what you hear on the radio. :?)

With due respect, friend, you're missing the point. The user base of a given OS is the warranty (if is there any...) of continuity of existence of that OS.
That's the strongest point.

- A growing user base is a good point for hardware vendors to start considering writing linux drivers for their boards.
- For software companies to port their software to linux.
- For public and govt. agencies who wanna migrate to linux with technical support.

Also, I could argue that as the internet is a common medium for us all to transfer information, it must be of general concern the quality and security of the machines hooked up to it.
But unfortunately, this is yet a long way to go...

With all due respect, but you're wrong here.
This only were the case for Linux if it were sold
to innocent customers who then get caught in
a vicious circle of costly updates.

Distro's that try to survive on selling to the
end-user are always ridden with monetary
problems, and they don't really drive the
develpment of Linux.



Cheers,
Tink

Actually Tinkster, that's not bad idea!
(BTW... I'm a wog – a Polish bloke)

"The point that you miss to see here is that smcop
suggests that there's two classes of users, those
who care to know how things work, and those who
don't. That's not necessarily a distinction between
professionals and laymen. And the point is that there
are people who DON'T give a toss at all. If you install
them a set-box and it does what they want they will
use it, be it Linux or Windows, and they won't care
how long or complex setting them up was... as in his
architect example:"Make it work" "Where's the AutoCAD
CD?" "What do you need that for?" "

Actually it would be better to install Linux, IF AutoCAD or other pro programs would run on it.

My Linux friend did suggested to me that I should install for myself one small Linux machine (And remove after setting it up: keyboard, monitor, mice and run it 24 hours.) as a... router and much more.

I do have two domain names and sites for myself. He has suggested that I could put these domains on my little Linux box, configure it that way so it would be a mail server as well and a hub for other two machines I have on my small network.

I think it's a brilliant idea to be a bit independent from my ISP regards hosting and having so great firewall.

I also do believe that such solution would be perfect for many small businesses.

And... instead of paying for MS servers, for domain hosting etc, some of these money could go to... me for my time of settings it up if I would setup such network for someone else.

Any thoughts about that idea or link to those who are doing such networks?

TIA...

Thanks ;)

I thought wog was referring to Greeks :)
Learn something every day! Btw, how do you
say "Hello" or "Gidday!" in Polish? Similar
to Czech "Dobri dzien"?


I second that ... what is the use of having
different privilege levels in XP if the default
user is admin, and can screw up his system
with a few mouse-clicks? :D

And software that won't run correctly unless
you have admin privileges, even though you
installed it with the option to be working for
all users (*shivers*) ...

Good on yah :)
So do I!

Amen. And the best thing is: since the customer
is likely to be unfamiliar with Linux he won't be
tempted to screw around with the machine once
it's running ;)

I could hunt down a few NZ companies that do
that for you ;)



Cheers,
Tink

Good morning - " Dzieñ Dobry ".

I'll do it with my friend. So idea is good?

I thought so.

Maybe creating a flexible OS like Linux which have to be maintained by pros is not bad idea at all!?

It's been done, and it works. One thing you'll have to
bear in mind is the tremendous amount of documents
out there that won't display properly or at all with open
office (because of the passwords & layout issues).

I'd suggest using Xandros (comes with Codeweawers
cross-office) as a distro. :} (Or use a download distro
and bundle that with Crossoffice).



Cheers,
Tink

i dont even know where to start in linux

if anybody can give me a simple 'exercise' to do on linux to make me feel more comfortable that would be great , lol.

My Level: trying to memorize what rpm stands for

You have all made great points. My personal reason for taking the plunge to linux deals with my career. Being able to use Linux and Windows makes you more marketable. Now that I've begining to take it all in it's actually starting to interest me more and more. I think I'm eventually going to convert all the way over.

-Mr54mk

For a newbie Linux is quite not that easy compared to MS but the extra time to study is worth it. Still, how would you know if Linux is powerful/hard/cool/blah.blah.blah if you dont try it. Thats why here I am burning my eyebrow reading Linux docs just to configure my newly installed Redhat 9Linux (dual boot with WinXP) in my system.

alcanon

Ok, everyone here has made many valid points. I am assuming that many people are confusing, or simply lumping together, the GUI's with linux itself. The GUI's could make linux a bit more user friendly, such as using more wizards and such, and this is an issue that needs to be taken up with the folks that make gnome and KDE (the true desktops, IMO) and those of us who want to run command line will be none the wiser. Window managers will still be the same, just as they should be.

I switch between win98, 2000, xp, rh9... everyday. Each has its own little quirks and insufficiencies, but they all do about the same thing in the end for desktop use. I find KDE 3.1 to be the most intuitive desktop i have ever worked with. For a total newbie, getting on KDE or GNOME and being given sufficient priv's (can mount drives via icon) and such should not require ANY getting to know me more than windows or mac would. I would be willing to bet that the casual user could walk through a basic net search and word processing session on gnome or kde and NEVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE if it was setup with the same icons and all that jazz.

Windows is no picnic from the terminal either, I may add.

Linux as a server system, has MS beat hands down. The security and flexibility is bar none. Anything I want to do I CAN. not only do it as well, but do it for thousands, if not tens of thousands less. This, however, is off topic.

The key to linux as a flexible system for those of us who like to tinker shows up right from boot. MS never gave me as much information as does linux in its boot sequence alone. I can see where that may be intimidating to some, but when it comes to troubleshooting, it is about as useful as it gets. The whole idea of being able to work on it right from the command line and edit every single configuration file is what sold me. If i don't like how someting is working, then all i have to do is #vi /etc/something/something.conf. If all that starting xxxxx OK is too much for you and makes it seem too techincal, go get a coke.

As it has been said, Linux comes on a handfull of discs, but to get all the tools linux comes with, how many disks does it take in ms? One for XP, one or two for office, another for photoshop, another for ..... so the difference is not big at all, I'd tend to say that linux actually takes fewer discs to install and end up with a very useable product.

Installing apps afterwords is a bit harder in linux, but think of A. the money your saving is worth about how many hours at your job? You shold be able to install it in less and still come out a winner, B. think of the controll you have, you can know everything that particular app is going to do, and then fix it if need be; the nice instal shield for windows does not give you so much info. No need to wait for companyX to release a patch or a version 1.02.11.00001 to get it working.

Microsoft needs to have the latest and greatest hardware to run like a dream. I cannot fathom trying to run XP on my 450mhz laptop. RH9 however, lets me multi-task like a pro. Not only that, but the HD is limited, and all the damn updates from MS take up too much room. Also, how many M$ people have resources eaten up by virus scan? On a 450 or so, that can be a huge difference.

The lack of hardware support can seem to be too much to easily overcome for some people. however, if you dont simply go and buy something without any information about it you should be fine. A quick google will tell you if it is supported and about how much T&E is going to have to go into getting it to work. But, if all you want to do is surf and WP, then why do you need too much in hardware anyhow.

The only installs I have ever not been pleased with in about 25 minutes were slack and vector. Mandy and RH are not only hand-holding, intuitive, Feed me all the information I could ever need installers, but very useful to the average user AND there is a help section just a button click away.

Lastly, I dont care if anyone else ever picks up a linux distro, it works for ME! It would be a damn shame, and I offer all the help I can to anyone who does, but I do not feel an ethical or moral imperative to steer clear of windows, nor do i feel the need to convince people that they should dumb M$ because Billy G. is a heartless money grubbing bastard. I like the guy, not the company. His money does go to good use. Hate him, love him, just decide whats best for you with an open mind.

well, thats my rant for now....

till next week when someone posts the same damn thing and we all decide to vent again...

This might have been repeated before (I don't have the time to read 868 posts!) but I just have darn troubles with dependencies. Firstly I hate the rpm system. Maybe it should come with an installer that utilises rpm.

Instead of "omg you don't have this rpm, this rpm" and especially when you're all over google trying to find the proper rpm (after the site you downloaded it from doesn't have anything else) and experimenting with all the options and dependencies, there could be more helpfulness.

I wish the interactivity of the make system can be implemented in rpm. Also many love to point to some site where the dependency is located and you spent hours trying to find the right one, only to find that needs another dependency. What is needed, is, (perhaps a list of locations) "You do not have the dependencies, would you like to download it?" and should all else fail, fall back to the manual way.

A registry should be set up as well, to allow for more flexible installations, and where all dependencies and files are recorded and stored as variables. Or something to that extent.

The rest is mainly my frustrations at Wine(X) not properly translating the WinAPI code, but I think thats software based, not OS.