General discussion

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3378645

      Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

      by rabbit_runner ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

      I am fairly new to Linux. I have installed it a number of times and played with Solaris 8. But would not call me a Linux expert by any method.

      My question is why (all flavors of Linux) do the different packages not come complete? If I download a particular package that I want to use, invariably it requires another package that I do not have. Then I search the net to find that and install it. Only to find out that there a couple of other things that need to be installed first. There have been some attempt to work around this, but not much. If the Linux community would get together and have the software programmers finish their software packages, then Linux as a desktop OS will take off and give MS a run for their money. If I wanted an application, or utility, the installation files would be ‘complete’. Instructons would be given, and when the installation was complete, everything would work.

      I have to give MS and the windows Apps writers, a good ‘thumbs up’ because when you get a program, app or utility and install it, by and large, it is complete and will run as expected.

      There are some great Linux apps out there and it could give MS a good run for it money. The common user would be likely to purchase a flavor of Linux if it were easy to install, is less expensive than Windows, the programs would install easily, the OS would integrate with Windows networking easily, and the applications could have documents that could import into windows apps or have windows documents by opened by the Linux app.

      Come on, lets get our act together and get a good desktop OS which the public would be interested in using.

      Just my two cents worth.

      Michael R.

      • #2741704

        Some vendors are trying to get there

        by masinick ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        What you’ve described is, in fact, one of the most common impediments to the wide adoption of Linux software, particularly on desktop systems. There are actually several vendors who are at least attempting to deal with the issues that you describe.

        One vendor, Lycoris, has a really easy to use desktop system. It doesn’t have 10,000 applications, it has a modest set of applications, all of which work seamlessly together. Lycoris sells preconfigured desktop and tablet PC systems.

        Xandros is another vendor that’s focused on making stable desktop software that interoperates well with Windows software and peacefully coexists on the same system.

        LindowsOS is a consumer grade system produced by mp3 founder, Michael Robertson at sells quite a few preconfigured systems that have the basic software ready to go.

        Other vendors are getting into this space. There is plenty of room for improvement, but it’s getting better all the time. I have a Dell Dimension 4100 system and I can easily install at least a dozen Linux systems and have them ready to use in 15-30 minutes.

        • #2687140

          In the real world – nothing is free

          by cou-cou ·

          In reply to Some vendors are trying to get there

          Many have dreamed Linux to be the next killer software and maybe to replace the giant MS. But in the real world – nothing is free. Even it starts out with a free offer, which in this case in Linux, it will end up just like another MS or vendor fee-based software.
          So for me, I do not expect Linux will be a big star eventually.

        • #2732162

          Free is not always better

          by bobweed ·

          In reply to In the real world – nothing is free

          As far as the general public is concerned, free
          doesn’t mean better in software…It usually means
          that it is a beta or test distribution and the full
          version will cost $$. But, they do expect that for
          their money, basic utility is offered in the
          distro…some linux distros do not even come with
          the ability to run programs that all users (publc)
          need….things like staroffice and Instant
          Messengers (that are useable with msn and aol).

          Most people would pay for the distros that offer
          the useability they require….One of my
          computers is loaded with lindows 4.5 and on
          has Mandrake 9.1 while two of the others have
          various versions of windows on them…the one
          that gets used the most is the windows XP
          version because people feel comfortable with
          it…the next is the lindows because it is the
          closest to the windows for the users…..also
          much better at the internet than the windows.

          So the cost thing is not the real issue….the real
          issue is why the various versions of linux can’t
          seem to agree on how to implement the included
          software…..I wind up spending a lot of my time
          installing software because people do not know
          how to use the rpm function

        • #2736474

          I’ve tried several

          by gsmith ·

          In reply to Free is not always better

          I’ve tried several – Suse, Red Hat, Mandrake and Turbo. Each has it’s unique quirks, usually regarding hardware drivers. On my Dell, Turbo was by FAR the easiest to install (all I had to do was supply a proxy IP number before surfing the Web) but it lacks “extras” like Open Office. I look at it as a learning experience and try to have fun.

        • #3305945

          “easy” installation distros

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Some vendors are trying to get there

          What you’re referring to in your examples are actually distributions of Linux that are geared toward the “user friendly” GUI installations that default the kitchen sink into the install. There’s a difference between that and easy software installation.

          The major problems that people complain about typically have very little to do with Windows being “easier” to work with in and of itself, and have much to do with users not being used to a different philosophy of computing. Something that must be realized is that to make full use of the power and flexibility of a good Linux distro you must overcome your fear of the command line.

          There are distros that make it incredibly easy to install and remove software, including dependencies, using the GUI environment; SuSE and Fedora/RedHat are a couple of these. More useful and easier to work with, in my experience, is a system with an extremely well-developed command line system for package management, like Debian.

          RedHat-related distros approach Debian in ease of package management, through use of YUM for instance, but for me nothing approaches the ease of use of Debian’s apt system. The apt package manager in Debian does use the command line, and does require a user to learn a couple of shell commands to make it work, but it is actually much easier to master and make effective use of apt to install and remove software (including all dependencies) than it is to perform similar tasks in Windows. For one thing, you don’t have to order or go to a store to purchase OpenOffice, whereas you do have to do so with MS Office.

          For the record:
          Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora both also use apt, though their package archives for apt are not as extensive as those for Debian. Also, Lindows has changed its name (some time ago) to Linspire due to lawsuit issues with Microsoft.

        • #3110350

          15 -20 minutes?

          by laredoflash9 ·

          In reply to Some vendors are trying to get there

          Yeeaaah riigght! I have found SuSE Linux from Novel to the the easiest to install. Simply install the 1st cd and boot. No problems for the most part. SuSE takes care of all the stuff. You just say yes. It works great and is solid. 10.1 is cool sadly they removed some of the wireless drivers and now my usb network adapter does not work…guess I’ll go back to 10.0.


      • #2741666

        Some vendors are trying to get there

        by masinick ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        What you’ve described is, in fact, one of the most common impediments to the wide adoption of Linux software, particularly on desktop systems. There are actually several vendors who are at least attempting to deal with the issues that you describe.

        One vendor, Lycoris, has a really easy to use desktop system. It doesn’t have 10,000 applications, it has a modest set of applications, all of which work seamlessly together. Lycoris sells preconfigured desktop and tablet PC systems.

        Xandros is another vendor that’s focused on making stable desktop software that interoperates well with Windows software and peacefully coexists on the same system.

        LindowsOS is a consumer grade system produced by mp3 founder, Michael Robertson at sells quite a few preconfigured systems that have the basic software ready to go.

        Other vendors are getting into this space. There is plenty of room for improvement, but it’s getting better all the time. I have a Dell Dimension 4100 system and I can easily install at least a dozen Linux systems and have them ready to use in 15-30 minutes.

      • #2741665

        Some vendors are trying to get there

        by masinick ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        What you’ve described is, in fact, one of the most common impediments to the wide adoption of Linux software, particularly on desktop systems. There are actually several vendors who are at least attempting to deal with the issues that you describe.

        One vendor, Lycoris, has a really easy to use desktop system. It doesn’t have 10,000 applications, it has a modest set of applications, all of which work seamlessly together. Lycoris sells preconfigured desktop and tablet PC systems.

        Xandros is another vendor that’s focused on making stable desktop software that interoperates well with Windows software and peacefully coexists on the same system.

        LindowsOS is a consumer grade system produced by mp3 founder, Michael Robertson at sells quite a few preconfigured systems that have the basic software ready to go.

        Other vendors are getting into this space. There is plenty of room for improvement, but it’s getting better all the time. I have a Dell Dimension 4100 system and I can easily install at least a dozen Linux systems and have them ready to use in 15-30 minutes.

      • #2741658

        I’m an avid user of linux

        by lordinfidel ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        But, I can honestly say, that it will not be able to compete with MS as a desktop, consumer grade OS.

        The closest thing that it will get is MAC’s OS X.

        I say this will complete love for linux. But it is not a platform for the joe blow end user.

        Making linux to be just another desktop OS takes it’s power away from it. Every distro that I have used that runs X on it, is very bloated and slow.

        I only run X when I have to. Other then that, I use it for what is best used for.

        As far as installations go, RedHat handsdown has the easiest install process.

        It’s a double-edged sword, linux on the user desktop. Because the reason why MS has succeeded is because it has dumbed down everything to the end user. Linux is not a dumbed down OS. Nor should it be.

        • #3389286

          Bloat is debatable.

          by larry the security guy ·

          In reply to I’m an avid user of linux

          “Making linux to be just another desktop OS takes it’s power away from it. Every distro that I have used that runs X on it, is very bloated and slow.”

          I disagree. Making Linux function like another desktop does entice non-power users to use the system. Running X is not an incredible system drain, but one must consider the alternative.

          Bloat, in my opinion, comes from the window environments like KDE and GNOME, not from X. If you run BlackIce or fwvm (even fm98 for some look-and-feel comfort), I’m sure your system demands will be much lower.

          Also consider that the equivalent user environment under Windows XP demands much more from the hardware than its Linux counterpart (I can watch DVDs on a 400MHz Celeron Linux machine).

          “As far as installations go, RedHat handsdown has the easiest install process.”

          I agree that RedHat’s installation is one of the easiest, but I’d have to say that Mandrake is as easy. I was not impressed with the number of missing components (no kernel source, for example) and it did lack RedHat’s “select individual packages” feature, but it was painless and simple.

          “Linux is not a dumbed down OS. Nor should it be.”

          Easy-to-user and dumbed down should not be interchangeable terms. RedHat’s installation is a perfect example of easy-to-use. When the operation of a Linux system is easy as well, then more people will consider it as a desktop system. When more peripheral makers provide either Linux-based drivers or specs so that drivers can be written, Linux will become even more attractive to the gadget crowd.

        • #3389177

          X – – – correct

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to Bloat is debatable.

          Although X is the server, you are correct that my usuage was incorrect.

          I should of have said KDE or Gnome or whatever destop you so wish to run on X.

          X itself is not bloadted. But KDE and Gnome are.
          I have install that is a PIII 600 with 384 meg/ram. And it is not exactly a speed demon.

          I only use it for testing and to use fwbuilder. Other then that, if I’m on that machine, most of the time it is in a terminal.


          I just still don’t see linux at the desktop of corporate america. I do however see it replacing servers. Since Samba v3 has been released. I can easily see it replacing Windows servers as the traditional file and print servers.

        • #3312405

          RH( and a P5 1.6Ghz m/c ‘flies’

          by peter_es_uk ·

          In reply to X – – – correct

          I have a dozen PC’s running versions of windows, linux and freeBSD Most of the PC’s have 350 – 500 MB ram. My son scanned a drawing he did and got a 240MB file – no windows program would touch it(photoshop, photodraw …) on any version of windows (98, 2000 pro, XP Pro -it froze them all even after had turned off ALL other applications).

          My linux m/c runs Postgreql, mySQL, CUPS SAMBA and performs the duties of the PDC. I loaded the picture into the GIMP – problem solved! Linux rocks BIG TIME!

        • #3376443

          Mandrake still bests Red Hat

          by brant fitzsimmons ·

          In reply to Bloat is debatable.

          “I agree that RedHat’s installation is one of the easiest, but I’d have to say that Mandrake is as easy. I was not impressed with the number of missing components (no kernel source, for example) and it did lack RedHat’s ‘select individual packages’ feature, but it was painless and simple.”

          The lack of kernel source (in the download edition only) is due to the ever expanding offering of programs in Mandrake. If you want .iso images with the kernel source you can mirror the 9.2 tree and make them. I did it and it was surprisingly easy. Makes 4 .iso images, as opposed to the 3 offered for download by Mandrake.

          Also, the standard install does have the option to select individual packages. I just installed 9.2 from the home made .iso(s) a couple of days ago and selected the packages that I wanted.

        • #3382111

          Mandrake Bests RedHat

          by ncctec ·

          In reply to Mandrake still bests Red Hat

          If you want the kernel source for the download edition of Mandrake simply start the software manager and type Kernel into the search bar. It will come up with the kernel source as an option and you can install it with just a couple of mouse clicks.

          Also Mandrake does offer individual package selection during install including the Kernel source.

          I personal have found Mandrakes install to be superior to Red Hat’s

        • #2692448

          Reply To: Join the Linux discussion

          by brant fitzsimmons ·

          In reply to Mandrake Bests RedHat

          At the time of the original post the kernel sources were not available on the mirrors.

          It was a fluke that was quickly resolved.

        • #3367325

          Mandrake Vs Fedora

          by Anonymous ·

          In reply to Mandrake Bests RedHat

          I have used Mandrake 8.2, 9.1 and 10.0. But in a new linux class that I am taking we were required to download and use Fedora Core 2. It requires downloading or puchasing for a small price, 4 CD’s. And do not use the default install as it will not give you a full install. Fedora is better and slicker, more cutting edge even than Mandrake. You may want to go to the Fedora site and locate the mirrors, I have dsl and got the fastest download from the Georgia Tech University mirror. Use the number 2 folder. I, personally, really like this Fedora Core 2.

        • #2709981


          by ford58 ·

          In reply to Mandrake Vs Fedora

          how does some install fedora core 2 on computer
          that can only boot from a floppy ?

        • #3311545

          installing from a floppy

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Mandrake Vs Fedora

          Here’s a useful guide to installing without a CDROM drive or USB boot option.

          This explanation includes information specific to Fedora Core, as well as to other distributions (including my personal favorite, Debian).

        • #2677437

          He’s Right

          by flake ·

          In reply to I’m an avid user of linux

          Linux was not intended for those who have difficulty distinguishing the monitor from the tower. They can have MS and they will have to pay for it too. For the rest of us, our efforts should be focused on making Linux more powerful and not user-friendly.

        • #2676541

          powerful & friendly

          by fxef ·

          In reply to He’s Right

          Linux can be both powerful and friendly. GUI makes it friendly, the kernel and shell make it powerful. I don’t see Linux replacing Windows as a desktop OS, but will take some market share as it gets more and more user friendly. Live CD’s, such as Knoppix and Gnoppix shows that Linux can be easy to install. apt-get has made installing programs much simpler. Hang in there, it’s getting easier.

        • #2676517

          I do like Knoppix

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to powerful & friendly

          Not as a desktop OS, but to use in my arsenal of
          “Hack Tools”.

          When a rougue M$ system goes bad, there’s nothing like booting into knoppix, and playing with the file system on the HDD to get M$ systems up and running again.

          Who needs the recovery console anyways.

          (And you can’t beat it for that “quickie” boot into linux to do some wireless scanning, but that’s another story)

        • #2686274

          Reply To: Join the Linux discussion

          by fxef ·

          In reply to I do like Knoppix

          I see you use Linux to fix Windows but you can’t use Windows to repair Linux. Oh! Linux just runs…., runs….., runs….., Linux is so stable it needs no repair.

          Linux would be a great desktop OS if more apps were ported to it and hardware vendors would write drivers for Linux.

          It’s not what is best, it’s what is popular.

          My thoughts,

        • #2685303


          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to Reply To: Join the Linux discussion

          I’ve had to repair linux boxes before….

          of course you can’t repair linux from windows.
          (Unless of course you consider ssh from windows into a *nix box to fix something)

          But I have had linux boxes crash before. I have found that the ext2 file system is alot less tolerant then ntfs on a hard abrubt shutdown.

          ext3 is a little better in the recovery of the journal.

          gnome is a memory hog, and I have seen many an app just suddenly stop.

          rp-ppoe sometimes decides it does not want to reconnect when a down state is detected.

          no os is flawless, but linux has it’s strong points over winblows, no doubt. But i’m still not sold on the linux as a desktop yet for the joe blow corp user.

        • #2670203

          knoppix to repair linux

          by derekdpike ·

          In reply to Reply To: Join the Linux discussion

          I’m a new user to linux and I am somewhat familiar with knoppix. I have the latest version 3.3. I was told that if you have a hard drive crash you can boot to knoppix and mount the old drive to retrieve data. I am familiar with the mount command, but do not know what knoppix would call the existing drive. I checked out hda1 and it appears to be the ramdisk that knoppix makes when it boots. I just wondered if anyone had any suggestions that i could try.

        • #3311538

          response to derekdpike@yahoo regarding knoppix

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Reply To: Join the Linux discussion

          I don’t have a Knoppix v3.3 handy to work with, but I’ve got Knoppix v3.4 here. What I find upon booting it is that on the desktop there’s an icon that shows opens the already-mounted hard drive so that I can browse through it.

          If you want to find where hard drives partitions are located through the shell, I recommend opening /etc/fstab and examining its contents. Knoppix automatically sets up fstab with entries for all detected hard drive partitions to make it easy for the user to work with hard drive data. You might also try typing “mount” at the command prompt, minus the quotes, with no arguments — this will show what partitions are already mounted. It’s probable that, with Knoppix, the hard drive partition you’re looking for is already mounted somewhere.

        • #2684659

          Knoppix is impressive

          by technonaut ·

          In reply to I do like Knoppix

          I agree, knoppix is slick and allows access to fat, fat32 and ntfs disks. Very nice.

        • #2672227

          Knoppix is wonderful; LNX-BBC is gem

          by cjgau ·

          In reply to Knoppix is impressive

          LNX-BBC can access fat, fat32 and ntfs disks as well.

        • #3381654

          Knoppix and Citrix

          by ray.koslo ·

          In reply to Knoppix is impressive

          I put Knoppix on my hard drive. How do I install the ICA client?

        • #2729770

          easy for joe blow corp user

          by dpatillo ·

          In reply to powerful & friendly

          Who shows joe blow corp user how to use windows products?

          Most corp users do word processing, spreadsheets, email, and web browsing. Why not set up Linux terminal services, run Open Office, Evolution, and Netscape or Mozzilla. If there is a proprietary app that “must” run on M$, install it on a Win terminal services box and you can still access it from the Linux terminal. Use web interfaces for database applications. (apache, PHP, and mysql RULE!!!)

          Yes, the IT staff will still have to show the corp Joe Blow user how to “click here” to get their job done, but they wont have to spend half their day telling users to reboot their M$ box. Also, centralized data storage, software update, and no way to load rouge software at the desktop will really be a blessing!

          Turn off the advertising hype from M$ and look at the facts and the truth. Look at’s longest uptime report. Ever wonder why a M$ box has been in the top 50 ONLY ONE TIME?

          Think about it? Is linux ready for corp desktop? YES! Most corps have some type of IT support staff anyway. Let them do their job instead of babysitting M$ apps and users!

          And that is my two cents worth.

        • #2669261

          Linux is best for corp

          by here2serveu ·

          In reply to easy for joe blow corp user

          Right on! I got my first computer in 1999 and now have a home network with linux and windoz. I only still have a windoz box because my ati card that is used like tvio and linux don’t play nice yet.

        • #2712401

          easy for joe blow corp user

          by sonicwallroc ·

          In reply to easy for joe blow corp user

          I guess I don’t understand why Linux wouldn’t
          want to be make inroads and take share from MS.
          I do understand that there’s the issue of making
          a good product, but after that what is there?

          If Linux was to be made into a viable, easier to
          use desktop OS people it would also make MS make
          a better OS. In the end, the end result would
          hopefully be better products all around.


        • #3368667

          Linux isn’t for the average user

          by dteam25 ·

          In reply to I’m an avid user of linux

          I really agree with this. Linux was developed for programmers and others IT pro’s… Making Linux a Windows Clone for desktop users is a terrible idea.

          I think is better to improve the knowledge of the user to get along with Linux

        • #2722711

          I think it is now

          by al00880075 ·

          In reply to Linux isn’t for the average user

          It’s true, Linux was developed at first, by and for hackers, but it has been improved and now there are several tools that will save you time configuring a system. I don’t think it’s becoming a windows clone, actually, gui was there (in other systems) before windows.

          Installing and setting up a complete running linux system is very easy with distributions like lindows, mandrake, suse and others. Maybe it is (much) harder with some other distros like debian or slackware for the average user, but even these have their own tools to install packages and satisfy dependencies (and keep the system up to date).

          I think now it’s easier for the average user to to use and even install a linux system and it’s getting better every new release.

        • #2721457

          100 % True

          by kennydaniel ·

          In reply to I’m an avid user of linux

          I have been using Linux since the early days of slackware. I have seem many versions come and go.
          Linux as much as i think its great it is not for everyone. I often read the bashing linux takes. What a lot of people fail to take into consideration the average windows users cannot cope with linux. You need more than common knowledge to use Linux or any flavor of nix for that matter.

        • #2702134

          Oh Really

          by mechanicalmen ·

          In reply to 100 % True

          What ever happened to the concept of user friendly? The Idea is to make life easier. That’s the reason to create any tool.
          This concept of making the user fit the machine is, in my opinion, elitist crap.

        • #2722195

          Define bloat

          by bteam ·

          In reply to I’m an avid user of linux

          There is some truth and accuracy, but also some innaccuracy,
          in what you say.

          The innaccurate part is the pronouncement that X == bloat.

          You *can* make X, or more precisely, the two most popular
          desktop environments (KDE and Gnome) fairly bloated if you
          wish. However, you can also make even those two relatively
          lean and mean by turning off eye candy.

          Now, if you want to see fast X, use something other than KDE
          or Gnome. I’d suggest taking a look at IceWM, Fluxbox,
          Blackbox, or XFCE. If you like Macs, you’ll feel right at home
          with the look and feel of XFCE. It borrows heavily from the old
          CDE interface, as does OS X. Both of them are much prettier
          and faster than anything written with the Motif toolit,
          though 🙂

          If you want to see faster still, try out a fairly new distro called
          Yoper. It not only comes compiled for 686 architecture, but
          Yoper makes extensive use of prelinking. It doesn’t boot quite
          as fast a Gentoo system (in my experience) but once up and
          running, I found KDE to be faster and snappier on Yoper than
          on KDE. However, being a Debian guy myself, I didn’t stick to
          the RPM-based Yoper. It was quite impressed with the speed,

          Also, consider this: on my workstation (a Dell with XP Pro and
          512 meg) I would have to reboot once a week (or every two
          weeks, if I was really lucky) because there are so many things
          that leak memory that after a while the machine would 1.5 gig
          into swap and be doing nothing but paging. I finally got
          around to installing Linux on it (a Debian-based distro called
          Ubuntu; much easier to install than pure Debian) and haven’t
          had to reboot since, and it’s faster, too. Well, I did have to
          reboot once: the extra 512 meg of memory I’d had the MIS
          department order for me a month ago finally arrived. I didn’t
          really need it anymore, since 512 was quite enough for KDE
          with all the eye candy turned on, but since it was already there,
          I took it. So I had to turn the machine off for a minute to
          install it. Now I can go as long as feel like without rebooting

          Microsoft didn’t succeed because they dumbed things down.
          They succeeded because way back when they were tiny, they
          were in the right place at the right time, and followed that good
          fortune up with some good business decisions and some good
          software back in the day. Is Windows dumbed down now,
          though? Yeah, kind of. I prefer Windows 2000, and even NT
          4, over XP in most respects. W2K is a lot faster than XP, too.
          In my experience, it’s also more stable. Windows 2000 was
          really the high water mark for Microsoft OSes, in my opinion.

          With regard to installation, certainly some distros are easier
          than others. Red Hat is less easy than, say, Xandros, but it
          certainly isn’t hard. In fact, distros such as Red Hat, Xandros,
          and Mandrake are, in my opinion, easier to install than
          Windows. Yes. They are easier to install than Windows. You
          read that right.

          But even if it’s not quite as easy to install, who cares?
          Installing Linux, especially if it’s a Debian-based distro, is
          something that you will only have to do to your computer
          once, unless you have a catastrophic hardware failure. For
          that one time, you should do what I also recommend that
          most users (being that most are thoroughly unknowledgeable
          about computers) do: get someone who knows what he/she is
          doing to install the OS and make sure everything is configured
          correctly and locked down for security. Once that’s done, all
          you have to do is point and click to update your system with
          security patches regularly, something which is a good bit
          easier on a number of Linux distros than it is via Windows
          update. Not to mention faster. On Debian, for example, you
          can either update the system using the excellent Synaptic
          package manager, or you can open a command prompt (my
          preferred approach) and type apt-get update, then when it’s
          done, apt-get -f dist-upgrade. All dependencies will be handled
          for you. New software is installed the same way, and again, all
          dependencies are handled for you.

          That’s pretty easy, really.

          There is one fly in the ointment, though: Linux is still not
          terribly good at multimedia compared to XP or (even moreso)
          to OS X. That doesn’t mean it’s useless, and things have
          gotten fairly good on many fronts in the past year or so, but
          there is still a lot of catching up to do. It’s good enough for
          people who like computers and have some idea what they are
          doing, but for people who neither know nor want to know,
          they just want it to work, you’re 100% right: Mac OS X is by far
          the best choice for them. I love Linux, but I recommend Macs
          to people quite often. For quite a few people, it’s the platform
          that would best meet their needs.

          My answer, then, to the question “Is Linux ready for the
          desktop?” is “What desktop”? If we’re talking about the
          corporate desktop, then the answer is yes, in most cases.
          The corporate desktop, whether Windows or Linux, is looked
          after by professional administrators (well, usually), so the
          users don’t need to worry about software installation and
          system management. A large number of Linux boxes is far
          easier to manage than a large number of Windows boxes and
          far less prone to viruses, so that’s a win for the
          administrators. Capability-wise, in a typical office Linux has
          everything you need to do your work. Most businesses could
          convert to Linux and they’d never miss Windows. Whether
          there is always a business case for the expense of an OS
          conversion is another question (the answer may often be yes,
          but sometimes may be no), but there is no technical reason
          why most companies could not make the switch.

          For the home desktop, Linux is ready if you’re a power user.
          I’ve been using it as my home desktop OS for about 6 years,
          and believe me, back than it was a lot farther from being
          ready . I wouldn’t put up with today, the things I went through
          back then. That’s a good sign of how far it’s come.

          Finally, I fully agree with you that Linux is not dumbed down,
          nor should it be. I’ll go one step farther, though, and say “Nor
          can it be.” No matter what kind of GUI you put on top of it
          (and in many respects, Gnome and KDE are both better than
          Microsoft’s GUI today), a nice, friendly shell will still be just a
          mouse click away. I do a lot of my work from the command
          line out of choice, even though there are good graphical
          programs that I could use if I wanted to.

          Linux is not for everyone, that’s certainly true. But with the
          Mac available for people who want “Just Works” and peerless
          multimedia and Linux available for people who want a more
          UNIX-like powerful workstation (although Mac OS X also fills
          this role quite well), I see little reason to buy a Windows
          computer anymore. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone,
          except as a game platform.

        • #3311526


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Define bloat

          That was very well phrased, and I tend to agree with your opinions in the matter, in addition to having comparable experiences. I, too, am a Debian user by choice, and I too will fall back to MacOS X for the rare individual for whom Linux isn’t the optimal choice.

          The only reason, generally speaking, to choose Windows over another OS is the popularity of computer games designed for that platform alone.

      • #3364317

        package managment

        by philux ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Hi Micheal,

        Give a try to Debian. For me it has the best package managment tool. I’ve tried many distributions from Slackware (3.1), RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, to Debian.


        • #2694636

          More Package Management

          by comptech3 ·

          In reply to package managment

          The Portage tool in Gentoo Linux is pretty nice. I have a Gentoo box at home and one at work. It’s nice to ssh my way in to update.

        • #2707858

          Must try

          by pg122 ·

          In reply to package managment

          I’ll have to agree with Phil. I’ve used many “flavors” and thought YAST2 on SuSE was the best. Untill recently I downloaded and burned the “Sarge” network boot CD from Debian. I just don’t see how it could get any easier. It was a total breeze, even on an old 450Mhz box with 128MB RAM it flew. Installed as a workstation and have two choices of desktops (Gnome and KDE 3.2). Detected all the hardware, including sound and runs flawless. apt-get install is just incredible. 🙂
          Just my two cents.


      • #2741470

        We’re mostly talking home user here?

        by smchris ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        My wife and I have been running linux desktops and a DSL web server for over two years now on our home network (with a little legacy help from Win4lin). I honestly couldn’t tell you how many months it has been since she’s exercised her option to dual-boot to native NT. Perhaps time to free up some gigabytes – 🙂 But it is important to be clear on some distinctions:

        I. Business environment:

        A. All things being equal (and they very well may be), installation and maintenance are not an issue because you hire staff to maintain the equipment your run. It’s a “duh”.

        B. Feasibility as a user environment:

        1. Trivially obvious if it is a custom terminal program. I have read, correct or not, that there are still millions of OS/2 machines serving ATMs and checkouts around the world. So, of course, linux is ready to sit on millions of business counters.

        2. But, that’s not what people usually mean. Can the typical secretary or receptionist figure out how to use Mozilla instead of IE, Evolution instead of Outlook, OpenOffice instead of Office? I think they can. For routine work, the icons are there: cut/copy/paste, open/save/print, etc. It honestly isn’t rocket science. Did people bring this up six years ago? “How do we DARE move from WordPerfect to Office? The retraining will be an agonizing hit on the bottom line!” Oh, please.

        As I see it, the problem in business will occur in deciding how much of a dual environment you are willing to accommodate to support old data formats and reports that rely upon proprietary processes like Excel macros. To that extent, something like Win4lin server or CrossOver Office could be very desirable for at least one hardware cycle.

        II. Home users

        A. Paradoxically, I would be willing to bet that a Mandrake or RedHat could actually be easier to install than XP (if one needed to install XP). One’s mileage will vary — probably highly dependent upon whether the hardware compatibility list was checked beforehand for _either_ OS. [And, sadly, depending upon whether a person needs dialup since most modems are Winmodems.]

        B. The problems the home user are most likely to encounter are:

        1. Linux is different from Windows. I can only believe the answer to that problem has to be, “well, yeah. Sorry.” I don’t know that it is _necessarily_ true that linux is more difficult to maintain and tinker with than Windows, but it is undeniable that former home Windows users will have to acquire a different set of knowledge if they are going to maintain their linux setup.

        2. But, to get around to the issue of adding post-install complex apps — yes, I can think of at least three apps I have installed that depend upon up to literally a dozen other apps. And their web pages may or may not even link to the home pages of those underlying programs. Poster children for one of the most troublesome aspects of the linux model in general. What if an underlying program breaks a program higher up in the chain?

        Yes, it can be a problem if program creators don’t communicate with each other, don’t feel responsible for the interoperation of their programs or don’t make it clear and simple for the user to install a full set of the programs. Happily, I am not convinced this is the norm. I’m not even convinced it is unique to linux. A unique aspect of linux is that each program is on its own web page open to the public for observation. So, to an extent, this problem is an issue grounded in perception. With a proprietary program, unless a released patch breaks another part of a program (and that happens), we just don’t get to _see_ the programming of department A mess up the programming of department B. With linux, we often have a front-row seat to the creation process, and it isn’t always pretty.

        You might say that line of thinking is flippant and there really is a problem. But isn’t that why there are distributions? Doesn’t the problem of finding and installing a dozen .tars, .rpms, .debs , or whatever most often occur when you say, “No, I don’t want the version of this program available from the company servers for my distribution. I want _this_ MONTH’S version!” The “problem” can arise from an embarrassment of riches with access to a new version of this or that program on your desktop literally weekly instead of waiting a couple years for a proprietary company to bundle a new OS for you. Take a deep breath and think about it. This should be the worst of a person’s problems in life.

      • #2741291

        Ease of installation

        by tatsnice ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        I have been trying out linux in various ways.
        So far.. Mandrake linux, which I have dedicated my main
        system too, is currently the easiest one I have found to
        There is basically little user input, unless of course (of
        which you have an option) select advanced or individual
        package selection.

        My current version is 9.1 and previous versions as early as
        7.1 have shown much improvement.

      • #2679238

        It doesn’t have to be hard

        by linuxclass ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        The main problem you are talking about is often refered to as dependancy hell. Where you install (or try to install) something only to find out you need to download and install other libraries first… only to find out you need to download install yet other libraries… only to find out you can’t find one of the dependancies for your particular distribution.

        You might want to look at other options for installing software on Linux. I’ve heard apt-get works well and that it tracks down and installs most dependant packages. Another option is installing from source. The commands:
        make install

        Are not all that hard to type. Of course maintaining such a source-installed system can be a real PITA! Or look at Gentoo. Typing:
        emerge package name
        will download, compile, and install everything needed to run the program probably 99% of the time.

        If you are talking more about desktop and “typical” end users… then how about Lindows. Browse a (quite large) list of available software and click the “install” button. Click-n-Run downloads and installs everything needed for that program (usually) without any additional input on your part.

        There are quite a few options for “easy” installs out there if you know where to look. It’s just a shame that the biggest Linux distro didn’t do a better job of app installs. It taints everybody’s perception.

        Personally I think one of Linux’s strengths is that all needed packages are NOT combined into each application install. This provides three big benefits, IMHO. First downloads are a lot smaller since every single app doesn’t have to include duplicate libraries. Second in helps reduce cruft since only libraries which are needed have to be installed (vs. installing ALL libs just in case one is needed.) Third, it avoids the type of “.DLL Hell” common in Windows where one app replaces a .dll with an incompatible version and breaks something else completely. And finally, Linux/UNIX programmers are used to the fact that they can not depend on a specific version of a library to be available… this means they rarely use undocumented or uncommon library routines in their apps… meaning upgrading your libraries rarely breaks the installed apps.

      • #2678929

        FreeBSD handles dependencies transparently

        by brad morrison ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        I’ve been setting up Linux systems for four years, now, and boy, do I feel your pain. You nailed it. I seem to remember two or three RPM sites that list the dependent packages, , so at least you know what you’re getting into. These sites also had links to the dependent packages.

        It’s still a pain when, for example, you want Ethereal, which can require up to 14 dependent packages, some of them newer versions than what you have.

        FreeBSD has a revolutionary way to install packages with deps: the /usr/ports tree. It’s mind-blowing. First, you freshen the ports tree via cvsup, connecting to one of dozens of CVS servers. This gets you all of the source code for the whole tree, any subtree, or just specific packages. The entire packages aren’t downloaded, just skeletal files to go and get the source when you decide you need it. You cd to /usr/ports/CATEGORY/PACKAGE-NAME and “make install”. That’s it. The Makefiles figure out what you need and just go get it if you don’t already have it. Oh, you need an older version of any given package for compatibility? Edit the Makefile and make install. This is where FreeBSD’s CVS setup really shines, because not every server will have older versions–CVS happily keeps checking servers for you.

        It’s quite refreshing.

      • #2684787

        New to Linux

        by sarahdee ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        I’m glad that I’m not the only one who is a Linux novis. I was wondering if anyone knew of any instructional materials that are devoted to the Linux command line. I am used to the DOS command line and to me the Linux command line is like a foriegn language.

        • #2684780


          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to New to Linux

          A book that I reference is “Linux in a Nutshell” from O’reilly.

          It is strictly a reference manual, so it won’t necessarily teach you what the commands do. So you kind of have to know what you are looking for.

          Also if you know what command you are looking for the –help operator is useful or use man .

          A nifty little site is

          When your coming from windows, the shell may be overwhelming. But just remember that almost basically everything can be done from the command line that can be done the gui, (except graphics of course).

        • #2670201

          more commands

          by derekdpike ·

          In reply to Book

          I am also a new user to linux. I reviewed the link to the commands that you had posted. I wondered if anyone knew a link of more commands than that. I am pretty familiar with most the commands that were located on the posted website. I was wondering where to find more commands.

        • #2696700

          Linux in a nutshell

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to more commands

          is probably your best bet then…

          it is a little book jam packed with a ton of commands.

          Another cool “little” (literally thin) book is
          Linux Server Hacks from O’reilly.

        • #3293350


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to more commands

          I recommend joining a mailing list for a LUG (Linux User Group) in your area. LUGs are incredibly rich resources in terms of getting information on how to make the most of your Linux system.

      • #2670710

        SuSE 8.2

        by laredoflash9 ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Rather than torture yourself, just buy a copy of SuSE 8.2 or 9.0 at BEST BUY. This distribution is the easyiest to use. Simply insert either cdrom 1 and boot from cdrom or insert dvd and boot from dvd. SuSE will take care of partitioning dual boot systems, and installing a base system that runs the first time around. YAST2 is a great install tool. SuSE, the only way to go….Rod Donovan

      • #2671470

        It’s not that bad??

        by yule ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Come on folks – – it’s not that bad. Granted, it’s not as easy as most MS based app’s, but then again, they were designed for folks who have no idea how to do anything more than “next” when installing.

        My 13 year old installs his own app’s on his own Linux box. He recently threw me for a curve and wiped the drives, reinstalled Mandrake 9.1, and then upgraded to 9.2 – – and I never knew it until 3 day’s later.

        Now he’s playin in the Wine project – – wants to run his games on his Linux box. Also does all his homework and PowerPoint projects in Open Office and K-Office.

      • #2687015

        I agree fully with the need for better installation methods

        by wmstrome ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Some applications (e.g. Adobe Acrobat Reader) are VERY easy to install, with complete, easy instructions. Others have obscure problems. For example, take Macromedia Flash. I tried off and on for months to get it working. It always seemed to install properly, no error messages, all the files in the right places. Yet whenever I tried opening a page with Flash, I was told I needed that plug-in.
        I FINALLY found the solution: in tiny print on the Mozilla plug-in website, I found a note that said, “If Flash does not work, make sure that you have libc++2.xx installed” or something like that. I did not have it, so installed it, and now flash works.
        Can you imagine the average home Windows or Mac user being able or even interested in trying to go through those contortions?
        Many other packages are as difficult to get working.
        So, I add my voice of encouragement to LINUX applications developers to make sure that their packages are complete and easy to install. If there are dependencies, have the installer check for them and if they are missing, install them as well.

      • #2695731

        Try Gentoo

        by ausablewolf ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Gentoo Linux solves dependency problems — it installs a package and all of it’s dependencies with “emerge -D package”.

        The emerge command downloads the sourcecode, checks it against an MD5Sum & runs configure, make and make-install.

        Try it out:

      • #2696234

        Good news for you

        by bicol_willem ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Just came accross your meanwhile older message (according to the date of posting). I hope you’re still around for I got good news for you.
        I recognize all the problems you described here and had my part of it in the passed trying to use Linux. I ended up using SuSE and with the version 9.0 most of my problems were gone. But …. then I discovered LindowsOS and that is simply a revolution!
        Installation within 10 minutes, automatic updates, installation and un-installation with one or two clicks (using the mind boggling CNR client which is to me the very heart of the system), plenty software available in their “warehouse”. Using Linux today is from now on EASY for all!
        I love it to be free from the difficulties of the passed and …. M$ in one strike.
        Give it a (fair) try and find out what I mean here: Linux has finally arrived at the home-users desktop with LindowsOS.

        • #2716183

          Lindows fails in support

          by charleshagen ·

          In reply to Good news for you

          Tried to get support for my Lindows/Linspire install and could not get support.


      • #2680876

        Some Facts and Observations.

        by lastchip ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        First. Although I would consider I have a good knowledge of Windows, I am a complete novice on Linux.

        Second. I have recently installed both RedHat 9.0 and Mandrake 9.2, and there is no question in my mind, Mandrake was the easier install.

        Why? The machine concerned is an experimental machine I use for various purposes and is quad booted currently. It’s on a network of four machines and connected via the network to the internet.

        When RedHat installed, it recognized the network and I had instant access to my Windows machines via RedHat, but not the reverse. I needed to configure one of my Windows machines, with the same password, to access RedHat from Windows (found that on a tutorial somewhere). Clearly there are some settings somewhere that need to be adjusted to take care of a “normal” access situation, and given time, I may get to the bottom of it!

        Mandrake by comparison, gave me much the same as RedHat in Application terms, but configured the network flawlessly both ways. I also preferred the Mandrake Graphical Interface, but that’s probably just personal choice.

        Each distro took about the same time to install, approximately 30 minutes on a K2-400 machine. Try running XP on that, let alone installing in 30 minutes!!

        To say Linux is impressive is an understatement. It’s an excellent system that should, and I believe will be, used more universally. Linux enthusiasts of course, will already be aware of it’s impending roll-out with the German government and a huge roll-out in China. So the question must be, Why Not?

        I think it’s a combination of things, including Microsoft having “first user” advantage. This is what people have grown up with and feel comfortable with. Most new machines are still packaged with Windows. Applications that are already well established in companies run on Windows and so on. However, with licensing and other issues becoming very relevant now, senior management in many companies are asking the question, why are we still paying all this money for Windows? Once Linux moves onto the desktop in companies, it is then a natural progression for home users to accept it at home. Also, it is becoming a hot topic at university level, and tomorrows decision makers will perhaps take a different view to todays.

        As regards some of the other comments on the thread, it is clear there are two camps. The die hards that believe Linux should be run from the command line and expect, and accept the speed that goes with that. But that’s like saying compare W2K to DOS on the same machine. In speed terms a DOS text program is going to outstrip the graphical interface every time. Surly, the great thing about Linux is, it can be used either way.

        In order to get mass acceptance, the graphical interface IS the only way to go. People have long given up typing commands to get things to work. In order for Linux to gain further acceptance, the graphical element must be further expanded, to the point that loading a program is not a hit or miss affair as to whether it works or not.

        When you can pop a CD in the drive and it auto-loads, first time every time, Linux will truly be ready for mass acceptance.

        In my view, it’s almost there!

      • #2669265


        by here2serveu ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        New to linux also. I was turned on to Mandrake 9.2 and now have 10.0. Istallation for both versions was a matter of putting the cd in and clicking choises. Just as easy as Windowz. Also Mandrake has urpmi. What it allows me to do is type urpmi in a shell and say java, it then will find pacakages with java and ask which one to install and will figure out dependencys for me. It’s great.

      • #2734906

        re: Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily

        by rhart_y4k ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        /| /| | |
        ||__|| | Please do not |
        / O O\__ feed the Trolls. |
        / \ Thank You. |
        / \ \ |
        / _ \ \———————?
        / |\____\ \ ||
        / | | | |\____/ ||
        / \|_|_|/ | _||
        / / \ |____| ||
        / | | | –|
        | | | |____ –|
        * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
        *– _–\ _ \ | ||
        / _ \\ | / `?
        * / \_ /- | | |
        * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

      • #2720067

        It is Easy to install

        by nccorthu ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        I’ve been running Linux from the time they first came out ( Slackware 1 I guess mybe 2). In those days pain was the name of the game.
        The most recent releases of Mandrake and SUSE load I think easier than Windows if you have a machine of uncertain condition and age. That first effort took 3 weeks to get running with any reliability. Most problems of course were drivers related. You also had to hand do everything. Not anymore
        It’s best to enjoy your ease of use.
        NOW FOR MORE APS or a better Windows emulator and we can sell out of the Microsoft world completely and give the language of computing to the world as it should be not owned by one copmpany even though they and Gates did very well indeed. I wonder if anyone ever had English patented or any other language. Answer of course not.

        Gary O

      • #2720056


        by justmakingit ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        The xandros os is actually really easy to install and update. In the xandros network you can install other software i.e. php, samba, mysql, etc very easily and it installs all of the dependencies along with it. Very good so far.

      • #2711006

        They have one

        by jackie40d9 ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Does your CMOS allow you to boot to a CD/DVD ? If so
        there is nothing so easy to load as Linux Mandrake 9.1 ( don’t get 10 yet got lots of bugs in it )
        Then if you want to run Windows stuff inside of Linux
        go to and get Win4Lin version 5.0 load it then load your windows and what ever you want to run programs . . Then your behind a LINUX FIRE WALL and using your windows stuff no body likes to go up against a Linux fire wall as your caught the second your touching it .. I have caught 7 people touching my fire wall and did a back trace sent messages to their ISP with their DNS numbers names and phone numbers ! like DAH ! they are in deep doo doo ! and several in Georgia and Florida are not on line any more . .

      • #2715663

        Package Installations on Linux

        by peeusht ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        With all due respect to the maker of Linux and innumerable users and Linux User Community , i would like to say that linux has a long way to go before taking on Windows in the field of easy Installations and more user-friendliness. may be being open source is responsible for this . The Linux user community on Net should come together to make an International Standards Organization(i suppose 1 is already there) to make standards in Guis and Packages Installation method that should be there in every Flavour of Linux and at the same time see to it that the cost of Software should not go to high.

      • #2708544

        You pays your money, you makes your choice

        by snoopdoug ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Well of course Microsoft software is easier to install than Linux. Microsoft has an army of folks, who cost mundo dinero, and make sure installation is easier. And don’t get me started on documentation!

        Besides, if you really want easy-to-install software, go with Apple fer crying out loud. Makes Microsoft software look like it was designed by the UN!


      • #2708043

        Seems to me they have.

        by pcpinkerton ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        The difference being choosing which distro you want. Unlike other OS vendors Linux provides choices with choice comes thought and planning, which in either case is a good idea anyway.

        Some distros have Live Cd’s they provide a try before you buy CD a full featured Linux OS that runs on a Single CD you can boot from a use with out installing anything. Then if you choose you can install from the same CD. Others allow installing from the internet. This way you get the latest updates.

        It more than likely depends on who is asking the question. First answer. Why are you installing Linux?

      • #2707978

        Free Does NOT refer to money

        by enicholson ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Free in the opensource community does not refer to the almighty dollar. FREEDOM to tweak the software and OS to fit your needs. FREEDOM to distribute Linux as a whole, according to the GNU General Public License.

        What distribution are you using? I have used Red Hat, SUSE and Mandrake and rarely come across the problem you are talking about.

        I personally recommend SUSE. You can get the personal version for $30. Compare to the several 100 you would pay for Windows with office, the minor problem you have is well worth the saving.


      • #2707939

        Linux Mandrake does

        by jackie40d9 ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Heck, I have installed Linux Mandrake 9.1 on a computer in under 20 minutes and thats with installing almost everything there was on the 4 CD’s ( 3 main and upgrade CD ) I find that going up to Linux Central and buying the package a lot faster and easier to do that sit there and download the CD’s then burn them and then install
        the OS ! For the $10.00 and about 3 days worth the wait ( besides I have a Dial up connection )
        just me

      • #2721359

        Open Source has limits

        by rahuffsan1 ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        I feel for you, but open source must remain modular otherwise it will cease to exist as open source. Everyone must draw a limit to their work, otherwise it’s all “In progress” and never “completed”.

      • #2721344

        If you want to use apps easily, try port collections. PKGSRC from NetBSD.

        by arheil ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Linux is too young for application deployment. *BSD and classic UNIX have experience in this task.

        Novadays, port collection from NetBSD project (PKGSRC) is frontier endeavor in the free software distribution. I can say that NetBSD carries 2 projects: OS and free software.
        The main difference from other port collections is that usually vendor makes effort to run software under own OS only. It’s not true for NetBSD. These packages are built from source tarballs under different OSes (Solaris, Linux, and many other). Questions?

        1) Easy to use.

        You can build your application by running ‘make; make install’ commands. You don’t spend the time in surfing web. Tarballs will be downloaded from net without worries.

        If this software has dependencies on libraries from other projects, these projects will be built. Without worries.

        You have not to install gigas of software from CDs. The main distro of OS is ~200MB in tarballs (~500MB on HDD, the main UNIX utilities (with gcc and other devel stuff) + X).

        2) Free software.

        You have not to pay for these programs.

        3) Distribute to the world.

        You can help to distribute and adopt other software
        under this project if you are developer. INHO the goal of this project (PKGSRC) is to resolve trouble of software in the world. The goal is correlated with the GNU project goal. If you are interested in license issues, I can describe my opinion. Both (BSD and GPL) licenses describe free software distribution. BSD is ‘technical’ license, the main goal is ‘install free software which works’.
        GPL is ‘political’, the main goal is ‘install only free software’. I’m techie, thus I prefer ‘technical’ solutions and choose BSD lisence. BTW lisence issue does not resolve the trouble of software distributing by itself.

        That’s why I have great respect for NetBSD project.
        *BSD projects are successful in OS regenerating by
        simple commands like ‘make buildworld’. Why?

        Answer is simple. The *BSD projects are based on UNIX legacy. The rich infrasrtucture of Makefiles. Linux is too young in this field. But this problem arrives long time ago and inspires projects like “Linux from scratch” and Gentoo.

        OTOH many users are not programmers and want to install and use software. *.rpm and *.deb resolve this issue. Just install 5-8 CDs and 2-3 DVDs of prebuilded packages or buy MS products. Model is the same, prices are different.

        4) Share info.

        The classic UNIX books make advice: “If the info are not transferred by protocols in the Net, distribute it in the plain text (human readable) form”. I agree. MS office files often are piece of crap. If you want to print document, you have to prepare info for this. UNIX has utilities, the teTeX is the professional publish system.
        MS is trying to build docs that ready to print. IMHO overkill. Anyway it’s make your own opinion about info exchange.


      • #3306374

        Hear, Hear

        by crussell ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        I aggree whole heartedly.

      • #3306234

        Every Distro is “Different”

        by rindi1 ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        The problem you are talking about arises from the following situation:

        Windows is always the same, so the programs you will use there are compiled and ready for use for that OS, that means you generally don’t need further Software in order to get that Software to run. With Linux you have a lot of different Distributions, to get the software to run best on your distro, it is also best to prepare the Software for that Distro (Compile it, etc.). This means you will have to install that Third party software beforehand as well. There are a lot of Distributions around now which have Software prepared already, so if you use the Distro’s Package Manager to install the software you want, this manager can normally install all the necessary tools needed as well.

      • #3306064

        Install Nightmare

        by joltinjoe607 ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        OK, then being a novice Linux user, but still familiar with how you are supposed to do install’s (Mandrake 10.1)my worst experience yet was trying to install KDE 3.3 from a “Bonus CD” for mandrake club members. The process was brutal, or at least for me it was. To make a long story short. God, I mean URPMI, RPMDrake, RPM, APT-GET, CURL, WGET…which one would work??, after getting familiar with the support boards, reading documentation…..Oh, now I know!! I will try Synaptic!! or maybe Knaptic, all in all for me I couldnt make any of them work…Ok, lets put the media in RPMDrake..then the dependancy nightmare. If anybody has a foolproof way, I would love to hear it!! In my humble opinion, until Linux distributions can come up with a universal “idiot-proof” install wizard…they can forget about gaining any ground in the home user desktop war. Most people want ease and comfort, and will just say “why put up with this??” where is my XP Home comfy system?? (I hate XP home, myself)

      • #3306965

        I agree!

        by appo ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        I have purchased SuSE Linux 8.1 Professional last year and have yet to connect to the Internet. Not having any knowledge or ever used Linux, I went at it cold turkey. I have searched the internet for user groups in hope of getting advice on how to connect, but nothing. I love the screen layout and some of the application that I can use locally, but no Internet. I suppose that if I keep at it long enough I will eventually find out how to connect.
        Rudolph Apodaca.

      • #3307103

        A Linux MSI Packager

        by cfields ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        What would be handy is something like a MSI packager for Linux. The required dependencies could be included or a link to download them from a fixed site.

      • #3324409

        Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        by gorto ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        Linux distro installs have really come a long way since the character based installs of the mid 1990’s. Don’t forget that Windows was coming from a dos-based environment and competing with Apple for an easy to use, graphical interface for the average user. Linux spawned as a programmers OS. There was a need early on for a UNIX like clone that could run on a PC. It wasn’t until the late 90’s that it began to go mainstream and spruce up a bit. Window maker emerged and Gnome and KDE were born. Easier to use graphical installs were also being developed. Yum, Yast and Apt-get have made upgrades and application installs practically painless. Fedora Core 3 and CentOS (Redhat Enterprise clone) both use YUM and it works great. Don’t get discouraged, just dive in and get wet. You will soon appreciate the differences.

      • #3245661

        What counts as easy?

        by masinick ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        I think the problem with ease of installation is the level of hardware support available. More hardware vendors need to get on board to make support easier. As far as differences in packaging, who cares? If that is confusing, the best thing to do is to find a system that works, learn it well before moving on to anything else.

        If systems won’t install right, I recommend downloading Live CDs, such as Knoppix, Kanotix, Linspire, SUSE, or Mandriva (in Live CD format, these vendors also have full suites that install immediately to disk). I have particularly good results with SimplyMEPIS, others find different packages work better for them. But with a Live CD, you have little risk. If it fails, all you lose is a CD (unless you use CD/RW disks, in which case, just rewrite a new one).

        I use Libranet myself, they just came out with a new release. In your case, though, first I’d make sure I could find something that works, then I’d experiment and learn how to use it effectively, asking questions after diligently reviewing as much as possible.

      • #3214571


        by javenlim ·

        In reply to Why can’t Linux come up with a way to install easily?

        I think we need to remember that it is open source that we are talking abt so we cant be too chosy on this.
        Also, Linux like Unix requires a significant level of skillset to implement it and manage it. It can be very powerful and much more powerful than MS Operating Systems. The only down side is that everything is very commandline based. In MS OS, u will never know what is actually running on the background even with the task manager. Registry is always a failure and processes like svchost is another pain in the ass. But I must say that the support that u can get from MS is definitely alot better than open source but still I think Linux and any Unix based system is definitely more powerful than MS based ones. At least in terms of stability is alot better.

        • #3215608

          not true

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Linux

          not anymore

          get a new distro and you’ll find out that working with linux is actually easier than working with MS software.
          and far less security issues to deal with.

    • #3380455

      Installing Linux Apps and Utils

      by rabbit_runner ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      After posting the above, I ran across the following article. It will better describe what was being presented in the previous posting.

      There should be a better way to accomplish the installation of different programs and utilities within a Linux environment. At least a way where the common end-user will not have so much fuss over the installation process.

      Are there any other ideas on this? Would appreciate hearing from others.

      Michael R.

      • #3364829

        About installing those appsz

        by reles ·

        In reply to Installing Linux Apps and Utils

        Well for that matter the linux comunity should start DICTATING (one of the things that we dont want) how to setup out hard drives and file systems for that matter cause theres a lot of packages that install on /usr and others /usr/local. In the other hand we can start by building some GUI interfaces on the installations processes so the user at least haves an idea of what to do in a friendly enviroment if that is what you emply with your post

      • #3376438

        I’m not sure understand.

        by brant fitzsimmons ·

        In reply to Installing Linux Apps and Utils

        I’m not sure I understand what the problem is. When I want to install a program on my Mandrake Linux boxes I can either:

        Download the program from the author’s website, making sure that it is has been created for my distro (in the same way you wouldn’t install OS X apps on Windows XP and Windows 2000 apps on Solaris [basic common sense]), and click on it’s icon in the file manager. As with a properly configured Windows 2000 or XP box I would need to type in my root (administrator) password and the program installs itself and any programs that it may depend on. Not exactly rocket science.


        If it’s a program in one of the software repositories accessible by Mandrake I can open up a console prompt and type “urpmi . This will then install the program along with any programs that it may depend on.

        What am I missing?

        If you install programs intended for your OS they work just as on any other OS.

        You can even update the OS ***and all of the programs running on the OS*** by typing “urpmi –auto-select”. You won’t even have to reboot the thing.

        Someone please tell me how that is more difficult than intalling programs on, or updating XP.

      • #2689350

        Run MS Windows Apps

        by gmulak ·

        In reply to Installing Linux Apps and Utils

        Is it true that I can run MS Office from withing Linux? What about other applications, such as a good accounting package or my $5,000 professional tax package, which was written for windows?

    • #2744179

      Another example of what I am trying to say:

      by rabbit_runner ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      Here is another link (URL) which better explains what I have been trying to say. The Linux software vendors would do better to get their heads together and come up with a solution. This would then start to give Microsoft a ‘run-for-their-money’ (pun intended)

      Michael R.

      • #2741803

        Linux and extended ascii characters.

        by tricky1 ·

        In reply to Another example of what I am trying to say:

        I am new to Linux and I am currently installing a Linux server into a Windows network. I have installed Samba and VNC. I use extended ascii characters in my Windows passwords because I think that this increases security, but Linux does not appear to recognise these. I have had to remove these characters from the Windows passwords in order to get everything working. Is this the only solution?

        • #2741706

          There may be a way

          by masinick ·

          In reply to Linux and extended ascii characters.

          I’m not entirely certain of whether the Linux interfaces that are available support the existence of 8 bit or 16 bit password characters or not. I’d like to think yes because such support would be needed to properly localize password functions, but it may not be widely implemented.

          It may be possible to pass characters larger than 127 decimal by using some kind of escape sequence, such as /224 or \224, for instance.

          What application are you using that requires this functionality? It may help to find a FAQ, HOWTO, Support, news group, or related resource for this application. For instance, there’s quite a bit of SAMBA information out there. Find a good site that supports SAMBA or whatever you’re using, and you’re likely to at least get a more definitive answer and possibly a workable solution.

    • #2676723

      What is a good starting point…

      by elvis ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      What is a good starting point to learn about Linux or UNIX? I have no experience with Linux or UNIX. I?ve been working in Microsoft/ Novell environments for about 5 years, and I think it?s about time to learn something. Does anyone have any suggestions? I apologize if I sound too ignorant.

      • #2676628

        Not ignorant at all……

        by lordinfidel ·

        In reply to What is a good starting point…

        When your coming from the MS/Novell world, *nix can be intimidating.

        But just like when you learned MS OS’, the same thing applies. Install it, break it, fix it.

        I want to say go with red hat for learning purposes, but they are ending their support for RH after april. But nothing is stopping you from still using it. (although I am making the migration over to debian)

        If you want the pretty desktop then go with RedHat or SuSE. From there you can see the basic structure of the FS and see how things operate. Once your ready to abandon the safety of the gui, start installing it without X and work strictly via cmd line.

        (from O’reilly) Running Linux; Linux Network Administrators Guide; Linux Server Hacks

        (Hacking Exposed) Hacking Exposed Linux

        (RedHat press)
        –ISBN #’s)
        0764516957 Official Red Hat Linux Administrator’s Guide
        0764524631 Red Hat Linux Firewalls
        0764536311 Red Hat Linux Survival Guide
        076453632X Red Hat Linux Networking And System Administration
        0764547542 Red Hat Linux Security and Optimization
        0764549677 Official Red Hat Linux User’s Guide


        ***Essential bookmark***

        I would also pick up a pocket guide to VI.

        • #2685930


          by theseacher ·

          In reply to Not ignorant at all……

          If you purchase SUSE, do not expect any tech support.
          The box will indicate 60-days of tech support, however when you e-mail a question to SUSE you will receive an automated response informing you it will be three days before receiving a response. That comes out to 20-days of tech support.
          My experience was that they do respond to the first tech support question. You will NOT receive any tech support after the first question.

        • #2684776

          I look at linux support

          by lordinfidel ·

          In reply to SUSE

          the same way I do as MS support.

          90% of the support stuff is trivial and can be found on the web by searching.

          For the other 10%, half of it is advanced configurations where the user has missed a step, and the other half are bugs.

          For the half that are bugs, the vast majority of those are going to be caused by different progarms running or conflicting hardware. The last 1% are going to be actual real problems with their OS, be it bugs are security flaws.

          That’s just my take though on why you don’t get a prompt answer. I would just look on the web, your answer is probably there. And if it’s not, then contact tech support.

        • #2670704


          by laredoflash9 ·

          In reply to SUSE

          SuSE only offers installation support. Everthing else, you are on your own. But, it is still the best installation around.I was torured by Red Hat early on. I made my switch to SuSE and the updates have gotten significantly better. This is a good place to set up a linux users group, don’t you think. Since all of us are at different levels, it would be great if we could all get together and discuss our problems and solutions….Flash

        • #2696247

          I agree…SuSE + Users Group = Bliss

          by nd_clutch ·

          In reply to SuSE

          I agree Flash. SuSE has to be one of the smoothest installs for Linux. Although, the only other I’ve experienced is RH. Even their new install over the web is smooth. I struggled to upgrade components of RH. SuSE is so much easier. Start up the Yast2 (a GUI interface for those who don’t know), and select packages you want to install, uninstall or update. Simple as that. Yast will download and install them.

          Flash, I also agree with the user’s group. The more the better. Quick story…I just switched from cable broadband to DSL at my home office. The DSL technician spotted Linux running on one of my PC’s and immediately asked if I’d be interested in a local Linux user’s group that he is trying to start. Quite suprising as I consider myself as a nubie still in the Linux world. Linux is growing folks….its going to be BIG.

      • #2701245

        It depends –

        by dstjulien ·

        In reply to What is a good starting point…

        Do you just want to add to your knowledge skills or are you interested in a philosophical change (think outside yout box)?
        If you just want to add to you knowledge base – download SuSE 9.1 and install it on your XP machine if you have room. When you install it, make sure you have conveted your MS filesystem to NTFS first. SuSE will mount those drives for you so yo can access them when running Linux.
        Then, JOIN SOME FORUMS! You will be amazed at the amount of help you will get. is a biggie, is another. Look around – ask questions – try out the answers – then let them know of your experience. In other words – build some personal networks.
        Next – be a kid – try everything! If it doesn’t work – get help or find something else – you may not find it at the “source” but it is out there. The journey is much more important than the destination.
        Just DO IT – damn the torpedoes – full speed ahead. You have more going for you than most.

        • #2701240

          Outside the box

          by dstjulien ·

          In reply to It depends –

          If you are careeer mined and want to get a sense of a different concept of networking – get on board with Novell’s “one Net” concepts.
          Directory, security and accessability are the keys. Linux is huge at Novell. If you don’t know it – SuSE and Ximian are Novell companies. You can actually get support through Novell if you are looking for professional support. They have the tools and products that can bring usable, manageble, secure Linux to the desktop.
          The most important feature of the one Net concepts is that you can bring directory services, security and accessibility to a network seamlessly and without having to replace existing service providers (MS specific app servers, Unix or Netware). The only thing network users should notice is that it will be easier to get to what they need and impossible to get to what they don’t.
 – do a search on “one Net” – peek over the top of the box and see what can be.
          Either way – welcome to the Linux world of discovery!!!

    • #2676674

      red hat 9 desktop freezes after booting into it

      by Anonymous ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      I recently had my system shut down because of a power outage. I am running red hat 9 and win2k. I have an AMD 1400 with 512 mb sdram.
      After restarting the system, the grub bootloader menu comes up fine and win2k works fine. However, after booting red hat everything seems to boot up fine, all system devices are recognized, until right after I log in and the devices screen is done. Then when the system goes onto the desktop everything freezes. I am at the desktop but I have no icons on the desktop and the taskbar has all the icons except the up2date icon and there is no clock.
      I am running gnome but even when I try and use kde as the desktop, the same freeze up happens.
      I logged in under runlevel 3, but the same situation still exists as far as the desktop freezing up, whenever I did a startx.
      I checked under var/log messages and what was mentioned was something about the fb0-7 modules not being located. Apparently the fb modules have something to do with the XFree86 Project.
      So I went and checked the XFree86 logs; and it looks like the module for my monitor(if I’m reading this correctly) is not being loaded. It says the [drm] failed to load kernel module ” name”.
      I went into the XF86 Config file but everything seems to look ok.
      My question then is: Is the module for the monitor not being loaded because the XFree86 modules (fb) aren’t being located, or are the fb modules not being located because the module for the monitor is failing to load?
      Has anyone seen this problem before and if so does anyone have any suggestions or ideas where or how I might fix this problem?

    • #2685115

      Linux Kernel Exploit 12-5-03!!!!!

      by lordinfidel ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      For those of you out there who are using the 2.4.x kernels up to 2.4.22, and you do not know about this, read on.

      A while ago, debian was broken into. It was later found that the exploit that was used was in every 2.4 kernel version.

      The linux community has been relatively silent about this, especially the folks at

      Although I have known about this for the last several days, I have been expecting alot more.

      The major distros have silently released patches and discussions about this that usually exist on such highly regarded newsgroups such as bugtraq and slashdot, have been almost non-existant.

      I’m not going to get into the techincal details of the exploit, but just to say you need either the kernel patch or the latest kernel 2.4.23.

      Several distros have made available back ported kernels with the patch level included.

      To see what your distro has done, a good place to look is:

      To get the white paper on the exploit go to:

      If your not on bugtraq then shame on you.
      If you don’t update your kernel and you get owned because of it, don’t start crying about it.

      Shame on the linux community for their silence. It is extremely shameful to think that we can dish it out but we can’t take it.


      • #3382094


        by dwdino ·

        In reply to Linux Kernel Exploit 12-5-03!!!!!

        Linux actually has a security hole?
        It has to be upgraded and rebooted?
        The security hole is acutally in the kernel?
        Linux community quiet about fix?

        My gosh, it sounds just like …. Microsoft.
        See it is a small world after all…..


    • #2670592

      It’s called LINDOWS!

      by barklessdog ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      Easy to install, easy to manage, Click-n-Run makes software installation a breeze and the GUI is fresh and clean!

      You can now “run from the Gates of hell”

    • #2689244

      Down loading linux

      by jts111 ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      Can I download linux files in order to install on another computer (my computer) using a windows box (work computer)? a Mac running OS 8 (another work computer)? Or, do I have to order CDs?
      Thank you for your help.

      • #2689473


        by lordinfidel ·

        In reply to Down loading linux

        Basically, find which distro you want, and download the ISO images.

        Then, using your cd burning software, you burn a cd from those ISO images. Using your newly burned cd’s you can install your linux distro.

        –note– do not just copy the ISO file onto a cd, you have to select “create a cd from image” and choose the ISO format.

        ISO images are also very large, 600+ megs each, and RH has 3 cd’s.

        My advice would be to spend the couple of bucks and buy a distro’s cd’s. At least you can say you supported your favorite distro.

    • #2689238

      Down loading linux

      by jts111 ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      Can I download linux files in order to install on another computer (my computer) using a windows box (work computer)? a Mac running OS 8 (another work computer)? Or, do I have to order CDs?
      Thank you for your help.

      • #2696244

        Free……well, sort of

        by nd_clutch ·

        In reply to Down loading linux


        Yep, you can either download ISO files (disk image) to make the install CD’s or in SuSE’s (another “flavor” of Linux) you don’t download whole CD images, rather you make a bootable disk that downloads the whole install from the internet.

        However, you do have another option. Some distributions also allow you to run Linux entirely from CD. Yes…sounds weird, but it works. You download a ISO file from their site and burn it to CD. Pop the CD in your computer and boot from the CD. Linux starts up and runs completely from the CD. Even if you have another OS like M$ Windows or a MAC OS, it will still run fine and won’t hurt/destroy/erase that other OS on the hard drive. Now, I’ve played around a bit with one of these and I can’t tell you for sure if its FULLY functional. However its a great way for you to get a great taste of Linux if you’re a first time user. Swish it around in the back of your mouth a bit, see what its like.

        Hope this helps.

      • #2694560

        Anything your currently using

        by yule ·

        In reply to Down loading linux

        Yep – – 95 through XP and any MAC. Hec, you can create a Linux bootfloppy on a windows machine. The Linux community understands that most start with windows, then graduate – – -OK – -move on or try Linux, so they have made utilities to help read the manuals on CD’s using windows, and other needed items within Windows

    • #2695793

      Coke v Pepsi

      by sperkins ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      Everytime I see the MS vs Linux discussion, it reminds me of Coke vs Pepsi. Some people like Coke, some people like Pepsi, both or other. I happen to use both at home and both at work. Use whatever you what. I’m just glad we have choices. Whether Linux is going to be a viable desktop option will remain to be seen. At least someone is trying. I happen to like choices. Use whatever fit your needs. It is not that difficult to figure out.

      • #2729997

        Yeah, I would love a FREE Pepsi!

        by chanio ·

        In reply to Coke v Pepsi

        It happens that the most important part of the question is that LINUX is where the most creative people is. And that happends because it is free. So you loose little if you have to build it again.
        I know that creativity is never bought. You could pay for something original. But creation has no price. That is the difference. And that is the reason why LINUX needs to be learned before using it like Windows. Or even better!
        In a way, LINUX users pay by learning to use their own operating system. The more people learn to use LINUX, the better it is going to become. And the reward is what most of use enjoy at present.

    • #2695786

      direct competition for win2k servers

      by tatkins ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      then we can take the desktops. the servers that control the networks will provide access to the desktops. We need some “out of the box” replacements that can replace the windows servers without the need for tweaks. If you want to take the corporate networks over linux has to do what windows does and more. I have linux servers that “protect” my windows servers and make them look a lot better than they are. I need an “out of the box” supported linux OS than uses imap and has samba set up for AD and windows thinks it’s a win server. This maybe a stretch, and I don’t know how we get enough info out of MS to do it. I think it could be done, and if it is then the desktops will follow. The servers that run the network, own the network. If that is a Linux server that allows me run XP and win2k for the short run then I would stand a chance at making the whole network linux.

    • #2695730

      I can’t get Suse to connect to the internet

      by grizzlybear ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      I have a elderly friend who prefers to run SUse flavor because microsoft has made to much money and he refuses to add to the bank account. Anyway he tells me he has it all setup and running, the only problem is he can not connect to the internet. I myself have not tried to use this OS but have seen it and I think it is great, but I never tried to connect. You think you may be able to help he and I. Thank you, Hope to here from you.

      • #3382612

        I can’t get Suse to connect to the internet

        by hpotter ·

        In reply to I can’t get Suse to connect to the internet

        Do you still need help with this issue?

        • #3306963

          I can’t get Suse to connect to the internet

          by appo ·

          In reply to I can’t get Suse to connect to the internet

          I have that problem, If you know what I should do, then please, I need your help.

        • #3306947

          How do you access the internet?

          by dstjulien ·

          In reply to I can’t get Suse to connect to the internet

          Is it through a dial up, DSL, Cable modem or direct connect?
          If it is a modem, you may need a different modem. winmodems that come with most newer pc’s and that make up the bulk of the modems available won’t work in Linux. The reason is that they rely on dlls and other links in the M$ window system to work.
          It MUST be a serial or bus connect (PCI card) modem to have any hope.
          There is hope though there have recently been some generic modem drivers set up.
          Visit this site if that is your problem –
          If that is not the problem give me some details and I will try to help.

    • #2670300

      Printing Problems in XimianDesktop2

      by bjamieso ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      I have a RH9 installation with Ximian Desktop2 on it. I can create printers (both local and windows shares) but when I print the job either goes into an endless spool (smg and lpr to win2k3 printer) or disappears into the ether (local); in neither case does anyting print.

      I thought it was an issue on the win2k3 server as the error is “cli_session_request() failed…
      E [17/Feb/2004:09:06:15 -0800] [Job 62] Unable to connect to SAMBA host, will retry in 60 seconds…” until I tried a local printer. It doesn’t print either?

      Any help would be most appreciated.


    • #2667667

      Chinese in Linux

      by dev/hda1 ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      First of all, Linux is great and Mandrake owns Redhat big time 🙂

      Just wondering if anyone has ever worked with Chinese input and chars in Linux. I’ve been having a problem with having to convert a lot of Win32 platforms running Chinese OS’s over to Linux. The problem is that linux can’t see files with Chinese chars in their titles (it just displays ???, and when you click on them in an X file manager they vanish, console just doesn’t pick them up either) and the chars (should you rename them to Western alphabet) within files such as word documents, etc. gets all jumbled up.

      So far I’ve been unable to get help or advice anywhere else on the net. Most of the sites I’ve found dealing with Chinese in Linux also only looks at input and not actually at transferring Chinese files from Windows to Linux.

      Any ideas and comments would be appreciated 🙂

      • #2690910

        Chinese in Linux

        by clytemnestra ·

        In reply to Chinese in Linux

        You could try Turbolinx ( This is an Asian distribution, and it certainly works for Japanese in KDE’s file manager and Konsole (as long as the install/default language is Japanese).

        • #2713136

          Chinese in Linux

          by dev/hda1 ·

          In reply to Chinese in Linux

          My apologies, been out of the game for a while, but still..

          Thanks for the tip! I’ll be sure to check it out.

    • #2667350

      Development Issue

      by rbishops ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      I tend to look at OS selections in terms of reliability and security. Although Microsoft has made necessary changes to improve their core desktop and server operating systems, I find that most of my selection options comes down to what operating systems developers are writing code for. Forget “easy to use” desktops, Microsoft has made development “easy to use” and, I’m sorry to say, many of the products I see are poorly written and not forced to comply with current standards. At least in the open source community, peers review code and help to improve the software. (Not to say that there are not poor applications written for Linux)

      Also, when there are clear problems with the core operating system, applications running on it often share those inherent problems. The fact that there is software today that can watch for simple buffer overflows at the Windows kernel level and prevent malicious code from being run to ensure a reliable and secure OS, displays that Microsoft has additional work to do. Buffer overflows will not go away but if they can be isolated to the applications running on the OS and not the OS itself, risks would be considerably less severe.

      That said, all my games run on Windows but all my important stuff runs on Linux.

    • #2667339

      The price of power

      by nospam ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      I read in a computer book once that the “price of power is complexity”. Linux is a extreamly powerfull enterprise system that requires a certain amount of knowledge.
      I hope that as the Linux community strives to make the OS more user frendly that they do not fall into the M$ paradigm here any moron can install a Windows server and make it run. Unfortunately, many of these instalers do not have the appropriate knowledge and the systems wind up vulnerable to any 8th grader.

      • #2716139

        “Ease of use” has many facets.

        by gg5653 ·

        In reply to The price of power

        There are many different facets to the “Ease of Use” question. There is “ease of installation” (which is the primary discussion of this thread), “ease of security” (to avoid being 0wn3d by an eight grade script kiddie), and “user experience”.

        Members of the Linux community are actively working each facet, but the problems are interrelated and (to a large extent) at odds with each other.

        Linux strives very hard to be “secure by default” so that a base installation by a novice is hard for script kiddies to “0wn”. Sadly, this tends to decrease the “user experience” as users now need to maintain separate passwords for their standard login and the administrator userid (a concept which is **NOT** easy for a “normal” Windows user to hold). See for a project that attempts to secure your Linux system while simultaneously teaching you what it’s doing.

        Lots of work has been done on Linux installers, because the vast majority of desktop computers are sold with other operating systems. Therefore, any potential Linux user *must* install it (a step which is **also** foreign to the “average” Windows user). These efforts are what people are describing when they compare Red Hat to SUSE to Mandrake, and so on. One advantage of Open Source Software is that any progress made on this front by one company can be quickly adopted by all the others, as evidenced by

        “User Experience” is what people normally mean when they say “ease of use”, because people normally only install once per machine, and they only notice security when it gets in their way or fails. The Gnome project is putting significant efforts into produce an integrated user experience that is easy for novices to learn while retaining the full flexibility required by power users. Many people disagree with their design choices, but Linux means having lots of alternatives. Please review for the guidelines that the Gnome project have adopted.

    • #2732820

      How to setup Multilink/dual dialup in Linux 7.2

      by hasnain81 ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      Having installed two serial modems in a PC why does both of them capture the same serial port ? When switching one modem from a particular port, the other modem is automatically switched to the already captured port. Hense another dialup program cannot be created. Pls send email on if someone has solution to this problem.

    • #2731277

      Here’s my current problem!

      by nzamparello9 ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      My current problem has to do with dependencies.. I really wish that Red Hat or somebody would add a > or < to the code... Like this for example! "if is = or > then install application
      if is < then then prompt installation of of" Is that so hard!?!? If they added that then life in penguinville would be alot smoother!! I had someone tell me that .rpm had that capability already.... Well Lemme be the first to wave the old bs flag on that one!! I'm using Mandrake 10 Official and on NEW .rpm's is I still have the problem of not installed when I obviously installed ver.yyy now that's what I hate!

    • #2720088

      How about a fix it article?

      by wiggledbits ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      I just read through the article on setting up RAID in Linux. Great! It is very easy to do, I know. But how about an article on fixing a RAID setup gone bad? That would be really useful. Or even better how about some tips on fixiing your system from Rescue? It is always easier to get Windows or Linux setup but fixing them when things go wrong is another story.

    • #2703096

      Seeking advice: Linux or MS

      by kat spontak ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      Hello! Our small company (15 work stations) is about to update our server. We are being encouraged to use Linux; we are currently using MS. For an office that is does not have an IT pro on hand, what do you recommend? Will we have more need for technical assistance? Will it be less user friendly to the average employee? We produce several publications, store a lot of data including many digital images and use Outlook like crazy for inneroffice sharing and communications all over the world. Will Linux or MS work best for this situation or does it matter? Thank you for your help!

      • #2702861

        Reply To: Join the Linux discussion

        by arleenw ·

        In reply to Seeking advice: Linux or MS

        Who is recommending you move to Linux? Do you contract out for computer services? If so, what do they recommend?

        I would highly recommend dumping windows for linux, or netware, if your computer service can support it. I don’t have as much experience with Linux, but a netware server can be setup and left without supervision for … if it’s set up properly. I’m sure the same could be said for linux. Either operating system is perfectly fine for storing and sharing files. Window’s is the OS that needs all the babysitting. Being that the Windows server interface is basically the same as the workstations, it’s all too tempting for somebody with a little bit of knowledge to try to ‘fix’ something and really wind up messing things up.

        Netware small business suite comes with Groupwise, which is an email, calendaring file sharing system like Exchange which outlook can connect to.

        There are different distributions of Linux, so you’d have to research which distro offers the best groupware solution for your needs. Suse offers a groupware server which is compatible with outlook, although I wonder what might happen to Suse’s groupware server since Novell purchased Suse and Groupwise is a competitive product.

        Whatever you choose, it should be something your current computer services contractor can support.

        Good Luck!

      • #2702727

        Big decision

        by dstjulien ·

        In reply to Seeking advice: Linux or MS

        Even for a small company, moving from one platform to another can be painful.
        The BIG thing you have to do is be sure that it is right for you and how far you want to go.
        Are you looking to strengthen your security and identity needs? Are you wanting to actively participate in the net? Do you have MS (AD Required) only apps that you need to use? Are you considering the Linux desktop? Do you need controls over the desktops (distributed upgrades and applications? What kind of business are you?

        If you do not have Linux expertise, you may not want to tackle this on your own. A GOOD consultant will be able to help you assess your business needs, Be diligent in your selection of a GOOD consultant. Be sure they are properly credentialed, certified and have a track record of experience.

        To be honest, I am a Novell Partner and CNE. If you decide to bring on Linux, you don’t necessarily have to do it all at once. Usually you can add network services and security by adding a Linux server. I would strongly suggest SuSE Enterprise Server 9. If you add Novell’s Netware for Linux Services (NNLS) you will have critical services and security running on a stable , reliable and secure server. If it is done correctly (again, a good consultant can help) your users will not notice anything unusual except they will not have the down time or wscurity leaks and the will have some excellent new services available that will boost productivity.
        Like I said, there are several ways to go. A good Novell partner can assess you needs and may be able to provide Novell Small Business 6.5 which has everything a small business needs to operate efficiently allowing you to have every opportunity to increase your business with professional polish.
        If you want the “BIG BANG”, Novell Open Enterprise Server will be available before December. This gives all of the Novell Netware services, seamlessly integrated with the first Linux enterprise server on the 2.6 kernel.

        This is a lot to digest. Do your due diligence and analyze your needs. Whatever you decide, plan to succeed or you will fail.
        GO HERE:

        My website is under construction:

      • #3306231

        Reply To: Join the Linux discussion

        by rindi1 ·

        In reply to Seeking advice: Linux or MS

        Linux Server will need quite some learning to get it up and running, Windows Server almost anyone can support as most people are using Windows on their desktops. Linux on the other hand should be more stable and secure, once it is running. There are also a couple of groupware programs you can use on a Linux server to provide Exchange compatibility (Opengroupware as an Example).

        Generally, if you can’t afford a Linux specialist, i’t suggest to stay with M$, if you can afford a Linux guy, then that would definitely be the better Server OS.

        • #3306157

          Depends on what you can “afford”

          by dstjulien ·

          In reply to Reply To: Join the Linux discussion

          As I suggested elsewhere in this discussion, sometimes having to bring some Linux expertise on-board or get it on your own may be more affordable than the constant maintenance required of M$ servers. It should be a business or career decision.
          At this point there is professional level commercial support available for at least oe distro (SuSE – Novell). There is paid support or excellent active Novell support forums available.
          Low maintenance costs, efficiency, reliability and security are the strong points of Linux.
          I have a dual boot with XP and Linux. The wife uses XP and I use Linux. I can get to any files on the XP when the Linux is up and actually run several Windows apps under Linux. Some things I like is that Linux doesn’t “freeze”, choke about memory or BSOD on me. Biggest thing is I DON’T GET VIRUSES! (sorry for the shout – can’t underline in this editor).
          I back up crucial windows data files to the Linux side on a regular basis.
          I also find a wealth of excellent programs available virtually free. I have been donating as I can. Even for rather obscure programs, there is support throught various forums at It is rather interesting at how quickly the Linux community responds. They also seem to be very helpful and tolerant of “newbies” or novices.
          Be forwarned, however, Linux is the future, both for desktop and server-side. It would behoove you to get the skills now. There are excellent books and info available. Try starting on There is lots of free stuff here as well as good references for commercial publications. Check ebay or Amazon for the best prices on the books.
          (whew – that makes about $.08 USD I’ve “spent here!)

    • #3341806

      Software transfer

      by ben_furns ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      I am thinking of changing from windows to linux but will my software still work if taken from windows and used on linux. I have some software that came with my mobile phone that and got a data cable to download stuff.

    • #3337019

      new to linux

      by rodneyjohnson2005 ·

      In reply to Join the Linux discussion

      I new to linux my friend installed lindows, I’m get sick of mirosoft, like most people. Learning is fun my question is i have an amd 64, is thier any platforms of linux that will do web designs better than others and running a server as well? the server is not a amd 64. I have to say monzilla is the best broswer I have ever used, its sweet.

Viewing 21 reply threads