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."
Installation?
Dual Boot?
Operating system?
If you're talking about actual end-users you're dealing with people who think that AOL *is* the internet. They aren't interested in dual booting, or installing the operating system. They're only interested in their computer coming on when they push the button and doing what they want it to do without them having to think about it. I know that at some time you've installed an application on Windows.. Double click, click next three times voila --- icon on desktop = installed program.
If they're serious about having a true user friendly Linux distro that's where they're going to have to be.
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).
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.
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...
If you're a redhat user, got to fresrpms.net pull down apt-get, and do and apt-get install mplayer.
That's 3 steps too much for a "typical" user...
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.
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.
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?
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.