It worked (sort of) while we didn't ask it to do anything invented since the 80s Edit - or, more completely, it sort of worked while we didn't try to change anything. My feeling is that you get the software the distro comes with, because someone has done all of the in-depth fiddling about and configuration that each new thing requires. Adding new things after install is horribly flaky, especially if the install happened a while ago. I think a lot of these issues are just a complete disregard for backward-compatibility. XP stayed usable for far too long, of course, but that's the point - it was usable. Linux seems to fall out of any real sort of support after a matter of weeks. P
Actually, my not-so-computer-savvy 60-something parents used it for a while to good effect on their main desktop. I think I actually received fewer tech queries about it at the time than I do windows 10 now.
The only time I had my Linux broken it was because of me trying things I shouldn't have. Especially half upgraded packages that always lead to a disaster. The missus uses it on a daily basis and is more than happy with it, she even prefers it over Windows ... and she is not an enthusiast. Archlinux's wiki is a gold mine if you gives it some of your time to read it. Now, other distribution like Mint are great and probably even more accessible than Ubuntu.
I tend to agree. The problem is that the package management system is such a complete shambles that this is more the norm than the exception.
Norm ? I have seen this in one repeatable scenario - when system adds newer kernels and i run out of space on /boot partition. Other than that, i have pretty much never encountered half-installed packages.
I'm not sure if you have some specific scenario in mind when you say half-installed, but I have often (most of the time, actually) had apt try to do something, make a load of changes, write a load of files all over the place, then fail with an obscure error. Obviously that's lingering to cause serious problems on an OS which doesn't seem to have any way of separating the executable code objects of one program from another. It is, obviously, possible to get into a vaguely analogous situation on windows, where it's difficult to uninstall something, but, probably because windows is so much more consistently laid-out from install to install it's much rarer. It also doesn't break the ability to install or remove software from the entire OS, as is common given even the tiniest flaw in apt's labyrinthine databases. It is genuinely the case that I rarely ever see apt (or its front-ends) do anything, ever, except kick oit a load of debug, half-break the whole OS, then fail with pages of debug. Probably, as I say, this is because by the time anyone but power users gets to the point of typing in apt commands something is already going wrong, but the point remains. Apt is utterly broken. Software distribution on linux is utterly broken, in the most general sense. I'm honestly not doing anything daft, here. Take the damn thing out in the back yard and blow its head off, and get software distributors to make packages of all the required files, like they do on windows, like works in windows.
"Apt is utterly broken" in your hands. Majority of users have no problems. Use Windows if you like Windows that much and dislike Linux that much.
Some software needs more QA, and from your perspective of one PC having trouble, sure, software distribution on Linux doesn't look great. But speaking as someone who manages Linux servers professionally - more than a few, less than a lot - it's fine. I prefer apt for useability but yum seems to get the job done with less hassle.
Believe me, I wouldn't be griping about it so extensively if I hadn't seen it time and again, on at least four different laptops and two desktops, plus this one. The whole package management approach that seems to be popular simply doesn't work. P
Phil, you are a sado masochist. You can't use Linux, yet you keep installing it. Each time it doesn't do what you require, but you insist on sticking with it. I tried Ubuntu as a dual boot once. I played with it, found myself totally out of my depth as soon as command line prompts started to be required, and I uninstalled it (painlessly...Thanks Wubi), never to be revisited again. Sonic is smart....be like Sonic.
The problem with Linux was to start with that there was no licence support for it to play DVD's straight off the install. SO yes a bit of fiddling is required to make it work. In all fairness the same could be said for wanting to play old game which while ran fine on Windows XP needed a bit of tweaking to get them to run on Windows 7 etc. People have given you some very useful info on how to fix the problem - whats the worse that could happen ? You have to reinstall the os from scratch ? So long as your Mum has no crucial data then you've nowt to worry about. If your having issues with one distro why not try something else ? Its not like there is only 1 to choose from.
I would have said this was a PINIC error (problem in chair, not in computer) lol If he's banned though thats good, you can't educate pork !
He'll be back, he was just given a bit of time on the naughty step for taking a threatening tone in some PMs with Gareth I for one find his blinkered approach in these threads hilarious, and I'm not afraid to say it. But I don't take many things seriously.
