Just a general question about Linux

Hi,

I started using Linux in April of last year and since then it has not left my desktop. Okay, I do have a dual-boot with XP but that is only because I still need to finish a home video and cannot find a Linux type program which can do what Adobe Premiere can do. As soon as I finish the movie, which will take forever since I only run Linux, I will erase the Windows part and join the free disk space to Ubuntu.

I've also visited this forum since April and lately I am thinking about the large amount of threads there are here, with more or less posts per threads, making the amount of posts gigantic. And this is only the Ubuntu forum. It seems to me that a lot of people worldwide do want to try Linux but encounter:

• Problems because they don't know how things work
• Problems because things don't work on their machine, because of faulty drivers, or settings.
• Problems because maybe things aren't programmed and/or tested correctly.

Question:

[CENTER][SIZE="3"]Is Linux ready for the big audience[/SIZE]? Or is Linux still an operating system for, sorry guys, The Geeks? [/CENTER]

I really wish I could say it is ready for everyone, I do. I do believe in Linux, in the open source software, in the open community which is developing it, spreading it, helping others when they have problems. But: I see so extremely many threads here with questions, with problems that I start to think otherwise. Yes, we do have the GUI's so we can play around with the mouse and the command line is not needed anymore for daily operation of the computer, we do have Synaptic and Add/Remove Applications to help us install, update and uninstall software. Still people encounter a lot of problems. Is it because Linux doesn't work on all machines, is it because one installation is different from another (even though you installed it before with the same settings), is it because Linux is still unknown to many? People who want to try it but don't want to read a good book about it and really learn the ins and outs of Linux? I also encounter problems and I do read books, I have plenty about Linux, about Ubuntu. Still I also post here because I don't know why and what the computer does what it is doing.

There must be a reason why there are so many problems.

Who would like to join the discussion I started, and really serious discuss about this subject. Maybe find some answers, find a way how to change things so there will be less problems in the future. We all do have one thing in common and that is to keep using Open Source Software because we believe it in.

[B][CENTER][SIZE="3"]Let's make it better! Let's make it work! [/SIZE][/CENTER][/B]

This has been discussed to death here. Look in the Recurring Discussions forum, where this thread might end up.

mssever said: This has been discussed to death here. Look in the Recurring Discussions forum, where this thread might end up.

Where might I find that? The recurring Discussions Forum, I mean.

From the home page, go to the Community Café. You'll find a link there.

People who doesnt have an interest in computers want everything to "just work" and they dont care if the operating system or the browser is slow and worthless as long as it does its job. Its like having a car from the 70's... it works, so why replace it with a new one even if its better? Thats their attitude.

What annoys me a bit about Ubuntu is that they are not focusing on making it look great from the start, despite the successes of Mac, Iphone and so on. Dont they realize that looks sells? Microsoft realized it even with Windows 3.1, Windows 95 and so on. Its very important how something looks since most people dont care how it works underneath.

Ubuntu would have a much larger market if only they would focus on making it look awesome from the start. They should do what they can with Gnome, even though Gnome could also use some work to make it look great. Instead they are shipping Ubuntu with the ugliest wallpaper and icons they can find. Its strange.

Copernicus1234 said: People who doesnt have an interest in computers want everything to "just work" and they dont care if the operating system or the browser is slow and worthless as long as it does its job. Its like having a car from the 70's... it works, so why replace it with a new one even if its better? Thats their attitude.

What annoys me a bit about Ubuntu is that they are not focusing on making it look great from the start, despite the successes of Mac, Iphone and so on. Dont they realize that looks sells? Microsoft realized it even with Windows 3.1, Windows 95 and so on. Its very important how something looks since most people dont care how it works underneath.

Ubuntu would have a much larger market if only they would focus on making it look awesome from the start. They should do what they can with Gnome, even though Gnome could also use some work to make it look great. Instead they are shipping Ubuntu with the ugliest wallpaper and icons they can find. Its strange.

Sorry to disagree with you, but for me looks don't matter. Even in windows I had all the fancy gadgets switched of. No smooth in- or decreasing on size of windows, no flashy stuff. That's one of the reasons I never started with Vista. Why slowdown a computer you paid good money for because of a flashy look? I want my computer to do what it has to do and I want it to do it fast and without problems. Wallpapers can be replaced, screensavers can be chosen (or as I do switch of completely). Ubuntu should be stable, should be fast, should be easy to maintain, expanded with other programs you like or have to use, drivers should be available for all kinds of hardware. That's important, at least for me.

Copernicus1234 said: What annoys me a bit about Ubuntu is that they are not focusing on making it look great from the start, despite the successes of Mac, Iphone and so on. Dont they realize that looks sells? Microsoft realized it even with Windows 3.1, Windows 95 and so on. Its very important how something looks since most people dont care how it works underneath.

Windows isn't the greatest example there. Default Ubuntu looks *much* better than default XP. XP's silver theme is OK, but the blue theme is ugly--much uglier than Ubuntu brown.

But this overlooks bigger problems with Linux for many people. First, most people don't know about Linux. Second, they don't want to install an OS. Third, while hardware support is several orders of magnitude better now than when I first started using Linux, it can still require a bit of work if you happen to own incompatible hardware. Fourth, the reason my brother went back to Windows after using Linux for a while was that he needed software for which there was no suitable Linux replacement. So I think there are deeper issues than whether the desktop is brown or not.

If you were to have a forum called WindowsForums.org that was the main support source for Windows, it would dwarf this forum.

That said, the help you can get here, and how quickly it is often delivered, is unparalleled in the Windows world.

jimv said: If you were to have a forum called WindowsForums.org that was the main support source for Windows, it would dwarf this forum.

That said, the help you can get here, and how quickly it is often delivered, is unparalleled in the Windows world.

I fully agree with that.The second part I mean. The first part I don't know. The community is great, help is just a few keyboard- and mouse-clicks away. But should it be like that? Of course if you have a problem you need help and you are glad there is a forum, or whatever website there is to help you, but should you have problems? No of course not. Linux should become better, even better than it is today. More stable, more than it is today. The Gui's could be more expanded, more than they are today. Okay, I know very well original Linux users only want to use the command line. Why? They say it's the only way to really feel Linux, to get a grip on things.

Two questions pop up: 1)Is that so because the GUI is not grown up yet? Because not all can be done from within a graphical program? 2)Is using the command line a way of protesting against MS Windows and it's graphical interface: If Windows has it, we don't want it.

Anyway, the discussion has started and I hope it won't end before Linux is fully grown up.

mssever said: Windows isn't the greatest example there. Default Ubuntu looks *much* better than default XP. XP's silver theme is OK, but the blue theme is ugly--much uglier than Ubuntu brown.

But this overlooks bigger problems with Linux for many people. First, most people don't know about Linux. Second, they don't want to install an OS. Third, while hardware support is several orders of magnitude better now than when I first started using Linux, it can still require a bit of work if you happen to own incompatible hardware. Fourth, the reason my brother went back to Windows after using Linux for a while was that he needed software for which there was no suitable Linux replacement. So I think there are deeper issues than whether the desktop is brown or not.

The way it looks is not important, to me. I also hate the blue theme and when using Windows I switch to the grey one also. What is more important: what can we do with Linux? How can we change it into an operating system which outgrows itself, which fully grows up. The example of the brother who goes back to Windows because a certain program is not available in Windows sounds so familiar. I also do that with film-editing. These things should disappear. Looking at a blue, or grey or brown desktop is not relevant. These are things you can change for yourself. I also don't look at the Hardy Heron on my desktop, instead there is a nice picture of my daughters.

One of the problems with Linux in general is prejudice some people have against it. Once a colleague of mine tried to explain to me why Linux isn't ready for the mainstream giving as an example how complicated the installation of drivers for Ati cards is and how buggy they are. Funny thing is, that I know for a fact, that this person is using Omega Ati drivers on XP, (kind of buggy, hackable drivers) and to install XP on his machine he needed to create a rigged XP install USB stick with Sata disk drives.

Still he was making a point that Linux is for 1337 hax0r geeks, not for him for sure, and windows is for users who want things to "just work".

bgerlich said: windows is for users who want things to "just work".

I sure would like to have a Linux that just works. I may not complain and I don't, my version of Hardy Heron is great and I use it every day 24/7. Well, the computer is, I do sleep now and then. But to build it up from scratch with the source codes, the compiling, the adjusting things, no that's not me. Well, to a certain low level it is, I do understand a little how it works and I can manage several things by myself (even more with the help of the community) but I like the computer to do what I want it to do and that is to help me with daily things.

When I want to type a letter or e-mail I start the right program with a mouse-click and I start typing. When I want to hear music from my MP3 collection, I click on the launcher and start another program and I hear music. That's what computing for me is all about.

Now when there are updates, I get a message saying so, and with the help of the update software I install these updates (not always know if I have to or not). When I need more software I use Synaptic and try to find it. If not there I use Google. And then ..... I download something in a format I am not familiar with and I have to try to install it from the command line. Then it gets warm in here. I wrote this also in an earlier thread: in windows you download something with an .exe extension, start it and 5 seconds later the program is installed. When I download a .tar.gz file I have to do all sorts of things to install it. When it is installed I can not find it, nor is there a launcher in the Applications menu or on my desktop. A .bin file demands another treatment. Why? How come? Why still clinging to these, in my opinion, old way of using a computer? Why not make it friendlier? What is wrong with the MS way of doing an install? Just because it is the MS way? If the open community wants more and more people to use Linux, it just has to become friendlier, more easy to access.

1. Encouraging users to run an executable downloaded from the internet is a tragedy waiting to happen. No system should ever do that.

1. Downloading a tar package is a way of the past, and gladly gets fazed out slowly. Devs use revision control systems, users have packaged software. There is little need now for archive packages.

1. Users shouldn't have to compile programs, and in Ubuntu/Debian they mostly don't. If you compile something from the source it means that it is not ready for userbase yet, thus there is no need for point-and-click functionality for such programs.

1. My point was, that some linux distros, like Ubuntu are actually easier to use than windows, especially when it comes to installing software. Skype is a great example. It's not in the standard repos and the installation is still easier than in windows. No need for all those installshield prompts, just click on the package and click install.

bgerlich said:

1. Encouraging users to run an executable downloaded from the internet is a tragedy waiting to happen. No system should ever do that.

1. Downloading a tar package is a way of the past, and gladly gets fazed out slowly. Devs use revision control systems, users have packaged software. There is little need now for archive packages.

1. Users shouldn't have to compile programs, and in Ubuntu/Debian they mostly don't. If you compile something from the source it means that it is not ready for userbase yet, thus there is no need for point-and-click functionality for such programs.

1. My point was, that some linux distros, like Ubuntu are actually easier to use than windows, especially when it comes to installing software. Skype is a great example. It's not in the standard repos and the installation is still easier than in windows. No need for all those installshield prompts, just click on the package and click install.

1) So what you are saying is you can not download software from the internet? A tragedy might happen. You're referring to viruses I presume. Yes, Windows has viruses, Linux to? Not that I know about.

2) Tar package is something from the past? Good, so this has changed. How about the .bin file? It's still there, but I admit it can be compared to the .exe file.

3) No, I agree, compiling yourself is almost out completely. Some years ago i tried to work with Gentoo Linux which is only available in source code. Well, I got it working to some extend but don't ask me how. I got a manual and followed the steps to the letter.

4) Why is installing Skype on Linux easier than in Windows? It's not, as you say, in the standard repos so you have to find it somewhere else. What is easier than clicking 5-6 times on OK and have the program installed? You would probably say clicking just once or twice. That doesn't make it easier, it makes it faster.

In my opinion an O.S. with the power, capabilities and stability of Linux and the user friendliness of Windows would be ideal. Yes, Gnome, KDE and Xfce with all their own programs come very close, but just that last 1-2% (maybe 5-10%, I don't know) is missing.

I think most of the issues with tech and stability can be attributed to people making their system better. Out of the box ubuntu is perfect and perfectly stable but once you start getting into the works of it then the problems start. Ubuntu's userbase are predominantly geeks and geeks like to screw around with computers. Now, anyone who's ever seen Juno can tell you that screwing usually leads to problems.

I think that the sheer amount of things you can do attracts geek-like people and if windows were to let you change and customize windows as much as linux does then there would be a monsterous tech support for them too.

jimv said: If you were to have a forum called WindowsForums.org that was the main support source for Windows, it would dwarf this forum.

Like this? http://forums.microsoft.com

I think the uptick in posts is a good thing. This is an indicator that Ubuntu is doing exactly what it has set out to do. It is attracting a generally non-technical userbase.

Moving this to recurring discussions ;)

1. No, I'm refering to running a program downloaded from the internet. As you have noticed in Ubuntu you are downloading archives (packages) not programs. Running programs downloaded straight from the internet is dangerous not only because of viruses. What if the download is corrupted, what if it is not compatible with libraries on your system and doesn't check if it is. Package system remedies those problems, at least partially. There is a reason why in Linux anything that comes down the pipe has it's executable bit set to "0".

1. Compiled, not packaged binaries are also rarely used.

1. Why does the program let you choose where to install the executable and some data? It doesn't let you choose where to install the libraries, or where to keep the settings. What if the program uses different library versions than some other one? It still installs. Why there is a need to click ok six or seven times? Those aren't all empty screens, those are settings that are defaults chosen by the program istaller not the system, why? Does every simple program has to have it's own defaults, why? The way programs install in windows is flawed, difficult both for user and the developer and influences the system's stability significantly.

Complete OS-X-like user-friendliness reduces the system's usability significantly. I would prefer to see systems with a steady and not-too-steep learning curve user-friendly rather that do-it-our-way user-friendly. Windows strives to achieve both and fails at both.

dmizer said: Like this? http://forums.microsoft.com

I think the uptick in posts is a good thing. This is an indicator that Ubuntu is doing exactly what it has set out to do. It is attracting a generally non-technical userbase.

Moving this to recurring discussions ;)

I'm not saying Windows is great or fantastic. I also made the step to Linux, in particular Ubuntu after having tried some other distro's. I want to use it, I love it. It's stable, it's fast, it does what it is supposed to do, but it can be more friendly in some aspects. The earlier mentioned ways of installing software for example, the fact that you still have to use the command line to have some things done. For me, as a former (well at work I still use it) Windows user the terminal, like DOS, is a thing of the past. I also use it because you simply have to if you want to have some things done, but it shouldn't be like that, to my opinion. Computing should be easy, make you feel good not tired of having to find out all sorts of things before something is done.

Expand Gnome, KDE and Xfce with more graphical ways of adjusting settings, installing software, while maybe improving (if possible) the stability even further, find ways to improve (if possible) the speed, include more drivers for hardware and let the hardware detection become even better than it is now. Just a few "ordinary" things, for every day use, to make computing a fun thing to do for everyone, not only the "geeks" (I hate that word, but can't find a better one).

bgerlich said:

1. No, I'm refering to running a program downloaded from the internet. As you have noticed in Ubuntu you are downloading archives (packages) not programs. Running programs downloaded straight from the internet is dangerous not only because of viruses. What if the download is corrupted, what if it is not compatible with libraries on your system and doesn't check if it is. Package system remedies those problems, at least partially. There is a reason why in Linux anything that comes down the pipe has it's executable bit set to "0".

1. Compiled, not packaged binaries are also rarely used.

1. Why does the program let you choose where to install the executable and some data? It doesn't let you choose where to install the libraries, or where to keep the settings. What if the program uses different library versions than some other one? It still installs. Why there is a need to click ok six or seven times? Those aren't all empty screens, those are settings that are defaults chosen by the program istaller not the system, why? Does every simple program has to have it's own defaults, why? The way programs install in windows is flawed, difficult both for user and the developer and influences the system's stability significantly.

Complete OS-X-like user-friendliness reduces the system's usability significantly. I would prefer to see systems with a steady and not-too-steep learning curve user-friendly rather that do-it-our-way user-friendly. Windows strives to achieve both and fails at both.

I get a feeling we both mean the same thing but write it using different words, probably caused by mine not perfect English since I live in Holland and am used to speak Dutch.

1) Your concern about just install an .exe file form the internet. What I meant (and mean) was that there is one way of installing something. It's easy, everybody knows how to do it, and it works. Except of course when the file is corrupt. You are so right about that. When you say that in Linux everything coming down the pipe has the executable bit to '0' is good. But you do have to change that before it will execute, right? What happens then? What happens in Windows when an installable file is corrupt, and what happens in Linux when a package is corrupt? Isn't the result the same: the program you try to install won't work?

4) Windows is build around a folder containing many libraries all programs can use. If you install a program and a newer version of a .DLL file is copied into the folder then everything still should work. Newer versions of the .DLL file should be backwards compatible. Agree? Yes, I know, this is not always the case. Linux also has a same kind of folder, hasn't it? Or are all the libraries written into the programs own folder? What about the lib and lib32 folders?

Don't get me wrong, I don't say that Windows is perfect, of course not. It's just that there are some things in Windows that could be used in Linux as well. I am talking about about the easiness of doing things.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'm getting at is, that there is a good reason why the system of downloading programs as an exe package was never implemented. It is flawed and dangerous. A user should never have to worry where to put a program, user should never start a program downloaded off the internet without at least some sanity check that archives provide. If a package is corrupt in Ubuntu it simply won't install, a corrupt executable at best will fail, at worst take the whole system with itself. Of course you can set the executable bit yourself, but nowadays it is only handy for scripts, a normal user will never have to do that.

User should never also worry about library versions the system is using, if a package is incompatible with the installed libraries the package manager will either handle the dependencies gracefully or fail to install the package. The user will never have to wonder whether to overwrite system libraries or not.

That is why the package system is superior to the free-for-all Windows offers. Handling new programs in windows is similar only to what you get when you compile your linux from scratch and I'm not talking about Gentoo which actually uses a packaging system.

DeMus said: I'm not saying Windows is great or fantastic. I also made the step to Linux, in particular Ubuntu after having tried some other distro's.

I don't think anyone here has accused you of berating Ubuntu.

DeMus said: I want to use it, I love it. It's stable, it's fast, it does what it is supposed to do, but it can be more friendly in some aspects.

The earlier mentioned ways of installing software for example, the fact that you still have to use the command line to have some things done. For me, as a former (well at work I still use it) Windows user the terminal, like DOS, is a thing of the past. I also use it because you simply have to if you want to have some things done, but it shouldn't be like that, to my opinion. Computing should be easy, make you feel good not tired of having to find out all sorts of things before something is done. Just because troubleshooting and directions are done via the command line very frequently does not mean that the command line is the only way to do something. Very often, there is a GUI way of doing things. Problem is, if a new user is running KDE while I run XFCE, I can't help them on the GUI because I have very little experience with KDE. But if we drop to the command line, I can easily give directions to fix your problem. GUI is also fully customizable. I have no way of knowing what kind of changes have been made to someone else's menus and tool bars, so when I tell someone to click somewhere they may not have that click point even if we are both using Gnome.

Case in point: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=798303

DeMus said: Expand Gnome, KDE and Xfce with more graphical ways of adjusting settings, installing software, while maybe improving (if possible) the stability even further, find ways to improve (if possible) the speed, include more drivers for hardware and let the hardware detection become even better than it is now.

Just a few "ordinary" things, for every day use, to make computing a fun thing to do for everyone, not only the "geeks" (I hate that word, but can't find a better one). I seriously think the problem here is simply that new people need to take time to learn how the Ubuntu OS works. Think about how much time people spend getting to know Windows and how it works ... all of it. Most people have spent years if not decades learning how Windows works. Oddly, people expect to be able to use Linux instantly, and if they can't it must mean Linux is too technical. To be sure, it CAN be extremely technical, but to be fair, so can Windows (editing registry keys for example). The problem is not that Linux is too technical, it's just different.

Some things are extremely difficult in Linux, just like some things are extremely difficult in Windows. Some things are extremely easy in Linux, and some things are extremely easy in Windows. Problem is that people expect what's easy in Windows to be the same as what's easy in Linux. This is not the case, and this is not (in my opinion) a problem.

Remember, looking awesome incurs overhead. Do I care if my menus are transparent? nope.

dmizer said:

Just because troubleshooting and directions are done via the command line very frequently does not mean that the command line is the only way to do something. Very often, there is a GUI way of doing things. Problem is, if a new user is running KDE while I run XFCE, I can't help them on the GUI because I have very little experience with KDE. But if we drop to the command line, I can easily give directions to fix your problem. GUI is also fully customizable. I have no way of knowing what kind of changes have been made to someone else's menus and tool bars, so when I tell someone to click somewhere they may not have that click point even if we are both using Gnome.

Case in point: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=798303

I seriously think the problem here is simply that new people need to take time to learn how the Ubuntu OS works. Think about how much time people spend getting to know Windows and how it works ... all of it. Most people have spent years if not decades learning how Windows works. Oddly, people expect to be able to use Linux instantly, and if they can't it must mean Linux is too technical. To be sure, it CAN be extremely technical, but to be fair, so can Windows (editing registry keys for example). The problem is not that Linux is too technical, it's just different.

Some things are extremely difficult in Linux, just like some things are extremely difficult in Windows. Some things are extremely easy in Linux, and some things are extremely easy in Windows. Problem is that people expect what's easy in Windows to be the same as what's easy in Linux. This is not the case, and this is not (in my opinion) a problem.

I have read your post a few times and I must admit I agree with a lot of things you wrote. I do realize now it has taken me some time to get to know Windows, but it happened without knowing it. It just happened. Everyday you learn something new, but even from the start you can work with the system. Now I have made the step to Ubuntu, using Gnome, I expect to be at the same level as I am in Windows, you are so right about that. I do realize that that is just impossible. I have to start at the beginning and that's not so easy. Nobody wants to go "back", right?

The part about the trouble shooting and the different desktops people are using is something I did not really think about, although I know they are there. Helping people with a different desktop environment is therefore just possible using the command line, because we all have the same Linux system. So, I also agree with you there. Still using the command line is not easy. I have a book here, called "Ubuntu Linux Toolbox, 1000+ Commands". It's 333 pages thick and "just" explaining the commands. Talking about heavy reading. Isn't it understandable that a lot of people fear the command line? There are so many commands, which can be used separately or which can be joined together using the pipeline structure, that it is very complicated, especially for new users. I consider myself a new user as well, I mean 9 months is not that much, is it?

I read the thread you quoted and I had to laugh. I mean explaining something for a long time and achieving nothing. But would it have been different when using the command line, if even possible?

Yes, Linux is not Windows, although there are also a lot of similarities. Linux should never become Windows, that's clear.

I will just have to study more to understand it more, so I can help myself when there are problems. Are there any more good books I should read, any good websites I should visit to learn Linux? Don't get me wrong, it's not a burden to do that. I want to do that, it's just that after using Windows for 18 years now I am spoiled with the graphical desktop. "Going back" to a terminal (or DOS as Microsoft would call it) is not easy.

DeMus said: I have read your post a few times and I must admit I agree with a lot of things you wrote. I do realize now it has taken me some time to get to know Windows, but it happened without knowing it. It just happened. Everyday you learn something new, but even from the start you can work with the system.

Now I have made the step to Ubuntu, using Gnome, I expect to be at the same level as I am in Windows, you are so right about that. I do realize that that is just impossible. I have to start at the beginning and that's not so easy. Nobody wants to go "back", right? Edit (rewrote my reply to this section):

You're very right. No one wants to start over from the beginning again, and that's where I think the REAL resistance to adopting Linux/Ubuntu is coming from.

DeMus said: The part about the trouble shooting and the different desktops people are using is something I did not really think about, although I know they are there. Helping people with a different desktop environment is therefore just possible using the command line, because we all have the same Linux system. So, I also agree with you there. Still using the command line is not easy. I have a book here, called "Ubuntu Linux Toolbox, 1000+ Commands". It's 333 pages thick and "just" explaining the commands. Talking about heavy reading.

Isn't it understandable that a lot of people fear the command line? There are so many commands, which can be used separately or which can be joined together using the pipeline structure, that it is very complicated, especially for new users. I consider myself a new user as well, I mean 9 months is not that much, is it?

I read the thread you quoted and I had to laugh. I mean explaining something for a long time and achieving nothing. But would it have been different when using the command line, if even possible?

It's already posted in the thread, but I'll repost here for posterity.

open a terminal, and enter the following code:

mousepad ~/.config/Thunar/volmanrc

look for the line that says:

AutoplayVideoCdCommand=totem dvd:/

and change "totem" to "vlc"

save the file and exit.

Took less than 5 minutes to accomplish using the above method. It was over 25 extremely frustrating minutes in IM trying to accomplish the same task via point and click and accomplished nothing. I'll be honest though, it took me a solid 20 minutes to figure out how to do it via CLI though. But once I knew, it was a breeze to help my friend fix the problem.

DeMus said: Yes, Linux is not Windows, although there are also a lot of similarities. Linux should never become Windows, that's clear.

I will just have to study more to understand it more, so I can help myself when there are problems. Are there any more good books I should read, any good websites I should visit to learn Linux? Don't get me wrong, it's not a burden to do that. I want to do that, it's just that after using Windows for 18 years now I am spoiled with the graphical desktop. "Going back" to a terminal (or DOS as Microsoft would call it) is not easy. I'd like to be clear, I'm in no way suggesting that anyone _must_ become proficient in the terminal in order to properly use Linux. I certainly don't know even close to everything about how to use the terminal. What I do know is that all tasks in Linux _can_ be done at the CLI. That means, all I have to do is search for the proper command, type or copy it, and I'm done. This is often much easier than trying to find someone who's posted GUI directions on how to do something.

In other words, simply knowing that something can be done via CLI is enough to focus my searches. Also, the more I learn about the CLI, the better my searches get.

DeMus said: Of course if you have a problem you need help and you are glad there is a forum, or whatever website there is to help you, but should you have problems? No of course not.But problems *are* a fact of life, even in Windows. Okay, I know very well original Linux users only want to use the command line. Why? They say it's the only way to really feel Linux, to get a grip on things.

Two questions pop up: 1)Is that so because the GUI is not grown up yet? Because not all can be done from within a graphical program?In some cases it might be due to inadequate GUIs. In fact, Ubuntu is a bit behind on that front from what I hear. I understand that SuSE has quite a lot more GUIs than Ubuntu. But the other reason is that the command line is simply easier and quicker for many tasks. For example, I don't use Nautilus very much because I prefer to use the command line for most things.

2)Is using the command line a way of protesting against MS Windows and it's graphical interface: If Windows has it, we don't want it.

I can't speak for others, but for me, categorically no. If Windows has a good idea, let's use it in Linux, as well.

mssever said: If Windows has a good idea, let's use it in Linux, as well.

I agree. Same for OSX.

For example, just because DOS was text based and old, doesn't mean that a terminal wasn't/isn't a perfectly viable, useful, and powerful tool.

DeMus said:

The part about the trouble shooting and the different desktops people are using is something I did not really think about, although I know they are there. Helping people with a different desktop environment is therefore just possible using the command line, because we all have the same Linux system. So, I also agree with you there. Still using the command line is not easy. I have a book here, called "Ubuntu Linux Toolbox, 1000+ Commands". It's 333 pages thick and "just" explaining the commands. Talking about heavy reading. That book is meant as a reference, much like a dictionary. While reading it, just like reading the dictionary, will teach you a great deal, it is also masochistic and unnecessary. Use it as a reference when you discover an unfamiliar command.

DeMus said:

Isn't it understandable that a lot of people fear the command line? There are so many commands, which can be used separately or which can be joined together using the pipeline structure, that it is very complicated, especially for new users. I consider myself a new user as well, I mean 9 months is not that much, is it? If you want to avoid manual system configuration, buy a preinstalled system. Otherwise, your mileage will vary and you'll have to make do with what you've got.

DeMus said:

I will just have to study more to understand it more, so I can help myself when there are problems. Are there any more good books I should read, any good websites I should visit to learn Linux? Don't get me wrong, it's not a burden to do that. I want to do that, it's just that after using Windows for 18 years now I am spoiled with the graphical desktop. "Going back" to a terminal (or DOS as Microsoft would call it) is not easy. Some good websites:

http://linux.die.net/Bash-Beginners-Guide/ http://linux.die.net/Linux-CLI/ http://www.tuxfiles.org/linuxhelp/cli.html

Also, remember that the "man" command offers documentation for any other command you might need. Man pages tend to be very technical and can be a bit intimidating, but they are a great educational opportunity. Just enter "man *commandname*" or visit an online listing such as this.

cardinals_fan said:

Some good websites:

http://linux.die.net/Bash-Beginners-Guide/ http://linux.die.net/Linux-CLI/ http://www.tuxfiles.org/linuxhelp/cli.html

Also, remember that the "man" command offers documentation for any other command you might need. Man pages tend to be very technical and can be a bit intimidating, but they are a great educational opportunity. Just enter "man *commandname*" or visit an online listing such as this.

Yes, I know the manpages. But how to type man somecommand if you don't know the name of the command?

Thanks for the webpages. I will have a look.

DeMus said: Yes, I know the manpages. But how to type man somecommand if you don't know the name of the command?

[INDENT]apropos *somecommand*[/INDENT] or [INDENT]apropos *someconcept*[/INDENT]

Obviously the "it just works" factor is not unimportant to the Linux community, given how much in that direction it has progressed. The biggest problem I see, fundamentally, with Linux is that Linux development (and by extension, I'm talking about the kernel, the surrounding packages, X server, the DEs, all the so-called "userland" apps, etc.) is like trying to herd cats, and while I'm all for multiplicity and a pluralistic digital society, it would benefit from more than casual steering forces.