What sends noobs running back to Windows?

[lsemmens]

Had they allowed a clone marker as IBM did there would not be a MS

That was Apple's big mistake, however, it is also their strength. I used to use this line way back when DOS was still the new kid on the block and the 8086 processor was King of the heap. Apple was way ahead of the game using RISC processors but, by then, the business world had largely latched on the cheaper 8000 series Intel Processors

Moderator: fixed typo.

[MurphCID]

Had they allowed a clone marker as IBM did there would not be a MS

That was Apple's big mistake, however, it is also their strength. I used to use this line way back when DOS was still the new kid on the block and the 8086 processor was King of the heap. Apple was way ahead of the game using RISC processors but, by then, the business world had largely latched on the cheaper 8000 series Intel Processors

Moderator: fixed typo.

Another mistake was when they allowed Jobs to cripple then kill the Apple III computer. Jobs did many things right, but he also did many things wrong. Not having a cheap, affordable Apple computer after Jobs got out of control hurt Apple. I get sick of all the FUD coming out of both Cupertino, and Redmond. The same is rapidly happening to Google in my mind.

[Portreve]

Another mistake was when they allowed Jobs to cripple then kill the Apple III computer. Jobs did many things right, but he also did many things wrong. Not having a cheap, affordable Apple computer after Jobs got out of control hurt Apple. I get sick of all the FUD coming out of both Cupertino, and Redmond. The same is rapidly happening to Google in my mind.

Oh, there's no question the pooch got screwed at Apple during that time. However, this was more than just what Steve did.

The IIgs was in the process of development at that point. The Apple III was simply an attempt to continue on the Apple II legacy, which honestly in my view was yet another distraction internally for Apple. What should have happened, in my view, is the entire Apple II team should have rolled over into the IIgs team, and instead of putting further resources into another iteration of the II, they should have focused on the far more flexible and capable IIgs.

Steve no doubt felt those projects were both a distraction and a bit of regression. He did, after all, feel the Mac was both the future of Apple, and the future of computers generally. I think he's right, and of course the Macintosh was my squeeze, but with the benefit of hindsight, Apple should probably have treated the Macintosh as a pre-development effort and focused on putting out not a Macintosh Plus, but a higher-res and somewhat more refined IIgs with full legacy II support. It already had a number of other things going for it, and with the resources (and related budget) freed up from further exclusive Mac and also Apple III development, they could have probably introduced the IIgs as a 68000-based system, then scaled it up with the 68020 or 68030 and between having the best of what the Mac offered and the full intrinsic support for the Apple II platform, it would have made it a lot harder for Microsoft to compete because the Apple II was already a deployed and at the time fairly successful business computer. Being able to go public with a machine which sacrificed none of that and provided nothing but a massive leap forward would have been a boon to everyone.

[MurphCID]

True Apple could have kept the II line going, but Steve wanted all Mac all the time, and managed to kill the machine that made Apple a powerhouse. My brother had a IIe, and it was a wonderful computer. When I was working for the US Air Force in contracting, I managed to get NEXT computer to come down and give a demo to the Colonels, and such at the base to see if they wanted to get NEXT. It was a neat device, but too expensive compared to PC clones.

[JRvZ]

I have found Linux useful, & it has given a new lease of life to my old HP laptop, which was struggling to cope with Windows 10.

The biggest problems I have found with my new Intel NUC are

I really battled to get it to talk Wi-Fi.

Currently I have having a big problem installing SeaMonkey. If the package you want id in Apps you don't have a problem installing it, but it can be a problem if it is not listed there.

The next problem I see looming up is getting Wine up & running

[Portreve]

I have found Linux useful, & it has given a new lease of life to my old HP laptop, which was struggling to cope with Windows 10.

The biggest problems I have found with my new Intel NUC are

I really battled to get it to talk Wi-Fi.

Currently I have having a big problem installing SeaMonkey. If the package you want id in Apps you don't have a problem installing it, but it can be a problem if it is not listed there.

The next problem I see looming up is getting Wine up & running

One of the good/bad things about hindsight is it's the thing you get right after the point that you needed it.

In principle, you could add a USB WiFi adapter. Your best bet would be an Atheros chipset-based one. Here's a Google search that might be of interest to you or anyone else not knowing where to start with finding an intrinsically GNU+Linux-friendly USB WiFi adapter.

I have one floating around somewhere in my office, and I bought it for precisely this reason. Whether booted from a Live Image ISO or from a freshly-installed copy of pretty much any distro, just plug it in and when you check your network connectivity menu, it will be instantly available to select.

[vladtepes]

I really battled to get it to talk Wi-Fi.

Further to what Portreve stated, have a look here for my experience and solution:
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=273918

[Valsodar]

what reasons do you think send new people running away from Linux?

Based on what I've read recently in a few forums and Fakebook groups, I think the main reason for that are the tarball archives, because the noobs can't install them by double click and their brains crash with BSOD. So they choose to go back to the uncertain security of the digital slavery.
I admit tarballs did look scary to me in the beginning but not anymore.

[JosephM]

what reasons do you think send new people running away from Linux?

Based on what I've read recently in a few forums and Fakebook groups, I think the main reason for that are the tarball archives, because the noobs can't install them by double click and their brains crash with BSOD. So they choose to go back to the uncertain security of the digital slavery.
I admit tarballs did look scary to me in the beginning but not anymore.

What requires them to deal with that? I must being doing something different because I never have to mess with it. Even a .deb is just a double click install.

[Valsodar]

What requires them to deal with that? I must being doing something different because I never have to mess with it. Even a .deb is just a double click install.

Deb - yes, but some specific programs come in a tarball archive which you can't just double click, unless you have autodeb. But since they're noobs, it's highly unlikely that they do have it, so it leaves them with a simple archive and instructions how to install the program. Naturally no noob wants to read (most of them I even doubt they can ), so they just wipe Linux and go back to Crapows.
Maybe, just maybe, if the devs can include some kind of a GUI program converting a tarball to deb in the debian/ubuntu based distros - maybe then the noob won't run back to the digital slavery.

[Moem]

Naturally no noob wants to read (most of them I even doubt they can )

Wow, that's pretty rude.

[Valsodar]

That's because you don't read the same forums as those I do. 90% of the questions they ask about Windows are because they didn't read some instruction.

[MurphCID]

What requires them to deal with that? I must being doing something different because I never have to mess with it. Even a .deb is just a double click install.

Deb - yes, but some specific programs come in a tarball archive which you can't just double click, unless you have autodeb. But since they're noobs, it's highly unlikely that they do have it, so it leaves them with a simple archive and instructions how to install the program. Naturally no noob wants to read (most of them I even doubt they can ), so they just wipe Linux and go back to Crapows.
Maybe, just maybe, if the devs can include some kind of a GUI program converting a tarball to deb in the debian/ubuntu based distros - maybe then the noob won't run back to the digital slavery.

Ok, so you have identified a problem with LInux, so how do we fix it? Make Autodeb standard? The goal should be that the software does not get in your way, or in the way of your productivity.

[Valsodar]

I don't see how having a GUI tool like autodeb would be getting in the way of your productivity. The latter could be hindered by the fact that some software developers are too lazy to make their program in deb installer and you have to waste time to Google for "[programname] deb" and hope for the best.

[MurphCID]

You should never have to think about your operating system unless you want to think about it. You should just be able to turn it on, and get to work (or play). I think that is what most people find annoying about linux, is that it is still an enthusiasts operating system. Sort of like guys who constantly tinker with their cars.

[gm10]

Sort of like guys who constantly tinker with their cars.

This is so very spot on it made me , a lot of Linux guys are definitely like that.

[srq2625]

You should never have to think about your operating system unless you want to think about it. You should just be able to turn it on, and get to work (or play). I think that is what most people find annoying about linux, is that it is still an enthusiasts operating system. Sort of like guys who constantly tinker with their cars.

I don't think about LM any more than I ever did Windows. I turn on the computer and start work. A short time later I may or may not be notified, "There are updates to be had - install at your convenience."

Don't have a tool I need? Open Synaptic or other software installation tool and, "Bang," it's there.

Do I do configuration work as part of an install? Sure. Same with Windows.

So, what's my point? Did I really need to? Of course not - they both work right out of the box but eye-candy is nice.

[lsemmens]

You should never have to think about your operating system unless you want to think about it. You should just be able to turn it on, and get to work (or play). I think that is what most people find annoying about linux, is that it is still an enthusiasts operating system. Sort of like guys who constantly tinker with their cars.

I must call that as utter rubbish! Linux has required way less effort to get running, and keep running than Windows! Getting Linux running and updated takes me less than an hour. Windows, in several recent cases has taken me most of the day and THEN I had to install the software. Like any car, some blokes like to tinker, be it Windows, Mac or Linux, regardless of how reliable a car (or OS) is some people would still like to tinker. FWIW before I Upgraded to Linux a re-boot would take several minutes now a re-boot takes less than a minute.

[whm1974]

You should never have to think about your operating system unless you want to think about it. You should just be able to turn it on, and get to work (or play). I think that is what most people find annoying about linux, is that it is still an enthusiasts operating system. Sort of like guys who constantly tinker with their cars.

I must call that as utter rubbish! Linux has required way less effort to get running, and keep running than Windows! Getting Linux running and updated takes me less than an hour. Windows, in several recent cases has taken me most of the day and THEN I had to install the software. Like any car, some blokes like to tinker, be it Windows, Mac or Linux, regardless of how reliable a car (or OS) is some people would still like to tinker. FWIW before I Upgraded to Linux a re-boot would take several minutes now a re-boot takes less than a minute.

Well to be clear, it really depend on how well the hardware is supported and if the new user learns to use the official repository instead of trying to D/L and install software from whatever website they find. But yes I find Linux far easier to setup and use then Windows and with fewer issues as well.

[MurphCID]

You should never have to think about your operating system unless you want to think about it. You should just be able to turn it on, and get to work (or play). I think that is what most people find annoying about linux, is that it is still an enthusiasts operating system. Sort of like guys who constantly tinker with their cars.

I must call that as utter rubbish! Linux has required way less effort to get running, and keep running than Windows! Getting Linux running and updated takes me less than an hour. Windows, in several recent cases has taken me most of the day and THEN I had to install the software. Like any car, some blokes like to tinker, be it Windows, Mac or Linux, regardless of how reliable a car (or OS) is some people would still like to tinker. FWIW before I Upgraded to Linux a re-boot would take several minutes now a re-boot takes less than a minute.

While I do agree to a small extent, because it took me over 9 hours to do the 1803 update to my wife's laptop. It took me 30 minutes from start to finish on my Mint laptop. My Macbook it took 30 minutes to update. Linux is much faster, with a smaller footprint. But it still (thanks to us in the community) has the perception of being an enthusiasts operating system.