What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu" - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu" - Ubuntu ; http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...x-ready-masses...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 71

Thread: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

  1. What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"


  2. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    Rob schreef:
    > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...x-ready-masses


    The article reads:
    "Unified Packaging
    Seriously, installing applications on Linux is awful. Don't flame me or
    berate me with examples of how easy it is - it's not.

    Half the time it's full of trials, tribulations, problems, and manual
    hacks - this is simply not good enough for a simple non-technical user."

    We don't need to flame the man on this, he's just set himself on fire.

    What can be easier (and safer!) then to find the application of choice
    in the free repositories and clicking Install?

    Sure it would be nice to unify all package management systems but even
    now you only need to deal with the one for your distribution.

    I can see it would be nice for application vendors to only have to worry
    about one single package but the present situations is probably better,
    they don't have to deal with individual users but only with the
    maintainers of the repositories.

    The advantage for the casual user is that experts have had their hands
    on the product before it was made available.

    Or do it the way of Google or Nvidia that supply an install script, in
    my opinion no more difficult than a MS installer.

  3. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    I'm a relatively new user of Linux and recently wrote a piece
    about how difficult is for me to find my way around in Ubuntu, but
    decided later to trash the article. After reading Dirk's response
    I decided to get it out of the trash. Here's what happened..

    Yes, it's in the Trash. Right clicking on it in the "Trash -
    File Browser", I'm given the choice to "Open with Text Editor"
    but selecting that choice, I get:"Could not open the file trash:///
    _Critical%20Document%201. gedit cannot handle trash: locations."

    I hope that this automated response makes sense to someone.

    I didn't ask this system to use gedit to open my trashed
    "Critical.txt", even though it was originally written using gedit.

  4. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    Alan Illeman wrote:

    > I'm a relatively new user of Linux and recently wrote a piece
    > about how difficult is for me to find my way around in Ubuntu, but
    > decided later to trash the article. After reading Dirk's response
    > I decided to get it out of the trash. Here's what happened..
    >
    > Yes, it's in the Trash. Right clicking on it in the "Trash -
    > File Browser", I'm given the choice to "Open with Text Editor"
    > but selecting that choice, I get:"Could not open the file trash:///
    > _Critical%20Document%201. gedit cannot handle trash: locations."


    Right-click on the Trash icon, and choose Open.
    Then just drag the file back to the desktop.
    Open as normal.

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows

  5. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:10:15 +0200, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

    > Rob schreef:
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...3/linux-ready-

    masses
    >
    > The article reads:
    > "Unified Packaging
    > Seriously, installing applications on Linux is awful. Don't flame me or
    > berate me with examples of how easy it is - it's not.
    >
    > Half the time it's full of trials, tribulations, problems, and manual
    > hacks - this is simply not good enough for a simple non-technical user."
    >
    > We don't need to flame the man on this, he's just set himself on fire.
    >
    > What can be easier (and safer!) then to find the application of choice
    > in the free repositories and clicking Install?
    >
    > Sure it would be nice to unify all package management systems but even
    > now you only need to deal with the one for your distribution.
    >
    > I can see it would be nice for application vendors to only have to worry
    > about one single package but the present situations is probably better,
    > they don't have to deal with individual users but only with the
    > maintainers of the repositories.
    >
    > The advantage for the casual user is that experts have had their hands
    > on the product before it was made available.
    >
    > Or do it the way of Google or Nvidia that supply an install script, in
    > my opinion no more difficult than a MS installer.


    Yeah. The guy has missed the mark with this article for two reasons --
    one, because the problems he identifies are not the real problems
    blocking Linux uptake, and two, the changes he wants aren't going to
    happen under any scenario.

    Once a machine is set up with Linux so everything works, it's as easy to
    use as Windows. And in the case of Ubuntu, installing new apps is simple
    as long as the packages are in a repository.

    But, for whatever reason, Linux desktop/notebook computers do not seem to
    be noticeably cheaper than comparable Windows machines, so the average
    user sees no cost benefit for using Linux. And there are limitations in
    the form of popular Windows games and applications that won't run. As
    long as those conditions prevail, Linux is going to be a niche OS for
    consumers.

    But I think businesses are moving to Linux as it gets easier to support.

    Charlie

  6. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    Rob wrote:

    > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...x-ready-masses


    One of the nicest things about Linux is that the user community have a far
    greater say in its future development than they will ever have with a
    proprietary system - and that not only goes for the Linux OS but also for
    Linux software.

    So it's very helpful when people make comments and suggestions as to how
    Linux might be better, because you can be sure that these will be taken up
    in future and used to make Linux an even better system than it already is.

    The moral of this is: if you have ideas about how Linux should be improved,
    don't keep them to yourself. Get involved in the Linux community, and have
    your say!
    --
    Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

  7. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    Robin T Cox schreef:
    > Rob wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...x-ready-masses

    >
    > One of the nicest things about Linux is that the user community have a far
    > greater say in its future development than they will ever have with a
    > proprietary system - and that not only goes for the Linux OS but also for
    > Linux software.
    >
    > So it's very helpful when people make comments and suggestions as to how
    > Linux might be better, because you can be sure that these will be taken up
    > in future and used to make Linux an even better system than it already is.
    >
    > The moral of this is: if you have ideas about how Linux should be improved,
    > don't keep them to yourself. Get involved in the Linux community, and have
    > your say!


    Amen!

  8. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:24:06 -0400, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Alan Illeman wrote:
    >
    >> I'm a relatively new user of Linux and recently wrote a piece about how
    >> difficult is for me to find my way around in Ubuntu, but decided later
    >> to trash the article. After reading Dirk's response I decided to get it
    >> out of the trash. Here's what happened..
    >>
    >> Yes, it's in the Trash. Right clicking on it in the "Trash - File
    >> Browser", I'm given the choice to "Open with Text Editor" but selecting
    >> that choice, I get:"Could not open the file trash:///
    >> _Critical%20Document%201. gedit cannot handle trash: locations."

    >
    > Right-click on the Trash icon, and choose Open. Then just drag the file
    > back to the desktop. Open as normal.


    Thanks, I'll try to remember that ;-)

    Suppose I don't want it on the Desktop, can't I just restore it to the
    directory from where it was trashed (like in Windows)?


  9. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:01:18 -0700, Rob wrote:

    > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...3/linux-ready-

    masses

    Although I do agree with the title of the article, I don't think the
    author of the article has an understanding of Open Source and its unique
    benefits and difficulties. The article definitely comes across as him
    having an ax to grind.

    --
    UI

  10. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    * Jose wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:

    > It's not the using of a config file that is the barrier, it's the
    > knowing what to put there.


    You arent born with that knowledge in Windows either. You may not know how
    or where to configure monitor settings or other device issues that may come
    up. There are man pages and how to docs that you can install or STFW for.
    Windows help files leave about as much to be desired as some *nix man pages
    so, choose your poison

    --
    David

  11. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    Charlie Wilkes wrote:
    > But, for whatever reason, Linux desktop/notebook computers do not seem to
    > be noticeably cheaper than comparable Windows machines, so the average
    > user sees no cost benefit for using Linux.


    The most plausible reason I've seen for that is the manufacturers
    subsidise the cost of the windows license by including enormous amounts
    of crapware in the default installation. If you're going to buy a laptop
    with the intention of putting linux on it, it makes sense to buy the one
    with the most crapware in the (soon to be overwritten) windows
    installation. The same logic doesn't really apply to desktops if you
    build them yourself. I can't see why MS doesn't just move to an ad
    supported model and give the stuff away - at least we'll know whose
    really paying for it then, and it would help to sort out the desktop
    monopoly. A lot of the crapware is stuff that you are going to need
    because windows is broken anyway.

    --
    JimP

  12. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    Jose illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

    >
    > It's not the using of a config file that is the barrier, it's the knowing
    > what to put there.


    Hello Jose,

    Nice little discussion here.

    Well. Let's look specifically at your last statemnt.

    How do you resize a partition in Windows, Linux, OSX?
    How do you install a video driver in Windows, Linux OSX?
    How do you output the contents of a specific system log in Windows,
    Linux, OSX?

    You see, you need to have knowledge of the system to complete the
    task. The tasks are the same, the methods different.

    If you don't like tinkering with config files, then use an
    all-in-one interface such as webmin.

    --
    "Well, my brother says Hello. So, hooray for speech therapy." ~ Emo
    Philips

  13. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    Jim Price wrote:
    > Charlie Wilkes wrote:
    >> But, for whatever reason, Linux desktop/notebook computers do not seem
    >> to be noticeably cheaper than comparable Windows machines, so the
    >> average user sees no cost benefit for using Linux.

    >
    > The most plausible reason I've seen for that is the manufacturers
    > subsidise the cost of the windows license by including enormous amounts
    > of crapware in the default installation. If you're going to buy a laptop
    > with the intention of putting linux on it, it makes sense to buy the one
    > with the most crapware in the (soon to be overwritten) windows
    > installation. The same logic doesn't really apply to desktops if you
    > build them yourself. I can't see why MS doesn't just move to an ad
    > supported model and give the stuff away - at least we'll know whose
    > really paying for it then, and it would help to sort out the desktop
    > monopoly. A lot of the crapware is stuff that you are going to need
    > because windows is broken anyway.
    >

    But what Linux users have forgotten is that Linux itself is its worst
    enemy. A thousand versions and none can agree with each other.

    Put 3 users of different linux versions in a room together and you get 3
    people with blody nooses.

  14. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    * FG wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu on 2008-08-15:

    [...]

    > But what Linux users have forgotten is that Linux itself is its worst
    > enemy. A thousand versions and none can agree with each other.


    Yeah, cause having a choice really sux.
    What Windows users haven't even realized is that choice is good, unless
    you always got to the ice cream stand and always get vanilla...

    --
    David | Fight Back!
    "I keep seeing spots in front of my eyes."
    "Did you ever see a doctor?"
    "No, just spots."

  15. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    "SINNER" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:scjhn5xgan.ln2@news.gates-of-hell.com...

    >> But what Linux users have forgotten is that Linux itself is its worst
    >> enemy. A thousand versions and none can agree with each other.

    >
    > Yeah, cause having a choice really sux.
    > What Windows users haven't even realized is that choice is good, unless
    > you always got to the ice cream stand and always get vanilla...
    >

    Why is it, that when sombody point out an error in linux or the behavor of
    linux useres, the first thing you do is to shoot the messinger.

    I read FG's meassege as: Linux useres work together and then beat
    microsoft.

    regards
    Henning


  16. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    On 2008-08-16, Jose wrote:
    > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:01:51 +0000, SINNER wrote:
    >
    >> You arent born with that knowledge in Windows either.

    >
    > Yes, but Windows users aren't expected to edit config files manually. It
    > can be done if necessary, but usually isn't, because driver support is
    > good.


    That's fine if it works. The problem is that sometimes it doesn't.
    And then, you are not expected to edit a text config file, but the
    Windows registry. And when you screw that up, you don't lose your
    video for a few minutes, you lose much more...

    Linux would be far better off if there was a comprehensive Hardware
    Compatibility List showing which devices will work out of the box.
    Then, if someone decides to use something not on the list, they go
    into it knowing that there can (and likely will) be problems...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  17. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    On 16/08/08 11:50, Jose wrote:
    >
    > To take the video driver issue for example (since that's the one that
    > first bit me), Windows auto-detects the new card and asks me where to
    > find the install files (if I bought a new card that came with
    > instructions, I follow them, otherwise I let Windows "search for the best
    > driver"). I click OK and it runs.


    Sounds like what Ubuntu does now. Or at least Ubuntu 7.10 does -- they
    botched it in 8.04, judging from http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/7554/

    > This is probably in part because video card makers write drivers for
    > Windows. [...]
    > In Linux, auto-detect didn't work, and I had to edit a config file.


    Funnily enough, I dual boot Ubuntu 7.10 and Windows XP, and Ubuntu
    auto-detected my 1440x900 LCD screen but Windows XP absolutely refuses
    to offer that resolution, even after checking for updated monitor and
    video card drivers. Does Windows XP have a config file I can edit??
    (In this forum, that's just a rhetorical question.)

  18. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    FG illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Jim Price wrote:
    >> Charlie Wilkes wrote:
    >>> But, for whatever reason, Linux desktop/notebook computers do not seem
    >>> to be noticeably cheaper than comparable Windows machines, so the
    >>> average user sees no cost benefit for using Linux.

    >>
    >> The most plausible reason I've seen for that is the manufacturers
    >> subsidise the cost of the windows license by including enormous amounts
    >> of crapware in the default installation. If you're going to buy a laptop
    >> with the intention of putting linux on it, it makes sense to buy the one
    >> with the most crapware in the (soon to be overwritten) windows
    >> installation. The same logic doesn't really apply to desktops if you
    >> build them yourself. I can't see why MS doesn't just move to an ad
    >> supported model and give the stuff away - at least we'll know whose
    >> really paying for it then, and it would help to sort out the desktop
    >> monopoly. A lot of the crapware is stuff that you are going to need
    >> because windows is broken anyway.
    >>

    > But what Linux users have forgotten is that Linux itself is its worst
    > enemy. A thousand versions and none can agree with each other.
    >
    > Put 3 users of different linux versions in a room together and you get 3
    > people with blody nooses.


    What utter nonsense.

    --
    "I was pulled over in Massachusetts for reckless driving. When brought
    before the judge, I was asked if I knew what the punishment for drunk
    driving in that state was. I said, "I don't know... reelection to the
    Senate?" ~ Emo Philips

  19. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    Jose illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:53:09 +0000, Moog wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>> It's not the using of a config file that is the barrier, it's the
    >>> knowing what to put there.

    >>
    >> Hello Jose,
    >>
    >> Nice little discussion here.
    >>
    >> Well. Let's look specifically at your last statemnt.
    >>
    >> How do you resize a partition in Windows, Linux, OSX? How do you install
    >> a video driver in Windows, Linux OSX? How do you output the contents of
    >> a specific system log in Windows, Linux, OSX?
    >>
    >> You see, you need to have knowledge of the system to complete the task.
    >> The tasks are the same, the methods different.
    >>
    >> If you don't like tinkering with config files, then use an all-in-one
    >> interface such as webmin.


    > In Linux, auto-detect didn't work, and I had to edit a config file. This
    > is ok, I can edit text, and at least I know what is happening when I do
    > so. Stuff like
    > HorizSync 30-95
    > VertRefresh 50-160
    > make sense to me. But I have to know first that
    > 1: these are the parameters that need to be set, and
    > 2: these are the values they need to be set to.


    That's not a video card issue. That's a monitor issue. Your monitor
    does not send back the information in the correct way. This means
    auto-configuration cannot work. In MS, you'll find the monitor
    possibly has a driver.

    > THAT is the stuff that's hard to find. THAT is the kind of thing that
    > could be made much much easier with a "this is what to do if you run into
    > trouble" file which should be supplied with Ubuntu. Sure, it's on the
    > web... somewhere... probably... or in a newsgroup (if people even know
    > about newsgroups any more). But if we want to make Linux easy to learn
    > (note I said easy to =learn=, not just plain easy)... then this file
    > would go a long way.


    Whilst a sample file would possibly help, it would be very difficult
    to cover all bases. There's a lot of none standard hardware out there.
    It would take more than a sample file. You'd need a full blown
    database.

    Also, I have had numerous problems with varying monitors in other os's
    too. It's most certainly not linux specific. The good thing about
    linux is that you *can* configure virtually anything to spring into
    life. In other OS's you need the correct drivers.

    So while I understand your point, it is both a pro and a con in equal
    measure.

    Personally, I prefer the ability to tweak whatever I wish to being
    blindly told to install a closed source binary to operate my hardware.

    --
    "I once had a large gay following, but I ducked into an alleyway and
    lost him." ~ Emo Philips

  20. Re: What Linux needs "Even Ubuntu"

    FG wrote:


    > But what Linux users have forgotten is that Linux itself is its worst
    > enemy. A thousand versions and none can agree with each other.


    Yes, that's a real problem. It's just the same as with cars: Average
    people will never buy cars as long as there are so many models to
    choose from. Everything would be better if there's just one car
    model to buy, maybe in 2 different colors. *Then* people woulds really
    start to use cars.



    Florian
    --

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature, please! **
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast