13 Reasons Why Linux Won't Make It To A Desktop Near You


Recommended Posts

markjensen
I've installed linux on my laptop quite a few times, but no matter what distro I'm using, I can't get my wireless connection up and running. One day, hopefully, the whole linux community will be more organized and can get a product out that is easier to use than Windows. I'm sure that day isn't THAT far off. I would gladly become a full-time switcher if a Linux distro could fully satisfy all of my computing needs, with minimal work. I don't want to spend the first 5 hours of a new OS installation just trying to get the wireless connection up and running.
The Linux community has offered FREE software development to hardware manufacturers. That is Greg Kroah there, who does kernel work. About as clear of a commitment to get things working. Yet, you still hold them up as unorganized and unable to get a decent product out.

Another case of "Vista driver bad? Blame the manufacturer. Linux driver bad? Blame the Linux community"? :ermm:

...

I spent over 3 hours trying to install one piece of open source software on Ubunutu the other night, eventually I gave up. If I was on Windows I would have downloaded one .exe maybe a .zip and installed it. 5 minutes tops. Debian packages are catching on, but I still have run into issues with those as well.

...

Mind if I ask what software it is? Most open source stuff shouldn't be that hard. I give up after about 30 seconds, so my threshold for frustration should mean I cannot install it on my Fedora box, either.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoue
Mind if I ask what software it is? Most open source stuff shouldn't be that hard. I give up after about 30 seconds, so my threshold for frustration should mean I cannot install it on my Fedora box, either.

It's a notation program called MuseScore. I'm looking for an alternative to Sibelius and at the moment everything I've found is falling miserably short. It wasn't so much installing the program, as installing the 20 different dependencies it required. Finding the right dependency version, compiling it, installing, then finding out it wasn't the right version after all. Then I had to learn how to alter my bash.bashrc so the compiler could find the right version of qmake...blah...blah...blah. 3 hours of that and I said screw it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen

Ahhh... MuseScore is still in beta development. Looks like there are some substantial bugs with it, too (well an anonymously-reported segfault). In general, most beta software isn't stable enough to depend on, and the teams working on it would like help in the form of bug reports and code corrections. Both of them are outside of my expertise. I am just a Linux user, not a programmer/developer.

In this case, consider that program to not exist in any practical form :( Meaning, if you have a Windows app that does it, and there are no other Linux native ones (and I didn't search), then the requirement for a scoring app will drive your OS selection to Windows (or Apple's OSX) where such apps exist.

I'll have a shot at installing it (regardless of its "beta" state) when I get back home over the weekend (I am out of town at the moment).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kreuger

There are 4 requirements to install for that program. And it even gives needed you the versions on their site and even linked to downloads. How hard can it be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoue
There are 4 requirements to install for that program. And it even gives needed you the versions on their site and even linked to downloads. How hard can it be?

Except when those requirements have their own requirements. The site also says I need Cmake 2.4. Well I downloaded cmake 2.4, but I had 2.4.3 and I actually needed 2.4.6. (those weren't the actual numbers but you catch my drift) And according to Synaptic I had the latest ALSA drivers, but according to the MuseScore compiler I didn't. Oh and after about 1 hour of searching the net and trying different syntax in bash.bashrc I found out I needed to modify my PATH so that the old PATH came after the new PATH, not before it. I mean how did I miss that one?! This is like manual Linux config altering 101. I'm not making this stuff up, so how is this all user friendly again? I suppose this is much more intuitive and user friendly than double clicking an icon.

Edited by Zoue
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kreuger

Well the ALSA driver's in the repositories could be out dated which would mean youd have to compile newer version..

Link to post
Share on other sites
whocares78
When you say "make software installation easy" I guess you actually mean "make software installation work as in Windows/OSX", yet I fail to see how installing stuff on those is any easier than in linux :huh:

LMAO, are you serious, firstly, if i use the packager that comes with the oS and know exactly what i want to install and the packager supports it, then yeah it's easy, but if not then , well compiling up applications adn insatlling via command prompt is not easy,. give me a next next next insatyllation program, it is a lot easier. occccasionally you get a pre compiled version for the app you want on your version of linux, but then if i want to put it where i want it and i want to chnage some settings then i all of a sudden need to know a whole bunch more commands.

windows and mac insatll apps differently to each other, but are both easy. linux is NOT easy. plain and simple, for a linux user then maybe it is easy, but for a noob using linux it is far from easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Leddy
Except when those requirements have their own requirements. The site also says I need Cmake 2.4. Well I downloaded cmake 2.4, but I had 2.4.3 and I actually needed 2.4.6. (those weren't the actual numbers but you catch my drift) And according to Synaptic I had the latest ALSA drivers, but according to the MuseScore compiler I didn't. I'm not making this stuff up, so how is this all user friendly again?

Most open-source "distro" releases are a bit of a nightmare in general. I remember Eclipse a few years ago (and probably even right now)... To install this, you need X version y, and you can find that here (followed by a dead link).... The install instructions are "unzip the file, extract A to B, C to D..."

While collaborative development will assist in providing functionality, the release structure is so disorganised that many users just won't bother- Eclipse just doesn't gel- not like other development IDEs like NetBeans or VS.NET.

Link to post
Share on other sites
whocares78
Not to sound like an advertiser but openSuSE 10.3 will have a system that is a step in this direction called 1-click install, which will enable the software providers to package the files needed (or rather the instructions where to fetch the files) in one single button on their web pages and automate the installation.?

It's still heavily developed and when 10.3 comes out, we'll see how it works in real life. It'll be a step in the "right" direction for new adopters.

YAY you mean someone is listening:))

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kreuger
LMAO, are you serious, firstly, if i use the packager that comes with the oS and know exactly what i want to install and the packager supports it, then yeah it's easy, but if not then , well compiling up applications adn insatlling via command prompt is not easy,. give me a next next next insatyllation program, it is a lot easier. occccasionally you get a pre compiled version for the app you want on your version of linux, but then if i want to put it where i want it and i want to chnage some settings then i all of a sudden need to know a whole bunch more commands.
I have no problem compiling and installing from the command line. You're just not used to having to do it in Windows therefore it's hard. If you had ever played around with DOS you'd find it mostly similar. That's probably what made it easy for me adopt to because I had used DOS. A lot of the commands are quite similar or even the same.

Most of my programs come with binaries but I'm always compiling CVS/SVN versions. And why would you want to change where a program installs? Most by default install to /usr/bin. I dont see a problem in having just one location for all my binaries. Occasionally they will install to /usr/local/bin so that all users on a given system can access them (if you have multiple users that is). I think you would only need to edit one file before compiling and remove the /local so it's just /usr/bin like normal and there you go. Is that such a complicated thing to do? I know it can be a pain but I've not seen too many install there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PL_
YAY you mean someone is listening :)

That's open source ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
ntbnnt

Linux isn't for the average person, which is fine and dandy. I really don't care if everyone uses Linux or if everyone uses Windows, but I have to say that I use Linux. I had to learn some stuff and ask some stuff but I never had any problems. Its all about choice really, not marketing, the writer fails. This is cliche.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ntbnnt
I've installed linux on my laptop quite a few times, but no matter what distro I'm using, I can't get my wireless connection up and running. One day, hopefully, the whole linux community will be more organized and can get a product out that is easier to use than Windows. I'm sure that day isn't THAT far off. I would gladly become a full-time switcher if a Linux distro could fully satisfy all of my computing needs, with minimal work. I don't want to spend the first 5 hours of a new OS installation just trying to get the wireless connection up and running.

And you should probably stick to Windows.... especially if it took you five hours to get any wireless working. Anyway, if you have the money to blow on Windows, then why couldn't you simply have bought a supported wifi card? Its not cool to blame the Linux community for your ignorance or lack of thought. Linux isn't meant to be user-centric or "easy" or any of those other gimmic terms. It is meant to be an operating system, not a product, sales pitch or "super-easy-and-fun."

Link to post
Share on other sites
James7

Actually, more and more people are giving Linux a try using Live CDs.

With a Live CD you can boot to the CD and get a fully working Linux system up and running without touching your hard drive. You can check quickly this way that all your hardware is working properly out of the box before even considering installing onto your hard drive (whether dual boot with your Windows or whatever, or, like I did, eradicating Windows from your entire system). :D

This is definitely one reason more and more people are trying Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi
LMAO, are you serious, firstly, if i use the packager that comes with the oS and know exactly what i want to install and the packager supports it, then yeah it's easy, but if not then , well compiling up applications adn insatlling via command prompt is not easy,. give me a next next next insatyllation program, it is a lot easier. occccasionally you get a pre compiled version for the app you want on your version of linux, but then if i want to put it where i want it and i want to chnage some settings then i all of a sudden need to know a whole bunch more commands.

windows and mac insatll apps differently to each other, but are both easy. linux is NOT easy. plain and simple, for a linux user then maybe it is easy, but for a noob using linux it is far from easy.

Packages that are not available for a distro are considered "unsupported" on that distro. That would be the equivalent of trying to install something on windows without an installer (from source code, that is).

I mean, your complaint is actually about not having available precompiled packages for certain software, not about the install method being hard to use.

When it comes to commercial software, it's always provided with an installer, either a script or a gui like the loki-based installers for games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
shine_victim

I cant install the damn thing.....tried Ubuntu multiple times.....it should be a lot easier.

Im a complete Linux noob but when I go to install Ubuntu it keeps bringing me the error [tty error] or something like that...

Pity as I really wanna get Ubuntu onto the system

Link to post
Share on other sites
+stereopixels
I cant install the damn thing.....tried Ubuntu multiple times.....it should be a lot easier.

Im a complete Linux noob but when I go to install Ubuntu it keeps bringing me the error [tty error] or something like that...

Pity as I really wanna get Ubuntu onto the system

Could be a problem with the boot-loader; are you trying to dual-boot it with Windows?

Link to post
Share on other sites
shine_victim
Could be a problem with the boot-loader; are you trying to dual-boot it with Windows?

Yeah dual boot is the way at the minute. May machine is in need of a fresh windows install anyway so may try and reinstall Ubuntu after I reformat the machine

Link to post
Share on other sites
whocares78
Packages that are not available for a distro are considered "unsupported" on that distro. That would be the equivalent of trying to install something on windows without an installer (from source code, that is).

I mean, your complaint is actually about not having available precompiled packages for certain software, not about the install method being hard to use.

When it comes to commercial software, it's always provided with an installer, either a script or a gui like the loki-based installers for games.

dude, my compaint is about the hassle installing, i don't care why i can't install, i admit i don't know linux but i know enough that i should be able to work it out fairly easily, hell if a competant IT guy can't work it out, how the hell do you exepect someone else to, if all this software is open source and basically all based on the same kernal then why the hell can't i instll anything on any version of Linux, it sounds pretty dumb to me. This is the whole bitch about linux, if i download an app for XP it works on XP home XP pro and XP media centre, most likely even 2k 2k3 maybe 98 and if im lucky vista, which as all you linux folk say is the same as having lots of distros. yet i need to know what distro i want if i want to install an app. stop arguing about the fact and make it easier for noobs if you really do want linux to take off, otherwise get back in your hole

if you all want linux to be used by everyone, maybe listen to the complaints on this forum adn see why people don't want to use it, and maybe address the isssues. rather than just say, well you don't know how to use linux thats your problem. if i put windows in front of someone that has never used a PC they don't have a lot of problems, if i stuck them in front of linux they would have a fricken heart attack

I have no problem compiling and installing from the command line. You're just not used to having to do it in Windows therefore it's hard. If you had ever played around with DOS you'd find it mostly similar. That's probably what made it easy for me adopt to because I had used DOS. A lot of the commands are quite similar or even the same.

Most of my programs come with binaries but I'm always compiling CVS/SVN versions. And why would you want to change where a program installs? Most by default install to /usr/bin. I dont see a problem in having just one location for all my binaries. Occasionally they will install to /usr/local/bin so that all users on a given system can access them (if you have multiple users that is). I think you would only need to edit one file before compiling and remove the /local so it's just /usr/bin like normal and there you go. Is that such a complicated thing to do? I know it can be a pain but I've not seen too many install there.

i am not saying i can't do it, i have, i am saying it is not easy!!! lern the differnece, i have played with dos and yes i will aslo say insatlling stuff on windows is easier than installing it on DOS, EASY being the key word. all i am trying to say is make it easy to use and people will use it, make it hard and they won't plain and simple

the answer is YES it is compliccated, a lot more complicated than a browse button.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ichi
if i put windows in front of someone that has never used a PC they don't have a lot of problems, if i stuck them in front of linux they would have a fricken heart attack

Have you actually ever tried doing that? Because in my experience it's nothing like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
James7
Have you actually ever tried doing that? Because in my experience it's nothing like that.

Exactly, I think he is suggesting taking a person who has never used a PC, giving them a PC without an operating system, giving them install disks for Windows or Linux and asking them to have a go! The fact is, no one can do this sort of thing without some experience with using computers. The fact is, almost everyone who buys their first PC gets it with the software installed and configured. A pre-installed Linux system is just as easy for a novice to use as a pre-installed Windows system.

This thread is about why Linux isn't taking off as people hope. The main reason is that buying a PC still means buying one with Windows installed on it by default. Luckily some big companies are now offering the option of pre-installed Linux. That is the main way Linux will take off, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kreuger
hell if a competant IT guy can't work it out
it doesn't really matter how competant you are at anything because when you're trying something new you can't expect to pick it up overnight just because you can do something else. EVERYTHING has some sort of learning curve. Did you wake up one day knowing how to do everything you can? I didn't think so. And if you expect it to work like Windows, you're in the wrong there too. It's different, it's meant to be and that's a good thing. If you can't grasp that, then please by all means stay away from Linux. It's here as an option, not mandatory. If you can't figure something out and use your IT background as some base of knowledge then it's your fault, not the system. Take the time to learn Linux and the way it works and then you can talk about how hard it is to do things. When I switched, I obviously knew nothing but now I can do pretty much anything I need to and mostly with ease because I didn't run into one problem and go "oh damn, its not as easy as Windows I better give up now". I was determined to get away from Windows and I did it. Anyone else can too if you try. It's really not that hard.
if you all want linux to be used by everyone, maybe listen to the complaints on this forum adn see why people don't want to use it, and maybe address the isssues. rather than just say, well you don't know how to use linux thats your problem. if i put windows in front of someone that has never used a PC they don't have a lot of problems, if i stuck them in front of linux they would have a fricken heart attack
Frankly, most of us couldn't care less what you choose to use. Whatever works best for you, go ahead and use it. We use what works best for us and we enjoy it. And if I setup a Linux distro with KDE and put it infront of someone who can't use a computer, I bet they'd figure it out just as easily as Windows.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoue
It's different, it's meant to be and that's a good thing. If you can't grasp that, then please by all means stay away from Linux. It's here as an option, not mandatory. If you can't figure something out and use your IT background as some base of knowledge then it's your fault, not the system.
9. When you admit that you have trouble understanding their language, you're told you'd better learn it, or you won't appreciate the product.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Unholy Moley!

lol @ newbs falling for obvious troll topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor
...

if i put windows in front of someone that has never used a PC they don't have a lot of problems, if i stuck them in front of linux they would have a fricken heart attack

...

I actually did that a while back, sat my grandmother down in front of a computer, she didn't know what the mouse was and called the monitor a TV.

My step-dad still has trouble remembering the differences between left click and right click (and i have to show him how to start applications and plug in USB devices)

Maybe they just don't have the Windows gene you guy's claim people apparently have.

Although, my mum's different, she can sit down and use Windows, Linux and OS X without me having to help her at all, it was pretty funny when I realised she had been using my install of Linux for a few weeks, she didn't even notice a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.