Slashdot Mirror
Linux in the Workplace
Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems. Not only is partitioning and dual booting a little tricky, the OS CD that comes with a new PC is usually just a system restore, making it difficult to configure a dual-boot environment without messing up factory settings and file systems. Learning Linux has become an all-or-nothing proposition; in many cases the new user has to wipe Windows off his system for good or rely on a second machine just to get started.
The irony is that Linux has never been more user friendly, and the latest KDE desktop on my gentoo box is slicker, faster and easier to use than XP. It is becoming easier to be productive on Linux, and while university students have already discovered this, corporate IT departments who support a large number of Windows-only commercial applications tend to view open source solutions as a time burden (these are the same IT departments whose days are consumed with applying Windows patches or verifying license compliance).
The book Linux in the Workplace shows the ordinary user who has never laid eyes on Linux how to perform everyday office tasks. The book assumes that the user has a machine with Linux already installed and successfully configured. This book (which is more of an introduction to the KDE desktop than Linux itself) is easy and fun to read, and has lots of screenshots. Slashdotters might find this book a bit too basic, but it's the kind of book that a technophobe spouse or child or parent might love (and could very well appear under Christmas trees right beside the new Linux PC).
This book devotes a chapter each to talking about Open Office, Gimp, Konqueror, personal information managers, and various KDE office and email applications. Most of them are part of the KDE window manager or installed by default. This book walks a thin line between being too superficial for daily use and dwelling too much on the technical details. There are better books on The GIMP or OpenOffice, for example, but still it is nice to have introductory chapters in a single book. I found a few useful tidbits on controlling file associations, xscanimage, screen capturing and ark archiver. The book is not without a sense of humor. In a useful section on creating a GPG key, the book says "your passphrase should be rude or embarrassing ... using a naughty passphrase will remind you not to type it where others can see."
This book began with the mission to bring a simplified approach to Linux. By definition, it must exclude certain topics, either by design or because an application was not yet mature when the book was being written. The book scrupulously avoids a discussion of server applications like apache (which makes a certain sense), but it would have been nice to have a section on Evolution or mplayer (yes, a media player is an indispensable application for the bored employee) or ssh, cd burning programs, browser plugins, mozilla, crossover, irc or ftp clients.
Surprisingly, the book contains almost nothing about printing or how to install or upgrade applications. Because the book is intended for a newbie user, not a sys admin, it recommends talking to your network administrator about that. Cop out? Perhaps. But even the unskilled non-root user will have to install apps once in a while; the book would have been much better with a section on rpm managers and compiling programs from scratch.
From a sys admin's point of view, I would have liked to see a case study of an office that had actually made the switch. What problems did it encounter? How did the switch change business processes? What applications required the most time and energy for support? How did a Linux-only office manage domain authentication or interoperability? What system management tools made administration easier in a heterogenous environment?
The book raises an epistemological question about the best way to learn a new technology. Will a user who has never really performed tasks as root be able to leverage the freedom and power offered by open source? Will a user truly be comfortable with an operating system without first having experienced the agony of a bad install or frantically scouring the newsgroups for help ? This book presumes that a learner needs to be able to use normal applications before being ready to handle the admin stuff. The problem with that approach is that it depends on IT staff being near and ready to do some hand-holding. But Linux may emerge in the workplace not as a result of IT's enthusiasm but because of ordinary workers' exasperation with uniform proprietary solutions imposed by these IT departments.
In summary: A useful and friendly KDE-centric introduction to Linux for nongeeks. The lack of system administration material makes it probably too basic for slashdotters.
Also recommended:
RUTE Users' Tutorial and Exposition
A Practical Guide to Red Hat Linux 8 by Mark G. Sobell (not yet published)
Robert Nagle is a technical writer, trainer and Linux aficionado in Houston, Texas. You can purchase Linux in the Workplace from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
As a network admin we deploy Linux servers (Debian, thank-you-very-much) because they simply kick ass. Sendmail, Squid, Apache, FreeSwan, iptables, etc., all blow away similar products put out by Microsoft. I wish more IT people would seriously consider Linux at least for server duties.
We definitely need a whole lot more books like this to encourage office users to adopt Linux. We don't need those complicated details. But I expect Star Office or other office-related things be explained in greater depth. At least on par with those MSOffice ones.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
This could be a book that creates its own market. As more people buy the book, more people run Linux in the workplace, thus making demand for the book rise.
I would make a 3.Profit! joke here, but I think an evil laugh is more on order. [evil_laugh]Muahahaha[/evil_laugh]
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
never been more user friendly, and the latest KDE desktop on my gentoo box
Sorry, I quit reading after that comment, I was laughing too hard.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
All resistance in my workplace evaporated the day I told my CFO that he didn't have to pay licensing on Linux. They have had it up to here w/getting raped by MS.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Printing can be a huge problem in the unix world. I would certainly call the exclusion of that part a cop-out. Otherwise it sounds like a very interesting book. However, saying that KDE is easier to use and faster than Windows XP very subjective. I usually try a new version of a linux distro or two every 6 months. Sure, everything has gradually gotten nicer, and there was even a time when I thought KDE had an advantage over Windows (when it was alpha and before windows 98 came out). But time and time again, I find myself drawn back to the Windows interface. The ease of use just isn't quite on the same level as Microsoft and Apple.
I've always been surprised and even disappointed at my friends' lack of curiosity about Linux.
Linux on the desktop sucks for one reason: fragmentation.
If there wasn't a bunch of if distribution == x && graphical environment == y in the HOWTOs, we'd be much further along right now.
Even with all that cruft, the one itel holding Linux back is the file system requirements. Every mainstream consumer desktop sold these days has a hard drive installed with a 100% NTFS partition. People don't want to screw with boot managers and people don't want to screw with repartitioning.
If someone created a *free* distribution that could be installed *through* Windows on the local NTFS partition (with appropriate *free* boot manager), then we'd have a much larger installed base. Developers could start coding on Linux and distributing it with their applications.
But then there is the GPL/binary module hassle. it will never work. I'm waiting for Apple to port over to x86. I predict 2004.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
I think that gentle introductions to Linux for Win users are a Good Thing. Someone who decides to buy this book probably already has some level of interest in Linux, and is looking to see if the switch can be done with little-to-no pain.
The real challenge, is getting people to that point. One approach is to have lots of stories published in the mass media that talk about how easy/efficient Linux is. The challenge there is not to raise expectations too high. If someone expects to be able to sit down in front of their computer, put a Linux CD in, click "ok" a few times, and be up and running, doing everything they had been able to do in Win, they'll be disappointed, and are likely to give up. Non-geeks aren't motivated to hack around for a while. They want to use their new tool.
People need appropriate motivation. As an example, speech recognition software is more likely to be successful when the user has a strong motivation to work through the early hassles. People with RSIs or other physical constraints are more likely to become successful speech reco users than are ablebodied people.
So, the challenge is to motivate people to try it without raising expectations too high. I'm not sure what the answers are, but although this type of book is a good step, more needs to be done.
I don't think the lack of adoption of Linux has anything to do with ease of use or even software. Look at the two main markets:
Home users: These users buy computers from stores or online (Dell, etc.) that already have Windows preinstalled. Where is the incentive to use a different operating system? I think that penetration in this market has to come from oem's making the extra cost of Windows perfectly clear (add Windows = +$$$). The lack of software is still sort of the problem, but I think this mainly comes down to games (we need companies to start doing real dual releases... still pissed that I bought NWN and it's still not available for Linux). Home users don't need all the features of MS Office (StarOffice would be fine).
Business users: What businesses run is basically dictated by management. I think that Linux is actually making progress in this market because management essentially cares about the bottom line above all else. Linux is simply cheaper. Again, it has nothing to do with ease of use/applications with the big exception of groupware (although I read the the german government was commissioning work on this). People will claim that they need MS Office, but in reality if the whole company switches than there really is no need. Maybe one or 2 copies for interoperability with outside sources, but StarOffice seems to open most MS documents fine.
Best slashdot comment
Everyone says Linux doesn't cost anything, while the software may not, re-training the employees, tweaking the software, etc, is all part of that cost. How much does linux cost to deploy to all your servers/workstations? Figure out how much it costs per hour for all your employees to be re-educated, your IT department to fix potential issues, etc. If this number is less than what it wold cost you over the next few years of software upgrades then you have a winner, otherwise you are probably better off keeping the existing infrastruture.
Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems.
:)
The reason I've seen a few geek friends try out Linux then walk away disgusted (possibly forever) is hardware support. Sure, with modern distros almost all common hardware available is supported, but in a lot of cases it requires a kernel recompile, some config file changes, sometimes even low-level stuff like probing around to find out an IRQ setting.
Compare this to Windows. Not only does almost every piece of hardware come with a driver, most people are comfortable with the driver install process (and the ones that aren't usually have a family member or friend that is willing to do it).
Too bad Linux kernel & distro developers can't create a kernel standard for common release, and just put a stake in the ground and say "Here's Linux 2003. Any certified standard common pre-compiled driver module dated 2003 or older will work with this years Linux." No recompiling the damn kernel. Then of course there'd have to be a very standard common driver installation program... And the rest of us who want to recompile our kernels can still do it if we want.
Eh, but what do I know. I run BeOS and a driver is typically one file that I drop into a folder and usually begins running immediately.
_______
2B1ASK1
- Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems.
Um . .Sorry, but even if all our computers were dual-boot Windows and _______ Linux (which distribution, BTW?) it would not matter. Windows has the mindshare of users. I can't even go back to DOS applications with the younger employees--all they know is Windows.
Back to the Zaurus: this presents a great opportunity to substitute Linux for monopoly-ware, precisely because it is a fresh, new platform that doesn't have a deeply-entrenched user base. Even though its PIM features aren't as refined (or useful) as the Palm's and the Word/Excel manipulations aren't as refined (or useful) as the PokeyPC's, there are many more people who have not yet experienced the Palm or PocketPC platform who would love the Zaurus. And, for vertical applications, the Zaurus offers a tremendous benefit over any other platform. It's open, flexible, fast and capable. Can you SSH into a PokeyPC? Didn't think so. I know you can run Terminal Services' client on the PokeyPC, but on the Zaurus I run VNC Server to provide remote demonstrations over the Internet. Run Apache with PHP, mod_perl and MySQL on the PokeyPC? I do on the Z. Moreover, the browser on the Z is Opera 5 and it beats the heck out of PokeyIE in terms of speed, compliance and features (I'm playing with betas of Opera 6 which is even better). And, the Z costs less than an iPaq. Did I mention the pull-out thumb board?
PDAs are new and market penetration is light enough that the current "leaders" are still small players when considering the total potential marketspace. The desktop is old hat. Concentrate on the new space and win there. People are having to adapt, so Linux has a fighting chance.
[I know people have problems comparing the Z to Palm or PocketPC, but most people aren't Graffiti experts, etc. Remember, I'm looking at the Z for a vertical application, not as a PIM].
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I stopped buying proprietary ice cream from the big monopoly dairy corporations a couple of years ago and now make my own free frozen dairy product -- I call it "Iced Gnu Cream" -- from open ingredients purchased at the co-op grocery about an hour's drive down the road. Sure, driving there and back takes time, and I've had to modify an old fashioned manual ice cream freezer to make this stuff (boy, cranking that thing is an effort!).
The stuff I make is really cold, as cold as proprietary corporate ice cream, but I haven't figured out how to add flavoring unless I buy closed source vanilla or chocolate, so I've been eating it without flavor so far. But, at least, I'm not beholden to corporate America for my frozen treats. (If anyone else knows how to make open, non-proprietary chocolate, let me know, OK?)
I don't understand why everyone doesn't do the same thing.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Don't be. It sounds to me like you have a normal and well rounded set of friends. Good for you.
Linus himself had something to say on the very subject in a recording of an interview I have, I think from Cebit 2001:
(I've put the whole interview up if you wanna hear the rest.)
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
If people are professionally trained on a particular tool, the benefit in paying the extra few hundred is that they will be more productive. Could they LEARN to be as productive on something else? Maybe. That'd take time. If a company is willing to invest in workers like that - essentially acting as both employer and training center - and can live with lower productivity for a certain period of time, great. Force people to use unfamiliar tools. If not, then give them what they claim they need. They are professionals, and probably have a better idea of what they *need* than you do.
creation science book
These people think of their computers as a tool just to get work done
That's me. I may be a geek, but I like having a life. A computer is just a tool, like a hammer, or saw, and so is all the software on a computer. I use whatever tool works. It was difficult to make the switch to Linux (it had been 10 years since I had been doing serious programming!), but I did it. And Linux, as a tool, works much better than Windows. It's like using a high priced hammer that absorbs some of the impact instead of a hammer that breaks in two several times a day.
In a way I don't care what OS my box runs. If it works and does the job, it's what I want. Unfortunately, I even had problems with Win2k -- which I called Win69, since it went down on me so often (not as often as Win9x, but still way too much).
You make linux out to be some fanatical cult thats the best thing in the world
If you care about an OS that works, that doesn't crash, that isn't full of security holes, that doesn't cost an arm and leg to upgrade, that doesn't act as a platform for an office suite that costs (literally) hundreds of dollars, then it is. A lawyer friend of mine just convinced his wife to go for Linux on her new system. How? She looked at the pricetag and realized by the time she got a system with WinXP, Office (a full or almost-full version), a finance program, and the one or two other things she needed (a total of WinXP plus something like 3-4 products), she would spend $1,000 on SOFTWARE alone! She's using Open Office now.
people don't care about such trivial things
I'm not clear what you're referring to as trivial. (The noun substitute "things" does not have a clear reference.) If it's so trivial, why are you responding? It isn't trivial when companies like Dreamworks, Merril-Lynch, BP, and many other huge companies decide that Windows is costing too much or not doing the job and switch to a system that doesn't crash and doesn't result in large licensing fees being extorted from them on a regular basis.
But each to his own. If you want to pay more and get less (except for pretty bells and whistles), then, as Sirius Cybernetics said, "share and enjoy."
However, I can't recommed Linux as a solution to a small to medium sized company or to individuals, except in very limited circumstances.
DESKTOP: For desktop use, it lacks support for hardware and software and I certainly am not going to support my less technical friends and clients over the phone when they need to update their kernel or install true type fonts. Also, when it comes to software, if an application exists, it probably exists for Windows. You can't say that about Linux, which requires emulators and the like. Fine for me, but not for my mother. As for hardware, I personally would like to upgrade my laptop, but there's no driver for my wireless network card. A commercial operating system is cheaper than a new card....
SERVERS: For server use, I can't recommend it for small companies, since there would be no local expert able to add a user or other simple task without my intervention. Your average joe can pick up a Windows book and do regular maintenance or add printers, etc. That can't be said for Linux.
Things that have nothing to do with it:
1. COST. Only in large companies does the TCO issues begin to play, and then, it's still not clear. As for the desktop, most computers come OEM with Windows (the cost being hidden) and users either already own Windows applications or expect to buy them with the new computer.
2. RELIGION/POLITICS. Most people don't hate Microsoft -- they're ambivalent. It's like the number of people who boycotted Exxon after the Valdez disaster in Alaska. Most aren't going to put up much fight, especially when it involves an inconvenience. Driving across town to a gas station is MUCH easier than learning the command line or a new GUI. They're unlikely to do either.
3. RELIABILITY. Windows XP on the desktop is reliable. Period. If yours is crashing regularly, you've done something wrong or installed some 3rd party application incorrectly. I get the impression from reading here and my Linux certification materials that most Linux users are mostly familiar with the godawful Windows 9.x operating systems. Things have changed in the last few years (Windows 2000 and XP).
4. SECURITY. Windows XP/2000 is known to have security issues. I recommend installing a personal firewall and not using IE (I like Opera). This solves most security problems. Most people don't really care about these issues and will spend the $30 to add software to fix the problems. The Linux way seems to be security through obscurity. If there were a dominant Linux mail client, like Ximian, then there would be viruses written to attack it. Outlook is a big target.
Everyone talks about KDE/Gnome as the reason to switch to linux, linux is the kernel and drivers for the hardware. Users want applications and a nice looking desktop, eyecandy.
Personally, I like XP as my gui, and Linux as my server and extension to my workstation. I use my linux box as resources for my windows box. Mount shares, Run services, shell with command line tools, keep tasks running in the background while I play video games on my windose box. (Keep IRC open in a shell with irssi)
I really dont understand why people dont use the best of each platform. Have the best of both worlds, the power of applications (and GNU utils/commands) on a *nix box(bsd or linux) and the anti-aliased fonts/games/apps of windows. (Sounds like OSX, doesnt it...)
But if you only have 1 Box, XP+Cygwin seems a better option for now. KDE/Gnome/Openbox are still lacking in areas, and windows programs wont run native. Repeat, im not bad mouthing linux, linux is a great OS. The Gui KDE, and Back end Xserver is missing features, 3D features, Anti-aliasing, advanced hardware features. But the command line gnu tools, and opensource applications are great. I'm sure with time, linux will be the better choice for a full time os, but gui and applications support needs to be there.
-Brook
-
Blackbox 4 windows an alternative to litestep.
They are professionals, and probably have a better idea of what they *need* than you do.
Stop trying to promote your business and think for a moment that as an administrator I might just damn well know what I'm talking about, might know the capabilities my users. That, since the software request comes through me first, I might just have evaluated their needs and their experience and decided they did not need photoshop. That if they had a legitimate need, I wouldn't have any need to complain. Jeez.
Folks that don't know the difference between a gif and a jpeg don't *need* photoshop.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
I know this because I ran a small shop where people brought in machines for repair, surfed the internet, etc. The house machines were all Linux (Mandrake), except for one dual-boot machine. When they were finished I asked them "How was it", and they said "Whatdya mean?" You were using Linux, I replied. "What's that?" My point? They didn't care or even realize they were using Linux, but when we started to compare Linux v. Microsoft, they almost always went home and installed it. Sure, they came back with lots of questions, but they were the same questions Windows users ask me, typically "Where do I change the colors/screen resolution/is that the left mouse button or the right, which side of the CD goes in, etc."
I believe the reason Linux is not caught on more yet has nothing to do with the features/software or useability, it's due to Microsoft.
"...(these are the same IT departments whose days are consumed with applying Windows patches or verifying license compliance)."
.msi version of the patch. If that is not available make your own, it is not hard (Not nearly as hard as dealing with RPMs to replace all those holes in KDE.). .msi patch on all systems in the domain.
Patching and license compliance are only a problem in companies with shitty managers who do not have their infrastructure built to handle such issues. Windows 2000 made that stuff pretty damned easy.
1- Steps to distributing Windows patches in an Active Directory network:
I. Get the
II. Administrator tells domain controller to install
III. Done.
Steps to ensure licensing compliance in Active Directory network:
I. Ensure that ordinary users cannot install software without administrative help, which they should not be doing anyway!
II. Have all installs handled automatically by the Active Directory Domain Controllers. Set it to only install what is already paid for.
Linux zealots need to stop attacking Microsoft and commercial software companies over things that are non-issues at a company with a well-managed IT department. Sell Linux on its own strengths, not on percieved weaknesses of others.
--there's an obvious two main reasons linux isn't used "more"by windows users. One, windows comes on their machine, it's installed. Two, windows is too hard for them already, they are intimidated by it and as such the thought of something brand new and different is even more intimidating. There's not even an awareness of what an "operating system" is, to most people windows="computer and the intarweb". I know windows users who even after years still cannot do simple easy tasks, have no idea on security, are reluctant to use even what came installed, never even bother to explore all the menu options, etc. I call it "never getting out of first gear", they are content to drive in first gear forever, until they buy another new computer because the old one "doesn't work anymore". rinse lather repeat. And they don't *see* linux, it's NOT on the shelf locally, at least anyplace they go and look. People say "it's at walmart" well, maybe online it is, my local walmart gives you the choice of XP or XP and that's IT. And if you tried to explain there is no "linux company"and the concept of rolling your own or buying a canned distro they would be totally lost, it's an alien idea, it can't exist or it's some program runs on windows they don't know what it does and don't need. I've asked them to stock linux at the local chinamart, they say "naw, that's decided at corporate". Radio Shack, same deal, that's the only two places around here that sell software. Granted this is a rural area but it's where I live and the reason I see around here why linux isn't used or tried. At best people might buy a game, or a very specific application such as a money managing app, but that's it. Once it's in the schools and the kids come home and change their parents home PC's for them, maybe, until then not happening in a big way.
I hear what you're saying, but the members of this technical forum are far more technical than the average Windows users, especially at the office. Joe Blow has 5 years of experience with MS Word, Excel and Power-Point and wants the same apps at home- that's all there is to it. To make that work he needs to be able to call Dell, order a new PC with Red-Hat and Office 10 for Linux. If it's anymore complicated than that he will go with Windows every time.
It's amazing how few people have switched to Mac's even with this capability. I bought a new iMac just for grins, and with 10.2 and the Cisco VPN client, I can dial up my office and fire up Outlook to the Exchange server no problem, as well as have CRUD access to the docs on the network.
Gotta get Office on Linux without any adapters, emulators or dual-boots. The average user, (who is keeping the lights on in Redmond), isn't as fast as this community.
You job is to make the system work. If your boss wants Photoshop that's his business, not yours.
I make my bosses aware of their options and I advise when they request it, and I try to stear them away from making bad choices (buying Kai Photo Goo instead of Photoshop, for example), but when push comes to shove, they make the puirchasing decisions and I make their purchases work.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
And if his email is more likely to work under one operating system, then he does care which OS he uses.
Windows crashing is almost always due to bad hardware.
Cop-out. I have worked with a number of machines which behaved very poorly under Windows, but very well under Linux.
By the way a lawyer spending $2k isn't that much. They probably make it back on their first case.
And if they don't have to spend that $2k on software, they now have $2k more that they can spend on:
sed awk grep cron sort ftp smb etc.
I can make a shell script in about 10 minutes that will do, in a matter of seconds, something that a human would take hours to do with their favorite GUI app. I rarely run Linux X apps. I do run X apps exported off unix servers on occasion, but the real power of Linux is what I mentioned above. Plus, I don't need to worry about, or even have, an X display driver. We have New Fangled windows-based systems that simply have no way of doing these rudimentary, STANDARD functions (outside of purchasing $$$ or building $$$ specialized apps).
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
...that we Windows network admins have already caved in and poured hideously large amounts of money into purchasing Windows 2000 Server and the requisite CAL licenses. For example, my employer already invested a huge amount of money in the 1998-1999 timeframe to install a large NT4 network. Once we finally got all this working and stabilized, all of a sudden MS releases W2K and does the forced premature obsolescence thing and because we are a small govt organization who purchased our MS licenses under a certain "select" contract, we are not allowed to "upgrade".... we can only buy it all over again from scratch or get roped into a "lease/rent the licenses" deal. Management absolutely refuses to "buy it all over again" even if we could afford to do so, and our organization's charter, policies and local law prohibit us from leasing IT infrastructure.
Linux is looking even better and better for us, and I wish we could migrate completely off of MS and go to Linux, starting yesterday, but the cold hard reality is that we have too many mission critical apps that are Win32-only.
It's not there yet.
All of my servers are Linux, and they do great. In fact, I'll turn 1 year uptime on them next week. However, I don't think Linux is ready to be on my desk at work.
Every once in a while, I get this urge to try to dump Windows altogether. I've tried it several times now, but I keep coming back to Windows because of apps like Photoshop and Trillian, and the solid UI. There are X equivalents of most apps, yes, but they just aren't the same, and I'm not as productive with these as I am with the Windows products.
Most Linux desktop apps have not been very stable for me either, and what's worse, they don't FEEL stable. MS Windows has a very solid, polished feel to it. They've dumped tons of money and hours into useability, and they have alot to show for it. I think Linux will get there (its come a LONG way already), but for me, its not there yet.
Last time I ran a Linux desktop, someone asked "why are you running Linux instead of Windows?". I really couldn't come up with a valid answer for him, other than "I just want to!" or "I hate Microsoft!".
The bottomline is, right now I'm the most productive when working from an SSH session on my Windows desktop.
Your post brings up a lot of valid points. I want to like Linux, and I've tried for nine years to find a reason to use it. My first distro was an old SLS (kernel 0.99) set I downloaded off a BBS in 1993. After a lot of fighting with it I finally got it working. Then I hit the "and now what?" point and ended up reformatting the partition and giving it back to DOS.
.rc files, or any config files. Windows users laugh at Linus users for having to put up with this. There shouldn't be a single file (save for HOSTS) that anyone should EVER have to edit. Period. This is 2002, not 1975!
Over the years I've repeated that experience, with Slackware 3, Redhat 4,5 and 7.3, (FreeBSD), and a few others that I don't remember. I always get Linux installed, fight my system like mad to get X working, and always find myself at the same point at the end: "Okay, now what?"
And I look around and don't see a compelling reason to keep Linux on my system. There is almost nothing I can do with Linux that I can't already do with my Windows system, and there are a lot of things I can't do with Linux that I can with Windows. And some things that both systems can do are so hard to do on Linux that it is simply not worth my time to figure out haw to do them.
But there are other factors that limit Linux in my opinion, and in the opinions of others who already use Windows:
1: Inconsistant UI. Sure, KDE and GNOME are internally consistant, but any program that doesn't use one of those managers is a total crapshoot as far as UI goes.
2: Amatuere hour software. You know, the utilities that were written to fix the authors problem and then released into the world. Too bad the UI is crap and the documentation assumes you already know how to use the program.
3: Having to edit text based
Linux has made great strides, and it is easier and more uniform than it has ever been. But one of Linux's great strengths in the geek comunity, the freedom to tweak it any way you want, is its biggest weakness in the general consumer market. The lack of a single, unified UI (sorry, but KDE or Gnome has to die and leave the other in charge) and file structure kills Linux in the mind of the Average Joe.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Simply be enthusiastic about Linux. Show people it. When you discover some "cool shit" that you can do, show people. Don't bash Microsoft. People already curse Windows, but they carry on because they don't think Linux is ready. Someone I knew didn't know that all their hardware would work straight off a RH8 install. "But with Windows, I need loads of additional drivers" he said.
Don't laugh when their machine bluescreens - try and help them work out why. Use Linux on your desktop, even if it's slightly more hassle. Make sure that when you've installed a lovely theme, or window manager, you enthuse about it, and get people to see it.
Make sure people know you can play music under Linux. Another common misconception is that it does't have sound support.95% of users simply check email, browse the web, and play games.
Most people that use Windows know it's annoying, and shit, but they don't think there is an alternative.
Just don't bleat on about how crap it is - instead, enthuse about how good Linux is. Show them that you can open PPT files in Open Office fine. Show them that you can connect to Windows terminal servers using RDesktop. Show them a diskless workstation in action.
Motto? Enthuse about Linux. Other people get curious, and try it out.
P.S If I don't get some good mod points for this heartfelt outpouring, I'll feel very hard done by!
Get your own free personal location tracker
I'm a long time NT guy (NT 4.0 MCSE, Citrix Metaframe 1.8 CCA), and while I had played with Linux 5 years ago, next saw any appeal on a desktop. My first experiment with Linux was in 1997. About 40 hours later, I had it all configured to my tastes, everything worked, and I wondered what I was going to do. All it was was a slightly inferior to the NT 4.0 desktop that I was using at the time. Forget games, I was an NT guy, we had no games either.
At my business, we deploy on PHP 4 + PostgreSQL, so we have Linux database servers and OpenBSD webservers. Our first Linux web server in 18 months just came online, we got sick of security issues.
I currently use a Powerbook w/ OS X for my desktop, I'm extremely happy. When we were playing with Redhat 8 to install the test box, we did one install as a workstation for fun.
It was distinctly less ugly than I remembered Linux desktops, and was pretty equivalent to a Windows desktop (though it can't touch Aqua). However, when I tried to install Phoenix, I ran into dependancy problems because I hadn't installed Mozilla first (I was going to run Phoenix). When I created a "launcher" I couldn't get it to show up on the desktop until relogging in, etc., etc.
If I was a grunt office user, I could be trained to work in there instead of Windows. Someone else would create all my icons, etc. For Sysadmining, I have no problem playing in Linux, its easily to configure, etc. However, as a "power user" I was frustrated, and wanted nothing to do with the box.
I find OS X + Powerbook makes me EXTREMELY productive. Redhat + GNOME + KDE + Blue Curve was too frustrating. It's "looking" better, but it isn't better.
Look, there are plenty of times that I get confused in the Mac GUI because it isn't Windows. I can usually figure it out, and the result tends to make more sense than Microsoft's version.
With my Powerbook, I plug a second monitor in and the dock/menu bar slide over. When I disconnect the monitor, I'm back to one monitor. BBEdit has configuration options for working with two monitors, very nice. With my Windows laptop, I had to shut down to undock b/c of the PCI video card to get the second monitor. How would Linux handle that?
As a result, Apple go the check. Switching was only a few thousand, and I'm more productive. Knock off one extra project and its paid for itself. Give me another two weeks. Linux... sorry, its not there yet.
Alex
By the way a lawyer spending $2k isn't that much. They probably make it back on their first case.
All my clients are lawyers. A number of my friends are lawyers. When I hear or read a comment like that, I know it's from someone who doesn't know many lawyers. While there are some that make megabucks, when I was teaching, I was making close to 75% of what most of the lawyers I know were making. (And I got summers off...)
All jokes aside (about lawyers and teachers), lawyers are rarely poor, but few (at least of the ones I know, which covers a wide variety of specialties) are as obscenely wealthy as you seem to think.
As for Windows almost always crashing due to bad hardware -- I've seen it crash frequently on many different systems. I do hear of some setups that don't crash.
I noticed you addressed price -- not by dealing with the argument, but by attacking someone you didn't even know (a variation of the "ad hominem" intentional fallacy), then you attacked stability by making a claim, which statistics generally don't support (Win2k may be the most stable of the lot, but tests show it does crash regularly), but I noticed you didn't even touch another point: security. Is that because you couldn't think of a flimsy argument to throw out for that? Or is it because you know, like everyone, that M$ has a tendancy to be slow to fix bugs and has a reputation for unsafe code?
Yes, but this only applies to the vast minority of users who use photoshop, and use it for print work.
Linux has failed to catch on among ordinary users because PC manufacturers have been prevented from offering dual-boot systems.
That's not why it's failed to catch on. It's because the average computer user still finds Windows complicated to use... and that's when it comes pre-installed on their computer when they buy it. To the average user Linux is just too complicated with diminishing returns. If you walk into a store and pick up a piece of software chances are it will either run on your Windows or Mac machine. With Linux you have to put some work into it, like actually reading some documentation or finding the site. A scary proposition by itself, let alone trying to install it from ISOs.
Linux still won't be consumer friendly (despite some of the great packages out there) for years to come.
Anyone else who has done Windows support for an organization with 5000+ employees in it can vouch for the reluctance of the user to actually think while using their machine.
The trouble is people want to be free to do what they want so that mean inconsistency. The average Jane and Joe like Mac and Windows because once you learn one app the whole world of app's are now familiar and easy to learn.
The masses like to be dicatated to as long as it makes things easy. Also once they learn something they don't want to learn something new unless they have to. To switch to Linux has a learning curve most aren't interested in going through. The cost of the occasional Windows upgrade is cheap compared to inconvinece of having to learn some thing new. Sure there are some willing to spend the time for assorted reasons, but I'm talking the masses.
Now you also have a catch 22 to deal with. Corporate America is interest in Linux to save licensing fees, but know the time and cost of having to train new employees can exceed licensing fees. Right now you can walk out on any sidewalk and grab people who know Windows and MS Office, no training required. At same timemasses aren't going to learn Linux and Linux app's until more corporations are using it and its a hiring opportunity. Another part of this catch 22 is what Linux window manager to learn, what OSS office suites and other app's to learn.
Linux's freedom is its own enemy at getting deployed in corporate America. Outside Ameriaca is another story.
The review talks about the issues with trying to partition a hard drive to install linux. I suppose most people would reformat and repartition to do this, but not having a real install CD, or not wanting to reinstall is a big downer.
So I would like to just remind everyone of Parted, the GNU partition utility. It can create, resize, move, and delete most filesystems. The notable exception is NTFS. If you follow that link there's a nice chart that shows exactly what Parted can do with each filesystem.
So if your Windows is on a FAT partition, parted can resize it such that you don't have to reformat, much like Partition Magic, but it's of course free. And, you don't need a working Linux system to install it, there are bootable floppy images available for download. It's main drawback is the user interface, but if you read the Docs first you should be able to do most simple operations without really understanding the details.
Would you also be disappointed in my lack of curiousity in Microsoft Windows ?? It's come a long way since the bad-old-days of Windows 3.1. That's the time frame when I purchased my first PC and installed Slackware 1.1 (0.99pl14 kernel). Previously, I used a MacLC2 (dual boot, MacOS6 and MacOS7), and I logged into to various unix boxes for "real work". Before that, I had an Apple2, and again, I logged into BBSs and unix boxes for email, newsgroups, and chat.
I kept the Mac for many years and used it for word processing and graphics (bought one of the few monitors at the time which had two video inputs). MS Word 4.0, MacPaint 1.1, SuperPaint 3.0, Canvas 2.1 were getting pretty old, but they still worked great and did everything I needed. My old Mac has a 50 MHz speed-up card, and those old apps ran great. Likewise, I could do almost all unix-oriented tasks on the linux box, including email, usenet news, and later surfing the web. Linux (and related apps) has grown and grown, and the PC hardware has remained cheap (unlike trying to upgrade the mac). A couple years ago, I took the plunge and finally started using the GIMP, which replaced my last major hold-out on the Mac side.
Over the years, there's been 2 win32-only CAD apps I've needed. At times I had dual-boot, but eventually I purchased vmware and I really like the repeatable resume. I can finally not have to fiddle with windows.... I just set it up once and every time I start that virtual machine I get exactly the same working win32 system with my one CAD app installed.
I saw WinXP in the store not long ago. They've certainly made it pretty. It also looks like Win2k and WinXP are real operating systems with compatible apps and drivers (I was quite unimpressed with NT 3.51 and 4.0).
My linux setup works. I know how to use it. I have a set of apps that run great and do just about everything I need. I've got all my special apps in /usr/local and ~/bin, so backup and migrating to newer distros are easy.
I know there's LOTS of neat new apps for Windows that don't exist for Linux. I know the modern versions of Windows have become much better.
But I don't really care. What I have works, and until there's some really compelling reason to consider Microsoft again (that isn't easily solved by a repeatable-resume vmware virtual machine), I just want to leave well enough alone. It's certainly not broken, so why fix it ???
I can identify with your Windows-based friends who are quite happy with their computing paragigms and therefore aren't really curious about Linux. I can't see how yet-another-book is going to "help". If everything is working great and there's no need for anything new, then what is the "problem" that needs to be "solved" ?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
The second idea has some serious potential (though I'd much rather have a corporation or non-profit do it than the government).
The Zaurus is actually a perfect example of why linux has been having such terrible trouble getting to the desktop.
I've got a Zaurus. I like the fact that I can write custom mobile GUI applications in Python. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's uses for extremely niche applications. I've found the thing useful, so I'm not completely biased.
But unfortunately, the Zaurus UI is VERY badly designed. It's not just lack of "polish", it's stuff that any decent UI person would tell you you *never* do, especially on a mobile device with a ridiculously tiny screen.
Why is the Zaurus so very unusable?
Linux's success, which is success on the server, has come about because linux developers/users had cultural beliefs and abilities that lent themselves well to the creation of things like Apache and the Linux Kernel. Unfortunately, they had cultural beliefs (HCI is BS, RTFM, text better than graphical) that were detrimental to the making of usable software. You have to have a developer culture that values ease-of-use in order to make usable software. They were also lacking in many of the necessary skills (thinking graphically instead of textually, user-interaction design etc.) needed to do this, as well.
Let's look at the Palm as a case study. The Palm user interaction was designed before the code for the OS was ever written and before the first injection mold tool was cast. The creator of the Palm, Jeff Hawkins, could often be seen walking around the company with a wooden mockup of the device, taking it with him to meetings and taking down imaginary notes with the stylus he had created (whittled down from a chopstick!). He thought long and hard about how to minimize the number of taps to do things (which the TrollTech has not). In short, he did what was needed to be done to have a successful, usable product.
If Jeff Hawkins was a linux developer, he would have said "I'll just tack on the GUI once I've finished all the technical stuff. Modularity and all". If someone with any UI design experience would try to save the day and tell him he needed to design the UI before anything else, he'd tell them they were being ridiculous. If someone complained that things were too hard to do, he would tell them to stop whining about what they're getting for free. He would then release the stuff he created to many of the geeky linux folks as early adopters, believing that usage would start with them and proceed to trickle down to normal folks. All the while refusing to understand that linux geeks tend to have very high tolerances for badly designed and inefficient user interfaces and will yell "Stop spreading Microsoft FUD about linux being hard to use!" at the first person who points out an ususable Open Source UI.Assuming that the Alternate Linux Universe Jeff Hawkins was receptive to user feedback regarding the bad design, he wouldn't be getting any because the majority of users would be telling him that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.The poster in an earlier thread who in jest pointed out that the guy who said KDE was easy enough for anyone to use was actually running it on Gentoo couldn't have been more right.
Palm was successful because they did things the right way, not because they were familiar to windows users. WinCE did things the wrong way because it was familiar to windows users (some Palm executives once said that competing with PocketPC "was like shooting fish in a barrel").
Linux getting to the desktop will require both the linux developer community and current user community to put down their Neale Stephenson essays and change their attitudes and the way they do things. Until this happens, the greatest roadblock to Linux on the desktop will be the linux community itself.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
The most important thing in my eyes about an OS is about how visible it is - how much it gets in the way. it shouldn't get in the way, at all. in fact, a GOOD OS would be one that users don't even know about. working on a computer, for a user, is about the applications. about getting work done.
;)
picture a typical work environment. people who generate media on computers. you have some graphics people - they work on graphics and animation. they will want to use say photoshop, director, premiere, etc. there are some sound people. they use soundforge, logic, cubase, reaktor, absynth, and so on. the programmers will use.. well, whatever suite they want to. there are more (and better) development environments for win32 than there are for linux, though this is a slightly closer call. however gimp and similar linux versions of apps - they are fine for playing around. but they are not near professional grade. and what about the project manager, he will want to use microsoft project. because that's the best program of its kind.
open source is in some ways a detractor here. apps wont be released for linux until companies are safer in the knowledge of market share, and that their market will have the right attitude toward their products. it can't be that hard to port them - how easily were apps ported to Mac OS X?
people will go to a platform with the best apps. you can get all sorts of stuff for free OSes, but it doesn't mean they're good enough for professional use. even non-professional use - tux racer may be cute and stuff, but it oesn't compare to anything good released on pc for the last 3 years.
you, as a slashdotter, may think this doesn't apply to you, because you like configuring your machine, tinkering with settings, and so forth. but you're not a user. you're acting like a system administrator. and the way to get linux into the mainstream is not to make everyone want to administrate their own machines, but to make linux easy enough for someone to use it and not have it get in the way.
whether this is a good thing or not is another question entirely. it may be bad to "dilute" linux to the lowest common denominator, if that affects its power.
fwiw, i would garotte anyone who advised using windows on a server environment, having had more than enough nightmares with that already myself too
fross
It is often worse for an interface to look the same and act different than it is for the interface to look different *and* act different.
If the environment looks the same, the user will be coming with a whole set of expectations about how the environment will act in a given situation, and will get utterly frustrated when those expectations aren't met.In some cases, the user might actually lose valuable work because the thing that looks the same on the emulating environment does something destructive that is benign on emulated environment. At least when something looks totally alien you know it will act totally alien.
While some people praise RedHat for making GNOME and KDE consistent, they didn't do this at all. GNOME and KDE might now look the same under BlueCurve, but they still act completely differently. Some poor user will do some work in a GNOME app, and then when the go to do work in a KDE app, stuff will act completely differently. The same looking button in the two environments will act differently.
A specific example: In a KDE Save File dialog, Ok is on the left and cancel is on the right. In GNOME, it's reversed. Imagine the shock the end user has when they go to save a file in a KDE app and they find that the button on the right that they clicked in the previous app (which looked exactly the same) to save their file actually prevents them from saving their file in the app they're currently using. Or even worse, they don't notice the difference and they lose the changes their made to their data.
I actually talked to the guy who created BlueCurve when RedHat did a road tour at my school. And while he acknowledged the differences, I was disappointed that he didn't understand how much trouble this could cause.
The same thing goes for the "Let's just copy Windows UI so it will be familiar for those transitioning to linux" people. No matter how hard the linux developers try, things will be different from Windows. It won't be like windows no matter what they do. I could think of no better way to turn people off of using linux than to tell them it's just like windows and for them to believe that and for them to then lose a month's worth of financial records due to some small inconsistency between windows and the windows-clone linux distro they're using.
A better solution is to not worry about familiarity and just make sure that things are well designed in general, and that nothing is ambiguous or confusing and that the users data is protected at all costs.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Well, duh! Of course they don't see open source as anything as a time burden. They don't have any free time what with all that Windows patching they need to do.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Organizations still built around NT are doing it because they have bad mangers who haven't managed to upgrade in THREE YEARS.
Either you are a spoiled rich brat with money to burn or you have been brainwashed to believe that such short forced upgrade cycles are supposed to be the norm. Large business investments in a particular software technology have historically been, and are generally supposed to have 7 to 10 year lifecycles, with incremental upgrades that build upon the base product... not complete replacement of the base product. Pouring repeated large volumes of money into a vendor's pocket for "it's a totally _new product_, not an upgrade" is what constitutes bad management. My employer is also suffering from this endless upgrade gravy-train and we simply cannot afford to replace our NOS licenses every two to three years just to satisfy the vendor's greed, and our management also refuses to lease their licenses too. I've been an NT network manager since version 3.5 of the product and am sick of the game too. I've been waiting a long time to have a pure unix server backend once again and thanks to Linux, we're finally able to begin doing it.
As for things like DirectX and user interface, I'll let others argue about whether SDL/OpenGL is a good DirectX equivalent, or whether KDE 3 and GNOME 2 are better than the Windows XP interface. It really depends on exactly how you use your system. For my needs, Linux is far better, but I'm sure you can come up with areas where it's lacking.
Dude, I have thought the exact same thing from time to time, wrt immortalizing oneself in the hall of open source heroes. My hat's off to you.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
You missed Unreal Tournament 2003, released with a Linux version from day one.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Thankfully it's at least mono!
Consider ~24 kbps / 22KHz, after all its just voice. Us dial up users would really appreciate it, and so would that server.
Cheers.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
1. Linux needs MS Office and key apps like Photoshop, etc.
I don't need MS Office. For my needs, Open Office is just fine. I rarely use it. But for a business, Open Office needs to be directly compatible w/ office, and the corporate world needs a genuine MS Office for linux. They need that road to be open to them. Sure, they'll try OO for free. But if they run into compat problems, they could just go buy MSOffice. Problem solved.
I'm trying to 'switch' now. I've got two boxes. My winXP, the original box, is now only turned on to use it's hauppage WinTV mpeg digitizer to catch a show, or to use Photoshop, Thumbs+ or an multimedia file that I just can't play on Linux. The other box, a PIII slapped together from spare parts around is the Linux box, is all I've used for the past few weeks, barring the above. I'm spending time learning gimp. I dearly miss Photoshop and Thumbs+, Homesite too.
The thing is I know people who Linux would be better suited for them. It's safer, they can't delete the wrong files (ie win9x,), no virii problems. But can I guarantee they can print from it? Can they print well? Nope. If they buy a USB MP3 player will it work? Maybe.
Will that same hardware work with Windows? *probably*.
2. There's an odds game there, and windows wins it. It's the device drivers for the hardware. Until manufacturers put out drivers, Linux is always playing catchup. Not that I'm *not* very grateful that there are a lot of people who write these drivers in their own time so that I can use them in an OS that I downloaded for free. Don't get the wrong. But if I buy my kid one of those creative keychain mp3 players - can she use it on a WinXP box? I'd bet on it. Can she use it just as easily if the machine was a Redhat8 machine? Maybe. Dunno. I'd have to search on it, maybe even buy the thing and try it out. Maybe write a few shell/perl scripts or something to make it easy for her to use.
If that's the case, that's too much trouble for people, for Linux to be mainstream use.
Linux needs drivers to products that are fully equivalent in functionality to the same Windows/Mac drivers.
3. Licensing
Microsoft needs to stiffen the licensing and security of it's OS and apps.
Until people cannot 'borrow' a WinXP cdrom from a friend, or from the office, and install it on a computer at home/at a friends/neighbor/parents place, Linux will never become as popular as Windows. Why would people bother? It's free. Unethical, yes. But it didn't cost them anything. Same thing w/ the Office cd's and photoshop et all.
Of all the people that I work with, that I know of, I am the only person who's actually *bought* Photoshop. (yes, the company bought many many licenses) But I know for a fact that they've all got it installed on their pc's at home. (and yes, the argument can be made here that since everyone's using it, when PS 10 comes out everyone will clamor for it, the office buys more upgrade licenses, everyone's using the app, and more sales are just about guaranteed for perpetuity, but that's another topic).
When the day comes, if ever, that people just can't copy or borrow-to-install, you'll see many many people asking to borrow a linux cd set to try it out. It's all about money, and most people only spend it on hardware. To a lesser extent some software ($30 for an antivirus), never a large costly app like MSOffice. And nearly *never* on an operating system.
http://slashdot.org/~tf23/journal
"Either you are a spoiled rich brat with money to burn or you have been brainwashed to believe that such short forced upgrade cycles are supposed to be the norm."
Neither of the above. But I have worked with NT and 2000 enough to know that NT is a pile of crap, and that Windows 2000 is so much better only a madman should still be running it. While it is not cheap or easy, Active Directory really does have enough advantages to make it worth upgrading from Windows NT. As for your 7-10 year lifecycle, are you smoking crack? Those numbers might sound nice in MBA classes, but would you really want to run an enterprise using 7-10 year old technology?
Funny, I never mentioned I was overruled. My boss and the CTO did both agree with my analysis; otherwise there would be no need to say they insisted and the CTO finally relented. So no, I was never overruled. My analysis went to my boss, then to the CTO; so you could say my boss was overruled, but mostly the CTO just changed his mind.
Maybe most administrators don't work hands on with their users. Maybe most administrators haven't had graphic design business or web design businesses? Maybe most administrators don't remember when PS was Mac only, when it didn't support layers, don't understand or work with as many apps? Maybe the problem is as soon as anyone mentions they're a windows administrator, people just assume all they know is what was required to pass the MCSEs.
How do CTO's respond to whining? Guess it depends on the CTO, I haven't met too many. But what's a few hundred bucks compared to keeping a few people from calling you once a day for a week?
And hell, that wasn't even the poing of the original post. I don't care that they're getting photoshop, it's not my money. But as long as there are users who get their way, as long as money is less important than keeping people from whining and getting what they want, then how will Linux break into such environments? That was my original point.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.