Trying Linux again... not an encouraging start.

[Iceweasel]

Generally more info helps to troubleshoot the problem. But I don't recall overly verbose messages. It's been quite a while since I've had a problem though. There should be a program called Synaptics or Package installer or something. You look for it there. OR I have searched online and cut and pasted install instructions into the terminal. Some are very involved and I don't know how humans figure that shit out but it generally works.

 

[Clement]

Yes, I have puppy Linux. Legacy OS is a Puppy Distro.

I just got Lubuntu 12.04 installed. Unlike the other versions, the Alternative Lubuntu 12.04, allowed me to install without a network connection. It still asked for one, but I could hit "go back", and skip to the next step, which installed.

So I now have a bootable functional version of Lubuntu on the system.

However, I still can't get the wireless to work, and unlike Puppy, I can't figure out how to install the drivers. I'm still working with it.

I still had some really crazy error screens. As I mentioned before, Linux seems to spend two paragraphs to say want could be summed up in a few words.

Instead of simply saying "could not find network connection", it had several paragraphs. "Lubuntu network device installer failed to dectect a network device. (skip down) It appears the device installer could not find a network connection. IF you believe this that this is an error, click back and detect network hardware again. If you need to...." and on and on and on.

I could have summed that up with "Network Connection not found. Try again? Installed custom drivers? Skip?"

I don't understand why Linux programmers think they need to have a Encyclopedia Britannica response to what otherwise is a simple self explanatory issue.

I have never had a wireless modem NOT work.

All of the Ubuntu derivatives I have tried use [ame="http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-WN111-Wireless-N-300-Adapter/dp/B000W8UIZW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1399835829&sr=8-1&keywords=wireless+card+%2B+netgear"]this[/ame] card.

 

[Andylusion]

Generally more info helps to troubleshoot the problem. But I don't recall overly verbose messages. It's been quite a while since I've had a problem though. There should be a program called Synaptics or Package installer or something. You look for it there. OR I have searched online and cut and pasted install instructions into the terminal. Some are very involved and I don't know how humans figure that shit out but it generally works.

Oh I agree with you. It does work. My whole point though was to find out just how user-friendly Linux really is.

Linux most certainly works, and on nearly everything. There are programs and drivers and utilities to do nearly every conceivable thing, on Linux.

I even found on my companies work computer, they are too old to boot from USB. The system simply doesn't support that. Well some crazy linux programmer out there thought, well all these old systems still boot to CD obviously.... why not make a boot able CD, that then boots the USB?

So you get the Plop ISO, and burn a CD (why linux programmers can't come up with a names that don't invoke visions of toiletry software....)

Pop it in, and boot....

Select USB, and it boots up whatever Linux is installed on your USB drive.

That's pretty cool. You can find a linux work-around for nearly anything.

Yes, absolutely it works. But is that user-friendly? Hey Gandma, just download the latest C library, download the source code to PictsRus, and then open a terminal, login as super user, compile the source code and....

Not going to happen, right?

See that's the problem. I want Linux to get to where it can bite a huge chunk out of Winblows. So I'm learning how far it's come, and it is encourage. Last time I really gave Linux a spin, was back in the early 2000. It's come a long ways, which is a good sign.

But for me, the moment you say "open a terminal and....." That's a fail. In order to get to the point where anyone can do, the system needs to reach the point where people are not required to hunt online for super user commands, and cutting and pasting things, and downloading source code.

All that said... I've come to realize that this laptop is simply not going to cut it with only 128 mb of memory.

Unfortunately, it would cost me several times more than the laptop is worth, to upgrade it.

So basically my adventure into Linux-land is halted. The cost to the upgrades I need (including a hard-wire ethernet PC Card), is up in the $60 to $70 range (which is not going to happen). If I can find a suitable replacement laptop for a lower price, then perhaps my "Adventure in Linux-land" will continue. But for now, the project is over.

Like I said before, I have a working copy, but everything is so slow, and choppy because of the memory limits. I can't even get it to play a DVD, which seems ridiculous. Win 2000 can play DVDs on it perfectly.

 

[Iceweasel]

But for me, the moment you say "open a terminal and....." That's a fail. In order to get to the point where anyone can do, the system needs to reach the point where people are not required to hunt online for super user commands, and cutting and pasting things, and downloading source code.

All that said... I've come to realize that this laptop is simply not going to cut it with only 128 mb of memory.

Unfortunately, it would cost me several times more than the laptop is worth, to upgrade it.

So basically my adventure into Linux-land is halted. The cost to the upgrades I need (including a hard-wire ethernet PC Card), is up in the $60 to $70 range (which is not going to happen). If I can find a suitable replacement laptop for a lower price, then perhaps my "Adventure in Linux-land" will continue. But for now, the project is over.

Like I said before, I have a working copy, but everything is so slow, and choppy because of the memory limits. I can't even get it to play a DVD, which seems ridiculous. Win 2000 can play DVDs on it perfectly.

Windows has a terminal window too, sure I could have bought a program that ran the install but free for a few minutes of time is worth it to me. A fail for you but a win for me. It's all a matter of perspective. Any distro I've tried uses much less memory than XP, never had 2000 though. I forgot all about that version.

 

[Andylusion]

But for me, the moment you say "open a terminal and....." That's a fail. In order to get to the point where anyone can do, the system needs to reach the point where people are not required to hunt online for super user commands, and cutting and pasting things, and downloading source code.

All that said... I've come to realize that this laptop is simply not going to cut it with only 128 mb of memory.

Unfortunately, it would cost me several times more than the laptop is worth, to upgrade it.

So basically my adventure into Linux-land is halted. The cost to the upgrades I need (including a hard-wire ethernet PC Card), is up in the $60 to $70 range (which is not going to happen). If I can find a suitable replacement laptop for a lower price, then perhaps my "Adventure in Linux-land" will continue. But for now, the project is over.

Like I said before, I have a working copy, but everything is so slow, and choppy because of the memory limits. I can't even get it to play a DVD, which seems ridiculous. Win 2000 can play DVDs on it perfectly.

Windows has a terminal window too, sure I could have bought a program that ran the install but free for a few minutes of time is worth it to me. A fail for you but a win for me. It's all a matter of perspective. Any distro I've tried uses much less memory than XP, never had 2000 though. I forgot all about that version.

A win for you, a fail for Linux. Yes Windows has a terminal program. Have you ever told someone that they need to use it to get basic functionality working on Windows? I've been in IT support for several years in the past, and that has never come up. I've never told a user with a problem "hey you need to open terminal in windows and punch in super user commands!".

Not one time.

Again, the goal is to get Linux to the point that the average regular home user, can use the system. Not how Power User Iceweasel can save a few minutes.

BTW, I fully support people like you who can do all the cool stuff. That's great, and Linux is clearly a good choice for you.

But the rest of the public, is less worried about the system running on less memory, when they can't figure out how to make it work.

 

[Iceweasel]

A win for you, a fail for Linux. Yes Windows has a terminal program. Have you ever told someone that they need to use it to get basic functionality working on Windows? I've been in IT support for several years in the past, and that has never come up. I've never told a user with a problem "hey you need to open terminal in windows and punch in super user commands!".

Not one time.

Again, the goal is to get Linux to the point that the average regular home user, can use the system. Not how Power User Iceweasel can save a few minutes.

BTW, I fully support people like you who can do all the cool stuff. That's great, and Linux is clearly a good choice for you.

But the rest of the public, is less worried about the system running on less memory, when they can't figure out how to make it work.

How did Linux fail? I think you missed my point. I would have to buy, pay for with money, spend capital on a program to do that automatically in Windows, with the exception of some shareware. It's doing the same thing behind a pretty interface. No one has done more to build and keep busy IT personnel than Microsoft so your point is lost on me. A few minutes of cut and paste in a terminal is a win win.

I am not a power user by any stretch of the imagination. If I can set up a Linux box any average user could. I did learn a lot by dicking around until it broke so I can set it up pretty quick now after three years. But I new zilch back then and had a functioning setup.

There are some pretty good forums for any distro, especially the two popular ones, and there is a lot of geekdom in the Linux world and they expect you to do some level of learning but it's a trade off. Purchasing with tech support that can help or free with a little time and effort.

The younger folks are much more knowledgeable than the previous generation so I do think Linux is going to be mainstream someday. Especially once they find out the quality of open source software.

 

[Andylusion]

A win for you, a fail for Linux. Yes Windows has a terminal program. Have you ever told someone that they need to use it to get basic functionality working on Windows? I've been in IT support for several years in the past, and that has never come up. I've never told a user with a problem "hey you need to open terminal in windows and punch in super user commands!".

Not one time.

Again, the goal is to get Linux to the point that the average regular home user, can use the system. Not how Power User Iceweasel can save a few minutes.

BTW, I fully support people like you who can do all the cool stuff. That's great, and Linux is clearly a good choice for you.

But the rest of the public, is less worried about the system running on less memory, when they can't figure out how to make it work.

How did Linux fail? I think you missed my point. I would have to buy, pay for with money, spend capital on a program to do that automatically in Windows, with the exception of some shareware. It's doing the same thing behind a pretty interface. No one has done more to build and keep busy IT personnel than Microsoft so your point is lost on me. A few minutes of cut and paste in a terminal is a win win.

I am not a power user by any stretch of the imagination. If I can set up a Linux box any average user could. I did learn a lot by dicking around until it broke so I can set it up pretty quick now after three years. But I new zilch back then and had a functioning setup.

There are some pretty good forums for any distro, especially the two popular ones, and there is a lot of geekdom in the Linux world and they expect you to do some level of learning but it's a trade off. Purchasing with tech support that can help or free with a little time and effort.

The younger folks are much more knowledgeable than the previous generation so I do think Linux is going to be mainstream someday. Especially once they find out the quality of open source software.

I certainly hope so.

When you say Younger Folks.... I'm not sure who you mean. Myself... yes. But I'm a nerdy guy.

Most people though? I don't think they are nearly as adept as you think. My sister certainly couldn't. My brother-in-law certainly couldn't. Both are very intelligent people, but not computer people.

And yes, it would cost *YOU* money. I get that, and you don't want to spend that money, I get that, and you are willing to do what it takes to avoid buying software. I get all that.

The problem is, most people are not like you. Most people don't want to look for fixes on the internet. Most people want to plug it in, and have it work.

You want to know how Red Hat, can make $1.33 BILLION dollars off of free software? Think about it. Red Hat makes BILLIONS on 'free' software.

OF course the answer is, people are willing to pay for not having the hassle. They want to call up microsoft, and say "fix this". They want to call up Red Hat, and say "fix this".

Most people ARE willing to pay money to have stuff done, that honestly sometimes they could do it themselves, by hunting around on the internet and compiling drivers and so on.

But people would much rather pay for something, and have someone else fix it. You don't. I get it.

But if you want Linux to become mainstream.... I promise you... all that "go into terminal and type in sudo -a /bin/rcx.ini blaw blaw blaw" that's go to go. People have to have a simple graphical way to do things.

Terminal commands and such, work fine for people like you and me. I'm nerdy enough I can do it. Most are not. That's how it is.

I don't mean this to be insulting, but you are starting to remind me of the MS-DOS people back in the 90s. Over and over, the screamed about how they didn't need Windows, and MS-DOS is so much easier and it takes less memory, and it doesn't require a faster computer and on and on and on.

But the fact is, until the Mac in 1984, and until Windows 3.1, computers were generally for hobbyist and businesses. Functionally, they were not that much better when the GUI was invested. But the GUI made existing technology usable to the average person.

Now here we are in Linux land, and the same battle is coming back. Command line is better, and anyone can do it. Yeah, and anyone could do MS-DOS, but they didn't. Then came Windows, and they did.

 

[Iceweasel]

When you say Younger Folks.... I'm not sure who you mean. Myself... yes. But I'm a nerdy guy.

Most people though? I don't think they are nearly as adept as you think. My sister certainly couldn't. My brother-in-law certainly couldn't. Both are very intelligent people, but not computer people.

And yes, it would cost *YOU* money. I get that, and you don't want to spend that money, I get that, and you are willing to do what it takes to avoid buying software. I get all that.

No you don't. You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that, I said there's no need for me to purchase software at this point. Mostly though, your experience with installing Linux is atypical. I think because you were trying on such a substandard machine.

The problem is, most people are not like you. Most people don't want to look for fixes on the internet. Most people want to plug it in, and have it work.

You want to know how Red Hat, can make $1.33 BILLION dollars off of free software? Think about it. Red Hat makes BILLIONS on 'free' software.

OF course the answer is, people are willing to pay for not having the hassle. They want to call up microsoft, and say "fix this". They want to call up Red Hat, and say "fix this".

Most people ARE willing to pay money to have stuff done, that honestly sometimes they could do it themselves, by hunting around on the internet and compiling drivers and so on.

But people would much rather pay for something, and have someone else fix it. You don't. I get it.

No you don't. I've never compiled anything and have no clue how to. I've pasted a couple of lines into a terminal on previous versions since I was using unstable Debian distros (Ubuntu and Mint) for a few fixes in a number of installations.

HOWEVER....I have spent many many many hours, days and probably weeks in man hours fixing Microsoft problems starting with Windows 3.1. Pretending Windows just works or is a phone call away for a solution is total bullshit. I've spent a LOT of time on various forums and back in the day, newsgroups to find solutions. I've never put in the amount of time in a Linux installation as I have with any Microsoft installation, not even remotely close.

But if you want Linux to become mainstream.... I promise you... all that "go into terminal and type in sudo -a /bin/rcx.ini blaw blaw blaw" that's go to go. People have to have a simple graphical way to do things.

Terminal commands and such, work fine for people like you and me. I'm nerdy enough I can do it. Most are not. That's how it is.

Cutting and pasting is nerdy? Most children can do it. I wish there had been such a simple solution with Windows but it relied on the registry after '95 or whenever. I was editing sys.ini and win.ini files for years prior, which was more involved that clicking a button to open the terminal and pasting in a few lines. I don't get your logic at all. I've never done it with this distro as I keep to the stable repositories.

I don't mean this to be insulting, but you are starting to remind me of the MS-DOS people back in the 90s. Over and over, the screamed about how they didn't need Windows, and MS-DOS is so much easier and it takes less memory, and it doesn't require a faster computer and on and on and on.

That isn't remotely close to my position. You've made a mountain of a molehill for reasons unclear to me.

But the fact is, until the Mac in 1984, and until Windows 3.1, computers were generally for hobbyist and businesses. Functionally, they were not that much better when the GUI was invested. But the GUI made existing technology usable to the average person.

Now here we are in Linux land, and the same battle is coming back. Command line is better, and anyone can do it. Yeah, and anyone could do MS-DOS, but they didn't. Then came Windows, and they did.

Wrong. I used the terminal a few times for a few modified from stable releases and you act like it's a text based OS. Wow.

Yes, there's more available stuff for Window solutions but to imply it's a no brainer is dead wrong. I beta tested Memphis (Windows 95) for them and went to the campus just before their final release. It took a team of three techs 6 hours to install it on my system and get it all set up. Fortunately they had really good coffee there. After the test run it took the install team of two guys three hours to get me back where I was.

When they released 95 soon after I had to fiddle with it to get it to work with some peripherals and two of them were a no go and I had to replace them. I'm sure I was not alone and I'm sure many IT techs were gainfully employed.

It wasn't

 

[Darkwind]

Puppy Linux is a pain to set up. Try something like Lubuntu.

Thanks, but I already did. Unless (L)ubuntu is significantly different than Ubuntu, I installed Ubuntu and it ran so unbearably slow, it made Window 2000 look like a speed demon. I could literally go to the bath room, and dump, and come back, and it would still be loading. Once it was up, I could click on things, go get a cup of tea, and come back just in time for it to pop up. Way way way too slow.

Is 'lubuntu' something different?

Wow, that is weird. I've found ubuntu to be reasonably quick and lightweight.

ETA: Sorry, read the rest down a few posts and saw you put it on an older box. My bad.

 

[Darkwind]

Lubuntu is smaller than Xubuntu. You might get a low spec box to run XFCE, but he'd be better off with Lubuntu. Just to give you an idea, the Raspberry pi's run LXDE.

Lubuntu places the system requirements at 256 to 512. If he got Ubuntu to install, the Lubuntu should install. KDE is terrible, I have only gotten one box to run it.

A little background on me: I used to buy old computers at corporate auctions. Because I hate Microsoft's licensing policies I have been using Linux distros for operating systems on used computers. Microsoft and Apple make beautiful, functional operating systems, and MS Office is the best thing going if you ask me, but there are too many limits on their systems and too many vulnerabilities.

The thing about the Ubuntu releases is I've never had to search for drivers the way you have to with a Windows install - they either have them or find them for you.

I had 2-3 PIII boxes running Lubuntu 10.04, but they had 512 RAM. I'll be interested in hearing how this works out for him.

I've installed nVidia drivers but it was an option, it worked before but is better with the propriety driver. Some licensing thing, I think. Everything else worked on install and I have a lot of crap plugged in.

How does MS Office compare to LibreOffice? Have you tried it? I never had MS Office so don't know how the open source version stacks up.

256 is a small amount of memory, he ought to bump it up if he can.

LibreOffice? Is that a different version of OpenOffice or a competitor?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You have an old machine. You are comparing a new Ubuntu release with a 14 year old Windows release.
Try putting Windows 8 on that box...exactly.
Here is what I would do, I would go with LinuxMint 13 "Maya". 13 was a nice stable release and still supports modern browsers/flash etc.
On that system LinuxMint would be very fast. The bootup time should be no more than 5-6 seconds.

 

[Iceweasel]

LibreOffice? Is that a different version of OpenOffice or a competitor?

I came along after the switch, it's apparently a fork of Open Office and has been the default software of every distro I've tried.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Windows has a terminal window too, sure I could have bought a program that ran the install but free for a few minutes of time is worth it to me. A fail for you but a win for me. It's all a matter of perspective. Any distro I've tried uses much less memory than XP, never had 2000 though. I forgot all about that version.

Windows not only has a terminal, but for Windows 2008-R2 and for 2012, there are tons of things that can ONLY be done through Powershell. Microsoft is moving to MORE console centric computing.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Windows has a terminal window too, sure I could have bought a program that ran the install but free for a few minutes of time is worth it to me. A fail for you but a win for me. It's all a matter of perspective. Any distro I've tried uses much less memory than XP, never had 2000 though. I forgot all about that version.

Windows not only has a terminal, but for Windows 2008-R2 and for 2012, there are tons of things that can ONLY be done through Powershell. Microsoft is moving to MORE console centric computing.

And is about time. They never should have moved away from it. The shell is infinitely more powerful than any gui application. (obviously)