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?
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.)
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".
Patience.
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?!
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.
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!
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."
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.
"I know RMS has a point that many GNU utilities are in Linux."
Linux is just a kernel. Linux is in a GNU system and not the other way around. Stallman is the father of open source software and newbies should be taught this as well as just exactly what linux is. This will avoid stupid questions like "I downloaded Linux and its nothing but a 30 meg source archive for a kernel or something" If GNU/Linux is too hard for them to understand, they have no hope of ever using and maintaining a GNU/Linux system.
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.
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
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.
It's not just about the GNU utilities. People forget that for Linux in 1991, GNU was *everything* except the kernel. The C library. The init scripts. The login process. The shell. The basic text editors. *Everything*.
It was a very fair call in 1991 to say that the Linux distros of the time were just GNU plus Linux. I remember even in 1992 when people asked "what's this Linux thing" the basic reply was "it's that GNU OS but with a different kernel". It's no longer a good call because there's far more in a modern Linux distribution than GNU plus Linux but there's no denying that the UNIX-like core in any modern "Linux distribution" is mostly GNU[1].
Yes, there is a GNU/BSD. No, it's not the same thing as the "GNU utilities" running on top of FreeBSD. It is the entire GNU reimplementation of UNIX running on top of the FreeBSD kernel. But running the "GNU utilities" on top of MacOS X or Windows would not make them GNU/Mac or GNU/Win, because GNU is not essential to those operating systems. They have their own startup and login behaviour, their own system libraries, etc.
[1] Actually even that is becoming less and less true. Modern distros occasionally swap out GNU components for BSD components or whatever. The Free UNIX scene is rather incestuous. There is a lot of cross pollination occurring.