Doesn't typical family have 1/2 cats, at least? And this gives no info about computer skills.

That gives absolutely no info about computer skills. Honestly I'd like to see some somewhat official document that defines user skill requirements for using computer. I don't think that this document really exists, but it would be nice if someone created it, because without strict definition of what typical user can do with computer, threads like this one always turn into flamewar.

Also I think that huge chunk of software should be shipped with "minimal user skill requirements", in addition to standard "minimal system requirements".

That should be plain enough. They possess an adequate level of skill to perform those tasks. Google for whatever information they want, write and send an email, write a letter or article using a word-processor, etc.

As I wrote above, I defined that term in my other thread.

I've been around desktop computers daily for more than 26 years. As a technical writer for much of that time, and technical trainer part of that time teaching computer usage. I have watched other people use computers. Most people haven't a clue. They learn only what they need to learn for their job. Nothing more. Throw new software at them and they freeze like the proverbial deer in the headlights.

I've met many people who do not know a single keyboard shortcut because they learned to do everything with a mouse. I have watched most people, not some people --- most people, place the cursor in a dialog box text box with the mouse, type text, then stop, place the cursor in the next text box with the mouse, and repeat this process every hour, every day. They never learn to use the Tab key to move to the next text box. They never learn to press the Enter key and always grab the mouse to select the OK button. They do not know that the Esc key will select the Cancel button. I have watched many touch-typists who smoke a keyboard but with every copy, cut and paste stop to grab a mouse rather than learn extended selection and Ctrl-X, Ctrl-C, and Ctrl-V.

There is no myth. The typical user exists.

I have no quantitative numbers from any research to provide you. Only my own observation in a business environment. Yet I agree the day is long overdue for the phrase "typical user" to disappear.

The problem is not people, but the technology. For almost three decades I have refused to refer to software as user-friendly. Most software is user-hostile. Free/libre software seems especially prone to this problem because the nature of the environment is to scratch one's own itch and not necessarily the itch of others. Usability is not a top priority.

I live in a rural area. Three of my immediate neighbors do not own computers and never used them. They never will either. I guarantee that none of these people could use a computer out of the box with no training. Pipe dream. They are pretty sharp folks too. The problem is the technology, not the people. Ubuntu, Slackware, and Windows would be a usability nightmare for any of these neighbors.

Nope, that isn't plain enough.
Searching might mean simply entering phrases, or person might know about advanced operators and ways to filter search. Many people I met never heard about even such simple thing as searching for exact phrase with google, and I'm not talking about removing words from search and operators.
Using email might mean simply pressing buttons in the order you were told, or reading and understanding email headers.
Using word processor might mean using computer as typewriter, or ability to use built-in help. There is a huge difference between person that can type text and a person that might be able to do table formatting and find out by himself/herself how to sort table by the column.
See? It isn't plain enough, because it tells nothing about computer skills & knowledge.

"Define" wasn't addressed to you.

Maybe I'm being a jerk, but I'd still like to see the long and very detailed list of what typical user can and can't do, and it would be nice if that list was certified by some serious entity as a world-wide standard or something similar. This is because "typical user" is often used as last line of defense in flamewars and there is no precise definition of what he/she can and can't do. After a while this becomes really annoying. Warning: I'm not asking for anyone to type all about typical users, because it won't be an official definition I was talking about. Honestly, sometimes I think that computers should have some systems of diplomas or documents that could be used to detect person's knowledge & skills. It could help a lot.

In the context usually used here, a "typical user" is one whose skill level is between "able to comfortably use Ubuntu" and "able to comfortably use Slackware".

How exactly use ubuntu/slackware? Is typical user able to resolve installation error when he is thrown into shell during install process with no error messages printed to screen?

Also, for configured system with GUI this is identical level.
My parents were working with slackware desktop with the same success as with ubuntu desktop. Not much differences - point and click stuff only.

That's the level I meant.
Simply typing a message & hitting send.
Yes. Typing, simple formatting, and using help.

No comment. :D
What you're asking for would take a sort of market survey, with multiple choice questions. Those "average" users, with the basic skill level, can deepen their knowledge and gain some sort of certificate, for example, the ECDL (European Computer Driving License). But a lot of them aren't bothered.

Too much caffeine?
 

Sorry, ErV, got no marketing survey for you. Try this:

Do you drive a car? Can you tear down the motor and re-build it? Can you change out the differential? Would you want to?

Do you know what kind of carburetor you have? Do you care?

Or do you just want the thing to get you where you want to go with as little hassle as possible?

You might be a "typical driver".

My comment about "easy to use, gui config, etc." was merely an example of the kinds of discussions that might be found here. I made no arguments for or against anything. Nor did I say that a typical user was incapable of learning what a partition is.

Most don't know because they have never had a need to know, and didn't care what was "under the hood."

AND...defending Microsoft??? Where did that come from? But I'll try; I like their mice.

Really.

You'd better find a girl than started flamable topics imho. slackware can't be compared with bubuntu at all. bubuntu is a crap as is. without root password at the beginning and "I cant use ATI with ubuntu" in the end.

This really depends on area. In my area being able to fix your car by yourself is normal.

I wasn't talking about you. Argument about "typical user" is frequently used by people trying to defend windows os.

Well, as a computer science major you should know several Linux distros.
At least Redhat(Centos) and Debian, to start with, and wouldn't hurt to be familiar with Gentoo, Suse, Slackware, and Ubuntu.
If you want to learn Slackware then you'll have to learn the individual components that comprise a Linux distro, like the Kernel, Xorg, Bash, Linux printing, Samba etc.
You don't have to know them inside-out, but you'll need to spend a day or two on each to become familiar with each and able to work it.
The benefit is you'll learn the basics and acquire a solid foundation.
You'll only need a few hours to become familiar with any other distro once you know Slackware.
And when your friends Ubuntu doesn't boot any more after a bad update you'll be able to help him fix it :)
T3slider gave you some good pointers, so invest some time and learn.
That's what comp sci is all about after all, or are you there for the hot chicks :)

How can defining a "typical" or "average" computer user be construed as defending M$ Windows? That makes no sense. This thread has become a pile of hair-splitting, nit-picking, rubbish.
Sometimes, ErV, I think you argue just for arguing's sake.

I absolutely disagree! BTW A typical user of English would never hyphenate those words :)

Seriously though, I agree with BrianL's definition of a typical user.

How would you define a...Oh NO!!! Don't bother! :D
I'm glad somebody agrees with me about something, anyway.

Explanation. See any Windows vs Linux "discussion". There will be an argument "a \"typical user\" can't do that!!!!!" - normally in defense of windows. Without definition of "typical". In every thread, in every discussion, in any place when people compare distributions, operating systems, etc, there will be "typical user" without clear definition. Does it make sense now? Anything that doesn't have definition means flamewar - normally about "what exactly is this thing". I'm sick of that, and I'd like to see a definition, because otherwise "typical user" covers a very wide range of people.

A "typical" or "average" user will just go to a store, buy a computer, and there's a 98% chance that it will have Windows preinstalled. If and when that user becomes aware of alternative OS's, then they may or may not decide to switch, depending on whether they're interested enough.

In my opinion average person that just suddenly decided to buy computer, went to store and purchased machine with preinstalled windows, is unable do anything on all operating systems. But I also think that it is not "typical user" mentioned in comparisons like the one in current thread. To me it looks like that it is commonly assumed that there is some average skill level. And there is no explict list of things included into that average skill level. And this is a problem.

/*complete offtopic*/
for some reason this thread reminds me picture of typical browser users.

Nice link, ErV. :D

lol.
 

Oddly enough I would have to agree that 'typical user' depends entirely on what people normally use their systems for and is probably better targeted to applications and interfaces more than anything else.

I would say a 'typical user' is familiar with computer applications that they would normally use... (Office (pick one), Internet (insert your browser name here) or any of the thousands of various applications available. There are quite a few standards (ex... Internet Explorer, Firefox ), but none all inclusive because not everyone uses them or likely even one exclusively. This all implies that they can use the interface ( CLI or GUI ) that they have to use to get to these applications. None of this requires a user to be able to identify any component of a given system (video card vs hard drive), just familiarity with using what is available on that system (type or click this to get to this).

Working as a PC tech, this would be only my working definition of a 'typical user' and atm , consequently, currently removing a 3.5in CD from a floppy drive while explaining to another that the eject button on the CD-rom does in fact eject a CD, but does not power off the computer to a guy who can hand me my ars utilizing spreadsheet software.

Most people I work with use the computers and the software installed, but the knowledge ends with manipulation of installed software and oddly enough, some are extremely advanced users... of that software ;) .

Oh, yes. I'm done with it.

I am not sure if it was already mentioned, but there is a YouTube video called Fat Chicks vs. Skinny Ones" (or something like that) where there are two geeks having - nearly - a screaming match over which is better, Slackware or Ubuntu.

Definitely worth the watch. :)

I agree mainly with ErV. As a moderator on a Mozilla forum it sometimes surprises me how little people -who call themselves "pro"- know, and on the other hand, complete noobs, but willing to learn, won't give up and tackle the most difficult problems.

I know what BrianL and Woodsman mean by "typical user", but the point is, they're often not as "typical" as one might think. ;)

I find "typical users" will always try to get something to work if they want it to work, but if they don't care, or have a prejudice against a product they won't try at all

I have not noticed anyone post this yet, but I just want to further ErV's comment and say that the term "typical user" is completely subjective not only to the person presenting it, but also to the person it is referring to.

My "typical user" who buys a computer at Best Buy: saves up some flow, goes in, buys a glitzy system, end of definition. Even the Mac fans that shop at Best Buy still act somewhat "typical". We, Linux and UNIX users, are atypical.

However, at a Linux computing conference we would be seen as the "typical [end|power] user", while the Windows and Mac dudes would be cast off as atypical.

This also, argumentatively boils down to the environment for which we target our "typical user" comment towards: at the computer place where Windows (and Apple) have the market share, we Linux users are atypical. At an alternate OS setting, it is the Windows (and Mac, Haiku, ReactOS, *BSD, etc.) users that are atypical.

What I wrote when I thought I had lost my previous post:
Everyone needs to stop being so offended. ErV is just trying to remove the obfuscation from the conversation through means of interrogation.

It boils down to the term, "typical users", being completely and utterly subjective; it is the point-of-reference that defines the implication.

If we walk into a computing scenario where Microsoft (or even Apple) hold the market share, Windows and Mac users are the "typical users" - we are atypical. However, should a Windows or Mac fuddy-dud walk into a situation where Linux is the popular choice, they are seen as atypical, while we Linux users are seen as completely "normal" (again, "normal" being subjective).

wars and threads
 

Distributions are similar to Martial Arts.

Somebody takes Tae Kwon Do and extends it to make Hap Kido. We'd call that a fork. Kung-fu / Gung-Fu becomes Jeet Kune do.

You have Wudan mountain forms. One has to ponder why humans must make something their own and try to include as many people into the fold as possible?


Then you have UFC (Ultimate Fighter Championship) where they impose a set of rules and let the styles decide. Which is really a disgrace.

Some distributions just can't cut it. Thai-boxing vs Tae Kwon Do...
Ninjitsu vs Jeet Kune Do. Grecko Roman Wrestling vs Gracie Jiujitsu.

Everything becomes a mixture, KDE mixes with GTK then wxWindows...

Kung-fu has to learn stronger kicks, Karate has to learn Grappling.

I've had a moment of reflection. Now could we classify the Martial Arts along with the distributions? This is easy with the Martial Arts.

Some have positions occupying several spheres of discipline.

1 = Wrestling (Submission, Throwing)
2 = Punching
3 = Kicking
4 = Focus (Controlling the mind / Body)

Apply this to Linux Distributions.

1 = Services ( what comes installed and set up )
2 = Convenience ( Can you work within the environment )
3 = Security ( Is the machine crackable )
4 = Adaptability ( Can the user control the os )

Both are good, slackware is best in my opinion
 

3) The entire post is about how "good" Ubuntu is, and has very little to do with Slackware. Other than that it can be implied that Slackware is absolutely inadequate as a distro,

Set up two identical drives or partitions on the same computer and install identical distros of Ubuntu on both. Try to chroot from one of the Ubuntu's to the other and start an x-session on the one you didn't log in to. Then try it with Slackware. Simple is just better. It works. But I have to admit Ubuntu is good in lots of respects also, especially while you are learning how things work

Microsoft runs "usability labs". 1000 users are
interviewed and tested. But it doens't help to
test the users. It's the product, that should
be tested... I guess, that's what you mean. ;)

gargamel

The "Natural Keyboard" is good, too. Usually, their hardware is ok. Although I use a Logitech Wave keyboard. ;)

gargamel

This seems to be the real situation. I saw an
interview with some representative of MSI, the
maker of mainboards and netbooks. He said, that
the return rate of netbooks with pre-installed
Linux is four times the return rate of those
with MS Windows.

(The following is not from the interview, but
based on my own observations.)

The devices are returned, not because they are
malfunctioned, but just because the system
presents itself differently to the users than
what they are used to, and maybe, because
the "exchange" of software with their friends
seems harder. Many buyers of netbooks still
don't even know, what "open source" means.
Netbook buyers are like video recorder buyers in
the past. The word "programming" just scares
them.

gargamel

The question here is: What is the benefit of
learning this all?

The answer depends on what you want to do with
your computer and what your profession is. It
makes a lot of sense to learn how networks
work, and what a service is. But learning to
activate a service in

Slackware doesn't help me a bit on any other
distributions. In fact, activating services (or
server programs) is pretty much standardized
in the industry. If you know the file system
hierarchy on OpenSUSE, you will find the
relevant parts in /srv also on Red Hat, and you
can usually use the same commands, as both
are LSB compliant. Many Red Hat packages can
be installed on SuSE systems, now, and vice
versa. This wasn't possible in the past.

Slackware is not LSB compliant and therefore you
have to acquire a lot of not-so-portable
knowledge.

Also, what the use in learning how to configure
X.org for a particular graphics adapter
installed in exactly one machine? You can't
reuse the option anywhere. IMHO, it's a wast of
time, having to figure out these things by hand.
For hardware-specific one-time tasks I really
like tools like SuSE's SaX.

On the other hand, netconfig make network
configuration pretty easy. I like that tool. But
then: What do you learn about Linux using it?

When it comes to other Linux capabilities, like
file sharing via NFS, SAMBA, web servers and
such, most distros are similar.

And finally, Slackware in my experience is the
distribution where I learn the least about
Linux. Because, as another poster said, you
only really learn, when you have screwed up your
system yourself.

But Slackware doesn't support this, and once it
is up and running, it runs so well, that I
forget everything I have learned, before I
need it the next time... ;)

Serious: The point of learning is not a good
point. Better arguments are, that Slackware is
flexible, robust, secure (well, there is no
firewall by default, so one could argue about
this...), and very low-maintenance.

But the four best points for it are:

1. Is so well maintained by down-to-earth people
with skills proven over many years.

2. Its community (the people at LQ.org and
elsewhere). You never get
stuck completely, and upgrading a system is as
easy as following the instructions in UPGRADE.TXT.

3. The developers listen. (Well, the Ubuntu and
OpenSuSE and Gentoo developers, do so, too...)

4. Vendor patches are avoided where possible.
This means that you can usually expect that a
program compiled from source will actually run,
as there are no specific requirements or
dependencies introduced by a backport or vendor
patch necessary to get another thing running
before it is mature.
It also is one reason why Slackware is the best
platform for Java development I know, as the
Java package is what Sun provides, not a package
with vendor specific patches and dependencies.
And the Java version is always up-to-date.
This is noteworthy: "Modern" distros like
OpenSuSE fail to include the latest Java SDK,
while a "conservative" oldie like Slackware
has no problem with this.

What do you mean by that? And what's the
benefit?

[...]


Much of the development of the kernel, KDE and
Gnome has been driven by Red Hat and SuSE. While
Slackware and Debian are the oldest distros
still in service, and "paved the way" in the
early days, they are now parasites, not
innovators. Which is exactly what makes them so
good as they integrate new stuff only when it
has matured and is stable. But others are
lighting the way, today, and Red Hat and SuSE
are doing a great job, in my opinion, and use
the money they get from customers like IBM,
Oracle and, yes, Microsoft quite well to
the benefit of all of us.

[...]Learn the CLI like the back of your hand.
Get your sound/hardware all working and learn
your way around system settings and config files
before you go into a distribution that does a
lot of that for you.[/QUOTE]

As I said above, there's no use in learning, how
to configure hardware, except you are a PC
technician or OEM employee. You will usually not
be able to use such knowledge ever again elsewhere. I agree, of course, that learning the
CLI is useful. But this is possible on any
distro, with Ubuntu being a special case due to
their sudo philosophy (which is a smart concept
for making the lifes for end-users easier on
single-user machines; which is what most Linux
machines are, actually).

It certainly makes sense to understand
client-server concepts, to learn about secure
tunneling with SSH and such, but this is
possible on most *nix systems, and nowadays to a
large degree even on MS Windows. If you want.
The difference is just, that you don't have to,
if not.

Being so sceptic regarding Slackware, why do I
still stick with it and recommend it, you may
ask?

The reason is simply, that it saves me a lot of
time. As has been said by some other poster,
software updates come in only as security
patches for "stable", and are installed quickly
with two simple calls of slackpkg. I am
not "bombed" with lots of updates, I can rely on
a certain (very high!) level of quality assured
for every new release, and I almost just can
forget about the system, once it is installed
and running.

So, in a way, Slackware keeps Ubuntu's promises.

But, as I have said in many posts before, a
third distro that I really like is OpenSuSE.
It's follows a different philosophy than Slackware and Ubuntu, and has, e. g., excellent
hardware support and localization. In the recent
11.1 release package management has become
fast, again, at last, so most of the problems
with the 10.x series are problems of the past.
But having said that, you see the advantage of
Slackware: Distros like OpenSuSE are changing
fundamental parts of the system, "paving
the way" and adopting new development of the
Linux world very soon,mostly to the benefit of
the users, they also lack the last bit of
consistency, sometimes. E. g., when SuSE
integrated HAL and D-BUS and udev and USB device
automounting, this was quite leap forward for
end-users used to such comfort on MS Windows.
But it worked well only in simple scenarios and
had problems when you removed and reconnected
the same device.

When Slackware finally followed with its
integration of HAL and D-BUS and udev, it was a
much more consistent, complete and mature
integration.

What I am going to say is, that the philosophy
of Slackware is to offer only functionality that
is proven and can be provided with a
minimum of quality.

The quality of OpenSuSE is usually very good,
too, but they accept compromises that you will
never see being accepted in a Slackware
release, in order to make something "available"
for the user.

But don't get me wrong: The result aren't show-stoppers, just little weaknesses or
inconsistencies, that hardly make the system
unattractive or unusable. Usually, it's no
problem to live with them. But sometimes,
like the slow package management in OpenSuSE
10.x, they can be annoying on a system used
daily, and these are things that you cannot
fix yourself. I guess the same holds for Ubuntu.

Both are, BTW, equally stable on servers, in my
experience. Which means, they don't ever crash,
except due to a hardware failure.

gargamel

As some other poster said, I too recommend the profiles at
Distro Watch.

gargamel

Once more, with feeling...
 

Hei,

I want say here again what I already said about some... let's say 'stuff' about slack....

But I can tell you that Slack is more to people who want to learn more, and exactly to people who know something, because you will always be in need of reading and researching with you use Slack...

I have a Slack in my desktop and a Kubuntu in my notebook. I haven't choice, I couldn't install Slack at the notebook.

Life is a lot more easier with all those Kubuntu stuff... with Slack somethings are a pain in the ass... BUT it is WORTH.

If I could do it again I'd chose a Slack at desktop and a Debian at notebook.

And two days ago, I must confess, I did it.. I installed slapt-get ( http://software.jaos.org/BUILD/slapt...Q.html#slgFAQ4 ) and I am already using it... so instead of a battle every and each time I want to install something, I can just get a slack...

No right, no wrong... just Linux
 

There's no right or wrong about which Linux distro you prefer. It's like religon, or music, or sport, or cars, or food, or (the list goes on forever)...

You do what you feel is right and best for yourself and others. For example, I love Slackware and wouldn't really consider any other distro for my own personal use. I love the learning curve and the education. The hands-on approach with CLI and actually being involved in what I'm doing (or trying to do) gives me a great sense of purpose and achievement.

On the other hand, people have asked me in the past which distro is best to get involved in, usually when the user has only experienced Windows. Most of the time I tell them to go for Ubuntu, purely because it has an environment as easy to get to grips with as Windows itself and the pointy/clicky aspect will be very familiar to them. I usually say "If you want to just use Linux for the experience or being able to say you use Linux instead of Windows, go for Ubuntu. Alternatively, if you want to REALLY learn about Linux and give yourself the education of a lifetime, go for Slackware." If I had a dollar for everytime I heard them say "I'll go with Ubuntu... Slackware is too hard and only for hardcore geeks!" I'd be a very very wealthy man indeed.

We can all pick fault with everything everybody else is doing. Ultimately, if you're happy with Slackware stick with it. If not, try something else. In fact, try ALL the Linux distro's you have time to play around with. There's a wealth of software and information out there to suit everyones needs and that's only going to get better in the future. :>

Old post, yes, but I am bored, so I'll respond :)
- Slack can use multiple monitors, assuming the drivers themselves can handle it. Some intel chipsets have "auto" switching, which basically means you do it their way or not at all. I can run a projector with mine (Intel 945GM) and my last one (Intel 865GM) but I had to start the computer with it connected (Intel's fault).
- Slack can use any audio that's in the Linux kernel, so it's fine there. A minute of configuration with programs works wonders, and you don't have the issues other distributions sometimes have with pulse audio, etc.
- Slack can use any wired/wireless that's in the Linux kernel, and even more if you want to use an emulator.
- You can [un]install programs at will with Slack (and the user base now has much more in the way of -contrib). You will never experience dependency hell in the RPM sense.
- Slackware is much more customizable because it's more vanilla.
- It can be an active member on the network (duh).
- You can install flash easily (even as a user) and it works on Slackware. PDF isn't a plugin: it's simply telling Firefox "hey, use kpdf for PDF files".
- Slackware comes with KOffice, but there's already a package of OpenOffice in our "-contrib".
- Good misspelling of "Wine" there :) My sentiments exactly. But I know people who use them on Slackware, so that works fine.
- I listen to all my music and watch all my videos on Slackware.
- Securing Slackware is very easy. For example, there's a README that describes how to have a fully encrypted hard drive install of Slackware if you want to go to that great a length.
- As any distro, Slackware has updates when needed. Rsync works good. Also, slackware-current is the "testing" area of Slackware, but I've actually used it for a long time before. Just as stable, 99% of the time.
- Backing up files is pathetically easy with Slack. Use rsync.
- Smart buttons work here, you just need to find the key codes (xev). I did and they work great, just takes a few minutes.
- Slackware is very different, and can be tailored to you easily. It has tools that help you do your job, also, like wicd (now a part of /extra).
- Slackware has bittorrent and ktorrent in /extra, and they work great.

Noobuntu ... Slackesperience
 

I'm sure other have already posted a similar observation - but slack is for the more experienced bunch and Ubuntu is just the "gateway" drug into the world of the penguin ....

Xorg automation is a major suck right now.

Latest ubuntu picked up my external no problem.

And God will they ever get that GEM crap worked out for the intel chipsets. My ut2004 looks like poo.

Funny post, for the following reasons:

1) There is no Xorg automation other than what Xorg itself (upstream) has. There's no "suck" about it: it's nonexistent. Slackware is very "do it yourself", and it's not hard to do that if you can use Google.

2) The Intel drivers in Slackware are stock.

You can't expect Slackware to do everything for you like Ubuntu does. Their design philosophies are totally different.

Where Slackware may "fail" in your book due to lack of automation or basically doing everything for you, Ubuntu can fail in that sometimes it does things for you the wrong way. I have helped people in such circumstances fix what Ubuntu or whatever distribution failed to automatically do something correctly because I know how things work "under the hood", where few of the "automated distro" users I've met have. (However, my experience is limited because I am only one person.)

This is not meant to be a Slackware versus Ubuntu war. He asked some questions, so either answer them or shut up. Since the first page of this thread probably did more than enough to answer his questions, there really is no need for the rest of the thread to continue.

4 days ago I came upon Slax...wow!! what an introduction to the world of Linux...as a result I want to install Linux on my hard drive...that brings me to this site and this thread...a lot can be said about an exchange like this one...from this newbie's prospective it has been extremely informative..."thanks you" to everyone's contribution...nu_b

Welcome to the official Slackware forum, free2view! If you're thinking about installing Linux then Slax is an excellent place to start. You will be able to familiarize yourself with Linux using that distro. When you're ready to take the plunge and install a version of Linux take the time to read the documentation provided for your distro. I'm a bit biased, but, I think that Slackware is an excellent version of Linux. Slackware is stable, secure, and runs very fast on older hardware and high-end Intel/AMD boxes.

You extrapolated a lot from my funny post.

I was quite serious.

There is automation. Xorg 7.4 can run without an xorg.conf file. The Xorg developers actually implore you to leave configuration to the detection mechanism. There is a new scheme to override the auto-detection in the form of fdi files.

You can as well revert to the old behavior of config file editing.

Section "ServerFlags"
Option "AutoAddDevices" "False"
End Section

does all this bickering really matter?
 

I help people in windows chatrooms.. cause 1. i'm really good with windows, and i'm an EXCELLENT googl'r too. I never say (when someone says they have this problem or or that crash blah blah blah in windows) "use linux" ..

Linux itself will NEVER be desktop of the year, and the year of the linux desktop will NEVER COME ..why do you ask? glad you asked..

for 1. windows has to satisfy EVERYONE and EVERYTHING , thats why so much can and has gone wrong with it , why its so easily targeted and so easily hacked, smacked, cracked and hi-jacked
2. Linux is a "CHOICE" the average person that "chooses" to use linux of any distro/variety, knows they are in for a NON-windows experience.. whether they chose a distro that JUST WORKS or one that they have to WORK just to make it WORK, is THEIR CHOICE.

my first distro was pclinuxos, an incredible distro, never crashed, very stable..,then ubuntu, ubuntu ultimate, mint, zenwalk(didnt like it), installed slackware, but wasnt "ready" for the work involved at that time, tried pcbsd, didnt like the "feel" of it, then back to ubuntu 64bit since pclinuxos2009 is not 64bit, and I like using all my ram, but seriously..(i mean isnt linux actually JUST A KERNEL?) the package manager, philosophy of the devs, and the lil perks and tweaks that come with it all are all just "window dressing" (pardon the word "window")?

with over 500 choices for linux , itll NEVER EVER be the "YEAR" of the linux desktop, cause choice being linux's BIGGEST strength, is also it's even BIGGER weakness..
when people even bash people cause of their distro choice, this is an internal type strife thatll turn more people off of linux(this along with RTFM,go back to windoze, and try a kiddy distro), then all the malware,viruses,hi-jacks, bsods, registry and ID10t errors of windows itself.

in closing i say "Use what you can AFFORD, "CREATIVELY ACQUIRE" or figure out" and leave everyone else's choices ALONE unless you are actually HELPING THEM use linux and respect the choice(S) they've made.

thank you
that was my .02 now i'm broke

my exprenence with ubuntu was like this.
 

installed ubuntu, it DID NOT asked me what to install. it booted itself. i need a problem and i tried to compile it (old habits hardly dies) and bam no gcc at all. after that i deleted ubuntu, broke the cd and never ever tried it ever again.

if you want unix, use SLackware or some *BSD. if you don't, don't use Slackware

and some quote from qbd.us

<Montag> "Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "I can't configure Slackware".

+1
ubuntu is my first linux distro that i use.it help me grasp the concept of using linux system, which is very different with what im used to, windows. there was a time that you could call me a "fanboy", advocating to use linux instead of windows to all the people i meet (silly me). after i learned the basic of using linux, i wanted to expand my knowledge about this os. i tried different distro and i found out that different distros have different "characteristics" on its own. you could say that different distros have different personality.some distros is more than glad to babysit you in using linux, while others are like our granddad who will just tell us the basic and let our common sense and good judgment direct our actions on what we want to do.

after a while of distro-hopping, i settle using zenwalk.this distro teach me a lot about linux more that the other distro i have tried(maybe because its the 2nd longest distro i used).this distro taught me to be unafraid of the CLI.but this distro does not still exactly fit according to my preference.there is still something lacking(at least for me) that made me try slackware.after i installed slackware, i found the perfect os according to my need. it let me do more work and let me enjoy my linux experience.thats the reason why i stay and intend to stay longer in slackware.

also, during my time of learning linux, i learn to appreciate that different users have different needs. there is no reason to push on other person what works for you.rather, let the person decide for themselves what is best for them.linux is about freedom, right?we have this great community which helps other linux user solve their problem regardless of their choice of distro.you could encounter some "fanboy", but there are more persons here who knows how to respect other people's choice. and i can assure you that they are more knowledgeable than the "fanboy".

to conclude, read as many as you can about particular distro.if you have time and resources, try it yourself. only then that you can decide which distro fits your needs and let you enjoy using linux.

btw, im no longer a "fanboy".but i like slackware most :).

This, I thought, was a good post. I don't usually respond to threads like this, but because I use both distros, I thought I would take a look. I have quoted the part of your post that keeps me away from Windows, but I hardily agree with the damage that "my distro is better than your distro" causes. It's silly and unnecessary.

I also agree with this, but I do not think that the average dedicated Linux user would care less about this accolade. Those of us who chose Linux as our OS of choice did so for a variety of reasons, but I doubt that anyone chose it because of its popularity. We chose it because, for us, it satisfies what we need and want and for many of us it is a very satisfying experience to learn it.

I definitely agree with this. We don't have to "creatively acquire" Linux or its accompanying applications. They are free, normally. I am only guessing, but according to a number estimates, at least 10% of all Windows users STOLE their OS by using pirated or illegal copies.

I do, however, think that the powers at Microsoft are beginning to become a little concerned at the spread of open source. I have no idea whether it is valid or not, but recently it was reported that Linux desktop users had passed the 1% mark. Ten years ago the figure would not even have been measurable (if it is now.) I have a relatively close friend who works for MS (marketing) in the UK, and it is a topic of internal discussion now, when it was not even on the radar 5-7 years ago. The countless frivelous law suits filed by MS (SCO case, which MS financed, etc.) for "stolen code" is another testimony to the fact Microsoft is noticing the erosion, however slight, of their dominance in the desktop marker, having already lost the server market.

So, overall, I thought this was good post with the right observation about "distro" bashing. I am not a Windows hater and I don't think I have ever suggested that someone seeking help "just use Windows." For commercial reasons (i.e. greater hardware vendor support), I hope the percentage of Linux users grows in leaps and bounds. But, for now, I am comfortable wth the rapid progress to date, and I believe we are in for a terrific future.

Odd thing to say, but perhaps I misunderstand. If it did, there would be no linux or mac.

Brian

Hello people...
Interesting thread here. I want to express my opinion in here about Slackware and Ubuntu and why not, other distributions. My first experience with Linux came with Red Hat 7.2. My first real experience came with Fedora Core 1. Then, one time in 2004 someone said to me "hey, if u love linux why don't u try slackware ?" They were at the 9.1 version at the time, but by the time I decided to give it a try the 10.0 was already out so that was my first slackware experience. After that, I began to try as many distros as I found. I have tried at least 100 distros. Of course I tried ubuntu, and I think it's a decent distro. But there's something I really hate at all distros I used, except slackware. All of them had some stupid simple thing that didn't work (in slack's case that worked out of the box, or it was installed in a blink of an eye). For instance today I gave a try to Mandriva 2009 spring, as I found out it was a nice desktop distro. It looks well, but the damn nvidia driver just won't work. I tried to use their own repo, installed the dependencies but the driver won't activate itself. I manually edited xorg.conf, set it done, but the X crashes. I even tried to install a version from the nvidia website, but the installer fails, even though I have kernel-headers and kernel-source installed. The installer also get some stupid looks with no spacing, I almost can't read a thing it tells me. Never seen that somewhere else... Let's talk about ubuntu...recently I installed the new "Jaunty" or whatever the hell it's name is. I got the nvidia driver working, and after a day, when I let the update manager install my updates, the gdm just didn't want to start anymore. I re-installed the nvidia drivers via apt-get, I tried a lot...I had to delete ubuntu from my pc later. Another really stupid thing in ubuntu and so many other distros based on it. I'm also a console lover and of course when the gdm or kdm crashes (that happenes too :P) I try to login into a tty terminal...surprise, they're not available, or it doesn't work...so all those little things makes me throw away the cd's and dvd's I used to burn other distro's. I'm not saying slackware is the best distro out there, I'm saying it's the best distro for me. Of course it really still has some anoying things. For instance the wheel mouse still isn't working by default. Although it's so easy to get it right, it should be solved. I absolutely love that I can play with files, and edit any config file I want. I recently upgraded to current via slackpkg and I got it to work. The new KDE4 which I hated in other distro really works well in slackware, and I'm starting to love it. Damn, I need some stability when I install an OS on my machine as I don't want to get crashes at every update or so...that's what I love about slackware...stability, speed, the power to edit and make your own customized linux distro.

I'm trying out Ubuntu 9.04-amd64 at the moment, and I quite like it - not as much as I like Slackware, of course. Some of the anti-Ubuntu stuff in this long drawn out thread is irrational: breaking the CD because there was no gcc? WTF?? Let's leave all this fanatical garbage to religious loonies, eh?

To throw my two cents into an already very deep well . . .

It comes down to this:
When you've both graduated and it comes time to troubleshoot some ancient UNIX machine on the fritz which runs some horrible proprietary software that some client or your own employer needs and has no replacement for (it happens), all of your friend's experiences with pretty GUIs and "I just installed it and it worked" will not help him at all. He will weep.

Your Slackware experience will give you the resourcefulness, confidence, and experience you need to slice such problems apart like a well-honed blade.

Stick with the slack.

Also, I don't know what your school is teaching you, but weather they teach it or not, learn to code in C. Learn C, dammit, or you'll be sorry.

Slackware in 12 rounds by spit decision