Dann's blog about linux myths

[hellonorman]

I find it easier to read the writing on the planet techshow page and respond here. I just find the look of Dann's blog hard to read, if this is not appropriate here let me know.

Whether I agree with Dann or not I generally enjoy when he shares his point of view because there is usually some thought that has gone into forming the opinion. I'm a little baffled by his first two linux myth writings. Who is the intended audience for these? Who are you trying to persuade? Where do I find evidence that linux being hard to install is current pervasive myth?

I agreed with the basic sentiment of the first post that installing any OS is probably too much for any general user. I wasn't sure exactly who was disagreeing with that sentiment in the first place to prompt a myth debunking but I agreed with the sentiment none the less.

Now comes the second post about installation. Ok wait a minute. Where exactly are all these people screaming that an ubuntu install is harder than anything else? Where are you getting these "myths" from? Is this just preaching to the choir or are you trying to persuade a technical user familiar with OS installs?

I found the scenario of sitting in front of a white box with only an install disc pretty artificial. I think technical users either know already or find out the majority of the hardware first.

I have a problem with the premise that installation difficulty is still a myth to begin with. Are technical users really complaining about getting through an ubuntu install?

[adragontattoo]

I just came back to using linux at home after a good year +hiatus (I still use and support it at work). I have XP loaded on almost the identical rig next to my linux box.

Athlon X2 3800
4gb PC3200
1 500gb PATA (/home)
1 160gb PATA (/, etc)
Razer Barracuda sound card
Epox 9NPA+ motherboard
Hauppage 150
Evga Nvidia 8800 gts
Sony? DVD-RW/CD-R
on a 19" WS LCD.

Kubuntu install:

I originally did NOT want to use 8.04 Kubuntu, and downloaded 6.04.

Wouldnt install even in text install version
started moving up versions until finally 8.04 enabled me to get a text installer that worked..

set up the partitions and let it go...

3 hours later I am still trying to beat on the box to figure out why it keeps getting a random error.

Reboot, toss in Win2k and delete ALL partitions
reboot, toss 8.04 back in and the install finally goes off. Run through the updates and add ssh among other things. 2 days later the rig is completely crippled once you log in. I to this day have no clue what I did to break it that bad but I had to completely reinstall it once again and now it works. SSH shows up in services, SSH functions correctly, no issues have been found.

XP install:

install, set drives, go.
scramble around looking for drivers that I forgot to download ahead of time, system unable to access the net to download drivers, have to use work laptop to pull needed drivers off the web.
Change drive letters around to suit, change docs path to go to 500gb.
realize that XP installed to the E: drive which causes issues with many programs..
pop case, unplug ALL but DVD drive and single HDD.
Reinstall XP
fight through driver issues again.
shut system down and reconnect all drives.
power system back on and begin update process.
agree to let WGA check to make sure I didnt steal the copy of XP that has been loaded on this machine for the past 2 years.
agree to verify
agree that I want to install DRM...

Between the two of those, Linux was MUCH easier to install. I started with almost all the drivers and a single update plus a few checks installed the missing Nvidia driver.

Regardless of FOSS in place of certain pay for play programs, Linux is easier to install overall in 99% of the situations.

Hell tonight I am setting up a small software based raided fileserver.

[Patrick]

Maybe it's your motherboard? Have you tried using the alternate installer CD? You may need to disable APCI at the boot prompt. You can always try Debian. Debian will literally install on everything from a paper clip to a super cluster.

[adragontattoo]

Maybe it's your motherboard? Have you tried using the alternate installer CD? You may need to disable APCI at the boot prompt. You can always try Debian. Debian will literally install on everything from a paper clip to a super cluster.

With the reinstall everything seemed to work fine.

The botched installs may have corrupted something and deleting them with the win2k disc may have fixed it I dont know..

I do know that ALL toolbars were "locked" so you couldnt use them, couldnt click on them in any way. The desktop wouldnt allow you to create a new toolbar, among many other things.

I may try debian next. I also keep debating on wasting a week of my life and installing Gentoo on a P4 2.8 with 512mb of RAM to see what happens.

[dann]

I find it easier to read the writing on the planet techshow page and respond here. I just find the look of Dann's blog hard to read, if this is not appropriate here let me know.

Whether I agree with Dann or not I generally enjoy when he shares his point of view because there is usually some thought that has gone into forming the opinion. I'm a little baffled by his first two linux myth writings. Who is the intended audience for these? Who are you trying to persuade? Where do I find evidence that linux being hard to install is current pervasive myth?

Actually it is more of a way for me to organize my thoughts. The audience is anyone who wants to read it, especially those who comment or voice an opinion.

I agreed with the basic sentiment of the first post that installing any OS is probably too much for any general user. I wasn't sure exactly who was disagreeing with that sentiment in the first place to prompt a myth debunking but I agreed with the sentiment none the less.

The point was that we hear over and over again that Linux is not for the general user. Maybe I did not make this clear enough. One of the primary reasons given for Linux not being for the general user has to do with the installation. I was challenging what I feel is the myth that "Linux is too hard for the general user because it would be beyond the ability of most general users to install Linux." The point I was making was that regardless the OS, the general user would have a difficult time installing the OS. Thus, to base the statement that Linux is not ready for the general user because Linux is too hard for the general user to install is, in my opinion, invalid. I argue that all operating systems are too difficult for the general user to install and thus the criteria that Linux is not for the general user because it is too difficult for the general user to install would have to be applied to Windows and OS X also. Thus, Windows and OS X would not be suited for the general user because they are too difficult for the general user to install. In summation, this argument is not a valid reason to propose that Linux is not ready for the general user.

Now comes the second post about installation. Ok wait a minute. Where exactly are all these people screaming that an ubuntu install is harder than anything else? Where are you getting these "myths" from? Is this just preaching to the choir or are you trying to persuade a technical user familiar with OS installs?

Again, this is stuff I have heard over and over for the past few years. It is more a reaction of the "I tried to install Linux but this did not work or that did not work and thus it is not ready for prime time." Or the "Why can't Linux work like Windows did with my wireless card." Or "I did not have these problems when installing Windows." The point is that regardless the OS of choice there are going to be success and failures. It will either work or it doesn't. When it works, man that is great. When it does not it's a big ball of suck.

I found the scenario of sitting in front of a white box with only an install disc pretty artificial. I think technical users either know already or find out the majority of the hardware first.

The smart ones do, but there are a lot of people out there who do not. Comb the forums and such. There are a lot of "I have no sound or my wireless networking is broken" followed by "What sound card or wireless card do you have" and so on.

I have a problem with the premise that installation difficulty is still a myth to begin with. Are technical users really complaining about getting through an ubuntu install?

And because you voice your opinion is why I value it.

[jturning]

One other issue to consider is how much time does it take to configure the systems for your use after you get it installed. I spent a lot more time configuring XP for my use then it took for me to setup this laptop with Fedora 9. With XP you have to hunt down all the drivers, special software, and apps you need, then download and install them one by one. Windows usually requires far more updating to get current as well. The only driver hurdle with Fedora 9 was this Broadcom wireless, but b43-fwcutter took care of it quickly. Using the package manager YUM I then installed all the codecs, fonts, video driver and apps I needed effortlessly. There are also some quality tutorials online to assist with getting a Linux system going after install for those not very knowledgeable. Being fair, the installation and setup of XP is more time consuming and difficult in my experience.

Bugz

[eddie]

Forgive me if this is already mentioned. When installing xp, you also have to consider the one zillion reboots and additional time downloading and installing the antivirus, registry cleaner, spyware cleaner, openoffice and other programs which do not come with xp to be a working system. Where i used to work we used to use our own generic ghost images to make installs quicker and easier. Granted the average user will not be doing that but it could be easily done by an oem or even microsoft itself. In fact it can be done with linux also. I used to do dual boot systems (winxp/linux) that way where I used to work. Then I could go back using batch files and a machine's ip address to remotely automate any changes that needed to be made such as changing the system name. Now they only do windows images and use a virtual machine to run linux. With the advent of iscsi with gpxe, virtual machine clients, and faster networking pipes, I predict that traditional os installation may be a thing of the past anyway except for main servers.. I would hate for that to happen though. I love having control over my own equipment. I tried to download the latest lfs just in case.

[eddie]

Forgive me if this is already mentioned. When installing xp, you also have to consider the one zillion reboots and additional time downloading and installing the antivirus, registry cleaner, spyware cleaner, openoffice and other programs which do not come with xp to be a working system. Where i used to work we used to use our own generic ghost images to make installs quicker and easier. Granted the average user will not be doing that but it could be easily done by an oem or even microsoft itself. In fact it can be done with linux also. I used to do dual boot systems (winxp/linux) that way where I used to work. Then I could go back using batch files and a machine's ip address to remotely automate any changes that needed to be made such as changing the system name. Now they only do windows images and use a virtual machine to run linux. With the advent of iscsi with gpxe, virtual machine clients, and faster networking pipes, Renting or leasing an os may become the norm. I predict that traditional os installation may be a thing of the past anyway except for main servers.. I would hate for that to happen though. I love having control over my own equipment. I try to download the latest lfs just in case.

[hellonorman]

The point was that we hear over and over again that Linux is not for the general user. Maybe I did not make this clear enough. One of the primary reasons given for Linux not being for the general user has to do with the installation.

There is a distinction to be made in regards to installation. There is loading the OS from the install disk to the hard drive. Then there is the application and driver issue.

You spend an awful lot of time talking about the experience of using an OS install cd. I don't think you've shown that anyone is really talking about the install cd as the premise for your myth. I think a technical user is going to have no problems with sticking any of the three install cd's and getting to the point of booting off the hard drive.

I see people complaining about application and driver issues but I don't see people complaining about the install disc experience. This is why I have a problem with your myth premise and the bulk of your two posts dealing with the disc experience.

It is more a reaction of the "I tried to install Linux but this did not work or that did not work and thus it is not ready for prime time." Or the "Why can't Linux work like Windows did with my wireless card."

Those sound more like specific complaints about driver or application issues than the os disc install experience.

The point is that regardless the OS of choice there are going to be success and failures. It will either work or it doesn't. When it works, man that is great. When it does not it's a big ball of suck.

I would agree with this. But I don't think it's a myth that most people will find their hardware will work and work fully on windows.



Dann I just found your first two posts lacked some focus. I think that not having an intended audience contributed to the lack of focus. I don't intend anything mean spirited here that's just my take on them.

[LinuxMint-4]

I have only a few computers that I had issues with installing some form of Linux.

Chembook 6133 laptop 395 Mhz 160 MB Ram.

Would not install Xubuntu with the Text installer. Vector Linux 5.8 and DSL worked. I think this laptop is damaged...lol Did not try Fluxbuntu or Icebuntu yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chembook 5033 laptop 400 Mhz 64 MB Ram.

Cannot install and run Fluxbuntu, Icebuntu, Vector Linux Light, could not boot the Deli Linux Disc so could not try that either. DSL did install fine. I ordered some more ram to see if the problem will clear up. Could not run Puppy...go figure.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LXI computer desktop, 100 Mhz 128 MB Ram. While Xubuntu (amazingly) did install, the mouse did not worked. Worked fine with DSL and ran Puppy fine. Need to try other distros on this machine. Pretty ancient by todays standards.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G3 B & W Mac tower. Yellow Dog installed, took a loong time to download the OS and burn the FIVE CDs and install it...my efforts ended up with a blank screen upon boot. Ubuntu/Xubuntu for PPC installed fine. Yellow Dog did however work with a iMac G3 .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Omnibook 5700 A worthless laptop in my opinion. It can't boot from CD-ROM, has odd proprietary RAM, 133 Mhz 48 Ram. While I got Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98 to run on this POS. I tried the "transplant" method of taking the hard drive out, installing DSL Linux on a "surrogate" laptop and re transplanted to the the Omnibook 5700. DSL booted and the desktop has those thin squiggly lines (unusable) and the mouse don't work with the PS/2 mouse or the built in mouse. Save yourself time and trouble...stay away from this POS. I find it insulting to me that Windows can be installed on this and Linux (so far) can't.

(Someone on the Ubuntu Forums claimed to put DSL on a 486 16 MB Ram using the transplant method. Here I have 48 MB and can't get the mouse or desktop to work. When I have more time I will try to tweak it to make it work. )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the positive note, while Ubuntu seems to take awhile to install, the installation is very easy. I noticed that Linux Mint seems faster to install, Freespire seems to be even faster. DSL Linux only takes some 10 minutes to install. (I used that You Tube Video tutorial for the quick commandline method).

Linux Mint 4.0 verses Windows XP Home. Same computer, dual boot. Windows took a bit longer to install than Mint. But with the updates and tweaks the Windows install took three times longer than Mint. Windows could not find the built in audio card and the LAN. Mint found both with no problem. Winner was Linux Mint 4.0 hands down.

Ubuntu 8.04 LTS on a Vista laptop (dual boot). Vista despite all its faults has a great built in and pain free partitioner. Took like 5 minutes to create free space. Installed Ubuntu 8.04 in about 25 minutes. Another five minutes for the wireless (once I found the proper command line script for the Atheros 5007). Definably runs much faster than Vista with much less RAM usage. Wireless works great. Only complaint was the damned "updates" killed the wireless and add/remove...which I restored easily.

Generally I found all Ubuntu variants the easiest to install, I always use the text installer whenever possible. Always burn the ISO using Nero on my XP machine using the slowest speed with good to avaerage CD media.

Yea I have a lot of computers...thanks to all the great deals on E-Bay...

[eddie]

I have seen ms certified people having trouble installing windows on machines that were not windows certified. But then again I have seen that happen on machines that were. On a known quality of a pc, linux should load like a duck to water.The issue is getting over analyzed.

[dann]

There is a distinction to be made in regards to installation. There is loading the OS from the install disk to the hard drive. Then there is the application and driver issue.

When I consider the installation of an OS I consider it the process from putting the disc in to getting a fully functional system that includes the hardware working. So yes that means configuration.

You spend an awful lot of time talking about the experience of using an OS install cd. I don't think you've shown that anyone is really talking about the install cd as the premise for your myth. I think a technical user is going to have no problems with sticking any of the three install cd's and getting to the point of booting off the hard drive.

The first myth was talking about the general user, not the technical user. The second myth focused more on the technical user. Again, just because you have technical experience using a computer or a specific os does not mean that technical experience is going to translate well to a different os. Following the directions during the installation is not at all difficult. I am speaking on the entire installation process from disc in to configured system with hardware working. I will admit I take it one step further and admit that when the ubuntu disc is finished loading, aside from any hardware configuration that I may have to do I have a very usable system, unlike Windows where there is not much to use there and requires a lot more software to be installed in order to protect the machine.

I see people complaining about application and driver issues but I don't see people complaining about the install disc experience. This is why I have a problem with your myth premise and the bulk of your two posts dealing with the disc experience.

It is more a reaction of the "I tried to install Linux but this did not work or that did not work and thus it is not ready for prime time." Or the "Why can't Linux work like Windows did with my wireless card."

Those sound more like specific complaints about driver or application issues than the os disc install experience.

But that is part of the installation process - the configuration of the the hardware.

The point is that regardless the OS of choice there are going to be success and failures. It will either work or it doesn't. When it works, man that is great. When it does not it's a big ball of suck.

I would agree with this. But I don't think it's a myth that most people will find their hardware will work and work fully on windows.

I don't think I argued against that point. If you have the driver disk or you know enough information about the device to pull the driver down from the manufacturer's website then you are in luck. If not, it's a pain to find this information out in Windows without running some special utility or disassembling the system and looking at the device in question. That is why I said whitebox and not Dell or HP. Dell or HP make it easy for you to get the drivers you need for windows through their website so long as you know the model number of the system in question. Sure, they are providing more and more linux information too. But if you are using a Dell or HP chances are you have a restore disc and that is another topic all together.

[hellonorman]

When I consider the installation of an OS I consider it the process from putting the disc in to getting a fully functional system that includes the hardware working. So yes that means configuration.


The first myth was talking about the general user, not the technical user. The second myth focused more on the technical user. Again, just because you have technical experience using a computer or a specific os does not mean that technical experience is going to translate well to a different os. Following the directions during the installation is not at all difficult. I am speaking on the entire installation process from disc in to configured system with hardware working. I will admit I take it one step further and admit that when the ubuntu disc is finished loading, aside from any hardware configuration that I may have to do I have a very usable system, unlike Windows where there is not much to use there and requires a lot more software to be installed in order to protect the machine.

But that is part of the installation process - the configuration of the the hardware.


I don't think I argued against that point. If you have the driver disk or you know enough information about the device to pull the driver down from the manufacturer's website then you are in luck. If not, it's a pain to find this information out in Windows without running some special utility or disassembling the system and looking at the device in question. That is why I said whitebox and not Dell or HP. Dell or HP make it easy for you to get the drivers you need for windows through their website so long as you know the model number of the system in question. Sure, they are providing more and more linux information too. But if you are using a Dell or HP chances are you have a restore disc and that is another topic all together.

If that is the case then I just find your arguments weak and your premise faulty. First of all I hear people complaining about configuration issues. If someone complains that they installed linux and their wireless card doesn't work, I don't think that translates to your myths about installing in general. The real complaint there is that there is buggy or non-existent drivers for the hardware. So right off the bat I find that your myths aren't true.

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 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.

[jturning]

If that is the case then I just find your arguments weak and your premise faulty. First of all I hear people complaining about configuration issues. If someone complains that they installed linux and their wireless card doesn't work, I don't think that translates to your myths about installing in general. The real complaint there is that there is buggy or non-existent drivers for the hardware. So right off the bat I find that your myths aren't true.

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 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 disagree, Dann made his point. Because of the hard work of people in the Linux community the Linux driver issue is shrinking. I'm now using the community driver for my Broadcom wireless chip on this laptop as an example. That's compared to using ndiswrapper previously. And Broadcom has to be the worst offender for not supporting Linux. For most people using desktop PCs they can install and go without much fuss. I've never had to mess with a desktop Linux system after install myself except proprietary video drivers.

There are a lot of ways to buy a computer which won't necessarily give you driver discs for Windows, i.e. bargain and used systems....

And an extra hour to setup an XP machine? Hardly. I spent several hours setting up my last XP machine. It took forever just to update Windows and Office not to mention how much longer the install was, and then to download and install each program I needed. There are a lot of drivers I had to get for windows I never mess with in Linux, i.e. my HP printer, USB to serial adapters.... A properly setup Linux system can be done in less than half the time easily. In the time to setup an XP machine I could install and setup three Linux systems, so factor in a couple upgrades if I choose and I'm still good on time invested.

And that's a myth that the windows system will last years and Linux system won't. The only reason to install a new version of Linux is because you choose too, and not because you have to. I'd bet you'll be forced to re-install XP sooner or later because it gets owned or starts to slow down because your registry has grown large. This is your favorite myth I see, as you've used it before and keep using it even though it is not true.

And about re-installing to get upgrades. With XP you'll be downloading separately each program, installing, and possibly paying to get upgrades. That's if you're aware they're available and needed. Linux makes upgrading packages and staying ahead of security vulnerabilities much easier with package management systems. This is going off topic but worth hitting upon because the newest vector for XP exploits is in third party applications.

I'll offer one last observation from observing your posts in several threads, and that is I think you're a troll. You hang around here with your same lame Windows arguments, and keep stoking the fire. You say a lot of things that just aren't true. You keep picking at what other people say. In case you haven't noticed, this is a forum for a Linux podcast. So you should go hang out on the TWIT network in whatever forum they have for Windows Weekly if you prefer Windows. I'm personally going to ignore you going forward. Everyone else would be wise to do the same.

Bugz

[hellonorman]

I disagree, Dann made his point. Because of the hard work of people in the Linux community the Linux driver issue is shrinking. I'm now using the community driver for my Broadcom wireless chip on this laptop as an example. That's compared to using ndiswrapper previously. And Broadcom has to be the worst offender for not supporting Linux. For most people using desktop PCs they can install and go without much fuss. I've never had to mess with a desktop Linux system after install myself except proprietary video drivers.

You disagree with what? That his myths aren't true or his arguments are weak?

What Dann did was take complaints about drivers and applications and cloak those problems in a myth about installation. He then proceeded to barely touch on the those problems and talk mostly about the install disc experience, which isn't what people complain about. He also had to create a white box of mystery scenario for his arguments.

I thought it might have been just a lack of focus in his thoughts. But he confirmed that it was his intention.

There are a lot of ways to buy a computer which won't necessarily give you driver discs for Windows, i.e. bargain and used systems....

A general user won't have one. A technical user will find out the hardware. For the rare case that a box is truly a white box of mystery. The subject is a so called universal myth not some fringe cases.

And an extra hour to setup an XP machine? Hardly. I spent several hours setting up my last XP machine. It took forever just to update Windows and Office not to mention how much longer the install was, and then to download and install each program I needed. There are a lot of drivers I had to get for windows I never mess with in Linux, i.e. my HP printer, USB to serial adapters.... A properly setup Linux system can be done in less than half the time easily. In the time to setup an XP machine I could install and setup three Linux systems, so factor in a couple upgrades if I choose and I'm still good on time invested.

I said an hour because I thought I had read that number in Dann's posts. But of course the actual number is not the point. The point is that an xp install is going to last longer so more time up front is insignificant.

And that's a myth that the windows system will last years and Linux system won't. The only reason to install a new version of Linux is because you choose too, and not because you have to. I'd bet you'll be forced to re-install XP sooner or later because it gets owned or starts to slow down because your registry has grown large. This is your favorite myth I see, as you've used it before and keep using it even though it is not true.

Is that right? I wonder how many people are still using warty. I think not many. Most people don't reinstall their windows operating system very often.
Do you really want to compare how many people are using a 3 or 4 year old install of windows compared to those using a 3 or 4 year old linux distro? Even on a percentage basis?

I'll offer one last observation from observing your posts in several threads, and that is I think you're a troll. You hang around here with your same lame Windows arguments, and keep stoking the fire. You say a lot of things that just aren't true. You keep picking at what other people say. In case you haven't noticed, this is a forum for a Linux podcast. So you should go hang out on the TWIT network in whatever forum they have for Windows Weekly if you prefer Windows. I'm personally going to ignore you going forward. Everyone else would be wise to do the same.

I'll offer an observation about you. You are more interested in revolution than logic. You don't really consider the arguments I make.


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.

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've used linux for many years. I am not a windows fanboy. But I've come to some conclusions about whether open source on the desktop has worked or will work. What I choose to do is occasionally challenge linux users to back up what they say, to see if they have actually thought through some of the issues they take for granted.

I get responses like the one from someone who doesn't even know how an xp upgrade disc works telling me I need to get a clue. And people like you calling me a troll.

If you want to ignore me. Go ahead. You don't offer much in terms of logical thought anyway.