I was wondering if there are people here teaching newbies to run Linux
from what I call ODE (the Other Desktop Environment), which is to say,
using X and a window manager and a file browser/manager from 'xterms'.

Or newbies who would prefer to run Linux without relying on one of those
limited, resource-hogging, artificial, Windows-clone user-interfaces.

This is how I learned to run Linux, and unlike most people I didn't come
from the Windows world, and after studying KDE on their website for
quite a while have come to the conclusion that it is _harder_ to learn
to (sort of) run Linux with KDE and the like.

It is also quite clear to me that it simply isn't possible to run
Linux without a basic handle on the shell. That's obvious from
just the posts on this group.

The "gurus" are the ones who don't need KDE (etc.).

Tom

--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

"Tom Newton" <tom@server.invalid> wrote
>
> I was wondering if there are people here teaching newbies to run
> Linux from what I call ODE (the Other Desktop Environment),
> which is to say, using X and a window manager and a file
> browser/manager from 'xterms'.

Yeah. I'm gradually converting my entire extended family to Linux from
the ODE.

> Or newbies who would prefer to run Linux without relying on one of
> those limited, resource-hogging, artificial, Windows-clone
> user-interfaces.

There are a lot of things you can't do without a GUI, and a lot of
apps you can't run. WYSIWYG editing is here to stay, much as we might
like everyone to learn TeX. (Even with TeX, or whatever it's called
nowadays, you can't preview your printouts without a GUI - at least,
if there is an SVGAlib previewer I don't know of it.)

I find it far easier to convert users on a like-for-like basis:
"here's the Start Menu equivalent, here's the Explorer equivalent,
here's the Word equivalent" etc. For many of them, that's all they
want or need. It's nice to be able to say "here's a neat trick you
can't do in Windows", but to be honest Windows has evolved to the
point of meeting most basic user needs. Sure, it's buggy opaque
bloatware, but it works for most people most of the time.

> This is how I learned to run Linux, and unlike most people I didn't
> come from the Windows world, and after studying KDE on their
> website for quite a while have come to the conclusion that it is
> _harder_ to learn to (sort of) run Linux with KDE and the like.

Harder than what? Surely it depends on what you want to do. If you
just want to surf the web, write text documents and send emails (which
are the three things which cover most home users), KDE is no harder
than using a console, surely. If you want to play games (which is the
other thing people want), a GUI is almost essential unless you want to
limit them to text adventures, roguelikes and the occasional SVGAlib
port.

> It is also quite clear to me that it simply isn't possible to run
> Linux without a basic handle on the shell. That's obvious from
> just the posts on this group.

That's true. There is of course a "Command Prompt" in Windoze as well,
but 99% of users never use it, and most aren't even aware of it. Most
of my users don't need the shell to *use* their systems, only to
*maintain* them. (Even that's possible to avoid with frontends like
Synaptic etc.)

> The "gurus" are the ones who don't need KDE (etc.).

That's also true, but not automatically useful to those who want to
use a GUI.

IMO the basic issue is that Windows users do not comprehend that Linux
is configured and maintained using plain text files. The configuration
and maintenance of Windows is so (deliberately) opaque that they do
not understand that an OS can be completely transparent and
user-configurable. Once that understanding dawns, comfort levels with
the command line soar, since editing text files is no harder than in
the GUI. The problem is that before that understanding they think that
the CLI requires some sort of wizardry that they don't/can't possess.

CC

On 2008-02-05, Magnate <contact.me@some.other.way> wrote:
> "Tom Newton" <tom@server.invalid> wrote
>>
>> I was wondering if there are people here teaching newbies to run
>> Linux from what I call ODE (the Other Desktop Environment),
>> which is to say, using X and a window manager and a file
>> browser/manager from 'xterms'.
>
> Yeah. I'm gradually converting my entire extended family to Linux from
> the ODE.

That does't make any sense.

>
>> Or newbies who would prefer to run Linux without relying on one of
>> those limited, resource-hogging, artificial, Windows-clone
>> user-interfaces.
>
> There are a lot of things you can't do without a GUI, and a lot of
> apps you can't run. WYSIWYG editing is here to stay,

You are certainly confused. I use a GUI, a Graphical User Interface.
But I don't run KDE or Gnome or anything like that.

And I can run any independent X app that's available, including many
that are packaged with KDE, like kstars.

And including any number of WYSIWYG editors. (I don't, because any
text editor that requires the use of a mouse is garbage.)

I use firefox all the time. And an excellent window manager
(ratpoison). And xpdf.

I also run a lot of console apps in 'xterm' because they are generally
superior to the X apps that supposedly do the same job.


Tom

--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

Magnate wrote:

> IMO the basic issue is that Windows users do not comprehend that Linux
> is configured and maintained using plain text files. The configuration
> and maintenance of Windows is so (deliberately) opaque that they do
> not understand that an OS can be completely transparent and
> user-configurable.

Windows also started with textal configuration files (*.ini), but due to
the lack of a usable system for managing multiple users, a new system
has been invented. An interesting experiment, nowadays we know more ;-)

> Once that understanding dawns, comfort levels with
> the command line soar, since editing text files is no harder than in
> the GUI.

Of course it is harder! Not the process of editing per se, but *what* to
enter, delete or change, and *where*, requires additional knowledge. A
GUI can offer only valid settings for every parameter, or validate user
entries, and can present context sensitive help. Even if explanations
can be put into text files as well, a text editor cannot check or
validate user input.

> The problem is that before that understanding they think that
> the CLI requires some sort of wizardry that they don't/can't possess.

A shell requires wizardry, about the built-in commands, macro
capabilities and more. Not to forget the cryptic names of additional
commands, and their arguments, which the user has to know. Again some
help and documentation can be presented also for shells and commands,
but not in a context sensitive way.


IMO the major difference between using CLI and GUI is the general
approach: a CLI gives the user full freedom, the user must know what he
wants to do, and how to accomplish that. A GUI restricts the freedom of
the user, by offering only a few alternatives, from which the user can
intuitively select the one, which looks most promising to him.

According to my experience, there exist people that prefer to work based
on their precise knowledge, whereas others prefer to work intuitively. I
prefer a GUI, where I can put the icons for most of my activities on my
desktop, positioned and grouped according to my personal needs. I also
cannot remember details precisely, what's a must for CLI users, but I
can e.g. describe the book, approximate page and the page layout, where
I found some remarkable information before. Or I remember an menu entry,
application or the like, as a starting place for what I want to do, from
where I can select the next appropriate sub-item by association or
intuition.

DoDi

On 2008-02-05, Magnate <contact.me@some.other.way> wrote:
> "Tom Newton" <tom@server.invalid> wrote
>>
>> I was wondering if there are people here teaching newbies to run
>> Linux from what I call ODE (the Other Desktop Environment),
>> which is to say, using X and a window manager and a file
>> browser/manager from 'xterms'.
>
> Yeah. I'm gradually converting my entire extended family to Linux from
> the ODE.

Please don't feed this troll unless he posts something factually
inaccurate (which is quite frequently). Look at his posting history in
alt.os.linux.slackware if you need further evidence that he is trolling.

To briefly answer the Subject:, this newsgroup is for setup of linux
boxes. It's fair to say that setting up a KDE or GNOME environment is
on-topic, as would be setting up any other X11 window manager.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Hans-Peter Diettrich writes:
> Even if explanations can be put into text files as well, a text editor
> cannot check or validate user input.

You don't need a GUI to validate input. You don't even need a GUI to have
menus.

> IMO the major difference between using CLI and GUI is the general
> approach: a CLI gives the user full freedom, the user must know what he
> wants to do, and how to accomplish that. A GUI restricts the freedom of
> the user, by offering only a few alternatives, from which the user can
> intuitively select the one, which looks most promising to him.

GUI/CLI is a bogus dichotomy.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

On 2008-02-05, Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> wrote:
> Magnate wrote:
>
>> IMO the basic issue is that Windows users do not comprehend that Linux
>> is configured and maintained using plain text files. The configuration
>> and maintenance of Windows is so (deliberately) opaque that they do
>> not understand that an OS can be completely transparent and
>> user-configurable.
>
> Windows also started with textal configuration files (*.ini), but due to
> the lack of a usable system for managing multiple users, a new system
> has been invented. An interesting experiment, nowadays we know more ;-)
>
>> Once that understanding dawns, comfort levels with
>> the command line soar, since editing text files is no harder than in
>> the GUI.
>
> Of course it is harder! Not the process of editing per se, but *what* to
> enter, delete or change, and *where*, requires additional knowledge.

"Wizards" were originally shell scripts. There are many still in use.
Just because the ones used with KDE are dressed in a lot eye candy and
rely on a mouse doesn't make them fundamentally different.

And the shell script "wizards" are much easier to understand and
modify. Try doing that with a KDE "wizard". When they fail you
are up the creek without a paddle.

As for the purely manual approach, the information is available to
edit the text configuration files is available. Easily available.
On your box or on the web.


> A GUI can offer only valid settings for every parameter, or
> validate user entries, and can present context sensitive help.

So can a shell script "wizard".

> Even if explanations can be put into text files as well, a text
> editor cannot check or validate user input.

Here we have someone else referring to KDE as a "GUI". KDE is a large
collection of X applicationss and utilities, including a window manager,
built on the foundation of a GUI.

The GUI exists with, or without, KDE/Gnome. It existed a long time
before they were even conceived.

There are apparently a lot of truly ignorant people teaching Linux
on the Usenet.


Tom


--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

On 2008-02-05, John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> Hans-Peter Diettrich writes:
>> Even if explanations can be put into text files as well, a text editor
>> cannot check or validate user input.
>
> You don't need a GUI to validate input. You don't even need a GUI to have
> menus.
>
>> IMO the major difference between using CLI and GUI is the general
>> approach: a CLI gives the user full freedom, the user must know what he
>> wants to do, and how to accomplish that. A GUI restricts the freedom of
>> the user, by offering only a few alternatives, from which the user can
>> intuitively select the one, which looks most promising to him.
>
> GUI/CLI is a bogus dichotomy.

Exactly!

Thank goodness there is someone around here who hasn't been brainwashed
by the yuppy geeks at KDE/freedesktop.org.

Tom

--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com

Tom Newton wrote:

> And the shell script "wizards" are much easier to understand and
> modify. Try doing that with a KDE "wizard". When they fail you
> are up the creek without a paddle.

Mere scripts only tell you *what* goes on, but not *why*. No much
difference between scripts and source code, it depends on the will and
skills of the author, to comment his work.


> As for the purely manual approach, the information is available to
> edit the text configuration files is available. Easily available.
> On your box or on the web.

Descriptions have a general problem: made by somebody familiar with the
subject, they can lack essential information for newbies, and made by
unrelated people, they may lack important information in general.


>>A GUI can offer only valid settings for every parameter, or
>>validate user entries, and can present context sensitive help.
>
>
> So can a shell script "wizard".

ACK in general, NACK in details.


> The GUI exists with, or without, KDE/Gnome. It existed a long time
> before they were even conceived.

I fell in love with GUIs with my Atari, many years ago. No matter what
name it has ;-)

DoDi

On 2008-02-06, Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com> wrote:
> Tom Newton wrote:
>
>> And the shell script "wizards" are much easier to understand and
>> modify. Try doing that with a KDE "wizard". When they fail you
>> are up the creek without a paddle.
>
> Mere scripts only tell you *what* goes on, but not *why*.

That's simply nonsense. A script can include the output of
any utility or app providing any information needed.

> No much difference between scripts and source code,

Except that the script (I'm talking shell scripts here) is a
plain text file that can be much more easily comprehended
and modified by the average user and doesn't need to be
compiled.

> it depends on the will and skills of the author, to comment his
> work.

All good scripts and source code are well-commented.

>> As for the purely manual approach, the information is
>> available to edit the text configuration files is available.
>> Easily available. On your box or on the web.
>
> Descriptions have a general problem: made by somebody familiar
> with the subject, they can lack essential information for
> newbies, and made by unrelated people, they may lack important
> information in general.

No kidding. They can also be perfect and tailored specifically
for newbies, as a great deal of the docs available are.

It's ironic that at a time when we have super-fast internet connections
and incredibly sophisticated search engines and endless gigabytes
of material on the web of direct relevance to running Linux,
that so many Linux runners are moving in the opposite direction:

Towards becoming mindless appliance operators dependent upon
artificial user-interfaces like KDE (the Korporate Desktop
Environment).

If they keep it up, they will soon find that their software
is not free or open source and that they are just running
Windows with a different brand name on it, for all intents
and purposes.

Too damned many couch potatos from the Windows world are
running Linux now because of the corporate-backed yuppy geeks
at KDE/Gnome/freedesktop.org.

All they want to do is play video games and watch videos
and listen to music.

I wish they'd go back to Windows and stay there.

They aren't running Linux. KDE is running it for them.

>>>A GUI can offer only valid settings for every parameter, or
>>>validate user entries, and can present context sensitive help.
>>
>>
>> So can a shell script "wizard".
>
> ACK in general, NACK in details.

A shell script "wizard" can do anything a compiled "wizard"
can. Simple fact.

If you don't know that, you are not qualified to be discussing
this subject.


>> The GUI exists with, or without, KDE/Gnome. It existed a long
>> time before they were even conceived.

Long before Linux existed, as a matter-of-fact.

>
> I fell in love with GUIs with my Atari, many years ago. No
> matter what name it has ;-)

I run a GUI. But I don't run KDE/Gnome. And I can do anything
that anyone running one of those monstrosities can do.

They are just collections of applications with a common graphical
theme. Nothing else.

Tom

--
calhobbit (at)
gmail [DOT] com