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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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]

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".

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.)

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.

Results just in

[fr0dicus]

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

....waiting for the troll moderation

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: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: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.

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.... ;)

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!