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
They don't want to know about dependencies!? What's next, a linux user who doesn't even know what make is?
Mass hysteria! Cats and Dogs living together!
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.
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
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).
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And further more, for the least common denominator, they want to click on some media content on a web site and it just do whatever it's supposed to do. That means flash, sound, mp3s, midi, pictures, movies, whatever. Then they usually want to edit a few documents, maybe print some Xmas cards and look at photos from their digital camera. Email should just mysteriously work for them with little setup.
Linux has to overcome the video codec problems (lack thereof), and get some games before the average joe's needs are met. Till then the easiest install won't satisfy-- but it's a step in the right direction for these folks.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
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?
... 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 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
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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!
>> 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?
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.
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.
(This will probably get modded as a troll, but I don't intend it to be.)
What a lot of people don't understand is that people don't want "workalikes" for certain software. They use (*shudder*) MS Office at work or at school and that's what they want to use at home as well. The same goes for Photoshop, Quark, or whatever. The sad truth of the matter, though is that most likely this software will never be ported to Linux. Most of the "big name" software that has had UNIX ports in the past have been abandoned, with the notable exceptions being FrameMaker and Maya.
For some things, substitute software is fine. I don't see why anybody who's used to Winamp wouldn't like xmms, for example. But for other things, Star/OpenOffice will never be a substitute for Office, Gimp will never be a substitute for Photoshop, and Evolution will never be a substitute for Outlook, regardless of whether or not they do the same job, and maybe even more. Then, as somebody else mentioned, there's games. Loki was probably our only hope for that, and they're gone. Sure, you've still got a few good games being ported to Linux, but you still have nowhere near the variety available for Windows or the Mac. Loki's failure doesn't exactly encourage game developers to port their products to Linux, either.
As for video codecs, yes I understand that there's some rather nice workarounds. However these still aren't very acceptable solutions for Joe User. When a new codec comes out, he wants to be able to go download it right away so he can enjoy the new porn flick that he just downloaded that requires it, not wait a month or longer for mplayer or xine to support it. Jamie Zawinski has a rather informative rant about his bad experiences with Linux video, and he's far from being "Joe User," so if he has this many problems, imagine what kind of problems poor Joe is gonna have?
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.
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
1) MFC, Win32API, OLE
Almost every application you see today for Windows uses MFC. Its a common library for Open and Save Dialogs, printing, etc. The Win32API is an all in one bundle of programming calls that make it easy for developers to talk to the OS and other applications. OLE 2.0 was one of the most coveted featuers of Win95, now its known as Active-X, COM+, DCOM, and a whole slew of other names. It took simple cut and paste of text to a new level allowing you to embed data from Excel in a Word document. This framework is also used for application development and the UI.
2) the registry
I'm not saying the registry is the end all be all, but why must I search through 400 config files burried throughout the OS to change a configuration option? A common database for configuring EVERYTHING (OS, Applications, Services, User Prefs) would be nice. That way I dont have to symlink the plugin config file for java to the mozilla plugins directory (which is different on every distro and install base).
3) InstallSheild/WiseInstaller/InstallVise/MSI
A point and click install engine would be nice. So far RPM has been treating me nicely, but I want the installer to create links to the applications within Gnome or KDE and then remind me to have a nice day. But one of the reasons that these products can do what they do on windows is common libraries and library/object registration (regsvr32 is your friend).
4) Boardwalk, parkplace, the railroads, utilities, yellows, reds, blues, and everything other then the purples. Sure, "Everything" works on Windows. Everything is developed for it, all the hardware vendors supply drivers for it (ever try getting a canon USB scanner to work in sane?) I guess that's one of the perks of the game when you own everything including the pot and free parking.
No I realize this is a bit weighted towards Windows than many of you are going to like (let the flaming begin). And alot of it may be because of my lack of experience with linux, but for some reason I get the feeling its alot harder then it should be.
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.
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?
I was trying to print a "Warning : ICE" sign for the highway...
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.
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."
"I assume the people you know are at least semi-tech savvy people."
They are just 15-16 year old kids.
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.
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 can't believe I just read this on slashdot:
"...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'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?
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.
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.