> it is not easy to learn. (apt get? Why not create a simple GUI for
> it that's accessible from the menus?)

there are two: add/remove under the applications menu


> - An OS that installs applications but doesn't create menu entries
> for them is not easy to learn. (Edit menus? Seriously?!?!?)

OS's don't install apps users do. Had that issue under windows on
family machines but never on Ubuntu to this point.

> - An OS that doesn't understand common accented characters (è, é, ê)
> and even refuses to load files (claims the files don't exist!) with
> such characters in the file name is not easy to learn.

works here

> - An OS with inconsistent mouse action responses (no right click
> drag'n'drop) is not easy to learn. (if I can't do a right mouse
> drag'n'drop in Nautilus, why would I assume there are other
> right-mouse options available?)

no issues for me

> - An OS that requires manually editing config files to permanently
> mount network drives is not easy to learn. (temporary drive
> connections are simple to do through the GUI - why not add a simple
> check box to make a mount permanent?)

that one could be suggested if its not available through a package
already.

> - An OS that claims to be able to run on older hardware that requires
> a manual compilation of video drivers for a Sony laptop to be able to
> run main-stream applications like Google Earth is not easy to learn.

sony. remember that they are the root of proprietary crap. rootkit
anyone? oh the bluray spec that potentially makes it impossible to run
your disc on two players and already prevents it from being played on a
machine that does not support drm.

most things that can be done on the cli can be done on the gui but with
experience the latter is just quicker for many of them. It is easier
than microsoft imo. 3 min and no install of software for my laptop and
my son's and 45 min to get the same brother printer running from my
wife's windows laptop.

its not windows and that imo is a good thing and even better that its
not apple.

Having expressed some sympathy with your previous criticisms, I have to
retract here. Many of the issues you raise just aren't issues anymore -
such as the gui package manager, or the appearance of newly installed
apps on menus. Not using an old version are you?

As for Sony compatibility, I swore off that company after 3 audio
machines in succession failed as soon as they were out of guarantee. But
I've heard very often of how Sony prevents its computer customers from
doing what they want with the hardware they've paid for, it doesn't
surprise me. Your irritation should be with Sony not with Ubuntu.

I just pulled the Vi$ta - Ubuntu switch last week (Virus -Trojan -
rootkit Problems)and I'm not having near the learning curve I had as
little as four years ago. Everything works fine on my year-old Dell,
and as far as installing software, "Add/Remove Software" at the bottom
of the Applications Menu Saved me a boatload of time over Vi$ta's
process "find the CD/Download site, tell the frikin system a billion
times that 'Yes I'm sure', install (finally) method. Add/Remove is
especially sweet if you switch to "all available software" (see my chm
message). I had tried the early Fedora Core and Ubuntu systems, (In
fact I've been messing with Linux for about ten years now) and though
my head may still be in Windows world I'm not sorry I left (see first
parenthesis!) Yes, the command line is intimidating to those of us
used to the back flips, twists, and hooha of th gui, but doesn't it
make more sense to actually Tell the computer what to do than "click
on this, then this, then this" of the gui? Of course, I think the
commands could be made less arcane too,but still the learning curve
is a whole lot shallower than it was.

You obviously got off on the wrong foot. Unfortunately for you, you got some bad
advice or made some false assumptions about Linux.

You never HAVE to touch the commandline. The latest HP mini actually prevents
users from using it. I personally do not use it unless I want to, which is
seldom. It is my tool of last resort.

There are several GUI apps for installing applications, Synaptic, Kpackage, and
Adept. At least two come pre-installed, Adept is the little updater in the
toolbar and also the Add/Remove... in the menu. Synaptic is found in the System
| Administration menu. Windows comes with NO package manager and lets the
developer use the installer of his choice, making things sloppy in the extreme.
Most don't do a proper job of creating icons in the appropriate place and are
worse at cleaning up after themselves, leaving traces in your file system and in
the registry that slow your system down.

Ubuntu's repositories have between 24000 and 35,000 packages, depending on what
repos you have listed. These are all maintained and updated. They are 100%
virus, trojan and malware free. You can use them without any fear that you will
be compromising your computer security. You can install anything from source
code, but you should not have to. There are advantages to do it, but it is not
worth the trouble for most users. The repositories are one stop shopping, and
everything is free.

Ubuntu and any other Linux distro installs and adds a loader to your menu, in
the appropriate category, BTW. Not like Windows, where the list is always
getting longer and out of alphabetical order. Linux does not add an icon to your
desktop, nor to your quick launch menu, making an unsightly mess of things. You
can easily drag any icon from the start menu to your desktop or to your panel to
create a launcher if that is the way you choose to work.

Linux understands all languages, in fact, many more than Windows. It uses
accented characters, provided you installed the appropriate language pack. In
Ubuntu, when you choose your country it installs the appropriate pack, for the
US it is US English and US keyboard. I am Canadian so I get the metric system,
UK English, but the US keyboard. You can add whatever language packs you want at
the start or later on. In this respect it is not different from Windows.

I have never had to manually edit a network configuration, on either the
wireless or wired network. I have done literally hundreds of Linux installations
covering every major distro going back almost ten years, so that is saying
something.

Don't blame Linux for Sony's failings. Most Linux users wouldn't touch a Sony
with a ten foot pole. Most laptops use lots of proprietary equipment and
settings. They do not like to devulge their secrets and that lets people like
you down. Linux developers need to reverse engineer things to get them to work
at all. If Sony and others played fairly then Linux would be 100% compatible,
but they don't. They and M$ have a cushy relationship that works to their mutual
benefit. They get inside info from M$ to make their equipment work and M$ forces
new standards so that buyers are perpetually forced to buy new equipment.

You ar blaming the wrong people. It is not Linux's fault. It is a great OS that
works for most people. It is more secure. It is safer, It is faster. It offers
more choice. It is under constant development and it happens to be free, as in
liberty and as in no cost to the user.

It is not for everybody. If someone moves to a Mac they don't draw comparisons
to Windows. They realize that it is a different OS with its own
idiosyncracities. They don't complain when the have to buy a new printer or some
other equipment. They just do it. When Vista came out lots of things that worked
with XP, did not work with Vista. We did not here them cry about it not working.
They just bought a new laser printer or whatever.

Yet for some unknown reason people expect Ubuntu to be like Windows. It isn't
and if you can't get that out of your head, you won't be happy with Linux which
is why I said that it is necessary to forget about Windows and get on with doing
things the Linux way.

You are wrong when you say that Windows is the yardstick. XP is the yardstick by
which Windows is measured and even Vista can't measure up. The reason isn't
because a ten year old OS is good, it is because people are so used to it, even
with all of its shortcomings. The problem is with people. They don't like
change. The old and familiar is better because they cut it lots of slack. They
forgive it of its shortcomings because it seems disloyal to diss something that
you've grown up with.

Until users are ready to move on and are realistic about the problems of the old
OS, then Linux will never be good enough, no mater what developers are able to
achieve. I wrote ablog on this, if you care to read it. I actually go through
the installation process in each OS and you would be amazed at the number of
things that you do in Windows to install a programme.

Linux is not easy to learn and Windows isn't, either.
It is very easy to install packages from the repos by sudo aptitude install
whatever at the command line, anyway, easier than searching and downloading a
package from the Internet and then installing it, but I had to do this also for
installing packages that are not in the repositories, like Picasa, Opera,
Realbasic, Google Earth, Zimbra (which I uninstalled), VirtualBox and others.
The Terminal is also good to start programs fast and easily.
Here in Romania things are different, many complain about not being able to
use Vista properly on their systems and the OS of choice for the Romanians is
Windows XP.
So far I am very content with Linux, some things can be done easier, it can do
more things than Windows, it is free, it has a beautiful graphical interface, a
desktop where I can set many workspaces (very important and helpful, as I like
comfort) and, unlike under Windows, there has been no malware to crash Word and
many other programs, deconfigure my Internet connection, slow down my system,
disable my HP printer software, suddenly throw advertisements at me or redirect
the browser to certain sites, send messages via Yahoo Messenger to my boss and
colleagues and suddenly reboot my PC like in the good old days.
Linux healed me from virusophobia and helped me to work easier and do some
things one cannot do under Windows.

Well, I'm with you on this one ... I can't tell you how many programs
I've "installed" only to then not be able to locate them. Given up on
most of them. And for that matter, when I do find something that's
supposed to be an executable, why doesn't it run? Hasn't Linux ever
heard of the 'double-click'?

You only get an icon for a graphical programme. If the programme runs
from a terminal, you won't get an icon. Make sure that you know if the programme
is graphical, if you expect it to be so, when you install it. There is a mixture
in the repos as many users still like the commandline interface.

pangaeapaul: And for that matter, when I do find something that's
supposed to be an executable, why doesn't it run? Hasn't Linux ever
heard of the 'double-click' ?

GNOME uses the double click by default and KDE uses single click, although that
is not what you meant, but just thought I would point it out.

Executables in Linux are handled differently. There is no equivalent of the exe
or com found in DOS. Instead files are made executable through their properties.
However, making them execute does not always work because they weren't made to
execute and produce any result. Some bin files can be executable or made to
execute, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Linux relies heavily
upon scripting due to its efficiency. Scripts are usually launched from the
commandline.

There are two types of Linux files that will execute when you double or single
click on them. They are DEBs (for Debian derivatives, such as Ubuntu) and RPMs
(for RedHat derivatives such as Fedora). One is not compatible with the other
type, but one can be converted to the other.

However, like with Windows having an executable file is no guarantee that it is
any good. In Windows using a poorly made programme can cause your system to
become unstable and crash. The same can be true for Linux. If you use the wrong
DEB or RPM for your version, it is likely to not install or if it does it could
cause problems down the road. In the worst case it could make your computer
unstable, but in most instances it causes a dependency problem that may prevent
you from installing some programmes, later.

With Linux the emphasis is on security. You cannot change the properties unless
you have permission to do so. Executing a binary file is usually disallowed.
However, some forms of Linux such as Xandros have adopted the Windows laissez
faire approach and my eeePC with Xandros came with no password or login screen
and you can launch Synaptic without a password. This leaves most Linux users
aghast. I could not believe it when it first happened.

Linux wins every year in contests to breach built in out of the box security
that pits Linux against Vista and OS/X (three out of three years). It is because
they take security seriously. Things may seem strange to an outsider, but a
Linux user would not have it any other way.

If you expect, Linux to behave like Windows, it won't. It is an old operating
system. It is based on UNIX which is pre-Windows. All of the things that seem so
foreign to us are old hat to UNIX users. That is just the way things were meant
to be for them. With Windows, the GUI was built on top of DOS. The way they do
things such as having exes, coms and bats was determined a long time ago.
Windows and Linux have different heritages and it is too late to second guess
now as both are too firmly entrenched. Never the twain shall meet. That is just
the way things are.

Get used to it or not is the only choice you have. That is why I said that
learning Linux is easy. It is the forgetting Windows that is hard. It is just a
matter of perspective. If you want to learn, then throw out your old
preconceived notions and you will have success. Hold onto them and you will find
it difficult to learn, as one can interfere with the other, unless you keep them
compartmentalized.

I propose that once we get this issue "settled" that we begin the next
argument - that is whether vi or emacs is the better editor. That
should last the rest of the year.

I'll end that before it starts!

Both vi and emacs are VERY OUT OF DATE! Just had that argument on a LUG group.

gedit and kedit take some beating and they are default. END

I dunno - old dog, new tricks.
Maybe I will just use ed
Or TECO maybe?

Personally I feel Linux is hard to learn, somewhat like Bryan says, that it
could be made more user friendly but by doing so its robustness, its
security strength, would be lost or at least compromised. I also feel it is
not quite "ready for primetime". Give it a few more years, major computer
manufactures, and the polishing that will have taken place by then, it will
be ready for John Q. Public. John and Jane don't want to whrasel with it,
they just want to use it. Its like a car, the grease monkey always has the
hood up tinkering, our dear old aunt Jane and uncle John just want to drive
it. Basic transportation. Not a hobby.

I'm not new to computers. Back in the late 70's I put together a Heathkit
H89 All-In-One computer. It came with HDOS, Heath DOS. I upgraded it to Gary
Kildall's CP/M. Went all the way through MS-DOS 5 or did we end up with
MS-DOS 6? I'm getting old. The good old command line days. Windows 3.1 was a
strange new beast. But once I got use to it, being able to run several
programs at one time, ALRIGHT! Then there was the learning curve to Windows
95. Yet another strange beast. Now we have Linux knocking on Microsoft and
Windows door. Oh, you can try to stop it, Bill can try to stop it, but don't
put you body against the door, Linux (progress/advancement) will come
through. You may slow it down, put the inevitable off for a while, but it
will come. The only thing that can stop it is if the Man up stairs says,
"Times up".

Yes, Linux still has its ruff corners but thousands of hackers are hard at
work polishing it.

I have a friend at work that has been into computers since the early 70's,
mainframes. He is a old network professional. He knows lots of OSs,
including Unix, so helping me with Linux is childs play to him. I can go to
him with a problem I have been fighting all weekend and like snapping your
finger, I have the answer. That has helped me tremendously.

Yes Brian, Linux is still somewhat tough, could be more user friendly. Some
of those things can be changed but some like, filename and Filename, in
Windows those are the same name, in Linux and Unix they have upper and lower
case are differend. Always have been, always will be...

But I use Windows very little and that if more than I want to. My son don't
even use Windows period. Its Mac or Linux.

I'm from the land of dinosaurs where I would write code, compile the
code, and then run the resulting file (executable). I guess that I'm
looking for the same scenario in Linux.

The problem that I tried to describe earlier was that when I wanted to
execute something in Linux that didn't run, it also didn't give me any
feedback. Nothing. So I didn't know if my single (or double) click
had even registered with the system. Even windows will pop up an
alert or something to say "hey stupid, you can't do that"...

Feedback -- guess that's what I'm looking for. No OS is complete
until it remembers the user.

It might be a good idea to make a list on paper and in Open Office Writer,
Abiword and/or Tomboy Notes with the installed programs that have no launcher in
the menu or to write a shell script for each of them to launch, give the shell
scripts permission to run as executable and put those shell scripts in a folder
named Ghosts.

I propose that once we get this issue "settled" that we begin the
next
argument - that is whether vi or emacs is the better editor. That
should last the rest of the year.

This is one of those arguments that unleashes the passion in the biggest of
geeks. There will be blood! I think that I will not step into that debate.

Well, we could settle things with a 'dual to the death' on Wii Mario
Kart. That usually works.

I think that Linux is ideal for the average person. More people get into
trouble with Windows than people care to admit. The thing is that there are more
people nearby to help because more people use it. However, those problems may
not have arisen if the OS itself was not problematic for non-technical people.
Most Windows users can't defragment their hard drives, do basic maintenance, and
even re-install the OS when it slows to a crawl, which it is prone to do.

The problems that most people face when coming to Linux have little to do with
Linux itself. Rather they have to do with outside influences.

For example, hardware problems are not due to the fact that Linux cannot produce
drivers or detect the hardware. This problem is due to the relationship between
M$ and OEMs which has worked for their mutual benefit and enrichment at the
expense of the consumer. Hardware is often specifically made and tuned for
Windows. OEMs are reluctant to support open source for fear of killing the
golden goose, M$.

An example of this is Dell which early on was a big supporter of Linux and now
all they do is do everything that they can to fall all over M$. The reason? M$
has bought them out with heavy investments. The result? Less support from a
major OEM for Linux. The message? Don't consider going against M$. Another
example? ASUS which brought out the eeePC with Linux pre-installed. Now it is
hard to find Linux on their PCs. Why? M$ cut a sweet deal with them.

The question is, if Linux is so hard to use, then why is M$ going to all of this
trouble? They know that Linux is only hard to use if you need to install it on
equipment that is not made for it or if it can't be pre-installed. Force anyone
to build anything themselves and you can keep it to a fringe market. They want
to set the standards and determine what consumers can and can't do and they will
do whatever is necessary to do that.

The deck is stacked against Linux and it has nothing to do with Linux's
deficiencies. If Linux came pre-installed as Windows does then people would find
it easy to use. They would not need anti-virus software. They would not need to
worry about trojans or malware. They would not need to defragment their hard
drives. They could easily use Synaptic to download programmes and install them.
They could easily maintain their computers. Linux is setup for success from the
beginning.

Yes, Linux has the commandline, but it isn't necessary to use it. Ever. It is
just a tool. It is powerful for those who know how to use it, but it isn't
necessary. Below every OS there is code and scripts that someone has to write
and execute. Using the commandline puts you closer to the action and can speed
things up. If you don't feel comfortable with it then you should not use it.

Windows programmes will not run natively on Linux, but they don't run on a Mac
either. They were made for Windows. But there is absolutely no reason why they
could not be written to work on Linux and they would work better for the most
part. It is the same for games. There aren't many good games now, but Linux can
do games as well as Windows can.

As I said at the outset, there is nothing wrong with Linux. And there is nothing
special about Windows. There is nothing that you can do in Windows that would
not be possible to do in Linux. It is a great OS.

Most of the problems that newbies have in Linux have to do with their thinking.
They think that it is hard because it is different. Windows is not better and
the Windows way of doing things is not better. It is just a different approach.
To think that the Windows way is better is an impediment.

If an American was to move to France and always be thinking of home, then he or
she will be homesick and will not find happiness in France. That does not make
France bad. It is France, not America. Things are different because they are
meant to be.

The way to be happy in France is to enjoy the French and their way of doing
things. Get to enjoy the food and the wine. Get a taste for their joie de vivre.
Then you won't miss home so much and who knows? You may even learn something.

My intent is not to bash M$. They are a business and their goal is obvious. But
people need to stop making false assumptions about Linux and be realistic about
what is happening.

People try to make it a big contest and are looking for reasons to pronounce
Linux's hopes of being a desktop success a failure. They point to Windows 7 and
say that it will kill Linux on the desktop. Meanwhile users will continue to do
what they have always done which is simply to enjoy an alternative OS.
Obviously, the more people using it will mean better hardware support, but that
will happen anyway. It is just a matter of when.

Personally, I don't care if Linux is successful on the desktop. That isn't its
purpose. It isn't trying to compete and replace anything. It is just trying to
be itself and give users an alternative. That's all it ever was and nobody has
stepped forward to make it anything but that. They want users to have choice.
Having a level playing field would be nice, but that isn't going to happen.
There are always going to inequities. Just be sure that we recognize that it
isn't due to Linux's inherent deficiencies.

BTW, I thought some of you might like to see how we stack up against Windows 7:
www.tuxradar.com/.../benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7

Not that it matters. Windows is what it is and Linux is what it is. Choice is
good.

I am using Ubuntu 8.04 and don't have to do any of those nasties
you mention, it is all at the click of a button. How old is your OS?

But there again I don't have to defrag, clean-up, tune-up, Spysweep or
virus sweep. I don't have to meticulously update every little program
I've got for security or other updates.

Particularly I don't have to look for the 'Start' button to close the
system down!

I think any system takes an effort to become accustomed to it. That all
part of the 'fun'

I think that what Brian is really saying is that since Linux is not
exactly like Windows, it's too hard to learn how to use it. All I can
say is, Thank God Ubuntu is not exactly like Windows. Every time I am
forced to so something with Windows I end up cursing Bill Gates for
the stupid way Windows does things.

I taught SCO Unix before my retirement (2002) and can tell you that students
found it different from the Windows they were familiar with - but not much
harder than the DOS they studied at about the same time. It was all command
line prior to Windows of course and as such required more memorization. Once
they learned to respect case sensitivity and need for the right kind of
slashes and dashes it came well enough.

Today, and ever since Windows 95, the general public has never had to use
the CLI, so the few times that it is beneficial to use it in Linux seem like
an incredible imposition! It's human nature to resist the new and
unfamiliar. We Linux advocates are keeping our brains agile by learning
something new and stretching our few remaining brain cells to the limit.

As one of my former colleagues put it: "Linux isn't an operating system,
it's a way of life".

Well as a very long time computer user of Windows and Linux systems I
am surprised at that remark Henry. If you failed to understand Windows
then how do you master the need for command line use that is still very
much part of Linux any version just as DOS was in the days when you have
no interface desktop.

It is not so much how difficult to learn Linux is, it is the quirks of the
implementations.

On the forums you can find multitudes of questions on problems of
installation, dual booting, start up etc. etc. many of which go unanswered
or are met with highly technical solutions (and a slightly superior air)
which are meaningless to us beginners.

Anything you dont know is hard for you to learn at the beginning. Even
those who "think" they know Windows - only know those parts they use -
and not the whole thing.

The reason freak out so much on computers is, they usually take ONLY one
they have and make the switch and if everything doesnt work out right -
the FREAK OUT happens.

Im not putting anyone down here because I went through the same exact
thing. When I made the switch I did so because I woke up and XP had lost
all my data - for the second time. I say lost because it literally
forgot it was there and presented me with a brand new system. I was able
to recover it but the fact that XP had done that twice - I had to
change. When I made the change I had to get up and going fast - and it
didnt happen.

The only thing you can do is do all the research you can and then ask
for help on the forums. And remember to keep your cool, dont act
desperate, and dont claim linux is hard to learn. You cant speak for
everyone - only you.

It is not so much how difficult to learn Linux is, it is the
quirks of the
implementations.

On the forums you can find multitudes of questions on problems of
installation, dual booting, start up etc. etc. many of which go unanswered
or are met with highly technical solutions (and a slightly superior air)
which are meaningless to us beginners.


Linux is largely unregulated and chaotic at times. It is not business oriented,
but is a community sandbox where everyone is welcome and nobody is turned away.
This is both good and bad.

The good is that there is lots of information and helpful people. The bad is
that there is lots of information and helpful people, but not all of it is
useful, relevant or topical because of the sheer volume, how it is presented and
some is outdated.

For someone coming from Windows, you are used to one OS with a few variants, 95,
98, XP, Vista etc. Linux has over 300 distributions and dozens of variants of
some of them, such as somebody running a certain distro, but with an alternative
desktop. There are some many permutations and combinations.

However, the biggest problem is that most veterans are not newbie aware or
savvy. They post solutions that the average user has no hope of following or
being able to implement. They forget that most former Windows users have not
seen a command prompt. Their thinking is not about what the user needs, but
about how THEY would resolve it which are different things.

This is unresolvable in the short run or at least until more newbies have enough
success that they can tell other newbies how to fix it because they remember
what it felt like to be a newbie. Newbies need to be aware that they should NOT
try every possible solution. If it sounds too hard, it probably is and you are
more likely to get yourself into deeper water than to resolve the situation.

I maintain that Linux is not as hard as people make it out to be and that there
are often easier solutions to most problems than the ones often given by Linux
veterans. There is a huge credibility gap if we are saying that Linux is user
friendly and the only solutions that we can give are to go the commandline. This
is usually NOT the case, but it is what the person who is helping would do.
There are frequently multiple solutions to any problem.

Newbies need to say, that they do not feel comfortable and ask if there is
another simpler solutions. They also need some patience as this is new territory
for everyone. We speak jargon to one another and we need to learn to tone it
down when speaking to newcomers.

I've been ignoring this thread (seemingly for weeks). But two days
ago I ran out of my anti-psychotic medications (and I'm unemployed and
broke).

Consequently, I answer thusly: All operating systems have been, and
may very well remain, impossible to learn. Unless we include 2-kb
boot loaders in the set of operating systems, I doubt even the
creators of such beasts have ever completely mastered them.

Even so, every so often an operating system very empowering over some
large sets of development and application uses arrives. While no
operating system is universally wonderful, Ubuntu provides an
excellent environment for many uses.

Various Linux distributions play very well in realms Microsoft has no
intension of serving. Many Microsoft employees use one or more Linux
distributions at home. I've worked for Microsoft and believe their
products fill some important niches. That MS does not play well in
shop-floor network and embedded environments where I often work as an
analog-electronics engineering technician or junior engineer is only
to say no product is everything to everybody.

In the current economic environment many small embedded controller
developers will increasingly apply Ubuntu and other Linux flavors to
developing embedded applications on Atmel, Arduino, BASIC Stamp, PIC,
and Umbicon platforms.

Nobody was born knowing how to:
Use the toilet,
Tie one's shoes,
Dial a telephone, either rotary or touch-tone,
Drive a car,
or,
Master a new and unfamiliar operating system.

As a civilization we have devised educational systems to facilitate
mastering the first four. There was even a mature educational path to
learn OS-360, and I found numerous very helpful books to assist my
rather limited understanding of CPM.

With 57 varieties of Linux, at least 3 of them UBUNTU, the educational
assistance is not easy to find. There is lots of information
available, but the signal is about 60db below the noise.

Unfortunately the foregoing discussion has just added to the noise and
I have contributed mine.