Linux: Pitfalls for the Brave Newbies to be aware of...
Where did you get flashplayer?
by bulldogzerofive - 11/2/05 12:39 AM In reply to: Looking in right places. by wc-sd45Nothing i wrote was intended to insult you. If it sounded insulting i apologize. I genuinely want to see you and everybody else who is willing learn to use GNU/Linux and come to appreciate this liberated, powerful system.
Where, may i ask, did you get flash? Did you add the proper multiverse repositories and open a command line to type:
sudo apt-get install flashplayer-mozilla
?
Or did you add said repositories and then open the synaptic package manager in the gnome menu and click on flashplayer-mozilla and then click the install button? Or did you attempt to download flash from a site for another linux? If you perform the latter, it is not going to work just as if you download flash for windows and tried to run it on a mac.
I think part of the problem is that you see the linux family of operating systems as one entity. It is not. Linux, by definition, is just the kernel. Only once you add all the libraries, a desktop environment, and some basic applications does it become an operating system. There are many possibilities out there for what you hang on the linux kernel, each of those possibilities is designed for a different use (desktop or server, laptop or workstation), and deciding which of these to use together requires a lot of research and involves many difficult decisions. The people who put distros together are doing this work for you. If you want to build your own linux-based operating system from components, you are free to do so, but i would not recommend it until you learn to use a pre-built one well.
So, demanding that all GNU/linux distros have the same package management system is like demanding that all programs that work on windows be compatible with all programs designed for macs. We are talking about different operating systems designed by different people, and so of course (despite some very significant cross-over) there are going to be differences.
Linux does not work like windows. Just because you know a lot about windows computing does not mean you know a lot about linux computing. Come at it with an open mind and be willing to spend as much time learning it as you spent learning windows (which i bet was more than you realize), and you will be rewarded with a powerful computer that does not hide its workings from you.
My spouse's laptop has Ubuntu on it and it has worked well since the day it was installed, including flash, java, dvd-rw, and so on. I use debian sid currently and have used mandriva (which i did not like). If you would like help getting these up and running and learn how to use it i would be glad to help you, all i ask is that you tone down your rhetoric down just a tad.
Got it from here
by wc-sd45 - 11/3/05 8:22 PM In reply to: Where did you get flashplayer? by bulldogzerofiveI got Flash from Macromedia. For the average person, this would be the most logical course of action. But based on what you are saying, every version of Linux needs a slightly different version of Flash. That alone supports my anarchist theory about Linux. At least with Windows, somebody always has the intelligence to list which versions of Windows are compatible with a given version of software along with hardware requirements, if any. Most of the time, if there are version incompatibilities, the author of the software tries to provide instructions on how to get a version that is compatible with a particular but ancient version of Windows. If they failed to document this, all hell would break loose and their product would die on their web site. From what I had seen on Flash, no cautions, no warnings, no redirections, nothing. With that sort of attitude, Linux will be relegated to a hacker's hobby and Internet file server.
As far as I am concerned, every distro of Linux is a different variation of the same OS. That is how they are being marketed. As far as any end user is concerned, this is how they appear. If this is not so, then somebody needs to go out and fire the marketing departments across the board.
I never said I knew much about Linux. But I do know enough to see that it is extremely difficult to get running, find working drivers, and add applications when compared to any version of Windows, Mac, MS-DOS, Trash-80, or whatever.
Did I mention trying to lower the screen resolution so you can at least read it without having to sit less than six inches away? At least Windows, except NT4.0 and earlier didn't go to a black screen of death when attempting to change the resolution and fonts to something that can be read at arms length as God and my optometrist intended. Newbies will never tolerate this sort of behavior in Linux. You would think somebody fix this. Whenever this happens, well, back to the drawing board and do a new installation. At least I don't have to worry about losing any real data because there isn't any.
As for time to sit down to learn Windows, I never read a book about it until I got to the W2K server. Even then I was able to install it first, make it do what it needed to do, and then read a book about it a year or so later. At that point I read only about the subjects where I had questions. MS-DOS on the other hand did require a cheat sheet on standby for some of the more interesting configurations.
You may think this is all rhetoric. It is not. Daily I deal with people who get confused by more than one program on the task bar. I have problems getting Linux to do anything beyond the desktop staring at me with my all of preipherals not working except for a generic keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Then I can safely say they will take all the distribution discs, glue them together, add a dowel, and use a dozen of them as a carpet roller.
That is the wrong place.
by bulldogzerofive - 11/4/05 4:18 AM In reply to: Got it from here by wc-sd45Dude, package management in GNU/Linux is different than program management in windows. You are having problems in GNU/linux because you have grown so accustomed to windows that you have come to equate the motions involved in making a windows computer work with the ''natural'' way of computing. If that is what works for you, great, drive on airborne. But if you want to use a GNU/Linux system you have to let that stuff go, and it really is not that hard. If you are not willing to let that stuff go, that is OK too, but then don't blame a community of people who donate a great deal of time and effort to making these OS's which you should have gotten for free (unless you let yourself get screwed).
Macromedia makes the engine for its flash player available for download but as a corporation does not want spending the money to repackage it for the various linux-based operating systems because they know that a hacker in the GNU/linux community will repackage it and distribute it as needed. This is a business decision that most proprietary software makers share. Free software makers do not distribute more than their source code because, really, they have already contributed more than their fair share. If you have an issue with how Flash distributes its player, complain to them. No member of the GNU/linux community has any control over that, so this is not the ''logical'' place to complain about that.
Once you have gotten used to the idea of getting your software from set of central repositories, this in fact is much easier and, in my view, more logical than having to track down whatever company makes a piece of software. In Ubuntu, you add two URLs to the official Ubuntu repository, any you are good to go. In debian you have to manually enter all four. Whenever i hear about a piece of software i want, i fire up my package manager gui (which has a shortcut in the menu, by default), do a quick search, and there it is. I click install, and (wow!) it downloads, installs, and works. I have yet to run across a piece of software that is available for linux that i wanted but was not there (there are 13,000 packages in ubuntu, 15,000 in debian). There is nothing easier than this nor is there anything more logical than this, in my opinion. If that does not float your boat, drive on with windows, airborne, but don't bash GNU/Linux developers for having a sub-system that many of their users like a lot.
If you want to change the screen resolution in Ubuntu, browse the menus. There is a shortcut just for that. I fail to see what is so illogical/hard about that. Your black screen of death is probably caused by a manufacturer who refuses to release driver for Linux (until very recently ATI and Radeon both belonged to this camp). This is not the fault of GNU/Linux or its developers; the fact that you card worked at any resolution is a tribute to their skill in the face of substantial resistance.
Which brings me to my next point. You don't want to track down drivers. Me neither. So far, out my good share of devices, including HP scanner, laser printer, camera, fax card, USB keyboard and mouse, most drivers were installed default, the rest were available in the repositories with just one mouse click; i have only had to find one for an ATI 3D card because the company does not allow redistribution of its drivers in a repository. I understand that your particular list of hardware may be more problematic than this, but again, your wrath is misdirected. These drivers cannot be included in GNU/Linux because the manufactures will not release them for redistribution because the have business agreements with... wanna guess who? Apple can do it too because they can afford to pay, by the way. There is not much the GNU/Linux community can do about this, it is one of those things where, if you do not like if you should contact the manufacturer. If enough people do it they will give in.
As for the marketers who project linux-based OS's as a single system, i honestly am not sure which marketing department you are talking about. The linux distros i have had contact with are pretty adamant about highlighting how they are different from the others; this is necessary for their survival. The people who create libraries and add-ons that work with the linux kernel do not make this claim either as their code is written to work with many kernels, a good example being FreeBSD (arguably the best server OS out there), which uses many GNU applications, including KDE and apache. You may be referring to the marketing people at flash and other companies with proprietary software, who lump all the OS's with a linux kernel together as ''that other operating system.'' Again, this is not the fault of the GNU/Linux community.
GNU/Linux is decentralized (what you call ''anarchic'') to maintain flexibility, which is what allows the kernel to be used on imbedded devices, servers of all shapes and sizes (CNET, for example, runs apache on a linux-based system), or desktops in many configurations. It allows you to use the system the way you want to, and most importantly it allows for small groups of developers to impliment small incremental changes, which is key to the continuing development of a family of operating systems that rely almost exclusively on these small groups of developers. GNU/Linux has weaknesses; but complaining is not going to solve any of them and making GNU/Linux work like windows won’t solve these issues either (although I will admit that an asocial newbie bashing minority is among those weaknesses).
I also never read a book about GNU/Linux. At most i read the man pages. I usually search the forums when i want to do something and can’t figure itself out myself. You referred to DOS... that implies that you have been using microsoft products for some time. Would you say that each time you switched to a new version of a microsoft product you brought some knowledge with you from the last one and that this knowledge eased your transition? Would you say that each time you switched you learned something new? If you added up all the time you spent learning DOS, Win3.x, Win9x, Win2000, WinNT, WinXP, does this compare to the amount of time you spent learning GNU/Linux before giving up and cursing it without really knowing what you were cursing?
I am not a techie. I do not enjoy fiddling or tweaking. Yet i use GNU/linux because once i learned to use it, it eats less of my time to maintain it, it is safer, and i can do everything on it that i could with windows and then some (except, of course, for games... but you can buy a pan-linux program called cedega for that). If you would like to get a system up and running i will help you at least find the proper resources if not tell you how to do it; if you are not interested you should at least learn why the GNU/Linux family of operating systems do what they do before complaining about deficiencies that are, in many cases, actually strengths.
No kidding?
by wc-sd45 - 11/5/05 4:24 PM In reply to: That is the wrong place. by bulldogzerofiveLet's see if I have this straight.
Linux: Central repository.
Pros: Easy to find what is there.
Cons: If it ain't there, you are SOL. Very difficult to install anything that you happen to find elsewhere.
Windows: Decentralized repository.
Pros: If it is not there, search the Internet. Seek and ye shall find. Follow the installation wizard that comes with the program. If you don't like what Microsoft gives you, no problem. You use a different product.
Cons: No single unified global method to keep track of available programs.
As for Macromedia Flash, I sent Firefox off on a wild chase to web site where I work. I wrote the silly thing and used Flash on two pages. Guess what? It loaded using the instructions I provided on my pages. Now I will admit I don't use the default XHTML script provided by Macromedia to load Flash. What I use is about 50% smaller and much easier to debug. But this still doesn't explain why I was able to load it from there and not directly from Macromedia. I still fail to see why somebody has to repackage it for every single version of Linux that is out there. Make one version and done with it. If the assorted versions of Linux don't comply, then they don't deserve to be on the desktop.
As for changing the screen resolution, I searched for two hours to find it buried. 2 HOURS???!!! You would think somebody could figure out how to let you right click the desktop and bring up a tabbed list of display properties. But that would be too logical. Plus too intuitive. But we can't have that because we can't guarantee support for the mouse with more than one button.
I still fail to see any advantage to Linux, let alone any flexibility. If anything, the exact opposite it true unless you are an insider and know how to hack the system. The original poster of this thread has it right. There are major issues with Linux. From where I stand, it appears too many are brainwashed into looking around those issues. Until things are resolved, Windows will continue to be installed on my real computer for real work while Linux continues to be shoved off to the side as a novelty item not to be used for anything of any serious consequence. Perhaps in 10 years Linux will be ready. But by then, expect Mac and Windows to be that much more advanced. I see perpetual catch-up going on here.
Maybe that is the way you see it; not from my perspective.
by bulldogzerofive - 11/7/05 5:51 AM In reply to: No kidding? by wc-sd45On Package Management vs Program Management:
I have a different take on package management vs program management (Like i said i find this both easier and more logical):
GNU/LINUX (debian, in my case) with repositories and locally installed management tool:
Pros:
1. Easy as pie to install software
2. Virtually every piece of software available is there (15,000 in the case of debian)
3. Everything you have installed is automatically updates as new versions are released (with user approval). Improves overall security and keeps system as cutting edge as you care to keep it.
4. You can add special repositories for other software not in debian's (or ubuntu) maintained one (many of these are available, especially among proprietary software makers) and it will update automatically with everything else.
5. You are not SOL in the case of software that is not generally in repositories; usually such uncommon software comes with detailed installation instructions.
6. ALMOST always, if you come across software elsewhere, if you have all four repositories added (in the case of debian), it is already there.
7. Great Privacy: The user's computer maintains the list of installed software locally. Each time you update your sourses, you download a list of all software available, which the computer then locally compares to installed versions, and recommends updates; which the user can then decide to install (or not). (in debian, ubuntu; slack and gentoo do this too i think... some other distros like mandriva do this the other way around). This is in contrast to the windows update, which to my (admittedly limited) understanding sends the computer's information to a central windows database, which is compared to the software list they maintain, and then the computer is told what to download. Who knows what other information is sent to microsoft as part of this exchange?
CONS:
1. It can be hard to install some rare software. The situation here is not as bleak as you make it out to be.
2. Free development model behind GNU/Linux, the community's readiness to repackage software for free, and the still small pool of people using GNU/Linux takes the incentive away from many proprietary software developers to package a release for every (or even the most common) GNU/Linux flavor.
WINDOWS: No repository and a weak update manager
PROS:
1. For microsoft products only, updating is easy with the update manager.
2. Most people are familiar with the program installation process. For those who are not the installation GUI is usually idiot-proof unless you try to change the default.
3. Since there are a very limited versions of windows which mostly use the same .dll structure, most software companies can directly publish one program for all windows computers.
CONS:
1. Update manager only works for microsoft products. For anything else you installed you have to regularly visit that software maker's website for updates.
2. Less privacy: see pro's in GNU/Linux.
3. System presures users to turn on automatic updates. Unless your computer is always connected to the internet or you are very savy about managing your automatic updater, it can take a week or more for your updates to actually install. Manual updates are actually faster for most users.
4. Mirrors for Update Manager are SLOW!
Why things like Flash have to be repackaged for the different types of GNU/Linux:
1. Shared Libraries. GNU/Linux uses a much more extensive system of shared libraries than Windows. These libraries contain common instructions that can used by many programs, which can be loaded into memory once and then used by many open applications. They are used because their presence dramatically lower's an application's memory footprint, speeds application response times, decreases the amount of hard drive space required, and increases system stability. These advantages are also among the primary advantages of using linux. Getting rid of this shared library system would indeed make the box as a whole simpler, but at the cost of eliminating those advantages. How these libraries interact with each other is complicated (which is where you used to get dependency hell before the advant of good package managers), and different libraries are good for different things, and many of them are mutually exclusive. This also applies to the applications built on these libraries. Diffent GNU/Linux distros are in turn designed to perform different tasks well and other tasks as secondary, so they use different libraries and/or applications. Thus, things like flash need to be packaged to interact with the libraries and applications available on that GNU/Linux application.
2. The Free and Open development model. I am sure you are asking, ''why can't the libraries and applications just be standardized?'' The big reason you cannot do this is the development model behind GNU/Linux.
Microsoft and other proprietary software companies develop their systems one release at a time, with many years of work between the releases. During this time, they employ a small army of developers and testers, all of whom keep all of their work secret until the day of the big release. Thus, all elements of the system can be synced and released as the finished product.
While there are indeed many companies that invest a lot of money and effort into developing GNU/Linux, the driving force behind many of the GNU applications that a home user will use is some dude/dudette in his/her basement. The ''dude/dudette in the basement'' factor cannot be abandoned because (a) dude/dudette comes up with some really good code, (b) there is nobody else willing to do what he/she does for free. Without ''dude/dudette'' there would be no GNU/Linux (Linus Torvalds was just a college student who wrote a Unix clone for personal use), or at least not one that has become a major player in the server/imbedded device market and made significant inroads in the PC field (especially outside of the US) The weakness here is that ''dude in the basement'' can not really accomplish all that much by himself; if he has a well-organized web-ring he can maybe write an application or a library, or maybe a graphical front end for an application. So, the operating systems in question must be released in a way that both allows ''dude/dudette'' to make changes (ie, open source) and allows those changes to be small so that one person or a small group can accomplish them, and frequent so that other people can build on what ''dude/dudette'' did. Also, there need to be many concurrent branches of development so that different ideas can be tried and tested at the same time (as GNU/Linux has no R&D department).
So why use it?
1. Its Free. First of all, it is free, as in liberated and as in cost. (That also, i think, takes away your moral high ground to complain. If you don't like it, either help fix it or just don't use it. You do not need to insult people who donate all this work to you.)
2. Its Easy I am not an insider, nor am i a hacker. I am some dude who first downloaded Mandrake about a year ago (did not like it and went to debian instead) and have susequently learned an incredible amount about about how my computer works since GNU/Linux does not hide these things from the user. Still, i find GNU/Linux as easy to use as windows. I find it easier to maintain and update. An example. Tell me how long it takes you to change the keyboard layout on your windows system without changing the language or region settings and make this change apply to all users and survive a reboot. Better yet get a new user to try to do it. It took me forever to figure that one out on windows (it still will not survive a reboot) but this was checked during set up in linux. That seems more logical to me.
3. It is more private and saferI did not have to go buy a third party virus scanner or firewall. I set up my included firewall and i am good to go. I have a virus scanner that i scan with sometimes. Found nothing yet. I find that i do not have to worry about privacy/security things, such as whenever you listen to or watch a Sony CD or DVD it installs a rootkit your windows box obstensibly to prevent you from copying the music, sends your listening habits to Sony without permission (and as a rootkit this will go unnoticed to most firewalls/spyware checkers, you have to know it is there and the only way to remove it is to get the tool from sony), and of course introduces a slew of security holes that you the user have no was of knowing about.
5. powerful system You said GNU/Linux is not ready for serious work. The capital city of my province (Munich, with a population of 5 million), uses GNU/Linux on all of the computers on its books because it costs less money to train workers to use it than to pay for all the windows licenses, not to mention the increased security. They seem to find that GNU/Linux will accomplish all the serious administration tasks involved in running a city. My particular town, Neumarkt i.d.OPf. uses GNU/Linux for the same reasons. Down the road a couple hours from me, the capital city of Austria, Vienna, is in the process of doing the same thing. Most municipalities do still use windows, but i would be willing to bet this is at least partially inertia, and in the united states at least partially because microsoft will sue public officials who opt for open source OS's (for graft by arguing that the officials cannot prove that the Open Source OS is cheaper than Windows... they usually win and the threat alone is usually enough to make most municipalities back down).
My personal experience and observations is all i have to offer in support of GNU/Linux. If you do not agree, that is fine, keep using windows, but i see no reason to call people who prefer GNU/Linux to windows foamers, especially given that these people have been trying very much to be polite to you after you come into a forum dedicated to them and openly insult them, making yourself sound like a windows foamer.
As for your specific problems:
Two hours to find a link to ''display'' on a sub-menu? That is amazing. You should stop trying to look in the places you are accustomed to finding things in windows. You will not find them in the same places on a GNU/Linux system. I do not see what is intuitive or logical about a right-click on the desktop to open hardware interface options... why not right-click on a document to adjust printer options? That would be just as intuitive and logical.
I do not have any issues with my 7 button (aka four button and a scroll wheel) USB mouse in Debian or Ubuntu. By the way, the right click is both used and important on Gnome and KDE desktops... just not for the things you are talking about. Maybe you should (using ubuntu) browse the menu to find the ''mouse'' options control tool. Really, if you can write a website, make .swf animations, and i assume do all the other things that come with a professional website (SQL database and so on), and if you keep an open mind you really should be able to figure this stuff out. It is not hard.
By the way, i am still wondering what GNU/Linux marketers you were refering to who should have been sacked a few posts ago. I still do not know of any who choose to present GNU/Linux as a single entity.
Just out of curiousity, what website did you author?
About the original post
by bulldogzerofive - 11/7/05 6:40 AM In reply to: No kidding? by wc-sd45You said the original poster has it right. In subsequent posts he has said that he deliberately lied by putting together a bunch of common myths to illicit responses. Funny.
Your Welcome
by lilsim89 - 11/3/05 7:49 PM In reply to: Thanks by wc-sd45I believe I should return the favor. Thank You. My point is that the GNU/Linux community is just as diverse as the sets of distributions that inhabit it. At no time was I trying to sound vicious or demeaning, but your post sounded very stereotypical. You said that the Linux was ''closed to all but the foamers.'' This is not true.
I was a newbie to Linux ~2 years ago, but with the help of so many users and replies to my question, smart or ''dumb,'' I stuck through it and am now an active contributor to these forums. I never ''foamed.'' and especially to a newbie would I ever. In fact, I have no memory of anyone in these forums become a ''foamer.''
You did make a point with saying:
''Just because all of your mainstream hardware works, doesn't mean that everybody else's hardware will work with Linux.''
But a little late, my last post:
''Of course this will not be the case with all users, but at least it's a start.''
Quote from you:
''a lack of hardware support is the rule in Linux, not the exception.''
You're completely right. But it is not the fault of the community. Must we dissasemble, reverse engineer, write a driver for every device that emerges. The lack of hardware support is because of the lack of vendor support. Oh, I never did doubt that you have had Linux experience.
______
Please, I do not want a battle. My views are not intented to offend you or anyone who reads this. I would love to hear what you or anyone has to say about it though.
____
Stereotypical
by wc-sd45 - 11/3/05 9:00 PM In reply to: Your Welcome by lilsim89Has anybody ever questioned why outsiders such as myself have stereotypical opinions of Linux users? From where I stand, the time is long overdue when Linux users take a long hard look at their attitudes toward outsiders, especially those outsiders with Windows backgrounds. I will admit I have spent very little time on this particular forum. But in other forums, plan on going in with full riot gear unless you are ready to worship in front of the penguin and recite the many chants about Microsoft and/or Bill Gates. Now you know why I suspect almost all of the users are nothing but foamers. But an apology to the users here is in order.
As for lack of hardware support, my printer did ship with a Linux driver. But it fails to work unless I think a solid sheet of black wallpaper is the only valid result. Apparently somebody hired by the vendor didn't bother to test the driver before shipping. To add insult, the same printer lacks an XP driver. But I am getting away with using the W2K driver provided by the vendor. There is something to be said for compatibility.
When you have had as much bad Linux experience as I have had, you have to seriously consider writing Linux off as not ready for the above average user. But that is my opinion. I deal with users who are nowhere near as comfortable as I am around computers. I feel if I have grief trying to get Linux to work, they can forget about even remotely thinking about it.
Well said
by Trevor 42 - 11/1/05 9:35 AM In reply to: About Time by wc-sd45Well said and that is my experience too.
Trevor
Why are you shouting...
by jakem14 - 10/29/05 1:32 PM In reply to: Pitfalls for the Brave Newbies to be aware of... by jakem14Well, here I am after putting up a this post entitled "Pitfalls for the Brave Newbies to be Aware of" with less
enlightment than I was hoping for.
I put up this post to "provoke" a discussion in the Cnet's Linux forum. I put up some views and purposedly did not clearly elaborate as to whether all those views were my own views or whether they were general myths about Linux implementations and computing in general.This did not matter to me because I was hoping to be enlightened about some of those views.I am pretty sure that you've heard many of these views expressed before so you should be familiar with them. Except for a couple of people that sensed this, most of the replies that I got were the
typical OS religious, agenda oriented type replies that I expected. This is one of the reasons why I personally don't put too much stock on forums as learning tools for your specific interest. They are usually full of participants who are not objective about the views being discussed, but have their own agenda to grind. I am not saying that they are totally useless I am just saying that you get more religion than answers. So, you have to maneuvre through them very carefully in order to use your time efficiently. Forums are not chat rooms where a lot
takes place and almost nothing is produced. Yet, I still participate.
Please:
Enlighten me as to whether you think that they are myths or whether you think that these views have merits.I can definately accept an answer that shows that you are upset with the views that I express, but by shouting your agenda and insulting me you are not going to teach me anything and I am not going to waist my time listening to you. The underlying idea of forums is participation and answers mining through dialogue not through unrestrained anger, stupidity and personal insults.
A route for not so brave newbies
by david.kanareck - 10/31/05 2:14 AM In reply to: Pitfalls for the Brave Newbies to be aware of... by jakem14If you're tired of Windows as an OS and don't have the courage to face Linux, there is an alternative apart from Mac OS and that is Risc OS. I keep hearing the system is dead, but if that's so, my Risc OS computer is taking an awful long time to lie down and die. In fact, after years in the doldrums, there are many new machines on the market now operating on Risc OS and they are quantum leaps ahead of the older machines. Ignore all this talk about flogging a dead horse and go and take a look at what's on offer. I have a Risc PC networked to a Windows PC and what I can't do on one, I do on the other. My computer of choice is my six year old Risc OS machine, which has in Pluto what I think is the finest mail and news reader of any system. Run "riscos" in Google and there are many links
Some thoughts on Linux
by Trevor 42 - 10/31/05 4:02 PM In reply to: Pitfalls for the Brave Newbies to be aware of... by jakem14I think that there is far too much hype about Linux and far too little functionality!
I think that some of the Linux distros are so bloated as to be uninstallable on anything but the latest hardware -The latest version of SuSe being a case in point taking up a staggering 7 giga bytes of hard drive space which hardly makes it suitable for that old PC that many people have lying around doing nothing but for the want of an O/S.
I have tried a large number of distros and while some look extremely nice and promise a great deal they lack the functionality of windows XP by a mile. This is particularly true where printing, modem and USB support and functionality are concerned.
This is not helped by the fact that whereas a new version of windows comes along every three or four years and is usually an improvement on the previous version many of the Linux distros move up a version every couple of months (and long before they have been debugged IMHO).
However some of the "mini" Linux distos are worth a look as they do provide an alternative to buying a (legitimate)microsoft o/s from a source such as ebay.
These are (amongst others)Puppy Linux, Feather Linux and Damn Small Linux. All of these distros have worked well for me on older hardware and require very little in the way of system resources (< 200Mb hard disk / 32Mb RAM or less!).
I think that the Linux community should think long and hard about the direction that they are going. It seems to me that they are trying to out perform microsoft but without the resources - a very noble effort but very unlikely to succeed without the staffing levels and corporate resources (and $$$$) that microsoft have.
Personally I believe that it will take a quantum leap before Linux is more common than windows (and I'm no great fan of the Microsoft corporation).
The Linux community would do well to concentrate on providing a basic but functional O/S to the huge number of people who cannot afford anything but the most basic obsolete kit and need a free or very cheap system. This is where its huge potential could be.
However at the very least Linux does provide something of an alternative between Microsoft and an Apple Mac in a world that is rather too monopolised in many areas not just software.
Do try Linux but don't blame yourself or be too disappointed if it doesn't perform the tasks you require of it.
Trevor
Next time think
by lilsim89 - 10/31/05 7:41 PM In reply to: Some thoughts on Linux by Trevor 42"The latest version of SuSe being a case in point taking up a staggering 7 giga bytes of hard drive space..."
The lastest version of suse under either KDE or GNOME standards desktop enviroments is 2.5GB.
There ARE several gigabytes of software AVAILABLE. If you had the same program equivalents under Windows, they would not be even comparable. We thank shared libraries for that.
I'd take 10 pounds of subjectiveness over 1 pounds of objectiveness.
7 gig of programs!?!?!
by bulldogzerofive - 11/1/05 2:01 AM In reply to: Some thoughts on Linux by Trevor 42lilsim89 is right. Indeed, linux is generally known as the distro of choice for older hardware and bleeding edge stuff hardware is best left to windows.
Just because it comes on the CD does not mean that you should install it. I have debian installed with every package that i can imagine using (note that i did not say every package imaginable) and it takes up less than 3 gig. That includes a photoeditor, every type of common office app, email, browser, p2p, bittorrent client, many admin tools, etc etc. I rarely push my P4 over 50% unless i am running an emulator, and i have never seen my 1024 of memory over 35%; it is usually around 25%. At these usage rates, it should be perfectly acceptable for older hardware. I posit that if you have that much space used on your HD for the programs alone you are either a serious developer or have made a serious mistake (like installed everything on the install discs that came with SuSe).
I made a similar mistake when i made the switch to linux; I suggest you try to do a minimal install with just KDE or Gnome, and then install more stuff as you need it. I think you will find that your harddrive, memory and resourse footprints will get much smaller.
If you take a comperable amount of time learning linux that you used learning windows (which i bet was more than you realize), the functionality is there, i am sorry. You just have to accept that everything you "know" about computing is actually knowledge of windows and start from scratch. It is worth the investment of time in the long run.
I beg to differ
by kmashraf - 10/31/05 8:40 PM In reply to: Pitfalls for the Brave Newbies to be aware of... by jakem14After reading most of the article I get the impression that the gentleman has no idea what GNU/Linux is all about.
The issues he raises are facile.
The current generation of distro's (GNU/Linux packaged by various organisations) are aiming at the desktop user mainly. Chief among them are RedHat/Fedora, Mandrake, Suse who provide the maximum choice to user in configuring their choice as a desktop or server system.
Then there are the desktop centric disto's such as Xandros, Linspire Mepis and Ubuntu to name a few that focus on the desktop user entirely.
He does not seem to have heard of Debian's apt-get + synaptic, Mandrakes urpmi or RedHat/Fedora's yum. These tools have made 'dependency hell' a bad dream of the past.
Current GNU/Linux distros works with most current hardware out of the box. There are a few things that still don't like internal modems because the manufacturers are only interested in them working under Windows only. Wireless cards too are a bit of trouble but I am sure that is only in passing.
Therefore to more or less write off GNU/Linux as a useless piece of geek code is denying the reality.
GNU/Linux is now a serious challenge to MS Windows dominance of the computing world.
And I am glad of that, for I do not want to live in a Orwellian world of 'Big Microsoft'
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
