Is Linux more frustrating?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

Canuck1

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2007
452
0
18,790
Is Linux more frustrating than Window$?

I'm about to give up on it.

I added Gnome to my mythtv (so, Knoppix-like) and I cannot install a printer. I'm trying to install using CUPS and it took a long time (I don't know if I'm supposed to be embarrassed or ashamed or feel like I should have had it done by now or what). To do anything in Linux, you basically have to have tons of time since it takes a few days to do something whereas in Windows, it might take an hour. I hate that you have one side (Window$) with a smug greedy corporation that already has enough money, trying to eat even more cash and take more. On the other side, you have Linux with several egotistical obnoxious developers (I won't name names) who don't care if the average computer user spends time learning or trying Linux. They only want a 'private club' full of nerds and hackers. That's what it seems like to me and I've spent time trying things out.

I'd like something that isn't too complicated and is well thought out in its implication and design. I think the CUPS thing is absolutely ridiculous and overly complicated. Okay, I am done criticizing. That's another thing. I learned from Ubuntu forums that you can't criticize or you get bashed or mocked. It's not that I like Windows but I don't need to spend years on a particular application to get one thing to work. Window$ has it's problems and I hate how the corporation is but if there is a distro out there with a good design, I will use it.

Rant over.
 
linux_0

linux_0

Splendid
Dec 18, 2005
5,314
0
25,860
Fedora 7, Ubuntu and most modern Linux distros support virtually every printer on the market.

We cannot help the OP fix the problem without knowing what kind of printer it is and what the distro is.
 
Z

Zoron

Splendid
Jan 11, 2002
5,435
0
26,160
I thought so as well... and I'm no where near as well-versed in Linux as you or some of our other knowledgable posters here. But again, as you've stated, without knowing what distro he's running, it does make it difficult. Although I'm sure Ubuntu and Fedora are very similar.

We can guess he's using Ubuntu since he mentions the Ubuntu forums... but that's just a guess.
 
C

Canuck1

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2007
452
0
18,790
I'm building a new system (computer) and it will be 90-100% Linux. I'll install on it, Kubuntu and maybe Fedora 7. But, I mostly have exposure to debian-based distros.

I don't need to install the printer on my old computer now. I've formatted and installed Debian but someone else is configuring it for a media PC.

But, before that, it had a Knoppix derivative (KnoppMyth) and Gnome installed. The printer is a Samsung ML-2150 laser printer. I will need to install this on the new system but I plan on using KDE and I have installed it once previously on Debian. I don't like using Gnome so I hope KDE works okay in Fedora (if I use that). I plan on buying a Multifunction printer, too. I'm considering Epson or HP. I hope those aren't too difficult to install. ;-)

Thanks for the replies, guys.
 
linux_0

linux_0

Splendid
Dec 18, 2005
5,314
0
25,860
KDE works just fine on Fedora 7 ( as it does on every Fedora version ).

The ML-2150 is supported and Samsung provides a proprietary driver as well.

I would suggest checking http://www.cups.org/ppd.php for compatibility, some multifunction machines are notoriously unreliable on open source and proprietary operating systems.

Good luck :)
 
riser

riser

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2001
14,175
0
40,960
And we know IBM is anti-Microsoft in the first place and working hard to get people to use Linux because their hardware is so ungodly expensive. Top that off, they're using RedHat which costs money as well. ;)

Oh wait.. GoDaddy. That's a big name:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/casestudy.aspx?casestudyid=1000003748

London Stock Exchange? No way...
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/casestudies/lse.mspx


And ultimately what do they end up claiming? That Windows was easier to configure and work with than dealing with Linux. :)

I just like giving you guys crap because of:

1) While Linux is an excellent OS, it still has a lot of work that needs to go into getting it ready for the masses.
2) It is frustrating to work with and use.
3) I think some of you are blinded by "its just better" than using logic.
4) Figure 90% of the people using computers in a work environment don't know how to use a computer and Linux isn't, in my opinion, as user friendly as the "push-button-monkey" abilities of Windows.

Face it, its far easier to check a box and have magic happen behind the scene than trying to figure out Linux. :)
 
Zorak

Zorak

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2006
505
0
18,990
I will say this much for your counter-argument articles posted above: Why would you believe ANYTHING that Microsoft says about Microsoft?

Taking those articles at face value would make about as much sense as believing Soviet propaganda back during the Cold War: it's just silly.

While I think you raise some excellent points in your list of 1-4 there, I think that they don't apply so much here as they would on say, www.digg.com.
This forum is not full of the rabid ubuntu fanboys that you will see there, and we are certainly more educated and rational than the mindless apple-zombies that are nearly ubiquitous these days.

I agree that Linux may not be for everyone, but I can say that it is certainly for me (this from a lifelong windows user). I think the best thing that could happen for computing would be the end of the Microsoft monopoly and the simultaneous establishment of parity in terms of OS market share. So, to that end, I will continue trying to get people to broaden their OS choices when appropriate.

Remember, the best thing that can happen to anyone is for them to be able to make their own choices based on their own preferences.

-Zorak
 
riser

riser

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2001
14,175
0
40,960
In order to publish Case Studies the company has to write off on it and give written consent to what is being posted. They can't just write that up without having those companies write off on it.

It only makes sense that they publish case studies on their own website. They do marketing.

I've dealt with Linux a few times and I've walked away annoyed with working with it myself.

Case in point:
7 Windows computers and "some guy" comes in and says "Linux is better" and installs some version on the accounting computer of a local non-profit company. He never installed the printers on the computer, which was running WinXP at the time, so they couldn't print any of their checks.
Long story short, I went in, attemtped to install the printers in every which way possible. I tried via IP and print server, couldn't get the thing to go. I gave up after about an hour in setup and surfing the web looking for things I could try.
I was doing it in my spare time and free of charge.. didn't want to bother. I can install a printer on a Mac no problem. Its just Linux I tend to have problems with and I don't feel like digging through command lines to do what I consider simple tasks today.

I do strongly believe Microsoft has an excellent system in place for businesses to work off. In the past few months I've been at a lot of different companies and looking at their software and I've been surprised to find how many of these companies use custom software created for Microsoft Windows. These companies don't support Linux and have problems with trying to make it work.

Microsoft has its flaws, no doubt. But I do believe they are making things available and they're taking steps in the right direction.

Linux needs to get a company behind it, fix the annoyances of the small tasks that turn out to be big, and then it will become a successful OS in the world.

Microsoft is working as a business against a non-business entity. Microsoft is the "monopoly" that it is because there has not been a OS that has come up strong enough to be a valid competitor.

I give Linux 5 years and I think it will pick up and maybe hold 15-20% of the market share.. only if it tones down the elite style and makes it easier for the computer illiterate to use. :)
 
Z

Zoron

Splendid
Jan 11, 2002
5,435
0
26,160
People don't want to take the time to learn to use even Windows properly... I don't see those same people taking the time to learn Linux. I like tinkering around with it in my spare time... but it's got a ways to go before I'd consider using it as my primary OS.
 
riser

riser

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2001
14,175
0
40,960
True.. I use Windows because it suits what I do for work moreso than what Linux does. Top that off, we already have enough trouble teaching people to use certain things within Windows and Linux would make things only worse.
Now on the IT side, adding in Linux, which has come up once or twice proposed by one person in IT.. yes, it would save us time but overall we see no benefit and then we have a mixed platform environment to troubleshoot and keep up to date.
Figuring out which OS version to use and then getting it to install properly takes some time.

I haven't used Linux that much primarily because of the amount of time I'll have to invest to learn it. I'm working on my MCSE at the moment then moving on to my CCNA. I don't really have time to learn Linux in that fashion. I don't see it a feasible solution to any problem or issues we have within our company in the first place.

I feel a lot of people share this thought with me. New companies, such as Google, can go with Linux because they're new. Systems are being designed. Switching from Microsoft to Linux, or vice versa, is redefining everything within your company. Its a lot of work and as someone in IT, its even a headache upgrading computers from Windows 2k to XP, etc. Then go through and try upgrading to a completely different system?

Everything one knows goes to the side and new methods to fix it are learned. Its a huge commitment and frustration will hit an all time high, either way you look at it.
 
linux_0

linux_0

Splendid
Dec 18, 2005
5,314
0
25,860
Microsoft's mission is to empty your wallet and prevent you from using your hardware and software.

Linux and BSD's mission is to enable you to use your hardware and do whatever you like with it. Not to mention you get access to the source and you can modify the OS to suit your needs. Other open source operating systems have a similar philosophy.

The truth is all hardware and software is frustrating of course it's all subjective.
 
Z

Zoron

Splendid
Jan 11, 2002
5,435
0
26,160
In a perfect utopia where some sort of currency is completely unecessary, open source would be perfect. However, we live in a world where money is a necessary evil and people wish to be paid for their efforts.

Microsoft is a business and open source is a philosophy. Generally, they are mutually exclusive. A business exists to make money and ensure it's investors get some sort of return on their investment.

People writing open source software don't usually expect something in return for their efforts (other that a nice "job well done") and usually get nothing in return. They don't have shareholders to answer to and aren't expected to profit from their endeavours.

For some people, writing software / code is "fun" and they simply do it as a hobby for the sheer enjoyment of it. Most go into it as a career and as such require compensation for their efforts. Open source will have a hard time taking hold as long as this is the status-quo.
 
linux_0

linux_0

Splendid
Dec 18, 2005
5,314
0
25,860
Open source does not necessarily mean free as in price.

Open source and capitalism or getting paid are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Many developers are getting paid and they are far from amateurs.

Many open source companies are making billions, have professional developers, shareholders and investors to answer to.

Google, IBM and RedHat are among them.

These are 3 that are well known. There isn't enough room here to post a complete list.
 
riser

riser

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2001
14,175
0
40,960
Let's stay on topic of level of frustration too fellas. I'm kind of interested in seeing the points come out.

If software is open source, anyone can do anything with it basically. Microsoft being a business also guarentees jobs to those who work for them. Microsoft operates like any other business - they make a product (or steal, whatever) and have people working on it. Open Source has anyone doing whatever.

We need money in order to survive. I would work for free if I didn't have to worry about money. The fact is I need money to live. Thus, I charge for my services.

Zorak stated this perfectly. I strongly believe that if I see Linux on the shelves and they were charging $50 for it and had the business structure and support organized, it would take off. This is not the case.

Nothing in life is free. Anything you get for free generally sucks and that is the mentality.

Case in point: Last year I bought a new range. I took my old, working in good condition, put it out on the curb. It sat there for days. I put a sign on it, $50. It was gone that night. I didn't want to dispose of it, I didn't want money for it. But I got rid of it because I was charging for it.

Free doesn't sell. :)
 
riser

riser

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2001
14,175
0
40,960
Why would I want to buy Linux when the IBM equipment already has os520 running on it to do exactly the same thing?

os520 is the most secure OS ever created.

Window 2k3 Standard Server is like $650...

I'm obviously seeing something wrong here.. can you fill me in on why I would want to use that version?
 
riser

riser

Illustrious
Feb 17, 2001
14,175
0
40,960
The videos really aren't expensive but think about it this way:

I have to BUY support for Linux. I don't have to buy support for Windows unless I need high end rarely done things.

I don't see how its cost effective that I have to go out and spend that much just for support.

Suffice to say there is no cost benefit to moving to Linux if you require support.

I'm sure it works great, like citrix, in a single office or a couple locations. Everything is on the server which is cool but your backend system has to be high powered.

The average server we put in from IBM costs $100k. We bought a high end system and it was $1.2 million and the thing slows down when select users connect in to do their work.

Hosting everything on the server at a central location is great but when your WAN link goes down, everything drops until that is restore. That is something a lot of companies can't deal with.

So yeah, in a large data center that would work because everyone could work off a thin client for $900 as opposed to a PC costing $1100.

It works great in a canned environment when everyone needs the same software, thus the "data center" environment.

Wal-mart and co can use it because they're a giant datacenter. IBMs are heavily used in retail as well or data collection centers because it doesn't require too much in specialized software.

How would a laptop user do with that when they're unable to get an internet connection back to the system? They can't work because all their information is server based.

It has its flaws, its a canned system for a simplistic environment. Much like IBM, its a niche market and not for a majority.

For example, I have roughly 50 locations all connected by WANs. In order to utilize that system, I'd probably have to end up buying high end servers for each location to host everyone.. probably expensive IBM hardware, I could save a couple hundred on PCs and move to thin clients.

But if I had to buy a service agreement for each location.. that would be expensive.

Overall, with what the videos show, its a niche market and not ideal for a company doing manufacturing or providing a server. Excellent system for data entry though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom