Poll: As a typical desktop computer user, have you ever considered Linux to be your main OS?

[Charles]

For me, not for now but probably yes for the future.
My reason:[*]Linux is a very good and stable OS, but still cannot match Microsoft's Windows GUI and user friendliness.
[*]Linux is harder to deploy compared with Microsoft Windows even for power users. It took me more than 1 hour to install graphic card drivers in Linux, but in Windows it took me only few seconds to 'follow instructions on the screen' to install any device drivers.

I will consider to use Linux as my main OS only after:[*]Most general or advanced settings, options or configurations can be configured directly from the GUI.[*]Natively support multi language
[*]Many softwares can be installed without typing commands in the command prompt. [*]Good multimedia supports (Digital camera, Webcam, DV camera, DVD, etc)[*]Have good support of my favorite 'Win32' games

 

[PliotronX]

My limited experience has been a tossup pretty much, KDE basically froze on me a few times, and it utilized my cable modem slower than dial-up, 2D rendering is very slow (compared to Windows), but Linux is all about the tweakage and behind the purdy GUIs, so I could care less. But what is keeping me from just completely switching from Win2k to Linux as my main OS, is the game support. As long as CS, UT, and many other 3D games won't run under Linux, it just can't be my main OS. I love playing with Linux though, it makes me feel like a little kid in a toystore.

 

[JuryDuty]

I tried Linux and Star Office out for a while as a dual-boot, but eventually left it as I just didn't find it as user friendly. I'd try it again though at a later date. It becomes better all the time, so who knows? But for now, I have to stick with WindowsXP.

 

[IamDavid]

I ran both Mandrake and RedHat for a while. Found Mandrake to be bloated and sluggish. Red Hat was better but it seemed kinda pointless to use instead of Win2K. Both versions had no problems with any of my hardware and setup was a breeze.

 

[Charles]

BeOS has stopped developing their potential OS, why don't they help the open source world to develop GUI for Linux? (Note: I think BeOS's GUI is great and very user's friendly.)

It will be wonderful if Apple shares some of their MacOS X's code to Linux. So these guys will actually push Linux to desktop computing.

 

[Shudder]

Charles: Why would apple give anyone a reason to not buy their proprietary hardware?

I thought you could play CS, Quakes, and UT under Linux, but I haven't tried.

THings ARE a bit easier. All the library BS is damn confusing at first. For now, I'm all about wasting the extra space for static libs just so I can compile programs correctly (an option of course.. static and dynamic libs)

I can't get OGL to work at all.. Programs load then die with no messages and I have NO idea why.

But I finally realized what a POS KDE has become (sad, since I did love it back in the 1.4 era.. KDE2 has become junk) and went to Gnome.. now everything works more like what I expect it to. I just wish I could use all my programs on Linux, but I'll get by. I wouldn't mind using my AcidMusic, but in all seriousness I may have to give VMWare a try and see if that accomplishes the task.. it's not THAT demanding a program (runs very well on a P233)

I don't play games much anymore so I don't mind not using 2k as much. If I get into the mood to actually play something, the extra 2 minutes it'll take to reboot and load up won't kill me.

 

[MGMorden]

I did use Linux as my main/only desktop os for a little over a month once. I eventually reinstalled Win2k because Linux desktop have quicktime (and IGN.com has a habit of making all their preview clips quicktime). I still have both installed on my machine and use both quite a bit. Over the summer though I'll admit I've been using Win2k more (at school I'm a CS major so I end up using it a lot for programming).

 

[Priit]

I have used linux as my main OS over 2 years for now and I can't even imagine myself using M$Windoze any more: that damn thing is SO clumsy It's really a question of habits and perferences: I can install linux with less than a hour and get everything working (graphics, sndcard, network etc.) only with 1-3 restarts. Oh, and CLI is most user-friendly and effective part of any Unix-like OS, it just wants a little knowledgle...

 

[smp]

I would.. if I was more profficient.

 

[ProviaFan]

Linux is mostly there, in terms of easiness to use, with the excellent KDE desktop (I've used KDE 2.1, and it's really nice; lots of eye candy, too ). The main problem is that I HAVE to use M$ FrontPage 2000 for certain things. The reason I can't switch is that the other members of the organization are using Windows, and are either nowhere near knowledgeable to use Linux, or they just like M$ products, and don't want to switch.

Edit: fixed formatting error

 

[Quaggoth]

Yes

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< BeOS has stopped developing their potential OS, why don't they help the open source world to develop GUI for Linux? (Note: I think BeOS's GUI is great and very user's friendly.)

It will be wonderful if Apple shares some of their MacOS X's code to Linux. So these guys will actually push Linux to desktop computing. >>



Why would apple do this? Darwin (the operating system known as Mac OS X - aqua and other mac goodies) is Open Source. Darwin runs on x86 as well as PPC. Now, why would they help linux? They took BSD code, made a BSD operating system, accepted BSD utilities (including open ports project), so they could turn around and throw linux table scraps? Does not make sense... But they are helping out the BSDs so it's all good

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< I have used linux as my main OS over 2 years for now and I can't even imagine myself using M$Windoze any more: that damn thing is SO clumsy It's really a question of habits and perferences: I can install linux with less than a hour and get everything working (graphics, sndcard, network etc.) only with 1-3 restarts. Oh, and CLI is most user-friendly and effective part of any Unix-like OS, it just wants a little knowledgle... >>



That is under an hour before patching, tweaking, and getting all the prefrences perfect right? I can install OpenBSD in 20min easy, but to patch, install other apps, and get all my nit picky little things that have to be perfect or I bust someone's head open right takes me quite a while... (recompile the WHOLE system not just a new kernel, usually 2-3 kernels while testing, install blackbox, install this app and that app and alias this command to that command with these flags, etc)

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< For me, not for now but probably yes for the future.
My reason:[*]Linux is a very good and stable OS, but still cannot match Microsoft's Windows GUI and user friendliness.
[*]Linux is harder to deploy compared with Microsoft Windows even for power users. It took me more than 1 hour to install graphic card drivers in Linux, but in Windows it took me only few seconds to 'follow instructions on the screen' to install any device drivers.

I will consider to use Linux as my main OS only after:[*]Most general or advanced settings, options or configurations can be configured directly from the GUI.[*]Natively support multi language
[*]Many softwares can be installed without typing commands in the command prompt. [*]Good multimedia supports (Digital camera, Webcam, DV camera, DVD, etc)[*]Have good support of my favorite 'Win32' games >>



Want do change settings from the GUI? xterm, rxvt, eterm, aterm, etc. Why do people want to get rid of the most important and powerful part of the OS? When I use windows for anything serious (I dont have a choice, I have to on occassion) I use the DOS prompt. It is easier, faster, more powerful, and I have more control. And dmanit, it just makes more sense.

Linux is userfriendly if you dont mind RTFMing once ina while and taking the time to look around. I hate gnome and I hate kde. But that is based on the fact they do not work for me. I use blackbox. It is smaller, faster, doesnt have all the crap KDE and Gnome have, and it makes sense to me. I do not mean that the others are bad, I just use something different based on personal prefrence. What is the deal with the start button? Why does almost every gui imitate it? It is in a horrible spot on the screen and is horrible since you have to go ~3 layers deep to find something useful. I like being able to middle or left click on the desktop and get different menus for different configuration settings. Just easier for me. But I mostly use X for netscape and multiple Xterms on one page

 

[Chaotic42]

<< For me, not for now but probably yes for the future.
My reason:[*]Linux is a very good and stable OS, but still cannot match Microsoft's Windows GUI and user friendliness. >>



I personally think that Gnome looks *so* much better than any Windows desktop
I've ever seen. The GUI is pretty user friendly. Everything makes sense. It might
not be tweaked for grandma yet, but it's close. I use XFree86 4.0, Gnome, GTK, and
sawfish, btw.



<<
[*]Linux is harder to deploy compared with Microsoft Windows even for power users. It took me more than 1 hour to install graphic card drivers in Linux, but in Windows it took me only few seconds to 'follow instructions on the screen' to install any device drivers. >>



I personally had no real problems. My hardware isn't bleeding (or cutting) edge
though. Installation appears to be luck of the draw, given some of the stories
I've heard.



<<
I will consider to use Linux as my main OS only after:[*]Most general or advanced settings, options or configurations can be configured directly from the GUI.[*]Natively support multi language
[*]Many softwares can be installed without typing commands in the command prompt. [*]Good multimedia supports (Digital camera, Webcam, DV camera, DVD, etc)[*]Have good support of my favorite 'Win32' games >>



Those are all very fair, good reasons. We're working on them : ).

I personally use Debian GNU/Linux as my main desktop. It does everything I need
except for playing some games, and Bryce 4.

 

[Chaotic42]

<<

Want do change settings from the GUI? xterm, rxvt, eterm, aterm, etc. Why do people want to get rid of the most important and powerful part of the OS? When I use windows for anything serious (I dont have a choice, I have to on occassion) I use the DOS prompt. It is easier, faster, more powerful, and I have more control. And dmanit, it just makes more sense. >>



Charles didn't say that. xterm, etc are all still command prompts, just inside
of a window. I believe Charles is talking about opening a folder on a cd and
clicking the install icon, and it being 100% non-command prompt. I don't think
anyone wants to get rid of the command prompt. It would be too much work anyway.



<<
Linux is userfriendly if you dont mind RTFMing once ina while and taking the time to look around.
>>



This is equivalent to car mechanics saying that replacing the transmission on
a car is easy. Sure, if I wanted to take the time to figure out how to do it,
I probably could. I'm not interested in that though. Computers are tools, just like
cars and airplanes. They can also be hobbies. IMO, you shouldn't have to RTFM
constantly to use the computer. It should just make sense, and be laid out logically.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<<

Want do change settings from the GUI? xterm, rxvt, eterm, aterm, etc. Why do people want to get rid of the most important and powerful part of the OS? When I use windows for anything serious (I dont have a choice, I have to on occassion) I use the DOS prompt. It is easier, faster, more powerful, and I have more control. And dmanit, it just makes more sense. >>



Charles didn't say that. xterm, etc are all still command prompts, just inside
of a window. I believe Charles is talking about opening a folder on a cd and
clicking the install icon, and it being 100% non-command prompt. I don't think
anyone wants to get rid of the command prompt. It would be too much work anyway.



<<
Linux is userfriendly if you dont mind RTFMing once ina while and taking the time to look around.
>>



This is equivalent to car mechanics saying that replacing the transmission on
a car is easy. Sure, if I wanted to take the time to figure out how to do it,
I probably could. I'm not interested in that though. Computers are tools, just like
cars and airplanes. They can also be hobbies. IMO, you shouldn't have to RTFM
constantly to use the computer. It should just make sense, and be laid out logically. >>



Well then I have some kernel level programming questions for you. I am sorry Mr. Bossman, I cannot do that report for you. I would have to look up some information and do a little research. I will ask some people who are good with these things and maybe they can do it for you. No, I wont read the instruction manual how to fly this plane, it should be logical and easy, Ill figure it out by the time we reach 10k feet.

Computers are tools and to properly use a tool you may have to read a bit. If learning isnt your strong point that is fine. Dont use something you dont already know to use. Ill take fries. Learning is half the fun. If you want to use the OS shouldnt you learn how to use it? And sometimes the best damn way is to work at it, read a little bit. If you then dont understand what you read or the results of your experimentaion ask someone. Say, I did all this stuff like this and this is what happened. I think I did something wrong here, but Im not sure.

And as far as GUIs doing everything on the OS. Why? What is the point? In OpenBSD I can run one command to change my ip address without rebooting: ifconfig dc0 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0 media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex

I dont have to go through a dozen GUI screens to change it, it is logical, it makes sense, and it is easy to use. Get over the &quot;It should be simple enough for my labotimized cat to use&quot; kick and read a friggin manual.

 

[wyvrn]

I think one of the problems with Linux is all of the choices. There are so many distributions, and choices within each about how to tweak this or that. While this may be a techie's dream, it will do nothing more than confuse and frustrate the average user. Linux is not meant for everyone. So what if Windows costs an extra $90 at the checkout line on a $1200 computer? If it makes computing easier, people will buy it. And compatibility is a big problem, which is one of the same reasons Macs never took off. Until recently, you could not type up a doc in a pc and transfer it to a mac, same with Linux (yes staroffice has gotten better but still not perfect). What most people want their computers for is office stuff (work at home), email, web, games, and other basic tasks. Until Linux offers the same level of standardization and ease of use as Windows, it will not overtake it in the desktop OS market.

That being said, I finally ordered my linux box and am going to try Mandrake this weekend. I will still use my Windows laptop for some stuff but hopefully I will use Linux most of the time. But I am not an average user either.

 

[Chaotic42]

<<
Well then I have some kernel level programming questions for you. I am sorry Mr. Bossman, I cannot do that report for you. I would have to look up some information and do a little research. I will ask some people who are good with these things and maybe they can do it for you.
>>



Um... what? If you are a computer specialist, like a programmer or something,
then you should obviously know what's going on.



<<
No, I wont read the instruction manual how to fly this plane, it should be logical and easy, Ill figure it out by the time we reach 10k feet.
>>



This is just, well, stupid. If you don't know how to fly an airplane, people
can die. If you can't compile a kernel, they can't. I hope you aren't serious, that
was a *stupid* argument.



<<
Computers are tools and to properly use a tool you may have to read a bit. If learning isnt your strong point that is fine. Dont use something you dont already know to use. Ill take fries. Learning is half the fun. If you want to use the OS shouldnt you learn how to use it? And sometimes the best damn way is to work at it, read a little bit. If you then dont understand what you read or the results of your experimentaion ask someone. Say, I did all this stuff like this and this is what happened. I think I did something wrong here, but Im not sure.
>>



So in order to use the television, I should have to be able to take it apart and
solder resistors in and crap to be able to watch it and change channels? WTF?

Yes, if you are in the computing field, you should be able to do your job. What
about a secretary though? Does he/she *really* need to be able to set up
Postfix before he/she can use inter-office email?


<<
And as far as GUIs doing everything on the OS. Why? What is the point? In OpenBSD I can run one command to change my ip address without rebooting: ifconfig dc0 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0 media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex
>>



But my dad can't. He shouldn't be able to use a network then, eh? Not everyone
has the time to learn how to do low level stuff. Plus, people like to be able to
point and click.



<<
I dont have to go through a dozen GUI screens to change it, it is logical, it makes sense, and it is easy to use.
>>



Then use it man. Damn, I'm not trying to destroy CLI. I'm just saying that
you shouldn't *have* to be a computer geek to use a computer.



<<
Get over the &quot;It should be simple enough for my labotimized cat to use&quot; kick and read a friggin manual. >>



Shows what you know..... I don't have a cat.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<<
Well then I have some kernel level programming questions for you. I am sorry Mr. Bossman, I cannot do that report for you. I would have to look up some information and do a little research. I will ask some people who are good with these things and maybe they can do it for you.
>>



Um... what? If you are a computer specialist, like a programmer or something,
then you should obviously know what's going on.



<<
No, I wont read the instruction manual how to fly this plane, it should be logical and easy, Ill figure it out by the time we reach 10k feet.
>>



This is just, well, stupid. If you don't know how to fly an airplane, people
can die. If you can't compile a kernel, they can't. I hope you aren't serious, that
was a *stupid* argument.



<<
Computers are tools and to properly use a tool you may have to read a bit. If learning isnt your strong point that is fine. Dont use something you dont already know to use. Ill take fries. Learning is half the fun. If you want to use the OS shouldnt you learn how to use it? And sometimes the best damn way is to work at it, read a little bit. If you then dont understand what you read or the results of your experimentaion ask someone. Say, I did all this stuff like this and this is what happened. I think I did something wrong here, but Im not sure.
>>



So in order to use the television, I should have to be able to take it apart and
solder resistors in and crap to be able to watch it and change channels? WTF?

Yes, if you are in the computing field, you should be able to do your job. What
about a secretary though? Does he/she *really* need to be able to set up
Postfix before he/she can use inter-office email?


<<
And as far as GUIs doing everything on the OS. Why? What is the point? In OpenBSD I can run one command to change my ip address without rebooting: ifconfig dc0 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0 media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex
>>



But my dad can't. He shouldn't be able to use a network then, eh? Not everyone
has the time to learn how to do low level stuff. Plus, people like to be able to
point and click.



<<
I dont have to go through a dozen GUI screens to change it, it is logical, it makes sense, and it is easy to use.
>>



Then use it man. Damn, I'm not trying to destroy CLI. I'm just saying that
you shouldn't *have* to be a computer geek to use a computer.



<<
Get over the &quot;It should be simple enough for my labotimized cat to use&quot; kick and read a friggin manual. >>



Shows what you know..... I don't have a cat. >>



Well get one
And yes, I realize my examples were far out and stupid for the most part. The point is, if people dont want to read and understand and LEARN, they should not install linux. Your dad should not use linux. The secretary should not have to set up the computer at work, that is the job of the IT dept. And what the hell would she need postfix on her machine for? qmail is better

My point is people who decide to use the system should be willing to learn how to use it. Linux is not right for everyone. It is right (or the BSDs or whatnot) for those who want to learn how to use it. The people who are not willing to do 5 minutes of research should not touch the system.

 

[Chaotic42]

<<
Well get one
And yes, I realize my examples were far out and stupid for the most part. The point is, if people dont want to read and understand and LEARN, they should not install linux. Your dad should not use linux. The secretary should not have to set up the computer at work, that is the job of the IT dept. And what the hell would she need postfix on her machine for? qmail is better
>>



Hey, Postfix is cool!

Well, the reason that I'm saying that Linux should be so user friendly is that
it's stable, and fairly fast. Windows is buggy, and annoyingly slow. It's just
personal opinion, but I think that grandma and the secretaries are ready for
the next level of ease-of-use. Fast, stable, and pretty. It could be HomeLinux
or something like that.



<<
My point is people who decide to use the system should be willing to learn how to use it. Linux is not right for everyone. It is right (or the BSDs or whatnot) for those who want to learn how to use it. The people who are not willing to do 5 minutes of research should not touch the system. >>



I feel the same way somewhat. These 31337 kiddies who want to be cool hax0rs
and not ever know what a man (or info) page is bother me. If you're going to be
a hobbist, then you'd better be ready to get dirty.

But I still think that mom and dad should have an alternative to Windows. It
could be made better.

Anyway, I hope I didn't come across as pissed or anything. I don't like making
enemies, especially by accident...

Later

PS I did have a cat (a kitten), but she was *way* too hyper. She liked to jump
over the couch. I don't know how she could jump that far and high, but she did.
We gave her to a sweet family from an upper-class neighborhood. I'll probably
adopt another one when I get married....

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<<
Well get one
And yes, I realize my examples were far out and stupid for the most part. The point is, if people dont want to read and understand and LEARN, they should not install linux. Your dad should not use linux. The secretary should not have to set up the computer at work, that is the job of the IT dept. And what the hell would she need postfix on her machine for? qmail is better
>>



Hey, Postfix is cool!

Well, the reason that I'm saying that Linux should be so user friendly is that
it's stable, and fairly fast. Windows is buggy, and annoyingly slow. It's just
personal opinion, but I think that grandma and the secretaries are ready for
the next level of ease-of-use. Fast, stable, and pretty. It could be HomeLinux
or something like that.



<<
My point is people who decide to use the system should be willing to learn how to use it. Linux is not right for everyone. It is right (or the BSDs or whatnot) for those who want to learn how to use it. The people who are not willing to do 5 minutes of research should not touch the system. >>



I feel the same way somewhat. These 31337 kiddies who want to be cool hax0rs
and not ever know what a man (or info) page is bother me. If you're going to be
a hobbist, then you'd better be ready to get dirty.

But I still think that mom and dad should have an alternative to Windows. It
could be made better.

Anyway, I hope I didn't come across as pissed or anything. I don't like making
enemies, especially by accident...

Later

PS I did have a cat (a kitten), but she was *way* too hyper. She liked to jump
over the couch. I don't know how she could jump that far and high, but she did.
We gave her to a sweet family from an upper-class neighborhood. I'll probably
adopt another one when I get married.... >>



Cat's kick ass.
There are alternatives to windows and linux that are easy to use, fast, stable, but they have a similar problem to linux. Lack of software. BeOS could have been HUGE, but Be isnt interrested in being big. Mac OS 9 and lower are VERY easy, fairly stable, very secure, and have a decent amount of programs. Mac OS X is pretty, but I think it will be tougher for the Mac people to learn (I still want to have a Mac because of it).

The first command EVERYONE should learn when using linux/BSD/solaris/any other UNIX or UNIX-like OS is &quot;man&quot;. info is a horrible program in my opinion and it has never helped me a bit. Next the newbies need to learn how to search for answers. google.com, google.com/bsd, linuxdoc.org, search newsgroups, search mailing lists. Most of the time the questions people have have been asked before. Most people just post without reading first.

No enemies here, just an different point of view.

 

[Relayer]

<< Poll: As a typical desktop computer user, have you ever considered Linux to be your main OS? >>



no

 

[y2kc]

Not as my main OS, never. As a firewall web/file/ftp server, yes, but only to gain the skills for possible future work opportunities.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Not as my main OS, never. As a firewall web/file/ftp server, yes, but only to gain the skills for possible future work opportunities. >>



You do mean using different machines for each service right? Please say yes