PureBasic Forums - English

Hi god64

Your point(s) are taken. However I think that they sort of reinforce the points I was making.

Linux as a concept is sexy. Linux as a reality is not.

Mainly, perhaps, because the term "Linux" is misleading and suggests there is one OS when in fact there is not.

The reality is that there is Gnu's OS, the Linux kernel, and multiple variants built on this. If someone is going to be successful with Linux as a mainstream option then as well as making everything transparent to the casual (and power?) user perhaps they should not mention the word linux. Only geeks have orgasms when they hear that word.

As I said before I believe that for now Linux is a potent OS in niche areas (with apache as webserver comes to mind) but it is impotent as a mainstream rival to windows.

Even if I am wrong (and I often am so no points if that is the case this time) linux is not going to be my alternative at the moment because there is too much learning involved for me.

I can manage an hour per day on average for mucking around with things like this and I tend to prefer to cut PB code.

One reason I love PureBasic is that it looks after people like me. Takes away lots of the black box stuff otherwise required by the programmer but leaves the door open for those who want to get into it.

PureBasic is actually a money saver if you think on it ...

(a) I can write a rough spec, give it to a contractor/consultant, get their proposal, read their proposal, pay them money, test their alpha's and beta's and finally their release version of some little utility - paying them money and spending my time all along the way. Then comes support and later mods ....

.. or ..

(b) Write a rough spec and then write a small app. And change it at will.

Anyhow, I digress.

Thanks again all for the inputs.

Mark Shuttleworth is driving Ubuntu to take Windows on.

Here's two parts of an interesting report about Linux/Ubuntu:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f12eD3sqeUw
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EyDB4b_vRE8

god64 wrote: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:

Code: Select all

apt-get update && apt-get upgrade

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?

If you're an average computer user you don't know how to use the command line, but you do now how to use the internet. The 50-websites way is definetely easier for the average user. Besides, no average users goes ahead and updates everything if it works fine already.

if you go to a new system, you'll have to learn new things.

Sure, but the more you have to learn to use a system, the less user friendly it is.

Kale and PB and all other Ubuntu people, I have said in the past that Ubuntu sucks and it has grown to a religion and it really sucks, but actually it is good for newbies because it has w32codecs in the repositories and all other non-gratis software. This is both good and bad. The bad thing is that it doesn't respect the concept of GNU/Linux and FOSS at all. The good thing is that (sorry) n00bs like Kale or PB have proprietary codecs pre-installed.

Trond wrote:Sure, but the more you have to learn to use a system, the less user friendly it is.

you seem to have forgotten, that you had to learn a lot to find your way through windows... i still don't get the point, why i have to klick on start, to stop my windows pc :roll:

codemaniac wrote:n00bs like Kale or PB...

Oh sorry, let me worship your leetness, oh worthy computer guru. I wish i could be as knowledgeable and experienced as you.

Telling peoiple that one needs to do "apt-get install app" to install Software is absolut bullshit today. Well it's the way I do it because I have a terminal open anyway and typing that in is the fastest was, however nobody has to use the fastest way.
If I were a normal user everything I need to do to get say VMWare Player is clicking on Applications (upper left corner of the screen) -> click "Add/Remove Software"->Multimedia caterogory->double click on VLC-> type in password
and that's it. But what is even better for 99% of the software needed by normal users I need to do nothing at all because it ships with my system.
So for example for OpenOffice I simpy click on it's Icon and off I go.
You can't tell me it's as simple as that on Windows, can you?

If for the rare case I realy need third party applications available for Linux it's not much harder either. Some like VirtualBox make it possible to simply download a .deb package which I only need to double click and enter my password, others like Maya or VMWare com with an easy install script or graphical installer.
For the differences between the different Linux systems, it's not like evry Linux distro is fundamentally different it's the same as with cars if you know how to handle the wheel, break and accelerator as well as a clutch for most european cars, you can handle them all within minutes.
All Linux systems are essentially the same software if I know Ubuntu I know Debian which is pretty much the same.
And talking about easse of use, if today you buy a Dell system with Linux installed everything you need to do to get working is turning on the power switch. You don't need Virus software or anything like that, if then you want to play an mp3 file Ubuntu will ask you wether you want to install the codec and why this is politically incorrect but technically easy, then you hit ok and enter your password and volla you can play the file.
Even my grandmother can do that...

Another thing to mention is that in a very short time most children in development countries will be using Linux from their first class onwards (see http://laptop.org/) and the new Intel Mobile Internet Devices and Palm Foleo will run Linux, and yes they will be used by people who don't even know what linux is and hell will it be easy.

Choice is not something that makes things harder to use, or do you think a blazer is harder to wear than a jacket or a sweater?
One thing I think that makes people believe you have to use the command line is that people normaly post howto's in the command line version, you know why that is?
Well there are more than one reason:
1. Command line tutorials are much easier to explain in online forums (compare my discription of the GUI way to installing vlc with "sudo apt-get install vlc" and try to guess which one is easier to explain over the Internet)
2. If you start to use the command line once you probably won't stop using it because it's simply the more powerful choice for many tasks
3. On the command line the differences between the distros are even smaller, so for example Debian, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, GRML, MEPIS behave up to 99.9% the same on the command line.

Realy don't get the impression that just because everyone uses the command line, you realy have to. You won't however after you got used to it. *hates searching through menus like the plague but find looking at man-pages utterly easy*

one of the reasons why Linux isn't that successful is,
that the fan's of the different distros fight each other instead of fighting microsoft....

Now you see the power of the dark side... create confusion in your enemies and you will gain fiends... err... friends!

Seriously, The Linux discussion has hit its snags... The Ubuntu chorus always sings out we are good and they are strong in solving a great many issues related to equipment usage. But they are still lacking in many ways.

I use REDHAT 9 at work and XP Pro and VISTA... Three different OS on 3 machines. My desk is a bit cluttered.

The REDHAT is on a COMPAQ Laptop, seems to work fine since COMPAQ / HP bought in to REDHAT a few years ago... All the drivers I ned are there. I have NEVER tried to install or uninstall anything though... It was loaded with the software I would have to use by an IT Drone...

It IS the install services and UNINSTALL services where ubuntu has done a better job than MOST linux (IMHO)

Have you tried REACTOS??? http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html

WishMaster wrote:@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.

On the contrary, I've tried so many distros that it makes me want to puke. Is Ubuntu the best? probably not, but it is the easiest for new and average users.

Oooo... Sorry, maybe I'm part of the 2% that has tried other distros.. Yup, CD case of close to 50 or so distros burnt sitting right where I left it.. Hehehehe

Hey, you want to be a rebel?? Go get OS/2 Warp 3 and tell the world to flip off instead of all this windows and linux stuff. Or grab a copy of dos and toss on Geos Ensemble 2.1 and enjoy the quiet life.

WishMaster wrote: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.

That is simply mui bueno!

To prove that Ubuntu suX I made a test with my friend. My friend has no idea of GNU/Linux at all and he is a total n00b even if we speak of Windows or Mac. I installed Ubuntu on a laptop and told my friend to try it out. He liked it very much and said it was very easy to use.

Well, ok.. my friend said it was very easy to use.. next morning I uninstalled Ubuntu and installed Debian Lenny with debian-multimedia.org repositories and the Ubuntu "Human" theme. I asked my friend to try out "Ubuntu" again. He said he liked it very much just like last time. Then I told my friend that the system is infact Debian and not Ubuntu. My friend was amazed that the systems were like exactly the same, but then he asked me what's the difference between Debian and Ubuntu. After lecturing him with stuff like "Ubuntu is just Debian with some candy on top of it" he decided to use Debian at home.

So, if Debian would also make such a big number like Ubuntu does, you all would be using Debian. However, what disturbs me the most is that Ubuntu never gave credit back to the Debian project.

PS: My friend is a 12 year old boy.. And he used Debian with the same experience as Ubuntu! Now all that crap about Ubuntu is newbie friendly is just a big lie. The Debian forums are also 10x friendlier and better than the Ubuntu Community which is full of bastards like KiwiNZ.

Just remember that the MAC OS is a friendly OS because the computer smiles at you when you boot it up!

I heard that from MAC Heads when I was working as a Teacher.

It is all about the HYPE man!!! What you can get people to believe is what the "truth" will be...

I still say REACT OS is for you

codemaniac wrote: Well, ok.. my friend said it was very easy to use.. next morning I uninstalled Ubuntu and installed Debian Lenny with debian-multimedia.org repositories and the Ubuntu "Human" theme. I asked my friend to try out "Ubuntu" again. He said he liked it very much just like last time. Then I told my friend that the system is infact Debian and not Ubuntu. My friend was amazed that the systems were like exactly the same, but then he asked me what's the difference between Debian and Ubuntu. After lecturing him with stuff like "Ubuntu is just Debian with some candy on top of it" he decided to use Debian at home.

what are you trying to proof? ubuntu is nothing more than debian with more and newer software and a more 'noob' oriented default config, everybody knows this, but exactly this was the start of the thread:

Something I can get up and running easily, use quickly, through knowing "just enough"?

i have run dozends of distros, back then about 92' when i first used linux, i did not even use a distro, completely installed linux from scratch, just with a base of the kernel and gnuc, the easiest are ubuntu and opensuse, theres no way around that. they are NOT the best, but the EASIEST. and yes, fiddling around in /etc and copying over ~/.* from a ubuntu system, you can make a debian system to a ubuntu copy, but what does this have to do with ease of use?

i use the distro that suites the job best, which in my opinion is debian for servers (because debian only allows rock solid software versions), ubuntu at work (have to work not to play around) and archlinux for development system at home (because its a fast and non bloated 'youre the boss' linux)

thats what all that distros are for. every one has a certain point where it's better than others and anyone saying 'my distro is best' is just a moron or such a newbie that he is happy that he managed to install it (thats the case for most gentoo users i guess )

FULL ACK

god64 wrote:what are you trying to proof?

That Debian is exactly as easy to use as Ubuntu. If Debian would also be advertized everywhere and have such a big hype, you would be saying Debian is the EASIEST distro.

Feisty and Gutsy keep crashing on my PC, Dapper works OK... Is that EASY for a newbie to understand that they need an older version of Ubuntu?

Well, as with all Linux Distros it has a lot to do with luck wheter it runs on your hardware or not. I think you are probably right that debian is as easy to use Ubuntu (except some minor things like automatic codec downlaoder and restrocted driver manager in Gutsy which are superb I must say) the thing is, the marketing Ubuntu does helps the Linux community as a whole and it might be just that, the biggest contribution Ubuntu can do because as long as the software Ubuntu develops is Open Source it will be usable for other distros even though Uuntu actively contributes it back.