Translated KDE/Linux Usability Report Available

WHudson writes "Relevantive AG, a German consulting firm who recently completed a study on Linux usability, posted their results in English translation today. Bottom line: Linux nearly as easy to use as Windows XP, but the wording of system and program messages could use some more clarity."

Comments

English Summary

[Suhas]

The report "Linux Usability Study" presents the results of a large-scale Usability Study which was conducted in Summer 2003 by the Berlin based relevantive AG.
The study deals with the question of how usable desktop applications are on Linux, with a strong focus on the usage in companies and public administrations. Due to the fact that there are no publicly available studies on this subject, the intention is to provide an additional basis for decision-makers who plan, intent or are in the process of migrating to Linux on desktop.
The study is built on a task based set of usability tests, where 60 test participants performed typical office tasks on a Linux system. A further group of 20 users performed the identical tasks on a Windows XP system. The participants had no prior experience with the tested systems.
The test system based on SuSE 8.2 and KDE 3.1.2 and was configured in close cooperation with basyskom, a Darmstadt based Linux consulting company. The configurations followed basic usability guidelines. All results and statements in this study are related to this preconfigured system.
Main results:
The usability of Linux as a desktop system has been experienced as nearly equal to Windows XP. The performance (time required to complete a task) was in average only little behind Windows XP. A couple of tasks were even easier and faster to solve on Linux, many applications were rated better by the participants than their equivalents on Windows XP.
The majority of the test participants enjoyed working with the Linux system and estimated that they need a maximum of one week to acquire their previous level of competence on this system. It is therefore to conclude that in the course of a migration to Linux a positive acceptance by the users / employees can be expected.
It is the strong configurability of Linux / KDE that enables the design of a tailor-made system which is adapting to the requirements of the users in companies and public administrations.
The study also shows significant problems that are connected with Linux as a desktop system. This does mainly concern poor wording of programs and interfaces, partly missing clarity and structure of the desktop interface as well as the menus, and poor system feedback.
These problems are identified, documented by examples, and their consequences are analyzed with respect to the user performance and experience.

Re:English Summary

[Stevyn]

The linux apps are supposed to be just as easy to use and capable as windows apps. But the problem i think most people face is getting to the point where they can double click the icon and it will load and work properly. In a business setting where you have an IT department doing the work of configuring it, I'm sure most people will have no problem adjusting. However, this takes a decent amount of work and knowhow to set these fuckers up. While windows may be buggy, faulty, unstable, and watched over by big brother, at least it's a cinch to install applications on it.

That is not meant to be a slam on linux and a praise on windows, but it's a major roadblock that prevents a lot of windows users from having the balls to make an attempt to switch.

I'm already thinking about the flames that will surely ensure from this post. But seriously, get a windows box and install a program and do the same for linux while keeping in mind that most people don't want to learn, because they shouldn't have to, how to simply put the icon on their desktop or menu. It may sound trivial to experience computer users, but it's not to regular windows users who just want to get something done.

Re:English Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered why German/Swedish/Danish companies have AG at the end of their name. Is AG basically equivalent to Inc or Corp?????

Re:English Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

emerge foo-package
*pouf* there it is in my gnome apps menu.
I would imagine it works similarly in KDE.

As a regular user, your distro maintainer or IT staff should be taking care of the packaging and installation for you. Teach the regular user to install the packages you set out for them and leave it at that.

Re:English Summary

[Stevyn]

Now why the hell didn't I think of that. Honestly though, if you didn't read a manual or man page or read me, how would you ever hear of that?

Re:English Summary

[Negatyfus]

Problem here is, of course, that all of your packages need to be maintained and distributed for your packaging system. You cannot simply download this cool program from the developer's website and install it, unless he's made packages for your distro-- which, let's face it, is a little confusing for your average luser who just wants to download a file, browse to it using his nice graphical explorer-like interface and click it to install. Linux might benefit from a step-based, easy, per-application, graphical, STANDARD InstallShield-like thingie.

Re:English Summary

[grumbel]

The problem with InstallShield is that it is per-Application, every App still has a slightly different install interface and some are even broken (installing in /Program File/ instead of the localized /Programme/), etc. So handling it in a uniform way OS wide would be better. But I agree that the current situation with having basically no standard way to build a binary package that will run on more than a single distro is a major pain with Linux, it results in tons of duplicate work, current packaging Systems completly fail to address this issue. The Linux Standard Base might help here, even so I find the choice for rpm a bit ugly.

Re:English Summary

[MntlChaos]

Mozilla has nightly builds which will run on multiple distros (along with their releases)

Re:English Summary

[gusilu]

You cannot simply download this cool program from the developer's website and install it, unless he's made packages for your distro-- which, let's face it, is a little confusing for your average luser who just wants to download a file, browse to it using his nice graphical explorer-like interface and click it to install.

Most businesses are trying to avoid this type of behaviour from their employees anyways, whether with Windows or Linux. It is not a good idea to have all users install different software onto each computer, it is chaotic and downirght dangerous.

Now, you can configure WinXP so that only the admins an install anything, but really fine-tuning an XP is not as easy as it might seem - probably because hardly anyone does it.

So the linux approach that only athorized people can install new programs makes sense. Yeah, it might be a little annoying for the employee who cannot get his program installed just by clicking on it; but it does make sense that the IT people who are responsible for the maintenance and security of those systems are the ones who have the final say of whether a certain programme is to be installed or not.

On the other hand, the only users who are likely to try to install all types of crap onto their computers are those who think they are computer gods just because they have one at home and are able to surft the Internet and download music. And those users can end up being really dangerous, for they think they know much more than they really do. It is the ignorant users who really are no threat at all, for they will always ask before attempting to do anything.

And if installs are only done by competent people, it follows that they probably know how to do it (whether that is compiling from scratch or downloading a package for whatever distro they're using), so it shouldn't be very difficult. Not that it actually is difficult, you just need to know what you are doing.

Re:English Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably for the same reason that British companies have "Ltd." after their names? Maybe for the reason that Spanish companies have "S.A." after their names.

Re:English Summary

[jmo_jon]

German, Swedish and Danish companies don't use the same. German use AG, Danish use AS and Swedish use AB and yes they are equivalent. Dunno about AS and AG but AB means "Aktie Bolag" which translated word by word means "Stock Companie"

Re:English Summary

[mt_nixnut]

I agree that there is a lot of room for growth in the area of menus and desktop icons. However the idea of making it trivial for a non admin to install programs sort of flies in the face of why I like linux in an office setting.

It's easier to control cruft and prevent dangerous/unauthorized programs from being installed.

I for one am not looking foward to the day when joe blow can find a link on the web, click it and presto! its installed. I know that is not what many of you are talking about but one tends to lead to the other if MS is the example here.

--
just another coffee induced hallucination

Re:English Summary

[good soldier svejk]

Problem here is, of course, that all of your packages need to be maintained and distributed for your packaging system. You cannot simply download this cool program from the developer's website and install it, unless he's made packages for your distro-- which, let's face it, is a little confusing for your average luser who just wants to download a file, browse to it using his nice graphical explorer-like interface and click it to install. Linux might benefit from a step-based, easy, per-application, graphical, STANDARD InstallShield-like thingie.

You mean a GUI for rpmbuild? This is how RPM works. So long as you have it on your system, you simply download the src.rpm, install it and do an rpmbuild. It will compile it for your system and build a .rpm binary package with all your dependencies. The developer doesn't have to package for your distro, just for RPM. That covers a lot of distros. Currently, you do have to type two commands.

Re:English Summary

[Repugnant_Shit]

What's GmbH mean? I seen it on German corporate websites I think.

Re:English Summary

[llamaluvr]

I'll give you that- installing on Gentoo is a cinch, but, after trying both, I'm going to half to say that installing Windows is slightly easier than installing than installing Gentoo...and about 10 hours shorter if you're going from stage 1. ;-)

usable but not the same

[gfody]

Most people that use windows have been using it for a very long time. They have a false sense of intuitiveness that won't transfer to KDE. Things like button placement conventions, widget consistencies, and terminology are different (as in whole other universe different). People that were spoon fed windows are never going to try out KDE and think its actually MORE usable.

Re:usable but not the same

[Malcontent]

Ooops like almost all astro-turfer posts looks like got modded up.

I do wish MS made up their minds though. Is the FSF a cancer or communist. Or are they the pure incarnation of evil. Perhaps they are something even worse like democrats or something.

Re:usable but not the same

[ceejayoz]

Astroturfer?

He merely said that people are used to Windows and thus they have a harder time learning to use KDE than someone who'd never been exposed to either. I'm not sure how you managed to interpret that as a pro-MS comment...

And considering that OSS is supposed to be everyone working for the general good, it could be considered communist in nature... communism isn't necessarily a bad thing, ya know.

Re:usable but not the same

[anagama]

It works both ways. I've been using KDE for so long now, that on the two occaisions I had the chance to use XP, I was confused and found XP to be difficult because things didn't work exactly like I expected. Truth be told, on the three occaisions I've had to use OSX - I was also confused by it as well for the same reasons.

I think for the most part, "useability" is 90% familiarity. If you make a person use any system for 6 months, they will get used to it and it will, at least to an extent, "make sense".

Re:usable but not the same

[gfody]

I agree it works both ways.. someone else pointed out somewhere else in this thread

Re:usable but not the same

[alekd]

If free software really had been about everyone working for the common good, it would not have enjoyed the success it has. Free software is more about people working for their own good, adding functionality they need getting rid of defects that hinder their work. By sharing their work with others they gain by not having to maintain a separate source tree. By using apropriate licenses they can also ensure that they gain from any later changes by other people. Of course, there are people who do not code for profit, but they mostly do it for the joy of it.

Sometimes your own selfish interests coincide with what could be described as the common good. That is "the invisible hand" at work. Communism is a totalitarian system that is totally opposed to freedom, including free software. In a communist society the state will seek to gain a monopoly of information. In the Soviet Union you had to have a licence in order to get a typewriter. Photocopiers were kept in locked rooms. I cannot see how free software could exist under such a system.

Re:usable but not the same

[1u3hr]

I think for the most part, "useability" is 90% familiarity. If you make a person use any system for 6 months, they will get used to it and it will, at least to an extent, "make sense".

If you're familiar with any WIMP GUI, it shouldn't take more than a week to get the hang of it, as long as you have someone nearby you can yell out to: "How the fuck do I delete/find/open this?" "Where's email/Solitaire?" etc... After that, it's application specific, same problems everywhere.

Re:usable but not the same

[antiMStroll]

People that were spoon fed windows are never going to try out KDE and think its actually MORE usable.

How do you explain all those who did?

Re:usable but not the same

[16K Ram Pack]

I don't use Linux, but I'm gradually switching my applications to Open Source (Firebird/Thunderbird/Open Office) to allow me to switch easier if I want to.

I've found it initially difficult (particularly with Open Office), but I'm now fine, and find using Outlook less pleasant than using Thunderbird.

Re:usable but not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

"communism isn't necessarily a bad thing, ya know."

Then you better vote for Dean! Heil Stalin!!

Re:usable but not the same

[Chatterton]

As a windows user, I am from time to time confused by other windows versions of the control pannel. I use 98, but when I need to go to the control pannel of Win2000, I take time to find my marks. For the WinXP control pannel, I have just stopped to try to understand his organisation... You don't need to change of OS to be confused :)

Re:usable but not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I've been using Windows 2000 37 hours a week for the past two years now (At work) and KDE 2 nearly as much for three years (At home), and Windows XP confuses the hell out of me, too. That Start Menu is an abomination of usability. Like everything Microsoft once had managed to get right[1], they have once again managed to "improve" it to the point that it is now very, very wrong.

[1]: See Office for another example. Office 97 was excelent, Office 2000 wasn't too bad but had that damn Paperclip, and Office XP just sucks.

Re:usable but not the same

[ajs318]

Probably because the Soviet Union - at least in the cold war days - was not at all communist, but authoritarian-socialist. It's all a matter of definition. In a genuinely communist society, the state would not have any power per se, because all that power would have been delegated to smaller units {a.k.a. "soviets"} each responsible for a closed system.

Basically, "anything not specifically permitted is forbidden" is authoritarian, and "anything not specifically forbidden is permitted" is libertarian. Then "make as much money as you like and never mind who gets hurt in the process" is capitalism, and "make sure everyone gets a fair share" is socialism.

Re:usable but not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

I have just had a Windows XP Prof machine claiming there's something wrong (or missing) with /windows/system32/hal.dll. I had to restart the pc with the XP cd and use the recovery console of XP. After a few minutes I got really frustrade by the lack of proper console support like missing or otherwise implemented commands. The lack of things like grep, locate, find etc. is really unbearable once you get used to it.

Re:usable but not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

The key word there is consistencies. These are things that any Linux gui is very far from having. Your argument is flawed, as the study was conducted so as to prevent this type of thing.

Re:usable but not the same

[BinBoy]

Regardless of what you call it, the Soviet Union is what Communists created when they had absolute power to impose any system they wanted - 30 million murdered and an entire civilization in poverty for 70 years.

Re:usable but not the same

[wagemonkey]

I think for the most part, "useability" (sic) is 90% familiarity. If you make a person use any system for 6 months, they will get used to it and it will, at least to an extent, "make sense".

You've never used VMS have you?

If we were talking software rather than OS I would have said NOTES. That pos has never and will never make sense to anybody who thinks logically.

Re:usable but not the same

[juhaz]

Regardless of what you claim, no human, and that includes communists, has EVER had, and never will have, an absolute power to impose any system they wanted, we will always be bound by our own defects.

Even the most perfect theoretical system will only be as good as people who run it, Soviet Union tells nothing about communism as an ideal, only about (admittedly huge) shortcomings people who ran it.

Re:usable but not the same

[ajs318]

As opposed to capitalism, which keeps the vast majority of citizens in poverty whilst a tiny minority own all the money. The arithmetical mean amount of money per head under capitalism looks plausible, but that is all. Look just beneath the surface, and you'll see how rotten it really is.

Capitalism has created this strange myth called "consumer choice". Basically, it allows people to delude themselves that they are making decisions -- possibly satisfying some primal instinct, like "Um, back there I could have run away from that thing with the teeth but I climbed this tree instead and now it's gone away" -- when in fact their "decisions" have no bearing on the eventual outcome. Who needs fifty kinds of fags to choose from when they all give you cancer? Who needs twenty brands of washing powder when they all pollute watercourses and irritate your skin? Who needs a hundred beers to choose from when there is only one wall to piss them against? Who needs half a dozen different companies to sell you overpriced, artery-clogging, fat- and sugar-laden "fast food" {this definitely does satisfy a primal urge -- some foodstuffs are hardcoded to taste good because, in the wild, they are rare and should be eaten anytime they are found} when it makes no difference which of them is exploiting third world farmers? The oil companies benefit enormously when you drive across town to save a penny or two on a litre of fuel, and burn up more fuel in the process than the money you saved.

I'm not saying the old Soviet Union was perfect, but capitalism is nowhere near perfect either.

Re:usable but not the same

[generic-man]

So switch back to the "Classic" Start Menu.

And you've been able to turn that damn paperclip off since Microsoft introduced it. Quit bitching about it. It isn't anywhere near as bad as the "Tips of the Day" that no fewer than five KDE applications foist upon me on startup before I click "Don't show tips on startup."

Re:usable but not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

communism isn't necessarily a bad thing, ya know.

Uhh... and just how did you come to that conclusion? Oh wait, you just ignore how people live in communist countries and it becomes so easy!

Re:usable but not the same

[fault0]

> People that were spoon fed windows are never going to try out KDE and think its actually MORE usable.

Well, evidently, people in the study considered KDE and XP pretty close.

Re:usable but not the same

[bmj]

Truth be told, on the three occaisions I've had to use OSX - I was also confused by it as well for the same reasons.

I think most people might have some issues using OS X (or any flavour of Mac). OS X has different window controls, different keyboard shortcuts, and no concept of a "Start Menu". Then there's the lack of a default right mouse button (and before you claim I don't know what I'm talking about, I know the option key provides that menu _and_ you can use a three button mouse with OS X). I would guess that KDE or Gnome could beat OS X in usability tests if the testers had experience with Windows and little experience with Macs.

Re:usable but not the same

[b-baggins]

That statement is simply demonstrably false. EVERY nation that has implemented Communism as described by Marx and Engels has ALWAYS developed in a brutal, tyrannical, murderous regime.

The ideology itself is inherently flawed because it is based on incorrect premises.

Re:usable but not the same

[WindBourne]

Actually, my company has moved a number of ppl over to Linux recently. What we found was that the ppl who are normally afraid made the move nicely (turns out ther are afraid of hurting the system).
Likewise, the average person moved very nicely. Some complaints, but lots of compliments.
It was the ppl who were running XP pro with Office professional who thought that they were the 2'nd coming of christ right behind bill, who were having problems. Tried moving them to Gnome and that was no better. It came down to the fact that they knew MS inside out and did not want to change in a irrational fashion(think apple zealot) .

Re:usable but not the same

[ceejayoz]

Communism is a totalitarian system that is totally opposed to freedom, including free software. In a communist society the state will seek to gain a monopoly of information.

Bzzzzt. The Soviet Union wasn't truly communist - don't use 'em as an example of it. True communism means no government, no state, and everyone shares everything according to their needs.

It's a good system, on paper, but human nature means it fails in anything larger than a small tribe or village.

Re:usable but not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd quit bitching and listen for a change, I said that the new style Start Menu confuses me. It does; it's a simple statement of fact. I know you can switch it off, but get this; I have an actual job that means I have to support actual real people who do not want to switch Windows XP to "Classic" mode or do not know how (And do not know to ask, so I can't change it for them). Which means that while I am quite happy here using Windows 2000 still, I am still forced to use that abortion of a "User Interface" to perform tasks on a far to regular basis. Go figure.

Oh, I believe Microsoft started the whole "Tip Of The Day" with Windows & Office 95.

Anyway, the fact you can switch it off is besides the point. Microsoft should never have even designed it that way in the first place, let alone shiped it in a final production version. It is bad HCI design, plain and simple. No matter how you slice it, defending a bad design by saying "Oh but you can turn it off" doesn't make the design any better.

Re:usable but not the same

[poot_rootbeer]

People that were spoon fed windows are never going to try out KDE and think its actually MORE usable.

Step one towards increasing acceptance of Linux GUI systems is to stop treating the Windows desktop metaphor as if it were pabulum that is only choked down by infants who don't know anymore. The Windows interface may not be perfect, but it's more than usable for the vast majority of the desktop market.

There's no such thing as a "false sense of intuitiveness". The only truly intuitive interface is the nipple ($1 to whoever said that).
Any usability study worth its salt has to take into consideration the subjects' previous experiences. Being different from Windows IS a usability issue to most people who are familiar with Windows.

Re:usable but not the same

[nocomment]

They have a false sense of intuitiveness that won't transfer to KDE

Of course they do have a point with the dialog boxes. For example there's a Galeon error that tells you to either hit "OK" or "Cancel" but the options say "Yes" and "No". While it's not any direct fault of Linux, it is part of the "experience".

Re:usable but not the same

[CheeseCow]

Thank you for that comment! I have been thinking about the same, but I never got it down on paper. You really have fixed my mind and made my day.

*hands over a beer*

Re:usable but not the same

[cbiltcliffe]

Every nation that has implemented democracy is rapidly sliding to a brutal, tyrannical, corporate-controlled murderous regime, too.

Doesn't have anything to do with communism. It's just what happens when you give power to a bunch of idiots who don't deserve it.

Anyone who is capable of making themselves president should under no circumstances be allowed to do the job. - Douglas Adams.

Re:usable but not the same

[cbiltcliffe]

when you drive across town to save a penny or two on a litre of fuel

People actually do this where you come from? Hell, here they won't even cross the street for 6 cents a litre on a fill up.

Idiots.

Re:usable but not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism is good as long as it is a *personal* belief system. The moment you start *forcing* it on other people, it turns into the opposite of what it should/could be.

I.e. it works well on personal scale (like in a family, or other small community), but fails miserably when *forced* on large scale.

OTOH, for specific purpoces (free software, last century science ;) it works well, as long as you don't expect it to be the *only* system.

Re:usable but not the same

[anagama]

True - but it takes a little longer for it to feel "natural" and for other methods to feel "odd". That's all I'm saying.

Re:usable but not the same

[Spy Hunter]

Even the most perfect theoretical system will only be as good as people who run it.

That's a nice saying, but it's not necessarily true. The US system of government was carefully designed to be better than the people who run it. The system of checks and balances works to make sure that even if some people are bad and corrupt, other people with conflicting interests can balance it out and set things right. The key is not to let any one person or group amass too much power. How well it worked is debatable, but it is possible to devise systems where people's conflicting interests balance out to produce a reasonable simulation of an impartial government.

The Soviet Union apparently didn't have any checks and/or balances that worked. Corruption was rampant. That may have been the cause of its downfall. OTOH, maybe communism in that form is actually unworkable. It's hard to say. Since it's hard to prove a negative, we will never really know unless a government of that type succeeds.

Re:usable but not the same

[ceejayoz]

EVERY nation that has implemented Communism as described by Marx and Engels has ALWAYS developed in a brutal, tyrannical, murderous regime.

There's not a single country in the history of the world that has successfully implemented communism as proposed by Marx and Engels. Not one.

Re:usable but not the same

[b-baggins]

Soviet Russia, and China both STARTED just the way Marx and Engels wanted. They were surprised it didn't happen in the industrialized capitalist nations, but the nationalization of all industry, a powerful central state and the murder, if necessary, of all capitalists, was very much part of Marx' and Engel's idea of how the Communist revolution would start. What DIDN'T happen is the "natural" dissolution of the central authority to be replaced by the worker's paradise.

That was just one of their mistakes. Their big, major flaw was their basic theory of dialectic materialism. That is demonstrably false, and their entire philosophy depends on it. So, it's no wonder that their philosophy fails, too.

Usability

[LamerX]

I think that the whole myth surrounding the difficulty with Linux, is that they already know Windows. They get used to one system, and when they go to use another system, they expect it to work exactly the same. I taught my step-mother how to burn CDs using Nero in Windows, then I got sick of maintaining the spyware-infested OS, and forced Linux upon her. She commented that "How would I have known to click 'k3b' to burn CDs?" I replied, "How would you have known to use Nero?"

It's all about teaching someone, and once they learn to use something one way, it's hard to get them to learn a new method. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, as they say.

My step-mom now says how much she loves Linux. She loves no spyware, no pop-ups and spam thanks to Mozzie, and uses OpenOffice without a hitch. (Also uses k3b to burn CDs)

Re:Usability

[SweetAndSourJesus]

Until we can get installers where you can do the standard "click next" routine, Linux will not be usable for the average user.

Becoming familiar with Windows never involves resolving dependency issues.

Re:Usability

[The Revolutionary]

"She commented that "How would I have known to click 'k3b' to burn CDs?" I replied, "How would you have known to use Nero?""

Which raises an interesting question: Why, when your step-mother wants to "burn a cd" does she need to look for not just "Nero" or "k3b", but anything other than noun: "CD creator", or as a task: "Burn a CD", or "Create a CD"?

If, as seems to be the case, your step-mother knows what it means to "burn a CD", then a successful user interface will indicate to her how to "burn a CD".

We are not dealing with proprietary software; name recognition is nice, but we do not need to sacrifice usability to preserve it if that is the tradeoff. There is nothing wrong with referring to "Epiphany" as "Web Browser", which seems to be the default for Debian GNOME 2.2 (is this for GNOME in general?).

GNOME menu->Accessories gives me "Text Editor", "Hex Editor", "Dictionary", "Find Files". This is wonderful. Should "Accessories" be something more to the point? Perhaps, but what is there shows promise.

If we must refer to applications by name, and perhaps this is useful for multiple applications which accomplish the same task (another problem!), then "Web Browser (Mozilla Firebird)", "Web Browser (Konqueror)", or "Mozilla Firebird Web Browser" and "Konqueror Web Browser" seem much more approrpriate.

These all seem to be much better situations than finding names in menus such as "OpenOffice.org", "Ximian Evolution", "The GIMP", and "Mozilla".

When I think "I should check my email", I don't think "Ximian Evolution", I think "email" (well, actually I think "mutt", but that's beside the point). Sure, when I think "email", I know to look through my menu structure until I see "Ximian Evolution", but that is secondary to what I actually want.

As I'm fairly new to using full desktop environments with X ("Multiple XTerm Environment"), I don't have experience with the desktops of other distributions. How do these matters fare elsewhere?

Re:Usability

[Osty]

She commented that "How would I have known to click 'k3b' to burn CDs?" I replied, "How would you have known to use Nero?"

Well, first off, the link is generally called "Nero Burning ROM", which gives a good impression that it's what you'd want to "burn" a CD-"ROM". Second, either you bought Nero and installed it (by simply putting the disc in the drive and clicking Next a few times), or it came with your PC and was advertised both at the store and with papers in the box the machine came in. What is "k3b"? What does it stand for? How would I associate that with burning a CD? Make the name a little more descriptive (cdrecord is a good name, but commandline recording won't suffice), "advertise" it as the app to use to burn CDs, and people will have no problem finding it.

Re:Usability

[Homology]

A KDE desktop does indeed have some usability issues that should be dealt with. The test rapport is very good, and a lot of resources was put into the test to make it useful.

Incidentally, K3B was mentioned due to poor naming of it in the menu. The testers was of the opinion that a description of K3B function should be included (page 13). Actually, they made some changes in the KDE configuration (page 22) :

We would advise against using a default KDE "out of the box". The solutions described above are not part of the default configuration, but they contributed considreably to the usability of the test system.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

you should flee to mexico, and join a circus

Re:Usability

[Gherald]

Windows XP has a built in cd-buring system that is fairly easy to use.

Nero is a 3rd party solution that has more features and some wizards to help the user along, but its implementation requires you to create a "project" which is a bit of overkill for run-of-the-mill copying of a few files to a CD.

Re:Usability

[Stevyn]

You're exactly right. What the some people of the free software community hates to think about is that sometimes people will pay for the ease to get their software to install with 3 clicks and use it with 2 clicks (one double click really). Having software open is great, but a lot of it's just the same as windows freeware. Just because software is open and free, doesn't mean people give two shits when it won't work on the first try.

So here's where the problem begins. Should people make free open software on their own time and do it for the good of the community, or should companies sell closed software that works better?

I think what a lot of people don't consider is that with p2p, all software becomes free whether it's legal or not. That is a totally different issue and lets not get all worked up over it, but a good amount of the software that home desktop users have on their windows boxes is pirated, so the free linux idea doesn't mean much. However, in a business situation this is very different and I think that's where linux should be focused for now.

Re:Usability

[RoLi]

Funny, in the usability study CD-burning was one of the things Linux was found to be better because Windows XP's in-built system was found awkard.

But of course, if you are one of the "if Microsoft does it, it's great" - trolls, it's hard to believe.

Actually, if you read the study you will notice that setting the destkop background was the task that was responsible for most of the time difference between KDE and WinXP. With KDE 3.2 including the same "use as wallpaper" option in Konqueror, that difference will disappear. Not that I consider setting the desktop wallpaper an important task, though.

Re:Usability

[RoLi]

first off, the link is generally called "Nero Burning ROM"

And how exactly is this better than "K3b (cd burning program)"

You obviously have never used any semi-recent version of KDE. All KDE programs have short description right beside the name in the K-menu.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't even have to be "Web Browser", or something so generic. As long as by reading the name you know what it does.

For instance, OS X apps:

Calculator, Chess, Clock, DVD Player, iCal, iChat, Image Capture, iMovie, Internet Connect, iPhoto, iSync, iTunes, Mail, Preview, Stickies, TextEdit

Many of these are simplistic apps, though. (Calculator, Clock, etc.)

The only one that is installed by default that would confuse a new user would be "Safari." There are others not installed by default, but I would assume once a user has installed something they know what it does. And if someone else installed it, it would be up to them to explain it's function.

Re:Usability

[The Revolutionary]

Looking at the screenshot of the menu as configured for the tests on page seventeen (17), it appears as though these naming conventions were in fact used.

"[Tool type](Application name)"

Re:Usability

[Brian Quinlan]

To be fair to Nero, the complete name listed in the Start menu is "Nero - Burning Rom".

Of course you could argue that the name should be something like "Create CD". Unfortunately for Nero, that is exactly what the Start menu extry for Adaptec Easy CD Creator is.

In any case I think that it is a huge mistake to not include the word "CD" in the menu entry.

Re:Usability

[Gherald]

Having never used KDE, I can't comment on how it is easier to burn CDs with "Linux" than XP.

But I do think XP's implementation is quite easy.

Re:Usability

[ceejayoz]

Funny, in the usability study CD-burning was one of the things Linux was found to be better because Windows XP's in-built system was found awkard.

That seems rather weird to me, considering that burning a CD in XP is as simple as dragging the files onto the CD drive and pressing "Burn to CD"...

Re:Usability

[be-fan]

Um, those shitty installers are a step backwards. I showed Portage to my 13 year old brother, and he thought it was great that you could install software just by typing one command, rather than taking several minutes to go find an installer, go find where you downloaded it, double click it, click next a dozen times, and finally start it. The portage CLI is easy, but the same thing can be achived with KPortage in a pointy-clicky fashion. Similar tools exist for urpmi and apt-rpm. In particular, the SuSE distro mentioned in the review includes the excellent YaST installer tool.

Re:Usability

[Sciamachy]

Mandrake and SuSE both have task-related shortcuts on the main menu from kicker. I don't use them myself because I like to know which program I'm about to use (so I can either avoid using it in future if it does something stupid like locking up X, or kill the process if it decides to lock up itself), but I can see it being useful to someone coming cold-decked to KDE.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

in XP:
Put CDR in drive -> Drag files to CDR Icon -> Click Burn -> Click a few more things in a wizard. Done.

in OSX:
Put CDR in drive -> Drag files to CDR Icon -> Click Burn -> Click a few more things in a helper. Done.

in Linux:
Well I don't want to write all the steps, but it is probably not going to be as easy.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, first off, the link is generally called "Nero Burning ROM",

On my system this was hidden under the "Ahead" menu. Even given 10 years of Windows experience and the knowledge of what I was looking for, this was a little difficult to find amidst 50 other start menu folders. Good luck to Grandma.

Not to mention that Nero is pretty much pure poweruser software. Even their "wizard" interface is unneedly complicated.

Re:Usability

[Dalcius]

Imagine if Internet Explorer were labeled "The Internet." What does this do for, say, Mozilla? Netscape? Opera?

That said, the primary benefit, in my mind, of Linux is choice. The idea is to offer many choices, but good defaults, so both normal users are happy (with defaults) and users who like to play around can use what they like. It is necessary to show that there are other alternatives.

THAT said, a task browser wouldn't be such a bad idea.

*Click*
What would you like to do?
*Click: Burn a CD*
You have selected burning data to a CD. Where will this data come from? [Files|ISO]
*Click: ISO:*
Lauching xcdroast with your specifications...

A bad example to be sure, but it would be an interesting concept.

Re:Usability

[Osty]

So here's where the problem begins. Should people make free open software on their own time and do it for the good of the community, or should companies sell closed software that works better?

Why not both? If you enjoy writing software on your own time and giving it away, more power to you. I've done that myself once or twice (though I've tended to prefer the BSD or MIT/X licenses over GPL). At the same time, it takes a lot to make professional-grade software, and if that means a company paying people to write it, test it, and sell it, then so be it. So long as people are buying, where's the harm?

I think what a lot of people don't consider is that with p2p, all software becomes free whether it's legal or not. That is a totally different issue and lets not get all worked up over it, but a good amount of the software that home desktop users have on their windows boxes is pirated, so the free linux idea doesn't mean much. However, in a business situation this is very different and I think that's where linux should be focused for now.

I think you overestimate the popularity of p2p file sharing. Most p2p'ers I know are pretty technically savvy (maybe not in the "linux geek" sense, but at the very least in the "gamer geek" sense). At the same time, I think I'd have to disagree with you about a large amount of home desktop software being pirated. For the average Joe or Jane, they use what comes with their computer, or the $20 specials at Best Buy they find while looking for the latest Britney CD. What pirated software they may have generally comes in the form of borrowing CDs from friends or work, not from downloading via p2p. While that's still piracy, it's a pretty minor form because by its nature it's not widespread. Just as the FBI won't bother with fraud cases that don't garner more than a grand or two in damages, the powers that be (BSA) tend not to worry about "small time" pirates like that.

As for linux targetting businesses, "free" isn't always enough. There needs to be good, high quality support as well as accountability. Businesses measure in "total cost of ownership" because they know that the purchase price (even if that price is free) is just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Usability

[sbryant]

Well, first off, the link is generally called "Nero Burning ROM", which gives a good impression that it's what you'd want to "burn" a CD-"ROM".

In some languages, ROM is the name of the Italian city you probably know as Rome, which Nero did actually burn down. It's a nice play on words, but there are plenty of people who won't make the link between that and writing data onto an optical disk.

-- Steve

Re:Usability

[Eivind]

This is indeed how things are organized in Mandrake.

If you want to burn a CD, you need to look in the menu under Archiving/CD-burning, there you'll find the CD-burning programs that are installed. This migth be one, or it migth be more, depending on your choises during installation.

It's probably not a stretch to have a novice user guess that the program located as: Archiving/CD-burning/eroaster is some sort of cd-burning program, same for Archiving/CD-burning/k3b

Sure "k3b" alone isn't going to tell anyone anything, but the fact that it's placed where it is will help a lot.

Actually, the normal procedure is even simpler, you don't go looking for k3b at all. Instead you simply use your normal file-browser to look for files or directories you want to burn. When you found them, you rigth-click on them and select "Burn data-cd" from the context-menu.

Re:Usability

[shepd]

>That seems rather weird to me, considering that burning a CD in XP is as simple as dragging the files onto the CD drive and pressing "Burn to CD"...

I think the confusion comes from the fact windows makes copies of the files first, and, when worst comes to worst, won't properly delete them (oh, how many times has windows told my files in this temp directory are "In Use" -- by whom or what, beats me!), somtimes even after reboots (no, the machine was virus/trojan/worm/spyware free -- it seems to have a lot to do with the preview pane).

In Linux (and, in fact, Nero) no space (and time) wasting copies are necessary to be made, so there are never problems deleting the files. Also, built-in windows functions make it exceedingly confusing to burn Audio onto a CD, and, as far as I can tell, impossible to burn it properly (Disc at once) or along with data.

Re:Usability

[Stevyn]

Let me just clarify a little bit and then I'll be done. One person downloads a program off a p2p network, burns several cd's, installs on severals computers, and before you know it, a dozen people are getting the expensive software for free. I didn't mean to imply that it was downloaded every single time. I know, not a big deal, I just wanted to clarify it.

And as for the business end of things, that's the point I was trying to make. A couple hundred dollars on each system doesn't compare to an extra linux guy's salary at a decently sized company. I may be wrong because I admit I do lack specific knowledge of this, but I am taking an educated guess. But from my own limited experiences, setting up one machine that resembles windows (because come on, that's what we're really comparing these to when we're dealing with secretaries and number crunchers) takes a lot of time until you can get it to the point where everyting necessary works as it's expected. And in that respect, the cost of deploying it is more expensive than windows. I know that this topic has been discusses ad nausium and I don't want to start a flame war, but you it's hard to deny that for small to medium companies, it's cheaper to "deal" with windows than pay for "free" linux.

I won't end this without a solution to both cases, and that's for the linux developers to continue their work to make linux easier to install, set up, and use. But I know that they are already aware of that and working on that and I comend them.

Re:Usability

[iawia]

Interestingly, this is what Mandrake uses.
Mandrake has a 'What to do?' menu, next to the normal, fully filled menu, which contains entries such as:

Use the Internet -> Read and send mail
-> Browse the web
-> Access newsgroups
Administer your system -> change your password
-> add programs
use office tools -> create a text document with OpenOffice.org

etc.

Never used it, really, but I'm sure it is nice for new users.

Wouter

Re:Usability

[Photon Ghoul]

As I'm fairly new to using full desktop environments with X ("Multiple XTerm Environment")

Funny, once I realized that's all X is to me - multiple rxvt windows everywhere - I switched back from using full-blown environments to just using Blackbox again.

Re:Usability

[usotsuki]

Usability should be this.

Tasks
Internet
Connect
Read E-mail
Surf Web
Read News
Write
Word Processor
Spreadsheet
CD
Play/Run
Burn CD
Games
Solitaire
Accessories
Calculator
Clock
Advanced ...

Everything the n00b needs should be two or three clicks away, and clearly named, well organized into categories. I like the simplistic nature of Susan Kare's icons, too, personally.

And for the pros, there's always Win-R :)

-uso.

Re:Usability

[LamerX]

Yeah thing is, she doesn't know what a ROM is. More or less its a technical looking term that scares her into not wanting to click that.

Re:Usability

[CreatorOfSmallTruths]

First of all, I think this idea is very cool. Having some sort of one stop shop from which to do everything (kind of wizards for the desktop, isn't it) is a great idea.

Now lets examine the idea more closely...
You want some way in which the system :
1. knows everything there is to know about the programs installed on it.
2. each of the programs has to export at least: a name, a function it serves, and what options it provides, according to some predefined XML (standard, can be manipulated, unicode , blah)
3. each of the different implementations should be supported
4. the programs should support the functionality the claim in some XML-RPC, SOAP or other way

So... a this turns out to be a bit complicated, isn't it ?
but hey... maybe there is a way.. who knows?

Re:Usability

[hamster foo]

I think another cause of confusion is users being unfamiliar with moving files around in explorer. The "average" user spends most of their time saving files to default locations or using applications that generally don't require them to deal with files in the first place.

While XP's cd burning inferface is fairly intuitive for users familiar with explorer, the addition of an inferface like those found in Nero and other 3rd party applications would provide a more handheld approach and thereby an easier experience for some users.

Being able to burn audio cds from media player is the right idea, but I'm not aware of a comprable application for burning data cds.

Re:Usability

[westlake]

Why is it that so many of these so-called success stories begin with the line "and then I forced Linux upon her" and end with the line "now my Mum says how much she loves Linux?" Sounds to me less like seduction and more like rape.

Re:Usability

[mumblestheclown]

Maybe because everybody knows that the emperor nero supposedly burned rome or at least played the fiddly while it burned (neither are true, but nevertheless), thus making it easy for a user to associate "nero" and "burning cd-roms" for subsequent uses of the computer, while "k3b" is an essentially meaningless collction of letters and numbers?

I know it doesn't exactly answer your question, but my point is made nevertheless.

Re:Usability

[ajs318]

I installed Mandrake 8.2 initially just to get a working X setup {intending to use the same settings in a later Debian install}, then found myself installing applications on it and using it. I do have to agree that the task-oriented "what to do" menu is great for someone new to the environment.

As for package management issues, some distributions are better than others. Generally, RPM files from the CDs have worked better than RPM files from who-knows-where. Though I have never had really massive problems with apt-get. Now, with .tar.gz files, it's a different matter again ..... Some work "out of the box", some have awkward dependencies. However let me point out that the ones I've had problems with, were all weirdy ones that you would never dream of installing unless you already knew most of what it takes to get a package working.

I'm seriously thinking of forging ahead with an SQL-based package manager. Maybe I'll call it MyPacMan just to annoy people looking for arcade machine roms .....

Re:Usability

[Spoing]

If, as seems to be the case, your step-mother knows what it means to "burn a CD", then a successful user interface will indicate to her how to "burn a CD".

Red Hat uses "CD Writer" for GToaster. The only annoying thing is that it requires a root login, and it's not obvious how to run it as a regular user (Xcdroast and some other burner programs have an allow user setting). So, it's closer...just not as simple as it could be.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think the Nero icon is a picture of the Colosseum burning to the ground?

Cheers
Simon

Re:Usability

[BigJimSlade]

It's a nice play on words, but there are plenty of people who won't make the link between that and writing data onto an optical disk.

I gotta admit... I've been using the program for years and love it, but I just realized earlier this year that the icon for Nero was a burning coloseum.

I am dumb.

Re:Usability

[trezor]

Yeah. Just like n00bs read newsgroups all the time :)

Re:Usability

[13Echo]

There's a myth that keeps floating around that is based upon this assumption.

Linux is no different than Windows in the sense that it can use binary installers with included libraries, in just the same fashion. Take Icculus' ports for instance. Installing Serious Sam for Linux is simple. Pop your CD in the drive and run a bin (Linux EXE) that has a sugar-coated installer by means of the Loki Games Installer (like a Linux InstallShield).

OpenOffice is similar. Run a "setup" binary and it's installed.

Opera works the same way, though its installer is commandline based.

Netscape does this as well (graphical installer).

The list goes on and on. In 99% of standard desktop installations, it's likely that you'll never have a dependency problem, as long as you aren't using a terribly out-of-date distribution.

People keep propagating myths of Linux of yesterday. Linux of today is far different. You shouldn't comment unless you know for fact that things haven't changed.

Granted, many of Linux's apps, being GPL'd with open sourcecode, still need to be compiled. But normally, you can find precompiled programs that don't use conventional installers, but are still quite simple to manipulate.

Re:Usability

[Jo Owen]

RH9, I assume its a gnome thing tho, when you put a blank cd in the drive, a window pops up (a normal Nautilus window), you drag and drop, then click (suprisingly enough) burn. No more dificult than XP or OSX.

Re:Usability

[13Echo]

Nautilus can do this as well, under Gnome, but it's not a very well-documented feature at the moment. It's also lacking in some options, in my opinion. I believe that this is because it's beta status at the moment.

Re:Usability

[schon]

Calculator, Chess, Clock, DVD Player, iCal, iChat, Image Capture, iMovie, Internet Connect, iPhoto, iSync, iTunes

Why are there two calculators? Or is iCal used for managing calorie inputs when you're on a diet?

What does iMovie do? Does it play movies, or does it turn your computer into a movie camera?

What about iPhoto? It controls your digitial camera, right? (Although why you'd ever need it is beyond me - I use my digital camera when it's not plugged into the computer - it's much easier that way.)

iSync? Does that control the refresh rate of your monitor? Or does it provide a drum beat for you to play along with? (Hmm, maybe not - I suppose I'd be confused about that, as that's something that iTunes would do... but then, you do have two calculators, right?)

The only one that is installed by default that would confuse a new user would be "Safari."

No, it's not the only one.

Re:Usability

[generic-man]

I agree. It would be much nicer if there were some kind of document that helped you use your new computer, perhaps one that came in the same box as said computer.

Also, I think that user interfaces could benefit greatly from the use of pictures -- as large as 128 x 128 pixels -- that illustrate the purpose of an application. This would prevent people from making remarks like "is iCal used for managing calorie inputs" because they would be presented with a little picture of a calendar.

I'm sorry that you haven't learned to read or interpret pictures yet. Even Joe User, who you're pathetically trying to imitate in that condescending computer nerd way, knows how to do those things.

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

> If we must refer to applications by name, and perhaps this is useful for multiple applications which accomplish the same task (another problem!), then "Web Browser (Mozilla Firebird)", "Web Browser (Konqueror)", or "Mozilla Firebird Web Browser" and "Konqueror Web Browser" seem much more approrpriate.

KDE already does this in the kmenu.

Re:Usability

[JBv]

It's the choices.

I'm new to XP (i've been with kde and macos 9 & x for the last years) and I find it awkward and confusing. I think wizzards are to blame. Finding files, setting up the network, burning CDs all imply a multiple stage wizard.

Setting up a net net connection, for example, asks all sorts of questions that you have to think about, whereas apple and most linux distros just aask for your ip, mask name servers and gateway.

Re:Usability

[Repugnant_Shit]

KDE does what you're talking about, except in reverese. The default configuration is to list items in the menu like this:

Internet
|-> Konqueror (Web Browser)
|-> KNode (News Reader)
|-> KPPP (Internet Dial-up Tool)

Re:Usability

[Repugnant_Shit]

Aaaaaand...poking around in the menus lets you set it up so the description comes first.

Re:Usability

[legojenn]

I wish I had mod points to offer for that comment. It reminds me of when I bought my first new PC in 2000.

It's a miracle I ever used it after the belittling I got from the person who sold it to me. Note to self: never pre-pay for a machine from a freelancing (unemployed) vendor just building & selling computers on the side. It's a miracle I started using Linux. I kept the Slackware CD when a more benevolent individual helped me set up a network.

I have used linux since the middle of 2000. I love it to bits. I have Slack 9 on my router and laptop. I have Mandrake 9.1 with an operating system who's name escapes me dual booting on the desktop.

I have been tempted to be a zealot about Linux because it can do so many things in so many situations. A few weeks ago, my brother asked me to help him fix his computer. The cable internet connection wouldn't work. I assumed it was a driver issue because from what I knew about Rogers HiSpeed, it is a simple DHCP connection. If the modem was okay and he didn't have a connection, it was probably the NIC driver. So, I popped in a Knoppix CD that I brought with me. The NIC worked fine. I downloaded windows drivers and rebooted windows and all was okay. I left the CD behind. In a pinch, they can use Knoppix to get on the internet and if they are curious, they have a way of using Linux without messing up their existing system.

I just don't see how anyone is going to get anyone to try Linux (why bother) if they put on a "Beat the Geek" sort of attitude.

Re:Usability

[PzyCrow]

#define Linux Sourcecode_distribution_of_a_kernel_named_Linux
# define Windows WindowsXP_End-User-OS_by_Microsoft
#define OSX Latest_Firmware_for_Macintosh_computers

Why should the "average user" even have to use an installer? The only interface to computer configuration he should have to learn is the power button, "On" and "Off".
Using a computer is producing work. Not installing/configuring. Hence Apple is the only company that seems to have a product aimed at End-Users.

Linux is very usable for "the average user", you just have to understand that the average Linux user is an OS developer (that is the target audience for "Linux"). "Click next" is just called "make && make install", or "apt-get" or "emerge".

Windows isnt actually usable. As it is neither aimed at End-Users nor at developers. It kind a stays in some gray area between.

Re:Usability

[generic-man]

Official packages are nice if the distro managers have decided to include your favorite software.

No matter which packaging system you use, you run into problems the first time you stray from the set of packages that are bundled with the distribution. You can download extra .rpm and .deb files and pray they don't mess with your system, or you can download the source and dig through multiple levels of autoconf and gcc errors.

With Windows, I could make a brand-new program and piece together an installer, knowing that it will work out of the box with 99% of the Windows installs out there. With Linux, I have to make 5 or 6 binary packages and beg maintainers to include my software in their master directed graph of dependencies.

Re:Usability

[ceejayoz]

I'm new to XP (i've been with kde and macos 9 & x for the last years) and I find it awkward and confusing.

I imagine if I went to KDE and MacOS9, it'd be somewhat awkward and confusing for me, too. Usability studies are a crock... I haven't seen any studies done on people who have never used a computer at all.

Setting up a net net connection, for example, asks all sorts of questions that you have to think about, whereas apple and most linux distros just aask for your ip, mask name servers and gateway.

Well, you can go in and just plug in the numbers, if you'd like. That's an option for tech-savvy people like those on Slashdot... but for most people, they'd rather go through the wizard.

Re:Usability

[poot_rootbeer]

She commented that "How would I have known to click 'k3b' to burn CDs?" I replied, "How would you have known to use Nero?"

Nero was an emperor. He fiddle while Rome burned. CD-R's are also 'burned'. Therefore, one might guess that Nero is a program for burning CD's with.

On the other hand, what the hell does "k3b" mean?

Product names are a component of usability just as much as interface and widget design.

Re:Usability

[Dalcius]

Well, to make it useful you'd only really need to do it for the main projects. Mozilla, Galeon, Xine, Evolution, xcdroast (or whatever else), etc. A single group could enter that information (including options) in a few days.

Make it easy for programs to register themselves and get a big name behind it (the GNOME project, Red Hat, etc.) and I think you'd have a viable system.

So here's the question:
I'm willing to look at doing something like this in my spare time. This is something my family and friends could use, so it'd be worth it. I honestly think that something like this could go a long way to making Linux champ on the desktop.

Is anyone else interested in something like this?
Send me some mail if so. My email is above or in my profile, put SLASHDOT in the subject.

Re:Usability

[Tokerat]

Of course, no one runs any of these programs from the Terminal, you know. The'll have an icon to look at and the combination of the two makes the meaning obvious. "Mozilla" with a big dinosaur head? Looks like a game. "Safari" with a compass isn't exactly the best way to convey web browsing, either. But "iCal" with a calendar for an icon seems quote obvious to me. iTunes with a CD and some notes? Sure. iPhoto might do better with a picture of a photo album book, but the picture and camera isn't quite what i'd call obfuscated.

For a bunch of geeks, it's sad to see that no careful thought EVER goes into UI issues, which is why, IMO, X enviroments are always ugly and poorly thought-out. Of couse, my experience is much more limited. But then, doesn't that sound familiar?

Re:Usability

[Ashe Tyrael]

I wouldnt worry, first time I ever saw it on a friends desktop, I thought it was actually some new Simcityesqe Rome Simulation game or somesuch, complete with burning Colliseum icon.

Yes, I was amused when I found out what it actually was. However, for me, that just made Nero far more memorable. When I first got hold of KDE3 I did start to wonder why the cd burning app of choice was called K3b.

I guess the point is, one people get over the initial name confusion, it moves into a different area, namely "what does this program do for me?" and "how does it look while it's doing it?" (for those who have command-line phobia)

Re:Usability

[Arandir]

When's the last time you installed Linux, BSD, or any non-Windows OS? Because what you're describing is the default on everything I've seen with a few exceptions. Maybe they don't say exactly "click next", but they will allow to to proceed in a logical manner to the next screen by clicking or selecting a "next", "OK" or "finish" icon. Most you don't even have to click, as the installer automatically takes you to the next screen.

I'm not talking about just the newbie distros like Lycoris or Xandros. I'm talking about the "hard" systems like Slackware and FreeBSD!

In fact, if you want, Linux/BSD will happily reformat and use your entire harddrive so you don't have to worry your fretted brow over partitioning issues. Just like Windows!

Re:Usability

[schon]

I'm sorry that you haven't learned to read or interpret pictures yet.

And I'm sorry that you missed my point.

That point is: the original poster is using icon _NAMES_ soley as a usability metric, and claiming that the Mac is better than other OSes because of it.

Here's his quote: "As long as by reading the name you know what it does."

This would prevent people from making remarks like "is iCal used for managing calorie inputs" because they would be presented with a little picture of a calendar.

Gee, ya think ?!?!?!

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, (possibly because you're being tucked away in your little Mac-only land) but KDE (and Windows) have those too.

Even Joe User, who you're pathetically trying to imitate

I'm not trying to imitate anyone - and I don't know anyone called Joe.

What I'm saying is that using icon names soley as a usability metric is wrong

Re:Usability

[Anonymous Coward]

How soon we forget about dll hell. I guess Microsoft can say that they have finally won a big battle in the overall usability of windows.

Re:Usability

[generic-man]

I've never owned a Mac.

Please stop talking.

Re:Usability

[Read Icculus]

Actually it's "Applications > Archiving > CD-Burning -> k3b". I like the Mandrake menu-system, but the "Applications" section adds a bit more complexity to finding out where everything is for the newbie. Other than that it is pretty straight foward.

Re:Usability

[dash2]

It is rather unlikely that anybody trying to burn a CD of music will look under the "archiving" menu. Read the report, it has interesting things to say about this sort of naming issue.

Error Message

[EverStoned]

"Bottom line: Linux nearly as easy to use as Windows XP, but the wording of system and program messages could use some more clarity." I've actually find the opposite. For me, Linux errors are helpful (except for maybe getting a printer to work), unlike the jargon the BSOD gives you.

Re:Error Message

[Anonymous Coward]

I also think we should be able to edit our posts.
*sigh*

Re:Error Message

[kasperd]

For me, Linux errors are helpful

That is also my experience. If I have a problem with Linux, it gives me all the messages and tools I need to find the exact cause of the problem. With Windows I often have to give up, because it refuse to tell me, what I need to know. Knowing what the problem is, is the first major step towards solving it.

Re:Error Message

[Anonymous Coward]

With the exception of LILO, as anyone who's ever recieved

LI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 .....

will testify.

Re:Error Message

[gurubert]

But then you just have a look at the lilo manual and see:

LI The first stage boot loader was able to load the second stage boot
loader, but has failed to execute it. This can either be caused by a
geometry mismatch or by moving /boot/boot.b without running the map
installer.

and

0x01 "Illegal command". This shouldn't happen, but if it does, it may
indicate an attempt to access a disk which is not supported by the
BIOS. See also "Warning: BIOS drive 0x may not be accessible"
in section "Warnings".

Re:Error Message

[Peer]

Well, good thing I print all manpages before rebooting my computer.

Re:Error Message

[gurubert]

Well, good thing you have a bootdisk / bootcd of the distribution of your choice as a rescue system. Or use Knoppix...

Re:Error Message

[Anonymous Coward]

well it is true that a NT style BSOD is more informative... or is it?:-)

Re:Error Message

[hamster foo]

The fact that the error messages are explained in the manual doesn't invalidate a complaint about the error message itself.

What lilo should do is print the error code, and a short description of the possible cause. If further information is needed, then the user can refer to the manual page.

If every application gave error codes similar to "See manual entry blah", when a short summary could have been provided instead, it would get rather annoying dealing with those applications.

Re:Error Message

[gurubert]

Hm, that's right. But the error message may be not more verbose because lilo does not have enough space in the boot record to store a message explaining the error.

Re:Error Message

[Anonymous Coward]

Often in Linux there is no error message. For example when Abiword segfaults, it just goes "poof" and doesn't say anything about what happened; other programs behave similarly. With KDE programs the crash handler comes up, which has an informative dialog about what just happened and what you can do about it. Either all toolkits need to have infrastructure for this, or there needs to be a way for the kernel to communicate with a userland process that can relay the appropriate information to the user.

When you run a program from the command prompt, the OS returns "Segmentation Fault" when a Segfault error occurs. What about a GUI equivalent? But not just for this, for all messages, e.g. when hotplug has detected a new USB/flash device.

The kernel could expose a communication interface either through the /dev or /proc (or /sys in 2.6)filesystem (or an API), and a user level daemon could be started at boot that buffers these messages (or the functionality could be incorporated into syslogd). Then other processes (e.g. KDE) could listen to this daemon via Interprocess Communication.

When an event occurs, like a segfault, the kernel could tell the daemon about it, and that daemon would inform all processes listening to it that "process 2341 caused a Segmentation Violation". KDE could then inform the user with the usual KDE Crash Handler dialog box (even for non-KDE programs!).

Imagine plugging in your digital camera and having KDE flash a message in the systemtray saying that your Camera has been detected and is mounted at /mnt/camera!

Re:Error Message

[JBv]

Mac os 9 erros are intuitive and also a lot of fun:

"bomb! error #"

"bomb" must be the intuitive part, the other must be some sort a page number from i never got.

Re:Error Message

[JoeBuck]

So dump Lilo and use Grub (since Grub is immune to this particular error: Grub does not have to be re-installed every time the kernel is modified).

To be fair, the Grub manual needs to be redone; I pity the fool who has trouble with Grub and uses the Grub manual to try to find the way out.

Nice note

[metaphyber]

I was checking out the article, and there seems to be a slight affiliation with microsoft (where this article is originally posted) So, for it to defend linux the way it does is suprising (since some spornsorships are coming from microsoft, I usually don't expect that.)

Re:Nice note

[Thatmushroom]

So, for it to defend linux the way it does is suprising.

You must be a subscriber. Have you even seen the ads here on Slashdot?

Re:Nice note

[dbateman]

since some spornsorships are coming from microsoft


Some people just have sex on the brain... :-)

D.

I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[tomas.bjornerback]

I don't want a flame war, just say that I've been trying to install Linux on a Compaq Evo 1015v since last week and I simply can't get X up and running in any orderly fashion.

I've tried Debian and even tried to recompile the kernel a few times, to no avail. I have downloaded a couple of GB via dselect without any success.

The Red Hat 9 CD would only boot, but not install any files. It didn't recognize the network adapter nor the DVD-rom (that it booted from).

How do I install Linux (with X) on that laptop?
Must it be that hard to do it?

Does the Linux community understand that the threshold is too high for the big mass of users?

I really want to run Linux (distro unimportant) on the laptop, so don't blame me!

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[gfody]

try slackware

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up on google for Linux Users Groups and take it to the next install fest in your area. I'm sure someone would be better able to help you if they could get their hands on your hardware.

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Minderbinder106]

I had a similar problem on my notebook. Red Hat and Debian would boot and start to install, then crash in random places during the install. Slackware and College Linux installed without a hitch though.

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I don't really know the problem (have never had a notebook in my life :( )... Since you have high bandwidth, try a few other distros like Mandrake. I find Mandrake to be more user-friendly and it often incorporates "beta" software which is newer and can work when other things don't...

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[bersl2]

Check here and find your machine on the list.

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Anonymous Coward]

This might help
Don't blame the linux comunity, blame Compaq.

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[mlk]

This report is not on the install of Linux, but the usability of Linux when installed (well).
Most users never install an OS (Linux or Windows), and even if their OS is hosed via a virus, most people would be lost even with the "recovery cd" (i.e. totally automaticed windows install, with only the correct drivers on the CD).

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Anonymous Coward]

My Evo v800 laptop runs debian happily :) Everything just works here..

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Anonymous Coward]

You idiot! RTFM! I enjoy the fact that I can use that as a response to anything relating to someone else's problem with linux without having to justify myself. The fact that you're trying to put linux on this laptop must mean you expect it to be like windows. Either way, it's your fault you freakin n00b.

No seriously, I don't mean to be a dick and my intention is just to mock the typical response people get when they're just trying to play around with linux. Good for you for trying, but I'll see you in a year or two when you, like me and countless others, decide to give it another try because "by now it should work without needing a degree in CS."

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Robo210]

Oh! I know the answer to this one... source-based install with Gentoo!
/joke
Seriously though, getting the (proprietary) display adapter to work under linux is a challenge, but there are some web resources out there that might be able to help you, try google. However, I must agree that the threshold for linux is way too high for the Windows users that everybody seems to want to target, but it seems like the average linux zealot/slashdot'er believes that everybody should be able to recompile their kernel blind. Oh well, someday people will learn... improvements are starting to take place already.

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[tomas.bjornerback]

1. I did RTFM! (and I searched Google etc)
2. No, I don't expect it to be like Windows. I expect it to be like Linux with KDE! Not just command line based.
3. I DO have a degree in CS!
4. I have spent about 4 days trying.

Now, what more does it take? ;)

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I dont get by the slackware page much anymore since the forums are gone so I didnt catch that Slackware just celebrated its 10th year aniversery.

Viva La Slackware!

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Anonymous Coward]

The good news is that it's possible to install Linux on this beast (I'm a proud owner of a Compaq EVO N1015v + RedHat 9.0 laptop myself). Please refer the Presario 900 mailing list at http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux presario900/
this is a rebatched Presario 900 laptop. Remember to check through the archives.

Basically it has an ATI IGP + ALi combo which was supported very well under Linux until recently (thanks a lot to Alan Cox who participate in that mailing list and got a lot of stuff integrated in the Marcelo's 2.4 tree through -ac patchsets).

You will have to do couple of tricks to get at least RedHat 9 installed on that one:
1. pass on "nousb" option for the installation kernel (at the installation prompt, type linux nousb)
2. Choose "vesa" driver for XFree86 (as the Radeon driver doesn't yet that video card, but then again that will be a thing of past considering XFree86 4.4 beta and >=Linux-2.4.22-pre10-ac1 you can use 3d accelerated radeon driver).
3. Hard code "nousb" option as the boot parameter during the boot loader configuration screen window during the installation.
4. If you really want to use the USB sub-system then you need latest Linux 2.4 kernel with ACPI built-in, for eg, 2.4.22-rc2 etc..)

Hope that helps. In any case please contact Presario 900 mailing list for any help on this laptop.

Thanks
Hari

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[Joe Tie.]

Have you tried Knoppix? Out of any distro I've tried, it's been the best at automatically detecting and configuring my hardware.

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[NFNNMIDATA]

Man I spent a week trying to get X to work on a new compaq back in 2000, eventually gave up. Of course that was red hat 5.2 or something, but the point is laptops always have the most closed, mega-proprietary hardware, which even windows users can have trouble finding drivers for should they choose to upgrade or whatever. So don't get too frustrated with yourself or linux.

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[advocate_one]

you need beating with a cluestick... :)
have a play around with Knoppix first to test the ice before you take the plunge. :)

and above all ditch that "Designed for XP" computer and build yourself a proper one from scratch... that way you can make sure that everything is fully Linux compatible first :)

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[patch-rustem]

Knoppix
From zero to GNU/Linux in 5 minutes.

Re:I don't find Linux easy to use (yet)

[bmj]

try slackware

If you're having problems with a PCMCIA NIC, Slack may not even recognize the PCMCIA slots...I have a Dell Inspiron and the Slack 9 install couldn't make sense of the cards.

BS...

[Plissken]

Linux harder to use than XP? Bollocks! When I first tried XP, I couldn't find the gnome menu! I wanted to burn a cd, and I heard about Windows XP's drag and drop burning, so I tried to get to /mnt/cdrom! But XP has it so D: is my cdrom. When I went hunting for my copy of PuTTY, it was in C:\Program Files\PuTTY! I was expecting to find it in /usr/local/bin ! Those stupid people at Microsoft, why couldn't they have made Windows more like linux?

Re:BS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the usability of XP goes down really fast when the latest worm is making it reboot every 5 minutes.

(of course this wouldn't happen if people were smart and stuck 'em behind an OpenBSD firewall or at least installed ZoneAlarm, kept their OS patched, ...)

Re:BS...

[Arandir]

Moderators marked you as funny, but I think you're insightful. It's only been within the last few months that people are starting to realize that they've been using the term "usability" as an erroneous synonym for "familiarity".

One prime example is the "D" drive. When I boot into Windows, and try to play some MP3s on a CD in WinAmp, I'm always forgetting where it is. Are they under D:, E:, F: or G:? I have two primary FAT32 partitions on my first harddrive, and two CDROM drives, so "D" is most assuredly NOT the correct answer. (But try telling that to tech support!)

Software installation still a stumbling block

[AvantLegion]

Windows: Install new software. Shortcut to program is made in the Start Menu (virtually guaranteed, unless you tell the installer not to).

KDE: Install new software. Shortcut to program is... well, depends. Is it a KDE app, or a GNOME or X app? What distribution are you using? Even if it's a KDE app, uhm, well, maybe it'll be there.

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, the program makes a shortcut to you!

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE: Install new software. Shortcut to program is... well, depends

I think even this is too generous, when you say "install" I think you mean: "download .tar.gz file, go to command line, uncompress it, configure it, build it (hope it builds), THEN install it (using command line of course), THEN figure out how to run it"

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot, hope you have the pre-requisite packages, hope that they install properly, type make, hope there are no errors, pray to GOD you can figure out how to fix those errors, search through endless documents for help, then get the thing installed and have no idea where it is.

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[Ambassador Kosh]

Open kpackage on any debian based system. Click on the app(s) you want and tell it to install and it will find other needed stuff for you and do it.

Use Yast2, up2date, urpmi etc and they will all do something very similar. Overall newbies do not need to b downloading items manually to install stuff.

Packages made by those dists also install into the correct menus so that should not be an issue.

If you really want a super simple to install system for users have them use lindows and pay the yearly fee and they can click to install any program online which is just a wrapper for apt-get

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[Advocadus Diaboli]

Windows: It frequently tells me that the DLLs on my system are newer than the one to be installed and I have to make a decision what should happen, even not knowing what side effects my decision will cause.

Linux: Thanks to a good packet management I install things easily. No questions that put me in a Catch22 situation.

But that is not the point! Installation of software is a thing that I do once and after I did it I use this software. So I think that the installation process should be excluded from a "usability test". As you see from my example above there are different point of views. And if I compare for example the usability of a Mercedes and a BMW I usally don't bother how difficult it is to install a radio or a GPS module, that is job of my car service center and I just use it.

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[Penguin Follower]

You do know that the newest redhat & mandrake distros have an "add/remove programs" now right? Now, I think you still have to have all the rpms to satisfy dependencies, but at least you have a GUI to work with for newbs. I still use the command line for such tasks so I haven't had any experience with the add/remove apps other than I noticed it was there ;)

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[be-fan]

No, when he says install it, he means "type emerge " on the CLI.

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[Poeir]

That's not how you install Linux programs.

First, you track down the RPM, and; no, wait...
First, you load up a command line, and type apt-get; no, wait...
First, you load up a command line, and type emerge; no, wait...
First, you open Click and Run; no, wait...
First, you load up a command line, and type urpmi; no, wait...

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[localghost]

That's funny, when I want to install something I just open up KPackage, search through it for a program that does what I want, and install it. If it's a KDE app, it'll show up in the KDE menu. Though I find navigating through menus annoying, so I usually just hit Alt-F2 and type the name of the program.

In Windows, it's a nightmare. My start menu takes about 20 seconds to load, since every program decides it deserves two submenus of its own. I can run a command like I do in Linux, but of course Windows doesn't have a common binary directory, so %PATH% is useless, and I have to type out the whole thing.

Re:Software installation still a stumbling block

[kNIGits]

It's part of the Debian packaging guidelines that packages are required to place an entry in the global menuing system. Even if it's not placed in the GNOME or KDE menus, it's guaranteed to be in the Debian apps menu.

I said that before

[rzbx]

"...but the wording of the system and program messages could use some more clarity."

I used to say the same thing about Windows back in the day. Especially all those errors that simply gave you some akward number (or error code). I remember not even knowing which program had the error or if it was the OS. I agree though, system messages almost always need more clarity.

Re:I said that before

[joonasl]

My personal favorite is the error message I get on my W2K machine at work every now and then when a program crashes..

The memeory could not be "read"(sic)

what's this "reading" anyway?

Re:I said that before

[SubjunctiveSam]

I don't understand. Was "memeory" your error or theirs? What are you poking fun at? Besides the mispelling, that seems like a perfectly reasonable error message to me.

Re:I said that before

[commodoresloat]

That's just "Windows" attempting to be "postmodern." Don't "worry" about it.

Re:I said that before

[joonasl]

Firstly, I guess (most) end users really don't need/want as technical error messages as that one. (comes with a memory location).
Secondly, what are the hyphens doing in the message? How does reading memory differ from "reading" memory?

Re:I said that before

[SubjunctiveSam]

Oh, ok. Yes I agree the quotes don't make sense. I don't know though how you could make that any less technical though without then not providing the information that tech support would need.

But what about...

[Mostly Harmless]

While I agree that Linux may not be far behind on the usability scale, there are two important points that need to be made. First, Linux is way more difficult to install than Windows XP. The point is moot on a preinstalled system, granted, but it's still valid. Second, it's easier for the average user to obtain help with a problem. Chances are, the kid next door can fix XP, but not Linux. Address these two issues, however, and we might be on to something.

Re:But what about...

[useosx]

If you know how to fix the second problem, you'd be a very rich man. Apple would hire you in a second.

But seriously, if Linux and OS X never break, and are completely intuitive, then the second problem goes away. Well maybe not for Linux because you're more likely to be running a box with a bad stick of RAM. Whereas Apple folks can sleep peacefully knowing they've been way overcharged for good RAM.

Re:But what about...

[Mostly Harmless]

I'd mod your post funny if I could. But I'm not just talking about breaking, neccessarily. What about installing drivers and such? Granted, I *gasp* haven't ran Linux for quite some time (and I can't wait to do so again), but if things are done the same way, installing packages is not nearly as easy on Linux as on Windows. Then again, software doesn't break as much on Linux as on windows...

Re:But what about...

[Anonymous Coward]

It varies - GNU/Linux can be easier (look at knoppix) or a real bitch with strange (typically cheap) hardware. The comparason is normally preinstalled 'doze Vs Install GNU/linux dualboot - obviously the latter requires some attention, but the resizing tools exist and are maturing.

I've been plesantly supprised by finding kids that can do GNU/Linux stuff - including a 10 year old :).
A bigger issue is hardware support - some things will never be supported, so some users will have more functionality under windows :-/ . Shit happens.
We are on to something - GNU/Linux usage has lots of momentum and is growing fast. Unfortunately it seems that most of the momentum is on the open-source and low cost and not on the freedom of the software - as a consequence I doubt copyright/patent law is likely to get rebalanced any time soon. Damn conditioned consumers.

Re:But what about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple folks can sleep peacefully knowing they've been way overcharged for good RAM

Don't forget SUN and their overpriced NICs!!!

I would never buy more than the base RAM in a Mac. Buy the cheap 'unreliable' ram and then blow the difference on drinks. Then, in the unlikely event that your computer crashes anyway, you'll be too hammered to care!

Re:But what about...

[Malcontent]

For most distributions installing packages is easier then windows.

With windows you first have to find the program. Maybe you buy it, maybe you go to download.com and search for it. Next you have to download it and save it to some directory. Next you need to unzip it (oops you did install winzip and pay for it didn't you?). Next you need to install it.

With linux you just do an apt-get install packagename.

Re:But what about...

[ceejayoz]

With windows you first have to find the program.

With Linux you first have to find the package name (assuming this particular piece of software comes in package form and not just source code).

Maybe you buy it, maybe you go to download.com and search for it.

Maybe you buy it, maybe you go to sourceforge.net and search for it.

Next you have to download it and save it to some directory.

Or, you could just click "Open" instead of "Save".

Next you need to unzip it (oops you did install winzip and pay for it didn't you?).

Next you need to gzunzip it, then you need to untar it. Of course, that's not necessary if it's a package - but unzipping's not needed for an exe or an msi, either.

Next you need to install it.

Press "Next". Done!

Re:But what about...

[10Ghz]

First, Linux is way more difficult to install than Windows XP.

I call BS on that one. Sure there are distros that are more difficulkt to install (like Debian and Gentoo), but there are other that are dead easy to install (SuSE for example).

Typical SuSE-installation:

-Insert DVD
-Go through the Wizard, set up your system
-Select software to install
-Wait for the software to be installed
-Done

It takes about 20 minutes, and I have fully functional OS ready to be used.

Now, the average W2K-install:
-Insert CD
-Go through the menus, set up your system
-Select MS-software to install
-Wait for the MS-software to be installed
-Boot in to VGA-windows
-Install drivers for your devices (reboot, reboot, reboot)
-Install all the non-MS software you will be using
-Done

Depending on the number of apps, the installation can take something like 1-2 hours.

Re:But what about...

[antiMStroll]

First, it's not always more dificult to install. Some distros are punishing, others are easier than XP unless it involves arcane hardware. Second, the on-line Linux support community is second to none. Most distros have extremely helpful and active mail lists, and Google Groups will unearth damn near the answer to any question. And third, never let the kid next door screw with your computer, unless you really, really like those porn popups.

Re:But what about...

[Anonymous Coward]

>but unzipping's not needed for an exe or an msi, either.

Yeah, but for an msi you need to either install special tools, or buy a new OS, which brings us back to the top...

Re:But what about...

[mdw2]

as someone who's installed suse and winxp both in the last 2 weeks, i have to agree that suse is a LOT easier.

Re:But what about...

[Malcontent]

You have never used linux before have you?

I'll use debian as an example becasue it's supposedly the most difficult to use.

"With Linux you first have to find the package name (assuming this particular piece of software comes in package form and not just source code)."

You will see all packages listed in a nice window in aptitude. If you are in command line you can do a apt-cache search packagename

"Maybe you buy it, maybe you go to sourceforge.net and search for it."

Wrong again. You just need to look in your aptitude application.

"Or, you could just click "Open" instead of "Save"."

You did download, install and pay for winzip right? After winzip opens you still have to extract it right? Maybe you are one of those people who run untrusted applications in IE from the web, if that's the case then god help you. either way it's an extra step you don't have to take in linux.

"Next you need to gzunzip it, then you need to untar it. Of course, that's not necessary if it's a package - but unzipping's not needed for an exe or an msi, either."

No need to unzip or untar. Sorry. Unlike and exe or an MSI the packages have checksums and apt checks to make sure the package is unmolested.

"Press "Next". Done!"

Six or seven times. After of course agreeing to some god awful license. If you are lucky then you also get to reboot afterwards.

Re:But what about...

[Joe Tie.]

What about installing drivers and such?

For the most part the average user shouldn't ever need to bother with drivers. Most distros would simply detect what they need and install the appropriate drivers for everything during the initial install, and update them automatically during any system-wide update or if new hardware was detected. One big exception has been nvidia's 3D drivers, but I believe they've now given permission to distribute and install them in downloadable isos so that might not be a problem anymore.

Re:But what about...

[FooBarWidget]

Not only that. The Win2k installer starts in text mode. First it has to spend 5 minutes loading all kinds of stuff and drivers from CD to memory. Then it presents you with a text mode screen about what to do with partitions. Then it copies all kinds of stuff to your Windows partition, reboot, and *then* you get a graphical installer.
That is much, much worse than any modern Linux installer.

Re:But what about...

[Chatterton]

The last time I have reinstalled my Win2000 workstation at work it take me 10h, the time to install it, find the good driver for the motherboard (fujitsu siemens computers), the video card... Patch, reboot, patch, reboot 7 time in a row with Windows Update. Install softwares (Office 98, Compilers, Editors...). Patch, reboot, patch, reboot... And finally find patch for products not in windows update for them to work (correctly) in Win2000 (I hate that DOS foxpro or VB5 and some others for the olds applications I maintain). Ho yes, for Office 98 to work correctly as a DDE component in Win2000 without having the superuser right, you need to edit thoses 198 registry key (No joke here but just the bold plain truth :( )

Re:But what about...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Chances are, the kid next door can fix XP, but not Linux."

Someone commented above about office workers only needing email, word processing, web, etc. Ditto for schools. It won't be long before the 'kid next door' will know more about Linux from school than he does about Windows.

Simon

Re:But what about...

[ceejayoz]

You have never used linux before have you?

This box is a dual boot WinXP / Mandrake 8 box. Yes, I've used Linux.

You will see all packages listed in a nice window in aptitude. If you are in command line you can do a apt-cache search packagename

You still have to know what the name's likely to be. Given the names of some apps, you're not gonna find it unless you know what you're looking for. Regardless, that's no more "usable" than doing a quick Google search.

You did download, install and pay for winzip right? After winzip opens you still have to extract it right? Maybe you are one of those people who run untrusted applications in IE from the web, if that's the case then god help you. either way it's an extra step you don't have to take in linux.

Again, WinZip's not necessary for an exe or an msi, so why do you keep bringing it up? You're trying to compare packages to zip files to prove your point - apples to oranges.

I use Mozilla most of the time, which allows me to click "Launch File" after I've downloaded it... but in IE, "Open" suffices. There's not really a difference in security - you're gonna be running the file whether it's saved to your desktop or it's run from your internet temp directory.

No need to unzip or untar.

I was trying to point out that there's no need to unzip most Windows programs, either. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges and trying to pull conclusions on ease of use from that. Bzzzt.

Six or seven times. After of course agreeing to some god awful license. If you are lucky then you also get to reboot afterwards.

I personally like getting to configure my program before it installs, instead of having to figure out the config text files afterwards. For the average user, that's a hell of a lot easier.

Linux programs have licenses too, and I consider the GPL to be a "god awful license" in some ways, too.

Rebooting after an install hasn't been necessary since Win2000, anyways.

Re:But what about...

[Malcontent]

"You still have to know what the name's likely to be. Given the names of some apps, you're not gonna find it unless you know what you're looking for. Regardless, that's no more "usable" than doing a quick Google search."

So let me get this straight. You want an operating system to install a package even though you have no idea what the name of the package is. I didn't know that windows did that for you. Do you say to windows "I heard there was a file sharing program could you install that for me?" and then have windows install it? Do you really think there is no difference between doing a search on aptitude and doing a search on google? No wonder you have such a hard time with linux, I am surprised you are able to use windows. Hell I am surprised you are able to wipe your own butt. What kind of a person thinks that doing a search on aptitude is like doing a search on google?

"Again, WinZip's not necessary for an exe or an msi, so why do you keep bringing it up? You're trying to compare packages to zip files to prove your point - apples to oranges."

I keep bringing it up for a very important reason. Apparently there are people like you who launch MSI and EXE files directly from the web. Without checking for checksums, without running it through a virus checker or anything. A fact I find astonishing but I suppose predictable given the rest of your post. You have already demonsttrated your superior intellect when you compared aptitude to google.

"I use Mozilla most of the time, which allows me to click "Launch File" after I've downloaded it... but in IE, "Open" suffices. There's not really a difference in security - you're gonna be running the file whether it's saved to your desktop or it's run from your internet temp directory."

Once again a brilliant display of your intellectual capability. You think that launching an exe from the internet is the same thing as installing via apt. This just confirms the depth of your ignorance about the way packages are built, distributed, verified and installed.

"I personally like getting to configure my program before it installs, instead of having to figure out the config text files afterwards. For the average user, that's a hell of a lot easier."

After installing a package debian will ask you a series of questions and configure it for you. I know that this may prove very confusing to a person like you who likes to be asked questions before the package is installed. I also understand how frustrating it is for people like you to open up text files and edit them. I know that it's so hard to do that. It requires that you both read and write.

"Linux programs have licenses too, and I consider the GPL to be a "god awful license" in some ways, too."

You don't have to accept the GPL to use a program. You only need to accept the GPL if you modify the program AND distribute the program. I doubt that someone like you who does not like to edit files would ever modify a program and distribute it. MS programs require a EULA so that you can use the program. I know the distiction is kind of subtle but I am hoping that even someone like can understand it. One is for use the other is for distributing modifications.

"Rebooting after an install hasn't been necessary since Win2000, anyways."

When all else fails you can just lie I guess. I have installed plenty of programs that require a reboot including just about everything I ever installed from Microsoft.

But KDE still has its high points

[gotr00t]

Out of the box, there are bound to be some major qwirks that will take some time to get used to in KDE, as well as major problems and annoyances, but one thing that they do not mention is the fact that even without modifying source, KDE is very configuarble, to the point where you can tweak the very basic elements of the UI.

I admit that Windows is rather universal, and its made for a variety of tastes, but after using my version of KDE for all this time, there are many annoyances in Windows (like double clicking the titlebar to shade instead of maximze/minimize), that I simply cannot get rid of. In the rare circumstance that I must use Windows for some reason, I must get used to it, not the other way around, which is what I prefer.

Get a Dell dude!

[mrselfdestrukt]

hehe. Anyway. Maybe you're just not trying hard enough.

Linux usability has to go up for games

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

If games are to become successful, the desktop has to improve. GNU/Linux isn't at the stage where a typical user can install stuff, remove things, etc. For instance, there are quite a few applications that install but don't put links on the menus. Newbies will have no idea how to run these problems. Perhaps what's making this bad is the fact that the distros haven't standardized the path locations. I just wish that all the distros follow the path standards. Right now, you have to spend some time to find out where stuff are installed. For example, do you know where the desktop screensaver is?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[bersl2]

/usr/lib/xscreensaver/* /usr/bin/xscreensaver*

Verifying... done.

Now, where's my doggy treat?

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[RoLi]

If you ever used Loki-games you would know that those would install and be started just like in Windows.

Anyway, the problem with games on Linux is chicken-egg. Linux will go the same way like WindowsNT, which was also used for many years on the corporate desktop before it was adopted by gamers in the form of WinXP.

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[be-fan]

This is the third time I've had to post this. Apps are not hard to install in Linux! The *vast* majority of these problems come from Linux users who try RedHat first, and Linux users who first go to the app's website to get packages.

1) If you use RedHat without Apt-4-RPM, don't even bother using Linux. Better yet, use SuSE (which has a good GUI package manager in the default install) or one of the Debian-based GUI distros.
2) Never download apps from the app's website. That's the Windows way, not the Linux way. Almost every significant app will have a package in your distro's package database. APT and Debian are better than the RPM distros in this regard (lots of RPMs, not too many keyed into Apt4RPM). To date, I've only run up against a handful of packages that weren't in the Portage database. Most of them (like d2c, the Dylan compiler) would not be installed by most users.

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[RenatoRam]

You write: "For example, do you know where the desktop screensaver is? "

This is one of the biggest gripes of windows users when trying to switch to linux... and one I always find amazing, probably because I'm now more familiar with linux than with windows.

Well, here it comes the Big Revelation: It Doesn't Fscking Matters!

I'm not mad: under linux all the binaries (that is, your programs) are already in your path, unless you are trying some badly packaged app. So you simply type the name of the app (or, more conveniently, the first 2 or 3 letters, then hit TAB), press ENTER and you are done.

From the second time on you can add a launcher to your panels, if the app really is NOT in your menus...

As for the screensavers... how difficult is to click Menu->Preferences->Screensaver (redhat example)?

What is really missing (in redhat, at least) is a good package management gui that lets you run searches (rpm -q[if]) and gives the package descriptions and list of files and such, which would be useful for example to answer those questions such "where are my screensavers?" or "this /usr/share/foo/bar/baz.so belongs to what package?" ... maybe ad add-on to synaptic? (sort of a heir to gnorpm)

Have fun!

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[Joe Tie.]

Almost every significant app will have a package in your distro's package database.

The only downside is how long it might take for new versions to make it into any particular distro. With many the user might be stuck having to wait for the next release of their distro to also get software updates, all the while with the desired program shining with new features on the authors site.

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[be-fan]

Doesn't happen with Debian, or with Gentoo. Packages make it into unstable and into Portage almost as soon (sometimes before!) they are released. The other distros will catch up eventually. Besides, consider how most Windows software works. They only release new versions once a year or two. The OSS philosophy is "release early, release often" but that doesn't mean you have to stay on the cutting edge of each release*. The distros do a degree of testing as well, so waiting for the distro packages to come out is much more in line with what users are used to in Windows.

*> This coming from the guy who runs KDE CVS...

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

The KDE screensaver and the xscreensaver use different locations. Try changing your xscreensaver and then try seeing if it shows up on the KDE screensaver configuration, or vice versa.

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

KDE and Xscreensaver don't use the same stuff. I don't think you have this problem with REd Hat (because Gnome is ok with the xscreensaver). To see what I mean, right-click on desktop (in KDE), go to configure desktop and check the screensaver section. Then try going to the xscreensaver and see if they are both the same. They are not. You can get a screensaver running with xscreensaver but not with KDE and vice versa.

Other path problem examples include postgreSQL. If I'm not mistaken, the path for configuration files in Mandrake/Red Hat (something like /usr/share/pgsql) while it is different under Debian--I think.

As far as tab-completion is concerned, that's only useful if you know the command or the file name. If you have no idea what is th configuration file for a screensaver, for example, that doesn't do anything.

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[bersl2]

me no use KDE. me use fvwm. me put

xscreensaver -no-splash &

in .xinitrc by hand, like good cavegeek.
</caveman>

And I'm still waiting for the doggy treat. [wimper]

Re:Linux usability has to go up for games

[RenatoRam]

>KDE and Xscreensaver don't use the same stuff.

Uh... I rarely use KDE, even on RedHat, but this sounds weird to me. The ONLY screensavers I know for linux are those in the xscreensaver package (and the RSS_GLX screensavers, of course, but you have to hunt for the rpm if you are not familiar with source installs).

The only difference I can think of is that using xscreensaver from the commandline one often discovers options for the screensavers that are not in the GUIs.

Anyway, It's only a matter of tools: knowing what is available and how to use it.

At the moment I'm not aware of a friendly gui to do this, but still...

prompt$ locate whatever

returns every file path that contains "whatever"

prompt$ rpm -ql PackageName

returns the list of files inside said package.

> Other path problem examples include postgreSQL

Did you install the package taken from YOUR distro or the one from the developers site? If the package is made for your distro, the path will be correct (bugs and errors nonwithstanding; in that case let your distro know it).

>As far as tab-completion is concerned, that's only useful if you know the command or the file name.

First of all, tab-completion normally works only for executables and for files in the current dir, so if you are looking for config files, look elsewhere.

You do not know the name of the command? Then you should look inside the package: all those in .../bin/ and ../sbin/ dirs are commands.

To look inside the package "rpm -qpl filename.rpm" or "rpm -ql PackageName" if already installed.

You don't want to use the command line? Well, I have to admit this is often a problem. I seem to recall that in mandrake the package management tool lets you see all info on the packages, including the file list... but on redhat there is nothing like that out of the box.

I should really write one... I'll put this on my to-hack list ^__^

Last thing, if you are looking for config files and such, in 90% of the cases you are talking of rather non-end-user stuff (like Postgres). So I'll give you the best advice: read the FINE manual! ^__^
At the end of man pages usually there is a list of relevant files, and the documentation is generally useful for stuff like install, setup and such.

Have Fun!

4.3 meg pdf?

[ratfynk]

I just tried to load the blinking pdf, it is 4.3 meg what the heck did they translate it with babal fish?
Acrobat reader 6 crashed, windows froze and all hell broke loose! I guess I will just have to use KDE and xpdf to read it reboot time. :-(

Re:4.3 meg pdf?

[presroi]

When I read the German version, I remember that almost every page contained many pictures, screenshots and all these things which will blow up the file size.

IMHO, presenting pictures in a usability study *is* justified and on my crappy system, Acrobat Reader survived, btw.

Bollocks.

[BiggerIsBetter]

Try RedHat 9 some time. Installing apps is as simple as double-clicking the RPM in Nautilus ("windows" to the uninformed). The package manager apps take it from there - 2 clicks of "Continue" and it is ready to use. The only thing I didn't like was no "It's Done!" message at the end...

Becoming "familiar" with Windows (read futzing around with non-std apps and tools) *does* involve resolving dependency issues - I'm on lists where it's common to see people say "Why does it want x.dll?", and for a while there, developers shipping dlls and libs crapped up Windows boxes due to being old versions or for the wrong OS (eg 3.1 vs NT vs 95 vs 98 vs 2K vs XP). The problem's not limited to Linux, and what's more, it's no longer an issue on Linux if you use a current distro and the tools it comes with.

Linux has its problems, but this isn't one of them.

Re:Bollocks.

[holloway]

I use Redhat 9 (and Windows 2K) and it doesn't deal with dependencies, let alone add a launching menu item to all the Linux desktop's menus. The makers of Linux RPMs don't include everything, it seems they regard statically compiled binaries to be rude. In practice it's a balance of static and dynamic, and in my opinion Linux gets the balance wrong (in that it's rare for software to just require one installation).

Redhat 9 also comes with an Apache GUI configuration tool that breaks the config file when you have multiple hosts (though I've had no problems with the Network tool, and it's much better than Mandrake's).

Software such as APT-GET (and freshrpm.net's aptget for rpm) are good, but see the list of software on FreshRpms and you'll see that it only has a few hundred packages (which is what -- 5% of Linux software having an easy installation?).

The main argument for shared libraries, and only proving a piece of the puzzle, is that the pieces can be upgraded at their own rate. But if dependencies can't be resolved transparently as is the current case then it's safe to assume that most users won't be able to use your software (Kismet Wireless, GStreamer - for example).

These days I hit into Linux dependancy problems much more than DLLs.

Compare this to Windows '98 -- where it generally works.

Re:Bollocks.

[BiggerIsBetter]

I'll agree that it's not yet ideal, however it's really up to the develper/packager. RedHat and others deal with dependencies when you use their distro tools as intended, but downloading a random RPM and double-clicking is not yet foolproof.

The example RPM I used was actually firestarter, and being a well behaved GNOME app, I already had the dependencies I needed. A GNOME Menu item was added automagically by the packaging script too.

Another application I installed recently is CADSoft's Eagle. The only requirements were some very standard system libs. This is a good example of "how to do it" for commercial apps, and there's no reason that more common/open binary RPMs can't link statically either.

Re:Bollocks.

[FooBarWidget]

The Autopackage project is working on a framework for developing distribution-neutral packages, with a fully decentralized network for solving dependancies. This saves a lot of resources since not every distro has to maintain it's own APT repository. There's still a lot of work to be done, so feel free to join the project. We're currently working on a GUI frontend. After that, we'll concentrate on the network.

Re:Bollocks.

[13Echo]

You won't run into problems installing official programs for vanilla installations. People bork up their machines by installing software that wasn't built for their desktops.

It's like trying to install a program that was built for WindowsXP, but wasn't meant for Win 98. It may work, but it also may not.

Honestly, I've had more problems getting Windows 98 apps to work with Windows 2000. Grim Fandango was one of them. Dark Age of Camalot was another. Both were incredibly crash-prone because the developers hadn't chosen to support the newer desktops. Win9x emulation mode helped, but didn't totally correct the problem. I've also experienced similar problems getting some CDR software to work on older Windows machines.

You're going to run into these sorts of problems as long as you have changes in your operating system. It's just the way that it goes.

Re:Bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Redhat 9 also comes with an Apache GUI configuration tool that breaks the config file when you have multiple hosts ...

Compare this to Windows '98 -- where it generally works.

I'm sorry, but are you implying that Windows 98 includes an Apache GUI configuration tool that doesn't break the config when you have multiple hosts?

If you're gonna criticize something, at least get your facts straight. Apache configuration has nothing to do with usability.

Re:Bollocks.

[digidave]

If you're happy with Redhat's software installation then you've never tried Suse. Now THAT'S how software installation should be done.

For any programs that come with Suse you simply navigate to it in the install menu and Yast will install it after asking for the CD (or it will get it via FTP). If you want to install a different package like an RPM, Yast will take over and do it exactly how Suse apps are installed, including menu items.

Re:Bollocks.

[holloway]

I'm sorry, but are you implying that Windows 98 includes an Apache GUI configuration tool that doesn't break the config when you have multiple hosts?

Obviously yes. I mentioned other software too, but yeah - take one sentence and then another and get angry over it, clownboat.

If you're gonna criticize something, at least get your facts straight. Apache configuration has nothing to do with usability.

The way people use a GUI tool to configure apache is affected by usability.

Re:Bollocks.

[holloway]

Yeah, but take Kismet or GStreamer for example - where's the Redhat 9 support? I'm not rudely demanding it, but it's not there, and so the vast quantity of software isn't available on a very popular desktop. They may not want to spend the time to support Redhat or Mandrake, but then people can't say the software is usable on these distros. It's a packaging/installation problem.

With the R9 Apache GUI config tool busting my apache scripts... this was on a default box with everything installed.

Re:Bollocks.

[BiggerIsBetter]

I have used SuSE 8.0, and I was mostly happy with it - except for YaST's incessant need to break my printer config by installing both cups and lprng (SuSE never did fix that bug...). I'd imagine 8.1 is even better, but I wanted to use RedHat 9 to keep our Jade system happy.

Re:Bollocks.

[Hooded One]

I agree wholeheartedly. Haven't compared it to Redhat, but I originally tried Mandrake when I wasn't sure whether I was leaning toward GNOME or KDE, and thought rpmdrake was alright, but eventually I decided I'd go all-out for KDE (This decision was aided by the fact that I had completely fried XFree86 on my Mandrake install and just running the install again didn't seem to fix it. Heh.) so I tried SuSE. YaST is a godsend. First of all, unlike RPMDrake, you don't have to run different processes to install and uninstall packages, and the search utility was *far* more useful

Pretty much the only complaint I have with YaST is that after it completes an operation it closes itself. This is fine for packages I've downloaded elsewhere and started installation of via Konqueror, but when I open up the package manager for anything else, I expect it to stay open until I close it.

It also bugs me slightly how sometimes it'll put a shortcut in the SuSE menu, but not the K menu, which I prefer to use.

As far as KDE in general, the main improvements I'd like to see are easier editing of the application menu (I still find myself right-clicking stuff trying to edit it's properties) and a way to stop applications from stealing focus. Some people may find a flashing taskbar annoying, but I consider it a vast improvement over an application bringing itself to the top while you're typing or something.

Re:Bollocks.

[roystgnr]

Software such as APT-GET (and freshrpm.net's aptget for rpm) are good, but see the list of software on FreshRpms and you'll see that it only has a few hundred packages (which is what -- 5% of Linux software having an easy installation?).

# apt-cache stats
Total Package Names : 13094 (524k)
Normal Packages: 3142 ...

Granted, I've got nine different repositories that I'm pulling from, but three thousand packages isn't too shabby. I don't have too much trouble with RPMs outside of the repositories, either - generally anyone whose dependancies are that esoteric provides a link to them on his download page. Some non-RPMs are a big hassle, on the other hand, as I usually prefer hacking up my own .spec file to doing a "make install" on anything I may want to uninstall later.

Studying is partially flawed

[SerpentMage]

I like LINUX, I use Redhat 9 because most things are automatically recognized.

BUT, the study is based on two BIG flaws... In the usage scenarios the following is said.

1)The computer is largely preconfigured
2)Use of the computer is mostly restricted to specific applications in a practically homogenous surronding.

Well, DUH! If I give them a black box with only only black box applications Linux and Windows are largely the same. In fact most OS's in this context are largely the same...

The PROBLEM of the OS's is when you need to add applications, remove applications or do those silly extra steps. Then Linux becomes hell. The only company that I think has clued into this problem is RedHat. Bluecurve in Redhat 8 was a godsend. No more twiddling with text files. I can pop in my Redhat 9 CD's and it will recognize everything on my notebook, including wireless card. That is how it should be...

Sorry, but that study is partially flawed as many Microsoft studies.

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is not flawed. The study was not supposed to test whether a home user could use linux as effectively as the windows machine that they have used for years but how they could perform tasks in a work environment. Any large office will preconfigure the machines(even Windows) and try to keep general users from fiddling with them and installing spyware , trojans, virii, etc. In a work environment the idea of installing software and device drivers is not the users job but the system admins.

I believe that more companies and government organization are going to wake up to the fact they are just creating additional problems by putting too much into desktops(outfitting them with Office Pro, etc.). A large percentage of office workers only need email access, simple word processing, spreadsheets and access to the custom corporate app they spend their entire day working in. Linux is perfectly fine and cost effective in those scenarios.

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[Citizen of Earth]

I can pop in my Redhat 9 CD's and it will recognize everything on my notebook, including wireless card. That is how it should be...

Out of curiosity, what kind of notebook do you have? I am considering buying one soon and Linux compatibility is a crucial factor. I'm looking at the Sony VAIO V505BX as being highly compatible and very light (but with 'inner bigness'). Or how about the Compaq Presario (various models)?

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[Citizen of Earth]

I believe that more companies and government organization are going to wake up to the fact they are just creating additional problems by putting too much into desktops(outfitting them with Office Pro, etc.).

It seems to me that they're creating problems for themselves by putting anything heavier than just a tiny solid-state Linux box running X on desktops.

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

> outfitting them with Office Pro, etc.).
> A large percentage of office workers only need ... simple word processing, spreadsheets

That may be true, but SOMEONE in the organization needs SOME of the advanced features found in MS Office and the like. Those people could send a file to anyone at anytime, which needs to be opened with full fidelity.

Not to mention that the IT dept is usually in no position to determine who the power users really are out in the cubefarm.

Lastly, MS Office is somewhat of a benefit in disguise because it's often the only programming environment ever installed on most PCs. And many people do realize that even they can program their own computer that way.

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[SerpentMage]

Dell Inspiron 8200. Works well with Linux...

Here is what worked out of the box; Dell network, graphic card, wireless card (Oriccon), sound card, etc.

I am happy...

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[advocate_one]

Any large office will preconfigure the machines(even Windows) and try to keep general users from fiddling with them and installing spyware , trojans, virii, etc.

[Blatant_troll ="on"]yup... Linux comletely fails the usability test in this regard... it is very hard for Joe user to fiddle with things, install spyware, trojans and viruses when he's using a Linux desktop... :) with ms-windows it's far far too easy... witness the current worm du jour...
[Blatant_troll ="off"]

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

a tiny solid-state Linux box running X

You mean, as opposed to a big one using vacuum tubes? Has this ever been done?

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[schon]

the study is based on two BIG flaws...

1)The computer is largely preconfigured

How is that a flaw? They're studying ease of use, not ease of administration.

2)Use of the computer is mostly restricted to specific applications in a practically homogenous surronding.

Hmm, you mean it was exactly the same as the desktop computers of any large corporation? Again, not a flaw.

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[fault0]

> 2)Use of the computer is mostly restricted to specific applications in a practically homogenous surronding.

This is usually how all usability research is done.

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about solitaire! I have seen all too well the amount of time solitaire pops up on machines while one is supposed to be working.

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[Wumpus]

Winmodem?

Re:Studying is partially flawed

[Spy Hunter]

Well, DUH! If I give them a black box with only only black box applications Linux and Windows are largely the same.

This was not the case a short time (a few years) ago. Linux applications and desktops were mostly inferior to Windows applications and Explorer. This study is important because it is confirming with the scientific method what many people have already realized - Linux applications are ready for the desktop.

There's still TONS of room for improvement there (do we want to settle for something only about as good as Windows?), but we know that Linux has caught up with Windows in at least one area.

umm...

[ottothecow]

the original article said that they used computer litterate people with no experiance on linux, and the same for windows although they didnt specify for windows, they said the same.

My question is where did they find experianced computer users with no windows experiance whatsoever. I know people who have never owned a PC and always had macs but they still have no problems with windows whatsoever (and virtualPC means they could have windows too). That goes double for linux users, I dont know any linux users who havnt run windows on a computer. I dont see any feasible way for this test to be conducted except by people who have never used a computer, but then the results would be worthless since they would spend too much time sitting in awe.

Re:umm...

[slovin8]

The study said "No prior experince with Windows XP". Therefore, anyone who used 95/98/Me/NT/2000 and never used XP is elligible.

Re:umm...

[DavidinAla]

I still know PLENTY of people who don't use computers at home or work. I know it's hard for people like us to believe, but it's very true. :-)

Re:umm...

[CdotZinger]

We do exist.

I might be one of only about ten of us left. Despite having owned and used many, many computers since about 1983, I've never once used Windows. I've read the horror stories, watched other people live them and laughed at their folly, but I've never done it.

At jobs, I've had to use just about everything Apple ever made--plus Irix, Solaris, and, once, back in the day, some kind of DOS--but I got out of "business" before the Borg takeover (and I was never in the "business" business anyway). At home, I have a pile of Apples, an old, pre-NT Silicon Graphics doorstop, and a Sun I'm happy never to have to yell at again. I used to have an Amiga, a NeXT (the shittier grayscale one), and a BeBox, but I sold them to other, more nostalgic dorks.

(I did try LinuxPPC a few years ago, just to see how it was, and thought "This [poor aesthetics, low instant-usability, dependency insanity, and messy file organization/management] is also why I don't use Windows," while I deleted it. It definitely reminded me more of Windows than of Irix or Solaris (as a desktop OS). May have changed, but I doubt it, since almost no one knows better than to ape Windows these days.)

Re:umm...

[biber]

The study stated that all test persons had long experiance with Windows but not with XP! And the realy result of the study is: If youi have to go away from NT, people have the same problems with XP then with Linux.

Re:umm...

[ottothecow]

just out of curiosity, I would think that if you are an experianced enough slashdot user, and if its true that you have never used windows (not at a friends house or a library a few times, get used to the UI?) I bet you would have seen enough /. articles and enough windows mimicing/product adds that you would know that outlook sends your email and excel is a spreadsheet.

Re:umm...

[ottothecow]

but the article said they were computer literate, just had no experiance with the OS they were testing, how many people do you know that maybe use computers every day but wouldnt know how to get their email with windows?

Redundant?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the first post, seems rather insightful as well.

Mod him down! FSF is not communism! -1 -1 down down down!

Please mod parent as troll

[slovin8]

Did you actually take a look at the 90+ pages report? Do you have objections over its findings? If you do then let's hear them please. Everything is illustrated there, the methodology and the implementation with a very thrugh and professional analysis and a conclusion with many areas of constructive critism to KDE/Linux usability.

Coming Back

[Anonymous Coward]

Having used linux for long time, then abruptly stopping, I am about to experience the usability of linux all over again. I started on a Mac, then went to Windows, then Windows AND Linux, then just Linux, then Windows crept back in again until I found myself with one lonely linux box that I never used.

Being somewhat stunned by how easily I had forsaken linux for windows, I decided just today to change my situation. Being disallusioned with both Debian and RH, I am installing slackware right now. If that lets me down, I have FreeBSD ready to install also.

Windows does not really fail me, I actually get more work done on Windows 2000 ( I do web development and graphics, no games and no MS Office )than I ever did on Linux, but it certainly does bore me. I guess I miss tinkering with the systems more than anything, and I also miss Fluxbox!

Wish me luck, maybe I will be able to give Linux tips to friends once again with my head held high. It kind of sucks to say "Well, I only run windows now but the file you are looking for is in /etc/hosts" when you do not even run linux anymore.

Here is hoping I can rejoin the ranks of geeks, don't let me down Slack!

Re:Coming Back

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying to my own post, whatever. Slack is installed, so far so good I guess. I grabbed some extra packages and they installed easy enough with pkgtool, not any harder than apt-get I would say. Looks decent with KDE, but I am sure I will be switching back to Fluxbox. It still does not look as good as Windows, the fonts are shitty in Mozilla. Not bad though, I will have fun with it for a while, I need a new LAMP box anyway.

Linux

[VistaBoy]

KDE is pretty nice, but really if you're going to migrate someone to Linux, you really should do them a favor and load up XPde first, and then once they learn the hierarchy you should show them the super-convienient Enlightenment or WindowMaker. Those GUIs are pretty fast compared to clunky Windows-ripoff desktop environments, and once you get used to using alt-shortcuts, it's too hard to quit. Also, WindowMaker and Enlightenment are efficient. You may be able to give a technically-inept person a well-configured WindowMaker environment that only has the necessities in the right-click menu.

If you simplified WindowMaker's right-click menu for someone, it would make a pretty nice beginner's platform for Linux, since there are no annoying and intimidating buttons all over the place, and the menu would be quick and simple to find the program you want.

KDE is pretty good, but once you go WindowMaker or Enlightenment, it becomes less and less easy to convince yourself to go through the KDE loading process and be greeted by buttons everywhere and a pretty clunky interface.

I apologize to anyone who uses KDE on a regular basis, but really we're supposed to take a step forward with Linux, and the rather inconvienient loading time coupled with a pretty clunky and inconvienient interface is no step or a step backwards.

I anticipate the modding down of this post.

Re:Linux

[slovin8]

"I anticipate the modding down of this post." Gee, ya'd think? Let's see what you say: "KDE is really really nice with a pretty clunky interface" "KDE is pretty good, but we better off using something else" "KDE is god-like! but I'm a troll"

Re:Linux

[k-zed]

Yeah, Enlightenment and Windowmaker are there. But there are other alternatives; a shocking amount of them - that's what Linux (in the OS sense) is about. FVWM, AfterStep, Blackbox & derivatives (I use a heavily customized Openbox environment myself), IceWM, etc.. Actually, this is why I don't agree with calling the web browser in the Gnome/KDE menus a 'Web Browser'. We have to put the name of the individual programs there, as there is an abundance of them. Choice is very important.

Re:Linux

[Wolfbone]

I'm almost moved to tears thinking about the Enlightenment (E16) WM. It has got to be the greatest lost opportunity there has ever been in the World of WM's. It is beautiful, fast and slick and so full of potential but it has been in a neglected, half finished state for years now while development attention is concentrated on E17.

I cannot understand why it has happened that way, all it needs is some modernising and cleaning up and some decent configuration tools. But who's going to bother contributing new themes,epplets or tools to E16 now with E17 sitting there? How many years will it be before E17 reaches the same level of maturity or beyond, I wonder?

I like(d) OpenBox too but the same thing seems to have happened there; 2.x approaching serious usability and then it's just dropped and a new 3.x series is written almost from scratch.

As for KDE, it's development has been based on an essentially commercial widget set so I guess there never was much danger of it being ripped up and rewritten. Yes it is clunky and I often wonder why the hell I'm using it when I see that it takes 14MB to paint a yellow square with a bit of text in it on my display but it's so well put together and there's so much stuff written for it now, I can't seem to get away from it. At least it looks prettier than most other WM's do when building it with colorgcc. ;)

I use both

[Cat_Byte]

Between Windows and Redhat I find myself rebooting Redhat way more than my Windows 2K box due to it hard locking when I try to run too many Gnome apps. GUIs are still pretty buggy in *nix and ease of installation and running programs needs to be integrated. Once they get that right maybe more apps will be written for it.

There are just too many bugs. Using Redhat9 to connect to an NT4 share via Samba is buggy as hell. The first connection works great. After that I practically have to reboot to get back into the share again. I find that very user unfriendly. New users are mainly turned away when they can't even figure out how to install an app. I was really confused when I first started. I could download to my home directory & make a new folder to put it in, had to spend 15 minutes looking up how to unzip it with tar (man tar made it sound like it was only used for tape backups), went to the folder and stared blankly and the directory listing. It turned out I was supposed to know you have to type:
make
make depend
make install
OK did that....where the hell is it?

It's a long and rocky road to learn *nix and unfortunately /. shows how snobby and childish 99% of them are so finding help is almost impossible.

Re:I use both

[Anonymous Coward]

CTRL-ALT-BKSPCE restarts X and not your machine.

Sounds like your installation/configuration did not go well.

Although, I agree that *nix can seem needlessly cumbersome, it doesn't have to be. Look at OS X(my new favorite OS). I believe that in order to truly be used by Joe Home User(I think Linux is ready for Joe Work User), then the simple alternatives to the *nix way of doing some things(ie. installing software) have to be refined. This is not say that the command line and compiler should go away, but there needs to be
a clear well-understood path to installing binary applications for Joe Home User.

Re:I use both

[Cat_Byte]

Yeah I found out about the CTRL-ALT-BKSPCE awhile back but thanks for the tip. The problem is I'm hard locking...not just the GUI or the mouse...the whole machine stops responding. I think it could be a memory leak in Gnome. I know it's not an IRQ conflict. It only happens when I run more than 5 apps in Gnome at a time. This also happens (altho not quite as frequently) on another *nix box I have running FreeBSD with KDE.

Anyway, thanks for the tip. I'll get back on topic now ;)

Re:I use both

[Malcontent]

Why are you compiling with redhat? Why not install with an RPM?

Honestly people like should not use linux. Stick to windows, you'll be much happier and you won't be bothering those snobby and childish people. As you are well aware windows users and much more adult and sophisticated and will drop eveything to rush and help you out. Why give up a supportive environment like windows? It just does not make any sense.

Re:I use both

[Cat_Byte]

Not all packages have an rpm. This one did not. In fact not many at all had rpm installs back then. Thanks for the flame though. Made my day. It also showed what I meant about *nix users & their attitudes.
*sigh*

Re:I use both

[RoLi]

Using Redhat as a desktop is like using a rackmount-system as a desktop.

Sure, it can be done, but you really shouldn't complain when it doesn't fit your needs out of the box and needs tweaking.

There is a good reason KDE/SuSE and not Gnome/Redhat was tested in the usability report.

Re:I use both

[Cat_Byte]

It's not being used as a desktop.

Re:I use both

[Penguin Follower]

Between Windows and Redhat I find myself rebooting Redhat way more than my Windows 2K box due to it hard locking when I try to run too many Gnome apps. GUIs are still pretty buggy in *nix and ease of installation and running programs needs to be integrated. Once they get that right maybe more apps will be written for it.

Fortunately, I don't have to reboot my RedHat server except for a kernel upgrade ;) I really don't have to reboot my Win2k server that often except after a windows update session (and that happens more often than I have to reboot linux for an update :P ).

(Disclaimer: This is not a troll, this is my actual experiences with Gnome).

Well, I stopped using Gnome a long time ago. As in the last time I used Gnome Red Hat 5.2 was still considered relatively new. It was my first distro and seeing apps on Gnome crash I had wondered what in the hell my friend had been smoking when he told me "linux is more stable." What I did was switch to KDE. At that point in time KDE was absolutely UGLY but very functional for me (i.e. didn't crash every 20 minutes). I have "taken a peek" at Gnome every so often and I still see apps crashing on Gnome even when I'm just evaluating it and haven't pushed it very hard. I just don't see that many crashes on KDE. When something does crash on KDE, it is usually a "Gnome app" (such as Gaim). No, it was not my hardware. I've tried Gnome on more systems then I care to count and despite liking the looks of GNome, I've always stuck with KDE as it has always been more functional for me.

Anyway, as I stated at the beginning, this is not a troll against Gnome. I've just had rotten luck with Gnome and KDE has been a good friend to me. Consider this a KDE advertisement if you will. ;)

There are just too many bugs. Using Redhat9 to connect to an NT4 share via Samba is buggy as hell. The first connection works great. After that I practically have to reboot to get back into the share again. I find that very user unfriendly.

I cannot comment on samba with RH9 in that RH9 is the client and NT4 serving the share. I can say, however, that I have a RH9 samba server in production at work that serves large files and images to windows clients all day long, with great uptimes. Takes a beating sometimes... never stops :) Now, I have connected to windows shares from a linux box in the past without problems. It could be a bug in samba shipped with RH9. Try using up2date and get a newer version of samba if available.

New users are mainly turned away when they can't even figure out how to install an app. I was really confused when I first started. I could download to my home directory & make a new folder to put it in, had to spend 15 minutes looking up how to unzip it with tar (man tar made it sound like it was only used for tape backups), went to the folder and stared blankly and the directory listing. It turned out I was supposed to know you have to type:
make
make depend
make install
OK did that....where the hell is it?

This is the first area that I will agree with you. Installation from source is not hard for the initiated, but for the new user (who has had zero computer programming experience) it is hell. I took a few C++ classes in college but didn't persue the computer science degree because I don't make a very good programmer :( I was very shaky about compiling programs on linux even though I had taken C++ classes because it's just not the way you do it on Windows with Visual Studio, which is what I was taught at Wright State. :( However, today you will find me compiling test kernels on "test machines" just to play around and I'm pretty good at it now... but I should be considering I've used Linux since '96 or so.

It's a long and rocky road to learn *nix and unfortunately /. shows how snobby and childish 99% of them ar

Re:I use both

[Barnett]

> It's ok to lie if it's about war.

Has Bush never heard about "make love not war"?
He should get some advice from Clinton about lying.

Re:I use both

[Malcontent]

"Thanks for the flame though. Made my day. It also showed what I meant about *nix users & their attitudes."

I am just trying to help you. Please stop using linux. It's not for people like you. You are too sensitive, you are easily confused by tar and make install. Honestly Linux is not for you.

Linux is for people like me, for you there is windows or even better a Mac. I would never give my dad linux but I gladly bought him a Mac. Mac is for people who don't understand computers. That's you!. You don't understand computers and linux is scaring you. Linux users are also pissing you off (and you are pissing them off). Are you a masochist or something? Why subject yourself to that kind of confusion and derision.

To Recap.

1) Get a Mac. Hang out at slashdot and be cool.
2) Get Windows, Hang out at gotdotnet.com or any one of the thousands of MS fan sites and be cool.

Just don't use windows and hang out at slashdot. That's not cool.

Re:I use both

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a long and rocky road to learn *nix and unfortunately /. shows how snobby and childish 99% of them are so finding help is almost impossible.

The trick is to first search google and google groups, then ask in a polite manner. Swearing and calling all but one in a hundred of the people you're asking help from childish snobs is not the kind of attitude that will have people lining up to offer you their free time.

Re:I use both

[cowbutt]

It's more likely a buggy X driver for your video card than Gnome. Applications that don't bang the metal (i.e. bypass the OS and directly program hardware) should never crash the OS.

What card are you using? What version of XFree? (I would expect 4.3.0)

Once you've determined what card you're using, check the XFree86 docs for your card to see if there are any known problems. Try disabling all the acceleration features and switch them back on, one at a time, until the problem re-occurs.

--

Re:I use both

[Anonymous Coward]

Memory leaks in user apps happen often. Usually it is Netscape (or even Opera), and the solution is either to: 1. Log in from a different screen and kill the offending process. 2. Wait until all the memory is gone, and let the OOM killer handle it.

Either way, the system does not lock hard. At max, X will lock, and the rest of the system will become slow.

Hard locks are 99% hardware problems.

Re:I use both

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what you mean about bugginess (I use Linux 99% of the time, so I'm more comfortable in it than Windows). The kernel is rock solid, yeah, but the userland can really let us down sometimes. Often it's due to misconfiguration that things don't work, or just buggy programs. One of the main problems I've had with Linux is Printing and Samba.

As far as Samba integration goes, I've been craving for a tool that did this for as long as I've used Linux. That tool is xfsamba (part of the XFCE desktop environment). This program seems to "just work", and works very well with the accompanying xftree file browser. Now, since I'm a KDE user, I would really love for KDE to have that level of integration with Samba. Konqueror almost works, i.e. I can go to smb:// and see some computers on the network, but I've never been able to browse these computers shares (reliably) or mount their share to my local filesystem or right-click install a printer from over the network. In xfsamba, browsing and mounting shares works absolutely flawlessly.

It seems that the marriage between the GUI and the underlying OS isn't very good in Linux at the moment. However, Windows annoys me more than Linux, so here I am.

Re:I use both

[El Cubano]

Installation from source is not hard for the initiated, but for the new user (who has had zero computer programming experience) it is hell.

I think you have defeated your own argument here. Installing from source is not an user function, but an administrator function (especially with zero computer experience). In Win95/98/Me (and other single user OSs) the distinction is not made, but it is in multi-user OSs. In that case the user(s) and admin(s) are differnet (sets) of people, with the notable exception of home systems.

Even then, an admin needs to know what he is doing to install from source. There very few reasons to ever install anything from source. Maybe a kernel if you need to patch it for special drivers or support, or a program that you need to hack to work with your hardware (in both cases you would know what you are doing). Otherwise, you should be using your distro's pre-packaged binaries or those provided by the developers.

Re:I use both

[HermesT]

The hard freezes you are talking about are probably due to a hardware problem. I had freezes with my hardware. I figured out that the problem was due to my Nvidia card in conjunction with my other hardware. I had to "disable AGP". One way that I was able to reliably get a hard freeze within minutes was by running the freeciv client with all players in AI mode. The problem is fixed now though. The bottom line is that hard freezes shouldn't be happening on a Linux box. On oaccasion (as another poster wrote) you can have a buggy program that leaks memory exponentially and ties up the system. You sometimes have to wait fot the OS to kill the program or hit the reset switch in this case. This can happen with software that you are writing when you run tests.

Tests of familiarity and similarity, not usability

[The Revolutionary]

Many of these tests are tests of familiarity and similarity, not strictly of usability. At least this is my impression, browsing the report.

Remember, these are users who, while they have "No experience with Windows XP" , are also not beginning computer users (but not expert computer users).

It is quite possible that even if a Mac OS X system were also tested, that the Windows system would score higher, despite Mac OS X having better usability, strictly speaking. This would be the case unless the usability of the Mac OS X system were sufficiently superior in usability, that it could overcome the advantage of the Windows system due to its familiarity.

Given this, that the Linux-based system did as well as it did is truly a testament to the quality of these open source environments.

On page eight (8) we see that task two (2) is to:
- use a text editor to enter some specified text
- "Format the first line as a centered heading"
- "Add page numbers on right hand upper margin of the page"
- "Print the document"
- "Save document as 'Potter.doc' in WORD format in your personal folder"
- "Close the program"

The user's success with the Linux-based system, for this task, will depend largely upon how closely the Linux-based system's word processors resemble word processors in the Windows environment. This test does evaluate usability, but strict usability here, is secondary to familiarity.

Surely these users will have some -- if not extensive -- experience with Microsoft Word, or even Wordpad. No doubt these workers also have experience performing these very tasks in this Windows environment.

On page nine (9) we see task six (6):
- "Open the email application"
- "You have received a new mail which mentions the date of an appointment"
- "Have a look at the organizer and see whether you are still free on that date"
- "If that date is still availab le, please enter the appointment".

It seems certain here that the user's success with the Linux-based system, for this task, will depend largely upon how similar the Linux-based system's email/groupware client is to Mircosoft Outlook Express, or Microsoft Outlook.

One last question: why does the KDE system as pictured in the report not have text below the "quicklaunch" icons? Wouldn't this significantly improve a new user's ability to quickly identify and launch the tool needed?

I do not know what a "blue dog house" means, what a "red lifesaver" means, or what a "K overlayed upon a sproket" means. I can probably make an educated guess given some previous experience with KDE, but that is hardly accessible.

Am I missing something?

Things is different

[BiggerIsBetter]

Laptops are famous for being a pig to install Linux onto. Proprietory hardware and unhelpful manufacturers make driver support very difficult.

That laptop has ATI graphics and LCD, which can be a pain to setup manually (don't use modelines with 4.x X!). I'd start with 16 bit VESA at 1024x768 14" (or 1400 x 1050 15"?) native resolution. If possibly, use 4.3 XFree86 as well. If VESA works, then try looking at different ATI drivers, probably "radeon" or "ati", and 24 bit colour.

As others have suggested, maybe it's worth trying a different distro (Mandrake and SuSE are worth a crack) because they have slightly different kernels and different setup/config tools. They have setup options for LCD screens, so just choose a generic 1024x768 LCD, and VESA/radeon chipset.

Problems with X are unlikely to be kernel related, but the DVD might be. Maybe you need to use the ide-scsi cd driver, done with a kernel append line at boot time. I'll hazard a guess and say the ethernet is one either tulip or 8139too. I may be wrong, but try modprobe tulip and/or modprobe 8139too then ifconfig -a and see if eth0 is there. It might be something else, but it's worth trying.

Hope some of that helps.

Re:Things is different

[ajs318]

sis900 and rhine are also popular onboard ethernet adaptors. In general, modprobe foo; lsmod where foo is the hardware you want to look for. See if you can see foo in the output. If the hardware is absent, the modprobe will fail and the lsmod output won't change. I use Slackware Live as a sysdiag tool, because it works so well at identifying stuff. {Alright, so does Knoppix, but it wants to go straight into X.} This IMHO is an area where Debian is lacking. On the other hand, perhaps they thought it was less annoying to have to experiment a bit than to risk knackering everything early on with dodgy autodetection. That's the tradeoff.

Re:Things is different

[replicant108]

The quickest way to getting Linux working on your laptop is probably to download and install Mandrake. Their installer rocks! It had no problems at all with my cheapo brand-x notebook.

Re:Things is different

[Knuckles]

Laptops are famous for being a pig to install Linux onto

You are right, but I'd like to add that installing Windows from anything else than the vendor-supplied so-called "Recovery CD" (those would be more aptly called "Trash it completely CD") which has all the strange drivers and hacks for buggy hardware included is not piece of cake either

Re:Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

KDE is a global project.
US culture is currently the overpowering one - Hollywood, Music, McObesity, Media related paranoia etc.

gauranteed to get modded down every time

[gfody]

just copy my sig
it really works! just look at my history :)

Re:gauranteed to get modded down every time

[spyfrog]

I was thinking to mod you down because of your sig but I am a to nice person.... ;-)

Re:gauranteed to get modded down every time

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig is just a typical pro-microsoft/right wing troll, nothing fancy or new. If you get modded down, the reason would be that you constantly whine about it.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't flamebait. If he replaced the word KDE with Windows it would have been modded to +5 informative. What he said was totally true, to the point, and informative.

Well, it's not really a test of JUST Linux, either

[dodell]

Yes, you *are* missing something. Sure, the system in Linux based, but it's using open tools. In effect, this is just a test on systems that are able to run KDE and KDE-based applications. It does, therefore, apply to pretty much every version of Linux as well as FreeBSD (I'm not sure about the other BSDs' support for KDE, though I wouldn't expect it too far behind). Hell, even having a system start up KDE in cygwin would fit this description.

You are blaming the wrong people.

[Malcontent]

It's not the fault of Linux. If companies don't make drivers blame them. If Compaq does not provide drivers for a popular operating system blame compaq.

How can you blame Linux if compaq uses weird one off components.

Well...

[Kjella]

Becoming familiar with Windows never involves resolving dependency issues.

No, but it does usually involve running into some (aka DLL hell). You just don't have a clue of how to resolve them and can only pray it doesn't break when you upgrade to the latest version you can find, which should work with "the most". I got a couple games I can't play simply because they choke on the current system files.

Usually I find that the pachage managers do a pretty good job resolving dependencies and installing them for me. A "next" click that won't tell you all the ugly tidbits behind the scenes is a lot better for the average user, but it's hardly the "make-or-break" of Linux.

Re:Tests of familiarity and similarity, not usabil

[The Revolutionary]

To be clear, the report states as much, but I thought it might have been helpful to pull out a few examples for those who do not have the time to read the report.

From page eleven (11),

"The testing scenario tries to recreate the following situation: A company or a public office is migrating to Linux on desktop. The employees are using computers for their daily office routines, i.e. they are experienced in using applications and the Windows operating system."

Also, I found the following compliment on page eleven (11) to be particularly flattering (er, of the open source solution),

"Linux applications show an outstanding configurability and can be adapted according to the taste and experience of the user. Hence, it was the aim in configuring the system to make the most of every possibility offered by KDE and the applications in order to make the test system as usable as possible."

Use a desktop distro, stupid

[RoLi]

At least in SuSE you get those shortcuts.

You sound like a stupid moron who has bought a rackmount-system for desktop use and complain that your new 3D-graphics card doesn't fit into it. Wait, actually you more sound like a MS-tool who just parrots stuff that he heard.

Re:Use a desktop distro, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

rofl...this flame-bait/troll message was modded up! Are the anti-MS moderators the only ones left?

Re:Use a desktop distro, stupid

[AvantLegion]

Actually, I'm a Gentoo user that knows how to do whatever I want with my desktop. Funny, you assumed, but it's only made an ass out of you.

the Start menu

[commodoresloat]

yes the shortcut in the start menu really is an important aspect of Windows' GUI intuitiveness. Shut down is under "start." It really makes a lot of sense.

Re:the Start menu

[Anonymous Coward]

at least it is better than no shortcut at all...

Re:the Start menu

[JesterXXV]

Where is shutdown on KDE and GNome? From what I've seen, it's in the same goddamn place.

Either that, or "init 6". That sure is intuitive.

other factors of usability

[Doppler00]

One thing I noticed when skimming through the report was that they didn't really mention the responsiveness of the applications themselves. I mean, once a user learns these applications is the performance of them fast enough for a person to be productive? I've noticed on my linux system that applications tend to take much, much longer to load, the swap file thrashes more often, and just interacting with windows and the system is slightly more sluggish. Sure, the difference is in the few 100's of milliseconds, but it is noticable.

Re:other factors of usability

[westyvw]

I agree that some apps can take longer to load with Linux. However, many can be preloaded, but you have to know how, and I wouldnt expect anyone to know how right off the bat.

BUT:: And this is the biggest BUT ever, one that I have gotten my linux users to understand:

In windows, you are used to using an app, then shutting it down.

Not so with Linux.
I teach them to USE the multiple desktops. Put a mail app on one, put a writer (say OO.org) on another, put a browser on yet another. LEAVE THEM OPEN and running. Do not shut them down.

With linux there is no need to close these apps! You leave them on.

With the distro's I have been using, I can even tell them its ok to shut down their computers if they feel so compelled at the end of the day.

Next day, they restart and all their apps reappear where they were before.

Results just in

[fr0dicus]

In this study of Windows vs. KDE3 useability, all the contestants chose OS X instead!

....waiting for the troll moderation

Re:Results just in

[ceeam]

If only they had balls to bring it to x86.

It's called..

[toupsie]

Mac OS X. Most Apple applications have fairly generic names, "Mail", "iTunes", "iPhoto", "iMovie", "iDVD", "Preview", "Disk Utility", "Image Capture", "CPU Monitor" and "Safari" (You know that's a web browser, right?). As for burning CDs, you stick a blank CD in the drive and the Mac will ask you what you want to do with it, copy files, burn songs, copy pictures, etc. Real ease of use that neither Windows XP or Linux have. That's why I bought my mother and mother-in-law an iBook. It's cheaper to buy them a Mac than listen to them bitch about their PC. They can do everything they need, it doesn't crash, no scary viruses and the only downside is they have learned attachments. I'm still not giving up my dual boot p4, but I find myself spending more time on the g4.

Re:It's called..

[Sylvain]

Well, last time I used it Windows XP had this feature. Insert a CD and it will ask you what you want to do with it: Play in WMP, Browse, Copy and stuff like that. I'm not sure if it work the same for blank CDs.

I've been more impressed by the nice integration of CD burning capabilities in iTunes, the UI is as simple as it can be but it is IMHO the most convenient UI to play/rip/burn songs.

Re:It's called..

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Apple applications have fairly generic names, "Mail", "iTunes", "iPhoto", "iMovie", "iDVD", "Preview", "Disk Utility", "Image Capture", "CPU Monitor" and "Safari"

Real ease of use that neither Windows XP or Linux have.

Err, KDE comes by default with a menu that has a description after each entry, like: Kooka (Scan & OCR Program).

Re:It's called..

[TrancePhreak]

If you drag & drop files onto the cd drive in XP, you can burn them (burner required).

Re:It's called..

[deepfusion]

It looks like XP does prompt you with 'tasks' when inserting a blank CD. (see the screenshot and caption on page 61 of the english usability pdf report).

DF

Re:It's called..

[gaspyy]

As for burning CDs, you stick a blank CD in the drive and the Mac will ask you what you want to do with it, copy files, burn songs, copy pictures, etc. Real ease of use that neither Windows XP or Linux have

In WinXP, if you insert a black CD, you are presented with a list of choices, like the ones you mentioned. If Nero is installed, it's in that list too ("Create a new CD with Nero"). To add files, you just drag-and-drop them, then click on "Burn these files"

I'd love to see that in Linux...

Re:It's called..

[grey1]

... and "Safari" (You know that's a web browser, right?).

well, no, actually I didn't. And around here (small fragment of a big multinational) it's a part of an application framework...

IMO short labels according to function are better than names. And if there's a choice I'd prefer to see the function first and the app name bracketed second, as

• function (app1)
• function (app2)

By the way, what does iDVD do that iMovie doesn't (and vice versa)?

Re:It's called..

[Captain Nitpick]

By the way, what does iDVD do that iMovie doesn't (and vice versa)?

iMovie is a video editing program.

iDVD is for assembling existing video and images into a DVD, and making the menus for accessing them.

The only overlap (that I am aware of) is they both have the ability to turn still images into slideshows.

Re:It's called..

[Anonymous Coward]

What does "scan & ocr" mean?

Re:It's called..

[lightcycle]

I don't know why people think this is ease of use. I had to use OSX a while ago, and the act of burning CD:s confused the hell out of me. There is nowhere to set options for the burned cd, at least not that I found. When I burn a CD, I want to do it from software where I easily can set various options (In my case, that software would be gCombust). That is real usability. What I don't want is for the OS to go off making a lot of assumptions regarding what I want to do. After reading other posts about XP I'm thankful I haven't yet been subjected to its Cd burning tools .

Re:It's called..

[grey1]

ah, thanks, that's helpful. Based on the names I'd assumed one played movies and the other, er, played movies from DVD...

shows the problem with very short names, I suppose.

Re:It's called..

[schon]

Real ease of use that neither Windows XP or Linux have

And neither does the Mac, at least if you're using application names as a usability metric.

Re:It's called..

[kryptobiotic]

Your confusion stemmed from the fact that the post didn't mention the DVD player named "DVD Player"

Re:It's called..

[sean.peters]

As for burning CDs, you stick a blank CD in the drive and the Mac will ask you what you want to do with it, copy files, burn songs, copy pictures, etc. Real ease of use that neither Windows XP or Linux have.

Can't speak for Linux, but XP most certainly does have this feature, and it works very similarly to what you describe for OSX. Put in the blank CD-R, it asks you what you want to do with it. Click and you're in business.

Sean

Re:It's called..

[Feztaa]

Real ease of use that neither Windows XP or Linux have.

Last time I stuck a blank CD into my RH9 box, it popped up with Nautilus pointed to "burn:///", which provided an intuitive drag-and-drop CD burning interface. Just find whatever files you want, then throw 'em on there. Easy. :P

Re:Well, it's not really a test of JUST Linux, eit

[The Revolutionary]

Well, of course I realize this, but then I've found it to be advisable in some situations to go along with common (mis)conceptions.

OpenOffice.org, for example, figured prominently as I read it. Unless there exists an integrated KDE version of OpenOffice.org which I am unaware of, this is not a KDE-based application. But that's why I was trying to to be picky.

I also certainly wasn't about to say just "Linux", as referring to the entire system as "Linux" brings out the "GNU/Linux snob" in me. I said "Linux-based" specifically to avoid this, while still remaining understandable.

What would you prefer, that I use, "open source desktop environment"? I can go along with that, but then, KDE is largely GPL "Free Software", yes? It's all either rather vague, or too wordy.

If people understood what I was referring to by "Linux-based", and I think they did, then I am happy enough.

You're correct though that I didn't think about FreeBSD; I've never used it, and have no pressing plans to do so, although I have nothing against it.

the story BEFORE Longhorn

[Biomechanoid]

This will sound trollish, but I think its true:

As a Linux/KDE OS user and developer myself, I am sure things will 'evolve' once Longhorn showcases its new user interface design and OS developers have something new to copy again. That is, if X doesnt get in the way of competing with the to be replaced windows GDI/GDI+.

(I am the AC)

Re:the story BEFORE Longhorn

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the way Longhorn will be copying Aqua? Why don't Linux GUI developers just copy Aqua first? ;)

Re:Well, it's not really a test of JUST Linux, eit

[dodell]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be nitpicky. I just wanted to point out to people who miss these kinds of points (they tend to be the same people who post everywhere that BSD is dead). It's obvious to me that you understand this fact, but it may not be obvious to others. Although, now that I read over it, I must apologize for my callous intro. I didn't mean for it to be so harsh :).

Interesting to note

[Dalcius]

It's good that you've picked up on this. Many folks don't.

One thing to consider: who, save folks who do more than 'use' their computer, do administration tasks (installing)?

"Well, DUH, Dalcius, you RETARD! I install programs every other week on my Windows box. Weather buddy, Winamp, etc."

When users get a Windows box from Dell, they're going to be missing some things. Weather program, MP3 player, possibly a CD burning program, CD ripping program, etc. etc. People have to install these by hand, hence the perception that installing programs is horrifically normal.

From what I've seen, a default install of Red Hat offers everything that I typically download and install for 2K. That said, up2date, or better, Red Carpet make installing programs relatively easy. Figuring out program names in Red Carpet, isn't pie, but how do you accomplish the same task on Windows? Search for "MP3 player" on google and find the name of some software and download it.

Folks really should think about this. Windows almost exclusively comes pre-installed. Most folks don't download and install more than a handful of programs of which most Linux distros install Linux equivilents by default.

So here's the question: Is Linux really not ready for the desktop? Most admin tasks are either done by a knowledgable family member or an IT admin. You folks are all thinking about "Uncle Bob and Anne" installing their CD burner drivers or installing programs, but most users rarely do this on their own. Most of you folks are coming at this from your own point of view, and that's not the way to look at it.

Linux is no less ready for the desktop than Windows. Quit expecting Linux to live up to standards that you don't hold Windows to.

Re:Interesting to note

[SerpentMage]

I don't agree with this. Lets say that what you say is right. The household has a admin. Even then installing things on Linux can be downright frustrating.

For example to where do you actually install apps? /usr/local, /usr? Each app has its own idea where it would like to go. Then what about the menus? They are just added by default with Windows. If worse gets to worse I can add it manually. Linux? Ever tried to manipulate the menus. Gosh, darn, shhiet... How about uninstalling the application? Linux is more work to maintain than a Windows box and this what needs to be fixed.

I like Linux and I use Linux, but I would never dream of installing Linux on my mom's notebook. EVEN though, it is me that maintains her current Windows notebook.

I am very slowly coming to the conclusion that Open Source will survive and prosper, but at the end of the day it is going to be a Windows desktop. Even though the Windows desktop can be used without MS software...

Re:Interesting to note

[James_Duncan8181]

One word. Debian.

Re:Interesting to note

[ajs318]

If you're running Slackware, you can put stuff in /usr, but if you're running any kind of package-managed system {RPM or DEB} you're better off installing to /usr/local instead, because the package managers are designed never to touch /usr/local. That's specifically so you can install stuff which the package management team haven't got around to arranging yet.

Of course, you might conceivably end up installing some libraries twice {once in /usr/local/lib and once in /usr/lib} if your library paths are seriously mucked up and there's some command you forgot to use to tell your system you updated some libraries.

Why worry about uninstalling anyway? HDD space is cheap enough these days, that you can afford just to take the programme out of the menus. If you can remember where you put the source, "make uninstall" might get rid of the installed parts ..... after which you can delete the directory and the tarball.

Seriously, though, if someone comes up with a new killer app that does package management, automatically resolves dependencies and uploads its discoveries to a web site ..... that WOULD be cool. In the meantime, if you're using an RPM based distro, here's my tip: when you want to install some package foo, be sure to install the foo-devel package. This holds for all foo. IMLE the files that other packages depend on are, inexplicably, most often in here.

Re:Interesting to note

[Dalcius]

1) You don't necessarily even need an admin as most Linux distros come complete with what you need.

2) You're worried about where you install new apps? This worries me. Even using the old crufty RPM system, this isn't even a concern, and using package managers like up2date, Red Carpet, apt, urpm (?), portage, etc. make this a NON-ISSUE.

3) Adding menus? I can't speak for KDE, but in GNOME 2, adding desktop/toolbar icons is trivial. (Note, this isn't new to GNOME 2). Most GNOME 2 applications add them by default to the correct places in the applications menu. If not, yes, you are very correct, the current method of manually adding icons is a joke (anyone know of another way but adding the entry by copying pixmaps and editing files?). However, it seems that a lot of folks like you and me are complaining about this, so it shouldn't be an issue much longer.

4) Uninstalling applications? Get a package manager jack! :)

5) Please don't take offense, but I'm not sure whether you're not a common user of Linux or whether you're just extremely old-school, but if you're the old-school route and want an easier to maintain system, I'd say maybe give Gentoo a try. It can take a good while to get it installed if you haven't done a slack/LFS/etc install before, but it seriously is a no brainer to admin the box. If you want any help with it or want more info, email me (email in profile, put SLASHDOT in subject).

Re:Interesting to note

[Dalcius]

I just garnished this from the Gnome 2.4 preview. Open Nautilus and go to applications:/// to edit your applications menu.

Easy as pie. It's actually accessable by the "Start Here" menu. All they need to do is add it to the menu and I'll be happy. :)

At what cost?

[screenrc]

The problem is that every time you make it
easier for the desktop user, you also make it harder
for the people in other categories. Our needs are
not the same, therefore, the remedy can never
be the same.

The question is not whether we should accomodate
new users, the question is what costs and
inconvenienses are we willing to endure in
order to accomodate the newbies. And I don't
particularly care if new uers move to Linux, I would
rather not accomodate them at all. It is a
non-issue for me.

Reduce, Reuse & Recycle

[Risto]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/04/231920 4&mode=thread&tid=121&tid=185&tid=189&tid=190&tid= 201 Windows XP Edges Out KDE in Usability Test On August 4th, 2003 with 910 comments AstroDrabb writes "Linux, once viewed as an operating system that only computer geeks could appreciate, is today a much more user-friendly software that...

you're possibly right

[LittleBigLui]

and we could base such an installer on the standard ./configure && make && sudo make install procedure. Such a program could find out what options ./configure takes and present them in a nice gui.

but it gets very troublesome if the thing doesn't compile ;)

Re:you're possibly right

[good soldier svejk]

and we could base such an installer on the standard ./configure && make && sudo make install procedure. Such a program could find out what options ./configure takes and present them in a nice gui.

And we could call it RPM ;-)

Seriously, this is how source .rpms work. Although they are toolset agnostic and can run any build commands you put in their spec file.

Re:you're possibly right

[LittleBigLui]

i'm running gentoo myself, so while i don't have much experience with rpm, anything that involves source code must be good :)

Re:you're possibly right

[good soldier svejk]

AFAIK, the sourcey bits in RPM have no GUI though. But so long as you are dealing with src.rpms the command set is simple. Even when building .src.rpms from tarballs it ain't exactly rocket science.

English Summary (correction)

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother. Gnome 2 rocks.

Report on "directory" vs "folder"

[The Revolutionary]

The following comment on Linux shortcomings drew a chuckle from me (page 28),

"The most striking example of this is the term "Verzeichnis" (directory). To 46% of all test subjects it was unclear whether "Ordner" (folder) and "Verzeichnis" (directory) were synonymous. Consequently, they had problems with the task which asked them to create a new folder."

Now that is mindshare.

Error eh?

[Ankle]

Bottom line: Linux nearly as easy to use as Windows XP, but the wording of system and program messages could use some more clarity.

So the error messages in linux should be like "Error: No error" or "Error: Error reporting error"?

Re:Error eh?

[TrancePhreak]

Error: Too many secrets.

better system messages

[TTL0]

"but the wording of system and program messages could use some more clarity."

right. something like " keyboard error press F1 to continue" would be a lot easier for people to deal with.

Re:better system messages

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never had any trouble with "Keyboard error press F1 to continue". Some problem with the keyboard, right? So press F1. Nothing happens. Obviously something wrong with it. Message filters through: Recall keyboard has plug that goes into jack behind computer. Check plug is pushed all the way into socket. Press F1. Error resolved. Machine carries on booting. Or: Nothing happens. Message filters through: See if caps lock and num lock work. They don't. Try another keyboard. Press F1. Error resolved. Machine carries on booting. Or: What F1? Um, keyboard is totally absent. Get a keyboard. Press F1. Error resolved. Machine carries on booting.

"Keyboard error, press F1 to continue" makes perfect sense to me. All that's missing is the middle step: Keyboard error, Deal with it somehow, then press F1 to continue. Anyone who is toilet-trained should be able to cope with it.

new to linux - please dont flame too badly

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought red hat Linux the other day, about a week ago, and installed it along with a new hard drive in about two hours time (first time /w hd install as well)

it took me about 30 or so minutes to get on the Internet, use email, etc. had no problem at all with that.

i am still trying to figure out how a lot of the things in Linux work, but i think it would be perfect in an office environment, and it is a lot cheaper than windows is.

the big thing that i have at this time to deal with is the command line. haven't seen one of those since DOS and it is going to take me a while to get reaquanted with it.

at this point i think that if some parts of Linux were made just a *slight* bit simpler linux would take a large portion of the windows market.

just my $0.02, flame shield is on so fire away

Re:new to linux - please dont flame too badly

[FooBarWidget]

Why do you ask for help on Slashdot? Slashdot is not a support forum!
I'll warn you in advance: if you get flamed down here, it's not because of "the Linux community is full of elitism" or whatever people come up with, it's simply because you're asking at the wrong place.

Re:new to linux - please dont flame too badly

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not ask for help. I was mearly making an observation based on my exp with linux.

whenever I need help for it, I look at google groups.

Re:new to linux - please dont flame too badly

[praedor]

A lot of it IS simpler. It is just different than is done in windows or dos. There are weaknesses in useability vis a vis non-CLI tools for setting up virtually everything you see but it is getting there quickly. The CLI is simple and the way it was "originally intended" from the time life first evolved on earth. DOS is a bastardization of the beautiful simplicity of the *nix shell.

Nice study, but rather pointless

[ozric99]

If I installed something like Mandrake or Suse on my mum's PC, configured a web browser, an email application, and some general office tools, there's no question that it'd take her about a day to figure out where all the buttons are and how to use it to surf the web, write a letter, send emails. I know this because it took her a similar amount of time to figure out 98, XP, and OSX which she uses at work.

There's no question about the usability or linux in that regard IMHO. For simple office, and 90% of home user tasks, linux is perfectly "ready for the desktop" and has been for some time.

Where I feel linux falls down, however, is the intermediate user - the user who wants to transfer their home movies from their DV camera, edit them, and author a DVDR; a user who'd like to use their TV card to timeshift TV shows; the budding composers who want to hook up their keyboards and play with synchronisers and audio manipulators. That's where people (myself, and the majority of people I know who are very competant windows/osx users) who want to migrate to a linux solution run into difficulties which simply aren't present on Windows or OSX.

Then you move past the intermediate user to the full-on geek, who can do pretty much anything with linux with a couple of mega-fast keystrokes - that's when linux shines ;)

So can we stop these usability studies, please. It's already usable for the majority of home users. The next step is winning over the intermediate Windows users.

And as for gaming.... ;)

Re:Nice study, but rather pointless

[nbarr]

Actually, I believe this study to be important. I am a Linux user for 3 years now, and I find it to be very user friendly.

But most companies are scared to change OS, because then all the people would have a big trouble getting to know the new programs.

what I believe this study shows is: "Enterprises, dont be worried about changing to Linux. It is user-friendly, and it will not have a huge impact on your productivity, because most people will be able to use it after one week."

And thats something we need them to know...

Re:Nice study, but rather pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

"Where I feel linux falls down, however, is the intermediate user - the user who wants to transfer their home movies from their DV camera, edit them, and author a DVDR; a user who'd like to use their TV card to timeshift TV shows;"

must disagree with you about the TV card thing, their is no software on windows or OSX which comes close to mythtv.

It's true

[RdsArts]

Choosy trolls choose X.

Now in smooth and extra gunmetal.

... What? I just like ellipsis.

"All test subjects were paid.."

[Anonymous Coward]

".. with a two figure Euro sum."

Damn. I need to get rid of my Linux experience.

Report on user types; interesting.

[The Revolutionary]

Some of the observed behaviors were incredibly interesting.

They categorized users based upon their performance in the tasks. Starting from page 74, I found some of the attributes and observations for each category to be interesting:

All observations are quoted directly from the report, but have been consolidated from multiple pages (74-77)
1. Group: Inexperienced performers
- They cannot mentally differentiate between OS, desktop environment and application.
- They are goal orientated and not interested in understand (sic) how they get there ("Now it is working").
- In order to place an application icon (Acrobat Reader) in the desktop bar at the bottom, they were looking for this option within the application itself (and did not succeed). This was the case for 21 of the 60 Linux test participants.
- They left an application open and tried to perform all further tasks within this application. For instance, they created a new folder using the file dialog of the word processor.
- They were confused by a high number of options and tried to find a familiar option from which they could start exploring the others.

2. Group: Experienced performers
- They are interested in understanding how something works.
- They consider themselves to be the cause of an error, not the computer.
- Due to their impatient navigation, they did not see some (sometimes important or helpful) options. Also, they could hardly see the tooltips since they moved the mouse too quickly before the tooltip had been displayed.
- If an action did not show an immediate result, they went onto another way and only came back much later to the initial action. Hence, this group needed to have the network folder displayed for quite a long time as they clicked somewhere else before the folder content was updated and displayed.

3. Group: Professional performers
- They plan their steps by their assumptions of the potential ways that the systems may offer.
- They can identify the "errors" or "inadequacies" of the system.
- They had problems especially when they did not expect a certain system behavior. This could be observed e.g. in Windows XP when they tried to write a file on a CD, since this function is integrated into Windows Explorer, while those users expected a stand-alone application.

Re:Report on user types; interesting.

[lovebyte]

- They left an application open and tried to perform all further tasks within this application. For instance, they created a new folder using the file dialog of the word processor.

That's my dad! He cannot understand why he can create a new file in MSword, but he cannot delete a file from MSword. It made me laugh at first, but thinking about it, he was quite logical.

Re:Report on user types; interesting.

[Simon]

More so:

Me: So where is that file?
GF: It's in Word.
Me: umm, but where is it on disk?
GF: It's in Word.
Me: oooook.

She is right more or less too. Open Word, File menu, look at the bottom. There it is. Disk? whatz'at?

--
Simon

Recent Experiences

[Jackdaw Rookery]

Take as you will, which translated means flame or ignore away ;)

Over the last weekend I decided to try some of the latest distros, hell it beat talking to the Mrs. Normally I have very little time spare to sit and play with Linux so this was quite cool, this is the order I tried stuff and the initial impression.

-Mandrake: Would have been a nice install but the usb keyboard doesn't work; yet the mouse does. Clever. Does install though without the keyboard working and it works once installed, the modem doesn't though. Failed to get modem working after a few tries dispite this been the only distro that is speed touch friendly. The package update gui is lousy, dropped to console. Learn that the modem support is selected during install and that there is not a gui to do it after install, WTF. Reinstalled, eventually found the modem section, couldn't type entries into gui due to no usb support. Sigh.

-Lindows: The best install routine, up and running in 10 mins. Distro doesn't include make or gcc, so couldn't compile anything to get modem working. Installed these from another distro but modem still farked. Click and run is a good concept for continual revenue. Will be the granny friendly distro but not there yet.

-Redhat: Nice install, feels professional but boated, took an age to install and runs as fast as a dead dog. Modem doesn't work. Stupid speed touch. Is it me or is Redhat just dull?

-Knoppix: Booted CD, left at console. CBA, next CD in line please.

- SUSE: Doesn't support usb during install, won't allow the install without detecting a keyboard, useless.

By this time I knew the stupid speed touch inside and out and got it running in Mandrake, though I've learned enough that I could get the modem working now under debian/lindows easily so I might go back to lindows tbh, but it is hard to forgive them for not including gcc and make by default.

Re: Recent Experiences

[BenjyD]

Why not just switch USB keyboard support to BIOS in your BIOS settings? That way you can use your keyboard during the install.

Re: Recent Experiences

[Jackdaw Rookery]

It's already on, so switching it would just turn it off. It's kinda like that, on or off. Next time assume that the person posting has some intelligence. Oh wait, never mind.

Re: Recent Experiences

[BenjyD]

I meant switch it from "USB keyboard support=OS" to "USB keyboard support=BIOS". I said it because I installed SuSE recently with a USB keyboard and it worked fine during the install IIRC.

Re: Recent Experiences

[Jackdaw Rookery]

That's what it's set to, though if you had success with SUSE and I didn't maybe it is my particular USB keyboard. Problem with that theory is it worked with other distro's fine. So, er, shrug, I dunno.

I cannae tell ya no more cap'n.

My experience

[Marwood]

Im an IT Technician, and Im certainly not Microshaft biggot, but my experiences of Linux have only been difficult to say the least.

Flame me if you will and bring out the troll beating sticks, but I would love to use Linux, I love the free software and open source ethos, hell, apart from Windows XP itself, all of my software is freeware/open source/whatever (Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc. etc.) but I have tried, and failed.

I want an OS that works, out of the box, with MY system. Windows does this for me. Linux (so far as I have tried) does not.

Suse, RedHat, Debian, Slackware, FreeBSD, Gnoppix??? Which one, and why should I use it? Ive seen enough flame wars out there to simply confuse me for life.

KDE or Gnome? I dont know?! Bluecurve? What the hell?

I tried RedHat on a recommendation. After installation, did it work with my ADSL modem? No. Did Windows XP work with it, yes. And at the moment, its little things like that that make the choice clear cut for me.

Ok, Im not going to go on and make myself look like a troll. As Ive said, Id love to use Linux, but Im all for an easy life, and my computer is a tool that I use to get my work done, and as such I want to switch it on and it just plain work. Currently only Windows is doing this for me.

Re:My experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Im an IT Technician, and Im certainly not Microshaft biggot, but my experiences of Linux have only been difficult to say the least.

No, u r a fagot, obviously, who is not able to get simple things running.

Re:My experience

[FooBarWidget]

"I want an OS that works, out of the box, with MY system. Windows does this for me. Linux (so far as I have tried) does not."

Windows does this for you because it's *preconfigured and preinstalled*! It doesn't seem fair to me to compare a preconfigured and preinstalled OS to one that you install from scratch without help.
Try installing Windows XP from scratch. I've had better experience with installing Linux from scratch than XP from scratch.

"Suse, RedHat, Debian, Slackware, FreeBSD, Gnoppix??? Which one, and why should I use it? Ive seen enough flame wars out there to simply confuse me for life."

If you've informed a bit more, you'll no doubt at least find these facts:
- The most popular *desktop* distributions are RedHat, Mandrake and Suse.
- FreeBSD is not Linux so you can ignore this.
- Debian and Slackware are oriented towards gurus who hate wizards and GUI stuff.

So what do you do?
1) You pick out all the desktop distros.
2) You pick out the most popular ones among those distros.
3) From that list, just pick out one at random.

There, how hard was that? If you don't know what to do, just pick out a random one from the most popular distros. It's not like you can't try out another distro.

"KDE or Gnome? I dont know?! Bluecurve? What the hell?"

If this confuses you then use whatever desktop was set as default. How hard is that?

Re:My experience

[Marwood]

Well thats the sort of response I was hoping I wouldnt get. If Linux is going to gain the ground in the OS market place, more importantly the HOME market place, the questions that I asked (albeit maybe Slashdot is not the place to ever say a word agains Linux lest I be modded and flamed to a firey death) shouldnt have to be asked. Imagine this, Ive learnt to love Linux, so I tell my dad to try the switch (he's only ever used Windows and wouldnt know how to tinker with an OS if his life depended on it). Me:"Dad, try out Linux, its faster, more stable, not full of spyware and Im sure you'll prefer it over Windows. Oh, and dad, its free too!" Dad:"Hey son, Ive looked at getting this Linux, which one do I choose" Me:"Just pick one at random!" Dad:"Erm, Ok, I chose RedHat, it installed, I chose KDE (what is that by the way son?), but it doesnt recognize my old graphics card, printer or modem, Windows did, whats going on?" Dad:"Oh, and there was a great piece of software I wanted to use, but it says I need Gnome now, how to I get back to Gnome from KDE then?" Me:"Ermm..." *clank* *bang* *whirr* - sound of redhat CD's going in the bin and Windows being reinstalled.

Re:My experience

[dazk]

> I want an OS that works, out of the box, with MY system.

This is a perfectly valid requirement.

>Windows does this for me. Linux (so far as I have tried) does not.

Well, you are lucky. It can be the other way round. It all depends on your specific setup.

I'd suggest Mandrake for you. On the Systems I tried (2x 1600MP on Asus with USB and parallel printer, scanner, DVB Card, SB Live, USB Mouse, and various other things and Laptop) only the winmodem on my laptop wasn't found. You could try Knoppix first to check how much can be supported. You don't need to install, just put in the CD and give it a try. Mind though that Mandrake and certainly others too have highly extended kernels which include many drivers not available in the stock kernel.

KDE or Gnome? Well, I much prefer KDE over Gnome but that's basically a matter of personal choice. Try em and use the one you like. Bluecurve is just RedHat's miserable way of making both desktops suck.

What kind of DSL Modem do you have? USB? Those are critical since they usually are poorly documented pieces of proprietary *****. If it doesn't work for you, just don't. There sure is a lot of hardware that is not supported (completely) for various reasons, either don't buy unsupported hardware, live with it or don't use Linux. Same is true for Software. If there is something you need and that or an acceptable equivalent is not available for Linux, Linux isn't right for you.

Currently only Linux is the tool for me to get my work done. Mainly because my scanner doesn't work with windows and because of all the tools I use on a day to day basis which certainly are available for windows, too (cygwin) but need to be tuned and configured and are just there on linux.

It really depends on what you need. The Mandrake installation was extremely quick (40 Minutes for the operating System and a huge load of software), With XP, in that time only the plain installation was done and I just started installing the first SP. The Mandrake installation configured every piece of hardware except the winmodem (look at the name) and maybe the irda port, I never tried it. All the USB and PC-Card hardware I own works via hotplug except a new WLan card with an yet unsupported chipset. But that's something I knew about and I follow the development process, eventually even that will work.

So in the end, it really depends on various criteria. Just decide on these and you are ok, no matter what's the outcome. Isn't that the same with every tool? Just because you might not have use for a drill that is powered with pressurized air, it is still the perfect tool for others.

Re:My experience

[Marwood]

Thank you :) If I had mod points I'd throw em all at you!

The usual response I get from anyone Linux related when I tell them of my woes is often "Haha, Windoze sucks, get Linux now!" or "You loser, cant even setup Linux, how lame!"

I think you have hit the nail on the head there for my case. Im fiddling with computers all day at work as a technician, and when I get home, I barely use mine, except for a bit of web surfing, email, playing the odd game, etc. etc. The last things I can be bothered to do are:
a) Buy new hardware just to support Linux
c) Spend hours searching for a compatible Linux driver for my obscure hardware.

My computer works for me, not the other way around. And as I said before, that includes Windows working for me. Maybe one day I'll move over to Linux, indeed I'd like to and free up my computer from the corporate Microsoft patching hell that XP has become. But not I dont think, just for now.

Re:My experience

[FooBarWidget]

I was not a flame. I said that because I disagree. Don't act as if any normal sane person can't possibly disagree with you.

As for your "recommending Linux to dad"-example: it's wrong. You're still comparing a preinstalled Windows to an installed-from-scratch Linux. Your dad wouldn't have been able to install Windows XP from scratch either since it won't detect all your hardware out-of-the-box (or install the proper drivers).
This is what you should have done: ask a friend that has used Linux for quite a while to install Linux for your dad!

That's what I've done for my parents. I've completely setup a Linux box for them, ready to use. They just turn on their computer, click on their login name and they can surf the web. Just like when you've bought a computer from the store. And they have no complaints whatsoever, everything just works.

And another thing about hardware recognition: most video cards and other stuff *are* autodetected. Some people just happen to be unlucky and using unsupported hardware. But hey: do you really expect Linux developers to develop drivers for every single piece of hardware out there? Especially for hardware without open specifications? This isn't the Mac market and Linux doen't have a monopoly. It's simply impossible to autodetect *all* hardware, there will always be unsupported hardware.
This is a circular problem. Hardware manufactures don't support Linux because it's userbase is small, and the userbase doesn't grow fast enough because of unsupported hardware. This problem haunts every OS except Windows. You can't really blame it on Linux: it's a logical result of not having a large market share.

Re:My experience

[Marwood]

Of course people can disagree, and indeed they should, healthy debate never got anywhere without it ;-)

But, to take you up on one issue, Im speaking from example about my dad. His machine was built by myself, and was NOT a preinstalled windows box. But, my dad did install windows XP on it himself without any hitches at all (funny, considering how he usually struggles to even programme the VCR recorder!), so cudos to him.

But, I know that Ive experienced hiccups when trying to install Linux, so I'd bet next months wage slip that my dad would be on the phone to me within 5 minutes if he tried a Linux install.

The other points you make are very valid, maybe I am being sounding trollish, and of course I wouldnt expect EVERY piece of hardware to be recognised by a Linux install (relatively small userbase still means catch 22 for drivers eh?!) but Ive hit too many stumbling blocks whilst trying to setup Linux to make me a convert, yet anyway ;)

One final point, my original post has now been modded offtopic. Well maybe Im wrong, but if we are considering the usability of KDE/Linux over Windows, surely (well in my books anyway) if Im struggling to get the damned thing configured so I can use it then that scores -1 in usability ?!?

Re:My experience

[FooBarWidget]

Judging from your respond on my post and this post, it seems that you think Slashdot is some kind of support forum. It's not. This is a comment section for debates, not support. So it's pointless to say " Well thats the sort of response I was hoping I wouldnt get". If you want people to help you with setting up Linux then I suggest you to go to a support forum instead of a debate forum.

Re:My experience

[FooBarWidget]

"But, my dad did install windows XP on it himself without any hitches at all"

Then he must be extremely lucky. None of the computers that I've reinstalled Windows on worked out of the box. I always had to fiddle with drivers and other stuff after install.

"One final point, my original post has now been modded offtopic."

You should have already known by now that Slashdot moderation is completely random and that moderators are smoking some serious crack. ;)
Pro-MS comments that say they will get modded down get modded up, while posts like this get modded down. Trolls that flame down GNOME in favor of KDE get modded up, while people who complain that Slashdot is full of anti-KDE trolls get modded up *too*.
Don't try to understand it or blame it on the Linux community, it's just the randomness and illogic that's Slashdot.

And as I've stated in another post: if you're looking for support you're better off in a support forum. I don't know any English ones but Dutch forums such as ComputerTotaal->Linux and NedLinux are extremely helpful to newbies.

Re:My experience

[fault0]

> Trolls that flame down GNOME in favor of KDE get modded up, while people who complain that Slashdot is full of anti-KDE trolls get modded up *too*.

Slashdot pro-GNOME era: 1997-early 2000
Slashdot KDE-lalaland era: early 2000-late 2001 (all of the slashdot editors were using KDE, and were complaining how Mozilla suX0rs ass compared to Konqueror.. most of the editors eventually switched to OSX)
Neutral ground- 2002- 2003

Re:My experience

[Anonymous Coward]

"FreeBSD is not Linux so you can ignore this."

While I have to agree that FreeBSD is not Linux, it should not be ignored as an open source alternative. I haven't used a Linux distro in a while (since RedHat 5.2), but I have been using FreeBSD regularly and have been recommending it to friends/co-workers. I find Ports/Packages very effecient and simple to use for installing software and the text files for configuration are usually commented very well making it easy to change things.

I just wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

which distribution is teh best: GNOME, Kde or Debian?

Re:I just wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

The best distribution is Gentou, because you can compile EVERYTHING by yourself and you cant compile anythin on Debian, for example, which is a HUUUGE disadvantadge.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I'm sure the usability experts who performed the research are awed by your amazing insight and ability. No doubt they'll realise their mistake and retract their study forthwith!

My KDE is very friendly...

[Anonymous Coward]

...after I put some wallpaper on it with the words "Don't Panic"...

Bada-boom!

Re:hi

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers, and everything in any way related to them. :-)

Don't forget gnome.

[Anonymous Coward]

They really are hypocrytes when it comes to usablity. They claim its so easy, and much better than the evil KDE. It DOES looks easy at first, but when you want to configure something serious, you have to either edit cryptic text files or use a weird tool called gconf-edit (which is basicly regedit for linux). They claim that only "advanced users" want to do it or KDE/AOL users only do it.

Want to change your colour scheme? Either choose form the a bleak grays from the themes dialog or EDIT TEXT FILES! KDE windows lets you click and point the colours from a nice colour picker dialog.

Want to change your window button order to a mac style,GCONF-EDIT! KDE and classic gnome (gnome 1.x) lets you click and point.

Want to enable gtk1 style "tear-off" menus, which are very useful in so many applications., GCONF EDIT. classic gnome had the option in its control centre.

Want to Drag and drop files from your digital camera to your freinds computer via ssh? Nope, nautilus won't let you do that because that would be "too compex". So you would have to do cut&paste your files to a tempory folder, then open a terminal and do a scp *.jpg. So instead of that I open Konqueror window and do it.

Screensavers, yes there are plenty of screensavers, but what is with the password dialog. My mum screamed you ****ing caught the computer on fire when she first seen the BURNING MONITOR logo on it. Please change that.

The gnome desktop seriously need some real configuration options and less "HIG" propoganda. Now that gnome have been frozen I will have to wait until the Autumn to see if they fixed these problems when the 2.5 series comes out.

I might even go back to kde when 3.2 comes out, the CVS version is good, just unstable because of the nature of development versions.

Re:Don't forget gnome.

[FooBarWidget]

"Want to change your window button order to a mac style,GCONF-EDIT!"

Well of course. How many times would normal users use this option? People like my parents certainly don't care. 99% of all users don't need this option, so what point is there in bloating the UI with this option?
If you are part of that 1% that do care, then you are a geek or guru. You should have no problem using gconf-editor.

"Want to enable gtk1 style "tear-off" menus, which are very useful in so many applications."

And confuses the hell out of new users. That's why they disabled it by default.

"Want to Drag and drop files from your digital camera to your freinds computer via ssh? Nope, nautilus won't let you do that because that would be "too compex". So you would have to do cut&paste your files to a tempory folder, then open a terminal and do a scp *.jpg."

This has got nothing to do with being "too complex". This is only because the feature hasn't been written yet. There is currently no scp backend for gnome-vfs.
Either submit a polite (notice the word polite!) feature request, or contribute code.

"Screensavers, yes there are plenty of screensavers, but what is with the password dialog. My mum screamed you ****ing caught the computer on fire when she first seen the BURNING MONITOR logo on it. Please change that."

This is xscreensaver, not GNOME. And yes it does need change.

"The gnome desktop seriously need some real configuration options and less "HIG" propoganda."

And then other Slashdotters will flame them down for not having a HIG like MacOS does. What is it that you people want? Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

Re:Don't forget gnome.

[Anonymous Coward]

And then other Slashdotters will flame them down for not having a HIG like MacOS does. What is it that you people want? Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

Slashdot flamers are just that: slashdot flamers.

People who count for usability studies aren't in Slashdot, chuckling when reading Linux Desktop Wars flames or just making some acid comments on how they would like it to be done.

People important for usability studies are those one too occupied on making part of their work in a computer to waste time learn things such as key shortcuts or menu-tearing.

And I really doubt they go changing things like the color of widgets (a word unknown to them) so often to justify more UI cruft in the config dialogs. Among many other things.

Re:Don't forget gnome.

[danoaks15]

Want to Drag and drop files from your digital camera to your freinds computer via ssh? Nope, nautilus won't let you do that because that would be "too compex". So you would have to do cut&paste your files to a tempory folder, then open a terminal and do a scp *.jpg. So instead of that I open Konqueror window and do it.

how do you go about doing this in konqueror

The K-Menu Can do This

[Joel Carr]

1. Right Click on the Panel
2. Select Configure Panel...
3. Under Layout, select the Menus tab
4. Select the option Name (Description) or Description (Name)

This way it is immediately obvious what an application does. You don't need to know that k3b is a cd burning program as it says so in the menu ;)

Re:Finding the screensaver

[Xolotl]

It's down to abstraction. As described very nicely in the report, inexperienced users (the majority) have the tasks 'hard-coded' into their brains. They know to click a particular sequence of buttons and menus without understanding _why_ they are doing so - and, more often than not in my experience, without even _reading_ the menu or _looking_ properly at the icons. Often, they don't even understand the difference between system, app and desktop. When anything changes, even slightly, they get confused, whereas a more experienced user will understand why they do what they do and try to find an alternative path.

Apt-get or RPM

[SgtChaireBourne]

6 or 7 years ago installing apps could be a problem on non-Debian distros.

Nowadays, both apt-get and RPM solve the problem. So if you use Debian, Redhat, Mandrake or others then installing / uninstalling is very simple. There are even GUIs if you are that sort and installation is as simple as clicking.

My last MS-Windows machine was at home and I found it so much more work to maintain that I finally dropped it for Linux. That was a few years ago and the various linux distros + KDE/Gnome are even easier now.

One of the nice things about RPM is that you can give a URL as well as a file name.

Windows is harder to install

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year, my wife had almost zero computer experience, and absolutely none installing operating systems. I had just built her a new pc, and she wanted to learn how to install it. So, I gave her the Win2000Pro CD, and went with her installing and configuring the machine. After about thre hours, and a lot of reboots, finally her pc had almost everything installed and configured, graphics board, DVD, Cd Writer. Some drivers needed download from the net, security fixes had to be applied, etc.
Then I gave her a Mandrake 8.x CD (I don't reacll which of the 8 releases it was). She fed it into the drive, rebooted, followed the prompts, and 30 minutes later everything was installed. The apropriate drivers had been loaded, everything was configured, the machine was ready to run. This on the same hw that had taken six times more time and had needed my help installing windows, she installed MDK Linux by herself.

So, which is harder to install for a newbie?

Re:Windows is harder to install

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely correct - some Linux distros are much easier to install than any version of Windows. There is only one reboot. All of your applications can be selected and installed at time of installing the OS. Time to install is rarely more than 30 minutes. Windows is typically much more than that for a bare bones install without the massive quantity of application software you get with Linux. Most of those who criticize Linux are living in the past. The *only* valid criticism is that some laptops or a very small amount of hardware will be tougher to get running - mostly because the hardware manufacturers aren't co-operating with the Linux community to produce quality device drivers. I say don't buy their hardware and teach them an economics lesson.

OS X and Gnome

[nbarr]

This is a fine study, and I really enjoyed it. But I would like to see something similar that also included Gnome and OS X. I believe both are more user friendly than KDE. Just a tought.

Wow... trolls to the left... trolls to the right..

[advocate_one]

Into the valley of trolls rode the 600...

So many trolls... so few mod points :(

Amazing how they all come out with tales of woe with this or that picky hardware... or bemoan that it's just too subtly different... when the task is the same and just about everything can be done with similar methods they moan about this little bit being in a different menu label or that terminology being different... (Folders vs Directories)

Please mod parent up!

[ctid]

This is exactly what I've been thinking and trying to say for years! I have three sisters and my mother:

• Eldest sister (academic). No real training with computers, but loves them and all PDA-style gadgets too. Used to run OS/2 before IBM dropped it. Loves to try to work out how to do things. Loves the internet. Loves to try new software. Verdict: would be a DISASTER with Linux
  
• Middle sister (marketing). No real training with computers except stats packages and spreadsheets. Loves playing games on her PC. Loves messing about with the internet. Will download lots of demos to try them out. Verdict: would be a DISASTER with Linux.
  
• Youngest sister (teacher). No real training with computers. Hates computers. Does word-processing and occasionally presentations I think. Occasionally changes her desktop wallpaper. Does not have the internet at home (!). Could not care less about the internet. Would never dream of installing new software. Verdict: Would be just fine with Linux. Probably wouldn't really notice the difference.
  
• Mother (retired). No real training with computers. Absolutely clueless about all aspects of computing. Loves the internet because it allows her to keep in touch with her extended family overseas. Occasionally word-processes letters and church programmes. Never installs new software. Has no clue what that would mean. Verdict: Would be just fine with Linux, although she's seems happy with Windows 95 (I'm pretty sure she doesn't know what Windows 95 is, however).
  
• Me (academic). Studied and worked with computers for more than 25 years. I would never use Windows if I didn't have to!
  

The funny thing is that the people who couldn't care less and the people who love computers are now the ideal market for Linux. It's the people who have enough confidence to try to do things they don't know how to do who would struggle!

Re:Please mod parent up!

[Edward Scissorhands]

It's the people who have enough confidence to try to do things they don't know how to do who would struggle!

Well, obviously. I struggle when I'm doing something that I don't know how to do. Like, when I'm in the middle of re-building a porsche engine, I usually stop and think to myself, "this is incredible, I'm doing something and yet I don't know how to do it!". Yes, I amaze myself sometimes when I do things that I don't know how to do. It's defnitely a struggle though, because whenever I stop to realise that I don't know what I'm doing, yet I'm actually doing it, the universe stops and tells me I'm doing something I don't know how to do, which it doesn't understand.

I suppose that if I thought a bit more about it, I'd realise that in fact when I struggle to do something that I don't know how to do, but I start doing it anyway, what I do do is not what I want to do (because I don't know how), but in fact I do something altogether that I only think is what I want to do. Like, for example, the other day I wanted to install a new hard disk in FreeBSD and instead of using fdisk, then disklabel, then newfs, and mounting my new drive, I typed in "cd /" and then "rm -rdf". Which was a struggle, and a definitely usability issue with FreeBSD. But then, I tried to burn a CD in Windows (something I'd never done before, so I didn't know how to do it) but I ended up typing "cd \" and "deltree *.*"

This was a total struggle, because I was doing something that I didn't know how to do, but I thought I knew how to do it, but I really didn't and so I struggled.

Re:Please mod parent up!

[enckwanzer]

I couldn't agree more. I'm fairly comfortable with computers and have recently been making the switch to Linux (Mandrake 9.1). I'm loving it! KDE has been great to me. My wife, on the other hand, won't even look at my KDE desktop. She's an intermediate user (like your eldest sister) who loves doing what she does. Any change that is not initiated by her (i.e., she's fine installing programs *she* seeks out) is met with strong opposition. In terms of usability, I'm having a wonderful time with Mandrake and KDE. The environment is familiar enough to my old WinXP setup to make the transition fairly simple; but I definitely find it more confortable and powerful. Now, if I could only get my wife's WinXP wireless laptop to play nice with Samba....

Re:Please mod parent up!

[CronoCloud]

Win XP has "issues" with samba. And they are intentional. My understanding is that WinXP does not logoff of samba shares in the expected way. It will do so properly with other Win systems but not with systems it knows are not Win based.

I solved some of my problems by using the upgrading to a newer Samba version. Playstation 2 Linux is based on Red Hat 6 so it's got a very old version of samba. It worked, but not very well. Supposedly the included version works just fine with Win ME and earlier versions.

Babelfish

[Anonymous Coward]

the wording of system and program messages could use some more clarity.

if they used babelfish, all the wording could use some clarity

best error message ever

[f0rtytw0]

I wouldn't say Windows has the most informative error messages but one I got was great!
Error: No Error

"Who cares ", asks regular /. reader?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Open Source. We do what we want, how we want. We don't care about useability and when we do, we code the change to suit ourselves. If people like it, fine ... but not really important. If people don't like it, who cares? (although, we'll flame them if we can.) We're not getting paid for this so who is anyone to criticize us? That's my rant. Oh, and death to Windows the source of all that is wrong with their code, their users, and my code too dammit!

Thinking back

[powerlord]

You know, this sounds like what I remember from the Windows 3.1 days.

Companies were still somewhat used to people using DOS and knowing how to get around a shell. The installers were so-so and sometimes wouldn't uninstall.

Things started to unify quite a bit by the time Win95 and Win98 rolled through, and more or less by the end of Win98SE most companies had install/uninstall features that worked properly ... but that was because there are only a few (outside of proprietary) INSTALL programs, like InstallShield (who was the official MS selected installer for a while).

I think Linux needs more unity for an INSTALL program, then you'll see the actual programs that get installed/uninstalled be more united.

It'll probably be much improved in ~2-3 years (with incrimental improvement until then as more and more package maintainers standardize things within a GUI)

It's your machine that's flawed!

[trezor]

Yo. You are using a Compaq (big, big evil) machine.

Compaq has a history of creating their own modified versions of hardware, so people can't buy standard 3rd-pary equipment when they want to get new gear for their machine. They have to get Compaq-stuff (which is supposed to be so much better...).

As for drivers.... Jeez. You can't even get Windows-drivers for Compaq machines, without working your ass of. Oh, and you down download drivers. You download "SoftPaqs". And you never know if this is supportsoftware or actual drivers, btw. As a former support-employee, I had to deny people with Compaq machines service, simply because reinstalling a machine like that could take days.

Its not Linux messing with your head. Its Compaq. As the other guy said: Get a Dell, man.

Re:Wow... trolls to the left... trolls to the righ

[imsabbel]

Your sig shows everyone where at least one of the trolls is hiding.

Knoppix as reporter.

[dmaxwell]

Knoppix is a "LiveCD" Linux distribution based on Debian that runs entirely from a booted CD-ROM. It has excellent hardware detection and if all goes well it will detect PCMCIA, network, sound, and video hardware then boot straight to a desktop. Many people use it for a rescue CD (I even retrieve data from horked up Windows machines with it). It is also a good Linux compatibility checker. It your case, it can help you figure out a good X configuration.

The chances are good that Knoppix (www.knoppix.de) will get the machine to a desktop. Assuming that it does, make some notes.

#lsmod

will tell you what modules loaded.

The XF86Config-4 it settled on will be in /etc/X11/XF86Config-4

There will also be any number of helpful hints in the /etc directory. You could just use Knoppix' (purposefully hidden) hard drive install feature and update to the latest Debian. If Debian isn't you're cup of tea then you will at least have some good hints on how to proceed with another distro.

LOTUS NOTES MUST DIE

[JCCyC]

Oh God, I feel your pain! As a platform for developing collaborative applications Notes isn't really bad, but its e-mail interface sucks donkey bollocks!

As you may have guessed, I'm stuck with it at work. Ah well, at least it won't catch viruses as easy as Outlook.

Re:LOTUS NOTES MUST DIE

[wagemonkey]

I don't use it any more, for which I am sincerely grateful, but the memories are like an old wound. Jakob Nielsen had a nice hatchet job on Notes on his Usability pages, but it seems to have gone.
I used to use TeamLinks too :-(
I may be going senile but PROFS doesn't look so bad in hindsight.

At home I'm on Kmail (which does most things right) and at work it's OutLook - which is not so good. The filters in Kmail are so much better than rules in Outlook that it's surprising that more people don't switch OS just to get a decent mail client. (I am exagerating for effect of course).

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess you know better than trained usability experts at a company that does usability research, eh?

Heh...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that you got moderated "funny" for this kinda says it all, actually. I also like those absurd jokes. :)

Re: Your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be "All your package are belong to us!"

KDE's usability; kghostview's irony

[SensiMillia]

As a rather enthousiastic KDE user, I was a bit dissapointed when my version of kghostview (0.13.1) failed to open the .pdf document.

For those with the same problem, there's an easy workaround:
$ pdftops digrdp1.pdf
$ kghostview digrdp1.ps

More clarity in program messages?

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is clear how?:

An exception 06 has occured at 0028:C11B3ADC in VxD DiskTSD(03)

represents real life - better for businesses

[Heisenbug]

Let's say you're a business using this report to decide which OS to install. People you hire who will be using computers will probably be a lot like the ones in this test. They'll have used a computer before, most likely a version of Windows, but not the most recent one. You can therefore expect that they'll have about the same difficulty using your new OS as the test group did.

Strictly speaking, it would be a fairer and more enlightening test from a programmer's perspective to have a bunch of people who had never even heard of computers try each one. But from a decision-making perspective, the way they did it is much more useful.

Yes! Further "Insightful" comments...

[lpret]

This is something I"ve been saying all along! When you give Linux to someone who has been using windows their whole life of course they're going to have issues becuase they'll be going "Ok, here's how I _used_ to do it, now how do I _have_ to do it?" And it becomes a chore. On the other hand --

My grandma turned 80 a few months back and the one thing she wanted was a computer and she has never had one much less used one. So a few of us pitched in and built one for her and we put Lycoris on there. We touched nothing but as soon as it booted up we sat her down in front and showed her where the things she'll use are. Like Mozilla, GAIM, OpenOffice.org, and that's about it. Fastforward to the present day and she loves it. She never gets viruses or the porn pop-ups that her friends get. She hasn't turned it off yet. She is IMing me right now seeing when I'll come up to Indiana again.

The most important thing to do when you have a new user or a switching user is a support base. Perhaps family members or a Linux User Group. Because installation or upgrades are still crappy in Linux (for any user!) my cousin has gone over and updated OOo and GAIM and the such, but for the most part it's doing really good. One last word, Lycoris takes a brilliant approach: Don't organize things by their name (KWord, GAIM, GIMP) which don't help the new user -- they organize it by what it does.

And one last final word. What needs to happen is serveral distros for differing levels of nerdiness. We're seeing it emerge but it needs to become a community effort -- this will allow the power Linux user to use the distro that is suited for their needs and for the n00b to use a simple clean interface.

I'm sure you can change that...

[Anonymous Coward]

You definately can in gnome (using default metacity window manager), I don't know how in KDE, but I'm sure theres away (just about everything else is configurable in there, so it must be!)

Mods... you meant +1 Funny, right?

[sean.peters]

I get it... this is like the joke where you tell the sysadmin your network connection isn't working, and he tells you to submit an online trouble ticket... right?

Because, obviously, since Linux isn't booting, I either have to 1) drop what I'm doing and find ANOTHER Linux machine to fire up the man page for LILO or 2) drop what I'm doing and try to find the printed out man page, if I even have it. Instead of LILO just fsking TELLING ME IN ($LocalLanguage) WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

Gotta stop now, my sides are hurting.

Sean

Re:Mods... you meant +1 Funny, right?

[gurubert]

Please read this and that.

Re:Mods... you meant +1 Funny, right?

[gurubert]

and that one.

Re:Mods... you meant +1 Funny, right?

[sean.peters]

LILO's technical problems are LILO's technical problems. So LILO doesn't easily allow an informative error message... that doesn't make it any easier to figure out. If LILO isn't capable of displaying an informative error message, maybe LILO should be improved. That's my point.

And no, I'm not volunteering!

Sean

Blaster worm?

[handslikesnakes]

Does it reboot with a countdown and something about an RPC service?
Here, slashdot just did a post about it.

Pet Linux crap error message

[jarran]

Something along the lines of mount failed: bad superblock or too many mounted file systems Well, which one is it? Why give me a choice, it must be one or the other.

Re:Tests of familiarity and similarity, not usabil

[Vantage13]

I do not know what a "blue dog house" means, what a "red lifesaver" means, or what a "K overlayed upon a sproket" means. I can probably make an educated guess given some previous experience with KDE, but that is hardly accessible.
Am I missing something?

Yup. In KDE's quicklauncher if you move your mouse over the icon it will pop up a tool tip describing what it is. For example, on my machine if I mouse over the "wrench menu" I get "Easy access to the Control Center Modules" which is pretty descriptive and wouldn't look too pretty written underneath. I'd also point out that the windows quick launcher doesn't have text under their icons either.

Re:usable but not the same : the learning pains

[Anonymous Coward]

While I currently use Win* only for complience testing, I was once quite good at it (being able to debug use problems over a phone in 5 minutes).

What I learned was that most people instinctively learned to use win* crash-free by the pain principle - if one inserted too many graphs / images in MS Word (usually 1/2 hour before deadline) and came out permanently missing all but first 3 after a while, they learned quick not to do it.

Also, when you did some sequence of actions that resulted in a 10 minute hang-reboot-checkdisk a few times under pressure, you subconciously learned not to do that sequence any more.

Usability != (Familiarity|Intuitiveness)

[Eric Savage]

The key factor in usability is benefit/cost. How much can you do (benefit) in a certain amount of time (cost). How much strain (cost) does the software cause when using (benefit).

Familiarity and intuitiveness, which are fairly linked, are trainability issues, not usability.

Stick in a blank CD, OS X and Windows gives you a list of what you want to do with it, offering only valid choices. Stick a blank CD into a linux desktop and then you have to go find the program. Thats a usability issue. If that dialog box interferes with your work, and you prefer to find the program, then the ability to disable the dialog is a usability issue.

IMHO Windows surpasses Linux and OSX for usability for two distinct, but critical reasons.

Linux is just not consistent, and most apps and WMs offer only a thin layer of customizing before things get out of hand. You should NEVER have to edit a text file to make a legitimate adjustment to your system.

Mac OS X is the master of consistency right? Wrong. 2/3 of commands can only be done with the mouse, which is really really bad because the mouse is a poor command tool. What is worse is that the 1/3 you can do varies from program to program. And to top it all, a portion of those limited commands don't have any standard key commands.

As long as people continue to jam obscure features into software, a hallmark of open source, it will lag in usability.

Mod Parent up!

[norite]

What moron modded this as redundant? This was informative!

I honestly tried Linux

[mikeg22]

I'm a programmer with a degree in computer science and I had a nightmare of a time getting Mandrake 9.1 into a usable configuration. I have an ATI graphics card and I never did get opengl to work properly, even after 2 months of trying. I scoured newsgroups and message boards, recompiled kernels, reinstalled from scratch multiple times...never worked.

I went to Windows XP, and magically everything worked from the basic installation.

Do I like Microsoft? No. Do I find their operating system much easier to use, without having to recompile patches into the kernel in order to get a BASIC FUNCTION like 3d graphics to work? Yes.

I don't care that this is a driver issue, all I know is windows is easier to use.

great, now help me get X up and running

[Anonymous Coward]

since I have an ATI, I seem to have problems that never are solved. Should I just quit buying ATI? (clue to ATI)