Dann's blog about linux myths

[dann]

My position is that it is easier to install linux than windows. Especially if the hardware is supported automatically. But it better be easier because I have to do it more often.

Why? Why are you installing Linux so often? My server has been running Slackware for 6 years. I have merely done upgrades to the software. My laptop has been running Ubuntu for almost three years now with the same install, just upgrades. The only time I do a new install of Linux is if I want to use a different version (eeePC, main workstation) or have a hard disk failure. I rarely do an disc install on my systems. I do upgrades.

Your point about people having windows installations that last years is valid. Most of my interactions with people running windows has been requests to fix their systems because after running for more than a year it's dog slow, crashing constantly, etc. I suspect my perception is skewed in this as I very rarely hear people praising Windows. Mostly complaints.

I don't think people are complaining about the install. They complain about the things that don't work after the install. This is what makes Dann's whole premise about the myths untrue.

I think we are splitting hairs here. Maybe I should have stated installation and INITIAL CONFIGURATION. The people I have associated with in the past have considered the installation process to encompass installing the OS to the point of having it updated (patch wise) and the hardware working. Maybe I should write an update post to clarify this.

[dann]

In the real world pc's come with driver discs. Even building your own pc with oem parts they come with a driver discs. The whole white box of mystery is rare and an artificial barrier.

I made an attempt to level the playing field here. Computer and installation disc. Speaking as a technical person who has done a lot of installations of both Windows and Linux there have been many times I have been given just a whitebox with no driver discs, etc. So this example is not a myth. This is a common complaint in the tech field when dealing with other people's system - that more than often people lose their driver discs.

That aside, the point is given an XP disc and an Ubuntu disc the installation and INITIAL CONFIGURATION I think the "opinion" that Linux is difficult to install is no more valid than saying Windows is difficult to install. Maybe I did not make that point clear.

I find the speed of installation issue a non-factor. My xp install is probably going to last for a few years so if it takes an extra hour to install and configure than so be it.

The whole installed by default software issue is a "who cares" type of argument. It's kind of nice. But you are still going to have to install the software that you want on both systems. With xp I don't have to reinstall to get upgrades to that software so again if it takes a little longer up front than so be it.

I find the speed of installation very important. I'd rather have a system installed, configured and productive in a short of time as possible. I don't want to spend two+ hours doing the initial installation and configuration and then have to install extra software on top of that for the next hour+ just to be able to do something with my computer. But that is me.

[hellonorman]

Why? Why are you installing Linux so often? My server has been running Slackware for 6 years. I have merely done upgrades to the software. My laptop has been running Ubuntu for almost three years now with the same install, just upgrades. The only time I do a new install of Linux is if I want to use a different version (eeePC, main workstation) or have a hard disk failure. I rarely do an disc install on my systems. I do upgrades.

I do it for the same reason I would never upgrade in place from win98 to xp or from xp to vista. Because upgrading an os version in place is fraught with problems and it leads to a an uncertainty factor when trying to diagnose problems.

We are talking about desktop systems are we not? I don't think your server is relevant nor do I think slackware qualifies as distro for the general user.

Do people really have systems that started out with ubuntu 5 or 6 and they have upgraded successfully in place to hardy 8.04? Suse 9 to 11? Fedora 6-9? Mandriva whatever to whatever? I don't believe it's true. There may be some cases but it's certainly not the norm.

I think we are splitting hairs here. Maybe I should have stated installation and INITIAL CONFIGURATION. The people I have associated with in the past have considered the installation process to encompass installing the OS to the point of having it updated (patch wise) and the hardware working. Maybe I should write an update post to clarify this.

The thing is the only thing people complain about is the initial configuration. I can agree that an install would include the loading from disc and initial configuration. But you talked abundantly about the part that nobody complains about.

[hellonorman]

I made an attempt to level the playing field here. Computer and installation disc. Speaking as a technical person who has done a lot of installations of both Windows and Linux there have been many times I have been given just a whitebox with no driver discs, etc. So this example is not a myth. This is a common complaint in the tech field when dealing with other people's system - that more than often people lose their driver discs.

As a technical person did you just stick the windows cd in, click through the install, reboot and only then consider the drivers and applications you will need?
I mean seriously while you may have experienced white boxen of mystery that doesn't change the fact that most of the world has driver discs. For a technical person a quick look inside a case would reveal a motherboard model number and a couple of cards that may need drivers if there aren't any.

Another reason I find your scenarios artificial is that many people have a restore disc. I don't think you have leveled the playing field, I think you have created artificial restrictions. You can say that's not technically an install but it is a reality.

I find the speed of installation very important. I'd rather have a system installed, configured and productive in a short of time as possible. I don't want to spend two+ hours doing the initial installation and configuration and then have to install extra software on top of that for the next hour+ just to be able to do something with my computer. But that is me.

I'd rather have a quick install as well. I don't really think anyone really cares too much though as they aren't really reinstalling windows all that often.
You also don't have to wait until the first reboot to start thinking about what you need to install. A technical person can slipstream there install windows install disc to save time if it is important to them.

The speed issue still strikes me as insignificant to most people who don't reinstall the os very much.

[dann]

ok, by the very fact that you need all these extra discs and resources to install drivers is telling in and of itself. It's a testament to the resources of the Linux kernel devlopers that they are able to keep up with changes a lot more efficiently than the windows developers. Okay, that is not fair as the Linux community is a lot more agile than the windows community and that is not truly a fair comparison. I mean, really, Ubuntu has the resources to put out a new version on a six month basis that includes more support on the disc than windows xp can in the 6 years or so that it has been available. Sure, the technically savy can spin their own discs to include those updates and drivers and all so we will leave it at that.

If I cannot update a distro from one version to the next and not consider it a reliable update then I will not use that distro. I included a server in there because I posit, would you upgrade windows 2000 server to 2003 server in stead of doing a clean install? Hell no.

As a technical person who has been called upon to fix another person's computer it has been an extreme inconvenience when not presented with the "extra" discs including drivers and such. That means I have to start tearing apart the sysytem to find out what hardware is in there unless I use a live cd and deduce it quite simply with the tools at hand on a Linux system.

Yeah, most people who by a system these days, non white box, get a restore cd. But my point was with an install of Linux compared to an install of Windows. There is no fair comparison when presented with a restore disc. Why is it we keep coming back to this point. Why is it we are arguing that fact that there are so many complaints out there that the install of Linux is so much harder than the install of Linux? I don't think it's an issue with the OS but an issue with the installer not being knowledgeable enough with Linux to finish the install. The same goes with a person who is skilled at installing Linux trying to install windows. I fall into the later category. I bet there are tons of people who could run circles around me with windows installs. But the point is, I don't think installing Linux is any harder than installing Windows. Only different.

[hellonorman]

ok, by the very fact that you need all these extra discs and resources to install drivers is telling in and of itself. It's a testament to the resources of the Linux kernel devlopers that they are able to keep up with changes a lot more efficiently than the windows developers. Okay, that is not fair as the Linux community is a lot more agile than the windows community and that is not truly a fair comparison. I mean, really, Ubuntu has the resources to put out a new version on a six month basis that includes more support on the disc than windows xp can in the 6 years or so that it has been available. Sure, the technically savy can spin their own discs to include those updates and drivers and all so we will leave it at that.

The only thing it tells is that the driver model is different. But maybe we can get back to the heart of why I posted from here.
There is NO myth about linux installation. You still haven't shown anything that suggests that people are complaining about how hard linux is to install that isn't a driver or application issue. My problem with your posts is that you have chosen to take the main issues of drivers and applications and bundle them into some general install issue. Then you write more about the other parts of this general install issue than about the drivers and applications.

This is why I posted here. I found that your writings started off with the premise of myths that weren't true and then lacked focus.

I was surprised by it. I normally find your writings and your segments on the show well thought out and focused even when I don't agree with them.

I understand what your were trying to do with your writings. But I don't think most people disagree in the first place. Installing an OS is probably not something a general user is going to do. I agree. I think most agree. So what are you debunking?

As for technical users. I don't agree that their complaints translate into an installation on a white box comparison. All the complaints you presented could just as easily happen after an install at a later date by adding a piece of hardware. This is why I say nobody is really complaining about the install its the drivers and applications.


It was what I saw as flaws in logic that prompted me to post. This isn't to say that your posts didn't contain any logic or points. I understand what you were doing. It was about the premise and focus.

Anyway I do hope you will continue to write your thoughts down. I really didn't intend this as an attack or mean spirited.

[hellonorman]

I was quite shocked to hear that Lincoln bypassed the upgrade in place option for a clean install of his ubuntu machine.

[Linc]

I was quite shocked to hear that Lincoln bypassed the upgrade in place option for a clean install of his ubuntu machine.

Shocking is finding out that that is what I normally do. It's faster, and leaner most times than upgrades in place.

[hellonorman]

I was quite shocked to hear that Lincoln bypassed the upgrade in place option for a clean install of his ubuntu machine.

Shocking is finding out that that is what I normally do. It's faster, and leaner most times than upgrades in place.

Actually I don't find it shocking. I'm sure most people do the same. I was sort of being sarcastic because Dann and bugz were arguing that in place linux upgrades were viable and comparable to updating an xp machine for years at a time.