Slashdot Mirror
Living Free With Linux, Round 2
bsk_cw writes "About a month ago, in Living free with Linux: 2 weeks without Windows, Preston Gralla wrote about what life was like for a long-time Windows user trying to live with Linux. His main problems came when he tried to install or update software. Loads of people responded with advice — so he went back and tried again. Here's what he learned, and what did and didn't work for him."
Neither are you.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
(I won't cover apt in this piece, because it's simply too confusing for newbies; even many experienced Linux experts stay away from it.)
Lol wat?
apt-cache search
apt-get install
Yup, my head just exploded from the complexity.
Yo mama so dumb, she threw a rock at the ground and missed. She also took an hour to make minute rice.
People don't run OSes, they run the applications the OS runs on. It will probably be the case this guy doesn't WANT to change from Photoshop to Gimp, from IE to FireFox, from AIM to Pidgin, to run Wine for WoW. The list goes on.
Linux unfortunately is missing some big important things that do not run under wine...
AnyDVD-HD -- gotta have that one to make the media center more useful I dont give a rats arse about copyright. I want 720pHD content in my own on demand system. and I'll rip my disks for my use and tell everyone else to go stuff it.
video editing software. Honestly Linux video editing software is utter garbage. Cinerella is a joke compared to final Cut and is not as usable as a 10 year old version of Premiere 4.0 It's not an itch that anyone wants to scratch so I understand.
All my vertical app programming apps. the Crestron, Vantage, Speakercraft and other suites of apps for programming high end whole house AV and automation are windows only and do not run under Wine worth a darn. Yes I can use VMware and an W2K install.
Decent accounting software. No I dont mean anything like the fake accounting software called quickbooks. I mean real accounting software. Everything linux based is designed for Point of sale and not a service industry, plus they are incredibly out of date. The last time I looked for Linux accounting apps the one canadian company that made a decent app sent me their demo that I saw back in 2004..
Aside from that I can do my day to day with linux only. Oo.o is very useable and works great. my symbian phone syncs with my linux apps well via google sync (better than any wired or bluetooth sync!) My wife before she went back to college did all her day to day stuff on a linux laptop and hated the first month back dual booting windows because of school requirements. she still mentions that she cant wait to completely ditch windows again.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I remember back when I used to hang around ubuntuforums, there was this guy who always said "I often try to install software from the command prompt, but I've failed each time."
I find these reviews of "converting to linux" a bit pointless really; they're only ever one persons' perspective on what a conversion is, of which I often find I can't relate to much of what they go through.
I'd suggest if someone wants to do a "Linux conversion log" type write-up, they consider a target audience. In particular, i'd like to see:
- The web-user; email, web, and IM (99% of reviews fall into this category)
- The business user; Exchange, blackberry, important Office data (spreadsheet, word), Wifi, power-saving management, enterprise facilities
- The multimedia user: MP3, iPod sync, games, DVD, video editing.
That in my opinion makes up most computer users, and in particular most MacOS/Windows users...the target audience. Take a person from each category and see how they survive 2 weeks on Linux; that I'd be truly interested in.
throw new NoSignatureException();
I've lived without Windows since 1994 (thank you, Yggdrasil). It's really not that difficult.
Another "I gave up windows for x days, here are my experiences" blog. This never gets old.
Choice quote:
The Update Manager is accessed via the starburst at the top right-hand top of the screen. Click it, but be prepared -- you're about to be confronted with literally hundreds of potential updates with incomprehensible names and unenlightening descriptions ...
By default, every update has a check next to it in the Update Manager. Uncheck the boxes next to those you don't want to update -- I recommend updating only software that you recognize.
That's terrible advice.
He might have a point about the huge number of updates on an initial boot confusing users -- doesn't Ubuntu pull updates as part of the install process? If not, it really should.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
"I recommend updating only software that you recognize" say what?! you do this on windows too?
Whenever "Linux" is being evaluated on the desktop, Ubuntu is fronted...so my question is: Is Ubuntu equal to Linux? The last time I checked it was not the case. So why does it [seem] to be the case?
And have to say that it is rather well balanced. But it also reminds me of something: I've been using Linux for more than a decade, and things to which I'm accustomed - like using the command line - are not at all intuitive to the Windows user.
There is this tendency among Linux evangelists to try to "fix" a neophyte's problems rather than listening to what he's saying. While Linux has made large inroads in the desktop arena, at its heart it is UNIX, not Windows. One of the larger issues of Linux adoption is that Windows users have a mental model of computers which is Windows-specific:
Making Linux ubiquitous on the desktop will be a matter of coming up with a simpler, more accessible mental model of a computer for the end user. It will not come about by fixing a particular problem with a particular distribution.
The average computer user is an expert in something *other* than computers. They're not interested in learning the vagaries of hardware configuration or knowing about kernel dumps and command lines. They use a computer as a tool to *do something other than programming*. They want something easy to use, secure, and reliable. Windows comes through on the first part. Linux on the latter parts. However, security and reliability are a moot point if you can't use the computer in the first place. Hence, Windows gets chosen time and again, in spite of its flaws.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
printer friendly version
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Operating+Systems&articleId=9128990&taxonomyId=89
From page 4 of TFA:
This seems like really bad advice. I would say the opposite: only forego an update if you recognize the software and are sure that you don't want the newer version.
The vast majority of updates will be for "underlying" software, like the kernel, libraries, and so on. These are also the things that a newbie is most likely to "not recognize". But these are the things that critically need security updates. If a newbie only updates OpenOffice and Firefox (which he recognizes) but skips the kernel, cron, openssh, iptables, and so on (because he doesn't recognize them), he may be left with significant vulnerabilities in very important subsystems.
In a modern world the default advice should be to install updates and thereby stay as secure as possible. Users should only be skipping updates when they have good reason to think that the new version isn't better (e.g. breaks a feature they like). This is especially true on Linux, since there are no updates that are being pushed out just to limit/inhibit the end user (like, e.g. Windows Genuine Advantage does).
The thing he found hardest, the thing he singled out for special mention as the worst problem, was: installing new software.
Eeek.
That's what Linux distros, particularly Debian-based ones, do best! The package management is the best single feature of Debian and Ubuntu, light-years ahead of the situation in Windows.
Now, he's not a troll and he's not an idiot. Which means that he has just helpfully identified something we should work on.
His basic problem is that he is used to Windows, where things are done differently. Either Microsoft Office is installed or it isn't; and the only pieces of Office that you can see are large chunks like Word, Excel, etc. It was surprising and alarming to him when there were hundreds and hundreds of little packages with odd names. For example, the updater told him it would update "anachron -- cron-like program that doesn't go by time" and he didn't know what to make of that.
In his Part 2 article, he recommends that you never update any package you don't understand. Eeek, again! What if there is a critical security update to DNS or something? He is unlikely to know what it is, so he will decline it. And he will be working very hard to go through the list and uncheck the update box for the vast majority of his packages.
The correct policy is to have the updater pull from a trusted source, and just let it update. Trust the system.
In all fairness, Windows has its share of similarly weird stuff. But they have done a much better job of wrapping it up to present to the user.
When you run Windows Update, it won't give you anything called "anachron", but it will give you things like "hotfix 967363: A Windows Server 2008-based DHCP server does not register DNS records for earlier version DHCP clients that do not send option 81 to the DHCP server". But this will be labeled as a "critical" patch that you really need to take.
Perhaps Ubuntu should have a popup on the update manager that gives newbies a quick overview of package management on Linux? Things are much better than the mess in Windows, so we need to make sure that newbies understand what's going on. When new users are confused, that should be treated as a bug, and fixed.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I regretted it, but didn't have much of a choice. Reasons:
1. Open Office didn't support some key features that are found in MS-Office, such as outlining, proper numbering of PowerPoint notes pages, and so on.
2. Outlook is far superior to Evolution, especially in how it handles tasks.
3. Sync'ing to Windows Mobile-based smartphone is so much easier in XP.
I still run Linux VMs, but for my day-to-day work it's not there yet. I hope it will be soon, though.
That's exactly what Linux needs. The only way to get respect is through an easy to use UI, which is what the "clueless users" need who, you know, drive the market for desktops. If Linux was easier to use and free/cheap (as in beer), it wouldn't take long for it to be adopted. It just isn't there yet. And the only way to get there is to listen to these "clueless users."
At the time of my writing this, the above quote, which is actually quite insightful, was modded as flamebait. The modding encapsulates quite succinctly why the Linux community is seen as a collection of misfits, malcontents, and jackasses (which, by and large it is not - it is a community of good and caring people). It only takes the childish actions of a few to get Linux tarred with that brush. It's a shame really.
Reading this page is required material for people switching to Ubuntu.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I am shocked that I searched through this entire comment thread and found only one use of the word "noob."
This lack of nerd elitism is simply unacceptable in slashdot. Heck, the fact that I'm writing this in anything other than pseudocode is shameful...
I consider myself well versed at the techie stuff (EE & CS major, unix user since '94, non-public Linux kernel hacker for ppc). Personally, I use LFS (yes, I compile/bootstrap everything and put it in its own place, _myself_), but I agree that apt-get is a pain in the ass. I appreciate all the effort that's gone into package management, but I can't say that it is trivial to install/upgrade a package using this command.
Problems include:
- hunting down all the (often non-obvious) package names
- dependencies
- integrity checks
- conflicts with other (new, old, default, broken) packages
Automated system installation is a tough nut to crack, considering the millions of packages out there, and apt-get has come a long way towards solving it... but it's still not where it should be in terms of ease. If we can accept that, then we can continue to improve the situation, not snigger at "clueless newbies."
I never heard that one. Thanks.
Is "apt-get install" really that much different?
Yes, it is. "Rover, sit" works because "Rover" is the name of the dog, "sit" is a common English word, and the command pattern has been drilled into us since childhood. "apt-get install" - WTF is that to someone new to Linux? What's "apt" (I'd expect "app" at least)? Why the hyphenated "-get"? If I'm saying "get" the application, why do I have to include the redundant "install"? Heck, I'm a long-time hardcore geek and _still_ have to look it up every time; it's just not intuitive to someone who either is new to the concept of operating systems, nor to those who have to deal with a half-dozen or more OSes on a regular basis.
The App Store model, cheezy as it may be, works precisely because it's easy to find, easy to run, and easy to find & install applications. Linux doesn't have it yet. Having to spend hours Googling for what apps depend on what other apps, and how to install each of them in their own peculiar way, is largely what keeps Linux sidelined for now. At least with Windows I just stick in an installation CD for an application, or click on "install" on a distribution web page, and the install process just starts; with my iPod I just tap AppStore, find the app, and hit "install"; but with Linux I'm not even sure what the name of the application is, much less the precise command needed to install it.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
"I recommend updating only software that you recognize."
No No No NO! Update everything. People didn't spend time updating software for you to ignore them. They updated it often because it needs securing.
It's just the GP's point going over your head.
In the last page of the article, he says that it is impossible to upgrade from Ubuntu 8.04 to 8.10. A simple google search: http://www.ubuntugeek.com/upgrade-ubuntu-804-hardy-heron-to-ubuntu-810-intrepid-ibix.html
On a side note, I don't understand why newbie users have such a hard time with the concept of package managers and the fact that you don't need to go to a site and download programs and install them yourself or have to put a CD into a drive and install from there. There was an article on Netbooks recently where one of the biggest complaints from new users of Netbooks with Linux installed on them was that they got confused about how to install software on the Netbook. I just don't get it. Maybe I have been around Linux enough that package managers seem like the obvious choice (I get frustrated on other systems when I have to install from a CD/DVD or download and install software from various sites). I just don't see why Linux software installation is such a paradigm shift.
I remember having the same problem as this guy did with installing openoffice 3.0 only it was with Firefox 3.0 (back when RC2). For some insane reason, somebody thought it was a good idea to bundle Ubuntu with a Firefox 3.0 beta 3 (remember I'm talking about the time before the final version was released). This version had a very crippling bug with printing ("print selected text" did NOT work at all) so I had to manually try and update v3.0 to RC2 which like openoffice v3, was not in any repository or the "Add/Remove" area. What I ended up doing is downloading a tar.gz which contained it (no installer needed) and overwrite the beta version (but even that was tough because you can't touch the /usr/bin areas without the terminal since you need to execute "sudo" first (although now I wouldn't have this problem because I would just install Krusader which gives me a nice interface to work with similar to Window's total commander).
Search newsgroups for why. Find out you must upgrade to .NET 3.0, yada yada yada.
If there IS a workaround.
Real noob friendly.
Actually, apt-get update just updates your database of available packages. To upgrade, you use apt-get upgrade.
Now, he's not a troll and he's not an idiot. Which means that he has just helpfully identified something we should work on.
His basic problem is that he is used to Windows, where things are done differently. Either Microsoft Office is installed or it isn't; and the only pieces of Office that you can see are large chunks like Word, Excel, etc. It was surprising and alarming to him when there were hundreds and hundreds of little packages with odd names. For example, the updater told him it would update "anachron -- cron-like program that doesn't go by time" and he didn't know what to make of that.
Finally, a Linux evangelist who gets it!
I surprised that everyone seems surprised that installation is the one big thing that annoyed him. When I made the switch to Linux it was EXACTLY the thing that annoyed me. What the hell were all these little updates? Why doesn't OOffice 3.0 show up even though it's been out for a while? There's no indication or feedback on what updates are necessary or important.
We really are used to programs being just "things." Large entities. Not a frontend to a complicated backend of libraries, packages or whatever that we have to muck around with.
And, like him, I still don't know how to get OOffice 3.0 installed.
You're right. I use Fedora but the situation is the same. I look under "add software" and there are thousands of packages - most of which are libraries or development packages. IMHO the package database should categorize these, or at least flag the ones that are "programs" or "applications" that joe user may want to install. The package selector should have a switch (on by default) to filter on this flag/category. This would eliminate a lot of confusion in finding useful software. Yeah, the dependencies will still have to be installed, but I think people will usually default to clicking "OK" at that point.
It's always interesting when long-time Windows users experiment with Linux for the first time. You'll see some tech writer blog about this every few months; sometimes they are a bit boring, but I always learn something from watching a Linux newbie try things out for the first time.
At work, it's the other way with me. I've been using Linux at work since 2000 (I'm a staff person at a university) but my boss recently made his preferences clear: I should run Windows, just like everyone else. So I did what anyone would do in this situation - I blogged about it. I thought it might be equally interesting for this long-time Linux user to write about making a return to Windows:
Linux in Exile
It hasn't been pretty. In short, I find a lot of stuff in Windows to be just plain broken. Nothing is the same, even among different "first tier" applications (that means apps from Microsoft.)
My next post will be about the stupid dialog boxes in Windows. I find them lacking compared to what I expect from Linux.
Package names I'll give you, though that's what apt-cache search is for. but dependencies and integrity checks are just part of how it works.
Likewise updates/upgrades.
I don't think it's a pain in the arse at all. OTOH I agree that newbs + GUI is a good teaching combination.
except YOU are the dog, not the penguin.
same beef here, could use some better automation
for the process, but the security is MUCH better
in Linux updates.
I do agree that Debian excels at package management. Unfortunately package management and application management are not the same thing.
Take a look at OpenOffice.Org. Or ever just the writer component, how many packages are pulled in? On Windows you download one file but here it is telling you about dictionary packages and thesauruses and all sorts of stuff most people don't want to know about.
And that is assuming the user knows they want OpenOffice.Org Writer when looking for their 'new fangled linus Word'.
I know Ubuntu has made strides in this area and I personally hate the dumbing down of software (it creates an unfair illusion of simplicity) but they obviously still have a quite a distance to travel.
Burn Bright or Fade Away
Exactly. Every time I dig into the Linux-software-install problem, the answers are always "oh, it's easy, just do X and Y and Z and P and D and Q - no problem!" Never mind that it works most of the time (what of the rest?), and there's a dozen other comparable posts that say something different and also may or may not work. I shouldn't have to elicit an obtuse answer from some unknown guy by posting a somewhat trollish message on /. - the answer should be right there on the desktop. Even the "just click on Install Programs for Ubuntu" comments come with "but when (not if) that doesn't work, use this non-intuitive command..." disclaimers.
This is why people buy Macs: it's pervasively designed for simplicity & intuition, not presumption of knowledge of cryptic commands. Would someone kindly explain why it's "apt-get" instead of "app-get"? what's with the 't'?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Actually, it's more complicated than merely attracting "clueless" users: what about people like me who are anything but clueless but who have incredibly poor memories for certain things? It's a well understood fact that one of the values - if not THE value - of GUIs is the dramatic reduction in memorization and rote learning required to use such a system versus a CLI. I've been-there-done-that with CLIs, but for less than constant use I'm now forced to use cheat sheets and reference books, and that's a time-wasting pain.
I first used Linux back in 1991/92 in a job capacity, so I was an early adopter. However, I have neurological issues that result in a very unreliable memory; as a result I've been obsessed my entire adult life with retaining "reference" materials. I also suspect that poor memory caused me to develop a compensatory advanced reasoning IQ: I am often able to reason things out on-the-fly when others are dependent upon memory and rote learning. Consequently I've also been obsessed with understanding how things tick, because the better I understand the system the better I can handle unexpected situations and reconstruct things I've forgotten.
This is the primary reason why a Linux distro with a GUI and menu-item equivalents for CLI commands is important. GUIs are all about reducing the rote learning requirement. Why is rote learning so tightly bound to our perception of elite-ness? I suck at rote learning, but I can reason my way out of a black box when others dependent on memory will remain stuck inside. I shouldn't be penalized for that by my operating system.
Gimme my GUI!
So he complains about synaptic being too hard to use. Then he complains about Add/Remove Software (which exists because we realize synaptic is a bit of a power tool) doesn't have the package he wants. Does he want to be a power user or a beginner? Anything past beginner is going to take some education regardless of OS.
His diatribe about the update manager is especially bizarre. Last time I check windows update manager listed updates with obscure names often referencing knowledge base articles. If you're a beginner you're just supposed to install the updates, whether Windows or Linux.
I have a feeling his review of MacOS would be much the same...
His advice and the problems he has shows that he still does not get it. His expectations are still founded in the Windows world, where the latest version of any program is immediately available to be installed, and default is not to worry about updating software. I have to admit, I am on the other side of the fence. I have trouble understanding how Windows work or why this needs to happen in Windows. I am in the Linux/Unix world.
The best/easiest choice for windows users.
What's in a sig?
GNUstep started off down the path towards NeXTstep (which became Mac OS X) but seems to have died out. Which is a pity, because the application bundle scheme that NeXT came up with is really cool. You just stick your application anywhere, and the system looks at some property list files in the directory tree and registers the application and the file types it knows about... and you're done.
Many OS X applications don't even bother with an "installer", it's not needed. Installing a program is done by dragging it to "/Applications" (or, in my case, "/Local/Applications"), and you're done.
'apt-get'?
I've got your sig, right here.
Gah! I'll tell you what made my friggin' head explode - the pop-up, followed by the gatekeeper ad, followed by TFA in oh-so-many tiny, ad-loaded pages. Yeah, I really want to buy any and all shit advertised to me in this way.
Here's a link to the slightly less offensive one-pager.
Maybe I am a little too harsh, thats perfectly possible since I'm a full time *nix admin and as such some topics are simply common knowledge for me. But having said that... When I read the article I'm surprised at how much he raves on about Synaptic and how this is the way to install/remove software. I therefor conclude that this was one of the major drawbacks during his last attempt.
Still... I can't help wonder if its safe to conclude that this basically means that this guy never bothered to even glimpse at the Ubuntu manual (or online help screens)? I mean, how hard can it be? You goto the Ubuntu website (where you most likely went anyway to download it), then you click "Support" (or if you're daring click the Documentation link directly). And then you can take your pick, like 8.10.
The reason I'm pointing out the obvious is because if you followed this road (what other is there?) then you'll end up on this page. And when I see that the 2nd link is none other than Adding and removing software then I maybe an arrogant BOFH but I can't help myself saying: "Next time: RTFM!".
Granted.. Normally none of us do that at first and I'll have to admit that a total novice (c|w)ould expect Linux to be as userfriendly as Windows. iow; you can operate it without reading a manual. But if you have tried over and over and you still didn't succeed, wouldn't it be kinda logical to start poking around the Support section before resorting to help and displayed surprises like these?
I mean... Even Microsoft has an extensive support section amongst which How to use XP. Why would Linux be any different?
However, for most people, they are used to popping in a disc or double clicking an icon that says "install". That's it.
That's probably why openSUSE has, for the last couple of release, created a scheme where 1 single file (.YMP) can be clicked, and the package manager will automagically (well at least once the user has entered the root password) add the repository and select the needed package for installation.
This is extensively used in the HOWTOs on openSUSE's wiki.
(And I've read on slashdot that other groups have developed similar technologies)
It's a possible way to bring SETUP.EXE-like experience for newbie Linux users (click on the thingie and it installs).
Although that way, you loose part of the security brought by having a controlled source for the packages. Single-click installs hides the repository management and thus makes the user less aware where he's getting his software from.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I'm a long time English speaker. I'm going to spend the next week or two learning Spanish. At the end of two weeks, I'll chronicle my experiences telling you which language is best.
It's not that apt-get is hard to use, either from the command line or via synaptic. It's that you need to know what you want to install, and lots of the packages have cryptic names that, yes, are not newbie or oldbie friendly.
Try getting your AAC files to play. It's easy if you know *exactly what* to type to get apt-get to install the codecs. But, even if you have the right repositories set up, you can be an old unix hand like me and still not know which packages you need to get the job done.
Of course, there are websites out there that'll give you step-by-step copy and paste instructions for a particular distro, but by the rules governing articles like this, I think 'use google to figure out what website tells you how to do this, and then go there and copy/paste away' isn't going to be accepted.
Now, the reason you need to do this is that nobody's willing to stick their necks out and vouch for the legality of doing that. As far as I'm concerned, even if it's not legal, it's legal. For it not to be legal is clearly anti-competitive, and I'm not about to wait for the US legal system to catch up with reality.
It wouldn't be unreasonable, however, in a 'why Linux is hard' article to explain why it is that some things that should be simple in Linux are hard, and maybe you should write your congressperson...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
from the other perspective.
compared to my Ubuntu8 I find a barebones Windows:
* hard to install
* devoid of useful apps
* devoid of drivers for my peripherals
* difficult to network
and dont get me started on the fact that you would be nuts to not install clam, spybot, defragger, and all the other handy bits and pieces designed to keep the OS safe from itself.
Like the author, I own numerous computers. Like the author they all run various flavours of my preferred OS, in this case Linux. I know Mac users who have their own views too.
This being the case the author was never going to be converted as he is too emotionally invested in his prior decisions.
The article is therefore more about cognitive dissonance than how (or indeed whether) Linux is "better" or "worse" then Windows.
If the take-home message is some idea that Linux has to behave like Windows to get people to migrate then that might have been worth taking on board.
However it seems the biggest gripe is about software installation yet to be honest I cant see how one would make an honest comparison as in the MS world there is nothing remotely similar to Synaptic in the sense that a menu of freely available, freely downloable, freely licensed, malware-free software is presented for you to enjoy as much as you want.
Really, its a bit like getting a free car and complaining about the colour of the paint.
Holmes on Homes said in a program of a couple who were being picky about a ceiling height (which was a bit low in order to conceal all the ductwork):
"I dont mind people being particular. Being particular is good. But they have to be EDUCATED"
Which, if your "theory" is correct proves quite succinctly that the linux community are not a collection of misfits etc.
Or you're talking out your arse.
Silly me.
It could be both.
The author had lots of trouble installing things. I've gotten into arguments over it before, but here's my take: package managers were the wrong answer to the installation problem. They make installing and updating the the libraries and components that make up the the OS itself very easy, but you'll never satisfy diverse application preferences with a central repository. In his original piece, he tries to update OpenOffice from the web because the package manager isn't offering the update yet. Naturally, this is difficult and not really designed with users in mind. This is why I hate package managers - they leave you with two really crappy choices: either don't use it and have no install management at all, or use it and be doomed to only what's in the repositories and having to wait until New Widget 3.0 is blessed by your distro. Certainly don't try to mix the two options or you'll break everything. The fact that some projects now offer their own repositories is just a terrible band-aid.
My Windows box on the other hand always has the latest version of OpenOffice, and I didn't have to touch a console - anyone could do it. I just go download the installer and run it, without even bothering to uninstall the old version. And it's very easy because it's not just a tarball full of crap - it's actually a well-tested package. This way, I get managed installs - I have a list of programs and if I chose to remove one I just choose it and click the uninstall button. I know the Windows install system is much-maligned for being fragile (breaks, or breaks other stuff), messy (throwing crap everywhere, and not completely removing things), and causing as many problems as it solves. I don't disagree with that assessment, but I'd blame the implementation. The open source community could have made a standard install system. Something nice for a front end, something reliable. Hell, you could even integrate it with your fancy package manager, if you really want to. But apparently nobody finds having to wait to get software they want to be as unpleasant as I do. While I could honestly care less about system libraries most of the time, I demand very specific things of my applications, and I don't like handing control over to whoever runs the package servers.
"I do a grep for shit, bollocks, and tits before checking in code. I'm professional..." -RECURSIVE_META_JOKE, reddit.com
One of my biggest nit picks about Linux is as simple as this: the CDROM drive won't always open when you click the open button. I have to go to the terminal and actually type "eject cdrom". Would be annoying as hell for someone who didn't know how to do that.
You haven't actually used Linux, have you? Linux is and has been for several years *much* easier to use than MS-windows.
I just realized this when I had to give some lessons on Python programming to some people at work. I hadn't used a Windows desktop for several years, but since none of these people were Linux users I used XP for the course. I then realized how hard is XP for someone who's not used to it.
Starting with the "Start" menu, which is organized by software supplier, not category. Now where the fsck do I find a file manager? I just downloaded this file, where did it go? Where is my "home" directory, which in Linux has an icon intuitively shaped as a house? I want to copy a file, why did it create links for some, but not all copy operations? And so on. Windows is *extremely* hard to use for a beginner.
Lots of programs raise a DLL missing error if you need a specific version, or needs .NET runtime 2.5 and 2.0 is installed. If errors arise, there are probelms in any OS.
it's funny actually, I'm currently in the process of doing the same, but in reverse. I've been almost only a linux user for many years, and am now shifting primarily to vista. And I am mostly liking it, though I am cheating with openoffice, firefox, cygwin bash
-- All your booze are belong to us.
HE DOES NOT WANT IT TO WORK! He finds any reason on how windows is better. Adding the Open office 3.0 repos in Ubuntu took about 1 minute of searching the internet, 1 minute to add it and 5 minutes of downloading. He wants it to just fail, and doesn't bother to learn it.
I was a windows fan boy for years, been free for 4 months now and loving it. Converted (saved) 3 people too, once they learn the tiny changes they love it, and it is way easier for the COMMON user than windows. Heck it comes with most software you need right out the box, sorry it didn't work with his dual workgroup/domain windows setup he had at his house, but really how many people have that. NO ONE should have that wacky of a setup either.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
It's the 21st century. Why are we, as users, still worrying about how our computers do anything? I don't give a crap how it does it! I reject the false necessity to know, or learn about, command line arguments to most elegantly execute some inconsequential instruction for a machine, or even to consider what a "program" is, for that matter. We have been stuck in a stale paradigm where humans are struggling to tinker with these machines. They ought to be transparent, and we should tolerate nothing less. No excuses! Computers as objects sitting on our desks and in our pockets, this is a transient phase. I certainly don't want to slow my thinking down to explain to some hopelessly logical "tool" so it can help me out!
Maybe once computers dissolve into the fabric of our lives, and aren't such a visible novelty, people will appreciate the absurdity of our servitude to their silent obtuseness?
"I recommend updating only software that you recognize" ... what? You recognize every critical library and system utility, right?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Add/Remove Applications. Could not be simpler...
Do you know some windoze noobs? They do many funy stupid things also:
1) Trying to copy-past music from audio CDs;
2) Sending shotcuts by E-mail;
3) Can't install software because "a 'table' poped up and asked some wiered things from me" (generally "where to install?");
4) I don't know about other non Eanglish users, but russians fears every bit of English text like HELL ("I see a 'table' with 3 lines of Eanglish text!!!!!! What shold I do???!!!!").
The problem is that by and large the "search" functions of package managers are completely useless. Suppose I'm searching for an instant messenger client. Coming from a Windows machine I'd use my "tech saviness" to search for "im" or maybe "im client". The result (performed using yum search on a fedora machine) returns 4523 programs. I'll give you an example entry:
"ftplib.i386 : Library of FTP routines"
That's odd, I searched on "im client" and it returned an ftp library, along with 4500 other useless entries and are seemingly unrelated to my search. It turns out it does that cause it breaks my two words up into two separate searches so it was actually "client" that returned the ftp result, even though "client" doesn't appear in the package name or short description.
Now I know that I really want to install pidgin but what on earth would I ever search for that would return that? It turns out that even searching on the quoted string "instant messenger" won't return pidgin because the description uses the term "messenging". Sigh.
What bothers me about this situation is exactly what the author says in the article, recommending that people don't install updates for packages they don't recognize. So a major security hole gets patched in X11/whatever and the end-user reads this article and says, "shit, I don't know what the hell X11 is so I better not let it install that on my computer".
Whenever I have a problem with Linux, I just go to a Linux fanboy site and post "Linux SUXXORS. I can't get 'x' to work. I'm going back to windows"
Someone always seems to helpfully step up and try and prove me wrong. I mean, answer my question.
Plus I get to learn new synonyms for 'idiot'.
Corollary to Hanlon's razor: Any significantly advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
I think the main problem with the Linux package management architecture is that it completely ignores the reality of the web.
For many people nowadays, the web is where you first discover an application: you might read a review of it, or see it mentioned in a forum thread, or in a mailing list archive you chanced upon while doing a google search for some problem you're having. Maybe a friend will recommend the application to you, and paste the url to its website during an IM section; or maybe he'll just give you the name, and you'll paste it into Google.
However you heard about the application, chances are you'll eventually end up at its website; which is a good thing, because that's where you can read up about it, look at some screenshots, and decide whether it's something you want to try or not.
And then what? Windows and Mac users will click the download link, run the installer (or just copy the application over, as is common on OS X), and be done. And that's exactly what a Linux newbie would try, too, as seen in TFA. It's not just because all other systems work that way: it's because it's actually a pretty streamlined experience (at least for the "look for new software" case that most newbies are likely to encounter; mass-installing a bunch of software you already know on two hundred computers you're administering is a different matter altogether).
So, the Linux user is going to look for Linux installation instructions on the webpage, and be confronted with the usual mess of different downloads and instructions for different versions of Linux. And he'll probably get it wrong, because doing it right requires knowing a bunch of stuff he's not supposed to know (such as "what kind of package does your distro use?"); and if OpenOffice, one of the most important open source projects, couldn't make an easy to use installation page for Linux, most other projects are going to fare even worse.
Of course, what you'd like to do is for the user to stop reading the page, dig for the package manager inside the administration menu, run it, and search for the name of the program inside the list. But that requires switching out from the browser interface into a wholly unfamiliar realm.
What I think would help here is some standard for putting a "download link" on a webpage that actually invokes the right package manager for the user's distribution.
It could use a url with a custom protocol and a package identifier, eg "pkgman:openoffice.org/openoffice/3.0.0". The package manager would handle the url and look for the package matching the request in its repositories; if it's not found, it could explain the situation to the user (eg "We have an older version of this program, but not the one you're trying to download; would you like to be notified when it's added to our repository?"). To support less common software, the url could contain, in addition to the identifier, a path to a description file (eg "pkgman:example.com/mycoolprogram/0.1:example.com/downloads/mycoolprogram.pkgstuff"); if the program is not found in the known repositories, the package manager could attempt to download the descriptor file over http (http://example.com/downloads/mycoolprogram.pkgstuff), where the developer could put a list of custom repositories that host the program, tagged by package type/distro/version; and the package manager would tell the user "We don't have this in our repo, but it's hosted by blah.org; they don't have a version for ubuntu 8.10, but they have a generic deb; would you like to install it?".
I think something like that would be quite helpful to newbies.
Office mates have an important document they want printed. This was done in the "new excel" They could not print to their Xerox Phaser.
They emailed me a PDF, and I printed it to the Phaser. I'd installed the drivers on my desktop Ubuntu system a couple weeks ago, using 15 minutes and directions googled off the net.
I'd like to listen in on the phonecall where someone explains to Bill Gates that they had to email a PDF to a friend with Linux becuase they couldn't get it to print from their Vista machine.
By default, every update has a check next to it in the Update Manager. Uncheck the boxes next to those you don't want to update -- I recommend updating only software that you recognize. To quickly uncheck the box next to every update, right-click inside the Recommended updates area and select Uncheck all.
Yes, I second that recommendation.
Signed l33t h4x0r
People have been conditioned to believe that ticking boxes and clicking icons is more versatile than actually telling the computer exactly what you want.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And if something really pisses you off, you can nuke it from orbit.
how do you install and update software on your mac
Either insert the CD, or go to the web page, and click "install". Click a few obvious buttons thereafter if needed. If something special like Flash or OpenGL is needed, it offers to install that too. Easy.
Linux, well, why doesn't "app-install get X" work? Oh, right, it's "app-get X install" ... er ... "app-get install X" ... er ... crap, it was some stupid mis-spelling that made no sense ...
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
as a developer, I am exposed to Linux and Windows people, all I hear from Linux world is, "easy, just @#$@#$ dash space blah blah." I meant, how the fcuk am I suppose to remember all these commands? Also, GUI, I know Microsoft spends $$$ researching on how to do user friendly GUIs and easy to remember product names, but all I see in the "open source" world is developers name their programs with their personal names. I mean WTF!
As mentioned elsewhere, the different mental model of Windows and Unix is laid bare by the often cringe-inducing "mistakes" made by the author. Whenever I recommend Linux to a Windows user, I always take the time to warn them that the will need to adjust their thinking to remain sane during the switch-over:
The Linux update system is truly a wonder, and is by far one of the best things about the operating system. But Windows people really do need a few minutes of preparation to adjust their thinking, just like the author.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Some people keep saying this implying it is true, without any substantiation of this whatsoever.
In which way is Windows installing easier than Linux?
First of all, both things are nor remotely comparable. IN a Linux machine you have thousands of packages readily available, once the software is installed you can pretty much forget about it: no pop-ups, no reminders, no auto updates, no nonsense.
In Windows, the software will keep pestering you about all of the above, but because you say it was easier to install all of the sudden we should close your eyes and enjoy the constant pestering of all these applications.
As for RPMs and debs packages, what could be simpler than double click on them, wait for the graphic installer to pop-up and click one or two buttons at most? And if you are actually running he tool provided with modern installations you simply search for what you need, highlight it, dependencies are resolved for you, and click an install button that gets things done.
Honestly, the underestimation of the computing literacy of most people is very patronizing.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I am always bailing out my windows intstall using linux. come to think of it, I would probably use linux full time if only linux didnt keep helping me fix windows.
If I have to spell her name in order to communicate, yes.
This is precisely why my daughter's name is "Kirsten" instead of "Kirstyn" as my wife wanted; she finally understood my insistence on the former when we wanted to buy some trinket with her name on it, the 'y' spelling was not available but the standard 'e' version was, and she almost bought it anyway until I pointed out how annoying/disrespectful that would be. Having finally chosen the standard spelling, we are nonetheless eternally dealing with people calling her "Kristen". So yes, a minor change in spelling IS, in my experience, pointlessly confusing.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Nope, Ubuntu has made the second biggest strides towards user friendliness.
I use Ubuntu Studio, but in _most_ ways Mandriva is by far the most newbie friendly.
I expect with the momentum Ubuntu has that it will pass Mandriva in a few years.
Ubuntu gets recommended the most because it has the most mindshare.
Guys! It's a shame to laugh on people with mental disabilities caused by long windows use. :) They can not do simplest things with computers not because they are stupid. It is special kind of disease developed by addiction to malicious and potentially dangerous software. Drugs are illegal so windows must be. :)
Linux is now, and has been for awhile, far easier to learn and use than Windows. OS X might be easier, but I would argue there are places Linux does better, even from the "clueless user" perspective.
The problem is, as this article identifies, it's not enough to be better. You have to balance a tightrope of being exactly like Windows, so Windows users don't have a learning curve, and yet so incredibly better than Windows that people are willing to ditch Windows (and all their Windows apps) to give it a try -- even if there was no learning curve, it can be a hard sell.
This is not Linux' fault. It's the essential problem that with a single OS dominating the market, it's nearly impossible for a third party to gain any traction -- which is why we were suing Microsoft for antitrust in the first place.
In other words: Linux has pretty much no hope, but it's not through any fault of Linux, or because anything else is easier to use.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If you search for "AAC" in synaptic you get both the name of the package and the description of what the package does.
And often now if you click in a common file type Ubuntu asks you if you want to install codecs, plugins or whatever you need.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I see where the author is coming from with his frustrations. At the end of the day, he is absolutely 100% right. Regular users, which is most of the world don't want to deal with any arcane and esoteric commands. Sure, we feel cool, resourceful and technical but the fact is that most people don't want to search for solutions to simple things such as installing applications. This is why Windows & OSX are so popular, for the most part they just work. People just want to click on icons and dialog boxes, click yes or no, and then be on their merry way to do whatever that is they want. I think that Linus Torvlads himself said that people don't use "operating systems". Ubuntu is moving towards the right direction but it needs to be even dumbed down more for everyday average computer owners.
when you compare MS-Windows with Linux. This is really annoying that people try to map their MS-Windows experiences on Linux. Do you want it MS-Windows-like? Stay with MS-Windows!
How when we do it the other way?
I would never use MS-Windows, because I don't know a decent package manager for it that works with all the SETUP.EXE packages.
I'm generally using UTC on all my hardware. Please setup UTC on my MS-Windows, so I don't have to care about WHAT TIME it is, but WHERE I CURRENTLY AM IN THE WORLD.
And if I ever update my hardware (e.g. hard disk, mainboard), I don't want to be forced to install everything from scratch.
etc.
FTFA: "First, there is no single version of Linux, controlled by a single company, in the same way that there is a single version of Windows, controlled by Microsoft."
'Single version of Windows'.... ha ha ha ha ha!!
It's that you need to know what you want to install
That can only be fixed by asking, no matter the platform. This isn't a Linux only phenomenon.
It's even worse on Windows than Linux because there aren't even any central repositories to search, and the only "well known" packages are Microsoft and expensive.
Lets take an example. I want to learn German. What's a good software package to help with that? I have no clue, you have no clue and I can't even search for "learn language" in a centralised repository to find something. Doing so in Synaptic turns up a couple of flash card systems and vocabulary trainers. Nothing remotely as sophisticated as Auralog, but they're there a click away and free.
With Windows I have to Google for it exactly as I have to on Linux.
Deleted
A beginner also doesn't know what to do when setup.exe pops up a dialog box saying 'Installshield Error: -51'. Actually, most advanced users don't either, come to think of it.
I've used windows for a loooong time and I have had a few occasional problems installing software, but mostly when the software was not legitimately sourced. I've been using linux on my son's PC for only 3 years, and have just gotten an Eee Pc with linux. When first encountering Synaptic I thought "Cool! look at all these free apps that I can just get." So I tried. I've had a very low success rate. Several programs just didn't work. Several times there is some cryptic error that prevents install. Sometimes it tells me that there are missing dependencies. Often what you think you want is really just a 'front end' for the thing you really need, but it turns out there are other front ends and you have to choose one!?!? Hell on my Eee, as soon as I got it connected it told me there were several updates, so I let it do the updates. Three required rebooting (I thought linux was above that) and one just wouldn't install. I hope it isn't too important.
The worst of it just browsing through the installer looking for a program that does what you want. The names are baffling, and the descriptions are clearly written by that haughty CS grad studnent from my college computer lab who answered unix support questions by pointing at a manual that was literally 4 feet thick.
And all of this complaining is coming from someone who desperately wants linux to be great, or at least good enough for me. I've had experience as a unix user from the old mainframe days. My first PC experience was being confronted by a "c:\>" At every place I've ever worked I'm the go to guy for tech support. I build my own computers. A few weeks ago my motherboard on my PC died and I found a NOS copy of the same board and swapped it out. None of that gave me anywhere near the trouble as getting my google calendar to sync up with Kontact has.
-- QED
Trying to reason with a Linux true believer is like trying to reason with a true believer in anything: pointless. I can sit and tell them that, even with years of experience as a PC technician (and one-time Apache webserver admin), that even *I* had trouble installing and configuring Ubuntu (supposedly the most user-friendly distro), but the message will not be received. Simple questions like "How do a set it up for dual monitors?" elicit lengthy explanations involving complex manual edits to your xorg config file that may or may not even work (and never did the last time I tried, merely crashing my GUI and leaving me with a command line only interface that led me straight back to Windows). Questions like "Can I use Photoshop/Office/etc. in Linux?" are met with cries of "Oh, GIMP/OpenOffice/etc. are just as good!" (they're not) or slightly more helpful suggestions about which version of Photoshop is LEAST wonky running under Wine.
And now I am now going to get 100 responses saying "Oh, it's just as easy as Windows" and "It's easier in newer version X" and "What's so hard about manually editing a config file?" and "Linux Program X is just as good as Windows Program Y! How DARE you say otherwise!" Then, since this is /., I'll also get modded down as a -20 troll and flamer for even daring to raise these questions.
Telling a Linux true believer that Linux is a pain in the ass for the average user is like telling a Christian that his religion makes no fucking sense, telling a politico that his favorite party/cause/politician is just as scummy as that of his opposition, or telling a sports fan that his "team" could give a shit less whether he lives or dies.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This really tells it like it is for people who have never tried Linux. With Ubuntu it is much easier for people who don't care to learn how to use it. Just click an icon and voila. I am surprised Steven didn't tell him about add and remove programs. There is a huge list of programs that can be installed from the GUI. That would be my only complaint with the article. My wife uses Ubuntu for her desktop and it works well. She likes it because it keeps the kids from installing all their stuff on her system. The IM clients, desktop addons among other things. Ubuntu is making a lot of head way for Linux. I am waiting for the next release to see what improvements are in store. Each release gets better and better. And I am user of both Linux and Vista. Like em both.
What about multimedia editing apps? Say i'd like to make a picture slide show, or edit a movie off my video camera. Dont say gimp because i might vomit. Linux blows in this space.
Linux OS is stable. I'm very proud of all of you. Now how about some real applications to go with it. "It just works" BS. "It does nothing".
Server Services work well I'll give you that. From a desktop point of view the apps are terrible.
O did i just say something bad about the all mighty Linux? Tough! It blows!
Now I know that I really want to install pidgin but what on earth would I ever search for that would return that? It turns out that even searching on the quoted string "instant messenger" won't return pidgin because the description uses the term "messenging". Sigh.
Putting that exact search string into Add/Remove Applications returns Pidgin at the top of the list, followed by a selection of other instant messaging clients.
http://www.mhall119.com
i've been using ubuntu and kubuntu for 2 years now. i can do everything now like edit conf files and i can easily install programs using apt-get. i prefer apt-get over synaptics. but there are two important questions that i haven't been able to figure out:
1. how do you upgrade openoffice from veersion 2.4 to 3?
2. ho do you remove firefox 3.0.3 and install the 3.1 beta?
i have not found any answer to this after extensive googling. and mozill's site just does not say anything. this lack of info on such basic stuff like installing/uninstalling is what keeps mainstream users away from linux.
when i went to the firefox download page and clicked on the penguin i got a tar.gz archive, no deb file. i extracted the archive and to run firefox 3.1 i execute an executable inside the extracted directory. its like portable edition. and there is no way at all to remove the olderr version of firefox.
i think installing programs is the only weakness that remains in linux distros. add/remove is useless, it doesn't have all the apps that exist on planet earth. this is why i consider centralized repositeries to be inherently flawed. the windows approach of installers for each app seems much better.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
While you are correct, this thread was specifically talking about the command line apt-cache search and the like. The GUI's are an improvement, especially recently, though I believe Synaptic is still just as ignorant, but I don't have an up to date Ubuntu system to try it on.
Thank you for getting it, and articulating it.
Regarding the "what's up with 'apt'?" question, I've gotten gobs of responses ranging from a polite explanation to being called a "f-ing tool" repeatedly. None recognize that, details of explanation aside, it's not obvious - how the he11 am I supposed to know the command is "apt-get" if I don't know that the package is called "Aptitude"? and why should I know it all revolves around such a non-sequitor name? And that I've been deep in computing for 20+ years should (as someone did thankfully notice) indicate that maybe the problem isn't the users being ignorant, but the developers making things obtuse on the presumption that those entering the realm should deign to learn such details to the satisfaction of the High Priests (gee, wasn't that the great gripe against IBM years ago?) before being free to use the system.
A co-worker had a similar complaint about his new iPod Touch. He didn't know that "Safari" was the web browser - who could blame him? the name has nothing to do with the task. We don't go around asking "where's the Xerox?", and the owner of Kleenex brand actually has to legally discourage people from equating the term with nasal tissue. Knowing that "Aptitude" is the root name for the installation tools doesn't help the chicken-and-egg problem of finding out what the name of the installation tool is! why not just "install X"?
Yes, I'm a hardcore geek. That I don't know all the primary incantations for Linux doesn't diminish my geekness.
Finally: good to know there is progress being made with "Install Program" from the main drop-down menu on some (!) distros. Sounds like there is still a ways to go, both with making everything available, and with concealing details most users don't need to be confused with. Now I know what "Synaptic" is (thanks to a coincidental comment, not clarity on the menus), and get to spend hours figuring out what's relevant, obtuse, and/or missing.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
why are we still comparing running a linux distro to another OS on a desktop?
I've been using a linux distro as my main workstation OS since late 94. This is old news. If you don't know the OS or have no use for it's applications, don't use it. Everyone wins.
Why doesn't someone write a story about being a long time Linux/Unix user and going back to Windows for 2 weeks? I doubt I'd last the week without grep, bash or ssh. Doesn't it seem rather one-sided that Windows-centric people are evaluating Linux? Why not some Linux people evaluating Windows?
As for me, you can have my Linux when you pry it from my dead cold hands.
Overrated, Troll, and Flamebait mod points are not to be used towards posts you disagree with. That IS censorship.
Yes I have tried to use linux in the last three days, NO I won't touch linux with a ten foot pole. If I want stable and powerful I will use AIX or Solaris. Linux is just a rolling disaster. I tried patching software to fix known bugs, unfortunately that resulted in an infinite loop of downloading a patch, finding the patch broke broke another tool, download the patch rinse and repeat. I gave up after about 10 tries and installed OpenSolaris, downloaded the patches and went on my way. No incompatabilities, no problems.
Fine. I ran the GUI installer (yeah, "Synaptic" is a really obviously the installer, right). I installed several programs (largely selected at random from thousands of meaningless or obtuse names). Now I can't find the programs; bits and pieces are scattered around, but none can be initiated. They don't show up on the start menu, the files are buried in various "could be here, could be there, who knows" locations (no executibles visible so far), no "here's how you start it" indications were shown, and the best I get is insults from the likes of you.
No wonder people buy Macs or install Windows. Those, for all their foibles, work. Installing a program is obvious (insert CD, click obvious buttons), and running it is obvious (Start, Programs, look for highlighted new-program entries).
For my next machine, I'll buy a Mac. Plunking down a couple hundred bucks for a program that installs & runs in seconds is cheaper than spending hours dorking around with one almost-but-not-quite working alleged "free" application or OS. Life is short, and Quake 2 should run - not hide - when I install it. Of course, you'll retort with more insults - yeah, that'll help the cause.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
But Linux has to be that much better. It won't do that it's an equal to Windows, because that leaves no incentive to switch and try something new.
Wrong. Even if Linux was only the equal of Windows in usability / functionality, Linux still has an overwhelming advantage -- it's FREE (as in beer). When I come across a problem with watching a Flash video on Linux, it doesn't irk me anywhere near as much as it would in Windows. Why? Because I paid good money for Windows. If I pay money for something, I expect it to work correctly -- at least the vast majority of the time. If I get something for free, I'm not very bothered if it has the occasional hiccup.
The next time one of your Windows only friends makes a complaint about Linux, remind them that you paid nothing for Linux, while they paid good money to get that BSOD or lost their files due to a virus.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I'm a fairly tech savvy person, as far as non-Linux people go. Last time my windows machine crashed (which was the hard-drive's issue, not the OS), I decided I would try out this "Linux" thing. I got Ubuntu 8.01 ... I think that's the one.
Now, about me as a user: I am a bit of a graphics geek, I do some web design with PHP and MySql. Family and friends ask for my help with things. I have a minor in Computer Science. I had a terrible time trying to switch over.
I re-installed windows, and used a liveCD to place Ubuntu as a second boot. I was so frustrated with trying to get Ubuntu to just "run" that I was at my wits end. Problems with my monitor and graphics card. When I finally got it "working," I had no clue how to install programs. After calling a friend who is a Linux person, I got most of my rough spots smoothed out. But, without some outside help, it was hell. An issue I NEVER run into with Windows XP.
By the end, I really liked the package manager, but my (and my wife's) gaming habits and my use of Photoshop and Illustrator pulled me back to Windows. It was just way to different for someone without some help. An introduction video would have helped.
No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
the AROS or HaikuOS challenge.
Can someone go cold turkey from Windows to a GUI based operating system that is not Linux, but free and open sourced just the same?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Ubuntu isn't a rolling release, like Debian stable. Nor is this like windows freeware that constantly bugs you to install the newest version. Ubuntu only issue updates to patch known security problems and critical bugs, not to add new features.
The proper time to update is when you know a program well enough to know that a newer version has a feature you want.
Sometimes there are corner cases in software that you only run into occasionally. Just because you haven't hit it yet doesn't mean you won't in the future. Waiting until you know that you want to upgrade to install an update, may very well mean waiting until the software has unnecessarily corrupted your project files.
someone who doesn't run a DNS resolver shouldn't have to keep up with the corresponding software, or even have it installed!
You're right they shouldn't have it installed. If they do then that is another problem altogether. But if it is installed they do need to be installing security updates otherwise they setting themselves up for trouble.
to live free and clear of Windows. I have been doing it for several years. I use CentOS on my desktop and have not had any problems with software management. Red Hat's RPM works very well and its yum package install and removal system is brilliant. I did have to add rpmfusion and rpmforge repositories so that I could get the non-free plugins and the like. Once adding those two repositories, I can play MP3s, watch movies, stream video, encode video (other than ogg vorbis), and the like. I use thunderbird for email with the enigmail plugin for PGP Encryption and can even play movies on Hulu and YouTube. Not really sure what the author is having difficulty with. I am not a fan of the debian-based distributions and I know I'll catch flack for "dissing" Ubuntu but .... Anyone can drink a Windows free kool aid
two weeks without windows in 2009 is too little too late....
Give a man a fish...
To click icons and tick boxes you need to first understand the meaning of them, rationalize which of these elements fulfill your desired goal, and then activate the proper GUI widgets... each time to you're confronted with the GUI.
Using the CLI you need to know before hand the arguments/parameters that will fulfill your desired goal. It requires preparation (i.e. read the man page), but once you learn it it stays with you.
IMO CLI provides a more immutable interface, as opposed to GUI widgets that can and will change over time.
Software is a tool than when someone uses routinely its sensible to expect him to learn how to use it properly... for the rest of the human race there is Windows.
I couldn't be happier that the Linux experience is different from the Windows experience! Attempting to make a Linux or OSX experience Windows-er is as wrong, futile and useless as trying to compare a high-school romance with your spouse.
People don't run OSes, they run the applications the OS runs on.
I beg to differ. Not by 180 degrees, but I disagree with the notion that it's only about the applications (unless you define application differently from me).
Much of the value Linux brings to me is in the unix philosophy. It's the fact that I can type up for i in {0..99}; do wget http://foo.com/pr0n${i}.jpg; done instead of having a mass downloader application that may or may not do the right thing.
It's the fact that I can write an adequate (if somewhat bare-bones and inefficient) podcatcher in 100 lines of shell+xslt.
It's that there's a command-line interface to my music player which I can access from xbindkeys.
Grope through your collection of shell tools. None of them are the killer app, but you wouldn't want to be without any of them either. If you port them all to windows, haven't you in a sense ported the OS? It seems to me you've ported the things that distinguish the OS.
As we move towards doing everything in our web browsers, the job of the OS will become closer to simply running the web browser. If your browser of choice is firefox (or something else which runs on a wide variety of OSes), why shouldn't you chose your OS based on the OS and not the application?
[Yep, the latter is an extreme exaggeration. Deal with it ;)]
Agree with above. From the GGGP:
I'm not surprised that Nursie finds this intuitive. What astounds me is that Nursie doesn't understand why other people don't find it intuitive as well. The fact that you have to type in certain character strings (not even words) in a predetermined order with no hint from the prompt as to what to do, the fact that the computer does not understand near misses like "app-get install firefox" or "install firefox" or "aptget install firefox" or "apt-get firefox" is a far cry from the GUI that guides the user down a limited set of possible choices. Presumably Nursie would scratch his/her head trying to figure out what's so funny about following obquote taken from http://www.bash.org/?464385:
<@insomnia> it only takes three commands to install Gentoo /dev/hda && mkfs.xfs /dev/hda1 && mount /dev/hda1 /mnt/gentoo/ && chroot /mnt/gentoo/ && env-update && . /etc/profile && emerge sync && cd /usr/portage && scripts/bootsrap.sh && emerge system && emerge vim && vi /etc/fstab && emerge gentoo-dev-sources && cd /usr/src/linux && make menuconfig && make install modules_install && emerge gnome mozilla-firefox openoffice && emerge grub && cp /boot/grub/grub.conf.sample /boot/grub/grub.conf && vi /boot/grub/grub.conf && grub && init 6
<@insomnia> cfdisk
<@insomnia>that's the first one
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
If Granny could figure out Word Perfect 20 years ago while being a secretary at the local elementary school she sure as hell can deal with popping open an xterm and typing a few "apt-get" commands today.
Yeah, I remember the eighties.
Your older sister got the district job after graduating from a business school like Bryant & Stratton.
An "apt-get" one-liner or two typed into a command prompt is no more effort than going to a web site, finding the downloads page, clicking a button, and then running the installer with all its options to choose from and EULA to read. In fact, the typical command line package manager is LESS work for the end user.
Installing the program you want is easy.
Finding the program you want is hard. Feeling confident in the choices you have made is more difficult still.
The Windows site will have screen shots, editorial reviews, user reviews, videos, tutorials...
It can be miles wide and deep.
But still colorful and easy to navigate, the polar opposite of SourceForge.
The user install is more than a technical problem for the geek. It is as an ideological problem.
Windows is the OS of the middle class.
Users rate zero on the score of political correctness. They don't come to your site to be lectured.
Free-as-in beer is an adolescent obsession.
Tech of astonishing sophistication is woven into their lives - but shaped to fit their needs and values - not the other way around.
Apt-Get removes a technical barrier to the adoption of Linux.
It doesn't cut to the heart of things:
To hell with the lowest common denominator. Let them sink or swim on their own. They truly don't deserve the fruits of open source developers' labors unless they're willing to roll up their sleeves once in a while.
and get a Real OS... Who the hell wants to play with that toy crap. 1% Market share means nobody gives a shit.
I couldn't agree more. Pages and pages of people saying it's not broken, but they seem to keep forgetting the simple fact that 'joe user' above managed to get easily lost on something they assumed was so simple a caveman could do it.
The truth is there are obvious places the GUI could use more polish and a lot more tweaking to make it more intuitive. Unfortunately the vocal majority of Linux geeks will argue till they are blue in the face that they like it that way and why should they change. They just don't get it. They should spend a month converting technical documents for the PC challenged. It would give them some much needed perspective.
I think a unified installation format and GUI would go a long way. Unfortunately they will argue against that, stating that they like RPM or Tar or whatever and that more choice is good. For the end user, they could care less. They just want something they can click on and it's installed. They don't care if it's tar, deb, rpm, or whatever. They argue about things that in the end, matter little to the typical 'clueless' end user.
There's a reason that Apple and Windows use a simple repeatable method for installing apps. It's not that someone couldn't start writing 100 different open source ways to install an app on those platforms. They use it because it works and it's easy. Of course people will start spewing that they got this error or that error when they installed on Windows. Those are app issues, but you can bet they knew how to start the install without breaking out a manual.
Users fear the command line because they are afraid of making some devastating mistake, a fatal typographical error. The language, grammar and vocabulary are entirely alien. You cut and paste with fingers crossed. The dialog box will - ideally - expose only sensible choices and a graceful exit.
I have noticed the problem with browsing windows vista shares from ubuntu myself and so far I have been unable to locate a fix for the problem or a workaround.
It has been a few months since I last looked into the problem so perhaps there is a fix out there that has been found since then.
here's the easiest linux install anyone can do, no different than installing any other windows app really
http://wubi-installer.org/
perhaps its more like just getting your feet wet with linux rather than diving head first, but learning to crawl before running is best for most I spose.
i dont think you have used apt in a while,
completely tracks point 2 3 and 4. apt-cache search or synaptic / the webz will allow you to find endless software you know not the name of. apt-file show will list every file a package has on your system.
and manual packages go into /usr/local or you can easily use checkinstall and tell it dependencies etc. to have your packages tracked by the package manager
What most of the folks here seem to be ignoring is the fact that most people use windows because it's already installed. I dual-boot due to codecs and drivers. For two pieces of hardware. In about six months, I'll ditch Windows entirely, because the kernel will have caught up to my hardware. As a Dual-booter, I am of the opinion that, like it or not, people think of windows as the only operating system besides OSX. I've tried just about every distro that I thought would be worth my time, Linux's (about 12 of them), BSD (PC-BSD's PBI's are nice, but not expansive) and of course Windows and OSX. I'm even running a Solaris server at home. They all work great. the issue isn't functionality, but familiarity. People (non-geeks) [and I consider myself a bit of a geek] want to use what's familiar, flawed and buggy as it may be. You want to spread Linux/BSD usage, tell a friend and give them a live CD. The installers are all good. Each has it's pro's and cons. I, personally don't like YAST, but I'm okay with Synaptic/APT. We should encourage people to try the system, not blast MS. It just makes us look like sour grapes. Flame me as you see fit.
I love package management, but I think the main point of the article is that people want an easy way to install packages.
Think windows... double-click setup.exe or program.msi and an icon appears after a setup dialog.
That doesnt translate so well to the unix world, specially not with rpm and deb running around along side source distribution... coming from a solaris (pkg) environment I LOVED package management when i understood it (and rpm/deb were even kewler than pkg). But it is confusing for your average joe, no doubt about it.
I know i've seen one already (thought not quite exactly how it should work), but a package system that makes a executable "blob" that you double click and installs an rpm or a deb depending on your OS would benefit linux so very much.
Distro's dont like you stepping away from their repo's, but it can be hard not to.
copy con c:\ls.bat /w %1
@dir
^Z
He makes a good point about the weird Ubuntu version scheme: a new user is likely to think that you could update from version 8.04 to 8.10 as a ordinary incremental change. But an expert would know that 8.04 and 8.10 are actually dates ('08.April and '08.October), and everybody actually calls them Hardy and Intrepid whenever they're saying anything that might be useful information. For that matter, the recent code names actually tend to give accurate suggestions about the sort of release it will be, with the LTS one suggesting robustness and the others suggesting ambition of various sorts. (Are you sure you want to move from something Hardy to something Intrepid? On the one hand, you get new stuff; on the other hand, it won't live as long)
Remember Microsoft spent alot of moolah in 1995 to create mindshare and continued spending. Who besides computer geeks know the word "Linux"? Linux literally has no mindshare in the general public. Until some company is ready to step up to the plate, no year will be the year of the Linux desktop.
"They like what they have"
If you train a monkey to use chopsticks to eat his (I am assuming a male monkey here) banana, then try to make him relearn using a fork, he will likely not be very happy.
People tend to stick with what they know even it isn't the best. The monkeys who have been taught to use Windows are no different.
I mean no offence to monkeys by this post.
My point is that you can use operators such as "+" and many others in the google text feild. It is a command line for all intents and purposes - a pure GUI fails for all but simple tasks just as a pure command line annoys people. Personally I see it as a pure GUI if the thing only deals with what you can point to, as with my next example which was horribly limited.
I had the advantage of learning the mistake of the pure GUI on the Atari ST - you really were limited on that platform to things you could point at until someone wrote a thing to run batch files and then someone wrote a thing to give you a command prompt. Apples also had this mistake but the GUI wasn't quite as limiting so not everyone learned it. In MSDOS and NT there was always a mixture. There still is in Vista where you have to run a little utility from the command line just to join an NT domain without active directory.
Many (probably not the earlier poster) profess the view that once the user touches the command line the system can be considered unusable. I disagree with that. If the command line is "convert pic.tif pic.jpg" how is that a lot harder than navigating a pile of twisty menus, waiting for thumbnails to render and then ticking a few boxes? How hard is "yum install firefox" (although there is also a decent GUI installer called yumex)? "yum search" is also fairly decent when you don't know what is available to do a paticular task. Where the command line is confusing it is typically where no easily readable GUI can really go anyway - sed and awk scripts that look like chicken scratchings typically would be replaced by a few seperate operations in some finder tool or document editor.
Anyway, it's the burden of the system. On *nix you have to learn a few command line tools after a while, just like on MS Windows you have to learn about regedit and many other bits of weirdness.
How about that? OpenSuse offers an alternative approach to install a program; besides the typical package manager tool and the command line there is a 1-click installer.
1. go to their Software search page
2. find the program you want
3. click the "Install" button
This will start the package manager and from that point it is a matter of authenticating and clicking "Next" a couple of times.
The saddest poem
Strange. My 9 and 12 year-old sons have been using Ubuntu for 2 years with no complaints. Of course the younger generation is very computer literate and probably find much more things "intuitive" than most adults... I don't understand this author's statement that he couldn't find a way to upgrade to ubuntu 8.10 from 8.04 using Upgrade Manager. I remember the Upgrade Manager telling me that an upgrade was a available, and I upgraded to 8.10 with one click --Much, much easier than upgrading any version of Windows (anybody remember trying to upgrade from Windows ME to 'anything'). Most apps found on the web, (if not in a repository found by the Synaptic Package Manager or Add/Remove) will list the exact apt-get command you have to type, even though 90% of the time just typing apt-get install followed by the application name will do the trick. I also didn't understand his problem with OpenOffice. It seems strange that he's found so many things confusing. It seems that 5 minutes on the Ubuntu homepage or a few minutes with Google would have clarified everything for him. When I switched my "family computer" from Windows 2000 to Ubuntu, my kids hardly noticed, except to positively state that they liked Ubuntu more than Win 2000 (it seemed more like Windows XP to them). Ironically, when my ex-wife switch her "family computer" to Vista from XP, all hell broke loose, even to the extent that the kids insisted on coming over to my house to use the Ubuntu Machine to do their schoolwork (my 9-year-old son prefers OpenOffice , and my 12-year-old MS Office under WINE, rather than Office 2007, which they refuse to use). The package Management under Ubuntu is actually a wonderful thing. A co-worker of mine recently tried to uninstall Office 2003 and managed to "brick" his PC (and he's a computer professional). He spent a whole day just to get his PC usable again. When I referred him to a Microsoft support site that deals with this problem, he didn't bother to try "their solution" and just resigned himself to leave Office installed. Also, just recently on Slashdot, there was reference to Bill Gates's own frustration trying to install MovieMaker on Windows. I'm a longtime Windows user, and I have to save that the only time I've run into the type of frustration I've had installing, uninstalling or upgrading on Windows with Ubuntu, was when I've tried to install certain Windows programs on WINE (like "Command and Conquer 3"). The only other complaint I have with Ubuntu is that I can't easily sync my iPod Touch (not without downgrading the firmware and jailbreaking it). For the life of me, I can't understand why Apple hasn't made this easy (by perhaps providing an iTunes for Linux). Anyway, I've found that those of my friends who have switched to Ubuntu call me for help much less frequently that those of my friends who have gone to Vista. My experience is that younger users (like my kids and teenagers) seem to find much many more things "intuitive" than adults (after all, they're growing up with modern technology). Senior Citizen Newbies find Windows, MACs and Ubuntu equally challenging or easy (depending on the Senior).
Like being unable to get a current version of
Rezound/Cinelerra/Kdenlive/plus-many-others installed, because
a) there isn't one built for your distro, and
b) the dependencies are version-specific, and THEY
c) clash with the versions you require in your current distro, AND
d) some of 'em aren't even available from the source site ( wxWidgets specific version, in the case of one of the above apps, can't remember which, a few months ago )
Sometimes things are just so goddamn broken in the linuxwhirled universe, that it kills.
IF you never branch outside what your distro provides, then fine, but if you require an updated distro, but with specific app requirements, then you may be screwed, terminally.
Some Windows apps have an x32 requirement, some an x64 requirement,
but having a set of apps that require 5 different distros to run ( AV work - one distro for a non-crashing Cinelerra, another for Rezound, another for Ardour, etc ), makes linux an absolutely-non-viable option.
Cheers,
The linux idea is put the programme in to diffirent directory. It make all things complicate.
why not learn from windows and put it in a folder named "programme file"?
Reading the article a month ago I was immediately alarmed by his initial tone. It was obvious that there are some real jerks out there in the linux world and there are a lot more jerks out there in the windows world (more in windows becuase there are more windows users). From his tone it was obvious he already had his head set against his own success. He was setting himself up for failure.
Some initial issues he experienced were due to two things. 1) he chose a laptop when he could easily have chosen the most highly used platform instead (the desktop), and 2) he used a borrowed laptop and an older one at that. You don't borrow a car and then drive it across the country. You have to build trust in it first. I would never buy a used car and then expect it to perform without a good going over and tuning.
His initial issue with the odd screen after downloading the necessary files through wubi and rebooting had to do with the fact that Windows itself locked up and he forced it off. If he'd gone back into windows, verified it was working correctly, then rebooted and went into Linux he absolutely positively would not have experienced that error.
The error was caused by an unclean shut down of the NTFS file system. Windows sets a flag indicating it has shut down properly. If the flag is set to indicated it didn't shut down properly then the ntfs-3g driver of Linux will read that flag and refuse to mount the file system. You have to do a repair OR reboot into Windows and shut down properly.
The rest of the article just showed that he was not as competent as he thought. Hell, those initial mistakes show us enough of that to know that he would be making many sophomoric error to come.
His comments regarding how software was installed is disingenuous as he wasn't giving a real assessment comparing the issues one has with installing Windows itself. The fact that Windows doesn't come with the drivers ready to go and that you often have to search the net for them, most commonly ending up on the drivers sites that are let's say less than reputable in most cases. In the case of those computers were you can obtain drivers from the manufacturer, such as ASUS, even their sites are messy and not well documented.
Linux at least works without the need for the additional drivers and in those cases where additional drivers are needed they are very rare.
Obtaining software to install on Windows can be much more difficult and much more prone to infection than anything that is part of a signed repository for linux. In those repositories you can easily search synaptic (the GUI front end for apt) and then click to mark a program to install and go from there. Much faster and much safer.
An example was a customer that needed to reinstall her printer driver after a wipe and reinstall of her OS took place. She downloaded the driver from the HP site but didn't know how to locate it nor how to install it once she did locate it. Suffice it to say that it was installed by someone else and then configured. The icon for the installer was on her desktop but she didn't know how to identify it. She isn't stupid. It just isn't in her field of expertise. The difficulties she experienced are common.
The guy that wrote the article expected to see linux as if it were a Windows clone. He approached it as if things should be done the same way that Windows does it, whether it is inferior or not.
He was biased, ill informed, inexperienced, and wouldn't do a fair comparison to the same difficulties found when doing a personal reinstall of Windows.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Actually, that probably depends on having set up repositories for non-free stuff. But I'll take your word for it. In any case, it still assumes you're using Ubuntu (and Totem, for that matter).
My problem was on a Mandriva system, which overall, I prefer to Ubuntu, but which seems more ambivalent about non-free stuff. They also don't use synaptic, but they have an equivalent tool that's just as easy to use. You can get it to work on Mandriva once you get rid of the Codeina thing that keeps shuttling you over to Fluendo to try to get you to pay for the stuff.
So, yeah. It 'can' be easy, but in practice it often isn't. And again, the problem is the conflict between free and non-free in various distros, and willingness of various distros to 'help you violate patents' that all of us Slashdotters presumably agree shouldn't exist.
But none of that helps a non-technical newbie. I agree that reviewers and 'I tried linux for a week' writers should explain why they had problems instead of saying 'I had to use the command line, so Linux sucks'.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
"Market share is irrelevant to Linux. Or at least it is to me."
I'm with you, buddy. If market share is so important to Linux development then why has Linux caught up with or arguably eclipsed Win/Mac in some ways? (Having thousands of free applications available through direct download comes to mind)
Besides, half the fun of Linux is its anti-corporate nature! Thinking of success only in terms of market share ignores or devalues many of the qualities that make it what it is.
No need to do so, just use CrossOver Linux and CrossOver Games.
Bundle price: $69.95. It's a bit cheaper than Windows, but are enough apps supported in CrossOver that it's worth the $30 discount compared to genuine Windows Vista Home Premium OEM?
I don't know how much your time is worth but Vista cost around $400.00
I saw Windows Vista Home Premium for under $125 on Google Products today. Or are you posting from a country where import duties on the order of 150% are the norm?
(plus possible hardware powerful enough to run it)
The vast majority of PCs made in the past three years can run Windows Vista with just a $50 RAM upgrade.
vs Ubuntu (or other distro. running on 5 year old hardware).
I'm happy for the most part with Ubuntu on my subnotebook, but a subnotebook is the only "5-year-old hardware" that one can buy new that isn't locked down like a game console. Or do used PC stores get more traffic in your area than in, say, the U.S. state of Indiana?
I tried for four days to get Ubuntu working on an old P3 1ghz I had lying around. I have a Radeon 9700 graphics card and couldn't get the drivers to install. I went to ATI's site got the drivers and installed them. I ended up having to reinstall Unbuntu because it booted up saying there was something wrong with the drivers and I could only run in low graphics mode. I then tried Envyng, it told me that one ATI driver was compatible and 3 Nvidia drivers were compatible?? I chose the ATI one and I got the same error when I rebooted. It's to damn slow with out the proper drivers. So I give up, I'm going back to XP.
I don't know what's wrong with this guy. I've installed Linux in our shop on over 60 PCs without any problems. No special commands or knowledge needed - I just took the defaults.
Now we have another guy who sets up new machines (I work remotely). He is a Windows user but not a fanatic. I showed him one install and he's been doing it since without any problems.
I find it amazing that Windows-fanatics always seem to have problems with Linux when trying to "prove" Linux is bad. Everyone else has no problems.
You can feel things out intuitively with a CLI. You just have to learn what to sense with. Get a moderate level of familiarity with locate and grep and learn a few regexes. Most importantly, learn how to use apropos and especially man. If you have these CLI basics down (you can get the basics of what you need with like 30 minutes for two days), even your above example is easy.
Run apropos 'user.*add' to get a list of program descriptions containing both the word user and the word add in that order, with anything in between.
You get this: /etc/adduser.conf (5) [adduser.conf] - configuration file for adduser(8) and addgroup(8) .
addgroup (8) - add a user or group to the system
adduser (8) - add a user or group to the system
adduser.conf (5) - configuration file for adduser(8) and addgroup(8) .
avc_add_callback (3) - additional event notification for SELinux userspace object managers.
pam_issue (8) - PAM module to add issue file to user prompt
UI_add_user_data (3ssl) - New User Interface
Then you can just read the man page on adduser and/or addgroup. You might think reading command line switches is a pain, but IMO it's equivalent to reading button labels and configuration dialogs in a GUI.
While this might seem really Linux centric, the basic ideas are not: learn how to access documentations and other information on whatever system your using, for the command line interface as well as the GUI.