Slashdot Mirror
Freep Column: Can Linux Overtake Windows?
TheInternet writes "The head/subhead of the article sum it up very nicely:
'Can Linux crash Windows?
That's the goal of the upstart operating system. Installing it, however, is just too difficult for most of us.' Note that 'crash Windows' means 'overtake Windows' in this context. It's a stretch. "
Pretty typical piece.
I was actually wondering the same thing.
However, I think he did say that he would have the same issues with Windows, if it had not come preinstalled.
Then he went on to metion how he got a VA Reasearch machine with Linux preinstalled, and his only issue was applications.
I would have enjoyed to see the article written differently, but overall, I think he said it quite nicely with little, if not no, bias.
If the only application we need is a CD-ROM encyclopedia, then I would say that Linux is ready for any user. I mean who needs those anymore you can get 10x the information off the web these days. I mean does Microsoft even make new versions of its Encarta product anymore?
For me, the appeal of Linux is that is is a Un*x clone for the , available for free*. It's just that, a Un*x clone. It should** run Un*x apps, with little porting effort. It's interface should** be the same as every other Un*x flavor out there.
Un*x wasn't created with the "Average Joe" in mind. If you don't know how to repartition your drive, or don't even know what a partition is, you shouldn't be administering a Un*x system. If you can't be bothered reading a 10-page HOWTO to get a solution to your problem, or finding an appropriate mailing list to post to, you probably shouldn't be administering a Un*x system. I don't think that Linux (or rather, Linux distros) should be to get on every desktop. I'd rather see a goal of a powerful Un*x clone. If you find that easy to use, great.
* both definitions of free (speech and beer).
** should, in this context, are MY requirements. Yours may be different.
Setting up Linux requires expertise I don't possess -- and I do this stuff for a living.
Obviously he's not that good at it...
The author of the article says he does this for a living, yet he is scared of Linux.
Huh. If he purports to be a computer journalist he should be able to cope with simple stuff like mount points.
When do people get over their whining about difficult installs? How dumb do you have to be in order not to grok the average linux install? If you don't understand partitions you might as well go live in a tree, eat bananas and say "Oook" every once in a while.
Jeez.
Not for me it can't.
1. tell BIOS to boot from cdrom
2. Stick cdrom in cdrom drive
3. boot from cdrom drive
4. leave and come back after lunch and it's installed.
That's how simple it is to install win98 OEM. By default on the PCs we sale win98 detects ALL HARDWARE and sets video modes to 1024X768 with 16.7mil colors. So there is nothing we have to do after the install is over with but shutdown the computer and package it up in a box and UPS the mother.
Simple as that. I can't say the same thing with out Linux installs. Half the time we have to do some special tinkering to get it to detect hardware so its already setup for the user to use. Zip drives, Tape drives, Jaz drives, CD-Writers, X!!!!!!!! damn that's a bitch sometimes.
It's a pain in the ass to build a linux box for people when you have to build 100 PCs a day with only a few people. With linux it's the install and setup process that takes all the time but with win98 it's just the building of the PC that takes up the tech's time.
Yep it's the same in our small company too.
Linux's install takes way to much user imput and that takes away productive time that our Techs can be spending on building another PC.
With "any" win9x OEM disk, just pop it into the cdrom and boot from it and leave it alone and it will do the rest.
Linux is a server, and that's exactly the point; if the goal is to do away with Windows, then we need Linux for the average non-geek. We need something that we can compare with win95, with all the multimedia stuff and all the gaming experiences.
Btw, in my opinion the installation of Linux has been the most easist OS install I did so far. I guess the original writer never did a Windows OS install from scratch. I installed Linux using the RedHat FTP install, using DHCP. It could have been even easier if RedHat hadn't made me partition parts of my harddisk by myself. No non-geek is able to do that kind of stuff.
That assumes you have the exact same hardware on every PC you build. And I can't remember building more than 10 PCs in a row that has the exact same hardware inside out.
No that does not work unless every single PC has the same hardware.
With win9x it does not matter what the hardware is because it will detect it and set it all up without any user imput at all, thus giving out techs more time to build more PCs.
You may want to factor in the time for reinstalls and reboots for Windows. Ease of use is not of much help when you have to reboot every hour.
This fellow is just an average Joe User. He has a computer, he wants it to work. He doesn't know his hardware that well, and partitioning is an arcane majick to him. And he's the type of person that the Linux community should pay attention to, because, in the end, users such as him will help -- or hurt -- Linux's progress onto the desktop.
/dev/null
Too many Linux advocates are quick to slam the Joe Users of the world, calling them idiots and ignorant and useless. Yet, all they want is to use their computer as the tool they bought it for.
My girlfriend is a good example: she simply wants to user her computer to write letters, balance her checkbook, browse the Internet (I hate the term "surf the 'net"!), get e-mail, and play games. She couldn't give a rat's ass about mount-points, device drivers, kernel modules, dynamic libraries or any of that stuff. She leaves that to me -- that's my forte'. She isn't a power-user/guru; she's just a user how wants to get stuff done. And right now, Linux isn't the right choice for her to get those things done.
So, one of the things we as a community need to do is focus on making Linux not just the fastest, most-stable OS in existance, but we should also look into making it as easy and intuitive as possible, while not taking away from it's power. KDE and GNOME are good starts in that direction, but there are miles to go before the Joe Users can sit down in front of a Linux box, and feel as comfortable as they do with a Windows or Mac.
Just my shave and a haircut.
flames >
Well, Linux doesn't need illiterate, inarticulate whiners who can't be bothered with instructions.
Pfffft.
That's the cost of using, say, POVray, which allowed even a novice like myself to do simple 3-D animations, groggy at 2AM, and get 'em to work.
Editing HTML can be done w/ any text editor. It's not like you're allowed to have precise layout control, anyway...
And you've obviously not tried to fix a Windows configuration when it thinks that it's smarter than you and therefore automatically reconfigures every damn peripheral you've got to wrong settings.
Errmm, hide the shell? As in, force the user to choose from a menu of programs, or browse through directory windows?
Ewwwww. There are a LOT of command-line arguments for various programs, and it'd help for people to learn 'em so that they can automate tasks that the distro makers didn't necessarily think about.
It might be slow going, too, even using something dang spiffy like Xforms.
You were using SLACKWARE? D'you think that's why you had trouble?
:), but they're still really nice. I couldn't have done without them for the first few months, I really couldn't have. That's why I reccomend RedHat to everyone starting out--it's easy, if you want it to be. It's nearly as easy as Windows (I think netconf is nicer, even), but it's still a UNIX, so it doesn't attempt to to wrong, bad things "for" you...if you know what should be done and how to do it, you can. Un/installing software is a cinch with the rpm command (I never got into GUI tools for doing that, but they come with the system, I hear :)
:)
I have great respect for slackware users. Oodles. I've been using RedHat for a year now, and it's great. I've learned enough by this point that I can do without the GUI tools (and I'm in the early stages of developing that "guru attitude" that makes people say "GUI tools? Bah! Non-portable!"
I recently had to use Debian, to setup some 68k Macs so that they could lead useful lives again as Xterminals. Wow. I'm at the point right now where I don't need the "RedHat beginner safety net", but you still miss it...I can't imagine what Slackware is like. In another year, I'll probably be ready for it, but it's certainly not a beginners distro.
As for Windows, I worked in a tech. shop for a year. I really, really hate that OS sometimes...it still haunts me now as a sysadmin, because some workstations are still Windows. When it randomly decides to forget your network settings, or delete files, for no apparant reason, it's incredibly annoying.
To me, that's the main difference between Windows and Linux to a Sysadmin. When Linux messes up, you can be sure it's _your_fault
Hmph. One could write a partitioning front-end that visualized each drive as a pie-chart, and let one label the parts with mount points and flags, but that'd probably be too large to put on an installation disk.
An issue with partitioning is that people can have vastly different needs. A single user might be able to get away with one swap partition and one for everything else, but that would be a *bad* choice for a machine connected to the 'net (think: DoS through log entry generation), or for various other reasons (like containing any corruption, etc).
Must be something special about those OEM CDs you guys use. I've used OEM Win9x CDs from Dell and Toshiba, and Compaq, and I still had to answer questions, and click buttons, to do the install.
I'm seriously interested in what brand of computers you put together that Win9x knows so well it doesn't need any input at all. I'm being serious here, please tell me. I'm going to be in the market for a fourth machine early next year.
- Theo
vessekx@geocities.com
I installed RH 5.2 at home last month with no previous Linux experience aside from knowing a few basic Unix commands. Except for a few problems with an obscure make of monitor and some pnp devices (which I just ended up getting rid of) it was down right easy. Oh yeah, the experience also cost me about 4 hours time spent perusing the RH 5.2 installation guide. All I can say is it has been a rewarding investment.
Now I'm running RH 6.0 with Gnome, in case anyone cares.
The CDs come from MS. You enrole into thier OEM partner plan and you can customize your owne CD installs. Including your logos being installed on the system as well.
The CDs automate the install completely. However before you ship it to the customer you can make sure that drivers for all devices work and after that you click on shutdown ( not start shutdown but another window that's on the screen for the OEM to click shutdown )
The next time it reboots ( should be the customer booting it up ) it will ask for reg number and other info from the customer ( name, address etc... )
Hardware configuration is usually ( 99% ) automatically detected and setup during the automated install process.
..that kde isnt nearly attractive as the windows gui (let E mature). Another problem with your rant is you didn't mention that most programs aimed at your average computer user is for windows (kiddie games, encyclopedias, new games for the most part). Please don't tell me to use wine because wine doesnt work for a lot of things.
I still use linux because its fun and usefull, but until someone puts together a linux distro truly aimed at the average user, linux will remain as an os for the nerds.
. prodeje - too lazy to login
i think that this was an awful weird title for this article. nice article tho.
. prodeje - too lazy to login
learn to only post once my dim witted friend.
Hmm. I think it's not a problem to create a linux
OEM distribution. I've your familar with linux you may be able to set up your own oem linux,
which would be able to do all by itself.
I'm sure distrubutions with OEM support will show
up in the future, don't blame linux itself for
the lack it, blame the dist. builders.
Write a mail to RedHat, Caldera, SuSE, Debian or so, I'm sure they will listen to you.
that is a great idea. for the most part, the partitioning part of the linux installation is after the user chooses where to install linux from , so the pie chart partition software could be on the linux cd/ftp site/hd.
what do you mean?
My mom has been using Windows 95 on her IBM Thinkpad for several years now. She's never had to reinstall it.
Many of the people with "bad experiences" with Windows 95 are tweaks. Tweaks just can't resist pushing that button, or editing that file, or seeing what will do to >that.
he talks about the difficulty in partitioning hardrives in linux, well i guess he has never had to do the same for windows i know that i have had to many times... not to mention low level formats.
You are not the typical Windows user. You are a tweak. So am I, but I recognize the fact and deal with it.
Most users only install Windows once on their machine (if it doesn't come preinstalled, that is) and it automatically partitions for them. I know Windows 98 does, if you buy the full install version. (cheapskates who buy the Upgrade version shouldn't complain).
If they get a BSOD copying a file to a server, there's something terribly wrong with the way their system is set up. Probably they haven't screwed up. Your client certainly has.
Linux is not for everyone...
don't make Linux an OS for the masses bcoz its NOT an OS for the masses..lets leave that to Windows...
even if we try to make Linux an easier OS to use..aka..with KDE/GNOME...Windows will still be easier to use..and even if KDE/GNOME grows as EASIER as Windows, it will be too damn bloated that it wouldnt matter if Windows was worth tossing in favor of Linux..
Linux will always be CLI..its UNIX...UNIX is not for the masses...its for programmers, sys admins..hobbyist..etc..who wants full control over there Computers...making LINUX an OS for the masses will be a disaster for linux...it WONT gain acceptance..
especially to the ordinary ppl who wants to wake up NOT bothered whether his ftp daemon is patched or if he has to worry if "Redhat 2000" supports his brand new sound card...
I had no idea the article was a repost. Anyway the damage is done. I've sent email to the author of the article. Life in hindsight :-)
It's good to find Linux advocates who recognize that it's a server OS. People who use it as a workstation OS are basically driving a big honking truck around pretending it's a sports car.
Look around at where all the much vaunted commercial support is. It's all on the server side, except for Linux-only vendors and those who are trying to repackage failed Windows apps (i.e. Corel). Compaq won't be selling Linux preinstalled on their laptops any time soon. Nor will IBM.
Content on the Web is horribly spotty and inconsistent. Sure, there is a lot of info on the history of computers. There isn't much history of anything else. The whole concept of the WWW falls apart in a mess of broken links and "information" that just shills the reader.
I use the Internet to search for good books to buy, etc. I bought the "Oxford Classical Dictionary" for $40 recently from a used bookstore listing on Bibliofind.
The paucity of information on CD-ROM encyclopedias has killed the medium. It will kill the WWW as a "universal information source" as well. Sadly, braindead academics are spending all their money on soon-obsolete computers rather than books for the schools. It's a shame.
Open sores can be pretty inflamed.
"Look maw, there's pus seeping out of that computer case! Tell paw to fetch the shotgun!"
It sounds like you bought an upgrade version and installed it on new hardware. The full retail version of Windows 98 or 95 has a bootdisk that finds the CD-ROM drive and installs quite smoothly.
I don't think you should complain that Microsoft made it difficult for you to do an illegal install of the Upgrade version of one of their OSes.
What you're describing is the fact that Linux isn't selling well. Retailers hate that for some reason. I hope you're not seriously proposing that people here go out and trash that old stock, as that amounts to a criminal conspiracy. Not that the store owners would mind, if insurace covered the loss. I wonder how many of them will re-order new stock of such badly selling items?
Simply put, the Great Unwashed Masses, don't think like us, and we have no desire to think like them.
'fess up now. You use Linux because it makes you feel so durn superior. "Why when I was a kid we had to punch all our programs out on punched cards." "The bootstrap code was an array of diodes on a corner of the circuit board." etc. etc.
Code cowboys ropin' steers. Gee whiz, maw, it's sure fun.
Admitting in public that the only reason you installed Service Pack 3 is pretty gutsy.
We're amazed at your brilliance.
As a usability / human factors professional and Linux user, I've been waiting for the topic of usability and Linux to come up.
Several points:
1) Having a GUI does not always make software or an operating system easy to use. It can if designed correctly, but it can also make things worse. Windows does a decent job abstracting out the operating system details, unfortunately when it's broke that's the level of info the you need and its not there. Lot's of Linux GUI's are just glorified command lines in disguise. There is more that is involved in design that coding.
2) Who's the audience for Linux? What he describes in the article is a typical Windows user trying to install Linux. If that is the type of user you want eventually, this info is important in making Linux easy to use. Either way, though it's good to know.
3) Finally, Linux seems to be written by programmers for programmers. As someone that is both a programmer and HF person, programmers often make lousy designers. Windows95/NT wasn't born "easy to use" by programmers. There are whole departments of people doing user testing and making revisions on software. Unless I'm mistaken, there are very few instances of Linux software development that go through such testing.
That's strange... when I installed Caldera 2.2, it didn't recognize my network card, and didn't want to have anything to do with my ISP (att.net). And since I was installing it on partitions that already existed, it got all whiny when it didn't find Partition Magic anything to do, so it didn't install LILO or whatever it had. So I had to use my previous LINUX's emergency diskette to get it up and running.
When I tried the Caldera tech support to resolve this, they suggested that I edit lilo.conf (no kidding), but I thought that there'd be an easier way to do it from EvilOS for someone that no longer could boot Linux (they left that part out -- yeah, I guess I could have used their 3.5" disks).
But I still ended up with was a Caldera system that wouldn't talk over the network nor dial up my ISP. So I went back to Red Hat.
I'd say you got lucky.
Was never to takeover Windows. The day Linus decides to focus on killing other OSes is the day I kick Linux off my puter. Linux was just a fun toy to play with. People are making it into a damn religion.
see subject :-)
Did you ever think they might just not like Linux? It's not a crime....
I tried installing the debain (what ever) version of Linux on my PIII 450 128MB ram 8GB HDD 2 cd rom 1 dvd drive and it ruined my FDD. Well raw writting info to a 1.44MB floppy sucks a** and it's not reliable. I installed a beta of Windows 2000 (which I'm using now as I'm writting this). Windows 2000 is a hellof alot easier to install then Debain and for one thing MS actually used cd bootable to make i possible which I like. The install ran fast and smooth and allot has changed with NT. I can agree that most of you have low end POS's around in the basement that you use to put linux on and run. I agree that if linux was more user friendly then it would take MS but most people want to run their apps and not worry about what OS they're using. I have an old 386 and 8088 at home and I'd rather use DOS 3.0 and DOS 6.0 on each of them instead of Linux.
Well if you check www.pricewatch.com you'll see that the prices for PC's are going down and eventually you'll get a good job which pays you like 20-50 bucks an hour and who cares if the min requirements for windows 2000 is 32 mb ram cos 128mb is like 60 bucks (last time I checked and bought some). Even Intel is lowering the prices on their CPU's with the advent of the K7 coming. I wouldnt mind dishing out 159 bucks for a Tyan dual CPU MB and $250 PIII 450 and $60 for 128mb ram. Eventually these items will be min requirements for any OS but for now Linux is better kept on a 486 back in the garage next to the propane tank you use to use for the 4th of July bbq's.
First he writes:
"Even the most dedicated supporters don't claim Linux is ready for the average user who wants to use a word processor, collect e-mail, surf the Web and use a CD-ROM encyclopedia."
Then later, in describing his VArStation experience and playing around with KDE, he writes:
"The computer came with the Linux version of
Netscape Communicator, providing a Web browser and e-mail program, and an office suite called Applix for word processing and related tasks. But there wasn't much else I could do."
I guess that lack of a CD ROM encyclopedia is what really was holding him back from accepting Linux! I mean, first say the apps aren't available and then admit he was using them, but then say, "there was nothing else." Come on! Whatever it is he does when he says "I do this for a living," it isn't editing.
At least "cynics" is better word to use than "mimics" or "gimmicks", which are the only other words I can think of now that rhyme with linux.
Linux rhymes with "cynics"?
Personally, I find that to be almost as inflammatory as "Open Sores".
Sorry bro, but if you treat people like morons they behave like morons. I'd like to point out that my C average student, 10 y.o., former Mac user nephew, who's always looking for an excuse to get someone to wipe his bottom for him, uses the Linux box (with KDE) we put together. I haven't had to talk him through anything since the day after we first fired it up.
On the other side of the coin... One of my clients constantly has to walk his users through simple procedures such as copying files to the server in a 98/NT environment. They get intimidated because if they get a BSOD while doing something they think they screwed up
Well, as I recently found out when I reviewed Windows 98 SE, Linux can be easier to install than Win98SE. If this trend continues, then as more software is written (and more graphical, easy to use, admin tools appear) Linux will start making a dent in the corporate desktop, and then the general population.
--------- Webmaster, http://www.cpureview.com and
Try using "expert" mode to install Redhat.
It lets you continue without a swap partition then.
He really sounds much like last-years Jesse... (see http://lwn.net/1999/features/1998timeline/).
I wonder if he will follow the same path as Jesse did?
Quite frankly, Windows 95/98 is *much* more anal about this sort of behavior than the typical Linux distro is...
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
To quote Bob Metcalfe, Linux is based on 30-year-old technology...
:^P
...so, quite frankly, there's a *lot* more "legacy code" than Windows requires for Johnny Keypad's DOS games.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Yeah...Win95/98 can seem to be very easy to install if all one has to do is:
:^( ) so, to install any of the RH 5.x series (other than the Mandrake derivative, which came with Glint RPMs) one would have to go to SuSE. I believe the reason was that the Glint X-Server was part of the XSuSE project.
1. Take computer out of box
2. Plug in keyboard, mouse, monitor, & peripherals
3. Turn on computer
4. Wait for Win98 to boot
Honestly, I've tried Red Hat (and Mandrake), SuSE, Caldera, and Slackware, and the only one that was more complex to install than Windows was Slackware. Just wait until something is misdetected under Windoze. Whoops, time to start over, or to spend the next day or so fixing everything. No thanks.
To be fair, up until recently I had a GB Exxtreme graphics card in my machine, and no one but SuSE shipped (in anything other than full X source--ugh, I don't have enough free space to compile
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Minix? ;)
Actually, the reason it annoyed me to read that is that I don't think it rhymes with any of those words. Each to their own though, I guess.
I guess, among other things, that this demonstrates how slow the Detroit Free Press is in publishing syndicated columns.
9 .htm
I saw this column over three months ago up on the San Jose Mercury site.
http://www.mercurycenter.com/business/top/05032
Scroll just past the halfway point on the page to find the article.
The publication date on that page is March 13.
I would hope that the people with a propensity to flame columnists would refrain from sending the author a second barrage of unnecessary vitriol for this.
-- P.J.
Why does Redhat *require* a swap partition? Yes, if you have 4 megs of RAM you need one, and if you have 16 or less you'd probably want one for programs which are resource-intensive *cough*Netscape*cough*KDE*cough*. However, my system has 128 megs of RAM, which is becoming increasingly more common.
Debian doesn't require a swap partition. Slackware doesn't require a swap partition. Sure, they recommend one, but they don't absolutely require one to install. Can't Redhat use a swap file? Yes, it's a bit slower, but when you're swapping, chances are a few additional microseconds of latency in paging are the least of your performance problems.
The main reason that Redhat's insistence annoys me, aside from the fact that it makes new users squeamish, is that when I was upgrading to Redhat from Slackware, I had no decent way to repartition my drive to make the minimal 8 meg swap partition, and so I ended up using - get this - a SCSI zip drive, for lack of a better means of satiating Redhat's installer.
Bloody annoying.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
And I hate the term 'browse the Internet'. The Internet is not the same thing as the Web. Way too many people fail to grasp the difference, and such phrases only increase the confusion.
Oh, I'm glad it's not just me, in a twisted sort of way :-)
Windows 98: the only OS that uninstalls your GLIDE drivers when you upgrade your soundcard drivers.
Windows 98: the only OS that installs the same network card driver three times, and then complains about conflicts.
Yes, the above have happened to me. The network card incident followed a hardware failure. In Linux, I replaced the card, booted, and all was well. It took (count em) 8 reboots to finally persuade Windows that a new, working, card was actually present.
This is, apparently, ease of use in action.
(By the way, I didn't need to know my modem COM port the last time I installed Linux either)
This is a just new twist on old FUD. Now not only is Linux hard to install, but its hard for technical people to install. Which technical people?! Those who consider reading too hard? Maybe I'll take a M$ Cert. Eng exam they must be written as connect-the-dot diagrams, so that they won't be too hard for technical people!
Oops... In advertantly turned on the flame thrower. Must be monday.
Locust
Honestly, if you don't know those basic bits of information, what the hell are you doing installing a *nix OS? Of all possible basic things you should know about your computer, that phrase pretty much sums it up.
-- 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.
Operated, yes. If I used either KDE or GNOME, I'd comment on how well it did this.
Tweaked? Nah.
I don't think there are many people out there who want to tweak their systems but don't want to use a keyboard to do it.
Is it a good idea to create a graphical program to manipulate text files for a console program (or worse, a daemon)? I say it depends on the program.
We should expect and presume some level of technical competence from people -- give them a chance to rise to that level.
By giving boneheads a chance to set up a web server with a few mouse clicks, you've given script kiddies a chance to abuse their machines with a few clever scripts. Is that good?
There should be a learning curve. The question is, how steep?
--
QDMerge -- generate documents automatically.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Isn't this what Corel Linux is supposed to be for? I noticed that Corel Linux wasn't mentioned in that article or in any responses on Slashdot.
"Pretty typical article" reads like a put down.
However whats wrong with the article?
If the Linux community truly wants to dethrone MS (which I doubt they do - its much easier to say they want to than actually do it) then they need to make the OS easier to install and easier to use.
One of the most important resources in this day and age is time. The bulk of people won't waste their time playing with their OS, they just want to run their application.
So unless it becomes easy to use/install there truly won't be an applications worth using... let alone people using the OS.
. * Did aliens forget to remove your anal probe?
I personally don't think Linux is able to take over the Windows' maket share. It will be able to take over a significant amount of the unhappy-with-windows users, but will never be able to take over all of them.
--
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
"I run Windows 98 for my workstation (the server and office are Linux). I reboot my Windows box about once a day, or day and a half. I don't have a magical stable copy of windows."
Once every couple of hrs or once every couple of days, it doesn't really matter. Compared to the uptimes of Linux/Unix, the difference is insignificant (I have never crashed or needed to reboot Linux or the HP-UX box I admin, except when I compile the kernel). Its like the difference between 1/X and 2/X where X is some very large number.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
I have never had any printing problems with Linux. I have printed with a variety of HP laser/deskjets and Canon (sp?) Colorjet printers. In fact, I have never had any problems printing on a local printer or on a Netware printer.
Sure, some printers/scaners may not have drivers for Linux *yet*, but all the old hardware I have seen is supported by Linux (ie a printer you may already have). If you're going to buy a new printer, its easy enough to browse the web and find if it is supported.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
most of America doesn't need the uptime of Linux. However, there is a difference between shuting down at the end of the day and a forced reboot or crash. Before I started using Linux I, like many, used Win3.1/95. The shutdown at the end of the day was never a problem. However, having to wait for reboots after installing or making a config change was a real pain. The real kicker though was when Windows would crash while I was working on a paper, compiling, browsing the web, printing, etc. If windows crashes weren't that often we wouldn't have the acronym BSOD.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
"I want to use software that doesn't suck." - ESR
"All software that isn't free sucks." - RMS
No, it doesn't. Every Windows user I know either turns off PnP, or has their BIOS set it up. There is no such thing as correctly supporting Plug-and-Play, because it's a fundamentally broken standard layered on top of another fundamentally broken standard. PC hardware will not properly support autoconfiguration until the 20-year-old architecture is redesigned (perhaps more along the lines of the Amiga, which had an extremely simple autoconfiguration system that really worked).
Also, learn to read the manual. UNIX does not cater for lazy idiots. And don't expect much help if you can't be bothered to proofread your postings.
"I want to use software that doesn't suck." - ESR
"All software that isn't free sucks." - RMS
has this guy looked at the caldera install. Hey RH 6.0 is not that difficult. Guess next year he'll be writing that article.
Only 'flamers' flame!
You make some good points about the dangers of overactive Linux advocacy, but I'll disagree with you on one point: doing the computing thing for a living does not mean that you can type up a paper and browse the web with the hood of your box welded shut. You don't see Formula-1 drivers who do the driving thing for a living keep their hoods welded shut, do you? Sure, a racing pro doesn't change every tire or spark plug (they've got a pit crew for that) but they have to have a good understanding of what hardware is under the hood and what tradeoffs can be made in order to get the most out of it. Professional drivers who never think about what's under the hood (or on the axles, etc.) won't make much of a living at it.
So it should be with computer writers - if the computing thing is your living, then you should at least be able to discuss the pros and cons of the innards of a system even if you are reviewing it for those who don't need all the details. Just because his audience may not need to get under the hood doesn't mean that an author can't mention that there is more to the story - like the IP address of your ISP. And if you only do the computing thing for a living in Windows, then why are you reviewing Linux? You don't see Formula-1 drivers taking a spin at a NASCAR race, for example - if you are an expert on only one type of system, your opinion of a different system isn't any more reliable than the average guy on the street. I would certainly agree that this author does the writing thing for a living, but saying that he does the computing thing for a living is a stretch.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
In reply to the person who said you need to know your com port for windows, you don't. Windows correctly support plug and play. In fact in windows you don't need to know the irq, dma, io, etc. of your sound card. It doesn't matter if you can or not, why should you have to?
Well, you don't have to know the IRQ of your sound card. Until, of course, Windows decides it would be nice to set your sound card to the same IRQ as your network card. Then your sound stops working, your network stops working, and all Windows has to say is "System has detected a hardware conflict.". The user has no idea what that means, has no clue how to find out what the conflict is, and couldn't fix it if they did find out because Windows will proceed to use PnP to reconfigure things back to the (broken) way it thinks things should be as soon as you reboot (and you have to reboot to make any fix you try take effect).
At this point the Windows user calls me up, and I go in and disable the PnP crud, jumper or otherwise force the cards to the correct settings, cram the settings down Windows' throat and the whole thing works again. At least until the next time he upgrades something, at which point my fixes get erased and the box breaks again and I get another call. One good thing about Microsoft products: the repeat business keeps me in beer and pretzels.
Your comments are inflammatory and sloppy. Don't sharpen the devil's horn by making this sloppy excuse for an article to be worse than it really is.
Langberg wrote:'the OS doesn't yet support all the peripherals -- such as printers and scanners -- that work with Windows and the Mac.'
He is correct in that, there are SOME PRINTERS AND SCANNERS that won't work with Linux. They either rely on hooks to a MS OS, or use interfaces that we don't have perfected yet, like USB.
Misha, in this day and age, to "do this [computing thing] for a living" means that you likely do it in Windows. The hood of their "Ford" is welded shut and they are a professional driver. They know how to manipulate their econobox down the road to get where they need to go. When it breaks, they tow it to the dealership. Introduce those folks to a stripped down chassis made for speed, flexibility & accessibility and a courier that is on the road every day isn't going to like the idea of driving a rolling project. The greatest error in consumer Linux thinking is that most people even WANT a system that can be turned from a tire iron to a toilet plunger by changing runlevels. Most people want a computing appliance: You plug it in and USE IT. Windows isn't there, but on good days, it's closer to being usable for the "common man" than Linux is now or is likely to be soon. The MS "way of doing things" also has the inertia in the computing culture. We won't change it overnight. Indeed, it might be smarter to borrow a page from the Chinese playbook: offer as little to resistance to invasion as is prudent (make the interface similar and duplicate the style) let the new folks get comfortable, and then retain the culture of openness. Ten years from now, joe user won't be bothered if his kid wants to edit init.d. But this change doesn't take place over night, so kvetching about joe-sixpack being MS brainwashed sounds exactly like what it is: bigoted and short sighted.
Your attitude about the villiage idiot not being allowed to use a computer stinks. How else do they learn, eh pendejo? It must be nice to be so confident in your own technical supremacy that you can indiscriminately sneer at the peasants.
Linux has a long way to go to offer the functionality required for mass adoption. I use it every day and even went to the trouble (and I do mean TROUBLE) of installing it on my laptop in lieu of my employer's choice of NT. I administer 5 different OSs every day: HPUX11 & Solaris for my day job, Linux, Win95 & WinNT for the rest.) Philosophically I dig the OSS movement. KDE is my WM of choice. And I don't ream people a new one because they disagree with me. I ream people a new one for their sheer knowitall attitude.
Your attitude is a disgrace to the Linux community.
flames > dev/null
Your comments are inflammatory and sloppy. Don't sharpen the devil's horn by making this sloppy excuse for an article to be worse than it really is.
Langberg wrote:'the OS doesn't yet support all the peripherals -- such as printers and scanners -- that work with Windows and the Mac.'
He is correct in that, there are SOME PRINTERS AND SCANNERS that won't work with Linux. They either rely on hooks to an MS OS, or use interfaces that we don't have perfected yet, like USB.
Misha, in this day and age, to "do this [computing thing] for a living" means that you likely do it in Windows. The hood of their "Ford" is welded shut and they are a professional driver. They know how to manipulate their econobox down the road to get where they need to go. When it breaks, they tow it to the dealership. Introduce those folks to a stripped down chassis made for speed, flexibility & accessibility and a courier that is on the road every day isn't going to like the idea of driving a rolling project. The greatest error in consumer Linux thinking is that most people even WANT a system that can be turned from a tire iron to a toilet plunger by changing runlevels. Most people want a computing appliance: You plug it in and USE IT. Windows isn't there, but on good days, it's closer to being usable for the "common man" than Linux is now or is likely to be soon. The MS "way of doing things" also has the inertia in the computing culture. We won't change it overnight. Indeed, it might be smarter to borrow a page from the Chinese playbook: offer as little to resistance to invasion as is prudent (make the interface similar and duplicate the style) let the new folks get comfortable, and then retain the culture of openness. Ten years from now, joe user won't be bothered if his kid wants to edit inet.d.conf. But this change doesn't take place over night, so kvetching about joe-sixpack being MS brainwashed sounds exactly like what it is: bigoted and short sighted.
Your attitude about the villiage idiot not being allowed to use a computer stinks. How else do they learn, eh pendejo? It must be nice to be so confident in your own technical supremacy that you can indiscriminately sneer at the peasants.
Linux has a long way to go to offer the functionality required for mass adoption. I use it every day and even went to the trouble (and I do mean TROUBLE) of installing it on my laptop in lieu of my employer's choice of NT. I administer 5 different OSs every day: HPUX11 & Solaris for my day job, Linux, Win95 & WinNT for the rest.) Philosophically I dig the OSS movement. KDE is my WM of choice. And I don't ream people a new one because they disagree with me. I ream people a new one for their sheer knowitall attitude.
You're attitude is a disgrace to the Linux community.
flames > dev/null
Agreed. Upgrading my Win95 to Win98 was a nightmare -- three times the installation got partway in, then crashed leaving me to pick up the pieces using Scandisk. The third time it trashed the .sys files so Win95 would no longer boot to anything but DOS mode. I finally solved the problem by booting into another OS (thank you, Linux), copying all the CD-ROM's files onto a spare partition, and then booting back to DOS mode to start the installation from the local copies. Finally worked, but that stopped me from believing that Linux was a difficult install process.
Is it just me or are all the columnists suddenly unable to even install linux now, yet still able to describe how gawd-awful hard it is to use?
I get the feeling that MS has set the hound dogs
loose and they wont be happy until a penquin carcass is brought home, preferrably well chewed.
I think its time to call the FUD attack what it really is... The BS attack! Man, if you cant install linux you shouldnt be using a computer, let alone writing about it.
what frightens me, is that at college, none of the CS majors I know have even tried Linux. I'm a philospophy major --and an awful programer--, and I'm the only one I know personaly (sp?) who uses linux at ALL.
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
I have yet to see a copy of W95 "Upgrade" come with boot disk. Before you complain about illegal installs of "one of their OSes", check with the poster. Perhaps you didn't notice that he said "without a working boot disk", not, "without a boot disk."
In the future, Anonymous COWARD, read the post you reply to.
-sonic
I think you're only looking at it from one side... I, too, support several thousand users -6000- (on my server's side THANK GOD :), I understand that the user is, for the most part, an Idiot. Realize, however, that most of my ( I don't know your) users get a computer with a "Build" suited to their job and never get out of that build. They don't do installs, don't log in to netware as the supervisor, and don't log into my machines as root. They just do a job. Unfortunatly, they have to reboot all the time to do their job. I querried my helpdesk stats and discovered that last year ( assuming 30 seconds for a reboot), my company paid it's employees to sit and support a microsoft product for 4563.125 work days. Now assume each one of these people get paid $10/hour w/ an 8 hour work day (10 is very conservative), we spent $365,050 just puting up with a finicky OS. This cost doesn't take into account revenues/person that were lost because the user wasn't working and earning revenues. Also, this only notes where the help desk reported having the user reboot, not where the user, having run into this problem before, decided to reboot and that fixed the issue.
Basicly, what I'm saying is this:
Users do what the company tells them to do and on what os to do it on. You don't have to be a Guru to use a computer in the way Users use it. You just have to get paid. Now, if my company wanted to save $350K a year, they would switch to Linux and spend the $350 to get their 3 Windows locked apps ported (chances are, they'd get change back.)
They could easily reduce support costs as one (or a team of) administrators could log into their box and fix any issues except hardware, which could then be diagnosed more quickly and save money on the support costs again. Bottom line, if you tell them too, users will.
-sonic
Go out to all your local bookstores, computer stores, etc., and find and destroy every copy of RH5.2, Caldera 1.3, and SuSE5.2 wherever they might be discovered by newbies.
Seriously, I've actually been in stores that were selling SuSE5.2 and SuSE6.1 side-by-side, and the 5.2 COST MORE!! Same with Caldera. Plus, they have this "Linux Starter Kit", which is supposed to appeal to newbies, but only includes Caldera 1.3. These people (looking to play around with a desktio) will be sorely disappointed to discover FVWM95, an ancient version of the gimp, and maybe StarOffice 4.0.
Don't get me wrong, a solid install of an older linux can run great as a server, but they just present outdated installs and desktops, perpetuating the stereotype that Linux is too hard to use.
--JZ
Linux has no printer and scanner support? I have never used printers or scanners on my box, but i have never had any trouble using those from a Unix station at work. and those were IRIX and AIX both of which are hardly nicer than Linux.
Plus, when he took the computer out of the box, he says that there was nothing else he could do. What could he do with a Windows machine that he cannot with the linux box? He can surf the web, check his email, type up his articles. No games -- that is true. He mentioned no printer. Well, the claim appears to be that VAResearch did not install it for him just like the whole system.
Weird, I would have never thought that a person who "computes" ("uses a computer" if you will) for a living would ever complain about doing something as simple as that himself. If he had any considerable experience with computers (may it be windows) he would understand how to partition his hard drive with DiskDruid that ships with RedHat. My neighbors who ARE average computer users format their windows partitions every couple of weeks, because windows gets kinda slow. and to save time, they partition their hard drive anyways, so that they do not have to back up every single mp3 they have.
If the average village/urban idiot (the dumber part of the population) cannot use a computer correctly, maybe they should not use it. After all, the government does not let everyone drive a car. Why let everyone drive one on the Internet?
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
my only point was that the author of the article said that there was nothing he could do with Linux because there were few printers/scanners supported, which i interpreted as simply he did not have a supported printer/scanner, or more likely he did not know how to install one, possible frightened by the reference to the howto.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
I don't think they need us to crash... ;-)
the author claims "...you would find links to sites for downloading free Linux code. But you'd have to go to other sites to get instructions on how to proceed, and no one would take responsibility if you ran into problems." i disagree completely. i have had numerious people correspond with me to answer my questions, post fixes from people who had similiar experiences. and, in turn, i have tried to answer questions that i think i might have the answer to. when i have installed linux software, i have generally had a much simpler time navigating configuration files that are plain text for the most part, then trying to deal with missing DLL's and the Windows Registry. How many people out there are able to easily navigate the MS website to find helpful FAQ's? Not once has the MS website helped me install software. as a corporation, they don't want to admit that their software has bugs, while Joe Q. Linux programmer knows and admits freely that his program has bugs, and they usually do a good job of posting them. Also, the number of free alternatives to any one linux program usually means you can get what you want without spending a dime. just my two cents...
My experience with Win95 has been even worse: of the copies of Win95 I've bought, about 50% have come without a working boot disk. So you can't install them on a fresh PC without modifying the supplied boot disk until it works. Never have I had such an interesting experience with Linux (except possibly when I tried to install Linux on a 4MB Acorn A5000 without a CD drive :)
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Linux can not beat Windows in the ease of use area until someone builds a Linux distribution that can completely be operated and tweaked WITHOUT using shell or a text editor. If there is a distribution that completely hides text editor and shell from a user and at the same time remains moderately flexible and configurable then we could win..
I installed (had to) WinNT on a few workstations for about a 100 times. What I learned from that is no WinNT install gets done in one sweep. At least I hadn't done that right with years of Comp. Sci. study ;)
In particular, the "windows networking installation wizard" suxx ultimately. If it crashes, you basically have to reinstall... Not to mention the superior performance of the resulting system, as some benchmark gurus have recently demonstrated *cough* I was never lucky enough to witness the speed and smoothness of WinNT as a file server, gateway, ftp server, development environ., anything. too bad for me.
In Linux, be it Slackware/Debian/RedHat, I've always had less headaches.
--exa--
Linux is not ready for the masses. Frankly I kind of wonder if it will ever be. I know I personally don't like having to write code for the masses. Even more to the point, you will never be able to get the hairdresser down the street to recompile her kernel.
The "Free Press" writer is who we talk about when we say "The Masses". Sadly he'd probably be deemed a "power user" because he can change his background. The Great Unwashed are people that have VCRs that flash "12:00" because they can't grasp the concept of hitting clock-set-clock. They're people like him that say, "MY GOD! 20 PAGES! WHY DON"T I JUST READ _WAR_AND_PEACE_!!"
The Geek and Unwashed Masses shall never meet. One thinks it's nice that Windows askes you 5 times if you want to delete an entire directory, the other let's out primal screams. However they both scream when they see the error message, "Something's broken". One group, because they expect the monitor to open a dimensional gateway to Hell, the other because it's not a stack trace.
Simply put, the Great Unwashed Masses, don't think like us, and we have no desire to think like them.
"Can Linux Crash Windows? That's the goal of the upstart operating system."
Man, I have a HUGE problem with statements like that. The goal of Linux, IIRC, is to provide a Free Unix-like operating system. If Microsoft looses marketshare to such a system, so be it. If Free Software developers seek to make Linux more usable for Windows users, so be it. To say that THE goal is to crash Windows does nothing but give ammo to people who characterize Linux as a taillight-following reaction to Microsoft. If you care, it also gives credibility to Microsoft's DOJ defense.
Also, am I the only person who cringes when a journalist writes that Linux rhymes with "cynics"? I first saw that in Newsweek and attributed it to their "cutesy" style of mock journalism. I don't like the subtle implication that Linux users are cynical. I'm sure the writers in question will claim that it's innocent and unintentional, but how hard is it to just include ("LEH-nucks") instead of saying "rhymes with cynics"?
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
OK, so here we go again. Another war between MS and Linux. This author totally misses the point though.
:-( ). However linux is a SERVER
So, win9x is easy to install (but only if you have all of the drivers for your cd etc - a small but important point after my last Win95 rebuild
Compare it to WinNT not 95. It has a complex install because it runs SOOOOO much more stuff behind the GUI than Win9x does (DNS, FTP, telnet, httpd etc etc etc).
If we had to config all of this stuff under win9x we would be there all night.
I know linux is for geeks but guys like this should really ensure that his info is correct and that he compares the corrects OS's.
But what do I know eh?
Linux - the ultimate Windows NT service pack
It's funny!!!!!!
I just got a copy of Win NT 4. The installation was pretty quick and straight foward, But it didn't end there. After the machine rebooted I was asked to put the CD back in because Win NT had to install some more stuff. After that I had to reboot again and again and again. Then I had to configure modems and network cards and other stuff becasue Win NT inital attemp to install them failed.
My default video settings sucked and I couldn't figure out why. I decided to put the SP#3 and it solved my video problems.
What I can't undestand is what they mean when they say that installing Linux is so hard. I can have Linux running a ready for production in about 20 to 30 min versus 1+ hr for NT
he talks about the difficulty in partitioning hardrives in linux, well i guess he has never had to do the same for windows i know that i have had to many times... not to mention low level formats.
he talks about configuring ip addresses and the difficulty in doing so under linux. i configured my cable modem a couple weeks ago with no problems what-so-ever. DHCP did everything for me basically. Yesterday i helped a friend get his modem working. I had never done it before, but i just opened up kpppd and i filled in the blanks, and viola! it worked like a charm. also it wasnt hard at all. well i should say that it wasnt any more difficult than windows.
this is just a little criticism of his article.
the bottom line is that he didnt give linux the credit that it deserves. i know that i am more experienced than most PC users, but i dont see how linux can be that much more difficult than windows in the areas that the author talked about. after all my mother is learning linux in similar areas with no more hang-ups than when she learned windows a few years back and she has problems cutting and pastteing between windows.
yes linux is not the almighty flawless OS that some people make it out to be, but give it the credit it deserves.
> ERROR: IEXPLORE caused an invalid page fault in module MSCONV97.DLL at 0137:01212d19. Stack dumped:
I have (as have many
My point is that by now, I'd rate the two installation processes very similar, with perhaps a slight edge to Linux because for standard desktop or even low-end server usage, most everything (apps, server daemons) is installed from the get-go. Some server stuff requires tweaking (as expected), but for the desktop side (the author's focus), I can have StarOffice, Netscape, e-mail, networking, and most anything else running in less than half an hour from the start. Can't say the same for any version of Windows.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Indeed the web has killed the CD-ROM encyclopedia. It has also killed CD's that have dictionaries, maps, phone numbers, medical guides, etc.
Yesterday I installed Caldera Open Linux 2.2.
:o)
I placed the CD in the drive and booted, I took all the defaults and added all the networking otions for my LAN. Within minutes I had a fully working graphical operating system that was configured for everything but Internet access.
Installed were an office suite and a copy of word Perfect, Netscape and a multitude of configuration tools.
Connection to the Internet via a modem takes 3 minutes to setup - configuration with an ISDN adapter took a little longer (But no longer than it took me to get it going with NT)
I rebooted once and the machine now stays up. Were I installing NT I would have gone through 3 reboots for the OS Install, 2 for the isdn installation, 1 for the video card.
M@t
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
I wouldn't say the web has totally killed the CD-Encyclopedia. The web does have a lot of information, but for ease of use and quickness, I'll take the CD. It's a pain to download movies of the net when you can just get them from a CD. Not to mention it's harder to find some GOOD information on your subject. If you do a search, half are dead links and the other half are crap sites that don't have anything to do with the subject. I always go to the CD first, and if that doesn't give me enough info, then I hit the web.
I agree, finding anything on the beast that is msn.com is a chore I disdain, I have people calling me up, Outlook isn't working, etc., so I say, go get the patch and they call back, I couldn't find it. Well, shit, neither can I!
Let's not even talk about their phone support.
Goddess help me seek the truth, but spare me the company of those who've found it.
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
I really *hate* saying this, because it's *probably* flamebait that I'm being so smug... but in all of my Linux installs, (which at this point are innumerable... I love fscking around with different distros. Current fave? gotta be the Slack...) I have never had to "muck around with dozens of textfiles" as you claim. If I want things to run differently then hell, yeah, I alter things- but sometimes without even knowing it. e.g.: if I wanted to reconfigure my mouse, I could look for and find the textfile where the mouse configuration is stored. Or, under Slack, I could run "mouseconfig" and have the script determine for me where the mouse is. Do I need to know? Yep. Do I need to "muck with a textfile"? Nope. The script, which presents a pretty little interface, does it for me. Same with RedHat. Haven't tried Caldera, but SuSE's got YaST, and Debian.... well, there's always Debian.
See, that's kinda also what it's about. You've got choice! Let's see you go out and buy Digital Research Windows. Or perhaps QWindows. Oh, wait a second- you CAN'T. Why not? There's no CHOICE, that's why not. At least, even with DOS, we had a choice.... and at this point, I've rebuilt my slackware 4.0 kernel twice. No problems yet, and the only reasons for a rebuild were:
1) wanted new features and
2) wanted kernel 2.2.10
and when I was updating to 2.2.10, I figured "ah, what the hell- I'll upgrade to glibc2.1 as well" and know what? the damn thing is FASTER than it was before! How is that possible?
With MS-DOS 6.22, you could notice almost no slowdown when running a program or executing a command on a 486DX2-66. But the same computer, running Windows3.1, was just a tad slower. Pile a Windows95 upgrade on there, and the sucker can hardly breathe. Upgrade again to Windows98SE and guess what? You have to wait a full 20 SECONDS before you get a reaction from a double-click on the desktop. Even under KDE, resource hog that it is, the lag is only about 5-10 seconds. Not 20. And the machine has stock RAM, 16MB of it- nothing fancy like EDO, but regular old non-parity RAM. A 1.6 GB hard drive, too. The best thing I ever did for it was installing Slack. And it's not that hard, either. Peace.
-Chris
The installation process is full of further technical hurdles and terms such as "mount point," "package dependencies" and "boot command line."
These are self explainatory, come on guy.
I bet he programs in cobol..
use HEAD.BRAIN to THINK first, THEN WRITE.
At this point, I wimped out.
Long before the installation really began. Big deal he had to know what his computer had in it. Everyone should anyway, this guy's just too stupid/lazy/both to learn what he paid 2 grand for.
But I'm not going to be hard on myself, or Linux. No one buys a PC today without an operating system already installed. Putting Windows or the Mac OS onto a blank PC would probably be just about as difficult as installing Linux.
So you never installed Windows, and you claim to be able to criticize ANY method of installation?? Are you insane or just incredibly dumb?
Go try to get your VCR to stop flashing 12:00 and leave us alone ok buddy? You know jack, and that 'article' you posted was nothing more than slander, with a few accidentally relevant points.
-SC
I don't think you should complain that Microsoft made it difficult for you to do an illegal install of the Upgrade version of one of their OSes.
Oh really? Ever had an installation fail from your OEM disc for no reason at all? I mean, their shit installer can't even exit cleanly on you.
And how many times have YOU ever had to reinstall, or do you just use your AOL account to check your email and post your spammy web page detailing your pathetic life to the world?
Here's what you should do:
Go get a screwdriver, prefferably a longish one. Make sure you are grounded first, then stick it in the power supply of your PC, and touch the pretty red wire where it's soldered in. I guarantee the world will be a better place after. *evil grin*
I've installed both RH 5.2 and 6.0 and found them both easier to install than Windows. If he was so scared why didn't he just do the workstation install instead isn't that what it is there for. If he was complaning about a RH install try putting him infront of SuSe.
As someone who has installed windows on everything from a 486/33 to a OCed Celeron 412 Windows installation is a breeze compared to a similar linux install. The thing with Windows is that it autodetects everything. Plug and Play works (much better now than the plug an pray name it used to have) and everything is automatic. WinNT will even let you script installs so the user is not even necessary. (I think you can set up apps this way too.) The hardest part of a Windows install is finding drivers and unless you have trouble grasping the "use the mouse to navigate, use the keyboard to enter data" paradigm then most people have not trouble with that. Under Linux it is a totally different story. It is impossible to get a good linux install without mucking with dozens of text files. Yes I could read the instructions, but they are often vauge and never seem to suit your hardware. I messed around with building a slackware kernel to the point where I reinstalled GCC and a host of other programs and it still did not work. To this day I still don't know why but I think it has something to do with libc5 vs. libc6. Nowhere in the HOWTO is that mentioned. Face it, machine configs are too broad to have the user input them, no HOWTO will ever be good enough for each machine type. Install a driver in windows? right click on the device click update driver and put in th disc. Under linux I have to bother with .o files pnp dump, isapnp just to get my sound card working.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
In reply to the person who said you need to know your com port for windows, you don't. Windows correctly support plug and play. In fact in windows you don't need to know the irq, dma, io, etc. of your sound card. It doesn't matter if you can or not, why should you have to? Doing something harder does not make you anymore of a man it makes you stupid. And no you can't do image editing in GIMP. In my experiance it doesn't stand up to Satori or Photoshop. Last time I checked POVRAY read text instructions. I have yet to see decent 3d renderer for Linux, I haven't seen a good Web page editor (like hotdog, homesite, or Dreamweaver) for linux. Before you say that Linux already does everything better than windows, think a little.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Although I don't want to put down first timers using linux, mklinux isn't the best option if you are the IT guy for an all-mac shop with PPCs or G3s (as would be expected) Also, even if GUIs have spoiled you, just use redhat/PPC. it auto-installs with KDE & the redhat control center