Re: Is SuSe ready for me yet?

Golaff wrote:
markzoom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I've tried Suse 8.2 and a previous one, on both occasions some
supposedly supported hardware took many days of fiddling around to get
going. When I tried to download progs from the net and install them,
the process was so involved and unintuitive (to me) I gave up.


Hello,

I understand your reason for wanting an easier OS. I also understand
and agree with many things people here said. I have my own opinions but
first I'm going to give you some possible solutions to your issues.

YOUR OPTIONS

Have you tried Ubuntu? With this distro, you can use Synaptic to search
for thousands of programs that can be installed with just a few clicks.
Most things work. I use this on my work notebook because everything
just works. Wireless, hibernate and suspend, printers, scanners and just
about everything else I've plugged in works (at least with the latest
version Dapper). My favorite distro is slackware by the way but I can't
use it on my notebook or desktop because I need many things to work and
I don't have the time to spend to make them work. Suse 10.1 works
better with wireless and other stuff I just plug in but Ubuntu runs
faster on my notebook and has a larger repository of software I can
install. With Ubuntu, installing such things as flash and mp3 support
is done easily with a few utilities you can download. They also have a
very good support forum were people aren't flamed for asking simple
questions. Any Debian based distro would also have a large repository
of software but Ubuntu is easier to use overall. If you prefer KDE, you
can use Kubuntu or for a faster window manager you can use Xubuntu or
whatever the other flavors are.

My second favorite distro is Suse. While their repositories have grown,
they are not as large as Debians/Ubuntu and some of the stuff I've
downloaded didn't work. Also, I don't like what they have done with the
new update utility. I also don't understand why there are so many
issues with it since it works fine in Ubuntu and Debain. Anyway, Ubuntu
is the only distro that I think may fit your needs unless you're willing
to be a bit flexible on your requirements.

Thanks for the suggestion, if Suse won't do it, then it'll be my next
try with Linux.


I just added this after typing everything below. Try a Mac. You have
better security and ease of use. The cost is too much? You have to take
the good with the bad.

It has to be PC, I have a second home abroad and a mac would be
virtually unfixable there for months if it went wrong.


MY OPINIONS

I own a computer service/consulting company so many of your requirements
for an OS are not new to me. I only service company's so their excuse is
more understandable. I always tell people that when they make something
easy to use, not only is it easy to use for them but also easy for
others to attack and crack. It's easy to just turn on your computer and
have it boot straight into your OS. It's easy to just double click on a
file and have it install without needing to enter a root/administrator
password. But this has been one of the main reasons why a virus/spyware
can infect your entire system instead of just your user account. The
more secure something is, the more you have to type or click to
legitimately access it.

Understood.

If they do fix windows in the next version to
eliminate these security issues, then it's going to be "harder" to use
because you need to do more to get to what you want to get to.

I also never understood why people associate "easier" with progress. I
used to be able to fix my car myself. I've taken an engine apart and
put it back together again (yes it worked).

I like to fix thing myself too. The essence of good design is
simplicity.

I'm not a mechanic nor do I
have any aspirations to be one. With a new car, I open the hood and I
see a bunch of wires and an engine somewhere under that. Some mechanics
I've known have complained that cars are more complicated and have
bitched that they have to go back to school to learn the new systems. So
is this not progress?

It's not. Cars are incredibly energy inefficient too.


The reason windows is so popular is because people don't want to learn.
They want stuff to be easy. When they learn something, they use what
I call the learn and regurgitate method. They don't really "learn"
something, they only memorize the question and the answer. Change the
question around a bit and they get lost. In this case, they memorize to
click on something but never know why they have to click. That's why
you have people that double click on everything...even on links on a web
page. If you don't want to pick up a book to learn something new, make
an effort to actually learn something instead of just memorizing were to
click then why should kids bother with school? Why do they need to
learn history if what their chosen career has nothing to do with
history? Why do they need to learn algebra, trigonometry, etc. for the
same reason as the last question? I've met many other MCSE's that have
a similar attitude. They don't want to learn anything new. They are
happy pointing and clicking and don't want anyone to tell them
otherwise. Which is why I never got any job were an MCSE was doing the
hiring despite being able to answer all their questions and asking them
questions they couldn't answer. It's not just you. Many people do
everything in their power to not learn anything. They want to stay in
their familiar little world and will persecute anyone who brings their
laziness to learn out in the open. They're hypocrites. They push their
kids to learn and to give it their all in school, yet, when they leave
school, their learning stops. Your brain is like a muscle. If you stop
using it, it gets weak. It's harder for you to learn something new now
compare to when you were younger because you don't keep your mind
active. Not because you're older.

I grew up without a TV set until I was 14. That meant making my own
entertainment.
Since everything is layed on now, original thinking has become pretty
scarce.
Computers are only one of a wide variety of my interests, so I'm not
prepared to devote much time learning a fangled OS because I have more
useful things to do.


As far as installing software, yes it can be a pain in linux but I don't
think it's fair to compare it to a windows program. Well, it depends on
what you are trying to install. If it's source code that needs to be
compiled, then this is completely different than a program for windows.
With source code, you can configure many things BEFORE creating the
installation program.

I don't need or want to. I have built various machines from scratch
(including a sparkeroder and automatic plastic injection moulding
machines) including the electronics (pic processors, partly) but I have
zilch interest or understanding of "compiling source code" for PCs. My
interest is in making practical stuff that hasn't been done or persuing
non-productive hobbies, not waste brainpower trying to get other
people's inventions to work.
I the case of windows, it's becoming an aggravation fighting the
threats, intrusions and cost. That's why I'm checking Linux

You have options. In windows, these decisions
were made by someone else. You can't change them even if you wanted.
If you want the same experience in Linux, then download the software in
a format designed for your distro. If you're complaining about having to
find the program for your distro, then try downloading and installing
iLife for windows. You can't. It's just for a mac.

It boils down to which is less aggravation, continue with windows and
fight the insecurities, or battle with Linux's complexity and beg
obnoxious knerds for help.



If you grew up using Linux, then you would be saying similar things
about Windows. Windows is what you're "used" to. Being used to
something doesn't make it good or even the right choice. One of the
reasons so many viruses and spyware/adware exist and can infect a
windows machine so easily is because of many peoples lazy demand for
something easy and Microsoft providing it. If Microsoft would fix all
the security issues in windows, then installing software wouldn't be so
easy to install. Actually, what would probably happen is they would fix
the whole permission thing then when people get tired of alway having to
type in an administrator password just to install software, they will
start creating user accounts with administrator privileges therefore
circumventing the fixed permission issue and returning to the insecurity
of the previous windows versions. They do it in linux by using the root
login as their primary login.

There really needs to be a whole totally new modular operating system
geared to noobs. One that is secure and starts off childishly simple,
that the noob then adds on lego modules and even buttons to do each
task (and only those tasks) he wants and chooses.


My point to all of this is if you want better security, then you are
going to need to drastically revise your requirements for an OS. It's
like a scale with security on one end and knowledge on the other. Add
more security, you need to add more knowledge to balance it. It's going
to be this way until they develop artificial intelligence so the
computer will be able to rationalize what it's being asked to install.

I get your point, I'd say though that there may be simpler hardware
solutions to many of these problems.


The computer is no longer just a high tech toy for geeks and nerds.
There are many households with several computers. In some homes, the
number of computers out numbers television sets. Even Grandma is using
a computer to communicate. It's a tool now that many cannot live
without. So your excuse of not being a computer hobbyist is irrelevant.
You're going to need to change your attitude regardless of what OS you
use. If you stay with windows, security fixes that actually work, DRM,
software certificates on Vista and other things Microsoft has planned,
will make things more complicated to use. It may not be so easy to
download freeware from the internet and install it on windows. You may
not be able to. There are many other things but I'm getting tired of
typing.

Thanks for what you did type, food for thought.

Anyway, if you want things to be easy and have a brainless approach,
then don't complain about viruses and all that other crap. All this
crap is a product of lazy people who do not want to be bothered by
security. Progress can't exist without an increase in knowledge. After
all, any firewall on any OS has to be configured to filter out all the
bad stuff. It won't do it automatically unless it's something that has
been around a while and is known to be bad. All this configuration needs
to be done by YOU. Which means you need to KNOW this stuff. Anti-virus
software will only find viruses that are known or behave like something
that is known. It's up to you to be the first level of defense. You
need to know what not to click on, not to open, sites to not visit, etc.
You can't just click on stuff to see what happens. Anti-virus
software and all that other useless protection you can buy is supposed
to stop stuff that got by you or is stuff that doesn't need any action
on your part. All this requires that YOU have knowledge. Just like your
car. You need to know when to get it serviced, what are the normal
sounds and smells, how to check the oil and other basic maintenance
things. You can't use the excuse that you're not a car enthusiast.

Try Ubuntu or a Mac. If neither of these suits you, then it probably
doesn't exist or will exist for a very long time. You probably are
thinking that is does exist in windows.

I know it doesn't exist in windows. I'm trying to establish wether
Linux's diadvantages are better or worse for me.

Well, not according to your
requirements. You want to get away from dealing with viruses and
spyware and possibly the hight cost of paying for an OS. In this case,
not even Windows will suit you unless you make some modifications to
your requirements and accept less security. So is Linux actually harder
to use when you consider having to remove viruses and spyware/adware,
always making sure to install updates because you have to even on a
computer not running as a server, the expense of the software (I'm
assuming you are using legitimate software), having your anti-virus
software, firewalls and other stuff configured properly and updated,
installing that free program you downloaded and not knowing if it can be
spyware or a virus?

I use windows and linux. I'm on windows right now. I know the possible
problems I can have with windows. Some software I use only works in
windows and I can't find a suitable replacement on Linux. But I don't
complain about the problems. Everything has it's consequences. I have
5+ year old HP scanner that works perfectly. I have hardly used it. I
shouldn't need to throw it way. Well, It doesn't work right in Windows
XP. Even if I download the latest drivers from HP. It has a known
problem. If I unplug it, I have to resort to removing several
references to it in the registry, manually removing left over files
after uninstall, reinstalling everything all over again and hope it
works. It worked the first couple of times, now I can't get it to work.
I plug it in Linux and Ubuntu recognized it automatically and
installs it. In Suse, it's just a few clicks to install. The scans
come out better than they ever did in Windows. The scanner is an HP
scanjet 3300CSE. So both OSes have their advantages and disadvantages.
You have to take the good with the bad. Either take the brainless OS
and also take the security issues or take the more secure OS and take
the fact that IT'S DIFFERENT so somethings will not work the same and
you have to learn something new.

I have many other projects in progress (doing up a house in the azores)
and on the drawing board (green energy stuff for it), so realisticly I
don't think Linux will fit into the slot I'm prepared to devote to
computers. I've now got it installed on a spare computer, so I can
fiddle with it at leisure or not. It looks like I'll put up with the
devil I know (windows) for a while yet.

.