Is Linux Too Complicated for the Average User?

  • Thread starter Thread starter damgo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Os

What OS do you use the most?

  • Windows 2000/XP

    Votes: 31 43.7%
  • Windows 95/98/ME

    Votes: 19 26.8%
  • Linux

    Votes: 12 16.9%
  • Other UNIX

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • MacOS X

    Votes: 8 11.3%
  • Older MacOS

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    71
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
41 replies · 8K views
Sorry, what wasn't phrased very well. What i meant was that linux in general doesn't have a package management system. Sure some of the distros do like redhat, slackware, debian, etc but not all of them. For example, I'm pretty sure the floppy version of keeper linux and smoothwall don't have a package managment system. I'm not completely sure, though.
-HBar
 
Physics news on Phys.org
floppy version of keeper linux and smoothwall don't have a package managment system.

Keeper doesn't, I've never looked through smoothwall, however.

And Hello, since this is my first post. I mainly use XP at the moment, but I have 4 other computers running various things. 3.1 and RedHat are the main other OSs.
 
I use XP at school and since I started my job in the physics and mathematics lab, I've used XP a lot more.

However...

I still have 98 at home and I still find it useful for the tasks I need to perform. So I'll quote the heading of the guitar lessons of Angus of AC/DC in Guitar World magazine: "If it ain't broken, why fix it?"
 
My 98 machine is so (in your words) broke. XD The thing crashes every day. I've had it for 3 years, and it's been on for *most* of that time, never having been reinstalled.

The poor thing is ready to blow up, I think. ;)
 
Slackware linux. And I've got to say, its awesome. Extremely fast, very customizable and has this festive feel to it.

I've had some major headaches trying to compile and install some programs, but its worth it. And in the end I have one of the most powerful systems in the neighborhood.
 
For me it's Solaris 8 (on an old Ultra 5) and that's because I haven't bought any new hardware recently to build a new, faster i386 arch machine. Thus I'm stuck with this for now as my main workstation.

I run Debian as well, but that's on my old 333MHz CPU that works only as the firewall workhorse. I Don't want to bog it down with running X.

<sigh> Ultra 5's framebuffer leaves much to be desired, I'm afraid. I have to run the M64 Graphics Accelerator in 1024x768x60 resolution to keep 24-bit TrueColor. Alas no 1280x1024 for me.

...Unless anyone knows a way around this ...that would be nice :wink:
 
I use win 98se for almost every thing and then use Redhat for the rest. Linux needs to be more user friendly. The fact that redhat won't play mp3's out of the box or many games is a problem for them.
 
Most users won't know how to do that. It's stupid that redhat has that problem. I have debian cds right now. I'm going to use it on my next pc and I also use Knoppix STD
 
I use XP, also sometimes when I need, use 98SE.
 
Originally posted by Tweek
I use win 98se for almost every thing and then use Redhat for the rest. Linux needs to be more user friendly. The fact that redhat won't play mp3's out of the box or many games is a problem for them.

It isn't stupid. It's a patent issue. From the xmms website:

Redhat 8 shipped without support for mpeg audio due to concerns about patents.

FWIW, Windows doesn't ship with Winamp.
 
I like XP. It hasn't crashed. It's pretty stable.

I constantly hear how linux is great etc..etc...it's kinda annoying, but for the average Joe Luser who doesn't care to know what these terms are: patch your kernel, update your rpm's, check your version dependencies. It would be just too much aggravation and frustration on their part to use Linux.
 
Last edited: