What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
69 Comments
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44installing Linux is so easy a caveman can do it...
sorry, i had to say that... - schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Hey! I'm a caveman. Watch your words, buddy. ;-)
Ed Bott makes a living selling his many Windows books. Of course he will not encourage people to use Linux. If you read the comments about his 'test drive', you'll see that it's a farce. - geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"Ed Bott makes a living selling his many Windows books. Of course he will not encourage people to use Linux. If you read the comments about his 'test drive', you'll see that it's a farce."
You're right. If you digg deep enough through the comments you'll see that, after removing a PCI HD card and plugging the drives into the mobo he got it to install perfectly. And before you say "Windows did it without needing him to do that", he actually mentions the fact that he had to use the F6 option during the Vista installer to install the XP drivers off of a seperate CD.
Basically this was his comparison;
Vanilla SUSE/Ubuntu install, let the installer do everything - install failed
Vista install, using the little known (by average users) F6 option to halt the installer and install XP labelled drivers off of a seperate CD - install succeded
Am I the only one who sees some degree of difference in the steps he took to insure the Vista install succeded vs. the steps he took to ensure the Linux install succeded.
On a seperate note I hate when advanced users, with their unusually configured hardware, do these tests and try to mimick the actions of a normal novice computer user. "Yeah, I could easily have gotten Linux to install if I disabled my 3 drive raid 0/1 array, but the average home user wouldn't have been able to do that" as if the average home user is running a complex raid setup. - XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Arch can be installed by a newbie, easily...
Slackware can be installed by newbies, easily. ^
Gentoo is not targeted at newbies and never will be. It's targeted at Power Users...
And yeah Installing Linux is effortless.... now getting the general public to submit to it, that's a different story :) - NICU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12If you took 2 identical computers with freshly formatted hard drives and installed Windows XP on one and Ubuntu on the other you'd be amazed how much easier Ubuntu is to install than XP. This "author" has a conflict of interest, read the first few comments on his article. Horribly inaccurate...
- thewump, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9It's effortless.. unless the default doesn't include your screen resolution, or your the grapics card is recogrnized and automatically configured for hardware rendering.
- jmaynardg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+730 years ago if you wanted to install UNIX on a PDP-11 or VAX-11 you had to manually input the bootloader in octal on the CPUs front panel. To partition the disk you had to manually calculate the sector and track offsets and then manually write the partition table to disk (at the correct location!). Once the system came up you had to manually attach gettys to each input device (terminal). And if you wanted networking, well... that meant you probably had to hack source in order to support your device.
These days you stick a DVD in, reboot the box, and answer a few questions. What's the ***** problem? - mobilehavoc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Installing is not the problem...it's what you do with it after you've spent a few days installing all the software, configuring XGL/AIGLX, Beryl, spinning the cube for a few hours...
Then you ask yourself...what the ***** do I do now? - MrSarcasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6if it moves, compile it
- ChrisRX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The only real difficulty my friends have had when installing ubuntu after seeing me using it was partitioning their drives. I had to explain the concept to them.
This whole problem arises from dual booting with windows, where as if the computers had been linux only, the installation would have been pretty smooth. - parax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Operating Systems were not meant to be installed by users, no matter how easy. It's why we have the term "user". They're meant to "use" the computer not install, administrate, and maintain the system. I think many people who read sites like Digg/Slashdot/etc forget that they're not just "users" anymore, that their level of knowledge and experience does not reflect that of an average person. If the first thought in your head when you get an error message is "Crap, I better search for this to see what other people have done to fix it..." then you're not a user anymore, you're a system administrator.
- Azimuth1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'm no Linux expert by any means, but I've got Ubuntu on a partition on my HDD (I've got a tri-boot setup with XP, Vista and Linux) and it wasn't difficult to install at all. I barely had to do anything.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12 Oh Christ on a cracker,not ANOTHER "Linux is too hard" blog.
Why does a person think just cause he has a problem with one distro everyone else will also?
Try three times and it does not work,try another distro...There are about 100 to choose from.
You can also go to these sites called forums and ask for help.
It took me like around ten minutes to install, then I popped over to Firefox for extension goodness.
Installing Linux(Freespire) was far less time-consuming than installing Windows and all my drivers were on the disk. - RoboDonut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Gentoo. 2-3 days of geeky fun.
- arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well, when you try to install a Linux distro, but refer to the "arcane command line", I wouldn't say that your really suited for Linux. And I can understand why people would get snippy with you. Not to say that they should, but I can understand why. If you are interested in Linux, then you have to accept the fact that at some point, you will probably have to use the command line. It's by no means archaic. With it you are able to communicate directly with your system without the fluff that gets in the way. But don't get me wrong, I use a graphic interface on my Ubuntu box, but I'm very comfortable in the command line and use it when I need it. However, if you are not interested in doing this or at least learning some basic things about the command line, then Linux is not for you.
- briguymaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Install, no problem. But then trying to get wireless to work, it worked for a while then an update happened and it broke, I haven't bother to re-hack it so it just sits there.
But I agree, it's running and it's cool but then what, why bother. It won't play my music collection in AAC, it can't play most video files. I'm sure that there are "ways" to make it all work but I don't have the time or patience to screw around with it when my mac will do it all right now. - codmate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It depends what you're installing Linux to do and what distro you're using.
I don't think it's ready to give to regular home-users on a disk that they can just shove in their machines yet, but then neither is Windows... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well that depends on if your installing the os or using the installer.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah, I just built a new rig with a GeForce 8800 GTS, and once I got Vista and XP running I figured I'd give Ubuntu a try as a hobby. Gave that notion up as soon as I found out that the Nvidia drivers on the Live CD don't support the 8000 series -- the install crashes with only a cryptic error message about not loading screens -- and that just getting a reasonably working desktop was going to involve endless twiddling with arcane command-line switches. For good measure, the forum posters were pricks about my noobish inquiries. This for the current best-value mid-range video card on the market.
I have a job, a girlfriend, and an active social life. Six hours was about all I was willing to spend to install a ***** operating system. - sremick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Which linux? Because,you know, there's only one Linux and all, and only one installer.
/sarcasm - nwoolls, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes, installing Linux is a breeze. On the other hand, getting all of my monitors working properly, how I want, with the right resolutions and orientations etc, and with working 3d is not easy. It takes time, reading through many FAQs (all of which differ slightly), hosing your X11 config a few times and restoring it, etc.
Linux is making huge strides, but the above is still a chore for me (or was when I tried Ubuntu). More and more people have multi-monitor setups. Time to support it out of the box. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I recently installed Ubuntu server on my dinosaur of a dev box. Ancient Proliant 6u dual-proc with bizarre bios, freaky controllers and drivers, weird proprietary hardware mixed with my SATA RAID hack bypassing the SCSI array at boot time, etc. Very fussy machine. Burned the ISO, slapped the CD in the dinosaur, rebooted, answered a few mundane questions (timezone and the like), rest of the install went fine and unattended. That's what I call great strides.
But I still use XP on all my desktops and laptops. And when I start replacing them, they'll run Vista. I see no compelling reason to change to a different desktop OS. Arguments about "fight the man" and "evil empire" hold no weight with me. Linux on the desktop, for me, would be a step backward. All the tools I use to be productive (my text editor, photoshop, have "pretty good" equivalents in Linux. OTOH, the open source stuff I particularly like (Gaim, for example) runs great on my XP machines.
Pre-emptive reply: The inevitable follow-on comment about "emulation" and "dual boot" also has no weight with me. Why bother? Dual boot is for people who don't have enough computers. Emulation is for hypocrites who bleed linux blood and wear penguin shirts in public but want to play games at crippled framerates in private. I run Linux, Solaris, and BSD on servers. I use XP on the desktop. Each to its strengths. - polymorphist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3congrats and according to the article, your a superhero now.
- FieldAnonymouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Vanilla SUSE/Ubuntu install, let the installer do everything - install failed"
He must really suck at installing Suse. Last time I installed Suse I let the installer use all the defaults, and it worked flawlessly. Even setup the bootloader to let me pick Windows or Linux. It was my first try, and everything worked fine. - Guard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Installing Linux itself is really easy to do...
Installing drivers for all your hardware and getting everything hopefully working... not so much. - thekaempfer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Linux.... I've tried to install it 4 times, 3 different distros... each time it's failed. I've asked the community for support and none of them could fix the issue. I'd have to say it's pretty damn difficult to install.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@thewump
That was the problem with my dell laptop. I gave up on ubuntu when i realized it's just easier to leave it alone and let it run XP. If it's not broken; don't fix it - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2maybe if people realized that the average computer user wants to spend time accomplishing tasks with their computer instead of spending time installing an operating system and all the hassles that come with that,then the appeal of windows over linux would become apparent
i use both, and each has their strong and weak points,but i would NEVER expect the average joe to handle a linux install,whereas i might possibly give someone an xp disk and say "go for it".
and save the comments,because you know if you did try that with linux,you're be getting that "ummm,something went wrong" phone call very quickly. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you plan on dual booting it becomes more difficult for a noob. If you don't know much about computers you can easily screw up dual booting the first time. My suggestions , either run linux in vmware, or install it on an old pc first and try it (not just for a day) but for a few weeks. I think if you try to dual boot and screw it up and end up having to format C: then you will feel negative towards linux. Personally I would not dual boot! Better to run linux with windows in vmware =)
- b0neman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The dealbreaker for me was the PITA it was to do a custom mouse configuration. This was 2 or 3 years ago and mice with more than three buttons and a scroller were supported inconsistently. I got it to work but with a stupid WinDuhs box or a Mac, you're there in about five minutes. Installing software like everyone else has said is not easy for the average joe and more than a bit annoying for the above average Joe. I'd rate MacOS first, OS X second, and any of the Windows third as far as ease of install and general use before any linux variant.
WAIT... I take it all back. DOS3.3 was the easiest install ever! Just insert floppy, boot machine and stare at the amber C: prompt. No worries about mice or screen resolutions with DOS cuz you didn't get any! Ahhh the good old days. - Chalain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If we could all set aside blind advocacy for a moment, the point of this article is very valid: you all know how to install linux five different ways, but this blog shows a reasonably intelligent person with no linux experience triying repeatedly over a weekend and failing. I'm a devout linux lover, but I've been where this guy is and no, it's not a marketing ploy. Linux still has a huge intellectual barrier to entry. It's gotten an order of magnitude better in the past 2 years, but it's still huge.
YES, linux is wonderful. I use it and love it. But let's be honest here: it's NOT intuitive. You can't pick it up and expect to just muddle through and be all right. If you think it's intuitive, it's because you've already gotten used to it, which is sort of not the definition of intuitive. If you're a windows user, KDE and Gnome are both agonizingly hard to work with until somebody TELLS you what they can do and how to get around in them. I can't live without Alt-F2 to launch apps in KDE, but if Alt-F2 is documented, there's no sign pointing me to that documentation--a friend had to tell me about it. My first linux box was built by a friend, who turned on focus-follows-mouse because it was intuitive for him. It made me absolutely crazy, because it wasn't what I expected.
Remember the pre-Sarge days when Debian was "a wonderful distro... if you can defeat the installer"? I've never touched suse but as little as a year ago I have spent all day installing and reinstalling distros. This blogger probably assumed that "a computer is a computer" and tried to install linux on an HP or a Dell or some other machine with Designed-for-Windows hardware on it. Heaven knows I made that mistake several times. Remember trying to get radeon video drivers? Remember trying to find out if your wireless card had the orinoco chipset? Remember finding out that you had the prism chipset? Can you honestly say that spending a day trawling linux-laptop.net to see if anybody ever got the firewire port working on your model of compaq?
Maybe this guy is a shill, and maybe he has an ulterior motive. But maybe he doesn't. Linux may work on your machine, but he's blogging about his machine. You may know six different ways to seven different distros. But I suffered with RedHat 9, and even bought the professional package and suffered with no drivers for anything for a year before I discovered the notion of switching distros--I remember what it was like to realize that Linux was not RedHat. Just because you know the answer to his problem doesn't mean he's stupid. It might just mean you've been around linux long enough to learn the answer. - Homunculiheaded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think an important point is that the difficulty of installing a new OS has little to do with the OS. Refromating and (re)installing an OS is not for everyone, you have to be comfortable enough with computers to trouble shoot without the help of gui, and you can make some pretty big mistakes. You should know at least the basics of different files systems, etc. Installing an OS is not a simple 20 minute thing.
That said, installing ubuntu on my laptop was probably one of the easiest major thing I've done with my computer in awhile. And ubuntu was definitely much easier/faster to install than my Windows partition.
People that don't know or don't want to learn the basic differences between NTFS, FAT32 or ext3 are going to probably have a hard time installing an OS. - TrevorBradley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I spent a couple of months trying to get snd_hda_intel working with 5.1 surround sound, working happily with MythTV. After a month of plunking and hacking, I eventually gave up. I've been a Linux user for 12 years and work in an IT background. But setting up drivers on Linux, things like sound, ivtv can be an absolute bitch.
I still fully sympathize with those saying Linux is too hard. It's the writing on the wall guys.
Common retorts to a message of this type:
1) Have you posted to linuxquestions.org or KDE-Forum or the MythTV forums? Yes I have. Noone has helped.
2) You don't need 5.1 surround sound for MythTV, your card only records in stereo. I don't care. Windows has "surround" sound with the click of the install button. I shouldn't have to spend 10 hours trying to figure something out.
3) You haven't read (file that is not actually documented anywhere, or read source code file src/some/file/in/an/obscure/directory.c, or written the solution yourself). Get bent.
I love Linux. It's a wonderful hobbyist's OS, and when fine tuned is superior to Windows. For the average Joe, it's still to hard.
Caveat: I've yet to try Ubuntu. I should try a liveCD and see if surround sound runs out of the box. - greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1note to self: Highpoint cards suck.
(after you get through the blogspam, the ZDNet writer mentions in an update that it's the Highpoint card at fault for all three problems. can't say i'm surprised. you buy ***** hardware that was never tested with anything besides windows, and you'll inevitably hit a hardware bug that was "corrected" in the windows driver.) - theLured, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@baalzebub
I fully agree. I found Linux easy to install. It was a little confusing, but not overloading.
Not sure what version distro I installed first. It was Redhat or SUSE.
Quick guide to linux
1. install Redhat/SUSE and get used to its programs(I found myself lost in KDE's massive "k menu"). I found installing packages weird, but stick with it, Debian is easier, but you should stick with Redhat/suse for now.
2. install Slackware and start to learn how to use a terminal(this will feel like a disability at first, but I cant live without a terminal open now). go to www.linux.org and go to "courses" in the menu to the left. follow the beginner lessons. NOTE: www.linux.org seems to be going down a lot lately so be patient.
3. after you learn how to compile programs using configure, make and make install, install all the programs you need to and use Linux for general computing. NOTE: compiling can take a long time. Do not be put off by it, there is a faster way to install programs, but you need to know this way first.
4. install Fluxbox and learn to use it. HINT: right click on the desktop to show the menu(i nearly stopped using Fluxbox for this reason). Use fluxbox as it should have a minimal menu to start with, so you learn your programs command name.
5. change your login from graphical to a terminal. so to start using your desktop you have to run startx from a terminal.
6. switch to Debian and learn the amazing world of packages. Use synaptic package manager to find out about cool programs like Apache, a web server.
7. Experiment with Linux. Try different Desktop/Window managers like KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Fluxbox. Try installing some servers. Web server(Apache), audio server(Icecast), database(MySQL) if you use a database. If you use bittorrent, install torrentflux to try setting up Apache with MySQL.
8. Learn Bash scripting. Very handy.
stages 1-6 should take you a few months(even more is still acceptable) to complete. Take each stage slowly. Rushing will not get you used to the feel of Linux.
Hopefully that quick guide to Linux will help someone. Linux is only hard because of the change. If you change from one thing to another it always takes time to adapt. Adapting to Linux will take a few days and adapting almost fully will take a few months. Keep at it and you will be pleased with your accomplishment. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it's been established that that guy is a sad little troll,so don't bother giving him anymore attention,ok?
- ChoadNamath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I had a different experience when I tried to install several distros. Some supported my video card out of the box, others I had to search through forums for information on how to install drivers. Once I had the drivers installed, it still wouldn't output the correct resolution and I gave up after several aborted xorg.conf tweaks.
On the other hand, if you're missing a driver in XP/Vista, it is usually very easily found (at least for 32-bit OSes) and installation takes a couple of clicks. I actually went with Vista and had it running fine in one evening as opposed to the 2 weeks of on-again off-again attempts at configuring Linux.
If you have hardware that your Linux distro likes, you're up and running very easily, and it can certainly be simpler than a Windows install. It's when your hardware *isn't* supported right out of the box that Windows has the upper hand. - standalonematt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What was the problem? Can you give specifics?
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@arbulus -- Well, I initially asked my questions politely and was greeted with the kind of smug elitism so abundantly on display in your post. In fact, you are everything that's wrong with the Linux community. As an intermediate computer user that mostly just builds rigs to game and store media content, I have neither the time nor the inclination to configure every aspect of an operating system. Ubuntu gets the hype it does because it's supposed to "just work" like Windows or OSX -- and that snicker you just let out upon reading that Windows "just works" is exactly the reason why Linux will never take over the desktop.
Also, I will add that I'm comfortable using a command line. But as I only have one machine, the process of rebooting into Windows, searching the forums, and writing down another supposed command-line fix was excruciating. I'm sure it gets better once the OS actually, you know, boots. But that small taste was sufficient to deflate the Ubuntu hype -- it really is a geek operating system that the average mainstream user has no hope of administrating properly. - arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1really? I didn't think that there were anything else beside Gentoo. 3 days of installing an os is normal, isn't it?
/sarcasm too - Sartori, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As with most things, it depends on luck. I have a fairly standard Dell PC, a few years old now so not cutting edge hardware. After trying to install Fedora, Knoppix, Ubuntu and Mandrake on it and running into the same problem with each one (somehow it became unable to read from the CD/DVD a few minutes into each install, even after a replacement DVD drive) I gave up. I received no help in the support forums or IRC channels my Linux using friends suggested.
Contrast to Windows 2K and XP, both of which installed fine with no issues. - 2shae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Trying to make a dual boot can be difficult.
It ones took me 3 times to do it right....ok it was my first time but still - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But it's so ridiculous. Linux hasn't operated in the VHF range for at least 10 years.
- MrEcho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For Gentoo... http://gentoo-install.com
- arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gerz1219
I'm what's wrong with the Linux community, huh? Smug eliteism? I hope you're joking.
I've never been anything but open to the fact that not everyone can use Linux, nor will they. I have never, nor did I in my previous post, express any kind of smugness. I would love to see Linux in more places, but I don't believe that it's going to take over the desktop because most users simply don't need the kind of power that it's capable of. Does my 70 year-old granny need it when all she does is check her email and struggles with that? No. I'm not about vicious proselytizing of Linux. I always do what I can to help others who are interested kindly and patiently. Yes, there are people who aren't nice and aren't patient, but you have that in every community, Windows loyalists, Mac loyalists, etc., and those few usually do make it hard for the rest of us who aren't interested in blind devotion. People have different uses and different needs, and different OSs will suit people differently. It's a shame that you encountered a few that fell into that small category of vicious devotees and that it had a negative effect on your view of the Linux community in general.
Moreover, no one forced you or is forcing you now to use Ubuntu or any other Linux distro. From what you describe, it's probably not for you anyway, being that you build systems for gaming. There's not a lot of support for most games in the Linux world. And I don't deride you for that. But you can't expect people to respect your side of this and your preference for not using Linux when you trash what other people are into. That's the point I was trying to make. - josephhallett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yesterday I triple booted my Macbook, with OSX, Windows, and Sabayon Linux 3.3 (mini version). Without a doubt Linux was the trickiest to install, but this was mostly due to lack of knowledge I suspect.
Linux assumes you know about things like EXT3, and root partitions and boots etc (at least Sabayon did), which is baffling to someone who has spent all there life on macs (and occasionally pcs).
To get Linux to work, I had to install it five times trying different options to get it to work. Windows twice (though it is frankly almost as baffling) and Mac did it straight off.
That said Sabayon's install time for me was miniscule. I managed to instal it in about 20 minutes, compare that to OSX's two hours and window's hour, and thats pretty wonderful.
I love my new Linux OS on my computer (first one I've ever installed), I vastly prefer it to windows, but for ease of use it is still way behind the mac, and even windows in a few things... getting things configured takes time and effort, unlike the windows approach of download this spyware and I'll let it work. - RaulMontana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2In MY opinion linux is easy to install indeed, but to install stuff such as beryl omg, I had trouble =(... But regardless, I love linux and I love ubuntu
- RodeoRobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's only easy if you have a somewhat modern, somewhat standard computer. I tried to install Linux on my very non-modern non-standard P2120 laptop, which uses a 900Mhz Transmeta Crusoe processor, a widescreen display, and built-in wi-fi.
The Transmeta didn't have enough juice to run Ubunti or even Xubuntu very well. Windows XP was faster. And lightweight distros like DSL ran great, but didn't support the integrated graphics card or the built-in wi-fi. Both of those were easy to install, but to have everything working properly I'd have to mess around with the Linux config files or figure out how to compile my own version of Linux, something that is very complicated and a pain in the butt to learn. In this instance, Windows is just easier. - Homunculiheaded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"not broken; don't fix it" the more time I spend on my linux machine the more Windows feels 'broken'
Installing an OS, any OS can be a pain, but once up in running I've found Ubuntu to be a lot more user friendly than Windows. Synaptic/apt-get alone is worth it, at first I was unsure, but being able to manage all my packages and have all my updates managed from one location makes downloading and installing individual executables seem tedious.
Linux(at least Ubuntu) makes the easy things easier AND doesn't fight you when you want to do more advanced work. - kidtux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does Download Squad have ties with Netscape? I noticed that they have a Netscape vote button at the bottom of the post.
Any one have thoughts on this? -
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is