LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > LinuxQuestions.org > Linux - News
User Name
Password
Linux - News This forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-17-2014, 07:54 PM   #391
garpu
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2009
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 88

Rep: Reputation: 37

I didn't do much with computers until grad school. (Not beyond email, Finale, and word processing.) My best friend during my Master's was a big computer geek. (Truth be told, he still is.) He offhandedly mentioned that there was another choice besides Windows and Apple back then. I was curious, and another friend (who later became my fiancÚ) traded an old computer for a loaf of homemade bread and shipping costs. April 23, 2000 my best friend helped me put Debian on it. (And I discovered that the other friend I got the computer from thought of me as more than a friend, but that's another story for another post. )

Not long after that my windows box went belly up, and I moved to do my doctorate. I didn't have much (read: any) money, so I made do with computers Frankensteined from the charity of friends and Boeing Surplus. I certainly didn't have the money for Windows, and I doubt it would've ran on the computers I cobbled together. When I started the DMA, I was taking an intro to computer music class, figuring I'd at least need some common ground with students who might be working in that medium. I got hooked, and all the tools we were using (csound, LISP) existed as ports to Linux. I switched to Slackware around version 9.1, and still use it. I had an ill-fated few months where I used Arch, but I ran screaming for Slackware when I couldn't take it anymore. I used an LFS install for a few months between Debian and Slackware, but maintaining your own distro is really a full time job (props to the Slackware crew), and I just didn't have time for it and a dissertation.
 
Old 08-17-2014, 11:04 PM   #392
accessbob
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2004
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: 0
how I started

Y2K looked for something to replace the OS I had that I knew was vulnerable.
 
Old 08-18-2014, 07:43 AM   #393
herbpagel
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2014
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Smile How I got started in Linux

Linux was a life-saver. How can anyone justify putting hundreds of dollars into the OS if you are building a computer from scratch or refurbishing/upgrading one to save money? It's a no-brainer.
 
Old 08-18-2014, 09:39 AM   #394
LceeL
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 0
Oh, those many years ago ...

I first got into Linux out of need. I had begun to go through Tannenbaum's book on Operating System Design (out of fascination, more than anything else) and, at the same time, discovered a system "in development" called Coherent which was an excellent learning tool, but, at the time, had no tcp/ip stack. Just after the release of the 1.0 kernel, I found and installed yggdrasil and the rest is history. As I recall, it was 1994. I have been a Linux Evangelist ever since.

My only quarrel with Linux and the Linux Developers is the inability, on their part, to develop an environment which would allow a novice, untrained User to successfully use Linux as a Desktop System - and by "successfully use" I mean, not only install and use the operating system, but add software WITHOUT the need to go to a command line. Apple did it - they implemented their Mac environment over BSD Unix so that Mac Users are just at home in OS X as they were in earlier versions of their O/S. Why cannot Linux is beyond me.
 
Old 08-18-2014, 10:43 AM   #395
brashley46
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Distribution: Xubuntu 14.04 on the desktop, Android 4.4.4 on the tablet, Android 4.3 on the phone
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: 16
Quote:
My only quarrel with Linux and the Linux Developers is the inability, on their part, to develop an environment which would allow a novice, untrained User to successfully use Linux as a Desktop System - and by "successfully use" I mean, not only install and use the operating system, but add software WITHOUT the need to go to a command line. Apple did it - they implemented their Mac environment over BSD Unix so that Mac Users are just at home in OS X as they were in earlier versions of their O/S. Why cannot Linux is beyond me.
I'm not sure I understand you, what with Synaptic etc. the only thing I need to add via the console is the updates of Calibre.
 
Old 08-18-2014, 11:05 AM   #396
tronayne
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Northeastern Michigan, where Carhartt is a Designer Label
Distribution: Slackware 32- & 64-bit Stable
Posts: 3,110

Rep: Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810
I (kinda) have to agree with @brashley46: I've a friend that was given a Dell notebook (I think that's what it is, it's a like a little laptop sort of gadget) with Xubuntu installed. It boots, it auto connects to her wi-fi, comes up running Xfce and it's click-'n'-drool from there. Has Firefox, has Thunderbird (I insisted that she adopt those on her Win7 desktop, so those are OK), has OpenOffice, pretty much does everything invisibly that needs doing. She moves easily from Win7 to Xfce, thing updates itself (almost daily it seems).

I'm not all that impressed with it -- it does work, it works well, but I like having control and it's real hard to get control of the thing which seems to be common with any of the 'buntus.' But the important thing is that it's invisible to the user and she's happy using it.

Can't be all bad, eh?
 
Old 08-19-2014, 11:25 PM   #397
Djyou
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2013
Distribution: Whatever works for the job.
Posts: 23

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
2010 my dad bought a linux book. Came with a dvd the had somewhere between 4-6 distros. Ubuntu was my first but i've been dabbling ever since.
 
Old 08-20-2014, 08:14 AM   #398
LceeL
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 0
I mis-spoke ...

It seems I've misspoken about the lack of a "usable" GUI environment for Linux - I suppose that my focus on my chosen O/S has limited my vision into the rest of "Linux" and the many distros out there. I'm currently running openSuSE 13.1 as my desktop, at work, and my "big" system at home. I also own a MacBook Pro running OS X, so I'm familiar with that environment, as well.

Ubuntu, Zorin, and several other Distros provide a User with the ability to insert the DVD and never look at a command line as long as they use their systems. The problem is, as I see it, that no one knows or understands this except the community of Linux Users, so perhaps the failure on the part of the Linux Developer Community isn't so much a failure to deliver a Novice Usable System as it is a failure in Public Relations. A failure in Education. A failure to advertise the fact that MSWindows is not the only solution to their computing needs in a manner that says "There is no reason to fear change".

So which is the bigger failure? The failure to bring to market a viable system (which is, as we know, inaccurate), or the failure to garner any mindshare in the general Computing Population?
 
Old 08-20-2014, 10:33 AM   #399
tronayne
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Northeastern Michigan, where Carhartt is a Designer Label
Distribution: Slackware 32- & 64-bit Stable
Posts: 3,110

Rep: Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810Reputation: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by LceeL View Post
So which is the bigger failure? The failure to bring to market a viable system (which is, as we know, inaccurate), or the failure to garner any mindshare in the general Computing Population?
I don't think it's either of those.

OS X is, after all, BSD with bells and whistles; it's Unix (more or less). Android is Linux. Both isolate users totally from the guts and balls of the system -- you're not supposed to fiddle around with command line, configuration (beyond the absolute minimum) or much of anything else. You're just supposed to use it: click-'n'-drool, baby.

I happen to use Slackware for all my computing needs. I have two data base servers that run headless and are administered via SSH and a terminal window. Slackware lets me do that easily and is reliable and stable as all get-out. My main system runs Xfce (with which I am completely satisfied), my lap top (which does not get a lot of use) is the same, Xfce, pretty much a mirror of my working system. I don't give a hoot about eye candy, do system administration on the command line, don't play games (well, 4-suit Spider Solitaire every so often), don't watch movies, don't do social media, don't do any of the things that every kid you see with a "smart" phone does.

I think the thrust of many Linux distributions has been computer-as-appliance. I think a lot of them have actually gotten there. We want as many people as possible to be Linux users, we hope that at least some of them become competent with the innards and, maybe, become developers in the open source world. That distributions can be plugged in, hooked up, turned on and work from the get-go is a good thing -- not for everybody (certainly not for me, I can't stand 'em).

Onward and upward?

Hope this helps some.
 
Old 08-20-2014, 05:06 PM   #400
Germany_chris
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 616

Rep: Reputation: 227Reputation: 227Reputation: 227
OSX is Unix and has been since 10.5 but it is not BSD

FreeBSD is Just OS X Without the Good Bits

This is as much a myth about OS X as about FreeBSD: that OS X is just FreeBSD with a pretty GUI. The two operating systems do share a lot of code, for example most userland utilities and the C library on OS X are derived from FreeBSD versions. Some of this code flow works in the other direction, for example FreeBSD 9.1 and later include a C++ stack and compiler that were originally developed for OS X, with major parts of the work done by Apple employees. Other parts are very different.

The XNU kernel used on OS X includes a few subsystems from (older versions of) FreeBSD, but is mostly an independent implementation. The similarities in the userland, however, make it much easier to port OS X code to FreeBSD than any other system. For example, both libdispatch (Grand Central Dispatch in Apple's marketing) and libc++ were written for OS X and worked on FreeBSD before any other OS.

https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths

Last edited by Germany_chris; 08-20-2014 at 05:08 PM.
 
Old 08-20-2014, 05:10 PM   #401
szboardstretcher
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2006
Location: Detroit, MI
Distribution: GNU/Linux systemd
Posts: 3,391
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 1109Reputation: 1109Reputation: 1109Reputation: 1109Reputation: 1109Reputation: 1109Reputation: 1109Reputation: 1109Reputation: 1109
Quote:
OSX is Unix and has been since 10.5 but it is not BSD
Apple disagrees.

(Dated 7/15/2014)
https://developer.apple.com/library/...echnology.html

Heres a snippet:
Quote:
The lowest layer of OS X includes the kernel, drivers, and BSD portions of the system and is based primarily on open source technologies.

Last edited by szboardstretcher; 08-20-2014 at 05:11 PM.
 
Old 08-24-2014, 10:30 PM   #402
badsector
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2014
Distribution: Suse, Slackware, Mageia, Debian
Posts: 39

Rep: Reputation: 0
How could I ever forget it?

I was on 'Compuserve' with my Amiga I think when I read a swedish guy post what went something like this:

'well I use Slackware Linux on my 486 and I can also get everything else for free on the internet'

A short message which for me then included 5 total unknowns

1 - Slackware
2 - Linux
3 - 486
4 - Internet
5 - Free

:-)
 
Old 08-24-2014, 11:09 PM   #403
GaWdLy
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2013
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: RHEL/CentOS/Fedora
Posts: 344

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by LceeL View Post
I first got into Linux out of need. I had begun to go through Tannenbaum's book on Operating System Design (out of fascination, more than anything else) and, at the same time, discovered a system "in development" called Coherent which was an excellent learning tool, but, at the time, had no tcp/ip stack. Just after the release of the 1.0 kernel, I found and installed yggdrasil and the rest is history. As I recall, it was 1994. I have been a Linux Evangelist ever since.

My only quarrel with Linux and the Linux Developers is the inability, on their part, to develop an environment which would allow a novice, untrained User to successfully use Linux as a Desktop System - and by "successfully use" I mean, not only install and use the operating system, but add software WITHOUT the need to go to a command line. Apple did it - they implemented their Mac environment over BSD Unix so that Mac Users are just at home in OS X as they were in earlier versions of their O/S. Why cannot Linux is beyond me.
Fedora and CentOS and Red Hat all work out of the box in a fairly intuitive way without ever touching the command line. I'm sure many, many others do, too.

In the rhel 5 Era, and before, I agree with you. Things were awful in the Linux desktop world.
 
Old 08-25-2014, 06:46 AM   #404
Germany_chris
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 616

Rep: Reputation: 227Reputation: 227Reputation: 227
You think?

I find this CENTOS install I'm using less intuitive and harder to deal with than my Arch install. Repos that conflict a package that won't sync across repos and the base I've got three days into setting up what would take me an hour or two in Arch. Having said all that some of my problems are probably mine but intuitive is not what I'd call it it rigid is what I'd call it.
 
Old 08-25-2014, 11:34 PM   #405
GaWdLy
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2013
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: RHEL/CentOS/Fedora
Posts: 344

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Germany_chris View Post
You think?

I find this CENTOS install I'm using less intuitive and harder to deal with than my Arch install. Repos that conflict a package that won't sync across repos and the base I've got three days into setting up what would take me an hour or two in Arch. Having said all that some of my problems are probably mine but intuitive is not what I'd call it it rigid is what I'd call it.
You should be a to install the base system, update it, and easily add software...just as I said. Now, if you're adding extra repos, or installing compatibility libs, or other things, it might get complicated. You honestly should have no issues installing the base os, and updating it within less than an hour.

PM me if you need a hand sorting things.
 
  


Reply

Tags
home


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: How the Open Invention Network Protects Linux and Open Source (Video) LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-27-2013 08:01 AM
where is the source codes for the open source drivers for each linux distros centguy Linux - Software 9 01-02-2009 12:14 PM
LXer: Global Summit of Open Source Leaders Releases Free Online Report on State of Commercial Open Source LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 05-04-2007 09:46 AM
LXer: Open Source Geospatial Foundation Selects Tyler Mitchell, Open Source Advocate, as Executive Director LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-19-2006 10:54 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:06 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration