Please tell me I am wrong about Linux

[David M]

I have heard about Linux since the late 90's. Linux was purported to be the OS that at least competes with Windows, if not brings down Windows.

It's 2005 now and there is no user friendly version of Linux that for the typical computer novice like myself, that is easy to install and run. There is no software either that is easy to understand, install and troubleshoot. One pretty much has to understand UNIX?...correct?

I hear the drivers are difficult find and to install...etc etc

What happened to a user friendly version of Linux?

What happened to all the software?

Why are not half the homes and businesses in the USA running Linux?

Why is Linux not a serious competitor to Microsoft?

I invested in RHAT (Redhat) not long after its IPO so I did believe in its future at one time. I believed in Linux and still do...but what happened?

Why don't we see people debating whether to buy a Linux or Microsoft OS?

Why is Linux languishing as a viable alternative to Microsoft?

I truly would like to see a user friendly version of Linux and tons of software.

When will it happen? What could make it happen? Could it be that people don't work for free and developing a user friendly OS and software just wont happen untill people get paid for their work to write Linux software?

I am honestly not bashing Linux...I love the concept and I love competition and would love to see Microsoft get a well deserved arse kicking. I am just really curious why its has not grown appreciably over the years.

Please don't attack me for asking what I think are fair and legitimate questions of Linux. Perhaps my perspective is all wrong...but my perspective I believe, is also most peoples perspective of Linux...accurate or not and fair or not.

David M

[Dangermouse1]

I think you are wrong.
It's 2005 now and there is no user friendly version of Linux that for the typical computer novice like myself, that is easy to install and run. There is no software either that is easy to understand, install and troubleshoot. One pretty much has to understand UNIX?...correct?

Wrong you cant get any easier than running one of the live versions straight off a cd without having to install it on your hardrive. There are also a lot of Linux distos that are as easy to install as windows or easier. I have used RedHat9 Mandrake and SUSE to name a few and all have been at least as easy to install as windows.

What happened to a user friendly version of Linux?
I have used RedHat9 Mandrake and SUSE and yes they are different from windows but not less user friendly.

What happened to all the software?
There are 1000`s of programs for Linux and like the OS`s there free.

I would not go as far as saying windows or Linux was better than the other they are different and in a lot of ways very similar I use both and maybe you should read some of the other posts about which version to try and give it another go afterall it will only cost you your time and the price of a cd or 2.

[TheJackal]

I dont necessarily agree with you 100%, however I believe that Linux will not be accepted in a major way by the end user, until there is a standard for Linux software design. Right now, open source Linux software design, is just a bid free-for-all, with no standards or direction.

[elocal]

Originally Posted by David M It's 2005 now and there is no user friendly version of Linux that for the typical computer novice like myself, that is easy to install and run. There is no software either that is easy to understand, install and troubleshoot. One pretty much has to understand UNIX?...correct?

It is not hard, it is just different. You are used to Windows, I would guess (please correct me if I am wrong), the way you do stuff is not going to be the same. There are still many VERY "user friendly" flavors of Linux, as stated before by Dangermouse1, these include Fedora, Mandrake, etc... That does not mean these "friendly" distros are better, it just mean that they have graphical frontends to the many text based configuration tools and files.

Originally Posted by David M I hear the drivers are difficult find and to install...etc etc

Drivers are compiled in the kernel or as modules. So if the kernel of the distribution you are using has the drivers for your devices compiled in you shouldn't have any issues. Other distros include modules in their repositories of packages that you just install. If none of this is available, you download the driver's souce and compile it, this is very well documented in README and INSTALL notes.

Originally Posted by David M What happened to a user friendly version of Linux?

See question #1.

Originally Posted by David M What happened to all the software?

There is LOT of open source software. Software is not a weakpoint open source. Usually there are many apps that accomplish the same objective for you to choose.

Originally Posted by David M Why are not half the homes and businesses in the USA running Linux?

Because microsoft holds their market tightly, people are used to Window/Microsoft ways, manufactureres include it by default, schools use it in their system. People are familiar with Microsoft software, it will be a pain for them to change, it will be gradually hapening though, I see that people are getting much more tecnologically educated now.

Originally Posted by David M Why is Linux not a serious competitor to Microsoft?

It is a serious competitor, it just does not have the serious market share, but it is getting there. You know if Microsoft has a competitor when Microsoft try to make a camapign of attacks, like they have done with their TCO(Total Cost of Ownership) articles, and their different policies.

Originally Posted by David M I invested in RHAT (Redhat) not long after its IPO so I did believe in its future at one time. I believed in Linux and still do...but what happened?

Redhat is not Linux, it is just a company that gets revenue from basically selling Linux support to other people and companies that use their distribution.

Originally Posted by David M Why don't we see people debating whether to buy a Linux or Microsoft OS?

People, generally, are ignorant. And see question #4.

Originally Posted by David M Why is Linux languishing as a viable alternative to Microsoft?

It is not languishing, in fact, it is growing and eating microsoft's market share; slowly, but steady.

Originally Posted by David M I truly would like to see a user friendly version of Linux and tons of software. When will it happen? What could make it happen? Could it be that people don't work for free and developing a user friendly OS and software just wont happen untill people get paid for their work to write Linux software?

There is ton of software, and there are many user friendly Linux distributions. If they are no as user friendly as you expected, I guess learnign the different ways works very well.

[thefultonhow]

Originally Posted by David M Why are not half the homes and businesses in the USA running Linux? Why is Linux not a serious competitor to Microsoft? Why don't we see people debating whether to buy a Linux or Microsoft OS? Why is Linux languishing as a viable alternative to Microsoft?

Linux is a VERY serious competitor to Microsoft, so much so that they are spending millions of dollars on PR/advertising/spin/FUD to counter the threat. The thing is that Linux is not competing in the low-margin desktop space, but rather in the lucrative server market. Many companies debate whether to go Linux or Microsoft -- for their servers, not their workstations. I'd say that it's a fair estimate to say that half of the servers in the US are running some derivative of Linux.

The reason, of course, is cost; Windows Server 2003 costs thousands of dollars per license, and companies often have to buy multiple licenses. Linux, on the other hand, is very cheap comparatively. Microsoft has been attacking Linux's Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), which involves man-hours dedicated to administration and training, the hardware, etc., but they haven't been very successful.

[David M]

Thanks for your thoughtful answers. I may give Linux a try. Can Linux be dual booted with Windows as the other OS on the same machine?...or do I need a separate machine?

[rightcoast]

I always say that if a user was given a Linux machine configured for them, they would be happier with it. The problem with Linux for "Average Joe" is configuration and updating. With the advent of apt-get, flavors using that are eassier to update than MS, IMO. Dependencies are far less of an issue.

Linux won't "win" until people have the option to order a pre-built PC with it installed and configured for them.

I saw this somewhere else before once, and am paraphrasing.

"i don't know I was just surfing the web, reading email. I clicked a link and it crashed"

That is how many people explain the moment a virus entered the PC, I spend a few minutes a week explaining what a double click is to people and believe that users like that would better off if hand a ready *nix machine, no doubt in my mind.

I linked to a good tutorial on dual booting here in this thread.
http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.p...l+boot+red+hat

[Wolf_10]

I jumped into the Linux environment this year to learn about it. I am a Linux newbie and am speaking from an average users standpoint.

I have used Knoppix and bought Novells SUSE Linux 9.2 Pro, and I am impressed and disapointed at the same time. Linux has so much potential but fails the average user. The average user drives the desktop market.

Heres my take, Linux IS difficult for the average desktop user. I think Linux is missing out big time on a big market and for bad reasons. Linux producers won't hide or replace the command line. They say its easier, but that is only true for people who learned about the command line. 98% of the rest of the world does not care or want the command line. It's ugly and you have to actually remember commands.

People want to point and click their way around an OS and never open a manual. Linux is still too complicated for most people. A part-time computer geek like me can have endless entertainment learning about the OS. But most people don't want to learn about thier OS, they just want it to work without thinking about it. They don't want to mount or unmount and the only kernel they want to hear about is a kernel of popcorn or maybe kernel sanders.

[kiwipcman]

Linux really is growing strong in the server market, down here in New Zealand.

Linux is not very common desktop OS here, it probably has more to do with apathy and fear of the unknown than user friendliness. KDE and Gnome desktops are not that different to navigate and Staroffice or even Openoffice apps are good enough for most users needs.

Companies like Red Hat are really gaining strength in Australia and New Zealand. I know several folks now working in new positions at Red Hat Australia.

When I sat my MCSE exams a while ago, for every 100 MCSE there were about 3 Linux guys...locally I'm sure it's very different in the USA and the rest of the world. I went back to Uni last week to catch up with my old tutor, he told me that this year he has 4 students out of every 20 getting Linux certification. So in my part of the world Linux has really started to get a strong footing, though the jobs and the home users are not there yet.

At home I run a dual boot with XP and Red Hat 9.0. As long as you install your windows OS first and have a couple of partitions set up it's really quite easy to install both OS's onto a PC. You'll get the best of both worlds.

I use linux for almost all of my programming, web, email and office needs. I use XP for gaming and to provide the option for my wife and kids.

I think the big limitations are for gaming and multimedia applications. But it is all changing...slowly.

[digitalfreedom64]

In my opinion Linux won't be a threat on the desktop until it has some kind of direction. As it stands now linux is a free for all. It is my belief that an OS can't survive in the desktop market unless there is some kind of standard. If someone can link a distro that will convince otherwise i'll consider switching.

[Ind-PC_student]

The truth is that what is going to destroy windows is not any other o/s
It is its price, use of resouces, cust cotting on the developing side, reliability [or lack of], its ever expanding minimum requirements , and its patronizing attitude towards its customers.

And most of all its monopolly over OEMS companies there will be a time that it wil no longer be able to grow and it will colapse slowly.

[digitalfreedom64]

The reason I rufuse to use linux is the interface and the lack of driver support.

[thefultonhow]

Originally Posted by crashoverride The reason I rufuse to use linux is the interface and the lack of driver support.

What's wrong with the interface? I think that KDE is maybe a bit more cluttered than Windows, but it's not so much so as to render it unusable. Drivers are not that much of an issue -- I believe that ATI and nVidia have Linux drivers -- but there is the issue of application support. The main reason I'm not going to switch is that there are three applications that there are no robust Linux alternatives to -- FirstClass (the email system used by my high school), Inspiration (an outlining and diagramming program), and iTunes (for iPod sync).

[Ind-PC_student]

The KDE interface is not the only one there is also the GNOME that in my opinion is quite nice and it has built in support for the hotkeys on the top of the keyboard works very well on mine.

[mairving]

Originally Posted by TheJackal I dont necessarily agree with you 100%, however I believe that Linux will not be accepted in a major way by the end user, until there is a standard for Linux software design. Right now, open source Linux software design, is just a bid free-for-all, with no standards or direction.

What is Linux Software Design? Are you talking about the Architecture of Linux itself or the programs? If you are talking about the Architecture, then you are wrong. It is tightly controlled with standards and easily reviewable since the source code is available. If you are talking about the programs, you are also wrong since many of them are Open Source and have nothing to do with Linux besides it being Open Source also. Take MySQL, for example, it is Open Source, although not GPL'd, but there are versions for Windows, Linux, Unix, BSD, AIX, OSX, etc. Others like Apache are similar. These programs are not Linux ones and they are well designed with high standards and direction. Some like Apache are used more than Microsoft's IIs web server. Plenty of other examples as well.

I think that a lot of people particularly people who use Linux for casual home use, feel that it leaves a lot to be desired. I personally rarely if ever use a GUI on Linux. Actually it has been a year or two since I have used Linux after porting my servers over to FreeBSD. Many would casually try Linux, see the pretty desktop but then get disappointed that their hardware or their latest game wouldn't work and then complain about how God awful Linux is. Well the Linux desktop isn't really what Linux is all about. There are a lot of people that would like to see it move in that direction. Novell who now owns SUSE should help by throwing some of their weight into it. There are plenty others out there who have no real desire to see 'nix' moving into the desktop direction, myself somewhat included.

[digitalfreedom64]

Well the problem with ATI is that they have like 4 different driver versions for different types of linux and i couldn't figure out what driver to download. They have this detection thing that's supposed to help you find out which to get but i couldn't get the stupid thing to work.

[Ind-PC_student]

Originally Posted by Ind-PC_student The truth is that what is going to destroy windows is not any other o/s It is its price, use of resouces, cust cotting on the developing side, reliability [or lack of], its ever expanding minimum requirements , and its patronizing attitude towards its customers. And most of all its monopolly over OEMS companies there will be a time that it wil no longer be able to grow and it will colapse slowly.

I think I was wrong about this reply but the most important thing is what Linux has brought to the world of computing the variety and freedom of choice, as one solution does not fit all users!

And most importantly every user has a diferent aproach to computing.

[copyright_1978]

By standardisation I believe my mate means there is no real structure to the way the Linux market rolls-out its software. For instance, because of the vigorous competition in the Microsoft based market, vendors go through a tight software development method, i.e. Business Planning, Market Analysis then development hence the software application tends to be better quality to compete in the software market with the exception of a few specialised applications like servers etc. For the home user on the other hand, tight development methodologies haven’t been put into practice hence you get developers flushing the application scene with an introductory application whatever it is which undergoes a few extra years of development by the community. Also seamless integration is also another problem for the Linux community since Microsoft based applications often provide seamless integration into their existing solutions such as office etc, Linux is lagging in that region.

The bottom line is, for the commercial industry, Linux may or may not be suitable, if it is, they often have the in-house capabilities to re-engineer open source applications to align with their business functions. For home users though, Linux has still got a long way to go, since as my mate mentioned it’s a free-for-all situation and we are lumped with what we get by the community.

I prefer windows purely because it has the software I need. It also crashes a lot less than Linux applications.

I do wish that someone continues this thread so that I can test out my masters degree knowledge in this subject.

[Ind-PC_student]

Originally Posted by copyright_1978 By standardisation I believe my mate means there is no real structure to the way the Linux market rolls-out its software. For instance, because of the vigorous competition in the Microsoft based market, vendors go through a tight software development method, i.e. Business Planning, Market Analysis then development hence the software application tends to be better quality to compete in the software market with the exception of a few specialised applications like servers etc. For the home user on the other hand, tight development methodologies haven’t been put into practice hence you get developers flushing the application scene with an introductory application whatever it is which undergoes a few extra years of development by the community. Also seamless integration is also another problem for the Linux community since Microsoft based applications often provide seamless integration into their existing solutions such as office etc, Linux is lagging in that region. The bottom line is, for the commercial industry, Linux may or may not be suitable, if it is, they often have the in-house capabilities to re-engineer open source applications to align with their business functions. For home users though, Linux has still got a long way to go, since as my mate mentioned it’s a free-for-all situation and we are lumped with what we get by the community. I prefer windows purely because it has the software I need. It also crashes a lot less than Linux applications. I do wish that someone continues this thread so that I can test out my masters degree knowledge in this subject.

There is a old saying that goes like:

If you want to ruin a perfectly good Idea put a commite on it!!
example windows, lets take a look at its priorities

1 Make the stock holders happy, and make a monopoly
2 Profits Very important
3 Commercial campaighning
4 Name calling at other operating systems
5 FUD advertizing and ever expanding minimum requirements
6 Unreliable comparisons one sided metrics
7 User registration The ID NO
8 Service Packs and size of applications
9 Expensive System and office Applications
10 Customer satisfaction

As for linux

1 Cooperation
2 Users satisfaction
3 Security
4 Community involvment
5 Researvch into new technologies Filesystems and Kernel updates
6 No acountabitlity to share holders
7 No pressure to Make profits
8 Stable swap partition size
9 No need for Negative campaining
10 Profits not that important

[Ind-PC_student]

As for your cenario of linux applications crashing more often than windows ones I find it quite extraordinary, because for me the system in windows crashes more often then linux

As for integration i find that linux is very well integrated with open office.org in my distro.

And as MR Torvalds once said "Linux should be like the automobile Industry, Very widespread and diverse"

[surewhynot]

After reading this thread curiosity got the cat. I downloaded Ubuntu live and gave it a try. I would recommend this for anybody who is curiuos. I have no prior Linnux experience and I'm not even that great with Windows lol. Overall it seems pretty easy. I havent had a problem yet.
I have an old computer laying around that I might load linnux on just to learn more.

[nocturnx]

Linux is still gaining popularity and becoming a larger threat to microsoft everyday. Even Walmart sells PC desktops pre-loaded with linux! Thats a huge step towards getting it out to the average mainstream user. I think if more people where educated on linux they would definatley be looking that way.

[Chiquito]

Just go to Distro Watch . com a nd get a C/D for a $1.99 of Mepis 3.3.1. If you want support go to Mepis . org and get a C/D fo less than $15.00 shipped. And if you don't want to spend any $$s download it for free and then go to Mepis Lovers . org forums and they will help you with everything.
#1. Mepis looks like XP, #2. Mepis is easier than XP to install, #3 Mepis comes with all the drivers for your new video and sound cards even configures itself to wireless, #4, it comes with two web browsers, and one that is absolutley awesome, #5. it comes with most free software including video editing software that usally is an extra with Windows, two offic programs, #6. if I can install and use it so can you cause I've been using or actually learning about computing for about two years. Good luck,Chiquito!!!

[Ind-PC_student]

Originally Posted by Chiquito Just go to Distro Watch . com a nd get a C/D for a $1.99 of Mepis 3.3.1. If you want support go to Mepis . org and get a C/D fo less than $15.00 shipped. And if you don't want to spend any $$s download it for free and then go to Mepis Lovers . org forums and they will help you with everything. #1. Mepis looks like XP, #2. Mepis is easier than XP to install, #3 Mepis comes with all the drivers for your new video and sound cards even configures itself to wireless, #4, it comes with two web browsers, and one that is absolutley awesome, #5. it comes with most free software including video editing software that usally is an extra with Windows, two offic programs, #6. if I can install and use it so can you cause I've been using or actually learning about computing for about two years. Good luck,Chiquito!!!

In cheep linux site you can even buy a pre installed mini itx pc with fedora core dont know about monitor ill find out about it.
http://www.cheeplinux.co.uk/

[Ind-PC_student]

No monitor but you now have a choice of operating systems CentOS, Fedora and Mandriva I might buy one just to try those small silent mini-itx units.

[Ind-PC_student]

Competition is not that important Linux should make sure not to fall in the same trap as microsoft and other commentcial software companies, in the pursuit of profits neglect quality.

[Ind-PC_student]

Adverts aside I still enjoy linux because of it's flexibility and of course it teaches me something about system and software configuration far more than other alternatives

[Ind-PC_student]

My conclusion is, yes you are wrong about Linux mate as long as Linux continues to be community driven it will always be better and far more secure then all the commercial counter parts.

It is my theory about security:

Commercial software is easier to compromize then comunity OSS software for a simple reason, the number of people working in each case.

1 Comercial software Just employ a limited number of people developing and usually there are those "idiotic" old fashioned manager that use the cost cutting solution of downsizing staff and departments, making the software dificult to update and less secure and easier to compromize.

2 Community Driven software usually developed by loads of users, supporters, sympatizers, enthusiasts and freelancers, making the speed of making updates, patches and new versions much quicker

And in conclusion people that usualy make build or program "viruses and other nasty apps", Will find it more dificult to compromize the second case, due to the varierty of standards and the speed of wich the solutions (patches are developed), although community driven software is usually open source the amount of knowledge to gather is greater and more dificult to learn then the one size fits all strategy.

[Ind-PC_student]

Originally Posted by Ind-PC_student My conclusion is, yes you are wrong about Linux mate as long as Linux continues to be community driven it will always be better and far more secure then all the commercial counter parts. It is my theory about security: Commercial software is easier to compromize then comunity OSS software for a simple reason, the number of people working in each case. 1 Comercial software Just employ a limited number of people developing and usually there are those "idiotic" old fashioned manager that use the cost cutting solution of downsizing staff and departments, making the software dificult to update and less secure and easier to compromize. 2 Community Driven software usually developed by loads of users, supporters, sympatizers, enthusiasts and freelancers, making the speed of making updates, patches and new versions much quicker And in conclusion people that usualy make build or program "viruses and other nasty apps", Will find it more dificult to compromize the second case, due to the varierty of standards and the speed of wich the solutions (patches are developed), although community driven software is usually open source the amount of knowledge to gather is greater and more dificult to learn then the one size fits all strategy.

??? Is there any one with a diverging opinion, will anyone defend the Winslows monopoly?

Are there any other theories about this topic Or did i have the last word?

Would anyone add to this discussion?

[Xayd]

Originally Posted by Ind-PC_student And as MR Torvalds once said "Linux should be like the automobile Industry, Very widespread and diverse"

that's a great quote, the response from myself as a user would be

but the difference is the automobile industry doesn't have three different guys singing the praises of square vs rectanguar vs triangular tires that won't fit on any cars, all while a tire distro runs around behind them making the tires round so that the car will work.

and it's not hard to find versions of various softwares written for linux that don't work with their own dependancies in their released state. end users often don't see it because distros fix these compatibility issues for them, but they exist.

try to compile gnome from scratch someday, you'll likely find it quite impossible (and no, gentoo zealots, emerge doesn't count as "from scratch" ).

and that's the one complaint i have. i think Linux as an OS, not just a kernel, would be better served if the kernel maintainers also had a distro standard for various things that are required for basic operating system functionality.

as long as the right hand doesn't have to care what the left hand is doing because "the distros will fix it for us", these situations won't ever really improve, because there's no motivation for them to.

as long as gtk or pango or glib or jade whatever it is decides to break all compatibility with previous versions, and in so doing break other software as well, all to implement a new way to translate "whoa" written in a PDF file into traditional japanese with anti-aliased fonts or other such ridiculous thing that 99.999% of users don't even use, without someone with an eye on the bigger picture telling them "that's fantastic, fix compatibility and it'll see the light of day, til then the old version will be standard", it's always gonna be a hassle for the end user.

and i'm sure there will be those that respond to this idea with a "who are you to tell people what they can and can't do", to which i would respond with "if your own system is running a distro and not assembled from scratch, you've had a distro do the same thing for you too".

and this is coming from someone who uses linux every day. there are lots of useful softwares for linux that windows has no comparison for, but for long term viability, i think linux's current development cycle of kernel ---> supporting software in various stages of working or entirely broken ----> distro putting it together and "fixing" it into an OS for the end user is already a failure.