• If Linux is the future then the future is awful or How To Install Linux Alongside Windows
    239 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Wiggles;39632644]Even if you dislike the article you can't disagree that it raises a very good point: if Linux is to become the future platform for PC gaming, then popular distributions like Ubuntu and the applications that we use everyday need to become much [i]much[/i] more user friendly.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Linux is still an absolute mess for desktop use, major strides need to be made. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh-cnaJoGCw[/media] [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;39691891]Let's be honest here. While it's not hard and you or me can easily learn how to deal with it keep in mind the average user. a) it's not a GUI b) it requires the user to have an idea on what to do in the first place c) it requires some actual ability to understand the results[/QUOTE] a) that's arch, a distro p. much designed exclusively for power users b) mainstream linux distros come with a GUI package manager
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39697964]Exactly. Linux is still an absolute mess for desktop use, major strides need to be made. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh-cnaJoGCw[/media] [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] a) that's arch, a distro p. much designed exclusively for power users b) mainstream linux distros come with a GUI package manager[/QUOTE] A few non-mainstream distros have GUI package managers as well, such as OpenSUSE (It really isn't mainstream, let's be honest here) and Sabayon too. Hopefully more distributions will follow this trends. If they cater to desktop users anyway, server distros should of course put their focus elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Bumrang;39696981]erm the difference is that sudo is admin access when [I]you[/I] want it, UAC is admin access when the [I]system[/I] want it[/QUOTE] Or seen from my viewpoint: "you don't have the permissions - go away" and hope you know how to run the same command elevated vs "I need more permissions to do this, may I go ahead?" - and that doesn't even apply in many linux desktop environments which do the latter anyway. Your 'point' baffles me - UAC prompts are triggered by user actions, and I even gave examples - how can anyone think it's when the 'system' wants elevation?
[QUOTE=Bumrang;39696981]erm the difference is that sudo is admin access when [I]you[/I] want it, UAC is admin access when the [I]system[/I] want it[/QUOTE] The difference isn't that granular in a sense. Sudo essentially works on the premise that the user knows they want to be elevated in order to be able to do what is needed. UAC on the other hand prompts the user with the fact that they are not elevated to do what they want to do. Out of the two, I would say that UAC is actually more user friendly. But at the same time it actually allows you to run something directly elevated. Remember the run option - run as admin. Keep in mind I'm not saying linux is bad, or even hard when you're a tiny bit beyond the average user. But it's not user friendly for the average user very often, which results in a lot of confusion.
[QUOTE=subenji99;39698681]Or seen from my viewpoint: "you don't have the permissions - go away" and hope you know how to run the same command elevated vs "I need more permissions to do this, may I go ahead?" - and that doesn't even apply in many linux desktop environments which do the latter anyway. Your 'point' baffles me - UAC prompts are triggered by user actions, and I even gave examples - how can anyone think it's when the 'system' wants elevation?[/QUOTE] sudo works like it does because it's used on the command line, a UAC esque prompt would make no sense (and generally be really annoying). If you're using a GUI tool to modify the system then you can either set it up to prompt for the password or simply display a "This is an administrator action [ok] [abort]" dialogue, if you're into that kind of thing.
[QUOTE=danharibo;39700108]sudo works like it does because it's used on the command line, a UAC esque prompt would make no sense (and generally be really annoying). If you're using a GUI tool to modify the system then you can either set it up to prompt for the password or simply display a "This is an administrator action [ok] [abort]" dialogue, if you're into that kind of thing.[/QUOTE] Which is exactly what UAC is And if you are in a User account rather than an Administrator account, it''ll prompt for credentials - just like linux.
For most people, the operating system they started with when they first got computers is the one they will stick with. I started with Windows, when I was 3. I'm 20 now, so I have 17 years of experience from Windows 95 to Windows 7. I still use it. Other people started with Macs, and they think they're the best thing ever and other operating systems aren't as good because [i]they're used to what they know[/i]. The average user has no real need to switch from their Operating system anyways. Linux runs faster and has more flexibility/freedom, but the average person just wants to browse the web, use Word or Photoshop, watch movies and play games, and Windows computers do that just fine, and Macs are good for most of that. Installing a new OS requires effort that they have no reason big enough to go through. Most people don't know how to install fucking printers, and from my years of helping friends and family having to explain how to use Linux will mess them up when they have to use Windows for work or school. If Linux is going to be accepted as a big player in the OS market, it's got to do a few things. 1. [B]It needs to come pre-installed on computers.[/B] This is the big point. Casual computer users won't bother installing their own OS. If it's already installed, and the price is cheaper due to no cost for using the OS license, then it'll be an attractive product. 2. [B]Big companies like Adobe need to port their software over.[/B] Sure, you can use Wine, but the average user won't know how to do that or deal with any problems. If these products run natively on Linux, then they won't have a reason to switch to Windows due to not having the same programs. 3. [B]There needs to be a single, solitary choice of a Linux distro for marketing and compatibility.[/B] That's not saying get rid of the rest, but one of them needs to become the lead distro for standardization across pre-builts and companies that port software. People will get confused if they have too many choices, and will just go for the simpler option of Windows or Mac. If companies have to port to all these different distros and troubleshoot the myriad of problems common to each separate one, they won't bother. Consumers won't know the difference between the distros. They don't research shit, they want to buy the PC and get home and use it. People are impatient and dumb sometimes, I know my family is when it comes to computers and it probably applies to others. 4. [B]There needs to be some form of customer support for Linux distros.[/B] Going on a forum won't cut it. Hell, a lot of people don't know how to use Google properly, how do you expect them to know what forums to go to, or who to listen to, and especially if they have to do the work themselves? People who have computer problems call a hotline, or call Geek Squad or some other money grubbing company to fix their shit. If a person can't get their computer problems solved over the phone or have a company stop buy, they'll be wary of buying a Linux PC. 5.[B]There needs to be built in tutorials on how to use Linux, or programs to help people used to other OS software get used to it[/B] Windows has a built in tutorial for using the start menu and using folders, and that helps grandpa and grandma know how to run that new fangled electric box wot does calculations. People used to Windows are going to need to know how to use package managers, and people sued to Macs are going to have to know how to use something that's not the Finder. 6. [b]Games need to run on it.[/b] Right now, Windows is the gaming platform of choice. Hell, it's why I haven't switched to Linux or bothered dual booting. If people can't play their Call of Duty, World of Warcraft of League of Legends on their Linux computer, they won't use Linux. 7. [B]There needs to be advertising[/B] Chromebooks are selling right now because they're being advertised. They're pieces of shit, but the public is now exposed to them via ads. Linux is never advertised, because no one makes a profit when it's installed. I have no clue who's going to bother marketing Linux unless they make their own proprietary version of it and sell it and that goes against the core principles of open source software. Right now Steam is trying to get a foothold in Linux, but they chose a bid distro to start in. Support so far has been spotty at best, especially with that Windows installer. I have no clue if Linux will get popular, but at least it's worth a shot, but without big name companies like Dell, Adobe, Blizzard, etc. Linux wil lstay a niche product.
[QUOTE=SleepyAl;39707226]For most people, the operating system they started with when they first got computers is the one they will stick with. I started with Windows, when I was 3. I'm 20 now, so I have 17 years of experience from Windows 95 to Windows 7. I still use it. Other people started with Macs, and they think they're the best thing ever and other operating systems aren't as good because [i]they're used to what they know[/i]. The average user has no real need to switch from their Operating system anyways. Linux runs faster and has more flexibility/freedom, but the average person just wants to browse the web, use Word or Photoshop, watch movies and play games, and Windows computers do that just fine, and Macs are good for most of that. Installing a new OS requires effort that they have no reason big enough to go through. Most people don't know how to install fucking printers, and from my years of helping friends and family having to explain how to use Linux will mess them up when they have to use Windows for work or school. If Linux is going to be accepted as a big player in the OS market, it's got to do a few things. 1. [B]It needs to come pre-installed on computers.[/B] This is the big point. Casual computer users won't bother installing their own OS. If it's already installed, and the price is cheaper due to no cost for using the OS license, then it'll be an attractive product. 2. [B]Big companies like Adobe need to port their software over.[/B] Sure, you can use Wine, but the average user won't know how to do that or deal with any problems. If these products run natively on Linux, then they won't have a reason to switch to Windows due to not having the same programs. 3. [B]There needs to be a single, solitary choice of a Linux distro for marketing and compatibility.[/B] That's not saying get rid of the rest, but one of them needs to become the lead distro for standardization across pre-builts and companies that port software. People will get confused if they have too many choices, and will just go for the simpler option of Windows or Mac. If companies have to port to all these different distros and troubleshoot the myriad of problems common to each separate one, they won't bother. Consumers won't know the difference between the distros. They don't research shit, they want to buy the PC and get home and use it. People are impatient and dumb sometimes, I know my family is when it comes to computers and it probably applies to others. 4. [B]There needs to be some form of customer support for Linux distros.[/B] Going on a forum won't cut it. Hell, a lot of people don't know how to use Google properly, how do you expect them to know what forums to go to, or who to listen to, and especially if they have to do the work themselves? People who have computer problems call a hotline, or call Geek Squad or some other money grubbing company to fix their shit. If a person can't get their computer problems solved over the phone or have a company stop buy, they'll be wary of buying a Linux PC. 5.[B]There needs to be built in tutorials on how to use Linux, or programs to help people used to other OS software get used to it[/B] Windows has a built in tutorial for using the start menu and using folders, and that helps grandpa and grandma know how to run that new fangled electric box wot does calculations. People used to Windows are going to need to know how to use package managers, and people sued to Macs are going to have to know how to use something that's not the Finder. 6. [b]Games need to run on it.[/b] Right now, Windows is the gaming platform of choice. Hell, it's why I haven't switched to Linux or bothered dual booting. If people can't play their Call of Duty, World of Warcraft of League of Legends on their Linux computer, they won't use Linux. 7. [B]There needs to be advertising[/B] Chromebooks are selling right now because they're being advertised. They're pieces of shit, but the public is now exposed to them via ads. Linux is never advertised, because no one makes a profit when it's installed. I have no clue who's going to bother marketing Linux unless they make their own proprietary version of it and sell it and that goes against the core principles of open source software. Right now Steam is trying to get a foothold in Linux, but they chose a bid distro to start in. Support so far has been spotty at best, especially with that Windows installer. I have no clue if Linux will get popular, but at least it's worth a shot, but without big name companies like Dell, Adobe, Blizzard, etc. Linux wil lstay a niche product.[/QUOTE] I'd just like to point out that a few of these issues have already been adresses. Canoncial already has plenty of support available, and some Linux distros come with wine preinstalled allowing you to just click and install your windows applications. Interrestingly enough, the games you mentioned are the ones currently performing the best in Wine, so there you go.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39690728]Don't tell me you don't remember dreamlinux[/QUOTE] I try my hardest to forget
[QUOTE=SleepyAl;39707226] 5.[B]There needs to be built in tutorials on how to use Linux, or programs to help people used to other OS software get used to it[/B] Windows has a built in tutorial for using the start menu and using folders, and that helps grandpa and grandma know how to run that new fangled electric box wot does calculations. People used to Windows are going to need to know how to use package managers, and people sued to Macs are going to have to know how to use something that's not the Finder. [/QUOTE] This, very much. Only the studious people seem to persevere.
If you're trying to make things user friendly by adding tutorials on how to use them.. they're not user friendly enough.
[QUOTE=garry;39709713]If you're trying to make things user friendly by adding tutorials on how to use them.. they're not user friendly enough.[/QUOTE] Damn IKEA, get your shit together.
Ikea chairs don't come with instructions on how to sit down
[QUOTE=garry;39709724]Ikea chairs don't come with instructions on how to sit down[/QUOTE] They come with that for assembling. Which can be compared to installing software. Now [I]USING[/I] the program can be compared to planting your arse on a chair.
I said they should come with instructions on how to USE them. Not on how to construct them. Installing programs should be easy too though. You shouldn't need a manual to tell you how to install software.
i find linux to be way too finicky to use unless running stuff like web servers where you don't really have to touch it after configuration it took me 30 minutes to figure out how to install video drivers on ubuntu12
[QUOTE=Van-man;39709752]They come with that for assembling. Which can be compared to installing software. Now [I]USING[/I] the program can be compared to planting your arse on a chair.[/QUOTE] Man, those ikea chairs sure are complicated. Took me like 10 hours to learn how to sit on them.
[QUOTE=garry;39709761]I said they should come with instructions on how to USE them. Not on how to construct them. Installing programs should be easy too though. You shouldn't need a manual to tell you how to install software.[/QUOTE] But using the software administratin thingie on Ubuntu even less steps than on Windows since you don't have to download any files manually. You just search for software and click "install". And for popular software not in the repositories there are installer-friendly files just like setup programs for Windows.
[QUOTE=Kwaq;39709781]i find linux to be way too finicky to use unless running stuff like web servers where you don't really have to touch it after configuration it took me 30 minutes to figure out how to install video drivers on ubuntu12[/QUOTE] How did it take 30 minutes?
[QUOTE=Killuah;39709816]But using the software administratin thingie on Ubuntu even less steps than on Windows since you don't have to download any files manually. You just search for software and click "install". And for popular software not in the repositories there are installer-friendly files just like setup programs for Windows.[/QUOTE] Or you can add a repository, which can both be done from the command line [B]OR[/B] from either Software Center & synaptic. And as a added bonus, it'll automatically fetch updates, you'll just have to give it permission to update. [url]http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/how-to-add-a-ppa-to-software-sources-in-ubuntu[/url]
[QUOTE=Van-man;39709862]Or you can add a repository, which can both be done from the command line [B]OR[/B] from either Software Center & synaptic. And as a added bonus, it'll automatically fetch updates, you'll just have to give it permission to update. [url]http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/how-to-add-a-ppa-to-software-sources-in-ubuntu[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah but when we are talking about ease of installation we also gotta take commercial software into account and that means there needs to be an installer. I'm just trying to show that installing CAN be as easy on Linux as it is on OSX or Win, it's pretty much up to the dev, the means are there.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.