Why are you afraid of Big Bad Linux

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 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 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

 

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

 

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

 

I completely agree.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

 

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.

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.

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

 

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.

 

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

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!

http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Kroah-Hartman

 

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

 

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.

 

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. 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.

 

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".

 

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.

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 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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Mrk said :

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