How far will linux go?

[nweaver]

I've done apache and IIS. I MUCH prefer Apache, as the conf files are WAY easier to find/edit then all the millions of property boxes and tabs.

 

[Nothinman]

I just typed out a long rant in response to your this post.

You mean to my post =)

It was supposed to be about Windows being easier to use with it being gui based compared to linux, but it turned out to be its f*cking harder to install/use drivers in linux than windows so now I'm tired

Odd, I find running module-assistant much easier than finding, downloading, extracting and installing drivers in Windows. And even so I only have 1 non-standard driver on this machine and 2 on my laptop. If I were running Windows I would have had to find, download, extract and install at least a half-dozen drivers before everything worked.

Anywho, the main reason Windows' GUI is easier to use is because you don't have to remember any commands

But you still have to remember locations and MS moves half of the things around with every release so you end up relearning them anyway. It may take a few more times to remember 'ipconfig /renew' but it's also worked for like 10 years.

 

[smack Down]

You shouldn't have to install drivers. Period. That's either a distro failing, or a crappy hardware vendor.

I think the word your looking for is reality. There is no reason a user shouldn't be able to download a driver or get one on a disk and install it as easly as in windows.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
neotrace isn't on my system, is it part of the base install?

ping is important because when those average users need help with their new home network they might just be directed to using it. 😉

With Windows? Course not. Its just what I'm personally use.

Fine, I won't even debate whether ping is critical. Its still much more annoying that important things can't be done in linux with a mouse click.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
You shouldn't have to install drivers. Period. That's either a distro failing, or a crappy hardware vendor.

And then what if a new product comes out and they make drivers for linux and windows? Or if you're upgrading drivers? Sh*t happens any way you look at it, but when it comes down to it, its much easier to use drivers in linux than windows if you're forced to somehow.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It's easier to remember several mouse commands than one cli command?

Yeah, especially when there's a ton of commands. =\

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: smack Down

You shouldn't have to install drivers. Period. That's either a distro failing, or a crappy hardware vendor.

I think the word your looking for is reality. There is no reason a user shouldn't be able to download a driver or get one on a disk and install it as easly as in windows.

No, I mean someone screwed up if the driver isn't there. A user shouldn't have to install a driver. On my OS of choice, I don't EVER have to install a driver.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
With Windows? Course not. Its just what I'm personally use.

Fine, I won't even debate whether ping is critical. Its still much more annoying that important things can't be done in linux with a mouse click.

To each their own. I couldn't imagine how half of the things I do in Linux would look in a gui. It'd be crazy complicated.

And then what if a new product comes out and they make drivers for linux and windows? Or if you're upgrading drivers? Sh*t happens any way you look at it, but when it comes down to it, its much easier to use drivers in linux than windows if you're forced to somehow.

If you get something that doesn't have a device driver, of course you're going to have to install it. Chances are though, with Linux those drivers should come with an update of the OS.

I've _never_ had to install a driver in OpenBSD. Never. 😉

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Haven't used OSX, but how could you say that for Microsoft Windows?

It's true you don't have to use the cli for much in Windows, but that doesn't make the system any easier. Options are buried, wizards overwrite settings you may have changed elsewhere, the registry is less understandable than even the worst config file on unix, the rescue options are practically worthless, etc.

There is a big difference between "not having much use for a CLI" vs. "not finding a use for a useless CLI"

Windows has a useless CLI for the most part. It has some small system utilities and you'd have to use the recovery console to fix a fubar'd Windows system, but that's about all the use I can find for one.

A unix shell is a great thing. It's a highly evolved and increadably powerfull way to communicate with a computer and do simple programming tasks. Things that take a normal person thousands of lines of code of GUI programs can be taken care of by a few lines of a shell script. This is because when your designing a GUI application all of it's limit's a built-in. If the original system programmer doesn't think of it and make allowances for a paticular task then that GUI app is probably useless for that task. A GUI is inflexible. With a good shell you can be creative and solve your own problems your own way and they usually work out better. A shell script or a perl or python program is a very powerfull and usefull thing. They've been used for everything to websites to computer graphics to custom mp3 rippers/encoders/players.

The holy grail as far as I am consurned is a powerfull interface that combines the best aspects to command line and GUI systems instead of treating them as seperate things. Both the modern Linux GUI enviroment and OS X attempts to strike a good balance in their paticular ways, and eventually Microsoft may choose to release monad for whatever comes after longhorn.

 

[MBrown]

So will suse 10 be easier to use than ubuntu? suse 10 is suppose to come with lots of things preinstalled like realplayer 10 and other stuff. And I also heard that flashplayer installs just with the firefox installer even with the 64bit version. Anybody heard anything on this?

Edit:You can look here.

 

[Nothinman]

Geez, just download it and see for yourself already. They make a live CD so that you can give it a roll without paying for anything. Ease of use is a preferance, what you find easy might not be the same as what I find easy.

 

[MBrown]

just asking a question dude.

 

[Nothinman]

I know, but in the time you've been asking you could have already downloaded the ISO and decided whether you like it or not.

 

[Seeruk]

Mandriva if you hardly ever want to use the CLI (But ya have to pay for it and it's pretty bloated)

SUSE 10 almost as little CLI but even more bloated (but free'ish)

Simply Mepis I only played with briefly but also seemed a straightforward system.

All these have the very problems that Noc our resident *nix zealot has complained abount in windows - an over-abundance of GUI's for configurations that overwrite all kind sof important settings and the rest of the time they are busy NOT overwriting them when they should!

Personal preference for the balance between bloated and ease of use is Ubuntu/Debian. Even if you are required to use CLI for any of these it doesnt really matter as there are so many great guides and scripts around for both of them.

But yeah its mostly down to the desktops used and how they are implemented:

-KDE makes me wanna puke with its crapness 🙂 but is generally the most integrated.

-Gnome is a great desktop but usually poorly integrated by the various distros.

-E17 is an awesome desktop but is so early in development there really isnt any integration at all!

 

[MBrown]

^well I dont want to download a beta version because it will most likely have holes in it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: MBrown
^well I dont want to download a beta version because it will most likely have holes in it.

Everything has holes in it.

 

[MBrown]

Betas have more than the full product.