Slashdot Mirror
Making Linux Look Harder Than It Is
drkich writes: "According to an article on The Register (by our very own roblimo).
Many 'gurus' teaching new users about Linux make it look harder than it needs to be, and apparently fail to explain that yes, you can make PowerPoint-style presentations in Linux, you can view Web Pages that use Flash animation and other "glitz" features, and that you can manage all your files though simple "point, click, drag and drop" visual interfaces. Could the biggest problem with Linux usability be that most of the people teaching newbies to use Linux are too smart and know too much?"
It'd be a risk, though...because I don't know if the average person is ready for Linux.
But people are going to be scared until they see Linux boxes for sale at CompUSA and Sears.
It might not be too smart as much as too arrogant...
My theory is that a lot of the people teaching Linux classes learned the OS before it had a good GUI. Now they think they need to pass all their knowledge on to the students, regardless of how much the students will use it.
Could the biggest problem with Linux usability be that most of the people teaching newbies to use Linux are too smart and know too much?
I hardly think it's because they know too much. It's more that they want to show themselves as sauve and intelligent infront of those they're instructing. I think you'll find all the people who deserve the right to brag are generally much more humble because they honestly have nothing to prove.
The biggest obstable to widespread Linux adoption is not its actual difficulty to use, but perception that it's for geeks only. An idiot proof installer would be good, but evangelests and PR that speaks to average users is perhaps the single most important thing standing in the way of more pervasive acceptance.
I understand how the general attitude that "you've got to know how to use a computer to use a computer" gets bred. I used to work 1-800-support. But that won't cut it on the public image tip.
GNU/Linux needs salespeople. Jeez, I can't believe I just wrote that, but it's true. The barriers are 90% cultural at this point....
Howard Dean for president
Don't forget that for people who don't understand how computing tools work, Unix kinda doesn't make much sense regardless of how it's taught. Pipes and filters really only make sense when you're filtering down large lists of information... and this kind of information pretty much only happens in system administrative contexts.
His eyes get generally glazed over when I do something like:
$> rpm -e `rpm -qa | grep -i ^xf`
...which actually came up today in reinstalling X. And I've done quite a few nastier things.
I think that it would do Linux users--especially Linux evangelists--well to learn our own GUI tools so that when our non-geek friends ask us for help we can give them something that's meaningful to them.
I can only agree with it.
Part of the problem is that most "guru's" know how to use a commandline, but not how to use a GUI.
When I install software, I use the commandline, not Kpackage, Gnorpm or Rpmdrake.
So when someone asks me how to use such a program, he mostly knows more about it then I do, I just know more about the underlying architecture.
Though I do think the users are coming along.
Recently I heard about people who were using Linux, because they liked Tux, and were collecting pictures of him. Sure.
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
Biggest problem with Linux usability is a lack of applications to use with it.
WAAAAIT! Hold off on that flame-thrower!
I'm talking serious productivity applications.
There is no Linux equivalent to MSWord. Yes, yes, yes: I *know* there is StarOffice and others. But they aren't MSWord.
There is no Linux equivalent to AccPac. Yes, yes, yes: I *know* there are other accounting packages. But AccPac is the defacto standard.
There is no Linux equivalent to Photoshop. Yes, yes, yes: I *know* there's Gimp. But it's not Photoshop.
WAIT! Hold off on that flame-thrower!
I know it's unreasonable to expect Linux apps to be identical in functionality -- and misfunctionality! -- and appearance to the big-time, deeply-entrenched "standards."
But that's not the point. The point is: the problem with Linux usability is that its lacks applications that are direct clones of the standards.
That's unreasonable, illogical, stupid, and every other abusive word you can toss at the idea...
...but it's the truth. The PHBs see it that way, and countless users who've spent years learning the ins and outs of the standard apps see it that way.
It takes years of invested time and experience to become at all proficient at any comprehensive productivity application. No one wants to throw that investment away, just to move to Linux.
And that is, I think, at the very core of it all, a usability problem. If it isn't exactly like the original, it is less usable for many folk.
And now you can flame. Ouch.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Newbie - "How do I use my dial up modem in linux, using redhat 7.2?"
... you know, if you used Debian, this wouldn't be a problem...."
....
Expert - "First of all, you need to make sure ppp is compiled into your kernel, then recompile, RTFM."
Newbie - "Is there an easier way?"
Expert - "Yes, but first, lets's get you all the kernel patches, since you're using 2.4.9, which has some known VM problems under high loads, then, we'll need to gut your X server, then, you might as well recompile/build KDE, since the one in Red Hat sucks, which comes with GNOME, but I think it sucks, so I'll make sure that you think it sucks too
Newbie - "What's a Debian?"
... and so on and so forth
I think there's a lot of truth to this, but not just with linux. It seems to be a phenomenon at all increasing levels of sophistication, in many different fields.
In my own example, I taught an advanced database course at Stanford, and how no trouble connecting with upper division CS majors and industry professionals in the course. Two quarters later, I taught "CS01i: Introduction to the Internet." I found myself at a loss sometimes trying to relate to the uninitiated Internet user. I had become detached.
It seems that the same thing is true of linux. We get ingrained in an OS/culture that requires a certain level of sophistication to succeed. Then (for better or for worse) we often become trapped in that paradigm.
I've found that with Linux education (and CS01i), that an old maxim holds true: "If I can tell my mom how to do it, and she can then successfully explain it to my dad, my job is done."
It may sound like an elementary test of fitness, but it works as a good filter for teaching the uninitiated.
(please note, this only works if your mom isn't a kernel contributor...):)
I started geeting into this stuff about 2 years ago, and I'm naturally a technical guy. The documentation currently has a terrible 80/20 problem: 80% of it is...
Most often, documentation is an afterthought to a coding project. This is not a good way to get novice users to get to use the software, because those writing the docs are too intimately involved with the project and usually burnt out to the max.
Howard Dean for president
I'm somewhat ashamed to say that it's often easy to forget that everyone hasn't been using Linux, vi, and command-line tools as I have. I do a lot of work with public school teachers and other "non-computer-literate" people, and while I do try to remember what it was like to start out, sometimes I forget that what I think is obvious, other people have just never had the chance to learn. In fact, I'm often shocked by the fact that many people have "grown up" with Windows or Mac and don't even know that a command prompt exists.
:-)
Still, while some people aren't good at explaining things in terms that a newbie can understand, others are. It's the same way with teachers of anything, though, so let's not lump this in with Linux/Unix/BSD* etc. I had many math teachers who made things sound so horribly complicated and uninteresting I just couldn't get it. Then I had one teach me enough Algebra/Trig to get an A in Calculus and 1st year Physics in about 3 hours. I remember thinking, "That's it? Why the hell didn't they say so???"
Partly, too, there is a prestige aspect to this. Sadly, some people's teaching style is all about showing off how wonderfully smart they are and showing how woefully stupid the student is. No, this isn't everyone, but I do seem to encounter a lot of people who feel that if you can't use vi, then you are just hopelessly dumb.
Maybe the gurus need to think more about what the goal is. Is the goal to make it so that other "ordinary" people can use Linux, or so that we can all be some kind of honored clique who, together, are just so much cooler than everyone else? Once the goal is declared, act accordingly: simple as that.
As an addendum, I'd like to point out that using linux is extremely easy, especially with KDE or (somewhat) Gnome. It's the install that is tough for a newbie. When I first started using Debian, I was a little intimidated about picking out specific packages to install. I had no idea what was needed for the system I wanted. But nowadays we have Mandrake for the newbies, so even installing isn't a big problem (I tell people looking for linux distros that my mom could install Mandrake if she didn't have to do the partitioning step...).
I have been using Linux routinely since like 1995 and so of course I've learned the hard way to do everything. Today, when I'm dealing with friends and colleagues who have a problem with Linux I start spouting off command lines and obscure file paths. The fact of the matter is that I have no idea how to do a lot of these things the easy way. When I tell them I can sense their dread.
As an excercise in trying to be more helpful I've been trying to learn the easy way to do things. I did an out-of-the-box install of Redhat 7.2, and I'm trying very hard not to touch the command line. As it turns out I can do an amazing amount of stuff without touching a command line. The stuff I do have to do is usually obscure power user stuff that normal humans don't have to mess with.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
You might try poking around the OS for a little while before you create samba shares. Linux is different for you, so it will seem difficult. Just about anything completely new is difficult.
..."
I still have trouble with some things (configuring new hardware for example), but usually find the answers in a HOW-TO or on a web site.
You might also get a "Learning Linux" type book to give you information about basic features. Once done getting your feet wet, a great book is "Running Linux". Also the "Linux In a Nutshell" has lots of the commands for the shell explained.
Poke around on the Red Hat site. I found lots of useful information there. Don't try to run too fast with this new OS. Pretty soon you will be working in windows and think "Dammit I wish I could just write a BASH script to automate this
Hang in there. Every Linux guru had to start somewhere.
I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
He looked at me like I was from mars.
Then he said, "Don't you have explorer like in windows?"
I was stunned. Of course I did. I was running KDE for Crissakes. I never use it, so it just didn't occur to me. Then I showed him again, using konqueror for ftp, and file management. (He was impressed that you could use the same program to get files from other computers, and file management.) He did have to do command line cd recording, since I didn't have a gui, but he was ok with moving files to the right directory, and hitting up-arrow, enter.
When he was done, using almost all GUI tools, he came in and said something about Linux not being as tough as everyone said. If he hadn't hit me over the head with the obvious, though, he would have given up in frustration at the command line.
Most casual users don't want all of this complexity - heck, to most the idea that they need to login to their home system seems absurd.
Linux was written by geeks, for geeks, and it shows. Most Linux users (myself included) would not give up the security and reliability of Linux for the sake of using something simpler.
And from a user design standpoint, the system fails - unlike windows, 3 different Linux boxes can have 3 different interfaces - each of which confusing to the new user.
Linux will be ready for the clueless masses when:
- Users can use the machine without logging in. (perhaps under some restrictive user account...)
- Users never have to manually configure hardware - the kernel detects the hardware and compiles and loads the requisite modules automatically
- There is one standard GUI interface across all distrubutions; even though GNOME and KDE are remarkably similar in function, the different appearance of windows will confuse the average user.
- The user can install or upgrade any system with a single click of the mouse.
Granted, this is an OS that not many geeks would like. However, there is a tradeoff involved - one can run a good, but obscure OS, or use a popular, but buggy and restrictive OS. If Linux is changed to suit the average desktop user, most technically astute users wouldn't use it; the old adage holds - make something that even an idiot can use, and only an idiot will use it.The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It's not necessarily that you *can't* surf the web, make PowerPoint presentations, etc... obviously, you can. It's just that in many cases it seems pretty darned hard to get a system to a configuration where you can. Pre-installing stuff would probably help, because if a PowerPoint clone isn't installed, how is the average uninformed user going to figure out how to make a pretty presentation?
On a Windows box, if PowerPoint wasn't already preinstalled, then most people at least know that they need to get PowerPoint somehow... MS has at least done their job in getting mindshare. Love it or hate it, everybody's heard of Office.
But will they know what to use on Linux? Will they know what to download, whether they need KDE or GNOME or whatnot? And where to find it if they do? How to build an app from source, or how to use a package management system to install it? Probably not, and there is a lot to learn there...
On Linux, the software is there for the most part, and some of it finally doesn't suck (not just a Linux issue; most software sucks, although at least on Windows it's a form of suck people are familiar with). It's just a question of familiarity with it, I guess. Things in the Un*x world are sufficiently different from the norm that people just aren't comfortable with it yet. The only way to fix this is lots of exposure, which is tricky to get sometimes.
But to get back on topic, knowing a lot of geeks, my guess isn't that they're too smart to teach "normal" people but just tend to focus on what they deal with, which is the technical details which tend to intimidate everyone else. Geeks are tinkerers, "normal" people like to get things working and leave it that way. So when systems running Linux that have all this stuff, and work fine without any tinkering, become widely available the problem might go away somewhat.
Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
I see a lot of people intentionally going over the user's head and the vibe I get from the people who do that is "See how leet I am?" Those people need to grow up. Of course, when you get free support you often get what you pay for. If you get that attitude from someone paid to provide end user support, you should ask to speak to their manager immediately and complain.
Some of us can't help but go over the user's heads. I'll do it if I start focussing on the issue at hand but I've learned to pick up on that blank look and pause at that point and say "Ah, you don't care about that!"
Part of the problem too is that some of us are just unfamiliar with the tools. I haven't used StarOffice in ages and get better results with LaTeX. I'm a programmer so I never need to do Powerpoint presentations. I _like_ mucking around behind the scenes to see how things work, and I've become used to working behind the scenes as well.
The best way to approach someone you want to help is to view it as a learning experience for you both. You have to learn to put your personal preferences aside and look at what is best for the user you're working with. You can actually expand your horizons that way.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You might try poking around the OS for a little while before you create samba shares.
.. learn around a bit before you try something like that, learn the filesystem and how linux works. I don't know how many times I've seen "Just booted into Linux for the first time 4 minutes ago, need help setting up firewall/samba/apache/cluster ASAP, HELP!"
I agree with this guy
Your point is well taken. But have you used StarOffice or the GIMP? These applications are about as close to a feature-for-feature clone of the original as they can legally be. As an experienced user of Office 95, I felt right at home in StarOffice 5.1 the first time I tried it. I can't wait to try v6. It took me a bit to learn to use the GIMP, but again the fit is very good. I didn't feel like I was in a foreign country.
I would go beyond your statement and say that what Linux really needs to be accepted is not clones, but *the real thing*. Which is unlikely to happen any time soon.
But you said we don't have any functional clones of the leading productivity apps. In the cases discussed above, I say we do.
Example: "How do I use a USB hard drive under Linux?" Answer: "modprobe usb-mass storage, and use the mount command (man mount)"
And no one sees why there is a problem with such a statement.
Did he not believe you when you said, "Linux doesn't have any anti-virus software because Linux is not popular enough yet to be the target of viruses"? Or was it because you told him that Linux is intrinsically safe from viruses. That's not true, and here's why:
Right now, most people running Linux know better than to do everything as root. As such, there is a logical separation between what the user can do, and what can damage the system (in that, little of what the user can do can damage the system). Also, right now, there aren't any e-mail apps that are as featureful (bugful, if you must) as Outlook, in that they won't automatically handle whatever attachments you get (you have to download the attachment and then load it up with whatever tool you use to view it). This is a bane when it comes to executable code (already been fixed in Outlook for some time -- people just don't patch), but it's a boon for everything else. It exemplifies a fundamental design difference between the Windows experience and most Linux GUI experiences -- being that Windows is very much "Document-centric". You don't open Word and then open a document. You don't open Excel and then open a spreadsheet. You just double-click on the document or spreadsheet, and Word (or WordPerfect, or Star Office, even, if that's how you have things set up) fires up and loads that document for you. Now, to get off of that tangent and back on to the original point -- as Linux grows in the desktop market (if Linux grows in the desktop market), more and more and more people will be running as root 24/7/365. What that means is that suddenly, viruses are very much dangerous. Or, users start clamoring for an e-mail app that has the same power as Outlook, at which point we get mail virii spread through Linux. Oh, sure, it won't affect you, but what about that guy at work?
The point? Linux is not intrinisically safe from viruses. It's "safe enough" right now, through a combination of obscurity (it's not worth the time to write a virus for it, as it'll see little spread) and security (though a virus could still trash a user's $HOME just fine, even if it's not running as root). Expect to see that change if Linux does penetrate further into the desktop market (this will take some time -- the Macintosh is fairly free from virii mainly due to the obscurity argument, so Linux would have to substantially overtake Apple's marketshare to make itself a target).
Actually, Linux is not at all easy, it's documentation is atrocious when available, and most importantly, from the point of view of 99% of all people who use computers casually or in the office, it sucks compared to the competition. I realize this is slashdot, but you silly people need to realize once and for all that there is no, no, no compelling reason for anyone to install Linux unless they are an interested geek.
Yes, it really is that simple. Yes, that is why Linux will always be a niche OS.
I've seen people ask how to fix that. I'm sure there's an answer, too. But the fact is that it's fucking RIDICULOUS to have fonts that look like that in the year 2001.
If you give them some complicated instructions for fixing it, 95% of new users will just say "screw that" and either: 1) abandon Linux, thinking it sucks, or 2) keep using Linux with crummy fonts, and think it sucks, or 3) keep using Linux and waste a bunch of time fiddling until the fonts are right.
All three of these situations are horrible, yet it doesn't seem to bother any of the developers that RedHat still ships this way.
This type of situation is common and it infuriates me that not only are you assumed to be stupid if you can't make it work, but everyone is amazed that you'd complain about it in the first place, because fixing it is supposed some sign of your computing prowess.
People who post here are very smart. In many ways they sort of look at the computer as something that an average person shouldn't really touch unless they know what they are doing, and if they don't know how to administer their own box then that is their problem.
And for people who devote alot of their time to making the stuff work, I don't find this unreasonable. I mean, after all there is real effort and dedication involved is it too much to ask to read a man page?
What MS gets and the Linux commnity doesn't is that most people just want the damn thing (the computer) to do something useful. They want to turn it on and have it work. They don't give a crap about the technical merits of the OS or the effort behind it and for the mass market that is how it should be.
They don't want to mess with config files.
They don't want to care about what hardware is in their box.
They do want to be able to plug stuff in (USB) and have it just work.
They don't want to compile a program to install it.
They dont want to untar things
They don't want to deal with RPM (they want something called setup.exe).
they want easy access to the internet.
they want a browser that works.
and above all they certainly do not want to have to recompile a kernel to upgrade their OS.
MS has money and time to spend on these and other usability issues. Linux does not. Linux is not easy to use unless you are steeped in Unix. There is no way around it.
I think Linux should stop wasting cycles on a mass market that will never happen.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
While programs such as gnorpm, kpackage, and the Ximian setup tools are available, these tools are mostly either not easy enough to use, not widespread enough, or not stable enough for most users.
Secondly, the menu layout in both KDE and Gnome is incredibly confusing. Gnome puts the main menu on the screen in two different places by default! KDE has at least two address books. And how is anybody supposed to remember that Konqueror is a web browser or that GIMP is an image manipulation program? The naming of Linux programs is very hard to understand, and while these names might work in the Windows world as "brand names", new users facing hundreds of unfamiliar programs deserve something more helpful. Also, there isn't a standard menu system for GNOME and KDE (even regular GNOME and Ximian GNOME use two different menu systems!), so users installing programs may find that it never shows up in their menu at all!
I hope the GNOME and KDE usability projects result in some feedback for those two desktops, because, up until now, these projects seem to have been focused on building a development environment first and a usable desktop second. These priorities really need to be changed.
One problem with that approach.
Users. Don't. Read. Documentation.
Go around your office, and ask your non-technical (marketing, accounting, etc.) Windows users questions like:
I'll be amazed if more than 5% of your user community answers "yes" to any of those questions.
IMHO, the problem with 'gurus' teaching 'users' has nothing to do with their relative intelligence. Rather, it's an issue of the semantics of teaching, or more specifically, teaching the use of computers. To a 'guru', teaching the use of computers means getting their student to the point where they can figure out what's going on when confronted with a new program, task, or problem on their own, by connecting it to what they already know. This is called understanding, but that's not what 'users' are used to in the context of computers. What's worse, it is continually suggested to them that it's not what they want.
To quote from the linked article:
This is the basic problem. Telling someone "To A, push B" is not teaching, it's more like programming the student. The student will not understand what they are doing. They'll end up with an unconnected heap of little task descriptions in their head; actually, a lot of people end up with a heap of Post-its glued to their screens and keyboards. They are unprepared to cope with B not causing A (at best they'll reboot, typically they'll call tech support), and if they're given new software where B happens to look a lot more like C and is 5 inches off to the left, they'll need retraining.
That sort of thing doesn't happen with, say, cars. But contrary to popular opinion, that's not because cars are easy, it's because Driving School actually teaches you something, while 'Computer User School' does not.
One can only speculate as to the reasons behind that; after all, driving schools surely wouldn't complain if their students had to return at regular intervals to be told that "in this new and improved model, the windshield wiper switch is now located on the second stick right of the wheel". But in the computer user world, this is exactly how it works. The end result is the perpetual myth that computers are complicated and hard to use, plus excellent job opportunities for 'teachers'.
Feh, that came out rather rambling... Thanks for reading it anyway. ;)
The problem is that Linux, when you look at all the distributions, the CLI and GUI interfaces, along with the various things you can do, and the number of companies involved.... it's a bit much to swallow when you compare it to an O/S from a single company like Windows and Microsoft.
In the Windows word, you have a GUI interface, and primarily 2 variants of an O/S but primarily 1 for the masses. When it comes to Linux, you have soo much more to contend with. You have options, you have flavors, you have choices for all people, but also those choices make it difficult for newbies to grasp especially if the world they are coming from is Windows or even Mac.
In order for newbies to get a good understanding of linux is in the method of explanation.
Another things to consider is that long-time linux users are CLI users. If they could they would use a command-line to deal with nearly everything. Some of the newer users, especially if they are coming from a Windows/Mac background are 'expecting' to see something remotely like the world they came from. So in the example in the article about the long-time linux user showing someone to config their modem by CLI is understandable, you go with what works. And if the user doesn't understand then you have to contend with the idea that you will be dealing with a word of users that Windows admins deal with... those who know how to use a computer, and those who know how to play solitaire.
Other problems I see for newbies getting into Linux is the various applications their are from the distributions, and the changes in versions of distributions. From personal experience, I was originally comfortable configuring my network interface using Linuxconf. Then an installl I used didn't have linuxconf so I had to use another program. This other program was a bit buggy. So with changes, in software, and the main nuances with Linux, yeah it is going to be a bit difficult for new ppl to get onboard and use the O/S. It's even difficult for experiences Windows ppl to get on board, so imagine the 'solitaire' users.
And if you say go read the man pages, or linuxdocs.... the solitaire users will respond with 'what?'.
OpenBSD is probably the most notorious of the bunch. Theo may have a secure operating system but his installer requires me to pull out a calculator to partition a hard drive as everything is shown in blocks. How many people here know offhand how many 512k blocks are in 384 megs plus whatever block you are starting the partition on? I mean jesus freaking A get something at least marginally friendly for the base install as thats all it is. I don't care if I have to sit down for hours reading a how to or faq to configure something after the install is complete but the full functionality that some people need does not at all necessitate making it arcane for the sake of being arcane.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Here's the problem in a nutshell, right there. "clueless masses"... they're only "clueless" because they don't understand the computer as well as you do, though they probably severely outclass you on other knowledge (history, or art, or automobile mechanics, or any one or more of a million other things). Does your lack of knowledge about 16th century French Realist poetry make you "clueless" as well?
This elitist attitude shows up again and again with advanced computer users and programmers--usually from people who should know better, like some of the wizard programmers I know who will try to plug an ISA card in a PCI slot: they may do fantastic software, but they're "idiots" when it comes to hardware. Are these guys "clueless"?
I'm sorry, but this attitude really needs to be adjusted. It's the difference between:
Scenario A:
Scenario B:
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
I have been developing on Unix for 3 years now, and Linux is my tool since 1996. But I don't feel comfortable with Linux, and this is why:
I would like to be able to swap the graphics card, boot the computer and have Linux working, no questions asked, not even a "New Hardware found, please reboot". The same goes for soundcard, motherboard, mouse, videograbber (and for a network card, I at least hope to have it recognized and drivers loaded).
I would like the user interface well integrated with the OS, and to be able to copy/paste objects and sets of different types.
Finally, I would like it to boot in less than 20 seconds on a Duron 700 MHz.
Additionally, I would like this OS NOT to be associated with a crowd of rabid zealots that will eat you alive if you point out any flaws or bugs of this OS.
So, while I do use Linux everyday at work, because it's the best choice for what I do, I would never use it at home, or anyplace, for fun and relaxation or any sort of creative work (except C or Perl programming or shell scripting. I didn't mean that kind of creative work.).
If you read my post carefully, and see that there are many others that share my view, you will understand why Linux is not making big strides in user's homes. You will see why the Linux market is now already saturated.
Sigged!
I get the feeling that a lot of my fellow Linux geeks assume that because Windows users feel more at home in a GUI and are scared of a shell (duh, they've been using a GUI, and not a shell), that they are somehow not intelligent enough, or somehow incapable of reading documentation... of any sort.
On the other hand, I get the feeling that most Windows users believe that us Linux geeks have purposely encrypted current linux documentation in our own esoterica so that we can feel special when nobody else understands; We also explain things extra difficultly so we can feel better about ourselves, like we all have some sort of inferiority complex.
Of course neither is correct. Here are some of the underlying reasons I believe this situation has come about:
Until VERY recently Linux has been pretty much a system administrator's thing, or a serious code hacker's thing. Because nobody outside of the circle probably ever even heard of Linux, why the hell would the documentation have been written for those outside of the circle? It was generally (and correctly) assumed that anyone else reading the documentation was either a sys-admin, hacker, or similar type, who knew Linux/Unix and simply wanted some configuration details or command line arguments. There's no reason our HOWTOs and man pages should have been written any differently, at the time they were written.
Now suddenly Linux got some time under the spotlight and a lot of people are trying Linux for various purposes, Server, Desktop, or for the reason maybe a good portion of us started playing with Linux, just to tinker around. They "grew up" in GUI land for the most part, don't know jack about using a command line, and are now confronted with something that's somewhere between both. They are obviously interested or they wouldn't have bothered, but they are completely frustrated because all of the documentation is really just there for configuration details or usage details. Maybe we don't see it that way, but they probably do. It seems like a lot of energy is being spent in finger pointing when it could be spent writing migration-documentation (I don't know if I just made that up or not). If I did, what I mean is that for the transition from Windows to Linux to be easy we need documentation that not only explains how to do things, why you are doing each step, and what exactly it's going to do, but also what the equivelant would have been in Windows.
Just my $0.02
P.S. Yes this nick is completely unoriginal, but you jerks already stole all of the good nicks! =)
"Look, I can copy this web link from one window and paste it into my browser. Oh, wait, that didn't work."
_______
2B1ASK1
If I want a point-and-click environment, Windows is where I want to be. If I want a command-line, stellar networking, and total control I go linux/freebsd.
I rarely use KDE and never Gnome because they are not yet as useful of GUIs as Windows or MacOS are. However I rarely open a DOS window on Windows when I can just telnet/ssh to the linux box and do 40 times more there.
Use the right tool for the job. Why must the idea be forced that there can only be one operating system. It's like telling a carpenter he's only allowed to have one tool in his toolbox.
And where did they read that? Was it in the manual that came with the Red Hat install media? Perhaps it was on Red Hat's home page? No, wait, you mean you know Netscape 4 sucks, and you can't possibly imagine why anyone else wouldn't already know this.
Which, really, just reinforces roblimo's point.
Granted, this is an OS that not many geeks would like. However, there is a tradeoff involved - one can run a good, but obscure OS, or use a popular, but buggy and restrictive OS.
I am so sick and tired of these kneejerk assumptions about Linux and average users.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that that an Everyday Linux for Average Joe would automatically wipe out a Linux geek's Superduper Power Linux setup.
What could Everyday Linux do to you? Would it nullify the GPL? Somehow kill off vi or emacs, or destroy OSS developer communities? If you think so, how? I can't even imagine why folks are so worried.
In case you had forgotten: LINUX IS OPEN SOURCE. Also, lots of related software is open source too. Nobody can take your carefully crafted Power User setup. Nobody.
Or put another way: Existence of Simplified Linux =! No More Linux for Power Users.
Additionally, it would be in Everyday Co.'s best interest to keep Everyday usable by Power Users and average users alike, without alienating either group. If the OSS community gets drowned somehow, the company would lose their developer base, right?
So please stop with the "simple & stupid will absolutely destroy powerful & smart" Linux arguments already. If you want to put it that way, you are simply wrong.
Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare; but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.
It is easy to go to the library and check out "Red Hat Linux For Dummies," and that gives easy to follow, step-by-step instructions on how to install linux, and it usually has the red hat cd's in the back.
With Windows, what's the worst you can do to your computer (the software side ;-)? It's tough to do anything to it that can't be fixed with a simple format of the hard drive. I'll admit, the first time you do this is a little nerve wracking, but after that, it's not a problem.
We should encourage people to mess with their computers, isn't that how we all learn the best as a species? And everyone loves to press buttons. Meanwhile, Microsoft, with their bad and expensive licensing, security problems, nazi policies and monopoly-like stranglehold, can shove the glass shards from it's shattered windows up it's ass.
Did anyone see that SNL skit "Nick Burns, The Company's I.T. Guy"? I'm working on linux from scratch now, and I can tell you, the mailing list is currently choc full of "Nick Burns"'s. If you haven't seen the skit, by "Nick Burn"'s I mean that there are a lot of people who, while being *somewhat* helpful, appear to be contributing to the list in order to get revenge on all the people who made them feel stupid for not knowing some important, but not well known, aspect of linux by doing the same to others. In fact, the world of computers has a lot of these people, who have fallen under the illusion that they are of a class of "knows" in a world of "know nots" when actually, they specialize in a field that exists to give the "know nots" the same ability as the "knows".
For example In the 1700's, you had to be like Gauss to visualize a surface like
z = sqrt(sin(x^3/e*pi))*cos(y^(4/5)-y^2+pi/2)/x^95,
but these days, all you have to do is type that into Mathematica (tm) or whatever math program floats your boat. You don't have to be Gauss. But a lot of people think they are, just because they know about Mathematica, and you don't.
I imagine the originator of this post has run into more than his/her fair share of people like Nick Burns...because this kind of "instructor" - I have more choice terms like ***** and ******* but - is not relegated to the Linux community.
As soon as you say "install" you are beyond what most people want to know. But I've found a Redhat install to be very easy. But, I know to pop into the bios and change/check the boot sequence. Most users don't know what a bios is, and don't even THINK about trying to explain what a bios is, It get's into areas that just cannot be explained without a wider context. This is where you may end up sounding arrogant. You say it's "magic", because most people just don't have the basic knowledge about systems to understand any explination you could give. Anyway once you get a Redhat 7.2 install going the default Workstation install is pretty easy. As far as disk partitioning, I usually just let the installer do what it wants (with a virgin disk this is fine.) With a 50x cd rom and a 1 gig hz box it's all over in 15 minutes.
'If a piece of physics cannot be explained to a barmaid, then it is not a good piece of physics.' - Ernest Rutherford
I've found in practically all situations (Marine Corps, student teaching physics labs, library work) the good purveyors of knowledge are able to keep things simple yet understandable. For example, if one is trying to show a person how to fire an AR-15, there really isn't any need to show how much you know by taking the bolt apart to show them the function of the firing pin retaining pin.
Right now I'm having a fun time with Redhat Linux 6.1 installation on 200MB root/50MB swap partitions (the other 250 MB is for Win3.1). I've got it loaded and working but there isn't much there. Now I'm trying to figure out how to load stuff to the root that I can use (the only editor I have right now is vi). I haven't yet found the right book for my needs even though I've checked out four huge monsters.
-J
http://carpediem.da.ru
I agree with the tone of the article -- this basically disqualifies me as someone to help newbies. I recently went to a LUG meeting, where some relatively new Linux users demonstrated all the GUI tools you can use on Linux. I didn't even know what "Evolution" was until I went to the meeting.
I suppose the best advice for the newbie is to find some kind of user group and meet people with common interests and/or struggles with their systems (usually the slightly-less-newbie types as proposed by the article).
Linux is complicated, and so is windows. Intelligent, experienced users have windows and linux breaking all the time in thousands of ways.
Less technical users (i.e. normal people) have no hope of dealing with problems: unless things are exactly as they expect and work perfectly, they are completely lost. (This is not a criticism, but rather follows inevitably from the first paragraph.) With windows, they are endlessly frustrated, but they have memorized a few dozen "tricks" that work. With linux, a different set of "tricks" are required and they are completely lost when one of their tricks fails. Linux ends up looking harder simply because it is different.
Had they been raised on linux, then windows would seem impossibly complex.
"Backward compatability" (i.e. desktop behaving like windows) is essential for linux to make headway on the desktop. Perhaps this is a bitter pill. Sorry, that's life.
I can teach you how to boil water (an easy task) in one of two ways -- we put some water in a pan on a stove burner; we turn on the stove; when the water bubbles, we're done -- or we can use a microwave.
I can teach you how to make eggs benedict (a medium difficulty task) in one of to ways -- we toast some english muffins; we fry some canadian bacon; we poach some eggs; we make some hollandaise saude (But wait...I have to teach you how to make english muffins and how to poach eggs and how to make hollandaise sauce.) -- or we can buy some english muffins and fry some canadian bacon and use a little metal tool to make poaching eggs easier and we still have to make the hollandiase sauce.
I personally choose to make my own english muffins and to poach my eggs by slipping them in to a pot of boiling water. Why? Because I like the process of cooking. I know the easier ways of doing it, but I don't like them, and I don't begrude the extra time that I spend in order to have total control over the process.
If I am going to teach someone how to cook, I'm going to teach them the way that I like while perhaps mentioning the "easier" ways.
People are going to teach things the way that they do them.
Linux is not hard. It just has many options. Some Windows immigrants may complain it has "too many options". It's a paradigm that needs to be redefined given that the typical Windows desktop user is not familiar with "options". For example Windows OS's do not ship with a variety of Web Browsers to use...only Internet Explorer. Out of the box you do it Bills way or your left to figure it out for yourself.
...whatever. But by far the biggest origin of Option Anxiety is from what I call the "Big Three".....Email, Web Browseing, and Word Processing. Pine, Emacs, Mutt, Kmail, StarOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, Emacs, Mozilla, Lynx, Netscape, Konqueror, etc, etc .... a Windows user can easily be tormented by which or what to use.
Option Anxiety is the result of having at least a half dozen different ways to accomplish a single simple task! Take the Linux ditros themselves for example. Each one has a different way of installing the OS. Each one generally has its own preferred way of managing software, either apt-get, rpms, tarballs
I actually had a client say to me, "I just want my email, search the net, and type business letters that my clients can read on thier computers. I don't wnat to know about all that stuff."
From the article:
"People using their computers don't need to know much beyond "Push button A and action B results." They don't need to get confused with a lot of complex commands while they're just starting to figure out the way to do things in Linux that they already knew how to do in Windows. That basic level of knowledge is enough for a start - and for a good while afterwards."
I totally agree with that! What I think is more important is that Linux and Linux distros keep getting more and more "approachable" by novices while still allowing seasoned Linux users the freedom and ability to do what it already allows them to do.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
If only OS X didn't require me to buy another computer, then I too would use it.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
My experience has not been good. I'm probably an intermediate user, and have been using Linux on and off for about 5 years, and have done a couple of clean installations of RedHat and Slackware, including X and KDE. Right now, I'm doing my first useful application with MySQL and Apache/Tomcat, and the configuration was a major hassle. Here are some problems that I run into:
1. Documentation that assumes too much. This has been mentioned above, but I'd like to stress this as a number one problem. After all, what good is a free operating system if you can't use it in a meaningful way without buying 2 or 3 books. Some of the HOWTOs will walk you through setting something up in one particular way, and don't give much guidance on general principles. I guess that's the definition of a howto, but that's really a poor substitute.
Installation program: What packages would you like to install?
New User: Huh? I DON'T KNOW!
2. Too many configuration files. When I first started using linux, one word came to mind: Chaos. Configuration files are all over the place and they all have their own particular formats and quirks. And 99% of the time, the defaults don't work for anyone but the developers. This is getting better though. Some of the more professionally developed applications are better at this. MySQL really shines in this area. It was a breeze to install and the things that it asked for were clear. It is a very peaceful, well-behaved piece of software. But I really wish software developers would include configuration wizards. Lengthy editing of text files just for basic functionality is unacceptable. This is such a problem that I'm considering helping open source projects by specializing in documentation and ease of use. Configuring the kernel has gotten easier in recent years. Modern configuration tools step you through the process and help is readily available if you don't know what something means. Even better, it tells you what you probably need. This is a step in the right direction.
3. Dealing with dependencies. Linux gets a lot of praise for quick bug fixes, which can be a good thing, but its a double-edged sword. You have to juggle kernel versions, glibc versions, and GNU tools. If Linux is trying to reach a mainstream audience, do you expect the average user to have to recompile their kernel and rpm half a dozen other dependencies just to install the new web browser? Windows software developers have a much easier time - you know that an app that will run on one Windows 95 machine will run on just about any Windows 95 machine. Occassionally you run into things like needing X version or a above of DirectX or something, but that's a minor upgrade. Linux applications don't often check for their needed libraries.
Many 'gurus' teaching new users about Linux make it look harder than it needs to be
You might want to check out this case from a social psychology point of view. People who are not real experts but perceives themselves to be experts might want to emphasize their expertise by showing the new user how smart they are in comparison.
It should be noted that real experts shouldn't (at least in theory) have this inferiority complex, which makes the interaction for them with newbies much more straightforward and purposeful.
Could the biggest problem with Linux usability be that most of the people teaching newbies to use Linux are too smart and know too much?"
Or is it they don't know that much but think and want others to think they do?
With Mozilla and StarOffice, Linux now has a world-class browser and office suite. KDE as a GUI is good enough to compete with Windows. With distributions like Mandrake, installing and configuring hardware is easy and painless. There are programs to enable you to play and rip MP3's, burn CD's, chat, ICQ clones, games ,etc... Everything is in place EXCEPT for an easy and hassle-proof software install system.
.configure, make and make install, as well as changing my PATH to point to /usr/local/bin BEFORE /usr/bin (so as to run 6.0 before 5.8) and create an icon on my KDE QuickLauch.
Let me use an example. I recently downloaded Vim 6.0, and proceeded to install it on both my Windows and Linux boxes. On Windows, all I had to do was double click on the EXE file and the program, including the shortcuts, was installed and ready to go in no time. On Linux, I had to download a source tarball, dump it into a directory, run
Vim works just fine on my Linux box, and I found the install the be relatively straightforward. However, I'm confortable in a command-line environment, most newbies are not.
RPM is a bold attempt at making the install process, but it is fraught with problems and dependencies. For example, just for fun (don't flame me, I don't use RPM's), I tried to install the latest version of Mozilla (Moz 8.0 was the package in my distribution) with the RPM file from the site. I ran rpm -U and it complained about having to upgrade each COMPONENT of mozilla (mail, chat, etc) before upgrading the whole thing. I tried uninstalling it. It told me I had to uninstall all related packages first, including GNOME. Since I use KDE, I decided to do it. Only THEN was I able to install the 0.9.5 RPM. Now, needless to say, I simply grab the tarball for the latest distribution on dump it into a directory.
Somebody needs to come up with an accepted, standardized protocol to install new programs or upgrade existing ones onto an existing distribution that doesn't involve compiling from source or using RPM files. Mind you, the option to compile from source should remain for the advanced users.
This space left intentionally blank.
However, the biggest problem, is getting things to print. I truly dread printing in unix. It is unnecessarily complicated. Granted, my experience with it is network printing where a printer has to be specified (I suppose you could set it up to default to one...but that of course requires manipulating some config file somewhere). Until printing is as easy as windows (literally, just click the icon and whatever is on your application prints perfectly)...
-
Third party software is too hard to install on Linux.
It needs to be:
1) download setup.exe (or equivilant)
2) launch
3) click Next 2-5 times to install
And remember:
- One setup package needs to work on 2 years worth of Linux, regardless what what version or company made your distribution.
- third party software means "3rd party", not something included on the RedHat CD. Nothing which is fully centralized will scale.
Today, even if I wanted to support this for my 3rd party software product, I can't. the tools and standards are not available.