4 Linux Distros Compared To Win XP, Mac OS X

Morf writes "The Australian Consumers? Association has evaluated Xandros, Linspire, Mandrake Discovery and SUSE personal and compared them to Mac OS X and Windows XP in its latest Computer CHOICE magazine. The article is very much focused on "mums and dads", and concludes Linux is just about ready for consumers, although installing new software could pose some problems for those who aren't really computer savvy. The report is available free for a short time."

Comments

"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, yes, the great Australian Consumers? Association!

Brought to you by the Puzzled Slashdot? Readers Group.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[js7a]

Hm, I think it's supposed to be an apostrophe, meaning that the association isn't necessarily composed of consumers, but certainly belongs to them.

Someone tell the Australians that the rest of the English speaking world avoids apostrophes in titles and proper nouns.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[tez_h]

Please. I *hate* the grocers? question mark. That *so* should be the Puzzled Slashdot Readers? Group.

Thank you

-Tez

Re:"Consumers?"?

[drakethegreat]

Well its illegal to publish such reports in the US because Microsoft would lobby against it and get them shot. We have to be careful and I think that may be why its only available for a limited time... Duck and cover.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody obviously tried to use Microsoft "smart quotes" style apostrophes. They always end up as question marks when a string with them in is transformed.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[strider44]

You could just as easily say "Someone tell the Americans that the rest of the English speaking world don't have a u in colour, honour, etc". Anyway, if other people don't include the apostrophe, then gramatically, they are wrong.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[91degrees]

It's the Australian accent. They often raise their voices at the end of a phrase so it sounds like a question.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should you avoid apostrophes in titles and proper nouns? If it had been "Australian Consumers' Association" what would have been wrong with it? And don't the French have apostrophes in their names? Or whatever?

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean that the rest of the world does have a u in words like colour and honour?

Grammar, for what it's worth, is whatever people decide it is. Without linguistic change, English would still be Anglo-Saxon.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Gherald]

The day the French become part of the English speaking world, you might have a point.

(oh... so THAT is Bush's plan...)

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obviously an apostrophe that was transformed into a question mark due to character code transformation issues.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on people, it is obviously an apostrophe that was transformed into a question mark due to character code issues. Stop making up crazy reasons for it.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

why can't strider44's comments be moderated? Every other comment has the drop down box.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[DuncMan]

It's probably all down to the user-befuddling issue of charsets (also known as character sets, character codes, encoding etc.). In this case it's probably the fault of Microsoft and understandably ignorant Microsoft users.

Microsoft (ab)use invalid (non-ASCII, non-ISO-8859, non-Unicode) codes to represent typographical sugar like prettier hyphens and backwards quotes in their own charsets. And if a system doesn't know what charset source material is in- or is told the wrong charset- then it can't correctly translate the material into some other charset.

In this case, it may have been a non-standard quote (92 hex in Windows-1252), replaced by a simple question mark (34 hex in ASCII and supersets) because it wasn't valid in ISO-8859-1 (Windows-1252 and Unicode are divergent supersets of ISO-8859-1). I doubt the author could even tell the next person what charset they used.

Hopefully divergent incompatible charsets (even the more modern ISO-8859-15) will die out as the world standardises on ASCII, ISO-8859-1 and Unicode according to their needs. I'd like to see Windows charsets die as well but it's another Microsoft lock-in method. I'd also like to see web sites etc. reject any submitted text containing non-ASCII codes (e.g. £) and insist that the user type charset-neutral entities instead (e.g. £). Or should I write those as £ and £ to make them look right?

Having said all this, I'm constantly learning new quirks of charsets. There's an excellent resource at http://czyborra.com/charsets/iso8859.html , complete with images of glyphs for various charsets.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

WORKSFORME

Re:"Consumers?"?

[1u3hr]

Someone tell the Australians that the rest of the English speaking world avoids apostrophes in titles and proper nouns.

The apostrophe is correct.

Someone tell Americans that they're not "the rest of the English speaking world" and not to try to drag us down to their level.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have looked further in to this, and I can moderate anything occuring before 1st feb (my time zone)

wierd

Re:"Consumers?"?

[spearway]

The Battle of Hastings 1066

Re:"Consumers?"?

[mangu]

Hopefully divergent incompatible charsets (even the more modern ISO-8859-15) will die out as the world standardises on ASCII, ISO-8859-1 and Unicode according to their needs.

Microsoft lock-in I can understand, even if I don't agree with it. But what I can't understand is why they extend standards without preserving compatibility. When they created the iso-8859 standards they maintained the same codes for the ASCII characters. However, when they created UTF-8 they broke the iso-8859-1 standard. Letters like ç have one code in iso-8859-1 and a different code in UTF-8.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Gherald]

And this is relevant to modern day apostrophe usage... how?

Re:"Consumers?"?

[MikeDX]

Someone tell the Americans that the rest of the English speaking world don't have a u in colour, honour, etc

Shouldn't that be Someone tell the Americans that the rest of the English speaking world DO have a u in colour, honour, etc....

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Cobalt Jacket]

No, but we're a pretty damn big chunk of it, on a first-language basis.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft lock-in I can understand, even if I don't agree with it. But what I can't understand is why they extend standards without preserving compatibility. When they created the iso-8859 standards they maintained the same codes for the ASCII characters. However, when they created UTF-8 they broke the iso-8859-1 standard. Letters like ç have one code in iso-8859-1 and a different code in UTF-8.

Please, please, please tell me that was a troll. I don't want to have to believe that a Slashdot poster is quite that ignorant in real life.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[strider44]

You're right, of course. Sorry 'bout that.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[DuncMan]

Mmm... Half true.

UTF-8 is merely a means of expressing multi-byte Unicode codes in a way that can be passed through single-byte systems without corruption. Much like how UUEncoding protects 8-bit data (e.g. JPEG images) passing through 7-bit systems (e.g. Usenet).

There's no need for it to be compatible with any charset because it's *not* a charset or any other means of representing characters. So the ç doesn't really have a different code in UTF-8 than in ISO-8859-1; it's just that the representation isn't a single byte with the value E7 hex.

If UTF-8 was as compatible with ISO-8859-1 as it already is with ASCII (for simplicity for itself, rather than actual compatibility) then it would be complicated to the point of being useless.

My understanding of UTF-8 is far from expert. A better resource (one of many I refer to regularly) is at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/ISO-10646-UTF-8 .html .

Re:"Consumers?"?

[geoffspear]

1. Blame Microsoft for a problem with Slashcode.
2. Get modded "informative".
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a similar debate with somebody in a totally different forum. I told him that if he wants to complain about American spellings I suggest he goes back and reads Chaucer for how he should be spelling things. Hell. The entire English language is a bastardization of Celtic, Germanic, Latin, etc.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[cosmo7]

The Battle of Hastings 1066

Except that the Normans weren't French, they were transplanted Vikings. Sure they spoke French and lived in France, but they were (and still are) culturally distinct from the French.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

B O R I N G !

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no need for it to be compatible with any charset because it's *not* a charset or any other means of representing characters.

Not quite true. It's not a character set, it is a character encoding. It is a means of representing characters. That's what a character encoding is.

ASCII and ISO-8859-1 are also character encodings. If all you are encoding are ASCII characters, they will be 100% compatible with ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8. ISO-8895-1 and UTF-8 are both supersets of ASCII.

So the ç doesn't really have a different code in UTF-8 than in ISO-8859-1

It doesn't have a different code point, but it does have a different byte sequence, and that's what makes the two incompatible.

If UTF-8 was as compatible with ISO-8859-1 as it already is with ASCII (for simplicity for itself, rather than actual compatibility) then it would be complicated to the point of being useless.

Agreed.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Nplugd]

The Normans are still culturally distinct from the French? You realize this statement could apply to every single regions of France right? Thus leaving one wondering who can call himself French in the end...

Re:"Consumers?"?

[ESqVIP]

Someone tell the Australians that the rest of the English speaking world avoids apostrophes in titles and proper nouns.

Brought to you by McDonald's :-)

Re:"Consumers?"?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

This is a very real problem, mostly because lots of (non-techie) people insist on sending copy in MS Word format. With MS "smart" quotes automatically substituting real quote marks for their proprietary ones, it makes it a real PITA to copy from a Word document to a HTML document. Sure, some editors will let you paste the characters -- but the resulting mess will not be standards compliant.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[DuncMan]

Well, this is a tricky semantic one!

I see a charset as a mapping between a character (useful for humans) and a number (useful for computers). As far as I can tell, UTF-8 is a way of encoding those numbers into other numbers. I don't think UTF-8 counts as a charset because it doesn't, in itself, define which numbers represent which characters. That's what Unicode does.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Blakey Rat]

How about people just type stuff, hit "go," and it works?

Re:"Consumers?"?

[sootman]

Maybe it was written by a 14-year-old girl. Ever hear them talk? "There's this magazine? In Australia? That compared a bunch of distros? and wrote about it?"

Re:"Consumers?"?

[tie_guy_matt]

You wouldn't want us to drag you down to our level. If the rest of the world started using American English then: the letter u would be taken out of colour, people would use double quotes when they should use single quotes, and then it wouldn't be long until the entire world explodes!!

I think that many of our changes were added after the revolutionary war in order to set us apart from the British and to give us a new sense of national identity -- funny that people are now proudly using British English to set them apart from America.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[DuncMan]

That's what standards are for; without them you'd be stuck at the "type stuff" stage, with everything having a different idea of how to talk to everything else.

Would you like me to explain why Windows-1252 was a bad idea? A quick hint; it's like the difference between American and English, or slang and English.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[lcsjk]

In the non-american speaking world, that is spelled "Playbouy".

Re:"Consumers?"?

[pipingguy]

You mean upspeak

Re:"Consumers?"?

[uhlume]

More to the point, someone please tell the Australians that the rest of the English speaking world avoids question marks in lieu of apostrophes, as they are not typographically equivalent.

(Shut up you pedants: I know it's a charset issue, but where's the humor in that?)

Re:"Consumers?"?

[fubar1971]

Dont you mean that the rest of the world does have an u in the words.....

If we are going to be grammar nazis, at least we should do it right.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Lars T.]

Err, and why only take the "u" out of colour and not out of double? It's the same letter in the same sound?

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about does? "World" is singular and requires a singular verb. If you're going to be a grammar Nazi, do it correctly.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Xoder]

No, you say "a u in the words" because when you spell "u" phonetically its spelt "yew". Or at least I think so. Not too sure here [As the poster removes his Karma Bonus], but that's my gut reaction.

OTOH, there's the word "ewe", and I don't think anyone would say "a ewe" and expect that be accepted.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

Nope, the rest does. 3th person, singular. Me thinking doing soing

Re:"Consumers?"?

[AJWM]

Those of Frankish descent probably would still have a pretty good argument, even though the Gauls were there first. (Given the name of the country and all.)

Re:"Consumers?"?

[niteice]

Ever hear a 14-year-old girl answer a question in school? It's fricking INSANE hearing them turn a statement into a question:

"What happenened in 79 A.D.?"
"Vesuvius erupted?"

Re:"Consumers?"?

[medge_42]

Nah, that's just the Sydney accent. The rest of us can talk proper.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[The Conductor]

Use the demoroniser.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[drseuss9311]

I think you mean the Slashdot Readers? Group.

By definition they are puzzled.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[i wanted another nam]

Phonetics. The pronunciation is "you" and in that case the "y" is a consonant.

But you speak-a your engrish howava you want-a to meesta.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[dcam]

I didn't realise that there was life outside Sydney. On all my maps it says "Here be dragons".

Re:"Consumers?"?

[hawk]

Ahh, so they think their cheese doesn't stink, hmm?

hawk

Re:"Consumers?"?

[hawk]

Ahh, yes, Playbuoy, the preffered pournograpy of british boats . . .

hawk

Re:"Consumers?"?

[hawk]

It's probably all down to the user-befuddling issue of charsets (also known as character sets, character codes, encoding etc.). In this case it's probably the fault of Microsoft and understandably ignorant Microsoft users.

So tell me again which Microsoft program slashdot uses to write these articles?

Hopefully divergent incompatible charsets (even the more modern ISO-8859-15) will die out as the world standardises on ASCII, ISO-8859-1 and Unicode according to their need

Bah. 7 bit ascii was good enough for Dennis Ritchie, and it's good enough for me . . .

:)

hawk

Re:"Consumers?"?

[njh]

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4947

From that article it would seem that India and China have more than double the number of fluent English speakers than the US. Interesting times.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Dabido]

"(Shut up you pedants: I know it's a charset issue, but where's the humor in that?)"

Shouldn't that be:
where?s the humour in that'
:-)

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Dabido]

" I didn't realise that there was life outside Sydney. On all my maps it says "Here be dragons"."

You kidding me? The entire St George Shire in Sydney has that written on it! (I used to live in Hurstville, so I know!) :-)

Re:"Consumers?"?

[dartmongrel]

What you're referring to is also called "upswing" or "up-ending". Its what you learn not to do when you want to sell on a call. People of every nationality do it, not just the Aussies. Americans are actually REALLY bad for it.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OK to speak American. I know that for those who speak American, they can earn credits at the University of Michigan in their 'English as a Second Language" program. Go ahead lil bumpkin', you can learn to speak properly too!

Re:"Consumers?"?

[MikeDX]

I wasn't being a grammar nazi, I was stating a fact.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[DuncMan]

So tell me again which Microsoft program slashdot uses to write these articles?

The error would have taken place when the original submission was written by Morf, or before. He may have written it in a Microsoft application, or copy-and-pasted it from a document written with a Microsoft application, and Slashdot editors copy-and-pasted it from what he submitted. At no point would anyone know to translate the character codes.

Of course, the spurious question mark may have originated in some other way- a simple typo, for example.

Bah. 7 bit ascii was good enough for Dennis Ritchie, and it's good enough for me . . .

A good, compatible approach. Follow it and you'll ensure that what you do can be read correctly, universally. But there's no need to call it "7-bit ASCII"- AFAIK there's no other kind of ASCII.

Re:"Consumers?"?

[martian265]

FYI, not all of the "rest of the English speaking world" speaks British English (and therefore they do not add in a u after their o's). I have no ideas the percentages, but I'm sure that some euro fan-boy (or american-wanna-be-euro-fan-boy) will come up with some, probably from a bizarre little website that supports their opinion but fails to fact-check.

Anyways, there are even many former British colonies that don't use the King's/Queen's English (and yes, some of them are even countries other than the US).

Not for long...

[Anonymous Coward]

The report is available ... for a short time

Okay, which one of you hosers told them we were coming?

Re:Not for long...

[Anonymous Coward]

God.... FFS.... you are such a bunch of wankers, it's untrue..

How can you compare those 4? Get mindcraft on the case? HAH. Personally, I think Linux is shit, but I use it for support of new VMware versions, etc. NetBSD is the ultimate workstation (on intel) imho. Comparing that lot is like comparing christianity to islam to catholicism to buddhism... ad nauseum...

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[rylin]

man is not nice enough.
while the information is correct, man-pages suffer from severe information overload - something the average user certainly won't appreciate.

Hope again

[randallpowell]

If Linux distros could enhance their drivers, use a standard package installer (like apt), make it easy for gandma yet her geek grandson could use it as a PHPBB server for a weekend, and advertise it on TV so people will know that it exists, we'd have more converts from the Darkness of Microsoft.

Re:Hope again

[KiloByte]

The thing is, to make a distro usable by grandmas, you need to dumb it down to a point where I wouldn't let it within a mile of my servers.

A man page usable by grandmas is a waste of disk space for me, and conversely, a man page I need is utterly incomprehensible for the grandma.
There is no way to fix this except by having two completely separate sets of documentation. This could by possibly done by putting the files next to each other, but I quite fail to imagine any good way of integrating that into a single distribution.

Re:Hope again

[marsu_k]

Just how would you wish the distros would "enhance their drivers"? If you're talking about device support, I find it to be perfectly suitable for grandma to use, especially since it's likely she won't have the latest and greatest hardware.

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact the report noted that none of the OS's installed, including all four Linux distributions, had no trouble with any of the test hardware on the two test machines. The even note that Linux came with drivers for their printer while they had to locate and install the drivers on WindowsXP, so Linux was actually "one up" on Windows in this case.

Re:Hope again

[Savage-Rabbit]

...converts from the Darkness of Microsoft.

You are new to denigrating Microsoft aren't you. That should be: ... more unfortunate enslaved souls would escape the dungeons of the dark land of Mordor.

Re:Hope again

[wolverine1999]

Make two distributions then with a common base perhaps? The base distribution being a normal one for those who are "advanced" users, and the extended one with lots of dumbed down explanations and extra guiding GUI stuff for grandmas... and everyone can be happy.

Re:Hope again

[natrius]

There is no way to fix this except by having two completely separate sets of documentation.

Or man pages could just be written well. If they started off by explaing usage in the most common use cases, one page would be fine for everyone. The tar man page in Debian does a nice job of this by showing examples right after the description, then showing what each flag does afterwards. If I come to the page trying to extract a tar.gz, I just skim through the man page and come across this:
tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz
extract gzipped foo.tar.gz

If they were all like this, there'd be less of a problem. All it takes is an email to the maintainer with how you think they should change the man page.

Re:Hope again

[anagama]

Right on. Examples are a good thing ... sadly lacking in too many man pages.

Re:Hope again

[TiggsPanther]

A man page usable by grandmas is a waste of disk space for me, and conversely, a man page I need is utterly incomprehensible for the grandma.

Putting aside whether man is suitable or not for non-techies I'd say this would be easy enough to do.
Granted easier for the User than for the people putting together the distro/software/documentation. But even then it shouldn't be too hard.
Plus whether man or a graphical help function I'd love to be able to switch to a less/more complex version sometimes.

Two sets of documentation. Help software defaults to the simple version but a simple flag can access the more in-depth version. Similarly a simple configuration file could be used to make the more complex version default for more experienced users.

Probably still not perfect, but would allow for less experienced users to immediately get less-confusing help when needed, and the more-experienced ones would be more able to handle the steps required to switch to the in-depth help. It'd probably be a real pig to implement though.

Re:Hope again

[hdparm]

The thing is, to make a distro usable by grandmas, you need to dumb it down to a point where I wouldn't let it within a mile of my servers.

I fail to see your point. Seriously.

Are you saying that you are quite happy to serve Windows machines, which - don't we all know that? - are quite safe, versatile and robust?

Re:Hope again

[KiloByte]

Let's say that that mile was an exaggeration.

Re:Hope again

[Baal Sebub]

It's a non-issue since most non-techie users don't read the documentation anyway.

One thing I noticed is that people *hate* to read in general, and they certainly make no exceptions for technical docs.

Now if you would include a DVD that tells them about the most important stuff about their distro, that would propably work.

Re:Hope again

[DigiShaman]

The thing is, to make a distro usable by grandmas, you need to dumb it down to a point where I wouldn't let it within a mile of my servers.


*throws hands in the air* Awwww fuck it then!!! We might as well just call it quits.


Rather then complain about other peoples computers, why don't you just concentrate on keeping YOUR server safe. Don't expect joe-shmoe to ever be as tech savvy as everyone else on Slashdot. It just isn't going to happen. Computers are supposed to be just a tool for the public, not a software experiment.

Re:Hope again

[KiloByte]

What I need is a distro that is fit for me. A moderately skilled programmer/sysadmin with an inability to talk to non-technical users and a badly overgrown ego.

I need usable man pages. I need all that complex docs. I'm not a wizard who already knows everything by heart. I want documentation, not dumbed-down text asking me if the computer is turned on.

What those Joe Schmoe users need, is a clickable interface with anything that could make them shoot themselves in the foot carefully hidden. What I need, is a system that allows me to shoot my own foot if I tell it so. A system that doesn't try to pamper me, but does what I say -- without standing in my way. It needs to provide some examples and documentation that is not completely opaque -- and that documentation would be too dumbed down for those more skilled than me.
In general, my goals are opposite to the goals of Grandma Jill. I, being selfish, can't stand if I get hurt due to someone trying to make it easier for grandmas.

I, a technical user, need a system fit for technical users.
Grandmas need a system that's dumbed down.
It's hard to have both in a single system, so any compromise will hurt both sides.

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

I see two flaws in your reasoning:
1) do you really imagine grandma, accessing dd's man page?
2) are your servers so tight for space? an extra 1G (really upper limit) occupied by the pretty'n'extra documentation means you have disk space problems? Cheap hdds are by the bunch and you can always mount one in /usr/share/doc. No need for the SCSI ultra high tech drive there.

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

You are very wrong.

What it boils down to is usability and layout of things. It is perfectly possible to render a GUI which is intuitive and still keep advanced features available. A tooltip, help button or well placed widgets does not reduce function or features. If you like to sit in the console piping data back and forth it doesn't mean you can't have a usable GUI.

The same goes with manuals. You can easilly make a manual to have a pretext, introduction, summary and then plenty of chapters describing everything from a-z. Both you and grandma will be able to use them.

Your argument is the typical Linux/Unix excuse for not making things right!

Re:Hope again

[miyako]

I've been saying something like this for a long time...
There is a lot of talk about Linux on the desktop, or a Linux distribution that aunt tillie can use.
The fact is that, personally, I don't want Linux to be the dominant OS, and I don't want Aunt Tillie to be able to use it. I don't care about the philosophical superiority of free software, I care about having an OS that works the way I want it to work. I like being able to edit config files, and type arcane looking commands into a terminal, and compiling software from scratch.
Sure, a bit more love from some of the big software companies would be nice, though honestly the few bits of commercial software that I do use runs natively under Linux anyway.
The fact is that, in order to get a system that is usable bye aunt tillie and grandma, we'll have to compromise on a number of things that I think will eventually lead to what a lot of people like about linux being diluted beyond recognition.
Not that I particularly have love for windows, I think that it's a unweildy and crufty OS that is controlled too much by marketing as opposed to solid technical reasoning,

Re:Hope again

[mattyrobinson69]

The things you need manpages for shouldn't be used by grandma's anyway. Most, if not all the stuff they use would be easy to find in the grapical kde help centre or gnome help.

Re:Hope again

[CastrTroy]

But nobody will want the home version. Everybody i know has all the professional, or enterprise versions of all the microsoft software installed, even though the home versions would do fine. Mind you, they never actually paid for them, but they still won't use Windows XP home. Even though the only difference is a web server they don't even know how to write web pages for.

Re:Hope again

[tolan-b]

Why on earth is it hard to have user freindly documentation *and* man pages? It's not as if text takes up that much space, and anyway, if you don't want the grandma doc sthen just don't install grandmadocs-1.1-3.. Where's the problem? What am I missing?

Re:Hope again

[b-baggins]

A man page usable by grandmas is a waste of disk space for me, and conversely, a man page I need is utterly incomprehensible for the grandma.

You, my friend, need to find a good technical writer.

It's called inverted pyramid writing and goes something like this:

1. Summary
   
2. Non technical end user level information
   
3. technical end user level information
   
4. hard core geek level information
   

You simply provide a sidebar nagivation in the summary page that takes you to the level you want.

The "dumb down" argument is nothing more than the desperate flailings of ego trying to still prove to the world that it is justified.

Re:Hope again

[Hognoxious]

I don't want Aunt Tillie to be able to use it. I don't care about the philosophical superiority of free software, I care about having an OS that works the way I want it to work.

Forward me the memo, please.

The one where it says that usability and advanced features are mutually exclusive. Thanks.

Re:Hope again

[jav1231]

Explain this position because I don't understand. First of all, you can't lament that Windows is ubiquitous and then expect a Linux desktop distro to remain geeky. Second, there are plenty of distro's that work pretty well that still remain advanced underneath. Most distro's, IMO, put WAY too many apps on the desktop. I think the major key is simplification in style and look. I'm not talking about Eye candy limitation but applications. Those aside, there are quirks in some wm's that just need to be cleaned up and have needed this for at least a couple of years. KDE has a quirky menu editor. SuSe 9.2 ships with default menu items that are misplaced and non-functional. There's a QA problem with many Linux distro's and when people bring them up they can be berated and told, "Hey, you can fix that with..." Look, if the average user has to run your bash script or take "72 easy steps" to correct poor QA then we've got serious problems. I use Linux. My kids use Linux. My wife reluctanly uses Linux. For the most part I can poor over a distro and get it to the point that the experience is very good for them. But we all seem to be waiting for that one distro that gets it out of the box. Others, lament the fact that it's even being pursued.

Re:Hope again

[YetAnotherDave]

My grandma contributes more to CPAN than you do.

She might say that a distro you can use has no business on her development workstation...

Re:Hope again

[Crayon Kid]

Make two distributions then with a common base perhaps? The base distribution being a normal one for those who are "advanced" users, and the extended one with lots of dumbed down explanations and extra guiding GUI stuff for grandmas... and everyone can be happy.

Why would you want a distribution that caters equally to grandmas and sysadmins? That's one of the main problems IMO: the Swiss Knife distro. A distro should pick a clearly delimited target and a goal and evolve around that. Where's the famous *NIX philosophy "do one thing and do it well"?

Mac has the desktop user. Microsoft has two product lines: the desktop and the server one. Do Linux distros get the hint?

Re:Hope again

[Doolspin]

There is no way to fix this except by having two completely separate sets of documentation

Or, two completely separate sets of grandmas.

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed off the key point (unless you include it in the summary by default)

Real world, clearly explained examples of usage.

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

> Even though the only difference is a web server

There are many differences. Quite a few are not relevant to most users, but the fact that single session terminal services is available in XP Pro is the principle difference for me. No, VNC is not an adequate replacement.

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers are supposed to be just a tool for the public, not a software experiment.

If anything, I think that computers would be a hardware experiment... It's the operating system that may be considered to be a software experiment.

Re:Hope again

[ifwm]

"There is no way to fix this except by having two completely separate sets of documentation"

How about making everything work correctly the FIRST time. No documentation needed.

Ask yourself this question. How mucj does a "grandma" need to consult the documentation with OSX. I'm no fanboy, but that's both secure AND simple. So it can be done.

Re:Hope again

[alc6379]

I tried to install grandmadocs-1.1-3, but RPM is telling me that I have to have momdocs-2.4.8_1-34.8_1 as a dependancy! The site only has the 2.4.8_1-34.8 version-- it won't work!

What do I do?!? Plz hlp... my mom's gonna be so pissed that I was messing with her puter...

Re:Hope again

[adamfranco]

Even though the only difference is a web server they don't even know how to write web pages for.

This may not be the case now, but a few years ago when I was in college my room-mate got a new computer with XP Home on it. It wouldn't allow him to get onto the college network without upgrading to XP Pro. Apparently "networking" aside from dial-up (or maybe just connecting to a large subnets) was considered a Pro feature. With the recent proliferation of home networks I find it hard to believe that this is still the case, but I haven't sat at a computer running Windows recently enough to verify this.

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mac has the desktop user. Microsoft has two product lines: the desktop and the server one. Do Linux distros get the hint?"

Um, Apple sells a server version of OS X with additional functionality and server admin utilities, plus multi-client licensing. On the Linux front, a number of vendors have multiple distros- I know both Mandrake and Red Hat have desktop, server, pro, etc versions.

Re:Hope again

[koreaman]

If I had mod points, you'd be +5 Innovative Sig Character Limit Workaround

Re:Hope again

[rarn]

Foget linux, go for http://openbsd.org/ It has the best man pages and documentation I've seen. OpenBSD man pages have even helped me out of linux issues...

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

:D You're not missing anything. System level software still has extensive man-pages. In fact, almost any software does. And there's a... *gasp*... second set of docs for the desktop-level applications, often found through file->help. [not directed toward parent] Is it a hard concept to understand a system having two versions of documentation?

Re:Hope again

[Nurgled]

Presuably your college network required computers to join the domain, which XP Home can't do. It's perfectly able to do your average non-centralized network stuff.

However, there are plenty of other things that were deliberately disabled to "cheapen" XP Home. For example, most of the MMC snap-ins just display a message saying that you can't use them in XP Home, and there's no GUI for setting file permissions. (The cacls command-line utility is still supplied.)

I find it amusing that they actually put more effort into the cheaper product to make it "worse" than the Pro version rather than just improving the Pro version to exceed what they already had. If anything, the Home version should be more expensive!

Re:Hope again

[checkyoulater]

A man page usable by grandmas is a waste of disk space for me, and conversely, a man page I need is utterly incomprehensible for the grandma.

Yeah, you're so much smarter than old people. I bet they can't even read...

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

> man page useful to grandma

Are you kidding me?!?! Next time your grandma has a problem with her MS box, ask her if she clicked on the 'help' menu under the start button. Grandma's (and PHB's) don't read help, let alone man! Leave man alone! It's fine as-is.

Re:Hope again

[The Conductor]

It's not as if text takes up that much space

Heh...if you look in the manpages directory, /usr/doc/man or wherever-the-hell-it-is, all the files are gzipped. The man program unzips them for display. Saves a megabyte or two on my hard drive!

Re:Hope again

[Darkangael]

And here I was thinking Linux was about choice...

Linux CAN be BOTH. That's why some people use SUSE, and some use Gentoo or Debian. The desktop distros are targetted at grandmas. The "advanced" distros like Debian and Gentoo are targetted at people like you, so why do you care so much about what the desktop distros are doing?

And a compromise IS possible in Linux, in a way it was never really possible in Windows. User groups are actually effective, and a "user" level account is actually usable by grandma, and a "power user" level account is actually usable by a real live power user. And an administrator is perfectly free to shoot grandma AND him/her self in the foot if they so choose.

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, welcome to OS X.

Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

One example of need for more drivers:
One of the main things that's kept me from installing Linux on my PC is lack of support for my wireless card. When I can be assured that it will be supported, the next day I'll be backing up data & reformatting. But so far every search says nope.

Linux has been ready for a long time now

[SigmundFreud]

From the article's conclusion: 'Linux fell short on common tasks such as installing new software.' This is the most important point. Joe Average wants a usable system, which includes being able to work in an intuitive way. the 'friendlyness' of most GUIs that I have seen (KDE, Gnome, OpenOffice, etcetera) still leaves a lot to be desired, which hampers accomplishing common tasks. These 'Linux is ready for the desktop' stories have been piling up for quite a few years now, but will it really happen?

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[gowen]

These 'Linux is ready for the desktop' stories have been piling up for quite a few years now, but will it really happen

I think its a mistake to think they'll be a time when it "will happen". It is happening, but its happening slowly. Linux has been ready for my desktop since 1997, but I have esoteric tastes. Linux is now ready for my sister's desktop, and she's a fairly tech-savvy IT person, but not a geek. It's not ready for my dad's desktop, because he still finds Windows Installation Wizards too complicated to comprehend.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[krymsin01]

I still don't understand how typing apt-get install PROGRAMX is complicated.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[CmdrGravy]

Well maybe not for you and I, consumers on the other hand are brainless sponges who are only just capable of clicking a button in order to request 'more'.

I assume that must be the case because it certainly seems to be the viewpoint of most large companies.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[I confirm I'm not a]

I still don't understand how typing apt-get install PROGRAMX is complicated.

(Obligatory Gentoo comment) It's more letters than just typing "emerge PROGRAMX"? ;-)

A slightly more useful answer is that it takes people out of their "comfort zone". They have to use one of those wierd black-and-white DOS thingies. They have to look up a command, rather than just point-and-click. They may have to remember a password other than their own (and, although *their* password is the easy-to-remember "password", their security-conscious offspring set a *really*difficult* password for root: "p455w0rd"). And the real killer is: what do they do "when something goes wrong"? (I know, it's really not likely to, but still...)

There *are* easy ways to install software on Linux - Mandrake springs to mind - but the lack of consistency across distros is another aspect that confuses and frightens people used to double-clicking on a pretty icon.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[waterbear]

I still don't understand how typing apt-get install PROGRAMX is complicated.

That is not where the problem lies. The additional problems in ascending order of size are --

1 -- (for the non-geek mum/dad user) getting used to the CLI

2 -- (for quite a lot of others too) figuring out what to do if
apt-get install programx
coughs over a dependency issue and shows up with screeds of error messages.

I'd be quite interested to read your simple advice to get over problem 2!

-wb-

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Heem]

yea, cuz yum install package is tough.

or apt-get

I actually thing using one of those is EASIER then installing software on windows. much easier. and muc h more free.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[mrogers]

The (slightly) complicated part is working out the value of PROGRAMX. I love apt-get but I usually have to search packages.debian.org before I know which package to install.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, let me know when you get amarok playing mp3s...

Not to troll but my Winamp install took a double click. My XMMS install took googling to figure out how to add Livna.org to my apt-repo. Luckily, someone nice out there built packages with mp3 support.

Windows: Let's see... double click - next - next - finish.

Fedora: apt-get install gstreamer-plugins-mp3
No Package Found

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a few things to remember also: the stories are written by people already trained in using Windows. On anything else things feel unfamiliar. I know this for a fact since I set up my aunt's computer with Knoppix. With all the software she will require (Kmail is good enough for e-mail... Kontacts or Evolution are an overkill for beginners). This is comparable to having a computer pre-installed with Windows, where the average user doesn't get to see what's involved in installation.

It's true that sometimes documentation can be limiting (although KDE documentation is nice and well integrated... my aunt found the help files on her own, although she had as little use for them as she would windows help files. Only the technologically savvy bother to read help files anyway, or even the messages that pop-up on dialog boxes.

As for installing stuff, it can be challenging it is true for the beginner. If I was making a distro, it't be Debian based, with synaptic and apt-get set to run as sudo (they can only use pre-configured trusted sites anyway), which is how I set-up my aunt's computer. She still won't install anything on her own but the good news is she won't install things unintentionally either. My cousin will install things on her own this way however, which makes it way cool. The sheer amount of trusted software available on Debian, and the ease to install it with tools like synaptic and apt-get, compensates the ease of installation of any crap from the net.

That being said, it is no necessarily much easier to install "other software" on Windows XP for the uninitiated if XP has been setup so that the users do not run with administrator privileges (which is exactly how my cousin's computer has been setup **grin**) . They still have to remember to right-click and "run as" the executable to be able to install it.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[cbr2702]

While anyone can learn how to use the command line, the problem is you have to know already what PROGRAMX is. If I want a word processor, how do I know OO.o or AbiWord are even choices? The advantage of Linspire's CnR is that just by knowing the type of program I can see pictures and descriptions. And if it doesn't have reviews it probably should.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[jedidiah]

This is of course a big fat lie.

There was more than "double click" to the process
of installing your windows application. You actually
had to go out, find it and get it. That process
alone would have put off many WinDOS users.

WinDOS "won" because you left out some necessary
steps that a tool like apt-get can automate for you
while ignoring that WinDOS NEVER automates those
tasks for you.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[William_Lee]

IMHO, if Linux actually wants to have a chance of widespread adoption on the desktop, it needs to evolve into something like Mac OSX which is an incredibly user friendly UI with *nix hidden under the hood for those looking for it.

MythTV is a good example of why Linux is not ready for primetime on the desktop. I shouldn't have to read pages of docs and spend potentially hours tweaking files manually to get what is an otherwise amazing application up and running.

We can all hate M$ as much as we want to, but Windows XP is an OS that is pretty easy to use and VERY stable (stop snickering) in a home environment. It is incredibly rare these days to see a BSOD unless there is a major hardware issue or severe damage to system files.

Desktop users should never have to do ANYTHING by CLI. It's fine to offer it for power users like OS X does, but an OS should be a unobtrusive tool that is as simple as possible to use. It should be as close to invisible as possible, and shouldn't require a strong, varied skillset to use the computer itself. The focus for the average user should be on getting the job done (i.e. writing a letter, editing a photo, etc.).

Linux is IMO far away from being ready for the average user's desktop.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybee they've got more important things to do with their time than memorize the commands needed to use the archaic joke that is the current batch of Linux Distros.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[bmxbandit]

I think we are maybe missing the point here. The problem is not understanding the command line, the problem IS the command line. Any system that requires users to memorise text commands and then re-enter them has no place in modern computing. Command lines are history... get used to it! Apple did it in 3 releases (shipped the first consumer *NIX) why can't the linux community? The other people who really 'get' this are of course software developers, who realise that until the command line is ditched Linux has no future on desktop computers.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[CmdrGravy]

maybee yes, maybee no.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz off

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Hognoxious]

It's not ready for my dad's desktop, because he still finds Windows Installation Wizards too complicated to comprehend.

That sounds more like a reason why it is ready for his desktop - at least he wouldn't be able to bugger anything up.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Deeze]

"(Obligatory Gentoo comment) It's more letters than just typing "emerge PROGRAMX"? ;-)"

(Obligatory Debian comment) It may be more letters but it still doesn't take as long ;) . Course there's always alias's, those even the playing field somewhat :).

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Txiasaeia]

Maybe because not everybody uses Debian?

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Deeze]

Advice for problem 2. Use a stable distro. I'd be very surprised to see Debian stable hiccup over a dependancy issue. As for problem 1, use Synaptic instead of the cli. Though I agree there are still some hurdles to be overcome in the software installation area. Not to say there's not problems in the "Windows way" either (dll hell anyone?).

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Deeze]

Actually I think a point that is being missed is the fact that there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for a *user* to need the command line.

I must dissagree though, that command lines are history. They still have their place as a very powerful tool in the hands of someone that knows how to use it (in general this is not a user).

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Deeze]

You guys should really have a look at Synaptic ;).

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[I confirm I'm not a]

"(Obligatory Gentoo comment) It's more letters than just typing "emerge PROGRAMX"? ;-)"

(Obligatory Debian comment) It may be more letters but it still doesn't take as long ;) . Course there's always alias's, those even the playing field somewhat :).

/me slinks off to be alone with my uncompiled source-code. Pesky binaries! ;-)

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[cayenne8]

"I think we are maybe missing the point here. The problem is not understanding the command line, the problem IS the command line. Any system that requires users to memorise text commands and then re-enter them has no place in modern computing. Command lines are history... get used to it! Apple did it in 3 releases (shipped the first consumer *NIX) why can't the linux community? The other people who really 'get' this are of course software developers, who realise that until the command line is ditched Linux has no future on desktop computers."

I dunno...I use the command line on my Mac quite often!!! And that is for home useage. At work, if you are working on servers, databases...you WILL grow to love the ease and power of the CLI. Point and click only works so far...but, for complex tasks (often unique for each job), and quickness....you do need the CLI and scripts.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Coryoth]

That is not where the problem lies. The additional problems in ascending order of size are --

1 -- (for the non-geek mum/dad user) getting used to the CLI

2 -- (for quite a lot of others too) figuring out what to do if
apt-get install programx
coughs over a dependency issue and shows up with screeds of error messages.

This is nowhere near as hard as you seem to think.

(1) Install Synaptic to do the package management (you know, like Ubuntu and Connectiva do by default), and they'll never have to look at a command line.

(2) They'll do the same thing they do when a Windows Setup.exe barfs with an error message. What's the problem? Neither happens very often at all (unless you go mixing your repositories... which will only happen if you know what you're doing... which will mean you can resolve the dependencies yourself).

For third party (non-distro provided) packages there's things like Autopackage, which while still in development will hopefully become the standard way for any non-distro packagers to package things up.

Jedidiah.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't understand how typing apt-get install PROGRAMX is complicated.

Then you don't know the first thing about usability. What in the world makes you think a novice user is going to:
1. Open up that thing called 'xterm' or 'konsole' to install a program
2. Have any idea there is a program called apt-get and how to run it
3. Know what the exact name of the program they want to install is

?

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[skiman1979]

I don't think it's a question of "is Linux ready for the desktop?" It's more a question of "Is Mandrake ready for the desktop?" or "Is Gentoo ready for the desktop?" (spare me the jokes about Gentoo) or "Is ready?"

Some distributions, IMHO, are ready, others are not so ready. I see a lot of people comment that a certain distro is not ready (or linux itself isn't ready) because it's hard to install. So is Windows (for the average user). That doesn't make it ready or not ready.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[poot_rootbeer]

'Linux fell short on common tasks such as installing new software.' This is the most important point.

Installing new software is a common task? I would have assumed most people, once past the initial setup of a system, spend their time USING software, not installing it.

But the point stands. In OS X, installing new software is usually just as easy as copying it to the Applications folder. Why do Linux and Windows make it so much more complicated?

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[adamruck]

Becuase most computer users dont have an understanding of a "command", or a "terminal". That also requires the person to know exactly what "PROGRAMX" is. When someone types something wrong they get a funky error message and get confused.

Compare that to doubleclicking the install file, clicking next -> next -> next -> done.

Re:Linux has been ready for a long time now

[Anonymous Coward]

"I still don't understand how typing apt-get install PROGRAMX is complicated."

Fresh Mandrake 10.1 installation. Very new to linux. Trying to follow help sites to install stuff.

[root@localhost xc]# apt-get
bash: apt-get: command not found

That is one reason its complicated.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[cgranade]

Think of Joe and Jane Blow... do they know how to use the command line? No? Didn't think so. They know that they download an application, and it runs and installs. Unfortunately, this level of transparency is dangerous for security purposes, but it is almost needed for usability. So which is more important? Is there a good graphical interface for these for installing packages? They shouldn't even be told what dependancies are being fetched unless they ask. (Make a giant More Info button.) That information confuses. Anyway, I don't know the solutions, but I know that man and portage aren't among them. They're great tools... for developers, sysadmins and other power users. Nor for Joe and Jane Blow.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Danimoth]

This artical is reviewing if Linux is ready for 'Moms and Dads' can you honestly expect John D. Computeruser to know that when he wants to install his new tax software he needs to sure ./configure? or even that man exists? NO. Frankly this is knowledge that is gained through use of Linux, and anyone first trying to get started withit would not have the first clue where to look. This is verymuch like OS X or WinXP where its the simple doubleclick the install file or even autorun from cd.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd rather been using better distros for example MEPIS or Ubuntu.
Those even don't cost a buck.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

or non-sucky ones like arch or slackware

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sitt any random person down infront of linux and tell them to look up man howToSetUpYourinternetConnection and see how well they do....

Report Available Free...

[Anonymous Coward]

...until the server crashes.

compatible hardware quote :)

[Gopal.V]

TIP

* Check the manufacturer’s website for a list of compatible hardware prior to choosing an OS.

I guess I always did that with Mac OS X ... :)

Jokes aside, I bought (ie assembled at home) a PC which I picked off the hardware HOWTO. Ended up being a charm to get Linux working on it. I would like to call that Voting with your Money.

These days you should check TuxMobil or some other Linux site rather than just the hardware vendor's site for the compatibility from the wild.

Re:compatible hardware quote :)

[lphuberdeau]

Taken from Linspire Pros:

Click-n-Run technology makes it easy to install other software

Taken from Linspire Cons:

Hard to install other software

I've seen quite a few other examples like that. They mention MacOSX's firewall is activated by default in the summary and in the description later on they say it's not. Mandrake has nearly no cons, and is not the winner. They mention it's "Hard to install other software" (notice the copy-paste)... I think they don't know anything about urpmi...

Don't take this "report" to your boss. It's not serious.

Re:compatible hardware quote :)

[mod_critical]

I had a real shock with a recent Linux experiment here. I was to get Linux running on some verry verry new hardware. From past experiences, I expected this is fail hard.

I setup both Gentoo and Fedora (no I'm not talking about Gentoo for Joe Windows, but it was one of the test ditros) on the machine no problem at all. The compliment was an Athlon FX-55, Gigabyte Board with the nForce4 SLI chipset and PCI-E, four SATA2 drives, and a nVidia GeForce 6600. I seriously just about had a heart attack when the first install (Fedora) went right through without a problem! (forcedeth seems to be working just peachy too).

Re:compatible hardware quote :)

[swv3752]

In the notes about instaling software they mention unpacking it. It sounds like they downloaded a tarball.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is slashdot and bashing Linux will get you instant karma, but _please_ could you elaborate why knowing both OSS and Microsoft and favoring OSS is considered biaised, while favoring and knowing only Microsoft is not ?

In breif summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple Mac OS X (10.3) $229
Microsoft Windows XP Home $324
Xandros Desktop OS 2.5 Deluxe $135

Apple Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows XP were easier to use than any of the Linux distributions tested - but not by much.

Mac OS X lost marks for poor help files but was easier to use for most common tasks. Windows XP had excellent help files but scored lower for installation, which was complicated and time-consuming. You may also need to spend extra money on additional software for common tasks.

Xandros Desktop OS was the top performing Linux distribution. It was easy to install with very good help files but was more complicated to use for tasks such as burning a DVD and viewing digital photos. It didn't include DVD burning software and you need to find the correct folder for photo and movie files. However, at $135, it's a considerably cheaper option than Windows XP or Mac OS X.

None of the operating systems are ideal, however.

* The Linux distributions fell short on some common tasks including installing new software, setting up an internet connection and the availability of help files and instructions.
* Mac OS X could have more comprehensive help files and we'd like to see the inbuilt firewall switched on by default.
* Although Windows XP usually comes pre-installed on computers, the installation process could be easier, as could some of the common tasks such as playing a DVD.

We'd also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems -- the tested operating systems don't currently include a virus checker.

In brief

* Microsoft Windows is the dominant operating system.
* The Linux-based operating systems we tested aren't quite as easy to use as Windows XP and Mac OS X, but they're not far behind.
* Linux fell short on common tasks such as installing new software.

Overall, however, Linux has improved in leaps and bounds over the years. It's probably not suitable for beginners yet but if you're a confident computer user, any of the tested distributions should suit you.

Re:In breif summary

[weicco]

What is conviently forgotten in comparisons like these are that that OEM Windows is much cheaper than retail one. Also that Linux is free for download but installation and configuring takes time and time is money.

Also what is forgotten is that Windows has many open source and free softwares also. MS has also some free stuff and more is coming (like database server, .NET compiler and so on).

I don't know much about Mac OS but I use FreeBSD at home :)

Re:In breif summary

[pjt33]

We'd also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems -- the tested operating systems don't currently include a virus checker.

They'd also like to see Wine installed by default on Linux and OS X to give the virus checker something to do.

Re:In breif summary

[Bert64]

There's actually no need to enable the OSX firewall by default.. The purpose of enabling the windows firewall by default is to prevent access to services which (stupidly) you cant disable.. On OSX it's possible to disable everything from listening on the network, and this is the default, so the firewall being enabled wouldnt actually stop anything.
On the flip side, on all systems, having the firewall enabled often hinders legitimate uses of the system, such as dcc send/chat on irc, or p2p apps etc, so having the firewall enabled by default on osx would actually cause problems while not providing any benefit.

Re:In breif summary

[Bert64]

But much of the free and opensource software is included with linux, or atleast available in a package repository which is available from a single command/click (think apt-get)... for windows on the other hand, you have to go searching google for the app and then you have to take a leap of faith with each individual download site that it won't contain trojans or spyware, which brings up another point, a lot of "free" windows apps contain spyware.
It's also amusing to note that windows is the most expensive os and yet comes with no support, all the others have a phone number you can call for help or an email address you can contact.

Re:In breif summary

[weicco]

Let's say I don't use apt or any other program like that. I still have to use Google to find rpm-packages (or whatever) or to find source code so I can compile my software. Of course I can use SourceForge but it is as easy to find Windows apps as Linux apps from there.

You'll take always changes when you install third party software. How can you know that some Polish :) hacker hasn't add any phone-home-stuff or any other evil code to the package you install?

I'll have to say that I don't know much about Linux now a days, I use FreeBSD and it's ports collection. In Windows I've bought some applications and downloaded some others from SourceForge and other sites. Most of my money goes to buying hardware, not software.

Re:In breif summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the Australian version of OS X not have the firewall enabled by default? Funny, cause my iBook had it switched on the moment I booted it up the first time.

--Lurker (too lazy to get a nick, beat that!)

Re:In breif summary

[iroll]

They also said that Xandros' web browswer is "Internet Explorer" and that they used iMovie as the default movie player in OSX.

The only people more clueless than the authors would be the people who purchase this 'review.'

Re:In breif summary

[waltsj19]

The purpose of enabling the windows firewall by default is to prevent access to services which (stupidly) you cant disable.

No, the purpose of a firewall is to prevent unsolicited traffic (often spyware or virus) from reaching your computer.

Re:In breif summary

[MasonMcD]

having the firewall enabled often hinders legitimate uses of the system, such as dcc send

Hmmm... your examples could be a bit more varied. "The firewall sometimes stops you from being able to swap files, and... erm... swap files!"

C'mon. How about VNC, printer sharing, or list-serv access or something that doesn't sound so 14-year-old-in-the-basement.

Re:In breif summary

[Stanza]

There are lots of reasons to have a firewall, even on OS X. One of my friends had someone break into his guest account and set up an IRC-tunnelling program. No root privelidges were compromised. Having a firewall set up would have put a stop to that quickly.

Blocking outgoing traffic from programs that you don't want talking to the internet (spyware would be a classic example, but so would programs that send back "anonymous usage information") are another application for firewalls.

The list could go on.

Re:In breif summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Too tired to login... but anyway he had added a guest account and turned on remote login? I don't see how a firewall would have helped here...

Limiting outgoing traffic is a must on Windows, if you use Internet Explorer, but not in any other case. Those "This program is trying to use the network" popups annoy me no end...

Re:In breif summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm ... maybe he IS a 14-year-old-in-the-basement?

Re:In breif summary

[Anonymous Coward]

too tired to login too ... anyway, a firewall gives aditional flexibility as to where to allow connections from, maybe even do some port forwarding if you feel like, etc. Heck, just consider port knocking.

Re:In breif summary

[Bert64]

The purpose of a hardware firewall is just that, a software firewall doesnt stop the traffic reaching your computer since THATS WHERE THE SOFTWARE FIREWALL IS.. It just prevents other processes recieving it. And if a port is closed, no spyware or virus is going to infect it, any traffic sent to a closed port will be responded to with a port unreachable, which is often very usefull for instance if a user has a dynamic ip, and his ip changes and a new user gets the old ip, your connections to the old ip will get reset by the new machine, if the new machine has a firewall configured which drops the packets then your machine will have to wait until it times out.

On a machine with no services running, no spyware or virus will be able to infect your machine remotely over the network, the user would need to initiate the connection himself, this is no different from having a firewall which blocks all incoming connections.

Re:In breif summary

[Bert64]

Because swapping files are exactly the kind of things users too clueless to configure a firewall correctly (and thus using the defaults) will be trying to do, if your running a vnc or printer server or indeed any kind of server then you should be clued up enough to configure a firewall.

Re:In breif summary

[Bert64]

But this is a talk about DEFAULT CONFIGURATION.. If you see fit to configure port knocking or restricting based on ip address then your capable of turning the firewall on in the first place, you would NOT be using the defaults.
The point is, that by default on macos there are NO ports open, nothing to connect to atall and therefore theres nothing for a firewall to prevent or restrict connections to, however if the user were to intentionally install such a program then he would also need to know how to reconfigure the firewall to allow his new service

Not too off...

[Gorffy]

Not totally off reviews, But the installing of software under linux being hard seems a bit wrong. Most home users probably don't want to compile thier own, but there's a lot of package systems to help with that. I care less about this right now though, seeing as I'm downloading Solaris 10 for FREE. (Thank you Sun!)

Re:Not too off...

[pklong]

Sure provided you are on broadband. But if you are on a modem you are going to get pissed off very quickly when you have to download tens of megabytes every time you want to install some software. It's not like they can get someone to download the setup.exe and send it to them.

Even then you will be in trouble if the software you need isn't in a repository. They won't be too impressed either when their system becomes screwed because they have been downloading RPM's from here there and everywhere and their package manager is screaming at them about failed dependancies (typical non linux type response "WTF is a dependancy") ./configure and make are laughable. You can almost guarantee they won't have all the required libraries installed or other software they must have installed to run the application. They wouldn't even know where to start.

Linux really, really needs someone to come up with a package format that includes everything they might need in one package. Proper simpleton documentation (that is actually finished) would help too.

Re:Not too off...

[beelsebob]

But that's exactly the point - why should I use one of many different complex package management systems none of which I've ever heard of and all of which work in subtly different ways, when I could just *click link on internet*, *use application*. And linux isn't that easy even if you want to use a pre-compiled binary, you have to sit there searching through a list of distros, find the right package, make sure it's the right kind, work out what an rpm is, download the package, unzip it (probably at the command line), tell it to install (again probably at the command line), piss around not realising you don't have all the dependancies, go find them, discover that they're only available in source code, download them, work out how the make system works, discover it won't quite compile properly, get a computer science degree, fix the program, and then maybe you might have working software. And don't try to tell me that this is rubbish and that it's easier than this - I've tried and I've failed to get a nicely working linux box as an easy to use productive desktop.

Re:Not too off...

[Welsh Dwarf]

Yes, but have you tried these last 3 years, I want an app, I go to the 'install software' tab, I type the name in, I click on the app that corresponds, I click install, done... That's how it has been for me since Mdk9.0....

Re:Not too off...

[beelsebob]

Yes I have tried these last three years... I unfortunately didn't know that Mdk9.0 (or whatever distro you choose) is the one that does that super easily (and neither does joe public). I installed fedora, and discovered that it's virtually impossible to install anything without compiling it yourself.

Re:Not too off...

[i_should_be_working]

I'm sorry, but a lot of that, if not rubbish, is an exaggerated account of how things used to be.

The average user will not be adding other repositories to their system. They will not have to use the command line, they wont have to worry, care or even know about dependencies.

They will have a package manager that came with their distro that takes care of everything with one repository. Any program that is not in their repository is beta software at best that the average person does not need to be messing with. More so for programs that only come in source code.

I can install a program in less than 30 seconds. I don't get asked any questions about where it should go. I never have to reboot my computer. If I want to use the internet to klik on an app to install it I can do that too.

If you had a hard time getting an easy productive desktop, you probably just had the wrong distro.

Which is the only weakness when it comes to newcomers. They have to get the right distribution in the first place. But none of those hardships you mention ever has to be suffered through in any of the distros reviewed in this article. And they didn't even cover Mepis or Ubuntu.

Re:Not too off...

[Welsh Dwarf]

I understand now, quite a few of my freinds have had the same problem, Fedora seems to be no end of trouble for everything.

That said, do try Mdk or Suse sometime, you'll be plesently surprised :).

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[GaryPatterson]

But people don't want to compile software - they just want to install it in a form that runs right away. And portage is something they have to know about, install and then learn to use. That's too much effort for an apparently simple process. Windows and OS X have the advantage that you can go into a shop, buy a boxed copy of software, take it home and install it quickly and easily. No compiling or mucking about with other apps to download the app for you. Sure, a lot of Linux software is free, but how much of it comes in a consumer format that people will recognise? If the solution is to train the rest of the world to come around, then the problem may be too hard. Wait a minute... calling 'man' a help file... this is a joke isn't it? man pages are a shade above useless when you present them to normal (ie non-technical) people... You nearly had me there! Good one! man pages are help files... heh heh... priceless...

Re:I disagree

[MarkRose]

Does Linux even have pf yet? Until it does, Linux will continue to be a niche OS.

Pico-farad? No way man. Linux is way tighter than that. Linux uses femtofarads!

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ you are dense. Instead of accepting valid and constructive criticism and using it to identify weak areas and improve them, you and many others seem to think that instead it's perfectly valid to flame the reviewer.

Don't shoot the messenger you idiot.

I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Simon (S2)]

And he loves it. I first tryed it on my own computer and was really surprised at how polished and stable it was. It detected everything out of the box and I had very little to do to make it work like I wanted.
So I decided to make my Dad switch from WinXP to Ubuntu, installed Abiword and gnumeric (oo.org was to slow on his P4 with 96MB RAM), setted them as default editors, copied all his Documents over from the Win partition and made a shortcut on the desktop to his Documents folder.
He really likes Ubuntu. At first he was a bit bored because he had to learn some new things (for example the "Applications" menu is on the top left, and not on the bottom), but he got the changes quickly and adapted to the new OS in a few days.
I asked him yesterday if he likes more Windows or Linux now that he tryed both, and he told me that it makes no difference for him, as long as he can use spreadsheets, write letters, read his emals and organize his pictures like he did before (btw. he loves gPhoto and Gimp is his new favorite program :).
So to him it makes no difference, but now I don't have to clean his computer from spyware and viruses every few weeks.

So for me (and for my dad) Linux IS READY for the desktop. At least Ubuntu is.

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

"This report is free for a short time"? Hahahaha!

(That said, the site has some nicer formatting... although it is paginated...)

--BEGIN_ARTICLE

Operating systems tested

The operating system is the engine room of your computer. We put four versions of Linux up against the big guns — Windows and Mac OS.

All computers require an operating system (OS). It’s the underlying program that runs your software and controls the hardware and peripherals connected to your computer. You probably use a version of Microsoft Windows because it came pre-installed on your computer when you bought it but there are other operating systems available.

Linux is the most obvious alternative to Windows for PC users but there isn’t just one Linux operating system. There are many Linux-based operating systems (called distributions) because Linux is open source software that’s freely available to anybody to use and develop. Traditionally perceived as hard to use, many Linux products now claim to be pitched at consumers, but are they as user-friendly as you’d hope?

We set out to find out how some Linux operating systems and Mac OS X stack up against the market leader, Windows.
Operating systems on test:

* Apple Mac OS X (10.3)
* Linspire 4.5
* Mandrakesoft Mandrakelinux Discovery 10.0
* Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition (with SP2)
* Novell SuSE LINUX Personal 9.1
* Xandros Desktop OS 2.5 Deluxe.

This report is free for a short time.

The verdict

Watch out Microsoft and Apple, Linux is closing in.

What to buy:

Brand Price
Apple Mac OS X (10.3) $229
Microsoft Windows XP Home $324
Xandros Desktop OS 2.5 Deluxe $135

Apple Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows XP were easier to use than any of the Linux distributions tested - but not by much.

Mac OS X lost marks for poor help files but was easier to use for most common tasks. Windows XP had excellent help files but scored lower for installation, which was complicated and time-consuming. You may also need to spend extra money on additional software for common tasks.

Xandros Desktop OS was the top performing Linux distribution. It was easy to install with very good help files but was more complicated to use for tasks such as burning a DVD and viewing digital photos. It didn’t include DVD burning software and you need to find the correct folder for photo and movie files. However, at $135, it’s a considerably cheaper option than Windows XP or Mac OS X.

None of the operating systems are ideal, however.

* The Linux distributions fell short on some common tasks including installing new software, setting up an internet connection and the availability of help files and instructions.
* Mac OS X could have more comprehensive help files and we’d like to see the inbuilt firewall switched on by default.
* Although Windows XP usually comes pre-installed on computers, the installation process could be easier, as could some of the common tasks such as playing a DVD.

We’d also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems — the tested operating systems don’t currently include a virus checker.

In brief:
* Microsoft Windows is the dominant operating system.
* The Linux-based operating systems we tested aren’t quite as easy to use as Windows XP and Mac OS X, but they’re not far behind.
* Linux fell short on common tasks such as installing new software.

Overall, however, Linux has improved in leaps and bounds over the years. It’s probably not suitable for beginners yet but if you’re a confident computer user, any of the tested distributions should suit you.

Where to get your system

Most new computers are sold with an operating system pre-installed. Microsoft Windows dominates the PC market, although it’s also poss

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[GaryPatterson]

Sorry about the formatting...

I'll stick to plain old text from now on.

We have tested...

[michalf]

We have tested the following pieces of food:

1. a snickers
2. a jam of pure honey
3. an apple
4. a carrot

We found out that snickers is the best food because:
1. it comes in a nice wrapping
2. has many calories and can give you an energetic boost
3. its taste is supreme to others

Some people say you need vitamines, you should not spoil your teeth etc. But for an end-user what matters is the ease of use! And the snickers is the ultimate winner here.

Although an apple and a carrot keep quite close they have a long way to go.

best regards
michal

Re:We have tested...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were starving, I would go for the Snickers every time. It just depends on your point of view.

Re:We have tested...

[Anonymous Coward]

So is your "apple" their "Apple"? Or is "snickers" = "Apple"? Or...?

Re:We have tested...

[ErroneousBee]

We would like to see all food come with a full ingredients list, only the snickers listed its ingredients. The other three foods must do better in this regard.

Re:We have tested...

[gnarlin]

Please mod this down and ignore the post...
This is just a bookmark ;-)

Re:We have tested...

[kfg]

We found out that snickers is the best food because:
1. it comes in a nice wrapping
2. has many calories and can give you an energetic boost
3. its taste is supreme to others

The problem is, I agree completely. This is a dandy summation, and you'll actually starve to death if you try to live on apples/carrots/ and/or honey, whereas Snickers will sustain you forever.

But now you've done it. It's 6:30 in the morning, I haven't been to sleep yet (been up all night playing Golden Slippers Cajun Style on the fiddle. I'm sure neighbors just loved that), it's what the meterologists refer to as "Frickin' Cold" out (you have to go to college to learn technical terms like that); and now I've got to go down to the Stewart's on the corner and get a fist full of Snickers (seriously).

And it's all your fault. I'll be sure to tell my dentist about you.

Assuming I don't pull a "Scott of the Antarctic" over a frickin' Snickers bar.

KFG

Re:We have tested...

[bogado]

This I would like to see printed in an apple:

ingredients :

apple 99.90%
agrotoxic 0.09%
printer ink 0.01%

:-D

Re:We have tested...

[demon_2k]

That's all well but what about the more complex foods? I propose using a hierarchical ingredients list:

This m bar contains:
Apple 3.00% - Apple 99.90%
Agrotoxic 0.09%
Printer ink 0.01%

Sultanas 2.00% - Grapes 90.00
Fertiliser (brand name)0.4
Bug repellent/preservative (brand name) 0.6 ... ...

Re:We have tested...

[XpirateX]

I find your thoughts fascinating, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter - Homer Simpson

Re:We have tested...

[Anonymous Coward]

If a Snickers is tainted on the shelf and I ingest it, there is clear accountability. M&M Mars is liable. If I have a tainted apple or carrot, where is the accountability? I'll bet a lot of finger pointing will ensue.

Re:We have tested...

[Anonymous Coward]

2. a jam of pure honey

Jam made of pure honey! In other words... honey.

SuSE

[ErichTheWebGuy]

I tried SuSE 9.1 when they made the personal ISO available for free. Since then, I have recommended it to anyone who would listen. YaST makes it easy enough to install software for almost anyone. It only takes a few times before people learn how to search YaST for whatever they might need, it resolves dependencies automatically, etc.

I know apt-get, emegre, etc do the same thing, but IMHO, those utilities aren't as n00b-friendly as YaST. For one, in my experience, "mums and dads" are terrified of the command line, and will avoid it like the plague.

Re:SuSE

[_Hellfire_]

I haven't seen YaST so I can't comment on how easy it is to use, but Ubuntu has the apt-get front end Synaptic, which allows the user to browse through the list of available software for Ubuntu and download and install/uninstall it with the click of a mouse.

Although I'm not a n00b (far from it in fact - I'm a Linux sysadmin for a web-hosting company) I for one don't actually use the command line for apt-get on Ubuntu as I find Synaptic so easy. In fact, since I started using Ubuntu at home I don't use the command line for much of anything.

I will have to check out SuSE though, because everyone keeps raving about how great it is. I guess where there's smoke there's fire. I would recommend anyone who hasn't tried it to fire up the Ubuntu Hoary live CD. You may be impressed.

Re:SuSE

[Cus]

Synaptic on my Debian box provides a nice GUI for apt. Comes in useful when I want to check availability of various packages rather than just doing an apt-get upgrade/update.

Re:SuSE

[ErichTheWebGuy]

YaST also lets you browse packages, as well as search for software by title, date, summary, description, provides, and requires. Something for both n00bs and geeks like me and you.

However, SuSE has lots of other cool things. YaST is not just a software maintainer, it also lets you maintain/configure the hardware in the system, networking options, printers, all of the service daemons, users and groups, provides logfile viewing and management, etc.

Also, you get things like YOU (YaST Online Updater, which runs as a deamon [configurable, you can turn it off in YaST] and looks for security updates/bug fixes/upgrades. Also cool is SuSE Plugger, which will automatically configure new hardware which is hot-plugged, like USB printers and fire-wire hard drives (both of which I plugged in and didn't have to configure a damn thing).

As always, there are two sides to every story. SuSE has an unusual directory structure, at least not like anything I have seen before (I haven't used ALL the distros, but who the hell has). For example, the http default document root is /srv/www/htdocs. All of that is obviously configurable, but just adds to the learning curve.

All in all, though, for mums and dads, SuSE would have to be the winner for basic desktop ease-of-use in my experience. But I will definitely check out the Ubuntu live version!

ps. Even with YaST, I still find myself at the command line many, many times per day :)

Re:SuSE

[aricept]

The problem with YaST, as I find it, is that it does not provide upgrades for programs. YOU provides security updates, patches and things, but neither would allow me to upgrade, for instance, from Firefox 0.10, which SuSE 9.2 comes with, to 1.0. The ability to upgrade within the system's package and dependancy program would be nice should I have problems.

Re:SuSE

[aricept]

I fixed this, by the way, with apt4rpm.

Re:SuSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Yast easy to use ? Bollocks.

For example try installing mono with Yast. After downloading and unpacking the tarball you get quite a few PPM files with all the various packages needed.

So now try installing these RPMs with YAST. What a complete nightmare. There's no indication of the order to install things (either on the webite or in the downloaded package) so you try selecting an RPM at random.

And then it's an endless procession of "Package X requires Package Y" messages. In each case package Ys RPM is sitting there in the same folder as Package Xs RPM.

Fucking hell it's absolutely fucking shite.

In contrast to install, say Sharpdevelop, on Windows I download a single installer. I double click it, am asked a reaonsable set of questions, and shortly afterwards the installation finshes. Granted I usually have to do a mindless reboot but the software is now installed and working.

Sorry, Linux installation is still living in the dark ages. It reminds me of nothng more than when I used to write, install and support, COBOL programs for a living.

Re:SuSE

[advocate_one]

I'm currently going the other way, from Suse 9.1 to Ubuntu... I tried the hoary live cd and was hooked... now I've got warty on a spare machine getting used to it before I commit to making all my machines into "Hoary" boxes.

Re:SuSE

[Anonymous Coward]

apt4rpm makes suse the perfect distro, but the average ma and pa aren't gonna be able to set up apt4rpm. I would suggest for them something like Ark, which already has apt4rpm setup, or as others have suggested ubuntu.

Re:SuSE

[akajerry]

I'm a little surprised that they used SuSE 9.1 Personal and not NLD (Novell Linux Desktop) for this comparison. Now there's a "mum and dad" distro that will send the Linux faithful running for the hills. They don't even put Emacs in the distro, imagine the blasphemy. My mom can't live without Emacs :)

Seriously, it's a sweet distro for the non-techie user. It's probably a little more business than home oriented, but put the CD in a clean machine and let it do its thing and you'll get a pretty productive system on the first boot up.

Re:SuSE

[uujjj]

Actually my dad's from that prior era. He'll ease right in to a command line but freaks out upon seeing a gui.

Re:SuSE

[Anonymous Coward]

NO EMACS????? this... this... but how? no, it simply can't be. you're lying, because surely the universe would implode instantly were it true.

Re:SuSE

[Rev Saxon]

Back when I was still in the proccess of finding a distribution to use, I tried suse, and thought Yast was cool, but that it really was lacking just in pure volume of packages. This was a while ago, but I just found it to be troublesome to open up yast, search for things, not find them, then go install the .tar.gz anyway. I just found that apt and emerge had more than I ever could want/need/desire. And IIRC there is frontend for both apt and emerge.

Re:SuSE

[sirReal.83.]

To install Mono on Debian I just search for 'mono' in my package manager, click install, wait 60 seconds, and... done. No .exe file to delete off the desktop, no need to reboot.

What was that you were saying about "Linux installation?" You do know there's no such thing, right? Some distributions have superior packaging systems, and some packages have superior packagers. If either one is broken, blame it and not some nonexistent entity called "Linux installation."

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy him some RAM for his birthday.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[rich42]

> Linux has much much more software available for free than the other OS's, and if its too hard to run ./configure and make install, then download portage Ya - I was telling my dad that just last week. Didn't know what portage was, or where to get it.

Told him to google it and figure it out on his own. I mean - all the info is there in the HOWTO's. I think he's just lazy.

He told me to come back over and re-install Windows XP Home or he was writing me out of the will.

Get a real distro

[dsauron]

Linux has really come a long way from the 90's. They should have tried using a real linux distrobution. Slackware is one of the greatest distrobutions out there. You can use swaret to keep the OS up to date, using the best 'FREE' software out there. You can use pkgtool to install software. Also, you can use netconfig to setup the network. NVidia has some of the greatest Linux drivers to help improve the benchmark tests. Everything can be setup with ease using just a few commands. Did I mention slackware is completely free to download It installs within 15 minutes and KDE can be setup with ease, ready to go out of the box. When people compare Windows, Mac OS, and Linux, they should be using a real linux distrobution to test with.

Re:Get a real distro

[idiotnot]

I may be feeding a troll here, but.....

Huh? Slackware's setup is anything but easy for most people. It's no sweat for me, as I first used it in 1994, but compared to WinXP, OSX, or one of the fruitygui Linux distros, it's not at all intuitive. I even had a glitch with it after not using it for a couple of years (I use Debian mostly), as did a friend of mine who uses almost exclusively BSD (he needed to use a piece of hardware that FreeBSD doesn't support).

Don't get me wrong, I like slackware a lot. But it's certainly not for novice users.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[mboverload]

A command line doesn't make installing something more secure. It only makes it harder.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[ErichTheWebGuy]

Availability of help files?
Did this guy even use the OS? It's called "man" buddy, and its definitely more than enough information.

Um, don't (at least) KDE and Gnome both provide help icons right there on the panel by default? I don't know if xfce and other do or not, but damn man, did this dude even try clicking on things? What kind of geek goes blindly into something without clicking on whatever he or she can find, consequences be damned? Isn't that how we all learned how electronics, electricity, plumbing, etc works?

I hate to sound cliche here, but the point remains. You have no right to bitch if you didn't at least spend *some* time trying to figure it out.

I am sure they did

[myom]

'man' is absolutely not the solution.

The pages are outdated, archaic and written in a way that takes too much time to find out anything useful and of course teh few existign exampels vaailable in Unix and Linux documentation are totally irrelevant.

I do not want to read a cool example of how to use a potato as a galvanic element in order to create a serial connection to a tomato - I want to find out how to use my serial modem to connect to Internet.

Most people don't want to read gibberish, or manuals at all. If Linux can't be made as easy to use as Linux, at least the instructions should be made usable.

When I build together a IKEA furniture I rarely look at the instructions, and when I do it is for a quick reference. I do not wish to read a 10 page book describing the philosophy behind the use of screwdrivers and cool things you can do with a screwdriver, like using it as a throwing knife on the cardboards that the furniture came wrapped in.

The elitistic attitudes and documentation does nothing but harm Linux and delays its introduction to the mass market. And it doesn't make you that cool either to point out the 'man' command.

man how do I connect to to Internet?
No such page.

Re:I am sure they did

[tigga]

'man' is absolutely not the solution.

The pages are outdated, archaic and written in a way that takes too much time to find out anything useful and of course teh few existign exampels vaailable in Unix and Linux documentation are totally irrelevant.

It's Linux experience - try FreeBSD - you'll find meaningful man pages.

Re:I am sure they did

[Homology]

The pages are outdated, archaic and written in a way that takes too much time to find out anything useful and of course teh few existign exampels vaailable in Unix and Linux documentation are totally irrelevant.

SuSE/Novel distro has a comprehensive Users Guide that is very usefull for a newbie. Even better, it's a book of about 400 pages and immediate accessible. For the Pro version you even get an Administrators Guide, also in book form. Of course, you'll have to pay for it. The users guide was the reason I bought SuSE in the first place.

As of Linux man pages and other documentation, your're right : It generally sucks because it's not current and properly maintained, as well as incomplete. Contrast this with any *BSD where the man pages are complete, comprehensive and maintained. The non-man-page documentation is excellent and very usefull.

Re:I am sure they did

[Anonymous Coward]

The "man" command could be improved 100% by including some concrete, real world examples in all pages. A clear example can make even the most convoluted command understandable.

Oh and either renaming "man" to "help" or making "help command" display the man pages would be a newbies dream.

Re:I am sure they did

[rob_squared]

"man how do I connect to to Internet?
No such page."

That's the wrong context.
It's "Man, how do I connect to the Internet dawg?"

Re:I am sure they did

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I typed in 'man how do i connect to the internet' and I actually got a manpage. I got the page for connect function in the Linux Programmer's Manual:

NAME
connect - initiate a connection on a socket

SYNOPSIS
#include
#include

int connect(int sockfd, const struct sockaddr *serv_addr, socklen_t addrlen);

DESCRIPTION
The file descriptor sockfd must refer to a socket. If the socket is of type SOCK_DGRAM then....

If an average user sees this while trying to connect to the internet, they might have a brain hemorrhage.

I saw keep the man pages for developers and for cli programs, but there needs to be an online help source that can be found with a mouse. This should be a USER manual, not a DEVELOPER manual, and shouldn't contain shit that the average user doesn't need or want to know about.

News Flash

[classh_2005]

Linux is still not ready for Joe User. What I really think needs to happen is that there needs to be a "no-brainer" distro bundled with specific, compatible, low-end hardware. Optionally, you could purchase all the common, user-expected peripherals like a dvd-player, camera, etc. And make sure that they are assured to work on your hardware - no configuring required. Linux could be easier than Windoze, some installs are easier already! Make it cute and fuzzy and absolutely unintimidating for Joe. If you could walk into a Best Buy, or Frys, and get assurance that things would just work with this "Penguin Box" with a point and a click, the Penguin could really take off. Have it all displayed together in the same general area with an info kiosk or something. But, it's gotta be easy! Hell, I'd buy one just to not have to fsck around with configuration hassles. I'm learning how to program and really don't want to waste time on some configuration/imcompatibility issue when I could be coding. I mean, I still use Linux primarily, but "it just works!" is a heady thing, even for the technically savvy.

Re:News Flash

[inode_buddha]

More likely Joe User isn't ready for Linux, IMHO.

Re:News Flash

[salesgeek]

Linux is still not ready for Joe User.

Why do you say this? It seems like you are basing it on hardware compatibility. Perhaps a "Penguin Approved" sticker would be helpful. I think Desktop Linux is ready when you run a simple distribution like Ubunu or Xandros. In Ubuntu's case it's just plain easy. And Xandros is showing up on many low end $300-$500 boxes these days (here's the penguin box). An easy desktop, open office, Koffice or Abiword/Gnumeric, Firefox, Evolution or Thunderbird, toss in a few games and you are done.

For "power users" Ubuntu and Xandros fall down because they don't have all the gadgets we like and the software avaialable by default is limited compared to the usual pile of experimental debs and rpms that we tend to gravitate to. In Ubuntu's case user rights are not implemented in a way that someone used to administering a unix system is used to (you use sudo to do everything)

Re:News Flash

[16K Ram Pack]

Shuttle (who make the lovely barebones boxes) are working seriously with Mandrake on making tested hardware.

Re:News Flash

[MooseGuy529]

..."no-brainer" distro bundled with specific, compatible, low-end hardware...you could walk into a Best Buy, or Frys...

This already exists. It's Lindows, and you can buy it at Wal-Mart.

Seriously, they have done exactly what you said, so they can make ever-cheaper computers.

Re:News Flash

[koniosis]

Aren't you just describing a Mac?

Re:News Flash

[demon_2k]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't Lindows Linspire?
Lindows project changed their name along with their goals because they couldn't live up to what they made people believe they could do. Which was run Windows programs.

Lindows = Linspire (Which was reviewed)

Re:News Flash

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

Re:News Flash

[Blakey Rat]

For that to happen, at some point some Linux software company would have to cough up the dough for *legal* MP3 and DVD codecs. It's been, what, 8 years since DVDs came out and not a single Linux software company has ever paid for the license... good luck with that.

OFF TOPIC

[dave1g]

A P4 with 96 megs of RAM? wtf? that is the weirdest combination i have ever seen. Even dell puts in 128. or is that 128-32 for graphics = 96 ?

Re:OFF TOPIC

[Simon (S2)]

Yes i got that wrong. See here. He has 192MB + 32 for graphics.

Anyway, oo.org was to slow. But gnucalc and abiword just fly.

Re:OFF TOPIC

[DrSkwid]

can you work out this sum :

64 + 32 ?

Re:OFF TOPIC

[dave1g]

no I understand how the number is possible. What I dont understand is why?!?!?!? Its a P4 for god's sake. Its like starving. Its an odd combination. similar to in the reverse way of having a 286 with 4 gigs of memory. WHY????? Its a total mismatch between processor and memory.

Re:OFF TOPIC

[DrSkwid]

he says later on it was a mistake in typing

Where’s root?

[Hal XP]

At least you can't accuse the writers of the report of a pro-Linux bias:

New file formats and Linux user permissions complicate the process, which may involve several steps: Login as Administrator Extract the file Change the file properties Double-click to begin install.

This is certainly not the way most GNU/Linux geeks install software. The approved ways of installing are (1) make; su ; make install; (2) su ; apt-get install foo (3) su ; rpm -i foo.rpm or (4) tar xzvf foo.tgz.

Re:Where’s root?

[chthon]

Synaptic works under Debian and Red Hat.

Two things should be added.

When launched for the first time, a panel explaining why you need to enter the root password before installing software.

When selecting a package, the possibility that it does not show all related dependencies.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[nathanh]

oo.org was to slow on his P4 with 96MB RAM

Pardon? A P4 with 96MB? My Pentium 100 from nearly a decade ago had 192MB. My current PC is a second generation Celeron and the video card alone has 128MB. What dumb bunny company is selling a P4 with a mere 96MB RAM?

Do your Dad a favour. Splash out and spend $100 on a 256MB upgrade.

Ozzies?

[BenjyD]

The Australian Consumers? Association has evaluated Xandros,

Is the "?" some kind of joke about the way Australians turn everything they say into a question by going up in tone at the end of every sentence? Or just an unescaped html character?

Because it gets really annoying? Trying to talk to people? When you're not sure whether they're asking a question or telling you something?

Re:Ozzies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the author of this doubts that the consumers association is really a consumer association, however i wonder however they managed to make windows xp need 90 minutes to install ... usually took me never more than 20 minutes on any box ...

Re:Ozzies?

[theTerribleRobbo]

Is the "?" some kind of joke about the way Australians turn everything they say into a question by going up in tone at the end of every sentence?

Don't worry, a lot of us Australians find it annoying too. I feel like throwing bricks at people who speak like that. :P

Interesting quote

[Craster]

"We'd also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems"

Yeah, then we'd like to sue for anti-competetive practice, and make them strip it out again.

Re:Interesting quote

[Phexro]

I'd much rather see operating systems designed from the ground up not to be vulnerable to viruses. I'm tired of being plagued by popups, spyware, adware, and the sort.

Oh, wait.

(Goes back to his Linux desktop)

Re:Interesting quote

[4A6F656C]

Besides that, anti-virus software is effectively necessary on Windows due to the lack of security and the buggy email and web browsing clients. However, Mac OS X and most Linux distributions don't suffer from the same problems, particularly when installed and configured properly (ie. don't log in as root!) I guess you could bundle ClamAV and Dazuko with the Linux Desktop distros, just to give people a warm fuzzy.

Re:Interesting quote

[aug24]

I'd like to see inbuilt antivirus security in all operating systems first. Then let's have medicine for the trojans and other socially spread stuff.

J.

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Then let's have medicine for the trojans and other socially spread stuff.

Socially Transmitted Diseases?

Re:Interesting quote

[Froggy]

Fair's fair. I'm sure we would all like to see operating systems built that are less vulnerable to viruses, but that doesn't necessarily mean an application-level virus scanner. I would like to see systems secured at design level -- by limiting the potential interactions between OS components, which is the main problem with the Windows architecture as I see it; by building OS components and controls in stack-safe languages where possible and rigorously bounds-checking everything where it absolutely has to be implemented in C; and by providing open and well-documented API hooks that third-party AV software providers can use.

Windows is the worst offender when it comes to poor security design, but even most proponents of other OSes must admit that no current OS is as good as it could be -- and shipping AV software with the OS can only apply a bandaid to the problem. It'd also encourage yet another security monoculture, but that's a subject for another post. :)

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

How does Anti-Virus software work ? Scan for known viruses, right. But at least on Linux and OS X your system is already patched against those so strike one. New viruses on Linux and OS X systems will really be new not a rehash like Windows so the scanner won't work on these, strike two. If you run these systems you are probably Microsoft free and thus won't transmit macro viruses, strike three and you're out.

So if you want to burn cycles on your box and not even search for extraterrestrials (SETI), go ahead run one.

Re:Interesting quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Bundling a browser is anti-competitive behavior because it allows Microsoft to effectively define web 'standards'. This can unfairly increase dependence on their web browsers and, in turn, their OS.

Bundling a media player is anti-competitive behavior because it allows Microsoft to effectively define media format 'standards'. This can unfairly increase dependence on their media players and, in turn, their OS.

Bundling antivirus software is not anticompetitive behavior because Microsoft can't use a bundled antivirus app to unfairly increase people's dependence on their OS.

Re:Interesting quote

[njyoder]

Since when is linux immune to viruses? Just so you know, it's most definitely not. Most vulnerabilities exploited are user space programs anyway.

Re:Interesting quote

[Retired Replicant]

This is the very reason I never bought into all of the "monopoly" whining and MS bashing of competing companies like Netscape, Sun, Apple, AOL, Real, Adobe, etc. The average Joe likes his new computer to come with essential software built-in, and dosn't give a hoot which company's software it is as long as it works and isn't a hassle. When you buy a car, would you like it if you had go and buy the steering wheel, tires, and headlights separately?

Re:Interesting quote

[drew]

I agree. While I was very happy when I first heard that Microsoft was going to be tried for anti-competitive practices, it became very quickly apparent to me that they were going about completely the wrong way.

Rather than focusing on the software bundling issue, they *should* have been focusing on all of the restrictions that MS was putting on system resalers regarding what they could and could not do.

Re:Interesting quote

[drew]

MS did have integrated antivirus software once upon a time. I believe it was called Dr. Watson.

It sucked. Couldn't find a thing...

I used it for a year before the network administrator at my high school told me i had brought in a floppy with the monkey.b virus on it and i should check my home computer.

Re:Interesting quote

[Ride-My-Rocket]

> We'd also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems

>>Yeah, then we'd like to sue for anti-competetive practice,
>>and make them strip it out again.

Nah, all Microsoft has to do to remain legally competitive is lock down it's operating systems. Then it would be harder for virii to get in, period, and would accomplish the same function as offering an inbuilt antivirus application.

Re:Interesting quote

[Reziac]

Dr.Watson was a Windows disgnostic of sorts, not an antivirus app.

There was a M$ AV that came with DOS6 (maybe also with DOS5, I forget), and had a front end in Win3.1x. IIRC it was a crippled version of Norton Antivirus. I still occasionally see its old checksum files (checklst.ms or something like that) on very old machines. Anyway, M$AV typically caught around 50% of current viruses -- so it might have been better than nothing, but was still pretty worthless. By comparison, NAV and McAfee (back when both were reasonably decent DOS TSRs) typically caught around 95% of current viruses. However, at the time monkey.b variants were getting past a lot of better AVs too, including NAV and McAfee. I still have a captive specimen from a client who got bit that way.

And when McAfee put out a version that had a ZERO catch rate on my virus zoo, that was the day I switched to F-Prot.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[mboverload]

Even to very technical people, the man pages are useless. Beleive me, I tried.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[_Hellfire_]

Here Here.

I installed Ubuntu on my gf's grandmother's laptop, a Toshiba Tecra A2. Setup was a breeze. It detected everything right down to the wireless eth card.

I also stuck a "My Documents" shortcut on the Desktop so the other Windows people woulnd't get lost and in addition made it boot straight into her profile with no password.

That was a few weeks ago, and I saw her the other day quite happily looking at photos of the grandkids and playing a mpeg clip with mplayer. Keep in mind she's 80 odd and has never used a computer before. She wanted to play some games also, so I stuck shortcuts on the desktop to Solitaire and minesweeper.

After using Ubuntu, my gf's dad now wants it on his computer because he says "Windows XP is too hard to use" and he "really likes it how everything makes sense on Ubuntu". Hmmm a logical desktop OS where everything Just Works(tm) is the exact reason I use Ubuntu on my desktop.

Is Ubuntu ready for the desktop? You bet your ass it is.

PS If anyone's interested you can read the blog entry here

Prefer Slackware

[rf0]

Why? It means my parents won't touch it and bug me for tech support every 5 minutes..

Rus

Re:Prefer Slackware

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because whenever they bug you for tech support on their windows machines you yell back "I can't help you now; I'm rebuilding my kernel!"

Re:Prefer Slackware

[Anonymous Coward]

Son? Is that you? I've been having no end of trouble with that Linux computer you built me... I read that you can use emerge to install new packages, but I can't find that command...

Let's agree to disagree

[Dancin_Santa]

I don't see Linux as being ready for "mum and pup". But I also don't see this as a big deal.

As you get dumber users, you inevitably get a dumber system to hold their fidgety, trembling hands in every little thing.

You don't like the installer? Well, sorry you're not smart enough to grasp "./configure make". (Gee that was tough!)

You don't like the Help system? Oh, did you forget to read the MANUAL that CAME WITH YOUR PACKAGED CD?

Linux is not here to hold our hands. That's what Linux distributors are here for. If you are too cheap to buy the product and receive all the glorious documentation that these companies (Redhat, SuSE, TurboLinux, ad infinitum) provide, and instead you decide to save a few bucks by downloading the product, then how much do you really expect to get out of a system?

I wouldn't expect "mum and pup" to sit down with a Microsoft Windows CD either and be able to figure it out. But of course, Windows comes with a MANUAL. So if you can read (kinda a perquisite to using a computer, don'cha think?) you should be able to get through the basics of installing the system, installing apps, and getting help (hint: it's in the fine manual).

The same goes for any Linux distribution that you can buy packaged up at the store. They all come with manuals, they all come with help, and most come with a phone number to call when you have problems.

I don't feel sorry for "mum and pup" for not being able to work Linux, I feel sorry for them because they obviously can't RTFM.

Re:Let's agree to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure I agree with you. I think I agree far more with the Australian consumer association.

I use LINUX everyday at work, and I love it. I tried to introduce my Dad to it (who is certainly not computer illiterate, but has not used LINUX or UNIX before). His comments after using LINUX on his old PC for a couple of months (and buying several flavours - of which SUSE was his favorite, and reading the manual - which for a beginner might as well be in chinese, and buys LINUX for dummies) were:-

"Having had another play with Linux I have decided to abandon SuSe for the present. There are large numbers of updates and it is difficult to install new programmes unless they come from Suse. Third party programmes often don't have all the requisite bits needed to run them. "

Until people like my Dad can use LINUX to do everything he wants easily, it will remain a cheap way for me to process millions of batch files at work and little more.

(even I use XP at home as Ladbrokes Poker, Halflife2, & Photoshop don't run on LINUX).

Linux is fine if you really know what you are doing, or if all you want to do is surf the web & use open office. As soon as you want decent 3D-Games, easy support for digital cameras, expert photo manipulation software, software you can buy on the highsteet, drivers for the latest ATI cards, and so on - you are better choosing XP or OSX.

Re:Let's agree to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sorry you're not smart enough to grasp "./configure make". (Gee that was tough!)

you forgot "make install".

And as if ./configure ... is all it takes. Ha. Ha. Ha.

After 100 lines of cryptic configure printouts it probably will tell you that you need application "xxx" version "yyy" to compile. There starts the Google hunt.

Then you type "make" and after 30 minutes, you get a compile error because your GNU tool chain is not compatible (which you first have to figure out because the error is not descriptive enough) and the configure script didn't catch it. There goes another 1-2 hours trying to install a compatible tool chain.

And don't get me started on adding MP3 support to FC2 / FC3. Now that is fun, if you are not a Linux expert.

Or DVD playback.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

oo.org was to slow on his P4 with 96MB RAM

I know how you feel man. I just recently tried to get MySQL running on my quad Opteron, but when I realized that it only had 64MB of RAM, I decided to go with a different app that has less overhead.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[__aamkky7574]

Oh lord, is someone bringing up "man" again? Let's ignore the total lack of features that any other help system have, and concentrate on the dense text. From a past post of mine:

--

Just as an illustration, try "man find". It took me years to figure out that "find . -name {file_name}" would find all files matching {file_name} below the current directory - which I imagine is the usage of 99% of users.

Check out the description of the tool:

"find searches the directory tree rooted at each given file name by evaluating the given expression from left to right, according to the rules of precedence (see section OPERATORS), until the outcome is known (the left hand side is false for and operations, true for or), at which point find moves on to the next file name."

Do you imagine that most users would know what on earth that meant? Why not at least prepend it with "This tool enables you to find files"? Then give one or two examples of common usage? _Then_ by all means bombard them with the myriad of possible parameters.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[colinleroy]

Lots of GUIs to install packages exist. For example Porthole, Synaptic. (There are more than these, but I don't remember the names right now).

See also Autopackage for a nice attempt at easy installation across different distributions.

Australian Consumers?

[TapeCutter]

Nothing that 20 million people do is a big deal to US readers but Choice magazine has been around for a long time. A heap of (particularly older) people pay for a subscription and it carries a very good reputation.

They may not be as enthusastic as your average slashdotter but the fact that they even did this comparison means Linux is getting consideration by people who are very quality sensitive. Also retirees who like to fiddle with PC's and photo's but don't have heaps of cash will read it next year in the doctors waiting room.

Re:Australian Consumers?

[jargoone]

Nothing that 20 million people do is a big deal to US readers but Choice magazine has been around for a long time.

Instead of the typical anti-American spewing, why don't you go find a sense of humor so maybe you get the joke?

Re:Australian Consumers?

[waltsj19]

I personally think this was a great article and commend /. for picking up on it. The article is written in a way that the people who aren't as technically literate as the average /. reader can still understand it and realize that "Linux" is not just some geek term for something they can never comprehend.

Re:Australian Consumers?

[hawk]

> Nothing that 20 million people do is a big deal to
>US readers

awe, c'mon. The election is over. Isn't it time we stopped mocking the Kerry supporters? :)

hawk, ducking & running

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Simon (S2)]

Pardon? A P4 with 96MB? My Pentium 100 from nearly a decade ago had 192MB.

Yes, sorry. I got that wrong. He had 128MB of RAM and I got 64MB more from an other PC. That's 192MB in total. Sorry for the mistake.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[lachlan76]

You have RPM, and I'm sure that there are front-ends for apt and portage.

Installing software: the bad way

[mboverload]

It seems, to the consumer, the goal of Linux is to make things as hard as fricken possible. This is something they (me included) would say:

The install process is horid. I DONT want to extract a tar file. I DONT want to compile code. I DONT want to search through 4 places just to find the freaking configuration file. I WANT links to be added to the "Start Menu". I WANT links added to the desktop. I WANT a central place to uninstall files.

Sadly, linux just doesn't "do" this.

Re:Installing software: the bad way

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

Yet another moron who's never used a modern linux distribution...

Re:Installing software: the bad way

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right.
Clicking on the software you want to install in the graphical software management tool that comes with every distro targeted at "normal" users is soooooooooo terribly hard, isn't it?

I mean searching the web for the software you want, downloading it, uncompressing it, running the installer and then having the application write its files to some arbitrary places in your filesystem is simply so much more convenient.

And don't get me started about updates. Having a single update manager that updates _all_ of the software installed on your system is just pure hell, whereas keeping track of every bugfix and security update for all the software you installed by hand and by searching the web is just so much more convenient.

You're right, linux is hell on earth.

Re:Installing software: the bad way

[BiggerIsBetter]

It seems, to Linux user, that trolls are stupid.

If you can't get your head around a software manager like this, you should probably just give up on computers altogether.

Re:Installing software: the bad way

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems, to the consumer, the goal of Windows is to make things as hard as fricken possible. This is something they (me included) would say:

The install process is horid. I DONT want to extract a zip file. I DONT want to search through the entire registry just to find the freaking configuration. I WANT links to be added to the "Start Menu". I WANT links added to the desktop. I WANT a central place to uninstall files.

Sadly, Windows just doesn't "do" this.

----

Next week, we'll teach you about MSI and RPM files, one is for Windows, the other for Linux, and both make installing and uninstalling sorware way easier than tar and zip-files.

Of course RPM has been working since at least 1996, and MSI is still not quite good enough that Microsoft themselves believes that it can handle something like Office. But as soon as these problems are solved, Windows will (in this area) be as ready for the desktop as Linux has been for the last 8 years or more.

Re:Installing software: the bad way

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your point. But Linux can "do" this, and have so for a very long time.

It's called "apt-get". It's not just for Debian, you can get apt (and clones) for many other distros as well.

You don't have to compile a thing. Just search for whatever you want installed, and install it. There are even GUI's for apt that lets you search through the entire apt database based on keywords, in filenames or descriptions.

It doesn't get much more user friendly than that.

Re:Installing software: the bad way

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that Linux applications come as packages built for a SPECIFIC package manager, that you NEED to have installed on your system.

Imagine if the package itself was an executable that you could double click on and it would install its contents without the need for a 3rd party application?

And also imagine that this executable would automatically use QT or Gnome widgets depending on what's installed, or just the console if nothing is installed.

And imagine that it would work on 95% of all linux distributions without the need to download any extra libs? ...

Somone PLEASE port the nullsoft installer to Linux!! And developers please package all needed libs with your application!

Re:Installing software: the bad way

[jtev]

Yeah, but the linux way makes UNINSTALLING easier. It also makes large groups of software packages take up less space because you can just declare a dependancy, and let apt or portage, or <insert package manager manager here> take care of the details.

Ironic

[adderofaspyre]

Windows XP was the only operating system that couldn't recognise and open an imported Excel file

How about that? Everybody has better support for Microsoft's products than they do. Not that it's unexpected, but still...

Re:Ironic

[BiggerIsBetter]

I think it's more accurate to say the reviewer doesn't discern between the operating system, and applications.

Re:Ironic

[gowen]

the reviewer doesn't discern between the operating system, and applications.

That's not unreasonable, because a large number of non-tech-savvy home users (at whom this article is aimed) don't either.

Re:Ironic

[dustmite]

Wouldn't be the first time. E.g. Linux supported FAT32 long before Microsoft's main line of OSs (the NT line) could. MS Word is also the only app amongst WordPerfect, OpenOffice and even WordPad that is full of bugs importing RTF files - MS's own format.

Re:Ironic

[1u3hr]

I think it's more accurate to say the reviewer doesn't discern between the operating system, and applications.

What they were comparing was what you got out of the box; which in Mac and Linux's case included useful office suites, which you have to pay extra for with Windows. I'm sure the reviewers were snickering when they put that down as a black mark against Windows.

Documentation

[Neo-Rio-101]

True. Documentation for Linux is still pretty sparse in distributions.

Many average joe's expect there to be a help icon somewhere in the distro. I know Linspire has one, and Windoes always has it's "Help" tab and chm files.

Frankly who the heck is going to bother with the man pages and the command line? I know I will cause I'm a sysadmin, but my mother would have a heart attack upon seeing the command line! Anyone who intends to use the command line will have to learn about it from a GUI first, and quite frankly, I can't see the documentation for that in Gnome at the moment.

Maybe it's time the distributions (or Gnome or KDE or whoever) provided us with some decent pdfs from tldp and stuck them in their packages. Maybe it's time that all the linux zealots stopped posting on slashdot so much and helped out....

The Gnome "help" function is really sparse and doesn't go into enough detail. I'm using the latest version, and the "find" function is hidden in the menu bar. To add injury to insult, a search on "mp3" yields nothing.
Now imagine you are a cluser who wants to know where the mp3 app is....

Re:Documentation

[say]

All modern desktop environments (KDE and GNOME) has some kind of aggregator for all kinds of help: info, man, html and so on. At least KDE has good docs for all the "KDE apps" in a very friendly docbook-based format, which integrates nicely together with all man and info pages into a little app which per default sits right of the K button. GNOME has its scrollkeeper, but I'm not familiar with it.

Re:Documentation

[ookaze]

http://www1.mandrakelinux.com/docs/Outputs/

And there is a page full of explanations and links to different docs when you first install a Mandrake distro (I'm not counting the printed one that comes in each box). And it pops up each time you login until you actually read the page, where it is indicated how to stop it from popping up.

So perhaps you should try actually using what you criticise, and stop talking out of your a**.

I actually installed a lot of Mandrake around me. I did not forced it on anyone, just waited for the Windows to crash beyond recoverability (they ALL did, so much for ready for the desktop), and said I will not do any Windows maintenance anymore : only Linux maintenance. And I saw how the newbie work. And they never use search, they click on the MP3 and expect it to work. They DO NOT read dialogs. Some dialogs (amarok for exemple) keep popping up, telling them what to do, they never read them and keep closing the window. When I ask why, they tell me in Windows it is constant and it never works, and the messages are impossible to understand, so they are bored. I'm forced to tell them Windows is shit but Linux is way better, and they have to change their behaviour, they should learn to read again, leave the Windows puker state.
All that to say a Linux distro is still not perfect, but they are well better than Windows, and you see it most when you hear all the bad experiences people have with this OS, causing them to do all sort of stupid workarounds.

Re:Documentation

[koreth]

Maybe it's time that all the linux zealots stopped posting on slashdot so much and helped out....

Given the writing quality of a lot of Slashdot posts, I'd prefer they stayed far, far away from the end-user documentation.

"Mommy? Why does the computer always spell 'lose' with an extra O?"

Re:Documentation

[iamwahoo2]

I can somewhat see your point because I have often been in the same situation and needed better documentation (although there are lots of windows apps that have the same problem, and the windows OS documentation has NEVER been useful to me) but my experience with non-geek users, which is what the article is about, is that they never use help even when it is available and of high quality. Every single time that anyone has called me for help and I ask if they have looked in the help file, the answer is almost always "no". The only exception is my wife who most of the time will try to find the answers on her own first.

Re:Documentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly I agree, but I have to defend MS Windows a little. If you take the time to read the dialog in most (not all) cases it tells you what is wrong in clear simple language, just like Linux. People think it is more important to hit "OK" on the dialog than to fix the problem that caused the dialog to pop up - even when they know what it is.

Case in point: back in MS Windows 3.1 I saw someone manually feeding paper into their dot-matrix printer. Everytime the printer was ready for the next page Ms Windows popped up a message: Your printer is out of paper, place more paper in printer and hit OK. They insisted on hitting okay instantly, without reading, even though they knew the printer was out of paper and in fact already had the next sheet halfway to the printer before the dialog could pop up! Once they followed simple instructions things worked. (IIRC Ms Windows was able to detect the next page and continue without the need to hit OK)

Re:Documentation

[pinkocommie]

I've been trying to get MythTV running with non fully supported hardware (PVR 150) and am having a hard time even understanding the instructions much less being able to successfully install the driver / modprobe / load drivers non-automagically etc. Albeit somewhat of a newbie on Linux I have been using Winxx since well 3.0 so not exactly a complete neophyte to OS/Driver weirdness. Maybe there should be a unified windows to linux help site. What do you do from where etc? (windows device manager driver install equivalent in each distro etc etc)

Re:Documentation

[Neo-Rio-101]

Actually, judging by some of the responses to my original post, you made a very good point.

If slahsdot readers wrote documentation, it'd start out by insulting you, telling you to find some text configuration file in some remote folder, and insult you again when it tells you that you should know how to fix it.

Re:Documentation

[cactux]

> Frankly who the heck is going to bother with the man pages and the command line?

Open Konqueror, and enter this address:

man:/

That's man pages, but without command line. Maybe that's not perfect, but better for people afraid of the CL (and there are a lot of them). I suppose Gnome has something similar.

Re:Documentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I started my computer experience from a CLI, and I use a GUI mostly for multitasking terminal windows :)

An amazingly bad artcicle

[Andy_R]

The author doesn't bother explaining that Linux is free, that updates to Linux are free, or that Windows is a thousand times more likely to suffer from trojans and viruses. That article continues by marking down OSX for not having a 'live cd' despite there being no conceivable reason for a Mac owner to need one, marks OSX down further for lack of help files without commenting that it needs them less, marks Windows down for lack of built in Excel support (jesus, how monolithic do you want your OS?), then adds marks to a Linux distro for having a windows emulator without saying how well it works, or that Windows doesn't need one! Most of the marks are dependent on the bundled software, not one word is given to the possibility of adding more software, and practically no marks are given for stability or security, which leads me to wonder if the author even knows what an OS is - certainly any non tech-savvy readers won't know after reading the article.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[killjoe]

I just don't get this "software is hard to install" crap. I use xandros and let me describe the process for those who don't.

There is an icon on the desktop, it says "get software"

You click on it and there is a list of hundreds of pieces of software. Each software has a description along side it. SOme have pictures too. Most are free, some you have to pay for.

When you want something you just click on install and it does, the icon shows up in your menu when you are done.

This is far easier then anything else including mac and windows. All the software that is compatible with your system is in one place. It's right at your desktop. 99% of it is free. It installs with one click.

None of this hunt the web sites, download something, unzip it, install it, click a licence agreement. Just click and install no problems with dependencies or anything.

How much easier could it possibly be?

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[mcbridematt]

The mum and dad user wants to walk in to a computer store and buy some boxed package, not download ISO's and burn them - in fact, the lowest priced "broadband" plans, of which are targeted at the Mum and Dad market don't have enough quota to download a distro for "free". A lot of the Choice/Australian Consumer Assocation reviews get coverage on TV, so it would be interesting to see this on TV. IMHO, Choice reviews appears to be about getting more per $, but this is their first OS review so maybe the next one might be better.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Anonymous Coward]

In Mac OS X, you just unzip the file and drag the application anywhere you want and it just works. There are only some exceptions to it. Most of them are just drag-and-drop, you don't need to "install". and most of the applications work anywhere you want. Leave them all on your desktop if you want. And uninstalling is just as simple, delete the application. it's gone.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Anonymous Coward]

go to store, buy UT2004 insert CD and install.

how about go to store and buy one of 10,000 software apps and install it.

or a more timely one for you buddy.

Install tax software. how about that one smartass.

I love linux, but the developers being idiots not offering installers with statically linked packages and/or a decent installer that runs make for you like XFCE is lazy and idiotic.

windows wins hands down in installing. because the developers for apps are not morons expecting their users to hunt down 30-50 obscure libs and install them to run their app.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[R.Caley]

The author doesn't bother explaining that Linux is free,

To a consumer-user Linux is not free, they would want to get it in a nice supported package, not a download form some obscure place on the internet. So they'd be paying for a box in a shop.

that updates to Linux are free

Er, unlike Windows Update? Or the MacOS-X update system which keeps changing how Safari is broken this week?

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Jugalator]

windows wins hands down in installing. because the developers for apps are not morons expecting their users to hunt down 30-50 obscure libs and install them to run their app.

Umm, it's normal for package installers on Linux to make use of the dependency information for a package to find those "30-50 obscure libs". The tech is already there, and if someone keeps making broken packages for install, it's the author that makes broken installs.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[smchris]

I've been saying that the desktop is ready for Grandma for a couple years now. Set up one old neighbor with Fedora last year, in fact, and she's still webbing and emailing away. The installs of many distributions seem comparable to an XP install as well so the knowledgeable user shouldn't be afraid of linux. It's different so it just takes a little learning.

Installing subsequent software can be another issue. That is particularly on my mind this week because I prefer that mother of all program installs, the upgrade, over a wipe and restore/reconfigure. But it means something like half an hour for the official process and about 10 hours to wipe up the broken bits. And that is going to quickly take a person to dependencies, permissions, restores, modules.conf, processes and configuration files. The tough question is how much this can be automated among the programs and the programs that depend upon them.

But there is an important distinction here. When we think linux upgrade, we aren't usually just thinking a new kernel. We are upgrading literally hundreds of programs and applications at once. So it is a matter of perception. A linux upgrade is like a Windows user upgrading his OS AND EVERY OTHER PROGRAM ON THE COMPUTER at the same time. Which can be both cool and a pain.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[jellomizer]

Sure Linux is rather easy to install when you have all the information. You know the name of your distribution, you know how to use your package manager (Different on every distribution). Lets say you want Yahoo Messager. First you will need to know the name and version of your distribution if you happen not to have Red Hat or Debian you will need to know which one your distribution may support. (that would stop most newbees right there) But if they did get the right run then they will need to follow the directions on the site on how to install the software (If they remember seeing it and didn't close there browser) So the muddle threw and install the package. Now where is it? There is no Icon on their desktop No Icon in their Dock, or in the menu structure. So you will need to call up some linux expert and find one who isn't a jerk and tell them to type in rm -rf / as root, because to any linux user it is obvious that it is in /usr/bin or maybe /usr/local/bin there is a chance that it could be somewhere is /opt or ~/usr/bin or ~bin. so they finally find the product now that is assuming that they know the file name is ymessager not like ytalk or some other utility that are cluttered in the bin directory. (depending on the windows manager) they may not be able to drag that icon to the dock or to the menus they will need to do some funky right click combination to find the and retype and refind this file again.

Yes to people who have been using linux for over 10 years like myself the process is very quick I know where to look and what to look for and how to manage different windows managers. But for a newbie this is a incredible process that is way to much work. And most of them will just go screw it I will just use windows and face problems with bugs, crashes, viruses and spyware because I rather take my chances and be able to install the apps I want.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Spoing]

1. I just don't get this "software is hard to install" crap.

They are referring to the software that doesn't come bundled in some way with the OS/distribution -- even if that's just something that isn't included or wasn't in an online install application.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[lsmeg]

What if the software I want isn't in the list? What if I find some cool, obscure application on the web that I want to install? In this scenario, it depends entirely on how the creator packaged the software, if at all.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Anonymous Coward]

On the box it says what OS's it supports. You think it works with NT4 or MacOS or Windows 3.1 just like that? If your OS isn't listed on the box it doesnt work. It could maybe if you hacked your way around it.

If it doesnt menton your OS on the box, dont buy it it wont work.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[ivano]

windows wins hands down in installing

Umm..no. OSX does. hands down. Then windows, then most *nix's.

Now lets look at uninstalling software. OSX wins again, then *nix's and then be a long margin Windows.

Ciao

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[KFW]

But that's the whole point. Authors don't do it--for the end user the result is the same whatever the reason. Part of the reason authors aren't better about installers is because there are no standards in Linux for where files ought to be. So an installer that works for SuSE won't work on Red Hat, etc. That's where Windows, Mac OS X, and even the *BSDs have a clear advantage over Linux--a much better defined system of what files go where. /K

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Anonymous Coward]

Software should just install itself while browsing the internet. You know, like Internet Explorer does

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[r3m0t]

>>The author doesn't bother explaining that Linux is free,
>To a consumer-user Linux is not free, they would want to get it in a nice supported package, not a download form some obscure place on the internet. So they'd be paying for a box in a shop.

At least they get upgrades forever.

>>that updates to Linux are free

>Er, unlike Windows Update? Or the MacOS-X update system which keeps changing how Safari is broken this week?

Windows Update has only small additions and does not do anything about "third-party" programs. It offers basic bug fixes and security updates and the occassional new program (Journal Viewer, Windows Media Player updates, .NET Framework, DirectX updates). It doesn't even update MSN Messenger or any other Microsoft packages.

Mac OS X update is better. You get plenty of smaller updates, including new features, but you still need to pay for major updates.

Linux update is the best on most distros. It can update your kernel and *almost*every*program* on your computer, even stuff which wasn't included in the OS.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[r3m0t]

> That article continues by marking down OSX for not having a 'live cd' despite there being no conceivable reason for a Mac owner to need one

True. Windows wasn't marked down for no LiveCD as far as I can remember. That doesn't matter, though, because you need external programs to do practically anything.

> marks Windows down for lack of built in Excel support (jesus, how monolithic do you want your OS?)

Everybody else managed to put spreadsheet support in. It's important because the de facto spreadsheet program is from the same company and costs a lot of money. (Same for word processing and presentations)

> then adds marks to a Linux distro for having a windows emulator without saying how well it works, or that Windows doesn't need one!

Yes, I was also surprised when they didn't mention Windows "sort of" has a Windows emulator. (They could have titled the column "Windows programs compatible"). Also they didn't mention you can get wine for all those distros.

> and practically no marks are given for stability or security,

Very stupid indeed.

> leads me to wonder if the author even knows what an OS is - certainly any non tech-savvy readers won't know after reading the article.

The OS nowadays is not about the kernel; it's about the package. There's no point offering comparisons of kernels for desktop use. An OS is nowadays considered to include the apps bundled with it.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[R.Caley]

Windows Update has only small additions

Tell that to people fighting the effects of SP2.

Linux update is the best on most distros. It can update your kernel and *almost*every*program* on your computer

But normal consumers don't want to update the kernel, and anything else is not `linux update'. If consumers wanted a way to update whatever freeware they have on their Windoze machines, it would exist (and does, for instance, with cygwin). Real consumers don't want it, basicly because few of them install significant amounmts of such software, and of those who do, fewer are interested in keeping at the cutting edge.

Commercial software houses make their own choices. I have no idea why the big games houses haven't gotten together to create a unified update mechanism, presumably ferrets-in-a-sack issues, but they would be unlikely to act differently on Linux.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Jagasian]

Ok, I want to watch Xvid and Divx movies that I download from the internet. On Windows how do I install a media player and codecs so that I can play these movies? Here is how I do it on Fedora from the commandline:

apt-get install mplayer

However, assuming you are scared of a commandline, you could instead use a GUI. Here is how I do it on Fedora using the GUI package manager Synaptic. First I run Synaptic. I am prompted for the administrator password. I type that in. Then I click on the search button, and in the dialog window that pops up I type in "movie player" into the search box and I select the "Description and Name" option in the "search in:" pulldown. I click search. Then I select a desired movie player, such as mplayer, and mark it for installation. Then I click the "apply" button.

Synaptic via apt-get automatically searches for all required libraries, codecs, and executables. It automatically downloads all of them and installs them. Once it is done I can find an entry in my "start menu" under the "Sound and Video", which runs the movie player.

So there you go, every click and button press to the last detail. Any idiot could do that. It cannot get any easier than that. On Windows, however, getting a media player and codecs properly installed is a risky job that requires lots of web searching, downloading of dubious Zip and Exe files, etc. Then you just better hope that none of those codecs and codec packs conflict with eachother... and let me tell you that it happens quite often.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Anonymous Coward]

I must agree, On page 4 of the article, it states "None of the Linux distributions offer automatic updates" like windowns does. I think every flavor of linux I've used in the last couple of years has the ability to do automatic updates. The reviewer either didn't try to do anything, or has the intelligence of a rock.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Anonymous Coward]

the article also says that iMovie is OSX's media player, so these people don't quite know what they are talking about.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[drew]

I agree. I stopped reading when I got to the little summary at the beginning which said they would like the see the firewall in MacOS X enabled by default and antivirus software bundled with all of the options.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[r3m0t]

>>Windows Update has only small additions

>Tell that to people fighting the effects of SP2.

Fighting it? If it caused any problems, they can uninstall it.

>>Linux update is the best on most distros. It can update your kernel and *almost*every*program* on your computer

>But normal consumers don't want to update the kernel, and anything else is not `linux update'. If consumers wanted a way to update whatever freeware they have on their Windoze machines, it would exist (and does, for instance, with cygwin). Real consumers don't want it, basicly because few of them install significant amounmts of such software, and of those who do, fewer are interested in keeping at the cutting edge.

They would want to update the kernel if they find out it fixes some bugs that might apply to them, has some performance tweaks, or fixes a security issue.

People would appreciate a way to update their programs, but this has the problem that there is too much duplication in programs: there are many mail clients, many advanced text editors, etc. and many have wierd things like not offering direct downloads, having massive installation programs etc.

On Linux the packages are simply source tarballs or (for binary distros) a package providing the binaries and an indication of the library dependencies. Can you imagine trying to find out exactly what a Windows program requires?

>Commercial software houses make their own choices. I have no idea why the big games houses haven't gotten together to create a unified update mechanism, presumably ferrets-in-a-sack issues, but they would be unlikely to act differently on Linux.

I don't know what the ferrets are, but I imagine they can't be bothered. If somebody can't be bothered to run a certain company's upgrade-checking program, can they even be bothered to run the game?

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Anonymous Coward]

taking your case and putting it to example: you are an apple user and you read about Partition Magic for windows. you really like the sound of it, how it works et al. you want to install this cool sounding software on your Mac, but you can't. are you:

justifiably upset
ready to call the package managers at PowerQuest
stupid

correct..

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[delire]

But it means something like half an hour for the official process and about 10 hours to wipe up the broken bits. And that is going to quickly take a person to dependencies, permissions, restores, modules.conf, processes and configuration files. The tough question is how much this can be automated among the programs and the programs that depend upon them.

fedora is poor in this regard.

the fix is use apt or the popular apt-gui synaptic, preferably on a debian system. an upgrade in debian stable is a while-i-make-coffee experience (bandwidth dependent). if i was a little more exciteable i'd almost make it a cronjob.

the rpm package managers of the day really are making life difficult for newcomers, some of which are technology journalists/reviewers (given the marketing clout of many rpm based distros).

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[drsquare]

You click on it and there is a list of hundreds of pieces of software. Each software has a description along side it. SOme have pictures too. Most are free, some you have to pay for.

Hundreds? There are more pieces of software than that. What are the chances of this Xandros having all the programs that run on it in the world in one place? The odds are 0. Also this doesn't account for software that comes on CD, or only in source, or a newer version has been released but isn't in the Xandros depository. What if you don't have a direct link to the Internet, but can download to one computer and move it to another via disk/keydrive, can this be done as easily as moving a .zip around?

Also how easily does it download? If the download is broken can it be resumed? Does it happen automatically? What if the software is already on your computer, can you install it without even knowing that a command line exists?

No dependencies? So the libraries are statically linked, i.e. massive downloads and massive memory usage? Or are all the dependencies that have ever been made, and ever will be made, already on the system?

What happens when your depository is down? Can you not install software anymore? When you download a software from a third-party site, does it install easily?

There are a lot of questions regarding software installation, and there is no magic solution, least of all one which depends on single source for all your software.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I genuinely tried to work with OSX on my new G4PB but found the vast variety of package formats counter intuitive and unweildy. I'm not a very computer literate person albeit. Also it's clear OSX is still very BETA, given the poor performance of some applications and bad design decisions in the GUI.

All I want to do on my machine is make music, listen to music, watch DVD's, browse and send email. On the advice of a friend I installed Ubuntu. It took 40minutes and was so seamless it was totally unmemorable. I can do all the above, and from memory I never had to download a single codec. If i want to uninstall something I just start up synaptic and click the big red button.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[brarrr]

I've never seen this "get software" icon on my desktop, can I find it in my start menu? I haven't looked.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[drsquare]

>>To a consumer-user Linux is not free, they would want to get it in a
>>nice supported package, not a download form some obscure place on the
>>internet. So they'd be paying for a box in a shop.
>
>At least they get upgrades forever.

Or at least, until the distro-vendor goes bust, or stops supporting their version, or the upgrade program becomes obsolete, or the size of the upgrade is too massive for their internet connection, either because of speed or quotas.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[adamruck]

"Fighting it? If it caused any problems, they can uninstall it"

You understand that sp2 made some windows unbootable on some computers right? Its pretty hard to remove software if you cant boot.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[sirReal.83.]

Fedora doesn't ship with APT or Synaptic. I think you skipped a dozen steps or so.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[sirReal.83.]

Don't pretend you've never downloaded an app that came as a zip file full of shit instead of an actual installer, and had the executable fail on you because you didn't have some runtime you needed. Windows apps need packaging, and have dependencies, too.

Also, *everything* for Windows "isn't on the list."

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[r3m0t]

You can get the CD and do a repair installation in that case. Granted, you might have got it through OEM, in which case you're screwed.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[r3m0t]

>>At least they get upgrades forever.

>Or at least, until the distro-vendor goes bust, or stops supporting their version, or the upgrade program becomes obsolete, or the size of the upgrade is too massive for their internet connection, either because of speed or quotas.

Very few distro vendors have gone bust, and most are using package managers from other systems.

Stops supporting their version? *Upgrades*are*free*. There might be a program you need to install (called "base-system" or something) before you can get any newer updates, but that shouldn't cause problems. Besides, that "problem" happens with Windows and OS X too, except that then you need to pay for the upgrade.

Upgrade program becomes obsolete? Again they can get the new program, probably from the upgrade program itself. (portage can update portage, apt-get can get apt, etc). (Similarly, Internet Explorer can get the latest Windows Update ActiveX control)

Upgrade too large? That is not the distro vendor's fault. The distros compress everything anyway, and there's nothing more they can do. Besides, the person can get just the upgrades for the programs they use most. (Or most need upgrades for.) This "problem" happens with XP and OS X too. (More so for XP, with massive cumulative updates and service packs which must be installed to get later security updates.)

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[adamruck]

I have seen a repair installation eat data on a hard drive more than once, its not reliable.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[fireball1244]

"I disagree. I genuinely tried to work with OSX on my new G4PB but found the vast variety of package formats counter intuitive and unweildy. I'm not a very computer literate person albeit. Also it's clear OSX is still very BETA, given the poor performance of some applications and bad design decisions in the GUI."

Beta? Not hardly. Well over half of Mac software I install is drag and drop to /Applications. What could possibly be easier than that? Software that has to install bit deeper tends to use the Apple Installer, which is just a "Click Continue" installer that's basically a wizard. Old school software may use VISE, but that's pretty rare. All much, much easier than any Linux I've ever dealt with.

"All I want to do on my machine is make music, listen to music, watch DVD's, browse and send email." Why would you need to install any software to do that on a Mac? Those programs are all part of the operating system or bundled with it -- GarageBand, DVD Player, Safari and Apple Mail.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[ndogg]

So, wait, you're describing a completely non-traditional installation in Xandros' and saying that's a reason most users would be scared of the installation? I doubt that a typical Xandros user would even attempt to go that route for such software. More likely, they would go through Xandros' traditional means for acquiring software.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue.

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[ivano]

given the poor performance of some applications and bad design decisions in the GUI

wow...and someone labelled *me* as a troll

ciao

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[R.Caley]

[Windows Update has only small additions]

[Tell that to people fighting the effects of SP2.]

Fighting it? If it caused any problems, they can uninstall it.

If they are lucky, but my point was that it is not a small addition.

If somebody can't be bothered to run a certain company's upgrade-checking program, can they even be bothered to run the game?

So, you're now saying that unified updateing systems are useless?

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[jellomizer]

Well the software may not be available via Xandros method. Thats part of the point. I am not 100% sure but I think you will have a hard time finding a Xandros version of Yahoo Instant Messager (Yes there are other compatible ones out there, But some people want Yahoo's and no one elses)

Re:An amazingly bad artcicle

[Jagasian]

The average user doens't install their own OS. We can therefore assume that Fedora is installed and configured already. Would installing a codec on Windows start with traveling to the nearest computer store to buy a copy of Windows XP?

WTF

[DarKry]

Why is this on slashdot? I come here for the informed opinions and intelligent environment, not to read "linux" reviews written for the technically inept. Do I really need to spend my time reading about how the Windows XP install process is "somewhat complex". So I repeat slashdot. WTF

Re:WTF

[triclops]

Sure it might be written for the technically inept. It might be light on content and what might be considered as quality research. It may even be wrong at points, but no matter what is wrong with it, it does represent more publicity aimed at the masses for alternative operating systems besides Microsoft Windows.
You don't need to convince geeks to use Linux or OSX, its the mums and dads, everyday people, that need to see that there are other viable options out there, and a comparison like this is a good way to build such awareness.

Surely this sort of publicity is worth a mention on slashdot.

Re:WTF

[ErroneousBee]

I like to see this thing here, as it shows how inept the common user is, and also how inept alot of technical reviewers are.

I cringe every time I see a consumers association report on ISPs or anti-spam software, they always get so conused by the marketing that they miss the obvious solution like Gmail as anti-spam.

Re:WTF

[hereschenes]

If every other Linux user/developer displayed the same attitude as that, a high-visibility non-techie magazine like Choice wouldn't even be considering Linux. Instead of being an elitist techno-snob, how about applauding the encouraging sign that non-Windows O/S alternatives are actually being considered by the mainstream public?

Re:WTF

[DarKry]

Apparently I need to stop blindly clicking every article on slashdot and expecting an interesting topic. Although, this article has made me seriously consider what exactly would be required to take a distribution line gentoo and wrap it into a nice installer. With a kernel that probes for hardware you could in theory have a distro that works on most (or at least a lot of) systems with no problems. You would have to also write a nice front end to portage actually I need to go check whether its already been done, I'll be surprised if it hasn't). Perhaps put together a nice file manager that uses Finder's method of hiding all the ugly linux stuff, let the user see his home directory and links to the GUI software. As far as the actual GUI goes just build binaries for all the common applications into the iso. Then weed out all the crap from the KDE/foot menus. I think we should take this article as an example of what the average Joe wants and make a Linux distribution that panders to those needs. It wouldn't work on every system but it would work alot of the time. It wouldn't b something to sell but it would certainly be an option for when you are on the phone with your mother trying to explain to her what spybot is. You could simply say, "Mom, just leave the computer alone, I am putting a cd in the mail"

I wonder if any of what I just typed made any sense?

Re:WTF

[ErroneousBee]

You could simply say, "Mom, just leave the computer alone, I am putting a cd in the mail"


Thats actually something I would like for Mandrake.

I setup my sister with MDK-10.1-comunity. I did all the hard setup (nVidia drivers, mplayer from PLF, wine, dialup, etc).

But I still need to get updates to her, and I cant see an easy way of doing it on a CD, as I dont have a list of what she has installed, nor is a way of downloading the full updates media apparrent

My sisters boyfriend setup winXp for her in much the same way (she needed access to MS Works).

My Sister thinks Linux is as good as winXP. She doesnt worry about having to install software, cos its all there. Thats one major difference between linux and windows, she still had to have nero, Works, winDVD, etc etc installed.

Problems:
winXP stopped dialing out, and sisters bf cant fix it.
Wine wont run MS Works.
A load of cheap games need directX, not listed for cedega.
There is no obvious netnanny stuff for linux. It isnt needed yet, but it may be a problem later on.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like it, don't read it. No one's forcing you. The article is about Choice, and YOU made the choice to read it so don't complain. Maybe you should even fillter out all linux related topics.

Re:WTF

[ssj_195]

But I still need to get updates to her, and I cant see an easy way of doing it on a CD, as I dont have a list of what she has installed, nor is a way of downloading the full updates media apparrent

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding your problem (hopefully not, as this is going to take ages to type!), but here goes:

This may work - a trick I worked on when my housemate expressed a desire to install Mandrake 10.1 and I didn't want him to have to re-download 100's of MBs of software, repository info, etc. Firstly - Mandrake can be configured so that it stores any downloaded packages for later use (as opposed to the default behaviour of wiping them once they're installed). These are stored in /var/cache/urpmi/rpms, and using urpmi --noclean (package name) will leave the downloaded package(s) in that folder. Annoyingly, /usr/bin/rpmdrake, the GUI installer, is hardwired to always delete them after installation, so I had to actually hack this file to prevent this. If you want to know what I did, e-mail me at my username minus the underscore at hotmail.com. Once done, any packages you install will be preserved in the aforementioned directory.

Next - repository syntheses. Update all repositories that you want to make available to your sister on your machine. The information will be stored in /etc/urpmi/urpmi.cfg and the bulky parts in /var/libs/urpmi/ (this last one might be wrong; I'll check when I get back home).

Your sister will need to be provided with a mirror of the contents of the syntheses folder, urpmi.cfg , and the downloaded rpms cache, all in the proper places. I'd recommend burning the contents of these directories to CD along with a script that she can click on that copies everything to the proper places. Next, you will need to get her to update her software repositories; after the "copying all of the stuff over" part of the script, do something like:

urpmq --listmedia | xargs urpmi.update

If no further changes in the software repositories have occurred since you burned the CD, nothing will need to be downloaded, and the set of available software will be refreshed. Now, your sister has access to the same set of software/ updates that you have, so ask her to go to the Mandrake Update application, and tick all of the security updates and click Install. Since the required rpms are now in her cache, this will be very quick and require no downloading.

It's a bit convoluted on your end, but your sister should just have to click a few buttons to be fully up to date, even if she has a crappy net connection!

Hope this helps - of course, if you have SSH access you can do most of this with her only contribution being placing the CD in the drive! :)

--Simon

Re:WTF

[ErroneousBee]

Looks like it could work.

I'd probably have to test this first.

I'd probably want something that only got updates for things she has installed, plus stuff that I think she might be interested in (jack, timidity and rosegarden have recently crossed my path).

I guess I'd need to list all installed packages (rpm -something > packages.list) and get that emailed to me.
Then I head off to the update mirrors and pull down any rpms that are later than what she has installed.
Burn that lot to CD (basically a bunch of rpms).

Then its ls | xargs rpm -uvh time

Then its more like:

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[DrSkwid]

WARNING
This man page is an extract of the documentation of GNU
$program . It is updated only occasionally, because the GNU
project does not use nroff. For complete, current docu-
mentation, refer to the Info file $program.info which is made
from the Texinfo source file $program.texinfo.

Hot HTML.

[Kickasso]

Unicode. Probably an apostrophe character inserted by Word or IE. Not the ASCII ' but something like U+2019.

Says something about our editors, eh?

Re:Hot HTML.

[strider44]

Other programs including OpenOffice and Abiword (including in linux) use unicode as well, so I'm not totally sure what it says about the developers.

Xandros uses IE as default browser?

[cyxxon]

I don't know, I never tested Xandros myself, but please tell me they do not use a Wine'd Internet Explorer as the main browser, instead of say Konqueror, Firefox, Mozilla or galeon. Or might the table on page 8 of the report be slightly flawed, like the rest of the article? Talking about the ease of use of installing software on linux here, the call for antivirus software onlinux as a necessity for everyon with linux viruses being as rare as you-name-it (yet), the statement that none of the linux distros keep the installed software up to date (the last Suse I installed sure did), etc...

Well researched article, I'd say.

Re:Xandros uses IE as default browser?

[JenniP]

Xandros does not use IE at all, if you want it you have to install it yourself (Assuming you have Crossover or some form of Wine installed). I tend to have IE installed under Xandros, but rarely use it. As to what browser it uses it depends what version you have Xandros 2 OCE (The free non commerical one) uses Opera, where as the other Xandros 2 variants (Standard, Professional and Business) use Mozilla 1.x (Think the latest version available is 1.6) Xandros 3 Deluxe, uses Mozilla 1.7. Its a real pity they didnt review Xandros 3 in this article as its made leaps and bounds past Xandros 2, and now does include DVD writing functionality out of the box. Jen

Re:Xandros uses IE as default browser?

[Derf the]

Xandros 3.0 uses Mozilla 1.7.3 as its' default browser.

Xandros OCE 2.0 (free to download version) uses Opera 7.5 (the "extra tool bar with google style adds" based version).

They have just announced the upcoming release of Firefox & Thunderbird to their 'One click' download|install site.

But if you so choose you can easily install your own copy of IE (not supplied) using the installed wine variant CrossOverOffice which comes standard with the Deluxe (the edition reviewed).

To add my comment: the version reviewed (2.5) was replaced a couple of months ago by 3.0, which happily burns DVDs, simple click-&-dragging in the File Manager, it works even better than XPs' version.

Personally, I am now recomending this distro to local newbees and Win98 upgraders...

This is 'Linux on the Desktop for the Masses'; it's here now!

Re:Xandros uses IE as default browser?

[saintp]

In addition to SuSE having automatic updates, I also have found KMail no more difficult to set up than Outlook or Entourage. Moreover, doesn't antivir come standard with SuSE as well? I've sure got it on my desktop box.

If these little problems with SuSE -- a distro I know pretty well -- are indicative of general problems with the article, it seems to me a little more research wouldn't have hurt.

They also neglected to mention the incredible amount of software that comes with Linux. With a few rare exceptions, I can find everything I need on the SuSE install disks, and install it through YaST (which is far easier, IMHO, than trying to find it on the Internet, hoping that it's spyware-free, holding your breath and double-clicking a la Windows). In fact, I've been using SuSE 9.1 exclusively since it came out, and about the only things I've needed to download and install were icecast and the development libraries necessary to compile it -- hardly standard "mom and pop" fare.

It seems to me that people are so familiar with the Windows experience -- with all its quirks and flaws -- that they can't fathom an OS that isn't flawed in the same way. I don't need to install software on Linux, because it all comes packaged with it!

Re:Xandros uses IE as default browser?

[YrWrstNtmr]

I don't need to install software on Linux, because it all comes packaged with it!

And you probably use your machine far differently than the 'mom and pop' in the article. They want stuff like a greeting card maker. Complete with fancy frames, templates, and backgrounds.
A simple, dumbed down movie maker.
Some games for the kids when they come over. Something more than Tux or the other 30 clones. Reader Rabbit and stuff like that.
Maybe a diet tracker. Or a recipe program.
Here's a big one...tax software. And a finance program that will feed it. Seamlessly, like Money or Quicken.

Stuff other than pure productivity applications.

Article wrong about OS X

[Brian Brian]

They got the price for OS X wrong by $100. They also said they would like to see the firewall on by default. Well it is in the sense that all sharing is turned off by default. So you have to turn on the sharing and then decide what to not let through with the firewall. And it continues to make errors. They say that Apple computers come with the latest version of the OS. Not always. You should update it as you would update any OS. But maybe they mean if you buy a PC box you can choose something other than XP and then not have the latest OS. They say that on XP you can't limit a program to one user account. I am thinking a 3 year old wrote this. This all reminds me when NewsWeek did a review of an old word processing program I worked on. Because so many things were wrong in the review I called them up. Turns out that the reviewer was a computer newbie and had never used a word processor before.

Re:Article wrong about OS X

[Brian Brian]

OK, open mouth and isert my foot. I stupidly assumed prices were in American dollars. Being an Aussie site means Aussie rules - especially for money. No need to mod me down. I will just do the Unhappy Dance

No live CD?

[Bert64]

They noted "No Live CD" as a negative point of Xandros, but this isn't listed as a negative point for windows or osx, since these don't include a livecd either...
(MacOS9 used to include a livecd, infact the installer involved booting to a full macos desktop from which you ran the installer)

Re:No live CD?

[PurpleXanathar]

Windows *has* a live CD (Windows PE if I remember correctly).

It's not free (maybe you even need MSDN subscription, I don't know), but there is one.

Still for emergency administration tasks on Xandros and Windows you can just use any Linux (or BSD or anything else) live cd and get the work done. The same, I think, for MacOSX.

Re:No live CD?

[demon_2k]

Ok, LiveCD... How is it a bad thing when you intend to install your linux distro? By looking at the profile i see that each operating system has an ALMOST even number of good and bad things about it. Now lets think of a "mum" or "dad", they are likely to just literaly count the number of good and/or bad things and make a decision based on that. That's assuming they even read Choice.

Re:No live CD?

[TylerL82]

You can create a fully-bootable Mac OS X LiveCD - Finder and all - with BootCD.
http://www.charlessoft.com/

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

At first he was a bit bored because he had to learn some new things (for example the "Applications" menu is on the top left, and not on the bottom)
Just because that's the default position doesn't mean that you have to leave the menu there.

Installing software

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux needs to come a long way before installing software is as easy on Windows. On Windows I just need to plug in the network cable to get Netsky, Klez and a bunch of other software installed automagically. I don't need to click on anything.

Compare this to Linux, where installing software requires complex things such as clicking or even double-clicking an icon, which in turn requires learning to use a "mouse", a very counter-intuitive device, that you need to move while looking at something completely different, and when you reach the edge of the mouse mat, you need to carefully lift it and move it back to the center, such that the little arrow doesn't move, and then continue moving it where you already moved it once.

Re:Installing software

[DarKry]

Still... For someone like this perhaps windows is the way to go, at least someone is getting use out of the computer, even if it is only to launch a DoS or run a proxy server.

Re:Installing software

[TheRealSync]

Did anyone tried to make a computer newbie on windows to install a new software over phone? Varying the type of software, it can be almost impossible most of times.

So... saying "Insert the CD", or - "Double click the setup.exe" is hard to explain? (Sorry, I know that's not what you mean, but mostly that is all there is to installing something on a Windows-machine).

However telling them to just start a shell and type 'rpm -i whatever' or 'emerge/apt-get whatever' would be alot more easier.

If they've actually managed to get the right files downloaded to begin with, I guess you could be right. But the article is about the ease of use for anyone - not about how easy it is to guide a user through different tasks.
My mom is using Windows, and is able to install drivers and apps, mostly without me helping her out; this is because it has been made easy.

I would love for linux to become the mainstream OS of choice for Joe-user, but installing software on a linux-machine is NOT something my mom (or most moms) would know how to do, and that IS a problem.

Partitioning for Dual Boot

[micolous]

I noticed they commented on how some of the Linux distros couldn't resize the Windows partition down to do a dual boot. I've yet to see a version of Windows that allows me to size down my Linux partition and add a boot menu so I can easily choose which OS I want to run on startup.

Microsoft's website seems only to be able to tell me how to remove Linux (1, 2) and not have a Windows bootloader installed to allow me to run both. All the other Linux-related KB articles are to do with Virtual PC and SMB problems.
installing.

Re:Partitioning for Dual Boot

[TheRaven64]

I've yet to see a version of Windows that allows me to size down my Linux partition and add a boot menu so I can easily choose which OS I want to run on startup.

Windows NT has always included a boot menu, and it is relatively easy to use this to boot other operating systems. I've used it to launch Linux, FreeBSD and BeOS, as well as DOS and Windows before now.

Re:Partitioning for Dual Boot

[greed]

I take it you've never seen the message,

Competing boot manager detected and deactivated.

during an installation of Windows NT 3.51 or 4.0?

It wouldn't nuke your OS/2 partition, but it would yank the boot manager off the system AND not give you any way to boot back into your other OS.

If you installed OS/2 after Windows, it would be quite happy to launch the Windows boot manager as one of the sub-items.

Ugh. I wish I could forget this stuff.

Re:Partitioning for Dual Boot

[Lesson No. 25]

Microsoft's website seems only to be able to tell me how to remove Linux

Interestingly, the articles you linked to on m$'s website say (towards the top), "Windows and Linux can coexist on the same computer. For additional information, refer to your Linux documentation." They put the onus on the Linux docs to help you do the deed.

The article authors...

[paulatz]

..have to check better next time. They messed up old and new software. For instance the past versions of mandrake and suse with the brand new version of macosx. Even their price listing is not clear.

OS X Help Files

[ibentmywookie]

Check this quote:

Mac OS X lost marks for poor help files but was easier to use for most common tasks. Windows XP had excellent help files but scored lower for installation, which was complicated and time-consuming.

What? I find the Mac OS X Help to be really good. The help viewer absolutely utterly *craps all over* anything in windows. I don't get it. I've found one of the positive points about Mac OS X is the help system.

Re:OS X Help Files

[ZackSchil]

But the Wizards, man! OS X has no wizards? How ever will I set up my internet connection without Gandalf telling me over and over again that my USB cable modem was not found?!

Re:OS X Help Files

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

Maybe the Reviewer didn't ever need to refer to the help files.
After all how good can they be if you don't need the look at them.

Re:OS X Help Files

[bkr1_2k]

Count youself lucky then because it's the only real complaint I've had with OS X. Half the time my help viewer just stalls and I have to kill it manually. When it does work, I find most of the help files useless because they are written for people who are at a much lower level of understanding with respect to how the OS works(ie Grandma). I've never been a fan of the XP help system either though, so I'm not sure how XP got kudos for that. Give me a proper set of man pages with more information than I need and let me sort through it myself, and I'll be happy.

Re:OS X Help Files

[pboulang]

a) OS X *has* man pages.. feel free to use them
b) The man format isn't really appropriate for GUIs

Seriously, for any CLI that is needed, man works just fine. For GUI programs like iWork you read the manual, and for OS type things such as configuring IPs the Help system is technical enough to get you through quite happily.

What I don't understand is how poorly written linux howto's are deemed acceptable. They are almost invariably written for one specific case of one specific flavor of Linux and outdated. Give me the BSD Handbook any day over that.

Re:OS X Help Files

[rtb61]

Your experience would seem to reflect logic, after all Mac OS X has to attract market share be being better and easier to learn and use. Microsoft on the other hand is the operating system you keep paying for (buy the operating system - but wait theres more - buy the manuals - but wait theres more - buy the real help system aka "resource kit" - but wait theres more - certifcation - but wait theres more - ad nuseum).

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Anonymous Coward]

This (from FreeBSD) is better:

The find utility recursively descends the directory tree for each pathname listed, evaluating an expression (composed of the ``primaries'' and ``operands'' listed below) in terms of each file in the tree.

Prices

[cappadocius]

Worth noting that prices seem to be in Australian dollars, so the price gaps are somewhat less in American $.

Re:Prices

[strider44]

Convert US77c = $1

Re:Prices

[cappadocius]

Convert US77c = $1

Except that there isn't purchasing power parity.

Mac OS X is 129 US$ on the Apple Store.

Windows is 179 US$ on Amazon.

Re:Prices

[kuzb]

Also, factor in the cost of the hardware needed to run the OS and OS X isn't as cheap as one might think.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

512 if you want to run XP, according to the MS fanatics around here. And I must admit that XP feels a bit slow with only 768 MB.

128 MB for Linux, possibly more for full KDE or Gnome desktops, but on my old machine, upgrading from 128 to 256 made no difference, except for the number of tabs I could open before Mozilla running out of memory. The new one has a GB, so that's a LOT of tabs :-)

Get real, allready! What planet do you live on?

[trezor]

I'm not saying slackware is a bad distro, but as far as mums and dads go, I wouldn't even let them touch CDs.

Slackware, still with a commandline installer. Asks you to run fdsisk manually. Requires you to have actual knowledge of your desired network-setup... The list goes on.

It may be a good distro for it's uses (which for me was learning Linux without all those fancy config-tools), but for the avarage n00b? It's will be a hell for them and a true hell for me having to assist them all the time. And just in case you havent noticed, ordinary users don't want to even know there is a commandline.

Do you even live on this planet? I call troll.

Re:Get real, allready! What planet do you live on?

[Gordonjcp]

How often do you set up Linux?

My mother has been using Slackware for a couple of years now. It does everything she wants, and if it needs work done I take care of it remotely. I haven't had to touch it for *ages*.

They're working on it

[gilesjuk]

There's an option to version modules in 2.6, so potentially they can be used with a different kernel than the one they were compiled against.

But a lot more work needs doing in that area.

Re:They're working on it

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, that option is specifically to KEEP you from attempting to load the modules against a different kernel. The option adds a kernel version string to the end of every symbol in the module, and if you try loading it into a kernel that doesn't match that string, you'll get lines of "unresolved symbol blahblah_zQ412vGM".

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. Very good observation.

I call bullshit

[thedogcow]

First off, this is not a troll. I really do appreciate Linux and all of the variants. However there is no way that Linux can be better than OS X. Take a look at the progression that OS X has made since 2001... and compare that with Linux. There is no comparison. Seriously, this is not a troll, but just a casual observation.

Re:I disagree

[mOoZik]

I know this is slashdot and bashing Linux will get you instant karma, but _please_ could you elaborate why knowing both OSS and Microsoft and favoring OSS is considered biaised, while favoring and knowing only Microsoft is not ?

I did not say that, but rather that we must be skeptical of both sides, not only the side which we (collectively) dislike, i.e., MS. Truth is, I don't know. My post was supposed to get people to think about who this association represents (besides the "consumers") but sadly it has been moderated negatively.

No!

[tanveer1979]

I have been using linux for about 5 years now as my primary system, and i disagree with the report. There are certain subtle nuances which need to be taken care. For example on my system if i have the flash plugin in the plugins dir of firefox compiled from source, it crashes, but works fine with firefox binary, but the firefox binary did not support java. After some downloads compiles etc,. etc, i got it to work. But your average Joe user is going to turn away. I could not get sound to work with amarok. It would not play. Freenode had me solving the problem after half an hour effort, but the average user does *NOT* want to edit files.

I know there are going to be posts saying that everything is fine on my system etc., etc., but the fact is everything should work on almost any common system. In case of XP all you have to do is run an exe files and you can watch videos etc.,. Yes it is insecure, virus are a problem blah blah, but the mindset of the avg user is that "Its okay if there is a virus, it is expected behavior" but its not okay if my xyz media file does not work, or my xyz camera phone does not connect. Moving people to firefox from IE is a very very trivial thing. Moving an entire OS is something totally different.

What does linux need? Well independence from scripting. The user should not have to edit any config file, and helpful support forums. Scaring away and abusing a newbie asking stupid questions isnt going to win any users. Remeber you were a newbie once. As far as the eye candy and user desktop environment is concerned, it is okay.

Re:No!

[Skinny Rav]

The user should not have to edit any config file, and helpful support forums.

Yeah, right, like I've never had to go to support forums while I still was using windows - and even more now when my friends call me and ask what to do when something goes wrong in XP. And instead of editing well commented text config files I have to edit this bloody registry.

And are you sure MacOS X is that much better? I was considering buying a Mac Mini and an iBook, but when I went to the shop to play with MacOS X a bit, I've noticed that finder is not localised (I am Polish). As the shop was crowded I decided not to wait to ask shop assistants but returned home to do some googling. O my goodness!! There is a plenty of Mac forums all crowded with users having problems!! And sometimes not trivial ones ("How do I eject CD?") but much more troubling (like safari spitting some weird errors or keyboard layout returning to US English again and again instead of just sticking to chosen Polish, or Software Update being fucked by localisation and so on and so on). So support forums and bugs are not just the Linux thing.

And by the way, I have dual booting Win-Lin machine and it was Windows XP that had problems with my perfectly ordinary GeForce card, not linux, no hardware acceleration, and no, download from nvidia didn't help, I had to... guess what? Browse support forums!

but its not okay if my xyz media file does not work

Yet another thing: compare pleasure of using Xine or Mplayer happily playing any known video format (albeit not-so legally sometimes ;-) ) to this nice info from WMP that codec was not found.

Wow, that was a long one :-)

Raf

P.S. And no, probably I am not going to by an iBook, cause if I pay 1000 Euro I expect it to work perfectly in my local language, like KDE happily has been doing since 1.x releases :-)

Re:No!

[Bert64]

And usually the codec error just shows a number, doesn't say anything usefull... most codecs include their name in the file, it could atleast display that so you know what to google for.

Re:No!

[JenniP]

This is where the "commerical" Linuxes can score highly for non-power users, Xandros for instance comes out of the box with Java and flash support, even with Firefox. Thats because the Xandros team (And the Linspire team also do similar things) compile their own versions that will work for people the way they want it to work. You still have the same problems other Linux users have when leaving the comfort zone of the pre-packaged applications, although both Xandros and Linspire do have active communities that handhold new users through these things (I imagine other distros do as well, but I can only say first hand about Xandros since thats what I use). Jen

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

What does linux need? Well independence from scripting. The user should not have to edit any config file, and helpful support forums. Scaring away and abusing a newbie asking stupid questions isnt going to win any users. Remeber you were a newbie once. As far as the eye candy and user desktop environment is concerned, it is okay.

This seems to be the most common view. But as far as I am concerned this makes me think about switching to a Mac more and more. Why? Because Mac OS X actually not only delivers this (easy to use) it also comes with what Gnome has totally broken with: The ability to automate and script tasks.

Recently Linux is degenerating more and more into the most inflexible and stupid OS I've ever seen. Get me right, I'm all for nice and straight GUIs. But I'm not willing to give up the ability to script things and in this regard both Gnome and KDE are far behind Mac OS X. Both have been making great progress in terms of giving the impression of being easy to use but in real working environments they're nothing more than nice looking program starters for OO and Mozilla.

If this is enough for you, fine.

Re:No!

[HangingChad]

There is a plenty of Mac forums all crowded with users having problems!!

And there are Windows forums crowded with users having problems and the people I know with Windows networks at home have to dork with something all the time to keep them running right.

Sometimes the impression it leaves is that Linux isn't allowed to be as good as Windows. At least on a relative basis. The impression I get from a lot of people is they expect Linux to be flawless before they'll stoop to trying it. Well, screw that. There are some nice distros out there and, on the whole, I spend a lot less time managing my home Linux network than I ever did with Winblows. The problems are different but certainly not any worse. If you want to run Linux at home it's certainly within the technical reach of the average user now.

Stop whining about what Linux doesn't do and step boldly into last week.

Re:No!

[joshmccormack]

Mac OS X problems:
There are a lot of confusing things about Mac OS X, things that don't work the way I'd like, with no apparent way of changing them, and the Unixish backend really feels bolted on - there's such a difference between stuff in the gui and console, software install from the console is painful, etc.

Linux problems (largely as compared to BSDs):
Mixture of binary stuff and from source and odd layout

BSDs problems:
Lack of support for some stuff (hardware, Flash & Java in some, etc)

Windows problems: done to death

The wait for the one size fits all, ideal system continues.

Re:No!

[Queer Boy]

There is a plenty of Mac forums all crowded with users having problems!!

This is what I refer to as "the closet phenomenon". If you put two people in a warehouse, it's empty. If you put two people in a closet, it's crowded.

The fact that there needs to be fewer Mac support forums (I only know of one ACTUAL Mac support forum, which is Apple's, please tell me about others, I like to help) doesn't count for much, I guess.

BTW, your English skills (along with the fact that your post is littered with American English slang) make me wonder how desperately you need Polski localisation (it's under International in System Preferences, you know, the icon with the UN flag where you can choose from 84 localisations).

Re:No!

[iluvcapra]

(it's under International in System Preferences)

I didn't see Polish instantly, so you do have to click "Edit" in the window to add it to the search list, but once it's at the top, you've logged out and logged back in, the Finder will be very happily Polski.

BTW, your English skills

About those English skills... if you did have an app that wasn't localized, and the developers happened to follow the rules (which they tend to, in tha Apple world), you could do the localization yourself. In order to localize an OS X app you don't need any $$$ tools, or even the sources, or even need to know any coding. Just open up the app's package and make a copy of the English.lproj, rename it "pl.lproj," and edit the "localizable.strings" text file.

Re:No!

[Skinny Rav]

The fact that there needs to be fewer Mac support forums (I only know of one ACTUAL Mac support forum, which is Apple's, please tell me about others, I like to help) doesn't count for much, I guess.

One was Polish usenet group pl.comp.sys.macintosh, another one was on www.macosx.com (is it the Apple's one?), there might have been another one, but I am not too sure...

BTW, your English skills (along with the fact that your post is littered with American English slang) make me wonder how desperately you need Polski localisation

Wow, this AE slang has to be learnt here on /. :-D I am crazy about British culture and have spent 2 years in Britain, so I speak BE, but it seems that US-dominated /. has some influence on me.

Well, I feel very comfortable with English but when I buy something in Poland I expect it to be catered to Poles: labels on products, ingredients lists, menus in computers and media devices and so on. And anyway, this laptop will be primarily used by my girlfriend who's English skills are not good enough for comfortable work with English software. Well, she would manage, but then the whole useability factor of MacOSX would dissapear.

it's under International in System Preferences, you know, the icon with the UN flag where you can choose from 84 localisations

Another post says the same. I will have to go and check. AFAIRead it used to be so that these settings would change date and currency format, keyboard layout and some other things but menus would remain English. Anyway, I'll better go and check (or ask in the shop) than go on ranting ;-).

BTW, have you noticed I was modded troll?? :-] For the first time in my 12 years long Internet use (including 8 busy years on usenet :-) )

Cheers

Raf

Re:I disagree

[Apatharch]

That's easy. Microsoft users are in the vast majority, and everyone knows that means they aren't "biased", but "normal".

</sarcasm>
</cynicism>
</bitter, twisted antipathy>

Linux commands may as well be in Klingon...

[ABeowulfCluster]

... for 'Average Joe' to use. Seriously.. you type 'man' instead of 'help'? Ok mom.. now type ./configure What? DOT SLASH CONFIGURE.. no.. THE OTHER SLASH! GEEEZE!!!! And my document It didn't save? BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T MOUNT the DRIVE AS READ WRITE NTFS CAPTIVE! FOR FSCK'S SAKE GIVE ME THE KEYBOARD! MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOve!

Re:Linux commands may as well be in Klingon...

[sirReal.83.]

Yeah, I hear ya - DOS commands are a piece of fucking cake. Why can't Linux be this easy?

Re:Linux commands may as well be in Klingon...

[dcam]

How is this relevant? Cause you have to use the command promt to manage stuff in windows?

Re:Linux commands may as well be in Klingon...

[sirReal.83.]

Does your mom need './configure'? Do you think the Windows kernel has even read-only support for ext2? You may have had a point, but you picked some really crappy examples is all. Give me an example of something your mom would need the terminal for, in Fedora Core 3, and I will be satisfied.

Re:Linux commands may as well be in Klingon...

[dcam]

I haven't used Fedora Core 3, so I couldn't in all honesty comment.

My last experience with a version of linux aimed at Grandma was the latest and greatest release of Mandrake of about a year and a quarter ago. At that time to get a network connection, the only solution was to compile and install an RPM (cmd line). I gave up at that point. In that case the GUIs were outright broken. This was on pretty standard hardware (Shuttle SN41G2, nForce 2 Mobo).

I personally run Debian for my linux boxes (file server & a second desktop).

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[masterQba]

the menu is moveable and it can be made completly xplike

virus checker?!?!?!

[coolcold]

We'd also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems -- the tested operating systems don't currently include a virus checker.

So we finally can see virus checking in linux?!?!? yay!!!

Re:virus checker?!?!?!

[baryon351]

> So we finally can see virus checking in linux?!?!? yay!!!

This is part of the ignorance of people who assume that problems with windows are problems with operating systems in general.

As a mac user who's seen hundreds of people switching, often you'll have criticism of the Mac OS for not including good free virus checkers, antispyware apps, anti adware apps, registry checkers/protection, TCP tweakers, and so on. All apps used to get around problems inherent with using Windows.

Re:virus checker?!?!?!

[harlows_monkeys]

As a mac user who's seen hundreds of people switching, often you'll have criticism of the Mac OS for not including good free virus checkers, antispyware apps, anti adware apps, registry checkers/protection, TCP tweakers, and so on. All apps used to get around problems inherent with using Windows

Unless they changed their TCP implementation between 10.2 and 10.3, a TCP tweaker is useful on OS X. Just like Windows, the receive window setting is not very good for fast connections with latency higher than a LAN (e.g., many broadband connections), and a little tweaking can greatly improve download speed.

Linux's TCP stack is the only common one I've seen that doesn't benefit from this kind of tweaking. (It is built-in. It self-tweaks on a per connection basis based on what is actually happening on that connection).

how comes....

[scheuri]

...that they used Windows XP with SP2, which is pretty much the newest Windows available (not considering Server 2003) and not the newest Versions of the tested Linux-Distros?

SuSE is available as 9.2 (newer 2.6 kernel, newer KDE, etc. pp.) and Mandrake as 10.1 (as far as I know).

well, I am just wondering...

cheers
scheuri

They *obviously* have no idea

[kamagurka]

...what they are talking about:

"We'd also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems -- the tested operating systems don't currently include a virus checker."

I might as well read an article on the relative merits of the Eurofighter written by a polish tractor mechanic.

Re:They *obviously* have no idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Them *obviously* having no idea is the reason why articles like this are interesting. After all, most computer users don't have a clue about computers, they just want to use them, so the experience of those people is relevant and interesting.

To get back to your little anology, a review of the Eurofighter by a polish tractor mechanic would also be interesting if the mechanic was expected to actually fly a Eurofighter.

Re:They *obviously* have no idea

[VirtualWolf]

Agreed. I wonder if they realise that there aren't actually any viruses for Mac OS X and Linux...

Re:They *obviously* have no idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Buzz of the polish tractor mechanics you sensles...

Re:They *obviously* have no idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't?

Well maybe not many, but Linux and OSX are Extremely remote rootable without some serious firewall protection and security configuration. And when enough mums and dads start emailng cute little Linux executables around, well...

Re:They *obviously* have no idea

[VirtualWolf]

How? I can't speak for Linux, but Mac OS X comes out-of-box with no services enabled.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Simon (S2)]

At first he was a bit bored because he had to learn some new things (for example the "Applications" menu is on the top left, and not on the bottom)

Just because that's the default position doesn't mean that you have to leave the menu there.

I know, but I wanted him to use the default Gnome/Ubuntu setup. I didn't want him to have a Windowized Linux. But a real Linux. So he notices it's something different, that works different. And is better. Not a cheap copy of Windows.

Another stupid suggestion from Which?

[ErroneousBee]

I was with them till I saw this.
We'd also like to see inbuilt antivirus software in all operating systems -- the tested operating systems don't currently include a virus checker:

Why does linux and mac need a virus checker? There are perhaps a couple of viruses for each, and they dont exactly propogate easily.

The Uk Which? magazine recently did a review of anti-spam software, yet they totally ignored the best solution which is to use a filtering ISP like demon or Gmail.

Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any posts stupider than the ones claiming that linux is not ready because something doesn't work on someones system?

Seriously, you had trouble with your selfcompiled firefox. Booh fscking hoo, that's really gonna scare Joe User away as Joe User sure has the habit of building stuff from source.

And how on earth did you have problems getting Java to work with firefox after running linux for 5 years now? Seriously, I haven't been running linux for that long, but with any of the distributions I installed lately there was no problem whatsoever, so please enlighten us about the distribution you are running and how you tried to set up firefox and java, I'd really be interested in learning how you did it.

And your comments about XP. As someone who's regularly charged with fixing people's computers I know one thing for sure, contrary to your claim XP does not just work, it simply doesn't and that's especially true for Joe Users who don't have a clue about computers.

Seriously, I think there a lot of issues that can and should be improved with linux on the desktop, but posts like yours are simply stupid and not the least enlightening.

Re:Sigh

[Chordonblue]

I wouldn't call his post 'stupid'. Here's why:

What if there's no binary distribution for a given program in Linux? Right! You compile it. Don't lie and say this isn't a common occurance - it is, and users who would like to install new software in Linux had better get used to the 'make' command.

Why do you question the man when he says he had problems with his Java install? More importantly, why does this sort of thing surprise you? It seems to me that I've had my own share of headaches with dependancies and versioning. He was giving an example of the sort of thing that can happen in the Linux world. Sorry, but nothing beats simplicity like 'Installshield' and a registry.

Now, if it weren't for the spyware and the viruses, XP would work just fine. Whether the flaw in XP is due to man years of concentrated hacking or poor design I'll leave up to you.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

So you wouldn't call his post stupid because of an entirely different issue not brought up by the OP? Wow.

As I already said, I'd readily agree that there are areas where linux needs to improve and installing packages that are not part of the distribution is certainly one of them, however most of the time everything a normal user needs is available, so I don't think the problem is that severe.

And I didn't question his java problems, but recounting individual problems one runs into doesn't really say a lot about the state of linux on the desktop, especially if these problems involve things that other never had any problem with and if the OP doesn't tell us what distribution he is running, how he installed firefox, etc.

my favorite line

[commodoresloat]

"This report is free for a short time."

Like somebody is going to pay to read this pointless thing after that time is up? What garbage. Windows beats OSX because it has better help files? Did they consider which OS requires you to use help files less often? OSX is bad because there is no LiveCD? Why would you want one? OSX is bad because iChat only connects to AIM?? How is this relevant to the OS? Mandrake is bad because you have to install games separately? Windows help is better because "lots of people use it"?? No wonder I stopped RTFAs...

iMovie is a movie player?

[brokenvoice]

Jeezus, how seriously can you take a review that can't tell the difference between a movie player (Quicktime) and a consumer-grade video editing application (iMovie)?

iDVD isn't a DVD writer, it's a DVD authoring app. Finder burns data DVDs directly.

And what is Microsoft Write (productivity/office software column)? The last time I used XP it was Wordpad and Notepad.

Credibility? What credibility?

Re:iMovie is a movie player?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is Microsoft Write

Try typing "write" in the Start/Run box.
You'll be surprised.

- Peder

Re:iMovie is a movie player?

[natd]

I pstopped reading at that point. I think it was another article written from the authors general knowledge of the platforms. Ie, he's glanced at a Mac and knows that they include 'iMovie' and 'iDVD'

Re:iMovie is a movie player?

[brokenvoice]

Chortle, perhaps you plebs use Windows. Some of us want better.

Installers are done

[Anonymous Coward]

at least as far as windows-type installation is done. See the Loki installer used in, for example, UT2K, Rune ....

Use that and you're sorted.

No commercial entity has an installer that is only RPM. Even OOo uses a packaged installer.

Re:Installers are done

[demon_2k]

That can be a good thing and a bad thing.

Good: It's the sort of point and click thing we're walking about. It also allows the entity to put their own spin adding a feel related to the product to the installer.

Bad: That installer (in my experience) totally ignores the package program. Almost as if you have compiled the program yourself. And I'm yet to figure out how to remove a program installed with such a installer.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[say]

You haven't tried a distribution except Slack for the last ten years, have you? Synaptic is far easier to use than ANY Windows .xpi package has ever been. And it resolves dependencies without asking for permission.

Xandros

[Anonymous Coward]

Xandros Desktop Version 3 Deluxe Edition is out these days and costs only $89. The standard ed is $49. Home users wouldn't want anything more than that from Xandros.

Installation is ridiculously simple, and DVD support is full. And the browser is Konqueror.

It's probably too limiting for most /. Linux users - they have custom libs and as such require you get pretty much all software through their GUI downloader update thing, and there's not a huge selection there. But for Mom and Dad that just want to browse the net, send e-mail, and do word processing, it's more than enough. /not a Xandros employee, just too lazy to make an account ATM...

Installation again, alas

[Nice2Cats]

(...) installing new software could pose some problems for those who aren't really computer savvy

This is the most murderous aspect of Microsoft's monopoly: You don't have to install the OS, it is already on the machine. As anybody who has had to install Windows from scratch knows, if you start off with a virgin machine, and all things are equal, running SuSE off a DVD is a lot nicer and easier that juggling all those driver CDs for Windows.

But since Apple is going to take over the world, this discussion is purely academic anyway.

I call bullshit! Linux ain't ready

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Linux is NOT ready for the desktop. It's not even close. Here's why:

1) There is 1 current desktop version of Windows (XP) and one current version of MacOS (X). There are about 400 current Linux distros, each with varied admin commands etc. Mums and Dads don't need to learn it 400 different ways. They need 1 simple set of commands - a standard way of doing things.

2) Like it or not even mums and dads will want to run more than email, a web browser, and solitaire. Not much more but at the very least an office suite. None of the current Linux offerings stand up for opening the defacto standard MS Office documents. They mangle formatting, and aren't feature rich. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't use MS Office or is fooling themselves.

3) There is a hell of a lot more software written for Windows/Mac and targetted towards mums and dads. Games are also written for windows/mac first and Linux as an afterthought. There'd have to be a significant shift in that self-feeding loop (write for masses = windows, want software written for the masses, use windows) before things change.

4) People need to get off their fucking high horses and stop being eliteist pricks in the Linux solution. RTFM is not an acceptable support policy. Not everyone wants to know a lot about computers just so they can use them to get things done. Linux users and advocates need to learn to be helpful and get some social skills.

5) ...which means writing simple standard software for basic operation of the computer that doesn't require a computer science degree, a thick manual and hours trawling the net for esoteric comp sci nerd bullshit so they can get their simple bit of hardware to work, or get an X-Windows problem sorted. Not everyone has the basic comp. sci knowledge. Not everyone wants it. Mums and dads don't want to know about fsck for fuck sake. With Windows, right or wrong, they ignore it till their machine goes bung. Make Linux much easier to manage. Give it a decent simple help system. (man and info suck donkey dick from a mum and dad perspective).

You know what though I'm tired of being modded down as a troll when I'm not trolling at all, so fuck it I'm posting as AC. How about instead of pissfarting about modding me down, defending the Holy OS and calling me troll for these points you spend the time making Linux a better system and addressing the issues. If you build it they will come!!!!

Re:I call bullshit! Linux ain't ready

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Linux is strictly for hobbyists and diehard masochists. It's nowhere near Mac or Windows in usability.

Re:I call bullshit! Linux ain't ready

[mangu]

There is 1 current desktop version of Windows (XP) and one current version of MacOS (X). There are about 400 current Linux distros,

And how many different hardware devices are there? Like it or not, mums and dads must choose between more than 400 different cameras, printers, scanners, etc.

None of the current Linux offerings stand up for opening the defacto standard MS Office documents. They mangle formatting, and aren't feature rich.

Ever heard of OpenOffice? That "feature richness" is actually the bane of MS-Office. I have even read interviews by senior Microsoft marketing people decrying that. They admit MS-Office could be much easier to use if they weren't forced by marketing pressures (read: reviews in trade magazines) to always add more and more features

RTFM is not an acceptable support policy.

Where, exactly, have you ever got an "RTFM" answer for a support request? The only people who ever mention that acronym are Microsoft zealots spreading FUD, like you. In my experience, if you make a question to any Linux support group, you'll always get a polite and useful answer.

writing simple standard software for basic operation of the computer that doesn't require a computer science degree

If you do an install in a consumer-oriented Linux distro, like Mandrake for instance, you'll automatically get a graphic UI that's just as simple and intuitive for mum and dad to use as the one in XP. OTOH, you can use the extra power in Linux if you know how to. Even if you *do* have a computer science degree, you'll find it much easier to solve the more difficult problems by fiddling with the plain text Linux configuration files in /etc, rather than messing with the ultra confuse and illogical binary registry files in the Microsoft distros.

Re:I call bullshit! Linux ain't ready

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother, who is a farmer, switched to linux because "Windows takes too much time and I'm sick of being told I need new 'RAM', whatever that is". Pretty funny:)

She's a busy woman, though at first I didn't know what she meant.

I like windows and haven't tried Linux, but I have to agree with her. Since a local PC shop person installed linux on her machine she hardly spends any time complaining about the cost of upgrades and searching for software in google. with Ubuntu Linux (what the people installed) everything seems to be on the CD for general purpose (Just Works) computing. For this reason I'm thinking about checking it out and just keep Windows for the games.

Re:I call bullshit! Linux ain't ready

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother, who is a farmer, switched to linux because "Windows takes too much time and I'm sick of being told I need new 'RAM', whatever that is". Pretty funny:)

Get a clue dude. She didn't switch operating systems nearly so much as she changed software support people. Sounds like this guy is just not trying to milk her for every cent. She probably does less with the computer now, and needs more support but because she's not being asked to fork out for more memory (which she doesn't understand) and only pays to have admin work (tangible problems solved) sees the service as worthwhile.

Re:I call bullshit! Linux ain't ready

[neonmagic]

1) Wrong - is your average user going to go out and try all 400 distros? I think not. They'll settle for one of the "big names" after doing a rough appraisal of what's on offer. Do you see people going out and test driving all 200 cars on the market? Nope, and it's for the same reason that your first comment is wrong. 2) Have you NOT heard of OpenOffice? It handles Microsoft word and excel documents very well, powerpoint less so. But how many mom & dads will want to use powerpoint on a regular basis, or will be "power users". Not many I imagine. The more advanced features that Microsoft Word and Excel offer are generally used within an office environment, by professionals, for specialist tasks. Every day usage for normal word processing, for the average, normal user is fine with OpenOffice. 3) This is true, but this is not linuxs' fault, but is the fault of the software developer being lazy and not porting the software to Linux. It's the old chicken and egg thing. Software developers won't develop cos they say there aren't enough users on the Linux platform, but the Linux platform won't grow in this area till the software applications are availab.e. It not might help that Microsoft actively encourages software developers to only develop for the Windows platform. 4) I don't know where you're getting this from, but I haven't seen a lot of RTFM to be honest. I've seen a bit, but it's not a large percentage of it occurring, and most Linux users are extremely friendly and helpful. You're taking an extremely small, and rare percentage of things and making a molehill into a mountain. 5) I haven't seen a Linux distro come with a thick manual for a while. Suse does it still, but they're about the only one. Pretty much all documentation is in electronic format and easily searchable. As to the hour(s) trawling the net for comp. sci nerd bullshit as you put it, that's to a large bit over the top. To do the basic PC usage thing these days is a no brainer with Linux. Quote: "With Windows, right or wrong, they ignore it till their machine goes bung." This is correct, and it's the one big downfall of Windows - it dumbs it down to appeal to ordinary, non technical folk who fuck their own PCs up very quickly, and then are conduits to viruses, spyware and adware, that is then spread to other computers across the net. man pages are atrocious, i'll agree with you there. They need to be completely and utterly re-written. I'd say you've been modded down previously because your comments are incorrect in many areas. I personally couldn't be bothered modding down 'trolls' like yourself, because it doesn't stop you posting. Of course, beating you in a good argument is much more constructive and fun ;-) Dave

took the plunge.

[oldwolf13]

I recently dived back into the *nix world (altho I always had shells), by installing fedora core 3 on my laptop.

I had spent a couple years using mainly windows as my OS, but when my laptop needed a reinstall, I decided to try linux again.

Let me say that I have hated redhat for years, and to me, mandrake was no better. I was a FreeBSD guy, and if it was linux I was using, it had to be slackware.

The reason I tried fedora core 3 is because i'd heard good things about it.

I wanted to see how far linux had progressed on the laptop side of things... I had slackware running on my old pentium 200 mmx machine with xfce back in the day, but alot of the configuring I had to do by hand.

So I tried this on my Pentium 4 2.4GHz, 448MB, 40 gig HDD widescreen laptop.
I must say I was amazed at how nicely it all came together once i had installed... the only things I had to do was add "1280x800" to my xorg.conf file (for widescreen), and ad another IP to eth0 to access the LAN. Everything else "just worked" for the hardware... and was up on the net in no time.

The documentation to get the few things I needed running was excellent, and didn't spend hours googling for ways to play dvds and mp3s (which I wish fedora had by default.. stupid patents)

Now I'll make a long story short, and tell you that I would have NO PROBLEM recommending this to a friend or family member who was not adept in computers, and just wanted email, music, web, video...etc from their comp.

The problem with installing programs is still a negative, yet if it were say MY DAD.. I'd probably have set it up for him anyways, and wouldn't mind installing the VERY odd program he'd want installed via ssh or vnc.

There are only two things which I think FC3 messed up with (besides the dvd/mp3 issue): First is their choice of xcdroast for a cd recording application. It didn't work from the start on my laptop, due to not having SCSI emulation compiled into the kernel. I fixed this easily by using k3b, which I prefer anyways.

Second thing is their remote desktop application, which was ok for vnc (altho I switched to TSClient), but did not work for my Windows XP Pro SP2 box... complained about the rdesktop version I had. I used rdesktop at the command line and it worked no probs.

Even with these things, linux is a great desktop replacement for windows as long as the person involved is not a gamer.

Re:took the plunge.

[althalus1969]

Wireless LAN working out-of-the-box?
Does Bluetooth work? How about USB-to-Bluetooth, does that work right away?
You know what, my DVD-Burner came with Pinnacle Instant-DVD and the full Nero suit. Now that is Software usable for CD/DVD burning. I can even let the Software do the recoding and it's a no brainer.
I don't think Linux is anywhere near this level of sophistication, and won't be for a long time to come.
But, hey, don't flame me, i'm a Sysadmin and besides FreeBSD i use Linux for my server boxes.

Re:took the plunge.

[BenjyD]

FC3 includes K3b, a far superior CD burning UI to Nero IMHO. I'm not sure why the GP didn't use that.

Most distros will set up wireless LAN out of the box these days, apart from those cards which require ndiswrapper. But then, installing the netgear wg311 drivers on my win2k system caused it to crash and rendered windows unbootable.

Re:took the plunge.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to do was add "1280x800" to my xorg.conf file (for widescreen), and ad another IP to eth0 to access the LAN

The problem with installing programs is still a negative

their remote desktop application, which was ok for vnc (altho I switched to TSClient), but did not work for my Windows XP Pro SP2 box... complained about the rdesktop version I had. I used rdesktop at the command line

Now I'll make a long story short, and tell you that I would have NO PROBLEM recommending this to a friend or family member who was not adept in computers, and just wanted email, music, web, video...etc from their comp.

Either you're a BOFH or just hate people in general.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[beelsebob]

Is ubuntu ready? No - the point is that *you* installed it... *you* set it up... a geek was needed to get this beast working smoothly, and that shouldn't be the case. It may work wonderfully now, because you've set it up and got everything where they expect them to be, but what would have happened if you'd handed them the install CDs and said get on with it? (ok, other than your gran telling you she wasn't going to bother because it's too confusing to put a CD in the drive ;) )

Read my OS X vs Linux RAP

[Anonymous Coward]

Knock knock who's there ? It's Tux
Whoa hold on you aint installing THAT shit on MY box
A crate of junk you put together yourself,
Wasting your life compilin' da ELFs

Now every distro is just a big mess
'Drake, Suse, Red hat ? ain't no progress
5 text editiors, 6 media players,
7 terminal apps later an' they call me a hater?

They say the Penguin has 1000s of apps,
And installing em all is where it's at !
Sluggish ass desktops, layers of bloat,
To draw a motherf*ckin' window on your screen that floats

KDE and Gnome are so motherf*cking slow,
Double click an' 5 seconds later still no go
So now you wanna run a lightweight gui
But don't be thinkin' y'all gonna be loopy
'cause ice, blackbox and twm
Are more like something from way back when
Computers were the size of living rooms
And Unix was the king of the dust and gloom

One problem is X Windows
from a prehistoric age, man it really blows!
It has no place on the desktop
Sooner it's is gone, sooner Linux stops being a flop

Then we haven't even talked stability
No sound, no floppy just kernel panic city
And then there's the Linux classic to mention
The Spontaneous Self Rebooting invention!
Buy yo that's if you even manage to install,
Beyond messed up X11 drivers 'an all
******(Chorus here don't know what yet...)******

Well I tried to open GIMP but nothing's working,
Please Linux stick to web serving!
KDE ? looks like Windows 98
Oh and KWrite, Konqueror, and Kate
KSpread, Ksim, Konsole and Kedit
Kaint Kno Kuse Kcause they all Ksuck there I Ksaid it!

And lets not talk about that other one
With da worlds slowest ass file browser listen son
Shall we make something even worse than KDE ?
Sure I know lets call it G-N-O-M-E !
Y'see thats why A double P - L - E's GUI
Which runs on F-R double E motherf*ckin' B - S - D
Kicks the L - I - N -U - X D - E catastrophe
Straight into a G - U - I inferiority!

So baby take your vi, I'll take my pico
You take your emacs, I'll take my BBEdit so,
You take your X11, While I be in my Aqua heaven
You will still be rpm an' sudo make install again!

In fact take your KDM, rterm and XClock,
I'll take my Finder with drag and drop
Heck you know what ? I'll even take the Dock!
I'll even take Sherlock!! (over that Linux flop)

Sure it don't cost no money, But shit that Linux aint funny
It's so old, crusty, dark and dusty, That only geeks wanna run it
And it's hell with it's 5 minute booting,
Compared to OS X's 10 seconds then login
It's nothin' but a motherf*cking joke
Still 20 years away from System 8.0
And compared to magic Mac OS X
Linux may as well just start again
And you see that's why Mac users,
Say Linux what's that, something for losers?

Re:Read my OS X vs Linux RAP

[neonmagic]

Gee, Don't give up your day job. I haven't seen any of the bloat, lack of apps, or slowness in kde, gnome that you're reporting. Most likely you fucked up installing it due to stupidity. BTW i've used Apple OS X, hell, I used to work for Apple providing support to dimwits like yourself. It's nice, but it's not perfect. And it's not a helluva lot better than Gnome or KDE (I do agree that it is better, but not by a lot like you're saying). As to stability - wow. I haven't seen a kernel panic in nearly 8 years of using Linux. I've found Linux to be a lot more stable than Windows, and i'd say even OS X. I had 3 kernel panics in 10 months at Apple - that's surely worse than none in 8 years by my statistics. As to BSD - Apple chose that because it could use it, lounge on other peoples hard work, and not have to contribute back to the community, which the BSD license allows. The GPL is a wee bit different (Apple did actually consider the Linux kernel but didn't like the GPL, surprise, surprise). As to 5 minutes booting, that's a load of bollocks. And OS X doesn't boot in ten seconds, at least not on my PowerBook G4 1ghz machine - more like 30 seconds from start to login screen. This is a default install of Panther, upgraded to 10.3.4 with a single 3rd party applications on it. OS X is pretty good, I like it, but I don't go trashing it cos I prefer Linux. Oh, and your poetry REALLY sucks. Take some lessons. Please. Dave

Re:Read my OS X vs Linux RAP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo, some haters say dat dis shit ain't funny
But you know I ain't never seen no Linux honeyz
So while I chillin wid da ladeez in ma Apple crib
You masturbatin' in da basement wid yo Linux rig

So, sure, go ahead an say dat Linux rocks
When out in da real world we know dat it sucks
Ugly-ass interface, usability from Hell
But maybe - just maybe - you can fool yo'self.

But yo cain't fool da ladeez dat know where it's at
Drag an' drop don't work? What da fuck's wid dat?
Spend a half hour compilin' shit just to write a letter?
You gots ta be foolin - you gots ta know better.

When ma girl plugz in her iPod it betta work
Or I'm the one that's gonna be lookin' a jerk
So while you out typing dat dot-slash-configure
I'm out hangin' wid ma bitchiz an' niggaz.

So just let me reiterate
You knows you ain't nuthin' so you overcompensate
You monitor-tanned pussy Linux idealoguez
Stay da fuck away from me an ma Apple doggz.

Word.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[apanap]

Funny, this is what I get when I run "man find" at work:

from@spacetec from $ man find
Formatting page, please wait...
/usr/bin/gtbl: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
groff: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Now THAT was helpful...

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not entirely fair, is it?
Try to hand a WinXP install CD to a non-geek and watch him suffer.

While I'd agree that windows being bad is no excuse for linux in general being bad also I'd simply dispute the fact that installing linux is that hard for non-geeks. Ubuntu is in fact a good example for this. Granted, it doesn't come with a nice looking graphical installer, but the install is pretty straight forward and all you have to do is click yes a few times and you'll end up with a working system.

The only OS that couldn't open a Excel document..

[Anonymous Coward]

.was F_____g Windows XP!

from the article:
Windows XP was the only operating system that couldn't recognise and open an imported Excel file -- the included office software is very basic so you need to install Microsoft Office or another more advanced program.

That's hilarious stuff. Microsoft didn't even provide functionality for their own file format.

Lets talk about user freindly,
In order for Microsoft's offering to open a Excell file you have to either go to www.openoffice.org and download and install a few files, or get up off your lazy ass, run down to the store AGAIN. Spend another 130-300 dollars on MORE Microsoft software in order to do what OS X and Linux can do by default.

That's just funny.

Oh, beware Microsoft! From my mom's basement I stab at thee!

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Dad's computer? That's nice, and I'm sincerely glad for your dad, but having seen a great deal of hype and discussion about how Linux is going to push Windows off the desktop I see a problem with the whole subject...

No-one's actually defined who's desktop they want to aim at.

Now, if it's the corporate desktop then distributions should concentrate on a small number of bullet-proof applications included on the CD's. They should be set up so that they're designed to be "plug-and-play" when it comes to setting them up for a specific task and they should only allow the admin to change the look and feel etc. After all, it's an interchangeable office tool like a desklamp. Or it should be.

If it's the desktop of Aunty May then they should target with a few, easily used and bullet proof set of applications and a desktop which is very simple to use and only does a few things but does them extremely well. Spoiler alert -- Charlie, the villain, is actually David's (Robert DeNiro's) split personality.

If the desktop is for the computer hobbyist then they need a core set of programs which are bullet proof and a desktop which is customisable etc. In addition to this a lot of optional toys should be available.

Now, which of these "desktops" do you want to conquer?

In my opinion, for the last two, Apple have got the right mix with MacOS X, so Linux distributions could do worse than following Apple's ideas on combing novice usability with UNIX nutter complexity.

No operating system I've seen does the "desklamp" type interchangable desktop system all that well other than maybe Sun's SunRays and other thin clients, but they rely upon server CPU to run the applications.

SuSE 9.1 Personal?

[Deternal]

I just checked and confirmed on the SuSE site that the up to date version is 9.2 Professional.
The personal distribution has been dropped.

I suppose the idea is that if people only need the personal part buy NLD or SUN JDS [both are based on SuSE].

Some people mentioned quirks in SuSE - what is worth noting as that SuSE Professional is both LSB and UnitedLinux compliant - the professional version isnt officially UL compliant (because SuSE would have to pay the UL group to put the logo on, and the 1st cd would have to be the same as in the server releases - however for all intent and purposes the dir structure and everything else is the same). This means that hardware vendors and proprietary software vendors actually check if their hard-/software works on UL and thus SuSE.

Regarding the article, if SuSE isn't the newest then a previous release of the other systems should've been tested for fairness, SuSE 9.2 is different then 9.1 - 9.0 and 9.1 are also a good bit apart.

One thing worth mentioning about SuSE is that if you want the newer versions of packages you will either have to buy the upgrades or download manually since to a certain point SuSE YOU does not give you these updates - for example for SuSE 9.1 the newest version of Mozilla suite is 1.6 and KDE is at 3.2.

I hope this gets better in the future though with the corporate backing Novell gives SuSE now.

Re:SuSE 9.1 Personal?

[kkirk007]

The review looks like it was done last October, just before 9.2 came out.

I bought 9.1 Personal, and 9.2 Professional, and honestly I'm a little sad to see the Personal version go.
It was simple, clean, only one CD, and did most everything I needed just fine.

Also, I don't really see a lot of difference between 9.1 and 9.2. Nothing revolutionary, anyway.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[beelsebob]

I wasn't saying that it was easier with Windows... Try handing a non geek a Mac OS X install CD and watch them be greeted by a nice shiny screen, and get on with setting it up.

Strange article

[dustmite]

"Windows XP had excellent help files"

WTF? Windows XP help is about as useful a brick in solving problems. It's of the "Did you check that the printer is turned on? Yes? Oh sorry we can't help you" variety.

I'm not sure why Linux would need a built-in anti-virus. Microsoft seem to have (intentionally or not) convinced 99% of the world that it's perfectly normal for an operating system to have hundreds of thousands of viruses, rather than mostly being due to design flaws. (Some could also argue that enabling the firewall by default should not be necessary if software was actually designed properly i.e. built securely, then we could actually use all those cool networking features that we now just, well, turn off, because we know some script kiddie's gonna exploit a bug in 'em.)

I have to agree the Linux community 'screwed up' a bit when it comes to standardising on package management. I mean, this has been a known problem for years. It's become like the weather: everyone talks about it but nobody does anything about it. Making it easy to install apps in a way that works across all of the major distros will go a long way. Making an "installer creator" that creates such installation packages would also help developers create easily installable software that runs on multiple distros, so that developers don't have to worry about manually building and testing installers on many platforms. (Yes I know about "configure", but somehow I don't think asking Gran to compile the source code for apps is the 'right solution').

Re:Strange article

[fr0dicus]

"Windows XP had excellent help files"

WTF? Windows XP help is about as useful a brick in solving problems. It's of the "Did you check that the printer is turned on? Yes? Oh sorry we can't help you" variety.

Agreed, I was confused when they said that OS X had poorer help files, because I've found them to be very useful, and one of the things I use to advocate OS X.

Re:Strange article

[zootm]

WTF? Windows XP help is about as useful a brick in solving problems. It's of the "Did you check that the printer is turned on? Yes? Oh sorry we can't help you" variety.

99% of the time, these will fix the problem that the users that this article was written for are experiencing.

Don't underestimate the number of difficulties that non-technical users find, particularly if they choose to skip the instructions at first.

objectivity and impartiality

[Anonymous Coward]

your post brings up a good point, but i think the real question is:

are there any real objective and impartial 3rd parties that review or report on anything, ever?

it's a fact of life that most people competent to review items in a product class are going to be experts of some sort with products of that class, with all the built up preferences and biases that come with being an expert.

i've come to the point where i no longer look for objectivity, because it doesn't exist -- just add new information into a corpus of prior knowledge, along with whatever inherent slant it has, and base personal reasoning on that. objectivity and impartiality are best simulated with aggregation. i don't fell i can assume someone else is even capable of impartiality, and -- spoiler alert -- after maggie (hilary swank) is rendered quadriplegic in a fight, frankie (clint eastwood) hesitates before agreeing to help her commit suicide.

it's like the news media. i could watch cnn, or fox news, or local news, and adjust whatever they say to normalize what whichever one says based on what i know of their inherent proclivities. I could watch all of them, but that's not feasible from a time standpoint, so i take the digest form : news.google.com. Not because it's new and flashy, but because it provides aggregation. I can scan the headlines and merge them into a global sense of the prevailing attitude towards a story. I can see which outlets are sensationalizing (or alternatively, downplaying) a story, or who's not covering it at all, with a quick scan. I can then choose to read the stories from any perspective i choose (which is often not necessarily my own) because i can trivially determine which sources have what perspectives.

To me, it's the best possible feature of the www -- true impartiality of reporting because the web crawler doesn't give a shit what the inherent slant is, just what words are in the document.

as for benchmarks, they're often only marginally above statistics on the scale of truth (i.e. somewhere south of 'damn lies'), so they're *really* only useful taken as a broad average of many, many different testers and conditions.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[althalus1969]

>>And it resolves dependencies without asking for permission.
Yeah, right, resolving dependencies under Windows is a major bitch, I tell you.

Too much choice

[Digital Pizza]

Expecting "mums and dads" to do ./configure; make; make install is really out of touch with reality.

'Mums and dads" want to go to Target, pick up Hallmark Card Studio, and Blues Clues for the kids, pop in the CD when they get home and have it all install and work automatically. They can get that with Windows.

There's too much choice in the Linux world for "mums and dads" to deal with: which distro, which user interface? People don't like choice, unless is about a topic they're really interested in. And "mums and dads" aren't interested in their computer's OS; they just want things to work. You pick out a name-brand PC (depends on which store you go to and what the salesman tells you) with Windows XP Home on it; you know that you can pick up any game or program and it'll just work, no major decision-making required.

Back when the choice included IBM PC, Macintosh, Apple ][, Commodore 64, Atari, I knew a LOT of people who complained that there were too many kinds to choose from. Why, oh why couldn't there be just ONE type of computer that'll run any program I buy? Now they've got what they wanted and they're happy, even with the virus/spyware problems. Linux, however, is all about choice.

Re:Too much choice

[MikeBabcock]

Actually, moms and dads will do what you tell them they need to do -- just don't expect them to understand.

As long as it fits on a sticky-note, its cool.

I have customers that know the most obscure DOS strings for their 1991 era equipment they don't want to replace. They know nothing about computers or DOS, but they know all the commands they've been given over the years -- and they don't want Windows because its different.

Re:Too much choice

[ookaze]

No Linux distro expects "mums and dads" to do .configure .... Actually, it is DISCOURAGED.

With your "Windows-is-perfect-centric-biased" view, without even noticing it, you bypass all the real problems with the Windows model.
What is Hallmark Card Studio ? What is Blues Clues ? Why "choose" these apps ? Isn't there a lot of choice of these types of software ?
How "mums and dads" even got aware of these softs ? They have to actually leave their house to get the software ? How much does it cost ?
Who will install this (newbies are afraid of any dialog) ? Assuming it will install, will it work ? You say it will, nothing is less sure. Even games come with RELEASE NOTES full of identified problems !!!
They can get all these problems. Worse, they do, assuming the countless hours I lost helping people on this OS.

Contrast this with a Linux distro : no need to leave house, everything is there in the distro, nothing to pay, the description is there with a search button to find what you need. Documentation ? Mandrake comes with at least one full manual in each box, with PDF versions on the net http://www1.mandrakelinux.com/docs/Outputs/ !!! Installation of software is a breeze.

I am european (french actually). I see the only thing Windows has left for it, is that it is ubiquitous. USA people do not see it, but there are A LOT of problems due to internationalisation (i18n) and localization (l10n) in Windows, that are properly dealt with in Linux (do not know OSX). I see that americans just forget these problems, when justifying grave design choices in Windows (like no difference between different case of characters). And I see that when Windows comes out on top in a comparison, that is because the comparaison is Windows centric.

Re:Too much choice

[Digital Pizza]

With your "Windows-is-perfect-centric-biased" view
If you think I'm actually promoting Windows, you've really misinterpreted my comment.

Perhaps being european you may not be not aware of these brands, but Hallmark is a huge greeting card company, and Hallmark Card Studio lets people make their own greeting cards. Nothing like this exists for Linux that I'm aware of, and certainly not with the Hallmark brand name. Just to be perfectly clear, I personally don't care about the Hallmark brand name, but I'm not a typical end user.

"Blue's Clues" is a popular kid's TV show, and there are a lot of Blues Clues educational titles available, but certainly not for Linux. I know that there are educational programs available for Linux, but they don't have the licensed characters that kids want to see, and the ones I've played with are not nearly as featured or polished.

Those, of course, were just a couple of examples.

No argument that the major distros come with a lot of stuff, but not necessarily all the stuff that regular users want to have.

In another comment someone made the point that you have to give people what they want, and I don't think most regular people want (for example) 10 text editors.

Linux is awesome for people like me (and probably you) who like to toy around with their system, write code, and generally hack. We are not typical.

Re:Too much choice

[Lachek]

Mums and dads seemed capable of doing it when the instructions were:

1. Insert floppy in floppy drive
2. Click on "Start"
3. Click on "Run"
4. Type "A:\SETUP.EXE"
5. Follow the instructions on the screen

Or even worse, when software came on CD and wouldn't autorun - then they had to figure out which drive letter represented their CD-ROM drive!!

Yet they seemed capable of doing it, back then. What has changed, exactly? Are forward-slashes somehow harder to understand than backslashes?

Re:Too much choice

[Digital Pizza]

People (in general) are getting lazier from being spoiled. Companies compete to provide their customers instant gratification, and people have come to expect it.

People are still capable of using the "run" menu option if the instructions tell them what to do, but they won't be happy about it. And the example you gave is still a lot easier for non-computer-types than what usually has to be done in order to install software on Linux that didn't already come with the distro, or as part of an online update.

I know a lot of people who aren't into computers all that much, but need to deal with them; I've seen this firsthand. They don't care how it works, as long as it does.

Re:Too much choice

[Lachek]

I agree in general, that people have been spoiled by the "user-friendliness" of just inserting a CD and clicking Next->Next->Next, but to claim that it's completely out of line to request that a user types "./configure && make && make install" to install a piece of software they downloaded off the 'net - well, if that is true, we may as well curl up and die as a species IMHO.

It is well within the average user's capability to follow these steps, and I must say that most times I have installed a common, well-documented, mature piece of software that I wanted a default configuration of, it was this easy. Alpha- and beta- software, or weird kernel modules, or anything written by ATI - well, that's a different story, but look at it from a Windows perspective. Would the people who can't manage to type "./configure && make && make install" be the types to try to install this type of software anyway, on Windows or Linux?

Desktop

[t_allardyce]

I think we can conclude that a good desktop Linux distro needs to look and feel exactly like windows from the start - that means a window manager that works the same way, no extras like multiple desktops etc - extras should be turned on afterwards. absolutely every little config file needs a gui front-end, or at least every config option that windows has, all software needs to be pre-built and just work, and if that means dirty directories full of copies of old libraries and statically compiled programs and not optimising for the current system then so be it. Oh and no bloated KDE, this magic distro needs to be able to run on 128MB of ram on a 333Mhz Celeron and actually be usable like windows.

As much as I hate windows and as useless as it is for any server work or programming, its still the absolute best _desktop_ OS, and the security issues are overrated - use a firewall and keep reasonably patched, and obviously don't use IE or Outlook and you will never have a problem, its not for mission critical use its for people typing, doing spreadsheets and playing games.

Re:Desktop

[PigleT]

Ha! Ha! Ha!

For goodness' sake, a good desktop is one that does what you want without getting in the way. I've journeyed around, had my spell of being a windows freak, had a very long GNU/Linux period - using a multitude of desktop environments, and now I'm using OS X out of preference.

A *good* *platform* either
a) is set up perfectly to work just out the box
b) presents much choice between reliable components, so you can specify things exactly the way you want them to be.

And changing between primary environments is a week's occasional thought, not a major hassle.

Re:Desktop

[Chordonblue]

"...use a firewall and keep reasonably patched, and obviously don't use IE or Outlook and you will never have a problem..."

And yes, you'd know this because...? You're a computer guy. Your average person out there doesn't know, doesn't want to know, doesn't want to tweak things to get them to 'work'.

You can't slam the folks out there who are clueless. If the estimates are correct they are in good company - over 80% of the machines out there are infected with spyware. And then you have children using XP - what a nightmare this is!

You are right that XP can be 'patched up', but it requires vigilence to keep dodging the bullet - even Firefox needs updates from time to time.

Re:Desktop

[t_allardyce]

Not really, firefox and thunderbird practically look and feel like IE and Outlook, all it takes is to click download and follow the installer, there's no special configuration or tweaking needed, personally i like to configure it nicely and use a few extensions but that's not needed to make it work like IE. I don't use an external firewall, I use Sygates free personal firewall, again, download and it practically installs itself and just asks you from time to time if you want to give new programs permission to use the net. Windows update occasionally tells you it has something to install and you clickety click and wait for it to restart (yes i know, *nix would just let me switch run levels). In actual fact the first two things are software issues, not part of the OS, I use win2k but i hear XP has some basic firewall. Computer manufacturers should just tailor windows with these few things already there.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you hand them the Windows install CD (and program install CDs, too) and tell them to get on with it?

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your employer should consider employing a competent sysadmin who knows what all those funny looking "compat" RPMs are.

objectivity and impartiality

[Anonymous Coward]

your post brings up a good point, but i think the real question is:

are there any real objective and impartial 3rd parties that review or report on anything, ever?

it's a fact of life that most people competent to review items in a product class are going to be experts of some sort with products of that class, with all the built up preferences and biases that come with being an expert.

i've come to the point where i no longer look for objectivity, because it doesn't exist -- just add new information into a corpus of prior knowledge, along with whatever inherent slant it has, and base personal reasoning on that. objectivity and impartiality are best simulated with aggregation. i don't fell i can assume someone else is even capable of impartiality, and -- spoiler alert -- charlie, the villain, is actually david's (robert deniro's) split personality.

it's like the news media. i could watch cnn, or fox news, or local news, and adjust whatever they say to normalize what whichever one says based on what i know of their inherent proclivities. I could watch all of them, but that's not feasible from a time standpoint, so i take the digest form : news.google.com. Not because it's new and flashy, but because it provides aggregation. I can scan the headlines and merge them into a global sense of the prevailing attitude towards a story. I can see which outlets are sensationalizing (or alternatively, downplaying) a story, or who's not covering it at all, with a quick scan. I can then choose to read the stories from any perspective i choose (which is often not necessarily my own) because i can trivially determine which sources have what perspectives.

To me, it's the best possible feature of the www -- true impartiality of reporting because the web crawler doesn't give a shit what the inherent slant is, just what words are in the document.

as for benchmarks, they're often only marginally above statistics on the scale of truth (i.e. somewhere south of 'damn lies'), so they're *really* only useful taken as a broad average of many, many different testers and conditions.

Man is very hip

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, hippy, anyway:

"Man, what do I need to do now!"

maybe for the young 'uns, it's more californian

"It's like, wow, man".

Linux is ready for the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

just that some people are not ready for Linux...

stupid people should not be allowed to breed, then by the time the next generation matures Linux will be ready for the desktop...

FreeBSD?

[Anonymous Cowherd X]

The article is very much focused on "mums and dads", and concludes Linux is just about ready for consumers, although installing new software could pose some problems for those who aren't really computer savvy.

In that case they should have tried the FreeBSD distro, even James LaRue tried it and he is a mum and dad kind of user too.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the old codger write you out of his will - he'll probably lose it anyways, so you'd have put all that effort in for a bit of 60's kitsch he had left over...

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's an entirely different ball game as the OS and the hardware are from the same manufacturer, so in a sense it's like getting the OS preinstalled already.

324 dollars for windows?

[SirSmiley]

Even converted to another currency this is outrageous, you can buy a 5 dollar mouse with winxp pro and get it for about 100 dollars as OEM....i doubt anyone really buys it in stores, it either came OEM with the pc (really cheap way to get it) or purchased with the way stated above..

Re:324 dollars for windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

That exactly what I thought when I read the article. Who really pays that much, complete idiots?

$324 AUD converts to about $250 USD. That's way more than I paid for XP Home.

It makes winxp look like a loser right off the bat. Come on now!

Re:Too much choice - DEVO said it best...

[Chordonblue]

"Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom FROM choice is what you want."

There is such a thing as having too many options and I think you've hit this on the head. People have too much to think about than configure computers. Most of us here have difficulty understanding that since this is the very thing we enjoy doing!

apt-get install amavis-ng clamav

[hummassa]

Yeah, that should do.

Anchorman

[michaelhood]

The Australian Consumers? Association

I'm.. Ron.. Burgandy?

Damn it! Who typed a question mark on the teleprompter?

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[LiquidCoooled]

I routinely install computers of many many people who use computers daily.

I'm not talking about some complicated gentoo compilation, I'm talking generic windows xp.

For most people, installing an OS is equivilent to stripping and rebuilding a car engine, most folks get the OS with their computer, and need hand holding by dell support or whoever to use the recovery cd.

As long as the installation is logical, then it passes my tests.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

I have, and it took several phone calls before they finally figured out how to hold down the C key when booting to boot into the install CD. Then they were confused by several of the options on the screen...and then I had to mail them a cd full of software, since they couldn't figure out how to download from the links I sent them...and walk them through installing it, and "I installed XYZ, but I can't find it to make it work...", a clueless user is a clueless luser no matter what the OS. You have to give them a machine all set up and ready for them to use.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[davids-world.com]

Couldn't agree more. Most application user interfaces written for Linux suffer from unbearable information overload for common dialogues, while error messages are usually unspecific or way too hard to understand. While some major applications do get things right - Mozilla seems fairly simple, for example - other essential components are way too hard to configure. Look at KDE (and yes, I've tried recent versions). A multitude of strange options, "Themes" vs. "Window Manager" configurations, options in weird places because they are grouped according to technical layer (some screen options go into X-Server config, some into Window Manager config, some are part of a 'Theme') and not according to the user's perception. For geeks, standardized interfaces in computer labs at universities, for very well-defined workplaced without a lot of flexibility, yes, I would recommend a modern Linux distro such as SUSE. For Jane Doe and also for people who don't want to waste their time figuring out how to set up A, install B and solve problems C,D,E, I recommend Mac OS X for the best combination of usability, reliability, security, compatibility and choice of applications.

Installing Software

[KD5UZZ]

The most oft complained about 'problem' with Linux that I hear is that it is hard to install software.
I remember the days of DOS, it was hard to install some software back then. Anything that was 'complex' and modified your 'system files' (autoexec.bat, config.sys) could cause your system to fail...not only would the program not run, but your entire system could _FAIL_! Now adays, in Linux, the program simply doesn't work. I'd say that is progress.
Windows changed the world of software installs. Now, instead of risking a system crash due to software installs, you risked destroying your windows install by UN-INSTALLING a program. How many times have you uninstalled some program only to have Windows tell you it really did need that blah.dll file the other program got rid of? If it wasn't windows that needed it it was the kid's uber-great game. If that isnt enough, simply installing and uninstalling enough programs would clog the registry better than gum.
In todays world installing a program can still kill your computer (Antivirus, System "Fix-It" programs, backup programs, etc), uninstalling can destroy it (see prior list), but we get a new problem.
Now we can even install programs that cause problems by simply going to a website.
My point is, yes, linux software installs could be easier, but maybe they are this 'hard' because the community wants to get it right? We've all had problems in the past, and dealing with an OS as complex as Linux we don't want to deal with the problems we've had in the past, with more simple OSes.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[_Hellfire_]

When I said setup was a breeze I really meant setup was a breeze.

Apart from being very clearly laid out, the Ubuntu installer is easy to follow and takes you through the installation process fairly painlessly.

Now of course someone who's never used a computer before is not going to install an operating system. That is just plain silly.

The point is that even someone moderately knowledgable (I'm not talking guru here) should be able to set up Ubuntu. Anyone who can answer yes no questions can set it up. Most of the time the defaults are correct anyway.

On a related note would you give your mother a Windows XP disc and expect her to install it. I certainly wouldn't. The difference is with Windows is most of the time it's pre-installed by the manufacturer.

Not to nit-pick... but it was actually my girlfriend's grandmother. Something tells me that you read "I installed Ubuntu", "grandmother" and "Is Ubuntu ready for the desktop? You bet your ass it is." and ignored everything else.

Uh... Yeah.

[Chordonblue]

"...doesn't really say a lot about the state of linux on the desktop, especially if these problems involve things that other never had any problem with and if the OP doesn't tell us what distribution he is running, how he installed firefox, etc..."

My point exactly. If YOU don't know just by listening to his description, how much more information would your average USER know to give you? How hard is this process in Windows XP - at least you have a place to start.

I just wish that package distribution would get standardized instead of what we have now - a bunch of 'standards'.

ROTFLMAO excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats the funniest thing I read in a long time and whats more it's all true.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

I installed Ubuntu on my gf's grandmother's laptop, a Toshiba Tecra A2. Setup was a breeze. It detected everything right down to the wireless eth card. Oh yeah? I etched Ubuntu's boot partition on my great-great-great-grandfather's grave! And he LOVES it!

Installing new software is fairly easy in Linux

[kiore]

I'm not sure how other Linux distros implement it, but in SuSE you open Yast, then select 'Install and remove software'. Nice & simple.

Problems:

1. Yast isn't exactly an obvious name in the way Windows' "Control Center" is.
2. Yast only knows about the applications in the suse distribution. Third party packages have to be installed via a different route.
   Yes, I know you can edit the package list, but we're talking non technical end users.

For other packages, if you have an RPM opened with Konqueror. there's a button to install the rpm with Yast. Once you've added it that way Yast recognises the package in its software list & it can be removed through there.

It's a lot better than SuSE 6.1 was, but still could be a little easier for beginners.

Re:Installing new software is fairly easy in Linux

[skiman1979]

I've never used Yast (or SuSE) but it sounds similar to Mandrake's way of doing it. Except instead of opening Yast, you open "Mandrake Control Center" go to "Software Management" or something like that then click "Install Software" to get a nice cascading menu of all the different types of programs available.

Back when I used Red Hat (9.0) it had a similar layout, but didn't seem to go as in depth. From what I hear, even Gentoo has a graphical installer called Porthole that can be used to browse the tree and install software.

Re:Installing new software is fairly easy in Linux

[swv3752]

In Mandrake There is a "Control Center". Depending on the Menu it is also called "Configure your Computer". Both are pretty obvious on what they do. There is a section called "Install Programs". You can manually pick programs, or just double click on something downloaded and it will install. It is now harder and many ways easier than Windows.

Finding software is a bit harder, if the packages list is not nicely updated. It is not hard to add servers but not something novices will do.

It sounds like the reviewer didn't download RPM's but tarballs.

Re:I disagree

[Jugalator]

I need the email of Linus Torvalds. Please email me. :)

Isn't it...

torvalds at transmeta dot com

?

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive been doing the same with mandrake for 2 years.

just because some new kid on the block comes along you decide they magically did it?

mandrake was there for a while now.

Administration shouldn't be major for the desktop

[jesterzog]

These 'Linux is ready for the desktop' stories have been piling up for quite a few years now, but will it really happen?

I really don't think that users being able to administer their systems should be considered a serious problem when considering linux on the desktop.

In recent months I've come to believe that Linux, and many other unix-like systems for that matter, are not only ready for the desktop and have been for some time, they're near perfect for it. The major catch (apart from that whole software compatability thing, perhaps) is that they're only perfect when someone who knows what they're doing is adminstrating the system.

I administer my own home linux system, and I like it that way absolutely, but I wouldn't reccommend it to any of my friends. Sure, I could get them set up and rurning, but every so often they'd want to change something and would need help.

At my university, we run a department network of NetBSD machines, and they're administered brilliantly to the point where new students who are used to Windows can get started in using them for many things without a lot of problems. The security's locked down to a reasonable extent so it's hard for any badly written software the seriously break any of the workstations, but if we want something changed then there's a responsive team of administrators who'll look at providing what's needed. Most importantly, the workstations are reliable and they're looked after by experts who know everything that's on them inside out. Just like my home machine, unixes very rarely break or collapse if they're administrated well.

My point is that Linux is very ready for the desktop, but people shouldn't be expected to administer their own systems. Luckily, though, Linux has several other very handy things going for it:

1. It's reliable: Switch it on and do things, and it'll usually stay up... even if applications crash here and there.
2. It can be locked down from the users to prevent a lot of things from going wrong. When the user is prevented from doing certain things to their PC, they're less likely to break things.
3. Due to the lock-down, a lot of software (such as spyware) will have a much more difficult time embedding itself in the system in a way that can't be cleaned out by an administrator.
4. It's very accessible for remote administration. Someone can log in remotely and, with the appropriate but usually ubiquitous tools, have direct and immediate access to anything administrative that's required.
5. High speed connections are becoming more and more common.

What surprises me is that nobody yet seems to have seriously jumped into a potentially great business opportunity of offering remote linux administrations for home users. Essentially it'd be linux by subscription, ironically enough.

I really do know lots of people who use Windows because they're afraid of everything else, and they only even try to administer it and understand the issues because they have no other option. Really they'd rather concentrate on actually doing things with their PC, and would often be happy to pay someone else to administer it if the price were reasonable.

The business would be in providing a remote service which, once a customer's home PC had been set up in an appropriately standard configuration, would offer the service of administering the PC remotely. For instance, if the customer wants new software, they phone up and ask for it. An admin logs in, installs the package, and sets up any appropriate configuration. Perhaps every so often, administrators come along and upgrade whatever software is installed, probably (usually) keeping the configurations within bounds that are known to work on a large scale. Perhaps they even provide conversion services for things like Word files, in cases when something like OpenOffice simply won't handle it properly.

On occasion

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Lumpy]

I'm calling you out troll.

I DARE you to get a non-geek to install windows XP correctly and safely.

it is harder than getting mandrake installed, hands down.

XP does not automagically create your partitions you have to make one in therir installer, what non-geeks knows what a partition is? oh howq do you magically update all the patches so you do not get owned in 29 seconds when you wait for windows Update to get around to installing SP2?

nice try, but you are unrealistic. ALL operating systems require someone that knows what they are doing to install it.

Absolutely no OS is ready by the standard you set.

Anti-virus

[kiore]

I don't have a copy of SuSE 9.1 Personal handy, but my SuSE 9.2 Professional came with:

• amavisd-new (email server - checker interface)
• antivir virus scanner software package of H+BEDV Datentechnik GmbH (evaluation copy)
• AvMailGate email server scanner
• clamav av toolkit
• Samba-vscan (another interface)

Maybe not "inbuilt", but available on the distribution media.

So, not only doesn't Linux currently need a virus checker but, at least in its SuSE form, it comes with two checkers and two interface packages.

Makes me wonder at the quality of the review.

OSX Installation

[Bert64]

I can't believe they consider windows to be easier to install than OSX, OSX must be one of the easiest installs, easily easier than windows or any of the linux distributions.. asidefrom that, windows doesn't even support serial ata out of the box, so installing it on modern hardware os a HUGE pain in the ass, especially if you dont have a floppy drive to load the driver from, and even if you do.. its far from intuitive

Re:OSX Installation

[schiefaw]

Did I miss something? The only reference I found to OSX installation was this:

We installed Windows XP and Mac OS X without partitioning the hard drive. Both operating systems include partitioning software that deletes your existing operating system and data. Both installations were straightforward but Windows XP lost marks because of the installation time (90 minutes). The other products only took 10-20 minutes.

Re:OSX Installation

[Bert64]

In the table at the end, which gave them marks out of 100 for installation.

They don't ususlly insert

[Kickasso]

this particular character when you hit single-quote key on your keyboard. Or do they?

Linux virus checker should be easy to add

[Inkieminstrel]

int main () { printf("There are no viruses on your system\n"); return 0; } Now I'll happily sit and wait for 3 slashdotters to show me the multiple buffer overflow errors in the above code.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[westlake]

So I decided to make my Dad switch from WinXP to Ubuntu...

Linux will be ready for the desktop when --- and only when --- conversion stories don't begin with I decided to make my Dad switch from WinXP.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[cowbutt]

So for me (and for my dad) Linux IS READY for the desktop. At least Ubuntu is.

Ditto for me with my 65 year old father and Fedora Core 1. The install was done for me by a friend of mine (but I could have just as easily done it myself), and I just setup the printer, added a few applications, migrated his old Windows Netscape Communicator mailbox to Mozilla and copied his old data across. From time to time, I rpm -ivh applications and add icons to the desktop, but other than that, it's pretty much trouble free for both myself and him. The biggest problem I've run into was a dodgy CD-Rom drive that didn't like ripping audio CDs - easily fixed by swapping in the drive from his old machine.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Jugalator]

No - the point is that *you* installed it... *you* set it up... a geek was needed to get this beast working smoothly, and that shouldn't be the case.

Believe me, I know a whole lot of people who find installing Windows XP being a trouble since they'll have to find drivers, configure network settings, etc. So I don't think Windows XP is much more ready for the installing novice than Ubuntu is.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[mangu]

Several others have pointed out that XP is really harder to install than any Linux distro today. And I must add another point here: device drivers. Distros like Mandrake or Suse will correctly recognize most of the hardware and install the drivers out of the box. For any MS operating system you must get drivers in separate CDs or even diskettes.

Worse still, XP will not work with some older hardware. For instance, I have an Adaptec SCSI card that will blue-screen XP, but runs flawlessly in Linux, I can even install Linux from a disk controlled by this card. Under XP I can't even install the OS, the mere presence of the card in the computer makes the XP install CD reboot endlessly.

Two-step Linux app install for you

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Remove head from ass

2) apt-get install appname

Installing software

[camcorder]

although installing new software could pose some problems for those who aren't really computer savvy.
Did anyone tried to make a computer newbie on windows to install a new software over phone? Varying the type of software, it can be almost impossible most of times. However telling them to just start a shell and type 'rpm -i whatever' or 'emerge/apt-get whatever' would be alot more easier.
Only thing they need to know what to do then it's as easy as in every OS human invented.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Simon (S2)]

Linux will be ready for the desktop when --- and only when --- conversion stories don't begin with I decided to make my Dad switch from WinXP.

Why? Windows comes preinstalled. The normal user (like my Dad) does not care about the underlying OS. So theis is the proof that *Linux is ready for the desktop*. My Dad uses it, I use it and a whole lot of other people use it. If one day it comes preinstalled on the new computer you buy at Walmart, you can begin to use it exactly like you do with windows or OS X.

Mac OS X help files

[technogogo]

Strange that they criticised Mac OS for its poor help files. I've been using Mac OS X for a couple of weeks now and I have been very impressed with its comprehensive and accessible help.

Shame that the report does not say how they tested the help systems.

For hackers, made by hackers

[Anonymous Coward]

In the kernel source docs there's a definition of
what Linux really is; something along the lines of
"An operating system, for hackers, made by hackers".

I could not agree more. Most things need to be
hand-tweaked, and for a hacker that's ok.

Stability is so-so. Recent distros, especially
Fedora seem to get worse in this respect.

Linux is the only OS i managed to crash entirely
by just inserting a USB memory stick.
(Yes, repeatedly, with recent 2.4 and 2.6 kernels.)

Usability, well, it's OK for someone who doesn't
mind searching the web for a hint how to tweak
which config file just to get his scanner working
on the latest kernel.

GUIs look all different, and most people don't
even notice that. Firefox managed to get 3 different
types of panels into the Prefs window.
Congratulations!

Don't get me wrong.
I'm very much in favour of diverse, open software,
that's why I wouldn't write such things in fora
where more avg users are around.

But I hope you are all geeks, so you know this already.

zaph

Re:For hackers, made by hackers

[dtfinch]

I've crashed Windows by inserting a USB stick, repeatedly.

Re:For hackers, made by hackers

[tokabola]

I have an ATI video card. It's allegedly XP certified, but not fully supported by Linux.

So why is it that it works flawlessly in Linux, including hardware 3d accelleration, but STILL causes a BSOD in Windows for no apparent reason? I can't leave windows on for 24 hours (sitting idle) without returning to a preety blue screen complaining about page fault errors.

[rant]BTW, when I was using Mandrake I NEVER had to tweak a config file, but I've been all over the windows registry following advice from (gasp) the USER FORUM that Microsofts tech support referred me to (and for $300 I kinda expected an answer, not "look it up yourself in our knowelege base - oh by the way it helps if you know the number of the article you need to read cuz you won't find it any other way")[/rant]

Tommy

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Bert64]

96mb ram? thats an odd amount, especially for a p4... is it using an onboard displaycard that's stealing 32mb of ram? you dont need that much, reduce it to 4mb or something in the bios and you'l have a bit more ram for the rest of the system..

Linux has been ready for months

[Anonymous Coward]

All major Linux distros have become ready for the average user within the past year already. Even my niece as well as my cousin who are the most computer illiterate people on earth both installed Fedora completely on their own and are praising it now nonstop. In fact, my niece who just turned 8 is now talking about giving Gentoo a try after she saw it on my laptop and liked it. Is that convincing enough? Linux is absolutely ready for the mainstream desktop and is certaintly taking over very quickly.

Not an informative article

[Clinton]

I was actually RTFA for once and I noticed they paid for their linux distros. Of course with the learning curve on these, who would want them? And also, antivirus software on a linux machine? ha

The people who did this review are obviously not cutout to do proper OS comparisons.
Btw - I'm not either - but I know a good article/review when I see one.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Bert64]

windows often requires a geek to set it up too, 99% of windows users never installed the system and only got a preinstalled system from a vendor, so how exactly is this any different?

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[dfj225]

Humm, I may be missing something but I don't see how either Windows XP or Ubuntu could be either harder or easier to use when compared to the other when all you are really doing is running some applications and not doing administrative or very operating system specific tasks.

I mean for Windows you go to start -> programs -> pick application.

For KDE you use K Menu -> program group -> pick application.

Unless your gf's dad was speaking of the applications he uses on Windows compared to what he uses on Unbuntu, I don't really see how XP or Unbuntu would really end up being that different from each other as far as simple tasks are concerned.

I am curious though, has he tried to install anything on his linux computer? Don't get me wrong, I think it is usually pretty easy to install something on linux, especially if you've set up apt-get or something similar, but even being asked to look at the command line is sometimes too much for some users.

The worst thing about Linux, IMHO, is that when something doesn't work right or something goes wrong, it usually requires a pretty deep understanding of the operating system to try and correct it. I mean I really had to learn quite a bit about Linux at one point to get an old wireless card to work in an aging laptop I had. This wasn't really a bad thing for me, I really enjoy learning new things about linux, but for most users any time spent doing something to fix problems or set something up is time wasted.

pwned in 30 days!

[randalx]

I'd like to see a comparison between the OS'es regarding time to get hacked with default installations when in use by an "average" user.

My friend just got a Windows machine for X-Mas as is now asking me why his computer is getting slower and what's this bargains.exe process he can't seem to get rid of.

How can they keep saying that Windows is ready for the desktop when this stuff happens after 1 month of use. Windows is not ready for the Aunt Tilley's.

Re:pwned in 30 days!

[Cro Magnon]

OSX seems to be the only OS that IS suitable for Aunt Tilly. It doesn't have the malware problems of Windows, and it doesn't have the installation woes of Linux.

Re:pwned in 30 days!

[frankie]

Do not, I repeat, do NOT help your friends and family to maintain Windows PCs for free. Tell them to either pay for your support, or switch to a better OS.

My dad replaced his old iMac G3 with a Dell at Xmas (sigh, he would have gotten the Mini if it had been available a few weeks earlier). If I ever detect it as being trojaned, I will report him to Comcast abuse department and try to get his connection shut off.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Bert64]

If you had to hold down C then the machine must have already had something installed on it.. if the HD isn't bootable it will default to the CD by default.

Available for short time...

[andhar]

Or will that be, pulled from the website in a short time?

What a load of gibberish!

Riddled with inacuracies

[MouseR]

I've stopped reading half-way through. This article is full of crap.

Who's use iMovie as a media player? Dont dont have a clue. iMovie is a movie creation tool. Not a media player.

Mac OS X comes with QuickTime. THAT is a media player.

As part of the cons, they list it's firewall not being on by default. What good would turning on a firewall be if NONE of the ports are on by defaults anyhow? Good luck, chap, breaking into it.

Re:Riddled with inacuracies

[argent]

I stopped reading one paragraph in to the second page:

"Mac OS X could have more comprehensive help files and we'd like to see the inbuilt firewall switched on by default."

Anyone who thinks a default client-based firewall is anything but an admission that the OS developers couldn't figure out how to make any network services secure by default simply has NO BUSINESS even commenting on security issues.

I suppose that excludes most of the pundits online and in magazines, but that's always been true, all the way back to Jerry Pournelle (after his friend Maclean died, anyway).

Re:Riddled with inacuracies

[darilon]

It's called layered security. While code audits and all evidence at present may indicate that a service is safe for the world to see exploits may be discovered at some time in the future. A firewall is both a failsafe for that and a way to stealth your computer so folks randomly portscanning can't find something to work with. Having a firewall on by default is a good idea for the vast majority of users that end up administering their systems by default and are unlikely to know or care which services are installed or whether or not they need to update them. Having perfectly secure designs in your network services would be nice, but it has never existed in the real world.

Re:Riddled with inacuracies

[Blakey Rat]

I'm genuinely curious here, not trolling...

But did you write the author of the article and point of the inaccuracies? The problem with reading the article, then giving up and coming here to comment instead, is that the people who read the article in print won't ever get to see the feedback you just left-- unless by some miracle the author happens upon this Slashdot page and reads all the comments, then decides to publish some.

Wouldn't it be better to point out these inaccuracies in email to the author of the article so when he publishes his reader mail, other readers will see them?

Re:Riddled with inacuracies

[argent]

It's called layered security.

No, not in this case. I'm afraid you fell into the "Marcus Ranum Perfect Firewall" trap, and I admit I left the tripwire in place deliberately.

An IP based client firewall only provides an absolute bare minimum of protection: it prevents connections to running services. It won't protect against attacks on any services it's not blocking access to, and it will allow access to all services that you turn on deliberately (it will either do this automatically when you enable the service, or it will do it after you figure out why your service didn't work and you open it up in the firewall).

Mac OS X ships with all services disabled by default.

There is absolutely nothing running for a firewall to protect.

The client firewall in Windows isn't "layered security" either. Since Microsoft doesn't provide any consistent way to control the bindings of services to ports, and requires at least some services running just to use their client networking protocols, the only way to "turn off" a service while using the corresponding client component is through a firewall.

So... the Windows firewall is not an additional layer of protection, it's the ONLY layer of protection.

On Mac OS X, it *could* be an additional layer of protection, but it's not at all clear to me how Apple could set up a default configuration that would actually provide protection for local services in any meaningful sense.

Re:Riddled with inacuracies

[aixou]

It won't protect against attacks on any services it's not blocking access to

No shit sherlock. However, there are more network daemons than are visible in the Sharing pane in OS X. It's nice to know that with a firewall, services that a) may have been left on accidentally or activated by software not maintained by the system, or b) been maliciously turned on for whatever purpose, will be blocked.

For example a telnetd is installed in OS X by default. Without a firewall, this or any other daemon that's not visible in the Sharing pane could be harmful to my system. With a firewall, only those that are explicitly allowed will be granted access. So things such as telnet, or a user-installed version of apache (or whatever) that gets forgotten about won't be a potential liability.

Re:Riddled with inacuracies

[argent]

However, there are more network daemons than are visible in the Sharing pane in OS X

But they're not turned on by default.

For example a telnetd is installed in OS X by default.

But it's not turned on by default.

If you're turning on telnetd, or installing your own Apache, then you're going to be opening holes for them in the firewall. Once opened, those holes won't magically close when you "forget" about them. Whether the firewall is "on by default" or "off by default" is going to make negligable difference to the security of the system.

All it does is give a *false* sense of security to people who think it *does* make a difference.

Re:Riddled with inacuracies

[Anonymous Coward]

that's why the shitheel is working for an asswipe internet rag and doesn't have a real job.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Long-EZ]

Forget the help files. People want an OS that doesn't NEED help files. I'll agree that the review had some glossed over areas that suggested their testing wasn't very rigorous. I've been exclusively using Xandros for my small business for over two years (it's very good), and noticed the following issues with the review of Xandros:

They reviewed Xandros 2.5 even though 3.0 has been out for over a month.

Difficult to view digital photos? You plug the flash card in the reader and drag and drop in Xandros File Manager, which provides little preview thumbnail images, and double clicking the file produces a larger version. There's a dedicated digital photo manager (or three) if you want a dedicated application.

Difficult to burn DVDs? If they had reviewed 3.0, they'd have seen it's drag and drop from the Xandros File Manager, just like burning a CD.

Internet Explorer? You've got to be kidding me. Just because you can run IE (like all big MS aps and most Windows programs) using the included CrossOver (commercial version of Wine), does not mean you should use IE. Mozilla is the default installed browser. FireFox is available from Xandros Networks if you'd prefer it and will ship as the default on future versions of Xandros.

Apparently, the other OS candidates must have been as poorly reviewed, because Xandros still beat all the Linux distros overall and was a very close second to XP and OS X. It received the highest marks for the ease of installation.

My own personal recommendation? If you're sick of Windows BS and want a secure OS that's still easy to use, try Xandros. It's great, and it's getting a lot better. It's THE Linux OS for Windows refugees.

You'll love being able to go to Xandros Networks and install a lot of different software with a couple of mouse clicks. None of the hassles, EULAs and rebooting of Windows. And the package manager automatically tracks all library dependancies. When you uninstall an application, it won't ask you if another program is using a DLL. There's no registry to corrupt either, so there's no Registry Rot. Your Xandros system will remain fast and stable.

In a world where hardware and software is created to work with Windows, Microsoft has a huge advantage. They are the de facto standard. Xandros manages to be easier to use on this unfair playing field, which indicates exactly how much these guys have the Right Stuff. Do yourself and the world a favor and buy a copy of Xandros and let's get away from Windows spam spewing zombies and spyware.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Karl Cocknozzle]

So I don't think Windows XP is much more ready for the installing novice than Ubuntu is.

...And while we're on the subject, why the hell is that? Wasn't XP supposed to know just about all the major hardware that was out when it came out? Yet every XP install I've done this (or last) year has been a PITA because the damn on-board NIC in our older Dell systems aren't included. I have downloaded and burned all four (there are four different ones!) to CD, so it isn't a problem ANY MORE, but not as simple as Mandrake.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[_Hellfire_]

What he was getting at is that the procedures to do something like burn a bunch of images onto CD seemed more complicated to do under XP than Ubuntu (Gnome).

I guess he just thought Gnome was a bit better laid out and the stuff you do inside the GUI just seemed more logical. Hell I agree with him, I think a lot of the stuff you do inside the UI in Windows is a little overcomplicated. The way the default My Pictures folder is laid out, not to mention the way Windows pressures you into using that My Pictures folder (putting it back if it gets deleted, making it the default save location for images etc.) means that IMHO, Windows is a little heavy handed. Some users appreciate that but my gf's dad doesn't.

He doesn't have a Linux PC (yet) he's interested in getting me to do it though.

Agree with you on the "when trouble strikes" scenario. I have honestly found however, overall the number of things to fix on Ubuntu is less than when running Windows. Gnome just seems more... resilient to people clicking on things they shouldn't than XP. That, combined with unpriviledged accounts means that a normal user is unlikely to get themselves in serious strife once the computer has been set up. It's a better architecture than Windows, where "Everyone's a System Administrator(tm)".

Just my 2 cents.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[shish]

Yay ubuntu indeed -- especially with the "installation of programs is still hard" comment - my 8 year old sister uses synaptic to browse & install the games category, and generally likes ubuntu more than windows "because everything's much simpler"

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[fishbot]

A couple of points:

1) Ubuntu is exclusively Gnome based, so it's not K menu -> anything
2) Ubuntu comes with the Synaptic package manager all set up, configured, ready for off and a click away

I agree that the worst thing about Linux is that when something doesn't work right, it can be complex to fix. On the other hand, when Windows devices don't work and you spend an afternoon googling for various drivers in the hope the _something_ will work, you realise that it's not just a Linux problem.

The fact of the matter is that, at present, there isn't a single OS in the entire world that is suitable for the non-geek. It's just that some hide the fact better than others.

RISC OS Manual (by acorn) Re:Hope again

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you mean something like the manuals produced by Acorn for the BBC B, and for RISC OS?

Those were written so that anyone from a smart 6-year old all the way through to hacker could read them.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[beelsebob]

You think? Try installing OS X... Put CD in drive... Click install button... Click next a few times in the normal GUI... Wait for the progress bar... Finished.

Zero Sum Game

[CristalShandaLear]

Why, oh why couldn't there be just ONE type of computer that'll run any program I buy? Now they've got what they wanted and they're happy, even with the virus/spyware problems. Linux, however, is all about choice.

The problem is they don't have what they wanted and especially not at the cost they want. Typing "M$" is old and busted but it came about for a reason.

Use your own analogy to really hear what any user really wants: Why oh why couldn't there just be ONE type of DVD player that'll play any DVD I buy?

It sounds absurd doesn't it? It sounds just as absurd as Joe Six Pack buying ANY computer off the shelf and being able to load Mircosoft Office and the iLife Suite on that same off the shelf computer with no compatibility issues whatsover.

Think about that for a second and if you aren't still LYAO, read the rest.

It doesn't matter that those may not be the best choices for the consumer or that Star Office is a perfect foil for Microsoft Office. It's about giving consumers what they want.

That's why you don't see people running to Linux in droves. Because it does no better at bridging the gap for what people REALLY want to do on their PC's.

Give people what they want and they will buy from you in droves. What the average person sees, and they're not far wrong either, is a glorified geek pissing contest between Microsoft, Apple, Linux and any other OS out there if they're even aware that there are others.

What they don't see is anyone really giving a damn about what they want and how they want to work. It may not be true, but perception is everything.

Until that changes, no one wins.

Re:Zero Sum Game

[Digital Pizza]

Use your own analogy to really hear what any user really wants: Why oh why couldn't there just be ONE type of DVD player that'll play any DVD I buy?
That was almost the case with Divx; fortunately it didn't take off. It will be the case with Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD.

It sounds just as absurd as Joe Six Pack buying ANY computer off the shelf and being able to load Mircosoft Office and the iLife Suite on that same off the shelf computer with no compatibility issues whatsover.
I'm sure the average user would love to be able to do that (if they're even aware of iLife to begin with). But there are plenty of Windows programs that do similar things, not nearly as well; if they're "good enough", "mums and dads" don't care. Macs are for those (like me) who desire excellence, but usually it's mediocrity that wins.

Couldn't agree more with the rest of your comment.

Re:Zero Sum Game

[Queer Boy]

It sounds just as absurd as Joe Six Pack buying ANY computer off the shelf and being able to load Mircosoft Office and the iLife Suite on that same off the shelf computer with no compatibility issues whatsover.

You just have to go to the right store for that.

Re:Zero Sum Game

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain why it is not possible to buy a computer off the shelf and install Microsoft Office and the iLife suite. I can sell you a whole bunch of computers off the shelf that will do this.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[beelsebob]

Because 99% of OS X users have installed the operating system... When you first turn a mac on it says "You now need to insert install disk one" and leads you through the process, it's as easy as clicking next. Anyway, the point has nothing to do with "other operating systems are just as hard" it's "this is not as easy as it could be".

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[carlmenezes]

You installed it on your grand-father's grand-mother's laptop? DUDE!

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[DarkSarin]

As some one else pointed out, the winXP setup is not any more freindly than the Ubuntu Setup (which by the way, is MUCH better than the winXP setup, when you get right down to it--faster too).

I would be 100% confident in handing the Ubuntu disk to anyone and saying here, install this, and know that they could do it, provided they know two things: how to put the disk in, and how to reboot the computer. A few MIGHT have trouble getting their computer to boot from cd, but they would be the minority. Everyone else would end up with a fully functioning Ubuntu linux installation. Of course, they would also be sans windows, but that's not so bad, now is it.

I do have some other gripes with Ubuntu (it doesn't recognize my epson cx5200, which mandrake does), but they are minor. Personally, I think that their installer needs work, for ANYTHING other than the basic installation.

I promise that if you handed a winxp disc to most people, they would end up with a functioning system only after much confusion. I mean, NTFS or FAT32? What in the name of $person is that? Ubuntu gives even less control than windows, but it's not any worse.

Oh, and another thing, Ubuntu, like Linspire, installs in a flash (sub 15 minutes for a working system on a reasonably modern computer). Compare this to the 30+ minute install for ANY version of windows (well, maybe not 3.11, but I've never installed that).

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnome is a lot easier to use than windows. The start menu is very confusing. Trying to find things on the menu, figuring out where stuff is. Gnome is quite logical, I want ot run an application, on the internet, a chat programme. Users just follow those steps. Under windows to do that is a little more difficult.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that the worst thing about Linux is that when something doesn't work right, it can be complex to fix. On the other hand, when Windows devices don't work and you spend an afternoon googling for various drivers in the hope the _something_ will work, you realise that it's not just a Linux problem.

It isn't quite the same thing. It might be difficult to find a good Windows driver for poorly supported hardware but once you do find one it is pretty straight forward to install it. OTOH, I have had to do my fair share of compiling source in order to get a piece of hardware to work in Linux and if a kernel patch gets installed, I had to do it all over again. And that is even with popular hardware.

software installation

[jeif1k]

The difficulties with installing new software using a linux-based operating system arise when you want to install software from elsewhere

That may or may not be difficult. Even if you want to download applications, in many distributions, all you do is download an RPM file and double click on it.

But, importantly, you don't have to do that in Linux at all: if you run a decent distro, all software should be installed through the package manager. That's where you search for applications and tell it what you want. That's the easiest way of installing and maintaining software: you don't have to download anything at all, and you never have to worry about it; all you do is tell the computer what you want.

In fact, most people don't even have to do that: when you install one of the major Linux distributions, you pretty much get all the software you would ever want or need preinstalled: office suites, desktops, PIMs, mail readers, web browsers, scientific software, desktop publishing, image editing, etc.

The report is also wrongly optimistic about software installation on Windows or Mac OS X. On Windows, most software comes with installers. Macintosh, on the other hand, is far messier: not only do you have to download the software and extract it, after that's done and made a mess on the desktop, you have to figure out how to proceed: maybe you open a folder or a virtual drive and drag something to your application folder, maybe you run an installer, and if you run an installer, it asks questions about "what disk volume" you want to install the software on. Macintosh software installations are the most confusing of the bunch. And neither Windows nor Macintosh will automatically update software that wasn't shipped by the OS vendor.

If the main complaint about Linux is that software is hard to install, then Linux is at this point perfect for the desktop. And that's, actually, what I find with my "mom and dad": they have trouble dealing with Macintosh and I have ended up having to install software for them, but with Linux, I just put the machine there and it works, every time, all the time.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[ivano]

my favourit is find (on solaris)

They do give examples though...except for actually finding a file.

Ciao

PS Yep I know how to do it now. And anyone that does give me an example make sure it works on solaris and not on linux. It's not the same thing :)

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[ivano]

yep and even if it did work you still wouldn't get an example to find a file either :) just examples on everything else

ciao

Okay, so what is their point?

[Understudy]

Here is a review of of several operating systems. That are suppose to complete several functions. However being that I actually bothered to read the article I noticed a few things that bugged me.
We installed each of the Linux distributions side-by-side with Windows XP
We installed Windows XP and Mac OS X without partitioning the hard drive. Both operating systems include partitioning software that deletes your existing operating system and data.

So basically they installed MacOS and WinXP on a entire hard drive and then did a dual boot setup with Linux. They mention how certain versions of Linux will partition the hard drive and certain versions won't. They however don't give the same break to Linux. Try installing Linux on it's own hard drive. Windows and Mac software are more than capable to delete the exisiting software, well hell I can do that also with Linux.

Xandros was the only Linux distribution that didn't come with a LiveCD. Windows XP and Mac OS X aren't available on LiveCDs

Yet this is the only place they mention that live cd issue. Why is it not in the bad column under the bullet points for WinXP and Mac.

Easy-to-access software updates and security patches and fixes can save you time and hassle. Mac OS X and Windows XP automatically check for new updates and patches at specific times as long as you're connected to the internet. You can change the default settings if you wish. None of the Linux distributions offer automatic updates, but you can either download patches and updates from each manufacturers' website, or by using Linspire Click-N-Run or Xandros Networks. SuSE Linux and Mandrakelinux offer to look for updates during installation.

That is so you don't just throw a patch in there and have it create more problems. I still remember WinNT sp6 and the Lotus Notes issue and several others.

Unlike Windows XP, the Linux distributions and Mac OS X also let you restrict a program, such as ICQ, to a single user account. Additionally, in Linux and Mac OS X, the administrator is the only account with access to universal settings and files.

This is a good thing remember that.

Windows XP was the only operating system that couldn't recognise and open an imported Excel file -- the included office software is very basic so you need to install Microsoft Office or another more advanced program.

Even Linux distro's require Open Office or other software to be installed to read an Excel file the difference is that you can usually install them right after you install the OS. It may be included in the box set on one of the CDs or you can download it. Either way you don't have to go out and spend more than you paid for the operating system.

The difficulties with installing new software using a linux-based operating system arise when you want to install software from elsewhere.

I won't disagree here, extracting tarballs, unpacking an RPM, trying to have apt-get install a program can be a bit of a bear. Making sure you have all your dependincies. The difference is that if something goes wrong you can at least look into it. If the .exe doesn't install properly you are pretty much screwed. Now with FreeBSD you can install your programs from the ports tree with "make install distclean" or a package from the cd or ftp sites with "pkg_add -r foo". The dependincies will get installed automatically.

I understand the joe average user need. The thing is if joe average has worked with windows before coming to linux they will find things they don't understand and are very likely to get frustrated. The same applies in reverse take a *nix user who hasn't been with windows ever or since windows 95 and throw them into that enviroment. Watch them pull out their hair. While Linux (distros), OSX, and WinXP are operating systems they are very different and trying to find similarites isn't always going to be fair. If you have only ever driven an automatic car, driving a car with a manual tr

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[GreyWolf3000]

Have you tried installing ubuntu?

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

ok now do that with an UNPARTITIONED and unprepared drive. :-) and what about all those patches you need to install so that the RPC hole is not there, code red cant control it and all the other thousands of viruses???

oh wait, those only affect the lesser operating systems.

This is true, but you pay a hefty price for that.

Also the only way apple can do that is by making sure that you only get your hardware from them.

linux and windows has to deal with 90,000,000,000 different possibilities... OSX has to deal with only a tiny handful of configurations.

Software Installation

[Blackbird_Highway]

This article is not too bad. You have to consider that because of the target audience it is not going to be heavy on technical accuracy, but at least it has a reasonably unbiased viewpoint. The complaint about it being hard to install software on Linux is correct, but really needs some explaination. Yes, you have to log on as administrator and possbily setting file permissions to install software, but if this also means that a virus can't install without you logging in as admin and setting file permissions, then you are going to get a lot fewer viruses! This is the main reason that Linux is more secure by design. Yes, it's less convenient, just as locking your car doors and requiring a key to start it makes it less convenient to just hop in and go.

What interesting math!

[Trillan]

Apple Mac OS X (10.3) $229
Microsoft Windows XP Home $324
Xandros Desktop OS 2.5 Deluxe $135

However, at $135, [Xandra is] a considerably cheaper option than Windows XP or Mac OS X.

The only problem is that Mac OS X costs $129, not $229.

Is $135 "considerably cheaper" than $129? Is $135 chepaer in any way than $129?

I'll stop reading here. If they can't even copy a price correctly, the rest of the article is obviously beyond useless.

Re:What interesting math!

[BenjyD]

Or maybe Australians quote prices in Australian Dollars? Just an idea.

Re:What interesting math!

[Trillan]

Well, Xandros was $135 US last time I looked into it. But it's posssible that it's dropped in price by the difference in exchange rate, just very unlikely.

Even if so, the Australian price is $169, not $229.

Re:What interesting math!

[BenjyD]

MacOS X Panther from the Australian Apple store is $229(Aus). Apple stuff is always much more expensive outside the US.

Re:What interesting math!

[settsu]

Obviously if people sneeze, cough, burp or fart they are beyond useless.

Re:What interesting math!

[Trillan]

Thanks for the correction. But boy, that's painful for you! (Assuming you're Australian...)

Re:What interesting math!

[Trillan]

Certainly if they deliberately sneeze on me, I will no longer respect them.

But what does that have to do with my post?

I know you think your reply is somehow related. But you're wrong.

Re:What interesting math!

[settsu]

I know you think your post wasn't a gross over-generalization. But you're wrong.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[jayed_99]

What surprises me is that nobody yet seems to have seriously jumped into a potentially great business opportunity of offering remote linux administrations for home users.

It's definitely an interesting idea, and I've toyed with ideas like it. The one thing that stops me dead in my tracks is my memories (PLEASE! ARGH! KILL ME NOW!) of providing phone support to users in a large corporate environment.

*ring, ring*
Me: Super-whiz Home Admins, how may I help you?
Granny: I just bought me one of those digifed cameras at WalMart.
Me: OK, ma'am, what's the problem?
Granny: It doesn't work.
Me: Well, you might want to call WalMart about that.
Granny: Lookie here, son! I'm paying you good money, and I expect an answer!
Me: Ma'am, we provide support for...
Granny: I pay you to make my computer work! None of your lip! This digified camera won't work! ...

I'm sure you see my point. The idea is great...the actuality of providing quality support to a random cross-section of the population makes me shiver.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[r3m0t]

Actually, on Windows it's Start -> All Programs -> Company Name -> Product Name

Or maybe Start -> All Programs -> Company Name -> Product Name -> Start Product (instead of readme, register, uninstall...)

Or maybe Start -> All Programs -> Product Name -> Start Product

Or if you're in luck, Start -> All Programs -> Product Name.

Gnome and KDE are much better there. The menu items use generic names ("Movie Player" -> Totem), too. Microsoft just call their products by generic name. ;)

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[beelsebob]

And you compare this to OS X's install process - put CD in the drive, and press the install button. There's no faffing about with trying to get the computer to boot from the CD because it does it for you.

And running the install program is not all there is to get a comptuer set up. Would they know how to have got their documents set up (as the OP said they did). Would they know how to install a piece of software (no package managers are not as easy as download and double click). Linux is confusing at best to get working (and I mean working fully, not just a base system install).

Mac OS, points off for FW not on by default

[uncitizen]

My gripe with the article is Mac OS X losing points because its firewall is not turned on by default. I fail to see how this is a major problem, as OS X has no services enabled by default. nmaping a brand new OS X install will return no open ports.

Oh no! No firewall enabled! Someone might be able to ping you!

Re:Mac OS, points off for FW not on by default

[Theaetetus]

My gripe with the article is Mac OS X losing points because its firewall is not turned on by default. I fail to see how this is a major problem, as OS X has no services enabled by default. nmaping a brand new OS X install will return no open ports.

Absolutely. Also, no antivirus software comes pre-installed on the Mac, which is a shame, 'cause one of those Hypercard viruses from 1988 could take over your OSX system and... no, wait.

I always have to hide a laugh when clients ask what anti-virus tool they should buy for OSX.

-T

Bad file management?

[iapetus]

Unlike Windows, Linux doesn't have a C: Drive. It uses a root directory that's represented by < / >. Every file and folder is stored under the root directory, usually in subdirectories.

(My emphasis)

Would have liked them to test Ubuntu

[t482]

- Installation would have been worse (dos screens)
- synaptic solves the installing new software issues
(debian based distros are better for this)
- most of the distros they tested were KDE based. I believe GNOME is significantly easier for newbies.
- Gnome has a bit better documentation and wizards than kde.

That said I like kde a lot - I just think gnome is now to a point it is easier for new users.

Re:Would have liked them to test Ubuntu

[swv3752]

Both Xandros and Linspire are Debian based.

BTW, urpmi (Mandrake's dependancy handler that runs atop RPM) is at least as good as apt-get.

From the article it sounds like they were installing from tarballs though. If they had tried isntalling an RPM in SuSE or Mandrake, it should have been as simple as doubleclicking a file.

Doesn't sound ready

[Anonymous Coward]

How can an operating system which isn't easy to install software be ready for consumers?

This car is almost ready to be driven by consumers they'll just have a problem steering it.

Re:SuSE - OT

[vladnl]

terminal rocks !!! While Yast is nice, clear and blue :p it does not however contain latest updates for every package, as mentioned. Neither contains latest updates of your chosen desktop environment eg. KDE, Gnome... Plus you can find more applications with apt, which you would have to find otherwise browsing the net. Therefore I also prefer apt for updating Suse and installing everything I need. I have Ubuntu on my laptop, I am really happy with it's rock stability, but still prefer Suse for looks and ease of use and install of multimedia apps. But than again, that my oppinion.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

And that of course makes total sense to you, but for a PC user that CD would have booted without human interaction. What you describe is not understandable for granny.

Back to the drawing desc Apple.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[dfj225]

Ah, I didn't realize that Ubuntu uses Gnome exclusively. As far as the steps needed to launch an application, I suppose the differences are probably pretty minimal.

Unfortunately I don't get to spend much time with a system that uses Gnome or KDE. The only linux computer I really use is the one that hosts my website and it is headless so most of my interaction with is is through a bash prompt over ssh. What you said about no OS being suited for a non-geek is pretty much true. I know viruses/spy-ware on Windows is a huge problem, but I do believe that will proper care it can almost be eliminated. My windows boxes haven't had problems with viruses so far. In this aspect, you really need to know what you are doing to use Windows safely.

Re:Strange article doubled

[hfolkers]

None of the Linux distributions offer automatic updates
What is it then suse is doing??? I realy thought it was automatic updating... yes I turned it of but also did that in windows becaus I want to now what my internet is doing. But it isn't true linux doesn't offer automatic updating.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of a P4 ships with 96 mb of Ram?

The problem nobody seems to talk about

[bradleyland]

Let me explain the process where I (a Linux n00b) have encountered a problem:

1. Browse interenet
2. Find interesting software mentioned on Linux message board
3. Type name into 'get software' application included with distro
4. Find version that is a year old
5. Software doesn't work all that well because old version sucks compared to new one

In other cases, the software isn't listed at all. I'm running Mandrake. For some reason, I recall MPlayer either not being available through my 'get software' app, or not wanting to install for some reason.

I know my options, and I've got MPlayer working on my box because I understand download, config, make install, but grandma doesn't, and won't.

Relying on the individual distributions to deliver packages is a poor model. It duplicates too much work. Here, Linux's diversity works against it. If it were possible to build a package that worked on any distribution running on the same platform, grandma could download software in the same way she does on Windows. Double-click setup.exe and click next next next.

Re:The problem nobody seems to talk about

[jav1231]

I agree with some of your points. You have apt-get zealots, rpm zealots, YaST zealots. There will have to be some unification if we want to make the next step. This goes for the desktop too. I think Gnome and KDE will have to converge at some point. If we can get a unified package manager or even converge the various systems we will go a long way to making a unified framework. We can have various distro's and still have some convergence. We all use the same kernel after all (for the most part). It's in the best interest of Linux to do so IF we want mainstream viability. If we like things as they are, well it doesn't matter. I want to see Linux on the desktop become as viable as Windows and Mac. I want to go to a store one day and say, "Do you have CoolAppName?" and have them ask, "Do you need it for Windows, Linux, or Mac?" In order for that to happen, we'll have to let go of some things and compromise.

Re:The problem nobody seems to talk about

[ssj_195]

Go to http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/. Load up on software repositories. Then http://thebrix.org.uk/. I won't say that you'll never have to worry about this again, but you're supply of up-to-date packages will be enormously increased. PLF, for example, have a package for fairly bleeding-edge versions of mplayer with all required codecs (e.g. QuickTime, .wmv, Real, DVD etc). It's a shame that Mandrake don't link to these sites by default, but I guess there are legal reasons why they don't.

Hope this helps,

Simon

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[cHALiTO]

Right. Let's see.. How many Mac manufacturers are there? How many Mac models are there? How many possible combinations on ram type, cpu, mobo, etc etc?
Now how about a custom clone PC to all the brands and all the models, and different types of hardware?
OSX isn't easy to install because it's better designed or better written. Since it just doesn't need to work on that many different environments, it's a lot easier to automate the installation process.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[goldspider]

"My point is that Linux is very ready for the desktop, but people shouldn't be expected to administer their own systems."

A valid point, but that's what home PC users want.

They want to be able to install whatever software they want (for better or worse), and don't want to have to depend on someone else to use what is in their own home. They are likely frustrated by the same thing at work.

Now maybe this could be a business opportunity for a neighborhood geek, assuming there are enough people locally willing to try Linux and yield control of their machine to an expert. I suspect, however, the latter is too much for people to accept.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[dfj225]

Gnome does seem to have a simpler GUI than XP, although I haven't used it extensively for some time. For me, I tend to focus on the GUI's associated with the applications I use more than the os specific functions. If I spend all day using Firefox, that experience is going to be fairly similar on almost all major operating systems. One thing that I have noticed about Linux is that many applications differ greatly from the appearances/layout of things in the GUI. Especially ones that are written for a different window manager but get run using something different. For instance, applications written for X11 usually feel much different than native Gnome apps. This problem also affects Windows even though all applications are written for the same window manager. I think the only operating system that I have used that keeps a fair amount of similarity to the UI between applications is Mac OS X. At least, as an example, for that system, I know that the prefernces should be located in the same menus for each application. This isn't always true, but I think most developers try to follow Apple's guidelines.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[pboulang]

Try handing a non geek a Mac OS X install CD and watch them be greeted by a nice shiny screen, and get on with setting it up.

In direct opposition to TFA, but nevertheless completely correct.

Is Linux Ready for Comsumers?

[dmarx]

I would answer no.
It won't be ready for consumers until Joe Enduser, who doesn't want to learn how to program, or compile, or write drivers, who just wants to play games and go on the Internet and write letters, can go to Best Buy, buy a computer with Linux preinstalled, buy a printer at Best Buy, have that Just Work (as in it comes with a Linux driver; he doesn't have to write it himself or hunt one down in a forum where he will be derided for being a "st00pid n00b lol"), and buy Half Life 2 for Linux at Best Buy and have that Just Work-just install the game, no need to compile a binary for it or learn how to use wine.
And don't say "Oh, he can research that (where "that" is what hardware works with Linux, how to run wine, etc)!" This is not somebody like us who is interested in computers. This is somebody who just wants to get his work done, buy some stuff off Amazon, and play some games. He has enough on his plate without having to learn a lot about computers. (For an excellent rebuttal to the "stupid user/luser" sterotype by Jakob Nielsen, click here)

SuSE Plays DVDs !

[hppacito]

These people are MORONIC ! The default Kaffeine can play DVDs (the .VOB files without problem) but for "patent reasons" cannot play the DVD directly. But if you install xine-ui you can play DVDs directly with menues and all that... without installing any codec. I did it (SuSE Personal 9.1) This people are Moronic ! Antivirus in every os ?, why I want an antivirus in OSX ? or in Linux ?...

Only on Slashdot...

[krewemaynard]

...can an article about Linux vs. WinXP vs. OSX degenerate into a thread about the particulars of Unicode and apostrophes that, as of right now, took me 7 page-downs to get through.

ALL HAIL PETTY BICKERING!

Response: ALL HAIL

Re:Only on Slashdot...

[DuncMan]

And so say we all :-)

Re:Only on Slashdot...

[Dabido]

"ALL HAIL PETTY BICKERING!"

Yes, all hail Betty Pickering! Psst, who the frig is Betty Pickering?
Dude, your dyslexia is showing.
Dylsexia? Oh sorry, I'll put it back in my pants!

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[ajs318]

But people don't want to compile software - they just want to install it in a form that runs right away.

If you don't compile the software on your own machine, then how do you know it does what it's supposed to do? We should be trumpeting the advantages of local compilation, not trying to pretend it's OK to download packages compiled by someone else. The only objection is that it takes a small but finite amount of time to do. But once done, it's done forever.

As an experienced user, I really don't see what's wrong with the command line. I actually think the command line is another strength we should be trumpeting -- it's often just the quickest way of getting instructions into the computer. I'd much rather open up an Xterm and type

convert -resize 640x480 dscf0001.jpg helen_with_dog_1.jpg

than fart-arse around with loading a graphics editor, loading up the picture through a file requester, navigating through another complex requester to resize it and then back to the file requester to save it. Back in my Windows days, I often used to have to do a lot of just that kind of fart-arsing around, just to create thumbnails of photos for my web site. Even doing one picture at a time on the command line was quicker, but since I learned a bit of Bash and Perl there's been no stopping me.

Maybe we need a generic package installer with a GUI front end, that also shows you how you could have achieved the same operation at the command line. Take the CD-burning package K3B, for instance -- it is really just a pretty frontend to cdrecord, cdrdao and growisofs, and it actually shows you in its output what commands it was running. {It also has some smarts, and will try to figure out how your system is already set up rather than insist to have you configure your system the way it expects.} How hard can it be to have a pretty frontend for gunzip, tar, less, configure and make?

Xandros rocks!

[DanielJS]

Xandros is the best Linux distro for the mom and pop. I know, I installed it for all my relatives. Never crashes, easy to install new software (stuff they provide) has pptp vpn, dvd burning, tons of features and its only $40. I also have no problems installing apps for Debian. We have already upgraded 10 or so people from Windows to Xandros pro (79 version) and the thing even runs office xp... Simply love it. Xandros is coming out with a server version this year, making email, web, ftp, easy for Windows oriented people to go to...

Complete crap

[fitten]

Well... I had to stop reading the Linux/OSX propaganda document when I read things like:

You can't restrict applications to only one user account.

and basically the complaint that Excel isn't bundled with Windows but the other distributions of Linux/OSX have OpenOffice or something bundled with it that can read an Excel document. Microsoft always gets blasted for *bundling* apps (ooo...ooo... the beeg eval monopoly!) -and at the same time- blasted for not bundling apps (ooo...ooo... basic functionality left out!).

That "report" is nothing more than propaganda to further someone's agenda. It's garbage.

Re:Complete crap

[Bambi Dee]

You can't restrict applications to only one user account.

I've been wondering what they meant by that. Maybe it's like that in XP Home?

Re:Complete crap

[HolyCoitus]

The issue is that Microsoft creates its own proprietary formats along with those programs. If they bundled something to open Open Document files, no one would complain.

It's the fact that they create their own standards and then tightly integrate. If Internet Explorer developers had looked at the specs put out by the W3C I personally would not have cared if people used Internet Explorer.

As it stands, that bundling hurts web development. Look at any application that Microsoft bundles. It alters the standard every time I am aware of.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Cro Magnon]

I tried Ubuntu. It didn't set up X-Window correctly. Ubuntu isn't ready for MY desktop. Installing Linux is still a YMMV thing.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent summary. I have been working in a Linux environment for 5 years. I also cross platform on XP and OSX. Sounds like a fun company to work for. What would be cooler than working with cutting edge technology, helping people do their jobs better, saving everyone more money and encouraging the open source initiatives that are more responsive to users. I think it really comes down to ease of use and one or two killer apps for many users to switch. For me - it is all about the games and Linux just is not there yet. Maybe some distro needs to develop the tuxbox or peguinstation that also runs MythTV/Freevo -- yes I know you can build it -- but if a company would just develop something clean and fast that was under 100 bucks and looked clean and simple like an ipod ... they would fly off the shelves at walmart ;). Throw in a clean desktop option where I could email, im, write a doc or spreadsheet and websurf. Make it fit into a small shell I can bring with me anywhere with a lcd option and svideo/dvi out, wireless/bluetooth. Say about the size of an ipod - I think I'd cry. - who needs windows who needs a "desktop".

I agree on the Mac

[spitzak]

Installling software has not been clear to me at all on the Mac. In fact it seems needlessly baroque:

LAME was the worst: the file I get is some sort of box. I double-click the box and I get a disk (!). On that disk (at least it opens, since I would never find that rather non-descript icon on the desktop) is something I drag to applications, and then the program works, finally. I then think things are ok, so I close the window and eject the disk, and the program stops working! Okay, I'll leave the disk open. No, the program still does not work, I have to drag it again to the applications folder again! I finally give up, leave that original box, the disk icon, and the opened disk window on my desktop, and double-click the application. I have never gotton it better than that. To add insult to injury, I thought I'd figure out what is going on, and discovered it is impossible to get a pathname out of one of those mounted disks! I cannot even locate it so I can look in the terminal! That is just insane.

I did manage to install software from Apple, such as the developer tools, in a way that allowed me to throw away the disk and the box icons, but I remember even they were not very friendly.

I know an application can be an entire directory called an "app bundle". Why the hell are the files I download not resulting in such a directory on my desktop and then I double-click and it runs the program? I should be able to drag the resulting thing to the app directory and it is "installed" and there is no crap left on my desktop!

Can somebody explain what is going on? And why nobody is calling out OSX for having this baroque mess?

Re:I agree on the Mac

[dmaxwell]

Try running "df" in a Terminal.

Article written by an Idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is written by a dolt. That's to be expected, sure, but it's true nonetheless. Assumptions are made that just don't make any sense. Having the firewall on by default, needing antivirus software; these are things from a Microsoft Windows mindset, and really have no business in the other OSes that treat security seriously.

Then I read that the author had trouble -viewing photos- because he didn't know the "right folder" ? This guy really has no business reviewing different operating systems and presenting his "conclusions" as something to be taken seriously.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[DarkSarin]

Granted, but the argument remains--it is a matter of familiarity, NOT COMPLEXITY that keeps people on windows.

If you are a noob windows user, and set up windows from scratch (as most people would do with linux), there are as many tasks (and more reboots) to get the system fully functional as there are with most linux distros. Video drivers, office suites (installed by default on many linux distros), printers, odd device drivers (video capture anyone?), and more. Windows, like linux, has many of the drivers for more common and older hardware loaded on the disk.

Under windows you also need to go to the windows update site and get a lot of patches (and this will often get your other drivers, but not always the latest version).

I'm not arguing that either is really easier, but that they are comparable, and really, in many cases, NOT designed for non-geeks. Microsoft, if they had their way, would NEVER let end users install windows on a blank machine. They know that if they don't make this available, however, that many geeks will do worse things, such as installing linux or pirating windows.

As I see it, MS would prefer to only make pc's available preloaded with windows, and the only way to get a new version of windows is upgrade. They don't do this because there are too many other products--it doesn't make economic sense.

As for OSX, is that from a previous version, or from a clean box? Oh, wait--that's right, there is no 'clean box' for mac users. You HAVE to upgrade. Which is exactly what I said MS would like to be able to do. Apple can do it only because they have custom hardware. If MS has their way with things (DRM and controlled BIOS), they will have as much control over PC hardware as Apple does, and then you will have only two choices--MS or MAC.

Would it be possible to make a distro that works like this: insert linux cd into ANY computer that is already running or even a clean machine and BAM!--15 minutes later you have a working machine with a completely new OS--you would even get to keep your old OS if you wanted.

IIRC, the linspire install could start from within windows. It should be possible to do what I describe. There wouldn't need to be more than just a few options and the entire process could be done easily enough. What's more is you could set it up so that you choose ALL of your options BEFORE rebooting for installation, and it does the work once your done.

Is all this possible? Certainly. Is it worthwhile? Absolutely. Apparently, linux doesn't just need to be as good as windows, it has to be 3-5 times better IN EVERY REGARD. Hmm, maybe there is a usability improvement threshold that must be surpassed in order to convince people to make the change. This would be an interesting study.

Grandmas don't use man pages

[Deeze]

Well, I guess there could be 2 catagories here, "tech savvy" grandmas (I might fall into that catagory, as I am old enough to be a grandma, female, over 40 and 20+ years in the comp industry), and "user" grandmas (they use the "intarweb" and exchange recipes with other grandma's via email). I'm assuming we are talking about the latter type, of which "my" mom would fall into (over 60 and 0 years in the comp industry).

Most Linux systems that would be used by "Grandma" would likely be set up in a way that is very simple to use, by someone that *does* know how to read a man page. All they need is a button to access the WWW, a button to access email, and a button to access solitaire (lol), with everything else locked down and out of sight. This is easy to do. For the most part (in my experience), older people that are inexperienced with computers are quite scared to mess with anything they don't understand, because it might "blow up" their "cpu". They do not admin systems, they USE them, and usually in very limited amounts (yes, there are exceptions). I still don't why some people say how hard it is to use Linux. How is it harder than using windows? You click on a "button" and the program runs. Wow, really takes a genius to do that hehe. Now setting up and admining a system is different. I would no more hand the task of installing and configuring Linux to my mom than I would have her try to install and configure windows. She could do neither. People that aren't tech savvy simply buy pre-configged machines. Linux or windows, really doesn't matter, *using* either one should be a trivial matter for anyone that wishes to do so.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever that Linux may be harder to install than windows, as it tends to scare off those that would not be able to properly config the machine for security (haven't we all seen instances of someone being an ignoramus running root?). This is a two sided blade though, as those same people don't think twice about installing windows ("Oh look, a '98 cd." click-click-next wizard users), although in general they *still* don't know how to properly secure their machine, hence millons of owned zombie machines freely roaming the net.

Disclaimer: This is not a bash at windows users, it's an observation of *clueless* windows users.

Re:Grandmas don't use man pages

[KiloByte]

My apologies for abusing the word "grandma" :p

Being 27, and knowing a 14y old mom in the neighbourhood, I see that 27 is dangerously close to 2*14...

My Favorite Quote

[standbypowerguy]

Yes, I RTFA. My favorite quote: "Windows XP was the only operating system that couldn't recognise and open an imported Excel file -- the included office software is very basic so you need to install Microsoft Office or another more advanced program."

Re:My Favorite Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that MS should start bundling Office with Windows then?

We've had enough of your "facts"

[Anonymous Coward]

dagnabbit! git! We don't take kindly to yer type 'round here!

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[_Hellfire_]

yes yes and yes. I agree 100% with everything you just said.

That's one of the things that irks me about Linux (specifically the various GUIs) is that every applications looks different. Even when you theme them, sometimes the window frame gets a theme and then the application itself has this horrible Win95 style drab grey window without any theme on it. What's needed, IMHO is a way for an application to accept a theme from the manager no matter what it is (KDE/Gnome whatever). Maybe a unified API for themes or something. Disclaimer: I'm not a developer and don't know a lot about these things.

A warning to coffee drinkers...

[rnturn]

Please put your coffee down while reading the "Using your OS" section. Failure to do so may result in damage to your keyboard. This is especially true when you read the bullet points:

``Windows XP was the only operating system that couldn't recognise and open an imported Excel file...''

and

``Windows XP and Mac OS X both required drivers in order to set up our printer; the Linux distributions included the drivers.''

Remember all that talk a while back about Linux having poor driver support? (OK, that may be true to a certain extent if you're a hardcore gamer, but then you guys will still have trouble finding a lot of games that run natively on Linux anyway.)

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for suggestion. I'm going to install it on my dad's old computer.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[MaestroRC]

I concur on this one. I work for an IT consulting firm, and just yesterday I was reinstalling windows on a home desktop machine of one of our larger clients (we kind of do this stuff on the side to keep them happy), and it took me over 3 hours to get it going right. This is a newer Dell system (less than 6 months old). Discounting the first 30 minutes aside where I was backing up the documents using a linux rescue CD that supports NTFS (I know WTF I'm doing, so I just boot in CLI and smbmount another machine's share, and do the copy by hand... it was 95% transfer time), it still took 2 and a half hours to just install windows, install SP2 (her install disk was SP1), have it get all the updates, install office (did this while downloading updates, actually), and install AV software.

Also, what was I greeted with when the computer turned on first boot after the install? 640x480 resolution at 256 colors, since it didn't have video drivers. And what about the rest of the hardware? No sound card, no NIC, no modem. Luckily, she was a good egg, and kept all of her driver disks and such, but I can honestly say, if this were her, my parents, or even my older brother or sister, they would *not* have been able to get through this setup. And for windows updates, sure it may be relatively easy, but I had to reboot the machine at least 10 times between initial install and having a working, and up to date, system.

Compare this to a current mac, such as my sister's new eMac, where she took it out of the box, set it up, and called me after it was working to tell me how much she liked it, and how she thought it was so much better than windows (she had never used a mac before, and has been using windows for about 8-9 years now). It took her a single restart to get all the needed updates installed and working. And same goes for my fedora box, which requires a restart only when the kernel is updated.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[A.Chwunbee]

The one thing that stops me dead in my tracks is my memories (PLEASE! ARGH! KILL ME NOW!) of providing phone support to users in a large corporate environment.

I am always most pleased to be encountering a fellow Indian!

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[Tim C]

In my personal experience, everything you say in your post (especially the numbered list) applies just as well to XP.

The biggest problem facing Windows users are the users themselves. Move them all to Linux without educating them and they'll have much the same problems, once the malware writers have followed them.

You are a complete burro.

[jotaeleemeese]

It is not like most people have to install the OS in most computers for bunny's sakes.

Normally a techie type in some form or another (either in a shop, OEM, or a script written by a geek for a big computer manufacturer) will install the OS first.

With Linux that techie very often is a friend or colleague that got tired of the "Windows eXPerience" [tm].

Your argument is frankly pointless, you are just stating the fucking obvious, which does not contribute much to the debate to be bluntly honest.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[kesuki]

how many people can install WINDOWS? just the other week I had to pull a hd out of a system and defragment the HD because the windows installer had locked up due to a 97% fragmented HDD... The person who did it, was trying to fix a slow computer issue by replacing her old windows ME with windows XP, the slowness was obviously due to disk fragmentation, although a quick scan for spyware found one spyware application that had come with a shareware screensaver. See, most people think they're technically savy --; when they've got reinstalling windows by themsleves to fix serious issues down pat. I had actually mentioned to the person that oftentimes windows needs to be defragmented when a computer slows down, and if that doesn't fix it it's probabbly spyware and she STILL tried to use an upgrade CD of windows XP to try to 'fix' a computer that only needed defragmenting.
Installers are getting better, live CDs are great
fyi the mirrors for ubuntu have live cds and live cd torrents. Literally as easy as popping in a CD and you can 'try' linux on a computer. True, the live CD isn't optimized for AMD 64 (they have an AMD 64 installer, though) but it should run in the 64's 32-bit mode anyways. not sure and I don't have a 64 around the house to test the live with :

It Doesn't Get Funnier Than This...

[Master of Transhuman]

"Windows XP was the only operating system that couldnt recognise and open an imported Excel file the included office software is very basic so you need to install Microsoft Office or another more advanced program."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You dont have to believe it if you dont want to...

[splatterboy]

What? "OSX isn't easy to install because it's better designed or better written." Thats just silly...

Of course that is why its easier to intall, does Adobe intall uniquely to every model or brand of computer? No it does not. There have been at least 13 different macs (G3 all-in-one, beige G3, blue/white G3, G4 and G5 powermac desktops - Powerbook G3 and G4 - imac all-in-one, imac flat-panel G4, imac G5, emac G4,ibook clamshell, ibook G3 and ibook G4 ) going back to 1997 that I have installed OSX on and it did the same exact thing EVERY TIME. "Put CD in drive... Click install button... Click next a few times in the normal GUI... Wait for the progress bar... Finished." (gratis beelsbob) Not only that but there have been significant architectural, RAM types, CPU upgrades/revisions within those mac models as well. Many of these machines came out years before OSX hit the market.

You dont have to believe it if you dont want to but its true - the mac does it better. I dont have to add anything about M$ to make it more true.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[joshmccormack]

Most computers get to grandma type folks already set up. I'm more concerned with it being usable on a daily basis than setup.

Is it really that much harder?

[Exluddite]

I have found a lot of Linux distros just as easy to use as XP. Granted, there are a few things to get used to. It's handy to know some commands (ok, you have to know some commands to do anything useful) but anyone who remembers DOS should be used to that. Software installation can be a bit more of a chore. Most software that "mom and pop" would want is available as an RPM though. Once you figure out how to use something like YAST, you're in. These are not people who want to compile from source or be on the bleeding edge. They want to check email, plug in their digital camera and save photos, surf the web, etc. The CD burning thing being more difficult I just don't get. Recently I got a new machine and was running XP. I decided to snag some ISO's and set up a Linux system or two since I had spare drives. Now everything else is there, but burning an ISO wasn't. I had to go around my ass to get to my elbow to get this done. In Linux, I download the image, bring it to the CD burning program, click "burn iso", done. Data and music files seem just as easy. The one real problem I had was that my wireless card was not recognized and I had to install Madwifi to make it work. Of course if a larger percentage of users had Linux, they'd have packaged an RPM with the card wouldn't they?

When one doesn't have to research HW

[Anonymous Coward]

I really think linux is an "upgrade" to windows and an incredible bargain, but there is NO WAY any of my non-technical friends would put up with not just being able to buy a printer or scanner and just plug it in and put in a CD.

Sometimes in a forum like this the "average user" is referred to like someone who "just knows VB". The true norm/average user I have met has no idea what an O/S or application is. They just tell me "you know the computer". My mom liked my linux setup better because the "screen was bigger"...(and yes, I renamed "Mozilla Firefox" to "Firefox Internet").

BTW, I am researching a scanner that will be supported using Suse 9.2. I know about SANE, but the database has a mixture of what is and what is not supported. If someone knows of a site that sells HW supported by most major distros, and I can look at "only supported" items, please post a link.

thanks.

Re:When one doesn't have to research HW

[Anonymous Coward]

You could use VueScan, which works in Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. There is a nice list of supported scanners. www.hamrick.com

Wrong 4 Linux distrros compared!

[gaslightjoe]

After using Mandrake for a number of years, wifi was invented. No matter how I tried, Mandrake would never find my wireless card. In fact, I tried it again with version 10 and it still did not find my orinoco card.

Switching to liveCD PCLinuxOS, based on Mandrake, my laptop worked right off the CD. Mandrake lost me. A lot of geek tweaking with Mandrake never made the wireless work. I got tired of trying.

Standard Debian does not find wireless cards very well either, but Knoppix and its derivatives like Kanotix and xfld find everything nicely. Some knoppix-derived distros, such as the morpix-based CDs, don't seem find everything all the time, but they exceed the standard Debian install, which requires multiple disks.

Knoppix is the innovator here with its cloop autoconfiguring complete-linux-distro-on-one-cd technology, but it gives you everything with loosely-organized menu that overwhelms the first-time user. And I switched to xfld because it dumps KDE for a less resource-intense xfce desktop with a simpler menu structure that has fonts I can read. I'd like to see the knoppix technology incorporated into debian.

RPM is an inadequate updating mechanism when compared to apt-get. With RPM you are always looking for another dependency to download, but apt-get finds the dependencies and installs everything needed to make the program you wanted work.

The Synaptic Package Manager is a pretty good GUI interface to apt-get, but I still find the command line easier and faster to use.

Maybe they could rename synaptic to update...

Re:Wrong 4 Linux distrros compared!

[The Master Control P]

"RPM is an inadequate updating mechanism when compared to apt-get. With RPM you are always looking for another dependency to download, but apt-get finds the dependencies and installs everything needed to make the program you wanted work."

That's what things like urpmi and gurpmi and all the other __rpm_ programs are for:

On Mandrake (after you've chosen an update source, of course), 'urpmi --update --auto-select -y' will update everything, assuming that you don't have CERTAIN PROGRAMS *coughglibcandalsacough* which don't want to cooperate, in which case you'll have to add --force and --allow-force to override the dependencies. And the nice thing is that urpmi is just a perl script, implying that it should be quite portable.

Where Linux needs immediate improvement.

[Anonymous Coward]

As the article makes clear, the most important thing to conquer right now is the desktop.

* Hard to install other software
* DVD player doesn't automatically start DVD, hard to find relevant files.
* Includes an earlier version of K3b which can burn CDs but not DVDs.
* You need to install the help files separately
* You need to install the games separately
* Click-n-Run costs extra
* No DVD player
* Confusing email program setup
* Hard to understand help files
(And I think FireFox is the best browser out there.)

Everything necessary should work right out of the box (especially internet and multimedia applications). Tools should be standardized, easy to find, and easy to use. And people need to be able to install and uninstall programs cleanly and easily.

These are basic and immediate needs that need to be addressed if Linux is going to gain the acceptance of the average Jane or Joe out there.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[Deeze]

" I really don't think that users being able to administer their systems should be considered a serious problem when considering linux on the desktop."

And this, I think, says it all in a nutshell. Excellent. Thank you.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

As some one else pointed out, the winXP setup is not any more freindly than the Ubuntu Setup (which by the way, is MUCH better than the winXP setup, when you get right down to it--faster too).

So let me get this straight: X is no better than Y (which is way better than X)?

Browsers

[zogger]

That can't be correct? Xandros runs explorer?

I imagine all this is covered, but really, they needed to have used some other distros as well. As explain the process of actually getting linux in more detail. No mention was made of the huge number of copy resellers who offer linux for a few dollars and the cost of shipping. I found very little emphasis on how actually free or cheap in cost linux can be, how customizable, or how many programs actually come with various distrobutions. If all you knew about linux came from this review, it would look like if you went and got some linux distro it would have at best a dozen programs. Heck, even the mini distros have dozenS of programs available. The full size distros have hundreds, multiple browsers, multiple word processors, developer tools, multiple this or that, covering the range of human activities that you would actually want to do on a computer, even for joe home user. And if they wanted to do "live cd" review, they really should have included the latest knoppix, as that got that whole ball rolling.

It was a review, I wouldn't call it even a good review, I give it a C-.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[LikelyStory]

"People shouldn't be expected to administer their own systems."

Aagh. This is awful.

The support staff here (university) basically forbids people from administering their own systems, due to all the Windows viruses, spyware, etc.

So all my colleagues have to call and wait for someone whenever they want to install new software. No thanks.

I managed to escape, happily administering my own machine, only because I arrived running Mac OS X Panther which at the time they didn't yet support.

Here's a choice nugget..

[musselm]

FTFA: "Windows XP was the only operating system that couldn't recognise and open an imported Excel file -- the included office software is very basic so you need to install Microsoft Office or another more advanced program." I'm not sure what opens an Excel file from the get-go on an Apple system, but it's still a fun quotation.

Unable to open excel files without buying Office??

[PerlPo8]

How about they download openoffice.org for windows.

Re:You dont have to believe it if you dont want to

[jcknox]

I have a couple of problems with your "logic."

1. Comparing some Adobe app to an OS is definitely apples (no pun intended) to oranges. Adobe works across many hardware configurations because the OS is doing its job.

2. You talk about 13 different Macs -- do I need to point out that all of them were designed and built by Apple? You know, the people that wrote the OS? Comparing 13 different Macs to 13 PC's with 3 or 4 different CPUs (Intel, AMD, Transmeta, etc), 2 or 3 different Graphics cards (Invidia, S3, ATI, etc), 12 or 13 different motherboards (too many to list) is definitely comparing apples to non-apples.

The mac may do it better , but not for the reasons you listed.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[Retired Replicant]

This is a great idea except that I believe the average Joe end-user would find this kind of administration to be a hassle. I mean, having to call or e-mail someone everytime you install a new piece of software? That is just not going to fly in terms of hassle-factor and ease-of-use. My stepfather is a pretty clueless end-user, but even he is capable of buying Turbotax off a store shelf and installing it himself.

The main problem I see is that too many end-users expect their PC to be a completely maintenance-free device like a DVD player or television set. They need to take the idea of "safe computing" -- regular maintenance and preventive measures -- more seriously like most people do with their car.

OS X

[bonch]

I'm extremely curious why the Linux desktops haven't implemented the drag-and-drop install and uninstall of OS X applications. It's really nice to be able to just drag apps anywhere--even while they're running--and to uninstall them, simply drag them to the trash can. At most, apps will leave behind some small text configuration files here and there that you can remove.

Instead, the Linux desktops have veered off into the direction of Windows and went for the "registry" approach. That is, a database of sorts that tracks what's installed and uninstalled, because files are scattered all over the place.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[moonbender]

And that of course makes total sense to you, but for a PC user that CD would have booted without human interaction.

That's true for some PCs, not for others. Changing boot options in the BIOS isn't exactly understandable for granny either. And actually, don't all Windows install CDs require you to press enter ("Press Enter to boot from CD" prompt)? But I guess granny might be able to figure that one out.

good idea

[zogger]

really good idea there. when I first came over to linux I tried using man pages, incomprehensible acronymed to the extreme junk pages mostly. First impression I had and I still have it whenever I am forced to type that dreaded command. I still rarely use them, and avoid them if at all possible. Written when hard drives were ten megs and cost hundreds of dollars and little changed it appears. Instructions should be written in clear unambiguous form with complete sentences and any acronyms should be written out full so that the actual names may be understood so that if there is a reference needed for understanding it can be easily found. There's no reason in 2005 to have crap manuals, electronic or dead tree version. Not for something you purchase for large folding money at least. Now, I didn't like this review, but it has to be noted it wasn't a review for snooty unix admins either, so all commentary from that perspective on this whole thread from various pro admins is a tangent from the situation with "instructions". The concept of "user friendly" applies to all humans actually. If you use it, you want it friendly, no matter if you are an admin with decades of experience or a noob with hours of experience. Whether GUI/html form or console text, help pages should solve problems, not confuse the issue, so simple with a reference to a more in depth help section is a very good idea and I hope it gets adopted more by the major distros.

Re:good idea

[KiloByte]

You're leaving the task of actually writing the documentation.

A very common downside of most software projects is the lack of documentation, even that of the technical variety. Can you volunteer to write it, and are you good at writing decent grandma docs? At least, I'm not.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[waltsj19]

What surprises me is that nobody yet seems to have seriously jumped into a potentially great business opportunity of offering remote linux administrations for home users.

This would work well if the average user could realize/comprehend the advantages of Linux. Many average users don't even realize what an OS is, much less that they can change it. Convincing them why they should change it would be nearly impossible.

In addition to this, most average users have never even heard of Linux, and those that have think that it is a geek term and stay as far away from it as possible.

How so...?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.apple.com/safari/

Type COMMAND-F and search for 'seamless'. The latest version of Safari will automatically clean up most .tar/.sit/.zip files for you, and will even automatically install applications when the download completes.

As far as disk images go, they've become quite popular for distribution on OSX, and I think they work pretty well - they ARE virtual disks. To use terminal to diagnose the issue, just:

cd /Volumes

I think software installation on OSX is actually really well done, and the application bundle format makes everything quick and easy. In fact, most applications don't even NEED installers. The format gives you drag and drop simplicity.

Re:How so...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Type COMMAND-F and search for 'seamless'. The latest version of Safari will automatically clean up most .tar/.sit/.zip files for you,

That is completely wrong. The browser should NOT uncompress files automatically. It has no idea whether that's a good idea (it may be a huge file that I just want to burn to CD).

Linux and Windows browsers were doing this sort of nonsense for a couple of years, and they have stopped doing it because it is wrong.

and will even automatically install applications when the download completes.

If it does that for anything other than package downloads (where Linux and Windows do it as well), it is even worse: it has no idea whether that is safe.

I think software installation on OSX is actually really well done, and the application bundle format makes everything quick and easy. In fact, most applications don't even NEED installers. The format gives you drag and drop simplicity.

That's a todally geeky attitude. I can tell you from support experience: most non-geeks have no idea what to drag or where to drag it.

In fact, most applications don't even NEED installers. The format gives you drag and drop simplicity.

Drag-and-drop installs are anything but simple. But, hey, that attitude is not surprising: Apple picks solutions that sound good when they market their computer, not solutions that actually work well in practice. Apple doesn't know beans about usability, it seems.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, imagine how much she'd love a Mac.

right....

[Run4yourlives]

you try that, and open a real excel spreadsheet... with graphs, formulas etc.

See how far you get... sure you can fix it, mom and pop cannot.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[waltsj19]

oo.org was to slow on his P4 with 96MB RAM

Who runs a P4 with only 96MB RAM? Seems like it'd defeat the point of shelling out the money for a P4.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[moonbender]

Yes, driver support has always been a problem on the Windows platform. Haha. While I do get update drivers from the internet or a USB stick once I install a Windows system (disks? CDs? eek), saying you "must" do this for any MS operating systems. XP has a LOT of drivers available on the install CD, and many systems are at least usable with them on their own. Unless something has dramatically changed in the past year or so, XP still supports more (x86) devices out of the box than Linux, exceptions like your SCSI adapter nonwithstanding. And getting updated drivers on Windows usually is quite painless and done in minutes, while it's a fairly involved process in Linux.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Here Here.

You're calling out like someone is offering up free icecream... Here Here... I want some.

If you are supporing a comment someone made, wouldn't you say "Hear Hear"?

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[demon411]

The current model is more convenient for end user:

use the computer til it breaks, fix computer..

this repeats til they get fed up and stop using their computer or figure out adaware and virus scanning.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[dmarx]

What surprises me is that nobody yet seems to have seriously jumped into a potentially great business opportunity of offering remote linux administrations for home users. Essentially it'd be linux by subscription, ironically enough.

For this to even have a chance of working, you'd have to get it preinstalled, and include things like setting up wine (for games) and tracking down/writing drivers in the package. Because otherwise, the sitiation would be "OK, I can use Windows for free (if it came with my computer) or for, at most $150, and I can just go to the store and find a game or a printer that will Just Work with it without doing a huge amount of research. Or, I can get this Linux administration package, and pay, say, $20 a month for as long as I use computers, and I'll have to to a huge amount of research every time I want to buy hardware or a game."
Gee, which do you think I'd choose (Hint: I'm a college student, and I do enough research for papers.)?

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[mkldev]

The sad thing is that this problem is easily solved with tools. For example, a lot of Apple's man pages are now being created with the MPGL (man page generation language). It's a little open source tool that turns an HTML-like language into mdoc man pages.

See HeaderDoc User's Guide: Using the MPGL Suite

Shouldn't be particularly hard to adapt Texinfo to spew something like this. Texi2latex converts Tex to Latex via XML. Just stop it halfway and add some code to transform the XML dtd. Better, modify texi2html to push out a thinned html with appropriate headings.

And /. strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Server Application Unavailable" "The web application you are attempting to access on this web server is currently unavailable. Please hit the "Refresh" button in your web browser to retry your request." "Administrator Note: An error message detailing the cause of this specific request failure can be found in the application event log of the web server. Please review this log entry to discover what caused this error to occur."

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[ReinoutS]

If I spend all day using Firefox, (...) For instance, applications written for X11 usually feel much different than native Gnome apps.

If you want a browser that not only feels like a native GNOME app, but actually is one, try Epiphany (default GNOME browser) or Galeon.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[labratuk]

The tentacle screensaver is not a MacOS X ripoff. They're all ports of the same screensaver. It was originally written as a little hack by an opengl nerd, and Apple liked it so much that they included it in jaguar/panther (I forget). It's just been ported pretty much everywhere.

Re:I call bullshit! Linux ain't... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

given that here in europe several ****whole governments**** are using linux, eg office workers, accountants, secretaries etc.. are all these people hobbyists and diehard masochists you haven't actually used linux in the last few years have you. stop watching Serial Experiment Lain and get with the times. linux is popular, in fact the fastest growing OS by nearly two times any other. get down with the times.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[einhverfr]

It's definitely an interesting idea, and I've toyed with ideas like it. The one thing that stops me dead in my tracks is my memories (PLEASE! ARGH! KILL ME NOW!) of providing phone support to users in a large corporate environment.

My company does provide remote administration services for Linux users at home or for business. Windows too...

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[fitten]

Nah... it's a bonding thing. Either will work for him but to make him feel more comfortable and fit into the family, the dad is being nice and is going to get him to do something for him. By praising his work that he did for his gf's grandmother, it'll bolster his self-confidence around the family.

There's 100s of variations on it. Invite your son's girlfriend to help out in the kitchen because she made some "delicious" cookies some time in the past. Get your daughter's boyfriend to help out in the garage with something to help him feel like he's fitting in, etc.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Anonymous Coward]

why people think using linux means the CLI i just don't know.

sensible people use the friendly "Search" button in Gnome/KDE or whatever. Hypocritically these same people wouldn't assume that using Windows means learning DOS. why do people consciously make their life harder?

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[brunogirin]

I've got a friend in France who does exactly this. He started his own small business to setup and administer computers for home users and small businesses. He will do Windows, Linux and Mac depending on the needs of the users and I'm sure he's had more than one person switched to Linux that way. He's got quite a lot of business because he is local and can respond to queries very quickly. In fact, he just hired his first employee.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[skiman1979]

what would have happened if you'd handed them the install CDs and said get on with it?

<p>Using this logic, Windows XP is not ready for the desktop. If you handed a WinXP CD to "grandma" and told her to install it, she wouldn't even bother. You can't say that an operating system is not ready for the desktop because average users can't install it. The average user generally can't (and doesn't need to) install XP, 2000, or OS X because they already come preinstalled.</p>

<p>I say Linux is ready (maybe certain distributions, mandrake, ubuntu, etc.) for the desktop. There just needs to be a company or someone that will do the installation like OEMs do for Windows.</p>

Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The article is very much focused on "mums and dads", and concludes Linux is just about ready for consumers, although installing new software could pose some problems for those who aren't really computer savvy."

WTF!?! So that would be a big fat NO. Damn, is it really that difficult to admit that OS X is by far the easiest to configure and manage on the computer market today.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Queer Boy]

At first he was a bit bored because he had to learn some new things (for example the "Applications" menu is on the top left, and not on the bottom), but he got the changes quickly and adapted to the new OS in a few days.

Is "bored" Australian slang for "mad beyond all reason"? Most Windows end users will shit their pants if you move an icon on the desktop or change the wallpaper, let alone move the "Start" menu (you know he kept calling it the Start menu no matter what it's named in Linux).

"Ever since the wallpaper was changed the internet is slow, I think you need to change the wallpaper back to make the internet run faster."

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Queer Boy]

my 8 year old sister uses synaptic to browse & install the games category, and generally likes ubuntu more than windows

She also likes Bratz and Hi Hi Puffi Ami Yumi. Tastes differ.

Your sister hasn't had 10-15 years of Windows computing experience behind her which doesn't make learning Linux any different than learning Windows or learning Greek for that matter. For most computer users if it's different it needs to be recognisable. I don't think any of the Linux desktop environments have reached that point.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[adamruck]

Hate to tell you, but most people cant install windows either. It takes a geek to do that also.

Me: Ok, insert your windows cd into your computer, restart.
Them: I see windows again
Me: Ok, go into the bios by pressing delete when your computer is restarting.
Them: Um, can you just come over?

The quality of the operating system is not dependant on wether or not the user can figure out how to start installing it.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[siveys]

"The support staff here (university) basically forbids people from administering their own systems, due to all the Windows viruses, spyware, etc."

The support staff here (at my university) basically lets people install any software they wish.

And I'm not saying they are doing a bad job. The Linux systems work like a charm and majority of our student (in the cs faculty) and staff use them as their primary OS even though a dual booting Windows is also provided. As an average user you really don't need to install anything since everything a normal user needs is already installed. They just have the option for us who like some exotic software (like an excellent experimental window manager called ion) to compile and install it for ourselves.

The latest treat is the Windows 2003 server login which you can open with some remote technology on one of your virtual desktops to use some of those legacy Windows administration apps or just see how your OpenOffice.org made presentations work in PowerPoint.

The machines very rarely have problems which are not hardware dependant and the basic login takes just as long as X and KDE take to start (when all of their data is usually fully cached in memory already) which is a snap compared to the Windows servers administered with Netware.

I would really want to see such a functional system built using Windows products too, but I doubt it would be an easy task.

And just to note: Even though almost all users use Linux the sizes of our Windows and Linux administration staff are equal.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

(well, maybe not 3.11, but I've never installed that).

That would have taken quite a while. It was on diskettes, and HDs were really slow back then.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[KillerDeathRobot]

Doesn't Walmart actually sell Linspire machines currently?

Almost ready? You're shittin' me...

[nazzdeq]

Most anything is a pain in the ass to do in Linux. You always need some library that you don't have or have to compile. make clean make install make meASandwich ooops..buggy makefile...oops some error in some .c program. 2 hours Googling Groups and find some guy back in 1997 who asked the same question and hasn't received a reply yet. Been there, done that. OS X is light years ahead. KDE, Gnome? The Linux GUIs are just horrible. There's no style or usability at all. It looks like Windows 95. You will never get a standard deskop GUI because it's open source and too many distros. Without a standard GUI, it will never work for average home users. Grandma goes to the neighbor for help and he's running a completely different UI w/ different apps to do the same tasks. Linux is an example of what not to do. -Nazz

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[poofyhairguy82]

Is Ubuntu ready for the desktop? You bet your ass it is.

It is. I won't boot into anything else personally. But I wouldn't hand out the Ubuntu CD like its candy though. Two reasons. The first one is that there are a bunch of packages that have to be installed in order to get a "fully working desktop." For me, no probelm- fire up synaptic, enable the universe and install to the hearts content. I can go from a clean hard disk to a fully functional Ubuntu in 28 minutes on broadband. But I think that some of my friends would have trouble added that software themselves. Maybe not.

The biggest reason I can't pass out Ubuntu is that fact that people my age have all this damn illegal data that they are hell bent on holding on to. Getting rid of Windows isn't a problem- backing up their 40 gigs of MP3s and getting rid of windows is a problem. You can't jsut tell people "Just redownload all that stuff," because then they will throw the Ubuntu CD in the trash. Thats why making converts of my friends (all twenty something) is hard work. Many could benefit from Ubuntu , but they are too lazy to backup all their illegal data on CDs and it would take me too much time to do it for them. The people who are ripe for the "Ubuntu switch" are

1. People who have never used a computer. (Grandma jumps to mind here)

2. Someone who already has backups of their data

(best case) 3. Someone who has already nuked their XP machine. These people are great- their damn data is already gone (well, not completly, as a knoppix disk could probably get it back. But I'm not willing to waste my night backing up illegal info on Knoppix when my eventual goal is to spread Linux. )

Re:I call bullshit! Linux ain't... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

you haven't actually used linux in the last few years have you

Original I call bullshit poster here. i've used Linux plenty lately and its actually gone backwards. Less standards (a lot more choice but nothing works without having to look up 101 strange bugs with your specific hardware on the net just to get XWindows running). Before you bitch about which distro I'm using I tried a bunch. Debian, Mandrake, Fedora to name a few.

Users in Government departments have very specific tasks to perform, are grosely inefficient at the best of times, and will still have a support department to call on.

get down with the times

Who the fuck talks like that? What are you? Some kind of 70s pimp?

You need Debian

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most documented distros on the planet.

And if you can't make that go ... then you ain't half the tech you think you are.

But then ... if you were serious about wanting a Linux distro that meets your specific criteria, you would have figured that out by now. Through trial and error if nothing else.

Obviously that hasn't happened, so we can add "lazy" to "moderately skilled" and "overblown ego."

Re:You need Debian

[KiloByte]

I am using Debian. It's an excellent distribution for me, it's just not good for grandmas.

A cow-orker who does tech support and software deployment couldn't manage to install it on both machines he tried to make Linux systems (he's generally a Windows user) without my help. In the first case (a year ago), the install media was a set of Woody CDs, in the latter (like two weeks ago) it was the new D-I targetted at Sarge.

During the first installation, my friend got stumped at making his USB ADSL work. He called me, I've got to his place -- and I needed quite a fair bit of time to realize that we need the eagle-* packages. A newbie-friendly distribution would identify the piece of USB equipment, consult it against some database and stuff the needed information into the user's face.

The second one broken when the packages chosen by tasksel didn't fit on the disk (it was an old 1GB drive). There was no warning that he's about to run ouf of space -- apt checks just the packages' installed size, ignoring both the .debs and space needed during the installation. The result? Most packages were left in a badly broken state, making it impossible to use any automated tool for recovery. I had to intervene, manually remove a number of random packages with dpkg to leave some space for apt. Only then we could start to even think about using apt again.

The bottom line: if even a techie got completely stumped by pretty basic tasks, how can you label Debian a distribution good for Joe Sixpack?

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO,

fairly complicated? in Ark, Suse I just plug in the hardware boot up to linux and it tells me "new hardware found, configure?" then you click yes and it configures your hardware.

(Suse is the easier of the two when it comes to this.)

Windows you get new hardware if windows doesn't have a driver for it, it will try using a cheesy generic driver that usually causes the system to crash. OR, if you have the CD you can put that in then it asks for you to search for the driver (in win XP they finally made windows search the whole cd for drivers.)

Then you are presented with a sceen that would intimidate anyone non-technical. "Is this your device" as I like to call it. Windows doesn't know for sure so it asks for your confirmation. and if you are wrong, you get blue screens again!

"XP still supports more (x86) devices out of the box than Linux"

completely disagree. Every linux distro I've used has WAY better hardware support out of the box then any version of windows available.

It's not just SCSI adapters, get a MOBO with SATA and if you want to install it to a SATA drive you'll need a special driver disk to do it with windows. Otherwise windows won't even see the drive until you install the drivers.

Windows hardware detection is slow and ungainly, compare it to any linux live cd how fast they get almost any hardware working (and in many cases hardware that crashes windows!) and then a minute later boot up into a completely useable workspace.

Windows COULDN'T have a working live cd because it's hardware management SUCKS.

Playbouy

[SeanDuggan]

Somehow, I'm seeing a sailor sporting this after way too long on the ocean without companionship...

Re:You dont have to believe it if you dont want to

[felis_panthera]

ooohhh.... 13 whole variants... scary scary stuff...

the only time I've ever installed an OS on two identacle PCs is when they were all bought on the purchase order... I've installed on more than 13 different mobos, each and every one of them with a completely different set of hardware...

and what's worse?? the people building the OS aren't the same people building the hardware like in your little macintosh monolith over there... I saw a PII 233 with a 5.25" disk drive in it!! the maximum possible number of permutations for mac hardware is miniscule when compared to the near infinite different possibilities for a PC...

under the same circumstances, the mac install/upgrade would be just as mind-stuntingly kludgey as our current options out here in the real world of PC land...

Well, yes and no

[Blamemyparents]

Applications designed for Aqua, that is ones that follow Apple's guidlines, are very consistent. Apple layed out the ground rules for EVERYTHING plain and simple, and I think that they were smart for doing so, and would not mind a bit if others copied them. However, I'm going to call you on the claim that all OS X apps are consistent. you said that x11 apps have a different feel from native gnome apps. On OS X, x11 apps not only have a different feel from Aqua apps, they stick out like sore thumbs, badly. all the running x11 apps are listed under the same icon in the dock, and the fact that programs have menu bars within the window, not the top, throws mac users big time. Apple has a 'ghost' window manager thing going that makes copy and paste (from Aqua to x11), dock minimization etc work, so the apps are as functional as an Aqua counterpart, but just so ugly and ...well, NOT Aqua that most mac users want nothing to do with them.

Re:Well, yes and no

[dfj225]

What you said about X11 apps on OS X is true, but in my opinion most normal Mac users will never need to run X11 apps. While it would be fairly common for an average Linux user to use applications written for X11 while using Gnome or KDE. In fact, it seems that X11 apps are as part of a base installation of most distros. Going along with this thread, someones father is more than likely not going to install X11 on his Mac and then proceed to download a bunch of X11 apps, while if this same person was using Linux he would more than likely come across a few apps in his distro that were written for X11 and will look noticeably different than say apps written for Gnome.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[felis_panthera]

Yes, and I have yet to see it recognize an on board video card... never... not once... if I'm lucky the mobo is new and I still have the driver disc that came with it...

worse still, an onboard NIC... then I can't even get the network up and running to go dig through the bowels of the intarweb for a driver which 2/3s of the time doesn't even have an XP version...

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[swv3752]

There are a couple of projects that do this. Mandrake's Galaxy and Red hat's Blue Curve is a collection of themes for KDE and GNOME that gives the coresponding apps an almost identical look. It is also possible to import GTK+ themes into KDE.

There will still be some Programs that don't fit, Moz being the most egregious one, but some of the Firefox themes are GTK+ aware so they will fit in pretty nicely. Plus one could use Galeon or Epiphany or even Nautilus. And Konqueror is a decent option if you use KDE.

Re:You dont have to believe it if you dont want to

[splatterboy]

Engineers at HP, Dell, etc. design/spec their machines the same way Apple does. The company then buys the components and pays some factory somewhere to assemble it. It should work because they designed it to work, made working prototypes and have the crappy M$ software to test it with. It's not DIY on a massive scale.

Apple does it the same way. The hardware engineers have the same access to Mac OS that the HP guys have to M$ and its their job to get it to work.

If the PC engineers aren't spec'ing out the right parts or the assembly factory substitutes non-spec parts (QC?) then you have a point. Unless you're saying that these companies intentionally design and use suspect parts that may or may not be compatible with each other or the intended software and then do not test it to make sure it all works as intended. That goes for the component manufacturers as well. Are they intentionally making a product that will not work within known M$ parameters?

PC manufacturers build their machines the same way Apple does (in Taiwan or somewhere, in many of the same factories) and if it doesn't work then its bad design or poor manufacturing.

To say "Apple builds..." isn't accurate. They don't "build" anything.

To say "most PC hardware is saddled with crappy M$ software" is accurate? Yes.
As for Adobe, the point was that they get their software to run on multiple machines, brands, OSs, CPUs, graphics cards etc because it's designed, engineered, and tested more rigorously than M$. It doesn't happen by accident. Would it be possible to make a version of Photoshop or Acrobat that ran on ATI but not on Nvidia? Sure. Good idea? No...

And if people continue to buy hardware and or software that doesn't work for whatever reason when there are viable alternatives then they can't complain much.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Astroturf.

deja vu?

[razorh]

and concludes Linux is just about ready for consumers, although installing new software could pose some problems for those who aren't really computer savvy. Sounds kinda like installing stuff on ANY PC 10-15 years ago. Remember trying to get your cd-rom driver and sound driver loaded and still have enough memory to run your game?

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[_Hellfire_]

Microsoft, if they had their way, would NEVER let end users install windows on a blank machine.

You know, when I was working as a field technician, I noticed that all of the boxed processors (AMD and Intel) had written on the outside "This product is intended to be professionally installed."

I thought to myself "Man, Windows REALLY needs to have that printed on the disc."

That way when the end users make a pig's ear of their installations and ask me why their installation was broken and mine worked I could have simply pointed to the label on the disc. Would have saved me some stress.

As an aside, you mentioned that Linux must be 3-5 times better than Windows in every regard for people to switch. Although I agree with your sentiment, I also think that that it will happen. Microsoft can't possibly compete on a technical level with the innovation of hundreds of thousands of people unrestricted by monoculture. I'm absolutely blown away at how good Linux has become, particularly over the last 2 years. I only see this exciting trend continuing.

I firmly believe that there will come a point when Linux surpasses Windows useability and technical qualities (hardware detection, commercial software support etc) and there will literally be NO reason to use Windows, even for Mum and Pop.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[_Hellfire_]

Yeah you're absolutely right.

I've only been going out with my gf for 3 years and we live together now. Heres the thing: I've already "bonded" with my gf's dad.

It couldn't possibly be that Gnome has a superior UI to Windows XP oh no...

5 distros using KDE?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't they test a distribution like Ubuntu using Gnome?

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[Anonymous Coward]

actually alot of times it is use computer until breaks then buy new computer

SUSE - unfair comparison

[RocketRainbow]

Slashdot reported the release of SuSE 9.2 in November. I've been using SuSE 9.2 on my thinkpad since that very week. The difference between versions of SuSE recently has been huge - it's so much more workable in each version. So why oh why is ACA testing SuSE with version 9.1?

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[fitten]

It couldn't possibly be that Gnome has a superior UI to Windows XP oh no...


100% Subjective statement. Personally, I don't like Gnome and think Windows XP's UI is better.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Mex]

Completely off topic, but it's bugging me.

Is it supposed to be "Hear Hear"? Or "Here here"?

I always thought it was the first.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

As the firewall *could* (if configured to do so) block packets which (in theory) might break the network stack; Granted, such a 'problem' is rather unlikely and would probably be fixed with an OS update sooner or later, but a firewall IS an additional level of protection.
Though you could probably disable the network interface(s), which would be quite effective.

Re:No

[Bert64]

But would the firewall block packets designed to break the firewall stack? A firewall is just an additional stack ontop of the existing one, theres just as much chance of a vulnerability to crash the firewall stack which could have the same effects as crashing the main network stack, wether it just kills networking or crashes the whole machine.

Typical....

[TapeCutter]

"typical anti-American spewing" - No, typically I would spew for much longer and about different things. Also I have no problems with Canadian foriegn policy. - It's a joke, laugh!

I found my sense of humour last week (behind the couch of all places) and did get the original joke (+1 funny). However I did not want the first post setting up the impression, (as did the front page by using "?"), that Choice is an obscure bunch of salesmen using a "consumer association" as a front to push MS or anything else for that matter.

Have you ever thought it is you that is doing the US a dis-service by living up to the sterotypical US parinoia.

(coff)Bullshit(coff)

[KMSelf]

True. Documentation for Linux is still pretty sparse in distributions.

Um. 27,000 pages of documentation (typical install) isn't sufficient? 60,000 manpages (all of Debian unstable) is "sparse?

I call massive bullshit.

Under Debian (or Debian-based distros: Ubuntu, Linspire, Lycoris, Xandros, Progeny, etc.), install dwww and you'll have a system documentation browser at http://localhost/dwww, including a menu. Oh, and search. Need more? your /usr/share/doc/ directory is also accessible. By the way, this stuff is also available online, for those readers not fortunate enough to be reading on a Debian system. The point I'm hammering home here is that the information is on the system.

Sure, but that's the raw stuff. How about books or guides? Well, there's HOWTOs (that's your TLDP, BTW), Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition, and hundreds of other docs.

Bugs? Your distro should have a queryable bug-tracking system.

PDFs suck for online readability. Web content is far more accessible, and it's somewhat ironic that manpages actually translate well to HTML (better than info pages).

Yes, I've harped on man pages a lot. Arcane, difficult to read, you have to know what you're looking for. But (under Debian), Policy requires every system executable have a manpage. What's the value in that? Well... I've watched a $50/15 min Windows consultant try tracking down processes on a suspect Win2K server. By typing the names from the Task Manager into MSIE and looking them up on Google. You want to know what something is in Linux? man command. No manpage? If it's a system command, file a bug. If it's not, you've got something to look at -- a possible security exploit. Note too that other distros and projects, GNOME and GNU in particular, deprecate manpages. This is not only wrong, but dangerous.

Your MP3 player should should show up in an apropos query: apropos mp3. And yes, users should know how to search for things, though the system should also assist in this. Though if you're not accessing the commandline:

• Accessing an MP3 file should launch your MP3 file player.
• Linux app design tends not to be format-specific as Windows tools are. Your audio player should be indifferent to MP3s, Oggs, WAVs, AUs, or other sound formats.

Hope that helps.

Man, they're missing out

[ztwilight]

Ubuntu Linux is far superior. I've installed it successfully on every PC I own (Powerbook G4, Desktop G4, AMD 2500, Virtual PC 6 for Mac) and it has never failed to detect any of the hardware (save the airport extreme card). Completely amazing distro based on Debian. Since I started using it, I haven't been this excited since... I got my first motorcycle.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

P4 with 96MB RAM

Who built this machine???

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[suezz]

bs - he would of had to do if it was windows mac or anything else - these people he helped are going to be able to install windows either. Why do you think it comes installed - so the average joe doesn't have to do anything except just work with and get it infected with spyware and viruses. Ubuntu is ready for the desktop - it is just a matter of getting there like windows does - preinstalled. btw I had to help many a friend upgrade windows from 95 to 98 to whatever but now with ubuntu I won't have to - I can walk them through it over the phone or just send them and email on how to do it. no more install cds for me. but that just may be me.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull.

Take hard disk out of Mac. Replace (BTW: It's a standard IDE drive... nothing special, no adapters) with new, boxed HD. Restart with Disc in Drive. install like every other time.

Formats and prepairs disk, installs. So your little whine is worthless. BTW, coming from someone who installed OS 9, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 on an old G4 Tower, it does work just that simple. Hell, even in OS 9 it was.

So, know what your talking about.

Re:Did the reviewer even try out the OS's?

[rastos1]

Troll. Whan I lanuch 'man find', the first line - the title(!) - says: "find - search for files in a directory hierarchy". Phew, that was difficult to spot.

Second: you are free to use search functions of konqueror or any other file manager you prefer. And it will do it without displaying the dog character mocking you.

Third: try to identify Windows command line utility for finding file on the disk given a pattern. Not to find text in files. Just find a file with name matching pattern. Good luck.

Finally, in another post someone complained how difficulut is to find information about setting up internet connection. I got it on 3rd hit. After running: man -k internet (nothing usefull), man -k connect (mentions pppoe.conf refering to adsl), man -k adsl (match!). But (again as mentioned in another post), all that is just a fallback solution if you downloaded the OS for free. If you are not cheap and purchase a comercial distribution(like you do with MS Win or OSX), you get a printed manual with screenshorts for setting up your internet connection. So what do you complain about again?

Safari

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, on the Safari page: there are dozens of features on that page that sound like they are innovative. But, as it turns out, almost all of them are taken from other browsers.

That's how Apple "innovates": they steal ideas from other companies and pretend they created them. Oh, they don't always lie outright (as in "first 64bit personal computer"), they just write their marketing materials such that their fan base gets the impression that Apple did it again and did it all. And then people like you just repeat all that nonsense.

XandrOS made my day.

[ShadowSystems]

I've been searching for a distro that, "out of the box", would just work.
No "Oh, I'm sorry, you don't REALLY have a sound card installed", or "Ooops, your 256meg AGP 4x graphics card is only capable of DOS text mode", or "Well, we found everything, but all those pesky USB ports you can kiss goodbye." -type incompatabilities.
No "Well, we found everything, but we REFUSE to believe that 3Com modem finds a dial tone.", or "What do you mean that's a 160Gig drive? I only see 79.82Gigs of it, and that's not even a valid FAT type..." (?!? It's ONE NEW Fat32 partition! WTF?!)

RC3, Debian, Mandrake, Knoppix, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD... God, I'd tried so many, to no avail, I was seriously considering scrubbing the whole "Switch to *NIX" idea as a lost cause...

Then I found XandrOS.

OMG, fresh hard drive (the 160Gig WD 7200RPM that the other distro only saw half of & then refused to install to), boot to the cd, watch it install as if the hardware were DESIGNED for the freakin distro, and the next thing I know, I've got a new OS.

No fuss, no muss, no migraine headaches trying to configure everything just to get minimal functionality out of ANYthing, much less EVERYthing.

Turn it on, let it install, and it works.
*Period*
Detected my ATI card & started at 1024x768 True Colour.
Sound Blaster Audigy? Check... Oh, look, you've got the SPDIF in use... checking... Do you want to make full use of your 5.1? !WOOT!
Ethernet DSL autodetected & able to get all the updates without having to configure a thing!
Hard drive repartitioned into two 10Gig and two 60Gig chunks (Main Data / Mirored Backup, Programs / Mirrored Backup) and working just fine...

Within 30 minutes, I not only had updated all the installed packages, but picked a few more, added a firewall (and configured it), and am now in the process of trying to figure out which email system to use. (I want something like Outlook, because I'm not the only person who'll be using this machine, and the others will NOT be easy to teach, so the closer to an Outlook-like solution, the better.)
Beyond that, I haven't hit any snags, and damn it, that makes me nearly want to weep for joy.

If I'd had this kind of experience with the first distro I'd tried oh-so-long ago, I'd've never had to switch to WinXP. I was SICK of Windows - I *AM* sick of Windows. But, until XandrOS, I hadn't found a *NIX solution that worked.

XandrOS is a distro I could hand the cd to ANYONE and be confident that it would install on relatively anything, properly the first time, and NOT cause my phone to ring off the hook with screaming cries for help because the OS caused something to puke.

Yeah, I know I probably sound like a paid shill for XandrOS (insert gleeming-smiling lady holding a steaming cup of coffee & gesturing decoratively at a computer screen with the XandrOS logo; complete with cheesy 1950's splash graphics reading "XandrOS! Let's Just Get It Done, Shall We?"), but I'm merely a VERY satisfied user who's ALL too happy to finish tweaking this distro to the point where I can safely Nuke & Pave WinXP off the old hard drive & put it back to use as more data storage for XandrOS...

8-)

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[jesterzog]

They want to be able to install whatever software they want (for better or worse), and don't want to have to depend on someone else to use what is in their own home. They are likely frustrated by the same thing at work.

I realise that some users do, and I don't think this really prevents that. The main thing would be just making sure that they can get it when they want it, whether that be by phoning up and asking for it now, or using some kind of nice interface for a package management system that automated the process for installing things. (The difference would be that if they broke something through using it, they could at least arrange for someone to fix it remotely.)

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[jesterzog]

Oops... I forgot to respond to the other part of your comment:

Now maybe this could be a business opportunity for a neighborhood geek, assuming there are enough people locally willing to try Linux and yield control of their machine to an expert. I suspect, however, the latter is too much for people to accept.

In all honesty, I think people do that when they surrender control of their computer to Microsoft all the time. Microsoft's definitely leaning towards the idea of wanting to control what's on people's computer, although I don't think they do it well. They don't directly respond to problems people have and the standard fix for more than a few is to throw it all out and reinstall the OS.

If people were confident they could trust a business to administer their PC and keep it running smoothly, I think many would quite happily pay a reasonable cost for it. It's clearly not for everyone, but I do know so many people who are driven around the bend by Windows. They'd love to get rid of it and they tell me frequently, but they just don't feel at all confident with anything else.

I'd see as much more than just a neighbourhood geek opportunity. There are lots of things that could go wrong and it'd be hard to get right the first time, but I'm sure there's a good opportunity.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[jesterzog]

That may be true, and I'd be just as interested to see someone do it with XP. My experience with seriously administering Windows is mostly from before 2000 and XP, so I can't really comment. I suspect people would pay for it if it worked. I really do think that a lot of people would love the opportunity to be able to pay a reasonable cost for a remote administrator to just help them keep their computer running before it breaks, though.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[jesterzog]

Well it's not exactly for you. It's not for me, either. I'm quite happy to administer my own system irrespective of what OS it's running. But not everyone plays games.

I don't know exactly how it would work and to be honest, I wouldn't expect someone to get it right on the first attempt. Rather than try to support lots of hardware, it might even be preferable to just provide the hardware for customers that's known to work.

I do know of lots of people who really just want to use their computer for their work, but they're constantly overrun by annoying administration-related issues that they just don't want to think about.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[jesterzog]

That's pretty neat. Does he have a website or anything that I could look up? Just out of interest....

Deadly users.

[phowardcom]

The question isn't is Linux ready for the desktop. Of course it is. *nix has been used for years as a desktop OS. The question is, is the general public ready for Linux. And the answer is no! There are so many people who run Windows that don't know how to use it - how can we expect them to suddenly learn something new like Linux? I would guess that over 50% of Windows users have no clue what happens when they install software. Most of them download an applicaiton install file to their desktop, run it, and then leave the install file on the desktop. I think people should treat PC's like cars. Learn how to use one with an experienced user before you use one alone, and get it serviced every year by a professional. Then it wouldn't matter what OS was used on the desktop - because people would have been taught how to use it.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[jesterzog]

Aagh. This is awful.

The support staff here (university) basically forbids people from administering their own systems, due to all the Windows viruses, spyware, etc.

Well without meaning to dismiss what you've said (I agree it would be a problem), you clearly have a support staff that's not representative of the system I was proposing.

What I had in mind was an organisation that would provide support and administration for the main apps needed for a group of users, probably beginning with people who just want to use the web, email people, do some word processing, and whatever else. It wouldn't be for everyone, but clearly it'd need to be able to provide the bulk of services people are likely to want, and have some way of responding quickly when someone needs administrative support to fix something on their computer.

On the side, I often do local installs in my home directory on the NetBSD boxes in our department, but I really am a relative power user compared with other students, and it's more of a credit that the admins don't mind than that they're slow to respond when I ask for something... because everyone in the department has a lot of respect for them. The rest of the university is run by the ITS department, which is a Windows shop full of middle managers, and admittedly awful at keeping things running and responding to what people want. I'm glad I don't have to deal with them.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[jesterzog]

This is a great idea except that I believe the average Joe end-user would find this kind of administration to be a hassle. I mean, having to call or e-mail someone everytime you install a new piece of software? That is just not going to fly in terms of hassle-factor and ease-of-use.

Thanks for the comments.

I wouldn't necessarily expect it to work that way exactly. I guess the main point is that the user shouldn't have to deal with lots of niggly administrational issues, although this doesn't necessarily imply that they'd have to deal with someone on the other end. For instance, it could be done through a fancy package manager with a point-and-click install system... and in the hopefully occasional instances when things really did go wrong, such as a spyware app getting into the web browser, or some-such thing, the user could call in an administrator to deal with it remotely rather than have to manage the problem themselves. Asking people to fix software on their PC's seems to me like asking them to fix their cars when they break. The advantage with PC's is that they don't necessarily need physical access for someone to fix it.

I've already responded to several other people and indicated that it's probably not the sort of business that I'd expect someone to get right first time, but lots of businisses fail first time which doesn't necessarily mean they can't be successful if a few problems are fixed.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[jesterzog]

Well you may have a point. Although it seems to me that if they don't understand what an OS is, then having it changed won't necessarily be a big deal if they're able to keep doing the basic things they normally do... and have someone available to be an administrator if necessary when things break.

It's just a sketchy idea at this point, anyway, but I think it has some merit.

tech writing

[zogger]

although I write, the point is moot unless you have an understanding of the program from a programmers perspective, and I am not a coder. I have considered it before, but it's sorta silly having the blind lead the sightless around. If I don't understand the program, I can't write about it, and there's no way I could include technical details of which I have no idea of. It's a catch 22. The best that can happen is that the developer has a close friend who can hover around and re-write what they wrote and try to get it into a more friendly and complete format. Just full complete sentences would be a start. Joe noob seeing something like this

bin/bash *(**&&^-11whateverfoo))if(0

just don't cut it I'm afraid....that's what man pages look like to me, and to 99% of the people out there. That is not a readable document for anyone beyond a pro or serious hobbiest admin/programmer. If it used actual sentences, it would probably work, even if they weren't the most eloquent. If the programmer would devote as little as 1% of the actual physical time spent programming to writing the doc,just one percent, in most cases it would be legible enough, but I've seen programs that have obviously been out for yearsd and they have like three almost paragraphs for a man page and that's it, or even worse, they have dozens of pages that look like my example above. eeeek, scary, back away real slow......

I used to have a friend years ago did technical writing and it was a bear for him, because he insisted on mini crash courses in the various engineering aspects of what he was tasked to write. Took him a long time per piece that way, but he got well paid for it.

Man pages exist, they just need to be fleshed out into actual real sentences and have clear cut examples of what does where and why. They are outlines of docs, I wouldn't call them docs per se although technically they are.

I submit bug reports occassionaly when I run into them, best I can do to help out I'm afraid. I prefer a forum format, but every single site out there wants yet again another registration and cookie and email registration etc that that gets obnoxious quickly as well and most of the time it's a waste of time, just went through that with yet another distro the other day.. I'm registered at half a dozen sites but rarely use them, and at bugzilla but not too much, because I don't run into that many problems anymore, although I still have a few stumpers, like why does my cd burner work once in awhile but not all the time, even with the settings unchanged and identical? And it makes no diff the blanks used. Goofy stuff like that. I just accept it and move on now, because if you go look at some help site someone will say paraphrased "'well tough luck it works for me and I did this so it should work for you" and that's it. I've just learned to deal with linux as a perpetual "90% there" thing and become complacent about it. Every iteration gets better, but it still hovers at 90% "fixed", because they add new features, but a certain percentage re-break then or new bugs get introduced. I think linux will always be a 90% thing because of how it is developed in a state of pure anarchy and zero cohesion. It's fun, but that's a true observation as well. I personally wouldn't mind a generic across the board and complete FOSS freeze for two years just to fix all the existing bugs outstanding and don't touch anything new. I mean it, serious. I know it won't happen but it would be a good thing. Fix bugs, write docs, no new progs, features, skins, themes, distros, nothing, just fix what's already released, finish the project or officially kill it and bury it.

heh, dreamin again,, I'll STFU now...

Re:tech writing

[iminplaya]

Most programmers are too busy sorting out all the licenses and patents to have any time for any technical mumbo-jumbo :-) A 15 line program might have a 25K license attched to it.

Bullshit--XP help is defective eye candy

[Anonymous Coward]

. Windows XP had excellent help files but

I call bullshit. I used an XP desktop machine for a few days, being unfamiliar with Windows, I figured I'd rely on the built in help. When I first looked at MS-Windows XP, I too though that the help files looked excellent.

That was before I actually tried to *use* the help files. After the directions not working and finding conflicting details, I finally contacted the local Windows experts who promptly explained that the XP Help pages were just plain incorrect and pointed instead to what seemed to me were obscure password protected web pages to get the job done.

Don't get me started on the useless error messages and uninformative dialog boxes. And just try unmounting a USB drive without getting a warning.

Just my 2 cent. XP help may *look* nice, but it's eye candy. OS X help files may look distressingly short at first, but then again the solutions are usually short and don't need to have to be long.

Re:Administration shouldn't be major for the deskt

[brunogirin]

Here's the web site: MC Solutions but it's in French.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Bert64]

I agree it's not as easy as it could be, but that wasnt my point..
People often say linux is too hard to install and that the users should use windows and yet those same users couldn't install windows by themselves either.
Especially on modern hardware, many linux distributions are actually much easier and less time consuming to install than windows.
This also encourages laziness, people don't ever learn how to install any os themselves because someone else will do it for them.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[Bert64]

No, that wasn't the point...
On a completely fresh machine with nothing installed, you need only insert the cd and it will boot much like a playstation does.. This is actually much easier than going through bios settings as you would need to do on an x86 box..
On a machine which already has something installed, you can boot the existing macos and start the installation from the running copy, no need to actually boot the cd.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[qyiet]

No - the point is that *you* installed it... *you* set it up... a geek was needed to get this beast working smoothly

When was the last time you saw your grandma install WinXP. Or MacOS Anything?

What would happen if you gave someone who had never used a PC before a WinXP CD and said get on with it?
Thats right.. exactly the same thing as with Ubuntu

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[qyiet]

Compare this to the 30+ minute install for ANY version of windows (well, maybe not 3.11, but I've never installed that). The gazillion floppy disk install of win3.11 used to take a long time. So we built a disk image with ghost. Our record for install after that was 11 sec

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[electronerd]

I happened to acquire an original set of DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 floppies (11 in all) a couple weeks ago. I decided to install them in bochs. It took a while...

It was also the first time I had ever used the floppy drive in my machine, incidentally.

Re:I installed Ubuntu on my Dad's computer

[DarkSarin]

And the same happens with Ubuntu, Vidalinux, and even Linspire. There is only a matter if someone has set the BIOS to boot only from the HDD, and NEVER from the CDROM, which happens on some companies' computers.

As an aside, I've never installed OSX, so I don't know exactly how it works. I was just saying that the other person was being more than a little short sighted.

random rants

[zogger]

I guess I could help with some tech writing, but it would have to be real time directly with the programs author(s). I would have to take extensive notes and ask a ton of questions. I mean a ton of questions. Frequently I get stuck on some thing I am trying to do and get frustrated pretty severely with the lack of what would be to me adequate documentation or guides. When things go smooth, there isn't much need of a guide,there's the catch 22 with GUI programs, it's when you run into a problem that it gets squirrely. Like right now I have been working two weeks on being able to burn ISOs. Just tried another time not half an hour ago, using the latest most dripping raw bleeding program I can find, as none of the earlier ones are working for me. I can't do it. I burned a few when I first started,clikc click click burn works, just like it is supposed to, it just worked, no probs, then it stopped working and dang if I can find out why. I've tried trashing it and reinstalling and useing default settings, trying various user specified settings, whatever. I have tried downloading and installing different programs, used different kernels, tried burning as root, under sudo, or as a user, nada. Got FOUR different brands of blanks sitting around here now, Rs and R/Ws, don't even know if they are all coasters or not. All I get as an error message is "no media found". Huh? Staring at the brand new blank. The cd device will read an actual CD, that it does, so I bet it's not broken hardware wise, I'd bet a week pay it's the software from linux land. Reading what I can find from both cdroast and k3b pages that are findable via google, it apparently got nasty for a lot of people just lately, right when I get my first cd burner.Ya I know they been out forever, I just bought one though. Had to wait until they got cheap enough for me meagre budget and all. Sucks the big one. Seems to be an issue between the gui front end guys, the kernel maintainers and the 2.6 whatever kernel and the dude who wrote the command line every one uses. They are all pointing fingers at each other.

I am this close to going back to Macs with the latest mini hitting a somewhat reasonable price level, I mean *this close* holds finger and thumb one MM apart. Guess I got spoiled with a decade of "just works" and zip security issues. I am getting tired of 90% of an operating system, free or not, FOSS philsophy or not,cheaper hardware or not, which I agree with, if it don't work for something common like getting online via dialup(3/4ths of the distros I have ever tried fail that test) or burning a cd, or printing, then it "ain't there" yet. Have a friend of mine wants to buy a new computer, a noob except for webtv, I recommended macs to her, just this week. If she already had hardware I would still recommend linux, but starting out raw, nope, told her to get the mac with osx. I trust apple to release stuff that works, guess you get what you pay for and all. I would pay a reasonable fee for a linux distro that actually worked, but I am not going to be forced into becoming a programmer just to do some simple tasks. ain't gonna go there, nope.

rant grumble kvetch..... got a toothache and a headache, I'm in the mood to shoot someone except it would be too loud.... heh heh heh ;)

Re:random rants

[iminplaya]

...I'm in the mood to shoot someone except it would be too loud...

Here ya go. I've always loved these guys.
As for the toothache...well, there's always this.

Re:random rants

[iminplaya]

Sorry to reply twice. You are right to suggest the Mac. It is simply theee best thing for new users. Silly question...Does the burner still work in Windows? If not then you have your answer. I've had burners that slowly went "blind". The problem starts out completely randomly, then it just gets worse from there. I can't remember how many disks I threw out thinking there were defective. Turns out the drive developed "cataract" or something. I feel lucky if my burners last more than 18 months. This whole thing about CD's and drives being so durable is such a scam. I'm thinking of going back to tape for backups. I have ten year old tapes that still work, but man, is it slow...especially over the parallel port. I can't imagen how long it will take to back up 50 gigs.
Back to Linux docs and support... I can't complain about it for the obvious reasons, but I do find them...how to put this nicely...humorous, old and sometimes they lack what to me could be considered obvious info. If Linux lacks anything now, it's finesse. Like you said, it just doesn't quite feel complete, yet. On the other hand, considering the ridiculous variety of hardware out there. I can take my "slax" live CD, and it works perfectly on almost every machine I ran it on(I'll have to try a modem sometime. Every machine I used it on was networked).

Re:random rants

[zogger]

The burner is less than a month old. I bought it for myself as a late Christmas present. I never owned one before, and I wanted to try out what micro and mini distros I could find on the net, to put on these older machines I have kicking around, to make them useful again so as to give them away. I'm on dialup so full bloat distros are just out of the question to download. As it is now, I set one to download at night, then it's a 50/50 if it actually finishes downloading. I got a few successfully burnt, but now it stopped burning. Maybe I will move it over to a test windows box, it came with "nero" burning software, but that also means what I want to burn *isn't* on the box where the burner would be, and I won't put a windows box on the net anymore. It's a catch 22, you can't stay on long enough to get the latest anti everything programs and patches, etc, and you can't patch it from disk if your safer machine won't burn a disk from a download. I might still try it though, just to see if it works, just burn some random stuff I guess. That's a good idea. I have been reading up at k3b and xcdroast places and on some forums, I'm not the only one hosed lately with burning issues...err wait, that doesn't sound very good.....

Re:random rants

[iminplaya]

One thing thing I know for sure is that there is so much defective hardware out there now, that I wouldn't doubt for a minute that you got a lemon. A month is within "infant mortality" for for this junk now. As a temporary measure, download the software, and then after you disconnect, just connect the two machines together to pass it over. Use the parallel ports if you have to. It's slow but steady. That's what I have to do with my laptop since its CD ROM died, and it has no network card yet. I use the slax(less than 200meg...Note: the main site was down when I posted this. That's why the chached page from Google. The download link from the mirror seems to work.) liveCD a lot, and it also has k3b...and KDE for the pretty face. I have to say that it(k3b) works great(The rest of it worked great also. I as connected, burning, posting, emailing to ny hearts content, and I could still save docs to my hard drive). Enough so that I downlaoded the source for my regular slackware system. One thing that's really cool about liveCD's is that if it works the first time, it's alway going to work until some hardware dies or the disk gets too scratched up. Plus it fits on one of those little CD's. So if it doesn't boot up, or the burner quits burning, etc., it's time to break into the box.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

this AC's got mad skills compared to that other wack ass crap.

MOD PARENT UP HERE TOO

[Anonymous Coward]

"Best use of 'wack' on /."