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."
There was a similar article in the Buffalo News yesterday.
Odd to see this stuff getting so much mainstream attention. I especially liked how the author of the Buffalo News article went out of his way to point out how much cheaper a computer is without MS Windows.
Free software won't be taking over the world any time soon, but its definitely getting more and more mindshare every year.
--saint
Microsoft use the "repeat until people start to beieve it" marketing method which make people think that windows is some revolutionary concept that make computers easy to use. Then when they get people on the windows they lock them in with proprietary file formats like Word doc.
If microsoft started to market Linux today they could make the peoples think it's easier than anything else aftera a matter of time too, it's all in the marketing. Linux will never ever have a consumer success on desktop until they understand this. But you watch the FreeBSD learn this since they are really OSX. they will be the ones to make consumer success, not Linux.
All the best,
--Achmed
Swaribabu Consulting Inc. -- We code so you don't have to
SuSE Linux 8.1 looks great, has the ability to run a majority of Microsoft products (it installs Internet Explorer on the Gnome Desktop), and even has a nice GUI for installation of Windows apps. What more could you want?
There is a pervasive movement in American culture (I am an American, no flames from elsewhere) to avoid responsibility, to have other's do the worrying, to dismiss technical know-how as geeky or somehow dirty. As an engineer, I've noticed an increase in a willfull cluelessness about technology. I think that its the same drive that's pushing some people to want government health care, government schooling, etc. People don't want to "have to worry about it". Well, I have news for you. A computer is a complicated piece of machinery, not unlike your VCR (which may or may not be blinking 12:00 at the moment). You cannot drive a car without taking a class, and learning something about how it works. Witness the Windows catastrophe. Dependencies matter. A cell phone requires a manual to learn how to navigate (some of it may be fairly intuitive, but still). Technology is the physical implementation of science. This is not Star Trek, you can't just assume that the Computer "knows" what you want it to do. Is there a place for appliance-type systems for word processing, email, games? Yes. There are dedicated machines for this. To try and make "a computer" friendly for Joe Longneck may be an intractible problem.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Just the fact this guy had to write a multi-page article to figure out which version of Linux, web browser, and office suite just shows how far Microsoft is ahead. There is a power in unified development and vision; it's a power that will keep Windows on top and Linux fragmented. Last time I checked Microsoft offered free easy updates to the Windows operating systems, but it seems to get easy updates you have to pay monthly in the Linux world. There seems to be this duality in Linux which is 'it's free if you're a geek, but you have to pay if your not'. Free Linux vs XP is one thing, but pay Linux + monthly fees vs. XP is another, and for the average user it's going to be pay Linux.
As a half-geek, I admit the "ease of use" issue is why I don't use Linux. If I switch, the Microsoft area of my brain will atrophy and I'll won't be able to answer the tech questions and assistance asked of me by my friends and family.
If there was a Simple Linux, I'd switch and bring my friends and family with me, and could very well bring my employer too (because I provide the tech support there). The current distros of Linux simply are not worth that effort.
The most typical question I get when I've shown Linux to a new user is "So where's my C-Drive?". Basic usage of Linux on the desktop is now 'there', I think, but as soon as you have to look under the hood or have to think in terms of admin and root priveleges to install something it can get scary. Paradoxically, WinXP may be opening people up to these concepts. I believe that for Linux really to take off and have a hope of supplanting Windows mainstream acceptance it needs to be used in schools when kids are taking their first accepting, open-minded, faltering steps and we'll eventually be hearing the question "What's this C-Drive thing?"
Here's what we do. Choose the 2.4.18 kernel from LILO, boot to runlevel 5, start XFree86 4.2.99.3, start a KDE 3.1rc6 session, pull up a command prompt and start phoenix& (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021207 Phoenix/0.5).
Here's what the rest of the world does. Start Windows. Click on the Internet thingy.
A "consumer" package has no choices, and no real options. You get support for all your hardware, one app for each job, and no apps that you don't need for email, browsing, word processing and playing solitaire. You get a one button, idiot proof method of updating your system. You don't have to know what kernel you're running, or what a package is.
That's what a consumer OS is, and that's what KDE and GNOME are moving towards. Whether we want Linux, GNU apps or XFree86 to be used as the basis of such a system is another question entirely.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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).
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.
You've never used Sax2 either. IT allows easy changing of the screen resolution on SuSe.
Only problem that I have with Suse is they don't install all the needed dev utils for when I want to compile things myself. Such as MythTv, or Mplayer.
"Shut up about my driving. You're still alive."
From the article: $99, give or take $20, seems to be the new price point for full-featured, consumer-level Linux distributions.
Incidentally, Windows XP Home's undiscounted price is $99 as well. And it comes with Windows Update for *free*. Add on OpenOffice for Windows and one's all set: very usable OS, lots of apps.
Given that an Office suite is the only chink in it's armor, I'd wouldn't wonder if an office-suite-lite was bundled into the OS soon. Three cheers for competition!
LOTD (linux on the desktop) starts in schools and enterprises. right now, functionality is far in excess of what 90% of people need. plus all the added things like security, no viruses, etc., etc. and no, when linux gets market share there won't be linux virii, think apache vs. IIS and think market share. duh. LOTD begins when suzy senventh grader says to me (i actually do teach seventh grade):
"hey, i need to finish to project at home, can i borrow your linux cd."
"well certainly, how 'bout i just burn you your own cd".
or when joe employes needs to finish up work at home and then just brings the cd home.
windows is not easy. windows is not user friendly. neither is a bicycle. windows is what most people sort of know. but that can change.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
A couple weeks back my curiosity finally got the better of me, and I burned an iso of the latest knoppix release. It was hard to believe that this was the same operating system that I'd had to strugle so hard to install not so many years back. Time consuming note taking in preperation for the first experience with Linux had been replaced with simply opening the cd door!
One simple step and a fuller desktop than the default windows quickly loaded up. Open office documents, play mp3s, divx or even some games, all within minutes of putting the CD in. I think someone nervous about computers would actually have an easier time with this stystem than any of the windows flavors. Configuration tools were about the only thing really lacking, and KDE seems to be moving to including beefed up tools anyway. When KDE 3.1 comes with knoppix, and with a few font changes, I really think it will have surpassed windows for user friendliness to those with little computer experience. With a a little tool for automated hard drive installs, I'd almost start handing this thing out to people at christmas.
Everything will be taken away from you.
I've been preaching that myself for a couple years, but nobody wants to listen. The elitists are an infestation that has to be removed before any free OS will gain world domination. 99% of desktops are used by people who couldn't care what is running their programs as long as their programs run. Uber-geeks trying to keep everything mystical aren't helping the cause at all. The first OS to oust the elitists will win. Oops, looks like MS did that.
And the first desktop that includes a simple, reasonably powerful programming language will win the desktop wars. Think back to the old Basic days - it allowed non-geeks to make their computers do useful things for them. Those days are gone, there are no useful desktop languages for non-geeks today. That's elitism at its worst - the geeks are telling end-users "you can't do *anything* with your computer without us."
okay, that's a simplistic argument. but for me, at least, it's what's kept me for the longest time from switching fully. And I think that for average everyday user, it'll be a big issue too. I make a living as a programmer (granted, not an *excellent* living, but I pay my bills on time), and I appreciate Linux for its power, flexibility, and openness. I've been isntrumental in my company in getting them to switch to Linux servers, to trying out Linux desktops, to replacing MS Office with OpenOffice wherever it's feasible, and generally spreading the Good Word (tm) of OSS. But when I get home after a day of code slinging, the last thing I want to see for at least a couple of hours is another config line. I want to double-click on something and get straight to fragging, not spend half an hour fighting with WineX and wondering what I configured wrong *this* time. Granted, WineX is making great strides in compatibiltiy, but frankly, it's not there yet. Performance wise, it's horrible in my experience. It's sad when my Athlon XP 2200+ with a GF4 Ti 4200 can barely handle a game under WineX that I know runs fine under Windows on a P3 600Mhz and an old Voodoo card.
Now, I've read the arguments about people saying that windows can be just as hard and user-unfriednly as Linux for configuration things, and, as an MCSE, I can agree.. *however*, the average Windows user never, ever has to deal with those aspects of Windows. Your average windows user clicks on a thing, and a program loads up. That's it. I know people who've used computers for years, consider themselves computer-savvy, and yet they were surprised when I showed them Windows had a Control Panel. The thing is, windows makes it *possible* for someone to use his computer for years without ever having to touch a config file or panel. Linux doesn't. You have to recompile stuff, type in arcane command lines, and edit text config files, just to get a minesweeper clone up and loaded. Give the people true point-and-click, don't force them to configure *anything*. Make it so stuff comes pre-configured.. leave the settings there for those of us who know our sh1t can still tweak the settings, but just leave it tuned to 'well-enough' and it'll be good enough for 90% of the populace. Users want things to Just Work (tm), they want to click 'Next...' through a couple of dialogs and have their apps installed and ready to run. And when something does go wrong, they want to be able to call someone and have them know how to fix it. People don't *want* to learn how computers work! I've seen it myself, day in and day out, in my business, end users don't know, and don't care, and don't *want* to know or care, about how their computer or their programs or their OS works. They just want it to work. Until Linux can give the average user the ability to just boot up and have things working, without forcing them to *understand*, it'll stay behind Windows in adoption. Period. And yes, I know I'm advocating pandering to the lowest common IQ (which seems ot be in the single digits), but that's what sells, and that's what gets people using your OS. If you're not willing to make Linux idiot-proof, or at least idiot-hardened, then don't even bother bitching about how people aren't picking it up fast enough. The vast majority of people are idiots. Linus isn't simple enough for idiots. Windows is. Ergo: the vast majority of people will use windows instead of linux. end of argument.
Please post all flames in an orderly fashion below.
"Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one." - Albert Einstein
There is a pervasive movement in American culture (I also am a proud American) to avoid responsibility, to Not Give a Rats Ass, to cast the old, the weak, the unlucky and the disenfranchised in the sea to sink or swim. Similarly, as a sys admin I have noticed a willful increase in tech elitism. Techies don't want to "have to worry about" users apparently. Well I have news for you...
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
You know what, there's room for something in between.
I am a fairly advanced end-user. I've used Macs and a variety of different Windows machines in my life. On one of my boxes, I even used Partition Magic to create a dual-boot system with Windows XP and Windows 98. I kinda know what I'm doing, but not really.
On the other hand, I don't have a lot of time or patience to sink into mastering Linux. About a year ago, I attempted to install Mandrake 7 on my dual-boot machine. I got pretty far. I was able to get it up and running and make it work. I couldn't get the Internet to work, however. I spent a couple of hours at it, doing research, reading manuals, etc. But I failed. And I gave up. The Linux partition has just sat there for the last year, unused. No internet, no point.
I'm getting a new computer (arrives Thursday!), and I'm going to take the old dual-boot box and wipe it clean, and attempt to install the latest version of Redhat. I'm hopeful that I can get it to work this time. If it does, the next step is to network it with my new Windows box. I hear Samba's a bitch, but I'm going to give it a try.
If I can get it to work, then maybe it will prove that there is a group of users out there that are somewhere between Joe Longneck and Linus. I'll bet we're a significant percentage of the population, and if there's a Linux distro that can make us happy, then maybe Linux can start to see some real penetration.
Bring enough of us early-adpoters along, and maybe someday even the late-adopters will be able to join the ride.
"If I could live to be several hundred
I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
Slashdot discussions on this topic always have a really muddled concept of what a "non-technical Linux user" will look like. Apparently they will be dumb as a brick, have no interest in the open source philosophy, want to use the computer as a tool and not know too much about it. And they will for some reason buy Linux as a better Windows. Or something.
We always get these reviews of Linux for non-technical end users, but within a paragraph or two the reviewer starts talking about all the other distros he's installed and uninstalled. What we need is the perspective of someone with a REASON for a good, easy-to-use desktop Linux.
Linux will never be a better Windows than Windows. Microsoft won't ever let its programs run better on Linux. The EULA for Explorer for Windows requires the user to have a Windows license, and similar requirements may show up in other software-- at the very least in terms of "supported platforms." Corporate users won't pay $500 to run a program on an unsupported platform.
I have no doubt that Linux on the desktop will be a big thing in the future. Mainly this is because the companies that target desktop Linux have a clear idea of who their users are.
Red Hat 8.0 (and similar distributions) is targeted at the semi-locked-down corporate desktop. The primary user has a support infrastructure in place. Software updates are handled by pointy-clicky Helpdesk people with root passwords, or by trusted "power users." 99% of work is done in a small number of applications (Office, web). This is not a "better Windows than Windows" so much as an office suite platform that's higer security and cheaper and easier to administer.
Lindows is targeted at home users. The company's president envisions computers too cheap to repair, which requires an equally cheap OS.
I would argue that there's another brand of potential non-techinical Linux user: the socially responsible computer user. These are people who hate global multinationals. They don't eat at McDonald's. They only use Microsoft software because they are bewildered by Linux, don't have any friends who can help them with it, and all their friends use Windows. They email me with Word files. And despite that they are incredibly adept at using email, the web, and IM-- among their Windows-using friends.
These are people who wouldn't use Red Hat for fear it would become the next Microsoft. They'd really dig Debian, if it were easy to use. Many of them would even contribute where possible-- perhaps writing documentation, supplying graphics, or managing those packages that don't involve compiling.
So if you really want grass-roots Linux to take off among the non-technical, don't go to a Linux user's group-- go to an anti-war rally. (Or better yet, an anti-globalization rally.) Grab one person and offer free technical support for as long as it takes to become a Linux convert.
They are lightweight, fast and configurable. If you have a competent admin, these WMs can be set up to do the job nicely in situations were resources are an issue.
I completely disagree with the posters who call installing multiple applications bloat. I just started experimenting with Linux for my home desktop computer, installing Mandrake 8.2, then RedHat 7.3. (Had some problems with Mandrake, but Redhat detected *everything*, and it installed and runs beautifully). Anyway, what a pleasure it is for a Linux newbie like myself to have six Linux browsers and five Linux e-mail programs and the like to play around with -- I can see what is available and can try them all out and experiment and see which I like best. I can also start out as a newbie with everything I probably need already installed with all dependencies already all worked out. That way, up front I can start USING Linux, and worry about learning how to install new apps as something new to be added to my knowledge base later on.
Please, Linux developers
P.S.: FWIW, both Mandrake and RedHat installed 10 times easier on my home computer than any Windows OS I have ever installed.