OSNews

If you can't even spend the time to rtfm enough to install debian, linux simply isn't for you. Really, just stay with Windows XP. There is nothing wrong with using OS X or XP.

What are your reasons for wanting to use linux in the first place? It sounds to me like you just want to be l33t.

If you want to develop software or learn about UNIX systems, by all means use linux. Both of these things involve a LOT of reading and long nights of staring at screens. If you just want to listen to mp3s, check email and browse the web linux probably isn't worth your time.

This article was a joke. I'm saddened by the direction linux will likely head if people look at the operating system as something any idiot should use. Use the right tool for the right job. Linux isn't the right tool for this tool.

> I'm saddened by the direction linux will likely head if people look at the operating system as something any idiot should use.

I disagree. The fact that experienced users know how to go around some hard problems, doesn't mean that the "hard problems" are not there. In fact, it means that the "hard problem" *is* there. And trust me, even experienced users would prefer an easier environment to work with rather than having to use their heads all the time.

http://www.linuxinstall.org/faq.php

Q) Does it resize my exiting NTFS/FAT32 hard drive to make a space for Dual-Boot install?

A) No, the installer simply looks for empty space (Non-NTFS/FAT32) and install Linux when you type "dual" in the boot prompt. If you just press Enter key in the boot prompt, it will wipe all partitions including NTFS/FAT32 and install Single-Boot Linux only. In order to install Dual-Boot Linux, you need to resize your HD yourself with a product like Partition Magic to make a space for Linux.

I agree with you but I have to say you started a flame war. Your gonna have a million idiots on your ass with a lighter cause then wanna be "cool/l33t" too. It's not fair that your more technologically inclined. Listen anyone should be able to use Linux, not gonna stop you, but don't come bitchin about how much it sucks when you can't figure out how to get it working. It's never been there to do everything for you, you can't be lazy with it. Linux was made so that you could build an operating system on your computer that was tweaked and configured to run on your specific hardware using the programs you want to use. It's not competing to win the average Windows user, because the last thing Linux developers need are whiny users sending crap loads of e-mails to figure out why certain features aren't there.

Second part of comment wasn't directed at your yerma. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I'm talking to the potential falmers.

"The fact that experienced users know how to go around some hard problems, doesn't mean that the "hard problems" are not there."

The fact is most 'hard problems' are simply a matter of manually editing a configuration file after reading a man page. imo that's how it should be. Any less hands on of an approach takes power from the user.

No, it is not always that matter, sorry. And reading man pages just to learn how to change your resolution, or how to change a mouse driver, or how to add support for your new sound card, SUCKS. Sorry.
In these cases, it is not matter of "power", it is a matter of *unessary* complexity.

And this is exactly why I have little faith in the future of Linux. You always get these damn elitists who think sensible UI doesn't include fully functional backends / engines. You can be proud of your semi-scalable server platform and talk down people who don't blow their time reading how to configure your half-assed software because you're too good to make it function, or you can admit that you don't know how to code for anyone but yourself. Do you care about computers, and their applications as they apply to computing? Then make fully functional software. You just wanna use computers as a hobby? Then go ahead and have fun, but don't talk down people who are just as good as you for not wasting their time with your POS product. No one was "bitching" about anything, he was just pointing out an obvious impotence in Linux- flimsy compatibility / ease of configuration. Quit bitchin' about feedback.

"No, it is not always that matter, sorry"

Um. both cases you proceed to list ARE matters of reading manpages. So, yes. It almost always is simply reading a manpage and editing a file.

"And reading man pages just to learn how to change your resolution, or how to change a mouse driver, or how to add support for your new sound card, SUCKS. Sorry.
In these cases, it is not matter of "power", it is a matter of *unessary* complexity."

I disagree. Do you have any idea how insanely large and requisitely cluttered a gui configuration tool would need to be to create say, a .muttrc? There are hundreds of possible options in apps like X11, mutt, apache, etc. The simplest quickest way to configure these is via a text based configuration with a manual by your side. And there are in fact tools to change simple things like resolution, etc.

As far as a sound card, that is a kernel issue. Most distros these days allow you to select modules to compile during install. If you don't know what sort of hardware you are running, you also should probably not be using GNU/Linux.

Nobody said that we need a gui for just about everything. But we need a gui for the things that 99% of the people will need on a daily or weekly basis.

And please keep the headers when you reply as RE:<header title>, otherwise it is tricky to see where you reply exactly.

Linus has said in recent interviews that he wants Linux to succed on the desktop.

yerma: You don't own Linux, so don't act like you do! I found the article to be very fun and at some part interesting so SHUT UP, please.

" If you don't know what sort of hardware you are running, you also should probably not be using GNU/Linux."

Eugenia: This man knows nothing about humanity, his out of help.

"I'm saddened by the direction linux will likely head if people look at the operating system as something any idiot should use."

yerma: Do you think that speachbooks for the blinds shouldn't exist because books very written for people who can see?

"Do you have any idea how insanely large and requisitely cluttered a gui configuration tool would need to be to create say, a .muttrc?"

Who said a GUI utility needs to produce an entire configuration file for anything? And it's not like a GUI tool would take away the precious config file. It's there for your user-dependant pleasure. In all your hacker glory, please, by all means, spend as much time as you like getting mutt to work exactly how you like, with the manual pages on one BASH prompt, Vi open on another, and lynx looking up as much as it can online in a third. Saints be praised for ctrl+alt+fn (actually, I do love and appreciate that function, after recently installing MS-DOS).

Eugenia: Sorry, I'll try to remember my headers from now on. I did like my title, though

Wow, I'm a 'n00b'? I'd like to see if you have as much experience and knowledge relating to UNIX based systems and UNIX programming as I do. Then we will see who the n00b is.

"You can be proud of your semi-scalable server platform and talk down people who don't blow their time reading how to configure your half-assed software because you're too good to make it function, or you can admit that you don't know how to code for anyone but yourself. "

What the hell are you talking about? Half-assed software? Are you serious? And how the hell is reading a manual wasting time? You are learning. Tools of the power which are distributed with a UNIX like system require reading. There is a steeper learning curve than Win32 tools. For this reason you must learn to read, but you also will be granted with a greater power than imaginable in the Win32 realm.

"Do you care about computers, and their applications as they apply to computing? Then make fully functional software. You just wanna use computers as a hobby?"

First of all I see you continually refer to GNU/Linux as 'your' product. I am not linus, nor have I created any of the base system GNU software, so please, I have no ownership over this operating system.
Secondly, GNU software IS fully functional. It does everything it aims for -- to create a fully functional UNIX clone. Maybe it isn't fully functional in the sense that windows is fully functional, but that was not the goal my friend.

"Then go ahead and have fun, but don't talk down people who are just as good as you for not wasting their time with your POS product."

I agree, this man is just as good as me. There is nothing wrong with not using GNU/Linux. I would encourage many people in fact to NOT use it. It simply isn't for everyone. If Windows XP meets your needs, why switch? I think this person IS wasting his time by installing Linux at all, as he seems to have no good reason to use a UNIX based operating system.

And as far as GNU/Linux being a POS, many would beg to differ, but I don't have the time to itemize a list of ways in which GNU/Linux has done good.

{{{" If you don't know what sort of hardware you are running, you also should probably not be using GNU/Linux."

Eugenia: This man knows nothing about humanity, his out of help.

"I'm saddened by the direction linux will likely head if people look at the operating system as something any idiot should use."

yerma: Do you think that speachbooks for the blinds shouldn't exist because books very written for people who can see? }}}

No, I do believe speechbooks for the blind should exist. There are different groups of people with different needs. People who can see need text books. People who can't need audio books.

People who just want to browse the web, do email, and listen to mp3s have Windows XP and Mac OSX. These are both fairly stable operating systems and function well.

People who would like to take the time to learn about UNIX have the BSDs and GNU/Linux. They take time to learn. They require that you read quite a bit. If this is not worth your time just stick to a mainstream OS that is more 'user friendly'.

Your logic is.. poor.

Look, one of my biggest problems with these replies is that people seem to think they are owed something. The creators of GNU/Linux owe you NOTHING. You gave them NOTHING. They can create an operating system as vague and non-user-friendly as they want. If you don't like it don't use it!

If foo sucks. Don't use it!

>If foo sucks. Don't use it!

I begin to understand your logic, and I agree on this. If something is not good enough you, stay with what is good enough for you. In this logic we are in agreement.

However, Linux has a lot of HYPE and PUSH recently from the media, and people EXPECT a lot from it. Proving all that hype wrong, it is what drives people to critisize the situation.

I would agree with you on some points, but you have other points which show elitism and non-realism, which is really nerve wrecking and make me overall peeved on your opinions...

You know if everyone thought that we should do away with all abstraction, automation, etc. we would all have to program stuff in machine code language.

If you want to go in and edit the text file great. Well done! Thats your choice. If you want to be efficient and have someone read the man page and then create a front end to change the resolution via chaging the text file for you, even better.

The world would be stuck in the stone age with the mentality you seem in favor of.

"First of all I see you continually refer to GNU/Linux as 'your' product."

GNU/Linux is "our" product, thats the whole purpose, of the GPL. You can take any GPL'd code, an you have just as much power over it as the person who wrote it.

You are right, UNIX is not for everyone. And Eugenia is right, even power users appreciate simple usability and configurability. What is wrong is to force that old lizard to be something it isn't. There are lots of nice OSes out there. And there is UNIX, for people like Yerma, who have a masochist streak, who find "man" and "vi" to be fully functional equivalents of printed manuals, online help and config panels.

However, Yerma, you shouldn't insult the people who fall for Linux propaganda. Insult the Linux apologists who fool people into thinking that Linux isn't about Vi, kernel issues and man pages. And insult the creators of GNOME and KDE while you're at it. Those are the ones actively contributing to the downfall of Linux, not the lusers who actually believe the propaganda spread by most of your Linux brethren.

Yerma, look around you and wake the hell up. Linux is evolving at a amazing rate and Linus (who probably knows a bit more about the OS than you) has publicly stated his goal is a desktop OS.
Telling people that Linux isn't for them just because they can't install Debian is elitist and arrogant. Some people simply don't have the time to sit down and find out what man and vi actually are. Sometimes it's better to get a working desktop up and running and then let them explore the OS on their own. Just because people aren't as "l33t" as you are doesn't mean they shouldn't learn Linux or shouldn't try.
You attitude sucks and I'm glad elitists like yourself aren't typical of our Linux community. If everybody had an attitude like yours, Linus would be patting himself on the back somewhere, congratulating himself on how smart he is and how dumb everybody else is.
By the way, I run Debian.

Where, yerma@aol.com, did I say YOU were the "n00b"? It was sarcasm. Detect it. I was refering to how you talk about other people.

The half-assed software isn't the majority of software. I run a GNU/Linux based server on my network. It was easy to install. It worked out of the box. To make it do what I really wanted it to took some reading and learning and light hacking, not to mention about a week of my time. I'm no guru, but I'm no newbie. I think it was a good amount of required dedication for the desired functionality. The problem arises when installing something is a nightmare. Installation should be hitchless, on standard equipment (ie, odd ports aren't expected to be easy). I don't believe in a tool that begs and whines for my attention just to start basic functionality. That's all. And saying, "Hmm, this thing's a bitch to even set up, when I know similar items are not" isn't bitching, it's feedback. Don't curse criticism.

"First of all I see you continually refer to GNU/Linux as 'your' product."

Wha? No, I meant half-assed apps where the maintainer recommends bizzare to get their product to run right. Sorry if I said GNU/Linux was yours. Didn't mean to.

"Maybe it isn't fully functional in the sense that windows is fully functional, but that was not the goal my friend."

Whoa there! Windows is not fully functional in any way, I say! Maybe for some people, but hell, I have trouble *saving documents* in Word. It _crashes_. But I just think there are places where Linux is trying to be and totally could be by now, except for this attitude of "nah, that's not what it's for, let's just not try and lets shun the n00bs." Functional, again, includes hackless installation.

"I would encourage many people in fact to NOT use it."

Same here, it's not ready for the desktop yet, by far. But this guy's curious. He wants to know. He wants to use software. He, I, and a lot of other people laugh at something that's so difficult to install or configure as some things. I've got nothing against config text files, and love using a number of them, from httpd to smb to icewm to X to... well, lots of them! But there are a number of times when you do what *should* naturally be the right thing, but there was some quirk that really shouldn't be there.

"as far as GNU/Linux being a POS..."

Again, I'm not saying GNU/Linux, I'm saying some apps, especially on some configurations. It's quirky. GNU/Linux itself is... well, great. No one can argue. It can definitely be argued that there could be something better, but who cares? GNU/Linux itself does work, and well. Ya just end up with these quirks that'll turn off a potential user real fast.

For anyone who is just curious, don't just say Linux isn't for them. They wanna play, let them play, and don't chastise their choice of curiosity.

--- "On a similar note, my experimentation with Linux distributions is not scientific or even uniform, it's based mostly on my whims and fancies."

And yet some how its the best, most informative, and most useful comparative review for linux distros I have EVER read. Not bad.


--- "If you can't even spend the time to rtfm enough to install debian, linux simply isn't for you."

Why should you have to 'rtfm' to install Linux? Go back to the 90s where you belong while the rest of us enjoy a truly funtional and mature desktop Linux that doesn't even require a manual to install. If debian can't keep up, to bad for debian.

Will you guys comment on the article itself instead of flaming each other ?
I was curious to know how a pentium 450 with about 350 MB would handle distributions like Vector Linux, Peanut and Debian. From what I've read, that shouldn't have been a problem. Too bad, the author couldn't completely install those distros.

I appreciate your experiences, I'm a newbie too. I started with Mandrake 9.0 and while trying to install Abiword, ran into a dependency hell and soon after, I got the hell outta Dodge. There had to be a better way, this crap about RTFM, is for the birds, I can't read Sanskrit.
I couldn't believe it, ten years and these geniuses couldn't create a civilized way to install software, while Apple did OS X in a couple of years, but who has the dough to buy apple?
So it's Linux for now. RPMS? puleeze!

Then I ran into this article by Clinton De Young on how to install Woody:

http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2016

everybody had told me that Debian was for übergeeks and how tough it was, but surprise!, a drooling moron like me, found heaven, it was written in English and explained step by step how to install it. I liked it so much I translated into Spanish and today it can be read by Spanish-speaking newbies in Europe and Latin America at the TLDP site.
As for me, I never looked back, once I got it installed and used "apt-get" for my program installations, it has been a journey into the unknown, it's fun, I love it.

Of course, no good deed goes unpunished, as Clinton found out in a hurry.

Thanks a million, Clinton!

Luigi

Linux isn't for everyone. Its not easy. I've listened to the complaints over and over again. All concerns have been addressed or are rather easy to fix, but they keep coming. Everytime a new feature creeps into OSX or Windows XP Linux HAS to have it before its an acceptable alternative. It must be simple to use and allow any moron to setup a webserver and build a corporate network through the GUI. And it comes so close to offering you this flexibility, but...

Well, if you're not interested in learning UNIX then you shouldn't be using Linux right now. Perhaps in a few years when we work out all the bugs, get better hardware support (from the manufacturers) and polish up the GUI a bit, but right now it is not easy for someone who just wants to do their work.

It takes me on average about 2 to 3 hours to configure my Linux system after an install (I'm a professional admin). There are many themes, icons, widgets, apps, etc, that I need to install and customize before it is a stable usable workstation. The default RedHat install is usable, but just doesn't do it for me, so I'm sure it wouldn't do it for you.

Linux is designed for efficiency. Its the best TCO solution for business. TCO doesn't factor in usability, it only cares about the bottom line. If you want to save money and have the brains to know how to run your business yourself, then use Linux. But if you're just a desktop user or don't know how to run your business you should wait/outsource.

You should wait until the rest of the world is using linux before you decide to switch. Wait until Microsoft goes bankrupt or your company forces Linux upon you. Then Linux MIGHT be ready for you.

But if you're paying Microsoft that whole time maybe they won't go bankrupt and you'll never have to learn a new OS again. Yay capitalism.

Us Linux users don't need your support. Thank you.

"Why should you have to 'rtfm' to install Linux? Go back to the 90s where you belong while the rest of us enjoy a truly funtional and mature desktop Linux that doesn't even require a manual to install."

I totally second that! I've tried a lot of distros that just wouldn't boot the install CD properly. I've tried a lot that do. Debian didn't work for me, as it happens, just like the author (though my problem was with CD-ROM drive detection). Knowing I had about 5 other recently burned distros to try, I simply gave up on the spot. I go with what works. What flounders before getting off the ground goes in the Trash Can(tm).

Well, maybe Linus should pat himself on the back.

He has put a lot of hard work into an OS that people whine about being too hard. None of those people that complain about the GUI would ever thank Linus for all the hard work he gave them for free. Millions of line of code and IP, just given away for the fun of building UNIX on a PC.

I'm am personally appalled at the ignorance of some people, myself included. I don't know auto mechanics or physics, beyond a college level. I'm a moron when it comes to my car. But I'm willing to grab a manual and a screw driver and dive into the engine to replace a distributor cap or whatever. Same thing as vi /etc/resolv.conf.

I had my dad configure his Linux box a few months ago. He didn't know vi and talking him through it was not easy. So I showed him how to open his config files in gedit. He hasn't asked for support since. He's ripping and burning his CD collection into ogg files, browsing the net, printing, etc. on a 1.8Ghz athlon he bought 6 months ago. Cost? $500 and a few hours of tech support.

But if you don't know me Linux isn't for you. Sorry.

The reason "newbies" are expecting Linux to be as easy to use as Windows and other desktop OSes, is that Linux advocates and desktop Linux companies like Mandrake have been hyping it as a desktop OS.

If you don't want users trying Linux who expect an OS to work without major effort, you should complain to the advocates. When people are constantly saying that Linux is as easy as Windows, is it any wonder that people who try Linux actually expect it to be true?

I think it's amazing how you can see the contents of text documents in a thumbnail, extremely useful to be able to browse to a fonts folder and see what the fonts actually look like before you open them, mouse over an mp3 and it starts playing--this is brilliant. This is usability. This is an area where Linux clearly outshines any other OS I've seen.

Seen Windows XP? I have all that.

But you've also got users like myself, stuck between novice and guru. I can do pretty much anything with a working Linux box, it just takes me forever. Takes me forever to figure anything out, change the right thing, unscrew up what I screwed up, but eventually, I can get pretty much anything under the sun to work. I'm what a Windows user calls a Computer God, and what a UNIX user calls A Slow End User (in the UNIX sense, not Win). What about me? For me, Linux *is* a great desktop. There are just a few brain dead things. If I complain on a message board about how hard something is to configure and ask for help, most of the time people are understanding. Once in a while there are people who suggest I go back to Windows cuz obviously UNIX isn't for me. I may not be as handy as they are, but I can hold my own, even if they wanna blast me with superiority. Windows doesn't have the flexibility I need as a user. Reversely, Linux is a little too cumbersome. But given the choice between tough functionality and lack of functionality, I make the only choice there really is for me. I use Linux. I'm not amazing with computers. What else am I supposed to do?

Most of the problems that I have found as a Linux newbie are related to the dismally poor quality of the documentation. I am not saying that the manuals and how-to's are badly written. I mean that they are badly organized. There does not seem to be any single standard for documentation that works equivalent to the way CVS works for programming. The Linux Documentation project is trying hard, but so far their collection is a tangled up mishmash of confusion to a newcomer.

To those who become impatient with us newbies, I would like to point out that most of us are perfectly willing to RTFM, if we can find it.

When I first started with Linux I selected the option of installing every documentation file that was offered on the installation CD. Every single one. Once I booted up the first thing I did was try to look up a few details so that I could configure my system to suit myself. Anyone who has used Linux knows exactly what I found.

I have been a technical writer for many years. I can say from biter experience that it does not matter how good, or technically beautiful something is. If you can't train or explain how to use it easily, then it might as well be junk. Designing an effective user interface is PART OF THE PROCESS of designing something for the mass market. I know, I know. Linux is not for the mass market. Linux is a private club for the ultra-sophisticated who wanted a private place to tinker.

One way to keep us smelly newbies from contaminating the purity of the Linux genepool is to deliberately use obfuscatory terms that only mean something when you know the secret language of programming slang. Once I figured out a few things on my own, I went back to re-read TFM and found that the same thing cold easily have been described in plain English in about half the space. But then the newbies might have been able to do it. This is why I use Lycoris now. They explain things in terms that are comprehensible to a non-programmer.

Unfortunately, the good times are over guys. The secret is out. I am just a slightly techno end user. But even I, ignorant as I am, can see the advantages of a free, open, customizable, stable, fast and efficient operating system. Like it or not, we are here to stay. Deal with it.

I'm surprised I didn't get some of this after the last article I wrote.

As far as why I wanted to try Linux... It was so I could be l33t. No, really, that's why. Everybody else is doing it, why can't I? It's to prove I'm really not an idiot.

Actually, I think it's fun. I mentioned in the article I like trying out what I find on freshmeat and sure, the hype intrigued me (as I mentioned in the first article.)

I've been using Linux on the server side for a while now, but my exposure has been fairly limited to FTP, SSH and basic configuration of a few things here and there. I think that by using it on the desktop, I've learned a good bit more about what's really happening.

I still use XP on my principal computer, but I plan to keep Linux on the desktop and will continue to use it on the server side.

Thanks everyone else for your comments. I've found that 99% of the Linux community has been very helpful and understanding.

Montanus: will you tell me what settings you use to show the actual font style in the icon, the first few actual lines of a text document in the icon, or how you roll over an MP3's icon and make it play. I must be missing out on something cool.

Nathan O.: I agree.. I doubt I'd be considered a "Computer God" by most Windows people, but for the most part, I know exactly where you're coming from.

You tell everyone to use linux and they complain that its not ready, its too hard, etc.

You tell them not to use it and they think you have a superiority complex.

Well, what is it? Its obviously can't be the fault of the newbie.

Either it is ready or it is not. Which is it?

Did you happen to think that windows is unstable and most people (even "any idiot") likes stability? I am a computer user who has been fed up with microsoft's instability for a while now. I dual booted pro2k/mandrake for quite some time and have been windows free now since october. The good thing about linux is that you can choose to use the gui to configure things OR manually edit the config files. In order for non-tech users to use linux there has to be a GUI configuration tool for most tasks. It appears to me that what marcus was doing here was messing around with different distros to see which one was the most usable for the standard user (the person who finds something they like online and think "I NEED TO INSTALL THAT". think screen savers and forward E-mails with executable attachments) He also helped the general public by posting a story about what he's found out. If you aren't about helping the general public use the software, what good are you? isn't that what the GPL is for? better the software? if the standard user can't use the software, then what good is it anyway? I believe that linux is a very usable solution for the desktop, it just needs to be refined a little more for the general public to be able to use it.

Why is it that everyone around here feels the Linux should be the ultimate panacea? The only think lacking around here are prohecies the messiah will come to us as a linux only program. Come on already. Face it, linux is not for everyone. Stop trying to force it to be before its ready. We don't have to have linux embedded into everyone's underwear, right now!

I don't see people running over to Active Win and bitching about how they can't run windows professional as their ftp/web/radius server out of the box. Much less demanding it do it will autoconfiguring everything exactly how they are thinking at any given moment. They focus on what they can use it for. <-- This might be a little strange to some of us, but people actually use their computers for doing things. Not just to soak up all those annoying hours that the sun up for "computing sake".

Linux right now, is just linux. Its not linux the desktop OS for you, grandma, and grandma's 3yr old boyfriend who likes video games. Its not the utimate in ubber-security to protect you from 1337 H@x0Rz. Its not the best tool for every server job, so that all your UNIX are belong to Linux. Its not the most stable, integrated, everything just works system. (Those come in titanium and aluminum packages.) Its not for the business man who likes everything to sync up with his PDA w/o first getting a degree in Computer Programming. Its not for 90% of the people living today - and probably a few percentage of those people who are dead. (For those of us around here the believe Linux can raise the dead.)

For the average user, who beyond belief knows less than you'd expect and is more prevalent than you'd ever believe. Questions like, "can I check my email from my computer without using a web browser?" get asked. Not, "how do I configure Evolution to use SLL with the IMAP protocal?", which is usually what people here would consider n00bish. Linux isn't ready for any of that and its community certainly is by no means even remotely open to it.

One of the big problems around here is that as a community we geeks are to bothered by the implementation than by its realworld affects. We can spend days, months, sometimes even years screaming over how things should be done. Like should the X server maintain its client server structure, should I have modules in the kernel, which VMM should I use. In the end, it makes not much of a difference to people who just use their computers. If your playing Quake, do you stop and wonder what kind of VMM your opponent is using before you frag him? When your writting a webpage do you think about if your system loads kernel modules on demand or just loads them all on boot? Most likely no. As long as it works, it works. But we don't see that around here. Instead its we have to have to newest/fastest/most mathematically pleasing implementations. Which is fine for a hobby, but some how we mistake getting new widgets with being ready for the desktop, or getting a new VMM with being ready for the desktop, or getting a pretty theme for KDE and Gnome as being ready for the desktop. Each time one change happens everyone thinks "we're ready for the desktop."

We're not. We don't even know how to think about the desktop. On the desktop people want to talk to each other. So we make 50 different AIM clients that have no additional features a user can use over the basic linux client AOL released. But they all have their own unique way of interacting with OSCAR and link to each developer's favorite libraries. Then we wonder why they stick with the windows version which has file sending, and voice chat. People on the desktop want to look at webpages. We write an entire XUL language to create browser driven programs, and write the most standards compliant/elegant browser we can. It doesn't display 1/3 of all frontpage pages correctly but thats the pages fault because its not standard right? This again assumes the user knows, much less actually cares, about standards compliance. If a bank has a non-std webpage, a desktop user isn't going stomp around and cry about this is sacreligous, he's going to go get a browser that works with it.

Yerma is right, linux isn't for most people yet. Everyone else around here has their head in the clouds at the moment. Linux is just linux. Its an OS that can run servers pretty well, it has a few GUIs written for its X server and its got a lot of programs it can run. But when it comes down to it, its about as "ready for the desktop" as any BSD, Solaris, or IRIX is.

Either it is ready or it is not. Which is it?

its not really and never will be.

Once you start comparing Linux to XP or OS X then its not really for you.

PLEASE, all of you thinking of installing Linux, leave your bias behind if you want to install and run Linux. If you can't, then don't install it. You do a great disservice to all other users.

Anyone interested in installing Linux should go download KNOPPIX and try it for a year before attempting to install Linux.

Get your feet wet before diving into the water because a lot of Linux users are sick and tried of people crying and bitching.

I would like to see a distro with all of these attributes:

* i686 optimized
* dependency-resolving _binary_ package system
* automatic hardware detection and modprobing

(and less crucially)

* Qt with Xft2/fontconfig support
* browser plugins preconfigured
* a unified GNOME/KDE theme like bluecurve, galaxy

It is not as if any of these features precludes any of the others, so I can't see why we still don't have a distro which satisfies all of these wishes. Mandrake is pretty close, but i586, and they impose their own icons, tools, etc.; Yoper has no package manager; Arch is missing automatic hardware detection; RH is i386 (among other problems); Knoppix is i486/i386; Gentoo has only src packages (but GRP will be nice); Ark looks promising, but its rpm-apt repositories were not functional last time I checked.

It's not that I can't recompile apps and setup the kernel for my hardware, and patch Qt, etc--I can and I have--it's just that I don't particularly want to spend the time. Especially if I'm dealing with more than a few machines.

i have to agree with many of the comments. one problem with linux is the knowitall elit peopol that threats evry newbi like an idiot. we all started out sometime with out knowing how to do certing things. and i disagre with not using linux as an desktop os for mp3s videos surfing the web i personly think thats its an excelent os for that.i can absolutly agree that modding a text file is the best way to configure an app. becus you simpli cant fit all options to a gui. but why not have it both ways a gui with the ussual option that writes a clean config file. if you are going to do something advanced edit the config files fore simpel things use the gui. that is one thing i dont like about most gui config apps the write horribel config files that are messy to work with. thats why i only use debian anfd gentoo. i wish peoupol that wrote the config apps would make the write easy config files. but then agin since im complayning about it and since its linux i have the power to fix it , guess thats wath the community is about

Just to clarify a common misconception about Redhat - it is not i386.

It mixes i686 nd i386 flags (march and mcpu, cant remember which way round)

The idea being that you get performance for i686, but will still run on non-686 processors (like mine a K6)

I think some of these quotes from the various Linux distributions websites help to show why so many people are trying out Linux. Nothing is mentioned about configuring text files or the command line or being and advanced computer user before you attempt to install and use Linux.

Redhat 8.0 is geared for those who are: "Looking to create the ultimate open source desktop" and who are "Just learning Linux."

SuSE has "unprecedented degree of technical maturity and user-friendly design." " (SuSE's) modern desktop environment makes working, playing, and surfing more comfortable for users and equips professionals with complex, adaptable tools."

"Mandrake Linux is a friendly Linux Operating System which specializes in ease-of-use for both servers and the home/office"

Vector Linux says " For the casual computer user you have a lightning fast desktop with graphical programs to handle your daily activities from web surfing, sending and receiving email, chatting on ICQ or IRC to running an ftp server."

Lycoris: "Desktop/LX is an operating system designed with your ease of use in mind."

"Xandros Desktop is an easy to use, highly compatible Linux distribution for desktop computer users. It provides an alternative operating system environment that is simple to install, configure and use..."

"LindowsOS is designed with the desktop user in mind and is the easiest to install and use operating system you'll ever experience. "

Peanut Linux comes "pre-software configured OS with a spectacular GUI for the most versatile operating system available today!."

College Linux is "easy to install and use and which provides an alternative to the traditional commercial operating systems."

Everyone seems to forget that urpmi has dependency resolving. I don't use mandrake, but I believe urpmi is the BEST rpm management program out there. Just set the sources to the internet instead of the cd's, and you're good to go with anything you want to install. No more RPM dependency hell.

They sure do sound good. lol

Gee, do you think its hype?..

Use your computer as an easy and lightning fast way to.. store recipes.

Yet another unbiassed review:

I'm a web designer and a recent Linux convert who has tried several of the large distros. This article is the summary of my experience over the last few months. I decided to start using Linux a few months ago around the time Mandrake went to version 9 and Red Hat to version 8. With all the hype I figured I'd give it a try.

Mandrake 9 was my first distro--it gave me problems with user management from the first day. It didn't seem intuitive and I lasted about a week with it. At the recommendation of many linux users, I installed RedHat 8. I found it to be an easy transition from Windows (with the exception of networking and mounting drives). Not only that, it ran faster than XP and was more customizable.


Why am I not surprised at this? I don't really see the point of this review. Its definitely not for newbies who never tried linux, for the author himself claims that he has nothing against editing a file here and there. But even if it was for newbies, I still would expect a newbie to at least take a short look at the installation guide: in case of yoper, type yoper to begin to install - its there, and it can't be missed, even if you just skim through the documentation. Yet the author's biggest problem was looking up that info on google.

As one by one each distro is discarded with similar ridiculous excuses, one conclusion presents itself: Red Hat is the best! Its faster than SuSe, its doesn't have 'issues' like Mandrake, and, oh, I almost forgot to add: BlueCurve and unified desktop rules. (as opposed to At this point, if the reader has a haunting feeling of deja vu, he probably has spent a lot of time reading osnews reviews. Even while it was not written by Eugenia, the language it uses while writing off each distro is simply disgusting (anyone remember Mandrake or KDE reviews?)
Lycoris is 'pitiful' in its package default package selection, and it was "dumbed down just enough leave me wanting enough to not use it for long". SuSe: "YAST and YAST2 seemed awkward and slow." Yoper "was a HUGE disappointment" for reasons above. The only one distro that's good is Knoppix, which is CD based anyway. Lucky we have Red Hat, for "After going back and forth from one thing to another, I'm now on my fourth install of RH 8 and I don't plan to change again. As far as I can tell, and from my experience so far, it is the best Linux distro out there." Read why: its faster, nicer, simpler, + it has the excellent option of "right click>new terminal" which is just lovely in GNOME.

The whole 'review' becomes really hilarious when it seems that the author doesn't have a problem with having to search google to find out how to mount a drive. But RH is still the best, even while: After messing around with linuxconf long enough (which isn't recommended for RedHat 8), reading enough manuals and asking enough questions, I can sometimes get samba up and running half right" (well, it took me 4 clicks with samba-wizard in mandrake to set it up). Forgot to add having to manually edit fstab (what is fstab anyway? ... all right I know it...)

And of course, the authority of the author is established in the end, (and because it was beginning with the same announcment, it puts the story in a nice frame): "Maybe this should have been an intro, but better late than never--my background is as a web designer and developer." Hmmm... familiar? This is not very fair with newbies, but again, what is the audience - save for osnews readers - this 'review' is targeted at? Newbies? They will love googling for info about how to mount a cdrom. They will also love editing fstab and having Samba working sometimes. Experienced linux users? What does this review tell to them? What seems to be the case is that this is yet another 'Red Hat and Bluecurve is the best, and I want the world to know this' type of review. Nicely done, osnews (again).

There are some realy snobs around here aren't there.

Why use Linux if all you do is surf and e-mail?

Well- (1) perhaps you would like to try and alternative and see if you can do a little bit more than just surf and read e-mail. Linux has an enormous amount of software that you won't know will benefit you untill you try it. (2) Perhpaps you are philosophically opposed to Bill Gates. I spend my whole day in front of a computer using spreadsheets/word processors etc and I personally feel chained to a post unless I have an alternative.

I'm no computer guru. I have had an almost identical experience to the guy who wrote the article. Rather than solving a problem, sometimes it is more efficient to just grab another distro install it and see if it automagically configures everything for you. Later on when you know more about linux, it might become more efficient to keep your present distro and solve its problems. This article wasn't critical of linux distros. The author was merely honest.

Newbies who are open minded and don't mind spending a few bucks contribute just as much if not more to Linux than elites who talk big but don't actually contribute anything substantial in the way of free software.

Linux is like waaaaaaaaaaaaay overhyped!!
Why can't these distro makers simply be honest about what Linux does well and what it does not?

Linux for casual computer users? LAMO!!

hey buster, i can do anything you can do with Linux, compiling the OS & apps and all that CLI crap gets old after a while, "done been there and done that" now i see no problem with computer users getting a copy of Linux and installing it for checking their email, surfing the big WWW, playing games, writing documents & etc...etc...

ever install Mandrake, Redhat, SuSE, these are quite user friendly and if someone can install Windoze they can install any of the three above...

yerma you need to get a life, maybe if you get away from the computer for a while, go out with some friends (if you have any) maybe you just might get lucky enough to get laid...

Wow, I went to work for a few hours and came back to find this commentary has exploded. First I'd like to say I think Vincent really made a nice summary that I agree with..
Here is my position:

GNU/Linux and 'free' software in general was developed by people who were creating solutions for their own problems. The aim of most of these utilities was to make a better UNIX like environment to develop with, host servers with, etc. Obviously these people were techies. They had no problem with manually editing configuration files because that is the way they prefer it. While it may take a little time reading a manual, the end result is a highly configurable system where the power lies not between the interface and the user but directly in the user.

It is only natural that, since these tools were developed FOR developers and sys admins, that they are not highly accessible to non-technical people.

For this reason I think that GNU/Linux and other 'free' UNIX based operating systems are not of incredible use to the general public. The entire goal of the GNU project was to create a UNIX like operating system which is free as in freedom. The goal was not to become the mainstream desktop operating system for users.

Now things are changing. Free software development has ballooned and the motivations behind development are no longer what they used to be. While a developer may have previously created a tool because he/she required it, or may have appended a feature to a tool because he/she wanted it, now developers are making free software for other people. I can't say what the motivation is, but in my personal experience it is simply that coding is damn fun. The GNU and Linux kernel people have created a free UNIX based operating system that works. Now people are looking further.

This next frontier is the average user desktop. Projects like GNOME and KDE are bringing this into reality, but the fact is we are at a transitional state right now in this field. Unfortunately we have a lot of (zealots) who run around saying that GNU/Linux is a desktop replacement TODAY. It is not, as this article perhaps shows.

Now the problem arises that there are people like me who use GNU/Linux as a development platform. Yes, I use it as a desktop too, but I wouldn't expect the average person to sit at my Openbox session which has simply 'xterm' and 'exit' in the right click menu and be able to do a thing.

Now people like me read these articles and see things on various bbses and newsgroups with people complaining that GNU/Linux is not a good desktop operating system for Joe 6-pack. Who claimed it was? If you can remember who told you it was please make note to run away from them next time they give you some piece of advice. Linux is an incredibly powerful and versatile system that can do nearly anything you could wish to ask a computer to do. But to gain this power you are going to need to take time to learn and read.

Understandably people don't want to take this time. If you are not a computer enthusiast you probably don't want to sit reading manuals and learning about the UNIX interface. Just as I wouldn't care to take the time to become a decent auto mechanic. It would be nice to save on bills but I don't have the interest or time. I'd rather just take my car to a mechanic when I have a problem.

In the state GNU/Linux is today people who are not computer enthusiasts and do not wish to take the time to read manuals should not be using it. In fact even if they do use it and manage to install it, etc, and take time to read/learn/configure, yet all they do is run xmms, mozilla and evolution, they are probably wasting their time. GNU/Linux is a far more powerful system than that. All those thigns can be done on the latest MS os with little to no configuration, and really, to those saying lack of stability is an issue, 2000 and XP are rock solid.
And, with Windows at least you have some reason whine. Complaining that no one has created a piece of free software that lets you configure an application is like me complaining that my auto mechanic won't fix my car for free. Of course he would probably laugh at me and even insult me if I persistantly whined. He'd likely say "Fix it yourself!" And I say to those who complain that GNU/Linux is not 'user-friendly', "if you want it to be, write the software and tools to make that happen." And this is seen as 'elitism.' Bullshit. It is not elitism. It is realism.

If I was shopping for a new car and someone told me I didn't need and probably didn't even want a Hummer, I wouldn't consider them elitist. Just as I don't consider someone elitist who tells someone they shouldn't be using an operating system designed as a server or development workstation if that person is an average user.

Perhaps in a few years GNU/Linux will in fact become a viable desktop operating system for the average user. Perhaps anyone will be able to install it, install software, and use it for their daily tasks. But that is simply not the case today, and there is no reason for anyone to be apologetic for it. And there is no logic in whining that GNU/Linux doesn't have feature 'x' or won't hold my hand while doing 'y'.

Use the right tool for the right job.

"hey buster, i can do anything you can do with Linux, compiling the OS & apps and all that CLI crap gets old after a while, "done been there and done that" now i see no problem with computer users getting a copy of Linux and installing it for checking their email, surfing the big WWW, playing games, writing documents & etc...etc..."

I'm impressed. But really, compiling apps is so passe. Use apt or something.

"yerma you need to get a life, maybe if you get away from the computer for a while, go out with some friends (if you have any) maybe you just might get lucky enough to get laid..."

Grow up.

Who overhypes it? You mean "LMAO" right?

i thought it was a good article. good job.

RE: Grow up.

NO!!!

i don't wanna grow up...

superficial and insubstantial article... (That's only my personal opinion.)

First to yerma:

I totally agree. I wish the tech pundits and all the distro makers would just aim their collective asses toward the corporate unix crowd where they can make money off a niche that already loves them and be done with it. The small to medium server market should be the main focus and the unix office should be the second. Do not tell me there is no market for this or unix solutions like workstation makers and the Exceed folks would go out of business. The secretaries in my office should not be allowed to stand within twenty feet of a linux box. Is it because I am an elitist who thinks they are better than these people?

Hell no. All the smark aleck elite need to spend a day and watch how these folks use their computers. They know their word processors and formatting and spreadsheet tricks that are amazing. They might ask some silly OS questions but I avoid at least a couple of them if I know they are trolling for an Office answer because it is going to be out on the bleeding nasty edge of what anyone ever thought an office suite should do. It is important not to get too arrogant. I just do not think linux is right for the regular office worker.

Now, to Cheapskate:

Why in the world would you insult someone and suggest they need to get laid (as if to say they do not often) over a difference in opinion over the use of a tool like a computer. I love computers but that is the most unnecessary juvenile nonsense I have heard in awhile.

Lighten up people.

BTW, yerma, I like compiling sometimes. :=> I like all those neato configure flags and getting my app just the way I like it. I got off the compile a night club but I have done about 6 now or so since I installed RH8 on this box.

I don't usually have to but it is nice to have that option.

To continue same tone from my post under the "Slackware RC2 release" news..

Once again, we have these computer minion/newbies/all-of-a-sudden-the-family-experts giving a review of linux distributions. MY GOD when does it end?

Comparing Linux to Windows OS's on ease of use and completeness is rediculous. Why does every mom/pop type or point-click type "expert" that came along last few years constantly do these comparisons? How many 'reviews' am I going to have to barf through where the reviewer is some kid or computer newbie and has at least ONE distro he couldn't even figure out on how to install? Then gives up on it and writes it off as bad because he couldn't point-click his way to a working Install.

Where are the REAL computer guys? Out doing real work. The ones making all this stuff easier for the laymen. The true "geeks", the ones who *really* enjoy the actual workings of computers are the ones making the stuff and really using it. Really enjoy the difficulty of computer problems and solving them. Getting their hands dirty in the Command-line while also proficiently enjoying the pretty GUI. An integrated whole.

Those are the reviews I read. This mess of a 'review' (please!) is such a waste and complete utter garbage. And to me show how bad this OSNews site has become (definetly not alone. OsOpinion has become WAY worse). With pressures to have content daily, need fill when they can't find real stuff to post. Where anyone submitting a half-assed attempt at a review can get famous and sound like an expert.

These same people looking for alternatives to Microsoft because they "heard" how evil MS are and they like to fit the in-crowd of herd mentality in saying "Windows Sucks", Posting altered names like "Micro$haft", etc. Then moving into the latest hoopla (Linux) and spouting off on OS sites regarding its shortcoming (THEIR shortcomings actually).

What are you running from? Windows is perfect for you. You aren't going to wander off and find something comparable for what you are looking to achieve. Allready I see these types flocking to Gentoo. Bragging about their "fully optimized" system without knowing the facts or proven benchmarks. Out using their 'fully optimized' and recomplied ls commands. Wow, it lists the directory faster!
Why do you think Yoper is #1 at Distrowatch lately with a LIFE of 3 Months!?! Reading the website, I know exactly why! Newbie Flytrap. Genius matrketers more than pioneering new Linux Distro.

*I* would load the last released BeOS on my moms machine before any Linux distro.
But keep waiting for that RedHat 10/11...


Ugh
;)

Good Post Yerma...

All the veterans who (rather snidely) tell newbies to RTFM don't get it. THERE IS NO MANUAL. There is currently no single document, or easily accessible group of documents, that do an adequate job of explaining the differences between Windows and Linux to a newbie.

As a Windows veteran & Linux Newbie, I can tell you that Linux is not that hard once you figure out the reasoning behind some things. If you have ever had to cope with DOS in the pre-Windows days, you know what I mean. Linux is not hard, it is merely different. it operates under a different set of assumptions than Windows does. That does not make it more complex, merely different.

The problem is that most Linux veterans don't understand how to explain the differences to a newbie. Most experts in any field are like that. For instance, a few days ago I was browsing a user forum and found reference to the ctrl-alt-F1 and ctrl-alt-F5 commands that let you drop to the command line and back to X again without rebooting. This works in Lycoris, I still don't know for sure if it is unique to Lycoris or if it works in any version of KDE. I had NEVER heard of it before. After I spent MONTHS READING THE F****** MANUALS and browsing forums, as well as tinkering with various distros hands on. I still had never heard of this. No documentation bothered to mention it. Everyone casually assumed that "everyone knew that" I guess.

Well, everyone doesn't know that. In fact, very few people know "that", whatever "that" may be. A big part of the problem is the way Linux veterans don't stop to realize that you have to teach someone the alphabet before you can teach them to spell. Instead, Linux veterans get impatient when a newbie has trouble reading the equivalent of Shakespear when they should be practicing on the equivalent of See Spot Run.

Linux is not hard, once you figure out some of the shorthand, and get your mind around the basic assumptions. But very few people seem willing to lower themselves to using the kind of baby talk that newbies need before they can start asking the complex question.

More potential users = More newbies = More corporate support = More hardware/software support (proprietary or not) = More developers for Linux = Better OS = Better competition in a market stuff with Windows boxes = More Media Hype = More potential users = more newbies = ........... = A BETTER OS

Now I'm sure what you guys want is a better OS. There will be those distro's that will possibly become as easy to use as the MAC OS or the Windows to come, but I doubt the disappearance of slimmed down unbloated distro's will take place, that will probably also be helped by all the attention the other Linux distro's are getting.

-- Of course, there's always the BSD's, if you ever really wanted to learn UNIX.

The Linux Documentation Project comes pretty close to something like the FreeBSD Handbook.

Pretty good if you ask me, and hey, if you purchase most mainstream distros, they include manuals a pretty decent service packages for the price.

Yerma: you say this:

"No, I do believe speechbooks for the blind should exist. There are different groups of people with different needs. People who can see need text books. People who can't need audio books. "

then you say this dumb sentance:

"People who just want to browse the web, do email, and listen to mp3s have Windows XP and Mac OSX. These are both fairly stable operating systems and function well."

it seems you have a problem with some one tweaking Linux to make it a cheap easy to use platform for people. guess what...tough crap. I run Debian, I have a patched kernel, I love vi, and I spend a lot of time on the bash prompt. but I love using my OSX machine becasue it is simple. what stinks is I do my programming on Linux. well, I would love and have worked on getting debian to work better for lazy people like myself.

your ego seems to be attatched to the 1337-ness of working on Linux. so, given that Linux is getting easier to use for everyone and "Idiots" can install and run your beloved OS is a thret to you. go work on BSD, very few people use that so you can feel special, or if you realy want to feel good about yourself, run LFS or Hurd.

your ego seems to be attatched to the 1337-ness of working on Linux. so, given that Linux is getting easier to use for everyone and "Idiots" can install and run your beloved OS is a thret to you. go work on BSD, very few people use that so you can feel special, or if you realy want to feel good about yourself, run LFS or Hurd.

I think a lot of people are missing the point when it comes to yerma's statements.

Maybe then again, I am misunderstanding his point.

In any case, think of it like this. There is no single over-whelming feature of linux, BSD or HURD even with all the simplification and user configuration tools for linux distros to make it worth using instead of Windows and/or Mac OSX.

The overwhelming reason for me to use linux is the *Nix-like OS on cheap x86 hardware. I live in a Unix world at work. I like Unix and like the filesystem, utilities and the ideas behind Unix and linux. It is not just the gnu tools or I would put with cygwin or the Korn shell on NT unix tools or MS tools for Unix folks and all those things. It is the whole package.

There is no killer app or feature that makes linux worth using instead of Windows or MacOSX for the even somewhat average user.

I disagree with the idea that good gui tools should not be bothered with in the way that yerma almost indirectly implies and I think they have their place.

However, for the vast majority of people, linux is simply not needed for the desktop.

I would like that killer desktop app to appear for the linux desktop.

To this time, it has not. I went through the days of re-training DOS folks to Windows and no corporation is going to go through that kind of hell again unless someone gives them an excellent reason beyond even saving money. There has to be something on the desktop for linux you just do not have on Windows or some other platform probably would have to be something tied to the basic Unix infrastructure.

I was thinking of something that would be nice, a dead simple application agnostic macro tool tied to a voice interface and scheduling tied to cron and at with user level security features that limit malicious use.

Why? I know I off on a tangent but the one thing that people say when I ask them what they want their computer to do that it does not do today they say:
"I want to tell my computer to do the reports and it just does them the same way I did them eight time before from downloading the raw data to importing it into the spreadsheet to running the macro I already made for formatting to sending out to the distribution list through email on every third friday of the month."

There is currently no single document, or easily accessible group of documents, that do an adequate job of explaining the differences between Windows and Linux to a newbie.

Totally agree on this one. However I see the TLDP coming up and it seems very promising. RedHat/Mandrake also have excellent manuals. However none of them seem complete/generic. RedHat seems very specific towards it's distros...

I was browsing a user forum and found reference to the ctrl-alt-F1 and ctrl-alt-F5 commands that let you drop to the command line and back to X again without rebooting.

This is also, ironically, very true. Laugh if u want too, when I was a n00b to linux a few months ago, I would too restart my PC when I dropped to ctrl+alt+F1 by 'mistake'. And same with restarting services such as ftp servers, when I made a change in the config files, I never knew that '/etc/init.d/server restart' would get the job done. I was told this by a friend who's used linux for 4 years.

I mean yes, there are excellent forums out there, but that's not a solution. There are too many forums out there...

Another problem relates to names of programs. I mean can u ever guess that gaim is a chat client, balsa/evolution are e-mail clients, totem/xine are video players, XMMS is an audio player..? I know there are some that follow decent conventions (gnome-calculator/kcalc for eg) but not all. And being a debian user, I can 'apt-cache search mp3 | grep player' to get results like XMMS and mpg123 however I wonder what other distros do... I know the mainstream RH/Mandrake/SuSE/etc. do a good job at this, but not all...

Those are the reviews I read. This mess of a 'review' (please!) is such a waste and complete utter garbage. And to me show how bad this OSNews site has become (definetly not alone. OsOpinion has become WAY worse). With pressures to have content daily, need fill when they can't find real stuff to post. Where anyone submitting a half-assed attempt at a review can get famous and sound like an expert.


As you are so intent on getting the point that "you don't have to use Linux"...

Dude, you don't have to read these review's.

"it seems you have a problem with some one tweaking Linux to make it a cheap easy to use platform for people. guess "what...tough crap. I run Debian, I have a patched kernel, I love vi, and I spend a lot of time on the bash prompt. but I love using my OSX machine becasue it is simple. what stinks is I do my programming on Linux. well, I would love and have worked on getting debian to work better for lazy people like myself."

First I'd like to congradulate you for using the best operating system in the world.

I have absolutely no problem with someone tweaking Linux to do whatever the hell they want, if that is being a desktop OS then I thing that's great. What I AM actually saying (ie not what you are reading into my posts) is that at this time Linux is simply not ready for the desktop, and bitching about it isn't going to help one bit.

Hopefully one day GNU/Linux WILL be ready for the desktop. I personally would absolutely LOVE to see the world embrace free software. But as it is today there seems to be a lot of propaganda that Linux is ready for the desktop. It isn't. This leads the problem of newsgroups and bbses getting just crap-flooded with people who refuse to read manuals or use google. And it leads to idiotic 'reviews' like this in which the user actually admits he didn't complete the installation of Debian because he was TOO LAZY to read some documentation.

"your ego seems to be attatched to the 1337-ness of working on Linux. so, given that Linux is getting easier to use for everyone and "Idiots" can install and run your beloved OS is a thret to you. go work on BSD, very few people use that so you can feel special, or if you realy want to feel good about yourself, run LFS or Hurd. "

No, really, I have no problem with people using GNU/Linux. Luckily the system is built from the ground up so that I can take any top layers off (ie gnome/kde) that I don't need but that may be useful for a desktop system.

As far as me having a l337 ego complex..
Hey, guess what? I live in a house with 3 others. I set up a computer running GNOME2 and debian in our living room and gave all my roommate's accounts. They use it for web browsing, email, writing term papers, etc. And they have had very few problems. I am not at all elitist. I love the fact that linux boxes can be set up which any person can use--and believe me my roommates are not techies.

Now while this works fine and well I wouldn't expect them to be able to install new software and configure it without any problems. It took a long night of configuration to get it set up so they could use it easily.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people trying to make Linux a better desktop operating system. I do have a problem with people bitching that Linux is not in it's current form a good desktop operating system.

I saw your comments in the Slackware thread but didn't respond because that thread has already too far down, so I'm glad you posted here so I could address you.

Once again, we have these computer minion/newbies/all-of-a-sudden-the-family-experts giving a review of linux distributions. MY GOD when does it end?

I think you have two different groups of people to blame for this:
1) As Marcus already pointed out, the distro makers who are hyping Linux to be the killer Windows replacement. These kinds of distros (Xandros, Lindows, Lycoris, Mandrake, etc) are GEARED towards the 'point-and-click' crowd.
2) The cocksuckers who post to every MS-related thread (on this site and others) who's single solution to every single Windows problem imaginable is to reformat the hard drive and install Linux. These people take it to an almost religous level and they constantly insult or belittle anyone who uses (or even mentions for that matter) Windows.

After listening to the above two groups for long enough, can you really blame people for being curious enough to try it? Of course, once most people try it, they quicky figure out that the whole thing (Linux being like Windows) is just bullshit false propoganda and go back to using Windows. Some of them find solice in Linux - most do not.
I have messed with Linux long enough to know that if you really want to be successful with it, you have to leave the 'Windows mentality' behind and approach it from a different angle. Of course, since there are so many 'Linux for the masses' zealots out there, they intentionally mislead people and don't bother to tell them this from the beginning.

As for your insults of reviews like this, why are you so upset? If you don't want 'point-and-click' users to go anywhere near Linux, you should WELCOME reviews like this - as they warn all the other 'point-and-click- users to stay away. Do these reviews misrepresent Linux? To the Linux expert, probably. But to the average Windows user, the reviews are usually right on the money.

if you really want to be successful with it, you have to leave the 'Windows mentality' behind and approach it from a different angle.

Yes, thank you Darius. I love linux. It works for me but I am so tired of all the distro makers talk about it being "for the masses" now. Not yet. Closer, moving fast toward the goal but is it there. Nope not quite yet.

There are plenty of windows zealots on this same site too BTW that come into every other linux thread to start a pissing match about how XP is a godsend never fails and never has errors for them ever. (Just as many linux zealots on the other side of the coin i know.)

I am going to paint out my little guide on who should bother trying linux:

1. You hate MS the company but want everything to run just like Windows.

Nope. Stick with Windows, even a mac won't make you happy you are stuck.

2. You hate the Windows way of doing things but you want it all to just work right out of the box.

Nope Start saving for a mac.


3. You like playing lots of computer games.

Stick with Windows nothing else has the sheer number or quality of games.

4. You hate Windows not MS you are tinkerer and you want to try out a new way of doing things.

Yes, this person might like some of the newer nicer professional distros.

5. You use Unix, program for unix, and like unix.

Yes, linux is not unix but it is the easiest to use *nix clone for x86 in terms of nice graphical tools and all that IMO. BSD users this is just my opinion.

6. You want to learn unix.

Try out linux. It is a good place to start and work into it slowly.

7. You are bored with Microsoft and/or Mac OSX and want to tinker about with a new MS and you are not afraid to put a little work into learning a brand new way of doing things.

Yes. Dual boot if you got a big hard drive. You might like linux you may not.

bah: all this carping is nonsense. Linux is for whoever wants to use it, in whatever manner they choose to use it.

I purchased the Standard (non-Crossover) version of Xandros and think it's by *far* the best, sleekest, fastest, most stable and easiest to use Linux I've ever used, and I've used a lot of them.

I don't personally give a flying fig if someone thinks Linux is only for those who can install and configure it using the command line, text files and man pages, screw that.