Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?
From: SINNER (99nesorjd_at_gates_of_hell.invalid)
Date: 02/16/05
- Next message: wcb: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Previous message: Unnh: "Re: 200gb showing as 120gb"
- In reply to: JoJo: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Next in thread: GFree: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Reply: GFree: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Reply: Reader: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:34:56 GMT
* JoJo wrote in alt.os.linux:
> "Aragorn" <spamtrap@lycos.com> wrote in message
[...]
> I see. Ok, I was under the impression (thanks to magazines, media and
> anti-windows folks) that Linux was a serious candidate for Windows
> replacement.
But it is more than a serious candidate, in fact it IS a serious Windows
replacement as noted by many companies, municipalities and desktop users
that use it everyday instead of windows.
[...]
> Being a newbie, the whole message the nvidia install was offering me was
> pretty much useless.
Why? It tells you its going to go out to the Nvidia website and look for
a pre compiled kernel module, if it cant find one, it will compile it
for you. You must have kernel sources installed in order to compile a
module for it. Quite simple and logical.
> saw various posts on google that said the source
> files were no longer being offered with mandrake... thus my switch to
> Fedora.
Not sure what sources you are speaking of here but you don't need Nvidia
sources and the kernel source for Mandrake is freely available
>>> So I get that and after making many bad burns of the install discs
>>> (checked 'em using linux mediacheck)
>>> finally discover you need to burn the discs with RAWDAO.
[...]
Did you check the MD5 of the iso's BEFORE you burned them?
[...]
>> Let's see...
>>> I have to edit a xorg.conf, changing a driver line.
>> Wow! That sounds hard! Are you sure you're okay? :-þ
> My point here was that the nvidia installer should have done this.
Somehow you see this as a fault of Linux? Why? Nvidia wrote the driver
installer.
> This was
> when I had the impression that linux was targeting windows as a replacement
> OS for the masses.
I still am missing how you find this to be the fault of Linux.
> Before you take this as a jibe, remember what you said
> above... they both had different origins, etc. and the fact that the media
> has been telling the public that Linux is a threat to Windows.
But it is a jibe, an undeserved one since the 'problem' you encountered
had nothing to do with Linux but rather a Hardware manufacturer that
wrote a driver installer that did not perform to your satisfaction.
>>> I then have to do a cp of the nvidia files into another
>>> dir and some other kludgy stuff to get it going.
Odd, I did not have this problem. There was no precompiled kernel module
for my chipset so the installer kindly compiled it for me, the only
'kludge' which BTW is well documented, was to change nv to nvidia in the
driver section of the config file.
>> Define "kludgy"?
> That which is awkward to perform. Manual copying of files and editing of
> .confs is Kludgy to ME (ok, not for you now) because I have come from the
> Windows environment.
Plenty of great windows software requires this on occasion also. Xnews,
a great FREE windows newsreader with many manual config entries not
possible from the GUI. I can assure you this is not the only program
like this, that said have you ever had to really mess with IIS? I'd
prefer a config file over that mess of a GUI interface any day and I was
groomed on Windows and was an avid luser for many years until I
discovered the power of Linux. FWIW there are plenty of Linux
applications that require very little edits if any to work OOTB.
[...]
>>> I reboot and now want TVout to get going... nothing in the display
>>> settings for TV. I read the README for the nvidia driver and they
>>> "tell" me how to get TVOut going... but their instructions are
>>> garbage. Terrible docs here.
>> Which I interpret as "It seems to complicated for me, so it sucks".
> No no, I'm a computer tech of 8 years... the instructions ARE terrible.
Odd, I found them quite thurough but found, after printing the ~30
pages, that I only needed to know one thing, change nv to nvidia.
> It
> doesn't specify what changes to make for which config. Only which changes
> are available. This isn't limited only to Nvidia, I found many of the
> instructions for linux ops were not very straight forward, were missing
> steps, etc.
Can you give an example of what you mean here. What 'other' apps have
instructions that you've needed to refer to that were of no help? Oh,
BTW, how do you like those instructions that you got with that other OS?
>>> I finally find the answer online on some
>>> website. I have to add more weird stuff to my xorg.conf.
>> TV-cards are weird stuff on UNIX systems, so the lines you have to add
>> are probably weird too. In _your_ eyes, that is...
> Yes, as I said... linux is completely alien to me right now. The original
> jist of my post was to determine if people felt as I did when they started,
> and what they did TO GET THROUGH IT.
Well, I have been using Linux full time for about 3 years now. Being
groomed on windows it was a different world the day I first installed it
but this group was extremely helpful. I am quite technical and self
taught and I was Usenet denizen for a number of years prior so I avoided
quite a few mistakes by simply lurking in here for a while. Did I
occasionally get blasted? Sure, but here I am.
There have been so many stories posted in the group of parents putting
their kids on Linux boxes, their spouses and their grandparents so it is
most certainly for everyone. If you come into Linux thinking it is going
to be just like windows, you will fail. No one was born with the
knowledge to use windows and coming from DOS I can assure you it was no
easy move to Win 3.1 / 95 / NT / 2000 / XP. So many things changes
between those OS's that even seasoned users had issues moving from one
to the next. Quite frankly I'd say Linux has remained more consistent to
that end and that users could easily move from version to version, even
Distro to Disto with only minor learning curves.
> our defensiveness is blinding you from
> the fact that I *want* to join the world of linux but am apprehensive due to
> my first experiences. I was making a cost-benefit determination... if
> everyone replies that it's like this all the time (in terms of what's
> involved to set stuff up, install stuff, etc) then I would make a personal
> decision that I wouldn't want to invest all the time needed to use linux. On
> the same note, and so you don't take that last sentence as an attack, if
> people were to say it gets easier and offered me tips on their early
> experiences, then I would stick with it.
Of course it gets easier. When you first learned to read and write I bet
you made lots of mistakes but I bet in time you got better. Why would
you think learning something as complex as an OS would be any different.
If you are looking to free yourself from the closed source / environment
of windows to a whole new world of power and control you have come to
the right place, stick it out you will not regret it and in some months
down the road you will be posting your own success story of how you
converted so and so and they love it.
[...]
>>> installed. It's a list of like 15. So I start to download them one by
>>> one and install them. After about 8 I give up because I'm so tired and
>>> it's 3am.
>> Then continue the next day. What's the problem? You want it to work,
>> don't you?
> At this point I was just saying how rediculous and complex this all was
> compared to windows (ALERT: NOT AN ATTACK).
What I would say is ridiculous, and is a recurring theme in my response,
is that you assumed that changing to a new OS would be simple! Please
explain how you came to this conclusion? Do you think that people in
this group that have been using linux/*nix for years before Windows 1.0
ever came out would feel even the slightest bit of comfort in Windows?
Hell NO! They would be lost and likely say F*ck it and head right back
over to the comfort zone. Imagine going from the ability to edit a
simple text file to make a piece of hardware or software do what you
want to the monstrosity that is regedit? What the hell is a ClassID and
how I am supposed to know that 234213-fsdr-345324fsd-43534 is really
notepad?
> So I decided to write this
> inquiry to get seasoned user opinions on the OS... so I could perform my
> cost-benefit (cost is in terms of time here, mind you).
Wrong attitude, sorry. Computers are complex devices capable of taking
1's and 0's and turning them into amazing things, thinking that you
would have to put little or no time into learning something that complex
is simply put, ignorant. That was not an insult merely a stating of the
obvious and not pointed at you specifically but rather a generalization
of many that try but fail for the exact reason you state above, the
unwillingness to put the time in to learn something new.
[...]
>>> Why can't the MPlayer install just install all dependencies for you?
>> Because the MPlayer installer is an MPlayer installer, and not a generic
>> install-it-all utility! Dependencies are packages that are needed by
>> whatever it is that you are trying to install *plus* by a bunch of
>> other things. It's called "dynamic linking". Windows has /.dll/ files
>> for that purpose.
> In Windows, progams install the .dlls if the program requires them. I find
> it odd that one has to go out and get them all independently in the linux
> environment.
Dont run many VB applications huh?
> Why can't the installer scan your systems for the dlls needed,
> and install them if it doesn't see them?
Windows will without issue overwrite a DLL that was working fine,
with an older version of the same file without warning, or just drop the
file in its own 'folder' so it alone can use it. Now you have 15
different versions of the same DLL....WHY? In Linux, it checks for the
existence of files it needs and bitches when it cant find them rather
tan stepping on the existing one or just plopping down its own. Its a
change in methodology. This isn't Windows.
>>> Why can't the NVidia installer alter the xorg.conf to include the
>>> changes needed for the driver and TVOut?
>> Because there is more to /xorg.conf/ than just setting up a driver. If
>> you want to use Windows, then why can't Microsoft send somebody over to
>> install it for you? Because it's not their job to do so.
> Computers are great at automation... that's all I was asking for. Simply add
> the line needed and give less for the user to worry about.
And what if you don't use X.org but rather a different X server, what
should it do then? Whats that you say, Windows doesn't give you the
opportunity to choose? Oh, sorry.
>>> (Don't tell me it's because I need to be root, because the nvidia
>>> driver and all installers require you to supply root PW to install
>>> anything). The above operations, from download of the distro to
>>> finally getting TVOut to work, and attempting to install MPlayer took
>>> me two days of running into probs, searching google for hours, finally
>>> fixing problem, and then repeating many times.
>> And in the process, you've learned something, I would say. Or not?
> I learned that the OS is quite complex and not as I was led to believe by
> the media.
No, you learned that ALL OS's are complex but when you get used to using
it day after day it becomes second nature, like riding a bike and
driving a car, neither of which you were able to do perfectly the first
time you tried.
>>> When I compare this to Windows it's like this: Option A) Install
>> Windows, Nvidia driver, and
>>> MediaPlayerClassic --- 3 hours max
>>> Option B) Do all as listed above --- 2 days
>> What about conflicting /.dll/ files in Windows? Or trying to downgrade
>> your /DirectX/ - which is impossible - because the new version breaks
>> something? I've learned this from friends who use Windows. I wouldn't
>> know this myself as I don't have Windows on my computer.
> All DirectX libs are included in new versions. There is never any reason to
> downgrade DX.
Really? I think you should rethink that statement. Software that depends
on DirectX to work may or maynot work with the new version, if that
software is critical path, you need to downgrade. What do you think the
IT departments in big companies get paid to do all day, reset passwords?
They create test environments so they can test the effect of upgrades and
patches before they apply them to the world and find out they don't work.
> nd by conflicting dll, do you mean when you install a program
> and it wants to overwrite an older/newer version?
Of course.
> mean then there is no such thing as a conflicting dll. A dll has a filename,
> and a program attempts to access it. The program has only one location for
> that dll so any other dlls won't be conflicting with it.
> Quick and dirty fix for your buddy, before he installs any OS altering
> software... he should set a restore point. Then if he finds it aces
> something, he can simply go back to that restore point. Works great.
The IT department at my company would disagree as I am sure MANY others
would, not to mention that restore points are a new thing in the Windows
world.
>> What I do know is that I've spend *entire* *nights* setting up Windows
>> on the computers of friends, installing all the drivers for the
>> hardware they had. And _that_ was "designed for Windows" hardware!
> Well, then you were doing something wrong.
Nope, happens all the time. Windows is finicky (sp) also and depending
on your hardware it may go smoothly, and it may not. I have certainly
had it go both ways. WOW, see that Linux and Windows have that in
common, it all comes down to hardware really.
> These days windows is quite good
> and stable. I can run my XP setup on crappy AMD hardware with a $30
> case/power supply, and the thing NEVER crashes.
And yet mine does occasionally and even if it doesn't, I occasionally MUST
reboot due to slowdowns or misbehaving software/drivers. I have a
Windows XP box that I use ocaasionaly but my main box is this laptop,
happily chugging away with MDK 10.1.
> I've had it running for a
> month
Ohhh, A whole month! WOW! When your uptime hits a year come back with
systeminfo output.
> now with no reboots or crashes. The old argument against windows is
> moot.
For you in your particular scenario, maybe, but your situation is not
necessarily the rule. Again, 1 month is nothing to brag about.
>>> Anyway, my ultimate question is:
>>> I KNOW you all run into these kinds of problems quite often, so why do
>>> you stick with it?
>> Because we are not afraid of getting our hands dirty? Because we care
>> to do more than just "point & click"? Because by design, Gnu/Linux is
>> a far better operating system? Take your pick!
> Not helpful.
OK, how about, because its not as hard as you make it seem? Or how about
the Power of Control over MY computer? Why isn't 'Because its better'
helpful? It is an opinion which is what you came here seeking, chalk one
up for Linux and move on to the next.
>>> I just don't see how anyone would want to use an OS that is such
>>> a pain to install stuff on and configure.
>> It was never a pain for me. I didn't even have an Internet connection
>> when I first installed MandrakeLinux, and back then, there was no such
>> thing as a graphical installer yet. It was all /ncurses-driven./
> probably because you were just happy with the base install. I want it to do
> much more. If I just stuck with the base install, I'd be perfectly happy.
I, as I am sure most people in here would say, do not even use a base
install. I would bet there aren't 2 people in this group that have the
same install, I bet 25 people on the 8 floor in my office have EXACTLY
the same install. There are many tools in Linux that make life very
easy, there are GUI based config utilities that help those with a fear of
the command line.
>>> I don't want to spend a day installing a piece of software, I just
>>> want to run an installer and have it work... So what's up with this???
>> I spend many hours installing Gnu/Linux, but this is only because I go
>> over each and every individual package on the installation media to
>> know what it is and to decide whether I want it installed or not.
> See, that's not for me.
Its not necessary, but isn't it nice to have the ability to do so rather
than being given the limited 'choices' that Windows gives you?
>> I spend far more time trying to install Microsoft Windows, Microsoft
>> Office, an antivirus suite, drivers for this, drivers for that, and
>> rebooting all the time in between. A lot more time than I would be
>> wasting when installing Gnu/Linux.
> Mindboggling...
I fail to see how, if you have been a tech for as long as you claim it
would not be so mind boggling.
>>> Please reply to the group and let me know if you felt similarly when
>>> you started with Linux, and why you stuck with it, and if it gets
>>> easier, etc.
>> No, I didn't feel similar. I didn't even know what to expect, and I was
>> pleasantly surprised that the installation went so smoothly. That was
>> Mandrake 6.0! I'd say the distributions have come a long way since
>> then in terms of ease-of-use!
>> Of course, I *had* read the documentation, and I had made sure that I
>> understood what was being said in the documentation too.
Which Documentation are you referring to? Linux Doc? If this was true the
problems you've had would have been much easier to fix. Me thinks you
are referring to documentation of some piece of software you had a problem
with, and not being familiar enough with the OS that this piece of
software runs on, you became immediately frustrated which only compounded
your issue and grew your disdain for Linux. I hope you can now see the
error of your ways are working at correcting them.
> I realize you don't know me, but rest assured I read the docs more times
> than I would have cared to.
Again, what Docs? You are claiming such difficulty with an OS you've
likely spent maybe a few hours learning about.
Say it with me:
"Linux is NOT Windows"
>> The flexibility and multi-purpose nature of UNIX in general and
>> Gnu/Linux in specific are such that there are thousands of possible
>> ways of setting up your system. You can't expect to have everything
>> work out of the box with all the settings that *you* like or with all
>> the hardware that *you* have; hardware that was manufactured with
>> Windows in mind.
> Ok, so this *is* the nature of the beast. I was under the assumption from
> the media and people advocating linux that it had come to the level of
> windows in terms of configuring, operating, maintaining, etc.
Many would say it is ABOVE that level, rightfully so as control over the
OS is much easier to come by in a Linux environment than a Windows one.
Good luck which ever path you choose.
-- David I don't get no respect.
- Next message: wcb: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Previous message: Unnh: "Re: 200gb showing as 120gb"
- In reply to: JoJo: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Next in thread: GFree: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Reply: GFree: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Reply: Reader: "Re: What Was Your Experience When You First Started Using Linux?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
