Caught the show

[mijohnst]

I have to say I love how Dann made a little joke about his counter parts not being at the show because one got the AIDS and it was a matter of time that the other would get it... I laughed so hard...

I think that was the show with Leo Leport or whatever his name is... Anyway, I'd have to disagree with you all about Linux being as good system that is easier to use and install then Windows for average users. I think for you all its easy because you're not newbs, but for the average person there are too many flavors of Linux. I've been a Linux user for about 4 years now and I still think think it's a pain in the ass to get some things working where as for Windows users most of its plug-n-pray... Anyhow, I feel Linux is great, but has a long way to go although it's much better then it used to be... IMO

I caught your show from Itoons (which I know you all don't like) and am enjoying it... Keep up the good work...

[bosshoff]

I guess it depends on what you are "plugging and playing." I mean, get windows installed, then try something like telnet, ssh, grep, etc, etc...

Sure, it's easier to use the applications that people already know are attached with windows, like media player, AAHHHYEEEEE, and others, but I still haven't seen an OS come close to Ubuntu and other distros as far as offering all the free applications it does. People are used to windows; if it were a blank slate, there would be no contest.

[CptnObvious999]

Most people grow up with Windows and you'll usually here people say why won't it work exactly how I want it to work? With open-source you can! I am not a huge coder I only know a little C, some Java, and Python but I have been able to tweek some programs to do exactly what I want. Now most users don't know how to program but those that do tweak other programs and release patches so you can customize your linux easily. Also installing Linux is just as easy to install as Windows if not easier. If you give them something with apt like Kubuntu and use only the given repositories then they should have no problem installing anything in there (and unlike power-users like us they don't care if the latest kernel or mythtv is in there). Users just want to be able to do the same things with the programs. It doesn't have to be exactly the same and shouldn't be (who says Microsofts way is the best?). I gave my mom Firefox and she manages to use it fine since it does the same things (and my mom is not very good with computers). Users just have to adjust to the different programs. If your not willing to learn a little about what your doing don't do it at all. Theres my rant for tonight I probly got off-topic somewhere in there so I appologize.

[mijohnst]

I agree with some of what you're saying here. But if we started from zero, Windows would s till be easier to install and run... Just click setup.exe, next, next, finish, done! But most programs in Linux (usually small useful programs that someone has written) you have to compile, make, and make install... How is that easier especially if you have to go find libraries for it to compile right and you're an 89 year old grandma?

I guess it's like this...there are some people that will drive any car as long as it gets from point A to B...Then there are those who want the fastest car and are constantly tuning it, buying new engine parts and fixing it up so it looks nice. Unfortunately, most computer users are A to B type people and Windows is almost idiot proof. To run Linux you have to be a much more computer savvy person.

I'm on your side here... I'm just trying to look at this objectively. I really wish that Linux was the main stream because it's good in many of the things that I use every day. On the other hand, if it was too easy it wouldn't be fun either. Two edge sword I guess.

I also wish that more software gaming companies would release their games for Linux... I'd love to play WOW or Everquest 2 on my home Linux box without Wine or any emulation program.

[Judland]

Granted, I haven't had to install MS-Windows for a few years, but I seem to recall having to have a bunch of driver CDs and disks with me in order to get a fresh install of MS-Windows running. Not to mention having to re-install all of my applications one by one by one.

All I need is one CD to install Linux. And if I want more applications than what comes on my Kanotix CD, all I need is an Internet connection. I don't need to install and set up any bleedin' driver software or anything. Kanotix takes care of all of that for me.

I don't know.... one CD verses many CDs and driver disks sounds easier to me. In twenty minutes I can have a functional, secure and complete Linux PC. I never remember setting up my Windows PC in anything less than 60 to 90 minutes.

[CptnObvious999]

I agree with both of you but most of the A to B users will be fine with the programs a lot of distrobutions come with. I do agree installing stuff can be tough at times but besides that with tools such as the Kiosk Admin Tools and not loging in as root unless installing software its pretty hard to mess up linux (and near imposible to mess it up to the point in which you can't recover from from it)

[mijohnst]

This is a good discussion… Thanks for participating…

I think you all are missing my point. Anyone that comes here has some interest in Linux. You either work with it or use it as a hobby. People like us are a small percent of the computer community. For people that don’t care anything about computer except to check email or write a document every once in a while (which is most people), Windows or Mac are the easiest way to go. Also, the last time I did a Windows install I only need one disk (if you don’t count my games).

Most people don’t care how hard or easy it is to install and OS because they will never do it and if they had to then chances are they would better understand a Windows install because you don’t have to know how big to make your swap or boot or what /dev/hda is. With a Mac it’s even easier.

Most Linux flavors has an easy install these days and that’s good…It’s still not easy for someone that knows nothing and doesn’t want to know nothing about computer except how to get to the internet. That’s why Microsoft is so successful…they make it super easy. It’s easy to install and it’s easy to use. Anyone that says that Linux is easier to use then Windows has never used Windows or is just fooling themselves because of blind hate for Microsoft.

I honestly don’t see why some Linux users get offended when you make a statement like this. I consider it a complement knowing how to use something that not everyone knows.

[CptnObvious999]

For people that don’t care anything about computer except to check email or write a document every once in a while (which is most people), Windows or Mac are the easiest way to go.

I dissagree thunderbird is almost exactly the same as outlook and openoffice or abiword is very similar to ms word. In most distros these are included and they are just as easy to use.

Most people don’t care how hard or easy it is to install and OS because they will never do it and if they had to then chances are they would better understand a Windows install because you don’t have to know how big to make your swap or boot or what /dev/hda is. With a Mac it’s even easier.

I believe by default you don't have to change anything for the most part (except username, user password, and root password) but maybe not its been a while since I've installed a different distro (Ill probly stick with Kubuntu for a while before trying any others again). Also Macs run on their own hardware and I don't think there is even an install but I don't know (I havn't used Macs much)

Most Linux flavors has an easy install these days and that’s good…It’s still not easy for someone that knows nothing and doesn’t want to know nothing about computer except how to get to the internet. That’s why Microsoft is so successful…they make it super easy. It’s easy to install and it’s easy to use. Anyone that says that Linux is easier to use then Windows has never used Windows or is just fooling themselves because of blind hate for Microsoft.

I find the Windows builtin app to connect to the internet very bad (at least for dialup) but usually its the ISP thats to blam for this because they release an app for Windows to connect and not Linux. Now installing software is much easier in Windows, I'll admit it, but there is a reason Linux is still using the command line: system admins. If every app came with a nice GUI app to install it then system admins couldn't install programs remotely on 1,000 computers easily. (take my school as a prime example) this is 1 of the problems why Linux going from server to desktop is a problem. There have been many attempts to fix this like apt and emerge and they're getting better everyday.

I honestly don’t see why some Linux users get offended when you make a statement like this. I consider it a complement knowing how to use something that not everyone knows.

I'm not offended at all. I kind of like having an OS that is mine and not like all my friends. I don't know if I'd like a million noobs asking millions of questions and degrading software to the point where its crap unless its like microsoft. I love sharing information and talking about Linux and OSS (if I didn't I wouldn't be here) The only reason it would be good if it got more popular is if it got more support from developers and vendors.

[bosshoff]

I think you are still confusing "easy" with "like Windows." If you pop in an ubuntu live cd and try to do the things you describe (email, internet surfing, writing letters), I think it is just as easy as Windows, if not easier.

For example, say someone wants to type a letter; now on windows, either they have to use something like Wordpad that is starved for features, or they have to go out and buy more software, and then figure out how to install it. With ubuntu, you go to Applications->Office->OOo Word Processor and you're good to go.

[Patrick]

Right now linux is easier to install than windows with the exceptions of Gentoo and other LFS type distros. Windows installs are not easy. I recently did one. You have to go hunting for specific drivers then take more time for updates and application installations. It seems to take forever especially when having to reboot every 5 minutes. The vast majority of windows users never do this since they simply get a new machine every so often. Linux is not any more difficult in day to day application use (surfing the web, email, listening to audio, etc..). Yes, it's definitely different than Windows or Mac. People have to relearn some things. For new computer users it's not more difficult than learning the basics on windows or mac. Linux definitely needs some consolidation & improvement on the package management and administration side of things. The gap is closing fast.

[Judland]

First I'll just state that because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm offended in any way.

This is a good discussion… Thanks for participating…

I think you all are missing my point. Anyone that comes here has some interest in Linux. You either work with it or use it as a hobby. People like us are a small percent of the computer community. For people that don’t care anything about computer except to check email or write a document every once in a while (which is most people), Windows or Mac are the easiest way to go. Also, the last time I did a Windows install I only need one disk (if you don’t count my games).

So, what did you use to write a document with, Notepad? I don't recall MS-Windows coming with much software by default at all... not even a media player last I heard. And a big warning here; if you take a "plain Jane" MS-Windows box on to the Internet, you're asking for a world of hurt. MS-Windows alone does not have the ability to protect itself from disaster... especially hooked up to the Internet.

Most people don’t care how hard or easy it is to install and OS because they will never do it and if they had to then chances are they would better understand a Windows install because you don’t have to know how big to make your swap or boot or what /dev/hda is. With a Mac it’s even easier.

Today's modern Linux distro doesn't insist that you set this sort of thing up anymore. If left to itself, it will decide these things during installation.

Most Linux flavors has an easy install these days and that’s good…It’s still not easy for someone that knows nothing and doesn’t want to know nothing about computer except how to get to the internet. That’s why Microsoft is so successful…they make it super easy. It’s easy to install and it’s easy to use. Anyone that says that Linux is easier to use then Windows has never used Windows or is just fooling themselves because of blind hate for Microsoft.

With all due respect, with Microsoft's determination to make a PC into an appliance, they've also now made it very easy for their owners to get them FUBAU (*ucked up beyond all usability).

As for installing software on Linux... that's just a myth. Debian has made software installation a very easy thing to do.

[Gomer_X]

This is a good discussion… Thanks for participating…

I think you all are missing my point. Anyone that comes here has some interest in Linux. You either work with it or use it as a hobby. People like us are a small percent of the computer community. For people that don’t care anything about computer except to check email or write a document every once in a while (which is most people), Windows or Mac are the easiest way to go. Also, the last time I did a Windows install I only need one disk (if you don’t count my games).

When I install Windows, I need at least 2 disks. I need the Windows 98 SE disk, and the Windows XP upgrade disk. I don't own a full version of WinXP, and don't want to buy or steal one.

I also can do nothing with the system without network access, so I need the chipset drivers from nVidia for my onboard ethernet to work. Driver is too big for a floppy, so I put it on CD. I also prefer a resolution above 640x480, so I need the driver CD for my video card (not supported by Win98 or XP).

So that's at least 2 hours to get a usable system with no software installed. It's questionable if this is really even usable, as a Windows system without all the Microsoft updates is likely to get cracked quickly. Linux gives me alot more system in a lot less time, with a lot less trouble.

"Windows is easier" may be a valid argument if you're talking about just using the system, and the user is already familiar with Windows (and you throw out frustration and wasted time from malware). When it comes to installing software (including applications), Linux has the upper hand. Don't tell me putting in a CD and clicking "setup.exe" is any quicker or easier than typing "yum install <app_name>".

[Judland]

yum install <app name>
apt-get install <app name>

you get the idea.

Technically, I guess yum is "easier" 'cause it takes fewer keystrokes.

[mijohnst]

There are some very bright people here and this is a fun thread. When I said that people get offended when you make certain statements I didn't necessarily mean in this thread. I just meant in general. I should have been more specific and I apologize.

One of you said that Windows was harder to install because you have to go and find drivers for it. That might be a really old version of Windows, but anymore all the drivers come bundled with a generic driver to at least get every device working. You can't really compare Windows 98SE to Fedora C4... It would be better to compare Windows 98SE to Redhat 5 because they were both out around the same time and if we all remember, drivers back there were not existent or a pain in the ass for Linux as well.

Using yum is awesome too. It resolves dependencies and installs and that's exactly what people want. Something easy to install and upgrade. The only drawback is if you have a system that does not have external access you'll have to download all the RPM's and updates to a directory somewhere on your hard drive (taking up a few gigs) and create a repository. Sadly, I don't have any experience with apt-get. I would continue to argue that putting in a CD and clicking setup.exe file for an update is still easier then either yum or apt-get because you don't have to set it up to make it work right.

All your examples here are good... but I still feel like some of you are being one sided. Windows might have be flawed, but every OS is flawed... I have Windows servers that have been running just as long as any of my Linux server that serve their purpose with minimal attention. Yes I have to patch them, but I have to patch my Linux servers as well and its a pain in the ass when you upgrade your kernel version and find out that you just broke some proprietary software that you had forgotten about.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think that Linux is very powerful and useful. I also feel the same way about Windows dekstops and servers. Windows is just a better system for low-end users because you don't have to think...you just click. You don't have to go download Thunderbird or Firefox, because IE and Outlook Express are already there. You don't have to use wordpad because users usually have Office or Works. You might have to pay for it, but I bet most people don't care.

I'm ready.... /flame on

[dann]

yum install <app name>
apt-get install <app name>

you get the idea.

Technically, I guess yum is "easier" 'cause it takes fewer keystrokes.

While I agree that this type of install is far easier than compiling from source, it is still way beyond a general Windows user.

Taking installation out of the equation, if we compared a default windows install next to a default Linux install (just about any distro) right off the bat, I do think Linux has an edge because of the sheer number of standard applications most general computer users would use. Be it KDE or Gnome, just like moving to OS X from Windows, it will take a bit of time to get used to the interface, but there are a lot of similarities.

Software installation is a different story. Windows users have been conditioned to either purchase software at a store or download an executable installation file of the internet. Auto-running of the installation cd makes this almost a no-brainer.

I still think Linux has a leg up here in one respect. Instead of having to comb the internet or store shelves for a piece of software, Linux users, particularly those using apt or yum with a graphical tool like synaptic, have a host of repositories they can choose software from. The downside? For the general user the layout of these utilities still sucks.

I'm going to smack around synaptic because that is the only one I am really familiar with. Synaptic has a category view which helps to narrow the search but I don't see a need for there to be three different headings per category. The general user does not care or want a games, games (non-free), games (universe) etc. They just want games.

I don't think apps should cross over in categories, that is if I am searching through the games listings I should not see game development tools, libraries for creating specific types of games, etc. Just as I would expect to not see xevil in the development listings.

I still stand behind the idea that wizards should be included in these applications. The first time I start synpatic it should explain the software and then ask me if I want to add additional repositories, particularly if those repositories are not enable by default. Explain why universe and multivers are not included by default. Give me the choice to enable these right from the get go.

I don't think any modern distro, geared towards the desktop user, should come cripled! There is no reason why mp3, video codec and flash support should not be included by default. It's plain stoopid and unneccessary to make me manually add respositories and then have to hunt down the necessary packages. I respect the desire to promote open technologies, but not including mp3 in Fedora or Ubuntu is not going to increase ogg usage when a simple addition to the repository fixes that.

This should be part of the install. Do you want mp3 support? Ok, understand these licensing agreements. Do you want video codecs? Understand these licensing agreements. Do you want flash support? Ok understand these licensing agreements.

Ah damn-it, now I lost my train of thought.