Discussion Forums > Technology
Linux
Kyrdua:
--- Quote from: Freedom Kira on February 01, 2012, 07:32:57 AM ---
--- Quote from: Kyrdua on January 31, 2012, 09:51:12 AM ---^ ???
Ubuntu's [10.04] Gnome looked pretty darn similar to Harey Hardon version.
--- End quote ---
I was referring to the windows, where the default settings moved the close/minimize/maximize buttons to the left of the windows and made them round. IMO that was where it started. 9.10 still looked like the old versions prior to it and was more Windows-like.
--- End quote ---
That's the most mac-like thing 4 for you? le wut.
why did i press 4 instead of typing "for"...
--- Quote from: shikitohno on February 01, 2012, 09:59:20 PM ---I still don't get why there's this notion that all new users absolutely must be directed towards Ubuntu.
--- End quote ---
Know what, Why don't you do an experiment? ask your friends to dual boot each of the distro's you mentioned.
help them on that part if you have to, of course.
make sure that they have no damn clue about linux. that is, never got curious, and it's the first time they heard of it.
bonus points if they have "I'm computer literate because i can play solitaire" level computer literacy. and post results in a week after they installed and used the os for everyday functions. lets see how it turns out.
I can pretty much see ubuntu being the easiest to use.
Fedora being easy to use? i had a hard time installing progs on that. also, confusing commands for command line. it's also the hardest to use distro i hopped into.
Debian? I think there's a good reason people call that OS "for experienced users". I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole at my level. nevermind that Debian has a larger software repo than ubuntu (iirc), something hyped that way is not something i'd touch.
Mint is easier to use than ubuntu, yes. but ubuntu still got more software in its own repos.
Mandriva, Didn't have stuff* i wanted installed by default, iirc. Though I can't specify since it's been a long time i've distro hopped. you can take this part with a grain of salt. (click to show/hide)i.e. progs newbs expect to be installed by default.
Chakra, never heard of it. do people even use that so i have others i can ask or solved threads to search?
FreeBSD, any recognized progs in there? or just a select few?
also, you seem to really like fedora...
EDIT:
Another thing i've noticed that you seem to be under the impression that the average newb would be willing to adapt to any new OS.
from my experience. i.e. when a a friend of mine tried to use my lappy when it had mint (LXDE) when we were doing a research project for our psychology class. first thing he asked was "where's firefox?", the OS came with the then newcomer chrome, which was unheard of in our parts of the internet. his next question was, then "do you have MS Office or Openoffice?", the OS came with abiword and co.
Next thing he said was, paraphrasing him, "Man, how can you even use these progs? they're so hard to use! (read: unfamiliar)"
Bottomline? don't expect any newbie linux user to stick with a new OS that has stuff they never heard of.
shikitohno:
Actually, I'm not a big fan of Fedora, but I prefer it to Ubuntu for sure. And as I believe I said earlier on, Fedora's more likely to be useful career-wise. Unless the OP is told to maintain servers all of a sudden, if he runs into Linux at work, chances are it'll be RHEL, Fedora or CentOS. Red Hat and CentOS function just about the same as Fedora, so familiarity with Fedora will give the OP the ability to use any of those systems with relatively little difficulty. I don't know how you've really managed to use any other version of linux if you found Fedora's command line difficult to use. Outside of package manager specific stuff (i.e. yum and rpms), Fedora's commands are Just about all the same as any other linux OS. And Ubuntu doesn't really have a leg up on Fedora for ease of installing packages either. Since I first tried it out three years ago, yum has had a graphical front-end that functions the same exact way as the GUI program from Ubuntu. Search for packages you want, tick the box next to the one you want, and hit install to install it and all of the dependencies.
Debian isn't that tough to use if you're just doing general purpose stuff. I managed it quite fine when I was first trying out linux and testing out a variety of distros.
Chakra is based off of Arch, which has some massively helpful forums, active IRC, and a wiki that will answer most questions you have before you need to go to either the forums or IRC support channel. There's also a decent community of people who just use Chakra, for specific questions.
Now for your BSD questions, what? Just get out... Yes, freeBSD has plenty of recognized programs. 23000+ and growing, at last count. What's not already there is usually pretty easy to port.
As for your next point, that everything should be as similar as possible to Windows, it's an idea I find pretty stupid. If someone I know complains that linux is should be more similar to windows and they want me to help them, the first help they'll get is this. Linux isn't windows. If that's what you want, why are you bothering to try linux? If people cannot be bothered to learn how to use their new OS, I see no reason to waste all of my time helping them remove the things that make linux linux, and piece by piece turn it into a ghetto Windows. You don't see posts on OS X forums getting serious consideration if the person is saying, "Mac sucks because it isn't exactly like Windows." People don't bend over backwards to Window-ify OS X in response to that, they point out the benefits of their OS.
And @Freedom Kira: My point was that there are other distros that do all of that already. Ubuntu hasn't reinvented the wheel on anything. They've just done a good job marketing the wheel. Most major distros can be effectively run without touching the terminal these days. I don't see making the OS look and act as much like Windows as a possible to be a good thing, though. If I wanted it to look and behave as much like Windows as it could, I would install WIndows. And Ubuntu hits snags later on if you actually become a proficient user. They patch their programs all to hell, so their version works different from what's upstream. One patch to fix one program's incompatibility with a new version of something spawns 5 others, and then you wind up with a house of cards for an OS. They do other silly things that make it frustrating to use after a while.
When I was talking about it being confusing for the interface, based on what other people are saying it WOULD be confusing for a noob. It's a computer OS with a freaking tablet interface. There's no one who isn't going to be confused by that. And Ubuntu's already got the HUD coming down the pipes to further confuse people.
In short, there's a couple of things you folks here seem to be assuming off the bat. First, the user is an idiot. He's incapable of reading technically oriented instructions, and needs to be spoon-fed everything. Second, the user wants everything to be like Windows, except not actually be Windows. It's not cool to like Microsoft products any more, but he can't afford a Mac, so he must want a linux distro that looks just like Windows. And the big one, underpinning the first two assumptions, the user will refuse to learn how to do anything in a new way.
If you want something that looks exactly like Windows, behaves like Windows, and is controlled like Windows, why on earth are you going to use linux? Sorry to rant at you guys, but it seems like you're going out of your way to cater to a group of users who likely will not benefit from using linux, and will just go back to windows in the end, because it does everything they need, exactly how they need it.
Apologies for length, but it's as concise as I'll be able to get it.
fohfoh:
Geez, now you guys are turning this into a fanboy argument. It's not.
metro wants to dick around with linux. Thus, ubuntu was a good suggestion. Not saying other choices aren't valid, but it's the best choice for a casual user just wanting to dip his toe into the pool before a plunge. It was for that reason I suggested trying out the older gnome version prior to hopping into the new tablet version.
My "weird" suggestion was to see linux from different facets. Hell, he can try out kubuntu as well for all I care.
In the end, everything is an opinion. No need to pull on people's balls based on their sexual orientation towards linux distros. There's a place for that, but right now, let's just give metro his easy one night stand.
shikitohno:
Questioning whether or not one distro is the "best" for new users is hardly starting a fanboy flamewar. I'm simply pointing out that, in my opinion, there's a lot of factors out there that would be useful towards determining which distro would be best suited to a new comer to linux. Technical proficiency, intended use of the computer, and what the person aims to get out of the experience, just to name a few. I think failing to take these things into consideration, and just shouting out whatever your favourite distro happens to be is setting up people for bad experiences. Some people disagreed with this stance and explained why. I've simply expanded on my reasoning in my last reply. There's nobody here saying "Distro X rocks! Everything else crap!"
It's pretty civil. I feel you guys oversimplify things. You guys disagree. People on the internet don't agree, happens all the time. Nobody's turning this into a fanboy fight, though.
fohfoh:
*Shrugs*
In any case, metro, go mess with a distro and let us know what you think.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version