RE: publicity. Despite the postings here bemoaning the bad publicity given to Linux, certain facts have to be considered, and the most painful of these is that Linux is a very unfriendly operating system to come to terms with, and intimidates and frustrates the hell out of those who do not have advanced UNIX knowledge! I have had SuSE 7.0 personal all week now, and on the 2 machines I have tried to set it up on, I still have not fully succeeded. I've had partition trouble (gotta be REAL careful which device to install on - hda/hdb, which partition etc...), multiple installation crashes (at the 100% mark where the kernel would not install), mouse configuration trouble (why does choosing the 'Microsoft Intellimouse' option cause it to go haywire when I do in fact have this device? How do I then rectify it when I cannot then use the GUI as the mouse has gone haywire!?), and last night after failing to detect my modem the system unexpectedly rebooted (that happened 2/3 times for no apparent reason). And that's on the better of the 2 machines! The other one still will not run KDE as it complains of the lack of installed servers, does not recognise my video card, and gives me errors that 'routing' has failed. Certainly, I have been a long way short of having a running system within 20 mins of opening the box as SuSE have suggested! If I were a reviewer evaluating the product, I would have little choice but to slate it, and advise people to choose Microsoft products - I've installed 1 server & 2 workstations with Win2K, implemented a domain, set up printers, and connected to the internet in the same time period that Linux has done little more than frustrate and annoy me. But I will persevere, as I am nothing else if not inquisitive and resilient! It does seem to me however that the Linux community suffers from an overdose of that sorry old computing tale - assuming that everyone else in the world knows as much as you, and despising them if they do not! Regards, Martin.
RE: publicity.
Despite the postings here bemoaning the bad publicity given to Linux, certain facts have to be considered, and the most painful of these is that Linux is a very unfriendly operating system to come to terms with, and intimidates and frustrates the hell out of those who do not have advanced UNIX knowledge!
I have had SuSE 7.0 personal all week now, and on the 2 machines I have tried to set it up on, I still have not fully succeeded. I've had
trouble (gotta be REAL careful which device to install on - hda/hdb, which partition etc...), multiple installation crashes (at the 100% mark where
kernel would not install), mouse configuration trouble (why does choosing the 'Microsoft Intellimouse' option cause it to go haywire when I do in fact have this device? How do I then rectify it when I cannot then use the GUI as the mouse has gone haywire!?), and last night after failing to detect my modem the system unexpectedly rebooted (that happened 2/3 times for no apparent reason). And that's on the better of the 2 machines! The other one still will not run KDE as it complains of the lack of installed servers, does not recognise my video card, and gives me errors that 'routing' has failed. Certainly, I have been a long way short of having a running system within 20 mins of opening the box as SuSE have suggested!
If I were a reviewer evaluating the product, I would have little choice but to slate it, and advise people to choose Microsoft products - I've installed 1 server & 2 workstations with Win2K, implemented a domain, set up
I'm afraid to say I agree. I do, however, have a working system with X
server, although despite being installed, GNOME and KDE won't work. I can
play games perfectly, except that snake race one because it refuses to fit
on screen no matter what resolution I put it in....
However, when I try and run *anything* other than the games, my drive makes
a lot of noise, the hard drive light goes orange, and this is how it stays
for as long as you want to leave it for. It's good fun though, and I am
extremely impressed with the security, especially after working with NT 4.0
for three years. With a little work towards the installation wizard, it's
coming on for a fine O/S.
Regards,
Robb Bloomfield
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Dart
and connected to the internet in the same time period that Linux has done little more than frustrate and annoy me.
But I will persevere, as I am nothing else if not inquisitive and resilient! It does seem to me however that the Linux community suffers from an overdose of that sorry old computing tale - assuming that everyone else in the world knows as much as you, and despising them if they do not!
Regards,
Martin.
Robb The Royal Latin School wrote:
I'm afraid to say I agree. I do, however, have a working system with X server, although despite being installed, GNOME and KDE won't work. I can play games perfectly, except that snake race one because it refuses to fit on screen no matter what resolution I put it in....
What's your graphics card ? How much RAM have you got ? How big is your hard drive ? Thanks -- Richard
My graphics card is inbuilt on the mother board, and off hand I couldn't
tell you, I have 32MB of ram and an 8GB hard drive, with (supposedly) 5GB
assigned to Linux, but it thinks it's got about 1. Which is fine, 'cos I'll
get the rest back when I've finished fiddling about and then do it properly.
Robb Bloomfield
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
Robb
The Royal Latin School wrote:
I'm afraid to say I agree. I do, however, have a working system with X server, although despite being installed, GNOME and KDE won't work. I
can
play games perfectly, except that snake race one because it refuses to fit on screen no matter what resolution I put it in....
What's your graphics card ? How much RAM have you got ? How big is your hard drive ?
Thanks
-- Richard
Robb The Royal Latin School wrote:
My graphics card is inbuilt on the mother board, and off hand I couldn't tell you, I have 32MB of ram and an 8GB hard drive, with (supposedly) 5GB assigned to Linux, but it thinks it's got about 1. Which is fine, 'cos I'll get the rest back when I've finished fiddling about and then do it properly.
The built in chips can be a bit strange at times. You really need to plug in a separate graphics card. That might be an S3 or ATI card. First time configuration of X-windows can be difficult. But, as other people have said, first time installation of Microsoft products can be difficult as well :) I've also had a lot of trouble with these chips under Win 95/98/2000/NT4 and some of the comments I've heard from PC shop technicians aren't really repeatable here. 32Mb of RAM is somewhat on the mean side. This is why your hard drive is grinding. If I run MS Windows I use 128Mb of RAM. This allows MS Office to run without problems. If you want to run X-windows and an office suite you should use at least 64Mb of RAM. I've also met people who insist that 256Mb is the minimum. However, in the run up to Christmas the Taiwanese RAM people have jacked up the prices up to maximise profits. So, 64Mb might be all that you can afford ? Thanks -- Richard
Robb
The Royal Latin School wrote:
My graphics card is inbuilt on the mother board, and off hand I couldn't tell you, I have 32MB of ram and an 8GB hard drive, with (supposedly)
5GB
assigned to Linux, but it thinks it's got about 1. Which is fine, 'cos I'll get the rest back when I've finished fiddling about and then do it
The plan is thqat my new computer will have at least 256MB RAM.......but
thats another story.
I was working on the assumption that because Windows 95 and Office (what I
usually use at home) can survive on 16MB (what I had last week, the rest I
"borrowed" from work"), then a simple Linux GUI would as well.......
I think I have S3 chips.....I could install a graphics card, but my poor old
P120 with the blown up power supply, blown up parallel port, two borken
floppy drives, given up PCI slot, probably couldn't cope anymore, which is
why the new computer is in build process.......
Configuration of X windows wasn't that hard, and I'm quite happy with it.
(They all look the same to me anyway......and it's how it runs the things
underneath it, not what it looks like.....)
Regards,
Robb Bloomfield
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
The built in chips can be a bit strange at times. You really need to plug in a separate graphics card. That might be an S3 or ATI card. First time configuration of X-windows can be difficult. But, as other people have said, first time installation of Microsoft products can be difficult as well :)
I've also had a lot of trouble with these chips under Win 95/98/2000/NT4 and some of the comments I've heard from PC shop technicians aren't really repeatable here.
32Mb of RAM is somewhat on the mean side. This is why your hard drive is grinding. If I run MS Windows I use 128Mb of RAM. This allows MS Office to run without problems. If you want to run X-windows and an office suite you should use at least 64Mb of RAM. I've also met people who insist that 256Mb is the minimum. However, in the run up to Christmas the Taiwanese RAM people have jacked up the prices up to maximise profits. So, 64Mb might be all that you can afford ?
Thanks
-- Richard
I agree that Linux can sometimes be difficult to set up correctly. I would like to add a couple of comments though. Firstly, how easy do you think it would be for a total newbie to setup windows correctly - starting from nothing and no knowledge of what to expect as the end result or the pitfalls. Secondly I think it is a mistake for linux distros to try to emulate windows so much. In particular the graphical install may be pretty but it does away with one of the advantages of linux - that the actual OS is independent of the GUI used with it. I suspect that (windows emulation PR issues aside) it would be easier if the installers in Linux distros separated the different parts of the install. eg. Stage 1: OS and utilities Stage 2: GUI Stage 3: office suite etc. ____________________________________ Giles Nunn - Network Manager Carms Schools ICT Development Centre Tel: +44 01239 710662 Fax: 710985 ____________________________________ On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Martin Dart wrote:
RE: publicity.
Despite the postings here bemoaning the bad publicity given to Linux, certain facts have to be considered, and the most painful of these is that Linux is a very unfriendly operating system to come to terms with, and intimidates and frustrates the hell out of those who do not have advanced UNIX knowledge!
I have had SuSE 7.0 personal all week now, and on the 2 machines I have tried to set it up on, I still have not fully succeeded. I've had partition trouble (gotta be REAL careful which device to install on - hda/hdb, which partition etc...), multiple installation crashes (at the 100% mark where the kernel would not install), mouse configuration trouble (why does choosing the 'Microsoft Intellimouse' option cause it to go haywire when I do in fact have this device? How do I then rectify it when I cannot then use the GUI as the mouse has gone haywire!?), and last night after failing to detect my modem the system unexpectedly rebooted (that happened 2/3 times for no apparent reason). And that's on the better of the 2 machines! The other one still will not run KDE as it complains of the lack of installed servers, does not recognise my video card, and gives me errors that 'routing' has failed. Certainly, I have been a long way short of having a running system within 20 mins of opening the box as SuSE have suggested!
If I were a reviewer evaluating the product, I would have little choice but to slate it, and advise people to choose Microsoft products - I've installed 1 server & 2 workstations with Win2K, implemented a domain, set up printers, and connected to the internet in the same time period that Linux has done little more than frustrate and annoy me.
But I will persevere, as I am nothing else if not inquisitive and resilient! It does seem to me however that the Linux community suffers from an overdose of that sorry old computing tale - assuming that everyone else in the world knows as much as you, and despising them if they do not!
Regards,
Martin.
I agree that Linux can sometimes be difficult to set up correctly. I would like to add a couple of comments though. Firstly, how easy do you think it would be for a total newbie to setup windows correctly - starting from nothing and no knowledge of what to expect as the end result or the pitfalls. Secondly I think it is a mistake for linux distros to try to emulate windows so much. In particular the graphical install may be pretty but it does away with one of the advantages of linux - that the actual OS is independent of the GUI used with it. I suspect that (windows emulation PR issues aside) it would be easier if the installers in Linux distros separated the different parts of the install. eg. Stage 1: OS and utilities Stage 2: GUI Stage 3: office suite etc.
____________________________________ Giles Nunn - Network Manager Carms Schools ICT Development Centre Tel: +44 01239 710662 Fax: 710985 ____________________________________
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Martin Dart wrote:
RE: publicity.
Despite the postings here bemoaning the bad publicity given to Linux, certain facts have to be considered, and the most painful of these is
Linux is a very unfriendly operating system to come to terms with, and intimidates and frustrates the hell out of those who do not have advanced UNIX knowledge!
I have had SuSE 7.0 personal all week now, and on the 2 machines I have tried to set it up on, I still have not fully succeeded. I've had
trouble (gotta be REAL careful which device to install on - hda/hdb, which partition etc...), multiple installation crashes (at the 100% mark where
kernel would not install), mouse configuration trouble (why does choosing the 'Microsoft Intellimouse' option cause it to go haywire when I do in fact have this device? How do I then rectify it when I cannot then use the GUI as the mouse has gone haywire!?), and last night after failing to detect my modem the system unexpectedly rebooted (that happened 2/3 times for no apparent reason). And that's on the better of the 2 machines! The other one still will not run KDE as it complains of the lack of installed servers, does not recognise my video card, and gives me errors that 'routing' has failed. Certainly, I have been a long way short of having a running system within 20 mins of opening the box as SuSE have suggested!
If I were a reviewer evaluating the product, I would have little choice but to slate it, and advise people to choose Microsoft products - I've installed 1 server & 2 workstations with Win2K, implemented a domain, set up
Now I think about it, I think I can empathise with those comments.....when I
install NT I just whizz straight through, setting up DHCP, Gateways,
Protocols etc etc. But I never really thought that making a complete Newbie
do it is the same as myself starting out with Linux.....
Cheers,
Robb Bloomfield
----- Original Message -----
From: Giles Nunn
and connected to the internet in the same time period that Linux has done little more than frustrate and annoy me.
But I will persevere, as I am nothing else if not inquisitive and resilient! It does seem to me however that the Linux community suffers from an overdose of that sorry old computing tale - assuming that everyone else in the world knows as much as you, and despising them if they do not!
Regards,
Martin.
Giles Nunn
I agree that Linux can sometimes be difficult to set up correctly. I would like to add a couple of comments though. Firstly, how easy do you think it would be for a total newbie to setup windows correctly - starting from nothing and no knowledge of what to expect as the end result or the pitfalls.
Exactly!!!! What I would like to do is to take someone who moans a lot about how it is difficult for a computer novice to install Linux and give them a machine on which I have already installed Linux. Just Linux in a single partition which fills the HD. Then give them a Windows 98 CDROM and tell then to go ahead and install Windows. Remind them that the machine must be able to boot both Windows and Linux when they have finished . . . . . . . You might throw in a copy of Partition Magic too . . . -- Phillip Deackes Using Storm Linux
Martin Martin Dart wrote:
If I were a reviewer evaluating the product, I would have little choice but to slate it, and advise people to choose Microsoft products - I've installed 1 server & 2 workstations with Win2K, implemented a domain, set up printers, and connected to the internet in the same time period that Linux has done little more than frustrate and annoy me.
I review Linux products all the time for Linux magazines and can't find out why people have problems with the latest distributions. As long as they stay away from the command line that is :) Both Red Hat and SuSE distributions should just drop straight into the hard disk. I regularly build new machines and all I have to do is wander along the road to the local PC shop for hardware. Thanks -- Richard
participants (5)
-
Giles Nunn -
Martin Dart -
Phillip Deackes -
Richard -
The Royal Latin School