I love Linux but.......

[Ixthusdan]

I have been building and installing windows machines for the past four years, all custom build stuff. Even a wintell box had to be tweaked with the latest driver releases in order to be delivered to the customer. And every customer needed to know that their machine had to be rebooted daily if they wanted it to work. The only exception was NTv4, and only with the right service packs.

Please don't try to tell me that Mandrake 9.0 is not ready for the desk top! It blows windows away, even with KDE eye-candy that the purists don't like. Mandrake 9.0 can do it; the challenge is the image that windows is so good. What we need is better PR and the guts to get it on! :wink:

[spiedra]

I think MDK 9.0 is ready for the desktop, but most people don't want to learn a new OS especially what they've heard about Linux. I'm with you Ixthusdan, that with better PR we can hopefully dispel these myths and help them see the light!

[bigjohn]

Mandrake, ready for the desk top. Rubbish.

 

I have recently migrated from windows and at the moment, from the n00b point of view (proper n00b I might add, not one whose profile show n00b because they have only just registered here!) all linux is indecypherable crap.

 

My system is relatively basic, up to date, but still too much for mandrake to handle out of the box. E.G. it is equipted with onboard sound. I started playing with 8.2 (about a month before 9.0 was available for download), and after lots of stress, sort of got it working, I was trying things suggested by others because (a) I didn't have a clue and (B) linux documentation is a pile of shit that is meant for those with a fair amount of prior knowledge. I don't feel that I should have to use the "scatter gun"approach to configuration.

 

The result, buying a soundblaster live (5.1 digital), because advice suggested that it should be straight forward to get running, and be recognised by the system/not cause a distro like mandrake any offence.

 

Again, rubbish, yes seems to be recognised, yes, seems to load the correct module (whatever that may be) - Sound, not a f*****g sausage.

 

I use an alcatel speedtouch usb for my dsl modem, when I was playing at 8.2 - major headache to get it going (thank god for window$ so I could at least get help/info). Under 9.0, better, though I still had to find out how to get the microcode into the right place to make it work.

 

I also prefer to surf using opera. Under window$, even an idiot like me had no problems getting it going. Under linux, someone in the "States" was kind enough to send me some instructional screen shots on how to make a link to application so I could get an icon on the desktop, instead of having to try a run command everytime. This should have been something basic that was asked during install, but no, you have to have that prior knowledge.

 

Fonts in browsers look hideous and blocky. I have to use a zoom facility all the time, just to read documents, that under the unfeasibly poor window$, are perfectly viewable first time. And yes, I can hear the comment of "well install the true type fonts - there's load of info available on that" from here. Well again, I say bollocks. If you go to the corefonts bit at sourceforge, you get a help page/instructions - but if you (like me) have little or no linux knowledge it's a waste of time, cos without that prior knowledge, you are screwed.

 

 

Documentation - a favourite critiscm of mine, is written by linux geeks, for linux geeks. Can't these people write straight forward, easily understandable, step by step instruction - I say no they can't.

 

I do appreciate that the distro developers are intelligent people - but linux will not be ready for the desktop until someone wakes up and starts producing idiot level instruction/help/advice for those users who just want to use, as opposed to those of you who are happy to get amongst it and do all that command line stuff.

 

The only reason that computers/IT equipment are so cheap and readily available is because those IT nazi's at micro$oft, have realised that that is the main market for software/hardware. People who want to use computers as a tool, and not a toy that needs to be investigated, dismantled, re-built, etc, etc,

 

In essence, keep things pretty close to what they are at the moment, but offer the choice of idiot level, window$esque installation.

 

Oh and those documents that I keep moaning about, when you've produced something acceptable (and yes I do include the linux documentation project in that), print it on f*****g paper, I don't mind buying a book(s), even if it has to be done for each distro and make it affordably available. It's easier on the eyes/brain and quicker than having too search around following millions of links (chapters are good, indexes are good, pages (paper) are good).

 

It should not be forgotten that those of us who just want a tool outweigh those who wan't a construction set by many thousands to one. We are the main market, we have most of the money. And we tend to be lead by both.

 

 

Apart from that, I think that linux in general (mandrake specifically) are excellent, they have, and are enabling me to use a computer on more morale and ethical ground, but I will still have to retain dual boot facility for many years to come, because if I don't then I will still be screwed because of the above points (I don't mention games as I'm not really a "gamer")

 

 

That said, keep up the good works, it's getting there, it's just not quite there YET

 

regards

 

John

 

p.s. on the poor documentation thing, this is a problem that is linux wide, not just mandrake or tldp, I have tried SuSE 8.0 and deadrat 7.whatever, both have just as poorly written documentation as a lot of the applications that have so called "help" guides.

[ral]

I hope the nest Mandrake release works of ironing out bugs rather than improving content. The OpenOffice no sound on install and spellchecker problem is the kind of thing that would turn a Windows user away quickly.

 

RedHat was a smoother install, although they did not associate .doc and .xls with OpenOffice by default for some reason or other. That kind of thing would also turn away Windows users (the thing can't open Word documents).

 

I think Linux distro's in general are desktop ready...but they gotta be good to go on install without learning and tweaking.

[ral]

And the poor default multimedia support on RedHat won't sit too well with Newbies either.

[emh]

Mandrake, ready for the desk top. Rubbish.

 

People would be a bit more receptive to what you say if you didn't start your post with this. It's rather inflammatory.

[Guest JaseP]

I agree that Bigjohn's post is inflamatory.

 

Sure Linux is a bit too highbrow for most users at this point, but that is rapidly changing. In 1998 when I first used SuSE 6.1, installation was cryptic,... you had to know everything about your machine, almost to the point of knowing what brand of screws held the hard-drive in (I'm being a little melodramatic here, but not much). When I used Mandrake 8.1, I was shocked at how good installation had become. I still had a heck of a time configuring OpenGL (still do to some extent), but it became much easier.

 

As for Windoze, I never had a machine where installation went flawlessly. I always had problems installing the motherboard drivers (I've seen enough yellow exclamation points to paint a schoolbus with them). In fact, I just bought a machine. Unbenounced to me, it had a defective video card (GeForce 2). Linux still installed and got me to a svga 1024x768 16million color screen. With Windoze, I was stuck with 640x480 16 colors (not million, just 16 colors). Windoze couldn't see my hard drives I was using to dump information from my old system. Re-fdisking them and reformating them took forever (Linux did re-partitioning and formatting in a snap). Linux could see the drives and was very easy for me to re-work the partitioning scheme I decided to use. I could log onto my ISP with Linux as soon as I tranfered my old info into the new /home partition from the old. From there I have everything I had before. With Windoze, I have to re-load all my old software, re-install drivers, fiddle with this, fiddle with that,... and it still doesn't work 100%. I swapped out the video card and Linux came to life with OpenGL (still the lousy framerates associated with the TNT2 card I was using but what can I say). With Windoze, I had issues getting OpenGL and DirectX to settle down.

 

Linux is far superior than Windoze. It has security features built in (Bastille Linux, among other things). It limits user access to parts of the machine they shouldn't be tinkering with. It is virtually virus immune. It is faster at more complex tasks like networking. It's just a better OS.

 

The only thing Linux doesn't have yet is ease of installation for newbies, and the variety of applications that Windoze does. That is rapidly changing. As it is, a newbie interested in Linux should have a friend take them through it. Or they should buy a machine with it pre-installed (from Walmart online or a host of others).

[mystified]

I have to admit that I've found Linux to be frustrating at times although every install has been as smooth as can be for me. It recognizes all my hardware and installs the correct drivers. I do think Linux is ready for the desktop environment for most people that don't have specific problems with their systems that are difficult to overcome. I can use Linux to do anything I can do with Windows with the exception of two programs. One is software that I have to use for work and once I figure out how to get wine working I may try installing it. The other has a Linux version but it's out of date so I'm currently working on getting that to install with wine.

 

If Linux were used in an office type environment where a system administrator had to make the kind of changes that you're talking about then the average user could learn to run a Linux desktop in no time. Personally I like the fact that a lot of things aren't automated like they are in Windows cause it actually makes me use my brain and think things through. I like the challenges even though I know I have a long way to go. It's an on going process that to me, although frustrating is also very rewarding.

[Ixthusdan]

Yes, Linux is ready for the desktop. (inflamatory)

Windows admins spend a great deal of time locking down the work stations so that some corporate yahoo does not inadvertantly or deliberately adversely effect their desktop or the network. It is extremely easy to damage things with windows. The rest of the time is spent trying to get windows to do what it says it can do with the network, and that is after spending huge amounts of money so that someone will "talk" to you. Then you go to trainings, again spending huge amounts of money, where you almost find out how windows works, but not quite, because it is proprietary.

Now, let's see, linux is setup by the admin, and the user happilly uses kde (gnome, blackbox, pick one) to access programs on and off the network. The user never wrecks anything, not even their own desktop, except their own notes and spreadsheets.

Now at home, I read complaints about linux vs windows running hardware. Welcome to the monopoly, my freind! Your complaint is not about a group of free spirited Davids going against the established Goliath, but it is against the practices of the windows that you praise! Some manufacturers found out early on that to not cooperate with Bill is equivalent to death! And you think that all the available windows drivers is because windows is better. Yikes!! It is because you must work with windows if you want to stay in business. With Linux, a great deal of software is written without the cooperation of the manufacturers, because the manufacturers are afraid of the monopolist, and hence, don't cooperate with linux types. Your observations are upside down. If it were not for the lousy linux software (you say) you would be paying $200,00 for an operating system. Oh wait, xp does cost $200.00. Oh well.

[bigjohn]

While I try to make my posts as straight forward as possible, there is no accounting for taste, national Identity, attitude etc etc etc etc

 

Having read the subsequent posts after my moan, I am not suprised at the reply and comments. But I have to say, I get the impression, that most of you here, have the experience and prior knowledge to get round the "teething problems" that would be experienced during the average install of mandrake or deadrat or SuSE etc.

 

I feel the trick to success in getting people to migrate is one of installation without ANY teething problems whatsoever.

 

The vast majority of window$ users don't care how it works, they just want it to work - that is why I said that installation should have included an option for a "window$esque" type total installation as well as the other choices. This enable people like yourselves to do the basic/advanced etc install that would be dependant on your knowledge/experience.

 

Whereas, I can speak from the genuine n00b point of view, because I only really understand the politics behind linux, the linux/mandrake/whatever itself, might as well be written in SANSKRIT".

 

It is not a naturally intuitive system to use - I would say that from the tone of your posts, it is straight forward for most of you, because of your experience with it.

 

I don't want to sit here trying to pull it to pieces to do all sorts of exotic stuff with it. I just want to surf, word process, listen to music (not even new fangled stuff like mp3's, just good old reliable cd's) and maybe see if I can get my head round any of the games that come with most distro's.

 

How it all happens, well I leave that up to the code monkies, that's their domain.

 

 

Hence, I stand by my comments that while I don't believe that it is ready for the mass desktop YET, it isn't that far away, and yes I suspect that it is better than window$ in many ways, but the market driven impact of window$ on the planet means that you can go out and buy the latest IT goodie at a reasonable price etc so maybe window$ does have it's plus points ?

 

regards

 

John

[DragonMage]

Intuitive is a relative terms. I have been computing since before MS-DOS become industry standard. Each time I approach a new computer / OS / whatever, I have to relearn everything. Examples.

 

1. From BBC Computer to Dos

BBC: turn on computer, put disk (or cassette tape), type chain"" and load the sucker.

DOS:hmmm... let's see.. where are the .exe or .com or .bat files?

2. From Dos to Windows 3.x

Win 3.x: type win then look for applications folder at the bottom and find the MS word icons.

3. From Win 3.x to macintosh.

Mac: ah.. the word icon is directly in the desktop.. cool.. but how do I eject my floppy? Drag the floppy icon to the trash? You sure?

4. From win 3.x to win9x

Win9x: Where are the applications folder? Hmm.. what's this start menu? How come the file manager looks totally different? How to make it show two directory at once?

5. From win9x to win2k

Win2k: Hmm.. much more stable, but how come it's so slow? Where is the system configuration screen in the control panel? Where is the winipcfg? How can I setup my networking?

 

And so on and so forth..

Like any OS, it has its quirks and way to do stuffs.. windows only become intuitive because 90% of the people already use it, and it is pretty much ingrained in people's memory. And most people once they learn to do one thing.. they don't care to learn another even though it can save them time or money in the end. They just want thing to just work, even though they don't know the complexity behind the "just work" philosophy. And if they cannot get it to just work, they either junk it or pay someone else to do it. Why do you think people still cannot program a VCR timer (even with on-screen help?) Because they think it's unintuitive? No, because they are lazy bums :)

 

Yes, for some people, linux is still not ready for their desktop, but then again, some people are still stuck in macintosh mode and cannot use windows if their lives depended on them. It's just a preference really. For me, linux is pretty much ready for desktop as long as it is preconfigured correctly. If my friends (who can be the most ignorant people I know) can learn to use linux as long as you set up the desktop for them and tell them a few hints and such, I think that most people can.

 

Anyway, that's it for now..

[emh]

Having read the subsequent posts after my moan, I am not suprised at the reply and comments. But I have to say, I get the impression, that most of you here, have the experience and prior knowledge to get round the "teething problems" that would be experienced during the average install of mandrake or deadrat or SuSE etc.

 

I feel the trick to success in getting people to migrate is one of installation without ANY teething problems whatsoever.

 

Let me say that I have very little experience with Linux, as I've only been using it for a couple months. I have not experienced even half of the problems that you speak of. Not to say that it has always been perfect, but it's not as bad as you say. But I think asking for no "teething problems" whatsoever is a bit of an unrealistic goal. Can you honestly say that Windows always installs and works flawlessly? It never has for me. Sometimes I've had to change a setting or two, or 20,000 settings to get something to work the way it's supposed to. I've also had to help others with their Windows problems, too.

 

In short, computers are not perfect. If something doesn't work right and you have to fiddle with it a bit in Linux, what's the big deal whether or not the problem is in Linux or Windows? Some people just don't know how to fix their problem without help. It doesn't matter what the operating system is.

 

The result, buying a soundblaster live (5.1 digital), because advice suggested that it should be straight forward to get running, and be recognised by the system/not cause a distro like mandrake any offence.

 

Again, rubbish, yes seems to be recognised, yes, seems to load the correct module (whatever that may be) - Sound, not a f*****g sausage.

 

(This from your previous post) Just out of curiosity, did you disable the onboard sound before trying to get the separate sound card to work?

[Guest JaseP]

I feel the trick to success in getting people to migrate is one of installation without ANY teething problems whatsoever.

 

The vast majority of window$ users don't care how it works, they just want it to work - that is why I said that installation should have included an option for a "window$esque" type total installation as well as the other choices. This enable people like yourselves to do the basic/advanced etc install that would be dependant on your knowledge/experience.

 

The mass majority of users don't install their own operating systems,... or update their drivers for that matter.

So you are doing an apples to oranges comparison here.

 

You can buy systems with Linux pre-installed and some of them have been rated as pretty good including Mandrake installations from Walmart online. If you compare usability of a Walmart online Mandrake box with a Dell or Gateway, you have about the same level of usability either way.

 

It is not a naturally intuitive system to use - I would say that from the tone of your posts, it is straight forward for most of you, because of your experience with it.

 

I don't want to sit here trying to pull it to pieces to do all sorts of exotic stuff with it. I just want to surf, word process, listen to music (not even new fangled stuff like mp3's, just good old reliable cd's) and maybe see if I can get my head round any of the games that come with most distro's.

 

How it all happens, well I leave that up to the code monkies, that's their domain.

 

You can surf, word-process and edit burn mp3's all day long with Linux. In fact, those (except the mp3 thing) are the primary uses of my Linux box. I don't code, I haven't in nearly 20 years (learned altair/MS basic and began learning 6502 assembly when I was a young teen). A distro with that stuff installed is not difficult to use. The mouse works the same as does the start menu. Editing the start menu is like editing the one that came with Win95. It really isn't rocket science.

 

maybe window$ does have it's plus points ?

 

Yes Windoze does have its plus points,... they are: Ease of finding applications written for it, ease of finding hardware compatible with it (becoming harder since some new XPee only devices have appeared), Commonality of files for exchange, and a vast array of other users who know the system.

 

The downsides are; Support of the M$ corporate machine (not that corporate machines are all bad, just M$'s policies to date have been horrible), Expensive to keep along with the current trend in technology, prone to virus attacks, incompatibility issues around new/updated hardware and drivers, Sub-standard level of harware architecture built for it (WinModems, aka SoftModems for example), Prone to frequent and annoying crashes (I get at leat one every 2 days on my work machine which is required to run windoze).

 

But as you say the biggest advantage revolves around its installed base. The same problem occured with the VCR. Betamax was a better technical VCR technology. However, VHS won out because it was cheaper in the short run, even though it was inferior in the long run. Same can be said of Windoze. It was built as a slap-on on top of DOS and has been constrained by it ever since (poor filesystem addressing, poor hardware interfacing, upgrades that feel more like .add-ons than improvements, etc.)

[Ixthusdan]

bigjohn (noninflamatory)

You say that windows can be set up by anybody, because of your positive experience. But that impression is not true. That is ms's excellent pr. I do a lot of business (make money) helping people set up their winbox! I would challenge the reputation that winboxes automagically set up. Any os requires tweaking after the install. If I build a group of boxes and include the drivers for the specific hardware configuration in the box, then maybe a normal user could set it up. (Which is what Dell & Compaq do) But I can do the same thing with linux. The only difference is cost.

It is unfortunate that linux is not supported as well as windows. But I do not think that Bill's business model is the only way to make money with computers. I think that a competition between operating systems is better for computers as a whole, and will lead to more innovations.

(flamatory) And linux is ready for the desk top! :wink:

[bigjohn]

I am pleased to see that the last three posts have read and understood what I have put.

 

Well done (no sarcasm intended).

 

To respond to your points -

 

I have used window$ 95/98/98se/xp and apart from the occassional "blue screen of death" the only problem has been recently when I was prompted to update an "nvidia driver" and after the ubiquitous reboot, I had to redownload the driver from the nvidia site (as opposed to getting it via window$ update) because it screwed up the screen resolution. but after the re-download, problem sorted.

 

And after reading the posts a couple of times to ensure that I am following what you are all saying, I believe that my original comment stands. I get the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you all have the relevant level of "prior knowledge" that would assist you in sorting out any problems that arise from installation. Whereas my point is that to truely compete with window$ there needs to be greater effort on the part of developers to make linux of any flavour install in a way that is as easy or easier than windows.

 

This is where micro$oft have the main advantage. Window$ development is co-ordinated/completed by one entity - i.e. M$, linux development is by the very nature of linux, fragmented to say the least and in some cases confrontational. The debian versus redhat being a prime example (yes, I of course, acknowledge the installation of app's etc via source etc, but that is very much over the heads of the vast majority of n00b's).

 

I do understand that often the adoption of a given OS is down to finance, but with a little assistance from the marketing nazi's, surely school's particulaly, would be able to see the benefit of the lower TCO of linux systems as well as the increased learning opportunity for learning offered by linux systems. And not just the one off sense of security felt by those who have managed to convince M$ or one of their agents to part with some free software/hardware and not followed through the additional costs of system management/licenceing etc etc.

 

Don't forget, although I am nothing more than a recently converted window$ drone, my main reasons for converting where moral, social and ethical. As such I totally abhor the underhanded business tactics that have been used/adopted by the micro$oft corporation.

 

I am also astounded, amazed and pleasantly suprised with linux by way of what has been created by many "volunteers" and under funded (for various reasons) businesses. I can definately see why redhat have taken the route that they follow and likewise SuSE's route of not having the most up to date version available for download. Though I also applaud the like of Mandrakesoft et al for making it available in the way that they have (I am still exploring the best way of making a contribution - I have paid for the latest version of mandrake - I just wish they would hurry up and post it through to me!).

 

Hence I am very much pro linux and though I am not in a position to assist others (one day, one day!!!) I feel that it is rather pointless to stand on the sidelines poking my tongue out and blowing raspberries at M$. Just as I find it a little pedantic when prolinux people are only prepared to highlight the negative points of M$ and proprietary software. In the past, the plus points of micro$oft have been good in the sense of getting people into computers, IT and so on, and it is only now that I believe that the negative points need to be highlighted, because it would seem that now the current and emerging technology from the M$ camp is to squeeze every last penny/cent out of the computer user.

 

regards

 

John

 

p.s. Yes, I have disabled the onboard sound in the BIOS though what that would do, I'm not sure.