For non-technical users looking for a desktop operating system.
The distinction to make isn’t between “Unix” and “not Unix,” but between “Desktop” and “Server.” I’ll agree that Linux isn’t a good choice as a desktop OS for most users (and the anti-Microsoft zealots can be delusional in saying it is). But that doesn’t mean it “bites ass.”
More options, slicker interface, runs a bit faster, etc
**
I’m not going to try upgrading, because I don’t know how, so I decided to get a more recent distro that will have it.
**
I can’t pretend they don’t, because they do, and I’m sure it confuses the hell out of people. There were some flavors that looked good, but the word was the install was tricky, and there were flavors that the only good thing about them was an easy install.
**
I’ve recently installed 98, 2000, and XP on various computers, and I’ve never had a problem. This of course isn’t to imply that there aren’t problems.
**
I did everything by the book, and still a problem. Now I don’t mind coming across problems, that’s a fact of life, but I must say fixing this problem doesn’t look like a cakewalk.
**
[quote]
Who assumes you know Linux? What help are you talking about?
**
[quote]
Messageboards, (not this one, the SDMB most helpful people on this interweb), online documentation, etc. I know I’m supposed to have a working knowledge, but toss me a fricken bone here.
**
As long as someone supports it.
**
Yep I agree with all of this. Another reason I leaned towards a newer distro was because I have most of the latest hardware. (875 chipset, etc)
**
I have a feeling they couldn’t dumb it down enough.
**
[quote]
Regarding HELP, I’ve heard that Microsoft help isn’t very helpful itself. (Can’t say for sure, though, since I never tried it.)
I don’t really know, but I would imagine they are about as helpful as any huge company with helping solve a proble.
I suppose my statement was a touch lame anyways. It should have properly read “I can install any Windows OS in around 30 minutes”, because not only have I never, EVER had a problem installing it, it’s fast. We’re talking about hundreds of computers…I was an IT and desktop support guy for years.
Windows has its problems, Lord knows. Linux just has hundreds more, and I don’t feel like decompiling, and recompiling every time I need to fix something.
Anywho, Linux has eons to go before it’s a suitable desktop alternative.
Last weekend, I installed Mandrake 9.1 on a PII/400 system that I got for $10 from my company. I booted from the CD and just followed the prompts. I just told it to install everything, since the box is just going to be used for Linux. I did partition it manually, since it had two 8gb drives and I wanted to use both of them. The only thing that didn’t work at once was the sound card–and that took about 5 minutes on Google to solve.
This was at least as easy as helping a friend upgrade a computer from Win98 to XP; once the XP upgrade was done, it took almost an hour just to download all of the patches!
What the hell would I have to code for? I can’t enjoy an alternative to Windows?
Now, while I’m far from being the supreme master, I know my way pretty well around a computer.
I’ve installed every Windows OS from 95 up, I’m very comfortable with things like partitioning, formating, troubleshooting and dredging around the registry. My new computer was built from the ground up after a few months of research to ensure optimum performance and compatibilty, and has run flawlessly (after I discovered the bad dimm of ddrram :D) under XP. As I mentioned I intalled RedHat on my last machine with no problem. Lastly, any problem I’ve ever had, I’ve figured out a solution or a workaround by myself or using google or messageboards.
I should have no problem teaching myself the basic workings of Linux.
Linux does NOT bite ass. I can’t count the number of times I’ve put a computer together and wound up hopping up and down, screaming and cursing, because some card or other didn’t want to work with Windows. In every case the Linux installation on those same machines went smoothly and easily. For example, the sound card I use right now - a rather obscure SoundBlaster Live! 5.1 model - is not supported in Windows directly and working drivers are not available from the SB folks. Works fine in Linux though - automatically.
Second of all, if you’re outside a production environment where uptime is critical, IMHO upgrading anything is a pastime best left to those who have become bored with masturbation. Backing up your data and doing a complete reinstall is the only way to go no matter which OS you’re using, and the professionals in the IT department at my company, for one example, agree with me. It’s almost always faster and neatly solves certain insidious problems with library conflicts and general crap accumulation that tend to occur over time.
I would say definitely…except that RH 9.0 is old and is being phased out. The replacement is Fedora (fedora.redhat.com), which I downloaded the other day…easiest Linux installation yet and the desktop features work great for me. (I don’t know about Nvidia though, I use Matrox).
I want KDE 3.1, default multimedia support, nothing I’ll have to add more stuff to once install is done (until I figure out how) and and easy initial install using ISOs.
Fedora installation from the ISOs was not problematic (but again, I don’t know about NVidia), other than the investment of time in downloading all 3 huge files. Like all the more recent RedHat products, Fedora comes with Gnome and not KDE by default. However to get KDE (and I believe it’s at leats version 3.1) you just click on the option to select which packages will be installed, and then on the following screen check the box for “KDE” and uncheck the box for “Gnome.” (Actually it looks like they’ve sorted a lot of the bugs in Gnome in this release, I normally used KDE, but Gnome seems to be working VERY well so far for me, only been a week though.)
Out-of-the-box multimedia support is an issue, but it is an issue you can (and I was able to) fix within, literally, 15 minutes, provided you know how to install a program (which requires at most about 3 commands at the prompt) and modify your file associations (which is no less of an issue in Windows, in my experience). It just doesn’t come with the media players you need. You need download the full version of XMMS that supports MP3s, and you need to get Xine to play movie files (it can even play the Windows formats), and then modify your file types in the OS and in Mozilla accordingly.
Unless you probably have a good idea of what you’re doing, it might be a pain. But then, I wouldn’t conclude that Linux sucks, but that Linux on unsupported hardware sucks. I was surprised to read that there is hardware that gives Windows problems, too.
My university has a Linux users group, and every once in a while they have install-fests, where they try to get people to bring their computers to get Linux installed. If you have a nearby university, you should see if they have a Linux users group. Even if they aren’t having an install fest, I bet that they’d be glad to help you get it installed.
In my experience, though, installing Linux on supported hardware (which really is most hardware) is simple. (Too bad NVidia is one of those things that isn’t 100% supported yet.) KDE (or GNOME) can be part of the install, and in the (little) experience I have with Windows or KDE, using their point and click interfaces are equally easy.
Contrary to other opinions, I think having Linux easily accessible to non-techical people is a good thing, and quite frankly I think it is already there.
Fierra and I installed Linux (RH 9.0) on a PC, and posted about the experience on our board. Everything worked OK, except for two things:
It was actually slower and used more resources than even XP Pro did, which boggled my mind. This is the “lean mean OS”?
It had a network card error every single time it booted, but managed to work itself out and fix itself every time. Essentially, it kept loading the network card driver before the PCMCIA driver, thus resulting in a failure. No attempt to re-order the loading sequence worked, as all resulted in a failure to boot, then recovery (which did work, to its credit). Asking for assistance online got results such as “Works for me.” and “Linux rules.”
But finally, the deal-breaker was…no video support. Or wait, it claimed it had video support. But every time we followed the instructions, and set the mode to 1024x768 in 16M colours, and rebooted, it always came back in at 640x480, 16 colours. And worse, since this was on a laptop, it wasn’t in a small sub-set of the display - it used pixel interpolation to expand to the 1024 display. The result - unreadable screen.
We Googled and Googled, asked online, asked others who knew Linux, the responses were typically “Huh. Don’t know what your problem is. Works for me. Linux rules. Down with Micro$oft. Want to see my SeaQuest action figure collection?” or else “Don’t know. Just run it in 640. Stop being lame.” Nope, no can run in 640, not when it’s pixelized that badly. And I had no external monitor for it, so there you have it.
Finally, after sitting on it for a while, we reformatted it NT 4.0 because we needed an emergency PC for something else, and it was clear Linux was not meant to be. IMO, Linux is at about the point OS/2 was at version 2.0 in 1994 in terms of end-user usability. Which is, if you can get it to recognize your drivers you’re set, otherwise you’re fucked.