Linux Format forums

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

SpecialStuff — Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:22 pm

Author: SpecialStuff

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:22 pm

The difference is neither here nor there imho. The main big problem Linux faces is simple. It has to be put onto your PC. Either the user has to install it, or a mate does it, or you get it pre-installed. A different GUI really isn't the issue imo, as one way or another people will figure it out once it's on.

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

wyliecoyoteuk — Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:20 am

Author: wyliecoyoteuk

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:20 am

It is surprising how many times the "it's different" argument is trotted out as an objection to Linux, but Microsoft radically changes things between releases and it is accepted.
The start menu in windows7 is rubbish, functionality and flexibility have been removed, yet it is accepted as "progress".
The ghastly "ribbon" interface is a simple marketing ploy to protect Office from competition, yet it is accepted as improving productivity without any proof that it does. In fact for power users it actually makes some things more difficult.

My 13 year old grandson swaps between Ubuntu and Windows without any problems or training in particular, as do some of my office staff.

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

thenudehamster — Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:41 am

Author: thenudehamster

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:41 am

This is an interesting discussion which looks at an aspect of the Linux world in a similar way to how I see the Linux/Windows issue. At the moment, Linux is looked upon by many in the Windows world as a geek's OS - you can't understand it or use it properly if you can't think in at least three different programming languages, automatically go to a CLI instead of a GUI to change anything, and are happy spending more time fixing the system than actually using it.

Now I know this is an erroneous view, but I know many people who think this way, and they need to be shown how easy Linux is to install and to use. The problem is that then you have to figure out which Linux. The core is no problem, it's the interface between the user and the core which is. We have Unity, Gnome, KDE, X-fce and more. I have three machines with Unity, one with Gnome and one with X-fce at present - I've tried KDE and I just cannot get on with it - and all are equally easily useable, but the three GUIs are different - and that is the biggest problem we have trying to get the Windows world to change.

Go to any Windows machine and you can use it, no matter what flavour of Windows you're used to. Try it with a Linux box and you have to spend some time figuring our how the GUI works before you can usefully do anything.
Windows also has a straight-line history from DOS through to W7; if you need to get down and dirty with it, the basic procedures are the same all the way through, growing with each iteration of the system. Linux distributions (God, how I HATE that term 'distro' - it's such a buzzword that smacks of 'insider exclusivity') seem to have different names and different terms for everything outside the core. Great if you have the time to learn them all, but not much good for the average user.

I know one of the major attractions of Linux from the enthusiast's point of view is that is so easy to customise - but this is the big failing from the simple user's situation. Most Windows users, for instance, use Windows Mail, Internet Explorer, MSN, MS Office (or Works) - they lock themselves to Microsoft because that's how the computer comes. Until the Linux community can agree on a largely standard interface that any user can walk up to and use without what feels like a major training course, the world at large is going to remain locked into the Windows monopoly - because it's comfortable there.

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

SpecialStuff — Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:26 pm

Author: SpecialStuff

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:26 pm

Damned if I'm changing my card! It worked fine in past Ubuntu's, and works great with other distros.

A switch is the better choice imho. Why be afraid of switching from Ubuntu? Other distros offer the same, and often better than Ubuntu.

choose

fredds — Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:28 pm

Author: fredds

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:28 pm

If you are having video problems in linux, try changing your video card, even temporarily. I had problems such as yours for about 3 years; unable to reliably get video working, finally upgraded card and problems disappeared.
Was either a dodgy card or linux didn't like it.

cheers
fredds

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

fiorghael — Mon May 02, 2011 12:43 am

Author: fiorghael

Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 12:43 am

Quote:

Sorry. I seem to have "gone off on one"

No worries on that. But I see that the issue is a lot more complex than I thought. I'm beginning to see the subtle differences.

As I've said in another thread, I came to Linux because an upgrade to Vista meant that most of the software I'd paid for didn't work anymore. So I was expected to pay again for the new Vista version.

Now that's ironic, because paying for something means you should be able to do whatever you want with it. If I buy shower gel, for example, I might want to use it as described. On the other hand, if I want to use it instead of milk in my coffee that's my (very poor) decision.

The question might, therefore, be, am I entitled to an upgrade that makes shower gel taste better in coffee? The answer should be a resounding no as I'm not using it as recommended.

If something is "free", I can surely still make those decisions. This, though, is a very telling line:

Quote:

not all open source software is free software

I think this thread is worth developing and, subject to positive feedback, I'd like to look a little more closely at what we want, and what we actually get, from "free" software.

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

pwbrum61 — Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:50 am

Author: pwbrum61

Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 8:50 am

fiorghael wrote:

That's a good point. I didn't realise it was a legal issue and thought it was just down to the principle of some distros wanting to stick rigidly to the open source ideal.

If I read the LXF interview with Stallman correctly, it's more to do with the free software ideal - your freedom to use the software how you choose, without restriction.

Free software is open source software
BUT
not all open source software is free software

Unfortunately, as Stallman admits, the use of the word "free" was perhaps unfortunate as it implies zero monetary cost, whereas his intention was to imply freedom/liberty to use/modify/redistribute software without restriction

There is a sort of paradox here though. By necessity, such software is usually covered by something like GPL, but this in itself applies restrictions, so the software is not %100 free.

Similary, in the UK (or even the U.S) we consider ourselves to be living in a "free" society with "freedom of speech" yet there are laws that prevent us from saying certain things for fear of being prosecuted. One only has to look at the case of Paul Chamber and what's become known as the "twitter joke trial" for evidence of a lack of freedom.

Sorry. I seem to have "gone off on one"

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

Nerdy-ish — Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:29 pm

Author: Nerdy-ish

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:29 pm

Don't forget, all the focus seems to be on Ubuntu now, even with the LF magazine seemingly going to town on that distro, but not too long ago, it was all about Mandrake (before rename to Mandriva). It was the hot distro, very up to date, and most importantly at the time of problematic hardware, it seemed to just work on a load of hardware.

Ubuntu has more marketing behind it to raise it's profile, and get people interested in Linux.

Trying different distros you get to at least see if you can live with Gnome or KDE. But most of all, you get choice, which is not what yo get with Windows, which is a more one size WILL fit all.

In the rare times I need to check something in Windows, I miss simple things like the 3D desktop cube, moving applications to another work surface. A file manager with multiple tabs making GUI moving of files easy is not an option in Windows.

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

Bazza — Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:40 pm

Author: Bazza

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:40 pm

Hi Neil...

> But you can't cut and paste mouse clicks

Inside a terminal; wanna bet? ;o)

cat /dev/input/event2 > /dev/stdout

Have some fun with that little devil... ;oO

And yes you can cut'n'AUTOpaste to the cursor and it will attempt
to run this binary "command"; ooooh what fun... ;oD

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

fiorghael — Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:03 am

Author: fiorghael

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:03 am

Quote:

But you can't cut and paste mouse clicks Smile

Got it now!

sudo eject has just saved me a lot of messing with a paper clip in the optical drive to remove an ancient cd whose contents I couldn't remember.*

And some excellent help from PCNetSpec in another thread has got my Broadcom up and running with an apt-get install in the terminal - I'd been going mad trying to do it in GUI ways.

Googled for hours, but sorted in seconds.

* Just in case anyone's curious, the mystery cd turned out to be Fedora 12!

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

wyliecoyoteuk — Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:13 pm

Author: wyliecoyoteuk

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:13 pm

nelz wrote:

fiorghael wrote:

As for the CLI thing, it's not that I'm totally terrified of it, it's just I'm busy enough without having to trawl through lists of commands when I could do it with a GUI.

But you can't cut and paste mouse clicks

Exactly. You can't always guarantee that the mouse clicks will need to be in the same place either. Which is also why on windows forums they often post "open a dos prompt and type XXXX.msc then enter"
saves them trying to explain which of the various click routes to a program that each version of windows requires.

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

nelz — Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:05 am

Author: nelz

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:05 am

fiorghael wrote:

As for the CLI thing, it's not that I'm totally terrified of it, it's just I'm busy enough without having to trawl through lists of commands when I could do it with a GUI.

But you can't cut and paste mouse clicks

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

heiowge — Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:30 am

Author: heiowge

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:30 am

Not sure. I don't really have a problem with video on Ubuntu.

I install, then system > administration > additional drivers. From there, it installs everything my nVidia card needs.

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

fiorghael — Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:08 am

Author: fiorghael

Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:08 am

Quote:

The codec issue...well if you can get the licensees to release them as free software, then that would be solved. Mint gets away with it because it is a small distro, if it continues to rise in popularity, I am sure that lawsuits and demands for money will start dropping on the developers doormats.

That's a good point. I didn't realise it was a legal issue and thought it was just down to the principle of some distros wanting to stick rigidly to the open source ideal.

As for the CLI thing, it's not that I'm totally terrified of it, it's just I'm busy enough without having to trawl through lists of commands when I could do it with a GUI. Laziness, maybe.

I have to admit, too, that I'm still drawn to Ubuntu. For me, it's the definitive Linux distro and it's my yardstick for comparison. At the minute, Mint is doing the job better than Ubuntu but that could change.

I must admit that I do like the eye-candy which Mint provides with ease and Ubuntu provides with difficulty.

On the Ubuntu and Nvidia thing, by the way, will there be a better and easier-to-set-up video experience when Wayland takes over from X-server?

Re: Choose Life - but don't always choose Ubuntu

wyliecoyoteuk — Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:06 am

Author: wyliecoyoteuk

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:06 am

As ever YMMV.
I have tried several iterations of Mint, none of them would install properly except the last one, and yet when that one did I found it uninspiring.
Bear in mind that Mint was originally based on Ubuntu.
I moved to Ubuntu last year after being a long time Suse user.

Now I use Ubuntu on my main PC, my wife's PC and the Kitchen PC, and on most of the Linux boxes at work.
Netbook edition on our netbooks, Mythbuntu on my HTPC.

Although I regularly try other distros, I keep coming back to Ubuntu.

The codec issue...well if you can get the licensees to release them as free software, then that would be solved. Mint gets away with it because it is a small distro, if it continues to rise in popularity, I am sure that lawsuits and demands for money will start dropping on the developers doormats.

The CLI issue... the main reason that CLI is often used for an answer is actually simplicity (and this does happen in windows help forums too, especially for the server products).
Cutting and pasting a few commands into a terminal is a lot quicker than writing "click here, click that, scroll to this"
It is also more likely to work.