Slashdot Mirror
Rise of the 'Consumer' Linux Distribution
Hodge writes "Newsforge has an article discussing the potential for 'Consumer' Linux distro's, i.e. ones aimed at regular users rather than the Geek Elite. It's quite an insightful article, recognising that the vast majority of computer users just want a system that works and don't care about issues of open- or closed-source and don't even want to know about dependencies."
The goal of Linux should be to provide a useable, friendly operating system that is very cheap or free.
People don't have to know how to build an enginer to drive a car. They know that being able to open the hood and fiddle with the engine is dangerous if you don't know what you're doing, and to lock the car when you are away from it, that's common sense.
This common sense should come to computers as well. Locking them when you are away and not fiddling under the hood. However the option SHOULD be there for people who know what they're doing.
If Linux can bring that option and reduce the cost of new operating systems to a reasonable amount, THEN it will have achieved a respectable goal.
If more people use it because it is clearly the best choice, depending on distro, then Linux will be where we want it to be. Those of you who only use it as an OS because it's different, you will have an excuse to move on to bigger, better things.
Hmm, I can go pick up a box copy of Redhat 8.0 for $29 at a local store and get a real distro instead of these flash in a pan wannabe's that think that CrossOver Office + Wine = "Runs Office great."
Bite the bullet - It's easier to use Openoffice than support a MS Office-on-linux solution. Joe Blow has a hard enough time with Office on Windows, let alone some hack (as neat as it may be).
And you can find 2000/XP at thhis price point as well. Win2kSP3 with OpenOffice is a better value than these distros. At $30, Redhat with OpenOffice is unbeatable, even for newbies, 8.0 is _easy_. For the rest of us, Debian isn't going anywhere.
As much as I hate to say this, but we need a fs that has a windows look to it. To most users /mnt/floppy means it is time to get some viagra, they know that their floppy drive is A:, hard drive is C:, and their network drives are L:, M:, N:, etc. I personally think that A: B: C: D: are horrible names for drives, I like the idea of file systems being mounted off of a root fs, but most people don't understand that concept. I personally wouldn't use a fs like this, but for it to be commonly accepted among users, they are going to need something like this.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
I don't think MS can package a Linux distro. I'm sure somebody knows the details, but I believe that when MS sold Xenix to SCO, they agreed to stay out of Unix-land in the future. Anybody know the real story?
"But I suspect some additional technical features/api's in X would be necessary in order to achieve the seemless resolution changing ala. Mac or Windows."
I guess you've never heard of XRandR. It allows on-the-fly resolution changing and screen rotation. The extension will be included in XFree86 4.3. Both KDE and GNOME are working on support for XRandR.
"This is the core problem with linux, and why the consumer wont use it until fixed. My parents and friends have problems running windows XP...do you think they could handle some of the even semi complex tasks of running a linux box? Highly doubtful at best."
These "problems" cannot be "fixed". Windows and Linux are general-purpose operating systems. It is impossible to make them easy for every single person out there without at least some education.
Tadaaa, that's where preinstallation and preconfiguration jumps in!
Complex tasks? What complex tasks? I setup a Linux box for my parents to surf the web. All they have to know is how to press the On/Off button, how to doubleclick on the icon of their account and how to use the browser.
That's it, no compiling, no editing configuration files: it just works.
The solution is not to make (semi) complex things easy, but to preinstall & configure the system to their needs so they don't have to do (simi) complex tasks in the first place.
Repeat the magic words: preinstallation and preconfiguration.
The ability to do these sorts of things exist. What I mean is any Windows functionality that a user likes can have a linux equivelant. All it really needs is some UI that the user is used to. The real issue is wether or not this functionality should be a part of the "core" system or should it be some sandalone application. Windows is so dominated by their explorer interface that it causes that one program to be a monster. The beauty of "unix like" os's is the modularity provided by either open standards or open software. This allows a programmer to create programs that modify the parameters of other programs or call them usefully or whatever. Now, with that said, the only reason that linux may currently not have all the things that people who use Windows are used to is that it just hasn't been done...yet. The reason is easily explained through the way oss is created. Usually an open source developer tackles a problem that they or their company is interested in. As a result of their work, they share that with others, especially since they have likely benefitted from other's oss work. If they or their employer is not interested in solving a specific probem, a program for that is never created. Making linux more "Windows like" has not been a priority for most os developers. To do that would take a company that is interested in making money off of such a venture. This, I beleive, is what the article speaks to (enter Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.)
End of Line.
scripsit hbean:
I think we geeks often forget just how non-geeky the general population is.
Installing a new video card? My God, that involves cracking open the case! Think about this: Many users are intimidated by the thought of figuring out the cables, and will pay someone to plug the blue cable into the blue port, the green cable into the green port, etc.
I agree that it would be nice if X weren't such a PITA to configure. However, that's really not the issue if you're talking about Mom and Dad. (Forget Grandma, she's happy with her adding machine and writes letters by hand.) Their hardware won't change until they get a new box. If the system comes preconfigured, they will use it and not muck with the settings. But until they can get the box delivered with Linux installed, and trust that it will work without fiddling, they won't use it. There's the rub.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Funny, when my manager hears "Linux" and "Open Source" (mainly from me), he gets immediately defensive. To him it means "unfamiliar", "different", and "not approved by Corporate". Makes my stomach turn.
It makes me sick when we have to sit in meetings and work around delays and problems caused by licensing issues imposed on us by software vendors. "Oh, we can't install that environment, we don't have enough licenses. We'll have to wait for the PO to go through on it before we can proceed." We have to budget in licensing that we may never use, but we will sit on licenses that we have paid for because we don't want to give them up. It's too hard to get them back, and we have the money in our budget already. Argggh. It is stupid and wasteful.
Most users don't give a damn about the philosophy behind the software.
They probably do more than they know. People get copies of Windows and Office and games from their friends all the time. They do it because they can't pay $$$$ for it, yet they need it. Managers and IT people want software that is reasonably priced without licensing hassles. (except in my case I guess) I'll bet that a lot of people would like the Open Source or Free Software philosophy if it was explained to them. They probably won't fight for it, or pursue it, but they would choose it. But even if they don't, or are never given the opportunity to, I am damn glad that *I* can choose it. It just needs more support from the people who make software so that the end user can get the programs they want.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
It's because you are not comparing apples to apples. KDE is resource intensive as XP. And XP wouldn't run on that P/75. If you want to run a GUI on a P/755, try something more suited to it like fvwm or icewm.
-BrentI think another very pertinent example is printer setup.
.ppd, .pdq, and .foo files, manually editing /etc/printcap, and you get the idea). He would have simply switched right back to window$ without a second thought. People want the point-and-click behavior that has come to be expected from Windows and the more polished Linux distros (like RedHat). Although, even RedHat isn't always that easy, particularly if you have exotic hardware.
I managed to convince my father to switch from WinMe to RedHat 8.0. That was real easy, pop in CD, choose options, add printer (HP 610CL), use internet connection wizard, point Mozilla mail it his mail server, and viola! Everything is point and click and ready to go, and he's sold on how easy it is to use Linux.
On my computer at home I run Debian, and the printer setup has been an absolute nightmare. I've basically tried everything (pdq, printtool, foomatic, lpd, cups, etc.) and followed every howto (Printing-HOWTO, linuxprinting.org, and several others), all to no avail. I still get only postscript instructions out as ASCII. The dependency/confilct problems between the various components isn't real helpful either.
The average user would not stand for this sort of behavior from an OS (never mind spending a week reading howtos, downloading
To continue the printer example, under window$ people don't care about a spooler/filter/blahblah combination. They just want to click once, install the printer (maybe pop in a CD or download a driver if it is new hardware without a driver on the window$ CD) and point the wizard at it without worrying about the command line options for the print spooler.
"Features" like this are what continue to keep Linux from hitting the desktop in any measurable amount.
i can't count the number of times i've watched the linux community bad mouth designers. aside from a few rare occassions, visual design is quite vocally pushed aside as frivelous and unnecessary. and yes, it goes deeper than simply hating flash.
the only answer to come from the linux community was skinning. skinning is NOT the answer. skinning as it exists today is a push towards 'cool' while completely ignoring 'useful.' skinning can be a good thing, but very VERY few skinnable applications provide skinning while paying respect to standardizing UI design. very much the opposite - skinning has turned towards giving people the ability to change more than colours and tiled backgrounds, it's giving them the ability to change the entire look and feel, as well as the way users interact with the product. this is cool, but it's not useful.
i would really like to see the linux community take the chip off their shoulders and invite visual designers into their projects. stop belittling their importance and give a little respect for their knowledge. that knowledge, especially with UI design, can be quantified, tested, and proven, just as programming concepts can. if you need some way to relate before you can drop that chip, maybe take a look at MIT's Media Lab. take a swing at programming DBN. you might just enjoy it and broaden your horizons a little.