Amiga.org

The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: iamaboringperson on April 18, 2003, 04:31:08 AM

Title: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: iamaboringperson on April 18, 2003, 04:31:08 AM
here (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3297&page=1)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: z36ra on April 18, 2003, 04:52:59 AM
MSLinux (http://www.mslinux.org/)

I couldnt resist.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: The_Beast on April 18, 2003, 06:46:41 AM
i hear bill gates has a penguin phobia    :-P  :-P  :-P
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: JoNty on April 18, 2003, 09:13:38 AM
Far from it. I have photos that prove differently.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Waccoon on April 18, 2003, 11:09:46 AM
Yup.  People need to stop thinking that an "OS" is a fully integrated product like WIndows or MacOS.  Linux is a kernel, which is only just a small part of the whole system.  Linux, by itself, doesn't even use graphics.  You need an X server to do that.  To me, there's no point trying to go up against MS Windows if you have to use X Windows.

Besides, think about the origins of Linux.  It was designed to be a low-cost version of UNIX for programming students.  Linux is not UNIX, but it sure does work like it.  Until someone finds a way to ditch X Windows and write up a whole new GUI system  and environment from scratch, I don't think Linux will be getting much action on the desktop any time soon.

I hate Windows, but I hate Linux and MacOS even more.  So, what options does that leave me?
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: dammy on April 18, 2003, 11:27:34 AM
by Waccoon on 2003/4/18 6:09:46

Quote
I hate Windows, but I hate Linux and MacOS even more. So, what options does that leave me?


BeOS?

Dammy
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: alx on April 18, 2003, 12:37:00 PM
Quote

Quote
I hate Windows, but I hate Linux and MacOS even more. So, what options does that leave me?

BeOS?


Errm... maybe AOS/MOS? :-)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: KennyR on April 18, 2003, 01:18:35 PM
Linux is too user-unfriendly. It's probably a gem when you get to know it (after about a decade or so), but I'd rather use a system with integral GUIs and meaningfully-named files (i.e. not mkdir, cat, ls, mv, etc.).

I already made this choice in my mind years ago: Windows sucks, Linux sucks, don't like Macs, don't know BeOS, QNX has no software...oh well, I'll stick to AOS and MOS.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 18, 2003, 01:37:41 PM
http://www.blueeyedos.com/ (http://www.blueeyedos.com/)

Linux for the masses.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: T_Bone on April 18, 2003, 01:43:10 PM
Quote

mdma wrote:
http://www.blueeyedos.com/ (http://www.blueeyedos.com/)

Linux for the masses.


just glanced at the site, is this that Atheos fork?
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 18, 2003, 02:03:28 PM
Quote
just glanced at the site, is this that Atheos fork?


No, it's a custom Linux kernel, with various speed-up hacks, and custom X-server code with speed ups and an implementation of the BEOS API and toolkits.

You can just re-compile old beos code, and it works.

Basically you get the nice API's and responsiveness of BeOS, with the hardware support of the Linux kernel.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: amigamad on April 18, 2003, 03:42:58 PM
linux is great to use easier than xp to install and never crashes unlike windows xp.I also like beos the best version is beos 5 pe max edition just over 200 meg download unpacks to about 600 meg, or why not try qnx also a free download .Ive had more problems with windows  than ive ever had with linux.and when do you ever have to reinstall linux because it has screwed up
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 18, 2003, 03:48:45 PM
Quote
linux is great to use easier than xp to install and never crashes unlike windows xp


Now I'm a devout Gentoo user, and can't stand windows.  BUT, i'm stand up for XP here.

XP has a microkernel that is ROCK SOLID.  It will not crash unless you have a badly written driver as drivers run in kernel space.  That's hardly XP's fault is it.  It's the same on all microkernel's (AFAIK) apart from QNX as nothing but the kernel runs in kernel space.

As for apps crashing, well thats another story. A combination of crap API's and crap programmers (Both the OS and application developers)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Paul_Gadd on April 18, 2003, 04:15:08 PM
Windows 2000 pro is the best version of Windows imo, rockstable, if a program does crash the whole thing does not come tumbling down like a stack of cards, i blame the programs people install, not the OS.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: KennyR on April 18, 2003, 04:46:03 PM
XP may be stable, but it's also slowest and most memory hungry OS in existence.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 18, 2003, 04:48:03 PM
Quote
XP may be stable, but it's also slowest and most memory hungry OS in existence.


Forgotten about TOS??? ;-)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 18, 2003, 04:49:19 PM
Quote
i blame the programs people install, not the OS.


No decent OS should crash because of a badly written program.

Any OS that falls over due to bad programs is crap.  That includes our beloved AOS.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 18, 2003, 05:15:19 PM
@Waccoon

>Yup. People need to stop thinking that an "OS" is a fully >integrated product like WIndows or MacOS. Linux is a >kernel, which is only just a small part of the whole >system. Linux, by itself, doesn't even use graphics. You >need an X server to do that. To me, there's no point >trying to go up against MS Windows if you have to use X >Windows.

>Besides, think about the origins of Linux. It was designed >to be a low-cost version of UNIX for programming >students. Linux is not UNIX, but it sure does work like it. >Until someone finds a way to ditch X Windows and write >up a whole new GUI system and environment from >scratch, I don't think Linux will be getting much action on >the desktop any time soon.

Spoken like a person who has never owned or booted a Linux distro.  X is certainly as responsive as Windows, is free, and is increasingly easy to use.  You'll have to be specific about what you find disgusting about it.

As for Linux being for students... there's a new take on things.  Frankly, I don't care if you use Windows of MacOS or any other OS, but you will have a great deal of trouble pointing to capabilities of any of them that is not currently available in Linux.  As for my contribution to the anecdotal evidence, I have been running SUSE Linux for more than five years-- through many peripheral and two mother board changes-- and I have never had to reload from scratch.  Just a little thought to balance this foolishness.

RLFrost
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Paul_Gadd on April 18, 2003, 05:57:50 PM
@mdma

Quote
No decent OS should crash because of a badly written program.


Exactly,  i hope AOS4 & MorphOS do something about it, ie a program crashes but does not force the user to visit guru central and reboot heaven  :-P
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 18, 2003, 06:03:07 PM
Doesn't MorphOS use a microkernel with AOS style programs running in a sandbox with memory protection?
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: alx on April 18, 2003, 06:21:13 PM
AFAIK AmigaOS has some memory protection, but it can be disabled and not all apps will support it.  I don't know about MOS - I didn't think apps inside the A-Box were memory protected, but I could be wrong.  Both systems will eventually only have apps with memory protection (under ExecSG in AOS and in the Q-Box in MOS)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: GreggBz on April 18, 2003, 08:32:14 PM
I have to agree with rlfrost here. Most people that speak of why they don't use linux, have never used linux. Qute a few are to frightened to try it. Where is the exploration that took place in the early days of computing?

Besideds, I have been using linux for about 6 years. After the first 6 months or so of learning and frustration, I've never looked back. It just works better.  The learning curve these days is hardly six months. My first install of Caldera Linux 1.2 or whatever it was looks nightmarish compaired to modern distros and their slick instalation programs. You don't even have to know bash anymore, just use all these fantastic configuration programs.

The cold truth here is that most people are lazy and don't want to persue something that might make them think to hard. The've been trained to use one kind of GUI and have this fobia of anything else. Why do you think standardizarion and backwards compatability are numbers one and two in the microsoft design methodology? Because that's what people WANT. Make it easiy. Well that methodology has some limitations. It restricts new and better ideas and hinders real breaktrhoughs. How long have we had x86 and 8.3 filenames? How long have we had C:\ ?  

They don't wont to learn new things. That's fine. Computers are supposed to be getting easier right?
But linux is a good thing. Trust me. It's important, meaningfull and it's use should be encouraged.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 19, 2003, 01:21:52 AM
Anyone who can't use any Linux distro has no right to comment on it's usability.

They are all stupid!!!!!!
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: iamaboringperson on April 19, 2003, 01:30:24 AM
TBH: linux is certainly not for beginers, but its not imposible to learn

overall i do like linux, but for beginers and people who dont care to learn too much about computers its not perfect.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: jeffimix on April 19, 2003, 02:39:36 AM
Anyone here want to help me get  a small Linux distro running on my IBM 300GL. right now it has DR DOS 7.03 on it. I've used Redhat on it (5.0) and it was too slow. which is why I want a small version of linux, but itm ust at the same time be X11 capable (or thereabouts) and not to hard to use, quirks are alright, but not major ones. But seriously, the 300GL is all heck to put Linux on, theres no proper support for that pc.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: iamaboringperson on April 19, 2003, 02:44:23 AM
Quote

jeffimix wrote:
Anyone here want to help me get  a small Linux distro running on my IBM 300GL. right now it has DR DOS 7.03 on it. I've used Redhat on it (5.0) and it was too slow. which is why I want a small version of linux, but itm ust at the same time be X11 capable (or thereabouts) and not to hard to use, quirks are alright, but not major ones. But seriously, the 300GL is all heck to put Linux on, theres no proper support for that pc.

which cpu?
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: jeffimix on April 19, 2003, 02:51:45 AM
A Pentium at 167 Mhz. It has an ethernet card that most things have trouble picking up. It has 32 megabytes of RAM.  It has about 2.5 Gb of HD space, only 2.1 is being used (too lazy to put second partition in for DOS using Fdisk, no need). It has a CD-ROM drive, but will only boot off of its 3.5" floppy drive. It was built by IBM. It also has 2 USB ports, that, yet again, most OSes have trouble picking up. Unless someone can get Linux running on it well. This may be the only PC where windows was the best choice ever.

EDIT
oh yeah, its got a Creative Labs Sound Blaster 16/Pro??? in it. 16 I believe.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Waccoon on April 19, 2003, 03:14:42 AM
Quote
Blue Eyed OS

Ah, I'll look into that.  :-D

Quote
rlfrost:  Spoken like a person who has never owned or booted a Linux distro.

Ah... Spoken like a person who thinks if you think Linux is too complicated, it's because you're lazy.

I've tried 8 of them, on four different hardware platforms.  Some installed in ten minutes, others took days of digging through online documentation.

Five of them had dedicated hardware acceleration for my graphics card, and all five were slow as dirt (or roughly about the same speed as Mac GUI graphics on the same hardware).  People who think X Windows is speedy probably don't have much experience with Windows graphics.  Windows does a crap job with multimedia-in-window graphics, but window refreshes are insanely fast.  I haven't tried XWindows with multimedia either because I couldn't get it to work, or because Linux couldn't hold my interest long enough.  I have, however, given EACH distribution of Linux I've tried at least two weeks to make an impression.  None of them lasted longer than that, though.

It's possible that threre's problems with how Linux distros support my hardware, but like I said, I've had four computers that ran Linux with XWindows, and all of them were unacceptably slow.

And don't get me started about switching graphics drivers with Linux.  I tried that before, and gave up after a couple hours.  RedHat 7 allowed me to use a partially installed driver, and left me with a system that was unusable so I had to re-install using the rescue disk.  Even Windows95 OSR1 never put me in that situation!  It's easy to revert to a vanilla VGA driver in Windows, even without going into safe mode.

Oh, and if XWindows supports a "safe mode" equivalent, I have yet to find any documentation that says how to use it.  Free distros are notorious for not giving you enough documentation.

Quote
Paul_Gadd:  Windows 2000 pro is the best version of Windows imo, rockstable, if a program does crash the whole thing does not come tumbling down like a stack of cards, i blame the programs people install, not the OS.

True to a point.  I use Win2000 and I think it's the best Windows ever.  I've gotten one Blue Screen of Death in two years.  (Well, two, if you consider the time I swapped my motherboard).

The problem is that it's very easy to bypass the security and memory protection of Windows.  I can name a few apps that will reduce a Win2000 system to rubble, without requiring any special drivers or hacks on bootup.  They just waltz right into the core system as soon as you run them.  NT4 was even worse.  The OS is very stable, but allows programmers to do all sorts of nasty things.  Through normal usage, an NT4 system I have at work can run for weeks withougt issue.  But, when I run a few certain applications, I get 10 BSOD's a day.  Win32 is very stable, but it allows programs to take serious shortcuts that affect stability, which is the equivalent of diabling memory protection altogether.  No OS should allow that.

Quote
GreggBZ:  Most people that speak of why they don't use linux, have never used linux.

I get the same from Mac users and UNIX freaks.  They slam Windows like crazy, but they have never used it.  I never used Win3.1, but I have used Windows ever since Win95 came out.  A *LOT* of people cannot make fair comparrisons between Windows and Linux and Macs.  I've used all three.

I might be misguided and jump to conclusions now and then, but everyone has to speak from their experiences.  At least I have SOME experience.  You should log onto a Mac forum and ask people why their Macs are better than PCs.  The responses they give will leaver you utterly shocked at how few people have even bothered to look at a Windows system.

My stance is, I *HATE* Macintoshes.  I don't hate Linux, but it doesn't do anything I need (or does it very badly).  I've never tried BeOS (although I've been meaning to), but I'd prefer an OS with an actual corporate backing, and BeOS doesn't have that, anymore.

8 distros of Linux all left a foul taste in my mouth, and it's obvious that Linux developers are aiming for non-Windows people.  Thus, Linux doesn't offer me anything I need.  Macs, of course, are really designed for people who need Windows functionality, but don't want a PC.  I've used five models of Macs over the years, and was even a Mac sysadmin years ago, and I hate them.  Period.

Quote
Iamaboringperson:  TBH: linux is certainly not for beginers, but its not imposible to learn

It depends how much they have to learn, and how available the correct information is.  If you think "megabyte" is a scary word, you shouldn't own ANY computer.  Buy an electronic typewriter!

Linux distros have been getting better over the years.  Installing most of them is as easy as tapping the Enter key, and it installs in ten minutes!  Isn't that easy?!  Wow!  Yeah, but wait until you have to upgrade or start switching drivers and stuff.  Boy, it gets pretty messy very quickly!

Windows developers are [usually] courteous enough to have stuff like install directions with their software, and provide installers with names like "Setup.exe".  I don't know why Linux developers don't do more of that.  "Oh, this is the binary release for RedHat 7 x86", they say, so they have already pre-compiled everything specifically for your machine.  But, when you want to insall it, you have to unzip the files into all the correct places using gunzip.  Why not make an auto-installer, if it's designed to be installed only on one type of distro for one type of hardware?  RPM's are an improvement, but not really a solution.  Linux needs a good installer standard, like Install Sheild on the PC.  (Hopefully, though, it would be better than Install Sheild.  Install Sheild and Windows Installer are certainly not without plenty of flaws).

Also, when Windows runs into an installer problem, it gives you an error.  When I had to install stuff on my Linux distros, often the files would install with no errors, and then when I tried to use it, I'd get all sorts of problems.

Windows developers (to a point) are more interested in decoding gibberish.  So, you've just changed your config with XConfigurator, and everything went OK.  Now XWindows is giving you Signal 11 when you try to start it.  What the hell is a signal 11?!  I dug through Linux documentation for two hours and never saw anything related to Signal 11.  I was none too pleased about that.  Well, if you go on the Internet and search for it, you'll find out it basicly means, "a general problem occured".  Ah, thanks for the info!

Nowadays, of course, the trend is to withhold information, so Windows apps are now giving error messages that are too vague.  Linux distros are following that trend, unfortunately.  "Sorry, an error occured.  Please reboot."  (God, do I hate that Mac error!!!)

I'd prefer not to have to search the Internet for five hours to figure out how to install something, when I can just run "Setup.exe" on a Windows machine, instead.  My time is valuable.  It's not that I don't WANT to learn, it's that I don't have time to bother with niggling details.

And that's why free software will never topple commercial software.  It's kind of hard to RTFM, when your "manual" is essentially Internet forums, and the documentation that comes on your CD is essentially a collection of license agreements.

Installing Red Hat 7 was very easy for me.  But, when I started running into problems later on, getting the information I needed involved hours and hours of web browsing.  Sorry, but I have better things to do with my time!  Besides, when you're looking for info online, you have to worry about the trustworthiness of the information.  There's a lot of people out there who don't have any more of a clue than you do, but for some reason they have a help page.  Who ever knew that in the information age, it would be so hard to get information?  At least the RIGHT information...

Linux people need a good lesson in interface design.  Then, more people will use it, and fewer Windows people will laugh at it.  I criticise Linux because I've used EIGHT versions of it, and they all drove me crazy.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: jeffimix on April 19, 2003, 04:38:18 AM
First I agree wholeheartedly about windows system being slow, but Knoppix looks fine. Looks are not a Linux problem. I really love the idea of Guru Errors, perfectly concise and explicit, give me a reference book and I'm in hog heaven for errors. Linux is slow, so is Mac, windows is slow in some ways, frankly, my Xp version is slow, but windows refresh is fast, thats just priorities.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: csirac_ on April 19, 2003, 04:49:37 AM
I use linux only, and have done so for about 12 months. I've built up my "server" (also linux) to provide services including jabber, xoops portal on apache, email, ftp, shell accounts, quake 2, and most imortantly remote X sessions with all the nice C/perl/python/mysql tools my windows-using friends who need to do their Uni assignments.

Linux takes a lot of time to get it running nicely. You have to want to make it do things for you, because it sure 'aint going to do it for you. The reward: it's user friendly for my users, because they don't have to be their own sysadmin. They say "I want to be able to do this", or "I want my account to do this" (thank goodness for usermin!) and I can show them how to do it in 30 seconds (I've done it before) or I go away and install/configure some package for them (thank goodness for apt-get and webmin ;)

Bottom line: I don't have any windows installation on either of my two machines, because I don't play games and I find Windows to be FAR LESS "developer friendly" than Linux. And as far as user friendly goes... as long as the user doesn't have to be their own sysadmin, it's pretty much the same as windows, plus they have, in my opinion, far superior developer tools at their disposal.

My 2 cents..
- Paul
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: GreggBz on April 19, 2003, 05:53:17 AM
Well, I think there is a fundemental difference in philosophy here. I stoped using windows mostly from bordem. Frankly, I was sick of the same operating system. It's like being married to someone who makes all the rules. It failed to challenge me, and it failed to suprise me with any new features. I guess windows XP has bubbley colors with an interface that appeals to senior citizens. That's thrilling. Make me feel important as a user. I want things to fiddle with, please! :-) Windows insults my intelegence. (My Computer) (My Pictures) Cutesie Tutesie interface. I'm using it right now on my girlfirends laptop.  I like windows 2000 much better without all the fancy colors.

 I want it to be known that I'm not a passioniate freak that loves his operating system. To me personal computers are a hobby to be taken lightly. Windows takes the hobby out of it. It's what the family minivan is to a driving enthusiest.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Siggy on April 19, 2003, 07:18:01 AM
I think the bottom line is 'Does my computer do what I want or need' -- for somethings Linux is perfectly suited, for others it's not (yet).

I first played with Linux in the early 90's when myself and a friend wanted to add a MUD to our multi-line chat BBS.  The price was right (not free -- we bought a distro -- but cheaper than other avenues).  We later expanded it to give our members Usenet, eventually after I left the project they expanded it to full internet access (or by that times standards of 'full').

Later after I left my Amiga in Australia and moved over to America I needed a cheap OS to run on a box I'd thrown together from spare parts.. I wanted to program and share my wifes internet connection for email and telnet -- once again it was Linux to the rescue..  It fulfilled my needs, and continues to do so.

When my wife was hit hard by several virus attacks in the late 90's -- she was fed up the loss of data - costs of updating her OS and various software packages -- so she asked me if Linux would do what she needed.  Email, IRC, ICQ, touching up photos, printing documents.
Her needs were pretty simple (now expanded to playing music and making CD's) -- and she picked up Linux and started using it.. It filled her needs and continues to do so.

My wife acts as the litmus test for distros as they come out -- she is hardly a computer whizz, but she handles her own updates and software upgrades -- and some of the minor admin on her machine.
She couldn't solve a mouse conflict under windows - or install a scanner, but after living with Linux she's picking it up and learning by herself (she's starting to RTFM - or at least getting interested enough to start solving her own computer problems).

On the downside, my career expanded to where I make more than half my income from freelance editing -- so I have to keep a Windows box for that (I could go Mac, but that means a large chunk of cash up front to replace everything).  And Linux may have some solutions for video editing, but they are nowhere near mature enough for what I need..  
I tell people 'I didn't choose Windows -- it chose me'.

In the end I'd say 'does the computer you have do what you need/want'?

If it does - it's the right computer.
If it doesn't -- time to change.

Siggy.


Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: DethKnight on April 19, 2003, 08:02:19 AM
SuSE user for 6yrs now and lovin it, especially the Xine DVD and MPG video application.
And --Houdini-- personal learning edition using accelerated openGL on a geforce2mx.
Dual-booter to Win2KPro , I'd say Ive got 2 of the more stable OS enviroments currently available.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 19, 2003, 02:03:02 PM
Quote
Anyone who can't use any Linux distro has no right to comment on it's usability.
They are all stupid!!!!!!


Oh no, another drunken tirade!
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 19, 2003, 02:10:14 PM
@Waccoon
Quote
Linux needs a good installer standard, like Install Sheild on the PC.


http://gentoo.org

What could be easier than typing "emerge name-of-app"

Why does it need an installer like windows?  Linux is NOT windows as the article said.  AmigaOS is NOT windows either.  Appples and Oranges.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: ronybeck on April 19, 2003, 05:16:18 PM
Oh dear you seem a little confused.  Linux is not just a kernel although all to often I see it refered to as one. The kernel is the kernel.  The amiga isnt just Kickstart.  It is a culmination of things.

I have found X to be quiet good.  It has fair driver support and is very configurable.  Far more configurable than windows display driver and certainly tones better than the amiga display.  How ever it isn't a GUI.  It is meerly a display software.  The Desktop Environment such as GNOME or KDE is what looks after the gui and they are quiet adequate.  You can choose what Desktop environment you  wish to run based on your needs and you a not limited to just the two mentioned before.  There is no need to re-write a X replacement because there is majorly wrong with X.

Linux being designed to be cheap is only a half truth.  Linus wrote it because he loved UN*X but could not afford a Unix machine.  He wrote it with the intention of running it on PC's and the like because the hardware was cheap unlike UNIX hardware at the time.  

I can't understand why you would hat Mac or linux because they are both great platforms and increasingly  popular on the desktop.  Unless you have never read www.slashdot.org it is not possible to say "..I don't think Linux will be getting much action on the desktop.....".  Linux already has.  Open Office is a good example of a worth Office suit that is becoming very popular.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 19, 2003, 05:38:43 PM
Quote
Linux is not just a kernel


Yes it is. ;-)

GNU is the OS

Like Exec is a kernel, AmigaOS is the OS.
Like Quark is a kernel, MorphOS is the OS.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: alx on April 19, 2003, 05:45:57 PM
If you're going to be pedantic...

"Linux" is the kernel

GNU/Linux is a system with a Linux kernel, with most other services provided by the GNU project.  The worrying thing now is that you could show someone a GNU/Hurd system and they'd call it Linux!
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Waccoon on April 19, 2003, 06:02:49 PM
Quote
Why does it need an installer like windows? Linux is NOT windows as the article said. AmigaOS is NOT windows either. Appples and Oranges.

Even the Amiga has a standard installer, though, and so does the Mac.  Having an installer doesn't say anything about HOW it works.  It doesn't have to be JUST like a Windows installer.  I also said that Install Sheild and Windows Installer are far from perfect, didn't I?  An installer for Windows and an installer for Linux is hardly apples and oranges.  An installer is an installer.  How complicated does it have to be?

I just find it funny that people will write millions of lines of tight, stable code for free, and then they won't spend 10 minutes figuring out how something should be installed.  Many packages I found for Linux distros don't even come with install DIRECTIONS for crying out loud.

As for Gentoo, that's a step in the right direction.  But, can you use it for drivers and system upgrades, or is it just for applications?  Does it have automatic uninstalling?  I've tried lots of distros, but never Gentoo.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 19, 2003, 06:26:15 PM
Quote
and then they won't spend 10 minutes figuring out how something should be installed


Thats coz Linux is a kernel not an OS.  That is why there is no standard, as there is no standard OS.

Try gentoo, you won't regret it.  People harp on about debian, but gentoo wipes the floor with it.

emerge works for everything.  for example "emerge -U world) upgrades everything you currently have installed including drivers.

I recommend you to download 1.4 rc3 install CD and use a stage3 tarball.  It's worth  printing off the install docs, as it VERY involved, and it takes quite a while.  Using stage3 will speed it up considerably.

I also recommend using "-kde -qt gtk2 gnome" in your make.conf then "emerge gnome".  KDE is awful IHMO.  It's just a bad windows clone, for a more Amiga-like experience Gnome2.2 is very nice and responsive.

Also set your CPU and ARCH to Athlon/P4/TBird etc for better optimizations

You'll  want to enable the Pre-Emptible and Real-Time kernel patches when you compile your kernel as this will speed it up no end.

"emerge nvidia-glx" if you have NVIDIA hardware
"emerge galeon-cvs" for the best browser on Linux
"emerge gaim-cvs" for MSN/AIM/ICQ messaging
"emerge ut2003-demo" just to see how good Gentoo is compared to windows on the same hardware.

Have fun!
Title: Re: Standard linux installer?
Post by: csirac_ on April 20, 2003, 03:58:01 AM
Standard installer?

Dude... apt ;)

http://www.debian.org

It is possible to break apt, but only purpose... all other times it's wonderful. Updates all your software automatically with no hassels (except this one time where a MySQL app. was updated and didn't like it's old tables any more, but it gave me plenty of warning).

And because apt gets it's software from a common archive, it's easy to search for new or alternative apps. Don't like openoffice? Do a search in dselect or gnome-apt, and you find abiword and a few others. Anjuta too bloated as an C/C++ IDE? You find (lots) of editors, but recently I found scite in this way (it's pretty cool by the way, much like anjuta but without the project managment stuff).

And most importantly, apt handles dependcies, and most apps uninstall gracefully (you can chose to leave their databases/config files, or purge them completely; and best of all, it will remove other packages no longer needed (ie. that depend on the app you uninstall)).

- Paul
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Hammer on April 20, 2003, 05:56:27 AM
Quote

mdma wrote:
Anyone who can't use any Linux distro has no right to comment on it's usability.

They are all stupid!!!!!!

Note that "retrainning" would be defined as an expense.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Hammer on April 20, 2003, 06:04:06 AM
Quote

mdma wrote:
Quote
Linux is not just a kernel


Yes it is. ;-)

GNU is the OS

Like Exec is a kernel, AmigaOS is the OS.
Like Quark is a kernel, MorphOS is the OS.

I don't see "GNU" being marketed as "operating system" as in Red Hat and SUSE products.

To quote http://www.linux.org/info/
Quote
Linux is an operating system...


I know that Debian may have it's own definition i.e. "Debian GNU/Linux". Then again; who cares about the minor linux distro(1)...

1. Compared to  "United Linux"(Suse, Turbo Linux and co) and "Unbreakable Linux" (Red Hat and co) products.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 20, 2003, 03:13:22 PM
Quote
I don't see "GNU" being marketed as "operating system" as in Red Hat and SUSE products.


NT is a kernel, Windows is an Operating system.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: that_punk_guy on April 20, 2003, 04:28:26 PM
Quote
and when do you ever have to reinstall linux because it has screwed up


um, just now  ;-)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 20, 2003, 04:31:38 PM
Quote
um, just now


Tutt tutt!! Who's been logging in as root? ;-)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: that_punk_guy on April 20, 2003, 06:19:02 PM
* :oops: *

heh
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: smerf on April 21, 2003, 05:08:58 AM
Hi iamaboringperson,

I like this discussion, I have been using linux for the past 3 years on a Amiga 3000 and on various different pc platforms. My favorite is Mandrake, then Redhat and then (look out) Lindows. Of all the ones I used Lindows is the fastest to install and the easiest to use, but it don't come with anything. Mandrake is the most powerful and gives the most for your time. Redhat is easier to install programs with with their RPM pack.

Been using windows for the past 3 years and my vote goes for Windows 2000.  Windows 95 is the crash bash, and Windows 98 is the big freeze. Windows 3.1 I gave up on 5 years ago.

Now yes linux is not for everyone, but then again neither was Amiga dos, I never could understand why I had to type in DF0: instead of A:

or how about format drive df0: name "this is to much typing"

Oh well, I still say that copy protection was the real culprit that killed Amiga, everyone bought hard drives and found out they couldn't put their favorite stuff on the hard drive because of copy protection. I have disk boxes full of Amiga disk games that I still have to use a disk drive for.

Happy compooting,
Smerf
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: alx on April 21, 2003, 10:43:42 AM
Quote
I never could understand why I had to type in DF0: instead of A:


I actually prefer knowing what kind of device something is :-) Besides, windoze cannot even use assigns.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: that_punk_guy on April 21, 2003, 12:24:57 PM
'df0:' makes a lot more sense than to me than 'A:', and this way you're not restricted to "only" 26 devices  ;-) And the Amiga's shell is beautiful, you know it!

As for MS-DOS - "Shell? What shell?!"


Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 21, 2003, 02:38:29 PM
Quote
Besides, windoze cannot even use assigns.


SUBST
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: alx on April 21, 2003, 02:48:26 PM
SUBST only assigns drive letters - you cannot subst to a word.

Even "un-user friendly" Linux with it's mountpoints organises system files and stuff better than windoze.

The Linux way - all libraries tidied away in /lib.  They all end with .so.0 or .so.1 etc for version numbers

The Amiga way - all libraries put in libs: assign, with the idiot-proof ".library" extention

The Windows way - libraries in c:\windows\system32 (or c:\winnt\system32 sometimes), in various subfolders, in program files etc... Mainly .DLL

"Idiot-proof" Windows has the least logical way of doing it.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: bhoggett on April 21, 2003, 02:50:12 PM
Quote

mdma wrote:
Quote
Besides, windoze cannot even use assigns.


SUBST


Only in part. It's nowhere near as versatile as an AmigaOS assign.

As for the installer, the Debian and Gentoo solutions are good enough, but the problem remains. Neither is a universal installer/uninstaller for all Linux software, across all distributions irrespective of packaging. Yet that is what you will need if ordinary users are ever to regard Linux as a serious desktop alternative to Windows.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 21, 2003, 04:13:19 PM
Quote
Yet that is what you will need if ordinary users are ever to regard Linux as a serious desktop alternative to Windows.


People use linux because it's Linux, not Windows.  If you want to use Windows use it.  Like the author of the article, I couldn't give a toss if Linux becomes dominant on the desktop.  It does what I need, and that's all I care about.

btw There is a universal installer similar to Install Shield/NSIS/WISE for Linux, the Loki installer.  It's very good and open-source too.

http://www.lokigames.com/development/setup.php3 (http://www.lokigames.com/development/setup.php3)

[img align=left]http://www.lokigames.com/development/_img/shots/setup-1.jpg[/img]
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Hammer on April 21, 2003, 11:58:31 PM
Quote

mdma wrote:
Quote
I don't see "GNU" being marketed as "operating system" as in Red Hat and SUSE products.


NT is a kernel, Windows is an Operating system.

Not quite right i.e. specifically "Windows NT Kernel".

Refer to
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/ntwrkstn/reskit/execmsgs.asp

Quote
The Windows NT Kernel is the part of the Windows NT Executive that manages the processor. It performs thread scheduling and dispatching, interrupt and exception handling, and multiprocessor synchronization. It also provides primitive objects to the Windows NT Executive, which uses them to create user-mode objects.

"NT" label can denote the following
 
1. Windows NT 3.x
2. Windows NT 3.5x
3. Windows NT 4.0
4. Windows 2000 (a.k.a. NT 5.0)
5. Windows XP (a.k.a. NT 5.1)
6. Windows Server 2003(a.k.a. NT 5.2)
7. Australia's Northern Territory (a.k.a. NT) .

The NT label itself is not specific enough.

Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Hammer on April 22, 2003, 12:05:42 AM
Quote

mdma wrote:
Quote
Yet that is what you will need if ordinary users are ever to regard Linux as a serious desktop alternative to Windows.


People use linux because it's Linux, not Windows.  If you want to use Windows use it.  Like the author of the article, I couldn't give a toss if Linux becomes dominant on the desktop.  It does what I need, and that's all I care about.

btw There is a universal installer similar to Install Shield/NSIS/WISE for Linux, the Loki installer.  It's very good and open-source too.

http://www.lokigames.com/development/setup.php3 (http://www.lokigames.com/development/setup.php3)

[img align=left]http://www.lokigames.com/development/_img/shots/setup-1.jpg[/img]

In what distro?
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: jeffimix on April 22, 2003, 12:10:07 AM
Ok, why Like the way MS DOS (and compatible really) assigns drive names:
A: B:       'Floppy Drives
C: D:       'Hard Disks   (D: Can be a CD ROM if you hvae only one HD)
E: F:        'Usually CDs
For DOS, it saves a lot of time. Its not really easier to remember,  nor is it difficult to remember IMHO. I though you could rename drives in Amiga though?

But seriously, how many people use DOS on a home computer these days (except for geeks like me)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: bhoggett on April 22, 2003, 01:04:06 AM
@mdma

Quote
People use linux because it's Linux, not Windows. If you want to use Windows use it.


I've heard this line before, and while I'm sure it's valid for you, it's not valid for every Linux user. After all, if that was the case why distribute binary packages at all. Surely REAL Linux users compile everything from source and locate their own dependencies, right?

Quote
Like the author of the article, I couldn't give a toss if Linux becomes dominant on the desktop. It does what I need, and that's all I care about.


That's up to you, yet the fact remains that the more users a platforms attracts, the more developers will support it, and the more developers, the better the overall quality and range of available software will become, which in turn brings in more interest from users. Everyone benefits. Frankly,  I don't hold much truck with the elitist "if you're not prepared to get your hands dirty doing things the hard way you shouldn't use  Linux" brigade.

As for the Loki installer, does it support the locating, downloading and installation of dependencies?  I would have thought a game installer wouldn't normally need to worry too much about such things, specially one designed for commercial game distributions.

(Just for the record, I don't expect Linux to work like Windows. The easy installation, removal and upgrading of software is a feature I would expect from any OS.)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: iamaboringperson on April 22, 2003, 05:40:15 AM
smerf,

hows it going?

Quote
I like this discussion, I have been using linux for the past 3 years on a Amiga 3000 and on various different pc platforms. My favorite is Mandrake, then Redhat and then (look out) Lindows. Of all the ones I used Lindows is the fastest to install and the easiest to use, but it don't come with anything. Mandrake is the most powerful and gives the most for your time. Redhat is easier to install programs with with their RPM pack.

yes, it has been a rather sensible discussion! no: "but, you shouldnt use linux because its not as good as amigaOS" type crap
i prefer Mandrake - never used Lindows & Red hat doest work on my machine now, for some reason :(

Quote
Been using windows for the past 3 years and my vote goes for Windows 2000. Windows 95 is the crash bash, and Windows 98 is the big freeze. Windows 3.1 I gave up on 5 years ago.

im fine with 98, i only use it as a games machine anyway!
Quote
Now yes linux is not for everyone, but then again neither was Amiga dos, I never could understand why I had to type in DF0: instead of A:

yes, the worst part about linux for begginers is mounting volumes and adding new hardware - its not quite as automatic as even windows is these days

as others have mentioned up there /\, A: has no meaning - especialy to a begginer! df0: does have meaning
its only 2 extra characters
i dont know how you would do this for FFS floppies, however, if you want, for harddrives you can use single letters, just dont use C: or L:
Quote
or how about format drive df0: name "this is to much typing"

it is a lot of typing, however, AmigaDOS was almost english! it was easy to remember what to type because they were mostly english words
Quote
Oh well, I still say that copy protection was the real culprit that killed Amiga, everyone bought hard drives and found out they couldn't put their favorite stuff on the hard drive because of copy protection. I have disk boxes full of Amiga disk games that I still have to use a disk drive for.

i hated the fact that the amiga always had an excellent 32-bit multitasking OS, but was virtually sold(and seen by most people) as a games machine
so as soon as you inserted the disk, the multitasking ended and most games didnt have a 'exit to dos' type function :(
that showed the majority of people that it wasnt a serious computer - im sure if they switched it on waited hours for it to boot and then were presented with a dos prompt they would of thought of it more seriously! and then it wouldof been more popular perhaps
but im getting a bit off topic now

all OS's have their uses.
and faults, pro's & con's
 :-)
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: Waccoon on April 22, 2003, 08:01:32 AM
Quote
Quote
NT is a kernel, Windows is an Operating system.

Not quite right i.e. specifically "Windows NT Kernel".

It's all integrated, so who really knows what is what?

Quote
Ok, why Like the way MS DOS (and compatible really) assigns drive names:

Dumbest legacy problem ever.  The real trouble is that drive letters are assigned by the BIOS in the order that drives are detected, so if you switch a few cables, the whole system gets screwed up.  Even DOS should have been using remapped drive letters!

I have to fix an OS/2 system at work because the hard drive is dying.  My solution is to copy one hard drive onto another.  Unfortunately, plugging in a second hard drive messes up the drive letters, because the PC BIOS detects all primary partitions first, then logical partitions.  So, before I had drives [C D E], and with two hard drives installed, I have [C F D][E G H]!  All the user accounts are on the logical partition of the first drive, so when I boot the system with two hard drives, it won't log into the admin account!  I'll have to fix the machine with a bootdisk, somehow, and, naturally, my boss can't find all the documentation for the machine.  I guess I can just delete the primary partition on the second drive and use ONLY logical drives, but...  oh, man.  I just know fixing that machine is going to SUCK.

PC BIOS is crap!  I'm surprised even OS/2 doesn't use remapped drive letters, though.

Quote
(Just for the record, I don't expect Linux to work like Windows. The easy installation, removal and upgrading of software is a feature I would expect from any OS.)

Linux was designed to be a little brother to UNIX, so naturally it lacks all the essentials we take for granted on Windows and Macintoshes.  I like this quote I recently found from a GUI programmer:

Quote
Free Software developers have the ability to start from a relatively cruft-free base, but (as a gratuitously broad generalization) they have no imagination whatsoever. So rather than making their interfaces more usable, they concentrate on copying whatever Microsoft and Apple are doing, cruft and all.

-- Matthew Thomas, http://mpt.phrasewise.com/

Red Hat 7 comes to mind.  It looks just like Win98 (down to the pixel, and a start menu that says "START"), but it's still Linux underneath.
Title: Re: Why Linux is Not for You!
Post by: on April 22, 2003, 03:27:59 PM
Quote
As for the Loki installer, does it support the locating, downloading and installation of dependencies?


Does InstallSheild / Amiga Installer?


Quote
I don't hold much truck with the elitist "if you're not prepared to get your hands dirty doing things the hard way you shouldn't use Linux" brigade.


http://www.xandros.org (http://www.xandros.org)