Operating Systems are never "easy to install." I've had to use Linux more than once to rescue broken Windows installations. Basically all PC computers come shipped with an OS pre-installed. The vast majority of users would be totally terrified of any reinstallation procedure.
You are perpetrating the myth that Linux is hard to install, when it's probably much easier than the other ones these days. If you're wondering why you have hardware incompatibility problems, then just look at the "Made for Windows" logo on the side of the box, and blame yourself for buying such hardware. You're a willing victim of vendor lock-in.
If you can handle a Windows XP, etc., installation, then you can certainly handle an install of Ubuntu (if you're a novice), or Debian.
This is a great point about Debian and Ubuntu. I ran Ubuntu recently but was disappointed, so I wiped it and re-installed Debian (unstable). I didn't just re-point the repositories to Debian and apt-get dist-upgrade (ultimately), I did a complete re-install. I've been running Debian since way back when. Not to get involved in a distro war but while Ubuntu cuts the raw diamond that Debian is, it puts some pieces of diamond in its pocket and leaves the user with a smaller chunk. Ubuntu seems to have performed alchemy by converting the Debian diamond into a rhinestone.
The concept seems to be that if you start tossing money haphazardly at developers, that they'll produce something better. This is readily accepted by people who come from Microsoft Windows. They seem to think that Linux is "not good" because it is "hard to use." Ask these same people what their definition of "better" is, and they'll probably break it down into "easier." They're usually satisfied when some monkey is paid to sandpaper all the sharp edges for them. Ubuntu promises to be easier, but it isn't. If it were, I would not have wiped it. Easy is a promise that Ubuntu doesn't keep, just like all other for-profit operating systems. Not saying that Ubuntu is a for-profit OS, but it apparently wants to be like one. Mark Shuttleworth's writings show me that he is looking toward Bill Gates and Microsoft Windows when planning his distribution. You don't change the way people use computers by creating a mimicry of an old standard, you create a whole new way of doing things that surpasses the accepted norm.
Debian has always "just worked" and that's what made it stand out from the other distributions in the earlier days. Tossing loose change at developers accomplishes nothing but getting them their next cup of coffee (or internet bill) paid for. Paying a developer creates an agreement (implicit or explicit) between the funder and the developer. Developers produce software that is "in the public interest" because they are part of the public themselves. A paid developer produces quality software because they have an implicit or explicit committment to uphold that is bonded with monetary exchange, not because there has been some loose change thrown into their "guitar case" by a random passer-by. It is a criminal, not a developer, that will tell you that there will be better software, if only there could be "more change" in "the guitar case."
Dunc-tanc is wrong because it creates committments between donors and recipients that likely don't benefit anyone but the donors and the recipients. Rushing the release of Debian 4 is wrong, and pointless. If you're so hot for new software then you can point your apt.sources to unstable, because "unstable" is what the next "stable" will be, when the name changes. Debian developers have always had a committment to producing quality software. That's what worked for Debian in the past, and it still works for Debian to this day.
Slashdot Mirror
Operating Systems are never "easy to install." I've had to use Linux more than once to rescue broken Windows installations. Basically all PC computers come shipped with an OS pre-installed. The vast majority of users would be totally terrified of any reinstallation procedure.
You are perpetrating the myth that Linux is hard to install, when it's probably much easier than the other ones these days. If you're wondering why you have hardware incompatibility problems, then just look at the "Made for Windows" logo on the side of the box, and blame yourself for buying such hardware. You're a willing victim of vendor lock-in.
If you can handle a Windows XP, etc., installation, then you can certainly handle an install of Ubuntu (if you're a novice), or Debian.
This is a great point about Debian and Ubuntu. I ran Ubuntu recently but was disappointed, so I wiped it and re-installed Debian (unstable). I didn't just re-point the repositories to Debian and apt-get dist-upgrade (ultimately), I did a complete re-install. I've been running Debian since way back when. Not to get involved in a distro war but while Ubuntu cuts the raw diamond that Debian is, it puts some pieces of diamond in its pocket and leaves the user with a smaller chunk. Ubuntu seems to have performed alchemy by converting the Debian diamond into a rhinestone. The concept seems to be that if you start tossing money haphazardly at developers, that they'll produce something better. This is readily accepted by people who come from Microsoft Windows. They seem to think that Linux is "not good" because it is "hard to use." Ask these same people what their definition of "better" is, and they'll probably break it down into "easier." They're usually satisfied when some monkey is paid to sandpaper all the sharp edges for them. Ubuntu promises to be easier, but it isn't. If it were, I would not have wiped it. Easy is a promise that Ubuntu doesn't keep, just like all other for-profit operating systems. Not saying that Ubuntu is a for-profit OS, but it apparently wants to be like one. Mark Shuttleworth's writings show me that he is looking toward Bill Gates and Microsoft Windows when planning his distribution. You don't change the way people use computers by creating a mimicry of an old standard, you create a whole new way of doing things that surpasses the accepted norm. Debian has always "just worked" and that's what made it stand out from the other distributions in the earlier days. Tossing loose change at developers accomplishes nothing but getting them their next cup of coffee (or internet bill) paid for. Paying a developer creates an agreement (implicit or explicit) between the funder and the developer. Developers produce software that is "in the public interest" because they are part of the public themselves. A paid developer produces quality software because they have an implicit or explicit committment to uphold that is bonded with monetary exchange, not because there has been some loose change thrown into their "guitar case" by a random passer-by. It is a criminal, not a developer, that will tell you that there will be better software, if only there could be "more change" in "the guitar case." Dunc-tanc is wrong because it creates committments between donors and recipients that likely don't benefit anyone but the donors and the recipients. Rushing the release of Debian 4 is wrong, and pointless. If you're so hot for new software then you can point your apt.sources to unstable, because "unstable" is what the next "stable" will be, when the name changes. Debian developers have always had a committment to producing quality software. That's what worked for Debian in the past, and it still works for Debian to this day.