I don't get this obsession with computer users having to learn more in order to use software. Shouldn't it be the other way round? "Let's make the OS as hard as possible so people have to learn how it works in order to use it." ?? Are you guys the same people who were anti-Macintosh back in the DOS days? Hasn't that argument already failed?

I shouldn't have to know how an engine works to drive my car, and I shouldn't have to know how my computer works to use it.

And I don't just mean grannie users- the same goes for technical people like myself- I shouldn't have to know the command line call to make my OS utilize my motherboard's AGP slot in order to administer my linux webserver.

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter. Really all Linux products are more sophisticated than any M$. If you pick up a hardware problem look at the log file it'll tell you what the problem is. If it fails in M$ (which it does regularly) you have a big problem because you have no idea what's going on. A simple thing like a network card. If the you get the drivers for Linux and it works, it stays working. If it stops working you know the likely reason is that the card probably failed. The syslog will tell you that it's not working. M$ plug 'n play works some of the time. This is great while it's working. Every 6 months when it stops working either means you have to spend some money for support to sort your system out or you learn how to re-install M$.
Me, I started with Apple before IBM made the first PC. I loved them but they were very expensive. DOS was really great because by learning some basic programming you could develop some personal stuff for yourself. Now all gone with XP.

If you know the basics about how your car works you will be a better driver and the mechanicals would be in better condition and your maintenance costs lower. Same for Linux. The system works and stays working requiring less outside technical assistance and therefore cheaper running costs.

I'm not arguing against linux, I'm arguing against debian. But while we're on the subject- "every 6 months when it stops working" ??? I've run win2k for three years with no problems whatsoever, and I'm doing all kinds of stuff- apps and peripherals, etc. I don't know any windows users who have problems every six months. A bit of an exaggeration there don't you think.

Everything you said is to the virtues of linux, not debian linux. I agree with all of that. I'm not arguing against linux, I never have. The problem with debian compaired to other distros is that it forces me to learn because if it's inadequacies. It's that "force" part that's the problem.

How about you get a distro that forces you to code the kernel by hand in assembly, from scratch, in order to install it. Hey, you'd learn a lot. You'd need "less outside technical assistance" to fix problems.

theres no to argue.

suse- to much nonstandard stuff, ruined after kernel,org kernel update
gentoo- n full install images around...
all other not fully gnu compliant
beginners mandrake -like rpm hell
advanced slackware (fine running after 18 min) -like gnome devel hell , even dropline-gnome wasnt a help, interfered with kde
now migrating to sarge+sid , no more such hells except dselect
and all free sw on many cds

y
tom

And that is even easily fixable.

I am having a really hard time following this guy's problem with debian. He seems to take every little bug, and blow it out of proportion, or take the fact that its a wee bit on the "Diffrent" side, and turn that against it. It seems to me, that by his logic, FreeBSD would be the freaking antichrist.

Would you guys stop this argument please?

This is a place where people help each other rather than fighting against each other.
Besides, there is even no point to have a fight on distros because no one is FORCED to use any Linux distros. As I said, linux is all about free options.

If you have any questions in using debian, no worries, come here, we try to help you out.
If you would like to help others, great, we very much appreciate that.
if you dont want to help or be helped, then this is probably not your place to go.

As we are all Debian users in this (debian) forum, we have a tendancy to want to protect our views to the OS. Of course you have freedom, however, we are simply trying to prove to Rotwang, and others who read this thread, that debian is NOT all that hard to use, if you are willing to read the docs, and understand your system.

Some people do like debian, of course it is based on personality. If you want to know your computer, then you run Gentoo, Debian.... otherwise

@eaglegst

sorry, my friend, this is no beer pub desk argue

as engineer and quality manager i must state, the distro projects need such feedback for continously improving their products and processes and ergonomy.

i also agree, it must be made more productive even for non frustration hardened USERS, they only want to work with the system not on the systems internals.

and therere many pI class machines in schools, rehabilitation centers and universitys around with potato and woody , therere/have been rock stable and ergonomic enough beating every w98,.

i rember a w98 internet pay terminal in a social org, that thing was a complete catastrophy, crashed almost by accessing every newer website, had woody been on it there wouldnt have been such problems.

who needs latest line power eating technology and software for such purposes? micro$oft is fighting hard against this by pushing administrators from their mcse "incompetency" commercial courses in these organizations in our country
they got no acceptable degree, buy this paper, then get hired and buy more microshit in to these orgs. quality is dumped and it costs are exploding due to the it incompetence of many hiring managers.

take windowze xp last years, the kids are frustrated too with their (mostly illegal copied and hacked) closed source apps full of bugs they never get fixed, cause they cant pay for the fixes. i must not mention the security hazards to the internet from such connected machines.
a good example is the it state of the german "arbeitsagentur" (jobless department) after migrating from mainframe to w2000 infrastructure and outsourcing to commercial webservices - miscalculated exploding costs of million euros and nearly failed.
even corruption of officers is investigated now by authorities!

if you take the latest you live on the testing egde as with EVERY kind of software/hardware! so take it or be with stable woody, w95/98/2000/xp never was in spite to their million dollar qm efforts.

only with oss you have the chances to fix small bugs yourself or get an answer from here ore the project mailers in 3 days. SO ITS SELF IMPROVING, no commercial software system has been ever able to reach CMM level 5 "continously improving", gpl software is in its very nature! and most customer friendly too.

i think that target could be 100% reached in approx. 5 years and steve ballmers windowze and proprietary would suffer much market losses, fine for me.
but not with the suse and redhats way "violating" the open source definition and in parts the strict copyleft gpl as pay for more ergonomics.
a growing problem, discussed here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-s...r-freedom.html
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
http://www.ifross.de/

y
tom

I have used M$ (DOS, win 3.1, win '95) and '98 and it required re-install every 6 months. Then I got smart and installed the os on one drive (ala linux) and my own stuff on another (home) and kept an image of the os just so I didn't have to re-install. I also supported numerous businesses running '98 and I had the same experience with those as well. I believe XP and Win 2k are better but there is no way I am paying M$ for their junk.

The whole point here is, like a lot of people have said, if you RTFM before you start then you should not have problems. It actually states in the readme "please get the EXACT specifications of each piece of hardware and note it down BEFORE you start the install because you will need it". But typically, most people that try to do the install and then when there are problems either complain about it or then go and read the install instructions. Perhaps because I am older and wiser now ( and less impetuous than I was) I do a lot of research before trying anything. But as I said before if you are impatient and want instant gratification Debian probably won't suit you. If you enjoy a challenge and want to learn Debian is a good choice. I really enjoyed my first 6 months with Debian because it was a huge learning curve and a real challenge. I still really enjoy it and learn many things every day especially here going through all the threads. That's why fora like these are so good. Newbies can often relate better to other newbies because they have just gone through the process. Because they are helping others this often re-inforces something they have learned. I know this is the case for me.

I'm not impatient, and I'm willing to learn. But I want to learn on my own time, what I choose and when, and debian doesn't offer that. As I said before, it's the "force" aspect of the Debian education that's the problem. I could learn just as much with Mandrake, but on my own terms.

An OS should try to do everything for me, but give me the option to change what it did (or is about to do). Debian does little for me (by comparison) and makes me do everything. (Windows does the opposite- does everything for me and then doesn't let me easily change what it did.) Most other distros are in between, which is optimal. They do as much as they can but it's still linux so I can still go and config.

And BTW from reading your last post I gather that when you were saying "Windows" in your previous post, you really only were talking about win 98 and win 95. Come on bro, it's 2004. If you just say "windows", no one assumes you're talking about win 98. win98 is six years ago. I'm not an MS fan, but there's a HUGE difference between win98 and win2k, and you can't seriously compare Debian2004 with Windows1998.

You've made me defend MS. I hate that!

" but there's a HUGE difference between win98 and win2k, and you can't seriously compare Debian2004 with Windows1998"

the difference is that you need a 3ghz machine now for the same ms shit, an yes one can compare xp still with woody in quality aspects.

my tip is: start with mandrake, play a little around, then get slack learn config files, in the end you need debian if you want it or not

y
tom

Oh yes I can. The "official stable" distribution of Debian is Woody. Woody is now 5 years old and give or take 3 months makes it exactly comparable with Win '98. By the way according to some stats last year nearly half the computers running M$ were still running '98 or less. But this is all beside the point. You seem happy with MDK so stick with it. No one is forcing you to use Debian (unlike M$).

No. If the only way your OS can look good is by standing alongside OSes from 5 years ago, then your distro has a huge problem. Development is a race. Debian doesn't get to compare itself to the way the industry was 5 years ago. I don't sit down and decide to choose an OS based on how it compared 5 years ago. It's not like I'm going "hmm should I install win 98 or Debian?" We're in 2004. I compare one 2004 OS against another 2004 OS, and the latest stable Debian is the Debian that gets compared to the lastest stable release of any other OS at this time.

You're crossing the finish line in last place and then pointing backwards on the track and saying "look I was in the lead five minutes ago, do I win?"

The fact that the most recent stable version of Debian is 5 years old is the best criticism of Debian I've heard so far. If anyone asks me if they should try Debian, I won't even have to mention the installer, I'll just say "The lastest stable version is 5 years old." Even if they come out with the new version tomorrow, it's still an indication of how long it takes this distro to get updated.

Yep, no one is forcing me to use Debian! That's sort of like Ford saying "hey no one is forcing you to buy our car." when people say they don't like the car. It's a non-competitive attitude.

Well didn't you know that debian was going to be a bit of work going into the install. If you don't like having to know about your computer then why are you using linux. I just downloaded debian myself and I downloaded it because it was one of the hardest versions so I could learn the operating system and have to pain stakingly go through all the setup. So if you don't like the distro try another one.

Early in this thread someone labelled you as a troll. I don't judge people quickly but you are starting to appear like one despite your protestations to the contrary.

Fact is no one is trying to sell Debian to anyone. This is the biggest non-commercial distro around (I wonder why?) and the people who work on it do so for fun. Fact is Debian has more spinoff commercial distros than any other (wonder why? perhaps the packaging system) . In a nutshell pure Debian is a hobbyist distro.
If I want to use woody that is my choice and if I want to upgrade that's also my choice. I repeat no one is forcing you to use it. Its all choice.