[H-GEN] LINUX GAZETTE ARTICLE

Fri Aug 7 10:22:07 EDT 1998

I had to install Win95 a little while ago. I duly took notes, and intended
to write a rant at the time, but by the time I got home I was a touch
too zonked to be bothered. And the mood passed.

This seemed the perfect opportunity to reuse that experience in the
carthartic manner for which mailing lists are so useful.

Martin's already covered the philosophical points raised by the article,
so if I may delve into the shallows of technical detail that were
provided...

On Thu, Aug 06, 1998 at 05:43:53PM +1000, Frank Brand wrote:
[something, then forwarded the following on...]

> I like Linux thus far. But I never mistake what I like with that is
> simpler for the average person out there to use. Linux is as user
> friendly as a hurled brick.

It's a cute line, but it's not particularly accurate.

I've had very few hurled bricks describe what they're doing as they
pulverize my face in, and even less offer me profuse warnings as they
do it. Nor have I ever seen a hurled brick with any sort of useful
documentation, and nor have I ever seen a hurled brick come with the
promise that if you liked this hurled brick, you're permitted and
encouraged to hurl your own bricks.

> Installing Linux puts you at a $ or # prompt
> with no clue of where to go afterwards. 

That's crap.

The Debian install puts you at a "login: " prompt, after about ten lines
explaining what you've got to login as.

It then asks some more configuration questions, and asks you to enter a
password and, iirc, create a normal user, explaining why these are Good
Things.

> I'm a Novell CNE with many years
> experience working with PCs and networks, so I'm not daunted by a
> non-intuitive prompt.

As opposed to `C:\>'.

Forgive me while I scoff, but `intuitive prompt' is pretty much an
oxymoron.

You want intuitive? Buy a Mac, or get a book.

> And I already had a WIN95 machine set up so I
> could access the net, download the truly excellent Linux Journal online,
> and get support on how to install RPMs, etc. Had that not been the case,
> however, I'd have been hard pressed to iron our the wrinkles in my
> install, or to know which files to edit, or programs to run, to do basic
> configuration. 

Ummm.

Didn't you, like, have a book?

Forgive me, but buying a CD and hoping that you'll be able to just try
out this Linux thing without thinking any further just strikes me as
totally naive. 

I bought a copy of Matt Welsh's _Running Linux_ from McGills,
personally. It covered everything from compiling kernels, to using X,
running Emacs, and whatever. It was plenty to get me up and running.
I wouldn't recommend that book in particular, but something like it is,
IMO, a must have for starting out with Linux.

But if you're going to try to just stick in the CD and hope, well...
Have fun.

> By comparison, win95 starts off in the gui mode, allowing
> for rather intuitive productivity immediately. 

Either:
	a) Sure. It does. Coz someone else already set it up for you.
	   Get someone to do the same with Linux, *then* compare.

or	b) Ummm. Not really, no. Sure, once you've installed it, you're
	   in a gui, but it's not exactly productive. Unless you *like*
	   editing with notepad. No, you've got to first go and get your
	   Office CD and install that. Then you've got to go and get your
	   Outlook CD and install that. Then miscellaneous application
	   one. Then miscellaneous application two. And so on.

I will, at least, grant you that having the install ask you if you'd
like xdm run at startup would be nice. I don't think Debian does this,
but I could be wrong.

> And yes, I agree...it IS
> less stable. But crashing once a week (and I don't, by the way... I
> applied the service pack to it, and I am very stable) is still far
> better than not being able to even find out how to connect to the net.

And, if we're trading experiences and calling them arguments, getting
a # prompt is still far better than not being able to get past the
"Do you agree to this license?" question.

Perhaps I should explain.

When I was installing Win95, I stuck the disk in, and tried booting.
It didn't work, of course, because the CD-ROM was drive E: not D:, and
the install script got confused. I could cope with that though, and
things proceeded quite nicely.

Right until it cleared the MBR. Or, rather, tried to clear it.

You see, unbeknownst to me, and it, the BIOS on that motherboard has
virus detection facilities. When something questionable happens, it
pops up a little 30x10 window in the middle of your 80x25 screen, and
asks you if it's okay.

Not in Windows it doesn't, though. In Windows it crashes the system.

Now, had Windows told me what it was doing, I could've tracked this
down instantly, and not had a problem.

But Windows *never* tells you what it's doing. Ever.

So I'm left, doing the traditional ``Oh. It didn't work. Maybe if I
reboot and try again it will.'' crap.

Fortunately, I eventually twigged to what was going on, and changed
the BIOS settings.

But intuitive? Productive?

My foot.

> When Linux finishes installing, you're left with a # prompt. When WIN95
> finishes installing, you've a fairly intuitive GUI that allows you to
> quickly and easily install and run programs, connect to the net, and
> **apply updates without re-compiling the kernel**.

*Oh* *my* *god*!

And this time it's not even a cute catchphrase, it's just plain wrong.

You no longer *ever* have to recompile the kernel. [at least with Debian,
and presuming any moderately normal situation. RedHat should be the same
in principle, but I wouldn't know]

It's far *better* to, because the kernel is just plain important, and if
you can customise that for your system, well, that's good.

You no longer *ever* have to recompile the kernel. [at least with Debian,
and presuming any moderately normal situation. RedHat should be the same
in principle, but I wouldn't know]

[and as far as laptop's go, I might point out that your average laptop
has a specialised version of Windows for a reason. No, you don't get
to recompile it, but it is a recompiled version. Granted, once again,
that Linux vendors should make precompiled kernels for anything that
needs them available]

But both Debian and Red Hat have standard kernels that you can just
install and forget for most configurations, especially with modules.

And in any case, apart from recompiling to enable masquerading, I've
never once had to recompile to add features.

But what am I doing. I'm rambling about points not even under discussion.

Quickly and easily install and run programs?

But until MS has anything even remotely resembling dpkg or rpm, the
above is simply ignorant nonsense.

That's even *without* mentioning apt.

(who? me? dismissive? ha! :)

Now, I *know* that Linux simply isn't as well developed in some areas
as Windows.

And I realise that there are applications which just don't have any
Linux counterparts.

I even realise that in a lot of cases that the benefit of using a
Linux based system is more than outweighed by the costs of retraining,
and reinstallation.

FWIW, personally, I'm at the point where I'd never recommend anything
other than Debian GNU/Linux for just about anything you'd call a server,
but I'd still be loathe to suggest it as a desktop for anyone not in the
CS industry.

If there's one thing Windows does manage to get right, it's arranging
itself so you never need to think particularly carefully about what
you're doing.

For odd values of "right".

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

Remember to breathe.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 434 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.humbug.org.au/pipermail/general/attachments/19980808/326fb1ca/attachment.sig>