Linux is a PAIN IN THE NECK!

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:34 am

/rant on

I have a little history with this 'greatest OS of all times' already, like needing almost a whole week to get automake to work, and other peanuts.

Now I have downloaded Firefox 1.5 and looked for how to install it. I had hoped there was a packaged version I could install with YaST, but nada.

I opened the archive the download came in, hoping to find an installer there. Negative.

Firefox for Linux doesn't have an auto-update function like the windows version either, so there is no way around a manual installation.

So I went to the mozillazine.org forums to find out how to manually install the program: I have to backup my profile data, then delete the original profile data, and then "install" Firefox 1.5. Finally I should copy my profile data back.

I haven't even been able to locate Firefox on my Linux box. Searching for it with the Gnome 'File Manager' revealed nothing. It's neither in /bin, nor in /etc, nor in /usr/bin, etc. And even if I had found it, I still wouldn't know how to 'install' the new version - simply extract the tarball, or what?

You Linux geeks out there who tell me it was such a wonderful OS - for me as somebody who needs his OS to simply be a tool that should work w/o a hitch, allowing me to do my work, not fiddle around with a sorely documented big box of poorly sorted lego bricks: For me Linux is a crap OS.

It maybe heaven on earth for ppl who love pulling things around in their machine's most basic software installation. For me it's a major pain in the behind, period.

/rant off

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:20 am

then don't use it.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:16 am

Do you think I would if it wasn't for porting D2X-XL?

Look what pain I take on myself to do something good to the D2 community.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:01 pm

considering you are so addicted to windows holding your hand... i am amazed to hear you are using gnome.

kde is much more friendly... and the SUSE team did include a lot of eye candy.

by default its in /opt/MozillaFirefox/
(which is more or less where most of what YaST installs goes)

your profile is here:

getfirefox.com wrote: Profile Folder

Firefox stores your user data in one of the following locations:
Windows 2000, XP Documents and Settings\<UserName>\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox
Windows NT WINNT\Profiles\<UserName>\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox
Windows 98, ME Windows\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox
Mac OS X ~/Library/Application Support/Firefox
Linux and Unix systems ~/.mozilla/firefox

did u read the instructions on their website?

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:47 pm

fyrephlie wrote:considering you are so addicted to windows holding your hand... i am amazed to hear you are using gnome.

It had nothing to do with "windows holding your hand" and has everything to do with arrogant attitudes such as that which keeps the development of Linux at a primitive level.

Thats right, Linux is a primitive OS. I can think of many ways to make Linux better. Standards can be implimented so installation of programs can be easier, streamlining parts of the OS or automate them. And if you want to you can still go to Bash. But alas no one has made a distribution yet that does these things and it continues to be a toy OS because people like you pride in knowing that you can toy around with this OS and yet never get any real work done. Surfing the net and using OpenOffice does not count, those are just the bare basics.

If Linux will continue like this, it will never penetrate the desktop. It will be ether a very good platform for running servers and web services or simply a toy os where you can never get any real work done. But dont you dare call it the greatest OS ever because it is anything but. Windows isnt perfect but at least they made an OS for people who need to get work done rather than putz around with stupid stuff that is best left for programmers. And this is coming from somebody who loves to program. An operating system is the interface between the computer hardware and the user and programs, not an experiment.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:12 pm

An operating system is the interface between the computer hardware and the user and programs, not an experiment

Well said. So many people nowadays don't realize that.

Escorter · Post by **Escorter** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:54 pm

I compiled Firefox from sources under Fedora Core.
After it's ready, I'm just do a "make install",
and voilá! The best browser installed on the best Linux distribution!

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:21 pm

fyrephlie wrote:considering you are so addicted to windows holding your hand... i am amazed to hear you are using gnome?

(Du Dummschwätzer.)

I am used to not having to fiddle around with things that are supposed to work. I am not eager to do other ppls work either (like messing around with program installs). I have enough to do with my own.

Btw, Gnome got Firefox installed, KDE Konqueror. I am not getting used to browser #5 - MSIE, Netscape, Opera and Firefox is enough for me.

But I guess you're one of those persons that push their cars to their work place, because it makes them feel they have accomplished something.

fyrephlie wrote:did u read the instructions on their website?

Yes, and that's why I ended up at mozillazine.org! And there they said "find your Firefox folder". Yeah, "find it". Somehow, somewhere. I didn't even know I had to look for 'MozillaFirefox' and not for 'Firefox'. Sheesh. And the Linux groupies have the cheek to despise Windows.

Top Wop wrote:An operating system is the interface between the computer hardware and the user and programs, not an experiment.

Bwahaha! Well said!

I'd love to work with Linux, but currently working with Linux is, I said it, a PITA.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:23 pm

On this subject what is the most "windows user friendly" distro of linux that still has some decent power to it?

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:24 pm

Krom,

I cannot understand there is no packaged Firefox version I can install with YaST. At least YaST didn't offer one.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:15 pm

Diedel wrote:Krom,

I cannot understand there is no packaged Firefox version I can install with YaST. At least YaST didn't offer one.

It only went final this week, give 'em some time.

The Mozilla foundation doesn't handle packages for the many individual distros(which is apt, as most of them never send fixes or bugs upstream).

Krom, ubuntu is the distro you are looking for.

scottris · Post by **scottris** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:30 pm

fliptw wrote:Krom, ubuntu is the distro you are looking for.

Yeah, but I highly recommend making it Kubuntu instead. This coming from a long-time Windows user. Kubuntu is the first Linux distro I've seen which really made me feel comfortable.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:59 pm

Speaking as a Linux noob myself, the only problem with Kubuntu over Ubuntu that I noticed is that the initial Kubuntu install includes all of KDE's crappy versions of everything, like Konqueror, KOffice, and KWhateverTheirIMProgramIs; instead of Firefox, OpenOffice, and Gaim, respectively.

scottris · Post by **scottris** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:41 pm

Heh. That's funny. I've been using Kubuntu for a few weeks now, and I'm constantly impressed by how outrageously superior this KDE system is compared to everything else I've ever used. I can't speak to the "office" apps, as I rarely use them, but I've found Konqueror to be far superior to any web browser or file manager I've used. I've been even more impressed by KMail. I could give you a looong list of reasons, but I don't want to stray too far off topic. We're supposed to be talking about how Linux sucks.

I will point out however, that Kubuntu provides packages (that are very easy to install) that include OpenOffice, Firefox, Mozilla, Gaim, et Al, should you still want them.

edit: Err.. wait. OpenOffice is installed by default in Kubuntu! I had to add the KOffice package IIRC.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:54 am

omg ... so many replies!!!

ok ... deidel ....

i use kde ... it runs great with firefox which i use over konquerer. i like konquerer alright but eh... whatever

i compiled firefox from the source and it works great...

also in suse i already freaking told you where to find the firefox folder.

krom ... if you are new to linux ... kubuntu might be the way to go, it is ubuntu + kde instead of gnome. gnome is great for over head but it is designed by users who expect their users to be familiar with linux. which is why people who are new to linux have trouble with it.
check out: http://www.techiemoe.com/osreviews.htm (he is very well versed on linux

)

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm because you need to know that linux is NOT windows

and

http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major because in the end its about what YOU WANT and how YOU will use it.

k/ubuntu has some serious drawbacks if you intend to really dig into the system... its evident when you discover no root (administrator) account by default... but i digress. i usually recommend that people who have NO linux exposure check out knoppix or simplyMEPIS livecd's to get a feel for it. and understand that there is going to be a lot of work involved in learning it. at least at first.

as to the firefox thing... repositories take a little time to get caught up. its new ... YaST2 will have it soon.

most of the software problems people have come from trying to compile source programs within moments of their release.

diedel wrote:I didn't even know I had to look for 'MozillaFirefox' and not for 'Firefox'. Sheesh. And the Linux groupies have the cheek to despise Windows.

even in windows you know to search with wildcards if you don't know exactly what you are looking for, right? *firefox* also ... kde konquerer actually found it for me with its search function even without them. Ich spreche nicht Deutsches sehr gut. Was nannten Sie mich?

Top Whop:

alright ... where to begin. first of all, i will never say that linux is the greatest os. there is none. simple as that. i prefer linux of a lot of ways. i will admit that many linux users and developers can be a bit arrogent. but they still write programs and do alot of work, much of the time for free to support an operating system they beleive in.

next of all, linux is very much penetrating the desktop market, and steadily i might add. part of what keeps linux down is the sheer lack of developement support. people buy windows, they buy windows products, they support windows, and companies that could make money off linux don't because they are focused on windows. that is slowly changing, much like the hardware market, even though most everything out there has user written drivers that work well. manufactuerers don't write their own because they still don't see the demand. linux users are working on that too.

as to productivity... it is certainly there, people who are using linux for productivity are being productive, people who are putzing, putz.... there is a great deal of simple ways to be productive with linux that takes little more than your knowledge in windows. a prime example is my own mother who has used windows for as long as i can remember. she is building a website for her theology classes. i put linux on her laptop. it took her a couple days to figure out what she needed to, and a few google searches to get her bearings. beyond that she writes her papers, searches the net, and build her site. she is even dabbling in using gimp to make her own logos and such (she has never even 'heard' photoshop short of what i have told her). she is a computer moron, but linux does not seem to be giving her any productivity issues at all.

then there are those that are looking for every way they can to find how linux sucks for them.

i'm sorry linux is not for you.

deidel: i really have no ill will toward you. i appreciate all you are doing for the descent community with d2x-xl, and know full well that you are not a moron in anyway. but you come and flame linux KNOWING it is going to get you an arguement. i mean please

do you remember when you started using windows? do you remember ever have trouble with it, or the software you used? yes now it is like second nature, but you are looking at linux and saying, man this isnt like windows, i have to do things different and learn stuff i don't already know. but that is exactly it, LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS. it works differently, acts different. it is configured different and operates differently. windows and linux are not the same things, windows is not linux, linux and windows are different, windows is windows, linux is linux.

thank you for your time and consideration.

p.s. again... i am sorry if you don't like linux.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:04 am

You know, now that I have a connect that will actually work with Linux, I'm severely tempted to slap Gentoo on a spare hard drive I have and play around with it.

All I can really say is that the best thing for linux newbies to do is grab all of the latest drivers FIRST. It'll make life alot simpler. Especially when you're dealing with sucky distros like Mandrake (aka Mandrillo?!). Geez, what a PITA Mandrake was....

lars · Post by **lars** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:17 am

If you downloaded a RPM-file then right-click it and select "Install With Yast"

Lars

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:34 am

Try switching from Windows to OS X and seeing how it compares.

I'll bet you it won't cause as much sheer frustration as Linux does.

And no-one WANTS to slam Linux, in most cases, since a free OS is a good thing in principle. It's just that the massively smaller amount of screwing around and 'compile-your-own' software installation (sure, I can do it, but it's more often than not quite a pain in the ass) is worth paying for, in my opinion - and I don't have that much money to throw around either.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:42 am

oh ... you really dont want me to get into my problems with os x ... its a whole other breed of rants for me. i have a powerbook, and i will tell you without any hesitation that i run linux on it after using osx for almost a year . bah

compiling software flat out sucks, but i only have to do it for things when i am 'screwing' around, not for anything that i am doing to be 'productive'.

and yes there are times that i miss pointing and clicking the .exe file. but those are few and far between.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:31 am

firefly,

you miss the point, I wonder if it's because you don't want to get it.

I want an OS to work w/o me requiring to have in-depth knowledge of it to install software or configure it, so that I can concentrate on the work I want to do with my computer - which accidentally is not OS maintenance. Linux doesn't offer that - period. Windows is way more user friendly - say what you want. A software developer might require a little more from an OS than a regular user like your mother.

'nuff said.

PS: No problem having an argument about it (a nice signature I've seen said 'Where everybody thinks alike, there isn't much thought.'

). I cannot see any flaming here, btw.

Aus-RED-5 · Post by **Aus-RED-5** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:43 am

Diedel wrote:Windows is way more user friendly - say what you want.

'nuff said.

X2!

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:56 am

i didn't miss the point. i understand you think linux is hard.

you are confusing uder friendly, with learning something new.

i understand you don't like linux. im sorry. linux still likes you just the same.

the response on productivity is pointing out the average user. and i do know that you will have a lot more to learn and become comfortable with as a software developer. i would cite the shear number of people that code in linux. hell, even windows software developers have been known to write for windows under linux.

linux is user friendly, the user just has to learn how to use it.

i feel 'Linux is a PAIN IN THE A$$' and '/rant on ... /rant off' qualifies as a linux flame. but i agree that you and i are both entitled to our opinions.

i appreciate the work you are doing for us poor unproductive *nix users with d2x-xl.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:09 pm

fyrephlie wrote:linux is user friendly, the user just has to learn how to use it. :)

Which is exactly the point.

As long as that's the attitude that permeates the Linux dev community, Linux will remain a second-rate operating system.

I say this as someone who likes Linux and has used it quite a bit. It's simply second rate. It requires users to spend a lot of time learning the OS, making technical adjustments, and so on... rather than being productive. If I get a brand new computer and a Windows CD, I can be up and running (posting on the DBB, checking e-mail, playing games, editing images, etc.) in an hour. Yeah, I have to spend another hour securing the system, but that's not too bad. If I get a brand new computer and a Linux CD, I can be up and running to that same level in 3 days.

As soon as someone releases a Linux distro that I can install and have everything working within an hour, it'll make a big impact on the desktop market. Until then, it'll remain a serious minority. If my grandma can't use it, it's not a good "mainstream" OS.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:51 pm

fyrephlie wrote:i understand you don't like linux. im sorry. linux still likes you just the same.

linux is user friendly, the user just has to learn how to use it.

I said I like Linux. You should read a little more, and you will understand a little more.

It is not user friendly, I experienced that, and I have written that in two threads.

What you don't understand is that it cannot be the responsibility of the user to keep the OS running with a considerable effort on his side, when it really should quietly work in the background, allowing the user to do what he got the computer for in the first place.

I really have the impression you don't understand that.

Just look at compiler IDE's: KDevelop doesn't work, I would have to download, compile and install the most recent source code. There are other systems, I've been told, but they're rather "meta" IDEs, i.e. tools or construction kits with which you can build every IDE you want. Now you would say: See how user friendly Linux is? I say, nope it isn't. I don't want to work my way into a powerful, yet complicated tool for weeks until I have a working environment allowing me to do what I actually set out for when starting with Linux. I want to start right away. Linux didn't allow that.

It took me days to figure that some automake stuff didn't work because I had transferred it from my windows machine after looking at it an editor, and it now had cr/lf instead of lf linebreaks. All this when I shouldn't have needed to use automake at all.

MS Visual Studio gives me many things at the push of a button I have to work my butt off for in Linux. And yes, I want Windows "to hold my hand" here, as you put it a little despiseful, because I had my freakin share of digging through make files and using horrible, line oriented debuggers.

My task is to produce new software, not to mess around with stuff others wrote in a way that requires me to put a lot of extra work in it. It's not me who hasn't done his homework here, it's them. Given, the software is for free, but the point is not money, it's the Linux communities claims about Linux.

Linux certainly is a great OS if some expert has configured it for you, and you just run some business or whatever applications on it. A developer however needs more. And there the problems start.

You repeating that Linux is user friendly like a mantra won't make it true.

Actually I find it a bad joke to say "Linux is user friendly, the user just has to learn how to use it". Man who show bow to whom? According to you, the user has to bow to the OS.

Linux still isn't mature. imho. And I am working with computers for 25 years now, and I have worked on quite a few OS's, from big mainframes over various workstations to PCs.

The difference I see between the two of us is that I am speaking from experience, not only with OS's, but as a developer producing stuff with his computers and OS's. You are rather defending a 'philosophy'.

But I guess I'm out of this.

thwart · Post by **thwart** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:05 pm

Have you tried a Mandrake/Mandriva distribution Lothar? From what I remember, this has been over a year ago, the installation was a breeze when I installed it on my wife's computer. It was connected to the internet in no time. When I installed mine I made a typo on a e-mail setting that drove me crazy for a few days but I did get help from someone on usenet (alt.os.linux.mandrake).

One of the first things that amazed me about Linux was how easy you can install the add-ons applications that come with the distribution. It tells you which CD to insert, hit OK and it a few seconds it is done. On many occasions in Windows I would try to install something, then it says you have to put in the Windows CD. I put it in and it can't find the file. Then I have to go through some obscure dialog boxes, while it blocks access to file explorer, looking for a file that winds up being in a cab file somewhere.

thwart · Post by **thwart** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:20 pm

Diedel wrote: Just look at compiler IDE's: KDevelop doesn't work, ...

Just out of curiosity, what didn't work with kdevelop? I use it all the time and have wrote several programs with it. I always use the custom projects option when I build mine.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:48 pm

fyrephlie wrote:linux is user friendly, the user just has to learn how to use it.

Doesn't "user friendly" inherently imply concepts of being easier for the user to use it successfully the first time around?

Needing to spend serious time to learn how to use a program or system before being able to use it much... is a demonstration of failure to be "user friendly".

Having said that... I find points on both sides that make a lot of sense. Which is why I might someday find a lot of joy in an OS X system (it's core is a "Apple customized" UNIX base, not Linux)... but not quite yet. That's why it also does a lot of Linux things if you want it to.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:41 am

TechPro wrote:
fyrephlie wrote:linux is user friendly, the user just has to learn how to use it.
Doesn't "user friendly" inherently imply concepts of being easier for the user to use it successfully the first time around?

i would paint it this way.

give two people one computer each. neither has ever used a computer. explain to the first how to install linux using say, kubuntu. hand them the 'manual' and explain to them how to use google and the internet. give the second a windows based os, lets say, xp home. give them the manual, explain to them how to use google and the internet. you might even enroll them in some sort of computer for beginners class geared toward their os. give them a year with either and check back on them. be sure that neither has the oppurtunity to explore the other's os.

here is my point. both will learn, both will struggle, but both will get it eventually. it seems to me that people tend to struggle with linux because they can't identify that it is not windows. using kde, for example, it operates almost idenitically to the windows gui.

i am speaking to the people here who look for the ways that linux is different than windows, there are more keystrokes, you have to compile something, it doesnt do this the same, it doesnt do that. but the fact of the matter is that they are different, and that is that.

diedel, i get what you are saying. i do understand, there isn't that lack of understanding. i get it. i feel it. what you are saying is something i understand.

i don't develop software, my experiences differ with yours. i disagree with you about linux, but i give up. i am not speaking to the philosophy of linux, but to my own experience and background. i have been using computers for as long as i can remember, and certainly do not have the same experience you do. but enough to speak with some knowledge on the subject. i guess we can agree to disagree.

lothar, linux is not, nor will it ever be a second rate os. it is a solid operating system with a solid background. there are certainly distrobutions that are awful, and as an obvious windows user, you may find it different in many ways. it is not on as many computers, and most certianly not developed for as heavily. there are a lot of superfluous programs that exist solely because a couple of kids thought they might be fund to write, and many linux developers can be quite 'snoody' about linux. some aspects are not as well documented, and may not be as easy to pick up for some users who are not familiar with them.

my mom is a computer retard and uses suse exclusivley without problems. a couple years ago i had to set up a hotmail account for her cause she just couldnt figure it out. hmm. seems she is ok. this holds true with several other people i know that i have turned on to linux.

as to my own experience... i can have most distros of linux up and running in about 20-25 minutes, secure, updated, and ready to roll. why can't you? because it isn't windows? my first installation literally took me 3 hours, and it was only hampered by the fact that i couldn't get grub to boot xp for me. about 5 minutes in a linux forum had that fixed and i was off and running, might have taken me an extra half hour if i had needed to read the documentation in the grub section to understand what i was working with. but it didnt come down to that for me.

but ... 3 hours and i was running just fine, doing something that the average user probably would not. if i had not opted to dual boot, wouldnt have taken me anytime at all.

SUSE, MEPIS, Mandriva, k/ubunutu are just a few distros that can be up and running very quickly with a simple install interface that is very point and click. most of them even give you similar little boasts as xp while actually writing data to the hard disks.

but everyone seems to remember starting out with windows like it was a first language. they didnt learn anything, they just knew. they didnt experiment, it just happened, and never... EVER ... did anyone have any trouble.

its easy now ... after many years of use to say that windows is the most user friendly operating system, or MacOS if that is what you grew up with. but imagine if you were starting over.

thwart · Post by **thwart** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:44 am

fyrephlie wrote:using kde, for example, it operates almost idenitically to the windows gui.

Yes, and the differences are a welcome change. For example you can scroll a window with the mouse wheel by simply moving the mouse pointer over it and using the wheel. The window can even be in the background. In Windows you have to click on the window to ?select it.? Now if you happen to click in the wrong place you have just selected/or unselected something. A real pain.

I also like very much the multiple desktops in KDE. When I first switched to Linux I thought that was an unneeded feature. Now I find it very useful. I can have kdevelop and supporting documentation open in one desktop, gimp in another working on textures and kmail, xboard (for playing e-mail chess with my Dad) and Firefox running on still another. I still have a free desktop to play a game of Descent when I need a break by using a desktop icon. It is not uncommon for me to have 30+ application windows open at once.

I had a chess program that ran in Windows that would corrupt the Open File common dialog. It used a custom look for it and then when another application used it, it would make the files list spacing too big. The only way to fix it was to reboot. Why Windows would keep the settings of another program is beyond me.

And what is with Windows menus? How many *^#% keys do they need to invoke it? Lets see there are ALT, F10, ALT+key. The worst part is when you are typing and hit ALT by mistake or change your mind about an ALT keystroke, the menu gets the input focus. You have to toggle ALT again or hit ESC etc.. to get back to what you were doing. I am forced to use Windows at my work and the main application I use has many ALT+key keystrokes. This problem shows up quite a bit. There is no way to shut this ?feature? off.

Was it hard for me to learn Linux? Well, since I had been programming in DOS/Windows with assembly language for the last 16 years, I had to learn a new operating system and programming language (C++) at the same time. It was a struggle but no more of a struggle than learning DOS/Windows for the first time.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:30 pm

I have a great C++ IDE on MS Windows, working very well.

I don't have that on Linux.

I have a GUI debugger on MS Windows that is neatly integrated in the C++ IDE.

Linux? Man, I do not even have a working GUI IDE.

Managing a C++ project is a simple thing on MS Windows. Makefiles? Hidden by the IDE.

Linux? It took me almost a week plus external help to get the makefiles running, figuring that auto-something didn't like cr/lf linefeeds in the process.

Firefox/Windows has an auto-update feature, and if not, it comes with an installer.

Linux? Holy crap, I couldn't even find the installation folder (try to find 'Firefox' if it's installed in 'MozillaFirefox', and you are hinted to a place by Mozilla.org where you're simply told to 'find the Firefox directory', period.).

I am not talking about 'joe average' computer user. I am talking about ppl who know how to work with computers, but don't want to spend their time on things not directly related to what work they have to do with them.

Firefly, so far you have avoided that point completely. Talking around the real issue doesn't help your position.

thwart · Post by **thwart** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:16 pm

Kdevelop in integrated debugger mode clickey

Notice the locals in the left window and the stack trace in the bottom window.

Diedel · Post by **Diedel** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:35 pm

I wrote I currently do not even have a working KDevelop, can't you read?

thwart · Post by **thwart** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:51 pm

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:55 pm

I've run Linux servers before, and plenty of Linux workstations. I've installed quite a few different distributions, including Mandrake, Suse, Red Hat, and a few others. I was admin just a year ago for a 20-workstation Red Hat Enterprise lab, along with several Unix servers. I've done software development on Linux, and I even worked on an XML parser that was going to be part of the core of Linux-HA. I've been to COMDEX seminars by Linus Torvalds, and shook his hand at the end. So, this "you're an obvious windows user" stuff is just funny to me.

The simple fact is, it takes damn near forever to take any Linux distribution I've seen and get it running with *decent* software for all the basic stuff I do regularly... web browsing, e-mail, basic graphics manipulation, non-suck games, etc. It's not because "it's not Windows" and I'm incompetent with anything but Windows; it's because there are a lot of things that simply aren't there in most Linux distributions that really need to be before you can call it a first-rate OS. Just as an example... I have yet to see a Linux distribution that has a paint program that's as easy to use as MS Paint that's built in.

everyone seems to remember starting out with windows like it was a first language. they didnt learn anything, they just knew. they didnt experiment, it just happened, and never... EVER ... did anyone have any trouble.

Actually, I remember experimenting with proprietary operating systems on my Sanyo MBC-550. I resisted the lure of Windows 3.1 and Windows 95, opting instead to do everything in MS-DOS until the pentium-2 days.

But, Windows 95 and later *were* easy to learn. Somewhere along the line, somebody who really understood GUIs managed to come up with really solid GUIs for the basic stuff, and MS released GUI tools to developers so all Windows software had just-as-easy GUIs. Look at MS Paint. It's a stupid little POS paint program that lets you do all the really basic stuff just by clicking buttons on a toolbar and then clicking the image. And that's typical of the basic software included in a generic no-options Windows install.

Linux is second rate precisely because it doesn't have this sort of thing. It doesn't have easy-to-use software across the board. It doesn't have easy-to-use installation procedures across the board. Or, at least, it didn't a year ago.

Maybe that's changed and SUSE or kubuntu or whatever will just blow me away when I next look. But I've been hearing these claims from Linux zealots for 15 years, and every time I take a look I find an operating system that still has a few too many little annoyances for me. I still have to go searching for certain very basic pieces of software. I still have to go through a 15-page install procedure for a browser that I installed by double-clicking in Windows.

Like Diedel said at the start... I want my OS to simply be a tool that should work without a hitch. I install it, I install a couple pieces of software, and I can start working immediately. Firefly's scenario of giving two non-computer people computers and setting them off to work is exactly the right question to ask... but the answer comes back pretty consistantly: they have a much harder time in Linux with some of the really basic stuff (unless someone's come up with an AWESOME distro I just haven't seen yet.)

Linux has some beautiful innovations... I like multiple desktops, for example. I just have yet to find a single good distribution that I can sit down, install, and be happy with without having to spend days tracking down something really basic.

Until that's addressed, Linux will remain second-rate. Period.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:37 pm

ok then. linux is just too time consuming and no normal human can get it running quickly like you can windows. its just second rate. done.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:00 pm

Firefly, this thread is about how everyday users feel about Linux. This includes gamers, casual Internet users, and appliction-level programmers. Face it, the majority of people want something easy to learn and use, provided their needs are fairly limited. Linux is not for these folks, so there's no need to force it down their throats. Heck, I still employ Windows for my general purpose usage. It's only when I'm trying to do something novel or interesting at a low level that I need Linux. (Or now, Solaris 10 for X86, which is free!!!!) Linux is more for sys admins and researchers who have the time to learn it and only then can reap the benefits. In that respect, it's still a bit of an elite (elitist?) OS.

Cuda68-2 · Post by **Cuda68-2** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:03 pm

This is a useless thread. This subject has been hashed out many times all over the world for many years now and the same thing happens - either you like tweaking your PC with Linux or you like the ease of windows. There is simply no where for this to go.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:04 pm

fyrephlie wrote:ok then. linux is just too time consuming and no normal human can get it running quickly like you can windows. its just second rate. done.

Uh, no... you're not listening. Which is one of the big problems Linux evangelists seem to have... being totally dismissive of criticisms is a good way to ensure the OS will remain second-rate. Getting all defensive when people notice a shortcoming in the OS or distribution, rather than shutting the f*** up and listening, is a good way to ensure it will never meet the needs of users. Telling people who think the OS is too hard to use to just take more time learning it, rather than developing ways to make the OS easier to use, is a good way to keep us from even trying it. Not a very good marketing strategy, dude.

I can get Linux installed fairly fast. What takes me so long is trying to find adequate software so that Linux is *usable* to a user who wants to do the sorts of things I generally do on a computer. Where do you get a basic paint program like MS paint? Have they started including something like that in any distribution yet? Tell me ONE distribution to install that won't be a pain in the butt, and will be up and running as fast as Windows, and that I won't have to go searching for the most basic piece of software. Next time I upgrade, I'll install that distribution on my old system, and if it turns out that good I'll come back here and give you major props. Do the same for Diedel, and you might have two new converts.

But, here's my experience -- here's why I'm skeptical: I've had dozens of distributions recommended to me over the years. Every time, I install it and it's got major annoyances -- mostly of the "I have to go search for a piece of software to do some really basic function because nobody thought to include it" variety, or the "I have to read docs for 3 hours on how to use the software that does the basic function because it's got the worst interface ever" variety. Consistantly, over the years, I've had Linux zealots tell me it's time to switch, and consistantly, I've installed the distro they recommended and found it to be woefully inadequate. I'm sure there are some people who can have Linux up to their standards quickly after install because they already know which other applications they want and where to get them (or they already know how to use the cumbersome apps that come default), but I can't because I don't know where to get those applications. And every time I bring up this complaint, I get dismissed as some kind of n00b who just isn't willing to spend the time. Not only is that an inaccurate picture of me, but it means the community is being pretty dismissive of people like my grandpa who actually would be total n00b users...

Maybe you're right... up until MacOS X, I dismissed the Mac evangelists the same way, because every version of MacOS I used until then was garbage. But they managed to put out a really nice OS, and I don't rag on macs any more. Maybe the particular Linux distribution you decide to suggest to me will shut me up the same way OSX did. So, take your best shot. If you recommend one that really is as good as you say, I'll come back and post about how awesome you are and how totally wrong I was. If you don't, I'll come back and post about the shortcomings of that distribution... and if the Linux community as a whole is smart, they'll take the time to listen and adapt.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:07 pm

nice post by Genghis.

Of course, some Linux enthusiasts think Linux *is* for everybody, or at least they want it to be. Hopefully they'll take the time to listen to the sort of criticisms given here and actually make it so it is for everybody, or else recognize that it's not and stop trying to convert people.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:56 pm

Lothar, i am reading, i am paying attention and get what you are talking about, i could even go into detail about your points... but i need to get back to screwing around with my os so it will work, otherwise i will never get anything done.

again,

fyrephlie wrote:done.

i did what i hate when people do... argue. its not worth it. i like linux, many people i know like linux. but many people don't. they will post something i disagree with, or i find ignorant. then i will post something they disagree with, or find ignorant. and so it goes.

i am done. i disagree with you, you disagree with me.

Gehngis: this thread is about what Diedel thinks about linux.

Cuda68-2 wrote:This is a useless thread. This subject has been hashed out many times all over the world for many years now and the same thing happens - either you like tweaking your PC with Linux or you like the ease of windows. There is simply no where for this to go.

exactly.

(p.s. diagreeing with you, or finding my own experiences different does not mean i don't understand or pay attention. it means i have a difference of opinion. mspaint is a pile of donkey feces and my distros all come with gimp, kde has numerous basic photo / picture editors that i can choose at install. if you have a distro, you install it, and it doesnt have something you want to do ... open the package manager type what you want to do (not a name or obscure reference, just photo edit or paint)... it will pop up with the software thats availiable... within moments you have it. but that is my experience... there isnt much i have needed to install except developement tools for compiling things the average user never uses. again, this is my own experience, apparently you've have different experiences. don't use linux, nothing i say will convince you, and i am certain that pointing in the direction of something i use and enjoy will not help either, even if it works in one way, i am sure it won't in another. so i am done talking about linux with you, i really don't have the time for this. its nothing against you, i just disagree about linux. thanks)