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."
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
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.
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.
Though you deserve kudos for actually using that software (and I agree with you wholeheartedly with regards to hypocritical Windows users), your anti-anything-linux rant is amusing and rather silly.
I run Windows XP Pro at home because I play games. However, I've run Red Hat 6.1, 7.1, and 8 on other machines, but have never found them to be terribly useful for personal uses. If I were to constantly have more than one machine, I would probably run Linux as well. I, however, do not have any qualms about running WinXP, especially because it *can* be a very stable and powerful OS.
Professionally, I've done my web developing in the past with perl on a Linux server. As the years went on, however, our company made the jump to Windows 2003 Server and .NET using C#. Though I am no fan of the "corporate bastard" that is Microsoft, production costs have lowered and development has become much more efficient since we made the switch. All biases aside, I have been relatively content to use a Microsoft product in this situation.
Free software is great, but is seldom intuitive enough for the masses. Linux, and the realm that surrounds it, is largely for those that enjoy and have the time to endlessly tweak their software. I have enormous respect for those kind of people, and I must admit that I've felt jealous of them and their coolness.
When you call everyone "IE-using scumsuckers" and "shitbags", you're as annoying as the very n00bs you taunt. At least Linux wannabes are open to software that they don't even use.
LegendMUD