Thanks to all - but Ubuntu is for geeks

[hometoast]

On 12/20/05, Terry North <terrencenorth at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> James Gray <james <at> grayonline.id.au> writes:
>
> > Ubuntu took it upon itself to lead the list in the boot loader.
> > This is the default behaviour for every Linux I've ever installed.
>
> Yeah.  Still, no flexibility in installation.  The real point is that it
> isn't
> made easy to alter.  It's really primitive to have to alter a file like
> menu.1st.  And that's not helped when you do not know how to open Kate as
> super
> user, which I could not find.
>
> > > 4. Screen Resolution.
> >


I have to say this is been a pain point for many new to Ubuntu. I do hope
this part of setup/installation gets fixed/better.


> > 5. Only KDE and what about other utilities?
> >
> > Exactly how much space do think is available on one CD? :P
>
> That's sort of my point.  I would have paid several times over for an
> alternative to my present Linux system.  I can handle multi-disk
> installations.
> I suspect most people can.


While I can understand wanting everything included on media, Ubuntu is
supposed to be a 1-CD beast.  I do think the idea of having a separately
available "package CD" is an attractive one.  Maybe a project for hosting
binary packages for various popular architectures would be a good idea.


>
> > Correct - root doesn't own the KDE instance so root can't get access to
> the X
> > server.  This is normal.
> No, it's not.  I seldom have to do it, but I can login as root on my other
>
> distro.  I managed to open the Ubuntu X server as root in Recovery Mode.


logging in with root and sudoing or su-ing to  root from a regular user
under X is different.  I cant think of a time on Gentoo/Fedora/Suse where if
I was in a command line window and su'd into root i didn't get a "No
Display" message.


Finally, I've seen comments here about Ubuntu being for the ordinary
> user.  It
> isn't.  It's for geeks.  And, after this frustrating start, it'll have to
> wait
> until I have oodles of time to deal with it without aids that typically
> simplify
> the process elsewhere.  The resolution thing troubles me because I found
> during
> installation that I could not alter certain settings although invited to
> do so
> and, as I say, even Redmond gets that right.


  I agree. But I think it is headed in the right direction.  I skipped most
of your comments/questions because they related directly to configurable
behavior of the desktop environment.  This is the only point for me where,
"if you don't like it you can change it" would be appropriate.  There are so
(mabye too) many options avavilable for your desktop/window manager;
sometimes it takes a couple of tries to find one you like.
  More things should Just Work(tm) on installation if we want a bigger share
of users to jump on board.  But Ubuntu is still young.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20051220/db5f5944/attachment.html>