Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.co   
   !nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-o   
   line.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail   
   From: elaich    
   Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu   
   Subject: Re: Problems after installing Ubuntu (fairly long)   
   Date: 24 Feb 2007 23:58:55 GMT   
   Lines: 72   
   Message-ID: <54c1pvF1vmfk0U1@mid.individual.net>   
   References:    
   X-Trace: individual.net S7x0xeKMbjbS39r2nqMcqgyEGd1f2npmQUU98KuFAWM4K8LG0Z   
   User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05   
   Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.os.linux.ubuntu:11003   
      
   dgk  wrote in    
   news:sf51u2t5rtvsjdqfec6csocdvdoshuko93@4ax.com:   
      
   > So now I have a few comments and problems. Just about everything I   
   > tried didn't work very well.   
      
   I've been fighting with Ubuntu for about a month now, and am ready to    
   give up. It's great for a) a novice user who only wants to use Firefox    
   and a few other things, or b) an experienced Linux/Unix user who    
   understands what it's up to. For someone like me, who likes to go beyond    
   a) but not as far as b), it's hopeless.   
      
   The problem is not Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the most user friendly distro i've    
   tried. It's Linux. The file structure is incomprehensible. I was told    
   that most apps install into usr/bin, but some don't. Why not? Google    
   Earth installed into opt. And then refused to work. Naturally, no    
   launcher was made for it, nor a link in the Applications menu, so I had    
   to go looking for it. As usual, not only was I not told where it had    
   installed, but was not given the option to choose where to install it.    
   Why is this basic function (creating a link or launcher for a newly    
   installed program) so inconsistent in Linux? In Windows, everything    
   installs in /Program Files. Why is Linux different?   
      
   I spent most of the day today trying to edit slrn.rc, a simple    
   configuration file. I am not allowed access, because I don't "own" the    
   file. Bullshit. I followed a complicated ritual to create a script that    
   would allow any file to be edited as root if simply dragged and dropped    
   into it. It didn't work. I tried another ritual to get logged in as root,    
   and still was not allowed to edit the file. All I wanted to do was insert    
   my personal info so slrn could work.    
      
   The problem is that Linux is based on Unix, which expects a huge number    
   of users who should be denied access to all but basic functions, and a    
   handful of administrators who should be allowed access. Thus, access is    
   difficult. Why should my computer, which I own, and of which I am the    
   only user, refuse to allow me to edit a simple config file? Why should I    
   jump through hoops for 6 hours and still fail? I looked up every resource    
   I could find on the subject, and still failed. Unix is a fine solution    
   for the corporate world, which expects not only tampering from within,    
   but also from without. This level of security is simply overkill for the    
   home user. There needs to be a happy medium between this and Windows,    
   which allows anybody to do anything.   
      
   I have spent more time in Terminal lately than I have since MS-DOS 3.3.    
   At my age, I don't want to have to learn another programming language. I    
   learned CP/M and MS-DOS. I learned BASIC, and wrote a football game in    
   it. I'm too old and tired for that any more.   
      
   Linux needs to allow the user more freedom. Things should be more    
   automated. A lot of things that one has to do inside Terminal could be    
   automated, but still have a nice level of security.    
      
   I like the idea of Linux and open source software, and I like Ubuntu.    
   But, to get anything done inside Linux, unless you know the programming    
   language, is very hard. I worked for 2 days trying to compile the Sexy    
   PSF plugin for XMMS. All I ended up with was a bunch of error messages.    
   There is a .deb for every kind of video game music except the Play    
   Station. Why hasn't someone created a .deb for PSF? Even Puppy Linux has    
   a .pup for it.   
      
   It's just very frustrating. I have no security problems in Windows, never    
   have. All it takes is a little common sense and knowledge. You use a    
   firewall, you don't use Internet Explorer or Outlook Express, and you    
   don't trust anything or anybody unless proven trustworthy. Good practice    
   for any computer user. But, I don't like Microsoft, and I don't like the    
   storm clouds that are gathering over Vista and rumors of Microsoft's    
   intent. I'd like to see Linux reach a point where almost anybody can use    
   it, and still be secure. But it's not there yet.   
      
   --    
   A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.   
   Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?    
   --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5   
    * Origin: Omicron Theta BBS (1:261/20)