Asimov wrote:My problem is not the upgrading, my problem is no one make it easy. if upgrading every 6 months become the standard, it's time to come with something more smart than the actual system. You know the swap partition is now so big that is possible to put inside a mini version of Linux with a small desktop ...
Task opened for Precise. Its really up to Till if its worth the time to backport the fix. This is definitely the kind of hardware enablement fix that we tend to push for in LTS releases though.
altair4 wrote:There's a couple of ways to view this. This should be fixed by cups developers not Ubuntu developers but if you are going to have it fixed by an Ubuntu developer then it's not up to Till if he wants to fix it. It's up to whatever adult is in charge of this to determine if Till fixes it it or not. And if not why not. And if you have no intention of fixing it then don't call it an LTS. In any event it's not fixed to this day. I have a workaround for this particular bug but it should not be up to the user to fix this.
eiver wrote:Upgrading IS necessary - older releases though supported do not have the latest apps in their repos. Windows XP is 11 years old and it is not supported anymore - that still does not prevent me from installing the latest VLC 2.0.4. On the other hand I cannot easily install the latest VLC on the still suppored LM9, because it is still in version 1.0.6 in the repos.
The whole idea is rotten. What is even worse, there is no way to roll-back and the package upgrades are not tested enough. If there is not enough resources (people) to do proper testing, then there must be a good rollback mechanism, so that people won't have to sit around with a Clonezilla CD all the time.
uhgreen wrote:I think differently about this. I don't think Linux, not even Ubuntu, should be an operating system where the end-users just click a gui icon to update their computer and don't have to think about anything. Sometimes the end-user is going to have to get their hands dirty. If that prevents the public at large from using Linux then, in my view, so be it.
Let the people who want everything to be automated use Apple products. If you want to use Linux then I don't think you should expect hand-holding and developers solving everything for you.
This is just my opinion though, which might be in the minority.
altair4 wrote:Your post perfectly answers the question posed by the original post. Is a particular user using Linux as a hobby or as a platform to get something done?
My wife is a professional software developer ( yes, girls can be programmers ) and would never consider using Linux because she has deadlines to meet. At the moment all of her development environments run on OSX so that is her platform of choice. Others may turn to Linux because of a dislike of Windows or lack of funds for OSX or because they want to learn about Linux.
I started Linux with SuSE 6.1 and I knew at the time it was going to be a learning experience and for me it was clearly a hobby since Windows was the platform I used to get things done. Linux has become more predictable ( note that I am talking about predictability not stability ) over time until recently. And over that time Linux moved from a being a hobby to a platform for me but it's becoming tedious.
History would suggest that "Linux" favors a user like you rather than a user like me or at the extreme a user that expects it to be a free version of Windows or OSX.
uhgreen wrote:Just popular enough that there ARE users (and users that know their stuff) but not enough users that developers have to spend all their time catering to end-users.
uhgreen wrote:I don't think Linux, not even Ubuntu, should be an operating system where the end-users just click a gui icon to update their computer and don't have to think about anything. Sometimes the end-user is going to have to get their hands dirty. If that prevents the public at large from using Linux then, in my view, so be it.
"The terms "open to modifications" and "user-friendly" do not and should not exclude each other. A system that has a GUI for everything and is super-user-friendly, can still have root account available and a terminal and ability to compile from source for those who want to do some development. These options should not mandatory to know, if someone just wants to USE the system."
Postby sagirfahmid3 » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:37 pm
Linux was never meant for regular users; it was made by the geeks, for the geeks.
If you can't use Linux, too bad, boo-hoo, stick with Mac or Windows if you want your pretty point-and-click GUI and bloatware.
Linux does not have an obligation to be the most user friendly desktop in the world, nor does it have the intention of stomping out the competition.
Linux is a way of life. Sometimes, that life can be a wee bit difficult, but hey, when is life ever easy? If you can't live with it, switch to something you can live with.
As the user monkeyboy so eloquently puts it:
If you don't like it, make something better
If you can't make something better, adapt
If you can't do either ball your panties up and cry
"Why use Ubuntu?
It couldn’t be easier to use
Ubuntu does everything you need it to and more. It'll work with music, videos, photos and files that you use on your current PC. And it works just as well with printers, cameras and all common smartphones."
"The purpose of Linux Mint is to produce a modern, elegant and comfortable operating system which is both powerful and easy to use.
Started in 2006, Linux Mint is now the 4th most widely used home operating system behind Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac OS and Canonical's Ubuntu.
Some of the reasons for the success of Linux Mint are:
It works out of the box, with full multimedia support and is extremely easy to use."
randomizer wrote:If Linux became "perfect" for the average Windows user then it would lose the people who use it because it is good at what it does right now, which is most of the developers that make Linux software. Converting Windows users really doesn't gain Linux anything useful except the potential for more manufacturer support (in the form of proprietary drivers no doubt). Average Windows users are not an asset to Linux development or culture, they are a liability.
A computer that Just Works for a Windows user will Just Not Work for anyone doing real work.
Almost exactly a year ago I tried Linux Why? because I was bored and wanted something new to learn, Was it easier to use than windows ? NO, Did it do anything windows didn't ? NO, Did all my hardware that worked in windows work in Linux ? NO, Was I able to run all the applications I needed ? NO, Did I find alternatives to all the applications I needed ? NO, So why do I use Linux exclusively on my PC today and would never contemplate returning to Windows? for me the answer is probably philosophy, the fact that since installing Linux my PC feels like it's truely mine, I can do what I like with it, I can configure it in such a way that will make my PC look like nobody elses and I can live in the knowledge that I no longer contribute to the disgusting profits made by the Microsoft corporation or Apple (collectively around $7 billion in the first quarter of this year).
Using Linux has made me learn a little bit about how a computer works but more importantly the computing industry and how companies like Microsoft and Apple vie for the power to enslave people in what I've heard called "walled gardens" but they're not walled gardens they're concentration camps with barbed wire perimiter fences patrolled with viscous guard dogs ready to rip out the throats of anyone who tries to get in, ironically these concentration camps are easy to escape from, but all too many people choose to stay enslaved out of fear, fear of the unknown or some misguided sense of loyalty.
Look at Mac, it's a unix derivative, but, it's considered a super user friendly OS. Yet, unix hasn't lost it's way with the people who normally use it.
I think Linux Mint is doing the same thing. We can have a version of Linux (i.e. Linux Mint) that will appeal to the Windows type user who just wants to use a computer to do various tasks without much configuration and hassle. I'm towards that end of the spectrum, but, I don't mind tinkering around as well.
TNFrank wrote: I'm a hardcore Linux convert and I'll never go back to any other OS.
uhgreen wrote:Unlike some Linux users, who think everybody should use Linux, I think that if someone wants to use Microsoft or OS X then they should. My wife uses Windows 7. She has no desire to use linux because she does not tinker with her computer. She is getting her PhD in history and doesn't use anything except Chrome and Microsoft Office. I wouldn't even think of suggesting Linux to her.
I think that Linux being a minority is good. Just popular enough that there ARE users (and users that know their stuff) but not enough users that developers have to spend all their time catering to end-users. I think if you want to use Linux you should understand that you might have to tweak, learn, understand how the system is made.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests