Slashdot Log In
Ubuntu 9.04 For the Windows Power User
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu May 21, 2009 11:30 AM
from the because-you-can dept.
from the because-you-can dept.
crazipper writes "Know a Windows power user who is (honestly) good with technology, but hasn't yet warmed to Linux? Tom's Hardware just posted a guide to installing and using Ubuntu 9.04, written specifically for the MS crowd (in other words, it talks about file systems, mount points, app installation, etc). Hopefully, by the end, your 'friend' will realize just how easy Ubuntu can be to use and start down a long path of exploration with a new operating system."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't say I agree - as a Windows 'Power User' moving over to Ubuntu had advantages and disadvantages, but the main disadvantage is that is *sucks* to move from being pretty competent to fix your own issues to not being sure if you're even googling the right words.
So, although this tutorial doesn't exactly fill an 'empty' niche (There have been quite a few every six months aimed at this skill-level), for making it clear that Ubuntu is equal (Well, lets be honest, better than) to Vista/7 in power and XP in ease of use, it is a good reminder to people that it's out there, it's improving at a rapid rate, and it's a lot easier to regain that feeling of being comfortable as a power-user in Linux than it originally was in Windows.
Finally, although I am happy to see Ubuntu pulling more basic users over, a good cadre of previous Windows power users that can answer questions in the form of "Oh, yeah, that confused me too when I first switched - here's the logic, I think it's actually an improvement now that I know why they do it that way . . ." is an asset worth pursuing.
Pug
Parent
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Funny)
"They will have problems where ever they go."
Too true. I remember a friend of mine doing tech support at this big company and he told me that some woman had run out of hard drive space so she started deleting things because she never used those files.
She started in the Windows directory.
Parent
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Funny)
Like the guy said, loads of useless crap.
Parent
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh... so it wasn't that Linux wasn't ready for the desktop, but that your desktop wasn't ready for Linux.
Why do people hold hardware compatibility against the operating system? Don't people realize that Linux actually has much better hardware support than any OS out there?
Windows hardware support is terrible, but the hardware manufacturers are more than happy to provide a driver for Windows users while they ignore Linux. Do not expect this to last forever.
I have been running Linux on the desktop for almost 10 years now (wow has it been that long already), and with the 2-3 year old hardware that I run, I rarely ever experienced hardware compatibility issues that are worth being frustrated about. Sure I have to use an applet to dim my laptop display, big deal, it's better than installing a bunch of SONY software so that the keyboard buttons work. In fact, with Windows they didn't work at all until I installed Sony's crap.
Linux is more than ready for the Desktop. Hardware manufacturers are getting on board far more rapidly than you might believe, it's reputation is already stellar in the enterprise server end of things, and more and more companies are exploring alternatives to Windows/Office and understanding the need for open data formats and centralizing data in the data center with client-server based solutions. For those reasons I encourage everyone to at least take the time to learn more about Linux, and familiarize yourself with how it fits into your future. I expect that eventually almost everyone will be using *NIX a derivative for at least part of their technology needs.
Parent
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, you had an issue caused by a lack of support from a hardware vendor. That does not mean that Linux isn't suitable for the desktop.
If I sold you a computer where all of the hardware was supported by the manufacturer to run Linux, your experience on would likely be as good if not better than on Windows (assuming your application needs could be equally met on either OS).
To say that Linux isn't ready for the desktop would suggest that the operating system was lacking something essential to desktop users. It is not, it just hasn't yet attracted the hardware manufacturers support that Windows currently has.
My mother, my children, and my wife all run Linux exclusively. Other than needing to tell my kids that the game they want work on their computer and we have to see if we can get it for one of our consoles, I haven't heard a single complaint. My mother, who lives an hour away, tells me all the time that she wishes her "computer would break down more often because I don't visit like I used to.". And my wife hates how I need to frequently stop the in-laws house to fix their windows computers all the time.
I realize that Windows is improving, and some of the old complaints are dated... but my mother runs an early P4 with 512MB of ram on dial-up... Vista or Windows 7 are not options for her. And my children have comparably old laptops.
To say it's not ready for the Desktop is flat out wrong. It is ready, and my family proves it every day. So say you don't like it, say you had a bad experience, even say that you will wait until your cheap MOBO/sata controller manufacturer releases Linux drivers before you will consider it as a viable option to you. But it is ready for the Desktop.
It's FUD like that that makes the problem worse. When hardware manufacturers hear/read comments like yours, they assume that you would rather use windows. When in actuality, you probably don't care, you just want your computer to work... if you can use a free OS, Great!
Next time, say what you really mean... "If only my mobo's lame SATA controller were better supported, Ubuntu may have been an option for me."
And by the way, you couldn't fathom the number of computer novices have lost all of their data and/or endless hours of time to Windows driver issues; and you claim that it's ready.
Parent
"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hardly see how this is a tutorial for "power users." The article makes out the terminal to be a big bad scary thing, but you'd think that most power users would at least be familiar with Start | Run | "cmd" | "ipconfig".
It's basically a walkthrough of the installation process that goes into more detail about partitions than is necessary. There's only a couple thousand of those floating around the Internet already...
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that linux isn't windows, but for a lot of people, a computer is the tools you use for it, and people are probably less likely to give up microsoft office than windows. I wonder how much less successful OSX would be without office.
Please, I am aware of open office and gimp and all of that stuff. I'm posting from my debian partition right now.
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Funny)
it would be nice to have seen the author pay heed to the fact that people don't use computers for their operating systems
Whoa there cowboy! This is Slashdot. This is where OSes are for religious zealotry. What are these applications of which you speak?
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Funny)
What are these applications of which you speak?
vim, ssh, screen, a decent terminal (cygwin doesn't count), partimage, rysnc, apache, postfix, courier, squirrelmail, etc.
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was hoping that there would be more tutorials for getting wine to work with apps that users like.
I would not put this in a beginner tutorial. Wine should not be a deciding factor in your migration: if you use Windows exclusively to run Windows-only apps, you won't benefit from migrating to Linux. It works well if you have one critical app that you can't find an OSS replacement for, but for regular use it's a pain.
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody will argue with me when i say that there are tangible benefits to switching to linux and linux based apps for 80% of what a user does on a computer, but there are those applications, like microsoft office and photoshop that users have a lot invested into learning and using that they just don't want to be bothered to replace. Its often those apps that keep people anchored to windows and prevent people from switching. I have too many first hand accounts where I've installed open office on someone's system so they can open a document in the short run, but when they have the cash, they go out and buy microsoft office. That is enough to convince me that to get people to switch to linux, you have to tell them that they can bring a few of their favorite apps and show them how.
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
See the difference is that people who use linux are OS buffs. Most people really dont care about OS- so long as it runs all the apps we need- and you cannot argue with the fact that -As it stands- Windows has by far the widest application compatibility hands down.
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
He could have gone over what it would have taken to get adobe photoshop or microsoft office to install...
If a user wants to use Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft Office why shouldn't he just stick with Windows?
When I fire up my computer, I'm not fiddling around with the command prompt or using the calculator.
Precisely. So what is the point of him installing ubuntu, only to have to fiddle around with WINE tutorials to manually install something onto an unsupported platform? He ALREADY has an OS that works, that officially supports and runs his apps.
Installing Ubuntu only makes sense if he actually wants to play with a new OS and try new applications.
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's mostly an age thing IMHO. Windows "power users" that never used anything pre-95 often don't know anything about the good old command prompt; even basic stuff like copying or renaming files.
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that you're not a power user unless you regularly use Windows-R, have a shell in your quick launch, or have some other quick way to get to a command line of some sort. But then someone out there is probably sitting at nine computers at once calling me a schmuck, so the definition is clearly pretty hazy.
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
I second that p.o.v..
But even whole Linux distributions, like Suse and also Ubuntu, try to show the shell / command line / terminal as uncool and for total freaks only. But it is the most basic and essential tool, with the most power. I think users should only gain the right to use a GUI, after they know how to work the shell, the file system, and some basic tools. Same as you should only use a calculator function, after you did it by hand at least once, and understood it.
Parent
Re:"Power Users"? I don't think so... (Score:5, Interesting)
...have you seen the Windows command line?
cmd.exe deserves nothing less than open hostility.
There's always Powershell... Pretty smartly designed, IMO.
Parent
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Funny)
perhaps Ubuntu will gain some (damned) soles.
The last thing Linux needs is cursed footwear!
Sorry...
Parent
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Fantastic! (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary makes it sound pretty crappy, granted. The FOSS movement isn't exactly au fait with marketing -- makes us sound like a bunch of frothers. Yes, many FOSSers are frothers, but others just want a system that doesn't suffer so much downtime and doesn't make us jump through hoops to do something straightforward like atypical networking or storage setups. We're prepared to jump through other hoops to do things that have been advertised as "straightforward" -- like playing DVDs.
You can have similar Redmond-flavoured "fun" by using a 64-bit OS.
The "no apparent reason" is just your willful ignorance shining through, however. There are, potentially, many good reasons for switching to another operating system. It's your responsibility to find them out. If, after familiarising yourself with those reasons, you're happy where you are right now, then fine. But don't complain otherwise.
Parent
Friends don't tell friends to install Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
I learnt this lesson the hard way when a close friend decided to ring me at 1am to bug me about a Linux problem. I don't even remember what the issue was, he was just a bit stressed cos he'd spent hours trying to figure something out and I had promised to help him whenever he had problems.
I told him what to do in about three sentences and passed out again. This taught me you don't encourage friends to switch to Linux.
Oh, and Ubuntu is a terrible start to Linux. Debian forever! (seriously: you only install Debian once, beyond that it sorts itself out)
Re:Friends don't tell friends to install Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
And how is that different then friends running windows calling you at 2am?
A persons OS of choice doesn't negate them having issues. It does perhaps change the types of problems however.
Parent
Re:Friends don't tell friends to install Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they can blame you for pushing them into an OS they otherwise wouldn't have used.
Parent
The underlying issue (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree about not helping them install Linux for similar reasons, I don't think it has anything to do with your friend calling you up at 1AM. Only a total jackass would call you at 1AM for something that trivial unless they know you're awake.
Parent
My experience shows a short path (Score:5, Interesting)
Dr. Pepper is not a valid substitute for Mr. Pibb.
What I've found is that many Windows users are quite happy to try other operating systems, especially free systems like Linux. They download MS Virtual PC, install the distro, fiddle with it for a while, then return to their Windows world.
It's not so much that there is something wrong with Linux that makes them reject it. It's not even really rejecting Linux so much as simply not finding their needs satisfied on the system.
Maybe it's lack of apps. Maybe it's lack of quality. Maybe it's the pain of actually migrating over all their data.
Whatever it is, Windows users usually seem to find their way back to Windows because it just does what they need. Emulating the look and feel of Windows isn't going to change the fact that their needs aren't satisfied by Linux.
Re:My experience shows a short path (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't switch primarily because of look and feel issues. I know how to do everything on a Windows system, anything that works differently feels "broken", even if it's a valid alternative choice.
As one example, to install software, I can go on the web, find the primary site for it, make sure it passes malware tests, and install it. On Linux, there's a repository (as I understand, never figured that part out). That may be a technologically superior option, but that means I have to trust the repository buildier. And it's not as though Linux is somehow immmune to malware that lets me skip that step. Anytime I install software it can do something I didn't except, on any OS.
Just a different flow means that little things I take for granted are missing, which makes it feel bad, which means I switch back to the land of "Start" buttons.
Parent
Re:My experience shows a short path (Score:5, Insightful)
As one example, to install software, I can go on the web, find the primary site for it, make sure it passes malware tests, and install it. On Linux, there's a repository (as I understand, never figured that part out). That may be a technologically superior option, but that means I have to trust the repository buildier. And it's not as though Linux is somehow immmune to malware that lets me skip that step. Anytime I install software it can do something I didn't except, on any OS.
But generally with a repository they have already A) checked the source for malware (most malware scanners only search for patterns in the binary that indicate a virus) B) Tested the software to make sure it is at least (somewhat) working. You have to have trust somewhere unless you are really skilled in writing software purely in binary. With most Linux software you have A) The option of going through the source yourself B) Have a fully open environment C) Have a community that has no profit incentive. The reason of having no profit incentive is good is because they have to compete based on features. MS can cripple software to make a quick buck, trying to do that on Linux just leads someone to move to a better distro.
There are many more paranoid Linux users than paranoid Windows users. Security is a great concern. If Ubuntu was adding in malware in a repository, someone would know and the software would be taken down. A site with a trojan on it for Windows is considered typical. I don't know of a single modern case of malware being in "trusted" repositories (such as Ubuntu's main repository, etc).
Parent
Re:My experience shows a short path (Score:5, Informative)
It's far more likely that stuff in the repository is safe than something you just download off the net. In most cases.
The normal repositories are provided by the same folks that put together your OS, and the downloads are signed by them so you know you're getting the software from a trusted source. Linux does let you skip the "check for malware" step with things you get from trustworthy repositories due to this signing mechanism. Unless the repo is contaminated, but that's somewhat unlikely and would be found very fast.
And if you don't trust the people you get your OS from then... well that would be special.
You should be as careful adding new repositories to your system in much the same way you would be careful trusting a third party website to get software from. And careful adding packages you download from the web in the same way that you are with windows.
Parent
Re:My experience shows a short path (Score:5, Informative)
Your post displays a mix of FUD, lack of knowledge and lack of intellectual curiosity.
Firstly, for a huge variety of software that a user might install, the process is a single command in a terminal, for example:
sudo apt-get install <whatever>
Alternatively, applications can be selected for installation or removal through nice GUI programs such as Synaptic.
The system repositories are set up on installation and files in those repositories can be assumed to be secure. Contrast that with Windows, where the process often involves downloading a random exe file that may or may not be trusted.
There are some applications and libraries that may require adding repositories, but, in my experience, those repositories provide detailed instructions on how to add them. Your failure to grasp these simple steps shows a lack of effort on your part and not any difficulty with Linux.
Under Windows, after installing an application, can you be sure about what the installer did? Under Linux, I can query the package manager for the files installed and the scripts run. Under Windows -- no. So under Linux, I can feel more secure and trusting of the package that I just installed. It's Windows that should make you feel insecure.
I fully expect this post to be downmodded to hell by the Windows fanboys, but, fortunately, I have some karma to burn!
Parent
Re:My experience shows a short path (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever it is, Windows users usually seem to find their way back to Windows because it just does what they need. Emulating the look and feel of Windows isn't going to change the fact that their needs aren't satisfied by Linux.
In my case - I just don't feel like it. Back when I was a kid and when DOS ruled the lands, I fiddled around for weeks with Slackware and its dozens of floppies, and that was the time when Linux really didn't have much to offer and nobody had internet access. Configuring X for my Cirrus Logic 5426 VESA card was a pain, but I was a hacker and it was fun (I think I still have my old Linux home dir somewhere on my HDD). When I was in DOS, I used to spend a lot of time tinkering around with assembler and running programs through debuggers; a hex editor was my favourite toy.
When Windows 95 came out, I still booted to DOS most of the time. It was around 1996 or 1997 when I finally switched to Windows and told DOS to FO. Now I'm on XP SP2 and I can't even be bothered to upgrade to SP3.
Linux would suit my needs perfectly. I don't do anything special on my PC - I rarely play games, and let's face it, most of the time we spend online is in the browser or inside an IM app.
I can't be bothered. Windows works, it's stable, it's secure because I have a long background with computers. The only time I had a virus infection was in the above-mentioned 90s when I wrote my own virus and it accidentally spread to ".." (which happened to be the root of C partition) instead of "." (whoops).
Any OS would do what I need, and that's exactly the point - I have no incentive to switch to anything and waste time on it. "I'm too old for that shit."
Parent
Re:What you need is a compelling reason (Score:5, Insightful)
I think my core issue is this: I'm bored of computers.
I've been using them since early 80s (ZX Spectrum FTW!) and they don't hold much of an interest to me anymore. Hex editing? Done that. Assembly programming? Done that. Writing my own simple 3D engine? Done that, too. Configuring something obscure for weeks and tinkering with configuration files? Done that. In my youth I even had huge-ass ISA cards with a couple dozen relays on each and I used to build things that I'd control with my computer. I've done it all.
For me, the computer stopped being a toy some time ago. When I'm at work, it's a tool that I use to earn money; at home, it's an appliance that plays music (TV is reserved for videos) and lets me browse some sites when I'm bored, or play a game five hours a month. Had I been born a decade later, I'd be a Linux user, I'm absolutely sure of it... But I've just had too much exposure to computers already.
I used to be a power user, but I'm not even an average user anymore, though. I have no idea what drives those... And the kids these days just seem to be interested in playing games.
Parent
Re:My experience shows a short path (Score:5, Informative)
And then I plugged my mouse in.
I have my MX Revolution (the Best Mouse Ever Made) set up with shortcuts for manipulating tabs rather than the silly default fwd/back buttons. However, after about half an hour of googling and fiddling with repositories, I was no closer to a working mouse. Now, I'm sure some will be quick yell "but it's the manufacturers fault! They don't provide any drivers!". This'd be fine if:
a) there weren't custom drivers for both windows and OS X available
b) the custom drivers for Linux didn't require me to DOWNGRADE THE OPERATING SYSTEM in order to install.
It was at this second point where I decided that Linux was not the choice for me. If I have to reinstall the entire operating system to get a mouse working properly, then there's something very wrong.
Parent
Re:My experience shows a short path (Score:5, Insightful)
There's everything you can imagine available for linux
Ok, I'm a Linux user and I even think theres a lack of good apps. Sure, the basics are covered, great browser, great file manager, great desktop environments, great e-mail client, decent word processor, decent simple games, great programming features, decent enough replacement for Photoshop, etc. But Linux lacks games. Sure, there are a few shining examples of some in almost every category, Battle for Wesnoth is an amazing strategy RPG, Doom/Quake are good FPS games, SuperTux is a decent platforming game, there are many card games, etc. But you can't really find any complete FPS games that don't use the Doom or Quake engine for Linux. Etc. There is a total lack of variety of games. Sure, you can emulate a lot of them in WINE but more often than not you get a performance hit (not always because of WINE itself but because many distros enable compositing by default and that can slow down the games).
Parent
Re:My experience shows a short path (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:My experience shows a short path (Score:5, Insightful)
apt-get install apache perl php
Funny. I had *precisely* the opposite problem with the tv tuner.
On windows it cmae with this awful, slow, nasty proprietary software that took ages to load, lost the ability to change channel every so often and was a nasty, nasty resource hog. It also took over the entire screen for it's crappy, non-standard front end. And when I re-installed and couldn't find the cd it came with, well that was it done. No chance.
On linux I just fire up kaffeine and away it goes. It's great, responsive and usable.
Sorry you don't like OpenOffice, I prefer it to word now but I know there are rendering differences.
But firefox? I've never had to do anything to FF on linux to get java or flash going. I've never even heard of anyone having java problems with a browser on any platform since 2002...
I know it's not for everyone, but IMHO it's at least the equal of windows now. But then I'm not a gamer, and games are just not made for linux at the moment. It's a vicious circle - It's a small market so few games are made, and because there are few games it stays small...
Parent
Wrong Crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically inclined people who aren't programmers simply don't need linux, and programmers will already know about it.
That's my 2 cents.
Re:Wrong Crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Windows desktop user who has considerable experience with Linux (I run a bunch of Linux servers and spent some months exclusively with Linux on the desktop), I believe this is the wrong crowd to try to get to switch to Linux. Experienced Windows users simply don't have the problems about which everyone complains about Windows. Windows just works for experienced users who don't install viruses and ad/spyware. Windows hasn't crashed on me since before XP. Ever. Never frozen... nothing. I'm currently on 7, spent a year and a half on Vista, and the rest of the decade on XP (after it was released).
Technically inclined people who aren't programmers simply don't need linux, and programmers will already know about it.
That's my 2 cents.
You're exactly right. Those of us in this situation, whether we're on Windows, OSX, Linux, or whatever, have a rock solid, lightning fast, powerful and adaptable OS experience. We don't get any malware, we don't have problems configuring our hardware, and we have all the applications we want and what we need very efficiently. In my experience, we're also not the fanboys. They seem to be the much less experienced users who primarily relate to their own and other operating systems through the lens of marketing (or anti-MS holy wars from the Linux brigade).
Parent
market ball size (Score:4, Insightful)
It's simply a ball size competition.
MS is a playah and is willing to do dirty sneaky deals with OEMs to get their shit pushed.
Ubuntu, as FOSS, rightly stays away from such tactics, and unfortunately runs afoul of the fact that the majority of computer sheeple really couldn't give a clue about patents, open source, and whatnot.
Linux's technical strengths are also economic weaknesses.
What would help IMHO is for linux to have advocacy, a marketing department, and general user friendliness polishes.
But nothing except legal action is going to correct the fact that microsoft simply holds most of the IP cards, as proven by their ambush against TomTom which in theory could lock linux out of the flash-drive market, as well as any other device that exposes it's data with VFAT internally.
Re:market ball size (Score:5, Insightful)
What would help IMHO is for linux to have advocacy, a marketing department, and general user friendliness polishes.
What would help Linux is to run games without WINE. Or, if you have to use WINE, make the use of it completely seamless. Somebody clicks on a game installer from a CD they put in the drive--"This is a Windows application, but Ubuntu can run this if you install a compatibility layer [don't name WINE by name, nobody cares]. Would you like to install the compatibility layer?" They click yes, you automatically apt-get WINE, launch the app. That alone would help with the grandma cases.
Parent
Why is "friend" in quotes? (Score:5, Funny)
In the fine summary, I mean.
Scare quotes? Like "he's not really my friend, I'm humoring him until he coverts to Linux."?
"so-called" quotes? Like "He's more than a friend, but I won't come out of the closet for him."?
I don't get it. It's distracting. It reduces whatever value this tutorial may have had. It certainly seems to reinforce the arrogant attitude "You're smart, I don't understand why you aren't doing exactly what I do."
No way (Score:4, Interesting)
When somebody is a "Windows power user":
a) he's really a Computer power user. You cannot be a "X power user" without knowing the internals, and of course all the explanation about filesystem and mountpoints is useless.
b) he doesn't need a "guide" to download an iso, burn it and follow a series of on-screen instructions to install anything.
Taking into account a) and b), probably your "windows power user" has already tasted some flavor of linux and decided to stay in Windows (inferred because he's a "Windows power user" and not a "linux power user"). If it wasn't the case, i.e. if he never tried a distro, it was probably because he heard some of the limitations of linux compared to windows (only a bunch of commercial games, no photoshop/whatever, etc.) and then no guide is going to convince him to change.
Or are we talking about another kind of "power user"? Maybe "average-but-no-stupid windows user" fits better with the TFA.
Thanks, But No Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an MS fanboy... but using MS dev tools, writing software to work on MS operating systems, and with a user audience where MS software has a nearly-100% market share by choice... is my day job.
As such, I don't have the luxury of time either in or out of my regular work hours to explore other things. I'm busy enough keeping up with current trends on the .NET Framework, which is exactly what the folks who fund my living want and need me to do.
End of story.
Re:Thanks, But No Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm busy enough keeping up with current trends on the .NET Framework ...
You should be careful restricting yourself like that. I'm also a .NET developer (C++ as well, though), and I, too, follow the new developments in .NET in most detail, closely followed by C++0x standardization process (I read the committee monthly papers and mailings as soon as they are published). But it doesn't mean not looking elsewhere. There are plenty of interesting things going on all around, and some of them may well end up in .NET eventually (see: IronPython, IronRuby, Phalanger, F# ...). It helps to know bits and pieces of everything, even if your main focus remains in one or two areas.
Among other things, no technology lasts forever as a dominant market leader. .NET may be there for years to come, but there will come a point at which the next step won't be evolutionary. Just remember VB6 -> .NET transition. For many people getting stuck in that, it was a very unpleasant experience. But those who happened to also know Java or Delphi moved on fairly easily. More recently, same thing happened with LINQ - people with at least cursory knowledge of FP welcomed and embraced it, and hordes of programmers who never looked out of C# box (or only looked at Java at most) ended up being thoroughly confused. Same goes for F# in .NET 4.0, only to a higher degree.
Parent
Tales of a windows user using Ubuntu. (Score:5, Interesting)
Installation of Ubuntu is a breeze. So easy, very fast. (It's a good thing too). Ubuntu boots up fast, and even output it's video through the HDMI port on the back without any additional configuration. AWESOME!!
Cool, time to start installing apps. This is going to be running XBMC, so let's install. I go to xbmc.org click download, then choose Linux. Apperantly there is no download for linux, you use the package manager. Okay a little different than Windows, but sounds kinda fun. Sure.
So I learn about packages, and package managers, and adding third party software repositories, and signing keys. So far so good.
I follow the instructions, add some links to the third party source. I get key signing error messages (even though I followed the instructions 5[!] times trying to get it working). I give up on that, and just ignore the scary warning messages.
So I open the synaptic package manager and install the xbmc core. Everything goes great. A new entry is added to the "start menu" and all! It launches first try!
Cool, let's get some skins, from another thrird party source. I add it to the software sources again and reopen SPM to download. Download some skins but I guess I selected something wrong, because at next reboot, the computer will not boot to a windowed environment. All I get is the command line login and my password/user combo does not work. Lame.
Reinstall Ubuntu. Re add software sources. Can't find XBMC anymore! WTF?!?! It was worked last time. Reinstall ubuntu, still not working. GRR. Reinstall Ubuntu. No dice. anyways on the 5th time I got it working again. Still not sure where I went wrong.
Here are my thoughts on Ubuntu:
1) Installation is awesome.
2) Adding third party software is a MAJOR PAIN IN THE ASS!!! Following instrustions meant for a noob, I screwed it up 3/5 times. I swear I can follow instructions. I earn a living on fixing comptuer problems and following instructions.
3) Why do Linux programs close themselves? I dont' think they are crashing. Like I add a software source then hit close, it updates, gives me an error about my key not working, then terminates! So I have to reopen it.
4) Step 3 gave me an error, so naturally, I copied it to the clipboard. I click on okay and the error dissapears, terminating the program. My error, that WAS in the clipboard is now gone... Awesome.
5) Key signing for software packages is a pain in the ass & comlpicated. Surely there can be an easier way to get this working. How about downloading a file that contains the software source, and the key togeather and then import the file? I still can't get this thing working...
6) Synaptic Software manager's sorting is crappy. I open it up search for xbmc and see packages availalbe for installation. I can click the column headers and sort, but for some reason, when I select a package, the list unsorts! This makes it hard to select packages of similar type (skins in this case).
Overall, I think that Ubuntu is pretty cool, and I can't wait to learn more. However, given the issues that I came across, this is still not ready for the masses. Software installation is too convoluted and hard. I want to click to download, then click to install. Clipboard should not kill your data if the host program has been terminated. Programs should not terminate with no warning. Sorted lists should not unsort for no reason. Installs that will make your computer unusable should come with a warning.
I don't want to sound like Ubuntu is a POS, because that is not the case. I am impressed with a number of aspects, but there are sill a number of usability issues, IMO.
Re:And the inevitable problems (Score:5, Funny)
His reason? "I couldn't get the antivirus to install."
Parent
Re:Important question... (Score:5, Interesting)
What advantages does it have over, let's say, Windows XP?
Virtual desktops that don't suck. A command line that doesn't suck. KIOslaves. Windowshading. sshd. Screen. Apt-get.
It's not so much the apps, but the workflow is so much nicer in Linux.
Parent