TR Forums

Ok, so I have a nice E6400 based machine sitting around doing nothing. 2GB RAM, ECS mainboard with Intel IGP/Networking etc... Generic stuff. Created a CD from the Ubuntu 8.04.1 ISO. GRUB'd it fine and booted from the CD. Pretty impressive, got their **** together, can't wait for the finally easy to use Linux.

Boy, was I wrong. Whilst the install only took 10 minutes, getting something as simply as JRE and Open Office 3.0 is a major pain in the ass. I uninstalled all the old Open Office components via Synaptic Package Manager (boy there were a lot). Still the update manager had all the Open Office stuff grayed out. I tried Add/Remove and it kept referring me back to solving it via Synaptic Package Manager. Problem is I am pretty sure that there was nothing to solve.

So I have to resort to the command line for both Java and Open Office. If this is 'ease of use' I will stick with my Windows box. Very dis-heartening. I was so excited.

version 8.10 been out for a month or so now, but thats probably not going to solve your problem(s)

Blame the right target dude. Linux is fine (well, it's not, but not for the reasons you list). This problem is entirely Sun.

Following this http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Install-OpenOffice-org-3-0-in-Ubuntu-8-10-96449.shtml I didn't have any problems updating.

The thing to understand is, by installing OO 3.0 manually without using your distro's packaging and dependency management system, you're bringing the pain on yourself. This is a common pitfall Windows users encounter because the model of software management is and installation is quite different. biffzinker's link which shows how to use an unofficial repository with OO 3.0 Ubuntu packages with your package manager is a much better way to go about doing that.

You guys in three post made my point for me. It doesn't matter who is at fault. I could never seriously plop a Ubuntu box down in front of Mother. It would end sitting there with a doily and candle.

About every 2 years I try this. Last time it was Red Hat and Opera wouldn't even install due to some UTF encoding switch.

I am seriously waiting for the day I simply install the OS, download the app and install and run.

The only thing a standard Joe user is likely to do is: sudo apt-get pissedoff

bitvector wrote:

The thing to understand is, by installing OO 3.0 manually without using your distro's packaging and dependency management system, you're bringing the pain on yourself. This is a common pitfall Windows users encounter because the model of software management is and installation is quite different. biffzinker's link which shows how to use an unofficial repository with OO 3.0 Ubuntu packages with your package manager is a much better way to go about doing that.

No crap, I intimated in the OP that I tried that first. Thus my frustration. Frustrating because Ubuntu included OO 2.0 and even using Synaptic Package Manager: no dice. I yanked everything that had to do with OO 2.0 in order to install 3.0

Ok, find me a Ubuntu distro... All the links point to having to use the Debian package and shoe horning it in via the CLI. I tried the Software Source control panel. Pain in the ass since it wouldn't work.

jinjuku wrote:

bitvector wrote:

The thing to understand is, by installing OO 3.0 manually without using your distro's packaging and dependency management system, you're bringing the pain on yourself. This is a common pitfall Windows users encounter because the model of software management is and installation is quite different. biffzinker's link which shows how to use an unofficial repository with OO 3.0 Ubuntu packages with your package manager is a much better way to go about doing that.

No crap, I intimated in the OP that I tried that first. Thus my frustration. Frustrating because Ubuntu included OO 2.0 and even using Synaptic Package Manager: no dice. I yanked everything that had to do with OO 2.0 in order to install 3.0

Ok, find me a Ubuntu distro... All the links point to having to use the Debian package and shoe horning it in via the CLI. I tried the Software Source control panel. Pain in the ass since it wouldn't work.

If you'd read the link, you'd see the Ubuntu repo for OO 3.0:
deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ubuntu intrepid main

jinjuku wrote:

You guys in three post made my point for me. It doesn't matter who is at fault. I could never seriously plop a Ubuntu box down in front of Mother. It would end sitting there with a doily and candle.

Would your mother immediately be dissatisfied that her system wasn't running the 30 day old latest release of OpenOffice and try to upgrade versions?

bitvector wrote:

jinjuku wrote:

bitvector wrote:

The thing to understand is, by installing OO 3.0 manually without using your distro's packaging and dependency management system, you're bringing the pain on yourself. This is a common pitfall Windows users encounter because the model of software management is and installation is quite different. biffzinker's link which shows how to use an unofficial repository with OO 3.0 Ubuntu packages with your package manager is a much better way to go about doing that.

No crap, I intimated in the OP that I tried that first. Thus my frustration. Frustrating because Ubuntu included OO 2.0 and even using Synaptic Package Manager: no dice. I yanked everything that had to do with OO 2.0 in order to install 3.0

Ok, find me a Ubuntu distro... All the links point to having to use the Debian package and shoe horning it in via the CLI. I tried the Software Source control panel. Pain in the ass since it wouldn't work.

If you'd read the link, you'd see the Ubuntu repo for OO 3.0:
deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ubuntu intrepid main

Not exactly easy to find....

bitvector wrote:

jinjuku wrote:

You guys in three post made my point for me. It doesn't matter who is at fault. I could never seriously plop a Ubuntu box down in front of Mother. It would end sitting there with a doily and candle.

Would your mother immediately be dissatisfied that her system wasn't running the 30 day old latest release of OpenOffice and try to upgrade versions?

Most likely yes. BTW, my mother was quite cable of purchasing Adobe CS3 when it was released and installing it on here computer. She also installed a DVD burner that I sent her.

My point being is that what should have taken no more than 10-15 minutes for a few installs took an a better part of 90 minutes give or take. I mean the system is running fine and since it is Linux will most likely stay that way (*sans hardware failure).

My point remains: It has got to be easier than this. Installing my Xerox DocuPrint N4525D was a snap however. Actually easier than Windows!

Open Office 3.0 is wicked quick btw. Just giving you guys my impressions, warts and all

bitvector wrote:

jinjuku wrote:

You guys in three post made my point for me. It doesn't matter who is at fault. I could never seriously plop a Ubuntu box down in front of Mother. It would end sitting there with a doily and candle.

Would your mother immediately be dissatisfied that her system wasn't running the 30 day old latest release of OpenOffice and try to upgrade versions?

She would when someone sends here a docx file then Ubuntu and out of date OOo **** all over her, to put it crudely. She would become even more frustrated when her printer doesn't work out of the box (not uncommon for numerous newer models), and she can't play a simple MP3 file either or even a DVD. Linux is simply not a viable alternative for numerous reasons that all come down to the fact that so many distros means no one has been able to solve it's massive flaws first. I really do hope Ubuntu moves to a more closed environment that sheds a lot of the free software political bs that is holding it back. Then and only then can a Linux distro move out of constant beta and into the real world of usability.

jinjuku wrote:

You guys in three post made my point for me. It doesn't matter who is at fault. I could never seriously plop a Ubuntu box down in front of Mother. It would end sitting there with a doily and candle.

Your mother would in all likelihood be perfectly happy with OpenOffice 2.4 (which is installed by default), and the Java plugin that Firefox's automatic plugin finder installs.

The Ubuntu way of doing package management can be both a blessing and a curse depending on what you're trying to do. If you stay within the distro's official repositories, I would say it is actually easier than Windows. Once you step outside that box, yes you can be in for varying degrees of pain, depending on what you're trying to install.

But for a simple web / e-mail / word processing box -- or even for a power user or software development workstation, in many cases! -- there is no compelling reason to stray outside of the official repositories. You're talking about thousands of packages (tens of gigabytes worth of software), all pre-built for Ubuntu and checked for dependencies. Unless you really need to run a bleeding edge version of something, use the official repositories and let the Ubuntu folks work out the installation hassles for you ahead of time.

Skrying wrote:

She would when someone sends here a docx file then Ubuntu and out of date OOo **** all over her, to put it crudely.

She'd have the same problem if she was running an older version of MS Office.

She would become even more frustrated when her printer doesn't work out of the box (not uncommon for numerous newer models),

Yes, this can be an issue for newer printers. But support for older printers is actually better in Linux than it is in Windows -- many printer manufacturers have decided to punt on Vista drivers for older models. And the Linux drivers for HP printers are generally more stable than HP's proprietary Windows drivers.

and she can't play a simple MP3 file

The first time I tried to play an MP3 on my Ubuntu box, a window popped up asking me if I wanted to install the MP3 codec. I clicked OK, and it just worked. Doesn't seem like a problem to me?

either or even a DVD.

Unless you've got Vista Home Premium or Ultimate, Windows doesn't play DVDs out of the box either.

Linux is simply not a viable alternative for numerous reasons that all come down to the fact that so many distros means no one has been able to solve it's massive flaws first. I really do hope Ubuntu moves to a more closed environment that sheds a lot of the free software political bs that is holding it back. Then and only then can a Linux distro move out of constant beta and into the real world of usability.

I agree that Ubuntu still has some warts; I also think the 8.10 release was in some ways a step back from 8.04. However... I think that overall they are doing a very good job of walking the line between usability and remaining true to Open Source principles. As I've noted above, most of your complaints ignore similar problems on the Windows side, or are based on outdated info.

I almost cried when I read through this post!

For the past few weeks I have been looking over Ubuntu Desktop/Server/Studio. I am mainly interested in Server but, as an amateur photographer, I was looking at Desktop and Studio as well. I totally agree that one should not have to dig around for a command line solution to install software (I used that Softpedia link over the weekend to update to OO 3.0) and I don't want to wait until some higher authority gets around to adding it to the list of available apps. All I want to do is download a fraking installer and double click on it. What's so hard about that!

I love how Ubuntu Server is command line only. WTF? Sure, hit a home run with your diehard users but come on! So, after installing the GUI onto Server, I still have to run around and look for GUI front end tools for standard server features. Sigh. I want to use Linux as a tool, not create a new hobby. I hate to say it but I don't have the time to go through these hoops. I'm just an end user.

One more thing: it is rather puzzling to me that the Ubuntu Studio installer process recognized my BT keyboard/mouse yet the installed OS does not!

jinjuku wrote:

I could never seriously plop a Ubuntu box down in front of Mother. It would end sitting there with a doily and candle.

You are what is commonly referred to as a troll. You installed an OS you are unfamiliar with and expected IT to adapt to YOUR desires, instead of looking at what it can do.

You wanted Linux to be Windows, and BIG SURPRISE, Linux is not as good at being Windows as Windows is.

You wanted to install a bleeding-edge package onto your distro. You need to WAIT while the people who make the distro package up your bleeding edge ware.

Linux is not bad. Your expectations of it were and are unreasonable. If you'd like to continue ranting about how it doesn't accept Windows drivers, about how it's horrible because your Windows howtos don't work, or other such unreasonability, be aware that your thread will be in the R&P forum in short order, and the responses you get will be more in kind.

End User wrote:

I don't want to wait until some higher authority gets around to adding it to the list of available apps. All I want to do is download a fraking installer and double click on it. What's so hard about that!

So go run Windows. That's how things are done in the Windows world. You CAN install things on your own outside the package management system. By doing so, you are saying 'I DON'T WANT HELP, I'LL DO IT MYSELF'. After you say that, most folks aren't interested in hearing how it broke.

I love how Ubuntu Server is command line only.

You don't have a server. You aren't running a server. You do not understand.

MOST SERVERS ARE NOT IN YOUR ROOM AT HOME. Most servers are remotely administrated. The command-line plus SSH and formerly telnet are time-honored ways to remotely administrate non-Windows boxen. Your insistence that 'SERVER == GUI' is simply not applicable.

Why do you feel the need to install Linux and then talk crap about how it's not Windows?

I don't usually install Windows and then talk crap about how it's not Linux, but I can if you'd like. Some samples:

WTF! I TRIED TO INSTALL SERVER 2008 AND IT INSISTS I NEED A GRAPHICS CARD IN A SERVER! WTF STOOPID!

WTF! WINDOWS DIDN'T OFFER A REAL CLI AT ALL BEFORE 2008 SERVER!

WTF! YOU CAN'T INSTALL ***ANY SOFTWARE*** AT ALL INSIDE WINDOWS! IT'S ALL FROM OTHER PEOPLE!! WTF LACK OF SUPPORT MUCH!!!

WTF! YOU HAVE TO DOWNLOAD DRIVERS FOR SUPPORT OF ALMOST ALL HARDWARE! NO KERNEL SUPPORT!

The root problem here is that many people like the OP and myself are wooed by Linux fanatics into trying the OS, only to find that we have no idea how to use it and virtually no documentation of any kind to help us get into the groove.

Linux exists in its own paradigm, its own culture that must be learned before it can be used effectively -- in this case, the mantra of installing and updating software -- just like you must learn and become accustomed to Windows'. That's all well and good, if you're used to it already. The problem is, the OP and I are not, and I feel his pain when he gets lost in the dark, and the Linux fans who brought him there aren't willing to give him a candle.

FireGryphon wrote:

The root problem here is that many people like the OP and myself are wooed by Linux fanatics into trying the OS, only to find that we have no idea how to use it and virtually no documentation of any kind to help us get into the groove.

I'm terribly sorry... but to say that there is no documentation for linux is downright fallacious. Granted I have only been using linux for the past couple weeks, but apart from a couple of problems installing a SPICE application (not your run of the mill software) everything has been going smoothly, a lot of things are actually easier than they are on Windows (network printers come to mind).

It just takes a little getting used to, but so far I don't really miss Windows... The ubuntu manager works pretty decently...

Forge wrote:

jinjuku wrote:

I could never seriously plop a Ubuntu box down in front of Mother. It would end sitting there with a doily and candle.

You are what is commonly referred to as a troll. You installed an OS you are unfamiliar with and expected IT to adapt to YOUR desires, instead of looking at what it can do.

Not trolling at all. I have been hearing all about the ease of use that Ubuntu 8.04 is supposed to bring. That it is supposed to put Linux on the desktop. This is what people in your camp have been espousing. So I gave it a shot. I am not sure what to expect to be honest. I thought my days of getting **** working went away with my Amiga. I mean banging away on $42K A4000 ,with NewTek Video Toaster and Video Toaster Flier, to get it to work is one thing. Fast forwarding 16 years I didn't expect to have to do the about the same to get Open Office and JRE installed. I figured that was all left behind.

Forge wrote:

You wanted Linux to be Windows, and BIG SURPRISE, Linux is not as good at being Windows as Windows is.

I know Linux isn't Windows. No surprise there. There should be some level of spit and polish however. Installing JRE and Open Office, lets be honest, shouldn't be a monumental task.

Forge wrote:

You wanted to install a bleeding-edge package onto your distro. You need to WAIT while the people who make the distro package up your bleeding edge ware.

Linux is not bad. Your expectations of it were and are unreasonable. If you'd like to continue ranting about how it doesn't accept Windows drivers, about how it's horrible because your Windows howtos don't work, or other such unreasonability, be aware that your thread will be in the R&P forum in short order, and the responses you get will be more in kind.

You must have me confused with another user. I didn't say anything about Windows drivers or Windows howto's. I know that OO 3 is a recent release but I thought Ubuntu had made a name for it's self. That is why I tried it vs other distro's. Regardless of my expectations, my impression is that it is a pain to do mundane stuff like install popular software.

Look, this simply isn't a bash (pun not intended) session. I took a box, installed an OS and tried to install some everyday trivial stuff and it was a hassle. It's installed, runs quickly and is more responsive than my Vista box. I absolutely hate Vista compared to XP. So I am trying a different approach. I am trying to figure out my economy in all this. What is my time vs a few $$ and be done with it. I may go look at an OSX box. But since I had this computer sitting around...

Take my experience any way you want it. I can only report on how it went. If it gets you all bent out of shape it says more about you than me.

Forge wrote:

You don't have a server. You aren't running a server. You do not understand.

I do have servers. I am running those servers. I understand you are rather sensitive.

Forge wrote:

Your insistence that 'SERVER == GUI' is simply not applicable.

Command line for you. GUI with a hint of command line for me. Just give me the GUI option during the install process.

Forge wrote:

Why do you feel the need to install Linux and then talk crap about how it's not Windows?

Who mentioned Windows? I'm not comparing it to Windows. I'm not even typing this on a Windows box. My dream is to get the f*%k away from Windows! I am comparing it to what a modern OS should be. I think the current software distribution method is way too restrictive and, frankly, a pain in the ass. I know of one UNIX distro that allows for standalone installers so my dream is still alive.

Obviously you are a command line god who is disgusted by the thought of a GUI. I get the same frothing at the mouth reaction from the majority of the command line enthusiasts I know when I mention GUI. Good thing I did not mention OS X Server. Don't tell anyone, it comes with a command line!

jinjuku, did you have specific needs for features which are only available in OpenOffice 3.0, and a version of JRE other than the one Ubuntu supports? If not, then you could've saved yourself all of the hassles you went through simply by using the Ubuntu-supported versions. If you're worried about "spit and polish", OpenOffice 3.0 is probably a poor choice anyhow (I suggest sticking with 2.x until the 3.1 release comes out).

Forge, you're not helping matters. If you're really trying to make a case for Linux, be aware that militant Linux evangelism drives as many people away as it attracts. (Hint: This is TR, not /. )

The thing that everyone loves about PC's is that they can be setup and tweaked any way you want. Part of that is being able to tweak the OS. It's hypocritical for you guys to tell us we have to tie our hands with automated methods when many of us can do a lot more customizable stuff in Windows. Maybe it's possible in Linux, too, but that brings me to my next point...

Wajo wrote:

I'm terribly sorry... but to say that there is no documentation for linux is downright fallacious.

The thing that makes Ubuntu and other distros so much more usable nowadays than they used to be is that everything is setup automatically and the OS looks and feels more like Windows. When I have to do something I'm unfamiliar with, the documentation I find gives me two choices: use the automated method (that does whatever magic that's never explained but somehow works), or delve deep into a new and cryptic world of command line trickery. Coming from an OS that I'm very comfortable in and can do a lot with (Windows) the former method makes me feel like I'm submitting to the system and giving up the power and control I have over my computer -- the exact opposite reason I have from switching to Linux in the first place. The latter method is impossible to do without dedicating time to reading and learning a host of new commands, then using them regularly so I get comfortable with them. On top of that, there's the new culture of Linux -- principles of how the OS works and how I'm supposed to work in it -- that I have to learn. That is too much of an undertaking for me at this point; I couldn't even do it when I was in high school or college when I had all the free time in the world, and I certainly don't have the time to do it now.

The documentation will let me do the minimum necessary to operate the new OS, but I can't hit the ground running. I've been trying to learn Linux for over a decade, and I'm constantly disappointed at how there's such little effort towards getting us n00bs into the fray. It's as if the command line wizards of Linux want to stay elite. 'Ya'all won't do enough to really get us into it, or your little world will be diluted with mediocrity just like Windows' is, but you have to get up and pretend to care about just so your pet OS can get some good press and be a source of pride to you.

FireGryphon, I hear where you're coming from. Modern distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, SuSE, etc. make it relatively simple to get started, even for a Linux novice. But once you step "outside the box", the learning curve can get steep. I still remember my first time setting up a Samba server; I nearly gave up in frustration, but eventually did get it working. Now there are simple GUIs for setting up Samba. The "box" defining what you can do without being a Linux guru has gotten quite a bit bigger; big enough in fact, that quite a lot of people really could use Linux instead of Windows. But the learning curve is still just as steep if you venture out "into the wild".

Yes, in theory you can change or tweak anything, because the source code (and the development tools, and the source code for the development tools...) is all freely available. But getting to the point where you can actually do that requires a larger investment in time and effort than 99.9% of computer users are willing to spend.

I disagree with your contention that the CLI is too difficult to learn though. As you come up the curve, you're generally going to be following instructions you found on the web somewhere; the commands will be spelled out. Whenever you see a command you're not familiar with, look it up (the man command is your friend). Learn by example. You'll be fluent in at least the basic CLI stuff a lot quicker than you might think. Hey, you might even eventually find yourself wishing you had the Linux CLI commands on Windows, and install Cygwin (I've been doing this on my Windows boxes for about 3 years now).

Manually editing Linux configuration files is -- when you really get down to it -- no more difficult than hacking around in the Windows registry, and arguably less hazardous to your system's health. There's something to be said for each application's configuration settings being in a separate file, in plain text format (usually), and sometimes even with comments. When was the last time you saw a section of the Windows registry with embedded comments explaining how it works?

just brew it! wrote:

She'd have the same problem if she was running an older version of MS Office.

You took that entirely out of context. I was explaining why should we need to update OOo and not use an outdated version.

just brew it! wrote:

Yes, this can be an issue for newer printers. But support for older printers is actually better in Linux than it is in Windows -- many printer manufacturers have decided to punt on Vista drivers for older models. And the Linux drivers for HP printers are generally more stable than HP's proprietary Windows drivers.

True statement but again you totally ignored my point. Which was specifically about new printers.

just brew it! wrote:

The first time I tried to play an MP3 on my Ubuntu box, a window popped up asking me if I wanted to install the MP3 codec. I clicked OK, and it just worked. Doesn't seem like a problem to me?

You've simplified that a bit to much, but that is for the most part true. You're also told that it's ugly for whatever reason, I guess to feel dirty for using a non-open source codec.

just brew it! wrote:

Unless you've got Vista Home Premium or Ultimate, Windows doesn't play DVDs out of the box either.

Why wouldn't we talk about the latest version of Windows and the version shipping on the vast vast majority of machines sold in the US? Again, you took this out of context...

just brew it! wrote:

I agree that Ubuntu still has some warts; I also think the 8.10 release was in some ways a step back from 8.04. However... I think that overall they are doing a very good job of walking the line between usability and remaining true to Open Source principles. As I've noted above, most of your complaints ignore similar problems on the Windows side, or are based on outdated info.

No, my complaints are based in reality where we compare the latest vs the latest. I wouldn't force a comparison of Windows Vista vs Ubuntu 4.10, just like you shouldn't force a comparison of Windows XP vs Ubuntu 8.10. The codec issue was a bit over stated, I admit, but it still stands that forcing Ubuntu to remain purely Open Source has it's limitations and if a company wants to really capture market share and not be in geek heaven forever then it needs to shed that skin and stand up to the loud minority that has their own interests ahead of actual computing.

End User wrote:

I love how Ubuntu Server is command line only. WTF?

Many Linux servers don't even have monitors attached to them. I've got a friend who uses Linux extensively for servers and has almost never touched Gnome, KDE, or any other GUI window manager.

Skrying wrote:

.... just like you shouldn't force a comparison of Windows XP vs Ubuntu 8.10.

Why not? What killer thing can you do with Ubuntu 8.10 that cannot be done in XP? If you compare functionality and ease of use Linux ain't even in the race.... forget it. and now for another reason why its never going to be....

[SDG]Mantis wrote:

End User wrote:

I love how Ubuntu Server is command line only. WTF?

Many Linux servers don't even have monitors attached to them. I've got a friend who uses Linux extensively for servers and has almost never touched Gnome, KDE, or any other GUI window manager.

Forge wrote:

MOST SERVERS ARE NOT IN YOUR ROOM AT HOME. Most servers are remotely administrated. The command-line plus SSH and formerly telnet are time-honored ways to remotely administrate non-Windows boxen. Your insistence that 'SERVER == GUI' is simply not applicable.

** minor sarcasm to follow... linux evangelicals should gather up their skirt and move away from sharp objects.

Most Linux Lunatics Like it in the dark. See they think its much better to telnet in on a 200 baud modem have 25 80 character lines available for your total information dispersal/viewing pleasure. That works great if you get paid by the hour, and don't care if you ever get anything done. For some reason the mythical "server" will not work if it has to put up too much information at once, or allow users to easily modify and fix things, and "servers" work different than the whole rest of the universe. where its normally better to have lots of information available to you when you are working on something, when working on a "server" its much better to work one line at a time, and don't even thing about being able to copy/paste or recall what you just did.... any self respecting "server" god wouldn't even consider doing anything other than representing with his mad 400 word per minute VI skillz. Where the whole rest of the computing universe is loving some multiple desktop/multiple terminal window multitasking nirvana, "servers" should never progress. Reading a 25,000 page MAN guide is great on a 25 line screen. I recommend it as a good waste of 8hrs anyday. Hell it wouldn't make a bit of sense to be able to have the man page in one window and your terminal in another window typing while you are reading. And just thing how freaking completely idiotic it would be to have multiple windows up with google searches, and your own repository of old cli commands where you could just copy and paste right in without mistyping anything..... Damn that man.... GUI's suck I mean why would any self respecting "server" god not want to type every command over and over. And then there is the overhead issue, these modern server processors just don't have the spare cycles to be throwing down the drain running a GUI... I mean my god it would probably take 10% of one core of a 16 core server to run just the GUI... OH hell no!!! It makes more sense to just go commando CLI on one TTY than to risk that additional .625% load crashing the almighty "server".

just brew it! wrote:

Forge, you're not helping matters. If you're really trying to make a case for Linux, be aware that militant Linux evangelism drives as many people away as it attracts. (Hint: This is TR, not /. )

Nah forge is helping, I'd be edgy in his shoes too. He needs a job to calm his nerves a little. After stuggling with several forms of linux and freebsd, no militant evangelism drove me away, it was merely my own need to get something useful done, and the realization that there were never going to be any tools for my trade available for linux that were supported/stable enough to invest in.

Still playing around with Ubuntu. I took an 802.11g USB adapter I had laying around. Plugged it in and provided the connection settings. Blows MS's over the top configuration editor out of the water. I went from plugged in to connected in ~30 seconds...

End User wrote:

I almost cried when I read through this post!

For the past few weeks I have been looking over Ubuntu Desktop/Server/Studio. I am mainly interested in Server but, as an amateur photographer, I was looking at Desktop and Studio as well. I totally agree that one should not have to dig around for a command line solution to install software (I used that Softpedia link over the weekend to update to OO 3.0) and I don't want to wait until some higher authority gets around to adding it to the list of available apps. All I want to do is download a fraking installer and double click on it. What's so hard about that!

I love how Ubuntu Server is command line only. WTF? Sure, hit a home run with your diehard users but come on! So, after installing the GUI onto Server, I still have to run around and look for GUI front end tools for standard server features. Sigh. I want to use Linux as a tool, not create a new hobby. I hate to say it but I don't have the time to go through these hoops. I'm just an end user.

One more thing: it is rather puzzling to me that the Ubuntu Studio installer process recognized my BT keyboard/mouse yet the installed OS does not!

The server and the desktop versions differ basically on the gui anyways. You could just as easily have used the desktop edition and installed whatever you needed for your server setup. What a silly complaint... Command line facilitates a lot of things a gui cannot do. It has nothing to do with diehard or hardcore or linux nerdiness or anything.