Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Tries Their Own Linux Usability Study
inode_buddha writes "There's a new project taking shape at Groklaw. Calling it Grok-docs, it aims to do what many of us have long whined about - a large-scale linux usability study. Evidently, PJ had some frustrations with linux, and is asking for suggestions. So far, it seems to be following a Wiki-style setup. Everybody is welcome, especially those with little or no linux experience. I hope the distros and vendors are watching this one!"
I hope PJ doesn't spread herself too thin.
Setting up, using, and all other aspects of Linux need to be made easier for the home user (read: children, old people, and those without a lot of computer experience).
Ease of use definitely needs to be made more of a priority if we're going to see Linux succeed as a desktop platform.
That CSS file that blocks ads
Surely, the biggest problem with linux is the very problem that Groklaw is attempting to address -- usability. Admit it, the learning curve for linux is huge, like it or not.
Linux will never be able to truly have a mainstream challenge to Windows until it applies the tried and true formula of Microsoft, AOL, and all of those massive software companies.
We all know what's wrong with Linux for the average user, but that's precisely why desktop Linux companies are in business. And they do conduct usability studies, and implement what they can. Having all the information in one place might be useful, anyway, implementation is what counts... but who says thefindings will be implemented accross the board?
________________
Says me
If the telephone line is not plugged in, there should be no dial tone available for the modem. It should not result in the modem being undetectable.
If PJ's experience with Knoppix is really as she says, there seems to be a serious problem with Linux (at least Knoppix).
Hopefully this kind of focus on improving Linux documentation will result in something tangible. ESR had his say a few months ago, now PJ has hers. There seems to be a very large movement of newbies demanding better docs. Let's all hope that the wizards among us hear them and provide us all with better information than we've got now.
I have been pwned because my
One of the major things that deters a lot of people from using Linux is the difficulty of installing an application. One Windows it's just a matter of downloading one file and double clicking it.
On Linux, you've gotta download that one file and then find all of it's dependencies that aren't installed on your system and install them. Then install the dependencies of the dependency. It gets to be a pain in the ass.
RPM files were a step in the right direction but they still have their flaws. Until the application installation issue is solved, I have a feeling adoption will continue to be slow. And I'm talking about a universal solution, not something limited to one distro.
Really my main beef with linux is how hard it is to set the thing up when you haven't gone through the process in the last six months. I generally forget what the config file is named that I'm interested in, or where it happens to be located. Frankly, any setting that most users will have to change at some point in their life should be easily accessible through the GUI menu system.
I will admit that it is a heck of a lot better than it used to be, but I still have to do a bit of googling to get my linux system usable. Windows on the other hand, you can go to the control panel and what you want to change will likely be in there somewhere, unless it's application specific, and you don't have to read any manuals or docs to figure out how to configure your system - it's intuitive.
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
I've been on Windows/Intel for over 10 years and have just recently installed Fedora on an older P3 500. Here are a couple of points I think are worth mentioning (ubergeeks can exclude themselves from the classifications below):
1. Linux is ready for *some* desktops only, namely ones where users won't be constantly tweaking and installing new software and hardware. You want a computer for grandma to browse the web, send email and view a few grandkid photos? Linux is great! You want to roll out corporate desktops where employees don't really need to be able to download and install the latest version of KaZaA? Linux is a godsend (provided the business software you need is supported).
2. Linux is *not* ready for the average user desktop. The average user wants to do everything grandma wants to do, but they also want to be able to install or upgrade software and hardware *easily*. In addition, they want a fully functional GUI, with no *necessity* of dropping to a CLI for everyday tasks. They want to be able to go to a third party software/driver website, follow the 'click here for Linux version' hyperlink, download the file, then double-click to install it.
Needless to say, as long as Linux distributions and desktop managers continue to proliferate, the average user's requirements will never be met. I say this as a *fact* not a *prescription*, so spare me the Linux-strength-in-diversity comments. I just think you can't have your cake (freedom/diversity) and eat it too (Linux on average desktop).
HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
OXYMORON
Nielsen told us that we only need to test with 5 users performing representative tasks and for the most part I believe him. Convincing the open source program authors to make the necessary changes (as observed by the testers) is always the hard part. But then, documenting the findings of usability studies of any scale and constructing an authoritative document will be useful
_____________
my weblog
An operating system that can install itself, keep itself protected from harm, keep the user protected from harm, and keep the user's data up to date. A computer should be as close to self healing and reliable as possible, and whenever possible it should update and restore itself.
The user should NOT be slave to the machine.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
i've used linux at work before. but never had to maintain/install it. i was there for the emacs and faster compiling. Anyway, as an end user, there's a lot of work to be done. Basic setup issues with redhat (fedora core) can be extremely annoying. I.e. Sound didnt work, and I couldnt find documentation through searching google (docs that actually worked). End user install issues: 1) Sound problems. XMMS and ut2004 works after many hours of research. Most everything else doesnt, i.e. Realplayer 2) Webcams. None of the defaults/helpers apps work with my (widely sold) logitech cam. I had to use the command-line and do research and create a little script to use my logitech camera. 3) video card setup needs more work. and now theres an nvidia splash screen that i really shouldnt have to figure out to disable. (app land) 4) Why doesnt mozilla install/configure plugins correctly/regularly? PLEASE? flash/real audio installs but either ownly recognizes some files or doesnt work at all. (documentation) 5) How am I(newbie) supposed to divine where to look for information/help? Google tends to direct searchers to links that involve pay-per-answer crap. 6) Updates--the red hat subscription system seemed nice. But registration, etc, paying for services, isnt what people expect to see when using a free system. -------------- As I side note, I was a java developer (and no, not just html/jsp), and currently have my own slash server running on linux. But that doesn't mean i _like_ complicated tech/systems/super-ultra-configurable modules. And thats what it still comes off as.
All your preview button are belong to hello kitty.
guess it's flattering to be greeted by your own words when you click on a story, but it doesn't change the fact that this person, dirkdidit, completely plagiarized what I wrote a few months back on another desktop Linux story.
I wish I could prove this, but I can't list any comments beyond my last 24. Honestly, why would I accuse someone I don't know of plagiarism if it weren't true?
Shame on you, Mr. dirkdidit...
Groklaw's purpose seems to be to serve as an information repository for IP law and specifically legal proceedings related to the Linux Operating System, and open-source/free software development including the GPL. To a lesser extent it provides a paralegal's insight into these issues.
This latest addition to Groklaw's site contents reduces its credibility as an objective information consolidator regarding Linux and FOSS legal issues. Why on earth is its owner turning it into a Linux fansite?
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
The easy, cool, experienced thing to say in response is "RTFM" or "read the man pages and leave me alone." That works for the experienced switcher, or those who have some experience with computers. Most grandma-types (and I'm using that as a stereotype, so all you computer-whiz grandmas need not send me mail, k?) are not going to know how to even find the FM, let alone be able to RTFM. "Man pages? What's that, honey? I'm a female. Aren't there pages for me?"
One of the good things about Microsoft is they spend the money to do usability studies so that grandma types can figure out how to send email. This grokdoc project is going to apply the many eyes principles of the community to replicate the usability principles that Microsoft can just throw money at. We can't throw money at this, but we can throw eyeballs. (go ahead, make your joke, I'll wait.)
This is a new site, not on Groklaw itself, and it is a community project, not just PJ. So don't worry, Groklaw is not going anywhere, and PJ will still have time to tear into those legal papers. And yes, we know, there are other Linux doc projects, and those are wonderful, but they are not yet grandma-friendly enough, and so now the community will attempt to add to the existing docs something new, targeted at a new audience. An audience we actually do want to see using Linux if we are ever to see widespread adoption of the software. Remember, the /. crowd is atypical. The vast majority of computer users lack of knowledge of the machines would make our hair stand on end if we focused too much on their ignorance. So we can either crack jokes about them, or we can pause a moment and give them a helping hand. The grokdoc project is an attempt to give a helping hand to a new type of Linux user.
Face it - computers are fast becoming commodities. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a computer to be as easy to use as a toaster or Microwave. Yes, us geeks will whine about it but why should mum and dad give a toss about where some dumb configuration file is or what some arcane command line parameters are. They just want to write an e-mail, a spreadsheet or visit a few websites...
I love PJ and what she has done for the open source community. However, I'm concerned about a conflict of interest here. First of all PJ works for a company that makes money from Linux. Reference link. So, the more people that use Linux the more potential money in her pocketbook. Isn't having PJ chair a study on Linux usability is like having a pharmaceutical company release a study on their own drug? (You know the results of the study before it even begins!) There must be a way to have some independent auditor types to do this study.
The result of this is to have a huge archive of usability studies, a self-moderated public discussion on it, and an official document with polished observations and recommendations. So a few details need to be worked out (including a good format for the usability data), but the overall plan sounds excellent.
"Everybody is welcome, especially those with little or no linux experience", slashdot is a good place to get this kind of ppl.
Groklaw isn't biased at all. I hope they publish their affiliation on the study.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
I guess this can double as a usability test for Wikis as well. Not that they're an unusable system by design but it depends on all the contributors documenting every node they make and name very well and according to a good architecture.
I think so. I'm a Windows user, but I've tried a lot of the more popular distros off and on since around v5 or so of Redhat if I remember correctly.
:)
I'm a developer, so I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty with a little configuring. I do quite a bit of tweaking to base installs of Windows, but those tweaks are for performance or preference, not to make things work.
I find Linux is just fine for most daily tasks, and usually has a comparable way of doing almost everything I do in Windows. The problem is getting them installed and running.
I fault Linux in the usability arena for two reasons. Having to mess with config/ini files to make things work post "install", and how it reacts when something does go wrong.
If I install a piece of software, it should work after the install. I shouldn't have to change keyword/value pairs in a config file to complete the install.
If I screw up my video drivers, put me in the GUI at 640x480 and let me try again. Making me resort to command line hacking when I don't have a clue where to start only gets Linux one thing...uninstalled.
I guess one other thing I'd suggest to Linux developers is, at some point...release version 1.0!
Regardless of whether you are 100% certain it's perfect or not, which looks more inviting to the average user:
My Program 0.1.00.37 Beta
My Program 1.0 Beta 1
Just look around Sourceforge, is anything at v1 yet?
My Tech Posts on Twitter
I hope the distros and vendors are watching this one!
As is evident in this thread among others, over at the RedHat/Fedora camp, it appears they couldn't care less about their users, let alone usability. There are some seriously arrogant replies here to a fairly fundamental issue for most users.
To summarise: there's a kernel change emminent that breaks all binary-compiled drivers. Fedora's attitude is that it's too good a change to even allow the option to be included in the kernel source. So users who know what they're doing, and want to change this 4k-Stacks option so they can use the binary drivers, have been given a good hearty "stuff you!" from the developers. It's the reason I migrated to Mandrake, and may yet consider switching back to Windows.
Way to go, "open" source.
Windows is pervasive for many reasons, but two of the most critical reasons are the Office Suite and Exchange.
Just look at Mac OS X: arguably as usable (or more usable) as Windows 98/2000/XP, but a tiny market share.
Combined with the 'synaptic' GUI, installing a program is as simple as 'click on a checkbox then click install'. The APT infrastructure is 'solved', but in my opinion, the synaptic GUI could use improvement, and be made easier to use.
With pictures?
More importantly, this won't be PJ's project! She suggested the idea, but the community will do it. And why you object to helping newbies learn Linux is beyond me. For that is what this study is designed to do. Conflict of interest? Please. Would you prefer Microsoft taught newbies how to use Linux rather than the Linux community?
Usability studies are great, and will definately help Linux down the road, but can we agreed on some general standards first? RPMs, or source compliation, or tgz packages? Swaret, Apt, Portage? Gnome or KDE?
These things make Linux awesome and infuriating at the same time. The choice is awesome, because if you don't like one thing, then something else is probably available that does it differently. But then it comes down to hoping your distro has packages for the software you want, or you get to be brave enough to compile everything from source and hope you don't get stuck in dependancy limbo.
Maybe a large distro collalition is needed where the big guys all agreed to at least use a standard frontend? That way they can all still use different backends, but people would be able to sit down at a different distro and easy jump right in. How to do this? Heh, right. If I knew that answer I'd be rich, not posting on Slashdot.
ce n'est pas un Sig.
I'll have what she's having! I really respect this woman's vigorous advocacy for Linux and FOSS. I listened to a lawyer (Steven Reisler) give a presentation this weekend at Linuxfest Northwest about the SCO suit. He couldn't say enough nice things about Groklaw.
Unlike software development via open source usability is something that is not easily done without money. Developers are willing to program for ego, and to scratch the itch. However, usability is not like that. Usability virtually requires money because of the way that it is done.
Usability is much more than doing surveys, or talking to people, or just watching people. That is "street level" usability, as I like to call it. But, it isn't what is needed to Linux. What is needed is a fully funded usability study. It can be done, and done cheaply if done right, but to think that it can be done in some "open" fashion isn't workable.
Consider for a moment that reliable data is needed. To get reliable data, you often need to motivate people with money. The best usability studies pay people for their participation. The payment generates motivation and focus.
But there is more. Usability is a research activity, and it is a human to human activity. When people have to talk to each other, or when people have to observe other people, the labor takes time. That time is not "free" time. It isn't sweat equity, it is real time. Developer time is often hobby time. Granted hibby time will get a lot done, but it can be done cheaply or free whereas usability labor costs money.
Finally, I am confused about the scope of the research. Do we really want research that covers everything, in an unstructured WiKi environment? Not me. I'd rather gather data piece by piece. This is a time to start small and grow over time. Get some little victories first, then expand.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Comment removed based on user account deletion
nope. Have you?
Most people like developing for linux as a hobby, or for fun. Rarely is it for money. And often if it is for money, they only need to get the product working. There's no golden "standard" for walkthrough-esque documentation for linux applications.
The man pages are the typical standard, but they are a far cry from what Ms. PJ is asking for (and many others as well).
Though this is a major task, I still think the reason documentation is lagging behind program development is less people find it a job they enjoy doing.
Perhaps the main reason why there aren't many who find this enjoyable, is that mainly it is the technical types who get involved with developing in linux. I don't think you'll see english majors or doc writers taking to the linux platform.
The more writers/language focused people that get interested in linux, the more possibility there will be for better walkthrough type documentation.
The linux documentation project is a great start. I think it will be able to evolve into something which will be of great use to newbie users of linux.
I may even consider pitching in; I've got tons of pointers and tips that I have written down so I don't forget them (I constantly forget certain commandline actions which I only use every month or so). I've often considered putting up a website; but as many people have posted about the linux documentation project, maybe I could just pitch in there?
I'm not a very experienced programmer (I'm still a sophomore in college, CS Major) and I do enjoy writing as a hobby. I've always wanted to contribute to linux, because I believe in the ideals the Open Source community represents. Maybe this will be my summer project =D
In my opinion, there should be two separate clipboards, which I refer to as the "Tempboard" and the "Permboard" for clarity. Yes, I hear many of you saying--this is the way it's implemented. Well, yes--partially. Let me first explain The Right Way to Do It, followed by applications that break the rules.
The Right Way to Do It:
(I'm using Eterm 0.9.2, Gaim 0.75, and Opera 7.23 on a Fedora box. Please let me know if these errors don't happen on other versions or other distros.)
- Select some text in a Gaim window, then close that window and attempt to
middle-click paste it into another program. No pastage.
- In Gaim, select some text in the textbox and then attempt to middle-click pa
ste it to the same text box. No pastage.
- Highlight some text in Opera. Then unselect it. Try to middle-click paste
it somewhere. It works!
- Highlight some text in Opera. Unselect it. Highlight something in another
window and close that window. Try to middle-click paste--you get the old fake
Opera-select.
- Highlight something in an Opera textbox. Middle-click it to the url box.
It works. Highlight something using the keyboard. Middle-click it to the url
box. It pastes instead your old highlight.
- In the Gaim textbox, type "Text1". Select the text and CTRL-X it. Type
"Text2" in the textbox. From another window, select "Text3".
- CTRL-X "Text1" in Gaim again. Select text from Eterm. Shift-Ins in the
terminal window. Shift-ins in Gaim. Different things are pasted to each
window!
- CTRL-C text in Gaim's chat screen, and try CTRL-V to paste it into the
textbox below. It instead pastes what was previously in the Permboard.
Does anybody else have ones they'd like to add to my list?Problem: The Tempboard gets deleted when the window is closed.
Problem: The Tempboard gets deleted when you middle-click inside the same text input widget.
Problem: Opera uses "fake selects" in order to work around the clumsy situation of not being able to highlight multiple things at the same time. Firefox does is that well, and so does OpenOffice.org. As we shall see, they don't always get it right.
Problem: The Tempboard reverts to Opera's old fake-select when the window is closed.
Problem: Highlighting with the keyboard doesn't update the Tempboard.
Go back to Gaim, select "Text2", and type Shift-Ins. "Text1" is pasted.
Problem: Shift-Ins pastes from the Permboard, not Tempboard.
Problem: Shift-ins pastes from the Tempboard in Eterm, but pastes from the Permboard in the Gaim window.
Problem: Selecting chat text and CTRL-C doesn't update the Permboard.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
Newbies are routinely encouraged before delving into Linux to ask for help from the "gurus". Unfortunately, that is the type of answers they tend to recieve when asking questions concerning very basic functions of an operating system: "This is so outdated, only morons don't know this. Download urpmi and these libraries, change the install script to match your distro (check the readme) or just use the RPM. Then all you have to do is run the following bash command to install a program. Just make sure the server is up to get the updated files, or use a different one. Simple."
If you're downloading a single file, then all the dependencies for that file, then all the dependencies for this files, ..., you're not using a current version of a decent end-user distribution.
..., and that site deals with all the interoperability issues between all those apps. Windows can't compete with that.
Several of the best desktop Linux distros (Mepis, Lycoris, Linspire) are built on Debian, which handles all these dependencies through apt-get. Now I'm not gonna suggest end-users use apt-get, but these distros supply tools that put a user-friendly GUI on top of apt-get and deal with the problem that way.
Mandrake uses urpmi to achieve the same result - and there's a friendly GUI tool that sits on top of that if you want user-friendly.
I'm pretty sure Fedora has a comparable solution, but as I haven't installed it I can't comment on it.
The ONLY time I've had to worry about manually managing dependencies in the last couple of years is when I've tried installing something off Sourceforge or a similar geeky site. That's fair enough; Sourceforge isn't designed to host end-user tools, so desktop users shouldn't be going there if they want ease of use.
Your average desktop Linux user is gonna install Lycoris/Mepis/Linspire/..., then use the user-friendly tools that come with those distros to install or upgrade their apps. There's one big advantage they have over Windows in this area; being Debian-based, there's no need to go to multiple sites to keep all the desktop apps upgraded.
Instead, Linux desktop users go to *one* site to upgrade their Office tools, Web browser, email client, MP3 player,
Linux isn't easy enough. Modding down anyone who says so is a beautiful example of what's wrong with the community.
You need to be more welcoming of the general public.
It's not that kind of study. This isn't a study to convince people to switch to Linux. It's a study of how people who switch to Linux use their computers so that Linux documentation can be tailored to help these newbies. Now, what is wrong with that?
Yes, the world SHOULD be perfect, as in a perfect world everybody would be happy.
Are you saying this is a bad thing?
> My Program 0.1.00.37 Beta
> My Program 1.0 Beta 1
That's why is *SO* important to get rid of version numbers (for end-users I mean.)
Microsoft and Apple are doing it OK.
Windows Millenium
Windows XP
OS X Panther
That I can't understand. Is she frustated with what? Why does she defend Linux at all?
;) miramar@hed.com.br
Let her mail me asking for help
Imagine being able to enter your hardware--or potential hardware--distro of choice and getting a list of problems you will encounter. Knowing that you will need to disable SMP for your install to work on a laptop would be invaluable (for example).
Secondly, I believe that Linux usability would really be benefitted by the way of increased hardward support. This is by many factors more difficult than the first point mentioned as it requires the cooperation of companies which may have no desire to help out, or even have some vested interest in seeing Linux support NOT be available (although I can site no particular entities for this). Although this is taking a comparative look at the issue, I'm going to mention it regardless: when examined next to Windows, Linux falls over when it comes to hardware support. Now, I definitely not saying this is an EASY thing to fix, nor is the problem with Linux itself, per se, but that is rather irrelevant to the person who just wants their webcam to work. Virtually anything can be plugged into windows, and with (often) minimal fuss, it will working, usually as easy as inserting a CD and pressing "Next" a few times. I believe this general circumstance is where Linux should be endeavouring to go, and will not have its desired usability until it can do so consistantly.
This should be modded as hilariously idioticly funny.
Maybe you should try a distro which is aimed at being user friendly, eg Mandrake, SUSE, Xandros etc. Their install is defintely as easy, if not easier than Windows. Most of the time, it just consists of hitting the next button.
You need to take a class in basic composition, as your reading skills are quite poor.
Yeah... Gentoo may have not been the first one to come up with it, and we seem way too proud of it, but...
I love emerge. 'emerge Whatever' and whatever is installed. 'emerge sync' and I've got my list of available packages is updated. 'emerge -u world' and my system is updated.
Works for my wife, too...
I think my biggest problem with Linux is too much choice! too many software options.
I think it would be easier if distributions were bundled with the best software, maybe have a competition to determine which apps get bundled-- but I think for me the hardest thing with using linux was getting used to all the foreign apps... and bundling 5 different instant messaging clients did not help one bit--
Keep it simple!
As part of *usability*, configurability has to be improved across all the distros. All should have 3 ways to config some thing:
/etc/sysconfig/iptables), but Slack didn't have a sysconfig dir within /etc..and unless I overlooked it, it wasn't in the /etc directory.
-vi/emacs/pico: manually edit the files
-CLI, text based app: application that runs in console to automate config
-GUI: pretty, click-and-hit-OK.
I'm a RedHat/Fedora guy, but have tried my hands on Slackware, Debian, and SuSE, but always came back to RH/Fedora. Before I talk about configuring things post-install, the distros HAVE to get some things in the install, such as installing/enabling USB-HID by default and setting up X to use both PS/2 and USB mouse, which is especially useful for laptop users. Another includes USB-Mass Storage..and sound (for most modern cards anyway) RH8.0+ has gotten it right on the USB-HID, slack/suse(8.2) didn't. The Debian installer doesn't tell you that you have to add users to the audio group to get sound working.
Now, onto post-install config. RH/Fedora/SuSE have it right on providing GUI config tools for printers and network setup. For everyday settings, one should not have to google for config file HOWTOs to set up a printer at a remote location, or punch in a dial-up number.
Text-based config tools..you need in case the GUI goes wrong..as in setting up the X server. I'm pretty sure most distros have such tools, but there needs to be standardization in naming them. Whatever happened to linuxconf? It's still around but not included in any of the distros I've tried recently.
Manually editing files is great in case there's a certain option that you need is is rarely used and not included in the automated tools. Plus, you can always copy the config files to a floppy for quick recovery if you reinstall the system.
For the manual file editing, there NEEDS to be a standardization on file locations, or a list generated that tells where the files are exactly. E.G.:I was trying to look for the iptables file under Slack (RH keeps it at
$cat
The nerds will never get it, will they?
"Setting up, using, and all other aspects of Linux need to be made easier for the home user (read: children, old people, and those without a lot of computer experience)."
WHAT!? What about the dead people? Won't someone think of the dead people?
is a distribution that has newbie as one of the configure options. The Newbie option should have only a few choices, Gnome or KDE desktop, no questions about partitioning, it should assume the user wants to keep a Windows partition for now. How many Windoze users know what a partition is? The configuration shouldn't include any programing tools, or half a dozen test editors. It should include OO.org for wordprocessing, etc. User name and root user and passwords should be explained and chosen, additional users can be added later.
Once its configured the password box appears, user is prompted and printer, modem, and email configuration is done. A minimum of printed documentation should be included, explaining what to do if something doesn't work. The documentation should list resources included with the distribution and how to access it, and use it. Hopefully with a desktop icon. The browser should include useful links to useful linux sites.
If at first you don't suceed, try RTFM or Man pages.
To most people like coming from a DOS/Windows world this all seemed quite hard to grasp at first. Why can't this be changed? Is there a reason I don't know about?
I'll admit I've been able to pick up on the jargon that floats around here but you know, I haven't been able to figure out what wiki is for the moment. it may be that I'm tired or finals have drained me completely. would someone help?
wiki.linuxquestions.org is a recently launched community Linux wiki that was announced on Slashdot a few months back.
If you have _answers_ to these questions, stop on by and write it down.
Even if you only have time to write a paragraph, your paragraph will inspire someone else to add onto it that otherwise might not have contributed.
This has been over and over...
/etc/whatever file to make my new thing-a-ma-jig work; I gonna SCREAM!
Better GUI...
Easy Install...
Better Apps...
all that is great (and here it is), BUT!;
NONE of that is any good IF!:
I/O IS BROKEN!
The next time I have to edit a
Just to make a simple USB thumb drive work is a pain in most distros. Heck just mounting a floppy is way out there to most people. Automount is a good start but if I don;t get an Icon on the desktop I'm sad. Try to show off Linux to a friend and just to read a file of a floppy disk is a CS101 class; and you've lost the battle before it even gets started.
Of course we all know it's the makers of these toys we all buy that need to make the drivers. Most of them will never take Linux as a worth while endever if developers can't get the easist of all items on the I/O list to work?
Make Linux talk to the world and the rest will follow.
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
The home user doesn't have any business using Linux.
Linux is first a tech-hobbyist OS, and second a server OS. It is emphatically not a desktop OS. It shouldn't be operated by people who don't know what they're doing.
The answer isn't to dumb down Linux so it can be used by people who shouldn't be using it in the first place.
I repeat: Linux is not a desktop OS, nor should it be. Linux has a niche that it fills almost perfectly, and there's no reason to turn it into something it isn't and shouldn't be for the sake of people that will be better off using something else.
Home users would be served far better with a Macintosh running OS X than they ever will be with Linux. And that's the way it should be--Mac OS X is a desktop OS with some hobbyist/server features, Linux is a hobbyist/server OS with some desktop-ish add-ons geared to non-desktop users. There's no reason to turn either one into something it's not. Keep them doing what they're supposed to be doing.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
man there had it down. Said to stop with the overly complicated stuff, to force people to wallow in the big picture, but give them clear, concise and to the point "*_task_*" orientation. The task. The thing you are trying to DO with the computer, NOT "the computer". Most people do not care a whit about the entire computer, they are interested in some specific tasks, some apps. In other words, if mashing the button don't cut it, them help pages you turn to -ON- the machine , like right there, should be extensive enough and clear enough to get the problem fixed in the bulk of the cases they are referenced for. That's more or less what PJ said too reading around the lines. MAN pages are written by and for sysadmins.amateur orprofessional, they don't cut it for this purpose.
I think there's probably a lot ofinfo on the web already in "howtos" and "tips" and "found workarounds", just that it'sa bear to find them. A way to have documentation collated and automagically updated to your systems "help me plz" feature would be a good thing. I know that "docs" get updated, but they are pretty darn slow, I look every few days to see if there'sanew release for ANY docs using APT and upgrade them, and they are pitiful few. There's a lot out there, and the LDP has a ton of stuff, but..... but..... but it's just "not there". The desktop is good enough, the apps mostly are good enough, the reliability is good enough, fixing a problem as a noob is dismal. I think the package updating is a non issue, it's clickable now as long as you know where to look for wherever they got downloaded to. I guess folks are used to "on the desktop" as a default their "other OS" used a lot, but it'snot that hard to find "user home" and check there either. It would be nice for a universal installer and packager though, you would think at least on that one issue it could become cross-distro compatable somehow without anyone's feelings getting hurt and some more cooperation there.
Back to "task oriented". That's it. Teach the tasks, not the system at first. Make it painless as possible to find help for glitches, updated documentation JUST as important as updated code, and maybe a little cooperation on the packaging and installing. In fact, would make a nice poll and discussion, which way of installing apps is the best and why, etc. I would be interested in a discussion like that just to see if there'senough commonality that a single "way" could be found to ( + - ) agree on.
Or not... it don't really matter, the license and obvious bent of linux taken as a whole is sort of a fun anarchy, so who really cares....
For people who just need the basics, it's good. You throw in something easy like Mandrake and e-mail, web browsing, and office tools are all set up. I think it's simple like PJ said when doing the 'well beaten path'. And for your power users who aren't afraid of a CLI and understand that echoing junk to /dev/kmem as root will kill your system, then they can use whatever they want. But for the inbetweens who want to add webcams, usb drives, odd software, etc. It's horrid. When I was new to Linux it litteraly took me days to figure out how to configure Xinerama to handle multiple monitors, and set up the resolutions correctly. Most people don't want to deal with config files, recompiling, and the like. And will not take the time to figure it out.
But do we really want too many common users? We get to enjoy not having too much crap and evil software floating around, like their is for Windows. If Linux ever became the dominant market share we'd have spyware like Gator(AKA Claria) running around, and we'd have to worry if our super easy installs could be doing something malicous, like they can on Windows. I know Linux is structurally more secure than MS junk, but if it's a double click install from anywhere on the net, we'll probably have to worry more.
With one huge exception: software installation
./configure; with RPM, I find out when it spits out the word "depencencies:"
Now, if it happens to be one of the applications bundled with Mandrake I can just use the software installer and everything works perfectly every time. However, whether I'm downloading and compiling from source or trying to install RPM's, I've repeatedly been dragged into what can only be called dependency hell!
OK, I've downloaded NiftyApp. If I'm compiling from source, I'll find out about the dependencies while running
So I find out what it's dependencies are. I go to Google and RPMFind and locate + download the required packages. But lo and behold, these packages too have unsatisfied dependencies. Sometimes I end up repeating this cycle so many times I just give up: For God's sake, how many damn dependencies can this program *HAVE*?
Other times (This is usually where I give up), the computer starts acting as if it's on crack:
rpm -i annoying-dependency.rpm
Error: package annoying-dependency is already installed.
rpm -e annoying-dependency
Error: Package not installed.
Make up your mind: Which is it, installed or not installed?!?!?
In short, I'm saying that Linux seriously needs to improve packaging. At the very least, list all the packages that your program needs installed before it can compile in a help file. That will at least save me the trouble of discovering them manually. Or list the deps on your website or Sourceforge page. I've tried installing K3D, for example, and just given up, having hunted down about 8 other RPMs and then getting the crack scenario described above. Even if it doesn't prove impossible to clear up the dependencies, It's still a major PITA to try and install, for example, MPlayer and end up downloading 5 packages for that program, and then hunting down 6 more for A/V control.
Now, I'm pretty technically proficient. I'm not afraid of the evil command line, I can use a console, and don't mind manually editing config files. If *I* can't get half the programs I download to install, what hope do ordinary users have? (Heck, considering the obscene amount of hard drive space most of us have, why not just offer a statically compiled version for download? It was the only way I could get the Game of Life (GOL) to work)
Luckily, Linux comes with about 95% of the applications I would ever use anyway. But the remaining 5% make me want to pull my hair out!
The problem with Usability or taking suggestions from users is that they typically do not know what they need and/or want until they need and/or want it. This goes for everything, when someone buys a new car, how often do they read the documentation? When someone gets a new gift, how often do they read the documentation. They can't make any suggestions to usability if they themselves don't know how to use the system. So; you get your typical response.
"Make it easier, make everything easier, make everything do everything by itself so I don't have to worry about anything. When I turn on my computer it should know that I'm hungry and offer me something to eat. All this stuff is hard to install and use."
"Well, did you read the easy 10 steps to get it working".
"I shouldn't need to read that stuff is what I'm saying."
No matter what you do you'll always get something along those lines. Documentation doesn't make usability better when it's not read. Personally I believe the best way to make a usable interface would be to incorporate neural network like functionality into the interface and the way it operates. This way, the interface accomodates the user based on the usability guidelines provided by the programmer and will compensate for a specific users behavior.
One thing I noticed about users is they are averse to change. Here's a typical user:
You add 300 new features to their OS, KDE rocks. But they can't find their "A" drive. "I have to go to /mnt/fd0 instead?" Because of this, they will hate it. Here's the proof.
We took a company with a shit MS-access app thingy and converted it to a web based app. It ran faster, more stable, suppored more users, etc... Lots of plusses. But the select box in MS-Access lets you type in it to lookup values, rather than just the first letter like in a browser. We added hundreds of new features, but because they lost one the upgrade was crap and they couldn't use it. I'm afraid that it's all about who bitches the loudest
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
See my journal for more information. Briefly stated, Simply Task Orientated Users (STOUs) are the market.
Serious Techies, Engineers Vilipending Enslavement (STEVEs) are not the market. But they have plenty of Websites to rant on. (^:
Ain't no use in moanin' and cryin'... Linux has to win STOUshare to become any sort of real desktop competition to MonopoSoft.
But in the meantime, STEVEs drive the wicked hardware and get all the chicks! (Well, perhaps only digitally...)
Pardon me... Time for a crazy car chase!
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
And it's also the feature that most drives me to distraction -- the software thinks it's smarter than I am. So when something goes wrong, there's never a simple way to fix it. 'Cause the system is supposed to fix itself! Yeah, right.
The mistake both you and Microsoft make is to assume that all the mind-numbing complexity of standard desktop systems is somehow necessary. So when something breaks, it's beyond the ability of most users to deal with it. So you add "healing" "active protection" and "automatic updates" and other stuff that stands in for the overworked system admin.
But that just makes the problem even worse. You're adding yet more complex software, to do that automatic stuff -- and that extra software always has problems of its own.
The right solution is to makes things simple from the start. You don't add complicated software to "heal" and update the system -- you design the system so it's less complex, and thus less fragile. So Fewer fixes and updates are necessary. And when they are necessary, the semi-skilled user can apply them himself.
Which is, of course, never going to happen. That would mean cutting back on cool features. Which is what drives software development -- both in the traditional and open source marketplaces.
If you're using mencoder or transcode , and you don't get the command line options perfect, the program will spit out 6 pages of the man page at you , which fills up the scrollback buffer on an xterm , which stops you from figuring out what went wrong.
My idea for increased usability? Don't just spit out the man page at people , take the time to look at the options given to you in the program , and actually say what's wrong. Don't just blindly print out the man page.
"Just look at Mac OS X: arguably as usable (or more usable) as Windows 98/2000/XP, but a tiny market share."
And I'll repeat myself. WE NEED AN ABUSIVE MONOPOLY! We'll NEVER win unless we can bully OEM's into installing preconfigured Linux on their machines(2). We'll NEVER win unless we can threaten hardware manufacturers to release Windows drivers(1). We'll NEVER win unless we sleep with the RIAA/MPAA and get DRM onto our platform. We'll NEVER win unless we've put any kind of competition out of business, and have entire nations groveling at our feet(3). DAM'IT we need magazine empires, and THINK TANKS fawning at our every move. Evangalists that will do battle with our enemies, sneaking into Usenet and starting unfounded rumours (Guess who Linus is sleeping with?, Tux is gay). We need armies of consumers that'll swallow whole our Marketing without question, and vigerously defend us from the BeOS's, and OS/'s(2) of the world. We need to throw out everything on security, for the sake of conveince (Password? We don't need no stinkin password. "GATOR? Isn't that like what goes on shirts, isn't it?). We need to be on EVERYTHING that we can get our hands on, from game consoles, to toothbrushes. From phones to urinals, carpetbomb the market(4). The world shall remember the name Linux forever. Bhaaa! Bhaaa!. BTW Buy a new computer with my OS...or else!
(1) Bonus points if we can get big companies to drop projects that will lessen their dependency on us, and absorb any ideas that our billion dollar R&D didn't come up with.
(2) Thanks IBM. SUCKER! And SUCKER II:Direct to 8-Track.
(3) EU, you hear that? Our armies are coming for you. We'll crush you like we did Netscape, and Go.
(4) Reminder to self: kill everyone who's seen Kill Bill, and the sequel.
You must try harder. Yes, at its core your post is a classic, "troll for trolling's sake" crap flood with the intention of purposefully mocking the Slashdot opinion at large. However, these types of inane crapfloods are ineffective, ignored, and common. Aspire greatness, don't settle for this gay shit (your horrible attempt at trolling).
"Text-based config tools..you need in case the GUI goes wrong..as in setting up the X server. I'm pretty sure most distros have such tools, but there needs to be standardization in naming them. Whatever happened to linuxconf? It's still around but not included in any of the distros I've tried recently."
Actually I'd like to see basically a configuration server, with various front-ends. The GUI that the nOOb sees, and the browser view (or ncurses) that you get ssh'ing into your parents (friends) box from halfway across the country.
Borrow some ideas from the GConf guys.
"The old elitist "you're not smart enough to understand it" is absolutely ridiculous."
As opposed to the "You're stupid enough to use this OS"? Yeah that's an improvement.
Quite frankly as an average user, your characterization of average users isn't an improvement. So stop helping us.
Download RPM in Web browser.
.RPM file, which has a cute icon like a little open box.
Double-click on "home" icon to open file manager.
Double-click on
GUI appears asking you to confirm installation of the package and any dependencies.
User clicks to accept. Popup asks for root password. User enters password.
Package(s) is/are installed, with progress bar.
Success dialog is displayed.
How is this difficult?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
since Mac OS X _does indeed_ have MS Office and (more or less) Exchange.
The more writers/language focused people that get interested in linux, the more possibility there will be for better walkthrough type documentation.
:-(
I am a writer/language-focused person. I even spent years working as a tech writer. I code like crap. Yet all I've "given" to the world is a few freeware command line utilities and a couple of scripts.
The motivation for much of open source is need. Someone needs (or at least wants) some software functionality that just isn't out there, or isn't out there for the right price, or in the right color, or whatever.
So he or she codes it up... because he or she wants the software to use. That's the motivation for everything I've ever given away... it was a program that I'd wanted, that I'd written, and then decided to throw it up on FTP somewhere in case anyone else could use it.
Putting in the hours on the code got me the functionality I needed. Putting in hours on documentation would get me nothing... I already know how to use the program, I wrote it.
Third parties, too, come to an open-source utility not because they're hoping to document it... They find it because they're looking for the functionality that it offers. So third party finds the utility they're looking for. It comes with poor documentation... but they spend time trying to figure it out because they need the functionality that it offers. Once they grok it and use it, they move on. Even if they're language-inclined, they gain little more by writing documentation for the program that they've taken the time to figure out... because writing a manual is just not why they bothered to figure it out in the first place.
It's really sad... and I'd love to be able to claim that I have more of a social conscience (i.e. enough of one to have written tons of open documentation), but so far I'm just not that nice a person.
As an aside, I would stipulate that there are probably a number of coders who code not for utility value, but for prestige... so-called "hack value." But these people have just as little in the way of motivation to write docs. Where's the hack value or the prestige in writing a bunch of mundane, beginner-level prose? Better to spend the time making the code 50% faster or the user interface 50% more "skinnable" or something, from the prestige-coder's perspective.
There are people who write prose for prestige... But these people are all working on essays, journal articles, or "literary" novels... If you're really a person who's from the "language and prose world," writing manuals is about as low-prestige as you can get.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The grandparent didnt RTFA (properly). Congratulations
Yeah, I know. That's what happens when your heart isn't in your work. Maybe tomorrow, after sleep and some coffee.
I don't get why so many Slashdotters assume their niche opinions represent the majority. They don't.
A lot of kids don't sit and program BASIC on their dad's C64s when they're 7 or 8. Maybe they trade baseball cards or play sports. Just because you did doesn't mean everyone does. Consequently, just because you sat down and spent hours learning how to program doesn't mean everyone else wants to.
However the programmer should be a slave to the user?
In a word...yes. Or else you fail usability.
Nobody's gonna act like your app is some gift from heaven. If users can't use it, they'll bitch and move on to something else. There are few things I hate more than programmer egos. YES, you're not God's greatest gift to computing. YES, if you're developing software you expect to be used publicly, you are slave to the users who will demand features, or else you're just another asshole who puts software out and then complains when people don't like it.
The mistake both you and Microsoft make is to assume that all the mind-numbing complexity of standard desktop systems is somehow necessary.
:P
The mistake YOU make is assuming a self-healing system somehow equates to Windows, just because you don't like how Windows attempts its self-healing.
WTF does Windows have to do with Linux? Are you saying we can't do better? Or that we shouldn't try?
I don't get this incessant need for people to be resistant to change, progress, and making things easier. It's not going to make the CLR go away, don't worry.
That has been my largest bone of contention with Linux Distros. I have tried literally nearly all of them and with the exception of a few (most notably Knoppix) after an installation setting up an HP JetDirect printer is like pulling teeth.
Sure, Linux looks good and has some pretty slick features... but if it takes half an hour and half a dozen packages (if you are lucky) to get printing to an IP address to work than I always come back to the fact that since win98 it just works.
Workarounds are not solutions... they are stop gaps. You have to fill the gaps.
Keep in mind I am about 6 months behind on testing distros... so dont shower me with rhetoric replies and diatribes of linux virtue. This is my personal experience... and appropriate to this slashdot article.
Boredom's not a burden anyone should bear.
Oops.
There's simply little glory in writing a nice manual.
We monkeys are impressed by flashy, impressive looking (even if functionally vapid) things. This is why there may be 10 million screen savers or fancy looking mp3 players - but nary a decent accounting package.
Why? Because who wants to write things like accounting software in their sparetime for no pay? Could you go to your mailing list collegues and say "i sure did optimize the hell out of that accounts receivable sub-menu, whew!" Even though something like this would greatly increase the ownership value among business users and stimulate uptake.
Even things like home office software have little glory - hence the most viable and *useful* packages like staroffice are sponsored by corporations actually paying people to work on them.
-
Toasters and Microwaves do only one thing (toast/heat). Most computer's today have a wide range of functions and are on order of magnitude more complex than any other gadget you're liable to find around the house. The only way to make computers as simple as a toaster is to start limiting what they can do. Taking away the ability to load you're own OS is a good place to start.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As a name, "Groklaw" was kinda funny, and it is suitable for her excellent paralegal site because the "law" is the important part there, but "Grok-docs" makes me feel like "grok" got hi-jacked by a non-geek... Why not "Doclaw"?
I'm wording this poorly, I know... I hope somebody gets what I'm slightly frustrated about -- the "grok" part doesn't feel it's in right place or something...
I've installed plenty of distros in the past two years. Everything he said is true. Heck, Mandrake even wanted me to check the button for the 3-button mouse, then shake the cursor all over the screen to get it to work (huh?).
:P
In Windows, it just knows when I plug the damned thing in.
Red Hat still asks you to partition things, and to mark out swap space, etc. It also asks you for a lot more network configuration than Windows does (Windows lets you just check "Typical settings"), generally asks for more questions on things like security levels, program groups to install, and so forth. Hell, check out the look on someone's face when they're asked to install a "bootloader"--what's more, their choices are things called "LILO" and "GRUB," typical OSS project names definitely showing how useful they are to people outside of development communities.
He's right--to say Linux is easier to install than Windows is insane fanboyism. It's just not true, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that so it can be addressed.
That crack you're on is really, really good. Where can I get one?
When referring to crack, the proper quantity is "some", not "one". "One", without some kind of quantity modifer like "gram" or "zip", implies some kind of base unit.
You might have one "rock" of crack, but you don't buy one rock. Well... if you do buy one rock, you quickly buy some more rocks. Some of you know what I'm talking about!
You buy some kind of measurable quantity. After all, you don't go buy one sugar. That's meaningless.
Er... at least that's what I'd say if I knew anything about crack.
Crack? Who said anything about crack? What am I doing this far from church?
Now which part of:
To change the display format in windows explorer is simple?In the article it talks about it there being no menu options to find things off the beaten track - like mc - the reality is there is a whole world off that track on the command line. Putting anything more than the major things in the menus without getting some disorganised mess would be a mammoth task. How do you do a GUI interface to a piece of useful weirdness with awk and grep? Check out the various front ends to transcode for an idea of how complex it can be to do a GUI for a command line program which has a lot of options.
My favourite program on the Atari ST was one that gave you a command line (gemini), which made it a lot easier to do some things. The same principle still applies when you have a general purpose machine, the command line gives you flexibility while a menu system gives you greyed out options which you know the program can do - it just won't let you do it. A linux machine set up to be a web browser or word processing machine is trivial to use, but once you increase the options the learning curve gets steep for anyone that has only used a gui.
Anyone who pastes a link to an open Wiki on the front page of Slashdot is asking for serious trouble...
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
coining the phrase:
IANALUE - I am not a Linux Usability Expert.
Nobody's gonna take you seriously if you tell them, "Oh, Linux software is easy to install, let me show you! Fire up the command line and type 'urpmi' or 'apt-get'..."
.NET and Cocoa--none of this absolutely ridiculous QT/GTK/wxWindows/whatever nonsense that are merely hacks to get widgets up on X.
;)
I seriously wonder why nobody has implemented binary installation/uninstallation routines for the Linux desktops yet. What's the damn holdup? Users need to be able to buy a Linux application from a store, take it home, and stick in a CD to get an autoplay installer.
Of course, to get that truly working well, you'd want a sane, robust programming library in the likes of
Get a sane library that retains backwards compatibility on the level of Windows (for a simple example, try loading up an RPM you got 5-7 years ago and see how well it goes...compared to Windows which still runs 95 and even most 3.1 apps happily) along with a sane installation/uninstallation routine so that the desktop can actually keep track of its own components, and things would really change, and I would stop using Windows as my main desktop.
Then, of course, we should do all this on Y-Windows when 1.0 comes out.
Okay, this is nothing against you but I need to get this off my chest.
I use mac os x but I keep an eye on Linux because I think the open source/free software is interesting. While I'm skeptical of it actually happening, I'd like to see Linux, in some form, become a solid desktop operating system.
In my mind, one of the most interesting things about open source is that is that, at least for the time being, the users are the developers and the developers are the users. That means that if Linux doesn't have something, it's because it's either being worked on, or it's simply not wanted/needed. If you want Linux to have something, go out and make it happen. Just saying Linux needs this or that (and I read those words way too often) accomplishes nothing. I wonder just how many slashdoters know how to program/develop software and I bet it's fewer than anybody here want's to admit. I also wonder how many slashdotters actually believe in the values of open source/free software and again, I'd be willing to bet that many here just don't want to pay for their software. Regardless of whether or not they actually contribute anything, they are still open source/free software developers too. For Linux to continue to improve, it is also their responsibility to contribute and I think that many do not accept that responsibility. Instead, I just read that Linux needs this or Linux needs that. Go out and make it happen. If you can't program, find some other way to make yourself useful. Help write documentation- do something, but don't just say that Linux needs this or Linux needs that. If you're not doing your part, then you don't have the right to say that.
Good luck boys
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
Regardless of whether you are 100% certain it's perfect or not, which looks more inviting to the average user:
,br> My Program 0.1.00.37 Beta
My Program 1.0 Beta 1
The reason software is broken, things aren't working right from the start, and you have to edit config files constantly is directly related to the version ugly version numbers. Things aren't at 1.0 for a reason! Most software on your favorite user-friendly linux distribution is still experimental and is not meant for mass consumption by those who are not willing to work with the software's current inadaquacies and to file bug reports. Distributions that contain only officially stable, well tested software have limited GUIs and old version of programs with less features. And the reason GNU/Linux OSs pop you into a command-line everytime something goes wrong is because it is built in UNIXs image. The people who started hacking together complete linux operating systems were not Windows users, they were not microsoft or apple developers, they were programmers and engineers who came from a unix world. A CLI shell for such a person is as familiar and native as your windows GUI environment.
I think what this reveals is that people migrating from Windows tend to compare features from windows with their equivalents in linux. But in the process, they are not looking to see what features linux provides that they otherwise would never have seen in windows. In otherwords, the strengths and weaknesses of any GNU/Linux OS are very different from Windows. So, linux is not failing to be user friendly, its failing to be Windows user friendly. And if your goal is to have linux distros be user friendly to people trained on windows, they have by in large failed. One reason why they are failing, is that a lot of distributors and programmers have no incentive to make t hings easer for migrating users.
There is no need for any new usability studies, there is only a need for Linux developers to give a damn about the ones that have already been done. The root of the problem is money. Without a large influx of money, open source developers are coding for themselves, not as part of a job to help others. They scratch their own itches and expect others to scratch their own. To do otherwise amounts to selling out, and for nothing at that. That seems to be the attitude, anyway, and it needs to change.
The solution isn't more documentation, it's quite plainly more money and more developers who are willing to "sell out" to actually make Linux useful to the general population. You need to start by discarding KDE and Gnome; the more you cry about the loss, the more you ensure Linux will never be ready for the desktop. Mac OS X makes a usable Unix desktop, and many of their lessons learned are available via GNUstep. Why so many open source developers ignore GNUstep is beyond me.
The solution is to stop putting out distributions that have packages for everything under the sun, often times with dozens of ways to do the same thing. It's about time we all picked a browser, just one, and ran with it. Yeah, a system should have multiple browsers available, but there should be one "official" Linux browser. As it stands, all the options being available all the time just confuses the hell out of users. There needs to be a base functionality that is available across all distributions, something that can be branded and advertised as the one true Linux Standard Installation. Right now, the name Linux doesn't really mean anything specific and useful to most non-geek people.
I don't like being forced to download 5-10 new libraries when I want to install a simple little app. Dependency hell is still hell. It's just been made into automatic hell.
I think the problem is more a matter of perception than condition. Most casual users who try Linux for the first time go in expecting it to be difficult and find it is just that. And it's no wonder when you consider so much of the press about Linux or what Linux users themselves say. Most of the articles I've read and most of the Linux users I know have expressed that Linux is too difficult, too sophisticated or too something else for the average user. But is it really?
Because my ex isn't computer literate and has primary custody, I want my kids' computer to be setup with something they can install and maintain. My daughter is 9 and my son is 6. I put together a little collection of installation disks and let my daughter have at them. She has, with no other assistance from me, installed and run recent versions of Debian, Fedora, Mandrake and Red Hat, and Windows 98 SE. She needed help to install Windows 2000. She understands that she can run whatever she chooses. She is currently undecided but has narrowed the field to Debian and Fedora. My son said that he likes Fedora and Windows 2000.
I asked my daughter why she chose Linux over Windows. She said It's easier. When I want a new program for Linux I just have to go to google and look and then run yum. As far as general usability she has expressed that Linux and Windows are the same. She clicks a menu item or double-clicks an icon and something runs. She doesn't understand how someone could use one but have difficulties using the other. And it turns out that my son's preference isn't for an OS at all, but for a browser. I had installed the same version of Mozilla on Windows 2000 as my daughter had installed on Fedora.
Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.
What is it about money that makes it magically produce reliable results? Why is development "free" time, but observing users or talking to people isn't?
Well, better documentation certainly doesn't address usability issues, it just makes it easier for EndUser to find the arkane path to getting the damn thing to work... then, when we actually have users (y'see, we didn't have any users before, because they couldn't understand the documentation, so's they gave up in disgust), they can make more specific/informed suggestions
First, everyone needs to get together and agree on a standard menu and submenu arrangement with standard keyboard shortcuts for them. Ctrl+C, for examples, should not Crop, nor should it bring up a box asking for a hex color value, nor should it attempt to compile something... it should Copy. Even if a text matching "Find..." type function doesn't make any sense in the context of a graphics program, Ctrl+F still shouldn't be used to bring up the Filters selector.
CLI or config editing shouldn't be required for basic preference settings, however, don't neuter the GUI control panel for no apparent reason. E.G. GUI control panel for setting the way the system displays times has a text box/dropdown menu "Format" and text box "Seperator". Format examples offered are "h:mm:ss tt" "hh:mm:ss tt" "H:mm:ss" "HH:mm:ss" with ":" in seperator by default... there's even a little explanation. Say you want a normal display of military time. So you type "HHmmss" into the Format field. The GUI doesn't like this, so you type "HH mm ss", which the GUI likes, and delete the ":" in the seperator field, which the GUI does not like. You don't want a seperator, though, so you put in the charater for a Unicode Breaking Nonspace (yes, there is such a thing, though I've yet to imagine a legitimate use), but this causes breakage in any programs that asks the system for the time and how to display it, but can't display unicode ("22&34&17" looks worse than "22 34 17"), so this fix is unsatisfactory. So, you go edit the config, replace the "HH mm ss" on the Format line with "HHmmss" and replace the BNS on the Seperator line with nothing. This displays properly within the system, and within programs that ask the system for the time, with no apparent difficulty or breakage. Furthermore, you can open up the GUI control panel and see "HHmmss" sitting in the Format field, though you can't edit anything via the GUI anymore, lest it shits itself and you have to go fix it in the config again.
A GUI control panel is basically just a frontend for a command and the arguments that can be passed to it. I suppose it's the philosophy that GUIs are for clueless newbs, and thus it's necessary to program a bunch of arbitrary type checking and other safeguards to make sure they don't break anything using the GUI. This philosophy should die. Maybe have the "Simple/Advanced" mode toggle to turn the safeguards On/Off...
Also, I don't get how I can pop a Knoppix CD into my laptop and have it all Just Work within minutes... but an attempt to install Debian onto it looked like it would take the better part of a week of hunting down info, patches, and tweaking to get everything to work. (I assume, I wiped the whole thing after two days and reinstalled XP).
We wouldnt have to worry at all about the dependency hunt if more people used a dependency fetcher. One good one that maintains strong security is dependable
I have installed several machines with recent versions of the SuSE distribution, and similar ones with W2k and XP. I've also installed Debian 3 on one similar machine. SuSE is a distribution I've become used to, since 7.0. Debian, OTOH, is on the one machine that I could get no stable installation of NT4, SuSE 8 or 9, W2k or XP on, and seems reliable on it. DEbian seemed hard to me, similar to DOS/Windows 3 in complication. SuSE 8.0 became easier than NT4, 8.2 was no harder than W2k and 9.0 and XP are on a par.
Maybe something that ought to come out of this is some style guidelines for developers. Not coding style so much as UI style guidelines.
The first post on Groklaw has to do with squirrelmail and how the buttons for flagging messages as read, unread, and important confuse the users because they simply set a flag for the message but don't really perform any action otherwise. This is a bad use for buttons and really should be a checkbox or a checked menu item kind of thing.
Linux could really use more consistency with this sort of thing. One of the things Windows has always had going for it is that MS has always pushed for a consistent style in applications. To the point where a basic MFC app would begin with menu items for basic window functions and the basic copy, cut, and paste menu items. Small things, but I bet a hell of a lot more MFC apps have copy, cut, and paste because of it, and most users know where to find it because of that.
Something like this would really benefit Linux if developers would follow it. The problem is that there's nobody pushing these kinds of standards. It would require a group that's already respected in the Linux community to push something like this. It would help if applications were then rated by how well they stick to the style guidelines. Users could then use this as part of their basis for evaluating which applications to use. By knowing that an application follows the style guidelines, they will know that an application is going to generally be easier for their users to learn because it should then be like other applications in its style.
Oh well, just my thoughts.
Oh, and as to "limited storage": If he installed it in the first place there just may have been enough storage to have it installed, dontchathink? Besides, I think the limited storage argument only applies to embedded systems (or "appliance" systems).
The double negative aside: If bash depends on ncurses, then bash would not work without ncurses installed. That's the whole point of having (listed) dependencies! If the dependency is more "soft" (i.e. the software can run without ncurses present, but can also take advantage of ncurses if present), then the Debian people usually just have it as a "suggested" dependency. I'm not saying that the Debian folks don't make dependency mistakes, but touting that as some huge shortcoming of apt (and its lik) is disingenious.
So there.
HAND.
When downloading a program for windows all you see is a twenty megabyte executable.
The Linux version is five megabytes with fifteen megabytes of stuff the user didn't ask for.
The license is Creative Commons by-nc, the same one that PJ uses for Groklaw. PJ is happy to profit from other peoples' GPLd work, but refuses to use the GNU Free Documentation License to let anyone profit from hers. Just so we're all clear.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Thank you for the new vocabulary word.
Now I have the power to vilipend people, places, and things with complete impunity!
over christmas i downloaded mahjongg, hangman and pysol for my grannie to play.
i was called away for a few minutes, only to find that she had successfully managed to get mahjongg to run without any instructions from me.
so if anyone tells you that linux cannot be used by older people, they lie.
most people don't like change. give them something different and they cannot cope. insist, and within about three weeks they'll get over it.
Then it's download and install but what of the apps that are updated all the time - then you have to wait a while to see them in your downloadable list. Otherwise it's a little bit into the unknown with someone elses build of an rpm.
Isn't making an interface usable something interesting? Something challenging? Aren't challenges something geeks do well? Ignore Microsoft. Why not make the best interface that can be made? It'll take time but it'll arrive. I'd like to see lots of distributions with a strong core feature set to each of them, but with each carrying an ever varying application set. Think KDE on a large scale.
What I find interesting is that whenever someone says "usability" and "linux", people automatically assume "the graphical interface".
How about the rest? A well thought out OS, as far as usability is concerned, is thought so from the ground up.
Pardon me, but I'm going to point at Mac OS X. It's definitely not just the interface that's different, that's just the icing on the cake. The underlaying OS is vastly different from your average Linux distro, because the way it is organized. It has to do with everything: the bootscripts, the security, the application packaging, the filesystem organization, etc.
Think about it: those guys at Apple probably sat down and said "let's make it easy on the user", then they started doing things more or less from scratch. Only some of the people who contribute to Linux give a thought to the basic design principles that Linux is organized upon. No I don't mean the freaking graphical interface, I mean everything. The result is obvious.
The Linux heritage is UNIX, which has always been a black hole of usability. UNIX was always an OS designed by the extra-power users for other extra-power users. Naturally, Linux inherits all the flaws in it.
Frankly, I think it will take something like 10 or 20 years for Linux to become usable (you know what I mean by usable, don't start nitpicking please) and impose itself on the market. If it won't be too late by then. Why? Because companies like Apple and Microsoft can afford to redesign the entire operating system every few years. Think about how the Windows systems have evolved, or how Mac did. Eventually, one of these summers, you're going to look at the new Windows system and say "dude, that looks so good and usable, and it's thought out so well." People already say this about Mac, it's just the price tag for the hardware keeping them back.
Granted, the Linux community could do the same in 6 months to 1 year. The problem is that they don't even begin to acknowledge the need for a complete overhaul. The replies to this post will probably say "what's wrong with Linux as it is today?" Therein lies the problem.
There are already avangardist projects like GoboLinux or Zero Install (heck, even SELinux makes a good example, see how many adopt that soon) out there who try to challenge the basics of the Linux system design, but not many people take them seriously. It's a shame, because if anything, such projects have proved that you can do anything with Linux, as long as enough people start to see the need for the change.
Every year, the major distro's come up with bells and whistles, and better hardware detection, and package newer versions of the software, and better tools to tie together with ducttape the problems in the system. And we delude ourselves into thinking that Linux systems are evolving. Please. No, I don't mean the kernel or the applications, I mean the systems.
Sigh. You'd think there would be a breakthrough at some point, somewhere. That someone would understand the need for fundamental changes. That someone would design a new breed of Linux system. That it would implement that new system to a fairly usable point. That a company would appear to pick it up and bring it to the masses. That the community would embrace it.
But it doesn't happen. There are 5 hops I mentioned here, and something happens at some point. I can figure out some reasons and you can probably figure them out too. So we all clap for the 10th version of the same old distros, going on the 20th.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
"At the pace Microsoft is going Windows will never achieve the usability for the masses. I mean, it will never be able to take on the easy, pretty, self-installing Debian market. Cause it can't do those things."
The problem is not in the fact that Linux isn't usable enough or newbie friendly enough - it is. End of story. The problem is, it isn't like what people are used to (Linux isn't like Windows).
Put a person without any prior computer knowledge in front of Windows XP and Linux with Gnome 2.6, and then let that person say what's better. Chances are big that (s)he will choose the later.
2) Put them in front of a linux box
3) Whenever they can't do something, fix the program
4) Repeat
Note that it's the programs that need fixing - basic operation of a program shouldn't require a manual; Documentation is for those who want to know how something works, to get /extra/ benefit from it.
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Seems to me they are trying to duplicate the linux documentation project. How about they put their efforts to get that project done rather than duplicating the work. Just a thought.
Posted on Slashdot, which might as well be the official home of Linux users. I'm sure all of the good reports are going to really be from Linux newbies now. . .
I was going to flame the parent posting but either they are a complete moron who should be pitied or they manage to type that posting without using their brain AT ALL. (Come on - we've all done it!)
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
Can we make particle and quantum physics a bit easier for the average quantum-n00b? I'm having real problems with this particle accelerator...
You spoke a about config files; There are a few man pages for config files, but not enough, and they often don't explain the details of the config file. And how do you find out the name of the config file in the beginning ?
:-P
I can only talk about S.u.S.E. here, but the searchable documentation/FAQ they add often just discusses very few weird problems, not the basics.
Of course you can google, but you need a working system for that.
I didn't find the info files more usable, and sometimes you will actually have failed to install info. And what I hate most are the short man pages which tell you to look at the info file, and you find out the info file is just a copy of the man page.
For me, ability to search is the main problem.
Of course, there is find / -type f -exec grep "modules.conf" {} \; -print
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
The problem isn't that there isn't money, the problem is that linux distribution companies are run by unix geeks who don't feel that usability is something worth spending money on. If you tell them they have usability problems in their software, the only thing they're going to do is hire more kernel people.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
The vast majority can't RTFM. My day job is spent telling people how to understand a simple wiring diagram. These people claim to know wiring and electronics yet they have a very hard time understanding how to hook up 12 connections to make the product work for 95% of the applications. I have found that if I am writing technical documentation to be understood by the "great unwashed", that I have to write it in words that are understandable by a fifth grader (US education standards here). If I go any higher than that, the end result is "huh???". Heaven help them if the documentation is at the college level. The vast majority of Linux docs are written by geeks for geeks. This, by default, puts the level far above the fifth grade level here in the US. Mind you, I find that European users are far more knowledgeable on technical aspects, as a whole, than the US people. The point here is to get the documentation down to a level that is understandable by all. Ah yes...the standard dumbing of documentation rather than upgrading the education of the people. "Give a man a fish - he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish - he eats for life."
ESR is a pretty High level "wizard" IIRC, and PJ is no novice...
Just my <currency>0.02</currency>.
I actually assisted my grandparents in purchasing one of those cheap Walmart/Lin...s computers a couple of years ago. The computer was cheap, much faster than their previous Pentium 100, worked with their printer, and actually VERY easy to use. It connected to their ISP (dial), browsed the internet, and did email wonderfully.
Until grandpa wanted to look at a wmp video that he always used to be able to look. Long story short, I never found a solution and the computer is now Windows (legal of course)!
Yet another problem with a non-M$ world.
I read through responses and I keep seeing things like "I could do xxxxx when I was 7 or 8." These are the people that do NOT understand the problem here. If you are able to read and understand the responses to this article, then you are not the person that needs the instruction. No one cares what you can do or what you did. The problem is that too many of you people who respond and talk about the "average user" have no idea what an average user is. You just assume that your own little experiences define the "average user". Well, they do not! Not yours and not mine! And perhaps there is no good definition of average user. I firmly believe that as a population, the general public is a "well below average" computer user.
For those who referred to the LDP; If you go to the Linux Documentation Project, the first question you have to ask is "What is HTML?"
If your "average user" doesn't know that, what do you tell them?
Take it from there.
The web has a different style of user interaction than regular desktop. Moving from regular desktop software to a web-based thing is not a "minor" change. It fundamentally changes how a user will interact with the machine.
From what I can glean (I'm only guessing here) from information provided, the text field in the Access app provided an incremental search that was far more responsive and non-modal than the "click-and-wait" browser-based thing that replaced it. Responsive and non-modal tends to make users happy. Delayed and modal tends to get them annoyed.
One thing that I've noticed that the movement to put deskop linux in corporations and the movement to make everything a web-based app have in common is that both these movements are usually spear-headed by systems administrators and programmers who:
Too often, end users end up getting blamed for the dumb actions of programmers. Too often, I've heard linux geeks complain "this person didn't like this piece of linux software because it 'wasn't like windows'". When I've taken a look at the Linux version of the software in question, what I usually see is poorly laid out dialogs, system-oriented jargon, controls with related functions being placed far from each other and unrelated controls placed too near to each other and looking related, etc.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Before Windows and even during the days of Windows 3.1x, most PC users had no real familiarity with MS-DOS. They usually had a cheat sheet of things to do to get into Windows or to start whatever programs they used most often. If they ever had to go beyond what was on their cheat sheet, they were at a complete loss.
I doubt the typical work/home computer user could do any better at a *nix command-line interface. Having to log on to the system would add further complexity for them, as would the terser online help system that they might never even find out about. My father, for example, though a rather intelligent person, is so set in his ways that even going slightly beyond the routine tasks he does in Windows is a source of frustration for him. I would never set him, my grandfather, or any of my non-computer-geek friends in front of a *nix terminal even if I were there to tell them what to type.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
Nonsense! No two people think the same way. What makes sense to the designer or a system might be completely abstruse to someone attempting to use that system. Menus, knobs, buttons, levers which one person thinks are obvious may confuse another. A programmer from one culture may design a program or device which someone from another part of the world simply can't comprehend. I'd like to see you climb into a backhoe and instinctively "know" which lever did what, assuming you don't have some experience with such a system. Granted, a reasonable smart person could probably figure it out eventually, and with only minor danger to themselves or others. But scale things up to, let's say, operating the space shuttle, and let's see how grammy fares.
The first microwave I ever bought required me to press the "YES" button far too often:
- POWER
- 9
- YES
- Time
- 3:00
- YES
- BEGIN
- YES
None of the confirmations were necessary, but the programmer of the device thought they were. Having to press the YES key after every selection didn't make any sense to me, but I wasn't gonna get my popcorn without doing it.The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
The thing about the above isn't about the present, but what it means for Linux's future. Open Source works because people contribute. But what happens to the movement of we have an influx of "deadwood"? People who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. There's also the "what if the people doing the work, leave"? Who will be left? The "deadwood" that's who. Doesn't bode well, unless a balance can be struck, between the two factions. IMHO I'm headed for one of the other platforms. Popularity isn't all that it's cracked up to be, and developers like peace and quiet, so they can scratch their itches. We get enough "this needs this, for it to succeed in the marketplace" from our bosses at work, why do we need to listen to this during our lesiure time? Oh right, beat Microsoft. Let the noobs have Linux, it was a nice idea while it lasted.
I'm hoping some of this amounts to something.
I've been frustrated in using Linux, and get this, I'm far from alone in this. I know sys-admins who confessed they can't install a lot of stuff they downloaded.
If there's a truly user-friendly place of people who can tell you
1) which apps actually are installable and usable
2) how you can do the most common things with them
then PJ deserves at least one Nobel price.
I don't feel it duplicates any existing project.
And two nice side effects might be:
1) a better how-to standard/template to be used by programmers or manual writers
2) more programmers caring about some of the issues inside some programs.
As always, not a developer myself, so respect and thanks.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Which one ?
The one you can't stand, probably.
Who will decide ?
Your sworn enemy, probably.
What if I disagree ?
You'll bitch and moan in a way only a dweeb can, while someone who just wants to get work done will continue on with their lives. I mean, really, for all the technical expertise around here, why are so many fretting because a user-level system might not run their pet project? Mac OS X ships with Safari, but even my mom could figure out how to install and run Opera if she wanted to. Are you telling me having to do the same would trip you up? What does that say about Linux usability?
Mod Parent Up!
Mainly because there are too many thousands of people -- mostly OSS Zealots -- who actually believe about 90% of this stuff.
-- Fareq
You just hit the nail on the head with that one.
Most of the people developing Linux understand exactly how it works. Thus, they don't need or want a nice usable interface that doesn't expect that you have memorized the organization of the kernel code.
Thus, they don't care, so they don't write it, so Linux is impossible for most people to use.
The key flaw in open source development is that only the features that programmers care about ever get created -- because thats all there are... programmers...
I think this is one of the biggest problems with open source software usability. Part of what makes Mac OS X and Windows so easy to use is their consistency -- things generally work the way you expect them to. Yes, it's true that individual applications occasionally have special requirements that mandate something else, but this is far rarer than many developers think. It's easy to think, whether consciously or not, "This app is far too important (or I'm too important/intelligent/creative) to be bound by these boring conventions", when a bit more thought could find a solution which is consistent and good for your app. The result is that every app goes its own way to some extent, and that the entire platform loses out as a result.
I propose the following rules for breaking a common UI convention:
Of course, this rather assumes you can determine what the convention is to begin with -- not always easy with open source...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Two things:
1: why bite on such an obvious troll
2: more important. Perhaps tehre is a teensy tiny little difference between making money selling software that you wrote and killing people? Just maybe?
I have children... and yes, my 7-year old is comfortable in windows, mac or linux. (My 4-year old too, but she still reads very slowly and can't handle most non-phonetic spellings.) Since only one of my kids is not adopted, and the rest aren't even the same racial mix as any of the rest of us, you can't make the "geek genetics" bullshit wash here.
I keep hearing people say "the only intuitive interface is the nipple - after that it's all learned" but that's bullshit too. Ask any La Leche outreach worker - babies have to be taught to suckle properly. Really, I'm not kidding!
There IS NO INTUITIVE INTERFACE and mostly likely never will be. If you think there is, you are blinded by your own knowledge. Mac-addicts will tell you it makes sense to dismount a floppy or network drive by dragging it to the trashcan - that is so much complete bullshit it's amazing that they can even mouth it.
Use the tool most suited to the task. Don't use the vise-grips (aka Navy ratchet-hammer) as a hammer, don't open paint cans with chisels. Don't use Macs for servers, don't use linux for end-user desktops, don't use Windows for anything.
Just for your information.
There is a program, called "Reading by 9" that is sponsored in part by the Los Angeles Times, IIRC.
The goal of this program is to get kids up to speed so that they are able to read at their grade level by age 9.
Go take a look at the nine-year-old booklist... last I checked there were books on it that I was reading at age 5 or 6. And I was at most 1 year ahead of most of the rest of my class in reading.
But then, I went to elementary school in Pennsylvania, and I went to a private school that didn't completely suck like the LA public schools do.
The point isn't that I'm super smart or anything... maybe I am, maybe I'm not... my opinion changes daily. The point is that yes, it is actually not unusual for people to be pretty much illiterate until at least 9. After all, if the *goal* of the program is reading by age 9, that means that many people don't make it!
As for RTFM: I know nobody who has ever read a manual of any sort on Windows, and yet almost everyone I know can figure out how to do at least 95% of what they want to do with their system.
Also, if I am asking someone for help, there are 2 possibilities: 1. "I do not want to read the fucking manual its 2 million pages long, you claim to be here to help newbies, help me" or 2: "I read the manual or couldn't find the manual (typing "man" followed by the name of the command to get help is so helpful when I don't know that the name of the command I want is 'df'), so I ask you, oh friendly helper, help me"
RTFM is *never* an appropriate response to a request for help. ever.
P.S. what the hell *does* df do again? Hopefully it doesn't stand for disk fuck? And why is it so poorly named?
"...And we delude ourselves into thinking that Linux systems are evolving. Please. No, I don't mean the kernel or the applications, I mean the systems." And you delude yourself wanting a perfect system. No one delivers THAT perfect system, and Linux won't be the first. But is it good enough ? Can it be improved ? Can it be improved to the point where home users will feel comfortable using it ? Etc. So if you want utopia, that won't happen in 10 or 20 years... Remember that if you strip down the power of the PCs, much of what you ask can be solved instantly because the system can be made a lot simpler. See what happend with iPod, even Apple having much less power compared to Microsoft. Linux will hardly support 100% of what is avaiable on Windows. And Linux will hardly support 100% of what YOU want that's available on Windows/MacOSX. The solution is to use Linux/Windows/MacOSX where they (seem to) fit and be done with it.
This is one of the many ways that the Linux phenomenon is going to frustrate a mainstream user base. Before "Linux," there was Windows and the Mac. Although Windows has seen several iterations, MS has been fairly good about keeping some similarity from version to version. People get to leverage the skills they acquired with the former version.
Apple has had a more difficult challenge as OS X is way different than Mac OS in a number of siginificant ways.
Then we come to Linux. Once one gets past the kernel -- and what average user knows or cares about kernels anyway? -- it appears on the surface that there are several different programs, each with its own ideas on how to do those tasks that most users do most of the time: install new/upgrade software; change settings (e.g. set up a new email account); connect a new printer/scanner; connect digital appliances (cameras, etc.), and on and on. Gnome verses KDE? What the hell's that about?!
This free-wheeling state of Linux is both what's wonderful about it and also a kind of weakness vis-a-vis making it accessable. It's an ecosystem, and the surviving "species" are still emerging. Still, unless and until there's a unified entity you can call "Linux," it's going to be very tough to create useful, generic documentation that even reasonably intelligent but non-CS majors can use. End users don't necessarily want to be a part of the maelstrom, they just want to get some work done.
I understand that there are standards committes and such in the Linux community that are working to address these issues, and I salute their efforts. It's going to make all the difference in the world to the overall success of Linux at the desktop.
ITS A DIFFERENT PLATFORM!...I will repeat...ITS A DIFFERENT PLATFORM! Your Windows skills will NOT transfer to a completely different OS.
Secondly, how many Windows users do you know that actually install hardware and drivers? I wish I had a nickel for every person that has given me a dumb look when I mentioned "Control Panel," or even "Windows Explorer."
If Linux isn't usable, Windows isn't either.
just my $0.02.
I'm a College-level computer programming student who has used Windows and DOS all his life, but I recently had to experiment with using Linux because I acquired a new XBox. There are a few major things that I find are preventing Linux from being an easy-to-use operating system.
The biggest issue, I find, is the lack of standardization in Linux distributions, applications, and desktops. I've encountered problems with things like removing applications from my startup list, uninstalling applications in general, changing fonts in my applications, getting extra keyboard keys to be recognized by linux. Most of my problems, I find, is due to the lack of standardization between distros/UIs/applications. I'm not saying that every distro/UI/app should be the same, and neither am I saying that freedom of choice is bad, but I, for one, would like to be able to learn one set of skills that will apply to any app/UI/distro, just like computer terminology (one technical term means one, and one thing, only).
Without standardization for the sake of usability, users really have to jump through hoops everytime they want to learn a new app. Sure, Emacs and vi do beautiful things with macros and are extremely extensible, but the learning curve is steep. I can never understand why the Emacs people decided to name a menu command "Save Buffer" when they really mean "Save to Disk" or "Save" or "Save as..." It just doesn't make sense to everyone. I guess Standardization is synonymous with "evil" in the Linux word, but it doesn't have to be that way. Giving me the freedom to choose the ratio exact ratio between POWER and EASE-OF-USE would be better than giving me the freedom to choose between the 100 ways I can accomplish the same task.
Perhaps a Linux standard should be developed for Mainstream Desktop use where every application in the distro uses the same approximate terminology and UI. Something like KDE 3.2 and the K app family. The only problem is the 3rd party apps that don't like to comform, and therefore confuses the crap out of its users.
The other big problem I can see with Linux desktops is that Linux is still far too deeply based in its CLI. Sure, the CLI is powerful, and scripting for CLI is far easier and more powerful than scripting a GUI (eww... wsh for windows), but what is the point of having the GUI if you CAN'T do everything in the GUI? Remember that the GUI was designed for ease-of-use. When I can't remove a startup item from the GUI (hey, I just wanted to stop a program from running at XFCE startup, not something "advanced" by any means) I get frustrated, and have to hunt for an hour looking for the configuration file that controls my startup. It may even require reading different documentations, as each distro likes to install things in different places. BAD. At least with FreeDOS, everything was exactly where DOS had put it, and there's no problems.
And here's something that no desktop has gotten right yet: Easy Groups and Permissions management. Why can't I just be able to Right-Click on a program (as an admin), go to its properties, and make it available to everyone in a group? Or, rather, why can't I, as a user, make a program unavailable and hidden to me (until an admin restores it)? The way that Linux handles each user account is great, but now we need to extend it to more than just files and configs, but desktops and desktop applications as well, and make it EASY.
...I am proof that intelligent beings are not always intelligent...
Is a PC "setup" once the install program has run? If so, then most popular versions of linux, and all versions of windows are a cinch.
Or is a PC setup when the printer actually works, and your PDA will sync, and your scanner works, etc?
When applications install correctly on linux, and hardware is dectected, it's all easy enough.
But when it doesn't work, it can be an absolute nightmare. Even for experienced users.
JMHO.
I think you are exactly right. I also think that's why Linux isn't gaining desktop market share as quickly as many would like for it to.
I won't leave my current cell phone provider unless I can get all the same features I currently have and want with the new service. The same goes for cable tv, cars, etc.
People rarely go down in features/quality when making a change. They want to feel like they are upgrading. If things seem more difficult, or time consuming, they won't switch.
My Tech Posts on Twitter
When you say:
"The Linux heritage is UNIX, which has always been a black hole of usability. UNIX was always an OS designed by the extra-power users for other extra-power users. Naturally, Linux inherits all the flaws in it."
Amidst extolling the virtues of MacOS X system design, outside of the GUI, you seem to have completely missed the fact that MacOS X is also UNIX based.
The major differences lie within the gui and package management, along with bundled libs and directory tree nomenclature. It's not a completely different system, it's a *nix system as much as Linux is.
You argument is flawed, though your point has some validity. Linux could use some useability improvements. Since everyone involved is contributing the work for FREE, why don't you quit complaining and ask what you can do to help?
Granted, the Linux community could do the same in 6 months to 1 year. The problem is that they don't even begin to acknowledge the need for a complete overhaul. The replies to this post will probably say "what's wrong with Linux as it is today?" Therein lies the problem.
No it couldn't - the "Linux community", in general, takes a very long time to produce their result: a more elegant *copy* of an existing application. There are exceptions, but pretty much nothing gets done in 1-year timeframes - Mozilla took the better part of a decade - so long that it ceded most of the world's browser users to IE. We still wouldn't have a usable Office alternative if Sun hadn't shelled out millions of real dollars for Star Division and then given the code away - sorry, but AbiWord and Gnumeric just aren't in the same league as Star/Open Office, and not even in the same galaxy with MS Office - it will be more years, if ever, before they are serious alternatives for any but the lightest use. I could go on - the list is familiar to us all, but the theme is constant.
Unfortunately, the only things that actually *do* get developed quickly by the open source community are a minimal hard core set of programming tools, P2P file sharing apps, and a bazillion black death window themes...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
> The replies to this post will probably say "what's wrong with Linux as it is today?"
And when they do, you won't answer them, you wont tell the computer programmers that have the ability to turn you user interface ideas into reality:
A) What exactly your ideas are (sticking to fague, it should all be consistent from the ground up, sort of things), or
B) Why they will make a good user interface and a preferable design over the other choices.
Everybody wants to bitch, and nobody wants to work.
Oh well, I'm off to complain at the size of my social security cheque.
Xandros 2.0. It just works. Seriously, folks, give it a try. EVERYTHING is pre-installed: Java, Flash, Mozilla, OpenOffice - and all works together. Drog 'n drop CD burning, automount of USB devices etc. If you can't use Xandros, you can't use a PC.