Linux for noobs

Emp_Fab

Right...  I've got me a running VM with Manjaro 17.1 Gnome.  The first thing I did was to try to install Chrome so I can get all my bookmarks etc.  Opened the only browser I could see - Firefox - and Googled "Chrome".  I arrive at the Chrome install page, click "download chrome" and now have to choose between "Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Opensuse".  I'm not running any of these.  I'm running Manjaro, which I believe is based on Arch Linux.  There is another link on the Chrome page - "Not Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora/Opensuse ?  There may be a community-supported version for your distribution here"  I click on the link and a page appears where Manjaro is not listed, but Arch Linux is.  I click on the link for the Arch Linux package files, and end up here:- https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/chromium/  ;

It isn't remotely obvious what I'm supposed to do next to get Chrome.  This page is aimed at experienced Linux users and I've come to my first stumbling block.

meltedbuzzbox

The main problem with Linux is all the variants.
If there was a major push for one united version I really do believe it would be more widely used. (See apple).

I get bored of the same arguments from both sides. Give it a rest. Just use what works for you.

And windows doesn't take 7 hours to install. It might if you are using really old install media. 
Spin up an azure instance and it takes about 5 minutes.

notanon

@Axe_meister BSD variants are consistent AFAIU hence Mac os.

digitalscream

Axe_meister said:

What gets up my goat with Linux/Unix variants are the inconsistencies.
One one system software is installed to /etc on another to/var on another somewhere completely different.
If you want a user friendly Unix variant then get MacOS, or use PowerShell/bash under windows 10

What? I've never, ever come across any Linux variant where software is installed to /etc. Which one was it?

digitalscream

Emp_Fab said:

Right...  I've got me a running VM with Manjaro 17.1 Gnome.  The first thing I did was to try to install Chrome so I can get all my bookmarks etc.  Opened the only browser I could see - Firefox - and Googled "Chrome".  I arrive at the Chrome install page, click "download chrome" and now have to choose between "Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Opensuse".  I'm not running any of these.  I'm running Manjaro, which I believe is based on Arch Linux.  There is another link on the Chrome page - "Not Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora/Opensuse ?  There may be a community-supported version for your distribution here"  I click on the link and a page appears where Manjaro is not listed, but Arch Linux is.  I click on the link for the Arch Linux package files, and end up here:- https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/chromium/  ;

It isn't remotely obvious what I'm supposed to do next to get Chrome.  This page is aimed at experienced Linux users and I've come to my first stumbling block.

OK, first...you could hit up Google for the answer. Basically, the most reliable way to install anything in modern Linux distributions is through the repository system - that way, all the software on your machine stays up to date when the repo is updated, not just the operating system. Think of it as the precursor to all the app stores you'll find everywhere, except this installs all the dependencies as well.

Second...no Linux distro ships with Chrome by default, because it's not open source and so they're not allowed to include it. However, there is the Chromium browser, which is all the non-proprietary bits of Chrome in one handy package - that's in the default repos of just about every distro.

Third...there's a solution to this problem in development, which is the Flatpak - totally self-contained, distribution-agnostic packages which can stay updated and still handle dependencies. Probably about a year away from widespread adoption.

Personally, I'm cool with Flatpaks for the odd app here and there, but I wouldn't want to use them too much; I like my software tested and stable across the whole system.

Axe_meister

digitalscream said:8

Axe_meister said:

What gets up my goat with Linux/Unix variants are the inconsistencies.
One one system software is installed to /etc on another to/var on another somewhere completely different.
If you want a user friendly Unix variant then get MacOS, or use PowerShell/bash under windows 10

What? I've never, ever come across any Linux variant where software is installed to /etc. Which one was it?

Maybe it wasn't /etc maybe it was /usr but the point is inconsistencies between distributions

monquixote

Emp_Fab said:

Right...  I've got me a running VM with Manjaro 17.1 Gnome.  The first thing I did was to try to install Chrome so I can get all my bookmarks etc.  Opened the only browser I could see - Firefox - and Googled "Chrome".  I arrive at the Chrome install page, click "download chrome" and now have to choose between "Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Opensuse".  I'm not running any of these.  I'm running Manjaro, which I believe is based on Arch Linux.  There is another link on the Chrome page - "Not Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora/Opensuse ?  There may be a community-supported version for your distribution here"  I click on the link and a page appears where Manjaro is not listed, but Arch Linux is.  I click on the link for the Arch Linux package files, and end up here:- https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/chromium/  ;

It isn't remotely obvious what I'm supposed to do next to get Chrome.  This page is aimed at experienced Linux users and I've come to my first stumbling block.

If you are a beginner then use Ubuntu. Some super trendy distro is all very well but you aren't going to have all the help available.

Another area where knowing the command line is infinitely better. Assuming Ubuntu I'd just type "sudo apt-get install chromium" and the job is done. Next time I update my OS I'll get updates to chromium as well.

monquixote

digitalscream said:

Axe_meister said:

What gets up my goat with Linux/Unix variants are the inconsistencies.
One one system software is installed to /etc on another to/var on another somewhere completely different.
If you want a user friendly Unix variant then get MacOS, or use PowerShell/bash under windows 10

What? I've never, ever come across any Linux variant where software is installed to /etc. Which one was it?

I have never heard of anything like that.

Again command line to the rescue: "which myappname" will tell you where it is 

RedRabbit

Emp_Fab said:

Right...  I've got me a running VM with Manjaro 17.1 Gnome.  The first thing I did was to try to install Chrome so I can get all my bookmarks etc.  Opened the only browser I could see - Firefox - and Googled "Chrome".  I arrive at the Chrome install page, click "download chrome" and now have to choose between "Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Opensuse".  I'm not running any of these.  I'm running Manjaro, which I believe is based on Arch Linux.  There is another link on the Chrome page - "Not Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora/Opensuse ?  There may be a community-supported version for your distribution here"  I click on the link and a page appears where Manjaro is not listed, but Arch Linux is.  I click on the link for the Arch Linux package files, and end up here:- https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/chromium/  ;

It isn't remotely obvious what I'm supposed to do next to get Chrome.  This page is aimed at experienced Linux users and I've come to my first stumbling block.

Couple of thing here

1. I've no direct experience with manjaro but it looks like its based on arch so you probably aren't making things easy for yourself from the off.  I love arch and the way it works but its a distro more aimed at experienced users. If you are CLI adverse an arch based distro might not be the best place to start. 

2. You are trying to approach this as though it's Windows you are dealing with. As @digitalscream said you should be installing the vast majority of your software through a package management program. Think of them as the Linux version of an app store. Chrome isn't included in the arch repositories but I believe there's an option to include AUR (arch user repository) in manjaros package manager which keeps an up to date version available. 

There's a learning curve with all OSs you've just forgotten about Windows' because you are so familiar with it. My 80 year old dad got his first PC a couple of years ago and hasn't got a clue how to do anything other than turn it on and load up chrome. He'd struggle as much, if not more, to install new software on his windows machine as you are with Linux. 

I bet if there's something on windows that you don't know how to do you Google for a solution. Do the same with Linux. Yes, the answer might involve doing things you don't understand so you can either google some more and learn what you are doing or just do it, accept that it works and get on with your day. 

These days Linux is generally only as hard as you want to make it. The OP's issue with the line 6 driver is unfortunate but it'd be just the same on, say, a Mac if line 6 hadn't developed the drivers for it. Linux not having drivers for niche hardware isn't Linux's fault. Its the hardware manufacturer's fault for not releasing a driver.  You can either try and hack a workaround or accept that you have incompatible hardware. 

digitalscream

@Emp_Fab - as @monquixote says, you'd be far better served by going for either Ubuntu or Linux Mint (which is based on Ubuntu and uses all the same processes for doing stuff - the main differences are that it includes a lot of the non-free media libraries by default, and it has a user interface that's a bit closer to what you'd expect from Windows).

Arch Linux is essentially the hardest of all the major distros to get to grips with, and as a result its community is has a much higher neckbeard quotient. I've found that Ubuntu/Mint are a totally different kettle of fish in terms of finding answers to questions you might have.
RedRabbit said:
These days Linux is generally only as hard as you want to make it. The OP's issue with the line 6 driver is unfortunate but it'd be just the same on, say, a Mac if line 6 hadn't developed the drivers for it. Linux not having drivers for niche hardware isn't Linux's fault. Its the hardware manufacturer's fault for not releasing a driver.  You can either try and hack a workaround or accept that you have incompatible hardware.  The bit that a lot of folk don't get is that yes, when a device isn't supported by Linux out of the box, it's a proper bitch to get it working. However, these days that's mainly just very new stuff or very niche stuff; and as soon as something is supported, it generally requires even less work than any other OS. Printers, for example - go back a year, and our Laserjet wasn't supported which required a ton of faffing around with HP's dodgy software which had a 50% chance of working. Now, however, it's fully supported and when I reinstalled Ubuntu on my desktop for a clean build, it just detected it on the network and installed everything I need without even asking me a question.

Emp_Fab

Thanks for the input chaps.  I chose Manjaro as it was the easiest to use of all the distros I tried last year.  The biggest albatross around the neck of Linux IMO is the ludicrous number of distros available.  Talk about making it deliberately confusing from the get-go !  Distrowatch.com currently lists 307 different flavours of Linux.  THREE HUNDRED AND SEVEN !!  And all of them in varying states of functionality and bugginess.  Not just that, but most versions seem to come with additional options to pick from such as Gnome, XFCE, KDE etc which you have to decide on before you can even begin.

Imagine if Microsoft had three hundred versions of Windows to choose from.  I don't buy into the argument about choice and suitability etc - yeah, for half a dozen versions maybe, but not three hundred!

I'm going to try out Mint again - but IIRC, I was less than happy with all the bloatware it came bundled with.  Tons of obscure geek tools I'm never going to use.  That's the other thing that bugs me - the inclusion of all these little apps with cryptic names that are bundled with the distros.  For an OS whose main USP is that it's fast, lightweight, flexible and free, what's the thinking behind stuffing it full of oddly-named apps like 'evince', 'hexchat', 'nautilus', 'seahorse' and 'empathy' ??  Such unintuitive names !!  I'm looking at all this crap on my supposedly light and fast Linux installation and thinking "this is one of the main reasons I wanted to move away from Microsoft".

My install doesn't feel slick, fast and professional - it feels cryptic, impenetrable and assembled like some modern-art sculpture made from meccano with post-it notes stuck all over it.  To me, it is the polar opposite in feel and user experience to IOS - something else I've recently discovered.

I know this sounds like ranting, but it's not - I'm just genuinely explaining the difficulties I have in getting on board with Linux.

Adam_MD

Well I treated the old machine in my man cave to a shiny new 500gb ssd and I’m going to try a win10/mint dual boot for a bit.  I’ll let you know how I get on.  

digitalscream

Emp_Fab said:

Thanks for the input chaps.  I chose Manjaro as it was the easiest to use of all the distros I tried last year.  The biggest albatross around the neck of Linux IMO is the ludicrous number of distros available.  Talk about making it deliberately confusing from the get-go !  Distrowatch.com currently lists 307 different flavours of Linux.  THREE HUNDRED AND SEVEN !!  And all of them in varying states of functionality and bugginess.  Not just that, but most versions seem to come with additional options to pick from such as Gnome, XFCE, KDE etc which you have to decide on before you can even begin.

Imagine if Microsoft had three hundred versions of Windows to choose from.  I don't buy into the argument about choice and suitability etc - yeah, for half a dozen versions maybe, but not three hundred!

I'm going to try out Mint again - but IIRC, I was less than happy with all the bloatware it came bundled with.  Tons of obscure geek tools I'm never going to use.  That's the other thing that bugs me - the inclusion of all these little apps with cryptic names that are bundled with the distros.  For an OS whose main USP is that it's fast, lightweight, flexible and free, what's the thinking behind stuffing it full of oddly-named apps like 'evince', 'hexchat', 'nautilus', 'seahorse' and 'empathy' ??  Such unintuitive names !!  I'm looking at all this crap on my supposedly light and fast Linux installation and thinking "this is one of the main reasons I wanted to move away from Microsoft".

My install doesn't feel slick, fast and professional - it feels cryptic, impenetrable and assembled like some modern-art sculpture made from meccano with post-it notes stuck all over it.  To me, it is the polar opposite in feel and user experience to IOS - something else I've recently discovered.

I know this sounds like ranting, but it's not - I'm just genuinely explaining the difficulties I have in getting on board with Linux.

I'm not sure about the launcher (Start Menu-equivalent) in Mint, but in the latest Ubuntu you can simply type what you want to do - eg "Word processor", or "chat", or "messaging" and it'll show you the app that does what you want. This may influence your choice...

monquixote

Emp_Fab said:

Imagine if Microsoft had three hundred versions of Windows to choose from.  I don't buy into the argument about choice and suitability etc - yeah, for half a dozen versions maybe, but not three hundred!

I'm going to try out Mint again - but IIRC, I was less than happy with all the bloatware it came bundled with.  Tons of obscure geek tools I'm never going to use.  That's the other thing that bugs me - the inclusion of all these little apps with cryptic names that are bundled with the distros.  For an OS whose main USP is that it's fast, lightweight, flexible and free, what's the thinking behind stuffing it full of oddly-named apps like 'evince', 'hexchat', 'nautilus', 'seahorse' and 'empathy' ??  Such unintuitive names !!  I'm looking at all this crap on my supposedly light and fast Linux installation and thinking "this is one of the main reasons I wanted to move away from Microsoft".

What you need to appreciate is that any one of us could have our own Linux distro if we wanted to so most of them are made by some bloke in a shed. Ubuntu and Fedora are made by big companies with lots of care and attention and support and documentation so that's really what you want to go for until you really know what you are doing.

MrBump

Emp_Fab said:

I spent years growing up on DOS.  Then Windows came along and I learned that.  Now I'm presented with an OS that is trying so hard to be a mainstream GUI OS yet can't / doesn't want to let go of reliance on the CLI - in a language and fornat that is about as unintuitive as you can get.  MS may well have added a Linux CLI, but who is going to use it ?  People who know how to talk *-ix.  - and that's probably 0.0001% of the Win10 userbase.

I'm quite surprised that you find the Linux command line so confusing, if you'd spent years with DOS.  The Linux FS is just a directory.  You need to know what the various bits do, and what commands you need to use to access them, but that's just doing them a few times.

Adam_MD

monquixote said:What you need to appreciate is that any one of us could have our own Linux distro if we wanted to so most of them are made by some bloke in a shed. Ubuntu and Fedora are made by big companies with lots of care and attention and support and documentation so that's really what you want to go for until you really know what you are doing.

All I’ve ever really known is windows I’ve used macs but not very often and the general advice seems to be mint is one of the easiest for those of us coming from windows to manage.  Would you recommend me going with Ubuntu itself instead?  

Ive got the rest of today to myself so am going to clone my HDD onto the new ssd, partition it and put Linux on in dual boot with win 10.  im going to try Linux for internets and pedal decals and keep windows for ableton live then when I’m used to Linux and feeling braver I’m going to try reaper and see if I can live it.  If that works I might dump windows altogether.  

RedRabbit

Adam_MD said:

monquixote said:What you need to appreciate is that any one of us could have our own Linux distro if we wanted to so most of them are made by some bloke in a shed. Ubuntu and Fedora are made by big companies with lots of care and attention and support and documentation so that's really what you want to go for until you really know what you are doing.

All I’ve ever really known is windows I’ve used macs but not very often and the general advice seems to be mint is one of the easiest for those of us coming from windows to manage.  Would you recommend me going with Ubuntu itself instead?  

Ive got the rest of today to myself so am going to clone my HDD onto the new ssd, partition it and put Linux on in dual boot with win 10.  im going to try Linux for internets and pedal decals and keep windows for ableton live then when I’m used to Linux and feeling braver I’m going to try reaper and see if I can live it.  If that works I might dump windows altogether.  

Either would do the job but Mint is probably better for those coming from Windows as it has a similar layout (start menu and task bar along the bottom of the screen) and, unless Ubuntu has started doing this as well, there's an option when you install to include closed source software and drivers by default.

digitalscream

RedRabbit said:

Adam_MD said:

monquixote said:What you need to appreciate is that any one of us could have our own Linux distro if we wanted to so most of them are made by some bloke in a shed. Ubuntu and Fedora are made by big companies with lots of care and attention and support and documentation so that's really what you want to go for until you really know what you are doing.

All I’ve ever really known is windows I’ve used macs but not very often and the general advice seems to be mint is one of the easiest for those of us coming from windows to manage.  Would you recommend me going with Ubuntu itself instead?  

Ive got the rest of today to myself so am going to clone my HDD onto the new ssd, partition it and put Linux on in dual boot with win 10.  im going to try Linux for internets and pedal decals and keep windows for ableton live then when I’m used to Linux and feeling braver I’m going to try reaper and see if I can live it.  If that works I might dump windows altogether.  

Either would do the job but Mint is probably better for those coming from Windows as it has a similar layout (start menu and task bar along the bottom of the screen) and, unless Ubuntu has started doing this as well, there's an option when you install to include closed source software and drivers by default.

Ubuntu gives you the option to install proprietary-licensed stuff like codecs on installation, and then there's an option for downloading closed-source drivers in the Software and Updates application.

RedRabbit

digitalscream said:

Ubuntu gives you the option to install proprietary-licensed stuff like codecs on installation, and then there's an option for downloading closed-source drivers in the Software and Updates application.

Must have changed since I last installed Ubuntu then - it's probably a fair few years ago. Am I right in thinking Ubuntu is back on Gnome now?

digitalscream

RedRabbit said:

digitalscream said:

Ubuntu gives you the option to install proprietary-licensed stuff like codecs on installation, and then there's an option for downloading closed-source drivers in the Software and Updates application.

Must have changed since I last installed Ubuntu then - it's probably a fair few years ago. Am I right in thinking Ubuntu is back on Gnome now?

As of 17.10 yes, I think. I've used GNOME for ages now, it's always just been smoother and more stable than Unity.

Although the proprietary drivers thing has been in there since 12.04 as far as I know...it's certainly been a number of years since I had to install NVidia drivers manually.