Linux thoughts

[john]

Hi Chris, whilst not disagreeing with you about the advantages of Linux I still think it's only for people who have at least some basic IT skills and don't mind getting under the hood to configure it, especially when trying to connect and use peripherals.

Before using any version of Windows I used Sun Unix and was happy to tinker about to get things working but since using Windows things have been much less of a hassle.

I did try SUSE Linux about 18 months ago but was unable to get it to recognize my printer or ADSL modem so eventually gave up. Presumably new versions like Ubuntu are better but working in applications support during the day I now find I don't want to deal with IT issues in the evening as well if I can avoid it.

Whilst Windows is not perfect, because it is used so much in industry then like it or not it is a standard and most applications and peripherals will run with no or minimal user configuration.

[chrisga]

Hi Folks

I have to confess to having a "tinker" with my machine - because I'm an engineer and follow the  edict " if it's  not broken,  fiddle with it until it is -  then have fun mending it" 

....However,  If I wanted to stick to the basic specification for a home computer :-

1. email
2. Browser
3. Office Suite
4. Image manipulation
5.  Sound / video playing

Hand on heart,  installation  of Ubuntu wouldn't have  been any more difficult than Windows.  The machines that I did for my parents were, literally, shove in a downloaded CD,  answer a few simple questions (time zone, etc) and let the thing do its stuff.   No command line required, all hardware and peripherals  recognised.   

In my  "tinkering"  I found the forums very helpful,  I would not say getting unpaid for information  on problems is any more difficult than  for Windows (which I still use  daily at work).

Adding and removing programs is actually easier than Windows, you just download from repositories, no faffing with CDs, no entry of security keys  (etc).

I don't know much about modern SuSE, I did try it a while ago and have to confess to finding it a trial !  Lots of command line  required and  difficulty getting  my hardware recognised !

[chrisga]

sorry, duplicate

[LesD]

As I have said elsewhere having use the GrandDaddy of Linux, UNIX for a good part of my working life I was most reluctant to get involved with it in any form at home. The gauntlet was laid down for me to try a modern Linux and as the Hardy Heron was about to be launched (Ubuntu 8.04) I was game to give it a go. So much so that I resurrected a machine (1.4 GHz AMD Thunderbird with 40 GB HDD and a Gig of RAM as I recall)

Ubuntu did install easily and I did get some things to work OK but I was not impressed that the Browser was released as Beta version and therein laid the start of my disillusionment. 

I was worn down by nothing more complicated than installing Java to get in particular the BT Speed Tester to work. which it subsequently transpired needed more than just Java to fix it like installing Opera instead of FF I think it was. 

As a last resort having been down at init 1 to get at a working SU password, knife and forking the Java install bin file into the beast, creating the links to FF and still having no success with Java I called time and as I put it came back into my comfort zone with XP Pro. The barren desert of a Desktop was depressing after a while especially when things were not going well so I decided it was not for me. Maybe and only maybe when, is it 8.10 comes along, I just might give it one more chance. The machine is still available but I have my reservations. My favourite to keep an older class of machine usable has to be Win2K. 

[Sebby]

I have to confess to having a "tinker" with my machine - because I'm an engineer and follow the  edict " if it's  not broken,  fiddle with it until it is -  then have fun mending it" 

I think I fit into that category.

Hand on heart,  installation  of Ubuntu wouldn't have  been any more difficult than Windows.  The machines that I did for my parents were, literally, shove in a downloaded CD,  answer a few simple questions (time zone, etc) and let the thing do its stuff.   No command line required, all hardware and peripherals  recognised.

Agreed. Installation, over the past few years, has become as easy - if not easier - than Windows. Ubuntu now even boots as a live CD and runs installation from there.

When I say I found Linux frustrating, granted that was on a VAIO notebook, so there was lots of tricky things to do (such as getting the hotkeys to work, the screen dimming function, and so on).

But then I wanted to install it on my current PC, which runs a RAID0 array. I tried for 2 days and still couldn't do it, even after reading every post on the subject on the Ubuntu forums. With Windows, setup just requires the RAID driver. Okay, that's not totally the fault of Linux as hardware vendors are notoriously less fussed about Linux, but this is what I mean when I say everything seems like a hassle.

[Rik]

I thought you were going to say "will to live" Seb.

[john]

Hi Chris,

   You make some fair points and I'm sure that if I got hold of the latest version of Unbuntu things would be more straight forward than it was for SUSE.

However I think you're still looking at it from someone who has IT skills. I often have to help some friends out where even very simple things are a mystery to them (i.e. using tabs in Internet Explorer, invoking applications from the start menu - I have to put a shortcut on their desktop and even creating separate accounts for husband and wife - they don't the added complication of passwords).

These examples may seem extreme but they just want to use the PC to surf the net, use e-mail and write and print the occasional Word document in the simplest way possible. Installing a different OS would be far beyond them and I'm sure there are many more in a similar situation who are not very technically minded. Up until a couple of months ago they were still happily using Windows 95 with no USB ports or CD drive and only bought a new machine with Vista because AOL told them they were no longer supporting their OS.

When you have an IT related job it's easy to lose sight of the fact that many people with little or no IT skills find many tasks impossible. It's a shame really because they're only using a tiny fraction of the capabilities of their PC's.

Some people have said that unless you have some minimal knowledge or are not prepared to learn then you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place but I disagree, if people can use a PC to do what they need and are happy not to do anymore then that's fine by me. It's a bit like saying that people shouldn't drive a car unless they know how the engine works.

[chrisga]

Hi John

I hear what you're saying.  I've come across such people,  even in  quite high positions in companies.   If something "goes wrong"  with their PC , they  just 'phone to the IT department . 

I had a discussion with an IT manager about this a few years ago  (incidentally, I'm not in IT myself, I  work in  hardware  support and development  in the Broadcast Equipment industry) - He had mixed feelings, one part of him was  loathed to  change the "Status Quo",  because it gave him good  job security.  The other  part of him considered  that basic IT  "literacy" should   be part of an employees basic skill set (like the 3Rs).

As far as the wider population is concerned though  (those that don't need to use IT for their daily jobs, or  those that are retired),  I agree that  it is perfectly OK for these folks to just use a PC as a  tool.  The only comment  I would make is that the cost of ownership for them is likely to be quite high if they have to call in an "expert" every time the simplest thing goes wrong !

I guess this was the same  situation for cars in an earlier phase of their development - Not a lot anyone can do themselves on that front now though !  I think as time goes on, and  the PC matures, less  hardcore  skills will be required to keep them running as well.

My opinion is that  as activity becomes more Web based, the actual  OS that you are running will become progressively less relevant.    We co-habit an Industrial Park with an organisation  that   provides remote  business  IT facilities for companies - They  host the bulk of the hardware, do backups, facilitate  applications  (etc) the only equipment required at the clients end is a network connection and some  "cut down"  Web PCs   along   with networked  printers.  You can see the savings on an IT department and computer hardware.  You can also see  the trend for such facilities to be accessed through a browser.  In that event, who cares if that's done with MS  and Internet Explorer or Linux and Mozilla  (etc)?  A real threat to MS I would have thought !

[Sebby]

I thought you were going to say "will to live" Seb.

[john]

Hi Chris,

I agree that networked applications may become more viable, especially for personal use for people who want to dependonly  on minimal support, but the communications infrastructure needs to be a lot better and more reliable for it to really take off although if there is a local company providing the service with a dedicated network rather than the public telephone system then this may work quite well.

However I'm not sure that many small to medium sized companies will always want to trust third parties with their data or rely on them to ensure that the service is always available. I work in IT for a large company but hardware and general office applications type support is outsourced to another company (we still host the servers though). However there would have been a lot of (expensive) 'vetting' to ensure that the data is secure (even so I personally am not totally convinced it is). The contract is for several million £'s and I think we could buy a new machine for less than what they charge to re-build a PC. From past experience there is not a lot of confidence from the end users in them and it was easier when we had the staff to do the work ourselves, it was faster too as you could talk to the guys nearby if there was a network or printer problem and they would fix it more or less immediatley, now we have to call the helpdesk and most calls have a three day response time.

[Dangerjunkie]

Hi John,

I also hear what you're saying but I don't agree. Your friend is going to have to learn a completely new OS whatever. IMHO Windows has changed so much that jumping from 95 to Vista with no stop at XP will see such a change in user experience that they will effectively be back to square one (other than their mouse and keyboard skills which would be equally applicable to any OS.)

You seem to view Linux as a terribly difficult thing that ordinary people can't master. Windows can be just as bad (if not worse) when something goes badly wrong. I would venture that if you asked granny (no insult intended to grannies) to fix a Windows device breakage by removing the cached driver files from the Windows folder, using regedit to hack the registry then installing the latest version from the device vendor's website that she would be just as incapable of fixing it as she would have fixing any Linux problem.

When Windows goes wrong internally it is a <choose expletive> to fix; I am a computing graduate with 15 years of Windows admin experience on every version since 3.1 (other than Me - I just didn't go there.) There are so many interdependent binary keys that if the registry gets badly broken I stand almost no chance of fixing it. The average, non-technical, home user stands even less chance which is why the standard fix offered by many vendors is to slap in the recovery disc and reinstall as going through a fix requires more nouse than the average helpdesk person has and would take so long as to be too expensive. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, whatever OS someone is running, if they're non-technical and something bad happens they're going to be ******ed without the help of someone that knows what they're doing. The number of malicious programs that prey on Windows IMHO makes breakage much more likely and the non-technical user is the one that will be most likely not to practice safe computing and will get hit.

These days I think Ubuntu is easier day-to-day for many people. Most hardware is recognised without driver CDs or downloads (the same as Mac.) You can get programs for almost every task by searching with the package manager, choosing one and hitting install. You never have to worry about having the correct version of a certain DLL or needing some other program to make something work. The package manager knows what everything needs and automatically takes care of that for you.

One example in point is a friend of mine that recently changed an elderly relative over to Ubuntu. Previously he was visiting her every couple of weeks in order to fix some problem or another or to remove some web nasty that had installed itself. Since changing her over he's only had one call in 4 months. We view this as ideal for this kind of user, if it's left alone it doesn't break.

Cheers,
Paul.

[john]

I hear what your're saying too Paul and perhaps my view is somewhat biased by the problems I've had with earlier versions of Linux. However I still think there's much more readily available support for Windows machines than Linux.

If someone really has a problem with the OS and doesn't know anyone personally who can help then most places that sell PC's which have a service department will probably be able to help. There's also usually a couple of companies who advertise in our local magazine who also provide help and training. This is more likely to be Windows than Linux though.

Personally I'd prefer to use Linux as I've had a lot more experience with Unix than Windows. The company I work for though has migrated nearly everything to Windows PC's as not all the applications would run on Unix and there is not adequate commercial support for Linux. As industry will continue to use Windows then it's likely most people will use use it at home too if only because it will be familiar.

The last I heard was that 90% of PC's are running Windows, followed by Macs and then Linux. Given these figures commercial support organisations are going to concentrate on the OS with the largest share of the market.

I think it's a bit like the old Betamax/VHS debate, Betamax was considered the superior system but VHS was much more widespread and became the standard.

Regards

John

[LesD]

Hi John,

It's nice to see you posting up here on the forum. I have been remiss in not saying hello and  so that's it done now. I see you have met Paul, he is very knowledgable about PC's, networking and Linux in particular unlike myself, who gets by as a Jack of all Trades Master of none.

I have enjoyed the exchanges of views in this thread especially as it was one of my more mischievous post that kick started Baz's thread once again a month or three ago.

I have said before that I came from the position of using UNIX (HPUX 10.20 was the last version) every day at work and was the system administrator for a good while. Like in your Company the software we ran on the UNIX boxes was eventually ported into Window and the UNIX system was retired gracefully.
(I would say as it should be but it would only get some folks backs up  ) 

Anyway from within this forum and from outside it I was encouraged to give Linux a try to see how it had moved on (improved) from the days when I used its Grandad. 

Well initially I was impressed with the ease of the installation and the initial look and feel. This was contrary to what I expected and with what was essentially a new toy I ran with it but before very long I began to stumble.

There were any number of reasons for this.

Maybe first and foremost is that well known problem of teaching an old dog new tricks.
Paul, Ted, Danni, Markiep, Jane, D-Dan and others all waded in to help me as is the way with folks on this forum and I did make some progress.

The second "trap" was possibly believing that because I could drive UNIX, Linux would be a doddle but the very features that were supposed to attract me got me into trouble, namely trying to point and click to do everything with the mouse and not using the command line.

Third is the very familiarity I have with Windows that now leads me to describe it as my comfort zone, made Linux uncomfortable for me. This was because it is a "false friend" you think you are in familiar surrounding because some things look to be working in the way that you are used to then wallop you find a fundamental difference when you walk smack into it with yours eyes wide open.
The "Repository" that those who know and understand it and sing the virtues of was one of the first things to "wallop" me. As a "false friend" from XP there is "Add/Remove" but is this "Package Manager" or "Package Manager" in another guise?  I did think I had this bottomed out after a while but must to confess to have forgotten again now. The "wallop" came in the form that initially I got it in my mind that you obtained what you wanted with "Package Manager" and installed it with "Add/Remove" but having got some things installed in duplicate I came to the conclusion that this might not be the case.

My screen resolution was another niggle a 20 second job to set up in XP was an hour or more of reading, posting, Googling and eventually Envyng and I did end up with a reasonable resolution but not as high as the monitor would go with the same hardware using XP. Again it was ever likely that there was something I was missing but intuitive it was not.

Then what was to be the last straw, Java! If you haven't heard about the mess I got into with this "simple" task and have the patience then be my guest and read other bits in this thread but don't say I didn't warn you. My fault I am sure and on reflection I now suspect some stale links might have been to blame for some of the grief but that's the nub of it by then it was grief and grief I did not need so I decided enough was enough and packed the box with Ubuntu Linux on it away. 

I did get sound and manage to play and read CD's and DVD's, even mount and use a floopy disk but did not get as far USB devices like my cameras and scanner.

I know defeatist but there is always another day and like the mother, who has just given birth often declares, "never again" but does bear more children later, I may forget the pain and try again but not just yet! 

If you are the sort that likes to dabble and tinker then there is a wealth of things to dabble and tinker with but for a newbie, especially one from a solid Windows background, who does not want to dabble or tinker then tread carefully before taking on Ubuntu Linux. If a machine comes with it preinstalled and with an armoury of compatible hardware it may well be a different story but the percentages you quote do make quite a statement. Everyone to his or her own and as I often say time will tell. 

[john]

Hi Les,

I used to like to tinker with the OS but just as I used to like tinker with cars when I first got one I'd now prefer for it just to work without any hassle.

Thanks for the welcome and apologies if I've got this wrong but I get the impression that you think I'm new to this forum. However I've been here about 12 months (and made over 2500 posts!)

Nice to meet you anyway Les 

Regards

John


(PS I'd say a bit more but I've got to go out now)

[LesD]

I used to like tinker with cars when I first got one I'd now prefer for it just to work without any hassle.

I know exactly what you mean I have been there and done that too.

Thanks for the welcome and apologies if I've got this wrong but I get the impression that you think I'm new to this forum. However I've been here about 12 months (and made over 2500 posts!)

How remiss of me again, too wrapped up in "thoughts about Linux" to pay proper attention.   
Perhaps I should post an edit to say welcome to this thread! 

Nice to meet you anyway Les 

Nice to meet you too. 

[doc_holiday]

If you are the sort that likes to dabble and tinker then there is a wealth of things to dabble and tinker with but for a newbie, especially one from a solid Windows background, who does not want to dabble or tinker then tread carefully before taking on Ubuntu Linux. If a machine comes with it preinstalled and with an armoury of compatible hardware it may well be a different story but the percentages you quote do make quite a statement. Everyone to his or her own and as I often say time will tell. 

I have had a whole lot of trouble with Ubuntu and video cards. I have a test box I have had probably 7 or 8 Linux distributions running on with no problem and the only one that I could not get to play nicely with the video is Ubuntu. I just spoke to someone yesterday about this who had the identical problem. I advised him to go to OpenSUSE and all his problems were solved. He is now installing VMWare to run an XP Session under Linux to run a few apps that don't exist for the Linux world.

I say this because people sometimes forget that Linux is more than just Ubuntu. (I'm not accusing you of this).  Ubuntu takes a very different philosophical approach than other distros and vice versa.  So if one is serious in trying out Linux, I always suggest trying at least two distros... Ubuntu and OpenSuse.  If three, Mandriva.

To that end needing to try different distros illustrates one of the problems with Linux... it lacks the discipline in standardisation. It also at times can be very bloated, particularly if you want to run a server to do one job. (for example handle email).  For servers, in the last couple of years I have gone to FreeBSD.  When you install FreeBSD, you get a core of programmes installed and then you add to it what you need.  I like this minimalist approach. I also think that the disciplined management of FreeBSD has resulted in fewer bugs, better documentation, etc.  I know this is just an opinion which some of my friends disagree with, but I throw it out to provoke thought and consideration.

My general overall view of Ubuntu is that it is a good distro, though my personal experience is bad. From day one Ubuntu has been the masters of P.R. and in many ways advanced bringing Linux to the desktop in a way that the rest of the Linux field that others have not been able to do so well. With Vista being less than what we would expect for an advanced operating system from a well established software company like MicroSoft, more and more people are trying Linux.  It is also becoming more and more common to see Linux installed on new computers (such as the Asus EEEPC). For the foreseeable future, Linux is here to stay.

[john]

For servers, in the last couple of years I have gone to FreeBSD.  When you install FreeBSD, you get a core of programmes installed and then you add to it what you need.  I like this minimalist approach.

Good point Doc, I've no experience of FreeBSD but if you can minimalise it just to perform server tasks then it sounds a good idead to me. I would have thought you could do the same with Linux as well, though presumably most distro's come complete with the usual applications and drivers etc that people require to use as a general purpose machine.

Much of the critisism of Windows is in fact because to a large extent it has to be all things to all people out of the box. Most people don't want to spend time adding or removing the things they don't need and if you consider that at times Linux can be bloated then perhaps it's going the same way as Windows in that respect.

[dysonco]

Hi All,

New to Idnetters although I've been an Idnet customer for a while.

This is such an interesting topic I can't help but get involved!

I think one important factor hasn't really been fully covered, that of cost!

For instance, I'm a multimedia developer, my workstation runs windows XP, the Adobe master collection CS3 suite, Adobe Director, 3D studio max and various other utilities and programmes to do 'stuff'.

Workstation cost £6000
Software cost circa £10,000!

Now most of the programmes I use are considered to be 'industry standard' as they are the best tools for the job, however Linux does have alternative solutions for every one of those programmes .  The may not be quite as good or polished yet, but usually will happily open the file formats of the big boys and do a pretty good job. 

These are free!

Some of the better known linux equivelents such as GIMP for image editing (to replace photoshop) or blender for 3D (to replace 3dstudio max or maya) are becoming more popular by the day, as anyone, no matter what their financial resources, can use these very powerful packages to let thier creativity go wild.

I despair of the big software companies and the prices they charge for thier products.  I've always been of the opinion that software piracy would be a lot less prevalent if software was more reasonably priced.  The old argument of which would you prefer £1000 from 100 people or £10 from 100,000!

I run a linux file/ media server at home, it holds all my music, runs a VOIP server, ftp server has 3 Tb of RAID5 storage, does some torrenting and various other things.  It often runs from months at a time without even a restart, I still however do most of my work on windows.........

Go figure!

Best,

Mike

[Simon]

I won't be joining the thread, as it might as well be Chinese to me, but    Mike!

[Rik]

Welcome, Mike.

It's true that the cost of software is often over-looked when looking at the overall cost of the machine. Like you, I have a disk full of Adobe software, including the full Font Folio. For me to change platform now would be painfully expensive.

[dysonco]

Thanks for the kind welcome 

I suppose my main point is that I think we may end up with a software class divide:

The minority who can afford the expensive windows packages (upper class??)

Versus

The greater number who may end up using the free linux equivelents (working class??)

And if the majority end up using the linux equivelents, I'm sure its development will overtake its windows counterparts.

I know this is a huge simplification, and may be more specific to creative and design industries but I can't resist the temptation of mixing politics and computers 

M

[Rik]

We usually add food somewhere in the mix, Mike.

You're right, though I wonder if the traditional working classes will adopt Linux? My guess is they'll continue to buy knock-offs of Windows software.

[john]

And if the majority end up using the linux equivelents, I'm sure its development will overtake its windows counterparts.

Hi Mike and welcome to the forum 

I think the point I've been trying to make (poorly!) is that for Linux to gain wider acceptance it needs to be taken up more by industry who are the biggest users and most people who use a PC at work will are likely to use same OS at home too. Commercial development and support of industrial applications is expensive and will often only be done for the OS where it's viable to do so, usually for the most widespread OS, which at the moment is Windows, unless there is a minimal amount of work porting it to other OS's. As far as industry is concerned the cost of purchasing the machine, OS or application (or even to some extent how well it works) is not the first consideration it's the fact that there is going to be reliable support to ensure there is minimal downtime if there is a problem.

I think that in the Windows/Linux debate many people who promote Linux do so because they only see it from a home users point of view or rightly or wrongly dislike Microsofts dominance of the market.

[Sebby]

Welcome to the forum, Mike!

[D-Dan]

I think the point I've been trying to make (poorly!) is that for Linux to gain wider acceptance it needs to be taken up more by industry who are the biggest users

But that's the whole point. Linux is already widely used in industry, and the liklihood is that you have used it today whether you intended to or even realised that you had. The Apache servers are the most widespread on the planet, and it's highly unlikely that you haven't passed through one whilst simply browsing the web.

Similarly, an enormous number of devices use embedded linux (mobile phones, DAB radios, freeview, cars etc.), simply because the OS is so customisable and can be scaled to fit the requirements of the end device.

But therein lies the problem. Windows is built for a specific hardware set (granted, with a huge variety of off the shelf parts to build it from - but still the same basic units) whereas linux will run on a toaster if you give it a cpu. With such flexibility and saleability there will inevitably be added complications.

I think the point at the start of your project was to make the comparison between UNIX of old and Linux today, and I'm sure you would be hard pressed to say that significant advances have not been made. I remember my turmoil trying to get Debian 3 running on my old Amiga M68K machine, when the GUI was an optional extra and installing it in any way was a treacherous walk through the CLI.

I have gone on record here as saying that Linux is not yet sufficiently mature to oust Windows from my machine, but it is certainly getting there, and in a year or two, who knows? The last 12 months have seen significant improvements, and it is almost implausible that it won't overtake Windows in terms of usability in the next couple of years.

Steve