I agree with Smoke 100%
Contrasutra, you sound like one of those annoying geeks who will reply with RTFM to any question asked no matter how valid.
You seem to want linux to remain the supreme geek's OS forever, that won't happen and nor should it, everyone should have the chance to get away from microsoft and that means fully working graphical desktops, at least as good as other OS's
See there you go, "Nor should it". Why do you feel you have a right to use Linux, but not want to learn anything. I am not a hacker, and I dont know a drop of programming.
The ONLY requirement to run linux successfully, is to be willing to learn, and thats what peoples problems are. They want everything to tell them what to do, and if a problem arises, "it must be the OSs fault".
LINUX IS NOT HERE JUST TO BEAT MS, THAT WAS NEVER ITS INTENTION. If the only reason you want to use Linux is because its free, or to stick it to MS, then you deserve all the problems you get. I will gladly help ANYONE use Linux (even though im not an expert), but if they arent willing to learn, what is the point?
Taha new 0 about linux, and ive been trying to help him as much as possible, and hes been willing to learn, and hes gotten a lot out of linux in a very short time.
Im sorry, but Linux owes you nothing, and you seem to think it does. Im talking to fissyb by the way.
@smoke: The fact that you are even worried at all about viruses is a problem, you (and most others) have been brainwashed by MS into thinking that viruses are a universal problem, when they're not. Windows (and DOS) is the only platform where viruses exist. Yes, maybe theres been one or two linux viruses, but compare that to the MILLIONS of windows viruses. I mean, I could write one in 5 minutes if I wanted to.
I just found a great article that outlines my points better than I can: http://www.mandrake.tips.4.free.fr/switchsuccess.html , it tells you what you should/not expect when moving to linux.
:who's your daddy:
Mandrake Linux was created in 1998 with the goal of making Linux easier to use for everyone. At that time, Linux was already well-known as a powerful and stable operating system that demanded strong technical knowledge and extensive use of the "command line"; MandrakeSoft saw this as an opportunity to integrate the best graphical desktop environments and contribute its own graphical configuration utilities and quickly became famous for setting the standard in ease-of-use and functionality.
from mandrakelinux.com/en
Plenty of linux distributions are designed with becoming comerically sucessful and easy to use. From that stance they have failed (or at least not succeeded). Clearly not all people involved in Linux believe the user should have to learn how to use it, it should come intuitively.
but if they arent willing to learn, what is the point?
You're missing the point.
If the the linux community wants more people to use linux, which most of them do, (although not the slackware 1337 apparently) they should make an operating system that does simple things like getting installers to work.
I bet Taha wishes things worked better in Linux like when he couldn't get his metacity theme to work.
Originally posted by contrasutra@May 16 2003, 07:34 PM@smoke: The fact that you are even worried at all about viruses is a problem, you (and most others) have been brainwashed by MS into thinking that viruses are a universal problem, when they're not. Windows (and DOS) is the only platform where viruses exist. Yes, maybe theres been one or two linux viruses, but compare that to the MILLIONS of windows viruses. I mean, I could write one in 5 minutes if I wanted to.
Would you quit saying I'm worried or paranoid or whatever. I'm not, but I'm not oblivious either. I don't live my life in fear, but perhaps you are brainwashed into thinking that people who use MS software are either living in fear or they are infected. I don't worry about viruses but I don't ignore them either. Just as you don't ignore traffic when you cross the street. It doesn't mean you are worried about getting hit by a car.
I take offense to you saying I'm brainwashed too. I don't think you are hearing anything I'm saying. What you seem to say is that MS OS' are the only ones that have any kinds of problems or even any potential problems or bugs when all systems have their share of problems whether you would like to see it or not. Maybe while we are at labelling each other I could say you are in denial. Why do you think that new versions of all software come out with bug fixes or patches or have bugtraq\bugzilla type things when they are already perfect?
Now I never said that other OS' other than linux are perfect either, but I never said any of them ar perfect. =Þ Don't you realize that all systems are by humans which are imperfect so thus anything they create is imperfect?
I don't think it's good that you resorted to calling me brainwashed.
Listen, what Windows users dont understand, is that editing config files and using the command line IS MUCH EASIER than GUIs. GUIs mess things up, and when they do, theres no way to fix it. When youve used Linux for a while, youll understand that.
Remember, all the GUI and Wizards do is edit the config files, so wouldnt it be easier to skip one step?
Example: You screw up your screen resolution or refresh rate in Windows, and you press the space bar by accident, confirming it. What do you do now? You have to lose all your data, restart, and go into Safe Mode, and hope you dont mess it up again. In Linux, just go into your config file (without restarting or losing ANY data and open programs) and fix it. Problem solved. Which is easier?
I like Mandrake, they do provide an "easy to use" wrapper, and still allow manual editing. They dont try to be windows though (like Xandros, Lycoris), they are still pure Linux.
I want as many people as possible to use Linux, but if they are just going to complain about how its not like windows, I dont see the point in encouraging that. Why would you encourage someone like me to switch to windows, when Id just complain about it? 
Every OS is different, and my beef is that people dont want to learn something new when switching OSs (and this goes for all of them). This may not be you, but from what your saying, it seems to be.
@smoke: your right, Im probobly using too much l33t attitude. I was not referring to you in particular as brainwashed, I meant the public in general. The fact is that there really is NO virus threat in unix, and there wont be unless someone seriously messes things up (like running in root).
You misunderstood me. You thought I was saying that Linux has no bugs or security holes, thats wrong. Theres just as many bugs in Linux as in any other OS. Now, in Linux, the problems ARE usually fixed MUCH sooner (hours), but I digress.
ok... so I see my opinion is really looked forward to here 
so here's my opinion.
I think that Linux is very similar to windows, or at least Mandrake (the Linux I use). It is also EASIER than Windows because everything is 'where its supposed to be'. Like any control panel that I need to access, I just 'know' where I have to go to customize it. Again, maybe its just Mandrake.
Fissy is right, I initially had a LOT of problems installing themes. But now that I know how to use themes, I think its MUCH MUCH better than theming on the Mac or Windows. Why? Because every little thing is customizable. I can have a different theme for the icons, another for the windows border, and yet another for buttons and widgets. I also think that theoretically, Linux has the most potential to have amazing themes, since every little thing can be customized.
So do I prefer Windows, Mac OS or Linux? Well, I use all three. I use Windows for certain apps and games. I use Mac OS X for basically everything. I'm still relatively new to Linux, but I'm just loving it.
And which OS is the best? As an OS, I guess Linux would be the best in terms of being completely customizable to the user's tastes. OS X would be the prettiest and the easiest to use. Windows would be the one I know all about, and most people do too. But I dont think there's ANY advantage of Windows over the other two OS's other than the fact that it has waaaay more software and hardware. But thats just because of its monopolistic business tactics. <_< Nevertheless, it IS the most popular, and we have to accept it.
So my favorites in order:
Mac OS X (110%)
Linux (Mandrake) (100%)
Windows (XP) (probably 70%)
Every OS is different, and my beef is that people dont want to learn something new when switching OSs (and this goes for all of them). This may not be you, but from what your saying, it seems to be.
I spent days working out how to make my stupid laptop work in linux - i was willing to learn and i put a lot of effort in to getting linux to just work. so shut up.
I don't think anyone should have to go to that effort just to get their keyboard to work.
GUI's are best, doing everything by mouse is best. Apple agree, as do microsoft and most linux distributers. Your resolution example is a fault in the way the gui is implemented not in the concept of a gui.
Glad to know your liking it.
Have you edited your config files yet? or are you still using the Control Panel (not that theres anything wrong w/ that, I used them for a long time)?
Have you compiled any software (not just used packages)?
Because if you have, please tell these people that its better, or at least not that hard.
EDIT - If you think a GUI is best, fine use OSX or Windows. We have different opinions, and thats fine. But ACCEPT that some people prefer the Command Line, and that its not inferior or antiquated.
Smoke, I whole heartedly agree with your "common sense" virus view. I havnt been infected once. I run Norton and it isnt running unless I tell it. I scan every once in a while. Im tryin to move to linux because of my fear of M$ and others turning my computer into a marketing tool. (a little paranoia 
) Also Ive never used anything else. I think its neat that there are choices out there, and free ones at that. Though I would gladly pay for RH9, Mandrake or Lindows even. They (Lindows) just cant get KMD 3.1 incorperated yet, but im watchin. Simply, right now, I wanna use linux because im curious. Lookin to see if there are viable choices to let me do the things I enjoy on my computer. Right now I can on XP. I accually like XP but the future plans of M$ makes me shaky. Linux looks to be very promising. The kid just slows things down. Kids are great though.
about the command line thingy.. I agree.
The example you gave is EXACTLY what happened to me.
I just hit ctrl+alt+F2 and fixed it in console.
Its good to know that if something is messing up I can easily access the console and fix things up without much of a hassle.
compile my own software?! Dude I've just been using Linux the past week, and half the week I was FÜCK busy.. <_< But what do you mean by compile my own program? I dont have any programming skills..
Editing config files is not always easier than using a GUI tool and vice versa. You can't assume that I never worked with or know about config files as I have used several versions of linux, I also have used shells on windows such as litestep since their early days which rely heavily on config files. I've made complex scripted themes on those. You can't tell me that it's easier to have to look through all the documentation to find all options to write them into a config file rather than be listed with those choices in a dialog window.
I know it's fun for a geek to do things like that but some people just want to get their job done quick and easy to spend less time in front of a computer. IMO linux and it's ilk could use something like commando on A/ux. I don't mind working with config files or things like that but I can't assume that everyone in my family for example would want to.
Sometimes it's bad to rely on config files. I think it's good to write good GUI frontends for certain things but have the command line, etc. as a fallback to that or for those who insist on using them just like people sometimes insist on using manual transmittion or change their own oil in their car.
Now about theming on xfree. Sometimes I think it's a bad thing to have different themes for different toolkits and the window manager becuase more often than not people have desktops that are some kind of frankenstein theme with everything not matching. I like the idea of changing a theme and having it change everything. Like I said before I used to use litestep since '98 but I got tired of having a seperate theme for the desktop and the windows. Quite frankly I'm not impressed with any linux themes anymore and I have looked at all the window managers\DE's. Either I got tired of them or I feel that other OS' have better themes, no offense.
I myself though encourage people to use whatever they like best or what fits their job best.
I, too, just said enough was enough with Windows. My conscience was bugging me a little too (I haven't bought a single Windows version EVER. I got em all.. umm..). Also, all the new ways Windows is trying to find out information about me just suddenly made me really pissed and I said 'Enough was enough!!!'. Of course I have OS X (which I love to death..), but I needed something for my PC, and Linux beautifully fit my wants.
the fact is that nowadays, all OS's have the same features, and none can do anything another cannot. Sure, Windows may have more programs, but I haven't EVER needed any program on my OS X that was available on Windows.
I think its a very lame excuse when people say windows has a billion more programs and consider that a plus factor. 999, 999, 999 of those apps you never use so STFU.
games are another story. Windows is undoubtedly the best platform, but luckily I stopped playing games when I was 8 
Now I have other things to play with :who's your daddy:
I mean you download source from freshmeat.net or whatever. Its usually in a tar.gz (bz2), and you use ./configre, make ,make install.
See, many people think that its some big mysterious thing, and its just routine. I do it 100 times a day and 99 times, it works w/o error. You dont need to know how to program (i dont).
Now like smoke said, sometimes you have to do more than that, and you just read the INSTALL file thats included, but at least I know every single thing thats going on, no mystery.
Which brings me to one more point, theres NO REGISTRY in Linux, it works the same way as OS X. Everything can be contained in one folder, and I can just delete that folder to uninstall the program.
To all: Im not saying a GUI is horrible. I use a GUI (gnome, fluxbox) for Word processing, internet, some file browsing, and games of course, but I dont use it for 100% of the things, which is what you want. Changing settings,recovery,compiling, and some file browsing is still 10x better in the Cli (IMO). There are of course other things, but Im too tired to think of them.
Slackware is a text install, and it is MUCH easier than a GUI install (RH, Mandrake), and ANY user will agree after actually going through it.
EDIT - You seem to think that the Config files in Linux are like Samurize and such, and thats probobly why you dont like them (its understandable), but Linux Config files arent like that.
They are completly human readable, and have the documentation right in the file. Example:
#This is your monitor section.
Resolution = "1024x768"
H- Sync = "40-70"
V- Sync = "50-90"
Sounds readable, right?
There is no registry in linux, but some DE's like Gnome are implementing something like a registry. Also OSX has something which some people have compared to a registry.
BUT in windows not every application in windows relies on the registry for it's config and I haven't had a registry problem since 9x. I actually think that complaining about the registry is an outdated complaint about windows.
BTW< I never said it was like samurize, I never use samurize as I don't like clutter on my desktop. I have used shell such as litestep which have human readable .rc files. Probably even more so than GTKRC files, which I do work with too. But still you have to know what you want and where to look, etc. etc. You also missed the parts where I said I used linux. I'm not completely clueless as you might think.
Originally posted by smoke@May 16 2003, 07:05 PMAlso OSX has something which some people have compared to a registry.
are you talking about the .plist file? coz it IS sorta like the registry, but its inside the application 'package' (software on OS X are in packages). So to uninstall a file, I just delete it, and the .plist file goes with it. Mission completed :who's your daddy:
I don't think an install can be easier than mandrake 9.1
If it were easier, then it would probably have to guess at a lot of things which it might get wrong... like language.
The linux terminal is a useful tool, i think it is overused though.
Why do we have to type ./configure...
why doesn't someone make something that does it for us?
writing it myself is in no way helpful. If an error log is needed, the installer could make one.
@smoke In mandrake 9.1, you do have system wide themes, but you can choose to modify individual components if you wish. I think thats the best answer.
edit: my middle point makes me sound like a spoilt brat, i'm just trying to say that the terminal isn't best for everything, and for a lot of things its completely pointless. at least it should be.
I apologise for any offence cause in advance Contra :goku's job:
I, too, am with Fissy. How can anything be easier than the Mandrake installer. Ok, maybe the OS X one was simpler. But honestly, the mandrake installer literally guides you with its hand in your hand and its really really simple. I cant understand how it could be any easier...
My problem w/ the registry, is that programs DO rely on it. If I kept my Programs on a seperate partition as windows(which I do), and reisntalled windows, I probobly couldnt use 95% of those programs, id have to reinstall them. Even Mozilla Firebird, a no-install program uses the registry for prefrences.
In Linux, I can move a program between similar computers (cant be a Pentium and PPC or something like that), without problems 90% of the time. In fact, thats basically what "Packages" are. Someone compiled and installed the program on their computer, and packaged the installed files up.
Tell me what Config file is hard to read, because in the long while ive been using Linux, I havent come across a config file that wasnt over documented and easy-as-pie to read.
Now some third party Configs might be hard to read, but im talking basic system files, like XF86Config, fstab, etc.
EDIT - No, you didnt offend me Fissy. In fact, there are plenty of programs that will do ./configure.... for you. Just search FreshMeat. In fact, you you issue all the command on one line:
su; ./configure; make; make install; make clean; exit
There is a GUI for EVERYTHING in Linux, but you dont HAVE to use it (like Windows)
I thought the Redhat 9 one was simple. The only thing I gotta do is get my PPPoE workin. I gotta find the time though. Tomorrow I will try. (after Reloaded)
Originally posted by fissyb@May 16 2003, 11:13 PM@smoke In mandrake 9.1, you do have system wide themes, but you can choose to modify individual components if you wish. I think thats the best answer.
This boils down to personal preference but I don't like the looks of those theme anymore especially KDE, and especiallly Keramik which I think is ugly. Those are just a example and not the definitive reason. But I don't want to have to sit here and write a book about it. I've wrote tons already. It's all just personal preference though but I'd appreciate it if no one tried to force their personal preference on me.
About the registry again, I never said programs don't rely on it at all for their config but not all rely on it and there are quite a few that for example if you reinstall your os without reinstalling them and they need to put settings in there they do it without you having to reinstall them. It all depends on how the programmer programmed the program. Some programs don't use the registry at all and have a config file in their folders (y'z apps for example).
What I don't like is people like you contra say that windows has all the bad things and linux has all the good when that's a broad assumption and is not true.
BTW I can't name all the config files that are hard to read. And even if they are easy for me to read that doesn't mean that they are easy for everyone. I'm actually not a good judge of how hard a config file is to read because of my experience. But if it's really hard then it's really hard no matter how you slice it.
I I think the best solution would be - you download a single file double click on it and it runs those commands you said contra - and puts the program in a specific place that will be easy to find.
I've got a feeling apple have already done that though.
A question: when i click on a link for a video: mozilla asks me to choose a program to run it. where do i look for the programs and what will the file be called that i need to choose?
Originally posted by fissyb@May 16 2003, 07:30 PMI I think the best solution would be - you download a single file double click on it and it runs those commands you said contra - and puts the program in a specific place that will be easy to find.
I've got a feeling apple have already done that though.
yup, sure sounds like OS X.
You know, before having ever used Linux, I couldn't tell OS X was UNIX. But after having installed and played with Linux, I can see the similarities and its fun to mess around in the Terminal now..
Yeah, if you want UNIX w/ a pretty GUI, get a Mac. This is one of the reasons I love OS X, they took unix, and actually made it easy to use, while still keeping stability.
Your right, im not mentioning the bad things about Linux, because youve all done that for me.
1. Its harder to use/setup
2. There is rarely "official" support (phone)
3. You have to read Manual.
4. You have to forget everything you learned in Windows.
Please tell me why 3 commands is hard? I mean, if your not willing to do that, you have just made my point about people not willing to do ANY work. I BET you I could type those 3 commands faster than you could double click that file.
And Apple hasnt done that, the files you get that are not open source (most of them) are already compiled binaries. If you want that, get a Linux Package (RPM,TGZ,DEB, check your system), and double click it ,BOOM just as easy as windows.
UT2003, all you do is double click the install file, and the install is the EXACT same thing as the windows version, IN LINUX.
Precompiled binaries are easy to install on any OS (double click), but what we are talking about is self compiling , which you cant easily do in Windows, and is discouraged in OS X.
If you want that, get a Linux Package (RPM,TGZ,DEB, check your system), and double click it ,BOOM just as easy as windows.
If only it was.
I'd say that they only work about 50% of the time.
Using urpmi raises that to about 75% i'd say.
Please tell me why 3 commands is hard? I mean, if your not willing to do that, you have just made my point about people not willing to do ANY work. I BET you I could type those 3 commands faster than you could double click that file.
oh for heavens sake... 3 commands isn't hard. a double click is just better.
Double clicking is def quicker than typing 3 words which have no meaning to the end user. I don't have a clue what they mean really. (well configure is obvious). And i don't see any point in you telling me either, its not going to help me install the program. If those 3 commands don't work, i have yet to succeed in getting it to work.
Computers are supposed to make work as easy as possible - you saying people (inferring me) are lazy sounds like an excuse for being wrong.
Aqua-Soft Forums