PDA

View Full Version : Why I still don't like Linux



Tony
12-05-2012, 03:02 PM
I downloaded the Ubuntu 12.4 iso - why not I thought, I'll give it (yet) another go.

The live demo sort of went OK, although there was "serious system problem". The OS still carried on though - big tick. All right I thought, I've a spare partition, I'll actually install it. When the install kicked off, it said it couldn't find any existing operating systems (I have Win7, Vista and Win8 preview on the machine), and when I chose the do it myself option it gave a list of disks that gave no clue as to which was which so I could choose where to install. Stuff that, I thought, and cancelled.

Back to the live demo and I realized it wasn't recognizing most of my disks. At that point I decided life is too short and gave it away (again). When I went to terminate, it gave me a restart and a shut down option, but the only one that worked was shut down.

I did like the fact that it totally sorted out and recognized the network and found the other PCs. Also that I was straight onto the net. I still have nightmares when I remember trying to configure the network access by having to manually edit all sorts of configuration files. At least that has improved.

stratex5
12-05-2012, 03:30 PM
Can i ask, is there something you need help with?

pcuser42
12-05-2012, 03:32 PM
While it can take a bit of guesswork sometimes to get Ubuntu installed, the real kicker for me are the little things, like no right-drag and a somewhat buggy alternative to Aero Snap (though 11.10 didn't have anything).

Overall, Windows 7 still wins. :D

Tony
12-05-2012, 03:59 PM
Can i ask, is there something you need help with?Thanks for the offer, but I could probably hack my way through it if I was so inclined. But life's too short...

Tony
12-05-2012, 04:00 PM
Overall, Windows 7 still wins. :DYup.

stratex5
12-05-2012, 04:01 PM
No, its just you posted this in pressf1 forum so i thought you had a question.

johnd
13-05-2012, 07:05 PM
While it can take a bit of guesswork sometimes to get Ubuntu installed, the real kicker for me are the little things, like no right-drag and a somewhat buggy alternative to Aero Snap (though 11.10 didn't have anything).

Overall, Windows 7 still wins. :D

It really is about what you are used to. I have been using Linux on the desktop since 1998 and have to say when I use MS Windows 7 at work there are things I really miss - such as multiple desktops, mouse over takes focus of the window, F3 to divide a file manager screen into two so you don't need to start another instance, ....... Some of these things are fixed by third party software but not all.

icow
13-05-2012, 07:10 PM
It really is about what you are used to. I have been using Linux on the desktop since 1998 and have to say when I use MS Windows 7 at work there are things I really miss - such as multiple desktops, mouse over takes focus of the window, F3 to divide a file manager screen into two so you don't need to start another instance, ....... Some of these things are fixed by third party software but not all.

+1

plod
13-05-2012, 07:13 PM
No, its just you posted this in pressf1 forum so i thought you had a question.True, but LMAO

johnd
13-05-2012, 11:13 PM
Some of what you describe above sounds to be lack of experience in Linux - it is not as buggy as you describe unless something has gone wrong. If you don't understand what the partitioning options are then it is time to do some research and find out if you want continue with Linux. As has been said on this forum many times - "Linux is not MS Windows".

sahilcc7
13-05-2012, 11:39 PM
I am also a fan of linux. I am running ubuntu 12.04 as a dualboot and really like the customization it has to offer. It also seems faster than windows 7. I just get annoyed when things go wrong and I can't fix easily.. Some basic things I want to do, I have to google how to do it, then see that I need to do something via command line. Because I am not familiar with command line, I can't easily fix things.

fred_fish
14-05-2012, 12:56 AM
I downloaded the Ubuntu 12.4 iso

... well there's your problem ... :)

Ubuntu != Linux

Have you tried setting up Win7 as a dual boot on a machine with existing OS's?

I haven't since XP, but it wasn't straightforward, maybe it's improved since then.

The default install of Ubuntu comes with Gnome3 & the Unity interface. If you are basing your opinion of "linux usability" solely on that, you are missing an entire ecosystem of user interfaces, that either out of the box or by your own configuration, can make your PC work exactly as you want, and maybe also have some features that you didn't know you couldn't do without.

FWIW I feel like I have one arm tied behind my back when sitting in front of a Windows machine.

Also, being at the mercy of a hundred third party software vendors to be trusted to fix security issues promptly, and to have MY best interests at heart, makes me a bit squirmy.

pcuser42
14-05-2012, 09:48 AM
Have you tried setting up Win7 as a dual boot on a machine with existing OS's?

It's certainly easier than getting Ubuntu to play nice...


The default install of Ubuntu comes with Gnome3 & the Unity interface. If you are basing your opinion of "linux usability" solely on that, you are missing an entire ecosystem of user interfaces, that either out of the box or by your own configuration, can make your PC work exactly as you want, and maybe also have some features that you didn't know you couldn't do without.

I don't particularly like Unity either. On my test desktop PC, I've configured Ubuntu to use the previous Gnome interface, it's somewhat better. On my netbook (installed using Wubi), I just put up with it as I'm usually using the Terminal anyway. :p

dugimodo
14-05-2012, 10:28 AM
I've tried Linux multiple times with various distros, and gone back to windows every time. It's not that I think windows is better or that Linux is bad, just that I am not prepared to put the time and effort required to get the same degree of usability I get by default with windows. I remember a workmate writing his own graphics driver to make Linux work.

My first serious attempt at using Linux was as a media machine. I got it all installed and then tried to get a TV tuner working. Two weeks of research and reading and attempting to configure it later I managed to get myth TV to display an untuned signal from the tuner. I never could get it to actually tune anything though. After reinstalling windows I had it working in about 10 minutes. It's only one specific example and many things in Linux I'm sure are quite easy, but when they are not it's a nightmare for a casual user.

In my personal opinion Linux is still not ready for the average mainstream user and may never be. It suits those who like to have control and don't mind learning the in's and outs and has certainly made great strides over the years, but it still seems like a OS for the enthusiast rather than the casual user.

I recently rebuilt an old Pentium 4 from a couple of dead machines, I might have a play with Linux one more time :)

Tony
14-05-2012, 11:21 AM
I think Dugimodo has pretty much duplicated what I was about to say. I'm not a fanatic Windows fanboi or rabidly anti-Linux, but the fact is that for me, Windows just works and Linux always requires work. I don't want to have to, as Johnd says "If you don't understand what the partitioning options are then it is time to do some research and find out if you want continue with Linux. " I understand partitioning; I just want the options presented in a way that makes immediate sense. It is great that Linux has all these different options for desktops etc - why am I not presented with them in an easily-accessible way when I go to install?

There was a time when I was prepared to spend a lot of time digging around in the guts of stuff to see the workings - these days I just want it to happen. As long as Linux installation requires the sorts of attitudes expressed by Linux devotees in this thread, I don't think it will be a candidate for widespread non-techo use and will remain an OS for those who like tinkering. That is not meant to be a put-down of Linux fans - it is clearly an OS with a huge amount of merit and wonderful for those who are prepared to put in time and effort to get it working, but for your average person in the street - I don't think so, not yet anyway.

I also recognize that it is hugely more newbie-friendly than it used to be. As I said in the original post, I recall with a shudder the hoops I once had to go through to get any sort of networking going - now it just works. All we need is for that ease of use to permeate the rest of the OS.

Tony
14-05-2012, 11:24 AM
Have you tried setting up Win7 as a dual boot on a machine with existing OS's?Well, yes. As I said in an earlier post, I currently have Win7, Win8 and Vista multi-booting on the same hardware. When I tried to install Ubuntu on the same box, it didn't recognize that any of those OS existed.

Agent_24
14-05-2012, 11:26 AM
Live CDs (especially Ubuntu family) often have issues that a HDD install doesn't.

I would try a HDD install first and then see how you like it. You could use Wubi which installs Ubuntu inside of Windows (not that I recommend that method (it's a bit limiting and sometimes buggy) but it's much easier to get installed)

If you want to do a 'proper' install and you're worried about which drive to put it on etc, try this:


1) Unplug all your hard drives.

2) Plug in an extra drive to install Linux on. Doesn't have to be very big if you just want to test it out. 10GB+ would be fine.

3) Run the install. With only 1 HDD plugged in, it has no choice but to install itself there.

4) Plug all your other drives back in. Boot from the Linux HDD using boot selection option in your BIOS.

5) If you get more interested and want to keep the Linux, run an upgrade and install the latest kernel version. It will automatically rebuild the Grub config and list all your Windows installations as well. Then you don't need to manually choose the correct HDD each time you start up.

(You can also manually update the Grub config, but I forget the method - though I'm sure someone else here can help with that!)

pcuser42
14-05-2012, 12:31 PM
What I want to know is how to remove the extra Grub entries for Windows (and the old version of Ubuntu I got rid of). I've already got the Windows bootloader chainloading Grub so don't need Windows in Grub :p

Agent_24
14-05-2012, 01:15 PM
What I want to know is how to remove the extra Grub entries for Windows (and the old version of Ubuntu I got rid of). I've already got the Windows bootloader chainloading Grub so don't need Windows in Grub :p

You can manually edit your Grub config or such and remove the entries you don't want, but every time you run something that updates the Grub config (like upgrading the kernel) it will put them back.

Someone on the forum here said that was not normal behavior, and it's something that only Ubuntu does, so there may be a way to turn that 'feature' off.

Personally, I use Grub as my primary bootloader as it's just easier. And what's wrong with Grub anyway?



As for the old version of Ubuntu you have removed, it's probably left an old bootsector or such on a drive. Deleting it or rewriting with Windows if it's a Windows drive should stop it detecting it.

Tony
14-05-2012, 01:53 PM
With respect, you are just confirming everything I have written. Why on earth would I want to go to all that trouble?

I was trying a "proper" install when the HDD/other OS issues came up.

pcuser42
14-05-2012, 02:02 PM
Personally, I use Grub as my primary bootloader as it's just easier. And what's wrong with Grub anyway?

The Windows one looks better and has a third-party GUI tool for configuration. :p

(that, and I have Windows 7 as well as Server 2008 R2 on this machine)


As for the old version of Ubuntu you have removed, it's probably left an old bootsector or such on a drive. Deleting it or rewriting with Windows if it's a Windows drive should stop it detecting it.

Probably. When I installed 12.04 I made sure the bootloader was on the Ubuntu partition and not the MBR.

Chilling_Silence
14-05-2012, 02:36 PM
With respect, you are just confirming everything I have written. Why on earth would I want to go to all that trouble?

Usually coz this sorta thing only happens when you're playing with a dual-boot.

It's significantly easier when you're not.

Also, ever tried to get Windows to play nice with an existing Linux install? Windows is even worse ...

Agent_24
14-05-2012, 02:40 PM
Also, ever tried to get Windows to play nice with an existing Linux install? Windows is even worse ...

Heck, you don't even need Linux in the mix to get issues. Windows is guilty of doing all sorts of stupid things as well.

If you have enough drives and enough different versions of just Windows you will get all sorts of annoying issues.

It's far far easier sometimes to just unplug the drives you're not installing to, to make sure the damn thing installs its own bootloader and such ONLY to the drive you want it installed on and nowhere else.

pctek
14-05-2012, 03:08 PM
The only I reason I don't like it is GAMING. (And no, forget opengl and all the emulators)

KarameaDave
14-05-2012, 03:45 PM
I use Windows if essential, Linux otherwise.
I went off Ubuntu about Hardy Heron.
Used Mint for a while.
Lucid Puppy now as it is stable, easyish and fast as.
I feel you are being a bit critical of all the Linux world when you have only tried one version.
A FREE OS that a lot of people put time and effort into (not me I should point out), that requires a small amount of knowledge,
should not be dismissed in such an offhand fashion, by a self-confessed neophyte.

Shame on you! :p :lol::lol:

Tony
14-05-2012, 03:58 PM
I feel you are being a bit critical of all the Linux world when you have only tried one version.
A FREE OS that a lot of people put time and effort into (not me I should point out), that requires a small amount of knowledge,
should not be dismissed in such an offhand fashion, by a self-confessed neophyte.

Shame on you! :p :lol::lol:So defensive! I assume the post was aimed at me. I would point out that while I am not at all a Linux expert, I have tried it off and on for many years, with different distros, and have yet to find one that doesn't require a lot of stuffing around. I am also hardly a "neophyte" outside of Linux, having worked in computing since about 1966 and been involved with personal computers since about 1984.

I think all the people who are leaping to the defence of Linux are missing my point. I'm not saying Linux is a crap OS, I'm just saying that it requires more knowledge and tinkering to get up and running than I am prepared these days to put into it, and for the average non-technical user that requirement is going to put them off adopting it.

Until my sister can get a Linux disk, boot off it, enter a few parms and then go away until it is installed, it is not for her.

Chilling_Silence
14-05-2012, 04:14 PM
Try Mint as mentioned, it's awesome and ought to do just that :D

It also feature recently on the PCW Cover Discs if you've got the last month or two's worth handy :)

Agent_24
14-05-2012, 04:34 PM
The only I reason I don't like it is GAMING. (And no, forget opengl and all the emulators)

That's why I dual-boot.

Nomad
14-05-2012, 05:04 PM
I have tried Linux for a short while, I just prefer Windows. It's just standardised from the school to the workplace. And if you are into photography for eg .. most of the magazines, books, internet sites etc ... deal with Adobe.

We have a XP computer here. I might install Office 2000 back on that, I have Office 2007 which was upgraded to 2010 for free under the MS deal at the time. But we ran out of licenses. We do have Open Office on XP and it opens various files but the layout is different, the font is different. Occasionally a shaded box was missing or the box was a line underneath. We have printed the "unaltered" .docx file off both software (Office 2010 and Open Office).

KarameaDave
14-05-2012, 08:17 PM
So defensive! I assume the post was aimed at me. I would point out that while I am not at all a Linux expert, I have tried it off and on for many years, with different distros, and have yet to find one that doesn't require a lot of stuffing around. I am also hardly a "neophyte" outside of Linux, having worked in computing since about 1966 and been involved with personal computers since about 1984.

I think all the people who are leaping to the defence of Linux are missing my point. I'm not saying Linux is a crap OS, I'm just saying that it requires more knowledge and tinkering to get up and running than I am prepared these days to put into it, and for the average non-technical user that requirement is going to put them off adopting it.

Until my sister can get a Linux disk, boot off it, enter a few parms and then go away until it is installed, it is not for her.

Yeah, thought I'd get a bite, this is all opinion, so should really be in chat, as someone else has pointed out. A neophyte is simply someone new, any experience you may, or may not have with Windows, has little or no bearing in this discussion really, but, OH WELL, never mind, as they say.

Tony
14-05-2012, 08:27 PM
Yeah, thought I'd get a bite, this is all opinion, so should really be in chat, as someone else has pointed out. A neophyte is simply someone new, any experience you may, or may not have with Windows, has little or no bearing in this discussion really, but, OH WELL, never mind, as they say.Mmm... defensive - and patronising!

Agent_24
14-05-2012, 08:31 PM
Until my sister can get a Linux disk, boot off it, enter a few parms and then go away until it is installed, it is not for her.

Which is exactly what you can do if you have a single hard drive in the machine and no other operating system already.

Multi-boot scenarios with any OS make installation more ... interesting.

That's why I suggest simply unplugging the other drives during install so they aren't in the picture and causing an issue. (You shouldn't actually have to do this, but it guarantees nothing strange will happen to them)

Tony
14-05-2012, 08:33 PM
Which is exactly what you can do if you have a single hard drive in the machine and no other operating system already.

Multi-boot scenarios with any OS make installation more ... interesting.

That's why I suggest simply unplugging the other drives during install so they aren't in the picture and causing an issue.Well, a couple of people have said that here, but my experience with installing multi-boot windows versions has been trouble-free.

KarameaDave
14-05-2012, 08:46 PM
Sorry, Tony.
I got upset, no reason really.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I am thankful that Linux exists, not everyone cares.

All the best

Agent_24
14-05-2012, 08:51 PM
Well, a couple of people have said that here, but my experience with installing multi-boot windows versions has been trouble-free.

It usually is trouble free - and so it is on Linux too. But in some cases, you just get problems.

For example: last time I installed Windows 7, it installed fine, but decided to put 100MB of boot support files onto my 1TB storage drive even though I was installing it onto a completely different, 250GB hard drive.

I couldn't do anything with the boot folder, eventually reformatted the 250GB, used Linux to delete the boot folder from the 1TB, then unplugged all but the 250GB, installed Windows 7 again, and all was correct, and the boot folder was in the 250GB drive because it had nowhere else to go.

I would be perfectly happy if Windows had had an option to choose where to stick that folder, but it obviously tried to be 'clever' and just annoyed me instead.


That's a rather simple issue however, and if you didn't even care where that folder was it would be a non-issue. But if you want to easily give yourself headaches, try to dual-boot with 2 different versions of Windows on the same drive and install the older one 2nd.

Say, install Windows 7 and then XP.

XP will overwrite the bootloader with its own one, because it doesn't know what Windows 7 is. Then you have to bugger around putting the Windows 7 bootloader back and getting XP added into it.

pcuser42
14-05-2012, 09:19 PM
Then you have to bugger around putting the Windows 7 bootloader back and getting XP added into it.

Pretty simple in EasyBCD...

Agent_24
14-05-2012, 09:24 PM
Pretty simple in EasyBCD...

Yes, but you still have to do it. My point is that multi-booting Windows isn't all rainbows and sunshine.

Tony is probably lucky if his multi-boot Windows installations have been trouble-free - I'm just saying there are many ways to give yourself a multi-boot headache without going anywhere near Linux.

mikebartnz
14-05-2012, 09:41 PM
It really is about what you are used to. I have been using Linux on the desktop since 1998 and have to say when I use MS Windows 7 at work there are things I really miss - such as multiple desktops, mouse over takes focus of the window, F3 to divide a file manager screen into two so you don't need to start another instance, ....... Some of these things are fixed by third party software but not all.
Like you there are so many little things like the ones you mention that makes Windows feel crippled to me.

mikebartnz
14-05-2012, 09:47 PM
So defensive! I assume the post was aimed at me. I would point out that while I am not at all a Linux expert, I have tried it off and on for many years, with different distros, and have yet to find one that doesn't require a lot of stuffing around.
I've had a very good run with PCLinuxOS. Installing and using and really only ever had one problem and that was with one version installing from a USB stick. The installation went well but for some reason the upgrade stuffed up. I've found the effort of learning a new OS definitely worth it.

mikebartnz
14-05-2012, 09:50 PM
We do have Open Office on XP and it opens various files but the layout is different, the font is different. Occasionally a shaded box was missing or the box was a line underneath. We have printed the "unaltered" .docx file off both software (Office 2010 and Open Office).
I would recommend upgrading OpenOffice to the latest LibreOffice.

mikebartnz
14-05-2012, 09:53 PM
For example: last time I installed Windows 7, it installed fine, but decided to put 100MB of boot support files onto my 1TB storage drive even though I was installing it onto a completely different, 250GB hard drive.
Had that happen when installing Win8 and it totally pissed me off as I had told it which disk I wanted it installed to. Very poor I thought.

Chilling_Silence
14-05-2012, 10:00 PM
Had that happen when installing Win8 and it totally pissed me off as I had told it which disk I wanted it installed to. Very poor I thought.

Yeah I noticed that starting with Win7. Still not sure why it does it ....

Agent_24
14-05-2012, 10:14 PM
Thinking about it, perhaps it's supposed to be some recovery feature, ie: if the partition on your system drive is trashed, hopefully the boot folder will be safe on another drive?

Tony
14-05-2012, 11:13 PM
Tony is probably lucky if his multi-boot Windows installations have been trouble-free ...It's probably because I'm not a neophyte. :)

mikebartnz
14-05-2012, 11:51 PM
Thinking about it, perhaps it's supposed to be some recovery feature, ie: if the partition on your system drive is trashed, hopefully the boot folder will be safe on another drive?
Considering the majority don't multi-boot I don't think it would be very useful. I think it is just Windows being Windows and doing its own thing regardless.

pcuser42
15-05-2012, 08:36 AM
Considering the majority don't multi-boot I don't think it would be very useful. I think it is just Windows being Windows and doing its own thing regardless.

If the majority don't dual boot then why would it be a problem if Windows creates its own 200MB partition (especially as it creates it when you create a partition)...

Speedy Gonzales
15-05-2012, 09:37 AM
Windows installs the 100 mb partition on Ultimate I think. It didnt install it on this. Which is Win7 Pro

pcuser42
15-05-2012, 10:03 AM
Windows installs the 100 mb partition on Ultimate I think. It didnt install it on this. Which is Win7 Pro Aa far as I can tell, if the disk already has partitions on it and you don't alter them during Setup, Windows doesn't create the partition.

Speedy Gonzales
15-05-2012, 10:12 AM
True I think I did that once, just made the partitions bigger. Then setup couldnt create the 100 mb partition

mikebartnz
15-05-2012, 10:13 AM
If the majority don't dual boot then why would it be a problem if Windows creates its own 200MB partition (especially as it creates it when you create a partition)...
I don't have a problem with it creating the partition it is just when told to install to a certain HD why does it insist on installing it on another without the option.

dugimodo
15-05-2012, 11:55 AM
It contains the boot files and some recovery tools and isn't required. If you delete it though you have to do a system repair to make windows bootable again.
It will also sometimes install boot files on another drive even without the partition, just depending on what drive it thinks is the default boot device.

100mb isn't a big deal and doesn't bother me, what does annoy me is not being able to remove another drive without screwing up windows boot because it decided for some reason to install the boot files on it. The safest way to install windows is to only have one drive attached, and if you don't like the 100mb partition then prepartition the drive before doing the install.

I have never had a problem setting up a dual boot with windows, just install the older version first and it's fine. What's tricky is removing the older OS later when you have them on seperate drives because again windows 7 puts the boot files on the other drive. Easy BCD has tools to fix this, much easier than a repair install also.

Gobe1
15-05-2012, 04:01 PM
The safest way to install windows is to only have one drive attached, and if you don't like the 100mb partition then repartition the drive before doing the install.

+1

Chilling_Silence
16-05-2012, 09:13 AM
The only I reason I don't like it is GAMING. (And no, forget opengl and all the emulators)

Oh yeah forgot to mention, hopefully that'll change soon with Steam: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=valve_linux_dampfnudeln&num=1
They have my backing :D

Agent_24
16-05-2012, 11:57 AM
Only one problem there, it's Steam.

And a lot of good games aren't on Steam either.

kjaada
16-05-2012, 12:40 PM
I downloaded the Ubuntu 12.4 iso - why not I thought, I'll give it (yet) another go.

The live demo sort of went OK, although there was "serious system problem". The OS still carried on though - big tick. All right I thought, I've a spare partition, I'll actually install it. When the install kicked off, it said it couldn't find any existing operating systems (I have Win7, Vista and Win8 preview on the machine), and when I chose the do it myself option it gave a list of disks that gave no clue as to which was which so I could choose where to install. Stuff that, I thought, and cancelled.

Back to the live demo and I realized it wasn't recognizing most of my disks. At that point I decided life is too short and gave it away (again). When I went to terminate, it gave me a restart and a shut down option, but the only one that worked was shut down.

I did like the fact that it totally sorted out and recognized the network and found the other PCs. Also that I was straight onto the net. I still have nightmares when I remember trying to configure the network access by having to manually edit all sorts of configuration files. At least that has improved.

ANYONE wanting to try linux for the first time should first try PUPPY live cd.
After years of Windows it is difficult to get in to the likes of Ubuntu. but puppy is refreshing and a good launch pad for other OS's
but why anyone would want Ubuntu or the big name linux OS's is hard to understand.
Puppy and maybe Windows for a couple of things does everything most people would want.

Tony
16-05-2012, 12:57 PM
ANYONE wanting to try linux for the first time should first try PUPPY live cdTry reading the other posts. This is not the first time I have tried Linux, by any means. However, in the interests of balance and fairness I will have a look at puppy.

Update - I went to the puppy website and gave up after seeing the multitude of versions, options, instructions etc. Nowhere could I find an obvious link to a preferred puppy iso image. I'm sure it is there somewhere, but having been advised that this is for someone wanting to try Linux for the first time, all I can do is repeat - life is too short. If I was the neophyte I have been told I am, I would be totally confused. What I wanted was a simple link that said "download the latest puppy iso here".

OK, I had another look and eventually found a link sort of like I suggested above. It talks about being a "slackware-compatible build". I'm a neophyte - what is that and why should I care? Anyway, I'm downloading it right now and will give it a go.

Agent_24
16-05-2012, 01:18 PM
but why anyone would want Ubuntu or the big name linux OS's is hard to understand.

You can easily install the big names to HDD and easily install updates afterwards. You don't have to boot from a slow CD or USB every time.


OK, I had another look and eventually found a link sort of like I suggested above. It talks about being a "slackware-compatible build". I'm a neophyte - what is that and why should I care? Anyway, I'm downloading it right now and will give it a go.

As it says on the download page: "is compatible with the binary packages of Slackware 13.37"

Tony
16-05-2012, 01:28 PM
As it says on the download page: "is compatible with the binary packages of Slackware 13.37"And speaking as a hypothetical neophyte - that means what, and why should I care? I just want an OS that works!

Chilling_Silence
16-05-2012, 01:33 PM
I dunno, I had a blast installing Linux Mint. Took a full Win7 HDD and it repartitioned it, no complaints, nothing technical, it just said "I want to split your HDDs free space down the middle, are you cool with this?" and I said "Yeah, sure, go for it"...

Aside from my username / password, it also asked my Timezone and that was it. The rest is automatic? I don't really see what the fuss it about :-/

Tony
16-05-2012, 02:55 PM
Never let it be said that I'm not willing to have a go:

I should say, and I recognise that this may complicate matters, that I have 4 physical disks, 3 SATA each with several partitions, and 1 IDE. I have Win7 and Win8 on one SATA disk, and Vista on another SATA dsk. The IDE disk is empty, one partition, formatted NTFS.

Mint/Ubuntu 12.04 install. Neither recognises that I have any other OS installed. I get to the point where I have to choose a disk. I choose the empty IDE disk. I get the message "No root file system is defined. Please correct this from the partitioning menu". Isn't NTFS a file system? There is no "partitioning menu", or at least nothing labelled as such. The nearest thing says "create". Is this it? (Only rhetorical - I'm not going any further.) There is no help button that might give me more guidance.

Puppy Linux. I tried both the slackware and the ubuntu compatible versions. Not impressed. The menu button gives me a vast list of programs etc, which in principle is great, but they all have the typical Linux cryptic/cutesy names, which give me no guidance whatsoever. Not much help to a neophyte. The desktop background was awful (I realize this could be changed). I couldn't find any way to browse my network, whereas Ubuntu made it easy.

I think I'm done with Linux for the moment (again :) ).

Let me repeat: I'm sure it is a very good OS, but it is still not something for a beginner to attempt, and while it still has the huge range of flavours, and cryptic names for programs, it will remain a niche product for enthusiasts and professionals.

Chilling_Silence
16-05-2012, 03:01 PM
I should say, and I recognise that this may complicate matters, that I have 4 physical disks, 3 SATA each with several partitions, and 1 IDE. I have Win7 and Win8 on one SATA disk, and Vista on another SATA dsk. The IDE disk is empty, one partition, formatted NTFS.

but it is still not something for a beginner to attempt

Clearly not a beginner if you have all of the above... Just saying ;)

That's fine, clearly it's not for everybody and you apparently want something that's going to know what your advanced setup is like without asking you any questions. Linux isn't for you. I'm not even sure how Windows is either, but whatever floats your boat ...

Tony
16-05-2012, 03:09 PM
Clearly not a beginner if you have all of the above... Just saying ;)A beginner in Linux terms. I was referring back to an earlier post that talked about me being a neophyte.

I'm quite happy to get asked the questions, but they have to be meaningful i.e. non-cryptic, and provide backup explanations for newbies.

mikebartnz
16-05-2012, 03:20 PM
Update - I went to the puppy website and gave up after seeing the multitude of versions, options, instructions etc. Nowhere could I find an obvious link to a preferred puppy iso image.
Once again it isn't Windows. It took me about two seconds to find the link.
Puppy Linux originally started out as it's own distribution but has recently merged with the Slackware tree.
This site (http://futurist.se/gldt/wp-content/uploads/12.02/gldt1202.svg) has a Linux distribution timeline graph some might find interesting. Red Hat and Debian appear to be the most popular trees.

Tony
16-05-2012, 03:51 PM
This site (http://futurist.se/gldt/wp-content/uploads/12.02/gldt1202.svg) has a Linux distribution timeline graph some might find interesting. Red Hat and Debian appear to be the most popular trees.That timeline is amazing. I think it shows both the strength and weakness of Linux. The strength being that you can probably find exactly the flavour you need if you are prepared to do the research (or create your own!) The weakness is the enormity of the task of finding something useful if you are just starting out and the risk of being put off by it.


Once again it isn't Windows. It took me about two seconds to find the link.I found it too. My point was that there was a confusing range of options for a first time visitor. A lot of my professional IT life was devoted to making things clear and easy to understand. I think that is where Linux tends to fall down, although with some distros it is much better than it was.

Agent_24
16-05-2012, 04:46 PM
I choose the empty IDE disk. I get the message "No root file system is defined. Please correct this from the partitioning menu". Isn't NTFS a file system? There is no "partitioning menu", or at least nothing labelled as such. The nearest thing says "create". Is this it? (Only rhetorical - I'm not going any further.) There is no help button that might give me more guidance.

Yes, NTFS is a file system but what they are talking about is something a bit different.
When they say "No root file system is defined" it basically just means you haven't selected anywhere to put the OS.

(As well as choosing the drive and partition you want, you also have to tell it to use that chosen partition as / (root), at the very least)

And yes, the create button is what you want to click to set the drive up for an install of Linux.


In the manual partition editor (Choose the "something else" option when you get to the drives\partitions setup if you want manual) you need to chose your parition, which filesystem you want, and then tell it to use that filesystem as /

Note that if you manually partition, you should also add a swap partition at the end of the drive for your 'pagefile'. It will not automatically do this for you if you are using the manual partition editor.

If you have enough RAM of course, you can probably get away without one.

Tony
16-05-2012, 04:54 PM
I sort of guessed that. Once again, it illustrates (in my view) the problem with Linux for newbies. Why couldn't it say what you've just said, either as a prelude to that whole dialog, or instead of the message I got?

mikebartnz
16-05-2012, 04:57 PM
That timeline is amazing. I think it shows both the strength and weakness of Linux. The strength being that you can probably find exactly the flavour you need if you are prepared to do the research (or create your own!) The weakness is the enormity of the task of finding something useful if you are just starting out and the risk of being put off by it.

I found it too. My point was that there was a confusing range of options for a first time visitor. A lot of my professional IT life was devoted to making things clear and easy to understand. I think that is where Linux tends to fall down, although with some distros it is much better than it was.
I agree they could have made it a lot easier for a first timer. Have a look here (http://www.pclinuxos.com/) and see how you find it.
I have tried a few since about 1998 but keep coming back to the Red Hat tree and have settled on PCLinuxOS. One of the reasons I like it is that it is a rolling release , so if you are doing all the upgrades then you always have the latest without a full reinstall although I would imagine that when the 64bit version is finished it will require one. It is also very stable which was one of the things the guy that started it wanted to do.
I tried and Indian distro once which showed great potential until they went commercial

Tony
16-05-2012, 05:05 PM
Now that website is much better. One place where it says "Get PCLinuxOS", and clear information about each of the versions. I might even give it a go!

KarameaDave
16-05-2012, 05:34 PM
http://puppylinux.org/main/Download%20Latest%20Release.htm

Hmm only 2 versions here Tony, one based on Slackware, the other on Ubuntu.

Doesn't confuse me....but....

Tony
16-05-2012, 05:42 PM
http://puppylinux.org/main/Download%20Latest%20Release.htm

Hmm only 2 versions here Tony, one based on Slackware, the other on Ubuntu.

Doesn't confuse me....but....Yeah, that's where I got to eventually, but the home page was a mess. Also nothing to indicate what the difference is and why I should choose one over the other. Compare the PCLinuxOS page here. (http://www.pclinuxos.com/)

KarameaDave
16-05-2012, 05:50 PM
I know, Tony, but they have at least 2 forks now, and as you have rightly observed
Linux has the habit of forking as soon as 2 developers disagree on the best way forward.
Keeping them together and pulling in one direction would have ensured it's success. (both Puppy and Linux in general)
But that is a little like trying to herd cats.

Windows appears to be getting a few issues too.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25951/What_s_wrong_with_Windows_8

So you might not want to 'upgrade' to that nonsense either (I know I will be reluctant)

Tony
16-05-2012, 05:54 PM
Windows appears to be getting a few issues too.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25951/What_s_wrong_with_Windows_8

So you might not want to 'upgrade' to that nonsense either (I know I will be reluctant)Let's not get totally OT, but I see nothing in Windows 8 that makes me want to change. :(

KarameaDave
16-05-2012, 08:07 PM
Well that's good then, I hope you enjoy switching paradigms every time you want a non-Metro application.
Others don't like that, including me, but, then, I'm still harbouring a grudge against Microsoft.
Vista Ultimate! need I say more :( What a total ripoff that was.

johnd
16-05-2012, 10:23 PM
I think a lot of this thread is really just opinion (and rather pointless). If you use MS Windows you have either intentionally or subconsciously spent lots of time learning what the terminology is and what makes "it tick". You cannot expect just to start using Linux and everything just will make sense and work any more than someone who has been a Linux user for years would be able to understand Windows. An OS that simple would probably be useless.

Chilling_Silence
16-05-2012, 11:16 PM
My point exactly ;)

Tony
16-05-2012, 11:45 PM
Well that's good then, I hope you enjoy switching paradigms every time you want a non-Metro application.I think you misunderstand me. I almost certainly won't be changing to Windows 8.

Tony
16-05-2012, 11:49 PM
I think a lot of this thread is really just opinion (and rather pointless). If you use MS Windows you have either intentionally or subconsciously spent lots of time learning what the terminology is and what makes "it tick". You cannot expect just to start using Linux and everything just will make sense and work any more than someone who has been a Linux user for years would be able to understand Windows. An OS that simple would probably be useless.Well of course it is opinion. It is the opinion of someone who is interested in trying out something new, and how difficult/easy it is to get into it. As I have said at least twice before in this thread, I think Linux is probably great once you get into it. It is my opinion that the various distros could make it a lot easier than they do - although, once again, they are much better at it than they used to be.

fred_fish
17-05-2012, 12:12 AM
Maybe this - http://biebian.sourceforge.net/ ? :)

Tony
17-05-2012, 12:19 AM
Maybe this - http://biebian.sourceforge.net/ ? :)Noooooo! Where's the puke bucket?

Agent_24
17-05-2012, 12:54 AM
Maybe this - http://biebian.sourceforge.net/ ? :)

3800

Chilling_Silence
17-05-2012, 08:50 AM
Well of course it is opinion. It is the opinion of someone who is interested in trying out something new, and how difficult/easy it is to get into it.

The problem is that there's always going to be at least a small learning curve, regardless of if you actually want to acknowledge it or not, because Linux is not a Windows clone.

There's little point in "trying it out" when you give up on a particular Distro at the first sign of things not going right, especially considering you already have a "not basic" hdd setup and expect it to magically slot in alongside everything you have currently when there is no unpartitioned space for it to do-so.

Granted you downloaded more than one, I commend you for that, but ultimately that just means you had some bandwidth to burn.

I think if you were legitimately interested, considering your HDD layout shows you're anything but new to computers, you might have done something in preparation for it.
In the case of Windows it can install on pre formatted NTFS space. Linux won't.
Why not delete that NTFS partition on your spare drive and then try again? I know that Mint certainly jumps on unpartitioned space so shouldn't give you any troubles.

Also, given your multiple OS layout it may not detect everything, though it usually does a bloody good job, you may want to be sure you have your restore discs handy for windows so you can reinstall the bootloader afterwards.
That, or just run Mint from the CD, its what the LiveCD was made for after all! ;-)

pcuser42
17-05-2012, 08:54 AM
Maybe this - http://biebian.sourceforge.net/ ? :)

The picture at the bottom should read "start being gay", not "stop being gay". :p

Tony
17-05-2012, 09:55 AM
I'm quite prepared to have to do work to get to grips with a new concept. My gripe running through this thread has not been that Linux should behave just like Windows, but that the whole setup process could be made easier if the approach and language was better. My example of the messages associated with the initial partitioning is typical - instead of saying something like "Where do you want to install the OS" it uses terms that will be familiar to a Linux person, but mean nothing to someone new. You say
...and expect it to magically slot in alongside everything you have currently when there is no unpartitioned space for it to do-so.That is not the case. What I expect are plain English messages that tell me what I need to know.

Now I understand what the required process is, I'll have a go at installing it fully. Good point about possibly needing to restore the bootloader. If I need to do that, where do I find it? (See, I'm a bit of a Windows neophyte as well. :)).

Chilling_Silence
17-05-2012, 10:24 AM
IIRC you just have to boot into the recovery console in Windows and run:
fixboot /mbr

Or something to that effect :)

Tony
17-05-2012, 03:37 PM
Big ups to PCLinuxOS. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

The live CD recognised all my drives, and the network, and was totally painless. So I decided to properly install it, and it provided a clear understandable process, together with an associated help file that walked through it with screenshots and plain English explanations. That is what I have been talking about!

I'm still exploring, but so far it is looking really good.

I do have a problem with GRUB and multi-booting, but I'll start a new thread about that.

Chilling_Silence
17-05-2012, 04:17 PM
Good stuff :)

Agent_24
17-05-2012, 04:49 PM
We may well make a Linux geek of you yet! :lol:

Tony
17-05-2012, 04:54 PM
We may well make a Linux geek of you yet! :lol:Aaargh! Not that, anything but that! :horrified:

mikebartnz
17-05-2012, 07:18 PM
Big ups to PCLinuxOS. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

The live CD recognised all my drives, and the network, and was totally painless. So I decided to properly install it, and it provided a clear understandable process, together with an associated help file that walked through it with screenshots and plain English explanations. That is what I have been talking about!

I'm still exploring, but so far it is looking really good.

I do have a problem with GRUB and multi-booting, but I'll start a new thread about that.
Good show.:thumbs::thumbs:

Yorick
05-06-2012, 04:57 AM
Big ups to PCLinuxOS. :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

The live CD recognised all my drives, and the network, and was totally painless. So I decided to properly install it, and it provided a clear understandable process, together with an associated help file that walked through it with screenshots and plain English explanations. That is what I have been talking about!

Good to see. Personally I could never see the fascination with Debian based distributions, the RPM based ones always seemed to be more user friendly. PCLinuxOS, Mandrake/Mandriva (PCLinuxOS was based on), OpenSuSE all have really good GUI admin programmes. I use OpenSuSE and the main reason is because just as you say, it just works and the bit that just works is YAST(Yet Another Setup Tool). Never have to go near a commandline, offers the perfect partition setup at install every time, doesn't require you to have indepth knowledge of Linux Applications if you don't want to, just offers "groups" that are self explanatory, but at the same time gives you huge choice straight from the DVD including desktop environments and the double sided DVD comes with 64 bit one side and 32 the other. I gave up windows around 2001 or 2, can't remember. Mandrake 8.0. Brilliant. The only thing I really needed to get my head around (and I'm not a CompSci type just a desktop user) was the partitioning setup. The idea that your OS could go completely tits up but leave your valuable files isolated from any problems was huge.

I have Win 7, XP and Win2K machines running on Virtual Box virtual machines inside my OpenSUSE install, I need then for doing telephone support and training stuff, however I'd never use any of them because they are so limiting. I made a small effort in terms of learning to use OpenSuSE and the pay back has been huge over the years, even if you just reduce it to dollars. Time saving HUGE, first install installs everything I need, drivers, Office software, Graphic software and all the rest in half an hour or so with about 1 to 2 minutes of input from me. I don't have to download scads third party software to get my hardware working, or install office software or graphics or multimedia or accounting, it all gets done at install. Such a breeze. So yea small effort, but less than the effort it took to go from DOS to W95 and 95 to XP and certainly vastly cheaper


I'm still exploring, but so far it is looking really good.

I do have a problem with GRUB and multi-booting, but I'll start a new thread about that.

Good to hear it's working well, If you want to give OpenSuSE 12.1 a go, I just had a box of DVDs arrive from Germany, if you, or anyone for that matter wants one, PM me with an address and I'll post one off.

Cheers
GL

Chilling_Silence
05-06-2012, 09:22 AM
Cool, thanks for the offer, great to see you still sticking around PF1 after all these years! :D

Tony
05-06-2012, 10:22 AM
I shan't be converting to Linux as a long-term OS. This is not because I have anything in particular against Linux as an OS, but because I have too much knowledge and work tied up in Windows to make it worth changing. I could of course have Windows machines running in VirtualBox like Yorick, but why would I bother?

If I was starting afresh, it might be different, although the gripes I had in earlier posts still stand. I eventually found PCLinuxOS which is the nearest thing I have found to a newbie-friendly distro, but I had to wade through a lot of dross to get there. It seems to me Linux still has too much geek baggage to make it as a general user OS.

The things I like about Linux are also the things that annoy me! Remember I am talking here as someone who might be looking to use Linux as the main OS for real work, not as a hobby.

I like the fact that it is infinitely customisable. I hate that to do so you have to wade through obscurely named distros and apps that have names that seem to bear no relationship to their function to get there. I also think this customisability is what confuses newbies.

I like that there is usually a lot of help both inside the programs and out in the community. I hate that the help is often couched in obscure language that often has an "insider" feel to it.

I think Linux is a good OS, and much easier to install and use than it used to be but outside the techo/geek community (and I include myself in that category :))will remain a minority on the desktop for the foreseeable future.

johnd
05-06-2012, 11:17 PM
Good to see. Personally I could never see the fascination with Debian based distributions, the RPM based ones always seemed to be more user friendly.

This is the beauty of open source. I have been using Linux since 1998 on my desktop (2001 exclusively) - Redhat, Mandriva, PCLinux, SuSe, = all RPM distros until a recent change to Ubuntu. The reason I changed was due to (IMO) Ubuntu being more user friendly than RPM based systems. Examples that come to mind are:
1. Browsing a WIndows LAN just seems to work out of the box in Ubuntu compared to say CentOS (currently using in the classroom).
2. It seems too easy to "break" Software Update - Synaptic and it's replacement just work.
3. Redhat based systems require CLI editing for proxy settings (at least out of the box).

For me SuSE was the worst distribution I have ever tried (probably 10 years ago admittedly). It was unstable and ruined my OpenOffice files.

So - experience differs!!

Yorick
05-06-2012, 11:52 PM
Cool, thanks for the offer, great to see you still sticking around PF1 after all these years! :D

Heh, I get here occasionally. Although I wouldn't fit the prolific poster mold, I need to make more of an effort instead of the occasional drive by to annoy the 'Softies.

Yorick
06-06-2012, 01:39 AM
I shan't be converting to Linux as a long-term OS. This is not because I have anything in particular against Linux as an OS, but because I have too much knowledge and work tied up in Windows to make it worth changing

This is actually the critical issue and the sticking point as well. The statement is actually only logical if all the Windows learning was going to disappear and of course it's not. You are not going take out one block of knowledge and replace it with another, you are in fact adding to your knowledge, never a bad thing. It is a well known tenet that a Windows Admin is hopeless in a Linux environment whereas a Linux admin can always get by in Windows.

Any change has to have a value proposition, a pay back for the effort expended on new learning. In fact the value proposition is very easy to justify and as I said earlier the pay back was huge:

Lifetime upgrades for free, I'm not waiting for vapourware and then having to cough for it in ever incremental leaps depending on what version I want/need
Security, I haven't had to buy Antivirus or Firewall software since the switch, secure and great value.
The only programmes That I have to have a windows install for is my CAD software: SolidWorks everything else from Sound studio and music production to accounting, all on Linux native software
Choice: Of Desktop Environment, of Vendor, of packager, of applications

Broad usage ability. From a single OpenSuSE DVD I can set up anything from a Laptop to a mainframe, from a standard desktop to a business server running multiple thin clients over a network, from netbook to webserver. The DVD comes with the software that runs 70% of the internet, all this capability at whatever cost I am willing to pay.

Scaleability. My business can expand and I can add desktops, servers, thin clients even clusters and I have no worries about trying to keep track of licenses and having to budget for those and the accountant I would have to hire to figure out how the licensing worked.



I could of course have Windows machines running in VirtualBox like Yorick, but why would I bother?

If I was starting afresh, it might be different, although the gripes I had in earlier posts still stand. I eventually found PCLinuxOS which is the nearest thing I have found to a newbie-friendly distro, but I had to wade through a lot of dross to get there. It seems to me Linux still has too much geek baggage to make it as a general user OS.


That particular line of thought keeps being trumpeted as truth even tho it is patently and provably nonsense. The Dross and the learning curve and the "Geek" content is no different to windows. To 95% of the population windows is as geeky as linux, there are just more People on the Windows side and Linux being a group of volunteers doesn't have the 5 billion dollar annual marketing budget.



The things I like about Linux are also the things that annoy me! Remember I am talking here as someone who might be looking to use Linux as the main OS for real work, not as a hobby.

What??? I don't do real work .... Internet server admins aren't doing real work, Weta Studios don't do real work, The electoral commission doesn't do real work, the REAA doesn't do real work. I've been working at a hobby all this time and I didn't know it. Damn! does this mean I have to give all this money back! Oh Bugger! </sarcasm> The truth is Tony, when Richard Stallman started GNU all that time ago at MIT, MSDOS was a toy, for a simple kids box that had a single processor, could only handle a single user and didn't know what a network was. The *nixes were designed to run multiple processors with multiple users securely over a network. Even Apple eventually saw the light and OSX is FreeBSD based. And I have done real work with a Linux desktop for around ten years. It was because I couldn't do real work with Windows without being extorted that I switched (Old schoolers will remember the debacle when Off97 came out and produced files that Off95 couldn't read)

That value is hard to beat.


I like the fact that it is infinitely customisable. I hate that to do so you have to wade through obscurely named distros and apps that have names that seem to bear no relationship to their function to get there. I also think this customisability is what confuses newbies.

But the point is; you don't need to customise it if you don't want to. The install, especially if going on a dedicated machine has really good defaults. You can install OpenSUSE just by putting in the DVD and booting, select install, select locality and language and putting in a login name and password and then just keep clicking "next" (this bit takes about 5 mins then you just let it do it's thing). In about 35 minutes you will have a computer that will do most everything you need and have all the productivity applications installed(Unlike windows where your installation has ony just started) not a lot you can do with just Win7 on the comp. And it will look and feel and function really well.


I like that there is usually a lot of help both inside the programs and out in the community. I hate that the help is often couched in obscure language that often has an "insider" feel to it.
That's not just a "Linux" thing, that's a "computer-geek" thing, remember the "IT Crowd"


I think Linux is a good OS, and much easier to install and use than it used to be but outside the techo/geek community (and I include myself in that category :))will remain a minority on the desktop for the foreseeable future.

The only criteria should be:
Does it do what I need it to do.
Is it value for money
Is it reliable
Is it secure

The Techie Geek thing these days is really a red herring. Android is linux, smartphones and tablets are taking over PC functions. The average user doesn't give a toss if it's Linux, UNICS, BSD, Windows, ARM, RISCOS, Apple OSX, Minix or whatever as long as it performs. By 2015 MS will be using OSS as the basis of their OS, it'll probably be based on a kernel available under a permissive license like FreeBSD and no-one will give a damn.

mikebartnz
06-06-2012, 02:14 AM
Good post Yorick.
A lot of the time people are just trying to confirm the chooses they have made.

Yorick
06-06-2012, 02:14 AM
This is the beauty of open source. I have been using Linux since 1998 on my desktop (2001 exclusively) - Redhat, Mandriva, PCLinux, SuSe, = all RPM distros until a recent change to Ubuntu. The reason I changed was due to (IMO) Ubuntu being more user friendly than RPM based systems. Examples that come to mind are:
1. Browsing a WIndows LAN just seems to work out of the box in Ubuntu compared to say CentOS (currently using in the classroom).
2. It seems too easy to "break" Software Update - Synaptic and it's replacement just work.
3. Redhat based systems require CLI editing for proxy settings (at least out of the box).


I have to make an admission here, I not a great fan of RedHat, the first one i tried was 7.2 IIRC it was a bad install and required me to do command line stuff. (tried Fedora 16 not so long ago, install still sux) Not being a CLI type I wanted something that worked exlusively from a gui manager. The first OS that did that was Mandrake 8.0 with Mandrake Control Centre which even in a terminal had an ncurses version, I carried on using Mandrake till 10.1 and it went a bit to the pack. Around then Novell signed a deal with MinEd and because I had several schools as customers I changed to SUSE. That was version 9.2 and it had YAST and you haven't had to do any admin stuff in a CLI in SUSE since before then, including proxy settings.

Software updates in SuSE are very simple using a gui software manager that uses zypper in behind. Zypper is next generation of software managers beyond synaptic. Synaptic is getting a bit long in the tooth.


For me SuSE was the worst distribution I have ever tried (probably 10 years ago admittedly).

Why is it that people say this stuff, it's like saying Win 7 is rubbish, does BSOD all the time and has a crap file system because you had a bad experience with Win98. Ten years in Linux is a lifetime


It was unstable and ruined my OpenOffice files.

So - experience differs!!

Some does, however modern experience i.e. in the last few months shows me at present, overall ease of use OpenSUSE and Mageia are the top two in terms install and system management. Ubuntu still insists on CLI for many fixups and CLI is a non starter unless one is a Linux sysadmin. A user only going near the CLI on occasion is not going to remember all the commands and command line syntax. A gui administrator by contrast has visual clues for the occasional user to pick up on. Both Mageia and SUSE (MCC and YAST the respective managers) use very good GUI system management tools.

mikebartnz
06-06-2012, 02:25 AM
A user only going near the CLI on occasion is not going to remember all the commands and command line syntax. A gui administrator by contrast has visual clues for the occasional user to pick up on. Both Mageia and SUSE (MCC and YAST the respective managers) use very good GUI system management tools.
but CLI can be very good when supporting someone as they can do a copy and paste whereas with the GUI their setup may be different to yours so what they see isn't what you see. I use both depending on which I find easier.

Agent_24
06-06-2012, 02:41 AM
It was because I couldn't do real work with Windows without being extorted that I switched (Old schoolers will remember the debacle when Off97 came out and produced files that Off95 couldn't read)

Nobody was forcing any of them to buy Office 97. They could all have kept using Office 95 and had no compatibility issues.

mikebartnz
06-06-2012, 10:28 AM
Nobody was forcing any of them to buy Office 97. They could all have kept using Office 95 and had no compatibility issues.
A little naive. That would have worked if no one upgraded but if one person upgrades it then becomes a necessity for others to do so to become compatible.

Yorick
06-06-2012, 11:36 AM
Nobody was forcing any of them to buy Office 97. They could all have kept using Office 95 and had no compatibility issues.

At the time I had a lot of local body and Govt Dept customers, I had to be able to read such things as tender documents, HSE info, work orders. All Govt departments upgraded to Off97, quickly followed by the local bodies so I had a situation where my admin staff couldn't read electronic documents from my main customers. I rang MS support, only to be told that I had to buy Off97. I tend to be a bit rabid when it comes to extortion and so I went hunting for alternatives and I discovered Star Office (5.1 IIRC) would open '97 docs and save as 95 and it was free. It wasn't long before I decided that MSO wasn't needed as StarOffice did everything I needed to do and my Staff liked using it. Then moved to Linux a couple of years later. It was easy, my staff found it easy as did my wife. I sold up that business back in '04 but I stayed with Linux ever since.

Later I found that you could get a plugin for '95 to read 97 docs but that didn't matter, the break point was the MS support attitude. Best decision I ever made.

Yorick
06-06-2012, 11:56 AM
but CLI can be very good when supporting someone as they can do a copy and paste whereas with the GUI their setup may be different to yours so what they see isn't what you see. I use both depending on which I find easier.

Agreed, CLI is useful and like you, I use it as well when needed and I use terminal for some deep admin stuff usually using Midnight Commander.... which was, to start with, a nostalgia thing, took me back to the old Norton Commander and Xtree Gold days. :D However, for non technical users, I prefer to get them to use the GUI manager, because hopefully they'll learn that they can figure stuff out for themselves using the help prompts and other cues in YAST. Copy and paste support is good for a fast fix, but I'm a Trainer not a help desk guy, my goal is to teach people how to be able to dig themselves out without having to learn a new text command that they are going to use very rarely, so rarely that the likliehood is they will forget them in any case. Gads, I occasionally do software installs via the CLI, usually the bleeding edge version of OOo that's not available from the repos, and the other day I forgot a single letter in the tar syntax, brain fade and no visual cues to get me back on the right path.

The point is that CLI is a great tool, if you're using it all the time, however the modern Linux distro is so reliable that the average end user almost never has to fix anything and the old adage "Use it or lose it" definitely applies to CLI commands.

mikebartnz
06-06-2012, 12:37 PM
and Xtree Gold days. :D
That brings back memories.

but I'm a Trainer not a help desk guy, my goal is to teach people how to be able to dig themselves out without having to learn a new text command that they are going to use very rarely, so rarely that the likliehood is they will forget them in any case.
I can certainly understand it as a trainer.

usually the bleeding edge version of OOo that's not available from the repos, and the other day I forgot a single letter in the tar syntax, brain fade and no visual cues to get me back on the right path.
I am surprised you aren't using LibreOffice.

Agent_24
06-06-2012, 12:49 PM
A little naive. That would have worked if no one upgraded but if one person upgrades it then becomes a necessity for others to do so to become compatible.

It's just fact. If nobody, _nobody_ upgraded past Office 95 then there would be no issue.

As you say, very unlikely to actually happen, but still true.

Tony
06-06-2012, 11:37 PM
This is actually the critical issue and the sticking point as well. (plus lots more) Post #95It's good to see a well-reasoned and extensive commentary on my post, even if maybe "he doth protest too much".

Most of what is said there I can't disagree with, and if I was 15 years younger (crikey, I'm sounding like a real old fogey!) and had the current incarnations of Linux I'd be much more willing and indeed likely to change to Linux as my main OS. It's probably that long ago when I first tried a Linux distro - what a nightmare! to make any changes one had to probably edit a configuration file of some sort, the feedback from apps was totally obscure, CLI was king, etc. etc. That is what I am meaning when I say that things have greatly improved in the Linux world since then. However even back then I was wanting something I could do real work with rather than having to spend huge amounts of time tinkering in order to get anywhere, although I was much more prepared to do that then.

At no time in this thread have I said that Linux is not a good OS, and properly tailored (Android) and in the right environment (Apache) it is a great OS. All I am saying is that these days, I am not prepared to invest the time required to get to the same level of familiarity with Linux that I have with Windows. It would be probably the same with any other OS that I was confronted with - I've never used a Mac for instance.

I titled this thread "Why I still don't like Linux" after I'd tried the latest Ubuntu distro and found it wanting (for me). As a result of feedback I tried PCLinuxOS, and find it to be very good - the easiest Linux to install and use that I've come across. Unfortunately we can't re-title threads, otherwise I would have probably changed it to "Why I won't be changing to Linux - but it was a near thing!" :)

johnd
06-06-2012, 11:48 PM
I guess you have to find a reason to change! For me it was the concept of being able to use a great operating system with no costs to install and upgrade and not having to maintain a virus scanner. I don't really think the learning curve is as great as it might seem once you have a reason to commit yourself to the change.

Agent_24
07-06-2012, 12:01 AM
I love Linux but I doubt I will ever ditch Windows, too many applications and a lot of games that are incompatible.

There's also a few things on Mac that are useful too, so you might as well run that also.

Chilling_Silence
07-06-2012, 12:12 AM
Yeah if I didn't play DotA / SWTOR, I'd be all over it like white on rice. For now, I'm content running it on my work desktop :)

mikebartnz
07-06-2012, 12:54 AM
I get a news letter from The Geek Stuff (www.thegeekstuff.com/2012/06/happy-4th-birthday-to-the-geek-stuff/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheGeekStuff+(The+Geek+Stuff) ) Which often has useful stuff on it's site.

Yorick
09-06-2012, 02:36 AM
I am surprised you aren't using LibreOffice.

I'm an OOo guy so I'm now with the ApacheOO team, the LO guys have done a brilliant job but I'm confident that AOO (As OOo is known these days) will be back to it's full strength very soon. There's been a lot of work going on, still is, but we've had one release, we're starting to look at the Symphony UI integration and the community under Apache is growing. We live in interesting times.

Yorick
09-06-2012, 03:30 AM
It's good to see a well-reasoned and extensive commentary on my post, even if maybe "he doth protest too much".

Frankly I wouldn't have bothered if you had just said "I don't like Ubuntu". The problem was that firstly you posted the statement for no possible reason that I could see other than putting Linux down. Only two reasons to do that: one; a cry for help or two; as a means of shifting blame for lack of success. And you stated that you couldn't do "real work" with it, I wanted to point out that you can do more real work with it than you can with Win7 with really does nothing more than email and internet. I felt it needed comprehensive response because you were recycling FUD which was patently untrue and tarring all linux distros with the same brush, "Methinks, twas you who protested too much" I was simply replying to that protest


Most of what is said there I can't disagree with, and if I was 15 years younger (crikey, I'm sounding like a real old fogey!)

I'm old enough to join Senior Net but I don't feel fogeyish ;)



and had the current incarnations of Linux I'd be much more willing and indeed likely to change to Linux as my main OS. It's probably that long ago when I first tried a Linux distro - what a nightmare! to make any changes one had to probably edit a configuration file of some sort, the feedback from apps was totally obscure, CLI was king, etc. etc. That is what I am meaning when I say that things have greatly improved in the Linux world since then. However even back then I was wanting something I could do real work with rather than having to spend huge amounts of time tinkering in order to get anywhere, although I was much more prepared to do that then.
The comparison between Win7 and OpenSUSE is a good one when thinking about the "Real Work" criteria. Install SUSE and pretty much out of the box you can produce any content you want. By comparison Win7 or Win8 can do emails, internet, basic photo editing and produce docs in Wordpad, you still have to add all your productivity applications so that you do real work. All I'm saying is that all the ways that count OpenSUSE is a better deal than Win7.


At no time in this thread have I said that Linux is not a good OS, and properly tailored (Android) and in the right environment (Apache) it is a great OS. All I am saying is that these days, I am not prepared to invest the time required to get to the same level of familiarity with Linux that I have with Windows. It would be probably the same with any other OS that I was confronted with - I've never used a Mac for instance.

I titled this thread "Why I still don't like Linux" after I'd tried the latest Ubuntu distro and found it wanting (for me). As a result of feedback I tried PCLinuxOS, and find it to be very good - the easiest Linux to install and use that I've come across. Unfortunately we can't re-title threads, otherwise I would have probably changed it to "Why I won't be changing to Linux - but it was a near thing!" :)

The misapprehension that I want to dispel here is that Ubuntu is the only iteration of Linux, in fact Ubuntu has great marketing and has great brand awareness at the consumer end of the market but is certainly not the only linux and thus a bad experience with does not immediately make "Linux" unsatisfactory, a fact which you have now proved obviously.

mikebartnz
09-06-2012, 10:59 AM
I'm an OOo guy so I'm now with the ApacheOO team, the LO guys have done a brilliant job but I'm confident that AOO (As OOo is known these days) will be back to it's full strength very soon. There's been a lot of work going on, still is, but we've had one release, we're starting to look at the Symphony UI integration and the community under Apache is growing. We live in interesting times.
Good to hear that it is back in action properly. I will have to see if they will co-exist so I can keep an eye on both.

8ftmetalhaed
09-06-2012, 12:35 PM
I tried downloading the latest the other day, both mirrors I tried failed in the last 10 mb. Was so bloody irritating.

Yorick
09-06-2012, 01:02 PM
Good to hear that it is back in action properly. I will have to see if they will co-exist so I can keep an eye on both.

My gut feeling at the moment is that they will coexist. The basic dividing line is to do with the licenses. LO is released under a LGPL/MPL mixed license setup which was pretty much the way the old OOo project was structured. Apache is released under AL2, the Apache license which is a much more liberal license. Basically it says "Take this and do what you like with it. No limitations involved except to do with trademarks." That's the simple version, it's a little more complex than that but it boils down to that. The LGPL only has one real limitation in that if you release a version of the software, it must be under the same license and you must make the source code available. Neither of these apply to the Apache License.

This all means that code released under the Apache license can be used in LO, but not the other way round unless the copyright owner changes the license, which is what Oracle did when they granted the OOo source and trademarks to Apache. LO has been supported by most of Linux Distros, but that hasn't really changed, most of the distros used the Go-OOo version in any case which Novell gifted to the TDF. Novell, Redhat and Canonical are the main corporate sponsors of LO, IBM is the main corporate sponsor of AOO and have granted the IBM Symphony (IBM's OOo fork) code to the project and brought that under AL2. There has been a little tension on the lists as people get to grips with the new dynamic but that's to be expected, but a release has been put out so things are looking good. The 3.4 release only has a few small code tweaks, the main thing has been getting the licensing stuff sorted.

I'm not so sure that it's 100% ready yet, we're still in incubating at Apache, so not a fully fledged TLP (Top Level Project) but that should be coming soon.

Yorick
09-06-2012, 01:04 PM
I tried downloading the latest the other day, both mirrors I tried failed in the last 10 mb. Was so bloody irritating.

Was that via sourceforge?

You could try direct ftp from ftp://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/apache/incubator/ooo

Tony
09-06-2012, 02:15 PM
My gut feeling at the moment is that they will coexist. The basic dividing line is to do with the licenses. LO is released under a LGPL/MPL mixed license setup which was pretty much the way the old OOo project was structured. Apache is released under AL2, the Apache license which is a much more liberal license. Basically it says "Take this and do what you like with it. No limitations involved except to do with trademarks." That's the simple version, it's a little more complex than that but it boils down to that. The LGPL only has one real limitation in that if you release a version of the software, it must be under the same license and you must make the source code available. Neither of these apply to the Apache License.

This all means that code released under the Apache license can be used in LO, but not the other way round unless the copyright owner changes the license, which is what Oracle did when they granted the OOo source and trademarks to Apache. LO has been supported by most of Linux Distros, but that hasn't really changed, most of the distros used the Go-OOo version in any case which Novell gifted to the TDF. Novell, Redhat and Canonical are the main corporate sponsors of LO, IBM is the main corporate sponsor of AOO and have granted the IBM Symphony (IBM's OOo fork) code to the project and brought that under AL2. There has been a little tension on the lists as people get to grips with the new dynamic but that's to be expected, but a release has been put out so things are looking good. The 3.4 release only has a few small code tweaks, the main thing has been getting the licensing stuff sorted.

I'm not so sure that it's 100% ready yet, we're still in incubating at Apache, so not a fully fledged TLP (Top Level Project) but that should be coming soon.I think you are just confirming all my reservations about Linux and its components/supported apps! :)

fred_fish
09-06-2012, 02:32 PM
I think you are just confirming all my reservations about Linux and its components/supported apps! :)
The freedom of choice, or the freedom to take existing code and use / build on / improve it for your needs?

Seems like a preferable situation to "Oh no, that version that does what you want is not available anymore, and you can't use it because we shut down the activation servers. Just pay us again for new shiny verion 2.0 :)"

Agent_24
09-06-2012, 02:34 PM
How is that much different to Ubuntu...

"Your release isn't supported for updates any more, you must install the new version and go through the hassle of installing it, then we force Unity on you"

fred_fish
09-06-2012, 02:38 PM
Simple, don't use Ubuntu.
Or use the old version and backport security patches yourself.

edit: That is probably a case in point, as per the MATE and Cinnamon desktop forks ...

Tony
09-06-2012, 02:39 PM
The freedom of choice, or the freedom to take existing code and use / build on / improve it for your needs?That's the good side. The bad side is that for someone looking from the outside and not in the know it is bewildering.

fred_fish
09-06-2012, 02:45 PM
That's the good side. The bad side is that for someone looking from the outside and not in the know it is bewildering.
Same can be said for the Windows ecosystem.
I have on numerous occaisions been asked by people with new Win machines "How to do spreadsheets/letters/photo edit / etc."
When explaining that they have to download / install / buy separate software from the hundreds of choices available, looks of bewilderment are all too common.

Tony
09-06-2012, 02:55 PM
Same can be said for the Windows ecosystem.
I have on numerous occaisions been asked by people with new Win machines "How to do spreadsheets/letters/photo edit / etc."
When explaining that they have to download / install / buy separate software from the hundreds of choices available, looks of bewilderment are all too common.Please bear in mind my comment was meant to be light-hearted. Then read Yorick's post that I quoted again, trying to imagine yourself as someone who is not a Linuxophile and/or not familiar with the whole licensing thing that is part of open source and who is trying to decide (a) whether they want to commit to Linux and (b) what they need to know. The second paragraph in particular makes my (reasonably knowledgeable) eyes water, so what it would do to a total newcomer I hate to think!

fred_fish
09-06-2012, 03:10 PM
Yes I took it as such.
All the licencing drama is irrelevant if you simply want to USE the software though.
If you are rewriting/releasing modified code, it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect a basic grasp of licencing schemes.

Tony
09-06-2012, 03:20 PM
All the licencing drama is irrelevant if you simply want to USE the software though.Of course it is. However if I was researching as a newbie user (which is where I have been coming from throughout this thread) and came across that paragraph, it would certainly give me cause to wonder what I might be getting myself into. I suspect I wouldn't find something like that if I was researching Windows or the Mac (and yes, I do know about all the restrictive many pages long EULAs that abound in Windows world).

And yes, if I was aiming to be a developer it would be a whole other discussion.

fred_fish
09-06-2012, 03:41 PM
The fact that Windows is already installed on any new PC that the proverbial newbie buys, is really the only thing that makes it easier to use than any current desktop linux distro.
Can you imagine how hard to use Windows would be if said newbie was sat in front of a working (sic) Ubuntu machine with a Win7 disc in hand?

Tony
09-06-2012, 04:17 PM
The fact that Windows is already installed on any new PC that the proverbial newbie buys, is really the only thing that makes it easier to use than any current desktop linux distro.
Can you imagine how hard to use Windows would be if said newbie was sat in front of a working (sic) Ubuntu machine with a Win7 disc in hand?It's difficult to be totally objective as I come from a Windows background, but given my recent experience with trying to install Linux from a bootable CD I would say that Windows would actually be easier, although that does depend on which particular Linux distro you were trying to use.

fred_fish
09-06-2012, 04:36 PM
Well for a start Windows will refuse to do anything except overwrite the current OS uless you have already made space for it, and then even if you have, it will clobber the bootloader giving you no access to the previos system. :(

As for usability, I agree that is subjective and largely based on previous experience.
My dear old Mum struggled with Windows on her laptop for ages. I was always getting calls as to whether she should update this or that popup message from every third party app and virus scanner and Windows updates and service packs and reboot loops, and how do I do this and that.
She has now been happily running Debian for 2 years without an issue. It just works.

Tony
09-06-2012, 04:51 PM
Well for a start Windows will refuse to do anything except overwrite the current OS uless you have already made space for it, and then even if you have, it will clobber the bootloader giving you no access to the previos system.I'm not sure that is true. If it is, how have I managed to get three versions of Windows (Vista, 7 and 8) all to peacefully co-exist on the same machine? However, let's not get diverted down yet another by-road. :)

fred_fish
09-06-2012, 04:59 PM
OK "it will clobber the bootloader giving you no access to the previous system (unless it is Windows too)." :)
... and I bet it didn't do any partition resizing for you.

Tony
09-06-2012, 05:02 PM
... and I bet it didn't do any partition resizing for you.Can't remember.

Yorick
10-06-2012, 12:09 AM
I think you are just confirming all my reservations about Linux and its components/supported apps! :)

Not quite sure how that works, I think it would be a hell of a lot more confusing if we were discussing MS EULA or the different licensing costs of different versions of exactly the same MS OS, or perhaps if we were to discuss how MS has completely different licenses for different customers. FOSS licensing is actually very simple. One thing that both the LGPL and the Apache license share is they can both be read in about 5 minutes or so. And you only have to do it once, because all 120 or so Apache projects use exactly the same license, ALv2 and all of the thousands of projects released under LGPL use the exact same license, unlike Proprietary software each of which has a completely different license that can run to volumes. So then logically, if licensing causes reservations, then you should have run screaming to Linux years ago.

fred_fish
10-06-2012, 12:11 AM
Have you got a few in?
Or are you ignoring the advice in your sig? :)

Yorick
10-06-2012, 12:21 AM
I'm not sure that is true. If it is, how have I managed to get three versions of Windows (Vista, 7 and 8) all to peacefully co-exist on the same machine? However, let's not get diverted down yet another by-road. :)
Windows up to 7 will toast any non windows boot loader. It will not recognise any non windows file systems let alone save to them. OpenSUSE will recognise all win partitions, will mount them so that you can use them and will save to both FAT32 and NTFS partitions. 7 will avoid overwriting non windows partitions as long as you tell it to, so I presume 8 will to.

As far as ease of install, I'll start another thread to demonstrate

Yorick
10-06-2012, 12:25 AM
Have you got a few in?
Or are you ignoring the advice in your sig? :)

Third Glayva and two glasses of Merlot at dinner and Rob was referring to the GPL vs ALv2 debate which gets pretty bloody rabid sometimes so I don't think this counts! :)