Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Skier wrote:I find the thread's title to be offensive: what if I run any of the BSDs?

Nothing wrong with the BSDs!!! Should I include the newly resurected openBeOS?

Yes, I'm definitely done because you're not reading everything people are giving you. You said apples to apples comparison - I gave you them. Systems from Dell not working out of the box, etc. There are many many other sites out there with repeats of the same information about problems with pre-loaded linux systems. One short google search led me to tons of them. Again - out of the box, OEM from the manufacturer, they're having issues. What is your rebuttal to their problems?

I also asked you what it is in my statements that you have objections to. You've basically restated my point in your own words and say that you're "right' and I'm "wrong" but haven't said with what.

The DNS issues are not problems I am having any longer as I have worked around them. However if you go to the ubuntu forums you'll see plenty of it - this is an issue that was introduced with dapper and has been continued through right up to gutsy gibbon. There are lots of bugs in the DNS handling, resolvconf, and other networking related problems. Some of the articles I linked all touch on this. I could easily link a ton of more, but you can find them just as fast with a few short searches yourself.

You may call window and theme managers fluff - but that is all the fluff that end users want. I've been using them for quite a while but they aren't without their quirks.

Of course it handles .sh and .jar files well - no one said it didn't. .sh files are shell script and may contain a perl command or a python command - but it never contains perl or python code. A shell script can be written in any shell (bash is just one of them) and are basically a set of instructions for the system. The .jar files are java archive files, they're not executables. Very similar to .tar files but they're compressed.

That paired with other statements you've made about how things work have led me to the conclusion that, while you may utilize the system, you don't understand the inner workings. I'm not trying to be condescending to you at all - it's just not worth my time to debate you when a lot of your fundamentals are missing, and you don't seem to want to read posts.

I still stand by my statements that Ubuntu/linux is not ready for someone who doesn't want to learn about their computer system, and just want to use programs and have it fulfill tasks. If someone is curious and willing to learn, then linux/unix is a great OS. That doesn't make it as easy to use as OS X or Windows.

Nalian wrote:Yes, I'm definitely done because you're not reading everything people are giving you. You said apples to apples comparison - I gave you them. Systems from Dell not working out of the box, etc. There are many many other sites out there with repeats of the same information about problems with pre-loaded linux systems. One short google search led me to tons of them. Again - out of the box, OEM from the manufacturer, they're having issues. What is your rebuttal to their problems?

I also asked you what it is in my statements that you have objections to. You've basically restated my point in your own words and say that you're "right' and I'm "wrong" but haven't said with what.

I have stated (not the first time) below, last paragraph exactly what I object to, please read it this time

Nalian wrote:
The DNS issues are not problems I am having any longer as I have worked around them. However if you go to the ubuntu forums you'll see plenty of it - this is an issue that was introduced with dapper and has been continued through right up to gutsy gibbon. There are lots of bugs in the DNS handling, resolvconf, and other networking related problems. Some of the articles I linked all touch on this. I could easily link a ton of more, but you can find them just as fast with a few short searches yourself.

You may call window and theme managers fluff - but that is all the fluff that end users want. I've been using them for quite a while but they aren't without their quirks.

Windows XP - the uncontested leader as the most used OS on the desktop right now - does not include ANY of the featureset that compbiz/beryl includes. So, this is not a standard featureset, nor does its use, or the use of these features, constitute an average computer user's experiance

Nalian wrote:
Of course it handles .sh and .jar files well - no one said it didn't. .sh files are shell script and may contain a perl command or a python command - but it never contains perl or python code. A shell script can be written in any shell (bash is just one of them) and are basically a set of instructions for the system. The .jar files are java archive files, they're not executables. Very similar to .tar files but they're compressed.

I have to admit, your right on this one... I can't just double click the .jar file, I have to right click and choose run with jvm to get it to execute the commands within. But, we can also put in there the .pl files that vmware is now using, which can be coubleclicked and you get a popup box giving you the option to run or "run in terminal" if you want to see what its doing

Nalian wrote:
That paired with other statements you've made about how things work have led me to the conclusion that, while you may utilize the system, you don't understand the inner workings. I'm not trying to be condescending to you at all - it's just not worth my time to debate you when a lot of your fundamentals are missing, and you don't seem to want to read posts.

What fundamentals are you speaking of? The fact that I can't double click a .jar file. All your trying to do with this statement is get me riled up. I know more than enough of the inner workings of linux, and if you want to bow out thinking I don't, no skin off my back. You have still YET to understand the reason I started this thread or continue this argument.

Nalian wrote: I still stand by my statements that Ubuntu/linux is not ready for someone who doesn't want to learn about their computer system, and just want to use programs and have it fulfill tasks. If someone is curious and willing to learn, then linux/unix is a great OS. That doesn't make it as easy to use as OS X or Windows.

Other than my inline comments:


Your nitpicking. Perl CODE and pythong CODE can and often DOES get used in shell scripting. Thats one of the powers of shell scripting. You set your environment at the beginning of the script, still the same .sh file extension, and still run the same way. Shell scripting is powerfull because of its flexibility.

I can also google OEM windows problems and find thousands of hits of people having problems with windows machines out of the box. That is not a reason for windows to be "not ready for the mainstream" Lets also remember that Message Boards (ubuntuforum.org as you pointed out) are not a good yardstick with which to measure the extent of a problem. People just DON'T go to a message board and say "My DNS Works" or "My Computer is Awesome" with the same frequency as they complain. Millions have downloaded Ubuntu alone, and less than 500 have specifically complained about DNS issue. We can argue back and forth about that all day long and get nowhere. I have NO DNS issues that are a result of Ubuntu, and haven't since I started using it, on ANY machine I have eve built around it.

Edit: I did a quick comparison, if you want to go that route...

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,090,000 for ubuntu 7.10 dns issues with Safesearch on. (0.27 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,430,000 for Windows XP dns issues with Safesearch on. (0.24 seconds)

The FACTS are that I DAILY use linux for the same tasks that the average computer user does. I have, over and over again, provided complete computer newbies with pre-installed linux machines that, to this day, continue to run problem free.

What it really boils down to, is that both you and Jonnythan made comments similar to "Linux is Terrible" or "You can't use linux without the cli" These statements only serve the purpose of convincing someone else to NOT try.

What purpose could it POSSIBLY serve to convince someone to not put a LiveCD in their machine and rebooting? What purpose could it POSSIBLY serve to make statements that would scare someone on the fence? I see no purpose. You guys are STILL missing my point and arguing semantics. The only purpose any of your comments serves is to try to prove to me or the world that Linux is inferior or shouldn't be used by Joe Blow user. My point is that Linux is ready, but not always the right choice, and I would say the same for Windows, its ready, but not always the right choice. Why is that a hard thing to say "I agree" to? Or, at a minimum, say "While I believe windows to be a better option, try linux for yourself?" Whats the real problem here boys?

First of all - I am not a boy. Second of all - I never said any of those things. Read what I said again. Seriously, show me where I said someone shouldn't run it, or that it was terrible? I said I don't feel it's ready for the main stream. If you can't see/understand the difference between "linux is terrible" "you can't use linux without the cli" and "linux isn't ready for main stream" then I do not know what to say to you other than this whole thread has been a colossal waste of time.

I do think that in order to get the benefits of the system, you need to learn about it. If you use Linux and never touch the CLI..it's like using a car and never getting out of first gear. You've lost out on the power of the OS. Can you still use it/will it still do the things for you that you need? Sure, its possible. But a lot of us have a lot greater need of our systems than that. Or hell - we want to make complicated things easy, like resorting data in mere seconds, etc. If you don't understand that (i have no idea if you do) then you haven't really used your OS much at all beyond the surface. And that's fine.

I am not nit picking about shell scripts. Shell scripts do not contain perl or python code. They contain shell code, or system commands. That is a VERY important distinction! In order for a shell script to be run, you have to specify in the start of the script how you want these commands interpreted. If you tried to give perl or python code to bash, the script will fail. You can run commands and they may call upon other code, but they are not the same thing. It's just making a call out to the system and hoping the system knows how to run it. System calls are very different from code.

Compiz, beryl, etc - all stuff that OS X does out of the box, and does very very well. If that's fluff to you, then fine. I'll leave that.

You are correct on how people should try it out - the best way for someone to try out Linux these days either a liveCD or right here: http://www.andlinux.org/ - no muss no fuss. Complete running Ubuntu install on your Windows system as a process. No loss of data, etc. I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on this front.

At the end of the day, the only thing that seems to be a problem here is your inability to believe that other people have had different experiences from you, and other folks feel that Linux is not easy for everyone to use. Jonnythan gave you specific examples of trying to support simple end users on linux and how much more complicated it's been for him than Windows. Given that your entire argument is based off of your personal experience, you either have to accept other's personal experiences, or give up your own argument.

And lastly, for your information, Mark Shuttleworth is in fact a developer and has contributed quite a lot to the codebase that makes up Ubuntu. Now that he is worth billions, he may not contribute to the code - but he knows a heck of a lot more about Ubuntu than you or I could hope to know.

Edited to add: the thing that you don't seem to get is that I want Linux to succeed and be every bit as viable a choice as Windows. I think it is the better OS based on my experiences - but that doesn't make it appropriate or ready. The worst thing that can happen, I think, is that a huge push gets initiated, a bunch of people try out something that isn't ready, hate it, and are now never able to leave that mindset. It is just not there yet. I don't think end users are ready for the hell they'll have to endure trying to work out basic networking issues on their own when they don't even understand what the OS is showing them.

I'm not going to get into comparing the results of network issues - given the coverage windows has to the coverage ubuntu has on desktops..that is not good news for Ubuntu. The % of one used to the other is pretty heavily weighted towards WIndows, and a 400k search difference is pretty negligible.

It's a nice day outside. I think I'll fire up the bike and take it for a spin.

Perhaps the the rest of you could also go take a deep breath of fesh air.

Nalian wrote:First of all - I am not a boy. Second of all - I never said any of those things. Read what I said again. Seriously, show me where I said someone shouldn't run it, or that it was terrible? I said I don't feel it's ready for the main stream. If you can't see/understand the difference between "linux is terrible" "you can't use linux without the cli" and "linux isn't ready for main stream" then I do not know what to say to you other than this whole thread has been a colossal waste of time.

I do think that in order to get the benefits of the system, you need to learn about it. If you use Linux and never touch the CLI..it's like using a car and never getting out of first gear. You've lost out on the power of the OS. Can you still use it/will it still do the things for you that you need? Sure, its possible. But a lot of us have a lot greater need of our systems than that. Or hell - we want to make complicated things easy, like resorting data in mere seconds, etc. If you don't understand that (i have no idea if you do) then you haven't really used your OS much at all beyond the surface. And that's fine.

I am not nit picking about shell scripts. Shell scripts do not contain perl or python code. They contain shell code, or system commands. That is a VERY important distinction! In order for a shell script to be run, you have to specify in the start of the script how you want these commands interpreted. If you tried to give perl or python code to bash, the script will fail. You can run commands and they may call upon other code, but they are not the same thing. It's just making a call out to the system and hoping the system knows how to run it. System calls are very different from code.

Compiz, beryl, etc - all stuff that OS X does out of the box, and does very very well. If that's fluff to you, then fine. I'll leave that.

You are correct on how people should try it out - the best way for someone to try out Linux these days either a liveCD or right here: http://www.andlinux.org/ - no muss no fuss. Complete running Ubuntu install on your Windows system as a process. No loss of data, etc. I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on this front.

At the end of the day, the only thing that seems to be a problem here is your inability to believe that other people have had different experiences from you, and other folks feel that Linux is not easy for everyone to use. Jonnythan gave you specific examples of trying to support simple end users on linux and how much more complicated it's been for him than Windows. Given that your entire argument is based off of your personal experience, you either have to accept other's personal experiences, or give up your own argument.

And lastly, for your information, Mark Shuttleworth is in fact a developer and has contributed quite a lot to the codebase that makes up Ubuntu. Now that he is worth billions, he may not contribute to the code - but he knows a heck of a lot more about Ubuntu than you or I could hope to know.

Edited to add: the thing that you don't seem to get is that I want Linux to succeed and be every bit as viable a choice as Windows. I think it is the better OS based on my experiences - but that doesn't make it appropriate or ready. The worst thing that can happen, I think, is that a huge push gets initiated, a bunch of people try out something that isn't ready, hate it, and are now never able to leave that mindset. It is just not there yet. I don't think end users are ready for the hell they'll have to endure trying to work out basic networking issues on their own when they don't even understand what the OS is showing them.

I'm not going to get into comparing the results of network issues - given the coverage windows has to the coverage ubuntu has on desktops..that is not good news for Ubuntu. The % of one used to the other is pretty heavily weighted towards WIndows, and a 400k search difference is pretty negligible.

Man, you do like to nitpick.

I never called you a boy. I used the term "boys" which is a general statement often used to describe a group of males. Get over it

My search results proved my point exactly. Windows is plagued by the SAME sets of issues that ubuntu is, and then some of its own. The reverse is true. If you honestly measured Windows by the same set of standards that you want to measure ubuntu, neither would be considered "ready for the mainstream". The mainstream you want to use was created by windows, so, despite it being a lions share of the market, isn't really vaid. OSX is as small a player as linux, so to compare its fluffly windows manager features to the average, majority computer user experiance doesn't work.

None of that is really important though.

I think we are actually getting somewhere. Your starting to understand, in part, what I'm getting at, yet, you still managed to do exactly what I object to. You say "I support" and "Not Ready" in the same paragraph. Except, you reasons for not ready are in greater detail and in greater number than your support. That SCARES people off.

If you really want to support linux, then setup machines for people, give them to those people READY TO GO and working. Then, when they have problems, be there to solve them. The windows word has Firedog and GeekSquad, and locally a hilarious group named "Geek-a-byte" to come and fix their problems, of which pop up constantly. Linux doesn't have that same level of support available, and, in my experience, doesn't need it as much due specifically to the almost complete lack of spyware and viruses.

There is one thing I will completely agree with you on. I DO NOT think linux is ready as an OS replacement on a machine that already has windows. I would not feel comfortable with giving someone an ubuntu disk and saying "good luck". Its a new (not worse, not inferior) thing to them, and confusing. There's no quick-start guide in the box. What I DO do, is give them the Ubuntu Disc, my phone number, email address and an offer to help them if they are interested. But what I would NEVER do is say, "Its Great, I support It, but I don't think its ready for you to use".

I think thats as clear as I can be.

blues2cruise wrote:It's a nice day outside. I think I'll fire up the bike and take it for a spin.

Perhaps the the rest of you could also go take a deep breath of fesh air.

I SOOOO Wish I could blues!!! I killed my starter clutch on Sunday, combine that with the 35 degree weather (f) here and I'm a no go!

I'll just say that I ain't never had to compile source code to get sound to work in Windows.

I never had to edit a text configuration file to get video to work in Windows.

I never had to install illegal libraries or emulate a different OS (or buy a whole new computer) to watch a DVD in Windows.

I never had to edit text configuration files or run long commands from a CLI to install additional software in Windows.



But I also don't run Apache, MySQL, BIND, and SFTP on Windows either. Right tool for the job and all, yanno.

Linux is a great desktop OS for people who are really into computers, want maximum control, don't mind a steep learning curve and CLI, etc etc. Windows is a better OS for the vast majority of people.

Given that your system is running programs/services/etc that I've contributed bug fixes, etc, to in the open source community..I think I'm supporting Linux enough.

Now if you'll excuse me girls, I'll check this thread later.