might give Linux OS 2007 a go

[c1rcle]

So far since installing Ubuntu I've only had to copy & paste commands once, everything else I've done has been point & click, installing on Ubuntu is only as hard as you make it for yourself & converting RPMs is totally unnecessary most of the time as you can find a DEB version right next to the RPM.

If you really "have" to convert an RPM there are things that can be installed to make it point & click too, so like I said it's only as hard as you make it.

[Uncle Peter]

Been having a dabble with Fedora Core 6. Very slick and easy to install from a desktop perspective.. yum inparticular works superbly. I've had one or two issues getting iptables forwarding/masq up and running though.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Sorry, have to disagree mate.

<snip>

Linux is getting better, but its still got a long way to go. Until all distros universally support RPMs, and true point and click install, it will always be behind Windows on user friendliness.

I do see your point, Gav... and I think you've probably got a point that sometimes it is unnecessarily complicated. There is room for improvement, I'll admit that.

I think the way Apple have addressed the user-friendliness of OS X is a good example to be followed. I know it's not strictly based on Linux but Free-BSD is close enough to Linux for me People talk about how easy it is to install software on a Mac, and how simple they are to use... if it can be done with OS X then surely it should be possible under Linux too.

[punky]

Originally Posted by c1rcle

So far since installing Ubuntu I've only had to copy & paste commands once, everything else I've done has been point & click, installing on Ubuntu is only as hard as you make it for yourself & converting RPMs is totally unnecessary most of the time as you can find a DEB version right next to the RPM.

If you really "have" to convert an RPM there are things that can be installed to make it point & click too, so like I said it's only as hard as you make it.

The point is the user shouldn't have to 'make it'. That's the job of the developer.

Anyway, in the space of a few days, it needed google-copy-paste fixes for..

1. Installing graphics drivers
2. Installing XGL
3. Installing Beryl
4. Retrieving the shutdown button that Beryl removed it.

And it wasn't just one lot of pasting, some steps in there it required any lots of pasting. Like this.

you should hope OS X isnt based on open source as its the only thing Mac have to make there systems as expensive as they are

[punky]

Originally Posted by Gareth

I do see your point, Gav... and I think you've probably got a point that sometimes it is unnecessarily complicated. There is room for improvement, I'll admit that.

I think the way Apple have addressed the user-friendliness of OS X is a good example to be followed. I know it's not strictly based on Linux but Free-BSD is close enough to Linux for me People talk about how easy it is to install software on a Mac, and how simple they are to use... if it can be done with OS X then surely it should be possible under Linux too.

OSX is a good solution, and entirely possible under Linux... If didn't contradict the most basic principal of linux and unix. That's modularity and variety. OSX is a singlular solution, but the reason why so many distros exist with different kernels even, is because Linux wasn't supposed to be singular solution. Which is good in that you get a lot of choice... But bad in that it lacks consistency. Like the packaging managers for example. You get RedHat's RPM, Debian's DEB.

Distro creators really need to start working together and coming up with some common (not singular) solutions to the problems.

[brundles]

Originally Posted by Gavin

The point is the user shouldn't have to 'make it'. That's the job of the developer.

Anyway, in the space of a few days, it needed google-copy-paste fixes for..

1. Installing graphics drivers
2. Installing XGL
3. Installing Beryl
4. Retrieving the shutdown button that Beryl removed it.

And it wasn't just one lot of pasting, some steps in there it required any lots of pasting. Like this.

I didn't think that XGL or Beryl were standard in any distros yet though? From what I remember they're included in the various repositories of stuff but not fully supported as standard.

I'm not sure that Linux is yet ready for every desktop, but it is much more useable than it used to be. I'm currently running MythTV on Ubuntu and am happy in the knowledge it works reliably, seems to be much more efficient on the CPU than Windows ever was using the same applications. The system is dual boot, but Windows gets booted so in-frequently that it spends more Windows time downloading and applying patches than it actually does doing anything useful.

Personally I think that while Linux has come a long way you still need to be prepared to do some research yourself. Particularly with hardware and drivers. However it's a very good alternative for those of us that don't fancy giving MS more money and don't want to upgrade a perfectly good PC just to run Vista.

but you dont have to install vista either no one is twisting anyones arm. Also a thing to note on what you said about updates. How many times in the last say 4 years have you had to install a new operating system to keep up with new integrations into linux? Im still running xp(on 3 machines) I have done since what 2001(obviously on different machines but not everyone upgrades like me) so 6 years without having to install afresh to update my version. Ok ive reinstalled cuz its broken but thats something else

[dev]

Originally Posted by Gavin

OSX is a good solution, and entirely possible under Linux... If didn't contradict the most basic principal of linux and unix. That's modularity and variety. OSX is a singlular solution, but the reason why so many distros exist with different kernels even, is because Linux wasn't supposed to be singular solution. Which is good in that you get a lot of choice... But bad in that it lacks consistency. Like the packaging managers for example. You get RedHat's RPM, Debian's DEB.

Distro creators really need to start working together and coming up with some common (not singular) solutions to the problems.

i dont get why people like packages so much, if windows programs/games stopped asking where you wanted them installed then there'll be endless complaining about it so why are people allowing package managers to do things they should be doing?

users should not be forced into anything which is why i prefer to build the programs myself, i choose what parts to build and where they end up, that way i know exactly what security problems can affect my computer without wondering "did some random person compile that feature?"

[gooner4life]

Linux is a ball-ache, there are too many flavours of it, a lot of it is a case of copying and pasting somebody else's script and taking a leap of faith as punky said, and there is not enough variety when it comes to applications, it's simply not practical for average everyday users.

[sheridan]

well i have now had a little go with ubuntu and pclinuxos
the later has a mind blowing desktop eye candy .you can spin the desktop ,very cool, makes vista look bland,
but i can see they would be very limited to run any of my software so looks like its just a thing to play around with . and i will stick with vista for any real use ..
fun though ..
thanks for info chaps

[gooner4life]

Originally Posted by dev

users should not be forced into anything which is why i prefer to build the programs myself, i choose what parts to build and where they end up, that way i know exactly what security problems can affect my computer without wondering "did some random person compile that feature?"

The point is your everyday user wouldnt know how compile and run the program so they would end up copying and pasting a script off of the internet that joe bloggs wrote to do it for them, thus you have the same flaw as running a package on a windows system without the security of having in most cases a well known developer do the job for you.

Originally Posted by dev

i dont get why people like packages so much, if windows programs/games stopped asking where you wanted them installed then there'll be endless complaining about it so why are people allowing package managers to do things they should be doing?

users should not be forced into anything which is why i prefer to build the programs myself, i choose what parts to build and where they end up, that way i know exactly what security problems can affect my computer without wondering "did some random person compile that feature?"

For the first highlight ...your one person how many windows users are there?

For the second highlight ... how many of them could do what you can?

[gooner4life]

Dont get me wrong, I am firmly in the MS Windows camp for the average user, but I wouldnt tell the company I work for to migrate our servers over to MISC CPU's and run a flavour of Windows Server with Oracle for Windows for our database, the uptime of some of our RISC based CPU systems running HP-UX is going back to 1998, that's a hell of a long time.

But again thats specialist as you say. I do not know the proportion of home user pcs and business based systems so I cant put a figure but your looking at millions of pcs alone in this country in the home running windows and the user on the main knows diddly squit about the actual machine or software other than what it does after you click start etc