gads... more troll bait!

I read till the 4th page and I think the discussion didn't progride well, so I reply to the first post.

I only read till the 4th page, but since noone posted this, I will.
My favorite standard: www.linuxbase.org/

It standarises directory structure, packaging system, elf file format and a lot of stuff. Debian, Mandriva, Red Hat....etc.

Afff .... google "distrowatch"

Why didn't you just ask: "Hi! I am a newbie can you people help me find a good distro??" ... everyone would have helped you. I will try, anyway.

That has to do with them not porting their drivers to linux / not porting programs and has *nothing* to do with you difficulty to find a distro.

Ok, let's start:

1 - Why do you need this size limit??? Is this really necessary?

2 - I don't follow up, why the best compatiblility list??? It may the biggest list of the world, but if it doesn't include your hardware it won't matter!!! You should look for a distro tha will work in the hardware you expect to use.

Now be nice and tell us your hardware.

Different people have different needs. Let the diferences be, it is just autoritary to say: Stop making so many distro.

Also, this is in in no way bad, bacause the distribution only creates a limited set of software. The huge majority of software (99,9%) is distribution independent.

Personally, I don't really care if linux will be the domination OS. It would be nice, so that I could quit Windows programming =)

I agree with Skrilla!
To some extent anyway. I have been playing around with plenty of distros for a while now. I love testing the ways the distros use the linux system and I check out distrowatch.com regularly. Currently I have Mandriva, Gentoo, Kanotix, Slax, FC4 and Simply Mepis installed.

I used to use Windows and I still do because some programs are just better in windows and there aren't linux drivers for all of my hardware. This is part of the problem, but I think as more people are using linux the hardware manufacturers can't afford to neglect a big group of users.

I will try to give some ideas of how to improve linux from my experience with windows and linux.

I think linux should be faster and smaller than windows. There is no point installing a system from a fully packed DVD such as FC4. SLAX provides a fully functional workspace in less than 200 MB. SLAX is my bet for you Skrilla - includes KDE and most programs you need.

When you install windows you need to first install the system and then you install all your programs one by one. With linux you normally do this all at once. This is both good and bad.
The windows way takes up all day, but you have total control of the programs on your computer. So the windows user knows his programs pretty well and he wants to find a similar program in linux. The linux way is often to install so much software that you will never need to install anything (big distributions, DVD-size FC4, SUSE RHEL). Other distros such as Ubuntu and Simply Mepis select the good software for you and let you install the rest yourself. I think that you should let the windows user choose which programs to install during installation. You don't use much more than 10 or so programs. You could let the user choose from a list which programs he uses in windows and then show him some alternatives for each program in linux. This will take a little longer but the windows user has planned to use all day to install his system so it won't matter too much. During the installation there should also be screenshots of how to install new programs, because when a windows user wants to install something he will download something from the internet and then try to install it. A comprehensive website with a list of windows software and their linux counterpart would be very usefull.

You can probably strip out a lot of programs from many distros. Command line browsers and "very powerfull this and that" are very unlikely to be used by a windows user. When installing a linux system the menus are full of programs that are never used. In windows they are grouped under accesories.

At some point you will run into problems that are not easy to solve. The linux way of doing this is to find the error in /var/log/messages and then google to see if anyone has the same error. Then you need to edit some file in the /etc directory probably. In windows many errors are anticipated and you get a hint of what to do to solve the problem. The linux community should be very keen on getting information of how something can crash. If it cannot be solved immediately there should be some hint of where you can get info on solving the problem.

Since linux is so configurable you should include some eyecandy, so the windows users feel that linux is cooler than windows. For example KXdocker. Very cool! Or you could have windows icons, so the windows user will feel at home, but there may be legal issues.

The windows file browser is great. Why doesn't Gnome use Nautilus in that mode by default?

I listed some examples below of how Linux can be a pain in the ass when you run into trouble.

For example I have an old screen that doesn't support high refresh rate. Quite often I have to edit the xorg.conf or Xf86config by hand to make it work. This sort of problem is not too uncommon. If a linux newbie would run into a nonsense screen that would scare him off.

Installing source code: It is great that it is so easy in linux compared to windows, but when that is your only option there are often dependancy problems. This often means that you need to spend an afternoon installing 20 programs to install the one you wanted in the first place. There should be a way to make this work automatically.

Fonts often look horrible compared to windows.

man pages are really difficult to decrypt. Take 'man tar' for example. I always forget the letter combination to use so I have to look up on the internet how to extract a tar.gz file.

Windows XP is actually quite good. You realize that when you try hard to do something in linux and it just works in Windows XP. That is why it is hard to get people to give up MS. I have had some crashes on my MS system because of graphic card issues, but crashes and freezes are much more common in linux. Many linux users seem to think that linux is more stable than windows and that may be true for a system that has been tweeked to perfection, but for a newly installed system such as the ones I have tested, linux crashes are more common. This has mostly to do with hardware support and that may change.

The linux systems have developped quite a lot the last couple of years. Quite a few are very user friendly and as easy as windows to setup. The fact that linux is based on open source makes it superior to windows. Instead of downloading a program you just open the installer and write the name of the program or install from command line of course. Another interesting point is that linux is big in many developping countries. Since 75 % of all people live in these countries that is a huge market and it would be a shame if MS would brainwash these new users as everyone in the western world has been brainwashed.
This could be the next linux mission.

E

Linux is smaller and faster than windows. You don't need to install everything in FC4 just like SLAX is cut down.
It is already possible in most distros to choose which appsyou want installed. From Slackware to Suse, you can install a text based system with nothing extra, or you can load up on apps. If the "windows" user can't uncheck things, it doesn't make it la distros fault.
As just stated, the user can choose to not install these apps.
I wouldn't go so far to say that windows errors are easy to figure out. You constantly get errors on windows that a program crashed and do you want to send a report, but it never really says why. Otherwise, you get the blue screen with cryptic error codes that you have to google for also. Where do you see "anticipated" errors and hints?
What about people like me that don't want the eye candy. Now I have to work to take all that eye candy away just because it is there to make it look and feel "cooler" to draw more windows users? I'll pass on that one.
What mode are you talking about exactly? And I personally wouldn't call explorer great.
If it scares the new user off then linux is not the right OS for them. Let them use what is best for them.
Man tar shows it clear as day. Look for yourself:
Such as? i have found everything works in linux for me so far.
If a linux system is crashing it is most likely due to user errors. When I first started running linux, I thought it was very unstable. This was until I realized that I was trying to run linux as I ran windows, which doesn't work. It was also because I had no clue what I was doing. Both Windows and Linux can be stable, you just need to know what you are doing although I think linux is more stable in general.
Why does linux need a take over the world mission? It has gotten to this point without such an ideology, why adopt it now. IMHO, it will just cause problems in the long run.

Well, it really depends on which distro we're talking about, doesn't it? You can always go for Damn Small Linux if you want something that fits on a USB key. There's no reason every distro has to be lighter than Windows, though.

Again, this all depends on the distro. Many distros actually let you choose not only package types but individual packages (Mandriva, Blag, Xandros).

It's called Linspire

You mean this one, which was the first Google result when I searched for "windows equivalents linux programs."

I've found quite the opposite, actually. When I get errors in Windows, I often have no clue how they came about or what to do about them. For example, in my XP installation, if I log into my regular account, everything's fine. If I log into the guest account, I get a dialogue box that says "fAiled" (that's right--with weird capitalization). I tried looking in the registry to see if there were programs trying to start up on log-in. I tried Googling about "failed" messages on login. Nothing helped. I still have no idea where that message came from. At work, we get some weird error message every time we log in about webscanx failing. Apparently, according to the IT folk, it's because our version of antivirus software isn't compatible with Windows 2000. These are everyday functioning things! The only problems I've encountered with Linux have been in installing and configuring it, not in generally using it. Windows machines have the distinct advantage of usually coming preinstalled and preconfigured.

Linux has considerably better eye candy than Windows, and it's free. That's actually the reason I switched over to Linux this year (last year I tried to switch over because of spyware on Windows). Microsoft has some Themes Plus package you can pay for. Windowblinds has a package that can be "free" with nagware or not free at all. I can make Linux look like Windows. I can make it look like Mac. I can make it look like a whole bunch of different things. Kde-look and Gnome-look have become my fast friends.

You could always just use KDE. It's not like Windows' defaults are so great. For example, it hides file extensions for "known file types." I hate that. When you boot XP for the first time, you get an empty desktop with a recycling bin. Great! What am I supposed to do with that? The truth is that the defaults for any operating system rarely suit the needs of its users (as those needs are diverse). You can't please everyone.

Again, you're talking about installing and configuring. Once this is done, it's done.

Yeah, it's called get the package through apt-get instead.

I just want to state that I love using linux. The fact that you run into problems when you try to install things makes it challenging. I mean, as you mentioned you can just apt-get a program, that is really simple but what if the only way to install a program is from source code? From my experience ./configure, make and make install won't work first time, but after some configuring, adding a symlink here and there it will work. This is a challenge that I like, but I wouldn't want a complete newbie to have to do this.

Why shouldn't linux be user friendly like windows? Linux is evolving. Why not in a direction to where more users can feel welcome, even if they don't have great computer skills and the will to solve every problem they stumble upon.

I want you to try and think like a windows user about to install linux for the first time. He wont know the names of linux programs apart from firefox and perhaps a few more. He won't know what to check and uncheck. The distros are great, not to blame of course and much easier to install than a few years back, but they are made for linux users. A migrating windows user will need some help when installing. I like my idea of selecting windows programs during install and then installing the linux equivalent. That way the windows user will learn which programs to use in linux. I guess I should make my own distribution. A windows migrater distro. I don't know how to do it myself. Anyone out there with skills like any of my ideas?

Another idea is to let the installer try out different window managers during the install. GobLinx has this feature with 5 wm in just 300 MB. Might not be that useful since kde is the one that is most similar to windows.

As for the eyecandy. Many people don't need it, but a windows user or mac user would think it was cool to have a system that looks like windows but is free and has linux stability. Of course you should be able to not install the eyecandy if you don't want it.

Just my point! In linux you should be able to. At least when it comes to the programs installed. Windows comes with basically no software. Browser, text editor and paint is included but you can't get very far with that. In linux you install your software during installation. Your system will be ready for use in 30 minutes. If the installation process could create precisely the system you need that would be great.

That seems to be the standard page for linux equivalents of windows programs. This page has a comprehensive overview of that page.

In my previous message I wrote "In windows many errors are anticipated and you get a hint of what to do to solve the problem." I don't really know what I meant, but I think I have had some experience like that. I agree that an error in windows often makes you reinstall the entire system. Often due to virus.

I guess you are right. It would be a nice humanitarian project though: Linux for third world. A lot of old computers are thrown away in the western world. These could be used to improve teaching and education standard in developing countries. With a nice free version of linux installed these computers could be quite useful.
OK, Thanks for your replies!

You know, when I first read the original posting I immediately thought "troll bait" ... but to a certain extent, there is a valid point there.

Linux does have a flood of "distros." And it can be very difficult and very frustrating to "simply get-done what you want to get-done, knowing that what you want to get-done is simple." You know that it should be simple and you realize quite painfully that it isn't.

The Windows operating-system, at this point in time, is indeed much simpler to install and use. Macintosh OS/X, which is based on Unix, is also very much the same way. Those distributors have paid a great deal of attention to making the first-time user experience as simple as possible. Linux, on the other hand, is still very "confrontational" in the sense that it has a lot of sophisticated options and it thrusts a lot of those sophisticated options "in your face" from the very start. You have to know a lot more, and to master a lot more, before you can really accomplish "anything 'simple.'"

Now... once you get beyond the surface of any of these systems, including Windows, you start running into the very same issues. Plenty of Windows users are being grudgingly forced to discover "security" for the first time, and it's having a very detrimental effect upon lots of their programs which no longer work. The consumer grade distributions of Windows obviously paid no attention to "what if they log on as a guest or as a limited user?"

Personally, I think that some of the "intentionally limited" distributions may have the right idea... Knoppix, Smoothwall, things like that. These are based on Linux and they certainly run Linux but they are focused on the specific needs of a well-defined community of users. Macintosh OS/X is, characteristically, designed that way. We always need to make sure that ordinary people can "get 'er done" with Linux. And we do have a long way to go. This is a valid topic to discuss.

"What do you suggest?"

I love it as it is. I have a greater feeling of accomplishment getting things to work in linux than any computer game I have ever played and as I don't run my machine in an office, it is not critical to get everything running instantly. Added to this is the fact that standards are standards and all core software sticks to that. Nothing is hidden which allows me to play with EVERYTHING. It's the lego factor (or mechano if you like it that way!) that grabs me, play all day I can

You've got at the heart of the problem. When people say Linux should make it easy or Linux should look like Windows, etc., they're usually not talking about "Linux." How can you? There are so many distros out there. Truthfully, Linspire is this distro. Sure, you have to pay money for it, but it is the distro people are talking about. It explains what every single app does and what its Windows equivalent is. It doesn't ask too many complicated questions. Its default desktop looks a lot like Windows (it even says "My Computer"). It's not a matter of changing Linux's distros. It's a matter of making information and easy about which distros to select. I can tell you from personal experience, the most difficult thing I had to do when migrating to Linux was not getting my screen resolution perfect or finding the correct application to check my email--it was finding out which distro to use.

And nothing is more frustrating than asking, "What's the best distro for a newbie?" and having people reply, "Well, there is no best distro. You have to find what's the best for you," someone else replying, "That's so true," and someone else replying, "Slackware. Slackware is the only true Linux."

I haven't found Windows easy to install at all. Sure, it's easy when Dell or eMachines has already installed it for me. But when I've had to reinstall Windows... uh, not easy. As for ease of use... well, it's hard to say, for two reasons.

1. Most people have been using Windows for many years. At a certain point you get used to the "Windows" way of doing things. So it's difficult to say how much of Linux is simply hard to learn and how much is getting used to something different. Even when I went from using Windows to using Mac, there were a lot of things that I had to unlearn (closing a window does not mean closing an app, for example).

2. A lot of people confuse using Linux with setting up Linux. I set up Linux for a friend with no Linux experience. I pointed her to a couple of new icons, explained what they did, and said control-alt-esc kills programs instead of control-alt-delete (this was in KDE), and she had no problems using it. I, however, had tons of problems setting it up. No Linux distro had drivers in CUPS for her printer. I couldn't get her Hotmail to work properly with Thunderbird. I had to get her Windows partitions to automount. A lot of the difficulty of migrating to Linux isn't in using Linux. The difficulty lies in the fact that most migrants have a Windows PC, and they have to install and configure Linux themselves before they can use it.

Why if linux is made in one way, for many years, should it be change just for new windows users have the ability to "fell more welcome." If they don't have great computer skills, they should really rethink their decision on using Linux.
I was once a windows user, and it wasn't that long ago. I didn't know program names. You hit the nail on the head though. Linux IS made you linux users. Why should it be changed now just because people are getting fed up with windows and wants something better. I think the best thing for anyone thinking of moving linux to do is to actually do some research first. Read up on equivalent programs. Get on forums and ask questions before doing their fiirst install. This way they have some knowledge and already are starting to adapt from the windows way of thinking to the linux way. Hell, start small first and install the windows version of the linux apps they will be using to get used to them first. People don't need to just jump in if they feel that they are not that knowledgable.
Most distros have this. Red Hat/Fedora, Suse, Slackware to name a few allows you to install and choose from many WM/DE's like gnome, icewm, kde or xcfe.
So just because a Windows or Mac user might be used to it, it should ber default on linux distros. I don't see the need, nor do I see why that person can't set up the eye candy themselves.

There are so many distros out there, so if you don't want it to be easy to use, you can just choose another distro. I haven't tried Linspire since it is not free and I don't really need it, but I am sure that it is a good start for windows users.

I agree that many of todays linux distributions are really simple to install. Often simpler than windows. Besides that, windows gets slower and slower the more you use it. Somehow more and more processes start running in the background and take up memory and cpu.

Regrettably I can't really use linux for anything other than playing around with and trying out a working 64 bit system. Since I run windows at work my files are all made for the windows programs. If I use Open office instead of word, my figures will jump around in the document and if I run my matlab programs in octave, all of them won't work. Even my latex files that compile in windows won't compile properly in linux. If I want to watch a movie on my TV, windows is better because I can configure my TV-out so that the entire screen is used.

Most of these problems occur since I started with windows and now I'm stuck. If I had started with Linux, the files would probably not have been usable in windows and I would have been stuck with linux. A much better alternative. In many countries where they can't afford windows, Linux is the standard operating system. Unless Bill Gates succeeds in converting them into using MS they will probably remain linux users. This article is pretty interesting: Can Open Source Take Over the World?
I think people should get involved in giving old pc:s to developing countries. This article describes a successful project in South Africa.
I haven't heard of any such groups, so they should be started. It is quite a shame to waste old pc:s. Everyone I know and every workplace I heard of just throw their hardware away.
E

I meant to run live versions of the desktops during the install. You could also let the users try out the programs live before installing them. On a live cd such as Simply Mepis or PCLinuxOS you get all the software on the CD. Let me give you an example:
During the installation you choose 'mail client used in windows', for example outlook. Then you get a list of linux programs, Kmail, thunderbird, evolution, etc. If you click on it you can try it out - live. You might settle for Kmail. Then you select it, close the live screen and proceed to the next item. Thereby you will learn a few linux program during the install and you will feel more comfortable with the system.

You like that idea? Maybe that's how Linspire works. I don't know.

I do think your last suggestion is worthwhile for a segment of the market (the possible linux users market, I'll call it).

If there existed a flavor of LiveCD that presented user-friendly options at boot (choose what you currently use - Windows or Mac - then present linux software that does it) I think Linux's market share would increase. People could then truly see what they like before actually installing. I'd say that most people now just pop in a Knoppix live CD and base their judgment solely on that. What they see is KDE with certain window decorations and mouse themes. What they don't see is all of Knoppix's boot options (what, I have to hit F1 and then type something into - gasp - a prompt?). To them, this is Linux and that is all it encompasses. This viewpoint is one which we all know is wrong.

So what about a live DVD or something (don't know if that is possible at all) with expanded software options and a major dummy setup. Cool by me! I agree with the opinion that Linux doesn't need to rule the world, but I also believe that a lot of people need to open their eyes to their discontent with Windows. They just need better bridge to get them in the right direction.

One way to improve is to say little but be correct.
page long opinions are jibberish
Skrilla was shrill .. a troll and giving him credence servers no value.

Linux is not for everyone and isn't ready to be given to your grandmother .. so let it be !!!

word.