What is a good x86 Linux OS similar to the Pyra to get familiar with?


@Klumpen As a kid I didn't know what I was doing and frequently opened things up our tried to "fix" or improve things. I lived with my mother at the time, and I got in trouble for messing with those things that weren't just mine. (Had I lived with my father I suspect this behavior would have been encouraged.) Did getting in trouble stop me? Nope. I kept poking around and "fixing" (sometimes breaking beyond repair) things. And I started messing with public stuff and other people's property (when given permission, for that last group). Along the way I learned a little, and grew to disregard, or sometimes be straight up defiant, about what I was "supposed to" do or not do.

Kids today still have that attitude, and much of the sort of things I messed around with are cheaper now (like computers...remember I told you I wasn't allowed to use the one at home. Now you can go buy one for next to nothing, and many people will give you there old ones if you ask.) Kids today are also just as lazy, but now being lazy kinda goes to extremes (I am pretty sure technology leads to this anyway, as people don't bother with those essential basic skills to stay alive one they have have something that will do it for them...now they just don't need to bother learning or remembering since Google can usually feed them the answer in a couple seconds) and this is with kids and adults.

Maybe one the Borg generation reaches adulthood things will be better, but I suspect it will be mostly what you see with Hugh and Seven (unable to function effectively as individuals until they learn those skills that most of us matter pretty early on), and the various groups that were cut off from the collective (requiring someone, anyone, to guide them and show them how to live and give their existence purpose, even if it is one of slavery and pointless sacrifice).

I do understand being scared to mess something up or do wrong. You can't be crippled by that though...even drinking a glass of water could be lethal if done incorrectly, but not drinking water will quickly result in death. Learning how to use computers properly is not quite so dire. Yet.

It's like a brain assist, but it's there to build up your awareness and abilities, not make the driving situation completely mindless. some people like that, but i want my mind engaged... I usually tell my co-pilot to silence the smartphone, and just tell me the next thing...
That is how I do it, too, if we don't have much time. Otherwise I try to remember how to get there on my own. I frequently get lost like this, and in addition to learning alternate routes (which may save me time in the future) I also get to see things I wouldn't otherwise. I recently drove through a rich neighborhood and saw some interesting massive houses, and all sorts of wonderful trees after I took a wrong turn down a one way road.


Your objective was to 'Learn Linux'. Admirable as that may be, that is not going to be everyone's goal.
My goal was to have an OS on my recently purchased refurbed laptop. Being broke, my options seemed limited, but I was aware of Linux. Based on the little info I had, it was way beyond my skill level, and in many ways it was. I didn't fall in love with *nix until I stayed working with Solaris. The main things I learned with that laptop are what not to do when installing an OS, and that is for both Linux and Windows.

If the average Pyra user eventually is someone that views the device and the OS as a black box they will either need to try to figure some things out on their own, or there will be a lot of time spent by them and the technically proficient users trying to fix their problems. By then they will probably not want to waste their time with it anymore.

And this isn't a Linux only problem. I spent a long time fixing Windows problems for friends and family, with my advice and instructions being ignored and usually requiring me to keep helping them out. I got tired of it. Instead of asking for payment, I just told them I wouldn't help them anymore. Some, probably most, turned to others for help (with some later asking me to fix what they have already paid someone else for). Some tried to figure things out on their own, and now they know how to do the basics, fix common issues, and how to avoid problems. When they hit a wall they use resources they have (Google isn't all bad**), and then if they call me I am more likely to help, and they actually listen when I explain things, like /path/to/file is not an actual path to a file.

A user will need to know how to do the basics. I don't care if you don't want to become an admin or a mechanic, you still need to be able to use the command line in case it goes to shit, and you need to be able to change a tire. It is probably also a good idea to know how to manually login and fill the gas tank, because you may not be going anywhere without that sometimes.

If you are going to be using *nix systems, you should understand the differences between them, and what to do to accomplish the same thing. I know too many people that think they know it all and then can't install something from a repo because they only know one distro...and they are supposedly sysadmins? Also, a distro (or DE ;)) isn't best just because someone knows how to use it. They need to try others to see what works best for them.

This may not be a requirement with the Pyra, but it is definitely a very good idea for someone that is going to start messing with x86 Linux. If they happen to be a Pyra owner they may want to bring their favorite distro along, too. If a user is unwilling to learn how to use their tools there is a problem.

Your LibreOffice pros, artists, musicians, programmers, AND gamers all probably understand that you need to know how things work and how to use something to accomplish what you are trying to do. If they want to use a Pyra they should probably try to learn some of that as it applies to the Pyra and Linux. @Yerffej was trying to do just that by creating this thread and asking for a recommendation for a distro. Thumbs up to people like that. We need more of them .



**we should probably debate that in another thread if it is worth discussing.
[doublepost=1478231908,1478231742][/doublepost]I should probably avoid this thread in the future. I doubt anyone wants to read these long posts with my opinion.
 
Your LibreOffice pros, artists, musicians, programmers, AND gamers all probably understand that you need to know how things work and how to use something to accomplish what you are trying to do.

This elitest attitude that people HAVE to learn the nitty gritty of linux command line is the reason that linux is not more mainstream.
The reality of modern day OS's is that people do NOT want to learn and with iOS and Android and to an extent Windows is heading that way too. what people want, what they buy is a device they turn on. see a button for an "app"store where they can browse through many pictures of games,music programs, ebook readers,music making apps like pianos,drume,guitars etc. Then all they have to do is press the "install"button and iin a few minutes the app is installed ready to go. Apple and iOS actively discourage you from getting to the nitty gritty, With android you can get a little further. Even windows is going this way with Win10.
We are part of an older generation that does want to know how it works, there are still newer people who want this too, BUT the majority of users just want stuff to work, and they dont want to spend hours learning how. this is how apple conned millions into thinking they are good!!
 
This elitest attitude that people HAVE to learn the nitty gritty of linux command line is the reason that linux is not more mainstream.
The reality of modern day OS's is that people do NOT want to learn and with iOS and Android and to an extent Windows is heading that way too. what people want, what they buy is a device they turn on. see a button for an "app"store where they can browse through many pictures of games,music programs, ebook readers,music making apps like pianos,drume,guitars etc. Then all they have to do is press the "install"button and iin a few minutes the app is installed ready to go. Apple and iOS actively discourage you from getting to the nitty gritty, With android you can get a little further. Even windows is going this way with Win10.
We are part of an older generation that does want to know how it works, there are still newer people who want this too, BUT the majority of users just want stuff to work, and they dont want to spend hours learning how. this is how apple conned millions into thinking they are good!!
Maybe it's elitist, but I think people SHOULD have to learn to use a computer. Stupid people are the main reason Windows and Android are such a pain in the butt.
 
and there you go again people who dont use a computer as you would like them to are not STUPID. they just want to use the tool NOT learn how to make the damn tool to do the job they want.
The muso who uses Garage Band to make music doesnt NEED to know how to write the program to be able to use it and make music.
 
This elitest attitude that people HAVE to learn the nitty gritty of linux command line is the reason that linux is not more mainstream.
My elitist attitude has nothing to do with Linux. You need to know how an instrument works to play music with it. You can't just write a program, you need to understand the language and what you are trying to do. You need to know how to operate a car to drive it or you will cause damage/injuries/death, if you can even get it moving. I won't comment on the LibreOffice pro, as those people already have to know how to use a computer, regardless of specialising in office tasks. Art is such a loose term now I can't say much about it other than if you are using a computer for your art you, that's right, NEED to know how to use it.

I don't care if Linux is mainstream. (SURPRISE!!! It is, and has been for a long time, just not so much for desktop users.) I kinda wish it was les popular so that it wouldn't be as much of a target.

I am amused that you took a quote where I was talking about general computer use, specifically starred it WAS NOT a Linux only problem, and wrote about Windows users, and you tried to show that people that say users need to have a basic understanding of how to interact with their OS are elitist and the problem with Linux. I still tell people that I don't know shit about *nix or computers. It is because I am so elite, obviously.

As you said, most people don't want to learn. That is a problem. Going back to our car, if someone is just given a car and the keys and no information, and they don't bother trying to figure things out for themselves, what do you think will happen? At least computers are somewhat safer, not that that saves people's money (and I could tell you some "fun" stories there). Self diving cars aren't very common yet, but when they are I am sure the masses will rejoice. I hope the people that rely on those never get stuck behind the wheel of a car with manual transmission. That seat is solely for the elite (not me, btw, but I have sorta managed before...sorry if that makes everyone cringe). Yes, that was sarcasm.
[doublepost=1478245810,1478245749][/doublepost]
and there you go again people who dont use a computer as you would like them to are not STUPID. they just want to use the tool NOT learn how to make the damn tool to do the job they want.
This is why everyone should have a chainsaw.
 
You need to know how an instrument works to play music with it.
No you don't. I've known a lot of musicians with no idea what "resonance" is: they just know that when you pluck a string it makes noise. You don't need to know how to rebuild a carburetor to drive a car, you don't even need to know any of the science behind combustion, you just need to know that pushing the gas makes it move, pushing the brake makes it stop, and the little stick on the side tells the people around you what you intend to do. These are "user interfaces" to the internal mechanics. You need to know how the "user interface" works, you don't need to know anything underneath it.
Life is full of things that you use every day without knowing how it does it: I can think of several things which I used and enjoyed for years before I knew the science behind them and I guarantee that there are even more that I'm not thinking about right now because of how well they've been designed. Even in computing, there are several tools that I use that I have or had no idea what they were actually doing. I used a web browser for years, trusting that "https" meant security, long before I actually knew what a certificate was. Even now I can only explain how cryptography works because my job required that I learn, explicitly so that I could write tools such that others *wouldn't* need to learn. That should be the ultimate goal of computing, to make it so it can be used WITHOUT having to learn the details; that's the hard part.
Computers should not be held to a fundamentally different standard. Period. They are a tool and should ultimately be treated as any other tool. What kind of world would this be if a carpenter wasn't allowed to use a screwdriver until he could explain torque? You cannot possibly learn the details of every single tool you ever use, ain't nobody got time for that.
You shouldn't *need* to learn the details in order to use a computer, and the idea that you *must* I honestly believe is a handicap.
I think what is actually the issue here is that "smart" people are creating these tools for other "smart" people and not putting any thought into making them user friendly, which is entirely fine and their prerogative, but when someone who is "not smart" asks about it the response is the elitist "you should learn", instead of the reality of "we didn't think of that and probably never will". Again, that is fine, there is nothing inherently wrong with making a tool that you and others like you can use and enjoy: what isn't fine is telling other people that they're enjoying something wrong, that unless they are "like me" they don't deserve to have that tool and if they want it they *must* change to be "like me". I agree with spud42, this idea that you have to learn the nitty gritty of what happens underneath the UI in order to actually use the UI has held Linux back. That's why Ubuntu made such huge gains when it changed it's interface, and you know what? That's been a benefit to EVERYONE. I don't use Ubuntu, but the number of games that have been given Ubuntu support (and conveniently generic x86 Linux support for the "smart" people who know how) because of it's increase in market share over the past few years is not zero.
There was an article I read once that cemented this in my head. It was a few years ago I think, so I've long forgotten the details, but the gist of it was that making things accessible could not be detrimental, and in most cases actually benefited everyone: automatic doors for wheelchair and elderly (weak) people means average able-bodied people can get through the door with an armload of stuff; contrasting colours which are practically needed by some with poor eyesight still help those with perfect eyesight.
Know where we'd be if engineers said "I'm designing this for people who can walk upright with two fully functional arms"? We'd be stuck outside apartment buildings with an arm load of groceries struggling to grab the handle.
And this is what I firmly believe with Linux as well: when you make a design that needs to have the underlying details understood in order to use it you are holding everyone back. If you're being lazy and not thinking of user friendliness (and once again, this is entirely valid, because there are a lot of times when making something truly "user friendly" would cost more than it benefits) then just admit to it, don't pretend like it's the users fault for not understanding your suboptimal design. Don't tell the paraplegic he just needs to regrow his arms to use the hammer, confess that there's no automatic hammer and there probably never will be, and the armless guy needs to get someone else to do it.

Going back to our car, if someone is just given a car and the keys and no information, and they don't bother trying to figure things out for themselves, what do you think will happen?
That's a flawed analogy. No one is proposing giving people a computer with no instruction at all; that's what help files are for. What's being proposed is that we simply don't skimp on those help files and then say it's the users fault for not wanting to learn. Imagine you took a lesson in how to drive a Ford, and then you got behind the wheel of a Honda and everything was completely different, and when you ask what you're supposed to press to make the car go forward you get told to just open up the hood, dig through the engine, and follow the gas line back to the appropriate pedal: it's easy!
Fortunately cars do not work like that: once you've learned one you've got enough information to be able to use others, and when you don't there's a manual right in the glovebox (or it should be in the glovebox) to fill in the missing details.
On the other hand, when learning how to drive, did anyone ever explicitly tell you "you must press the gas X% to accelerate Y"? Hell no. The instruction was "push the gas, and it moves. Push the brake and it stops." The details were discovered while using the tool (often with hilarious consequences in a big empty parking lot, but learned just the same they were) because it's actually a surprisingly good interface. Even now, after decades of driving, I still couldn't explain exactly how much to depress a pedal in order to get a certain amount of acceleration, or how much to turn the wheel to make a specific curve: I just do what needs to be done. Even getting behind another wheel where the pressure and the angle are slightly different, the interface is still intuitive enough that I can figure it out. Car analogy is actually a very good example of exactly where computers (and linux) should be going, the exact opposite of what you're trying to suggest about having to "learn" them: there's enough information in learning to figure out what all the buttons are supposed to do, the rest is intuition from a well designed interface and details from trial and error.
 
"Solved" is an exaggeration, you'll run into tons of issues if you're not using the very same system they took those files from.

That's why they forked Debian to make SteamOS. They expect developers to target that distro or the runtime libraries that come with Steam client or other distros.
Debian and Ubuntu are the only other distros supported, the rest are only supported by the community.

On Arch based distros, they did a package call steam-native-runtime, you install it, and you will have a nice Steam (Native) icon.
For people that use open source GPU drivers is great, and better than expecting Valve to fix the problem on their Github bug tracker.

This elitest attitude that people HAVE to learn the nitty gritty of linux command line is the reason that linux is not more mainstream.

The command line is present in all modern OS, but that doesn't mean you need to use or understand how it works to use programs with GUIs.

But Linux on the desktop is not more mainstream because it doesn't come preinstalled like Android, a Linux distro, does on phones, tablets, etc.

One example: http://news.softpedia.com/news/dell...sold-in-china-are-ubuntu-powered-491666.shtml

From my experience, FLOSS developers make programs, at the beginning, because they have a need to fill or because other options are not enough for their needs.
But with time, and if the project becomes very popular (e.g. Krita), they tend to hear their users needs and adapt to their needs.
 
Debian and Ubuntu are the only other distros supported, the rest are only supported by the community.
I'm not even talking about Ubuntu/SteamOS-only, I'm talking about the very fact that you'll run into the same issues by using e.g. Ubuntu 16.10. It is a general problem, I wouldn't be surprised if even SteamOS is affected, because the runtime files were always taken from an Ubuntu LTS version.
 
and there you go again people who dont use a computer as you would like them to are not STUPID. they just want to use the tool NOT learn how to make the damn tool to do the job they want.
The muso who uses Garage Band to make music doesnt NEED to know how to write the program to be able to use it and make music.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are a TON of ACTUAL morons who have no idea how to use a computer, and it would not be possible to make an OS that they could use without help. In my experience with tech support, these users are in the majority, and they WILFULLY REFUSE to learn how to use their operating system. These are the people who should not be using a computer at all, in my opinion, because when they do, OS makers like Microsoft try to cater to them, and that makes the OS a pain in the ass for people like me to use. This is why I would like to stop using Windows, but then the people who make games also support these same dumbed down OSes.
 
... they WILFULLY REFUSE to learn how to use their operating system. These are the people who should not be using a computer at all, in my opinion, because when they do, OS makers like Microsoft try to cater to them, and that makes the OS a pain in the ass for people like me to use

Technically Microsoft aren't (just) catering to them, they're actively supporting/encouraging them, as it's in their interest if everyone is completely and helplessly dependent on their products. They're not alone in that regard.

But this is exactly why Linux got so much traction in the first place, as there are still, and always will be, those of us who crave options, configurability and DRM/licence-free hardware, software and data. Oh and a better sense of privacy.

Not sure how all of this is related to someone getting started with their Pyra quickly and efficiently...
 
I have an old dual core laptop laying around, and I want to load Linux on it. So I figured I would load it with a distro to help me get familiar with Pyra's OS. I know it would be some sort of Debian, but which one? When the Pyras are shipped I'd like to get a head start!

If anyone DOES get this far into our bickering and wants to know the answer to the OP's question...

Debian XFCE is the most likely Operating System and Desktop Environment. For your X86 laptop, you can information here:
https://www.debian.org/

The distribution you want will depend a bit on whether your dual core laptop is 32bit or 64bit. If you don't know, you could check your laptop's bios and it should tell you your CPU model - which you can then look up to find out if it is 32bit or 64bit - or you could just install the 32bit (works on 64bit systems too).

After you obtain your Debian AMD64 or 32bit version, the selection of the Desktop Environment happens during the installation process. When you see a list with Gnome, XFCE and others in it - simply select XFCE. You can add/change/switch desktop environments later or even have different user accounts that default to different DEs if you choose to explore more.

To start out:
1. Get an ISO image.
2. Figure out how to burn the ISO image to disk or USB device such that it is bootable 'live'.
3. Reboot to the USB or CD.
4. Click the install icon.
5. Installation & menus & options - they're pretty straight forward, but if you need help there are guides for this. You'll create a system account with superuser/root capabilities during this process - this is a service account, you'll make your 'real' account later.
6. Update the OS - yes, you still have to do this even if you just installed. Icon should be under 'System'.
7. Install additional software through Synaptic Package Manager (easiest method). There are lists out there of 'perfect' installs.
8. Create one or more non-root user accounts and grant them permissions to only the capabilities that they are likely to need.
9. Log in under a user account.
10. Start having fun or being productive.

Count on the above taking around 3 hours from when you're done getting an ISO downloaded.
 
Mint does and so does Debian. And it hasn't been any other way in Debian during the last 10 years (iirc; maybe you hat to "apt-get install foo" 10 years ago, but this is where I get back to the "basic understanding of how the system works" that I expect of beginners).
The problems with mp3 lie within software patents, not within licenses. Debian doesn't really care about software patents. They don't like them, but from a technical POV they only care for the freedom of licenses.

with debian 7 i had to use a separate repo for that, and it was last year
 
No you don't. I've known a lot of musicians with no idea what "resonance" is: they just know that when you pluck a string it makes noise.
It seems I am not alone in long posts. I haven't yet read your whole post.

What you describe is what I meant. They know "pluck the string, it makes sound" not "blow on it and it makes sound" for that particular instrument. Furthermore, to play songs as they are traditionally thought of they will need to know (probably through experience or being taught) that to get a higher note they can disrupt the vibration of the the string. Eventually they will learn where to do this to get a specific note or sound, and maybe that they can do this with multiple strings, if the instrument has more than one, and also that they can manipulate the sound using various techniques and other tools. A beginner doesn't pick up an instrument without understanding it and instantly become the world's most proficient master of that instrument. They need to know how to use it to accomplish their goals.

I make use of various things that are not considered instruments for my music, as well as some traditional instruments that I am not very good with, yet to get the sound I want I need to know how to operate it and how to make it make the specific sound(s) I need at a particular moment.

You don't need to know how to rebuild a carburetor to drive a car, you don't even need to know any of the science behind combustion, you just need to know that pushing the gas makes it move, pushing the brake makes it stop, and the little stick on the side tells the people around you what you intend to do.
So we agree, the operator/user/driver needs to know the basics of how to use the car. This is how it is with most tools. A computer is a tool. I never said someone needs to know everything about a computer, or car, or musical instrument, or chainsaw, or can opener, to use it, but they do need a basic understanding of how it works to get it to do what it is supposed to do. This is even true of a stone hammer.

These are "user interfaces" to the internal mechanics. You need to know how the "user interface" works, you don't need to know anything underneath it.
Again, we agree, so I am starting to get confused about if you are disagreeing with me or not. The Pyra and other computers intended for users have two user interfaces, and there may be times when the user find they are starting at the CLI instead of the GUI they are familiar with. To be able to use that computer they need to know at least how to get back to the virtual terminal they were using or how to start the GUI, and it would be helpful (but possibly not needed depending on the individual and the situation) to know at least a little more. I have seen a handful of people get scared when they don't see windows and such, and they need to understand that the CLI is normal for this OS.

This is one area where I admit I do have a hard time understanding it from the perspective of someone that has never used/seen a CLI before. Whenever I am working with somebody to show them things I try to expose them to it, even with Windows (although I am usually having them ping or trace route if I am helping someone with something on a Windows box).

Life is full of things that you use every day without knowing how it does it: I can think of several things which I used and enjoyed for years before I knew the science behind them and I guarantee that there are even more that I'm not thinking about right now because of how well they've been designed.
That is fine and dandy. It is also not what I am talking about. Maybe I should have used a different term than "basics". I mean that to use an ax to chop wood you need to know that you swing the thin side of the metal part at the wood instead of throwing the wood at the ax, even if it might occasionally work. I don't mean you need to understand why that works or metallurgy. I don't know most of how my body and cells and such work together, but that isn't the sort of thing I was talking about.

Computers should not be held to a fundamentally different standard. Period. They are a tool and should ultimately be treated as any other tool.
Yet again, we agree. There needs to be a basic level of knowledge and understanding about a tool for it to be used.

What kind of world would this be if a carpenter wasn't allowed to use a screwdriver until he could explain torque?
Did I say that all computer users need to understand binary? Do you think a computer user needs to know how to run a program? Pretty sure we agree that a carpenter that uses screws needs to understand how a screw works (you twist it this direction and it goes in and holds the things together) and that they need to put a particular part of the driver into the screw and twist it.

I think what is actually the issue here is that "smart" people are creating these tools for other "smart" people and not putting any thought into making them user friendly, which is entirely fine and their prerogative, but when someone who is "not smart" asks about it the response is the elitist "you should learn", instead of the reality of "we didn't think of that and probably never will".
Not sure how that is elitist. Humans have to learn almost everything they do. Those that can do them now had to learn to walk, and talk, and cook, and drive a car, and use a screwdriver, AND use a computer. If you want to do something you learn how. If it requires using tools to do it, you learn how to use them.

Know where we'd be if engineers said "I'm designing this for people who can walk upright with two fully functional arms"? We'd be stuck outside apartment buildings with an arm load of groceries struggling to grab the handle.
I like that example. I am often in that exact situation with the addition of needing to unlock the door and having no light. I usually set a bag down if I can't get to my keys, the lock, or turn the round doorknob. I also adapt as needed to a situation, or change whatever it is that is problematic (I am guessing this would be the automatic doors, which isn't an option, not that I would want it anyway). Due to my night blindness I do ask that the exterior lights be turned on if I am out getting food, however they are nearly never on unless I turned them on before I left and no one turned them off. So I learned new ways to deal with the situation: I turn the key to the correct orientation and feel for the key holes to get the key in. I suppose I could just tell everyone that they need to accommodate me (which I do, regularly, by asking that the lights be turned/left on), but that obviously doesn't work.

If you're being lazy and not thinking of user friendliness (and once again, this is entirely valid, because there are a lot of times when making something truly "user friendly" would cost more than it benefits) then just admit to it, don't pretend like it's the users fault for not understanding your suboptimal design.
Agreed, to a point. Linux was not originally intended to be used by everyone for everything. That is something that happened over time with many things added on. If someone is too lazy (or ignorant) to learn how to interact with the OS the problem lies with them, not those that created the thing. If they are unwilling to fix that deficiency there are other options they should should use instead. They will still need to learn how to use the other OS.

Don't tell the paraplegic he just needs to regrow his arms to use the hammer, confess that there's no automatic hammer and there probably never will be, and the armless guy needs to get someone else to do it.
Not even close to the same thing as using a computer, but yeah, if you can't use it, don't. The difference is really that the person with no arms can't use the hammer (at least in your scenario, as I think that they can use it, and many have learned to do such things without hands), which has nothing to do with be unwilling to learn.

If it were impossible to learn to use the OS I might accept it (and there are people that this applies to), however that is not the case. The person that intends to buy and use a Pyra needs to understand how to use it, out be willing to learn, if they really plan on doing anything with it other than collecting it (just as your person with no arms/hands that hasn't adapted to using their legs and feet or other parts for manual manipulation can't expect to make much use of it themself). But that is just me blaming the victim, or at least that is what it seems you were getting at. Somehow it is the hammer manufacturers fault.

It is kinda funny how many people are arguing against learning. It is also funny that many of those arguing against learning how to use Linux have learned. I say keep learning, but if you don't want to, fine. I am less willing to help you if you are unwilling to learn. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and maybe he will stop complaining about how difficult Linux is, because he will be fishing, and not near me if he can't shut up. Depends on how he is fishing, though. I would love to learn to spear fish. Beware: There are things you need to know to be able to do it (I failed in my few attempts when I was younger, but I got better at it as I experimented and learned some things).

Let's take this in a more sensible direction. Assuming that the Pyra has something like Mini Menu and nothing ever goes wrong, and the user wants to play a game, and it is already available and somehow started when they saw what they wanted to play. They will still need to know how to play the game. If they are still new to the game, they will need to learn those skills. Are all of you opposed to this? Should we make games that they don't have to learn? Should the games play themselves to avoid forcing the player to know what they are doing and how the game works?

I am getting tired of replying to so many different sections of your post. I really appreciate that you thought through so many things. For the stuff under the second quote I will just throw it all here:
That's a flawed analogy. No one is proposing giving people a computer with no instruction at all; that's what help files are for. What's being proposed is that we simply don't skimp on those help files and then say it's the users fault for not wanting to learn. Imagine you took a lesson in how to drive a Ford, and then you got behind the wheel of a Honda and everything was completely different, and when you ask what you're supposed to press to make the car go forward you get told to just open up the hood, dig through the engine, and follow the gas line back to the appropriate pedal: it's easy!
Fortunately cars do not work like that: once you've learned one you've got enough information to be able to use others, and when you don't there's a manual right in the glovebox (or it should be in the glovebox) to fill in the missing details.
On the other hand, when learning how to drive, did anyone ever explicitly tell you "you must press the gas X% to accelerate Y"? Hell no. The instruction was "push the gas, and it moves. Push the brake and it stops." The details were discovered while using the tool (often with hilarious consequences in a big empty parking lot, but learned just the same they were) because it's actually a surprisingly good interface. Even now, after decades of driving, I still couldn't explain exactly how much to depress a pedal in order to get a certain amount of acceleration, or how much to turn the wheel to make a specific curve: I just do what needs to be done. Even getting behind another wheel where the pressure and the angle are slightly different, the interface is still intuitive enough that I can figure it out. Car analogy is actually a very good example of exactly where computers (and linux) should be going, the exact opposite of what you're trying to suggest about having to "learn" them: there's enough information in learning to figure out what all the buttons are supposed to do, the rest is intuition from a well designed interface and details from trial and error.
You are right, it is flawed. I used it because it was convenient and cars had already been used a few times, and most people reading it would understand.

Regardless of how much documentation you give users many will ignore it (and some won't even know it is there). Take man pages for example. Some that know about them will skip them and not bother, then panic when they encounter the CLI. Many coming from Windows may not know about them, and due to feeling intimidated by the command line they might stick with long and difficult series of clicking and dragging and hitting keys. Even though I started out with a CLI I have done things that could be done more quickly and easily with a couple simple commands (like moving and renaming songs in my music collection). I still catch myself doing this. Sure, you can do it the hard way, just like throwing wood at an ax. I guess in a sense that is enough. But what if you need to do an update or upgrade. Again, I guess technically you don't "need" to do them. Depending on how use it and what you are doing it will be fine to stick with exactly the same stuff for 20 years. For most people this is not the case. Those users need to know how to do that. That is what I am saying. Computer users need to know the basics. Most don't bother. I am speaking of people that don't need to do these things as a part of their employment (although I have encountered those that were unable to do tasks that were a part of their responsibilities, but even they weren't users, which kinda makes it worse).

Rather than Ford and Honda, it is more like automatic and manual transmission, really. I get your point. Again, I am not saying that users need to poke around under the hood of their OS. They do need to know how to use it, though. To do that they need some basic knowledge, and they can either be told/shown/whatever by someone else, read about or watch others doing it, or, my favorite, try to figure it out themselves. The best option is all of those (I do find that "learning the hard way" makes it stock in my memory better). Users don't need to know everything, but they do need some basics. Maybe the person with no arms didn't know what they were doing with a chainsaw. :p

Learning while doing, it seems, is another thing we agree on. It is a part of learning to drive a car (or ride a bicycle). There seems to be some categorization of things where people are willing to learn with some but not with the others. As you said, pushing the accelerator the right amount is kinda complicated and requires experience. Many users get complacent with computers and aren't willing to put in the same effort of learning how to use it. Still, cars and computers are not the same, and you can feel how what you do causes the car to do what it does. Computers are a bit more removed from our nervous system.

I am still lost with where we disagree. We seem to agree on most things, but with differences on perspective nonetheless. Perhaps it is that I think knowing where things are and typing commands are an important part of using *nix even if there is a GUI. I doubt that, since I don't think I mentioned those before this post. And there is still the issue of Windows users not bothering to learn the basics of that OS, which I also feel is needed (although an average user won't need CMD or whatever).

I guess I don't want computer literacy to drop to the level of very young children, as I was super happy when computers became mainstream and I had so many dreams off how the future would be. Now it feels like many puerile are returning (or I guess never progressed beyond) the computer equivalent of hitting things with a rock. Perhaps I should be happy that the tool is being used at all.

If you were trolling me, it was kinda fun.


... but oh so interesting...
I am glad we could entertain you. :)
 
Pretty sure we agree that a carpenter that uses screws needs to understand how a screw works (you twist it this direction and it goes in and holds the things together) and that they need to put a particular part of the driver into the screw and twist it.
There are plenty of screwdriver users (not sure I'd describe many of them as carpenters), who don't know to try to use the right screwdriver for the right head, or risk damaging the head over time. And I didn't learn the pros and cons between philips crossheads and pozidrive until some thread on these boards in fact.

I'm not sure a computer and a car as the same sort of tool as a screwdriver, because they can both be used for recreation as well as 'just getting the job done'. Maybe the musical instrument analogy is good too, on that front. I do think every machine should have some administrator looking after it, to apply patches and educate users not to open random attachments and so on, and that applies to all things with a CPU and an internet connection on them, as the recent rise of botnets has shown.

Not sure what point I'm trying to converge on here, so I'll just keep it short at least.
 
There are plenty of screwdriver users (not sure I'd describe many of them as carpenters), who don't know to try to use the right screwdriver for the right head, or risk damaging the head over time. And I didn't learn the pros and cons between philips crossheads and pozidrive until some thread on these boards in fact.

I wanted to mention something like this, along with several other points both relevant to actual computer use and merely illustrative, however I had a long way to go, and I also didn't know if I would want to reply to some of the later posts.

It is a great point, and serves to show that even if there are some minor differences, as long as the Pyra uses something that resembles and functions similarly to the GUI of the dominant desktop OS that most computer users are familiar with as the default, Pyra users that aren't familiar with Linux should still be able too get things done (even if they risk messing some things up, which is much less of an issue than using the wrong driver on screws). It also shows that ignorance can be a problem, and that as a user of anything an individual should be willing to expand their knowledge so that they can deal with situations that come up when using their tools. No one knows everything, and those that think they do tend to be the ones that only have a tiny amount of information (not to say there are no experts, but even they don't know it all).

I'm not sure a computer and a car as the same sort of tool as a screwdriver, because they can both be used for recreation as well as 'just getting the job done'. Maybe the musical instrument analogy is good too, on that front. I do think every machine should have some administrator looking after it, to apply patches and educate users not to open random attachments and so on, and that applies to all things with a CPU and an internet connection on them, as the recent rise of botnets has shown.
There are people that use a screwdriver in their recreational activities. I am one of them. I would be surprised if there aren't many others here as well.

As for the admin, when it is a personal computer that responsibility falls on the owner/user. I don't think they need the same level of knowledge as an admin in a large corporation, but they definitely need to know some things, and not only those related to security. Being able to install software, or even the OS, is a good place to start. Some basic maintenance would also be helpful, but I don't want someone saying that a driver doesn't need to be able to change their own oil, so a user shouldn't have to do the equivalent.

I thought I would be able to keep my reply short, and it still ended up longer than I wanted.

I just had a scary thought. I am not looking forward to a next generation of cloud computing, if it were to be successful, where nothing is stored locally other than the software (OS in some sense) required to connect to the remote services, and people have no real control over their own data and software. That would also result in the access device being useless without access to those resources. (I guess I don't really want a PADD after all.) Things aren't quite to that point yet, although I see how it could happen. A good side to that (on the surface level) would be that devices might be cheaper. Also, it would take the burden of keeping things running optimally off the user, and trained and knowledgeable admins can maintain everything for them, kinda like you mentioned.

Must...stop...now...
:D
 
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there are a TON of ACTUAL morons who have no idea how to use a computer, and it would not be possible to make an OS that they could use without help. In my experience with tech support, these users are in the majority, and they WILFULLY REFUSE to learn how to use their operating system. These are the people who should not be using a computer at all, in my opinion, because when they do, OS makers like Microsoft try to cater to them, and that makes the OS a pain in the ass for people like me to use. This is why I would like to stop using Windows, but then the people who make games also support these same dumbed down OSes.

yet again you you class the majority of users as MORONS because they do not need to or want to learn the nitty gritty of the OS they use. your fundamental mistake is thinking they need to learn to use the OS. They do not and don't want to USE the OS. There are millions of users of iPads and Android tablets who dont even realise that the device they use HAS an OS... they just turn it on open the browser or facebook or photoshop or a note taking app or whatever they want to use. The whole point of computers was to make things easier. If the OS gets in the way of using the computing device productively then there is something wrong with the OS. No matter what it is Linux,iOS,Android or Windows...
[doublepost=1478331784,1478331404][/doublepost]
If anyone DOES get this far into our bickering and wants to know the answer to the OP's question...

Debian XFCE is the most likely Operating System and Desktop Environment. For your X86 laptop, you can information here:
https://www.debian.org/

The distribution you want will depend a bit on whether your dual core laptop is 32bit or 64bit. If you don't know, you could check your laptop's bios and it should tell you your CPU model - which you can then look up to find out if it is 32bit or 64bit - or you could just install the 32bit (works on 64bit systems too).

After you obtain your Debian AMD64 or 32bit version, the selection of the Desktop Environment happens during the installation process. When you see a list with Gnome, XFCE and others in it - simply select XFCE. You can add/change/switch desktop environments later or even have different user accounts that default to different DEs if you choose to explore more.

To start out:
1. Get an ISO image.
2. Figure out how to burn the ISO image to disk or USB device such that it is bootable 'live'.
3. Reboot to the USB or CD.
4. Click the install icon.
5. Installation & menus & options - they're pretty straight forward, but if you need help there are guides for this. You'll create a system account with superuser/root capabilities during this process - this is a service account, you'll make your 'real' account later.
6. Update the OS - yes, you still have to do this even if you just installed. Icon should be under 'System'.
7. Install additional software through Synaptic Package Manager (easiest method). There are lists out there of 'perfect' installs.
8. Create one or more non-root user accounts and grant them permissions to only the capabilities that they are likely to need.
9. Log in under a user account.
10. Start having fun or being productive.

Count on the above taking around 3 hours from when you're done getting an ISO downloaded.

Took me 4 hours a couple of nights ago because i was installing to a VM using virtualbox. my problem is that for some reason the motherboard bios had virtualisation turned off by default! i had downloaded the 64 bit version of Debian and could only get a 32 bit VM..
new to Debian so it will be a fun trip. Xfce installed... if i limit the display size to 1280x720 i should get a Pyra like experience?


EDIT: for some reason the boards has combined two different posts.....
 
I have an example. Pulse, the guy that made impulse tracker (those mod/s3m files with IT extension) in assembler. He knew everything about the tracker, all settings, and added new stuff like panbrello (meaning he knew what vibrello is, a little technical sound theory knowledge). Yet, he asked others to create music with his tracker, to be bundled with the release.

That would also result in the access device being useless without access to those resources.
Welcome to the thin clients. In the 70ties, when the VAX server was down, none of the 40 terminals worked (so nobody could gopher or mud). People then went outside, mingled in the cafetaria, and got good at pingpong. In the 10ties, if the Citrix interface is down, I can not tunnel to my desktop... sure, I can work locally on a file, see my local email (but not get new email), etc... but I can work from everywhere.
 
Seems the biggest point of contest is the line which corresponds to the analogy of "turning the screwdriver to tighten the screw". I'd suggest looking it from a goal-oriented view and looking how far you need to go to get the job done if you only care about the end result.

For example, to book a flight online you need to know how to: 1. use the booking site's UI just enough to book the flight, 2. use your browser just enough to get to the desired site, 3. get your OS to start the browser, 4. start your computer

Since all steps after step 2 are identical for any web page/application, that's all many people need to know to use their computer to suit their needs. All the learning they do is most likely different "step ones". Some may actually learn to use tabs (improve on step two) on their browser and that seems to be considered advanced knowledge. They already have enough learning to do with the applications.

My point is, the "driving a car" or "turning the screwdriver" level is the least amount of knowledge and skill to reliably reach a goal. The shortest path you can remember through the maze of options the screen presents you with. Many people use their devices like this, based on memory, not understanding and it's enough for their needs.

Understanding is powerful and flexible but time-consuming and a large cognitive load.
Remembering is weak and rigid but requires little time or cognitive load to pull off.

Trying to understand the tools you use, finding out the "why" and not just the "how" is always a laudible goal, but time and cognitive capacity (not implying intellect, just the amount of stuff one can focus on learning at a time) is always a constraint. If I'm building a case for a computer and I need a dremel to smooth out a corner, I don't start to learn about every bit I can attach to it, but just look up the one needed for the job and perhaps remember it for future needs. I may not even know why it's the right one, just that it is. It's not relevant to my interests at the time to learn anything more than "this is the bit I need for the job". Maybe later when there's time I'll open the manual again and look through all the bits if I think it'll benefit me. Until then I'll just be content that the corner is smoothed successfully, which was my goal to begin with.
 
Back
Top