[olug] Disappointment and a question ...
mgoeres at gmail.com
Sat Apr 5 04:01:54 UTC 2014
I ran Ubuntu and Mint linux for several years, but ended up switching to a Mac awhile back.
I was so tired of flash issues and dealing with cryptic programs. I still have a desktop running Mint but it’s only real function is that it is my VM staging area with VMware workstation and also connects to my ESX hosts which I do all from a VNC or RDP session.
Now with HTML5 being used for a lot of things like youtube I could probably do a linux distro again, but my macbook is much more convent at this point and I still have a shell if I need to do something as simple as an NMAP or do some text manipulation on a file.
On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:52 PM, Jeff Hinrichs - DM&T <jeffh at dundeemt.com> wrote:
> I'd say Ubuntu -- Speaking as someone who helps others and my entire
> family, including wife, runs ubuntu -- not a problem. My kids have only
> seen windows boxes on tv and in school. If you want to see how most
> distros would work/look on your box, most have a live version you can put
> on a thumbdrive and try out before you commit.
> My parents run ubuntu on their laptop. Install fests are so last century
> because yes, you can do it without dropping to a command line. I encourage
> you to take a look at what is out there right now.
> I am not an ubuntu fanboy, just ask and I'll let you know how they gnomed
> things up but in general, it is what I recommend.
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:30 PM, David Gilman <davidgilman1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you want usable out of the box and UNIX look at MacOS X.
>> On Apr 4, 2014 8:19 PM, "unfy" <olug at unfy.org> wrote:
>>> First up, I'm not looking for a flame war. This is just a legitimate
>>> So, I've been using Linux since about Slackware 3.0 or something like
>>> that. 1996/1997 or so.
>>> I used linux as my desktop OS for the longest time because I was tired of
>>> how unstable windows was, etc. I'd boot into windows to play games if
>>> necessary - but my day to day life was under linux. I even used it at
>>> with windows in a virtual machine.
>>> I eventually picked up a dell notebook that had XP SP1 on it (2003 ?) ...
>>> and being open to new things, decided to give it a fair shake. After a
>>> month or so I was generally happy with how stable it was and decided to
>>> leave linux behind as a desktop OS. There was generally better hardware
>>> support under XP ... and it seemed stable.
>>> I've stuck with linux / bsd as a server OS though.
>>> Fast forward to 2014 and a coworker has been fiddling with some different
>>> linux distro's. Ubuntu, Zoran (or whatever), and a few others.
>>> I had to walk away shaking my head.
>>> The question:
>>> Is there a linux distro that is actually USEFUL to folks out of the box ?
>>> Something like a working control panel ?
>>> Base / simple configuration of services (with the understanding that
>>> complex stuff will require editing a config file) ?
>>> Feedback when an application is loading in the background ?
>>> An error message if an application fails to load ?
>>> Non-cryptic cd/dvd burning software ?
>>> Customizing start menu / widget stuff isn't black voodoo ?
>>> Something where I don't have to drop to the console to fix 90% of the
>>> problems ?
>>> Basically, it seems like looking back over the last 20 years - I've seen
>>> different distros hit all of these subjects and sometimes complete said
>>> task - only to change it / drop it a few releases later etc.
>>> Is there a distro that SIMPLY WORKS FOR THE HOME USER ? Doesn't have to
>>> the prettiest thing on the planet, but lets you accomplish everything ya
>>> need to do out of the box ? And isn't a PITA to use ? Is there a distro
>>> that quits trying to re-invent every aspect of the wheel with each
>> release ?
>>> I know what I'm asking is a bit subjective - but seriously - what ever
>>> happened to "this tool does one thing and does it really well" mentality
>>> (see most of the command line tools) ?
>>> When subjectively looking at the 4 or so distro's my coworker fired up,
>>> Windows 3.1, Windows 95, BeOS, OS/2, etc were all more functionally
>>> complete. Hell, I still think BeOS rocks :D.
>>> There is ZERO chance I'd use any of them as a desktop OS. I'd be more at
>>> home in the 2.0 kernel days and Afterstep / Windowmaker hehehe.
>>> KDE looked like it was trying pretty hard in the early pre-1.0 and
>>> days to get things somewhat there....
>>> Sure, most distro's come with the standard apps like open office or
>>> whatever it's called these days. And a couple options of browsers.
>> Maybe a
>>> few 'explorer' like programs. A few media consumption programs. Some of
>>> these applications may or may not work. Others might offer some closed
>>> source drivers that may or may not work on your hardware depending on the
>>> age of your hardware. (that brings up more fun. want to run older
>>> hardware - gotta run an older distro. but then if you have a problem
>>> something, everything/one says you need to upgrade your distro... which
>>> cant cause of the older hardware etc).
>>> Is there a distro that has a checklist of "this is what this distro MUST
>>> do from a functionality stand point", and then it sticks to making that
>>> happen ?
>>> With the above said, I did make use of Mythbuntu for many years on my
>>> box (with two hauppage pvr-150's). But - that was mostly just getting
>>> OS to run mythfrontend and mythbackend and nothing else. Did have to
>>> patch alsa by hand all the time for HDMI audio over nforce 630i chipset
>>> (don't think i ever pushed the patch upstream though heh).
>>> OLUG mailing list
>>> OLUG at olug.org
>> OLUG mailing list
>> OLUG at olug.org
> Jeff Hinrichs
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
More information about the OLUG