Talk:Linux Guide/Archive 2

OK, I'm a Linux nOOb myself but gonna try to contribute here as much as possible but I only can while i'm at work so I don't know if the boss man is gonna like that much... Dhuss 18:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

in the distro dependent section are you meaning to have it sectioned something like


 * RedHat
 * Information
 * Tips
 * Is it right for you
 * SuSe
 * Information
 * Tips
 * Is it right for you
 * etc...

or someway else?


 * Surely:


 * RedHet
 * Advantages
 * Disadvantages
 * Mandrake
 * Advantages
 * Disadvantages

r3m0t (cont) (talk) 08:15, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Merge with linuxquestions.org?
Rather than have useful Linux documentation spread across multiple wikis, I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to merge this content with http://wiki.linuxquestions.org? They are using a Creative Commons license, so it can't be moved over wholesale unless all the contributors up to a certain version agree. But wholesale copying may not be the best approach anyway. -- Beland 22:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Say 'no' to: "Merge with linuxquestions.org?"
I'm inclined to disagree. While I applaud what LQ is doing, I don't see the flexibility there that I do here. For instance, if I thought that another entry should be added under "Linux Sections" I don't think I could add it. I just don't see a way to do that. Here, however, the structure of the document is more completely within our control and such needs can be addressed.

Links to LQ and other sites should certainly be included, but such homogenization is probably not the answer we are looking for.

- DanR, a.k.a. NewBee Tue Sep 20 2005

Problem with Open Source definition
I have a small problem with how Open Source is defined. “Being an open source program means that (if you wanted to) you could view the source code of the operating system and change it to suit your needs.”

Open Source does not mean GNU’s definition of Free Software. Both Free Software and Open Source are not the same thing as the article leads one to think. Websites for example are Open Source. We can all look at the source code and study it to a certain extent. Looking at a website source code does not mean that I can change the source code of the website, nor does it mean that I can copy it and use it for my own doings. As with the website source code example, we see that Open Source doesn’t mean that it is equivalent to Free Software. I know that Open Source is commonly used interchangeably with Free Software but in truth this is a very bad practice. At least I feel it is. Open Source refers to the source code of a application being open for others to see it, but it gives no rights to the user who is looking at it apart from viewing the source code. Free Software gives explicit rights to the user, one of them being the right to view and study the source code. Free Software is a license and Open Source is not.

I think this something that new comers should be clear about when dealing with conversations about Open Source and Free Software. Any one agrees? --Zoohouse 15:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Linux Guide/Installing Linux
I wouldn't think that you should merge these two. This is (or hopefully will be) in my opinion a good guide for people who are computer-orientated but have never used linux. So I'm against. But certainly an interesting idea. Friendly.demon 20:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this should be merged with installing Linux. I am a newbie and I have come hunting here via a Google search "linux for newbies". Many newbies will be like me, someone else installed it for them and now they are tryng to learn things themselves. So far the documentation I have found is absolutely woeful, it assumes so much knowledge. User delta_tango, sorry I can't register forany more Wikis, I'm losing track. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.160.202.148 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-02.

As a beginner to Linux, one of the major issues I face is the general lack of material, (that I can find) that covers this very area. There seems to be lots of more technical material that is targeted at user who knows something about Linux but not for individuals who are trying to convert from "other operating systems" to Linux. I have attempted to read the other document that you wish to combine this one with but, in my opinion they are targeted at totally different audiences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beardman (talk • contribs) 2006-10-13.

Keep separate. I think it's valuable to have a "brief, introduction to Linux" type of title that is separate from others like "installing," "configuring," etc. &mdash; David Spalding ta!k y@wp / Contribs 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's zero reason to have separate books for this. I hope to merge much of the linux documentation into one book in the future. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 19:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes suggested
I think since this is Linux for Newbies, we should change the current layout of material: --Tweenk 11:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion of runlevels should go. This is relevant only for distro hackers.
 * More focus should be put on GUI applications and using them. The current terminal section is OK, but the regular user will only use it as a last resort.
 * Some security information. Some people will panic and try to install an antivirus on Linux until we explain it's usually not necessary.
 * The section about useful applications at it currently is is harmful, because considering that only the scary console based apt-get way of installing packages is presented, people will try to download them from the websites and install them manually instead of using the package manager.
 * Pipes are used in the commands though they are not explained.
 * I think there could be a simple guide to installing Linux from a Live CD or from the text installer. The current Installing Linux chapter in the Linux Guide relies heavily on terminal. Another option would be to change the Guide.
 * Text should be split into chapters for easier reading - there's currently quite a lot of it.
 * We definitely need an explanation about the X Server, because I have found some people that think that Linux is "built on top of a command line" like Windows 95. Also explain to people that the desktop environment is only a collection of programs, not a part of the kernel like in NT-based systems and can be changed easily.
 * I would opt for more focus on explaining the differences between Windows and Linux, because this is the reality.

Don't Merge Installation with Usage
I am definitely a Newbie and also being considered elderly have some difficulty in recalling specifics of commands that i previously enter:(.

I have two OLPC XO computers and they have Linux on them. I don't care how it got there. It is available through the Terminal. The same for the Macintosh that i have. So I don't need an extensive chapter on installing Linux here. Installing Linux would, i think, have to do with acquiring and installing some distribution like UBUNTU, FEDORA, BSD, into a computer usually, but not always, through terminal commands or a GUI. Linux for Newbies should concentrate on The Command Line entries to a Terminal that is already there.

What i am most interested in is how to use the commands(or as some call them "programs within the Shell" to accomplish some result. There are a lot of manuals that take the encyclopedic approach to commands, as does the Terminal command man and help and --. That's not helpful when you have a specific goal in mind. Kind of like a teacher handing you a dictionary and telling you to write an essay on "How to Start a Car"(and you don't know what a Car is).

Some important things that require step by step sequences of commands (forget about these characters like ; that say execute commands in sequence and also scripting for now. I would be happy to enter them one at a time, wait for completion, then enter the next one)

1. Listing what is in my computer, and what is running: la and ps commands do that but have several different variations (arguments) that produce different outputs. And of course you have to interpret what the output means.

2. Not running output off the screen and being unable to scroll back: |less following command that produces a listing. Remember that :q gets you out.

3. Finding my way: The concept of PATH is very hard to grasp when you are used to pointing and clicking icons or items on a menu or a folder listing. Here is where some of that tricky punctuation comes into play:. ..  /  ~ come to mind.

4. When there is a storage device such as a USB (or SD) drive (stick, floppy, or HD) connected to the computer what commands will transfer programs or data onto them or from them. How would you run an application or print data from them?

5. The commands wget yum and rpm tar are involved in obtaining applications from the internet and perhaps installing them. Most instructions from a given web site tell you to use these commands (or worse make you have to decide on several alternatives) and they apparently work and the result goes somewhere (that pesky PATH again). But then the user is in "left field" as to what then to actually get them to run on the target computer. See 6.

6. A clear cut set of commands to install Flash Player and Java. These for some reason never are included in distributions and attempts to load them and have them work with a previously loaded browser become very iffy.

7. Getting out of situations: A lot of descriptions tell you in great detail how to do a set of operations, but don't say what to do to get out. For example if you use | less the end of the list is a big black square. Type :Q and you are out. Up and Down arrows scroll you up and down hopefully.

I have rambled on perhaps to excess and exposed some ignorance. A lot of the basic names for things escapes me. However, I hope I make the point that "Linux for Newbies" cannot be all encompassing. Stick to Terminal Commands with this one.

Regards: (BTW this is my first "EDIT" since registering. I did learn enough through observation to see that == on either side will make Title-size text)