Why are you afraid of Big Bad Linux

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
I think the title says it all. The question is: all those people who have not yet at least partially merged into Linux, what are your greatest fears, reservations? What keeps from trying?
Mrk

[Mascot]

I'd not exactly say this is a fear issue. :P

For me it's an advantage/disadvantage consideration. Linux on the desktop has a single advantage for my use. It's free. Since I'm not broke, that's just not much of an incentive.

The disadvantages are, for me, pretty major in comparison. Games not working is a big one (spending a few evenings mucking about with Wine or Cedega to make some of my games sorta-work doesn't count). Having to waste time on a tarball/configure/compile if whatever piece of software I'd like doesn't happen to be packaged for whatever distro I'm using is another. Windows doesn't have to save me more than an hour or two before it has paid for itself in time saved.

I do run Slackware on my server.

[WSFuser]

when i first was trying linux, what most detered me was the terminal and installing software. not all software comes in a nice rpm or deb package, especially drivers. as for the terminal, i just wanted a GUI for everything.

after having tried linux several times, its not so scary anymore but its not an OS i can use in the long run. i need my games.

[zorro zorrito]

What keeps from trying?
Well, I dial up to connect internet, buttttttttttttt haven't found the way to do it with HSP56 MR(SIS)modem(or it is better to say have modem), so that...no linux here!!!(no driver for the new kernel of linux).
Maybe sometime in the future.Incredible, basic things are dificult, very very basic.

[KikiBibi]

Well, games are a problem and what about the paid software on my windows?
Will go into Linux once the license expired. :D

[lucas1985]

{QUOTE-> What keeps from trying?
Well, I dial up to connect internet, buttttttttttttt haven't found the way to do it with HSP56 MR(SIS)modem(or it is better to say have modem), so that...no linux here!!!(no driver for the new kernel of linux).
Maybe sometime in the future.Incredible, basic things are dificult, very very basic. <-QUOTE}
Is it a winmoden?

[zorro zorrito]

It is from "microChips", I have tryed the drivers for lower kernel, but doesn't work, and I think I'm not goint to waste more time, I'm tired for doing that.If you install windows every modem works, but...for linux it is a headache.(I have only used linux out of the net, and I like many things, sound, open office for linux and many others, but as I say basic things doesn't work, I even tryed many distributions but...forget it).

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

The problem is not with Linux but with the developer.
Here is a personal example:

I recently bought a computer with Asus M2V mobo with K8T890 chipset. Now, this thing is relatively new so that even my Windows XP did not have the drivers even for network, and I had to install them manually.

Then, I installed Ubuntu 6.10. No drivers recognized.

Luckily, and fortunately, Asus packs Linux sources on the CD.
So I followed the instructions in the readme.txt and successfully installed my network. Then, I tried the audio - but the source was broken. So I googled my driver from the manufacturer's site, downloaded the good source and complied it. And then I added the drivers to load at startup.

Took me about 20 minutes. The satisfaction was HUGE!!!! Linux is the most fun you can ever have with any software.

Now, if all manufacturers packed .rpms or .debs or any package on their CD, with good validation that they actually work, you'd enjoy the same quality of support as with Windows.

Mrk

[Mascot]

{QUOTE-> Took me about 20 minutes. The satisfaction was HUGE!!!! Linux is the most fun you can ever have with any software. <-QUOTE}
You hit the nail on the head to some extent. Grandma that can't even figure out to insert driver CD and click "next" on every dialog thereafter, has no chance in hell of doing what you just did. It's a major stumbling block for Linux desktop adoption.

And for me, I considered what you just described as fun 10 years ago. Nowadays it's no longer fun, but rather a major annoyance keeping me from what I actually want to spend my time on. I'd rather pay for XP and just have things work.

[zapjb]

zorro zorrito stated the 2 most important reasons ime. Wintel modem here. Had a tar or gz file that was supposed to work. But I couldn't make it work. And the no drivers or not enough of them. I wish I could just send Ubuntu my hardware specs. For a nominal fee of $5 they'd send me a customized install disk. I mean they give it away free now including shipping. That would be so cool!

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
Grandmas aren't supposed to install everything.
But think ... once you setup your linux, it's hassle free. You can give it to any granny and she'll enjoy bulletproof online experience without hips, anti-this and anti-that. For rookies, linux distros come with far more applications than windows and require far less maintenance. It's really plug and play.
Mrk

[WSFuser]

{QUOTE-> ... once you setup your linux, it's hassle free. <-QUOTE}
keyword right there. setting up linux is likely the biggest obstacle towards using it.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
Setting it up is the most fun a geek can have.
It's 10 times more fun than tweaking hips, for example. Windows is a poor show when it comes to "owning the system".
Mrk

[iceni60]

i think you should ask what's stopping people from using Macs. loads of linux users who have Macs love them.

i like linux though, even though i just broke just about everything which uses a GUI no GTK stuff works anymore lol. i'm stuck using fvwm ::) my firefox update failed too :-[

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3676/screenshotat2.th.jpg (http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshotat2.jpg)

should have taken my advice from this post -
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=871755&postcount=54
{QUOTE-> adding repos can break lots of stuff though, so don't do it lol <-QUOTE}

[FastGame]

For all you dialup users, there's plenty of cheap external serial modems that work in Linux.

Best Data 56SX92 SMART ONE (http://www.gearxs.com/gearxs/product_info.php?cPath=91&products_id=3464)

You can also find (computer fairs, flea markets) plenty of used USR Sportster 56K serial modems, I bought 2 for $5 :)

For those of you with Linux fears, PCLinunixOS (http://www.pclinuxos.com/news.php) is a great cure ;)

[WSFuser]

{QUOTE-> i think you should ask what's stopping people from using Macs. <-QUOTE}
though not the subject of this thread, ill answer anyways:

1. custom hardware; meaning i have to purchase a pre-built computer

building (and overclocking) a computer is fun for me in the same way other people like tweaking and setting up linux.

theres also the games issue but apple's boot camp may or may not remedy that problem.

[bigc73542]

No matter how much the Linux lovers toute the great things about linux, the trouble remains that linux is not user friendly. If I wanted an os where I had to be a programer to get it to work I would probable still be useing Dos. As much as linux proponents talk about the evils of windows the fact remains that windows do work and and you don't have to be an expert in code or experienced in compiling to get things to work. I have personally tried dozens of distros of linux and havent found one yet that i would drop windows for. Oh and as far as the title of this thread, not afraid of linux just don't like it.

bigc

[iceni60]

{QUOTE-> though not the subject of this thread, ill answer anyways:

1. custom hardware; meaning i have to purchase a pre-built computer

building (and overclocking) a computer is fun for me in the same way other people like tweaking and setting up linux.

theres also the games issue but apple's boot camp may or may not remedy that problem. <-QUOTE}
i don't like setting up linux, if i don't fix my GUI problems i'll probably stay with text based software. boot camp and parallels do fix the gaming 'problem'

lol bigc hates linux ;D

[bigc73542]

No I don't hate linux it just isn't ready for prime time. ;)

[iceni60]

{QUOTE-> No I don't hate linux it just isn't ready for prime time. ;) <-QUOTE}
yeap, i don't hate windows either, we all have a similar interest in computers, that's good enough for me. i'm not that bothered by which os people use, i use linux because i prefer it and not because of any strong feelings against proprietary software.

[bigc73542]

I kind of wish I wasn't so lazy and I would probably at least dual boot Linux. But i am just to lazy to have to compile whenever I want to install something and get it to work. ;D But that is just me.;)

[FastGame]

{QUOTE-> I kind of wish I wasn't so lazy and I would probably at least dual boot Linux. But i am just to lazy to have to compile whenever I want to install something and get it to work. <-QUOTE}
Maybe you need to try the right Distro. There's a few that don't require CL, "compile" and things work right off the get-go.

[phasechange]

{QUOTE-> Hello,
I think the title says it all. The question is: all those people who have not yet at least partially merged into Linux, what are your greatest fears, reservations? What keeps from trying?
Mrk <-QUOTE}

Hmmm like a lot of the other people responding here I don't use Linux but I have used it. Windows is a better platform for my needs as it

(1) has more games support (although Doom3 and UT2004 both run nicely on Linux),

(2) Supports key applications including the amazing Exact Audio Copy, AnyDVD, and Nero Recode (I realise there is a Linux version of the main part of Nero but for me the video features of Nero are much more valuable).

(3) On my server I had a bug to do with some plugins for Slimserver so I moved it from Linux to Windows Server 2003 and resolved the problem and also benefited from a more feature rich implementation of MusicMagicMixer

So in short Windows does the things I like better and Wine doesn't do enough to close the gap. I still have a soft spot for GNU/Linux however that's because I learned my serious coding skills on Apollo/Domain, and later coded on HP-UX (for HP), SunOs then Solaris and AIX. I've been an HP/UX and Solaris systems admin too. I don't work in computing anymore though and have no need to keep Unix skills.

I think Ubuntu is an excellent desktop distribution but my life is easier under XP/2003. I haven't even mentioned device driver support which reminds me of my OS/2 days at IBM.

Phasechange :lurking:

[zapjb]

{QUOTE-> For all you dialup users, there's plenty of cheap external serial modems that work in Linux.

Best Data 56SX92 SMART ONE (http://www.gearxs.com/gearxs/product_info.php?cPath=91&products_id=3464)

You can also find (computer fairs, flea markets) plenty of used USR Sportster 56K serial modems, I bought 2 for $5 :)

For those of you with Linux fears, PCLinunixOS (http://www.pclinuxos.com/news.php) is a great cure ;) <-QUOTE}
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?InvtId=56SX92WB-BULK&cm_mmc=Froogle-_-Modems-_-56kExternalModems-_-56SX92WB-BULK
$7.50 + $8.00 est shp = $15.50 total
Including the 25-pin to 9-pin serial cable

vs. $27+ otd @ GearXS

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> Maybe you need to try the right Distro. There's a few that don't require CL, "compile" and things work right off the get-go. <-QUOTE}


I have tried over twenty five distros and haven't found one yet that is user freindly. Some are a little better than others but they are still not able to make a dent in the desktop market for the simple reason that linux is a pain in the butt to use. As far as just surfing the web linux is ok. But let the average computer user try to get a DVD burner working in linux or try to get a dial up modem working, not going to happen. The main stream comp user is definatly not ready for linux and linux is not ready for them. The Linux distro creators by trying to keep linux completely safe are effectivly locking their Os's out of the market by making them just to difficult for the average user to understand.

[herbalist]

I went thru the same dialup headache with my HP. Couldn't make it work. Unfortunately, my modem and sound card were one card, so sound was impossible as well. Tried the Linuxant drivers that were supposed to work with it. They didn't. After getting DSL, I tried linux again. Getting connected wasn't too bad. Pulled the modem/sound card combo and put in an old Sound Blaster. I have yet to figure out how to make it work.
After struggling with several releases, I took the easy way out. I dropped in an old Knoppix CD, version 3.7, which worked with worked with all my hardware. Got it working with the DSL quite quickly. I then did a Poor Mans Install (http://www.knoppix.net/wiki/Poor_Mans_Install) to a partition on my 2nd internal drive, which made it almost as fast as an installed OS but without the configuration hassles. The Knoppix cheat codes (http://www.knoppix.net/wiki/Cheat_Codes) took care of all the other issues.
After trying version 3.7, I downloaded the newest version, 5.0.1 I believe. This version didn't detect my sound card. I'd had enough of that problem with the installed versions, so I switched back to 3.7.
If you're using older hardware or version 5 is having trouble with yours, try version 3.7. It's still available at ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/dist/knoppix/ as are all the other versions.
Linux is much more fun to try and learn when you don't have to start with trying to make it work. For me, the Knoppix CD worked much better than the other live CDs. Even WINE works. The poor mans install lets you save your own configuration. You can even add more software to it. It's almost as functional as an installed system. If installed Linux or other live CDs have frustrated you to the point of giving up on Linux, give Knoppix a look, especially 3.7 if you've fought hardware problems. This one really is easy, allowing you to learn why it works instead of how to make it work.
Rick

[Peter2150]

My first answer to the question is, I am not afraid, but why fix something that is working.

So let me ask the Linux proponents a simple question.

Can I install Linux today sunday and have MS Office 2003, Quickbooks 2007, and Paperport Professional 11 working in time for tomorrow.

PS Don't bother telling me there are alternatives to these programs. I've looked, and non of them integrate as seamlessly. Not interested.

Also will my critical utilities like AJCSoftware products work. I've got several of these type utilites integrated into my work system. Can I set all this up under Linux. I'll bet the answer is a big NO. Ergo my answer to Linux is NO.

Pete

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> So let me ask the Linux proponents a simple question.

Can I install Linux today sunday and have MS Office 2003, Quickbooks 2007, and Paperport Professional 11 working in time for tomorrow.

PS Don't bother telling me there are alternatives to these programs. I've looked, and non of them integrate as seamlessly. Not interested.

Also will my critical utilities like AJCSoftware products work. I've got several of these type utilites integrated into my work system. Can I set all this up under Linux. I'll bet the answer is a big NO. Ergo my answer to Linux is NO. <-QUOTE}Actually, I'm fairly sure that you could get all this to work fine under Xandros 4.0 with CrossOver.

However, that would be a somewhat convoluted solution. If those are the applications you have selected, Windows is it, pure and simple (although a Mac is also fine is Paperport Pro is skipped...).

For a user, the applications should be the driver, not the OS. For some/many, economics may dominate the situation, in which case Linux is a very viable alternative.

Blue

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Actually, I'm fairly sure that you could get all this to work fine under Xandros 4.0 with CrossOver.

However, that would be a somewhat convoluted solution. If those are the applications you have selected, Windows is it, pure and simple (although a Mac is also fine is Paperport Pro is skipped...).

For a user, the applications should be the driver, not the OS. For some/many, economics may dominate the situation, in which case Linux is a very viable alternative.

Blue <-QUOTE}

Hi Blue

I couldn't do without Paperport. Actually one other big short coming on the mac is it it doesn't have MS One Note. The gal that works for me just got a Mac and loves it, but she cry's cause she can't get One Note for it. Yeah, I am wedded to these apps.

Pete

[security_concerned]

I use linux 99% of the time. In fact, I rarely use windows anymore because I'm uncomfortable with it now. I can do all of the everyday things like burning cds, email, surfing the net, and writing a document easier in linux ... thats all. I rarely experience a crash and never experience virus, or spyware with linux. Updating and installing software is easier with linux. Lots of choices for what I want to do. I do agree that game playing lacks in linux.

I do not hate windows. In fact, I left linux behind for Xp when it arrived.

Here are my fave distros. They can be run from live cds and installed with a few mouse clicks and questions.

Pclinuxos, Mepis, and Kanotix. www.distrowatch.com

[zapjb]

{QUOTE-> I have tried over twenty five distros and haven't found one yet that is user freindly. Some are a little better than others but they are still not able to make a dent in the desktop market for the simple reason that linux is a pain in the butt to use. As far as just surfing the web linux is ok. But let the average computer user try to get a DVD burner working in linux or try to get a dial up modem working, not going to happen. The main stream comp user is definatly not ready for linux and linux is not ready for them. The Linux distro creators by trying to keep linux completely safe are effectivly locking their Os's out of the market by making them just to difficult for the average user to understand. <-QUOTE}
I completely agree.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

For all those that need to run Windows applications in Linux:
Wine or VMware Server (I ever wrote about and showed how it works).

Games - I agree.
Everything else - can be had as simply as Windows stuff, plus some more.

big, the mainstream is not ready for anything. They think computers come born with Windows and Norton (anti-virus mind it!).

Furthermore, big, you don't need to be programmer to compile. I'm not one, although I have fair skills in 6-8 languages. But compilation is basically: extract the tarball, ./configure, make, make install. That's it. How difficult is that?

You just need 10 min with google and you'll solve everything. The reward is huge.

Not to mention that everything in Linux is free, which makes it all the more worthwhile.

Mrk

[bigc73542]

{QUOTE-> Hello,

For all those that need to run Windows applications in Linux:
Wine or VMware Server (I ever wrote about and showed how it works).

Games - I agree.
Everything else - can be had as simply as Windows stuff, plus some more.

big, the mainstream is not ready for anything. They think computers come born with Windows and Norton (anti-virus mind it!).

Furthermore, big, you don't need to be programmer to compile. I'm not one, although I have fair skills in 6-8 languages. But compilation is basically: extract the tarball, ./configure, make, make install. That's it. How difficult is that?

You just need 10 min with google and you'll solve everything. The reward is huge.

Not to mention that everything in Linux is free, which makes it all the more worthwhile.

Mrk <-QUOTE}



I don't want to get in an argument but I have to disagree with you. If it was that easy Linux would already be making headway into the desktop market and it is not. Maybe one of these days it will be user friendly enough to where more people will give it a try. But it is a long way from there now.

bigc

[herbalist]

{QUOTE-> But compilation is basically: extract the tarball, ./configure, make, make install. That's it. How difficult is that? <-QUOTE}
It's enough to stop a lot of people. I haven't figured it out yet but I'm starting to, now that I've got something that works to learn it on.
IMO, the big differences between them are:

Windows works, as is, while Linux needs to be configured to match your hardware. I never managed to get any distro to work with everything.
Windows lets you change or install anything unless you configure it otherwise or equip it with 3rd party software to prevent this. One click on an installer is usually enough. Linux want's you to use terminal, logged in as root, then follow the basic procedure you posted.
The command line syntax is quite different from windows, starting with how drives are identified and the use of "/" instead of "\". I'm comfortable with DOS command line but the habits you develop using it get in the way with Linux.

With The Linux distros I tried, while trying to get them to detect my sound card, I get a message about compiling my kernel or something similar. When a user knows almost nothing about Linux, that's an intimidating message. Whether the procedure is difficult or not, it's not where a new user would want to start. When a live CD like Knoppix 3.7 can auto-configure and work with all my hardware, mount and access all my internal and external drives, give me a usable display and sound, and all the software works, why can't a standard distro do that and not expect a new user to figure it all out?
Rick

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> Furthermore, big, you don't need to be programmer to compile. I'm not one, although I have fair skills in 6-8 languages. But compilation is basically: extract the tarball, ./configure, make, make install. That's it. How difficult is that? <-QUOTE}Mrk,

It's trivial to yourself and virtually everyone else who runs Linux. That's the problem in a nutshell. Have you ever tried to explain something that is absolutely trivial to you, but completely obscure to anyone else? It's really rather hard since you don't have the same vocabulary or points of reference.
{QUOTE-> You just need 10 min with google and you'll solve everything. The reward is huge. <-QUOTE}If typical users had a facility with google and search, most of the assistance threads here and elsewhere would have little need to exist.

Until one has an appropriate search term vocabulary set, google is next to worthless. That's why assistance threads exist here. For everyday things (buying things, news, etc.), people have that set of terms. Typical Windows users don't have the needed word set for Linux. Look at the terms you used above and walk into any PC shop - do you think very many customers (not staff) will know what you're talking about? I don't.
{QUOTE-> Not to mention that everything in Linux is free, which makes it all the more worthwhile. <-QUOTE}This, and the ability to pick it up at a retail store or readily download something that is one-click away from nirvana, is what will drive it or not.

I use Linux occasionally on a multiboot machine. I use plenty of Live CD/DVD distros while traveling. Linux was the only thing that allowed me to resurrect one of my son's iPods - it was virtually impossible in Windows but a cake walk in Linux.

Given that most folks seem reluctant to even upgrade their OS within family (aside for single click patches and service packs), it is really any wonder that a switch to a completely foreign OS world isn't happening?

Blue

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE->
For all those that need to run Windows applications in Linux:
Wine or VMware Server (I ever wrote about and showed how it works).



Mrk <-QUOTE}

Mrk, you have to be kidding of course. Take apps which run fine under windows and first struggle a bit to get linux working, and then struggle some more to set up a virtual machine. This is trying scratch your left ear with your right hand, while someone is holding you. Just doesn't make sense.

I agree with Blue, Linux is a miles away from being mainstream. I've now gotten to the point where Bartpe is mainstream to me including making a plugin for an app that didn't have any. But take joe blow average user and tell him Acronis already has the plugin, so go make a Bart Pe CD. They are going to have some rough going.

Pete

[Nick Rhodes]

Lack of drivers for my laser printer is the only reason I dont run Linux. The open source ones do not give good enough quality (various bugs). Can't change my printer either, due to silly cheap refills I can get for it.

[iceni60]

i found after using ubuntu for 2 weeks it was fairly easy and straight-forward to use.

for './configure && make - make install' to work you need to first install the distro's build packages e.g. in ubuntu you have to install 'build essential', in SUSE it's just gcc.

if anyone seriously wants to try using linux i'll start a thread about getting ubuntu working (ubuntu because you only need to download/burn one cd, as opposed to 5 with various other distros. it has great support - 90% of the time you will find the answer to a problem in ubuntuforums. it has about 19,000 packages which you can install in a couple of mouse clicks, the cd is also a livecd so you can get a very good idea how it will work when installed - there's an icon on the desktop which you click when you want to install it to your HDD and the install is very quick and easy to do)

i think that's the only fair way to judge it - the people who think linux is too fussy to configure can point out why they think so during the install and configuration, then once it's installed and configured you'll see how stable and great it is 8)

but, it's only worth using linux if you can see past comparing everything to windows, linux isn't windows, and like nickr mentioned if you have some hardware which isn't supported by linux you should know that's not the fault of linux, rather the company which made the hardware!

{QUOTE-> linux supports more different processors than any other operating system ever has...

linux supports more devices, "out of the box", than any other operating system ever has.

We now have the most scalable and most supported operating system that has ever been created. We have achieved something that is so unique and different and flexible that for people to keep repeating the "Linux doesn't support hardware" myth, is something that everyone needs to stop repeating. As it simply isn't true anymore. <-QUOTE}
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Kroah-Hartman

[herbalist]

For 6.06, I had to use the alternate setup, not enough RAM for the standard version. I may try Ubuntu again, if I can get some things figured out ahead of time, starting with:
1, during the install, It asked me to set a master password, which it refused to accept later. After one failed root login, none of the administrator tools will start. Hard to install or configure much on these terms.
2, I couldn't make it read either the CD or floppy drive.
3, Following the instructions didn't make my sound card work.
I ended up with the base system, effectively locked in "user mode". Had no problems burning the CD or setting up GRUB. Just can't do anything with Ubuntu itself.On a windows unit, I'd have an idea of how to approach the problem. On Ubuntu, I have no idea where to start. If I could begin with completely eliminating the need to log into root, it would make it much simpler. I realize that's for security, but I'll worry about that after I get everything working and/or installed. I've tried running the installer normally and in expert mode. No change in the finished system. What am I missing here?

I love to know why an old Knoppix CD can figure out all my hardware but no other distro even gets close to half of it. It's obvious that the hardware can be auto-detected and the system auto-configured to match it, but no other version has managed to.
{QUOTE-> i think that's the only fair way to judge it - the people who think linux is too fussy to configure can point out why they think so during the install and configuration, then once it's installed and configured you'll see how stable and great it is <-QUOTE}
I'd love to get it to that point so I could "jugde it" fairly. If Linux wants a bigger market share, they need to address these initial setup problems so the user doesn't have doesn't have to fight with it just to get to square one.
Rick

[iceni60]

{QUOTE-> For 6.06, I had to use the alternate setup, not enough RAM for the standard version. I may try Ubuntu again, if I can get some things figured out ahead of time, starting with:
1, during the install, It asked me to set a master password, which it refused to accept later. After one failed root login, none of the administrator tools will start. Hard to install or configure much on these terms.
2, I couldn't make it read either the CD or floppy drive.
3, Following the instructions didn't make my sound card work.
I ended up with the base system, effectively locked in "user mode". Had no problems burning the CD or setting up GRUB. Just can't do anything with Ubuntu itself.On a windows unit, I'd have an idea of how to approach the problem. On Ubuntu, I have no idea where to start. If I could begin with completely eliminating the need to log into root, it would make it much simpler. I realize that's for security, but I'll worry about that after I get everything working and/or installed. I've tried running the installer normally and in expert mode. No change in the finished system. What am I missing here?

I love to know why an old Knoppix CD can figure out all my hardware but no other distro even gets close to half of it. It's obvious that the hardware can be auto-detected and the system auto-configured to match it, but no other version has managed to.

I'd love to get it to that point so I could "jugde it" fairly. If Linux wants a bigger market share, they need to address these initial setup problems so the user doesn't have doesn't have to fight with it just to get to square one.
Rick <-QUOTE}
if you don't have much RAM then xubuntu will probably be better.

you can change the root password so it works with everything like this -
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=3609

if you want to try setting up xubuntu, or ubuntu 6.10 i don't mind helping. although with some of the things you mentioned you'll probably get better answers searching/asking at ubuntuforums or one of the ubuntu IRC channels (xchat will pretty much auto connect to the ubuntu channel)

the best thing to do is try the latest version's livecd (which is also the installation cd) i can help with some troubleshooting things, like mounting floppy/cd drives, but i was thinking more about showing how quickly ubuntu can be setup so you have a working system when you don't have to troubleshoot hardware problems.

BTW, ubuntu doesn't have a root password, you just use sudo, instead of su, to get root privileges (should be the same password as your login password i think.

[Pedro]

Being the manufacturer's "fault" not to provide support for Linux, i just want to point out that it isn't exactly guilt. They provide support for the major OS out there: Windows. It's all about market share, and marginal revenue/marginal cost increase. If it isn't that worthwhile to have support for Linux (a niche?), it's up to them. For that particular market segment they would have gains, but what expectations do they have regarding overall profit?

Of course a case is a case, but i think i gave my 2 cents. I want to try Linux some time, on an old pc to see how it works, but i can't predict if i ever use it primarily for all the hassle (support, drivers,...). I want to spend my time doing something else rather than trying to print something, you know?

Who knows, they are improving in all senses as to user-friendly is concerned.:thumb: If the market share increases, so will the supported apps, hardware, etc. There has to be a good incentive for hardware manufacturers and software developers.

[zorro zorrito]

BAD TITLE HERE! the name of this thread should be "broadband users:Why are you afraid of Big Bad Linux".So internet modem connection users won't lose their time here. Linux is good, even the best, but "BASIC THINGS DOESN'T WORK".

[herbalist]

{QUOTE-> if you don't have much RAM then xubuntu will probably be better. <-QUOTE}
My old box has 160MB of RAM. It's an old HP Pavilion, model 4463. If I'm reading their download page correctly, I'd need the alternate download if I want to put GRUB on a floppy? No point in adding it to the MBR until I'm sure that I want to stay with a particular version.
{QUOTE-> BTW, ubuntu doesn't have a root password, you just use sudo, instead of su, to get root privileges (should be the same password as your login password i think. <-QUOTE}
I'm pretty sure I tried that, and it wouldn't work. Maybe there was something wrong with the installation itself.
What advantage is there, besides a bit more speed, to an actual Linux install compared to a Poor Mans Install (http://www.knoppix.net/wiki/Poor_Mans_Install) of a live CD? As good as Knoppix runs when used this way, I'm questioning if it's worth the hassle to try an install again.
Rick

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

I think I had an epiphany:

Most people here are fairly knowledgable if not geek Windows users. But it took us years to become geeks. Why do you expect to master Linux in 2-3 hours? Give it a few months before you decide it's not worth it.

Furthermore, in Windows, most of the stuff we do is high-level. In Linux, you actually do low-level stuff. You are really learning how OS works.

But I agree that Linux is not ready for the mainstream. That won't keep me from crusading at Wilders, though, :).

Mrk

[EASTER.2010]

I still have an old copy of Knoppix someplace on a CD i burned from a D/L .iso file maybe a couple years ago? Also got my hands on an Unbunto Disk and it seems foreign to me after staring at Windows all these years, but they both seem to introduce some interesting flexibility and if nothing else they do draw my attention to it every so much more.

I'm truly surprised to find no other O/S developers besides Apple really have stepped up to seriously challenge Microsoft's Windows.

[BlueZannetti]

{QUOTE-> That won't keep me from crusading at Wilders, though, :). <-QUOTE}I sure hope it won't!

The (mainstream) time for Linux will come, and the current Vista pricing model may accelerate the pace.

Cheers,

Blue

[bigc73542]

I might not personally like linux at this time but I am glad that there are people that will promote and learn it. That is what will lead to linux becoming more popular in the future.

bigc

[Notok]

{QUOTE-> Most people here are fairly knowledgable if not geek Windows users. But it took us years to become geeks. Why do you expect to master Linux in 2-3 hours? Give it a few months before you decide it's not worth it. <-QUOTE}That's quite a large time commitment, is the problem. We have a tendancy to say the same about security in general, and those with equal interests in other things will say the same about whatever it is they are into. When it comes down to it, I hear the same thing from just about everyone that has an enthusiasm for any given subject. The problem is that there are only so many hours in the day. Technology is ultimately made to allow us to follow our persuits more quickly and efficiently. If your chosen persuit is using/fixing computers in general, then Linux is a great option. If your persuit is science or medicine, then the computer should be able to help you do that more easily without spending months or years just learning how to set it up. In those cases, we pay the money to make it "just work" so we can get on with whatever it is we want/need to do. It's that ever-present balance between time and money; When we don't have the time, we pay others that already know the stuff to do the work for us. It's why a vetrinarian just paid me to hook up a new printer today: sure he could have read the manual and done it himself, but he would rather spend that time remodeling his house while I install it, so he can just print.

It may be 10 mins with Google for most things, but not all things, and it all starts to add up pretty quickly.

I have the utmost respect for Linux, it's something I've wanted to get into for some time, but the list of things I want to learn is pretty long and Linux is not at the top. The last time I looked at it I left it at trying to update Firefox and get the fonts readable in it. Such an operation would take just a couple mins in Windows, even if Windows was new to you (but you already had a fair amount of computer knowledge with another OS... say Mac), but that task alone was taking up more time than I really had, and I wanted to be looking at other things. The other big killer was that it doesn't support many of the things that I want it to do. No games, my favorite software wouldn't have an equivalant, and so on. I also feel that by the time I really got to know it as well as I'd like, all those things would be taken care of and made just about as user-friendly as Windows. At which point I may as well just wait.

I will still look into it at some point for specific purposes, but it won't be replacing my primary desktop for daily use anytime soon. It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of time and a matter of what I like to do with my computer. At the current time I would have to say that IMO it's still more suitable (on a wide scale) for servers and kiosks than for daily home use.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

How quickly did you become Windows proficient as you are today?

BTW, how long does it take to learn to properly configure a program like CyberHawk or SSM? How long do you spend your time googling for Windows issues, like a bad driver, or some dll or some error? Aren't these as time consuming? What about a HJT log? How much time does it take away from an analytist?

Oh yes, Linux has far lesser hardware demands.

Mrk

[Meriadoc]

Mrk said :
{QUOTE-> How quickly did you become Windows proficient as you are today? <-QUOTE}
Exactly.:)
There are some great tutorials, sites and beginner guides out there.
I know these have been mentioned but I'll have to iterate some...Xandros, VMWare as they crossed my mind when reading through this thread...any struggle is all fun, and learning:)

[Nick Rhodes]

I forgot to say, our webserver is a virtual host, running Caos, which I have shell access to - though it so reliable, I dont have to touch it unless Im adding a new website (and then only to restart apache to read the new http.conf) or changing settings.

[Notok]

{QUOTE-> Hello,

How quickly did you become Windows proficient as you are today?

BTW, how long does it take to learn to properly configure a program like CyberHawk or SSM? How long do you spend your time googling for Windows issues, like a bad driver, or some dll or some error? Aren't these as time consuming? What about a HJT log? How much time does it take away from an analytist?

Oh yes, Linux has far lesser hardware demands.

Mrk <-QUOTE}Obviously not all of us have the same amount of idle time as you :)

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
OOOOOOH, that was a low blow, Notok.
Mrk

[Mascot]

Hehe, agreed on the low blow comment. But I see where it's coming from. Windows has proven itself time and time again to just be more productive for me. I can't even count the amount of Linux distros I've sampled over the years, and while it has made enormous strides, it's just not there yet. Heck, last Ubuntu distro I tried required me to manually type in my SSID and enter my WPA key in hex if I remember correctly. If it even supported WPA without custom compiling.

The issue above all issues to me is the linking between applications and distributions. There desperately needs to be a unification that makes it possible to choose between a very short list of Linux links, just like you can pick between "Windows 2000/XP" and "Windows 9x". There just can't be a handful of links for a few popular distros, and the rest are out of luck. There must be a short list, one of which is applicable for you regardless of which distribution you are using. The same goes for drivers.

[Peter2150]

{QUOTE-> Hello,

How quickly did you become Windows proficient as you are today?

BTW, how long does it take to learn to properly configure a program like CyberHawk or SSM? How long do you spend your time googling for Windows issues, like a bad driver, or some dll or some error? Aren't these as time consuming? What about a HJT log? How much time does it take away from an analytist?

Oh yes, Linux has far lesser hardware demands.

Mrk <-QUOTE}

Hi Mrk

I think you are missing Notok's point. Given I need to run the software that I am running, to do what I need to accomplish, and some of it won't run under Linux at this point. What is the point of my investing the time to fool with it. Sure you can blame that on the software houses but they have to ask the same question. Why put in the time if to develop a linux version if there is no market.

Pete

PS For what it's worth I noticed much maligned AOL does indeed have some Linux downloads. Hmmm

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
You can claim the same issue the other way around - there are tools for Linux that you can't find for Windows. As to replacing the software that you use and it won't run on Windows ... well, three answers:
There are many alternatives - and yes, they are good.
There are more tools for Linux that Windows.
Functionality, recoverability and control and immensely larger for Linux.
Mrk

[SSK]

Why don't I use Linux?

- I need to edit files to get my monitor past 1024/768 resolution.
- Had a very hard time to get my Wireless connection to work.
- My games won't run.

For me, Windows is the easiest option. I do keep an eye on were Linux is heading, and maybe in the future I will switch. :)

[iceni60]

{QUOTE-> My old box has 160MB of RAM. It's an old HP Pavilion, model 4463. If I'm reading their download page correctly, I'd need the alternate download if I want to put GRUB on a floppy? No point in adding it to the MBR until I'm sure that I want to stay with a particular version. <-QUOTE} it seems people have more success using the alternate version, so it's probably best to use it no matter what you want to do. in the past (i haven't used it recently) the alternate cd was a text based install (even though it's texted based it's just as easy to use as the GUI version) with a few more installation options.

i'm not too sure how things will run with 160MB of RAM. xubuntu will be a better option - Fluxbuntu would be even better, however i wouldn't be much help with Fluxbuntu, it uses the fluxbox window manager (ubuntu uses gnome, xubuntu uses xfce), i haven't used fluxbox much. here's some screenshots
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=732&slide=3
{QUOTE->
I'm pretty sure I tried that, and it wouldn't work. Maybe there was something wrong with the installation itself. <-QUOTE} well, if something isn't broken, then link i gave before will fix the problem
{QUOTE->
What advantage is there, besides a bit more speed, to an actual Linux install compared to a Poor Mans Install (http://www.knoppix.net/wiki/Poor_Mans_Install) of a live CD? As good as Knoppix runs when used this way, I'm questioning if it's worth the hassle to try an install again.
Rick <-QUOTE}the Poor Mans Install looks fairly complicated :o it looks like a complete install will be abit quicker, other than that i don't think there's much difference to a normal install. does it run from the cd and save some settings to a partition?

there's this too with ubuntu, i haven't tried it though so i'm not sure how well it works -
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LiveCDPersistence

[dog]

I agree whole-heartedly with Mrk - Where there's a will/desire there's a way. ;)

[FastGame]

Hello Mrkvonic, you're beating your head against the wall :D

Most of the points against Linux in this thread are individual, they don't represent the masses. Things said against Linux also apply to windows. There's plenty examples of "it doesn't work" "it's broken" "my drivers don't work" "I don't understand please explain" in windows. Read the tech forums......

I find it funny that people can't spend $20 on a dial-up modem for Linux, yet they spend $100's on security app's for windows.

"I don't have the time to learn Linux" Hmm but you have the time for 3000+ post in security, time to install and learn all the latest security fads, is it you don't have time or is it you can't give up your hobby ?

For the average PC user Linux is ready for the desktop. The average PC user doesn't need to compile code, use the command line or spend a bunch of time configuring hardware. Everything is GUI and push button easy as it is in windows. The hardest thing for these average people to learn is the new names of Linux applications and where things are located. This is if the average user chooses the right distro.

In Linux the average PC user can rip and burn CD/DVD, watch DVD or any video format, rip/convert/listen to any audio format, email, chat, webcam, surf the web without virus/spyware, upload digital photo's from their camera, work on digital photo's, print, office, P2P or any other little thing the average PC user might do. And they can do this all for FREE, in GUI, pushing buttons.

For gamers Linux isn't very good.

Is Linux perfect ? no it isn't, does everything work in Linux ? no it doesn't, but the same can be said about windows.

IMO, those who truly know how to survive, truly know how to reap all the benefits their PC has to offer, are those who learn Dualboot. The combination of Windows & Linux is as good as it gets. :)

[iceni60]

{QUOTE-> Being the manufacturer's "fault" not to provide support for Linux, i just want to point out that it isn't exactly guilt. They provide support for the major OS out there: Windows. It's all about market share, and marginal revenue/marginal cost increase. If it isn't that worthwhile to have support for Linux (a niche?), it's up to them. For that particular market segment they would have gains, but what expectations do they have regarding overall profit? <-QUOTE} i was just pointing out linux is far, far ahead when it comes to supporting hardware, many people don't realise that, mainly because some hardware manufacturers don't make drivers for linux
{QUOTE->
Of course a case is a case, but i think i gave my 2 cents. I want to try Linux some time, on an old pc to see how it works, but i can't predict if i ever use it primarily for all the hassle (support, drivers,...). I want to spend my time doing something else rather than trying to print something, you know? <-QUOTE} i agree, i gave up trying to get my printer working with windows after about 5 hours, whereas it took under one minute to get it working with linux. if it was the other way around and my printer didn't work with linux i'd do the same - not bother.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=118808
{QUOTE->
Who knows, they are improving in all senses as to user-friendly is concerned.:thumb: If the market share increases, so will the supported apps, hardware, etc. There has to be a good incentive for hardware manufacturers and software developers. <-QUOTE} that's one of the big differences between linux and windows - windows is all about market share and making money, whereas only a small minority of linux devs are looking to make money and increase market share. linux is more about 'free' software and making an OS linux users want to use.

[dog]

{QUOTE-> IMO, those who truly know how to survive, truly know how to reap all the benefits their PC has to offer, are those who learn Dualboot. The combination of Windows & Linux is as good as it gets. :) <-QUOTE}Hey, I take offense to that. :P ;D As a linux only user. 8)

[Pedro]

{QUOTE-> i was just pointing out linux is far, far ahead when it comes to supporting hardware, many people don't realise that, mainly because some hardware manufacturers don't make drivers for linux

i agree, i gave up trying to get my printer working with windows after about 5 hours, whereas it took under one minute to get it working with linux. if it was the other way around and my printer didn't work with linux i'd do the same - not bother.

that's one of the big differences between linux and windows - windows is all about market share and making money, whereas only a small minority of linux devs are looking to make money and increase market share. linux is more about 'free' software and making an OS linux users want to use. <-QUOTE}

On the top two, i can see where you're getting at. Point taken, i can only reply if i try it. Well, actually how did you not print with Windows? A case is a case, i accept that. But i never had a problem like that with windows.

On the third, i wasn't talking about Microsoft, but the Hardware manufacturers. You see, if it is a business, it ain't about charity. Of course it's about profit!:) ;)

I will rush my Linux trial, i can see where you're getting at. I'll look for a secondary test machine as soon as i can.

[iceni60]

{QUOTE-> On the top two, i can see where you're getting at. Point taken, i can only reply if i try it. Well, actually how did you not print with Windows? A case is a case, i accept that. But i never had a problem like that with windows.

On the third, i wasn't talking about Microsoft, but the Hardware manufacturers. You see, if it is a business, it ain't about charity. Of course it's about profit!:) ;)

I will rush my Linux trial, i can see where you're getting at. I'll look for a secondary test machine as soon as i can. <-QUOTE}
i think the printer did work with windows, but the scanner didn't, i've stopped using windows now so i can't remember.

i don't buy hardware which doesn't work with linux obviously, other linux users probably do the same :D if a business wants to make money, they are losing business. however, some linux users won't use something if it's closed source because they think all software should be free, as in the freedom to read through the code, change the code...

another thing i like about linux is it's so stable (i know my first post in this thread i posted a picture showing most things being text based because i'd broken alot of program GUIs lol, but that was my fault for adding libs which aren't compatible with most programs i use, it's 90% fixed now anyway ;D) i've only ever had to do one reinstall with linux, and again that was my fault. linux does crash, but i can't remember seeing anyone with that problem. some people who are new to linux have some instablity problems when they are setting things up, but IMHO i think that's probably something they're done wrong.

i've never had any problems at all - linux runs as well after a couple of years as it did on day one. i think i've said it before, the hardest part is setting up and configuring linux, when you get past the 2/3 week mark you might start to see why people like linux so much, maybe you won't, but i don't think someone can have a serious opinion about linux until they have used it for at least 6 months with hardware that works with linux. i don't care which OS people use, but i do care when i see people who are very new to linux, or haven't used it very much, perhaps with incompatible hardware, talking nonsense >:( - i recently saw someone write a very detailed review of a linux server. he wasn't impressed because he couldn't find a GUI and thought the only software available was an email server with limited functionality. he explained how linux wasn't ready for the mainstream market and doesn't think he'll be using linux any time soon ::) it really made me cringe, and i was embarrassed for him.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

FastGame, nicely said. Dual boot plus virtualization every which way is a great way of reaping the best of both worlds.conf.

dog, take no offense, mine son! Windows has its merits when it comes to gaming. For us that are anal and remain locked in childhood, that is.

Mrk

[yahoo]

I am not afraid of Linux, but I am tired of Linux.

When I purchased my new laptop, I really wanted to give Linux a try. I tried Suse, Fedora, Mandriva, Debian. None of them worked well. I tried to google and troubleshoot drivers or configurations of my graphic card, modem, wireless, etc. 10 minutes is enough? You must be kidding. For most cases, I spent half a day or more and just found out from other Linux user's experience that the particular Linux driver was not available yet, or the downloaded driver just would not work on my laptop for some mysterious reason! I am too dumb for that? I do not believe that. I can program with C/C++ proficiently, and I even programmed a simple kernel with C for demonstrating how kernel works. Later, I figured that even I could make all my current hardware work with Linux, I would have trouble with any 'bleeding-edge' hardware in the future with Linux. For such a case, one can drop Linux or drop the hardware. My choice is to drop Linux, and it's my choice.

Among the distros I tried, SUSE had the best hardware support. Although still lack the support for one or two hardware on my laptop, it detected most of them and at least worked out-of-box on my laptop. Yes, it never crashed on me. However, it locked the screen several times and I had to reboot my laptop at the end. What the hell is that, is it due to the stability of Linux? I had to give up.

Is Linux really free? I do not think so. I just checked out the price of SLED (business desktop version of SUSE), it has a subscription fee of $50/year per device. If one wants to download the security patches year after year, one has to pay the subscription year after year! Two or three years later, one would have paid even more than that of Windows. Yes, there are free versions of Linux there. However, while using the Linux for FREE, one also has to work as a beta tester for FREE!

If it were ten years ago, I would be happy to sit in front of the computer, spend hours and days, and just to make it to work properly. At this time, I would rather give my brain a break, or do some other real things in life.

I do not like Windows. I believe that Linux is great, and I love it. However, I just do not have so much time to babysit Linux for daily use.

[Pedro]

{QUOTE-> I am not afraid of Linux, but I am tired of Linux.
However, while using the Linux for FREE, one also has to work as a beta tester for FREE!

I do not like Windows. I believe that Linux is great, and I love it. However, I just do not have so much time to babysit Linux for daily use. <-QUOTE}

;D
The thing is, like i said, nothing is free. If you don't pay, it's not "hassle free".
I find your remarks funny as hell, the way you put things, lol.
You pay for Windows, but everything gets simpler due to the supported apps/hardware.
Because it's widely used, it's only natural that solutions are far more easy with windows.
Things can change. And i will try it:thumb:

[iceni60]

linux is 99% free, but it has nothing to do with money. it's free as in freedom. you can download a 'free' distro and put it on a cd then go to ebay and sell it for £100 if you want. it would still be free because it's licenced under the GPL.

[Alphalutra1]

I haven't put in my thoughts about this yet *puppy* so lets go ;D

First, Linux is a kernel, and that's it. It is not an OS, not meant to be user friendly, not meant to be really anything except a kernel.

Using this information, each distrobution ("distro") is something that is added onto the kernel to make as complete or incomplete an OS as that distro wants it to be. Take me for example, I use Arch Linux. Minimal distro that focuses on K.I.S.S. It is a very minimal install, with only the essentials needed to boot and connect to an ethernet network included in addition to a very sweet package manager(pacman). It is meant for the power user who wants to tweak stuff and ensure that what they want is included. Gentoo is another example of a system like this, except it has crazy compiling times:gack:

Now, let's look at the other end of the spectrum: Ubuntu and other distros similar to this. They want to create an experience fairly similar to Windows or MAC with most things being able to be done some way or another through the GUI, with pretty pictures, icons, etc. However, underneath all of the prettiness is still the command line, which you can use in lieu of things like Nautilius (file browser), Synaptic(gui version of apt-get which is similar to pacman), etc. This is what the majority of users in the world want. They don't want to learn commands, they just want to read some text, click it, and have this black-box run it for them. Respectable, and I don't hold a grudge, they are just missing out ;D .

The command-line is definately the more powerful, and it is not very difficult to learn at all. However, it is very intimidating, especially if you are unaware of things and need help. However, install from source isn't hard, just /.configure, make, make install. Navigating isn't very hard, just cd(change directory) ls (list contents) rm (remove) cp (copy) mv (move aka cut and paste), etc.

For users migrating to linux, once it is setup, it is a breeze. However, that is what a distro like ubuntu is in charge of doing for the user. A few things need tweaking (wireless for example), but the basic system is pretty easy to install.

The best way to learn it is to completely remove windows off your drive. Otherwise, you will always use it as a crutch when the going gets tough and decide to just put off linux for another time. I finally completely formatted my drive and installed arch linux on it. I got rid of the crutch, and used a laptop to help me configure it and get wireless working, which only took one night (a lot quicker than installing windows xp, updating it, installing security software, configuring that software, etc.)

In the end however, I am a BSD fan 8) the BSD's, like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD are the complete packages with kernel and utilities. They are simple, more concise, more organized(instead of a billion distros each doing their own customizations, each BSD variant does only one thing), good package managers and the port system is excellent, easy to configure your own kernel(i halved my boot time), EXCELLENT documentation (look at the FreeBSD handbook, and you will see what I mean), great user base, better security, more stable, better SMP support, and the list goes on. For those intimidated by the command line, PCBSD is becoming the pioneer of GUI based BSD's, and is FreeBSD preconfigured with KDE as the desktop and some apps pre-installed for you, so whatever you see in the freebsd manual will work exactly the same.

Now, if only NDISulator would work for USB devices, I would be set to go for my other pc and migrate from arch to freebsd, oh well

Hope my ramblings add something to the discussion

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

[herbalist]

{QUOTE-> the Poor Mans Install looks fairly complicated it looks like a complete install will be abit quicker, other than that i don't think there's much difference to a normal install. does it run from the cd and save some settings to a partition? <-QUOTE}
It wasn't that bad. When the Knoppix CD starts booting, type knoppix tohd=(drive of your choice). I used tohd=/dev/hdb5, the extended partition of my 2nd internal drive, which was basically empty. Didn't need to reformat it. FAT32 is fine for this. That copied the contents of the CD to the drive and booted it from there. After that, you can remove the CD and use it for something else if needed. For just a poor mans install, that's all you actually have to do. I still use the CD to boot Knoppix, but that's all it does.
You do have more options available to you with a poor mans install. I set up a permanent home folder and swap file, plus saved a configuration file. All it takes to make use of them is to boot from the CD, then typeknoppix fromhd=/dev/hdb5 home=/dev/hdb5 myconfig=/dev/hdb5
What really nice is that I can access (read and write) both internal drives and all the partitions on the external drive. From what I've read, this is easier with FAT32 than it is with NTFS.The floppy and CD work normally. My browser prefs and GAIM settings all load automatically. I can even update and install software. It's so much easier to learn how Linux works when you don't have to start with learning to make it work. The whole thing is using 1.4GB of space, and that space is still accessible from windows.
With a poor mans install, all the user needs is the free space. It doesn't need to be an empty drive or partition. No formatting or altering the MBR is necessary. There's no risk of damaging windows. While this is still quite new to me, I haven't found any real disadvantages to this setup.
Rick

[Meltdown]

{QUOTE-> For the average PC user Linux is ready for the desktop. The average PC user doesn't need to compile code, use the command line or spend a bunch of time configuring hardware. Everything is GUI and push button easy as it is in windows. The hardest thing for these average people to learn is the new names of Linux applications and where things are located. <-QUOTE} That's been exactly my experience with Linux.{QUOTE-> This is if the average user chooses the right distro. <-QUOTE}And that's the beauty of live CDs, for checking hardware compatibility, and minimising any work required after installation.

[cthorpe]

I've installed multiple distros, and just never found a reason to stick with it. Windows works for what I need, and I get extreamly cheap, legal, licenses of MS software from my University. That being said, I am in the process of building a Linux print server for a new laser printer that I just bought. As far as I can tell, it's going to work great (the printer is arrriving Thursday). It's a Ubuntu Sever install.

C

[iceni60]

{QUOTE-> It wasn't that bad. When the Knoppix CD starts booting, type knoppix tohd=(drive of your choice). I used tohd=/dev/hdb5, the extended partition of my 2nd internal drive, which was basically empty. Didn't need to reformat it. FAT32 is fine for this. That copied the contents of the CD to the drive and booted it from there. After that, you can remove the CD and use it for something else if needed. For just a poor mans install, that's all you actually have to do. I still use the CD to boot Knoppix, but that's all it does.
You do have more options available to you with a poor mans install. I set up a permanent home folder and swap file, plus saved a configuration file. All it takes to make use of them is to boot from the CD, then typeknoppix fromhd=/dev/hdb5 home=/dev/hdb5 myconfig=/dev/hdb5
What really nice is that I can access (read and write) both internal drives and all the partitions on the external drive. From what I've read, this is easier with FAT32 than it is with NTFS.The floppy and CD work normally. My browser prefs and GAIM settings all load automatically. I can even update and install software. It's so much easier to learn how Linux works when you don't have to start with learning to make it work. The whole thing is using 1.4GB of space, and that space is still accessible from windows.
With a poor mans install, all the user needs is the free space. It doesn't need to be an empty drive or partition. No formatting or altering the MBR is necessary. There's no risk of damaging windows. While this is still quite new to me, I haven't found any real disadvantages to this setup.
Rick <-QUOTE}
right, well really it sounds no differnet from trying out a livecd, then installing it to your hard drive. what you have done to enable what you are doing doesn't sound too differnet (more difficult) then a normal install.

what you could try is kubuntu, it looks and feels very similar to knoppix, i was going to say mepis which is like kubuntu's brother lol, but has a few extra things in the base install, like some media playback i think, but the support for mepis is no where near that of kubuntu, and getting those extra things working in kubuntu is very easy to do.

you can use this little program to install almost all the extra things you need to get most things working -
http://easyubuntu.freecontrib.org/
http://easyubuntu.freecontrib.org/get.html

there's Automatix too which installs even more things, you just select what you want and let the program install it all for you, but i'm not sure if it works with kubuntu, i think it does actually.
http://www.getautomatix.com/
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=177646

[Nick Rhodes]

{QUOTE-> However, while using the Linux for FREE, one also has to work as a beta tester for FREE!
<-QUOTE}

You don't have to run the beta linux kernals or distributions and even then, a linux beta is far better than a MS final release, ive lost count of how many patches have been released for XP.

[Nick Rhodes]

{QUOTE-> I've installed multiple distros, and just never found a reason to stick with it. Windows works for what I need, and I get extreamly cheap, legal, licenses of MS software from my University. That being said, I am in the process of building a Linux print server for a new laser printer that I just bought. As far as I can tell, it's going to work great (the printer is arrriving Thursday). It's a Ubuntu Sever install.

C <-QUOTE}

Very sensible point, somethings linux is better for, others windows, some people get stuck on the whole MS vs Linux thing, they forget that you should pick which is best for your individual needs rather than trying to make a sweeping decision on which is better - you might decide windows is 99% better, but your own personal need is that 1% that linux does better.

[Notok]

{QUOTE->
Very sensible point, somethings linux is better for, others windows, some people get stuck on the whole MS vs Linux thing, they forget that you should pick which is best for your individual needs rather than trying to make a sweeping decision on which is better - you might decide windows is 99% better, but your own personal need is that 1% that linux does better. <-QUOTE}Exactly :)

[pcalvert]

I began using Linux about a year ago. I have a multi-boot system that includes Windows 2000 Professional. I previously used Windows 98 SE, but now I use Linux almost exclusively. I like it much better than Windows, and installing software is easier and faster. Setting it up was a bit of a pain, but fortunately that's not something that needs to be dealt with very often.

Phil

[cthorpe]

I'm happy to report that my Ubuntu print server is working perfectly with my new HP LaserJet 1320. Originally I had intended ot put the new printer on the XP machine upstairs and just share it, but my father was replacing his PC and gave me his old 400mhz to use as a linux box. Now the printer is downstairs near where my wife does most of her dissertation work on her laptop.

This was my first look at Ubuntu, and everything went so smoothly that I'm tempted to look at Ubuntu on my desktop.

C

[lucky76]

{QUOTE-> Hello,
I think the title says it all. The question is: all those people who have not yet at least partially merged into Linux, what are your greatest fears, reservations? What keeps from trying?
Mrk <-QUOTE}
I was working on Unix back in the 80's when it was the only choice for large business. Linux came along a few years ago. Big deal...... It's not for the faint hearted who are just looking for an alternative for Windows to surf the internet. It's desktop is not Windows. Repeat: It's not Windows.

An old man came in recently and said he had Ubuntu running on a computer and he couldn't get the modem to work. He wanted another modem. I told him it was not the modem, it was the driver. He didn't have a clue what I was talking about. This is a good example of people trying to use Linux.

[Devinco]

{QUOTE-> An old man came in recently and said he had Ubuntu running on a computer and he couldn't get the modem to work. He wanted another modem. I told him it was not the modem, it was the driver. He didn't have a clue what I was talking about. This is a good example of people trying to use Linux. <-QUOTE}
How about we buy modems and other hardware (and support vendors) that have Linux drivers and avoid manufacturers that take the narrow view?
As little as I understand of Linux (so far), you could have sold him a brand new external (hardware not winmodem) modem that would have been compatible.

Are there any computer hardware stores online that offer Linux compatible computer parts and accessories?

[Pedro]

That's an obstacle right there. Most people already have a computer with windows. They don't want/need to buy more hardware, unless to upgrade.

[cthorpe]

I think one big obstacle, which is there long before issues with drivers and installing additional programs, is that there are too many choices top be made before someone can even try linux. Most people don't understand the differences among all the distros. Even more confusing is the differences to be found once someone picks a distro (Ubuntu, Kubuntu; Dapper, Edgy; desktop, server, alternate, etc). As much as we talk about wanting more choices, people tend to take the path that is laid out for them (windows) more often than something where a lot of decisions are needed.

[marliz]

Some input from one of the Grammas. I started with dos and migrated to Windows. I hate windows XP after I added a new hard drive and my activation key wouldn't work. Microsoft wanted to charge me $30 to find out why it wouldn't work so I went back to Win 2000.

But my brain doesn't work like it did in the past. Just reading this thread makes me dizzy with the new terminology. Right now I'm trying to learn how to use BartPE and that will take me a lot of effort.

If Linux was user friendly for non-geek users, I would try it in a flash. I tried a dual boot a couple of years ago and ended having to completely reinstall everything so am "afraid" of even trying to use Linux in a dual boot.

I am thinking about buying a Mac when I replace my PC even though it will mean I'll have to replace some of my Windows software. Unless Apple starts using the activation stuff.

For an honest user, activation stinks. I'm still using Norton Virus 2003, just paying for each year's subscription, to avoid their activation. I lost a days worth of working time because I had to wait to talk to a Photoshop rep to get Photoshop reactivated.

In face if I was more of a geek, I'd think I'd become a pirate and figure out how to get around the activation so I wouldn't have to deal with the frustration anymore!

Just the thoughts of a Gramma ::)

[cthorpe]

{QUOTE-> If Linux was user friendly for non-geek users, I would try it in a flash. I tried a dual boot a couple of years ago and ended having to completely reinstall everything so am "afraid" of even trying to use Linux in a dual boot.
<-QUOTE}

Linux is definately getting easier for non-geek users once you chose your distro. As for fear of dual booting, Live CDs have really put that fear to rest for people who just want to take a look at linux. You just boot from the CD, have linux running, then when you are done, you reboot without the cd in the drive and everything is just how you left it.

C

[Atomic_Ed]

{QUOTE-> I kind of wish I wasn't so lazy and I would probably at least dual boot Linux. But i am just to lazy to have to compile whenever I want to install something and get it to work. ;D But that is just me.;) <-QUOTE}
I would recommend if you do decide to try linux again, give a product called xandros a try. For home use without the need to connect to an AD or Domain enviroment, then Linspire or Freespire could also be a decent choice. While I personally like Linspire, at this time if I were looking at linux for someone just coming off a Windows box then Xandros is truly a great product.

If you interested in taking a look at xandros www.xandros.com or linspire www.linspire.com

For the record I personally like both Windows and Linux as well as many other OS's too. About the only OS I never cared for was apple's. Of course this is only my opinions so not trying to start an apple vs pc debate or anything.

[sukarof]

For me it basically comes down to being lazy. I do install a linux distro now and then thinking this time I will dig into it. I go trough all the howtos and feel the power of being in control (well, sort of) like in the old DOS days when everything was done through the prompt. But after a while I start to long for a single click on a .exe file to do a install.
And being a gamer doesnt help getting into Linux.