Hehe! I suppose it ought to be! In my experience, most fellow geeks are usually comp. sci. students, or comp. sci. ex-students, or maths/physics... you name it. Now, I am a Bio. grad, which, to be honest, doesn't normally harbour many computer savvy people, let alone geeks such as myself! I really am a rareity, so I suppose, for my situation I would be an übergeek! But I am quite happy with that - but I am not a nerd!

Every OS has it's pros and cons, while linux mostly has pros once youve got used to it. Still some things just keep on annoying day after day, until you are so tired with them that you are routinised. But still after you are totally used to it, when you face the same little thing you think "Oh s***, here we go again...".

I have only 2 things yet annoying me:
1) Library/package depencies. Almost every package (or program) I'm going to install tell me something at the configure or make that I don't have the library, unable to install, go find the library or install other program that has the library.
Normally I end up installing programs I would never use, and those packages can be 10* the package I was originally going to install!
2) Filepaths are not standardized. I had this very good game, Phobia 3, wich I was going to install. I knew I had all the packages but it still wasn't able to find them. I needed to write location of every single 2kb library file BY HAND, and there was actually 20 rows of text! Anyway the game was (and is) excellent but next time I meet the same problem... no, I don't do it again.

Post your thoughts, people!

jees

adas, i merged this thread with your one, as you can see it's all the same question...

My comments are Redhat specific, and they have come a LONG way since I started with 5.0.

I just upgraded Redhat 7.3 to 8.0 on my "play" computer (my server is running 7.3). It was a pain, but I wonder how much was the distro's fault.

I did an upgrade first. 4 Megs from the end, on the last package, the CD drive "got tired" and started giving errors. After 15 minutes of it, I rebooted.

The install program didn't know how to handle it, apparantly, and I ended up deleting my partitions in fdisk to start from scratch (as I say -- "play" computer -- mostly used in win98.

So what bothered me about the install and use?

1) Too few choices: Am I going to get the right packages by doing a default selection?

2)Too many choices: I've got 400 packages to select individually. How many of them do I really need? Granted the descriptions are much better than the previous "cryptic name only", but still hard.

3) Dependancies: I have screwed up so many times by not choosing the right selections. I recall once I accidentally selected one Gnome package when I was trying to do a lightweight CLI only install. It insisted on installing X and everything associated for the sake of one inadvertantly selected seldom-used tool.

4) partitioning: Always a pain. You have to dig deep to find good info for a newbie on recommended partitioning schemes. If you want to dual boot, you have to select your own sizes, and there is little to go on. Adding a partition resizer to the install program would be a nice touch as well.

5) Program installation: RPM is good, but it still has a long way to go towards user friendlyness. At times I've compiled programs simply because the documentation included step by step instructions on installation, rather than the "download this package", followed by multiple errors because you didn't get all the dependancies or install in the correct order or under the right user.

6) techie attitudes: OK, I'm probably as guilty as anyone on this one, but Linux is written by hackers for hackers. Any time I come across documentation for a tool I'd like that states something like "install in the usual manner" I want to tear someone's head off. On the other hand, when when hear users "but I don't want to read anything, I just want to click and go!" I get just as frustrated.

Linux distros have come a long way towards usability, but there is still lots of room to move before the average idiot can use it. I've never had a chance to do and "idiot install" with all defaults to see how it would work. I haven't used the UI beyond mozilla (no change from windows!) since I installed 8.0, but it looks good.

Michael

Touche! I do feel that this is probably a very nasty sticking point, but to be honest, when almost everything is always in development, you can't afford to have nice 'InstallShield' style installers with every release. Since 9/10 times the 'usual manner' will involve reading the readme and install files before attempting anything, it's not really that bad - once you get into the habit, you forget how hard you originally thought it was! Also, with regard to the idiot-proofing of distros: I think that it is a double edged sword. Linux is all about choice. If you have one set of distros that are aimed plainly at the Windowphiles, and another set of distros that are aimed at those that are happy to run something that isn't a Windows clone, then you'll get problems. People that choose the Windows-clone distros might, at some point, want to try other distros. They effectively can't because, although they can claim to be running Linux, the two systems will be very different. That, in part, is why I advise people not to look at Lycoris/Redmond or Lindows as alternatives. I advise people that if they want to try Linux, but don't want to be thrown in at the deep end, that they go for Mandrake. It's suitably Windowsesque to be familiar, yet suitably different that it isn't Windows. It is also quite happy at having the guts tweaked out of it without complaining, thus behaving much more like other Linux distros.

Thanks for the thoughts.

£0.02

Whats wrong with rebuilding a kernel? If it is really that hard to use then dont use it. See you have to be WILLING to work with linux to make it do everything you want. This is a positive side of linux, you can REBUILD the kernel of a system to make it work best with your current hardwear. You cant do that with windows at all. Besides ive never had problems rebuilding kernels. Its a little bit of work, but that never killed anyone.

Where does it say that you need to recompile the whole Linux kernel? I was under the impression that you only needed to compile new modules against your existing kernel, which is as painless as simply compiling any other program from source!

First, 2 things:
a) I am VERY newbie, so i´ll speak as a n00b
b) I am Spanish and my English isn´t perfect

I have been using w98 for 4 years (my first pc, the one i am using now ). At the beggining it was very hard, but as i LOVE computers, i learnt from 0.
Last summer a friend of mine gave me mdk 8,2. I went to his house and while he was burning the cds, he started to show me linux... i simply could say "WOV...".
But of course it was a CONFIGURED version of Debian.

I installed it in my pc and everything was wonderful.
I didn´t know how to use it, so i started to touch everything (always as a normal user ). In this point i must agree with some people. I had been using w98 for 4 years and 1 day with linux. I have no idea how to use linux, but i don´t think that it´s more difficult that W98. Well, perhaps yes. I mean, when i started w98 (i started with w95 and then i bought w98) i had no idea, but i learnt. w98 is a VERY easy OS, no doubt, u can install whatever and i had no problems.
If I had installed Linux, i would have learnt Linux, no doubt too. But bad fortune gave me w98
I think that it´s like a language. For a boy that doesn´t know any language, learn the parent´s one is easy. But once he has grown up it´s more difficult to learn another one. And once he is an adult is VERY difficult to learn another one. There´s no more-difficult-language, simply the first tongue we learn, the tongue we speak.
At least in PCs, surely that a Linux user can use Windows with no help, but a Windows user will have problems using Linux *sigh*

Windows was designed to be easy, easy use, easy configuration, etc.
But if u want to install, configure and use Linux, it can be a nightmare, specially if u have no free time.
And i think this is linux´s problem. for people that want to use the pc, linux isn´t a good option. In order to use linux u have to know how to configure it, how to repair, etc (except if u work in a company and there´s a guy that repairs them ). And people don´t want to do that.
It´s like a car. U want to drive, end. u don´t mind the engine, how it works, etc. But maybe u are one of that fanatic people that loves car. u know how it works, u can repair it, u can trick a car, etc.
The same as PCs. Many people want to use it. They use W98, end. But another people want to USE it WELL. they want to modify, to personalize, to program, etc. then linux is the perfect tool.

This is my opinion, simply that.

In my case, i started 2nd baccalaurate, so i have NO time (it´s a nightmare, my God!!!). So when i want to use the computer, as i haven´t configured the printer in linux (i finished with a headache when i tried) i use windows in order to print works. And if i want to play, i use windows too... apart that there isn´t many games for linux, i have no 3D acceleration!!!!! ARGHHHH.
I downloaded Wine with OpenGL and XFree Open GL, but i couldn´t install it because i needed more files and dependancies.
I install wine with OGl, it needs a library... ok, i download it and it wants 30 libraries!!! arrghhh!!! I cannot being everyday updating each library i have!
Anyway, i am learning (when i have free time) how to use linux, the console commands, and i want to start programming once i have learnt a little bit more linux

I think the crucial point here is that you will normally install other software once you have the OS installed. If you are happy using only the software that came with a distro, and you do not install anything else, then you should have no problems.

And as for Windows being easy to configure! Ha! I've not seen such a nightmare as trying to get a simple home lan setup with 1 Win95 machine, 1 Win98SE machine, 1 WinME and 1 XP machine! It's a pig's ear! Grantedly some aspects of Windows are easier than in Linux, such as installing software (whoever came up with InstallShield is probably a very rich man now...), but the configuring can often be more of a nightmare under Windows because it hides everything away from you - if there are problems, you don't really know about them because all you're told is 'it doesn't work - go to the tech support'.

Noob here, and while I plan to give Linux a chance it isn't ready for the prime time.

As a noob I would expect to be able to install an OS without having to jump through hoops just to get all of my hardware working properly. Case in point...To get my Nvidia drivers to work I had to recompile the kernel...hello I'm new to Linux how am I supposed to know how to do this?

The second problem I had was getting Linux to see my W2k & XP machines on the network...File sharing shouldn't be that difficult

I'm working with two different distros at this point RH8 and Mandrake 9...I'm leaning towards RH8 though because Mandrake seems to make it more difficult resize windows...like I said I'm new so I have a lot of learning to do.

For those that start to argue about the command line...We are in a graphical world now and that is where I work...with a GUI. I'm sure command line has its place but at the moment I don't need it.

I don't want Linux to be just like Windows except for one area...ease of use; ease of installation. When I install hardware on my XP box I don't have to recompile the kernel just to get the darn thing to work.

Any way I'm sure there will be a few flames from this and that is ok...but understand this if Linux wants to be considered for the masses then they will have to conform to what the masses want...ease of use, buy something and it works...that is what attracks some to the Mac.

NVidia: Unless you are very unfortunate and are running a very old distro with an equally old kernel, it is unlikely that you needed to recompile your kernel - it's just that you were misinformed somewhere along the line.

Filesharing: It's not hard when using Linux's native filesharing protocol NFS. It's only hard because you're using something non-native. Perhaps you've never tried to share something from Windows using NFS? I can tell you that it isn't easy!

CLI: Good for you. Don't dismiss it, though. The GUI may look very nice, but once you're accustomed to the CLI, it's very quick. Try this: Using MPlayer (you have installed that, haven't you? If not, why not?), try loading a video file, playing it on the desktop, fullscreen and with infinite loop. It takes me a fraction longer on the CLI than to simply play the file with no options. It'll take much longer on the GUI.

For the most part, you may only do a single kernel recompile. I installed Mandy 9 only a little while ago, and I haven't needed to do one yet... and my CD burner works fine, my IDE Zip250 works a treat, as does my DVD and my GF2 graphics card. The problem you're having is that it is unfamiliar. You do not need to do terribly complex things, but often people seem to get bogged down and think that it's going wrong.

And to sum up... Lots of people assume that Windows is easier to install and setup, but that just isn't true. The problem is that people are used to the method of downloading drivers for hardware, and they're used to how they install. I ask you, when you first installed XP, did your GF card work flawlessly? Or did you install the drivers that came on the CD (or even download the Detenator drivers?) I also ask you: if your computer has some hardware that is essential for using the internet (such as a modem), and this hardware isn't supported in Windows, how do you propose to get the new drivers that will make it work, when you can't use it to get the drivers? The same type of problems exist in both worlds, my friend. I have said it countless times before:
Linux is not hard. Linux is different

I don't understand a lot of these complaints. I am certainly not a computer genius, but I seem to have less troubles and complaints than most. My first Linux install: I read the redhat "install guide" which had everything I needed to get started. I had never repartitioned a disk before, but I read the guide and followd the reccomendations. Why is this so difficult for people?

Redhat found and configured all my hardware perfect, including setting up my cable modem for DHCP. I didn't even have to specify my ISP or anything, Linux just crawled up my cable line and discovered who was at the other end, and configured it. It doesn't get any easier. The first time I wanted to burn a cd I just fired up the prog and it was intuitive enough for me. Installing apps from source: no problem. Read the README, I mean really, why do you think they call them that. Three easy steps that can be done as one with a simple "&&" between.

The only problem was that my printer spewed out nonsense. So I do a web search, go to the Linux Printer Database webpage (I think that was it) , look up my printer model and it says right there: "The blah blah driver is reccomended" so I use the nice LPR config GUI to change to the "blah blah" driver, what do you know, works great!! Total time to fix problem, 15 minutes.

I think some people are just lazy, and want everything handed to them. They don't want to discover, they want to be told. They don't want to learn to do something, they want somebody else to do it. You find these people in all walks of life from school to work to the retirement home. These people should not use Linux. They just don't "get it", you know? These are the people that never spare a thought for all the intellegence, creativity, and hard work that go into a product that works good, but complain bitterly when it doesn't.

I'm no genius, but with a little common sense and a little initiative a guy like me can get Linux running just fine. I am also humbled by the intellegence, creativity, and hard work that goes into making Linux work everyday.

i, like many others on this thread, am fairly new to linux. i've been messing around with it for about a year, because i simple DESPISE windows.

honestly, and i know this has been said over and over, linux simply isn't easy to set up. i'm willing to take the time to learn new things, learn the hard way to do things, etc. actually it was the cli's power that really attracted me to linux. downloading libraries for new software doesn't bother me too much, i'm a patient guy. but the HARDWARE SUPPORT and the initial setup arethe largest problems. granted, much of the hardware support problem is not the fault of linux, but of hardware developers reluctant to support it. but many of the things can be dealt with. I'm sorry, but when linux HAS the printer drivers included with the install, it should not be difficult to make the printer just WORK.

many of you veterans have quite valid points in that linux is built differently from windows, and works differently, therefore requires a different method of learning it. the problem is, if people can't get a system set up and functioning properly, even if it's just a simple one, they won't WANT to learn it. i learned windows by screwing around with it. started with a perfectly working system, looked around to see what it had to change. then i changed something, and if it screwed something up i'd play with it to learn how to fix it. that's how a lot of people learn, but it's difficult to do that if you can't get the starting point system. it is not blatantly obvious how to recompile a kernel. there is no "Recompile Kernel" icon on the desktop. don't get me wrong, there shouldn't have to be. but you also shouldn't have to recompile your kernel and rebuild LILO just to make one piece of hardware work.

the other main problem is the lack of uniformity of directory structures between distros. for god's sake people, this should NOT be that hard to fix. it's arranging a directory structure. a solution to this is lfs, so you know where every file is, but there's no f*****g way in hell that a new convert is going to be able to build lfs. probably not even gentoo. we're trying to win converts from windows, but the word "compile" scares windows people. most people don't have the technical savvy, or just the patience to overcome this fear. my mom hates windows almost as much as i do. but she has no patience for computers. if she can't pay a bill online because she mistypes her password, she yells at me. as irrational as that is, it's unlikely that anyone like that would be able to learn linux even WITH a good working start system. WITHOUT the stable easy initial system, people like that will never even LOOK at linux. honestly, when an install program can't even find your hard drives (redhat 7.0, UDMA ATA 100) you can't reasonably expect people to be willing to try to work around that.

you people are lucky i'm still with you. after having that redhat install program, i had the patience and persistence to go online and find a way to use the memory addresses to show linux where my HDs were. as simple as the solution was, most people wouldn't have even looked. half the people who did probably gave up just looking at the one, measly kernel parameter to add.

there are not enough people like me to make linux a major desktop OS. you're trying to win stupid people like my mom, who will not accept "linux is different" as an explanation for their difficulties, as i have. they don't understand, and don't have the patience to try.

i love linux, and will try as long as i have to in order to become proficient with every aspect of it. but i'm not most people. their requests for an easier setup, and easier/more obvious use is not unfounded or unreasonable, though their reasons for asking may be. linux just needs help with the setup, and from there a lot more people would be able to make the switch.

MAN, this is a long thread, and I've finally read through *most* of it. Everyone seems to be debating the technical aspects of Linux and how it compares to Windows (or Mac) in the mind of the end consumer.

1. Some have said any comparison is inherently unfair because Linux and Windows are simply different. Apples and oranges, basically.

2. Others argue that if Linux wants to succeed (presumably in the marketplace), developers need to step up their game and make distros that work as smoothly as Windows XP. An operating system is a means to an end, not vice versa. The goal is to surf the web and send email, not modify your Samba script or troubleshoot your supermount program.

3. Still others say that changing Linux would betray it's "lean, mean & unbloated" roots. Essentially, Windows users should continue to use Windows if they want bloated "eye candy", and new Linux users should RTFM and learn something different. (The underlying sentiment is that once a newbie discovers the true wonders of Linux, they will "awaken" realizing that Windows was a Matrix of sorts. But like the Matrix of the big screen, most people are simply not ready to be unplugged..."

In reference to each of these points, here is my two cents worth:

I remember "discovering" Mozilla months ago. I was FLOORED! I could finally surf the web without being assaulted by pop-up ads, or occasionally diverted to Microsoft's website! And the more I read about the motivations that spawned Mozilla, the more interested I became in Open Source. But I never considered changing my operating system. That is until the day Windows Media Player would not update to play some content on a web page. It said that the video would ONLY play under WMP 9.0 on Windows XP. (Of course, I only had Windows 2000) I was incensed! Would the proverbial walls come crashing down around me until I shelled out $300 for WinXP? I loved Win2000, and deliberately avoided upgrading because it simply worked great for me. As I cast about for options, my wife mentioned one word to me: Linux. She told me if I didn't like Microsoft's rules, then I shouldn't play their game. I needed choice, and with Microsoft, that's the one thing you WON'T get!

I downloaded Slackware (Hey, if I jump in the pool, it's with BOTH feet) and over a weekend, I became best friends with "the Kernel." Actually, it was more of a love/hate relationship, as I struggled to configure my sound card, install basic programs, and get the damn 3D card to work. But in between rounds with Slack, I began reading more about free software. For 8 weeks, I literally became immersed in the OSS movement, (Yes, I just called it a movement.) vorcaciously reading everything I could get my hands on. At this point, I've realized two things: 1st, I LOVE tinkering with my computer! Linux put fun back into computing for me. I now have two networked, dual-boot systems, and I use Linux 90% of the time.
2nd, (and most important) I have realized that Linux is part of an idea that is far bigger than the kernel itself.

Open Source is about choice. First and foremost. And like it or not, Linux is the poster-child. (Or poster-penguin, if you will.) The technicalities of the kernel are up to Torvalds and his inner-circle, but it BELONGS to all of us. The hackers who live to recompile the kernel and use the command line, the point & clickers who only use X-Free, the people in-beween who enjoy the versatility of both, and the computer illiterate (who need a roadmap to use a mouse) knowing only that they are tired of being squeezed for every penny by Microsoft. There's room for everybody!

I submit that there is NOTHING wrong with Linux - as a CONCEPT! (As the article referenced for this thread declares.) As long as Linux offers *choice*, it is exactly where it needs to be. With that said, perhaps the article should have been titled, "Top Ten things wrong with DESKTOP Linux distributions today." Let me tell ya, Linux desktop distributions have a ways to go if they expect to be competitive in a demanding marketplace. (Don't even get me started on Mandrake's faulty "supermount" p.o.s.) But, that doesn't mean that distros like Slackware need to change a thing related to THEIR desktop performance!
And isn't that the cool thing, guys? Fancy bloated desktops or lean and fast command lines.... It's all Linux! And we're all making our voices heard. We demand choice, for whatever the reasons we made the switch to Linux. Let's not let end-using goals divide us...

Peace, Love, & Linux

--Akshun J

I guess my point was that it wasn't difficult. To be fair, is Windows really easier? Here is my experience installing the SAME printer under win:

Boot up, "windows has discovered new hardware: Canon BCJ-500, would you like to configure?", you think? I was hoping we could go through this everytime I boot. "Windows is searching for drivers" <insert 2 minutes> "no drivers found, do you have a diskette?", yea, I do, why didn't you ask in the first place? "Please insert diskette" <insert 2 minutes> "Please insert diskette 2" <insert 2 more minutes> "Printer configured. Please restart Windows for these settings to take effect". Restart? I just did? Then of course a month later Windows gets so buggy it needs reinstalling. All the software, and all the hardware drivers. Oops, I misplaced my driver diskettes. Guess I'll have to order new ones from Canon. let's see, $15 plus shipping and handling to Canada. Wait 6-8 weeks for delivery, that's ok, I didn't want to print anyway. Then start at step one, and repeat indefinitely.

Is this easier than Linux?

Ps: akshunj, that's a great post, and is along the lines of what I would have said if not for my habit of getting off on little rants. . .