A better linux for the future

[joemagoe]

I think the issue with most people's views today is itself in the fact that they want Linux to be more of a user-friendly experience. That's what Windows is for! Linux, and its belonging distributions are about how one wants his or her operating system. If Linux was more like Windows, then why would people migrate? I guess you could double up on GUI and CLI applications for everything, but that just adds bloat to the entire system.

For example, I recently migrated from Ubuntu to Arch Linux. Why? Because I was sick of Ubuntu and its crap, and it assumptions on how I wanted the system to work, and then automating those tasks. Sure, the migration was total hell for me, and sure, I had to spend oodles of time figuring out every little bit of my system, but it was worth it in the end. I have learned a great amount of schmuck concerning my operating system, and if I have any problem now, I can fix it in a matter of a few seconds.

In truth, using Linux SHOULD be like learning a new language. Because learning that language is your intention, so you can use it in personalized situations. If that isn't your goal, then you shouldn't be using Linux. Because there's Windows for that.

(And I offer my apologies if this post sounds a little awkward. I'm intensely tired at the moment, and I shouldn't even be writing this)

[Eice]

Indeed. Why require every app maker to code their own updater, so every little app would need to self-update. If it did not, the system is broken.

Using the repos and package manager, NO APP needs to contain extra unnecessary code to self-update. It is all handled by the central manager, which gives you ONE place to set your update preferences. If I wanted to change Linux to update daily instead of weekly, there is one place. In the alternative described for Windows.... Ewww... It is a lot of messy individual apps, and they certainly will not all have the same settings. Not to mention the multitude of apps that don't include a self-updater.

Sure. And because this central manager is so awesome, Ubuntu users need to wait until April for Firefox 3.6 to be in the repos.

[Syanide]

Sure. And because this central manager is so awesome, Ubuntu users need to wait until April for Firefox 3.6 to be in the repos.

Sure it is awesome. Adding a PPA to add a newer version of a program is a piece of cake. Though waiting for a couple of months should not be a biggie for most users, because then they get officially tested packages on that version of Ubuntu. Basically, less techy users don't care, if they get updated to FF3.6 now or in two months time, whilst the techy users can update it immediately, if they wish to.

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:mozillateam/firefox-stable (or the gui method of pasting into the software sources list)

sudo apt-get update (or the gui method of clicking the refresh button)

sudo apt-get upgrade (or the gui method of marking all upgrades, or the gui method of manually selecting the firefox package to upgrade)

And if the end users considers these three steps too much of a hassle, he can always switch to rolling release distros like PCLinuxOS which always offer updates.

Anyway:

[Eice]

Sure it is awesome. Adding a PPA to add a newer version of a program is a piece of cake. Though waiting for a couple of months should not be a biggie for most users, because then they get officially tested packages on that version of Ubuntu. Basically, less techy users don't care, if they get updated to FF3.6 now or in two months time, whilst the techy users can update it immediately, if they wish to.

Sure. If it doesn't do anything, then it's either unimportant, or the users don't care or want it. With such astounding and breathtaking logic, how could any product ever fail to reach the absolute pinnacle of flawless perfection?

May I suggest you let users decide what's important to them instead of telling them what to think, just so that you can cover up all the shortcomings of your precious update manager and declare it to be oh-so-awesome. What would be a piece of cake would be for Ubuntu to let its users to upgrade their version of Firefox (among other things) automatically, or download an installer and run it, instead of making them search the Internet for a cryptic command even though this "awesome" central updater is supposed to be so smart. Unless users hunt down the repos (assuming they exist) for every single piece of software on their computers; guess what, the shiny, reassuring "everything is up to date!" message is nothing but a huge pile of baloney.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Sure. And because this central manager is so awesome, Ubuntu users need to wait until April for Firefox 3.6 to be in the repos.

Here's a bit of insight for you.

Either add the Firefox PPA. Or don't use Ubuntu, and use something that keeps fresher.

Ubuntu =/= Linux as a whole

[Syanide]

Sure. If it doesn't do anything, then it's either unimportant, or the users don't care or want it. With such astounding and breathtaking logic, how could any product ever fail to reach the absolute pinnacle of flawless perfection?

May I suggest you let users decide what's important to them instead of telling them what to think, just so that you can cover up all the shortcomings of your precious update manager and declare it to be oh-so-awesome. What would be a piece of cake would be for Ubuntu to let its users to upgrade their version of Firefox (among other things) automatically, or download an installer and run it, instead of making them search the Internet for a cryptic command even though this "awesome" central updater is supposed to be so smart. Unless users hunt down the repos (assuming they exist) for every single piece of software on their computers; guess what, the shiny, reassuring "everything is up to date!" message is nothing but a huge pile of baloney.

As I already said, and markjensen pointed, there are other, rolling release distros.

P.S. There are rumours that Ubuntu LTS releases might get rolling release support for applications, so the big annoying job of Googling for a PPA might just not be needed:

The commenters on the post are talking about the idea of a Ubuntu LTS "rolling release" in which the base of the system maintains some consistency over the life of the release but the applications on top of it are updated/backported as they develop over time.

This is more akin to the Windows/Mac (and RHEL) style of system in which a full OS upgrade isn't required to get a newer version of an application such as Firefox or OpenOffice.

For instance, to get Firefox 3.5 in Ubuntu without using a backport or PPA (the newish "personal package archive," which I'm eager to learn more about and start using on my own systems), you need to be running the current six-month release, Karmic (9.10).

http://www.insidesocal.com/click/2009/11/workswithu-dell-cozies-up-to-u.html

[markwolfe Veteran]

^^^ I have always liked Red Hat. They used to be the distro that people picked on. Now that seems to be Ubuntu. I guess being popular brings on a lot of attention and focus.

It's good, as long as the critiques are rational. Those point out areas of improvement. :)

[Lechio]

In truth, using Linux SHOULD be like learning a new language. Because learning that language is your intention, so you can use it in personalized situations. If that isn't your goal, then you shouldn't be using Linux. Because there's Windows for that.

(And I offer my apologies if this post sounds a little awkward. I'm intensely tired at the moment, and I shouldn't even be writing this)

First off, welcome to the forums.

I completely disagree with your opinion there. Changing from Windows to a Linux system has never been more easier, and go even further by saying that using a modern Linux distro is easier than using a Windows system.

The tools that you can find in a Linux system are common on other platforms such as Windows. Most of the popular software (free open source software) all happens to be multi-platform. Web browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome), mail clients (Thunderbird), image editors (GIMP), Office suites (OpenOffice.org), media players (VLC), (...). Doesn't matter what platform you are on if you use those tools. Doesn't require you to re-learn how to use them.

For the desktop part, the Windows UI became more confusing (especially with Windows 7) for a unexperienced computer user. In Linux you can have very simple UI's that don't get in your way. In Windows you only have one graphical shell that allows minimal configuration of its reduced, mangled features (take the Windows window manager as an example).

[cork1958]

I'm actually against doing things to go mainstream. I'm not against improvements but Linux is just different from Windows and people who want to switch should either accept that or roll their own version.

+1

Half the reason for the good of Linux is it's obscurity. Kind of like how Firefox was so secure at first, but now, due to popularity, it is patched to death, just like IE.

Have to admit though, the idea of not having to EVER use the command line, would be cool for me!!

It's powerful, yes, but I'm not a professional typist, even if I did do that in the Army for 3 years!

[Silverskull]

First off, welcome to the forums.

I completely disagree with your opinion there. Changing from Windows to a Linux system has never been more easier, and go even further by saying that using a modern Linux distro is easier than using a Windows system.

I would have to agree with you there. For those completely new to Linux, repositories are certainly a foreign concept... but once you get used to them, they're extremely easy and convenient. I managed to get my sister (who used to constantly infect her Windows machine with all sorts of malware) to switch to Linux. She's learned to use the Ubuntu Software Center to find new applications, and she's been perfectly happy with it ever since. You don't have to be a techie to use Linux... distros like Ubuntu make it extremely easy.

Of course, once people learn that they can change the theme completely... I hope we don't start seeing people with desktops that look like their flashing, unreadable MySpace pages. x.x

[Lechio]

Of course, once people learn that they can change the theme completely... I hope we don't start seeing people with desktops that look like their flashing, unreadable MySpace pages. x.x

Too late:

:pinch:

[ichi]

May I suggest you let users decide what's important to them instead of telling them what to think, just so that you can cover up all the shortcomings of your precious update manager and declare it to be oh-so-awesome. What would be a piece of cake would be for Ubuntu to let its users to upgrade their version of Firefox (among other things) automatically, or download an installer and run it, instead of making them search the Internet for a cryptic command even though this "awesome" central updater is supposed to be so smart. Unless users hunt down the repos (assuming they exist) for every single piece of software on their computers; guess what, the shiny, reassuring "everything is up to date!" message is nothing but a huge pile of baloney.

Just in case you didn't notice that's an effect of Ubuntu's release cycle, and not a shortcoming of the update manager.

If you don't like not getting latest versions of everything, at least get a clue about what you should be complaining about: Ubuntu's version freezing.

I don't like it either, just for the record.

[Growled Member]

The repository is a great idea and it's a great way to keep all your main apps secure, but in many ways it's Linux's main weakness. What if you want to install an app and it's not in any repository? Many new Linux users run into this and they don't know what to do. Many times it's not as easy as download and install. A lot of times if you install out of the repository you run into dependency problems.