Why do new people give up on Linux?

[PhoenixKsE]

I was more referring to the last time I tried, with Ubuntu. I couldn't really find any answers. That was a while ago.

I have actually gotten mint installed and running well with the nvidia-current driver from the 'additional drivers' gui since my last post, and that has given me a bit more courage. I must have been trying to go too far into it; the research I was doing was talking about rooting around in the terminal and disabling and blacklisting things, but all I had to do was run the gui. I feel a little embarrassed actually.

Anyway, what I have now is a dual-boot with Windows and a bootable USB drive with mint on it in case I break it again.

Loving the cube animation and the customizability (yep, just made a new word) of linux, and I'm sure soon enough, I will be delving deeper into it. Thank you for the kind words even after my linux-bashing rant in the previous post.

~Phoenix

[tedtrash]

I think that Linux Mint is packaged really well, and descriptions on the website do give you plenty of options for your desktop environment and choices for usability and performance.

There have been several good posts here about the need to educate new users about using the software centre. The importance of the synaptic package manager as a tool to fix packages when trouble arises could be emphasized more, perhaps on the Linux Mint Welcome screen.

I migrated from Windows because there were persistent time headaches. There are some in Linux, but generally, once you are up and running the headaches end. Different machines respond better to different distros, and Distro Watch and a little research to see who has successfully installed a linux distro on the same machine goes a long way to avoiding headaches after install.

I also Migrated from Ubuntu after 11.04 because I found the Unity interface to be unusable. Active searching in the panel was beautiful, but it was a resource hog and the user interface was both non-intuitive and rigidly not customizable. Too few options is just as disastrous as too many.

Recently, I struggled with a dual boot, Linux/Windows 7 netbook. Worked fine with an earlier Ubuntu but Windows updates now mess up the Grub loader, adding additional options and claiming that it needs to "fix" startup. Fresh install of Linux Mint 9 XFCE fixed the Grub, but new problems arose. Eventually, Windows decided it was no longer genuine, and the reinstall partition was corrupted. I had a stack of recovery CD's that Windows had demanded I create, but after several hours of automatic fixes that didn't work, I decided Microsoft, once again, was not worth my time. After many years, I have decided that it is better to generate technical equity by learning how to do something than to rely on an expert to make things barely usable.

[gosa]

Why?

Because you spend a considerable amount of time setting up your computer, and suddenly - after an update - that little applet, that little application that you've learned to live with doesn't work anymore, and you're not proficient enough to try and see if rebuilding it from source might help.

So you're faced with either rethinking and changing your ways or just accept that you're getting older and life just ain't what it used to be.

Sorry for the rant, but yes - I feel a bit tired this morning, after trying to get Jupiter applet to run on the latest spin of LMDE XFCE, and then discovering that plugging in my external monitor to my netbook for the first time since installing does weird things to my desktop.

[Kevin108]

Compiling from source is much easier than it initially appears. Now, sometimes you can spend hours chasing your tail to get to where certain libraries are codependent and you can't compile one without the other BUT that catch 22 scenario has only happened to me once so far.

Typically you download an archive, like something.tar.gz which you will need to decompress (extract the files from) then open terminal and cd your way to where your files are. After that, typically all you need to do is:

./configure - This will tell you if everything will compile or not. If not, it will tell you what you're missing.
make - This compiles all your source files, links to common libraries, etc.
sudo make install - This installs the program and new libraries into the appropriate directories.

Start with something simple to build your confidence. http://zdoom.org/wiki/Compile_ZDoom_on_Linux was where I started. it's an excellent walk-through. You copy and paste most of the commands as needed. (In Terminal, paste is Shift + Insert.)

Good luck!

[PhoenixKsE]

In my terminal, paste is ctrl+shift+V. Don't know what terminal you're using with it being shift+insert.... That would be super weird... having to use my right hand to paste something. *Shudders*

[rekik]

In my terminal, paste is ctrl+shift+V. Don't know what terminal you're using with it being shift+insert....

Both work

[Pilosopong Tasyo]

In my terminal, paste is ctrl+shift+V. Don't know what terminal you're using with it being shift+insert.... That would be super weird... having to use my right hand to paste something. *Shudders*

It's not super weird. It's just another way of copy/pasting text. Here's another one: your mouse's middle click button (i.e., the scroll wheel button) also pastes highlighted text. No need to copy it. Just highlight.

[PhoenixKsE]

Holy crap really?! That's awesome I can't believe I didn't see that in there! Haha productivity time!

[Kevin108]

Don't you dare use your mouse to paste as that would involve that scary right hand!

[Tony.B]

After many years, I have decided that it is better to generate technical equity by learning how to do something than to rely on an expert to make things barely usable.

What a great observation.

[AlbertP]

In my terminal, paste is ctrl+shift+V. Don't know what terminal you're using with it being shift+insert

Welcome to Linux. Shift-Insert also means paste here, no matter what program you use. Its just like Ctrl-V, except that terminal replaced that shortcut with ctrl-shift-V. The terminal doesn't care about people using Shift-Insert as that means nothing to bash.

[animaguy]

I think it has to do with time and convenience.

I do believe there are computer users who could financially affor Windows or Mac, but they are computer illiterate by nature.

Then these users hear how great Linux is and want to know why without having to work to get past the learning curve.

But I believe newbies go Linux because they can do the math.

Yesterday I spent a miserable day installing Win7 on a laptop and IT TOOK FOREVER!

It takes me 30 minutes MAX to setup LMDE xfce now that I am past the learning curve.

[boysha]

I have to give my 2 cents in this discussion. I come, as most people do, from a Windows world and I ran into the same problems and obstacles that we all do at the beginning. What I did a little different than many other people is - I kept on trying, reading, experimenting, braking, fixing, installing, uninstalling, searching for answers, searching for a distro that I will call my own... I started that in 2004 and now, after 8 years I can say - I found what I was looking for and I have many, many great things to say about my choice (LMDE).
What you all know and not many are saying is that there is a large amount of Windows lovers out there but mostly because they are running pirated versions of Windows. If they were to pay for all that I believe that the numbers would be allot smaller. Secondly, most of the Windows applications and the OS itself is Idiot Proofed. And they should be for the amount of money users have to pay to run it. However, using Windows for years produced another kind of user - lazy user. A user who thinks that there is only one way: exe, zip, msi and everything will be done with a double click.
Along comes Linux with a totally different idea but at the same time - it is "really" free. Some got sick of paying; some got sick of restarting; some got sick fighting with viruses and spyware... some just got plain sick... In any case, many decided that they will give Linux a try...
Many also started princess from day one. What is wrong with this OS - I actually have to invest my time, effort and read instructions - that is not acceptable. I am going back - Windows was good after all... Some tried for a little bit more. Some liked it and could see behind the curtain and now they are happy users of one of the greatest OS out there.
My only regret was, up to last year, not being able to use my Linux for work. I just had to keep a machine with Windows so that I can run AutoCAD. Well, last year I bought Bricscad (for a 10-th of the price) and then I got DraftSight and now I am in business. I can do it all. I am happy like a pig in the mud and I have a stable, fast, resourceful, clever, genius operating system, thank to Mint and Debian and the version LMDE 201204. If anyone would ask me about it I can only say that I was lucky to stick to Linux because now I have it all, the way I want it and for free. Cheers!

[mastablasta]

IWhat you all know and not many are saying is that there is a large amount of Windows lovers out there but mostly because they are running pirated versions of Windows. If they were to pay for all that I believe that the numbers would be allot smaller. Secondly, most of the Windows applications and the OS itself is Idiot Proofed. And they should be for the amount of money users have to pay to run it. However, using Windows for years produced another kind of user - lazy user. A user who thinks that there is only one way: exe, zip, msi and everything will be done with a double click.

why make things complicated?

many people dont' have the will, knwoledge or time to invest into learning an OS. many people just want a tool that can work for them. i don't care how my GPS navigator works or what operating system it runs as longs as it gets me where i want to go. if linux can get oyu where you want to go then it is sure better to use it than Windows. but in my case Linux can't get me to all the places so i stay on windows. which i payed for and it's not that much considering how many years you use it. Pirated version nowadays are not worth it as they are a security risk. maybe only if you need to run some specific programme in vbox.

Linux comes from server OS background and wants to be desktop os. While Windows was designed as desktop OS from start (and then wanted to be server OS). they both broke into their respective markets. but if you ask me windows is still doing the job a lot better on my desktop while i would never replace linux on server.

Problem is in little things. stuff not working as it should, crashes in linux, strange error messgaes. plenty of small critical bugs which are indeed critical yet unresolved.

[boysha]

You are probably right in your own domain but saying that Linux crashes and is not stable etc... that is not true. What is true that people try out Linux with little or no knowledge (using Windows for 15 years doesn't exactly mean "knowledge" of computers), maybe a smaller, one man show distro or a complicated but beautiful Gentoo, or maybe just plain old Ubuntu but not really knowing what to do next and then crazy situations happen and people are just to quick to "report" on some forum: I tried ****** Linux and it was crashing and it wouldn't work. Therefore: Linux sucks and it doesn't work and I should stay away from it and go back to my comfortable Windows - at least I know that I paid for - must be then that it is better than that free Linux joke...
But, again, no sense talking about it. I am just so glad that I am on the other side - Linux side. I had Mint 9 for a while and for some childish reason I wanted to see how much time will pass by before I have to restart my Linux box. It was actually 97 days... Windows hardly works without constant maintenance for 97 days...
Cheers!

[Shibblet]

Free is an easy thing to drop. You didn't invest any money into it, so it's easy to give up on. It's not like signing a loan for a new car... it was free, and you can ALWAYS go back to Windows. With Linux there is never any commitment.

Imagine going to a restaurant for a meal, and you're served a new dish you've never had before. You take one bite, and it's not that good. It's not bad, but it's not good. It's more of an acquired taste. If you kept eating it, you'd eventually like it. However, if you paid for this meal, you'd ask for something else, but if this meal was free, you'd either eat it or throw it away.

Secondly, there is no reason to use Linux. I know how that sounds, but think about it in these terms. Windows and Linux accomplish the same goals for "most" users. Web-Browsing, Office Software, Music, Pictures, Etc. And Windows just came with my new computer... It does what I need it to, so why change?

Linux has never been a "mainstream" OS. It has always been set aside for more advanced computer users, in other words, it has a "reputation" for being outside the main-stream of the PC. And realistically, advanced users have reasons to use Linux.

[3fRI]

If you look at the various posts on these and other linux forums, you'll notice that the most common issues that tend to challenge new users are grub/boot, wlan connectivity, and sound, to name just a few. Perhaps it's a sign of the times, but most people don't seem to have the patience or interest to persevere in learning how to troubleshoot these issues. In sum, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

[Shibblet]

If you look at the various posts on these and other linux forums, you'll notice that the most common issues that tend to challenge new users are grub/boot, wlan connectivity, and sound, to name just a few. Perhaps it's a sign of the times, but most people don't seem to have the patience or interest to persevere in learning how to troubleshoot these issues. In sum, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Well said. My favorite people are the ones that talk up Linux into being something "Better" than Windows. When a user tries it, starts with the impression that it is going to be just like Windows, only better... which is a contradiction in terms. You can't be the same, but better.

[toomuchcoffee]

Videogames .

[Shibblet]

Videogames .

If game designers started building their games for OpenGL instead of DirectX, it'd be simple to port. Or, if Microsoft released made a DirectX for Linux (never happen), Wine would work flawlessly.