Slashdot Mirror


Trivial Barriers to Personal Linux Use?

saintp asks: "I'm currently multitasking: building a computer for my girlfriend, and also trying to convince her to put Linux on it, so I've been thinking a lot lately about the barriers to adoption of Linux by Normal Everyday People. One that seems to be a major problem is that Windows users are addicted to downloading every piece of crapware that comes down the tubes -- hence the popularity of Gator and subsequent popularity of Ad-Aware. While geeks the world over sigh at this behavior, it makes a lot of people really happy, and they are very chagrined to discover that they can't do this on Linux without some command line mucking about, compilation, etc. What other minor, apparently trivial barriers exist to personal Linux use? Is anything being done to address these, or do many of the major vendors seem to be focusing exclusively on the business market, possibly to the detriment of Linux in the long run?"

22 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Not all Windows user download that much software.. by pilot1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your girlfriend might download alot of software just to try it out, but everyone I know is too scared to.

    I know back in the day before I had migrated to Linux, I would install various programs just to play around with them. However, I never installed crapware like Gator, it was usually just stuff from sourceforge that sounded useful.

    Maybe you could try giving her a distro that uses RPM, then show her freshmeat and sourceforge, and teach her how to install any programs she might want. That should satisfy her urge to try out new things.

  2. Software installation by Tyrdium · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a pain to install software on Linux compared to Windows. What I'd like to see is a nice, standardized binary distribution method, with good OS integration. RPM is good, but requires opening it in a program. What I'd like to see is a way to, by simply double-clicking on the RPM, install it to the directory of my choice (e.g. have it bring up an installer similar to the ones commonly used in Windows). Also, the directory structure in Linux is relatively confusing to work with. How about a single, unified folder for my programs, like Windows' Program Files folder? I've heard of a distribution that uses a directory structure similar to Windows', but it's definitely not one of the larger ones.

    1. Re:Software installation by More+Trouble · · Score: 4, Informative

      What I'd like to see is a way to, by simply double-clicking on the RPM, install it to the directory of my choice (e.g. have it bring up an installer similar to the ones commonly used in Windows). Also, the directory structure in Linux is relatively confusing to work with. How about a single, unified folder for my programs, like Windows' Program Files folder?

      Well, Mac OS X does a pretty good job of this. It maintains all the Unix-y stuff in the typical Unix-y places, and has a whole secondary structure for GUI-crap. For instance, there's a /bin, /usr, /var, etc; along with a /Applications, /Library, etc.

      :w

    2. Re:Software installation by splattertrousers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you've proved the OP's point.

      Who, other than geeks, is going to remember those commands?

      It's so much easier to do it the Mac way: download it and drag it into the Applications folder. Even easier would be a program that lists all the available applications instead of forcing the user to find them on the web.

    3. Re:Software installation by spitzak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know about OS/X. The automatic update has worked great, but anything I have downloaded has arrived in a "box icon" program, and sometimes that is imbedded in a "disk image" program. I have to double-click these and then double-click the result, and it is very confusing and unclear if I can throw these things away after I have installed the program. Those virtual disks especially are confusing.

      Whether it is safe to throw away the RPM's is also unclear to me. For some reason Windows installers do seem to make it clear that you can throw away the install program after using it.

      Incidentally all the Linux desktops I have ever seen let you double-click RPM's and they *try* to install them. The problem is not that you can't do this, but that all too often it does not work, and you are forced to go to the shell to try again with the "--force" switch or whatever. I suppose you could make an argument that if a Windows installer does not work you are completely hosed, while it is physically possible to fix an RPM, but in reality Windows installers tend to always work (only counter example I have seen was an ATI driver for an old OpenGL card that crashed and the driver did not appear until I rebooted the machine).

      I am still baffled why Windows has so brainwashed people that they think they need to "install" anything. Really I should be able to grab the file from the web page, drop it on the desktop, double-click it, and RUN the program, not "install" it. If I want it on the start menu I should then drag it there. And to "uninstall" I should be able to drag it and drop it in the trash.

      Programs that need to mess with .rc files or whatever should run a demo mode and pop up a dialog that says "if this seems to be doing what you want, click here to make changes to your system so it really works..."

    4. Re:Software installation by captaineo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On Windows the majority of well-written installers are single self-extracting .exe's or .msi's.

      With OSX you get a .dmg if you are lucky (and a .dmg.gz, .sit, or .dmg.sit if you are not). You double-click the .dmg and it mounts a virtual disk. You run the program inside. You try to unmount the virtual disk but it won't let you because it is in use. Then you close the program and unmount the disk. You still have to throw away the original .dmg and the archive (if it came in one).

      It kind of sucks to have your OSX desktop cluttered with foo.dmg.sit, foo.dmg, and Foo, just for one program.

    5. Re:Software installation by spitzak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. This is what I have seen using OS/X as well. I have no idea why this is this way, and it sure does not look user-friendly to me.

      I think installation on Linux is better, if it worked as the package creator intended. The problem on Linux is that the packages often don't work. Windows would be as bad if 60% of the windows installers crashed or failed with errors when you double-clicked them.

      I think in the ideal system, what you get is a file that you double-click and it RUNS the program (it it is not and "installer" and not a directory containing either the program or an installer). Only if the program needs daemons or other system setup, it can then detect if it has not been installed correctly and offer to do that, or just let you run to test it. For 99% of the programs "installation" should consist of dragging that file to the correct directory so users other than yourself can see it. "uninstallation" should consist of throwing the same file in the trash, and any symbolic links or init or daemons that it "installed" should have enough smarts to delete or kill themselves when the program disappears.

      Nobody (not Windows or Linux or the Mac) seem anywhere near this. Some of it seems to be complete brainwashing by the installers on Windows. We have discovered that people don't believe the installer works if it does not present them with a big scrolling box of text with an "I agree" button!

  3. Newbie detector by pontifier · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I first tried linux and the bsds it took me a while to figure out how to get arround in the terminal.

    perhaps "dir" should start a linux tutorial as i'm sure i'm not the only person who's first instinct was to type "dir" when given a command prompt.

    --
    -John Fenley
    1. Re:Newbie detector by Brandybuck · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Windows should have a tutorial pop up each time I type "ls" in the command shell.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:Newbie detector by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually we really need an animated paperclip to pop up and say, "It looks like you're trying to do an ls. Do you want the ls wizard to help you through the process?"

    3. Re:Newbie detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      $ ls -a
      Are you sure you want to do an ls -a? That will
      show hidden files, and files are hidden for a reason.
      >y
      Okay, are you absolutely sure you meant to say yes to that last question?
      >y

  4. Sharing limitation by PinkX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing that I've been thinking of lately that is really a limitation for end users to adopt linux in the desktop is the (un)ability to easily share resources in a LAN environment.

    I might be wrong at this, but I haven't seen in either GNOME or KDE something like 'right button click' -> 'share this folder' option, to get a list of the known users and automatically add it to the samba/nfs shares/exports list. If someone knows about some work being done in that direction, that would be a Godsend.

    Regards,

  5. My personal list of barriers by Evil+Attraction · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I use Linux most of the time. The only reason I sometimes (too often) boot to Windows, is when I want to either play a game or do some genealogy. There aren't many games for Linux - not very popular, at least - and there are certainly no genealogy software which can compete with the genealogy software developed for Windows. I guess I can live with that.

    What concerns me most is the situation for the rest of the family; We are Norwegians, and my father does some accounting for a few locale companies. I've yet to see a decent accounting application for Linux which works according to Norwegian rules. We're actually talking about one application which separates my father from using Linux instead of Windows.

    My brother took over my father's farm a year ago. He needs Windows for some special software related to running a farm. Once again - it's only one piece of software.

    My other brother doesn't have this problem, but he's not so good in English. I would have loved to install Linux on his laptop so that I didn't have to help him out every time Windows f*cked up. But most of the Linux software lacks in the localization field. Not many applications are being translated to Norwegian.

    Conclusion: Some special software which still looks a few years from now, and the lack of localizing the most popular software. I guess both of these problems will be solved over time, but I would've given my lef...right foot for having it solved now. :)

  6. I've got one. by dporowski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have to keep screwing with it.

    Seriously. I mean, I like messing about with computers, OS flavors, etc, etc. I've currently got a couple different flavors of linux, looking for a third, and am thinking about a BSD. It's just lack of space for hardware that keeps me from having more toys. It's nice to use, it's powerful, it's flexible..

    However, I'm not always in the mood to sit down and figure out why something doesn't work right. For instance, why Mandrake currently has told me three times in a row that my glibc is out of date. And upgraded it to the newest version each time. (Yes, using "mandrake update".) Oh, and doing so BROKE Mandrake Update. My OS update feature broke itself. I'm sure this is fixable, but why should I have to screw with it just to make the admin tools work again?

    My mouse. It's got 5 buttons. Why the HELL would I want to install a program, tweak multiple files, and chant ominously just to get the side buttons working? I know how, sure. It's just I have better things to do.

    I don't WANT to make my game work. I want my game to WORK. I don't want to have to make X program load properly, or hand-twiddle a configuration file. I want to open a damn document, view it, edit it, and save it with formatting. No, I don't want to learn TeX to do it. I know I CAN, but why do I have to?

    Seriously. I'm a damn hobbyist, and I do these things for fun, and it still pisses me off that I have to spend more time playing with it to make it work than it does working. Updates shouldn't break things. Upgrades shouldn't cause triple-layered dependency hell. THere shouldn't be dependency hell at all. We hate "dll hell", why is fucking about trying to find just the right version of a given module acceptable? I mean, there's girls and liquor and music out there for me, why should I spend all my time fixing something that can just work? (I know it can. Apple did it. It's been done once, thus can be done again. It's just not BEING done.)

    Choice? Screw choice! I want function! Would you drive a car if you had to put the damn wheels on every time you parked it? Would you put up with having to buy the correct grade of gas from JUST th right pump style, from the exact proper petrol chain, just to start the car in the morning?

    For fuck's sake, the 2.6 upgrade, which I look forward to installing on GENTOO for the love of god, isn't covered by the documentation, requires a full replacement of the main module utilities, and Still might not work right. I CAN'T RTFM, since this shit isn't IN the FM to R.

    I think you get the idea.

    I love doing this stuff, and it STILL pisses me off and drives me to drink. What do you think your granny's going to do?

    Go back to windows, or Mac, or something that does what she wants, when she wants it, and doesn't have to be babysat.

    And enough with the goddamn text editors, people. I understand you like them, but I don't need 50 of them. Spend the time you used to put those on my distro app disk to make sure the distro doesn't randomly shit itself.

    (Not bitter or anything, me...)

  7. Re:MacOS Technique by Bastian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not create an installer packaging program like the ones used on Windows and MacOS? This seems like something that would be good for KDE and Gnome to work on together. This packaging system would be great for beginning and desktop users, while not necessarily attempting to replace the myriad packaging systems already out there. I think that this is an important caveat - a lot of the packaging systems that linux distros use have a lot of features that are great for unix manglers, but from a desktop OS standpoint they qualify as creeping featurism and add excessive complication to the whole installation process. Also, using an InstallShield type system means that different packages can have slightly different install processes, depending on what needs to be done to get the package working.

    The directory structure is also something that doesn't necessarily need to be scrapped - I personally think it's a Very Good layout from a server/workstation administration standpoint, although I agree that it's terrible for a desktop computer. Again, I think OS X has hit on a very good solution - keep two separate file structures. One would be aimed at a desktop user and would be visible through the desktop environment. Applications that a desktop user needs can be placed here. Keep the old file tree, but make it invisible to the desktop environment (by default, anyway).

    This system isn't without its faults, but I've found it to be an excellent comrpomise on OS X.

  8. Ease of installation by rueger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every few months for several years I have downloaded a couple of Linux distros with the express purpose of trying install it on my PC. Sometimes I tried clean installs, sometimes dual boot.

    As much as I would love to use Linux and OSS, I have an even greater need of a working system that handles my basic needs. Right off the top my system has to handle a USB and parallel port printer, HP scanner, Palm sync, Internet connection, access to the Windows boxes on our small network, and allow the Windows boxes to use the printers and see my files.

    If all of those work, I can spare the time to wade though the great morass of information that Linux calls "documentation" and learn the obscure tricks that are needed to manage a Linux system.

    What I can't afford is to have a system that does only some of the things above. Thus far installing Linux has always left me with at least two of my needed functions absent. I already know that trying to find out how to fix them will consume days if not weeks.

    With Windows 2K (and driver discs) everything above "just works" out of the box.

    Just for the record: Mandrake (a few times) RedHat (3 times), Suse, Caldera (long time ago), Knoppix, and at least two others.

  9. Re:Lindows by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or people could bitch about the fact that Lindows runs EVERY DAMN THING as root.

  10. might not be that big a deal.. by mehu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My mom's computer was popping up ads every couple minutes under windows, so last summer I set it up as a dual-boot Debian box. Installed mozilla, gaim, openoffice, & the usual basics (my mom had to have solitaire & mahjohngg), and showed them how to switch back & forth w/ the lilo menu. I also set up gdm w/ the face browser, & set it so they don't have to type in a password (although my 16-yr-old sister opted to have one anyway, 'cause "it's cool!").

    Next time I went home, they had me switch the default to Linux so they didn't have to sit there when it booted up. My mom, sister, and stepdad (who can't even figure out how to use the DVD player) have been using it quite happily since then, and aside from having to install flash for my sister (which I was able to do remotely via ssh, another plus), they haven't complained at all about not being able to install shit. They're just damn happy they can read their email (they use mozilla), chat, & web surf w/o being bombarded by popups all the time. They're also quite impressed that they can each have their own web bookmarks and desktop pictures (first thing my sister did was put up a Pirates of the Caribbean background). I don't think they've booted into Windows much at all since then.

    Only real problem they've had is that there's currently no way I know of for them to switch users when my sister has xscreensaver locked, short of killing X.

  11. Try BSD. by FFFish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over the past decade or so I've tried Linux on and off a half-dozen times. Every time, I've gone back to Windows, which blows goats but at least lets me get my g.d. work done instead of having to continually f*** with obscure configuration files.

    But I've installed FreeBSD a week ago, and it's going along pretty well. There's still a fair bit of f***ing with configs, but less so: it's secure from the start.

    FreeBSD feels, to me, like it was designed. Linux always feels like it just accumulated by accident.

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    1. Re:Try BSD. by nathanh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Over the past decade or so I've tried Linux on and off a half-dozen times. Every time, I've gone back to Windows, which blows goats but at least lets me get my g.d. work done instead of having to continually f*** with obscure configuration files.

      Whenever I use Windows I find it a frustrating experience, having to deal with obscure registry settings and drivers and service packs.

      FreeBSD feels, to me, like it was designed. Linux always feels like it just accumulated by accident.

      Comparing FreeBSD to Linux is like comparing a Toyota Corolla to a V8 engine. Try comparing FreeBSD to a distribution like Suse, Red Hat or Mandrake.

      My experience is that FreeBSD is no better or worse than any of the community driven distros like Gentoo or Debian. Seeing as the majority of userspace is the same (XFree86, OpenOffice and GNOME) that's really no surprise. It's strange to claim FreeBSD is "designed" whereas Linux is not, because most of the software in FreeBSD is accumulated in exactly the same way that it is accumulated in every Linux distribution.

  12. A few of my issues by jeoin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. no uniform installer w. no uniform uninstaller 3. permissions... :) 4. a billion configuration files 5. how do i talk to all my windows stuff 6. drivers, see #1 and #2 And lastly Why does every one have to have their own distro, with their own package manager. Linux is supposed to be this great free software movement, Lets get it together and find A path. I want to help. let me know what i can do...

    --
    Jeoin
  13. People, Places, Things by imag0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess the subject ties all I really have to say in together nicely enough.

    I migrated my wife to Linux a few months ago, after some skips and jumps migrating her IE Favorites over (had to write my own script to migate them over. Ask for the source if you want it) I had to move her mail client from Kmail to Evolution.

    What a nightmare.

    Just coverting between maildir to MBOX formats were a pain, getting her people in her addressbook was another fight, and in the end I decided, there must be a better way.

    Anyone remember good old BeOS? In Be you had People... Every mail client used People as a master address book. It was clean, intelligent, and you didn't have to code up your own converter every time you wanted to switch mail clients. The same goes for Mail... The system saved mail on the hard drive in a specific place and format (Maildir, I think it really ended up being). All mail clients used it, and they all behaved well with it.
    And finally, the browser favorites were located in one place, installed a third party browser? No problem! They all read the favorites from the same place. Coolest part, if you had to backup, just a few folders to drag from the users directory and all the important stuff was backed up to cd.

    Here lately i've started working on a framework to unify People (address books) Places (Favorites) and Things (Mail) so that users can use any mail client they wish, with any browser, and everything stays (and, more importantly, keeps) updated, no matter what client one uses.

    Oh, well. Someone get in touch if you want to bring back some of the cooler aspacts of BeOS to the world of Linux. It's not going to get any easier until we make it so.