An example with hardware - in the office we bought a Canon multifunction device. Why Canon? Because they have drivers for Linux. So, the device will work on Linux? Yes, but the installation still was a bit difficult.
My brother bought a Cannon MP640 and like you needed to install the driver from their web site in order to use the scanner functionality via a wifi network. Canon provide.deb based drivers so made it fairly straight forward for a Ubuntu laptop.
The printer was recognizes and everything was fine with it. Scanner, on the other and, needed drivers from Canon site. I downloaded and installed them. The scanner works, but if I launch the scanning application as a regular user (not root), it does not find the scanner. After some googling I found that i needed to set permissions for the port or something (it happened a while ago). Wile I could do that, I don't think that a normal user (one who could install drivers on Windows using device manager or setup.exe) would be able to.
I'm nor sure why you're having a permissions issue there. There wasn't one for the Canon install here. I would say that where possible it makes sense to deploy Ubuntu for a Linux machine in order to make life as easy as possible, though in your case there might've been a good reason to go with something different.
Though there's a surprising level of out of the box, automatic support though for inkjet printers.
Personally, for the range of HP and Epson I've setup for others and the ones I've owned myself I've never needed to resort to closed drivers. The user experience at the time was actually better than what it would've been compared to a Windows box.
I'm just surprised the anti-linuxians chose to pick on printer support as a reason a user wouldn't want to run Linux as it's an area it does quite well at. There'd be better arguments to be made about the areas Linux is weak at.
Also, XP is not the latest version of Windows and shouldn't be measured against current Linux distros.
Why not?
If XP is held up as a workable solution for end user computing and Linux is generally as competent, isn't it legitimate to argue that Linux at least meets a minimum level of usability?
Lucky for Linux users with inkjets and their difficult to implement drivers, the manufacturers of said printers seem to be willing to write the drivers. Open source drivers would be best, but for some people who are prepared to use them, closed ones work too.
Does this include cases where "properly" means "correctly running the Windows-only applications for which I bought the computer in the first place?" I didn't think so.
No, in those cases you're stuck with Windows if your paid technical help can't get the package to run under Wine.
Not everyone has a "Windows Only" package they need to run.
Those lucky souls have the option of Mac or Linux.
So I discover that a printer works best with one distro, a scanner with another, and a video card with a third. Am I supposed to run the distro that likes my video card on the bare hardware and then launch VMs every time I want to print or scan?
No, if you're wanting to run Linux, you're supposed to buy hardware that works well with it. Also if you don't know what you're doing, pay someone that does. Just like the noobs who don't know how to install and configure Windows.
Just like when you upgrade Windows, you need to make sure your hardware works with the version of OS you want to run. It's not like upgrading Windows to a newer version never required a customer to purchase new hardware because it was no longer supported or working well with the newer release.
"It would be unreasonable to expect Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to learn Linux..."
Do you expect your Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to successfully install and configure Windows 7 in addition to any attached hardware without any help from anyone?
For a competent technician either OS can be installed and configured properly. Perhaps in their case they could pay one with the savings on the Windows 7 licence fee.
Once set up, I've found that quite a few of the computer novices around here have had no issues running Ubuntu.
While for some uses Photoshop is better than GIMP, I don't know that you can really say to say "That, most people are better off using Photoshop," when to use Photoshop is to need to find more than half a thousand US dollars that may be better spent elsewhere.
If you're someone who makes there living as a graphics professional who has tasks that make the GIMP a sub-optimal choice for what ever reason, the choice can be fairly easy. For those with tasks that the GIMP may suite and who cannot neither justify the expense of Photoshop nor wish to run pirate software (with the associated malware risks of doing so), the GIMP may be a very reasonable choice. Contrary to what some like to profess, the GIMP can be very capable in the hands of someone who knows how to drive it, and can be powerful in the hands of anyone who is willing to learn.
Turning the screw: $1
Knowing which screw and which way to turn it: $199
I'm not a linux user. Are all plugins for all programs accessed that way?
Quite often, yes. I'm sure if you look hard enough though you'll be able to find ones that aren't pre-packaged and then you'd need to read the web page from where you download the plugin. In this case it'd be somewhat similar to what is required for some PS plugins.
Knowing which screw and which way to turn it: $199
Just as with most things, some superficial knowledge is helpful but again, Linux software is no orphan in this respect and is also not always as hard as some would like to try to make out.
Ah yes, the classic open source fanboy response. If something is difficult to use in any way, you are "stupid". Hilarious.
Well you clearly aren't using Ubuntu then or an equaly useable distro.
*Now, lets see. Open the Ubuntu Software Center,
*in the search box type resynth (It should now be displayed)
*Click the Resynthesizer item
*Click install
Now start GIMP, create a new image and hey presto, in Filters->Map you'll see the entry for Resynthesizer
Surely that's not that hard.
Oh, and having been called upon more than a few time to install PS plugins I can assure you it's
completely plugin dependent how easy or hard that can be. Sometimes PS is no walk in the park.
I swear, the anti FOSS trolls aren't even trying these days, they just assume if it's Linux it's always hard.
I'm not sure who's at fault, but I hope it gets addressed and some stage.
For those that can throw money at hardware, it looks like ATI Eyefinity which supports three and later four screens might be the was to go but that doesn't help those who want to use the hardware they currently have.
nVidia have Quadro cards with four outputs as well, but they're very expensive.
A few of the right people are aware of this problem, but I doubt anyones going to do anything about it for a while.
I want to try an Xorg setup over a Wayland three screen setup but I think Wayland only supports KMS drivers at the moment which pretty much rules out nVidia for me.
Most of the issues with full screen games and TwinView can be alleviated with the appropriate use of MetaMode definitions in your screen section of the xorg.conf file.
If we're talking nVidia hardware, then when you use a combination of nVidia's TwinView with x.orgs' Xinerama for three or more screens, then there are issues with windows maximising across two screens when it should only be on one.
If you're using just Xinerama or Twinview then screen boundaries are respected.
There's a "fake xinerama" patch available though that works around the TwinView with Xinerama problem.
Well it seems to me that they have already had more than a few years (stream format hasnt changed since 2004) to improve Theora (which itself was derived from a mature codec) so it is highly likely that they are already well on their way up their own diminishing returns curve.
That sounds like a good case for them to be prepared to adopt changes to their standard if that's what's required to say in the game, though some here are saying that they're not even in the game at the moment.:)
I'm not suggesting it be a moving target. Goaway suggests above that Theora is likely to run out of steam when it comes to quality versus bit-rate before h.264 does.
I'm saying that if it were necessary to 'enhance' Theora in any way in order to be relevant there is precedent for doing so. Of course, it goes without saying that there has to be reasonable stability in the format.
I'm not convinced at this stage that Theora will need enhancements such as this, but if it did, I'd rather they do what they need to do without feeling absolutely constrained, only to find the standard become irrelevant and unused in the future.
Here's hoping the optimizations they're working on bear fruit, and give Theora a boost in penetration into the 'market.'
no relevance to the fact that power management is a pain in the ass on Linux as compared to it's simplicity on Windows.
Power management is automatic on the distros I've used, switching to the batter profile automatically when power is disconnected etc, but on some hardware, the proper drivers mightn't be installed automatically.
This is similar to Windows XP as well, and unfortunately not all laptops have all their proper drivers installed by default when installing Windows from an off the shelf disc. However when a machine comes pre-installed with the OS, it's set up as needed.
When purchasing a machine pre-installed with Linux, this is thankfully the case as well.
How many people, with none, or next to no experience with installing Windows, that are able to successfully install all of the right deveice drivers for their machine?
I know experienced techs that have to spend quite a lot of time, trawling the interwebs trying to find the right version of a driver with the right mods in it to work properly with some laptops they have to deal with. Sometimes installing multiple versions while trying to get one to work as expected.
Sometime a Linux install, straight outta the box will be good to go, no muckin round necessary, and the same with Windows.
Sometimes Linux needs some futzing round as does Windows.
In this thread where people want to be helpful, ask questions, and try to help the OP, they're used as examples of what's wrong with the Linux. "Oh you shouldn't have to do anything to make it work" type statements abound.
When Windows is perfect, may we all rejoice. In the meantime it keeps plenty of people busy fixing its shortcomings.
I don't see why Linux is held up to a higher standard. It's nice to see however, over time, more and more mainstream hardware makers supporting and shipping machines running Linux. And they're also getting better at it too. Not just shoving a CD in a machine, installing it and calling that their standard OS image anymore, but actually putting some time to make sure every-thing's working as required.
Funny cause you don't need to install a laptop version of Windows to get all these power management features? Why should a user have to do anything different when it comes to Linux? This unneeded complexity is why it will never be anything more than a niche OS.
But you do need to install appropriate device drivers for power saving to work properly.
Slashdot Mirror
An example with hardware - in the office we bought a Canon multifunction device. Why Canon? Because they have drivers for Linux. So, the device will work on Linux? Yes, but the installation still was a bit difficult.
My brother bought a Cannon MP640 and like you needed to install the driver from their web site in order to use the scanner functionality via a wifi network. Canon provide .deb based drivers so made it fairly straight forward for a Ubuntu laptop.
The printer was recognizes and everything was fine with it. Scanner, on the other and, needed drivers from Canon site. I downloaded and installed them. The scanner works, but if I launch the scanning application as a regular user (not root), it does not find the scanner. After some googling I found that i needed to set permissions for the port or something (it happened a while ago). Wile I could do that, I don't think that a normal user (one who could install drivers on Windows using device manager or setup.exe) would be able to.
I'm nor sure why you're having a permissions issue there. There wasn't one for the Canon install here. I would say that where possible it makes sense to deploy Ubuntu for a Linux machine in order to make life as easy as possible, though in your case there might've been a good reason to go with something different.
Though there's a surprising level of out of the box, automatic support though for inkjet printers.
Personally, for the range of HP and Epson I've setup for others and the ones I've owned myself I've never needed to resort to closed drivers. The user experience at the time was actually better than what it would've been compared to a Windows box.
I'm just surprised the anti-linuxians chose to pick on printer support as a reason a user wouldn't want to run Linux as it's an area it does quite well at. There'd be better arguments to be made about the areas Linux is weak at.
Also, XP is not the latest version of Windows and shouldn't be measured against current Linux distros.
Why not?
If XP is held up as a workable solution for end user computing and Linux is generally as competent, isn't it legitimate to argue that Linux at least meets a minimum level of usability?
Lucky for Linux users with inkjets and their difficult to implement drivers, the manufacturers of said printers seem to be willing to write the drivers. Open source drivers would be best, but for some people who are prepared to use them, closed ones work too.
Does this include cases where "properly" means "correctly running the Windows-only applications for which I bought the computer in the first place?" I didn't think so.
No, in those cases you're stuck with Windows if your paid technical help can't get the package to run under Wine.
Not everyone has a "Windows Only" package they need to run.
Those lucky souls have the option of Mac or Linux.
So I discover that a printer works best with one distro, a scanner with another, and a video card with a third. Am I supposed to run the distro that likes my video card on the bare hardware and then launch VMs every time I want to print or scan?
No, if you're wanting to run Linux, you're supposed to buy hardware that works well with it. Also if you don't know what you're doing, pay someone that does. Just like the noobs who don't know how to install and configure Windows. Just like when you upgrade Windows, you need to make sure your hardware works with the version of OS you want to run. It's not like upgrading Windows to a newer version never required a customer to purchase new hardware because it was no longer supported or working well with the newer release.
"It would be unreasonable to expect Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to learn Linux..."
Do you expect your Grandma & grandpa who barely know how to turn on a computer to successfully install and configure Windows 7 in addition to any attached hardware without any help from anyone?
For a competent technician either OS can be installed and configured properly. Perhaps in their case they could pay one with the savings on the Windows 7 licence fee.
Once set up, I've found that quite a few of the computer novices around here have had no issues running Ubuntu.
Unfortunately your method doesn't appear to work on my computer, then I enter "emerge gimp", it tells me I need to install X..
yuk.
Arr that pesky X Windows thingmy!
Editing high res graphics on a text display, that brings back memories of my Commodore 64.
That, most people are better off using Photoshop,
While for some uses Photoshop is better than GIMP, I don't know that you can really say to say "That, most people are better off using Photoshop," when to use Photoshop is to need to find more than half a thousand US dollars that may be better spent elsewhere.
If you're someone who makes there living as a graphics professional who has tasks that make the GIMP a sub-optimal choice for what ever reason, the choice can be fairly easy. For those with tasks that the GIMP may suite and who cannot neither justify the expense of Photoshop nor wish to run pirate software (with the associated malware risks of doing so), the GIMP may be a very reasonable choice. Contrary to what some like to profess, the GIMP can be very capable in the hands of someone who knows how to drive it, and can be powerful in the hands of anyone who is willing to learn.
Turning the screw: $1
Knowing which screw and which way to turn it: $199
I'm not a linux user. Are all plugins for all programs accessed that way?
Quite often, yes. I'm sure if you look hard enough though you'll be able to find ones that aren't pre-packaged and then you'd need to read the web page from where you download the plugin. In this case it'd be somewhat similar to what is required for some PS plugins.
Knowing which screw and which way to turn it: $199
Just as with most things, some superficial knowledge is helpful but again, Linux software is no orphan in this respect and is also not always as hard as some would like to try to make out.
Ah yes, the classic open source fanboy response. If something is difficult to use in any way, you are "stupid". Hilarious.
Well you clearly aren't using Ubuntu then or an equaly useable distro.
*Now, lets see. Open the Ubuntu Software Center,
*in the search box type resynth (It should now be displayed)
*Click the Resynthesizer item
*Click install
Now start GIMP, create a new image and hey presto, in Filters->Map you'll see the entry for Resynthesizer
Surely that's not that hard.
Oh, and having been called upon more than a few time to install PS plugins I can assure you it's
completely plugin dependent how easy or hard that can be. Sometimes PS is no walk in the park.
I swear, the anti FOSS trolls aren't even trying these days, they just assume if it's Linux it's always hard.
nVidia blame xorg for this and some blame nVidia.
I'm not sure who's at fault, but I hope it gets addressed and some stage.
For those that can throw money at hardware, it looks like ATI Eyefinity which supports three and later four screens might be the was to go but that doesn't help those who want to use the hardware they currently have.
nVidia have Quadro cards with four outputs as well, but they're very expensive.
A few of the right people are aware of this problem, but I doubt anyones going to do anything about it for a while.
I want to try an Xorg setup over a Wayland three screen setup but I think Wayland only supports KMS drivers at the moment which pretty much rules out nVidia for me.
Yes, with and ATI Eyefinity card you shouldn't be hit with the no composite extension with Xinerama issue.
You can have as many cards and screens as you can fit, but note one thing;
To use more than one card in a multi-monitor setup and be able to move windows from one screen to the other you'll need to use Xinerama.
But the use Xinerama disables compositing. That means no wobbly windows, compiz, etc.
There's a hack to fudge around that by using Xorg over xserver-xgl but it isn't perfect though.
I've only had it running with KDE successfully.
http://mugginix.com/articles/2009/Nov/12/Xinerama_Composite_Fail/
Most of the issues with full screen games and TwinView can be alleviated with the appropriate use of MetaMode definitions in your screen section of the xorg.conf file.
eg Option "metamodes" "DFP-0: nvidia-auto-select +0+0, DFP-1: nvidia-auto-select +1920+0; DFP-0: 1920x1200"
This will make a two 24inch screens at 1920x1200 each available and another mode thats just one 24 at 1920x1200
If we're talking nVidia hardware, then when you use a combination of nVidia's TwinView with x.orgs' Xinerama for three or more screens, then there are issues with windows maximising across two screens when it should only be on one.
If you're using just Xinerama or Twinview then screen boundaries are respected.
There's a "fake xinerama" patch available though that works around the TwinView with Xinerama problem.
Did you try it with Xinerama? xorg.conf
Option "Xinerama" "1"
in your Section "ServerLayout" should tie all separate screens together into one desktop.
That's easy, just try and get a composited desktop in this mode though.
http://mugginix.com/articles/2009/Nov/12/Xinerama_Composite_Fail/
Well it seems to me that they have already had more than a few years (stream format hasnt changed since 2004) to improve Theora (which itself was derived from a mature codec) so it is highly likely that they are already well on their way up their own diminishing returns curve.
That sounds like a good case for them to be prepared to adopt changes to their standard if that's what's required to say in the game, though some here are saying that they're not even in the game at the moment. :)
I'm not suggesting it be a moving target. Goaway suggests above that Theora is likely to run out of steam when it comes to quality versus bit-rate before h.264 does.
I'm saying that if it were necessary to 'enhance' Theora in any way in order to be relevant there is precedent for doing so. Of course, it goes without saying that there has to be reasonable stability in the format.
I'm not convinced at this stage that Theora will need enhancements such as this, but if it did, I'd rather they do what they need to do without feeling absolutely constrained, only to find the standard become irrelevant and unused in the future.
Here's hoping the optimizations they're working on bear fruit, and give Theora a boost in penetration into the 'market.'
no relevance to the fact that power management is a pain in the ass on Linux as compared to it's simplicity on Windows.
Power management is automatic on the distros I've used, switching to the batter profile automatically when power is disconnected etc, but on some hardware, the proper drivers mightn't be installed automatically.
This is similar to Windows XP as well, and unfortunately not all laptops have all their proper drivers installed by default when installing Windows from an off the shelf disc. However when a machine comes pre-installed with the OS, it's set up as needed.
When purchasing a machine pre-installed with Linux, this is thankfully the case as well.
But here's the problem.
First you're talkin Windows 7, not XP.
Second, you're talkin about your particular Dell, not every machine, like what people expect Linux to work perfectly with outta the box.
Third, there are many machine you can install Linux on, and not need do another thing to have EVERYTHING on it work otta the box.
I do like Windows 7, and I like Linux, and I do try to judge them both by the same criteria.
But you're comparing an OEM install for Windows and a non-OEM version of Linux (there are OEM optimized versions)
Try that again with an off the shelf Windows install disc and see how you go on all laptops in the market.
How many people, with none, or next to no experience with installing Windows, that are able to successfully install all of the right deveice drivers for their machine?
I know experienced techs that have to spend quite a lot of time, trawling the interwebs trying to find the right version of a driver with the right mods in it to work properly with some laptops they have to deal with. Sometimes installing multiple versions while trying to get one to work as expected.
Sometime a Linux install, straight outta the box will be good to go, no muckin round necessary, and the same with Windows.
Sometimes Linux needs some futzing round as does Windows.
In this thread where people want to be helpful, ask questions, and try to help the OP, they're used as examples of what's wrong with the Linux. "Oh you shouldn't have to do anything to make it work" type statements abound.
When Windows is perfect, may we all rejoice. In the meantime it keeps plenty of people busy fixing its shortcomings.
I don't see why Linux is held up to a higher standard. It's nice to see however, over time, more and more mainstream hardware makers supporting and shipping machines running Linux. And they're also getting better at it too. Not just shoving a CD in a machine, installing it and calling that their standard OS image anymore, but actually putting some time to make sure every-thing's working as required.
At least the command output was nice enough to tell you what to type to get access to it.
You can install it by typing: sudo apt-get install powertop
Funny cause you don't need to install a laptop version of Windows to get all these power management features? Why should a user have to do anything different when it comes to Linux? This unneeded complexity is why it will never be anything more than a niche OS.
But you do need to install appropriate device drivers for power saving to work properly.