Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sissydot

Is Linux Hard to Learn?

Recommended Posts

greengeek
:o For someone who is not computer literate, only does basic things with it and doesn't have much money, then I would suggest buying a computer with Lindows already installed. To get the best out of Linux you really do need to be a geek with a need to know how things work and the determination to learn it at any cost.Joy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LilBambi
:o For someone who is not computer literate, only does basic things with it and doesn't have much money, then I would suggest buying a computer with Lindows already installed.  To get the best out of Linux you really do need to be a geek with a need to know how things work and the determination to learn it at any cost.Joy
Yes ... you are right ... but if you have that need to know deep inside ... it is a great ride :)Linux really has gotten much easier though distros like Mandrake, Lycoris, even Lindows.When I got my first computer which was a (Radio Shack) CoCo II (Color Computer II w/Basic, Extended Color Basic and OS/9), and then moved on to an 8088 DOS-based computer ... I remember going through similar types of things as when I started with Linux.To do anything really worthwhile in Linux, Basic, OS/9 or DOS, you had to teach yourself a few things too ;)I still have my CoCo II ... and it still works too Just for fun ... I load up an Emulator on my Win98se occasionally to play some of the old games :D If you've got the time, energy, and perserverence ... Linux is well worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver
;) For someone who is not computer literate, only does basic things with it and doesn't have much money, then I would suggest buying a computer with Lindows already installed.  To get the best out of Linux you really do need to be a geek with a need to know how things work and the determination to learn it at any cost.Joy
Although I would love to agree with you. I am strongly against it. Perhaps, if you have 300 bucks lay around, you could give it a try, but the system performance is just not as great as Intel based. You could tell them to install the system with Intel or AMD chips, but they cost more. Nonetheless, the whole PC is just not that great as far as hardware components are concerned.Of course, my main concern is not about the hardware only. It has something to do with Lindows as well. If you take a look at their pricing policy. It seems as if they sell their OS at much lower price than Windows Xp. In their web site, they said it is 99 bucks versus 299 (full xp) or 199 (upgrade xp).Surely they say that, but what they try to hide is the annual subscription fee just to access their application database to install and use application that aren't even from native Windows. Now, why bother to pay 99 bucks per year just to install applicatoins when they are already free on the net?ThunderRiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LilBambi

Yep...that annual $99 subscription would deter me too.But my main concern is that by default, on installation, users are root (administrator) ... the same problem I have with XP Home really.Often folks don't realize the difference or the danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver

The reason that Windows installation has default as Admin can be traced back to the history of Windows. Majority of users are Windows 3.1/95/98/Me based, so if they move on to Xp, and get this error like "You need Administrator privilage to install" users will get scared and pissed off. Well, I am not saying that most users are computer illiterate, but to a service representative working on Microsoft, they can surely reduce the amount of phone calls by making users life easier. On the other hand, geek people that concern much about security should set their own account as power user, and only use admin to install when necessary.I value security, but the convenience is just soo unresistable. I personally use my account as Admin, and so far, so good. It avoids more problem in the long run I guess. One benefit of being an Admin is that I get to set all my data in private. If you are just a power user, your data may not be protected and any one who is Admin can view them. That's how I feel. Perhaps, I am wrong?ThunderRiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stryder

I am an Admin user as well Thunder. It is a risk I admit, but one I am willing to take. I feel that since I am behind a router and have ZA Pro on all my Windows machines, that the trade off between security and convenience is one I can live with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver

Stryder, yep same here, but definitely not the case with *NIX system. Here is an interesting insight for those that fear to try out Linux, yet don't want to spend money on low end computers like Lindows. Well, I hate to say this, but Mac OS X would be the best choice for you because Mac OS is based on Darwin, which is basically just another flavor of UNIX system. The commands are basically the same as Linux ones for the most part. You can even run X, SSH, Apache and etc in Mac OS as well.You get the benefit of powerful user interface from Mac, and at the same time, you get to experiment with the underlying guts of Mac. I have used Mac before, and I certainly don't recommend it to people that work late at night. Do you know how annoying it is to see an application icon moving up and down..up and down..up and down in the dock? It is like up and down ..up and down.. my head goes up and down..and the world has gone mad just going up and down. Oh god.. I hate dock. Heh. But besides the annoying dock, you really get to experiment with all the commands and play around with it.ThunderRiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scot

FWIW, I agree with Joy about a Lindows box being the way to go for some folks. The future of Linux -- if it is going to be successful as a desktop OS, which is a big if -- isn't going to be with folks who install it themselves. Microsoft's retails sales of Windows don't amount to much more than 5% of overall Windows sales. Most people don't want to and will never install a new version of an operating system. Among those who do buy and install Windows, more than 80% install it only as an upgrade.So, folks like us, most of whom I'm willing to bet have done at least one clean install in their lives (if not at least one a month for the last many years) -- we're not the norm.So, while I agree with the issues about hardware quality, software subscription, etc., what Lindows and Microtel and others are doing is one potential future for Linux. Low-cost boxes with simpler hardware make sense for a lot of reasons. Linux is alternative still. One of the main reasons people turn to alternatives is because of cost. But also, Linux still has signficant hardware support issues.My two cents.-- Scot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver

Yeah I agree that Lindows and Microtel system has its own crowd. There is always a potential for Linux, and we will see if one day Linux will truly be as user friendly as Windows.I have done quite a number of fresh installation in the past, and I can see a lot of improvements with Windows installation over the past 8 or 9 years since the introduction of Windows 95. I remember for the m most parts, I still have to supply my own graphics driver/sound card driver/modem driver for both Windows 95/98. By Windows 2000, I only had to supply the sound card driver. Finally by Windows Xp, everything is installed by default automatically. Nothing needs to be configured and everything is perfect except for poor users with SB cards. I can feel their pain because of those annoying ticking sound from bad driver and stuff.Many times, I used VMWare to help me with fresh installation. Funny thing is that most of the time, if Windows installs well in Vmware, it would install smoothly on a real box as well. However, it is not really the case with Linux until lately. Back then, Linux doesn't support as much hard ware drivers; thus, It was a nightmare to install it on a real machine.I recommend people to use VMWare at VMware.com and VirtualPC (now owned by Microsoft). It is risk free if you ever mess up your guest OS :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
320mb

I have been using Slackware for 9 months now. This was my first distro, and although people were telling me Slack was for ADVANCED users and that I should try Drake or Redhat first, I was determined to learn Slack. I am glad I stuck with it. I am now using Slack to learn Perl. But don't try Debian or Gentoo first, ouch those are really for the Advanced user, Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tedmistro

Ok on the topic is Linux hard to learn, YES. On my experiences with different distros of linux: First one that I used was Debian, it was difficult to install, there were not write up's on the installiation, and it was almost impossible to recompile the kernel. One of the things that you need to do with Linux is to recompile the kernel with the differnet options that you set up on the system. For instance if you want a firewall, you would have to install it and add it to the kernel. Others may be able to tell you more about this then I can, I still consider myself a newby at Linux. Once you get around the installiation you have to do the device recognition. For instance, I have a 3com NIC card in the box I tested this on, and debian would not recognize that particular card, while BSD would, but BSD would not recognize my raid controller. There are things like that that you may have to deal with. My suggestion is that if you do not want to go with Linux, go with an apple. The Imac's were really bad machines at first, but after a few gens (generations) they have come back to quality. The e-macs are excellent machines for the price and for what they offer. This may also be a good introduction to Linux if you get it with os X (pronounced os 10 for anyone that does not use Mac). OS X uses Unix for the back end, and you can get some experience using it here. Personally though if you want to try one, I would try Free BSD first, as there is (I think) better documentation on the setup. Plus you can do some pretty cool things. Good luck in your choice, and let us know what you decide.T ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bruno

Use a few month of your life learning Linux and you'll never regret it ! So many choises, applications, so flexible it's brilliant ! If you like computers, the www, networking Linux is the bizz.The first week it looks as if it is hard to learn, but as soon as you're in the second week things start to fall in its place. Two month later you really feel you're going to master it soon . . . Go on give it a spin !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dartrunner

I have been to 3 people’s houses in the last few months and had to try and explain why they couldn't install and run games that they had bought (win games) on two Lindows and one Lycoris computer. I also told them that the hardware would prob. not run the games even if it had Win installed on it. All were graphic intensive games. People just don't understand what they are getting and I hate being the bearer of bad news. ;) The one with the Lycoris system (from Wallmart) has had tons of problems with loosing sound and his mouse sometimes. I put together a win system for one of them using some parts from the Lindows system and they are very happy now and seem to be enjoying their computer experience much more now. I think these low cost alternative systems should come with a list of the things that they won't be able to do, just to let them know what they are getting into. I have tried RH, Lycoris, and Mandrake on separate test machines several times, and have always run across some glitch that has consumed much time and effort to figure out. After a long day at work, I just don't have the patience and time to devote to learning how to get everything working right, I do wish I could take a leave of absence or something to learn Linux, but I don't see that fitting into my financial future. Enough dribble I guess.... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. B

I am in the process of giving Linux a try. I'm still gathering information, but I've decided on RedHat. I might install it tonight, but I'll probably wait till tomorrow. I ran across another anti-virus program for Linux. It's called RAV antivirus and you can check it out HERE . It's not free ($29.00) and they also make a version for Windows. I'm really looking forward to learning Linux, I have used Windows for several years now, but I think the direction M$ is heading is way over the line. ;) B ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quint

Linux fascinates me ever since trying out Knoppix; currently I have Mandrake 9.1 on a dual-boot setup. It is becoming too much for this total Linux novice. It's not been as nice to me as the Knoppix demo, but I won't give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ComputerBob

What does it take to turn CD-based Knoppix into HD-based Knoppix? I've read conflicting reports on whether it is easy or difficult to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ComputerBob

Thanks, greengeek! I followed your link and I could actually understand those step-by-step instructions! I'm going to bookmark them for the future. The author, David McNab, gets my "Making Geek-Speak Chic" award for today. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quint
Thanks, greengeek! I followed your link and I could actually understand those step-by-step instructions! I'm going to bookmark them for the future. The author, David McNab, gets my "Making Geek-Speak Chic" award for today. :)
Very nice site, ComputerBob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ComputerBob
Very nice site, ComputerBob.
Thanks, quint! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henderrob

Remember me trying install Lexmark drivers way back in March? I fumbled into signing in as root and ran the install... guess what? It worked! Being brought from DOS 5 to Win 3.0 I never had to sign in as root or administrator to install software. Oh well, ...live and learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver
Remember me trying install Lexmark drivers way back in March?  I fumbled into signing in as root and ran the install... guess what?  It worked!  Being brought from DOS 5 to Win 3.0 I never had to sign in as root or administrator to install software.  Oh well, ...live and learn.
That's because *NIX is server oriented and Windows 3.x/9.x and DOS are both workstation-oriented

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LilBambi

Actually, I would take that a step further ... *nix is network oriented ... it was network oriented from the beginning and built to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Temmu

one step further - unix was designed securewhilst windows was designed, so to speak, openi'm guessing that microsoft doesn't want to loose sales over too tight security.but unix isn't held by any 10 or 20 groups, much less one, so it doesn't matter about loosing sales over being 'too' secure.again, just guessing.ms emulated netware with it's lanmanager, but did a sloppy job implementing it.unix (as prev. mentioned by lilbambi) built from ground up being secure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...