|
Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote: After all, my whole point is, in Windows or Mac you do not need to know command line tools and options or need to install library X in order to get your job done.
That I do not agree with. Nearly all apps you can install through the application managers. And if you do so you'll never need to use any CLI as they'd automatically also download needed libs if those haven't already been installed.
In Windows, such does not happen. If the app didn't include the lib inside of its install EXE/MSI file that lib would not be automatically installed. Rather you might find that an error box is displayed stating you need some lib from somewhere you need to download manually and install before you can install this. Sometimes (if the programmer making the MSI) was thinking about the user, he'd add a link to the download in such case. I do agree that in most cases an MSI would include all its needed libs, but that is wasted space in nearly all instances - just think how many games include the entire DirectX libs in their CD/DVD/download? You only need install it once don't you? Not every single time a new app wants to use it?
That's why I like the Linux method better. The app is just the app itself. No ancillaries and dependencies. The CLI (and the GUI managers) read the app's dependencies, checking if those are already installed, and then include those which aren't for download when you install the app. IMO this makes for the least amount of wasted install bandwidth.
|
|
|
|
|
Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote: So please let me know if there is such an application.
You could try qpdfview[^]. A little new, but what I've heard sounds positive.
|
|
|
|
|
Behzad Sedighzadeh wrote: You know, i think the whole philosophy behind current Linux development is
wrong!
why?
Because it has been prepared from a developer's perspective
not an ordinary user who just wants to set up his environment and start to
work.
Here I'm with you half-way. Most Linuxes are not designed (or even intended) for the average user. But Ubuntu is definately one of those whose philosophy leans more to the: "User is dumb and should be lead by the hand" idea than the CLI-centric distros.
In my experience Ubuntu & Fedora is nearly equal to Windows' "ease of use" for a lay-user. But "when things go wrong" it's actually surpassing the "registry hacks you need to invoke with a cauldron boiling some efluence" to try and "fix" windows without an entire system reformat.
And actually if you download some program to install on Windows, you have either a 5GB file to get or you need to download DotNet 4.5 (or WTF else). So 61MB scares you does it? For libraries which would probably be used by some of the other progs you're installing? Really? You must LOVE updating/upgrading your DotNet packages then!
|
|
|
|
|
1-5 are the same in windows
6 - Gedit ( and Pimp my Gedit[^]
7- Top is good enough for me
8 - Pidgin
If you would like a pre-setup system then you can either save an image or write scripts. It's not that big of a deal.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I agree with the OP with certain things.
I am a Java dev, and think that:
Ubuntu is not that user-friendly as some Linux users want it to be.
Average user does not need to know how to sudo things: Instead, if "he" wanted to install something, a tool similar to Ubuntu Software Center should be used. Something user-friendly, without typing archaic things, with nice graphics and aesthetics.
Install procedure: Already said. In Windows if you need to install something regular, you download the "installer", next next finish. In Ubuntu, it is much more complicated. (compiling things? really?)
There are some customization issues also: That ugly bar (not talking about Kubuntu here) should be replaced, or replaceable if the user doesn't what it. The Ubuntu's "Control Panel" should be more user-friendly.
There should be something equivalent to "Task Manager". I mean, should I open a f****** terminal and execute two or three commands to kill something that has crashed? Which by the way happens more often than expected (unstable set of applications, not entirely Ubuntu developers fault).
Nautilus has some issues, not being capable of renaming files when doing two clicks, among others.
Not supporting NTFS file system as a possible partition for the installation of the OS is something a bit far ahead from what the average user think about, that is just wrong.
Well, now that I discharged myself, I feel a lot better. 
I love how Ubuntu is easier to set initially, with the drivers automatically installed (most of the time) rather than in W7 putting the fu**** disk for each device.
asdsda
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just saying, there's a list like that for ms and apple as well. From what I understood the OP wasn't just listing things that were flawed in Ubuntu as a rant, it was compared to the windows station.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
What you've just said, is one of the most idiotic things i've ever heard...
You don't know what you are talking about.
1. Python, TCL, and g++ are developers tools, where is the "user point of view" there?
2. A tabbed pdf viewer? Most users will be happy with just adobe reader, that the only thing they know, btw.
I don't like ubuntu either, so don't think i'm attacking your opinion, i'm just attacking your arguments.
Saludos!!
____ichr@mm
:wq
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: 1. Python, TCL, and g++ are developers tools, where is the "user point of view" there?
Yeah, exactly, why i should download some developers tools in order to run an application?
You have just highlighted what i'am trying to say.
Behzad
|
|
|
|
|
Run? I thought you were compiling something...
Saludos!!
____ichr@mm
:wq
|
|
|
|
|
For using ns-3 you have to download source code an compile it. for compile you needd g++ and python.
for visual result, you need mercurial and qt to be installed. After downloading mercurial and qt4, there is a commnad line instruction to make the visualization application.For running and displaying result in visualizer app. you have to use a command for runnnig it. Actually it is WAF script that compiles a ns-3 ource code ( in C++ ) and then executes it.
You see how difficult it is for runnnig an application and check the results? 
Behzad
|
|
|
|
|
Is this^ the ns3 package you are looking for?
And I still think an average user doesn't even know what in the hell is ns3.
Saludos!!
____ichr@mm
:wq
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it all depends on the needs of the user and how the OS supplies their needs. If you still dependent on Windows apps and workflow to work, then you will need it and what comes with it. As a programmer I have been able to replace large amounts of my workflow with Linux, and I still depend on Win for other needs. If you are used to using Visual Studio, you are not going to be happy with Linux. I do not develop native Windows apps - so that is why my workflow is different. I have turned on many people who use their PC's for consumption only, onto Linux Mint or Ubuntu and they are very happy. Not everyone is a programmer. They can not mess it up very easy, especially if they have no use for the command line. I get less help calls, than I do with torched Win installs from the people I know. Every one is different as are their needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Ubuntu is a great OS for the average user. Most people's needs are simple. They want a web browser, email (although many just use a web page to access), store/view/edit photos. A few more need/want a word processor or a spreadsheet. All of these things are available easily and free.
Why wouldn't you want to use it? well..
If you NEED any software made by Microsoft.
If you NEED any other software not developed for linux. (although many of these can be made to work, it is not guaranteed)
Most do not have these needs, they just want something that works. It does work and works quite well. (even on older sub-par machines that tend to choke if running windows)
My kids have been using Ubuntu for years. The free software available has exposed them to programs and ideas that I, as a parent, could never afford to offer them in a windows environment. (not to mention that they can do it all themselves and viruses just are not an issue)
Lastly, If something isn't available for linux, yes you can make it. (just need the will to learn)
If something isn't available on windows, good luck, hope some commercial company sees the need to write and release something on windows. (or you could make it, given even more time, money, headache, heartache, ...)
Ready for the desktop? I think it is. It certainly is in a home environment. It could be seen as lacking for the purposes of an office but that is mostly due to most offices using Microsoft products.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and its too bad. Linux desktop is great for development, for embedded apps , for servers and any place that is the realm of geeks. but forget any kind of SMB apps.
There are no bad-guy marketing weenines forcing the Linux devs to make something useful to a larger part of the population. If there were the penguinistas would all quit and work on a port of vms.
|
|
|
|
|
They have been threatening the year of Linux for 15+ years. Never gonna happen. OTOH EVERY year seems to be the year of the Linux vs. Windows argument! Yawn...
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: You know, i think the whole philosophy behind current Linux development is wrong!
You are absolutely right. If any linux distro wanted to be common it should be designed user friendly, easy to install with no other dependancy issues, hidden package management, no unimportant messaging.
Each application should have some commonality for user to access. At least packages should be chosen to do so...
Some flexibility and configurability can be sacrificed for this.
Linux developpers may look into other more user friendly OS'es ie,Win7, MacOS, MacOS X etc..
Edit
I forgot The language support.. It should support many languages spoken arroud the world... NOT the UI but also applications..
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused. Have you tried the GUI based package installers / managers? It sounds as if you only used CLI. While most Linux guru's tend to advise using the CLI it's not a prerequisite - it's just that they find it more powerful / robust / easy / efficient.
IMO most (if not all) the stuff a lay user would need on these (more GUI oriented) Linuxes can be done without ever opening a console. All the install managers I've seen has a very good search box to list available apps by simply typing in a portion of their name / description, and most list using a structured folder grouping for even easier search. If you can't find it in that, then it's usually a case of you needing to add another repo to the search list, which can be done through CLI, but (again) all the managers have such available through a settings dialog instead of requiring you to open a console.
It's true that nothing's perfect in any system (Win/Mac/Linux/BSD/Unix/etc.etc.etc.) I've always found some "yes-but" situation in all that I've ever used. But in Linux the failure to install (I've found, or difficulty to install) is always a situation of downloading some RPM/DEB/other file manually and trying to install that. You know ... like you do for Windows? But if you install direct from a repo through the manager, such issues are usually non-existent as the repo's tend to have tried-and-tested packages for your particular Linux.
E.g. one program I needed in Linux was simply not installing properly. BricsCAD was not working smoothly with Fedora 64bit's libraries, and I then needed to go fiddle with lots of CLI. See the forum thread about that: http://www.bricsys.com/common/support/forumthread.jsp?id=18407[^]
On the other hand, ever tried getting QuickLisp working properly through any Lisp interpreter/compiler (except Clozure) on Windows - and then to also integrate its REPL into your editor? It becomes one heck of a pain if you don't start off with something like LispBox. On Linux it's a perfect breeze to install any one of a number of Lisps and get it working correctly with your editor of choice - usually nothing more than a check-box to click in the package managers.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I would agree with you on some things, I disagree on Notepadd++. I use it all the time on Linux. Most distros are coming with WINE pre-installed - not that its tough to install. All you need to do is download Notepad++ (Windows version) and open it up and install it, just as you would on Windows. It is not a big deal. It defaults are much the same as on Windows.
My beef with Ubuntu came in 11.04 when they had their version of a "Metro" desktop - Unity bites it! They still have problems supporting Broadcom wireless and, I just put it on a jump drive (16GB) and can't get a Linksys adapter to connect (even though NDIS installed the .inf file). Fortunately, I have a Netgear adapter and it connects just fine, but the internal Broadcom, fuhgedaboutit.
|
|
|
|
|
"... a novice shooter holds one and takes aim at a target 500 yards away. Normally it takes years of practice to hit something at that distance. But this shooter nails it on the first try." [^]
"The rifle's scope features a sophisticated color graphics display. ... The rifle has a built-in laser range finder, a ballistics computer and a Wi-Fi transmitter to stream live video and audio to a nearby iPad. Every shot is recorded so it can be replayed, or posted to YouTube or Facebook."
Uh-oh.
yours, Bill
“Humans are amphibians: half spirit, half animal; as spirits they belong to the eternal world; as animals they inhabit time. While their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imagination are in continual change, for to be in time, means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy is undulation: repeated return to a level from which they repeatedly fall back, a series of troughs and peaks.” C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Normally it takes years of practice to hit something at that distance
Really? In the first weeks of basic training they had us shooting at targets 400 m (= 437 yards) away. The rifles were older than us at that time and we joked that they could shoot around corners. Good that we did not kbow we would need years of practice back then 
Sent from my BatComputer via HAL 9000 and M5
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: In the first weeks of basic training they had us shooting at targets 400 m
I thought the same thing when I read the linked article.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: The rifles were older than us at that time and we joked that they could shoot around corners. Good that we did not kbow we would need years of practice back then
That's no kidding I qualified with an M14.
|
|
|
|
|
Ours were G3A3[^] from the early 1960s. They (hopefully) have found their way into a blast furnace by now.
Sent from my BatComputer via HAL 9000 and M5
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure they're similar, it was the standard issue U.S. rifle from 1959 to 1970.
|
|
|
|
|
The same caliber, standard NATO 7.62 x 51. but there the similarities probably end. Still, in case of real trouble I would still want to have something that uses this caliber instead of that modern stuff and a G36 Lego rifle.
Sent from my BatComputer via HAL 9000 and M5
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
