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
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.
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.
... 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
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...
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.