I've been thinking about this talk about making Linux more popular and user friendly
Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Linux should remain the way it is. If I set up a computer with Linux on it, an average user can use it for there general needs (ie.- email, web surfing). The only time you start having people getting confused is when you start configuring server services and in that case the grandmother analogy is out the window cause that user has some advanced knowledge.
People like dumbed down versions cause they usually don't want to put the effort into learning. That is why there will always be a need for companies like MS.
I think alot of the problem is getting people to install linux in the first place. I mean there are so many people are there who are frightened to death of repartitioning and configuring all the hardware. There needs to be a computer manufactuer that builds boxes with linux preinstalled, and everything ready to go.
It's a paradox, you want to get the newbies away from microsoft by giving them an easy to configure gui, but at the same time, they have to know where to get linux, what to do when repartitioning, and lets face it, most people have absolutly no clue about thier hardware besides the ghz number of the cpu.
Originally posted by sh1ft I think alot of the problem is getting people to install linux in the first place. I mean there are so many people are there who are frightened to death of repartitioning and configuring all the hardware. There needs to be a computer manufactuer that builds boxes with linux preinstalled, and everything ready to go.
Well there's Walmart using Lindows. Two bad things taste horrible together. Dell used to sell linux pc's as well, which was ironic: proprietary-non-standard hardware running open source software.
I bet you hate Debian. digiot said it best: "I worry about how many newbies have run screaming back to Windows after trying a Debian install, never to return."
I think what would really help linux move along to nebies and guru's alike is if more manufactures would create linux drivers for their products instead of only coming out with Windows drivers. Take Linksys wireless cards....the Broadcom chipset isn't support and they don't want to make drivers for it. Once manufacturers start making them, it will be much easier.
Yeah, but with all the different versions of linux out there, isn't a little difficult for them to do so? My wireless NIC came with drivers, but they were only for RedHat. Luckily RedHat is my OS.
My thing is just to have one Linux OS as a platform for these companies to make dirvers and software for. Not trying to destroy Linux or inhibit its open-sropuce community, but just give developers one or two OS to have to develop for, that's all.
if you think about it MS was alot like linux. i mean. back in the day all there was, was IBM and when windows started to pop up everyone cheered for them, finaly some os besides IBM. but then MS got big and started charging big bucks. Everyone is cheering for linux cuzz it's free (in 90% of the cases) and its somthing other then MS. I may be wrong but it looks like history will repeat it self.
oh and about the live cd. yeah i know how to download ISO and burn them to CD-R what i have a problem with is making my own custom cd, for my needs. cuzz all of the CD making docs say that I need to know the basics of Linux, which i don't. none of them and user friendly (makes it hard to break into linux with how closed out it is)
Originally posted by Maver ohh and what did you guys think of my free 3D FPS idea of having a entire community working on it?
I think it's sort of being done. OpenGL. But I think that building a game engine on top of opengl, that everyone can make games in- that'd be a good idea. An open source gaming engine.
But what you were talking about sounds like an open source game. I don't think that's a good idea. Open source engine, sure, but open source game no. It's the difference between a bunch of people working on making a great paintbrush, and a bunch of people painting the same painting.