-----Original Message----- From: alan@ibgames.com [mailto:alan@ibgames.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:21 AM To: suse-linux-e@suse.com; hangout@nylxs.com Subject: Re: [SLE] Why does it always have to be a massive ordeal? I have to install both Windows and Linux. If I'm installing Linux I allow about an hour, after which I expect to be doing work on the machine. If I plan to install Windows then I will allow at least a day, two days if there is anything unusual about the hardware. On top of that I would expect it to be several weeks before I've located all the annoying things where Windows assumes I don't know what I'm doing and does something different, and turned them off.
The problem is, as Ruben pointed out obliquely, that most people do not install Windows, but if they want to use Linux then they do have to install it. This gives rise to the myth that Linux is more difficult to install.
I don't have your depth of experience, but I have certainly installed Windows many times, on several people's computers, including several that I've built over the years. Generally, they went smoothly, and all the software and hardware was found, and worked (since Win 98, anyway). Upgrades have also generally gone smoothly, but for whatever reason, I have more often done full installs (replaced hard disks, or installed NT in place of 95, or 2000 in place of ME, or whatever). I have installed SuSE on several computers, since 6.something. Usually, the INSTALLATION went fairly well, though the first few times, I had to fake my way because I didn't understand what the DeutchEnglish YaST(x) was asking me or telling me, or what the assumptions were behind various decisions and choices. However, whereas INSTALLATION in Windows generally meant CONFIGURATION, as well, installation in Linux did not. My normal experience with a Windoze application install is that you run InstallShield, answer a few questions ... or mostly just press [Enter] to accept the defaults ... and then it just works. If there's additional "configuration", after you start the program... well: a) at least, you CAN start the program and b) the "config" at that stage usually means only personalization. My normal experience with a Linux application install is that my troubles have not yet begun... assuming the software actually installed and didn't bounce due to dependencies that could not be met without un-installing another software that I wanted/needed. "Configuring" in Linux, often seems to mean that I must find and edit one-or-several files in several locations before the program will even deign to load. Then, I try to use it and there are a couple more edits to do... not explained in the program, but rather gleaned from a frustrating Google search, or from the contradictory suggestions of several people on this (or other) list. And, when it finally works, that's when I learn that I've broken some other software that I thought was ok. I had a lot of that experience with Windows... Windows 3.x and a bit with Win95. Very rare, since Win 98SE came out. In the years that I used Windows, and built and modified my own computers (no overclocking, just assembling and updating hardware), I have never installed a newer OS and had it fail to find/work-with hardware that worked ok in the previous OS or version. I've had that a couple of times with Linux, the most recent being the lovely DVD installation in 7.3 that became a "no DVD booting for Pioneer" in 8.0. Granted, I might have had some grief with NT service packs if I'd been prompt about installing them, but I only installed them when I encountered a need, so they were always stable by the time I got to them. Outlook and Exchange Server (at the office) have gone down a few times, over ten years, but they've never lost my mail. I've had meeting reservations/notifications screwed up a few times, but it was always operator error/carelessness (mine or somebody else's). I certainly HAVE had Word screw up my long documents in royal fashion, but I've been using FrameMaker on Windows for years, with no real failures. Finally, for a number of common configuration situations, I have needed far less knowledge to get video or sound or whatever working properly under Windows than under Linux, and I have NEVER owned a bleeding-edge piece of equipment. All my drives, sound cards, video, etc., etc., have always been more than a year old at the time I installed them. I didn't even buy a cordless, optical mouse until they'd been on the market for more than a year. It goes on. Are you sure you aren't exaggerating the claims of Windows crappiness or using old data? /kevin