Any recommended OCR software for Linux?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

See how geeky it's got in here? The in-acronyms being thrown around is dizzying. I feel my hand twitching to give money to big bill. Which is not to say Linux is bad; Merely that it is geeky and also impenetrable to your average dumb user. Not a judgement, just a fact.

Most of those geeky terms also apply to Windows development.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

That's the worst possible choice, as Debian doesn't have any administrative tools and their package format is the worst.
Plus, there is an inherent inability to create a working GUI for the Linux software due to the lack of working IPC.

The Debian package format (the most popular in Linux) is the "worse?" How so? And, if typing...

sudo apt install packageName

...is too difficult, just use one of the GUI front ends, like Synaptics.

Debian is what Crostini is based on (which is what I'm currently using in this Chromebook).

I don't have any idea what you're talking about when mention you can't build a working GUI in Linux. I build Linux computers by installing via a Live USB — which means I literally have a working Linux GUI before I even install the OS.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Exactly. As my other posts show, I am not anti-Linux at all. I loved the fun I had with Linux, my first distro being Mandrake 6 iirc, and am currently engaged in a hobby project to get the most out of Linux on a VM in my current Windows setup. In the end, any software, OS or otherwise, is simply a tool to get a job done. When one tool doesn't work, find another.

I guess I'm being a little too defensive. But, for me, Linux is now "intuitive" and Windows is a pain in the "rump" to use.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So maybe your issue was with your choice of distributions, not Linux in general. .

No.

All the distros I used were GUI-focused, like Mandrake, Kubuntu, etc.

I share your view of the CLI, as I explicitly mentioned in the very post you quoted. That same post also outlined the very specific reason I can't use Linux as my main OS - there is no equivalent to Dragon in Linux.

The reason I upgraded to 32GB of RAM is because it was the most economical way for me to upgrade my PC's ability to get more out of Dragon. I can now use it to control my browser, and leave it running for making posts in forums like these and other situations where once I would have typed. Dragon is very memory-intensive, running in WINE not feasible. Dragon is the reason I stopped using Linux as my primary OS. If there were a similar-quality alternative, I'd be happy to revert to Linux as my primary OS.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Others are at least respectful in their criticisms. What is "crap"--in its entirety--is your above statement. But I expected nothing less.

A brief listing of people who make free (and open-source) "crap" that runs on Linux:

Microsoft
Google
Mozilla
Apache
Adobe
Npm
Oracle
LibreOffice (The Document Foundation)
GIMP (equally as powerful and as impossible to master as Photoshop)
Python

You forgot Kovid Goyal.
Calibre is developed on Linux. And it is free software ;-)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

That's the worst possible choice, as Debian doesn't have any administrative tools and their package format is the worst.

Clearly you have no concept of the term debian-based.

Both Mint and Ubuntu (Mint is actually based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian) both have plenty of administrative tools. And their package format is as invisible (and effective) to the average user as any other format.

If you wanted to say Arch was the worst distro for beginners, I'd say you might have a valid point (though I've been using vanilla Arch for many years with no catastrophes). But you didn't and you don't.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by kacir

You forgot Kovid Goyal.
Calibre is developed on Linux. And it is free software ;-)

I didn't forget.

I just wasn't going to bother presenting it to someone who is clearly incapable of recognizing its worth. I was going for names that would mean something to corporate wonk-types (who think "serious" work can only be done using software with exorbitant price tags and per user licensing) and would dispel the myth that free software is crap written by incompetent hacks. Heck, some people get paid well by their employers to contribute code to open-source projects. Some of the most sought out commercial programs were (and are) built on the of back open-source "crap" written by clearly incompetent hacks.

But our friend knows this, and is clearly just seeking a fight.

[Quoth]

Win 10 and Linux both use Oracle Vbox to run older Windows. Linux also has Wine32 which is more compatible than 64 bit Win7, 8 &10 for many VB6 programs. Linux also has Win64, but so far I've not needed it.

Steam is on Linux with Vulcan and Proton.

Mint with Mate Desktop is one of the best beginner choices and easier for long time XP & Win7 users than moving to Win10. Redmond, TraditionalOK or Server2003 themes with Win95 window decoration and Oxygen Icon set.

Or you can have Mac look & Feel (OS9, Early OS X or later OS X).

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Both Mint and Ubuntu (Mint is actually based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian) both have plenty of administrative tools.

Such as?...
And the deficiencies of DEB format are clear for any user who searches for extra software (because Debian repository is virtually dead due to lack of maintainers), as its way of specifying dependencies and keeping all installed packages in a text file (!!) will prevent installing most of the software.
RPM has a more convenient dependency model, and relies on actual files instead of packages. Also, it is the standard Linux format, unlike DEB.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

RPM has a more convenient dependency model, and relies on actual files instead of packages. Also, it is the standard Linux format, unlike DEB.

Somehow the concept of a "standard" Linux format for packages is more than a little humourous. RPM, Deb, PUP & PET, pkg.tar.xz, LZM plus all the others that came and went in the various distributions I've played with over the last 30 years since I first booted Linux around Nov. 1991.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

Such as?...
And the deficiencies of DEB format are clear for any user who searches for extra software (because Debian repository is virtually dead due to lack of maintainers), as its way of specifying dependencies and keeping all installed packages in a text file (!!) will prevent installing most of the software.
RPM has a more convenient dependency model, and relies on actual files instead of packages. Also, it is the standard Linux format, unlike DEB.

Perhaps you should start by clarifying what you actually mean by "administrative tools". But generally: network administration... check; user/group administration... check. Nmap? Wireshark? Webmin? Virtualbox? What is it you think they don't have?

Not to mention (who am I kidding--of course I'm going to mention it) that you're not doing you, or your argument, any favors by insisting on conflating a package format with the content that package provides. The deb format is no more responsible for Debian repositories' overly conservative (but not even nearly dead content) than the rpm package is for the--even more--outdated content of Redhat/CentOS/Fedora repositories.

All of which entirely misses the point that no one here was even suggesting that a beginner should try to saddle themselves with rolling-distribution like vanilla Debian. They suggested Ubuntu and Mint; which are derivatives of Debian. Derivatives that have the advantage of being able to use Canonical's repositories (and Mint has its own repos in addition to Ubuntu's). Thus they have access to more recent software (and more recent versions of software) than Debian's slightly conservative repos and Redhat/CentOS/Fedora's ancient (often deprecated) versions of software--if they have it at all.

How the various packaging systems handle dependencies is neither here nor there to beginners when they all, in fact, handle dependencies just fine.

You're either quite clueless, or being purposely obtuse. Perhaps a little of both?

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Windows ...The way it updates is a pain.

OMG the updates. Windows updates have been beyond awful since at least 7. The uninvited background process kicks off just when you need your battery and it sucks up the juice. Even in 7 it was hard to stop. It takes a geek to track down the process and MURDER it. And in 10? OMG. Now it's obligatory. Even for the geek in me, it took some time to find the right poison to kill it dead.

The update process has me starting to think about recommending Macs to end user types.

But there is just so much software for Windows, and it's better. Just consider the text processing software. I like to write in a text editor with a white on black screen that supports fonts, italics, etc. I want to look like a dark mode, full-screen ASCII text editor, with functionality at the level of rich text. I could not find that in Linux. In Windows, I use Atlantis, and I assume there are others.

So.Much.Choice.

But the Update? It is the spawn dog bastard from Tarturus.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

That's the worst possible choice, as Debian doesn't have any administrative tools and their package format is the worst.

I use debian at work and home in part because its package UI and UX have been the best for me. In the rare situation when I've had to muck about with the insides of a package, the format has been fine. Part of he reason I switched from redhat to debian almost 20 years ago is because the redhat administrative tools kept getting worse and I had come to loath RPM.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Most Linux software is in the repository that's included with your distribution. In Linux Mint I open the Package Manager, do a search for the the application I want, chose it and install it. Done. In Windows I would have to search for the software, download it (hopefully from a site not infested with malware) and then install (and hopefully the version of the DLLs that application needs doesn't conflict with the version of DLLs needed by another application I already have installed). And heaven forbid, my hard drive goes out and I have to track down the license I haven't used for five years.

If I download the commercial software (like Fade In for Linux) it's a matter of clicking on the download, giving it permission and watching it install. The package manager knows how to automatically discover any dependencies needed and automatically downloads them — and, if that package needs a different support library than another package already installed, Linux can use both. It's only complicated if you haven't learned how it easily it works. (And, yes, there is a learning curve with Linux — there was a learning curve when you first learned Windows as well.)

Some exaggeration there about Windows, but I see your point. I recall installing software via the command line in Linux, though there is probably a simpler gui method, but I just did command line.

But there remains one big BUT. There is more choice under Windows.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Most of those geeky terms also apply to Windows development.

IME on Linux, simply using the OS borders on development. Heaven forbid there is no driver for your printer. I recall looking up a driver for a common device (this was a few years back) and the responder to the question suggested the user learn how to write the driver themself, and that it would a valuable experience. It's better to learn how to do things yourself I may as well learn to build a combustion engine according to that thinking, and how to machine off the shelf parts too.

I appreciate things have got better; maybe Linux has got as easy to use for the end-user as Windows, but I am doubtful.