Posted by
michael
on from the includes-two-of-every-application dept.
An anonymous reader notes that OFB has a short blurb about a new Linux distribution, Ark Linux, based on Red Hat and chasing the ever-elusive goal of being "easy to use for the masses".
This is how Mandrake started.
by
FelixCat
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It's a pretty interesting environment which allows new companies (distributions) to get an instant running start by basing a new distribution on someone elses. It reminds me of the whole "on the shoulders of giants" saying.
The best way to make linux "easy to use for the masses" is NOT going to be by adding yet another distribution of it. Personally it would help if all the "desktop linux" companies pooled their resources and made one, standard linux desktop running on one, standard gui interface. Adding another linux distro just makes things more confusing for the masses.
More choice isn't always good. I would rather see ONE good desktop linux package than ten substandard ones.
--
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
Re:counterproductive
by
Raiford
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Here's the deal. RedHat Linux isn't anymore difficult to install than WinXP (or really any other previous) incarnation of Windows. There really isn't a MS Windows installation for the masses if you really get down to it. If you want the masses to use Linux then you will have to have more computer manufacturers that will bundle Linux already on the machine.
-- "player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
Re:counterproductive
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Customers have no trouble learning a new interface. They do it all the time.
Amen to that brother. That statement reminds me of a "debate" (actually more of an argument) I had with my best mate a few years ago, a die hard Mac head. We were discussing interface consitancy, with Paul attempting to show that Linux would never go anywhere because it had 2 major widget toolkits that had different themes, no universal HIG etc. He ended up trying to prove that people couldn't use other peoples mobile phones.
The hilarity that ensued kept us amused for a looong time. The sight of him walking around the 6th form centre with his phone asking people to open up the address book on it, then looking dismayed when after studying it a moment they did it as fast as he would have done, was excellent. The "what are you smoking, man" looks he got were even better.
People are smart, people are adaptable. Yes, a completely consistant UI is good for user efficiency which is why people are trying hard with unified themes and user interface guidelines etc, but at the end of the day with a few notable exceptions (software installation/resolution switching) it's been possible to figure how to work Linux for a long time now and anyway no other OS has a completely consistant GUI, least of all Windows (not even the mac).
Seems like a nice idea to me:
Take the good base of RedHat and replace their castrated Desktop with a working one. Since Bero is responsible for this it might even turn out pretty good...
dev0
Re:Non castrated RedHat...
by
Nailer
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I can't believe peopel are still spinnign this shite. Care to provide some supporting arguments, or at least refute those in my sig?
Edison's Approach
by
Flamesplash
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If you try enough "different" things you'll eventually come upon one that works, or you'll die.:p
99% perspiration, 1% inspiration.
Are there 99 not-for-the-masses widely distro'd linux's yet?
-- "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
elliotj
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It seems to me that this debate will rage on and on about which desktop is the best etc etc. I don't know much about this ark linux offering but I do like the idea of someone else taking a crack at it. its a worthy goal to reach for.
it seems to me that the only way this will be achieved is by a distro making some very draconian decisions about what to include. I for one would be delighted to see a very lightweight distro that did just a few things very well.
what I mean is if there was a distro that included a web browser, mail client, open office, mp3 player & a terminal program, and they all looked good and were consistent in look, feel and function, then this would be a major step forward. you dont need to include much more than that to have a successful easy to use distro. no point in including tons of compilers and dev tools if you want to make something easy for non-techies to use.
hopefully this is a goal that will be reached someday. it is so possible to do that I'm really surprised to see so many failed attempts. All I'm suggesting is a lightweight distro with a select few apps that are heavily polished and work well. If you did that you could gain a following and maybe get enough credibility and respect that other app developers would code to your human interface guidelines.
just a thought.
Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
bahwi
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Linux, BSD, and everythign else need one thing, just one thing that embedded systems like Zaurus and others do successfully to make it easy for the masses. Remove everything technical. All the drivers should be an LKM, there should be something like a "Control Panel" to choose which ones load on boot-up. Users should be allowed to pick and choose their WM, but it should be easy. Gnome Control Panel did this I think. There should be _no mention_ of the term: 'recompile the kernel'. There should be binary packages available so people can download, right click, and select "Install..." to install a program. It should boot-up graphically into X-Windows and should only have one xterm-like replacement(or even xterm itself) hidden, deep in the menus.
Does this take out everything we love? Yes. I'll gladly stick to FreeBSD with my rxvt's and my gettys, my kernel compilation and my make worlds, thank you very much. The beauty of Windows is that it takes all of the fun out. But what we consider fun others consider a PITA.
If a distribution did this, took everything out, made it all LKM's, and took all the technicalities out, then we would have a system for everyday users. They don't want the command line. Come on, some of these people can only do 5 wpm! When starting up your web browser because you don't know about tab-completion and you can't type takes 15 seconds before the program is even executed, you have a major problem there. It should be click(or, optionally, click-click) and it should run.
This needs a team of dedicated people to run a free system like this, but more likely, a team of employees from a company will do this(and many are trying to) and to maintain binary packages, an easy system to install/update/delete packages. That's what we need.
What is wrong with Red Hat and Mandrake and the others? Simple. Whenever they do something to make everything more simplistic, the community(read: many of us slashdotters) makes a backlash saying the system lacks this or that functionality because they did this or that. I say let them. We always have Debian, Slackware, and other distributions. Let a few of these become end-user-never-going-to-type-in-a-command-in-their -lifetime-bought-the-damn-thing-at-wal-mart-for-ch rist-sakes distributions and leave it at that. Applaud them for taking out even the ability to re-compile the kernel. Applaud them for it.
Yes, many of these companies are doing idiotic things, but we're part of the community and they look to us for guidance. Let's tell them, not yell at them, to take apache out of the main distribution and for god sakes disable it for regular desktop users.
Desktops should be so easy an 8 year old should be able to set up. Servers should be difficult to set up.
Sorry, I had to rant. and yes, I know it's the same rant everyone else on slashdot says, but this time I get to say it.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
malthusan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If I may chime in with a newb's POV. Last night I nuked my WinXP drive (after backing everything up, of course, for migration) and installed RedHat 8.0. I quit Windows cold turkey -- and I'm having some serious withdrawals, which I'll get to in a moment -- and committed myself to using Linux at home on my desktop, laptop, and eventually going to Mom's and switching her over as well. My reasons are many and varied and, for the most part, unimportant for the purposes of this discussion. I should say, though, that this is my 5th attempt to make the switch to linux. I think I might just succeed this time.
I'm not a complete newb to computers -- managing tech support for an ISP cures that fairly quickly -- but Windows spoiled me. It was easy, reliable (talking XP here -- it worked well for me, and i'm not going to argue the point), and every piece of hardware I installed worked, most apps -- if they were from a reputable source -- worked, games worked. WinAmp worked. When everything works, there's no reason to learn anything new. So one reason I wanted to switch was the challenge of learning a new OS.
But Goddamn!! My previous efforts to switch to Linux ended in a return to XP because I couldn't get the fucking cd-rom to work, or my sound card was lurking in the shadows of my case, adamantly refusing to introduce itself to anything in the OS which might make it do something besides crackle on startup and go silent, or, in the case of my laptop, I couldn't get the power management functions to work and I feared getting a message stating my processor had decided to imitate the sun, a message I ultimately couldn't read because I could never get decent anti-aliasing for fonts to work and everything was freakin' illegible.
I know, I know...there are solutions to all those problems, and with enough reading, research, tinkering, and sacrifices to the gods of IRQ conflict resolution, I even got some of them taken care of. RedHat 8 got almost everything right, and the things that don't work will work soon enough, once I've done the footwork to make it so.
I'm interested in doing this footwork, in learning how to fix the shite that doesn't work in the hopes that I'll understand it all just a little better. But I have my limits, and my level of frustration increases in proportion to the number of times I have to recompile the kernel to get the freakin' sound card to work until, at last, in bitter ignominy, I give up, fdisk the fucker and put windows back on.
It sounds like Ark Linux is aiming their distro squarely between my eyes. Several posters have mentioned the improvements made to recent distros re: installation and usability for novice users, and I would most certainly agree. But a distro aimed at the complete newb -- the person who has no interest whatsoever in *how* the shite works, only that it does, indeed, work -- would be a good step in bringing those folks, like me, who would like an alternative to MS but don't want to become sysadmins just to upgrade a mail program, into the linux fold. If "Linux on the desktop" is to become a reality, then Joe Sixpack, the ubiquitous Wal-Mart shopping, PBR drinkin', wife-beatin', cousin'-fuckin' redneck/.'ers despise so much, has to be able to use it on his computer. And perhaps, since someone is finally taking the time to develop a distro for the "masses", perhaps they understand that Joe Sixpack, for all his faults, is not such a bad guy after all. Maybe he doesn't beat his wife or fuck his cousin, and maybe he wants the OS without the ideology served on the side with a glass of contempt. Maybe he's, you know, human. Or something. So I say good luck to Ark Linux and I look forward to giving your distro a try. Best wishes to you!
Comment removed
by
account_deleted
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nice idea, but...
by
Drasil
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I wish these guys the best of luck, anything that brings Linux to more people is a good thing, but...
IMHO all attempts to make computers 'easy to use' 'for the masses' have failed. Just ask any joe public who wants to actually use their computer, rather than spend endless hours tinkering with it or being plauged by niggling bugs. Computers are extremely complex things, and the critical mass of knowledge required to make them run smootly makes it impractical for every user to become a system administrator.
I think what's needed is a shift in perception and the model we use to sell hardware and software. Rather than just selling boxes (containing PCBs or CDROMs), computers should be rented. This would mitigate the endless upgrade cycle and (with the internet) allow trained professionals to administer customers' boxes, all included in the price. Linux is an ideal OS for such a distribution method.
Do I think this will happen? Not yet. For this model to be economically viable it would require specialist tools that would let admins look after huge amounts of boxes. A major shift in public perception would be required, especially after all the 'so easy to use even your granny can do it' ads. Finally, I think that it would take a lot for users to hand over the control of thier computer to anyone.
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards
by
Ilan+Volow
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
for they are subtle and easily screwed up.
Just because you break something down into stages doesn't mean that any of those stages won't have serious usability design flaws.
For example, the Red Hat installer has a wizard, but they still do this confusing, ambiguous, and non-standard hierarchical radio button thingy in one section. Mandrake installer has a wizard, but they still denote progress through the wizard by whether a button that denotes each stage is green or red (which kind of sucks for people with red/green color blindness).
I'm not saying wizards, when properly implemented, are a bad idea, but they are by no means a panacea for the stuff that really confuses end users. While many linux distros now have graphical stuff, the graphical stuff is still designed by programmers without any design sense at all. And this is really why so many people still find linux so hard to use.
-- Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Windows Domains...
by
Chordonblue
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Agreed, and I'll add one more thing. The first distro that adds Windows Domain support - COMPLETE support will be the one I implement here.
My users get mapped drives and shares when they login to the domain. I need my users to have centralized information stored on a Windows-based server. The software we use have few analogs in the open source world, so our backend is likely to remain the same for the forseeable future.
All of this needs to be seamless, and it needs to happen reliably. I haven't seen that yet. The pieces parts are there, certainly, but no one has gotten it right yet.
My guess is, this is EXEACTLY what Red Hat is planning to do with their next Workstation version.
-- "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Red Hat 8.0 *IS* ``easy for the masses''
by
Dr.+Zowie
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I don't know why the hell I'm even typing this -- it's doomed to get buried in the avalanche of other posts and never get seen...
I have installed and am using Red Hat 8.0. It was
very easy to install, and is very easy to use. It was more than four mouse clicks, but their installer is really smooth. If you just want a quick, easy install you click one of four or five radio buttons for the type of machine you want (server, workstation, etc.); but you can also switch all the packages independently.
The OS seems to come pretty well secured by default; and of course there are the requisite "control panel" windows (which actually work!) and OpenOffice links. The terminal is buried waaaay down in the menu structure -- a bit disconcerting at first. But most of the little apps that we all know and love are available in the pull-up red hat menu already.
They've eliminated the notion of window manager from the basic graphic OS install -- there's no reference to it at all. You can switch window managers, but you have to know unix to do it. That, IMHO, is a Good decision.
It seems to me that Ark Linux is a tempest in a teapot -- Red Hat already did all the work; these guys can't possibly be doing much more than smoothing over the install and putting a different theme on the desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a pretty interesting environment which allows new companies (distributions) to get an instant running start by basing a new distribution on someone elses. It reminds me of the whole "on the shoulders of giants" saying.
The best way to make linux "easy to use for the masses" is NOT going to be by adding yet another distribution of it. Personally it would help if all the "desktop linux" companies pooled their resources and made one, standard linux desktop running on one, standard gui interface. Adding another linux distro just makes things more confusing for the masses.
More choice isn't always good. I would rather see ONE good desktop linux package than ten substandard ones.
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
Seems like a nice idea to me:
Take the good base of RedHat and replace their castrated Desktop with a working one. Since Bero is responsible for this it might even turn out pretty good...
dev0
If you try enough "different" things you'll eventually come upon one that works, or you'll die. :p
99% perspiration, 1% inspiration.
Are there 99 not-for-the-masses widely distro'd linux's yet?
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
It seems to me that this debate will rage on and on about which desktop is the best etc etc. I don't know much about this ark linux offering but I do like the idea of someone else taking a crack at it. its a worthy goal to reach for.
it seems to me that the only way this will be achieved is by a distro making some very draconian decisions about what to include. I for one would be delighted to see a very lightweight distro that did just a few things very well.
what I mean is if there was a distro that included a web browser, mail client, open office, mp3 player & a terminal program, and they all looked good and were consistent in look, feel and function, then this would be a major step forward. you dont need to include much more than that to have a successful easy to use distro. no point in including tons of compilers and dev tools if you want to make something easy for non-techies to use.
hopefully this is a goal that will be reached someday. it is so possible to do that I'm really surprised to see so many failed attempts. All I'm suggesting is a lightweight distro with a select few apps that are heavily polished and work well. If you did that you could gain a following and maybe get enough credibility and respect that other app developers would code to your human interface guidelines.
just a thought.
Linux, BSD, and everythign else need one thing, just one thing that embedded systems like Zaurus and others do successfully to make it easy for the masses. Remove everything technical. All the drivers should be an LKM, there should be something like a "Control Panel" to choose which ones load on boot-up. Users should be allowed to pick and choose their WM, but it should be easy. Gnome Control Panel did this I think. There should be _no mention_ of the term: 'recompile the kernel'. There should be binary packages available so people can download, right click, and select "Install..." to install a program. It should boot-up graphically into X-Windows and should only have one xterm-like replacement(or even xterm itself) hidden, deep in the menus.
r -lifetime-bought-the-damn-thing-at-wal-mart-for-ch rist-sakes
Does this take out everything we love? Yes. I'll gladly stick to FreeBSD with my rxvt's and my gettys, my kernel compilation and my make worlds, thank you very much. The beauty of Windows is that it takes all of the fun out. But what we consider fun others consider a PITA.
If a distribution did this, took everything out, made it all LKM's, and took all the technicalities out, then we would have a system for everyday users. They don't want the command line. Come on, some of these people can only do 5 wpm! When starting up your web browser because you don't know about tab-completion and you can't type takes 15 seconds before the program is even executed, you have a major problem there. It should be click(or, optionally, click-click) and it should run.
This needs a team of dedicated people to run a free system like this, but more likely, a team of employees from a company will do this(and many are trying to) and to maintain binary packages, an easy system to install/update/delete packages. That's what we need.
What is wrong with Red Hat and Mandrake and the others? Simple. Whenever they do something to make everything more simplistic, the community(read: many of us slashdotters) makes a backlash saying the system lacks this or that functionality because they did this or that. I say let them. We always have Debian, Slackware, and other distributions. Let a few of these become end-user-never-going-to-type-in-a-command-in-thei
distributions and leave it at that. Applaud them for taking out even the ability to re-compile the kernel. Applaud them for it.
Yes, many of these companies are doing idiotic things, but we're part of the community and they look to us for guidance. Let's tell them, not yell at them, to take apache out of the main distribution and for god sakes disable it for regular desktop users.
Desktops should be so easy an 8 year old should be able to set up. Servers should be difficult to set up.
Sorry, I had to rant. and yes, I know it's the same rant everyone else on slashdot says, but this time I get to say it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wish these guys the best of luck, anything that brings Linux to more people is a good thing, but...
IMHO all attempts to make computers 'easy to use' 'for the masses' have failed. Just ask any joe public who wants to actually use their computer, rather than spend endless hours tinkering with it or being plauged by niggling bugs. Computers are extremely complex things, and the critical mass of knowledge required to make them run smootly makes it impractical for every user to become a system administrator.
I think what's needed is a shift in perception and the model we use to sell hardware and software. Rather than just selling boxes (containing PCBs or CDROMs), computers should be rented. This would mitigate the endless upgrade cycle and (with the internet) allow trained professionals to administer customers' boxes, all included in the price. Linux is an ideal OS for such a distribution method.
Do I think this will happen? Not yet. For this model to be economically viable it would require specialist tools that would let admins look after huge amounts of boxes. A major shift in public perception would be required, especially after all the 'so easy to use even your granny can do it' ads. Finally, I think that it would take a lot for users to hand over the control of thier computer to anyone.
for they are subtle and easily screwed up.
Just because you break something down into stages doesn't mean that any of those stages won't have serious usability design flaws.
For example, the Red Hat installer has a wizard, but they still do this confusing, ambiguous, and non-standard hierarchical radio button thingy in one section. Mandrake installer has a wizard, but they still denote progress through the wizard by whether a button that denotes each stage is green or red (which kind of sucks for people with red/green color blindness).
I'm not saying wizards, when properly implemented, are a bad idea, but they are by no means a panacea for the stuff that really confuses end users. While many linux distros now have graphical stuff, the graphical stuff is still designed by programmers without any design sense at all. And this is really why so many people still find linux so hard to use.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Agreed, and I'll add one more thing. The first distro that adds Windows Domain support - COMPLETE support will be the one I implement here.
My users get mapped drives and shares when they login to the domain. I need my users to have centralized information stored on a Windows-based server. The software we use have few analogs in the open source world, so our backend is likely to remain the same for the forseeable future.
All of this needs to be seamless, and it needs to happen reliably. I haven't seen that yet. The pieces parts are there, certainly, but no one has gotten it right yet.
My guess is, this is EXEACTLY what Red Hat is planning to do with their next Workstation version.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I have installed and am using Red Hat 8.0. It was very easy to install, and is very easy to use. It was more than four mouse clicks, but their installer is really smooth. If you just want a quick, easy install you click one of four or five radio buttons for the type of machine you want (server, workstation, etc.); but you can also switch all the packages independently.
The OS seems to come pretty well secured by default; and of course there are the requisite "control panel" windows (which actually work!) and OpenOffice links. The terminal is buried waaaay down in the menu structure -- a bit disconcerting at first. But most of the little apps that we all know and love are available in the pull-up red hat menu already.
They've eliminated the notion of window manager from the basic graphic OS install -- there's no reference to it at all. You can switch window managers, but you have to know unix to do it. That, IMHO, is a Good decision.
It seems to me that Ark Linux is a tempest in a teapot -- Red Hat already did all the work; these guys can't possibly be doing much more than smoothing over the install and putting a different theme on the desktop.