Re: New users or troll?

Kurt wrote:
I think there are a couple of points to consider here. True, this poster may have been your basic windows troll. Or he may just have been a frustrated Linux newbie. One thing is for sure: If you really want to get Linux onto users desktops, the attitude about the use of the gui tools and doing things the "windows way" has to go. Only a handful of computer users even want to know that the command line exists. Developers are working full-speed to make their applications run entirely from the desktop. My fresh install of FC-5 amazed me when I went to the Adobe website, and clicked "install adobe reader". It presented me with an RPM file, which I clicked as well. The box popped up and I chose "Open with application Installer (default)". Then, in a couple of seconds it was installed! Even put the launcher in my main menu under the "Office" group. Wow, that was as easy as installing it on Windows! My grandma could do it.

Now I also just installed ntop from source on a server at the shop. Granny ain't gonna get that one going. The point is, basic users, with no on-site IT pros just need to throw in the CD and have th system install and run. True, Windows Server 2003 won't install on a celeron 333 - But it tells you so right at the onset. Any one of the well-known distros will get a user up and running with a perfectly decent desktop workstation - if all goes well. If it doesn't - it's all over for them. They're not gonna spend any time trying to configure grub, re-write the MBR, edit files in rescue mode, fix video settings in the X11 .conf files, or any of that. We need to help as much as possible when users like that post. Too many times the answer to newbie questions is "RTFM" or techno-babble that would have experienced admins rolling their eyes. Linux is primed and ready to steal desktop market share from MS (and they know it). But we need to welcome the recruits, not scare them away.


michelebargeman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I was reading a post from an "allege" new user, who supposedly doesn't
have lot of patient when it comes to learning something new - à la
installing a new operating system - in his/her case on an allege older
system!

Maybe it is just me, but I would have thought that anyone who is using
computer - including Windows user would know that new operating sytem
don't work on an older system. Say Windows XP Professional + System
Pack II will not work properly on an older system - say Pentium II.

How is it that any computer user would expect brand new operating sytem
design to work on an older hardware? It would like hope for a bicycle
to keep up with a space rocket? Am I wrong?

I will give you another example. I have more then one computer. In one
of my comptuer - Pentium 4. I have install an older video card - PCI
based with 16M. Since this computer was not built to do heavy duty
graphics stuff, I don't need to put nivida on it therefore I don't
expect to get much from - considering that most GUI are design for 50M
video cards. Nevertheless, it display KDE very nicly, even mplayer
display some xvid nicly. Still, I know it is an older card, and It is
not meant to be use with latest (2006) 3D Games - nor I ever tried to
do such foollish thing. It works nicly with KDE and even with mplayer -
I'm very happy.

What I don't understand is why would anyone expect a brand new
operating system to work on an older hardware? Pherhaps it would safe
to assume that such a person might be troll - specailly if he/she is
using profanity.


One point to throw out here: it used to be that one of the strengths of Linux was that it didn't take much hardware (in terms of hard drive footprint, CPU cycles, and memory) to run as compared to Microsoft OS's (at the time, compared to Win 3.1 and Win95), or conversely, one could get a lot more power out of a given hardware configuration with Linux than with the corresponding MS system. At that time, too, Linux had, at most, a bare bones GUI (X-Windows) and was pretty much CLI driven. Now, we're in the age of distros that can actually be compared with WinXP for bloated-ness and hardware requirements. Two years ago, I was shocked to find out that Fedora Core requires at least 256 MB of RAM to run (I wanted to run it on a 333 MHz PII, with 128 MB of RAM). Seems like we're getting away from one of the supposed strengths of Linux here...
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Viva Linux
    ... and elsewhere that you may find useful in your quest to try linux. ... I heard linux was easy to install, ... than /any/ version of Windows. ... hardware is now handled flawlessly. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: Article about a portable PC that runs on 12v?
    ... continues rapidly - as each new Windows virus or worm hits, ... I have found Linux to be more useful on older ... Hardware compatibility is a major problem, and gets worse the later the distro. ... Other boxes where the install crashed, the boot manager screwed up, or something else didn't work. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew)
  • TuxOS (Debian-Based)
    ... separate matter, whereupon the hardware detection ... tools (Linux, Windows, DOS, whatever) meant specifically ... or Debian or TuxOS. ... For a distro that wants to install ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • >>>> INSTALL LINUX <<<<
    ... Linux Http Install Syntax ... Install Linux On Usb In Windows ...
    (comp.mail.sendmail)
  • Re: eMachines OEM XP woes - time to buy $tandard?
    ... >>> under Windoze. ... Let's say one wants to install NVU. ... Now show how much easier it is to install MS Office on Linux than ... Windows OS's from Win3.1 to Windows 2003 Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)