On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 18:41:40 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 15:35:50 +0100, Mark
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 15:02:19 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:49:03 +0100, Mark
wrote:

snip

Basically, most of what 'most people' are expected to deal with (in a
technical sense) is typically done via the GUI. That means it can be
managed by solutions often found by trial-and error.

Would you be happy building a house using "trial-and-error" or doing
any other major DIY project in this way?

Do you only do those things you know how to do then?

It depends on the consequences of getting it wrong. I normally like
to be prepared as best I can for a task.

Of course, but unless you are skilled / trained / experienced or just
naturally good at something, for many there will be an element of
'trial and error' involved.

OK. But there's a limit to the amount of "trial-and-error" I am happy
with.

--snip--

It's exactly the same as my previous admin exposure to all the OS /
NOS's I listed and how *none* of them gave me much in the way of
experience when it comes to Linux. I can't think of any other similar
experience where doing something similar put me in such an unfamiliar
situation?

It's difficult to think of a good analogy for Operating Systems. But
there are major differences between them. It's not ideal, but it's
the way it is. For my work I've needed to learn (in depth) about
several operating systems so I guess I am not a typical user.



--snip--

With Linux and it's greater reliance on the CLI to do such things (and
with very little that would be intuitive to anyone who wasn't a
programmer or used to dealing with such systems), it is less easy /
likely for anyone to fix something using trial-and-error, rather than
the '1000 monkeys' solution.

Again Linux is great for people who are prepared to learn it, not for
the monkeys.

Not 'again', 'exactly'. So, you have to look at the *typical* userbase
for most desktop OS's and then consider just how much involvement and
'learning' you might consider to be a minimum requirement. My point
was that it *is* (unquestionably) easier to lean something that you
can explore than something that heads more traditional study.

I am not talking about the "typical" userbase, but people who want to
explore things in more depth.

Ah, you are talking then of those who *want* to take on a new hobby or
interest versus those (like me) who are only doing what we have to do
because of 'needs must'.

Statement: I have no interested *whatsoever* in any OS.

An OS to me is a means to an end and should, under ideal
circumstances, be completely transparent. In the same way I maintain
my own vehicles and domestic appliances but I don't do so because I
*want* to, but because I often find it more convenient, cheaper and
with a better outcome, than getting someone else to do it.

And people can explore Linux.

No they can't, well, not at the level I am talking about and for the
people I'm talking about.

Example. Yesterday a mate mentioned a netbook that his Mrs had bought
for a grandkid a while ago had been mainly left unused because it was
very slow / not working properly. So I brought it home and have been
playing with it inbetween other stuff. So far I have installed loads
of updates, run various AV / malware scans etc etc but am left with
some ~30% background CPU utilisation. I have updated the video driver
and checked for updates for the BIOS and other hardware drivers and
I've done so without going anywhere near the CLI. Even if I was to
screw say the video driver up the chances are I could fix it via some
GUI based Safe Mode etc.

But, whatever OS it runs, there must be a way of checking what is
gobbling CPU and GIYF ;-)


snip

But why should it be so different re user-administration, especially
in 2017? The answer is 'it shouldn't' and if all the people working on
Linux stuff, doing their own thing, forking distros every which way,
spent time refining the admin GUI to be more, 'GUI' then maybe my list
could include Linux?

Why should it be the same?

Because that is what people want and that is the purpose of a desktop
OS isn't it, to serve people?

Talking about Windows, Microsoft make
changes at every version.

And the Linux distros don't? And at least any changes made by MS /
Apple / Google are done because of some central / organised decision,
not because several people in several sheds who in general aren't
talking to each other, thought (personally) something would be a good
idea? Look at Canonical forcing Unity on all Ubuntu users, even those
*not* using portable devices and touch screens and then insisting it
would stay like that for good. Now I understand they are now going to
drop Unity and go to something else? And what of all the 'marmite'
alternative Linux subsystems that are being argued about within the
Linux community?

FWIW: I use Ubuntu but have not installed Unity.


And it is my prediction that one day it might, making any counter
argument pretty mute?

Maybe if I'd ever had to work on a mainframe or a Unix machine over my
40 years in IT support, Linux wouldn't have appeared so different /
difficult?

It does take some effort to learn, but what doesn't.

Something that can be intuitively explored is easier to lean than
something that can't.

So?

Well, that counters your entire argument doesn't it?

I don;t think so.


You can't build
Windows kernels yourself or modify the source code.

And most wouldn't want to (including me), ever.

I am talking about just administering the OS from an admin-users POV.
So, that's not developer or end user just using what they are given
with it all working (as well as it can be).

So I am talking people like me who might like to be able to fix more
of the many things that often don't work on Linux with hardware OOTB
that work with Windows OOTB because in most cases there is official
support for Windows from the hardware manufacturers and software
writers.

If your talking drivers then I doubt Linux drivers are harder to write
than those for Windows (although I've not done either (yet)).

Agreed. And the point is that you don't generally need to write your
own driver for hardware under Windows because the manufacturers know
that they really need to supply drivers for their hardware to be
sellable to 80% of the market.

But some hardware manufacturers stop support for some products. For
example I had a scanner that the manufacturer stopped providing
drivers beyond XP.


Linux is currently still that harsh square peg in the generally
friendly round hole that is Windows (OSX / Android) world.

I think we'll need to agree to disagree about this.

I don't think we do, or if we do then may I suggest you don't often
mix with real people trying to manage both Linux or Windows PC's?

I think I mix with some real people ;-)

If Linux was comparable to Windows (or OSX / Android) for the
admin-user to manage then surely someone who has worked in OT support
and building PC's and networks for over 30 years would have less
trouble with Linux eh? Don't you think if I could install Linux as
easily as I can install and then make-work with all my hardware (as
easily as I generally can with Windows) I would? The answer to that id
you are still confused is 'Of course I would'. Who wouldn't want
something that was current, 'more secure' and FREE, if it allowed them
to do all they want just as easily as they could on something that
wasn't all those things?

I'm not sure I follow this entirely. I find Linux works with most
hardware, as well as Windows does.


Slowly though the square is being rounded (as even I have seen over a
good few years now from not being able to install Linux and even get
it working, installing it and having some things working (wired
Ethernet if not Wireless, some video display rather than none) to it
generally working as long as you are a bit lucky).

FWIW I've not had too much trouble installing Linux.

Nor have I, so much and these days' but I'm not even / really talking
about the straight installation on 'Linux friendly' (known or
otherwise) hardware. I'm talking about the many million people who
take their fully functioning Linux laptop and then try to get it to
batch scan from their network printer, or access the iTunes store, or
upgrade the BIOS or interface with their GPS or many many other
devices.

Not all these things are trivial to do with Windows either.


My point is that *my* low level skills re Linux admin haven't really
improved yet my ability to get to a fully working (basic) machine has.

That's progress :-)

*Exactly*, but said progress is something that few Linux zealots seem
to think is required, until it happens then they boast about it when
in many cases it's no more than Linux catching up with the likes of
Windows.

'Look at all the games we can run on Linux under Steam!' ...Yeah,
great, only 10 years after you could run all the games on Steam on
Windows but better late than never eh? ;-)

Windows has become a "standard" and hence gets the games.

By comparison, more reasonable admin's who by definition (of
reasonable) will use whatever OS best suits them or the needs at the
time, do see / admit the limitations of all the OS's and will
willingly concede when something is wrong. Like, very few admin-users
will say they prefer W8.1 over say W7 or see any real advantage
running W10 over 7.

IMHO Win8.1 is better than W7 for performance. As long as you hide
the awful default UI.

So, in an effort to see if this ~20% (currently) background CPU
utilisation is coming from on this Atom powered HP netbook, I'm now
going to see if I can boot it from my Linux Mint boot USB stick and
then if I can and it actually runs, see if I can find and load a
system monitor and see what Linux thinks of it?

There is a possibility that say Mint Mate 32 bit would run better on
this 2GB 1.6Mhz dual core atom than W10 64 bit but even if it did, I
understand the lad needs MS Office for school ... ;-(

My instinct would be that Linux would run better on a low-end system
like this. If you lad needs an Office application then why not try
LibreOffice? I can create/read all MS office files.

Cheers,
Mark