Biggest Gripes with Linux?


 Share

Recommended Posts

majortom1981

Hardware. Try getting linux to play nice with hardware. I dont have the time to go editing config files and recompiling when it does not like a device in my syste. I had ubuntu complety screw up on my desktop with the top and bottom halves of the screen flipped. The only way to have fixed it was go into a command prompt and do a whole bunch of editing. Thats when I said never again and switched back to windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fish

I am quite amazed that this thread has gotten this long without turning into an argument. Well done to everyone who has contributed.

One thing that is obvious to me here is that people with the most gripes seem to be trying too hard to replace Windows or OSX with Linux, and then are stumbling when things aren't really quite what they expected. Linux is not, and will never be, a drop-in replacement for the other two OS's. From the beginning, it was conceived differently, and it has evolved differently. I think the confusion now is that with Ubuntu especially, Linux is becoming more popular for desktop users, and desktop users have an expectation of how their computer works and how to get things done. The differences here cause confusion and frustration.

I would just like to add this to the discussion - try not to compare Linux too much to Windows or OSX. Most of what you can do with other OS's can be done in Linux, but often it may be done differently. Some things are easier, some take a lot more effort (a lot more than a typical user is used too). Take it for what it is, and Linux is an enjoyable experience, but if you're looking for an alternative to Windows, you shouldn't expect it to be the same.

My biggest gripe with Linux was that I spent too much time tinkering and breaking things (on purpose!). In the end I realised that what I wanted was something a lot more simple, and went back to Windows for day-to-day use. I still have Lubuntu on an old laptop which is great for a quick 5 minutes checking mail and browsing etc. Sometimes, Linux is the right tool for the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.Neo

No, terminal is just the easiest way to do it, power user or not. That's what I meant by taking the time to learn a new system. When I can type "sudo apt-get install firefox" without having to find the download, open the files, and install, it's the easiest way to do it. So what if it's in a terminal?

Because it's my strong believe I shouldn't have to use command line in order to perform something as basic as installing an application or drivers. It is almost 2011 after all and not 1985. I really don't feel like looking up what to commands to enter every time I want to install something.

And there are two different apps actually. Ubuntu Software Center is more of the pretty storefront type app to find everything. You can use that for anything you want to install as well, or you can use the Synaptic Package Manger which is literally just a front end on apt-get. That way if you don't know a package name you can type it in search and find it. Anything that is in the repos and could be installed with apt-get is in the GUI. Now, if your app isn't in the repo and you have to download it manually, that can be a little more difficult depending on if you have to compile, have an install script, or have to move the files manually, but that's the same as every other OS. Most apps you'll need are in repos so you don't have to worry about it.

Okay, that's actually very helpful. I'll be sure to look into that. :) So the package manger will basically look online for software available for Ubuntu? Just so I get you right.

So, yes and no, it's not possible to install EXACTLY like you do on Windows or OS X, but that's because it isn't Windows or OS X. Just like you can't just drag a single app file to install it on Windows. Different systems work differently, it's not a bad thing, it's just something you have to learn about whatever system you're using. There are some Linux apps that install just like Windows apps, but for the most part the apps would just be in the repo to install with the package manager since that's the easier way to do it on Linux.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not expecting Linux to work the same way as Mac OS X. Nor did I expect Mac OS X to work the same way as Windows when I switched. In fact I was hoping it would do things differently. :laugh: My main issue was that it seemed as if Ubuntu still required you to install applications by using command line if something isn't in the Software Center. However, you are the first here to actually explain to me that isn't the case.

Take a look at this link for a little more explanation on how it works. You just have to understand that a LOT of times people will tell you to do things through terminal in Linux, not because Linux is primitive or something, but because it's frequently the easiest way to do it. Using a terminal isn't a bad thing. It's a big part of Linux so if you have something against using a terminal just because you don't want to use one, then Linux probably isn't the best choice for you. They make GUI front ends for a lot of things, but half the time it takes longer to use the GUI versions.

Like I said before, I think using command line because it's the easiest option is completely absurd for basic tasks such as installing software. If Linux wants any chance at becoming more mainstream in the home market that aspect has to change. It's simply something the average user isn't going to accept after not having to use command line for like 20 years on both Mac OS and Windows.

Being a full-time Mac guy this is definitely a "gripe" when it comes to Linux.

I don't understand why you can't search and find most things on your own on the internet with Linux too.

You didn't read my post properly. To learn the basics of Mac OS X I didn't need to look things up on the internet. Everything was basically self-explainatory. With Linux I keep running into brick walls, something I really never experienced before. I'm not an idiot when it comes to computers (both software and hardware), but with Linux it's the first time I feel like I am.

One way or another I'm going to learn how to use Ubuntu. It's personal now! :p

But unless you have checked every app manually, or have something like MacUpdate, then you never know that. His point was if you install app your apps through Synaptic/apt, when newer versions are uploaded to the repos, Synaptic can see updates for every app on your system installed using it. Neither Windows nor OS X have a central installer system like that that gives you one spot to see updates for all of your apps on your system. It's similar to an iPhone App Store/Android Market type thing.

There are several solutions nowadays on Mac OS X that offer a more centralized solution. But you're right something as centralized and integrated as on Ubuntu does not exists. That's a downside of a closed software platform, the upside is I have software like iLife, iWork, Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite running natively. Maybe Apple manages to come up with a solution to centralize software updates in future and have third-parties supporting them. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

.Neo

I think what you need to launch is firefox-bin

That's basically what I figured on my own, before posting here. Except nothing happens.

One thing that is obvious to me here is that people with the most gripes seem to be trying too hard to replace Windows or OSX with Linux, and then are stumbling when things aren't really quite what they expected.

In my case I already explained several times that I'm not expecting Linux to work as either Mac OS X or Windows. What I do expect is that Linux has evolved beyond command line being the easiest option by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

redvamp128

Okay, that's actually very helpful. I'll be sure to look into that. :) So the package manger will basically look online for software available for Ubuntu? Just so I get you right.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not expecting Linux to work the same way as Mac OS X. Nor did I expect Mac OS X to work the same way as Windows when I switched. In fact I was hoping it would do things differently. :laugh: My main issue was that it seemed as if Ubuntu still required you to install applications by using command line if something isn't in the Software Center. However, you are the first here to actually explain to me that isn't the case.

One way or another I'm going to learn how to use Ubuntu. It's personal now! :p

Few things to note---

Some programs now come with .deb installers built just for Ubuntu ---- so it is just a click- (then it checks for dependencies and asks you if it can install the missing ones)- admin password and then it is done.

Now on the other hand some other programs if you want the latest greatest ones - Examples-- Latest Wine - or Pidgin...

they provide a cut and paste that you can copy over to the terminal----

SO even then you don't have to remember the commands-

Good Luck--

Though running linux is a whole lot simpler than the days of Red Hat 7.0 -- Where you download something -- Sign into root - change permissions then command line install everything that was not provided in the cd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft_Bob

The first thing I noticed is that my keyboard doesn't work every time Ubuntu starts, so during the first restart in the install I was forced to boot into Windows 7 since the keyboard did not work.

Perhaps it's a microsoft keyboard xD.

Second, I was quite disappointed to see that Ubuntu did not install my graphics drivers automatically. Of all the arguments I've heard Ubuntu users make, the most prominent one was that you don't need to install any drivers manually after a restart.

That's because it gives users the choice. The default open source nvidia and radeon drivers do an adequate job of rendering 2d/basic 3d. You have to remember a lot of Linux users are against proprietary drivers/software, and the automatic installation of them would upset a great deal of people. It's all about choice. Besides, it notifies you that the drivers are available to activate, so it's not exactly hard.

So far I've found this only true for Windows 7.

That's not true actually, there are a number of instances when you will need to install drivers manually with windows 7. And you have to remember that 60% of windows users are still using XP, which has no automatic driver download/install support, while Ubuntu/Linux has had this feature since its inception. Where do you think MS got the idea of it. They copy most of their features from Linux or MAC OS.

Being the Neowinian that I am, I decided to check out Neowin while the drivers were installing. Of course one of the posts linked to Youtube. Of course, I was prompted to install flash which is understandable, you even have to install flash on Windows after a fresh install. I followed the think to install Flash for Ubuntu 64-bit it took me to an unofficial preview page for 64-bit flash. I downloaded the file and then from there I was confused about what to do with the Flash add-on. I kept trying different things to install flash to Firefox but I failed miserably. The installer finished installing the drivers but it required a restart.

You can't install multiple packages at the same time. This prevents a corruption of the package database. And if you want to install flash etc, the best thing to do is start typing in the software centre "Ubuntu restricted", then install the package Ubuntu Restricted Extras. This will install Java, Flash, All sorts of codecs etc. It's done that way for a couple of reasons, one being licensing costs, and secondly, choice. Some users prefer the open source versions of flash, not the proprietary ones.

Once again, I was surprised because another argument for Linux is that you do not have to reboot as much as Windows, yet Windows 7 does not require a restart after Graphics Card drivers are updated/restarted.

If you update a driver you don't have to reboot, but if you don't you wont be using the new version, the same applies to windows. It doesn't some how magically patch itself into memory. Graphic drivers are loaded by the kernel, and thus, a restart is required if you want to use the new version. And to answer your original point, no Linux does not have to reboot as much as windows. In windows, the simplest change can result in the need to reboot, especially in Vista/XP. An example of this is the windows 7 installer, for look how many times it reboots during install, silly.

I restarted the computer and since the Keyboard didn't work, I had to boot into Windows and restart again to select Ubuntu. I still had to install flash so I thought that maybe I should just install Chromium since I heard it comes with flash. I went to the Ubuntu Software Center, installed Chromium and went to Youtube. I still had no Flash. When I clicked on the link to install Flash, the website told me that Chromium came with Flash installed so I didn't need to install anything. Well that didn't help.

You are thinking in windows... With Ubuntu, everything is installed through the software centre, including flash, java etc. Some things will automatically prompt to install, such as mp3 codecs, but it's far easier to just install the Ubuntu Restricted Extras package and be done with it. And if it really gripes you that Ubuntu doesn't come with all these things automatically installed, then you could always install Mint Linux instead.

I then checked the Ubuntu Software Center again and searched for Flash. Sure enough, flash was there. I installed flash and opened up chromium sure enough, Youtube worked! I then opened up Firefox and Flash simply did not load at all. After a couple of restarts on Firefox it worked fine though. Installing flash should not be that much work for a nooby like me.

Again, going the long way around. There are numerous items in the help built in, or on the web to help you get started. If you just stumble around, it's bound to take longer and cause more frustrations. A good article is here: http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2010/10/things-to-do-after-new-ubuntu-1010.html or http://digitizor.com/2010/10/10/what-to-do-after-installing-ubuntu-10-10/ if you prefer the terminal ;) It's really not that hard, you just have to understand that it's a different way of thinking.

So after I had everything set up I just asked myself. "Now what?". Because quite honestly there is nothing I want to do/can do in Ubuntu. Silverlight and Flash doesn't work well with Ubuntu, Office 2010 doesn't work for Ubuntu, and I can't play any games without having to hack it together in Wine and even then it runs worse in Wine. I guess the problem isn't really Ubuntu, it's that companies don't really support Ubuntu.

Again, you're thinking in windows. OpenOffice, or Google Docs perform the same functions as microsoft office, Flash works exactly the same as it does on windows, and Games, well, there are a lot of FOSS games, free games, commercial games etc, and they run natively. If you want to run "Windows Games" on Linux, that's a whole different story, the same as trying to run windows apps on Linux. Is it hit and miss? Absolutely, but they are written for windows, not Linux. Saying that, a lot of the more popular games do run in wine perfectly. WOW for instance. But again, if you want to use Linux, use Linux apps, if you want to use windows apps, use windows. I know a lot of people run a dual boot with windows, so they can play their favorite games, while enjoying the security, speed, and productivity of Linux. Either way, if you give Ubuntu a chance I'm sure you will like it.

Another gripe I found is that after you select "Extra" Visual Effects the windows get a ton of screen tearing with the rubbery effect.

Sounds like your system isn't capable of running those, or your graphic hardware isn't fully supported. Stick to the medium settings ;)

In short, it is too difficult to set things up mainly because nobody cares about Ubuntu, not companies at least.

I disagree. From your comments I have discerned that you spent no time whatsoever looking at the many help resources available, and just stumbled around expecting everything to look and behave like windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft_Bob

my only gripe is its slow as crap compared to when i had XP on the same system ( yes i know the 10yr old OS compared to a new OS thing, but Linux is hailed as doing just that, running fast on non current hardware ( processor is AMD XP 3000+ ), and Ubuntu removed all but basic drivers for my Radion X800, im limited to basic visulizations and the whole system lags out with 3 web browser tabs open.

Xubuntu is meant for older systems. Uses less resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft_Bob

So long story short: If I want to install Firefox 4.0 I still need to go through Terminal? Or is there a way to simply get it from the Ubuntu Software Center?

Open up the software centre, click the edit->software sources menu, select the other sources tab, click add, paste: ppa:ubuntu-mozilla-daily/ppa , add, and close. Wait for the cache to update, then type in the search box: firefox-4.0, and install the first item in the list. Now you have the latest firefox installed. There should now be a shortcut in applications->internet called: minefield 4.0 web browser. That is the one you just installed. You will continue to get the latest updates as per usual through the update manager. I still think it's easier installing it using the single line on the terminal that I gave you, but there you are xD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TheTempestSonata

Obvious one. Lack of application capability and I think WINE is buggy as hell.

Just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft_Bob

Just that.

Linux applications run just fine on Linux. 100% compatibility. Can windows run elf binaries, or install debian files? Then windows suffers from a lack of application compatibility I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TheTempestSonata

compatibility? who said compatibility?

capability is very different than compatibility.

From the programmer's perspective, yes they're fine. From a graphic designer's perspective, I want Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator... From a gamer's perspective, I want my games... Gimp and whatever few games are available for Linux just aren't "capable" enough for me. They're perfectly compatible though. I dual WXP and JoliCloud on my netbook, Win7 and Ubuntu from my laptop, and Win7 and Fedora from my desktop... I'm fine in both... Windows is just more capable in my eyes for my purposes... Same way Mac is more capable in others eyes. For my purposes, Linux software just isn't capable enough for what I need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tech Geek Alex

Anyone talk about what a pain it is to get java working in linux. Really java should not be that hard to install but it is...

http://java.com/en/download/help/linux_install.xml#rpm

To me the following is a really good example as to why linux still is an OS for Geeks.

****************************************************

To install the Linux RPM (self-extracting) file

Follow these instructions:

1.Become the root user by running the su command and entering the super-user password.

At the terminal: Type:

su

Enter the root password.

2.Change to the directory in which you want to install. Type:

cd <directory>

For example, to install the software in the /usr/java/ directory, Type:

cd /usr/java

Note about root access: To install Java in a system-wide location such as/usr/local, you must login as the root user to gain the necessary permissions. If you do not have root access, install Java in your home directory or a subdirectory for which you have write permissions.

3.Change the permission of the file you downloaded to be executable. Type:

chmod a+x jre-6u<version>-linux-i586-rpm.bin

4.Start the installation process. Type:

./jre-6u<version>-linux-i586-rpm.bin

The license agreement is displayed. Review the agreement. Press the spacebar to display the next page. At the end, enter yes to proceed with the installation.

5.The installation file creates and runs the file jre-6<version>-linux-i586.rpm in the current directory.

6.Verify that the jre1.6.0_<version> sub-directory is listed under the current directory. Type:

ls

The installation is now complete. Go to the Enable and Configure section.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enable and Configure

Firefox or Mozilla

1.Create a symbolic link to the libjavaplugin.so file in the browser plugins directory

?Go to the plugins sub-directory under the Firefox installation directory

cd <Firefox installation directory>/plugins

?Create the symbolic link

ln -s <Java installation directory>/plugin/i386/

ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so

In the ln command line above, use ns7-gcc29 if Firefox was compiled with gcc2.9.

If you install Firefox 1.5 or later, you can enable the Java Console menu item in the Tools menu. Change directories to the Firefox extensions directory, then unzip ffjcext.zip there.

cd /usr/lib/firefox-1.4/extensions

unzip /usr/java/jre1.6.0/lib/deploy/ffjcext.zip

Link to post
Share on other sites

AJerman

Okay, let me try to reply to these, haha.

Because it's my strong believe I shouldn't have to use command line in order to perform something as basic as installing an application or drivers. It is almost 2011 after all and not 1985. I really don't feel like looking up what to commands to enter every time I want to install something.

Like I said before, I think using command line because it's the easiest option is completely absurd for basic tasks such as installing software. If Linux wants any chance at becoming more mainstream in the home market that aspect has to change. It's simply something the average user isn't going to accept after not having to use command line for like 20 years on both Mac OS and Windows.

Being a full-time Mac guy this is definitely a "gripe" when it comes to Linux.

See, this is what I don't understand though. Why are you anti command line? Just because it has an old feel doesn't mean it's any less valid of a way of using a computer. I feel like you dislike using the terminal just to dislike using the terminal. If it's the easiest way to do something, then what's wrong with it? Maybe you just don't like typing? laugh.gif You need to embrace the terminal. I understand your desire not to NEED to use it, and do complex commands that you have to constantly look up to remember, but for some things, the terminal is great. I use it all the time in Windows, OS X, and Linux. You can't really have issue with the way things like installing apps works on Linux if you are going to avoid doing things the way that is easy on Linux. Try to open yourself up to the terminal a little more and I assure you you won't regret it. Sometimes it's a lot easier to type a few commands than to browse through dozens of windows to do the same thing.

Okay, that's actually very helpful. I'll be sure to look into that. :) So the package manger will basically look online for software available for Ubuntu? Just so I get you right.

In a way, yes. Ubuntu has large repositories of software. I don't know the specifics, but I assume theirs a fairly simple approval process to get your software in the repo as long as it's not malicious, then it gets mirrored to all the other repo mirrors. Synaptic lets you browse the repo with a GUI, but it's somewhat limited to categories and names. You kind of have to know what you want before you go into it, but it's the best place to look for software that you do want like Firefox for example.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not expecting Linux to work the same way as Mac OS X. Nor did I expect Mac OS X to work the same way as Windows when I switched. In fact I was hoping it would do things differently. :laugh: My main issue was that it seemed as if Ubuntu still required you to install applications by using command line if something isn't in the Software Center. However, you are the first here to actually explain to me that isn't the case.

Yeah, it's very rare that you'd actually HAVE to use a command line to install software. About the only time that would happen was if you had to compile the source first. Most apps are either in repo already, have their own repo you can add, or a deb installer package. It just goes back to what I was saying about being easier, so most people just talk about apt-get to manage packages.

You didn't read my post properly. To learn the basics of Mac OS X I didn't need to look things up on the internet. Everything was basically self-explainatory. With Linux I keep running into brick walls, something I really never experienced before. I'm not an idiot when it comes to computers (both software and hardware), but with Linux it's the first time I feel like I am.

One way or another I'm going to learn how to use Ubuntu. It's personal now! :p

I see what you mean. Linux definitely still isn't the most friendly OS for a non-techie type person, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of what it was a couple years ago even. Most people are used to Windows and how it works, and if they go to OS X, it's simple enough that it doesn't require much to learn, but Linux is a whole different thing. It's certainly not hard to learn though, just takes a little time. You need to go to ubuntuforums.org and become very good friends with their search button as you learn Ubuntu. They've probably already had a topic and answer on most questions you'd ask. It's a great resource.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft_Bob

Anyone talk about what a pain it is to get java working in linux. Really java should not be that hard to install but it is...

sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted-extras or open up the software centre, type in the search box ubuntu restricted extras, and install the first item in the list, abracadabra, you now have java installed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AJerman

Anyone talk about what a pain it is to get java working in linux. Really java should not be that hard to install but it is...

http://java.com/en/d...install.xml#rpm

To me the following is a really good example as to why linux still is an OS for Geeks.

****************************************************

To install the Linux RPM (self-extracting) file

Follow these instructions:

1.Become the root user by running the su command and entering the super-user password.

At the terminal: Type:

su

Enter the root password.

2.Change to the directory in which you want to install. Type:

cd <directory>

For example, to install the software in the /usr/java/ directory, Type:

cd /usr/java

Note about root access: To install Java in a system-wide location such as/usr/local, you must login as the root user to gain the necessary permissions. If you do not have root access, install Java in your home directory or a subdirectory for which you have write permissions.

3.Change the permission of the file you downloaded to be executable. Type:

chmod a+x jre-6u<version>-linux-i586-rpm.bin

4.Start the installation process. Type:

./jre-6u<version>-linux-i586-rpm.bin

The license agreement is displayed. Review the agreement. Press the spacebar to display the next page. At the end, enter yes to proceed with the installation.

5.The installation file creates and runs the file jre-6<version>-linux-i586.rpm in the current directory.

6.Verify that the jre1.6.0_<version> sub-directory is listed under the current directory. Type:

ls

The installation is now complete. Go to the Enable and Configure section.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enable and Configure

Firefox or Mozilla

1.Create a symbolic link to the libjavaplugin.so file in the browser plugins directory

?Go to the plugins sub-directory under the Firefox installation directory

cd <Firefox installation directory>/plugins

?Create the symbolic link

ln -s <Java installation directory>/plugin/i386/

ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so

In the ln command line above, use ns7-gcc29 if Firefox was compiled with gcc2.9.

If you install Firefox 1.5 or later, you can enable the Java Console menu item in the Tools menu. Change directories to the Firefox extensions directory, then unzip ffjcext.zip there.

cd /usr/lib/firefox-1.4/extensions

unzip /usr/java/jre1.6.0/lib/deploy/ffjcext.zip

First, those instructions honestly aren't that hard, especially considering it tells you everything you have to type.

But regardless, most distros have no reason to do a manual install of java because you can use a package manager like I've been talking to .Neo about. Step 1, "sudo apt-get install sun-java6-jre sun-java6-plugin sun-java6-fonts". Step 2... there is no step 2, you're done. If you try to do things the hard way, then yes, Linux requires more work and knowledge to be able to use, but modern day Linux makes most common tasks easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.Neo
See, this is what I don't understand though. Why are you anti command line? Just because it has an old feel doesn't mean it's any less valid of a way of using a computer. I feel like you dislike using the terminal just to dislike using the terminal. If it's the easiest way to do something, then what's wrong with it? Maybe you just don't like typing? laugh.gif You need to embrace the terminal. I understand your desire not to NEED to use it, and do complex commands that you have to constantly look up to remember, but for some things, the terminal is great. I use it all the time in Windows, OS X, and Linux. You can't really have issue with the way things like installing apps works on Linux if you are going to avoid doing things the way that is easy on Linux. Try to open yourself up to the terminal a little more and I assure you you won't regret it. Sometimes it's a lot easier to type a few commands than to browse through dozens of windows to do the same thing.

Why should I memorize commands, take time to write them all out, be 100% sure I don't accidentally make a typo etc. in Terminal when I can also simply drag-'n'-drop to install something (in Mac OS X' case at least)? There is a reason why companies like Apple and Microsoft moved on from command line to graphical user interfaces.

I fully understand that for some tasks Terminal can indeed be easier, I use it on Mac OS X for example to access certain hidden preferences, and I'm totally fine with that. But for many basic tasks I really feel I shouldn't have to resort to using Terminal. That includes installing software and drivers. If such a task is faster and easier to execute using Terminal rather than the GUI on Linux, I think there's still something wrong in that department.

In a way, yes. Ubuntu has large repositories of software. I don't know the specifics, but I assume theirs a fairly simple approval process to get your software in the repo as long as it's not malicious, then it gets mirrored to all the other repo mirrors. Synaptic lets you browse the repo with a GUI, but it's somewhat limited to categories and names. You kind of have to know what you want before you go into it, but it's the best place to look for software that you do want like Firefox for example.

Yeah, it's very rare that you'd actually HAVE to use a command line to install software. About the only time that would happen was if you had to compile the source first. Most apps are either in repo already, have their own repo you can add, or a deb installer package. It just goes back to what I was saying about being easier, so most people just talk about apt-get to manage packages.

Okay that doesn't sound too bad.

I see what you mean. Linux definitely still isn't the most friendly OS for a non-techie type person, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of what it was a couple years ago even. Most people are used to Windows and how it works, and if they go to OS X, it's simple enough that it doesn't require much to learn, but Linux is a whole different thing. It's certainly not hard to learn though, just takes a little time. You need to go to ubuntuforums.org and become very good friends with their search button as you learn Ubuntu. They've probably already had a topic and answer on most questions you'd ask. It's a great resource.

I definitely agree with you that when I install Ubuntu today it's very different from Linux not too long ago in terms of user-friendlyness. While I feel the interface is still nowhere near the same league as Mac OS X' Aqua, it at least looks okay enough to use. It's a real shame that applications like OpenOffice still offer too little compared to iWork '09 and Office 2011.

While I don't see myself switching from Mac OS X to anything else anytime soon, I've always been interested in the developments around Linux. Simply because it's something different. Looking at Android you can see Linux' potential. I wish something with the same level of quality would hit the desktop version as well. Ubuntu is on its way though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.Neo

PS Is there a big reason why the 32-bit version of Ubuntu is recommended and the 64-bit version isn't? Beyond hardware requirements I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft_Bob

Why should I memorize commands, take time to write them all out,

You don't need to. If you press the tab key bash will complete the command for you. The same applies to path names etc. So for instance if you wanted to type out: add-apt-repository, you merely need to enter add-a then press tab for it to complete. If you have a hard time remembering them, you could always save a text file with them, or bookmark a site where the commands are. And by the way, I gave you the instructions on how install it using the software centre.

be 100% sure I don't accidentally make a typo etc. in Terminal when I can also simply drag-'n'-drop to install something (in Mac OS X' case at least)? There is a reason why companies like Apple and Microsoft moved on from command line to graphical user interfaces.

Some people prefer the terminal, some GUI's, some both. MAC OS X still has a cli as does windows. And often it can be easier doing things in them than in the GUI. So OS's will never move on from them because they are at the heart of the system. The only differences between cli and a GUI programs are superficial. They both use the same programming interfaces, system libraries, etc.

I fully understand that for some tasks Terminal can indeed be easier, I use it on Mac OS X for example to access certain hidden preferences, and I'm totally fine with that. But for many basic tasks I really feel I shouldn't have to resort to using Terminal. That includes installing software and drivers. If such a task is faster and easier to execute using Terminal rather than the GUI on Linux, I think there's still something wrong in that department.

Well if you know what you want to do, it can be far simpler. If you wanted to install 5 programs, and remove 3, would you write a single line on a cli, or go into the software centre and click, click, click... you get the point. It's just more efficient. But each to their own. It's not a mandate that someone use the cli.

PS Is there a big reason why the 32-bit version of Ubuntu is recommended and the 64-bit version isn't? Beyond hardware requirements I mean.

Driver compatibility mainly. If you don't need to use 64bit, that is, if you have less then 4gig of ram, then its best to use 32bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.Neo

You don't need to. If you press the tab key bash will complete the command for you. The same applies to path names etc. So for instance if you wanted to type out: add-apt-repository, you merely need to enter add-a then press tab for it to complete. If you have a hard time remembering them, you could always save a text file with them, or bookmark a site where the commands are. And by the way, I gave you the instructions on how install it using the software centre.

I know how to download software from the software center, that's not where the problem lies. Betaz fully answered the questions I had.

Some people prefer the terminal, some GUI's, some both. MAC OS X still has a cli as does windows. And often it can be easier doing things in them than in the GUI. So OS's will never move on from them because they are at the heart of the system. The only differences between cli and a GUI programs are superficial. They both use the same programming interfaces, system libraries, etc.

On Mac OS X you'll never see command line if you don't want to. That's what I'm referring to, and that's what I meant with Apple moving on. Obviously the GUI is a front-end.

Well if you know what you want to do, it can be far simpler. If you wanted to install 5 programs, and remove 3, would you write a single line on a cli, or go into the software centre and click, click, click... you get the point. It's just more efficient. But each to their own. It's not a mandate that someone use the cli.

Like I said, there are cases where Terminal can be more convenient. I'm not disputing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

deactivated170812

Lack of drivers for some wireless LAN cards (Broadcom chips mainly). I know it's manufacturer's fault, but since you're asking :shifty: .

Link to post
Share on other sites

HSoft

See, this is what I don't understand though. Why are you anti command line? Just because it has an old feel doesn't mean it's any less valid of a way of using a computer. I feel like you dislike using the terminal just to dislike using the terminal. If it's the easiest way to do something, then what's wrong with it? Maybe you just don't like typing?

And this is exactly why Linux will never become mainstream and take much of a chunk out of the Windows market. Can you honestly see people in their 70's and 80's etc. having to memorize arcane command line inputs and arguements etc?

Apart from that most everything else has already been mentioned. Very poor UI, program capability, etc. etc. Also programming language and environment considerations as well (there is really nothing that comes close to something like Visual Studio on linux).

Linux has it's plus points but it's minus points (currently) far outweigh the pluses. It's a "geeks" platform and until that changes, Linux will stay a 2nd class citizen to even OSX, never mind Windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

frbubba

Obvious one. Lack of application capability and I think WINE is buggy as hell.

+1. Also, installation of some apps is a nightmare and too complicated. It has been a while since I tried to use it but every time I did, that is why I stopped using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.Neo

And this is exactly why Linux will never become mainstream and take much of a chunk out of the Windows market. Can you honestly see people in their 70's and 80's etc. having to memorize arcane command line inputs and arguements etc?

Never mind the elderly, you're not going to persuade the vast majority of computer users of all ages to go back and use command line again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Syanide

My only gripe is the occasional lack of hardware driver support, but even there things tend to work 90% of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Omen1393

That's because it gives users the choice. The default open source nvidia and radeon drivers do an adequate job of rendering 2d/basic 3d. You have to remember a lot of Linux users are against proprietary drivers/software, and the automatic installation of them would upset a great deal of people. It's all about choice. Besides, it notifies you that the drivers are available to activate, so it's not exactly hard.

It is done that way for a couple of reasons, one being licensing costs, and secondly, choice. Some users prefer the open source versions of flash, not the proprietary ones.

While choice is good for the geeks in Linux, the average person is not going to care if their drivers are proprietary or open source, they don't want to have to make that choice, they just want it installed. For flash and Nvidia drivers it seems like the issue is that the Ubuntu community cares more about the choice than what the mainstream consumers would want.

If you update a driver you don't have to reboot, but if you don't you wont be using the new version, the same applies to windows. It doesn't some how magically patch itself into memory.

You are thinking in windows... With Ubuntu, everything is installed through the software centre, including flash, java etc. Some things will automatically prompt to install, such as mp3 codecs, but it's far easier to just install the Ubuntu Restricted Extras package and be done with it.

I just applied nvidia updates to my computer, it did not require a restart to update the drivers. This is a feature added to Windows 7. I will admit that there are a lot of other patches that require a restart though.

Again, going the long way around. There are numerous items in the help built in, or on the web to help you get started. If you just stumble around, it's bound to take longer and cause more frustrations. A good article is here: http://www.ubuntuvib...buntu-1010.html or http://digitizor.com...g-ubuntu-10-10/ if you prefer the terminal ;) It's really not that hard, you just have to understand that it's a different way of thinking.

How would the average user intuitively know where to go to install flash? On Windows, if I need flash, the website will tell me that I need it and where to install it. In that website it will tell me how to install it as well. On linux I have to seek outside help just to figure out how to install a package? It's not the linux way or the Windows way, it's the easy way. Windows just so happens to do it the easier way, because I have never gotten a tech support call asking how to install flash.

Again, you're thinking in windows. OpenOffice, or Google Docs perform the same functions as microsoft office, Flash works exactly the same as it does on windows,

Not true, Flash does not support hardware acceleration on Linux, not to mention even without hardware acceleration, it still performs worse than flash on Windows.

OpenOffice and Google Docs do not have nearly the amount of features as Office 2010, especially in the powerpoint and excel department. I used Google Docs for quite a while in High School, but the majority of the activities required features that both Open Office and Google Docs did not have, so I got Office 2007.

The ribbon interface is also much, much quicker for me and relearning the interface for Open Office and Google Docs is not fun.

and Games, well, there are a lot of FOSS games, free games, commercial games etc, and they run natively. If you want to run "Windows Games" on Linux, that's a whole different story, the same as trying to run windows apps on Linux. Is it hit and miss? Absolutely, but they are written for windows, not Linux. Saying that, a lot of the more popular games do run in wine perfectly. WOW for instance. But again, if you want to use Linux, use Linux apps, if you want to use windows apps, use windows. I know a lot of people run a dual boot with windows, so they can play their favorite games, while enjoying the security, speed, and productivity of Linux. Either way, if you give Ubuntu a chance I'm sure you will like it.

I get security, speed and productivity done in Windows so tbh I really don't have a need for Ubuntu. You pointed out what I pointed out, major companies simply don't care about Linux on the consumer front, the don't focus on making applications for them, they focus on making them work on Windows.

Sounds like your system isn't capable of running those, or your graphic hardware isn't fully supported. Stick to the medium settings ;)

I'm pretty sure an Nvidia GTX 465 is capable of running the special effects.

I disagree. From your comments I have discerned that you spent no time whatsoever looking at the many help resources available, and just stumbled around expecting everything to look and behave like windows.

I did not spend anytime whatsoever looking at help resources. I expected the OS to be user intuitive. I don't work in OS X every day but I can figure most of the features out intuitively. While I have grown up on Windows, when new features for windows to com out, I usually figure them out intuitively. If I could not figure out the solutions easily then I don't see how any of my friends who barely know how to run Windows would be able to. Linux has it's own purpose, and may work wonderfully for many people, but it is still not ready for the mainstream market imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.