Sign In
Register
Help
I'll keep this short as I have to up for work in the morning, and in England it's 01:50am
My original response was about the article, and I think the question is moot. the guy asking it is probably trying to be provocative, which at least gets people talking.
However as a geek of some 20 years standing and a UNIX sysadmin I have to admit to being somewhat protective of my "tribe"
The deal is this. Badmouthing developers and their products is considered bad behaviour, it is not encouraged. This is not just my view, there is actually a thread about this in the ubuntu forums. I can't claim to speak for anybody, mine is just another opinion, a point of view, It's sort of a no man's land really. However if you read the link I posted you will find in the early parts of it, it does describe the UNIX/Linux ethos rather well.There is nobody in charge. there are no rules, what there is is this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
The code is an oral history of our culture, it is what and who we are. UNIX was here long before windows, It is not something we seek to emulate. UNIX has always been a hackers O/S. By which I mean somebody who hacks code, not somebody who breaks into computer systems. I'm not a programmer, but I can build and troubleshoot, both because of my job, bit mostly because I'm interested.
This is actually hard to explain and I'm probably not doing a good job of it, but Linux is not really a users operating system, the distros try to make it friendly, but invariably people have troubles, and then people will try to help you fix it, but the whole, "help me or I re-install windows" deal tends to annoy a lot of people. Because Linux is running it's own race. It's not competing. The Linux vs Windows thing is for fanboys.. Not there aren't crusades within Linux, the antipathy between gnome and KDE is well known, as are the more humorous divisions between users of vi and emacs. But these are more on religious and technical grounds.
As Neal Stephenson says, PC's are toys, and while windows is good enough to play games on, it's not to be taken seriously. That said I am booted into XP at present, but I'm only half way moved into OSX, and my tabset is in windows I realise it must be hard to understand, and I'm probably not making a lot of sense, but this is about culture, geek culture. If I were to characterise it , it would be something like this. If all you have is hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you're used to is windows, then every solution looks like a windows solution. Modern day Linux is a refutation of windows, of the consumer driven, focus group tested, monolithic, bloatware mess. It works, but it's a failure. But then Linux is not a product, it's a work in progress. You seem to be demanding that things look shiny and nice. If that's what you want talk to canonical, branding is their issue. It's not a developer problem as it's not broken.
Then there are other arguments, like the debian crowd, (traditionally the more hardcore/puritan tribe) not liking the fact that ubuntu co-opted them, even while they know they are the purer breed, because that means that they've got mice. (as in the things that cats hunt) all of a sudden there are loads of little people asking questions who may sully their shining technical achievement, and gum up the works. I think it's a little OTT personally, but it's there tribe, their rules.
Like I said it's about culture, and you're bad mouthing mine. I'm an eagle scout, an evangelical. Like llemm says, if you don't like it, go find something you do like. If you need help compiling ask. Off hand I think you type:
Sudo apt-get install build-utils
which should install a build environment.
then you pull down your source. and extract it:
tar xvzf {file}.tar.gz
or
tar xvjf {file}.tar.bz2
then cd into the directory read the README and the install/build info then:
./configure {options}
eg: ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/
make
make check
make install
This will configure, build, test and install your application under /usr/local/bin or /usr/local/sbin depending on the application.
You have to do this in a terminal on the command line. You'll understand more about why if you read the first link I gave you.
Time for bed.
Has Ubuntu Reached the End Of the Line?
MultiQuote
#42
KayeDean 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 02-April 09
Posted 02 May 2009 - 09:00 PM
As a M$ convert, I chose Ubuntu. As a non-Linux expert, I made a good choice. I am still learning the "guts" of Linux, but in the meantime, I have been able to do enough with it that my Windows CD went to the dumpster.
M$ got too big for their britches and their attitude even bigger. I often wonder if they considered what the end-user really wanted in an OS, or did their advertizing just make us think that was what we wanted and needed. After all, before Windows 95, how many people knew anything about computers and operating systems? How many people know that there were options other than M$ Windows? When I bought my first computer, I didn't know the first thing about anything.
M$ got too big for their britches and their attitude even bigger. I often wonder if they considered what the end-user really wanted in an OS, or did their advertizing just make us think that was what we wanted and needed. After all, before Windows 95, how many people knew anything about computers and operating systems? How many people know that there were options other than M$ Windows? When I bought my first computer, I didn't know the first thing about anything.
#43
RedRat
- Full Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 14-December 07
Posted 03 May 2009 - 12:37 PM
praxis22:
You really are missing the point I am trying to make. Preaching the idea of everyone going out and making their own software might sound like a good idea but not everyone either has the inclination or time to do this. Most users of computers, perhaps the vast bulk of users, see the computer as a tool to get something done, i.e., write a story or book, manipulate photos or videos, listen to music or even create music. Most do not have the slightest inclination to program. I have done my bit of programming, more as a hobby and intellectual pursuit back in the days when the C-compilers firt came out. I wrote a program for curve fitting based on another program that I found in an computer magazine. I tweaked the existing program so that it could fit about 5-7 curves instead of the original linear one. I also provide graphics for the curve thanks to Borland, this was pre-Windows. I know how hard it is to do this and would not want to do this again.
My original point, perhaps not well made, is that if you define "reaching the end of the line" as not recruiting more new users, then Ubuntu may well be coming close to the "end of the line". Now this is not to say that Ubuntu or Linux distros are useful but if we have "saturated" the market for those who now find Linux useful, then indeed we are at the the end of the line. It does come down to numbers whether we like it or not. If you want to recruit new users we cannot just depend on Ubuntu (Linux distros included) with merely being superior to other OSs out there. The distros must be useful and complete, and this applies primarily to the apps. Frankly, I think the basic kernel of Linux seems to be mature, obviously open some tweaking (there are still some annoyances with it, e.g., graphics/video drivers) but then by this measure so is Windows and OSX, other OSs are always being tweaked--I have no problem with that.
To attract new recruits, I think, the apps need to be improved in Ubuntu since this is what will bring in new users. New users can be initially attracted for a variety of reasons, i.e.,sick of M$ or Apple, most of this due to either the buggy nature of Windows or people just tired of playing that game. But once they try Ubuntu or whatever distro they find to their liking, it is keeping them that counts and that is where the apps are important. Since most people need to write documents Open Office is a great app with a sense of completion, browsing the web we have Firefox, Opera, and soon Chrome from Google, we have good email (e.g., Thunderbird, Evolution, etc). These probably cover the basic duties and wants and desires of most. However, the graphic apps are probably the most incomplete and have a feeling of being unfinished. That is what started my complaint and response to the original proposition put forward in the article.
Frankly, I think Ubuntu is very good and has sufficient power to keep recruits, it needs some tweaking to make it a bit more user friendly but nothing out of the ordinary. What I would hope to see is that Linux/Ubuntu community prorammers devote a bit of time to tweaking up the graphic programs since more and more people now have digital cameras and video cameras. For example, the verison of DigiKam that I have dates back to 2007 and Kino also dates to 2007. Yes these probably have been tweaked a bit in the interim but still they look and feel unfinished. Hopefully that will improve.
You really are missing the point I am trying to make. Preaching the idea of everyone going out and making their own software might sound like a good idea but not everyone either has the inclination or time to do this. Most users of computers, perhaps the vast bulk of users, see the computer as a tool to get something done, i.e., write a story or book, manipulate photos or videos, listen to music or even create music. Most do not have the slightest inclination to program. I have done my bit of programming, more as a hobby and intellectual pursuit back in the days when the C-compilers firt came out. I wrote a program for curve fitting based on another program that I found in an computer magazine. I tweaked the existing program so that it could fit about 5-7 curves instead of the original linear one. I also provide graphics for the curve thanks to Borland, this was pre-Windows. I know how hard it is to do this and would not want to do this again.
My original point, perhaps not well made, is that if you define "reaching the end of the line" as not recruiting more new users, then Ubuntu may well be coming close to the "end of the line". Now this is not to say that Ubuntu or Linux distros are useful but if we have "saturated" the market for those who now find Linux useful, then indeed we are at the the end of the line. It does come down to numbers whether we like it or not. If you want to recruit new users we cannot just depend on Ubuntu (Linux distros included) with merely being superior to other OSs out there. The distros must be useful and complete, and this applies primarily to the apps. Frankly, I think the basic kernel of Linux seems to be mature, obviously open some tweaking (there are still some annoyances with it, e.g., graphics/video drivers) but then by this measure so is Windows and OSX, other OSs are always being tweaked--I have no problem with that.
To attract new recruits, I think, the apps need to be improved in Ubuntu since this is what will bring in new users. New users can be initially attracted for a variety of reasons, i.e.,sick of M$ or Apple, most of this due to either the buggy nature of Windows or people just tired of playing that game. But once they try Ubuntu or whatever distro they find to their liking, it is keeping them that counts and that is where the apps are important. Since most people need to write documents Open Office is a great app with a sense of completion, browsing the web we have Firefox, Opera, and soon Chrome from Google, we have good email (e.g., Thunderbird, Evolution, etc). These probably cover the basic duties and wants and desires of most. However, the graphic apps are probably the most incomplete and have a feeling of being unfinished. That is what started my complaint and response to the original proposition put forward in the article.
Frankly, I think Ubuntu is very good and has sufficient power to keep recruits, it needs some tweaking to make it a bit more user friendly but nothing out of the ordinary. What I would hope to see is that Linux/Ubuntu community prorammers devote a bit of time to tweaking up the graphic programs since more and more people now have digital cameras and video cameras. For example, the verison of DigiKam that I have dates back to 2007 and Kino also dates to 2007. Yes these probably have been tweaked a bit in the interim but still they look and feel unfinished. Hopefully that will improve.
#44
praxis22
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 30-April 09
Posted 03 May 2009 - 03:53 PM
Redrat,
My point is that if you're not willing to experiment and learn to compile then Linux of any flavour is probably not for you in the long run, unless you have limited needs. Ubuntu is merely the easiest distro to use. What many people do to get windows programs working, is actually run windows under emulation, (virtualbox, vmware, wine, etc.) To get vmware working you have to rebuild the kernel, since you have to load a kernel module, which doesn't work by default. (or at least that was what I had to do when I experimented with it.) If you're not willing to do this then at some point you'll get frustrated, because while people are willing to go to great lengths to help you, it's going to involve getting your hands dirty, and much experimentation on your part. Most people who actually get on with Linux grow into this aspect of it, but it's not for all users. My mother and my wife for instance are both happy "users" of Linux, and my wife is now branching out to explore the command line. She asked me to setup a server, as she was running out of space on her laptop, so now her homespace outmounts via NFS from the server.
I'm not so much preaching the idea than I am trying to explain the motivation and ethos of the people who write the software. Who, by their very nature are not "average" computer users, or even "normal." Neither are you for that matter or you wouldn't have installed Linux in the first place. Most "normal" people run windows, and are perfectly happy with it.
The honest truth is that if you want the windows/OSX level of polish, then you're going to have to use windows or OSX, and accept the limitations that come with that. Or you can get involved. The honest truth is that developers don't like polishing software or writing documentation nearly as much as they do adding new functionality. This is why "under the hood" gimp has amazing plug-in support and it's own scripting language, but a rather basic interface and work flow system. If you want the photoshop level of polish, then you need to use the Adobe product.
I would also counter that the natural growth of ubuntu is more limited by the wallet and largesse of Mark Shuttleworth, than it is by the number of new recruits. That's what I meant about that being a distro issue. The developers that write the code are just building a better mousetrap, (in this case a better/more advanced version of UNIX) more for the challenge and the acclaim of their peers, than out of any real need.
What you appear to want is the level of polish beyond basic functionality, the sort that comes from paid programmers, with a need to sell a finished product, in a competitive market. Linux, and it's application base, are not sold, and thus do not have to compete, more than that, geeks aren't really competitive on anything other than technical grounds. As such if there is already an application, then developers go make something else, why re-invent the wheel? It's different where people decide to make a better XYZ in a different way, then it usually comes down to user preference. But the distros are arbiters of this themselves. Look at the reiserfs, once the standard file system of Suse, then come Hans Reiser's court case, Suse dropped it.
I do hear what you're saying, I just think that you misunderstand why software is written, and why it is updated. New distros appear all the time, and the O/S is constantly evolving, this is because it's a patchwork not a product. As such it will always be a "work in progress" quite often distros remove one product in favour of another, then users have to either live with it, find a new repo, or an RPM, or download the source and compile from scratch. This is a normal part of the O/S, or at least a normal part of what constitutes O/S maintenance.
The people who get into Linux and stay with it usually have the sort of mindset where they want to learn and grow, the relative steepness of the learning curve is just part of the cost for the level of control Linux gives you. This is the glory of root. For when a program says "I'm sorry Dave" and you say, "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you..." the sense of achievement I got for getting X up from scratch when I built Gentoo (I'd been years since I done it last) was well worth the effort I had to put in. But it isn't for everyone.
This is why I said in my initial response to the article that the question is moot. Linux, and Ubuntu, (in some form or another, even if with a different name) will continue to exist regardless of whether or not it has reached it's natural limit as distro. Though again I doubt there is such a metric. Certainly Ubuntu has succeeded far beyond the wildest dreams of it's creators. It has become a mainstream O/S. I personally think there is more to be done, especially around making X bulletproof, and added support for peripherals and wireless, but again, the reason so many people have troubles with wireless IMO is that while ordinary users like wireless, most geeks prefer to use wires as the signal is better and can't be hacked into.
I appreciate you want better applications but unless you're prepared to pitch in or wait, then I doubt there is much than can be done for you in the meantime.
My point is that if you're not willing to experiment and learn to compile then Linux of any flavour is probably not for you in the long run, unless you have limited needs. Ubuntu is merely the easiest distro to use. What many people do to get windows programs working, is actually run windows under emulation, (virtualbox, vmware, wine, etc.) To get vmware working you have to rebuild the kernel, since you have to load a kernel module, which doesn't work by default. (or at least that was what I had to do when I experimented with it.) If you're not willing to do this then at some point you'll get frustrated, because while people are willing to go to great lengths to help you, it's going to involve getting your hands dirty, and much experimentation on your part. Most people who actually get on with Linux grow into this aspect of it, but it's not for all users. My mother and my wife for instance are both happy "users" of Linux, and my wife is now branching out to explore the command line. She asked me to setup a server, as she was running out of space on her laptop, so now her homespace outmounts via NFS from the server.
I'm not so much preaching the idea than I am trying to explain the motivation and ethos of the people who write the software. Who, by their very nature are not "average" computer users, or even "normal." Neither are you for that matter or you wouldn't have installed Linux in the first place. Most "normal" people run windows, and are perfectly happy with it.
The honest truth is that if you want the windows/OSX level of polish, then you're going to have to use windows or OSX, and accept the limitations that come with that. Or you can get involved. The honest truth is that developers don't like polishing software or writing documentation nearly as much as they do adding new functionality. This is why "under the hood" gimp has amazing plug-in support and it's own scripting language, but a rather basic interface and work flow system. If you want the photoshop level of polish, then you need to use the Adobe product.
I would also counter that the natural growth of ubuntu is more limited by the wallet and largesse of Mark Shuttleworth, than it is by the number of new recruits. That's what I meant about that being a distro issue. The developers that write the code are just building a better mousetrap, (in this case a better/more advanced version of UNIX) more for the challenge and the acclaim of their peers, than out of any real need.
What you appear to want is the level of polish beyond basic functionality, the sort that comes from paid programmers, with a need to sell a finished product, in a competitive market. Linux, and it's application base, are not sold, and thus do not have to compete, more than that, geeks aren't really competitive on anything other than technical grounds. As such if there is already an application, then developers go make something else, why re-invent the wheel? It's different where people decide to make a better XYZ in a different way, then it usually comes down to user preference. But the distros are arbiters of this themselves. Look at the reiserfs, once the standard file system of Suse, then come Hans Reiser's court case, Suse dropped it.
I do hear what you're saying, I just think that you misunderstand why software is written, and why it is updated. New distros appear all the time, and the O/S is constantly evolving, this is because it's a patchwork not a product. As such it will always be a "work in progress" quite often distros remove one product in favour of another, then users have to either live with it, find a new repo, or an RPM, or download the source and compile from scratch. This is a normal part of the O/S, or at least a normal part of what constitutes O/S maintenance.
The people who get into Linux and stay with it usually have the sort of mindset where they want to learn and grow, the relative steepness of the learning curve is just part of the cost for the level of control Linux gives you. This is the glory of root. For when a program says "I'm sorry Dave" and you say, "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you..." the sense of achievement I got for getting X up from scratch when I built Gentoo (I'd been years since I done it last) was well worth the effort I had to put in. But it isn't for everyone.
This is why I said in my initial response to the article that the question is moot. Linux, and Ubuntu, (in some form or another, even if with a different name) will continue to exist regardless of whether or not it has reached it's natural limit as distro. Though again I doubt there is such a metric. Certainly Ubuntu has succeeded far beyond the wildest dreams of it's creators. It has become a mainstream O/S. I personally think there is more to be done, especially around making X bulletproof, and added support for peripherals and wireless, but again, the reason so many people have troubles with wireless IMO is that while ordinary users like wireless, most geeks prefer to use wires as the signal is better and can't be hacked into.
I appreciate you want better applications but unless you're prepared to pitch in or wait, then I doubt there is much than can be done for you in the meantime.
#45
RedRat
- Full Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 14-December 07
Posted 03 May 2009 - 05:44 PM
Ok I get the flavor of your reply and that is your opinion. You are coming at this from the point of view of a computer systems person. However, if indeed that is the attitude of the open source community, i.e., unfinished or poorly interfaced software above and beyon functionality, then I guess Ubuntu must be pretty much coming to the end of the line. As you describe it, users are being asked to like it or leave it, and many do. I troll the newsgroups and the Ubuntu forum (and post there too), and I do see many newbies get frustrated with Ubuntu, whether they stick it out, I don't know and I doubt anyone really knows the retention rate of new users.
That Mark Shuttleworth is putting in his money to the Ubuntu project is admirable and I hope that it continues. However, as we all know, every bank account does have limits. I hope that he is able to see some return on his investment to keep this project going. But I would suspect that at some point, the project will have to be turned loose and then the question will be can it continue or die a slow death.
That Mark Shuttleworth is putting in his money to the Ubuntu project is admirable and I hope that it continues. However, as we all know, every bank account does have limits. I hope that he is able to see some return on his investment to keep this project going. But I would suspect that at some point, the project will have to be turned loose and then the question will be can it continue or die a slow death.
#46
shanedr
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 22-March 07
Posted 06 May 2009 - 04:19 AM
They won half the race. The race making it able to run software designed for Windows. Without that their victory is hollow. Until software is designed from scratch to run on it, Ubuntu must be able to run the biggest variety of software - that designed for Windows.
#47
cubbage
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 24-July 07
Posted 06 May 2009 - 08:00 AM
Well I would love to install Ubuntu but it won't. The live refuses to come up and I feel it might be the audio and video cards. Audio is Creative Labs XFi the video is ATI 4870 x2. I requested the disc from ubuntu when the download did not work but got the same problem. Linux still has driver problems which has been my bitch about it all along.
Thank You
Urban
Thank You
Urban
#48
WhosYourSeanie
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 17-March 08
Posted 06 May 2009 - 08:37 AM
I'm looking forward to playing with it. I'm pretty new to working with other Operating Systems, and I don't have the knowledge to tweak them when they need to be tweaked. One problem I had with the last Ubuntu release was with my dual monitors. I couldn't get them to work consistently and I was constantly having to reconfigure them. They may have addressed this with this release, but if not that is something for them to do next!! :) Other than that, I found it to be pretty cool.
#49
WhosYourSeanie
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 17-March 08
Posted 06 May 2009 - 08:49 AM
I couldn't see the screen shots. They were .ogg files and I'm still trying to get the codecs to view them. Not having much luck. So much for screenshots.
#50
praxis22
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 30-April 09
Posted 06 May 2009 - 09:05 AM
cubbage,
You should be OK, with the XFi, but the x2 may be a problem, try booting with the live cd/dvd with quiet as a grub parameter. If you check the ubuntu forums for boot problems with ATI cards you should find it. It's a known issue. The splash screen can cause problems, but it usually works if you disable it. I run a single 4870 (ATI proprietary drivers, installed via a desktop popup) without issue. try this:
http://ubuntuforums....d.php?p=4036030
Seannie,
Check the forums and the wider internet for xinerama, throwing xinerama ubuntu into google should get you there, (provided you have an nvidia card) failing that there are ways of getting it to work, but it does involve hacking xorg.conf better to copy from others if you're not sure. make sure they use the same monitor as you.
RedRat,
I think the fallacy lies in thinking any other distro will be different. They all use essentially the same superset of software/packages, which you could install into any other distribution if you were so minded. The key difference with ubuntu besides the branding is the work they've done integrating kernel modules, so that stuff like wireless works out of the box, (mostly) they're also working to make X bulletproof, at least on ordinary hardware. Given the nature of the beast you just have to accept that since vendors don't write drivers for Linux as a rule, they have to be reverse engineered. Which means a developer needs to get hold of the hardware, and with expensive video cards and the like this is unlikely. But like I said, Linux is always a work in progress. If you wait, it'll turn up eventually.
You should be OK, with the XFi, but the x2 may be a problem, try booting with the live cd/dvd with quiet as a grub parameter. If you check the ubuntu forums for boot problems with ATI cards you should find it. It's a known issue. The splash screen can cause problems, but it usually works if you disable it. I run a single 4870 (ATI proprietary drivers, installed via a desktop popup) without issue. try this:
http://ubuntuforums....d.php?p=4036030
Seannie,
Check the forums and the wider internet for xinerama, throwing xinerama ubuntu into google should get you there, (provided you have an nvidia card) failing that there are ways of getting it to work, but it does involve hacking xorg.conf better to copy from others if you're not sure. make sure they use the same monitor as you.
RedRat,
I think the fallacy lies in thinking any other distro will be different. They all use essentially the same superset of software/packages, which you could install into any other distribution if you were so minded. The key difference with ubuntu besides the branding is the work they've done integrating kernel modules, so that stuff like wireless works out of the box, (mostly) they're also working to make X bulletproof, at least on ordinary hardware. Given the nature of the beast you just have to accept that since vendors don't write drivers for Linux as a rule, they have to be reverse engineered. Which means a developer needs to get hold of the hardware, and with expensive video cards and the like this is unlikely. But like I said, Linux is always a work in progress. If you wait, it'll turn up eventually.
#51
cubbage
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 38
- Joined: 24-July 07
Posted 06 May 2009 - 10:14 AM
I have 5 hard drives in my home box, each one has a different OS, Windows XP, Windows Vista 64 (really love this), Fedora, one for testing new OS's like Win7 and one set aside for Ubuntu which has been the only one to give me grief. Lately I have been pretty busy on other projects like setting up a home server to control/stream all of my media. I got lazy here and just bought a box which runs Windows Home Server which really suprised me. If I cant get it running like I want I will switch to Ubuntu (know for a fact it runs on this box, live disk came up like a champ) which suprised me that it did not have any problems with the Intel Atom 330 (dual core). Thanks for the link and advice will get that done this weekend.
Cubbage
Cubbage
#52
meh209
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 17-September 07
Posted 06 May 2009 - 03:34 PM
Viruses are no longer really geared towards a specific OS, rather the programs run on it.
As such no system is virus-free once a program becomes infected.
Though to argue that, certain virus code can only do harm or run in specific environments due to the nature of its programming and that of the OS.
As such no system is virus-free once a program becomes infected.
Though to argue that, certain virus code can only do harm or run in specific environments due to the nature of its programming and that of the OS.
#53
ronww
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 10-May 09
Posted 10 May 2009 - 02:24 AM
Re: Proprietary Paths.
I would say that KDE was influenced as much by CDE, if not more, than it was Win95. I used an early verion of CDE back in late 1993. I can say that it was quite similar to Win95. The CDE project was started in 1993. While this might not have been early enough to directly influence Win95, CDE incorporated elements and themes from HP, Sun and others, that certainly could have influenced Win95.
While I am not ignoring convergent evolution, I am pointing out that Microsoft had a lot of open source DTEs from which to draw ideas from for Win95.
I would say that KDE was influenced as much by CDE, if not more, than it was Win95. I used an early verion of CDE back in late 1993. I can say that it was quite similar to Win95. The CDE project was started in 1993. While this might not have been early enough to directly influence Win95, CDE incorporated elements and themes from HP, Sun and others, that certainly could have influenced Win95.
While I am not ignoring convergent evolution, I am pointing out that Microsoft had a lot of open source DTEs from which to draw ideas from for Win95.
#54
bilalakhtar
- Full Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 55
- Joined: 10-February 09
Posted 06 June 2009 - 03:27 AM
How can you consider KDE to be good for users from M$ WindoZE? KDE distros ae hard to manage and use. GNOME is better.
#55
bilalakhtar
- Full Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 55
- Joined: 10-February 09
Posted 06 June 2009 - 03:29 AM
KDE is difficult to use. Then how can you call KDE to be better for Linux newbies?
#56
WhosYourSeanie
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 17-March 08
Posted 06 June 2009 - 10:39 AM
I did get the latest release on my laptop. It took a couple of trys and the first install I did messed up the complete laptop, including the windows so I had to reinstall the windows from an 8 month old image. My bad for not creating a more recent image before playing with Ubuntu. The second time was a charm and over all I'm happy with the way it came out this time. However, that was over a month ago and I haven't booted into Ubuntu since. Why? Well the thing I was going to use it for was my new netbook. And the main thing I was going to use that for was to watch movies on a trip. Rather than take my Sony psp which is limited in screen size and storage space I thought a netbook would be an awesome idea. It would offer quite a bit bigger screen size without being too bulky, and the storage space would be vastly improved. On top of that I'd have it for basic computing tasks. Long story short, I hooked up my portable hard drive with my 100+ movies on it and tried to play one just like I would on windows and sure enough I get errors and it tells me I need to download this and that; yada yada yada. I tried to find and download what I needed, but I just didn't have any luck.
It's difficult for me to get motivated to work with it when I know I have a windows OS that does work without me having to go figure it all out. I've read some stuff online, I've looked around, but no luck. It still seems just a little too difficult to use to make the switch to when I have the windows. If there is a problem with windows I typically am successful doing a quick google to figure out the solution. This has not been the case with Ubuntu. I don't feel comfortable switching my laptop or recommending Ubuntu to my wife and others in my family if I can't successfully troubleshoot it for them when they do have issues. As has been the case with the other releases each one is better, but there is always that one thing that doesn't work. That one thing that I try to find the solution for, struggle with, and in the end just can't find what I need to make it work keeps me from doing anything more than saying oh well and going back to windows. Yet again I'm faced with that one thing with the problem of not being able to watch a simple movie. Ubuntu definitely has not reached the end of the line. I certainly hope not anyway. If that is the case and I don't see the problems I have with each release fixed in the next I'm done looking for an adequate windows replacement in Ubuntu. When I get to the point where I can fire up Ubuntu and have it "just work", then I have a feeling I'll naturally boot into it more regulary than the handful of times when I first install it and give it a test run. So far it still isn't just working for me.
It's difficult for me to get motivated to work with it when I know I have a windows OS that does work without me having to go figure it all out. I've read some stuff online, I've looked around, but no luck. It still seems just a little too difficult to use to make the switch to when I have the windows. If there is a problem with windows I typically am successful doing a quick google to figure out the solution. This has not been the case with Ubuntu. I don't feel comfortable switching my laptop or recommending Ubuntu to my wife and others in my family if I can't successfully troubleshoot it for them when they do have issues. As has been the case with the other releases each one is better, but there is always that one thing that doesn't work. That one thing that I try to find the solution for, struggle with, and in the end just can't find what I need to make it work keeps me from doing anything more than saying oh well and going back to windows. Yet again I'm faced with that one thing with the problem of not being able to watch a simple movie. Ubuntu definitely has not reached the end of the line. I certainly hope not anyway. If that is the case and I don't see the problems I have with each release fixed in the next I'm done looking for an adequate windows replacement in Ubuntu. When I get to the point where I can fire up Ubuntu and have it "just work", then I have a feeling I'll naturally boot into it more regulary than the handful of times when I first install it and give it a test run. So far it still isn't just working for me.
#57
RedRat
- Full Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 14-December 07
Posted 06 June 2009 - 02:07 PM
Ok here's the thing, you probably have downloaded the latest Ubuntu 9.04 which was just released in April. I would have suggested to you several things: 1) download and install the tried and test 8.04 LTS version of Ubuntu, 2) Before installing Ubuntu do a little reading before you install, 3) Be prepared that Ubuntu/Linux is not Windows. There are differences both in how the system works and, probably most importantly, philosophy about Linux and its software.
Before you do anything though, please take some time to do some research and get a hold of what you are getting into. Linux/Ubuntu comes at things a bit differently than Windows. For example, playing videos or DVDs requires a few extra steps since, technically, the codecs for viewing DVDs, for example, are proprietary. There are codecs available and you must download and install them (this is not really difficult) but you might want to check the Ubuntu Forums (http://ubuntuforums.org/) for some advice as to how to do it. Since you are coming from Windows, you get all of these codecs bundled with Windows and this is included in the price you pay for Windows, you are not only paying Microsoft royalties but the codec developers. DVDs and movies can indeed be played in Ubuntu but it will require some extra steps.
You will see others here that will tell you that Ubuntu is not Windows, that is true. The problem is, in an odd sort of way, that it looks very much like Windows and superficially seems to operate like Windows. But there is a huge philosophical gulf between the two. This accounts for some of the problems you have encountered. On the one hand, Microsoft expends enormous amounts of money (quite literally billions and billions of dollars) to enhance and make Windows work the way it does. It can bring and encourage (perhaps "coerce" or "entice") video card manufacturers, and just about any other hardware company design for Windows. Linux cannot do this. Linux developers are really volunteers in a community of developers that are basically donating their time to build Linux. There is both a good and bad side to this approach in Linux, but that is why Linux is free and you pay for Windows. As you can see under this topic, there is quite a bit of debate about this volunteer approach to Linux software development.
Some companies, eg. Hewlett-Packard, Nvidia, Dell, ATI, etc., do write drivers and codecs for Linux but there efforts are limited compared to that expended on Windows. Before installing Ubuntu/Linux or whatever distro you wish, it pays to first do some research about the hardware or computer on which you plan to install Linux. A good question to research first and foremost is: "Do the hardware bits and pieces enjoy some Linux support?" If you jump in with what you got in hand, the Linux fit just may not be that good.
I would suggest that you stick with it for awhile. You will find that after you work your way through, that Ubuntu is really a pretty damn good OS. Unless you have really very specialized needs (graphics artist, video producer, financial analyst) you will find that Ubuntu pretty much does everything you need. Specialized needs, particularly in the graphic and multimedia arts, is going to require some pretty high powered software, and right now that pretty much is Windows country.
Before you do anything though, please take some time to do some research and get a hold of what you are getting into. Linux/Ubuntu comes at things a bit differently than Windows. For example, playing videos or DVDs requires a few extra steps since, technically, the codecs for viewing DVDs, for example, are proprietary. There are codecs available and you must download and install them (this is not really difficult) but you might want to check the Ubuntu Forums (http://ubuntuforums.org/) for some advice as to how to do it. Since you are coming from Windows, you get all of these codecs bundled with Windows and this is included in the price you pay for Windows, you are not only paying Microsoft royalties but the codec developers. DVDs and movies can indeed be played in Ubuntu but it will require some extra steps.
You will see others here that will tell you that Ubuntu is not Windows, that is true. The problem is, in an odd sort of way, that it looks very much like Windows and superficially seems to operate like Windows. But there is a huge philosophical gulf between the two. This accounts for some of the problems you have encountered. On the one hand, Microsoft expends enormous amounts of money (quite literally billions and billions of dollars) to enhance and make Windows work the way it does. It can bring and encourage (perhaps "coerce" or "entice") video card manufacturers, and just about any other hardware company design for Windows. Linux cannot do this. Linux developers are really volunteers in a community of developers that are basically donating their time to build Linux. There is both a good and bad side to this approach in Linux, but that is why Linux is free and you pay for Windows. As you can see under this topic, there is quite a bit of debate about this volunteer approach to Linux software development.
Some companies, eg. Hewlett-Packard, Nvidia, Dell, ATI, etc., do write drivers and codecs for Linux but there efforts are limited compared to that expended on Windows. Before installing Ubuntu/Linux or whatever distro you wish, it pays to first do some research about the hardware or computer on which you plan to install Linux. A good question to research first and foremost is: "Do the hardware bits and pieces enjoy some Linux support?" If you jump in with what you got in hand, the Linux fit just may not be that good.
I would suggest that you stick with it for awhile. You will find that after you work your way through, that Ubuntu is really a pretty damn good OS. Unless you have really very specialized needs (graphics artist, video producer, financial analyst) you will find that Ubuntu pretty much does everything you need. Specialized needs, particularly in the graphic and multimedia arts, is going to require some pretty high powered software, and right now that pretty much is Windows country.
#58
ricegf
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 21-May 07
Posted 06 June 2009 - 03:47 PM
I understand your disorientation. My first attempt to use Linux was not a success either - I'd invested so much time and energy into figuring out all of Windows' warts that facing a different philosophy was more challenge than I expected. I took the easy road and just went back to Windows.
Fast forward almost a year, and a raft of problems getting "permission" from a Microsoft drone to run Windows on my computer after a hardware upgrade. My anger at being treated so poorly by a company I had supported for so many years led me to begin dual-booting Mandriva Linux with WIndows. I began methodically working through each issue, the same way I had with Windows, learning how to make the system work properly. I found that, for me, Linux had an elegance, a consistency that was missing in the brute force world of Windows. It is understandable. I was also attracted to the community, where answers were freely given rather than sold for more profit.
After a couple of years, I began to notice my growing irritation with Windows. When Windows began to behave erratically, as it did every six months or so back then, it was basically unfixable - the advice (even paid advice) was always "reboot, and if it doesn't start working, reinstall". With Linux, though, I could fix things, almost anything. Sometimes I had to copy a command line or two from a forum, but I found that was easier than I thought. And I was amazed when "uptime" returned more than 100 days, something very rare in the Windows world at that time (prior to Windows NT, Windows was incapable of running more than 49.7 days without a reboot due to a system design error - and even today, most Windows professionals recommend restarting Windows desktops at least once a week to clear the "cruft").
I still use Windows part-time in my professional life, alongside a growing contingent of high-productivity Linux users, but in my personal life, I stay firmly with Linux. Life's too short for Windows.
So I just want to encourage you in two things. First, you're not unusual - Linux is different, and upgrading from Windows does take some adjustment and learning. But you're not alone. A legion has gone before you, and we're here to help. It's worth the trip. Second, there's no rush. Work through your issue with movies patiently, asking for advice as often as necessary. Perhaps try Linux Mint in place of Ubuntu, which includes more "out of the box" capability. Don't just make it work - understand why it works. Faster than you think, you'll begin to see patterns that just don't exist in the Windows world, where every vendor re-implements everything differently, leading to a jumbled and less pleasing experience (one Windows computer I dealt with recently had 5 different ways to connect to a wireless network, only one of which actually worked!).
As your experience grows, perhaps you too will find Linux a more pleasant experience. If so, when you buy a new computer, pay attention to Linux compatibility
rather than just Windows compatibility - maybe even buy a computer with
Linux pre-installed from Dell or HP, or a specialty Linux vendor like
System76. Linux "just works" when pre-installed, just as well as (and in many ways, better than) Windows. It's the best time to upgrade.
But if you choose to just stay with Windows, that's fine too. Choice is a good thing, and I promise to respect yours. :-)
Fast forward almost a year, and a raft of problems getting "permission" from a Microsoft drone to run Windows on my computer after a hardware upgrade. My anger at being treated so poorly by a company I had supported for so many years led me to begin dual-booting Mandriva Linux with WIndows. I began methodically working through each issue, the same way I had with Windows, learning how to make the system work properly. I found that, for me, Linux had an elegance, a consistency that was missing in the brute force world of Windows. It is understandable. I was also attracted to the community, where answers were freely given rather than sold for more profit.
After a couple of years, I began to notice my growing irritation with Windows. When Windows began to behave erratically, as it did every six months or so back then, it was basically unfixable - the advice (even paid advice) was always "reboot, and if it doesn't start working, reinstall". With Linux, though, I could fix things, almost anything. Sometimes I had to copy a command line or two from a forum, but I found that was easier than I thought. And I was amazed when "uptime" returned more than 100 days, something very rare in the Windows world at that time (prior to Windows NT, Windows was incapable of running more than 49.7 days without a reboot due to a system design error - and even today, most Windows professionals recommend restarting Windows desktops at least once a week to clear the "cruft").
I still use Windows part-time in my professional life, alongside a growing contingent of high-productivity Linux users, but in my personal life, I stay firmly with Linux. Life's too short for Windows.
So I just want to encourage you in two things. First, you're not unusual - Linux is different, and upgrading from Windows does take some adjustment and learning. But you're not alone. A legion has gone before you, and we're here to help. It's worth the trip. Second, there's no rush. Work through your issue with movies patiently, asking for advice as often as necessary. Perhaps try Linux Mint in place of Ubuntu, which includes more "out of the box" capability. Don't just make it work - understand why it works. Faster than you think, you'll begin to see patterns that just don't exist in the Windows world, where every vendor re-implements everything differently, leading to a jumbled and less pleasing experience (one Windows computer I dealt with recently had 5 different ways to connect to a wireless network, only one of which actually worked!).
As your experience grows, perhaps you too will find Linux a more pleasant experience. If so, when you buy a new computer, pay attention to Linux compatibility
rather than just Windows compatibility - maybe even buy a computer with
Linux pre-installed from Dell or HP, or a specialty Linux vendor like
System76. Linux "just works" when pre-installed, just as well as (and in many ways, better than) Windows. It's the best time to upgrade.
But if you choose to just stay with Windows, that's fine too. Choice is a good thing, and I promise to respect yours. :-)
#60
Grr8008
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 436
- Joined: 11-August 08
Posted 07 June 2009 - 07:53 AM
bbvammy said:
Students,
Lesson One.
Linux is not Windows.
Lesson Two.
Linux will never die, because anyone can continue the project.
Lesson One.
Linux is not Windows.
Lesson Two.
Linux will never die, because anyone can continue the project.
This is so true. I mean so many people compare linux to windows but they are just plain wrong. Linux is an OS. Windows is an OS. that is almost the end of it. They each do different things well. Plus, Linux will never die. In fact it is getting stronger all the time. Ubuntu will not die either. IT will evolve. It is not a dinosaur. It is a human. It is, LINUX FOR HUMAN BEINGS!
