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."
Or have we in geek culture spent too little time away from the average user to recognize this ourselves?
I've only been saying this since I started using Linux in 97/8... Think, but can your DAD use it?
-- If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. -- Harry F. Banks
What these companies must focus on the most is the ease of installation if the user would like to dual boot.
100% Insightful
Most users don't give a damn about the philosophy behind the software. When my managers hear "Linux" and "Open Source" they really hear "free". They like it because it doesn't cost them anything.
So how long before Redmond comes to the realization that they too can package a distro. Just include some proprietary code in some of the packages, and just barely undercut other Linuxes with compatibility features.
Just another paranoid thought, brought to you by
-theGreater.
Most of the consumer distros get this right. In fact, my experience is that SuSE, Red Hat and Mandrake are all easier to install and more logical than Windows. Plus they all come with great install documentation. The big problem has been and probably always will be compatability with the 1000s of software and games that ma and pa can buy at the local CompUSA (not to mention Wal-Mart).
I don't see these distros succeeding until they either sell them for VERY little money[1] or for free. Because let's face it: most "consumers" are cheapskates[2]. How many people do you know copy illegl versions of Windows XP? Or download illegal MP3s? Copying CDs anyone? The pirate market is HUGE.
Sure, you can argue that not everybody does that. But the point is, the *majority* are cheapskates.
[1] Selling for little money or for free introduces other problems. Like "It's cheap/free, so it must suck"-prejudgements.
[2] About the "Linux users are cheapskates"-stereotype: that's not true. *Consumers* are cheapskates.
There are still fundamental configuration problems that need to be solved.
I've evangelized a few friends to run SuSE 8.1. It's easy and slick to install. Nice KDE desktop. <list of good things omitted>
Still, I get questions that point out obvious deep problems not solved yet. "How do I change the resolution of my monitor?"
Obviously, you don't just go to the Display control panel, change it, see the change take effect on the screen with your windows and icons automatically adjusting. Not to mention useful help such as if the display doesn't appear just press ESC or wait 15 seconds.
What I'm getting at here is that different high quality software projects such as KDE and X windows are not deeply integrated. While I commend these and other projects, it is still not Mac or Windows easy to use. KDE has done a wonderful job of putting some system configuration features into their control center. 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.
This is but one example, although perhaps one of the worst ones. High level gui control panels seem to already do many things well, such as configuring your PPP or other low level things.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
The issue is more about a couple of things really: We use windows at work, so thats what most people know. In fact, few people I know have even heard of Linux. Secondly, Linux's philosophy of open source is also its worst enemy. No one wants to learn how to compile something to simply run a binary, yet most software out there has to be compiled to run. And sofwtare is the biggest issue - when ordinary folks think of software, they think CompUSA etc. Until CompUSA or the other computer superstores sell Linux versions of software, this issue is dead. And in many cases they simply cant. Linux will remain in the realm of techno-geeks, as an oddity of the computer world.
It's not cheaper when you factor in the time wasted trying to figure out how to use Linux.
Depends on how much of that time is spent unlearning the habits formed by Windows use.
The interfaces for these newer desktop Linux distros, like Lycoris and Lindows, seem to me to be just as intuitive as the one Windows XP has. Obviously there are differences, but it seems to me that starting from a blank slate, a new user can learn Linux just as easily as they can learn Windows or Mac OS.
(Then again, I use Windowmaker on FreeBSD, and like it - it's certainly possible that I'm unable to see these things from the perspective of a new user, since it's been so long since I had to approach a computer problem without having any inkling of the solution. So please take this with a grain of salt.)
--saint
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
I'm an experienced software engineer, and I don't care either! I want to work on developing my products, I don't want to be a full-time system administrator, constantly having to fiddle with things. And I don't care about open vs. closed in most cases either; I'll go with the better product.
... at least not from Dell in the UK.
What I'm getting at is that however "easy" it is to install a Linux distro, it's far easier to get going with Windows because your PC's already got it.
The non-geeks won't even think of using a real easy distro. Whilst making the distros easy is part of the war, the first battle is to get Linux pre-installed on consumer-spec machines as a matter of course. Until then Linux disto-makers will be swimming in a tiny puddle of geeks whilst Microsoft has the ocean of normals to itself.
Rob.
There's a big, BIG but here. With out argument, it's pretty safe to say that linux is an excellent operating system, its safe, secure, reliable and stable (most of the time, which is alot more than can be said about it's competion). I've run it on several systems of my own, but always end up back on windows for on reason or another, those reasons mainly stem around one big thing...with windows, changing settings, upgrading, and configuring new hardware/software doesn't make me want to run screaming into the night pulling my hair out.
It's simply not nessicary to have stuff be this difficult. Sure, it can very easily be learned, and there's documentation out the wazoo for the majority of the topics I, and I'm sure many others have had problems with, but installing a new video card should not, under any circumstances, turn into an 8 hour battle with a configuration file, and unless your a hard core geek, that could happen very easily. 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.
Until linux can match the ease of use of windows (gawd, I can't believe I'm saying this), it's going to remain a niche OS for the geeky, mostly the geeky w/ lots of free time on their hands to bicker and fight w/ their computer when things go wrong.
Flame on!
"Give someone a program, frustrate them for a day... Teach someone to program, frustrate them for a lifetime."
and what they've done with OS-X on BSD.
That level of quality, reliability and integration is a tremendous achievement for Apple. However, it's a fairly large organisation that cross-subsidises its software costs with sales of hardware, unlike most of the linux disto companies - so far.
If RedHat, MandrakeSoft, Lindows or whoever could produce a product with this level of finish I'd buy it in a heartbeat and bear the susbscrition costs with joy.
Apple have at least shown what can be done and raised the bar quite significantly.
I'm optimistic that, bit by bit, the better linux distros will at least catch up.
But in the meantime here I am, wallet out and still waiting...
I would think "repeat until people start to
beieve it" works for Apple too.
When will the Apple mouses have more than
one button? Do not answer that you can plug
any usb mouse.
I don't want to worry about dependencies either...
I'm currently using SuSE but I'm starting to hate it. I used to love it. I've tried yast, apt4rpm and fou4s and I still run into dependency hell.
(Still can't get the latest version of gnucash on my 8.1 laptop!)
I tried switching to gentoo but I couldn't get the sucker to compile.
I guess I'm going to try debian next.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I would like to stop worrying about dependencies. I own a 60 gig drive. You can statically link your program with a 30k lib. Really, I don't mind. I don't like hunting down source tarballs for some obscure program I'll only need once. At least give the option to download a statically compiled program. The dependency hell is one major aspect that makes Linux difficult for many new users. And I won't even mention circular dependencies.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
None of this means anything until there is a CD that my MOTHER can load so easily (like XP) that she doesnt have to pester me for help.
-Thats what makes an OS powerful, the MOMMA test...
Or have we in geek culture spent too little time away from the average user to recognize this ourselves?
If you look at the desktop experiences of one advanced user who isn't a developer, I think it's safe to say that this is an ongoing problem.
A viable desktop operating system is more than a kernel and associated utilities; it's dependent on applications which *do what the competition does* and which look good and work well.
After all, to Joe Sixpack, the computer is a tool, not a toy.
The threshold which developers have to cross before we, as a community, can say that Linux is ready for the desktop, is one where the developers stop thinking about stuff as being "cool", but start to think of useful features, common interface guidelines for everything, and color schemes which don't make ordinary users wince every time they start a given application.
(Don't argue to me that you can easily adjust the color schemes in the preferences, you *know* most idiot users can't figure out how to do this.)
Features? Examples:
Note that I'm comparing a *CURRENT* version of OpenOffice unfavorably with a *6-year-old* Microsoft product. That's not something we want to brag about - "The leading office suite for Linux has most of the features of a 6-year-old version of Microsoft Office!"
I've only been saying this since I started using Linux in 97/8... Think, but can your DAD use it?Thank you. It's good to hear an increasing chorus of voices who're worried about this, especially as we reach a point where, on the surface, it looks like Linux is a viable alternative to Windows on the desktop. Those ordinary users who make the switch now will be dissatisfied very quickly, and will become staunch Microsoft proponents and purchasers for years to come, even when all the current problems with a Linux desktop have been addressed - public perception changes more slowly than the feature lists of open-source software.
As for Dad, no. He's 63 years old. If I were to install a really locked-down version of Linux on his machine, I'd have to place "Internet Explorer" and "Outlook" icons on his desktop. If I were to change the location of the Send button in Outlook, he'd never figure out how to send an e-mail, let alone swapping him into a whole different program on a whole different operating system.
He called me up and asked me why he couldn't get to a website that someone told him to check out. The URL was all-revealing: blahblah@domain.com. The difference between an e-mail address and a website address is apparently too much for him.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Perhaps the average consumer does not need more than a web browser and a word processor, but much of business requires specific applications. My industry, architecture, can not use the computer without CAD software. Thus our choice of operating systems is restricted by the offerings of CAD. (And since AutoCAD currently reigns supreme in this industry, we're stuck on Windows for a long time.)
All this talk about Linux distributions is child's play, what we really need are apps, then we can discuss suitability of distributions. I can not understand why no one seems to realize this. Enterprise level CAD and accounting software would swing huge numbers of users (personal or business) to any flavor of Linux. (Like the construction industry, maybe 5 percent the total US GDP.)
(BTW, if anybody is interested in starting a GPL, GTK+ CAD project, please drop me a line... I'm not an experienced programmer but I can do graphics, documentation, HTML, whatever, to help a serious effort. You can check CAD on Linux for more on me and my (admittedly old) research into CAD on Linux.)
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
All this talk about making Linux more usable creating BLOAT is just garbage. Frankly, I think all the work on KDE and GNOME in the file managers and desktop etc. is a worthless waste of time. Why waste system resources looking through files using an internet browser? Why render all the pictures as thumbnails? THE BLOAT IS ALREADY THERE FOLKS! (and Windows XP makes me barf!)
Currently, I run a Windows ME system with 98lite applied to it which converts the file explorer to the one used by Windows 95 (ie NO WEB INTEGRATION) and also removes the underlying HTML engine and Internet Explorer from Windows. My system boots and is ready to go in less than 10 seconds. It runs Moz, OpenOffice AND all the Windows games like Ghost Recon (and Splinter Cell when it comes out in 2 weeks). My system is a lot more stable and useful than any of the Linux distros I've tried over the last eight years.
Yes, I've used different window managers in Linux including rat poison. But in the end, I had to ask myself WHY BOTHER? I can use OpenOffice and Moz on my windows system with perfect reliability and play games and use my USB card readers and ATI Radeon without a hiccup. I already own Windows.
Usability != bloat. My mother was a wiz with MSDOS and Wordperfect 4.2. Why? It was simple and predictable. Boot then type wp at the prompt. All the key commands were on a card around her F keys. Suddenly everyone needs Windows XP bloat to make computers easy? HA!
Usasbility = (a) O/S is preinstalled on system when it comes; (b) office suite is either pre-installed or installs easily with one click [OpenOffice in Windows is this easy]; (c) installing new software using InstallShield type clone; (d) system is simple, predictable, and consistent.
I don't have a subscription for Windows software and I'd never pay for one for Linux software. What a nutty idea if it's meant to spread Linux to consumers. Microsoft got it right with the bundling of Windows and Office at the start.
The Linux community will be much better off when geeks realize that there is no difference between a geek and a consumer. All of the things that make "consumer" Linux easy should be placed into the Geek distros. If they shouldn't, then there is something wrong with the feature. Let me provide a scenario:
I went to a Linux Users Group meeting, and one of the Windows geeks posted the question "What do you guys do with your computers?" The answers were amazing - none of them did word processing, or craeted graphics, or music. None of them were math geeks, or biology geeks, or programmers. None of them were homemakers, or fire fighters, or teachers... they were all sysadmins. To them, an "applied" use of a computer was adding users and scanning for viruses. These types of geeks aren't qualified to determine what should be in an OS since they don't even know for themselves what they are using their computers for. It's like those guys who have 3 cars in the backyard, tuned and customized, but they would never think to run them on the road. So they don't know that the new super-duper engine they just installed dies after 3000 miles. :-)
Let me tie this into a quote from the article:
Most distros I have seen come with multiple web browsers, multiple MP3 and video players, several window managers, and more text editors than I ever knew existed. The result is the exact same crime we claim against Microsoft: bloat! Installs in the multiple gigabyte range. It becomes difficult just to browse the web or play an MP3. We need geeks who have a real use for their PCs to be deciding what goes in a distro. This is good for geeks, and it is good for consumers.
There's nothing that stops someone from whipping open extra CD #7 and installing the obscure browser and mp3 player they like. But it is better of to start out clean and nice and pretty, and let someone customize it, than to start out bloated and force users to trim things out.
>> 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
This is true, but the average user also wants what everyone else is using.
If Joe User can't figure out how to do something, he wants to be able to call up one of his buddies who knows and ask him how to do it. He doesn't want to deal with "I dunno, Joe. I never used Linux. Sorry"
If his buddies have Macs, he'll be inclined to get a Mac. More often than not, his buddies have Windows, so thats what he wants too. His buddies dont have to be computer geeks, just someone whos used $APPLICATION before and can give him a hand.
Chances are good if he knows someone who runs linux, they are of the 'technical elitest' movement, and wont help. They'll stick their noses in the air and say "you should run Windows or get a Mac, Linux is too complicated for you".
There's an air among many of the 'in-the-know' computer geeks that they wont share information. Even Free with a capital F information, when it comes to linux. Whether its a feeling of power they get by knowing more about something than someone else, or whether they cant be bothered, or it's just a lack of social skills, it doesnt matter. They like to call themselves Gurus as if they have some mystical power and you should beg them to use it for your benefit.
It's not every linux user who behaves like this, but a large enough portion of them that it will continue to slow it's growth on the desktop.
If you want to help linux get accepted, help the users who need it.
Eg, a friend of mine has an old Compaq that he only uses to print invoices and work orders for his small business.
After about 12 times reinstalling his printer for him after Win95 kept mysteriously 'losing' the drivers, he asked if maybe he should upgrade to WinXP. I convinced him that he could do the same thing for free with Linux, and helped him get it all set up. He was wary of all the free software, because there'd be no tech support line to call. I asked him "did 1-900-tech support get your printer running for you?"
He hasn't had any problems yet, but if he did, he'd call me up, I'd come over and we'd have a couple of beers and straighten it out.
(and it's quid-pro-quo, when my furnace died on me, he came over and helped me get it firing again)
Anyhow. If you want linux on peoples desktops, put it there. And don't be an elitist shithead if they need help.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Yeah, but this isn't really going to apply to you. There'll be some other technology that your children think you will have trouble coping with.
Look at the history. My Dad had no trouble whatsoever mastering the TV and remote control. That's because he grew up with the technology (maybe not the remote). But when VCRs came out, I was the only one in the family that could set the clock. (Dad learned when I left for College). He can use a computer as long as nothing goes wrong. As soon as there's a problem with it, he's at a loss. I, on the other hand, have no problem using and fixing computers. It's just a necessary evil. I fully expect that there will be some other new technology that I just can't grasp, which will seem simple to my children. I'll just have to have my son come over everytime the fusion generator needs to be reset or something like that.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
People don't realize that MS Windows has been "free" for years. I am sure that MS did this intentionally, but how many people have actually gone to the store and paid for a copy of any flavor of Windows since Windows 98 came out? People got the OS because It is either packed into the PC they bought or they got it from a buddy whose PC came packed in with it (copy protection was non-existant before Windows XP).
If you got the OS packed with the PC you purchased, the cost was well figured in... you didn't see the exact price so you figure it's free, huh?
If you got it off a buddy, you're a thief... you don't see the cost that is being passed onto people who actually pay for their software because of theives.
When you buy a new Dell, WinXP Home is a default option that adds little to the final price to the PC. This is why Linux is facing an uphill battle. It has nothing to do with Interfaces, command lines , or GUIs.
It's not a *little* cost, and it's not an *option*... you pay for it, whether you take the OS or not. With linux, you don't have to pay for it, you have an *option* and you are *free* to compute how you feel.
Linux is facing an uphill battle because it's not as easy for the average joe to operate. If you think for a second that people are selecting Windows willingly because it costs more and is harder to use, but hey, it's included, I think you'll find you're mistaken.
Snooze and you lose your sushi.
You sound like a frustrated geek who is absolutely outraged that the unwashed masses do not take the time to properly learn how to use the tools that go along with your personal hobby, computers.
As has been said many times before, for most people a computer is a tool not a toy. It is a failing on the part of the software developer not the consumer if the technology is not used to its fullest potential.
Yes you have to take classes to drive. Thats because a car can kill people. When was the last time you heard of not knowing how to print your MS Word document leading to a 41 car pileup on the highway?
When the day arrives that Artificial Intelligence is good enough to allow anyone to get what they want and need out of their computer without taking one class or reading one tiny word in their manual will you still be angry at these people? When AI lowers the status of the average geek to that of a cockroach what will your snobbery have gained you?
Will you still look down on everyone as if you are better then them just because you are a computer obsessed geek?
The fact that you believe this phenomenon is limited to Americans further reinforces how close-minded and unaware of your global surroundings you are. Its kind of funny that a tool you spend so much time with, the Internet, has failed to properly broaden your horizons and help you mature into the mature person we all have the potential to be.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Windows ... less friendly than Mac
Agree.
Windows has never been much more user friendly than Linux on desktop
Strongly disagree. I'd say, Windows has been yards more user-friendly. From visual appeal* to standardized installation techniques, to a reasonably standardized look-n-feel (that apps can break if they want to), to a standardized help system... oh, the list goes on and on.
Of course, the Linux community is unlikely to acknowledge this anytime soon -- for them, anyone who buys Windows is either a drone or a hapless victim of MS' evil monopoly. Guess it's much easier to play victim.
* Gnome2 with decent fonts (e.g. RH8) is a huge improvement. But try running OpenOffice on RH8 and you'll want to puke.
I have to agree with a lot of the other posters. Linux is at a crossroads if it wants to make an impact on the desktop. There are a few areas that need addressed in my mind:
1) Being useful on the desktop means that packaging methods, configuration files etc need to be standardized. The way to get Linux in the door for desktop use is in simple needs corporate desktops or kiosks, and for those to be supported at a lower cost than Windows, standards are needed to minimize the time spent.
2) Consistent, thorough and up to date documentation for programs. Everyone likes to say RTFM, check the newsgroups or what have you. To that I say useless. Half the time you do that the manual is for three revisions previous and in the newsgroups you have no idea of the person actually knows what they are talking about.
3) Number 1 and 2 will help in the other major stumbling block. Support for hardware. Getting some hardware to work under Linux is a painful procedure.
And for all those of you who are saying that you don't want it to get to this point, fine. You like your choices and spending hours upon hours in text config files that is great.
One word of caution though is that while Linux is trying to make improvements to make it onto the desktop, Windows is improving on servers.
I constantly see people here putting down Windows uptime and reliability. That is not an issue since 2000. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know that they are doing. On good hardware and with good drivers Windows 2000 can run just fine for months at a time. I dislike Microsoft and their licensing as much as anyone, but Linux's biggest strength - reliability - isn't as much a factor now.
I have tried using linux as a desktop, however i find many flaws. I know i'll get flamed, but yes, i use Windows XP for my desktop, although i use debian 3.0 for my server.
.NET which means i could program for linux as well, without having to port my program. I write one program and it runs on all.
A desktop OS needs to be easy to use. Most users don't want to see the system V init when starting up, it will just confuse them. Mandrake did a good job of covering that with a project i believe was called Aurora (or however you spell that). I'm sure that Windows and Mac are both doing a ton of things when starting up, just like linux, however they don't show you. Like Windows 98 would show you what was happening behind the splash screen if you hit escape. Most users don't really care.
Installation of programs is another big issue. Debian, along with other distros such as Redhat, Gentoo, and even the BSDs have some sort of installer. However many users wouldn't be able to figure it out. Most of the installers don't let you just double-click on them to install the program. You have to do some command, or sometimes you have a gui for it, and then you have to configure the program. If you can't find a binary package then you have to compile from source. This would be extremely hard for most users.
I think linux is on it's way to becoming a desktop OS. I've tried it here and there, and i can definately see progress. I remember back at redhat 5.2 days, and seeing gnome and kde. Fast forward to today and it looks amazing. I envy all the programmers of the open source community for their hard work they've put in. It is really starting to show.
And with projects like Mono bridging the gap between windows and linux, it's helping even more. i personally prefer to program in
I see linux as eventually making it to the desktop market, however right now, i see only the advanced users using it. Hopefully this will change.
It seems that OSS people just don't get this very basic point:
Price doesn't matter. Value does. You can give me this great whiz-bang piece of software for free, but if I can't use it, it has exactly zero value for me. On the other hand, if I can spend $100 and get a tool that I can use to get work done, that tool has value. MS understands this. OSS types never will. They're focused on price, which is irrelevant.
I'd like to point out that it's not just Linux that has this problem though. If a new computer user is first introduced to Linux, they'd have just as many problems learning Windows.
Case in point:
I'm sitting in a University computer lab right now. There is a long line of individuals waiting at the door for a chance to use a computer. The thing is, the lab isn't full. All the Windows computers are full, but there are two Apple G4's running OS X beside me here waiting to be used. I regularly here people complain that they don't know how to use a Mac so they wait in line. Reality of the situation is, for all they're using it, the differences between a Mac and PC are nominal. They all have Word and Excel and everything else. Just the interface is different.
Down the street is another lab that has Red Hat 8.0. It's for the Mathematics and Engineering departments. Most of the undergrads that use that lab probably have no clue about what Red Hat is, but they can log in and find an icon for MatLab or whatever it is they're looking for and they're off and running.
My point is, it's not that hard! The problems are usually with the user's own preconceptions. No matter how well you design a system, people are still going to gravitate to whatever they are familiar with and if it so happens they first learned on VMS, then that will feel more user friendly that Windows or OS X. So recognize that it's not always the problem of us geeks writing bad UI's. And in the end, I would hate it if everything looked like Windows simply because that's what everyone is used to. I love the choice and differences that Linux distros and window managers offer.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
It has little to do with a lack of ability to grasp these things and everything to do with a lack of interest in grasping the concepts. Perfectly demonstrated by how your dad learned when he had to. As you grow older you won't have that unlimited fascination for everything technical. You'll just want a lot of things to work and get out of your way. If you stay on top of it you'll be just as sharp (and wiser) but you'll discover that you're pickier about exactly what you learn.
Many children, at a certain age, read everything that comes in their way. But this doesn't last, soon they become picker, they know what kind of books they like and they will read that and will when going outside that field be deliberate when chosing how to expand their horizons. We think they get more mature, self conscious, and smarter. But when someone older than ourself gets picker we accuse them of getting lazy. Or?
=)
-
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.