Slashdot Mirror
Exploring Linux Desktop Myths
Krafty Koder writes "Over at Newsforge (Part of OSTG, Slashdot's Parent) there's an interesting article that attempts to dispells the myth that Linux isn't ready for the desktop or that Windows still beats Linux.
Three myths are explored - that Linux is harder to use, difficult to install and that there's not enough apps ."
Linux will never be ready for computer users like Windows is ready for them. Once IE and Office run on Linux natively then Linux can finally be branded "the Windows killer." Until that time it just cannot have it beat.
I deal with below average computer users daily (far below what everyone else here seems to deal with). I get MS Office attachments that do not format correct in OpenOffice, I get to visit webpages that do not format correctly in Firefox (at least not without some discomfort), and I don't hear anyone say "oh yeah, Linux, I heard of that."
When we mention DVD X Copy and people immediately post about DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink (I don't see much mention of any good re-authoring tool for Linux as I don't believe there is one). When we mention that there is a new exploit for Windows out people for some reason feel the need to blame Windows instead of the users using it. Do you think that these same people are going to have a secure Linux machine, I certainly don't. When we mention that Firefox doesn't render pages correctly we get endless people posting that yes it does and that those that post that it doesn't are wrong! Until Firefox renders every page just like IE does the public isn't going to care for it (yes, Spyware, exploits, etc are irrelevant I'm sorry to say, remember these are the people that didn't patch against it in the first place because they don't even know or care to know what it is).
Linux will be ready for the desktop when it is as easy to install, run, and care for as carelessly as Windows users demand.
All of these are valid concerns, and often frustrating, but they fail to make the case against desktop Linux, because they fail to compare apples to apples. When you buy a new PC, Windows comes pre-installed on it. You don't have to go through the process that Linux requires. The hardware manufacturer already rejected modem X, figured out that Wi-Fi adapter Y is the one to include with the computer, etc. The OEM did all the hard work for you. Even when you give a user the Windows XP CD to install, he is already ahead of the game in that he knows the OEM already configured the hardware to work with XP.
Right and when you get new hardware, plug it in, and restart, what does XP do? Hey, holy shit user, you have new hardware, we need drivers! Oh wait, we have them right here, no recompiles or modules need to be loaded. It's a digital camera you say? Wow, would you like to open the files on the camera and work with Photoshop or some random preloaded Windows software or would you like to save them to a directory on your HD?
Remember that a lot of Linux users preconfigure their machines to work with Linux. My Kodak DX4530 camera doesn't work with Linux 2.4.x (I don't have time to figure out why my network cards aren't working under 2.6.x - odd that I have been running Linux for 10 years and I can't seem to get my configuration to work w/o thinking).
All the applications he lists (OpenOffice, Mozilla, GNU Cash) are no where near the level of their Windows counterparts. They are close but they are not the same. Yeah, you can always get stuff to work with your Linux software and I spent years doing just that. Regular Joe Blow User does not want to do anything but point, click, and go.
1) Buy a Windows box with hardware that is known compatible with Linux, just as if a manufacturer were OEMing the system using Linux.
This conclusion is bogus. Basically all hardware works just fine with Windows. It's not the same for Linux. Give me a break.
Windows works for just about everyone without too many problems. Linux works for people with some problems. General users do not want to deal with anything (interoperability, futzing, fixing, downloading, etc). They just want functionality built in that works w/o question.
That's why Windows will continue to reign supreme, at least for now.
I confess sometimes proudly and sometimes sadly to be a Linux zealot, but these stories and arguments don't really get us anywhere. The best argument I have had for Linux desktop viability is with my own networks and family. Pop ups? Lets try out this Mozilla Browser instead shall we? I need to set up a quick web page...let's run this apache client, it's practically imbedded. Man these virus' are killing me I can't even open my mail box any- lets set up a firewall and filter system on this side of the wall ....etc... I had to make no arguments other than simply let the market and costs of one particular OS drive our needs right to the other.
The problem isn't that there aren't *enought* apps. The problem is that the ones I use run on windows. I'd rather pick my hardware & OS to suit the applications rather than the other way round. (I do also run linux as well as windows. Some apps run on windows, some on linux.)
that Linux is harder to use, difficult to install and that there's not enough apps .
Not to sound like a troll but it's really not a matter of enough apps but rather the right apps. Users and small companies may have a specific need that hasn't been addressed in the Linux circles. And frankly when you get into niche markets there will not be enough of a Linux user base to justify developing an app.
And this isn't even touching on the fact that Joe Sixpack doesn't even want to learn a new OS. If it was a simple matter of new technology being better thus being used we wouldn't even be discussing desktop OSs.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
These aren't myths, they are facts. Linux is confusing as hell for most people. First of all, which Linux? Redhat, slack, debian, Mandrake or maybe SuSE? That alone is reason enough for a customer to just pass it by and pick up a copy of windows. Oh then you need to pick a desktop, KDE, gnome, Windowmaker, etc etc etc etc. Oh but the apps I want to use are for gnome and my Linux install is using KDE. Hmmm. 99.9% of people will just pass and go for the system that just does it for them.
I don't understand how people can call windows bloated with features etc and not see Linux is 4 times more bloated with multple EVERTHING. I can't even count anymore how many times the Linux community has reinvented the wheel.
Now I know someone will post with the "options are good" rhetoric and yes they are good but you know what? Unified interfaces are better, it's why windows and OSX are successful on the desktop and Linux is not. That's the reality of it. Until developers start giving a shit about usability Linux will remain a third rate hack of an already outdated windows interface. I see ZERO innovation in interface design from the Linux folks. Everything attempts to look like windows and the xservers today are no different from the ones from yesteryear. I see no forward movement, just clone and copy behavior from unimaginitive geeks who fail miserably to document and/or support their own work. It's just that simple.
I consider myslef to be pretty geeky, but the last time I tried to install linux I went through 4 distributions (Debian, Knoppix, Fedora, Mandrake) over the course of a week, and I could never get any of them to fully work. Sure, I could get a basic X session up and do office and web work, but many things I could never get running. Namely, I never got the Radeon driver or audio working, and every time I tried to compile a new kernel it failed horribly, even with the nice people on IRC helping me. Easy to install my ass. Having to recompile the kernel to get a driver working sucks big time.
"A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
This is a very bad article. First let me says that I love Linux. We have several Linux servers and I use it on the Desktop some, also.
.
:-(
When I say that Linux is not ready for the desktop, here's what I mean. The user interface is not as intuative and consistent as the Windows XP interface. Software IS more difficult to install on Linux, anyone who says otherwise is live in another world. There is no way I could explain to my Mom over the phone how to install
I think the Linux desktop has made a HUGE improvement over the last few years... KDE is looking really good!!! We're almost there, but don't push it until it's ready, otherwise you end up with Windows 95
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
- Genuine technical shortcomings for specific applications (i.e. the infamous ext2 2GB file limit)
- "I can't be bothered to learn anything new"
Seriously, I'm glad some article is pointing out that the vast majority of criticism about Linux from an end-user standpoint amounts to griping that it isn't exactly like Windows.It's the same mentality that made people run progman.exe as their shell in Win95, and that gives me headaches from users who think their computer has been reformatted when their desktop colors change.
Newsflash, Linux is not Windows. Better or worse is largely a matter of opinion, but articles like those quoted in TFA are simply "different=worse" mentality and a clear example of pundits phoning it in. If you can't be bothered to learn something before reviewing it, I can't be bothered to read your articles or buy your magazine.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
This guy did nothing but further my belief that Linux is not something I would ever give to my mother. Every point he made was an excuse as to why Linux is hard to use, not a myth-buster.
Before you read this, know that I am a UNIX-lover of 10+ years. I eat, sleep, and breathe in Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD. I love UNIX, I know how to use it, and I would never give it up.
The REAL myths are in his article:
His Myth 1: Linux is just as easy to install as Windows. -- My mom can install Windows (without any help from me -- I just tell her "If you don't know what to do, just click Next" -- and when she's done, she has a fully functional OS. The linux installation experience is dramatically more complicated, and it's unlikely the end-product will work right if it was done by a novice (he pretty much admits this).
His Myth 2: Linux has lots of great applications -- while Linux has lots of applications, most of them are designed by open-source developer 12-year olds with no concept of interface design, usability, or QA. High quality apps in the OSS world do exist, but they're not the status-quo. (this is a religious argument that I'm sure I'm starting here) -- but there are very few apps for Linux that my mom can use without calling me.
His Myth 3: Installing software is easy with Linux. I find this one the most intriguing becaue he blames the users for not knowing where to look. This only furthers my position that interface design is the most essential element to a user-friendly OS. Listen folks, if the users don't know where to click to un-install apps, that's a design problem, it's not the fault of the "dumb end user who doesn't know how to use the system". The point here is that the system is hard to use -- blaming the users for being too dumb to figure it out isn't the solution to convincing people the OS is ready for broad public use.
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
Linux is ready for the desktop. The issue does not lie in the technical merits or the realities. The issue lies in putting together a marketing effort which can convince a population which, by and large, has a computer, has Windows, browses the web, and doesn't need to change.
When Win98 no longer boots people will look at upgrading. When TCPA makes Win98 boxes unable to connect to the network then people will look at upgrading. If Linux has a good presence and well-known software at the time then they will switch. It's going to be difficult to gain widespread adoption of Linux until people are forced to upgrade. Since 99% of the existing home systems meet the needs of 90% of the owners there is no need to upgrade.
As far as the home market goes the only thing _REALLY_ driving upgrades anymore are games. Only gamers need the additional processor cycles or the additional A/V capability. The superiority of Windows support is noted in the gaming world. The business market isn't going to take a widespread office adoption of Linux until a significant portion of the population is comfortable using it. This won't happen until there's widespread home experience.
Linux is in a "beat the clock mode". If it can't get into the mainstream soon the corporate interests will legislate it away. As long as it doesn't get stymied by political shenanigans it still has a chance to make Redmond shiver.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
OoooooK. To the end user, it doesn't matter if the OEM did all the hard work or if the OS programmers did all the hard work. All that matters is if the USER had to do all the hard work. And apparently in the linked Mandrake versus Windows installation challenge article, hard work included hardware replacement! A quote from that article:
Honestly, how many users do you think are going to replace the damn motherboard to get Linux installed?
I'm not saying that most installations require you to replace a motherboard, nor am I saying that Windows is superior to Linux. What I am saying is that this is the least persuasive article I think I've ever seen on Linux-versus-Windows in the ease of installation category.
The vast majority of those you see complaining on the web are simply trolling
Typical Slashdot post. No wonder it's done by an AC. This entire attitude that if you don't like and don't worship Linux you're nothing but a lemming or a troll is not only getting really old but it's also alienating the few out there who are willing to give Linux a try. It's really no different from the high school jock mentality. I've seen plenty of valid reason not to embrace Linux.
When are the fanboys going to accept that Linux is not the all-in-one solution to computing problems. Why you say? Because there is no all-in-one solution to the question of users and their PCs.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
And doesn't really offer any solid evidence besides.
The author's points are actually pretty weak, too.
He complains that people who say that Windows is easier to install and maintain are simply not comparing apples-to-apples. That seems unlikely, given that Windows is easier to install and maintain than Linux. That's a very broad category, and to be honest, I'd have to agree with them. That is NOT a fault of Linux itself, it is a fault of poor vendor support for the underdog OS.
Then, he tries to go on to state that there is plenty of software available for Linux. That doesn't address the counterargument. The original assertion is that there are specific apps (let me spell that, s-p-e-c-f-i-c) that are unavailable on Linux that the person is unwilling to lose. For instance, I cannot play Age of Mythology on Linux. I cannot play World of Warcraft on Linux. I cannot use MS word on linux. And before my detractors attempt to do so, I have to state that you *cannot* trivialize someone's choice of application, because they have time invested in training on how to use *that* application that they may not be willing to give up.
His third point... Was that really a point? It seemed like a half-hearted swing at the opposition.
I'm not saying that Linux *shouldn't* be the dominant operating system, I'm simply saying that it *isn't* and there are valid reasons why that is true. My firm belief is that if Linux wants to win the desktop war, you have to do two things: 1) Hit the competition where it hurts (in the wallet), and 2) Stop trying to convert the old. Its not gonna work. CONVERT THEIR CHILDREN.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Sorry, dude, but have never had anyone I've shown firefox to complain about the ways it's different from IE. Office you may have a point about, though about 85% of companies don't need MS Office and don't use most of its features.
Really? I don't. Can you name any offhand?
OK, I admit, you just gave me a good laugh. Thank you. I switched to Linux for my personal desktops a few years ago because my camera and scanner wouldn't work with Windows but would with SuSE. Here's what my recent experience with adding hardware in XP has been like:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I lived in the world that most /.ers seem to wherein Windows XP works better with hardware than Linux, I would have stuck to keeping Linux on the server. However, in my experience, Windows XP simply doesn't handle hardware well and Linux does. YMMV I guess.
Well, I don't use OpenOffice or GNU Cash (Star Office and whatever money program came with my Palm Pilot, personally). However, I will agree that Mozilla is nowhere near the level of IE: it's at least 2 generations ahead of it.
OK, I call bullshit. Tons of hardware doesn't work well or easily with Windows. People just never have to deal with it because Windows gets preinstalled.
All's true that is mistrusted
Until there is a real method of packaging and installing/removing software for Linux, the operating system will never move past where Windows was circa version 3.1. RPM has dependancy issues, and apt-get is something past most people. Don't even mention compile from source for your grandma! With Windows, you just download a binary installer and run it as either the admin or not. If it's admin, it'll install it system-wide; if not, it'll install per user. If'll bring any extra libraries in needs for its private use.
No current Linux technology immitates this. There is no way I can currently download a self-executing shellscript wrapper or otherwise binary program that will install either system-wide or to ~/bin/$appname, with care taken to provide its own libraries, and giving me an easy link so I can remove the application folder, the installed support libraries, and any config files separately.
Linux has made great strides in getting the system installed, and the various distributions have creative solutions for getting the more crufty parts like X11 (which freedesktop.org is, thankfully, revamping to be much more accepting and dynamic of modern hardware), and in terms of user-application glue (remember how OS/2 Warp would remember which applications were open and all their states when you rebooted?) in ways that surpass Windows, the actual application management is still a horrible hack, largely based on designs from the mid to late 90s which don't really work in practice.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
IM is becoming more than just instant transfering of text.
File transfers (GAIM sort of has this), webcams, plugins and games are becoming big reasons for IMs.
Sorry but saying "close enough" isn't good enough when the rest of the world can do it.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I remember numerous times that there have been posts about some independent research saying that Windows is better than Linux for one reason or another. Inevitably this ellicits a bevy of posts claiming some connection between the firm and M$, thus invalidating the study. Now we have some dude who obviously extremely jaded in favor of Linux. Many of his comments are so one-sided that its ridiculous. Now I am a linux user; I can't stand Windows. But do we have to turn to poorly written libel? Let's except that Linux has its problems. Let's identify them, then fix them. Just ignoring them is what made Windows what it is today.
So linux isn't ready because if you choose to use software distributed as source you have to use the commandline? It's not even a terribly hard sequence of commands, and they are almost always described in the INSTALL document.
.rpm based on your system) containing all the files getting installed by the make install step, and installs that for you. That means that everything, source installs included, can be conveniently managed from whatever package management application you use (I prefer synaptic myself, it works for anything that supports apt, which includes rpm).
That aside though, the main issue with source installs is that you end up with a mess - files all over the place. You can't remove what you just installed unless the Makefile happened to include an "uninstall".
Up until now I've been very happily avoiding this issue by using stow, but recently I found checkinstall which you run instead of make install. Checkinstall creates a package (.deb, or
"That's still too hard!" you say? Yes, quite possibly - but then the only real reason to be installing from source is if you have very particular needs (special configure options) or a need to be on the bleeding edge. Pretty much anyone who thinks compiling is too hard should be happy with binary installs. With things like synaptic, redcarpet, up2date, etc. around installing distro provided packages is a breeze. If you have to go outside your distro try autopackage. Yes, autopackage isn't finished yet, but they're at the stage where they have some test packages (install the latest version of inkscape via autopackage for instance), and what they do have is fantastic - think of it as installshield with advanced dependency checking resolution. All those third parties currently supplying distro specific rpms ought to shift their project to supplying autopackages, and certainly autopackage looks to be the way to go for any commercial vendor who wants to create a linux installer for their software.
Installs are still a little tricky, but the issues have been spotted, and are being worked on - and the solutions look better than anything Windows provides.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
1) Linux is only harder to install because almost no one installs Windows themselves. (True, but that doesn't do you much good for a user with pre-installed Windows and a Linux install CD.)
2) It's not true that Linux lacks applications you need. It has everything I need! (Ooookay)
3) Installing software is easy. (Cue rpm/deb/portage flamewar.)
I loved the end, too:
If they wish to avoid appearing clueless, desktop Linux pundits should tackle their reviews of Linux with the following conditions:
...
2) Contact a local LUG or solicit volunteers to install whatever flavor of Linux you want on your system
Because, you know, it's only a meaningful review if you have a team of experts helping you out...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
I find it often useful to substitue the word hard for different in Windows vs. Linux discussions. Many aspects of Linux are not hard just different. I don't believe Linux was every promised to be a replacement for Windows. Linux is an alternative to Windows.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Except for Photosop on Linux. If you can afford Photoshop you can afford Crossover Office.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
I think it's useles to say that Linux is or isn't ready for the desktop without indicating who will be using the desktop. For your average webmonkey doing nothing more than browsing, playing java/flash games and sending an occasional email, Linux is more than ready.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
Linux has been around since 1991 (13 years old)
How many people that use PC's now, could have intalled and setup DOS/Windows/networking in the 80's and 90's?
Patience is a virtue!
we are making great progress!
I agree that these are not myths.
But, you go on to say that most people just want to surf the web, use email, etc. "Regular users". Fine. I agree.
You fail to realize WHY there is so much linux development - it's not hordes of geeks wanting to be uber-1337 as you call it.
There is so much linux development because Windows is NOT good enough for the "regular users". It crashes, it subjects people to endless pop-up ad boxes, patches sometimes break things, the user interface is not consistant across the Windows product line, it is an open door to every worm and virus that comes along, it is exploited by every malware developer in the world, it can be turned into a spam relay / zombie / DDOS box.
In short Windows sucks - not for what it is, it is a pretty decent OS after all - but for what it could be. All the hackers trying to work with something on a shoe-string look at Microsoft - a company with 40 Billion+ in the bank, and getting richer every day - and think that after 10 years Windows isn't any better than it is because they just don't care.
Mozilla, starting from scratch, with only a handful of fulltime developers, and overtook IE in 2 years (in terms of functionality, robustness, features, and resistance to malicious attacks). Has anything Microsoft, the most powerful software development company in existance, done recently come close to that accomplishment? Have they shown they really CARE about the people who buy their products?
The average user would probably LOVE a linux PC that does all they want - whether in Gnome or KDE or whatever - and just works. No blue screens of death, no virus attacks, no popups. Surf, email, write letters, etc. No hassles.
And that's a good thing
Please excuse my ignorance but I haven't owned a usable Windows license for more than 7 seven years.
Is there a simpler set of commands for configuring, compiling and installing from source code on Windows?
I'm seriously considering recommending Mandrake 10 to my mom - over Mac OS X.
The standard KDE 3.2 apps are extremely well integrated. The Mandrake Control Center is a match for the one in OS X, plus it provides an easy mechanism for finding and managing software. Sure, if you try to do complicated things or try out beta-quality software, it may involve digging around on the command line.
But for everyday tasks like web browsing, email, word processing, digital photo management, listening to CDs and managing mp3s, syncing a Palm Pilot, managing a calendar and a to-do list, burning CDs and DVDs, checking the weather, and instant messaging, Mandrake 10 with KDE 3.2 meets or beats the usability of any other OS - bar none.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
IMHO, XFree is what prevents Linux from becoming mainstream on the desktop, i mean, X is a kludge, slow, and prone to problems when used at a desktop , the kde/gnome/whatever people should seriously consider getting rid of X as the underlying layer and instead promote/invent/code a different layer that gets rid of the client/server features of X and focus on acceleration by using direct hardware access, like M$ did when moved the graphic driver into kernel space and WinNT graphic performance skyrocketed. Just to avoid getting flamed as a M$ lover, i administer a 50 server farm 95% of them running Gentoo Linux, and i hate Windoze , but i can't replace it on my desktop yet, it's simply not ready, surely GNOME/KDE looks gorgeous in comparation of WinXP, but the sad truth is that it's slow as hell.
[Not referring to the article] Therein lies the problem. Windows users expect a GUI installer that requires no intellect, or action beyond clicking "Yes" "Yes" "Yes." And that's fine by me if we're talking software that we pay good money for.
But just because in the *nix world things are done differently, and at the same time Windows users are to damn lazy to learn anything new, this automatically mean that Linux is difficult to use? Just because Windows users find it difficult?
sigaar
Isn't it funny that you bitch about Linux not supporting that cutting-edge chipset but don't bitch about Windows not supporting AMD64 extensions?
I'm really sick of those double standards. Here we have *exactly* the same problem in Windows and Linux (it doesn't take fully advantage of some cutting edge hardware), yet in Linux it's terrible, terrible, with Windows it's even worth mentioning...
A large variety of useful applications are simply not available from Microsoft (so there goes windowsupdate).
Windowsupdate will get me new software if I happen to *only ever* use Microsoft software. Even this its useless.
This is what I had to do to get Microsoft Office for ONE computer:
Telephone 4 different suppliers for quotes.
Find out that there are loads of different versions.
Have a meeting about which one we can afford
Get Supplies to raise a purchase order
Get the directors to sign off the spend
Place the order
Get told they don't have any in stock, and so go to the second supplier
Re-do the purchase order
Place the order
Wait 4 days for the software to arrive
Find that you need "administrator" access to load the software
Schedule IT Support to come and install the software for me
Reboot several times, meaning I have to stop all my other work
Find that we also need to update the software as it is riddled with bugs
Get IT Support in again to provide the software updates
Reboot multiple times again
(good, it works)
Next topic: configuration
My biggest complaint against Windows on the desktop is the extreme absurdity of some types of configuration. My Windows workstation is my work machine, and so it has to do things like run IIS with Perl.
Well... Installing IIS turned out to be a real pain. Again we had to go through the whole procedure of getting IT in, finding the CD, rebooting, etc, etc.
Configuring the thing was also hard. It requires Perl, but that doesn't come with Windows, so I had to go and get Active State Perl. Of course, I can't do anything as a user, so yet again I have to schedule IT to come and work on my PC.
My point? Windows on the desktop is a freaking toy until a user can do everything they need to without having to get IT in and use Administrator privileges.
This includes installing software, configuring the machine, and running applications.
Incidentally, Windows crashes at least once a day, sometimes more. I've lost count of the number of times it has gone down because it has to be rebooted by IT.
Linux crashes? Can't say I've noticed any. I checked the uptime on our DNS server and it was 253 days.
And the Windows GUI is still freakishly slow, and everything is freakishly huge with hideous colours. I run at 1024x768 on Windows, 1600x1200 on Linux, and still the Linux desktop is more responsive, and everything is more intuitive.
One last little whine: I have approximately 10% success rate with software that can allegedly be installed without Administrator privileges.
More often than not there is no indication that some has gone wrong, it just doesn't work.
And I'm really freakin sick of you Windows junkies telling me that Windows is so easy that anyone can use it.