I think linux might have "broken through" with ubuntu

[BlackAura]

but even I cringe everytime I get told to "open a terminal...".

It's often the quickest, simplest way to fix most problems when you don't have physical access to the machine. It's often easier to say "open a terminal, and paste this in", rather than a multi-page list of instructions on how to find the option in the GUI which quite often won't apply if the user has changed any settings. The only way to make GUI instructions clearer is by taking lots of screenshots, which people on forums generally can't be bothered to do.

Same goes for Mac OS X - it's often much quicker to explain how to do something from the command line than through the UI. If you look at the advice given out on forums with lots of geeks, it tends to use the command line. On forums with fewer geeks, it tends to be GUI-based instructions, and about ten times as long. Obviously most places people might ask for Linux advice tend to be full of geeks.

The same would be true on Windows as well, except you can't actually do much from the Windows CLI. Still, I see people posting advice to Windows users telling them to use the command prompt for diagnosing or fixing a problem, especially problems with networking or file permissions.

Anyway, have you ever tried explaining to someone how to add a network connection (VPN, modem, broadband, or whatever) in Windows XP? It's almost impossible to explain to normal people without resorting to screenshots. There are just so many ways to get to the damned thing, and there's no single way that always works.

Now try writing a manual explaining not only that, but also how to use Remote Desktop, and how to use the various admin tools on Windows Server 2003 to do things like add and remove users. You quickly end up with a twenty page document, which took hours to write. The same management tasks from a command line (written for a different audience, admittedly) barely take up two pages of instructions.

On that note... all operating systems suck. Which is a shame. I use Windows XP, Windows Vista, Mac OS X, and Linux (Ubuntu, usually) on a daily basis, and all of them get really irritating. I'd kind of like to use an OS that I can actually get some work done on it, without either fighting it, or having bits of it blow up on me for no apparent reason.

[Ex-Cyber]

On that note... all operating systems suck. Which is a shame. I use Windows XP, Windows Vista, Mac OS X, and Linux (Ubuntu, usually) on a daily basis, and all of them get really irritating. I'd kind of like to use an OS that I can actually get some work done on it, without either fighting it, or having bits of it blow up on me for no apparent reason.

True. The other side of the coin, though, is that supporting PC hardware is a tremendous pain in the ass. There are tons of bugs and quirks that the OS and/or driver must work around, many of which the manufacturers prefer to keep to themselves. Linux has a 73K source file that contains just workarounds for PCI/PCIe bridge bugs, for example.

[Stryfe]

Sorry if I should have started a new post for this, but it might be kinda on topic.

As someone who basically is just learning this stuff for the first time, will this version of Linux run on an older PC?

I have a couple older ones laying around collecting dust. One had Windows ME out of the box, and another, an old HP Pavilion, has Windows 2000 Pro running smooth on it. What version of Linux could I install on a box like one of those, and still being able to run code for the most recent libraries?

[jaredfogle]

Anyway, have you ever tried explaining to someone how to add a network connection (VPN, modem, broadband, or whatever) in Windows XP? It's almost impossible to explain to normal people without resorting to screenshots. There are just so many ways to get to the damned thing, and there's no single way that always works.

I got very frustrated recently trying to copy some music from a data disc to a friend's Windows laptop. I couldn't believe how unintuitive the whole process was, and I was pissed that I couldn't just fall back on standard CLI commands.


Side note, does windows have any sort of CLI by default? Does it use similar commands to every other operating system?

[Nico0020]

ubuntu can run on some low end machines. But if the machine is really old try Xubuntu. based on ubuntu but very very very stripped down. requires like no power to run, nor does it take up much HDD space. My friend put it on an on 98 machine and it ran amazing. we just kept it in our game room and used it to look up gamefaqs and play with gimp.

[Specially Cork]

When all is said and done, for me it's probably just the lack of additional value I'd get from switching and adapting to Linux. I know Windows isn't everybody's favourite OS, but it's what I've been using for over a decade and (with XP especially) I have never encountered any major problems. Linux just doesn't do the things I use a computer for any better than Windows does.

[BlackAura]

As someone who basically is just learning this stuff for the first time, will this version of Linux run on an older PC?

As long as you have enough RAM in there (512MB should be enough, but machines from that time typically had more like 128MB), it'll run. It might be a bit slow though - Ubuntu has all kinds of stuff turned on that eats memory, or takes a while to start up even on newer systems.

It's quite possible to get a decent Linux installation on a machine that old, by installing only the components you need. The catch is that, as with doing that with Windows XP (with nLite or similar), you really need to know what you're doing. Otherwise, you'll end up with a system that doesn't do what you want it to do. If there's missing functionality, you can install it, but you need to know what it's called, and that it was supposed to be there in the first place.

Xubuntu works fine on lower resource machines. However, it's missing a few features, such as the ability to browse local Windows file shares, and a lot of the integration work done on Ubuntu doesn't apply to Xubunutu. At least all the same applications will run just as well as they do in Ubuntu.

Side note, does windows have any sort of CLI by default? Does it use similar commands to every other operating system?

It has a CLI. Quickest way to bring it up is to hit Windows+R, and type "cmd". Otherwise, go hunting for "Command Prompt" in the Start menu somewhere.

It's nothing at all like any other modern operating system. It's basically a somewhat improved version of the DOS command-line. Compared to something like Bash (standard shell on Linux and Mac OS X) it's pretty primitive, and hard to work with. It's also been abandoned for years - pretty much every new feature introduced in the last 15 years is inaccessible from the command line. Unlike, say, Mac OS X, where almost every aspect of the system can be controlled and configured from the command line only, without even needing to resort to a text editor. You can't even do that on most Linux systems.

[jaredfogle]

Eeew. DOS. Good to know how to access it at least.


I would like to say that a friend of mine who started using ubuntu has his window manager and desktop and everything looking sharp. Nothing like the default brown doo-doo design.

He's not a gamer, so he doesn't miss anything from his old OS.

[ace]

I've been using Ubuntu on and off for the past couple of years. Recently, because I was able to get my dual monitor/CRT TV set up running, I've found myself using Ubuntu far more frequently.

Pretty much everything I do on XP I can do on Ubuntu. Since I very rarely play PC games anymore, I'm seriously considering getting rid of XP completely, or at least trimming it down to the bare minimum.

[SuperMegatron]

Try out linux media center edition. That smokes the windows one.

[Ex-Cyber]

It has a CLI. Quickest way to bring it up is to hit Windows+R, and type "cmd". Otherwise, go hunting for "Command Prompt" in the Start menu somewhere.

It's nothing at all like any other modern operating system. It's basically a somewhat improved version of the DOS command-line. Compared to something like Bash (standard shell on Linux and Mac OS X) it's pretty primitive, and hard to work with. It's also been abandoned for years - pretty much every new feature introduced in the last 15 years is inaccessible from the command line.

CMD is the stock shell, but it's not the only one you can use. I think there are a couple of native Windows ports of bash and zsh floating around, and Microsoft offers "Windows PowerShell", which is an object-oriented shell that can be extended with .NET assemblies or something wild like that (free download for most recent Windows versions, and apparently a standard component on Windows 7). There are also native Windows builds/ports of a lot of the GNU Coreutils.

[Wagh]

Anyway, have you ever tried explaining to someone how to add a network connection (VPN, modem, broadband, or whatever) in Windows XP? It's almost impossible to explain to normal people without resorting to screenshots. There are just so many ways to get to the damned thing, and there's no single way that always works.

Not really. I pretty much have xp's control panel memorized. I've walked through all kinds of router/system troubles from a bar stepping outside for a smoke... 10 minutes tops. XP really isn't that complicated.

edit: Ubuntu is awful. I've yet to have a good experience with it. I keep it around in case my system crashes or something but Ubuntu takes ~1 hour and 30 minutes to start on my core2 machine. I can reinstall xp in that time.

[Ex-Cyber]

Ubuntu takes ~1 hour and 30 minutes to start on my core2 machine.

This isn't normal behavior. It should take more like 90 seconds, not 90 minutes. Most likely culprit is a hardware and/or BIOS bug, especially if you have a laptop (SMM is, it seems, the last refuge of scoundrels). You might want to try Damn Small Linux.

[Nico0020]

new version comes out in april. Finally some new themes included by default to give the system a bit of a better look. The notification system is also a lot prettier.

IMO they should include Avant Window Manager by default to give some more eyecandy. Plus everyone i know that uses linux has a doc anyways.

[adventure_of_link]

one of the ways I can see Linux going mainstream is convince ATi to either:

1) fix their drivers
or 2) stop making video cards, period.

then there's the issue of laptops and/or wireless cards not running right in Linux. Hell, my desktop fan runs full speed always in Linux, however when I ran any windows (even betas) it would run at a slower speed unless I ran something like Unreal Tournament or ePSXe.

[Stormwatch]

It has a CLI. Quickest way to bring it up is to hit Windows+R

Hold it right there! Call it "super" or "meta".

[jaredfogle]

Apparently Jaunty Jackalope has a massively polished GUI.

The doo-doo theme is gone?

[Nico0020]

Not perfect, but getting better.

[Stormwatch]

A dock? They added a goddamn DOCK?! Gotta be fuckin' kidding me... if they wanted to rip off the Mac, couldn't they copy the good parts?

Here's what they should have done:



As you can see, I would take things from classic Mac rather than OSX.

[EDIT] Come to think about it, perhaps a separate menu (like aLunch or Atomic Beef) would be a better app launcher.

[BlackAura]

A dock? They added a goddamn DOCK?! Gotta be fuckin' kidding me...

It's an add-on. Most likely, Avant Window Navigator. The default setup in Ubuntu 9.04 is the same as it was in 8.10 - a show desktop button, a taskbar, a desktop switcher, and a bin. The theme's not the default one either.