Slashdot Mirror
Time Review of Linux
afniv writes "Time.com as a short article about Linux. The reviewer talks briefly about Linux install troubles and will have future installments. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I must be getting sleepy. Somehow, yet another of these clueless journalists trying to install Linux and then 'sharing' the experience with his/her readers just isn't grabbing my interest on a Friday afternoon.
/. posting a link, its just that stories like this in the mainstream press aren't getting much better.)
Wonder why? Oh, I remember...
BECAUSE IT'S BOOOORINNNNG!
(not that I'm complaining about
I don't _know_ what I want, I just know I don't want _you_ anymore!
:Alternatively, the reviewers should fork up the $200 for a new disk and describe that experience.
Yeah right! You think these reviewers have the brain cells necessary to perform an HD installation/swap? Hahahahahaha!
That's all well and good, but why would you want to delete yourself?
: -- i want my 6 ish!!
:Try not to forget that many people only have one machine, and even if they have more than one, an NFS server might be a little hard to find, in a Windows shop. An FTP install will probably be easier to set up.
;-) Yeah, FTP could be easier, but from me, no comment (Haven't tried it yet, due to the SlOOOOw 'net connection).
;-) But, at least in my experience, if you've done it once, you've done it a million times (ie. It's worth learning, since you'll always be able to use that knowledge again). I'll probably never do anything but a network install again too... Go SLACKWARE!
Too true, unfortunately. Even in today's world of super cheap 486s and 386s, we still have people with only the one computer. But this reviewer guy worked in an office, likely with a sysadmin handy (I should hope). If he couldn't get some NFS happnin', there's no hope.
:Also, naive users may not appreciate having to configure their network connection before installing. Granted, the network install is a great feature - I love it dearly, and use it whenever I can, but it's not for everyone.
Well, can't say anything but yer right. Or can I?
Yeah, but try installing windows the way you tried with Linux. If you aren't installing from CD, HD, or floppy, you ain't installin' at all (And if it's from floppy at work, fill out an RSI claim first, while you can still write with the hand). Don't forget that Linux installation is "easy" to make hard, windows is impossible to make hard...
I can't remember the manufacturer's name, but a certain cd drive manufacturer did make an only semi-ATAPI compliant OEM style drive that was designed to go inside notebooks. Didn't work with Linux, probably won't ever work...
The only other type would be the Parallel/PCMCIA external drives (some SCSI, using Parallel/PCMCIA SCSI adapters). If that's what he's using, let's get him to install Win '95 from it!
I guess you still have the panasonic/sony/mitsumi interface drives, but they aren't gonna get hooked up to no normal laptop without some MAJOR hardware hacking...
Man is that thing a bear, especially if it happens to be on a machine that is FAT32. I think there are 5 reboots to get it to install. 1 to destroy the current partition. 1. to repartition. 1. to format. 1. in the middle of the install. 1. to finish the install.
the same place that writer from Slate got hers -- from her bo$$ ;)
Woohoo! Distribution war!
:)
I've tried a couple, and I'd have to say slackware was the simplest. Had it installing in about 5 minutes (including diskette boot time). 15 minutes and about 100 keystrokes later, reboot and it's working.
Just my 1% * $2.
BTW: Windows 98 has the same problems.
I've been reading TIME Mag for 10 years. As always, I generally ignore the tech section.
TIME's good with politics/business information but if I truly need a tech info I turn to magazines/webzines that are only on computing/technology.
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy has trouble w/ linux. I'd expect it. The past tech articles from TIME have been fairly pro-Microsoft.
Move along folks. As someone said before, this is another journalist trying out the latest hype. I'm going to read about Kosovo now.
Cheers.
(Too lazy to log in).
Time? please. give me a break. who cares?
time , newsweek, people, us news and world report,
they are all basically the same magazine with the same
banal orgasmic headlines about the same boring
mainstream 'fad of the week' issues that have been repeating themselves for
50 years.
if you want linux to be some sutpid fad i guess this makes you happy.
Very true. I've never installed RedHat, but I think a lot of people confuse 'easy install' with 'windoze looking installer'. Try slackware if you want a brain dead simple and reliable installer. I've just switched to Stampede. Just as easy, and it is still beta. Or it was when I got it.
And yet literally millions of non-technical people have done it. Curious.
Could it be that hatred of Microsoft blinds Linux advocates to that simple truth? Nah, that couldn't be it.
One major, but not insurmountable obstacle to desktop success is the look of on-screen fonts in X. So very very offputting. People believe that the look of the system is reflective of its technical sophistication. It's excusable that console fonts look cruddy compared to DOS consoles, but it's not excusable that fonts in X look like console fonts. Nor that it is an arcane and arduous task to change that appearance. That's not important to many Linux developers, but it should be: kids judge on the basis of looks, and the look of Linux's fonts currently says "for old-farts only."
After checking back to be sure this is the article I thought it was, I don't understand why some people consider it so negative. "Linux takes a while to install," so what, I guess people expected that. Since he is giving the review in installments, I doubt the final verdict will be that bad.
Seems redhat did get better tech support (I didn't know they had support by phone, guess I gotta do a review to get it), which is good.
Come on.
I know -NO ONE- who is 'non-technical' who has ever installed Windows. I know a FEW who have done the upgrade, but that doesn't really count.
If you start from a clean slate, where the use of fdisk or something similar is involved, the installs are hardly much different. At least with Linux you can boot from the CD-ROM that a distribution comes on, and you don't need to reboot everytime you add something.
Chris
Install is easy for Linux? Maybe.
Setup? No.
Just take a look at XFree86's setup file.... my goodness, wwwhat crystal speed?
I set it wrong, and it causes the monitor to shut down... reboot, its the login promt, monitor shuts down again. Reinstall.
Linux is not easy to setup at all. (Though once you are done, the rest is easy.) Windows on the other hand...
Eh...I fear that what people (non-technical sorts, anyway) really mean by "graphical user interface" is "I never ever ever have to see a command prompt at all." Hence, unless and until you can use every feature of Linux without ever having to see the command line, we're still going to hear the same old grousing about how it doesn't have a GUI. (Personally, I think that's one hell of a dumb attitude, but...)
i put it on a 386DX-33 with a 43mb hdd. so there!
nah. just an off the wall comment. quit analysing everything.
i tried redhat, slackware and mandrake. all trivial with slackware being my favourite as the most customisable.
CheapBytes had a html manual, and probably the postscript manual included with it's CD. You could check it out under windows and print out the install stuff their.
If the install process didn't matter, we'd all be running OS/2. But it matters, and most new users are hyperbolically clueless.
Nothing wrong with having an OS for the sactum sanctotum, and if that is what linux is supposed to be, it doesn't need any stinking install.
Not to show my ignorance, but the setup process of linux is whats keeping me out of the loop. I tried installing RedHat 5.2 & 6.0, I had problems, I gave up. Therefore, i'm stuck in Win9X world. (by the way, help would be appreciated: jawad@nycap.rr.com is where I'm at.)
~jawad
The RH5.2 distro is currently the most stable and bug free, using a (now) outdated kernel. Applix 4.4.1 is a great basic word processor, but the email client can be a tad obtuse.
RH52 is still available at linuxcentral.com.
I'm using the new Caldera 2.2, it is pretty, but there are bugs. The kde dialer kppp has a boo boo in it and must be recompiled before it will work. Applix won't run, needs a missing libcrypt file. The pppd dialer has some sort of new quirk in it, and doesn't work unless Van Jacobson compression is disabled - a newbie will have a tough one with that one.
RH52, or wait until Caldera 2.3 is out. My RH6 hasn't arrived yet, so don't know there.
Slackware has the worst installer/packager of all of the well-known distros. I have used it in the past (but only because I was a complete newbie and it had support for UMSDOS). After some time I got tired, wipped my extended partition, and put Debian on it. From what I've heard, RedHat also has a good installer (more newbie-friendly than Debian's, but that makes no real difference to me - I couldn't find out how to install slackware from their website, so I got Debian).
Thats hilarious, I've installed Windows 98 literaly 7 or 8 times and that has never happened to my.
/mnt
1. Wipe Disc
2. Boot of Dos bootdisc. If you have a Linux machine only, boot of the disc that came in the Full version of Win98 box.
3. Place CD-ROM in drive, power sucker up.
4. Type in 50 digit license
5. Wait 30 minutes for install.
6. Keep hitting enter until it reboots for the last time.
7. Surf the net for the latest drivers.
8. Set up internet connection wizard.
9. Pick default printer
10. Done
Same installation on linux.
1. Boot from the CD-ROM
2. Make swap, linux partitions.
3. Set mount points
4. Change default redhat inst so floppy and cd aren't under
5. Wait 15 minutes for install
6. Get intellimouse working after 5 tries under XF86 Conifg (why the hell doesn't it autodetect?)
7. Dig up manual to set monitor refersh info
8. Start up X, watch it not work, repeat
9. Get the 4 or 5 different KDE rpms
10.Rpm -i the whole mess.
11. Use startx and not get graphical login
12. Eventually figure out that kdm starts the graphical login. (Nowhere does it ever say what kdm is except that it is a replacement for xdm.)
13. Find isapnp tools
14. Run pnpdump
15. Go into windows to figure out Irq Dma info
16. Edit isapnp.conf
17. not get sound, repeat
18. Set kerneld to automatically load awe.o
19. Never get the AWE64 driver working, give up.
20. Set up ppp
21. Mess with lpd until you can print ACSII
22. Voila done, only took 5 days.
My point is that linux is to cobbeled together to intall and be maintained well. Fine for a webserver, but not for a desktop. Under windows I get the latest and greatest drivers every month, but I dare not touch my X config.
Finally, I should not have to edit all those damn text files to change stuff, espesially XF86Config to change my color depth!
I have windoze and linux running on the same drive. I used to have just linux but I like to play games. the linux instalation of a cd was less than 70 minutes. That includes setting up X, sound, and networking(tcp/ip and samba). Installing virus 98 took me forever ( the whole day ) first the instalation program kept on freezing my computer while it started. Then when it finally finished. Sound did not work and neither did networking and I only had sixteen colors. I have a Riva TNT, a SB16, and tulip based networking card. Setting up the TNT and the NIC wasn't too hard I needed the drivers. But try as I may sound didn't work until I changed my bios settings to not autoconfigure ISA/PNP devices. Then I couldn't get on the smb network. All in all it took me forever to get stuff working. Just to play sin and halflife. Thank god I can play the Quakes under linux(with better frame rates and better mouse control).
Many of us have had more problem with Win9x installs and maintenance than with Linux. That is why many of us are Linux users to begin with. Also, some of us have personally experienced installs with more recent distributions where the distro successfuly automated the install.
YMMV, with either. It's as simple as that.
Although, Quantums and IBM's have the relevant documenation right on the drive. Mind you, the installer has to know what to do with that knowledge...
Meept's hotmail password dudes!
User: meept@hotmail.com
Password: 12345
Knock yourselves out!
If you wanted a bigger market share than Porsche,
you would offer an automatic shifter.
Installs aren't important for M$. They are
important for anyone who wants a shot at significantly increasing the number of M$-free machines.
Bicycles can get training wheels; heroine addicts can get methadone; M$ users should be able to get an easy linux installer.
But, installers are boring: Don't think in terms of a linux installer. Write a good Winbloze uninstaller.
they sell magazines, they get on slashdot,
who cares if its right? they are making money
and you are some little loser bitching
about it on an internet comment site.
rules of 'the big boys':
1. accuracy is not valued
2. precision is not valued
3. loyalty, honor, truth, friendship, etc are not valued
4. money is valued
ever think of that?
if it hasn't happened yet, it will,
because
1. redhat is about money
2. redhat is about money
3. redhat is about money
4. redhat is about money
5. redhat is about money
some people say its about 'fame' or 'beating microsoft'. yeah, whatever. these are even worse than money.
thats just the kind of objective scientific
thinking the linux community needs more of.
hell why dont you just shoot everyone who says linux is bad?
then you can be just like chairman mao
the whole problem is when person a starts to blame
other people for their computer not working instead
of getting off their ass and fixing it themselves.
redhat encourages this sort of lazy whiner attitude..
because frankly when you drop 50 bucks on something you expect it to work.
that is the road to slavery.
or monkeylinux or whatever they call it nowdays
it installs on top of a DOS partition, no reformatting...
once you get it running you will find it slow and want real linux.
and then you will repartition so you can get nice speed.
and you will know more linux so itll be easier to install.
and dont say 'i cant' goddamit
if you put as much effort into fixing programs
as you did writing your little whiny bitch fest letter
maybe it would be easier to use! fuck off wussy!
OH MOMMY GATES PLEASE COME WIPE MY BOTTOM
IVE GOT IT ALL SMEARED WITH BROWN GOO AND
I DONT WANT TO KNOW WHY
PLEASE COME FIX IT MOMMY GATES!
Wow, do people like you actually exist? I need to find all of your code in the kernel and comment it out.
Oh darn, I didn't find any.
The problem with OGL is almost CERTAINLY the Rage Pro. Don't worry, with that adapter Q3A wouldn't be too great anyway :\
I completely agree. /.'ers are light-years ahead of "normal" users in every respect, esp. one which is often overlooked - the willingness to try different things & tinker. I'm continually astonished at the way business users (of Windoze) are scared silly by even the slightest out-of-the-ordinary dialog box. Even the current versions of Windows can't offer enough hand-holding for these folks.
.02...
Yet, and this is vital to remember, _these_ are the masses of users we must cater to in order to achieve, if not world domination, then a true mass audience. I keep thinking a kind of dual-level desktop (and also installation) environment could be ideal for these people....something with a "basic mode" and "advanced mode." Basic mode would keep most options hidden until the user asked for them via the help system. Would be terrifically frustrating for us, but would be a godsend to the poor users...just my
Slap in a PCMCIA ethernet card, hook it up to the work network, and do an FTP install off the internet.
You'll be up and running in less than 2 hours.
These "Linux Reviews" that focus on putting Linux on the same disk as Windows are not fair. The Reviewers should compare this with Installing Windows on a Linux disk. Alternatively, the reviewers should fork up the $200 for a new disk and describe that experience. I installed Red Hat 6.0 last night, it took 20 minutes. It took me about 30 more minutes to get my ADSL hooked up right- I found the documentation for network configuration right on my disk in the howto directory. Pretty ease stuff, actually.
Because /. users are technically skilled, they find it amazing that average users find linux difficult, much like accountants find it astonishing that people can't comprehend complex tax forms (or find them fascinating).
Most people reading the article are everyday users who are already quite intimidated by computers, and don't want to deal with them.
From that perspective, Linux is indeed quite difficult to install/use. I have had *programmers* new to linux asking me how to change the resolution in X, or why the mouse slides off the monitor into the virtual desktop. For Joe Sixpack, linux is way, way too difficult and confusing to use. Would you seriously recommend it to your grandma or someone who struggles to change the screensaver in Windows? You need to keep that perspective in mind.
Most people do not enjoy using computers and don't want to deal with techie details, much like you don't want to sit and deal with accounting techniques for a few hours to deposit your cheque.
They just want simple, easy-to-use systems, and linux is not there yet. This article was very well balanced from the viewpoint of the everday user.
If you disagree with this viewpoint, there's a very high likelyhood your friends can swap ethernet cards and laugh at recursive jokes.
If you use it, you may want to send the author, Mikhail Ranish, a small amount to show your appreciation. He is a student at CUNY Brooklyn, and beer is very expensive there. Partition Manager is also available on every Cheapbytes Redhat disc (and probably other distros from Cheapbytes, too.) Look for /part in the "bonus" directory.
You'll need to copy it to a bootable DOS disk or run it off the CD from inside Windows as it is a DOS program. You can use it with LILO --Ranish's own BootManager is not necessary to the operation of the Partition Manager.
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
I'm sorry that we have yet another mainstream review which focuses on installation woes rather than using Linux. However, the author does promise a second installment on that. There is some hope.
I do not feel that people should be expected to install systems. Applications and upgrades, yes.
There are pitfalls and unexpected difficulties even for very competent computer techs in installing almost any system. It mostly depends on luck in having fully supported hardware and a well thought-out partitioning strategy. Most computer techs who make a fair living installing systems *don't install anything*. The have a master disk image which they get from headquarters and copy it to a bare hard disk on the destination machine. They don't know how to install Windows or anything else. Sad but true.
I think most computer techs can learn about installation and configuration, but mostly they have not needed to know much and so have become lazy, just as consumers have become.
The ideal solution is hands-on support, preferably at one's local computer store. What this means is that you should be able to buy computers pre-installed with Linux alone, or dual boot with Windows or Mac or something else. If one already has a computer and wants to install Linux with or without keeping the pre-installed OS, tech support at the store should be able to do that for a reasonable fee. If they can't, contract it out to a local nerd. Hell, I'm good and will gladly do it for a small fee or even free in some cases.
Maybe much of the above is unrealistic given the short supply of people with know-how in these skills, but I'm not sure. The supply of such people may be greater than one thinks, but for various selfish and petty reasons such as current employment practices favouring age discrimination against anyone over 35, and a general shallowness and lack of intelligence (yes, that's what it is) among IT managers, currently there is no relationship whatsoever between skills and careerism in the IT world. If someone is making a good living in this field odds are he or she is not very smart - just good at talking a good line and lying. I've never seen a field where there is so much hype and so little substance except perhaps in used car sales and among television evangelists.
People who work in computer stores, even in the tech area, often don't have the skills, but they will learn if there is financial incentive to learn. Most outlets curently don't preinstall Linux at all - but that will change. Already preinstalled Linux is very available mail-order. Cheap, good systems too, finally. Not just high end servers and workstations.
Despite the best efforts of several people who have posted here to put a positive face on the review in TIME, the article is very discouraging to a non-technical person who wants to try Linux.
This reviewer was able to get good technical support by telephone from RedHat. Most home users don't have the initiative to do that, and they are not doing reviews for TIME magazine. They will give up too easily even if they have paid for tech support with the $79 boxed edition of RH. Most users do not have a publication deadline to meet. They would rather eat the $79 than embarrass themselves by calling for support and looking stupid. (Although that is really the smart thing to do).
Given all that, the best way for current Linux users who feel comfortable with installation and configuration chores to help is to offer their services to people who want to install Linux but get cold feet and to local computer centers. Hands-on, in-person help is much better than email or telephone for support. Of course commercial customers needing help should be charged the going rate, but not necessarily home users. If people do not feel comfortable letting nerds into their homes to set up computers then maybe they won't be able to use computers like they want to. Nothing risked, nothing gained. Installfests may be a way for some people to get hands-on help without such risk, but these are only available in some geographical areas and don't provide any permanent source of support for home users. Newbies can make contacts and get names, though, for later contact or follow-up.
In my opinion Open Source and Linux is mainly a people thing, and a religion. Sure, some of the technical aspects are interesting, but something much larger is at stake. It's not just Linux or GPL'd software but the whole internet which is based on open standards and reasonable access rates. Freedom in access to and use of information is a religious issue. Only by getting people involved, not in some kind of abstract "movement" but by enjoying and appreciating the benefits of free software and freedom of information in a practical way can that freedom be nurtured. Therefore it is necessary for "nerds" to interact more with non-technical people and help them as needed, with or without the exchange of money for services.
Then, perhaps, reviewers of Linux and other free software will not even have to think about installing it. The natural response will be to call your local nerd, or someone where you work who knows the ropes. Of course the benefits of learning to to these things one's self are great, but there are only so many hours in a day and days in a lifetime for us all. Everyone does not have the time or the interest nor should they be expected to in order to participate in and enjoy free software and have access to information.
Here's a thought: instead of writing this reporter a bunch of nastygrams, let's help him figure out how to add and integrate things like the RealPlayer G2 to his Netscape, and Sort out Xanim and Mpegtv and X11amp. And properly install StarOffice an/or WordPerfect and SANE and Hylafax. These are things that will get his respect for the OS and the people who use it.
This is just FUD. I'm running Win2K beta 3 now, and there's definitely a command line unless they changed something in the 15 builds between the one I'm running and the official release candidate sitting over there on the corner of my desk daring me to install it.
Don't get me wrong - I don't like Microsoft any more than the next slashdotter - but FUD is FUD and should be avoided.
IMHO, 99.5% of these "install" whiners don't even know what thier talking about, they just freak out because it askes them a couple questions. 89% or more have never tried to install Windows or anything else, so they don't even have a frame of referance.
You know what, I think it's time for a new Linux distribution, one that just reformates the whole dang drive, doesn't ask a single question, and installs as much stuff as it can fit. That's what they seem to want anyway, "Huh? what IP??" Let them figure that out after the system is installed like they do in windows.. just set up X at 640x480, and let them see it's there, and let them configure it later... or else they will whine.. GRrrrrrrrrrrr... Just do everything for them, then it "installs" easy, it's post installation configuration they have to do, and with GUI tools insted of a dialog box during install, they seem to want it that way anyhow..
Look, Red Hat installs with very very little effort, and when it's done, your have things all set exactly like you want them. Windows 95 was a nightmear to install, and Win98 isn't any better. Windows NT was sorta better than Windows 95 to install, but not as easy as RedHat. These are the same people who said NT was hard to isntall, because they never installed Windows95.. so don't believe a word of it..
Ok, I'm off my soap box, I'll go read the dang thing now...
If anyone thinks that installing Windows isn't 1-2 orders of magnitude easier than Linux on a given random machine, then they are smoking crack, dropping acid and shooting heroin all at the same time.
Yes, Linux can go easy, if you don't stray from the path. I recently installed RH/6 on a fresh machine in order to build a gateway between my Win/98 machines and my DSL line. After trying different combinations of network cards, innumerable "gotchas" and about 15 reinstalls, I got it to work. Don't get me wrong -- it works well -- but I wouldn't want grandma setting it up. And by the way, I've been using Unix for 10 years, so I understand Unix.
I have to say: The documentation for RedHat (which is supposed to be one of the best) is absolutely atrocious. What there is OK -- just OK -- but it's insanely incomplete. I'll spare everyone all my trials, but if it wasn't for Deja News, I never would have got the thing working.
I like Linux. I want Linux to succeed. But it does the cause no good to exaggerate the pain of Windows installation (which literally millions of bonehead users have made work), and minimize the very real problems of Linux.
Well, the point is that RedHat should've recognized the CD. If Windows recognizes his CD drive and RedHat does not, Windows is working and RedHat isn't, so of course he will prefer Windows.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yeah, I agree, which is why Linux sucks. It has all these "automatic programs" running everything for you, which "fucks shit up." If you want disk access, do it yourself. No need for fancy ext2fs garbage. And what's with this GIMP thing. What's wrong with a hex editor?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It took me 2 days to install and configure NT/95, due to lack of support for my SCSI Adapter (I rally don't know what's wrong with those NT drivers). I cannot count the number of reboots, reinstall this and that, reboot, shutdown on windows protection erros bla bla bla.
Well, if you have unsupported hardware on win95, it won't work well. The same goes for Linux. The problem is that there's more unsupported or not-very-well-supported hardware for Linux than for Windows, which is why Linux is harder to install for most of us. That, and Windows does a better job (usually) of detecting and picking decent default configurations.
P.S. Please, you don't have to reboot to set X, the network, you modem, you sound card, Linux isn't windows. Just run on level 3, if X fail to start properly, CTRL+ALT+BACKSPACE, that should do it.
Next time, by RedHat or OpenLinux, must simple for newbies like US.
I didn't reboot in X. I rebooted in XF86Setup, because I didn't know the exact specs for my video card, and apparently I picked settings that didn't work. That caused my display to get really messed up, and I had no idea how to fix it. ctrl+alt+backspace didn't work, since I was in XF86Setup, not X itself.
I ended up having to reboot more times for Linux (around 4 or 5) than for Windows (once).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Interesting. I've had the exact opposite experience. I've installed win95 twice, once on an empty box and once a reinstall over a messed-up install of it. Both went extremely smoothly and I was up and running within 30 minutes, with my network card, modem, video card, printer, etc., all configured.
Then I installed Slackware (3.0). After messing with some disk images, I managed to get a boot disk to support my non-IDE cdrom drive (using the sbpcd.i disk image). The boot-up took about 20 minutes as it scanned (really slowly) various addresses (or something, it didn't explain what it was doing, just took a while) to find the CD-ROM drive. After it found it, the install went relatively smoothly, except for the fact that all the packages were just listed by a single letter, with no explanations, and being a Linux novice, "D" did not mean anything to me.
Then came the X setup. I played around with XF86Setup for about an hour, rebooting two or three times in the process. Finally I got a working 640x480 8-bit color X server running. After a day or so i managed to get 800x600 16-bit color working. And I never did get my printer set up.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, Linus is getting his honorary degree...
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Windows NT is, hands-down, the most difficult and confusing software I've ever installed, including the first time I installed Linux (not including X).
My first Linux install was Slackware from floppies in 1995. It installed flawlessly on a machine I randomly picked and also onto a 386 laptop I picked up for free.
I will admit that Win95 is pretty easy to install...unless it doesn't auto-detect something correctly and then you are screwed. Have you ever tried to get rid of the yellow question marks on a Win95 laptop installation?
Also, you don't have many installation options--CD or HD only. If you have to install via the network or some other way you have to figure it all out yourself, Win95 doesn't help you at all.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
First, define "non-technical people". I personally don't know anyone "non-technical" (by my definition) who has installed Windows 95 (let alone NT) on their own. In fact, I know several technical people who have failed to install and fully configure Win95 on simple Gateway desktops.
Secondly, what are your criteria for success? Being able to play solitaire? Or getting all devices working properly (including video and network), getting all ancillary software installed and conflicts resolved, etc?
Between FreeBSD, RedHat, and Debian, FreeBSD was probably easiest, followed by RedHat, and then Debian. Of course an AIX build was easier than any of these, and an NT install harder than any of these.
/but/ install Linux, i.e. why bother /using/ it when you can go get another distro to install?
So there's my opinion. The whole "3 distros" nonsense makes it sound like there isn't much to do
Anyways, people can just buy a Dell or VA box with the OS preinstalled if they're concerned about the installation process.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
>>Your readers may also benefit from knowing that
>>Gnome, while developed with help from Red Hat,
>>is also open source software and is available
>>from www.gnome.com...
They'd probably benefit even more from knowing it was at www.gnome.ORG, since there's some silly company at www.gnome.com.
Failure to proofread is bad for all of us...
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
"...i can install linux too! even though it took me an hour and a half and that was WITH redhat support."
well theres one more journalist that has installed Linux...at least we're getting more supporters in the media, even if they seem kinda on the fence as to their enjoyment of it (do they get it why so many ppl like linux? prob not...oh well)
my.cents = 2;
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
I have never found Linux to be difficult to install, with the exception of XFree86 which can sometimes be a bit difficult.
I think Linux has a bad reputation for installation because people actually *do* have to install it, unlike Windows---few people actually install Windows because it's preinstalled.
I certainly hope that the people doing these reviews have actually installed the "competition", because Windows 95/98/NT can be quite difficult to install. I remember having particularly difficult problems getting NT to recognize a mainstream sound card and had a horrible time trying to make it do anything other than 16 colors.
I'd still like to see the Linux installation process get even better, and I know it will.
Eh, what *is* the paradigm of MS Windows?
I certainly haven't gotten to the point where it gets much easier yet.
Basically, you are talking about the CUA compliance. MS Windows has a single dominant look and feel for GUI applications. Linux has the same for command line application (created by AT&T, extended by GNU), but several competing standards for GUI applications, and many rogue GUI applications that follows no standards but their own.
This is part of the problem KDE and Gnome are supposed to solve (like OPEN LOOK and Motif before them). That we have both KDE and Gnome, with GNUStep trying to get into the stage, and OPEN LOOK and Motif not quite dead yet, are contributing to the problem.
Competition is not always good.
The reason why RedHat's install is "easy" is because it auto-detects your hardware, and you don't have to worry about what a "disk set" is.
If you have a fairly modern PC, the beauty of RedHat is that you DONT have to know what kind of hardware you have. It autodetected my Video Card, mouse, sound card, and ethernet card.
arrgh
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Of course KDE is at www.kde.org. Curse ye demons!!
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Another issue is the lack of open sourced
installers... (nearly?) every distro has its own installer, and how many system config tools?
Red Hat and Debian (and probably others) both have open sourced installers and configuration tools, but they just use different ones. Open source does not mean standard, although it certainly makes standards easier. I think we should push for LSB first, a standard config tool second, and a standard installer a distant third. Realisticly, the installer is one of the major differentiation points between installations. As long as everything is open source and standards are adhered to where it matters, we have nothing to fear from diversity.
In the best of all possible worlds, perhaps a standard installation format could be agreed to so a single tool could be used on any distribution, but distributions would have the option of developing their own tools as well. As I have said, I feel that uniformity in filesystem structure, etc as defined in a LSB spec would be more valuable in the near term.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
If you buy the box, you get phone support for a while (30 days?). That and the book are the main reason I encourage newbies to buy the box.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
And yet literally millions of non-technical people have done it. Curious.
Millions of non-technical people have done windows upgrades, not bare installs. There's a big difference. Any slouch can do an upgrade, even a Linux upgrade.
While the Red Hat install has some rough edges there is no non-technical person on this planet that could install Windows 98 on an computer with an unpartitioned hard-drive with only the CD, a blank floppy disk and another computer running 98. They might have a shot at installing Red Hat (although admittedly they would not be likely to be able to get past the login prompt at reboot).
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Why don't you try reading the article instead of panning it out of hand. I found it to be balanced and informative to the prospective Linux user. He may not be a genius, but that's the point. It's hard to get a good new user's perspective from a CS major. Like it or not, your ability to get your favorite hardware and software to work on Linux is dependent in large part on new users and a consumer market. Let them come. They may change the chrome but they can never change the heart of Linux. New users can only benefit power-users.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I wrote the following letter to the editor of time.com/ tech.html]. I have been Unix systems adminstrator for three years and a Linux user for a little under a year. His installation criticisms were valid, but it is worth noting that installing Windows 98 onto a computer with an unformatted hard-drive or one that has non-windows OS on it is a truly daunting proposition which took me a couple of hours to figure out. The formatting and partitioning tools are not a part of the standard installation procedure as they are with any Linux distribution, therefore it is necessary to boot off a diskette and use the command line format and fdisk utilities.
I appreciated Josh Quittner's Linux article [http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/personal/19990524
The perception of easy Windows installations is largely due to the fact that the vast majority of PC's come with Windows pre-installed. Most users are unlikely to ever do more than upgrade their Windows which is a relatively painless proposition. Upgrading a Red Hat system is just as easy. In my estimation, installing a Red Hat system is easier than installing Windows in any case except when the computer has Windows pre-installed and has no unpartioned disk space.
Overall the article was very informative and made the virtues of Linux clear, including it's open source code, stability and low cost. Your readers may also benefit from knowing that Gnome, while developed with help from Red Hat, is also open source software and is available from www.gnome.com, and that a very viable alternative to Gnome called KDE is available from www.kde.com and is also open source and included in Red Hat 6.0 as well as Caldera, SuSe and other distribution. Finally, it might be noted that an alternative to downloading a distribution or buying a boxed set is to pay a couple of dollars and get the distribution from www.cheapbytes.com which redistributes all of the major distributions sans book documentation and support. I would still recommend that the average user buy a boxed set.
I hope to see further linux coverage in the future.
Sincerely,
Michael Cope
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Part of the power of Linux is its versatility and configurability. We don't want to lose that just to make installing easier for people who don't know what they're doing.
--
A good way to install linux without a working cd is to copy the whole cd to your harddrive - either via nfs or even windows networking.
Just curious, but it would seem strange to assign yourself 2 cents, no matter the number of cents you had before. Never mind that my.cents seems gramatically a little strange. Wouldn't you want something like me.cents -= 2; instead? (or maybe my_cents -= 2;)?
Is it just me, or does this
"I paid $80 for Red Hat 6.0, a two-CD distribution that includes -- since you're paying -- a copy of Gnome and a lot of extras"
seem to (falsly) imply that GNOME costs money?
Anyone run into one of these cd drives? I'm curious and surprised why something simple like a cd player would become non-standard enough to be recognized.
I can understand add on things like mpeg decoder modules and such not being recognized, but what is this difficulty in reading raw data itself? Who makes it?
>relatively smoothly, except for the fact that all
>the packages were just listed by a single letter,
>with no explanations, and being a Linux novice,
>"D" did not mean anything to me.
It's not the problem of being a novice, it's a problem with reading the docs. Last time I installed a Slackware distro ('95), it came with a small "book" that explained, among things, what each package set was about (D is development tools, iirc).
I must add that Slackware is not the easiest distro to start with, its motto is KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), so you have to have some hacking abilities to enjoy it.
is that Linux is a little easier to install than either Win95 or NT
>The interface is user friendly only if the user happens to be a comp-sci Ph.D.
:-)
Hmmm...I guess I'll be watching my mailbox for this nifty little piece of paper. Should help boost my wage a little.
Personally, I have used Slackware and Red Hat. I have since stuck with Red Hat. Slackware, in my opinion, is not very easy to use. RH has a very good software mgmt system and has alot of software included. I think Caldera 2.2 is probably easy to install, but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to install RH.
See the following:
www.linux.org
www.redhat.com
www.cheapbytes.com
sunsite.unc.edu/mdw
www.xnet.com/~blatura/linapps.shtml
www.littleigloo.com
www.freshmeat.net
www.stardivision.com
(OK so I'm biased.)
Am I missing anything else...
Any questions -- send them to me or post in a newsgroup (comp.os.linux......)
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
I agree that Linux is ready for primetime desktop use, and I think this article proved it. Sure the guy needed some handholding from a more knowledgeable user, but guess what: He did it! The big problem everybody talks about with regards to Linux on the desktop is installation difficulty. Here's a guy who's probably never partitioned a hard drive or installed an OS in his life, has basically no Unix experience, and he's installed Linux! How much easier do you want it? Do you really think the same guy could have installed Windows without a comparable amount of help from a support person?
It will be very interesting to read what the guy has to say in the future installments of this series.
noah
What I thought was really interesting is that the author received good support from Red Hat. Isn't that one of Linux's biggest (FUD) complaints is the lack of support?
Try to get that kind of support from Microsoft.
I guess that'll be forever, then. The only reason this doesn't apply to Windows is that the functionality you really want isn't available at all...
FIPS has supported FAT32 for over a year. Look at the FIPS home page for the details.
granted, linux can be a bit more "difficult", but i like to call it powerful, because you control what goes on. The first time i installed linux, it was a bit of a learning curve, but i had never done it before, so that was expected. the second time? that was easy enough that i did other things. (no i'm not talented, just illustrating how things get easier with experience). It's just like dropping an engine into a car, first time, yes, you're learning, second time, piece of cake.
Take it easy everyone. He's a newbe and really want's to try it out. When Time runs articles on Linux, you know we're getting mainstream. And as it gets more mainstream, there's gonna be more stories like this.
BTW, I believe I fixed his problem with the Thinkpad. I work for the same company.
The biggest problem is that people view linux as a supplement to their system... not as a replacement for windows... I guess they have too many applications on windows to let go. People need to start viewing linux as a total replacement for windows, and therefore installing directly over the win partition. What would help the most would be an freeware version of Partition magic. That way, every installation could include it with thier software and automatically install itself as you go.... Even if it were run directly from the cd (so you wouldnt have to install anything into windows) that would be great.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I run Linux, but I respect FreeBSD, even though the install was quite intimidating.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I agree. One of the first things I do in _any_ installation is change my xterm (rxvt, whatever) font defaults to rk24 (Sony misc, I think). Are there any better looking monospaced fonts out there? (And I don't mean Courier; I think it looks particularly ugly on a monitor!)
Any graphics design gurus out there into typeface design? How about a good looking monospaced typeface for monitors called 'Linux'?
What's up with all these mainstream press people saying that linux "finally" has a graphical interface now that gnome is out? I mean, gnome is good and everything, but X has been around for a long time. I guess Time would call windowmaker a text based interface...
I guess that I was mixing apples and oranges a little bit, and not differentiating install from use issues. By paradigm, I meant the underlying similarities that all properly designed Windows applications should implement such as menu structure and the notion that certain similar functions are implemented in similar ways in different applications. Sort of an interface level polymorphism. Take copying a file, for instance, you can copy a file in Explorer the same way you copy text in a word processor. You select and use the Edit | Copy menu item, or Ctl-C at the keyboard. The underlying implementation is entirely different, but to the user, the activity is the same or similar.
Also, Linux is not yet helpful enough to the user the way Windows is. While you still need to know what you are doing in Windows to get it done, more clues are provided for you through the interface. It is like the design principle that people recognize information more easily than they recollect it. Linux at this point is an essay test, Windows is a multiple choice test. MS takes a well deserved beating for their business practices and general corporate arrogance, and disregard for technical quality, but you have to give them credit. If the back-end of Windows was as functional and stable as the front end is useful, there would be no contest between Windows and Linux.
I think people who dismiss the difficulty of installing Linux are not being realistic. Even the Red Hat install requires an understanding of both the machine and OS that are far beyond most users.
Linux is, from both an installation and use view, a real dividing line amoung computer users. If you have no computer experience, Windows is difficult until you get the paradigm at which point it becomes much easier. The paradigm for Linux, if there is one, is much more difficult to get.
I don't expect that Linux will ever become the favored OS of the casual user, but I also do expect that, due to the pervasiveness of computers and early age at which children are being exposed to them, the average adult user will be head and shoulders more savvy about the machines in another 10 years than they are today. Hopefully the proportion of casual to serious users will decline, and that is where Linux will grow.
There's advantages and drawbacks to everything. My answer to that criticism is that it's better to have packages for the base system than .tgz's, because you may have dependencies on elements in the base. The 'cleaner' install will cost later in managing your upgrades.
Which isn't to say NetBSD is 'wrong,' somehow, just to say that there are advantages to the Debian way that I, personally, appreciate over a simplification in the install process.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
See you don't have to be a comp-ssie or phd to run Linux an dinstall it. However it helps if you are not a complete computer idiot and can READ.
Only 'flamers' flame!
If anyone's sole experience of installing linux comes from installing RedHat, they are woefully unqualified to comment on whatever problems one may or may not experience when installing linux.
Try installing at least two other distributions, and then your opinion on the topic might be marginally more relevant than that of my cat.
Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
I still wait for adist. that has its initrunleveldefault=5 and gdm installed by default. And a GNOMEified installation-program. First autodetect the graphic-card, then boot X and runt that install-program, off of the CD. And, when you're doing it, lets autodetect the rest of the hardware, too. Let the only three questions to the user be "Do you want to do the configuration by hand, or let the installation take care of that", "Please enter the configuration (root) password" and "Please enter a username and password for your account"...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
If you are serious about learning a new operating system I would recomend doing a Slackware install to begin with. It is by far one of the more difficut ones to master. You will make mistakes during the install (god knows i did my first six times) but afterwards you will know how and why things in Linux are done.
After that you can move on to RedHat or Debian or some other more "user friendly" distributions so you can truely appreciate how easy they are trying to make it.
Linux Systems Labs is a good place to get Linux CD's if that's your thing, but if you've got ADSL you can just FTP the entire distro in about half an hour or so (i did a recent RedHat install from an FTP site).
Read some of the docs over at the Linux Documentation Project about making boot and root disks. After that, one of the options for install is "install from FTP site." Have the name of a FTP site (actually have five or six in case your first doesn't work) that has got the distro and then you are off. The install program will download a package and then install it.
I'm biased because I think Linux rocks so my opinion about the operating system probably can't be trusted. But if you actually go through with it you will not regret it.
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
Steven Wright
Oh you all are a bunch of sissies. Get down on your hands and knees with a pair of magnets and your hard drive. Compute like a man!!!!!!!!!!
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
Steven Wright
Windows 95 only requires about 35MB, the same as OS/2 Warp 3.0.. And that's for a typical install. I have no idea about 98. But one guy at my tech's going on about how Win2K takes up about a gig??
--- "If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"
as a slackware user, i am hurt that there was no link up there to the slack site.
*desperate sigh*
maybe it's cause slack is a bit more difficult than redhat to set up.....he really plugged RH.
Beware the Dark Side. (M$)
Llewyn
He thought everyone should get Pentium III's because they'll make your Internet faster. I worry about people trying Linux and complaining about the tough install when they've never installed a Microsoft OS.
(I would say Linux is harder when just installing a desktop client kind of setup, but comparison should precede criticism.)
Well, you have to look at the big picture. You have to consider how this will look to the average user. In many ways, you can deal with the reporter as an average user. Installing Linux might be no picknick, it certainly wasn't when I installed my first GNU/Linux six years ago, but we've come a long way since then, havn't we? The installation tools are practically as good as for Windows. You have to remember that this reporter would probably even need some help installing Windows to get everything right! But he mentions that there are support to get so this kills one of the most common misunderstandings about Linux.
He never deals with the general system, but he does say that there's something called Gnome that will make things easier. He also mentions the Gnome logo, which kills another misunderstanding about GNU/Linux being all text and no graphics.
In the end, he gives an impression that he's content with what he sees and that he's interested in learning more about the system and he leaves a little hook for the reader saying that he'll be back with more information.
This would feel good to read as a user I think, it takes an average guy that probably doesn't know any more about computers than you do, and it explains that he kind of liked GNU/Linux and after having read this article, you'd probably be very curious about the system.
Mission accomplished.
My experiances were this, popped the Boot disk in and the CD, turn on, fill out a couple things at the begining, pop out the disk, walk away for about 45 minutes, come back and just about everything is install for you. You might need newer drivers, but that's about it. That's on 9x and NT...3.x well that took a long time becuase it was a floppy install.. (ack!!)
Linux-Mandrake, well it installed all the apps, configured X for me, asked me my printer. That's it. Took me 45 minutes to install, then I had to figure out how to install my sound card (which never happened....) and it couldn't switch the tuplip card from 10bT to the 10b2 port.
But everyday Linux is becoming more and more supported and supports even more funky hardware an the installs are getting easier. By 2001 I feel that the installation process will a lot like 9x/NT in the respect that it can install all your hardware for you.
"Windows 98 Second Edition works and players better than ever." -Microsoft's Home page on Win98SE.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Yeah, if these freaks would have grown up as Linux users, they'd see that installing Win98 is 'no walk in the park' either.
Everything is easy the second time around. Let's see how 'difficult' he finds RH6 to install when he's done it a few times. He'll never want to install W2K again!
Im glade to see Linux in some non-computer publications. It shows that Linux is going places. Im happy again.
--
Installing Slackware 3.6 is more like a walk in the park, as compared to NT or W9x.
It comes with a PCMCIA SCSI card that's unsupported in Linux. But if you hook the drive itself to a supported SCSI controller, it will work fine. I should know, I have one :)
I would also recommend Slackware as your first distribution, but for different reasons: I've installed many times Slack, RedHat and Debian, and I find the Slackware install to be the most straightforward and explicit of all. Debian is, by far, the most difficult to install, although, when you've done it enough times and start to become familiar with it, it has its good parts. RedHat would be the simplest, but if something goes wrong, you're pretty much fsck'ed-up, since it won't let you change certain automatic settings until after the install is over .
Slackware is also a very good distribution to learn Unix, if you really want to, since Patrick Volkerding tries to make it the most "Unix-like" Linux distro.
A good place to buy install CDs is www.cheapbytes.com At $1.99 a CD, you can, for less than $10, get several distributions and try them, see which one suits you.
And a book that was very helpful to me at the beginning, free and available on-line, is "Linux installation and getting started" by Matt Welsh et al. You can find it at: http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/LDP/gs/gs.html
**Warning, the following is a rather partisan endorsement of NetBSD****
In my experience, NetBSD is the easiest system I have installed. I downloaded all the tgz files needed from the NetBSD ftp site, put them on a Linux box configured as an NFS server, put my el-cheapo PCMCIA network card into my laptop, made a NetBSD boot diskette into the laptop, and booted it into the install scripts. NetBSD directly supports most PCMCIA network cards on a laptop directly in the kernel, not with a bolted-on package as with Linux.
The other reason NetBSD was so much easier to install is that the base install comes out of about ten (aprox.) clean *.tgz files, not a whole mess of different packages from all over. Packages are installed after you have a good base system installed. And if you're willing to build all your packages from source, you can put the whole pkgsrc tree onto your machine somewhere. If you want LyX and haven't put a single other package onto your system, you just go to the LyX folder and type "make && make install". It takes awhile, but it builds and installs all dependent packages (TeX, and huge amounts of other stuff) beneath LyX before proceeding on to LyX itself. It's very clean. Some of the RPM-based Linux systems work kind of the same (and Debian drags you into a morass that checks dependencies on first install) but none that I have seen is as clean as with NetBSD.
I'd pick Slackware as the second easiest install, but only if you know the buttons to push. I can have a Slack system up and running in maybe 20 minutes.
I have had good luck using plain old FIPS, and just letting it do it's thing. I split a 1.4MB drive on my laptop between Windows 95 and Slackware that way once. I suppose it doesn't work that way anymore with Fat32 though (I don't know, though, please correct me if I'm wrong)
Multiprocessing? Great, no need to buy that new mb, I'll just install Linux!
Dumb little nickpick, I know, but this is Time; I'd hope their Tech columnists would know a enough not to make such an obvious mistake. (OK, not *that* obvious to most people, but I got used to double checking for it, and so should he--*before* he writes a column for a major magazine.)
Hi,
:)
:(
/, /usr etc.. Than i select start, toggled some packages,
:)
On the contrary, I must tell you that, with my system, installing a WinNT/95/Linux partition (yes i know, i'm foolish sometimes), the worst part was installing 95, than NT and what a smooth ride with Linux.
It took me 2 days to install and configure NT/95, due to lack of support for my SCSI Adapter (I rally don't know what's wrong with those NT drivers). I cannot count the number of reboots, reinstall this and that, reboot, shutdown on windows protection erros bla bla bla.
My wife told me once: "Why do you keep on trying!? I can find you better things to do with your hands.
That was VERY tempting, but i still had Linux to install
So with some doubts about how this would turn out, i started the RedHat boot sequence. I was right, The most painfull thing was to decide HOW i gonna set my PARTITIONS straight. It tooked me 1 hour to decide how many Gigs i will set for
and went to sleep (at last). In the morning i found my computer telling me that it detected my new Logitec mouse..(I calculated that it took it 15 minutes to load all the selected packages, 4 hours in the mouse detection dialog box !!!)
I said to me "well, that a good start, let's go forward then".
I must say also that the installation program detected my SCSI adapter firts!! Amazing. But after the sound, video, Lilo setting, the installation ended. I reboot once and that was about it. Since than, i think i recompile my Kernel a numerous time (cause SMP, PPro must be compile to have max perf).
And i must add that i enjoy the Kernel developement pace (now i use 2.2.9, like most of you).
Ho by the way, I didn't reboot since...(well my last Kernel update, check the 2.2.9 release).
Make no mistake.s My first installation and Linux usage was in january 1999. So i call myself a newbie. But i have some experiences with computers. So you can call me a "small" Geek if you wish.
Anyway, since this glorious day in my life, i keep on learning new things. I guess, you must like to lurn if you want to run Linux and thats the best part of it.
P.S. Please, you don't have to reboot to set X, the network, you modem, you sound card, Linux isn't windows. Just run on level 3, if X fail to start properly, CTRL+ALT+BACKSPACE, that should do it.
Next time, by RedHat or OpenLinux, must simple for newbies like US.
P.S.S. I must leave you here, my wife is calling for some handy work
Cheers
assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
Hi, It's me again :)
:)
/etc/smb.conf.old /etc/smb.conf; /etc/rc.d/init.d/smb restart", i corrected the situation.
I didn't reboot in X. I rebooted in XF86Setup, because I didn't know the exact specs for my video card, and apparently I picked settings that didn't work. That caused my
display to get really messed up, and I had no idea how to fix it. ctrl+alt+backspace didn't work, since I was in XF86Setup, not X itself.
Have you tried to go to another console? You go there by crtl+alt+F1(F2,F3,F4,F5,F6.. F7 is for your X Server.).
After that kill the XF86Setup process by "killall XF86Setup". That work if the screen isn't locked black dead.
For the Windows 95 installation process, how come did you reboot onlu once? If i recall, the first reboot is when the program has finish copying your files, then when configure the settings of your de
sktop, time, help, video, printers etc..(that's two). After that, if you install a program wich requier dlls in windows system directory, reboot.
Some installation or modification in Windows(even the mouse!!), modification of the registery, you have to reboot. On the contrary in *nix, the only time you have to reboot is when you have recompiled your kernel. All t
he update (network, sound, printers, mouse, programs, modules running, modules stop) can be donne live and the change takes effect after restarting the service, not the OS.
Can you beat that? I think not.
I ended up having to reboot more times for Linux (around 4 or 5) than for Windows (once).
You must be a genius to only rebooted once on any Windows installation.
Well, if you have unsupported hardware on win95, it won't work well. The same goes for Linux. The problem is that there's more unsupported or not-very-well-supported hardware for Linux than for Windows, which is why Linux is harder to install for most of us. That, and Windows does a better job (usually) of detecting and picking decent
default configurations.
That's because EOM industries, in the beginning weren't paying attention to the "little" free open-sourced OS's. The trend is reversing now.
I must admit that for user unfamiliar with unix, Linux is somewhat disconforting. Why? Because you don't have to click to change things. And that's, IMHO is "scary" for user who cannot type
Point and click. That too can be damaging:
The other day, i was showing to my friend gen how to setup Samba, with a neafty Samba utility called SWAT, by the internet. He was on the Globals settings and clicked the "Reset values" button!! I just had lost all my Samba files/printers server settings. In the same mouse mouvement, he clicked "Restart smbd/nmbd" buttons, the FOOL!!! In matter of 4 clicks, he disconnected 15 users. NO PANIC!! Wisely, i saved a backup of the cofiguration file. In one line: "mv
It took me 10 seconds to type the command, 0.01 at samba to restart. No need to reboot. The users didn't noticed the server reseting and restarting.
Can you beat that? I think not.
BTW, i'm doing Windows files and printer serving from a Linux box to 30 Windows NT/95 clients; clients didn't even noticed the server change. The users only noticed the positive difference in speed for large file tranfer.
Linux make a great Server, no doubt. On the desktop market, he is catching up fast, very fast.
----
assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
They should sit in on some Win95/Win98/WinNT installs! Whew! I've done some that've taken DAYS!!!
But, installers are boring: Don't think in terms of a linux installer. Write a good
Winbloze uninstaller.
Someone already has.. it's called fdisk
Org, Net, Com - oh well.
Remember, now that MSFT is absorbing us, we need to start saying "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
Will in Seattle
Will in Seattle
These journalist write for a living, they have deadlines and can spend only a limited amount of time on articles. So around the time they've done installing Linux it is time to start writing ... and they run for their windows box.
No matter how good the installation program, installing an OS is a fairly technical process that is likely to have at least a few problems, especially on the insane mess that PC hardware is. You just have to know how the computer works and be able to look up some technical details. It might be doable, but it will never be enjoyable.
Can't RedHat or somesuch give these journalists a box on loan where Linux is already installed, a savvy desktop active with a few good apps ready to use? Preset browser bookmarks to good Linux sites, preload nice themes. Just make a videotape showing how to get around and to show off some stuff. Then they can write on using Linux rather than on installing it.
Because they spend most of their time installing it journalist keep suffering from the impression that Linux (and the BSDs) are something very technical. If everything came installed it would be 'just like windows'. They might actually have time left to try to use it for real.
I'm a veteran user of Window$, but I've heard a lot of good things about Linux and have a spare 4.3 gig HD to use. I'm running on an o'ced PPGA Celery Stick 300a, w/64 mb of SDRAM, and great game performance w/Voodoo 2 on ADSL.
:o)
I use my machine mostly for games, 'net browsing, and word processing. Can someone help me with: 1)What are the advantages to using Linux as an alternate OS? 2)Assuming I *do* go Linux, which "distribution" would make for the most comfortable (and cheap) conversion? Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Unix at all.
Thanks a million for helping out!