Making the move - Global migration to pure Linux from Windows

[mrj10e12]

Hello all, and here is nice question that I believe more and more people are wondering over.

In all its simplicity, the Windows operating system is for one, leader in the simplicity of installation and allowing even the least technical of all users to simply point and click through a simple user interface to get started in using it’s O/S

Equally so, I have only tested a few distro’s of Linux myself, and found a similar simple way to this step in Vector Linux, which also shows a wide range of support and promising features in multi lingual environments.

The problem however when it comes to running Linux once installed, is that many applications and third party tools require much more user interaction on the part of installing software packages, be it by using install managers and .DEB or .RPM packages.

If this was further simplified, so that non technical users could manage equally as unsupported on a linux box as on a windows box, I believe we have a future complete winner in the race of free O/S solutions. But before this step I doubt Linux will become main stream and provide Microsoft with ample competition to prevent them from implementing more and more controls over a end users machine.

The reason for me starting to think of this entire process is two fold.


Long have it upset me that, although it is simple to write applications for the Windows environment using free or commercial IDE’s, VB, C, C# and many other languages, it requires the use of Windows O/S as a target and you are depending ever more on following upgrades to obscure system control and have to dump all that you learned during the past 10-15 years about an otherwise reasonably well working API calling structure. I mean, only because the API was 32 bit, does not mean you need to re-invent the wheel to make it 64 bits.

Secondly, and even more disturbing is the discussions about coming future “Fritz Chips” and a more intrusive control over the end users machine being the desired target for Microsofts developers to date.

As an example, I just finished watching a basic introduction to the Windows .NET VS 2005 IDE, wherein the narrator, an MS .NET Platform team member stated the following;

The goal at Microsoft is one day to no longer have "Add/Remove Programs" in your control panel, and no longer have any pains of messy uninstalls or reinstalls

- Ausley Belgin. Microsoft, NY /.NET Platform Developer Team.

So, in other words, we are now to surrender our operating system for the benefit of remote installation control to Microsoft, and many other developers, whom we may or may not trust, to let them control the installation and un-installation of applications on our systems?

I think not, no thanks.

How will this affect developer machines which many times are off line all the time for security reasons. I believe in my own, cautious (read “elected paranoid”) manner I will rather consider getting two PC’s set up soon, one for the net access and one for my applications, which never goes on-line at all.

This would then negate the possibility for any Fritz Chips and “Remotely managed installers” to work on my systems, and it seems like the only way to get away from it.

Oh, wait, there is one more way. We could all move to Linux…

Well then that takes us back to my introduction in this message, and here is the question for all you Linux guru’s out there.

Short of moving to commercial solutions like Suse and so on, how can we create an absolute and fully supported PC platform for X86/X64 environments supporting all thus supported CPU’s, VGA’s, GPU’s and RAM/MB hardware into a simple and easy to use installer package.

Yes I know it’s a tall order, but consider this.
Individual drivers are available and should be possible to package fairly easily.

Most new Dual Layer DVD’s allow up to 9 GB data on a disk and a large OS could easily include 2 DVD ISO’s for installation anyway. Media is relatively cheap, and distributions are often done by torrent or direct ftp/http downloads anyway.

So space is not an issue. It is simply the installation issues that need be addressed, as well as the way Linux applications are packaged and installed in a users machine.

Three things need to be addressed as such.

1. The provision from hardware manufacturers of drivers for Linux.
2. The conformity in how to run a O/S installation
3. The conformity of how to install DEB/RPM packages with a double click or single click action on a end users system to simplify and remove technical knowledge.

Application developers need to of course, as today write proper help files and document their applications and manage individual support, but that is common and not subject of this topic per say.

Once these three things are fully included, we have a viable and simple, not to mention fast and stable option, rather than simply submitting to the ever growing control of our PC’s by third parties on remote locations.

What are your thoughts on this …?

[Hal343]

1. The problem with many hardware manufacturers is that they rely on Microsoft to drive demand for the product and are unwilling to let linux driver writers get enough information about the hardware to do the job, even though the offer has been made.
2. There is no agreed upon file structure for installation of programs, therefore e.g. rpms will not work between distributions (fedora & SUSE)
3. There are attempts to do this. The only one I am familiar with is the Gdebi installer for Ubuntu.
I think this will take a long time to work out, unfortunately. Hopefully enough people are willing to get together to solve this before our personal computers become slaves of other people. I have been worried about this since I first heard about the Treacherous Computing Initiative a few years ago. I believe this is what you are referring to as the "Fritz Chip".

[jayd512]

Welcome to LinuxForums!

The availability of drivers is up to the hardware vendors. And right now, they follow the almighty dollar sign straight to Redmond.
The total conformity of installation would take away from the number of distros available. Consider an install of Fedora and Ubuntu (where you get everything including the kitchen sink), compared to a CRUX or Gentoo install (where it's up to the user to even install the plumbing). Not feasible.
Package installation may differ in method from distro to distro, but that's not a bad thing. Consider the MS way of installation. It becomes an automated series for you. No need to pay attention to the software you just installed. At least... not until you discover that you just blindly installed a trojan. Whoops... And since the automation of the process has de-sensitized us all to the actual workings under the hood, we would now have the problem of troubleshooting the issue without really knowing what the hell just happened.

Make Linux uniform? Thank you, but no.
If I wanted an automated process controlling my system... I'd still be running XP or Vista.

Disclaimer:
Only my rinky-dink thoughts here. Don't take this as Windows bashing.

[daacosta]

...

Equally so, I have only tested a few distro’s of Linux myself, and found a similar simple way to this step in Vector Linux, which also shows a wide range of support and promising features in multi lingual environments.

The problem however when it comes to running Linux once installed, is that many applications and third party tools require much more user interaction on the part of installing software packages, be it by using install managers and .DEB or .RPM packages.

If this was further simplified, so that non technical users could manage equally as unsupported on a linux box as on a windows box, I believe we have a future complete winner in the race of free O/S solutions. But before this step I doubt Linux will become main stream and provide Microsoft with ample competition to prevent them from implementing more and more controls over a end users machine.

...

What are your thoughts on this …?

I disagree with your post. Linux is simple enough as it is: If you can read, you can use any of Linux package managers and install Linux in your box. I have seen that once a install is made, running and maintaining your box is easier than in Windows (e.g., defragment disk, malware, viruses, incomprehensible crashes, reboots, etc.) Seriously why try to make Linux look like Windows?

[mrj10e12]

Welcome to LinuxForums!
Make Linux uniform? Thank you, but no.
If I wanted an automated process controlling my system... I'd still be running XP or Vista.

I agree with you on that and this is not what I meant.

The primary problem as I see it, is as you said in your first line above

"The availability of drivers is up to the hardware vendors. And right now, they follow the almighty dollar sign straight to Redmond."

In regards to uniformity I only see a need for it as far goes the naming of the installer packs and the Linux system is pretty much conforming to the same underlying kernel anyway, so why not.

The fact that different distros resolve different needs depending on the end users, that is a given and will always be a perfect solution in itself as it is.

What troubles me on the other hand is to have to re-educate my current clients to use Linux instead of Windows which they have had for many decades now.
In addition to that, the lacking of drivers from hw manufacturers is the largely remaining issue.

I was told by one hardware manufacturer of graphics adapters for instance that even ASUS have a special section driven towards linux but its pretty obscure and few find out all details about it. If you work on distros like Fedora or Suse you're in luck and most ASUS boards and cards support linux in these forms.

After all, I would think to bring some simplified means to the end users will in the long run greatly enhance the Linux standing and force hw manufacturers to come along or lose market shares.

But to get to that stage where we can stop worrying about existance of hardware of the latest sorts, and actually focus on being bothered by to many end users, we will need to come to terms on some sort of kernel wrapped foundation that is matching most or many main stream distros.

This is not to say that the specialized versions wont be existing, but I doubt many of my personal clients will be trying to use Open Office and simple web browsing of their websites on a machine running something as defined as EnGarde or Back-Track to get daily office work done.

And again, I am all with you on the no to conformity leading to lazy-eye syndromes and trojan installations.

As far as "Linux is simple enough" I must unfortunately speak from experience to tell you it is yet not quite there.

A friend of mine is doing a PhD in mathematics, has dual Masters in various sciences and he does not manage that documentation, even for Vector Linux.

The section of partitioning and formatting the system seems to be where most fall off and remove the CD from the drive quickly returning to Windows.

I'm not sweating it myself since I started in a DOS based environment with old FDISK tools, but I can clearly understand that less technically incliened parties have trouble with it.

Besides, we must never forget that only because we sit behind a screen the better part of our days ourselves, that our clients are equally well or relatively well informed.

You have to remember we're talking about getting Car mechanic Bob onto Linux instead of Windows XP auto installer.

[jayd512]

What troubles me on the other hand is to have to re-educate my current clients to use Linux instead of Windows which they have had for many decades now.

Fair enough... but what about taking away the Windows boxes and giving them all a Mac? The same confusion will most definitely occur.

This is not to say that the specialized versions wont be existing, but I doubt many of my personal clients will be trying to use Open Office and simple web browsing of their websites on a machine running something as defined as EnGarde or Back-Track to get daily office work done.

You just cancelled out one of you arguments here... After all, if we have a uniform system, then how can there be specialized versions?
The way it is now, Windows is the uniform... Linux is already the specialized OS!

And again, I am all with you on the no to conformity leading to lazy-eye syndromes and trojan installations.

I like Fedora, so I'll use it for this example... If yum was the only uniform way to install the GIMP or Nethack... I would pay about as much attention to the install as my family does on software for XP and Vista. Therefore... I'd pay no attention. "Oh... it's installing something. I'll go get a soda."

As far as "Linux is simple enough" I must unfortunately speak from experience to tell you it is yet not quite there.

I first heard the word 'Linux' in mid-2006... and with no PC skills to fall back on, no pre-conceived notion af how a computer should behave, I find Linux quite simple. Some versions are, in fact, blissfully easy to navigate and maintain.

A friend of mine is doing a PhD in mathematics, has dual Masters in various sciences and he does not manage that documentation, even for Vector Linux.

No offence to your buddy... but good for him. My brother-in-law can pull a 405 big-block engine, tear it down and re-build it in less than 48 hours. But if you ask him to ask him to navigate the (quite friendly) menus of WinXP........... I'll stop there!
I'm bloody well lucky to find the oil dipstick! (really... not a joke here)

The section of partitioning and formatting the system seems to be where most fall off and remove the CD from the drive quickly returning to Windows.

I just mentioned a brother-in-law... He tried to get his PC to dual-boot XP/Vista ... The partitioning program simply baffled him. About a month later, he was in the room when I was using GParted to prepare for a dual-boot. Quote un-quote..."Damn... how easy does it get?"

You have to remember we're talking about getting Car mechanic Bob onto Linux instead of Windows XP auto installer.

How could I forget? Before I started in Linux I was a certified forklift driver/Pneumatic press operator.

I just happen to be Joe SixPack... and I find Windows more complicated and convoluted than anything I've ever encountered in my life!

Disclaimer

Still not intentionally bashing.

[mrj10e12]

I just happen to be Joe SixPack... and I find Windows more complicated and convoluted than anything I've ever encountered in my life!

LMAO... ok so I hit all in one.
I should introduce my clients to you.
After four hours they still don't know what it means, with guided and handheld tutoring, that Ctrl+C = copy and Ctrl+V = paste.

(Not exaggerating on this one, its a scaring fact)

And in the next sentence they are baffled it takes 12 hours to reencode a proper DVD format of their latest commercial for their company and wonder why they have to pay for two hours of work and wait 12 hours until the machine is finished with its automated work.

Given, we all have different background, but the main issue lays with the users.
Many people in daily business dont have either time, money or incentive to spend in learning new things. Especially in business and sadly (few knows this or admit to it) but even bank employees in the UK for instance dont understand the basics of data entry using a simple screen and tab button between controls.

Nor do they have an incentive to learn, so how can I as a developer convince the companies they work for to move to something even more obscure?

As I said before, it all falls back to a) having the neck for it as most of us here do, and b) having the will power and time to put in the effort.

I doubt I will receive any stronger agreements for my arguments from my peers in here as we are in a position of "not seeing the wood for all the trees" I believe.

I simply hope there will be a day when Linux truly, and in all possible distros becomes simple enough for all to use and that end users too start finding reasons to move to a system where the human mind is not left in the dark.

I thank you for your very enlightening input though. It was most amusing.

[rokytnji]

Car mechanic Bob

Like Jay I resemble that remark. High School Dropout, Blah Blah Blah, because I know all these guys have heard it from me before and is probably tired of it.

I happen to like the diversity that linux brings. I started on RPM Distros which I would break eventually and tried swityching over to Apt Distros and Now I don't brake them as quick.

My first Desktop was Kde and when I opened Konquerer, I was lost because I had no idea how to operate all the new bells and Whistles.

Choice gave me Gnome and for whatever mystical reason it clicked in my head that, "yeah I can work with this".

So Diversity, Choice, and Freedom made my stepping into computers somewhat painless. (only been a computer user 2 years now) Besides, choice and freedom and non-standardization appeals to my biker lifestyle.

[jayd512]

You'll be hard pressed to find a more staunch advocate for the 'average user' than I.

After four hours they still don't know what it means, with guided and handheld tutoring, that Ctrl+C = copy and Ctrl+V = paste.

And? After all, weren't you the one who wanted uniform simplicity? Thus begins the mouse drag. You don't even want to know how I've had to try to teach folks about 'copy-paste'... with an 80-some-odd year-old woman on the phone.
To you or I, these are simple tasks...
Does this go into the pool with your idea of 'simple'?

[jayd512]

I happen to like the diversity that linux brings. I started on RPM Distros which I would break eventually and tried swityching over to Apt Distros and Now I don't brake them as quick.

On the flip-side of that, I prefer either RPM or source-based distros. Yet another argument aginst the 'uniform' idea.

Here you got two high-school drop-outs that knew next to nothing about how a computer "should" work... and are doing quite well with different systems.

*EDIT*

I just thought of something... The first XP installation I ever did confused the ever-loving hell out of me. Took well over 4 hours. I dropped a Fedora disk into the cup-holder and was up and running in less than 45 minutes.