Slashdot Mirror
GrokDoc Goes Live; All GNU/Linux Newbies Welcome
An anonymous reader writes "Writing at LinuxWorld, Groklaw's PJ asks "What Do Newbies Need to Make the Switch to GNU/Linux? and invites the world - literally - to help with answering the question, by participating in the wiki she and some colleagues have just launched. GrokDoc aims to turn the usual process on its head: "Instead of experts telling newbies how to do things, we will let newbies show and tell us what they need." Might be a fantastic way to help push Linux still further toward that fabled tipping-point."
but you know the newbies STILL won't RTFM
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
This is the Montessori method of teaching Linux. Brilliant. Maybe I can get some questions I've had answered, finally.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Isn't this just like a regular forum like
r g
www.linuxquestions.org
or
www.mandrakeusers.o
or
whatever fedora people use?
Its just a fancy forum! Move along, nothing to see here people.
On the other hand, rather than pushing linux past a "tipping point," listening to newbies might lead to many of the aspects of the Microsoft/Mac models that many hard core PC users hate.
Not that I think this is a bad thing, but it's worth considering that if, for instance, standardarized application appearance/performance becomes more important, much of the speed and robustness of Linux may fall by the wayside.
Being able to detect and have control panels for common peripherals like sound cards and printers. Some distributions do this better than others, but a newbie shouldn't have to deal with the nuances of OSS vs. ALSA vs. JACK or CUPS vs. LPR just to listen to music and print a document.
... that the entire /. community is a bunch of newbies?
Hmmm.
NEVER tell me to modify the xyz file in the abc directory!
No offense as I'm sure the intentions are good, but aren't there already several dozen similar sites and services like this? Why not contribute the man power and resources to an existing project instead of duplicating the work?
Users need to be educated, there is no alternative. If thay have to change ip address then it is not going to be easy anyway. either build stupid proof s/w of live with bit difficult to follow documentation. You can not makes it easied than peoples did at The Linux Documentation Project
Blind leading the blind? I don't see many schools asking students to lead class and I think there is a reason...
1. An installation process as straightforward and simple as Windows
2. The device compatibility offered by Windows
3. The level of cooperation shared by Windows applications
4. The games available on Windows
5. The simplicity of changing system configurations offered by Windows
I wonder where the heck I can find an OS that does all that and more? Hmmm...
(This is not a bash on Linux. I use Linux and love Linux for doing SERIOUS WORK. Most of the world does not do SERIOUS WORK at home. Windows meets virtually every requirement a home user could have. To meet these requirements, Linux would have to effectively become Windows. I, personally, would never use that distro.)
Even uber-newbs like the differences they can see between Linux and other OS alternatives. What we need is something they can understand, while still maintaining the environment of speed and customization that we have all grown to love. Discovering new things should be up to the user, but for those who need their hands held, they have somewhere to go instead of resorting back to the monopoly.
Read the only personal Runyon page out there.
as newbie after newbie complain that linux needs a "clipy". or worse, a talking, pop-up tux.
Assuming this is implemented well, I could see this being a very useful tool for new linux users. It seems like the hardest time I have convincing people to at least give Linux a try is when they want to know where to go when they need help. It is often a little difficult to describe to them how they need to search Google, picking through endless messageboard postings and offtopic comments, and find what they need, especially when they aren't even sure what they were looking for in the first place. A centralized resource that is helpful and friendly could be very useful for those who are intimidated by learning a new OS.
This kind of testing is exactly what needs to be done. Recently I took several seminars on useability engineering and useability testing, and I was amazed at how much better you can make a product after testing it. I suggest that if you do plan to add your input to the project that you incoiurage the user to think out loud and write down all the things they say. It's really enlightening to hear a user say something like, "I'm looking for a button to do XYZ." when you know that the feature he wants is in a menu right in front of him.
My only concern is that, quite frankly, I find that the first and most difficult hurdle for new users is installing linux. Many people have no clue what's inside of their machine, and more times than not you need to specify some odd bit of hardware during the setup process.
Heh, I should try this on my mother.
100% Crunchier
Stop calling them newbies. It's to much of a deragatory name and tends to push people away. How about calling them beginners or something like that?
I don't consider myself a newbie by any stretch of the imagination, but the majority of the time I still can't make sense out of linux documentation.
I tried every night for two straight weeks (reading the docs, getting some great help from the standard linux forums, reading every samba tutorial I could find etc) to get Samba working on my home network before finally giving up on it (and hence linux altogether).
You can't really complain about newbies not reading the manual when the manual either just plain doesn't contain the information you need, or has wrong or out-of-date information in it.
The same way they don't need DOS. And they definitely don't need "GNU/Linux". Give us a break, any newbie who wants to go around pronouncing that awful name all day is a nerdy geek and no newbie.
Anyway, Linux is the underlying OS and no use to any newbie. Newbies want to use a user-friendly desktop system. The discussion can't be centered on Linux itself. There should be discussions specific to each distro or window-manager.
Newbies don't give a shit about the OS. They want to install a desktop and run things and go back and easily find and use the files they created last week. Oh and, no childish games about names, evil monopolies, litigious bastards and whatnot. In other words, no "grokxxx"!
What manual? You mean man pages (already getting into an abbreviation now, just the name) written in programmer/sysadmin speak, which is composed of equal parts arcane jargon and acronyms, and assumes a background in Unix administration and total familiarity with running Bash? That manual? You are correct, they will look at it and go "this is absolutely NFG for my purposes right now".
Does anybody know what is up with their site? Why do they do this - I hate to watch my browser ping the server all the time and when I back out I have to back multiple times to get back to slashdot ;).
Patience.
It would be cool to have a linux help page similar to the Guess the Dictator or Television Sit-Com Character page:
http://www.smalltime.com/dictator.html
Basically, it asks you a bunch of yes or no questions and figures out which dictator or sit-com character you are. If it does not have you in its database, you add yourself by giving it a question that differeniates you from the person it guessed (try it, it works really well).
For the linux version, if it did not answer your question, then your question would be shown to the "experts".
Just because they're making one or two popular interfaces more user-friendly doesn't mean that you're out of luck. Given the freedom you have on Linux, you can switch window managers or even hack up the code for your favorite one. Just because some people want it usable and you don't doesn't mean you're SOL. Personally, I strongly doubt WindowMaker (my favorite WM) will be getting more user-friendly any time soon, without changing entirely.
Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
I'm always hearing how Linux is so hard to use, you have to manually edit configuration files, and you have to use the command line.
Of course anyone who actually uses Linux knows that's not the case. But the non-Linux users still believe that to be true. And until that attitude has changed they will never even consider trying it.
Stop calling people newbies you arrogant bastard.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
To determine who should switch, it is important to note where Linux is best/strongest and where it is most weak.
We still can't run games out of the box. We've got to compile kernels and tweak and adjust because I have YET to see a Linux distro install itself optimized for any given graphics card allowing for 3D acceleration that's worth a damn... OUT OF THE BOX... (please don't tell me anything that works after tweaking... it's the before-skilled-tweaking that I'm talking about.)
So gamers? You're stuck with the trojan/virus/worm-target, MS Windows for now.
If you're browsing the web and doing email and quite possibly even things like the office apps, graphic and web design, you're about ready with some exceptions. Just install whatever Linux distro appeals most to you and go with it... they're almost all free to acquire to take your time, learn a little and install them all, evaluate and decide. It's all good.
If you're running server-oriented services such as SQL, HTTPd, SMB, NFS, FTP, SMTP, etc... Why haven't you changed already!? What are you stupid?!
I know RMS has a point that many GNU utilities are in Linux. But as a brand name, it's crap. "Linux" is hard enough to remember or understand in comparison to names like "Macintosh" or "Windows" - please, please don't make it worse by adding something vaguely unpronounceable and obscure-sounding at the beginning and then arguing about it endlessly.
Just call it Linux. Not Lindows, not GNU/Linux, not the endless new and old distribution names (and what the heck is "Gentoo" anyway?!), just Linux.
Then people might understand what the heck you're talking about. Which would be a step in the right direction.
sulli
RTFJ.
well, for starters you need to buy the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux which can be nowwww bought online at a special discount price of $49.00 only for desktop users. So hurry..while SCO^H^H the offer lasts...
This reminds me of the story "The Last Lonely Man". Come, be part of the collective. You're not a psychopath, are you?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Yes, LinuxQuestions.org's Wiki almost has 1600 articles and is pretty great.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Abandon a piece of Unix tradition. Namely the importance of commandline. Why?
The most promising Linux newbies are those who aren't computer newbies but who are yet to be turned into Linux users/advocates. I'm talking about the people who have wide knowledge of how computer and windows work. Those that do patch, run firewalls, set up networks for their buddies and so on. Unfortunately they also like how Windows works. By GUI.
Now, they're a good target because:
- They decide the computing trends
- They know enough to get Linux up and running
- They also can be courted with things that Linux does better then Windows
But they're also a difficult target because:
- They aren't really interested in learning new stuff. Knowing stuff is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
- UNIX way is way too hard for them and without commandline Linux isn't as complete as windows is.
But as the computing trendsetters they truly are a group that must be courted in order to get Linux a wide acceptance.
Please! Love or hate microsoft, you can thank Bill Gates and company for making computers accessible to everyone. Without the sea change that was microsoft, most tech guys here would not have jobs - why you ask?
Because there would be a lot less computers used by a lot less people.
If Linux is going to really revolutionize the industry, then useability needs to be at the forefront of its design. As a network administrator, I want to get calls from my users when stuff legitimately doesn't work. I don't want to get calls from users asking me to help them browse their filesystem, or figure out how to center and bold a title in OpenOffice.
-ted
ever see the Simpsons where Homer designs a car? that's how Linux would end up if we let the newbies do it all.
How is software development related to teaching in schools. If your argument is right, then every user is at mercy of the developer. Its the endusers who should dictate how the product should be. Afterall they are the ones who end up using it. only a blind person would know what he wants and more importantly what he needs. Unless you are blind you won't know those things.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Too bad more beginners don't know about it:
Linux Learner's Guide (PDF)
-JemNo more command line.
What's That! Blasphemy!! BaSH him to Death!!!
Seriously, I challenge someone out there to make a distro where a user need never resort to the command line interface or a terminal of any kind.
I guess something like....Windows really...
If you ask Aunt Tillie to type
rpm -ivvf lovelyrpm-withnoguitoinstall-2.3-5.rpm
she will, legitimatly I think, return to windows. She's a busy person with no time to appreciate the finer points of red hat package management.(Or why up2date keeps crashing)
P.S.
This does not say that you must get rid of the command line altogether mind. Even XP still has the command prompt, hidden away somewhere.
May the Maths Be with you!
no really.. the new O/C version isn't hard to install.. and it comes working outta the box.. even samba works outta the box..
it can resize NTFS partitions to make space for itself and has a clean simple interface..
personally the only thing keeping me from linux is an EASY SAMBA CONFIGURATOR..
i could care less about the expert options.. i wanna give the box a name.. join the NT domain (because i still need it) and then be able to login to the NT domain using NT authentication on the linux box.
and i want to do that on 150 desktops.
that's it.. that's all..
wow.. how blind of you.. when you first install Linux were you not a newbie? or were you born knowing how to configure a firewall? hack the kernel??
you need to grow up.. the kids coming through schools are the future slashdot readers / sysadmins - they are all newbies - teaching from the offset has got to help..
Another great place for linux newbie help, http://www.linuxquestions.org/ complete with forums and Wiki!
Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.
has always been a pain on Linux. Each distribution has its own package manager with a package repository that always seems to be missing the one piece of software that you want. I have to explain to my wife that she can only download RPM files, and only RPM files from Mandrake.... and... on top of that, she can only install RPM files from version 9.1 of mandrake!
C'mon guys, Windows has it right, with a common installation method that works on all versions of windows (InstallShield). What about a cross distribution installation application for newbies?
A lot of the pages seem to be filled with snide jokes about Microsoft (like on the KDE & GNOME page: "You can only have one DE on Windows, as exemplified by their address: One Microsoft Way") and there's lots of flamebait as well.
Obviously it will improve over time, but hopefully sharpish.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
That's 50% of the reason I won't use Linux on my desktop. If I install it, I get one of two scenarios. 1- The screen res is at 640x480 and looks like crap 2- The screen res is at 1600x1200 and I can't read a single piece of text. When I try to change the resolution I either get the screen scrolling around on the monitor or I get a small square in the middle of the monitor. I've used Suse, Mandrake, Knoppix and Red Hat with varying degrees of success but my main complaint is that I don't have a drop down box that will let me adjust screen res, like I can in Windows. At least it's not as functional as the one in Windows. The other thing is Samba configuration. I may be crazy but file sharing on a Windows network should've been the EASIEST thing to configure in Linux. It's the only way that Linux will ever compete in the desktop market. I've been a computer tech for years and have used everything from the TI99/4a, a 286 running a proprietary OS called "8n1" over DOS, to my latest Windows XP machine. I dictate what my family uses as their OS (because I work on their computers for free) and if I can't configure it like they want it, how are they ever going to be able to do it? After working all day long, I don't have time to weed through hundreds of man pages, only to find out there are 10 apps that do what I need it to do, but none of them will do it without editing several files and recompiling. Also there needs to be a big red button in the center of the Linux screen that says - "I really screwed up bad, please set everything back to install defaults"
60 percent of the time, my comments are right everytime.
we will let newbies show and tell us what they need.
This is an excellent idea.
A lot of people in IT have a lot of experience with Microsoft, whose approach since they gained market dominance has been to more or less shove new products to their audience after some token sampling of the marketplace.
But FOSS is currently making a similar supply-side mistake, too: people that want to use Linux to do something in particular for their business have to "just accept" a distro and what's out there. Before you say "but they can write their own app", think - How many small business owners are capable of "writing their own app", modifying an Apache module, etc?
Sure, there's tons of free and open source software out there that people can use to build systems for their businesses, but many of those small business owners have little time or little expertise about how those pieces could be put together to help them. They need help with insight. Call it marketing, for lack of a better term.
Instead of just offering a supply, either as MS offers OurOneSizeFitsAll - take it or leave it; Linux offers an OceanOfFreePartsAnyExpertCanUse, drive a focus more onto customer demand that will help provide more people with Linux solutions that can really help them. And, if it helps them, it will help even more people as they can more easily see how it can be done.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
How about "Linux Desktop?" This would make sense and not sacrifice the enormous amount of effort that has gone into building the Linux brand name.
sulli
RTFJ.
but it's not contained within the distro when you install it, you might not even be able to get online at all to find it, and if you did, you would have to know it exists in the first place. A lot of the problems with linux and newbies or intermediate level is that it's not WITH the installation. If you are lucky enough to have a friend or LUG handy to get you started, it's probably a lot better, but sometimes that isn't possible, and a lot of people only have one computer, so if they install linux and then get stuck, they are en-screwed pretty quick if they can't go find any decent help for one reason or another.
I agree though, task oriented and written in normal english with zero acronyms is a better idea. To ME that would make the difference between say just downloading or buying a cheap copy or paying a reasonable fee for a distro direct from the distro seller. I've gotten slightly past the total newbie experience, but initially it was a struggle, coming from an almost total no-command line background. And I'm about done registering with a buncha forums just to ask a question or take part in the conversations, I really don't want to use my email addy much anymore. I used to, but back then I got tons of spam, now that I don't register to new places or get on news lists I don't get much spam. I know that's a side issue but it's effective in keeping the box clean too.
Back to the subject, tell you what would be *nice* is if there was a program that would mirror what you are doing in the GUI right in the console in real time, just keep following along with what is going on just as if you were totally running from the console. Say you go to open a program, the console automagically types out what the command would be, and so on as you are using the program, say sorting through the file manager, and etc. Kind of like when the GUI will give you the keyboard shortcuts when you pop open a menu item, but *better*.
Anti-virus software and monthly security updates and bug patches.
The typical Windows user has become so adjusted to the idea of constant crashes, security holes, and bug fixes that they'll think Linux is somehow lacking if it doesn't provide them - constantly. After all, viruses are a normal part of computer operation, right?
And should you try to convince them otherwise, they won't believe you. I've actually heard pro-Windows CS students say, "Well, it's impossible for a computer system not to crash from time to time..."
Sometimes I think that Windows is Bill Gates' revenge against all those kids who used to make fun of him on the playground. He charges Joe "corporate-fool" Sixpack exorbitant amounts of money for the software equivalent of a Pinto - sweet revenge indeed!
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
>> Users need to be educated, there is no alternative.
Nuts. This is just another way to blame users for software that isn't good enough.
Better to write software that doesn't require an education than whine about users.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Everyone knows the best way to get a Linux question answered is to post to Slashdot saying "Linux can't do _______."
This isn't the first time this has been asked. The thing is, it isn't that complicated. The problem is that developers tend to want to do their individual thing versus having a large, cohesive goal. Which is generally what commercial outfits (Microsoft, BeOS, etc.) give you. With most of the free software being written by volunteers, what can you expect? With money you can tell developers (ie. force them) to do what you want and generate software at a higher level. Usually people with the best vision and plans are not the people actually doing the work. You think the slaves building the pyramids really cared about making a pointy pile of rocks?
That's just the way it is. Nothing wrong with individuals doing their thing, but with something as large as an operating system you just can't do that and have a cohesive system. Companies like RedHat are trying to change that, but even they are having to work with lots of software generated by individuals with different goals.
So what do users want?
They want something that does what they need to want to do in the easiest possible manner.
Period. It's as simple as that.
Here is a simplified list based on that idea. You'll need to read between the lines to really understand what I'm saying.
- It must run the software they need to run.
- It must work with all hardware that the user wants to use.
- Configuration should be a breeze. It should be almost invisible. It should do everything for you. If there are any user-optional/configurable features they should be made easily available.
- It must not crash.
- It must run as fast as the hardware can possibly support.
- It should be intuitive to use (including other software packages). Things should be context sensitive.
The user shouldn't think about how they need to do something. They should just be thinking of what they want to do.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Yeah I hate LinOS too ;) I just made it up quickly. "Linux Desktop" sounds much better and can be marketed as the desktop version of linux. Like Windows Server and Windows XP. Perhaps also brand all server distros as "Linux Server". Making the clear divide between the "harc0re" linux and the easy and user friendly desktop edition. Of course this means that the "Linux Desktop" name has to be associated ONLY with the distros that are easy to use and can work flawlessly without EVER seeing a command window. Start associating "Linux Desktop" with recompiling the kernel and crap like that then the whole idea goes to pot.
I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did
Recently, when my hard drive borked, I had to resort to using Knoppix to check my email, et cetera while waiting for the spare time to get things working again.
With a Knoppix CD, I could:
Now this was incredibly usable to me since I am familiar with Linux in the first place. There are only a few places where things fall apart.
I think that the Harmony Remote concept would be useful for Linux Configuration. For those too lazy to Google for it, the concept is this:
90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
First step is letting neophytes know what is out there. There are loads of different distributions, applications and desktops, and it's difficult for new users to figure out what they want.
What would be helpful is a site like Freshmeat, but set up for new users, ideally like a software store. You could look for apps under various headings, and install them by clicking a link. Maybe a Mozilla plugin that autodetects what OS you're running on and grabs the appropriate rpm/deb/ebuild/whatever. Ximian has something like this, as does Lindows, I think. But it needs to be even easier to use than their systems.
While we're wishing, how about a consistant interface for help? Base it on XML (Docbook?) and make it possible to import info and man pages, and make it auto-update from the net with bugfixes, changes, and news. I really like the old Microsoft help format, about Win98 vintage, not HTML help yet but it could display HTML and had a nice contents page and tree-style index. Hmm, time to start coding...
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Do we let undergraduates tell the professors what they need to know? Do we let middle schoolers decide on their curriculum? No?
The point being is this: newbies do not know what they need, anymore than the examples above, or the person buying a Dell running WinXP which comes with only 128Mb of RAM.
I'm tired of people trying to make linux something that it is fundamentally not. Linux is not designed to be an OS for the masses; it is designed to work. Breaking that paradigm will inevitably break the core of what Linux is.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I have been a sun/linux user for a long time, but had only admined windows for years, I recently took the plunge and installed Mandrake, I just used it out of the box for a long time...
Saturday, I decided to set up samba so I could get my mp3s onto my windows laptop (has to be windows, it is a machine from the office).
I had very little trouble setting up samba, but I had a hell of a time figureing out that shorewall was keeping me from using it...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Because they still don't _get it_!
/usr/local/bin? Or maybe /usr/bin? or /usr/local/apps? (I've seen it in all 3 and more), not to mention NONE OF THESE PATHS MAKE SENSE TO YOUR AVERAGE USER!!! Even if you explain it to them.
GrokDoc is asking about the _applications_, and that's not the problem. Mozilla on Linux is the same as Mozilla on Windows. OpenOffice is the same on both platforms.
It's the system, stupid!
If I install an application on Windows (or Mac or OS/2), where does it show up? Usually on a nice folder on the desktop or on some sort of "system menu". In Linux? Usually the answer is "I don't know!". (Problem is, some will play nice, some don't). Even if I knew to get to the command line, where is it? It's usually not fixed my $PATH variable, so it doesn't point to it yet. So how do I find it?
In any other OS, it's obvious. Look in "Programs" or "Program Files". Bloody obvious. Linux? Err...is that
And last of all, don't tell the user to RTFM. Most of these FM's are derived from man pages, which are F*** all useless to your average user.
In most cases, it's not a matter of needing more documentation, it's a matter of destroying old, out of date ones.
Here's a big problem with Linux. Linux users want people to switch to Linux, but they're not willing to help. It's always, "Did you 'man' it?" or "RTFM!!!".
People are used to turning the computer on and using it. I dual boot with XP Home and Fedora 2, I do not consider myself a Linux guru, but I know how to get around.
For the most part, Windows is easy. Linux is not if you grew up using Windows that last umpteen years.
Some of you will hate me for this, but the billions of distros doesn't help. With Windows, there's only one. Having a computer background, I can say I enjoy having a choice in my flavor of Linux and desktop. But the everyday user will look at this as a hinderance. They don't want to choose the wrong one. Not everyone is a Unix admin or a developer.
You can't find the same program in the same place on different distros. Or if it is, it's not given the same name. In Suse, XMMS is 'XMMS', in Fedora Core 2 it's 'audio player' or something like that. Not a big deal to the normal Linux user, but a huge deal to the everyday computer user that grew up on Windows. When they install Winamp, they're gonna find it under Winamp, not Audio player or anything else.
Not to mention the amount of upgrades different distro companies produce. People don't want to feel like they have to upgrade every six months to a year.
You can flame me all you want. The truth is, I love Linux and enjoy the upgrades, etc. But the normal computer user is discouraged by all of this.
Until Linux works with all hardware(it won't work with my Lexmark all-in-one) and is unified in it's overall look, normal users won't adopt it.
Eric Windham
This effort does not seem focused on making GNU/Linux more standard, or simpler to use. Instead it seems to be a documentation effort. I see it more as providing resources that explain Linux printing, and how to configure printing so that it works. You seem to imply they plan on imposing a standard printing system. I see it more as a masterclass on how to write documentation, rather than proposing changes to the interface.
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
...the answer to every question on the site is "nigritude ultramarine"?
my first distro was just someone I knew made a copy and gave it to me. that was enough to get me installed, but not online with, but luckily I have multiple computers so I was able to go find out what I was missing and doing wrong. Second distro was a boxed redhat 7.2, that came with two good paperbacks that had *some* useful info, but if what they said didn't work when you tried it, then back to googling here and there and yonder. Since then I just buy shipped-cloned because I am on dialup, well, don't own a burner either, running FC2 now, but that's only because I can go look up whatever I am stumped with, but I also have a lot of patience and the backup computer that I know very well, my trusty old mac classic, can get me to the web to find info. If all I had was the one computer, no way would I still be running linux, and driving an hour round trip to go to the library is not an option. I guess you just really have to WANT to run linux is what I am saying, to make it worth your while. I never went through windows insecurity, so that wasn't a factor in getting me to switch, I switched because steve jobs priced me outta macs to be frank, not because I didn't like them or couldn't figure things out, on the contrary, I always found classic to be fairly easy to use with zero instructions beyond click here, it does it. I never understood using windows *on purpose* as in going out and actually paying for it, and I never even saw anything unixy before I tried linux.
/., although someone's mom might not like it....
Yes, printed out instructions that could be included with a clone copy for another buck or two would be a pretty nice addition. I find any of the built in information I have seen to not be of much use unfortunately, for one, it's hard to keep track of what you are doing when all of it is brand new, better to have a dead trees manual by your side while you try to make sense of what is on the screen in front of you, at least it keeps the clutter down and you can scribble some notes in your manual as you tweak stuff.
I still like my idea of a command/GUI real time mirror though. Or even take it further, to build up the mind/muscle-memory deal, you start the mirror program, it forces YOU to follow the example that is indicated and to type the command, almost like a typing tutor but to learn linux, while you are actually doing what you want to be doing, not what they want you to do.
Hmm a name for the GUI/console mirror tool... heh heh heh , perfect for
Command Line Interactive Training
OK. I am not a newbie anymore. I use Linux as my primary system since 1998. I surf the web almost 24/7 but still couldn't figure out how this site works, if it matters to me, or where I could start. I admit that I didn't read the tiresome article on the frontpage. Please, this is not an intended troll. I think the idea behind this is great. But it is really too complicated for any newbie to use. Am I just plain stupid or why isn't there a transparent, straightforward way to navigate this site?
Watch them try and record the results. If you have a video, and they are willing, record it for your own use so as to analyze carefully what happens.
That's how usability testing is done. Although, to do it right, the user should be alone; no hints. And you need video and audio of the screen and the user.
It is worthwhile to make a highlights reel from such videos for developers to watch.
Somebody should mention that this site is running MediaWiki, the same software that powers Wikipedia and several related projects.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Knoppix and friends autoconfigure these things. Distros like Mepis install those settings to the newbie's hard drive with a few GUI clicks. Other distros like Red Hat and Mandrake have done this for years, but Mepis gives you the chance to try it out off the CD without risk to the newbie.
In any case, the point of the project is collect specific information about specific applications, so that developers can change their manuals or programs if they are inclined. If you think a control panel is lacking, by all means, write in. Be sure to include specific details of what confused you. If you think this is too much trouble to go through, ask yourelf what commercial vendor listens this way. Keep those thoughts in mind the next time you have a problem and you get stuck in the hardware - software blame shifting game played by most people who demand money for their services.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"All I want is for it to simply work". I'm not a Mac user but I think Apple got it right in many places. Auto config anything (samba is a royal p.i.t.a. to set up, but windows networking isn't -- is it really that difficult to autodetect a setting that will work?) Go a step further in troubleshooting. "What do you want to do?" - "connect to the internet" "Okay, it looks like your DNS isn't working. Do you want to configure a default one?" Anything as long as it works. Even if things work sub-optimal, it is better than not having them work at all.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Hell, don't even call it linux to start. Just drop in a liveCD of whatever has the neatest stuff, mess around with it for a while, and when they ask what the heck that is, go "ah, let's see. Oh yeah, Linux". When they ask what Linux is, say "It's an operating system. Like windows, but different. Faster for some stuff, and you can tweak it. Crashes less too. This one's cool, I can run it off the CD, so it works in like anything that has a cdrom, and I just stick all my files on this USB key thing." Pauses between sentences are nice, makes it sound a little less like a prepared speech.
If they ask if it runs IE, say "yeah, well firefox actually. Basically the same thing". Novices are not into quibbling about fine points, nor do they want to join your glorious browser war. For god's sake, don't go spouting ideological rubbish about freedom and choice and taking down the evil empire of redmond.
Actually, I'm quite glad this was brought up. Yesterday, I was talking with several clueless computer users on a chat channel, and wanted to show them that they can in fact, live a virus-free life.
I wanted to suggest that they go check out Knoppix. Just to try it out.
Unfortunatly, I found that all of the websites that i could find that have to do with Knoppix are either (a) complete garbage, or (b) geared towards people who already know what, why, and how.
Knoppix could be used quite readily to show people what they are missing out on. Anyone know of any sites that explain to COMPLETE NEWBIES what, why, and how? ie, Knoppix for Dummies!
??
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Despite the appearance of Karma Whoring, it really needs to be pointed out again and again that MS as a company is unethical and ruthless, and will do whatever it takes to gain and maintain power over your computer.
Disclaimer: From time to time, I have needed to use MS software, so my ethics have certainly been compromised.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Was it just me who got a commerical for M$'s Get the FUD "campaign" on my first visit to the site?
Although the early entries on the wiki approach the site as a forum, this is not its founders' stated intention.
They are asking proficient users of linux distros to sit down with a newbie for a few hours, observe them, and report back to the forum on the problems that newbie has had with operating the distro. The results of these will obviously take a fair bit of time to feed through, so it is not surprising that contributors had not posted their feedback from their experiences yet.
The posts on the wiki explaining, for example, what a BIOS is, would no doubt be useful to some people. Perhaps at some point these will be ported to the forums mentioned by the parent, and the wiki can be turned over to the results of such research.
By that logic, I'd have to call Windoze and OS X BSD.
Distribution names are appropriate and easy to explain. Windows itself is a commercial distribution of software, a collection of stuff they have bought, coppied from BSD and written themselves. Newbies can understand that and they can understand that a GNU/Linux distribution is just another collection of software that happens to be free. It's an easy concept to transfer except you can promise the newbie that free software will remain free and tell them how they can share it with others. More importantly, the newbie needs to know the distribution name so they can look for help when they need it. The list is not endless, the newbie only needs to know about one or two distributions that meet their needs. This leads to much less confusion than gross simplifications like, this is all "Linux".
In any case this thread is about a new Wiki service where you can write about things that confuse newbies if you care. When you get there, you will see that the information they are looking for is specific to applications and distributions. It will be very helpful to developers of the applications and to documentation writers. If you have gripes about real problems, get going.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
testing out my trending skills
I don't know about you, but if I have problems installing something, I don't always RTFM either. For example: I tried many many times to get wine to work, and every time failed. It crashes, or can't find some config file, or just doesn't do anything at all. Why didn't I RTFM? Because it is BIG and I just don't want to waste all that time to figure out just what options I need to type into the darn config file. Instead, I just boot into Windows to play games. Much simpler, not wasted time, no strange crashes, and everything is supported, including my nVidia card. Another example: printing. My machine can not print right now because the printer is networked from a Windows machine and magicfilter crashes for some reason when used in the smbprint script. Could I debug it? Probably, but why waste time? If I need to print a letter, I can just boot into Windows and use Word to type it and print it. Much simpler than spending hours messing with unfamiliar code in gdb (don't you just _hate_ gdb? It's another example, by the way. It is simpler to just put some printfs into the code and recompile than to figure out why it suddenly loses all my symbols ["can't find class string as reported by C++ RTTI"]). So, as you can see, unless the failing program does something vital to me, it is much simpler to just boot into Windows for a while, do it, and then reboot again and go on living.
> You can't really complain about newbies not reading the manual when the manual either just plain doesn't contain the information you need, or has wrong or out-of-date information in it.
Did you send in bug reports for the parts of the documentation that were incorrect, obsolete, or unclear? Most of the time, frustrated users neglect their role in improving Open Source documentation... Think of bug reports as "letters to the editor".
Well, good luck to GrokDoc. Since it is a Wiki, they will need it. It's sad, but I predict a lot of wiki-abuse from Microsoft Drones and various low-life hackerz (if it hasn't already been Slashdotted).
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Patience to dig through piles of documentation that simply list hundreds of configuration file options, without ever mentioning which ones apply to the most common case - I'm on a home desktop and what to set up networking with other Windows machines to share files and printers (why can't this problem be solved by the install script?)
Thick skin - to be able to absorb all the replies to questions posted to Linux forums. It takes a lot of hide to bear out all the "newbie", "what a moron", "didn't you RTFM?", "can't you use an editor?", etc.
Self-esteem - to survive the multitude of failures that precedes each success. To accept that understanding is really beyond you and the only option in many cases is to just try each option and see if it makes things work.
Good memory - to remember the exact syntax of those oh-so-human-readable configuration files for at least as long as it takes to close the man page and open the offending file in an editor.
Time - to get things working. Sure, Linux might be able to do anything, but it takes so much TIME to configure it. You can be pretty sure that any major app can not be installed by simply typing 'make install'. To actually use it you always need to wade through documentation to see what options you need to enable. After all, configurability is so important, that the developer just does not dare to set some reasonable defaults to configure the application to the most common case (the home desktop; there are considerably more of these than servers)
Also useful for recovering lost software keys...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
There is nothing crippeling about a GUI front-end. Noobies love GUI's. They tell you what you need to know and don't require any memorisation.
And, a frontend is just a nice wrapper, so it doesn't in anyway remove the ability to open up your terminal and do anything you could before.
The fact is, computers are good at doing automated tasks. So why should a new user have to work out what steps they are going to need to do when a program designer knwos full well what the average user will be doing
I know many windows users who only use their computers for about 5 or 6 things (e-mail, digital camera, etc) and so setting up a computer for them on linux is simple. But I don't know what they might need in the future and too these people, even typing in everyone's favorite './configure && make && make install' is daunting and should be avoided at all costs.
Why is giving these people a simple option always seen as treading on the toes of the elite (or is that L337).
now if that option could be standerdised...
The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
You are a troll.
I use Windows for many things; things I prefer to use on Windows, and things my employer insists I use on Windows. The truth is that once you get past web surfing, email (and setting up Outlook on a large system is not always so easy either), and downloading music and movies you don't own, many of the more advanced tasks do take a bit of reserch.
By the way, I bought RH8 and later downloaded RH9, and used the (quite nice) GUI to install both of them, and they functioned fine out-of-the-box with no problems at all, no secret little "guru" tricks to get things working, no hair-pulling to get basic apps working (net surfing, word processing, basic office functionality, burning CDs, and so on). So, what's YOUR problem?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I'm a computer tech and consultant that generally putters with programming. I wasn't too shocked to see, as I moved to Mac OS X, how badly the man help and documentation files were written.
My career involves many publishing venues, including a very popular book publisher and a city newspaper. While most developers are very adept at their work, self-expression or documentation is not their strong suit in general. The text is jargon-rich and circular, presuming that the reader already has a knowledge base equal to that of the writer.
This one point alone is why Linux and almost all other UNIX blends and clones never get the attention they seek. It's not that the OS is rotten (far from it), but because users have NO FRICKIN' CLUE what to do with it, including installing the OS (which programmers should really assume will be atop or supplementing Windows), and the help information is incomprehensible, if it exists at all.
Further, the diversity of X Window-based interfaces (window managers and desktop managers like KDE) are too diverse, leaving users very confused where anything is. Mac OS X is essentially the only UNIX clone/blend that a grandma can use. Sure, grandma CAN use Linux, but who's going to teach her how in a way that is understandable? She certainly won't try to READ how.
My humble opinion is that programmers should stop trying to steal the likenesses of Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X and attempt to kidnap the companies' marketing and human interface staff!
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
>From the article: "It's here, and it's a wiki format, because that is what most of you said you thought would work the best."
How much do you want to bet "most of you" aren't active Open Source documentation volunteers? I wonder how many of those advisors volunteered to clean up duplicates, trolls, vandalism, spam, and generally off-topic rants. Do they even read documentation off-line? Have they tried to print out a Wiki to read it later? I guess wget -r will be one of the most popular topics. LOL!
For technical documentation to be usable, it must be clear, complete, correct, and current. This requires an incredible amount of work and Wikis are no shortcut. As a matter of fact, Wiki advocates *want* unclear or incomplete entries because it encourages participation. Wikis suck for technical documentation.
What newbies need to switch to the GNU/Linux platform are applications -- not just any applications, but the applications that they want to run. Most people run relatively few applications: word-processing, browsing, music downloading, etc...I've been able to switch most people over to Linux just by setting boxes that do everything they need to do. They then are overjoyed that everything works faster, they don't get viruses, they don't have to run AD-AWARE everyweek to get rid of trojans etc... People who are resistant to switching over are resistant not because they like Windows or MAC OS, but because there are no comparable applications to what they use on the Linux platform that are better than what they use now. I get questions like: "Does Linux run GoldMine?", "Does Linux run Alpha 5?", "Does Linux run 'Soldier Of Fortune'?", "Will Linux run my online banking program?","Does Linux run Quicken?". Most newbies don't care about the OS, they care about APPLICATIONS. Setting up Samba or Wine is not a problem (they'll just call me to do that).
...is take what the newbies say and use it for yet another thing to argue about, rather than listen to it. Because they don't HAVE to listen. Because they're doing this for FREE, giving of their own precious time for others' benefit, so how dare those ungreatful newbies criticize our fine work. Hell, even the commercial distros do it entirely their own way and then try to provide tech support which the newbies can barely understand rather than making something the newbies can understand from the outset.
Mod it troll, mod it flamebait, it's just a damn shame you can't mod it professional opinion, or wager.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
1) The GNU/ prefix brings a message of discord, someone who is envious of success trying at all costs to bring his own acronym into another person's product.
2) Linux *is* an Operating System, formed by a kernel, a set of device drivers, and a set of software tools. Only some tools come from the GNU set. Why should those tools dominate the name? What about all of the device drivers, without which the system wouldn't run anywhere? I have an Nvidia graphics card, should I call my system an NVIDIA/GNU/Linux?
3) Linux uses several tools of the GNU set, but it could also use any other set of tools. You don't call a car STARRETT/Chevrolet just because a certain brand of tools was used in its manufacture. You don't call it a PIRELLI/Chevrolet, even if it needs tyres to run.
4) The GNU team has its own operating system, called "Hurd". Saying that Linux is part of the GNU set of software creates confusion.
5) Nobody who hasn't english as a first language knows how to pronounce "GNU".
6) There is nothing in the GPL stating that one needs to append "GNU/" to the name of software derived from GPL works.
I do admire RMS for his work, and am willing to give him all the credit he deserves. But that credit shouldn't extend to let him destroy what is the recognizable mark of the work done by others. So let the Linux name alone. Don't try to preach so much. It destroys trust. What would a newbie think, coming with a simple question about configuring a sound card and being answered with a long and hard to understand lecture on the importance of prepending "GNU/" to a name? It happened to me. Fortunately, I was mature enough to recognize an asshole better left ignored and got some helpful answers from people who call Linux by its true name.
You forgot to mention that the hackers and usability experts are directed by drooling marketdroids and PHBs at the behest of cut-throats and criminals.
Yes, because usability studies work that way. Idiot.
Half of all queries to Google are now coming from Windows XP, XP's share growing at the rate of about 1% a month. Linux's 1% of the Google "market" hasn't changed since, well, like forever. If Linux can't make it's presence felt on a sophisticated web portal like Google, I don't see a tipping point anywhere in the mass consumer market.
this bizarre statement: When i was a newbie, i always thought it was arrogant to say that i was better off using windows.
I suspect you are lying rather blatantly here to support your argument.
You are not the worst offender but its not like the Windows command line is a state secret or anything. Start->Accessories->Command Prompt *or* Start->Run.
May I ask how the parent to this is off topic? Deadrat = redhat! You are supposed to mark it troll!
But anyway, back to the topic at hand. I think we both agree that at the moment, usability for most people is equated to having a Windows look and feel. The real challenge to the Linux community will be to get to a point where Linux's usability can be judged independently of whether or not it looks or works like Windows. This is something Apple has been quite successful at.
I partially agree. Initially I liked the concepts I found: Free, open source, available everywhere. But then things got very complex: It appeared I had to use 'vi', which I still despise, and have never figured out how to use.
Point is, some of us were forced into the situation, but once we began to understand, we began to love it. A bit like the classic story of the two enemys trapped in a forest fire..
I use regedit about once every three months, and it's always for power-user stuff.
On Linux, I usually find myself hand-editing a config file once every couple of days.
Don't confuse the issue!
This webpage isn't intended for computer newbies - people new to computers altogther. This is for people who want to make the Windows (or MacOS)-to-Linux transition, and need help doing it. There's still an awful lot DOS/Windows people need to learn to progress to Linux, and I think it's knowledge worth having.
All I'll say is: more power to them!
"Please! Love or hate microsoft, you can thank Bill Gates and company for making computers accessible to everyone. Without the sea change that was microsoft, most tech guys here would not have jobs - why you ask? Because there would be a lot less computers used by a lot less people."
Nice re-write of history to match your fantasy. Bill Gates and company didn't make computers accessible to everyone. Bill Gates and company opportunistically snatched a dirty clone of Gary Kildall's operating system after selling IBM something Bill Gates and company didn't have.
There was no "sea change that was microsoft" except for the change from collaborative computing to antagonistic computing, from a model following the scientific method of progress to a model of greed. Bill Gates and company have been holding computing back for twenty years. Evidence in the real world? Linux.
By the time Linux was 7 years old, it was already the number one threat to MS. (I'm sure you can search Google for those terms. Hint: Ballmer is the one who proclaimed the threat). MS had how many years by 1998? Yet the "upstart", using collaboration instead of secrecy, with enlightened self-interest to motivate instead of greed, and using a license that protects the USER instead of enslaving the user as a revenue generation unit, overtook Microsoft. They've been falling behind the penguin ever since.
I note while reading the comments that much of the whining against Linux and much of the promotion of MS comes right out of the CDs, handbooks and publications MS put out beginning in 1998 about how to deal with Linux. It's time to read Bill's memos at opensource.org/halloween and give up on the FUD. It doesn't work.
Business is waking up to the fact that it needs Linux. They are stampeding away from the ever-tightening cage that MS is attempting to lock around them. Microsoft's desperate rush to patent, while the USPTO is still rubber-stamping everything, will not be sufficient to stop the stampede.
Individuals have discovered that there are distributors of Linux who work very hard to make things easy. People are fed up with the continuous, expensive, damaging, time-consuming reminders of the low quality of MS products, which reminders come in the form of service packs that break existing "applications", viruses that eat data, exploits that allow MS "extensions" to standard HTML to hijack and control their computers. People are fed up with MS telling them they must not do this or that, with the threat of U.S. Marshals and the BSA kicking down doors. People are fed up with the increasing invasion of their privacy in return for the privilege of paying ever higher subscription fees for software that provides more functions for exploiters than those who pay the rental.
Linux works. Linux is easy enough for kindergartners to use, now. Linux has already revolutionized the industry. Linux sets individuals, businesses, governments and schools free from the illegally obtained, maintained and extended monopoly's choke-holds and its unwanted and unwarranted intrusions. Linux lets you own your computer, instead of being 0wn3d.
For obvious reasons, you're pissed. Did you file any bug reports? Ask any friends? Get in IRC?
The GUI that seems to be the basis of Windows' "accessibility" was present on Apple machines years previous. I'm not really a fan of Macs, but giving credit to Microsoft for making computers "easy" to use isn't right.
If anything, thank them for holding a monopoly that forced developers to adhere to a standard.
You know, now that I think about it, the issue that a lot of people have with Linux is not ease of use, but compatibility. Like it's been stated many times before, there are distros that are terribly easy to set up and use. Finding software to work with it, however, is another story.
LegendMUD
people don't use an "X/Linux" system, they use a "X/GLibc" system. Linux can be swapped out in favour of the FreeBSD kernel if you like. Your user space apps call GNU Libc, not Linux.
In 1983, X and TeX existed, RMS decided we needed a free OS. So he started writing one. He personnally wrote GCC, Emacs, and GDB. He recruited volunteers, he founded FSF (who hired 15 programmers), he wrote the GNU GPL, he asked people to help again and again and he gave them the tools to write free software. He gave talks, he spoke to the media, he answered slashdots questions, he has worked and worked, and produced more than anyone else has for this OS.
Linus Torvalds found the tools made by RMS and wrote some free software (it was proprietary initially but Linus GPL'd it in 1992). Linus (accidently) finished the GNU project, the pure GNU OS didn't have to be finished because a variant using Linux as it's kernel was ready.
You can call it "GNU/Linux" out of respect for the GNU programmers that wrote the largest chunk of the OS, or you can call it "GNU/Linux" because that's the only name that keeps the topic of freedom in the conversation. (IBM and MS have neither of these goals, so they call it "Linux", please don't just copy the Megacorps.)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Yes, a problem with Samba is too much documentation. But more the issue is that the documentation is written from the programmer's perspective, where there is this amorphous code base which implements both client and server aspects of Samba. Not surprisingly, many of the data structures and methods will be either identical or closley mirrored for the 2 ends, and the programmer will focus on the overall transport and not have a particularly strong focus on the client and server roles as distinct entities.
Consequence is that the biggest issue I have had with Samba documentation as a user is that I find it hard to distinguish what is required for server and for client roles.
To be fair, I think that some of the later documentation has been rewritten to address precisely this issue.
why the hell aren't you opening articles in a different tab? that way you don't have to wait at all to go back to slashdot, you just have to click once.
Gentoo's Handbook is the highest quality linux doc I've ever used. This kind of documentation really needs to replace the tired old HOWTO system. I'm faily sick of searching google for tips on how to set up my webcam under linux, only to get a HOWTO that references the 2.2 kernel.
That being said, the only thing that beats it is FreeBSD's handbook. If you want to learn how unix works, be it UNIX or BSD or linux, FreeBSD's handbook will lay down all the basics for you. It still serves me well 5 years after I first read through it.
Here is the english version. I encourage everyone to look through it.
..Are for true Linux users to stop telling us to RTFM.
I have a Linux zealot living at my fraternity house with me (we're mostly a geek fraternity,) and he will go on and on about how great *nix is. Since I went to a public school with the bare minimum in extra-curricular, I've grown up with Windows my entire life. I'm 19, and the most experience I've gotten with any kind of *nix is the command prompt on a solaris box and some basic SSH (which I'm not sure even counts.)
We have a router at the house running OpenBSD (that this Linux zealot designed,) and the current section (I go to Kettering U, if anyone knows what that means) has messed it up a bit. I was trying to fix it on my own, and I was thinking that I could e-mail this guy (who lives an hour away or so right now) to help me on it. He gives me the SSH info, and then keeps saying, you guessed it:
RTFM!
Which would be great. Except, being a linux n00b, I don't have a damn clue what M to F R! If I knew the commands I needed, but didn't know how to use them, RTFM would be expected. But I don't even know the commands to start out with (yes, I know about man man, but that doesn't help me a lot with editing the file that controls the router, or even where to find it.)
I guess the basic answer would be: Support from those without egos the size of Texas, and little to no conceit. That would be nice...
Reminds me of a Bash quote that states that, to get a real answer, you have to troll Linux forums/newsgroups. I haven't tried that, but I expect I may have to.
It took me forever to figure out even though the command was simple. Then it would go away every time I rebooted and I had to learn anout fstab and manually edit it. Just to do something so basic and nessessary. I'm sure that alone has been a sticking point for a good %30 or so of people that drop linux. I was useing RH 9.0 at the time, not exactily stale code, and it was vfat not ntfs.
The other big one was onece I had was wine didn't install with the distro. WineX didn't work at all.
-No good image viewer, and I looked - HARD
-Never could get jave installed properily, but I blame Sun for that and I hate java anyways.
-The ati DRI drivers were impossable and convulted to install, never could figure them out. I did get the TV tuner from ati2 installed and working kinda. I had to buy a never card so I could use the ATI properitery drivers.
Those were my main problems, everything else was not too hard to deal with.
I dont think windows users should go to linux. why should i care if they are constantly being infected with viruses and there computers are rebooting from exploits every other day? 99% of windows users are all fucking retarted aswell
RTFM
To a large degree, games have driven the home PC market. Remember the days of DOS when you had to edit batch files to get a game to work? Remember having to switch the IRQ on your soundcard manually? People will learn whatever they have to ifto play games. If you expect "newbies"--or even oldies--to make the switch in their homes, you're going to need to convince video game developers to write for Linux. That means better driver support and a more uniform environment will probably be required.
Yes, I realize there are some quality games out there for Linux. It's just not enough.
Youre a stupid luser n00b arent you?
;-)
All you need to do is:
1. recompile the kernel with the mod_cups module
2. change the configuration file linux_2.0.46.43.23.53.12.conf to read sjfd\fd0x34234 on line 45 after the [usb_printers] line. Mind you, be careful because this line may not be on line 45, and it also may not be called [usb_printers]. Also, the file may be called something else. Google for it.
3. when you boot into lilo remember to type the special name after the kernel you want to boot. I wont tell you what the name is, RTFM.
4. you need to get samba, the latest alpha release kernel and this obscure sourceforge project called kPrinters installed. They must be installed in a specific order or else your system will crash, but I wont tell you which order because you should RTFM.
5. Oh, and all this must be done before X is installed otherwise you are going to lose everything on your system
There, hope that helps you, you stupid n00b
I am a software engineer who's been using Solaris for about 8 years now and just recently switched to linux as a result of a job change. Much of the switch was painless enough, but there are a few differences between the two that needed sorting out, as well as using new software and doing sysadmin things that I previously had smart people paid to do for me.
My local linux guru happens to be a good friend of mine, and even when I come to him with seemingly intelligent questions, I get borderline hostile responses, suggesting to me I am an idiot/asshole/whatever for daring to waste his time with a question that I could've found the answer to myself.
Unfortunately, for someone of my intelligence and experience, "finding the answer for myself" usually means hours spent poring through manuals and FAQs and HOWTOs for the weird little behavioral quirk I'm looking to get answered. I dare not look into newsgroups and ask, for fear of even harsher treatment.
Most of the time, the people complaining about how idiotic newbies are, are often the same people wondering why linux hasn't taken over the world, established peace and harmony and cured cancer. Quite simply, it's not because people aren't curious about a free operating system and tons of free apps to do what people normally pay to do -- it doesn't take a sociologist or economist to realize that people will gladly do the same things they pay for, for free, given the chance. The problem is, they need to ask questions, and the best people to ask generally have enormous egos and a massive elitist streak.
RTFM/RTFFAQ is not without it's merits, but unfortunately many linux geeks use it as a simple, smarmy response to questions one can't reasonably be expected to know or discover for oneself. RTFM is meant to stop people from wasting time with common questions, but instead it's being used to stop otherwise interested people from pursuing linux further because those already steeped in it treat them like idiots. People like free software, but they don't like being insulted to get it.
One of the reasons Microsoft ascended to where it is now is not because they make high quality, stable, efficient, easy to use software. It's because they treat their customers like gold, help them with their problems happily, and treat even the most idiotic questions with empathy. Linux users looking to evangelize the movement should do likewise. Remember, you were there once too, not knowing how the hell to install patches or configure a Samba server or get your network running. Just because you have the knowledge doesn't make you a better person, unless you REALLY embrace the open source movement and make your knowledge as open source as the software.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
First, I must apologize - I've only quickly scanned maybe half of the comments above 2. So, hopefully this has been touched on...
I think the best thing to do is to get people using apps that run on linux. Promote OpenOffice, FireFox, gimp, et al (including GNU utilities for the real wannabe's). When they are accustomed to the apps, the change of OS isn't much worse than a Windows upgrade.
I hear lots of ripping on linux docs, but, let us be honest, Windows help ain't much to brag about. The average end user has very little interest in the details of the OS, and these people shouldn't have to fret about it. Those who are geeks shouldn't have a hard time learning linux. But if people have to learn the quirks of a new system AND new apps, well, that is just a lot to ask.
A better question is what parts are really Microsoft's. A short list of software bought either up front or through court imposed fines includes; Their browser, Backup software, Defrag software, just about everything. They even got notepad from ATT.
They have added to the code and packaged it, but companies like Red Hat do that much and more.
Microsoft's publicly stated software growth model is to wait until a market is "mature" then buy their way into it. They call people who make new things, "loss leaders". This works well when you want to take money from investors. It's no big deal, except they continue to also portray themselves to the public as "innovators" instead of what they are, a software vendor.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"but aren't there already several dozen similar sites and services like this?"
What?? 1 single project for a single task in FOSS? It feels somehow unclean and unwholesome just contemplating the thought! You need at the very least 3 projects - 1 prefixed with G and written in C, 1 prefixed with K and written in C++ and another recursively named one that runs on the command line written in Perl. All 3 projects should have fan clubs that always flame the users of the other for not being as l337 as they are. All 3 projects should do exactly the same thing but be implemented in totally different ways, and any talk of standardisation should be flamed into oblivion.
Now THAT is far more in the spirit of free / open source software!
If you want a general purpose software construction and test kit, then Linux is good. If you want to write a letter to Auntie Angela, then Windows/Office/Word is good.
It is important to find out what the newbie wants to do with the system before asking any more questions
As for RTFM, a novice should read several good books on Unix and Linux before trying to understand any manuals.
The main reason I have always hesitated switching is the blasted refresh rate. Under Win I can get my monitor running nicely at 1024 x 768 @ 85Hz. No flicker. Under X I get 1024 x 768 @ 60 Hz no matter what I have tried. And 60Hz is very annoying! I am running Red Hat 9 atm and I am very happy with everything, but that 60Hz is just driving me insane!
Anyone transitioning from OS X to Linux needs a LOT more help than a documentation project! ;-)
I would mod you up but you're already at +5
...that your list accurately describes how complex it really is. There are so many steps in there that people assume are easy, but they are complex in & of themselves. Each step would require a whole tutorial in & of itself.
By the way, I know for sure that you are joking around, & I understand what you mean. I'm really impressed @ how accurate it is.
testing out my trending skills
joe average user is not going to go thru the hassle of filling out a bug report or log into irc and ask questions (and the last time i was on a #linux channel it was too l33t for noobs).
i went back to what works. that was windows.
i am not joe average user. i build cluster servers. if a competent user has that much aggravation installing linux, just what does joe average go thru?
nice to see my factual post modded troll. i wonder what it would have been modded had i made it all up.
The cursed IE at work - no other option.
> The [documentation] text is jargon-rich and circular, presuming that the reader already has a knowledge base equal to that of the writer.
If every man-page and HOWTO started from first principles, the result would be voluminous (should every man-page should explain stdin, stdout, and stderr?) and redundant (readers hate reading what they already know) information. It would be a burden for both the readers and the maintainers. So documentation writers make assumptions about what their readers already know. Sometimes they assume too much...
IMHO, the solution would be a brief overview of the problem domain (like defining what an inode is) and links to more in-depth resources.
> ...the help information is incomprehensible, if it exists at all.
Have you sent in bug reports for the documentation that was unclear? Have you sent in re-writes? Have you written any documentation that was previously missing?
> My career involves many publishing venues, including a very popular book publisher and a city newspaper.
When those companies publish corrections or errata, where do they come from?
> That is something that I would like to see - a series of documentation files consisting entirely of examples.
Go ahead. What's stopping you? I'd recommend that you don't just throw some untitled, uncommented examples together in a collection but provide some context for your readers. Answer the questions: what?, how?, and why?
BTW: I'm an Open Source documentation volunteer and I did precisely this. I added hundreds of examples to a large reference manual. Some of the users appreciated it but it was a huge maintenance burden.
Each time there was a new release of the program, I had to test each example to make sure it still worked. So the "release early, release often" mantra of Open Source development actually made my job very grueling. (Yes, I scripted the tests as much as I could.) Perhaps that's why you don't see more examples in Open Source documentation.
> There is a lesson here for CLI designers: make your interfaces discoverable. Tell the user how to get a list of commands and how to find out what they do.
Here you go:
ls /usr/bin /usr/sbin
ls
Want to find out more about program foo?
man foo
> Finding docs is worthless if they all suck.
What are you doing about it? Have you sent in bug reports or re-writes?
> Finally a simple diagram of the generic file system printed in Linux Journal (that's right, even Linux for Dummies didn't bother to even show me a diagram of the file system...
Did you try The Linux Documentation Project? I found this diagram within minutes.
> Because Kernighan and Pike writing generically decades ago wrote better Linux documentation than what was available for Linux...
I assume that you're talking about _The Unix Programming Environment_. I agree that their writing on general topics is very clear and quite good. I like the style but some of the information in that book is a bit outdated now. Also, what about specific questions like how do I get my Brand X soundcard to work? or how do I sync with my PDA?
> Non-specific criticisms do nothing to help.
Amen! I've gotten comments like "your manual could be better". Well, I can't do anything with that information... Tell me how it could be better. Be specific.
> In fact, I volunteer my time to help others in various forums and have written howtos for questions that I have seen come up regularly.
Good job!
I'm trying to encourage frustrated readers to send in bug reports. It's a leap because they've never written to a technical writer. But they probably *have* sent a "letter to the editor" to a newspaper or magazine. Hopefully, they'll write more than "your manual could be better".
> If you think that a new site full of people saying "the documentation is bad" is going to help somehow, you're delusional.
I don't blame you for being confused, there's no timeline. But I think after they gather their requirements, they'll have technical writers work on the actual documentation. No mention is made of maintenance though.
> If it's done but the docs aren't, IT'S NOT DONE.
> This is a philosophy that the Open Source community desperately needs to adopt from the proprietary world.
I'm a documentation volunteer and in full agreement. Eric Raymond notes in the _The Cathedral vs. The Bazaar_ that Open Source projects "release early, release often". This often generates a huge maintenance burden for the documentation volunteers.
Then he complained later about the usability of CUPS. So perhaps he should make a point to advocate "user test, document, package, and then release" instead.
Gaurdog is a great learning tool. It clearly organizes the ports by what they provide, such as file transfer or chat. A firewall can be annoying for the newbie when they take their first tenative steps because many local services, like ssh, are blocked. When the newbie is ready for that, it is much easier for them to run the GUI than it is for them to learn everything about IPtables. Then, when they are ready to learn about IPtables, they have nice example files ready to hack.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.