Solve all linux problems with just one guide

[justin smythhe]

I was trying to extend my displays in ubuntu 11. After hours of searching and trying I saw the problem and came up
with a guide to solve all linux problems with ease. Yes ! you can do it too. You don't need to be a mensa member or a
computer science professor to understand and use my guide.

Behold ! I present to you "The ultimate guide to working with linux":

1- Choose a task to perform on your linux system.
2- Type 10577 commands into the terminal. Be patient, this can take some time. But its not much.
3- Press restart button. Boot into windows - get work done in a few mouse clicks.

See ! its really that simple !!!

[justin smythhe]

Here is the cover for my book.

Linux - Its free only if your time is worthless !

[Joe Ess]

If you can't figure Ubuntu out, perhaps you'd be better off with one of these:

[justin smythhe]

Joe Ess wrote:If you can't figure Ubuntu out, perhaps you'd be better off with one of these:

Tell me how was your experience with it. Maybe I can get my dog one of those to play with.

[Anayonkar Shivalkar]

No Offense Meant.

Linux - Its free only if your time is worthless !

Its a general tendency that if we have trouble using a particular system, then we outright blame that the system is bad (remember how people used to curse Windows 3.1 for they had to use mouse?). It is same as saying - "it took me hours to debug a core dump. So, core dump analysis is good only if your time is worthless."

Secondly, it is absolutely illogical to blame Linux just because somebody faced an issue with Ubuntu. It is like blaming IC engine technology because your car's engine failed.

I hope OP understands the difference between Linux and Ubuntu. Yes, those are two different things

Note - I'm NOT an Ubuntu fanatic, and I don't use it. However, IMHO, it is one of the most easy distro to install and setup.

[Ulf Dittmer]

[Martin Vashko]

justin smythhe wrote:3- Press restart button. Boot into windows - get work done in a few mouse clicks.

I've actually spent a lot of time in Windows trying to move away from mouse clicks and to scripts, so that I can automate tedious tasks. I use Windows almost exclusively, but I'm not especially fond of mouse clicks. (This is one of the reasons I don't like the Office Ribbons MS has introduced. It makes it harder to learn the shortcut keys by just using the product - in the old fashioned menus, I'd see the shortcut key listed in the menu whenever I'd reach the command using mouse.)

Commad line is perhaps harder to learn, but in the long term certainly more productive than mouse. Regardless of the OS you're on.

[justin smythhe]

Ulf Dittmer wrote:

Give me some of your popcorn too !

[justin smythhe]

Anayonkar Shivalkar wrote:
However, IMHO, it is one of the most easy distro to install and setup.

Exactly, if that is easy, then imagine what difficult must be like.

[justin smythhe]

Martin Vajsar wrote:
Commad line is perhaps harder to learn, but in the long term certainly more productive than mouse. Regardless of the OS you're on.

Why ? What is the reason behind that ? Reason or no reason but it does make one look like a "hollywood basement hacker"...

[Paul Clapham]

Productive? Let me give you an example. I was signing up for a membership at the local community centre. The employee there was putting my name and address and so on into some kind of computerized form. So he typed my name, then he fumbled for the mouse and clicked somewhere. Then he typed my address, and then he fumbled for the mouse and clicked again. Then he typed... you get the picture? Nobody had told him that you could use the tab key to move from one field to the next. Switching between keyboard and mouse is unproductive if you're using the keyboard for any significant amount of data entry.

[Anayonkar Shivalkar]

justin smythhe wrote:Exactly, if that is easy, then imagine what difficult must be like.

Difficult is like paying few hundred dollars to buy an operating system, then figuring out how one of your printers(or some other device) does not work properly, and then finding out that you don't have necessary driver, for which you'll again have to pay.
Difficult is not having a standard package repository, and difficult is having to download (either by paying or free) setup files for each software separately, and installing each software separately.
Difficult is figuring out that your OS doesn't support a set of particular file systems, and keeping on worrying about how to access data from those systems.
Difficult is continuously worrying about virus attacks, and spending money in anti-virus software(s).

Easy is when your installation finishes in 7 minutes flat (plus time required to download and install updates - this depends on internet speed).
Easy is having freedom to change any component as per our wish - e.g. freedom to select any network manager, any setting manager(or control panel), any desktop environment (not just themes, but whole environment), or any version of kernel itself.
Easy is installing software via OS' utilities, and let OS itself worry about whether updates are available or not - e.g. which is better? separate processes running for each software, keeping a watch on updates? or a single, dedicate process, which keeps track of all and any kind of available updates? And how about this - downloading each software from their respective website, or not to have worry about this (because OS will take care of it)?
Easy is plugging your hardware and finding out that it has started to work smoothly.
And beyond this, easy is having a (ultra)huge user community who is ever willing to help on any kind of issues.

I'm not saying that Linux is the awesomest thing and Windows is the bad guy (or vice-versa). But just blaming a kernel because someone had a single issue on single distro is (at least in my opinion) illogical.
Again, it is a general tendency to label 'highly-configurable' things as 'difficult' and 'things with less or no choice' as 'easy'

Let me repeat what I said in last reply : I hope OP understands the difference between Linux and Ubuntu. Yes, those are two different things

[Jesper de Jong]

Have you ever tried installing Windows on a PC from scratch?

Most likely you'll have to find, download and install a whole bunch of drivers before all your hardware works, from chipset drivers to drivers for your graphics card, wireless card, sound, touchpad, webcam, scanner, printer etc. Installing Windows is more complicated than just clicking next, next, OK. It's just that most people never need to do this because Windows comes pre-installed on most computers.

With the newer releases of Ubuntu, installing is quick and easy and most hardware just works out-of-the-box. Ofcourse, sometimes something doesn't work out-of-the-box. But almost everything does. If it doesn't, the manufacturer of the specific piece of hardware is almost always the one to blame. Some manufacturers just don't think it's important or don't want to support Linux for some reason.

By the way, what exactly do you mean by "extending your displays" in Ubuntu 11? What graphics card does your computer have?

[justin smythhe]

Anayonkar Shivalkar wrote:
I'm not saying that Linux is the awesomest thing and Windows is the bad guy (or vice-versa). But just blaming a kernel because someone had a single issue on single distro is (at least in my opinion) illogical.
Again, it is a general tendency to label 'highly-configurable' things as 'difficult' and 'things with less or no choice' as 'easy'

Let me repeat what I said in last reply : I hope OP understands the difference between Linux and Ubuntu. Yes, those are two different things

I know that ubuntu is a distro and linux is the kernel. When I say linux, I mean all distros.
But, you have made your point well. Despite the many obvious merits of Ubuntu, I have not
been able to extend my display after repeated attempts.

[justin smythhe]

Jesper de Jong wrote:
By the way, what exactly do you mean by "extending your displays" in Ubuntu 11? What graphics card does your computer have?

Simple. Connect another monitor to your computer. Treat the two monitors as one continuous display. When I move my mouse outside the (left/right)
edge of my screen, it will appear in the next screen. Thats what it is. Btw, do you hardly use windows and use ubuntu most of the time ?

[Paul Anilprem]

Paul Clapham wrote:Productive? Let me give you an example. I was signing up for a membership at the local community centre. The employee there was putting my name and address and so on into some kind of computerized form. So he typed my name, then he fumbled for the mouse and clicked somewhere. Then he typed my address, and then he fumbled for the mouse and clicked again. Then he typed... you get the picture? Nobody had told him that you could use the tab key to move from one field to the next. Switching between keyboard and mouse is unproductive if you're using the keyboard for any significant amount of data entry.

I have observed this as well. I think the key point here is that the switch between mouse and keyboard is what makes the whole operation less productive. Unfortunately, folks get biased and start blaming the mouse. I find it exceptionally productive for several activities. For most of the time, I am browsing and reading and I absolutely hate using the keyboard. When I am coding, I absolutely avoid using the mouse. So it depends on what are you doing and then decide the tool that you should use.

Regarding OP, I totally agree with his take on Linux. It is free only if your time is worthless. Anyone who has tried to use Linux for a month would know it. I say a month because I believe you run through all the activities that you normally do over this period. Trying out an OS for a day or two will cause an uninformed opinion. I have tried this approach with Linux (ubuntu specifically) for multiple versions over past several years and I still prefer windows. I have never had an issue hooking up any device or running any s/w. It just works...with mouse clicks :)

[Jesper de Jong]

justin smythhe wrote:Simple. Connect another monitor to your computer. Treat the two monitors as one continuous display. When I move my mouse outside the (left/right)
edge of my screen, it will appear in the next screen. Thats what it is. Btw, do you hardly use windows and use ubuntu most of the time ?

I use both Windows and Ubuntu. My current computer at work has Windows Vista. My desktop computer at home has Windows 7 and Ubuntu; I use Windows mostly for working with my photos in Photoshop. On my laptop I also have Windows 7 and Ubuntu, but I use almost exclusively Ubuntu.

On Ubuntu 12.04 (which is what I'm currently using) setting up your displays is simple: click the icon in the top right of the screen and choose "Displays..." from the menu. There you can select and setup your displays. I haven't tried to do exactly what you describe (treat two monitors as one continuous display) and I don't have a second monitor here to try it out right now, but that should not be hard to do.

[Joe Ess]

Paul Anilprem wrote:It is free only if your time is worthless.

I don't think you know what "free" means: What is free software?

"To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. "

[Jesper de Jong]

In Dutch we at least have two different words for the two meanings of "free":

vrij means "free" as in "free speech" (freedom)

gratis means "free" as in "free beer" (it doesn't cost money)

[Ivan Jozsef Balazs]

Jesper de Jong wrote:In Dutch we at least have two different words for the two meanings of "free":

vrij means "free" as in "free speech" (freedom)

gratis means "free" as in "free beer" (it doesn't cost money)

In Hungarian we have too:

szabad means "free" as in "free speech" (freedom)

ingyenes means "free" as in "free beer" (it doesn't cost money)

[Paul Anilprem]

Joe Ess wrote:

Paul Anilprem wrote:It is free only if your time is worthless.

I don't think you know what "free" means: What is free software?

"To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”. "

Thanks for the link but I do not think both are mutually exclusive all the time. Many people use Linux because it is free as in beer. They have no intention to study, change, or redistribute it and don't care if it is free as is speech. In fact, there are many s/ws that are available for free as in beer even though they are not free as in speech and are extremely popular.

So just because you like to think of free only in terms of speech doesn't mean other people can't think of free in other terms or that they don't understand the concept of free!

[Jesus Angeles]

I can give a guide for free.

Okay here it is. It is just a one-liner.

"Anytime you have such problem, throw your laptop out from the 10th floor."

[Joe Ess]

Paul Anilprem wrote:So just because you like to think of free only in terms of speech doesn't mean other people can't think of free in other terms or that they don't understand the concept of free!

Just because some people think of Linux as "free as in beer" doesn't change the fact that the creators and maintainers of the project think of it as "free as in speech". Criticising Linux because it is "free only if your time is worthless" completely misses the greatest advantages of the OS.

[Paul Anilprem]

Joe Ess wrote:Just because some people think of Linux as "free as in beer" doesn't change the fact that the creators and maintainers of the project think of it as "free as in speech". Criticising Linux because it is "free only if your time is worthless" completely misses the greatest advantages of the OS.

As a computer engineer, yes, I agree with your point. As a consumer, I (and a majority of the users, I believe) don't because I use it simply because it is free as in beer and to me that is its greatest advantage. Therefore, in this case the criticism is fair. Free as in speech is a great thing, but free as in beer determines market success.

[Ivan Jozsef Balazs]

Jesper de Jong wrote:In Dutch we at least have two different words for the two meanings of "free":

vrij means "free" as in "free speech" (freedom)

gratis means "free" as in "free beer" (it doesn't cost money)

That even might be the case in other languages too.

German

frei means "free" as in "free speech" (freedom)

kostenlos means "free" as in "free beer" (it doesn't cost money)

French

libre means "free" as in "free speech" (freedom)

gratuit means "free" as in "free beer" (it doesn't cost money)

[Paul Anilprem]

Jesper de Jong wrote:In Dutch we at least have two different words for the two meanings of "free":

vrij means "free" as in "free speech" (freedom)

gratis means "free" as in "free beer" (it doesn't cost money)

Hindi too:
mukt means "free" as in "free speech" (freedom)
muft means "free" as in "free beer" (it doesn't cost money)

In no context can either of the words be interchanged.

[Paul Clapham]

Jesper de Jong wrote:In Dutch we at least have two different words for the two meanings of "free":

vrij means "free" as in "free speech" (freedom)

gratis means "free" as in "free beer" (it doesn't cost money)

When I was in Slovenia I noticed that they had three words corresponding to the English word "free":

brezplacen: without cost

svoboden: freedom (political)

prost: vacant, as for a hotel room

(The latter was usually accompanied by its German translation "Zimmer Frei".)

[Jesus Angeles]

another 'free' = means 'available'.

as in 'Are you free?'
Yes, for xxx$ per hour. =)