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!"
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
Its funny how people think children need micro meals and ideas prechewed four levels beneath having any accuracy.
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean someone else won't. Especially when that someone else is a child.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
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
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.
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.
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
Maybe it's fairly easy to install and use Linux; at least to you and me. However, what about the legions of AOL users who can barely check their email without having their hand held? Do you honestly think that they would be able to use Linux on a day to day basis without problems?
I personally like Linux, and think that it is the most powerful home operating system out there. However, I wish people would stop saying that Linux is the Windows killer, and just call linux what it is: a powerful hobbyist OS. Noobs/ lazy people need not apply.
The learning curve with ANY new operating system is large. Every tried to teach someone with no experience how to use Windows? It's hard. The Mac succeeds somewhat by hiding much of the complexity, and reducing the options available to the user. It make it hard to mess up, whereas Linux and Windows give the user the freedom to make mistakes (when working as root, anyway).
:-D Seriously though, there's little incentive to sell the public an OS for the most part. The market is really in pre-installed systems - most punters don't mess with their systems once they're setup - and for that to happen vendors need to risk the wrath of MS by installing the competitor's software. It's a risky venture for them, so it won't happen until Linux is seen as foolproof, and has greater perceived application support - that's marketing folks, for Scribus, OpenOffice, The Gimp, and most of all, for Games.
The Linux vendors can't follow the MS route, because they can't strong-arm hardware and software vendors to produce products for their OS. This is a good thing, and FWIW, trying to compete with AOL is kinda silly anyway. It's a sad day when a Linux distro proclaims it's got the dumbass market sewn up.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Actually, it is easy. The difference is Windows comes pre-installed on the system people buy, so they don't have to install and set it up. If people (children, old people, and those without a lot of computer experience) had to install Linux or Windows by themselves, they'd find it equally hard.
Beyond that, Windows has a clear advantage since you can buy a box with the software in it from your local Walmart. That's a lot easier than going using the Internet and finding it yourself, to people with little computer experience.
Linux needs software Kiosks that will burn people a CD with Mozilla, OpenOffice, KDE, etc since you won't find that software in a box on a self at a local Walmart.
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
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
His comment had nothing to do with elitism. He simply stated that some children don't need hand holding to use their computers. I know this is true - I was writing BASIC programs on my dad's C64 when I was 7 or 8.
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.
I think you'll find my recent review of Linux to be interesting and insightful. The biggest problem tends to be less of configuration. While Linux still sucks hind teat at detecting hardware, OEM machines would help solve that problem. (Anyone remember trying to get Windows 95 running?) The real problem comes down to software and dependencies. The Linux groups still think that binary is somehow evil. Therefore they go out of their way to make kernel modules kernel dependent, glibc and libc incompatible between versions, and make you track down "standard" dependencies yourself. (I'm sorry, Linux distro X doesn't have package Y standard. Deal with it.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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!
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....
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.
Sorry, you lost me there.
If an application simply does not deal with the copy/paste facility of X properly, it will do so running on any OS that uses X, correct? Are the applications screwing up copy/paste, or is the X copy/paste so screwed up no one can use it correctly? I don't program much on X (yet, anyway) so don't know if copy/paste is supposed to be in X or not, so some enlightenment is appreciated (yes, I intended that one, you E17 fans).
IMHO, the necessity of dealing with copy/paste should be removed from the application - it should be the sole responsibility of X. If that can't be done, a braindead simple Copy/Paste API should be put in place so that any programmer who messes it up would be embarassed into not screwing up again. That way, whatever desktop or window manager you use, it just works, and works the same way in any application.
This goes back to the initial problem - who the fuck cares where the problem actually is - let's find it and fix it for once and for all.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
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.
-
I don't mean to be crass, but Linux installation is the one and only segment of Linux documentation that is clear and complete. If you weren't bright enough to install Linux, perhaps it isn't for you.
An operating system is complex and it's silly to think that any simpleton could make it work without any understanding. Not even Apple makes that kind of promise to its users.
I have been pwned because my
You've just described the paradox I couldn't put my finger on before: You want the programmer to be the user's "slave" and give them what they want, but the users don't even know what they want (or can't express it), and while doing what the users might want you also want the programmer ("the implementor") to choose how things should work for the user. Ouch.
So that suggests a lot of trial and error - uh, i mean iterative development - which doesn't work so well in a public market-driven world. Fine in house of course, but you better keep changing your test-subjects. Maybe it's worth it, but don't expect to make any money out of it 'cos you'll have a rep for producing crap by the time you get something that's good. It's like asking a blind man to lead you out of a caving expedition. You'll probably get there, but you'll have a lot of bups and bruises and it'll take a long way with lots of wrong turns.
The reason I suggested AI is because of the differences in users. You can't have a hard coded proceedure for how the system should act, because users will have different expectations and needs. I might want the system to show me certain config info at boot time, while others might get worried by the cryptic messages. Add setup options? OK, but new users probably don't even want some of those options available. Maybe the user wants lots of eyecandy options, but not network options? The system should figure it out - if it enabled a bunch of options but only the window manager got played with, hide the extraneous ones again.
But how does it know? Maybe I ask the help system how can I see system messages, and it gives me some choices. The downside is that I have to be aware of the possibility in the first place... So it then realises I might want more advanced options, and tweaks the UI tools to suit. perhaps it gives me more detailed firewall options, for example. This scenario makes you head hurt if you try to do it procedurally, because you're potentially adjusting every app's setup interface, and it varies by machine and by user. You could do something close with preset "levels" of config hiding, but that's too brittle IMO.
Anyway, yes, it's a nice idea and I expect we will get there (maybe with a smart interface on a near-future Linux distro?) but it's hard to do and as yet nobody has seen a need. Why? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing because MS owns the market and didn't need that to get there. I guess we'll see it when someone is hungry enough for a bigger slice of the pie.
I'm beginning to feel hungry...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
He didn't say that his experiences are the majority. You made that up yourself.
His point, and the original point of this thread, was that kids don't necessarily need to be sheltered from all possible complexity for them to use computers. In fact, I'd wager that kids could learn to edit configuration files and handle all sorts of nasty stuff faster than a similarly experienced adult could be taught.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
I think it is pathetic that a tv remote includes instructions on how to install batteries. I'm amazed that the Hershey bar I have has instructions on how to open the package printed on it. How stupid can people get?
If you are so serious, I'm sure you can tell me just one reasonably popular GUI-application in Linux that doesn't work with Ctrl+X/C/V, because even after years of using Linux I couldn't find any except the old Netscape4 (which used Alt+X/C/V), which is extinct by now.
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
Get application developers for Linux to conform to some standard for app installs and getting people to convert will be alot easier.
Its been tried for years. Good luck. The other problem is that developers don't necessarily have the resources to compile binaries for even all the major distros. However, good documentation (like Apple's PostgreSQL docs linked to in the grandparent) allows people of any knowlege level to get the software working.
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
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."
Um, the only reason that the RTFM attitude has to exist is because the wrong people are trying to use computers. No, computing shouldn't be for everyone, just like physics isn't for everyone. Consumers should have consumer products, not computers.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers