PureBasic Forums - English

WishMaster wrote:Ubuntu ist not easy to use. Everyone claiming this is - sorry - just a liar.

I disagree, why do you think Dell choose Ubuntu. It's the best looking (out of the box) distro and (next to mandriva) easiest and most friendly to use.

No, that is because everything that Ubuntu and Canonical do is marketing and using other's work.

Every Linux distributors are using other work..

Kale wrote:

WishMaster wrote:Ubuntu ist not easy to use. Everyone claiming this is - sorry - just a liar.

I disagree, why do you think Dell choose Ubuntu. It's the best looking (out of the box) distro and (next to mandriva) easiest and most friendly to use.

I know the exact reason why Dell chose Ubuntu. It was because it was the linux distro that most people voted for on their poll. Not because Ubuntu was in any way better looking or easier to use than other distro.

I tried Ubuntu, but liked http://www.pclinuxos.com better.

Trond wrote:Ubuntu does NOT make it easy to install 3rd party software. Which he asked for.

sorry, but i am not getting the point here... what exactly makes a linux distribution - which is nothing else than the same linux as on every distribution, with some predefined configs to a certain preference of that guy that started the distribution - install 3rd pary software easy (or hard)?

get purebasic, tar xzvf archive.tar.gz, voila, installed 3rd party
get realsoft3d, start the install.sh, go through the next buttons, voila, installed 3rd pary
get majesty, start the installer, go through the next buttons, voila, installed 3rd party

3rd pary software developers do deliver their own install mechanism (if any necessary at all)

am i missing something?

if you are talking about installing software that comes *with* the distribution, every distrib nowadays has one commandline tool and one graphical tool to install software

none of them is as fast as the debian (ubuntu) system (opensuse take minutes just to scan its repository, so does fedora) but all of them work the same way, either click on the application and say 'install', or open a shell and say something linke 'whateverpackagemanagement install package'

to the linux hardcores: i know that there are in fact faster package systems like the debian, but we are talkling about newbie linuxes here

the fact that gnomes (ubuntus and others) desktop has the 'start' button on upper left and kdes (opensuse and others) has it on lower *edit* left, not right */edit*, like windows, doesnt make it easier or harder. best to do first on any linux distrib ist to remove that bloat desktops anyway and install ion3. freedom of joice, thats what i like on linux

Trond wrote:Ubuntu does NOT make it easy to install 3rd party software. Which he asked for.

Open synaptic package manager on Ubuntu. Select application from thousands, click install. And that's not easy? The hard part is deciding which out of all the fantastic software you want to install next.

Ubuntu is the most popular and for good reason. It has a huge community behind it and support.

It is easy to install, use and install third party programs that are contained within the repositories, otherwise it may not be so easy. If you find "Program X" on a web site and it's not in the repository, and the author was not kind enough to package it in an installer, then it might be hell trying to install it. Don't blame the OS specifically for this. How many times in the long ago past did you have to manually install windows apps? Anyone remember having to install apps in dos by hand? Then installers started becoming more appropriate in dos and windows. As such, there are installers coming out for Linux also. I myself use Bitrock Installer for OS X, Linux and Windows.

The point is though, that for what he's looking for Ubuntu is likely the best possible choice today.

I myself use Ubuntu, but also have one other Linux called Xandros. I use the purchased version of Xandros though, not the free version. Xandros even goes so far as to migrate your windows stuff over for you.

One thing needs to be pointed out.. If you are a gamer, then you will not want to use Linux at all. All those fancy games won't run under WINE on Linux. You might consider dual booting if you're a gamer and use Linux for all your other needs and Windows for your games.

@Fred:
But *real* Distributors like Novell, Red Hat or Debian actually do contribute to Linux' development.

It's just incredible how blind and credulous you are.
Let me guess ... 98% of you has never tried any distro other than Ubuntu?
Canonical's nothing but a bloody parasite sucking out Debian.

Kale wrote:

Trond wrote:Ubuntu does NOT make it easy to install 3rd party software. Which he asked for.

Open synaptic package manager on Ubuntu. Select application from thousands, click install. And that's not easy? The hard part is deciding which out of all the fantastic software you want to install next.

I mean those which are not in the repository...

Trond wrote:I mean those which are not in the repository...

AFAIK there's no easy and graphical way to compile 3rd party applications. For that task the user has to ./configure; make && sudo make install by himself.

That's what I said... Except that on Windows you just run the installer.

Trond wrote:That's what I said... Except that on Windows you just run the installer.

as already told (but obviously ignored), you do that too on linux, if a installer is provided. it's not a question of ubuntu, or redhat, or younameit, its a matter of the 3rd party developer. if it's a opensource project, you'll have to fiddle around compiling the source, no matter if it's ubuntu, windows or beos, but believe me, 99% of all opensource projects you have to compile yourself are less pain to install them on ubuntu instead of windows (or beos, unless some niceguy provides a precompiled installable binary)

*edit*

but if it is a opensource project it is usually available thourgh the ubuntu repository, just install it by 'sudo apt-get install program', on windows and be-os, you'll have to compile it yourself

Hi guys.

Thanks for the answers and discussion.

I think Trond got it right with his first post (for me, anyway) and this was reinforced by a pm from Fangs. Don't shoot me but here is my opinion at the mo:

Windows (MS) take terrible liberties with us all on a number of fronts, from licencing through to "upgrades" that break things and bits in between.

But ..

Linux is never going to challenge MS.

There is no linux per-se, just a confusion of wanna-bes. Too many flavours. Each with variants (like gnome) and each with dependencies and each needing more than point-and-click approaches.

None of them will become mainstream contenders for windows. Fedora/Red hat is probably the closest (and most commercialised - this may tell us something).

There is way too much linux emphasis on variants when, in order to be usable for the average user, linux needs to be user (read non-technical or even dimbulb) friendly. (Which MS had right at one stage).

I mean, how many mums and dads and kids and small businesses are going to be happy with stuff like this: For that matter how many are going to be willing to hunt through umpteen "branded" versions of linux to find the one that suits best? And then track down dependencies required to get their preferred software running on the desk-top (yet a variety of choices) that suits best.

So linux is potent but in niche markets and is there to make consultants richer.

It is impotent as a mainstream contender to MS. Probably because there is no central authority to force the non-sexy changes that need doing.

(I hope this changes).

I would go further and say the eventual MS challenger is probably going to be from a commercial rather than an Open Source provider and will probably come from a country where the government is willing to buck MS.

Just opinions.

I think I will reinstall 98 on one of my boxes and use that. Then I can do the things I want to do without hardware upgrades, MS meddling and etc. '98 is a tank. Solid.

Or maybe I will revisit reactos and see how that is getting on.

Dare wrote:I mean, how many mums and dads and kids and small businesses are going to be happy with stuff like this:

Code: Select all

su
yum install gcc gtk+-devel gtk2-devel glib2-devel SDL-devel libstdc++ libstdc++-devel compat-libstdc++-296 compat-libstdc++-33

a) what does mom want with gnu-c?

b) why doesn't she use the graphical installer than, where she clicks on 'office', then on 'openoffice', getting a detailed description what openoffice is, and hits install. the problem is not, that linux would be too hard to use, but it is that there is no standard way to install and sometimes not even a standard way to configure software. btw: on windows there is NO central way to install and/or update software at all, every manufacturer takes its own path, so whats easier:
or go to 50 websites, download the update, klick on any setup.exe or go to system/hardware/driver/update, and pray your system will go up again?

sometimes i find it sad, that people confuse 'exactly copying the windows way' with 'being userfriendly'. if you go to a new system, you'll have to learn new things. if you don't want to - stay on windows, you do not deserve better