Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2011 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Computing desk
< July 3 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 5 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


July 4[edit]

Perpetual loop problem[edit]

I have an occasional problem when editing Wikipedia. I’ll be madly typing away, when my fingers apparently accidentally hit the wrong combination of keys, and up comes a box in the top left of the screen, with the following one below the other:

  • Restore
  • Move
  • Size
  • Minimize
  • Maximize
  • X Close Alt + F4.

When this happens, I can do nothing about it. No matter what I try (and believe me, I’ve done everything I can think of), I cannot remove the Restore box and return to what I was typing. That’s probably because I have no idea which combination of keys I inadvertently pressed to make this happen in the first place. The whole system goes into some perpetual non-responsive loop, and the only thing I can do is to force my internet connection to close down using Windows Task Manager (which sometimes takes 5 minutes to respond), losing everything I’d just been typing, and start again from scratch.

I think I can narrow the offending keys down to something on the bottom row, which contains from left to right:

  • Ctrl
  • Windows logo
  • Alt
  • space
  • Alt
  • Windows logo
  • a weird rectangular symbol with an arrow superimposed on it, pointing roughly North-west
  • Ctrl.

Can anyone please tell me what I do wrong, and how I can fix it more easily than I’ve ever been able to discover so far? This has been happening on and off for at least 7 years, so I’d be glad of some relief.

I currently have a Compaq keyboard but I'm sure this has happened on earlier keyboards I've used in that period.

For the record, while I am not exactly a stranger to the other ref desks, this is the first time I have ever intentionally even visited Computing, let alone asked a question (I first arrived here via an OP's link just last weekend). So, I’m expecting great things of you. Thanks in advance. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALT+SPACE makes this pop-up menu appear. ESC, or clicking the mouse somewhere that's not on the pop-up menu makes it disappear again. Or at least that's what happens on the Windows and Linux systems I use.
It is worth noting that if you continue typing after the menu appears, most letters won't do anything, but the following six letters do:
  • R = Restore (de-maximise the window),
  • M = Move (4-headed arrow appears to let you move the window with the arrow keys)
  • S = Size (4-headed arrow appears to let you resize the window with the arrow keys)
  • N = Minimise (window disappears to the task bar)
  • X = Maximise (window fills the screen)
  • C = Close (...the window. If lucky you will get a save prompt) Astronaut (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've confirmed that Alt + Space is what's doing it. I feel that knowing the specific cause is a great leap forward already, even if the solution is not yet there. Pressing Esc does nothing, and clicking the mouse anywhere on the screen at all also has nil effect. I will try those keys you mention next time this happens. In the meantime, I'd love to know what the purpose of the Restore box is, and why it's apparently so easy to get it without ever wanting it, but then not knowing how to get rid of it. How can that be "user friendly"? And why does my system go into a loop? What's it thinking about? Will it ever restore itself to where I started out from, and if so, how long would I have to wait? Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the early days of Windows, it has supported keyboard shortcuts so you don't have to use your mouse. ALT+Space is just one of those shortcuts. Apart from some odd keyboard driver quirk, I can't think why ALT+Space gets you stuck in a loop. Are you sure the keys aren't getting stuck down by goo under the keys? How about trying to analyse which ALT key you are catching while typing a space and remove the physical key from your keyboard? And how about borrowing a keyboard to see if you have the same problem with that? Astronaut (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That really is odd. What happens if you hit Alt next time you get this message? On my Windows computer, this brings up the "File" menu, just as if I'd hit the same key without the Restore etc. menu. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I get normally. But when this loopy problem happens, absolutely nothing I do has any effect. Nothing except shutting it down and starting again. I've tried every key on the keyboard and all manner of crazy combinations, I've tried the mouse, nothing. This has happened about once a month, as a rough average, for about as long as I've been editing WP (December 2003). This site is pretty much the only wiki I ever visit (there have been others but they're very few and far between), and it only ever happens here. I will dig out my old keyboard and see if I can replicate it there. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IBActions[edit]

I have a project in Xcode, and I've made an IBAction, and hooked it up to a button, but no matter what I do, it just won't run whenever I build the app and click the button. Does anybody have any tips for me? I would greatly appreciate it. --Thekmc (Leave me a message) 12:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

On Windows I want to automatically check a url every 2 hours and record any changes in content. Like a Wikipedia edit history. What program does this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.70.112 (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Install FireFox and then install https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/check4change/ --Aspro (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't save the content though. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I want to save the content locally as an archive which can be browsed like going through a wikipedia edit history. Or like archive.org s internet history viewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.70.112 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to use wget or cURL to only download a page if it has changed; a little bit of script-fu should can then copy the page to a new location. CS Miller (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical calculations in MS word.[edit]

I frequently prepare reports that contain many mathematical calculations.Along with the calculations they contain a lot of texts too.I prepare these reports using MS Words.When I need to change a value, I have to edit all results depending on that value.It is a very tedious job.Is there any easier way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.241.79 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use MS Word? Not kidding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.197.162 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MS Word cannot do calculations. It can only show what you type. You can get an addon package for MS Word (at least I think I remember someone mentioning an addon package in the past). There are only two standard office applications that can do calculations: Excel and Access. For this, Access is overkill. You can type up your equations in Excel and adjust the cell sizes (one cell per term) to make it all look right. You can have the values filled in with actual equations instead of typing the values. Then, you can copy/paste the table you produced into MS Word. Once in Word (if you pasted it as an office object and not plain text), you can double-click on the table and change a value to change the entire equation. -- kainaw™ 19:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Word can do calculations, using Field Codes and Formulas (see the Help), but they're a bit unwieldy to use, and not really suitable for anything but the simplest examples. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can make "live" connections between parts of different MS Office documents using the "Paste Link" function (which I think implicitly uses Dynamic Data Exchange). That embeds a LINK field code into the document.For a simple example, see the "A Word document with 'live' links to values in an Excel worksheet" section of this guide or this post. Or you can manually enter the LINK yourself; the syntax of LINK is described here and the general topic of linked documents is covered in this area of Microsoft's help pages. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, is sounds like you want a spreadsheet in a Word document (or a Word document to act like a spreadsheet). If the layout precludes you from just using Microsoft Excel directly, I would recommend looking at potentially embedding Excel tables in Word, or various ways of inserting text from a separate (but linked) Excel spreadsheet into a Word document. (Rereading the answers, this last technique seems to be what Finlay McWalter is suggesting.)-- 174.31.196.47 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recall there being an "equation editor" as one of the optional utilities in a version of MS Office. I thought it disappeared some time ago, but the Microsoft Equation Editor article says it is still available. I don't know if that will make what you are doing easier or not, but here is the download page for Office 2003. There might be other versions from that page's side menu to suit your version of Office. Astronaut (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Equation Editor can help to typeset equations and other mathematical expressions, but it doesn't do calculations. As suggested above, best approach is to set up calculations in an Excel spreadsheet, and then either cut-and-paste a static image of the spreadsheet into the Word document (updating as and when necessary), or embed the spreadsheet in the Word document with a dynamic link. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What musical instruments were used for the Windows Theme?[edit]

I was just wondering. What musical instruments were used to make the Windows theme song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.174.171 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like pure electronica to me (i.e., synthesizer and nothing else). Looie496 (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to view ppt. without bloatware?[edit]

I have WinXP with the latest version of Firefox. The free MS viewer for PowerPoint files is 60MB! Is there any non-bloatware and offline way of viewing ppt. files please?

(I avoid bloatware. I use AbiWord for word-processing (British dictionary available), Sphymic Software or S32118 Bye Design spreadsheets (last freeware versions), and SumatraPDF. All a fraction of the size of OpenOffice etc. But I havnt got a means of viewing ppt. files yet.) 92.28.244.187 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

60MB counts as "bloatware" for you? Really? – PeeJay 20:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you've been brought up on nothing but bloatware, then http://tinyapps.org for example may enlighten you. Another example is Visicalc for Windows: 27kb. 92.28.244.187 (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, XnView claims to be able to read ppt. files and is about 3MB. Have not tried it yet. 92.28.244.187 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows and PPT are both bloatware. In the time you’ve spent on this you could’ve earned money to acquire a lot more than 60MB of storage space. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats like justifying a gas-guzzling sloppily designed non-aerodynamic car by saying you should earn more to pay for the extra petrol it uses. 2.101.2.194 (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really... are you saying a gas-guzzling sloppily designed non-aerodynamic car is the equivalent of more storage space?... and that the cost of 60MB is comparable to the recurring cost of randomly priced, ever higher priced petrol?
I'm all for making do with what you have, but not if you require information to do so and obtaining that information will take more effort than would to circumvent the situation by other means you already know of. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surrre. 92.28.254.38 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No games with pre-installed Windows 7 PC[edit]

My dad recently bought a new Acer Veriton desktop PC with Windows 7 preinstalled, but none of the standard games (Solitaire, Freecell, Hearts, Minesweeper, etc.) came with it. Is there any way we can get these back? – PeeJay 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link. Mo ainm~Talk 20:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merci. – PeeJay 20:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

torrent file, already the right size when download starts?[edit]

When a torrent client starts to download a file, it's already in the right size. Why does it do it? Why not start with a stub and go on increasing it - like a wikipedia article LOL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.197.162 (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent doesn't download files in order - it gets different blocks from different sources, and would have to keep moving them around if it increased the filesize on the fly. It is generally good practice for applications to reserve file space at the start (if known) in any case - it reduces fragmentation, and ensures that there will always be space available, even if other applications are using the filesystem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put more concisely: the torrent program allocates the space (a big, empty file), and then fills it in with all of the pieces in the order in which they are received (which is not sequential). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NTFS and most *nix file systems support sparse files. Various bittorrent clients like µTorrent do support the usage of sparse files. If you turn this on, the file size will be the final size of the file but the usage on disk will slowly grow. The disadvantage is you will sometimes get fairly heavy fragmentation. You can often also turn off preallocation. However this is usually not that useful since as has been said, the order in which parts are received is fairly random therefore most of the file will usually have to be allocated fairly fast. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Converting .wpd files to .doc files[edit]

I converted a while back from a PC to a Mac and have a lot of wpd (word perfect) files that I want to open in Word for Mac. I did some Google searches and found an online program "zamzar" but it a) requires my email address and b) requires me to upload the file to them for the conversion, both of which are things I'm wary of. Anyone have a free solution? Some converter software? Thanks.--108.46.100.127 (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some more research I found a half solution but it's not ideal. I open up Word, go to file, in the dropdown menu under enable I change to "any file"; and then I open the wpd file but the output is all uppercase with underscores where every space was. It would be incredibly painful to have to reformat to a readable form from this mess.--108.46.100.127 (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on a completely different topic, I tried to open up some video files and was told "this page requires a plugin that can only run in 32-bit mode." Any fix for that?--108.46.100.127 (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Open Office can read Word Perfect files; it cannot save them in Word Perfect format but can save in Microsoft Word format. I'm not 100% this feature is in the Mac version, but it's free software so you could try it.
Word can open Word Perfect files from version 6.x and before, so if you still have a PC with Word Perfect on, you could save them in an older format; this is what Microsoft says[1] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 Software updates[edit]

I recently bought a Play Station 3 and it seems that every time I turn the system on, it requires a software update before I can play a game. Before this, I really only played cartridge based consoles, so this whole modern era of video game systems is completely new to me. I only play the system anywhere between once a week to once a month, so I don't know if software updates are this regular or if I have a faulty system. Either way, it's annoying to have to wait around twenty minutes before being allowed to play.--ChromeWire (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony puts out a system update about once every 3 months. They put out a lot more recently because a few assbags thought it was cool to hack their systems. After system updates, the games often require an update also. So, if you get a game made for an old version of the PS3 system, you probably have to update the game before you play it. For some strange reason, when Sony updates their OS, the physical disks in the stores don't automagically update as well, but I'm sure Sony is working on it. -- kainaw™ 13:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How difficult is it to install Linux?[edit]

I've used Windows for .......... let's say years (and DOS for years before Windows) so Windows & the DOS prompt & the file hierarchy & cd.. and so on are deeply engrained in what are left of my neurons. I'd like to get a sense of how difficult it would be to switch from Windows to Linux, so this is a multi-part question.

1) How difficult to install Linux?

2) Which version of Linux to use? What does it cost? What should I buy or is a free distro a good idea?

3) If I get Linux installed, how steep is the learning curve to use it for basic tasks like moving files around, deleting them, moving between directories, etc.

4) My main uses of the computer are browser (Google Chrome & Firefox), word processing (Word), and spreadsheet (Excel). I also use Quicken, Skype, and the Kaspersky security package PURE. If I switch to Linux, how much mental stress and $$ will be required to find replacement programs for each of these and then learn how to use them?

For example, a package called OpenOffice is free to download. Their site says: "Installing OpenOffice.org on Linux is very easy!" Should I believe this? Would that depend on which version of Linux I had?

When I switch from one version of Windows to another, I typically notice little difference and adapt easily. When I switched from Microsoft Outlook to Gmail, there were a LOT of differences in the underlying approach and the interface - this took quite a bit of getting used to but the advantages of Gmail were clear enough early in the process that I persevered. --------- I mention this history because I would like to to get a sense of whether switching from Windows to Linux is likely to be a) similar in difficulty to going from Outlook to Gmail or b) much more difficult than from Outlook to Gmail. (This page I found in your archives Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2008 August 23#Linux probs... or just operator error gives a mixed message about switching to Linux.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's going to be more like the Outlook -> Gmail conversion. Linux distros have made great strides in making everything easier to install and manage, but it's a completely different operating system than Windows or MacOSX, so it has it's own complexities. Added to that is that hardware and software vendors don't always support linux, so any support you're getting is from the community. The Archives page you refer to is about a DSL LiveCD so it's not the best example of someone trying linux. Try one of the LiveCDs from one of the Popular distributions. Chrome, LibreOffice and Skype all have native versions, Quicken isn't available for linux (although there are open source projects similar) and most distros come with security software available (since Kaspersky is targetted for windows). -- JSBillings 23:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) relatively easy. Sometimes you'll have to partition your HD, create a double boot (windows/Linux) and other minor things. Linux can also be started from a USB stick or CD-ROM, without installing it in your HD.
2) I don't see any advantage of the pay versions. Try one of the mainstream distributions: Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora or Mandriva (there are more).
Installing programs on main Linux distribution is very easy, as easy as installing a Windows program.
3) It has a GUI for almost all of its function. The curve is not very steep.
4) You won't find all the programs in Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.198.219 (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what 88.14* said above. In addition:
4) Firefox will work fine on a Linux installation. OpenOffice or LibreOffice can open most Microsoft Office files. But beware that some complicated formatting in Word and formulas in Excel may not work. But for the most part, you should be fine. Skype is available. You probably won't need an anti-virus program. Almost all mainstream software available on Windows will have a free equivalent in the Linux world. But if you use specialised software, you may have some hard time finding a compatible program with the same functionality on Linux.
The folks on the OpenOffice website are not lying. Installing software on Linux is almost always incredibly easy (so long as you choose a mainstream Linux distribution such as Ubuntu, Linux Mint etc.). In fact, I would argue installing OpenOffice on Ubuntu is easier than installing most software on Windows (you don't need to click I agree, Next, Next, Next, Finished or something like that). - Akamad (talk) 02:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think all the above is true, but I want to say that, even if you don't actually have to learn the command-line interface, you should want to. Either bash or csh. It is far more flexible and powerful than the GUI. For that part of it, there is indeed a learning curve. But luckily it's one you don't necessarily need to climb very fast. --Trovatore (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty easy to "try before you buy". Download Oracle VirtualBox and install a free distro (I use Ubuntu) in a Virtual Machine. If you like it, install it fresh on a machine. If you don't - delete it and you're no worse off. --Phil Holmes (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the way that you have asked the questions, I recommend you do the following, in order to enjoy a stress free conversion to Linux:
  1. Get yourself a spare PC on which to load Linux. Then, when you suddenly need to do something in a hurry (as you will from time to time) you can still use your existing computer.
  2. By using a spare computer you can cut out the hassle of learning how to install and dual boot two operating systems on one machine. Microsoft likes to make dual booting, less than dead simple.
  3. Read:Linux is Not Windows
  4. For your first time, down load a super stable copy of a Linux distro called 'Mint' for free. Use your existing system to burn an ISO image to DVD. Download Linux Mint 11 Katya Mint will install itself, (more or less) on your spare computer. No prior preparation necessary. It will correctly partition the hard drive for you etc. It is certainly far easier than Microsoft installations. Only by doing this can you come to see that this is true.
  5. Once installed, explore your new OS and all its free apps. It will have most of the apps you need already instaled. Get to find how to download loads of more free stuff etc.
  6. Repeat number 6 above; until one day, you may remember you still have a computer with Windows, which you hardly ever use any more, because it its a hassle to use compared to Linux. You can then wipe Window off it and load any Linux distro of your choice upon it.
All Linux distros are free. You only need paid support if your running a business or such like and would rather not employ your own IT guys. The same thing applies to companies running Windows but then they also have to pay for new software licences over and over - and over and over and over again.--Aspro (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A word of caution. I use Windows at home and Ubuntu at work (and have experimented with many Linux distros for the past several years). Both are very good; both have a great deal of similarities and some annoying differences. Yes you can get almost anything for Linux, for free, but much of the software development is community driven, so while almost all Windows programs have a similar look and feel there is a lot less consistency with Linux. While on Windows you download a .MSI file and answer a few questions, with Linux there's rarely any questions but there is a wide variety of ways to get your install package in the first place - I'm still confused whether I should use yum, rpm, apt, etc; - sometimes it is wget that I should be using; and I haven't yet summoned up the nerve to install something that required me to first compile it from the source code. Heaven help you if you want to create that important presentation on Open Office and have it display right first time on Microsoft Office - I gave up with it changing the fonts and colours and moving things so they overlapped, so in the end I installed Windows XP in a virtual machine just so I could use MS Office. Then again, I can leave my Ubuntu box on for weeks with no degradation in performance and if stuff crashes, it is easy to get it going again with no performance problems or reboot needed. Just try killing an errant program in Windows without it messing up other apparently unrelated stuff (though admittedly Vista and 7 seem much more resistant to this kind of problem than previous versions) and you'll see how difficult it can become to avoid a reboot.
I think what it is, with Linux you get to know more about how it works, probably because you need to for some things. With Windows, many of the inner workings are hidden from you, so you build up an expectation that much stuff "just works" in a usually predictable way, so long as you don't mind the occasional reboot and the near constant malware threat. I suggest you try out a couple of distros, perhaps on a live CD or a spare PC, and see if you can get along OK. Astronaut (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can try Linux in your computer without installing it by using a live CD: List_of_live_CDs#Linux-based. 92.28.251.70 (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will just point out, as a voice of naysaying, that in my experience Linux is pretty hard to get to know (even if it is easy to install). I'm super-techie, familiar with Windows and Mac without any difficulty, yet figuring out how to install Linux programs has always been a pain. You'll get help along the lines of, "it's simple, just type in this one line of code!" and you'll type the line in, and it won't work. And you'll ask why. And they'll say, "oh, you must not have the package manager -- install it with this one line of code!" and you'll put that in, and THAT won't work. Then you'll find out (hours pass by in the meantime) that you're missing two other things, and one of them you have to compile from source, and that will take some more time and, oh! the version of the compiler you have isn't right, so update that, and so on, and so on, and so on, until finally, three days later, you'll have the program you wanted from the beginning.
And perhaps, perhaps!, this will only happen the first few times, but even my very Linuxy friends admit to having to recompile all sorts of things constantly, having to accept that their computer will be out of commission for great amounts of time, and generally that to use Linux, you will have to become comfortable either with becoming a Linux hacker, or you'll just have to learn to do without a lot of what you're used to with Windows. Be prepared for everything like this to be re-done once you upgrade anything significant, and be prepared for various parts to stop working with one another.
Add to it that every request for assistance from online communities will be met with contempt. "How could you not know this very basic thing? Are you a former Windows user? If it doesn't work the way you think it should, then maybe you need to become a computer programmer and fix it yourself."
Linux is not, and is not meant to be, user friendly. There are various distributions that put fancy front-ends on things (lipstick on a penguin?), but it still requires you to drop into terminal periodically, and there are still all sorts of arcane Linux commands to learn for everything you want to do. Sure, if you learn all those things, you'll be one heck of a power user. No doubt. But be aware of what you're getting into. Windows and Mac are made so that your grandmother could figure out how to do what she wants to do on them. Linux is not.
Obviously I'm not a Linux user. Maybe the above is only true with some distributions. Maybe it's gotten a lot better since I last used it. I've no idea. But I do think there's a reason that people love to joke that "Linux is free if your time is worthless." I'm not debating whether Linux is better for some people, or some tasks, or anything like that. It's just its own thing. I think the author of the "Linux is not Windows" article would agree with pretty much everything I'm saying here. It's not anything like Windows — it's not anything like what most people regard a commercial OS to be. (Which is exactly why the pro-Linux people love it and champion it.)
This isn't meant to be a pro-Windows (god forbid) or a pro-Mac sort of statement, mind you. For those pro-Linux folk out there, read this instead as the result of a sad case who just couldn't grok it, and wasn't really able to see the benefits of compiling from source, as opposed to just quickly downloading a binary and being done with it. I am a very sad case, I will admit. But I thought the opinion of such sad cases should probably be included in the above discussion of how easy it is, lest the scale be tipped too strongly towards the true believers. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the preceding is not a pro-Windows/pro-Mac rant. It is a logical result of the idiocy of making a faulty distribution (Ubuntu), giving it weird half Windows half Mac feel, and spending less time fixing it than telling everyone "Ubuntu is the best thing in the world! It is better than chocolate! It is better than sex! It is better than a good long crap after three days of constipation!!!" In truth, Ubuntu is faulty. It tries to be too much and fails at many specific tasks. So, it should be listed as "just another distribution." Then, when someone tries to use Linux and chooses Ubuntu, they won't go in with extremely high hopes and come out with dashed dreams of becoming a Linux user.
Much of how easy it is to use Linux is based on the window manager chosen. The two popular flavors are KDE and GNOME. KDE is more like Windows. GNOME is more like Mac. It is rare that an average user will venture away from KDE/GNOME and into the scary world of the shell. Even the package managers have GUI interfaces now so you don't have to apt/yum install stuff by hand. I find that one of the biggest hurdles for new users is the fact that everything is free. They ask for a word processor. I suggest OpenOffice. They ask how much it costs. It is free. Where do you buy it? You just install it. Free to install? How much is licensing? Nothing. It is free. So it is adware? No, it is just free. Then, they run back to Windows. -- kainaw™ 16:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ubuntu is just another dist, but installing programs which are in the repository (not all possible programs are there) should be pretty easy. That offers you a broad range of choices at a couple of mouse clicks. On the other hand, sometimes you need Linux for a specific task, like installing it on a pen-drive. It is certainly much easier to do that with Linux than with Windows (and there's no need to ask about installing Mac on a pen-drive. Quest09 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ubuntu is not merely "another" distribution; it is the distribution supported by Canonical, Ltd. Unlike many other popular distributions, Ubuntu is currently and actively being supported by a team of 400 professional software engineers and other contributors. Canonical provides a highly-available set of servers that host source and binary distributions of Ubuntu and many other software programs. This means that fixes are submitted promptly, and programs are easy to locate, and downloads are fast. Ubuntu is free software, and most of the project is licensed under the GNU General Public License, but you can read more about Canonical's business strategy, at their official web-page, and here. You can just as well download kernel from http://kernel.org, or GNU packages from gnu.org, if you don't want to take the free-as-in-beer support being provided by Canonical. Almost everything you get in Ubuntu is also available elsewhere, except for a few "branding" packages such as certain icons, logos, and wallpapers. But Canonical packages it better. Nimur (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this because I can use those arguments for other distributions. An easy example is Fedora, supported by Redhat with 3,000+ employees. It has the latest stable release of all packages. It has a very easy to use package manager. The packages are mirrored on many servers all over the world. It is free and has basically the same licensing as any other Linux distro (which is because they are all based on Gnu code). I've never met Shuttleworth. I don't have any reason to be a fanboy of his company. So, I see these arguments as Apple-style religious arguments. -- kainaw™ 13:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, if in your location, the nearest Red Hat mirror servers are closer, I think that makes perfect sense. When I was in school, our operating system mirror servers were hosted across the street and delivered a custom variant of Linux (and at one point, also Solaris) called EOS. At that time, it was my preferred distribution for all my computers. "Best," "fastest," and "most stable" vary with time; I have no religious attachment to Canonical; but, for my present needs, they seem to be outperforming other distributors right now. Nimur (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a video of Linux Mint being installed. OpenOffice, FireFox etc already installed as standard. As you can see, 'difficult' it is not. When you get more familiar with Linux you can progress to installing esoteric software the difficult way from scratch if you want to but for general use its simpler and easier to maintain than Windows. Even then, new software can just be installed with a few clicks on Mint as you will quickly discover. I don't understand why Window users go on about command lines so much.windows-gui-vs-linux-command-line-myths Also, there is a lot of maintenance you can do without having to switch Linux off and rebooting like one has to do with windows, so I don't agree with the down time point above. Some people leave the Linux machines running non stop for months – collages have had them running for years. Its Window which is so touchy to update, business systems are often left insecure until a vacation period comes available where it can be shut down for a few days while the updates are installed and tested. This doesn't apply to Linux because it is modular. If the OP isn't doing things which requires lots of time on the Windows command line then there is no reason why he should find any need to use the Linux terminal either. Its like trying to compare apples and oranges. Linux remember, just refers to the kernel. The disro refers to the whole unique package. Mint is easier to use than any windows OS's. Even my cat could use it, only she considers its beneath her. --Aspro (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Easier than installing Windows or Mac OS
  2. The only non-derivate distros worth using, IMO, are:
      • Debian
        • since you're asking, this is probably what you want; or if you want to use the testing version of Debian without Debian people yelling at you (as much), you'd want Ubuntu or one of its variants
      • Slackware
      • Gentoo
      • Arch
    2. Part of what makes them better is that they're free
    3. See previous
  3. Exactly the same given the right theme/desktop environment/etc.; most distros will probably use by default something that is not exactly the same, but very close
  4. Chrome and Firefox both have Linux builds (though for Chrome you'll probably want to use Chromium instead). There are multiple Word clones, including OpenOffice's and multiple Excel clones, including OpenOffice's. Not sure if there're Quicken builds for Linux, but there are alternatives, and you can run it via Wine if you like. There's Skype for Linux and several alternatives. There's Kaspersky for Linux and several (superior) alternatives, though unless you're going to run a server or transfer files to Windows boxes, you likely won't need any such antivirus software. Might take half an hour to get Quicken running via Wine, the rest will be more or less the same, though you'll have to learn new application names (or do some custom menu editing/aliasing).
  5. Several distros come with OpenOffice preinstalled. For the rest it'd most often be a simple command (for example, apt-get install packagename, or use of a simple GUI [sort of like Windows update only much better] to get it installed.
  6. Evolution is an Outlook workalike, and you can even use it with a gmail account, I'm pretty sure.
So basically, get to Linuxing!
¦ Reisio (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by " the testing version of Debian without Debian people yelling at you (as much), you'd want Ubuntu or one of its variants" ? Ubuntu is a mature distribution,or am I wrong here? 88.14.198.219 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ubuntu is 6+ years old, forked from Debian (so not really 6+ years of independent code), I'd say still dependent on Debian, and also dependent on its corporate initiator, Canonical
  • Debian is 17+ years old, not a fork of another distribution, dependent only on itself, not beholden to a corporate owner, and still ruling the distros to this day (and significantly more stable [particularly if you use the stable branch])
(also stable != mature)
¦ Reisio (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Debian is stable, why would Debian people be "yelling at you"? In fact what might a new user do that would cause people to yell? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say here that I'm very appreciative of all the information that people have provided. I'm reviewing it and then taking a plunge into Linux. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reisio said testing versions. Using betas or other test/non stable versions without knowing what you're doing and then complaining when it isn't working (or simply being clueless when asking for help) is often a good way to get people yelling at you particularly in more technically oriented forums. I think the point is Debian aims for higher stability and security therefore tend to be behind Ubuntu and other distros more concerned with features, userfriendliness and being at the bleeding edge. You can use testing versions of Debian but this is ill advised unless you know what you're doing. As Ubuntu is a fork of Debian some Debian supporters may think of Ubuntu as akin to Debian testing versions, but of course if you are using the stabile versions you usually won't get the raised looks if asking for help. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2011_July_4&oldid=1136081651"