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."
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.
Maybe the problem is newbies not knowing what RTFM means when you tell them to RTFM?
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.
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?
Blind leading the blind? I don't see many schools asking students to lead class and I think there is a reason...
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.
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?
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".
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
If your grammar and syntax are any example of the quality of work done by The Linux Documentation Project, then I'm beginning to understand the problem that some newbie's have with understanding Linux.
Patience.
Online docs may be a good thing, but readable docs which are included in the distro are much, much better. I am a linux newbie who runs an offline PC at home. If I want to look something up, my choices are man pages or waiting until I am back at work (where I have online access) to get my question answered. Turnaround time of 24 hours on help queries is why I am still dual-booting after a year.
People need to realize that PC!=Internet connection.
Zealots don't hate an OS because it's inferior. They hate it because it's other than their beloved OS. I guess you have noticed already that Linux zealots like only the distribution they use and say that it's the only good OS, every other distributions suck.
I think it's rather about pride. If one can't do something with Windows, he says Windows sucks and won't even try to solve the problem. If he's having trouble with Linux he says Linux is a great system but I still need to learn more about it, and probably also makes a joke about the lameness of Windows.
If Linux doesn't take the way of standardization then another OS will and Linux will never get widespread. But when every newbie can use it, it will be a shame for having problems with Linux, as it is with Windows now.
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.
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?!
1. An installation process as straightforward and simple as Windows
/var/tmp is full because /var got installed as part of the root file system along with everything else.
Or better, an understanding that Linux is NOT as straightforward and simple as Windows, and at the very least they are going to have to contend with multiple disk partitions (a.k.a, file systems) and that they are either going to have to have a clue as to how they are going to use their system and consequently what the file system size requirements are, or live with the default install. The former takes a little time and effort, the later a lot of patience once the system is installed and subsequently hangs once
2. The device compatibility offered by Windows
Talk to the device manufacturers about having a linux driver. This was the deal in the early days of DOS vs Win3.1 or WinNT drivers, and isn't likely to change any time soon with regard to Linux.
3. The level of cooperation shared by Windows applications
Do you mean other than by MS Office Apps? Or do you mean how all the MS Office apps cooperate to hang the system if you try to run them all at once?
4. The games available on Windows
See the response to number 2 above and apply to the game developers. The PS2 and Xbox crowd occasionally contend with this over various titles release for only one of those platforms.
5. The simplicity of changing system configurations offered by Windows
Linuxconf? The current KDE or Gnome clone? Or did you have something else in mind?
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.
I have to admit, a LOT of linux programs I have tried using and projects that I've seen have some of the worst documentation I;ve ever seen. Usually going something like "Do A, then B will be ready" when in fact there is so crucial step to get "B" ready that it is assumed the user will just "know". Most the time this leads to hours of IRC in some remote channel where most the people there are afk for 23 out of 24 hours.
I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did
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.
When a so called 'newbie' starts out he shouldn't (need to) read documentation telling him how to use vi to edit /etc/samba/smb.conf.
Instead he should be directed to a convenient administration tool (swat/webmin) which would allow him to set up his home server without 3 hours spent trying to make head or tail of his new (GNU/)Linux system.
Later, if he wants to become more proficient, or fine tune his installation (in general), then by all means show him the CLI and point him in the direction of a M for him to RT, just not straight away.
What a lot of us seem to forget all to easily is that there is something called information overload, and learning the command prompt/SysVinit runlevels/Samba configuration/hosts.Allow/Deny.... all at once is an easy way to get there. We didn't learn all of this in one weekend, so we shouldn't expect others to.
Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This is the attitude that causes so many problems for new users to Linux. People assume that the exsisting documentation and HOWTOs are fine because they understand them and can set up the thing in question without a problem. You are not listening to a REAL user who has REAL problems. This is the aim of this project, to get away from the notion that just because some document already explains it, that is enough. It's called User Testing, and it is something that more Linux projects need to do.
I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did
No 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!
I agree, SAMBA is one of the largest piles of mess I've ever run across. Most of the docs available tell you TOO much, which is just confusing and causes more problems then it solves.
When I first used SAMBA I read through the entire documentation. After the headache subsided, I only needed to look at 3 pages to configure it. Then I used SWAT and had to reconfigure it afterwards since it messed it all up.
I currently have a SAMBA server running on Fedora Core 1, works great with very little trouble using the GUI to select the shares and permissions. Even have my printer setup through it, works great.
The thing with SAMBA is, once you have it working...don't mess with it!
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
It's worth pointing out though, that being user-friendly didn't stop Windows from actually being faster than X in a lot of tasks. E.g., repainting a Window works orders of magnitude faster under Windows, while in XFree86 you end up needing such silly tricks as processing only each n'th repaint when the user is resizing a window. Doubly so when the Linux equivalent reinvents the bloated wheel, e.g., by insisting to do its very own font rendering and themed widgets.
/. crowd, but MS really isn't a company of idiots who are just drooling over the prospect of coloured buttons. It's what you get when you cross (in more than one way;) a whole lot of hackers, with a whole lot of hard working usability experts.
;)
E.g., MS Visual C still optimizes a LOT better than GCC.
I know it will sound like blasphemy to a lot of the
Most of Microsofts's faults, such as never thinking twice about ignoring the standards if it can optimize better without them, or inventing its own formats, are the exact same things we admire in the archetipal idea of a hacker. (The one illustrated in the Jargon file, for example.)
And indeed it has committed more sins in the name of speed, than for all other reasons combined. (Anti-competitive behaviour included.) E.g., that's the reason why MSVC++ was always slightly deviating from the ANSI standard: they could optimize code better that way. E.g., that's the reason it let drivers run in kernel mode, and made Windows inherently unstable. E.g., deliberately pissing off Sun aside, all the changes they did to their implementation of Java were precisely aimed at making it very very fast. Etc.
So either way, what I'm trying to say is: "user-friendly" doesn't _have_ to mean "slower than a snail". Windows has managed to stay pretty fast (fast enough to play real time 3D games, for example) even while cattering to the newbies. I'm sure Linux will, too.
Now stability, that's another thing. No idea there, and indeed MS doesn't exactly come to mind as a good example there
Plus, as was already said, it's not like anyone will stop you from running another desktop environment, if the newbie-inspired one gets too user-friendly for your taste. E.g., most distros ship with KDE, which is aimed at precisely that: looking like Windows to newbies, yet I happily run XFce 4 instead. A couple of co-workers run Ratpoison, and that's as far from Windows (or user friendly) as you can get in a graphics mode.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I think I finally got a config file working, and it was a tremendous pain in the ass. I've been using Linux for years, though I usually mostly stick with Windows for some strange reason. Oh....like for Samba. It's very difficult to read through a variety of articles, with 400 different ways to do it, some several years old, all of them conflicting, and virtually none of them well explained. I'm sure it gets old answering newbie questions, and believe me, it comes through in most any answer how tired the 'expert' is.
Even when I set up the share, which finally worked pretty well in Windows, I still can't use it correctly while mounting it in another Linux box. I suppose I still might have something misconfigured, but it keeps telling me the owner is '502,' which is the ID# (user #? whatever you call it) of the actual owner, but not the name of the owner. It sorta works, but not for subdirectories where I still lose ownership of what is supposed to be a full control subdir and files. It's just too much hassle, and I think somethings broken based on how it identifies the owner and permissions. Back to Windows. Hey, everything works. *shrug*
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
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."
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*.
1. An installation process as straightforward and simple as Windows
True. Simple installation yes. Like windows no. Why? I haven't come across a newbie who can do a clean installation with windows(I am not including those recovery disks that just dump an image into hdd). No one complains about windows because not many newbies install windows. it comes pre-installed on their system. In linux I really like the 4-click install of XandrOS.Its clean and simple and asks minimal questions.
2. The device compatibility offered by Windows
this is going to a problem because not all hardware manufacturers want to openup their drivers. A lot of them have given out binary only drivers(Think Nvidia) but the drivers suck.
3. The level of cooperation shared by Windows applications
agree.
4. The games available on Windows
chicken and egg problem 5. The simplicity of changing system configurations offered by Windows
I find apple give more simplicity when it comes to changing systems. But if we narrow our vision to what both apple and MS does for usability, then we are bound to make the same mistakes. There are other designs that are much more usable than windows and apple for that matter. We just shouldn't follow windows, just because people are used to it.
>> 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"
Which is precisely why the "Linux Desktop" market is so hard to expand -- there is no "Linux Desktop," only "A bunch of programs that LOOK like a Desktop that run under a Linux kernel." The Linux underneath may be the same or similar, but the programs on top are VASTLY different. And yet, they are consistantly grouped together as "Linux Desktop," when "Linux desktop" makes about as much sense as "Goodyear SUV."
This is something everybody should really make a point of...because really, all of Linux' benefits start to fall apart when they hit the desktop, and one of the reasons for this is that people treat the entire set of x servers, window managers, graphics toolkits and desktop packages as "Desktop Linux," when really each is not interchangable with the others. Understand wheat I'm saying? Your machine can use any of a half dozen different mail clients and they're all compatible with each other...but the thing the user uses most, the desktop interface, has no real coherent interoperability save that offered by the ancient and useless X.
X is no longer "good enough." Linux NEEDS something new and universal that is built for new technology, instead of patched to allow it. It's 2000-friggin-4. Let's follow Apple's lead and push the desktop onto the graphics card. Let's follow Be's lead and make the GUI something integral to the system, AS important as the CLI, and not just a "front end" for CLI commands. Let's follow -- gasp -- Microsoft's lead and not immediately assume everybody's RTFM...change defaults to prevent ignorance from killing a system and start failing over with useful error messages.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
It really depends on what you're doing. For something as mature as Samba, you should be able to get docs. . .
He didn't say he couldn't find docs. He explictly said he found lots of docs.
Finding docs is worthless if they all suck.
In my early Linux days I floundered around for a couple weeks just trying to find basic information. I'm no command line novice either, going back to the days when we typed it, on a typewriter. 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, and this is enough editions back that it was still command line centric) and a copy of Kernighan and Pike had me whizzing along in about half an hour.
Because Kernighan and Pike writing generically decades ago wrote better Linux documentation than what was available for Linux, and even better Red Hat documentation than that which came with my boxed set with triple the page count. I would have been better off if Red Hat had just tossed me a copy of TUPE with a note on saying,"Best we can do, you'll have to figure the rest out by yourself."
Because Kernighan and Pike know how to write documentation.
KFG
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.
That's contradictive. If you've given up on linux, you are a newbie. Just because you know windows does not mean you're hot shit in the Linux world of knowledge. They're knowledge sets that are not mutually exchangeable.
/shares
Samba configuration is exceedingly simple.Most distros even come with a very thorough config template made out for you. You can get it set up and running in a matter of seconds:
[global]
netbios name = machine
workgroup = name
security = share
[shares]
path =
browseable = yes
wide links = yes
guest ok = yes
That's all you need for basic functionality. Probably more than could be gotten by with. To add insult to injury, there are dozens of tools to do more advanced configuration for you. Are you sure you were reading the correct documentation?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Yes Mark, you're right. Documentation QUANTITY for Samba under Linux is high, therefore documentation QUALITY must be impeccable.
Come ON.
In fact, the more different versions of the documentation there are, the worse it is to try to follow them. How do you know which version is the best? How do you know which versions are even CORRECT?
Look, you can cop your RTFM/PEBKAC attitude all you want, just stay away from the newbies, ok? You're not doing anyone any favors otherwise.
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.
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
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.
That's cuz many dont know where to find the FM. Check out comp.lang.perl and see how many newbies are educated via egomaniac-with-flamethrower daily. There are indeed many too lazy to read, but you can't assume every newbie KNOWS there is a manual, and where to find it.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
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.
No, it doesn't prove a damned thing. YOU wouldn't have to use it, any more than you have to compile iptables into your kernel. And there's no reason why it should use more overhead than, say, PERL.
Your fear of adding new things is typical among Linux users. They can be added, but if optimizing for them requires modifications to ANYTHING else, opt to slow them down. And so we're stuck trying to patch holes in X. Fuck that, man, I'll stick with Windows...or better still, OS X.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
> 2. The device compatibility offered by Windows
> this is going to a problem because not all hardware manufacturers want to openup their drivers. A lot of them have given out binary only drivers(Think Nvidia) but the drivers suck.
Consider that nVidia's drivers are binary only on windows as well. A STABLE driver interface would be nice. I don't care how much it changes across 2.x versions, just stop changing the damn thing across patchlevels. Reordering and renaming structs is the order of the day in linuxland.
When a so called 'newbie' starts out he shouldn't (need to) read documentation telling him how to use vi to edit /etc/samba/smb.conf.
Huh?? why is anyone new using anything but the gnomeedit or other point and click text editors that are automatically installed?? It's just like the windows ones they are comfortable with...
And anyways, why are you messing with the smb.conf file or SWAT?? use the mandrake config tools and call it done. Too many newbies are being directed at advanced distros like gentoo and Debian and Slackware.... Give them the easiest for anyone to use, Mandrake 10.0 and soon to be even easier SuSE.
That was the biggest problem in my Local LUG.. the Seasoned Linux experts are telling newbies... "dont use XXXX use Gentoo it's better... here Debian Stable is what you want, etc....etc....etc...
Most linux newboes need to start with Knoppix then graduate to a real-installer but still brain-dead easy to use like Mandrake then graduate when they learn to hate RPM based distros...
throwing someone the Linux from Scratch PDF when they are a newbie is plain stupid, and most linux experts pull that crap on newbies every single day.
Getting them to change is the first step... the LUG I help with is standardized on Mandrake for newbies... we also reccomend that they actually BUY it so they can access the support community for it. then after they are ready they graduate to other distros...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I am not sure about what kind of people, people that are used to the unix world can make this separation just fine. After all it is probably that they have already seen the same GNU tools working in another OS like solaris or something. Heck I even saw bash and other working under windows...
On the other hand, people that are used to windows or macs will tend not to understand this issue, after all MS is actively tring to blur the line between the OS Kernel and the UI on top of it, even in the development model (moving gui functions to kernel to speed up NT, for instance).
Apple I am not sure what position it has, but at least seems that they do separate UI from OS. Isn't it true that the OSX UI has a separate name "aqua" or this describe another thing compleatly? But since many user don't experience the separation it may be also hard to understand it.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
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.
I don't know why I am even bothering.
First point: I help newbies all the time. I do everything I can to help on mailing lists and writing documentation myself.
Second point: This is not about me helping a newbie. This is the newbie saying "Samba documentation is bad" Now, since I have personally looked at the samba documentation a number of times and found it to be quite good, I found this interesting. I went looking for documentation and found not only quantity, but quality and that it was very easy to find (there are lots of products that aren't, I am very happy to admit that).
If I'm correct, and it is high quality, then the rest of the statement follows, correct? So the crux of the issue is whether samba docs are good or no.
So far, no one has said, "Mark: take another look at that documentation, see where it says 'do xyz? There's no way a normal human will understand that."
Instead the blanket statement has been made, and it's supposed to be obvious that this is Bad Documentation.
I say the documentation is Good Documentation and have pointed to very specific useful areas, the only line of discussion I am interested in pursuing is one regarding why this is Bad Documentation.
If I am wrong, and this truly is Bad Documentation, I will recant my statement that PEBKAC.
Good grief
-Mark
That OSS offers something different because you CAN contribute to it
.
.this is a relative statement, not an abosolute, depending entirely on who you are, what you do with it, and how you go about doing it.
Yes, which is why it will always be moving in 1001 different directions at the same time.
I mean, that's really the only reason TO use Linux.
Well, no. The fact that it can be obtained with no financial outlay is quite relevant, despite the shouts of "free as in speach," as is the fact that it is free of license encumberance if you never add a line to it.
The fact that it's Unix may also be quite relevant because. .
It's not like it's a more robust product that offers fewer time wasting hassles.
. .
KFG
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.
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!
I am pretty good at RTFMs, but it seems most manuals are written with the assumption that the reader already knows the subject and just needs a reference. I recently implemented a mail system that required integrating fetchmail, postfix, cyrus imap and several other technologies. I'm no dummy, but the manuals made my head spin. I did learn the programs, but I was really annoyed with sharp RTFM comments for things assumed obvious, but really weren't. I am now helping others through the same process, from the perspective of knowing just how confusing the technology is.
Actually, what most newbies use is some sort of X/Linux, either a KDE/Linux package or a GNOME/Linux package. For instance, take some of the most popular activities for newbies in a computer: surfing the web and listening to music. Their personal contact is with the browser, let's say konqueror, mp3 player, XMMS for instance, and the desktop, KDE in this case. If there are any GNU software in there it's buried deep out of the user's view. "Linux" is a good name for it all, it's recognizable and characteristic. And, even if specific distributions have their own quirks, getting help on running those applications on other distros is frequently useful as well.
So, to answer your first point, no I don't understand "Linux" as being merely a kernel. I do understand that GNU is just a set of software tools used in Linux. I even use some of those tools from time to time. But, in my vision, "Linux" is the overall name of the system. Naming all the different parts of a complex system is impossible for normal use. I think the GNU team tried to create an operating system, the Hurd. They never got it to be really practical. They should be glad that Linus created Linux, because it got so many people using the GNU tools, so many contributors. So, let's keep the names straight. GNU is the name of one set of utilities in Linux. It's not the name of the OS, it's not the name of the GUI, it's not the name of most of the applications.
I personally dont feel Unix on a desktop, in the form of GNU/Linux will EVER appeal to a desktop, average joe, home user. That will come when someone actually takes the Linux kernel and actually makes something ELSE from it.
Actually, the current status of Linux is quite close to the "average joe" system. The main problem at this time is configuration. When someone gets a good, reliable, nice and simple, configuration software, Linux will "take over the world". The only problem I see with the way Linux is evolving right now is that developers don't give too much thought at the configuration problem. They create completely new software, which throws away the old configuration.
For instance, I had inet, and then came xinet. Despite being a rather advanced Linux user, I have never adopted xinet. I have inet well configured and, if xinet doesn't come in transparently, able to understand my old configuration files and start working without my intervention, I want nothing to do with xinet. The same is true of many other softwares. LPD vs Cups, OSS vs Alsa are two examples. To sum it up, I think the only thing lacking in Linux is a coherent and reliable configuration system.
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!
..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.