Surprised and Disappointed

[Jesse Stay]

Actually, if you are looking for a user-friendly desktop, rather than a
server, and you aren't interested in having complete control over your
linux system, Lindows or one of the other workstation-targeted versions
of Linux may be a better solution for you.  They tend to target the
first-time Linux user, and especially people used to using Windows.
Other people on this list might have some other good suggestions of
similar distros.  I like being able to hack around and learn how my
system works, so Red Hat seems to allow me to do that.  Others of the
Linux systems take away that control from the user, but make it a much
easier experience to use and configure.  It's like the difference
between Windows 2000 server and Windows 98, perhaps (not to compare
Linux to Windows in the least bit).  One is built for power and control.
The other is for ease-of-use.

-Jesse

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Allison [mailto:cda at freshsources.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 1:05 PM
> To: pluglist at plug.org
> Subject: Surprised and Disappointed
> 
> 
> Hello pluglist,
> 
>   I did a custom install of RedHat 8.0 last week and things went very
>   well, I thought. (I've posted some queries about Samba and Sound
>   Cards, issues I expected to have problems with). Last night when
>   trying to use Mozilla I got all kinds of strange graphics garbage
>   and had to reboot (shades of Windows here). This morning I came to
>   my Linux box and saw a frozen screen saver - I had to cold boot! As
>   a Windows guy, this is just deja vu all over again. Isn't Linux
>   supposed to be more stable than Windows? I usually don't have such
>   problems with Windows installations this early in their life cycle!
>   Should I turn off the screen saver (and how is that done)?
> 
>   So far, I don't see the great appeal of Linux, unless one is the
>   type of person who lives for tweaking systems. I use systems as
>   development, teaching, and productivity tools, and would be happy if
>   they would just "work". As a data point, I have a Windows XP box
>   that's been running for 18 months now without a problem (I have
>   never had to reboot because of any error - just to install system
>   updates on occasion), and of course when I add other Windows boxes
>   to my LAN workgroup, they're immediately visible and usable. I'm
>   getting the feeling that the appeal of Linux is mainly just as a
>   server, and not as a development machine or office workstation.
>   These past few days of trying to setup Linux have been mostly
>   frustration. I had a much easier time setting up Solaris networks
>   last time I did UNIX (just a few years ago).
> 
>   So why do you like Linux? Just because it's not a Microsoft product?
>   I still can't print to my Windows printer correctly with all the
>   advice I've received from this list and the online Samba guide, and
>   also by reading the RedHat 8.0 Bible.
> 
>   Please don't be offended. I'm really just curious about all this.
>   I'm thinking that since I'm not in the business of maintaining
>   servers, then Linux is probably not worth my time. Productivity is
>   very important to me and I don't want to spend so much time battling
>   against a hard-to-configure system. Does that make sense?
> 
>   If on the other hand there is some great benefit on the other side
>   of all this complexity (other than stability, which my XP 
> box already
>   has), please take a moment and convince me. Thanks.
>   
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
>  Chuck Allison (The Harmonious CodeSmith)
>  Senior Editor, C/C++ Users Journal
>  cda at freshsources.com
> 
> 
> .===================================.
> | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
> |      Don't Fear the Penguin.      |
> `==================================='
>