Calibre 2.0 Crashing at start up

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

That, and certain specialized tasks demanding specific applications, are the bane of Linux on the desktop. I fully agree on that point. Linux often can do grand stuff that Windows can only dream about (automation/customization), or it can't do it at all (specific applications); there is no middle road so you can just use it.

Also when you say to a lot of people these days, do do something via the command line, they haven't a clue. Linux is not the solution unless you know the person is up for it.

[theducks]

What is ironic is that most of the recipients of these systems don't need most of the stuff that does cause not available on Linux problems .

Web browsing: Firefox does a fine job on all platforms

Email client: Take your pick (I use/love Eudora, so I do have Linux issues with that requirement)

Word Processing (suites): Open/Libre office does a lot

Come on, a spreadsheet that these folk will probably be using is not out on the bleeding, power user, edge



And the 'helpers', are not really knowledgeable as they let on.

Word processing is just that.
You 'Center' text,
not click the icon with the bars in the middle

If you know the Task(name), help will be of help ( I use it a lot whenever I am on someone else's system that only has 'Office' )

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by theducks

Word processing is just that.
You 'Center' text,
not click the icon with the bars in the middle

If you know the Task(name), help will be of help ( I use it a lot whenever I am on someone else's system that only has 'Office' )

You're right, of course; if you know what you want to do, it's pretty easy most of the time to figure out how to do it, whatever the current tool is. But that's not how many (most?) people look at things nowadays. They do 'click on the icon with the bars in the middle' instead of 'centering text'

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Also when you say to a lot of people these days, do do something via the command line, they haven't a clue. Linux is not the solution unless you know the person is up for it.

Chances are for anything you'd need to use the command-line for on linux, you'd need to use the command-line or hack the registry or whatever on Windows as well.

I know you like dismissing linux as too demanding for the average user... but have you ever seen a 21st century linux distro? The 'buntus, Linux Mint all make it extremely easy to use linux with no hassle on the part of some allergic-to-tech people I know, except in the cases where they are afraid to even give it a try.

There is no need to use the command-line, unless you are doing things the casual user would never be doing.

You could also take a look at what ChromeOS is doing on an even more basic level than *buntu/Mint, and having a wild success at it too.

Linux != command-line, not for a while now.

[theducks]

I would recommend Mint, Clean and simple UI

The ?buntus switch to Unity would make it even harder for a basilc level W9x/XP person to transition.

Command line: I use it in both OS for those special cases where the CLI is just right

[JSWolf]

The one thing a lot of people see is the choice of software. It's a lot more limited with Linux and there seems to be a lot of compile this to get it working on your particular version. Plus there are the dependency issues as well. Those are big turn offs.

[pearl298]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I don't get what the loyalty to Windows XP is. It's not supported and Windows 7/8.1 are both faster. Other then non-SSE2 processors, there's no reason not to upgrade.

Sadly there is much more to the problem than some sort of misguided loyalty!

I run a Windows XP Virtual Machine (on a Linux Mint host) for several software packages that cannot run under Win 7/8 or Linux Wine, but that I need to use in my business about twice a month. :-(

It is even worse for many larger business/government users. My son is a supervising programmer for the Scottsdale Municipal Court. It took several years to get ONE of their main database interface programs updated to use Win 7. The vendor simply refuses to support Win 8/9.

They still run nearly a dozen XP machines for the same reason - the software vendor is either out of business or cannot be persuaded to support the very old software.

This is one of the major resons that the City of Munich spent nearly 10 years and millions of euros converting to Linux Red Hat! THEY now control the update/upgrade process, not a gaggle of vendors who may or may not be interested in supporting some vital piece of software!

Remeber that in this environment it is not just "does it run", but training of thousands of staff/clerks and the like, together with revised procedures for almost everyhing they do.

Understandably, people get very upset if they spend a night in jail due to some computer glitch or procedural error.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by theducks

I would recommend Mint, Clean and simple UI

The ?buntus switch to Unity would make it even harder for a basilc level W9x/XP person to transition.

Command line: I use it in both OS for those special cases where the CLI is just right

I couldn't stand Unity so I switched from Ubuntu to Arch Linux.

Only Ubuntu uses Unity -- that is the whole point of the other 'buntus. Mint is Ubuntu wih Cinnamon/MATE plopped on top.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The one thing a lot of people see is the choice of software. It's a lot more limited with Linux and there seems to be a lot of compile this to get it working on your particular version. Plus there are the dependency issues as well. Those are big turn offs.

Um, excuse me? Does your linux experience come from running Linux From Scratch, or have you ever heard of software repositories?

I have not had cause to compile anything from source. Anything.

(Actually, not true. I did get calibre running from my source checkout.

Plus the Arch Linux AUR is merely PKGBUILDs, but that compile-from-source process is mechanized and requires no input so it just takes longer than usual. Plus Arch Linux is not a proof to anything.)

[eschwartz]

For the people who have no idea of what LFS linux is, it refers to compiling everything from the kernel on up, yourself, from scratch, without package managers.
There is no install iso, just a general howto philosophy guidebook.
Done for fun by seriously hardcore linux geeks, or else by people in the middle of designing a new distro.

Neither applies except in extreme edge cases which can be spotted several miles off, and the people who do it are MORE than capable.

[mikapanja]

@ Kovid

Prevent calibre from installing or running on Windows XP as there have been many reports of Qt 5 crashing on Windows XP...

I'm running Windows XP SP3 and have installed and used Calibre 2.0 without any problems or crashes, even with prolonged and complex editing sessions.

I would kindly ask you to reconsider and in the next release allow the people running Windows XP to install new versions of Calibre, as long as it works for them. Otherwise they will be stuck with 1.48 (or, in my case, a fine-working 2.0) and practically punished for using Calibre on XP.

If you're worried about potential crashes, make a disclaimer like "Install on Windows XP at your own risk". If something happens, one can always revert to an earlier version.

I know, I know, XP is an old OS, but it's not just the software we have to upgrade, but hardware, too. Not all of us can afford it.

Thank you in advance

[kovidgoyal]

I'm afraid not. There have been simply too many reports of crashes. And I have been able to make the editor crash myself, on XP fairly easily. I cannot in good conscience release software that I know to not work well.

If you really, really want to run calibre 2.x on XP, you can still do so, by running from source and simply commenting out the code that prevents calibre from starting up, which is here: https://github.com/kovidgoyal/calibr...init__.py#L925

[Thasaidon]

I am using Calibre 2.0 on Windows XP SP3 without problems.

I am being prevented from upgrading by the new version of Calibre installing or running on my XP PC despite V2.0 appearing to work correctly on my PC.

Rather than preventing Calibre installing and running on XP why not just display a Message warning about the problems and leave it up to the user to deal with any consequences?

I am using an old PC and have not upgraded because I will be going to live in the Philippines as soon as I have sold my house. When I have moved I will then buy myself a new PC. Packing and shipping a PC to the Philippines by Balikbayan box would be risky.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

I am using Calibre 2.0 on Windows XP SP3 without problems.

I am being prevented from upgrading by the new version of Calibre installing or running on my XP PC despite V2.0 appearing to work correctly on my PC.

Rather than preventing Calibre installing and running on XP why not just display a Message warning about the problems and leave it up to the user to deal with any consequences?

I am using an old PC and have not upgraded because I will be going to live in the Philippines as soon as I have sold my house. When I have moved I will then buy myself a new PC. Packing and shipping a PC to the Philippines by Balikbayan box would be risky.

Kovid gave the definitive answer to this question in this post.

[Thasaidon]

Thank you. That is most helpful, as per usual.

Originally Posted by chaley

Kovid gave the definitive answer to this question in this post.

[nerosegugio]

Kindly, i am into the same situation of "mikapanja".
I have Xp and i run 2.0 without problems.

Kindly, could you explain how run from source and how comment out the code that prevent?

Very thanks!