I agree 50% with jamyskis. However, I really do, believe that some peoples just have to stay in Windows. I mean, there's nothing wrong with Windows is it? Especially if you are just going to surf the web and use text processing? Why they want to change to Linux and make Linux to be more like Windows is where I think it's play wrong. It's just like saying "Let's make easier to pilot a plane, because peoples just want to fly from Asia to Oceania and they don't have the time to learn all the buttons on the panel". There's nothing wrong with Linux or Windows, but they surely are for different targets. And I don't see anything wrong with that either...

I think it would be better though if we looked at two distros like Mandrake and Gentoo as being two different operating systems - although they're both based on the Linux kernel they are very different in their methods. The difference is that unlike, say, Mandrake and Windows, programs between two Linux distros are more or less compatible with each other.

And if you're just going to surf and type letters, do you really want to pay 100€ just for the OS so that you can run the programs that make it possible to do this?

I don't recall anyone being forced to use Linux. If it's too hard for you, or you're too lazy to learn how to use it effectively, just stick to Windows.

There are many newbie oriented distros out there these days and they all share some common problems in that they are typically bloated, slower, and less stable. Hmm, kinda sounds like Windows.

Linux isn't Windows, nor should it be "like WIndows". Linux was never intended to be a mainstream replacement for Windows. I find it to be a very good alternative for someone willing to actually learn how to use it.

If someone chooses to use Linux the onus is on them to learn how, not on the developers to cater to lazy people. The very things that make linux more stable and reliable are many of the same things that would be defeated by dumbing down Linux for the lowest common denominator.

Yes, there is room for improvement in certain areas like hardware drivers, especially in the area of printing, but that has far more to do with the manufacturer's lack of Linux support than anything else.

I am all for someone building distros aimed at newbies and lazy people if that's what they choose to do. I am not for supporting lazy people who complain that Linux is "too hard" for them simply because they they are too lazy to learn how to use it. Nobody is forcing anybody to use Linux, it's a choice.

Linux is hard since when?

Let's compare WinXP install and Linux.

With WinXP you first spend an hour installing Xp, rebooting several times then you need to have the various cd for your hardware drivers. The last time I did a windows install it took almost 2 hours.

With the distros I have tried namely Xandros, Mandriva, Knoppix, PCLINUXOS, and Debian SId, all I had to do was insert the cd click OK a few times and within 30 minutes I had a working Linux desktop.

The problem is people expect Linux to be "windows", it isn't and never will be hopefully.

How many times do we see newbies complaining that the CLI is too difficult and they want a GUI to do everything? The CLI is far more flexible and powerful than a GUI. If you want to learn Linux then you need to learn how to use CLI.

Accept the fact that it takes time to learn a new system. How long did it take you to learn to really use windows?

A little tip: learning to really use the power of Linux involves reading and trial and error. Most of the people that complain that Linux is to hard have never taken the time to even read the documentation that is available for their distro. Take the time to look over the man pages for your programs, read all of the available doumentation for the distro you choose.

Know before you try to install any distro whether it will run on the hardware you have on your system, that will save you quite a few headaches wondering why something isn't working.

All that said I do not believe Linux is any harder than Windows. I have been windows free since November when I first install Debian Sid.

So what about choice for those who find it too hard? What's wrong with a Linux distro being tailored to cater for their needs and abilities? This kind of perception is why Windows is so dominant in the market.

Quote:

There are many newbie oriented distros out there these days and they all share some common problems in that they are typically bloated, slower, and less stable. Hmm, kinda sounds like Windows.

I partly agree, but it's a trade-off in user-friendliness and a flatter learning curve. Besides, even the newbie distros, while not as stable as something like Slack, are still many times more stable than Windoze.

Quote:

Linux isn't Windows, nor should it be "like WIndows". Linux was never intended to be a mainstream replacement for Windows. I find it to be a very good alternative for someone willing to actually learn how to use it.

Linux is a command line. KDE and Gnome are programs (sorry, desktop environments) that allow the less Bash-inclined to use a more Windows-like environment. Linux wasn't really intended for anything specifically. If you want it to be like Windows, it can be. If you want it to be like old-skool Linux, running from BASH, it can be. You're right, it is a very good alternative for people willing to learn how to use it, but it's also a good alternative OS for people in general.

Quote:

If someone chooses to use Linux the onus is on them to learn how, not on the developers to cater to lazy people. The very things that make linux more stable and reliable are many of the same things that would be defeated by dumbing down Linux for the lowest common denominator.

No, crap programming is the cause of a degradation in stability. When people say that Windows-like GUIs are automatically the cause for an unstable system, it is because they are only comparing it to Windows. Take one look at Mac OS X for a stable, easy desktop OS - far better (still prefer KDE though)

Quote:

Yes, there is room for improvement in certain areas like hardware drivers, especially in the area of printing, but that has far more to do with the manufacturer's lack of Linux support than anything else.

Making CUPS idiot-proof would be a start, but HP's support of Linux has gotten the OS far in printing support, together with their idiot-proof guide on how to configure CUPS.

Quote:

I am all for someone building distros aimed at newbies and lazy people if that's what they choose to do. I am not for supporting lazy people who complain that Linux is "too hard" for them simply because they they are too lazy to learn how to use it. Nobody is forcing anybody to use Linux, it's a choice.

It all depends on what they are finding "too hard". If it's because everything isn't in exactly the same place as Windows, then fair enough, I agree with you. But don't flame people simply because they prefer to have everything with a friendly GUI front-end. The problem with Linux is that many things don't have friendly front-ends (some, like CUPS, have front-ends, but they sure as hell ain't friendly) and you have to rely on editing raw text files to configure a program. WINE is a major culprit, but when configuring the XF86 Graphical Server is more easily done by editing xorg.conf itself than doing it through X itself (a nightmare on many distros) or xf86config (even more of a nightmare), you can see something is wrong.

Windows is hard.. Linux is easy. I get all confused using the Windows GUI.. and the other day at work while I was on a Windows machine troubleshooting NetBackup, I kept typing ls in a command prompt, getting errors.. when I should have been typing dir..

But this thread has got to certainly be the most boring thread currently still getting replies to.. :yawns:

2000+ replies actually! More than AIX and Other *NIX forums together. Also more than Linux - News, Articles and Editorials and equal to 2% of this General forum at the moment.

Reading some of the replies, I get the impression I should be trying Mandrake or SuSe for some of the features I want. One of these days, (when I have the time for some tinkering...) I'll do that.

Meantime, I want to correct the impression I like the WinXP *design*. Hell, no. Ugly as sin. When I say "Mac-like" or "XP-like" frontend, all I mean is that there should be the option--stress *option*--to click on something and have everything taken care of for you if you happen to be a user without a clue.

It should be just one option. One of the best things about Linux is the ability to do anything you want with the OS, if you know what you're doing, with none of this you-can't-get-there-from-here BS that's such a feature of both XP and Macs. I'm just talking about an extra layer at the front end, which you could use or not as it suited you, a sort of second-shell-for-the-clueless, that would make Linux OS transparent to those who don't understand it and/or don't have the time to understand it.

very well put, it is exactly how I feel.

Mandrake, Fedora, and all those other distros that are meant for "easy" purposes, are BLOATED, what does bloated mean, it means it's slower, which is 100% true, my first distribution was RedHat 9, and let me tell you, it was 100x slower than what I'm running, and what I have ran, which includes, UBUNTU (quite easy), Mepis (quite easy), gentoo (quite difficult), slackware (somewhat difficult)

I never bashed anyone for using mandrake or fedora, it's good to use linux, but they are such different than everything stated above.

And if you don't want to hear "read and learn linux", why not? It's what I did, and I've come a LOOOONG way from where I used to be, it really helps, if you really don't want to read to learn linux (it's not even hard, just read basic commands, and get knowledge) then don't keep saying it should be easy like windows, and look like it. Comparing a great operating system such as linux to windows, really is sickening.

If you are a previous windows user, and don't want to take up some of your time (FOR a GREAT CAUSE) reading and understanding what linux is about, why even use it...

seriously, I don't enjoy reading, but google about linux, you will be glad you did, I first heard about it from a cousin, and we installed redhat, then I was getting more interested in it, because of how great it was, even with an easy distro, so I read about basic commands, and found table of equivalents to windows, and everything was free, so I read, even though I don't like to read, and it is worthwhile trust me, and to those of you who don't want to read, well......Come on people, it's facts, you can learn it so much easier and faster if you just read, so don't complain about it being hard,and not wanting to read, if you want a simple, unstable, bloated desktop stick to windows, enough said, not like I reccomend it though.

Hi All,

Well this thread has run and run, hasn't it? However, I don't think that enough attention has been paid to the difficulties that can be experienced in simply installing a distro to start with.

I bought a selection of modern distros to start my Linux experience. The first one installed beautifully but kept flickering my monitor screen. I thought that could be expensive so ditched the distro.
The second one didn't install at all - it just froze part way through. The third one installed well but didn't, somehow, co-exist very happily with Windows. The next one beggered things up beautifully. Apparently it uses Lilo whereas I was partitioned, or something, using Grub.

A couple more distros came and went with various problems with my hardware. I now have Libranet installed in a dual boot system with XP, pretty satisfactorily. My monitor functions well, my scrolling mouse is recognised, and I've connected to my ISP okay. Better than anything else so far.

But the trouble is now that my printer isn't recognised at all. This is a huge problem for a beginner to Linux. Sure, I can look up commands and tutorials and howtos on the Web but it ain't easy studying those on the screen. I've found a good tutorial which I need to read on paper to be able to use the computer as instructed. But I can't.

So after months of intermittent trying, I still haven't started to actually learn Linux. Reading the many and various forums on the web leads me to believe that easy installation would be a huge step forward for the Linux community.

We can't learn Linux unless we have a Linux computer.

Well, sounds like you're having some linux difficulties, first of all, the problem with the first distro you tried, was the refresh rate at 60 hertz, you need to change it to 85, and change the video card driver.

The booting with winxp is not that much of an issue, in /boot/grub/menu.1st (i believe) or /boot/grub/grub.conf, you can easily add a windows xp line.

Freezing in the install is the only thing that couldnt be fixed.

And actually there are some fairly easy installs already out there, such as, anaconda (redhat/fedora), mandrake, suse, mepis, ubuntu, debian unstable.

Some <most> installs are not graphical, but the text installs are also fairly very easy, since you do not know much about it, just read it and follow it step by step, I'd highly reccomend installing Ubuntu, or Mepis, for a first time distribution, heck, even try mandrake or fedora, these are all quite easy distributions.

I understand being a new linux user is hard, but all linux users had to start in the same position, trying distro after distro, personally, I'd reccomend mepis or ubuntu for first distro, only because it's based off debian, and has apt, which is a very good package manager.

I think that this forum points out the major problem with what people see Linux as. Linux is only a platform as. You don't see people saying "Make unix easier to use." No, who has done that Apple. Linux developers will not make Linux easier to use. Companies will. Companies such as REMOVED ADVERTISING are working to making finding a preinstalled linux pc and compatible products. We are starting out small but in the coming months will be adding some very exciting products. But please do not wait for Linux and developers to make Linux super easy to use. That is the job of distributions, and companies.

Thats my .02 .

I'd just like to highlight this point - if the only reason people should use Linux is to support a cause, why use it? Not many people are as emotionally or ethically involved with the IT community - they want a tool that works and gets the job done. If you people are so intent on keeping Linux more difficult to use and keep saying that people who can't be bothered to learn should stick with Windows, all you're doing is undermining Linux' progress not only as a general desktop OS but also as a server OS for SMEs.

Contrary to popular belief Slack is not the best way to learn Linux, especially not if you have little prior experience with computers. How do you propose teaching someone about the Linux kernel when they're confused by the Linux file system itself, which is more complex than Windows? The "bloated" distros as you say serve their job perfectly well. You have the option of installing bloatware or a minimal system - my Mandrake LE 2005 installation only takes up around 800MB even with everything that I need, and I have absolutely no problems with speed.

when i said great cause, i basically meant great os, because what would the cause be? Most linux distros are free, so you're not supporing anything. And linux is a toll that gets the job done, and if I may point out, 5000x better than windows. Linux installas last longer than windows installs, if you don't mess anything up.

And I highly doubt that anyone said slack was the best way to learn linux, from my current experience with it, I have 3 gigs of files installed, and it runs faster than any distribution I've ever ran, and that's quite a few.

TO sum it up, Mandrake, Fedora, or other FREE easy distro are great for a first distribution, but I reccomend taking a step further, and maybe trying a faster distribution, such as debian or slackware, Debian unstable is an incredible easy install, people just don't want to go through a text-based installation, slackware is the same way, great easy installation option now, the only problem is, you need to edit some files, and actually config some things yourself, which is not a big deal at all. So Mandrake runs fast for you, I assume it's a faster computer, because trying to run mandrake on 1.2 ghz duron awhile back, was quite slow, and I ran DEBIAN, on the exact same machine, except it had some newer files, and it was incredibly fast, compared to mandrake.

In my opinion, explore your options, some distributions will have different qualities, and you have to decide what you want, personally, I'd reccomend, MEPIS, or UBUNTU for a first distribution, they are the fastest, and still easy distributions, easy installs, easy configuration.

here's a quote from myself "if you want a simple, unstable, bloated desktop stick to windows, enough said, not like I reccomend it though."

yes I AM telling you to stick to windows, if you keep complaining about how hard it is, because you don't even want to bother learning it, linux is completely different than windows, that's why you need to learn how to use it, and you can't do that by complaining about how hard it is. You must have time to learn it, if you have time to complain about learning it, and how hard it is.

Look, I'm getting so pissed off at people who say that you have to use your brain in order to know Linux, and that it shouldn't be simple etc. You think it's funny to insult our intelligence? No offense guys, but there are some of us who just don't have time to spend many hours on just trying to learn how to install Firefox. There are some of us who just don't care about compiling from source, or becoming equal to Linus Thorvalds and his authority, in order to just use his OS. And when I say "some", I really mean 90% of the entire world, because that's the reason why Micro$oft is huge today. You really think people care about an OS that gives you a headache for installing software on it?

I've been using Mandrake 10.2 now for a little while. The installation of the entire OS is easy, I would even dare to say that it's easier than Windows. The rest of the OS is pretty easy too. But when it comes to installing software, it's a pain in the ass. Sure, rpm packages are easy and they install great with perfect ease. But that's of course, provided that you find them. I still haven't figured out how to use easyrpm/urpmi or whatever those rpm sites are called.

Don't get me wrong guys, I like Linux, I want everyone to use it just because I hate Micro$oft, and I think that Linux has an awesome ideology with it being free and all, but it's far from perfect yet. And I'm not talking about bugfixes. I think that the entire open source/GPL community knows how to standardise Linux and make software executable setups that work universally on every Linux distro, but for some reason, they haven't. If you want to be a 1337 h4xx0rz and use command lines for everything, including wiping your own ass, then that's fine with me. I on the other hand, don't. That's the reason why I use an operating system like Windows XP and not MS-DOS or some archaic stuff like that.

I think Linux is great, I love that it has security, and stability. But if anyone says that it has equal user friendliness of Windows, then he's got his head up his ass. Period. This post might sound a bit extreme, as if I were pissed off when I wrote it. Don't get me wrong buys, I'm really not pissed off at anyone, I shouldn't even be complaining since it's a free OS and no one is forcing me to use it. But it's just the frustration I get when using it that's being displayed here.