Linux for Beginner?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, my Linux experience has not been brilliant I must say. After all the dreaded warnings here and elsewhere about what will happen to XP as soon as support stopped in April, I did my research as carefully as I could and settled on trying out Linux Mint as a replacement OS. On fitting a new hard drive to my system I first installed XP (with all it's updates) and then installed Mint from the downloaded .iso file. The system worked and when instructed to do so installed itself as a dual boot system (using "grub"?). It immediately found my internet connection and updated itself to its latet version. So far so good. I soon found the equivalents of Office which were happy with my old windoze data files but then I attempted to install a driver for my Canon printer. There are two linux versions available, but neither would install. Of all daft things I then decided to install my desktop picture - one I obtained from the flightdeck of an A320 at FL330 heading north over Italy with lots of towering Cu below - you know the sort of thing. Although I managed to do this, it was impossible for me to find the hidden folder in which the file should be copied so it would appear at startup. No, all I got was a blank screen. To get the required image I had to tell it what to use and then it required a password to access the disk partition on which the file was located. This was taking too long - and I didn't have a printer anyway so after a couple of attempts I gave it up as a bad job and have now acquired a license for Win7 so I will be able to use its XP facility to run all my ancient software.
P.P.
P.P.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it is a different OS so things will be done differently to Windows and there will be a learning curve so some patience is required and persistence.
But.... its not exactly Windows or Mac OS X is it ?
Linux desktops are still very much Linux with a desktop bolted on as a bit of an afterthought. And that is not going to change any time soon because of the way linux works... GNOME (or whatever your choice of desktop environment) are all maintained, designed and coded separately from the main project and then provided/added to the repository as an optional package.
I'll grant you that the "experience" has gotten better over the years, but it's still light years away from the sort of experience you get from a Desktop OS that has been designed, coded and maintained from the ground up as a Desktop product.
Realistically, there is very little chance indeed of Linux Desktops becoming as good as Mac OS X (which is indeed BSD with an Apple developed desktop on top), because the joined-up thinking and development simply does't exist, and given the politics and development style of Linux, will never exist.
I don't blame P.Pilcher one bit for his decision.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh gawd, you really can't help yourself can you Mixture?
What difference does it make that the whether the GUI sits atop a command line or not?
Heavily compartmentalised software development with different teams of developers developing different packaged products and all operating independently (since the various Linux packages are all independent projects) with no central management or project management structure is not exactly the recipe for building a coherent desktop operating system that the average non-technical user will find usable.
As they say .... you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.
That's exactly the case with Linux desktops. Sure you can make the GUI all fancy pretty.... but if your development style is to wash your hands of what's going on in the backend then you're never going to be able to deliver a final product that's anywhere near as integrated as Windows or OS X.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northants
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you know exactly what difference it makes in the world of software development.
Heavily compartmentalised software development with different teams of developers developing different packaged products and all operating independently (since the various Linux packages are all independent projects) with no central management or project management structure is not exactly the recipe for building a coherent desktop operating system that the average non-technical user will find usable.
As they say .... you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.
That's exactly the case with Linux desktops. Sure you can make the GUI all fancy pretty.... but if your development style is to wash your hands of what's going on in the backend then you're never going to be able to deliver a final product that's anywhere near as integrated as Windows or OS X.
Heavily compartmentalised software development with different teams of developers developing different packaged products and all operating independently (since the various Linux packages are all independent projects) with no central management or project management structure is not exactly the recipe for building a coherent desktop operating system that the average non-technical user will find usable.
As they say .... you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.
That's exactly the case with Linux desktops. Sure you can make the GUI all fancy pretty.... but if your development style is to wash your hands of what's going on in the backend then you're never going to be able to deliver a final product that's anywhere near as integrated as Windows or OS X.
You do remember Windows was born as nothing more than an 'addon' to DOS right?
I wouldn't go as far as to say that linux on the desktop is a 'polished turd'. It has come a very long way in the past few years. - Considering it is free and open source I don't think there is any room for complaint. It is ideal for what the OP is asking for here. You've got a very secure, solid system with free security updates. - The latest version of Ubuntu or Fedora will work with pretty much anything out of the box. You can have just as much trouble getting your old crusty printer or temperamental wifi connection working in windows 8 (and 7!) - It is definitely no more difficult to learn to use than making the transition from Win to OSX for the non teccys. (Or indeed the transition from Win7 to the farse that is Windows 8)
Also, have you heard of Android? - That seems to work alright for just a few non-technical users.
The whole point of Linux is that it's open. We don't want an integrated desktop from the ground up. We want choice. This is why it exists as it does today.
Last edited by Ampage; 17th Jun 2014 at 16:14.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do remember Windows was born as nothing more than an 'addon' to DOS right?
It really is not the case with Linux, every single bit of a Linux distro ranging from the Kernel upwards is a series of independently developed and maintained packages coded with different people with different coding styles, ideologies etc.
All the Linux distro disk does is say ... 'here you go.... one disk that will install Linux kernel and a bunch of CLI/GUI tools for you without you having to spend your time going out collecting them all and compiling them yourself'.... kde/gnome or whatever desktop they choose to bundle is just a.n. other package sourced from elsewhere that they've just added some fancy graphics to in order to make it look pretty.
Also, have you heard of Android? - That seems to work alright for just a few non-technical users.
You can't compare it to a Linux Distro' which is basically a bundle of Linux software readily available elsewhere and the only real difference between "desktop" Linux distros being the degree to which they try to make the GUI look all fancy.
The GUI in a linux distro still remains independently developed and that is why the degree to which it does/does not tie in to the backend remains patchy and at times painful and scares the average user off because they need to resort to CLI for this or that.
I've used Ubuntu 14 Desktop, its nowhere near where OS X or Windows is today, it lags behind.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezuz. The old linux v ms v apple debate again!
The best OS is the one you favour. For general use they are all the same. They all have firefox and or chrome. They all have email clients. They all have word processors and spreadsheets. A vanilla install for a non technical user they are all the same. If you have not used one, you will struggle with the other. If you use it for long enough you will learn to understand it.
My advice is always to stick with what you are familiar with. If you want to learn and experiment, then sure, have a crack at another OS. IF you are time poor and not willing to learn, they just stick with what you have. Simple hey?
As for which one is better, well thats all very subjective these days. I use linux, windows and osx. I personally know windows better so I prefer it. But osx and linux are similar (UI exluded) so the transition is easier.
The best OS is the one you favour. For general use they are all the same. They all have firefox and or chrome. They all have email clients. They all have word processors and spreadsheets. A vanilla install for a non technical user they are all the same. If you have not used one, you will struggle with the other. If you use it for long enough you will learn to understand it.
My advice is always to stick with what you are familiar with. If you want to learn and experiment, then sure, have a crack at another OS. IF you are time poor and not willing to learn, they just stick with what you have. Simple hey?
As for which one is better, well thats all very subjective these days. I use linux, windows and osx. I personally know windows better so I prefer it. But osx and linux are similar (UI exluded) so the transition is easier.
