Slashdot Mirror
CNN Installs Linux
Almost everybody seems to have submitted this CNN "Ignorant journalist has a tough time installing Linux" story. I'm a little tired of this theme, but decided to run it not only because so many of you submitted it, but also out of nostalgia; I wrote something similar myself back when Slashdot was so fresh and new that "getting slashdotted" meant maybe 200 e-mails max, and now I'm a full-time Linux user. So please be kind to this poor overworked journalist. Everybody (even you) started out ignorant and had to learn, right? ;-)
Let's settle for inexperienced but intelligent newbies. As to your math and science majors, perhaps they, like so many others, fail to RTFM.
I've been working with small computers since 1975, and have written in C, C++, Pascal, assembler, and even Forth. I've designed embedded processor systems and designed and written serial protocols.
In spite of my experience, I have suffered tremendous frustration with Linux. Also, as one who writes user docs, I do RTFM. The source of the problems is as follows:
1) Linux docs are, to be kind, less than wonderful. They make too many assumptions about the background of the reader. I have yet to find a good presentation of disk partitioning strategies, for example.
2) Distros which use the RPM installation offer only one safe option: Install Everything. Selective package installation leads to things which don't work, boots which stall for many minutes, and a grand variety of other mysteries.
3) Red Hat, in particular, has an installation process which is easily fouled by the user making an unexpected response. Why would the user do that? Because the instructions and/or prompts are inadequate.
4) X server installation and setup is a very interesting source of problems. My video cards and monitors are capable of 1600x1200, but Caldera is the only distro to have correctly set up that configuration on my machines. And talk about user-hostile: tweaking in Hz, KHz, and microseconds is definitely not for newbies. I'm a hardware designer with a lot of experience with deflection systems, and I still don't want to go there.
5) Sending a newbie to the HOWTOs is a great way to send someone postal. The HOWTOs I have attempted to use have not been very well written, some have been horribly out of date, and for the most part, I was left (after an hour or more) with no solution to the problem they were supposed to help me resolve.
Now before the flaming begins, I freely grant that Windows docs suck. That is irrelevant. the subject is Linux, and Linux docs suck, too. The difference between Linux and Windows at installation time is that Windows (mostly) does a better job of handling the routine setup issues.
I've used Windows since 2.0 (which only stayed on my system for a few hours), and routinely install and manage NT installations. I'm getting better with Linux, but only after having invested nearly full time activity for several weeks, and am not by any means ready to commit my company to using Linux in product.
With all respect to everyone here, the proliferation of Linux will soon be limited by precisely these issues: documentation and setup.
Caldera has it mostly right, and I will soon install their 2.3, which will likely be still better. Let the others look to their model.
Documentation is my biggest issue. All the Linux users insist that it's anywhere from adequate to great, but those of us who didn't cut our teeth on *nix know it just ain't so. Until the Linux cognoscenti come out of denial on this, things won't improve.
My complaints are usually greeted with suggestions that I write some HOWTOs. Hello? I've already stated that I have problems in need of answers. How does that qualify me to write instruction for others? The people who need to write HOWTOs are the Linux gurus who insist there is no need. See the problem?
I live in hope, but I can only work with reality, so for now, Linux is only a dream.
--- Bill
As roblimo mentioned, it is an old theme.. and most of the stories share something in common.. the author hasn't even tried installing Windows before, much less linux. They've never installed an operating system before yet they feel qualified to say "Linux is hard to install". Hard to install compared to what?
This same guy would probably have a hard time doing a windows 98 upgrade. NT would probably take all day, just like linux. Linux is (depending on the distro) often easier to install than NT, so it's not fair to say that linux is harder to install.
I'm reading something along the lines of, "Ok, it's supposedly installed. Now what?"
Perhaps there needs to be a tutorial of sorts, to point out what tools are available? (Problem: they may or may not have been installed...). A novice, after all, isn't necessarily going to have a clue what he or she has just installed, how to start it, or so forth, and handing 'em a pointer to the HOWTOs and LDP guides may be just a tad too overwhelming in terms of reading material.
So, what do y'all think? Is it better that they be encouraged (just) to read, possibly driving people away; or should they instead be shown a demo, featuring the various apps and so forth?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Ok, this isn't directly on topic. So sue me.
This guy tried to install Linux. So did I, about 2 months ago. He knew very little about his computer equipment and was somewhat unprepared. I, on the other hand, was intimately familiar with everything in my system and was extremely prepared. At the end of the day, both of us were in the same place... at the ugly prompt. Sure, being ugly isn't a sin, but being useless IS. At that particular junction, I was forced to boot back into Win98 to read e-mail/burn CDs/web surf/type documents/play games. I can do all of those in Windows, but after 2 months I still cannot do all of those things in Linux. (the read email and web surf things were solved when I got PPP to work in Linux - but I just never knew where to look for getting anything else to happen)
Linux is not hard to install. It's actually quite simple if you're well prepared. But it's not nice to learn how to be a Linux power user.
Here's why: In the computer world, there's two kinds of software/UI design: software that's designed by programmers, and software that's designed by professional designers. Linux is the former, Windows is the latter. Windows is much better to look at and deal with, which makes it SEEM easier. Also, everything's easy to find if you know how to look, and in Windows since looking is universally better, finding is also universally better. Finally, there's better tools in Windows for that kind of stuff, tools which are easy and obvious to find. Even though the tools are there in Linux and they are comprehendable, they are damn hard to find and still not entirely as easy to use as their Windows counterparts. Although intelligent programmers who spend hours and hours learning (no one learns how to be a Linux guru in 60 min or even 60 days) are able to get around, most of the humans on the planet don't have the willpower, patience, time, blood, sweat, and tears to put into Linux like the real wizards do. And that's assuming that all humans are as highly intelligent as those big programming brains, which they're unfortunately not. Oh, and anywhere from 5-50 years of intense experience with computers does give some of the linux guys an edge over others.
Naturally, I knew how to change directories, run certain programs, get around X-Windows, etc. But that was all. God knows I had thousands of programs before me in myriad subdirectories, but as I was walking through the directories I felt like a lost child in a store who kept walking into rooms I wasn't supposed to be in. My biggest problem, however, was the lack of a nice centralized place to go to when I needed to do something and wanted to look through the available programs for something to help me.
For example: I had to set up PPP. Didn't know how. Read the HOWTO, but it confused the hell out of me (and I have an exteral modem, so configuring it SHOULD have been trivial). Finally a week later, I heard someone mention linuxconf. Then I used that to get PPP to work, so I downloaded Seti@Home. Didn't know how to unzip/untar/un-rpm it.(I didn't know the specific command, and didn't know where I could find it) That took a week to find out too. Then I did, and couldn't figure out how to run it properly. Another two weeks to figure out it needed a chmod. This is for an easily configured program that runs from the prompt! Imagine what it would be like to try and write CDs? Or if I downloaded source that needed compiling or a kernel patch?
My point? If you show me how to do it, I can figure it out easily. If you don't show me, then I'm not dumb for not knowing. There's too many of you elitist swine out there who think everyone who says they are having a hard time with Linux are against Linux and are the "enemy". I nor the author of the article are the "enemy", yet you damn well treat us like it just because we don't have 50 years to scour our hard drives and man entries for simple commands. Yes, I still want to know how to use it. No, I don't want 50 replies with "go to freshmeat and there's cd writing programs there". Yea there are programs like that on freashmeat. I just don't know which one is best for me. Until I can figure out this stuff easier (not easily, cause a lot of it is a bitch in Windows too) I won't use Linux until I feel comfortable using everything that I need to use that works fine for me in Windows.
This guy who tried to install Linux is ultimately on our side. He wants to learn. You think that he's dumb because he needs help to learn. But he's not. In the end, if he can never get Linux to work like you can, then he at least can probably write better news articles than you can.
But I digress... he represents the next big wave of Linux users. They are going to be OKAY installing it (not without pain, but neither is Windows) but clueless on how to get around in it. RTFM is a useless strategy here because:
1. It's the system that's hard to use and understand (and it does have SERIOUS room for improvement), and RTFM just helps you learn specific things. It doesn't let you "poke around". Well designed tools and tips will help the situation, but it's Unix. It's hard to begin with. Even for geniuses, it takes a while to sink in.
2. How can you RTFM if you can't FTFM? (Find The Fucking Manual)
So, a better way of helping people explore will need to be created. That way, people can look around and figure out what they want (or need) to use rather than need help every time a different situation comes up. Until then, if you want Linux to grow past being a tech fad, then you'll cut out the shitty attitude toward anyone who's not the level of Linux Guru that you are.
If you harbor no malcontent toward those who are seemingly clueless about computers, my apologies for this article... it doesn't apply to you.
I have. It works. Has worked for some time with RedHat, at least.
I think the BEST thing about Windows 98 is the fact Microsoft _has_ heard the complaints about Windows 95 installation and has done something about it. On most modern computers, I can have Windows 98 installed and running in about 45 minutes. If you're not used to UNIX, installing Linux will take at least twice as long.
The only difficult steps in installing RedHat Linux (other distributions can vary in difficulty) are: partitioning the disk (still difficult with Windows) and selecting the video adapter (can also be a pain in Windows if your adapter is not auto-detected, which seems to be about half the time). If you do know your video adapter, RedHat will ask you if you want to automatically start X. If you do, it will set up xdm to run at startup, so you never even see a command prompt.
My last Linux install took about 45 min...but that was because I was doing an remote FTP install from ftp.varesearch.com...try THAT with Windows. :-D
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
.to screw in a lightbulb. Answer: they'd have to live in the dark because noone could give anyone else any advice on how to fix it, therefore noone would ever learn how to change the lightbulb. The attitude expressed by some of the posters in this situation amazes me to no end. Constantly belittling these people. At least the reported tried to install the operating system. As a new user to Linux it amazes me that older users would have such a pompus attitude to a person in this situation...for any reason. I've installed NT, 98, 95, 3.1 etc, etc., and must admit that with minor bumps I found my first full Linux install pretty easy, just different. If I were to have had a problem though I would like to think that there are people out there that would help and not look at my email client or my browser info or whatever else and reject me because the only computer that's currently hooked up has win98 on it. Look around people, Linux is something special as in it's an old concept reborn in new technology. If y'all can't grow up and learn to be supportive and helpful of someone who at least tries for whatever reason, ya might as well go find someother operating system to worship because Linux won't survive much less grow.
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it isn't -- with all OSes, with different mixes of hardware, etc. I've had Windows NT install with no tears (okay, with few tears), and I've spent days struggling to get Linux installations working worth a damn. On different occasions, I've had the opposite experience. My current theory is that it's the phase of the moon.
We should try to get a major news organization to attempt installing Windows NT on a machine that has Linux pre-installed. Send 'em the machine and a shrinkwrapped copy of NT Workstation. I'll even volunteer to provide the machine and the copy of Windows to CNN if they promise to try to return them safely.
The reality is that despite the efforts of various Linux vendors to change this, no operating system is simple to install for someone with little or no computer knowledge, and that it's more confusing still for them to install an OS over another, pre-existing one. It's about time that that fact gets reported in the press, rather than just that "Linux is hard to install".
Maybe you should do that now?
I actually like them. I hate it when a manual for, say, a word processor, starts out by talking about the mouse and menus, like I have never used a computer before. What a waste of space that could be devoted to better covering the product I purchased.
They make too many assumptions about the background of the reader.
This is, perhaps, true. While I think manuals should avoid duplication of effort, I think they should also state what you are expected to know already, and point you in the right direction if you do not. Linux HOWTOs sometimes do this, but often do not. Point.
I have yet to find a good presentation of disk partitioning strategies, for example.
Linux does have a "Partition" mini-HOWTO, which does a good job of explaining it all, but it is not for the faint-of-heart. Most new users will need to read through it twice (at least).
Unfortunately, if you want to setup your own partitions (required to dual-boot), there is no magic bullet that will make your life easier. This is a fact of life, and there is nothing Linux can do about it.
Distros which use the RPM installation offer only one safe option: Install Everything.
Incorrect. One of the key design goals of RPM is dependency management. If package A depends on package B being installed, and you attempt to install just A, the installer will not move on unless you agree to install the dependencies.
Red Hat, in particular, has an installation process which is easily fouled by the user making an unexpected response.
I have never had this problem, but I have no doubt that you have. Installing an OS is generally rather a difficult process. Sometimes things go wrong which break the auto-install. Red Hat usually falls back to a menu at that point, at least. Windoze locks up the machine.
X server installation and setup is a very interesting source of problems.
I think that it is universally agreed that configuring X is about the least fun thing you can do on Linux, with the possible exception of writing your own sendmail.cf file.
Plug-N-Play monitors are starting to be supported, but the fact of the matter is, you pretty much need OEM support for video setup to be easy, be it Linux or Windoze.
For example: It took me about 10 seconds to get my Samsung SyncMaster 900p 19" monitor working under Linux. Why so quick? Because Samsung posted mode-lines for XFree86 on their website, bless 'em.
The difference between Linux and Windows at installation time is that Windows (mostly) does a better job of handling the routine setup issues.
I disagree completely. What Windoze has that Linux does not is OEM support. If every computer company under the sun committed to supporting Linux the way they do Microsoft, then your problems would be solved. Since they do not, however, you are limited to the small set of hardware which has been figured out by third-parties.
Documentation is my biggest issue. All the Linux users insist that it's anywhere from adequate to great, but those of us who didn't cut our teeth on *nix know it just ain't so.
I really have to disagree here, as well. Have you ever looked at what comes in the box of Windows9X for docs? A 60 page booklet that explains how to use the mouse! Please! Linux's documentation may suck, but Windows' is much worse!
It is not documentation, online help, auto-installers, or other stuff that makes Windows easy and/or Linux hard. It is OEM support:
If the OEMs did all that for Linux, Linux would install much smoother. I know; I was careful to pick supported hardware when building my system, and Linux installed like a dream.
Windows98 will not boot at all. Despite weeks of hacking, it appears to be a fundamental conflict with the OS. Microsoft agrees.
In the end, it all comes down to OEM support.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
If he finds Linux is more difficult to install than Windows, it's not because he's stupid. It's because Windows is superior.
Deal with that. Take a deep breath. If you have trouble doing that, smash some China, then take a deep breath.
Blaming the user for their difficulties setting up a program is like blaming a driver because when their car breaks down on I-5, they don't understand it's due to a dirty spark plug and a frazzled timing belt. "Well, Duh! Obviously your coolant line is leaking, MORON!" Well designed software, like well desinged cars, let you choose your level of abstraction. If you want to work on your OS at the command line level, that's wonderful. But if there are no other choices, then the software is inherently poor.
Anybody still out there who remembers the days when they admired Microsoft for bringing software to the masses? I think I do... dimly. And making the complex simple is and admirable thing. One of the most admirable things, in my mind.
Don't flame this poor man. Fix what sucks about Linux. If there are no things that suck about Linux, then we might as well go home because there is no longer any room for improvement. But we all know that, along with the many wonderful things about a free and community-defined OS, there are also some pitfalls. Wouldn't it be great to impress the world with our response to these concerns?
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
1). He knows he is ignorant. No need to point it out.
2). He is like most users, therefore his experience is valuable info.
3). I don't think he really should have known all this stuff. I mean, the guy probably just used his pc for word, email, the web, and maybe a game or two. There is really no need for him to learn all of this stuff.
4). Don't wail about stupid users - you were once like that too. More importantly, you have to realize that most people don't give a rats ass about the insides of their computers, and don't want to. Just cause you like to putz about with arcane stuff doesn't mean others do.
5). This was supposed to be funny - and I think it was hilarious. So those of you planning to roast the guy, get the sticks out of your ass.
This kind of a preemptive strike directed at the very vocal majority who always seem to take these things to heart. I don't mean to offend anyone.
Cheers, Geon
- Add Voodoo Banshee. Install drivers with supplied disk. Throw away S3Virge. Discover half stuff crashes. Download new drivers off web. Most things run better. Except Quake II based stuff. Go off to 3dfx and pickup new 3dfx.dll for Banshee. QII runs better.
- Then I tried to run the same system on linux (thank godness for Partition Magic
:). Banshee drivers _do_ exist for Linux: they're alpha. I managed somehow to get it set up. Then I decide the resolution is too high to actually see. Run XConfigurator. It coredumps. Leave linux alone for a month. Delete partition because I wasn't using it...
I tend to run a policy of periodically buying bleeding edge hardware. Neither Linux nor Windows particularly like this, but Linux does it better. It's way easier to find a web page that says "Linux doesn't support this" than "Ummm.... certain Win32 apps don't really like this card..."Because Linux geeks like new h/ware you can usually find information fast!
... and today's pet project has
An eye-catching topic, but slightly sarcastic one too. :)
With support from friends who know linux and can walk you through the installation, or if you just happen to be a natural-born computer person, linux can be for you. But, it's all in what you want to use linux for and where you want it to take you. Nobody is forcing you to use Linux. If you don't like it, then go back to Windows hell
Yes, Linux is free, and that's great, but it's not something that you should even take as a factor at first in whether or not it's right for you. The fact that it's free makes it a great choice for those who already use it and want to develop for it. You have the power to improve and to contribute, and that, above all, is the main reason that Linux is free.
If you want a great server, Linux is for you. If you want a reliable, mission-critical OS, Linux is for you. If you want to use one of Linux's many tools and applications, or just want to get away from Windows, or develop new software on an open operating system, Linux is for you. If you want to become more productive, put time into learning linux and how to put it's powerful tools to use.
Linux is NOT for you if it's going to make you look cool. Linux is not for you if you can't accept the fact that it's not perfect either. Linux is not for you if you do not want to put forth any work into making it into a more perfect OS. And linux is not for you if your definition of a "contribution to humanity" is yet another bitchsession about how the world doesn't revolve around you.
As to his inability to identify his video card...
Let's say I'm installing a new widget for my Thingamajig. Knowing nothing about Thingamajigs beyond how to use them, I first read up on them, particularly on the new widget I'm installing. What if I want to know what widget is currently installed, but I don't know enough about my Thingamajig to find out? I could ask a friend who is knowledgeable about Thingamajigs. I could contact the manufacturer or distributor of my Thingamajig and ask. Or, I could throw my hands up in the air, give up, and despair that "Thingamajigs are so hard to use!".
Linux is not drool-proof by any stretch of the imagination. Linus, Caldera, and the like may talk of the desktop market, but outside of IT-supported corporate networks, only users with at least some technical bent will install Linux. Microsoft isn't going to lose their market for a drool-proof OS any time soon. The fact that the users of said family of OSs don't know that with a little bit of effort they wouldn't be so Blue is irrelevant: if they aren't interested, they won't make the effort.
I'll be surprised if Linux ever penetrates the drool-proof market. It's an OS built by its users, for its users. OSS will tend to be designed for the people by which it is designed.
Forget it, non-technical journalist, you aren't going to run Linux well unless you're willing to make some effort; if you aren't, Windows may be better for you.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
If I were Caldera this article would bother me greatly. After all, he bases the article on an old version of OpenLinux, and then recommends people to use Redhat or stick with Windows.
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
Personally, what scares me is that this guy is a technology journalist... What sort of technology does he cover exactly? farming tools?
-
1. I boot to "DOS" and I get this ugly prompt. What to do? I got get breakfast.
2. After breakfast, I come back and call my friend, a MSCE. He tells me to change to the CD-ROM drive. It won't let me. He says I need something called a "driver." But, I don't know what that is. So, he comes over and makes it work.
3. Now I've run this "setup.exe" file and it's doing some weird stuff. It's asking me for some number I don't know. I call Microsoft and sit on hold for 2 hours before I find out where it is--on the "Certificate of Authenticity." What's that?
4. OK, the darn thing froze up while installing. Time to reboot. It takes me only 2 minutes to do what took hours before.
5. I'm all installed up, but it didn't detect my sound card and I can't get my screen to display more than 16 colors! My MSCE friend says it's because I need to get a "video driver" because I've got an "AGP" graphics card, whatever that is. He says to get it off the internet, but I can't get Windows to dial out on my modem. It won't see it.
6. Now it says I've performed an illegal operation! What did I do?
I don't know what I've done and I can't get it to work, but now I feel like a real live major geek! I'm cool!
Have you ever tried to install Windows from scratch on a computer (Win95, win31 was a pleasant breeze as long as you had the disks on a network. We used to set up Win31 machines with scripts in like 2minutes each)?
... which doesn't work because you're using the realmode drivers).
It's a royal pain in the ass.
You sit there searching for drivers for your hardware that works (unless you get shafted and something happens like the protected mode drivers for the IDE controller are on a CD-ROM
It's even worse if, like this guy, you don't even know what hardware you have.
Win95 tries to plug-and-play. It invariably screws up complex machines.
Several of my friends built high-end machines this summer. Dual-slocket Celerons, DVD drives, CD burners, sound cards, NICs. We were using a variety of standard video cards while waiting for G400s. The only piece of hardware that didn't give us any trouble was the one that doesn't work in Linux -- the DVDs. Everything would have been fine in Linux, where I could have configured it without the bloody PnP drivers magically making up rules, and the operating system idiotically failing to detect conflicts as it assigned IRQs. It took several days to get those systems working with Win98. (NT was unhappy with the large HDs and never quite worked right, though I don't remember if it was the 20gig IDEs or 18gig SCSIs it didn't like, or if it was just a partition size thing).
Face it. You think windows is easy because you buy computers with it already installed. It's way more of a nightmare than Linux. At least someone who knows hardware and Linux can install Linux quite easily. I'm an extremely experienced windows user, and I can't necessarily make windows work right.
"Now in the 1990s, I'm dual platform and can read some HTML -- in other words, I know nothing about the innards of contemporary PCs.
"My advice is if you've just barely mastered Windows, extremely literal and never touched a computer in the DOS/UNIX era, stick with Windows or go with a more user-friendly Linux distributor like Red Hat.
"If you've opened up a box and know all about UNIX, perhaps you'll even find this fun. "
This is a very honest and true gauge of where exactly linux is:
A) If you've stayed in your windows all your life, go learn SOME dos and basic Unix commands before you install Linux (OR ANY unix for that matter)
B) If, then, you DO decide to install linux, try and use an Up-to-date and user friendly version- IE RH 6.0.
take it or leave it, but that's where linux stands right now. I remember my first time, i had barely ever used unix, and when X didnt detect my video card (some slackware version, don't recall) i junked it and re-installed win95. Now, RH 6.0 is nothing, could do it in my sleep...
/. poster #104543567
-stax
{Parody mode on of original}
These god-fangled Model-Ts may be Ford's hotest piece of metal but are they the car of the people?
Would you recognise a z-crank if you tripped over one?
My month-long effort to be cool and try and move from point A to point B without crashing at point C,D,E,F gives me chilling flashbacks to learning how to ride a horse without having people laugh at me. For now, I'm glad to have ol' Silver back with me to rely on.
The good ol' boys warned me beforehand. They had trying finding the pedals and their friends throw bits of metal around on that silly assembly line thingy. I'm car-literate since I've actually washed an early model before becoming a news flack. We're in the 90s but I'm a bit clueless about all the moving odd bobs inside.
My advice is if you've barely mastered whip-cracking and never changed a tire, stick with the ol' feller or take the train. If you know an oil change from elbow grease, perhaps you'd even find this fun (gasp of shock and horror).
In truth, stalling made the task of backing out the driveway wasted the whole day, wasting at least 3 hours figuring out those crazy levers. In the end, with no decent horse sense and as chummy with a wheel as I was with phys-ed torture sessions, you know, the one where the teach' nursemaided those skiiny geeks and prevented us jocks from having fun.
I opened the engine and figured out the hole for that metal thingy you call the crank handle, right? I try to yank the gear as written on that flimsy bit of paper they call instructions manual but those gunshot backfires nearly gave me a heart attack. Not a good omen.
I turn to the "Cleaning Engine" page in teh manual but couldn't figure out that picture with all the bits and pieces meant. The next page says something about changing oil but all I want to do is drive this silly hunk of junk, not build it. Opening up the engine didn't show any spots to hook the reins.
I turn the handle but think something's wrong as it was making all these funny noises like my horse has colic or something. I press the pedal and nearly wiped out my favourite mail box. At least a horse is smart enough to avoid impaling itself.
Well, it least it seems to move but don't know why I have to keep looking over my shoulder to see where I'm going all the time. I survive smashing into the barn door but the manual warns against driving without flags and horn blowing. I get outright dirty trying to count the cylinders and rpms as suggested, taking half an hour to motor 50 feet back to the house.It then dies for some strange unknown reason so I know it's time for lunch.
After a nice big juicy steak, I give the od' editor a hollar but he mentions something about gas fill-up and to check the tank (as if I'd containminate my washing water!). After a while, a neighbour drives by so I swallow my pride (yes siree, gave me indigestion for resta the day) and asks what a gas tank looks like. He mocks me "And you're learning how to drive?". Next time he gives any mouth, I've gotta shotgun handy. He helps me fill it up a bit (at least I guess which is the right hole) but then some shit musta hit the fanbelt so I drop this project for a couple of hours.
At this point, I'm burnt out. I start wildly guessing buttons to push. God must have been with me as it started again (must remember to buy a new can for that mailbox). I can make it to the barn (and even stop!) without hitting anything too important. That's good enough for me.
Then I head home, bleary-eyed. My superficial knowledge of gasoline engines made this project frustrating. I would have helped if I were a mechanic. On the other hand, I'm surprised I got as far as I did, just like trying to connect with a baseball bat. It was mildly fulfilling in a mysterious way. I may have no idea how to use this car but I got my hands dirty.
{Parody mode off}
I sure would go a lot better when someone invents the automatic GUI transmission! No disrespect to the poor guy but unfortunately it is relatively early days and the only way to learn is to be willing and get those hands dirty. Congrats on making a start and a warning to the rest of the Linux mechanics that exotic details of kernel file spaces is as relevant as quantum physics to the average driver.
LL
The one good thing about the Windoze install is autodetection of hardware from a huge variety of vendors.
To us geeks, that's lame. I mean, fer chrissakes, how could anyone not know what their hardware is, and if we don't, we know what's close-enough-to-work-on-boot. Don't have an SBSuperMegaWowzersLive! driver on your Windoze CD? Tell Windoze to pretend it's an SB64 or whatever, which'll be close enough for now, and install the right drivers later, simple, right?
Wrong.
The fact that the guy didn't even know if he had a video card (i.e. that "having a video card" is exactly the same in terms of installation as "having a chipset-built-into-the-motherboard") should be telling us something. I'll bet you any money that if the Linux install had popped up a cute little window with a penguin and an animated magnifying glass (to show the user that the system hadn't hung) and said something like "now looking for video hardware... you have a FooBar video card... now installing FooBar video drivers... now looking for sound card...", the guy would have been happy. Since the home user still has to install Linux him/herself, it's incumbent on us to make that installation at least as easy as a Windoze install.
Your installer can't fully identify the hardware? Make a guess based on the manufacturer. Can't even guess? Default to 640x480x16 VGA, just like Windoze, and pop up a note to the effect of "I couldn't figure out what you've got, but I know this'll work. Read this file or go to this URL for assistance." Heck, since we're not M$, we can even provide useful information - like "I dumped the information I could glean from your hardware into this other file. Show this file to someone who knows a lot about computers, and see if he can recognize something."
NO, the Windoze way of "plug it in and watch the installer scribble on your hard drive as it makes educated guesses as to your hardware config" approach isn't the kind of flexibility we want for ourselves, but if Linux is ever gonna Dominate The World, we've gotta stop designing for ourselves and start designing for the guys who don't know whether they've got video cards or not.
Really? A clueless newbie you say? Strange that many of the Math and Computer Science majors at my college can't install Windows 95 on their machines, and call me instead.
Time after time I've said (not on here, but in RL) that if you have not done something before, it will be hard. It won't be hard after doing it a couple of times. Operating System installation, sky diving, you name it.
I find Operating System installation easy, be it Windows or Linux. I don't know the first thing about automobiles, and have never changed the oil in my truck, so if I tried it now, would that be a fault of the vehicle? No!
You can't make everything so simple that Joe Schmoe can do it easily and quickly on the first try. Heck, my mom didn't learn how to change channels with a remote control until about a year ago. She is of above normal intelligence, she'd just never done it before, and always had someone else there to do it for her.
Just remember Pig Latin. Really hard until you got the jist of it, and then it suddenly became second nature. The same thing holds true for Computers. If you've never formatted a hard disk before, it will seem impossible to you.
. when in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout --Robert Heinlein
Ok, this guy had an older version, and installation has improved a lot in the meantime, so that's a little unfair.
.25 before it would play.
/etc. I also learned about "man" on the way. All in all a good experience because I wasn't expecting much different and I learned a lot. But to someone who has been protected from all knowledge of how computers work, and who could care less anyway, this is a nightmare. Sorry, but it is.
But most of what this guy complains about has something like a kernel of truth to it. Win9x does do a very impressive job of probing for hardware. When it gets it wrong, you are in real trouble, and it will take hours to fix it, if possible at all. But nearly all the time, it gets it right, and you have to give them some credit for that. If for any reason, you don't know what kind of hardware you have, things get tough in Linux installation.
Two examples personally, with RH5.2, both with video setup. Until recently I had been using a very ancient Mitsubishi monitor to which I had lost the little booklet. It happened to be one of those models with zillions of close relatives and it took me a flashlight and a magnifying glass to pull the actual monitor model number off a microprint label on the back of the monitor. The model wasn't on the compatible monitor list so I had to specify frequencies on my own. Eventually I found a web reference to the monitor that specified it's frequencies. Using those got my monitor setup, but it didn't quite work yet. Turned out the whole number horizontal frequency was *just* short of being sufficient for the resolution I desired, so I had to bump it up by
The other problem was with my video card, a Spider Tarantula. Spider is now out of business with no web page. Card is not mentioned in compatibility list, though I remembered it was an S3 964. My manual does not mention what kind of dot clock setup is on the card. So guessing time again. Eventually I guess right, and finally X starts.
In the process of getting X started I also had to learn Emacs (well, *learn* is a little strong ) to be able to edit the configuration file, after finding it in
This doesn't mean Linux can't be used by everyday computer users. It just means that it is highly recommended that they buy a pre-installed system, or be ready to buy Linux compatible hardware before installing. At the least, get a geek friend to help. Microsoft is no different in this respect except having less unsupported hardware, and that is changing.
Most of the negative comments here fall in one of three categories:
1) If you don't know what a (video card/modem/etc.) is, you have no business installing an OS.
2) Linux isn't much harder to install than Windows NT, so what are you complaining about?
3) If you don't know what a kernel is, what are you doing installing Linux?
Numbers one and two are pure crap. Number one is untrue and elitist; the vast majority of people don't know about all the components in their computers, but quite a few people could install, say, Win98. (A few people have talked about how hard the Win98 install is. They have either talked about difficulties like not finding the CD key - hmm, maybe the sticker on the CD marked CD Key? - or talked about how long it takes, which is irrelevant as ease of use is not a function of length.)
It is true that a Linux install (BTW, when I say Linux install, I mean "a recent version of RedHat". And no, I don't mean an ancient, pre-GUI-install version of OpenLinux.) is not much, if at all, harder than a WinNT one. This is because the WinNT install sucks. The first time I installed NT4, I encountered blue-screen STOPs at three different places. There are also some very stupid parts to its design... for instance, why does trying to install your hard drive and CD-ROM as separate devices cause problems during the install? And on that topic, since when is an IDE hard drive a SCSI device? This may be a reason why WinNT has had little success in non corporate/power-user areas. Another installer being bad is no excuse, though; I'm sure RedHat has HP/UX beat too.
The next point makes sense, though. This is all because there is a huge Linux-for-grandmas push on. Power users should have no problem installing Linux. The problem is that it is now being targeted to home users, and you simply can't expect home users to know all about their hardware and know some commandline Unix.
Anyway, the install front has been given too much attention lately. There are quite a few projects: Caldera's Lizard (already out, now open source), Mandrake's Panoramix (pretty bad interface and design, in my opinion), and whatever RedHat's is called (Lorax? Or is that the distribution?). This should soon be improved. And once it is, tech journalists will continue to use outdated version and talk about how hard they are - "Compared to Win98, Debian 0.9 is very difficult!".