Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:01:31 05/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2002 at 12:07:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 20, 2002 at 15:41:08, Guido Schimmels wrote: > >>On May 19, 2002 at 11:49:18, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>BTW I'm trying Linux too, but I can't get used to it. I thought it was small and >>>elegant, but actually it is as bloated as Windows and quite slower. >> >>Try WindowMaker or XFCE (which I prefer) as a desktop environment. >>You can boot in both of them with <30MB total memory usage, which >>isn't too much nowadays. >>Then try ROX-Filer as a file-manager and prefer gtk/gnome based apps. >>Problem is, I admit, there is no real alternative to Star Office/OpenOffice >>and Mozilla/Netscape/Galeon, which means you still won't get very far with >>64MB, if you want to do professional text-processing and painless web-browsing. >> >>>And too hard to use. The guys who write programs for Linux only have the >>>experienced users in mind. Fatal mistake. >> >>Maybe that's still true for too many open source projects, but >>in general this is no longer true. Example: >>GNOME 2 will add lots of support for disabled people. >> >>>Shit. I really hoped to get rid of Windows, but Linux is still not ready. >> >>Ok, Linux is not perfect in respect to ease of use, like MacOS(X), but not >>much behind Windows I find. And some things are now even easier in Linux >>than Windows. >> >>Real issues are: >>1. The latest or exotic hardware will often not work with Linux - and that won't >>change until Linux is mainstream. >>2. Lack of apps in some fields >>3. Proprietary data-formats, like btw. Acrobat Reader 5 for Linux and Solaris >>has just been announced, one year after the Windows and Mac ports. Again, won't >>change until Linux is mainstream. >> >>> Christophe >> >>I'd like to ask, what exactly you found so hard or didn't get working in Linux ? > >Ok a lot of things are still solved in a big nerd way in linux. > >Let's give some examples. > > >I'm using linux since its first version, nowadays i boot it nearly >every day. Recently i installed redhat 7.2. Compared to the early 90s >it's working very well. I used to use linux in the early 90s only >in textmode. Never got X to work in these days. > >Problems a normal user will have with linux: > - soundcard doesn't install by default, not all > soundcards are default in kernel. I happen to have a soundcard > which by accident gets supported now, because it is an expensive > soundcard. But most $10 to $20 soundcards do not get supported that > easily. Then if it works the next problem is: HOW do you run your > MP3s which are on the NTFS partition? Trivial. Mount the partition under linux and then access the files. I haven't followed ntfs development. but fat-16 and fat32 and win9x filesystems work just fine. Although I don't see why anyone would want to do this. If you run linux, copy the mp3 files to the linux filesystem. > - NTFS partitions do not get recognized. Someone who installs linux > in 2002 is very likely to have more than 1 OS under linux. Default > kernel of redhat doesn't have NTFS. Most kernels do not have NTFS > support by default, which is pretty idiotic as it is the default > partitioning format from win2000/XP and a very GOOD file system format > which both Linux and windows should be able to use. Note that linux > is doing a read only on NTFS if you compile it in the kernel. > Compiling the kernel??????? Do you really think a normal user can > compile a kernel? Though i happily compile kernels. Normal users can > not. So default kernel MUST have all compatibility inside This is a decision redhat makes. They _could_ include ntfs support. I would assume, if it is not present, that it is not a often-requested feature... otherwise it would be there like all the other zillions of options they do include. > - getting files from and to a floppy drive. > In windows you click on 'my computer' then on the floppy drive. In > linux it is NOT so easy to transfer files from and to floppy It is trivial. If you include MSDOS filesystem support (RedHat does) then you simply insert the floppy and access the files. You can use mcopy/mdir/etc if you want to use old dos commands to access the floppy. Or you can use unix cp/ls/etc commands if you prefer. Or you can use a GUI filemanager. your choice. Although I haven't personally used a floppy in several years now. > - getting files from a CDrom. Default the cd drives aren't automounted. Sorry but if you run X, then "magicdev" is running and it _will_ automatically mount the CD if you insert it. > Note it is good the cddrives are installed. I remember a time that > you had to compile in ISO9660 or whatever the protocol from normal > cdroms. > - network (interface) cards do not work. Especially the cheapest > NICs do not work by default. In fact RH7.2 isn't recognizing my > NIC. It's a cheap $12 card, which is produced in such quantities > (zillions) that it is pathetic that it works in all OSes by default, > except linux. Of course i know how to recompile the kernel and i know > how to figure out which network card it is. I already did this before, > but the average user?????????????????? How the HELL do they find out > which network card they have? Answer: never. Your experience is different from mine. I have _never_ found a network card that wouldn't work, unless it was so new that Becker has not had time to get a copy of the card and work on his net drivers. We have cheapo cards, expensive server cards, all work perfectly. Even the on-board ethernet devices on laptops and newer desktops work perfectly. > - Scanner. Could *anyone* tell me how to get to work my HP scanner under > linux? I do not know it at all. I would appreciate if someone knew. > So after nearly 10 years of experience with linux, i still don't know > how to get a scanner to work! Read the HOWTO. If it is SCSI plug it in and choose your scanner software. > - capitals versus lower case. This is IMHO the biggest mistake in the > unix world, which Bill didn't make. Linux sees a difference between > Linux and linux. It is called linux, not Linux. Because linux sees > a difference between lower case and capitals. So please spell it as > linux. Not as Linux... This was _not_ a mistake. It was a mistake in CPM, carried over into MSDOS and windows. Case-sensitive is a _good_ thing since most operating systems are case-sensitive. As are most humans... IE are you vincent or Vincent? How do you sign your name? > - knowing 1000s of commands. I know several thousands of commands under > linux, but i'm not a holy man. In fact i'm a poor idiot when we talk > about linux, because i keep forgetting even how to compile the kernel, > as i don't do it daily. Is it make xconfig; make dep; make modules; > make; make install, or did i forget something or is the order not > correct? After make xconfig... it will _tell_ you what to do next. Of course, you have to stop and read a couple of lines on the screen... :) > - i regurarly rename files to other files and the 'mv' command AFAIK > only can move 1 file at a time only. It's sick. Even DOS is better here! > 'rename a?.* b?.*' works great there. Try this within 1 command > in linux! That is both dangerous and stupid. And the unix world discovered that 20+ years ago and fixed it. But you _can_ rename with a very simple shell script that won't have unexpected side-effects. > - default prompt at all distributions sucks. To get technical: > I want > PS1="\$PWD/> " Linux can show the current working directory in the prompt. That is actually normal for most default .cshrc/.profile installations. > - yesterday when installing a program i got 4 errors which prevented it > from getting installed: "missing blabla.so.4" > Even as a freaking nerd i don't know how to find out which RPM is > having this file. Yes, with some help i managed to list all files > in my RPMs at the RH7.2 cdroms, but it simply wasn't there. So i > need a file which is > in some for me unknown RPM, but god knows how to find it. This program > needs it though! And you never had such a problem in windows? Never had an install set up a new activeX driver that broke programs using the old one? This isn't unique to linux.. > - Now i talk about Redhat of course, but compared to redhat other > distributions with exception perhaps of Debian (Suse doesn't count > as you can't download that for free, i need to BUY it in a shop > in order to get a legal working copy), they suck ass anyway, but > there are major problems with the size it needs. This is wrong. _all_ linux distributions must be downloadable or they violate the GPL the linux kernel is distributed under. I have downloaded SUSE in the past, but I prefer redhat personally. > When i install win2000 i wonder why it is so big, but Redhat7.2 > default install even needs more from my harddisk and it even complains > my swap size isn't big enough. So? With windows, do you get word processors? Graphical interfaces for digital cameras, browsing, viewing PDF and PS files? Drawing graphics? showing presentations? A C/C++ compiler? Java support? etc? The linux distribution is getting larger because it includes more and more free software... > > If you have 512MB ram, already the swapsize gets a seperated partition > which directly is thrown away and eats up 1 Gigabyte. Then another 2 > gigabyte for install of redhat. That's 3 gigabyte together! You don't need a gig of swap. I run 512mb of ram and use 256mb of swap, period. More is foolish... > > That's pretty much for a free system from which i at most use a few > command line commands. > > Of course i install X-windows too. Only idiots > nowadays do not install it. That's like getting back to DOS! > - easy installing applications. In windows you click on the application > in your email box and DANG it installs, or 'install from location' > when downloading it from homepage. DANG installed the program. Of course, along with the various viruses, worms and trojans. Good idea to click on those email messages. However, downloading a rpm, typing "rpm -i newpackage.rpm" is not exactly difficult. Or if you get a CD, it typically has an autorun program that will crank up when you insert the CD... > > Not in linux... ...difficult command line commands you need in order > to install a program. rpm -i xxx.prm is not exactly a difficult command line in my opinion. > > If i get a new program on a cdrom all i want to do is put in the cdrom > then it must autostart something which asks to install itself! Do so. It works just fine for me... > > Other ideas about how software must install itself for the average > user is complete nonsense. The average user is still getting overestimated > by current distribution makers, and we have to say it, they already > DID a great job. Compared to the mess of installing packages and stuff > yourself by difficult command line, what they did so far is arleady a > good job, but it simply is in no way good enough yet for the average > user... > >What the average linux-nerd is forgetting is that basically normal users >buy software. If those can't work with the software, then forget commercial >linux plans. > >Just a few points where average users will fall over... ...if the above >points aren't adressed (and another few) then not a single normal sane Just because _you_ have problems doesn't mean _everybody_ does. I know hundreds of first-time linux users that installed redhat and have been quite happy and productive since doing so. It depends on whether you want to learn how to use the stuff, or just complain about it.. >user should get a try at linux. > >>Guido >>e-mail: guido.schimmels@freenet.de
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.